Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 15, NIC-PAR

story.
PAIN
[bool*. t'a' anti acreqsmies of the art ; and if lie had
j superiors, it consisted in this, that they possessed some
particular quality in a more eminent degree.—He was a
good drawer j but his design was far from being so ele¬
gant as that of Raphael, or so pure as that of Dome-
nique, and it was less lively than that of Hannibal Ca-
racci, whom he had taken for a model. In drapery he
followed the Roman school : the clothes which he gave
to his figures were not like those of the Venetian school,
of such and such a stuff; they were draperies and no¬
thing more, and this manner agreed with the heroic
style of his works ; but in this part he was not equal to
the painter of Urbino.—He had studied the expression
of the affections of the soul, as is evident from his trea¬
tise on the character of the passions : but after observing
the general characters, and establishing the principal
strokes of expression, he thought he reached the whole
extent of this subject, which is so infinitely extended.
He always employed the few characters which he had
once found out, and neglected to study the prodigious
variety of gradations by which the interior affections are
manifested in the exterior appearance. He fell then in¬
to the manner of repeating always j and possessed nei¬
ther the delicacy, nor the depth, nor the extreme just¬
ness of Raphael’s expression. He loved and possessed
in a high degree the grand machine of tlie art; lie was
delighted with great compositions : and he gave them
life and animation, and variety ; but he wanted the vi¬
gour and inspiration of Raphael. His compositions are
formed on philosophical principles, but those of Raphael
are created. Le Brun thought well ; Raphael, Poussin,
Le Seur, thought most profoundly.—Le Brun had ele¬
vation, but he was not elevated like Raphael, to the su¬
blime.
In colouring, Le Brun did not imitate the painters of
the Venetian school. The sweet attractions and strong
and solid colours of the schools of Rome and Lombardy
seem rather to have been the object of his imitation yarn!
from them also he learned an easy, agreeable, and bold
management of the pencil.
As Le Brun possessed a great share of lively imagina¬
tion, he delighted in allegory, which gives the greatest
scope for ingenious invention. The fecundity and re¬
sources of his imagination appeared still farther, in his
inventing symbols for his allegorical figoires, without
resting contented with those employed by the ancients.
But fanciful representations of this kind are distant from
the operations of true genius Spirit and thought in the
arts are very different from spirit and thought in literary
productions. A painter of moderate abilities may intro¬
duce into his works a great deal of the invention which
belongs to poetry without enriching his peculiar art.
The true spirit of painting consists in making the figures
appear in the very circumstances and attitudes in which
they are supposed to act, and penetrated with the senti¬
ments with which they ought to be affected. By these
means the spectator is more certainly interested than if
the actions and thoughts were represented by allegorical
symbols. Poussin appears to have less waste of spirit
and imagination than Le Brun, while at the same time
he gives more delight to people of spirit and imagina¬
tion.
Eustach le Sueur was the contemporary and rival of
Le Brun j and no painter approached nearer to Raphael
in the art of drapery, and in disposing the folds in the
TING. 639
most artful and the noblest manner. His design was in Schools.
general more slender than that of Raphael, hut, like his, ' y-—'
it was formed on the model of the ancients. Like Ra¬
phael he represented with art and precision the affections
of the soul ; like him, he varied the air of the head, ac¬
cording to the condition, the age, and the character of
his personages j and, like him, he made the different
parts ol every figure contribute to the general effect.
His intention in composing was to express his subject,
not to make shining contrasts or beautiful groups of fi¬
gures, not to astonish and bewitch the spectator by the
deceitful pomp of a theatrical scene, or the splendour of
the great machine. His tones are delicate, his tints
harmonious, and his colours, though not so attractive as
those of the schools of Venice and Flanders, are yet en¬
gaging. They steal peaceably on the soul, and fix it
without distraction on the parts of the art, superior to
that of colouring.
His preaching of St Paul, and the picture which he
painted at St Gervais, which the critics compare with
the best productions of the Roman school, and the 22
pictures which he painted for the Carthusian monastery .
at Paris, and which were formerly in possession of the
king, are esteemed his best pieces. His contempora¬
ries affirm, that he considered as sketches merely those
excellent performances which are the glory of the
French school.
If Le Sueur had lived longer, or if, like Le Brun, he
had been employed under a court, fond of the arts, and
of learning, to execute the great works of the age, the
French school would have adopted a different and a bet¬
ter manner. The noble beauty of his heads, the simple
majesty of his draperies, the lightness of his design, the
propriety of his expression and attitudes, and the simpli¬
city of his general disposition, would have formed the
character of his school. The deceitful pomp of thea¬
trical decoration would have been more lately introdu¬
ced, or perhaps would never have appeared, and Paris
might have been the counterpart to Rome. But as Le
Brun, by an accidental concurrence of favourable cir¬
cumstances, was the fashionable painter, to be employed
or rewarded it was necessary to imitate his manner ; and
as his imitators possessed not his genius, his faults be¬
came not only current but more deformed.
The French school not long ago changed its princi¬
ples ; and if, when peace shall lie restored to this un¬
happy nation, they continue to follow the road which,
while the artists flourished among them, they marked
out for themselves, they have the chance of becoming
the most rigid observers of the laws imposed on the
Greek artists. The count de Caylus, pupil of Bouchar-
dion, who by his rank and fortune had the means of en¬
couraging the imitators of the ancients, and of the ma¬
sters of the 15th century, first formed the design of re¬
storing a pure taste to the art of painting. He was se¬
conded by the talents of M. Vien, an artist who had on¬
ly occasion to have his lessons and his example laid be¬
fore him.—In this manner commenced a revolution, so
much the more wonderful, as it was scarcely ever known
that any nation substituted a system of simple and rigid
excellence in place of a false and glittering taste. The
history of all nations, on the contrary, discovers a gra¬
dual progress from a rude beginning to perfection, and
afterwards to irremediable decay. The French had the
prospect of stopping short in this ordinary course. They