Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 15, NIC-PAR

666
Costume.
1\ Ianchest c
’A'ratisac-
tions, vol.
iii. p. 564,
PAIN
departure from it denotes unpardonable negligence. It
frequently happens that a piece composed of picturesque
figures derives considerable advantage from certain 1-
herlies which are calculated to please both the artist and
the spectator •, for the judges of painting are not habi¬
tually occupied with the details of ancient and modern
history, or profoundly versed in all the circumstances
which make a departure from the costume conspicuous.
On the other hand, if they were so ignorant as not to
understand, or so indifferent as not to regard those cir¬
cumstances, this branch of the art would be altogether
arbitrary. The road of the painter is between these
two extremes, not to despise beauty on the one hand,
nor probability on the other. But in pursuing this part
of the art, it is in vain to seek for perfect models in an¬
cient or modern painting.
r “ When Raphael in his cartoons introduces monks
and Swiss guards ; when he puts into a boat more fi¬
gures than ifis evident the boat could actually contain ,
when in the chastisement of Heliodorus, who attempted
to despoil the temple of Jerusalem, Pope Julius LI. is
depicted as being present •, when, in the donation or
Constantine in the Vatican, a naked boy is placed con¬
spicuous in the fore ground astride upon a dog, in the
immediate presence of the pope and the emperor * when
Venetian senators are introduced while Pope Alexan¬
der excommunicates Barharossa} when Aristotle, Plato,
Dante, and Petrarch, are brought together in the school
of Athens, to omit the lesser improprieties of shoeless
apostles, &c.—every person must acknowledge that such
offences as these against truths so obvious, if they do
not arise from a defect of understanding, are instances
of inexcusable carelessness.
“ Jo like manner when the same great master paints
the dreams of Joseph and his fellow prisoner in circles
over their heads •, when similar contrivances to express
future events are used by Albani, Pameggiano, and
Fuseli—is it not evident that no possibility can make
the fiction true •, and that real and feigned existences
are unnaturally introduced in one narration ?
<k When Polydore chooses to represent the death of
Cato, and exposes to the spectator the hero of the piece
with his bowels gushing out 5 when Paul Veronese, at
a banquet painted with his usual magnificence, places
before us a clog gnawing a bone, and a boy making
water : however such disgusting circumstances may be
forgiven in the chef d'ccuvre of a Michael Angelo, had
he represented these instead of the horrible figures of bis
Day of Judgment, the performance of an inferior artist
cannot atone for them.
“ So also, when one of the first rate among the mo¬
dern painters, we mean Paul Veronese, introduces Be¬
nedictine monks at the marriage ot Cana-, when, in a
picture of the crucifixion, he puts the Roman soldiers
in the jerkins of the 16th century, and adorns their
heads ivith turbans -, when Guido, in a painting of Jesus
appearing to his mother after his resurrection, places St
Charles Borromde in a kind of desk in the back-ground
as witness to the interview; when Tintoret, at the mi¬
raculous fall of manna, arms the Israelites with fusils;
and Corregio appoints St Jerome as the instructor of the
child Jesus—common sense revolts at the impropriety ;
and we are compelled to exclaim, Quicqmd ostendis
ini hi sic, incredulus odi !
“ The mythological taste of the learned PouSsin is
TING. Parti.
well known; hut Rubens seems to claim the merit of Costume.
having presented to the world a still greater number of'
supreme absurdities in this learned style : nor is it easy
to conceive a more heterogeneous mixture of cucum-
stances, real and imaginary, sacred and profane, than
the Luxembourg gallery, and the other works ol that
great master, perpetually exhibit.
“ When so high an authority as Sir Joshua Reynoldsi" f Discour-
contends for the rejection of common sense in favour ofses-Jj°-
somewhat he terms a higher sense; when he laments,*
indirectly, that art is not in such high estimation with
us, as to induce the generals, lawgivers, and kings of
modern times, to suffer themselves to be represented
naked, as in the days of ancient Greece; when he de¬
fends even the ridiculous aberrations from possibility,
wdiich the extravagant pencil of Rubens lias so plenti¬
fully produced—it is not surprising that the artists of
the present day should be led to reject the company of
common sense ; or that Sir Joshua’s performances should
furnish examples of his own precepts.
“ Mrs Siddons is represented by Sir Joshua in the
character (as it is said) of the tragic muse : She is
placed in an old-fashioned arm chair ; this arm chair
is supported by clouds, suspended in the air ; on each
side of her head is a figure not unapt to suggest the
idea of the attendant imps of an enchantress : of these
figures, one is supposed to represent Comedy, and the
other Tragedy ; Mrs Siddons herself is decently attired
in the fashionable habilements of 20 or 30 years ago.
“ If this he a picture of the tragic muse, she ought
not to appear in a modern dress, nor ought she to be
seated in old arm chair. If this be a portraiture of
Mrs Siddons, she has no business in the clouds, nor has
she any thing to do with aerial attendants. If this be
Mrs Siddons in the character of the tragic muse, the
first set of objections apply ; for she is placed in a si¬
tuation where Mrs Siddons could never be.
“ In the death of Dido, Sir Joshua Reynolds introdu¬
ces her sister, lamenting over the corpse ol the unfortu¬
nate queen. This is possible ; hut he has also introdu¬
ced Atropos cutting Dido’s hair with a pair of scissars,
a being equally real and apparent in the painting with
Dido or her sister. This (continues our author) ap¬
pears to me a gross offence against mythological proba¬
bility ; nor is it the only offence against the costume
with which that picture is chargeable.
“ There is one other breach of the costume, however
common among painters, more gross and offensive than
any of the instances hitherto alleged ; we mean the per¬
petual and unnecessary display ol the naked figure. Me
shall not stay to inquire whether more skill can be shown
in painting the human body clothed or unclothed. If
the personages introduced in any picture are more naked
in the representation than can he justified by the pro¬
bability of the times, persons, places, or circumstances,
it is a breach of the costume proportionate to the devia¬
tion. This fault, however, is so common as hardly to
be noticed ; so slight indeed, when compared with that
general taste for voluptuous imagery and obscene repre¬
sentation, which has so long disgraced the art ol paint¬
ing in every stage of its progress, that science and mo¬
rality are callous to the slight offence.
“ This depravity of imagination, this prostitution of
the pencil to the base purposes of lascivious inclination^
was a subject of much complaint among the ancients.
Nor