NOTES

PLATE 23PLATE 23Patricia, by Lydia Emmet(Private owner, N. Y.)(Seepage 247)

(Seepage 247)

Some artists, as Luca Signorelli,[af]hide the lower part of the figure behind clouds, but this method,while indicating suspension, cannot provide an illusion of movement without an assisting device. Thus Schonherr shows an Angel so concealed in a nearly horizontal position with wings fully expanded, the effect being good.[ag]When a figure is suspended on clouds, very rarely indeed is repose emphasized by placing it in a horizontal position, but Poussin once adopts the plan,[ah]and Guercino goes so far as to represent a reclining Angel resting her head on her hand as if suffering from fatigue.[ai]Perfect repose of the Deity in an upright position on clouds is produced by Gustave Doré, who reduces the size of the earth, above which He stands, to an insignificant proportion, so that the imagination sends it moving round below Him.[aj]

Quite a number of artists represent the suspended figures standing on the backs of cherubs or cupids, which in their turn are supported by clouds, as for instance, R. Ghirlandaio,[ak]Liberale di Verona,[al]and Francesco da Cotignola.[am]Fra Bartolommeo places a single foot of the Deity on a cherub who holds a banderole, the illusion being excellent.[an]Domenichino adopts a most ingenious device in St. Paul's Vision. He shows the Apostle being carried to Heaven by winged cherubs, who appear to find the weight considerable, and to struggle under it. There is little else to induce the illusion,which is complete.[ao]A similar scheme is successfully managed in Prud'hon's Abduction of Psyche. Tassaert uses a like device, but in addition has a cherub supporting each arm of the Virgin. Palma Vecchio makes the Virgin stand on the outstretched wings of a cherub, but her robe blows upwards, giving her the appearance of descending instead of ascending.[ap]Rubens has three alternatives in the use of cherubs. The figure sits on clouds with feet resting on small globes sustained by cherubs[aq]; or the cherubs hold the dress and mantle of the Virgin; or they help to control the clouds upon which she sits.[ar]In some of his pictures of the Immaculate Conception, Murillo also uses globes, but places the cherubs on them instead of under. Francia has a picture in which cherubs hold up clouds bearing the Virgin,[as]a device once used by Rembrandt.[at]Genga shows the Deity kneeling upon the heads of cherubs, a scheme not satisfactory.[au]Cherubs were used by Titian to hold up the Virgin and clouds,[av]while Velasquez rested the robes on clouds, but used cherubs to sustain the Holy Mother.[aw]

The illusion is usually more complete when Angels are used instead of cherubs for support, apparently because they may be presumed to have greater strength, and the plan was adopted by some of the earlier masters of the Renaissance. The simple design of Rubens in resting the foot of Christ on the arm of a flying Angel is quite successful.[ax]Fontana places the Deity on clouds supported by Angels,[ay]a method adopted by Granacci, who however assists the illusion by adding two Angels who are directly supporting the figure.[az]Peter Cornelius has the Deity with His foot on a small globe which is held in position by Angels.[ba]A fine example of their use is shown by Gutherz. Two Angels with large outstretched wings are bearing the body of a woman to Heaven. She lies recumbent upon a lengthy hammock formed by the robes of the Angels, the ends of the drapery being gathered up by the flying cherubs.[bb]The illusion is perfect. Rembrandt also has a beautiful design in a Resurrection scene, for he shows the figure of Christ as a shade whose hands are held by a flying Angel lifting Him to Heaven.[bc]A few artists, as Poussin[bd]and Bouguereau,[be]use Angels to carry the figure with no other assisting device, but if the body is recumbent it is necessary that the Angels should be in a nearly upright position, otherwise they will appear to be moving horizontally.[bf]Rubens in an Ascension uses the strange methodof placing an Angel beneath Christ, but without touching Him.[bg]The drapery flies out at the back, so that without some assistance he would appear to be descending; but the Angel below, with her hands held up, seems to correct the position. Guido Reni carries the Virgin up with Angels who support her beneath, and she seems in fact to be standing on their shoulders.[bh]In one instance Correggio substitutes a smiling boy for an Angel, and he holds up a cloud on which the Virgin sits.[bi]There are many works where winged figures hold a body in suspension, most of them providing excellent illusions. Among the best is Lux's Sarpedon, where the body of the Trojan is held up for Jupiter to kiss.[bj]

Even a simple banderole or scarf suffices to indicate movement in the air if well arranged. Usually a flying cherub holds an end of the banderole, and Ferri shows a wingless putto even, flying with no other assistance.[bk]Boucher creates an illusion by the bold device of connecting two cupids with a narrow scarf blown out into a semicircle[bl]; and in another instance very narrow tape streamers suffice.[bm]

The use of thick smoke for suspension purposes is nearly always successful, because volumes of smoke in nature necessarily tend to move upwards; but obviously this scheme can only be arranged when an altar is possible. The plan is not uncommon inpictures relating to Cain and Abel, and the Translation of Enoch. In one of the latter subject, Hoet makes part of the smoke from an altar envelop the surrounding ground so as to widen the volume, while Schnorr achieves the same end by curling round the smoke as it ascends into the form of a large saucer upon which the Deity sits,[bn]a method slightly varied by Amiconi.[bo]

Where a number of figures are connected together in a circular form in the air, the double illusion of suspension and motion follows naturally, provided their attitudes indicate a circular movement. An excellent example of this is shown in a picture by Botticelli, where Angels dance in the air over the hut of the Nativity.[bp]The finest work of the kind in existence is probably Schwind's Pleiads, in which the stars are represented by a circle of beautiful nude women.[bq]Extraordinary activity is suggested by the perfect arrangement of the limbs and light flowing drapery used. Bouguereau has a work of a similar kind, The Lost Pleiad, but here the dancers are upright, and the circle is only accessory to the title figure.[br]Watteau is fairly successful in giving an illusion of suspension to cupids even with a half circle, though the invention is somewhat formal.[bs]

Some of the devices used to bring about an illusion are most ingenious. Thus in his Bacchus andAriadne,[bt]Tintoretto actually applies a disability of his art for the purpose. Venus is shown in a horizontal position in the air, placing a crown of stars upon the head of Ariadne. Bacchus is standing by, and the form of the goddess floats just at the back of him, the lower side of her hip being on a level with the top of his head. Seeing that the head is covered with a profusion of vine leaves, it is impossible for the artist to indicate, or the observer to recognize, that the goddess does not actually touch the head of Bacchus, and she apparently balances herself upon his head while crowning Ariadne, the artist having been careful to place the centre of gravity of her figure over the apparent point of contact. A similar kind of illusion is provided by Burne-Jones, whose Angel of the Annunciation is upright in midair near the ground, but her feet seem to find support on the branches of a shrub.[bu]Rossetti, in the same subject, shows the Angel with his feet wrapped in flames, the weight being thus apparently removed. The design seems bizarre, perhaps because of the absence of an expression of surprise which one would expect to see on the countenance of the Virgin at so extraordinary a phenomenon.73Schwind also uses a disability of his art for an illusion in his Phantom of the Forest.[bv]She moves near the ground away from the spectator with such rapidity that her robe, a simple rectangular piece of drapery, has opened out wide from the front, and hides her figure from the shoulders down, so that from the point ofview of the observer she may, or may not, be touching the ground as she moves.

How slight the apparent support need be, is indicated in Bouguereau's Aurora and Twilight. Each figure is represented by a nude woman holding a light scarf, the first rapidly, and the second slowly, skimming the surface of a stream of water with soft touches of the feet, and yet there is no anomaly that strikes the mind. A still more daring device is used by Battistello, though quite successfully. He places two wingless putti in the air, but one holds up the other, and this action seems to sustain them both.[bw]Another amazing design is from the hand of A. P. Roll, who shows a nude-man in the air clutching another, and apparently struggling to pull him down, yet the action seems perfectly natural.[bx]

FOOTNOTES:[a]As in Murillo's Ascension of Christ, Madrid Academy.[b]Venice Academy.[c]See Plate 24.[d]The Son of Niobe, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.72[e]Herculanum et Pompei, vol. iv., by Roux Ainé.[f]Ceiling of the Hall of Heliodorus, Vatican.[g]Vatican frescoes God Separating Water and Earth, and God Appearing to Isaac.[h]The Creation of the Sun and Moon.[i]Poussin's St. Francis Zavier, Louvre.[j]The Virgin appearing to St. Martin.[k]See the Assumption of Orcagna, and of Luca di Tome; Giunto Pisano's Christ and the Virgin; and Mainardi's Madonna giving her Girdle to St. Thomas.[l]Virgin and Child, Chiesa Nuovo, Rome.[m]Ascension of Christ, Perugia; Assumption, Florence Academy, and others.[n]J. H. Witt's Bless the Lord.[o]Picart's The Burning Coal.[p]Rembrandt's The Angel quitting Tobias, Louvre.[q]The Brera, Milan.[r]St. Mary's, Krakan.[s]Virgin and Child at the Fountain, Antwerp.[t]Virgin and Child, Augsburg.[u]The Ascension, Borgo San Sepolcro, Perugia.[v]Creation of Woman, Castello Gallery; Prophets and Sybils, Perugia, and others.[w]Foligna Madonna, Vatican.[x]Christ in Judgment, Venice.[y]The Oath of Louis XIII.[z]Coronation of the Virgin, Milan.[aa]Santa Maria. By an unknown artist of the Ghirlandaio school.[ab]Christ's Rule.[ac]Madonna and Child with Penitents, and others.[ad]The Virgin with a Canary, Berlin.[ae]Urbino Gallery.[af]Madonna and Child in Glory, Arezzo.[ag]The Agony in the Garden.[ah]Adam and Eve.[ai]Martyrdom of St. Peter, Modena.[aj]Creation of the Earth.[ak]The Madonna giving her Girdle to St. Thomas, Prato.[al]The Magdalene and Saints.[am]Adoration of the Shepherds, Ravenna Academy.[an]The Deity with SS. Catherine and Magdalene.[ao]Assumption of the Virgin.[ap]Assumption of the Virgin, Venice.[aq]The Deity and Christ, Weimar.[ar]Assumption of the Virgin at Dusseldorf, Augsburg, Brussels, and Vienna.[as]Madonna and Child in Glory, Berlin.[at]The Ascension, Munich.[au]The Magdalene and Saints, Milan.[av]Assumption of the Virgin, Venice.[aw]Coronation of the Virgin, Madrid.[ax]Ascension of Christ, Vienna.[ay]Vision of the Resurrection.[az]The Virgin giving her Girdle to St. Thomas, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.[ba]Let there be Light.[bb]"They shall bear thee up."[bc]Munich Gallery.[bd]Assumption of the Virgin, and Vision of St. Paul.[be]Assumption of the Virgin.[bf]Bouguereau's Une Ame au Ciel.[bg]The Academy, Venice.[bh]Assumption of the Virgin, Munich.[bi]Madonna and Child with Saints, Parma.[bj]The Luxembourg.[bk]David plans a Temple.[bl]Birth of Venus.[bm]Altdorfer's Nativity at Berlin.[bn]God's Promise to Abraham.[bo]God Appearing to Moses.[bp]National Gallery, London.[bq]Denner Collection. See Plate 25.[br]Brooklyn Museum, New York.[bs]The Berlin example of the Embarkation for Cythera.[bt]Ducal Palace, Venice.[bu]Tate Gallery, London.[bv]Schack Gallery, Munich.[bw]Adoration of the Shepherds, San Martino, Naples.[bx]Design for the Petit Palais, Paris.

FOOTNOTES:

[a]As in Murillo's Ascension of Christ, Madrid Academy.

[b]Venice Academy.

[c]See Plate 24.

[d]The Son of Niobe, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.72

[e]Herculanum et Pompei, vol. iv., by Roux Ainé.

[f]Ceiling of the Hall of Heliodorus, Vatican.

[g]Vatican frescoes God Separating Water and Earth, and God Appearing to Isaac.

[h]The Creation of the Sun and Moon.

[i]Poussin's St. Francis Zavier, Louvre.

[j]The Virgin appearing to St. Martin.

[k]See the Assumption of Orcagna, and of Luca di Tome; Giunto Pisano's Christ and the Virgin; and Mainardi's Madonna giving her Girdle to St. Thomas.

[l]Virgin and Child, Chiesa Nuovo, Rome.

[m]Ascension of Christ, Perugia; Assumption, Florence Academy, and others.

[n]J. H. Witt's Bless the Lord.

[o]Picart's The Burning Coal.

[p]Rembrandt's The Angel quitting Tobias, Louvre.

[q]The Brera, Milan.

[r]St. Mary's, Krakan.

[s]Virgin and Child at the Fountain, Antwerp.

[t]Virgin and Child, Augsburg.

[u]The Ascension, Borgo San Sepolcro, Perugia.

[v]Creation of Woman, Castello Gallery; Prophets and Sybils, Perugia, and others.

[w]Foligna Madonna, Vatican.

[x]Christ in Judgment, Venice.

[y]The Oath of Louis XIII.

[z]Coronation of the Virgin, Milan.

[aa]Santa Maria. By an unknown artist of the Ghirlandaio school.

[ab]Christ's Rule.

[ac]Madonna and Child with Penitents, and others.

[ad]The Virgin with a Canary, Berlin.

[ae]Urbino Gallery.

[af]Madonna and Child in Glory, Arezzo.

[ag]The Agony in the Garden.

[ah]Adam and Eve.

[ai]Martyrdom of St. Peter, Modena.

[aj]Creation of the Earth.

[ak]The Madonna giving her Girdle to St. Thomas, Prato.

[al]The Magdalene and Saints.

[am]Adoration of the Shepherds, Ravenna Academy.

[an]The Deity with SS. Catherine and Magdalene.

[ao]Assumption of the Virgin.

[ap]Assumption of the Virgin, Venice.

[aq]The Deity and Christ, Weimar.

[ar]Assumption of the Virgin at Dusseldorf, Augsburg, Brussels, and Vienna.

[as]Madonna and Child in Glory, Berlin.

[at]The Ascension, Munich.

[au]The Magdalene and Saints, Milan.

[av]Assumption of the Virgin, Venice.

[aw]Coronation of the Virgin, Madrid.

[ax]Ascension of Christ, Vienna.

[ay]Vision of the Resurrection.

[az]The Virgin giving her Girdle to St. Thomas, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

[ba]Let there be Light.

[bb]"They shall bear thee up."

[bc]Munich Gallery.

[bd]Assumption of the Virgin, and Vision of St. Paul.

[be]Assumption of the Virgin.

[bf]Bouguereau's Une Ame au Ciel.

[bg]The Academy, Venice.

[bh]Assumption of the Virgin, Munich.

[bi]Madonna and Child with Saints, Parma.

[bj]The Luxembourg.

[bk]David plans a Temple.

[bl]Birth of Venus.

[bm]Altdorfer's Nativity at Berlin.

[bn]God's Promise to Abraham.

[bo]God Appearing to Moses.

[bp]National Gallery, London.

[bq]Denner Collection. See Plate 25.

[br]Brooklyn Museum, New York.

[bs]The Berlin example of the Embarkation for Cythera.

[bt]Ducal Palace, Venice.

[bu]Tate Gallery, London.

[bv]Schack Gallery, Munich.

[bw]Adoration of the Shepherds, San Martino, Naples.

[bx]Design for the Petit Palais, Paris.

It is usual and proper to distinguish three kinds of beauty in painting, namely, of colour, of form, and of expression. But form must be defined by tones, and colour without form is meaningless: hence in the general consideration of the painter's art, it is convenient to place form and colour together as representing the sensorial element of beauty. Nevertheless colour and form are not on the same plane in regard to sense perception. Harmony of colour is distinguished involuntarily by nerve sensations, but in the case of harmony of form there must be a certain consideration before its æsthetic determination. The recognition of this harmony commonly appears to be instantaneous, but still it is delayed, the delay varying with the complexity of the signs, that is to say, with the quality of the beauty.

Benedetto Croce, the inventor of the latest serious æsthetic system, talks of the "science of art," but he says[a]:

Science—true science, is a science of the spirit—Philosophy. Natural sciences spoken of apart from philosophy, are complexes of knowledge, arbitrarily abstracted and fixed.

It is perhaps needless to say that Croce's æsthetic system, like all the others, collapses on a breath of inquiry. On the purely philosophical side of it, further criticism is unnecessary, and its practical outcome from the point of view of art is not far removed from the amazing conclusions of Hegel. From the latter philosopher we learn that an idol in the form of a stone pillar, or an animal set up by the primitive races, is higher art than a drama by Shakespeare, or a portrait by Titian, because it represents the Idea (Hegel's unintelligible abstraction—see Note 5), while Croce tells us that "the art of savages is not inferior, as art, to that of civilized peoples, provided it be correlated to the impressions of the savages." Clearly if this be so, we are not surprised to learn from Croce that Aristotle "failed to discern the true nature of the æsthetic." Nevertheless, whatever be the outcome of Croce's arguments, his system is at least more plausible than that of either Hegel or Schopenhauer, for while these two invent highly improbable abstractions upon which to base their systems, Croce only gives new functions to an old and reasonable abstraction.

[a]Æsthetic, Douglas Ainslie Translation, 1909.

The writer does not mean to suggest that these systems are set up for the purpose of being knocked down: he desires only to indicate surprise that in new works dealing with the perception of beauty, it is considered necessary to restate the old æsthetic theories and to point out their drawbacks, albeit the fatal objections to them are so numerous that there is always fresh ground available for destructive criticism. The best of the recent works on the subject that have come under the notice of the writer, is E. F. Carritt's review of the present position in respect of æsthetic systems. Though profound, he isso comprehensive that he leaves little or nothing of importance for succeeding critics to say till the next system is put forward. Yet here is his conclusion[a]:

If any point can be thought to have emerged from the foregoing considerations, it is this: that in the history of æsthetics we may discover a growing pressure of emphasis upon the doctrine that all beauty is the expression of what may be generally called emotion, and that all such expression is beautiful.

This is all that an acute investigator can draw from the sum of the æsthetic systems advanced. Now what does this mean? Let us turn to the last page of Carritt's book and find the object of the search after a satisfactory æsthetic system. It is, he says, "the desire to understand goodness and beauty and their relations with each other or with knowledge, as well as to practise or enjoy them." If we accept beauty as the expression of emotion, how far have we progressed towards the indicated goal? Not a step, for we have only agreed upon a new way of stating an obvious condition which applies to the animal world as well as to human beings. Beyond this there is nothing—not a glimpse of sunshine from all the æsthetic systems laid down since the time of Baumgarten.

More than twenty years ago Leo Tolstoy pointed out the unintelligible character of these systems, but no further light has been thrown upon them. Nevertheless Tolstoy's own interpretation of the significance of beauty cannot possibly meet with general approval. He disputes that art is directly associated with beauty or pleasure, and finds in fact that what we call the beautiful representation of nature is not necessarily art, but that[b]

Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to othersfeelings he has lived through, and that other people are affected by these feelings, and also experience them.

This definition may mean almost anything, and particularly it may imply pure imitation which Tolstoy condemns as outside of art. But it certainly does not include many forms of what we call art, the author specially condemning for instance,Romeo and Juliet, and declaring that whileFaustis beautiful, "it cannot produce a really artistic impression." The definition then seems to represent little more than a quibble over terms. Tolstoy says that the beautiful representation of nature is not art, but something else is. Very well then, all we have to do is to find a new term for this representation of nature, and the position remains as before except that the meaning of the term "art" has been changed.

[a]The Theory of Beauty, 1914.

[b]What is Art?Aylmer Maude Translation.

PLATE 24PLATE 24The Creation of Adam, by Michelangelo(Vatican)(Seepage 260)

(Seepage 260)

The evolutionary principle has been applied to art by Herbert Spencer and J. A. Symonds, but not in the sense in which it is used in connection with the development of living organisms. Spencer traces a progression from the simple to the complex in the application of the arts, but not in the arts themselves[a]; and Symonds endeavours to prove that each separate marked period of art shows a progression which is common to all; that is, from immature variations to a high type, then downwards through a lower form represented by romanticism or elegance, to realism, and from this to hybrid forms.[b]Spencer's argument is suggestive, but his conclusions have been mostly upset by archaeological discoveries made since his great book was published. The illustrations given by Symonds are highly illuminating, but they are very far from postulating a general law of evolution operating in the production of art.

[a]First Principles.

[b]Essay onEvolutionary Principles.

It seems necessary to mention Hegel's art periods, though one can only do so with a feeling of regret that a man who achieved a high reputation as a philosopher should have entered the province of art only to misconstrue its purpose with fantastic propositions which have no historical or other apparent foundation. He divides art history into Symbolic, Classic, and Romantic periods respectively. To accomplish this he invents or discovers a new abstraction which he calls the Idea, this representing man's conception, not of God, but of His perfection—His supreme qualities, so that in one sense the Idea may be called the Absolute, in another the Spirit, and in another, Truth. These terms are in fact interchangeable, and each may be a manifestation of another, or of God. This Idea, he says, being perfect beauty, is the basic concept of art. In archaic times man was unable to give expression to this concept, so he represented it by symbols: hence the earliest art was Symbolic art. In the time of the Greeks man had so advanced that he was able to give higher expression to the Idea, and he embodied it in a perfect human form. This is the Classic period, which Hegel indicates continued till Christianity spread abroad, when Classic form, though perfect as art, was found insufficient for the now desired still higher expression of the Idea. This expression could not be put into stone, so other arts than sculpture were used for it, namely, poetry, painting, and music, which are placed together as Romantic art. This is as nearly as possible a statement of the periods of Hegel in short compass. It is impossible to interpret logically his arguments,nor is it necessary, for his conclusions when tested in the light of experience, develop into inexplicable paradoxes and contradictions which border on the ridiculous. Needless to say, the acceptance of this division means the annihilation of our ideas of the meaning of art, and the condemnation to the limbo of forgetfulness of nearly all the artists whose memory is honoured.

The general interpretation of the terms "Classic Art" and "Romantic Art" widely differs from that of Hegel, and varies with the arts. In the literary arts the distinction is obvious, but the terms are used to define both periods and classes; in architecture the Gothic period is usually called the Romantic epoch; and in painting the terms have reference to manner, the more formal manner being called Classic, and the soft manner, Romantic; though it is commonly understood that Romantic art is especially concerned with subjects associated with the gentler side of life. But there is no general agreement. Some writers assert that Giorgione was the first of the romanticists, others give the palm to Watteau, a third section to Delacroix, and a fourth to the Barbizon School. We must await a clear definition of "Romantic Art."

It may be reasonably argued that the want of development of the plastic arts in England during the literary revival, was largely due to artificial restrictions. Fine paintings were ordered out of the churches by Elizabeth, and many were destroyed; while, following the lead of the court, there was little or no encouragement offered by the public to artists except perhaps in portraiture. Flaxman truly said of the destruction of works of art in this period, that the check to the national art in England occurred at a time which offered the most essential and extraordinary assistance to its progress.

During the last half century or so, various writers of repute, including Ruskin and Dean Farrar, have professed to find in the poorer works of the Italian painters of the fourteenth century, and even in paintings of Margaritone and others of the previous century, evidence of strong religious emotion on the part of the artists. It is claimed that their purpose in giving simple solemn faces to their Madonnas and Saints, was "to tell the sacred story in all its beauty and simplicity"; that they possessed a "powerful sincerity of emotion"; that they "delivered the burning messages of prophecy with the stammering lips of infancy," and so on. It is proper to say that there is nothing to support this view of the early painters. We find no trace of any suggestions of the kind till the last of these artists had been dead for about four hundred years, while their lives, so far as we have any record, lend no warranty to the statements. The painters of the fourteenth century took their art seriously, but purely as a craft, and it was not uncommon with them to combine two or three other crafts with that of painting. They designed mostly sacred subjects for the simple reason that the art patrons of the day seldom ordered anything else. In their private lives they associated together, were generally agreeable companions, and not averse to an occasional escapade. Moreover the time in which they lived was notable for what we should call loose habits, and indeed from the thirteenth century to the end of the fifteenth, religious observances and practices were of a more hollow and formal character than they have ever been since.

The position occupied by these painters in the progression of art from the crude Byzantine period upwards, corresponds with that of the Roman painters of the thirdand fourth centuries in the progression downwards to the Byzantine epoch, and there is no more reason for supposing that the Italians were actuated by special emotions in their work, than that the Romans were so moved. In both cases the character of the work, as Reynolds put it in referring to the Italians, was the result of want of knowledge. The countenances usually presented by both Roman and Italian artists have a half sad, half resigned expression, because this was the only kind of expression that could be given by an immature painter whose ideal was restricted by the necessity of eliminating elements which might indicate happiness. Giotto, Taddeo Gaddi, Duccio, and a few more, were exceptions in that their art was infinitely superior to the average of the century, but all from Giotto downwards, laboured as craftsmen only. No doubt they often worked with enthusiasm, and in this way their emotions may have been brought into play, but there is no possible means of identifying in a picture the emotions which an artist may have experienced while he was painting it.

As to the sad expression referred to in these Italian works, it may be observed that Edgar A. Poe held that the tone of the highest manifestation of beauty is one of sadness. "Beauty of whatever kind," he says, "in its supreme development invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears."[a]But Poe is clearly mistaken here. It is not the beauty of the work that affects the emotions to tears, when they are so affected, but the subject of the design exhibiting the beauty. A picture or poem representing a sad subject may be very beautiful, but the sadness itself would not assist the beauty, though it might increase the emotional effect. The higher forms of beauty rarely draw our tears, but elicit our admiration without direct thought of anything but the beauty.Who would weep when in front of the greatest marvels of Greek sculpture?

Back to Index Next