the most prominent. the sculptor simply the

For instance, Venus is to

image of love; his object

must therefore be to endow her with all that beauty and modesty, and all those attractive charms which enchant us in the object of our adoration, and which we are therefore accustomed to associate with the abstract idea of love. The smallest departure from this ideal might prevent us from recognising the image. The beauty we behold may be perfect, but if it possess more of majesty than modesty, it will remind us, not of Venus, but of Juno. There may be abundance of charms, but if they be rather of a haughty and masculine than an attractive character, they will present to us a Minerva instead of a Venus. It is for this reason that an angry Venus,—a Venus inflamed with rage and fury, would be viewed by the sculptor as a complete incongruity; for love, abstractedly considered, holds no communion with rage or anger. To the poet, on the other hand, Venus is not only love itself, but she is the goddess of love, possessing her own individual character in addition to the more general

one, and consequently the impulse of aversion must be as capable of influencing her breast as that of sympathy. Is it then surprising that the poet should describe her as burning with rage and fury, particularly on an occasion when she is the representative of outraged love itself?

It is true that in compositions the artist as well as the poet may represent Venus, or any other divinity, as a really active being, as well as an abstract personification. But, in that case, the actions of such divinities must at least not be in opposition to their character, if indeed they do not naturally arise out of it. Venus arming her son is an action which the artist may portray as well as the poet. There is nothing here to prevent his endowing her with all the grace and beauty which belong to her as the goddess of love; nay, this particular situation will rather serve to render her more recognisable in his work. But Venus taking vengeance on the men of Lemnos for their insults,—descending in fury on a dark cloud, with a black robe drawn around her, and a torch in her hand,— her features fierce and swollen, -her cheeks

flushed, and her hair dishevelled, is not a subject for an artist, because it presents no traits which would lead the spectator to recognise the fair divinity. This is a situation for the poet alone, by whom it may be so closely connected with another, in which Venus may appear entirely in her own peculiar character, that even while we behold the fury we do not lose sight of the goddess of love. This is the course adopted by Flaccus,

Jam tumet; aut tereti crinem subnectitur auro,
Sidereos diffusa sinus. Eadem effera et ingeos
Et maculis suffecta genas; pinumque souantem
Virginibus Stygiis, nigramque simillima pallam.'

Thus Statius also,

*

“Ilia Paphon veterem centumque altaria linquens,
Nee vultu nee crine prior, solvisse jugalem

Carton, et Idalias procul ablegasse volucres

Fertur. Kraut certe, media qui noclis in umbra
Divam, alios ignes majoraque tela gerentem,

Tartarias inter thalamis volitasse sorores

Vulgarent; utque implicitis arcana domorum

Anguibus, et sæva formidine cuncta replerit
Limina."t-

Or, it may be said that the poet alone possesses the power of describing by means of negative traits, and by the combination of these with positive lineaments, combining two apparently dissimilar appearances, so as to produce a unity of effect. Thus, he tells us, "It is no longer the beauteous Venus that we see, her tresses bound with golden clasps; she is now without her girdle and her azure scarf; she is armed with other flames and heavier darts than those of love, and accompanied by the Furies, whom she now resembles." But, because the artist must necessarily dispense with this artifice, is the poet also to deny himself the privilege he possesses? If Painting must needs be the sister of Poetry, let her at least not prove herself a jealous sister. Let not the younger deny to the elder the use of those ornaments which she cannot wear herself.

NINTH SECTION.

In estimating the Works of the ancient Artists, a Distinction must be made between those which they have executed as mere Specimens of Art, and those which have been destined for religious Purposes.

In making comparisons between the Painter and the Poet, it is essential to observe whether they have each enjoyed the same unlimited freedom, and been unrestrained by the operation of any extraneous circumstances, in their efforts to attain the highest point of effect in their respective arts.

An extraneous restraint of this nature was frequently imposed upon the ancient artist by his religion. His work, when destined for adoration and worship, could not always be so perfect as when the sole object he had in view was to charm the beholder. Superstition over