IM 



CORRESrONDENCE. 



After a somewhat lengthy dissertation on Dr. Johnson's well- 

 known indifference to works of art, in which a very pointless Bos- 

 well-anecdote is introduced, we have this remark of the " great 

 literary leviathan :" — *' Painting can illustrate^ but not inform." 

 This very clear summary, and, in my opinion, correct estimate of 

 the powers of painting, appears to Mr. Carey an attempt to hu- 

 miliate that art, to the exaltation of its sister, poetry. He then, 

 through a long series of arguments and cases, endeavours to subvert 

 the Doctor's reasoning, and establish the theory that painting can 

 inform, as well as illustrate. In allusion to Johnson's remark, after 

 quoting from his Dictionary the derivation and meaning of the 

 word illustrate, Mr. C. observes-—" Now, how a painting can illus- 

 trate, that is, explain, elucidate, or expound, and not inform, is a 

 question which Dr. Johnson, were he living, could best answer.'^ 

 Certainly, Dr. Johnson, could best answer it, but, he not being now a 

 denizen of this cavilling world, we humbly offer ourself as the un- 

 worthy champion of his authority; not because it is his, but as 

 seeming to us a sensible and just remark, wrongfully censured. 



But I would fain assure Mr. Carey (whose zeal in the praise and 

 promotion of art merits the kindly respect of all its votaries) that it 

 is no unbelieving heretic, to whom the worship of painting's might, 

 magic, and beauty, is an unknown faith, who is now ranked as an 

 opponent to his expressed opinion. Therefore, as the knights of 

 olden time declared their title and style before the combat of the 

 tilt-yard, so do we, or (dropping the mysterious and hydra-headed 

 editorialism) so do T avow myself as staunch a lover of the three 

 intellectual graces, poetry, painting, and music, as if the goddess of 

 either glorious art numbered me among " the votaries of her order ;" 

 and I defy my venerable friend Mr. Carey, or '' any he in Christen- 

 dom," to lay his heart and mind down in admiration before a pic- 

 ture or statue wrought by the hand and invested with the spirit of 

 genius, with more hearty devotion than myself. 



Now, " revenons a nos moutons,'* c'est a. dire — to the cause of 

 Carey v. Johnson. Mr. C. assumes that painting conveys original 

 information. I only believe it capable of illustrating, elucidating, 

 and increasing, previously acquired information. In one part of the 

 paper we find it affirmed, that " Painting cannot illustrate, without 

 conveying new, or additional, knowledge." This latter is my own 

 opinion, but Mr. C's. arguments tend to prove that painting can 

 inform originally, and it is this idea on which my remarks are offered. 



West's " Death of General Wolfe" is cited as a triumphant in- 

 stance of the information conveyed by pictures. After observing that 



