ON CERTAIN INCONSIDERATE CRITICISMS. 233 



meaning of allegorical and emblematical poetry and painting is very 

 frequently misunderstood by artists, eminent literati, and critical 

 commentators. It is still more surprising, that the great philologer, 

 in his inferior estimate of i)ainting, drew so strange and wide a dis- 

 tinction between illustrate and inform. So much stress is laid on 

 this distinction by critics, who have derived from thence an inference 

 not very favourable to painting, that I hope to be pardoned the pre- 

 sumption of analyzing it candidly — not with the vanity and folly of 

 expressing a dissent from the most learned authority of his time, but 

 to submit, to the better judgment of the readers, some thoughts in 

 vindication of a noble art from present misconception and prejudice. 

 In that triumphant proof of his comprehensive powers, his Dic- 

 tionary , we find the following explanations : — 



" ILLU'STRATE, v. n. [iliustroj Lat., illustrer, Fr.] 1. To brighten with 

 light. 2. To brighten with honour. 3. To ea,plain ; to clear ; to elucidate.^'' 



*» ILLUSTRA'TION, n. s. [illustration, Fr.,_from illustrate]. Explana- 

 tion ; elucidation ; exposition. It is seldom used, in its original signification, 

 for material brightness." 



Now, hofv a painting can illustrate, that is, explain, elucidate, or 

 expound, and not inform, is a question which Dr. Johnson, were he 

 living, could best answer. The Latin and French verbs from which 

 illustrate is derived, bear the same signification. It appears to me, 

 the verbal distinction, in Boswell's statement, is not easily recon- 

 cilable to reason, or to the direct meaning of the words, illustrate 

 and inform, in Dr. Johnson's pages. Taking his Dictionary, the 

 highest philological authority in the English language, for our 

 guide, it warrants an affirmation that painting cannot illustrate with- 

 out conveying new or additional knowledge, and giving a more 

 striking and splendid view of the story which it represents. But, 

 independent of all verbal distinctions, and apart from those here re- 

 ferred to, what is the fact } The painting of the death of General 

 Wolfe not only illustrates that memorable catastrophe, but it in- 

 forms the spectator of the mode of his death ; it shows that he was 

 not slain in close combat, by the sword or bayonet, but received a 

 mortal wound from a distant gun-shot, and died soon after, in the 

 moment of victory, surrounded by his officers. The uniforms show 



