C 88 ] 



be out of the reach of art, and only afcribed to fuch works by 

 perfons ivho, not being of the profejjion, know not what can or 

 cannot be done. 



What Sir Jofhua Reynolds declares to be beyond the reach 

 of art it is indeed hardinefs not to admit as impradicable ; 

 yet as the queftion does not turn on the technical fkill of a 

 painter fo much as on the powers of the human countenance, it 

 ipay not be improper to difcufs it. 



Tf this opinion were admitted in Its ftrideft fenfe, the painter 

 muft be pronounced incapable of exhibiting any but the merely 

 elemental emotions, as moft of the paffions that afFed the 

 mind in the complicated tranfadions of human life are in a cer- 

 tain degree of a mixed nature. This however is unqeftionably 

 not the meaning of our author. It appears from the tenour of 

 his argument that many affedtions in which a philofophical ana- 

 lyfis difcovers a compofition were confidered by him as fimple, 

 and that he confines his obfervation to fuch paffions as are in a 

 popular fenfe called mixed. 



I MUST firft take notice, that the examples of falfe judgment 

 drawn by, the Prefident from Pliny, relate to fixed, habitual, 

 charaderiftical qualities, not to paffions occafionally exerted. 



Yet withovat recurring to the powers fuppofed to be inherent 

 in the human face by a modern fanciful phyfiognomift, may not 



the 



