among the Ancients, 565 



apoftles, &c. every perfon muit acknowledge that 

 fuch oflrences as thefe againft truths fo obvious, if 

 they do not arife from a defed of underftanding, 

 are inftances of inexcufable carelelTnefs. 



In like manner, when the fame great mailer 

 paints the dreams of Jofeph and his fellow- 

 prifoner in circles over their heads 3 when fimi- 

 lar contrivances to exprefs future events are 

 ufed by Albani, Parmeggiano and Fufeli, is it 

 not evident that no poffibility can make the 

 fiftion true ? that real and feigned exiftences 

 are unnaturally introduced in one narration? 



When Polidore choofes to reprefent the death 

 of Cato, and expofes to the fpeftator the hero 

 of the piece, with his bowels gufhing out 3 when 

 Paul Veronefe, at a banquet, painted with his 

 ufual magnificence, places before us a dog 

 gnawing a bone, and a boy making water : 

 however fuch difgufting circumftances may be 

 forgiven Jn the chef d'ceuvre of a Michael Angelo, 

 had he reprefented thefe inftead of the horrible 

 figures in his day of judgment, the performance 

 of an inferior artift cannot atone for them. 



So alfo, when one of the firft-rate among the 



modern painters already mentioned* introduces 



Benedidline monks at the marriage of Cana; 



when in a pifture of the crucifixion he puts the 



.Roman foldiers in the jerkins of the fixteenthcen- 



* Paul Veronefe. 



O o 3 tury. 



