fpot on his foreground j inftead of aiming 

 at the exaft reprefentation *of any natural 

 plant j he- will more judicioufly give the 

 tint he ' wants in a few random general 

 touches of fomething like nature: and leave 

 the fpeftator, if he pleafe, to find out a 

 refemblance. Botanical precifion may pleafe 

 us in the flower-pieces of Van Huyfom ; 

 but it would be paltry and affefted in the 

 landfcapes of Claude, or Salvator. The fol- 

 lowing remark I found in a work of Dr. 

 Johnfon's ; which I tranfcribe, not only be- 

 caufe it is judicious, and may be introduced 

 here in place ; but becaufe it affords a 

 new argument to fhew the refemblance be- 

 tween poetry and painting. Johnfon was a 

 critic in the former ; but I never heard, that 

 he was a judge of the latter. His opinion 

 therefore in a point of this kind, was unbiafTed. 

 * ?< The bufinefs of a poet, fays he, is, to 

 examine not the individual, but the fpecies 

 to remark general, and large appearances. 

 He does not number the ftreaks of the tulip, 

 nor defcribe the different fhades in the verdure 

 of the foreft. He is to exhibit in his portraits 

 of nature fuch prominent, and finking features, 

 as recall the original to every mind j and muft 



negle6t 



