39 



defines it in his Letter to Sir Joshua Re} r - 

 nolds " such objects as are proper subjects 

 " for painting*/* Both these definitions 

 seem to me (what may perhaps appear a 

 contradiction) at once too vague, and too 

 confined ; for though we are not to expect 

 any definition to be so accurate and com- 

 prehensive, as both to supply the place, 

 and stand the test of investigation, yet if 

 it do not in some degree separate the thing 

 defined from all others, it differs little from 

 any general truth on the same subject. For 

 instance, it is very true that picturesque 

 objects do please from some quality capa- 

 ble of being illustrated in painting; but so 

 also does every object that is represented 

 in painting if it please at all, otherwise it 

 would not have been painted : and hence 

 we ought to conclude, what certainly is not 

 meant, that all objects which please in 

 pictures are therefore picturesque; for no 

 distinction or exclusion is made. Were 



* End of Essay on Picturesque Beauty, page 36. 

 D4 



