224 
PAINTING. 
fchco! was altogether devoted to the principal parts of 
the art, to thofe which require genius and vaft conceptions; 
a,nd was no farther occupied with colours, than what was 
neceffary to eftabliffi a difference between painting and 
fculpture, or rather between painting varied with colours 
and in chiaro-fcuro. 
Raphael Sanzio, born at Urbinoin 1483, and fcholarto 
Pietro Perugino, was the undoubted founder of this fcliool. 
His firft manner was that of Perugino, his mafter ; but he 
travelled twice to Florence, to ftudv the great artifts who 
fiouriffied in that city. 
It was fortunate for Raphael, fays Mengs, that he was 
born in what he terms the infancy of the art, and that 
he formed himielf by copying nature before he had ac- 
cefs to fee the works of any great mafter. He began by 
ftudying, with great exaftnefs, the fimple truth in his 
figures. He was then ignorant that any choice was ne- 
ceffary; but he faw the w'orks of Leonardo da Vinci, of 
Maffaccio, and of Michael Angelo, which gave his genius 
a new direftion. After this, he perceived that there was 
Something more in the art of painting than a mere imi¬ 
tation of truth. But the works of thofe mafters were 
not iufficiently perfeft to point out the beft choice to 
make; and he continued in uncertainty till he faw at 
Rome the works of the ancients. Then he perceived 
that he had found the true models which he wanted; and, 
in imitating them, he had only to follow the natural im- 
pulfe or his genius. 
Habituated by his firft manner to imitate nature with 
precilion, it was not difficult to carry the fame exaftnefs 
into the imitation of the ancients; and it was a great 
advantage to him, that he flouriffied in an age wherein the 
artifts had not achieved facility of execution at the ex- 
penfe of rigorous exaftnefs. He never loft fight of na¬ 
ture ; but he was inftrufted by the ancients in what man¬ 
ner fiie fliould be ftudied. He perceived that the Greeks 
had not entered into minute details, that they had fe- 
lefted what was great or beautiful, and that one of the 
chief caufes of the beauty of their works, was the regula¬ 
rity of their proportions; he began, therefore, by care¬ 
fully ftudying this part of the art. He faw alfo that the 
joinings of the bones, and the free play of the articula¬ 
tions, are the caufes of -till graceful movement: he there¬ 
fore, after the example of the ancients, gave the greateft 
attention to this part, and was led by thefe obfervations 
not to be contented with the fimple imitation of nature. 
His defign is excellent, but neither fo perfeft nor fo 
ftnifned as that of the Greeks. He excelled in reprefent- 
ing the charafter of philofophers, apoitles, and other 
figures of that kind ; but be did not equal the Greeks in 
ideal figures, which ought to carry the impreffion of di¬ 
vinity. Histafte for defign was moreRoman than Greek, 
becaufe he formed it chiefly on the baflo-relievos which 
he found at Rome. On this account he had the habit of 
narking ftrongly the bones and the articulations, and la¬ 
bouring the fleftiy parts lefs; but, as thefe baflo-relievos 
are very exaft with regard to the reciprocal proportions 
of every member, he excelled in this part, while at the 
lame time he did not give to his figures all the elegance 
of the Greek artifts, nor the flexibility of articulation 
which is admired in the Laocoon, in the Apollo ofBelvi- 
dere, and in the Gladiator. 
The manners an d fpirit of his age, and the fubiefts 
which he molt commonly treated, prevented him from 
reaching the ideal of the ancients.- Having feldorn oc- 
cafion to reprefent figures altogether ideal, he devoted 
himielf to purity of expreffion. He knew/ that the ex¬ 
preffion of the paffions of the foul is abfolutely neceifary 
in an art which reprefents the aftions of men, lince, from 
thofe afteftions, the actions may be laid truly to originate. 
To make figures aft, and yet negleft the interior fprings 
of aftion, is nothing more than a reprefentation of auto¬ 
mata. The attitudes and aftion are evident; but they 
appear not to aft of themfelves, becaufe they are void of 
thofe principles from which alone men are fuppoled to aft. 
An artift who neglefts expreffion, gives no juft reprefen- 
tation of character, even though he fnould take nature 
for his model. Raphael’s firft care, when he wanted to 
compofe a piece, was to weigh the expreffion ; that is to 
fay, to eftabliffi, according to the nature of the fubjeft, 
the paffions which were to animate the charafter?. All 
the figures, all the acceifories, all the parts of the compo- 
fition, were moulded to the general expreffion. 
As he had not found examples in the ancient ftatues 
of the chiaro-fcuro, he was comparatively weak in this 
part; and, if there was any thing remarkable in his dif- 
tribution of light and fhade, he owed it to the works of 
the Florentine painters. It cannot be faid, however, 
even with regard to the chiaro-fcuro, that he imitated na¬ 
ture without tafte. He delighted in. what are called 
mnffes of light; and difpofed the great lights in the moil 
confpicuous places of his figures, whether naked or in 
drapery. If this method did not produce effefts highly 
illufive, it gives his works that diftinftnefs which makes 
his figures confpicuous atadiftance; and this mult be 
allowed to be an effential part of the art of painting. He 
did not proceed beyond this; and, content with that kind 
of chiaro-fcuro which comprehends imitation, he never 
attempted that which is ideal. 
The compojition and the enfemble of his figures, were 
the chief excellencies of Raphael. His philofophical 
mind could not be affefted with objefts which had not 
expreffion. He had too high an idea of painting to con- 
fider it as a mute art ; he made it fpeak to the heart and 
foul : and he could only do this in fubjefts which re¬ 
quired expreffion. If Raphael did not reach the Greek 
excellence, if he did not poffefs the art of embelliihing 
nature in the fame high degree, he faw at leaft, and imi¬ 
tated her in, whatever was expreffive and beautiful. “ The 
Greeks failed with majefty (fays Mengs) between earth 
and heaven : Raphael walked with propriety on the earth.” 
“ Compofition is in general (fays the fame author) of 
two kinds: Raphael’s is the expreffive kind ; the other is 
the theatrical or pifturefque, which confifts of an agree¬ 
able difpofition of the figures. Lanfranc was the inven¬ 
tor of this laft, and, after him, Pietro da Cortona. I give 
the preference to Raphael ; becaufe reafon prefides over 
all his works, or at leaft the greateft part of them. Fie 
never allowed himfelf in common ideas, and was never 
allured to give any thing in his acceffory figures which 
might turn the attention from the principal objeft of the 
piece.” 
It has been obferved with great propriety as well as 
truth, that the paintings of the divine Raphael do not, 
in general, excite a lively emotion at firft fight; and that 
the cartoons, in particular, although they are the beft 
performances of his inimitable, pencil, have often been 
leen and gazed at, by the public who flock to Hampton- 
court for the purpofe of admiring them, without (Hiking 
the beholders fo forcibly as to elicit the leaft expreffion of 
furprife. Several companies have walked leifurely through 
the loggie and the other apartments of the Vatican, heed- 
lefs of what furrounded them, and have requefted, moft 
innocently, the cicerone to (how them the marvellous 
works of Raphael. The faft is, that the tranfaftions of 
human life, ,f when faithfully reprefented, are fo familiar 
to our eyes, that we miftakethem for the veryafts which 
we areconftantly witneffes to; and that, by mechanically 
identifying them with nature in our mind, art lofes the 
merit of imitation, and becomes for a moment nature 
herfelf. Hence the reafon why mythological, allegorical, 
and religious, lubjefts, have been always better received 
than mere hiftorica! ones. Eager to excite aftoniffiment, 
the artift foon found that the fureft way was to mix fanci¬ 
ful conceptions with real fafts, in order to give them an 
epic turn, and thereby ftrike the fight and move the foul. 
The religion and popular traditions of the Greeks and 
Romans afforded their poets, painters, and fculptors, an 
immenfe fcope to vary and jidorn their themes; and the 
Chriftian belief has proved a moft agreeable and an inex- 
3 hauftibla 
