PAINTING. 
td perfection, by ftudying the works of Maffaccio and of 
Bartholomew; but he departed entirely from the tafte of 
the fchool in which he was educated when he had feen the 
works of the ancients. It was the baffo-relievos of anti¬ 
quity which pointed out to him the true flowing of dra¬ 
pery, and he was not backward to introduce it. He 
made his ample draperies without ufelefs folds, and with 
bendings at the articulations. It was the form of the 
naked figure which pointed out to him the form of his 
folds, and on the great mufcles he formed great maffes. 
When any part required to be fore-fliortened, he covered 
it with the fame number of folds as if it had been ftraight; 
but then he crowded them in proportion to the forefliort- 
ening. He frequently difcovered the border of his dra¬ 
pery, to (how that his figures were not drefled in a Ample 
lack. The form of the principal parts, and the fpecific 
weight of the air, were always the caufes of his folds. 
It was eafy to dilcover in his works, by the folds of his 
drapery, the attit-ude of the figure previous to the one in 
which it was placed ; and whether, for example, the arm 
was extended or otherwife, immediately before the aCtion. 
This was an expreflion which he had carefully ftudied on 
all occafions, becaufe he found it in nature. When the 
drapery was to cover the leg or arm but half, or in an im- 
perfeCt manner; he made it cut obliquely the member 
which was partly to be covered. His folds were of a tri¬ 
angular form. The reafon of this form is in nature; for 
all drapery has a tendency to enlarge itfelf and be ex¬ 
tended ; and, as at the fame time its own weight obliges it 
to fall back on itfelf, it is naturally formed into triangles. 
He knew perfectly that the movements of the body and 
of its members are the caufes of the aCtual lituation of 
drapery, and of the formation of its folds. All his prac¬ 
tice is nothing elfe but the unfolding and demonftrating 
of this theory ; and drapery executed in any other man¬ 
ner mull be in a falfe and vicious tafte. 
There can be no drapery more faulty in painting or 
fculpture, than that which, in either art, affeCts to re- 
lemble the productions of the other. It is not to be de¬ 
nied, that in the higheft of all examples of fculpture, the 
•works of Phidias, fuch drapery is to be found, as from its 
foftnefs and breadth (founded on a knowledge of princi¬ 
ples poffeffed only by himfelf) may fafely be transferred 
to painting. Such, for initance, is the drapery of the two 
females fitting together, in the collection brought from 
Athens by the earl of Elgin, in which every quality of 
beauty of form and character is combined. But, without 
this confummate knowledge, the experiment, whenever 
it hasbeen made, has been generally utlfuccefsful. Paint¬ 
ing, imitating the drapery of fculpture, has produced 
garments of ropes ; and fculpture, imitating that of paint¬ 
ing, has left it doubtlefs if it defigned to reprefent cloths 
or rocks. The requifite diftinCtion between the proper 
management of drapery in painting and in fculpture, is 
rnoft inftruCtively exemplified in the practice of that great 
mailer of both arts, Michael Angelo. Du Frefnoy has 
juftly pointed out this diftinCtion : the large folds, he re¬ 
marks, and maffy garments, with which the Prophets, in 
the Siftine chapel, are inverted, are confefiedly fuch as 
correfpond with the powers of painting, and are peculiarly 
adapted to the awful character of the perfons who wear 
them ; but, in the Monument of Julius II. in the church 
of San Pietro in Vincoli, the ftatue of Mofes, although, 
by the character of the perfon reprefented, it evidently 
takes the fame clafs as the figures of the Prophets, has 
nothing of the fame kind of drapery. The drefs is caft 
dofer round the limbs, the folds are thinner, narrower, 
and, in every refpeCt, fuch as the properties of fculpture 
render necefiary for the juft expreflion of the forms of 
the figure. 
In the latter period of the Italian fchool, two great maf¬ 
ters of the art of drapery, Guido and Carlo Maratti, have 
arifen to eclipfe the fame of all preceding painters, except 
.Raphael. Guido, in his picture of the “ Doctors of the 
239 
Church revolving the Queftion of the immaculate Con¬ 
ception,” and in his (till more celebrated “ Aurora,” has 
left examples of the mod perfeCt beauty, propriety, and 
character of drapery. In the former work, the light folds 
of unfullied whitenefs of the drapery of the Virgin, mildly 
and generally illuminated by aerial fplendours, and the 
larger foldings and graver hues of the garments of the 
doctors, are equally deferving our admiration. In the 
latter, he has exemplified all that is light, airy, elegant, 
and graceful, in female drapery, caft or falling into folds 
by the force of motion or air. In the picture of the 
Dodfors of the Church it is to be remarked, that Guido 
has entirely laid afide all reference to coftume, although 
he did not want precedents for the dreffes of the principal 
perfons reprefented; and that the draperies are as purely 
ideal in that picture as in his other work of poetical ima¬ 
gination, the Aurora. 
It is remarkable, in the progrefs of the Italian fchool, 
that, in proportion as the ftyle of art deteriorated, atten¬ 
tion to drapery continued to gain an afcendancy. In 
Guido, from the varied beauties which he gave to his 
drapery, from the union of lightnefs, foftnefs,and breadth, 
in his folds, drapery firft became a predominant feature of 
hiftorical defign. Pietro da Cortona, who corrupted art, 
clothed his female figures in the moft feduCtive variety of 
attire. Andrea Sacchi’s great work, in the church of St. 
Romualdo, the fourth wonder of Roman painting, de¬ 
rived the greater portion of its praife from the powerful 
management of the drapery in the dreffes of the religious 
characters introduced in it; and, in the time of his fcho- 
lar, Carlo Maratti, the whole ftudy of painting confided 
fcarcely in any thing betides drapery. Indeed, Carlo Ma¬ 
ratti was of opinion, that the difpofition of drapery was a 
more difficult art than even that of drawing the human 
figure; that a ftudent might be more eafily taught the 
latter than the former ; as the rules of drapery, he faid, 
could not be fo well afcertained as thofe for delineating a 
correCt form. But this is only a proof how willingly we 
favour our own peculiar excellence. Carlo Maratti valued 
himfelf particularly upon his (kill in this part of his art; 
yet, in him, the difpofition appears fo artificial, that he 
is inferior to Raphael, even in that which gave him his 
bed claim to reputation. 
Paul Veronefe alfo gained much applaufe for his dra¬ 
peries; but it is fmartly faid by a French writer, “ that 
Raphael is the beft painter of drapery; Veronefe the belt 
painter of fluffs." 
Of COSTUME. 
Clofely conneded with the fubjeftof drapery is that of 
costume, or giving to the figures the proper dreffes of 
the country and age they belong to. But coftume has a 
much larger fenfe, and a much wider range : it may be 
faid to correfpond with the unities of time, place, and 
aCtion, in tragedy and in epic poetry. It is chiefly con¬ 
fined to hiftory-painting; and regards the cufloms and 
manners of different periods, as well as the drefs of dif¬ 
ferent nations. Great exaCtnefs in the coftume is fcarcely 
practicable ; but too fenflble a departure from it denotes 
unpardonable negligence. The road of the painter is be¬ 
tween thefe two extremes ; not to defpife beauty on the 
one hand, nor probability on the other. We mean that 
it is not necefiary for the painter to cramp himfelf by an 
obfervance too minute. He fliould fteer a middle courfe: 
let him give to a nation, the Romans for inftance, the 
drefs which they wore in the moft flourifliing times of the 
republic, without a tedious and minute enquiry into the 
various (hades of faftiion which luxury introduced amonr 
that famous people. 
On the other hand, a departure from coftume has ren¬ 
dered many a fine picture ridiculous. Thefe offences are 
like grammatical i'olecifms in a beautiful compofition. 
Several blunders of this kind are pointed out by Chev- 
reau ; and fome connoiffeurs will recolleCt the very pic¬ 
tures 
