had discovered in the nod of the Homeric Jupiter the
characteristic of majesty, _inclination of the head_. This hinted to him
a higher elevation of the neck behind, a bolder protrusion of the front,
and the increased perpendicular of the profile. To this conception
Parrhasius fixed a maximum; that point from which descends the ultimate
line of celestial beauty, the angle within which moves what is inferior,
beyond which what is portentous. From the head conclude to the
proportions of the neck, the limbs, the extremities; from the Father to
the race of gods; all, the sons of one, Zeus; derived from one source of
tradition, Homer; formed by one artist, Phidias; on him measured and
decided by Parrhasius. In the simplicity of this principle, adhered to
by the succeeding periods, lies the uninterrupted progress and the
unattainable superiority of Grecian art."

In speaking of Timanthes as the competitor with Parrhasius, as one who
brought into the art more play of the mind and passions, the lecturer
takes occasion to discuss the often discussed and disputed propriety of
Timanthes, in covering the head of Agamemnon in his picture of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia. He thinks it the more incumbent on him so to do,
as the "late president" had passed a censure upon Timanthes. Sir Joshua
expressed his _doubt_ only, not his censure absolutely, upon the
delivery of the prize at the Academy for the best picture painted from
this subject. He certainly dissents from bestowing the praise, upon the
supposition of the intention being the avoiding a difficulty. And as to
this point, the well-known authorities of Cicero, Quintilian, Valerius
Maximus, and Pliny, seem to agree. And _if_, as the lecturer observes in
a note, the painter is made to waste expression on inferior actors at
the expense of a principal one, he is an improvident spendthrift, not a
wise economist. The pertness of Falconet is unworthy grave criticism and
the subject, though it is quoted by Sir Joshua Reynolds. He assumes that
Agamemnon is the principal figure. Undoubtedly Mr Fuseli is
right--Iphigenia is the principal figure; and it may be fairly admitted,
that the overpowering expression of the grief of the father would have
divided the subject. It might be more properly a separate picture. Art
is limited; nothing should detract from the principal figure, the
principal action--passion. Our sympathy is not called for on behalf of
the father here: the grief of the others in t