ded
Hogarth's line of beauty. Had Mr Hay's very admirable short works--his
"Theory of Form and Proportion"--appeared in Mr Fuseli's day, he would
have taken a new view of beauty and grace. By taste, he means not only a
knowledge of what is right in art, but a power to estimate degrees of
excellence, "and by comparison proceeds from justness to refinement."
This, too, we think inadequate to express what we mean by taste, which
appears to us to have something of a sense, independent of knowledge.
Using words in a technical sense, we may define them to mean what we
please, but certainly the words themselves, "copy" and "imitation," do
not mean very different things. He thinks "precision of eye, and
obedience of hand, are the requisites for copy, without the least
pretence to choice, what to select, what to reject; whilst choice,
directed by judgment or taste, constitutes the essence of imitation, and
alone can raise the most dexterous copyist to the noble rank of an
artist." We do not exactly see how this judgment arises out of his
definition of "taste." But it may be fair to follow him still closer on
this point. "The imitation of the ancients was, _essential_,
_characteristic_, _ideal_. The first cleared nature of accident, defect,
excrescence, (which was in fact his definition of nature, as so
cleared;) the second found the _stamen_ which connects character with
the central form; the third raised the whole and the parts to the
highest degree of unison." This is rather loose writing, and not very
close reasoning. After all, it may be safer to take words in their
common acceptation; for it is very difficult in a treatise of any
length, to preserve in the mind or memory the precise ideas of given
definitions. "Of genius, I shall speak with reserve; for no word has
been more indiscriminately confounded. By genius, I mean that power
which enlarges the circle of human knowledge, which discovers new
materials of nature, or combines the known with novelty; whilst talent
arranges, cultivates, polishes the discoveries of genius." Definitions,
divisions, and subdivisions, though intended to make clear, too often
entangle the ground unnecessarily, and keep the mind upon the stretch to
remember, when it should only feel. We think this a fault with Mr
Fuseli; it often renders him obscure, and involves his style of
aphorisms in the mystery of a riddle.

* * * * *

SECOND LECTURE.--This lecture comprise