the Greeks, Correggio, and Tintoret, are
also together in this farther point; that they all draw the body for
true delight in it, and with knowledge of it living; while Michael
Angelo and Raphael draw the body for vanity, and from knowledge of it
dead.

The Venus of Melos,--Correggio's Venus, (with Mercury teaching Cupid to
read),--and Tintoret's Graces, have the forms which their designers
truly _liked_ to see in women. They may have been wrong or right in
liking those forms, but they carved and painted them for their pleasure,
not for vanity.

But the form of Michael Angelo's Night is not one which he delighted to
see in women. He gave it her, because he thought it was fine, and that
he would be admired for reaching so lofty an ideal.[48]

231. Again. The Greeks, Correggio, and Tintoret, learn the body from the
living body, and delight in its breath, color, and motion.[49]

Raphael and Michael Angelo learned it essentially from the corpse, and
had no delight in it whatever, but great pride in showing that they knew
all its mechanism; they therefore sacrifice its colors, and insist on
its muscles, and surrender the breath and fire of it, for what is--not
merely carnal,--but osseous, knowing that for one person who can
recognize the loveliness of a look, or the purity of a color, there are
a hundred who can calculate the length of a bone.

The boy with the doves, in Raphael's cartoon of the Beautiful Gate of
the Temple, is not a child running, but a surgical diagram of a child in
a running posture.

Farther, when the Greeks, Correggio, and Tintoret, draw the body active,
it is because they rejoice in its force, and when they draw it inactive,
it is because they rejoice in its repose. But Michael Angelo and Raphael
invent for it ingenious mechanical motion, because they think it
uninteresting when it is quiet, and cannot, in their pictures, endure
any person's being simple-minded enough to stand upon both his legs at
once, nor venture to imagine anyone's being clear enough in his language
to make himself intelligible without pointing.

In all these conditions, the Greek and Venetian treatment of the body is
faithful, modest, and natural; but Michael Angelo's dishonest, insolent,
and artificial.

232. But between him and Tintoret there is a separation deeper than all
these, when we examine their treatment of the face. Michael Angelo's
vanity of surgical science rendered it impossible for him ever to treat
the b