se
Albert looks at the room window; and finds it has four cross-bars in it,
and knows scientifically that the light on Melanchthon's eye must be a
reflection of the window with its four bars--and engraves it so,
accordingly; and who shall dare to say, now, it isn't like Melanchthon?

Unfortunately, however, it isn't, nor like any other person in his
senses; but like a madman looking at somebody who disputes his hobby.
While in this drawing of Holbein's, where a dim gray shadow leaves a
mere crumb of white paper,--accidentally it seems, for all the fine
scientific reflection,--behold, it is an eye indeed, and of a noble
creature.

170. What is the reason? do you ask me; and is all the common teaching
about generalization of details true, then?

No; not a syllable of it is true. Holbein is right, not because he draws
more generally, but more truly, than Duerer. Duerer draws what he knows is
there; but Holbein, only what he sees. And, as I have told you often
before, the really scientific artist is he who not only asserts bravely
what he _does_ see, but confesses honestly what he does _not_. You must
not draw all the hairs in an eyelash; not because it is sublime to
generalize them, but because it is impossible to see them. How many
hairs there are, a sign painter or anatomist may count; but how few of
them you can see, it is only the utmost masters, Carpaccio, Tintoret,
Reynolds, and Velasquez, who count, or know.

171. Such was the effect, then, of his science upon Duerer's ideal of
beauty, and skill in portraiture. What effect had it on the temper and
quantity of his work, as compared with poor ignorant Holbein's! You have
only three portraits, by Duerer, of the great men of his time, and those
bad ones; while he toils his soul out to draw the hoofs of satyrs, the
bristles of swine, and the distorted aspects of base women and vicious
men.

What, on the contrary, has ignorant Holbein done for you? Shakespeare
and he divide between them, by word and look, the Story of England under
Henry and Elizabeth.

172. Of the effect of science on the art of Mantegna and Marc Antonio,
(far more deadly than on Duerer's,) I must tell you in a future
lecture;--the effect of it on their minds, I must partly refer to now,
in passing to the third head of my general statement--the influence of
new Theology. For Duerer and Mantegna, chiefly because of their science,
forfeited their place, not only as painters of men, but as servants o