nth century; but hysterical, dogmatic, hypocritical, and
sacerdotal. It was not Christianity indeed, but Catholicism galvanized
by terror into reactionary movement. The culture of the age was on the
wane. Men had long lost their first clean perception of classical
literature, and the motives of the mediaeval past were exhausted.
Therefore, though the Eclectics went on painting the old subjects, they
painted all alike with frigid superficiality. If we examine the lists of
pictures turned out by the Caracci and Guercino, we shall find a pretty
equal quantity of saints and Susannas, Judiths and Cleopatras, Davids
and Bacchuses, Jehovahs and Jupiters, anchorites and Bassarids, Faiths
and Fortunes, cherubs and Cupids. Artistically, all are on the same dead
level of inspiration. Nothing new or vital, fanciful or imaginative, has
been breathed into antique mythology. What has been added to religious
expression is repellent. Extravagantly ideal in ecstatic Magdalens and
Maries, extravagantly realistic in martyrdoms and torments,
extravagantly harsh in dogmatic mysteries and the ecclesiastical parade
of power, extravagantly soft in sentimental tenderness and tearful
piety, this new religious element, the element of the Inquisition, the
Tridentine Council, and the Jesuits, contradicts the true gospel of
Christ. The painting which embodies it belongs to a spirit at strife
with what was vital and progressive in the modern world. It is therefore
naturally abhorrent to us now; nor can it be appreciated except by those
who yearn for the triumph of ultramontane principles.

If we turn from the intellectual content of this art to its external
manifestation, we shall find similar reasons for its failure to delight
or satisfy. The ambition of the Caracci was to combine in one the
salient qualities of earlier masters. This ambition doomed their style
to the sterility of hybrids. Moreover, in selecting, they omitted just
those features which had given grace and character to their models. The
substitution of generic types for portraiture, the avoidance of
individuality, the contempt for what is simple and natural in details,
deprived their work of attractiveness and suggestion. It is noticeable
that they never painted flowers. While studying Titian's landscapes,
they omitted the iris and the caper-blossom and the columbine which star
the grass beneath Ariadne's feet. The lessons of the rocks and
chestnut-trees of his S. Jeromes Solitude were