strongly exemplified within a small compass, and in spots easily resorted to; the causes too are as clearly marked, and may be as successfully studied, as where the higher styles of it, often mixed with the sublime, are displayed among forests, rocks, and mountains. CHAPTER III. THERE are few words, whose meaning has been less accurately determined than that of the word picturesque. In general, I believe, it is applied to every object, and every kind of scenery, which has been, or might be represented with good effect in painting; just as the word beautiful (when we speak of visible nature) is applied to every object, and every kind of scenery, that in any way give pleasure to the eye; and these seem to be the significations of both words, taken in their most extended and popular sense. A more precise and distinct idea of beauty has been given in an essay, the early splendor of which, not even the full meridian blaze of its illustrious author has been able to extinguish; but the picturesque, considered as a separate character, has never yet been accurately distinguished from the sublime, and the beautiful; though as no one has ever pretended that they are synonymous, (for it is sometimes used in contradistinction to them) such a distinction must exist. Mr. Gilpin, from whose very ingenious and extensive observations on this subject I have received great pleasure and instruction, appears to have adopted this common acceptation, not merely as such, but as giving an exact and determinate idea of the word; for he defines picturesque objects to be those "which please from 66 some quality capable of being illus"trated in painting," or, as he again * Essay on Picturesque Beauty, page 1. defines it in his Letter to Sir Joshua Reynolds “such objects as are proper subjects " for painting*" Both these definitions seem to me (what may perhaps appear a contradiction) at once too vague, and too confined; for though we are not to expect any definition to be so accurate and comprehensive, as both to supply the place, and stand the test of investigation, yet if it do not in some degree separate the thing defined from all others, it differs little from any general truth on the same subject. For instance, it is very true that picturesque objects do please from some quality capable of being illustrated in painting; but so also does every object that is represented in painting if it please at all, otherwise it would not have been painted: and hence we ought to conclude, what certainly is not meant, that all objects which please in pictures are therefore picturesque; for no distinction or exclusion is made. Were * End of Essay on Picturesque Beauty, page 36. any other person to define picturesque objects to be those which please from some striking effect of form, colour, or light and shadow,---such a definition would indeed give but a very indistinct idea of the thing defined; but it would be hardly more vague, and at the same time much less confined than the others, for it would not have an exclusive reference to a particular art. I hope to shew in the course of this work, that the picturesque has a character not less separate and distinct than either the sublime or the beautiful, nor less independent of the art of painting. It has indeed been pointed out and illustrated by that art, and is one of its most striking ornaments; but has not beauty been pointed out and illustrated by that art also, nay, according to the poet, brought into existence by it? 2 Si Venerem Cous nunquam posuisset Apelles, Examine the forms of the early Italian 3 |