are of a similar effect produced upon himself by both arts. He felt both represent what is absent as if it wer

it flowed from the same source. Beauty, the idea of which we first deduce from bodily objects, possess

e are more predominant in painting, others in poetry; that thus, in the latter case, poetry wil

, the second the philosop

ends upon the correctness of their application to the individual case, and since for one clear-sighted critic there have always been fifty ingenious ones, it

feel sure that they did it with that moderation and accuracy with which we now see, in the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian, the prin

hem, because we have changed their narrow lanes into highways, even tho the sh

an never have been found in any didactic work; it was an idea, amongst others, of Simonides, and the truth i

her art, but at the same time forgot not to inculcate that, notwithstanding the complete similarity of thi

wide sphere of poetry. Everything, say they, that the one is entitled to should be conceded to the other; everything that pleases or displeases in the one is necessarily pleasing or displeasing in the other. Full of this idea, they give utterance in the most confident ton

ile the critics strove to reduce poetry to a speaking painting, without properly knowing what it could and ought to paint; and painting to a dumb poem, without

TNO

E. C. Beasley and Helen Zimmern. An earlier translat