SECT. VI.

FROM Salisbury our first excursion was to

Longford Castle, the feat of the earl of Radnor. It was built about the time of James the First on a Danish model; probably by fome architect who came into England with the queen. Its form is triangular, with a round tower at each corner; which gives it a fingular appearance. It stands in a vale, which approaches nearly to a flat; as the Avon, which paffes through the garden, does to stagnation. Longford Caftle therefore borrows little from its fituation. All its beauty is the refult of art, which cannot rife beyond what

may be called pleafing. But the principal objects here are the pictures. The whole collection is good. The following we thought fome of the best.

A Return from the Chace, by Teniers. The compofition of this master is rarely fo good as it is here. His colouring is always pleafing.

A boy, by Rubens.

Peter

Peter de Jode's family, by Vandyck. The heads in this picture are perfect copies from Nature.

A view of Tivoli.

A landscape by Hobima. The compofition, the light, and the execution in this picture are all good.

Tobias, by Spagniolet.

Two pictures by Pouffin. In these, as in many of this master's works, there is a great deficiency in point of general effect; but the claffical spirit in which they are painted, with the pure taste of defign and correctness in the parts, will always give value to the works of Pouffin. Thefe I think are executed with a firmer pencil and more fpirited touch than moft of his works.

A landscape by Ruysdaal.

Two small paintings by Callot. It is furprifing with what fmart touches this master enlivens his figures. His pictures have all the fpirit and precision of his etchings.

But the two moft admired pictures in this collection, are two landscapes by Claude, which exhibit the rife and decline of the Roman empire in a pleafing allegory. The for

mer

mer is represented by a fun-rife, and the landing of Eneas in Italy: the latter by a sun-set, and several Roman buildings in ruin. Nothing can exceed the colouring of both these pictures. The hazy light of a rifing fun, and the glowing radiance of a fetting one, are exactly copied from nature; and therefore nicely diftinguished. An eye accurate in the effects of nature, will eafily difcern with which species of light the fummit of the wave, or the edge of the battlement is tipped. And And yet Claude has in none of his pictures that I have feen, difcriminated the Shadows of the morning, which are certainly much darker than those of the evening. He does not indeed appear to have marked the difference between them. Nor do we obferve that painters in general are more accurate. Now and then, with Nature before him, Claude poffibly may give a morning-fhadow its character; but when an effect is very rare, it appears to be the result of imitation, rather than of principle.

With regard to aërial landscape, Claude excelled all mafters. We are at a lofs, whether to admire more the fimplicity, or the ef fect of his diftances.

But

But when we have beftowed this commendation on him, we have fummed up his merit. It all lay in colouring. We rarely find an inftance of good compofition in any of his pictures, and ftill more rarely an exhibition of any grand scene or appearance of Nature. As he lived in Italy, he had frequent opportunities of feeing much fublime scenery: but as it feldom ftruck him, we cannot help inferring that his genius was not fublime. If a Dutch mafter who has feen nothing but a flat country, introduces neither rocks, nor cafcades, nor the floping fides of hills, into his pictures, it is no wonder; but if a painter who has ftudied among the Alps and Appennines rejects them, it is evident that he has no taste for this fpecies of scenery. Claude and Salvator received, or might have received, their ideas from the fame archetypes: they were both Italian painters: but Claude ftudied in the Campagna of Rome; Salvator among the mountains of Calabria. While the one therefore admired the tamer beauties of Nature, the other caught fire and rose to the fublime. I do not mean to infinuate that Claude painted like a Dutchman: but only that his genius was lefs fublime than Salva

tor's.

tor's. It is true, the objects he painted are of the grand fpecies: he faw no other. But as he feldom made the best use of them by bringing them forward, and producing grand effects; it is plain he saw them with indifference; and we conclude it was much the fame to him, whether he painted by the fide of a stagnant canal at Harlem, or under the fall of a cascade at Tivoli. In fhort, he feems to have had a knack of colouring certain objects, fkies, and distances in particular; and this is accounted for by his refiding chiefly in the Campagna.

As to his figures and foregrounds, if they do not disgust the eye, it is all we expect. His buildings too are often unpleasing and incumbered; and feem calculated rather to fhew his skill in architecture than in the production of picturesque beauty.- It is faying however much in favour of Claude, that he had been bred a pastry-cook; and that if he did not do all that might have been done, he did much more than could have been expected,