suffered themselves to be represented naked, whether they were generals,
lawgivers, or kings.

Under this head of balancing and choosing the greater reason, or of two
evils taking the least, we may consider the conduct of Rubens in the
Luxembourg gallery, of mixing allegorical figures with representations of
real personages, which, though acknowledged to be a fault, yet, if the
artist considered himself as engaged to furnish this gallery with a rich
and splendid ornament, this could not be done, at least in an equal
degree, without peopling the air and water with these allegorical
figures: he therefore accomplished that he purposes. In this case all
lesser considerations, which tend to obstruct the great end of the work,
must yield and give way.

If it is objected that Rubens judged ill at first in thinking it
necessary to make his work so very ornamental, this brings the question
upon new ground. It was his peculiar style; he could paint in no other;
and he was selected for that work, probably, because it was his style.
Nobody will dispute but some of the best of the Roman or Bolognian
schools would have produced a more learned and more noble work.

This leads us to another important province of taste, of weighing the
value of the different classes of the art, and of estimating them
accordingly.

All arts have means within them of applying themselves with success both
to the intellectual and sensitive part of our natures. It can be no
dispute, supposing both these means put in practice with equal abilities,
to which we ought to give the preference: to him who represents the
heroic arts and more dignified passions of man, or to him who, by the