the human figure, for instance, the beauty of the Hercules is one, of the
gladiator another, of the Apollo another, which makes so many different
ideas of beauty.

It is true, indeed, that these figures are each perfect in their kind,
though of different characters and proportions; but still none of them is
the representation of an individual, but of a class. And as there is one
general form, which, as I have said, belongs to the human kind at large,
so in each of these classes there is one common idea and central form,
which is the abstract of the various individual forms belonging to that
class. Thus, though the forms of childhood and age differ exceedingly,
there is a common form in childhood, and a common form in age,--which is
the more perfect, as it is more remote from all peculiarities. But I
must add further, that though the most perfect forms of each of the
general divisions of the human figure are ideal, and superior to any
individual form of that class, yet the highest perfection of the human
figure is not to be found in any one of them. It is not in the Hercules,
nor in the gladiator, nor in the Apollo; but in that form which is taken
from them all, and which partakes equally of the activity of the
gladiator, of the delicacy of the Apollo, and of the muscular strength of
the Hercules. For perfect beauty in any species must combine all the
characters which are beautiful in that species. It cannot consist in any
one to the exclusion of the rest: no one, therefore, must be predominant,
that no one may be deficient.

The knowledge of these different characters, and the power of separating
and distinguishing them, is undoubtedly necessary to the painter, who is
to vary his compositions with figures of various forms and proportions,
though he is never to lose sight of the general idea of perfection in
each kind.