they had no such respectable appearance; and of St. Paul in particular,
we are told by himself, that his bodily presence was mean. Alexander is
said to have been of a low stature: a painter ought not so to represent
him. Agesilaus was low, lame, and of a mean appearance. None of these
defects ought to appear in a piece of which he is the hero. In
conformity to custom, I call this part of the art history painting; it
ought to be called poetical, as in reality it is.

All this is not falsifying any fact; it is taking an allowed poetical
licence. A painter of portraits retains the individual likeness; a
painter of history shows the man by showing his actions. A painter must
compensate the natural deficiencies of his art. He has but one sentence
to utter, but one moment to exhibit. He cannot, like the poet or
historian, expatiate, and impress the mind with great veneration for the
character of the hero or saint he represents, though he lets us know at
the same time that the saint was deformed, or the hero lame. The painter
has no other means of giving an idea of the dignity of the mind, but by
that external appearance which grandeur of thought does generally, though
not always, impress on the countenance, and by that correspondence of
figure to sentiment and situation which all men wish, but cannot command.
The painter, who may in this one particular attain with ease what others
desire in vain, ought to give all that he possibly can, since there are
so many circumstances of true greatness that he cannot give at all. He
cannot make his hero talk like a great man; he must make him look like
one. For which reason he ought to be well studied in the analysis of
those circumstances which constitute dignity of appearance in real life.

As in invention, so likewise in, expression, care must be taken not to
run into particularities, Those expressions alone should be given to the
figures which their respective situations generally produce. Nor is this