chariot out of the sea by way of representing the sun rising, if he
personifies lakes and rivers, it is no ways offensive in him; but seems
perfectly of a piece with the general air of the picture. On the
contrary, if the figures which people his pictures had a modern air or
countenance, if they appeared like our countrymen, if the draperies were
like cloth or silk of our manufacture, if the landscape had the
appearance of a modern view, how ridiculous would Apollo appear instead
of the sun, an old man or a nymph with an urn instead of a river or lake.

I cannot avoid mentioning here a circumstance in portrait painting which
may help to confirm what has been said.

When a portrait is painted in the historical style, as it is neither an
exact minute representation of an individual nor completely ideal, every
circumstance ought to correspond to this mixture. The simplicity of the
antique air and attitude, however much to be admired, is ridiculous when
joined to a figure in a modern dress. It is not to my purpose to enter
into the question at present, whether this mixed style ought to be
adopted or not; yet if it is chosen it is necessary it should be complete
and all of a piece: the difference of stuffs, for instance, which make
the clothing, should be distinguished in the same degree as the head
deviates from a general idea.

Without this union, which I have so often recommended, a work can have no
marked and determined character, which is the peculiar and constant
evidence of genius. But when this is accomplished to a high degree, it
becomes in some sort a rival to that style which we have fixed as the
highest.

Thus I have given a sketch of the characters of Rubens and Salvator Rosa,