60 THE STONES OF VENICE I. PRIDE OF SCIENCE

the wise world of critics, which could find no other fault with the picture, professed to have its eyes hurt by the want of an aerial perspective, which, had it been accurately given (as, indeed, I believe it was), would have amounted to the 10³/₅,000th, or less than the 15,000th part of the depth of any given colour. It would be interesting to see a picture painted by the critics upon this scientific principle. The aerial perspective usually represented is entirely conventional and ridiculous; a mere struggle on the part of the pretendedly well-informed, but really ignorant, artist, to express distances by mist which he cannot by drawing.

It is curious that the critical world is just as much offended by the true presence of aerial perspective, over distances of fifty miles, and with definite purpose of representing mist, in the works of Turner, as by the true absence of aerial perspective, over distances of three feet, and in clear weather, in those of Millais.

§ 23. “Well but,” still answers the reader, “this kind of error may here and there be occasioned by too much respect for undigested knowledge;¹ but, on the whole, the gain is greater than the loss, and the fact is, that a picture of the Renaissance period, or by a modern master, does indeed represent Nature more faithfully than one wrought in the ignorance of old times.” No, not one whit; for the most part, less faithfully. Indeed, the outside of Nature is more truly drawn; the material commonplace, which can be systematized, catalogued, and taught to all pains-taking mankind,-forms of ribs and scapulæ,* of eyebrows

* I intended in this place to have introduced some special consideration of the science of anatomy, which I believe to have been in great part the cause of the decline of modern art; but I have been anticipated by a writer better able to treat the subject. I have only glanced at his book; and there is something in the spirit of it which I do not like, and some parts of it are assuredly wrong; but, respecting anatomy, it seems to me to settle the question indisputably, more especially as being written by a master of the science. I quote two passages, and must refer the reader to the sequel:

“The scientific men of forty centuries have failed to describe so accurately, so

¹ [The “Travellers’ Edition” here resumes from the end of § 11, but the words “this kind of error ... undigested knowledge; but” are omitted.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]