488 APPENDIX TO PART II

assertion of a fact: namely, that if an outline were well drawn, within the breadth of the lines, whatever it might be, the termination of the thing took place. The line might be thick, or it might be thin, but the end of the thing represented was within it, and if it were pure and perfect outline, each side of the line would be true to the contour of the thing intended to be represented. Take, for instance, a round ball. If you attempted to draw an outline of it, and that outline were correct, it did not matter how thick or thin the line was: it would be true to the contour of the ball. The real surface and contour would fall between the two sides of the outline were it truly drawn. But if, by way of giving effect, any part of the outline were darkened or thickened more than another, then they would have an utter fallacy-one of its outside lines must necessarily be wrong; and the eye, instantly embarrassed, did not know which it was to follow-it lost itself, and did not know how to go right. They knew how much people had been of late in the habit of publishing outlines which depended for half of what was called the effect, on being thicker on the side away from the light than on the other side. It was very curious how they could have fallen into such a habit, for nothing could be more absurd; but he apprehended the main reason was that, when people were drawing things at all spiritedly, they had a tendency to add pieces of shadow on the side farthest away from the light. Here was an instance (exhibiting a drawing), and here was a true outline (exhibiting another drawing). Outline might, indeed, if judiciously shaded, be made to convey increased expression and effect; but what he wished to impress upon them was that, in drawing outline, they should draw it correctly. If they drew shadows, they should draw freely. But before they began, let them understand what they were going to draw. No great draughtsman who understood his business ever thickened his outline on the side away from the light; for, as a general thing, outline was most visible on the side next the light, and though the real object was to get pure outline in all cases, the thorough master of his craft would, if he thickened at all, be apt to thicken the line turned towards the light. He would show them some instances of this. Take an example of a man whom they would admit to have been a master of his craft-Raffaelle. Here was an etching of the head of St. Katherine done with a pen. The only dark side of the outline, as they would observe, was next to the light. Towards the opposite side the line vanished almost into nothing, whilst under the nose and round the eyes the shadows were marked as in the leaf which he had just exhibited. Here was another specimen, one of Albert Dürer’s. He was a man, too, who knew his business. Here was a woodcut by that master (exhibiting it). It was coarse and bold, but it was true. It was not cut as they cut now, and perhaps so much the better. They could see plainly on what side the light came there. The shadows were all perfectly and freely drawn, and they would see that when the object of Albert Dürer was to draw outline, he stuck to outline, and that when he did thicken his line, it was next the light. Such was the practice of Raffaelle and Albert Dürer. But here, perhaps, was a better specimen still (exhibiting another of Albert Dürer’s). They could not tell on which side the light was, for it was clear and pure outline only. If they looked at the clouds presented in this example, they would see that they were the most aerial things imaginable, but that where there were dark lines they were all turned towards the light. Then there was another man who

[Version 0.04: March 2008]