Previous Page Close Next Page
fol. 59v 'Of Truth of Space … Focus of the Eye' (Pt II, Sn II, Ch IV) (3.320)
5
10
must be necessarily#60#
now to page . 39, But
be it observed .
15
20
fol. 60r 'Of Truth of Space … Focus of the Eye' (Pt II, Sn II, Ch IV) (3.320)
anything but the most indistinct & shadowy masses of whatever
objects may be visible beyond . But fix your eye on those objects -
whatever they may be - though <close> {just} beyond and apparently close
beside the window frame - and that frame will only be seen as
5 a vague - flitting . shadowy interruption to what is perceived beyond it.
A little attention directed to this fact will convince every one of
it in an instant . and prove to him beyond dispute that it is
impossible to see objects at unequal distances together , and this
not from any intervention of air or mist . but from the {impossibility of the} rays
10 <not> ^ {*proceeding from both} meeting in the same focus . {so that} <and> the
<whole> impression <being> {either of one or other} <must be> consequently
#62#confused . indistinct, & inadequate . #63#< If therefore - an artist represents
two objects at unequal distances . as equally clear in their outline
& distinct in their impression - however <distinguished> marked
their distance may be by air tone or aerial perspective or any
15 other artifice - yet if the impression of both be d<*…*>iffered[?] & distinct, he
has committed a direct and gross violation of the truth of nature .
Now . to this fact - no landscape painter of antiquity - as far as I know
^ {except Rubens} ever paid the slightest attention . and in consequence of its
escaping them
all landscapes of what are called the great masters are totally false
20 & wrong in this great <bre[?]> & important circumstance . For though
<beautifully> highly capable of expressing distance by air tone & colour -
they constantly represented objects at all distances as equally marked & >
Previous Page Close Next Page
MW