book, and the affiduity with which he applied himself to illuf trate its meaning, (in an excellent manufcript, which hath never been published) it would have met with a more eager reception from those who ftudied the arts of Defign, and have come much fooner into vogue amongst them. A foreigner, however, to whom the art of Engraving is much obliged in this country, availed himself of the afore-mentioned Gentleman's opinion touching Dr. Taylor, and not only made himself mafter of this new method, but taught it to his difciples here, and compofed a book on this fubject, (which likewise hath not yet been printed) in order to render thefe new principles more easily attainable; and adapted a set of very ornamental examples, invented by himself, to illuftrate the Doctor's Propofitions.

We omit, for the prefent, mentioning what more hath been performed on this fubject, till the ingenious Mr. Kirby's late endeavours to render this new Perfpective intelligible to every capacity: an attempt in which he seems to have fucceeded very happily, as well in explaining the principles, as in facilitating the practice; yet fome artifts, either from a tardiness of apprehenfion, or want of application, enemies to Geometry, have ftill oppofed every improvement in this art; and feem ftill refolved, in order to excuse their own incapacity or idlenefs, to decry Dr. Taylor's method, and whatever may be deduced from it. What fhare Mr. Bardwell has in this controversy, the Introduction to that part of his book treating on Perfpective, will inform us. He fets out thus:

We are much obliged to the learned in the Mathematics,* who, in the beginning of this century, made fuch great improvements in the Principles of Perspective, and who have • done their utmost to render them useful: but for want of understanding the art of Painting †, and the practice of Defigning, they are intelligible only to thofe readers who have a fufficient fund of Geometry to comprehend all their

As Mr. Bardwell, in the Introduction to his Art of Colouring, fets out with citing Pliny, whom he certainly did not underftand, fo he begins this with talking of the learned in the Mathematics, when, in all appearance, he has not the least tincture of real mathematical learning.

This is a mistake. Brook Taylor was well verfed in the art of Painting, and the practice of Defigning :-how difingenuously then does our Author here endeavour to shift the charge of ignorance from himself, and fix it on the learned Dr. Taylor.

Why then will Mr. Bardwell thus expofe himself, by giving his opinion on what he does not at all comprehend?

• fchemes

* schemes and examples. They found that all planes were alike in Geometry; and followed their geometrical genius, which led them into fuch conftructions as they thought would explain their properties in general, and give a new turnt to Perspective. Indeed, their schemes are fo very intricate, that none but those who are well acquainted with the Mathematics can underftand them. Dr. Taylor ne< glected the Horizontal Plane, ‡ and in his book made no ⚫ difference between that plane and any other whatsoever. Here it is that I am quite of the reverse opinion to that learned Gentleman, and believe that the term of Horizontal Line 'fhould confine our notions to the Horizontal Plane: And, 'I think, that that plane which reprefents the earth on which < we live, enjoys fome particular privileges which makes the planes in it more eafy and more convenient to be deferibed, notwithstanding all planes are alike in Geometry: for which reason I have followed Nature, and have united the old and new principles: and believing the objects are best ' understood by their natural appearance, I have given the Horizontal Plane to all my work, with the Vanishing Line in its proper pofition. Here I found it abfolutely neceffary to confider the fubject in a manner as yet unattempted, and which fhould require no mathematical knowlege to underftand it. This obliged me to find one general method for the whole work: and finding the principles few and fimple C upon which the art depends; and that there are no more than three planes, and fix different lines, required to understand, in order to reprefent any object whatsoever; I

Dr. Taylor fays, And fince planes, as planes, are alike in Geometry, it is most proper to confider them as fuch, and to explain their properties in general.'

+ Giving a new turn to Perfpective, must be an elegance, the peculiar property of Mr. Bardwell.

I Dr. Taylor has fhewn how to treat all planes with equal facility. How can he then be faid to have neglected the Horizontal Plane?

All this is miferable Jargon; and the meaning it seems to inculcate is abfurd.

§ We could wish he had given us the names of these three plants and fix lines. We find, that a few more planes are required to underftand, in order to reprefent any object whatfoever; (e.g.) there is one called the horizontal plane. There are three fpecies of planes perpendicular to the horizontal plane, to wit, those parallel to the picture, thofe perpendicular to the picture, and those whofe pof tion is oblique in refpect of the picture. We find, that declining and reclining planes, may each of them, in like manner, be diflinguished into three fpecies, and that, on each of these ten planes, three fpecies of right lines may be drawn. befides all the variety of curves. REV. Sep. 1756. compofed

U

as aw

compofed fuch a variety of objects as I conceived would on the knowlege of Perspective; and which, I think, ⚫ cannot fail of rendering the ufeful principles of this art geneand intelligible.' What purposes the useful principles of this art are to answer, the following paffage will inform us.

A Painter is not to be confined strictly to the rules of Perfpective ;--nothing should tie up his hands; he should be at liberty to exprefs his idea, like Gotto, with one stroke of his pencil.

I defign not to trouble the reader with a multitude of examples, but to explain the general rules of Perfpective in fuch a manner as may be intelligible to him.'

All this (and more of the fame sterling) Mr. Bardwell hath hath thought fit to fay, by way of Introduction, prefixing to it (very improperly, in our opinion) the title of Principles of Perfpective: he now proceeds to what may be called his Practice, for Principles we can find none.

Were we ever so much inclined to pass over his total neglect of demonftrating this Practice to be rational or juft, we ought, by no means, to neglect obferving, 1. That it is defective; treating neither of the Limits of Shadows, or the Images of Objects feen by reflection, on water, or polished furfaces. 2. That his method is every where confufed, and, of confequence, ill adapted to convey his meaning, if he has any. Likewife, that his definitions are generally obfcure, or falle, or both. And, laftly, that notwithstanding his pretenfions to novelty, there is nothing (blunders excepted) that can be called new in his work. He feems confcious of the first part of this accufation, and gives us a very unfatisfactory reafon for his omiffion: afferting, that the geometrical or perspective knowlege of Shadows, is of very little confequence to Painters. And he has thought reflected objects of too little confequence, even to apologize concerning them. Touching his other mistakes, we fhall mention only fome few of the moft obvious.

The diftance which we are from the imaginary plane, when at the station where we propofe to take the Perspective View, is the diftance of the picture.'

He fhould have faid, the fhorteft diftance of the eye from the imaginary plane, &c.

In the fixth paragraph of his comment on plate the first, without having defined the principal ray, he fays it cuts the imaginary plane at right angles; of confequence its feat on the picture is a point. But in the fixth paragraph of the fecond plate, he talks of it, as of a line drawn on the imaginary plane which is contradictory, and abfurd,

The

The ninth paragraph on his first plate runs thus: tho' we are obliged to have the ground-plane below the bafe-line, yet the parts which are in it will be produced by the rules above it, and as it were beyond it, at a distance in a perSpective proportion, as thofe in the ground plane, are distant from the base-line.'

Here obferve the firft it fignifies the ground-plane, the second it the bafe-line, the third it has ftill another meaning, and the fourth it muft fignify the plane of the picture. The reft of the paragraph is nonfense: he should have said, at a distance, whofe proportion to the real given distance of the original object is regulated by the pofition of the spectator 's eye. Then comes a problem, teaching us to find the reprefentation of a given point; in this problem he uses the term, vanishing point, without having firft defined it.

*

In a fubfequent paragraph he indeed tells us, that S is the vanifhing point of the original line, A B; because the line A B vanishes in that point.' Which is not true, for it is the perfpective reprefentation S B, of the line A B, which vanishes in the point S, and were it as true as itis false, it could by no means be called a definition. He might as well have faid, the line A B vanishes in the point S, because S is the vanishing point of the original line AB; or that two and two make four, because four confifts of twice two.

Before we quit this first plate, we must observe the abfurdities in which his wrong choice of a distance for the eye has involved him; and firft, The fhaded fide of the house, at H. which is a perpendicular plane, at right angles to the plane of the picture, scarce represents more than one fourth of the extent he ought to fuppofe it. The fame blunder is committed again in the pier at I. whofe enlightened fide represents a plane at right angles to the picture of only one fourth of the extent he fuppofes it, which is monstrous. The direction of the fhadows is falfe, and the diftant fteeple which terminates his view, exhibits a fide which it is impoffible should be seen, if S be, as he fuppofes it, the center of the picture. This is a fault, that a child who had learned perspective a week, could not have committed. And what is more extraordinary, there is not one of the fix plates, which illuftrate this work, but abounds in fimilar abfurdities. Strange, that a man who defpifes knowlege, fhould take it in his head to be a teacher; or that one who calls himself an artist, should

*Our readers, in general, it is hoped, will excufe our referring, in this manner, to Mr. B's plates, which we cannot copy. -Thefe paragraphs are more particularly intended for those who are poffeffed of Mr. B's book.

be at pains to publish a book, which so evidently proves him ignorant in every branch of the art he treats of.

One more extract from this treatise on perspective appears neceffary, as it will fhew the reader how well Mr. Bardwell has kept the promile he made, that no mathematical knowlege fhould be neceflary to understand his book. There are many inftances of his having forgot this: we fhall content ourfelves with the fifth paragraph of the explanation belonging to the fecond plate.

In order to understand the nature of the generating lines, and angles, (not yet defined) and the diftance of the picture, being placed above the horizontal line, fuppofe they were turned or lifted upon their axis, the vanishing line D E, till the eye-point O is directly oppofite to the point of fight, then they would be in a vifual plane, which paffes from the fpectator's eye parallel to the ground-plane: the interfection of which plane, with the imaginary plane or picture, is the vanishing line of that plane, or horizontal line.'

6

Indeed Our Author had done well to recommend-to his unmathematical readers that dictionary, out of which he picked all these hard words. For till fuch readers are acquainted with the fignification of fuch words, they may fancy their ignorance of mathematical terms, is the obftacle to their understanding Mr. Bardwell. We can, however, affure them, that the learned and unlearned may equally profit by the preceding paragraph in which we apprehend the latent meaning is beyond the power of mere mathematicians to develop; so that if ever thofe gentlemen have puzzled Mr. Bardwell, it is not his fault it he is not now even with them.

MONTHLY

I.

CATALOGUE

For SEPTEMBER, 1756.

POLITICA L.

Fourth Letter to the People of England. 8vo. 251
Collyer.

A

Having pretty fully, tho' in a narrow compafs, fpoken of the three preceding pamphlets published by this Incendiary, under the title of Letters to the People, we fhall take up little more of our Reader's time, on the prefent occafion; but content ourlelves with the following sketch of fuch patriots as Mr. Letterwriter, from a pamphlet entitled, An Impartial View, &c. Sce page 41.

6

Men,' fays this brother-politician, who are the tools of a wrong-headed party, and fit for their employ, [who] acknow

lege