the various events and eras in the most natural and vivid colours indelibly on the memory.
Of those who affect to ridicule the description of a doublet, or to deny the possibility of assigning the introduction of any particular habit to any particular period (and some have done so in print who should have known better), we would only inquire what criticism they would pass upon the painter who should represent Julius Caesar in a frock-coat, cocked hat, and Wellington trousers: nor will we admit this to be an extreme case, for how lately have the heroes and sages of Greece and Rome strutted upon the stage in flowing perukes and gold-laced waistcoats.
Cattt's long wig, flowered gown, and hicker'd chair."
And is the representing Paris in a Roman dress, as was done by West, the President of the Royal Academy, to be considered a more venial offence, because it is more picturesque and less capable of detection by the general spectator?—The Roman dress is more picturesque than the habits of the present day, certainly; but not more so than the Phrygian, the proper costume of the person represented. And is it pardonable in a man of genius and information to perpetuate errors upon the ground that they may pass undiscovered by the million? Does not the historical painter voluntarily offer himself to the public as an illustrator of habits and manners, and is he wantonly to abuse the faith accorded to him? But an artist, say the cavillers, must not sacrifice effect to the minutiae of detail. The extravagant dresses of some periods would detract from the expression of the figure, which is the higher object of the painter's ambition. Such and such colours are wanted for peculiar purposes, and these might be the very tints prohibited by the critical antiquary. To these and
