29
* the praife that has been given it, Aill it is a trick that‘ will ferve but once; whoever does it a fecond time,
* will not only want novelty, but be juflly fufpeded of( ufing artifice to evade difficulties- If difficulties over-‘ come make a great part of the merit of Art, difficul-1 ties evaded can deferve but little commendation. 5
To this firing of animadverfions, of which whatbelongs to the Fnglijfh critic, excels the flippantpetulance of the Frenchman’s fophiflry as much ashis infant Hercules in real magnitude the ridiculousColoflus of Peter the great (at), I fubjoin with diffidencethe following obfervations :
The fubjed of Timanthes was the immolation ofIphigenia ; Iphigenia was the principal figure , and herform, her refignation, or her anguifh the painter’s prin-cipal talk ; the figure of Agamemnon , however impor-tant, is merely acceflory, and no more neceflary tomake the fubjed a completely tragic one, than that ofClytemneflra the mother, no more than that of Priam ,to imprefs us with fympathy at the death of Polyxena .It is therefore a mifnomer of the French critic, to callAgamemnon * the hero ’ of the fubjed.
Neither the French nor the Englifh critic appear tome to have comprehended the real motive of Timanthes,
as
(x) The Equeftrian ftatue of Peter the Great , at St, Peterfburgh, by Mr. Falconet,