ellence and truth of art by the works in which it exists in the
highest degree, resting satisfied that if it be once rightly felt and
enjoyed in these, it will be discovered and appreciated wherever it
exists in others. And although I have never suppressed any conviction of
the superiority of one artist over another, which I believed to be
grounded on truth, and necessary to the understanding of truth, I have
been cautious never to undermine positive rank, while I disputed
relative rank. My uniform desire and aim have been, not that the present
favorite should be admired less, but that the neglected master should be
admired more. And I know that an increased perception and sense of truth
and beauty, though it may interfere with our estimate of the comparative
rank of painters, will invariably tend to increase our admiration of all
who are really great; and he who now places Stanfield and Callcott above
Turner, will admire Stanfield and Callcott more than he does now, when
he has learned to place Turner far above them both.

In three instances only have I spoken in direct depreciation of the
works of living artists, and these are all cases in which the reputation
is so firm and extended, as to suffer little injury from the opinion of
an individual, and where the blame has been warranted and deserved by
the desecration of the highest powers.

Of the old masters I have spoken with far greater freedom; but let it be
remembered that only a portion of the work is now presented to the
public, and it must not be supposed, because in that particular portion,
and with reference to particular excellencies, I have spoken in constant
depreciation, that I have no feeling of other excellencies of which
cognizance can only be taken in future parts of the work. Let me not be
understood to mean more than I have said, nor be made responsible for
conclusions when I have only stated facts. I have said that the old
masters did not give the truth of Nature; if the reader chooses, thence,
to infer that they were not masters at all, it is his conclusion, not
mine.

Whatever I have asserted throughout the work, I have endeavored to
ground altogether on demonstrations which must stand or fall by their
own strength, and which ought to involve no more reference to authority
or character than a demonstration in Euclid. Yet it is proper for the
public to know, that the writer is no mere theorist, but has been
devoted from his youth to the laborious