that it was now a grammatical
solecism, a painting of impossibilities, a thing to torture the eye, and
offend the mind.

FOOTNOTES

[23] I have left this chapter in its original place, because I am
more than ever convinced of the truth of the position advanced in
the 8th paragraph; nor can I at present assign any other cause, than
that here given, for what is there asserted; and yet I cannot but
think that I have allowed far too much influence to a change so
slight as that which we insensibly make in the focus of the eye; and
that the real justification of Turner's practice, with respect to
some of his foregrounds, is to be elsewhere sought. I leave the
subject, therefore, to the reader's consideration.

[24] This incapacity of the eye must not be confounded with its
incapability to comprehend a large portion of _lateral_ space at
once. We indeed can see, at any one moment, little more than one
point, the objects beside it being confused and indistinct; but we
need pay no attention to this in art, because we can see just as
little of the picture as we can of the landscape without turning the
eye, and hence any slurring or confusing of one part of it,
laterally, more than another, is not founded on any truth of nature,
but is an expedient of the artist--and often an excellent and
desirable one--to make the eye rest where he wishes it. But as the
touch expressive of a distant object is as near upon the canvas as
that expressive of a near one, both are seen distinctly and with the
same focus of the eye, and hence an immediate contradiction of
nature results, unless one or other be given with an artificial and
increased indistinctness, expressive of the appearance peculiar to
the unadapted focus. On the other hand, it must be noted that the
greater part of the effect above described is consequent not on
variation of focus, but on the different angle at which near objects
are seen by each of the two eyes, when both are directed towards the
distance.

[25] There is no inconsistency, observe, between this passage and
what was before asserted respecting the necessity of botanical
fidelity--where the foreground is the object of attention. Compare
Part II. Sect. I. Chap. VII. Sec. 10:--"To paint mist rightly, space
rightly, and light rightly, it may be often necessary to paint
_nothing else