9. Recapitulation of the section.

We have now rapidly glanced at such general truths of nature as can be
investigated without much knowledge of what is beautiful. Questions of
arrangement, massing, and generalization, I prefer leaving untouched,
until we know something about details, and something about what is
beautiful. All that is desirable, even in these mere technical and
artificial points, is based upon truths and habits of nature; but we
cannot understand those truths until we are acquainted with the specific
forms and minor details which they affect, or out of which they arise. I
shall, therefore, proceed to examine the invaluable and essential truths
of specific character and form--briefly and imperfectly, indeed, as
needs must be, but yet at length sufficient to enable the reader to
pursue, if he will, the subject for himself.

FOOTNOTES

[27] Of course much depends upon the kind of detail so lost. An
artist may generalize the trunk of a tree, where he only loses lines
of bark, and do us a kindness; but he must not generalize the
details of a champaign, in which there is a history of creation. The
full discussion of the subject belongs to a future part of our
investigation.

[28] Vide, for illustration, Fontainebleau, in the Illustrations to
Scott; Vignette at opening of Human Life, in Rogers's Poems; Venice,
in the Italy; Chateau de Blois; the Rouen, and Pont Neuf, Paris, in
the Rivers of France. The distances of all the Academy pictures of
Venice, especially the Shylock, are most instructive.

[29] It is to be remembered, however, that these truths present
themselves in all probability under very different phases to
individuals of different powers of vision. Many artists who appear
to generalize rudely or rashly are perhaps faithfully endeavoring to
render the appearance which nature bears to sight of limited range.
Others may be led by their singular keenness of sight into
inexpedient detail. Works which are painted for effect at a certain
distance must be always seen at disadvantage by those whose sight is
of different range from the painter's. Another circumstance to which
I ought above to have alluded is the scale of the picture; for there
are different degrees of generalization, and different necessities
of symbolism, belonging to every scale: the stipple of the miniature
painter would be offensive on featu