ed sculpture to its most simple form, the isolated
statue. Michelangelo had little liking for bas-reliefs and groups, which
he hardly ever made, and where he always shows some awkwardness. What we
know, through Cellini and Vasari, of his manner of working would incline
us to feel to-day that the basis of his sculpture and of all his art was
drawing,[136] because that was most immaterial and closest to the form
of his thought.

No one has ever drawn as Michelangelo did, and Charles Blanc is right in
saying that "if he is unequal in his sculptures and his frescoes, never
does his drawing, even when apparently most careless and most summary,
betray any feebleness of hand or distraction or hesitancy of spirit."
Not only do we penetrate, then, into the mystery of his creativeness,
into the dreams and soliloquies of his lonely soul, but we discover
there also his most intimate and perfect expression. There he is
altogether himself, as Beethoven is in his quartets and in his short
pieces for the piano.[137]

I compare these two purposely; for the genius of each of them was
solitary, intellectual and passionate, only realising itself completely
in the most simple and abstract forms in which the senses had the least
part and the spirit the greatest. All the voluptuous charm of art was
not only foreign to Michelangelo, but antagonistic to him. The more art
was aimed at the senses the more he despised it.

Voglia sfrenata el senso e, non amore,
Che l'alma uccide....[138]

Painting, therefore, seemed to him, as it did to Plato, less virile and
less pure than sculpture, because of its seductive quality, its illusive
magic which imitates the appearance of things and merely creates
illusions. He disdained it inasmuch as it appealed through the
attraction of colours at the expense of the idea. He could not endure
painting in oils, which he said was only good for women.[139] He
rejected landscape, and like Plato only saw in it a vague and deceiving
illusion--a sport for children and ignorant people. He had a horror of
portraits. They seemed to him a form of flattery for the gratification
of vain curiosity and the imperfect illusion of the senses.[140] It is
curious to contrast with these principles which were adopted by a part
of the Italian school in the sixteenth century, the naive confession of
faith of Duerer at almost the same period. "The art of painting is used
in the service of the Church to show the sufferings of Ch