There are certain Arguments, which a Connoisseur is utterly to reject, as not being such by which he is to form his Judgement, of what Use soever they may be to those who are incapable of judging otherwise, or who will not take the Pains to know better. Some of these have really no Weight at all in them, the Best are very Precarious, and only serve to perswade us the Thing is good in general, not in what Respect it is so. That a Picture, or Drawing has been, or is much esteem’d by those who are believ’d to be good Judges ; Or is, or was Part of a famous Collection, cost so much, has a rich Frame, or the like. Whoever makes Use of such Arguments as these, besides that they are very fallacious, takes the Thing upon Trust, which a good Connoisseur should never condescend to do. That ‘tis Old, Italian, Rough, Smooth, &c. These are Circumstances hardly worth mentioning, and which belongs to Good, and Bad. A Picture, or Drawing may be too old to be good ; but in the Golden Age of Painting, which was that of Rafaelle, about Two Hundred Years ago, there were wretched Painters, as well as Before, and Since, and in Italy, as well as Elsewhere. Nor is a Picture the Better, or the Worse, for being Rough, or Smooth, simply consider’d. One of the commonest, and most deluding Arguments, that is used on this Occasion is, that ‘tis of the Hand of such a One. Tho’ this has no great Weight in it, even admitting it to be Really of that Hand, which very often ‘tis not : The best Masters have had their Beginnings, and Decays, and great Inequalities throughout their whole Lives, as shall be more fully noted hereafter. That ‘tis done by one who has had great Helps, and Opportunities of improving himself ; Or One that Says, he is a great Master, is what People are very ready to be cheated by, and not one Jot the less, for having found that they have been so cheated again, and again before, nay, tho’ they justly laugh at, and despise the Man at the same Time. To infer a Thing Is, because it Ought to be, is unreasonable, because Experience shou’d teach us better ; but often we think there are Opportunities, and Advantages where there are none, or not in the Degree we imagine ; and to take a Man’s own Word, where his Interest, or Vanity shou’d make us suspect him is sufficiently unaccountable. Whoever builds upon a Supposition of the good Sense, and Integrity of Mankind has a very Sandy Foundation, and yet ‘tis what we find many a Popular Argument rests upon, in Other Cases, as well as in This. But, (as I said) whether These kind of Arguments above-mention’d have any thing in them, or not, a Connoisseur has nothing to do with them ; his Business is to judge from the Intrinsic Qualities of the thing itself ;

Thus it is evident that to be Good Connoisseurs in Judging of Hands we must extend our Thoughts to all the Parts of the Lives, and to all the Circumstances of the Masters ; to the Various Kinds, and Degrees of Goodness of their Works, and not confine our selves to One Manner only, and a Certain Excellency found only in Some things they have done, upon which Some have form’d their Ideas of those Extraordinary Men, but very Narrow, and Imperfect Ones.

He that would be a Good Connoisseur in Hands must know how to Distinguish Clearly, and Readily, not only betwixt One thing, and Another, but when two Different things nearly Resemble, for This he will very Often have occasion to do, as ‘tis easy to observe by what has been said already.

A Man may be a very good Painter, and not a good Connoisseur in This particular [ndr : c’est-à-dire dans la manière d’identifier un artiste d’après une œuvre]. To know, and distinguish Hands, and to be able to make a good Picture are very different Qualifications, and require a very different Turn of Thought, and both a particular Application.

To be able to distinguish betwixt too things of a Different Species (especially if those are most very much unlike) is what the most Stupid Creature is capable of, as to say This is an Oak, and That a Willow, but to come into a Forrest of a thousand Oaks, and to know how to distinguish any One leaf of all those Trees from any other whatsoever, and to form so clear an Idea of that one, and to retain it so clean as (if occasion be) to know it so long as its Charecteristicks remain requires better Faculties than every one is Master of ; And yet This may certainly done. To see the difference between a fine, Metaphysical notion, and a Dull Jest ; Or between a Demonstration, and an Argument but just Probable, These are things which he that cannot do is rather a Brute, than a Rational Creature ; But to discern wherein the difference consists when two Notions very nearly Resemble each other, but are not the Same ; Or to see the just weight of an Argument, and that through all its Artificial Disguises ; to do This ‘tis necessary to Conceive, Distinguish, Methodize, and Compare Ideas in a manner that few of All those Multitudes that pretend to Reasoning have accustomed themselves to. But thus to See, Thus Nicely to Distinguish things nearly resembling one another, Whether Visible, or Immaterial, is the Business of a Connoisseur.

There are Few that pretend to be Connoisseurs, and of those Few the number of Such as Deserve to be so call’d is very Small : ‘tis not enough to be an Ingenious Man in General, nor to have seen all the Finest things in Europe, nor even to be able to Make a good Picture, Much less the having the Names and something of the History of the Masters : All This will not make a Man a good Connoisseur, To be able to judge of the Goodness of a Picture, most of those Qualifications are necessary, which the Painter himself ought to be possessed of, That is, all that are not Practical ; He must be Master of the Subject, and if it be Improveable he must know it is so, and Wherein ; He must not only see, and Judge of the Thought of the Painter in what he Has done, but must know moreover what he Ought to have done, He must be acquainted with the Passions, their Nature, and how they appear on all Occasions. He must have a Delicacy of Eye to judge of Harmony, and Proportion, of Beauty of Colours, and Accuracy of Hand ; and Lastly he must be conversant with the Better Sort of People, and with the Antique, or he will not be a good Judge of Grace, and Greatness. To be a good Connoisseur (I observ’d heretofore) a Man must be as free from all kinds of Prejudice as possible ; He must moreover have a Clear, and Exact way of Thinking, and Reasoning ; he must know how to take in, and manage just Ideas ; and Throughout he must have not only a Solid, but an Unbiass’d Judgment. These are the Qualifications of a Connoisseur ; And are not These, and the Exercise of Them, will becoming a Gentleman ?

A Connoisseur has this farther Advantage, He not only sees Beauties in Pictures, and Drawings, which to Common Eyes are Invisible ; He Learns by these to see such in Nature, in the Exquisite Forms, and Colours, the Fine Effects of Lights, Shadows, and Reflections which in Her is always to be found, and from whence he has a Pleasure which otherwise he could never have had, and which none with Untaught Eyes can Possibly discern : He has a constant Pleasure of This kind even in the most Common things, and the most Familiar to us, so that what People usually look upon with the utmost Indifference creates great Delight in his Mind. The Noblest Works of Rafaelle, the most Ravishing Musick of Hendell, the most Masterly Strokes of Milton, touch not People without Discernment : So the Beauties of the Works of the great Author of Nature are not seen but by Enlighten’d Eyes, and to These they appear far otherwise than before they were so ; as we hope to see every thing still nearer to its true Beauty, and Perfection in a Better State, when we shall see what our Eyes have not yet seen, nor our Hearts Conceiv’d.

in DOLCE, Lodovico, Dialogo della pittura di M. Lodovico Dolce, Intitolato l’Aretino. Nel quale si ragiona della dignità di essa Pittura, e di tutte le parti necessarie, che a perfetto Pittore si acconvengono: con esempi di Pittori antichi, e moderni: e nel fine si fa menzione delle virtù, e delle opere del divin Tiziano / Dialogue sur la peinture de Louis Dolce, intitulé l’Aretin. Dans lequel on traitte de l’excellence de la peinture, de toutes les qualités necessaires au bon Peintre, avec les exemples des Peintres anciens et modernes, à la fin on y parle du merite et des ouvrages du divin Titien, trad. par VLEUGHELS, Nicolas, Firenze, Michel Nestenus et François Moucke, 1735., p. 144

in DU BOS, Jean-Baptiste, Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting and Music, vol. 2, trad. par NUGENT, Thomas, London, John Nourse, 1748, 3 vol., vol. 2., p. 249

in DE PILES, Roger, De l'art de peinture de Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy, Paris, Nicolas Langlois, 1668., p.101

in DE PILES, Roger, « " Abbildung eines Vollkommenen Mahlers ", in Historie und Leben der berühmtesten europaeischen Mahler, so sich durch ihre Kunst-Stücke bekand gemacht, samt einigen Réflexions darüber und Abbildung eines vollkommenen Mahlers, nach welcher die Mahlerey als einer Regul kann beurtheilet werden, wobey auch der Nutzen und Gebrauch der Kupferstücke und Erklärung der gebräuchlichen Mahler-Wörter », Hamburg, Benjamin Schiller, 1710., p. 118

in DU BOS, Jean-Baptiste, Oordelkundige Aanmrkingen over de Poëzie, en Schilderkunst. Tweede Deel., trad. par ZWEERTS, Philip, Amsterdam, Jacobus Loeveringh, 1740., p.357

in DU FRESNOY, Charles-Alphonse et DE PILES, Roger, De Schilderkonst eerst in Latynze Vaerzen Beschreven door C.A. Dufresnoy in't Frans gebragt en met Aantekekeningen verrykt Door den Heer De Piles Nevens een Zaammeuspraak over het koloriet, trad. par VERHOEK, Joannes, Amsterdam, Balthazar Lakeman, 1722., p. 22

in DE PILES, Roger, Beknopt verhaal van het leven der vermaardste Schilders : met Aanmerkingen over hunne werken, trad. par VERHOEK, Joannes, Amsterdam, Balthazar Lakeman, 1725., p. 90