It is one thing to make an idea clear, and another to make it _affecting_ to the imagination. If I make a drawing of a palace, or a temple, or a landscape, I present a very clear idea of those objects; but then (allowing for the effect of imitation which is something) my picture can at most affect only as the palace, temple, or landscape, would have affected in the reality. On the other hand, the most lively and spirited verbal description I can give raises a very obscure and imperfect _idea_ of such objects; but then it is in my power to raise a stronger _emotion_ by the description than I could do by the best painting. This experience constantly evinces. The proper manner of conveying the _affections_ of the mind from one to another is by words; there is a great insufficiency in all other methods of communication; and so far is a clearness of imagery from being absolutely necessary to an influence upon the passions, that they may be considerably operated upon, without presenting any image at all, by certain sounds adapted to that purpose; of which we have a sufficient proof in the acknowledged and powerful effects of instrumental music. In reality, a great clearness helps but little towards affecting the passions, as it is in some sort an enemy to all enthusiasms whatsoever. SECTION [IV]. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. There are two verses in Horace's Art of Poetry that seem to contradict this opinion; for which reason I shall take a little more pains in clearing it up. The verses are, Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures, Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.