And if the poet gratifies the sense by means of the ear, the painter
does so by the eye--the worthier sense; but I will say no more of
this but that, if a good painter represents the fury of a battle,
and if a poet describes one, and they are both together put before
the public, you will see where most of the spectators will stop, to
which they will pay most attention, on which they will bestow most
praise, and which will satisfy them best. Undoubtedly painting being
by a long way the more intelligible and beautiful, will please most.
Write up the name of God [Christ] in some spot and setup His image
opposite and you will see which will be most reverenced. Painting
comprehends in itself all the forms of nature, while you have
nothing but words, which are not universal as form is, and if you
have the effects of the representation, we have the representation
of the effects. Take a poet who describes the beauty of a lady to
her lover and a painter who represents her and you will see to which
nature guides the enamoured critic. Certainly the proof should be
allowed to rest on the verdict of experience. You have ranked
painting among the mechanical arts but, in truth, if painters were
as apt at praising their own works in writing as you are, it would
not lie under the stigma of so base a name. If you call it
mechanical because it is, in the first place, manual, and that it is
the hand which produces what is to be found in the imagination, you
too writers, who set down manually with the pen what is devised in
your mind. And if you say it is mechanical because it is done for
money, who falls into this error--if error it can be called--more
than you? If you lecture in the schools do you not go to whoever
pays you most? Do you do any work without pay? Still, I do not say
this as blaming such views, for every form of labour looks for its
reward. And if a poet should say: "I will invent a fiction with a
great purpose," the painter can do the same, as Apelles painted
Calumny. If you were to say that poetry is more eternal, I say the
works of a coppersmith are more eternal still, for time preserves
them longer than your works or ours; nevertheless they have not much
imagination [29]. And a picture, if painted on copper with enamel
colours may be yet more permanent. We, by our arts may be called the
grandsons of God. If poetry deals with moral philosophy, painting
deals with natural philosophy. Poetry describes the action of the
mind, painting considers what the mind may effect by the motions [of
the body]. If poetry can terrify people by hideous fictions,
painting can do as much by depicting the same things in action.
Supposing that a poet applies himself to represent beauty, ferocity,
or a base, a foul or a monstrous thing, as against a painter, he may
in his ways bring forth a variety of forms; but will the painter not
satisfy more? are there not pictures to be seen, so like the actual
things, that they deceive men and animals?

Painting is superior to sculpture (655. 656).