[38] How sculpture is of lesser intellect than painting, and lacks in it many natural parts. Since I engage myself no less in sculpture than in painting, practising both in one same degree, it seems to me that with little presumption I may give judgment as to which is of the greater intellect, difficulty and perfection, the one or the other. First, sculpture is subject to certain lights, namely from above, whereas painting carries everywhere with it its own light and shade. Light and shade, then, are the essence of sculpture; the sculptor in this case is aided by the nature of the relief, which she generates of herself; and the painter by accidental art makes it in the places where nature would reasonably make it. The sculptor cannot diversify himself in the various natures of the colours of things; painting fails in no part whatever. The perspectives of sculptors do not seem at all true; those of the painter appear to extend hundreds of miles beyond the work. Aerial perspective is far from their work. They cannot represent transparent bodies, nor luminous ones, nor reflected lines, nor lustrous bodies such as mirrors and similar shining things, nor mists, nor dark weather, and infinite things not spoken of so as not to weary. What she has is that she is more resistant to time, though painting made upon thick copper covered with white enamel, and painted upon that with enamel colours, put back into the fire and made to fuse, has like resistance; this for eternity surpasses sculpture. The sculptor may say that where he makes an error it is not easy for him to repair it;