{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58981/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58981","id":"gutenberg_58981","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58981","summary":null,"tags":["Art -- History","Category: Architecture","Category: Art","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics"],"text":"Produced by Sonya Schermann, Alan, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                            THE FINE ARTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                HISTORY\n\n                                  OF\n\n                         SCULPTURE, PAINTING,\n\n                                  AND\n\n                             ARCHITECTURE.\n\n                        BY J. S. MEMES, LL. D.\n\n                                BOSTON:\n                          CLAPP AND BROADERS,\n                             SCHOOL STREET\n                                 1834.\n\n\n\n\n                                  TO\n\n                           THE VERY REVEREND\n\n                          WILLIAM JACK, D.D.\n\n       PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY AND KING'S COLLEGE, ABERDEEN;\n                      IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF\n               EARLY KINDNESS AND CONTINUED FRIENDSHIP.\n\n                                  AND\n\n                AS A SINCERE THOUGH INADEQUATE TRIBUTE\n                       OF MOST PROFOUND RESPECT\n                                FOR HIS\n              VIRTUES, LEARNING, TALENTS, AND INTEGRITY,\n                             THIS VOLUME,\n                WITH SENTIMENTS OF THE HIGHEST ESTEEM,\n                             IS INSCRIBED\n                                  BY\n                              THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n    INTRODUCTION.\n\n    Taste--Principles of Imitative Art                                1\n\n\n    SCULPTURE.\n\n    CHAPTER I.\n\n    Egyptian and Oriental Sculpture--Indian Monuments                 15\n\n    CHAPTER II.\n\n    Early Schools of Greece--Perfection of Material Art               34\n\n    CHAPTER III.\n\n    Ideal Art--Phidias--Elgin Marbles--Methods of Composition\n    Among the Greek Sculptors                                         49\n\n    CHAPTER IV.\n\n    School of Beauty--Lysippus and Praxiteles--Historical\n    Remarks                                                           60\n\n    CHAPTER V.\n\n    Sculpture in Ancient Italy--Etruscan Art--Roman Busts--Decline    69\n\n    CHAPTER VI.\n\n    Revival of Sculpture in Italy--Italian Republics--Influence\n    of Liberty--Early Schools of Modern Art                           79\n\n    CHAPTER VII.\n\n    Michael Angelo and his Contemporaries                             84\n\n    CHAPTER VIII.\n\n    School of Bernini--Decline of Sculpture--Causes of Decay          94\n\n    CHAPTER IX.\n\n    Revival--Canova--Thorwaldsen--Flaxman--Conclusion                101\n\n\n    PAINTING.\n\n    CHAPTER X.\n\n    Ancient Painting--Schools of Greece--Zeuxis, Appelles\n    --Historical Remarks                                             117\n\n    CHAPTER XI.\n\n    Modern Schools in Italy--Roman, Raphael--Florentine,\n    Michael Angelo--Comparison between the two--Lombard\n    School, Coreggio--Venetian School, Titian--Eclectic\n    School, Caracci                                                  130\n\n    CHAPTER XII.\n\n    German School, Holbein, Daur--Flemish School, Rubens,\n    Vandyke--Dutch School, Teniers--French School,\n    David--Anecdote of Napoleon                                      154\n\n    CHAPTER XIII.\n\n    English School--Historical Remarks--Causes of Inferiority\n    in the Art--Influence of the Reformation not Hostile to\n    the Fine Arts in Britain, &c.                                    174\n\n    CHAPTER XIV.\n\n    English School continued--History--Portrait--Landscape\n    --Reynolds--West--Wilson--Laurence--Defects of\n    English Style--Conclusion                                        190\n\n\n    ARCHITECTURE.\n\n    CHAPTER XV.\n\n    Early History and Principles of Architectural Design--Egyptian\n    --Syrian--Indian Architecture                                    227\n\n    CHAPTER XVI.\n\n    Greek Architecture--Three Orders: Doric Remains, Ionic\n    Remains, Corinthian Remains--Roman Architecture--Decline         248\n\n    CHAPTER XVII.\n\n    Architecture of the Middle Ages--Divisions of the Gothic--Revival\n    of Classic Architecture--Italian, French, and\n    English Masters--Conclusion                                      278\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTHE present volume is offered to the public, under the impression that\nthe general cultivation of practical taste, and an acquaintance with\nthe principles of the Fine Arts, are not only desirable in the light of\nacquirement, but must eventually prove highly beneficial to the useful\narts of the country. The subject, therefore, seemed peculiarly adapted\nto the very excellent Publication of which this forms a portion.[A]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is only bespeaking that share of confidence due, in the first\ninstance, to opportunities of research, to state, that in the following\npages not a single work of art is made the subject of criticism, the\noriginal of which the author has not seen and examined. Indeed, the\nsubstance of his remarks is generally transcribed from notes taken with\nthe statue, or picture, or building, before him. The best authorities,\nalso, have been consulted, and such as from their price or rarity are\nwithin reach of few readers. The historical details of Classic Art\nare chiefly the result of inquiries connected with a work on Grecian\nLiterature, the composition of which has long engaged his hours of\nleisure. J. S. M.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nTASTE is the perception of intellectual pleasure. Beauty, the object\nof taste and the source of this pleasure, is appreciated by the\nunderstanding, exercised, either upon the productions of art, or\nupon the works of nature. The term beauty, indeed, has appeared to\nadmit a specific difference of import, according to the diversity of\nobjects in which it may seem to reside, and the supposed variety of\nmeans through which it is perceived by the mind. This cause, more than\nany other, has tended to throw difficulty and inconclusive inference\nover every department of the subject. Yet, perhaps in all cases, most\ncertainly in every instance of practical importance to our present\npurpose--elucidation of the Fine Arts, beauty will be found resolvable\ninto some relation discerned and approved by the understanding. Hence\nthe objects in which this relation exists impart pleasure to the mind,\non the well known principles of its constitution.\n\nBut in all languages, the word beauty is applied to the results of\nthose operations of the intellectual powers, which are not commonly\nrecognised as appertaining to any province of taste. Thus we speak\nof the beauty of a theorem, of an invention, of a philosophical\nsystem or discovery, as frequently, and with the same propriety, as\nof a picture or a group of statuary, of a landscape or a building.\nCorrespondent to these objective modes of speech, we find, in every\npolished idiom, such causative forms as these--a taste for the\nmathematics, for mechanics, for philology, or science. Now, in these,\nand similar instances, in which a like manner of expression by the\ncommon sentiment of mankind, opposed to the opinion of certain writers,\nis rightly applied, relations furnishing the specific beauty of the\nsubjects are perceived, and pleasurable emotions are excited. What\nthen constitutes the essential difference between the beautiful in\ngeneral language, and the beautiful in the fine arts? or, which is\nidentical, the difference between the powers of judgment and of taste?\nShall we say with some, that to decide on the relations of truth and\nfalsehood, is the sole province of the judgment or understanding? But\nin the fine arts, to whose labours, taste, by these philosophers, is\nconfined, truth is beauty, falsehood deformity; hence, to discriminate\nbetween even their minutest shades, requires the constant exercise\nof the most refined taste. Or, shall we maintain with others, that\nbeauty consists in certain arrangements and proportions of the parts\nto a whole; or in the fitness of means to an end? This, as far as an\nintelligible description of beauty, applies equally to the pursuits\nof the philosopher and of the artist. Or, omitting almost innumerable\nminor theories, shall we say with the philosophy presently accepted,\nthat beauty is something not intrinsic in the beautiful object, but\ndependent on associations awakened in the mind of the spectator?\nWithout entering now into an examination of this important, because\nreceived opinion, we remark, that this definition of beauty, from its\nassociated pleasures, is applicable alike to the deductions of science,\nto the exercises of imagination, and to the disquisitions of taste.\nIndeed, as the discoveries of the philosopher, and the truths which\nhe discloses, are both more abiding in their nature, and in their\ninfluence more universally important and interesting, it would follow,\neven on the system of association, that the beauty of scientific truth\nmust be, at least, equally fruitful in pleasurable emotions, as the\nbeauty of any one object in those pursuits to which this system has\nhitherto been restricted. And that such is actually the case, may be\nproved by an appeal to the writings and the annals of men of study. The\nlaw of gravitation, to take a familiar instance, possesses an essential\nprinciple of the beautiful--simplicity. Accordingly, to a mind of any\nrefinement, the abstract contemplation of this theory will ever impart\nhigh delight. Yet, how imperfect is the pleasure, and even the beauty,\ntill the mind associates with this simple law, that thereby worlds are\ngoverned in their course through boundless space; that by the same\ndiscovery, the future generations of rational and immortal beings will\nbe directed in their most useful and loftiest speculations; and to\nall this magnificence of association, what tender sublimity will be\nadded, by the thought, that the Supreme Father of all has graciously\nendowed his creatures with powers, and with permission, to discern the\nsecondary laws by which infinite wisdom sees fit to rule in the visible\ncreation!\n\nEven the holier and lovelier sensibilities awakened by moral beauty,\nthough certainly distinct in principle, are in their influence not\neasily separable from the pleasures of taste. At least, by the wise\nand gracious constitution of the human heart, the latter, when\nunallied with the former, necessarily remain imperfect. Our most\nexquisite enjoyments in literature and the fine arts will be found to\narise from such performances as most directly remind us of virtuous\nassociations; while, in the material world, those scenes prove most\ndelightful which call forth recollections of man's nobleness, or which\nelevate our contemplations to the power, and wisdom, and goodness of\nthe Creator. In one important point, however, is at once discoverable\nthe independent and higher principle of moral pleasure and beauty.\nThe humble and pious mind may, often does, enjoy the most refined and\nmental gratification in the exercises of charity and devotion, while\nthe intellectual resources or the adornments of taste are extremely\ncircumscribed. How wise, how salutary, are these appointments! The\npossessor of the most cultivated perceptions and extensive knowledge,\nthus feels, if he feel aright, that his acquirements render him only\nthe more dependent upon religion and virtue for his best and purest\nenjoyments, as also for the dignified estimation of his pursuits.\nThe unlettered but sincere Christian, again, thus knows that his\nheartful joys suffer not alloy from ignorance of this world's\nexternal culture. Both are thus equal; yet each profits by his own\npeculiar good. The latter is secure against a deprivation imposed by\ntemporal circumstances: the former is paid the toil and self-denial\nof attainment, by the increased manifestations he is thus enabled to\ndiscern of the charms of virtue, and the goodness of Omnipotence.\n\nThe presence and operation of taste can thus be traced in every act of\nthe mind, and are intimately associated with the feelings of our moral\nnature. The exercises of taste have ever been regarded as productive\ngenerally of pleasurable emotion. Hence we consider ourselves justified\nin defining, at the beginning of this chapter, taste to be 'the\nperception of intellectual pleasure.' The common use of language,\nalso--an authority always to be respected in tracing the extent or\nimport of ideas--and even the best theories of taste, when rightly\nunderstood, coincide with this definition.\n\nThe various systems of taste, however apparently dissimilar, may\nbe referred in principle to one or other of the two following:\nthat this is an original and independent faculty; or, that it may\nbe resolved into a modification of the general powers of the mind.\nOf these opinions, the first has been, within the present century,\nsatisfactorily proved utterly unphilosophical and inadequate to its\npurpose; the second is preferable, but imperfect in the explications\nhitherto given, chiefly from three causes. First, writers have formed\ntheir conclusions from a consideration of the quality, in its full and\ncomplete exercise, instead of tracing the steps by which it is acquired\nor improved: secondly, this intellectual quality, even by the best\nwriters, has been treated too much as an external sense--or it has been\nresolved into direct and inflex perceptions, and confounded with so\nmany accidental feelings, that the inferences have been most perplexing\nand cumbrous: and, thirdly, the subject in general has been treated too\nmetaphysically. Hence, however learned, or even abstractly just, the\ninvestigations may have been, they have exerted slight influence in\nestablishing practice upon obvious and enlightened theory.\n\nBut declining to enter upon the exposure of what may be conceived\nformer mistakes, we shall proceed briefly to explain our own views.\nFollowing out, then, the tenor of the preceding remarks, we conceive\ntaste to be nothing more than a certain acuteness, which necessarily\nis acquired by, and always accompanies, the frequent exercise of the\npowers of understanding in any one given pursuit. It seems to differ\nfrom mere knowledge, in being attended by a love or desire of the\nparticular exercise. This desire, whether it precedes or follows\nacquirement, is easily accounted for, in the one case, as an agreeable\nanticipation of advantage to be gained, and in the other as a mental\nhabitude; or it is frequently cherished from impressions received\nat an age too early for notice. The gratification of this desire,\nexclusive even of the enjoyment received from the successful exercise\nof the mental powers, sufficiently explains the origin of the pleasures\nof taste.\n\nThis view of taste, as applicable to, and indeed resulting from,\ntraining of the understanding in all dignified pursuits, is agreeable,\nas already shown, to common feeling and common language. But in\ndeference to the same authorities, it is necessary to limit the idea\nto a restricted, that is, a proper sense of the word. Hence we have\nsaid that the object of taste is beauty, as perceivable in the works\nof nature and art: thus confining its province to literature and the\nfine arts, which reflect nature either by direct imitation, or by more\nremote association.\n\nIn the present volume, the subject is limited, of course, to the\narts of design; but the principles now expounded are conversant with\nevery varied application of taste: And we have pursued this extent\nof illustration throughout the whole powers of the mind, in order to\nground, on the broadest basis, this practical precept, that taste, like\nthe powers of judgment and understanding, of which, in fact, it is\nonly a modification, can be improved, or, we venture to say, acquired\nin any useful degree, only by patient cultivation, and well-directed\nstudy of the particular subject. The opinion opposite to this has been\nproductive of the worst effects, both in the practice and patronage\nof the arts. It not unfrequently has led artists into irregular, and\neven unnatural compositions; but its greatest evils do daily arise\nfrom those, whose previous habits and attainments by no means qualify\nthem for judges, confidently pronouncing upon works of art, from what\nthey are pleased to term a natural taste. This, if it means any thing,\nmust imply an untutored, and therefore, imperfect taste. We would be\nunderstood here, not as advocating a conventional criticism, but as\nmaintaining, that the higher beauties, and nobler principles of art,\ncan be appreciated only by those whose taste has been cultivated by\nprofound study and knowledge of these principles. One class of effects\nin an imitative art is, doubtless, to produce sensations which can be\nimmediately compared with the more obvious effects and appearances of\nnature. Of these every one can judge, whether the effect be actually\nproduced or not. This, however, though a primary, is the lowest object\nof the artist. The dignity, too, and comparative value, of these\neffects, can be estimated only by a mind generally cultivated; while\nthe propriety of the means employed, and their agreement with the modes\nof art, the higher beauties of execution, the intelligence of style,\nthe just character of the performance as a work of peculiar talents,\ncan be sanctioned by canons of judgment familiar only to those who\nhave made the subject a regular study. In this we require nothing more\nfor the sculptor and the painter than is demanded, and rightly too, in\nfavour of the poet and the orator.\n\nFrom these observations, founded, as they are, on experience, follows\nas a corollary the truth of the previous definition, that, in the\nfine arts, beauty is always resolvable into some effect or relation\ndiscerned and approved by the understanding. For since it has been\nshown that taste is but another name for intellectual cultivation\nand knowledge in a given pursuit, the perception of beauty, which\nforms the peculiar object of taste, must ultimately be referred to\nthe understanding. Now, in an imitative art, there can be only one\nrelation, namely, truth, which thus becomes both the source and the\ncriterion of beauty. This truth, however, admits of two specific\ndistinctions; or at least respects two separate objects, as the\nproduction is compared with nature, the archetype imitated; and with\nthe principles of the art, or peculiar mode of imitation. In the\none case, there is the relation of resemblance; in the other, that\nof consistency. These, in their infinitely various combinations and\nmodified excellences, still recur to one and the same simple law of the\nbeautiful--veracity.\n\nThe general spirit and tendency of these remarks bear directly on\nthe question regarding a standard of taste. Both parties here, in\npertinaciously adhering to their opinion, are wrong. There is, and\nthere is not, a standard; meaning, by this term, a permanent rule of\ntaste beyond which human invention or genius shall never pass. At the\nsame time, if there be no stable and unerring principles of judgment,\nthere can be neither merit nor moral dignity, beauty nor truth, in\nthe works of the most gifted mind. How, then, are facts seemingly so\ndiscordant to be reconciled? We have already adverted to the radical\nerror in all cases of disregarding, and in some instances of treating\nwith scorn, the idea of a gradual and laborious acquirement of taste.\nThis, however, will be found the only idea of the subject truly useful\nin a practical view, as well as the sole ground of consistent and\nrational theory. Taste is not only progressive, but inductive; it is,\nin fact, the result of a series of experiments whose object is beauty.\nAs in every other species of experimental knowledge, then, the standard\nof excellence must vary in different ages according to their lights and\ntheir refinement. In the progress of individual genius this succession\nis very remarkable, the objects and nature of its aims changing with,\nand indeed indicating, attainment. It is thus clear that taste, whether\nnationally or individually considered, must vary in its models, and in\ntheir standards, according to the existing state of knowledge; for,\nin departing from received precepts, men are guided by the hope of\nreaching higher perfection, or of exhibiting novelty of invention.\nIf such tentative measures succeed, the general standard is so far\nelevated; when they fail, though the advance of real improvement may\nbe impeded for a season, established modes more firmly recover their\nauthority. But again, as in every species of experimental science,\nthose researches, in their practice the most carefully conducted, and\nin their inferences the most consistent, are regarded as the canons\nof scientific truth; so in the liberal arts, those noble monuments\nwhich, during the longest period, and to the greatest number of\ncompetent judges, have yielded the most satisfaction, are justly\nesteemed standards of taste--rules by which other works are to be\ntried. Such standards, or final experiments, in the science of taste,\nare fortunately possessed in the literary compositions, and in the\nremains of the sculpture and architecture of antiquity; as also in the\nlabours of those moderns who have emulated the teachers of the olden\ntime. These accredited relics of genius obtain a deserved and venerable\nmastery over future aspirings, first, from their own inborn excellence;\nsecondly, from the effects of that excellence in a continually\nincreasing influence over association and feeling. Imagination\nthus combines with reason in hallowing both the original cause and\nthe attendant influence into precepts of an immutable authority,\nconsecrated by the suffrages of the wise and the refined of every later\nage. Reason, however, first established, and subsequently demonstrates,\nthe principles upon which this standard has become unchanged and\nunchangable; namely, perfect simplicity in the means, and perfect truth\nin the results, through all their varied combinations.\n\nConsideration even of the vicissitudes and revolutions in taste\nseems farther to confirm these general views. Opinion, indeed, has\nvacillated in the estimation of elegance; but, as in the constantly\nreturning eccentricities of a planetary body, some secret power\nhas maintained certain limits to these changes, and round certain\nprinciples, though at times obscured, art has continued to revolve. Now\nthese checks to barbarous novelty and innovation, have been derived\nfrom the not-altogether-forgotten remembrance of admitted standards,\nor from the natural effects upon which these have been founded. The\ntemporary derelictions of good taste have ever occurred in the most\nignorant ages, and in extent as in duration have corresponded with the\nintellectual darkness of the period; the returning light of knowledge\nhas in this respect also invariably dispelled error, afresh disclosing\nthe pristine beauty of the ancient models, and recalling the judgment\nto the rectitude of those precepts on which they are composed. Even the\ntyranny of fashion and the inveteracy of prejudice yield before the\nmajesty of antique excellence, or produce a passing absurdity adopted\nfor a day, to be forever forgotten. Surely, then, there must be in\nthese abiding modes in literature and art, as likewise in that science\nof taste which appreciates and determines their canons, a beauty--an\nexcellence, the offspring and the object of truth and reason--and like\nthese, ever consistent, immutable, imperishable.\n\nTo the doctrines now advocated it furnishes no objection, that mankind\ndo not agree in the same estimate of beauty, nor even that objects\nentirely different in their qualities, are assumed as beautiful. This\nfact, indeed, has often and triumphantly been adduced as conclusive\nin favour of the sceptical position regarding a standard of taste.\nThose writers, again, who support the opposite opinion, seem too\nreadily to have admitted difficulty in repelling the objection. The\ntruth is, it can be obviated only on the principle which we have\nendeavoured to establish; namely, that taste is the certain result\nof intellectual cultivation in the proper province, that it is\nconsequently commensurate with the degree of intelligence, and always\nan object of truth and reason. Now, the diversity so much insisted\nupon, is capable not only of being thus easily accounted for, but is to\nbe expected as the necessary effect of varied extent of knowledge. The\nvery objection predetermines, that among the rudest people, ideas and\nperceptions of something termed beauty are entertained. Does not this\nestablish the existence of taste coeval with the earliest traces of\ninformation? True, the beauty admired by the African or the Esquimaux\ndiffers from that which awakens the sensibility of the European,--but\nso also are their means and capabilities of judging unequal. It is not,\ntherefore, diversity, but inconsistency of judgment, that in this case\ncan prove the absence of all fixed principles of decision. Now, we will\nventure to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that there is no\ninconsistency nor opposition; and that the most polished inhabitant of\nEurope, proceeding upon the same premises as the wildest in-dweller of\nthe desert or savannah, will arrive at exactly the same conclusion. The\nsable virgin, for instance, whose charms are acknowledged by the rude\nwarriors of her tribe, will also, by the refined European, be admitted\namong the fairest examples of native beauty. Hence it is evident that\nall men acknowledge a standard of taste, founded on similar reasonings\nand accordant feelings of the human heart, though the final expression\nof this standard, or the degree of refinement whence it is deduced,\nwill necessarily be modified by moral and physical circumstances, and\nby the light enjoyed.\n\nThe questions we have now laboured to resolve, are by no means to\nbe regarded as mere problems in abstract speculation. The subject\nis of the highest practical importance, and we have attempted to\nreduce it to practical inferences. Nothing has tended more to retard\nimprovement, than placing genius and taste in opposition to reason\nand application. Each of the two former has been invested with some\nuntangible, undefined excellence, disdaining rule, and superior to the\ndrudgery of study. In treating of both, authors appear to have aimed\nat exalting their theme, by refusing certainty to the operations of\nthe one, and stability to the principles of the other; treating each\nas the empiricism of talent, which it would be as vain to attempt\nreducing to precept as to prescribe the eagle's path through heaven.\nBut how does this accord with fact and with usefulness? Men, the most\neminent for genius, and who have bequeathed to futurity the most\nperfect productions, have also been the most remarkable for assiduity.\nThis industry has been directed as much to the study of principles and\nrules as to the creation of new works. We have shown that there are\nstandards, or rules, of taste, which never can be disregarded save at\nthe peril of absurdity. If we deny regularity and certainty, or fixed\nand rational precepts of criticism to the labours of genius, of what\nadvantage to succeeding knowledge can these prove? Beyond a passing\npleasure--a barren sentiment, they remain without fruit. Excellence in\nthe most refined exercises of mind is degraded to a mere knack,--to a\nfortunate and inexplicable aptitude. Thus, not the improvement of the\nhuman race only, but the very continuance of acquirement among men,\nis rendered uncertain. Yet such are the consequences of every system\nwhich considers taste as different from, and independent of knowledge;\nor its precepts as mutable, and not more amenable to judgment than to\nimagination. In whatever light, then, the views now briefly proposed be\nregarded, whether as respects taste as an object of mental science, or\nas the improver of art; whether in its influence upon the understanding\nor the heart, they appear to promise the surest, the most practical,\nand the most dignified results.\n\nBeauty, as already observed, is the object of taste. The primitive\nsource, and, in a great measure, the ultimate and only criterion, of\nthis beauty, is nature. For, in the arts over which taste presides,\nnatural beauty receives new modifications, and is subjected to new\nlaws. Yet, in their general tendency and design, poetry, painting,\nsculpture, architecture, and even music, all contemplate one end,--to\nawaken associated emotion; while each employs the same means of direct\nor less obvious imitation of nature.\n\nIn each of these arts, however, a distinction exists, both in the\nmanner and in the extent of instruction. They differ also in the\ncloseness with which the respective imitations reflect their natural\narchetypes. But in this they correspond, that in none is mere imitation\nthe final, or most exalted, object of the artist. In the fidelity\nof representation, and in the facility with which the originals in\nnature may be traced, Sculpture and Painting are superior to all the\nother imitative arts. Between the vivid creations of these, and the\nmore varied, more imaginative, but less defined, efforts of poetry,\nthe middle rank is occupied by Architecture, whose mighty masses and\nharmonious proportions fill the mind with awe or delight, as they\nrecall the majesty or grace of the material world.\n\nArchitecture thus stands alone, in its own principles, and, it may be,\nin its own pre-eminence. These principles are at once more profound,\nor at least more abstract, and yet more determinate, than those of\neither of the sister arts. Indeed, so remarkable is this fact, and\nso nearly do the limits and the constituents of beauty verge here on\ndemonstrative science, that we may hereafter point out their connexion\nwith some of the preceding doctrines of taste. In the meantime, it\nmay be sufficient merely to mention, that though architecture, as\na necessary knowledge, must have been practised from the earliest\nformation of society; and though it furnishes their principal field\nto the other arts; yet it was later in arriving at perfection than\nSculpture, which, besides, affords a more continuous series of\nmonuments, and supplies the best materials for the philosophy of the\nsubject; and in other respects, the arrangement now selected seems to\npromise the most clear elucidation of the history of art.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FINE ARTS.\n\n\n\n\nSCULPTURE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\nTHE representation of external forms by their tangible properties, in\nactual or proportional magnitude, seems the most obvious, as it is the\nsimplest, mode of imitation. Sculpture, therefore, of all the imitative\narts, probably first exercised the ingenuity of mankind. Even now, we\nremark that the rude carvings on the spear-shaft or canoe of the savage\nwarrior surpass other exhibitions of his skill, and might more readily\nbe exalted into tasteful decorations. Hence, in tracing the history of\nan art which thus appears almost coeval with the earliest formation of\nsociety, the chronology of those ancient empires in which it chiefly\nflourished, will supply an arrangement best adapted to the explanation\nof the subject.\n\nRegarding the origin of sculptural design, indeed, much has been\nwritten, and many theories proposed, each asserting, for some favorite\npeople, the praise of invention. All the kindred arts, however, with\nwhich taste and feeling are conversant, have their birth and subsequent\nimprovement, in the same universal principles of the human mind.\nPrinciples which mysteriously, yet powerfully, and doubtless for the\naccomplishment of the wisest ends, connect man with that nature amidst\nwhose haunts he is destined to dwell--which awaken his untutored\nenthusiasm to her beauties, and unite his individual sympathies, as his\nsocial remembrances, with her hallowed associations. It is thus that\nhuman action and human suffering find their earliest records in the\nscenes where the events were transacted. The conflict long continues to\nrevive on its heath; the memory of the chief appropriates the lone vale\nwhere he sleeps; woods, mountains, streams, become the representatives\nof supernatural beings--beneficent or vindictive--as sensations of\nbeauty or of awe are called forth in the mortal breast. The succeeding\nstep is easy to the erection of less durable but more particular\nmemorials. Piety--true in sentiment, false in means--patriotism,\nfriendship, gratitude, admiration, leave the successive impress of\ntheir influence, according to the accessions of intelligence, on\nthe 'grey stone'--the rude column--the dressed altar--the visible\nshape--the perfect statue. How beautiful, then, yet how true, the\nallegory of Grecian poetry, which feigns that love, or the natural\naffections, taught man the arts of genius!\n\nThe gradations, also, from uninformed art to some degree of refined\ninvention, will present, even among distant nations, little of\ndiversified character. In the infancy of society, men in all countries\nclosely resemble each other, in their feelings, in their wants, in\ntheir means of gratification, and improvement. Hence, in the fine arts,\nwhich at first among every people minister, with similar resources,\nto the same natural desires, or mental affections, resemblance of\nstyle ought not to be assumed as evidence of continuous imitation\nfrom a common origin. Early Egyptian and Grecian statues exhibit\nalmost identical lineaments, and even corresponding attitude; simply,\nbecause each had to surmount the same difficulties with nearly equal\ninformation.\n\nThe tendency of these remarks, especially applicable to sculpture,\nsufficiently proves that no reliance is to be placed on any theories\nof its exclusive discovery. Such opinions, however profound they may\nappear, are in reality the substitution of a partial view of facts,\nwhen a general law of our nature is within reach. In treating of the\nancient history of sculpture, then, the legitimate objects of inquiry\nare, its progress, character, and degree of perfection among the\ndifferent nations of antiquity. But though no claims of any single\nnation to have imparted the skill to others can be conceded, a very\nwide disparity of merit is observable, both in the final excellence\nattained by one people, as respects the relative acquirements of\nanother; and likewise points of equal advance being assumed, the\ntimes past in realising this similar improvement are found to be very\nunequal. These facts, here most easily distinguishable, are pregnant\nwith importance, and invest the history of this art with much of\ndignity and solemn interest, exhibiting the striking connexion between\nthe intellectual and the political and moral condition of man. The\ndiversity, in truth, is the visible impress which legislation has\nstamped upon human genius.\n\nEgypt has been styled the cradle of the arts; and, waiving the\nexamination of all disputes as to priority, we prefer commencing with\nthe history of Egyptian sculpture, since its authentic monuments carry\nus up to a very early date,--are numerous,--and especially, because\nthey tend to unite the scattered lights which doubtful tradition flings\nover the less perfect remains of Asiatic ingenuity. In pursuing this\ninvestigation, we shall observe the following arrangement of the\nsubject.\n\n  Era of original, or native Sculpture.\n  Era of mixed, or Greco-Egyptian Sculpture.\n  Era of imitative Sculpture, improperly denominated\n  Egyptian.\n\nThe first or true age of Sculpture in Egypt, ascends from the invasion\nof Cambyses to unknown antiquity. During this period only were\nprimitive institutions in full vigour and integrity, and public works,\nreflecting national taste, conducted by national talent. The two\nremaining eras, extending downwards through the successive dominion\nof the Greeks and Romans, have been added, in order to embrace the\nconsideration of topics, which, though remotely connected therewith,\nhave hitherto been regarded as integral parts of the subject. In\nexamining the principles and character of this aboriginal school, there\nare still left two sources of judging, with sufficient accuracy, the\nmerits of its production,--vestiges of ancient grandeur yet existing\non their native site--and the numerous specimens in European cabinets.\nThese remains may be classed under the three following divisions.\n\n  Colossal statues.\n  Groups or single figures about the natural size.\n  Hieroglyphical and historical relievos.\n\nIn the formation of these various labours, four kinds of materials\nare employed: one soft, a species of sandstone; and three very hard,\na calcareous rock, out of which the tombs, with their sculptures, are\nhewn; basalt or trap, of various shades, from black to dark grey, the\nconstituent generally of the smaller statues; granite, more commonly\nof the description named by mineralogists _granites rubescens_,\nof a warm reddish hue, with large crystals of feld-spar; or it is\nsometimes, though rarely, of a dark red ground, with black specks,\nas in the magnificent head, mis-named of Memnon, now in the British\nMuseum. Colossal figures are uniformly of granite, in which also is\na large portion of the relievos. Besides these, from the account of\nHerodotus, as also from the statues of wood actually discovered by\nmodern travellers, we learn that even in great works, the Egyptian\nsculptors were accustomed to exercise their skill on that less stubborn\nmaterial. Metal appears to have been sparingly used; at least, only\nvery small figures have yet been found of a composition similar to the\nbronze of later times. Yet the book of Job especially, and other parts\nof Scripture, would induce the conclusion, that even colossal figures\nwere, from an early period, cast of metal. In the tombs, as those near\nThebes, small images of porcelain and terra cotta are likewise frequent.\n\nI. The number of colossal statues in ancient Egypt, as described by\nthe writers of Greece, would appear incredible, especially when we\nconsider the magnitude of some, and the materials of all, if these\nearly descriptions were not, at the present day, authenticated by\ncountless remains. Yet, than a statue of granite sixty or seventy feet\nhigh, there is not, perhaps, one instance more striking, of disregard\nof time, and patience of toil. Of these mighty labours, some are hewn\nfrom the living rock, and left adhering to the natural bed; as the\ncelebrated Sphynx, near the pyramids of Ghizeh, and various sculptures\non the rocks of the Thebaid, which look the shadows of giants cast\nby a declining sun. Others again, as in some of the figures in the\nMemnonium, appear to have been built; most probably reared first of\nsquare blocks, and afterwards fashioned into shape. The greater part,\nhowever, are composed of one block, raised in the granite quarries of\nUpper Egypt, and transported to their destined situation by the waters\nof the Nile. Of these works, Herodotus, to whose veracity almost every\nnew discovery in these countries adds fresh credibility, saw and has\ndescribed many, some of which can be identified at the present day,\nand others, a labour of not many hours promises to bring to light.\nThe dimensions of those actually enumerated, extend from twelve to\nseventy cubits in height. Some are figures of men; others of animals,\nchiefly of the Sphynx. These latter appear to have been in considerable\nnumbers, usually ranged in corresponding lines on the opposite side of\nthe approach to the great temples. Of the human colossi, again, some\nwere isolated, and were probably objects of worship; others were merely\nornaments, chiefly employed as columns, as in the famous Propyl\u00e6on of\nthe Temple of Vulcan, ascribed to Psammetichus, and erected at Memphis.\nOf the unattached figures, the attitude appears to have exhibited but\nlittle action; the posture apparently various, though seldom erect.\nOne is described as recumbent, seventy cubits long, accompanied by two\nsmaller, standing one at each extremity. The largest statues now known,\nnamely, two in the Memnonium at Thebes, are both in a sitting posture.\nAll these works, even the columnar statues, seem to have been connected\nwith religious rites or symbols. This, together with imperfect\nscience, accounts for the striking similarity discoverable in a class,\nthe individuals of which are thus varied, at least in purpose and\nmagnitude. Another peculiarity is, that in Egyptian sculpture, whenever\nthe dimensions are much beyond nature, the head is always larger than\neven colossal proportions would require. It would be unreasonable to\nascribe to ignorance a practice thus universal; it is to be attributed\nrather to mistaken principle, in order to render the features more\nconspicuous, when removed to a distance from the eye. Where similar\ncharacter and design thus pervade the whole class, minuteness of\nindividual description is unnecessary; we may, however, merely refer,\nas examples best known, to the two Theban colossi already noticed,\none of which, from inscriptions still legible, would appear to be the\nfamous sounding statue of Memnon. In each of these figures, exclusive\nof the lower plinth of the throne, the altitude is fifty feet, the\nmaterial red granite, and the positions alike--namely, seated, the\nhead looking straight in front, arms close pressed to the sides, palms\nand forearm extended and resting upon the thighs, lower extremities\nperpendicular and apart. This posture, which may be described as\ncharacteristic of the entire class, is little calculated to convey any\nsentiment of ease or grace. Yet in these vast, although comparatively\nuninformed labours, we discover more of the sublime than arises from\nmere vastness, or even from the recollections of distant time with\nwhich their memory is associated. They are invested with a majestic\nrepose--with a grand and solemn tranquillity, which awes without\nastonishing; and while they exhibit the greatest perfection to which\nEgyptian art has attained, in colossal statues generally, we discover\noccasional approaches to truth and nature, with no inconsiderable\nfeeling of the sweet, the unaffected, and the flowing in expression and\ncontour.\n\nII. To the second class belong both the earliest and the latest works\nof the Egyptian chisel; yet between the worst and the best, is not to\nbe perceived a diversity of merit corresponding to the lapse of time--a\ncertain proof, that the principles of the art were fixed at an early\nperiod of its progress, and on grounds independent of its precepts.\nThe first essays in sculpture in Egypt, seem to have been made upon\nthe living rock, in the process of excavating artificial or enlarging\nnatural caverns for the purposes of habitation or devotion, and at\nevery period in Eastern history of sepulture. Statues thus formed,\nwould, from the mode of their formation, not much exceed the natural\nsize; and being afterwards detached when finished, were transferred\nto other situations. In imitation of these, statues were subsequently\nhewn, in what became the ordinary manner, from detached blocks. It is\nnot here implied, that these two methods can be distinctly traced in\ntheir separate applications, nor that the one was superseded by the\nother; but simply, that the state of knowledge, and the habits of the\npeople, render very probable the priority of the former. Hence appears\nan explanation of a singular fact in the history of the art, which\nhas been the subject of much discussion. In every specimen, without\nexception, which can be ranked as Egyptian, a pilaster runs up the back\nof the figure, in whatever attitude it may be represented. The origin\nof a practice not natural, in an art professing to imitate nature, must\nbe sought in some external circumstance of its early history. Now,\nsuch circumstance seems plainly discernible in works still remaining,\nin the excavations of Philoe, Elephantis, Silsilis, and at El Malook,\nin the tombs of the Theban kings. In these monuments, which are often\nsuites of magnificent chambers hewn from the hard and white calcareous\nrock, numerous and beautiful remains of sculpture are preserved. These\nornaments vary from simple relievos to complete statues. In the latter,\nthe figure is never entirely detached, when placed on the surface of\nthe wall, a posterior portion being always left adhering; while, if\nformed by cutting round to a recess, a pilaster behind runs up the\nwhole height, evidently with the original view of increasing strength\nor of saving labour, or from certain religious notions. Subsequently,\nin detached statues wrought out of blocks from the same, or in part\nthe same motives, and also in order to obtain a surface for the\ninscription of hieroglyphics, the aboriginal pillar was retained.\nGenerally speaking, the workmanship here is inferior to the details\nof the colossal figures, although some of the finest specimens belong\nto this second division. The varieties, however, cannot be referred\nto any regular gradations of improvement, nor determinate epochas of\nstyle, as sometimes attempted. They are the result solely of individual\nskill in the artists, and of the views, opulence, or purposes of their\nemployers. This difference, also, extends only to the minor details of\nexecution; in the more intellectual principles of art, all are nearly\non an equality. Even the design and attitudes are wonderfully limited,\nthe sameness being more uniform than could have been produced, except\nby the operation of prescriptive rules and fixed models of imitation.\n\nIn many of the ancient Egyptian buildings, the whole of the exterior\nis frequently covered with relievos. This profusion, for the purpose,\ntoo, of mere decoration, together with the indefinite nature of\nhieroglyphical delineation, operated strongly against improvement in\nthis particular province. Indeed, the prejudicial effects arising\nfrom an embellishment, in which extent more than intrinsic beauty\nwas regarded, and where arbitrary forms, or mere indications of\nknown objects, precluded all natural imitation, and all delicacy of\nexpression, infected the whole of the art. The general inferiority\nin works of this third class, is, however, to be understood with\ndue limitation. In relievos, consisting of few figures, sepulchral\nones for instance, which in the same piece rarely contain more than\nthree, are often displayed no mean beauties both of execution and of\ncharacter. In historical relievos, again, which occupy entire walls\nof the temples, crowded as they are with figures in various actions,\nprocessions, battles, sieges, and represented by artists who apparently\npossessed no principles of design, save a knowledge of simple form\nin its most restricted movements, all is feebleness, puerility, and\nconfusion. Or if beauty occasionally break forth, it is in some\nsingle reposing figure, or in the patient details of execution. In\nthe drawing and anatomy, singular ignorance is manifested; the limbs\nare without joints, and the movements exhibit neither balance nor\nspring; proportion and perspective seem to have been utterly unknown.\nMilitary engines, buildings, horses, soldiers, all appear of the\nsame dimensions, and all equally near the eye. The hero in all these\nmonuments bears a strong individual resemblance; he is represented ever\nvictorious, in the bloom of youth, and in his figure are sometimes\ndisplayed both grandeur and beauty of conception, when considered\napart. But these separate excellences are completely obscured by the\nabsurdity of representing him at least double the stature of his\nfollowers or opponents. The circumstance of thus confounding moral\ngreatness with physical magnitude, were alone sufficient to mark the\ninfancy of invention, and the barbarism of taste. It is nevertheless\nonly justice to mention, that occasionally, in the historical relievos,\nwe observe rudiments of higher art, with less of convention, and more\nof freedom of imagination, than in any other Egyptian sculptures.\n\nThe praises bestowed upon the hieroglyphics of Egypt by Winkleman and\nothers, must be restricted to the mere workmanship; and even then, are\nexaggerated or misplaced. Considered as works of art, if indeed they\ncan be elevated to that rank, they will be found entirely destitute of\naccurate discrimination of form, and are more properly conventional\nrepresentations, dependent upon modes and principles at once limited\nand arbitrary. These labours, the probable records of primitive\nhistory, and of earliest superstition, are of different kinds. The\nfirst in use, though not afterwards superseded, were anaglyphics, in\nwhich objects are represented by a simple outline, often traced to the\ndepth of several inches. An obvious improvement upon this was to round\nthe angles, and to relieve the figures upon themselves; a mode which\nvery generally obtains. To this manner much ingenuity and forethought\nhas inconsiderately been ascribed, as if adopted against the attacks\nof time, and to cast a deeper shadow on the symbols. It is, on the\ncontrary, to be judged merely as the resource of an imperfect art.\nA third, but comparatively rare method, was to elevate the contour,\nby reducing the surface both within and without. The last and most\nlaborious plan, was to remove the ground entirely, leaving the figures\nin proper relief. This, the true relievo, was unknown to or unpractised\nin the ancient arts of Egypt. Even the historical and monumental\nsculptures just described, partake more of the anaglyphical than of\nthe elevated relievo. Indeed every specimen of this latter is to be\nassigned to a later period than the first and genuine age. By attending\nto this, and to the costume of the figures in the most ancient works,\ndata of importance might be discovered, throwing valuable light on the\neras of Egypt's mysterious monuments.\n\nThe expression, mixed art, selected to discriminate the second epoch,\nhas been adopted, to mark the successive changes in the ancient modes\ninduced by the Persians and the Greeks. The influence exerted upon\nart by the dominion of the former, amounted merely to a negative,--to\nthe prohibition of its exercise; which, with the destruction of many\nof its best monuments, produced a deterioration in the few and feeble\nattempts during the latter years of that dynasty. Mythraism, in which\nelemental fire was the symbol of the Deity, proscribed the imitative\narts in that service, whence, in all other countries, they have\nsprung. The Persians, says the father of history, have neither temples\nnor statues. Or, if architecture was encouraged by these conquerors,\nevidence still remains that their erections were but modifications of\nmaterials torn from the mighty structures of past ages. In little more\nthan a century and a half, the Persian was subverted by the Macedonian\nempire. Yet even in Alexander, the ancient and native arts of Egypt\nobtained not a patron. The majestic range of temples, palaces, and\ncities, which bordered the sacred stream of the Nile, furnished so\nmany quarries, of tempting access, whence Alexandria was reared; and\nthe mightiest, as well as most rational trophy of Grecian superiority,\nreceived its grandest and most enduring monuments from the stupendous\nlabours of the first age. His successors followed the example; and\nalthough, under them, the polished literature of Greece, united with\nher own subtile philosophy, constituted Alexandria the Athens of the\nEast, yet in sculpture, in architecture, and in religion, to which both\nwere subordinate, the character remained essentially Egyptian, but with\ncertain deviations and additions.\n\nThe Roman dominion finally introduced new modifications, or rather\nmutations, of the ancient art. This epoch may be considered as\ncommencing with the introduction of the Isiac mysteries at Rome;\nalthough the principal features by which, as a division in the history\nof art, it is distinguished, are not decidedly marked prior to the\nreign of Hadrian. The works of the third, or imitative era, have, in\nstrict propriety, no real connexion with Egyptian sculpture, farther\nthan as it multiplied copies of the ancient forms, with occasional\naccessions of elegance. During a residence of two years in the East,\nand by the deification there of his favorite Antinous, Hadrian imbibed\na fondness for the arts, and particularly for the statuary of Egypt.\nBut the works which he commanded were in all respects Roman, or rather\nGrecian, under Egyptian modes. They were indeed most scrupulously\nmodelled after the most ancient and authentic specimens; even the\nmaterials were brought from the native quarries, but the sculptors were\nGreeks or Italians; and the Grecian character of design is visible in\nevery remaining specimen, the merits of which require notice. Nothing,\ntherefore, can be more futile, than from the works of this age to infer\nthe merits or principles of native and ancient art. So far, indeed,\ndoes our scepticism here extend, that we doubt if a single statue of\ngenuine and ancient Egyptian workmanship is to be found among the\nnumbers that have been discovered in Italy, and with which Hadrian\nfilled that portion of the empire.\n\nThe general conclusion, then, from these remarks, is, that there is\nbut one period of real Egyptian sculpture, and that the genius and\ncharacter of this indigenous and aboriginal art is to be discovered\nonly in the most ancient monuments, having suffered various changes\nunder the Greeks and under the Romans. In establishing this inference,\nwe have not been guided by the often fanciful, always deceitful,\nanalogies discoverable in the fluctuating style and varying productions\nof imitation, but have viewed these as directed by the steady operation\nof the laws and institutions of society, which govern the spirit\nand tendency of the arts themselves. During an interval of nearly\ntwenty centuries previous to the era of Alexander, though diligently\ncultivated, sculpture had hardly attained any of the nobler qualities\nof invention. The system of taste and of government was in fact\nhostile to improvement in this art beyond a certain limit, or upon\nany principles, save those fixed on the very threshold of knowledge.\nThe national polity, which will ever be found to guide the national\ntaste, induced a preference of the immense and the durable; hence the\ngrandeur of Egyptian architecture: but in statuary, such a character of\ndesign necessarily produced figures rigid and motionless. The essential\nelements of the grand and the beautiful--breadth and simplicity,\nare indeed present, but the effect is rarely elicited. The simple\nis seldom inspired by any feeling of the true, the natural, or the\ngraceful; breadth, unrelieved by symmetry of parts, or expression of\ndetails, degenerates into inert magnitude. The colossal forms are the\nrecords only of power, of patience, and of labour; not the creations\nof intelligence and of genius. Sculpture also suffered from peculiar\nobstacles to its progress. Exclusively attached to the service of\nreligion, its representations were confined to divinities, priests,\nand kings; personages whose modes and lineaments were unalterably\nfixed--fixed, too, from types, frequently of the most hideous\ndescription, at least ill managed, and little adapted to the objects\nor spirit of the art. This religion likewise admitted no images of\nhuman virtue or sympathy to mingle with its cold obstructions; thus\ndenying to the Egyptian arts a source, which, to those of Greece,\nproved one of the richest and sweetest veins of ideal composition. The\nartist, therefore, even had he been allowed to depart from established\nbut imperfect models, possessed no ennobling source whence to create\nnew models of beauty or of grandeur. Imagination wanted materials,\nwhich neither the prescribed subject nor living nature, under these\nrestrictions, could supply. Again, sculpture not only laboured under\nthe general disadvantage of hereditary and unchanging professions;\na national regulation which repressed every fortunate predilection\nof genius, but as a security against the possibility of innovation,\nslaves, educated under the immediate care of the priests, were\nentrusted with the execution of the most sacred, and, consequently,\nmost important monuments.\n\nIn Egyptian sculpture, thus properly understood, little will be\ndiscovered of that excellence which has been attributed to its remains.\nStill there are to be found some first principles of true science; and\nthese are occasionally developed with considerable beauty of detail;\nalways with patient, but inefficient technicality. It is by no means\napparent, however, that by the masters of these early ages any theory\nwas observed; certainly the occasional refinement seems rather the\nresult of accident or of individual superiority, than of systematic\nperceptions, or of transmitted precept. Their best statues have an\nelevation of seven hands and a half, being divided equally, the torso\nand limbs having the same length. These proportions are pleasing,\nand borrowed directly from nature; but they show nothing of that\ncharacteristic beauty of physical art, which, in the varied harmony\nof parts, indicates the capabilities of form. A similar principle\nregulates the details, which, though brought out with considerable\npropriety and softness, are yet without precision or anatomical\nknowledge, especially of internal structure,--the heads of the bones,\nthe insertions and terminations of the muscles, never being correctly\nindicated. Hence the forms appear coarse and inelegant, the limbs heavy\nand inert, because without vigorous marking on the joints, where the\ndeeper depressions only and the strongest projections are aimed at,\nnot feelingly touched. The attitude, also, is constantly rectilinear,\ndenoting that condition of the art when poverty of source limits its\nreach of the beautiful by the difficulties of execution. It is, in\nfact, the first choice of invention rendered permanent by prescriptive\ninstitutions. From the curve being thus unknown in the contour, the\naction is necessarily angular in its direction, unless the movement\nbe parallel to the gravitating line of the figure. Hence the range of\naction and of attitude is very circumscribed; the arms either hanging\nclose by the sides or crossed at right angles on the breast; or, as a\nslight variation, one is placed in each posture. Lateral movements in\nlike manner are limited, the statue standing equally poised on both\nlimbs, the feet not exactly opposite, one being in advance, often\nalmost in front of the other. Whether erect, sitting, or kneeling, the\naction is the same: hence, little of grace or animation of movement\nis to be found even in the most perfect works; yet there is often to\nbe remarked a grave and staid serenity, neither unpleasing nor devoid\nof interest. As in the selection of attitude, however, the artist\nhas been guided, not by the beautiful, but by his own timidity and\nconfined resources; so in expression, little beyond a vague and general\nemotion has been attempted; seldom more, indeed, than might be produced\nby the symmetrical arrangement of the features. These are flat, the\ncountenance being Ethiopian, and are just sufficiently distinguished\nfor the effect of separation; the depth of shadow is wanting to give\ncontrast and firmness. The eyes, whether long and narrow, the peculiar\ncharacteristic of the earliest era, or more full and open, as in the\nGreco-Egyptian period, are nearly on the general level of the face; the\nnose is broad and depressed, the lips thick, and always sharp on the\nouter edge, though often touched with great softness and delicacy; the\ncheeks, chin, and ears, are large, ill made out, and without feeling.\nHence, although the heads are often finished with wonderful labour, the\neffect is always feeble, while the whole is uniformly surmounted by\nharsh and disproportionate masses of drapery, overpowering the already\ntoo weak expression. The superior beauty of some of the colossal busts\nmay perhaps be rightly attributed to their having been executed as\nportraits. Conventional art, even in the most skilful hands, is rarely\npleasing; nature, even rudely imitated, is ever viewed with a degree of\npleasure.\n\nOn the methods employed to work materials so unyielding as those of the\nEgyptian sculptors, it is difficult to propose any decided opinion.\nOn their porphyry, granite, and basalt, modern tools can hardly make\nimpression; yet are the forms, in all instances, highly finished, with\nangles sharp and unbroken. The latter circumstance, indeed, constitutes\na peculiar feature in the works of this country as distinguished from\nOriental art generally, which, together with breadth and simplicity,\nbrings them nearest the productions of the Grecian chisel. From the\nstyle of execution, however, it would appear that the effect has been\nbrought out rather by patience and labour, than by rapid or dexterous\nmanagement. In fact, the general character has been influenced not a\nlittle by the materials; for in the statues of wood, both as described\nand discovered, the action is bolder, and the manner more free. If a\nconjecture may be hazarded on the subject of their theory, it would\nseem that the Egyptians, in the infancy of their arts, were guided\nby an outline traced round a human figure, dead or alive, extended\nupon the block, face upwards, with the arms close by the sides, and\nthe limbs placed together exactly as their statues are composed. The\nscattered details given in the Greek writers respecting the arts of\nthis ancient people, have indeed induced the belief, that they were\nacquainted with much more refined canons of symmetry; but it ought to\nhave been observed, that Diodorus and others describe the practices\nexisting in their own times, when Egypt had, to a certain extent,\nbecome the pupil of Greece. In some respects, also, it is difficult\nto give implicit credit to their accounts, at least in the common\ninterpretation. It is farther particularly to be observed, that the\nsupposition now made will account for the correctness of the general\nproportions which would thus be obtained from nature; likewise no\ntheory of proportional parts can be detected different from the results\nthus obtainable, while those details which a refined theory would\npreserve, but which could not by such method be measured, are defective.\n\nWe have been thus minute and critical in these investigations for\ntwo reasons: from Egypt certainly descended the first principles of\nimprovement to Western art, while no less evidently did the Eastern\nworld derive its entire knowledge from the same source. Consequently,\nin carefully examining that of the Egyptians, the best account,\ndeduced too from monuments actually observed, has been given of\nOriental Sculpture generally. Of the mighty empires, indeed, which\nonce embraced the happiest regions of Asia and of the globe, a name,\nor at most a shapeless mass of ruins, alone remain. Of Jewish art,\nthe sole memorials in existence are the sculptured transcripts on\nthe arch of Titus. But every description in the sacred records,\nfrom the calf of the wilderness to the twelve oxen of the molten\nsea, or the lions of the throne of Solomon, evinces the taste of\nthe former bondsmen of Pharaoh, and of him who was skilled in all\nthe learning of the Egyptians; at the same time we learn that the\nIsraelites quickly departed from the severe and simple grandeur of\nthe parent source. Moving eastward: Baalbec's gigantic masonry is\nadorned with little of sculpture; the lonely Palmyra exhibits only\nRoman ruins, for the Tadmor of Scripture has long disappeared; the\npillared Persepolis claims a remoter antiquity; but the Pelhavi and\narrowheaded inscriptions, instead of hieroglyphics, show comparatively\nrecent, and the innumerable and beautiful sculptures, display certain\ntraits of the Grecian school. They cannot be older than Cyrus, but\nmost probably belong to the age of his successors. The mysterious\nmonuments of Hindustan alone seem to claim an equal or more ancient\ndate compared with the labours we have surveyed. Their nature, also,\nis the same; hence there are not wanting names of highest eminence,\nwho have maintained not only the greater antiquity of Indian art, but\nthat thence has been derived all other, as from the parent source. This\nopinion has been grounded too exclusively on the dubious inferences of\nphilology, or of mere antiquarian erudition,--dubious, at least, when\napplied to Sculpture. Here the subject itself ought to supply the true\nprinciples of decision; and on this point one observation will suffice.\nThe sculpture, like the architecture, of Egypt, bears the impress of\nuniform simplicity; the grand lines of composition are few, accessories\nare sparingly introduced, and wear the same sober, massive, and\nunpretending character. In the works of Asiatic art, on the contrary,\nalthough presenting a general resemblance to those of Egypt, the design\nis neither simple nor uniform; the parts are numerous, breaking the\nmaster lines into multiplied compartments, while the style of ornament\nis replete with complicated details, and of pretension above the means\nof the artist. Now, judging according to the natural inferences from\nthese facts, and according to the acknowledged precepts of imitative\nart, this latter style, with its defects in keeping, has evidently\narisen in consequence of superinducing a laboured and injudiciously\naspiring taste upon the more severe and simple conceptions of a\nprimitive composition. Similar principles may be obviously traced in\nthe farther progress of the arts eastward. China is admitted, on the\nmost learned authorities, to have been planted by colonists from the\nbanks of the Indus and the Ganges; and in the unchanging modes of that\ncountry, we seem almost to catch glimpses of the aboriginal knowledge\nof our race. Yet how striking the difference between the ornate and\nthe frittered labours of the Chinese compared with the works either of\nIndia or of Egypt! Even their great wall is but the accumulation of\npetty exertions--an evidence of numerical, not of scientific energy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nIN the previous chapter, Egypt has been exhibited as the centre of\nintelligence in the history of ancient art; and having explained the\nconnexion which can still be traced in the few remaining monuments of\nthe East, we now turn from the parent source to trace the progress of\nrefinement in the West, where, first in Greece, the human mind awoke\nto the full consciousness of its capacious grasp, and of its exquisite\nsensibilities.\n\nThe universal origin of sculptural representation, already noticed, in\nthe alliance which man forms with natural objects as shadowing forth\nthe affections or the regrets of the heart, is nowhere so conspicuous\nas in Greece. Here art was poetry from the beginning; her consecrated\ngroves, her winding streams, her flowery plains, the azure depths of\nher mountains, became at once the residence and the representatives\nof those beings, whether divine or heroic, who constituted her\ntheology. By a people, simple in their habits, yet ardent in their\nfeelings, this early faith was long remembered,--such reminiscences\ndeeply tincturing much of what is most exquisitely descriptive and\nsentimental in Grecian poetry. But a belief so abstract, so untangible\nin its forms, and so remotely addressed to the senses, would soon prove\ninsufficient to maintain effectual empire over the passions. Attempts\nwere speedily made to secure, as it were, the more immediate presence\nand protection of the objects of veneration or of worship. Men's\ndesires in this respect, however, as in all other instances, would\nnecessarily be limited by their knowledge and their powers. In the\nprimitive ages, accordingly, objects rude and unfashioned as we learn\nfrom history, were adored as representing the divinities of Greece.\nEven to the time of Pausanias, stones and trunks of trees, rough and\nuninformed by art, were preserved in the temples: and though replaced\nby forms almost divine, still regarded with peculiar veneration, as the\nancient images of the deities. As skill improved, these signs began\nto assume more determinate similitude; and from a square column, the\nfirst stage, by slow gradations something approaching to a resemblance\nof the human figure was fashioned. These efforts at sculpture long\ncontinued extremely imperfect. The extremities seem not to have been\neven attempted; the arms were not separated from the body, nor the\nlimbs from each other, but, like the folds of the drapery, stiffly\nindicated by deep lines drawn on the surface. Such appears to have been\nthe general state of the art immediately prior to the period when it\ncan first be traced, as cultivated with some degree of success in any\nparticular place. This occurs about twelve centuries before Christ.\n\nThe fine arts have never flourished in states not commercial; in this\nrespect, presenting a marked contrast to the origin and progress of\npoetry and music; a fact singularly exemplified in the condition of\nthose cities where arose the primitive schools in Greece. Sicyon,\n\u00c6gina, Corinth, and Athens, were the first seats of commerce and of\nsculpture. Sicyon, with its small but important territory, extending\na few miles along the south-eastern extremity of the Corinthian gulf,\nwas the most ancient of the Grecian states, and probably the oldest\ncity of Europe. From the earliest times, it became celebrated for the\nwealth, enterprise, and intelligence of its population; and from the\nSicyonian academy were sent forth many of the most celebrated masters\nof design; hence Sicyon obtained the venerable appellation of 'Mother\nof the Arts.' The foundation of this school, though most probably of\nmuch higher antiquity, is assigned to Dibutades, who, in the humble\noccupation of a potter, became the accidental inventor of the art of\nmodelling. For this discovery, so precious in its subsequent effects,\nhe was indebted to the ingenuity of his daughter, who, inspired by\nlove, traced upon the wall, by means of a lamp, the shadowed profile of\nthe favored youth as he slept, that with this imperfect resemblance she\nmight beguile the lingering hours of absence. This outline the father,\nfilling up with clay, formed a medallion, which, even to the time of\nPliny, was preserved as a most interesting relic. To the same pleasing\norigin painting has been ascribed--another instance of that delightful\ncharm, which, to their poetry, their arts, their philosophy even, the\nGreeks have imparted by the constant union of sentiment and reason--of\nthe heart with the understanding.\n\nThe little island, or rather rock, of \u00c6gina, still one of the most\ninteresting spots of Greece, rising above the waves of the Saronic\ngulf, nearly opposite to Athens, affords a striking illustration of the\neffects of commercial wisdom. Insignificant in extent, boasting of few\nproductions, it was yet enabled, by this wisdom, long and successfully\nto maintain the struggle of warfare, and to cherish the arts of\npeace and of elegance, especially sculpture, in a school, if not the\nearliest, certainly latest distinguished by originality of style and\ninvention. Smilis was famous by his statues of Juno, especially one\nat Samos, called by Pliny 'the most ancient image' of that goddess.\nEven in the works of this, her first master, it is said, were to be\ndiscovered a gravity and austere grandeur, the principles of that style\nvisible still in the noble marbles which once adorned, in \u00c6gina, the\ntemple of Jupiter Panhellenius.\n\nCorinth was early more celebrated as the patroness of painting.\nConcerning D\u00e6dalus, the first of the Athenian sculptors, doubtful or\nfabulous accounts have reached us; but a careful investigation of\ncircumstances proves, that of whatsoever country a native, he had\nrendered himself renowned by the exercise of his skill at the court of\nMinos before settling in Attica. The facts attending his arrival there,\nand the history of his previous labours, enable us to fix dates, and to\ntrace the true source of improvement in Grecian art at this particular\nera. Of the early establishments of the Greeks planted in the isles of\nthe \u00c6gean, which even preceded the mother country in the acquisition\nof wealth and intelligence, the Doric colony of Crete enjoyed, from\na very early period, the happiness and consequent power of settled\ngovernment. External advantages of situation first invited the access,\nwhile domestic institutions secured the benefits, of ancient and\nuninterrupted intercourse with Egypt. Hence the laws and the arts of\nthe Cretans. With the former, the Athenian hero, Theseus, wished to\ntransplant the latter also; and while he gave to his countrymen a\nsimilar system of policy, he did not fail to secure the co-operation\nof one whose knowledge might yield powerful aid in humanizing a rude\npeople by adding new dignity to the objects of national veneration.\nAccordingly D\u00e6dalus, accompanying the conqueror of the Minotaur to\nAthens, fixes there the commencement of an improved style, 1234 years\nbefore the Christian era. With D\u00e6dalus, the artists already mentioned\nare described as nearly or altogether contemporaries.\n\nThe performances of D\u00e6dalus were chiefly in wood, of which no fewer\nthan nine, of large dimensions, are described as existing in the second\ncentury, which, notwithstanding the injuries of fourteen hundred\nyears, and the imperfections of early taste, seemed, in the words of\nPausanias, to possess something of divine expression. Their author, as\nreported by Diodorus, improved upon ancient art, so as to give vivacity\nto the attitude, and more animated expression to the countenance. Hence\nwe are not to understand, with some, that D\u00e6dalus introduced sculpture\ninto Greece, nor even into Attica; but simply that he was the first\nto form something like a school of art, and whose works first excited\nthe admiration of his own rude age, while they were deemed worthy of\nnotice even in more enlightened times. Indeed the details preserved\nin the classic writers, that he raised the arms in varied position\nfrom the flanks, and opened the eyes, before narrow and blinking,\nsufficiently prove the extent of preceding art, and the views we\nhave given on the subject. In these primitive schools, however, many\ncenturies necessarily elapsed, before sculpture can be considered as a\nregular art. Their founders and pupils were little more than ingenious\nmechanics, who followed carving among other avocations. Such were\nEnd\u00e6us of Athens, celebrated for three several statues of Minerva;\n\u00c6peus, immortalized as the fabricator of the Trojan horse; Icmulous,\npraised in the Odyssey as having sculptured the throne of Penelope;\nwith many others who must have contributed to the arts of the heroic\nages, and who, if they did not rapidly improve, at least kept alive the\nknowledge of sculpture.\n\nBesides these continental schools, another must be described, which\nthere is every reason to believe was still more ancient, and which\ncertainly attained higher perfection at an earlier period. This was\nthe insular Ionian school, flourishing in those delightful isles\nthat gem the coast of Asia Minor, and chiefly in Samos and Chios. To\nthis the continental academies were even indebted for many of their\nmost distinguished members, who, leaving the narrow sphere of their\nisland homes, naturally preferred the commercial cities from the same\ncauses which had rendered these originally seats of art, opulence,\nintelligence, and security. Of the Samian masters, Rh\u00e6cus, about the\ninstitution of the Olympiads, or 777 B. C., first obtained celebrity,\nas a sculptor in brass, in which art, Telecles and Theodorus, his son\nand grandson, also excelled. Their works in ivory, wood, and metal,\nwere extant in the age of Pausanius, whose description exhibits the\nhard and dry manner of Egypt, whence it is probable these artists had\nderived their improvements, distinguished for very careful finish.\nThe Chian school claims the praise of first introducing the use of a\nmaterial to which sculpture mainly owes its perfection, namely, marble.\nThe merit of this happy application is assigned to Malas, the father\nof a race of sculptors, and who is placed about the 38th Olympiad, or\n649 years before the Christian era. Michiades inherited and improved\nthe science of the inventor, transmitting to his own son, Anthermus,\nthe accumulated fame and experience of two generations of sculptors,\nto whom, as to their successors, the beautiful marbles of their native\nisland furnished one rich means of superiority.\n\nIn the insular,--and the evidence is in favour of the Chian school,--we\nalso first hear of bronze statues. The earliest works of this kind were\nnot cast, but executed with the hammer. Two manners are discernible;\nlarge figures were formed of plates, and hollow, the interior being\nfilled with clay; in small pieces, the separate parts were brought\nnearly into shape in the solid, afterwards united, and the whole\nfinished by the graver and the file. These methods, in each of which\nrivets, dovetails, and soldering, formed the joints, were gradually\nsuperseded as the knowledge of casting was acquired.\n\nAbout the commencement of the sixth century before Christ, the school\nof Sicyon was illustrated by Dip\u00e6nus and Scyllis, brothers, the\nmost famous of her ancient masters, and whose age forms an era in\nthe history of the ancient art, marking the first decided advances\ntowards the mastery of the succeeding style. Their labours were in\nvarious materials, the most esteemed of marble; and the praise of its\napplication is shared betwixt them and the Chian school. Statues by\nthese artists, in Parian marble, were admired in the time of Pliny,\nexcited the cupidity of Nero, and are subsequently described by one\nof the Christian fathers, from the peculiar veneration in which they\nwere held. The style of sculpture had hitherto been extremely dry and\nminute;--a passion for extreme finish, in preference to general effect,\nhad distinguished former masters. This taste had been first introduced,\nand afterwards maintained, by the limited resources of the art itself,\nby the mediocrity of artists, and by the dress and ornaments of the\ntime. The hair arranged in undulating locks or spiral curls, and\nsometimes little separate knobs, was laboured as if to be numbered;\nthe drapery, disposed in the most rigid and methodical folds, finished\nwith painful minuteness; at the same time the limbs and countenance\nretained much of rude and incorrect form and tasteless expression, but\nelaborated with the extreme of care. It is far easier, and the common\nerror, both of inferior genius and of an unskilful age, to bestow on\nparts that talent and application by which a whole is to be perfected.\nThe fault of fastidious and useless labour, with inaccuracy of general\nresult, still attaches to the works of Dip\u00e6nus and Scyllis, but great\nmelioration is also apparent; their execution was much more free, the\nwhole effect more powerful, the expression, if not more animated, more\nnatural, and the forms better selected and composed. Colossal heads,\nnow in the British Museum, of Hercules and Apollo, most probably of\nthese masters, afford an admirable illustration of these remarks, and\nof the style of art at this early period. The fiftieth Olympiad, shows\nall the necessary inventions and principles of mechanical art fully\nknown and universally practised. Even so early as the twentyninth\nOlympiad, an equestrian group had been executed in Crete by Aristocles;\nall the proper materials, and the methods of working them, had long\nbeen discovered; in the greatest single work of these times, the shrine\nof Apollo at Amycl\u00e6, by Bathycles the Ionian, every description of\nrelief had been exhibited; and lastly, improvement had been fixed on\nsuch principles of taste and composition, as enabled succeeding efforts\nto carry it forward.\n\nThe extent of country in which the art was now cultivated, and the zeal\nevinced in the pursuit, corresponded to, while they increased, the\nimprovement of taste. Attention is now directed to a new school, that\nof Magna Gr\u00e6cia, which (during two thousand years), had been gradually\nrising into importance and excellence. Its chief seats were at Rhegium\nand Crotona in Italy, and in Sicily, Syracuse and Agrigentum. In these,\nthe artists first practised in metal chiefly, afterwards in marble;\nand were among the foremost to perfect iconic statues,--a source of\nmost decided advantage to the art. Omitting farther enumeration,\none of these early masters, Dionysius of Rhegium, merits to be\nmentioned as the first who composed a statue of Homer, erected about\nthe twenty-seventh Olympiad. This was an ideal bronze, in which the\ntraditionary resemblance had been preserved; and from this ancient\noriginal were taken those portraits of the father of verse which are\nmentioned by Pliny as so numerous in his time, and of which one or two\nexquisite examples still remain.\n\nThus five centuries and a half before the Christian era, sculpture was\npractised with success throughout the wide extent of Greece and her\ncolonies. During the former part of the sixth century, however, Sicyon,\nwhose school had added to its ancient supremacy by the superiority of\nDip\u00e6nus and Scyllis, continued to send forth, in their pupils, the\nmost numerous and efficient artists. Of these, the principal were\nLearchus, a native of Rhegium; Theocles, Dontas, Doryclidos, and Medon,\nLaced\u00e6monians; Tecteus and Angelion of Delos, where they erected a\ncolossal statue of Apollo. At Rhegium, Clearchus was highly esteemed,\nand had a very flourishing academy; while at Agrigentum, Perillus\nrivalled the masters of the parent schools. He cast the famous bull\nof Phalaris, afterwards carried off by the Carthaginians, restored by\nScipio, again the object of the cupidity of Verres, and of the praise\nof Cicero, whose words, _ille nobilis Taurus_, prove that the skill of\nthose early ages has not been too highly appreciated.\n\nBut the fame of all preceding sculptors has suffered from the superior\nreputation of the two Chian brothers, Bupalus and Anthemis, who lived\n517 years B. C. They were the first who brought to a high degree of\nperfection the discovery of their ancestors,--sculpture in marble.\nBoth Greece and Asia strove to possess their works, which were equally\nnumerous and excellent, and on which was inscribed, not their own,\nbut their father's name and their country's, in the following verse:\n'The sons of Anthermus will render thee, O Chios, more renowned than\nthy vines have yet done.' The beauty of these works caused them to be\nhighly valued in all succeeding ages, and they formed part of those\nmaster-pieces removed to Rome by order of Augustus.\n\nDuring the period of fiftyeight years, from the sixtieth to the\nseventysecond Olympiad, and the battle of Marathon, sculpture\nthroughout Greece was vigorously exercised, and with corresponding\nsuccess. At Athens, which, though distinguished in the very\ncommencement of our narrative, has subsequently appeared in the\nback ground, Pisistratus laid the foundation of that school whence\nafterwards issued the new lights of the art. This extraordinary man\nperceived and applied the proper remedy to the poverty of Attica: he\nintroduced manufactures and encouraged commerce; and while the true\nsources of political greatness were thus opened, the more enviable\nsupremacy of his country was secured in the intellectual empire of\nliterature and the arts of elegance. Yet this man has been termed, in\nthe history of that very country, a tyrant, because he saved her from\nher worst enemy, the mob--miscalled free citizens--slaves of their own\npassions, and agents in the hands of demagogues. Our own times are not\nwithout similar prejudices. Mankind seem destined, in all ages, to be\nthe dupes of fears and of phantoms which they themselves have evoked,\nand which distract attention from real danger. Happy that state,\ngoverned by rulers, who, like Pisistratus, will respect the essentials\nof free institutions, who will consecrate the resources of the state\nto promote the national grandeur, and save the people from themselves!\nUnder his protection were assembled the most esteemed artists of all\ndescriptions: of sculptors, Eucharis was famous for the figures of\nwarriors in armour; and Callon for statues of bronze. Callimachus\nis praised as master of all the arts of design, and in sculptural\ncomposition had introduced a lightness and elegance before unattained.\n\nIn other parts of Greece, during the same interval, were the following:\nDameas, of whose works, the statue of his compatriot Milo was the most\ncelebrated, and which the latter, among his other wonderful feats,\ncarried to the place of erection. Polycletus, the first of the name,\nand his master Ageladas, finished at Argos, their native city, the\nstatue of Cleosthenes in a car, soon after the sixtyseventh Olympiad,\nand one of the greatest works yet undertaken. At Sicyon were the\nbrothers Canachus and Aristocles, whose two Muses were the finest\nstatues then known; and of which, one is supposed to be the famous\nantique now in the Barbarini palace. Ascarus, at Elis, produced a\nJupiter crowned with flowers; Menecmus and Soidas a Diana, afterwards\nplaced in the palace of Augustus. Menecmus was the first who wrote on\nthe principles of his art. The Dioscorides of Egesias, contemporary\nwith the Persian invasion, have, by a misinterpretation of Pliny, been\nassigned to the figures now on Monte Cavallo, at Rome.\n\nThe victory of Marathon, B. C. 490, inspired fresh vigour into the\ngenius and institutions of Greece. From this date, to the government\nof Pericles, intervenes a period in moral grandeur, the brightest,\nperhaps, in Grecian history. Of the sculptors who then flourished,\nthe immediate predecessors, or early contemporaries, of Phidias, the\nfollowing were the chief: Onatas and Glaucias, of Egina; the one\nmodelled an admirable statue of Gelon, king of Syracuse; the other, an\niconic figure of Theagines of Thasos, four hundred times victorious\nin the public games. Critias replaced the statues of Harmodias and\nAristogiton, the originals having been carried off by Xerxes. Calamis\nwas still more renowned for his horses, which were likewise iconic\nstatues--a proof how early nature was admitted as the only guide in\nevery department of sculpture. Pythagoras of Rhegium surpassed all\nhis predecessors; his statues of Enthymus and Astylas, conquerors in\nthe Olympic games, were masterpieces of form; and in expression, his\nPhiloctetes exhibited deeper and truer sentiment than had yet appeared\nin any work. The name of Pythagoras, indeed, is closely associated with\nthe general advancement of the art, as ranking among the inventors of\nthat system of proportion which, derived from nature, taught to unite\nelegance with truth, and which invariably guided the practice, while\nits perfection was improved by the discoveries, of each succeeding\nmaster. In the mechanical department, also, his manner was more bold,\nfirm, and graceful, in delicacy of style being placed by Quintilian\ninferior only to Myron, the last and the greatest of the early school.\n\nMyron, a native of Eleuther\u00e6, exercised his profession chiefly at\nAthens, of which he enjoyed the citizenship. The decline of his life\ncorresponds with the early labours of Phidias: Myron thus unites\nthe first and second ages of Grecian sculpture, combining in his\nworks many of the essential excellences of its perfection, with\nsome of the remaining hardness and defects of its pupillage. In\nadopting this chronology, we seem to reconcile conflicting opinions\nboth with each other and with history. The principal works of Myron\nwere in bronze, and the most colossal in wood; consequently, no\noriginal of his hand has come down to modern times. There can,\nhowever, be no doubt that the famous Discobolos is preserved to us\nin more than one antique repetition. Hence, and from the writings\nof the orators and historians, a fair estimate of his merits may\nbe deduced. His composition was distinguished for energy, science,\nand truth. Iconic statues he carried to a degree of excellence and\nvigour, as in the portrait of Ladus, unsurpassed in any succeeding\nage. The Bacchus, Erectheus, and Apollo, executed by order of the\nstate, were not less admired by the Athenians; the last, carried\naway by Antony, was restored to them by Augustus, in consequence of\na dream. His representations of animals were equally admirable; and\nseem, if possible, to have been more universally praised, judging\nfrom the circumstance of no fewer than thirtysix laudatory poems on\nthe famous heifer being still extant in the Anthology. Myron carried\nmere imitative art to its utmost limits; yet in some of the minor\ndetails, the dry manner of the first ages appeared. Sculpture, as\nthe representation of the external form, he perfected; but as an\ninstrument of touching the heart--of elevating the imagination--of\nembodying sentiment, he proved unequal to call forth its powers. He\nrepresented nature forcibly and with fidelity, but without grandeur or\nideal elevation. An important approach, however, to just conceptions\nof abstract beauty, is to be perceived in the principle which he is\nsaid first to have promulgated,--that propriety in the separate parts\nwas beauty, or that a work of art was beautiful as a whole, according\nas the partial forms and proportions corresponded to their offices and\nto the general character. This, in fact, is the essence of corporeal\nbeauty, the highest refinement of material art; and assigns to form,\nindependent of mind, the noblest expression of which it is susceptible.\nThis is the utmost range attained by the genius of this the first\nperiod in the history of art in Greece, and an admirable ground-work\nfor the sublimity, and refined perceptions of the beautiful, added in\nthe era that followed.\n\nCasting a retrospect over the ages that have passed in review, how are\nwe struck with the slow and painful growth of human invention! The\ncollective energies and discoveries of a thousand years were required\nto rear the arts of Greece--not to their perfection, but to the state\nwhere the first decided approaches to it commence. Such is the length\nof time from the first feeble glimmerings of imitative art to the era\nof Dip\u00e6nus and Scyllis, Bupalus and Anthermus. The interval of forty\nyears occupied by these artists, from the fiftieth to the sixtieth\nOlympiad, may be considered as terminating the old, and introducing\nthe new school. The art was now in possession of all the means and\ninstruments, the correct application of which bound the aspirings and\nthe praise of mediocrity, but which merely become subservient to the\naims of loftier minds. During part of this period, also, these means\nwere industriously, and with daily improving skill, employed. From\nthis date to the battle of Marathon, an interval of fifty-eight years,\nimprovement was rapid in every corner of Greece and her colonies.\nFortunately, also, the movement then given to Sculpture was one of\ndiffuse activity, not an influence derived from, and sustained amongst,\na few leading minds, whose authority might thus have operated fatally,\nby binding down to fixed and imperfect modes the aspirings of future\ngenius. This advantage was secured by the number of independent states\nforming the Grecian confederacy, a constitution, which, throughout the\nwhole history of ancient art, exercised the most beneficial effects,\nboth by preventing mannerism, in taste, and by nourishing emulation.\n\nThe Persian invasion, the victories of Marathon, Salamis, and Platea,\nawakened a new energy in the moral character of Greece, infusing at\nthe same time into her institutions a vigour and a stability before\nunknown. From the elevation she had now attained among the nations of\nthe earth, her genius rushed forward as from vantage ground. In every\nfield of mental enterprise, indeed, a certain preparation had already\nbeen made, and in some the best exertions had long been achieved. In\npoetry a sublimity had been attained, which has yet set at nought all\nsucceeding rivalry. But in that knowledge, and in those arts, which\ndepend less upon individual eminence, and more upon the circumstances\nof the times, and upon a strong national interest,--in all those\nstudies which embrace numbers by their consequences or their success,\nwhich demand the union of patient perseverance with high talent, and\nfinally, which pertain to the business of public life, and require deep\ninsight into the nicer distinctions of human character--all, from this\nhappy era, with an almost supernatural progress, attained maturity.\n\nThe opulence and security, with the resulting consciousness of power,\nand the love of elegance, which followed the defeat of the Barbarians,\nproved especially propitious to the arts of sculpture and architecture.\nIf in the former any doubt be entertained, what the difference of\nimprovement was between the artists who preceded and those who\nfollowed the age of Xerxes, we have only to recall the fortunes of\nthe drama during the same heart-stirring period. In the last of the\n74th Olympiad, A. C. 489, or one year after the battle of Marathon,\n\u00c6schylus placed the first wreath upon the solemn brow of Tragedy.\nNot twenty years afterwards, the warrior bard was vanquished by his\nyouthful rival. Between the Prometheus of \u00c6schylus, then, and the\n[OE]dipus of Sophocles, we find as wide an interval as is necessary to\nsuppose between the sculptures contemporary with the former, and the\nproductions of Polycletus or Myron.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHE age of Pericles seemed marked out by fortune as a distinguished\nepoch in the history of his country. The fine talents, also, and\npopular qualities of this accomplished statesman, were admirably\nadapted to turn to the best account the propitious circumstances of the\nperiod. To the further progress of the fine arts, and of sculpture in\nparticular, preceding events, and their present consequences, almost\nnecessarily contributed; while the condition of the art itself was just\nfitted to receive the perfecting impulse.\n\nThe energies of sculpture, likewise, were now to be more directly\nconcentrated in one parent school; which, while it especially adorned\none seat, preserved yet the stirring rivalry of honorable emulation,\nas being the common seminary of free and independent states. The noble\nstand she had made, her superior sacrifices and sufferings in the cause\nof freedom, directed to Athens the sympathy and deference of Greece.\nThe prosperity, too, of her political situation, was suitable to the\nsupport of this moral pre-eminence. Provided with means of defence and\nof commerce, on a scale which seemed to contemplate future empire, she\nwas left by Themistocles with ample resources--a noble field of fame\nand recompense for the artist. He himself, satisfied with the useful,\nhad cared less about the ornamental; but, among the little he did add,\nwere the lions, now at Venice, originally placed on the entrance to the\nPir\u00e6us, in which fidelity of detail, and grandeur of conception, have\nfurnished to us existing evidence of the skill of this age.\n\nGreat as they were, the mind of Phidias proved equal to these external\nadvantages. Possessing that rarest and highest of all genius which\nis at once creative and regular--learned, yet original, he caught the\ninspiration of art in the most elevated range of the past, bringing in\nhis own attainments a sublimity and truth yet unequalled by all that\nhas followed.\n\nThis great master, the son of Charmidas, an Athenian citizen, was\nborn about the 72d Olympiad, or nearly 500 years before our era, and\nstudied under Eladas. His numerous works belonged to three distinct\nclasses: Toreutic, or statues of mixed materials, ivory being the\nchief,--statues of bronze,--sculptures in marble. In this enumeration\nare included only capital performances, for exercises in wood, plaster,\nclay, and minute labours in carving, are recorded occasionally to have\noccupied his attention. The beauty of these miniatures was not inferior\nto the excellence of his greater works; at once sublime and ingenious,\nhe executed grand undertakings with majesty and force, and the most\nminute with simplicity and truth.\n\n  'Artis Phidiac\u00e6 toreuma durum\n  Pisces adspicis: adde aquam, natabunt.'\n\n  'These fish are iv'ry--but by Phidias made;\n  From want of water only seem they dead.'\n\nOf the works belonging to the first division, the Olympian Jupiter, and\nthe Minerva of the Parthenon, colossal statues composed of gold and\nivory, were the most wonderful productions of ancient art. The former,\nplaced in the Temple at Elis, was sixty feet high, in a reposing\nattitude, the body naked to the cincture, the lower limbs clothed in a\nrobe gemmed with golden flowers; the hair also was of gold, bound with\nan enamelled crown; the eyes of precious stones; the rest of ivory.\nNotwithstanding the gigantic proportions, every part was wrought with\nthe most scrupulous delicacy; even the splendid throne was carved with\nexquisite nicety. The whole was finished before the artist had obtained\nthe direction of the public works of the Athenians, in the 83d Olympiad\nafter a labour of ten years; the same date in which Herodotus read the\nsecond part of his history, the first regular prose composition that\nhad been heard at Athens.\n\nAbout twelve years later was executed the Minerva, of inferior\ndimensions, being only forty feet in altitude, but equal, if not\nsuperior, in beauty of workmanship and richness of material, the nude\nbeing of ivory, the ornaments of gold. A flowing tunic added grace to\nthe erect attitude of the goddess: in one hand was a spear, upon the\nhead a casque; on the ground a buckler, exquisitely carved, the concave\nrepresenting the giants' war, the convex a conflict with the Amazons,\nportraits of the artist and of his patron being introduced among the\nAthenian combatants--one cause of the future misfortunes which envy\nbrought upon the author. On the golden sandals was also sculptured\nanother favorite subject, the battle of the Centaurs, praised by\nhistorians as a perfect gem of minute art.\n\nSuch admiration attached to these two works, that they were regarded as\n'having added majesty to the received religion;' and it was esteemed a\nmisfortune not to have been able, once in a lifetime, to behold them.\nYet judged according to the true principles of genuine art, theirs\nwas not a legitimate beauty. It does not excite surprise, then, to\nlearn that Phidias himself disapproved of the mixed effect produced\nby such a combination of different substances, nor will it appear\npresumptuous here to condemn these splendid representations. It is not\nsufficient that a work of art does produce a powerful impression--it\nis indispensable to its excellence that the means employed be in\naccordance with the principles and the mode of imitation. Now, in the\ncompositions just described, exposed as they were to the dim light of\nthe ancient temple, and from very magnitude imperfectly comprehended,\nthe effects of variously reflecting surfaces, now gloom, now glowing\nof unearthly lustre, must have been rendered doubly imposing. But\nthis influence, though well calculated to increase superstitious\ndevotion, or to impress mysterious terror on the bewildered sense, was\nmeretricious, altogether diverse from the solemn repose, the simple\nmajesty of form and expression, which constitute the true sublimity of\nsculptural representation.\n\nStatuary, or the art of casting in bronze, as the term was used by\nthe ancients, Phidias carried to unrivalled perfection. The Amazon,\nthe Minerva, at Lemnos, and in the Acropolis, were considered as the\nmasterpieces in this department. The last, called the Minerva Polias,\nwas of such majestic proportions, that the crest and helmet might\nbe discerned above the battlements of the citadel at a distance of\ntwentyfive miles, pointing home to the Athenian mariner, as he rounded\nthe promontory of Sunium. Of these and other works, descriptions\nalone remain; we are consequently indebted for our positive knowledge\nof his style and principles to the marble sculptures of Phidias, in\nwhich department numerous admirable performances of his hand have also\nperished; but we have here an advantage in the possession of undoubted\noriginals denied in every other instance.\n\nOf the scholars of Phidias, the most esteemed were Alcamenes the\nAthenian, and Agoracritus of Paros. Their real merit, however, is\nmatter of uncertainty, since their works are reported to have been\nretouched by their master, who was likewise in the habit of inscribing\nhis statues with the names of his favorite pupils. Indeed, the\nsublime style perfected by Phidias seems almost to have expired with\nhimself--not that the art declined, but a predilection for subjects\nof beauty, and the softer graces, in preference to more heroic and\nmasculine character, with the exception of the grand relievos on the\ntemple of Olympia, may be traced even among his immediate disciples.\nAmong his contemporaries, indeed, Polycletus, the second of the\nname, has been by some placed equal in grandeur of style, while by\nothers he has been described as unequal, to the majesty of the great\nAthenian. Polycletus himself appears to have decided the controversy,\nby showing, from the selection of his subjects, that his genius\ncarried him to the imitation rather of the beautiful than the great.\nHis most celebrated performances were the statues of two youths, both\nnude, the Diadumenos and the Doryphorus, so called from their action\nof binding the head with a fillet, and bearing a spear. The latter\nformed the famous 'canon,' from which, as from an unerring standard,\nall succeeding artists, even Lysippus, borrowed their proportions.\nAmong contemporaries, also, a most distinguished station must have been\noccupied by Ctesilaus, since he contested with Phidias and Polycletus\nthe public prize of merit for a statue to be dedicated in the temple of\nthe Ephesian Diana. To this artist is erroneously ascribed one of the\nfinest specimens of art now in existence, miscalled, but best known as,\nthe Dying Gladiator, and which, more than any other ancient example,\ndiscovers the most profound knowledge of the internal structure of the\nhuman frame.\n\nFrom the banishment and death of Phidias, which occurred some time\nbefore his patron died of the plague, in the last year of the\neightyseventh Olympiad, the history of art is carried forward through\na period, one of the most stormy and unsettled in the Grecian annals.\nHe beheld the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, an event, indeed,\nPericles is accused of having at least hastened, in order to screen his\nremaining friends from those accusations of which the sculptor had been\nthe guiltless victim. During thirty years of hostile commotions, the\narts flourished with almost unimpaired vigor, except that towards the\nclose of the contest, sculpture, which had naturally participated in\nthe fortunes of Athens, suffered a decline in this its capital school.\nThe spirit of the age generally, however, united with the sentiment\nof hostility a more generous rivalry in excellence of every kind.\nThe grand and beautiful in art continued to be followed and admired,\nwhile, amid the contention of arms, eloquence began to attain that\nnervous elegance which yet renders attic oratory the finest model of\ndeliberative procedure. Even the less friendly interval which followed,\nthe establishment of the iron rule of Sparta--the ruin of the milder\nand more splendid dominion of Athens--and, more disastrous still,\nthe war kindled by the ambition of Thebes, with the various isolated\nstruggles arising out of these leading events, appear to have produced\nno material degradation in that heroic style, whose lofty character\nharmonized with the strong excitement of contests for freedom or empire.\n\nOf the artists who adorned this stirring era, the names of nearly\nfifty, with descriptions of certain of their works, have been handed\ndown in the incidental notices of contemporary history, or in the\nmore detailed accounts of Pausanius, Strabo, and Pliny. Naucydes was\nauthor of that beautiful figure holding a discus, and measuring in his\nown mind the distance, of which antique copies remain, admired for\nfine position, sweet variety of contour, and unaffected expression.\nLeochares, Bryaxis, and Timotheus, assisted in the erection of the tomb\nof Mausolus, where Scopas, superior to all others mentioned, presided.\n\nThus his age is fixed about the 102d Olympiad, or 370 B. C. To the\nchisel of this eminent artist is ascribed the Townley Venus, or Dione,\nnow in the British Museum, as also the group of Niobe at Florence.\nGrace, softness, and truth, were the characteristics of his style,\nwhich may be considered as forming the intermediate gradation between\nthat of Phidias and those of Praxiteles and Lysippus; between the two\ngrand divisions of Greek sculpture, the schools of grandeur and of\nbeauty.\n\nIn the era and labours of Phidias, we discover the utmost excellence to\nwhich Grecian genius attained in the arts. From an examination, then,\nof this excellence, we shall not only obtain a knowledge of that style\npronounced by the Greeks themselves to be their proudest achievement\nin sculpture, but may also be able to elicit principles of the highest\ngeneral importance in the philosophy of imitative art. This inquiry\nlikewise demands attention, were it merely on account of the singularly\nfortunate circumstances under which it can be instituted. Respecting\nthe most esteemed masterpieces of antiquity, reasonable doubts still\nexist how far our judgments are formed upon real originals. But in the\nmarbles of the British Museum, the former ornaments of the Parthenon,\nwe certainly behold the conceptions, and, in some measure, the very\npractice of the great Athenian sculptor. Both statues and relievos\ncompose these precious remains, one of the noblest bequests of ancient\nto modern talent. The statues adorned the two tympana of the Parthenon,\nwhich was amphiprostylos or double-fronted, consisting, besides\nfragments, of fourteen groups, or seventeen figures, of the natural\nproportions. The relievos are of two kinds, one of which formed the\ninner frieze of the cella, and flat, representing the procession of the\nPanathenean festival; the other, consisting of fifteen metopes of the\nexterior peristyle, very bold, even to entire roundness in some parts,\nthe subject, combats of the Centaurs with the followers of Theseus,\nappropriate to a national temple.\n\nIn these sculptures, the technicality is of unequal merit; but in\nthe design, the presence of the same mind is visible throughout. In\nthe statues, and in the frieze, of which nearly two hundred feet\nstill remain, the execution generally approaches so near the beauty\nand grandeur of the composition, that we seem to trace not only one\nintelligence, but one hand; in the metopes, again, a baldness of\nrendering, utterly inconsistent with the fervid idea, is occasionally\nperceivable. These contradictions would naturally arise from, and can\nbe explained only by, the fact that the master-spirit overlooking\nthe whole trusted the expressing of his conceptions to assistants of\ndissimilar capacity. Of the intellectual character, grandeur is the\nprevailing principle; the grandeur of simplicity and nature, devoid\nof all parade or ostentation of art. The means are forgotten in their\nvery excellence, and in the fullest accomplishment of the end. The\nancient critics, who, in speaking of Phidias, seem to labour with the\npower of those ideas awakened by the contemplation of his works, are\nfond of comparing their effects to those of the eloquence of their most\naccomplished orators. The comparison is happy. The sculpture of Phidias\nmight well be assimilated to Demosthenian eloquence, in the truth and\naffecting interest of its imagery, and in its power of bearing the\nwhole soul along in our engrossing feeling. But the sternness and\nthe severity of the orator, the taking of the heart by force, attach\nnot to the artist; all is here sweet and gracious; we are willing\ncaptives to the witchery of art. It is this union of the graceful and\nthe pleasing with the energetic and the great, which constitutes the\nsurpassing merit of the works we are considering. Exquisitely delicate\nin the minute, in the grand, the style is bold, vigorous, and flowing.\nTheir author, to use the language of antiquity, united the three\ncharacteristics of truth, grandeur, and minute refinement; exhibiting\nmajesty, gravity, breadth, and magnificence of composition, with a\npractice scrupulous in detail, and truth of individual representation,\nyet in the handling rapid, broad, and firm. This harmonious assemblage\nof qualities, in themselves dissimilar, in their results the same,\ngives to the productions of this master an ease, a grace, a vitality,\nresembling more the spontaneous overflowings of inspiration than the\nlaborious offspring of thought and science.\n\nThe attentive study of the remaining labours of Phidias, and,\nfortunately for the arts of Britain, their final abiding place is with\nus, will supply a criterion by which to estimate the principles of the\nbeautiful in execution, and of the ideal in imitative art, as exercised\namong the Greeks in the most splendid period of their refinement, and\nwill prove guides by which we may emulate, perhaps, equal, our masters.\n\nIn all that merely meets the eye, the marbles of the Parthenon display\nthe finest keeping, with the general nobleness of their intellectual\ncharacter. But the execution is perfect, simply because the composition\nis so. It comes not forward as an independent merit. Its exquisite\nmechanism operates without intruding. Unseen and unfelt amid the\nintelligence it conveys, it is finally noticed as an harmonious element\nof a perfect whole, and only then calls forth an especial admiration.\nThe finish is high, and even delicate, because the extreme beauty and\ncorrectness of the design required to be rendered with corresponding\nelegance and ease. The chiselling is at once detailed and vigorous,\nharmonizing with attitudes and expressions full of vivacity, natural\ngrace, and dignity. The touch is broad, the forms decided--the marking\ndeep and firm, according with and increasing the general grandeur\nand conception. The style of design, indeed, is, in the strictest\nacceptation, learned, the parts being pronounced with a decision and\ntruth unequalled, we are almost inclined to say, in any other remain of\nantiquity.\n\nThe ideal of Phidias is derived entirely from nature, as the true ideal\nof art must ever be. Much has been said respecting the import of this\nterm among the ancients; and the words their writers have employed in\nspeaking of this very master, have been construed into meanings not\nonly inconsistent with, but subversive of, the principles of genuine\nexcellence. If, by the divine archetypes which he is reported to\nhave followed, be implied, that he copied after ideas not existing\nin nature--living and tangible nature, the breathing works before us\nattest, that whether ancients or moderns, these critics speak with\nmore zeal than knowledge. In the Elgin marbles, every conception\ndeeply participates of human sentiment and action, so intimately does\nthe representation belong to reality, that every form seems, by the\ntouch of enchantment, to have become marble in the very energies of\nits natural life. This happy effect of truth, however, does not arise\nfrom the imitation of common, that is, of imperfect types; neither is\nnature the only real object of art, viewed through any medium of fancy,\nnor imitated according to conventional or imaginative principles. The\nartist has only looked abroad upon all existence, refining partial\nconceptions and limited modes by the unerring and collected harmonies\nof the whole. The true ideal, then--the ideal of Grecian sculpture, as\nbeheld in these its sublimest productions, is but the embodied union\nof whatever of beauty and perfection still lingers among the forms of\nnature viewed universally--free from individuality or accident. Truth\nis thus the primary constituent of the ideal. Beauty is the perfect\nexpression of this truth, agreeably to the most unblemished and purest\nmodels which general nature presents. In this union of collective\nexcellence and individual verisimilitude, the mind feels, and at once\nacknowledges, a power of awakening and reflecting its own truest, best\nsympathies. These principles are unfolded in their purest elements; and\nthe modes of accomplishing this union distinctly traceable by careful\nobservation on the style of Phidias. The forms are, in the first place,\ncomposed with the most correct, but unostentatious science; hence\nthe freedom of their movements, the ease of their attitudes, seeming\nto possess the same capabilities of momentary action as the living\nmodels. In this anatomical knowledge, too, as actually displayed,\nthere is a truly admirable simplicity: the bones and muscles are,\nindeed, pronounced with a firmness rare in antique sculpture, whence\nchiefly arises the wonderful elasticity of the figures. All this is\nunaccompanied with the slightest exaggeration; the divisions being\nfew, and masses large, the eye runs sweetly along the general forms,\nyet finds wherewithal to be delighted in resting upon details. This\nabsence, or rather this unobtrusiveness, of all pomp of art, throws\nover the whole an air of reality and of unsophisticated nature. But\nwith these essential qualities of merely imitative art, are united\nperfect symmetry, the most harmonious contours, grand composition, the\nmost refined taste, and noble expression. This causes every figure\nto respire an heroic and elevated character. Hence, we perceive,\nthat to base ideal upon imitative art--to address the imagination by\ngrandeur of design and perfection of form, while he appealed to the\njudgment by fidelity of detail and correctness of resemblance--have\nformed the objects of this great sculptor. The relations under which\ntruth and imagination produce results at once grand and interesting,\nhe has carefully studied and successfully rendered. Hence, while the\ngeneral composition breathes the loftiest spirit of ideal or possible\nexcellence, the means by which the sentiment is rendered are received\nfrom individual nature, expressed simply, and without artifice. In\nthis happy and unobtrusive union of nature and imagination, in this\ncontinually remounting, without convention or ostentation, to the\neternal sources of natural truth and beauty, Phidias displays the\nreal sublimity of art, and stands unrivalled among the masters of the\nancient world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHE progressive change in sculpture, from a style of severe and simple\nmajesty, to one of more studied elegance and softer character, already\nnoticed as having commenced even in the lifetime of Phidias, received\nits full developement under those masters who adorned the beginning\nof the Macedonian empire. Various political and moral causes, without\ndecline of talent, might have contributed to this change, which is not\neven so great, while it corresponds with, the contemporary revolutions\nwhich, from similar origin, took place in manners and literature,\nin the opinions and usages of the times. The annals of no nation,\nalso, can boast a distinguished succession of names, eminent in the\nexercises of the very highest genius. Sublimity is, in its own nature,\na more simple sentiment than beauty, and the sources whence it springs\ninfinitely more limited. If, then, we find the true sublime in Grecian\nsculpture confined to almost the age and the labour of one man, is this\nto be wondered at, when the same is the case, not only in their poetry,\nan art far more abundant in resources, but in the poetical literature\nof every people? The sculptors, then, who followed the era of Pericles\nto the death of Alexander, can be called inferior to Phidias, only\nin the same sense as the poets who succeeded will be termed inferior\nto Homer. In both instances, the change was but the application\nof principles which in their essence could not vary, the subjects\nrequiring a modification of certain distinguishing qualities.\n\nBut an opinion opposite to this is more commonly entertained, namely,\nthat not till the improvements of Praxiteles and Lysippus, was ancient\nart perfectly free from the rude and harsh of that early taste. A\nglance, however, either to the Greek historians, or especially to\nthe remaining labours of Phidias himself, is more than sufficient\nto show how utterly without foundation is this censure; and that no\nother man has united in his style more of the highest excellences. It\nis, in fact, this union which truly constitutes beauty in sculpture,\nwhose sources of pleasing and of moving, being new, and derived only\nfrom the essential elements of design, form, and expression, admit of\nseparation or imperfection with peculiar disadvantage. If we examine\nthe Elgin Marbles in regard to those qualities considered as especial\nconstituents of the beautiful, we shall find how slight indeed could\nbe succeeding additions. More seductive grace, an air more elaborately\nrefined, may have been given to the female statues of Praxiteles; but\nfor that perfect beauty, which arises from including the essentials of\nexcellence in the most liberal proportion, we search successfully in\nthe labours of Phidias alone.\n\nThe views now taken of Grecian sculpture, in which we have divided the\nsubject into three schools, are thus proved to be correct. Two of these\nhave already been examined; the old school, which brought material\nart almost to perfection, retaining only a degree of constraint, but\nwanting the expression of mind; the Phidian, or sublime school, in\nwhich the genius of art soared to its loftiest height. The third is now\nto be considered, which, from the prevailing character of its principal\nworks, has been rightly termed the School of the Beautiful.\n\nThe discussions which have been so warmly agitated regarding the true\nera of this school, seem entirely gratuitous. It is acknowledged,\nthat the greatest masters of whom this latter age could boast, were\nPraxiteles and Lysippus, contemporaries, and both highly esteemed by\nAlexander the Great. Coeval, then, with the commencement of the career,\nand during the brief empire, of this prince, is to be placed the\nbrightest period in this last display of the arts and genius of Greece.\nMany external circumstances concurred, with the encouragement given\nby Alexander himself, to render his reign propitious to refinement,\nscience, and letters; while a reaction of opposite influences, on his\ndeath, closed with that event both the progress of higher improvement,\nand even the prospect of long retaining the knowledge possessed. In\nsculpture, particularly, a visible decay of talent, and a neglect of\nthe exercise, soon after follow. Indeed, Pliny decidedly says, that\nart from thenceforth ceased,--_deinde cessavit ars_. This expression\nmust be understood in a limited sense; there is no doubt, however, that\nthe causes of decline, whose consequences wealth, the complexion and\nrenewed energies of the times, had retarded, were then recalled into\nmore direct activity.\n\nPraxiteles, born about the 104th Olympiad, or 364 B. C., was a native\nof Magna Grecia, but of what town is uncertain. From preceding remarks\nit will appear, that in praising him as an original inventor,--the\ndiscoverer of a new style, writers very generally have mistaken the\ninfluence exercised by his genius upon the progress and character\nof sculpture. Finding the highest sublimity in the more masculine\ngraces of the art already reached; perceiving, also, that the taste\nof his age tended thitherwards; he resolved to woo exclusively the\nmilder and gentler beauties of style. In this pursuit he attained\neminent success. None ever more happily succeeded in uniting softness\nwith force,--elegance and refinement with simplicity and purity; his\ngrace never degenerates into the affected, nor his delicacy into\nthe artificial. He caught the delightful medium between the stern\nmajesty which awes, and the beauty which merely seduces,--between the\nexternal allurements of form, and the colder, but loftier, charm of\nintellectuality. Over his compositions he has thrown an expression\nspiritual at once and sensual; a voluptuousness and modesty which touch\nthe most insensible, yet startle not the most retiring.\n\nThe works which remain of this master, either in originals or in\nrepetitions,--the Faun,--the Thespian Cupid, in the Museum of the\ncapitol,--the Apollino with a Lizard, one of the most beautiful, as\nwell as difficult, specimens of antiquity, abundantly justify this\ncharacter. Of the works that have utterly perished, the nude and\ndraped, or Coan and Cnidian Venus of Praxiteles, fixed each a standard\nwhich future invention dared scarcely to alter. Indeed, he appears to\nhave been the first, perhaps the sole master, who attained the true\nideal on this subject, in the perfect union of yielding feminine grace\nwith the dignity of intellectual expression. The Venus of Cnidos, in\nher representative the Medicean, still 'enchants the world',\n\n                                --and fills\n  The air around with beauty: we inhale\n  The ambrosial aspect, which, beheld, instils\n  Part of its immortality; the veil\n  Of Heaven is half withdrawn; within the pale\n  We stand, and in that form and face behold\n  What mind can make when nature's self would fail.\n\nLysippus of Sicyon the younger, contemporary and rival of the\npreceding, appears to have wrought only in metal. Accordingly, in\ncomparing him with Phidias, Aristotle employs distinctive terms, which\nboth point out this fact, and would alone settle the needless dispute,\nwhether the latter wrought in marble. Of the 610 works, an incredible\nnumber, ascribed to Lysippus, not one survives; for the Venetian\nhorses originally brought from Chios, by Theodosius the younger, to\nConstantinople, and thence removed to St Mark's in 1204, are unworthy\nof the artist's reputation. The bust at Portici requires also to be\nauthenticated, though of superior merit. Born in the lowest walks of\nlife, Lysippus was, in a great measure, self-taught, and commenced\nhis studies where the art itself had begun,--with nature. Though a\nperfect master of beauty, his style appears to have been distinguished\nby a more masculine character than that of the age. He was emulous of\nreviving the grave and severe grandeur of the preceding school. This\npredilection his subjects and materials would cherish, if not produce.\nColossal and equestrian statues of warriors in bronze, demanded a\nforceful and vigorous composition, with sober and dignified expression.\nThe Tarentine Jupiter, sixty feet high, was in magnitude equal to any\nundertaking in the ancient world; and twentyone equestrian statues of\nAlexander's bodyguard, who fell at the Granicus, would alone have\nsufficed for the labour of years to an ordinary artist. But not only\nin great works was Lysippus famous; many of the most beautiful and\ndelicate description are recorded. His finishing was exquisite, his\nimitation of nature faithful 'as truth itself,' and he especially\nexcelled in the knowledge of symmetry. He was so great a favorite with\nAlexander, that to him alone permission of casting the prince's statue\nwas granted; and it may serve to prove how justly this admiration\nof his own age was deserved, that centuries after, even the monster\nTiberius trembled in his palace at an insurrection of the Roman people,\noccasioned by the removal from one of the public baths of a figure by\nLysippus.\n\nDuring at least forty years from the death of Alexander, the\nschool founded and presided in by these two masters would preserve\nundiminished the beauty of the art. The latter was still alive on\nthe death of the Macedonian prince, in the last year of the 114th\nOlympiad, or 324 B. C.; while Praxiteles survived to the 123d Olympiad.\nIf, again, we consider the pupils immediately deriving their science\nfrom these great men, the period may be extended during which Greece\ncould have produced sculptors not unworthy her ancient glory. When\nwe contemplate also her condition in other respects, never had she\nexhibited a more numerous or a more imposing assemblage of intellectual\nworthies. Surely, then, the death of a despot could not have wrought so\nfatal and so immediate a decline in the means and faculties of human\ngenius. No! but the consequences of that event destroyed an artificial\nsystem, and dried up factitious streams of prosperity, which for a\ntime had supplied or concealed the absence of those healthful and\nconstitutional currents, whence was circulated, throughout the whole of\nGreece, the very life-blood of her glory and greatness. Had liberal\ninstitutions been then restored; had the moral vigour of her better\ndays reappeared, even amid wars and revolutions--in such struggles they\nhad been reared--her genius and taste, her letters and arts, would have\nsurvived. These were innate in the constitution of her free states. The\nlast, in particular, formed at once a means and an end in her popular\ngovernments. Springing up an ornamental blossom amid the sterner and\nthe nobler fruits of liberty, they withered as independence decayed.\n\nWe would not be understood as here maintaining a respectable and\namiable, but unfounded theory, that the fine arts have never flourished\nexcept under popular governments, nor that they ceased with such\nforms in Greece. In this, more than in any walk of genius, is the\nactive encouragement of the supreme power indispensable to excellence.\nBut never can the arts of taste flourish in true grandeur, where\npatriotism and popular feeling are not the paramount, or at least the\napparently paramount, principles of the times, and source of their\npeculiar cultivation. The arts themselves must be essentially free;\nthey must likewise derive their quickening inspiration from a national\nsentiment of interest and of country. Pisistratus and Pericles, we\nhave seen, while rulers of Athens, were but superintendents of the\narts, in their application to public purposes, in unison with public\nwill, and in obedience to public approval. Even Phidias prepared with\ntrembling anxiety to receive the award of merit from the voice of\nhis fellow-citizens; and only on the supposition that they were to\nundergo the ordeal of a close inspection before being placed in their\ndestined situation, can we account for the exquisite finish of the\nElgin Marbles, even in parts not exposed to the effects of climate.\nOnly when the purity of this source of honor was contaminated, did\nart fall, never to rise again. Not till every institution belonging to\nthe republican ages of Greece; not till every sentiment of a generous\nkind had been trampled upon; not till the Olympic games ceased,--till\nthe physical education and martial exercises of the youth were\nneglected,--till the arts, separated from national polity, became\ndependent on the caprice of individuals,--till there was no longer\npublic spirit nor patriotic feeling; not till all that creates and\nendears the name of country had sunk beneath a foreign yoke or domestic\nthraldom, did Greece cease to produce artists.\n\nAgain, the period of this decline extends through nearly two hundred\nyears, from the dismemberment of the Macedonian empire, to the final\nreduction of Greece into a Roman province. This space of time, in\nregard to the eras of Sculpture, has been variously and too minutely\ndivided. Each favorable turn of circumstances enabling the art to\nrecover a little, has been exalted into an epoch. Into these details\nit needs not to enter. From the death of Praxiteles, or at least in\nthe school of his own and the pupils of Lysippus, as Cephissodotus,\nson of the former, Tauriscus, Eubolas, Pamphilus, Polyceutas, Agasias,\nand others, it does not appear that original works of magnitude or\nbeauty were produced. After this the labours of artists seem to\nhave been confined to copies of the works of the older masters, and\nchiefly to making repetitions in marble of the ancient bronzes. To\nthis period belong many of the antique marbles now remaining. Pliny,\nindeed, though not with strict correctness, considers that Sculpture\nlay dormant during one hundred and twenty years, from the 120th to\nthe 150th Olympiad. The Ach\u00e6an league, and the expiring efforts of\nGreece under the last of her heroes, Aratus and Philop\u00e6men, inspired a\ndegree of vigour into her intellectual exertions. Of these warriors,\ncontemporary statues are noticed by Pausanius; and the latter is\nreported to have excelled in painting. But the \u00c6tolian war broke for\never the ties of country, and the sacredness of national glory. Temples\nwere therein first desecrated,--statues and paintings defaced in\nGreece, and by the hands of Greeks. If, during the same era, we direct\nour attention to the successors of Alexander in Egypt and Asia, we\nfind letters cultivated in preference to art; or, where Sculpture is\npatronised, as at the courts of the Ptolemies and the Seleucid\u00e6, the\ncultivation of a taste between Grecian and barbarian only hastened the\nprogress of corruption. One bright interval yet arose in the parent\nseats of refinement, upon the declaration, by the Romans, of freedom to\nthe states of Greece. Sculpture, for more than thirty years of apparent\nliberty at least, and of real repose, was exercised with considerable\nsuccess by the masters, Antheus, Callistratus, Polycles Apollodorus,\nPasiteles, and others, possessing considerable merit, though far below\nthe genius of ancient times. This was the struggling gleam of the\nexpiring taper--the farewell sweet of a sun about to set forever. The\nindependence of Greece endured only by sufferance; the Ach\u00e6an league\nwas dissolved, and Corinth and its capitol levelled with the dust, to\nthe sound of Roman trumpets--the knell of freedom and of the arts in\nGreece.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE history of Sculpture in Italy divides into two distinct, yet\nconnected, subjects of inquiry, embracing two very dissimilar\ndynasties--the Etruscan and the Roman. Of the former interesting people\nwe know far too little commensurate with their power, and the influence\nwhich they appear to have exercised upon the spirit and progress of\nancient art. The Thyrreneans, or Etruscans, it is certain, possessed,\nat a very early period, the empire of almost the whole Italian\npeninsula, and, to a very considerable extent, whatever of refinement\nexisted in those primitive times. Respecting the origin of the nation,\nhowever, and the sources of this intelligence, authors disagree; while\nthe scanty annals that have reached us, through the medium of the\nLatins and Greeks, enemies or rivals, leave but too much scope for\nunsettled opinion. The various systems here may be arranged under two\ngeneral heads; first, that the Etruscans were of Lydian extraction,\nand under their king, Thyrrenus, settled in Italy at an era anterior\nto authentic history: or, secondly, that the early colonization of\nEtruria was owing to the wandering tribes from Greece, chiefly of the\nPelasgic race, who settled at different times prior to the Trojan war.\nNeither of these opinions, singly, accords with contemporary, nor\nexplains subsequent events; combined, they account both for the skill\nattained by the Etruscans in the arts of taste and civil government,\nwhile Greece was yet in a state of pastoral rudeness, and also for\nthe subsequent interweaving into their history of Grecian fable and\nmythology. We enter not farther into this disquisition, interesting as\nit undoubtedly is. For our present purpose, it is sufficient to bear\nin mind, that Sculpture in Etruria had attained a coeval, if not a\nprior, degree of refinement as compared with Greece, and that regard to\npreserving the unity of the subject has alone occasioned the precedence\nin time given to the arts of the latter.\n\nThe remains of Etruscan Sculpture are not numerous, and of these the\nauthenticity of some may justly be doubted. Taken in general, the works\nof national art consist of medals and coins; statues of bronze and\nmarble; relievos; sculptured gems; engraved bronzes; and paintings.\n\nThe first class is the most numerous, and contains many beautiful,\nindeed, for those early ages, wonderful specimens. These are all\ncast of a compound metal, being of two kinds, either mythological or\nsymbolical in their representations. Of the statues, it is difficult\nto say whether those in marble be early Greek or Etruscan; the smaller\nones in bronze are more authentic, being household divinities, or\nmerely ornaments: of those in the size of nature, scarcely one has\nescaped suspicion of its true age. One or two exhibit great beauty.\nOf the ancient relievos found in various parts of Italy, several\nare admitted to be genuine Etruscan; and here there can be little\nhesitation, as a series of sepulchral monuments, sarcophagi, and\naltars, might be arranged and compared throughout the whole period of\nItalian history. Gem engraving was brought to great perfection at an\nearly period both in Greece and Italy. Of this minute but charming art,\nprobably the oldest specimen now extant represents five of the seven\nchiefs who fought against Thebes. Of this the design is inartificial,\nand the workmanship rude; other Etruscan gems, however, or _scarab\u00e6i_,\nfrom their resemblance to the shape of a beetle, as the Tydeus and\nPeleus, equal the most exquisite performances in this branch. The most\ncurious and numerous remains belong to the class of engraved bronzes,\nor pater\u00e6, small vessels used in sacrificing, circular, and, in the\nsingle instance of the Etruscan, with a handle. On the bottom, inside,\nwhich is perfectly flat, being merely a plate surrounded with a shallow\nbrim, there is usually engraved some mythological subject, of simple\ndesign, expressed in few, bold, firm, and deep lines.\n\nIn the style of these remains, three distinct eras of art among the\nEtruscans may be discerned. The first, or ancient style, commences\nwith the earliest notices of the people. It has been confounded with\nthe Egyptian and the Grecian; but the similarity is not greater\nthan characterises the infancy of invention among every people. And\nthough, apart, it might be difficult to discern their national or\noriginal elements, considered in connexion with the style of the\nfollowing era, their distinctive character becomes apparent, of an\nunfettered imagination, essaying its feeble powers by no systematic,\nno conventional representation, arising, as in Egypt, from an impulse\nforeign to art; while, from Greek sculpture of the same age, we clearly\ndistinguish the rudiments of new modes, and certain specialities in\nthe relations between fancy and feeling with nature. The vigorous\nimagination, the bold forms and general tendency to exaggeration, which\nmay be traced even in its infancy, display in its perfection, during\nthe second epoch, the peculiar characteristics of Etruscan sculpture.\nIn the works of this age, there is strength, and massiveness, and\npower; but they want delicacy of proportion, discrimination of\ncharacter, and graceful simplicity. The third epoch embraces that\nperiod which beheld the gradual disappearance of the Tuscans as an\nindependent state from the face of Italy. Their political empire\nwas ingulfed in the extending dominion of Rome: the discriminative\ncharacter of their genius merged in the arts of the colonial Greeks;\nwhen, as we have already seen, the schools of Rhegium and Crotona sent\nforth masters equal, if not superior, to those of Greece.\n\nThese eras, in date and duration, nearly coincide with as many\nrevolutions in the political history of the nation. Their greatest\nextent of territory was held but for a short time, being quickly\nreduced on the south by settlements of the Dorian colonies, and on the\nnorth by the Gauls and Ligurians. It was only during their diminished,\nbut secure and admirably constituted empire in Etruria Proper, that\ntheir national arts flourished, and their national style was formed.\nEach of twelve allied, but separately independent capitals, then\nbecame a school of art, the friendly rival of her compeers--each\nexciting the industry, and directing the advance, of the other--each\nthe Athens of ancient Italy. Inflamed by the brutal spirit of mere\nconquest, the Romans broke in upon this tranquillity; and though, at\nfirst, science proved more than a match for force, Etruria, with her\nfree institutions, her elective magistracy, her solemn insignia, fell\nbeneath their rude despotism.\n\nThus terminated, 480 years from the building of Rome, the only native\nschool of art in Italy; and that here sculpture had been cultivated\nwith no ordinary ardour, is attested by the fact of the Romans having\ncarried off from Volsinum alone no fewer than two thousand statues.\nEven for some time after the subjugation of the Etruscan republics,\nsculpture was practised; but it soon lost all national character. The\nRoman dominion embracing the circuit of Italy, the Tuscan freeman and\nthe Greek colonist became alike its vassal; but their common masters\nfostered not the arts as native ornaments--as moral causes in their\nempire: they possessed merely sufficient knowledge to value the fruits\nof genius as the harvest of conquest. The same spirit actuated their\nsubsequent conduct, when their victorious armies came in successive\ncontact with the richer treasures of Sicily, and of Greece herself.\nMarcellus plundered Syracuse of her marble population, as a proof that\nhe had subdued her living inhabitants; and, from a still more sordid\nmotive, in which ignorance and avarice are disgustingly blended,\nMummius first began the work of devastation in Greece. A picture of\nBacchus, which the Corinthians, on account of its super-excellence,\nwere anxious to regain from the soldiers, who were using it as a table,\nis said first to have excited his cupidity. From the vast sum offered,\nthe Roman general conceived the picture contained gold, which he might\nperhaps discover when more at leisure; accordingly he delivered it to\na common messenger, with this sage menace, that he was to carry it\nsafely to Rome, under pain of being obliged to paint one equally good!\nSuch was the state of early republican taste, quite in keeping with the\nnational arts, sufficiently characterised by Tibullus, when he says:\n\n  'In paltry temple stood the wooden god.'\n\nOr by the opposition of Cato to the introduction of Greek statuary,\non the plea, that its divine forms would expose to ridicule the rude\nfashioning of the Roman deities.\n\nDuring the latter period of the commonwealth, attempts were\nsuccessively made by Sylla, Pompey, and C\u00e6sar, to domiciliate the arts\nin Rome. Their efforts, however, reached no farther than collecting\nin that capital the sculptors of Greece,--thus doubly unfortunate,\nas the place whence were torn the plundered ornaments of temples and\npalaces, and as the nurse of that science which, in busts and statues,\nwas to immortalize the lineaments of her enslavers. The patronage of\nAugustus, who could wield for his purposes the energies of the whole\nenlightened world, necessarily proved highly advantageous to art, which\nhe affected to cultivate from patriotic and intellectual, but really\nfrom those still stronger political motives. But of all the sculptors\nof the Augustan age whose names have reached us, every one is Greek,\nand chiefly Athenian. Pasiteles, Arcesilaus, Zopirus, and Evander, were\nthe most eminent. The arts, indeed, were revived; but the creative\nspirit which infuses life and soul into their productions, which stamps\nthem with originality and thought, could not be recalled. The character\nof design and of execution is evidently the same as that by which the\nlast era of sculpture in Greece is distinguished, or rather it is\nsuperior; for settled government, ample reward, and certain honor, not\nonly drew to Rome every man of talent, but also awakened new powers.\nBut in the finest specimens, there is no evidence of new energies,\nadded by the union of two separate modifications of talent; nor in\nthe inferior, any exhibition of the more original, though it might\nbe ruder, efforts of an aspiring and distinct national taste. Either\nor both of these effects would have been apparent, had there been\nnative, prior to this importation of Greek artists. On the contrary,\neverything in the sculpture of this era discovers a descent from a\nstate of higher excellence; every touch exhibits rather what has been,\nthan presages the eminence for which we are to draw upon futurity. From\nAugustus to Trajan, during a period of 140 years, the principles and\npractice of the Greeks continue to be observed, with such difference\nonly as political causes can easily reconcile, but with a progressive\ndecay. The most favorable periods during this space were the reigns of\nVespasian, Titus, and Trajan; for the reign of Nero, whose taste, like\nhis morals, was corrupt, which Pliny has assumed as an epoch in the\nRoman school, was propitious to practice, not to improvement.\n\nWith the reign of Hadrian, in the seventeenth year of the second\ncentury, is introduced a new style of sculpture, which may properly\nbe termed Roman. Here the distinguishing characteristic is extreme\nminuteness of finish, indicating the labour more of the hand than\nthe mind. The chisel, the file, the drill, have been plied with\nceaseless care, and great mechanical dexterity. Over the whole genius\nand spirit of the art, is now diffused an air of studied and even\naffected refinement, which smooths away every characteristic and\nnatural expression. For the sublime is substituted the difficult, the\nflorid for the elegant; and in every remaining specimen, we can readily\ndetect the taste which preferred a poetaster to Homer, or the laboured\ninanities of the sophists to the vigorous and manly eloquence of\nDemosthenes and Cicero.\n\nThe reign of the Antonines forms the last lucid interval in the arts of\nthe ancient world. The decline of sculpture from thence to the reign of\nConstantine would be almost incredibly rapid, were we not enabled to\ntrace its progress in the monuments that yet remain. Beyond Constantine\nit would not be difficult, but it would be useless, to carry our\ninquiries. When an imperial master of the world is found pilfering,\nfrom the monument of a virtuous predecessor, a few ornaments to deck\nthe record of his own triumphs, and which the whole ingenuity of the\nRoman world could not supply, the annals of ancient taste may be closed.\n\nSculpture, it thus appears--and the remark is true of all the arts--was\nnever cultivated in Rome as a native acquirement, as an integral\nelement in national history. As political causes, too, the arts\nscarcely operated, except merely in connexion with public monuments,\nwhich were treated more as matters of business than of sentiment;\nwhere the successful execution brought no accession of moral dignity\nto the artist, and where the modes long formed were adopted with no\nchange, save that arising from decaying capabilities. Of all the\nnations, indeed, who have held supremacy upon the earth, the Romans\nshow the poorest claims to originality; and have least impressed\nthe future fortunes of the human mind by any bold peculiarities or\nsuccessful darings of her own genius. In letters and in the arts,\nthey have bequeathed to posterity only modifications of the exquisite\ninventions of Greece. In letters, indeed, they have improved upon\ntheir borrowings, because in some instances they have imparted the\nstamp of nationality;--not so in the fine arts. Yet even in the\nformer, the improvement extends only to the manner; the material\nremains with little alteration, and no addition. The character of\nRoman talent--manly and persevering, though not inventive--seemed well\nadapted to succeed in sculpture, laborious in its practice, in its\nprinciples grave and simple. Three causes chiefly opposed this success.\nThe Romans regarded the art as the peculiar eminence of a conquered\npeople. Hence they cherished no genuine enthusiasm for its excellences,\nand no real respect for its professors--among them the fallen Greeks\nor manumitted slaves. Secondly, their national manners were inclined,\nwhile their spirit burned in its best energies, more to action and\nbusiness than to elegant accomplishment. As a more particular obstacle,\ngrowing out of this general cause, the desire constantly affected of\nbeing represented in armour, most materially operated against the\nimprovement of sculpture; and by shutting up the warm and breathing\nforms of nature, gave at once origin and inveteracy to the evils of\nharshness and incorrectness, in the early school, and in the latter, to\nfinical and ineffective laboriousness. Thirdly, the superlative beauty\nof the finest labours of Greece, scattered with amazing profusion\nthroughout Italy, rendered their possessors indifferent to contemporary\nand so conspicuously inferior works.\n\nTo this last circumstance, however, is principally to be ascribed the\nonly excellence to which Roman sculpture can justly lay claim, as it\nproved mainly instrumental in directing attention to that particular\ndepartment. The busts of the Roman school, from Julius to Gallienus,\nembracing a period of three centuries, exhibit a series invaluable in\nthe history of art, and in some instances capable of being compared\nwith the best of similar works of the first ages, without suffering by\nthe contrast. These do not, indeed, equal in heroic character one or\ntwo remains of Greece, but they exhibit a more powerful representation\nof individual mental resemblance. The soul of history absolutely seems\nto inhabit and to breathe from the marble. Into every movement of the\ncountenance is infused an expression so speaking, so characteristic,\nso full of individuality, that we seem to have set before us the very\nactor in those deeds which have formed our most serious studies.\nBut this high perfection applies only to the termination of the\ncommonwealth, or does not extend beyond the reign of Augustus. As we\nadvance, the impress of grandeur of thought, and energy of purpose,\nbecomes obscured. This in part is no doubt owing to the decline of\npower to represent; but the decay of internal nobleness in the subject\nappears to have at least kept pace with the fall of material art; and,\nin the words of Pliny, when there were no longer images of mind, the\nlineaments of form also degenerated.\n\nFrom a careful examination of the imperial busts,--for the jealous\nfears of these tyrants soon forbade any others to be sculptured--we\nderive our best knowledge of the Roman school. The style of design\nduring the first, or republican age, is distinguished by squareness\nand vigour in the forms--decision of arrangement--boldness and firmness\nin pronouncing the parts, accompanied with truth and great force\nof general effect, but destitute of minuteness and accuracy in the\ndetails. The mastery of touch, indeed, is frequently so daring, as to\nbe redeemed from the imputation of careless and unfinished only by the\nvigorous meaning of every stroke. We detect the greatest deficiency\nin those passing lines of thought and form, where little meets the\noutward sense, but in which the science and feeling of the artists are\nmost surely displayed and most severely tried; the expression of the\neyes are studied, and the eye-ball, with intent to produce an imposing\nlook, is made larger than in nature. The hair, though skilfully\nmassed, and fine in distant effect, is particularly heavy; indeed,\nthe characteristic defect is harshness--an absence of those sweet and\nflowing lines which bring the contour fully, but graciously, upon the\nview. To the close of the first century, bold and facile execution,\nand force of effect, continue to take the place of simple and accurate\ndesign and natural expression--faults most conspicuous in the most\nprosperous time, the reigns of Titus and Trajan, from the art being\nexercised chiefly on architectural designs. In addition to the dry, the\nhard, and laboured, the era of Hadrian is further distinguished by the\npupil of the eye having a deeply drilled orifice, and by the separate\nparts of the countenance being marked with an affected and unnatural\ndepth. The busts of Aurelius are the last good examples. Under Severus\nappears a singular affectation of marking the forehead, and even the\nwhole countenance, with furrows. Subsequently every reign displays more\ndecided retrogression, and the final disappearance of every redeeming\nexcellence.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\nWITH the dawn of liberty in the republican cities of Italy, we hail the\nreappearance of the arts. Before the close of the thirteenth century,\nPisa, with the neighboring cities of Etruria, the ancient seats of\nelegance, had already made progress in sculpture. The founder of this,\nthe primitive school of modern Europe, was Nicolo Pisano. The works of\nthis master, and those of his scholars, still remaining in his native\ncity, in Sienna, Arezzo, Pistoia, Orvieto, and Lucca, induce a very\nhigh opinion indeed of the progress of the age. In the succeeding\ncentury, the art was carried by his grandson, Andrea, to Florence,\nthe future head and fountain of art. Here, in 1350, was established\nthe first academy of design; and before the close of the century,\nsculpture was firmly established, and far from unskilfully practised,\nthroughout a considerable portion of Italy. Nor was this the limit\nof the influence, though, as upon its centre, the eye of history is\nfixed chiefly here. Fraternities of itinerant sculptors carried their\nart over Germany and France; and even in England the works of this\nearly school have been traced. In these countries the numerous Gothic\nedifices, with their sculptured ornaments, furnished rich occasions for\nthe exercise of the art; but from this very circumstance it ceased, in\na certain degree, to be regarded as independent of architecture. In\nItaly, private excellence was better preserved, and is easily traced.\nBut it was union with the grand moral and political principles of free\nconstitutions, that in Italy at once gave dignity to, and cherished the\nprogress of, the arts. In the ancient world we bade a common farewell\nto freedom and to genius, nay, virtue at the same time would have\nwinged her flight, had she not found an asylum on earth in the bosom of\nChristianity. Upon the ages now passing in review, when Freedom again\nrises, we behold genius also revive, as if the sweeter sensibilities\nand the manlier virtues had together slumbered through the long long\nnight of ignorance and of despotism. It is thus that spring, breathing\non bank and wild wood, unchains the bud and the blossom from the\ntenderest floweret to the hardy oak.\n\nIn the progress of intelligence, the fifteenth century constitutes a\nsplendid era. Advances were then accomplished in moral, intellectual,\nand political knowledge, which form the ground work of no\ninconsiderable portion of modern science. In the arts of elegance,\nespecially in sculpture, the labours of this age will always hold\ndistinguished rank. In the first year of the century, we find six great\nmasters--competitors for the same public work--the bronze folding-doors\nof the baptistry at Florence: Brunelleschi and Ghiberti, Florentines;\nJacomo della Quercia of Sienna; Nicolo Lamberti of Arezzo; Francisco\ndi Valdambrino, and Simon dei Colle, Tuscans. The competitors each\nafterwards became the head of a flourishing school. Ghiberti, a youth\nof twentythree, was the successful candidate; and the work thus\nassigned to his superior merit, occupied forty years of his future\nlife, remaining still one of the proudest triumphs of modern talent.\nThe subjects are upon panels in relievo, representing historical\npassages from the Old and New Testaments, and the same which were\nafterwards declared worthy the gates of Paradise.\n\nThis era may be styled the commonwealth of sculpture; no single master\nso far excelling his compeers as to impress upon the art the stamp and\nbearing of one individual style. But among this crowd of illustrious\ncontemporaries, Donatello, born in 1383, and already an eminent artist\nat the age of twenty, stands forth pre-eminently conspicuous by the\nmagnitude and excellence of his own labours, as also by the number and\nmerits of his pupils. His performances, in almost every variety of\nmaterial, are scattered over all Italy; the best are in Florence, but\nthe equestrian statue of Erasmus, Duke of Narni, in that city, merits\nattention as the first attempt of such magnitude in the revival of art.\n\nThe numerous scholars of Donatello may be divided into two classes.\nThe first comprehends those who, without producing much of their own,\nhave attained reputation as fellow-labourers in the most considerable\nundertakings of their master. The legitimate disciples of Donatello,\nhowever, consists of those who, without servilely following in the\ntrain of their instructer, preserved, or even in some respects\nimproved, the science derived from his precepts. These include most of\nthe leading masters of the latter part of the century, for in every\ntown of importance he had left works and planted a school. After the\ndemise of Ghiberti in 1455, and of Donatello in 1466, the art was far\nfrom languishing in the hands of their successors, and especially under\nAndrea du Verrochio, towards the close of the century. In the academy\nfounded by the Medici, many of the most eminent men of the next century\nare to be found, as yet youthful though not undistinguished pupils.\n\nIn reviewing the ages which have been made to pass before us in their\nleading characters, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, we\nperceive, may be termed the infancy of sculpture; with the fifteenth\nbegins its manhood, while in some respects full vigour was attained\neven at the close of this period. During the two preceding centuries,\nwe find views frequently derived from the antique, of which many\nspecimens were brought directly from the East to Pisa. A character\nof truth and simplicity, faithful imitation of nature, and just\nexpression, visibly begin from the time of Nicolo, whose own style\nindeed is remarkable for sweetness and absence of all pretension. The\neffect is never daringly ventured, but is sought to be discovered by\npatient reiteration of effort and persevering imitation. At first,\ntherefore, no acknowledged principles of taste or of composition can\nbe perceived; a degree of restraint and meagreness consequently long\npervade the early labours of sculpture. But if in these the creative\nfaculties have seldom been conspicuously exerted; if the fancy be\nrarely excited by novelty or variety of invention, the heart, even in\nthe sculpture of the fourteenth century, is often awakened to deep\nfeeling by unexpected beauties of the sweetest power, arising from\na diligent imitation of nature. The art being chiefly dedicated to\ndevotion, and to the memory of departed virtue, an air of dignified\nsincerity, a touching portraiture of the gentler affections, diffuse\nover the mind of the spectator a melancholy yet pleasing serenity, to\nbe felt rather than described--which give back the images of our own\nsensibilities in all their simple, unpretending reality. The succeeding\nage assumes a style and character more elevated, without being less\ntrue. The simplicity is refined--equally removed from affectation\nas from poverty--the skill of hand great, the execution bold and\nfelicitous; yet still exercised as a means, never as an instrument to\nastonish or surprise. Nature is imitated faithfully, under the least\nremote appearances, and by the simplest expression--the manner never\nallures from the subject. The great proportion of the sculpture of\nthis century being in bronze, may account for a style of execution\nin some respects harsh, with a degree of restraint, and occasionally\ndefective in energy. As respects intellectual merits, the design is\nalways chaste, often extremely elegant; the composition judicious,\nseldom contrasted or grouped artificially. The expression is sweet and\ncalmly dignified, for rarely is strongly marked passion attempted.\nNo decided aims at representation of abstract or ideal beauty can be\nobserved; the powers of fancy are never presumed upon--seldom roused\nby remote associations. But the mind of the artist, now no longer\nentirely engrossed in mechanical detail, or confined by difficulties of\nmere representation, expatiates, selects, combines; if the forms and\nconceptions are not invested with the sublimity of ideal elevation, the\nbeautiful models of real existence are imitated not unsuccessfully.\nWere the extent and object of art confined to simple imitation, the aim\nof the sculptor would now nearly be attained. Yet, judging even by the\nprinciples of the most refined criticism, one department, during the\nfifteenth century, acquired a perfection which has not been surpassed,\nrarely equalled, in succeeding times. Donatello and Ghiberti, the\nformer in high, the latter in low relief, have left models which\nit does not easily appear possible to excel. The best of these are\nDonatello's, in the church of San Lorenzo, representing the most\nmemorable events in the life of the Saviour; and Ghiberti's, already\nnoticed, on the gates of the baptistry at Florence. The subjects seem\nto have imparted to the genius of the sculptors a portion of their own\nsacred dignity, and calm and holy feeling. Indeed, to the influence of\nreligious impressions, we attribute, to a great degree, the improvement\nof sculpture during this age, the principal undertakings being from\nScripture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\nNOTWITHSTANDING the very considerable attainments already exhibited,\nto the perfection of Sculpture, there yet wanted greater ease and\ngrace of execution, more perfect and elevated expression, more refined\nselection of form and composition,--more, in short, of that heightening\ncharm which fancy lends to reality--of that which constitutes the\npoetry, not the fiction, of art. The first blush of the times, too, at\nthe commencement of the sixteenth century, seemed to promise a most\npropitious era for the accomplishment of these remaining improvements.\nIn Italy, yet the only fixed and native seat of art, a spirit of\nrefinement and love of elegance, a high and general respect for art,\npervaded all ranks. Universal activity, also, and energy of character,\ngrowing out of the conscious dignity of independence, animated the\nrepublican cities. Each vied with its neighbour in the splendour of\npublic buildings, and in munificence of patronage. Florence, indeed,\nfrom her peculiar advantages and superior opulence, sooner distanced\nrivalry; but her schools were open to all, and her Medici, the most\nenlightened of patrons, were as yet but merchants and simple citizens.\nIn those states, too, where free and popular government was not\nestablished, kings and princes affected to love and encourage the\narts. Literature, in most of the countries of Europe, had spread its\nlights around; the ancient models of eloquence were known, at least\nin their precepts, to all who laboured in the fields of genius; and\neven in sculpture, some of the most breathing fragments had been,\nor in the course of the century, were restored to day. The stir of\nspirit had penetrated even the recesses of papal domination and\npriestly ease. Means of empire were now to be essayed more congenial\nto the complexion of the times, and to the minds of men, than\nspiritual weapons, unhallowed in every church, because unscriptural,\nor than--more unjustifiable still, when wielded by ministers of\npeace--secular arms. Rome was to be rendered the home and habitation\nof art, as of religion. She was to contain a temple vainly hoped to\nbecome the Zion of the Christian world. All these causes, favorable as\nthey were to general developement of talent, tended with a peculiar\nenergy to the advancement of sculpture, in which, with the exception\nof poetry, the greatest progress had yet been accomplished since the\nrevival of intelligence. The path, too, which had here been pursued,\nled directly to excellence. Nothing was to be unlearned. The era bore a\nstriking resemblance in its leading features to that of Pericles; there\nwas wanting only a Phidias to realize its expectancy; and in Michael\nAngelo, the genius of Greece seemed to be supplied.\n\nFor three fourths of the sixteenth century, this extraordinary man\npresided in the schools, and by his style influenced much longer the\nprinciples of modern art. To him, therefore, during the most brilliant\nperiod in the annals which we are now feebly endeavoring to trace,\nis the attention chiefly directed. Nor only in one point of view, is\nhis genius to be contemplated. He has extended the grasp of a mighty\nthough irregular spirit over our whole subject. Sculptor of the Moses,\npainter of the Last Judgment, architect of the Cupola--we behold in\nhim the greatest of the works of art. It is this, more than any other\ncircumstance, which has invested the character of his genius with a\nspecies of awful supremacy not to be inquired into; discrimination is\nlost in general admiration; and to him who thus seems to bear away the\npalm of universal talent, we are inclined to concede the foremost\nrank in each separate pursuit. His productions, thus dominating among\nthe labours of man, bewilder the judgment both by their real and their\napparent magnitude. Thus some giant cliff, rising far above minor\nelevations, while it serves as a landmark to the traveller, misleads\nhis conceptions of its own distance and immediate relations of site.\n\nHere it appears the proper, or at least simplest method, to present\nsuch gradual unfolding of the subject as each branch separately may\nseem to require, reserving a general view for such place as shall\ngive the reader full command of the joint influences, bearings, and\nconsequences of these details.\n\nIn sculpture, the works of Michael Angelo are divided between Rome and\nFlorence. They are not numerous, and few are even finished. Impatience\nof slowly progressive labour, united with indomitable activity and\nunwearied industry--fastidiousness of fancy, and exalted perceptions\nof excellence, joined with a reckless daring in execution, form\nsingular distinctions of intellectual temperament. Hence have sprung\nthe characteristic beauties and the besetting errors of his style in\nsculpture--a style discovering much that is derived from liberal and\nenlightened study of the sublime and graceful in nature, but still\nmore of those qualities which arise from the peculiarities of an\nindividual and erratic, though rich and powerful, imagination. Rarely\ndo his statues exhibit that simplicity and repose essential to beauty\nin an art--grave, dignified, or even austere, and possessing means\ncomparatively limited and uniform. Forced and constrained attitude,\nproportions exaggerated, expression awful, gloomy, and unearthly, forms\nof unnatural, of superhuman energy--these constitute the ideal of his\ncomposition. In giving visible existence to these ideas, his execution\nis most wonderful. A force, a fire, an enthusiasm, elsewhere unfelt,\nunknown, give to every limb and lineament, a vitality, a movement,\nresembling more the sudden mandate of inspiration, than a laborious\nand retarded effort. The first impressions created by these works are\nthus irresistibly powerful; but they startle, surprise, astonish--do\nnot soothe, delight, and satisfy the mind. An influence originating\nsolely in the imagination, and in which the sensibilities of the heart\nhave little interest, cannot long retain its power; the ordinary tone\nof feeling returns, and amid the unquiet and aspiring composition seeks\nfor nature and repose.\n\nIf the productions and style of Michael Angelo be compared with the\ngreat standards of excellence and of truth in sculpture--nature, and\nthe remains of ancient art, he will be found to have deviated widely\nfrom both, or rather, perhaps, he has rendered both subservient to\nhis own particular views of each. He has created to himself modes of\nimitation, which should in themselves claim a paramount importance,\nindependent of all archetypes; while these latter are connected with\nthe originals of reality, only as an intermediate step to the realms\nof fancy. Hence, round a false, though gorgeous and imposing art,\nhis genius has swept a magic circle, within whose perilous bound no\ninferior spirit has dared with impunity to tread. Unfortunately,\nhowever, such was the fascination produced in his own age, when the\nforcible and imaginative were admired above the simple and the true,\nthat his works became a standard by which the past was to be tried,\nand the future directed. As a necessary consequence, a prodigious\nand irreparable lapse was prepared for the art. The imitation of a\nnatural style will ever be productive of good; it will ultimately\nlead to no imitation, by conducting to the primeval source. The very\nreverse is the effect of following a guide such as Buonarotti, who\nhas departed from nature farther, we will venture to say, than any\ngreat name on record, whether in literature or in art. Irregularities\nand imperfections in almost every other instance of lofty genius, are\nforgotten amid the deep-thrilling pathos, or soothing loveliness,\nof natural expression; but amid the awe-inspiring, the commanding,\nthe overpowering representations of the Tuscan, the soul languishes\nfor nature. His creations are not of this world, nor does feeling\nvoluntarily respond to the mysterious and uncontrollable mastery\nwhich they exert over it. The cause and progress of this dereliction\nof nature can also be traced. He had marked the perplexities and\nconstraint under which his predecessors had laboured, in their\nendeavors to unite the forms and expressions of living nature with\nimages of ideal beauty, overlooking the productions of classic\nsculpture, in which this union is so happily accomplished: because to\nhis vigorous, rather than refined perceptions, its simplicity appeared\npoverty, he fearlessly struck into a line of art, where all was to be\nnew--vehement--wonderful.\n\nFrom the antique, besides simplicity, Michael Angelo has deviated in\nanother important, and, indeed, vital respect; a deviation, indeed,\nwhich changes completely the very aspect of art. Of the two elements\nof sculptural design--form and expression--the ancients selected\nform as the principal object of their representation: the modern has\npreferred expression, to which he may be said almost to have sacrificed\nform; or rather, he has so contorted his figures, by the violence of\ntheir emotions, that all is expression, and that of the most vehement\nkind. Here, however, it may be asked, how far has prescription the\npower to determine this matter? To this it may be replied, that not\nonly the associations springing from the most perfect of human works\nwere opposed to this choice, but also the internal proprieties of\nthe art favour the selection of the ancients. In sculpture all is\nstaid, enduring, actual; movement alone is the only passing object\nof imitation. Expression, therefore, at least strong and individual\nexpression, as a primary characteristic--as destructive of symmetry,\nand as implying an effort ungraceful, when connected with unyielding\nmaterials, seems not a legitimate beauty of higher art. Indeed,\npassion is inconsistent with the beautiful in form, or the dignified\nin sentiment. A sweetly pleasing, a gently agitating excitement, or\na nobly repressed feeling, visible only in the resolve of soul, and\nmastering of sorrow, is the true and the only proper expression in\nsculpture. Grief alone seems to be admissible in its deepest pathos.\n\nConsidered in connexion with the impetuous style of his composition,\nnothing can be finer than the execution of Michael Angelo. It\nparticipates in, it harmonizes with, his ardent temperament of mind;\nrapid, impatient, fervid, it seems to animate and create, rather than\nform, the breathing conceptions. But taken alone, it discovers many\ntechnical peculiarities and imperfections. From having sometimes merely\nsketched, or, at most, modelled the subject in small, nay, in some\ninstances, with no other suggestion or guide, save the accidental shape\nof the block, he struck into the marble. It was impossible, under these\ncircumstances, to avoid error. While the hand, the eye, the mind, were\nthus in instant exertion; while propriety of expression and beauty of\noutline, mechanical detail, and general effect, grandeur of the whole,\nand propriety of parts, were at once to be studied, and that, too,\nwhere each stroke removes what never can be again united--imperfection\nwas almost a necessary consequence. Hence the want of proportion so\nconspicuous in many of his best works--in the Moses even; hence so\nfew finished; hence, too, his statues, like paintings, seldom present\nmore than one point of view. As regards more individual details; in\nthe salient lines of the contours, the circles have rarely their just\nvalue, and the surfaces want their proper fulness. Partly to compensate\nthis deficiency in the advancing curves, partly as a characteristic\ndistinction, which consists in strongly pronouncing the muscles, the\nretiring lines, or muscular depressions, are expressed in exaggerated\ndepth. Trusting to mechanical dexterity, also, and to a profound\nscience, he was frequently reduced to work without model, or reference\nto the living form. This produces a rigidity, a want of feeling, and\na mannerism, in his best performances even, the commencement of those\nconventional modes which finally superseded all diligent study of\nnature, and led to the abandonment of every genuine grace of sculpture.\n\nThe style and character of composition now described is evidently\none of study and acquisition; we might therefore expect a gradation\nto be apparent in the works from which we have deduced our remarks.\nAccordingly, the earlier performances of the artist retain much of the\nsimplicity and truth of the fifteenth century, exhibiting, at the same\ntime, much of the better part of the qualities now described as the\npeculiar characteristics of the school. These we are inclined, upon\nthe whole, to regard, if not the most splendid, as the most correct\nexamples of Michael Angelo's powers. His later and more important\nlabours present, in their full maturity, the peculiar modes of thought\nand execution which constitute the principles of this era. A regular\ngradation, however, is scarcely to be traced, since, in his very old\nage, he perceived and lamented the brilliant but fatal errors of his\nstyle; and, in the few works then finished, a degree of sobriety\nand chasteness is observed. He saw and lamented, too late, the fall\nprepared for sculpture.\n\nOf the works of this master at Florence, the Bacchus, notwithstanding\nthe undignified expression of inebriety, is the most correct in its\nforms, and the least mannered in composition. The tombs of the Medici\nshow much of whatever is most splendid, and what is most reprehensible\nin the genius of their author. They might indeed be selected as special\nillustrations of the general views just given. Every figure--there are\nsix--bears the strong impress of a spirit delighting in the great and\nthe wonderful--an imagination eager in the pursuit of untried modes\nof existence, and a consciousness of power to execute the most daring\nconceptions. Intelligence in science, breadth of touch, boldness of\nmanner, fearlessness of difficulty, unite to give life and movement\nto attitudes the most remote from such as nature would voluntarily\nassume, or graceful design select. Rome contains the most perfect and\nthe most wonderful of Michael Angelo's statues. The Piet\u00e0, or Virgin\nand Dead Saviour, in St Peter's, finished in his twentyfourth year,\nis not only at the head of the first division of his works, but, on\nthe whole, is the least exaggerated, and the most natural of all.\nThe Moses, on the tomb of Julius II., amid the creations of genius,\nrises a solitary and matchless monument. Without model among the\nproductions of antiquity, it has remained inimitable and unimitated in\nmodern times. Neither in nature do we find its prototype: it is the\nextraordinary conception of an extraordinary mind. Thus isolated by its\nown peculiar sublimity of character, this statue exhibits a striking\nresemblance of the imagination whence it derived existence. We behold\na being who awes, who subdues, yet who fails to interest--for with\nsuch humanity entertains no communion of feeling. Here the sublime\nis too exclusively sought in the vehement and the marvellous; every\neffort is forced, every trait exaggerated, and the whole shows a daring\noriginality verging on the extravagant and the false. The solemn\nmajesty--the dignified repose--the commanding simplicity, admired in\nancient sculpture--those milder beauties which sentiment alone can\nappreciate--those exalted and touching graces which arise from elegance\nor nobleness of form--from refined and subdued expression--from\nelevated yet genuine nature, in the Moses are looked for in vain.\n\nThan Michael Angelo, no artist has ever exerted a more extensive\ninfluence, or more deeply impressed his peculiar views, upon art.\nIndeed, so much is this the case, that, during the sixteenth century,\nnot a single sculptor appears who is not to be ranked either as a\ndisciple or imitator. Even to this our own time, the influence in some\nrespect continues. In sculpture more than in painting or architecture,\nthough for the first he did less than for the second art, was his\ngenius paramount. Of contemporaries, then, and successors, from his\ndeath in 1564, to the end of the century, the only distinction is\nbetween those who imitated and those who studied under this great\nleader. Among the most eminent of the former was Baccio Bandinelli,\na rival, who contended with less generous weapons than those of\ntalent: yet he must receive justice,--as a sculptor he is second only,\nsometimes hardly inferior, to Buonarotti. Baccio di Monte Lupo was\nan original artist of considerable power. Andrea Contucci founded\nthe school of Loretto. Francisco Rustici, an excellent founder, more\neminent still as the master of Leonardo da Vinci, carried the manner of\nthis school into France, dying at Paris in 1550. Giacomo Tatti, better\nknown as Sansovino, presided over the Venetian works of sculpture and\narchitecture with much reputation, having studied along with Michael\nAngelo at Rome, whence he fled in 1527, on the sack of that capital\nby Bourbon. He survived the great Florentine, and became founder of a\nnumerous and respectable school, where Cattaneo and Vittoria supported\nthe credit of their instructor: the latter perfected working in stucco.\nIn Milan, Agostino Busti, and Guglielmo della Porta, were highly\ndistinguished, especially the latter; as were also, in Naples, Marliano\nNola, and Garolamo St Croce. In these schools, however, we trace the\nmost rapid decay of the art, in simplicity and correct design, from the\nsplendour of the courts demanding employment of the arts on objects\nof temporary interest, when rapidity was preferred to excellence of\nexecution.\n\nAmong the real disciples of the Florentine, the following were the\nchief:--Raphael di Monte Lupo, a favorite pupil, who assisted his\nmaster in the tomb of Julius, the greatest undertaking in modern\nsculpture, if completed; Nicolo di Tribulo, an excellent founder, by\nwhom are the bronze doors of the cathedral at Bologna; Giovanni del\nOpera, whose name is significant of his industry; Danti, the closest\nimitator of his instructer. Ammanati subsequently transferred his\nattention to architecture. Giovanni di Bologna, a Frenchman by birth,\nan Italian as a sculptor, was the most eminent of all the scholars of\nMichael Angelo; and, on the death of the latter, continued to be the\nleading master in Europe till the end of the century.\n\nBeyond the confines of Italy, the art had yet made few advances\nworthy of notice; and what little had been accomplished was upon the\nprinciples of the Tuscan school. Thus, at the close of the sixteenth\ncentury, the genius and principles of Michael Angelo extended their\ninfluence over the whole of Europe. During the last thirty years of\nthis era, however, the art had been on the decline. These principles\ncould be maintained only by that genius by which they had been\ninvented and matured; and by it alone could the errors of the system be\nconsecrated or concealed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHE seventeenth century thus rose with few favorable presages for\nsculpture. The Group of Hercules and the Centaur, set up in Florence\nthe last year of the former era, serves to show a considerable falling\noff in the intellectual qualities, while it displays also many\nimprovements and facilities introduced into the technical principles\nand modes of mechanical operation. These are the last beauties to\nlinger in the lapse of talent. External circumstances, also, both\nmoral and political, had become less favorable. The states of Italy\nwere either no longer alive to the same motives which had induced\na cultivation of sculpture, or, with the loss of liberty, had lost\nalso the desire of prosecuting the measures of public aggrandizement.\nThe ascendancy of painting, likewise, was hostile to the recovery of\na manly and accurate style of design in the sister art; while the\nspirit of philosophical inquiry, which came abroad in the seventeenth\ncentury, was inimical to the fine arts generally. It must, however,\nbe acknowledged, that the great sources of decline originated in the\nstate of the art itself. Indeed, when a high degree of excellence has\nbeen attained in any art, a rapid and sudden retrogression will always\nbe found to indicate the operation of external influences; at the same\ntime, such falling off must always be preceded by, and is in part the\nresult of, internal corruption in the principles of composition or of\ncriticism.\n\nA crowd of undistinguished names followed the dissolution of the great\nTuscan school. And when at length an artist of decided talent appeared,\ninstead of retracing the steps of his predecessors, he struck into a\nnew path, conducting still more pronely to error. Bernini, born at\nNaples in 1598, though immeasurably inferior to the mighty master of\nthe last century in majesty and energy of mind, possessed most of\nthe requisites for becoming one of the greatest of modern sculptors.\nUnfortunately, he neglected, or was ignorant of, the species of\ninvention which belongs to an imitative art; and choosing rather to be\nthe founder of a sept, than rank among the fathers of regular art, he\nemployed his endowments only to throw a meretricious splendour round\nthe caprices of a silly and affected manner. His powers of execution\nwere wonderful, his fertility of fancy exuberant, but they were under\ncontrol neither of regulated judgment nor of manly taste. To Bernini,\nthe conceptions of ancient simplicity seemed poverty and meagreness.\nThe compositions of Michael Angelo he deemed more forcible, but too\nsevere in character. His aim consequently was, to erect a third style,\nwhich should possess distinctive qualities, displaying greater strength\nand energy than, to his taste, the former presented, while it surpassed\nthe latter in suavity and grace. In pursuit of these imaginary\nexcellences, he deviated, and by his talents or patronage carried\nart along with him, still farther from the simple, the true, and the\nnatural. To produce effect, by whatever means of startling attitude,\nvoluminous drapery, forced expression, became the sole object of\nstudy--means the most improper for sculpture. The works of Bernini are\nvery numerous, for his opportunities as master of the works to several\nsuccessive Popes were extensive. All are composed in the same false and\nflattering taste.\n\nContemporaries were generally imitators. Algard and Fiammingo, however,\npreserved the dignity of independent, and, in a certain degree, merited\nthe praise of original minds. The former has produced the largest, but\nnot the best, relievo of modern art; the latter is most happy in the\nrepresentation of children, which, to use the words of Rubens, 'Nature,\nrather than art, appears to have sculptured; the marble seems softened\ninto life.'\n\nTo Bernini, who died in 1680, Camilla Rusconi, a Milanese, succeeded in\nthe throne of sculpture during the remainder of the seventeenth, and\na considerable portion of the early part of the eighteenth century.\nFollowing the same principles as his greater predecessor, but with\ntalents much inferior, in the hands of Rusconi deterioration of taste\nbecame proportionably more rapid, while the influence of external\ncircumstances was also adverse. Italy was already filled with statues,\nand no undertakings of magnitude presenting, the art continued to\nlanguish during the greater part of the last century, suffering both\nfrom defect of principle, and poverty of means.\n\nDuring the time that has elapsed, Transalpine sculpture scarcely\ndemands our notice. In France, we first discover the art separately\nand extensively practised: for in other countries it was associated\nwith ornamental architecture. The expeditions of Charles VIII. and\nthe personal predilections of Francis, had introduced among their\nsubjects some knowledge of Italian refinement; and so early as the\nmiddle of the sixteenth century, French sculptors of considerable\neminence appear. Jean Gougon completed the celebrated Fountain of the\nInnocents in 1550. The works of a contemporary, Jean Cousin, show\nsome grace and delicacy, but want strength and correctness. German\nPilon assimilates very closely to the style of the Tuscan masters\nin energetic detail, but is destitute of simplicity and natural\nexpression. Jacques D'Angouleme had merit, but not enough to warrant\nthe statement of native historians, that he defeated Michael Angelo in\na trial of skill. Towards the conclusion of this century, Giovanni di\nBologna filled the whole of France with the principles of his former\nmaster; and his own pupils continued to maintain similar, though\ninferior, practice to the golden age of refinement in France--the\nreign of Louis XIV. Of this school, two artists, Girardon and Puget,\nclaim to be the head. The former, though we cannot say with Voltaire,\n'il a \u00e9gal\u00e9 tout ce que l'antiquit\u00e9 a de plus beau,' has yet great\nmerit. His manner of design, with a degree of hardness, is yet noble,\nand though cold, is more correct than that of his contemporaries,\nas appears from the tomb of Richelieu. Puget, in every respect the\nopposite as to intellectual temperament, is the favorite of his\ncountrymen. _Sculpteur_, _Architecte_, _et Peintre_, as they, after\nthe historian of Louis XIV., are fond of representing him, for the\nsake of comparison with Buonarotti, though what he painted, or what he\nbuilt, does not appear, is yet not dissimilar in the fiery energetic\ncharacter of his composition, and in his handling, bold and full of\nmovement; but his expression is studied, his science inaccurate, his\nforms wanting in nobleness and grace. Sarasin was a most esteemed\ncontemporary, and, in the Caryatides of the Louvre, has equalled the\nbest sculpture of France. To the schools of the two first mentioned,\nhowever, and especially of Puget, in style at least, are to be referred\nthe succeeding artists of France, as Les Gros, Theodon, Le Peintre,\nDesjardins, Coysevaux Vaucleve, the two Coustous, all flourishing\nat the close of the seventeenth, and during the early part of the\neighteenth century. The last of this list is Bouchardon, under Louis\nXV.; for though his unfortunate successor inclined to patronise talent,\nthe excesses of the Revolution proved not less injurious to living art,\nthan destructive of ancient monuments. Among the latest works previous\nto this horrid outbreaking, was the statue of Voltaire, by Pigal, now\nin the library of the Institute, and upon which the following severe\nepigram was composed:--\n\n  Pigal au naturel represente Voltaire--\n  Le squelette \u00e0 la fois offre l'homme et l'auteur.\n  L'[oe]il qui le voit sans parure \u00e9trang\u00e8re\n  Est effray\u00e9 de sa maigreur!\n\nBermudez, the historian of Spanish art, enumerates a splendid list of\nnative sculptors from the commencement of the sixteenth century. This,\nhowever, is scarcely consistent with the fact, that not till 1558, in\nconsequence of a royal edict, was this esteemed a liberal profession,\nor admitted to any privileges as such. It is easy to perceive indeed,\nthat national partiality, or that adventitious magnitude which every\nsubject is apt to acquire in the estimation of the writer, has led, in\nthis instance, to consider as artists, those who have with remarkable\nsuccess been employed in ornamenting the fine ecclesiastical edifices\nin Spain, beyond which they are little known. Berruguete, a pupil of\nMichael Angelo, appears to have founded the first regular school, of\nwhich Paul de Cespides was the ornament, as he is of the national\nsculpture.\n\nBefore the seventeenth century, Germany makes no appearance in a\ngeneral history of sculpture; and even now she is more celebrated for\nher writers on the philosophy, than for her artists in the practice,\nof the art. Still the genius of the nation we should be inclined to\nestimate as highly favorable to its future advancement. In Vienna,\nRauchm\u00fcller; in Silesia, Leigebe; at Berlin, Schluter, Millich,\nBarthel, and others, have proved this estimate not unfounded. While our\nmore immediate contemporaries, Ohnmacht, Sonnenschein, Nahl, the two\nShadofs, especially the younger, whose Spinning Girl is one of the most\nexquisite imitations of simple nature which modern art can show, do not\ndiscourage this hope; if indeed artists be not carried away by that\nunnatural striving after marvellous effect, which has wrought so much\ninjury to common sense and right feeling in German literature.\n\nOn reviewing the history of modern sculpture during its rise and\nperfection, to the decline immediately antecedent to the present\ncentury, we find that, from the commencement of the fifteenth century,\nwhen the art began to rank among national causes of exertion and\nfeeling, progress towards perfection, and in the most direct path, was\nrapid. Hence it has been the singular distinction of the sculptors\nof this period, to have left models in their own works, while their\nprevious discoveries enabled those who immediately followed also\nto produce models. They have thus remained original in an age of\noriginality. During the sixteenth century, causes more remotely\nconnected with real patriotism--an ostentatious desire of splendour,\nnot an unaffected love of refinement--operated in the promotion of\nthe arts; and in Sculpture, in particular, the artificial excitement\nimparted a portion of its spirit to its effects. From the age of\nMichael Angelo inclusive, we find that the desire of novelty, a\ncontinued endeavor to extend the boundaries of art, by the introduction\nof imaginary perfections inconsistent with its real character and\nexcellence, were the rocks on which was made fatal shipwreck of truth,\nof simplicity, and of beauty. These imagined improvements were directed\nto the acquisition of two grand objects. A style of composition was\naimed at, more purely ideal, less connected with nature, than is to\nbe found in the remains of the ancient, or in the works of the early\nmodern masters. Genius hovered on the very confines of credibility\nand of the impossible, deriving the elements of its creations from\nimaginings awful and imposing, embodied in forms of gloomy sublimity\nand power, overwhelming--not awakening--to the human sympathies.\nAs characteristics of this imaginative style, the proportions are\nenlarged, the expressions forced, and action and energy are given,\ndestructive of grace and reality. Art is raised to regions where nature\nis unknown, and where the very highest exertions of intellect and fancy\ncould hardly sustain interest. This was more especially the style of\nthe Tuscan school, and it fell with its great founder, who had placed\nthe art on this dangerous height. But, in the second place, sculpture\nwas sought to be assimilated to painting, and merit was estimated by\nthe extent to which imitation was carried--in difficulty and variety\nof effect, in complicated detail, in volume of drapery, and, latterly,\neven in facility of production. This taste first began decidedly in the\nschool of Bernini, and exclusively cherished the powers of mechanical\nexecution, in preference to the unobtrusive but essential beauties of\npurity and correctness of design. Hence the rapid decline; for statues\nsoon became merely confused masses of drapery, without drawing, and\nwithout science. Still the chisel was wielded with great mechanical\ndexterity; but before the middle of the eighteenth century, every moral\nbeauty, sentiment, truth, feeling, had disappeared from the labours of\nthe sculptor.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\nART has never been reformed, after a lapse from high eminence, by\nmere imitation of examples, however excellent; nor by only following\nrules for the correction of error. It is here as in morals, example\nsucceeds where precept would fail. Some mind of uncommon firmness and\ngood sense is required, who, beginning with nature, brings to the\nwork of reformation original powers and severe judgment; fancy and\nfeeling, with correctness and cultivated taste: one, in short, of those\nrare minds whose merits, great in themselves, become incomparably\ngreater viewed with the times in which they commenced their career;\nwhose exertions, wonderful in their own accomplishments, are yet more\nadmirable from the progress which thereby others have been enabled to\neffect. Such a genius was that possessed by Canova, a name venerable\nalike for virtue and for talents. Born, in 1757, in a distant and\notherwise unknown hamlet, in the territory of Treviso--fallen upon\nevil days in his art--of the most obscure parentage, destined to fill\nthe humble and laborious occupation of village stone-cutter--remote,\nin the first instance, from every advice and assistance, he rose to\nbe the companion of princes, the restorer of art, and the generous\npatron of merit friendless as his own. We know not whether more to\nlove or to admire Canova. In his fifteenth year, repairing to Venice,\nthe cloisters of a convent supplied him, through the benevolence of\nthe good fathers, with a work-shop; and only fifteen years afterwards,\nthrough a struggle of poverty, yet redeemed by prudence and industry,\nand sweetened by independence, he erected in St Peter's the monument\nof Ganganelli--the first fruits of a spirit, whose sobriety of\ntemperament, more valuable and more rare than mere original invention,\nhere exhibited a correctness which would amend, with a vigour which\nwould elevate, a fallen age.\n\nA series of more than two hundred compositions, of which this was the\nfirst, standing itself nobly conspicuous, yet only a step from previous\nimbecility, presents too extensive a field for particular description,\nor minute examination. The remembrance is yet fresh upon our memory,\nwhen, arranged in a funereal hall, representations of these works\nmight well have been deemed the labours of a generation; and while\nnow about to describe the originals, we bear in recollection, that to\nview these a considerable portion of Europe has been traversed. Thus\nnumerous, and widely extending the influence of their style, these\nproductions certainly, require careful notice. Avoiding details, then,\nwe shall class them under Heroic subjects; Compositions of softness and\ngrace--Monumental erections and Relievos.\n\nThe superiority of Canova, has been questioned in the first of\nthese departments only. He has been admitted a master of the\nbeautiful--hardly of the grand. Or rather, perhaps, while his claims\nhave been universally recognised in representing the softer graces\nof loveliness, his powers in the sublimities of severe and masculine\ncomposition are less generally appreciated. This estimation is unjust,\nhaving been originated and maintained by causes entirely extrinsic to\nthe genius or labours of the artist. In not one, but many groups and\nsingle statues, he has attained some of the loftiest aims of sculpture.\nIn manly and vigorous beauty of form, the Perseus; in forceful\nexpression and perfection of science, the Pugilists--a work, in its\npeculiar range, one of the most classical of modern art; in harmonious\nand noble composition, uniting nature and poetic feeling, the Theseus\ncombating the Centaur; in the terrible of sentiment and suffering,\nthe Hercules;--these, with the Ajax, Hector, Paris, Palamedes, all\nbelonging to the grand style of art, may challenge comparison with\nany works of the modern chisel, in the beauties of sustained effect,\nlearned design, boldness yet exquisite delicacy of execution; while as\nto number, the series here is unparalleled in the history of any single\nmind. In the majestic or venerable realities of portraiture, again,\nthere is Napoleon, Pius VI., Washington, Ganganelli, Rezzonico.\n\nIn the second department, the compositions of Canova have enriched\nmodern art with the most glowing conceptions of elegance and grace;\nraised, and yet more refined, by the expression of some elevating or\nendearing sentiment. Here, indeed, has been allotted his peculiar\nand unapproachable walk. Yet it may justly be doubted, whether he be\nnot superior in the former class, where his merit has hitherto been\ndenied or doubted. True, one or two works in the second, as the Venus\nrecumbent, the Nymph, and Cupid, are superior, as examples of beauty\nand grace, to any one of masculine character which might be compared\nwith them; but, as a class, the second is less uniformly dignified and\nexcellent than the first. The great defect here, indeed, is a want of\ndignity in the female figures; which, though equally removed from the\nflimsy affectations of his immediate predecessors, as from the robust\nand austere proportions of the Tuscan school, are not always free from\nthe meagre and the cold where grace is to be united with sweetness.\nThis seems to be occasioned by a want of harmony between the just\nheight and roundness of the forms--from an absence of those firm, yet\ngracious contours, meeting, yet eluding the eye, rounded into life\nand dissolving in the animated marble, which render, for instance,\nthe Medicean so incomparably superior to the Venus of Canova.\nThroughout the whole of this class, there frequently runs a character\nof composition too ornate--too elaborately pleasing, and which would\nappear still more decidedly, were it not accompanied by inimitable\nease, and were not every part, even to the minutest ornament, an\nemanation of the same refined taste and cultivated mind. It is this,\nchiefly, which spreads their delightful charm of consistency over these\nworks; there is, on close examination, little derived immediately and\nsimply from nature. Every choice has finally, but not obviously, been\ndetermined after much thought and many trials. All is that perfection\nof art, by which art itself is best concealed, and which to its\ncreations lends the enchantment of nature's own sweetest graces.\n\nIn the monumental series of works, Canova displays all the practical\nexcellences of his genius, with more, perhaps, of originality and\nsimplicity than generally characterise his other labours. This class\nconsists of architectural elevations, supporting colossal statues, and\nof tablets in relievo. Of the former, the tombs of the Popes at Rome,\nof Alfieri at Florence, and of the Archduchess Maria Christina at\nVienna, are magnificent examples. The second constitutes a numerous and\nvery beautiful class, which, though composed of nearly the same simple\nelements of design, a female figure, or a genius, in basso relievo,\nmourning over a bust or an urn, yet exhibit much diversity of character\nand arrangement. From each of these an example might be selected in\nthe tomb of the Archduchess, and the grand relievo of the O'Hara\nfamily mourning over the funereal couch of the deceased daughter and\nwife--equal to anything in the whole compass of art. To those who deny\nthe merit of Canova in relief, we recommend the study of this monument.\nThe former, representing a procession bearing to the tomb the ashes of\nthe dead, is one of the most arduous and noblest compositions extant;\nand, judging from our own impressions, no record of mortality ever\nbetter accomplished its purpose, whether to awaken regret for departed\nvirtue, or to tell, by its own perfection, that in man there exists an\nintelligence which shall survive beyond the grave.\n\nAlthough, from the series of works briefly mentioned, it would not be\ndifficult to prove Canova the most indefatigable--nor, when we consider\ntheir influence, the principles they are calculated to enforce, and\nthe fallen state from which they rescued art, the most respectable--of\nmodern sculptors; yet, in estimating truly the rank and constituents\nof his genius, there is no small difficulty. The very fertility of\nthat genius, diffusing its richness over every province of the art,\nand, in each varied exercise, constantly displaying the same judgment\nand taste, increases this difficulty, by blending into one harmonious\nand regular effect, those outbreakings of peculiar energies usually\naccompanying, and indicative of, great powers. Hence the character\nof his mind might be pronounced, at first, as distinguished rather\nby correctness than by force. Yet, of his talents generally, such\nwould be an erroneous estimate. His mind was deeply embued with both\nfire and enthusiasm; his imagination, uncommonly active, was stored\nwith materials, but over the treasures thus lavishly poured forth by\nfancy, severe scrutiny was held by the understanding. Energetic, and\neven rapid, in composition, in correcting, and finally determining, he\nwas slow and fastidious--often changing, but always improving. Such\nintellectual organization is by no means favorable to that grandeur\nusually associated with highest genius, which frequently hurrying alike\nthe artist and spectator beyond reality, derives its very mastery from\ndaring disregard of rule, grasping, with dangerous hardihood, those\nlofty graces, pardoned only when successful; and even then, however\nthey may elevate the individual subject or artist, not enriching art\nwith useful examples or solid acquisitions. But a mind thus constituted\nwas eminently fitted for correcting public taste, especially in\nthe serene majesty, the orderly magnificence, which compose the\ntrue grandeur of Sculpture. Hence Canova is uniformly dignified\nand consistent; correct without coldness, if he rarely attains the\nhighest sublimity; neither does he fall beneath himself, nor into the\nextravagant. Compared with the ancients, many of his works remind us\nof more than merely casual imitation; but it is no less true, that in\nothers of novel invention, he has applied, in not unsuccessful rivalry,\ntheir own principles, the discovery of which forms his highest praise,\nas constituting one of the most essential services ever rendered to\nSculpture. Among the moderns he claims pre-eminence, as the first who\nestablished improvement upon genuine and universal precepts of art.\n\nThe perfection to which Canova seems to have aspired in the ideal,\nappears to have been the union of the two elements of sculptural\ndesign, keeping each in just subordination to beauty. Hence, in his\nfigures, form does not, as in the antique, constitute so entirely the\nprimary, and almost sole thought, neither is it so much subservient to\naction and effect, as in the most eminent of the modern masters. In\nlike manner, the expression holds an intermediate character between the\nunmoved serenity of the ancients, and the marked lineaments of Michael\nAngelo. In some instances this union is very happily accomplished; but\ngenerally, though always true, the expression is not often simple. The\nonly defect which can be discerned in Canova's selection of form, and\nwhich is more especially to be found in his female, is a meagreness\nand want of vigour; sometimes they too much remind us of the individual\nmodel, and of those manners of life whence such models are usually\nobtained. But speaking universally, the contours of this master are\nfull, flowing, and well sustained. And here we can discover the same\nprinciples of design and practice which were pointed out in the best\nera of the Grecian schools, with this novel precept, the discovery, or\nat least uniformly successful application, of which belongs to Canova,\nnamely, that all grand parts may be resolved into a primary and two\nsecondary forms. As this ternary combination is sweetly, yet decidedly\nmarked, blending yet separating its constituent lines, the graceful\nease and infinite variety of natural outline is obtained. In every\nstatue of the modern, also, we find exemplified the principle adopted\nfrom Phidias, and already noticed, namely, that from whatever resources\nof imagination any figure may be composed, the final surface--all that\nmeets the eye at last--must be finished, and faithfully imitated from\nindividual nature.\n\nThere is still one characteristic which pre-eminently distinguishes\nthose works we are examining, namely, the exquisite beauty of\ncomposition. They unite the dexterity and force which constituted\nthe peculiar praise of the masters of the sixteenth century, with a\ndelicacy, a refinement, and truth, exclusively their own. This is an\nexcellence of the highest import--not so much in itself as in its\nconsequences--for it can be introduced with good effect only when\nthe nobler elements of composition are present. A statue defective\nin the higher qualities of art, would by high finish become only the\nmore ungracious: works of unblemished merit only admit with advantage\nof elaborate technicality. Hence, among the ancients, the perfect\nstatues, in all other respects, are also the most highly wrought.\nThis excellence Canova seems to have been the first to remark and\nto emulate, which he has done successfully, especially in the most\ndifficult parts--the extremities.\n\nIn short, when we view Canova in himself and in his works singly,\nisolated from the age that preceded, and separated from that which now\nfollows his own, in concentrated energy and originality of mind, he\nmay hardly compare with Donatello, still less with Buonarotti, perhaps\nnot with our own Flaxman; but when we estimate his genius in the\nvaried, yet uniform excellence of his labours, in the principles upon\nwhich these are conducted,--when we recollect the state of degradation\nin which he found, and the elevated condition in which he left art;\nand remember, too, that his own works and practice between these\nextremes, were marked by no false splendors of talent, but must prove\na shining light, guiding to yet higher attainment; we must pronounce,\nin truth and gratitude, that none other name is in merit so inseparably\nassociated with the progress of sculpture.\n\nSince the death of his illustrious contemporary, Thorwaldsen, born at\nCopenhagen, 1771-2, has occupied the public eye as head of the modern\nschool. The character and powers of this master are doubtless of a very\nelevated rank; but neither in the extent nor excellence of his works,\ndo we apprehend his station to be so high as sometimes placed. The\ngenius of the Danish sculptor is forcible, yet is its energy derived\nmore from peculiarity than from real excellence. His ideal springs less\nfrom imitation of the antique, or of nature, than from the workings of\nhis own individual mind--it is the creation of a fancy seeking forcible\neffect in singular combinations, rather than in general principles;\ntherefore hardly fitted to excite lasting or beneficial influence upon\nthe age. Simplicity and imposing expression seem to have hitherto\nformed the principal objects of his pursuit; but the distinction\nbetween the simple and rude, the powerful and the exaggerated, is not\nalways observed in the labours of the Dane. His simplicity is sometimes\nwithout grace; the impressive--austere, and without due refinement. The\nair and contours of his heads, except, as in the Mercury--an excellent\nexample both of the beauties and defects of the artist's style--when\nimmediately derived from antiquity, though grand and vigorous, seldom\nharmonize in the principles of these efforts with the majestic\nregularity of general nature. The forms, again, are not unfrequently\npoor, without vigorous rendering of the parts, and destitute at times\nof their just roundness. These defects may in some measure have arisen\nfrom the early and more frequent practice of the artist in relievos.\nIn this department, Thorwaldsen is unexceptionably to be admired.\nThe Triumph of Alexander, originally intended for the frieze of the\ngovernment palace at Milan, notwithstanding an occasional poverty\nin the materials of thought, is, as a whole, one of the grandest\ncompositions in the world; while the delicacy of execution, and poetic\nfeeling, in the two exquisite pieces of Night and Aurora, leave\nscarcely a wish here ungratified. But in statues, Thorwaldsen excels\nonly where the forms and sentiment admit of uncontrolled imagination,\nor in which no immediate recourse can be had to fixed standards of\ntaste, and to the simple effects of nature. Hence, of all his works,\nas admitting of unconfined expression, and grand peculiarity of\ncomposition, the statues of the Apostles, considered in themselves, are\nthe most excellent. Thorwaldsen, in fine, possesses singular, but in\nsome respects erratic genius. His ideas of composition are irregular;\nhis powers of fancy surpass those of execution; his conceptions seem to\nlose a portion of their value and freshness in the act of realisement.\nAs an individual artist, he will command deservedly a high rank among\nthe names that shall go down to posterity. As a sculptor, who will\ninfluence, or has extended the principles of the art, his pretensions\nare not great; or, should this influence and these claims not be thus\nlimited, the standard of genuine and universal excellence must be\ndepreciated in a like degree.\n\nWe have hitherto made little or no mention of British sculpture, for\ntwo reasons. The number of ancient monuments of the art with which\nthe cathedrals of England, and Westminster Abbey in particular, are\nornamented, is considerable: yet very little is known regarding their\nauthors. There is reason to believe, however, that by far the greater\npart are the work of foreigners, members of those confraternities\nof itinerant artists, which have been noticed as existing in Italy\nso early as the middle of the fourteenth century. This opinion is\ncorroborated by the circumstance, that the object in these societies\nwas to undertake buildings in whatever country, and for this purpose\nwere composed of architects, sculptors, workers in mosaic, builders,\ndesigners, each strictly attending to his own department, except the\narchitect, who seems to have acted as the general overseer. Thus,\ncompanies of individuals, more or less numerous, were engaged by the\nproper ecclesiastical authorities, wherever a building of magnitude\nwas to be erected. Of this, the plan appears uniformly to have been\nprescribed by the ecclesiastics, the foreign masters superintending\nand availing themselves of local assistants for the mere workmanship.\nAgain, between the early productions of sculpture in England, when\nthese first attract notice by their excellence, we very decidedly trace\nthe style, and in some instances, as in the beautiful monuments of\nEleanor, queen of Edward I., the designs of the school of Pisa. About\nthis time, the very improvements introduced by Giovanni da Pisa, son of\nNicolo, especially in the drapery, are decidedly apparent in those and\nother English works. Hence, although we find English names mentioned\nas masters of the works in several of our most splendid erections,\nand even in one instance as sculpturing the images of saints, it is\ndoubtful whether they were not the ecclesiastics directly employed by\nthe chapter to communicate their plans to the actual artificers. But\nit must also be observed, that the natural consequence of introducing\nforeign art would be to create native artists. There can be little\ndoubt, therefore, that many of the really fine monuments of our Henrys\nand Edwards, during the fifteenth century, are the works of home-bred\ntalent. During the sixteenth century, again, we do certainly know\nthat two Italian sculptors, Cavallini, and especially the celebrated\nTorregiano, were in England, when the latter erected the monument in\nHenry VII.'s chapel, for which he received so large a sum as a thousand\npounds. Henry VIII., again, had for his master of works an Italian\nsculptor, John of Padua, scholar of Michael Angelo. In 1615, we at\nlength find a work erected by an Englishman, the monument of the 'good\nThomas Sutton,' by Nicholas Stone; and, towards the conclusion of\nthe same era, lived Francis Bird, a native of London, whose labours,\nhowever, only show the miserable state of art. Sculpture has never been\npractised as a separate branch in the early history of Scotland, who\nappears to have obtained her masters rather from France than Italy. In\nboth countries, our first historians have been most culpably remiss in\nattention to the progress of native art. On the present occasion, to\nattempt a detailed account of the scattered notices they have left us,\nor, what might prove still more satisfactory, an examination of the\nrich remains we possess, would be irrelevant, as we touch merely upon\nthe general history of the arts, in which our own isolated labours,\neven at best, form only an episode.\n\nNot till towards the conclusion of the last century can there properly\nbe said to have existed a school of British sculpture. Cibber,\nRoubilac, Scheemakers, Carlini, Locatelli, Rysbrack--all the sculptors\nwho flourished in England during the greater part of the eighteenth\ncentury, were foreigners. It is well that the fame of our good and our\nbrave finds a memorial in the records of history, and in the breasts\nof their countrymen, more worthy of their virtues than these men have\noften erected, in the noblest, too, of our temples. Now, British worth\ncan be commemorated by British art. Our native school of Sculpture may\nbe considered as commencing with Banks, born in 1738, died in 1805;\nfor Wilton, as an artist, was educated abroad. In power of modelling\nfew have excelled Banks, whose name merits eulogium, and is mentioned\nby foreign writers as among the very few at Rome, who, previous to\nthe appearance of Canova, presented in their works the dawnings of\nreviving art. Bacon, born in 1740, was in every respect an English\nartist, and we may almost say self-taught. In simplicity his works\nhave great merit; they are often wanting in feeling. Bacon was not\nunacquainted with the literature of his art. Proctor and Deare died\ntoo early for the arts, after they had given evidence of the highest\nabilities. Deare has indeed left works, young as he was, not surpassed\nby any in modern art. We approach our more immediate contemporaries\nwith respectful diffidence, and shall touch only upon the merits of\nthose who are removed from the effects of praise or censure. Nollekins\nknew his _art_, but wanted _science_, dignity, and fancy. Flaxman\nbelongs to posterity, and has more widely extended the influence\nof his genius--more intimately connected his labours with general\nimprovement, than any other English sculptor. Towards the propitious\nrevolution which rescued the arts from utter imbecility, in the latter\nend of last century, he largely contributed, by his learned, powerful,\nand simple style. From 1787 to 1794, he continued in Italy; and had\nhis sojourn been longer, he would have divided not unequal honors with\nthe great reformer of taste. This is known and acknowledged by the\nintelligent critics of that country, of whom one of the most judicious,\nCount Cicognara, thus writes:--'To Flaxman our obligations are very\ngreat, since, as far as our acquaintance with his works extends, they\nserved nobly to elevate from a certain monotonous lethargy, and to\ncreate afresh, that taste for the severe and golden style of antiquity,\nwhich he applied to his own inventions.' From his youth, Flaxman was\ndistinguished by the strength of his genius, by devotion to the study\nof the ancient models, and by fearless but judicious disregard of those\nconventional affectations by which art was disgraced. He was among\nthe first, if not the earliest, to awaken the long dormant energies\nof sculpture, to unite anew art with nature. The simple and the grand\nof antiquity he made his own; nor, since the best ages of Greece,\ndo we anywhere find, in the works mentioned in these pages, greater\nmeaning, more deep feeling of truth, with less pomp of art, than in the\nsculpture of Flaxman. The wonderful designs from Homer, the statues of\nMr Pitt and Sir Joshua Reynolds, the monuments of Montague, Howe, and\nNelson, the group of Michael and Satan, will alone fully justify this\ncharacter. If, in the works of this master, a defect may be pointed\nout, it is an excess of the severe and simple, which nearly approaches\nto harshness. Surpassing both Canova and Thorwaldsen in the loftiness\nof his conceptions, and perhaps in classic purity of taste, in the\ngraces of composition, and the facilities of modelling, he is inferior\nto the former. But in all that constitutes the epic of the art, Flaxman\nis not surpassed.\n\nWe must omit with regret, though not unadmired, the names of living\nEnglish artists. To their honor be it remarked, that, at this\nmoment, in rectitude and sobriety of precept, in the walk which has\nhitherto been followed, where nothing is yet to be unlearned, and\nwhich must infallibly conduct to higher perfection, no school in\nEurope can boast of happier auspices, of more vigorous practice,\nnor of sounder principles, than the British school of Sculpture.\nIn Italy, the numerous--we may say universal--imitators of Canova,\nappear to be following, with exaggerated effect, the only failing\ntowards which his style inclines--elaborate grace. In Germany, the art\nlanguishes for want of encouragement. Sculpture is more pre-eminently\nthe nursling of freedom. The French sculptors are, at the present\ntime, more distinguished for science than for feeling or invention.\nThey want individuality of character in their works; the symmetry\nand proportions, the mechanical art of antiquity, their chisel has\ntransferred,--but the sentiment, the essence which unites art with\nnature, which breathes into Grecian statuary the breath of life, has\nescaped. It is a singular fact, that from the school formed under the\nempire, while the most valued treasures of existing art were collected\nin the French capital, not a sculptor, hardly one artist of eminence,\nhas issued. The cause is plain. These monuments were torn from their\nresting places by the hand of violence; they were viewed by a vain\nand mistaken people as the trophies of victory; but they were never\nvenerated with that enthusiastic yet humble devotion, with which the\ndisciple regards the sources of knowledge. During a shorter period, how\ndifferent have been the effects of our own unsullied and bloodless\ncollection. Since the public exposition of the Phidian Marbles, in\nparticular, every department of taste has been improved, and every\nartist has been ready to exclaim, with the late venerable president,\nthat till he saw these works, he was ignorant how much of his art he\nhad yet to learn. Let the British sculptor, then, continue in the same\nprinciples as have heretofore guided his practice; let him follow\nnature, and these the noblest remains of art in existence, and he\nmust excel. Sculpture seems especially calculated to flourish amongst\nus. The grave and manly character of the art agrees with the tone of\nnational genius, harmonizes with our free institutions, and may find in\nour history sources of the brightest inspiration.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FINE ARTS.\n\n\n\n\nPAINTING.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n\nIN the present undertaking, two methods of arrangement are obviously\npresented: either to treat the arts simultaneously; or, considering\neach in succession, to commence with that one which seemed best adapted\nto illustrate the history and common principles of all. With this view\nwe have, in the commencement, followed the fortunes of Sculpture at\nsome length, because here we find an uninterrupted series of monuments;\nhere the elements of imitative art are discoverable in their purest and\nleast compounded character; and also because in Sculpture the labours,\nbeing enduring, of greater magnitude, and more generally employed\nfor national purposes than those of Painting, seem more clearly to\nillustrate the connexion which will ever be found to subsist between\nthe refinement of taste and the progress of moral and political\nintelligence, as affects nations, or the human race universally. This\nis the truly dignified object in the history of the fine arts. In this\nrespect our inquiries have been most satisfactorily resolved. We\nhave found the state of sculpture an index of the moral and political\ncondition of the people; owing its best cultivation to national and\npopular causes. We have seen it languish or revive according to the\nenergy and the freedom of national institutions. The epochs of painting\nwere nearly or altogether the same, as were also those of architecture.\nThe conclusions, then, are universal. Little, therefore, remains to be\nexplained in painting, save its own peculiarities as an individual art.\n\nPainting, which depends upon illusion for some of its most striking\neffects, and employs principles abstractly unreal, is, in the\napplication of these principles, and in the full accomplishment of\ntheir effects, an art of greater difficulty than Sculpture. Hence, _a\npriori_, it might be inferred, that the former would more slowly attain\nto the perfection which it reached among the nations of the ancient\nworld. But perhaps it would hardly have been predicted, that, in the\nage of Phidias, when sculpture had already been raised to an elevation\nyet unapproached, the sister art should still be little advanced. At\nthe same time, there can be no doubt that the elements of both arts\nhave in all countries sprung up together. Nature has sown the seed, but\ncircumstances nourish the plants.\n\nAmong the ancient inhabitants of Asia, painting and writing appear to\nhave been the same art, or rather, the former supplied the place of the\nlatter. From the same source the art arose in Egypt, where are still to\nbe found its oldest remains. In this branch the mental and political\ndespotism already explained, bound down every aspiration. Whether we\nregard the art as picture writing, or in its more determinate and\nindependent efforts at representation, we discover no change--no\nprogressive improvement, and no superiority which has not evidently\narisen from a greater or less degree of care and personal skill in the\nperformer. Egyptian painting seldom, if ever, attempts more than an\noutline of the object, as seen in profile, such as would be obtained\nby its shadow. To this rude but always well-proportioned draught,\ncolors are applied, simply and without mixture or blending, or the\nslightest indication of light and shade. The process appears to have\nbeen, first, the preparation of the ground in white; next, the outline\nwas firmly traced in black; and, lastly, the flat colors were applied.\nThe Egyptian artists employed six pigments, mixed up with a gummy\nliquid, namely, white, black, red, blue, yellow, and green: the three\nfirst always earthy, the remaining vegetable, or at least frequently\ntransparent. The specimens from which we derive these facts, are the\npainted shrouds and cases of the mummies, and the still more perfect\nexamples on the walls of the tombs. It can furnish no evidence of\nextraordinary experience or practice, that these paintings still retain\ntheir hues clear and fresh. The circumstance merely shows the aridity\nof the climate, and that the coloring matters were prepared and applied\npure and without admixture.\n\nOver no part of ancient intellectual history hangs there so great\nuncertainty, respecting at least the means and progressive steps, as\nin the instance of Painting in Greece. We can judge here only from\ninference, while the facts upon which our conclusions must rest, are\nin some degree contradictory. No production of the Grecian pencil\nremains to us, as in sculpture, whence to form our own judgment apart\nfrom the opinions of ancient critics; while there is internal evidence,\nthat the historical annals handed down to us, imperfect as these now\nare, have been compiled, not from authentic materials early collected,\nbut from recollection of names to whom discoveries are by the later\nhistorian casually attributed. The whole account of early painting\nis too regular, too systematic, the progressive advances follow\neach other in an order too artificial to represent faithfully the\nalternate failure and success, the devious course, the rapid and almost\ninexplicable advance of genius. The young eagle tempts not the liquid\nway in steady flight, commensurate only with his strength--he flutters\nand falls--wavers in broken and ungraceful curves, before he can launch\ninto full career, or circle slowly and majestically in his pride of\nplace.\n\nWe do not doubt, then, that the names of the earliest painters handed\ndown to us in the Greek and Roman writers, are correct; but the\nsystem of gradual and regular advance which they have connected with\nthese names, seems inconsistent with the nature of human things. In\nthis case, the only safe method that can be adopted, consistently\nwith the intention of giving every useful information, is to select\na few leading and well ascertained dates, between which it is proved\nthat certain discoveries did take place; the interval will thus be\nsufficiently filled up without entering into minute discussion.\nAnticipating this arrangement, we have been full in our account of the\nearly schools of sculpture, whence the deficiency here may be supplied;\nfor in both arts, the locality is always, and the masters frequently,\nthe same.\n\nThe first painting on record is the battle of Magnete, by Bularchus,\nand purchased by Candaules, king of Lydia, for its weight in gold,\nor as some say, a quantity of gold coins equal to the extent of\nits surface. This establishes the first era, 718 B. C. During five\ncenturies, however, the art had previously flourished in the cities\nand islands, and especially at Corinth, whose situation, commanding\nthe two seas that wash the shores, and connecting by land the grand\ndivisions, of Greece, early rendered that city, with the commercial\nstates already noticed, the seat of wealth and refinement. Practised by\nnumerous masters,--as Eucherus, Hygenon, Dymas, Charamides, Philocles,\nCleanthes, Cleophantes,--painting, in this interval, is reported to\nhave passed through various gradations; as, simple skiagraphy, or\nshadow painting; the monographic style, consisting of a simple outline;\nmonochromatic compositions, in which one color only was employed; and\npolychromatic, where a variety of hue, but without shading, was used.\nDuring the same time, there appear accounts of minor improvements, with\ntheir authors assigned, all of which we reject, as already stated. In\nwhat manner the work of Bularchus was executed, does not appear; but\nthere is every reason to believe that it was merely a monogram, and,\nfrom the contemporaneous state of sculpture, very highly finished, in\na style hard, dry, and ineffective. The price paid is by no means the\ncriterion of absolute excellence;--the work might be fully prized as\nthe master-piece of its own remote age, while the laborious minuteness\nof its details might render the sum not more than a compensation for\nthe time bestowed.\n\nTo select a second era sufficiently marked by addition or revolution\nof principle, is difficult. To the age of Phidias, the art continued\ncertainly to improve, but very slowly, being left far in the rear\nby Sculpture. The genius of this consummate master, who indeed had\noriginally commenced his career as a painter, extended to all the\narts; and, under such an instructer, his brother Pen\u00e6nus, very highly\ndistinguished himself, though vanquished in a contest for the public\nprize, then instituted at Delphos and Corinth. From the middle of the\nfifth century, then, a decided movement commences in the history of\npainting,--a preparation for something still greater. The influence\nextended among the able contemporaries of the great sculptor.\nPolygnotus of Thasos then first succeeded, to borrow a phrase, 'in the\nexpression of undescribed being,' and whose pictures Pliny admired six\nhundred years afterwards. Improvement was carried forward for half a\ncentury by Mycon, famous in horses; Pauson, his rival; Dionysius of\nColophon, praised by \u00c6lian for minute accuracy; Aglaophon, bold and\nenergetic; Colotes, sculptor and painter; Evenor, father of Parrhasius;\nand finally, greatest of all, Apollodorus the Athenian, who invented\nor perfected the knowledge of light and shade. With this artist, the\nprecursor and contemporary of Zeuxis, and whose discovery may be placed\nabout the commencement of the fourth century B. C., may be terminated\nthe second era. The propriety of this division will more obviously\nappear, when it is considered that to this period, not only was the\nart deficient in the most powerful of its means, the magic of chiar'\noscura, but also in its instruments. The ancient paintings, as late\nas the age of Phidias, were executed with the _cestrum_, a species\nof pliant _stylus_, similar to that used in writing. This is the\ndiagraphic, or linear method, and seems to have resembled our chalk\nand crayon, or perhaps more closely our pen and reed drawing. The\nprocess, however, can be explained only by conjecture. The tablet,\nprimed in white, was laid over with a varnish of resin mixed with wax,\nand usually incorporated with a dark-reddish coloring matter. Upon this\nthe subject was traced, and the lights worked in with the cestrum of\nvarious fineness. At what precise period this imperfect instrument was\nsuperseded by the pencil, or if the effects of the two were combined,\nis unknown. But the invention must have been made after the death of\nPolygnotus, and prior to the ninetythird Olympiad, a period of twenty\nor thirty years, when Apollodorus is known to have handled the pencil\nwith great effect. It is not unlikely, therefore, that this artist\neither was the inventor or the improver of this tool, whose mastery so\ndecidedly ministered to his reputation.\n\nThe third period commences with Zeuxis, marking an era distinct at once\nin principle and in excellence. Preceding masters had crowded their\ntablets with numerous figures. He introduced simplicity of composition,\nand relied upon the perfection frequently of a single figure to\nconcentrate interest. He was equally simple in his coloring, never\nusing more than four, often only two pigments. Parrhasius equalled the\nformer in expression, and seems to have surpassed him in coloring.\nEuphranor was equally celebrated in painting as in statuary. Both were\nsurpassed by Timanthes, who, in veiling the head of a father compelled\nto attend the sacrifice of his daughter, appealed to the heart not in\nvain, when the powers of genius had failed. Eupompus, by the splendour\nof his style, gave rise to a new distinction of schools into the\nAthenian and Sicyonian, in addition to the Asiatic, the Rhodian, and\nthe Corinthian. Theon of Samos obtained high praise for the eager haste\nof his young warrior to join the fight. Aristides of Thebes, in his\npicture of the wounded mother, solicitous, in the pangs of death, lest\nher child should suck blood, appears to have reached the utmost range\nof expression in art. And lastly, Pamphilus the Macedonian, eminent for\nthe natural feeling and truth of his style, was the master of Apelles.\nThis era, embracing about the first half of the fourth century,\ncoincides with the commencement of the Phidian age in painting.\nWhatever might have been the merits of preceding masters, Zeuxis was\ncertainly the first from whose works we derive explicit statements\nof the ideal in Grecian painting. This ideal, as in their sculpture,\nwas immediately derived from reality; it was no farther the creation\nof fancy, than as taste and imagination were employed in selecting\nand combining what was good in particular, towards an approach to the\nbest, in general nature. 'Behold,' said Eupompus to Lysippus, when\nconsulted by the young sculptor on the subject of imitation, pointing\nto the passing multitude, 'Behold my models: from nature, not from art,\nmust he study, who aspires to the true excellence of art.' Zeuxis,\nthen, first discovered or practised the grand principle in the heroic\nstyle of painting,--to render each figure the perfect representative\nof the class to which it belongs. There is reason to believe, also,\nthat he taught the true method of grouping; at least, from the manner\nof description adopted by Pausanias, it would evidently seem that\nin all pictures anterior to this age, the figures were ranged in\nlines, without any principal group on which the interest of the event\nwas concentrated. Even so late as the works of Pan\u00e6nus, the brother\nof Phidias, the different distances were represented by the very\ninartificial and ungracious means of placing the figures in rows one\nabove the other. In all his improvements, Zeuxis was more than followed\nby his able contemporaries. It is a singular and an amusing fact, that\nat no time do we find more real talent in art, combined with so much\nridiculous coxcombry in the personal character of artists.\n\nThe fourth and last epoch of painting in Greece commences with Apelles,\nabout the conclusion of the fourth century B. C. This age witnessed\nboth the glory and the fall of ancient art. Apelles united, in his\nown style, the scattered excellences which had separately adorned the\nperformances of his predecessors. It was this power and equability of\ncombination, arranged and animated by an elegance and refinement of\ntaste peculiarly his own, which constituted the just eminence of this\nmaster. From the descriptions of ancient writers, the character of\nhis style must have closely resembled that of Raphael, while their\nchoice of subjects appears to have been nearly similar. The Venus\nof Apelles, long afterwards purchased by Augustus for one hundred\ntalents, or \u00a320,000 sterling, was esteemed the most faultless creation\nof the Grecian pencil, the most perfect example of that simple yet\nunapproachable grace of conception, of symmetry of form, and exquisite\nfinish, in which may be summed up the distinctive beauties of his\ngenius. He alone appears to have practised portrait painting in the\nfull majesty of that art; this, indeed, does not appear to have been\na branch the most cultivated among the Greeks, who preferred busts.\nHence, while Pausanias enumerates eightyeight masterpieces of history,\nhe mentions only half the number of portraits, which he had seen in his\ntravels through Greece, during the second century.\n\nThe contemporaries of Apelles were Protogenes, an excellent artist,\nwhose merits his generous rival first pointed out. He was blamed for\nfinishing too highly; yet, to obtain possession of one of his pictures,\nwas the chief cause of the siege of Rhodes. Nicias, who is reported to\nhave touched up the statues of Praxiteles--in what manner is not known,\nnor was Canova successful in his researches on this subject. Somewhat\nlater lived Nichomachus, Pausius, \u00c6tion, the Albano of antiquity, and\nothers, with whom the art began to lapse. The causes and progress of\nthis decline have already been traced in the history of sculpture. The\nremarks there are applicable to both arts, but peculiar circumstances\nrendered the progress of decay more rapid in painting. Even in the\nlater contemporaries of the great ornament of the art, we discover a\nfalling off from the great style, to one exactly resembling that of the\nmodern Dutch school. Although the best pictures, from their greater\nrarity, were more highly valued in pecuniary estimation than statues,\nyet the art was never so completely national as Sculpture. The ambition\nwas not cherished, nor the talents of painters directed, by the\nnationality of their performances; the general taste was not fixed by\npublic and venerated monuments, consequently the wholesome restraints\nof public opinion operated but slightly, and were speedily withdrawn.\nBe it also remembered, that the standard here was formed after the\nsevere purity of ancient taste, and morals had suffered sad relaxation.\nHence painting was sooner abandoned to the caprice of private patronage\nand judgment; but the whole framework of her institutions, moral and\npolitical, was to be dissolved before sculpture,--which honored the\nforms of her religion; whose labours were publicly dedicated to the\nrenown of her good, her learned, and her brave,--could cease to be\nregarded with national sympathy in Greece. Pausanias mentions the names\nof one hundred and sixtynine sculptors, and only fifteen painters;\nwhile, after three centuries of spoliation, he found in Greece three\nthousand statues, not one of them a copy, while he describes only one\nhundred and thirtyone paintings. The empire, then, of ancient painting,\nappears to have been of brief continuance, for, beyond the age now\nunder review, no memorials of its greatness remain. The Romans prized\nthis, as they have been shown to value every accomplishment in the fine\narts, as ministering to luxury, and as a worthy employment for their\nslaves. In the early portion of their iron reign, Etruscan captives\ndecorated their houses--subsequently itinerant Greeks; and though we\nfind a few names of Roman painters, we never find it carried among them\nbeyond mere embellishment. The moral dignity of the art never revived.\n\nOne difficulty regarding the history of ancient painting still remains\nto be stated--satisfactorily cleared it never can be--namely, the\nperfection to which the art actually attained. It has been said, and\nthe remark is just, that there exists a wide disparity between the\nmeans and instruments of the art, as described by writers of antiquity,\nand the excellence of the effects produced, as these have reached us\nthrough the same channel. We have, it is replied, the criticisms of the\nsame writers upon other subjects of taste, with the originals likewise\nin our hands, and finding here their opinions correct--not only so,\nbut exquisitely correct--we are constrained to admit, that in painting\ntheir judgment was equally refined as in poetry, oratory, sculpture,\nor architecture. This reasoning may prove relative, but not absolute\nexcellence; for taste being necessarily formed upon the very models\non which it passes sentence, cannot be admitted as evidence beyond\nits experience. Our own conviction is, that, unless in this view of\nmerely relative beauty, the praises bestowed by the Greek and Roman\nwriters upon their paintings are overcharged; and that these were much\ninferior to their sculptures. This opinion is founded not upon any\nalleged inferiority of means, for, besides the difficulty of exactly\ncomprehending certain passages on this subject, we do find, that the\nancient artists were armed with all the powers of fresco-painting,\nin which the grandest conceptions of modern talent are embodied.\nBut these very descriptions, in many of which are accounts of very\ncomplicated expression, show that the writers, and especially Pliny,\nthe most circumstantial, either did not truly feel the nature and\nobject of beauty in painting; or they evince, that if such effects were\nattempted, the art was devoid of that simplicity and natural expression\nwhich constitute the primeval source, the all-pervading principle,\nof beauty and of grandeur, of truth and excellence, in antique\nsculpture. But again, if, from the few and very imperfect remains of\nancient painting, any conclusion be allowed in reference to its higher\nstate, we discover in these all the principles, especially those of\nform, common to sculpture, always well, often admirably understood,\nwhile those peculiar to painting are inartificially expressed, without\nfirmness or decision.\n\nThese remains consist, first, of the delineations upon vases,\nimproperly called Etruscan, where the pictorial representations\nare monochromatic shadows and outline, or monograms, executed with\nthe _cestrum_, or style, in black, upon a red or yellow ground, or\nsometimes the order of the colors is reversed. Even these support the\nviews just stated; for, vigorous as are the lines, the representation,\non the whole, is inferior to the abstract perception of the beautiful\nin form, as exhibited in the vases themselves. The second division of\nremains are the frescos, or stucco paintings of Herculaneum, Pompeii,\nStabia near Naples, and those in the baths of Titus at Rome. The former\nwere doubtless executed by itinerant Greek painters, who are known\nto have been very numerous under the empire. The latter were most\nprobably the performance of the best artists that could be procured;\nyet we do not discover an intrinsic difference of style which can bear\nagainst our general conclusion, or rather the similarity proves the\nfact, while in Herculaneum every sculptured ornament is infinitely more\nelegant than the paintings found in the same spot. To these might be\nadded some very imperfect sepulchral remains, found near Tarquinia,\nwhich merely prove that the ancient Etruscans were far from ignorant\nof painting. In the pictures at Naples and Rome, is greater variety of\ncoloring than, from some passages in their writings, has been allowed\nto the ancients. And, indeed, unless Pliny be supposed to point out\na distinction in this respect between the practice of the earlier and\nlater painters, he contradicts himself; for in all, he enumerates no\nless than five different whites, three yellows, nine reds or purples,\ntwo blues, one of which is indigo, two greens, and one black, which\nalso appears to be a generic expression, including bitumen, charcoal,\nivory, or lamp-black, mentioned with probably others.\n\nOccasional allusion has been made to the mechanical modes of operation\nemployed in ancient painting. On comparing the different passages\nallusive to these, two things certainly appear: that a permanency\nwas given to its productions unknown even in modern art; and that\noil-painting, properly so termed, formed no part of its practice.\nLaying aside, then, all conflicting opinions, we are disposed to infer\nthat there were three principal methods; first, Distemper employed\non stuccoed walls, and for pictures not moveable; second, Glazing,\nwhen the picture, after being furnished in water-colours, crayons, or\ndistemper, was covered with a coat of hard and transparent varnish, of\nwhich several kinds are described; and thirdly, Encaustic, when the\ncoloring matters actually incorporated with wax, or preparations of\nwax, were thus applied in a liquid state, and when finished, allowed\nto dry, and most likely afterwards varnished also. In these two latter\nmethods were executed the most excellent pictures of the great masters,\nand which were portable. The last has given rise to much needless\ndiscussion, as if resembling enamel, the colors being burnt in. We\napprehend, however, the Greek and Latin verb here used, merely denotes\nthat the tints were laid on hot, which, from their nature, must have\nbeen absolutely necessary, while it is evident, from scattered hints,\nthat the material painted upon was destructible by fire.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n\nFALLEN as was every liberal pursuit during those ages, since\nemphatically called dark, painting was yet never unpractised in Europe.\nIn the ecclesiastical records of that period, evidence is found that,\nin Italy, churches were in every century decorated with paintings and\nmosaics by native or Greek artists. A kind of competition, indeed,\nappears to have been carried on between the successive pontiffs,\nimitated by their inferior suffragans, who should thus load some\nfavorite cathedral with the greatest quantity of barbarous finery.\nThese gentlemen, as even the Abbate Tiraboschi has ventured to\ndisclose, being rarely ornamental to the church in their own proper\npersons, endeavored to make up the deficiency in the best way possible\nby proxy. From monuments still remaining in Germany, it is evident,\nthat neither was some degree of skill wanting in that quarter. In\nFrance, as in our country, similar research would probably be rewarded\nwith the same discovery. Though darkened, the human spirit was still\nat work; and when at length its energies were restored to comparative\nactivity by the slow operation of causes, imperceptible in themselves,\nmighty in their results, the arts, as already seen, shone forth among\nthe morning stars in the dawn of freedom. This light first arose upon\nItaly; and, from the circumstances of her situation, Florence soonest\nestablished a school of painting. Cimabue, her citizen, early in the\nthirteenth century, caught the inspiration from certain Greek painters,\nemployed by order of the magistracy. Equalling his masters, he was\nhimself surpassed by Giotto, once a shepherd boy; in turn excelled\nby Memmi, Orgagna, Ucello, Massolino, to the middle of the fifteenth\ncentury, when all former names were forgotten in the merits of\nMassaccio. Dying at the age of twentyfour, he gave to painting truth,\nexpression, light, and shade; thus creating the first era in its\nhistory. The chapel which still contains his frescoes, the early school\nof Da Vinci and Buonarotti--the scene, too, of the latter's misfortune,\nwill long be visited with interest by the pilgrims of art. About the\nsame time, the invention of oil painting, ascribed to Van Eyck of\nBruges; and, not long after, the illusion of aerial perspective added\nby Ghirlandajo, gave to modern art all the means of perfection. These\ndid not remain unimproved in the hands of such men as Verrocchio, first\nexcelling in perspective, Lippi, Signorelli, in whose works evidence\nof selection is apparent, and many others, who, in different cities in\nItaly, were now laying the foundation of schools, soon to become as\ndistinct in manner as the masters of one and the same art can well be\nconceived.\n\nBut though much had been accomplished before the close of the fifteenth\ncentury, as respects the higher qualities of imitative art, painting\nwas still in infancy. Leonardo da Vinci, born in 1452, reared it\nto high maturity. The genius of this extraordinary man seemed as a\nmirror, receiving and reflecting, in added brightness, every ray of\nintellectual light which had yet beamed upon the age. Philosopher,\npoet, artist, he anticipated the march of three centuries; proving,\nin his own instance, what the unshackled energies of man would then\naccomplish. Yet--and that, too, by a living historian of most deserved\nreputation--has Leonardo been represented as a dabbler in various\nknowledge, a proficient in none--a laborious idler, wasting time and\ntalent in useless multiplicity of pursuit. This apparently has been\ndone to exalt his great contemporary and successor; but history ought\nnot to be written as a picture is painted, touching in under-tones\nwhat are deemed secondaries, that the light may be more conspicuously\ndirected to a principal figure. At the shrine of art, the devotion\nof Da Vinci was neither devoid of fervor nor unfruitful; albeit he\ncourted, and not unsuccessfully, the favors of science, then new and\ndear to the aspiring mind. His true rank is not only among the fathers,\nbut the masters of the art; he is one who not merely preceded, but\nexcelled. His cartoon of horsemen in the battle of Pisa formed a\nfavorite study of the greatest masters; and, in competition, Michael\nAngelo produced another of soldiers arming in haste, after bathing;\nwhich even his admirers say he scarcely ever afterwards equalled. Yet\nwas Leonardo not vanquished. The Last Supper, painted in fresco, at\nMilan, exhibited a dignity and propriety of expression, a correctness\nof drawing, then unequalled; and, if seen as originally finished,\nprobably still unsurpassed. The story of the head of the principal\npersonage having been left incomplete is a vulgar error, as might be\neasily proved by reference to the early literature of Italian art.\nThe well-known portrait of Mona Lisa, in purity of drawing, sweetness\nof simple and natural expression, has an equal only in the works of\nRaphael. But the influence of this master extended much more widely\nthan the sphere of individual examples: he first united the science of\nanatomy with that of painting, and both with nature; and thus may truly\nbe said to have prepared the art for the coming greatness.\n\nTo the majesty of Michael Angelo's genius the reader has already done\nhomage. If in sculpture the grandeur of his conceptions was admired,\nin painting this greatness is still more wonderful, but unfortunately,\nnot less singular and remote from nature. Yet, than the painting\nof Buonarotti there is perhaps no instance of intellectual power\nmore truly grand in the entire history of mind. Previous to leaving\nhis native Florence, where he was born, of a noble family, in 1474;\nand whence he fled, when his country became false to herself and to\nfreedom, architecture and sculpture had formed his principal studies.\nDesign he had pursued little farther than as indispensably connected\nwith these: of painting, as a separate science, he was of course\ncomparatively ignorant. In this state of knowledge, he received orders\nto complete the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, upon which several of\nthe artists, already mentioned, had before been engaged. Yet, at this\ntime, Michael Angelo was unacquainted with the mechanical processes of\nfresco. To produce the designs was to him a labour of ease; and these\nhe endeavored to have executed by artists brought from Florence; but\non trial, dismissed them in all save utter hopelessness. Rising in\nthe strength and perseverance of indomitable genius, he resolved to\nbegin art anew, and to depend henceforth solely on his own resources.\nShutting himself up in the fated chapel, preparing the materials with\nhis own hands, after many trials and failures,--after beholding the\nfirst piece finished to his satisfaction, moulder and mildew almost\nbefore his admiring eye--he at length triumphed, achieving in the\ncourse of years the most adventurous undertaking in modern art, under\ncircumstances, too, that while they encourage all, leave to none who\naspires to the moral dignity of talent even the shadow of an apology\nfor irresolution or indolence.\n\nThe walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, with the picture of the\nLast Judgment, executed thirty years afterwards, form the principal,\nalmost the sole, works of Michael Angelo in painting. The latter is\nthe greatest work of modern art, being fifty feet high by forty wide,\nand containing upwards of 300 figures, many of which are larger than\nlife. Here the human form appears under every variety of position,\nand agitated by every gradation of feeling; and over the whole is\ndiffused a living ease--a science--a magic power--a fascination,\nwhich constrains us to gaze with wonder, astonishment, admiration,\nbut not with interest or sympathy. Similar are our feelings in every\nother example; nor can this be exactly charged as a defect. Michael\nAngelo formed a system for himself--he stands alone in his art--an\nideal abstraction of mind was the object of his imitation, to which\nall of living nature, elevated into gigantic forms and energetic\nmodes, was to be moulded in subserviency. His art was creative, not\nimitative--standing forth, in its own independence of aim.\n\nHence, there are two relations in which the works in painting of\nMichael Angelo are to be examined, and according to which his merits\nwill be very differently estimated. Viewed in themselves, the frescos\nof the Vatican present astonishing evidences of human power. Every\nthought is grandeur and strength; and the rapid, fervent execution arms\nthe pencil with an omnipotence of art equal to all the modifications\nof form. Here the whole is perfect, inimitable; within this his own\nwalk, Buonarotti has no compeer,--'second to none, with nothing like\nto him.' But when the same works are considered in reference to the\ngeneral principles of imitation, and as deriving value according as\nthey reflect the archetypes of elevated nature, those very qualities\nwhich formerly constrained our approbation, become startling blemishes.\nThe ideal is found to consist solely in the imaginative; sublimity is\nsought too exclusively in the vehement to be always dignified. All is\naction,--all participates of an unquiet and too aspiring character of\ncomposition: every form, every muscle, every attitude, exhibits the\nvery gladiatorship of art,--for each is displayed, exerted, involved,\nto the utmost. Even repose is anything save rest. Yet, in difficulty\napparently insurmountable, constraint is not perceived; the execution,\nwonderfully facile, though too prominent in general effect, gives to\neach giant limb of the awful and gloomy shapes, the very effect of life\nand movement. But to this display of capabilities--to the exhibition of\nscience, and the sporting with difficulty, truth, simplicity, feeling,\nand real beauty, have been sacrificed. In this nothing seems peculiar\nto painting as distinguished from sculpture; nor, indeed, is there\nany discrimination: color, tone, light, shadow--all is systematic\nand ideal, but all mighty and overpowering in the whole. Again, when\nthe influence of such a style upon the progress of improvement is\nconsidered, it appears that such influence could be favorable neither\nto future improvement nor to stationary excellence. The greatness\nof Michael Angelo, then, is his own--not the grandeur of art. Both\nsculpture and painting he made subservient to the loftiest aims, and\nthe most splendid fame any artist ever did, perhaps can, pursue or\nattain: yet each was but a slave, ministering to a glory in which\nneither intrinsically participated.\n\nContemporary with the 'mighty Florentine,' but most unlike in all the\ncharacteristics of genius, save the sublimity of the final result, was\nRaphael, the founder and master of the Roman school. Born at Urbino,\n1483, he arrived in Rome upon the invitation of his relation, Bramante,\nthe architect, about 1508, nearly at the same time with his great\nrival. Dying on his thirtyseventh birthday, he has, in a short life,\nbequeathed to posterity works almost equally numerous, and certainly\ndisplaying more of the profound excellences and beautiful sentiment of\nart, than those of any name since the revival of painting. Of these\ninestimable productions there remain to us easel pictures in oil,\ncartoons, and frescos, exhibiting, also, three different manners. The\nfirst dry, little, and tedious, but not without truth--often great\nbeauty of finishing. This was derived from his instructer, Pietro\nPerugino; and though observable as a general characteristic only in his\nearly easel pictures, and some frescos at Sienna, may yet occasionally\nbe detected in the careful pencilling even of his frescos, and in the\nmaking out of his accompaniments. The pictures which display this style\nare those painted after he left his master in 1493, and before his\nreturn to Urbino about 1504. The finest of these was executed in his\nseventeenth year, representing a Holy Family,--the Virgin raising a\nveil from the Infant, who sleeps. Except in the works of Da Vinci, so\nmuch sweetness of expression and beauty of design had not yet appeared\nin the art, as is found even in this youthful production. The second\nmanner is an intermediate step--an attempt to escape from a minuteness\nwhich he soon discovered to be unsuitable both to his own fervor and\nthe dignity of art. The change is perceptible immediately after he\nhad studied the works of the Florentine masters, whose improvements,\nand the vigor of their enlarged style, he would at sight appreciate\nas movements evidently in advance, but with which he had hitherto\nremained unacquainted. As a separate manner, it can scarcely be said\nto exist; for at most it was but a new instrument in the possession of\na mind which has made everything its own. All that is apparent amounts\nmerely to a progressive melioration, extending through three or four\nyears, of which space he resided nearly two in Florence, studying\nthe performances of art in that city, but receiving no personal\ninstructions, excepting a reciprocal interchange of knowledge with Fra\nBartolomeo. The most celebrated pictures produced by him during this\ninterval are the Virgin, Infant, and St John, in the ducal gallery,\nand the entombing of Christ, now at Rome. These, more strikingly when\nviewed in comparison with the style of contemporary works, exhibit\nbeauties of so opposite a character to the compositions of Michael\nAngelo, that it is impossible to perceive any grounds on which the\nobligations said to be owing by their author to the latter can be\nrested. Buonarotti, in fact, could not, or at least never did, paint\nin a taste of such simplicity as these exhibit. The third manner is\nsolely and exclusively individual, neither derived nor--we grieve\nto say--inherited; full, harmonious, sweet, and flowing--yet bold,\nlearned, and sustained,--composed of such an union of natural grace and\nantique correctness, as meet only in the creations of Raphael's pencil.\nTo this style his most important works belong, having been formed after\nhis arrival in Rome, and when he had there become deeply impressed\nwith the sublimities of ancient art. In the space of only twelve\nyears--for he united exquisite finish with wonderful expedition--he\ncompleted the frescos of the Vatican and the Farnesina, besides others,\namounting to many hundred figures--designed the Cartoons--cultivating,\nat the same time, architecture (of which he was a master), poetry,\nand sculpture. During the same laborious period were produced those\nexquisite paintings in oil, which have chiefly contributed to spread\nhis fame beyond Italy. Of these the best, the most wonderful, though in\nslight respects not the most perfect, is the Transfiguration--the last\nbequeathment of his genius to the arts and to posterity, for he died\nwithin a few days after it was completed.\n\nAs Raphael in these works, no painter has ever done so much for the\nreal excellence of the art, nor, in the principles upon which they are\nconducted, has placed improvement on precepts so pure, so unerring. All\nthat imagination could lend to a strictly imitative art he has added,\nyet has infused into its creations the warmest sensibilities of life;\nto nature he has given all that grace and fancy can bestow, consistent\nwith the sweetest of all charms--leaving her nature still. On this\naccount is Raphael, of all great names in art, the safest to adopt as\nthe guide of taste and practice. For were the most decided admirer of\nsystem merely to copy, he would quickly find himself constrained to\nbecome the disciple of reality. True, we discover no mixed modes of\nnature, such as impede her energies and cloud her beauties in ordinary\nlife; yet the tranquil loveliness--the sinless beauty--the noble\nfeeling of the representation--has nothing of the cold and merely\nimaginative. This, indeed, constitutes the great charm of Raphael's\ngrace, that neither in form nor expression is it abstract; its power\nof moving is acquired directly from human sympathy. In gazing upon\nhis dramatic scenes and breathing figures, who has not experienced\nthis truth in a gradual melting of the heart, in unison with every\npure and holy remembrance that connects man with the species? See\nthe Madona--how mildly, simply beautiful! In that bosom not one\nrude passion has a resting place; yet feels not each spectator now\ncalled-up dear though distant recollections of a parent's--a mother's\ntenderness, with all the reverential charities of life's spring? Behold\nthe Magdalen--how changed the sensibilities! still how respectable!\nOne overmastering, absorbing affection. No meretricious display--every\nmovement is that of passion, but of sentiment too. Or view that youth\nso intent upon instruction; he hangs upon the very words of his\naged guide. How powerfully do we conceive the mature resolves that\nirradiate the ingenuous countenance! Or turn your attention to the\nchild who is playing in the lap of the mother--how innocently happy!\nhow unconsciously beautiful! Yet look again;--even here is passion,\nsentiment, futurity. The imagination involuntarily shapes out the\nfortunes of that disposition so legibly expressed in the speaking\ncountenance. But in the deep meaning of the mild full eye, in the holy\nexpression which beams in every lineament, in the spotless form, has\nnot genius made the nearest approaches to our unbreathed conceptions of\nan infant Saviour! Regard that prophet--how glorious, yet how good, he\nseems! No spirit insensible to human woe, unpitying of human frailty,\nlives there. The errors and backslidings of his race have given a fixed\nthough placid sorrow to the eye, but the closing sunshine of his own\npure life hath settled on the majestic brow.\n\nSuch are all the works of Raphael, full to overflowing of human\nsentiment and of interest. In their very highest ideal, they are but\nthe primeval dignity and sacredness of our nature. How then can these\nfacts be reconciled with the opinion so boldly and so long asserted,\nthat they do not strike at first sight--that the heart as well as the\njudgment must be gradually prepared to relish their beauties? We shall\nnot attempt to reconcile--we deny the conclusion. Where these works\nhave not been from the first felt, and admired, and loved in their\ntruth and in their simplicity, they have been viewed through the mists\nof false theory, or compared with erroneous standards of excellence. We\ndiscard all consideration of the theories of the French professional\ncritics on this subject; but it has often been matter of great surprise\nto find Sir Joshua Reynolds maintaining the same system. 'I remember\nvery well,' says the English artist, 'my own disappointment when I\nfirst visited the Vatican; but on confessing my feelings to a brother\nstudent, of whose ingenuousness I had a high opinion, he acknowledged\nthat the works of Raphael had the same effect upon him--or rather,\nthat they did not produce the effect which he expected. This was a\ngreat relief to my mind; and on inquiring further of other students,\nI found that those persons only, who, from natural imbecility,\nappeared incapable of ever relishing those divine performances, made\npretensions to instantaneous raptures on first beholding them. I found\nmyself in the midst of works executed upon principles with which I was\nunacquainted; I felt my ignorance, and stood abashed. I viewed them\nagain and again; I even affected to admire them more than I really did.\nIn a short time a new taste and a new perception began to dawn upon me,\nand I was convinced that I had originally formed a false opinion of the\nperfection of the art, and that this great painter was well entitled\nto the high rank which he holds in the estimation of the world. But\nlet it always be remembered that the excellence of his style is not on\nthe surface, but lies deep, and at first view is seen but mistily. It\nis the florid style which strikes at once, and captivates the eye for\na time, without ever satisfying the judgment.' We admire this candor,\nand can at once admit the justness of these remarks in general, when\napplied to the works of Michael Angelo, on whose principles it is\nwell known that Sir Joshua formed his theory of ideal beauty. But in\nreference to Raphael, conclusions the very opposite would be nearer\nthe truth. Drawn immediately from nature, as are all his ideas, they\ninterest the heart at once; and as we study the exquisite mechanism,\nthe perfection of the details, the propriety of the composition, the\njudgment confirms yet more the impressions which the heart first\nentertained.\n\nThese observations lead to, while they are confirmed by, another view,\nwhich yet remains to be taken of the genius of Raphael. It is only in\nthe individuality and profoundness of expression, that he reaches the\nsublimities of art. In the abstract conception of form he is inferior;\nhence, in the representations of mythological existences, he becomes\nfeeble in proportion as he generalizes. It is this that discriminates\nbetween the Roman and the Florentine. The former is the painter of\nmen as they live, and feel, and act; the latter delineates man in the\nabstract. The one embodies sentiment--feeling--passion; the other\npourtrays the capacities, energies, and idealities of form. Raphael\nexcels in resemblance; he walks the earth, but with dignity, and is\nseen to most advantage in relations of human fellowship. Michael Angelo\ncan be viewed only in his own world; with ours he holds no farther\ncommunion than is necessary to obtain a common medium of intelligence.\nIn the grand, the venerable, the touching realities of life, the\nfirst is unrivalled; his fair, and seeming true, creations cause us\nto reverence humanity and ourselves. Over the awful and the sublime\nof fiction, the second extends a terrible sway; he calls spirits from\ntheir shadowy realms, and they come at his bidding, in giant shapes, to\nfrown upon the impotency of man.\n\nTo contend here for superiority is futile--each has his own independent\nsphere. The style of Raphael has justly been characterised as\nthe dramatic, that of Michael Angelo as the epic, of painting.\nThe distinction is accurate, in as far as the former has made to\npass before us character in conflict with passion--in all its\nindividualities of mode; while the latter represented and generalized\nboth character and passion. The first leads us from natural beauty to\ndivine--the second elevates us at once into regions which his own lofty\nimaginations have peopled. Hence, than Michael Angelo's prophets, and\nother beings that just hover on the confines of human and spiritual\nexistence, the whole range of art and poetry never has, and never\nwill, produce more magnificent and adventurous creations. This is his\ntrue power--here he reigns alone, investing art with a mightiness\nunapproachable by any other pencil. But when the interest is to be\nderived from known forms, and natural combinations, he fails almost\nutterly; never can his line want grandeur--but grandeur so frequently\nsubstituted for feeling, and when the subject cannot sustain it,\npresents only gorgeous caricature. Human affection mingles in every\ntouch of Raphael, and he carries our nature to its highest moral,\nif not physical, elevation. Hence, his supernatural forms may want\nabstract majesty and overawing expression; but they display a community\nin this world's feelings, without its weaknesses or imperfections, by\nwhich the heart is perhaps even more subdued.\n\nIf this be a true estimate of the powers of these great men, and\nwe have drawn our inferences from impressions often felt, and long\nstudied, no comparison can be more unjust, nor less apt, than the one\nso frequently repeated, that Michael Angelo is the Homer, Raphael\nthe Virgil, of modern painting. The Florentine may justly take his\nplace by the side of the Greek. Not so the Roman and the Mantuan.\nThe copyist of Homer, nay, frequently his translator, whose nature\nis taken at second-hand--whose characters, in the mass, have about\nas much individuality as the soldiers of a platoon, and little more\nintellectual discrimination than brave, braver, and bravest, must\noccupy a lower seat at the banquet of genius than the original, the\never varied, and graphic artist. The great error in estimating the\nmerits of these masters appears to have arisen from not considering\nthem separately, and as independent minds. Michael Angelo, indeed,\ncreated, while Raphael may be said to have composed; but he discovered\nand collected--he did not derive his materials. Michael Angelo found\nthe art poor in means, undignified and powerless in composition; he\nassumed it in feebleness, and bore it at once to maturity of strength.\nOf these improvements Raphael profited by novel application; but the\nadvantage was nothing more than necessarily occurs in the spread of\nintelligence. Massaccio had, in like manner, prepared the previous\nchange; Da Vinci first, then Buonarotti, took it up. The pupil of\nPerugino made availment of this new path to a commanding height,\nwhence the whole prospect of the empire of art might be surveyed, but\nover this his genius soared in guideless, independent flight. Than\nthe invention, and at such a time, of Michael Angelo's mighty system,\nthere is to be found no greater evidence of talent, nor of greater\ntalent; but from the mind that could conceive that system, scarcely an\nexertion was demanded to maintain supremacy therein, guarded as were\nits claims against all rivalry by the very novelty and peculiarity of\nthe style, where each adopter would be degraded into an imitator. On\nthe other hand, if the perfection of Raphael's manner appear to be more\nin the ordinary course of genius, it is to be remembered, that its very\nperfectness depends upon those qualities of mind which most rarely\nassemble in the constitution of inventive genius--exquisite taste,\nsound judgment, patient study, and profound knowledge of the human\nheart. Be it also recollected, that to support the mastery here, in a\nstyle founded on no peculiar habitudes of intellect, but embracing the\ngeneral and intrinsic principles of art, where all good artists would\nconsequently be rivals, without incurring the imputation of copying,\nrequired unabating effort, diligence, and originality,--more liberal\nand varied excellence, than in the preceding system. Here we at length\ndiscover the real and abiding superiority of Raphael. It is not that\nhe pre-eminently surpasses in one of the faculties of genius, but he\nhas embodied in his labours more of the requisites of perfection than\nany other of the modern masters. In grandeur of invention and form,\nhe is inferior to Michael Angelo. Titian surpasses him in coloring,\nCorregio in gradation of tone. This superiority, however, becomes\nvisible only where each of the qualities becomes the ruling sentiment\nof the work. For when we view in itself a composition of Raphael, where\nthe style of design so exquisitely accords with the forms, the coloring\ncorresponding with each, the chiar' oscuro just adequate to the degree\nof perception meditated; the whole harmonized by innate and unerring\npropriety, animated with his own peculiar grace and sentiment, while\neach separate quality becomes yet more perfect in the combination,--the\npencil seems justly to have attained its unrivalled utmost.\n\nWith their respective founders, the schools of Rome and Florence may be\nsaid to have terminated; at least the mantle of their teacher rested\nwith very unequal inspiration upon the disciples of both. The death of\nRaphael, in 1520, proved an irremediable loss to the arts, the extent\nof which never can indeed be known. His pure and natural style, had\nit been more firmly engrafted by longer life, would probably have\ndelayed, perhaps prevented, the sudden extravagance and mannerism which\noverspread the united schools of Tuscany and Rome, at the head of which\nMichael Angelo survived upwards of forty years.\n\nAmong the various pursuits of taste, painting alone exhibits this\nsingular fortune, that the noblest and most intellectual of its\nprinciples, as also those which speak most directly to sense, and are\nmerely alluring, were invented at the same time, but in different\nplaces, and separately practised. It is worthy of remark, also, that\nin each respect the first inventors remained the most accomplished\nprofessors of their own discoveries. While in Rome and Florence,\ndesign and expression were receiving their perfection, forming the\nalmost exclusive subjects of study, in Venice, the seductions of\ncoloring, in Lombardy, the illusions of light and shadow, were adding\nunknown pomp and magic to the art.\n\nThe school of Venice, though one of the earliest in Europe to cherish\nreviving arts, has added little of intellectual or noble to their\nprogressive culture. Here they have never flourished in the genial\nsoil of popular institutions. A haughty and jealous, yet luxurious and\nunpatriotic aristocracy, converted the arts into instruments of private\ngratification--instead of turning them to national ornament. Hence\nsculpture has been little cultivated, architecture more, though in\npeculiar style, and painting most of all. But while the sacredness of\nreligion, or the manliness of history, has occupied the Italian pencil\ngenerally, of the older masters especially, Venice has sent forth\nher lordly senators, splendid banquets, and naked beauties. From the\ntwelfth century, we have already seen, a movement might be discerned\nin the arts of Venice. Her school of painting begins to attract notice\nunder Antonello da Messina, who introduced oil colors. The Bellinis\ncarried out his improvements; and as pupils of the youngest, we\ndiscover Giorgione and Titian, who, with Tintoretto, Paul Veronese,\nSebastian del Piombo, Schiavone, and Bassano, were the chief masters of\nthis school.\n\nBut of Venetian painting the great ornament is Titian, whose name is\nsynonymous with the characteristic of the native school--fine coloring.\nFrom this, however, we are not to suppose, as is too frequently done,\nthat he was wanting in the higher principles of his profession. The\nalleged imperfection of his design will not often be detected, and only\nin momentary action of the parts; for in the more common modifications\nof form, it is faultless, and of inanimate nature the drawing and\npainting of his landscapes is unrivalled. In expression he is the most\nhistorical of all painters, his portraits being second only to those\nof Raphael. In careful imitation of natural effect, he is equal to the\nmost pains-taking of the Dutch school; yet, with such grandeur and\nbreadth in the masses, that, as has been justly remarked, the most\nimperfect sketch in which the original disposition in this respect\nis preserved, will present a character of high art. The chief defect\nof Titian was in composition and poetical fancy; he penetrated the\nvery secrets of nature in all her varied effects and minutest shades\nof tone and hue--but he neither made selections of her forms, nor\npossessed the power of correcting her defects, by an ideal standard.\nIn this mastery of coloring, three principles may be remarked; first,\nthe interposing medium between the eye and the object is supposed to\nbe a mellow golden light; secondly, the most glowing and gorgeous\nlights are produced, not so much by rich local tints as by the general\nconduct of the whole piece, in which the gradations of tone are almost\nevanescent, yet in their strongest hues powerfully contrasted. Hence\nthe final splendor is effected rather by painting in under-tones, than\nby lavishing on particular spots the whole riches of the palette.\nThe shadows and under-tones, also, are enlivened by a thousand local\nhues and flickering lights, and his masses by innumerable varieties\nand play of parts; yet all softened, and blended, and combined by an\nundefinable harmony. Hence, nothing more easy than apparently to copy\nTitian--nothing more difficult than really to imitate his faithfulness\nand splendor. The third principle refers to his practice; the colors\nare laid on pure, without mixing, in tints by reiterated application,\nand apparently with the point of the pencil.\n\nTitian died in 1576, at the venerable age of 96 or 99, having survived\nthe glory of the Venetian school, the last disciple of decided\neminence being Tintoretto, called the lightning of the pencil, from\nhis miraculous despatch. The Bassans are powerful colorists, and\nwonderfully true to nature. Paul Veronese wantons in all the luxuriance\nof fresh and magnificent coloring, but is correct neither in taste nor\ndrawing. Giorgione, of all the early Venetian masters, gave greatest\npromise of uniting purity with splendor, but died in 1511, at the\nage of 33;--thus leaving Titian, to whom he had in some measure been\ninstructer, to reap an undivided harvest of fame.\n\nIn the annals of genius, no name bears more strongly on the popular\nsense attached to the term of a heaven-born inspiration, superior\nto circumstances and independent of tuition, than that of Antonio\nLeti--better known as Corregio. This artist, who was born about 1494,\nand died at the age of 40, is the model rather than the founder of the\nLombard school. From the bosom of poverty, without master, without\npatron, without even the commonest appliances of his art, he bursts\nat once upon the view in all the blaze of original talent--unpraised,\nunknown--in an age of knowledge, to sink unmarked like the meteor of\nthe desert, leaving but the memorials of his graceful pencil--in his\nown phrase, 'anch' io son pittore'--to cry aloud that he also was\na painter,--that such a man, contemporary with Raphael and Michael\nAngelo, and their nearest compeer, should have lived in ignorance\nof them, of Rome, of the antique, of all but nature--to die at last\nunrewarded in Parma--is utterly inexplicable. The principal works of\nthis master are the two noble cupolas of the cathedral churches of\nParma, painted in fresco--one subject the Assumption of the Virgin,\nthe other the Ascension of the Saviour. Of his easel paintings, the\nmost precious, representing a Holy Family, and called the 'Night,'\nis in the Dresden gallery. The beauties of Corregio are grace and\nexquisite management of light and color, united with inexpressible\nharmony,--'thus was completed the round of art.' 'Everything I see,'\nsays Annibale Caracci, on beholding fifty years afterwards these works\nof Corregio,'astonishes me, particularly the coloring and beauty of\nthe children, who live, breathe, and smile, with so much sweetness and\nvivacity, that we are constrained to sympathize in their enjoyment.'\nThe clearness and relief, the sweetness and freedom of pencil, in the\nworks before us, have indeed never been exceeded, but correctness is\nnot one of their elements. Neither the most beautiful forms, nor the\nmost pleasing groupings, are preferred to the most ungraceful upon any\nprinciple of abstract elegance, but the whole composed and selected\nin obedience to the distribution of light and the gradation of tone.\nIn expression, the same system is pursued; for here Corregio has\nendeavored habitually to impress the soft hues and undulating lines\nwhich rapture and joy leave on the countenance. Beyond these, of ideal,\nhe appears to have had no conception. Every form wears the stamp of\nliving nature, and his coloring is the very reflection of natural\nbloom. He wanted force, which, with the defect of elevation, renders\nthe whole effect, though delightfully soft and graceful, sometimes\neffeminate and monotonous. Yet Raphael alone united a greater variety\nof different excellences.\n\nWe have now surveyed the labours and merits of the old masters--the\npatriarchs of modern art. The establishment of the four primitive\nschools embraces likewise the golden age of painting. How brief was\nthe reign of lofty genius! The same individual might have lived\nwith all the masters now enumerated,--he might have survived them\nall,--beholding the art in its infancy, and in its manhood, he might\nhave witnessed also its decline, and yet have viewed all this within\nthe ordinary span of existence. The same brevity in the duration\nof excellence we also remarked in the arts of Greece. Is it, then,\nthe fate of the human spirit, like human institutions, to fall away\nimmediately on attaining a degree of perfection? or rather, is not this\nevidence of powers which shall hereafter expand, grow, and unfold their\nactivities,--here on earth chilled, and cramped, and broken?\n\nAmong the minor fathers of the art who not unworthily supported the\nglory of the sixteenth century, and who continue the history of\npainting in the Roman and Florentine schools through the remainder of\nthat period, the chief were the immediate disciples of Raphael and\nMichael Angelo. The favorite pupil of the former, Julio Romano, was an\nartist of highly poetic imagination, but less informed with pure taste\nthan his master; his ambition appears to have aimed at uniting the\ngrace of his instructer with the science and energy of Florence. Penni,\nPerin del Vaga, Polidore Caravaggio, and Maturino, not unsuccessfully\nstudied in the same school; but we find a gradual disappearance of\nthe more simple style of Raphael, and long before the middle of the\ncentury, the two schools may almost be said to have merged in the\noverwhelming despotism of the principles of Michael Angelo. Even the\nnames now mentioned, though at first following the Roman in their\nlater works, are scarcely to be distinguished from the disciples\nof the Florentine school. Of those who were truly disciples of the\nlatter, and who derived their science immediately from the founder,\nwas Daniel de Volterra, who survived till 1566. The designs of this\nlatter have frequently been assigned to his master; and in the opinion\nof Poussin, his Descent from the Cross, in fresco, in the church of\nTrinita del Monte at Rome, is--or rather was, for it perished under\nFrench experiment,--one of the three best pictures in the world. Andrea\ndel Sarto was more an independent master, who held between the two\nstyles, and added better coloring than either. Mazzuoli, better known\nas Parmegiano, though by birth and early study belonging to the school\nof Corregio, his better taste was formed at Rome; his style of design\nis noble, coloring forcible, and general effect sweet and gracious. He\ndied in 1540, ten years after the preceding. But of all the followers\nof Michael Angelo, Tibaldi approached nearest to the sublimity, without\nthe extravagance, of his model. It soon becomes difficult, indeed\nimpossible, to follow decidedly the division of the ancient schools.\nIn the progress of the century, their principles become united in the\nworks of the minor painters, who are henceforth to be distinguished by\nthe place of their birth, rather than by their style. The design of\nMichael Angelo prevailed; but to this were added, in proportion to the\nabilities of the artist, the various discoveries of the other masters.\nThe art however, was in rapid retrogression. A style which suited\nonly the most transcendent genius, which only under such inspiration\ncould be at all pleasing, and from whose sublimity one step led into\nthe turgid and the false, became a most dangerous instrument of ill\nin the hands of mere imitators. The ingrafting, also, upon its severe\nsimplicity, the more luxurious modes of Venice and Lombardy, tended\nstill more effectually to extinguish character and truth of distinctive\nrepresentation.\n\nTowards the close of the sixteenth and early part of the seventeenth\ncentury, the progress of decline was stayed for a time by the\nestablishment of a new school. This was the Bolognese or Eclectic,\nfounded by the Caracci, and which, in some measure, was the\nconcentration of all the Lombard artists, who, separately following,\nin a great measure, the style of Corregio, had yet never united into\na seminary of which that master could be called the head. The grand\nprinciple of this new academy, and thence deriving the appellation\nof Eclectic, was to select what was most excellent in the primitive\nschools; design from the Florentine, and grace from the Roman, from\nthe Venetian color, from the Lombard light and shade, uniting all\nin due proportion and harmonious effect. The plan was arduous and\naspiring, but the idea was good; the failure which ensued, for, abating\nthe success of individual talent, the final result disappointed\nexpectation, arose not from the intention pursued, but from the means\nemployed. The Bolognese masters sought to effect the combination\nof these elements by rules of art, instead of taking nature as the\nconnecting and vivifying principle. In the study of her effects they\nwould have found the very union they contemplated--the previous\nseparation, in fact, of pictorial excellence into departments, had been\noccasioned by partial or peculiar views of nature. Still the success of\nthe attempt was great, and threw the last rays of glory over the native\nseat of modern art.\n\nThe founders and great ornaments of this school were the three Caracci;\nLudovico the eldest, born in 1555, died in 1619, was the instructer\nof his two cousins--Agostino, three years younger, and Annibale, born\nin 1560, both of whom Ludovico survived. The association formed by\nthese relatives was, in the strictest sense of the term, a _school_\nof design, and conducted upon an admirable plan; students being\ninstructed in anatomy, in drawing, in painting, and in the principles\nof composition, by actual superintendence and personal instruction.\nThe unaffected breadth, solemnity, yet grace of effect--the simplicity\nof character, which distinguish the works of Ludovico, are justly\nadmired. Augustino excelled more in the theory than the practice of his\nart; but one of the best pictures of this school, the St Jerome of the\nCertosa, is his. Engravings by him are numerous and valuable. Of all\nthe Caracci, Annibale is the most magnificent in his compositions, and\nmay be taken as the true representative of the school; bold, splendid,\nbroad, his pencil deals its touches with firm, almost unerring\ncertainty, to its aim--but too frequently that aim is style in art,\nrather than truth in feeling.\n\nOf the immediate pupils of the Bolognese academy, the first undoubtedly\nis the modest and tender Domenichino. Though participating in the\ncommon fault of his school, loaded design, yet his heads have a feeling\nand expression approaching to the sublime in sentiment. The Communion\nof St Jerome is pronounced by Poussin to be one of the three best\npictures in the world--the Transfiguration of Raphael, and Volterra's\nDescent from the Cross, completing the number. We shall not easily\nforget our impressions on beholding the Transfiguration and the\nCommunion side by side in the Vatican. Guido's name instantly calls up\nall our associations of the graceful and the benign; but his expression\nis too often artificial: perhaps in his works we first decidedly mark\nthose academic abstractions and refinements of precept, which, formed\nindependently of nature, hastened the downfall of art in this its last\nresting place. Guercino wants power and individual character; Albani\nis agreeable and poetic, the painter of the Loves and Graces. Carlo\nDolci, a Florentine, imitates Guido. Lanfranco is bold, but incorrect\nin his design; as are likewise Pietro Cortona, and Luca Giordano,\nmannerists in whom is lost every distinction of character. Contemporary\nwith the Carracci, but self-taught, and belonging to no school, was\nCaravaggio, strong but ungraceful in design, harsh in the disposition\nof his lights, but of undoubted genius:--his pupil was Spagnoletto. The\nhistory of painting in Italy, at least of painting animated by genius,\nmay be closed with the name of Salvator Rosa, who died in 1673, the\nonly native landscape painter which that delightful and picturesque\ncountry has produced. The old masters, indeed, have left the grandest\nand most perfect landscape compositions--but these are subservient to\nthe figures. Rosa succeeded in both, and stands nobly, but peculiarly,\noriginal in an age of decay and mannerism.\n\nThe eighteenth century opens under the auspices of Carlo Maratti,\nan affected mannerist, but not altogether devoid of talent. After\nhis death, in 1713, his rivals, Garzi and Cignani, sustained for a\nlittle the expiring reputation of the Roman school. But it is quite\nunnecessary to continue the narrative; the state of the arts during the\nearly part of this century has already been noticed, and the names of\nBianchi, Costanzi, Manchini, the early contemporaries of Canova, and of\nthe revival, are now forgotten. The only artists of those times still\nregarded with some respect, are, Solemena, who died in 1747; Sebastian\nConca, in 1764; and Pompeo Battoni, who brings down the history of the\nart to 1787; Mengs belongs to Germany.\n\nOver the living art of Italy, Camuccini at Rome, and Benvenuti at\nFlorence, preside. The former is perhaps the best draughtsman in\nEurope, but is inferior as a colorist; he wants depth, harmony,\nand force; his grouping also is defective in richness and variety,\napproaching too nearly to the linear as in relievo. His expression,\nthough noble, is cold--deficient in that warm gush of sentiment,\nwhich, in the ancient masters, seemed to 'create a soul under the ribs\nof death.' Benvenuti excels his contemporary as a colorist, in the\ndisposition of his group, and in the force of _chiar' oscuro_; but in\npurity of drawing, in classical taste, and in the selection of form,\nhe is inferior. Each has chosen his subjects principally from profane\nhistory. Camuccini's best performance is the Departure of Regulus;\nBenvenuti's a scene in the recent history of Saxony. Rome possesses\nseveral other good painters, but few natives--for, to the artist as to\nthe poet of every nation, she has become\n\n  '----His country--city of the soul.'\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n\nTHE Trans-alpine schools of painting now demand attention. The German\nis usually divided into three distinct schools--the German, properly\nso called, the Flemish, and the Dutch. These distinctions are rather\nlocal than depending upon characteristic difference of manner. Indeed,\nprior to the age of Durer, the only style discernible in the schools\nis that named Gothic, common more or less to all the states of Europe,\nbut especially indigenous in Germany. The expression, then, is here\nemployed not altogether in its vague and generic sense of anything\nstiff and formal--for these early or Gothic pictures exhibit a specific\ncharacter both of design and execution. They are painted upon wood,\nusually oak, covered sometimes with canvass, always with a white\nground, upon which the outline of the subject is sketched, and the\nwhole overlaid with gilding. This last forms the real grounding of the\npicture, which is painted in water or size-color, with great care and\ndiligence of finish, often with considerable felicity of effect, and\nalways with more of the simplicity of individual nature than occurs\nin any other works of the same age and description. This early school\nterminated in the fifteenth century, from the more general diffusion\nof oil-painting; its principal masters were Schoen, the Bon Martino\nof the Italians, born in 1420, painter and engraver; Wohlgemuth,\nthe instructer of Durer; and Muiller, or Kranach, Burgomaster of\nWittemberg, and friend of Luther. But the prince of German artists is\nAlbert Durer, born at Nuremberg in 1471--the Da Vinci of this school,\nas excelling in science and in art. His works in painting and engraving\nare equally admirable, evincing knowledge of the best principles of\nimitation. They still retain a degree of constraint--a remnant of the\nGothic manner, of which the habits and prejudices of his countrymen,\nand his own ignorance of the antique, prevented the removal. Want of\ndignified design and grandeur of composition, hard and meagre outline,\nare his defects; truth, originality, and simplicity of thought, good\ncoloring, and the invention, or at least perfecting, of etching on\ncopper, form his contributions to the arts. His contemporary, and, in\nportraits, superior, was Holbein, best known in England, and whose\nworks, in the reign of Henry VIII., are excellent examples of the\nschool; his successors, in departing from the national style, become\nblended with the minor Italian masters--for the German school ceases\nto be original or distinct when it ceases to be Gothic. After Schwartz\nRolenhamer, and others of the sixteenth century, who painted history\nin the Italian manner, Germany sent forth chiefly landscape painters,\nas Bauer, Elzhaimer, and others, who finished in a style exquisitely\ndelicate and natural.\n\nCommercial wealth, the comparative independence and activity which\nalways accompany industrious enterprise, rendered the Flemish\ncities, from a very early period, famous in painting. In fact, many\nof their most lucrative branches of trade--tapestry, embroidery,\njewellery--depended upon, and, as in the Italian republics, aided the\nprogress of design. Few characteristics of a national style, however,\nare to be found in the history of art in the Low Countries, as distinct\nfrom Germany, prior to the close of the sixteenth century. To John\nof Bruges, better known as Van Eyck, a Flemish painter about the\nbeginning of the fifteenth century, has been ascribed the discovery\nof oil colors; but though the discovery appears rather to have been a\ngradual improvement, commencing from a much earlier date, he certainly\nfirst brought the practice into general use. The painters of the\nFlemish and Dutch schools were thus put early in possession of an\nadvantage, contributing principally to the distinguishing qualities\nof art in these countries--fine coloring and exquisite finish. The\nmethod, indeed, necessarily introduced these properties, as may also\nbe remarked in Italy, where the Venetian masters, who first obtained\nthe secret, continued to surpass, as they had taken the lead, in\nsweetness and splendor of pencilling. Lucas Van Leyden and Mabeuse, far\nsurpassed Van Eyck, and indeed rivalled their German contemporaries,\nDurer and Holbein; while, in the subsequent century, artists are\nnumerous who carried to a high perfection the characteristics of the\nschool--imitation of nature, and wonderful minuteness of finish--such\nas Brill, Stenwyck, Spranger, the Brueghils, and Van Veen.\n\nRubens was born of an honorable family, at Antwerp, in 1577, and died\nin 1640. This powerful and prolific artist, whose works are abundantly\nscattered over the whole of Europe, gave to the Flemish school\nthe consideration attendant on separate and dignified character.\nHad Rubens, indeed, united to brilliancy of coloring, rapidity of\ncomposition, and splendor of general effect, the elevation of form\nand sentiment which ennoble the thoughts of the old masters, his name\nwould justly have ranked amongst the highest in art. But the seductions\nof the Venetian, and the bravura of the Lombard style, had for him\nmore attraction than the majesty of the Florentine, or the grace and\npathos of the Roman pencil. There is in his style, however, a dexterous\ncompensation for defects, which, more than in any other, momentarily\nseduces the judgment from propriety. His defect of expression is\nconcealed in the richness, the lavish variety, of his figures and\ngrouping; the incorrectness of his forms is forgotten in beholding\ntheir almost mobile elasticity; the absence of lofty interest passes\nunmarked amid the striking contrasts and picturesque impressions of the\ngeneral effect. Over the whole is thrown the most gorgeous coloring,\nthe play of reflected lights, the magnificence of almost shifting,\nyet ever harmonious hues and luxuriance of ornament;--like the golden\nflood from the stained window, pouring its radiance over the irregular\nbut magical combinations of the Gothic aisle. The landscapes of Rubens\nare delightful; they have the freshness, the clearness, the variety of\nnature, and a far deeper sentiment of her beauty than his histories or\nportraits--the last, indeed, are the least meritorious of his works.\nBut we shall qualify or support our own by the opinion of Sir Joshua\nReynolds, whose summary of the character of Rubens is as follows: 'In\nhis composition his art is too apparent; his figures have expression,\nand act with energy, but without simplicity or dignity. His coloring,\nin which he is eminently skilled, is notwithstanding too much of\nwhat we call tinted. Throughout the whole of his works, there is a\nproportionable want of that nicety of distinction and elegance of\nmind, which is required in the higher walks of painting; to this want,\nit may in some degree be ascribed, that those qualities that make the\nexcellence of this subordinate style, appear in him with the greatest\nlustre.' The Crucifixion at Antwerp is his masterpiece; the Allegories\nof Mary de Medici in the Louvre his largest work; but some of the most\nfinished smaller pictures which we have seen are in the Rubens-gallery,\nin the palace of Frederic at Potzdam.\n\nThe contemporaries of Rubens were independent masters or disciples.\nAmong the former were Van Voss Strada, Miel Savary Seegers; among the\nlatter, Snyders, Jordains, Teniers, and especially Vandyke. Rather\nlater, lived Schwaneveldt in landscape, and Neef for interiors, &c.;\nbut the influence of the principles or precepts of Rubens animated\nthe whole of their efforts. In point of manner and subject, Teniers\nand Vandyke may in some measure be considered as forming the extremes\nof the Flemish schools, though in respect of merit they stand in the\nfirst rank. Teniers, for instance, connects the Flemish with the Dutch\nstyle, being more elevated in the general tone of his conceptions\nand manner than the latter, while he has selected a less dignified\nwalk than Rubens. He has painted with exquisite truth, and very great\nbeauty of pencil, the customs, scenes, amusements, and character of his\ncountrymen. Vandyke, again, in the grace and dignity of his portraits,\nin the intellectuality of his expression and composition, seems to\neffect a junction between the common and broad nature of the native\ntaste, with the ideal of Italian art. The pictures painted by Vandyke\nduring the early period of his residence in England, are among the\nfinest specimens of portraiture. Here, indeed, in some respects, as the\nclearness and transparency of his carnations, he is excelled only by\nTitian,--in the graceful air of the heads, and beautiful drawing of\nthe extremities, he reminds us of Raphael,--while, to these qualities,\nhe has added a silvery tone of pencilling, which, more so than in any\nother master, gives back the delicate and varied hues of real flesh\nand skin. He has hardly succeeded in history, more, however, from want\nof practice than genius; for his alleged want of fancy seems not so\napparent as has been supposed. In Vandyke, we find a most striking\nproof that excellence in art is founded upon no abstract theory of the\nideal, but in selecting, and sedulously adhering to, some one view of\nnature: hence--hence alone,\n\n  'The soft precision of the clear Vandyke.'\n\nWhat Rubens had accomplished for the Flemish school in giving to it\nnationality and a head, Rembrandt some time after conferred upon that\nof Holland; but between the two cases there is this difference,--the\nformer has identified his principles and reputation with the whole of\nsucceeding art in his country,--these principles, also, are founded\nin a more comprehensive view of nature and of imitation; the latter\nhas merely given a consistency to the scattered details and individual\nartists of the Dutch school, by concentrating attention upon one, while\nhe has given a singular but most powerful delineation of nature. He\nstands alone, not only among his countrymen, a gigantic workman among\nthe minute laborers of cabbages, butchers' shops, and green-grocers'\nstalls, but he is a solitary master in the schools of Europe. The\nstyle of Rembrandt it is easy to distinguish, but difficult to\ncharacterise. It is at once natural and highly artificial--original,\nyet excessively mannered. It is natural: for every object, no\nmatter what, is represented just as it appears, without alteration,\nimprovement, or addition--but the medium of visibility, if the\nexpression may be allowed, the mode in which nature is exposed, is a\ncomplete artifice; no inventor was ever more original in his system,\nbut none less varied in its application;--if we have seen one picture\nof Rembrandt, we have seen all, as far as respects his principles,\nfor he has only two. In his practice he is at once bold, even to\ncoarseness, and elaborately finished--his coloring is delicate, yet\nplaced frequently in lumps upon the canvass. But to attempt a positive\ndescription: of the two principles of the Dutch master, one respects\nthe manner of delineating, the other of exhibiting, nature. He appears\nto have regarded art as without power or control, over the character\nor form of the subject--these were to be most faithfully preserved,\nand most minutely copied. This formed his first principle, to which\nhe has most rigidly adhered. But as natural objects present different\nmodifications in appearance, according to the quantity and direction\nof the light which falls upon them, and since this can be artificially\nvaried at the will of the artist, here Rembrandt fixed his second, and\nwhat may be termed his ideal principle. In the schools of Italy, we\nhave seen that the management of light had been brought to very great\nperfection, especially by Titian, Corregio, and their best instructed\nfollowers. Their method was diffusion--to unite, by secondary, the\nprincipal lights, and both, by a gradation of under-tone, with the\ndarkest shadows, avoiding strong contrasts. Indeed, the Venetian\nmaster has shown, in his practice, that strong opposition, neither\nof light nor color, was necessary to powerful effect; and Corregio,\non the same principle, has painted much in demi, or neutral tone.\nThese precepts Rubens also had discovered in his Italian studies, and\nafterwards constantly practised; Vandyke, by the same method, has\ngiven that extraordinary softness and delicacy which sits so divinely\nupon his female countenances. Rembrandt pursued a method directly the\nreverse; he concentrated his light into one meteoric blaze, directed\nin full power upon one spot--to which all other forms are sacrificed\nin deep gloom--and upon which the whole riches of his palette are\nheaped. He placed nature, as it were, in a dungeon, while, through\none solitary loophole, the beam of heaven seems, with ten-fold force,\nto penetrate to the object of the artist's immediate contemplation.\nThis, spreading a dazzling, yet solemn light over all, invests the\ncommonest forms with an unknown interest, and gives to the grossest and\nmost unclassical imitation an elevated and romantic character,--just\nas the uncertain gloom of twilight mantles in the shadowy terrors and\nstrange shapes, objects, the most familiar in ordinary day. In the same\nstyle are painted the landscapes of Rembrandt, equally valued, and\nmore true than even his figures. The rest of the Dutch masters have\nlittle of distinctive excellence; the imitation of all is wonderful in\nits fidelity, minuteness, and beauty; but human talent, and weeks of\nprecious time, wasted upon a cabbage leaf, or a few fish upon a board,\nis after all but a melancholy theme, which we shall despatch with a\ncatalogue of names. Before or contemporary with Rembrandt, who died in\n1674, we have H\u00e6mskirk, Both, Metzu, Bl\u00e6mart, Breenberg, Polemberg,\nBhergem, Cuyp, Wynants, Heem, Mieris, Vangoyn, Schalken, Van der\nNeer, Van der Warf. A higher class of artists were Wouvermans, Laar,\nand Gherard Douw, the most careful of painters. These and others now\nmentioned placed the ideal of art in the most scrupulous delineation\nof nature--the most elaborate truth and transparent coloring; and it\ncannot be denied, that they approached their ideal nearer than did the\nItalian masters to theirs. But more glory accrued from the attempt than\nin the success.\n\nThe arts of the Low Countries, so long an appendage of the crown of\nSpain, naturally lead to those of that kingdom. No regular Spanish\nschool of painting appears at any time to have existed, though the art\nhas been very successfully practised by numerous artists. Of these\nthe chief are Velasquez, equally eminent in history and portrait; and\nMurillo, a delightful colorist, and distinguished for natural feeling,\nthough often vulgar, and rarely dignified, in his choice of forms.\nHe is the most original of all the great masters of Spain, who have\ngenerally been indebted to Italy. Morales, Herrera, with many others,\nmight be mentioned, but we have not seen their works. The principal\nseats of painting, in Spain, were Madrid and Seville; the school holds\nintermediate rank between those of Venice and Flanders--its chief\nbeauty is truth of character, natural expression and fine coloring,\ncorrect, but not elevated, design.\n\nIn France, or by French artists, painting has been practised with\nmuch individual success; and though academies have been formed, and\ngovernment protection long and liberally afforded, it would yet be\ndifficult exactly to describe in what the characteristics of the\nnational style of art in France consist. In that country, taste, as\nrespects painting, has fluctuated more, and from the first has been\nless deeply impressed with original traits, than as regards any other\nof the fine arts. Voltaire has remarked, that a people may have a\nmusic and poetry pleasing only to themselves, and yet both good; but\nin painting, though their genius may be peculiar, it can be genuine\nonly as it is agreeable to, and prized by, all the world. Tried by this\nrule, French painting seems to be neither correct nor pleasing, and it\nis not universal, that is inventive, in its peculiarity of manner. In\nher early efforts, France was indebted to Italy, and in her subsequent\nlabors the Italian method of design has prevailed; indeed, her artists\nhave here rather copied than imitated, adding, no doubt, what have\nbeen termed _les graces Fran\u00e7oises_--an expression ill-naturedly, but\nnot without truth, translated, 'French grimaces.' It is rare, perhaps\nimpossible, to find originality where taste has not been naturally,\nand to a considerable extent, cultivated prior to the introduction\nof extrinsic knowledge. Art borrowed in a state of forwardness,\ncan receive no new nor valuable modifications from unskilful hands\nand unpractised fancy. On the other hand, when thought has been\nindependently exercised, refinement, engrafted upon its bold, though\nperhaps rude strength, will receive novel combinations and freshness\nof character, while the reception of more perfect modes in the same\nwalk, will but improve the faculties, without oppressing the powers,\nof native genius. Again, the fluctuations of painting observable\nduring its progress in France, appear to have arisen chiefly from the\ninfluence which favorite masters have been able to exercise over the\nart universally in that country. Nor has the influence often been that\nof pure talent. Court intrigue, during the most favorable epochs, has\nraised to court employment, and consequently to pre-eminence in the\nhonors and emoluments of his profession, some individual, who thus\nbecame possessed of the means of rendering his brethren eager to obtain\nhis countenance by imitation of his style. Thus we have the schools\nof Vouet, of Le Brun, of David, distinguished merely by adherence to\nthe particular manner of these masters; with some exception in the\nlast, which is founded most on general principles. This, however, is\nonly an effect growing out of a far more general cause of imperfection\nin French art, namely, the absence of all true national interest.\nAmong the French, painting has hitherto, during the most prosperous\nperiods, formed the amusement or the luxury of their rulers; though\nas contributing to the external pomp, splendor, and show of their\n'_monarchie_,' the people have been trained to applaud. There never\nhas been mutual sympathy between the artist and his countrymen; he\ndrew his encouragement, and looked for his reward, from other and far\nless ennobling inspiration than their praise. That incense which not\nunfrequently was really kindled at the Muses' flame, was burnt before\nthe idols set up by a despot, instead of being offered to the majesty\nof national feeling. In confirmation of these remarks, so congenial\nwith the whole history of art as an intellectual attainment, we have\nonly to refer to the reigns of Louis XIII., XIV., XV.; more especially\nof the second, whose selfish glory, the pursuit of his entire life,\nconverted the most splendid of the arts into a vehicle of adulation,\nthrough fulsome and direct flattery, or glaring and far-fetched\nallegory. If, during the recent order of things, more respect was paid\nto real merit, and less to cabal than formerly, the same, nearly,\nwas the isolation of the art from popular enthusiasm--it was still\nunder the same thraldom to the cold and selfish aggrandisement of an\nindividual; or, where this object seemed more directly connected with\nnational exultation, the art was exercised on a theme, whose violent\nand artificial aspect is, throughout, unvaried, entirely destructive\nof natural expression and discrimination of character. The gold and\nglitter of military portraits--the unromantic combinations of modern\nwarfare, with its mechanical levelling of distinctive peculiarities,\nwere little calculated to rectify--they increased--the errors and the\nwants of French painting; while that which is absolutely good was\nderived from the colder forms of sculpture.\n\nThe most ancient labours of the art in France appear to have been\non glass, and, as in every other country, dedicated to the service\nof religion. Of these primitive specimens, many still remain of\nconsiderable beauty, as in the church of St Genevieve at Paris.\nAnother method, common also to Germany, and which, in the fourteenth\ncentury, had assumed the appearance of a regular and important branch\nof ingenuity, was a species of enamel, formed by the fusion of\nmetallic colors with glass. Of this method, many remains of surprising\nbeauty occur in the early part of the fifteenth century, which, with\nthe Gothic paintings already described, seem to have exercised the\ningenuity of his subjects, till the exertions of Francis I. for their\nimprovement brought artists from Italy. Among these was the great\nLeonardo, who died at Fontainbleau, in the arms of this monarch, in\n1524, and before he had exercised his pencil in France. Copies of his\nworks, especially of the Last Supper, were executed for Francis, who\nwas desirous of carrying off the original with the wall upon which it\nis painted.[B]\n\nThe intervening period from the death of Francis to the commencement of\nthe seventeenth century, torn by religious dissension, distracted by\nthe heartless intrigue, and still more heartless massacres perpetrated\nby the Catholic party, threw France back in the career of improvement.\nThe splendid reign of Henry of Navarre was favorable indeed both to\nthe fine and useful arts; but, as in the former age, foreign, and\nprincipally Flemish artists, were employed. The imbecile Louis XIII.\nhas the credit of having first formed a native school of painting, or\nrather, perhaps, in this reign, advantage was first taken of those\nvarious circumstances which had gradually been forming both skill and\ntaste in France. This, like every other measure of the same period, is\nto be attributed to the prime minister, Richelieu, founder also of the\nAcademy. This was the source whence were supplied the artists of the\nsucceeding reign, who were principally disciples of Vouet, the first\nFrench master of eminence, born in 1582, but whose merits in the nobler\nwalks of art would not otherwise entitle him to notice.\n\nThe glory, not only of this period, but of the history of French art,\nis Nicholas Poussin--the classic and the virtuous Poussin. To his\ncontemporaries, however, or to the retainers in the halls of Louis,\nhe did not properly belong. Born in 1594, he had formed his taste by\na residence of nearly twenty years in Italy, before he was invited,\nin 1639, to a pension and an apartment in the Tuileries. From the\ncabals of a court, and the petty jealousy of the inferior Vouet, he\nfled beyond the Alps to his own loved Rome, never to return. There he\nconversed more with antiquity than with living men. Thence originated\nthe grand defect of his style. 'We never,' says a moralist, 'live out\nof our age, without missing something which our successors will wish\nwe had possessed.' This is especially true in the present instance.\nThe characteristics of the works of Poussin are extreme correctness of\nform and costume, great propriety in keeping, and the most enchanting\nsimplicity of design. These beauties he derived from constant study and\ndeep knowledge of ancient sculpture. While he thus followed closely one\nof the sources of excellence, he, however, neglected the other, and,\nin painting, the more important--nature. Hence the frequent want of\ninterest--the defects of expression--the cold and sombre coloring--the\nabsence of that breathing similitude which animates even the subjects\nof his intense contemplation. But the ancient sculptors were not\nsatisfied with nature at second-hand--the great cause of failure in\nthe painter. The perfections of their statues he transferred to his\ncanvass, forgetting that these were copied from men. In the choice of\nhis subject, and manner of representing its incidents, Poussin has\nfew equals; in his pictures, too, there is always a most charming\nharmony of thought--the scene--the figures--the handling--even the\nforms of inanimate objects in his landscapes, all have an antique air,\ntransporting the imagination into an ideal world. Hence, of all those\nwho have made the attempt, Poussin has best succeeded in classical\nallegory.\n\nLouis XIV., who commenced his reign in 1643, resolved to complete the\nintentions of his predecessor, in giving to France a school of native\nartists; and, by the institution of academies, conferring rewards, and\nraising to honors, so far accomplished his purpose, as respected the\ncultivation of the art by Frenchmen, to a very considerable extent.\nThe school, however, thus created, was composed of imitators in their\nprofession, and flatterers of their royal patron. True, vigorous,\noriginal genius, lives not to be called forth at the smile of a\nmonarch, nor by permission to display its powers in painted panegyrics\non the walls of a palace. As well might we expect, in the artificial\natmosphere of the hothouse, the strength, and beauty, and freshness,\nwhich bloom amid glades and groves, freely visited by the pure breath\nof heaven.\n\nThe great master of this school was Le Brun, for so the Scotch name\nof Brown, from a family of which name he was descended, has been\ntranslated. He was born in 1619, of a family long attached to the\npractice of the arts, and became the favorite pupil of Vouet, whose\nprecepts in many respects he too faithfully retained. Yet Le Brun\nhad good capabilities,--a lively fancy, great dexterity of hand, and\nnot unfrequently noble conceptions. But in all things he is too\nartificial--a defect never redeemable by any display even of the most\nsplendid technical qualities. In the paintings of Le Brun, the want\nof simplicity is conspicuous in the forced attitudes of his figures,\nand in their too systematic expression. Both these imperfections have\nresulted from the same cause--neglect of nature, neglect operating by\ndifferent effects. In the former case, the artist has designed too\nmuch from memory, or--a common fault, we should be inclined to say, in\nFrench art--has taken his attitudes from the theatre. In the second,\nit is easy to perceive, that he aimed at reducing the infinite and\nminute changes, of expression to a theory of academic rules; indeed,\nhis pictures are but commentaries, in this respect, upon his celebrated\ntreatise on the Passions. The coloring in these performances is\nglaring, without firmness of shadow, and the local tones are false;\nhence the general effect is shallow, with a monotony of hue, arising,\nnot so much from want of variety in the tints, as from error in\nkeeping. The best works of Le Brun are the five grand pictures from\nthe life of Alexander, which, notwithstanding the defects inherent in\nhis style, are productions of dignity and grandeur, exhibiting great\nfertility both of composition and of resource in mechanic art; but\nsurely Voltaire must intend his assertion to be restricted to France,\nwhen he says, that engravings of these paintings are more sought after\nthan those of the battles of Constantine, by Raphael and Julio Romano.\n\nThe truth of the preceding remarks on the causes which have\ncontributed, in France, to the mediocrity of painting, is placed in\na striking view by the tyranny, the absolute despotism, in which\nLe Brun was enabled to lord it over his contemporaries, whether\npainters, sculptors, or architects. Every one was forced to become\nthe observant servitor of him whom the court favored, or enjoyed the\noption of remaining unemployed. Such was the fate of Le Sueur, not\nmerely the superior of Le Brun, but, with the exception of Poussin,\nto whom even in some respects he is more than equal, the best painter\nFrance has ever produced--the sole one in whose works are found natural\nsimplicity and repose. He took Raphael for his model, whose feeling,\nsober grace, and internal dignity, do not contribute even now to render\nhis imitation popular. If Le Sueur were less frequently inferior to\nhimself, he would have stood in the first rank of his profession,\nthough he died in 1655, at the early age of thirtyeight. Bourdon,\nValentin, and Megnard, were also contemporaries, and in some respects\nequals, of Le Brun.\n\nTo this period, though only by chronology, and to France merely by\nbirth, belongs Claude Gelee, better known as Claude Lorrain, from his\nnative province, where he was born in 1600, dying in his 88th year at\nRome, where he resided during the greater part of the reigns of Louis\nXIII. and XIV., having never crossed the Alps after leaving home as the\nrunaway apprentice of a pastry cook. To this artist, self-taught, and\nat first apparently more than commonly incapable, landscape painting\nowes its interest and its loveliness as a separate and dignified\nbranch of art. In the sweetest, as in the most brilliant, effects of\nlight--from the first blush of day to the fall of dewy eve, Claude\nis unrivalled, or even unapproached, if in one or two instances we\nexcept our own Wilson. The aerial perspective, and the liquid softness\nof the tones, in his pictures,--the leafing, forms, and branching\nof the trees, the light flickering clouds, the transparency of hue,\nthe retiring distances, all make as near approaches to nature as it\nis possible for art to accomplish. Still there is one grand defect\nin the representations of Claude, which to a degree destroys the\nnatural effect of their constituent features;--they are too frequently\ncompositions, or what are termed heroic landscape. This certainly\nheightens the charm merely as respects the imagination, but detracts\nfrom the still deeper interests of reality. For this practice, which,\nindeed, is too common with landscape painters, there can be found also\nno plea, till it has been proved that the majesty and variety of nature\nare unequal to the powers of the pencil.\n\nThe French painters of the eighteenth century were numerous, and on the\nwhole superior to those of the same era in Italy. Throughout the whole,\nhowever, we detect the principles of the school of Louis XIV., as\nrespects the individual qualities of the art; while in the philosophy\nof taste, more especially as affects painting, are discoverable the\neffects of the mechanical and systematic criticism--the mere pedantry\nof learning, which, originating with the writers of that age, spread\nover Europe, nor, in art, is yet entirely exploded. Cases is one of the\nmost eminent of native artists, who was overlooked during his lifetime;\nbut what is the meaning of Voltaire's remark on this artist? 'Chaque\nnation cherche \u00e0 se faire valoir; les Fran\u00e7ais font valoir les autres\nnations en tout genre.' The taste of this writer in the fine arts is\nnot less contemptible than in the principles of nobler literature, and\nin religion. The tawdry nudities which we have seen still suspended\nin the _Salle de Tableaux_, at Ferney, are a practical testimony of\nthe one fact; and, place serving, it would be no difficult matter to\nprove the other, or rather, we trust, it needs no exposition. Santerre\nstudied nature, designs with correctness, and colors agreeably, but he\nrises not above mediocrity; nor will it be admitted, as asserted by\nhis countrymen, that his picture of Adam and Eve is one of the best in\nmodern art. The two Parrocels and Bourgoyn painted combats, chiefly\nof horsemen. Jouvenet shows talent in design, but colors too yellow;\nis remarkable as having painted in old age with his left hand. Rigaud\nis called the French Rubens. Le Moine, in the Apotheosis of Henry IV.\nat Versailles, has left a striking and well-colored composition, but\none of those incongruous allegories, which, during the seventeenth\nand eighteenth centuries, formed the besetting sin of French art. La\nFosse, the two Boulognes, De Troy, Raous, Tremoilliere, and especially\nVanloo, in history; Vateau, in grotesque subjects; Desportes and Audry,\nin animals; Vernet, the admirable marine painter, with others of less\nnote, bring down our researches to the middle of the last century.\n\nThe founder and the representative of the modern French school is\nDavid. Born in 1750, he early saw and forsook the conventional\nfeebleness, and, to a great degree, the false glare, of contemporaries,\nand thus merits the appellation of restorer of art. Unfortunately,\nhowever, he engaged in other revolutions than those of taste, and\nparticipated too largely in the atrocities which desecrated the close\nof last century. As one of the regicides, he was, at the restoration,\ndriven into exile--a useless severity, which might have been spared\nin favor of one who has contributed largely to the solid glory of his\ncountry. He died at Brussels in 1825. The leading defect of preceding\nart in France, is a want of dignified and correct form; next, of simple\nand natural expression. The former the genius of David detected, and\nsought to apply the remedy in the careful study of antique sculpture.\nIn this he has been far from unsuccessful; his drawing is most correct,\nhis style of design noble, but both are cold and without feeling.\nThe second defect David either did not discover, or has failed in\nrectifying. The system which he pursued was in part excellent, but\nhe followed it too exclusively. Statuary can give little to painting\nbeyond form and proportion--the essentials, indeed--but expression,\naction, not less true and dignified, but more varied, and composition,\nnot to mention coloring, must be added from nature. Here David has\nfailed. He either conceived that the artists who preceded him wanted\nonly form to render French art perfect, or that, by grouping the\nstatuary of ancient Greece in more violent and complicated action, and\nwith more vehemence of expression, pictures would be produced, such,\nto use his own words, 'that if an Athenian were to return to this\nworld, they might appear to him the works of a Greek painter.' Like\nPoussin, then, he lived too much for antiquity, and too little with\nthe present; but if Poussin has often given to representations of the\nmost perfect art, instead of delineations of nature, he has at least\ndepicted antiquity as it is, in all its simplicity and perfect repose.\nDavid has not done this; he has completely changed, nay, inverted, the\ncharacter of ancient art, by adding exaggerated expression and forced\nattitude. The coloring is also very indifferent; for though highly\nfinished, the effect is hard and dry, without sweetness or depth; and\nwhile the general tone inclines to the bronze or metallic, the local\ntints are feeble or untrue. Here, likewise, we discover an endeavor\nat improvement failing through neglect of the proper object of study.\nWishing to avoid the glaring hues of his predecessors, David has\nfallen into the opposite extreme from overlooking the living subject.\nThe grouping, too, participates in the meagreness inseparable from\nthe system, the arrangement of the figures often approaching to the\nbasso-relievo, where they necessarily stand in lines, while, to relieve\nthe sameness thus produced, the forms are violently and ungracefully\ncontrasted in themselves. Of this a striking instance occurs in the\nfamous picture of the Horatii, who are ranged rank and file, receding\nfrom the spectator, so that only one is completely seen, the heads\nof the others being in profile, each with an arm and foot extended,\none, by way of variety, reaching forth his left hand to take the oath\ndictated by the father, who stands on the opposite side! Without\ndoubt, however, David was a man of great genius, and when he errs, it\nis more through defect of system than of talent; but the former being\nhis own creation, he stands responsible for its faults. Besides that\njust quoted, his best performances are Leonidas with the Spartans at\nThermopyl\u00e6, one of the best colored of his pictures, but the figure\nof the chief wants majesty; the Death of Socrates is destitute of\nthat solemnity of repose, yet activity of feeling, which we have been\naccustomed to associate with the scene; the Funeral of Patroclus--a\nfine antique composition, but French in feeling; the Coronation of\nNapoleon--a splendid failure; the Rape of the Sabines--much fine\ndrawing, and the usual share of bustle--expression extravagant, yet\ncold. In portrait, as might have been anticipated from the range of\nhis studies, David was unequal to himself. His best performances in\nthis walk are the numerous likenesses of his imperial patron. We have\nseen the original sketch for one of these, which indeed was never\nafterwards touched, taken during the last few hours of undiminished\npower possessed by Napoleon in Paris. The greater part of the preceding\nday and night had been spent in arranging the final operations of the\ncampaign which terminated in the battle of Waterloo. When now past\nmidnight, instead of retiring to repose, the emperor sent for David, to\nwhom he had promised to sit, and who was in waiting in an apartment of\nthe Tuileries. 'My friend,' said Napoleon to the artist, on entering,\n'there are yet some hours till four, when we are finally to review the\ndefences of the capital; in the meantime, _faites votre possible_--(do\nyour utmost), while I read these despatches.' But exhausted nature\ncould hold out no longer; the paper dropt from the nerveless hand, and\nNapoleon sunk to sleep. In this attitude the painter has represented\nhim. The pale and lofty forehead, the careworn features, the relaxed\nexpression, the very accompaniments, wear an impress inexpressibly\ntender and melancholy. With the dawn Napoleon awoke, and springing to\nhis feet, was about to address David, when a taper just expiring in\nthe socket arrested his eye. Folding his arms on his breast, a usual\nposture of thought, he contemplated in silence its dying struggles.\nWhen with the last gleam the rays of the morning sun penetrated through\nthe half closed window-curtains, 'Were I superstitious,' said Napoleon,\na faint smile playing about his beautiful mouth, 'the first object\non which my sight has rested this day might be deemed ominous; but,'\npointing to the rising sun, 'the augury is doubtful--at least, the\nprayer of the Grecian hero will be accorded,--we shall perish in light!'\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n\nTHE history of Painting in England embraces only a very recent period\nin the annals of the art. But though chronologically, as well as from\nthe peculiar interest of the subject, it is to be treated last, this\narrangement is not adopted from the same motive as actuates foreign\ncritics, namely, the alleged inferiority of British painting. It has\nbeen shown, we trust satisfactorily, that in the real condition of\ntaste, in the modes of practice and in the principles of theory, our\nschool of Sculpture, though not equal in specimens yet produced, is\nsuperior to every other, not only now, but formerly, in Europe. In\nfavor of our painters, we go further--and yet not so far. Pictures,\nand in more than one branch, painted in this country, and by native\nliving artists, can be produced superior to any contemporary examples\nin any part of the Continent; but, in its theoretic principles, and\nin the practice introduced in consequence of these, the English\nschool has sadly departed from the perfect labours and just science\nof the old masters. This has arisen from following a course in some\nrespects opposite to that which has been adopted in sculpture, as\nshall hereafter be the endeavor to point out. Again, if we review our\nearly history, it appears, that in the ages immediately subsequent to\nthe revival of art, native artists in this country, in the ingenious\nprocesses then known, were not inferior to contemporary names in Italy,\nFrance, or Germany. It is sufficient here merely to refer to Walpole's\ninteresting work; in which it is shown, that before the middle of the\nthirteenth century, two hundred years prior to Van Eyck, evidences are\nfound of oil-painting in England; and that in the fourteenth, painting\non glass, heraldic emblazonment, the illumination of manuscripts, with\nall the similar approaches to elegance then practised, were cultivated\namong our ancestors, and by natives whose names are preserved, with\nequal success as elsewhere.\n\nCauses, therefore, originating in the moral and political condition\nof the people, can alone explain the striking inferiority of English\nart during the period of greatest splendor in its modern history. The\nopinions, indeed, promulgated by the French and Italian writers, not\nexcepting Winklemann, and so complacently entertained even now on the\nContinent, respecting the deleterious influence of climate upon English\ngenius, are, in their philosophy, too contemptible to merit serious\ninvestigation. Nor are similar theories of our own and other authors\nexempted from this censure, which ascribe excellence, as for instance\nin ancient Greece, to the propitious effects of the same physical\ncause. The mighty and the immortal energies of the human mind are\nindependent of all other external causes; they will bear up against all\nother external pressure--save moral and political degradation.\n\nIn fact, art in England was crushed almost in its cradle by the civil\nwars of York and Lancaster. Warfare between different nations, where\nthe struggle is from rivalry of interests or empire, rather favors the\ndevelopement of national talent; the activity of martial achievement\nconveys, through all the relations of citizenship, and to every\nfield of honorable exertion, a corresponding vigor and elasticity\nof mind--an ardent love of glory and of country--raising high the\nspirit of emulation, yet binding closer the ties of fellowship. In the\nunhallowed commotion of civil contest, all these effects are reversed;\nwhile in England, the desecration of country consequent on such feuds\nwas deeper than perhaps in any other instance of modern times, from\nreligion, which in other states, under like unhappy circumstances, had\nafforded an asylum to arts and to peace, here taking part with the\ncombatants. These political divisions healed, religious dissensions\nbroke in upon the national quiet, at a time, too, when a taste for\nthe fine arts was gaining ground in the different states of Europe.\nWhen at length every animosity and partial feeling had subsided in\nthe generous consciousness of being Englishmen, an eager thirst for\nnautical enterprise engaged the minds of the subjects of Elizabeth and\nJames. The wealth, security, and information which flowed from these\nexertions, were beginning to create taste, and to provide means highly\nfavorable to the future progress of painting. The predilections of\nCharles, likewise, as also his knowledge, were calculated to improve\nand to direct in the best manner these advantages. The collection of\npictures which he formed was the most valuable then in Europe, and\ncomposed of pieces especially adapted to a national gallery, and to\nthe design of creating a native school. The most eminent artists of\nthe age, invited to his court, found their labors at once skilfully\nappreciated and munificently rewarded. This unfortunate monarch had\nthe satisfaction to perceive the refinement beginning to spread among\nhis subjects, even in the remotest and least opulent portion of his\ndominions. In Scotland, Jamieson, born at Aberdeen, in 1586, and pupil\nof Rubens, has left, in the universities of his native place and\nelsewhere, fruits of his genius which by no means show him unworthy\nof the appellation of the Scottish Vandyke. To this painter Charles\nsat, and further distinguished him by peculiar marks of royal favor.\nIn England, painting was naturally still more flourishing in prospect;\nthe nobles imitated, and some shared in, the taste of their sovereign,\nwhile a love of elegant acquirement was generally diffused. This\nperiod, also, was highly favorable to a new and aspiring epoch in\nEnglish art, from the great and original acquirements previously made\nin poetry and elegant literature, which both prepared the public mind\nto relish similar displays of talent in a cognate branch; while they\nevinced and cherished that creative spirit which may render available\nthe introduction of improved modes, without degenerating into imitation\nin its own efforts. The progress of successful art in Greece, and in\nrepublican Italy, with the absence of nationality in that of ancient\nRome and of modern France, exhibits the justice of the remark, and the\nimportance of the acquisition. The reign of Charles, I., thus appears\nto have been one of the most favorable periods in our history for the\nfoundation of a British school of art; indeed, we perceive that every\nessential towards this had been accomplished. The fearful concussions\nwhich closed in blood the career of that unhappy monarch, while they\nshook the entire realm from its propriety, proved more pernicious to\nthe cultivation of the arts of elegance, than has usually been the case\neven in civil commotion. The lowest and most illiterate, now armed with\nsome degree of power, destroyed, because they knew not how to value;\nwhile the coarse hypocrisy and more dangerous cunning, or the stern\nbigotry, of their leaders, viewed with the malignity of ignorance, or\nthe hatred of party, all evidence of superior refinement.\n\nIn thus rapidly reviewing the leading causes which have concurred to\nretard the progress of early art in this country, the Reformation has\nbeen merely alluded to as turning aside attention to other pursuits.\nThe commonly received opinion which makes this event a primary and\npermanent source of our inferiority, seems to rest on a very imperfect\nknowledge of facts. When the glorious doctrines of the Reformation\nobtained footing in England, no advance had yet been effected in\nthe formation of a native school; the national refinement was in no\ndegree prepared for the successful cultivation of painting; nor do\nany circumstances particularly favorable induce the belief, that had\nthe Catholic continued to be the established faith, the arts would\nhave improved. On the contrary, though the number of pictures would\ndoubtless have multiplied, these, as in France at the same period, and\nunder circumstances incomparably more felicitous, must have been the\nworks of foreign artists; consequently, by introducing an artificial\nmanner before any national character of art had been formed, the\nexoteric taste would, in all probability, have for ever bound up in\nconventional trammels, the freshness of original conception, and the\nvigor of national genius. Such we have seen to be the invariable\neffects of introducing, instead of rearing, art, among every people\nwhere the experiment has been attempted. The Reformation, by restoring\nto the human mind the uncontrolled exercise of its own faculties, by\nunlocking the barriers by which the will and the powers of free inquiry\nhad been imprisoned, has stamped upon every British institution, as\nupon every effort of British talent, the worth and the manliness of\nindependent character. Our Fine Arts, though the last to feel, do at\nlength experience this happy influence.\n\nThe particular views entertained, or rather taken up without\nexamination, have led, on this subject, to erroneous conceptions,\nboth of the existing condition of art, and of the state of royal\npatronage. Henry VIII. certainly endeavored by every means to induce\nthe most esteemed painters of the age to visit his court; while the\nencouragement which he offered was not only continued, but increased\nwith more ample means, after the Reformation had commenced; as far as\nhis influence went, there was a change for the better. But his was\nneither a cultivated nor a natural taste. The sentiment was merely one\nof rivalry, stirred up by imitation of his contemporaries, Francis I.\nand Charles V. His subjects and courtiers, not even animated by such\nfactitious impulse, were, generally speaking, still less qualified\nto assist in rearing national art. Neither did there exist, in any\nother form, a previous standard of characteristic originality; a most\nimportant consideration, as already shown--for, with the exception of\nSurrey, no poet of genius capable of giving to taste an abiding tone\nof nationality had yet appeared. Under these circumstances, had the\nimportation of foreign art--and it is clear none other could have been\nencouraged--taken place to any extent; even had Raphael and Titian\naccepted the invitation of the English monarch, beyond bare possession,\ntheir works would have been valueless to the nation; or worse--they\nwould have depressed, by an unapproachable model, the aspirings of\nnative talent, fixing for ever our arts in the mediocrity of imitation.\n\nThe opposition, also, which the Reformers are accused of having bent\nagainst the practice of painting has been altogether misrepresented.\nNot only were they not opposed to such acquirements in their proper\nplace, but the assurance is, that they viewed such accomplishments with\nfavor. Among the earliest Reformers, the movers of that emancipation\nwhich regenerated a portion, and made despotism more tolerable in the\nrest, of Europe, were to be found the most accomplished minds and the\nmost elegant scholarship of which the age could boast. Indeed, their\nsuperior enlightenment was the human means of that liberty, in which\nthrough Christ they had become free. For such men to be the enemies\nof intelligence, of whatever description, if under proper guidance,\nand in due subserviency to higher knowledge, was to place obstacles\nto the spread of their own principles. Hence in Germany and in the\nLow Countries, the fine arts were admired and patronised by the\nleading Reformers. Holbein came to England most warmly recommended by\nLuther, who has already been named as the friend of other contemporary\nartists. In one respect, the Reformers certainly may be said to have\nbeen hostile to art. They proscribed the introduction of pictures into\ntheir churches. To this prohibition only, extended the penal statutes\nof Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, about which so much outcry has been\nraised. No proscription, no interdict against religious paintings\nmerely as such, was agitated, till the period already alluded to as the\nmost truly disastrous to national refinement, when, in 1643, a bigoted\nparliament ordered, 'that all pictures which had the representation of\nthe Saviour or the Virgin Mary in them should be burned.' The brutal\nfanaticism, and still more disgusting hypocrisy, of the adherents\nof Oliver Cromwell, have in this and in similar instances been most\nunjustly mixed up with the pure spirit and unsullied zeal of the\ngenuine followers of Martin Luther. It is not intended, however, indeed\nit cannot be denied, that to the mere practice of painting, and to\nthe multiplication of its labours, the exclusion of pictures from the\nchurches is injurious. But extension is not improvement.\n\nSo far, then, the Reformation has proved permanently hostile to the\nart. But highly as we honor the talent of artisanship, and intimately\nconnected as is the glory of the land with the reputation of its arts,\nwe cannot for one moment entertain the proposal now so generally, it\nhad almost been said unblushingly, brought forward, of converting\nour churches 'into spacious repositories' for the productions of the\npencil. Here we have explicitly to state an opinion, though opposed\nby almost every writer on the arts; first, that neither is the house\nof God a proper receptacle for pictures; nor, secondly, if every\nProtestant place of worship were open to such ornaments, is it clear\nthat art would be materially advantaged. Let our sacred edifices be as\nnobly simple, as massively grand, as may be; let them exhibit every\nbeauty of architecture, if needful; the effect will elevate, without\ndistracting, the mind; or let the solemn representations of sculpture\ninvite remembrance to dwell upon the departed, who sleep around the\nliving worshipper. Such thoughts prepare the mind for its duties.\nBut pictures do not seem so immediately associated, either with the\nplace or with our meditations; with us, the only association is that\nof mere ornament. We might, however, be accused of treating here the\nsubject too seriously, were an attempt made to show the sinfulness\nof abducing even one thought from heaven, to fix it on a merely\nornamental appendage. We shall therefore suppose, that in our country,\npeople do not go to church to see pictures, and that, as elsewhere,\npictures are here painted to be seen. Now, the time of divine service\nwith us is short, and that space is passed, without intermission, in\nsacred duties, in prayer, in praise, and in exhortation. Either these\nmomentous engagements or the pictures must be neglected. In the Romish\nchurch the service is long, composed of many ceremonies in which the\naudience take no share, and during which, the mind may be employed in\ncontemplating a religious painting, with at least equal profit as the\ndressings and undressings, the crossings, genuflexions, perambulations,\nand incensings, which are being enacted by the officials. In a\nProtestant assembly, every one is seated in his place; a picture can\nbe viewed properly from a very few points, perhaps only one; granting,\nthen, all the advantages 'of pictures in unison with the feelings of\nthe mind, exemplifying in the most striking manner the objects of its\nhighest admiration and respect,' how limited is the number that could\nenjoy these? The Catholic church, again, knows not the impediment of\npews, and the individuals of the congregation may move and change\npositions at pleasure. Protestant churches are open only on Sundays,\nor a few fast days, while we have no useless train of idle retainers\nto show the curiosities of the place; the Catholic church is open from\nsunrise to sunset throughout the year, each with its sacristans,\nvergers, macemen, &c. in constant attendance. In the Romish ritual,\nexternal emblems are certainly permitted as stimulants to inward\ndevotion; of these, pictures are among the most favored. In our faith,\nthe symbols are simple as its practice, and too sacred even to be\nnamed here. We have no wish, then, to decry the use or advantage of\npaintings to the Catholic; but it seems sufficiently obvious, that to\nthe Protestant they can at best be useless in a place of public worship.\n\nIn reference to the second consideration, namely, the profit thus\naccruing to the arts of the country, it has been stated above, that\nonly to the multiplication of paintings has the exclusion in question\nproved hurtful, and not to the improvement or perfection of the art.\nIn this respect the merits of the Reformation have not only been\noverlooked, but denied, while the claims of Catholicism, as favorable\nto elegance, have been too highly exalted. True, a great proportion of\nthe patronage by which the arts have been supported in Italy has been\nextended by churchmen; this has all been put down to the account of\nthe system. But it is to be remembered, that this protection has been\ngranted more frequently in the character of lay noblemen and princes,\nthan of ecclesiastics. The most splendid works of the pencil are in\nthe private palaces of the popes and cardinals, and other members of\nthe hierarchy; laymen with the same means would have acted similarly.\nDuring the infancy of the arts, their feebleness was stayed, and their\nvigorous manhood nourished, by the free corporations of the republican\ncities. The Catholic Church only received the arts as orphans, after\nher temporal, and therefore improper ambition, had destroyed their\ntrue and natural parent--Liberty. At this moment, too, very few fine\npictures are in churches; they are in public galleries, in private\ncollections, in the cabinets of the curious, and in palaces. Where,\nthen, is the vaunted superiority in the Catholic profession, or where\nthe ancient and permanent disabilities under which Protestantism has\nbeen represented as labouring, in regard to the arts of elegance? And\nwhy should we incur even the possibility of contaminating the purity\nand the spirituality of our faith, or of even offending the mind of the\nhumblest believer, by filling our churches with pictures, when there\nremains to us the amplest field yet unoccupied? We have, in fact, all\nthat is yet in possession of high art; in our royal palaces, in the\nalmost regal seats of our nobility, in our national galleries, in the\nhalls of our universities and institutions, and in our public buildings\nof every description. Has not the pencil 'ample verge' and 'room'\nappropriate?\n\nIf these advantages have hitherto remained without fruit, let it be\nremembered, that the defective returns have not been occasioned by\nimbecility or idleness--the labourers have been otherwise engaged.\nDuring only three centuries of poor and struggling Protestantism,\ntenfold more extensive and valuable accessions to true knowledge have\nbeen realized than were accomplished in the space of a thousand years\nof the prosperous and uncontrolled empire of Catholicism. That this\nuprousing of the human spirit has become not less refined than it has\nbeen vigorous, is evident from the fact which connects these remarks\nwith our subject, namely, that now, in Protestant Britain, is to be\nfound the only original, and the most flourishing school of painting in\nEurope.\n\nIn pursuing the history of English art posterior to the Restoration,\nlittle of importance occurs till the late and present reigns. Charles\nII. had wit, but no great share of taste, and that little, like his\nmorals, was equally flimsy and meretricious. He trifled with Verrio\nand Gennaro in decorating ceilings and covering walls; while Lely,\nwhose light and graceful, but feeble pencil, had in succession traced\nthe melancholy countenance of the Martyr, and the bluff face of the\nProtector,[C] was employed as state portrait-painter on the sleepy and\nluxurious beauties of the court. During the succeeding reigns, to the\naccession of George I., lived Kneller, a native of Lubec, an artist of\nconsiderable talent, but who painted too expeditiously to paint well,\nand who was too intent upon sharing the wealth of his own age to leave\nmany drafts that would be honored by posterity, though he painted in\nhis life seven English and three foreign sovereigns. His head of Sir\nIsaac Newton is worth them all. During the same period we find many\nnative artists of obscure fame and merits; as Dobson, who died in 1646,\nand was brought into notice through the generosity of Vandyke. Riley,\n(John), born in the same year, possessed, according to Walpole, more\ntalent than any of his countrymen. It was to this artist that Charles\nII. said, 'Od's fish, man, if your picture of me be a likeness, I am\nan ugly fellow.' Hoskins and Cooper, uncle and nephew, were celebrated\nminiature-painters, especially the latter, who was married to a sister\nof Pope's mother. Henry, who was employed by King William in the\nreparation of Raphael's cartoons. Highmore painted the only portrait\nknown of the poet Young. Greenhill and Buckshorn were pupils of Lely.\nJervas, who, in spite of art, contrived to make a fortune and to set\nup a carriage; upon which Kneller remarked, in his broken English,\n'Ah, mine Cot! if de horses do not draw better dan he, de journey will\nnever have an end.' The praises lavished by Pope on this his master\nevince the wretched condition of general taste, when we consider\nthese praises as merely the echo of the public voice. Richardson is\nbest known as a writer on art; though a very inferior artist, he stood\nat the head of the profession on the death of Kneller. His scholar\nand son-in-law, Hudson, succeeded in the dignity of metropolitan\nportrait-painter, though opposed for some time by Liotard, a Genevese,\nand Vanloo, a Frenchman. Hudson was the master of Reynolds, with\nwhom the British school first assumes the dignity of higher art, the\nelevation commencing with the portraits painted by Sir Joshua on his\nreturn from the Continent in 1752-3. Previously, however, had appeared\nHogarth, the most original of all painters; but his pictures, from\ntheir subjects, were not calculated, in proportion to their merit, to\nrefine the national taste. So early, too, as 1739, the establishment\nof the old academy in St Martin's Lane had been silently preparing\nsome melioration in a better manner of designing; and the introduction\nof costume, though poorly executed, was an advance towards truth from\nthe absurd robes of Lely and Kneller. The association just mentioned\nwas afterwards incorporated by his late Majesty; but the members\ndisagreeing, the Royal Academy was founded. Here have presided the\nthree greatest names in the art since the time of Rubens and Vandyke,\nperhaps since the Caracci--Reynolds, West, and Lawrence.\n\nWalpole has with justice remarked, that 'in the commencement of the\nreign of George I., in 1714, the arts of England were sunk almost to\ntheir lowest ebb.' The preceding sketch verifies the observation; and\nfrom the singular anomaly of a nation, during the most flourishing\nperiod of its literature, possessing a taste absolutely contemptible\nin the fine arts, evinces the truth of the principles advocated\nthroughout these pages. From the Restoration to the accession of\nGeorge III., the arts had never once been regarded as adding to\nnational respectability, nor as connected with national feeling. The\npeople crowded to have their portraits taken, without inquiring or\nconceiving that there was anything to know beyond the mere mechanical\nart. The sovereign, instead of regarding the progress of elegant taste\nas an important object of legislation, looked out for a limner merely\nas a necessary appurtenance of a court. As our monarchs of this period,\nnot even excepting Anne, through the predilections of her husband,\nwere, as regards painting, better acquainted with Continental art, and\nsome more attached to everything foreign, British genius, of course\noverlooked, was never once called forth. Some stray Italian, Dutchman,\nor German, was caught hold of, patronised by royalty, supported by the\nnobility, and never thought of by the nation beyond face-painting in\nthe metropolis. From the middle of the seventeenth to the first forty\nyears of the eighteenth century, when national talent at length began\nto break forth in its own strength, such was the state of patronage,\nand the artists who enjoyed its benefits were but little qualified\nto create a national interest; for their mannerism and foreign modes\nserved only the more decidedly to exclude a characteristic style,\nand, as must ever be the case in similar instances, prevented any\ndevelopement of native originality. Another great cause of our wretched\ntaste in the arts, and which perhaps in part grew out of these more\ngeneral causes, was, that the real genius of the land was bent upon\nthe pursuits of literature and science; while the nation had not\nattained that degree of refinement, security, and opulence, which\nenable a people to enjoy and to reward the exertions of mind, as at the\npresent day, in all its separate and diversified departments of action.\nBetween literary eminence and excellence in art there seems a natural\nconnexion, as depending upon principles of taste and modes of exercise\nnearly similar. Letters and the Fine Arts, then, have generally been\ncarried to the highest perfection among the same people; they have\nflourished in conjunction, and they have fallen together. It is to be\nremarked, however, that the former have always preceded; the noblest\neffusions of poetry have long been the delight of his country before\nthe painter or the sculptor have reached an equal merit. Nor is this\ncasual precedence. The labours of the poet are a necessary, in fact a\ncreative preparation; by their rapid and wide circulation, they soften\nthe sensibilities, arouse the imagination, give to taste an existence\nand a feeling of its object, and awake the mind to a consciousness of\nits intellectual wants. They constitute, also, a common chronicle,\nwhether of fiction or of reality, whose events are clear to, and\nquickly recognisable by all. Fancy thus obtains a lore of its own,\nwhose legends delight by repetition, and whose imagery animates the\ncanvass or the marble with forms loved of old. Poetry, then, must\nprecede art. All this advantage of preparation and expectancy was\ndenied to the infancy of English painting. Milton's verse, not inferior\nto any precursor of Phidias or of Raphael, instead of being, as Homer's\nor Dante's, for centuries the manual of his countrymen, was barely\nknown. Dryden, Addison, Pope, were yet but forming the public mind.\nIn many respects, too, even had there not existed artists capable\nof constituting an epoch, the writings of these distinguished men\nare not favorable to vigorous originality of thought in art. Their\nown immediate productions are impressed with the genuine stamp of\nnationality, but their abstract system of criticism is often timid,\nalmost always conventional; while in every remark on that subject,\nthey show inexperience of the true object and philosophy of art. Even\nAddison here writes as a mere antiquarian, and Dryden with all the\nenthusiasm of poetry indeed, but with little of the sober judgment\nwhich must guide the more laborious hand and less undefined shapes of\nthe painter. Again, the intellectual temperament and state of society\nfavorable to the arts is directly opposed to those which promote\nscientific knowledge. Indeed, between the spirit of analytical inquiry,\nof minute research, which belongs to the investigations of science,\nand the creative fancy which tends to the successful exercise of the\npoet's or painter's art, the dissimilarity appears so great, that among\nthe same people and at the same period, high eminence in both has\nnever yet been attained. The amazing demonstrations of Newton, then,\nand the profound speculations of Locke, were by no means favorable to\npainting, while so entirely in infancy. They spread abroad a different\ntaste--they engaged in the pursuit every ardent and aspiring mind. The\nsublime mysteries unveiled by the genius of Newton gave an especial\nbias to men's minds, and caused his own age to view with indifference,\nas light and valueless, pursuits which seemed but to minister to the\namenities of life, or to hang only as graceful ornaments upon society.\n\nHaving thus faintly traced the rise and progress of painting in\nconnexion with the history of the country, we now proceed briefly to\nexamine the principles and the practice of the British school, under\nthe general heads of Portrait, Historical, and Landscape Painting.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n\nSIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS is the founder of the English school. He is\nalso the author of much that presently forms the most objectionable\npractice. Like every great artist, Sir Joshua must be viewed in two\nlights--as he stands in reference to the circumstances of his own\nage, and as an individual master in his profession. As the immediate\nsuccessor, then, of the artists already named, and as elevating\nthe art from their inanity to the state in which he left it, he\njustly ranks among the small number who compose the reformers of\ntaste. In this aspect, his genius exhibits no ordinary claims to the\ngratitude of posterity, while here his merits are presented in the\nmost favorable light. For when these are considered, on the other\nhand, as regards the present influence of the principles upon which\nthe reformation, or perhaps commencement, of the English school was\nestablished, there will be found defect both in practice and theory.\nIndeed, the theoretical part of his professional education appears to\nhave been founded, in the first instance, upon the erroneous modes of\nthe writers of the age of Louis XIV., which were never laid aside,\nthough to a certain extent modified by his studies in Italy. In fact,\nthe pictures and the writings of Sir Joshua bear in this respect\na striking resemblance--that the beauties of each break forth in\ndespite of theory. Nature and good feeling, operating unrestrained,\ngive to his paintings their best graces, when the ideal perfection at\nwhich he aimed has at happy moments been forgotten. In like manner,\nhis discourses are admirable, when they deliver practical precepts,\nexplain the suggestions of experience, or endeavor to reconcile refined\ntaste with common sentiment. But when they speak of the abstractions\nand idealities of art, they become, and have already proved, most\ntreacherous guides. This he has himself exemplified, for he has\nuniformly gone astray where he has implicitly followed these guides;\nand it may be shown that the besetting sins of the English school\nspring from the same sources. Sir Joshua's theory and his practice\nwere in more than one respect inconsistent, while neither adhered so\nclosely to, or at least did not render nature, so faithfully and so\nminutely, as is desirable. His perceptions of form he derived, or\nprofessed to derive, from Michael Angelo; but his practice is founded\nupon the principles of Rembrandt. From the explanation of these already\ngiven, with this anticipation, at some length, it must at once appear,\nthat they were little calculated kindly to amalgamate with the decided\nlines, refined science, and lofty abstractions of the Florentine. But\neven of these principles, Sir Joshua did not follow the most valuable\nportion, namely, the rigid fidelity of imitation which they enjoined.\nHe adopted them only in their concentration of light, and deep contrast\nof shadow, and in their massive coloring, intended for inspection at\na certain distance. Instead of careful resemblance, he substituted\nmiddle forms, and large masses without details; or, to refer here to\nhis own words, which he has most directly illustrated in his whole\npractice:--'the great style in art, and the most perfect imitation of\nnature, consist in avoiding the details and peculiarities of particular\nobjects;' and again: 'the perfection of portrait painting consists in\ngiving the general idea or character, without individual peculiarities.'\n\nNow, whether these principles be regarded as they affect the practice\nof an imitative art, and more especially in the department of\nportraiture; or whether they be examined in reference to the philosophy\nof taste and composition in historical painting, we apprehend they\nwill be found not only reprehensible in themselves, but to be the\nground work upon which have been reared the present errors of our\nschool. It is for this reason that we shall examine them at some length.\n\nThere are two styles or modes of representation in painting, which\nagree in producing the same general effect of resemblance, but differ\nin the extent to which the resemblance of individual forms is carried;\nor perhaps, if the expression be allowed, in the number of particular\nsimilitudes composing the aggregate resemblance. It is evident from\nthis definition, that the portion of mental pleasure, or exercise of\nthe imagination, arising from contemplating the productions of an\nimitative art, merely as such, will be increased just in proportion\nto the facilities afforded of augmenting comparisons between the\nprototype and the representation. If this be denied, it follows that\nthe coarsest scene-painting is equal to the most finished landscape\nof Claude; for the general effect must be alike true in each. But\nagain, since painting has not, like poetry, the advantage of repeated\nand progressive impressions; the object which the painter must hold\nconstantly, and as primary, in view, is to add power to the first burst\nof effect which his work is to produce upon the mind. When, therefore,\nattention to the individual resemblances has caused to be neglected\nor overlooked the grand result or aggregate of resemblance, one of\nthe greatest possible errors is committed. The performance is justly\ncondemned to a low grade in art, because the author has both mistaken\nthe real strength of the instrument which he wields, and has shown\nhimself defective in the highest quality of genius,--comprehension\nand creation of a whole. Thus there are two extremes in art; and even\non the adage of common life, the mean must be preferable. Hence,\nthen, even thus far Sir Joshua's maxim, and the maxim of too large a\nproportion of our native school generally, appears to be erroneous,\n'in avoiding details and individual character.' But in each of these\nextremes are found its respective, and to excellence, indispensable\nadvantages. The nearer, therefore, they can be approached and\nreconciled, the more perfect will be the style. If this be doubted,\nthe practice of the best masters will accord with a conclusion derived\nfrom the very nature of an art at once imitative and liberal. If we\nexamine in this view the remains of classic sculpture, we find, indeed,\nthe masses and divisions few and simple, in order to preserve the\nharmony and force of general effect; but so far from details being\nexcluded, the Elgin marbles have the very veins of the horses marked,\nand are in every respect highly finished; and as we approach the era\nof Alexander, though this particular circumstance in certain cases be\nlaid aside, yet the general divisions become even more numerous, and\nthe details still more minute. Among the moderns, again, those masters\nin the art now considered, who are esteemed the most excellent, are\nsingularly remarkable for the quantity and variety of detail which\nthey have harmonized into one grand and perfect whole. For this we\nrefer to the heads of Raphael, Titian, Coreggio, and Vandyke, which,\nthough broad and grand in general effect, are so far from being\ndefective in detail, that each separate part would form a perfect\nstudy. If, again, the history of art be considered, it has been shown,\nboth in sculpture and in painting, that during the infancy of each\nart, details were imitated, while the mind was yet unable to grasp\nthe entire subject. As improvement advanced, and genius attained\nthe full mastery of its weapons, truth and number of constituents,\ngrandeur and unity of design, crowned the whole. Inversely, decline\nis perceived to commence in the neglect of those fine and almost\nevanescent details, which compose the breathing, the master-touches of\na work of art. Successively the progress of corruption advances, till\nlittle remain save large harsh masses, from which state the downward\npath is rapid, to the complete destitution of even _general_ form. How\nstrongly, for instance, and in how short a space, was this exemplified\nin the fortunes of Greek sculpture in Rome! From the finishing of even\nLudovico Caracci, to the sprawlings of Luca Giordano, how brief was\nthe interval! from the exquisitely pencilled and speaking portraits of\nVandyke to the glaring vacancies, the undetailed middle forms, of Lely\nand Kneller!\n\nThese reasonings, so varied in their origin, give but one uniform\nconclusion, the very reverse of the principle upon which English\nportraits have been painted, with few exceptions, from the works of Sir\nJoshua Reynolds to those of the present day;--a conclusion, showing\nthat the excellence of art, and the most perfect imitation of nature,\ndo not consist in 'the avoiding of details,' but in the happy union\nof detail and of individual resemblance with greatness and breadth of\ngeneral power. To avoid details is to rest contented with an inferior\naim in art--to avoid, in fact, the chief difficulty and the chief glory\nthat mark the career of the artist.\n\nThis gross style of mechanical practice, which the theory now combated\ncertainly originated, has spread over the whole of English portraiture\na coarseness of effect and unfinished appearance, destitute of the\nagreeable lightness of a sketch, and yet without the clear and\nwell-defined solidity of a highly-wrought picture. In like manner,\nthe striving at some delusive, some shadowy excellence of general\nexpression, instead of representing the air and character exactly\nas in the countenance of the sitter, has greatly depreciated the\nintellectual qualities of our art. Hence the unmeaning, common-place\nlook which most of portraits cast at the spectator. Doubtless, in\nevery countenance there is a general impress of thought or feeling,\nwhich may be said to constitute the habitual mental likeness of the\nindividual. This it is of the first importance faithfully to transfer\nto the canvass. Without this, indeed, the most correct and elaborate\npronouncing of the separate features is of no comparative value. Hence,\nhowever, it by no means follows, that 'individual peculiarities' are\nto be resigned. On the contrary, when judiciously introduced, they\nwill give force by the very addition of individuality to the general\nresemblance. It is this which imparts the speaking impress of thought\nand mind to the portraits of Raphael and Titian, where 'the rapt soul\nsitting in the eye' seems to breathe, in all its historic energies,\nfrom the canvass. It astonishes, indeed, that such precepts should have\nbeen delivered by one who must have been sensible, that the reformation\nwhich he accomplished in contemporary art, was mainly owing to his\nhaving exploded the very same notions of generalizing resemblance,\nand of middle forms, held by his predecessors. In fact, Reynolds was\nsuperior to Lely or Kneller, or even Hudson, chiefly as he approached\nnearer to nature, by discarding mannered, conventional, and systematic\nmodifications of her realities. And he is superior to himself exactly\nin those works where he has left out his own peculiar 'ways of seeing\nnature,' and has given her honestly and faithfully as she actually did\nappear. Thus his best portraits are those of his intimate friends;--men\nwhose habits of thought and action were pressed upon him by constant\nobservance, and in veneration of whom, and of all that belonged to\nthem, he forgot his system in the subject before him. Such are the\nportraits of Dr Johnson, of Baretti, of Goldsmith, of Burney, and\ntwo of the finest and most powerful likenesses in the world, of John\nHunter and Bishop Newton. As it was with Sir Joshua, so will it be with\nevery other artist. He must not merely imitate, he must resign himself\nto, nature; become as a little child, leaving all artifice and false\nknowledge, and receive from her the precepts of truth and soberness.\n\nThese remarks, though now illustrated chiefly by reference to its\nfounder, are applicable more or less to the English school of\nportraiture generally. Indeed, down to the masters of the present day,\nthese precepts operate, and often not less decidedly than in the works\nof those who were the contemporaries of Sir Joshua. Of the latter, the\nnames of a few of the principal may now be enumerated.\n\nRomney, who died in 1802, ten years after the death of Sir Joshua, was\nan original, and to a great degree, self-taught artist. His style of\ndesign is simple, his coloring warm and rich, but his affectation of\nbreadth has frequently induced a neglect of form, with often too vague\na generalization of sentiment. The great failing of Romney--one common,\nindeed, to all men, in every profession, who have not been regularly\neducated--is something defective in his general management, so that\nthe whole is rendered imperfect or displeasing from some peculiarity\nor immethodical management, which early instruction would easily have\nenabled him to avoid.\n\nOpie has carried the principles of Sir Joshua to the very verge of\ncoarse and indistinct, from which the force of his own genius has\nscarcely secured him. His portraits have frequently not more detail\nthan a sketch, yet are usually heavy and laboured in effect. Though\nundoubtedly possessing high talent, Opie's success was owing not less\nto the circumstances under which he rose, than to intrinsic merit.\nHe is, however, a very unequal artist, sometimes attaining great\nbeauty, at others falling beneath himself, which renders it difficult\nto pronounce generally; besides, he has several manners, though in\neach, the large and unfinished style predominates. Great allowance\nis, however, undoubtedly to be made for him, whose first portrait was\npainted by stealth, in moments snatched from the menial occupation of\ncarrying offals to the house-dog of his first employer. Such was his\nemployment as house-boy in the family of Walcott, the portrait being\nthat of the butcher, and which there is reason to believe was painted\nin the shambles. No where in the history of mind, do we find such\namazing instances of the power of talent over circumstances as in art.\nFrom painting likenesses at seven and sixpence in Truro, 'the Cornish\nboy' came to London with thirty guineas in his pocket, and, with hardly\nany instructions, save advice from Sir Joshua, made his way to fame\nand fortune. Next to Sir Joshua, of the contemporary painters, Romney\nand Opie supported undoubtedly the first rank, though many others, of\nconsiderable merit, would deserve notice in a more extended narrative.\nWe shall therefore now direct attention to Historical and Landscape\nPainting.\n\nThe excellence and amazing number of its portraits, has occasioned\nthe merits of the English school of history to appear less than they\nreally are. Indeed, where portraiture is practised on the principles\nof grand art, as in this country, there must be excellence in all the\ndepartments of the profession; and the opinion so prevalent, that\nportrait is an inferior branch, has seriously prejudiced both divisions\nof the art. It has withdrawn the historical painter, as, by way of\nexclusive eminence, he was solicitous to be named, from the careful\nstudy of nature in her individual modes and forms--the only true source\nof ideal perfection; while it has damped the precious enthusiasm which\narises from the consciousness of dignified pursuit, by placing the\nportrait painter in the degraded rank of a secondary artizan.\n\nThe more elevated the standard to which, in any study, the mind is\ntaught to aspire, the nobler will be the fruits of exertion; but where\nless is expected, less will be accomplished. The portrait painter,\nfeeling that he would not receive credit for beauties of which his art\nwas deemed incapable, has been too ready to take the public at their\nown word, and to remain contented with the inferiority they were thus\nwilling to accept. But the very reverse of all this is the truth.\nNo essential principle of high art may not be exhibited, and indeed\nevery one is to be found, in a first-rate portrait. Such works, too,\nare equally, perhaps even more rare, and by the same authors, as the\nmasterpieces of historical composition. Hence we are conducted to\nour first premise as a conclusion, that where portraiture has been\nsuccessfully practised, history must also flourish. A reference to the\nannals of the latter will prove this to be the case among ourselves, at\nleast to a greater extent than is the general impression.\n\nEven from the time of Henry VIII. we find historical painting in\nrepute; some of Holbein's works from history remain even more admirable\nthan his portraits. In the reign of Mary, Antonio More was eminent,\nthough against his inclination employed chiefly in portraiture.\nElizabeth, in like manner, patronized Zucchero; and the portraits\nof Hilliard, one of the first English artists of merit, are in some\ninstances, though of small size, almost historical, as Donne bears\nwitness:\n\n        ----Or hand or eye\n  By Hilliard drawn is worth a history\n  By a worse painter made.\n\nThe labours of Rubens and Vandyke under Charles, especially the\nBanqueting-House at Whitehall by the former, continue to show that\nhistory was not unpatronized. Still no English school can properly\nbe said to have been formed till the eighteenth century, when Sir\nJames Thornhill, in the reign of Queen Anne, was appointed historical\npainter to the court. The works of this artist are numerous, and we\nare disposed to rank them higher than they are commonly appreciated.\nThose in St. Paul's and at Greenwich are well known; and though it\nbe questionable whether they could have been much better executed by\nany other artist at that time in Europe, yet so miserable was the\nencouragement, that Thornhill is reported to have been paid for some of\nthese labours by the square yard for two pounds.\n\nThus the annals of historical painting in England furnish little to\nreward research or to interest the reader, previous to the appearance\nof Hogarth, born 1698, in the Old Bailey, the son of a schoolmaster,\nand died in 1764, being the first native artist who proved that there\nexisted subject in our manners, and talent in our land, for other\npainting than portrait. Hogarth claims the highest praise of genius;\nhe was an original inventor; nay, more, he both struck out a new path,\nand qualified himself to walk therein. From an engraver of armorial\nbearings and ornaments on plate, he taught himself to be a painter.\nThe aim of no artist has been more mistaken, at least estimated on\nprinciples more opposed, than that of Hogarth. Some have ranked him\nas a satirical, some as a grotesque painter, while others have not\nscrupled to rate him merely as a caricaturist. If, however, historical\npainting consist in the delineation of manners, in the expression\nof sentiment, and in striking representation of natural character,\nfew names in art will stand higher than Hogarth; while, beyond most\npainters, he has extended the bounds of the art, in the alliance which\nhe has formed between the imagination and the heart,--between amusing\nof the external sense and the profound reflections thus awakened. His\npictures are not merely passing scenes, or momentary actions; they\nare profound moral lessons. It is this which raises him far above the\nDutch or Flemish school, with whose general imitation of national\ncustoms, his firm and individual grasp of the morality of common life\nhas with great injustice been confounded. From the lofty abstractions\nof the Italian masters, again, he differs widely, but not, as usually\nsupposed, because he represents low, but because he paints real life.\nIn this respect, the observation of Walpole, that, 'Hogarth's place\nis between the Italians, whom we may consider as epic poets and\ntragedians; and the Flemish painters, who are as writers of farce,\nand editors of burlesque nature,' is founded in utter mistake, or\nmisrepresentation; he never forgave the artist's independence of his\n_connoisseurship_. Hogarth's place is not between, but above and apart.\nHe 'holds the mirror up to nature,' not to exhibit graphic powers of\nmimicry, not to depict the sublimity of mind, or the idealities of\nform, but 'to show Vice her own features,' man 'his own image.'\n\nHis predecessor thus standing alone, Sir Joshua Reynolds claims to\nbe the founder of English historical painting in its recognised\nacceptation. Indeed, his principles already, or hereafter to be\nexplained, have been followed by all succeeding artists, or have\ninfluenced practice in history no less than in portraiture. And what\nthis influence accomplished in the latter, it certainly has also\neffected in the former department, with this difference indeed, that in\nthe first it created, in the second improved, giving to each a large,\nbold, and energetic manner, which was at least a step greatly in\nadvance, a most respectable approximation, in the path of excellence.\nBut this, as a resting-place, was far less perfect in history than in\nany other branch of the art, since the style was adverse to attainment\nin many of those qualities justly deemed essential. Hence is Sir Joshua\nnot only inferior to himself in history, but his example has, on the\nwhole, retarded the advancement of the study amongst us. Successors\nhave either too often rested in imitation of his manner, or they have\ncarried his principles forward, in which case they are unfortunately\ncalculated to lead farther from the genuine sources of pure taste and\nsubstantial composition.\n\nThe masterpieces of Sir Joshua are his representations of children;\nand in many historical, or rather fancy pieces of this character, as\nthe Infant Hercules, the Strawberry Girl, Puck, Cupid and Psyche,\nHope nursing Love, his labours are truly admirable. Such subjects\nwere just fitted to his bland and flowing pencil, while they suffered\nnothing from undecided form and contours feebly expressed. The arch,\nyet simple expression, the lovely, yet almost grotesque individuality\nof character, in the heads of his children, the execution, and even\ncoloring--all is equally natural and exquisite. They are among the\nmost perfect gems of art. Only second to the similar productions of\nCoreggio, they are superior to everything done on the Continent since\nthe days of Rubens and Fiammingo. It appears singular, then, on the\nfirst view of the matter, that Sir Joshua should have so frequently\nfailed, and on the whole left so few good female portraits, while so\nnearly attaining perfection in subjects of allied grace and loveliness.\nBut it is to be remarked, a style of handling broad and facile, yet\npeculiarly soft and fleshy, which in these instances produces effects\nso beautiful without much finish, is not equally adapted to express the\nequally soft, yet decided forms and delicate movements of the female\ncountenance. Besides, Sir Joshua had peculiar notions of grace, which\naffected ease and nature, rather than actually represented the easy\nand the natural. He wished to avoid stiffness, and has often lapsed\ninto the contrasted and theatrical. His picture of Mrs Siddons, as the\nTragic Muse, however, is pronounced by Sir Thomas Lawrence to be 'a\nwork of the highest epic character, and indisputably the finest female\nportrait in the world.' How far, however, either that, or the no less\ncelebrated picture of Garrick, can rank with historical portraitures,\nat least considered with those of Raphael and Titian, may justly be\nquestioned. Of the more elevated and serious historical compositions\nof Sir Joshua, the Death of Cardinal Beaufort is the grandest, the\nbest drawn, and the most powerfully colored; the only defect is the\nexpression, which is too material; Ugolino is a failure, if intended\nfor the fierce inmate of Dante's 'tower of famine:' these want dignity\nand truth of character. The designs at Oxford are fine; the Nativity,\nin imitation of the famous Notte of Coreggio, is a splendid performance.\n\nSir Joshua Reynolds, then, owed more to taste and application than to\ngenius; more to incessant practice than to science; he derived all\nfrom his predecessors which he has bequeathed to posterity; but if, in\nmaking the transmission, he added no new nor essential principle of\nimitation or invention, he established in high practical excellence the\narts of his country.\n\nAmong those whose labours in historical painting connect the former\nwith the present school, Barry stands foremost in time as in merit. The\nperformances of this artist exhibit, in a very striking manner, the\njustice of some of the preceding remarks. They are destitute of the\nmost essential and touching graces of imitative representation; they\nwant, in short, all that portraiture, which their author affected to\ndespise, could have given--life, nature, truth, and sweetness, without\nthis absence being compensated by any extraordinary beauties of what is\ntermed higher art. The drawing, though often good, is also not seldom\ndefective; while the coloring is uniformly harsh, and the management\nwithout force. Imagination and invention run riot without due control\nof the judgment; not that the fervor of poetic enthusiasm snatches\na too daring grace, but rather the unpruned fertility of conception\nfrequently unites the most glaring incongruities. Yet Barry is far from\nbeing without power or science; his great deficiences were a chaste\ntaste and mellowed practice. No man better understood, or has written\nmore learnedly, on the abstract principles of composition; indeed, he\nhas been accused of devoting too much attention to the mere theory and\nliterature of his art, while he neglected Raphael's golden application\nof Cicero's maxim--'Nulla dies sine linea.' There existed, however, in\nthe character of Barry, notwithstanding a rudeness of exterior, and\nignorance or disregard of the proprieties of polished life, a moral\ngrandeur of unshaken resolve, of enduring enthusiasm, of stern and\nuncompromising self-denial, in his professional career, which invest\nhis memory with no common interest. The man who could undertake, alone,\nand with no certain prospect of remuneration, one of the greatest\nworks which has been attempted within two centuries--and that, too,\nwith only sixteen shillings in his pocket; who, during seven years of\nstruggle, prosecuted that work to a completion, often thus labouring\nall day, while he sat up the greater part of the night finishing some\nsketch for the publishers, in order to make provision for the passing\nhour;--such a man presents claims to admiration of higher dignity than\neven those of genius. The great work undertaken and finished amid\nthese difficulties, is the series of six pictures, of the size of life,\nrepresenting the progress of civilization, in the Hall of the Society\nof Arts; and it reflects the highest honor on that useful institution,\nthat its gratuitous reward enabled the artist to enjoy his only\npermanent, though small income, of about \u00a360 yearly. That such a member\nshould have been ejected from the Royal Academy of Great Britain, in\nwhich also he held the Chair of Painting, must be considered as a\ncommon calamity both to that body and to himself: to him it certainly\nwas, for the degradation embittered the enjoyment, and very seriously\nimpaired the means, of existence. Barry died in 1806, having been born\nat Cork in 1741; rising from a sailor boy, chalking his rude fancies on\nthe deck of his father's coaster, self-taught, to be the painter now\ndescribed--the learned writer on his art--the friend of Samuel Johnson\nand of Edmund Burke.\n\nMany other names of minor reputation might be mentioned,--as Hayman,\nMortimer, &c.,--who occasionally with portrait, painted history, but\nto no extent. This branch of the art, except for the labours of the\nlate Sir Benjamin West, at the close of the last century, would almost\nhave been without a representative amongst us. From that period, very\ngreat progress in all the departments has been realized. Still, to\nthe ancient grandeur of the historic style this venerable artist has\ncontinued to make the nearest approaches. To the New World, succeeding\nages will stand indebted for West; but for the painter, the arts are\nunder obligation to England. It is singular, too, that the advice and\nservices of a Scotsman were the immediate inducements which prevented\nthis ornament of two worlds from returning to his native country, in\nwhich case his talents would most probably have been lost to both.\nThe state of patronage and of taste could not have afforded to him\nthe means nor the incitement of rising beyond portrait, in which we\ndo not think West would ever have excelled. Two incidents in his lot\nreflect equal honor on his native and his adopted country,--like many\nother moral analogies, evincing the common possession of a congenial\nliberality and kindliness of spirit, which ought, and will, we trust,\never mingle its best affections in reciprocally advantageous and\namicable intercourse. In the land of his birth, the opening genius of\nWest was cheered with a truly tender solicitude; his future advance and\nhis future fame seemed less the care of individual friends than of his\ncountrymen. And, from 1763, on first setting foot in Britain, during\nthe long course of his life, he received more encouragement from her\nsovereign and her people than has ever been accorded to any historical\npainter, native or foreign; this, too, in the midst of an unhappy, and,\nas then considered, rebellious contest.\n\nWhen we consider the labours of Sir Benjamin, in reference either to\nEnglish or Continental art, they have, in both points of view, a high,\nbut not an equal rank. In the former, they are unrivalled in magnitude,\nin progressive improvement, and in the excellence of the principles\nupon which they are composed. In comparing them with foreign art, their\nmerits are not so absolute; but here we shall use the words of the\npresent accomplished president. 'At an era,' says Sir Thomas Lawrence,\n'when historical painting was at the lowest ebb, (with the few\nexceptions which the claims of the beautiful and the eminent permitted\nto the pencil of Sir Joshua), Mr West, sustained by the munificent\npatronage of his late Majesty, produced a series of compositions, from\nsacred and profane history, profoundly studied, and executed with\nthe most facile power, which not only were superior to any former\nproductions of English art, but, far surpassing contemporary merit on\nthe Continent, were unequalled at any period below the schools of the\nCaracci.'\n\nIn support of this high encomium, Sir Thomas instances 'the Return of\nRegulus to Carthage,' and 'the Shipwreck of St Paul,'--pictures which\namply testify the superiority we have assumed to exist in the living\narts of Britain. These, however, are by no means the only master-pieces\nof West, whose great glory it is to have proceeded on a system which\nadmits of indefinite, and which tends to certain improvement. Even\nto his eightieth year he was employed in new exercises, not inferior\nto, or in some respects excelling, the enterprises of his vigorous\nstrength. The cause of his late eminence bears strongly upon the\nwhole tenor of our remarks in treating of Sculpture, and will best be\nexplained in his own words. In 1811, writing to Lord Elgin, the artist\nthus expresses himself: 'in the last production of my pencil, which I\nnow invite your lordship to see, it has been my ambition, though at a\nvery advanced period of life, to introduce those refinements in art,\nwhich are so distinguished in your collection,'--(the Phidian Marbles\nof the Parthenon.) 'Had I been blest with seeing and studying these\nemanations of genius at an earlier period of life, the sentiment of\ntheir pre-eminence would have animated all my exertions; and more\ncharacter, and expression, and life, would have pervaded my humble\nattempts at historical painting.'\n\nIt is the soundness and regularity of principle expressed in, or whose\nexistence is clearly deducible from, the entertaining of such views,\nthat constitutes the great merit of the pictures of West. It is these\nqualities, too, which impart to them their utility and high value\nas a school of art. As far as they go, they may safely and without\nreserve be recommended to the student. Here he will not be led\nastray by brilliant though false theory, nor degraded into mannerism\nby peculiar though striking modes, which can please only from their\npeculiarity, and when they exhibit the result of native invention.\nAll here is placed upon the broad highway of universal art; all is\nequable, uniformly correct, firm, and respectable; no compensation of\nerror by an occasional loftiness of flight: the stream of invention\nsweeps onward calmly and majestically; if not conducting to scenes\nof the most stupendous sublimity, flowing at least without cataract\nor whirlpool, through a magnificence which is grand from its very\nregularity and usefulness. In these works we discover this, perhaps\nsingular character, that in them we detect many wants, but no defects.\nThe composition, grouping and symmetry, are unexceptionable; the\ndrawing is particularly fine, yet without the statue-like design of\nthe French school. But to animate this beautiful framework of art--to\ninspire these moulds of form and emblems of intelligence with action\nand sentiment--the touch of that genius, to whose final aims external\nscience furnishes the bare instrument, is wanting. The representation\nis chaste and beautiful, but it is too clearly a representation; there\nwants the almost o'er-informing mind, the freshness of natural feeling,\nwhich give to art its truest, only mastery over the human spirit.\n\nThe surpassing softness and variety of our island scenery seems to have\ninspired a corresponding beauty and vigorous diversity into our school\nof Landscape. Rural imagery may almost be said to mingle in every dream\nof English enjoyment. Hence this department of our arts has always been\npopular, and, as a necessary consequence of encouragement, has been\ncultivated with ardor and success. Only, indeed, when English artists\nhave forsaken English nature, or have attempted to unite classical\nallegory with heroic landscape, as it is called, have they failed\nin this delightful branch. From an early period in the eighteenth\ncentury, the school may be said to commence, and thenceforward may\njustly be said to have remained unrivalled by contemporary merit in\nany other country. One department indeed of landscape, and that too a\nvery charming one, namely water-color, has been, by British artists,\nnot only invented, it may be said, but raised into a most beautiful\nand useful branch of dignified art. Nor let landscape be deemed, as\ntoo frequently, an inferior department: it certainly requires not the\nhighest genius, yet so many qualities must unite in the same individual\nbefore he can attain excellence here, that Sir Joshua Reynolds used to\nsay, 'there is more likely to be another Raphael than a second Claude.'\nYet more than one native has approached the eminence of the latter.\n\nCommencing with the last century, the following arrangement will\ninclude the most esteemed landscape painters of this country.\n\n_First Class._ Wilson, born 1714, died 1782, the first of English\nlandscape painters; aerial perspective very fine, not surpassed by\nClaude; great fidelity in representing natural effects; coloring,\nespecially in his later pictures, somewhat dry; objects rather\nindeterminate. Gainsborough, 1727-88; a painter of universal but\nirregular genius; in his landscapes the most decidedly English of all\nour great masters. Wright, 1734-97; exquisite finishing and wonderful\neffects of light, especially in his Eruption of Vesuvius, rising and\nsetting sun; touch delicate; coloring fresh and transparent. Morland,\n1764-1806; it is not easy exactly to class this artist, as his\nlandscapes are generally accessory only to his figures, while these\nlatter are hardly of sufficient interest without such accessories.\nWhatever Morland accomplished was rather by the force of genius, than\nthrough study or knowledge, with the exception of some of his pictures\npainted about 1789-95. His great excellences lie in the unaffected\nexhibition of broad and vulgar character, and in the representation of\ndomestic animals, pigs, sheep, donkeys, and worn-out horses; for as he\ndrew merely by force of eye, his ignorance of anatomy prevented him\nfrom attempting that 'noble creature' in perfect condition. Moreland's\nback-grounds and distances are often truly admirable.\n\n_Second Class._ Wooton, died 1765, excellent in field-sports, horses,\ndogs, and landscape; but his touch and coloring are indistinct.\nLambert, 1710-1765, chaste and harmonious coloring, with a slight\ndegree of monotony; distances sweet; followed G. Poussin, whose\noccasional faults in harshness and black shadow he has avoided, though\nleft far behind in sublimity and variety of composition. Barrett, from\nthe sister isle, self-instructed, yet none of our native school has\nmore happily caught the characteristic features of English landscape:\nhis touch, though defective in detail, is rapid, and forcibly\ndistinguishes, at least by their general forms, the different elements\nof natural composition. Marlow, concerning whom there are no exact\ndates, and Scott, born in 1710, died in 1772,--both excel in marine\nviews; the latter is scarcely surpassed by the best masters of the\nFlemish school, and the finishing of the former is particularly happy,\nthough he fails in trees, when attempting inland scenery.\n\n_Third Class._ This division includes many landscape painters of\nvarious, some, indeed, of very high merit, whose labours extend from\nthe commencement of the eighteenth to an early part of the present\ncentury. Of this class the principal names are the following: Smiths\nof Chichester, especially John and George, and Smith of Derby;--it\nis singular that all three were self-taught. The two Gilpins of\nCarlisle; the elder by pictures of horses and wild animals, and the\nRev. William Gilpin, by his writings and landscapes, have added much\nto this department. Sandby of Nottingham, a most exquisite landscape\ndraughtsman, as also were Cozens and Hearne, whose paintings have great\nvalue in fidelity, and whose drawings contributed not a little towards\nforming the present school of water-color painting. Tull imitated too\nclosely the Dutch masters. Wheately excelled both in minor history and\nlandscape, especially in rural subjects. Dean, a native of Ireland,\nsome good Italian landscapes. Dayes, Devis, of which names there were\nthree artists more or less connected with landscape. Two Pethers of\nChichester; William, both a painter and engraver of landscapes; Abraham\nexcelled in moonlight scenes, exercising the pencil with remarkable\nsweetness, luxuriance, and transparency of coloring; he died in 1812.\n\nOf all the landscape painters of the British school, Wilson and\nGainsborough are undoubtedly the first; nor is it easy to discriminate\nbetween them. Wilson excels in splendour of effect and magnificence\nof composition; but Gainsborough is more natural and pleasing, at\nleast in his early pictures. Latterly he introduced the notion of\nan ideal beauty in rural nature, which has too frequently been\nimitated. Both possessed genius in no ordinary degree; but though to\nthe first has been conceded the higher walk as it has been called,\nbecause imaginative, to the latter belongs that temperament of mind\nmore essential, we think, to the landscape painter, which powerfully\nconceives the objects of contemplation, and places them in vivid\nreality before the eye and the fancy. Each has failed in the grand\ndifficulty of landscape--the proper introduction of figures; and in\nthe besetting defect of the English school--slovenly execution, and\nwant of detail. Here the remarks are not confined to these artists\nalone, but express rather the general character. Among the masters\nof historical painting, as Titian, Caracci, N. Poussin, Rubens, who\nexcelled in landscape incidentally, as it were, the scene is always\nsubordinate to the figures. This is generally the case, too, with those\nwho more directly professed historical or heroic landscape, as Salvator\nRosa, Albano, Franceso Bolonese, with many of the most celebrated\nFlemish and Dutch artists. In this case the landscape is introduced\neither to exhibit some scenic propriety, or as a mere embellishment of\nthe historical design. The great difficulty here lies in maintaining\nsubordination and unity, yet preserving the interest, of the respective\nparts of the composition. In these beauties Claude completely fails,\nas do also Wilson, and most English artists who have made the attempt.\nThe landscape overwhelms the story, while the story generally\ndiscredits the landscape; or, the attention being equally divided\nbetween both, the interest of each is weakened. This is sometimes the\ncase with Gainsborough, often with Morland, and still more frequently\nin the Dutch school. In landscape painting, properly considered, the\nfigures should always be subordinate, forming merely a part of, and\ncorresponding with, the scene; most especially when that scene is from\nnature, and with her beauties ever fresh renewed, inexhaustible--there\nis something almost unhallowed in thrusting upon us the inferior, and\nmannered and crowded compositions of mere imagination. Nor is it a\nmatter merely of taste; everything which has a tendency to lead the\nmind and the imagination of the artist away from nature, tends also\nto the deterioration of art. Hence the absurdities so visible in the\nhistory of this particular branch--Nature represented as if seen\nthrough a Claude-Lorraine-glass--skies gleaming and glaring under the\nappellations of sunrises and sunsets,--buildings of fantastic form and\nuninhabitable dimensions, under the name of Italian ruins--foliage and\nfields in every variety of tint, save the soft, quiet, unobtrusive hues\nof leaves and herbage. Surely of all painters, the British landscape\npainter is least excusable in deviating from the reality around him,\nwhich presents every element of his art in its best perfection, from\nthe softest beauty in a freshness of dewy verdure elsewhere unknown,\nto the wildest sublimity of lake, mountain, wood, and torrent!\nEven in the gorgeous magnificence of our changing sky, there is a\ngloriousness, and grandeur of effect, which we have never seen even\nin Italy. If, again, he seek for objects of moral interest, there is\nthe feudal fortalice--the cloistered abbey--the storied minster--the\ngothic castle, with all their rich associations;--there the mouldering\nmonument--the fields of conflict, the scenes of tradition, of poetry,\nand of love--and, far amid the wild upland, gleams the mossy stone, and\nbends the solitary ash, over the martyr of his faith. For such as these\nthe imagination can give us no equivalents.\n\nCoarse and undetailed, though talented, execution, has overspread every\ndepartment of the British school. In the present branch, however,\nthis manner seems especially misplaced. A landscape painting, more\nthan any other, is viewed merely as a work of art. Consequently, the\nmind feels dissatisfied in the absence of those qualities of finished\nexecution and delicate management, which constitute the essential value\nand character of art as such. The imitation requires not only to be\ngeneral; but, to give entire pleasure, we must be enabled also to trace\nwith ease minute and varied resemblances. The work thus affords almost\nthe endless gratification of nature's own productions. But we shall not\nrest the objections to loose practice on grounds that might be disputed\nas a matter of dubious taste. The evil is not stayed in the effect,\nbut endangers the very existence of its own rapid creations. Where the\nstudy is general effect only, the next object must necessarily be to\nproduce that effect speedily: indeed, such a style completely excludes\nthe care requisite to proper elaboration and transparent coloring.\nHence tints are used, which soonest attain to the general end in view;\nbut such tints are exactly those which fade the soonest. Hence the\nblackness, rawness, and want of harmony, in so many English landscapes.\nHence, also, the clear and silvery tones which seem indestructible in\nthe exquisitely finished landscapes of Claude, and the most eminent\nforeign artists. Generally, indeed, the best masters in this branch\nare decidedly those who have finished with due care. Of the works of\nour own school, those are also the most excellent as essays of genius,\nwhich are the most judiciously laboured as performances of art.\n\nWe may now turn our attention for a little to the past state of\npainting in Scotland. During the eighteenth century, though there can\nhardly be said to have existed any separate style, so as to merit the\ndistinction of a school apart from that of the empire generally, yet\nseveral very respectable Scottish artists are found to have practised\nboth in London and Edinburgh. In the latter capital, towards the close\nof that period, a school gradually arose, which, considering the\nresources of the country, the opportunities of improvement, the means\nof patronage, and latterly, the merits of its individual masters,\nespecially of its head, the late Sir Henry Raeburn, displays an\ninferiority certainly not greater than might reasonably be expected.\nOr we will go farther; when the invigorating influence of royal\ncountenance and protection upon the fine arts, the superior wealth and\nintelligence congregated in the seat of legislature, are viewed--all\nconcurring to foster and advance art in the capital; and when, on the\nother hand, we reflect, not merely on the absence of these advantages,\nbut on the positive detriment of a non-resident nobility, whose\npresence might in some measure supply other deficiencies, it must\nbe matter of astonishment, not that Scottish painting is inferior,\nbut that it is so nearly equal, to that of London. But there needs\nnot an appeal merely to relative excellence; the absolute merits of\nsome of the masters now in Edinburgh, or belonging to Scotland, are\nnot surpassed in their respective departments. It is far from the\nintention, in these remarks, to institute any invidious distinctions,\nbut to state fairly the claims of Edinburgh, and that the talents of\nher artists, and the zeal of her people, place her, not among the\nsecondary cities, but among the capitals of Europe. It ought also\nto be remembered, that in no instance are the arts of any kingdom\nmore indebted, than those of the British Empire to Scotsmen. Not to\nmention the exertions of Gavin Hamilton, himself an artist, whose\ndiscoveries and knowledge of antique art materially assisted the\ngeneral restoration of taste--and we do know that, in this light,\nCanova both regarded and ever spoke of him with gratitude--there are\ntwo cases more immediate to the present purpose. Sir William Hamilton,\nat his own risk and expense, though afterwards, as was only proper, in\npart repaid, made the most splendid collection of ancient vases now in\nthe world, excepting that of Naples. These are in the British Museum,\nand have not merely refined taste, but have most materially improved\nthe useful arts of the country. The Earl of Elgin's inestimable\ntreasures of ancient sculpture have enriched Britain with examples of\nunrivalled excellence, and which have already mainly contributed to\nthe present superiority of her genius in art. These precious remains,\nwith indefatigable assiduity, at a ruinous and hopeless expenditure,\ncollected--an enterprise in which kings had formerly failed--he gave\nto his country on repayment of not nearly his own outlay, though we\nhave reason to know, through the late venerable Denon, that the former\ngovernment of France offered to the possessor his own terms. The\nmeritorious act of removal indeed has, with schoolboy enthusiasm, and\nmaudlin sentimentality, been deplored as a despoiling of a classic\nmonument. How utterly absurd is this, to lament that the time-honored\nlabours of ancient Greece did not sink for ever beneath the violence of\nthe despot and the ignorance of the slave, instead of being, as now, in\nthe midst of an admiring and enlightened people, shedding abroad their\nbeauty and their intelligence, again to revive in our living arts!\n\nJamieson, the first of whom there is interesting notice, and one of\nthe most accomplished of the Scottish artists, died in Edinburgh 1644.\nHis labours, with those of the succeeding century, are connected by\nworks and names, as Norrie, elder and younger, now fast hastening, or\nalready, with no injustice, consigned, to oblivion. The times, agitated\nas they were by political and religious dissensions, offered little\nencouragement to the arts of elegance and peace. Throughout the early\npart of the eighteenth century, however, to the era even of Sir Joshua\nReynolds, individual artists, natives of Scotland, may be mentioned,\nof attainments and practice superior to any in the history of painting\nduring the same period in England. The cause of this is evident in the\nmore accomplished professional education which the former received.\nThe intercourse between Scotland and Italy, owing to various political\ncauses, and to the great number of Scotch residents in the latter\ncountry, was then very close; hence, after attaining all that home\ninstruction could give, hardly a single Scottish artist of eminence can\nbe mentioned, who had not, by an abode in Italy, finished his studies\nwhere alone the highest and truest knowledge can be obtained. It would\nbe needless to combat the opinion, that such a process is unnecessary.\nNo artist, with a mind open to the real beauties of his profession,\ncan visit Italy without reaping the most solid advantages, otherwise\nunattainable. In this respect, too, the Scottish artist seemed to enjoy\na security in the very poverty of native art; for if he saw little to\nexcite ambition, enough remained to direct study, without taste being\ninfluenced by the popularity of false modes. Hence it is not more than\njustice to state, that in the works of the following names, there is to\nbe found a more uniformly pure and dignified style, if not of higher\nexcellence, than generally distinguishes contemporary art.\n\nRamsay, son of the poet, inherited no small portion of his father's\nlove of nature, and power of unaffected delineation of her simplicity.\nHis portraits present, in these respects, a charm quite refreshing,\nwhen compared with the staring mannerism of the Anglo-German school,\nfounded by Lely and Kneller. Ramsay remained three years in Italy, from\n1736. Of his accomplishments, Dr Johnson has left this testimony: 'you\nwill not find a man in whose conversation there is more instruction,\nmore information, and more elegance, than in Ramsay's.' Runciman, an\nexcellent draughtsman and pleasing colorist, born in 1736. Several\nhistorical paintings, executed at Rome and in Edinburgh, evince very\nconsiderable powers both of composition and practice. He was for a\nlength of time a very efficient teacher in the Scottish Academy of\ndesign. More, the Scottish Claude, as he is sometimes termed, whom\nalso he selected as his model. Without, however, reaching the depth\nof coloring and beautiful nature which are found in that admirable\npainter, there are many stations which may be filled with honor. In\none of these More is to be placed, while his figures have very great\npropriety both of selection and in the manner of introducing them.\nHis subjects are usually Italian scenes, in the neighborhood of Rome,\nwhere he chiefly resided, and died in 1795. To these, other names of\nconsiderable merit might be added, as Cochrane, Sir George Chalmers;\nBarker, too, the inventor of panoramic painting, was, we believe, a\nnative of Scotland, at least, the first work of the kind ever exhibited\nwas in Edinburgh. Martin, who visited Italy in company with Ramsay,\npractised portrait painting with considerable reputation, till he\nretired from his professional labours on the increasing and merited\npopularity of his distinguished contemporary, under whom the Scottish\nschool assumes a dignified importance, heretofore denied to its\ncomparatively isolated endeavors.\n\nSir Henry Raeburn, the representative of painting in Scotland from\n1787 to his death 1823, was born in a suburb of the capital, 1756. Of\nall the distinguished artists who have attained excellence, without\nany peculiarity of manner, perhaps Raeburn owes least to others and\nmost to himself in the acquisition of his art. Originally apprenticed\nto a goldsmith, it does not appear that he ever received a single\nlesson from a master even in the ordinary accomplishments of drawing.\nFrom painting miniatures with success during his apprenticeship,\nhe turned his attention to large portraiture in oil, with no other\nassistance than merely copying a few portraits could give. Even these\nearly productions must have possessed merit, since they obtained the\napprobation of Sir Joshua, by whose advice he visited Italy, remaining\nabroad two years, thus completing the round of his professional studies.\n\nThe character of Sir Henry's art participates strongly in that which\nhas prevailed in British portraiture during the last fifty years. It\nin fact presents the very ideal of that style whose aim is to speak\nmost powerfully to the imagination, through the slenderest means\naddressed to the eye. His pictures afford the finest, we might say the\nmost wonderful examples, how far detail may be sacrificed, and yet\ngeneral effect and striking resemblance be retained. In this respect\nhe has carried the principles of Sir Joshua to the very verge of\nindistinctness; but what is given has such vigorous meaning, that in\nthe power of the leading forms, the fancy discovers an intelligence,\nwhich, overspreading the whole composition, and bursting from each\nmaster line, guides the mind triumphantly over the blank masses\noften composing the interior. If, then, to produce strong effect, by\nwhatsoever means, be the object of art, Raeburn has succeeded beyond\nmost painters; but if true excellence consist in blending into one\nharmonious whole the delicate markings and grand contours of nature,\nhe has failed; if pictures are to be viewed only on the walls of a\ngallery, at a distance from the spectator, his portraits correspond\nwith this arrangement; but if the eye loves to rest upon features\ndear to the affections, or prized by the understanding--if delight to\ntrace the shades of feeling and the lines of thought--if these wishes\ncan be gratified, and are indulged in the masterpieces of art, then\ndoes Raeburn, and not only he, but the great majority of the English\nschool, rest far behind. The error, in his individual instance, as\nin most others, lies in the system. To this, also, which recognizes\nmere effect and general resemblance as all, is to be ascribed his\nfrequent disregard of correct outline, his black and square shadows,\nand coarseness of coloring. Yet Raeburn saw nature with the eye of true\ngenius, for he caught her essential forms, and often her most effective\ngraces; but either his industry disdained, or his art was unable, to\nadd the rest.\n\nThe leading events and principal masters in the past history of British\nart have now been rapidly surveyed. Upon the living ornaments of the\nschool, individually, it scarcely falls under the province of the\nannalist, nor is it his intention, to dwell. It is not, that matter of\nstill farther congratulation would not thus be afforded in the evidence\nof national progress; for at no time has the English school occupied a\nmore elevated position, whether compared with others, or with itself.\nBut, estimated thus highly and thus truly, the general eminence has\nstill gradations, which, in entering upon detail, it would be incumbent\nto point out. The responsibility of this duty it is the wish to\navoid. An opinion ventured upon works left by their authors to the\nguardianship of posterity, may be canvassed in its truth or falsehood\nas an abstract criticism, without either wounding the feelings of the\nliving, or, it may be, injuring the value of professional labour.\nFrom judicious observations when called for, an artist has to fear\nnothing, and may profit much; but it should ever be remembered, that\nthe professional merit must be humble indeed, which does not render\nthe possessor superior to his self-constituted judge, who is himself\nnot an artist. A sound judgment in literature, or an acquaintance with\nthe general principles upon which all works of taste must necessarily\nbe conducted, are not sufficient, without practical skill, truly to\nestimate a production of art. The poet employs vehicles of thought and\nsigns of expression familiar to all as the use of reason; the means and\ninstruments of the painter constitute in their management a peculiar\nscience, in which excellence or defect is less appreciable by natural\nor untrained observation. Neglect of these principles of criticism has\nexposed to groundless censure, and to as injurious praise, both arts\nand artists.\n\nWhen it is stated, that the modern English school surpasses every other\nin Europe, the inference is not to be assumed, that painting elsewhere\nhas retrograded, but that, with us, art has advanced beyond the general\nimprovement. During the present century, painting in France has been\nsuperior to any thing produced in that country since the age of Louis\nXIV., or, perhaps, it has in this space attained a greater glory. Italy\nhas more than one master, who, in purity of style at least, excels any\npredecessor within the last fifty years. Now, if the representatives\nof these respective schools be compared, or if the universal works of\neach be taken as the criterion of merit, in either case it would not\nbe difficult to show, that separately, or as a school, the British\nartists of the present age have made the greatest attainments towards\nexcellence.\n\nBut compared with ourselves, has our course also been progressive? The\naffirmative here it is more difficult to prove. Reynolds, Hogarth,\nWilson, Gainsborough, all contemporaries, certainly present a rare\ncombination of genius and art. But besides these stars of the first\nmagnitude, every other 'lesser light' twinkles with diminished ray.\nNow, as respects the general diffusion of most respectable eminence,\nthis is far from being the case at present. In every branch, more than\none master of high talent might be mentioned. Again, considering the\nrepresentatives of each department in the present and in the former\nage, there can be no hesitation, everything considered, in giving the\npreference to our contemporaries. A remark of the late learned Fuseli\nis here quite to the purpose, while in itself perfectly correct: 'The\nworks of Sir Joshua Reynolds are unequal, many of them are indifferent,\nthough some cannot be surpassed; but, on the other hand, even the most\ninferior picture from the pencil of Sir Thomas Lawrence is excellent.'\nIt is this extended and uniform excellence, as has appeared throughout\nthe whole course of these investigations, which constitutes not only\nindividual superiority, but which tends, most directly and most surely,\nto the exaltation of art.\n\nHogarth, again, stands alone rather in the peculiar dramatic character\nof his performances, than in their beauty or science, as bearing upon\nthe promotion of universal improvement, or even as individual pieces\nof painting. His pictures, also, with few exceptions, are rather\nisolated representations than general exhibitions of manners; they are\nscenes displaying the singularities, more than the leading actions\nand feelings of life. Their effect is broad and true, and the moral\npowerful; but both are circumscribed by times, and by partial divisions\namong mankind. Wilkie, whose style of composition most nearly resembles\nHogarth's, and with whom, therefore, he is to be compared, while he\npreserves all the force of individual character and delineation of\nliving nature, has extended a far more comprehensive grasp of mind\nover the moralities of his subject. He has brought within the pencil's\nmagic sway, and fixed there in permanent reality, the sorrows and the\njoys, the hopes, fears, and attachments, the occupations, customs,\nhabits, and even amusements, of a whole unchanging class of mankind.\nThis may appear to have been before accomplished, both in the English\nand Flemish schools. But here lies the distinction: Hogarth represents\ngeneral ideas by particular signs. His forms and his expressions\nare individual modifications of the limited society to which they\nbelong. The conceptions of Wilkie are the idealisms of his models.\nEach figure is not only pregnant with individuality of character and\nlife, but is the true representative of the class whose constituent\nit is. Each expression, though generally but the index of humble\nfeeling, sends abroad into the heart of every spectator its artless\nappeal. He has thus, in fact, applied the generalizations of higher\nart to the interests of common life, yet preserving its simplicity,\nits humbleness, and reality. The Dutch painters, again, have painted\nvulgar instead of common nature; nor, in the complete range of their\nschool, is there once an example of that delightful sentiment, which\nour countryman has so successfully cast over his most lowly scenes,\nand by which he has redeemed them from every approach to vulgarity,\nwithout falling, as Gainsborough has sometimes done, into insipidity or\nmannerism.\n\nIn landscape, Turner has extended the boundaries of his art by the\ninvention of prismatic colors, and by his novel applications of them.\nHe is therefore decidedly a more original artist than Wilson, whose\nbest works are those composed in imitation of Claude. But Turner by no\nmeans stands so much alone as did the masters of the former age; names\nin both divisions of Britain might be mentioned his equals in more than\none respect. In the historical department, again, if we admit the late\nPresident's works, there can be no comparison between these and any\nformer labours of the English school. But in all the possible varieties\nof historical composition, there are artists of great excellence either\nnow living, or who have been taken from us within these few years; as\nHaydn, Martin, Allan of Edinburgh, Heapy, Collings, Fuseli, Harlow,\nStothard, Cooper, Landseer, with others. In portraiture, Jackson,\nPhillips, and others, show, that even high excellence is not so\nconfined as in the time of Sir Joshua Reynolds. Lawrence is indeed the\nfirst artist in Europe, but he is ably supported. A little anecdote\nmay here give some idea of the powers of Sir Thomas's pencil. On\nvisiting, one evening, the apartment in the Vatican where his splendid\nportrait of George IV., in coronation robes, was then exhibited, we\nwere much struck with the fixed attention immediately directed to it by\nan individual who had just entered. A deeper interest was excited on\nperceiving the stranger to be a celebrated native artist. Continuing\nfor some time in total abstraction, during which the workings of his\ncountenance clearly indicated admiration or astonishment, and, we\nthought, disappointment, with a sudden unconscious gesticulation, he\nexclaimed aloud, 'Dio--il tramontane!' as if saying 'Heavens! can that\nhave been painted beyond the Alps!' and abruptly hurried away.\n\nFrom the preceding remarks, and the names now enumerated, who are\nmentioned without any reference to comparative rank or merit as to\neach other, two inferences are deducible: first, That the masters\nmore immediately in the public eye, as now at the head of the various\ndepartments of art, are on the whole superior to those of the last\nage; and, secondly, That between the former and their present\ncontemporaries, the interval is small in comparison with the position\noccupied by Reynolds, Hogarth, Wilson, or Gainsborough, in relation\nto the school over which they presided. Hence the general conclusion\nseems evident, that in Britain, the art, as compared with itself, has\ncontinued to improve.\n\nCompared with foreign art, the distinctive character of the English\nschool is strongly marked. Painting on the Continent exhibits a\nstriking uniformity of style, with such peculiarities as, on a general\nview, will not lessen the truth of a common classification. The\nContinental artist, then, studies to detail, but fails in power of\ngeneral effect; his performances are more valuable as works of art and\nof imitation, than of imagination or abstract resemblance. The parts\nare beautifully made out, finely drawn; but the whole is too seldom\nconnected by any animating principle of general similitude, uniting the\nseparate elaborations into one broad and forcible harmony. Hence the\ndry, the meagre, and the disjointed particulars, the usual components\nof their labours, though in themselves truer than the constituents of\nBritish art--better drawn, it may be, and more carefully finished,\nas they almost always are, yet contrast disadvantageously with the\nbold and powerful, though large generalizations of our pencil. Nor\ncan there be impartial question, though each be separately defective,\nthat more genius is displayed in the latter than in the former. The\nEnglish artist paints more to the mind; the French and the Italian\nto the eye. The first looks abroad upon the universal harmonies and\noppositions of nature; the second scrutinizes and carefully renders\nthe filling up of her aggregated forms, and the lesser concurrences\nof her general effects. Art, with us, represents objects as they\nseem in their relations, rather than as they actually exist; among\nour rivals, it delineates things as they are in themselves, to the\nneglect of those modifications by which reality is diversified through\npleasing falsehood, especially as viewed in reference to a medium of\nexpression, founded itself in delusion. In the one case, nature is\nseen and imitated as a picture; in the other, her operations and forms\nare contemplated as materials out of which pictures are to be wrought.\nHence English art satisfies, but deceives; the foreign style does not\ndeceive, but fails to satisfy.\n\nCompared with itself, and with the real objects and essence of art, we\nhave already pointed out the great defect in the practice of English\nart to be, imperfection in the details. In portraiture, this has\nspread to a ruinous extent; and with the most beautiful models in the\nworld, British female portraits, speaking in general, are most decided\nfailures. On this subject, nothing more remains to be said--we refer\nto the exquisite works of Lawrence, whose female heads are at once\nmost striking, most lovely, and very highly finished;--we recommend a\nstudy of Vandyke's likenesses of the ladies of the Court of Charles,\nnow in the Louvre. Let the natural grace and modesty, the delicacy of\nfeature and transparency of tint, in these, be compared with similar\nworks of the present day and practice--when it must at once appear\nhow much is lost to art, and how great injustice is done to nature.\nIn male portraits our practice is better, but only from the bolder\nlineaments of the subject. The inherent errors are the same--modelling\nwith the pencil, rather than drawing--immense masses of dark shade to\nconceal the absence of all that should be present--and forcible rather\nthan natural effect. There certainly now appears, however, in the\nproductions of the most esteemed living masters, the progress of a more\nscientific and more perfect style.\n\nIn the walk of history, expression--that expression which comes from\nthe natural outpourings of feeling--which animates the canvass of\nthe early masters--and which seems to find its proper, spontaneous,\naccordant instrument in their pencil,--has yet been wanting. Next,\nour historical paintings are sadly defective in composition--not in\nthe symmetrical arrangement and grouping of figures, but in the real\npoetry of the art, in the facile, the creative power over the means\nand materials of the science--in the skill of causing them to fall as\nif by chance, and without effort or visible design, into the most\nharmonious, most striking, and most effective combinations.\n\nAnother and a principal source of inferiority--of absolute, yet\nlaborious error, has been the most mistaken perceptions of ideal beauty\nin art. This subject it was our intention to have treated here at some\nlength. Our limits, however, forbid, while it is of less consequence,\nsince the volume contains within itself the leading precepts on this\ntopic. The sum of these separate remarks is, that the ideal is not\nbeauty apart from, but wrought out of nature. So far from being the\ncreation of fancy, it lives, breathes, and is to be found only in\nnature. In this important principle, juster ideas are beginning rapidly\nto diffuse their influence over the whole of our art, since theory\nhas been laid aside, and nature, and the antique, and real taste have\nregained the ascendency.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FINE ARTS.\n\n\n\n\nARCHITECTURE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n\nARCHITECTURE has been termed the Art of Necessity, in contradistinction\nto Sculpture and Painting, which have been distinguished as the\noffspring of elegance and luxury. To the first, the remark of the\nancient poet has been deemed most peculiarly applicable,\n\n  'Hinc vari\u00e6 ven\u00eere artes--labor omnia vicit\n  Improbus, et duris urgens in rebus egestas.'\n\nIf there be, however, distinction in the first origin, it ceases long\nbefore any of these can become the object of refined or useful inquiry.\nThe principles of all, considered in the rank of arts, originate in\nthe mind, though a sentiment of intelligent curiosity, or a sense of\ncorporeal weakness, and the desire of protection, first give visible\naction to the latent germs of feeling and of ingenuity. Here, then,\nappears the accidental, not distinctive character, in the originating\nimpulse, and in the species of imitative design thence resulting,\nwhich is afterwards to call forth the most refined evidence of human\nthought and genius. Man's first care would evidently be directed to the\ndiscovery or construction of means of shelter against the inclemencies\nof the sky under which his lot was cast. His best affections, no less\nthan his natural wants, would prompt him to this. But the cave of the\nTroglodyte, or the hut of the savage, are not more connected with\nscience and forethought, than is the den of the tiger, or the lair of\nthe wolf, or the still more artful structure of the fowl. For no sooner\nis the human creature thus established, his physical desires stilled,\nnot gratified, than begin the ceaseless aspirings of the spirit within;\nthe workings of that wondrous maze of understanding and of feeling, of\nthought and volition, which so mysteriously bind, and so irresistibly\ndirect him to his higher and better destinies. Thence, and only thence,\nsprings, as a bright and pure emanation, though darkened for a while\nin struggling through an imperfect medium, every effort thereafter to\ninstruct or to adorn a happier world.\n\nIn conformity with these views, it has appeared, that the first\nattempts at sculptural or pictorial representation were dedicated to\npiety, and to the social affections of the heart. In like manner, the\nearliest and rudest erections of architecture now existing, as well\nas the most perfect and magnificent, are temples to the Deity, or\nmemorials of the dead. There is, in these respects, indeed, a striking\nproof of the existence of this law of mind,--not of mere instinct,\nand, at the same time, of self-denial, in favor of the generous and\nthe holy in man's nature. Not only do we find, that, wherever the\nhuman foot has been stayed, there is the altar, the temple, and the\ntomb; but we meet these amid the destitution of every approach to that\nluxury to which the arts have been ascribed; and, finally, we discover\na vast disproportion between the efforts dedicated to these tributes\nof gratitude and affection, and those directed to personal comfort\nor splendor. Jacob, while yet a wanderer in tents, consecrated, by a\npillar,--the first monument on record,--the spot where reposed his\nbeloved Rachael. Over the whole of the inhabited globe, not excepting\nthe dark heaths of our native land, are the last resting-places of the\ndead, which must have required a union of care and labour given only\nto a duty, everywhere held inviolably sacred. Even in the wilds of the\nNew World, there are sepulchres of like laborious structure, to which,\nwith a steadiness surer than that of the needle, the distant tribe\ntracks its way though pathless woods. Compare, again, the evidence of\ncongregated energy, and even science, in the Druidical temples only,\nwith the glimpses we possess of the accommodations of common life. The\nreligious edifices of Egypt even yet fill the mind with admiration;\nwhile the probable monuments of their dead, faithless, indeed, to their\nindividual trust, shall only sink amid the ruins of the world, enduring\ntestimonies of the power of religion and of futurity over the mind of\nman, and of the vain attempt to convert that power into an instrument\nof selfish aggrandisement. From all this, something better may be\ndeduced than even refuting the idea, that the sublimest objects of\ntaste indicate, in their origin, a grovelling necessity, and, in their\nprogress, owe their most graceful improvements to an idle luxury. In\nthis inseparable union of the primitive arts of taste with feelings of\nreligious service and of human affection, we perceive that man, even in\na state of natural darkness, is not the selfish, the irreligious being,\nrepresented by a cold and material philosophy, equally the enemy of\ntaste as of religion.\n\nBeyond these remarks it is not here necessary to trace the first origin\nof Architecture. In this art are certainly to be detected the very\nlinks of connexion, joining the knowledge of the descendants of Adam\nwith that of the families of Noah. We learn from Scripture, that soon\nafter the Flood, while yet the remembrance of that catastrophe was\nfresh in the mind, the building of a city and a tower was commenced.\nSuch design could not have been entertained without some previous\nmodel, or, at least, assurance that it might be accomplished. Such\nmodel or such assurance could be derived only from antediluvian\nexperience or tradition; for it is in the highest degree improbable\nthat either could have originated, or been brought to such maturity,\nin so short a space as intervenes between the descent of Noah from\nthe Ark, and the gigantic undertaking of his posterity. Again, the\nmaterials were artificial; and of such perfection, well-burnt brick,\nas we do not find mankind to have used in the same countries many\ncenturies afterwards. The construction, too, of that mysterious\nrelic of two worlds, which 'floated on the waters of the abyss,'\nis a proof of high advance in the arts of the first. Subsequently,\nall researches are at fault. From this state of intelligence and\nunion, mankind suddenly sink into the most wretched ignorance, and\ndisperse in wild confusion. A cause, such as the one in Sacred Writ,\ncould alone produce this effect. Broken fragments and glimmerings\nof ancient knowledge, no doubt, remained with the scattered tribes\nof the human family. But to trace usefully the extent, reunion, and\nimprovement of these imperfect elements, would be here a vain task.\nThe few valuable and only authentic memorials of the very early ages\nare to be found in Scripture, which ascribes the origin of monuments\nthat may be termed architectural, to ratify contracts,--to mark the\nplace of the dead,--to indicate some remarkable event--to the altar\nof stone; also, it contains the descriptions of regular buildings\nof a later period, which have now passed away, as the walled cities\nwhich the Israelites found in Canaan; their own early labours,--the\nTemple of Solomon, the Palace of Lebanon, the 'House of Dagon,' and\nother heathen temples incidentally mentioned in Scripture, to which\nreference is made. All these erections and notices are confined to\nthat part of Asia which extends from the Black Sea to the mouth of the\nEuphrates, and from the Mediterranean to the extremities of Persia.\nOver the once magnificent architecture of the whole of this extensive\ntract, including the seats of the most powerful and ancient monarchies\nof Asia,--the Assyrian, Median, Babylonian, and Persian,--except what\ncan be gathered from scattered heaps of brick, utter forgetfulness\nreigns. Later information is supplied by Herodotus and the Greek\nwriters; but, except the comparatively recent remains at Persepolis,\nBaalbec, and Palmyra, already noticed, nothing exists that can throw\nlight upon our subject. A very different aspect, however, is presented\nin Egypt and in India, where monuments of the most remote antiquity\nremain, interesting in themselves, and as they tend to illustrate the\nprogress and the revolutions of Architecture in its more modern forms.\nFrom an examination of the former, we shall be enabled to discover\nthe germs of the more perfect Greek modes, while, in the combinations\nof Arabian with Indian forms, we seem to detect the rudiments of that\nsingular style, which, under the various appellations of Arabic,\nSaracenic, Gothic, has extended over the whole of Europe, and a\nconsiderable portion of Asia. Thus, one of the first and one of the\nlast departments of the present subject, one of its purest and one of\nits most complicated systems, originates probably in countries now to\nbe considered, and whose monuments are coeval with the first reunion\nof intelligence and society among men. But, before entering upon the\ninquiry which is to trace this connexion through the history of the\nart, it becomes necessary to explain certain common and preliminary\nprinciples.\n\nThere are three grand causes of structure and form in\nArchitecture,--three leading principles, which not only originated\nthe primeval elements of design, but which, to a great degree, have\ngoverned all the subsequent combinations of these. This influence also\nextends not merely to the essentials of stability, equilibrium, and\nstrength, but, as will afterwards appear, has suggested the system of\nornament. These master dispositions, which it thus becomes necessary to\nbear along with the commencement, are, first, _the purpose_--secondly,\n_the material_ of Architecture--and thirdly, _the climate_.\n\nThe purpose for which any building was erected, or the uses which it\nwas contemplated to serve, would necessarily determine the magnitude,\nand to a certain extent, the form. Again, these considerations would\nsuggest the most appropriate means of accomplishing the requisite ends,\nwhich, once accomplished, would constitute permanent distinctions.\n\nThe materials, again, employed in architecture, have influenced\nmost decidedly its forms and character. This has been the case, not\nonly in the peculiar styles which have separately been adopted in\ndifferent countries, but in the general and essential principles of\nthe science. The materials of which buildings, in all ages, have been\nchiefly constructed, are stone, wood, and factitious substances,\nare tiles and bricks. The first adopting of these materials, and,\nof course, the style of building, must have been recommended by the\nresources of the country. The law, however, which determines their\narrangement is universal, arising from exigencies over which taste,\nand even ingenuity, exert limited control. This evidently arises from\nthe nature of the question; for, since a mass of stone is heavier in\nall, and weaker in most positions, than timber of equal dimensions,\nthe whole congeries of supporting and supported members--that is,\nthe whole system of architecture will be affected as the one or the\nother material is employed. Thus, in wooden erections, the supporting\nmembers may be much fewer and less massive than in structures of\nstone; because, in the former, the horizontal or supported parts are\nboth lighter, and will carry an incumbent weight--as a roof--over a\nmuch wider interval than in the latter. It is apparent, also, even for\nthe ordinary purposes of stability, that, in constructing edifices\nof stone, whether of the perpendicular or horizontal members, the\ndimensions would be greater than in elevations of wood; and in the\ncase of columnar structures, that the altitude, in proportion to the\ndiameter, would be far less in stone than in timber supports. Hence,\nthe two grand characteristics of a massive or solemn, and a light\nor airy, architecture. Hence, also, when genius and taste had begun\nto consider the arrangements of necessity and use in the relations\nof effect and beauty, new combinations would be attempted, which\napproached to one or other of these leading divisions. It must,\nhowever, be obvious, that the field of these experiments is narrowed\nby the very principles on which they would be first suggested. In the\nart we are now considering, the human agent has less power over the\ninertness of matter than in any other. Imagination comes in contact\nwith reality at every step, and the laws of nature impress the\nboundaries of that reality, not at the risk of absurdity, but of very\nbeing. Beauty becomes here, not the creation of fantasy--a something\npleasing only as it reflects our associations, or harmonizes with our\nfeelings; but is more especially the creation of science--the object\nof demonstrative wisdom. Hence, perfect architectural beauty is the\nmost sublime and the most rational of the objects of taste; because,\nwhile the susceptibilities of mind are awakened, the powers of judgment\nare gratified, by the certainty with which the sources of pleasure can\nbe traced. We feel the arrangement to be beautiful; we know that it is\nnecessary. Hence, also, the perfect modes--the true combinations of the\nart--are few; the error in departing from them great.\n\nThese refined perceptions do not indeed pertain to the period now\ncontemplated; but the facility with which they can be connected with\nthe first practice of the art, evinces how deeply rooted are the real\nand substantial precepts of architectural design. The leading views,\nalso, in regard to the influence of material upon form, proportion, and\ndistribution of parts, are supported by early history.\n\nIn Egypt, a country destitute of wood, the most ancient erections\nwere in imitation of the natural caves in which the rude inhabitants\nhad sought a wretched shelter. In a later age, yet one which far\ntranscends the authentic researches of history, were reared those\nmysterious edifices, still standing as landmarks between known and\nunknown time. In the ponderous members of these solemn piles, the\nnarrowness of the intervals, the crowded pillars, the massive base,\nand the lessened perpendicular, is found every principle previously\nassumed as characteristic of that architecture, which would be governed\nby necessity before the sensation of beauty had been felt, or at least\nmethodized. Here, also, appears the first species of architectural\ndesign. Again, in that region of Asia, already noticed as the scene of\nthe earliest recorded labours of the art, wood was abundant. From the\ndescriptions of Holy Writ we accordingly find, that this material was\nmuch employed even in their most sacred and important buildings. Thus,\nthough few details capable of giving any just architectural notions,\nare preserved of Solomon's Temple, it is yet plain, that cedar wood\nwas the chief material both for roofs and columns, that is, both for\nsupported and supporting members. Hence, the temples of Palestine,\nand of Syria generally, by which we understand the Asia of the Old\nTestament, already described, were more spacious, but less durable than\nthose of Egypt, and with fewer upright supports. Of this, a singularly\nstriking proof occurs in the catastrophe of the House of Dagon, when\nSamson, by overturning only two columns, brought down the whole fabric.\n\n  As with the force of winds and waters pent,\n  When mountains tremble, those two massy pillars,\n  With horrible convulsion, to and fro\n  He tugg'd, he shook, till down they came, and drew\n  The whole roof after them, with bursts of thunder:\n  The vulgar only 'scaped who stood without.\n\nIn an edifice constructed on the plan of the Egyptian Temple, where\npillar stands crowded behind pillar, in range beyond range, to give\nsupport to the ponderous architrave and marble roof, the overturning of\ntwo of these columns would produce but a very partial disintegration.\nThe very circumstance, also, of there being no remains in a country\nwhere once stood the most renowned cities, proves the perishable nature\nof the substance chiefly employed. There is evidence, also, that\nstone and wood were often, perhaps usually, combined--the first as a\ncolumnar or pier-like support, for horizontal beams of the latter. This\nplainly appears to have been the case in the oldest ruin existing in\nthis part of the world, namely, Persepolis, where the marble columns\nevidently bear marks of having been connected by cross beams of wood,\nand to have supported a roof of the same light structure. Hence the\neasy conflagration of this abode of the Persian kings, in a debauch\nof Alexander. The columns are loftier, further apart, and fewer\nin number, than in Egypt. Had not the illustration of the general\nsubject been of more importance in the establishment of this point,\nreference might at once have been made to the early temples of Greece,\nwhich, even to the age of Xerxes, were structures of wood; and to the\nwell-known difference of style between them and those of Egypt. Thus\nwe have the second species of architectural design; and again find the\nfacts, recounted by history, according with deductions from _a priori_\nconsideration of the nature, objects, and origin, of the art itself.\nIt may afford illustration of the certainty with which the principles\nof reasoning operate, while the fact is singular, that ancient writers\ndescribe the huts of the nomadic tribes on their dispersion, or, at\nleast, the earliest recorded residences of mankind, as composed of\npoles, formed of the branches of trees, fixed in the earth, enclosing\na circular space, and meeting at top, the sloping sides being covered\nwith leaves, reeds, or skins. This is exactly the wigwam of the\naboriginal inhabitant of America. So much is man the creature of the\nsame instincts, under similar circumstances.\n\nClimate will necessarily operate a considerable effect upon the\nexternal arrangements of architecture. According to the latitude of\nthe situation, buildings will be contrived to admit or exclude the\nsun, to give shelter from biting cold, or to secure against scorching\nheat, or merely to yield shade, without immediate reference to either\nextreme. All these, however, will not affect the internal harmonies\nor proprieties of the constituent parts. Climate, therefore, is only\nmodifying, not creative, as the two preceding causes; it may suggest\ncomposition, but hardly design; for, with the exception of the pointed\nor flat roof, according to the humidity or dryness of the atmosphere,\nconsequently the angular pediment surmounting the horizontal lines\nof the entablature, little of real form or order has been added, or\nmaterially influenced, by climate. This cause, however, has given rise\nto, or permitted, many picturesque combinations.\n\nPurpose, besides the constitutional effects upon the science already\ndescribed, necessarily occasions the various classes under which\nthe labours of the architect may be arranged. Architecture, by this\nprinciple, is separated into two grand divisions--Civil and Military.\nThe former of these, from its greater variety of purpose, is further\nsubdivided into subordinate heads, namely, placing each in the order of\nits probable antiquity, Sacred, Monumental, Municipal, and Domestic.\nThese modifications of purpose do not, indeed, give novel principles,\nnor do they affect any of the conclusions already explained; they\nhave only, though strongly, influenced the practice of the art. In\npresenting an abstract of the history of the science of Architecture,\nthen, it is not requisite to dwell particularly upon these divisions,\nnor to be guided by them in the future arrangement of our matter.\nBut as we may occasionally revert, by a passing word, to the obvious\ndistinctions which are thus perceived, a short explanation, especially\nas several scattered particulars of very early times can thus be\nproperly assembled, will here be useful.\n\n_Sacred Architecture_ is a term sufficiently expressive of its own\nimport. It was the primitive effort of the present race of man; the\nfirst impress of his existence left upon the soil, yet moist from the\nwaters of the deluge, was the erection of an altar; and the noblest\nevidence of his most accomplished skill has been a temple:\n\n  ----'His greatest ornament of fame,\n  And strength, and art.'\n\nFrom the 'altar builded by Noah,' how interesting to follow out the\neffects of one uncontrollable, but, when unguided, erring sentiment\nin the steadfast piles--'works of Memphian kings,' in the glorious\nproportions of Greece, where\n\n                    ----'Doric pillars,\n  Cornice, and frieze, with bossy sculptures graven,'\n\nrear their graceful height, looking tranquil magnificence--down even to\nthe rude circle of grey stones on the bleak heath! For this inquiry,\nvisible materials are indeed wanting; but does not the Word of Truth\nsupply the general inference, 'The imaginations of man's heart are\nwicked--he has sought out many inventions--but I will be honored among\nthe generations of men?'\n\nIncidental allusion has already been made to the marvellous fabric\nreared by Solomon, which, if not in grace, in splendor of decoration\nappears to have exceeded all the erections of the early ages, and\nis the first of which written notice remains. The descriptions of\nthis building enable us to form a reunion of the arts of Sculpture\nand Architecture at the commencement of the tenth century before\nChrist. This date, however, we consider to be at least six hundred\nyears later than the era of any Egyptian monument, not of brick, now\nextant throughout the whole course of the Nile. In considering, also,\nthe countries whence Solomon obtained workmen, will be remarked the\nconfirmation of the preceding observations on the originating causes of\nstyles in architecture. The hewers of stone, we are informed, were from\nEgypt; and the solid substructions of the Jewish temple, the massive\nproportions of the separate parts--resemblances still more striking\nin Josephus' account of the second edifice--show exactly the same\nprinciples and practice as can to this day be traced in the Egyptian\nstructures. From Phoenicia, again, a country abounding in timber, were\nbrought the most skilful 'hewers of wood,' that is, workmen instructed\nin the arts of the joiner and carpenter, and also, as may be inferred\nfrom various descriptions of the ornamental appendages, of the carver\nor sculptor in wood,--'and the cedar of the house within was carved\nwith open knops and flowers;' again, and 'he made two cherubims of\nolive tree.' These sculptures, however, might have been finished, and,\nfrom the state of art in that country, most probably were the work of\nartists from Egypt. There can be no doubt that the 'House,' as the\nmagnificent pile is emphatically termed, was of a quadrangular outline,\nerected upon a solid platform of stone, bearing a strong resemblance to\nthe ancient temples still extant. Indeed, there is, in this respect,\na most striking analogy between the dimensions as given in Scripture,\nand those of the oldest Greek temples, especially of \u00c6gina and P\u00e6stum.\nThis latter we have examined, and, agreeing to the fidelity of the\ngrounds upon which Wilkins has founded his reasonings, in the admirable\ndissertation on this subject in his preface to the 'Antiquities of\nMagna Grecia,' we cannot coincide in the final conclusion, that the\nGreeks borrowed the Doric order from this ancient temple of Solomon.\nReference to this subject is hereafter to be made. In the meantime,\nwhile facts are fresh in the mind, it must be obvious to the reader,\nthat, since the shell or carcass of the temple of Jerusalem was of\nstone, and built by Egyptian workmen, alone skilled in that material,\nthe general arrangements would resemble those of the Egyptian temples.\nConsequently, the Greeks and the Jews, deriving their leading orders\nfrom one source, would naturally, though unconsciously, imitate each\nother. Again, since wood was employed in every part of the roof and\ninterior by Solomon, on the principles already explained, the relative\nproportions of the parts, and the number of the supports, would\nnecessarily be different, compared with the similar members of Egyptian\nart. But the Greeks also in part followed the laws of wooden structure;\nconsequently both differing, on similar principles, from the original\nmodel, would yet preserve mutual resemblance in that very difference.\n\n_Monumental Architecture_, deriving its origin from allied feelings\nand associations, would be coeval, or nearly so, with the origin of\nsacred. Indeed, it is not possible always to separate the two distinct\npurposes. Monuments have two objects in view--to honor the memory\nof the dead, and to preserve remembrance of the transactions of the\nliving; both of which are recorded in Scripture. The material of a\nmonumental erection, and consequently its design, will always, in early\ntimes, be determined by the circumstances of the vicinity, with the\nsole exception of wood. Hence pillars of stone, and mounds of earth,\nare the primitive records of both life and death. In a more advanced\nage, when stone could not be readily procured, brick would be employed.\nThe magnitude and beauty will accord with the skill of the times. Hence\narise sources of determining the relative antiquity of monuments, and\nthe circumstances of the age. Under almost every privation of means,\nand in all countries, 'heaped earth' would present a durable and an\naccessible material. Hence the universality of this species of monument\nthroughout the globe. This primitive accumulation of efforts--for\nan earthen mound can be considered as nothing more--seems to have\ngiven origin to the most gigantic labours of human architecture. The\npyramids of Egypt, and the cognate structures of India, seem to be\nimitations, wonderful indeed, of the more ancient barrow. They are,\nin fact, but mounds of higher art and more valuable materials. Their\nintermediate forms, indeed, may be traced in both countries, at least\nin the curve which would bound the perpendicular section of the mound.\nIn India, however, pyramids seem, from the extent of the interior, and\nthe facility of access, to have been chiefly intended for places of\ncrowded resort--most likely, therefore, temples. In Egypt, again, the\nsingle chamber, the imperviously closed entrance, appear to indicate\nwith precision their original destination to have been sepulchral.\nIt has already been remarked, that the Arts are themselves their own\nbest interpreters, and that little faith is to be placed in the remote\nanalogies of philology, which have too frequently been admitted in\nevidence beyond their value; but it has often been matter of surprise,\nthat two words, belonging to the most ancient forms of the Syriac\nlanguage, should have been overlooked in the numerous derivations of\nthe word pyramid. _Peer_ and _Muid_, as the words in question may be\nrendered in our characters, united, as in Eastern languages, forming\ncompound expressions, would give almost identical sound, and in\nsignification, 'the hill or mountain of the dead,' would be nearer the\npurpose and appearance than any derivation with which we are acquainted.\n\nUnder the head of _Municipal Architecture_ is included every\napplication of the science to those purposes of social life not\nincluded under the former heads, such as public buildings of all\ndescriptions connected with the civil business of life, up to the\narrangements of entire cities. Men, therefore, must have been assembled\ntogether for some time, they must have agreed upon certain compacts\nand regulations of society, before this branch could have made any\nprogress in the world. Yet we find, that not more than a century after\nthe flood, a city was begun, a fact already attempted to be explained;\nand to what was then said it may be farther added, that the Tower\nof Babel, which belonged to this city, was clearly monumental--it\nwas 'to make a name.' Although no vestiges of the ancient cities of\nAsia or of Egypt remain, sufficient from inspection to corroborate\nthe descriptions of history, these lead to the belief, that, in many\ninstances, the plan and architecture were both regular and grand. The\nreader, however, ought to be on his guard against the amplifications\nof Scriptural and Homeric accounts contained in later authorities, in\nas far as the former describe relatively, according to the state of\nthings in their own age and experience; whereas the latter, too often\nforgetting this distinction, convey the impression, that grandeur\nand magnificence were absolute. Yet, even with this abatement, there\nremains sufficient ground of admiration in the ideas excited of Thebes,\nBabylon, Nineveh, or Memphis. There appears, in this respect, a very\nstriking difference between the cities of the second age, after the\narts had migrated into Europe. Many circumstances tend to confirm the\nopinion, that, even in Greece, Municipal Architecture in general was\nnot much studied, and that there were few, if any, really fine cities\namong the numerous capitals of that country. Their magnificence was\nconcentrated in particular spots--in their agorai, or squares. Their\ntemples usually stood apart; so that, like the cities of modern Italy,\nwhatever might be the beauty, or the romantic effect of their distant\nappearance, internally, they often appear to have been little more\nthan an irregular assemblage of narrow winding streets. Such we know\nAthens to have been to a very late period. Sparta was long an unwalled\nvillage. Argos, Thebes, or Corinth, cannot be placed in comparison\nwith the before mentioned capitals of Asia and Egypt. Even Rome, to\nthe age of Nero, was crowded, unwholesome, and mean, over a great\nportion of its less important surface. In one respect, however, it\nseems to have differed greatly from every other ancient city of which\nwe read, namely, in the great elevation of the houses; in almost every\nother instance we are led to an opposite inference, which is further\ncorroborated by the present appearance of Pompeii.\n\nWith the _Domestic Architecture_ of the primitive ages, to which our\naccounts have hitherto been confined, the acquaintance to be obtained\nis exceedingly limited. In the description of Solomon's Palace, and\nin various passages of Homer, considerable details are given of the\npalatial dwellings; but how the greater part of mankind were lodged,\nfew means of determining remain. Protection against the vicissitudes\nof climate would first employ the instinctive ingenuity of man; next,\nconveniency would be consulted, by enlarging the dimensions of his\nabode. Both these objects might be obtained, while yet the original\ncircular area was retained. As some ideas, however, of the comforts\nand decencies of life prevailed, seclusion of the different orders and\nsexes in the members of the family would be sought; and hence division\nof one common apartment into separate portions. But as circular space\nadmits of division very imperfectly, and with loss, this new necessity\nwould introduce, or at least render permanent, the rectangular shape of\nthe domestic abode.\n\n_Military Architecture_ is but little connected with the history of the\nscience, from the peculiar nature of those principles of construction\nwhich it recognises. Here design is regulated by circumstances\nexternal to the art, and which, therefore, though enriched by novel\ncombinations in its later and more impure modes, received originally\nno component elements, from a branch which has universally and largely\nengrossed the attention of mankind. The application of architecture\nto the purposes of defence, would not take place till a comparatively\nlater period in the history of the species. Men would previously have\nacquired ideas of the right and value of property, and divided into\nseparate communities by political or moral distinctions. Mere defence\nwould be the first object in military erections; a wall, a rampart, or\nbarrier, of altitude and strength sufficient to resist, or rather to\ndisappoint, any sudden attack, would be all for some time required;\nand, subsequently, with facility of access to the summit, for the\npurpose of hurling stones from vantage ground upon the assailants,\nthese defences for long would be complete, by the obvious addition of\na ditch. As the arts of violence, and especially as missile warfare\nimproved, experience would point out the impossibility of defending,\neven with a ditch, a long unbroken line of wall, consistently with the\nsafety of the defenders, who, in the attempt to overlook the whole,\nwould necessarily be exposed to the hostile weapons. To obviate this\ndefect, and that the whole line might be seen, and the approaches\ncommanded from points within itself, towers projecting beyond the face\nof the wall were constructed, thus finishing the whole of the science\nof ancient fortification. Cities, with towers and battlements on this\nplan, were found by the Jews in Syria, where they had existed for ten\ncenturies before. The same was the system of the Greeks and Romans; and\nall the varieties of feudal defences are but applications, and even the\ninventions now in use are but modifications of the primeval fortress,\nwhich, in adaptations to the exigencies and science of the time, have\nalso removed from it all picturesque effect and all scenic grandeur,\nsuch as the fortalice of old, even in its 'ruins grey,' yet produces.\n\nSuch is a rapid sketch of the origin and principles of architectural\ndesign; and such the extent to which, in practice, history informs us\nthey had been carried in the ancient world. The details, necessarily\nvery imperfect, now given, belong to what may be termed the first age\nin the history of the art. The second era commences with the earliest\nappearances of regular architectural science in Europe, marked by the\nerection of temples in Greece, soon after, or nearly contemporary with,\nthe labours of Solomon, which were commenced 1015 B. C.\n\nBefore entering upon European art, it will be useful, as formerly\nhinted, briefly to examine the monuments still existing in Egypt of\nthe architecture of the first age,--the probable sources of those\nprimitive modes, which, adopted in rudeness, by Grecian taste refined\nand matured, have become immutable. In addition to what has already\nbeen stated in the first article, and in reference to the present\nsubject, it will be necessary merely to explain the general character\nand principles of these aboriginal structures, with the view of\nascertaining whether, and to what extent, these have influenced the\nsubsequent and more perfect science of the Grecian architect.\n\nOf ancient Egypt, the government was not only peculiar, but\ncontemplated peculiar results--pursued, too, with undeviating purpose,\nthrough an unknown succession of ages. Hence the enduring greatness of\nthe works it has left; but as the ends were, from the commencement, so\nfixed as to forbid progressive means, hence the uniformity of imperfect\ncharacter in these labours, exhibiting much of the elements, but none\nof the perfections of taste.\n\nThe eternal durability to which, in all things, the hierarchy aspired,\npointed out a style of architecture, especially in their sacred\nbuildings, retaining, as most substantial, only the simplest forms and\nthe largest masses. Hence, in these mysterious structures, whatever\ndeficiency may be perceived in beauty or grace, is compensated by\nvastness and simplicity, the most powerful elements of the grand.\nIn beholding these mighty fabrics, then, even laying aside the\nassociations of unnumbered centuries, if neither the most refined nor\nagreeable emotions be experienced, the imagination is exalted to a high\npitch of awe, astonishment, and admiration. Long withdrawing lines,\nunbroken surfaces, simple contours, immense blocks, even while the\nindividual forms are destitute of proportion, harmony, or grace, will\never produce a solemn sublimity of effect.\n\nBut it now occurs to inquire, before the merit of rational design can\nbe granted, or these architectonic labours admitted among the works\nof genius,--Do these lofty effects arise from principle, or are they\npurely accidental? Are they the meditated results of science and taste,\nor are they merely inevitable consequences of the large and enduring\nstyle which the political system recommended?\n\nUpon the nature of the reply to these questions will, in a great\nmeasure, depend the rank of the Greeks, as original inventors and\nrefiners of taste in architecture. Now, there can be no doubt that in\nthese, to use Strabo's expression, 'barbarous monuments of painful\nlabour,' the sublimity and imposing solemnity of the general effect\nis incidental, not inherent. It is the grandeur of mass, not of\nproportion. The imagination is subdued, indeed, by vastness, but\nneither is the fancy delighted by tracing a well preserved resemblance\nto any acknowledged prototype, nor is the judgment instructed\nby the contemplation of a harmony consistent in itself, though\nderiving its elements from no immediate source. We discover neither\nimitation nor creative taste, for imitation is ever destroyed by\nsome monstrous incongruity, and originality becomes aimless through\ninterminable variety of accessories. As a science, then, beyond the\nrules necessarily imposed by the leading intention of durability, we\ndetect nothing in the architecture of Egypt like the universal harmony\ngiven to it in Greece. The same is the character of Indian art, with\nstill more of incongruous union; for here the massive simplicity of\nthe original, or at least earliest source, for so we have already\nshown Egyptian art to be, is broken down and loaded with frittered\nand pretending ornament, Syria, or the vast district lying between,\nfurnishes nothing beyond conjecture, or rather in the only instance,\nthat of Solomon's labours, where we attain some information on which\nimplicit reliance may be placed--clear manifestations are discovered\nof mixed art, in which that of Egypt predominated. Thus, in the whole\nof the ancient world, about a thousand years before our present era,\nand when the Greeks first, or soon after, began to erect temples, there\nexisted no science complete in itself, or whose principles even had\nbeen elicited from the chaotic mass of materials, by which they could\nhave been directed, in their own matchless monuments. Whatever of\ngrace and of beauty--of dignity and truth--of sublimity and harmonious\nproportion,--whatever of architectonic excellence, grounded on the\nmost profound principles of taste, and established on the sure basis\nof geometry,--whatever of all this can be discovered in the building\nof Greece, she owes it to the superiority of native genius. Yet the\nobligations to Egyptian predecessors were neither few nor unimportant.\nThe rectangular area, in which the breadth should bear a proportion\nless to the length, a shape of all others best adapted to beauty and\nconvenience, was introduced. A still less obvious source of almost\nevery higher beauty in the science--columnar architecture--was there\npractised so early, that whether it originated in the country, or was\nintroduced, is unknown. Even the system of ornament may, in its rise\nat least, be traced in these primeval remains; for not a single detail\nafterwards introduced may not, in a rudimental, often nearly perfected\nstate, be remarked; especially the beautiful idea of floral ornaments.\nLastly, in the works of Egyptian art, very perfect examples of\nmechanical practice, both in dressing and laying the materials, might\nbe observed in almost every instance. All these elements, however, the\nlast excepted, jarring among themselves, whether as wholes or parts,\nwere to be selected, arranged, methodized, and animated by grace,\nharmony, nobleness,--in short, the science of architecture was yet to\nbe created.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n\nIN treating briefly of the architecture of Greece, though there still\nexist remains of astonishing magnitude, and of the greatest beauty yet\nattained among men, there are, notwithstanding, manifold difficulties\nin the attempt to treat historically of its origin and progress.\nWhatever information is to be derived from native writers composes\nmerely incidental notices, mixed up with those wild traditions and\ndreamy lore, in which the Greeks, from ignorance or vanity, or both,\nseem to have delighted in wrapping up the sources of their knowledge.\nIt is almost certain, indeed, that they never possessed, on the\npresent subject, any writings beyond the mere technical treatises\nwhich must have been in the hands of architects. The compilation\nof Vitruvius might be supposed amply to supply this defect of more\noriginal materials; but, as respects the history of the art, this is\nnot the case. His accounts of the state of architecture in his own\ntime, that of Augustus, and the various scientific details into which\nhe enters, are excellent; they show him to have probably possessed all\nthe requisites which he enumerates as necessary to form an accomplished\narchitect, high as he rates the profession. The historical department\nof his work, again, is extremely defective, not only in point of\nresearch, but in the fanciful nature of the theories. He entirely keeps\nout of view all reference to skill anterior to the arts of Greece;\nwhile, with the incredible fables received in that country, he mixes\nup no less groundless notions of his own. To these difficulties in the\nmore ancient sources of information, there is to be added the obscurity\narising from modern hypothesis.\n\nUnder these circumstances, and while the present limits preclude\nlengthened discussion on any topic, the most eligible and useful\nprocedure appears to offer in a plain narrative of facts, illustrated\nby a description of actual remains, by reference to ancient authors,\nparticularly Homer, and by analogies drawn from the state of society\nand manners. Here there can be given only the general results of such\nan inquiry.\n\nThe earliest architectural remains in Greece appear to have been\nmilitary erections, or at least constructions for the purposes of\ndefence. This corresponds with the condition of a country, peopled,\nas we know this portion of Europe to have been, when first noticed\nin history, by different tribes, hostile, generally speaking, to\neach other, and in all instances fearing and feared by the rude and\nfierce aboriginal possessors. In the instances where comparison can be\ninstituted, the gigantic elements of these structures, and the manner\nof their union, refer us to Egypt, or the cognate style of Syria; most\nprobably, however, to the former, by way of Crete, which, as already\nshown, formed the intervening station in the progress of civilization.\nThe traditions, whether poetical, or merely narrative, connected with\nthese monuments--whether they be ascribed to the labours of the gods,\nor to the arts of the Cyclops, whence their common appellation--all\npoint to a foreign origin, and to imported skill. This knowledge, too,\nmust have been brought from a distance. Even on the adjacent shores of\nAsia, we find the walls of Troy ascribed by Homer to celestial skill--a\nclear proof that in his time there existed, neither in Greece, nor in\nthe neighboring regions, experience adequate to such a work.\n\nOf these fortresses, the most celebrated, and probably the most\nancient, is Tiryrns, in the plain of Argos, and attributed to the\nLycians, about six generations prior to the Trojan war. This cyclopean\nwall includes a circuit of about a quarter of a mile, enclosing an\ninconsiderable elevation above the general level of the plain. Thus\nhave evidently been composed the defences of the included town; but the\ndisproportion between the means of security and the object protected\nappears amazing, and must have been considered as wonderful even in the\nage of Homer, who, in his catalogue, distinguishes this city by the\nepithet 'well-walled,' or, as Pope has rendered the passage,\n\n  Whom strong Tyrenth\u00e9's lofty walls surround.\n\nIndeed, of all the characteristics added to the Grecian confederates,\nthe distinction of their walled cities is by far the most frequent.\nOf all these, however, the one now mentioned only retains a degree of\nregularity seeming to bid defiance to further dilapidation from time,\nand capable of being overturned only by a force equal to that employed\nin the construction. Several entrances are yet to be traced, one of\nwhich has, opening into it, a gallery formed in the thickness of the\nwall. It is worthy of remark, that the top of this passage is covered,\nexactly as in the great pyramid, by immense stones, placed one on each\nside, and meeting at an acute angle in the centre. Near in point of\nsituation, but somewhat later in time, are the walls of the 'proud\nMycen\u00e6' of Homer, an interesting ruin in the age of Thucydides, four\nhundred years before our era. These remains show evident correspondence\nwith the style of Egypt. The very gateway, described by the author just\nmentioned, and subsequently by Pausanius, still remains; formed of\nsingle blocks, the jambs incline narrowing upwards to eight feet, and\nsupport a lintel twelve feet in length.[D]\n\nNext in point of antiquity and preservation to the preceding are those\nsingular remains in Greece; to which the name of Treasury has been\ngiven, on the supposition, that as the former were constructed as\ndefences against hostile violence, the latter were erected as places\nof security for valuable property. From the frequent mention of such\nstructures during the heroic age, and from the preservation of the\nnames, true or false, of two architects, Agamides and Trophonius,\nmost eminent in their construction, they seem to have been regarded\nas of no ordinary importance. We are informed that both states and\nindividuals had such places of safe custody, before temples either\nexisted or were employed as repositories for treasure. Of these\nbuildings, one of the most perfect, and indeed the most interesting\nrelic of those earliest times, is the treasury of Atreus amid the ruins\nof Mycen\u00e6. Externally it presents the appearance of a mound of earth;\nbut the interior is found to be a magnificent structure, circular,\nfifty feet in diameter, and rather more in height, composed of stones\nof great size, each course projecting inwards and over the one below,\ntill, meeting in a small aperture at top, the whole is shut in by a\nmass of very large dimensions. The general form is thus a hollow cone,\nor paraboloid, the surface of which appears to have been coated with\nplates of metal, as brazen nails still remain in many parts. These\ndefences, both for person and property, prepared with such skill and\nsolicitude, afford a very striking view of the turbulent and dangerous\nstate of society. They are, in fact, records, lasting almost as the\nIliad itself, of an age capable of such outrages as gave foundation\nto that divine poem, and to whose verisimilitude they thus supply\nunequivocal testimony.\n\nInto the condition of domestic architecture during the same period,\nneither the poems of Homer, nor any collateral source, afford much\ninsight. Both in the Iliad and Odyssey, palaces are described, but\nin an extremely general as well as indefinite manner. Between these\nloose accounts and the graphic delineations which the same author\nhas given of sculptured ornaments, as in the shield of Achilles, it\nis easy to perceive the difference of a description without a model,\nand from reality. Sculpture, as a regular art, had already made\nprogress; the science of architecture was yet unknown. These palaces,\nwhich appear to have answered all purposes of public edifices, are\ndescribed as very capacious, as containing numerous apartments, and as\nvery rich in doors of ivory and gold, with posts of silver; but not\nthe slightest impression occurs indicative of any regular order of\narchitectonic ornament or design. Magnificence and lavish profusion of\nsplendor are everywhere confounded with beauty and grace and regular\nart. During the Homeric age, then, it is plain that the orders were\nyet unknown--a deduction exactly tallying with the state of art in\nEgypt, where from the inspection of existing monuments, it is evident,\nthat a system or order was in like manner undiscovered. True, the\nEgyptian edifices resemble each other in general character, and even\nto their measurements agree; but the same building rises into endless\nmultiplicity of subordinate parts and forms. So Homer heaps riches\nupon riches, ornament above ornament, making that fine which he cannot\nrender great. This affords more valuable evidence of his veracity than\nit detracts from his genius. Even the palace of Troy, though Paris\nhimself is represented as a great architect, is described in the same\ngeneral terms:\n\n  And now to Priam's stately courts he came,\n  Raised on arch'd columns of stupendous frame;\n  O'er these a range of marble structure runs,\n  The rich pavilion of his fifty sons,\n  In fifty chambers lodged; and rooms of state,\n  Opposed to these, where Priam's daughters sat;\n  Twelve domes for them, and their loved spouses shone,\n  Of equal beauty, and of polished stone.\n\nThis, and indeed almost every other passage referring to the practical\narts of antiquity, is very incorrectly translated. From a comparison\nof various original descriptions of palatial buildings, a tolerable\nidea of the highest efforts of architecture during the Homeric and\nsucceeding ages may be obtained. They appear universally to have been\nplaced so as to enclose a court, along the sides of which ran an open\ncorridore, formed by pillars; for the word corresponding to column\ndoes not once occur in the Iliad. These pillars, as may still be seen\nin Egyptian buildings, were united by flat epistylia or architraves,\nfor the phrase, 'arched columns,' is nonsense. During the times of the\nIliad, no division of stories appears to have been practised; and the\nexpression lofty chamber, so often occurring, seems to imply that the\nwhole was open to the roof; for the apartments, with the exception of\nthe great hall, do not otherwise induce the idea of great magnitude. In\nthe Odyssey again, to this mode of division distinct reference is made,\na circumstance which, with many others respecting the arts, points\nto a later as the age of that poem. The roof itself may be inferred\nfrom incidental remarks to have been pointed, composed of wooden beams\ninclined towards each other, and supported in the central angle by\ncolumns or shafts of wood; for wherever the word occurs in the early\npoetical literature of Greece, an internal member is implied, and from\nthe casual introduction, one of necessity, not ornament, the only\nadjunct being lofty or tall, exactly corresponding with the distinction\nhere supposed.\n\nIt is evident, then, that we must examine elsewhere for the origin of\nornamental architecture in Greece. And the only other department of the\nart refers to buildings for sacred purposes. But even here, mighty and\ngraceful as are the existing ruins, many ages elapse before we reach\nthe era of the temple--where\n\n    The whole so measured true, so lessen'd off,\n    By fine proportion that the marble pile,\n    Form'd to repel the still or stormy waste\n    Of rolling ages, light as fabrics look'd,\n    That from the magic wand aerial rise.\n\nThroughout the whole of the Iliad no mention occurs of a temple in\nGreece, except in the second book, evidently incidental, and the\ninterpolation of some vainly patriotic Athenian rhapsodist. The\npassage, indeed, might be condemned, on the grounds of philological\ndiscussion, but it contradicts both the history of art and of religion\nin that country. In Troy, the temple of Minerva appears to have been a\nmere shrine, in which a statue was enclosed, and probably, in Tenedos,\na temple of Apollo is merely alluded to. During the age of Homer,\nthen, the primeval altar, common both to Europe and Asia, was the only\nsacred edifice known. This differed little from a common hearth; the\nsacrifice being in fact a social rite, the victim, at once an offering\nto heaven, and the food of man, was prepared by roasting; the first\nimprovement upon this simple construction appears to have been the\naddition of a pavement, an obvious means of cleanliness and comfort.\nYet even this appears to have constituted a distinction at least not\ncommon, since, in particular instances, the pavement is mentioned as a\npeculiar ornament. Subsequently, in order to mark in a more conspicuous\nmanner, and with more dignity, the sacred spot, while the rites should\nbe equally exposed to the spectators, an open colonnade was added,\nenclosing the altar and pavement. Thus the roofless temple might be\nsaid to be finished; but whether this primeval structure existed in\nhis native country during the age of Homer, does not appear. We remark\nhere a very striking resemblance between the ancient places of devotion\nin Greece, and the Druidical temple of the more northern regions. In\nfact, the astonishing remains at Stonehenge present the best known,\nand perhaps one of the most stupendous examples ever erected of the\nopen temple. This species of religious erection appears to have been\nco-extensive with the spread of the human race, and not, as generally\nsupposed, limited to the northern portion of the globe.\n\nThe revolutions in Greece, which abolished the regal, while they\nrespected and increased the pontifical authority, the gradual additions\nof magnificence and convenience to the places of sacrifice, producing\nat length the regular temple; the change of design from the circle\nto the quadrangle; all these can now only be conjectured as to their\ncauses and progressive vicissitudes. One thing appears certain,\nthat the earliest approaches to the perfect temple were erections\nof wood; and this materially contributed to fix the character of\nlater architecture: yet there still remain temples of stone, whose\ndate transcends the epochs of known history. During this interval,\nGrecian architecture assumed regularity and science, for the earliest\ndawnings of authentic information light us to monuments of a systematic\nstyle, differing from the Egyptian in the rejection of all variety of\nornament, yet, like it, solemn, massive, and imposing. This is the\norder which, subsequently, under the name of Doric, extended over the\nwhole of Greece and her colonies. To this the most ancient species\nof the art, various origin has been assigned; but from our imperfect\nknowledge of contemporary events, and from the impossibility of\nextending research, it is plain that nothing can with certainty be\nknown. The most ably supported, but not less improbable theory, is\nthat of Dr Wilkins, already referred to, who supposes the order to\nhave been directly introduced from Syria, and Solomon's temple; his\nreasonings and calculations on this subject present a rare combination\nof ingenuity, learning, and practical science. The premises, however,\nare assumed, namely, that the word translated 'chapiter' in the\ncommon version of the book of Kings, means not only the capital, but\nincludes the entablature also; a gratuitous assumption, opposed by the\ndimensions still visible in the parent source of Egyptian columns,\nand which, even granted, would not prove an identity in purpose and\nproportion with the Greek order. The hypothesis of Vitruvius is\nfanciful, namely, that the proportion of the human foot to the height\nof the body, was adopted as the rule for the proportion of the base\nto the elevation of the column. The most probable view seems to be,\nthat this order sprung up as the fruit of continued observation on\nthe practice of Egyptian art, as compared with the methods of wooden\nerection employed among the early Greeks themselves. This would\nnecessarily give an intermediate style in simplicity and lightness;\nthe pine, common in the ancient forests of Greece, truncated for any\npurpose, gives at once a very near approximation to the shaft; the\nsame tree converted into a squared beam, gives the horizontal binding\nor architrave; the merely ornamental or subordinate members would be\nsuggested in progressive operations of experience, or they might be\nintroduced by selection; for, as already noted, every ornament of\nsucceeding art, though not under the same combinations, is to be found\nin the Egyptian modes. The whole history of taste, even as touched\nupon in these pages, favors this slow and native growth of an art\namong every people remarkable for its successful cultivation. The\nthree orders--the Doric, the Ionic, and the Corinthian, exhibit also\nthis gradual process of discovery and advance to perfection. It is\nhistorically, as well as poetically true, that\n\n              ----First, unadorn'd,\n  And nobly plain, the manly Doric rose;\n  The Ionic then with decent matron grace\n  Her airy pillar heaved; luxuriant last\n  The rich Corinthian spread her wanton wreath.\n\nThe character of genius in Greece likewise favors these views, more\nexquisitely alive to beauty, to propriety, to decorous simplicity and\ngrandeur, than distinguished for those qualities that more decisively\nbelong to invention--fire, impetuosity, wild irregularity, or rude\nmajesty.\n\nNeither then were the primitive elements invented, and thence without\naid of more ancient knowledge, the orders or systems of architecture\nbrought to perfection in Greece; nor was any one of these introduced\nwholly or at once in a state approaching to perfect symmetry and\narrangement. In this, as in all their arts, no less than in their\nliterature, the Greeks borrowed, imitated, selected,--and yet they\ncreated--they assimilated discordant variety to one solemn breathing\nharmony--they brought out every latent germ of beauty that lay\noverwhelmed in the mass of more ancient thought. From the dark yet\nmighty accumulations of Eastern knowledge and skill, their genius spake\nforth that light and that perfection which, in human wisdom and taste,\nstill guides, corrects, and animates. Yet their improvements were but\nso many--important indeed--intermediate gradations in the universal\nsystem of obligation which nations owe to each other. But while sound\njudgment constrains the rejection of the exclusive pretensions of\nthe Greek writers on the particular subject in question, it must be\nconfessed there is in these something more than pleasing. They are\nnot selfish; they are deeply connected with the sympathies and the\nfeelings--the truest, best associations in objects of art. Though we\nfind all the elements of composition in Egyptian architecture, and must\nbelieve that the Greek orders were in their origin thence derived;\nyet the very idea, that the sedate grandeur of the Doric borrowed\nits majesty from imitation of man's vigorous frame and decorous\ncarriage; or that the chaste proportions of the graceful Ionic were but\nresemblances of female elegance and modesty,--the belief of all this,\nso carefully cherished, was calculated to produce the happiest effect\nupon living manners. So also, though the origin of the Corinthian\ncapital is apparent in an object emblematic over the whole East,\nand not unknown even in some Christian forms, the mysterious lotus,\nwhose leaves so frequently constitute the adornment of the Egyptian\ncolumn; still, how dear to the heart the thought of most perfect skill\nreceiving its model from the humble tribute of affection placed on the\ngrave of the Corinthian maid, round which nature had by chance thrown\nthe graceful acanthus! If, in the sober inquiries of history, such\nopinions are removed, the act is done with regret. Yet in this onward\npath of truth, if one blossom planted there by human feeling must be\nbeaten down, how grateful the incense even of the crushed flower!\n\nThe three orders now mentioned constitute the whole system of Greek\narchitecture. The Doric appears to have been the most ancient,\nand continued down to the period of the Roman conquest to be most\nextensively employed in the European states of Greece, as these were\ncolonized chiefly by the Dorians--hence the name. Of this order are the\nmost celebrated remains of ancient art, which may be divided into two\ngreat classes, namely, those of Greece, and of the Greek settlements\nin Sicily and Southern Italy. The first class of buildings comprehends\na space extending from the earliest traditions, when \u00c6achus, in the\ncommencement of the tenth century before Christ, is reported to have\nbuilt the temple of Jupiter still remaining in \u00c6gina, to the erection\nof the Parthenon, the noblest monument of this order, which, from its\nbeauty, and the predilection in its favor, has been termed the Grecian.\nSubsequently, decline appears so early as the era of the Macedonian\nempire; but the latest erection is supposed coeval with the reign of\nAugustus. Within the ten centuries thus comprehended between the first\nand last application of the Doric order, must have been erected those\nmagnificent structures whose ruins still adorn Greece. The probable\nages of these are as follow: commencing with the \u00c6ginetic ruin just\nmentioned, whose date is lost in remote antiquity, and which seems to\nhave formed the second remove only in the march of art westward from\nits primeval sources, to Crete, \u00c6gina, Greece. Next, the celebrated\nfour columns near Corinth. The temple of Jupiter at Olympia either\nprecedes or follows, the architect Libon, and the roof, the first of\nthe kind, formed of marble tiles, the invention of Byzes of Naxos. An\ninterval occurs here, carrying us forward to the Athenian structures,\nthe most ancient of which, the temple of Theseus, belongs to a much\nlater period than any of the preceding. The date of the Propylea and\nthe Parthenon crowning the Acropolis, and placed in situation as in\nexcellence eminently conspicuous, is fixed by the most splendid names\nin Grecian art;--they were built under the direction of Phidias, the\nformer by Mnesicles, the latter by Ictinus, encouraged by the patronage\nof Pericles.\n\n  Ancient of days! august Athena! where,\n  Where are thy men of might? thy grand in soul?\n  Gone--glimmering through the dream of things that were.\n  First in the race that led to Glory's goal,--\n  They're sought in vain, and o'er each mouldering tower,\n  Dim with the mist of years, grey flits the shade of power.\n\nTo Ictinus is also to be ascribed the most perfect vestige of antiquity\nnow in existence, the Temple of the Apollo Epicurius, in Arcadia, and\nwhich is reported to have been one of the most splendid buildings of\nthe Peloponnesus. The magnificent columns which 'crown Sunium's marble\nsteep,' belong to the same era, and probably to the same school. For\nsixty years afterwards, we have no decline in the grandeur or purity\nof the Doric, as yet appears in the ruins of Messene, a city built\nby Epaminondas, and still exhibiting the most perfect specimen of\nancient military architecture. But the victories of this warrior were\nparricidal triumphs; they were gained over those who ought to have been\nas brothers. In sculpture, we have already seen that this era marks\nthe retrogression of the manly and the grand in style; it is so in\narchitecture, for in less than forty years, a great declension in these\nrespects must have taken place in this the grandest and most severe\nof the orders, as is attested by the specimen in the isle of Delos,\ninscribed with the name of Philip of Macedon. After this the Doric\neither fell into desuetude, or the works have perished, for the only\nremaining example is the portico, erected by Augustus in one of the\n_agorai_ or squares of Athens.\n\nOf the remains of Doric architecture in the ancient seats of the\nSicilan and Italian colonies, the dates, even with ordinary accuracy,\nit is impossible individually to ascertain. The former claim the\nhighest antiquity in some, but not in all instances. The temple\nof Egesta, in the interior of the island, is perhaps one of the\noldest, yet among the least imperfect monuments of the art in Europe;\ncontemporary or earlier, is the temple of Minerva, at Syracuse; the\nother remains near that city are of a later date. The ponderous ruins\nat Selinus, which consist of no less than six temples, one of which,\nthree hundred and thirty-one feet in length, composed of a double\nperistyle of columns sixty feet high, must have presented one of the\nsublimest objects ever reared by human art. Ruins at Agrigentum--Temple\nof Juno most picturesque, of Concord very perfect--three others, last\nthe grand Temple of Olympian Jupiter, one of the most stupendous\nbuildings of the ancient world, and whose buried materials swell into\nhills or subside in valleys, over which we have ourselves wandered,\nwithout at first knowing that we trode upon the prostrate labours of\nman, and not the workings of nature.\n\nWith the exception of the two first, these remains as also the Temple\nof Apollo, at Gela, seem to be nearly of the same age. Indeed, their\nerection can be fixed between certain limits, by comparison of\nhistorical details, in which, either by direct mention or inference,\na connexion is traced between the political condition and the arts of\nthe Sicilian cities. Proceeding in this manner, it is found that all of\nthese enormous piles rose in little more than a century, embracing the\ngreater part of the fifth, and the early portion of the fourth, before\nour era. These edifices thus fall in with the interval already noticed\nbetween the earliest Doric buildings in Greece, and the erection of\nthe Athenian temples. Accordingly, there appear in them more noble\nproportions and a greater elevation of column than in the former, still\nwithout the graceful majesty of the latter. Under what circumstances,\nhowever, or by what science, many of these wonderful fabrics were\nreared, history affords no information. Of the rise and the overthrow,\nfor instance, of the temples at Selinus, we know nothing; some even\ndoubt whether human power could have overthrown what it had elevated;\nand ascribe the regular prostration of the gigantic columns, each\noften exactly in a line, extending outwards from its base, as if\noverturned but yesterday, to the concussion of an earthquake. These\nappearances we have certainly remarked with astonishment, and have\nbeheld, and measured, and wandered amid the ruins, with admiration not\nunmingled with awe; but the truth was obvious, that the same age which\ncould arrange these masses into symmetry, could also have cast them\ndown as they now lie. And we know that it was the same age--for one\npage, almost one sentence, records both their rise and their fall. Yet\nof the energies and knowledge of that age, our own has no conception.\nThe riches of any one of the sovereigns of Europe, and the skill of his\nwisest subjects, would barely suffice for the erection of only one of\nthe six Selinuntine temples--the works of a distant colony of Greece.\nThat this may not appear exaggeration, let the reader contemplate\nfor a moment an edifice--the porticos of which alone would require\none hundred columns of stone, each sixty feet high, and thirty in\ncircumference--such was the great Temple of Selinus.\n\nThe celebrated ruins of P\u00e6stum, consisting of two temples and a\nquadrangular portico, containing eighteen columns in flank, and seven\nin front, compose the only Grecian Doric remains in Italy. The date and\norigin of these structures will probably ever remain liable to doubt.\nThis arises partly from the singular nature of some of the buildings\nthemselves, as well as from the obscurity which rests upon this\nportion of history in general. The greater of the two temples bears\nevident character of the same design and architectural principles as\nthe Sicilian edifices; between which latter, indeed, as compared with\neach other, there exists, in this respect, a very striking uniformity,\npointing to a nearly contemporary erection. Hence the inference seems\nclear, that to the same era the P\u00e6stan ruin is to be referred, and that\nit is the work of Greek colonists from Sybaris, who, from the middle\nof the sixth century B. C., for more than two hundred years enjoyed\npeaceable possession of this part of Lucania. This temple, though not\nequal in magnitude to some ruins in Sicily, is a very noble, and the\nlargest pile in a state of such perfection out of Greece. Not a single\ncolumn of the outer peristylia is wanting. It was within this 'pillared\nrange,' during the moonlight of a troubled sky, we experienced emotions\nof the awful and sublime, such as impress a testimony, never to be\nforgotten, of the power of art over the affections of the mind.\n\nThe other ruins, which some consider a temple and a hall of justice,\nothers, with greater probability, two temples, though, like the former\nin situation,\n\n  They stand between the mountain and the sea,\n  Awful memorials, but of whom we know not,\n\nare far inferior in dignity of effect and purity of style. Nor are\nthese defects the consequences of a progressive knowledge advancing to\nbetter things, they are evident corruptions of ancient simplicity. Both\nthese are to be referred to a period posterior to the Roman conquest of\nthe city, which occurred in the 481st year of Rome, that is, not three\ncenturies before our era. Of the same age are the walls, remaining in\nconsiderable entireness, especially the eastern gate, as represented\nin the vignette, where the voussoirs, or arch-stones, still span the\nentrance.\n\nHere it may be proper, without going into the particular facts and\nreasonings upon which the inference is founded, merely to state, that,\nregarding the introduction of the arch into classic architecture, the\nweight of evidence is against any knowledge of its use or construction\nprior to the era of Alexander. Indeed, the arch is contrary to the\nwhole genius of the Greek system, which delights in the simplicity of\nhorizontal and perpendicular lines, to which the contrasts, minute\ndivisions, and constantly recurring breaks of arched building, are most\ndirectly opposed. During the pure ages of truly Grecian taste, the very\nimprovements and changes which successively ensued, all tended to guide\ninvention farthest from the arch. To add elevation to the column, and\nto increase the unbroken length of the entablature, were objects most\ndirectly pursued. The greater richness or variety of ornament thus\nadmitted, was an advantage rather incidental than contemplated, though\nwith exquisite skill rendered available--\n\n  ----without o'erflowing--full.\n\nWhether the Ionic order of architecture originated merely as a\nvariation on the 'Dorian mode,' or as a separate invention, it is not\neasy, and not of much importance, to determine. The two ideas may be\nreconciled; remains of Ionic are found coeval with the earliest certain\naccounts of the Doric edifices; so far the former was independent,\nand having arisen among the Ionian states, where subsequently it\ncontinued to be employed in preference, it thus obtained a distinct\nname and character. Afterwards, however, on being brought into use in\nEuropean Greece, architects appear to have studied its capabilities,\nchiefly in contrast with the corresponding proprieties of the Doric.\nHere something like an encroachment was made on its separate identity;\nor rather, the artists of those times contemplated each system as a\nmodification, in part, of one great whole, bearing a relation only to\nthe emotions of grandeur and beauty. This is still the proper view\nin which the orders are to be regarded in reference to excellence\nin architectural composition. Now, indeed, the moderns possess the\nadvantage of a principle then unknown--the principle of association,\nwhich both limits the field of choice, and increases the beauty of a\njust selection.\n\nOf the Ionic order, few remains are extant in Greece or her\ncolonies--few, we mean, as compared with the amazing structures just\nconsidered. The Temple of Juno, in the Isle of Samos, raised about\nthe first Olympiad by R\u00e6chus and Theodorus, already noticed as the\nfounders of the Samian School of Sculpture, supplies the earliest\nspecimen. This, in the age of Herodotus, was the grandest building in\nGreece. How rapidly the order must have improved! Many archaisms, not\nto say barbarous inventions, occur. Next in age has been placed the\nsingular but not ungraceful monument at Agrigentum, called the Tomb of\nTheron. Here we discover, indeed, Ionic columns, but everything else is\nDoric--proofs, first, of the antiquity of the monument; and secondly,\nof the truth of our opinion, more than once hinted in these pages, that\nthe Dorian colonies in Sicily were original settlements from the East,\nlittle or no intermediate connexion having taken place between them\nand the Dorians of the Peloponnesus, who affected to be considered as\nthe mother country. If pursued to the full extent of its consequences,\nthis position would go far to explain several doubts, in regard to the\nearly power and arts of the Sicilian and Lucanian cities. The earliest\nexample of the true Ionic, is the Temple of Bacchus at Teos, erected,\nmost probably, soon after the Persian invasion, or not later than fifty\nyears after, or about 440 B. C. At Athens, however, in the temples of\nMinerva, Polias, and Erectheus, is to be found the most perfect remain\nof this order, but of what precise date is uncertain,--probably about\nthe era of the Peloponnesian war. Near Miletus, the Temple of Apollo,\nerected by the architects Peonius and Daphnis, brings us down to that\nof Minerva at Priene, by Pitheas, in the age of Alexander; after which\nno specimens are to be found more ancient than the Roman conquest, with\nthe exception of some in different parts of Asia Minor, whose dates\ncannot be ascertained.\n\nIn these two orders, now described, almost every beauty of composition\nhad been attained, except facility of arrangement, with that extreme\nsimplicity in which the taste of 'early Greece' seems to have placed\nthe very perfection of the art. In the Doric, the triglyphs broke in\nupon the unity of the entablature viewed in perspective, producing also\ncomplexity in the intervals, or difficulty of managing them. The Ionic,\nby removing the divisions of the zoophorus, left the guiding lines of\nthe horizontal members of the order unbroken, and with greater aptitude\nfor the introduction of ornament; still the capital deviated from the\nsimple harmony--the object contemplated by the artist, as it presented\ndifferent aspects viewed in front or in flank, and also was not equally\nadapted to all situations in the same range. By the invention of the\nCorinthian, the beauties of the former orders were combined, while\ntheir defects were also obviated; the removal of the triglyphs left\nthe arrangement unembarrassed, while the circular capital presented\nalways the same outline, and adapted itself equally to all positions.\nThe system of Greek architecture, the most perfect combination of the\nnecessities of science with forms most pleasing to the eye, that ever\ndid, or, we may venture to say, will exist, was completed. When this\nperfection was attained is doubtful, as we have elsewhere shown;[E]\nbut the question is of less importance, since it is known that the\nCorinthian order was employed by Scopas in the magnificent temple of\nMinerva at Tegea, erected between the 94th and 104th Olympiad, or\nnearly 400 years before the Christian era.\n\nOf the remaining monuments of this order, few can be ascribed to\nthe best ages of Grecian taste. It became the favorite style after\nAlexander, and especially of the Romans, to whom is to be attributed\nby far the greater part of the Corinthian remains now in Greece. The\ncircular erection of Lysicrates, commonly termed, from the occasion\ncommemorated, the Choragic Monument, built 342 B. C.; the octagonal\nedifice of Andronicus Cyrrhestes, apparently not much later; most\nprobably the magnificent remains of the temple of the Olympian Jupiter;\nand, according to Stuart, another ruin, which he calls the _Poikele\nStoa_, or painted portico, compose the sole remains of the order prior\nto the Roman conquest. The first is one of the most exquisite and\nperfect gems of architectural taste, and the purest specimen of the\norder, that has reached our time, whose minuteness and unobtrusive\nbeauty have preserved it almost entire amid the ruins of the mightiest\npiles of Athenian art. The second is curious in its contrivance to\nsupply ignorance of the arch. The fourth is of doubtful antiquity; but\nof the third, the columns, at least, are of the best age of Greece.\nThese, composed of the finest white marble, and of the most perfect\nworkmanship, with an elevation of nearly sixty feet, and belonging\nto an edifice four hundred long, awaken emotions of regret, of\nmagnificence, and of beauty, difficult to comprehend or to impart.\n\nIn thus briefly following out the history of the orders, as far as\nresearches can be authenticated by remaining examples, the narrative\nhas conducted us to the death of Alexander, A. C. 324, while it has\nincluded the consideration of every essential principle, for the\nGreeks never widely deviated from their established modes. The caryatic\nsupports of the Temples of the Nymph Pandrosos, still almost perfect\nat Athens, and the Persian portico said to have been at Sparta, form\nthe only exceptions to this observation. These, however, were never\nimitated--they were suffered as individual fantasies--not allowed as\nmodels. The period just considered, comprehending a space of about 113\nyears from Pericles to Alexander, was occupied almost exclusively with\nthe perfecting and application of the Ionic and Corinthian orders. The\nart had now attained, in all its modes, the highest character of purity\nand magnificence.\n\nFor more than two successive centuries, the history of the art would\nconduct to consideration of the labours of the Greek princes in the\nEast, when Asia received back the early information given to Europe.\nHow vast the interval of obligation! But of all the labours of those\ntimes, great as they must have been, when one alone of the Seleucidan\ndynasty founded forty cities, only a few remains in Ionia, with one or\ntwo in Greece, are known, or have been explored. To this period are\ndoubtless to be referred ruins in the Greek style, said to exist in\nSyria and Persia, while, as already noticed, the Romans justly claim\nthose more commonly visited; but over all these hangs an obscurity\nperhaps now impenetrable. Innovations upon the severe purity of ancient\ntaste were now certainly introduced; still the art had not suffered any\nlapse; the essential principles appear to have been fully understood,\nand sufficiently respected. This, indeed, is the case, to a degree of\nveneration not generally supposed, at least in the remains of Asia\nMinor, while now, in complete possession of a new and mighty element\nof design--the arch; never before had architecture exhibited so great\ncapabilities, or powers adequate to the most gigantic works, whether of\nuse or magnificence.\n\nIn this state the art passed into the hands of the Romans, when\nuniversal conquest had left them masters of the world. Thence commences\na new era in the history of architecture, distinguished, however,\nrather by new applications than by fresh inventions. The art continued\nessentially Greek, for, though to the Etruscans, and subsequently to\nthe early Romans, an order has been ascribed, no specimen of this\nTuscan capital has come down to our times, and consequently there\nexist no means of tracing the narrative or descriptions of Vitruvius.\nBut by the account even of this native writer, the public buildings\nof the regal and consular times were rude enough, exhibiting a state\nof the science as already described among the early nations of the\nEast--vertical supports of stone, with wooden bearers. This continued\nto be their style of design and practice, till extending empire brought\nthe Romans acquainted with the arts of the Dorian settlements on the\neast and southern shores of Italy. The situation of the capital,\nhowever, distant from accessible materials, the simplicity--not to say\nhomeliness of manners--and the constant bent of the national genius\ntowards foreign conquest, at first denied power to profit by accession\nof science, or subsequently diverted attention away from its pleasures\nand its advantages. Down to the conquest of Asia and the termination\nof the republic, Rome continued a 'city of wood and brick.' Only with\nthe establishment of the empire and the reign of Augustus, with the\nwealth of the world at command, and the skill of Greece to direct the\napplication, commences the valuable history of architecture among the\nRomans.\n\nThis, the last period of Classic Art, comprehends a space of about 350\nyears, terminating with the transference of the seat of empire by\nConstantine, A. D. 306. Of this interval, however, only the smaller\nportion must be given to a taste even comparatively pure; for, great\nas were its resources, symptoms of the decay of art, continually\nincreasing, are detected even from the first years of the imperial\ngovernment. Without entering minutely into these gradations, the death\nof Hadrian, A. D. 138, may be assumed as including both the noblest\nerections and the better taste of the empire. That to this date,\nthe essential characteristics of elegance and purity continued in a\ndegree untainted, there is evidence in the works of Hadrian at Athens.\nThus, during an interval of not less than 574 years, from Pericles\nto the last mentioned emperor, architecture, in this respect more\nfortunate than either sculpture or painting, flourished in splendor and\nexcellence not greatly impaired.\n\nOf all the fine arts--poetry not excepted--architecture is the only one\ninto which the Roman mind entered with the real enthusiasm of natural\nand national feeling. Success corresponded with the exalted sentiment\nwhence it arose; here have been left for the admiration of future ages,\nthe most magnificent proofs of original genius. This originality,\nhowever, depends not upon _invention_ so much as upon _application_ of\nmodes. To the architectonic system, indeed, the Romans claim to have\nadded two novel elements in their own Doric, or Tuscan, and Composite\norders. But in the restless spirit of innovation which these betray,\nthe alleged invention discovers a total want of the true feeling and\nunderstanding of the science of Grecian design. In this very desire of\nnovelty, and in the principles upon which it was pursued, are to be\ntraced the immediate causes of ruin to the art, while yet its resources\nwere unimpaired. The Romans unfortunately viewed the constituents\nof the Greek orders, and even the orders themselves, as so many\nconventional ornaments, which might be changed or superseded on the\nlaws of association, in the same manner as they were supposed to have\nbeen framed. This it is of importance to mark, for the very same have\nbeen the sources, and are still the operating causes, of inferiority in\nmodern architecture. But the very opposite of all this is the case. Of\nthis system, the Greeks, in the course of centuries, had founded what\nwas conventional upon what is necessary; they had united beauty with\nscience, by combinations the most pleasing to taste--because of this\nvery union of effect and principle. Architecture, with them, was thus\nnot more conventional than is every part of knowledge not immediately\nderived from sense--not more, for instance, than geometry; and its\nmodes, therefore, as constituting one whole, became immutable, being\nonly conventional, as expressions or representatives of truth.\n\nThis harmony, therefore, between the intellectual and the merely\nbeautiful--the very perfection of the science of taste--the Greeks\nsought not by perilous experiments to disturb. Not that among them the\nvigor of independent genius was cramped; proper latitude of composition\nbeing allowed, licentiousness of fancy was restrained; each artist\nthought, in due subordination to the principles of a system which he\nknew to be as unchangeable as the laws that ensured the stability of\nhis edifice. Hence, in every remain of Greek art, something peculiar is\ndiscoverable--some exquisite adaptation of parts to circumstances--to\nproportion--to feeling; but this never obtrudes--never is the general\nsymmetry, or prevailing character, in the least interrupted. Even the\norders observe the same law of composition. They are but variations of\none grand abstraction of stability and grace, which may be termed the\nideal of architecture. Each varies from another in detail, but the\nresult is one and the same concord; the proportions in each differ, but\nthe analogies of proportion are in all cases congenial. Even when, by\naddition or absence of parts, there is discriminative form, still the\nsame final result of purpose or propriety is evident. In all, the same\nmaster lines meet the eye, guide the comprehension over all divisions,\nand bind the entire design into one grand harmonious whole. Similar\nmeans and similar harmonies everywhere occur; the same in all is the\nlast impress on the mind of symmetry and majestic repose--of grace and\ndignity--of steadfast tranquillity--of unlaboured elegance--and of rich\nsimplicity.\n\nThe system in this, its perfect wholeness, the Romans never conceived,\nand upon this entireness their style first broke. They appear to\nhave deemed that lightness and grace, here the great objects of\ntheir pursuit, were to be attained not so much by proportion between\nthe vertical and horizontal, as by comparative slenderness in the\nformer. Hence, in the very outset, is detected a poverty in the Roman\narchitecture, even in the midst of profuse ornament, which, as we\nadvance, continually increases with the practice whence it originated.\nThe great error was a constant aim to lessen the diameter, while\nthey increased the elevation, of the columns and supporting members\ngenerally--an error, as remarked by Plutarch, 'to a Greek eye'\nperceptible so early as the reign of Domitian. Hence the incongruities\nof the Roman orders, which yet are mere plagiarisms from the Greek, and\nupon this defective principle.\n\nThe massive simplicity and severe grandeur of the ancient Doric,\ndisappear in the Roman, the characteristics of the order being\nfrittered down into a multiplicity of minute members. This division is\nnot only in itself injurious to the simple idea of strength, but the\nparts are separately composed in ignorance of the primitive intention.\nTo their two more refined orders, the Ionic and Corinthian, the Greeks\nalways added a base, to unite them sweetly and gracefully with the\nplinth step, or floor; to the Doric, this accessory was always denied,\nthat strong contrast might lead the eye at once from the support to\nthe firm position of the vertical shaft--thus apparently still more\nsecurely planted, as resting immediately on the solid platform of the\nbuilding. In opposition to these obvious principles, the Romans used\nthe Doric always with a base, composed, too, of various members; while\nin the capital they erred still more against propriety. The Doric\ncapital of the Greeks is a masterpiece of composition;--formed of\nfew and bold, yet graceful parts, it leads by degrees of increasing\nstrength to the surmounting entablature, which, with its triglyphs\nand sculptured metopes, seems to the eye yet more ponderous--ready to\ncrush the starved and fluttering members, fillet above fillet, which\ncompose the capital of the Roman pillar. The Corinthian is the only\norder which the Romans have employed with almost the undiminished\ngrace of the original; but even here is distinctly to be traced the\npernicious effects of their system. In the Ionic, they have left\ncomparatively few examples, while, still following out their principle,\nthey added to the length of the shaft, and flattened the capital, thus\nlosing much of the simple yet stately elegance which distinguishes\nthis order. Their own Composite is in some measure a combination of\nthe Ionic and the Corinthian, having the volutes of the former and the\nfoliage of the latter, upon which it is anything but an improvement,\nsince it contradicts the character, and in a great degree opposes the\nadvantages, of the primitive. As far, then, as concerns the invention\nof forms, and the just conception of the elemental modes of Greece,\nthe Romans failed. Their architecture was imperfect, both as a system\nof symmetry, and as a science founded upon truth and upon taste.\n\nBut when their labours are viewed as regards the practice of the art,\ntheir merits are presented under a far different aspect. Whether the\nmagnitude, the utility, the varied combinations, or the novel and\nimportant evidences of their knowledge, be considered, the Romans, in\ntheir practical works, are yet unrivalled. They here created their own\nmodels, while they have remained examples to their successors. Though\nnot the inventors of the arch, they, of all the nations of antiquity,\nfirst discovered and boldly applied its powers; nor is there one\ndignified principle in its use which they have not elicited. Rivers\nare spanned; the sea itself, as at Ancona, is thus enclosed within the\ncincture of masonry; nay, streams were heaved into air, and, borne\naloft through entire provinces, poured into the capital their floods\nof freshness, and health. The self-balanced dome, extending a marble\nfirmament over head, the proudest boast of modern skill, has yet its\nprototype and its superior in the Pantheon--\n\n  Relic of nobler days and noblest arts!\n  Despoil'd, yet perfect, with thy circle spreads\n  A holiness appealing to all hearts--\n  To art a model.\n\nThe same stupendous and enduring character pervaded all the efforts of\nRoman art, even in those instances where more ancient principles only\nwere brought into action. Where the Greeks were forced to call the\noperations of nature in aid of the weakness of art, availing themselves\nof some hollow mountain side for the erection of places of public\nresort, the imperial masters of Rome caused such mountains to be reared\nof masonry, within their capital, for the Theatre, Amphitheatre, and\nCircus. Of these vast structures, where assembled multitudes might\nsit uncrowded, the Colosseum--the mightiest indeed, yet only one of\nthe labours of the reign in which it was raised--contains more solid\nmaterial, brought too from far, and exquisitely wrought, than all\nthe works of either Louis XIV., or the Czar Peter--the two greatest\nbuilders among the sovereigns of modern times:\n\n                      From its mass,\n  Walls, palaces, half cities, have been rear'd;\n  Yet oft the enormous skeleton ye pass,\n  And marvel where the spoil could have appear'd.\n\nPalaces--Temples--Baths--Porticos--Arches of Triumph--Commemorative\nPillars--Basilica, or Halls of Justice--Fora, or\nSquares--Bridges--without mentioning the astonishing highways,\nextending to the extremities of the empire--all were constructed\non the same grand and magnificent plan. The art, in every part of\nits practice, partook of the national character of the people. Its\napplications were great, substantial, and useful--beautiful in\nexecution, but this beauty dignified yet more as subservient to\nutility. The highest conceivable grandeur seemed but necessary, as\ncommensurate with the wants and the durability of a dominion which\nwas to be universal and eternal. Roman art has, in these respects, a\ncharacter almost of moral dignity beyond all relics of antiquity. The\nrecords of their dead, though erections of more equivocal usefulness,\npartake of the same style, and, like the pyramids of Egyptian kings,\nhave ceased to be monuments save of their own greatness. Some, and\nthose but of individuals, or even a woman's grave, as towers of\nstrength have rolled back the shock of feudal warfare; and the tomb of\nan emperor, turned into a palace, or a fortress, still overawes the\ncity of the C\u00e6sars.\n\nBut, alas! the passing briefness of all things sublunary! The spirit's\nhomage to this mightiness of mind and power, is due only to the labours\nof little more than a century and a half. The very greatness of these\nedifices proved a source of after corruption, by withdrawing attention\nfrom the delicacies of composition, and by substituting brute mass for\nthe refinements of science. Even under the Antonines, decline from the\nage of Hadrian is perceptible--though more in taste than in practice.\nUnder Commodus, architecture suffered most decided degradation--another\nproof how steadily the arts reflect, not only the mental, but the\nmoral energies of the times. The downward impulse hurries onwards,\noccasionally stayed by the personal virtues or activities of the\nreigning prince. Severus has thus left evidence how far his age\nhad fallen, and yet how superior to those that follow! between his\ntriumphal arch and that of Titus, how great the difference!--yet, in\npoint of design, far less than between his and Constantine's. The last\nsplendours of Roman skill were elicited by the talents of Dioclesian,\nand great appear still to have been the practical resources of\narchitecture--greater than usually admitted. The circular Hall in his\nBaths is inferior only to the Pantheon, and awakened the enthusiasm\nof Michael Angelo; his Dalmatian Palace was the finest building\nundertaken for twelve succeeding centuries. Few of the qualities which\ncan ennoble the art, as an object of taste, survived this period. The\nworks of Constantine, not excepting the founding of a capital, prove\nhow complete was the lapse, since even his zeal could call forth only\nattempts to ungraceful and ineffective.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n\nTHE history of Architecture still to be considered, extends through\nfifteen centuries to the present time. This interval may be divided\ninto three eras. I. Period of the circular arch. II. Period of the\npointed arch. III. Revival and practice of classic art. The theories so\nabounding in this particular portion of the subject, must be reviewed\nas in themselves forming part of the information which the reader has\na right to expect; but the notice will be brief, the narrative, it is\nhoped, enabling the judgment to deduce its own conclusions from facts,\nindependently of all opinion. For this reason, the preceding division\nis adopted, characterised only by the style of architecture, without\nreference to those minute distinctions and disputes about names, the\ngreat sources of obscurity and unsettled hypothesis in treating of the\nbuilding of the middle ages. It may be remarked, _in limine_, that the\nterm, 'Gothic Architecture,' is of late invention, and appears to be\nused in two distinct, or indeed opposite meanings. First, to denote the\nwhole system of architectural erection intervening between the decline\nof the ancient classic modes, and their reappearance soon after the\nrevival of letters. In this sense, it is usually employed as expressive\nof something barbarous and unscientific. In the second place, the\nphrase is employed by a large school of writers and artists, to denote\na system or systems of art, arising, it is acknowledged, among men of\nrude cultivation in other respects, yet claiming original principles\nof invention, and very refined rules of practice--so far even as to\nbe an imitation of natural prototypes of very distant, yet tasteful\nassociations. Each of these theories exclusively taken, seems to be\ndisproved by the course of history, when all preconceived notions are\nlaid aside, and when art, as ought ever to be the case, is fairly made\nits own interpreter.\n\nI. It has been shown that the Romans, in obtaining full mastery of a\npowerful engine in building--the arch, were at first bold, subsequently\nlavish, and, it will appear, finally barbarous, in its application.\nFrom the reigns even of the early C\u00e6sars, a tendency may be traced in\ntheir architecture to become great in mass, but little in parts--to\nlessen, in the first instance, the vertical or supporting members;\nand in the second, to load the superstructure, or supported parts.\nThe progress of corruption might be traced, by regular steps, from\nvast arches, with groins planted on a single Corinthian column, to the\narcades of the palace of Dioclesian at Spalatro. These still are left,\nexhibiting external and internal ranges of arches, springing directly\nfrom the capitals of the columns, without any intervening entablature.\nWhat more, we ask, is wanting here, to one of the most decided\ncharacteristics of one species, at least, of Gothic architecture,\nand an elemental principle in all kinds? nothing, save a little less\nelegance of workmanship in the supports, a pier substituted for the\ncolumn, and the soffit of the arch bevelled instead of being square;\nsteps successively apparent in posterior remains. Surely, then, it is\ncarrying theory beyond all moderate limits, to contend for a separate\norigin of the system, when the principles of Gothic building are thus\ndistinctly recognizable in a corruption of classic modes, at an era\nwhile yet vigorous practice prevailed, with resources undiminished for\nits support. This corruption, indeed, evidently proceeded, not so much\nfrom inefficiency, as from too eager pursuit of novelty--this too,\nunrestrained by the immediate presence of more simple forms; for, in\nthe baths of the same emperor, appears a less licentious taste. For the\nexterior, indeed, such Gothic arcades do not seem to have been soon\nimitated; but for the interior, their adoption was almost immediate.\nThese intermediate steps it is unnecessary farther to pursue at present.\n\nThe era of Constantine, though justly regarded as marking the final\ndisappearance of the last lingering rays of ancient taste, proves yet\na most important epoch in the history of architecture. The reception\nof Christianity as the religion of the empire, not only changed to\na very great extent, the entire frame and aspect of society, but\nin a particular manner influenced the practical art of building.\nAs in the heathen temple was traced the great source of perfection\nin ancient art, so in the Christian church then established, is to\nbe found the origin of those modes and forms, which, for so many\ncenturies, guided modern practice. But the former structure was one\nof external magnificence only; internally, it was neither intended,\nnor, unaltered, adapted, to accommodate large assemblies. In the new\nreligion, this became the primary object in its places of worship:\nwhile the early Christians refused to make use of the 'houses of\nidols.' In this emergency, there remained only one course--to convert\nthe most capacious of unobjectionable buildings into churches. Of all\nthese, the Basilicon presented, not only no difficulties as having\nbeen desecrated, but also was directly accommodated to the necessities\nof the case. The ancient Basilicon was a building of great extent,\nadjoining the forum or great square, in every city, serving at once the\npurposes of an exchange for the transaction of business, of a court\nfor the administration of justice, and of a place for general resort.\nThe exterior was adorned with porticoes more or less magnificent,\nwhile internally it was separated lengthwise by two or four ranges\nof columns, into three or five longitudinal divisions, according to\nits width. Of these, the middle one was the largest, open to the top,\nand uncovered; the side ones were smaller, roofed in, with galleries\nopening into the centre compartment, and to which access was had by\nstairs at the two extremities. Under an arched niche, usually at the\nextremity of the central division, was a tribunal for the judge,\nexactly in the situation where the Christian altar was afterwards\nplaced. From the whole description, it is evident, that the only\nalteration necessary to convert this edifice into a complete church,\nwith its nave and lateral aisles, was to place a roof over the middle\nportion. Thus the first Christian churches were formed; and hence many\nof those in Rome still retain the name of Basilicon. Subsequently, the\ntransepts were added, to imitate the cross, though this form seems to\nhave been very early known in the East.\n\nThe general form of the church being thus determined, more through\nchance than design, yet with great convenience and propriety, this\naccidental form was adhered to in the subsequent erections for\nsacred purposes; but with certain internal arrangements, modified\nby the lessened resources of the art, the prevailing taste, and the\nnovel exigencies of the case. Instead of the horizontal entablature\nresting upon the internal ranges of pillars, as in the more classical\nBasilicon, churches were constructed internally of arcades, the arches\nresting upon the capitals of the columns. These latter were torn from\nmore ancient edifices, but combined, and often with considerable\neffect, by the ruder efforts of existing art. Thus, with columns for\nsupports, united with ranges of semicircular arches abutting against\nthe walls, we soon find the perfect Gothic church established.\n\nThis style of building, recommended at once by convenience and\nnecessity, rapidly spread over the whole of Italy and the Empire, for\nConstantinople was erected from pilfered monuments, which, when taken\nto pieces and transported thither, were subsequently set up in a most\nconfused and imperfect manner. When the supporting columns could no\nlonger be obtained from ancient structures, or where this resource had\nnever existed, the whole was to be reared from the foundation. Here it\nwould soon be discovered that a cylindrical, square, or bevelled pier,\nwithout diminution, would be a fitter and more easily erected support\nfor the arch. From the desire of stability, or the imperfection of\nskill, this pier, of whatever form, begins gradually to decrease in\naltitude, while it becomes more massive, still with a base and capital\npalpable though rude imitations of the same, members of the classic\ncolumn.\n\nIn this state was the art, when Italy fell under the power of barbarian\nconquerors. This style they adopted in their own buildings; for, after\nconquest was secure, they patronised the arts of their subjects,\nintroducing a still greater profusion of ornament, rudely executed,\nand in worse design. Yet the whole effect of such works is often not\nwithout grandeur. Beginning with Rome, we might instance, from our own\nobservation, a continuous series of monuments, of a style such as now\ndescribed, still remaining in different parts of Italy, especially the\nGothic capitals of Lombardy, as Ravenna, Verona, Pavia, introducing\nthe early revival in Pisa and the cities of Tuscany. Such a survey\nwould unite the labours of Metrodorus, the first Christian architect\nunder Constantine, with those of Buschetto and Diotisalvi, in the\ncommencement of the eleventh century, leading to the mention of various\narchitects of the Gothic kingdom, as Ciriades, of Rome; Aloisius,\nof Padua, author of the famous tomb of Theodoric, called the Rotunda\nof Ravenna; St Germain, of France; St Avitus, of Clermont; Agricola,\nof Chalons; Romnaldus, of France; Tietland, of Germany; with others.\nSuch an inquiry, however, is not here necessary, inasmuch as it must\nnow appear obvious, that the style just described might be termed\nGothic, as practised by the mixed race of invaders, who, under the\nname of Goths, subdued Italy; but that such a style could not have\nbeen introduced by them from the forests of Germany and the wilds of\nPannonia.\n\nFrom Italy, religion, and consequently ecclesiastical building,\nextended over the rest of Europe. In France and Germany, the names\nenumerated above, with the works still remaining there, might be\nexamined in corroboration of the fact, that the circular arch prevailed\nat the same time in these countries. But as of most importance,\nattention is better limited to British art in the middle age. This\nspecies of building is distinguished, in native antiquities, by the\nappellation of Saxon or Norman,--displaying, as characteristics, low,\nthick, and rotund pillars, with bases and capitals often fantastically\ncarved, with heavy semicircular arches, springing directly from the\ntop, corresponding exactly with the corrupted Roman. Regarding the\npropriety of this designation, however, doubts may reasonably be\nentertained, since it by no means certainly appears that either the\nSaxons or Normans were the introducers.\n\nThere is evidence that sacred edifices existed in Britain prior to the\nSaxon invasion; and, indeed, when Constantine wrote rescripts to the\nvarious provinces, his own birthplace would not be omitted among those\nenjoined to erect and repair churches. It would appear, also, that the\nSaxons were attached to wooden erections, as is expressed by the verb\n_getymbrian_, to build,--a similar analogy, from the same cause, as in\nGreek, where the word _wood_ is used to denote the constituent matter,\nor material, of anything--as 'the wood,' meaning the matter, of 'an\nargument.' It is probable, then, that the stone buildings of the Saxons\nwere rather copied from existing edifices among the conquered people,\nconsequently direct imitations of the parent corruptions of Italy.\nThis last fact, the only one of real importance in the present case,\nis not left to conjecture; for, in the accounts of the earliest stone\nstructures of the seventh century, it is said they were erected, in the\noriginal phrase, 'more Romanorum,' in the style of the Romans, that is,\nthe style already described. Between the Saxon, or supposed Saxon, and\nNorman, there exists no difference, except in the superior magnificence\nof the latter--a circumstance accounted for by the progress of society.\n\nIt has thus been established, that the style of building with circular\narches is clearly a corruption from the ancient classic forms. With\nlittle distinctive change, or characteristic difference, this mode was\npractised throughout Europe during nine centuries.\n\nII. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, an innovation upon\nthe long monotony of the circular arch begins to appear and to be\nperfected. This was the introduction of the pointed, or lancet Gothic,\nto which species the term is more strictly limited. The origin and\nprogress of the pointed arch, has been rendered one of the most\ncomplicated problems in the history of architecture. The subjects\nof discussion here involve two questions--first, Whence and by whom\nthis style was introduced? secondly, From what prototype the idea was\noriginally derived?\n\nOn the former of these subjects, the various conflicting opinions may\nbe arranged under two general heads: that the proper Gothic, or pointed\narch, had its origin in the cathedral buildings of England, whence the\nknowledge and practice of this style was diffused throughout Europe\nduring the thirteenth century; or that this architecture is of Oriental\ngrowth, and was brought into Europe by the Crusaders. The author of\nthe first system we believe was Walpole; but it has since been adopted\nby Britton, and a large proportion of the English antiquaries. The\nsecond opinion has been ably maintained by Lord Aberdeen, and is that\nmore generally adopted in other countries. It is not here possible to\nenter into the details of the controversy; the latter view certainly\nappears to be supported by the analogy both of history and of the arts.\nThis, in absence of positive evidence, and with similar buildings\nof equal age and character in France, affords far more conclusive\nargument than any to be derived from the greater perfection which the\nstyle, comparatively speaking, displays in England, when the extent\nof the country and the number of fine buildings are considered. But\nindividual edifices, especially in Germany, are not only equally\nancient, but more splendid. Our pretensions to exclusive invention,\nunder circumstances so notorious, that, in Italy, the Gothic is more\nfrequently styled '_Tedesco_,' or '_German_,' have exposed the national\ninformation in matters of art, to the severe but merited animadversions\nof foreign writers. The assumption, however, appears to have little\nconnexion with national opinion, having arisen among antiquaries whose\nalmost sole study had been English building, or, at least, who had\nviewed the history of Architecture under this peculiar mode alone. In\nthis respect, extensive research and elegant erudition enabled Lord\nAberdeen to bring to the subject every requisite of decision; and were\nwe inclined to place faith in any exclusive theory of introduction, it\nwould be that which his Lordship has so ably advocated, in maintaining\nthe Eastern origin of the Gothic or pointed arch.\n\nFrom what exemplar this form was conceived, or by what prototype\nsuggested, has, in the second place, exercised speculation to a\nwide extent. The following are the principal opinions: 1. Theory of\nWarburton,--that natural groves supplied the primitive idea, the\ntrunks, branches, and foliage of the trees being represented in the\npillars, arches, and tracery of the Gothic. 2. The system of Sir James\nHall,--that the whole style, in all its varieties, is but an imitation\nof wickerwork,--an opinion frequently, though very improperly,\nconsidered as a modification of the former: it is independent, and\nhas been very ingeniously followed out in detail. 3. Theory of Sir\nChristopher Wren, remarkable at least in its propounder,--that the Free\nMasons were the inventors of the pointed arch. 4. Opinions of many\nGerman and Continental writers,--that this arch is but an imitation\nof the Egyptian and Indian pyramid. 5. Hypothesis, first incidentally\nproposed by Bentham, subsequently methodized and illustrated by Dr\nMilner, and pretty generally received,--that the intersection of\nsemicircular arches forming intermediate pointed ones, gave the\nprimitive model. This interlacing of arches is a common ornament in\nbuildings of the old Gothic, already explained; it occurs frequently\nin relievo, and, if we recollect rightly, also with disengaged columns\nin several of the fa\u00e7ades of old churches in Italy. Durham and Lincoln\ncathedrals, likewise ecclesiastical remains in Scotland, as Kelso\nAbbey, furnish examples. 6. Opinion of Mr Whittaker and others,--that\npointed Architecture was known to, and practised by, the Romans, early\nunder the imperial government.\n\nSuch are the leading theories on this interesting subject; an\nexamination of the facts would lead to a history of the ecclesiastical\narchitecture of a great portion of Europe for upwards of three\ncenturies. In France, the pointed arch was early introduced; but the\nlight style of Gothic architecture was not generally carried to such\nperfection as in Germany and Flanders, having been sooner affected by\nthe introduction of the Italian taste. The German style was perfected\nabout the close of the fourteenth century, and subsequently appears to\nhave undergone little variation, even to the middle of the sixteenth,\nthus retaining the elegance of the best age in the art much longer.\nCompared with our own, the best examples have much the same character,\nwith lighter forms and richer tracery,--but of such examples there are\nfewer in proportion than with us. In Italy, the pointed arch never\nobtained. It is found, indeed, in Venice and Milan, and occasionally\nelsewhere; but the style to which it gave birth is not characteristic\nof Italy, where the early churches are of the old or circular, and the\nmore modern of the mixed or Lombard style. In England, four general\nperiods mark so many changes of Gothic.\n\n1. From 1235 to 1272, including the reigns from the accession of\nStephen to that of Edward I., termed _Early_, _English_, _Simple_,\nand _Lancet Gothic_, characterised by long narrow openings, with a\nvery sharp high arch. Early part of the period shows the gradual\nintroduction of the pointed style.\n\n2. From 1272 to 1377, to the accession of Richard II. This has been\ndesignated the age of the _Pure Gothic_, or _Decorated English_, being\nmore highly ornamented than the former, but without exuberance;\nespecially characterised by an arch which circumscribes an equilateral\ntriangle, hence proposed to be named, _Triangular Gothic_.\n\n3. From 1377 to 1509, terminating with the accession of Henry VIII.\nThis constitutes the age of the _Florid Gothic_, which, between these\ndates, underwent a succession of changes; first, from aspiring, to\nflatly-pointed and obtuse arches, with large daylights, in panels and\nstraight mullions, instead of tracery; hence the names _Obtuse_ and\n_Perpendicular English_; becomes more and more ornamented; ceilings of\nthe richest and most complicated tracery, with pendents; Henry VII.'s\nchapel fine specimen.\n\n4. From 1509 to 1625; when the reign of Charles I. introduces Inigo\nJones, and the revival of ancient architecture. First part of the reign\nof Henry the Eighth a continuation of the Florid Gothic; subsequently\nthe designs of Holbein, and of the Italian artist employed by that\nmonarch, entirely ruined the Gothic, introducing a most barbarous\nmixture of Roman, Italian, and Gothic. In the succeeding reigns, a\nstiff and most unmeaning style arose; and, in Scotland, we trace a\nnear approach, if not in magnitude, at least in excellence, to the\nEnglish examples of Gothic; while the fortunes of the art are found\nto assimilate to its history in Germany, in as far as a character\nof great perfection was early formed, and longer preserved, than in\nthe south. It must appear a singular proof of hasty and inconclusive\ninquiry, that, while an English origin has been claimed for the pointed\narch, its elements are found of a date more ancient in Scottish\necclesiastical buildings, not to mention those on the Continent.\n\nIn opposition to all the preceding theories, we consider the system\nof pointed architecture, or that properly denominated Gothic, to\nhave arisen independently, though almost contemporaneously, among\nthe nations of Europe most conspicuous for the cultivation of this\npeculiar style. In this we are borne out by a series of monuments in\neach country, showing the progressive rise and introduction of the\npointed arch, from the form of two long stones, placed on supports,\nand meeting at top--a contrivance as still visible in the walls of\nMycen\u00e6, of three thousand years' standing, up to the finished lancet\narch, as in Salisbury cathedral. Or, granting even the Eastern\nintroduction of the arch--and here the monuments are of very doubtful\nantiquity,[F]--what does this prove with regard to the origin of the\nsystem?--Absolutely nothing. This knowledge alone would not go further\nto enable the architect to construct a Gothic cathedral, than would one\nof the voussoirs in teaching him the properties of the arch itself.\nThe system is one entire and independent whole, in which the pointed\narch is merely an instrument subservient to principles, in consequence\nof which, if not invented, it was at least improved and rendered\nperfect. In this light the subject has too seldom been viewed: a light\nwhich places Gothic architecture in true and dignified position of an\nindependent branch of art, governed by its own precepts of convenience,\nstability, and ornament.\n\nWhen, in consequence of an extraordinary out-breaking of religious\nzeal and enthusiasm, an astonishing change was wrought in the frame of\nEuropean society, one of the first impulses was to provide, in those\ncountries hitherto comparatively ignorant of the arts, more suitable\nedifices for the services of that religion, in whose cause multitudes\nwere shedding, or ready to shed, their blood in distant and unknown\nregions. Thus the Crusades were, but not as usually supposed, the cause\nof the introduction of art. They operated as one of those moral springs\nof action by which the arts, as the course of human life, are found to\nbe directed.\n\nUnder such impressions, when the architect contemplated the ancient\nstructures, the principle of convenience would at once suggest the\nnecessity of heightening their low arches, and decreasing their\nenormous supports, by which light was obstructed, and space filled up.\nHe saw, however, these efforts could not be accomplished on the old\nmethods:--here the principle of stability--no abstract theory, but the\nknowledge of the practical builder--taught him, that by elevating the\ncrown of the arch, and thus removing in part the lateral pressure,\nboth objects would be accomplished; for while height was gained, the\nweight would be thrown more into the perpendicular, and consequently\nwould remain firm with diminished support. The principle once\nintroduced, was carried even to frightful boldness. But again, though\nthe lateral pressure was removed from the arcade itself, abutment\nwas still to be provided at the extremities and side-walls. Hence\nthe peculiar characteristic of the buttress. This indeed existed in\nthe old Gothic; but here the feature assumed a novel appearance. The\narches being placed high, required additional altitude to be added,\nas a counterbalance, at the opposing point; thus the buttress was\nconverted into a turret or pinnacle, susceptible of every varied form\nwhich it afterwards received, when the desire of ornament, without the\nguidance of taste, wandered into every maze of fantasy. Thus the whole\nsystem depended upon principle--neither rising, like an exhalation,\nin consequence of imported knowledge, nor emulating some remote\nassociation or model, but by the slow and gradual process of experience.\n\nThe Gothic cathedral, thus contemplated in its native character and\nprinciples--established in unmoved security by the very agency of those\nforces which tend most directly to destruction, displays an evidence\nof science, perhaps, when the times are considered, the most wonderful\nin the whole history of intelligence. Never have the stereometric\nprecepts of building--one of the most difficult branches of the art,\nbeen better exhibited than in these piles. Mass counteracts mass,--the\nvery confliction of downward efforts upholds the reed-like column, and\nhangs on high the ponderous vault. Self-balanced, the entire system\ncontains within itself the essence of its own existence in the chain\nof means and end, of minute contrivance, and of one purpose. Yet amid\nall this no effort is apparent, even while the mind starts at the\npower of its own ingenuity over the properties of matter, and the laws\nof nature--the artist seems to sport with his subject, to tempt the\nprostration of his airy fabrics. Here come into aid the principles of\nGothic ornament, than which nothing pertaining to the style more merits\nadmiration, whether as enabling the architect to extend the fantasy of\nhis plans, or still more as essentially producing those effects which\nthese plans contemplate. In no system of architecture, the Grecian\nnot even excepted, do the ornamental, so completely integrate and\nharmonize with the necessary modes. Ornament could not here be removed\nwithout destruction both of beauty and stability; it strengthens, yet\nconceals the necessity of support; and, like the garniture of herbage,\nand flower, and twining plant, upon the rugged face of earth, it\nspreads to the delighted eye its mazy error, where would else be only a\nfrightful and unformed mass of nodding masonry.\n\nSuch are the merits of Gothic architecture, examined in itself, and\nin reference to the times which gave it birth. Apart from these\nconsiderations, viewed as the object of refined perception or\ncultivated taste, the entire system is defective. In architecture,\npleasurable emotion arises from a two-fold cause--the modes, and the\nassociations of the art. In regard to the former, it may be laid down\nas an universal precept of taste, that in architecture, of all the\narts, according to the exhibition of principle, and to the facility\nwith which the mind conceives design, and traces intention, will be\nthe mental pleasure produced by the work. This constitutes the very\nessence of exalted feeling in Greek art, which, grounded upon obvious\nprinciple, consonant with natural appearances, and pursuing beauty as\na final aim, fills the mind with delight and admiration. In Gothic\narchitecture, all this is reversed: its first principle is, to conceal\nall principle; to dazzle and to surprise by effects seemingly at\nvariance with all the usual harmonies of things. Hence, on entering a\nGothic edifice, though the mind, at first, be strongly affected by the\nmagnitude and daring arrangement of the forms, where\n\n                ----the tall pile,\n  Whose ancient pillars rear their marble heads,\n  Bearing aloft the arch'd and pond'rous roof,\n  By its own weight stands steadfast and immoveable;\n\nyet neither the judgment nor the fancy experiences those continually\nincreasing emotions of delight which a Grecian building inspires.\nAgain, the associations connected with Gothic structures are temporary,\nand, in great measure, local. They are dependent on our assurance of\nantiquity. Remove from such their antique reminiscences, and venerable\ntraditions, and they are despoiled of all, or good part, of their power\nover the imagination. With religious Gothic, our associations are more\ncongenial; the holiness of the sentiment mingles its permanency even\nwith the abstract forms; we love the very semblance of the place,\n\n  Where, through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault,\n  The pealing anthem swells the note of praise!\n\nBut there can be no doubt that this effect is accidental, not\nintrinsic; for decidedly the most impressive interiors in Europe are\nthose in churches on classic models. To such style we are, indeed,\nnot accustomed; yet certain it is, the first Christian hymn, when\nChristianity had now obtained a temple, rose to heaven from amid the\nbeauteous majesty of the Grecian orders. Sublime associations, how much\nmore in unison with the simple grandeur of the reformed service, than\nthe austerity and superstitious gloom of Gothic erection!\n\nAs a system, then, adapted to its own age--as possessing independent,\nif not dignified, principles, we consider the pure Gothic, as now\ndescribed, as one of the most singular and ingenious modes of\narchitectonic science. But in its revived and modern application no\nuseful purpose can be served, whether of good taste or legitimate\neffect.\n\nIII. Having thus considered, at some length, the only original and\ndistinguishing characteristics of the architecture of the middle age;\nthe revival of classic forms, as already described, and therefore\noffering little of novelty, seems to require here only brief notice.\nIndeed, to render a detailed account interesting, would introduce\ndiscussions too lengthened for our limits, on the present state of the\nart in the different countries of Europe.\n\nSo early as the commencement of the eleventh century, the Italians\nbegan to depart from the ungraceful style of the first period; a\ndeparture which, if not a renovation, was at least an improvement,\nin some measure founded upon closer conceptions of ancient art, and\nwith the Roman orders, though improperly applied. This style, heavy,\nhighly decorated, but not unimpressive, continued to the close of the\nfourteenth century, and has been named the Italian. Its principal\nmasters were the sculptors already mentioned as belonging to the\nperiod. With the commencement of the fifteenth century, a new and\nfar higher school arose, which, though far from pure, was yet much\nimproved; and would have been still more so, had not its patrons been\nchiefly painters, too ready to aspire to the bold and peculiar effects\nof their own art. Bramante, the first architect of St Peter's, Da\nVinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and, above all, Michael Angelo, were the\nmasters of this era. The last mentioned mighty name, here, as in all\nthe arts, created his own style: robust, even to the abuse of strength;\nincorrect, and sometimes barbarous, in detail; in general effect,\nalways grand and original. In St Peter's, with many defects, and still\ngreater beauties, he has left a monument of his genius, the most\nglorious structure that now adorns the face of the earth, unequalled in\nextent as in science.\n\n  Yes, thou, of temples old or altars new,\n  Standest alone, with nothing like to thee--\n  Worthiest of God, the holy and the true.\n  Since Zion's desolation, when that He\n  Forsook his former city, what could be\n  Of earthly structures, in his honor piled,\n  Of a sublimer aspect? Majesty,\n  Power, glory, strength, and beauty, there are aisled.\n\nGreat as was this school, much was yet wanting to retrieve the golden\npurity of ancient art; and this, in the succeeding century, was added\nby Palladio, so far at least, as the severe majesty of the primitive\nmodes could be recovered from a Roman writer, and by the study of Roman\nexemplars. Palladio is refined, rather than nervous,--elegant, rather\nthan grand; but of all the modern masters, he is the most chaste in\ndesign and ornament, prior to more recent knowledge of the fountain\nof all excellence--the remains of Greece. His school was numerous, at\nleast the masters who followed out his principles; which, spreading\nover Europe, firmly established the Roman style, banishing a bastard\nspecies of Roman Gothic, by which both systems had been disgraced, and\ntheir characteristic distinctions confounded. Of the Palladian, or\nreformed school, Bernini was the last disciple of genius; his circular\ncolonnade, in front of St Peter's, is worthy of its site. With him, and\nthe conceits of Borromini, Italian architecture may almost be said to\nhave ceased. In France, the two Mansards, during the building reign of\nLouis XIV., have left heavy imitations of the Michael-Angelesque style;\nstill, to the artist writers of that country, the art owes much. It\nis there more regularly studied than in any other country in Europe;\nand in one specimen, the fa\u00e7ade of the Louvre, the grandest excellence\nhas been attained; but the general character of national building is\ntoo fluttering, wanting repose and majesty. From the two schools,\nthe following ten have been selected, under the name of the modern\nmasters, because, in their writings or buildings, the best precepts\nare obtained. Ranging the names in order of merit, we have Palladio,\nScamozzi, Vignola, Alberti, De Lorme, Serlio, Viola, Cataneo, Boullant,\nBarbaro.\n\nThe graces of the Palladian school were caught by the congenial spirit\nof Inigo Jones, in whose labours the English school of classical\narchitecture took its rise, and, we might almost say, received\nits completion. Whitehall and Greenwich will rank among the finest\narchitecture of Europe--evidences at once of the skill of the artist,\nand the taste of Charles I. Sir Christopher Wren, in the succeeding\nreign, with the same chaste design, brought to the profession more\ngeneral science than his predecessor. His opportunities, from the\nconsequences of the great fire, were greater than perhaps have\nfallen to the lot of any other modern; and, in the erection of the\nMetropolitan Cathedral, he proved the capabilities of his genius to be\nequal to his good fortune. He has reared the second, and barely second,\nedifice in the world. The art has nothing finer than the western\nfront--so rich, so noble, and, notwithstanding the double arcade, so\npure. On the whole, the exterior of St Paul's is to be preferred,\nboth for effect and design, to St Peter's. Not so the interior. The\nRoman Basilicon opens upon the view with a calm, majestic, expansive\ncapaciousness; the English cathedral is broken into parts, and\nscattered in its entireness.\n\nJones and Wren have remained the great masters of the English school:\nthough Vanbrugh hardly deserved Swift's satire--\n\n  Lie heavy on him, earth, for he\n  Laid many a heavy load on thee;\n\nwhile the Earl of Burlington, in spite of Pope, did understand\nbuilding. Gibbs, Kent, Hawksmore, left no successors; and during the\nreign of George II., English architecture was at its lowest. His late\nmajesty is reported to have understood, and certainly had a taste for,\nthe science; but his majesty was scarcely happy in the artist whom\nhe patronized, Chambers, the architect of Somerset-house, and whose\ncharacter may be thus summed up:--he introduced the Chinese style, and\ndenied that the Parthenon ever existed, or that, if it did, it must\nhave been a clumsy piece of business. It is unnecessary to pursue the\nsubject. For the mixed Roman--the modern Gothic--and Oriental styles,\nwhich have since prevailed, we can find no place among the modes of art.\n\nThe most recent improvements in the British metropolis are in better\ntaste than those immediately preceding; but in following the varied\nforms of buildings among the Romans, rather than the simpler outline\nof the Greeks, though no error has been committed, but perhaps the\ncontrary, sufficient care has not been employed to place these varied\nmasses advantageously, both as respects their own grandeur, and their\ndecorative effect in street architecture.\n\nA more promising aspect, also, of things, invites attention to the\nNorthern capital. This singularly romantic and beautiful city,\ncombining the associations of centuries with our admiration of the\nliving age, and exhibiting in its buildings the rudest and the most\nrefined exemplars, constitutes a feature in the history of our national\narchitecture, and, among the cities of Europe, an isolated instance\nof undecided mastery between art and nature. The earlier of the new\nbuildings of the Scottish metropolis, are, generally speaking, in the\nPalladian, or Roman style, with the exception of the college. Adams, in\nthe last, has left a most splendid proof of genius. Viewed, as it ought\nto be, in itself, within the quadrangle, it fills the eye with a burst\nof splendid magnificence, equal to any effect we have ever experienced\nin modern building. Recent structures are in the true Grecian modes,\ntranscripts from the Theseum and the Parthenon. We rejoice in this; it\nis the only source whence renewed vigor can be derived to our fallen\nart--for fallen it is at present among us; nor do we perceive, in the\nBritish empire, such decided marks, not of reviving, but of vigorous\ntaste, as in the Scottish school of architecture. The National Monument\non the Calton, emulates, in gigantic mass, the Athenian structures\nthemselves; while in the new High School is presented a perfect gem of\nart--where the purest Greek modes are combined and adapted with the\nhappiest originality. The laborious and useful investigations which\nhave rendered our artists so well acquainted with even the minutest\ndetails of the Greek forms, cannot remain without fruit--provided\narchitects will be true to the best interests of their profession. Let\nit ever be borne in mind, that, magnificent as are the specimens of\nRoman skill, we desert the parent source when for these we forsake the\nremains of Grecian genius and art.\n\nOn reviewing these pages, it scarcely appears, that incidents or\nprinciples of importance have been overlooked, without such notice as\nlimits permitted. In treating of the Fine Arts, indeed, the subject\nof patronage may seem to demand more separate consideration than is\nbestowed in occasional remarks. Brief, however, as these are, they\nwill be found to contain, on this question, the impartial decisions\nof history, which uniformly declares the only wise, wholesome, and\ninspiring patronage to consist in national sympathy and national regard\nfor the objects, purposes, and professors of Art. Here the countenance\nand protection of government are necessarily included, as affording\nthe most distinguished assurance of the existence of this feeling, and\nas giving direction to the national efforts. In Britain, the genius of\nour institutions, and the character of the people require, while they\nwill add power to, the effects of this union. These institutions are\nmore national--the opulence and intelligence of the subject, abler to\nstrengthen the hands and to aid the designs of government, than in any\nother empire that ever existed. Our Fine Arts have hitherto been the\nonly constituent of our national glory to which the cheering influence\nof this united sympathy has been denied.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] Constable's Miscellany.\n\n[B] The best of these confirm the former remarks on this accomplished\nartist.\n\n[C] 'I desire, Mr Lely,' said Cromwell, when sitting to the artist,\n'that you will paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at\nall; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts, and everything\nas you see me; otherwise I will never pay you a farthing.'\n\n[D] In these ruins are two lions sculptured in relievo described by\nPausanius, and remaining the most ancient accredited monument of the\nart in Greece.\n\n[E] See Edinburgh Encyclop\u00e6dia, vol. xviii. part i. p. 21.\n\n[F] Since expressing our opinion, in an early part of the volume, on\nthe doubtful antiquity of Indian architecture, we have perceived, with\npleasure, that Bishop Heber's observations confirm the inference we had\nventured to draw from the analogies of art.\n\n\n                  Transcribers Notes:\n\n  Obvious typos were silently corrected.\n\n  Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.\n\n  Expressions such as 'epochas' for 'epochs' on P23, have not\n  been altered.\n\n  Numbers such as 'twentyninth', have been retained throughout.\n\n  Inconsistant spelling such as - 'developement' and 'development', has\n  been retained.\n\n  Gnidian and Gnidos have been replaced with Cnidian and Cnidos,\n  P63 and 64.\n\n  In the table of contents chapter XII has been corrected from\n  p153 to p154.\n\n  Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.\n\n  Italics are shown thus: _sloping_.\n\n  Small capitals have been capitalised.\n\n  [OE] and [oe] have been used as ligatures.","title":"History of Sculpture, Painting, and Architecture","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":88795}