one time to the belief that the Etruscans derived their art from Egypt. Considerable variety will be found in works of the Etruscan school. In some examples the forms are undefined and very simple; and the accessories, as the hair and draperies, arranged stiffly, and in regular lines, bearing in these respects considerable resemblance to the works of the Persians above described. In others there is an exaggeration and affectation entirely distinct from anything found in the contemporary art of the time, excepting, occasionally, in the early Greek vases; a circumstance which might seem to indicate a connection at this period of their history with this nation. The peculiarity referred to is especially indicated in the hands, where the fingers are turned back in the most unnatural manner. The prevalence of a marked style in the Etruscan sculpture may be attributed to the same causes which, it has been shown, influenced Egyptian, Assyrian and, as will be seen, early Greek art. Their rulers, the "Lucomones," were priests as well as governors; and no doubt religious feeling consecrated certain forms, and prevented changes which might have been considered in the light of profane innovation. A distinction must, however, be drawn between original Etruscan works,—that is, the production of native Etruscan artists,—and works in the Etruscan style; a mode of treatment that was retained by the admirers or followers of this school long after the date of the true and original art of Etruria. It was a style particularly distinguished by the Romans, and called by them "tuscanicus," as applied to art; and it was not necessarily confined to works executed by native sculptors. All productions which exhibited the hard and dry manner of the earlier Etruscan school gained the title of Opera Tuscanica. There is a passage in Quintilian which affords an interesting illustration of this classification of style, when he is speaking of the (technical) character of the works of some of the more celebrated Greek sculptors of the fifth and sixth centuries before Christ. Callon and Egesias, he says, executed their statues or productions in a harder style than some other artists referred to, approaching very near to the Tuscan or Etruscan forms; Calamis, again, was less rigid. It may be remarked, generally, that the works of the Etruscan artists are deficient in beauty. They have not even that simplicity and repose which, in spite of its deficiencies in other respects, give a certain air of dignity to Egyptian sculpture; still less is there any attempt at or approach to the fine forms of Grecian art.

Some Etruscan works have been found to differ considerably from the usual productions of this school, and from the style particularized in the foregoing remarks. This is especially observable in the compositions in painting and sculpture that have been discovered of late years in certain tombs of Volterra and other Etruscan cities. The sculpture in these consists of semi-recumbent figures reposing on sarcophagi. They vary in size, some being as large as life, others of small dimensions; and they usually form the top or lid of the coffin, or receptacle in which the remains of the deceased were deposited. In these statues we no longer recognise the ordinary Etruscan style; and yet they have been found in localities and bearing inscriptions which would appear to carry them back to a very remote date. The forms usually are clumsy, and they are loaded with full and heavy drapery. The heads, again, are peculiar. They often have all the character of being portraits, and sometimes they are pleasing in expression, and even exhibit an approach to beauty. The first impression they convey is, that they belong to a low Roman school of art, to which indeed some antiquaries have unhesitatingly assigned them. Sculpture. There are, however, difficulties in the way of coming to a conclusion upon their date and origin. There is no doubt that the tombs of Etruria were opened and, in many instances, plundered in ancient times; and it is extremely probable that they were used also as depositories for the dead by a people who were in possession of the country very long after the date of their original constructors. Objects have been found in some of these tombs evidently of various ages; a proof of their not being in their primitive integrity when opened by more recent antiquaries. From these circumstances, it becomes exceedingly difficult to define the precise age of the works that occasionally are found in them; and where inscriptions of an ancient character occur upon sculpture that exhibits indication of the decadence of art this difficulty is of course greatly increased.

The foregoing rapid survey of sculpture has been rather a notice of an universally practised form of record than a history of a refined art, requiring the exercise of the intellect and the hand, and having for its office to express elevated sentiment, or to illustrate noble subjects under appropriate forms of beauty. Important in other respects as was the employment of sculpture among the most ancient nations, and valuable as are the monuments that time has left us, it was not till the Greek mind perceived its capability of development that the entire value of the art was recognised as a means of physically illustrating the perfection of nature's noblest work. It strikes us now with wonder and astonishment that so long a period could have elapsed between the first invention and rude practice of sculpture, and the perfection it was destined to reach among the Greeks. Sicily was founded above 2000 years B.C., Argos 1856 B.C., and yet it is not till between 700 and 600 B.C. that those first changes are perceived in the style of art practised in that region of the world, which then led so rapidly to the consummation of sculpture in the great schools of Myron, Phidias, and Polyeuctus, in the time of Pericles.

The Greeks were subject to the same obstructive influence of the priesthood as other nations whose works have been referred to, and there can be no doubt that for a considerable period this power of preventing innovation in sculpture intended for religious purposes, as statues in temples, or votive offerings, held its sway, and retarded the progress of the art. But there seems to have been once established quality in the Greek mind which, independently of other circumstances, necessitated, if it may be so said, the development of an imitative art to a condition of high excellence. This was its sensibility to beauty. Some writers, in endeavouring to account for the superiority of the Greeks in art, have thought it attributable to climate, to the government under which they lived, to the beauty of the people, or other external causes; but in considering the history of the several schools of Greece, it will be found that none of these existed universally in any of the localities where sculpture was most successfully practised. Attica, the home of the fine arts, had a climate of great inequality. In some parts there was the greatest luxuriance of vegetation, while in others the soil was ungrateful, naked, and barren. In personal beauty Athens held no decided superiority over other cities, and yet the Athenians were distinguished beyond all others for their productions of art. It certainly is curious that not one of the women whose celebrity for beauty has come down to us was a native of Athens.

---

1 Cicognara very properly remarks.—"La supposizione che gli Etruschi trassero dagli Egizii le loro arti e il loro disegno è priva di fondamento, poiché, come avvertì il Lasori, la rigidità e il rettilineo dei segni non hanno bisogno di essere dal Nilo, e nei principi della arte presso tutte le nazioni si vede lo stesso carattere, essendo quello stile non tanto arte quanto mancanza di arte." (Cicognara, Storia della Scultura, vol. i.)

2 Duriora et Tuscanicis proxima Callon et Egesias; juxta minus rigida Calamis, &c. (lib. xii. 10). Sculpture. Phryne was of Thebes, Glycera of Thespiae, Aspasia was born at Miletus, Laïs at Hyccara in Sicily; and when Zeuxis the painter was occupied upon his famous picture of Venus, it is recorded that he studied the beautiful forms of seven virgins of Crotona. It is worthy of remark that Cicero, speaking of the youths he saw at Athens, says he observed few who were handsome. (De Nat. Deor. ii., c. 79.) It is not intended to deny the existence of beauty among the Athenians, but simply to point out that their exclusive possession of it was not necessarily the cause of their success in sculpture. Indeed, the Lacedemonians, whose admiration of beauty is especially remarked by Ælian (Var. Hist. xiv. 27), proscribed the practice of sculpture and the fine arts in Sparta. Nor will the form of government account for the excellence of this people in the arts of design.

The most different political conditions existed where the arts flourished, as was the case at Corinth, at Athens, and Sicily. The aptitude of the Greeks for excelling in the fine arts is then to be sought for in causes different from, and independently of, the above. It is more probable that it was owing to the peculiar constitution of the Greek, one of whose prominent features was an extreme sensibility to beauty. It was the development of this feeling that established a principle upon which their imitative art was founded, and which led necessarily to its excellence. Why the Greek was the first to feel this power, and how he was led to break through prescriptive forms in expressing it in art need not now be discussed, but the fact is indisputable. He recognised sculpture as an imitative art, and his acute and sensitive intelligence taught him that it was capable of improvement from the old types if that upon which it was founded, namely Nature, was carefully studied and copied. This was the secret of the superiority of the Greeks; and their selection or choice of what was most fit to be copied led to the perfection of their sculpture, and to the establishment of what has been called in art-language, ideal Beauty.

It has been observed that the Greeks seem to have had an intuitive perception of the beautiful; that they sensibly appreciated it is proved by many curious facts. Allusion has been made to the admiration felt for it among the Lacedemonians (Athen. xii. 12). In other parts of Greece the same feeling existed. The priests of the temple of Jupiter at Argium in Achaia, were youths who had received a prize for their personal beauty. The same distinction marked the priests of the Ismenian Apollo; and the boys who took part in the procession in honour of Mercury at Tanagra, were also chosen for the possession of this quality. (Paus. ix. 10, 22; vii. 24.) The Thebans had a law which subjected artists to a fine if they represented objects less beautiful than they were in reality (Ælian Var. iv. 4; and see Junius de Pictura veterum, and Lessing, "Laocoön"). It is remarkable how strictly the artists seem to have been bound by this principle not to represent repulsive subjects, nor indeed to express any passion or feeling under forms that were incompatible with the laws of beauty. The habits of the Greeks fostered this appreciation of the beautiful. The mode of life of the people, and the constant occurrence of public exercises, taught all classes to be judges of the human figure. The gymnasia, or schools for training for the games, were universally frequented. The public found there their rulers, statesmen, philosophers, poets, and artists taking interest in the exercises; and thus all were accustomed to see the human form in its highest condition, whether in action or repose. The education or training of young men who intended to take part in the great contests for prizes, was also a subject of the greatest care. The fullest development was given to the muscles, and constant practice prepared them for those trials of agility and strength which were witnessed by the eager multitude of all classes, and from which the successful candidate issued not only a crowned victor but the subject of the poet's noblest odes, and of the sculptor's art. The highest honour that could be awarded, and this was only granted to those who had been conquerors a certain number of times, was to be allowed to dedicate an Iconic or portrait statue, representing the fortunate candidate, in the Altis or sacred grove, near the temple of the Olympian Jupiter. These statues were seen by the crowds who assembled periodically to witness or take part in the games; and thus was the memory of the prowess or agility of the individual perpetuated constantly inciting others to deserve a similar distinction. The opening afforded by this custom for the exercise and improvement of sculpture is obvious. These statues were portraits of the individuals who had gained their crowns by the exhibition of their superiority in certain exercises. Thus the sculptor found in the successful wrestler a peculiar development which was evidence of strong physical power; in the victor in the foot race the clean limbs and light proportions which enabled him to outrun his competitors; while the combination of similar qualities of strength and lightness gave the type of the general athlete. Here, then, are seen the elements of those fine creations which have stamped Greek sculpture with its enduring character of excellence. From such studies were produced the statues of Hercules and others of that class, or those of the light and active Mercury, or, again, the Discoboli and similar productions; and from the skilful application of the principles discoverable in such forms, the whole class and variety of ideal subjects, either of sublimity or beauty, in the statues of divinities and heroes had their existence. The noble objects to which sculpture was thus applied, to do honour to worth, and to decorate the temples of the gods, gave a dignity to the art, and an honourable character to the pursuit, while the recognition of the principle, that an imitative art was constantly to aim at reproducing and repeating the finest forms which were presented for its guidance, led to its perfection as an objective art. It was precisely this union, which had not before been established by any nation of artists, which gave to Greek sculpture its extraordinary excellence; and it may be said has maintained the superiority of Greek art through a long succession of ages. No mechanical copying of Greek statues, however skilful and however zealous the copyist, can ever secure for modern sculpture the same noble and effective character it possessed among the Greeks, for the simple and intelligible reason that the imitation, close as may be the resemblance, is but the result of the eye and hand, while the original was the expression of a true and deeply-felt sentiment. Another circumstance highly conducive to the progress and development of art must also be taken into consideration. This was the general appreciation of sculpture among a whole people sensitively alive to beauty in all its forms. Art was not here sustained by the patronage of the few who, having, or affecting to have, what is called taste, bought the services of the sculptor, and paid him to decorate a gallery by order. In Greece the artist, himself a Greek, having a common feeling for the beautiful with his countrymen, produced his works for the public; they were to be erected in places of honour, to be dedicated in the temples of the gods, and no small motives influenced his labours. These were the conditions which carried the art to its highest perfection. When they were invaded, and the objects of art lowered to suit a change of feeling sculpture, as will be seen, immediately began to show symptoms of decline.

The history of the earlier settlements in Greece is involved in so much obscurity, that it will scarcely answer any useful purpose here to attempt to penetrate it. We must be satisfied to trace, so far as is practicable, the first germ of art, and to follow it in its various phases from its rudest condition to its perfection, and then to its extinction. The earliest records which can be at all associated with sculpture, or as the elements of its creation, were as simple among the Greeks as with other nations. Columns and blocks of stone were the primitive types under which they worshipped their divinities; and as late as Pausanias, A.D. 170, some of these were to be seen in different parts of Greece. This traveller speaks of seeing some at Phere in Achaia. It is recorded that Juno at Thespiae, Diana Patroa, and the Milichian Jove at Sicyon, and even the Venus of Panthos, were thus represented. The addition, by degrees, of heads, and then of feet and hands, the latter close to the sides, and the legs united like columns, formed probably the earliest attempt at giving such objects a human form. These speculations are, however, but vague, and it would be difficult to attribute dates to such early attempts at imitative design. In this respect, in the very infancy of art, the mode of representation was doubtless very nearly the same wherever it was attempted at all.

In tracing the later history of sculpture among the Greeks, certain changes mark distinct epochs in the progress of the art. Four principal periods may thus be distinguished, each characterised by striking peculiarities of style or treatment.

The first may be said to comprehend all that uncertain age of which no reliable record remains, and of which our only knowledge is in the traditions preserved by ancient writers down to the period of the first art-movement exhibited in the archaic-movements of the Eginetan school, at about 600 B.C. The second period extends to the perfection of sculpture, by Phidias and his contemporaries, at from 450 to 400 B.C. The third period includes the practice of the art from this time to about 250 or 200 B.C., when the more voluptuous execution and style of design of Praxiteles and his scholars, and of Lysippus and his followers effected a most important change in the condition of the art. The fourth and, in this comprehensive summary, the last period of true Greek sculpture is that of its decline, under mere imitators or bad innovators; when manner took the place of style, and when that pure simplicity and noble grandeur that had hitherto characterized sculpture were superseded by minute details, mechanical and tasteless execution, and by littleness and poverty of treatment.

In the earliest attempts in sculpture among the Greeks there is a distinction discernible which separates them from those of other nations, and a skilful antiquary will rarely have any difficulty in deciding whether or not the most archaic specimen submitted to his judgment be of this people or of any of the more ancient races who practised the art. It is true the sculpture of the archaic period offers but little that is attractive to the admirers of the beautiful. Rude and clumsy in form, stiff and limited in action, there is nothing in these respects to elevate them above the earlier productions of other nations. The first improvement was in the attempt to give fuller action to the figures, and this led immediately and necessarily to a more careful consideration of form and knowledge of parts. The characteristics that are here most striking are exaggeration. The action is usually violent and energetic, and the forms are over-developed, full, and charged. The proportions are wide compared with the length of the figure. The treatment of the head in sculpture of the earliest period offers also some remarkable peculiarities. The eye is usually long and narrow, and slightly raised at the outer extremity, and the mouth is open with a smiling expression. The execution of the hair varies at different dates and in different schools. On some of the most ancient coins it is wiry, and in close parallel lines; in other examples the hair is represented in masses, in lumps or knobs. In male figures the beard, and other hair is marked by elaborate care. The drapery in early sculpture is usually extremely scanty and thin, Sculpture lying close to the figure, and scarcely showing any fulness or variety except at the edges, which are sharp and angular. The folds are for the most part arranged with mechanical precision; opposite folds corresponding, line for line and angle for angle, with each other, and exhibiting at their termination a regular zig-zag. For examples of the peculiarities above noticed, the student may examine the early tetradrachms of Athens, the early coins of Oreste and Pelene, the coins of Posidonia, the heads of the statues found in the island of Egina, and the sculpture from Selinunte in Sicily. The British Museum possesses most interesting monuments of these earlier schools, and in the absence of the original works casts from the Selinuntine and Eginean sculptures may be consulted with advantage. Lately some very curious and interesting monuments of the archaic type have reached this country from Branchidae in Miletus. Whether they really are of the remote date their general style suggests, or are ancient imitations of an earlier school of sculpture, executed to complete some grand design, for they appear to have formed a portion of an avenue of sitting statues leading to the temple of Apollo Didymus, may be a question for antiquaries to determine, but they are extremely valuable as examples of the peculiarities of early execution.

The earliest names that occur of sculptors belonging to the Greek school are Daedalus, Smilis, and Endoecus. The difficulty of giving anything like precise dates to the first artists who are recorded has already been adverted to, and with respect to Daedalus, especially, this difficulty is the greater because there is every reason to believe that it was a common appellation given to many persons remarkable for skill and ingenuity. The Daedalus usually considered as the first rightful owner of the name is said to have been of a royal race; the grandson of Erechtheus King of Athens. He was the inventor of various mechanical instruments, the lever, the saw, &c.; and as a sculptor was the first who ventured upon the innovation of separating the legs and arms of figures from their former stiff attachment to the body. Pausanias (ix. 3, &c.), says "the ancients called wooden figures Δαιδαλοι (Daedala); and he adds that it is probable the artist was named after his works rather than by his own name; thus making Daedalus a title or distinctive appellation from his skilful accomplishments. Pausanias was shown some wooden figures said to be by Daedalus. He declares there was a certain air of grandeur in them, but no beauty. If so, it could only have been from their size, unless his feelings of veneration for their great antiquity gave them sublimity in his eyes. Smilis was a native of Egina. He was the author of a statue of Juno at Samos. Endoecus was an Athenian, and scholar of Daedalus. Pausanias (vii. 5) records a colossal seated statue (of wood) of Minerva Polias, by this artist, which was in the temple at Erythrae in Ionia. He is said also to have executed works in stone and ivory. The accounts of works and of artists of this remote period are of course very vague.

Philo of Argos, about 800 B.C., is said to have struck the first money in Greece, in the island of Egina. Some extremely rude coins of that island, having for a device a tortoise, are extant; and from the very primitive style of their execution, they have been thought to be not very remote from the period alluded to. At this time mention is first made of statues in metal. Glaudias, some of whose works Pausanias saw (iii. 17), and Learchus, of Rhegium, are mentioned among the earliest artists, and the above writer speaks of a bronze statue of Jupiter at Lacedaemon, which was said to be by Learchus, as the most ancient statue in that material known to exist. The date of Learchus has been a subject of considerable difficulty with antiquaries, but it is probable that he lived about the time Sculpture here stated. The next names that occur are of importance in the annals of Greek sculpture,—these are Telecles, Rhecous, and Theodorus. Their reputation was so great that they had the credit of inventing many processes of art which it is obvious must have been known before their time; such, for instance, as the plastic art, or modelling. This is recorded by Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxv. 12), though he himself tells us in another place its discovery was attributed to Dibutades of Corinth. This simple art was of course known at the very earliest period, long before either of these artists appeared, but it is probable they were the authors of many improvements by which sculpture was greatly advanced. Rhecous and Theodorus were natives of Samos. The latter name was borne by two sculptors, one the son of Rhecous, the other of Telecles. Herodotus (iii. 60) says Rhecous, who was an architect as well as statuary, built the temple of June at Samos; and he is referred to as the author of a statue called Night, preserved in the temple of the Ephesian Diana. Pausanias says he was unable to find any work of Theodorus. Pliny mentions several that were attributed to him. The son of Telecles was considered the inventor of casting in iron. Herodotus (iii. 41), records that Theodorus engraved the celebrated ring which Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, threw into the sea, and so marvellously recovered. The king, who had enjoyed a long course of uninterrupted prosperity, determined to make some sacrifice to prove his equanimity. Among his most highly valued treasures was this ring, and he voluntarily parted with it, casting it himself into the sea. His good fortune still, however, attended him, for in a few days a large fish that had been taken was presented for the king's acceptance, and upon opening it the much-prized ring was found in its belly. Theodorus is also said to have made a magnificent vase that was dedicated at Delphi by Croesus, King of Lydia; a circumstance that has led to the belief that Theodorus lived at a later date than that usually assigned to him. It is possible, however, that the vase presented by Croesus may have been among the treasures of the king, a carefully-preserved work of an older age, and from its value and the fame of its author, a worthy object for the purpose to which Croesus applied it. Pliny says these artists lived long prior to the expulsion of the Bacchidae from Corinth. This occurred about 659 B.C. It has therefore been conjectured that Rhecous and the two sculptors named Theodorus must have flourished between 800 and 700 before our era. Dipoenus and Scyllis, who are supposed by some writers to have lived at this remote date, were considered the founders of the school of Sicyon. They had many scholars, among whom appears Learcheus of Rhegium before mentioned, and which will account for the early date given to these artists. It has been said of them they were the first who employed marble for sculpture; but the expression of Pliny (xxxvi. 4), upon which this opinion has been formed, more probably means that they were particularly distinguished in working in that beautiful material. Dipoenus and Scyllis were employed to make some statues of the gods for the Sicyonians; but owing to some offence received, they quitted Sicyon, leaving the statues unfinished. A famine soon after afflicted the country, and the oracle declared it would not cease till the statues of the gods were completed. The sculptors were prevailed upon to resume their work, and the statues of Apollo, Diana, Hercules, and Minerva, were finished by them. Among their scholars are Teucerus and Angelion, Dorycidas, Duntas, Medon, and Theocles. (Paus. ii. 32; iii. 17, &c.) Some writers have imagined that these eminent sculptors lived as late as 540 B.C. Flaxman (Lect., p. 75-79) considers the older date the more probable one.

From the most archaic period to about 600 B.C., there probably was but slight change as regards style in sculpture, though no doubt improvements were effected in some of the executive processes. At the later date referred to, a great step was made in the art; and it will be seen that from this time, from 600 or 550 B.C., the advancement of sculpture was continuous and rapid to a degree that is perfectly surprising.

Before proceeding with the consideration of some of the more interesting of the earlier monuments discovered within the present century, attention may be directed to the ancient lions over the gate of Mycenae, supposed to be the oldest example existing of Greek sculpture. The work is in stone, in high relief. The two lions are represented, on their hind legs, with the front feet resting on the shaft of a column standing between them. Pausanias (ii. 16) says this was reputed to be the work of the Cyclops. The statues from Branchidae have already been referred to for the peculiarities they exhibit of archaic design. It remains to mention the very interesting archaic sculptures discovered in Lycia in 1842-7, and now deposited in the British Museum. The statues and reliefs in this collection are of different periods, down to a comparatively late date, but the slabs on the tomb (called) of the Harpies, and some few fragments of draped statues, are of the most ancient type; curiously illustrating the infancy of Greek sculpture, and its distinctness of character from that of any other people.

In alluding to certain characteristics of archaic treatment in style, especial reference has been made to the sculptures of Selinus and Ægina. The first consist of some fragments of metopes from temples discovered in Sicily in the year 1823. One represents a portion of a combat between a warrior and a female. Three others, from another temple, are of historical or mythological subjects. The art of all these remains is very rude, but extremely curious and interesting, especially with reference to the growing change in sculpture. The proportions of the figures are short. The waists are remarkably contracted, and the heads, thighs, calves, and feet large and heavy. The legs and feet are represented in profile, though the figures are facing the spectator. The execution of the hair is formal, being long, and falling over the shoulders. It is also in some of the figures plaited. As usual in archaic design, all the figures, whatever their occupation, appear to be laughing. There is a total absence of beauty in all these sculptures. In the head of the fallen warrior some exceptional peculiarities will be observed, which seem to refer to a higher school of art than the others. So strong a resemblance appears in it to some of the heads of the Æginetan sculpture that it might be fancied that a portion of these works may have been superintended by artists from that rising school, while others may have been the productions of native artists. The date of these interesting monuments may probably be reckoned at about 600 B.C. The originals are in the Museum of Antiquities at Palermo, but casts from them are deposited in the British Museum. Selinus was founded about 620 B.C., and though it was taken and sacked by the Carthaginians, was not finally destroyed till about 270 B.C. The above sculptures may be referred to an early period of its history; and the student of the history of the art will be struck with the link they form in the progressive changes which begin now to mark the development of Greek sculpture.

The remarkable series of marble statues that form the Æginetan collection of sculptures, of which also we only possess casts, was discovered in the year 1812 in the island of Ægina. They decorated the two pediments of a temple dedicated to Jupiter Panhellenensis. They consist, in addition to numerous fragments, of sixteen statues, of which eleven belonged to the western pediment and five to that at the eastern end of the temple. The first eleven appear to complete the composition required to fill the space, and are therefore considered to be the entire number originally intended on that side. The eastern end is of course very deficient. The subject of both is a combat; and in the more Sculpture, extensive series. Minerva appears in the centre as the presiding power. She is of somewhat larger proportions than the combatants, and is raised on a step or plinth. The goddess is fully armed, with her helmet on, and on her left arm is a large circular shield. In her right hand, which was bent towards her breast, was in all probability a spear. Heregis covers her bust; the edge of it shows the winding bodies of the snakes, and these terminate in small points or tails, which were formed of metal. The figures extended on either side of the centre are engaged in battle; some are in violent action, some wounded and dying. It is remarkable that the figures of the eastern pediment are of a larger scale than those of the western side.

These sculptures offer many points of great interest to the student of the history of Greek art. Their general style may be classed as archaic; but there are peculiarities even here that show the commencement of an important movement. The statue of Minerva is of a much more ancient or rude style than the rest of the figures, from which two important conclusions may be drawn:—First, that although all the statues are unquestionably of the same date, there was a style of art known superior to that sometimes practised; and, secondly, that in the statues or representations of divinities, the sculptors were under some obligation to conform to prescribed rules. While the combatants exhibit every variety and generally entire correctness of action, the goddess is stiff and primitive, and stands with both feet turned in the same direction, sideways, in an attitude of difficulty and insecurity. In the other figures there is considerable display of knowledge of form, and an approach to broad treatment in the execution; and though the details are not yet equal to the excellence of the subsequent school, there is a fine feeling for proportion, and an agreeable and harmonious balance of parts. Yet here again the archaic element steps in in the character of the heads, which exhibit all the peculiarities of the more ancient types before referred to. However earnestly engaged, and even when wounded and dying, each has a smiling expression; the mouth being slightly open, as though each figure was occupied in the most pleasing manner. The hair is worked with the utmost care, in small curls and knobs, in the manner before described. The execution of these sculptures may be attributed to the age immediately preceding the time of Pericles. The originals in marble are at Munich, but there is a fine set of casts from them in the British Museum.

Before entering upon the sculpture of the great period referred to, a few remarks may advantageously be offered upon the schools and artists immediately preceding. The most celebrated of the former were those of Sicyon, Ægina, and Corinth; and from about 500 B.C. the succession of the sculptors and the changes each effected in the style of his art may be traced with some accuracy. Callon was one of the most celebrated of these, but his precise date is uncertain. After him appear Onatas and Glauconas. The former was both sculptor and painter, and Pausanias describes many of his works (Paus. vi. viii. ix. x.) Amongst these were several of bronze; some of colossal dimensions, and others of ordinary scale. At Pergamus was a colossal statue of Apollo; at Olympia a colossal Hercules, also one of bronze dedicated by the Thasians; also at Olympia a statue of Mercury, placed there by the people of Phœnecos; a statue of Ceres and others. Onatas executed some works in connection with other sculptors: Calliteles, for instance, assisted him with the above-named statue of Mercury. In another work, a chariot with accompaniments, dedicated at Olympia, we find him associated with Calamis; and in another with one Calynthus. Pausanias also states that certain of his performances in the sister art were preserved in the temple of Minerva Areia. It is curious and interesting to find ancient writers illustrating another art, that of oratory, by a reference to peculiarities in the practice of sculpture; by which we not only acquire some valuable information upon the subject of change and progress already adverted to, but are furnished with an important list of names of successive ancient sculptors, by whom these changes and improvements were effected. Cicero (De Clar. Orat.) says,—“Quis non intelligit Canachis signa rigidiore esse quam ut imitentur veritatem? Calamidis dura illa quidem, sed tanen molliora quam Canachi; nondum Myronis ad veritatem adducta, jam tanen quam non dubites pulchra dicere,” &c. &c. We have already seen that Quintilian in the same way characterises the difference of style of artists of this transition period, where he says,—“Duriiora Callon atque Egesias; minus rigida Calamis,” &c. These notices are extremely valuable. They carry sculpture through various phases, out of the early archaic manner, into the more perfect school of which Polycleitus and Phidias were the great ornaments. Cicero, in continuation of this review, says of the works of the former, “Pulchriora etiam Polycleiti (signa et opera) et jam plane perfecta;” thus bringing us through a series of changes to the highest perfection of the art.

A list of names of the eminent sculptors who now crowd the scene, though of great interest to the antiquary, would occupy much space, and would convey but little information upon those points which are important to our history.

There is one, however, noticed in the above series upon whom a few remarks may be made, as we possess in our national collection an antique copy of an undoubted work of the master. This is a statue of a “Discobolus,” or quoit-thrower by Myron. Lucian and Quintilian describe the original, which was of bronze; and the copy we refer to, one of three known to exist, bears out the criticism that is come down to us. The statue is full of action, even to exaggeration, and the style of form and execution associates it with the known date of its author. The ancient comment on it expresses the judgment of the writer:—“Quid tam distortum et elaboratum quam est ille Discobolus Myronis,” &c. Myron and Polycleitus were rivals in bronze works, and we read that they had their preferences for the kinds they used. Polycleitus employed the bronze of Ægina, Myron that of Delos (Plin. N. H.). Myron was an Athenian and a pupil, together with Phidias and Polycleitus, of Ageladas. He is said to have introduced a greater variety in his art than those who preceded him; but Pliny says he was not considered successful in expressing sentiment or passion, and that in his style of treatment there was still much of the stiffness of the early schools.

We are now struck with the importance that was beginning to be attached to particulars and details in sculpture; that is, in expression and peculiarities of treatment, apart from the distinct changes in style which indicate the general progress of the art in its passage from the archaic to the perfect schools.

Pythagoras, a sculptor, a native of Rhegium, who lived about the time, is mentioned for his superior ability in this respect. A statue by him is recorded of a wounded man, in which the expression of pain was so accurately defined that the spectators were affected by it, and seemed to share the sufferings of the figure before them. This sculptor is also particularly noticed for having expressed the veins in his statues, and for the careful execution of the hair. “Hic primus nervos ac venas expressit, capitumque diligentissimus.” (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiv.)

The next sculptor famous in the annals of Greek art, of whom particular mention is made, is Polycleitus. There are at least three of the name recorded, but the most eminent is called by Pliny Siegonius. It is possible, however, as one equally celebrated was also called Argius, that he may have been a native of Sicyon, but was known as an Argive from having produced many of his most celebrated works at Ar- Sculpture, gods, and thus that the two epithets belonged to the same individual. He is noted for the great care and perfection of his finish; but it is said he wanted variety in his art. This Polycletus was the author of one statue, a "Doryphorus," or lance-bearer, which was so perfect in its proportions that it was called by common consent "the Canon." Artists referred to it as a rule or standard of art, "lineamenta artis ex eo petentes vult a lege quidam." (Plin. N.H. xxxiv. 8.) We might easily dwell, if our limits permitted it, upon the numerous works of this accomplished sculptor, who seems to have been highly distinguished in every branch of his profession, and to have been no unworthy rival of the greatest artists who illustrated the age of Pericles. In one process he is pronounced to have surpassed even Phidias himself, for Pliny, in handing down a tradition of the practice of the Toreutic art, says that Polycleitus perfected or consummated what Phidias had only commenced, "Hie consumisset . . . ut Phidias operaretur."

Ageladas, or, as it sometimes occurs, Eladas, of Argos, produced numerous works of excellence; but the circumstance of the greatest interest attached to his name is his having been the master of the three leading sculptors of the fifth century before Christ, the age of what has been properly considered the sublime school of this art.

We now come to the greatest sculptor whose name and fame have reached modern times; and fortunately some undoubted works produced by him, or under his immediate direction, remain to attest the justice of the distinction that has been awarded him. Phidias, the son of Charmidas, was a native of Athens. He was born in the 73d Olympiad, or 484 years B.C. His masters were Hippias, of whom little is known (indeed he is mentioned but by one author), and Ageladas above mentioned. At one time he is said to have studied painting, an art professed by some of his family; but it is as the greatest of all sculptors that the reputation of Phidias has reached modern times. It has been seen by preceding remarks, and may be proved by existing remains, that the sculptors of what has been termed the Egyptian school, immediately prior to this time, laid the foundation of a finer style of art which Phidias especially brought to perfection. The preparation for this consummation takes nothing, however, from the honour due to this sculptor; for the superior quality of the art which he produced stamps it with a character of grandeur and beauty entirely its own.

Circumstances were peculiarly favourable to the development of art in the age at which our history has now arrived; and it was fortunate that there were such sculptors and architects as Phidias, Polycleitus, Myron, Praxiteles, Ictinus, and Callicrates to take advantage of and do justice to the opportunities offered for the highest exercise of their talents. It was under the enlightened administration of Pericles that some of the most magnificent works in these arts were produced; and Plutarch records the favour with which Phidias was honoured by this accomplished patron. Speaking of the more remarkable edifices erected during his government, he says, "It was Phidias who had the direction of these works, although great architects and skilful artists were employed under him;" and "Every artist was ambitious that the excellence of the workmanship should equal the beauty of the design." (Plut. in vit. Pericles.)

Of the greater works for which Phidias is most celebrated there are unfortunately no remains. These were the magnificent chryselephantine statues, with their elaborate accompaniments, which he executed for the Athenians and for the Eleans, and of which accurate descriptions have been handed down from ancient times. The most important was that at Elis of the Olympian Jupiter. The materials, as the term chryselephantine denotes, were ivory and gold, and the accessories were of the richest kind. The god was represented seated on a throne of gold. His brows were crowned with a wreath of olive; in his left hand he supported a statue of Victory, in his right he held his sceptre. Sculpture. His drapery was enriched with objects painted upon it, patterns of flowers and animals. At the foot of the throne were small statues of Victories; and on panels various subjects of ancient poetry and mythology. Nothing can exceed the splendour of the ornamental compositions described as part of this magnificent work. (Paus. vi., c. 11.) The colossal proportions of this statue, sixty feet high, compared with the temple in which it was placed, has occasioned a judicious criticism of Strabo. If it had stood up, he says, it would have been higher than the roof of the building, and therefore that the statue was disproportioned to the temple. An interesting anecdote is recorded by Pausanias showing the importance attached by the Greeks to this great work. Phidias, the story says, after the completion of the work, besought a sign from the god in whose honour it had been executed to intimate whether it was acceptable and pleasing to him. A flash of lightning immediately descended into the temple, and struck the pavement before the astonished and gratified sculptor. This was at once hailed as a proof of the satisfaction of the deity, and a brazen vase was placed on the spot to commemorate the circumstance: Pausanias says it was existing in his time. Our limits prevent our describing this work as fully as it deserves; but the reader who desires further and more precise information respecting the mode of execution, the subjects represented in its decoration, and the admiration bestowed upon this celebrated production may advantageously consult the elaborate work by M. Quatremère de Quincy, (Jupiter Olympien), in which many very interesting particulars upon the whole question of chryselephantine and Toreutic art are collected. It appears that this magnificent work was existing as late as the fifth century after Christ. The temple of Jupiter Olympus was destroyed about A.D. 385; but the statue had been transported to Constantinople, where it was destroyed by fire in or about A.D. 475. The next great work of this sculptor, executed prior to the statue above described, was that of Minerva of the Parthenon at Athens. This, like the Jupiter, was composed of gold and ivory. The goddess was represented standing, holding in her right hand a statue of Victory, and in her left a spear. She had a helmet on, and on heregis was the head of Medusa. Her shield was elaborately decorated with a representation of the battle of the gods and giants, and the pedestal exhibited the birth of Pandora. The height of the statue was 39 feet. These statues are here selected for notice as being the most highly-reputed performances of Phidias, but a long list of colossal and other statues, in various materials, as bronze, marble, wood, as well as gold and ivory, by this artist, might easily be produced to show the extent and the important character of his employment. As there are no remains of these works left by which posterity may form any judgment of their merit, it would unnecessarily occupy space only to enumerate their titles and subjects. It is, however, satisfactory to be able to contemplate some of the marble decorations of the Parthenon, which may without dispute be attributed to the master mind and hand of Phidias. These are the statues and rilievi which were on the exterior of the temple. They consist of single figures and groups which were placed in the pediments, of several of the metopes, and a considerable portion of the frieze of the cella. These celebrated sculptures are without dispute the finest specimens of the art that exist; and they illustrate so fully and so admirably the progress and, it may be said, the consummation of sculpture that it is important their character and peculiar excellence should be well understood by those who desire to make themselves acquainted with the true principles of this art. They exhibit in a remarkable degree all the qualities that really constitute fine art,—truth, beauty, and perfect execution. In the forms, the most perfect, the most Sculpture, appropriate, and the most graceful have been selected. All that is coarse or vulgar in ordinary nature is omitted, and that only is represented which unites the two essential qualities of truth and beauty. The result of this happy combination is what has been termed ideal beauty. No productions of the earlier schools exhibited this union; Phidias may therefore justly be considered the author of this consummation as we now first see it in the works produced under his immediate direction. The statues of the Ilyssus or river god, of the so-called Theseus, of Neptune, and the large draped groups, are all remarkable for the qualities referred to, united with grandeur of style and simplicity. Wherever the naked form is shown there is the most profound knowledge of its anatomical structure and capabilities of action. The draperies, likewise, are everywhere treated with the greatest skill and with the most careful attention to effect, in their opposition to, and contrast with, the naked. These works deserve also especial notice for the admirable management of composition in relief. The metopes afford the best examples of alto or high relief, and the frieze of that which is called basso or low relief. In the latter especially, the knowledge and skill exhibited in representing a crowded and busy procession of walking figures, mixed up with riders and horses in every variety of action, and other animals intended for sacrifice, without unseemly and unintelligible confusion, cannot be too highly praised. It may be observed here that the perfect acquaintance which the best sculptors of this time had with the anatomy and character of animals is extraordinary. Myron was celebrated for his accomplishment in this respect, and the horses in the Elgin marbles must be admitted by all competent judges of that animal to be the most perfect representations of shape, action, and high-breeding.

Before entirely quitting the subject of Phidias and his works, an interesting circumstance may be mentioned in connection with the preservation of the two most important productions of the artist,—the statues of Jupiter and Minerva. Pausanias tells us the former was surrounded at its base by a groove or channel of black marble containing oil. The object of this was to supply a sufficient quantity of moisture to preserve the ivory (from shrinking probably), and at the same time to secure the work from the danger of too much humidity, as the Altis was situated on marshy ground. At Athens means were adopted to obviate the damage that might arise from the opposite evil, the Acropolis being in too dry a situation. The statue of the Olympian Jupiter was out of repair soon after its completion. The custody of this work was entrusted to a particular family called Phaedruntai. Pausanias says they were descendants of Phidias, and mentions as a remarkable fact that the office was held in the same family in his time.

Among the most celebrated of the scholars and followers of Phidias were Agoracritus of Paros, Alcamenes of Athens, Colotes or Colotai, Praxiteles, and others. Of these, the two first appear to have held the highest rank. Agoracritus was the favourite scholar; Alcamenes, judging from the accounts left of him, the most able artist. He is said to have been second only to his master; and one author says, what was wanting in Polycletus was found in the works of Phidias and Alcamenes. Two works of this artist have been particularly noticed for their excellence: one was a statue of a conqueror in the games, called a "Pentathlos;" the other of a "Venus" of the "gardens."

The sculptures in high relief known as the Phigalian marbles, and preserved in the British Museum, are also of this date, and deserve attention for the high art qualities they possess. They formed part of the decoration of the temple of Apollo Epicourous or Epicurus, and were discovered in the year 1812. They represent the contest between the Centaurs and Lapithae, and the Greeks and Amazons. The various groups in these compositions are remarkably striking for their vigour and expression; and though the forms are rather heavy, they exhibit all the character of a high style of art. There can be little doubt that these sculptures proceeded from the same source as the sculptured decoration of the Parthenon. Pausanias says the temple was built by Ictinus; and as he was assisted by Phidias in his great work at Athens, it is more than probable this sculptor also supplied designs for the Phigalian temple. They bear satisfactory evidence of the influence of the master mind, and their comparative inferiority in some technical points may easily be accounted for by the fact of their execution being left to perhaps inferior artists, working at a distance from the personal superintendence of Phidias.

The perfection of the grand or sublime style of sculpture appears to have had its consummation in the time of Phidias. He executed works of various kinds, but chiefly he was employed on subjects of a high and dignified class, such as were to do honour to the gods, in illustrating the mythology, or in statues of divinities; and the elevated character he gave these performances procured for him the most honourable distinction. It is recorded that he acquired the title of the "sculptor of the gods;" and one writer says, in speaking of the "Jupiter" of this artist, that by the power or excellence of his art he added something to the sublimity of religion.

The next great master who influenced the progress of sculpture introduced a new element into it, which could only have been accepted subsequently to the success which had followed the innovations introduced by the genius and power of Phidias. The latter had boldly freed his art from the prescriptive types and the over-dry manner of the archaic and Eginetan sculptors; but though he had established the fundamental rule that the highest perfection of form is the proper object of imitative art, he still preserved some severity of style in his mode of treatment. Praxiteles of Cnidus is considered to be the head of the school that addressed itself more immediately to the senses. This step had a most important influence upon the art. The object now was not so much to elevate and instruct as to please, and the result was, of course a lower standard of judgment in the people. Praxiteles is spoken of by all the ancient writers as one of the greatest masters who has professed this art. His works in bronze and marble are described as of the highest excellence; and there can be no doubt that they fully merited the encomiums lavished upon them. Still his peculiar merit appears to have consisted not in the imagination or high purpose of his works so much as in the exquisite perfection of his execution. Two of his works in marble are especially noticed for their expression. One represented an aged woman weeping; the other a courtezan, said to be a portrait of Phryne, to whom the sculptor was much attached, and whose features were lighted up with the most joyful expression. Praxiteles executed for the people of Cnidus a naked statue of Venus. This work was considered the masterpiece of the sculptor, and people flocked from all parts to see and admire it. It is recorded, in proof of the value of this work, that the Cnidians were oppressed by a heavy debt they owed to Nicomedes, King of Bithynia, who offered to liberate them from this obligation if they would consent to give up this far-famed statue. The Cnidians refused, however, to purchase their freedom from debt at this cost, and would not part with a work of art the possession of which rendered their city so illustrious.

---

1 Quinctilian, xii. 10. 2 Lucian de Imaginibus, Phil. N. H. xxxvi.; Paus., lib. L It has been thought that Praxiteles was the first sculptor who ventured to represent the female form entirely without drapery. It was an innovation somewhat startling, and at first was not generally adopted; but to reconcile partially, the representation of such forms with feelings of propriety (for sculpture was not yet used merely to gratify indecorous fancy and prurient tastes), a compromise was effected by representing the lower half of the figure draped, as is seen in the fine statues of the "Venus" of Milo in the Louvre, the "Venus" of Capua at Naples, and our own fine statue of Venus or Dione in the Townley collection in the British Museum. It is, however, clear that, from this time, the exhibition of the undraped female figure was a common and popular exercise of the sculptor's art; and perhaps the real decline of sculpture may be said to have commenced when its practice was directed to please the sense or taste for voluptuous forms, instead of addressing the nobler sentiments, as had been done by Phidias and his severer school. The object of this essay being the history of sculpture, and not the biography of sculptors, it is not possible to do more than touch generally upon individual artists, and that only in their character of leaders of schools. Otherwise the fame and extensive practice of Praxiteles would fully warrant a much more extended notice than is here afforded to so great a master.

In the list of eminent sculptors living at this time the name of Scopas claims honourable distinction. He is thought to be the author of the celebrated group of "Niobe and her Children" in the gallery of sculpture at Florence. He also is said to have executed the sculptures on one side of the quadrangular base of the celebrated Mausoleum. There is reason to think that the greater part of the statues composing the Niobe group are but ancient copies from the original work; but even as copies they afford satisfactory evidence of the ability of the artist who conceived the subject, as examples of expression, form, action, and fine style of art. Of the other work alluded to, we may congratulate ourselves on possessing indisputably portions of the original sculptures, though in a mutilated form. They consist of a large collection of objects, as statues, reliefs, fragments of animals and of architectural details, and they certainly may be considered among the most valuable remains that have been recovered from ancient times. They not only illustrate a very celebrated period and school of art, but are undoubted examples of the works of individual sculptors whose names have been handed down to us by the writers of antiquity. They were found on the site of the ancient Halicarnassus, now called Bodrum, in Asia Minor; and they formed portions of the famous commemorative monument, of which nothing was known but by tradition, erected by Artemisia to her husband (and brother) Mausolus, King of Caria, who died in the year 353 B.C. It was called the Mausoleum from that circumstance, and has given its name to all subsequent erections of a similar character. It was so remarkable for its scale and the magnificence of its decoration, that it was accounted one of the wonders of the world. Pliny describes this noble monument at great length, and we are enabled from the particulars he supplies to form a very good general idea of its design. The whole composition, formed of marble, stood upon an ample base, of which we have many of the blocks. Upon this was a peristyle of thirty-six columns, of which, and of portions of the architraves, sufficient fragments have reached us to settle a point not mentioned by Pliny—namely, the order of the architecture, which is Ionic. From a centre or cella rose a pyramidal structure in steps, and this was surmounted by a marble quadriga. The whole height was 140 feet. The length on two sides, the north and south, was 63 feet, and on the others somewhat less. Among the Sculpture sculptured fragments recovered are some of great interest, consisting of statues, portions of colossal horses, and reliefs. Pliny acquaints us that Artemisia employed four of the most celebrated sculptors of antiquity to decorate this monument, and he gives us the names of Bryaxis, Timotheus, Leochares, and Scopas; Vitruvius gives Praxiteles instead of Scopas. These artists executed the reliefs that adorned the sides of the Mausoleum; Bryaxis, according to Pliny, adorning the north face, Timotheus the south, Leochares the west, and Scopas the east. To Pythia was entrusted the execution of the marble quadriga by which the whole was crowned. It is not necessary here to enter into the vexed question which has occupied and still occupies antiquaries and architects upon the precise design of this celebrated work. We have sufficient accounts of its general character and scale, and now most satisfactory evidence in details of the quality of its sculptured decorations. It is this latter particular which gives the work its interest in a history of the art. The school of sculpture which these remains illustrate had reached the highest point of excellence. Founded on the grand and sublime style which characterised the productions of Phidias and his immediate followers, the works of the succeeding sculptors whose names we find associated with this splendid erection exhibit a greater refinement and luxury, if it may be so called, of treatment and execution than are found in the previous school. This is clearly exhibited in the manner of working the drapery in the two colossal statues; one of which has been surmised possibly to represent Mausolus himself; the other is a female figure. The drapery about the left mutilated arm of this latter statue, with the effect of the flesh of the limb against it, is an example of consummate art-power. The reliefs represent various subjects, but chiefly contests between men and Amazons. They are full of action and expression, with the greatest variety of composition and most picturesque arrangement; a quality of very difficult and dangerous adjustment in the somewhat severe art of sculpture, but they are here achieved with the most skilful perfection. These reliefs vary a little in width, and indeed in the scale of the figures, showing that there either were different tiers or series of reliefs, or that the different sculptors exercised their own fancy in making their respective decorations of a larger or smaller size. The fragments of some statues of horses show that these works are of a larger scale than any similar works of the kind that have been found in marble. One of them still has some portion of the bronze bridle or head accoutrements remaining. There is one fragment of a horse, in violent rearing action, with a portion of a figure probably reining in the steed. Generally speaking, the horses are of very inferior quality to the rest of the sculpture. All these interesting fragments are now in the British Museum.

The sculptor who may be said to have completed the progressive course of sculpture was Lysippus, a native of Sicyon. He worked chiefly, if not entirely, in bronze. Pliny, Pausanias, and other writers, have recorded a long list of his works, and he is said by the former to have executed as many as six hundred and ten statues. Lysippus was greatly esteemed by Alexander the Great, who allowed him the exclusive privilege of making his statues. He also made one of Hephaestion, the favourite of Alexander, and statues of all the generals who accompanied the prince in his passage over the Granicus. There are some particulars mentioned of the practice of Lysippus which throw light upon the condition of the art at this its culminating point. He is noticed for the care he bestowed on completion and finish, and in working the hair. He also made the heads of his figures smaller than his predecessors (an-

---

1 Millingen, Ancient Inedited Monuments of Grecian Art, No. x, p. 7. Sculpture, tigui), and the bodies somewhat more slender, by which the effect of tallness was increased. His works were remarkable for a quality which Pliny describes by the word symmetrica, and he entirely got rid of a certain squareness observable in the ancient school. A remarkable expression is attributed to Lysippus, which shows how thoroughly this sculptor understood the value of working for effect without sacrifice of truth and correctness of detail. He said, "By the older artists, men were made as they are; by himself, as they appeared to be." It is thought that a bronze statue of Hercules in the British Museum may very possibly be a work of this sculptor. The character of the art of this time had a slight leaning to exaggeration. As the grand, solemn style of Phidias had been followed by a change to the sensuous treatment introduced by Praxiteles, so this latter was succeeded by the effort of a new school to produce additional effect by a more energetic display of action, and somewhat elaborate execution. Lysippus left many scholars who were eminent sculptors; of these, three—Laippus or Daippus, Bedas, and Euthycrates—were his sons. Tisocrates, another, imitated his master so successfully, that it was sometimes doubted whether the work was by Lysippus or the scholar. Chares, the Lindian, the author of the far-famed Colossus of Rhodes, also worked under Lysippus.

It is worthy of remark how many celebrated sculptors were natives of Rhodes. Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus, the authors of the group of "Laocoon," as well as Apollonius and Tauriscus the sculptors of the well-known group of "Diana and her Sons," commonly called the "Toro Farnese," were Rhodians. From this small island, not more than forty miles long and fifteen broad, the Romans, when they conquered it, brought away three thousand statues.

The history of the progress to perfection of Greek sculpture may here be said to be completed. From this time only imitations or varieties of the examples of the three great schools were attempted. The death of Alexander the Great, and the division of the Macedonian empire among his successors was one cause of the decline of art, though some endeavour was made by the Seleucids and by Ptolemy to support them in Syria and Egypt; as well as at Pergamus by Attalus and Eumenes. As late as the 145th and 150th Olympiads the names of several sculptors appear; and to this period antiquaries have attributed some celebrated works that have reached our time. Among these, the "Hermaphrodite," the "Torso" of the Belvidere, bearing the name of Apollonius, the son of Nestor, as its author; the Farnese "Hercules," by Glycon; and of the "Fighting Gladiator," by Agasias, may be mentioned. In the 157th Olympiad (146 B.C.) Corinth was destroyed and sacked by L. Mummius, by whom the finest statues and other works of art were carried to Rome as spoil; and the last blow was given to the hopes and power of the Greeks. Athens, in the midst of political changes, kept up for some time her character for eminence in the fine arts; but after the death of Alexander she began to lose her ascendancy even here. After the termination of the civil war between Pompey and Cæsar, in which Athens had sided with the former, her fate was sealed; though the conqueror treated her with generous consideration, saying, in allusion to her former glory, "He would spare the living for the sake of the dead." Many Greek artists, driven by want from their own country, emigrated to Italy, where they found an asylum and employment among such patrons as Rome afforded; and it is in Rome that the further history of sculpture must now be followed.

In the earlier period of the rise of Rome there was little opportunity or disposition for the cultivation of the fine arts, and though we read of works in sculpture of an early date, they were no doubt the productions of strangers, probably the Etruscans. Mention is made of some equestrian statues in Rome, of Camillus and Mænius, three hundred years before the Christian era; and in another art, Fabius, a member of a noble family, so distinguished himself as to have acquired the surname of "Pictor." After the capture of Syracuse, Marcellus sent hence various works of art from Sicily; and about this time it is supposed Greek artists arrived in Rome. Collections of works of art were made, but this seems to have been done rather from ostentation than from any feeling for or admiration of their merit. Sylla, after the victories he had gained, despoiled Athens, Delphi, Elis, and other great centres of art, and had the treasures carried to Rome, till at last collecting statues became a fashion. Verres is well known for the avidity and injustice with which he indulged the passion for acquiring such works during his government of Sicily. Many names of sculptors of this time have been recorded, but all appear to be Greeks.—Pasites, Arce-silas, Strongylion (the author of the statue of the Amazon called "Enescim," from the beauty of her legs), Olympo-thenes, and others. Julius Caesar appears to have had a taste for art, for he not only collected largely in statues, gems, &c., but he also embellished with fine public works Rome and many cities of Gaul, Spain, and other countries which owned the rule of Italy. The same may be recorded of Augustus, who not only decorated the city with works of art, but had statues erected in honour of eminent men. In this age the name of Agrippa stands pre-eminent for his public spirit and princely liberality in erecting useful and ornamental edifices in and about Rome. The Pantheon, which still remains to do honour to this munificent patron of art, was erected at the charge of Agrippa, who, it is recorded, employed Diogenes the Athenian to enrich it with sculpture, all of which seems to have perished. The celebrated statue of Germanicus in the Louvre is no doubt of this period. Vitruvius the architect, Dioscorides, Agathopus, Epitychanus, and others, gem engravers, were also practising with honour at this time. Some of the best-known productions of sculpture have been attributed, with more or less reason, to this age, but the discussion of their date would scarcely come within the objects of this general history.

The reigns of Trajan, of Hadrian, and the Antonines may be considered the best age of sculpture in Rome, though there is no reason to believe the arts were practised even then by natives. Hadrian, there can be no doubt, had a real love of art. He completed the temple of the Olympian Jupiter at Athens, which had been left unfinished for ages. In Italy, the remains of his celebrated villa near Tivoli prove the scale of his magnificence; while the high quality of the statues, rilievi, and other objects that have been found there, establish the claim of this emperor to rank not only as a liberal and munificent, but as an enlightened patron of art. Of this time are the fine statues of Antinous.

Here and there, after this date, an occasional revival of art occurred, but the general tendency was to its rapid decline, till Constantine endeavoured to give a new impulse to its practice. But this failed to produce original works of merit, and the emperor was driven to decorate his new seat of government at Byzantium with ancient statues and works of art that could be procured from other places. Many most important productions in sculpture, in marble and bronze, were here accumulated when, in 479, a fire destroyed the greater part of them. Constans, who was Emperor of the East, in 661 was driven from his capital, and fled to Rome. He despoiled it of all the works he could seize, and had them sent to Sicily, where he found an asylum and where he died. The arts in Rome were now hastening to their final extinction, and all the well-intended efforts of Charlemagne, and afterwards of Theodoric, were insufficient to save the finest remains of antiquity from the ravages of their barbarian followers. The Empire of the West was at an end, and the Roman name was only known Sculpture at Constantinople, where, however, some of the finest productions of ancient sculpture were still preserved. When Baldwin made himself master of Constantinople further misfortune befell the arts. All the metal statues that could be seized were melted down and converted into money. Amongst these, it is painful to know, was a magnificent statue of Juno by Lysippus, a colossal "Hercules," a statue of Helen, and many other productions of the best period of Greek sculpture.

The monuments of the Romans are very numerous, and occasionally some fine portraits are found among them. They also have been very useful in illustrating the history and habits of the nation. But Roman sculpture is in all respects essentially inferior when compared with the productions of the Greeks. With one people it was the expression of original feeling, in forms of the most perfect beauty, the consummation of the utmost refinement of sentiment and intelligence; with the other the best of it was only imitation. The result was for the most part insipidity and tenuity, even when the mechanical imitation was tolerably successful.

The decline of sculpture, after the few fitful attempts to restore it by some of the later rulers of the dismembered and decaying Roman empire, was rapidly progressive, till at last it is impossible to connect the miserable performances of the artists of these times with the fine ancient examples, which were still abundant and might have served as valuable guides had any sympathy with their excellence existed. But there was no general interest felt in the subject, and the efforts to revive it, emanating as they did from a few individuals, hail little or no success.

Italy may justly claim the honour of the new birth of art. It has been said that the monks of the early Greek and Latin churches kept alive its dying embers by illuminating manuscripts and church services, and by decorating the chapels of their convents with rude paintings; but it is scarcely possible to admit this, and to consider the awkward and ignorant attempts at design of this time as an effect or continuation of any art, deserving the name, that had preceded it. Modern art must be estimated by a totally different standard, and, thus considered, the circumstances of its rise and development give it an interest and importance which it never could claim if it were only a spuriously imitation of the debased and exhausted art of the ancient schools.

There are, besides, some curious circumstances that arrest attention at this point in the history of art. One of these is the fact of its almost total extinction among that remarkable people, the Greeks, by whom it had been carried to its highest perfection; and its revival in a country where, in ancient times, its existence had been ignored, its practice looked upon with a feeling akin to contempt, and where collections of works of art, when made at all, were formed much more frequently from ostentation than from any real interest that was felt in them. The next fact to be noticed is, that when the early Christian communities desired to call in the aid of art to enforce or illustrate the new faith, the employment of 'beautiful forms in representing the Saviour' and other sacred persons was strenuously opposed by the fathers of the Eastern Church; while the Western Christians contended, on the other hand, that no form could be too perfect for this object. This curious and, as it affected art, important controversy was carried on with the greatest warmth on both sides; but finally the cause of the beautiful was established in the West, and resulted in that happy development which in the course of years so eminently distinguished the schools of Italy. In the East, formerly the home of all that was beautiful in art, but now, where beauty, as a means of illustrating divine and Scripture subjects, was proscribed, the reverse has taken place. The religious paintings of the Greek Church are of the most debased and barbarous quality; and all classes of fine art among this people seem to have sunk into utter insignificance.

The revival in Italy has usually been dated at about the tenth century; probably because at that time, or a little later, a resemblance is supposed to be traceable to some of the old types, by which a connection would appear to be established between the later and earlier practice. But the real beginning of modern art may be reckoned from an earlier period. Flaxman thought it might be dated as far back as seven centuries earlier, when Christianity had, under Constantine, become the religion of the empire. It is true that the early Christians adapted, and even adopted, pagan designs, to ornament, if it can be so called, their subterranean hiding-places with illustrations of Scripture subjects, or with allegorical emblems; but it is curious to find that an entirely original style of art was all the while growing, whose character bore no resemblance to what already existed, and which might so easily have served for examples to the sculptors and painters of this dark period. This fact offers grounds for some speculations of interest; with reference to the origin of a distinct and original school of design, which should fulfil the same office to the new religion which the art of its time had done for the older and now obsolete systems; but it is not expedient to enter into the discussion of this subject in a compressed history of sculpture. It may, however, be remarked that the mind and spirit that are observable in the paintings and sculpture of the class referred to display a feeling that justly claims for them the merit of originality, and shows their entire independence; in that respect, of the ancient schools. This freedom of thought is particularly striking in the compositions of the early Christian artists of subjects that would seem naturally to tempt them to recur to the mode of treatment of their predecessors in art,—namely, those in which allegorical figures and symbols were required. Many instances of this originality might be adduced, but it will be sufficient for the purpose to refer to the works of one of the earliest and most remarkable painters, Giotto di Bondone, in the "Salone" at Padua, and in the "Capella dell' Annunziata" in the same city, in proof of the fact stated. Early Christian art was as distinctly divided from the art of the Greek schools as the religion itself which gave it birth was, in its earlier and pure teaching, distinct from the numerous systems that had before filled the world; and it is important to show its claim to originality, as it will assist the student of the history of art in understanding many of the causes of the fluctuations and changes that have characterised all the modern schools of sculpture. A depth of thought, and an earnest, solemn character pervade the art of the Christian designers, which shows they draw their inspiration, not second-hand from models, but from their own inward feelings. At first, indeed, their attempts in art were painfully rude, compared with the wonders of the Greek schools. But it must be borne in mind that the purpose of Christian art never was the same as that of much of the sculpture of the Greek schools,—namely, the representation of beautiful form for its own sake. After the first attempts at design, usually in single figures,—gaunt and staring images of apostles and saints, or, if in numerous figures, without any knowledge of composition,—the religious artists seem to have aimed at appealing to the sympathies, or at awakening reflection, rather than of gratifying the sense by presenting to the spectator such objects as should be only pleasing to the eye or the fancy. Art was not required as a mere appendage to luxury. Its recommendation in this respect had long ceased to exist, and the sensuous schools of the post-Phidian period had, as has been shown, in some degree, helped to lower its character even among the ancients, after its higher religious and heroic object had been lost sight of. Among the moderns it had Sculpture, an entirely new mission. Exercising art on this principle, the artists of this age may therefore consistently be considered men of original genius. Instead of merely copying, they drew from their own innate and independent sources of sentiment, and the result was, that the art they produced gave the promise that had been realized in Greek art of the fifth century B.C., when it was directed by the master-spirits of that age—of deep expression, beauty, and refined taste. The causes that tended to check this consummation will be considered hereafter.

The first artist whose works arrest attention for the real art-feeling they exhibit is Niccolo Pisano. He appeared early in the thirteenth century, and, as his name implies, he was a native of Pisa. It was usual in those days for the same artist to practise in all the three branches of the arts, painting, sculpture, and architecture; and many examples still exist of this combination. In the hands of Niccolo and his son Giovanni of Pisa, however, sculpture had its own distinct and important character from the exclusive devotion given to it by these sculptors; and their employment in the decoration of the sacred edifices that were being erected in all parts of Italy enabled them to carry their art to a high degree of comparative excellence. The cathedrals of Pisa, Pistoia, and Orvieto especially are rich in their works. In order to account for the superiority of these artists, it has been supposed that they derived considerable advantage from the opportunity they had of studying some remains of ancient sculpture which were preserved in the Campo Santo of Pisa. It is highly probable that they may have been impressed with the technical superiority of these ancient sculptures; but that their own original character of design or of sentiment, the latter especially religious and Christian, was in any way affected by anything they saw in these works is by no means apparent; and it is not till much later, when art was much more universally practised, that the influence of such examples can be traced. A reference to some few of the productions of the two great sculptors of the school of Pisa will illustrate the view here taken.

The rilievi, in marble, which enrich the front of the cathedral of Orvieto especially merit attention. The subjects are taken from the Bible, and represent the Creation of Adam and Eve, the Temptation, the expulsion from Paradise, and others of the kind. These designs exhibit very rare qualities of beauty and expression, and are remarkable indications of the deep art-feeling which has made the Pisan school so celebrated. They of course show the want of practice in the more mechanical requirements of art and in freedom of execution, but the higher qualities that abound in them amply compensate for these merely technical shortcomings. Simplicity, grace, and feeling are all combined in these striking compositions; and in the figures of angels especially there is an exalted and pure character that is at once impressive and elevating. The draperies are also treated with great taste and skill. Cicognara (Storia della Scultura) thinks that these are the productions of some scholars of Niccolo, and not by that sculptor, but the question does not affect the great merit of the works. A semicircular bassorilievo by Niccolo, representing the "Taking down from the Cross," placed over a door in the front of the cathedral of Lucca, is also a composition of great merit, both for its design in an artistic point of view, and for the exquisite feeling shown in it. Another remarkable work by the same author may be seen at Siena, in a rilievo representing the Last Judgment and the final punishment of the wicked. Judging from the general character of the works attributed to Niccolo, the subject could scarcely have been congenial to the spirit of the artist. His special ability was in treating gentle, and touching, and delicate subjects. This composition has, however, considerable merit, in the bold treatment of the terrible scene; the crowding together and shrinking of the guilty, and for the skill occasionally shown in the arrangement of the different groups. There are two figures of angels introduced to which the sculptor has been able to give all that grace and beauty so observable in his other works. Niccolo lived to an advanced age, and left many distinguished scholars and imitators, of whom his son Giovanni of Pisa, Arnolfo of Florence, Margaritone of Arezzo, and Guido of Como, gained well-deserved reputation.

In 1330 Andrea, the son of Ugolino of Pisa, who was settled in Florence, executed one of the bronze gates of the baptistery in that city. It is a work of great excellence for its date, though it is deficient in some practical points. He also executed some statues in marble, but they are inferior to many of his productions. A sculptor of great merit, Andrea Orcagna, was contemporary with Andrea Pisano, and executed various works in Florence. Some of these are preserved in the small chapel or oratory, called Or San Michele, in that city, and justify the praise that has been accorded to this artist by all competent judges. He was not only a sculptor, but was distinguished also as a painter, an architect, and a poet. His style of art partook of the dry and minute character of the early school, but he was superior to his contemporaries in his treatment of drapery. Among the sculptors who highly distinguished themselves at this period, towards the end of the fourteenth century, Luca della Robbia claims honourable mention. His subjects are all of a serious or religious character, and among his productions are some of great beauty. He chiefly delighted in representing groups, in high relief, of the Virgin and infant Christ, or the Saviour and St John as children, and similar subjects. There are two works of Luca preserved in the sculpture gallery in Florence which deserve particular notice; they are bassi rilievi in marble, representing a choir, or a group of church singers. They claim attention for their skilful composition, and for the truth of the expression of the different figures. Indeed, they only require elevation of form to place them on a level with the best productions in the art. Luca della Robbia is well known in the history of sculpture as the inventor of a peculiar mode of working in terra-cotta, the material of which almost all his groups are made. He painted his compositions, and covered them with a beautiful and peculiar varnish of which he made a great mystery. It is said he never disclosed it to any one, but committed the process to writing, and inclosed it in one of his clay models before baking it. Whether this was the case, can only some day be known by the accidental destruction of that one of his works which is the depository of the secret. Luca died in 1442. In Florence are preserved some very interesting compositions in rilievo, in marble, by other sculptors of this period, among whom Benedetto da Rovezzano may be particularly mentioned. In these works an approach is seen to those qualities which constitute real art progress. There is not only occasionally very agreeable form, but considerable skill and feeling in the treatment of drapery.

A crowd of artists now appear in all parts of Italy, employed in erecting and decorating the churches which the piety and liberality of the age were dedicating to religious service, and in honour of particular saints. Only the more celebrated can be selected for notice from this long list; but it would be unjust to the striking superiority of two of these to omit to record especially the names of Lorenzo Ghiberti and Donato di Betto Bard, better known as Donatello. The great work of the former of these sculptors is too well known to require an extended notice in this place. It is the beautiful composition of rilievi in the panels of one of the bronze gates of the Baptistery at Florence. Several sculptors had been employed on parts of this edifice, but the contribution of Lorenzo Ghiberti so far surpasses them all that Michel Angelo is said to have declared, in his admira- Sculpture, ration of them, "they were worthy to be the gates of Paradise." The subjects are from the Old Testament. They display a fine feeling for composition, a superior acquaintance with the beauty and movements of the human figure, refined expression, considerable skill in execution, and are in all respects of a higher quality of art than any contemporary productions of the kind. Unfortunately, in the treatment of these otherwise admirable compositions a great principle of art has been infringed by the attempt to represent perspective appearances by different degrees of relief; effects which can only be truly and correctly produced by the aid of colour in the atmosphere, and by the skilful artificial distribution of light and shadow, as in a picture. Modern sculptors have constantly erred in their attempts to meet this difficulty, inherent in their art. The great masters of ancient sculpture have shown us in their works that they could carry the art to its highest perfection within its own legitimate limits, and in rilievo of all kinds they confined the representation to one plane. The gates of Ghiberti are injured by this seeking for picturesque effects; and the number of small parts, the variety of unimportant objects, as trees, animals, &c., deprive it of that breadth which is so valuable a quality in sculpture. Ghiberti was less successful in some bronze statues than in his compositions for the baptistery. Of a statue of St Matthew, Flaxman says: "It wants the severe chastity of the apostolic character, and the head is inferior to those in the spandrels of his gates; the attitude also is affected, and the drapery unnatural."

Donatello was a Florentine, born in 1383. The works of this sculptor were highly prized, and he was extensively employed. Many of his productions are still remaining in various cities of Italy. Two statues of St George and St Mark, which have obtained well-deserved celebrity, are in the oratory before mentioned, of Or San Michele at Florence. The former of these is remarkable for its simple action and calm, grand expression, reminding the spectator of the vigorous and nervous manner which characterised the works of the immediately succeeding school. The statue of St Mark received the high compliment of Michel Angelo's admiration when he exclaimed, with reference to its truth to nature, "Marco, perché non mi parli?" In Florence are also some very interesting and, allowing for the imperfect state of art of the time, curious bassi-rilievi in marble by this sculptor. They represent groups of children dancing; the background of these is very curiously treated, being closely covered with small round pieces of gold-leaf; like coins. Some rilievi of very great merit by Donatello are also to be seen at Padua. Compared with the works of his immediate predecessors, there appears sometimes a degree of exaggeration in the style of this sculptor; in the bending of the joints, and the smaller articulations of his figures. This may have arisen from his desire to avoid the dry or timid treatment of the earlier schools, and so far may be considered a proof of the forward movement of art. The productions of the two sculptors above named are interesting subjects of examination to all who take an interest in the development of a really original school of sculpture. Donatello lived to a great age, and left many scholars. One of these was a Giovanni di Pisa, the author of a basso-rilievo of no ordinary merit in a small chapel of the church of the Eremitani in Padua. It represents the Madonna and infant Christ, with three figures of saints on each side. Passing over names of less celebrity, though meriting notice in a regular history of sculpture, that of Andrea Verrochio claims distinction as the master of Leonardo da Vinci, and of Pietro Perugino the master of Raffaello. Verrochio at first was a painter, but it is said he grew jealous of the performance of Leonardo in a work in which the scholar was assisting the master, and relinquished that art for sculpture. There are several works by him, statues and rilievi, at Florence. Rustici, who studied also under Verrochio, was a sculptor of merit. He was invited into France by Francis I. Amongst his works we find many of classical subjects. He died in 1560.

The general character of art had up to this time been essentially of a religious kind. The deficiency in the modern Christian school of sculpture was in the technical requirements of the art; but these seemed to be attainable before long, judging from the rapid strides that painting and sculpture were now making. In the expression of deep sentiment, in simplicity, in chaste beauty of form in sacred or holy subjects, in the arrangement and quality of draperies, and the harmonious flow of lines, no school of art of any time or nation can show works of greater promise than may be found in the productions of the mediæval artists.

This hopeful condition of sculpture, upon which might have been founded the expectation of the art reaching a high state of excellence (as ancient sculpture had done under similar influences), was destined to be interrupted.

At the period which our history has reached the discovery of the long-lost treasures of the classical writers of antiquity gave an extraordinary impulse to the studies of the lovers of literature. The Medici, the accomplished rulers of Florence, liberally encouraged men of learning, and Florence became the centre of the revival of Greek and Roman letters. The fine arts, always so dependent in modern practice upon the influence of those in high position, were soon made to feel the effects of the new movement. The sentiment for religious and Christian art was superseded by the admiration of everything that had the authority of the ancients; in conformity with the new taste, classical and heathen subjects were now the fashion in sculpture, and these, as well as all others, were to be treated after the ancient examples. Even where works of a religious character were required, the ancient mythology was incongruously and absurdly mixed up with subjects of the Christian faith, producing the most offensive contrasts, and, of course, entirely destroying the proper effect and intention of art. This passion was not confined to one state of Italy. The Popes, two of whom were members of the House of Medici, equally patronized the revival of classical tastes; and Rome rivalled Florence in its anxiety to re-establish the style and feeling of the great Greek and Roman periods in their literature, their art, their philosophy, and, if history is to be trusted, even their morals. Its influence upon the style of the literature of the day is remarkable, as it led to the employment of the dead languages in the writings and correspondence of learned men instead of their native tongue, which for a time was ignored and proscribed as vulgar and unworthy the use or attention of real scholars. That these should appreciate the refinement and excellence of the writings of the sages and poets of antiquity, and that those competent to judge art should at once acknowledge the superior objective beauty of Greek sculpture cannot be a matter of surprise; but there can be no doubt that the immediate effect upon art of this excitement was to check its development in a right direction, as a means of addressing modern sympathies. Classical subjects were sought for, because in these a closer imitation could be made of the classical mode of representation, and the conventional treatment of the ancient schools, exhibiting nude forms, was introduced, however incongruous its application, to gratify this Dilettante taste. The study of the ancient examples was capable of effecting, and no doubt did effect, very great changes and improvements in the technical parts of sculpture, but it cannot be denied that it also brought with it certain disadvantages. The pure, simple, and expressive character which was so remarkable and so valuable in the rising school of religious designers, succumbed to the powerful influence of the pseudo-classical taste; and, as the motive Sculpture. that now impelled the artists was fictitious; the sculpture they produced was unreal in its sentiment and unimpressive in its character.

However indisputable the charm of beautiful forms in the abstract, their true appreciation must be a consequence of study and reflection; and therefore, unless they are employed in the expression of intelligible ideas, the community to whom art should address itself cannot derive any adequate advantage from their display. It is the sentiment of art that first attracts and fixes the attention of intelligent people long before the form in which it is presented becomes the subject of critical examination; a fact constantly proved by the fascinating power of some of the productions of the earlier Christian designers, which are pregnant with meaning, but in which the technical recommendations of the schools are often entirely wanting. These observations are by no means irrelevant or without their use in the history of sculpture. They assist in accounting for the entire change that is now seen in the "motive" of the art of the age; and especially in this art, which seems so prone to ally itself with the older associations, from the greater opportunity offered by classical subjects for the tempting display of naked forms, muscular development, and other mere academical qualities.

The fifteenth, and the early part of the sixteenth centuries, comprehend a period of great interest in the history of literature and the fine arts; and although some disadvantages accrued from the first violent reaction that took place upon the introduction of classical tastes, it would be unjust to the memory of the noble patrons of learning in those days not to record their title to the gratitude of posterity for the generous protection they extended to scholars and artists of eminence. The extraordinary talents of the House of Medici had raised that family to the highest honours in their native Florence, and their influence was powerfully exercised far beyond the limits of their own country. Lorenzo, who had by his princely habits and liberality acquired the surname of "il Magnifico," added to the lustre of his position by attaching to his court the most distinguished literary men of all nations. Rome was also at this time governed by pontiffs who equally sympathized with the liberal tastes of the Florentine Medici. Julius II., who was elected to the tiara in 1503, gave the utmost encouragement to the great artists of his age, and Leo X., who succeeded him, was equally liberal, making Rome a centre of attraction for all that was classical and epicurean. Leo was a member of the family of Medici. He was soon after succeeded by another scion of that remarkable family, Clement VII., for the intermediate Pope, Adrian VI., occupied the throne scarcely a year; and he also continued to encourage the arts with the same liberality that had distinguished his predecessors. A few names of sculptors who lived at this time will show the character and amount of artistic power that was called into action by the generous and enlightened protection given to these pursuits by the sovereigns of this age. Michel Angelo, Torregiano, Bandinelli, the Ammanati, Rustici, Montelupi, Sansovino, Benvenuto Cellini, Francavilla (and others might easily be added to these), are amongst those who have left works which have honourably illustrated their age and country.

The works of Michel Angelo Buonarroti, who was born in 1474, afford excellent examples of the condition of sculpture at this period. They indicate unmistakeably the influence of the new opinions that were gaining ground, marking most distinctly the transition from the original and unsophisticated feeling that had been the motive of the earlier Christian artists to the artificial stimulus given by the recovery of the marvels of classical sculpture. This, the greatest artist of modern times, has left productions of mind and hand as striking for the inventive power displayed in them as for their wonderful execution. They show there Sculpture, was no deficiency of ability when such works as these appeared. Michel Angelo, personally favoured by Lorenzo de Medici, studied in the school established by that munificent patron of the arts, and no doubt there acquired both a feeling for fine form and something of the classical taste which was likely to be engendered by association with enthusiastic scholars, and by the constant contemplation of fine remains of antiquity. Many of his works exhibit this influence, but, as will be seen, not to the extent of destroying his own grand and peculiarly original character of design. Among those of his productions which may be adduced in support of this opinion may be especially noticed the fine and touching group called "La Pietà" in St Peter's at Rome, representing the Virgin supporting the dead body of Christ; a performance exhibiting much of the peculiar mannerism of the artist, but possessing also the highest claim to our admiration. The statue of Moses, forming a part of the decoration of the unfinished monument of Julius II. at Rome, and those of Lorenzo and Giuliano dei Medici, at Florence, may also be referred to in illustration both of the originality and the power of this grand medieval sculptor. These indeed are works which may challenge comparison with the best remains of ancient art for sentiment, breadth and grandeur of treatment, composition, and intimate knowledge of form, while at the same time they are totally distinct from the antique in the originality of their conception. The statue of Moses, though by no means free from the fault of exaggeration so justly objected to in the works of M. Angelo, is one of the grandest efforts of genius, and truly illustrates the forcible expression applied to the character of the artist's style,—"Di Michel Agnolo la terribil via." The other statue presents Lorenzo seated, absorbed in thought, leaning on his hand. Here again there is no real resemblance to the antique, but it rivals the best excellences of the ancients in expression, with repose and dignity. It is impossible to look at this fine work without being forcibly impressed by the mind that pervades it. In the same chapel are other remarkable works of this artist. They are allegorical figures meant to represent Day and Night, the Dawn or Early Morning, and Evening, and they form the accessory decoration of tombs of the Medici. They bear the impress of the master mind and hand; but it has been very properly objected to these works that their meaning and object is far from clear, and that their exaggerated action and treatment are not in character with the requirements of monumental design. In the chapel referred to there is also an unfinished group of "Charity," of fine design and execution. A masterly alto-rilievo in marble of the Virgin, with the Saviour and St John as children, at Florence, and another of the same subject, differently treated and very unfinished, in the library of the Royal Academy of Arts in London, deserve honourable mention as examples of M. Angelo's genius in another class of sculpture. Another well-known work by M. Angelo is in the church of La Minerva in Rome. It is a statue of our Saviour, standing, and holding the Cross. The figure is life-size, and is in the revived classical or academical style, muscular and almost entirely nude. It is, however, little more than a careful and successful study of the naked model, and is deficient in appropriate character and fitness, both as regards the subject and its position. The intimate knowledge of anatomy and acquaintance with the human form, possessed by Michel Angelo beyond all the artists of his time, allowed him to indulge in the utmost freedom in giving expression to the suggestions of his energetic and daring imagination; and this mastery over the technical difficulties of his art appears sometimes to have tempted him to indulge in its display at the expense of that sobriety and simplicity which are such valuable qualities in sculpture. Sculpture, and whose presence is so remarkable an element in all the finest examples that have come down to us of the Grecian schools. It would carry us far beyond our limits if we were to attempt to give a complete review of the works of this great artist. The influence he has exercised would indeed justify a much more extended notice of himself personally, and of his productions, but in this place it must suffice to refer to these as subjects well deserving the careful attention of the student. Although M. Angelo has here been considered as a sculptor only, he has also left noble works in the sister arts of painting and architecture. Among the former, the well-known compositions in the Sistine Chapel at Rome, illustrating the grand scheme of Scripture revelation, from the Creation to the Final Judgment, are unrivalled in invention, profound thought, knowledge, and grand style of design. These truly sublime performances, whether taken alone or in connection with the other proofs of the power and vast range of his genius, place their author far above comparison with any known artist, ancient or modern. Nor was it in the fine arts of design alone that the great ability of M. Angelo was conspicuous. The political circumstances of his country called forth his talents in other severer exercises, and it was in strengthening the defences of Florence that he added to his well-deserved reputation as an artist also that of one of the most accomplished masters in military engineering and fortification. The few remains that have reached us of his literary works, in his letters and sonnets, exhibit him likewise as an elegant writer and poet.

Pietro Torregiano was a distinguished sculptor of this time, the contemporary and rival, in some respects, of Michel Angelo; of whom his jealousy was so great that on one occasion, in a fit of passion, he struck him with a sculptor's hammer and broke his nose. The disfigurement caused by this outrage is seen in all the portraits we have of the great Florentine artist. Torregiano was invited to England, and was employed upon the tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey, a work of great interest and a sufficient proof of this artist's ability. In the Rolls chapel is a statue by Torregiano which deserves notice. It is in terra-cotta, life-size, and painted. It represents a judge, and is remarkable for its truth to nature. Torregiano afterwards went to Spain where he died. Sansovino and Baccio Bandinelli deserve particular mention for their valuable contributions to the art of this age. They have left behind them works of great merit, in proof both of the great ability of the respective artists, and of the extensive employment of sculpture in Italy during this time. Many of Sansovino's performances are at Venice; Bandinelli appears to have worked chiefly at Florence. Many of the productions of this period claim our admiration for great qualities of art, but it must also be added that all are more or less imitations. It is seldom that any really original ideas occur, the sentiment as well as the character of treatment being more or less borrowed from the "antique."

Among the prominent artists of the time Benvenuto Cellini claims a distinguished place. He was a sculptor of great power, though his works, partaking of the character of the age, are marked by some exaggeration of action and an unnecessary and injudicious display of academical study and anatomical knowledge. He executed some large statues; and his figure of Perseus especially, in the Loggia del Gran Duca at Florence, notwithstanding it has great faults, is a production of great merit. B. Cellini is chiefly celebrated for his smaller works in metal (gold, silver, and bronze) and precious stones. Some of these, consisting of richly-ornamented cups, salvers, shields, sword-handles, and similar objects, are of great excellence, and show the undeniable skill and taste of the artist in this branch of his profession. Cellini wrote on his art, describing his practice and experiments in the then known processes of metal-founding. He also published his autobiography, one of the most curious and amusing works illustrating the manners of the sixteenth century that have come down to us.

Guglielmo della Porta executed, among other works, the monument of Paul III. in St Peter's at Rome. Two statues in this composition, representing Prudence and Justice, establish this sculptor's claim to high consideration. They are not in harmony with the requirements of a Christian monument, nor are they fit productions to be placed in a church; but as works of art they merit the high praise that has been accorded them. This sculptor was the friend of Michel Angelo; and his sculpture, especially in the figures referred to, shows the influence exercised on art by the great master. The latter statue has been partially draped since Della Porta's time.

The quality for which the sculptors of the end of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries are chiefly remarkable is a love of display in the executive parts of their art. This led to a serious evil, and to the decline of art. The object with them was not to improve the public taste, or to elevate and improve the minds of the people, but to astonish the spectator by their bold and skilful ingenuity. The three sculptors who were most distinguished for their merit and for their faults in this respect are Giovanni de Bologna, Bernini, and Roubiliac. These artists were essentially men of genius, and, though their disregard of the true principles upon which only sculpture can be successfully practised must be deplored, it would be most unjust to withhold from them the praise to which they are entitled for such merit as they undeniably possessed. The group in marble called the "Rape of the Sabines" at Florence, and the bronze statue of Mercury in the gallery also at Florence, place Giovanni de Bologna, in spite of the defects referred to, in the highest rank of sculptors. They deserve commendation for some of the most valuable art qualities—expression, invention, skilful composition, a knowledge of form, and great execution. The Mercury is full of energy, and is conceived in the true spirit of poetry; but, though classical in their subjects, they are far removed in their treatment from the purity and the charming simplicity which are so essentially a part of classical design. They offend from the extravagance of the action and the twisted contortions in the former group, and from the want of refinement in the forms appropriate to the messenger of the gods, in the latter statue.

Bernini was a Neapolitan, and was born in 1598. His imagination was fertile, and his power of execution of the first class. Unfortunately, this power was uncontrolled by submission to the necessary principles of his art. Bernini delighted in the most curious and daring experiments upon his materials, and treated marble as if it had been clay or wax. Under him all the distinctive bounds of sculpture were transgressed, and the object seemed to be to rival the painter's art. Clouds, landscape, perspective, and other unattainable representations were attempted, till the whole subject is confused in the flutter of unintelligible details. That he was an artist of unquestionable genius cannot be denied, but no one probably did more to precipitate the fall of sculpture than Bernini. The immense patronage he received during a long career (for he lived during nine pontificates) filled Italy with his productions. Among the most remarkable may be noticed his group of "Apollo and Daphne," for its bold invention, the forcible manner in which the story is told, and the "bravura" of its execution. The god is pursuing the unwilling fair one, and at the moment of his reaching her she is, in answer to her prayer for protection, changed into a tree. The passion of the lover is displayed in his eager action and his flying hair and drapery, while the metamorphosis of Daphne is shown by her floating tresses, her fingers' ends and her tous sprouting forth in elaborately-executed laurel leaves. The bad taste Sculpture of this picturesque treatment is only equalled by the extraordinary executive talent displayed in the representation. The "Ecstasy of Sta. Teresa" is another work of the kind, in which, amidst the flutter of drapery and clouds, it is difficult to discover the figure of the saint. In St Peter's the magnificent monuments of Urban VIII. and Alexander VII. are examples of the merits and defects of this sculptor; marvellous for their execution, but debased by the most meretricious taste. The colossal statues of the Four Doctors of the Church, in bronze gilt, supporting the chair of St Peter, are also by this artist. The idea is grand, but the attitudes are affected and the forms exaggerated. In his statue of "David preparing to hurl the stone at Goliath"—a work of great energy and expression, and executed when he was young—Bernini is said to give a portrait of himself. The fountain in the Piazza Navona at Rome is another of the numerous strange and daring performances of this artist.

Alessandro Algardi, of Bologna, was contemporary with Bernini, and deserves mention, although his works are injured by the same defects that characterise the productions of that sculptor. Algardi's great and best known performance is over one of the altars in St Peter's at Rome, and represents St Paul and St Peter appearing to Attila and his hosts. It is in marble in rilievo, and measures about 30 feet in height by 15 in width. There are passages of considerable merit in this composition; but unfortunately it is all through treated upon the principle of a picture, and attempts effects which can only be properly rendered by colour. The numerous figures and rilievi of putti, or children, by Francesco di Quesnoy, better known as "il Fiamingo," have given this sculptor a well-merited title to distinction; and a statue by him of Susanna in the church of La Madonna di Loreto at Rome may also be noticed as a work of great feeling and even beauty.

Roubiliac followed in the same road, and his great ability increased his influence in establishing a most meretricious school of artists. The fact of his having had great employment in England enables us to judge more easily of the merits and demerits of his style. One of his best works is the statue of Eloquence, in the monument of a Duke of Argyle in Westminster Abbey. The action is earnest; and the expression full of character. In the same church is a much-commended work in memory of Lady Nightingale. It shows, like all the productions of this artist, great power; but it is an example of mistaken design, and shows how fatally the transgression of the true rules of art must act.

A much-admired work by Roubiliac is the monument of Bishop Hough in Worcester cathedral. In the hall of the British Museum there is a statue by him of Shakespeare. Roubiliac has shown marvellous ingenuity in his execution; but he has done himself injustice by bestowing so much pains upon the inferior accessories of flying draperies, fringes, the minute details of dress, in buttons and button-holes, periukes, and the fine folds and clocks of stockings, which withdraw the attention from many very admirable qualities in the nobler parts of his designs.

It is not necessary to dwell longer on this phase of sculpture, and no advantage can be gained by enumerating the minute and laborious performances of the smaller race of sculptors who imitated the worst peculiarities of the school. In the church of S. Severo at Naples are some very curious examples of patience and bad taste in statues by San Martino and Corradino; one is of Modesty, covered all over with a thin veil, another a figure of Falsehood within a net of which the meshes are relieved, and a third represents a dead Christ covered with drapery. Others of the same kind might be mentioned; but it will be seen by what has been said that sculpture no longer held a position of dignity, nor was it practised in a way to receive or deserve the admiration of true judges of art. The above pieces of workmanship are specimens only of the carver's skill and patience; and such sculpture, instead of being looked upon as fine art, can rank but little higher than an exercise of mechanical ingenuity; for it often is totally independent of invention or sentiment, or other really artistic quality. Occasionally an artist of superior taste or higher feeling in art appeared, but he was not seconded or supported by any refinement in his patrons, nor by the sympathy of the public. The talent that existed—and the names of the sculptors above mentioned prove its existence—was exhausted in the endeavour to excite curiosity and admiration for the skill shown in pretty conceits or elaborate execution. The magnificent collections of ancient sculpture preserved in the cities of Italy, at Rome, Florence, and Naples, failed to impress upon sculptors or patrons the value of those principles which had led to the perfection of Greek art; and even when their forms, modified by the fashions and bad taste of the age, were repeated, there was no true feeling or inspiration to elevate the works above the character of indifferent copies or tame imitations.

The honour of giving a new direction to taste, or rather of leading it back to a recognition of true principles, is eminently due to two sculptors of our own age, Canova and Flaxman. To the former Italy owes her emancipation from those false perceptions which had, from the influence of the Bernini school, so long diverted the current of pure taste. To Flaxman the art owes equal obligations, though he had not the same opportunity as Canova of making his superior merit known. No modern sculptor has entered so deeply into the recesses of ancient art as Flaxman; his style was founded upon their principles, combined with the simplicity of the Pisani and others of the fourteenth century. The purer and simpler taste of which some of the earlier works of Canova, as his "Theseeus," "Dedalus," and "Icarus," and others, gave promise, it must be admitted, is less conspicuous in some of his later productions; and he appears to have been seduced from the staid and somewhat severe simplicity which is one of the greatest charms of sculpture, by the fascination of highly-wrought execution and the elaboration of surface. In Flaxman exceptions will be found of a directly contrary character. In his works execution will be found a very secondary object compared with design, though in one of the finest compositions of which modern sculpture can boast, "The contest of Michael with Satan," Flaxman has shown that this deficiency is not to be attributed to want of knowledge or power. The works of these eminent sculptors are before the world; it is not therefore necessary to discuss them more particularly in this place.

The influence of these second restorers of sculpture on the art of their day is acknowledged; and though distinct schools have arisen out of those which they may be said to have formed, the merit is justly due to them of having at least directed attention to that which is truly excellent.

Before concluding the history of sculpture with some few remarks upon its condition in England, it is due to the memory of a sculptor of distinguished merit to give him his just position in the list of those who have honourably and successfully exercised this art. Albert Thorwaldsen, a native of Iceland, but long resident in Italy, has left behind him several productions exhibiting a profound feeling for art: excellent in design, composition, and form. Like most modern sculptors, he drew largely from the ancients for his subjects; but he also illustrated others which were suggested by his own faith and feelings. His "Mercury" and his "Jason" are pre-eminent amongst the former; while in his majestic colossal statue of Christ, attended by the twelve apostles (now placed in niches in a church at Copenhagen), in his rilievi of "Charity," and other subjects from scripture teaching, he has, like our own Flaxman, shown that the modern artist need not necessarily be confined to heathen poetry and mythology for ample and exquisite materials for the exercise of his talents, al- Sculpture, though he may very properly adopt the principle of beauty of form which the Greek sculptors applied so admirably in their works.

The schools of sculpture of France, Germany, and Spain no doubt emanated from those established in Italy, and their earlier history is so closely connected with the revival of art in that country that it is not necessary to treat of them at any length. As the art progressed, the sculptors of each of these nations established their claims to distinction; and in France especially names of very high pretension are met with. Goujon was deservedly eminent even among the great artists of the sixteenth century; and the productions of Pilon, Puget, Girardon, Le Moine, Coustou, have secured for these artists a well-deserved reputation. The performances of the best of the French sculptors will bear comparison with those of any modern nation in knowledge of form, careful execution, and bold conception. The mode of treatment often, it must be admitted, partakes of the taste of particular periods, and, especially in the works of the seventeenth century, is marked by affectation and a somewhat theatrical air in the action and expression, which detract from the claims of the French to rank as a sound school of art; but in other respects the high qualities of the French sculptors admit of no dispute. It has always been the policy of the rulers of France to encourage the fine arts, and especially to foster native talent; and the interest thus shown has proved of the greatest advantage. It has, in the first place, given an honourable stimulus to their professors, and, in the next, the successful progress of the higher departments has acted most beneficially on the general character of design throughout all branches of industry. In the history of art in France there has been no illiberal exclusion of foreigners; but there always has been a patriotic feeling that native artists should be encouraged; and this consistent protection and interest in their progress may fairly be considered in no slight degree a cause of the high position the arts, in almost every department, have there attained.

The German school of sculpture, till of late years, was attached to a peculiar style which the national taste for simplicity and love of local association seem to have engrafted on the early Italian art which had penetrated into the country when the scholars of the Pisani travelled over Europe preaching and teaching wherever they found employment. This has given a somewhat dry and quaint character to much of their sculpture produced before the sixteenth century, and it may indeed be found in works of a subsequent date. During the last fifty or sixty years great progress has been made in giving a higher quality of form to their productions in this art; and the execution of the works of the more eminent of the German sculptors is in no way inferior to that of any of their contemporaries. The influence of the modern artificial taste for classical imitations has extended to Germany, but it has acted less forcibly there than in Italy, France, or England; the national and domestic element, so strong in the German character, inducing their artists to exercise their art upon subjects which address the sympathies of the age.

In the sixteenth century sculpture was exercised extensively and with great success by native artists in Spain; and many of the churches possess works of a very high quality by Alonso Cano, Hernandez, and their contemporaries. The close political connection that so long existed between Italy and Spain will account for the similarity of style in the art of the two countries, and many Italian sculptors of reputation visited Spain. Torregiano, as has been stated, proceeded thither from England, and died there after executing various works. A peculiar practice prevailed which gives a very remarkable character to the Spanish sculpture of the sixteenth century. The statues of religious subjects,—and in Spain the talents of the artists were almost exclusively exercised in the service of the church,—as the Saviour, the Virgin, saints, and similar personages, were carefully executed in sculpture, but afterwards they were as carefully painted, so as to imitate, with all possible truth, the appearance of nature. The effect of these works is said to be very startling; but very disagreeable; they appear almost to be living figures, or tableaux vivants, standing as models. This is a practice that cannot be admired or recommended by good taste. It in fact takes works out of the strict category of sculpture, without placing them in the condition of pictures. It is not the object of really fine sculpture or painting to make the spectator, who contemplates a picture, a group, or a statue, believe he is looking at real, living figures.

The short time, comparatively with other countries, during which sculpture has been practised in England, precludes it from taking a place in the early history of art with Italy, France, and Germany. The English sculptors exercised no influence on the style of the art; and it is not till the eighteenth century that any place can be claimed for our native artists. It may be observed, however, that although there is no account of the practice of sculpture, there is reason to believe that there were native artists in England at a very early date. No reliance can be placed on the traditional account, quoted by Flaxman, respecting the "great and terrible" statue of Cadwallo, who died 677; but two flat monumental effigies in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey, of two of its abbots, are of great historical interest. They are of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries. One is of Vitalis, who died in 1087; the other of Crispinus, who died 1117. Whether two statues of Henry I. and his queen in Rochester cathedral were of that date, the middle of the twelfth century, cannot be determined; but there is evidence of the art having been exercised in England extensively within a hundred years of that time. It is worthy of remark, that Wells cathedral, which is copiously decorated with sculpture, was completed in the year 1242; and that Cimabue, one of the fathers of Italian art, was only born in 1240; and Giotto did not appear till 1276. The building of this church was therefore going on while Niccolo Pisano was exercising his art in Italy, and it was finished between thirty and forty years before one of the most interesting monuments of the kind in Italy, the Duomo of Orvieto, was commenced. The sculpture which decorates Wells cathedral is of course very rude in point of art; but

---

1 The question of colouring sculpture is too large a subject to be entered upon here, where it is only referred to incidentally as a practice that has obtained at different periods in the history of the art. That the ancients employed colour in a variety of materials as well as in pigments, there is no doubt. Extreme decoration and love of finery is a characteristic of all early and barbarous nations, and it is found that the sculpture of remote antiquity was everywhere painted. As art in the times referred to was used almost exclusively for religious purposes, the mode of treatment became prescriptive; and therefore, even after a purer taste was established generally in design and form, as was the case in the age of Pericles, and when Phidias exercised his art, the established usage of richly decorating the statues with gold was still adhered to in many instances. The colour was put on thickly and uniformly over a stony ground, and without lines. Veination and what were then usually employed for the naked parts. The eyes were often made of glass or stone. It is not possible to conceive that in their general practice the great sculptors of ancient Greece were likely to injure and conceal the perfection of surface they gave to their marble by thus coating and disfiguring it with thick opaque colour. It must also be borne in mind that colour was extensively used in architectural enrichment, and sculpture usually was so intimately associated with architecture that it partook of the decorative character, and was subject to its conditions. This gives, so far, a reasonable account for the practice of the ancients, but it affords no excuse for the affectation of its modern re-introduction in isolated and gallery statues. (Käglér, Polychromie; Westmacott, On Colouring Statues, 1859; Illtort; Quatremère de Quincy, Le Jupiter Olympien, &c.) Sculpture, it is of great interest, from the character of the designs, and from the date of its execution. It illustrates various subjects of Scripture-history and acts in the life of our Saviour; besides recording, in statues of heroic size, the memory of saints, kings, queens, and others, who were probably patrons and benefactors of the church. Another circumstance of interest is, that it seems to be the earliest example in this country of such sculptural enrichment exhibiting a connected series of Scripture illustrations; but its importance may be still greater; if, as has been conjectured, it is the first specimen of the kind known to exist in Western Europe. Its origin, then, becomes a question of some importance. It is not improbable that some of the earliest Italian practitioners may, in their wanderings, have penetrated as far as England; but the style of the sculpture certainly does not resemble that of the Italian artists who undoubtedly were employed on the tombs of Edward the Confessor and of Henry III.; and, therefore, it is not so easily associated with the art derived from that source. Flaxman, admitting this, was disposed to think it was derived from the East, conceiving that, as it was not Italian, it might have been founded on examples seen by the Crusaders; a speculation which has little probability to recommend it. That the Crusaders influenced the civilization of Europe must be conceded, inasmuch as many of the ingenious eastern arts became known, and were introduced by those who returned from those wars; but it scarcely can be likely that any light could be thrown on sculpture by the practice of the eastern nations. No writer seems to have allowed himself to think it possible that the English could have been capable, at any period of their history, of producing such art as was required for the decoration of their sacred and other edifices, even of the rude and primitive kind under consideration; and therefore all have taxed their ingenuity and invention to give the honour of it, such as it is, to any rather than their own countrymen. The preponderance of the foreign element in the courts of the sovereigns of England, and the little knowledge of, or feeling for, art in the higher classes, have always tended to depress or ignore the attempts of native artists to do at home that which the artists of Italy, France, and Germany effected for the credit of their respective countries; and on all occasions, till a comparatively late period, foreign painters and sculptors were preferred and employed. Want of opportunity and want of practice, all-sufficient causes in themselves of inferiority, were assumed, too often by those but little competent to judge, to be proofs of national incapacity; and till Christopher Wren vindicated the honour of his country in architecture it seemed never to have occurred that an Englishman could make himself worthy to take a position as a real artist. Without entering into the question of the greater or less degree of sensibility in the northern nations to the various forms of beauty, whether in the imitative arts or in music, there can be no doubt that this habit of slight and depreciation by those from whom, from their influence and position, encouragement might rather have been expected, suppressed the growth of art among the English, and paralysed the efforts of the few who might have any desire or ambition to practise it. It must, however, at the same time be admitted, that with the disadvantages that doubtless accrued to the establishment and progress of native art in England by the constant immigration and employment of foreigners, some advantages have also to be acknowledged. The inducement held out by the liberal remuneration to be procured in England by every kind of talent occasionally brought among us artists of a superior class, from whom much could be learned in matters of technical detail, in which our own ill-educated practitioners were greatly deficient; and there can be no doubt that this led to considerable improvement in our own schools. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, art in England, with very trifling exceptions, was in the same low state with respect to taste as it was on the Continent; and the sculptors (foreigners, of course) who were then practising here—Scheemacher, Rysbrach, and Roubiliac—have left evidence of the debased condition of the art, although, as has before been observed, there are among the works of the last-named artist many productions of great merit.

It may not be out of place to mention here that England is very rich in its series of ecclesiastical and monumental sculpture, from the earliest introduction of that class of art in this country. Reference has already been made to the effigies in low relief of two abbots of Westminster, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and to the statues which decorate Wells cathedral. At first all sculpture to commemorate individuals was confined to the ecclesiastics, the clergy having the exclusive control over these works. The earliest monumental effigy of a king is that of John in Worcester cathedral, the date 1216. The next of royal personages are those in bronze, in Westminster Abbey, of Henry III. (1272), and of Eleanor the queen of Edward I. (1290). From this time there is a continued succession of such works, which are not only highly valuable from their historical importance, but for the illustration they afford of the changes in the style of monumental design. Some of those of the end of the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries are particularly rich in design, and deserve attention for many valuable qualities of art. It will be observed that, from its commencement till about the end of the sixteenth century, monumental sculpture exhibits the influence of the religious feeling of the earlier ages. It was of course modified in its forms and mode of representation, as may be seen in numerous examples of easy reference that abound in our cathedrals and older churches, but everywhere the prevailing sentiment was religious. Figures, whether they are lying recumbent on their tombs or kneeling, a posture not so often met with in the principal subject in early monumental sculpture, are usually represented praying; or if not literally occupied in the act of prayer, they generally have accessories or accompaniments referring to religious exercises, or are attended by ministering angels, either supporting the cushion at the head or grouped at the feet of the person represented. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, as in the effigies of the knights in the Temple church, and others that might be mentioned; but generally the sentiment described was the prevailing one in this class of works. In the sixteenth century a departure from this characteristic of church sculpture is observable, and in a few years all reference to the religious character in such works is lost sight of. The taste exhibited in monumental design of the date of Elizabeth and James I is exceedingly bad, but after that time this class of art still further deteriorated, and the monuments produced in the latter part of the seventeenth century are for the most part entirely wanting in the associations which seem to be so essential in works of this kind.

It has been asserted—and the assertion has, for want of being properly canvassed, been too readily admitted by some writers—that the decline of art in England, and especially the change in the sentiment of monumental design, was owing to the Reformation, in the sixteenth century. This opinion is quite unfounded. In the first place England had no distinct school of art; all, or almost all, that was produced was by foreigners. In the next, if the deterioration of art is to be attributed to the change in the religious convictions of the nation, the proof of it should be found only among the people of the Reformed Church. But so far from this being the case, examples of monuments in places of worship, deviating much more strikingly than our sculpture from all religious and Christian character of design, abound all over the Continent. In Rome, especially in St Peter's, where, according to the view of the opponents Sculpture, of the Reformation, the utmost propriety and purity of design might be expected, nothing can be worse than the taste and feeling exhibited in most of the monuments of the time referred to. Some of these works are not only utterly inappropriate, but are of a most objectionable character. Indeed, in this particular, it would not be difficult to show that, though the later Puritan feeling carried the anti-art prejudice to an excess which is to be deplored, the Reformation, instead of assisting in debasing art, was a powerful cause of purifying it. It is a subject of just and honourable pride that such objectionable and even scandalous subjects as occasionally occur in England in screens and on choir-stalls of the medieval time, and which, being in sacred places, were of course executed under the sanction of the clergy, are never met with in the later decoration of the reformed religion. This subject is here only briefly touched upon with reference to the sentiment of a particular class of art; and to vindicate the Reformation from the unjust charge of having corrupted taste.

There was a slight reaction in favour of art in the reign of Charles I. It was occasioned chiefly by the introduction of some works of art from the Continent; and the interest in the subject exhibited by the king himself and his desire to acquire objects of the kind gave an impulse to the taste for art in his court. The political disturbances that soon began to disturb the kingdom were, however, fatal to the development of this feeling; and though there was considerable patronage and encouragement given to the sister arts, sculpture rapidly declined. After the death of Charles I., the collections he had made were dispersed, many of the finest productions in painting being sold and carried out of the country. The original cartoons of Raphaelle and those of Andrea Mantegna, both now preserved at Hampton Court, would have shared this fate, and would have been lost to us but for the interference of Cromwell. By his command they were purchased for the nation.

Three sculptors of some eminence may be noticed here who were practising with success in England. Stone, who died in 1647, is the author, among other works, of a large monument in memory of a member of the Newcastle family, in Westminster Abbey, and which Flaxman, in his review of English sculpture, thinks worthy of commendation. Cain Gabriel Cibber, born in 1630, is known as the sculptor of the two stone statues of "Madness" and "Melancholy" at Bethlehem Hospital. They are remarkable works for expression, and for bold and vigorous design and execution. Grinley Gibbon was the sculptor of the bronze statue of James II. in the court-yard of the banqueting-house at Whitehall, a work of considerable merit, though the action is rather theatrical. The costume is that of a Roman general. This artist deserves particular mention as one of the most distinguished carvers in wood. He was much employed by Charles II. at Windsor Castle and Hampton Court, where his works may still be seen. He also executed the wood carvings in the screen of St Paul's Cathedral, as well as other elaborate performances of the kind at the country seats of many of the nobility. His imitation of birds, dead game, foliage, fruit, and such objects, deserve the highest praise. He died in 1721.

Nothing could be lower than the state of sculpture in England during the reigns of the two first Georges. In that of George III. a new era commenced. The position and importance of art as a pursuit honourable to a civilized nation were admitted, and the first national acknowledgment of its existence in England was made. It is not yet a hundred years since this was effected, but the result of this recognition has been of a kind amply to satisfy those who hoped well for the credit of English talent. Artists have in this short time appeared who will bear comparison with their contemporaries all over the world. To mention but a few names: in architecture, Wren and Chambers; in painting, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Wilkie, and Turner; in engraving, Sharpe and Woollet (and there are many others who might easily be added in all branches of the arts), have triumphantly disposed of the charge of national incompetency. Of living artists, many of whom have justly acquired a widely-extended reputation, it would be invidious here to speak. In sculpture, England has within the last few years possessed very eminent names; and as some of these have exercised considerable influence, it may be desirable, in concluding this part of the history of the art, to point out the leading peculiarities that have marked their practice.

The chief sculptors who arose after the disappearance of the Rysbrach and Roubillac schools, and who began to exercise their art with some independent feeling, were Banks, Bacon, Nollekens, Flaxman, Westmacott, and Chantrey. The merit of Banks may be judged of by his large group in the façade of the gallery of the British Institution in Pall Mall, representing Shakespeare between Poetry and Painting; by his elegant and expressive composition in marble in the National Gallery, of "Thetis rising from the Sea to console Achilles;" his fine statue in marble in the Royal Academy of "A Falling Giant," and other works. Nollekens produced many works showing a close observation of nature and accomplishment in the executive part of his art. In busts especially his practice was very great, and he also produced some statues of considerable merit. His drapery was, however, poor in design, and showed the influence of the weaker parts of the preceding schools.

Flaxman has made an European reputation of which his country may feel justly proud. As a designer, his fame is established by his compositions from Homer, Æschylus, and Dante, as well as by other works. Among his productions in sculpture may be especially mentioned the group of "Michael overcoming Satan;" a performance that places its author in the very highest rank of sculptors. His composition in rilievo of "Mercury conveying Pandora to Earth," those from the Lord's Prayer, his elaborate and classical "Shield of Achilles," after Homer, cast in gold, and numerous works illustrating passages of Scripture, introduced in monumental designs, attest the fertility of his invention and the true genius that characterized his conceptions. Flaxman's style was founded on the beautiful ancient examples, especially in the designs on Greek fictile vases, modified by his sympathetic appreciation of the simplicity and sentiment of the early Christian art of the Pisans and their followers. With Flaxman execution was subservient to invention, and it must be admitted that many of his most beautiful conceptions suffer from their inadequate execution.

Westmacott derived his earlier impressions from the ancient statues; and the influence of antique art appears in the generality of his designs. Some very original conceptions are, however, found in this artist's works. Among these, the large alto-rilievo of the "Dream of Horace," at Petworth, the illustrations of the Progress of Civilization, the Invention and Progress of Navigation, and similar subjects deserve attention. Among his best known ideal or sentimental statues, not of the antique school, may be mentioned the well-known group of the "Distressed Mother," and a group of the "Virgin and Child." These have great expression, and are also examples of a deep knowledge of the requirements and true principles of the art. His portrait-statues in bronze and marble are numerous, and many of his public monuments, exhibiting great fancy and invention, may be seen in the churches and public squares in different parts of England.

---

1 It is curious to know that the cartoons of Andrea Mantegna were valued at £200, while those of Raphaelle, which had been purchased for Charles I. by Rubens, were estimated at only £300. Chantrey had no academical education in the art in which he became so eminent; a circumstance which accounts for many of the excellences and defects of his practice. His sound common-sense enabled him to perceive the falsehood of a school of modern art which was always repeating ancient designs and forms, and he therefore took nature, as he viewed her, for his example. In his portrait-statues in their modern costume, and in his busts he identified himself with his own age and people. In his busts of men he was without a rival; for although they are wanting in what the learned in art understand by ideality, they exhibit a truthfulness in their individuality and character that justly place them among the best works of their class. In many of his portrait-statues the same power of seizing the salient points of character are seen. But few ideal or "gallery" works by Chantrey exist. Indeed, his strength consisted in his ability to deal with the real or natural; and, not having any sympathy with merely classical art, he judiciously confined himself, with few exceptions, to the treatment of subjects out of the pale of poetical fancy or invention.

The influences that affected the leading sculptors of the English school may still be variously seen in the productions of living artists. While some have preferred the ancient Greek examples, both for subject and the mode of treatment, others have sought in commoner modern sources both the subjects for illustration and the forms in which they are to be presented. This country may now boast of a considerable amount of executive talent in sculpture; but the ultimate judgment as to the merit of the artist must be left to the just award of time. A too strict subserviency to ancient example may retard the progress of a true, original school, and may tend to establish cold, passionless, artificial, or academical art, while an injudicious and too close imitation of the merely natural may, in like manner, lead to a low standard of subject and form, and thus debase a high and fine art to the condition of vulgar, commonplace image-making. It is from the union of the expressive, which can be appreciated by modern feelings and sentiment, with the highest forms of beauty, of which the true elements are found in the principles prevailing Greek sculpture, that the most happy success will result.

The processes of sculpture are now so generally known that it scarcely seems necessary to describe them; but as a history of the art would scarcely be complete without some little explanation of the mechanical and technical conduct of a work, a few general indications of the sculptor's mode of proceeding are here added.

The artist having invented or conceived his subject, usually begins by making a small sketch of it in some plastic or obedient substance, as clay or wax. He can change and alter this at his pleasure till he is satisfied with the composition, and the arrangement of the light and shadow. He then proceeds to copy it in his statue or group of its intended size. Before commencing the larger model it is necessary to form a sort of skeleton or frame-work of iron and wood, with joints made of wire to support the great mass of clay. This iron frame is firmly fixed upon a turning bench, or banker, so that the model may be constantly moved without difficulty. As the clay is likely to shrink as it gets dry, it is necessary occasionally to wet it by sprinkling water over it with a brush, or from a large syringe, and by laying damp cloths upon it. This is the process for preparing a model in the "round." In modeling rilievo of either kind, a plane or ground is prepared upon which the design is or should be carefully drawn. The clay is then laid in small quantities upon this, the outline being bounded by the drawing; and the bulk or projection is regulated by the degree of relief the sculptor requires. If the final work is to be in baked clay (terra-cotta) there must be no iron or wooden nucleus, and the model is prepared for drying without such support. When perfectly dry, the model is placed in an oven and slowly baked, by which it acquires the peculiar brownish-red colour seen in these works. If the final work is to be in marble, or bronze, or plaster, the next process after finishing the model is to mould it. This is done by covering it with a mixture of plaster of Paris with water, which quickly sets, forming a hard and thick coating over the whole. The clay is then carefully picked out, and an exact matrix or form remains. This is washed clean, and the interior is brushed over with any greasy substance, usually a composition of soap and oil, to prevent the fresh plaster with which it is to be filled adhering too firmly to it. The fresh plaster is mixed to about the consistency of cream, and then poured gently into the mould till all the surface is filled or covered. When this is set the old plaster mould is carefully knocked away with chisels, and the true cast appears beneath, giving an entire fac-simile of the model. Some skill is required in making moulds, in order to provide for projecting parts and undercuttings; practice alone can give this. The above general instructions explain the ordinary process. In metal casting or founding attention must be paid to the strengthening of the parts to bear the weight of the metal; but the principle described in plaster-moulding applies also to the preparation for metal-casting. The mixture of metal to form bronze, the heating of the furnace, burning, chasing, and other processes of founding, cannot be fully described in this place, as they belong to a distinct practice.

If the model is to be copied in marble or stone, the first step is to procure a block of the required size. Two stones, called scale-stones, are then prepared, upon one of which the model or plaster cast is placed, and upon the other the rough block of marble. The fronts of these stones have figured marks or "scales" exactly corresponding. An instrument, capable of being moved by socket-joints and moveable arms, is then applied to the scale-stone of the model, and a projecting point or "needle" is made to touch a particular part of the model itself. This is carefully removed to the scale-stone of the rough block, and the marble is cut away till the "needle" reaches so far into the block as to correspond with the "point" taken on the model. A pencil-mark is then made to show that the point is fixed. This process is repeated all over the model and the block till a rough copy or shape of the model is entirely made. These "pointing" machines are not always precisely alike, but the principle upon which they act is exactly similar in all. The statue being thus rudely shaped out, the block is placed in the hands of a superior workman, called a carver, who copies the more minute portions of the work by means of chisels, rasps, and files; the pencil-marks showing him the precise situation of the parts and the limits beyond which he is not to penetrate into the marble. When the carver has carried the work as far as the sculptor desires, he proceeds himself to give it the finishing touches, improving the details of form and expression, producing varieties of texture, and harmonizing the whole.

The rich quality of surface that appears more or less in works in marble is produced by rubbing with fine sand or pumice-stone and other substances, and the ancients appear to have completed this part of their work by a process called by Pliny "circumlitio," which may probably mean not only rubbing or polishing, but applying some composition, such as hot wax, to give a rich colour to the surface. Many of the ancient statues certainly exhibit the appearance of some foreign substance having slightly penetrated the surface of the work to about one-eighth of an inch, and its colour is of a warmer tint than the marble below it. This process is quite distinct from polychromy, or what is usually understood by colouring sculpture.