for his mistakes. He has been called the Herodotus of our art; and if the main simplicity of his narrative, and the desire of heaping anecdote on anecdote, entitle him in some degree to that appellation, we ought not to forget that the information of every day adds something to the authenticity of the Greek historian, whilst every day furnishes matter to question the credibility of the Tuscan.

What we find not in Vasari it is useless to search for amidst the rubbish of his contemporaries or followers, from Condivi to Ridolfi, and on to Malvasia, whose criticism on the style of Lodovico Carracci and his pupils in the cloisters of San Michele in Bosco, near Bologna, amounts to little more than a sonorous rhapsody of ill applied or empty metaphors and extravagant praise, till the appearance of Lanzi, who in his Storia Pittorica della Italia, has availed himself of all the information existing in his time, has corrected most of those who wrote before him, and though, perhaps, not possessed of great discriminative powers, has accumulated more instructive anecdotes, rescued more deserving names from oblivion, and opened a wider prospect of art than all his predecessors.*

The French critics composed a complete system of rules.

*It ought not, however, to be disguised, that the history of art, deviating from its real object, has been swelled to a diffuse catalogue of individuals, who, being the nurslings of different schools, or picking something from the real establishers of art, have done little more than repeat or mimic rather than imitate, at second hand, what their masters, or predecessors, had found in nature, discriminated and applied to art in obedience to its dictates. Without depreciating the merits of that multitude, who strenuously passed life in following others, it must be pronounced a task below history to allow them more than a transitory glance; neither novelty nor selection and combination of scattered materials, are entitled to serious attention from him who only investigates the real progress of art, if novelty is proved to have added nothing essential to the system, and selection to have only diluted energy, and, by a popular amalgama, to have been content with captivating the vulgar. Novelty, without enlarging the circle of fancy, may delight, but is nearer allied to whim than to invention; and an eclectic system, without equality of parts, as it originated in want of comprehension, totters on the brink of mediocrity, sinks art, or splits it into crafts decorated with the specious name of schools, whose members, authorised by prescript, emboldened by dexterity of hand, encouraged by ignorance, or heading a cabal, subsist on mere repetition, with few more legitimate claims to the honours of history, than a rhapsodist to those of the poem which he recites.

Du Fresnoy spent his life in composing and revising general aphorisms in Latin classic verse; some on granted, some on disputable, some on false principles. Though Horace was. his model, neither the poet's language nor method have been imitated by him. From Du Fresnoy himself, we learn not what is essential, what accidental, what superinduced, in style; from his text none ever rose practically wiser than he sat down to study it: if he be useful, he owes his usefulness to the penetration of his English commentator; the notes of Reynolds, treasures of practical observation, place him among those whom we may read with profit. What can be learnt from precept, founded on prescriptive authority, more than on the verdicts of nature, is displayed in the volumes of De Piles and Felibien; a system, as it has been followed by the former students of their academy, and sent out with the successful combatants for the premium to their academic establishment at Rome, to have its efficiency proved by the contemplation of Italian style and execution. The timorous candidates for fame, knowing its rules to be the only road to success at their return, whatever be their individual bent of character, implicitly adopt them, and the consequence is, as may be supposed, that technical equality which borders on mediocrity. After an exulting and eager survey of the wonders the place exhibits, they all undergo a similar course of study. Six months are allotted to the Vatican, and in equal portions divided between the Fierté of Michelangelo, and the more correct graces of Raphael; the next six months are in equal intervals devoted to the academic powers of Annibale Carracci, and the purity of the antique.

About the middle of the last century the German critics established at Rome, began to claim the exclusive privilege of teaching the art, and to form a complete system of antique style. The verdicts of Mengs and Winkelmann became the oracles of antiquaries, dilettanti, and artists from the Pyrenees to the utmost north of Europe, have been detailed, and are not without their influence here. Winkel-. mann was the parasite of the fragments that fell from the conversation or the tablets of Mengs, a deep scholar, and better fitted to comment a classic than to give lessons on art and style he reasoned himself into frigid reveries and Pla-` tonic dreams on beauty. As far as the taste or the instruc

1

tions of his tutor directed him, he is right whenever they are; and between his own learning and the tuition of the other, his history of art delivers a specious system and a prodigious number of useful observations. He has not, however, in his regulation of epochs, discriminated styles' and masters with the precision, attention, and acumen, which, from the advantages of his situation and habits, might have been expected; and disappoints us as often by meagreness, neglect, and confusion, as he offends by laboured and inflated rhapsodies on the most celebrated monuments of art. To him Germany owes the shackles of her artists, and the narrow limits of their aim; from him they have learnt to substitute the means for the end, and, by a hopeless chase after what they call beauty, to lose what alone can make beauty interesting,-expression and mind.* The works of Mengs himself are, no doubt, full of the most useful information, deep observation, and often consummate criticism. He has traced and distinguished the principles of the moderns from those of the ancients; and in his comparative view of the design, colour, composition, and expression of Raphael, Correggio, and Tiziano, with luminous perspicuity and deep precision, pointed out the prerogative or inferiority of each. As an artist, he is an instance of what perseverance, study, experience, and encouragement, can achieve to supply the place of genius.

Of English critics, whose writings preceded the present century, whether we consider solidity of theory or practical usefulness, the last is undoubtedly the first. To compare Reynolds with his predecessors would equally disgrace our judgment and impeach our gratitude. His volumes can never be consulted without profit, and should never be quitted by the student's hand, but to embody by exercise the precepts he gives and the means he points out.

*Fuseli is speaking of a school that has long since passed away. Sentiment is now a predominating characteristic of the modern schools of Germany.-W.

The writings of the elder Richardson are well deserving of mention, even in the same paragraph with those of Sir Joshua Reynolds.-W.

LECTURE I. - ANCIENT Art.

Ταυτα μεν οὖν πλαστων και γραφεων και ποιητων παιδες έργασονται. ὁ δε πασιν ἐπανθει τούτοις, ἡ χάρις, μαλλον δε ἅπασαι ἅμα, όποσαι χαριτες, και όποσοι έρωτες περίχορευοντες, τις ἂν μιμησασθαι δύναιτο.

LUCIAN, Imagines.*

Introduction. Greece the legitimate parent of the Art. Summary of the local and political causes. Conjectures on the mechanic process of the Art. Period of preparation - Polygnotus-essential style Apollodorus-characteristic style. Period of establishment — Zeuxis, Period of refinement Eupompus, Apelles,

Parrhasius, Timanthes
Aristides, Euphranor.

THE difficulties of the task prescribed to me, if they do not preponderate, are, at least, equal to the honour of the situation. If to discourse on any topic with truth, precision, and clearness, before a mixed or fortuitous audience, before men neither initiated in the subject, nor rendered minutely attentive by expectation, be no easy task, how much more arduous must it be to speak systematically on an art, before a select assembly, composed of professors, whose life has been divided between theory and practice, of critics, whose taste has been refined by contemplation and comparison, and of students, who, bent on the same pursuit, look for the best, and always most compendious, method of mastering the principles, to arrive at its emoluments and honours? Your lecturer is to instruct them in the principles of "composition; to form their taste for design and colouring; to strengthen their judgment; to point out to them the beauties and imperfections of celebrated works of art; and the particular excellencies and defects of great masters; and, finally, to lead them into the readiest and most efficacious paths of study."† If, Gentlemen, these directions presup

"All this the statuaries, painters, and poets may enable us to effect: but that transcendently blooming grace, or, rather, all the graces and loves, as numerous as they may be, that dance around her, who shall be able to imitate!"- Tooke's Translation.-W.

† Abstract of the Laws of the Royal Academy, article Professors; page 21.

pose in the student a sufficient stock of elementary knowledge, an expertness in the rudiments, not mere wishes, but a peremptory will of improvement, and judgment with docility, how much more do they imply in the person selected to address them-knowledge founded on theory, substantiated and matured by practice, a mass of select and well digested materials, perspicuity of method and command of words, imagination to place things in such views as they are not commonly seen in, presence of mind, and that resolution, the result of conscious vigour, which, in daring to correct errors, cannot be easily discountenanced! As conditions like these would discourage abilities far superior to mine, my hopes of approbation, moderate as they are, must, in a great measure, depend on that indulgence which may grant to my will what it would refuse to my powers.

Before I proceed to the history of style itself, it seems to be necessary that we should agree about the terms which denote its object, and perpetually recur in treating of it, that my vocabulary of technic expression should not clash with the dictionary of my audience: mine is nearly that of your late president. I shall confine myself, at present, to a few of the most important;-the words nature, beauty, grace, taste, copy, imitation, genius, talent. Thus, by nature I understand the general and permanent principles of visible objects, not disfigured by accident, or distempered by disease, not modified by fashion or local habits. Nature is a collective idea, and, though its essence exist in each individual of the species, can never in its perfection inhabit a single object. On beauty I do not mean to perplex you or myself with abstract ideas, and the romantic reveries of Platonic philosophy, or to inquire whether it be the result of a simple or complex principle. As a local idea, beauty is a despotic princess, and subject to the anarchies of despotism; enthroned to-day, dethroned to-morrow. The beauty we acknowledge is that harmonious whole of the human frame, that unison of parts to one end, which enchants us; the result of the standard set by the great masters of our art, the ancients, and confirmed by the submissive verdict of modern imitation. By grace I mean that artless balance of motion and repose sprung from character, founded on propriety, which neither falls short of the demands nor overleaps the