found a senseless purchaser, whose only measure of his intelligence was the abundance of his wealth; who would pay dearly enough for any thing that was called ancient, to be received into the number of the cognoscenti, and join in the outcry against modern ability. All this, however, brought in a new and severer mode of study among the artists, with a more diligent attention to nature and the antique, and has enabled some of them to exhibit performances much more on a level with the merit of those works than the insensible can feel, or the interested choose to own. Having marked these phænomena in the hemisphere of art, we should now turn our thoughts more particularly to England, and see in what manner it was affected by their influence. Previous to the Reformation, although Italian artists were employed in ornamenting our churches and tombs, yet in the old histories, records, and contracts of publick buildings, there are abundant names of English painters and sculptors, who appear to have been considered able masters in their time, perhaps not inferiour to their Italian fellow-workmen. But after Henry the Eighth's separation from the church of Rome, Elizabeth, proceeding in the reformation, destroyed the pictures and images in the churches; strictly forbidding any thing of the kind to be admitted in future, under the severest penalties, as being catholick and idolatrous. This entirely preven ted the exercise of historical painting, or sculpture, in England; at the very time that Raffaelle and Michel Angelo had brought those arts into the highest estimation on the continent.-The rebellion, in 1648, completed what the refor mation had begun; the fanaticks defaced whatever they could, that the former inquisition had spared; they broke painted windows and tombs, carried away the monumental brass, and church-plate, crying, Cursed be he, that doth the work of the Lord deceitfully!' -Thus the artist, terrified by the ciation of death or perpetual imthreats of the sovereign, the denunscared by fanatical anathemas, prisonment from the laws, and found that his only hope of safety rested upon quitting forever a profession, which enclosed him on all sides with the prospect of mistime, and from these causes, we ery and destruction. From this scarcely hear of any attempt at historical art by an Englishman, until it was again called forth by the benign influence of the present reign. When the liberal spirit of Charles the First desired to adorn the architecture of Whitehall with the graces of painting, he was obliged to seek the artist in a foreign land; he had no subject equal to the task: Rubens and Vandyck were employed: and when the king's bust was to be done, Vandyck painted three views of his face, a front, a side, and a three-quarter, which were sent to Bernini in Rome, by whom it was executed in marble. If our kings and nobility had continued to inhabit castles, as in the feudal times, painting and sculpture would have been but little wanted; for, if the walls of the building were sufficiently strong to resist battery, or shot, and contained retreats to secure the inhabitants from the enemy, the end of that kind of dwelling was answered: but in the the improved state of society and times succeeding Charles the First, knowledge had induced the great to build commodious villas and palaces, in which the architectural distribution made the sister-arts absolutely necessary to uniformity and completion. Still ingenious foreigners were employed for this purpose, whilst the native was treated with contempt, both at home and abroad, for his inability in those arts which law and relig ion had forbidden him to practise. As this suppression of ability was extremely impolitick and dishonourable to the country, let us inquire for a moment on what scriptural authority the prohibition which occasioned it was support ed. Painting and sculpture were banished from the churches, that they might not idolatrously be worshipped and this is just; the divine law orders they shall not be worshipped, but utters no prohibition against the arts themselves: on the contrary, divine precept directed images of cherubim to be made, whose wings should extend over the ark of the covenant, and cherubim to be embroidered on the curtains which surrounded it. This decision in favour of the arts being employed for proper purposes in sacred buildings, is so clear and strong, that it could only be overlooked, or opposed, by infatuated bigotry. A succession of foreign artists, as has been observed, were employed in almost every work of importance, from the time of Charles the First, until within for ty years of the present day. The painters, Vandyck, Lely, Verrio, Kneller and Casali, succeeded to each other; as did also the sculptors, Cibber, Gibbons, Scheemakers, Rysbrack, Bertocini, and Roubiliac. This variety of artists (sculptors are more particularly meant) from different countries, French, Flemings, and Italians, Vol. IV. No. 10. 3T sometimes brought the taste of John Goujon or Puget, sometimes a debased imitation of John of Bologna and the Florentine school, and sometimes the taste of Bernini; but never a pure style and sound principles. After the Reformation, the chief employment of sculpture was in sepulchral monuments, which, during the reigns of James the First and his sonCharles, were chiefly executed by Frenchmen or Flemings, scholars of John Goujon, still regulated by the principles their master had acquired from Primaticcio, the pupil of Raffaelie. Some of these works have great merit, particularly the tombs of sir John Norris, and sir Francis Vere, in the same chapel with Roubiliac's monument of lady E. Nightingale in Westminster abbey. his The rebuilding of London, in the reign of Charles the Second, gave some employment to sculpture. Cibber's works are the most conspicuous of that period: his mad figures on the Bethlehem gates have a natural sentiment, but are ill drawn; his bass-relief on the pedestal of London monument is not ill conceived, but stiff and clumsy in the execution; clothed figures in the Royal Exchange strut like dancing-masters, and have the importance of coxcombs. But with all his faults, what he left is far preferable to the succeeding works. The figures in St. Paul's church, and the conversion of the saint in the pediment, partake strongly of Bernini's affectation; and from that time to the establishment of the Royal Academy we must expect to see every piece of sculpture more or less tinctured with the same bad taste, especially the sepulchral monuments, to which, after the statues and basso-relievos last no ticed, we must chiefly look for the progress of sculpture amongst us. It will be proper here to remark that all the Grecian sculpture was arranged in three classes: the group of figures; the single statue; and alto or basso relievo. The first two classes were suited to all insulated situations, and the latter to fill pannels in walls. These classes not only serve all architectural purposes, but adorn, harmonise, and finish its forms: every attempt to make other combinations between sculpture and architecture will be found unreasonable, and degrading to one as well as the other; but Bernini, whose character and works we have already noticed,seems to have thought that he had the privilege of equally subverting art and nature in his works. I shall mention the following instances, although I am afraid their extreme aburdities will prevent such of those from believing the descriptions as have not seen the things themselves. In the area before the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva he raised a bronze elephant on a pedestal, and on the elephant's back placed an Egyptian obelisk the architecture of the east window in St. Peter's church he has loaded with many tons weight of stucco clouds, out of which issue huge rays, intended for light or glory, of the same materials, but long and thick enough for the beams of a house. vagances of this kind, and many others that he has committed, have fortunately had little effect upon us, because some have been necessarily connected with catholick churches, and others introduced in fountains, which are only frequent in hot countries: we were, however, the dupes of his school, until native genius gained sufficient Extra judgment and strength to correct its errors, and supply a better style of art. Before the time of Bernini two kinds of sepulchral monuments prevailed; one from the highest antiquity, which was a sarcophagus, either plain, or covered with basso-relievos, with or without the statue of the deceased on its top. The other kind was introduced by Michel Angelo, in the mausoleum of Julius the Second; and those of the Medici family, in the chapel of St. Lorenzo, at Florence. In these the sarcophagus, as in the former kind, was suited to the niche or architecture against which it was placed, and surmounted or surrounded by statues of the deceased, and his moral attributes. Both these practices were rational and proper; the one for plainer, the other for more magnificent tombs. This branch of sculpture was of too much importance to be neglected by Bernini; he stripped it of its ancient simple grandeur, leaving it neither group,statue,basso-relievo,sarcophphagus, or trophy, but an absurd mixture of all, placed against a dark-coloured marble pyramid, and thus sacrificing all that is valuable in sculpture to what he conceived a picturesque effect. The pyramid is from its immense size, solid base, diminishing upwards,a building intended to last thousands of years: how ridiculous, then, to raise a lit tle pyramid of slab marble, an inch thick, on a neat pedestal, to be the back ground of sculpture, belonging to none of the ancient classes, foisted into architecture, with which it has neither connection nor harmony, and in which it appears equally disgusting and deformed! The first monuments he raised of this kind were two in the Chigi chapel in the church of Santa Maria del Popolo,in Rome; this nov elty soon found its way into every country in Europe; our Westminster abbey is an unfortunate instance of its prevalence. Rysbrack and Roubiliac spread the popularity of this taste in England; but as the first of these sculptors was a mere workman, too insipid to give pleasure, and too dull to offend greatly, we shall dismiss him without further notice. The other deserves more attention. Roubiliac was an enthusiast in his art, possessed of considerable talents: he copied vulgar nature with zeal,and some of his figures seem alive; but their characters are mean,their expressions grimace, and their forms frequently bad; his draperies are worked with great diligence and labour,from the most disagreeable examples in nature, the folds being either heavy or meagre, frequently without a determined general form, and hung on his figures with little meaning. He grouped two figures together (for he never attempted more) better than most of his contemporaries; but his thoughts are conceits, and his compositions epigrams. This artist went to Italy, in company with Mr. Pond, an English painter; he was absent from home three months, going and returning, stayed three days in Rome, and laughed at the sublime remains of ancient sculpture! The other sculptors of this time were ordinary men; their faults were common, and their works have no beauty to rescue them from oblivion. Thus we have seen the nobler efforts of painting and sculpture driven out of the country by reforming violence and puritanical fury; sculpture reduced to the narrow limits of monument-making, and by these means degraded to a sort of trade; and this department supplied from the corrupt source of Bernini's school, and not unfrequently through the worst mediums. In this state the art continued until the establishment of the Royal Academy settled a course of study, both at home and abroad, which developed the powers of English genius, till then unknown to the natives, and denied by foreigners. attention the history, and political, commercial, and moral state of the several countries through which we pass, that we may the better understand the objects which offer themselves to our notice; and though this kind of knowledge, being derived chiefly from books, might be as well acquired in our closets at home, yet wanting a sufficient stimulus to pursue it with zeal, we are too apt to neglect it. Thus, for example, I was not sensible that I was so totally ignorant, as I find myself, of the extent, population, power, and resources of France. I knew it to be a great and powerful nation; but had no precise ideas on any one point, constituting its grandeur and power. The science of statistique has become very fashionable in France, since the late rapid accession of power has led this nation to believe, that she shall soon give laws to all the world. The violent hatred of the English is principally occasioned by the conviction, that that nation offers some barrier to its commercial pre-eminence. As to its continental domination, there exists no barrier, which they cannot in a short time overleap; and they hope some Britannicus will arise, who will remove the obstacles to their commercial superiority. An elementary work on the statistical situation of France has just appeared, and as it appears to me to have drawn its information from solid sources, and as I know you have a taste for subjects of this nature, I shall give you some of the most interesting details which I have collected. It will save you at least the trouble of translation., The first durable aggrandizement of France began under St. Louis, who added Burgundy to his estates. Under Philip de Valois, Dauphiny was added; Charles VII. reunited Guienne; Francis I. Brittany; Henry II. the three bishopricks of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and the county or earldom of Calais; Henry IV. Navarre ; Louis XIII. Roussillon; Louis XIV. Flanders, Artois, Franche Comté, l'Alsace, and the principality of Orange; Louis XV. Lorrain and the island of Corsica. If you have a map of France, divided into provinces, as it was before the revolution, you will see that even before the revolution France had more than doubled its size in two centuries; that it was gradually advancing to supreme power even under its monarchs. During the revolution and since, it has absolutely annexed to its territory Belgium or the low countries, Geneva, Avignon, Savoy, the whole of the left bank of the Rhine, the county of Nice and Monaco, Piedmont, the island of Elba, and lately Genoa. These are independent of the countries over which she has an absolute, but not a nominal sovereignty. France, at the moment of the breaking out of the revolution, was estimated to contain 27,491 square leagues, and the number of its inhabitants was computed at 24,800,000. The territory of France is now estimated at 32,026 square leagues, and its population at 34,449,351. To judge rightly of the quantity of land contained in these leagues it is necessary to observe, that, the league here referred to is one twenty-fifth part of a degree, or two miles and twofifths English. The contributions of France, before the revolution, amounted to 584,600,000 francs, or nearly twenty-five millions sterling; equal to about 23 livres 13 sous per head · of all the individuals of every age |