ordinary statue of Jupiter, at Elis, of which Pausanias furnishes an elaborate description Praxiteles, a successor of Phidias, excelled in representing the highest graces of youth and beauty. A Venus from his chissel was so esteemed by the citizens of Gnidos, that they refused to part with it to King Nicomedes, who would have forgiven them an immense debt on that sole condition. It is probable that this statue gave the first idea for the Venus de Medicis. The colossal statues now, on the Monte Cavallo in Rome, one of which (as we noticed in a late number of the European Magazine) was the model for the magnificent bronze cast recently erected in Hyde Park, are ascribed to Phidias and Praxite les.

The Apollo Belvidere, that singularly sublime and beautiful statue, is believed to have been the work of a sculptor called Calamis. The Farnese Hercules is attributed to Glycon. Three sculptors of Rhodes (an island which was one of the greatest schools of Sculpture) Apollodorus, Athenodorus, and Agesander, are said to have produced the Laocoon. But it would be a departure from the slight character of this sketch, and indeed would be incompatible with our limits, if we were to attempt to enumerate the various splendid works which emanated from Grecian genius during the era of the perfection of Sculpture. The art did not appear seriously to decline in Greece until the reign of the Antonines; and, although great compositions of Sculpture were no longer required, the Greeks, down to the fifteenth century, continued to execute small works with the utmost elegance.

It is evident that the early Sculpture of Italy, from the period at which it at all deserved to be noticed, was the produce either of Greek emigrants, or of their immediate scholars. After the ravages of the Romans at Corinth and at Athens, they filled their palaces, villas, theatres, and other public places, with the spoils of Grecian art. All the nobler works of Sculpture executed at Rome were also the productions of Greek artists. Among them, the busts of the twelve Caesars, from Julius to Domitian, inclusive, are the finest specimens existing of portrait-sculpture. When Constantine

changed the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, he took from the ancient capital of the world as many of the finest works of art as could possibly be removed. The Greek artists were also employed, in their own country, to assist in the decoration of the new capital, of which the sacred volumes of Christianity afforded them the subjects. The successors of Constantine, however, influenced by a bigotted zeal for religion, abolished the schools of Athens and Alexandria, and, at various periods, issued orders for the removal and destruction of pagan idols. It is believed that, in the fourth and fifth centuries the Olympian Jupiter at Elis, by Phidias, and the Venus at Gnidos, by Praxiteles, with others of the most distinguished productions of Sculpture were destroyed, either by the imperial mandate, or by the ravages of barbarians. Subsequently, the irruptions of the followers of Mahomet nearly annihilated the remains of the finest Grecian Sculpture, in the East as well as in western Europe.

From this brief review of ancient, we proceed to one, equally rapid, of modern Sculpture. In the fourth and fifth centuries the art of Sculpture was in the lowest possible state of degradation throughout Europe. Nor indeed was it until about the eleventh century that the arts in general began to revive. In the commencement of that revival the Pisans led the way. Taking the remains of the ancient bas reliefs as their guides, Nicolo Pisano and his scholars produced at Sienna, at Pisa, at Lucca, at Orvietto, and in other parts of Italy, a number of works evincing great simplicity, and in some instances much expression. John Pisano, the son of Nicolo, deviating from his father's rigid imitation of antiquity, imparted a more waving line to his figures, and broader folds to his drapery; and in the general character of his productions there is much grace and delicacy. The establishment of the Florentine Academy, in 1350, which was subsequently encouraged and patronized by the princes of the House of Medicis, soon brought the various branches of the Fine Arts to perfection. Of the Sculptors of ability who speedily appeared in Florence, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Donatello, Bru

neleschi, Andrea Verrochio, and Dominic Ghirlandaio, were the most celebrated. The advance of modern art was also greatly accelerated by the progressive discovery of those miraculous productions of ancient Greek art, which had been buried for many ages, and which were by degrees restored from the bowels of the earth. At length, in the year 1474, was born at Florence, Michael Angelo Buonarotti. He was warmly patronized by Lorenzo de Medicis, who made him his companion, gave him an apartment in his palace, and allowed him a pension. In return, Michael Angelo adorned Florence with many works of inimitable beauty, energy, and grandeur. Subsequently, Julius II. sent for him to Rome, where he was liberally employed both by that Pope and by his illustrious successor, Leo X. Among the Sculptors of merit who succeed ed Michael Angelo, John of Bologna was one of the most eminent. His groups are remarkable for their good composition, and the fine undulation of their lines. Benvenuto Cellini also distinguished himself very much at Florence. But soon after his time, the Florentine school sunk into insipidity.

During the papacy of Urban the VIIIth. Bernini, who was originally a painter and educated in the Lombard school, executed a number of figures and groups in sculpture. Sometimes manifesting considerable powers of invention, his style, nevertheless, was very depraved and flimsy, in consequence of his departure from the severe simplicity which is the true character of sculpture, and of his endeavouring to introduce those minor graces, which painting alone can attempt with advantage. The disciples of Bernini pushed his defects to excess; and sculpture was at a very low ebb in Italy, until about the middle of the last century, when the Italian sculptors again applied themselves to the study of nature, and of the principles of ancient art. Canova, who was born in 1757, was chiefly in strumental in this second revival. He was, beyond all comparison, the greatest sculptor that Italy had for many years produced, and has left a number of works, which, on the Continent, are considered even to

rival the antique. But, with the most unfeigned admiration of Canova's genius, it may, perhaps, be permitted us to say, that there is, occasionally, in his compositionswe will not use so coarse a word as affectation, but—an absence of that perfect simplicity and purity which constitute the highest charm of sculpture.

France derived the greatest part of her knowledge of the Fine Arts from Italy. In the reign of Francis the First, Leonardo da Vinci, Benvenuto Cellini, and Primaticcio, established in that country a School of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. Soon after that period, the French sculptors Pilon, Cousin, and John Goujon, distinguished themselves very much, especially by their bas reliefs; and from their time a respectable School of Sculpture has been maintained in France.

To Italy Spain also owes whatever has been atchieved in that country, in Sculpture as well as in Painting.

In Germany, Sculpture has not been wholly neglected. One of the most extraordinary and magnificent specimens of sepulchral sculpture, in the world, is the monument of the Emperor Maximilian, father of Charles the Vth. in the Church of St. Anthony, at Inspruck, by Alexander Collins, of Mechlin.

England originally drew from her Roman conquerors her scanty knowledge of the arts, which she subsequently improved by her communication with Italy. Down to the period of the Reformation, the English sculptors equalled, in point of talent and acquirement, their continental contemporaries, of which a number of proofs still exist, and no where more unequivocally than in the remarkably fine sculpture which decorates Henry the Seventh's chapel in Westminster Abbey. Unhappily, the Reformation, however conducive to the interests of true religion, was most destructive of the Fine Arts. The slenderness of the encouragement given to sculp ture having damped the exertions of native artists, their place was supplied by foreigners. Of those, the most celebrated were Cibber, Roubilliac, and Scheemacher; none of whom produced any works of

extraordinary excellence. The es tablishment of the Royal Academy, however, and the impulse thereby given to the public feeling, in favour of the Fine Arts, had the effect of stimulating our native artists to fresh exertions. Of the English sculptors, who flourished during the last thirty or forty years, Bacon and Bankes were among the most distinguished. The latter, especicially, has left many works of very superior character. At the present moment, sculpture is experiencing great encouragement in this coun

On the last two days of October, the Students of the British Institution having completed their labours for the present season, the public, or at least those who were favoured with tickets, were admitted to see the various studies that had been made from the different works of the old masters, left in the gallery for that purpose. They are very numerous, and, upon the whole, do great credit to the talents and industry of the students, several of whom, (as we observed on a former occasion), are ladies.

Without, however, entering upon the ungracious task of individual criticism, which, indeed, under the circumstances of the case, would scarcely be fair, we may, perhaps, be allowed to make a few observations, which are prompted solely by anxiety, that the evidently good tendency of this part of the plan of the Governors of the British Institution may be rendered as productive of benefit to the young artists as possible.

It does appear to us, then, that many of the students-there are several admirable exceptions, but that many of the students do not exactly aim at that which ought to be one of their principal objects, namely, the acquisition of the mechanical skill exhibited in the works of the great masters placed before them. It does appear to us, that they are too frequently (we again beg leave to guard ourselves from being supposed to say universally), satisfied

with producing something approaching to the general effect of those works; and that they do not look with sufficiently inquisitive eyes into the means by which that effect has been produced.

To us, it seems, that when a young student plants his easil by the side of a fine Titian or Vandyke, he ought to suspend the recollection of every thing, that he conceives be has hitherto learnt. By whatever modern master of ability he may have been instructed, whatever may be the way in which he has been hitherto taught to set his palette, on whatever ground he may have hitherto commenced his pictures, whatever may be the process which he has hitherto pursued, whatever may be the vehicle which he has hitherto used, however much he may have hitherto been accustomed to paint solidly, however much to glaze, however much to scumble, of all this know ledge, and of all these habits, he should, for the time, as much as possible, divest his mind, and endeavour to resolve the plain and exclusive question-“How did Titian or Vandyke do this?" There are only two, and those conjoint modes of ascertaining:-close inspection, and multiplied experiment. Instead of attempting to copy the whole picture in his own established method, which is too often what SirJoshua has happily termed "laborious idleness," let him fix upon some small part of it, which comprehends all the de sirable felicities of tone and execu