The present school of Italy has hitherto proved hardly worthy of these two great leaders. In the pur suit of certain mistaken notions of refinement, vigour and simplicity of character have been lost. The nu merous imitators of Ca nova have omitted the study of his learned principles, and too often have followed with exaggerated effect the only failing towards which he inclines—elaborate grace. In French sculpture, as in painting, the modern school exhibits more of science than of feeling. Like Poussiti, the artists of the present day seem to have so long devoted their attention to the forms of the antique, that they have forgotten living nature; but unlike their illustrious countryman, they have failed to realize the sentiment of antiquity. They have imitated faithfully the cold and correct lineaments—the canons of art; but the es sence which unites art to nature—which breathes in to Grecian statuary the breath of life—has escaped. In Germany, the studios of Vienna and Berlin appear ed to us deserted from want of encouragement: in the younger Shadoff, who died in the prime of manhood, that country lost an artist of high promise. His Ella trice, or girl spinning, ranks among the most exqui site imitations of simple nature which modern times have produced.
If hitherto little has been said of British sculptors, two circumstances will explain the cause of this si lence. Till the present age could boast of native ar tists, sculpture amongst us was an exotic—cultivated by foreigners, constituting no portion of national glo ry, and regarded with few or no national sympathies. Again, whateVer efforts have been accomplished, these, except, in one or two instances, have produced no influence on the general progress of taste. In ar chitecture, indeed, during the reign of Charles I. this country undoubtedly excelled every other in point of classical purity, if not in magnitude of undertak ing.. But the refinement was short-lived; the stern enthusiasm of the true—the coarse hypocrisy of the pretended republicans, and the turbulent spirits of all, rendered England an ungenial clime for the arts of elegance. Subsequently, Cibber, Roubilliac, Schee macher.—all our celebrated sculptors,—were foreign ers. Bacon, Banks, Jusson of the last age, were na tives, and of merited celebrity; still their isolated la bours tended slightly towards the formation of a school of British sculpture. By the distinguished masters of the present day this has been effected; and if we do not equal our neighbours on the Continent in the number, or probably in the separate excellence of works, yet speaking of the principles which guide the practice of our sculptors, and of the progress already made, we hesitate not to affirm, that this school has produced names equal to any in modern art; and that at this moment, in rectitude and sobriety of precept —in the walk which has hitherto been followed, where nothing is yet to he unlearned, and which must infallibly conduct to the very perfection of sculpture, the British school is the first in Europe. To parti cularize individual names might seem invidious, and would certainly prove an ungrateful task; but Flax man we have unhappily lost; he too surely belongs to posterity; and Chantrey confessedly stands at the head in the province he has selected. In the sculp ture of portraits, we have already spoken of the ar tists of Augustus' reign, and we know not if, since that period, any has ever so nearly approached the last lingering excellence of Greece as Chant•ey. In
deed, the general effect of his busts and portraits, as regards their admirable representation of character, "La scultura del cuore," as it has been expressed, the works of the English artist are not unlike, and not inferior to those mentioned of that period.
Flaxman has more widely extended the influence of his genius—more intimately connected his labours with general improvement, than any other English sculptor. Towards the propitious revolution which has been described as taking place about the conclu sion of last century he contributed; and had he then continued to remain in Italy, would have divided ho nours not unequally with the great reformer of taste. As it is, the artists and intelligent critics of that country admit his claims, regretting only their want of due acquaintance with his works. One of the most judicious of Italian writers thus speaks of Flaxman: Gli debbe moltissimo, poi the quanta di lui cognos ce servi grandamente a sveiiarc da una certa letargia monotona, c far risurgere it gusto dello stile aureo, e severo dell' antichitti eh' eg,li seppe applicare alit sue invenzione." Even in early youth, Flaxman was dis tinguished from the crowd, by devotion to the study of the antique, and by fearless but judicious disre gard of those feeble and conventional modes by which art was then disgraced. Ile was among the first, if not the earliest, to awaken the long dormant energies of sculpture—to unite art anew with nature, and with its own best examples. The simple, the grand, and the severe of the ancient remains he made his own; nor is there one name among all those now enumerat ed, who in these attributes has excelled the hest works of our countryman. Since the ages of Grecian ge nius, we no where find greater meaning—more deep feeling of truth, with less pomp of art, than in the sculpture of Flaxman. Excelling both Canova and Thorwaldsen in the inventive powers of the mind— in all that constitutes the epic of art—he is inferior in the grace and facility of execution. Had his me chanical capabilities in modelling and in finishing equalled the loftiness of his conceptions and the puri ty of his taste, no sculptor of modern times would have enjoyed higher fame than Flaxman.
We omit with regret, yet not unadmirec], not a few names of living English sculptors. In favour of these, however, we again repeat, that, looking prospectively —founding our remarks as much on what may be— as on what has been, no school in Europe can at this moment boast of happier auspices, of more vigorous practice, or of sounder principle. The noble and manly character of sculpture agrees with our national genius, harmonizes with our free institutions, and finds in our history sources of brightest inspiration. But to realize these advantages, let our style, espe cially here, he truly British; we have hitherto taken too much of our principles and of our criticism in the fine arts from others. Let us in future depend on ourselves. Let the British sculptor take nature, and antiquity, of which he possesses now the most per fect examples in existence—let him take these as his sole guides—and he must excel.
J. S. M.