The scholars of Donatcllo were very numerous, for he may be said to have founded schools in the leading cities of Italy; they may be divided into two classes. The first comprehends those who, without producing much of what was original, have attained reputation as co-labourers in the most considerable undertakings of their master; such as Simon his brother, Giovanni da Pisa the second of the name, Bartoldo, and AVilliam of Padua, who travelled into England. The second division of the school of Donatello consists of his true disciples, who, not servilely following in his train, preserved, or even improved the science of their in structor. These include many of the leading masters of the time—as at Florence, Michelozzi, famous in bronzes—Settignano, whose sculptures are graceful and lovely—the two Russilini, the elder of whom was the first architect of St. Peter's. In Bologna, Mo dena, Lombardy, Naples, were scions of the same school; in the last were especially distinguished the two Massicii, Monaco, Cicione and Fiore. Of the Venetian school, the ornaments were Riccio, who wrought exclusively in bronze, Cavino and Ledpardi, scholars also of Donatello. This great artist died in 1466, having survived his rival Ghiberti about eleven years. For nearly three quarters of the cen tury, these two masters presided over sculpture, nor has the lapse of successive centuries diminished their just claims to estimation: both excelled in relievos; and Donatello in high, Ghiberti in low relief, have produced models yet unsurpassed—seldom equalled. The influence of the former on the art universally was the more direct and extensive: but the talents of nei ther claim such pre-eminence as to obscure the merits of contemporaries, or of immediate successors. Im provement was more the effect of general talent than of individual superiority. After their demise, the art was far from languishing in the hands of Luca Della Robbia, Briosco, Lotto the first repairer of the antique —of the Majani, eminent in sculpture and Mosaic—of the Pallajoli, painters and sulptors, instrumental in the introduction of anatomical science—or of Andrea Verrochio, undoubtedly the greatest master at the close of this century—while towards its close in the academy of the Medici are to be found Pietro Perugino—Leo nardo da Vinci—and more illustrious still, Michael Angelo.
From the Alps to the shores of Calabria sculpture was thus cultivated with eminent success, while in the other states of Europe the arts still slumbered, or merit not particular examination. Florence was the central point of refinement, where is to be observed most full development of principle with greatest free dom of execution. Assuming the best works as ex hibiting the real extent to which science had attained during this period, we find the style and character of art to he in a high degree elevated as well as pleasing. The simplicity is refined, remote alike from affecta tion and poverty, the skill is great, but never exercis ed to astonish or surprise: nature is imitated with fidelity and by the simplest means; the manner never allures from the subject, so that the work is long admired before it occurs to inquire whence the fas cination arises. The great proportion of sculpture of the fifteenth century is in bronze, a circumstance which may account for the style of execution mi nute and delicate, but frequently unenergetic and re strained. As respects intellectual merits, the style of design is always chaste, often extremely elegant; the composition judicious and unaffected, seldom strong ly marked; the expression sweet and calmly dignified, for rarely is strongly marked passion attempted. We observe no decided aims at representation of abstract beauty; the powers of fancy are never presumed upon, and seldom roused; but the mind of the artist, now no longer wholly occupied in mechanical detail, se lects and combines; if the forms and manners are not invested with ideal elevation, the most perfect models of real existence are not unsuccessfully imitated.
Were the extent or object of art confined to the simple representation of nature, sculpture would now verge on perfection. But, by the genius of the sixteenth century, there yet remained to be added greater case and grace of execution, more forceful and elevated expression, more refined selection of form, and more of those charms which imagination lends to reality.
The sixteenth century, in its commencement, dis closes a state of things highly favourable to the ad vancement of Sculpture. In Italy—yet the only seat of art, refinement had been widely diffused; learning was esteemed, freedom and opulence reigned in the republican cities; princes and nobles generally showed attachment to elegant splendour, and were emulous in patronising merit, whether in arts or letters; while, above all, energy and activity were the characteristics of the age pervading every rank. The advanced con dition of their attachments enabled sculptors to derive every advantage from these external causes. A new field likewise was then opened for their exertions. To maintain that universal sway to which the papal so vereigns had constantly aspired—spiritual weapons and temporal power had in succession been employed; the progress of knowledge had dispelled the terrors by detecting the unhallowed nature of the former, and the temper of the times was no longer disposed to bend before the latter. Means of empire, more congenial to the minds of living men were to he essayed; it was resolved to constitute to Rome the metropolis of re ligion and of art; to consecrate her monuments by de votion and by taste.
To carry into effect the mighty undertakings, the greatest in modern ages, to which this design gave birth, Michael Angelo arose. As the splendid re solves of Pericles to render Athens the abode of an cient refinement would have proved vain without the talents of Phidias, so the energy of Julius, or the ele gance of Leo, would not have availed, unaided by the mind of Buonaroti. The times, the men, tha objects and the consequences, bear a striking resemblance in both cases. As the Greek commanded our chief at tention in classic art, so, from the labours and genius of the Tuscan, we derive the truest estimate of the best age in modern sculpture. The former, however, asserted the assigned pre-eminence by the intrinsic merits and beauty of his productions; the latter ar rests our regard, not so much from the perfection of his works, as from having left the impress of an irre gular though mighty spirit upon his own and the suc ceeding ages. When the attainments of Michael Angelo are collectively considered, when in the same indi.hdual is discove •ecl the architect of the Cupola— the painter of the Last Judgment—the sculptor of the Moses, discriminating qualities are lost in general ad miration; and to him who thus hears away the palm of universal talent, we are inclined to concede the foremost rank in each separate pursuit. For nearly three-fourths of a century he was acknowledged also as the head alternately of the schools of Florence, Rome, and Venice. When this pre-eminence was first assumed, painting was in infancy; the feeble at tempts of his master, Ghirlandajo, t•ere viewed with wonder, and only in the frescoes of the unhappy Mas saccio, had any indications of an elevated style pre viously appeared. The cartoons of the battle of Pisa, and other works of Michael Angelo, appearing tinder these circumstances, suddenly raised the art to strength, boldness, and scientific correctness; to that sublimity which formed Raphael and his compeers. In architecture, though at a later date, St. Peter's stood, and still stands, alone, unequalled— whose perilous bound none else durst walk—and where the mighty spirit still reposes in self-created superiority—in awful and unshaved solitude.