ltaccio Bandinelli, born at Florence in 1487, was the enemy rather than the rival or imitator of Buonar oti; there is vet a strong resemblance in their manner, allowing for uncial inferiority in the first, with a similar of exaggerated science; although in some instances, Bandinelli exceeds in softness and de licacy. But this is not the general character of his works, which exhibit strength without regularity or refinement. Baccio di Monte Lupo was also an ori ginal artist of considerable eminence, as is still attest ed by his best performance, the crucifix in the church of San Lorenzo. Andrew Contucci, founder of the school of Loretto, whence many excellent works then issued, is an imitator of Michael Angelo, with no mean additions of his own. Francisco Rustici, emi nent as a founder, pupil of Leonardo da Vinci, carried the manner of this school into France, and died in Paris in 1550. During the early part of this century, Giacotno Tatti or more popularly Sansovino, presided over the Venetian school with much reputation. The magnificent range of the Piazza di San Marco, is of his erection. Ills style of sculpture is distinguished for richness of composition, but is deficient in purity; and though decidedly founded on that of the Tuscan, whose principles Sansovino had studied at Rome, whence he fled on the sack of that capital by Bourbon in 1527, it displays greater softness, with less of vi gour and originality. Ile survived his master, and was the head of a numerous school, of which Danese Cattaneo and Alexandro Vittoria were the chief orna ments, the one in arts and letters, the other in having perfected the useful practice of working in stucco. In Lombardy and in Naples, similar principles were followed, and with scarcely unequal success; or, in these schools, the less valuable peculiarities of rapid execution and exuberant fancy were cultivated in pre ference to learned design or accuracy of taste, from the splendour of the respective courts demanding the employment of the arts on objects of temporary in terest. In Milan, however, Agostino Busti, and es pecially Guglielmo della Porta, whose statues of jus tice and prudence on the tomb of Paul III. in St. Peter's have been admitted among the best examples of modern sculpture, were highly esteemed; as also in Naples, were Marliano Nola and Girolamo St. Croce.
Among the real disciples of the great Tuscan mas ter, the following may be mentioned as the principal: —Raphael di Monte Lupo, a favourite pupil, by whom are the two statues of the Virtues on each side of the Moses in the tomb of Julius II.; Nicolo di Tribulo, an excellent founder, author of the fine bronze-gates of the cathedral at Bologna; Giovanni dell Opera, whose name attests his prolific genius, and who had the honour of placing the statue or architecture on. the tomb of his instructor; where in Florence Vicinzo Danti closely and not unequally imitates the style and manner of his master, as attested by the group of victory chaining a captive in the old Ducal palace, being ascribed to him, though the most in telligent judges assign it to the latter, as one even of his most vigorous thoughts. Michael Angelo cer tainly did retouch this still unfinished piece; and tra dition rightly attributes to his crayon the lines in red chalk visible on the back and shoulders of the figure, where reduction seemed to be required. Bar tolomeo Ammanati first studied sculpture with some success, but subsequently transferred his attention to architecture, in which he became eminent. Benve nuti Cellini, a man of the most versatile powers; his works of sculpture are in metal, of which the Perseus and the Mercury, poised on one foot, are the princi pal. But the greatest of this school still remains to be mentioned, Giovanni di Bologna, a Frenchman by birth, an Italian as a sculptor, who, from the magni tude and number of his productions, from the beauty of his style, and the excellence of his genius, ap proaches nearest to his master. To the end of the sixteenth century, this artist occupies the prominent place in the history of sculpture; he terminated the series of illustrious names of that era, and his last great work, the group of Hercules and the Centaur, erected in 1600, closed the Tuscan school for ever. In examining his performances, we ascertain those advances which were accomplished during the last thirty years of this century, while the mantle of their great teacher still rested upon the favoured of the disciples; while yet the impetus derived from the mighty movement awakened by one mind had not spent its force. During this space we find the tech
nical part considerably improved, operative art bet ter understood, and its processes facilitated. Hence, though no preceding sculptor can show works more numerous or important, those of Giovanni di Bologna discover no marks of haste, no deficiency of a high, and even in some instances exquisite finish; it is even apparent, that many of the inaccuracies, into which a fervid and impatient spirit hurried his master, have been avoided,. Still in the works of the pupil, in their general style and manner, we observe the grow ing evils which the example of the instructor intro duced, but which supreme genius consecrated or con cealed—bold, rapid, and masterly execution—grand and imposing composition preferred to, and even ex cluding, delicacy of expression—attentive study of truth, and of those sweet and gracious sensibilities through which art becomes the "obvious, not appa rent, but retiring" representative of nature—which elevate without startling the imagination.
Before leaving the subject of Italian sculpture dur ing the sixteenth century, one name, closely connected with the general improvements of art during this in terval, claims some notice, more especially as the merits of Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most venera ble names of the age, seem to have been hardly esti mated by the elegant historian of Leo X. On perus ing the observations of Mr. Roscoe, the impressions, we think, which are left upon the mind regarding Leonardo, arc, that he was a dabbler in various know ledge, but proficient in no one branch; a laborious trifler, who wasted in useless multiplicity—in chem istry, mechanics, and experimental philosophy, talents which ought to have rendered him great in art. We confess, however, that the manuscripts of Leonardo which we have seen in the Ambrosial' library at Milan, give no mean opinion of his attainments, even in science, the times considered. if in art his produc tions be few, they are very precious; let it also be remembered that his cartoon of the battle of Pisa, drawn in conjunction Iv ith one by Michael Angelo, was not inferior, if it did not excel, and that these first exhibited true greatness of style in modern de sign. In relation then, to the remarks of the English historian, we join with count Cicognara, who con cludes rather a severe criticism in the following words, ci scmbra troppo azardato e non mai dittato da valet matura eireospectione cite tanto dislingue to stor>co du 220i indicato. The common opinion respecting the " Last Supper" repeated by Mr. Roscoe, namely, that the artist was unable to represent the principal figure with a dignity superior to the others, and therefore, left the piece unfinished, is certainly erroneous. The mistake seems to have originated with Fra Bartolomeo of Siena, who, in a book entitled de Vita et Moribus beati Stephani, first relates the circumstance: but, be fore the appearance of this work, cardinal Frcderico Borromeo in 1625, had published a little treatise ex pressly on this picture, in which he not only says nothing of the head of Christ being left unfinished, but actually praises the expression, vcnerabile Salm toris os alum animi 212CerO•ent indicil, qui tainelt gra vissima moderatione occultatus atepte suppressus inlclligilur. This little tract, from its rarity and the fine taste which it displays, is, by the Italians, termed, „dare° Libretto. To the other claims of Leonardo as one of the fathers of modern art, it may he added, that names, eminent both as painters and sculptors, re ceived from him their knowledge of these branches. " Art," indeed, " is jealous," but at her shrine the devotion of da Vinci was neither without fervour nor unfruitful, although he courted, not unsuccessfully, the favours of science, then new to the mind. We trust an endeavour to reconcile these claims with the observations of a living historian whom we hold in high admiration, will be deemed neither improper in us nor irrelevant to the subject.