Etruscan 4.knipturc.—Tho Etruscan is the next school of sculpture that claims attention. The history of this nation is involved in great obscurity. The appellations of Tuscan and Etruscan were foreign to them, and Etruria was a Roman term. The more ancient name by which they were called was Rascnts ('Paanvat). Their later history if chiefly known from their connection with other nations. [Erannia, in GEOG. Div.] An examination of their sculpture, as founded on the numerous existing monuments, almost seems to connect them, in a greater of less degree, with the Greeks. Whether the Etrurians at any time possessed a mythology and style of design on which Greek "myths" and forms were subsequently engrafted, or whether each nation retained principles originally common to both, is not important in this part of our inquiry. The supporters of the more remote anti quity and superior iutelligenco of the Etrurians have supposed it possible that this people, instead of being taught by them, were at one time the instructors of the Greeks, amongst whom, in consequence of their wars, internal divisions, and other disturbing causes, the arts were neglected, and probably suffered to fall to decay, while Etruria had enjoyed a state of comparative repose, favourable to the advance ment of the arts. Among the great difficulties with which this part of the subject is embarrassed, is that of establishing with any certainty the dates of the settlement of Greeks in Etruria. It certainly is remarkable that the cinerary urns found in sepulchral chambers often have represented on them subjects whose meaning is unknown, and which seem to have no affinity at least with the post-Ihnneric Greek mythology ; and so far the practice of art and a class of symbols seem to have existed in Etruria, either essentially its own, or, if ever shared with others, so ancient that all record of it was lost, excepting as it appears on these older Etruscan monuments.
The history of the known Etruscan school of sculpture is therefore necessarily founded on the character of the majority of existing speci mens; and in these the recurrence of similar subjects and personages, resemblance of costume, and the common form of many of the letters of the Etruscan and Greek alphabets, distinctly establish the fact of some communication between the two nations. Lanzi (' Notizie eulla Scultura degli Antiehi') divides the art of Etruria into epochs or periods, and considers the second to be that which was influenced by colonies from Greece ; and it is this influence which is so observable in the monuments referred to.
In observing, however, that all or nearly all the specimens of Etru rian art that have reached our times indicate a connection or inter course at some period between that country and the Greeks, it may be well to repeat a remark that has incidentally been made in a former part of this history,—to caution the student from too hastily attri buting to different nations a common origin of design, from the mere similarity of certain forms and corresponding particulars of execution which may perchance be recognised or discovered in their primitive attempts at art. It must always be borne in mind that this appearance
is often nothing more than the general characteristic of all art in its infancy; the same, or nearly so, in Greece, in India, in Etruria, as in all other countries. Lanzi observes, in speaking of the sculpture of this school (‘ Notizie sulfa Scultura degli Antiehi '), that a distinc tion must be made between works in the Etruscan style and works simply executed by Etrurian artists. The "Etruscan style " was a peculiar manner of treating art. It was designated by the Latina " Tuscanicus ;" and all works executed iu this manner were termed " opera" or" sigua Tuscanica." That this distinctive character of school existed, and was recognised as a peculiar feature in art, is confirmed by a passage in Quintilian, in which that writer is particularizing the style of some of the great sculptors of Greece, and showing the changes or progress that distinguished the earlier from the later masters. Ile says, " Callon and Egesias made their statues hard" (a technical term meaning stiff and severe) "and nearly approximating to the Tuscan figures. Calamis made his works less rigid." (Quintil., Orat.,' lib. xii., 10.) The peculiar characteristics of the Etnmean style,—the siyna Tuscanica,—are an affectation or exaggeration in the general actions and attitudes, and meagreness of treatment in the details. In the heads, whether of male or female figures, the hair is usually stringy ; or plaited, and falling iu long tails or lengths. The hands are placed in the least natural position for the purpose on which they are employed, and the ends of the fingers are often turned up in the most unnatural and therefore ungraceful manner. The draperies are cast without any regard to masses or agreeable forms, and always appear as if they had been put on wet and starched, and had stiffened in drying ; the edges are very much shown, and in the falling or perpendicular views appear in regular and corresponding zig-zag linea. Many points of resemblance to the above works of the signs Tuscanica will be found in early Greek art, especially that of the .iEginetan school. With these, however, this indication of primitive style passed away as the knowledge of art advanced, while the Etruscan manner was retained, and even imitated in many works of a much later period than the original Tuscan, and by artists belonging to schools of a more perfected taste. Ae a general remark, it may be observed that productions in tho Etruscan style are very deficient in beauty. They neither exhibit the repose and sim plicity which, notwithatanding its other deficiencies, give dignity to Egyptian, nor the fine forms and sentiment which ennoble Grecian sculpture ' • and whatever interest they excite is derived rather from the value that attaches to them in an archreological point of view, than from any merit that they possess as works of art.