ings, many of which live solely in the history which has rendered them such full justice, still he has no idea of attempting to classify them according to peculiarities of style, or to draw analogies between the works of different men, times, or countries. To say that a building is square or circular, that it is "very wondrous and beautiful," or some such general remark, is, for the most part, the limit of his criticism. Of the abstract principles of the beau ideal of a work of art, considered in its own integrity of design, and without reference to the material, he knows nothing.

Nor is this wonderful, if we recollect the infantile state of the arts in those countries with which this noble old traveller was most conversant. Perspective, even in its linear form, was but little known, while of the receding points, which produce the aërial tones in a picture, no idea seems to have been entertained till within the last three or four centuries. Grand, gaunt, and often grotesque, the sculptures of Babylon or Egyptian Thebes were suggestive of little, save the quaint symbolism they embodied. The same feeling that led the Egyptian to adore the Nile as the great mother and nourisher of the country, also incited him to look with reverence on the many grim forms which embodied the idea of the great fertilizing power. All the powers of nature found their representatives, incongruous enough at times, but still suggestive to the mind of the beholder. But of that beauty which is founded upon close imitation of Nature's fairest formsb

of that freedom from stiffness and crudity of outline which now forms the severe test to which works of art are submitted, the eastern nations had little perception.; massiveness of size atoned for want of symmetry, extravagant richness of material supplied the absence of chastity in the conception of a subject, and Art dragged on her way, heavy in her grandeur, and hesitating strangely between the opposite stages of the sublime and the ludicrous.

We have not sufficient space to enter into the development of Grecian art out of Asiatic, but we may at once observe the immense change gained by a greater judgment in the selection of models, a recognition of the subserviency of art to nature, and a thorough appreciation of the poetry of motion as exemplified in the human figure. Criticism grew out of excellence. To be capable of forming a comparison, and passing a verdict between two or three works of art, was the first step to forming rules for the observance of posterity. Henceforth it became the pride of statesmen and private individuals, not only to erect works of artistic magnificence, but to group them together, and seek to realize a tout ensemble that should be the wonder and delight of every visitor. Even the most apocryphal anecdotes (and there are many) of the skill of the Greek painters prove that mankind was beginning to learn that art is only nature adapted, and that in lieu of extravagant arabesques, and worse than heraldic representations of men and animals, both the painter and

the sculptor had arrived at their noblest vocation—the true poetry of art-which was to leave a Cnidian Venus, an Apollo Belvidere, and a thousand other wondrous models, for the admiration and imitation of future ages.

Still, the science of criticism existed rather in the materials collected than in any attempt to reduce them to a system. While Cicero and Quintilian had analyzed the nature of verbal criticism, and while Longinus had entered deeply into the mysteries of the sublime, both in prose and poetry, art-criticism still remained unattempted; and numerous as are the works on painting and architecture, to which subsequent ages have given birth, it is only within a few years that the labours of our German neighbours have really reduced the criticism of art to anything like a regular system. A few of our own artists have made valuable contributions towards the same end, but the field of art still remains widely open. Many labourers are yet wanted ere we shall be able to form sound and impartial judgment, even of works whose authors are long ere this mingled with the dust.

Of all the authors who have described works of ancient art, Pliny and Pausanias stand pre-eminent. It were to be wished that the Natural History of the elder Pliny were better known to English readers than it is likely to be at present.

With his many mistakes and absurdities as a naturalist, or his frequent misconceptions of matters of

of that freedom from stiffness and crudity of outline which now forms the severe test to which works of art are submitted, the eastern nations had little perception.; massiveness of size atoned for want of symmetry, extravagant richness of material supplied the absence of chastity in the conception of a subject, and Art dragged on her way, heavy in her grandeur, and hesitating strangely between the opposite stages of the sublime and the ludicrous.

We have not sufficient space to enter into the development of Grecian art out of Asiatic, but we may at once observe the immense change gained by a greater judgment in the selection of models, a recognition of the subserviency of art to nature, and a thorough appreciation of the poetry of motion as exemplified in the human figure. Criticism grew out of excellence. To be capable of forming a comparison, and passing a verdict between two or three works of art, was the first step to forming rules for the observance of posterity. Henceforth it became the pride of statesmen and private individuals, not only to erect works of artistic magnificence, but to group them together, and seek to realize a tout ensemble that should be the wonder and delight of every visitor. Even the most apocryphal anecdotes (and there are many) of the skill of the Greek painters prove that mankind was beginning to learn that art is only nature adapted, and that in lieu of extravagant arabesques, and worse than heraldic representations of men and animals, both the painter and

the sculptor had arrived at their noblest vocation-the true poetry of art-which was to leave a Cnidian Venus, an Apollo Belvidere, and a thousand other wondrous models, for the admiration and imitation of future ages.

Still, the science of criticism existed rather in the materials collected than in any attempt to reduce them to a system. While Cicero and Quintilian had analyzed the nature of verbal criticism, and while Longinus had entered deeply into the mysteries of the sublime, both in prose and poetry, art-criticism still remained unattempted; and numerous as are the works on painting and architecture, to which subsequent ages have given birth, it is only within a few years that the labours of our German neighbours have really reduced the criticism of art to anything like a regular system. A few of our own artists have made valuable contributions towards the same end, but the field of art still remains widely open. Many labourers are yet wanted ere we shall be able to form sound and impartial judgment, even of works whose authors are long ere this mingled with the dust.

Of all the authors who have described works of ancient art, Pliny and Pausanias stand pre-eminent. It were to be wished that the Natural History of the elder Pliny were better known to English readers than it is likely to be at present.

With his many mistakes and absurdities as a naturalist, or his frequent misconceptions of matters of