bility, and when fiction, wearing the veil of antiquity, could escape the detection of criticism." One set of people may, from peculiar causes, have cultivated and carried painting farther than others; and as mutual communication took place, either through the exchange of commodities or in warfare, they may have mutually assisted each other. Emigration also of bodies of men from one country to another, as of the Greeks into Italy, would of necessity cause a transfer of the practice of the arts; aiding their extension through the world, and increasing the chances of their advancement. But it is most likely, and most conformable to all that we know of the product of the arts, from the remnants of ancient Egyptian, Hindoo, Greek, and Mexican culture of them, that the same natural causes operated on all; acting among each nation upon the principles within, and the materials around them; though guided by different feelings, accordant to the degree of civilisation and cultivation they had attained; and, as those feelings and materials acted upon men trained under different circumstances, they would be employed in different manners, though directed to the supply of the same wants, or the fulfilment of the same purposes.

To illustrate this point, I would call to your recollection the works of sculpture lately brought

to this country from ancient Mexico, some of which are now in the British Museum.

At first

sight they appear to have some relation to those of the Hindoos or the Egyptians; and many have been induced to think, that in style of art, they have one common origin.

But it appears to me, that common origin must be sought only in the perceptions and feelings of man wherever he may be found. For though there be an apparent resemblance between the earlier works of art of those dif ferent nations, it will be found upon examination, to reside more in the nature of the materials employed, and in the rudeness and imperfection with which they are wrought, than in the objects chosen for representation (with the excep tion of man), or the style or mode of their combination; a diversity, sufficiently powerful to point out the perfectly original feeling of the artists in either country, as distinct from each other.

After the supposed period of the invention of letters to which I have alluded, the Egyptian priesthood continued to employ painting hiero glyphically, to support the mysteries of their religious system; and also, as it now appears, in the records of the government of their country. But it is from that ancient colony of the Greeks which established itself in Etruria, (modern

Tuscany,) that we derive the earliest existing examples of painting advanced beyond the system of hieroglyphics; yet still, in a polished manner, serving the same purposes. The late Mr. Christie, in his ingenious treatise upon their funereal vases, has conjectured, with great probability, that the paintings with which those vases are adorned, are copies or imitations of the mystical scenes employed in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. But though the composition and drawing of many of the figures are elegant, and of a polished character in form, it does not appear that the artists who painted them endeavoured to promote the cultivation of the art specifically; but having obtained talent enough to convey their ideas intelligibly to the initiated, were contented with repetitions of the same combinations, wrought in the same manner; or with very little variation or improvement.

That improvement of the art which took place in after-time, in Greece itself, bore a different stamp; was engaged in the display of character, and, at length, of effect; at a late period, however, when compared with the progress of sculpture.

It is with difficulty, and with doubt, that we can approach towards a satisfactory opinion upon the degree of perfection to which painting was carried in that birth-place of taste, ancient Greece.

C

The earliest descriptive notice we have of it is given by Pausanias, when he speaks of the pictures painted by Pancenus, the brother of Phidias the sculptor, in the Poicile at Athens; and of those painted soon after by Polygnotus, both there and in the Lesche, or public hall at Delphi. From these pictures we obtain the first fixed and satisfactory ideas of the real character of early Greek painting; and they appear to have been little more than tables of figures, above, below, and around each other; each designated by his name, but in no combination as a whole.

Once engaged, however, in the study of the art, that extraordinary people, the Greeks, soon applied to it the grand principles upon which their sculpture had been wrought through preceding ages. But sculpture had passed its prime in Greece, and polish had usurped the station of truth, ere the sister art had attained that degree of perfection, which has given rise to the strong encomiums of ancient critics, and the devotion of modern commentators.

Yet, the encomiums of authors who dwelt solely upon the effect produced on their minds by the paintings they contemplated, and not upon the art by which that effect was produced, are very inefficient authorities concerning the excellence or the extent of the principles of the art, or even the execution of it exhibited

in the workmanship! and of the truth of this, the history of modern painting affords us ample testimony. We have but to refer to many very imperfect productions now existing, of which there are on record superlative praises; proving how far the talent of the artist foreran the knowledge of the connoisseur. But, as Sir J. Reynolds has observed, "in all ages, the best works will have the best words."

When painting appears to have been first exercised by the Greeks as a liberal art, sculpture, cultivated as it had been for religious purposes through centuries of time, had attained its acme of perfection. This is made evident by the exquisite remnants of that art, brought from the Parthenon at Athens, and now preserved in the British Museum; some of which are, doubtless, by the hands of Phidias, and the whole were designed and wrought under his direction. It would appear, that the exquisite beauty and excellence of the productions of sculpture, affording so much gratification to the mind, both then, and during subsequent periods, controlled the studies of the Greek painters; and engaged them in endeavours to rival its perfection in form and pathos.

Accordingly you will find, in perusing the admirable dissertation given on this subject by our late learned professor, Mr. Fuseli, in his first