and were particularly devoted to the cultivation of the fine arts, in which they attained an excellence only surpassed in grandeur by the monuments of Egypt, and in ideal beauty by those of Greece.*

Their government was a rigid aristocracy, so regulated as to monopolise the priesthood, the law-making, and the leadership of armies. They even gave rulers, laws, and religious rites to Rome; but were at length subjugated by that power. That their language long survived their independence, is testified by inscriptions so late as the empire. The affinity of their alphabet to the Greek, has enabled so much of its records in the sepulchres to be deciphered, as, with the aid of the Roman version, to confirm the fact asserted by ancient authors, that their language was entirely distinct from the Greek, as well as the later classical Latin. Like the eastern languages, it was written from right to left.† In their tombs and subterranean sepulchres have been found most of their works of art now extant. Those of the great and wealthy may be regarded as subterranean museums, embracing painting and sculpture, besides innumerable other objects illustrative of their mythology, usages, and habits. From those interesting sources of information, three important inferences have been drawn:-that their religion was based on a belief of the immortality of the soul, -a conviction of its responsibility beyond the grave for the deeds done in the body, and that the female sex was the companion, not the slave of man, honoured in life as well as in death. They possessed a school of art remarkable for its nationality and beauty. Their works consisted of statues, both of marble and bronze, relievi, terra-cottas, paintings, vases, medals, coins, and engraved stones. Their statues

* Quarterly Review, No. 184.

Sir W. Bethune, in his Etruria Celtica, has attempted to decipher the Etruscan as identified with the Phoenician and Ibero-Celtic. It is, however, entirely by the analogy of sounds-a fallacious guide in a slippery language like the Celtic-and not by any grammatical coincidence.

and sculptures extant, at least those called Etruscan, resemble so closely the early, and even later styles of the Greeks, that it is often impossible to pronounce with certainty as to their authenticity.

Winkelmann is of opinion, that they carried art anterior to the Greeks to a certain state of excellence.* Guarnacci goes even farther, and pretends that Italy is the cradle of classic art; that the Greeks received their art from the Etruscans at the very time the latter had brought it to the highest perfection; that, subsequently, art declined in Etruria while it was flourishing in Greece; that if the Greeks enjoyed the honour, it was because they had the address to conceal the name of their master, and to appropriate the Etruscan works as their own!

Winkelmann divides Etruscan art into three epochs. The first characterised by sharp lines, stiffness of attitude, forced action, no approach to beauty of feature, nor any indication of muscles. Some of the smaller figures, both in their features, hanging and attached arms, and parallel feet, have a strong resemblance to the Egyptian. But in spite of this rudeness of design in their sculpture, they contrived to give the most elegant and graceful forms to their vases. He supposes that the second style commenced with the age of Phidias. It is characterised by an exaggerated indication and swelling of the muscles and articulations the hair arranged in gradations the movements affected, and sometimes forced. He thinks that, up to this period, they had but an imperfect knowledge of Greek art. The third style was derived from the Greek colonists of Magna Græcia. It is very visible in the medals of the cities of the Campagna, the heads of the divinities bearing a perfect resemblance to the Greek statues. The medals of Capua represent Jupiter with the hair disposed in the sweeping manner of the Greeks. The most of their sepulchral urns, composed of alabaster of Volterra, are to be referred

* Origine Italiche.

*

to this period. Their architecture was massive and vaulted. Latterly they adopted a modification of the Grecian Doric, which has been styled Tuscan, constructed chiefly of wood.

M. Heyne more correctly divides Etruscan art into five epochs. 1. In its infancy and rude state. 2. When it begins to show symptoms of Greek and Pelasgic art. 3. When it discovers traces of the mythology and art of the Egyptians. 4. Includes the productions of a higher excellence which do not deviate from the Greek mythology. 5. When Etruscan art had reached its greatest excellence by the imitation of the Grecian ideal, and by adopting their mythology. The figures on many of the vases called Etruscan, in design, proportion, purity of form, and appropriate drapery, equal the finest productions of Greece. After the Roman conquest, their art gradually declined and became almost extinct.

Without advocating the extravagant claims set up for the priority, originality, and perfection of Etruscan art, it may be safely admitted that at a very early age they had attained an advancement which, though comparatively rude, was, if not prior to, independent of Grecian art. But, with regard to the remains, including statues, relievi, terra-cottas, vases, medals, &c., about which so much has been written by archaeologists, connoisseurs, and artists, whether they are designated Etruscan, Pelasgian, Campanian, Sicilian, Egypto-Grecian, Greco-Italic, or Ceromographic-for they have received all these appellations, in accordance with the various theories that have been propounded-there can be little doubt that the second and third styles of Winkelmann, and the fourth and fifth epochs of Heyne, are more or less Greek in their principle of imitation, if not really the work of Greek artists of Magna Græcia.

* Count Caylus likewise adopts three styles.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF GRECIAN SCULPTURE.

If the Greeks were indebted to the Egyptians for their rudiments of architecture, it is equally probable that they derived their first knowledge of sculpture from the same source. Nor can that be deemed any disparagement of their genius and originality, as they soon outstripped their masters, and reached a pinnacle of perfection in the art to which no other people have presumed even to aspire. Winkelmann, indeed, makes a faint but unsuccessful attempt to prove that sculpture was indigenous in Greece. He does not deny that the Greeks adopted the mythology and deities of the Egyptians, but contends that in so doing they neither copied their forms nor imitated their sculptural taste.

The history of Grecian sculpture may be divided into four great epochs. 1. From the infancy of the art, including the Dædalian statues and the school of Eguia, to the commencement of the career of Phidias. 2. From Phidias and his contemporaries to the death of Alexander the Great. 3. From the death of Alexander the Great to the Roman conquest. 4. The Greco-Roman sculpture until its final degradation. Flaxman's classification of Grecian sculpture into three ages," the heroic age, the philosophic age, and the age of maturity and perfection"- -seems destitute of all foundation, and irreconcilable with the existing remains of Grecian statuary.

The first epoch embraces what is known as the ancient style, being spread over a period of no less than twentyfive Olympiads. Of this style, which lasted till Phidias, little is known; for, except some medals of Greece and her colonies, and a few bassi-relievi, and other doubtful specimens, no works of that period have been preserved. It is usually characterised as bold and expressive-possessing a certain austere grandeur, though at the same time hard and destitute of grace. But it must necessarily have suffered many gradations; nor is it unreasonable to suppose, that,

towards the latter part of the period, it had attained a correctness of design, and force of expression, highly favourable to the excellence which it reached in the succeeding age.

To Phidias was reserved the glory of carrying statuary within a few years to its height of grandeur and sublimity. Intrusted by Pericles with the superintendence of all his great works, he was scarcely less distinguished in the sister arts of architecture and painting. Amid the numerous creations of his genius, the Minerva of the Parthenon and the Olympian Jupiter at Elis, both colossal and wrought in ivory and gold, were the most celebrated. He worked chiefly in marble, though occasionally in bronze. His favourite disciples were Alcamenes of Athens and Agoracritus of Pharos. Pausanias places the former on an equality of rank with Phidias, and speaks of his Venus as much admired for the extreme delicacy of the limbs. The relievi of the Centaurs and Lapithæ on the exterior of the temple at Olympia, were sculptured by Agoracritus. The contemporaries of Phidias,-Polycletus of Sicyon, Scopas, Pythagoras, Calamis, Ctesilaus, and Myron, contributed to the great reformation of art. Whilst Phidias, in ivory and gold, and Polycletus in bronze, displayed every excellence, Scopas had acquired a scarcely inferior celebrity for his statues in marble. The group of Niobe and her children is attributed by Pliny either to Scopas or Praxiteles. He finished a Venus equal to that of Praxiteles, and his Bacchante divided with it the admiration of the best judges of Greece. Ctesilaus, jointly with Phidias and Polycletus, executed one of the three Amazons for the temple of Diana of Ephesus, and the Pericles commended by Pliny. Winkelmann denies the originality of the Dying Gladiator as the work of this artist. It has been supposed with greater probability to be the copy of a bronze statue by Ctesilaus. Polycletus, second in rank to Phidias, was so famed for his knowledge of the proportions of the human figure, that his statue of one of the body-guard of the King of Persia was regarded as a perfect model, and called the Rule. He sought to elevate