Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Getty Research Institute https://archive.org/details/italiancourtincrOOwyat THE ITALIAN COURT IN THE CRYSTAL PALACE. DESCRIBED BY XL DIGBY WYATT AND J. B. WARING. CRYSTAL PALACE LIBRARY: AND BRADBURY AND EVANS, 11, BOUVERIE STREET, LONDON. 1854. BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS TO THE CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY, WHITEERIARS. CONTENTS. GENERAL REMARKS ... .... HISTORY. ITALY—ARCHITECTURE . ... . — — SCULPTURE ..... —• PRANCE—ARCHITECTURE . . . . — ENGLAND—ARCHITECTURE .... — SPAIN—ARCHITECTURE - GERMANY-ARCHITECTURE — SCULPTURE . — — SECTIONAL—STYLES — SCULPTURE, PAINTING. THE ITALIAN COURT—EXTERIOR, STATUES AND BUSTS - - FACADE . . . . . - - INTERIOR ..... - — GALLERY ..... - - VESTIBULE .... — - COURT OP CHRISTIAN ART MONUMENTS CATALOGUE OP PAINTINGS IN THE ITALIAN COURT B 2 PAGE 7 9 12 16 18 19 20 21 24 27 32 43 47 67 75 82 85 ■ &18 TIIE ITALIAN COUKT Has been designed and arranged by Mr. M. Digby "YYyatt; the drawings having been worked out by Mr. Thomas Hayes. The construction has been done by Messrs. Eox, Henderson and Co., whose master plasterer, Mr. Hawkins, has carried out his work, which was of a difficult kind, with great care. The monuments were cast principally by Dr. Emil Braun and M. Desachy. The pavement of the loggie has been made by the London Marble Working Company. The fountain in the centre of the Court has been executed by Mr. Cundy out of alabaster presented to the Crystal Palace Company by T. Hills, Esq., of Burton-upon-Trent. This beautiful material is the produce of his quarries at Eauld, in Staffordshire. The painting of the marble work is by Messrs. C. and J. Moxon, of London and Edinburgh. The bronze painting is by M. Loget, of Paris, and Mr. Coulton, of London. The arabesques have been principally painted by Messrs. Grow, Earle, Leslie, Wassner, Yalm, Lutchens, Munsch, &c., under the superintendence of Mr. Parris, W.A. The painted flowers and fruit in the body of the Court are by Mr. Beensen; and the modelling of the festoons in the principal frieze, by Antonio Trentanove. 0 THE ITALIAN COURT. The painted ceiling from Venice, in the gallery, is by Mr. A. Stevens. The whole superintendence for Mr. Wyatt has been entrusted to Mr. Thomas Hayes, by whose unremitting atten¬ tion and solicitude every detail has been most carefully elaborated. The decorative painting of the Italian vestibule is by Mr. Pantaenius. The very beautiful ceiling from the Vatican has been admirably executed by Mr. Alfred Stevens. THE ITALIAN COURT. GENERAL REMARKS. Although Gothic architecture, and its school of in the 15 th sculpture, never gained a secure footing in classic Italy, studyTf the yet its principles, especially in sculpture, were received gradually and carried out by the early Renaissance artists of the superseded 15th century ; and Nature was the principal source from Mature, which they drew their inspiration. During that period the knowledge and love of antique art had been gradually increasing until it had become, by the commencement of the 16th century, an absorbing passion, penetrating and moulding all works, whether of art or literature. From this period onward, principally under the liberal and discriminating encouragement of Julius II. and Leo X., a vivid appreciation of antique literature, philosophy, and art spread in all directions, and the spirit of old Rome seemed once more to have risen from its grave. Active and persevering researches brought daily to light fresh and wondrous examples of Rome’s long-hidden treasures ; ^Roman f her architectural monuments were studied, measured, and excavations, imitated ; her sculpture was the model which the greatest artists of the time aspired to equal; her paintings, still preserved in the long-neglected baths and palaces, formed the basis of a new system of ornament ; her philosophy and her literature were the models of taste, and the criterions of excellence. “ To collect books and antiques,” Macaulay. t0 —we quote Mr. Macaulay’s eloquent essay on Machiavelli —“to found professorships; to patronise men of learning, became almost universal fashions among the great. The spirit of literary research allied itself to that of commercial THE ITALIAN COURT. Tendency of the study of the antique; f; uitkss but for two great men— Iiaffaelle and Michael Angelo; their origin¬ ality, and that of Sanmichele, Sansovino, and Palladio. Italian art eultivated between 1500 and 1550. enterprise ; every place to which the merchant princes of Florence extended their gigantic traffic, from the bazaars of the Tigris to the monasteries of the Clyde, was ransacked for medals and manuscripts. Architecture, painting, and sculpture were munificently encouraged ; indeed, it would be difficult to name an Italian of eminence, during the period of which we speak, who, whatever may have been his general character, did not, at least, affect a love of letters and of the arts. ” It was, indeed, natural that the great remains of the antique world, so superior to anything that the middle ages had produced, especially in sculpture, literature, and philo¬ sophy, should lead to this result, with which was mingled, doubtless, a very justifiable pride of ancestry ; and yet it might have remained a comparatively barren fact, but for the existence of two men who, borne away by the universal impulse of veneration for the antique, yet stamped on it a character which gave rise to a new and almost a nobler style of art. We allude, of course, to Michael Angelo and Raffaelle. We have seen, in later times, various Q- rec i. His follower was Andrea Palladio, of Vicenza (1518—1580), who successfully connected the severe style of Sanmichele and the more florid manner of Sansovino. The masterpieces of this great architect, and writer, are chiefly at Venice and Vicenza—the Pedentore and the Caritk churches, Venice, the well-known Villa Capra, near Vicenza, the Basilica, the Palazzo Thiene, and the Teatro Olimpico, at Vicenza; he executed an immense number of designs, and his style was the model on which modern Italian architecture has been generally founded. Followers of Yincenzo Scamozzi (died 1616); Giovanni da Ponte, architect of the Rialto bridge (died 1597) ; Alessandro Vittoria, and Balthazar Longhena, were all worthy fol¬ lowers of the school of Sansovino. The history of the art is to be found continued in the works of Bartollomeo Ammanati, of Florence (1510—1592) ; Domenico Fontana, at Rome (1543—1607), architect of the Bernini and ^ateran Palace ; Carlo Maderno, Rome (1556—1629) ; others. Bernini, also at Rome (1589—1680) ; Borromini, con¬ temporary with Bernini, but practising a much more debased method of design, and whose example led to great degradation in architecture ; Filippo Ivara, an excellent architect at Turin (1685—1735) ; Alessandro Galilei, who designed the fine facade of St. John Lateran (1734) ; and finally Ludovico Vanvitelli (1700—1773), the architect of the Caserta palace, near Naples, with arfcient^tra- w ^ 10111 "the true style of Italian art may be said to have ditions. closed its course, being succeeded by the bald academical school of the last and present century. SCULPTURE. Michae _ In sculpture, although the works of Andrea Sansovino, n-oduced the an d especially the three bronze statues of Gian Francesco tre°atn^ d nt al of -^ us "^ c b Florence, evince a broadness of style preluding form in that of the sixteenth century school, yet the great and Sculpture : p rs ^ systematic founder of it was certainly Michael Angelo, whose style, exemplified by the monuments contained in the court, we shall describe hereafter in detail. His HISTORY—ITALY—SCULPTURE. 13 peculiar manner, if not exactly followed, did at least exert a decided influence on the style of all his contem¬ poraries and successors, among whom were Baccio Bandinelli (1487—1559), whose most remarkable works are the Hercules and Cacus, at the Palazzo Yecchio, the Apostles, Prophets, &c., in the cathedral, and the pedestal in the Piazza San Lorenzo (Florence). Giov. his follower.'?. Basrclief by Baccio Bandinelli, in the pedestal of the Piazza San Lorenzo, Florence. u THE ITALIAN COUET. Cellini,— his Perseus. II Tribolo. Sansovino no less cele¬ brated as a sculptor than as an archi¬ tect. His pupils. Other and more close imitators of Michael Angelo. Ang. Poggibonsi, better known as Fra Giovanni Mon- torsoli, whose sculpture at Genoa, Messina, Ac., is marked by much of his master’s vigour, was a pupil and assistant of Michael Angelo. Raffaelle da Montelupo, whose masterpiece is the Turini monument in Pescia cathedral, was another assistant of Buonarotti. Benvenuto Cellini (1500—1572), a contemporary and admirer of Michael Angelo, produced works of great merit, which bear a very original stamp. The Perseus, at Florence, is his masterpiece in the higher walks of art, and adds to the great fame he has justly acquired as one of the best ornamental workers in metal of modern times, Niccolo Pericoli, or II Tribolo (1500—1565), was also a sculptor of great excellence, whose principal work is to be seen on the fa§ade of San Petronio, at Bologna. We have already in the Benaissance Handbook taken occasion to speak of the merit of Tribolo, who, surrounded by sculptors of a feeble temperament, was yet one of the first to catch the Michael Angelesque sentiment. At Naples, the works of Girolamo di Santa Croce (1502— 1537) are of much merit, being characterized by great simplicity and good taste. At Yenice, we find the name of Jacopo Sansovino, the Florentine, as pre-eminent in sculpture as in architecture ; among his numerous pro¬ ductions may be particularly mentioned the bronze door in St. Mark’s, the monument of Doge Yeniero in San Salvatore, and the “ Giganti ” of the Giants’ Staircase, at the Ducal Palace (Yenice). Danese Cataneo, sculptor of the Loredano monument in St. John and St. Paul’s church, Yenice (1572), and Alessandro Yittoria (died 1608), were his favourite pupils. Giulio dal Moro and Tiziano Aspetti were excellent sculptors of the same school. Other great sculptors of the latter part of the 16th century were—Guglielmo della Porta, whose masterpiece is the monument of Paul III., in St. Peter’s: this sculptor was the closest of Michael Angelo’s imitators, and pro¬ duced works worthy of his model. Yincenzo Danti (1530—1567), of Florence ; Bartollomeo Ammanati, also of Florence (1511—1592), sculptor of the well-known Neptune fountain in the Piazza Gran Duca ; Brambilla, HISTORY—ITALY—SCULPTURE. 15 of Milan, a pupil of Agostino Busti ; Leone Leoni, whose masterpiece is a bronze female on the monument Figure of Neptune from the fountain, by Bartollomeo Ammanati, from the Piazza Gran Duca, Florence. of G. G. de’ Medici, in Milan cathedral (1555) ; and lastly, John of Bologna (1524—1608), a native of Holland, whose works are worthy of the best period of modem art, and whose followers, Tacca, Francavilla, 16 THE ITALIAN COURT. The 17 th century, the period of Bernini. Rapid dege¬ neration of sculpture until the revival by Canova. Italian architecture in France adopted by Lescot, Builant, and others early in the 16th century. Mocchi, and Giovanni dell’ Opera, were very excellent artists, the works of Tacca in bronze being especially remarkable for their wonderful execution. In the 17th century sculpture shared, in a more than usual degree, the decline of its sister arts. Stefano Maderno (1571—1636) and Pietro Bernini (1562—1629) still retained something of the old spirit; but the cele¬ brated Lorenzo Bernini (1598—1680), son of Pietro, an artist of extraordinary ability, introduced principles in the art, which, coupled with the prestige of his name, hastened its total ruin ; among the least censurable of his works are the equestrian statue of Constantine at the Vatican,* a Pieth from the crypt of the Corsini Chapel in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano at Pome, a statue of Longinus in St. Peter’s, and a Sta. Bibiana, in the church of that name at Rome. Alessandro Algardi (1598—1654) followed his manner ; and Camillo Rusconi and Pietro Bracci may be cited as being among the last followers of that very affected and disagreeable style, which was discarded at the close of the 18th and com¬ mencement of the 19 th century for a more worthy imitation of the antique, under the leadership of Canova. FRANCE—ARCHITECTURE. In France, the Italian style of architecture found able promoters in the person of Pierre Lescot (1510—1578), who designed the west facade of the court of the Louvre in 1541. Jean Bullant, the architect of the Chateau d’Ecouen, began about the year 1540 ; and Philibert Delorme, from whose designs were executed the Chateau d’Anet, for Diana of Poictiers, about the year 1548, and portions of the Tuileries (1564). Delorme was also the author of two treatises on architecture, con¬ taining valuable information on constructional points, especially in carpentry ; he died a.d. 1570. In the time of Henry IV. (1589—1610) and Louis XIII. (1610— * In the gallery, will be found a remarkably fine Roman contem¬ porary bronze of this subject, kindly deposited for exhibition by Jas. Falkner, Esq., of Brasted, Kent. Its chasing, and high finish, more particularly of the hands, and hair, are well worthy of study. HISTORY—FRANCE—ARCHITECTURE. 17 1643) a ratlier et rococo ” style was in vogue, as evinced by the church of St. Etienne du Mont, at Paris, and the chateau of St. Germain en Laye, during which period, however, flourished Jacques de Brosse, whose Luxembourg palace and church of St. Gervais, at Paris, are excellent works, the former being somewhat in the style of the Florentine palaces. De Brosse is believed to have died about the year 1625. Under Louis XIV. architecture was much encouraged ; Perrault (originally a physician), who died in 1668, designed the grand facade of the Louvre, one of the noblest examples of Pursued with Italian architecture in Europe. Le Mercier (died a.d. 1660) "mil designed the church of the Oratory, Rue St. Honore, Paris. 17th century; It is interesting to remark in reference to the monu¬ ments of this period, that while in furniture, manufactures wlliclx generally, and internal decoration, that peculiar compound though of shells, flowers, rocaille, Cupids, and stalactites, which all Europe imitated, and recognised as the style of Louis at its lowest Quatorze, was in every case applied with unmitigated tecturedid severity, it scarcely ever interfered with external archi- sink so tectural features, at least in monuments of any pretension —seldom reaching beyond the flaunting facade of some Jesuits’ church. Jules Rardouin Mansart was chiefly employed between style and the years 1675—1708. The celebrated palace of Ver- Mansart, sailles and the dome of the Hotel des Invalides were 1675— 17C8. designed by him ; but, impressive as these buildings may be from their extent, they exhibit a style of art very inferior to that of the above-named architects. Gabriel (died 1742) continued and improved Mansart’s style. In the 18th century the Pantheon (St. Genevieve) was de¬ signed by Soufflot, in a large and pure style of Grseco- Roman art; and Servandoni built St. Sulpice, the facade of which is nobly designed. At the close of the century France was the focus of an academical school, which more or less influenced all Europe, wherein the principles of Italian architecture found small encouragement, and in which the affectations of the antique, so prominently seen in the productions of those two able men, Percier and Lafontaine, were but a slight improvement on the vagaries of the style “ Louis Quinze,” which immediately preceded the introduction of the revived Classic. c 18 THE ITALIAN COURT. ENGLAND—ARCHITECTURE. Italian In the early part of the seventeenth century the brought into Italian style was introduced into England, by the cele- Eufcfjones Crated Inigo Jones, of whose magnificent design for the palace of Whitehall, only the banqueting-house was completed, between the years 1619 and 1622 ; a piece of architecture in the style of the Venetian school, which ranks among the best productions of modern art. Among his other existing works are the river-gate of York-stairs (Strand) ; St. Paul’s, Covent Garden ; Coles- hill-house, Berkshire; and Ambresbury House, Wiltshire, executed from his designs by his son-in-law, Webb. Shortly after Jones’s death (1651), the French style of domestic architecture, an example of which was till lately to be seen in the British Museum (formerly Montague greaffire the ®- ouse )5 was no ^ uncommon in England. In 1666, the great fire caused a demand for an architect of power and originality, capable of giving a character to churches and chapels, more in consonance with the Protestant Deficiencies ritual, than had in any case previously existed. This supplied by want was supplied in the person of Sir Christopher Wren, pher Wren" whom were designed, together with many other eccle¬ siastical structures of great ingenuity and beauty, St. Paul’s Cathedral, the first stone of which was laid in 1675, and which was completed early in the eighteenth century : a noble monument of Italian architecture, characterized by the peculiar style of the architect. The bell-towers or campaniles of the numerous churches built by Wren, are remarkable for great originality and excellence of design. His other master-pieces are Greenwich Hospital, the churches of St. Mary-le-Bow, St. Bride’s, and St. Stephen’s, Walbrook (interior) ; the library of Trinity College, Cambridge ; and the theatre at Oxford. Vanbrugh; I n the eighteenth century, Sir James Vanbrugh prac¬ tised a peculiarly bold, original, and pictorial style of architecture, examples of which are to be seen at the celebrated mansion erected for the Duke of Marlborough at Blenheim, at Castle Howard, Yorkshire, and at Grimsthorpe in Lincolnshire. Vanbrugh died in 1726. Hawksmoor. Contemporary with him was Nicholas Hawksmoor HISTORY—ENGLAND—ARCHITECTURE. 19 (died 1736), whose masterpiece is the very massively designed church of St. Mary Woolnoth, London. The buildings of his successor, James Gibbs (1683—1754) Gibbs, possess much merit ; his best work is the church of St. Martin, Trafalgar-square. Other excellent architects of the same school were Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington, and William Kent, whose style is best seen at Holkliam- Kent, house, Norfolk. During this period flourished Wood of Woocbf Bath (died 1754), whose buildings in that city, and Batll ‘ at Bristol (the Exchange) are characterized by much good taste. In the reign of George III., Sir Robert Taylor, Taylor, and “ Athenian” Stuart, endeavoured to introduce what Stuart they considered a better taste,— chiefly characterized by an inclination to the simple style of ancient Greece,— then first becoming fashionable. In direct contradiction to them were the Adams, who founded their style on that of the lower Roman Empire. The great restorer of a pure manner at this period, was Sir William Chambers Sir Wm, (died in 1796) whose treatise on architecture is a text- Chambeis - book, and whose Strand front of Somerset House is a model of good taste. Dance, an architect of great Dance, ability, designed the massive and fine facade of Newgate prison (1770). In the 19th century Italian architecture was partly discarded, only to be revived of late years, in a manner which promises most happily for its future progress. SPAIN—ARCHITECTURE. The Italian style of the 16th century, marked by a Simplicity plainness and simplicity peculiar to the master, was intro- practised by duced into Spain during the latter half of the 16th Herrera, century, by Juan Baptista de Toledo, who, in the year 1563, laid the first stone of the great Escurial Palace, completed by his celebrated pupil, Juan de Herrera (died 1597) ; the numerous buildings of this last artist are mostly designed in a plain but noble Italian style. Somewhat later occurs the name of Domenico Theotocupuli (a pupil of Titian’s), by whom were designed several buildings in Toledo and Madrid (died 1625). Francesco Mora built the palace “de los Consejos” at Madrid, and was successor to Herrera o 2 20 THE ITALIAN COURT. Extravagan¬ cies of Chur- riguerisrno. Italian archi¬ tecture never heartily adopted in Germany, or Russia. Quarenghi. at the Escurial. In the 18th century Spain possessed a most extravagant school of architecture, founded by Jose Churriguera, from which few towns or buildings in the country escaped with impunity ; the academical style succeeded to it, which, if presenting nothing to praise or remark, has at least the merit of being free from the fearful eccentricities of “ GJiurriguerismo. ” GERMANY—ARCHITECTURE. The history of Italian architecture in Germany is par¬ ticularly meagre, and the Italian style of the 16th century does not appear to have penetrated into that country, till the close of the 17th, and beginning of the 18th centuries, —among the best works of which period are the arsenal at Berlin, commenced by Nehring in the year 1685, but completed by John de Bodt ; and those portions of the Royal Palace executed from the designs of Andreas Schliiter, between the years 1699 and 1706. Contem¬ porary with Schliiter lived Joh. Bern. Fischer von Erlach, whose masterpieces are the church of St. Charles Borromeo at Vienna, commenced a.d. 1716, and finished by his son Esaias Emanuel in 1737,*—the palace of Prince Eugene, Vienna; and the Clam-Gallas Palace, at Prague; by John Balthazar N eumann was designed the episcopal palace at Wurzburg (1720—1744). H. G. W. von Knoblesdorf, who was extensively employed by Fre¬ derick II., died in 1753, and was succeeded by Langhans (1732—1803), whose best work is the Brandenburg gate at Berlin. After this period Italian architecture was at a stand-still, and shared the same fate as in other countries ; nor, so far as we are aware, have any efforts been made to revive it, though many fine buildings during the last and present century, in the Italian style, have arisen in the neighbouring country of Russia. An Italian artist of very great merit, whose name is too little known — Quarenghi — designed many admirable buildings for the Czar. A very interesting collection of Quarenghi’s drawings is exhibited in the Academy of Fine Arts at Venice. HISTORY—FRANCE—SCULPTURE. :1 SCULPTURE. In France, several names are to be found of the highest French merit in this branch of art, who, although generally the 1P Renais- mentioned as Renaissance artists, are much more iustly sance style 7 , „ , quiteMicliael to be ranked among those of the Italian school of the Angeiesque 1.6th century ;—since while in ornamental design, and co“in f uer * architectural embellishment, they certainly adhered to an Goujon^ earlier style than was prevalent in Italy in the days of ’ Raffaelle and Michael Angelo,—on the other hand, in their treatment of the nude, and all draped figures of a serious character, they adopted all the peculiarities of composition, and handling, introduced by those two great masters. Having already noticed in some detail the life and works of these men, in our Handbook to the Renaissance Court, we shall, on the present occasion, do little more than mention their names. Jean Cousin (died 1589) by whom is the very noble effigy of Admiral Chabot, now in the Louvre. Jean Goujon (died 1572), a master whose works are characterized by the best features of the Italian school, as are those also attributed to Jean Juste, of Tours. Germain Pilon (died 1590), who gave to the style known as that of the “ School of Fontainebleau,” a thoroughly French, and by no means ungraceful, impress; and Barthelemy Prieur, who excelled in portraits. In the 17th century sculpture was success¬ fully practised by Pierre Puget (1622—1694) whose Puget, masterpiece is the well-known Milo of Crotona, now in the Louvre, Paris. * Jacques Sarrazin (1592—1679), and Francois Anguier (1612—1686). Somewhat later, An¬ toine Coysevox (1640—1720?) was extensively employed; Coysevox. his manner was completely French, and possessed of much merit, his portraits being especially good.f Desjardins (1640—1694), was a follower of the same style, though in a somewhat less graceful manner : it was more tho¬ roughly carried out by Edmus Bouchardon (1698—1762), and others, and continued in a very theatrical manner by Jean Bap¬ tiste Pigalle(l7l4—1785). The Revolution effected a * A cast of it will he found in the nave. + Among the collection of Iconographic busts and statues several by Coysevox may be found of equal talent and flutter. 22 THE ITALIAN COURT. In England, sculpture i tlie Italian style (with the excep¬ tion of Nicho las Stone) principally practised by foreigners. Le Sueur, Fianelli, Cibber, Kysbrach, &c. thorough, change in this affected system, and the antique became once more the model of the modern sculptors, to be succeeded in its turn by a school called the “Romantic,” which, founding its principles on natural models, has already produced some of the most remarkable works of our time. In England, sculpture, though less successfully prac¬ tised, is yet not without its history during this period. The first name we find is that of Nicholas Stone (1586 —1647), who was extensively employed in sepulchral monuments, and whose style is well spoken of by Mr. Dallaway. One of this sculptor’s principal works is the monument of Sir George Yilliers and his lady, the Countess of Buckingham, in Westminster Abbey. His manner was continued by his sons Henry and John. Hubert le Sueur, a Frenchman, and follower of John of Bologna, arrived in England a.d. 1630. The best speci¬ mens of his ability existing, are the brass statue of the Earl of Pembroke, in the Picture Gallery, Oxford, and the fine equestrian statue of Charles I., at Charing-cross, cast in 1633. Francis Fianelli, an Italian (better known as Van Yianen), was also much employed. A bronze head by him is still preserved at Welbeck, a seat of the Duke of Newcastle, dated 1640 : he is, however, best known as a worker in silver plate ; for which many of his designs in the florid styles of Bernini as to the orna¬ ments, and of Rubens as to the figures, evince considerable facility and imagination. The next important name is that of Caius Gabriel Cibber (1630—1700), a Dane, whose best existing works are the statues of Raving and Melancholy Madness at Bedlam Hospital; but by far the most clever sculptor of this period was Grinling Gibbons (1648—1721), a Hol¬ lander, whose works in ornamental sculpture are very finely executed. His chef-d’ oeuvres are the monument of Yiscount Camden, at Exton, Rutlandshire ; the orna¬ mental carving at St. Paul’s Cathedral, and at Burleigh, and the pedestal of Charles I. at Charing-cross. He formed a school of excellent workmen, who, however, hardly deserve the name of artists. During the reign of Charles II. our only sculptors of any note were still foreigners. Rysbrach, Roubilliac and Scheemakers, mono¬ polising almost everything in the shape of art, their HISTORY—GERMANY AND SPAIN—SCULPTURE. 2 % works being characterised by an assimilation to the styles of the French and the Italian schools. The names of Bird and Cheere also deserve to be mentioned with respect, as followers of the same style. The busts executed by all these sculptors, of which many examples are to be seen, in Westminster Abbey—Dryden, Ben Jonson, Gay, and others—are very superior to their more ambitious productions. Hollekens, Banks, and Bacon, at the close of the 18th century, preluded the advance to a better style of art which has gone on steadily pro¬ gressing, and is distinguished at a later period by the immortal productions of Flaxmam During the 16th century the best examples of sculpture in Germany are to be found on the sepulchral monuments of Cologne, Mayence, and Wurzburg, and in the niches of Heidelberg Castle, which, notwithstanding the date of their execution, can hardly be said to belong to the Italian School, though they exhibit its influence. Francois du Quesnoy (II Fiammingo, 1594—1644), was principally employed in Italy. He was celebrated for his groups of children, and by him is the curious little fountain of the Mannekin Piss, at Brussels. Arthur Quellinus executed the sculptural portions of the Town Hall of Amsterdam—works of much originality and merit. In the Church of St. Ursula, at Cologne, is an excellent statue by Joh. T. W. Sentz (1685). Among the few names which occur, may also be selected Andreas Schliiter (died 1714), whose style was founded partly on French, partly on Italian models (Bernini). His masterpiece is the equestrian statue of Frederick William, on the Langenbriicke (long bridge) Berlin. Spain presents still fewer examples of noticeable sculpture during this period, the artists’ talents having been principally exercised on a great number of sepul¬ chral monuments presenting numerous minor subjects of uncommon excellence. During the 17th century, and at the close of the 16th, should be mentioned the names of Alonzo Cano (1601 —1667), Gregorio Hernandez (1635), and Juan de Juni (1585), the two latter having executed many large statues, principally in wood, and painted, which are characterised by extraordinary force and character, not, however, free from grossness and exaggeration. Revival through Nollekens, Banks, and Bacon, lead¬ ing to Flax- man. Sculpture in. Germany not very good, excepting by Fiammingo. Spain very badly off for sculpture in 17 th century. Alonzo Cano, Gregorio Hernandez, Juan de Juni. 24 THE ITALIAN COURT. The style of the Roman School of Architecture becomes n ore bold and. pictorial under Michael Angelo. Since that period the art of sculpture may be said to have no longer existed in Spain. SECTIONAL—STYLES. The principles of the modern Italian style, which had been for some time advocated by men such as Alberti* and Colonna,+ and which had been put into practice in a few isolated instances, before the year 1500, received their first systematic application principally in Central and Northern Italy, at the commencement of the six¬ teenth century. The style of the Roman school, best exemplified in its numerous palaces, exhibits a combina¬ tion of the Florentine Palace of the 15tli century—. such as that of the Strozzi—with a preponderant character founded on the antique. Its masses are plain and simple. The use of pilasters instead of columns is general; the openings are usually square-headed. The principal cornice is proportioned to the whole height of the building, and the ornamental rustic work is (in the earlier examples) exceedingly shallow, the use of circular-headed openings being mostly confined to arcades and loggie. Such was the manner, more or less, adopted by Bramante, Peruzzi, Sangallo, Rafiaelle, and even by Julio Romano —whose Mantuan palaces exhibit, however, a somewhat more Venetian character. The works executed by Michael Angelo are in a bolder and more pictorial style, as are also many productions grafted on the earlier Italian manner which we have already noticed, by a numerous class of succeeding architects. In these is to be remarked a greater use of columns, engaged and isolated, stronger, but less studied, details ; and a greater use of colonnades, in which, however, the combination with the semicircular arch is still unusual, the antique, in this respect, being followed to a great disadvantage; still there is a nobility, a palatial look, about these large mansions which is very admirable, and is to be remarked even in all the palaces, up to the time of Borromini—circa 1640—by whom all the principle and parts of Roman architecture were literally turned topsy-turvy. Michael Angelo’s peculiar * In his work on Architecture. f I\i the celebrated “ Hypnerotomachia,” or “ Dream of Poliphilus.” SECTIONAL-STYLES. 25 style was more thoroughly carried out on ecclesiastical buildings, and, as practised by his successors, exhibits much that is fine, in large masses, boldly projecting cornices, three-quarter columns, and noble domes, but is otherwise debased by great misconceptions as to the reasonable application of architecture. The greatest masters of this period were undoubtedly Triumph of those of the north ; nothing can be imagined more gchooisunder excellent than the buildings of Sanmichele at Yerona, Sanmicheie and of Sansovino at Venice, dining the first half of the v i no; 16th century. To these two great artists is due the merit of having best succeeded in adapting the antique to modern wants, and of impressing on it an original character of exceeding beauty. Sanmichele’s works are styleof the characterized chiefly by their excellent proportions, their ’ carefully studied detail, their strength, and their beauty (qualities so difficult to combine) ; by him, the semi¬ circular-headed arch, and the use of massive rustications was generally adopted. The basement was usually composed of this peculiar ornament, rough-worked, as at the beautiful Palazzo Pompei, Yerona, and at the Palazzo Grimani, Venice ; above this were ranged generally one or more of the orders, the windows, and all openings in general being arched. We believe that the buildings of this great architect and engineer at Yerona are pre¬ eminent in their peculiar style, over those of any other artist of the 16th century. In a different but no less and latter; meritorious manner, are the buildings designed by Sanso¬ vino ; they are characterised by a more sculptural and ornamental character ; order over order, with large, arched voids in the interspaces of the columns, balus¬ trades, and the use of bronze, marbles, and statues, are the most striking features, producing a pictorial effect which might have led his less gifted followers into a false style, but for the example of the celebrated Palladio, who that of sought and successfully established a just medium between Palladl0 5 the simplicity of Sanmichele, and the floridness of San¬ sovino, founded on a thorough acquaintance with the best antique models, and not free from an influence from the Roman school. His designs are so numerous, and the variety shown in them so great, though often very minute, that any detailed account of them is impossible ; 26 THE ITALIAN COURT. they exhibit, however, the rustications of Sanmichele, the order over order and balustrades of Sansovino, the arched arcades, and peculiar Venetian window of both, the square-headed windows of the Roman school, and an attention to antique models ; all combined in a harmo¬ nious manner, and evincing an educated taste of the highest order, which felt itself capable of dispensing even with ornamented mouldings, of which, it may be and Serlio: the latter on France. r rencn pieces, — the Basilica, the Villa Capra, and the Teatro Olimpico, at Vicenza. The same style, more or less of Scamozzi, affected by circumstances, was continued by Scamozzi, and was practised in Lombardy throughout the 16th century. Serlio, although originally a follower of the Roman school, was inoculated with the Venetian style, during his residence in that city, and spread its influence abroad by his books published in France, which contain Influence of designs thoroughly Venetian in character. Thus the great architects Lescot and Delorme founded their manner on the buildings of the Venetian state, the supe¬ riority of whose architects was everywhere acknowledged at the close of the 16th and commencement of the 17 th century. Inigo Jones, especially, studied the style of Palladio, and equalled, if he did not indeed in some respects surpass, his model. Spain, Holland, and Germany, equally followed in the steps of the Venetian school, but in a manner characteristic of each particular country, and the Palladian style (as it is not altogether justly called) reigned dominant in Europe up to the middle of the 17th century. We should perhaps not omit observing, that the designs of Herrera, in Spain, in contradistinction to those of Jones, Wren, Delorme, Perrault, and Van der Vriendt, Manner of Herrera in Spain, as contrasted practised in are characterised by a majestic simplicity and a total absence of ornament, which, whilst they bear witness to the great ability of the artist, yet verge on the fault of over-plainness. The Roman palatial style appears to have hardly extended beyond Italy, until the present century, when its best models have been reproduced in England with much success. France, England, and the Netherlands. SECTIONAL—STYLES. 27 SCULPTURE. Sculpture which, during the 15th century, had been mainly founded on nature, received, in the 16th century, a strongly-marked impress from the study of the antique, and from the influence of Michael Angelo. The ideal and the antique carried for a time everything before them ; but the influence of the latter gradually lost its sway, and, by the 17th century, instead of the ideal, we find nothing but the fanciful, which, bearing little relation either to nature or the antique, gradually swamped the art of sculpture throughout Europe in one deluge of meaningless caprices, not to be redeemed by the indubitable existence of much natural ability and great manual cleverness. On Michael Angelo has not unfrequently been charged the onus of this gradual degradation of the art, but we think most unjustly, since a great genius is not answerable for the weakness of his followers, and we search, moreover, in vain among his productions for the unnatural features, the wind- driven draperies, and affectedly graceful attitudes of Bernini and his school, in comparison with which, the works of the contemporary and subsequent French school, though somewhat insipid, and not altogether free from the same taint, are to be mentioned with some praise. PAINTING. Painting was the branch of art in which the artists of the entire 16th century excelled. The massive manner of Fra Bartolomeo (1469—1519) ; the fine imagination, the wonderful drawing, of Michael Angelo ; and the purity and beauty of Raflaelle, led to the formation of a grandiose style, which long pervaded Italy, triumphing more especially at Rome, Florence, and Bologna, and which, in subjects of the highest class, is still unrivalled. The works produced in this style are characterised by grandeur of design, excellent drawing, grouping, and expression, and a sculpturesque character, if we may use the expression, which receives comparatively little aid from richness of colour. In that respect, the Venetian school was pre-eminent, In sculpture the ideal of Michael Angelo dege¬ nerated into the fanciful. This falling off not due to Michael Angelo. Painting ot the Koman School. 23 THE ITALIAN COURT. and Giorgione, Titian, Tintoretto, Paul Veronese, Paris Bordone, and Palma Vecchio, leave their Roman brethren far behind. With these artists the true power of painting was thoroughly appreciated and successfully practised, and nature is represented in a manner—we allude espe¬ cially to their portrait subjects — which will be the admiration of all time. Correggio and Dei Sarto. Landscape painting. From the introduction of oil as a vehicle, the practice of easel paint¬ ing in¬ creased. Perfection of wall paint¬ ing under Kaphael and Luini. Italian poly- chromy of three kinds; Arabesque, Pictorial, Architec¬ tonic. No. I. origin- nated by Perugino, and espe¬ cially affected by his followers. Their style, hlor must we forget to mention two remarkable men— Correggio (1494—1534), and Andrea del Sarto (1488— 1530)—standing in a great measure alone, as artists who formed original styles of the highest excellence. In the lTth century the art of landscape-painting made great advance, as a separate study, under the influence of Gaspar Poussin, Claude Lorraine, Salvator Rosa, and a number of excellent Flemish artists. During the 17th century the art of painting was still success¬ fully practised throughout Italy ; but in the 18th century, it may be said to have lost its best charac¬ teristics, and to have descended to a state only fitted to accompany the degradation of the art of sculpture. From the period of the introduction into Italy, through Andrea del Castagno, and Antonio Veneziano, of oil as a medium for painting, the practice of the artist to work at his easel in his studio, rather than upon the walls of churches and palaces, rapidly gained ground ; and although, as we have seen, the principles, both of composition, drawing, perspective, and colour became better and more universally understood, the art of archi¬ tectural decoration, after reaching its highest perfection under Raphael at Rome, and Luini at Milan and Pavia, gradually degenerated. From the beginning of the 14th century, Polychromy, in Italy, may be said to have divided itself into three styles—the arabesque, the pictorial, and the architectonic. The first was, as we have every reason to believe, in a great degree originated by Perugino, and was especially affected by Ins pupils and their followers, Raphael, Pin- turicchio, Bachiacca, l’Ingegno, Morto da Feltro, Giovanni da Udine, Pierino del Vaga, (fee. This style, of which the celebrated Loggie, the Sala Ducale, and the Bath¬ room of Cardinal Bibiena, at the Vatican, the Villa Madama, and some apartments in the castle of San SECTIONAL—STYLES. 29 Angelo, at Rome, together with some of the walls of the Palazzo del T, at Mantua, are the most remarkable examples, was copied closely from the antique. It con¬ sists generally of an arrangement of colour in which a white ground plays a most conspicuous part, serving as a field on which are painted, on a small scale, every its elabo- variety of objects that can be imagined—figures, fruit, yeT' flowers, birds, animals, fish, landscape, shells, curtains, breadth; marble and bronze panels, &c., directly imitated from nature, interwoven with scrolls and patterns of a com¬ pletely conventional character. Ornament is heaped up with an apparently boundless profusion, and yet breadth of style is preserved, by keeping such coloured grounds as are introduced, firm and solid in colour, and by so ho^ pre¬ diminishing every object in bulk, as contrasted with the serred > unoccupied area of the ground colour upon which it is painted, as to allow that colour to predominate, and at a little distance to appear rather fretted with a diaper, than covered with ornament demanding attention. The balance in the best examples, as at the Yilla Madama, as a t the is so happily maintained, that no one portion of the wall J a l ^ a Ma_ attracts attention more than another, no one ornament or portion of the wall starts forward before the rest, and the eye, pleased with an universal richness and intricacy, as in regarding the decorations of the Alhambra, wanders delighted, neither oppressed nor confused. Shortly after Declension the death of Raphael, this beautiful style which, under his °f t e r ie t hg yle direction and influence, had been carried to such sue- death of cessful results, degenerated, and although freely and IUphael ‘ skilfully executed by the Zuccari, Tempesta, and other masters down to the present day, we look in vain in any of their works either for the same purity of drawing, point, and meaning in the selection of materials for ornament, or breadth of treatment in colours ; in fact, arabesque painting thoroughly degenerated into man¬ nerism, and the “lamp of life” was quenched. It is in imitation of this style that the loggie of the The loggie Italian Court have been painted in the closest possible paintediii* reproduction of Raffaelle’s immortal designs. For much this style valuable assistance in obtaining accuracy in these ara- th/vatican? besques, a debt of gratitude is due to the Trustees of Sir John Soane’s Museum, and its curator, Mr. George 30 THE ITALIAN COURT. No. II., the Pictorial style, in ■which the wall is sacri¬ ficed to the picture, as was done by most of the ambitious schools of fresco painters. Faults of practice in the style, Michael Angelo mainly re¬ sponsible. Bailey, whose kindness has been taken advantage of with the greatest energy and spirit by Mr. Gow and Mr. Earle, the artists by whom the full-size cartoons have been entirely made. Our second variety of Italian Polychromy we have designated as the Pictorial, since in it the picture is predominant, and the wall altogether secondary. To this class belong most of the important series of frescoes— such as Michael Angelo’s in the Capelle, Sistina, and Paolina ; and Raffaelle’s in the Stanze, Sala di Con¬ stantino, &c., in the Vatican ; Leonardo da Vinci’s in Santa Maria delle Grazie, at Milan ; Correggio’s at Parma ; Andrea del Sarto’s in the Church of the Annun- ziata, at Florence ; Giulio Romano’s at Mantua ; Sodoma’s at the Farnesina, Rome; and, subsequently, those of Annibale Carracci in the gallery of the Farnese Palace, Rome, together with those of Guido and Domenichino in the churches and chapels of San Gregorio, Santa Maria degli Angeli, San Luigi dei Francesi, San Carlo in Catinari, and many others of the Roman churches. In this style the painter first separated himself from, and then lorded it over the architect. Those stripes and bands of gilding, arabesque, and raised enrichment which were frequently used in the earlier and best examples of the style to separate the pictures, and combine them by geometrical lines into agreeable en¬ tireties, as in the best works of Raffaelle, such as the ceiling of the Camera della Segnatura, Rome, the library at Sienna, and some of the Titian ceilings of the Ducal Palace, at Venice, rapidly disappeared. Michael Angelo, the author of much evil, but the doer of much good, was among the first to throw aside the previous conditions of wall treatment ; nothing would suit him but the entire area of the end of the Sistine chapel for his Last Judg¬ ment ; and, from his example, too many artists manifested their independence rather than their taste, by covering, as did, at first, Correggio, Vasari, and others, and sub¬ sequently, Pietro da Cortona, Luca fa Presto, Carlo Maratti, Ac., the entire surfaces of churches,—walls, cupolas, and vaults, with a heaped-up and all but unin¬ telligible series of figures. Executive facility triumphed over a spirit of earnest and severe composition, and at SECTIONAL—STYLES. 31 last ensued that confusion, which ultimately set the fashion in Europe of that decoration in which the gods of Verrio, Thornhill and Laguerre “ sprawled ” in admired disorder. With such a system, accident alone determined Evils of in- whether the general effects of the painted monument fnsteadTf’ were agreeable, or the reverse ; usually the result is such concerted, as to make us regret the ill-assorted union of sisters, who Arts!* m the should be so concordant, as painting, sculpture, and architecture. On turning to the last style, which we have designated No. nr. The as the Architectonic, we find that the painters having, as errs in the 10 it were, set architecture at nought in their compositions, opposite in this the architects returned the compliment to the painters, either, on the one hand, in producing colour tects setting themselves, only through the use of coloured materials, as ^ e no p U g]^ ers in most of the Jesuit churches ; or by emblazoning, as it andcoiouring were, their own ornaments, soffites, arches, coffers, He received his first instructions from his father, who was a painter. In 1495 he was sent to study under Perugino, and continued with him till he was nearly twenty years of age. In 1504 he visited Florence, and saw there the works of Lionardo da Vinci and Michael Angelo. From this period is remarked an improvement in his style. At the age of twenty-five, he was sent for by Julius II. to decorate the rooms of the Vatican. On the death of Julius (1513), his successor, Leo X., continued to employ him ; and his style, from the con¬ tinual discoveries made at Rome of antique sculptures and painting, became sensibly improved. In 1516 he had. nearly completed his work there, and made the designs for the tapestry to be hung in the Sistine Chapel, some of which were saved from destruction at the tapestry manufactory of Arras, through the care of Rubens, and are now at Hampton-Court Palace. About this time (1517), he painted St. Michael overcoming Satan, and the Madonna di San Sisto, for Francis I., who munificently rewarded him with £3000 ; these are now at the Louvre. He was also engaged on the cele¬ brated frescoes at the Chigi Palace (now the Farnesina), at Rome, in designs for all branches of art, and in con¬ ducting the excavations of ancient Rome. He died in LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE COURT, TOWARDS THE GALLERY. THE ITALIAN COURT—INTERIOR. 49 1520, thirty-eight years of age, leaving his great picture of the Transfiguration (at the Vatican) all but complete, and was buried in the Pantheon, with extraordinary honours. Besides his well known sacred and historical works, he painted about eighty portraits, and made Jonah and the Whale, by Raftaelle. several designs for sculpture and ornament. His archi¬ tectural works are the Palaces Cafarelli, Stoppani, Vidoni, and the Casa Berti (at Rome), and the Pandolfini Palace, at Florence. During 1518-20, he was architect to the works at St. Peter’s. (See Portrait Gallery, Ho. 146.) E works and architectural designs. 50 THE ITALIAN COURT. His influence widely spread through the engravings of Marc- Antonio. The-loggie of the court,— their ara¬ besques. The details of that style. Raffaelle’s influence affected not only tlie art of painting, but the productions of ornamental industry in general. He was the channel by which the long lost beauty of a past civilisation diffused itself throughout all the branches of art. The careful and spirited burin of Marc Antonio Raimondi multiplied the products of his hand, and ren¬ dered them familiar to thousands : these again served as patterns to other and various mediums of beauty. His designs were used for tapestry, and the ware, known as Majolica, gave coloured copies of his works ; often, indeed, roughly executed, but still speaking of the source from which they sprung. He left a large and distin¬ guished body of pupils and followers, among whom were Giulio Romano, Primaticcio, Pierin del Yaga, Caravaggio, Garofalo, Giovanni da Udine, Andrea da Salerno, Pellegrino Tibaldi, &c. We now enter the arcade, which, equally with the one opposite, is ornamented with copies of Raffaelle’s cele¬ brated decorations of the Loggie of the Vatican, the architecture of which was also designed by that great master, the whole forming a masterpiece of art, harmo- onious and complete. The frescoes were commenced by Raffaelle during the pontificate of Leo X. (elected in the year 1513). It was clearly impossible for him to have executed them himself, being engaged at the same time on numerous other more important works. They were, however, designed by him, and executed principally by his pupils, among whom Giovanni da Udine for still life, and Pierino del Yaga for figures, may be especially mentioned. Particular attention should be given to these works, the great variety of which prevents our entering into detail. Xot only do they deserve special notice from their own merit, but also because they serve to exemplify the style of mural decoration which spread afterwards throughout Italy, beautiful examples of which exist at Genoa, in the Palazzo Doria, executed by Pierino del Yaga ; at Mantua, in the Palazzo Gonzaga and Palazzo del T, by Giulio Romano; in the Villa Madama near Rome, also by Giulio ; and at Fontainebleau, in France, by Primaticcio and Xiccolo dell’ Abbate, who were all pupils of Raffaelle. We may observe that the peculiar style, improperly termed THE INTERIOR—MICHAEL ANGELO. 51 to Daniel Birago, nominal archbishop of Mytilene, by Andrea Fusina, in the church of Santa Maria della Passione at Milan. The boldly cut ornament of this tomb is particularly good ; two well designed angels support the following inscription, “ Danieli Birago Archi Mityii pre hospitalis 72 THE ITALIAN COURT. by Fusina. Candela¬ brum from the Certosa. Holy Fami¬ lies from London and Florence, by Michael An¬ gelo. Specimens of his earlier life. His second manner— ex testo posue. ” The sculptor has left his name and the date engraved: “ Andrea Fusina, 1495.” The only other example of the artist we are acquainted with, is at the Piccolomini altar in Siena Cathedral, with the date, 1485. Fusina was also employed at the Certosa, Pavia ; nothing farther is known of him, although he was one of the most excellent sculptors of his day. On the wall opposite to this is a candelabrum from the Certosa, Pavia ; in the lowest part are four ovals, con¬ taining bas-reliefs of the Evangelists, and above them, the Fathers of the Church, and a Madonna and Child ; other medallions filled in with religious subjects occur above these again, the rest of the design is founded on the antique, and although the name of the artist is not authenticated, yet from the similarity existing between this candelabrum and the crucifix and the two candelabra on the fagade, known to be by Annibale Fontana, we are inclined to ascribe the two former also to him. On each side of the candelabrum is a Holy Family, by Michael Angelo ; the one to the left is from the original at the Poyal Academy, London ; that to the right from the Uffizii Gallery, Florence ; they are both unfinished, and are classed among his earlier works ; in which are to be observed a tenderness and grace not altogether free from the influence of Donatello, Da Yinci, and others his immediate predecessors, yet still strongly marked by the individual character of the young sculptor himself, and displaying much of that nascent power which was so strongly developed in his later years. We recommend them to the attentive notice of the visitor, as examples not to be found elsewhere in this country, of Michael Angelo’s earlier style, as well as for their excellent arrangement in a circular form, and their bold style of execution. In closing our remarks on the very valuable series of Michael Angelo’s works collected in this court, we may observe that his productions can be in a great measure arranged in three divisions. In the first class are his earlier works, exhibiting a decided influence from the great sculptors of the close of the 15 th century, and characterised by much graceful tenderness—such are the Holy Families noticed above ; in the second class, those THE GALLERY—RAFFAELLE’S CEILING. works winch are marked by a more determined copy of nature, in which the artist was evidently seeking rather to improve his knowledge than to form a style, as we see in the Christ from the Minerva, and the David at Florence ; and in the third and highest class, are to be ranked those of his productions in which, having gained all he could from his predecessors, and from nature, the great sculptor gave himself up entirely to the workings of his own mind, and exercised his acquired power in the un¬ restrained development of his peculiar, and we may add, most poetical nature. The force and energy of his soul are seen on the surface of his works. Every stroke of the chisel is given with a fiery, impatient vigour, which we find it hard to reconcile with the real patience and thoughtfulness required of all great artists, yet never did any man work more patiently, and with greater perseverance. The poorest of men, as he observed himself, did not labour from necessity more than he did from choice. (C Indeed, from all the circum¬ stances related of his life,” says Sir Joshua Reynolds, “ he appears not to have had the least conception that his art was to be acquired by any other means than great labour, and yet he, of all men that ever lived, might make the greatest pretensions to the efficacy of native genius and inspiration.” The wonderful skill of hand seen in his works, especially in the unfinished ones, was, we see, the result only of continued labour, yet that result lies on the surface, and is palpable to all ; not so the long-continued thought, and deep meaning which is expressed in them, a thought and a meaning in the highest degree poetical, and which, like all the noblest productions of the human soul, requires an elevated mind, and an educated power of perception, to appre¬ ciate justly. Having completed his inspection of the works of form¬ ative art in the gallery at the back of the Italian Court and Vestibule, we would invite the visitor’s attention to the very beautiful vaulted ceiling nearest the Central Transept. This ceiling is a perfect reproduction of that one in which Raffaelle exhibited, perhaps more than in any other work executed by him, his complete mastery over his third— his general character¬ istics. The vaulted ceiling nearest the central tran¬ sept is by Raffaelle, from the n THE ITALIAN COURT. Camera della Segna- tura, in the Vatican. The original, its subjects, the principles of the arrangement of painting, as applied to decorative purposes. The Camera della Segnatura, from which it has been taken, was the first of the series of rooms in the Vatican which Paffaelle commenced painting in fresco, by order of Julius II., and on which series he was employed until his death in the year 1520, even when they were still not quite completed. “ He dedicated,” writes Mrs. Jameson, in her excellent Lives of the Italian Painters, “this first saloon to the glory of those high intellectual pursuits which may be said to embrace in some form or other all human culture — theology, poetry, philo¬ sophy, and law or jurisprudence. ” The present ceiling was completed in the year 1511, and consists of four compartments, each containing a large round, with the allegorical figures above mentioned, the interspaces being occupied by four oblong pictures, each subject in which relates to the figures in the rounds. Theology, Poetry, Philosophy, and Jurisprudence are personified by females, of peculiarly noble expression, enthroned in divine serenity upon clouds. Each one has her characteristic symbols, but they are not difficult to distinguish by their respective movement and ex¬ pression alone. At the sides of them are beautiful genii, who hold tablets with inscriptions referring to each per¬ sonification. The figure of Poetry has always been particularly admired for its superior beauty. The subject in the oblong next to Theology is the Fall of Man, a simple and harmonious composition, which Sir C. Eastlake notices as perhaps the most beautiful treatment of that subject in existence. Next to Poetry is the Punishment of Marsyas. Next to Philosophy, a female studying the terrestrial globe, and next to Juris¬ prudence the Judgment of Solomon. They are all painted on a gold, mosaic-like ground. According to Passavant (vol. i. p. 139), these side mythology? 3 pieces contain allusions to the Allegories. The Fall of Man, between Jurisprudence and Theology, alludes both to Judgment and Salvation. The Punishment of Marsy alludes to the Triumph of Apollo—-the god of poetry and music. The figure studying a globe clearly relates to philosophy, and the Judgment of Solomon to the an epic m themselves. Mixture of ■ ' V ■ I ' . ’ 1. S. Jerome lylorregiaaa 2 . Mouumeat. of Lanono I On mo. 3. Ditto of Madonna, della Scarpa. 4. SaeE’iumoftke Made] leca from tiie Certosa ..ara- .©XftrciK.; of ihfc : . OfJ.-:. •** ‘Hi ,ex< it work on the Sc&oois * i to !>e much interesting informal!®: frescoes at the 'Vatican, wc. Ft would be difficult to imagine m- ».re duction of thi' bewutifn'! •’ ^ ti; , the present cv>v. by Mr \ifewX residence, in Italy, aud • f-nnh hf v/• .. ' S-~W- . v, ., -a '' i *••.». riiv '■.to ■ ... I Benuwdmo Luini, an © f . Vinci, who,s‘ : works ai^ nv.torou-- i : ' -••■^rry-xv ___ __ __ fjWf ag i g B j '■ “ 'l!^. . ■• ■ >.;’<[ V- . • . •• . -- • *£%£'■ . . • '• ■' r-,. 'iV — V. . ;M n _ Jin _ kr>T. Ihevafr ; of : «r-.c The application of palnia< ; g ■ 0 the ttUiipr’...’ ■•- • .-*r‘r pla< Even Pfi ;-H.» ). 4 . \ Sf^:. ; fayaclea Wert ■■ 'r' -r] Vi- y-wV I ■* I ) M ■ Km r THE GALLERY—THE VESTIBULE. 75 exercise of the judicial office. In Sir C. Eastlake’s very excellent work on the Schools of Painting in Italy, is to be found much interesting information on Raffaelle’s frescoes at the Vatican,