Star.
London, England, 1830-01-02 00:00:00

but I NUM refer this point .to the MOM competent deehion of
others. "The Greeks, it bale been equaled on authority
which I am not disposed to dispute, owed much more to
the study of living than of dead bodies. Tel ; but have we
who go about unused, and among whom the artist has na
pay geld for the liberty of drawing from a single naked limn
—lnv, we such opportunies of studying Nature in Its /dug Now
mints as the Greeks had ? Give as the manners, the alkmas;din
education of Antient Greece—her gymnasia, and palmetto, and the
constant familiarity of the artist's eye with the unswathed strength
and symmetry of the human form in every variety of age, sums.
lure, and excereise; and the question about the poesible rodeo.
tiveness of an artist's observation of Nature, will be put on a sae.
terially different footing. Then, allowing that the Greeks in sta.
tuary owed more tothe-liting than the des& body, can it beproved
that they owed nothing at all to anatomy? On the contrary, their
sculpture begins to lichen Si* the time when it is most certain that
they must have possessed some knowledge of anatomy, and the date
of that knowledge, I suspect, goes back even to the times of balm
!Once. It can be proved that there was dissection among the
Greeks anterior to the date of Hippocrates. Of that physician's
anatomical knowledge, Dr. Hunter says that it is sometimes ode-
teUigibir ; but that may not be the belt of Hippocrates ; and Dr.
Hunter owns that the- Greeks very well understood Osteology....
He says " that they bad easefully considered the human body 3s
its organisation and functions, and that they had made up very
noble and comprehensive ideas of the subject in general." Notice,,
that these are the words of a great anatomist, comparing modem
with ancient science. lam perfectly aware of the superstitions
and even laws of the Greeks having been hostile to dissection ; and
that anatomy for the purpose of medical study was too imperfectly
studied among them : but I cannot help suspecting, that if the veR
of historic mystery were to be lifted up,tre should find that they
practised secret dissection more frequently than is generally sup.
posed. That they did dissect is unquestionable; that they could'
have often done so secretly, and that they had strong temptations to
the practice, bas every appearance of probability. How else could
they have acquired those noble and comprehensive ideas of the
human economy in general, which the learned Hunter ascribes to
them? Religious horror and popular prejudice may impede, but
cannot extinguish the study of anatomy—no, not even if it should
be more dangerous for a purveyor for the surgeons to violate a
grave than to murder a human being ; and as this oral prodsely
the case only a twelvemonth ago in Edinburgh, we may pause
before we conclude " a priori" on the extreme infrequency et
Athenian dissection.

• •.

It is evident on the whole: that the Greeks; knew something Off
anatomy, and if Dr. Hunter be right in thinking that something mot
insignificant in a physiological light, it must have been quite ad&
ciesit for all sculptural purposes. It is, therefore, unfair to tell us,
because the Greeks were worse anatomists and better sculptors than
the moderns, that anatomy has little or nothing to do with sculp-
ture. That it has nothing to do with it is not indeed assumed by
the Edinburgh Reviewer ; but in his estimate It is of so little im-
portance, that lie is wroth with Reiman for saying so much about
it, and he taxes him with substituting attention to science for the ob-
servation of Nature in his advice to youthful students. Now, Mr.
Manna proposes no such substitution. On the contrary, be
exalts the importance of the study of Nature, when he speaks to
this effect :—" Try to know of Nature u much as you can—be
not contented with observing her outward surface, bu t carry your
views into her internal organization." The study of Nature surely
ceases not upon her surfacer—and if internal scrutiny facilitates
outward observation, how can advice to the former study be
called a recommendation to us to be slight observers of Nature? I

tberefore think that Therrien is more really an advocate for natural
observation than his Edinburgh critic. That skill in the internal
structure of things should make us inattentive to their exterior ap-
'panne, is surely an useless apprehension. Let the opinion of
artists themselves, and, what is more than that opinion, let their
practice be appealed to on the subject. Sir. T. Lawrence is not
accused, at least, of anatomical pedantry ; but he is a deep anato-
mist. Of living names, it is, however, a delicate matter to speak,
though I should fearlessly, if it were necessary, leave the test of
the question to modern names.

But without presumptuously offering to guage the individual
rank and priorities in so illustrious a body of men as our nide,
artists, I appeal to departed genius. If this addiction to science
be so servile a feeling, as the Edinburgh Reviewer represents, whys
at the head of the " strewn peens" of hard scientific students, do
we And Michael Angelo and Leonardo de Vinci ? Parmegiano
follows them, a name identified with elegance and beauty. These
were the masters of form; but Titian, Ruben.. and Tintoretto, the
three greatest of colourists, and who ought to have been leas
anxious about form, were inquisitive and laborious anatomists.—
Going back to the revivers of sculpture, we find DonateUo pain-
fully sedulous in studying deeper than the surface of Nature ; and
equally inquisitive was John di Bologna, the scholar of Mi-
chael Angelo. A friend of mine has drawings of his in his posses-
sion, which show him to have been a profound anatosnist. Cor-
regio, we shaU possibly be told, was guessed not to be so deep in
the science, and yet he was a great man. Yes; but how has this
fact been guessed at ? Why. by his ackowledged defect—his want
of truth in drawing : so that the exception, instead of weakening,
establishes the rule. Let the student of art therefore believe, that
those who exhort him to the mere surface observation of Nature,
arc themselves but superficial observers.

That Flaxman,ia all his discourse about the usefulness of science
to art, meant not to palm either anatomical or any other species of
arquir•d knowledge upon the student in lieu of original inspiration,
is evident from his own words.

" AU rules," be says, " all critical discourses can but awaken
the intelligence and stimulate the will for a beginning of that which
is to be done. They may be compared to the scaffolding for raising
a magnificent palace ; it is neither the building, nor the decoration,
nor the workman's indispensable help in erecting the walls which
enclose the apat tments, and which may afterwards be enriched
with the most splendid ornaments. Every sculptor and painter
feels a conviction that a considerable portion of science is requisite
for the production of liberal art, but he will be equally convinced.
that whatever is produced from rules and principles only. added to
the most exquisite manual-labour, is no more than a mechanical
work. Sentiment is the life and soul of fine art, without which it
is all a dead letter. It gives a sterling value, an irresistible charm,
to the rudest imagery or most unpractised scrawl. By this quality
a firm alliance is formed with the affectiees in all works of an;
with an earnest watchfulmess for their preservation, we are made to
perceive and feel the meet terrific subjects, following she course of
sentiment through the current and maaesof sentiment and passion,
10 the most delicate and tender des and sympathies."
I have possibly done injustice, though little inteodine it, to this
. works by dwelling so moth on the allowance to be made for the
_ difference of scope which an artist's genius enjoys in a didactic and
.in a practical capacity, and I have now left myself too little roam
for ouch extracts as would filestrate the author's power muds bet-
ter than my remarks It seems sows* to move* pure and sound
principles of art ; and if the Edinburgh Reviewer perceives dog-
. monism in Flazman's tooe of lecturing, I can only ay that his ear
, is more sensitive to that quality, and more experienced brdetecting
it. than I can pretend to be. 'lave a sueptcloo, too, that the ge-
nerality of good jodges willdiscover quite as muchmste lathe Pro-
• gessoes old tradirloisary gamins at * tlyreaEdidbargb Reviewer's
dimovegica. tot the godlike forms of sculpture are but
stuck-up gods. and goddesses, and that an can leap at ea. vast
• from it" cradle to ks Fut. 8P !fast a leap rensiads me of
. • the 1004010, who bleb, tumbled from the gallery of Debbie
theptce into the pit, abilited asklds feu, and being asked by a by.
saw*, `:.When the. Devil ..did•yep come from?" macerated—
. %Vibes' the County Levy.". .43timiser at reformed oo sock so-'
•1111weig..• Fro, its inbluef a ita settle:dom. gime were mom than
~4a,o+ 4 yeses,. nd Its .gmitive,beanty endured eateretmottedes.—
e s.x .2•14.• stiotatbefespsfiviatif ciparbelt befpnaaildies, pro,