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

• T
FROM TIIE NEW IMONT:ILT ro a lAN LA Ity.
It cannot be of deep consequence to the permanent fame of
Fiaxman bow this itisktne may be received by contemporary
criticism ; for the achievements on which his glory depends will
outiait the dactoatkess of language, and stand but little in need of
accessory celebrity fronshis pen as an author. At the same time,
since he is made, by this posthumous publication, to step, as it
were, from his pedestal of practical art into the literary world, in
the character of a didactic artist, it is a duty which the joornalist
owes to general curiosity, and to his respect for the cause of refined
pursuits, not to pass over so interesting an event in silence.
As' I felt this duty °oldie part of a periodical glow ; as I clkerisb,
in common with a hip iortion of the world, a respect amounting
to veneration for Flsxaan's memory ; as with very ordinartpte-
tensions to judgment I since matters, .I found the subject, akhougb
it interested my zeal, fie* 'manure, (Masa to discuss;. and as
lune! ,01.inels111,41,1diltw en die Werrlii-ing appeared. 1
looked forwird.with ;madness f*.this periodical being without • ,
precursor in the ceremony of ushering In so great a name to the
common hall of criticism.
But the Edinburgh Reviewer hu taken the precedency that, was
due to him in the public reception of Mr. Flaxman as an author ;
and if he goes through the task with a little assumption of supe-
riority to the illustrious personage whom he introduces, he at least
escapes all culpability for treating him with too much ceremony.
With the Edinburgh Review, it would not be very natural that
I should be a captious fault-finder. On the contrary, I make a
sacrifice of personal predilections and pf grateful remembrances to
a duty that seems to me paramort to all individual obligation,
when I speak freely of a paper published under the auspices of an
old and valued friend. Farther, I have to assure the reader, if
should unintentionally offend him with the appearance of egotism
in trequentiy recurring to the first person singular, that it merely
because I like atraigbtforward expression of opinion, and have an
aversion to the majestic plural. The use of we and us I leave
to the Siamese youth and to regular reviewers. In singleness of
speech, I muk then confess, that I dreaded the attempt of pont-
traying a sculptor's character, who raised England in the rank of
accomplished nations, Dr. Johnson once said, quite in his own
style, on being shown some fine statues, " Ay, Sir, sculpture
is a great art ; for after aU, it is very difficult to make a stone
look like a man." Very difficult indeed! that is to say, when
you take in hand to represent all the symmetry and majesty that can
be conceived in the human form. Nor is it much more easy, in
written sentences cobipetently to mould and express theintark and,
character of fign.rate minds. I was prepared, therefore, to apolo-
gise for my inadeq•zte tribute to Flaxman's genius, .on the sincere
plea that I was presuming only to leave a rude inscription of, my
own thoughts, and trot to build a monument to his memory.
We owe duties of allowance to superior as well as to inferior
minds;'and it Occurred to me, that in judging of these Lectures,
we are bound to guard ounelves,againet exaggerated expectations,
which no great artist in teaching his art can fulfil. It is net merely
that a book on sculpture can never move us like great achieve-
ments in sculpture itself, but that the ethereal casein.: of that skill
by which the magician touched us ka his works being untransferabl•

to words, he must be mainly employed in communicating the
plainer rubs of his art, and in this didactic vocation we must not
expect that he should wear the same mantle of inspiration as an
'author which invested him as an lutist. It is fearfully difficult to be
eloquent in teaching . art. The floor of didactic language, con.
structed for the tread of sober ideas, is perilously shaken by
the tramp of inipawksiseVettskissicamas- Fossil e;paeienoed,
fact. He is a gifted teacher, often unexceptionably eloquent;
and sometimes his tortuous phrases, which are most offensive
to the artless reader, are to the Artist the most expressive
he could have used. But still his orgies in style are very
startling. It is expressly because Fusell was a potent genius
that I quote him as an instance of the difficulty of writing
on high att. Flagman is all
,sobriety in style, and be is blamed
for dryness and coldness. There is no such thing as pleasing every
body, and particularly in bequests from great men : the imagina-
tion is apt to be a greedy legatee, unbounded in hope and querulous
in expectation. But tinker, the didactic artist is no more infal-
lible than other men. The humblest journalist, like myself, may
find some just occasions for questioning his speculations. Here,
however, one need not be taxed with servility to a great name in
saying, that a weighed and delicate manner of charging him with
errors is due to the memory of a man not long ago deceased, whose
death was pronounced, by no vulgar opinion, to he au irreparable '
loss to art, to England, and to Europe.

Rut, if the Edinburgh Reviewer be right, all delicacy on this
subject is superfluous; and it is troubling ourselves uselessly to in-
quire how a great artist may impress us leas vividly in his writings
than in his works. On the contrary, we may be thankfully sur-
prised that we have no poorer a windfall than we have, in these
relics.'frons the tree of Flaxman's genius. The characteristics of
his mind, it appears. bribe last accounts from Modem Athens,
were precision, elegance, and cool judgment. and a laudable attach-
ment to the beet; but he wanted richness, variety, and form
What? is it want of force that is attributed to. the ssalptor of
Michael subduing Satan.and to the illustrator of Homer, Asehylus.
and Dante? Why, this sentence reverses Dr. Johnson's idea of
the difficulty of Art : it is the Medusa antithesis. 0; sculpture, and
turns a ntaii into .tone; at least, it ptoduces, for the nionamtt a
petrifying sensation of surprise, la any one who has been accustemed
to cherish the not very unpopular feeling respecting Flarnan—
that he is Miltonic in his conception of the superhuman; teat be
translates poetry front words into Or outline of forms ; and that
be not only revived the porky acuipture,in England, but broke
down the barriers which bad divided ft from the field of fancy.ead
gave it freedom, robustness, and dominion. ,
The Edinburgh Reviewer apcillies precision to fijawan ; bid as
he adds, that a certain stifnem and formality, a certain want of
'flexibility and power. ran through the whole of our artist's mind,
.it is'evifleni that be means the attribute in a
,dwar,Osis andodigus-,
raging sense. As such, Mr: tiaanyin's adipiters sstW /atom AR

compliment upon his hands, whleA as mych roladirected, as II be
bad lived in ancient,Atlagns or% • letter to Sschylus addressed
;to, the 'S precise author of the Furies." The reverential rstlnWe.
tor Flaxman, on the faith of which I speak, is casein() Lo op selsool
or COterie i'tbough acknowledged bythe.best judAles,„l‘ his. been.
to by nu declaiming brea;h q( eulogy, but has vow&
the calm and btoad light of public opinion.. If I had distrusted yhe
value attadird to Flasman by such men as Sir Tbousaci.awretice,
aiidhlt. WestmAcett, to beigg.,avtayed..l4.Auglisis
partiality. I hod au antldue to the suspicion bantering Flunsan's
come u enebntrotuldatly extolled en the Coetineet•ap in Rm.
land: At Vienna.' Berlin, and Munich, be is as highly apprecialled
as in Londe° ;. and, !ant sprry to say,„ln referepce to my nave
fad:VLF ib!sßspet!rPrfMßV it!,91404P4 much.rafirtlitailleapprgl
flated„,tinte in ... • ~. • • •
la tzugland, Flagman was the spasm. seulpt.uie gf Ida qv 4 is,
Europe, be bad no rival but Canova? who was his jostior cosatenipo-,
racy, and, I believe, eonfewed seam ablisatiette to him! ~..To C. 4.
nova, Italy owed her enzandpatten ftent a vitiated taste le eet:lp•

That

To Flaxman, England owes perhaps superior obligation, if it be
considered that we had no middle age in modern art, and no such
burst* of greatness as Italy had in the sculpture of Michael Angelo.
Flaxman had but few native predecessor* in our island since the
art-desolating Reformation. Banker, his immediate predecessor,
had great merit.; and his expression respecting Flaxman, which
was repeated to me by one who heard it, may remind us of Dryden
speaking of Milton—he said of Flaxman, " This little man cuts all
out in Sculpture." Flaxman excelled not, like Canova, in finished
execution, but in composition and design. He brought to the art
expansion of fancy, elevation of thought, and a holy beauty of
feeling. His female forms may want flubbed luxeriance, but they
have a charm more expressive and Inexpreisible from the vests
purity of his sentiment, than finish could have given them. From
Penelope to the modern female be sweetens said sanctifies our ad-
miration of woman.

His fondness for simplicity sought for that qu ility in every
age and example, and he was not only a severe student of the
antique, but was suspected of having imbibed from his ad-
miration of Donatella, and the Pisani, an overleaning to the exam-
ple of the half-gothic revivers of art. But still, this error was the
excess of a bold and simple taste. In alto, mezzo, and basso-
relievo he stands pre-eminent since the revival of the arts. The
man who says that his designs from poetry retain the inefficiency of
words, understands neither wards nor form ; and the charge of
his deficiency in richness, force, and variety, is an empty and ar-
rogant allegation. All this, I may be told, is mere asertion and
reference to general opinion ; but on Mamma's character as a
sculptor, what have we got from the " Edinburgh Review ?" no-

butvaLssidous.assertionand keference, not. to general, not to
eminent, but to unargoed, individual, anonymous, and smalltime'.
tative opinion. Not that I refuse the character of ability to the
writer of this article; bis ideas en the Elgin Marbles are well e:-
pressed, though they but new mint the ore of opinions that have
been already circulated. The Edinburgh review of Flaiman has
some truth and some novelty ; but the truth is not new, and the
novelty is not true.

This volume of Lectures is prefaced by a biographical ac-
count of the Author, which disarms criticism, because it seems
to be written by some extremely diffident person, too nearly re-
lated to the subject of the memoir to feel conscious of speaking of
him as an impartial judge. Hut it is by no means a sufficient
life of him. Let his friends come forward, with the good
old &oddart at their head, and tell us all that can be recol-
lected of this extraordinary man, who, whilst a light of honour
to his age, was personally the most simple, bumble, and un-
fawningly courteous of human beis.gt. The lovas of sculpture in
this country should combine for three things—a monument to his
memory-.-a series of large engravings to illustrate these lectures—
and a full and interesting life of Flaxman.

One of the objections which the Edinburgh Reviewer most vehe-
mently urges against theselectures, is the pernicious doctrine which
they inculcate respecting the intportauce of a scientific knowledge
of nsture to the artist, and particularly of anatomy. Mr. Flax man
is directly charged by the Reviewer with so grossly exaggerating
the benefit of anatomical knowledge, as virtualiy to exhort the sto-
deot to a slight observation of superfiaal nature. It is singular
that this accusation should fall posthumously on the memory of a
Professor who was himself a most sedulous observer of Nature.—
Sketching figures and groups that struck him in his walks, was his
favourite and constant amusement. Junior artists who consulted
him, will all testify, that he nut only never utide:valved the um-
(tikes. of such observation, but positively recommended it. and
set the example of copying wrote, by bring the first visitor who
dccw from the living nimbi in the Academy with his own hand.—
Had be anticipated such a charge, he would in ail probability bate
put in a.ilistlaimer against it ; but it iv doubtful whether he ever
intended these discourses for publication, and it is certain that he
never ,prepared theru.for the press. If I should be told that this
is no direct apology for his °skills& to record, in writing, so saki-
tary.aa advice as that of assiduously watching the outride of forms.
;have to reply. tbatho might very oaturally take for granted the
studesat'a disposition to this amnia, mode of studying nature, and
think It his duty tes impress it with less earnestness on his Mind
eismeapplication &oat* drudgery, nod. to sem* minds, the repulsive
anatomy. 3•• v• • •
d :any such moaning, as to Inculcate a slight
niletrWitius torah* sorface.of Albite, I disbelieve'; and that such
an Iphsrtnoe OW be fairly straloetimut ef•bir words; I deny. From
wbatAite Reviewee says, ememinild imagine that Mri Flaznian had
givenm downright bisections swag student to shit bereyes upon
vutererd eatnesioit (marker. ands, open them only to the diseektion
el here. ikeit insise•lmpreealoo welskcls *l' conveyed by the Reviewer •
• when be poisaammphaela oss•alie-woado4sligitear'befilte certain
words of his own, whieithlro-Flonassiesehme eke: •`Onse Peoles-
vOr bantsukkaidi"sitat bramllghnithisreatliva ed•Phietwe Without
bkisoposeibit io beitonie yeleternbrisf the
suctiowneisdlag a Wight ob
,'I killeriptiblifity be

owecieer MOM orrhetpsebeereere arras eelesaelei•tela, l'atitat
ithePsimatif lore tP•he eseme44dletAlAeihrhdeet9'4.4 in
111-11eidlitgibt se ray thet I. given the. Piggott tor he right,