refer them to a human standard as essential and generic is not enough, although this is the nearest approach which has been made towards characterising them. The form, light and shade, and colour, of Buonarotti, are frequently the exponents of modes of being which have no objective existence he was called to treat of things which were unseen-of superhuman relations which had been established -to express the influence that the belief in the existence of such exercised upon man-and to connect him with the invisible. Mysteriousness and greatness must be thrown over the generic nature of man, and this is the idea rendered by the works of Michael Angelo. They are sacred to veneration, to awe, and to wonder. To clothe and impress those sentiments was the aim of his style. Compared with the expression and essential form of Grecian art, and with the generic light and shade and colour of Titian, those of the Cappella Sistina present a remarkable distinction. They are expressive of the fleshly and material those of Michael Angelo of the mental and immaterial. Greek art had, it may almost be said, perfected bodily symmetry it had embodied physical strength and intellectual character-it had carried a material system to its highest elevation; but, in the figures of Michael Angelo, the impression is conveyed of a predominating power or will, which makes the body its machine-a vital energy, which seems expressive of the idea of soul in man, distinct, and self-existent. This endows them with immense power on the mind; and (laying aside abstract considerations in regard to the tendency of Grecian theology and philosophy as compared to those of later times), must, in many instances, be considered to raise them above Greek art; or, if they cannot be placed higher than the perfection which Grecian sculpture reached (possibly the most beautiful example of the attainment of such in the history of man), fixes them on an

equally elevated line. Both are widely different. It may be said that the Italian expressed, or showed, the mind in the body that the Greek expressed it by the body. The discrimination of class and character must be regarded to have been the aim of Greek artthe workings of mind and passion that of modern art. In Greece, characteristic distinction had traced a gradual ascent of physiognomic peculiarity, from the centaur up to the Olympian Jove. The classification of form was minutely entered into; which, by the masters of the revival of art was comparatively little attended to.

Comparisons have been frequently made betwixt the degree of perfection exhibited in the works of Michael Angelo and ancient sculpture, without taking the particular style or character of either into consideration, and each has been made the rule of judging the other, certainly under a very imperfect perception of the true nature of either the one or the other. In those characteristics, which constitute the difference of sentiment, and necessarily of style, between them, consists much of the particular excellence of each. The character-even the perfection, it may be said, of Greek works, would have militated, in many respects, against those intentions which the works of Michael Angelo fulfil.

Nor would his works have effected the purposes of the Greeks. The pantheism of Greece pre-supposed the universal materiality or the universal immateriality, of all things. There were no conflicting elements no distinct process of se paration of mind and matter entered into. All was recognised to be of One, differing only in grade. Their gods were rendered in godlike shapes, by a minute definition of character, which could not be too much regulated by physical analogy, or laws. The idea of the superhuman, or the ideal, indeed existed, and was perfected in every rank of the theogony, but less under the influence of a sentiment than as a type, its original germ; and from

which the history, both of ancient and of modern art, exhibits a process of refinement, or completion, in the first place, and afterwards of annihilation. But it was necessary that the style of Michael Angelo (whether from sentiment, or the result of ratiocination, it is not intended at present to inquire) should express the union and connexion of power and imperfection-of greatness and of frailty. Man must not, however, be represented in weakness; such would have destroyed one great purpose of the work-to elevate humanity: but the struggle of man, declared to be abject, and, at the same time, the inheritor of immortality-"a worm, a god,"-must be expressed. He has been removed from the calm perfectability of the Academy, or of the Stoa, which, in "reason's deepest depths," sought to base his dignity, and to found the persuasion that he might not merely be mortal. He has been made to expect eternal consciousness. He has been brought into conflict with his passions, immediately overawed by hope and fear. Contesting sentiments have become centred in his nature, and contend for predominance over his character and fate; and to be the medium of con. veying these, and of conducting him through regions of mystery with power and intellectual grandeur, was the aim of the style of Michael Angelo.

His forms display moral and phy. sical strength, independently of their general significance. The movements of the machine of the human body are condensed and rendered energetic, not by celerity of action so much as by the impression of powerful will and

desire, with which his actors seem to be endowed. There is in them a constant reference to the particular and imperfect, in connexion with expression; but this is rendered with a specific greatness which raises them altogether above individual humanity." Not to enter into any lengthened comparison or to contrast the style of the works of Raphael with those of Michael Angelo, it may be observed, with a view to render more evident what has been noticed in regard to the latter, that, in distinetion from Raphael, he endeavoured to elevate man to the supernatural; while Raphael, in his works which have relation to such subjects, brought the supernatural down to man. Nothing can be more distinct than the impression produced by the Sybils and Isaiah of Raphael, which are said to have been done in imitation of, and to rival Michael Angelo, from those of the Sistine Chapel. The Isaiah is much after the fashion, but altogether without participation of the spirit of Michael Angelo. It may have greatness, wisdom, and sagacity, but it has no inspiration. Raphael stood on a different ground. His characters illustrate and explain a creed, and give a mundane relation to its dogmas by exciting sympathy and love. In this view, while the efforts of both were directed to the one great purpose of calling attention to religion, it may be said that he was opposed to Michael Angelo. The style of Raphael, also, was much more a derivation from Greck sculpture than that of Michael Angelo, but operated upon by a different sentiment,-the dramatic, instead of the lyric and the epic, which, in

Grecian art, throughout all its refined distinctions of character, were strongly influential.

The colour, and light and shade of the picture, are analogous to its form; they are strictly accordant in sentiment with its intention, and conform to and aid its expression. Local or minute distinctions in the one, and accidental effects in the other, are almost entirely denied. They are wholly at the will of the painter, in conformity to his idea. Shade, instead of being made a means of powerful contrast, is merely used as a material, that indicates rather than expresses the negation of light. It may be regarded as an imperfection in nature, that only a partial dependence was placed upon in connexion with the abstract expression and reference of the painting of Michael Angelo. On some occasions the effect produced is almost altogether independent of it, the contrast and hues of colour being the medium adopted; while, on others, colour is reduced nearly to simple chiaro-oscuro, and a dark obscurity is the solemn atmosphere of various parts of the scene of the Judgment. In the remains of ancient Roman painting, from which, and from the notices that have descended to us, the style of the Greeks may, to a considerable extent, be deduced, a somewhat similar recognition of the imitation of light and colour appears to have been made by them. They were wholly regarded, along with form, as part of the means of art, not followed as an ultimate intention, and, thus considered, were in many instances even rendered as negative as possible; while, in others, they were mutually sacrificed,-the one to the sentiment that the other was more particularly adapted to convey.

Considered as the means of affecting sense, in the works of Michael Angelo they are most harmonious, simple, and severe they possess impressive breadth and distinct firmness, with a transparent delicacy of tone, which altogether removes their expression from the material character, of which colour is powerfully expressive. They

must not be judged by a standard which demands their strong and immediate effect, as displayed in most of the pictures of the Venetian school, and of Rubens (whose works must be considered to be a mighty school of themselves); or which makes the representation of individual and accidental peculiarity its rule. The first of these methods was rejected by the subjection, in which the expression of colour, and light and shade, were held, to the slower mental process that is involved in the perception of form ; upon which the chief dependence was placed in this work, in obedience to the powerful and definite expression that was necessary, and the other was denied by its elevated and abstract character.

It is not intended here to enter into any refutation of mistaken criticisms, which have been made on the picture of the Last Judgment,—nor into any detailed consideration of the work. The methods pursued in its production, which have been attempted to be explained, and which, it is hoped that it will now be apparent, were adopted by Michael Angelo, or presented by circumstances for him to pursue, being correctly recognised, must sufficiently enable every one to reply to the former themselves; while, by a just application of those principles, which have been considered to have operated towards the formation, and to have led to the adoption, of the peculiarities of thought and expression displayed in the picture, a correct appreciation of its various parts may be formed. But, although the work is addressed to all, in connexion with sentiments which all, more or less, endeavour to enter into, it were almost needless to say that it is impossible that all can be alive to its signification, or understand it. Mental variety may be compared to that of physical capacity in the animal creation. It is not possible that different individuals should perceive and feel with the same convictions, sentiments which demand, in their perception, conditions which are widely dissimilar in each.

Those differences, however, which render general participation in this, as in every other instance, impossible, and which are barriers to the apprehension of the import of the picture, exist less in regard to that import itself, than in respect to the manner in which it is manifested, or the path which is pursued to arrive at it. It must be contended that every one, in some measure, endeavours to participate in the sentiments which it enunciates. It may not be understood, but it must be felt; and every work which rests on the same basis. Its whole bearing and treatment are, even in minute respects, to a certain extent abstract-it relates to the morally

great in human effort-it is connected with the intellectual. In this is the grandeur of the work sustained—on this broad foundation its sentiments, and the manner of their elucidation rest. To attempt, however imperfectly, to find or approach this, is characteristic of humanity. United in this object, the refined excursiveness of the European, and the African savage's worship of his little broadlipped gilt image: the roads are many which have been pursued in order to reach its attainment. Towards this, the picture of the Judgment, taking it in its widest scope, bears-in this, it originated, and from this it was evolved.

I LOVE those tales of ancientry, Those tales to fancy true,

That bring things back from fairyland,

In all their glittering hue.

I love to hear of stalwart knights;
Of squires, and dwarfs, and fays;
Whose gambols in the pale moonlight
Fill rustics with amaze.

Those things are, to a musing wight,
Substantial things to view!-
I love those tales of ancientry,
Those tales to fancy true!

I love those tales my grandame
told,

When I sat on her knee,
And look'd into her aged face,
With wonder fill'd and glee:
Those tales that made me quake with
fear,

Though trembling with delight;
As some huge giant fell to earth
When vanquish'd in the fight :-
Or some magician gave his aid
To whom that aid was due.-
I love those tales of ancientry,
Those tales to fancy true!

And she, my grandame, lov'd to tell To me, her listening child,

Old tales of witch, and charm, and spell,

With many a legend wild.

And I had faith in all she said,

And held for truth each tale; And wept for grief, or scream'd for joy,

Did ill or good prevail.

And this the way my grandame did
Her wonders bring to view-
I love those tales of ancientry,
Those tales to fancy true!

"Once on a time there was a man, A miller he by trade;

Down by yon brook he had his mill,
Where now the bridge is made.
An honest man that miller was,
An honest name did own;

His word would pass for forty pounds
Where'er that name was known;
And no one doubted what he said,
For credence was his due."-
I love those tales of ancientry,
Those tales to fancy true!

"The miller had a noble horse, It was an iron-grey;

It had a flowing mane and tail,
And pranced in spirit gay.

It look'd like to a warrior's steed,
Its bearing was so good;

And much the miller prized his horse,

And boasted of its blood.
He rode it hard, but fed it well,
And it was sleek to view."—
I love those tales of ancientry,
Those tales to fancy true!