tervailed his own and Du Fresnoy's doctrine, by showing, in another part of his writings, that the theoretic power of generalising, was in fact selection from Nature, and not any mental elaboration of her essence. The reason, he says, why a botanist, or a naturalist, in quest of botanic beauty, throws aside all those leaves and flowers which are marked by individual imperfections, and dwells with rapture on such as, by retaining the generic form, are free from these individualities, is precisely the same as the artist's; ergo, the painter has only to select, like the botanist. And since the importation of the Elgin marbles, and as the casts made by Mr. Chantrey from Wilson the black, were so justly admired, and admired because they resembled the best Greek sculpture, this faith has generally prevailed amongst artists and connoisseurs. That it will finally and permanently obtain, it would, in the present state of our knowledge and experience, be presumptuous either to pronounce or deny.

If the present head of Jesus Christ was copied from the best model Lionardo had been able to select from the portion of nature with which he was acquainted, our wonder should perhaps cease at his not being satisfied with its fitness for his more capital work of the Last Supper, at his consequent delay and hesitation, and at his finally leaving that head unfinished. But if our wonder ceases, our regret must begin; so much is there about this fine countenance of that mild but divine ineffability which is appropriate to the Salvator Mundi; though certainly it would have been too youthful for the Last Supper -that is quite obvious.

While we regret the omission, we admire the

susceptible and refined feeling which occasioned it. It would appear that at the time of painting his chef d'ouvre, a certain delicacy of taste, an apprehensiveness of offending the Divine Majesty of perfect Art, had fallen as a veil before his faculties, so far as concerned his practical talent, or had for the time, borne down the ambition of his professional energies; for his Battle of the Standard, evinces that on other occasions such energies were not wanting to Da Vinci.

Some modification of the same delicacy, pervades the present performance. In execution it far transcends all preceding and contemporaneous art; the forms of the details of an historical picture (with the trifling exceptions which are mentioned above) had nowhere else been so pure: and though three centuries and a half have elapsed since it was painted, we nowhere see the half tints of flesh more successfully incorporated with the warmer carnations, or draperies more ably cast, or more richly coloured, or wrought up to such high-toned, yet sober, harmony.

The public are indebted for this exemplary work to the munificence of the late Rev. W. H. Carr, into whose possession it came from the Aldobrandini Collection, which circumstance of itself appears to denote originality. On the other hand, Mr. Ottley states, that it "was the opinion of the Milanese painters whom he met with at Rome, that it was done, with the help of Lionardo's drawings, by one of a numerous school of skilful artists formed by him during his long residence at Milan."

Need we add that we do not attach so much weight to this vague opinion of the modern Milanese, as if Mr. Ottley had published it as the opinion

formed by himself; because we believe that he would not have hazarded such an opinion, without instituting the necessary comparisons, whilst residing in the land, and among the works, of Lionardo da Vinci.

THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL.

(PERHAPS EY)

ERCOLE OF FERRARA.

THE beginnings, should not be mistaken for the ends, of Art. Early and elaborate works, where the professor, dim-sighted to higher attainments, felt partly trammelled by what was then conventional; and partly at liberty to excel his predecessors and compeers by more laborious attention to the minutiæ of nature than those predecessors and compeers had been able to display, are valuable as links, in concatenating the historical progress of Painting, without which the chain would necessarily be broken and imperfect. But, apart from this latter consideration, and viewed simply as pictures, these early performances are so inferior to works of subsequent production, that they call for indulgence and toleration, rather than appeal to any loftier sentiment.

A collection consisting entirely of such curiosities of Painting, must oppress the pictorial sense, or restrict it to the superstition of art, and the art of superstition: but in the National Gallery, placed as are these early productions of the Italian schools, and more particularly that of Ferrara, not far from the works of Rubens and Poussin, the juxta-position has

no useless influence upon our contemplations or our enjoyment. We can afford a few moments attention to elaborate gilding and enamelling; to extreme exactitude and toylike littleness; and to the legendary lore which once had the authority of gospel truth. While our self gratulations are thus honestly called forth, such a sprinkling of prosaic, or rather illiterate, painter's work—

"Mocking the art with colours idly spread"

does not abate, but rather enhances, our reverence for the poetry of painting. To quote from a forgotten book-as we do not quarrel with Gower or Chaucer, because they have not the elegant perspicuity and polish of Pope, so we tolerate in these ancient works certain imperfections which are now palpable, but which were not palpable at the times when their authors lived; and regard them rather as resulting from the absence of knowledge, than the usurpations of ignorance, or the determinations of thoughtalways contemplating or interpreting them with a reference to the coexisting state of public taste and information, at the several times when they were respectively produced. Meanwhile we cannot but think there is something illiberal, and even morbid, in that taste, or connoisseurship (of which however the instances are far less numerous than formerly), which confines its appreciation and restricts its affections to those old and immature works, and will not condescend to look at any thing modern, or will affect condescension upon such occasions. It is not, however, necessary to dwell upon a mistaken preference which punishes itself.

Whether this Conversion of St. Paul be from the

pencil of Ercole of Ferrara, appears to be somewhat doubted, but there is no doubt that it is an early production of the Ferrarese school. Ercole Grandi (which latter was the patronymic name of this artist) flourished, from the middle till toward the close of the fifteenth century; studied under Lorenzo Costa of Ferrara, and soon learned to excel his master. He first became famous at Bologna, where, according to Lanzi, he produced a work which Albano has pronounced "equal to Mantegna, Pietro Perugino, or any artist who professed the modern antique style; nor perhaps did any boast a touch altogether so soft, harmonious, and refined. He painted to advance the art, and spared neither time nor expense to attain his object, employing seven years on his fresco histories at St. Peter's, and five more in retouching them when dry-but this was only at occasional intervals.

"In the chapel of Garganelli, Ercole painted, on one side, the Death of the Virgin; and on the other, the Crucifixion of Christ; nor did he produce, in such a variety, any one head like another. He also added a novelty in his draperies, a knowledge of foreshortening; and to his heads such an expression of passionate grief (says Vasari) as can scarcely be conceived. The soldiers are finely executed, with the most natural and appropriate action that any figures up to that time had displayed.”

Many years ago, when this chapel was taken down, as much as possible of Ercole's painting was preserved and placed on the wall of the Tanara palace, where it may still be seen. It is, indeed, his master-piece, and one of the most excellent that appeared in Italy during his time, in which the artist