fettlements in the fouthern parts of Italy, which were known under the denomination of Magna Grecia; to them therefore the introduction of the arts of design cannot, as our Author reasons, be attributed, fince they had been long before cultivated by the Hetrurians.

But if our Author's hypothefis be the true one, how comes it that we find Greek letters, Grecian mythology, and even events of Grecian hiftory, on the Hetrurian vafes, urns, fepulchral monuments, and other ancient remains? Our Author ftruggles very learnedly with this objection; and he brings forth, with the affistance of Mazzochi (heavily loaded with Oriental and Grecian erudition), a copious variety of arguments and examples to remove it. There is fome confufion in the manner in which he employs this erudition; and a little more method and logic would have rendered his victory more evident and decifive. However, he proves, with at least a great degree of probability, fome points which indeed feem to remove the objection: he fhews that the Hetrurians and Greeks both derived their graphical or written characters from the Phenicians; the Hetrurians, firft, in order of time, as they practifed navigation and were a civilized people long before the Greeks; and this circumftance accounts for the refemblance which learned men have difcovered (and perhaps exaggerated) between the Hetrurian and Grecian letters; a refemblance which they have, according to our Author, erroneously employed to make us believe that the former were derived from the latter. He removes the objection brought from mythology, by obferving that the Tufcan divinities and heroes acquired the Grecian denominations in times pofterior to those in which they were known and worshipped in Hetruria, and he brings feveral remarkable examples, fuch as the name of Saturn, the ftories of the Titans, Phaeton, and Tantalus, to fhew that the moft ancient perfonages in Pagan mytho logy had an Italian origin. He obferves, moreover, that the character and genius of the religion and facred rites of the Hetrurians announce the most remote antiquity, and that many of them, according to the express affirmation of Plato*, were adopted in Greece. Herodotus is alfo brought in to prove the fame thing; for he affirms that the Greeks took many of their religious ceremonies and divinities from the Pelafgi, who, as we have seen above, paffed originally from Hetruria into Greece, and afterwards returned into Italy. It is true, that a respectable number of learned men agree in confidering the Achæans, Cretans, Lacedemonians, and other emigrants from Peloponnefus, as the founders of the greatest part of the Heturian cities. But our Author does not think his opinion, concerning the point in

queftion, at all affected by this argument, which M. Villoifon
has employed to prove that the Hetrurians derived the arts of
defign from the Greeks. Suppofing thefe pretended emigrations
to have been real, and not the fictions of Grecian vanity,
which, on many occafions, has made bold invafions upon hif
torical truth, in order to acquire the honour of a remote and an-
cient civilization, our Author thinks that his proofs of the real
ancient civilization of the Hetrurians, and the flourishing ftate
of their marine before the name of Greece was known in hiftory,
are abundantly fufficient to invalidate the conclufions drawn from
thefe emigrations against his hypothefis. This is the fubftance
of the first chapter of the work before us.

In the fecond, our Author, with a vast profusion of real and
extenfive learning, undertakes to prove, that Greece not only
derived the arts of defign from the Hetrurians, but that it was
highly indebted to this ancient people for its progrefs in thefe
arts. This tenet has ftill more the appearance of a paradox
than the former, and yet our Author has found out a method of
rendering it plaufible. He fets out by proving (as we may call
it) à priori, that the Hetrurians must have made a more rapid
progress than the Greeks, in the arts of defign. Why? Because
on the fpot where the first productions of an art appear, there is
naturally to be expected the greatest spirit of activity and ardour in
cultivating, improving, and bringing it to perfection. But this
metaphyfical argument is not decifive; for the fpirit of activity
which is thus fuppofed to be animated by invention, may be
counteracted by accidental circumftances. Winkelman affirms,
that the Hetrurians only carried the arts to a very limited and
fcanty degree of improvement and perfection, at which their
progrefs ftopped fhort, like that of the Chinese, who anticipated
the Europeans in feveral difcoveries, which they neither com-
pleted nor improved. He, indeed, alieges reafons for this fact
(if the fact be true), that are not more decifive than thofe brought
by our Author to fupport the other fide of the question. His
reasons are, ift, the fanguinary and gloomy character of
the religious rites of the Hetrurians, and their propenfity to
divination, which must have inspired a melancholy frame and
temper of mind, highly unfavourable to the culture and progrefs
of the arts; 2dly, their continual wars with the Romans, which
only ceafed with their entire deftruction as a people. This fe-
cond reason is abfurd in the extreme; fince it is well known, or,
at leaft, is well proved, in the work before us, that the moft
refined period of the arts among the Hetrurians was fome ages
anterior to their wars with the Romans. To the first of these
reasons our Author objects, that the theogony and religious wor-
fhip of the Hetrurians did not effentially differ from those of the
Greeks, and he makes feveral ingenious obfervations, which are
defigned

defigned to perfuade us that the fanguinary and gloomy character, afcribed by Winkelman to the Tufcan rites, was adapted to infpire a certain boldness and energy of mind, which, inftead of being an obftacle, is rather a powerful incentive to the cultivation and improvement of the arts. These observations are more especially juft with respect to certain fubjects that come within the fphere of painting and fculpture, we mean thofe of the terrible kind; and they, no doubt, have an important place in the fphere of the arts. Our Author even thinks that the beauties which are derived from this energy and elevation of mind are far from being inferior to thofe which proceed from the fimiles of the Graces upon an elegant fancy. We do not think that thefe different kinds of beauties ought to be appreciated by comparifon, because their merits are entirely diftinct and respective, like thofe of Fufeli and Albano. Our Author (if he dared to do fo) might have combated Winkelman's argument by a parallel cafe, which proves it inconclufive; for what rites are more gloomy, and, in fome refpects, more fanguinary, than the macerations, penances, flagellations, and other self-tormenting means of appeafing the Deity, the terrors of the inquifition, and the cruel feverities of monaftic difcipline, that degraded the fair and benevolent aspect of Chriflianity, in Italy, in the 15th and 16th centuries? and yet it was in the midft of this gloom that the arts came forth (one knows not how) with a fingular afpect of grace and grandeur, conducted by the Da Vinci's, the Raphaels, the Corregios, the Guides, and even the Friar Bartolomes. It is often the ill hap of our ingenious men to imagine connections in nature, which are contradicted by facts; and this happens, more especially, when thefe connections are established on partial views of the objects thus connected.

This was evidently the cafe of the ingenious Abbé Winkelman : he fixed his attention only on the inaufpicious influence which the gloomy theogony and rites of the Hetrurians may be fuppofed to have had, in oppofing the progrefs and culture of the arts among them; and he did not confider the other circumftances in the character and fituation of this people, that were adapted to counteract this influence, and to favour their improvement in the arts. Our Author avails himfelf of thefe; and it happens luckily for his argument, that the two circumftances, which, according to Winkelman, contributed chiefly to the progrefs of the arts in Greece, were remarkably combined in Hetruria, viz. a mild and happy climate, and a fuperior elegance of form and beauty of features that diftinguished the women of that country. To thefe circumftances may be added the love of mufic and poetry, which, agreeably to the teftimonies of all ancient records, reigned among the Hetrurians, and the benign influence of a free government, which, according to Winkelman, contributed to much

to the cultivation and progrefs of the arts in Greece. All these circumftances combined feem to promife a complete victory to our Author, in this keen, dubious, and elegant conteft.

The field, however, is not yet entirely gained; his adverfaries rally; and they are reinforced by two experienced and skilful combatants, the celebrated Count Caylus, and the learned and ingenious Profeffor Heyn, of Gottingen; who affirm, pofitively, that the Hetrurians changed, and confiderably improved, their ftyle and manner of operating in the arts, after the period of their commerce and communication with the Greeks. Nothing can be more mafterly than our Author's manner of repelling this attack: it is here that his victory feems complete; and after putting his adverfaries in confufion, by involving them in palpable anachronifms and contradictions, he beats them fairly off the field. What, fays he, was the period when the Greeks arose to reputation, and became deservedly models to other nations? It was after the defeat of the Perfians, a period many ages pofterior to that when the arts, even according to the acknowledgment of Count Caylus, had rifen to their highest improvement among the Hetrurians, a period when this latter people were exhaufted, dejected, and degraded by the wars in which they had been fo long engaged with the Gauls, the Romans, and the Samnites. Winkelman himself observed, in his history of the arts (and the obfervation beats down his hypothefis about his ears), that the most brilliant era of the grandeur, tranquillity, and arts of the Hetrurians, must be placed foon after the Trojan war. Count Caylus alío remarks (as imprudently for his caufe), in feveral paffages of his writings, not only that the mafterly productions of this people fuppofed neceffarily their having a perfect knowledge of the arts, but that (hear him!) they were marked with characters of originality, which rendered it impoffible to confound them with the productions of any other people. All this proves evidently, that it was at a period much pofterior to the era of the perfection of the arts among the Hetrurians, that this people borrowed any thing from the Greeks, who had been their difciples long before they became their makers.

Our Author not only repulfes his adverfaries in all their attacks, but he turns their own arms against them. If they avail themselves of the multiplicity of different flyles and manners obfervable in the works of Hetrurian arts, to fupport their hypothefis, he very ingeniously fhews, that an invincible argument is deducible from this very circumftance in favour of the remote antiquity of the arts in Hetruria, of their deriving their origin from that country, and of their having been carried on there during a long feries of ages. From the circumftance alfo of the arts ftarting up in Greece all at once, of their having been carried to perfection in a very fhort time, and declining foon after the

death

death of Alexander, he concludes, that the Greeks derived them from the Hetrurians: for, fays he, it is only by a flow and gradual progrefs that the arts can be brought to any high degree of improvement and elegance; fo that when their progrefs is rapid, and they come fuddenly to perfection in any country, this muft be owing to fome happy incident, fuch as the view of excellent models, furnished by fome other nations, where they had been anteriorly cultivated with fuccefs, and brought to a high degree of improvement. It was thus that, at the revival of the arts in Italy in the 15th century, the genius of Raphael, receiving a kind of inspiration from the contemplation and ftudy of the graceful and majestic remains of ancient fculpture, fo rapidly foared to perfection.

What this good reasoning is meant to prove, is farther confirmed by an appeal to facts. Our Author obferves, that in the productions, ftill remaining, of the most brilliant period of the arts in Greece, an unprejudiced eye, directed by competent knowledge, will eafily perceive, that the Grecian artifts have imitated the ftyle, and even borrowed the coftume of the Hetrurians of the earliest ages. This fact our Author proves by many examples that give it, at least, the very highest degree of probability. He points out the ftriking conformity between the fculptures of Phidias, and thofe that are obfervable on the Hetrurian vafes, and other ancient monuments. He finds the Doric capital in feveral Tulcan remains, that are palpably anterior to the progrefs of the arts, and even to their birth, in Greece. For thefe, and many other details of a fimilar kind, which deferve the attention of the antiquary and the artist, we refer them to the work of our very learned and ingenious Author; who concludes his fecond chapter with this obfervation, that it is often difficult to diftinguish the productions of Hetrurian art, from those of the first periods of the arts in Greece, on account of their refemblance to each other, and (which is ftill more remarkable) that feveral pieces of fculpture, difcovered in later times in Tuscany, refemble the productions of Greece in the moft improved period of the arts in that country.

Our Author difplays a great fund of geographical and topographical knowledge in his third and laft chapter, which is deigned to prove, that the feat and center of the fine arts in Italy, in the remoteft times, was the city of Mantua; but here we hall leave him in the place of his nativity, after thanking him cordially for the agreeable entertainment and real inftruction we have received from his learned, elegant, and ingenious work.

ART.