the Lady Julia, desired her to sit in it: for where the woman is fine, her dress needs not be so.

a

This portrait, dictated by good taste and simplicity, and far aloof from all meretriciousness, was celebrated long before it was brought to England; and deserves its celebrity, It is mentioned by tourists as " divine performance, full of life and character." Professor Phillips, of course an excellent judge of such matters, says, that "Sebastian finished his works with great care, folding his draperies with peculiar felicity, and giving great truth and exactness of action to the heads and hands." These praises are, in most points, applicable to the work before us, of which the hand is not less noticeable than the face. And the historian of Italian Art, records that Del Piombo "painted portraits and pictures for private rooms in great numbers, and with comparative ease; and we no where meet with more beautiful hands, more rosy flesh-tints, or more novel accessories than in these." In truth, notwithstanding that the partiality, or the policy of Michael Angelo, or his own professional ambition, induced Sebastian to undertake historical works, Portrait-painting was his forte.

There is a parallelism in the present picture, between St. Cecilia's palm-branch and the light edge of her veil that is near it, which is not quite agreeable, or consonant to the rules of art.

This picture, as well as the portraits of the Artist and Cardinal Hippolito, was in the Carr collection, and both came originally from the Borghese palace,

THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.

SEBASTIAN DEL PIOMBO.

(FROM THE DESIGN OF MICHAEL angelo.)

We have They are

CONCERNING this celebrated work, the opinions of at least three gentlemen, respected for their taste and picture-knowledge, are before the public. of course read them, as in duty bound. not concordant; and not having the honour to coincide perfectly with either of them, it seems incumbent upon us to offer some reasons for our differing, the occasion being of importance; since we cannot dissemble, or affect to admire, what we do not feel or judge to be really admirable. Neither can we implicitly adopt sentiments that are not our own— like the literary apothecaries, whom we purpose to notice in a future page.

After a word or two respecting the previous attainments in art of the painter-or chief painter of this remarkable picture, we will treat of the conception of the subject; the design; effect; execution; and the varying opinions respecting them.

The principal biographer of the Roman and Venetian artists, records of Sebastian, that he was "the most distinguished disciple of the school of Giorgione, to whose tuition he attached himself, after quitting Giovanni Bellini; and in the tone of his colours, and the fulness of his forms, imitated him better than any other artist. [He does not except Titian]. An altarpiece in San Gio Chrisostomo, from his hand, was by some mistaken for the work of his master, so strikingly does it abound with his manner. It may

be presumed, indeed, that he was assisted in the design, Sebastian being known to possess no surprising richness of invention; slow in the composition of most of his figures, irresolute, eager to undertake, but difficult to commence, and most difficult in the completion."

Now the absence that is here implied of the nounsubstantive faculty of genius, infers precisely the state and condition of mind on the part of Sebastian, which requires the extraneous support of another mind to lean against:-But let us not anticipate.

Professor Phillips here takes up the progress of the Venetian, and informs us, that "by the persuasion of Agostino Ghizi [which, according to Lanzi, should be written Chigi], a rich merchant of Sienna, he was induced to visit Rome, where the novelty of his style, and his skill in execution, soon drew him into public notice. In the contest of opinion which took place at that time, concerning the superiority in merit of Raphael or Michael Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, and gained his esteem and support. In consequence, he was favoured by him on all occasions; and so highly estimated, that he stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael; particularly by painting a picture in competition with that great man's last great work, the Transfiguration, which had just been placed with considerable eclât in the church of San Pietro à Montono. The subject Sebastian chose was the Resurrection of Lazarus, for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael's; and when completed was placed in the same consistory, and was very

highly applauded. The Cardinal de Medicis sent it to his bishopric of Narbonne, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans, and subsequently of J. J. Angerstein, Esq. who gave two thousand guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans Collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author; yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution." Thus far Professor Phillips.

We have perused other accounts of the origin, progress, and subsequent history, of this picture of the Resurrection of Lazarus, but they all concur in the two main points, that Michael Angelo and Sebastian united their talents with the view of eclipsing Raphael; and that, in the opinion of some of the best critics and of the majority of the critics-they have failed of their purpose, although it is readily granted that they have produced a noble work.

Concerning this famous competition, we shall probably have nothing more to say, or but little, since it is merely incidental to our subject. Ours must be a more abstract and isolated view of the production of Sebastian and first, with regard to the conception of the subject

We think that the depicted moment of time, has been injudiciously chosen. Sebastian has not painted the miracle, but contented himself with showing some of its immediate consequences, to the neglect of the most important. Instead of painting the miracle, as Rubens, Lievens, Rembrandt, and other artists have done, Michael Angelo and Sebastian del Piombo call upon us to assume the resurrection of Lazarus,

and attend to certain sceptical disputations, and factious altercations, which ensued thereupon.

Neither is any thing gained by this assumption, speaking either pictorially or religiously. On the contrary, instead of rendering the power and the glory of our Lord and Saviour more manifest, more impressive, and more worthy of belief, than it was before the miracle, it is apparently rendered less sounless it be to a very few of those who are assembled. Instead of the old Hebrew factions of Sadducees and Pharisees of which the former professed to deny, or proscribe all faith in, the doctrine of the resurrection —being silenced and dismayed by that of Lazarus, we see that they have already resumed their eager disputations, and that conviction has not reached far, nor proselytism made any progress. Instead of an awe-struck multitude, suddenly invaded by devotional sentiment, holding up and spreading forth their hands in speechless wonder, we see but a single individual in that action—perhaps the most expressive and appropriate figure in the whole composition, although that of a subordinate personage-a mere by-stander. The rest are, for the most part, unconvinced, disputatious wranglers, to join whom, Caiaphas the priest, is descending the steps of the necropolis, on the right hand, conducted by a zealot. Even the holy women (Martha and the Marys), who are approaching, and who are obviously not yet apprized of the resuscitation of their beloved friend, are made to appear somewhat incredulous; or why do they muffle up their nostrils, as if they expected-ay, as if they expected—notwithstanding the admonition and the assurance that Martha had recently received, that her "brother should rise again"-as if they expected,