expreffion; from a want of thefe, they fell into an error, which of all others is the most deftructive of refemblance, and fubftituted heads without life, for an exact refemblance of the living. M.LEVESQUE blames thofe portrait painters who beftow too much attention on the acceffory or epifodical parts of their pictures. As the principal intention of a portrait is to prefent us with the features of an abfent perfon, they constitute the principal object of the picture; and a judicious artist will not fuffer the acceffory parts to divert our attention, from it. If we examine the portraits by Titian and Van Dyk, we see that the fubordinate parts are executed by a masterly hand: but it is the head alone that attracts our attention, and we fcarcely obferve the other objects, unless we furvey the picture with a particular intention to examine them. To thefe judicious painters, our author oppofes fome more modern artifts, and especially Rigaud; whofe portraits, he fays, feem to reprefent perfons infatuated with their wealth, and who are ftudious of making a pompous difplay of their riches, because it is only from them that they derive importance. After dwelling on the neceffity that every portrait fhould exhibit the perfon in the drefs and attitude to which he is most accuftomed, M. LEVESQUE obferves, that, though tranquil expreffion is moft fuitable to portraits in general, yet, in painting any celebrated perfon, it is not improper to exprefs a ftronger paflion to which he is peculiarly difpofed, or by which he may have been affected by fome important incident of his life. Thus, when Julius II. ordered Michael Angelo to reprefent him with a fword, he in fact directed him to give his ftatue a haughty menacing countenance. Thus alfo much applaufe has been conferred on the artift who reprefented M. De LallyTolendal as tearing with indignation the veil which covered his father's buft. This expreffion might indeed appear enigmatical to those to whom the father and the fon were unknown, but it is explained by the memoir, in which is written, My father was not guilty. Our author, with great juftice, cenfures what may be called the mythological portrait, in which a perfon is reprefented under the character of fome fabulous deity or hero. He obferves that, if the painter copies thofe minute particulars which diftinguifh the individual, he will reprefent neither deity nor hero, but only a common perfon ridiculously disguised as fuch. If he facrifices thefe particulars, in order to give dignity to his picture, he rifks the lofs of that refemblance which is effential to a portrait. If he endeavours to fteer between these two extremes, to give dignity to his model, without entirely loling fight of perfonal likeness, he will be in danger of being blamed Blamed both as portrait and as hiftory painter, for not preferving the exa&nefs of resemblance required of him in the former capacity, and for not attaining that dignity which is expected from him in the latter. In fhort, a picture of this kind, by an able artift, may be well defigned, well painted, and well compofed, but the vicious tafte inherent in it muft ever prevent its rifing above mediocrity. As a fmile embellishes the features, and gives them fpirit and vivacity, moft people with to be painted with a smile on their countenance: the confequence of this, fays M. LEVESQUE, is, that we often fee the mouth drawn into a forced fmile, while the eyes exprefs laffitude; and the artist is obliged to copy from a face, the parts of which are difcordant with each other. Notwithstanding the exact imitation of perfonal peculiarities which is required in portraits, M. LEVESQUE obferves, that the ideal is of importance in this, as well as in every other branch of the art. This confifts in viewing and expreffing thefe peculiarities with a certain greatnefs of manner; in a judgment which diftinguishes thofe peculiarities that are neceffary to characterize the individual, from others which ought to be neglected, and which tend to give to a picture an air of laborious little nefs. The countenance ought to be confidered as a whole, confifting of a few grand parts, and of many others of various degrees of inferiority. The greater parts are, the forehead, the eyes, with their fockets, the nofe, the cheeks, the mouth, and the chin. In the various forms of these features, the peculiarities may be traced, which conftitute perional refemblance. Thefe are the parts which the artift muft immediately catch, and exprefs with firmnefs. Thefe alone are fufficient for a portrait that must be seen at a distance: but as pieces of this kind are generally intended for a nearer examination, the painter may afterward felect, from among the inferior parts, fuch as may give more exactnefs to the resemblance, and more life to the features. The Ideal of portrait painting is the art of apprehending thofe forms and peculiarities, whence refult the general effect of bringing the perfon to our recollection. It is not the face itself, fuch as it would be represented by a mask moulded on it; it is only the appearance, the effect, the idea of it; and, though it may feem paradoxical, it is a moft certain truth, that this idea, judiciously apprehended and transferred to the canvafs, will produce a resemblance more lively, ftriking, and expreffive, than any that can be moulded from the face itself. The articles Sculptors and Sculpture are very interesting, as they contain an account of the principal artiits, both ancient and and modern, together with an hiftorical view of the progress of the art fome part of thefe articles is compiled from various authors, by M. LEVESQUE, who has enriched it with many original obfervations; and part of it was written by the celebrated M. Falconet. As thefe fubje&ts are too extenfive, and as the manner of treating them is too particular, to be analyzed within our limits, we muft only mention M. LEVESQUE's hypothefis refpecting a custom among the ancients, of painting their ftatues of clay with a red colour, efpecially thofe which reprefented Jupiter and Pan. The fact itself was obferved by Winkelmann; and our author thinks it may be afcribed to the very ancient ufage of ftaining thefe images with the blood of the victims he fuppofes that, when this cuftom was abolished, painting in fuch a manner as to preferve the appearance of it, was adopted in its fled. From the account which we have here given of the nature of this work, and from the fpecimens of the obfervations which it contains, the reader will naturally conclude with us, that it cannot be otherwife than ufeful to the ftudent in the arts of painting and feulpture, as well as interefting to thofe who with to acquire a general knowlege of the various fubje&s which it Sow..n. difcufles. ART. II. Nouvelles Nouvelles: i. e. New Tales. By M. DE FLORIAN, of the French Academy, and Member of thofe of Madrid, Florence, &c. 12mo. pp. 278. Paris. 1792. WE E have more than once had occafion to speak with corfiderable applaufe of the author of the production before us. M.DEFLORIAN hele defcends from the pomp of poetic diction and epic story, to reprefent, in a more fimple yet not less pleafing language, the characters and incidents of common life. The novels here published are fix in number: we have perufed fome of them with pleafure, but they are not all of equal merit. We cannot help wifhing that M. DE FLORIAN, in delineating his characters, had confined himfell to his countrymen, as he muft naturally be better acquainted with them, thân with individuals of foreign nations, whofe manners he muit learn from books, and of whofe perfonal peculiarities he cannot be fuppofd to have an accurate knowlege. Inftead of thus limiting himfelf-in order to give an appearance of variety, he has laid the fcene of each tale in a different country, and has even made excurfions to the diftant regions of India, Africa, and South America, in fearch of characters, which might have been difplayed to greater advantage, had his inftances been felected from thofe with whom his readers, as well as himself, might be fuppofed to be more converfant.-A tranflation of these novels has appeared; of which we fhall take farther notice. Sow..n. ART. II. Mémoires d'ure Société célébre, &c. i e. Memoirs of a ce- TH HE preface to this publication is a laboured apology for the Jeluirs, who, if we may believe the Abbé GROSIER, have been molt unjustly vilified by their numerous enemies. We fhall not enter into any difcuffion of this subject; because, however we may condemn fome of the principles and maxims of the order, we are very far from extending our cenfure to every individual of which it confifted; and we are here required to confider thefe reverend fathers, not as the difciples and followers of Ignatius, but as members of the republic of letters, which certainly received greater fupport and fervice from them, than from any other of the Romith clergy. The volumes before us contain memoirs feleaed chiefly from the Journaux de Trevoux, a periodical work publifhed by the Jefuits, confifting of about eight hundred volumes, beginning with the commencement of this century, and continued down to the year 1762. The papers are very properly arranged in feveral claffes, according to the fubjects to which they relate. Thefe are, Scriptural Learning-The Fathers of the Church, and other ecclefiaftical writers-Hiftory, ecclefiaftical, civil, and literary-Antiquities and Mythology-Medals - Literature-Moral Philofophy-Phyfics-Geography - Natural Hiftory-Mathematics and Aftronomy-Medicine and Surgery. Amid fo great a variety of fubjects, we had hoped to find entertainment at leaft, if not information, fufficient to compenfate for the labour of toiling through fo many pages. In the papers under the first two claffes, however, we cannot complain of difappointment, because we are too well acquainted with Romifh theology, to expect any rational and liberal explanations of fcripture from thefe fubmiffive votaries of fuperftition. The fubjects here treated are of very little importance, and are difcuffed in a tedious manner. Moft of the paffages of fcripture, the explanation of which is attempted, relate to points of chronology, concerning which nothing except conjectures can be offered. There is indeed a critical differtation on the hiftory of Jonah, in which the writer objects to the opinion that the prophet was fwallowed by a fhark; and fuppofes that he lay three days in the mouth of a whale, which, he contends, might afford him an apartment fufficiently fpacious and tolerably dry. As we had rather remove difficulties than raife them, we shall offer no objections to this very philofophical hypothefis, which Suarefius, Petaloffius, and other learned commentators, have fo ably maintained, and in fupport of which, fome of thefe gentlemen tell us that there are whales with mouths fo large, that a man on horfeback may ride into them with the utmost eafe. It is, however, no more than justice to thofe divines, who contend that the fish in queftion was a thark, to remind our readers, that one of this Jefuit's objections is very eafily obviated: he pretends that a fhark's teeth are fo placed, that, had the animal been ever fo kindly difpofed, Jonah could not poffibly efcape from his confinement with a whole fkin but if, as the Jewish commentators fay, this fish was above three thousand years old, we may eafily fuppofe that it had lost its teeth; for, when we have once affumed the marvellous, one conjecture is juft as valid as the other. However, for we mean not to treat this nor any other part of scripture hiftory with levity, nothing is more contemptible than the folly of those commentators, who adopt the most improbable conjectures, and give their fanction to the most abfurd and incredible tales. If the ftory of Jonah be literally true, it must be refolved into an immediate exertion of divine power, to which every thing that does not imply a contradiction is poffible; and the most aftonishing part of it is the prefervation of the prophet, in circumftances fo unfavourable to all the functions of animal life, which cannot be explained by any of the hypothefes which thefe laborious fons of dulnefs have invented: but if, as is infinitely more probable, the whole be no more than a figurative mode of expreffion, to denote an extraordinary deliverance from circumftances of great and durable danger, all their nonfenfical explanations are not only needlefs, but hurtful; as they tend to involve the fcripture in that contempt which is due only to its abfurd commentators, Under the third clafs, we find a criticifm by Father BROTIER, on a paffage in Diodorus Siculus; in which the hiftorian affirms that Egypt once contained eighteen thousand cities; that, under the reign of Ptolemy the fon of Lagus, there were three thousand; and that the number of inhabitants, which had once been seven millions, was then reduced to three millions. The Father thinks that, in this place, there must be fome error in the numbers; and that, inftead of feven, we ought to read twenty-feven millions, and thirteen millions, instead of three. In a letter concerning the contradictory accounts given by Herodotus and Xenophon, of the death of Cyrus, Father TOURNEMINE decides in favour of the latter; he obferves, that |