- 
1800. ] 
and little is retained but a chaos~of in- 
diftin& impreffions. The bufts and hitto- 
rical ftatues claimed the largeft thare of 
our attention ; and could we have devoted 
to thefe alone the time occupied by run. 
ning over the whole colleétion, we fhould 
have beea more inftructed and lefs wearied. 
~There aré feveral reafons for the intereft 
thefe objects infpire. As monuments of 
art, and data for the hiftory of its progre/s, 
they muft be efteemed by the antiquary 
and man of tafte ; by their connection with 
the memorable events of former: times, 
they recall to the mind of the hiftorian the 
ftudies which have delighted him in the 
clofet, and fitted him for the importane 
{cenes of publication. They introduce 
him, as it were, to the perfonal acquaintance. 
. of diftinguifhed characters, with whofe 
names he had been long familiar. And 
where they can be relied upon as genuine 
refemblances, they offer to the phyfiogno- 
mift a feries of invaluable examples for 
the advancement and illuftration of his 
f{cience.s ‘There are fome in this collection, 
however, whofe authenticity I fhould be 
inclined to call in queftion. 
the bufts of Achilles, and fuch like poe- 
tical perfonages. ‘The chiflél has its poe- 
tical licence, as well as the pen; and its 
fictions fhould be as current in the regions 
of tafte and criticifm. But the butts of 
Brutus, who expelled the Tarquins, Col- 
latinus his colleague, and Coriolanus, 
fhould belong to hiftory. Yet, where 
were the ftatuaries to preferve their por- 
traiture? When Tarquin the Proud de- 
termined to fet up the ftatués of Olym- 
pian Jove, he was obliged to fend for an 
artift to execute it from among the Vol- 
feians : and that, long after the eftablifh- 
ment of the Republic, the Romans had 
no ftatuaries among them, may be fairly 
prefumed from the circumftance of their 
erecting columns only, to the memory of 
thofe citizens who had diftinguifhed them- 
felves by illuftrious ations.  Self-love 
and anceitral vanity made no delay in fub- 
fituting- images in the place of thefe, 
when the ftate of the arts «permitted. 
Painting does not appear to have been 
cultivated in Rome till the fecond Punic 
war; and it was ftill later before ftatuary 
was introduced. Thefe, therefore, mutt 
be. confidered alfo as poetical portraits. 
But there are others againft which no cb- 
jections will lie in point of time, of whofe 
authenticity, neverthelefs, one cannot. hut 
entertain fome doubt. The dignified 
compolure and intelleétual power exhi- 
bited in. the features. of Theophraftus 
correfpond, indeed, with the. charaéter 
MonTuixy Mac, No. 54, 
I pafs over 
Pedeftrian Excurfion through England and Wales. | 17 
and writings of that philofopher ; and the 
calm benignity and engaging foftnefs of | 
Didia Clara (daughter of Didius Julia- 
nus) make one ttruggle to believe it a 
genuine portrait, notwithftanding its more 
than mortal beauty. The fordid mean- 
nefs and infenfate cruelty that debafe the 
features of Lepidus the triumvir ; the 
ftupid indolence and barbarity of the em- 
peror Claudius ; and the bloated, intempe- 
tate, licentious, effeminate, mifchief-medi- 
tating countenance of Nero, -with his 
purfed-up, pouting, diftorted mouth, and 
aflaflin arm wrapped up in bis cloak ; 
brand thefe portraits refpectively with the 
indubitable mark of authenticity. Many 
others, alfo, are the very beings a phyfio- 
gnomift would expect them. Even Se- 
neca, notwithftanding his open mouth, 
and the mixtare of voluptuoufnefs and in- 
tellectual power blended in the lines and 
folid parts of his facé, will pafs mufter 
very well. Such, I make no doubt, were, 
the genuine lineaments of the philofopher, 
whole ¢¢ learning and brilliant genius’’.the 
flagitious but penetrating Agrippina con- 
fidered as fit inftruments ‘* to make the 
road to empire f{mooth and level to her 
fon;” whole ‘* gratitude” fhe forefaw 
** would fix him'in her iatereff, a faithful 
counfellor, and her friend by fentiment ; 
while a fenfe of former injuries would 
make him the /ecretexemy of Claudius*.”” 
In fhort, the philofophy of Seneca was 
not like that of Socrates. It was not of- 
the heart, but of the head; and though 
it taught him to die with the magnanimity, 
it could not influence him to live with the 
purity, of a philofopher. But, ean the 
man whofe mind has been nuftured with 
the love of Roman liberty, believe that 
Marcus Brutus was a gloomy, fordid, and 
malignant ruffian? Yet, fuchare the charac- 
teriftics of the buft of that famous Roman 
in the veltibule. Scarcely ever did I be- 
hold fo hideous a contraction of feature. 
Tt is affaffination perfonified. . There is; 
indeed, in the Great Room, another buft 
of this fame Brutus, refembling the above 
in many refpeéts, but not trenched with 
the {ame villainous expreffions. Yet,even 
in this, there is little benignity ; and we 
feek in vain for that amiable and philofo- 
phical tendernefs fo finely delineated by 
Shakefpeare +, and fo generally afcribed 
to him by hiftorians. What fhall we fay 
to this? Atre the portraits fictitious ? Or 
have we been impofed upon by legendary 
cre 



ey 
* See Tacit. Ann. b. xi, f, 8. 
{-Shak, jul. Cxfar, particularly in AQIE, 
and Act LV. 
Scene l. Scene Wil. 
c 
panegyrics? 
