18035. } 
rity over the arts exercifed by one, whofe 
genius, neverthelefs, greatly contributed 
towards their illuftration. Charies Le 
Brun, enjoying the favour and protection 
of the Sovereign, became the diftributor 
of works and rewards, and required that 
every artift fhould humble to his tatte, 
which was exclufive, and his character, 
which was imperious. It was neceflary 
that he fhould conform to his ideas, that he 
fhould be fervile, or endure perfecution.— 
Every production bore his fiamp, and 
had but one phyfiognomy. He give di- 
rections even for the ornaments of the 
iron-work belonging to the gates of Ver- 
failles, and even the Girardous fubmitted 
to work according to his plans. Thus, 
infead of the genius and originality 
which the great artiits of that age wou! 
have imprefled on their refpeétive per- 
formances, we obferve a cold monotony 
in the execution, a ft uniformity in the 
ideas ; for it was to flattery only that ar- 
tilts were permitted to devote their pencils. 
Some fuffered perfecution, and orhers 
abandoned the capital.. But after the 
death of Pouffin, Le Sueur, and Le Brun, 
there were left only the elements of that 
decay which the latter had prepared. It 
was fudden-and deplorable; for the arts 
were at the loweft ebb during the reign of 
Louis XV: 
It was about the middle of that reign 
that M. Vien, an artift whom France is 
{till fo fortunate as to poflefs, raifing 
himfelf above the confufion and ridiculous 
tafte which prevailed, applied himfelf to 
the ftudy of the principles of truth, -and, 
joining example to precept, led miftaken 
talent into the right track, and purified 
the School by fuperintending its inftruc- 
tion. The Minifter of the Arts, M. 
Dangiviller, had the merit to fecond this 
fortunate change, by giving employment 
to artilts of approved talents, and encou- 
raging them to proceed in this hopeful 
career. By thefe means the School ar- 
rived at fuch a degree of fplendour, that, 
in 1789, every department of the arts was 
cultivated with equal fuccefs, and France 
had at no period fo many diftinguithed 
artifts. 
Has painting made any advancement 
from 1789 to the year 10? ' The Seétion 
thinks, that, with fome flight deviation, it 
is nearly at the fame point as in 1789.— 
The fame means exift, increafed by 
youthful talents, which have aiready ac- 
quired celebrity. 
Some procefles for the employment of 
¢clours on porcelain, the application of 
Painting to panoramas, impreveinenis 
Proceedings of Learned Societies. 
Fey) 
made in the reftoration of piC@ures, are 
not, properly f{seaking, diicovertes ia 
painting ; they are fervices rendered by 
chemiltry, natural philofophy, geometry, 
and fkili, to the ars, and for which 
cheerfully acknowleges its graiitude. 
With refpect to the lattcr part of the 
Queftion of Government, the Class 
thinks, that, in order to advance and en- 
courage the art, and to perfect its ia- 
ftruction, it ts neceffary to fepport and 
improve the exiling imltitutions, that is, 
the Schools of Paris and Rome, and to 
beliow employments, honours, and re-_ 
wards, on diflinguifhed -talents. AU 
thefe means are at the difpofal of Govern- 
ment. df neglest, carelelsne{S, injaitice, 
and the want of difcernment, have inva- 
riably caufed the decline of the arts 5 the 
contrary methods muft make them prof. 
per. 
Painting and Sculpture are fitters. It 
would be impoffible to trace their hitery 
fucceffively, without introducing the fame 
features ; nor treat of -that whick confs- 
tutes their glory, without calling te re- 
collection ticir clofe relations of intereft 
and confanguinity. M. Moitte, the Reporter 
of the Section of Sculpture, was fenfible 
of this, and has referred to the Report of 
the Section of Painting for thole things 
which belong in common to the two arts 
in fuch a manner that they cannot be fe- 
parated. What has been faid, for ex- 
ample, of the encouragement, or of the: 
‘fervile fubjeCtion, of the ane, is equally 
applicable to.the other, as well as to all 
the reft of the arts. With regard te 
{culpture, there is, however, this diffe- 
rence, that it has peculiar difficulties to 
furmount, and that the means of its en- 
couragement are more rare. 
Without being opprefled by diflin- 
guifhed talents, as painiing was by Le 
Brun, the progrefs of {culpture was re- 
ftrained by the mediocrity of the artiits of 
the prefent age, who long kept it in ig-~ 
neble flavery. Their pupils have. once 
more reftored the art to its former liberty, 
in fpite of the obftinate refiftance of their 
mafiers. M. Moitte gives an account of 
the means by which this revoluiion was 
effected. 
He has likewife canfidered the art from 
the time of Francis I. and his refults are, 
as in painting and architeéture, that the 
firt French iculptors, produced by the 
reign of that. Prince, Sarrazin, Germain, 
Pilon, and particularly Jean Gougeon, 
were far fuperior to the Italians, theic 
matters. - 
But the art, which began to droop un- 
‘Mer 
