1805.] 
ceive, is rather odly affociated with Mr. 
Hollis’s domeltics. In 1799 alfo, when 
a fubfcription was carried on by the friends 
of Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Hollis very réa- 
dily contributed sol. 
As to his being “* a fubfcriber to his 
works,’ I cannot clearly comprehend the: 
expreflion; none of them having been 
publifhed by fubfcription, except the firft 
edition of the Tranflatien of the New 
Teftament. But furely the purchafe of 
fingle copies of works, which any one of 
congenial taite, whether friend or foe, 
might be defirous of poficfing, could not 
delerve to be mentioned upon this occafion. 
The writer mutt have underilood, and de- 
figned to reprefent, that Mr. Hollis affift- 
ed their author, by pecuniary encourage- 
ment, to bring them before the public, 
If fuch be his meaning, I can confidently 
aflure him, thathe is quite miftaken. 
{ have not the leaft inclination to difpa- 
rage thereal merits of a gentleman whole 
courtefy of manners I have often expe- 
Memoirs of eminent Perfons—M. Canova. 
oll 
rienced ; but I apprehend that a very rea- 
fonable doubt may be-entertaied whether 
the late Mr. Hollis, while he refpeéted 
men of talents, poffefled a mind fuffici- 
ently enlarged to eftimate the importance 
of literary and fcientific purfuits, or that 
liberality of difpofition, which prompts 
to sencrous efforts for their advancement. 
At the fame time the zeal of friendthip is 
to be exculéd, if not commended, when, 
in drawing up a character, fhe makes the 
utmoft ufe of fcanty materials. JI ven- 
ture to call them {canty, as they are pre- 
fented to us in the Obituary, confidering 
that the fubject of the article appears, 
with the advantages of economical habits, 
to have enjoyed, during a loog life, a very 
ample fortune, part of which fell to him 
with an implied defignation of it to pub- 
lic purpofes, at leaft from the example of 
the former poffeffor. 
I remain, Sir, 
Your’s: 
J.T. Rurr. 
Hackney, 
Dec. 10, 1804, 
CLO VS SPAT 
MEMOIRS OF EMINENT PERSONS. 
a 
Account of M.Canova, the celebrated 
ITALIAN SCULPTOR, dis CHARACTER 
Qs ANARTIST, and of bis WORKS, far- 
‘ticularly his svarue of the PuGi+ 
List. By M. QUATREMERE DE 
QUINCY, 
F we analyfe, with a little attention, the 
I different manners of modern {calpture, 
we fhall difinguifh three methods which 
have been followed by the matters, or the 
{chools, which have enjoyed any reputa- 
tion. 
The firft is that, which more particular- 
ly propofed the imitation of antiqve fta- 
tues, as well as of nature. Among the 
mafters in this manner, mutt be reckoned, 
Donatello, Ghiberti, Benvenuto Cellini, 
John Goujon, John of Bologna, and fome 
others of the Florentine fchool. It will 
be found that, in general, their works 
pofleffed purity in the defign and grandeur 
in the figures; but that they facrificed truth 
more or lefs, Some of them have carried 
to excefs the qualities of the antique, 
and none attained its invaluable fmplicity. 
In the fecond clafs may be placed thofe 
who created a manner independent of the 
antique, and of the fimplicity of nature, 
either by the inftingt of their genius, or 
out of the affectation of making anewone, 
At the head of thefe mutt be placed 
Michael Angelo, whofe talents or whofe 
pride were too. great to permit him to 
imitate any manner whatever, and who 
chofe ratherto be the fir of the moderns, 
than the laft of the ancients: Bernini, 
whofe manner is fo contrary to the ancient, 
as to ferve for a negative definition of it} 
Puget in France, who likewife obtained a 
reputation only by the independence of 
his chifel and his tafte. 
The third manner, in my opinion, is 
that of the laft century, which in fifty 
years may perhaps no longer be thought ~ 
of; fo doubtful is it if the works of thofle 
whoadopted it will outlive their century. 
Iam {peaking of that method which, in- 
ftead of the ftudy of the antique and of 
nature, fubftituted the too limited ftudy 
of what artifts-term the model, and by 
means of which they flattered themfelves 
with being able to tread in the fteps of 
the great matters of antiquity. With the 
exception of a very {mall number, the 
works produced according to this method, 
may be recognized by the littlenefs of the 
ftyle, the meanne(s of the characters of the | 
head, the poverty of the details, and the 
bad tafte of the draperies, head-dreffes, 
&c. The fyftem was vicious throughout, 
even to the abufe of words. A model 
was taken for nature ; artifts did not per- 
ceive that the truth of nature isan abftrac- 
tion; that they can only ftudy nature by. 
generalizing their refearches, multiplying 
the points of comparifon, and extendiae 
their 
