514 
no reafon why an arti fhould remain all 
his lifein the pefition of a {che lar. If te 
be animated by the paflion for giory, he 
will continue to fiudy in all his figures ; 
but this does not mean, that he ought to 
make what are rrchnicaby termed “fiudy 
figures. Canova’s fiatute of the Pugiiiit 
isnot a figure of this kind; that is, it is 
not -a figure, in which the artiit has ex- 
haufted ali he knows, in order to fhew the 
extent of his knowledge. 
Several criticifms, if I recolleé& rightly, 
have already been made on this figure. 
Some have not thought the ferms athletic 
enough, and the charaéter of mufcular 
ffrength fufficiently exprefied. For my 
part, I prefume, that M. Canova borrowed 
the idea of his two pugilifts, from the 
cgefign of a Greck vate (iaifely. called 
Etrufcan) in the new collection of Sir 
William Hamiltcn, by Tilchbein ; vol. I. 
p. §5 and 56. I fay merely the idea, 
becaule it is impofible to derive any thing 
more from tho!e defigns excepting, pet 
haps, the character, ‘the nature, and the 
ftyle proper for the fubject. In this cafe, 
one may ealily be convinced, 
fpeftion of this an:ique defign, that 
Canova has faithfully followed the indica- 
tion of the kird of nature, which the 
Greeks gave to their pugil hits. It fhould 
likewife be confisered, that having made 
two, if was natural that the ftatuary 
fhould vary his charaéters. We accord- 
ingly find that he has given the pugilift 
Damoxenes a more muicular confitution, 
and a more athletic form. 
Thefe two figures do not siuiale a 
group, as has been falf lyaflerted. hey 
merely have a connection with each other. 
Their a&tion as defcribed by Pautanias,, 
admitted of their being feparated. “The 
two adverfaries are reprefented at the mo- 
ment, when, according to the goo ment 
made between them, that each fhould 
alternately firike ard wait ee his oppo- 
nent’s blow, they are preparing either to 
give-or to receive one. Nothing could be 
more favourable than this difpoht on, to 
the development of two ifolated figures, 
which may be confidered feparately ; but 
which, 
each other. 
Wecan fearcely - difeuls in writ ing, what 
relates to the morai part cf the imitatioa 
of a ftatue. All that belongs to the 
gsound-work of an art, that conftitutes, 
with artifis in particular, the intrinfic 
~ merit of a work, is connected with details 
of obfervation, either technical or theore- 
tical, on which it is impoffiple to make 
one’s felf underitocd ; becaufe, on the one 
by the in- 
nevesthelefs, explain and fet off 
Memur of M., Cancvae 
[ jan. } 
hand, the language which exprefles rie 
ideas, 3 is {pcken and underftood a! by 
few ; ha” on the other, thele ideas a 
never be made clear, excepting in the pre- 
fence of the cbjeéis themikives: 
Tt mull be ailowed, 
pugilift Crevgas, that his pobtion 
tude are finely ceveloped, 
figure pre fent is, in every 
with regard fo the, 
and atti- 
and that the 
point of View, ah 
interefting object. . Some have thought 
that akties has made his figure tco flen- 
der in the lower part of the loins.) He 
himfelf writes to me, that if this part of 
tle bedy of the pugilift be compared with 
the fame part in what is called the Fura, 
and in the uppoted gladiator of Borghetle, 
it will be teen that thofe houres, which are 
regarded as claffic, have thatdefect, if it be 
one, ina greater degree then his. I Jike- 
wife think with him that the pefition with 
the fide projected forward, and the upper 
part of the body drawn back, together 
with the general movement of the figure, 
mutt produce-this effect, aod wat it is not 
a fault. 
A few critical cbfervations may, per- 
haps, be made on fome points cf the ftudy 
of the figure. It, for imfance, appears, 
that in the fore- part of the right fhoulde:, 
that is, at the joint of the arm whieh is 
thrown back, the expreffion of the collar- 
bone, and the oa parts, with the 
mufcles of the neck, is not fafficiently 
rane Iam aware that th-re is a power- 
ful tenficn in that part, and that the effet 
of that tenfion on the fkin is to diminifh 
the indication of the mufcles. It mu! 
alfo be confidered that we form our opi- 
nion only from an impreffion in plafter, 
in which certain traits fometimes difap- 
pear. But I perfiit in thinking that all 
this part is treated too largely. 
This manner of exprefang on a grand 
and large feale all the parts of a figure, is 
a merit which muft be acknowledged 
peculiar to M. Canova, and exiits in his 
tatue of his Fay iff ; there, every thing is 
erand, and the manner large 5 nothing is 
borrowed, but all is ealy and executed 
with eafe. 
Ts :t want of matter, or is it-a defire of 
ewing all the development of the hand 
placed upon it, that has eccafioned the 
flight concavity, which the ift has the ap- 
pearance of producing ig the fkull, at the 
% P of the head? This defect, I think, 
M, Canova would eafily remedy, by a 
flight alteration of the hair. With tegard . 
to ‘the latter, I do not think he has treated 
it in the large and bold ftvle of the beau~ 
tiful Grecian ftatues. His marble is cut 
with delicacy, and even with? elegance 5 i, 
rio 
bis 
ie 
