ng to any criticism which concludes insensibility
of mind to Raffaelle, and which is rather inconsistent with the judgment
made by Mr Fuseli, that he was the painter of expression, from the
utmost conflict of passions, to the enchanting round of gentler emotion,
and the nearly silent hints of mind and character--we look to the object
of the painter in this his series of works called his Bible. The first
five pictures represent only the act of creation--the Deity, the
Creator--all nature, is as yet passive--even adoration, the point chosen
by Michael Angelo, might be said scarcely to have begun--the plan is
developed, not put in action. As yet, the Deity is all in all--Eve, his
gift to Adam, is the last of this division of the series. As in Genesis,
there is the bare, short statement, grand from its simplicity, and our
knowledge of its after consequences; but in the words unimpassioned--so
Raffaelle, that he might make his pictorial language agree with the
written book, with utmost forbearance, lest he should tell more, and
beyond his authority, in this portion of the series manifestly avoids
expression, or the introduction of any feeling that would make the
creatures more than the most passive recipients of the goodness of their
Maker. Nor is there authority to show, that as _yet_ they were fully,
perfectly conscious of the nature of the gifts of life and
companionship; and we certainly do not agree with Mr Fuseli, that it was
a moment for Adam to show his sensibility to the personal charms of
Eve--the pure Adam--nor was he--the as yet untransgressing Adam--to feel
fear, in "the awful presence of the Introductor." Raffaelle's aim seems
to have been, to follow the text in its utmost simplicity, that the
unlettered might read--and this justifies in him the personality of the
Creator, and the apparently manual act of his creation, corresponding
with the words--"God _made_." The "allegoric drama" of the Church
empire, that fills the stanzas of the Vatican, is praised by Mr Fuseli,
with a full understanding of the purpose of the painter, and feeling for
its separate parts. He does not cavil, as some have done, at the
anachronisms. "When," says an able, reflecting, and very amusing
author,[2] "Aristotle, Plato, Leo X., and Cardinal Bembo, are brought
together in the school of Athens, every person must admit, that such
offences as these, against truths so obvious, if they do not arise from
a defect of understanding, are instance