distinguish one of the leading styles of Italian art, it becomes necessary to employ it, in order to make ourselves clearly understood. We cannot, indeed, allow to the Roman School so extensive a range as we have assigned to that of Florence, in the first book; nevertheless, every one that chooses may apply this appellation to it in a very enlarged sense. Nor is the fact of other artists having taught, or having given a tone to painting in the capital, any valid objection to this term; since, in a similar manner, we find Titiano, Paolo Veronese, and Bassano, in Venice, though all of them were strangers; but, as they were subjects of her government, they were all termed Venetians, as that name alike embraces those born in the city or within the dominions of the Republic. The same may be said of the subjects of the Pope. Besides the natives of Rome, there appeared masters from many of her subject cities, who, teaching in Rome, followed in the steps of their predecessors, and maintained the same principles of art. Passing over Pier della Francesca and Pietro Vannucci, we may refer to Raffaello himself as an example. Raffaello was born in Urbino, and was the subject of a duke, who held his fief under the Roman see, and who, in Rome, held the office of prefect of the city; and whose dominions, in failure of male issue, reverted to the Pope, as the heritage of the church. Thus Raffaello cannot be considered other than a Roman subject. To him succeeded Giulio Romano and his scholars; who were followed by Zuccari, and the mannerists of that time, until the art found a better style under the direction of Baroccio, Baglione, and others. After them flourished Sacchi and Maratta, whose successors have extended to our own times. Restricted within these bounds, the Roman may certainly be considered as a national school; and, if not rich in numbers, it is at least so in point of excellence, as Raffaello in himself outweighs a world of inferior artists.