criticism to be made upon Mr. Bartholdi's statues is that they are
violent and want repose. The Vercingetorix, the Rouget de l'Isle, the
Lafayette, all have this exaggerated stress of action. They have
counterbalancing features of merit, no doubt, but none of so
transcendent weight that we can afford to overlook this grave defect.

Coming now to the main question, which it is the design of this paper to
discuss, the inquiry arises: What of the colossal statue of Liberty as a
work of art? For, no matter how noble the motive may be, or how generous
the givers, it must after all be subjected to this test. If it is not a
work of art, the larger it is, the more offensive it must be. There are
not wanting critics who maintain that colossal figures cannot be works
of art; they claim that such representations of the human form are
unnatural and monstrous, and it is true that they are able to point out
some "terrible examples" of modern failures, such, for instance, as the
"Bavaria" statue at Munich. But these writers appear to forget that the
"Minerva" of the Parthenon and the Olympian Jupiter were the works of
the greatest sculptor of ancient times, and that no less a man than
Michael Angelo was the author of the "David" and "Moses." It is
therefore apparent that those who deny the legitimacy of colossal
sculptures _in toto_ go too far; but it is quite true that colossal
works have their own laws and are subject to peculiar conditions. Mr.
Lesbazeilles[A] says that "colossal statuary is in its proper place when
it expresses power, majesty, the qualities that inspire respect and
fear; but it would be out of place if it sought to please us by the
expression of grace.... Its function is to set forth the sublime and the
grandiose." The colossi found among the ruins of Egyptian Temples and
Palaces cannot be seen without emotion, for if many of them are
admirable only because of their great size, still no observer can avoid
a feeling of astonishment on account of the vast energy, courage and