Transcriber’s Note
Obvious typos and missing punctuation corrected.
Antiquated use of ‘V’ for ‘U’, older spellings (e.g. opake),
inconsistent spellings (e.g. artist names and work titles), and some
inconsistencies in formatting of text have been retained.
Work titles “Tiger Hunt” and “Tiger taking the Water” have been added
to the captions of Plates XXXVI and XXXVII respectively.
Small caps in the original are represented by ALL CAPS.
Italics in the original are represented by underscores surrounding the
_italic text_.
Superscripts in the original are represented by a caret ^ preceding the
raised character.
The first plate shows a lion’s head breaking through an engraved
tablet, removing some of the letters in the middle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 1
TWENTY ENGRAVINGS
of
LIONS TIGERS
PANTHERS & LEOPARDS
BY THO LANDSEER
from ORIGINALS by STVBBS
RVBENS SPILSBVRY.
REMBRANT & EDWIN
REYDINGER LANDSEER
with an ESSAY on 1823
the CARNIVORA
by J. Lan]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGRAVINGS
OF
LIONS, TIGERS,
PANTHERS, LEOPARDS
DOGS, &c.
CHIEFLY AFTER THE DESIGNS OF
SIR EDWIN LANDSEER,
BY HIS BROTHER,
THOMAS LANDSEER.
PRINTED FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1823 AND 1828.
LONDON:
HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
MDCCCLIII.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF PLATES.
DESIGNER ENGRAVER
1 Lion couchant, _Frontispiece_ EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
2 Leopard, after Ridinger SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
3 Lions, after Rubens SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
4 Tiger, from Nature SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
5 Leopards, after Rubens SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
6 Contending Group, from Nature EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
7 Lion and Snake, from Nature SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
8 Senegal Lion and Lioness, after SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
Ridinger
9 Lion and Tiger, after Stubbs SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
10 Tigress, from Nature T. LANDSEER _T. Landseer_
11 Lions, after Rubens SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
12 Panthers, after Stubbs SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
13 Panthers, after Stubbs SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
14 Leopards and Panthers, after Stubbs SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
15 Lions, after Rubens SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
16 Lions, after Rubens SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
17 Lioness and Bitch, from Cross’s EDWIN _T. Landseer_
Menagerie LANDSEER
18 Lion, after Ridinger SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
19 Tiger and Indian Bullock, from Nature EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
20 { Senegal Lion, after Ridinger }
{ Black-maned Lion, after Rembrandt } SPILSBURY _T. Landseer_
{ Lioness, after Ridinger }
21 Neptune, a Newfoundland Dog EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
22 Brutus, a Terrier EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
23 Portrait of a Cross of the Dog and Fox EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
24 Dogs setting a Hare EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
25 Vixen, a Scotch Terrier EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
26 Fox Hounds of the Hatfield Hunt EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
27 Proctor, Study of a Blood-hound’s Head EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
28 Bob, a favourite Terrier EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
29 The Poacher, “The Wily Fox” EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
30 Alpine Mastiff EDWIN _T. Landseer_
LANDSEER
31 Old Dog looks like a Picture EDWIN _J. Webb_
LANDSEER
32 Fight between “Jacko Maccacco,” }
a celebrated Monkey, } T.
and Mr. Thos. Cribb’s } LANDSEER _T. Landseer_
well known bitch “Puss” }
33 Little Billy, a celebrated Bull Dog T. LANDSEER _T. Landseer_
34 Black Cap, a Harrier’s head G. H. LAPORTE _T. Landseer_
35 Dead Red Deer EDWIN _J. R. Scott_
LANDSEER
36 Tiger Hunt T. LANDSEER _T. Landseer_
37 Tiger taking the Water SIR C. _T. Landseer_
D’OYLY, Bart.
38 Elephants returning from the Hunt SIR C. _T. Landseer_
D’OYLY, Bart.
39 Red Deer R. HILLS _T. Landseer_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARNIVOROUS QUADRUPEDS.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
That there has hitherto existed no good book of Engravings of the nobler
wild animals, to assist the progress of the student in that department
of Art, is to be regretted. The talents of Mr. JOHN SCOTT, brought into
action by those of GILPIN, COOPER, and the REINAGLES, have presented the
public with excellent representations of the distinguished ornaments of
the turf: the sports of the field, and the habits and manners of the
canine race, were also duly honoured: but of the ferocious TIGER tribe,
and the lordly LION, we have nothing extant that would bear critical
inspection, beyond a few detached prints:—nothing like a collection of
figures, whose justness and accuracy of form, action, character, and
expression, might be relied on.
Does any reader imagine that the various Etchings which have been
performed—chiefly abroad—by Artists of no mean ability, may be
considered as exceptions? They are not exceptions: or at best, the
number which might be so regarded is but small, and those, for the most
part, of dimensions not accommodated to the drawer of the cabinet, or
the shelf of the library.
But they are not objectionable on this ground alone. Speaking of them in
the aggregate, the heavier charge lies against them of being
insufficient to those purposes of taste and information which are the
ends of Art. Even those after TITIAN and after RUBENS (the latter of
whom has perhaps painted a greater number than any other of the old
masters) are far more deficient in form, character, and expression, than
is generally supposed, or than will be easily believed, by those who
have not actually compared them with the Lions, Leopards, and Tigers of
Nature. They have been taken too much on the credit which attaches to
the great names of their authors.—Nor is this intended to impugn the
merits, as historical or poetical painters, of those distinguished
Artists, but simply as an assertion of truth. It is possible, that as a
painter of allegory, RUBENS might consider that strong infusion of
_human_ form, character, and expression, by which his Lions, for
example, are distinguished, as necessary, or conducive, to his
allegorical purposes; or, it is possible that his knowledge of this
animal may not have been thoroughly well-grounded, and that he may have
laboured under early prejudice of mind, or of vision, in this part of
his education as a Painter, and may not have seen Lions as they really
are. This is what the writer is most inclined to believe, (though not to
insist); for even in treating the subject of Daniel in the den of
Lions—the scene of which, by the way, he has not represented as a royal
menagerie, but as a wild, rocky cavern—his animals partake of the
artificial character of which we cannot bring ourselves to approve.
Of this fact, however, we purpose to exhibit proof with our assertion.
Improved versions, to the best abilities of our Artists, of some of
these Lions of RUBENS and the Assyrian king, will here be introduced,
which the reader, who pleases, may compare with the originals. Our
second, third, and fourth Plates are of the number.
The Lions of RUBENS are _humanized_. We do not intend to discuss at
length whether the ideality of allegorical painting required this: we
only state the fact: yet the opinions which we felt at liberty to form
on the subject, we feel at liberty to utter. So much in apology for
using the licence of asserting that the heads of many of the Lions of
RUBENS rather resemble those of frowning old gentlemen decorated with
Ramillies wigs; as if Nature’s journeymen had made _manes_, and not made
them well. There is a profusion of flowing and curling hair, which seems
rather to solicit the unguents of the perfumer, than to have endured the
torrid heats of the desert, or the rough storms of the forest. The shag
of a Lion’s mane is a very different sort of thing.
However such dressed Lions may be thought to accord with Allegory, they
are demonstrably at variance with Nature. To be sure, what might become
a Lion in the procession of the Cardinal Virtues, might be rather
unsuitable in his den, or within the precincts of those wild haunts,
where he is accustomed to roam in his natural state. We have often read
of the fabled Men-bulls, or (Minotaurs,) and we find such on the coinage
of Crete. These allegorical creatures of RUBENS, which, alas! have
sometimes been _quoted_ by Artists without half his genius, and placed
in savage conflicts, or beside their Britannias—are a species of
Men-lions. Placed among the Sabæan sculptures, they might pass for
incarnations of Sol in Leo; but would very ill pass for Leo alone.
Among the observers of this poetic improvement, or this natural and
unpoetical deficiency, on the part of RUBENS, TITIAN, JULIO ROMANO, and
other painters, both ancient and modern; and of the consequent
_desideratum_ on the part of the public, of a cabinet or library
collection of the nobler wild animals in a state of Nature, so as to
answer the purposes of reference, while they conduced to the pleasures
of Taste, were Mr. EDGAR SPILSBURY and Mr. THOMAS LANDSEER. Whether or
not the public “looked up to them for light” on that subject, (to use
the language of STERNE,) they thought the Public “deserved it;” and they
therefore, as the best practical means of eliciting that light, first
copied the general forms and attitudes of most of the wild animals that
appear in this book, from the old masters—generally speaking, from works
that are well known—and then, went to Nature and corrected the details.
They carried with them what, in those ancient masters, was meritorious
in composition, attitude and chiaroscuro, and brought away, to the best
of their ability—superadding it to, and blending it with, the
above—accuracy of detail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 2
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LEOPARD after REYDINGER.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every artist does best, that which he is best qualified and best
disposed to do. In completing the number of plates that has been found
necessary for the Work, Mr. EDWIN LANDSEER has chosen to proceed toward
the same purpose, upon a different principle. He has gone, without any
introductory medium, directly to the living animals, and has exhibited
the savage manners and habits of these quadrupeds, according to his own
ideas and observations.
On the distinction between CHARACTER and EXPRESSION, we shall now
deliver our opinion. By the _Character_ of an animal, we mean those
permanencies of his look and features which he always offers to view
when in a placid, or unimpassioned state: by his _Expression_, the
variations of muscular action superinduced on character, to which he is
liable, as the storms of passion sweep by, and his mind becomes agitated
by external circumstances acting on the ardours of his instinct.
The former, seems to hold its court in the solid and massy parts: the
latter, agitates, ofttimes rebelliously, the nerves and muscles.
Character is ever present, both in the animal countenance, and in the
“human face divine.” The most violent expression does not proscribe, or
obliterate, character. Individuality consists of it, as far as concerns
external appearance; and it forms the system of vowels of the language
of Nature, without which no Expression could be.
Whoever regards the faces of a flock of Sheep, will see in them an
infinite variety of Character, with very little Expression, and that
little without diversity: and if we descend a step lower in the scale of
being, and contemplate the finny tribe, where Character is not wanting,
we find no Expression at all. Even Trees and inanimate objects, possess
Character. We recollect a poetical friend of ours, now in Italy, saying
that every tree and every rock had a _face_—but of this we are not so
certain; though very certain, that there is enough of _Character_ in
rocks and trees, to make a poet think so.
_Character_ and _Expression_, in the carnivorous class of animals, to
which we here solicit attention, are always co-existent—their
proportions varying with the existing occasions—in pictorial exhibitions
of such subjects.
No. II.
There is much Character, and little Expression, in the reposing Leopard
with his sheathed claws, which is shewn in the present engraving, copied
by Mr. SPILSBURY from RIDINGER, and corrected from Nature. RIDINGER was
an artist of great power, who studied wild animals in their sequestered
haunts, as is shewn in his grand forest back-grounds; and who, generally
speaking, left little or no room for others to improve, except on some
few of his inferior works. The present is an interesting and beautiful
animal, yet there is a latent capability of mischief characterised in
his countenance, and we might ask, in the language of Job, “Who shall
dare to rouse him up?”
No. III.
TWO COUCHANT LIONS, AFTER RUBENS, taken from his celebrated picture
before alluded to, of the Prophet Daniel incarcerated in the den. The
Lions are here supposed to be miraculously held in a state of
tranquillity. Here, too, is not much Expression, but an extraordinary
grandeur of Character, suited to the greatness of an occasion where the
Deity himself especially interferes to seal up the voracious energies of
the most terrible of his creatures, in calm submission. There is a
character of royal dignity mingled with this submission, which is very
impressive, and even sublime.
The writer esteems this to be a successful restoration of the Nature
that was wanting in the prints of this subject, (which has often been
engraved by PICART and others,) after RUBENS. The original picture it
has been our ill-fortune never to have seen. The shaggy manes, and the
latent terror that sits gloomily enthroned in the open eyes of the
superior Lion—suited to the darkness of the den, and the nature of this
animal’s sense of vision,—are as well thought of, as they are executed;
and are varied with much address from the closed eyes of the couching
Lion beyond, of which also the character is most happily marked. A
powerful and divine spell possesses them both.
No. IV.
THE TIGER WHICH MARCHES IN OUR PROCESSION, without an object before him
to call forth emotion, possesses a calm character, combined with the
resistless strength of that dreadful quadruped; whose very tranquillity,
in his leisure sauntering, when no excitement is acting on his nerves,
has an appalling effect.—His brow is clouded, though his claws are
sheathed. There is a possibility of a dreadful storm which may not be
far distant, and that is enough to stamp the Tiger’s character. None
shall dare to arouse his energies, nor to encounter them when aroused.
No. V.
THIS GROUP OF PLAYFUL LEOPARDS, AFTER RUBENS, must be supposed to belong
to the jocund train of Bacchus, since they are luxuriating at their
ease, among grapes and vine branches. These Leopards are doubtless
intended to have a degree of playful expression—induced perhaps by the
exhilarating juice of the grape: and we should “guess” (as _Jonathan_
says) that this group was studied from a litter of half-grown kittens.
Few, however, except the sailors who were accustomed to gambol with the
Tiger-cub on board the Pitt East-Indiaman, would like to venture to
frolic _with_ them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 3
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LIONS after RUBENS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 4
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
TIGER after NATURE.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 5
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LEOPARDS after RUBENS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 6
_E. Landseer del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
CONTENDING GROUP after NATURE.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. VI.
In this GROUP by MR. EDWIN LANDSEER there is much of violent animal
_Expression_, and Character fades before it, or rather, is absorbed in
it. It tells a story of the past as well as the present, and is pregnant
with a catastrophe not difficult to anticipate from the actions and
expressions of the parties engaged. A FAWN has been seized by a LEOPARD,
who has been despoiled of his prey by a more powerful TIGER. The Tiger
in his turn becomes the victim of an enraged LION.
The expression of the wounded Leopard is that of painful suffering
mingled with dread. Together, they amount to agony. He shrieks while he
submits. The Tiger is still enraged and resisting, though astounded with
the power and suddenness of the Lion’s attack. He is losing his energy
of resistance, and is beginning to feel that all resistance is vain. He
roars with anguish; while his expression is that of terror, and
indignation not yet subdued.
The Lion, who has just made his thundering spring, appears conscious of
having fatally seized his adversary, and luxuriates fearlessly in his
victory; and with a powerful and just expression of carnivorous
enjoyment.—Meanwhile the characters of the animals, severally, are
faithfully and specifically represented.
Although our main purpose be to exhibit rather a pictorial than a
physiological view of the subject: having descanted on the word
Character, we shall probably be expected to add, at least a word or two,
on the leading characteristics of the carnivorous class of quadrupeds.
The generic characters of the Feline, or Cat, kind, are easily
enumerated in the concise language of the naturalists. Their heads are
round; their visages short: they have six cutting teeth, and two canine,
in either jaw: their tongues are aculeated, the prickles inclining
backward; their claws sharp, hooked, and retractile; their ears small
and acuminated; they have five toes on each of the fore-feet, and four
only on those behind.
Of this genera of Cats, we here exhibit the four principal species,
Lions, Tigers, Leopards, and Panthers, of which the Lion is justly
placed at the head—at least, the unanimous voice of ages has pronounced
him to be the king of beasts, and we have enthroned him accordingly in
our Title-page, (No. I.) They form a tribe that is especially and
properly _Carnivorous_, being the only class of quadrupeds that are
exclusively _flesh-eaters_. Their jaws are very completely armed for
this purpose; their canine teeth being very long and angular, with the
edges of the angles turned toward the inside of their mouths; so that
when the animal has caused them to meet, or cross each other in the
flesh of its prey, these formidable teeth will cut or tear a way
through, by drawing them back without opening his mouth.
Their claws, and the formation of their feet, too, are eminently
conducive to their predacious and carnivorous habits. They walk on their
toes: yet not so much from that habitual stealthiness of pace, by which
they advance unperceived till within a spring of their prey; as because
it is also the means of that celerity of motion which is necessary to
the very existence of animals that can feed only on flesh.
Their claws are exceedingly powerful; and they are enabled to draw them
up into sheaths between their toes, so as to prevent their points from
touching the ground; whence they are called retractile; and those claws
are, in consequence, always kept sharp, unworn, and ready for active
service.
The eyes of the Feline tribe—of every face in nature a striking and
important feature—vary in the different species, and are capable of much
alteration in the same animal; as instinctive impulse, or internal
emotion, changes the expression of his countenance; and also from the
degrees of light which act upon their pupils. Of Lions the pupils of the
eyes are circular, and not of a yellow colour, as has been stated in the
most diffuse modern dissertations on the Carnivora, but black. It is the
iris of the Lion’s eye that is yellow. They appear to be best suited to
nocturnal, or twilight, vision; and hence the Lion rarely hunts his prey
while the sun is above the horizon—perhaps never, but when pressed by
hunger in an extraordinary degree. The Tiger, on the contrary, will seek
his prey by day as well as by night; and during twilight the colour of
his eyes is that of a blue-green flame. If a stranger passes near a
Tiger in a menagerie, the colour of the animal’s eyes will sometimes
alter suddenly, from yellow-green to blue-green; not from any alteration
in the degree of light acting upon them, but from mental excitement, and
from a certain natural facility of expansion and contraction of the
eye-pupils.
Hence a characteristic difference between the Lion and the Tiger. The
habits of the latter are diurnal, and he disregards night-fires: the
Lion, on the contrary, whose eyes are not calculated for the glare of
day, cannot bear to encounter fire-light at night. Yet these physical
conformations are sometimes overcome by the rage of hunger; and hence,
in MR. EDWIN LANDSEER’S contending group, the Lion is represented as
attacking the Tiger although it be day.
MR. BELL treats learnedly, and we believe with much originality, of the
facial-muscles of this class of quadrupeds, in his “Anatomy of
Expression.”—We shall offer a few extracts, by which the reader will
perceive how limited are their powers of expression of countenance, when
compared with those of human nature, notwithstanding their superiority
over all other quadrupeds.
“The violent passions mark themselves so distinctly on the countenances
both of men and of animals, that we are apt in the first instance to
consider the movements by which they are indicated, as certain signs or
characters provided by Nature, for the express purpose of intimating the
internal emotion; and to suppose that they are interpreted by the
observer in consequence of a peculiar and instinctive faculty. This view
of things, however, so natural at first sight, is not altogether
satisfactory to philosophy; and a more jealous observation of the facts,
seems to suggest an opposite theory, in which instinctive agency is
rejected, and the appearances are explained from a consideration of the
necessities and voluntary exertions of the animal. With regard to the
observer, it has been asserted, that it is by experience alone that he
distinguishes the signs of the passions; that we learn, while infants,
to consider smiles as expressions of kindness, because they are
accompanied by acts of beneficence and by endearments; and frowns as the
contrary, because we find them followed by blows; that the expression of
anger in a brute, is only that which has been observed to precede his
biting; and that of fondness, his fawning and licking of the hand. With
regard to the creature itself, it is said, what has been called the
external signs of passion, are merely the concomitants of those
voluntary movements, which the passions or habits suggest; that the
glare of the Lion’s eye, for example, is the consequence of a voluntary
exertion to see his prey more clearly—his grin, or snarl, the natural
motion of uncasing his fangs before he uses them. This, however, is not
quite true of all animals and of all expression of passion.”
“Attending merely to the evidence furnished by anatomical investigation,
all that I shall venture to affirm is this: that a remarkable difference
is to be found between the anatomy and range of expression, in man and
in animals: that in the former there seems to be a systematic provision
for that mode of communication and that natural language, which is to be
read in the changes of the countenance: that there is no emotion in the
mind of man which has not its appropriate signs; and that there are even
muscles in the human face to which no other use can be assigned than to
serve as the organs of this language: that, on the other hand, there is
in the lower animals no range of expression which is not fairly
referable as a mere accessary to the voluntary or needful actions of the
animal; and that this accessary expression does not appear to be in any
degree commensurate to the variety and extent of the animal’s passions.”
“There appears to me (continues MR. BELL) to be no expression in the
face of any animal lower in the scale of being than quadrupeds; and in
them the strongest and most marked expression is that of rage; the
object of which is opposition, resistance, and defence. But on
examination it will be found (consistently with the position, that this
is merely an accessary of the motions natural to the accomplishment of
the object which the animal has in view) that the strength of the
expression is in exact proportion to the strength of the principal
action in the creature when thus excited.
“The gramnivorous animals, which seek their subsistence, not by preying
upon others, nor by the ferocity, contest, and victory which supply the
carnivorous with food, have in their features no strong expression of
rage. Their expression is chiefly confined indeed to the effect produced
on the general system. Thus the inflamed eye and the breathing nostrils
of the Bull, are induced only by the general excitement. His only proper
expression of rage, is in the position of the head, with the horns
turned obliquely to the ground, ready to strike: and indeed it may be
observed in general that animals which strike with the horns, shew
little indication of fear or rage, except in the position of the head.
In all gramnivorous animals, the skin of the head is closely attached to
the skull, and capable only of very limited motion: the eye is almost
uniformly mild, and the lips unmoved by passion.
“It is in carnivorous animals, with whose habits and manner of life,
ferocity is instinctively connected, as the great means of their
subsistence, that rage is distinguished by the most remarkable strength
of expression. The eye-ball is terrible, and the retraction of the flesh
of the lips indicates the most savage fury. But the first, is merely the
exerted attention of the animal; and the other a preparatory exposure of
the canine teeth. The great animals of prey—the Lion and the Tiger—are
quite incapable of any other expression of feature, than this particular
display of ferociousness. When they fawn upon their keeper, there is no
motion in their features that indicates affection.”
In this assertion, that the countenances of the great animals of prey
are incapable of any other than ferocious expression, we do not quite
coincide with our learned physiologist. When they fawn upon their
keeper, we think that indications of affection are exhibited; and find
ourselves ready to ask what else than kindly expression is that “licking
of the hand” which our author has before mentioned. If, however, we
should grant that they may not be capable of affectionate expression
toward their keeper, we can scarcely doubt that—toward their young—if we
could observe them in their wild state, and in their moments of playful
intercourse and enjoyment among each other—they are: at least, we think
there are motions in their features that indicate affection, as well as
fear, enquiry, surprise, gratitude, pleasurable wantonness, and some
other sentiments, or emotions. This is our conviction: at the same time,
we perceive that the range of their ferocious expression far exceeds the
savage circle of their domestic charities. Are not even the least of
these observable in the habits and manners of the domestic Cat, who
belongs to the Tiger genera? But we have even seen a Tiger in his den,
who looked good-natured enough to be stroked and patted: and of the
Lion, of whom MR. GRIFFITH relates the following anecdote, what can be
said or thought?
“Hearing some noise under his cage, the Lion passed his paw between the
bars, and actually hauled up his keeper who was cleaning beneath; but as
soon as he perceived that he had thus ill used his master, he instantly
lay down upon his back in an attitude of complete submission.”
Or what can be said of the circumstance mentioned by SENECA (of which he
was personally witness), of a Lion, to whom a man, who had formerly been
his keeper, was exposed for destruction in the amphitheatre at Rome; and
who was not only instantly recognised, but defended and protected by the
grateful beast?—Or of the story related by DR. SOUTHEY, of the Lion who
had broken loose, submitting to the Cid, and allowing himself to be led
back peaceably to his place of confinement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 7
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LION & SNAKE after NATURE.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could any painter of talent proceed to represent either of these
_facts_, without finding in the countenance of the Lion, the muscles and
the means of expressing a corresponding gentleness, or generosity, of
feeling?
What could be said or thought of these things? Why it may be said, and
will be thought, by all those who take both sides of the argument fairly
into the question—that MR. BELL has discovered and declared, that the
muscles of affection, do not exist in the carnivora. Ergo, that the
sentiment which we so translate or acknowledge—the appearances (that is)
with which we may find ourselves affected—can only be expression of a
negative kind; resulting from the relaxation of those muscles whose
tension is necessary to the purposes, or the expression, of ferocity:
that “the force of Nature can no further go;” and that the painter—the
supposed painter, of such subjects, who is appealed to above—in order to
be in any degree successful, must “make a third, by joining the former
two”—that is to say, by mingling a portion of human nature with that of
the animal: which brings us round to the practice and the probable
theory of RUBENS; of which it affords more justification, and of a
higher kind, than superficial reasoners can be aware of.
But, when muscles of affection are mentioned, do we talk of a positive
and acknowledged certainty; or only of a construction that has been put
upon certain muscles of the face, by those who have an hypothesis to
maintain, or who can trace affectionate expression in no other? And, are
we thence to infer the exhaustion of the subject, and non-entity of the
expression?
No. VII.
MR. SPILSBURY’S LION, who has turned round his head to look at a Snake,
affords a delineated example in point. Here is no more, we think, than
the latent capability of ferocity: just so much as cannot be separated
from the native character of this noble quadruped.—The eye-ball is here,
not “terrible;” nor is “the most savage fury” indicated by the
retraction of the lips, although the lower canine teeth are exposed.
Here is a general sense of dignity; but the leading, present expression
of the moment, (as it strikes us,) is that of curiosity, or excited
attention; mingled with some degree of surprise that a contemptible
little Snake should presume to roll his puny volumes in the royal
presence. It would appear that the Lion has heard something hiss, and
cares a little, to know what it may be.
Will it be further objected that this is _Art_?—To be sure it is. But we
think that such Lion-looks are to be seen in Nature; and that such were
seen, when the Dog which appealed to, and obtained, the _royal_ pity,
was first thrown into the Lion’s den at the Tower. We believe that this
representation of the Lion and Snake is not taken from any old master,
but is MR. SPILSBURY’S own design.
No. VIII.
Neither is there any expression of ferocity, but of home comfort, in
these two maneless Lions—or LION and LIONESS of SENEGAL. That which is
asleep, however, rather illustrates our definition of _Character_, and
is so far out of the question. The Lioness—who is awake, is a kind of
_Belle-Sauvage_. Entirely without ferocity, she has some little
expression of attention gently aroused by some slight cause—less
important, we should think than the distant cry of a Chacal—a noise in
the den, perhaps, not loud enough to make it worth while to wake her
companion in order to see what’s the matter. But her expression of
countenance, is almost as mild as that of a kitten in a chimney
corner.—In fact, they seem—notwithstanding their Herculean strength—a
kind of hearth-rug Lions.[1]
Footnote 1:
This was written before the beautiful hearth-rug Lion introduced to us
by Mr. Crosse of Leeds, and which is equal to the finest painting.
After venturing to express this slight difference of opinion (if it
amount to so much) with our distinguished anatomist of Expression, we
return, with becoming respect, to his valuable Treatise: though as we do
not propose to exhibit, like him, an anatomical and comparative view of
the Carnivorous and Gramnivorous genera, we shall confine ourselves to a
short extract or two, relating to the Carnivora alone—
“It is of man alone that we can with strict propriety say the
countenance is an index of the mind, having expression corresponding
with each emotion of the soul. Other animals have no expression but that
which arises by mere accident, the concomitant of the emotions necessary
to the accomplishment of the object of the passions.”—
“I have to remark, as relative to painting, (my original subject of
enquiry) that this remarkable difference between the expression in man,
and animals, naturally leads us to investigate what are the
peculiarities of mere animal expression.
“In order to see distinctly what the peculiarities of mere animal
expression are, it seems proper to reduce the muscles of expression in
animals, to their proper classes. These muscles, as they appear in the
several quadrupeds, may be distinguished into—1. Those which raise the
lips from the teeth: 2. Those which surround the eye-lids: and 3. Those
which move the nostrils.”
He next proceeds to state that “in the Carnivorous animal, the muscles
of the lip are so directed as to raise the lip from the canine
teeth;”—and these he distinguishes by the name of “_Ringentes_, or
snarling muscles.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 8
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
SENEGAL LION & LIONESS after REYDINGER.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 9
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LION & TIGER after STUBBS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The snarling muscles take their origin from the margin of the orbit of
the eye, and from the upper jaw, and are inserted into that part of the
upper lip from which the whiskers grow, and which is opposite to the
canine teeth; and although they are assisted in this office by other
muscles, (the masticating and zygomatic muscles,) I have ventured to
distinguish them particularly as the muscles of snarling. This action of
snarling is quite peculiar to the ferocious and carnivorous animals.
“2. Muscles which surround the eye-lid. In man the upper eye-lid is
raised by a muscle coming from the bottom of the orbit. But, besides
this muscle, animals of prey in whom there is that peculiar and
ferocious splendour of the eye, which we distinguish in the Tiger, for
example, or the Lion—have three muscles infixed in the eye-lids, which
drawing the eye-lids backward upon the peculiarly prominent eye-ball,
produce the fixed straining of the eye, and by stretching the coats,
give a greater brilliancy to the reflection. These muscles may be
classed under the term _Scintillantes_.
“3. The muscles of the nostril are not less distinct and peculiar, in
different classes of animals, than those of the eyes and lips. In the
Carnivorous animals, the nose is comparatively insignificant, provision
being made in the open mouth for any occasional increase of respiration
above the uniform play of the lungs.”
Taking respectful, friendly, and reluctant leave of MR. BELL, we trust
that conformity will be found between these pictorial remarks and
anatomical elucidations of his, and our engraved representations of the
Carnivora.
No. IX.
The interior of a rocky den, where the LION dares to intrude on the
retired repose of a ROYAL TIGER, copied by MR. SPILSBURY from the
Sketch-book of STUBBS. On the part of the Tiger, there is expressed a
certain half frantic suspension of purpose. His look is fierce, though
apprehensive, and as if his mind was not made up whether to become the
assailant, or stand on the defensive. He is evidently taken by surprise;
and if he does not fear, he is thoroughly conscious (as DR. JOHNSON
said, when he was to meet LORD THURLOW) that “there is something to
_encounter_:” while the Lion, feeling also that he has met with his
match, is arousing his terrible energies. The heroes are threatening:
the storm has gathered: and is about to burst in fury.
With regard to the “ferocious splendour of their eyes,” and the exposure
of their canine teeth by means of the _Ringentes_, the reader will find
here a strict accordance with MR. BELL’S theory.
No. X.
The TIGRESS of BENGAL, which has been designed, as well as etched, by
MR. THOMAS LANDSEER, from that at the Exeter ’Change Menagerie, affords
also a pertinent illustration of the principles which MR. BELL had
derived from combining study with dissection: theory with practice. The
“three muscles infixed in the eye-lids, which, drawing the eye-lids
backward upon the peculiarly prominent eye-ball, produce the fixed
straining of the eye, and by stretching the coats, give a greater
brilliancy to the reflection,” are here brought into action by a violent
and unexpected outrage done to the maternal feelings. Here too is
exemplified the origin, insertion, and physical use, of those snarling
muscles, which are so properly named and defined by our learned
anatomist. We cannot but wish, however, that he had written also of
those of the lower jaw, which so powerfully conduce to this snarling and
dreadful expression.
The mother has arrived at a fortunate conjuncture for her cubs, which
lie sleeping below, in a small den or dark recess of the bank, whither a
Serpent has stolen. Twisted among the jungle, which affords an
advantageous post both of attack and defence for the Serpent—the Tigress
has reason to dread an enemy so powerful and insidious; and, as in the
preceding Engraving, both parties are prepared for the encounter, and
fully aware of the importance of a first blow.
No. XI.
THESE RAMPANT LIONS, bear the name of RUBENS as their author. SIR JOHN
SEBRIGHT, we believe, has the original picture. It would neither
deteriorate from its intrinsic merit as a work of art, nor from its
nominal value (we suspect), should it turn out to be from the pencil of
SNYDERS; or a performance of RUBENS and SNYDERS in conjunction. They not
unfrequently painted on the same canvas; but the high reputation and
rank of RUBENS, has in some measure absorbed that of his coadjutor,
except among first-rate connoisseurs—whereas, in all that relates to the
details of Nature, SNYDERS was the superior painter of _animals_: and
our reasons for thinking that he had at least a hand in this picture of
the rampant Lions, are, 1st, The superior attention which is here paid
to the details of Nature. 2ndly, That the action of the nearest of the
two Lions, is precisely that of the same animal, in SNYDERS’ very
capital picture from the fable of the Lion liberated by the Mouse, now
in the Cabinet of THOMAS FRANKLIN, Esq. 3rdly, That the study in oil of
a dead Lion, in the collection of G. WATSON TAYLOR, Esq. also believed
to be from the hand of SNYDERS, bears internal evidence of being
painted, not only from Nature, but from the very same individual Lion,
with the above. They are all portraits of the same animal. It appears as
if SNYDERS, having obtained possession of a dead Lion, after making the
study now belonging to MR. TAYLOR, had put him in this rampant attitude,
and painted from him as long as he lasted. But perhaps RUBENS and
SNYDERS did this in concert: for on the other hand may be recollected a
masterly sketch in oil of the heads only of these rampant Lions, which
was exhibited at the British Gallery two seasons ago, bearing the _name_
of RUBENS. If this name was written by RUBENS himself, the probability
is as above stated, that both artists painted at the same time from the
same model. On this point we do but sum up such evidence as is before
us, leaving the verdict to the reader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 10
_Tho^s. Landseer del^t. et sculp^t._
TIGRESS after NATURE.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 11
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
LIONS after RUBENS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that this subject also, has passed through the medium of an
Etching by BLOTELING, for it differs in some minor respects from the
picture in the gallery of SIR JOHN SEBRIGHT. It however affords further
illustration of the theory of expression laid down by MR. BELL, while it
embodies the Scriptural idea of a “ramping and roaring Lion seeking whom
he may devour.”
We have mentioned above, our having been disposed, on a certain occasion
of visiting a public menagerie, to pat and stroke a Royal Tiger as he
lay in his den with his nose toward the spectator, and whose looks,
though certainly far from angelic, we could almost have called amiable:
yet this is very far from being the character of the Tiger. To stroke,
or pat, or touch them in any way, however, no person should ever
venture, except their keepers; even the tame Tigers, that are sometimes
brought up almost without animal food by the mendicant priests of
Hindostan, are strictly prohibited from being touched—“under the utmost
rigours of religious anathema,” says COL. WILLIAMSON, who relates a
circumstance of his having visited a Faukeer who kept a Tiger of this
kind in the wilds of Colgong.
No. XII.
The amiable-looking Tiger of whom we have spoken, lay something in the
attitude and manner of the principal PANTHER, in the present picturesque
group which MR. SPILSBURY copied from the Sketch-book of that admirable
painter and anatomist of animals, STUBBS.
Perhaps this sentiment of ours, may be ascribed—in part at least—to the
undulations of form, glossiness of surface, and brilliancy of colours,
of these interesting creatures, reviving the early mental impressions
which we remember to have received at the sight of shining and speckled
shells, butterflies’ wings, and other objects of pure beauty; and in
part to our having associated ideas of innocence and domesticated habits
and comfort, with the “sympathetic mirth” (as GOLDSMITH’S phrase is) of
sportive kittens.
It may not be unworthy of our best philosophy to pause here, and observe
how Nature contrives to mingle, and seems to insist on mingling,
sentiments and mental impressions, which analysing man is so fond of
reducing to first elements—as he calls them. Surely there is, about
these Carnivorous and terrible creatures, a saving grace—a beauty in
their dreadfulness, which is exceedingly interesting, although it
co-exist with cruelty: for if they are cruel, their cruelty is
involuntary, and not implacable; and therefore, if not pardonable, not
hateful—while the external beauty which they possess, is of a positive
nature.
Reverting here to our own scholastic distinction, we think that Nature
has, in the instance of this species of quadrupeds, mingled with similar
success, energy of character, with a degree of mildness of expression.
The natural character of the Panther is fearfully ferocious, yet a
superinduced kindly expression may be seen in this group from the pencil
of STUBBS—a sworn disciple of Nature—which may shew that in their home
retiredness, they have not been left destitute of the means of letting
each other see that they are sociable, friendly, and not entirely
without the means of expressing the gentler emotions. Men are perhaps
too exclusively disposed to look at the objects around them, as those
objects immediately concern themselves: MR. STUBBS, in composing this
capital group, took a more extensive and genuine view of things; and
notwithstanding the Panther is larger and more formidable than the
Leopard (from which quadruped he is not always easily distinguishable),
has depicted them as scarcely less mild and gentle than the domestic
Cat.
The evidence of facts, however, when set in apposition, affords, in all
probability, the most efficacious and convincing means of manifesting
such principles as we are here submitting, while they exhibit the
_varieties_ of animal expression to the best advantage; and we therefore
introduce another GROUP of PANTHERS, from the same Sketch-book, by
STUBBS, more malignant in their aspects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 12
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
PANTHERS after STUBBS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: 13
_E. Spilsbury del^t._ _T. Landseer sculp^t._
PANTHERS after STUBBS.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. XIII.
This is what one might call a domestic, or family, group; but they seem
here to be meditating prey, and by no means so good-humoured as in the
former instance, where they might be fancied to be quietly enjoying
themselves after a sufficient repast. The two groups, when viewed
together, seem very much to assist our perceptions of the capability of
this animal of gentle, as well as of savage, expression.—They are
contrasted, indeed, though without the direct opposition of violent
brutal action, to calm repose: the eye being the chief seat of the
difference. But neither the gentle, nor the more ferocious and
malignant-looking, Panthers, or Tigers, will bear any comparison for
commanding majesty of appearance with the regal Lion, whether in a calm
or an excited state—as the vignette of our title-page is ready to bear
witness.
There is good chiaroscuro in both of the above groups; and the scene of
rocky wildness in which the latter are placed, as well as the rich
colouring of the fur of the animals, are ably indicated.
The reader may perhaps not be displeased to attend here for a moment, to
a short epitome of what the Naturalists have said concerning the
distinctive marks of this interesting quadruped, the Panther: nor to be
informed or reminded of the strong resemblance which he bears to the
Leopard.
DR. SHAW observes that LINNÆUS himself has confounded the Panther with
the Leopard; but adds, that “a true distinctive mark between them, is by
no means easy to communicate either by description or even by figure.”
He thinks that the Leopard is the smaller of the two species of animals,
and its colour a paler yellow: and MR. GRIFFITH, in his “Carnivora,”
says, “A very fine animal is now exhibiting at Exeter ’Change under the
name of Leopard, which is much larger as well as brighter than any other
Leopard in that Menagerie, and should, therefore, according to SHAW,
seem to be the Panther. But I am informed that the animal in question
was taken in India, and that all those which come from Asia, are much
brighter in colour than those from Africa, which is confirmed by
inspection of the African specimens there; and that the females have
more white about them than the other sex: and MR. CROSS, who has had
opportunities of inspecting probably some hundreds of specimens, insists
that he has never observed any specific difference between those brought
from Asia and Africa, among themselves, except that the Asiatic are
generally larger and brighter.”