THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
[Illustration]
This great collection really holds the first position among the
galleries of Europe, not for the number of pictures, but for their
choiceness and value. The building which contains the collection has
been assumed to be rather a failure, and many a jest has been made upon
what are called its “pepper casters,” an article which its cupolas
suggest. Yet upon the whole it is a classical, well-proportioned
building, with a fine, imposing façade. Of late years a new gallery has
been added in the rear, whose Italian campanile rears itself awkwardly,
and is inconsistent with the Grecian style of the rest. Sir Frederick
Leighton has spoken with just severity of this incongruity. The new
rooms are stately and lofty, united by imposing central halls, floridly
decorated, contrasting oddly with the low and shabby chambers beside it.
Still, the smaller area is more effective for the display of pictures;
they are brought closer to the eye, are seen more comfortably, and there
is the feeling of being in a private gallery. The small but beautiful
collection at The Hague has its peculiar charm from these conditions.
Within the last few years the great entrance hall has been remodelled
and treated sumptuously, laid out with flights of stairs, pillars of
costly African and other marbles, profuse gilding and painting. But the
effect is scarcely satisfactory: the pillars are thin, and ill
proportioned to this work, and seem more ornamental than serviceable,
while the complicated umbrella and stick arrangements seem to do
violence to the natural construction of the building.
The Gallery owes much to its accomplished director, Sir F. Burton, who
is an artist of the Academic school, with much fine taste and feeling,
and power of drawing. The days when men were trained in the schools, and
when studies of the human figure (on one of which Mulready would expend
months) were labours of love, are unhappily passed away. To Sir F.
Burton’s admirable judgment we owe the real development of the
collection, and its almost universal character. If we might make an
objection, it would be that there is almost a surfeit of works of the
earlier Italian school of the Pre-Raphaelite time, and there is
something monotonous in the innumerable altar-pieces and sacred pieces
set off with richly gilt and carved architectural framings. On the other
hand, it is admitted that the English school is imperfectly represented.
At the same time nothing could be more difficult than to form a really
representative gallery of English works, owing to the shiftings of taste
and criticism. This can be seen by considering the once-admired Vernon
collection, where figure all the “Augustus Eggs” and “Redgraves,” and
which seem scarcely worthy of a place in a public gallery. At the
Academy Exhibitions we find every school imitated--French, German,
Dutch. Still it would not be difficult to apply some principles in the
selection, and to define what might be considered a purely English
character in landscape, portraits, or _genre_.
A serious difficulty is what to do with the accepted bequests which for
half a century or so have held possession. These keep their place by
virtue of law and Acts of Parliament, and as they entered in company
with works of real value, there would be an ungraciousness in rejecting
them. The pigments of this era seem to have faded: the pictures are
flat, stiff, and, in some cases, seem the work of amateurs. One instance
of this “white elephant” sort of donation is the picture of Rembrandt’s
“Night Watch,” said to be a copy of no startling merit, which is yet
allowed a conspicuous place.
The visitor is assisted by guides and guide-books of all kinds; one, a
full, reformed one, in two volumes, has been issued recently. I always
think that a model guide-book, such as the eager but uninformed public
would desire, has yet to be devised. The usual system is after this
pattern: The name and number is given, then the painter and school, say,
“The Umbrian School”--with the size of the picture in inches, a few
lines about the painter, his birth and death, and to what “school” he
succeeded; then a rather banal description of what the figures are
doing--which the spectator can discover for himself without assistance.
These points, such as size in inches, and the description, are, of
course, valuable for the Waagens and other critical persons, but are
_caviare_ to the visiting public. I venture to say that the questions
every one puts to himself on seeing a “famous” picture are these: “Why
is it that this work is so admired? What are the particular merits?” The
effect is admittedly good and beautiful; but it seems so like many
others that we have seen, excellent, pleasing; but it puzzles us to say
_why_ it exceeds in merit the others. How delightful, on the other hand,
and improving is it, when it is our good fortune to be attended by some
real critic and trained judge, who in a few words points out the merits,
the contrast of colour, the drawing of that arm, the difficulty overcome
in grouping in figures! Again, what is _style_? Corot, the French
landscape painter, is deservedly admired, and the spectator, looking at
his catalogue, will exclaim, “_Oh! that is a Corot._” He sees, with
wonder, a sort of marsh or fen with gloomy “furry”-looking trees. He is
told of the enormous price this small work fetches in the market, and
wonders again. It seems to him sketchy, blurred, and unfinished, perhaps
meaningless, but it _must_ be a great work from its price: he cannot
puzzle it out, and he has to pass on to others. The critic, however, at
his elbow, will draw him back and tell him, first, what the Corot theory
was, viz., that nature has moods of humour, of feeling and passion,
which can be noted, just as we note expression on the human countenance;
that this often becomes so marked and absorbing that we do not observe
mere details. The painter, who wished to seize the humour or expression,
passes by all details of leaves, branches, etc., and even the outlines,
so that the spectator, like the painter, will note only, say, the
general _sadness_ of the whole. This is roughly and, perhaps, broadly
expressed, but it furnishes a sort of key. But we now look at our Corot
with a different interest, and its meaning gradually grows upon us. So
with the Dutch school. We pass from one to the other in the Peel
collection, from Teniers and Van Steen to De Hooge, with a sense of
sameness. There are the usual “Boors” and “Vrows” carousing or dancing;
or there are “Interiors” by De Hooge; or Hobbema, with his alleys and
trees, all great, clever, finished minutely, and curious. But we have no
key, and there is a mystery beyond us. Here, again, we should reflect
that this “style” is due to the conditions of climate and character.
Dutch skies are sad and sombre, the country flat and bare, the long
avenues of trees add to the mournful feeling; the interiors are dark.
There is a wonderful, much-admired Hobbema, here a “grand piece,” as it
is called; an alley of long bare trees stretching away from the
spectator, a landscape spreading away beyond. The spectator as he gazes
will feel a curious sense of melancholy, owing to the flat wastes, the
trunks exposed to the sweeping winds, the earth redeemed by stern toil
from the sea, the feeling of isolation, with a suggestion of the
indomitable Dutch character, which has battled successfully for
centuries with the ocean, and which finds a relief in scenes of
carousal. They have no mountains or valleys, or woods to draw from. The
houses in the cities are narrow, their rooms small and dark; hence
everything is looked at in miniature; hence, too, the laborious finish.
Hence, too, plenty of dark corners and shadows. All which explains
Rembrandt’s traditional effects, his faces emerging from dark
backgrounds. Hence, too, the costume of the Dutch portrait, with its
white collar and black jerkin. In the small dark rooms, panelled with
dark oak, the light falls only on the face; rich-coloured clothes would
lose their lustre. So with De Hooge’s picture of the “Entrance to a
Dutch Yard,” where there is a welcome but unexpected stream of light,
and which is treated as light that enters into a dark place.
I have often thought, too, how interesting it would be if there were
some critics to explain the treatment and manipulation adopted by
different painters! Why did Gainsborough, for instance, deal in
exquisite streaky greens and translucent blues; how is it that his faces
are so delicate and tender? The fact is, different painters see things
with different eyes, and the figure presents itself differently. One
will note only the expression as worthy of representation, another the
colours of the face, another will be struck by the attitude, the
richness of the dress, etc. Denner saw nothing but lines and wrinkles.
It is with painting exactly as it is with authorship. One will relate a
fact exactly as it occurred, another in newspaper style, another with
touches of character; another has a certain charm of description; yet
another is poetical.
To give a more particular illustration of how enjoyment would be
increased by some such critical aid as this, let us pause a moment
before this fine full-length portrait of Lewis, the actor, which hangs
in the vestibule of the hall--a smiling figure in a sort of Spanish
dress. It is the character of “The Marquis” in “The Midnight Hour,” and
is painted by Sir Martin Shee, erst President of the Academy. There is
something effective and pleasing about the picture, but most persons
content themselves with a glance and pass on. Now, suppose we inform him
that Lewis was a comedian of the old “airy” school, was noted for his
elegant style of representing people of rank--that is to say, personages
gay and witty, without condescension--carrying themselves through
difficult situations without embarrassment, and making love in a very
irresistible way. Shee had seen Lewis many times on the stage, and knew
him _au bout des ongles_; these gifts were present to him; so, selecting
this favourite character, he embodied here an epitome of all its
attractions. With these facts in view, we look again at the picture, and
how different it appears! There is the delightful expression, half
rallying, half of enjoyment, a general refinement, with a graceful
carriage--in short, a regular bit of comedy is going on before us.
In some of the great “Gallery” pictures--such as Sebastian del Piombo’s
“Raising of Lazarus”--the assistance of judicious criticism is really
essential. We must be instructed how and why to admire. Otherwise, as in
other kindred instances, such as with pictures of the Caraccis, we see
only a number of Scriptural figures in robes, blue or scarlet, grouped
together; no doubt large, dignified, impressive, but not by any means
interesting. There is a general conventionality. Yet this “Raising of
Lazarus” has been criticised by Hazlitt, Haydon, and others in a very
interesting way, and our catalogues of the future might profitably have
these inserted. Dr. Waagen thought this picture the most important of
the Italian school that England possesses. He adds that the “first
glance would teach us that the figure of Lazarus was drawn, though not
painted, by Michael Angelo.” The figure of our Saviour he praises for
its nobility, and “in Lazarus the transition from death to life is
expressed with wonderful fidelity. In the other figures gratitude,
astonishment, conviction, doubt are to be traced.” I fear there are few
of the thousands passing who would gather this or anything from the
first glance, or note any of these things.
There is one picture considered the cynosure of the whole, on account of
the vast price (some £70,000) given for it--the Ansidei Raphael. Of this
we might venture to say that the effect scarcely corresponds to the
outlay; or rather, that were it placed among the other Italian estimated
pictures, and divested of its history, it would not probably attract
much notice. This may seem heretical, but I am confident it is true.
With the critical, of course, it is different, though I fancy it would
be a difficult task to give a nice, accurate, and judicial appreciation
of its points of attraction, going beyond mere phrases of praise. I
confess, if choice were offered, I would prefer the more “taking” Soult
Murillo in the Louvre. _Pace_ Sir Frederick Burton, it seems also to
suffer from the heavy mass which does duty as frame--the excessive
gilding impairs the colours, and it is constructed with a sort of
basement which stands “in the air” unsupported, which seems to imply
that it ought to be on a bracket or altar.
A crying blemish to the collection is the room full of fantastic
pictures, so called, the terrible legacy which Turner bequeathed to the
nation. These grotesques have neither form nor meaning, and seem to be
mad, wild caprices. There is nothing to match them in existence, and no
gallery, private or public, would tolerate them. Some are nothing but
streaks and smears--yellows and blues utterly amorphous; yet admirers
will protest that there is some deep-seated “no meaning” mystery
beneath, which study and sympathy will reveal. Some arrangement by Act
of Parliament or otherwise should be made for disposing of these
performances, which we have heard again and again excite the derision of
the foreigner as “_polissonneries_.” The serious and responsible works
of Turner are here, and excite admiration: but these, it is well known,
were the eccentricities of his dotage. Some of his large grand pieces
are truly fine, such as “The Sea Fight” and the beautiful Italian
landscape placed as a pendant to the well-known Claude, though it is
easy to note that the exquisitely sultry luminousness of the French
painter cannot be approached, Turner’s atmosphere, from the very
contrast, being somewhat thick and heavy. Any one who goes from picture
to picture of Turner’s, those, I mean, of his sane manner, with care and
regularity, will be lost in wonder at the variety of his styles, and
will conclude that he could “do anything.” The mistake of his later days
was his attempt to simulate with colours atmospheric tones and effects,
such as the “actual sense of effulgence” in the sun when we attempt to
look straight at it, or the glare from a passing train, or a steamer
showing lights and letting off steam.
Perhaps the truest “painter” of the modern English school who could be
called a master, and whose works would stand the test of criticism, is
Wilkie. No praise could do justice to that masterpiece, “The Blind
Fiddler,” with its minutely delicate handling of faces and hands, yet
offering a grand breadth of style. The beautiful limpid colouring, the
firmness, yet delicacy, of the touch, the pleasant, quiet, unforced
humour of the scene--akin to that of Goldsmith--the brilliancy and
largeness of treatment, are perfectly miraculous in a youth little more
than twenty. Neither Mieris nor Meissonier have works that can be
classed with this gem, which, by-the-way, would gain by being hung
higher. His picture of “The Beadle” leading away the Mountebanks and
their Dancing Dogs, with figures brilliantly and exquisitely finished,
is not, however, his best specimen. We should note the contrast with his
well-known “Knox Preaching,” which seems the work of a different hand.
Many would be puzzled at this; but art critics know that Wilkie altered
his style completely after a visit to Spain, and affected a rich, juicy,
full-coloured tone, even adopting a large unfinished “streaky” manner.
In this contrasting of style we may profitably turn for comparison to a
picture truly unique, of which, as Lamb says, “One species is the
genus,” and which may be coveted by any gallery, that is, the famous
“Treaty of Munster,” by Terburg, a small cabinet picture, the gift of a
private person. This extraordinary little masterpiece is worth an hour’s
study, and illustrates all the principles of painting. There are some
fifty or sixty figures, and the force, dramatic expression, and feeling
of the whole is surprising. Every minute face is distinct, and leaves
the air of perfect finish; yet, if we look closely, we shall see the
workmanship is rough and bold. Mr. Ruskin has happily illustrated this
valuable principle by a minute vignette of Turner’s, which decorates his
“Italy.” It represents the marvellous windows and elaborate details of
the Ducal palace in Venice, all within a couple of inches; yet, if we
take a magnifying glass, we shall find that none of the objects
represented are actually drawn. There are only a number of dots and
touches, and yet the effect of the relief, details, and carvings is
perfectly conveyed. On the other hand, had the details been actually
_drawn_ on so small a scale, these details would at a distance have
failed to convey the idea intended. Here is one of the secrets of
largeness of style. Meissonier has much in common with Terburg. Our
fashionable modern painters have little idea of relative values. They
copy all before them with the accuracy of a photograph.
A little study of one who is the glory of this Gallery, viz. Constable,
will illustrate this better. A landscape painter may copy carefully and
minutely a spreading cornfield, with reapers at work and effects of
sunlight, but, as was said in the case of Corot, there is a mystery in
landscape which only genius can discover. This is not to be interpreted
as Corot found it was, by wholesale sacrifice of details, but by
studying the art of making these contribute to the general effect. The
really great painter seems to work in this way: he sees or discovers an
“effect”; it becomes an inspiration, it takes possession of him, and it
imprints itself vividly on his pictorial memory. He notes the same
effect under other conditions, and so the idea becomes generalized. Thus
a great marine painter, on an occasion, watches the form of waves in a
storm, or a peculiar effect of light. As to mere mechanical painting,
that becomes, or should become, as the language he speaks; neither does
he require the object or model to be before him to paint from, save by
way of suggestion or correction. It is to be suspected that the average
modern painter does not work on these principles. He _copies_ everything
from without, and not from within. The great painter who has found
inspiration in his landscape will only copy so far as to ensure
topographical correctness, but his main purpose is to produce the
general effect or inspiration which is imprinted on his memory. Such is
the meaning of the impression left by Constable’s work. The trees,
pastures, figures, are all subsidiary to the _tone_ of the whole, the
grand feeling of open air which spreads beyond the narrow, contracted
limits of the frame. As _he_ felt the largeness, so is the sense of
largeness produced in the spectator. One well-known picture will
illustrate this more effectively.
Like the human face, the cathedral has its cast of expression, a kind of
soft tenderness, or placid, quiet solitariness, wholly different from
the air of perky sharpness and strutting detail which photographs
present. Turning to the “Salisbury Cathedral” of this painter anyone
that has seen the original will recognize how he caught the poetry, the
contrast of the grey building with the green sward of the close, and the
deep tone of the trees, and the beautiful significance of the spire,
which seems almost to be a natural product of the landscape. These
spires, indeed, always seem to give a different sort of interpretation
to the place in which they stand; and every person of sensibility will
own to different impressions as he passes on the railway by Canterbury,
Peterborough, or Ely. In the case of the Salisbury spire there is a
certain sharpness which contrasts with the dark and angry cloud behind,
and gives an air of menace and hostility.
To take another illustration. There are photographs and engravings in
plenty of the picturesque Dover Harbour, with its cliffs and castle.
Many who have seen the place in its various moods have wished for some
reminder, and may have found the traditional sketches of commerce
accurate enough, but insufficient to restore the old charm. As the
traveller returning from France approaches, he notes the pyramidal
character, the junction and blending of the castle with the clouds
behind it, the contrast of the glaring white cliffs with the grey of the
sea; there is, besides, the grand air of large security and shelter
afforded for centuries back. Now, there is a picture by Turner--in which
all these complex ideas are abundantly suggested; he has caught the
whole tone of the place, dealing with the skies above and the waters
below, quite as elaborately as with the town and harbour; indeed, these
are subsidiary. In this way it is true a great artist becomes an
interpreter, as well as a painter, of Nature.
It is difficult not to feel a sort of enthusiasm and deep admiration
when standing before these grand works of Constable. There is a breadth
and solidity, a massiveness, about his style and treatment. The secret
might be the sense of dignity, the imparting of a _grand personality_ to
the trees, the grass, the water, and everything represented. As we look,
the details seem to grow and be enriched. It is not surprising to learn
that the introduction of one of his pieces into France was the
foundation of the school for landscape in that country. The Gallery is
well furnished with other masterpieces of his, and the visitor will
study them with delight. If we look at the “Flatford,” or the “Haywain,”
we shall see and recognize the power, the mixture of emotions suggested,
the grand tranquillity of the country, the variety, the sense of
distance, and, as we said, the air of _state_; as for the colour, its
depth and richness are not even approached in our day.
To turn to another of our English masters, it must be said that Landseer
was hardly a “painter” in a strict sense. He really only took portraits
of animals--and of particular animals. A “painter” would generalize
more, and in this view Herring’s horses are more pleasing, and exhibit
the animals in their relation to surrounding objects. Of course, in
producing fur, hair, etc., Landseer is unequalled. This can be further
illustrated by a painting here of Morland’s, who is usually associated
with certain vulgar subjects, such as pigs, coarse hinds, and the like,
masterly in their way. This portrays a heavy cart-horse and pony
entering their stable. The sort of living interest infused is
extraordinary, with the languid, helpless expectancy of the pair, the
general tone of the stable. We would place it above anything Landseer
has done. This will be seen if we compare this stable scene of Morland’s
with the well-known “Horse-shoeing,” which has quite an artificial air.
Among the finest Landseers are, no doubt, the “Newfoundland Dog” and the
capital, vigorously-painted creature who personates Alexander in the
visit to Diogenes. In his latter works he became rather tame and insipid
in his colour and touch, as we can see by turning to “Peace and War.”
Thirty or forty years ago among the chief attractions of the Academy
were pictures by Ward, O’Neil, Crowe, Mrs. Ward, Frith, and others. Such
were “James II. receiving the News of the Arrival of William,” “The
South Sea Bubble,” the “Derby Day,” and “The Railway Station.”
Leslie, Maclise, Eastlake, Ward, and many more have all fallen
considerably in public esteem. Many years ago there was a general
exhibition of Leslie’s works, and it was curious to see how the
assemblage revealed his defects--the “chalkiness” of his white, his thin
colour, his general stiffness. This was the result of the Academic
school, when drawing was much insisted upon. Nowadays, when the French
imitative system is in vogue, a hard pure outline, it is contended, is
not in nature. The figure is softened or blended with the background
according to experience.
There are some pictures at which we look with astonishment; the gaudy,
glaring figures all dressed in variegated fashion and crowded together.
It may be said these are like “Tableaux Vivants,” and painted, it might
be, from grouped figures. It will be noted that all are in the light,
and there are no shadows; indeed, no point of view conceivable could
take in so many objects at a time. There is little or no “composition,”
and the laws of Academic arrangement seem to be set aside. These
pictures, admired, gravely discussed by the critics, have long since
found their legitimate place. We have, indeed, only one purely Academic
painter--the President of the Royal Academy--who has been trained in the
“schools,” and whose work is always elegant, graceful, and honest. If he
has to present a draped figure with an arm exposed, the arm and hand are
truly “drawn.” There is an exquisite contour exhibited which pleases the
eye; the drapery falls not merely in natural, but airy folds, while the
tints are of a delicate harmony. There is, in short, composition, and we
turn away refreshed. Not so much could be said of some of our popular
portrait painters, whose hands are not outlined, but blurred, though
dashing, and whose drawing is misty.
Another painter once in high repute, and scarcely thought of now, was
Etty, assumed to be the most gorgeous colourist of his day. We look now
at his nude nymphs sailing in boats, and wonder a little at this
reputation, though there are plenty of tints of lake, and rich black
tresses, and cobalt. Somehow these works now seem heavy, and not so
brilliant. Would we seek a genuine colourist, let us turn to this little
cabinet Bonnington, who has left but few examples, but whose works are
precious and much esteemed in Paris. Another rare master of this kind is
Muller, of whom there are few specimens. These small cabinet pictures, a
few inches square, produce extraordinary effects of force and
brilliancy, and gorgeous colour.
To enumerate the attractions of this great collection would, it need
hardly be said, take long, but one must speak of the famous “Chapeau de
Poil” of Rubens (“The Felt Hat,” not, as it is vulgarly known, “The
Chapeau de Paille”). As any one can see for himself, there is no _straw_
hat in the case. These, with the wonderfully powerful and abundant
Rembrandts, the “Sassoferrato” (blue-hooded) head, the Murillos, the
Reynolds and Gainsborough portraits, the grand Constables, the Turners,
the Claudes, the great Rubens landscape, the Hogarth series, the
Wilkies, Landseers, Moronis, Botticellis and Bordones may be considered
the “stock pieces” of the place. Frith’s “Derby Day,” and Rosa Bonheur’s
well-known “Horse Fair,” and the room full of Landseers, furnish the
holiday starers with delight. Rosa has, however, “gone down” somewhat in
the estimation of connoisseurs, and her horses and her style of painting
do not seem quite so marvellous nor so wonderful as they did originally:
her colouring is somewhat sketchy. There are other artists of later date
concerning whom we must also revise our judgments.
Our own Sir Joshua is here handsomely and abundantly represented. The
charm of this great painter is extraordinary; the grace, “distinction,”
and variety of his treatment are no less remarkable. “Lord Heathfield”
exhibits robust serenity with the rugged good-humoured face, and the
fine generous scarlet of his coat. The variety of Reynolds’ attitudes,
considering his countless sitters, is truly astonishing. One of his most
powerful efforts is the well-known head of Dr. Johnson, in the Peel
Collection. Here should be noted the suggestion of suffering, so
delicately conveyed, the curious look of expectancy, the air of softness
and even gentleness, infused into the rough lineaments. Our moderns make
their sitters stare from their frames, and every one says “How like!”
Gainsborough is a painter in whose praise one is tempted to grow wanton.
We are often inclined to wonder where he found the sea-green, cobalt
blue streaks. His faces are worthy of study. As will be seen, he conveys
the idea perfectly of transparency of skin, that is, we see the colour
below, _through_ the upper cuticle. The large picture of the Baillie
family in the vestibule is one of his finest works. There is the bold
firmness of touch, a rich stroke, and a certain brilliancy. This is the
more astonishing, as in his larger pictures and portraits there is
often an unpleasing coarseness. The term “master” may be certainly
applied to him, as it may be to Reynolds, Gainsborough, Wilkie,
Constable, Morland, perhaps Wilson, and a few more. Lawrence was a
portrait painter, not a master.
No painter is more accepted on account of his rank and prestige than
Rembrandt, and the collection is singularly strong in his works. There
is a sort of conventional idea of what a Rembrandt should be--a yellow
old man or woman looking out of a dark background. Yet few think how
luminous is his work. Thus, the old Vrow in the ruff is an amazing
specimen of his power; and it is worth while looking closely into the
face to see the vigorous fashion in which the strokes are dealt out, the
paint being literally plastered on, but with profoundest method. For we
have of course moderns who can lay on their paint as with a trowel, thus
assuming a vigour they do not possess. Each of his strokes have a
meaning, and it was not his intention to give an air of raised surface.
No one has approached him in the rich tone of his _golden_ tints.
The great Italian portraits here--the Moronis, Pordonones and others--we
have to grow acquainted and intimate with, to discover their power. The
“Tailor” of the first has been often praised for its expression and
dignity. The attitude is delightfully significant of his calling,
without, however, the least vulgar emphasis; so with that of the lawyer.
We learn in these that grace and propriety belong to all castes and
conditions. The costumes enter largely into the expression. When will
our moderns recognize the fact that a portrait must be _intellectual_,
both in the painter’s and in the sitter’s share? At the Academy
exhibitions we see Mayors, City men, Parliamentarians, and others, whom
nature has furnished with parts of a low money-getting type, and whom
our artists faithfully portray in dignified attitude and recognizable
shape. The sitter has done his best to look stately and “like a
gentleman.” Yet this is _not_ his likeness. But were we to see this man
in his counting-house with his clerks at a crisis, we should find him
becoming animated, ready, resolute, his features light up, and the low
vulgarity disappears. Your Moronis and others have found out this
secret.
There are some great canvases of Paolo Veronese in the large room:
“Alexander receiving the Family of Darius,” and others; but the visitor
turns from their comparatively dull tones with a little disappointment.
Any one who has seen the grand and brilliant “Marriage of Cana,” in the
Louvre, is spoiled for future judgment. That superb and brilliantly
animated scene seems to be the work of another master.
I could linger longer on these interesting themes, and have done little
more than touch on some of the great masterpieces here collected. But it
is not vanity to say that the visitor who has studied principles akin to
what we have been imperfectly setting out, will find a new, unsuspected
enjoyment in a visit to a Picture Gallery.