28 NOVEMBER 1846, Page 18

FINE ARTS.

THREATENED DESTRtfCTION OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

THERE IS too much reason to fear that the national collection of pictures is not in safe keeping. We have not come to that conclusion hastily, and we speak advisedly. Nor do we use the words in any figurative or hyperbolical sense, but wish them to be understood in as literal and strong a sense at possible. As the national property at stake is of a kind that cannot be re- placed, we wish to draw the attention of all who have influence to effort' tr, rescue. Our charges against those who have the care of the Gallery are, that they do not understand the business of arranging pictures; that they are using the funds at their disposal to buy pictures which are least wanted, inferior, or even positively bad; that they neglected to buy works of the very finest kind, when actually courting their purchase; and that they are destroying the pictures that they have. We will explain the grounds of these charges without technical or conventional terms, in such a way that any person of intelligence may know the need for interference. Arrangement of the Gallery. We have before remarked, that the ar- rangement of pictures in the National Gallery is like that of an auction- room: but that hardly sets forth the case. One may perhaps detect the auctioneer's tendency to display the novelties to the greatest advantage; as where nearly a whole wall is given to pictures of the lowest class-80M BO bad that they ought to be admitted nowhere but into a lumber-room or possibly into the hall or odd corners of an universal gallery of pictures, merely as specimens to complete the circle of "schools." But that is not the worst fault in the arrangement. Any experienced picture-dealer woula know better than to place fine specimens, that invite minute inspection, such as Titian's "Concert"; out of sight, while places are found for such wretched alehouse inspirations as some of the newly-bequeathed. One of the most important pictures of the collection, the " Raising of Lazarus," hung so as to be dimly seen: it might advantageously change places with Murillo's "Holy Family"; which is neither so dark nor so superlatively commanding in its claims for preference. The great picture serves, hie others in the Gallery, as a looking-glass to reflect the light-coloured flocae The white stone pathway up the centre obtrudes itself into many a picture, as much as if its tint formed part of the colouring. The noble fragment of Raphael's cartoon" The Massacre of the Innocents," defies any manant- vering to discern it through its glass cover. Purchase of Inferior Pictures. We accuse those who manage the funds of gross misappropriation. The collection is small—a mere beginning: the funds are limited: it is therefore necessary to buy the best pictures that can be had, and such as are fine types of their order. The pictures actu- ally purchased are neither the finest nor those most needed as types. Having in the Gallery rather a numerous set by Rubens, and some very choice specimens of that painter, 4,2001. is given for the "Judgment of Paris." It is no doubt a fine work; but it was not wanted in the sense that the Gallery wants many great typical works, such as one of Titian's por- traits or Raphael's oil-pictures. The Trustees give 1,2001. and over for Guido's Susannah and the Elders,"—a nice painting of a pretty woman, but not wanted, nor fit to stand in the presence of Ludovioo Carracci's beautiful version of the same subject; 400/. for " The Infant Christ and St. John,"—a very indifferent picture by the same artist; 2,2001. for the "Spanish Boar-hunt," by Velasquez,—a work possessing many beauties, but not imperatively wanted. The most flagrant act, however, was the notorious purchase of the so-called " Holbein "; a transaction on which every additional fact brought out throws additional disgrace. The Trus- tees have reason for the bitter repentance which they are understood to feel for the blunder: their contrition cannot do sway the effect of that practical exposure of their own incompetency. The history of this strange acquisition to our Gallery is singular. On its first appearance, it was set down in the catalogue as "a portrait by Holbein." This announcement was met by a shout of derision • any one can see that the picture is no more like Holbein than Knelfer is like Titian: it has none of Holbein'e characteristics—not even his faults. The dismayed Trustees found that they had deluded themselves; in place of Holbein's name, was substituted the periphrastic statement, "Painted by an artist of Holbein's time, and re- sembling him in manner." Which artist, then, of Holbein's time? Resem- bling him in what particulars? This picture was bought for 6001.: a writer in the .Times," V eras," who evidently speaks by the card, says that it was "offered for 3001. by the dealer who sold it to the Gallery." We believe it may be added, that the picture has been well known: before it came

into the London market, it might have been bought in France, within these twelve years, under twenty guineas.

Rejection of Fine Work.s. From what has been said, it would appear that although the managers of the Gallery are called upon to be thrifty,

they can plead no absolute lack of funds. Neither can they plead that

they have had no opportunities of buying fine works-the very finest of their kind. The Lawrence collection of drawings was deliberately rejected

-even the Michelangelo and Raphael set, and Lionardo da Vinci's studies of

heads for his decaying picture of "The Last Supper," were suffered to go, in severed portions, to Holland and to Oxford. The collection was valu- able in every sense: it was "infinite riches in a little room "; interesting in the subjects; exhibiting the very highest qualities of art; and most useful to the student, who saw in the drawings the process of study as it was car- ried on by the greatest masters. We will mention two more recent cases of rejeotion. One of the finest pictures that ever came from Titian's easel, the " Tarquin and Lucretia "-a subject treated with the highest severity of imagination-was to be had for 7001. Here was opportunity for obtain-

ing a large and noble historical picture by Titian. The gentlemen who paid double the market-price for the picture-dealers' leavings called " Hol-

bein," passed by the great picture, and it is now in the possession of Mr.

Coningham. Not a:doubt could suggest itself as to the propriety of hav- ing Raphael's "Virgin and Child"; " Verax" says that it might have been bought for 1,0001., and we have reason to believe that he is correct: it was passed by. It is not want of funds that prevented these purchases, but want of knowledge, of competent perception in matters of art.

Destruction of Pictures. The destruction of pictures is carried on under the name of cleaning. Here the Keeper must be held especially responsible. We will .confine our statement to two flagrant cases. One of the most important pictures in the collection has been irreparably damaged; another great work has been so injured that all its beauties are destroyed. Titian's " Bacchus and Ariadne," although formerly injured in parts by tampering and darkened by time, still was a fine specimen of the painter's smaller pictures-small in size, great in design and execution. With the "dirt" the cleaners have now removed much or all of the transparent colour- ing; and the most obvious results of the damage are these. In nature, the several colours of all objects take a special tone from the quality of the light that shines upon them at any given moment of time; all tints under the same light, therefore, display a certain unity with each other: in this picture, one tint of golden light glowed over all the varying local colours; that quality of light was partly worked out in the solid painting, partly conveyed in the transparent colouring which formed the last stage of painting; that transparent colouring is removed, and the unity is gone. Thus a summer sun warms the colours of the figures, but the sky is that of January. The perspective even is altered, in the following manner. In the group of figures is a satyr, whose brown flesh is opposed to the fair skin of two women behind him-that is, they are further from the foreground: without destroying the brightness of the fairer flesh, the transparent colouring subdued it, making it less prominent; at the same time, as varnish does to a mahogany table, it brought out the colour of the dark satyr's flesh, making it brighter and more prominent. *he transparent colours are gone; the fair flesh now comes more forward than Titian meant it to do; and the satyr, who is before the women in position, actually seems further off, through the change in the colour. These results of the damaging process will easily be perceived on examin- ing the picture.

The destruction of Rubens's "Peace Driving away the Horrors of War" is glaring. Over the whole of this picture also there was one flood of glow- ing light, giving unity and that richness of tint for which Rubens is famous.

With the " dirt " the whole of the transparent colouring on the surface has been removed; the unity is broken into parts, and the warmth has turned to bleakness. The tiger's hide, that was a lustrous tawny, has now turned to a dead brown and grey: the difference between what was and what is, is that between silk and cotton. The flesh of the principal female figure was brilliant and transparent: it is now harsh and opaque-a dead white, as if painted with chalk and pink tooth-powder. The damaging process is exhibited with painful distinctness in the shoulder of the man crouching in front. It is a compost of rude, harsh, unblended stains- tthitish, reddish, and brown-blackish. If you scrutinize the shoulder of Mercury in the "Judgment of Paris," to the right, you can detect, under- neath the outer painting, a very similar assemblage of tints; but they are covered with transparent colours, and combined into the most brilliant and harmonious hue: these colours are removed from the shoulder of the man in the "Peace and War," and you see the consequence. In fact, the last stage of Rubens's work has been undone-the picture has been disfinished It is not even as Rubens would have left it an unfinished sketch; for it has on it the debris of his later painting, and its surface has been injured.

It is not an unfinished work, but a wreck. In the case of this picture, the spectator has the advantage of comparing it with other works by the same painter, one on each wall of the same room. And, by the way, if it was necessary to "try" this process of cleaning, why not have tried it on the picture, less precious in execution, of "Moses and the Serpents "? Four thousand pounds was given for "The Judgment of Paris," and then a still finer picture is destroyed !

Is this "cleaning" process to be continued throughout the Gallery? We fear that it is, unless some more judicious advisers interfere. We fear so, because Mr. Eastlake seems to have implied a promise that a great clean- ing course should begin this year; and we presume that this is the be- gmning.

We think we have said enough to show, in sober sadness, that the na- tional collection of pictures is in danger of destruction by those to whom it is intrusted for safe keeping.