THE LIFE OF SIR CHARLES EASTLAKE.* LADY EASTLAKE puts forward

this memoir of her husband with such modesty that we have no right to be disappointed. According to the title-page, the position occupied by the memoir is purely subordinate, and the opening pages speak of little more than a selection of Sir Charles's early letters. We do not know what materials may have been at Lady Eastlake's disposal, but it

• Contributions to the Literature of the Fine Arts. (Second Series.) By Sir Charles Lock Eastlake. With a Memoir. Compiled by Lady Eartlake. London: Murray is significant that she gives us least information about the most active period of her husband's life, and the one with which she must have been best acquainted. If it be urged in reply that with the growth of new duties and dignities Sir Charles Eastlake ceased to be a painter, and that this memoir is intended to give us a painter's life, we can only say that it scarcely ever conveys that impression. We hear occasionally of pictures being painted, of orders being given, and of works proving successful. But except in rare instances, Sir Charles Eastlake's life seems more that of a student or a connoisseur than that of an artist. 1Ve are told of his extreme humility, that "no man ever put a lower estimate on his own merits and powers," that "it never occurred to his single- hearted and over-anxious nature that he possessed excellence of any kind." If we add to this diffidence the constant leaning on great names, the habitual reference to the classical ages of Italian art, the careful study of their practice, for which Sir Charles was conspicuous, we miss those features of originality and independence without which Art can hardly rise above the tameness of eclecticism. Many great painters have been most unjust to their contempora- ries. Others have only praised those from whom they feared no rivalry. Others have recognized merit because they could afford to be generous. But Sir Charles Eastlake always appears to have put himself out of the question when any brother painter was to be discussed. If he praised, it was not as one who had practised art, but as one who had studied it. If he blamed (as he did in the case of the Cornelius frescoes at Munich), he was certainly brought nearer to our conception of an artist. In that instance, his eye and his hand guided him to a right judgment ; he did not fall back on the distilled essence of other, men's thoughts and practice. But at other times his chief defect was a scientific impartiality. We trace this in his critical works as well as in his familiar letters, and the long rambling essay called "how to Observe," which is published in this volume, may be taken as a sample. It is vain to look for any principles of art or any thread to guide us through the maze, but we have many excellent observations on a variety of subjects, and we cannot fail to pick up some of the author's familiarity with the great schools of painting.

• The reason why we expect more than this from Sir Charles Eastlake is that at an early age he showed an aptitude for art which ought to have culminated in something greater than he ever attained. The letter he wrote to his father from Charterhouse, when he was only fifteen, has in it a consciousness of a mission. "It is necessary to inform you," he begins, "that my profession is unalterably fixed—it is that of an historical Painter. My enthusiastic propensity for it, my ardent desire to begin my studies, and my future reputation as a Painter, require that I should leave the Charterhouse immediately." On his father's complying with the request and removing hint from school, the boy at once set to work at painting with the utmost diligence- Haydon took him as a pupil, and he was soon after admitted as a student at the Royal Academy. lie talks of rising early, drawing in his own room before breakfast, drawing at the Academy from half-past nine till five and from six to eight, and then occupying himself from eight to twelve with Latin, Greek, and drawing. This ought to have been enough to fit him for the career of an artist, and yet the results of that career were not commensu- rate with this early promise. It may be that, as a publisher's

clerk said to an author whose volume of poems had proved a failure, Eastlake had the artistic temperament, but not the artistic

power. It may be that the original genius which was sufficiently strong to prompt his devoting his life to historical painting was overlaid by the admiration he acquired for the masterpieces of Italian art, and that his mind became contemplative rather than active. The zeal with which he threw himself into the work of the Fine Arts' Commission, giving up nearly hie whole time for a salary which could not have equalled his earnings as a

painter, shows that some change must have come over his youthful aspirations. Of this Lady Eastlake does not seem to be COUNIOUS. She even cites as an instance of the way in which Sir Charles looked at all things from a painter's point of view, the remark, which appears to us more like-

that of a courtier, that the Prince Consort "stood in a strong light, which showed his beautiful face to great advantage." On this principle, it might be said that the clergyman who, when

preaching before the same Prince, took for his text, "Thine eyes

shall see the king in his beauty," was saturated with the spirit of the ancient prophets. We do not mean to imply that being brought in contact with Royalty had an injurious effect on Sir Charles Eastlake's reputation as a painter, although it may have confirmed him in the new course to which he was gradually being

committed. That Sir Charles was not wholly a courtier at this time is evident from the phrase which follows that already quoted. "Two or three times," he says, speaking of a discussion the Prince Consort had with him, "I quite forgot who he was—he talked so naturally and argued so fairly." It certainly savours more of an unsophisticated painter than of one versed in the ways of Courts to suggest that these qualities are seldom met with in princes.

After all, there was a genuine enthusiasm for Art in Sir Charles Eastlake's self-sacrifice. When his brothers remonstrated with him for giving himself up to the Fine Arts' Commission, he replied, "I prefer a situation in which I can influence the arts of the country to a private sinecure." His praise of Turner, his discovery of Fra Angelico, his fear lest an insurrection in Paris should endanger the pictures at the Louvre, his efforts to secure Sir Thomas Lawrence's collection for some national institution, are full of the same spirit. Although the memoir contains many noticeable details which are not strictly connected either with art or Eastlake, the most interesting passages belong to both. The account of Napoleon's visit to Plymouth Sound on board the Bellerophon, and of the sketches which Eastlake took of him, introduces us to a striking incident in the artist's early career :—

"Although the vessel was anchored four and a half miles off Plymouth, the young painter daily took boat and hovered round, watching for every glimpse of the great captive with the keenest attention, and taking rapid sketches. His assiduity attracted tho notice of Buonaparte, who occasionally, by keeping in one position, gave the painter reason to believe that he lent himself to his object. He generally made his appear- ance at the gangway on the starboard side about six in the evening, when he bowed to the spectators assembled by thousands in the boats around. When I was nearest him he stood for about a quarter of an hour or more, and seemed to be amused by examining the extent of the crowd below him with an opera-glans. At first he appeared with his hat on, but, since he has contrived to assemble his visitors at a certain time, and the regularity of the thing has assumed more the appearance of a lev4e, he remains with his hat off while he exhibits himself at whole length. A suppressed cheer has more than once greeted him on retiring, but it was, I suppose, intended as an answer to the very civil manner in which he takes leave of the company.'"

We have mentioned Sir Charles's judgment upon Cornelius and the Munich frescoes as an unusually favourable specimen of art criticism. It is not for this reason alone that we quote it. Opinions are still much divided on the subject of that painter whom the Germans consider the regenerator of modern art, and whose works are said to have been received with unbounded ad- miration in Paris. More than one attempt has been made in England--one, if we mistake not, only the other day—to bring the same works into public favour by the use of that vague declamatory criticism which has answered so well in Germany. To this Sir Charles Eastlake's comments furnish a wholesome corrective :—

" Cornelius' works have a grand conception and a sort of condensation of the spirit of his subject, but still, something which tells better in words than in painting. I have observed that Germans and Italians are always glad to harangue and describe their pictures, and their works naturally look better and more interesting while this commentary is going on. It would be wiser if they calculated what effect these pictures would have when they are left to tell their own story, which they must do sooner or later. This is an important consideration for an artist. The colour in these frescoes is absolutely below criticism, the expressions vulgar and exaggerated, and the forms by no means pure. A grand composition and grand general conception are the chief merits—the only merits. The fallen state of criticism and knowledge of art hero is very perceptible. The painter is lauded by his brother artists (with some exoeptions), and, of course, the connoisseurs and the public follow. Tho truth will only be known fifty years hence. Amidst such a world of error in all these modern schools it is absolutely necessary to define the end and means of art, and to follow them conscientiously, fearlessly.

Cornelius has departed from nature without rising to a general idea: manner, caprice, vulgarity, and ugliness are often the consequence."

The years that Sir Charles spent in Rome were naturally the most prolific of his artist life, and Lady Eastlake dwells on them with a very praiseworthy enthusiasm. Sir Charles entered Rome for the first time in company with "a young Dr. Bunsen, then unknown to fame." A few days after his arrival, he writes of " a Dane, called Torwalzen," as superior to Canova. A summer trip into the country near brought the painter into close quarters with banditti; and gave him several subjects for pictures. The model for one of these, he says, is "a bandit's wife who had been a frequent sitter to me. Her first husband was put to death ; her present one is in the galleys for fifteen years. I hope the act of charity she is performing in your picture may destroy these associations. She may, at least, be suffered to do good in a picture. Even in nature the most contradictory mixture of good and bad qualities is one of the peculiarities of these people. The men, robbers are generous and cruel by turns, and the women watch over their safety and hazard their lives for them in circum- stances very fit for picturesque representation. This has accord-

ingly given me a hint for several pictures which I have done." Our readers will think that such passages as these contradict the opening of our review. But though these passages give us a glimpse of the true artist, there are not many of them even in the Roman period. The list of Sir Charles Eastlake's works given in this volume is much longer than the memoir itself would lead us to expect, and even of the works mentioned in the memoir only a few survive in the public memory.