BOOKS.

TWO GREAT PORTRAIT PAINTERS.* THE proper way to write the Life of an artist is a matter of controversy. As a rule, books dealing with the lives and' works of painters are written by people who, however, • (1.) Sir J haw' 12,11no414. By Sir Waiter Armstrong. London : W. Heinemann.

((r:,• 1)4.u.othi )'wt /Va.1ty Lionel Gnat. London: G. Bell and Sons.; 4 3s.1

well acquainted they may be with literary methods, are generally unacquainted with the technical processes of paint- ing. It would seem that these writers are often in some degree conscious of a defect in their equipment, and as a meaisam of self-defence seek to carry the war into the enemy's camp by alarums and excursions, declaring absurd the painter's claim that he who expounds pictures should know something of the special faculties and attitude of mind of the people who produce them. In the past it was seldom the custom for painters to write books, and so the literature of art was almost entirely the work of the man of letters, whose ignorance of special matters raised the indignation and pre- judice of the painter. Now, when painters themselves often write on art, the controversy has become acute, the men of letters holding the position that pictures are painted for the benefit of the untechnical world at large and not for artists.

This may be so, but if the world cannot understand pictures without exposition, it is at least an arguable point that this failure to understand arises from imperfect comprehension of the special means which a painter has to use to make his motive visible. But if this is so, is the untechnical critic likely to be of much use ? To take up the position that every painter must be able to write about art is as absurd as it is to say that no one should criticise unless he is able to produce better work than that in which he is pointing out defects. The controversy largely arises out of the fact that the real significance of technique

has been so largely misunderstood. Many persons seem to think that a painter conceives his work, and then has to use a base mechanical process to get it on to the canvas no more subtle and personal than the bricklaying and carpentering which materialise an architect's plan. In truth, technique in painting is thought and emotion visible. For this reason technique cannot be lightly passed over, but must be treated

as of the highest importance in a serious discussion of the works of a painter.

It is with regret that we have read the two huge volumes on Reynolds and Van Dyck, printed on the thickest of paper, and lavishly illustrated with photogravures. The want of perspective and proportion is strongly felt in the discussion of the works of the masters of which the volumes treat. Over and over again we are given tiresome details as to the originals of the portraits, and a long enumeration of their sisters and cousins, while the painting itself is dismissed in a

few perfunctory phrases. Sir Walter Armstrong seems to care mostly for all the little incidents he can gather which

accumulate evidence in favour of the position he takes up that Reynolds was a cold-hearted man, with an exasperatingly moderate temperament. It is hardly too much to say that the author frankly dislikes Sir Joshua, whom he calls a "just, kindly, and imperturbable egoist." The following quotation indicates the attitude taken up by the biographer towards Reynolds, both as regards the man and his art :—

" He was imperturbably kind, judicial, and non-impulsive. As to what lay beneath the surface, men held different opinions in his lifetime, and have differed ever since. To me it appears in- disputable that Sir Joshua's heart was very hard, but his mind just—a combination mneh more usual than we are apt to think— and that his one passion, if it can be called a passion, was ambition, which in his case was a quiet, persistent determination to fill as conspicuous a position in the society and art of his time

as his abilities and the accident of his birth would allow Reynolds distrusted genius; and from his own point of view he was right. He arrived at results scarcely to be distinguished from those of genius, and did so entirely by the action of a pro- found taste upon accumulated materials. His path towards excellence was conscious, discriminative, judicial. Every step he took depended upon the exercise of a deliberate choice. He felt no heats driving him into particular expression in his own despite. Just as by fairness of mind he produced the effect of sympathy among his friends, so by unerring judgment he pro- duces the effect of creation on us who value his art."

It seems somewhat difficult to imagine this hard-hearted, ambitious man being the constant friend of Dr. Johnson for thirty 3 errs. Surely Johnson, who was a profound observer of men, must have found lovable qualities in the man whom he saw so constantly, and whose friendship he

certainly valued. As to the charge of absence of passion and emotion, we should say that the fullest expression of a man

like Reynolds is to be found in his work. It seems absurd to deny passion, and to attribute all results to the calculated effects of style, to the artist who painted the "Lord Heath- iield." in the National Gallery. This 'Picture vibrates with emotion, and its effects can be felt both in the noble design and in the wonderful execution of the face. About this picture Sir W. Armstrong very truly remarks that the symbolical key which the defender of Gibraltar holds is no excrescence upon the picture, as such symbols usually are, but vital to the whole design. Another valuable piece of criticism refers to the equal success of Sir Joshua alike in his portraits of men and women, and the author aptly says that the designs and patterns of the portraits have sex.

We find the old accusation in the chapter devoted to the writings on art by Reynolds,—that he did not carry out in practice the theories that he preached. This is no doubt true, but it must be always remembered that Sir Joshua spoke mainly of ideal art, while he himself was occupied with portrait painting. The theory that draperies should be neither silk nor satin but abstract drapery is no doubt dismal enough when carried out by the late Bolognese school, but still this theory has been carried out with success by Puvis de Chavannes, and in his work it is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Cust has expended great labour on his book about Van Dyck, but the same criticism must be again made,—that minute and often trivial facts about the pictures take the place of real criticism. As an instance of this take the account of the " Rinaldo and Armida," a really great work, which consists of fourteen lines about the price paid for it and its probable purchaser, and six lines about the picture itself. The general study of the art of Van Dyck at the end of the book is hardly satisfactory, and we share the author's regret that the late Mr. R. A. M. Stevenson did not live to write a study of the master. Any one who wishes to read a really fine piece of writing on art should read his work on Velas- quez, if they have not done so already. It is difficult to speak too highly of the method of that masterly aealysis, which never loses sight of the fact that the pictures are of greater importance than the small details of the painter's existence. Here we look in vain for any real study of the special characteristics of Van Dyck's power of seeing and painting, and are obliged, instead, to be content with a vast mass of information, marshalled with great skill, as to the histories of the pictures. Some day we hope this collection of facts will be supplemented by a real inquiry into the art of Van Dyck. Mr. Cust points out the different influences which affected the course of Van Dyck's painting. but considers that Titian was the painter who dominated his mind. In many ways the portraits painted at Genoa were finer than anything the artist produced in after years, though when he left Italy his style became more individual. But then the sordid character of the man came in and spoilt much of his work, for latterly he seems to have allowed numberless works to issue from his studio of which his share was of the slightest. Every now and then he produced a masterpiece, such as the " Thomas Killigrew and Thomas Carew," or the "Lord Wharton," which stand out amid dreary full-lengths executed by formula. The two works just mentioned gain by the sitters being only seen in part. Van Dyck never arrived at that consummate power of execution which enabled Velasquez to produce perfect unity of impression. This artist was able to give a reality and harmony to his full-lengths never attained by Van Dyck, who so often marred the general effect by a certain want of balance of effect. The volume before us is lavishly illus- trated with photogravures, many of which are excellent, though they do not quite reach the level of the illustrations in Mr. Law's book on the Van Dycks at Windsor. The print of the book is clear and black, but somewhat dazzling, and so large that it wants to be held at arms' length ; but this is impossible, owing to the uncomfortable weight of the volume. In fact, both the volumes we have been noticing require the support of a cathedral lectern.