PAINTING AND PAINTERS. * TEN book combines two valuable intentions,—that of
giving, as the title expresses it, " historical and critical notices" of the great
schools of painting excel* the English ; and that of supplying a guide to the specimens of those schools visible in England. But the intention, in such a case, does not count for so much as the execution. Here there is little to be said in favour either of the combina- tion itself or of the manner in which each object is managed indi- vidually. He who wants a guide to the contents of English gal-
leries will prefer a catalogue to a couple of octavo volumes ; a catalogue raisons by all means, if information can be joined to
portability, but at any rate a portable catalogue. For such a pur- pose, little perhaps beyond a careful division and subdivision into schools, the dates of birth and death, the name of the master or masters of each painter, and some broad but close and brief cha- racterization of the works catalogued, would be admissible. Bio- graphical details may be more interesting than criticism, but they
ao not bear so directly upon the work in hand, and their introduc-
tion or scale ought to depend on the question of space. In these volumes, the catalogue is overwhelmed by the criticism and bio- graphy ; being reduced to a mere index of works and galleries fol- lowing the painters' names which are arranged alphabetically, and occupying less than a third of the second volume. So much for the manner in which the combination has been effected.
This might, indeed, be justified on other grounds if the literary bulk of the book possessed intrinsic value. But when we turn to this as the first of the two constituent parts, we find it destitute of authority or depth. It is composed of a translation or adapta- tion of a French work by a M. Valentin ; full of alterations, cor- rections, and additions, the more important of which are marked by brackets. It does not pretend to profound criticism, or to be on questions of authenticity " a pictorial Warwick "—a setter-up and puller-down of the kings of the gallery—but to be "a popu- lar compendium for the amateur and general reader." Now a po- pular compendium may be a very excellent thing after its kind ; and, though the strong individual views of one worthy to be heard on the subject are far more valuable than cosmopolitan sympathy with any and every style of art, still a degree of such sympathy is in its place under the circumstances. The joint labour of M. Va- lentin and Lady Jervis supplies exactly that amount of entertain- ment and instruction which is inseparable from its theme, but certainly very little more. With the easy confidence of his na- tion, the Frenchman jogs on, retailing facts and anecdotes, glowing with cheap raptures, and reproducing such critical opinions as are the common stock of picture-haunting Europe—of all who, with- out decided opinions of their own, profess or affect the dilettante. With such material' to work upon, we have no doubt that Lady Jervis found plenty of field for correction. In several instances, she prints M. Valentin's opinion first, and her own modification of it afterwards ; a most unnecessary proceeding, considering that M. Valentin's opinion, as such, has no claim upon the reader's re- spect. But neither is she a careful editress ; and, in a work which, like this, aspires to be nothing beyond a book of reference, good editing—reliable matter-of-fact—is the very thing in requisition. A few examples may suffice ; and these are such as require no cri- tical insight, no laboured reading, for their detection, but blunders which meet every eye. To say that some are printer's errors may be true; but that only aggravates the objection.
The old " ingenious fable " is given of the girl who traced the contour of her lover's shadow on the wall. This may purport to be the origin of drawing, or of the art of relief when it is added that the space was afterwards filled up with clay ; but cannot be, what it is here called, the origin of painting. The forms of Egyptian art, without exception, are termed " monstrous." Assy- rian art is spoken of, by implication, as older than that of Egypt. The influx of Byzantine painters into Italy after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks is cited as giving the impulse to the Renaissance ; although. Italy was then already advanced in art, Byzantium decadent or null. "Cimabue properly belongs to the transition period of painting, when the Pagan style was passing into the Christian" ;—an entire misstatement of the filet. The archaism of Cimabue, although certainly archaism, had nothing to do with the Pagan period, but derived alto- gether from the Christian. Raphael was buried in the "Par- thenon." (!) " Some of " Giorgione's heads "inspired Byron with one of his most brilliant poems ": one of them inspired cer- tain stanzas in. lieppo. Titian's "St. Peter Martyr" figures as "the Martyrdom of St. Peter." "It is remarkable that the most prolific and the most glorious epoch of the life of Murillo was from 1670 to 1680, when he was at least sixty years of age and upwards. This was because, like all men of genius in the decline of life," &e.: if he followed the universal rule, where is the marvel ? Proper names turn up in the most ludicrous state of dissolution: Sgudra for Sandro Botticelli, Pietro del Cortona, Guiseppino constantly for Giuseppino, Ganjou for Goujon, Piloa for Pilon. Dates fare no better. Giovanni Bel- lini is chronioled to have died aged forty-eight, instead of eighty-eight. Titian, born in 1480 and living ninety-nine years, dies in 1576. Albano dates only from 1578 to 1600. Castiglione dies in 1760, instead of 1670 ; Caravaggio in 1709, instead of 1609. laurillo lives eighty-four years between 1618 and 1682. Boullonge • Painting and Celebrated Painters, Ancient and Modern; including Historical and Critical Notices of the Schouis of Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Edited by Lady Jervis White Jervis. In two volumes. Published by Hurst and Flackett. dies both in 1710 and in 1717, within seventeen lines. More than two centuries elapse between Raphael and Lesueur ; although the former was born in 1483, the latter in 1617.
Critical statements, again, are loose in the extreme. Lionardo " assisted his study of the Greek ideal with constant and comprehen- sive observation of nature,"—as if that vast mind had considered the form of expression the paramount thing, the truth to be ex- pressed a step towards that. Throughout there is a maundering under-current about the " classic " and the " antique." " The genius of Michael Angelo was eminently sculptural ; and, had he been encouraged to work only in marble and bronze, there is but little doubt that his productions would hare formed a connecting link between modern and ancient art. The works he did execute in the round,' few though they be, are regarded with a certain reverence by the artist "—why ?—" for their manifest resemblance to their classic prototypes." That sentence is supremely absurd. Giorgione is " the first of the great masters of colour who gave prominence to the Venetian school ";—and this after several pages devoted to the Bellini ! The practice of introducing the figure of the donor in religious pictures is spoken of as belong- ing to the decline of art ; and " the worst feature in this prostitu- tion of art is the frequent introduction of the tiara into the most sacred representations ; sometimes it appears on the head of the First Person of the Trinity." This is the merest chimera of which popephobia is capable. The tiara is not transferred from the Pope to the Divine Personage, but is conferred upon the former as a symbol of his vicegerency from God. It may be erroneous, or blasphemous if Lady Jervis prefers that word, to give it to the man ; it can be nothing but reverent and appropriate as the sign of kingdom over earth, hell, and heaven, in Deity. These critical vagaries, we must add with ungallant candour, belong to the lady; but here is one which tops them all, if possible, from the gentleman—" Be- fore his [Raphael's] time, artists seem to have indulged in wild and half-savage habits, which not only rendered them eccentric, but plunged them into the most vicious excesses. The divine painter' set his pupils the example of his personal virtues, and of those fascinating qualities which contribute so much to the happi- ness of society. In fine, to sum up all, we may, without fear of contradiction, assert that Raphael Sanzio d'Urbino was one of the most admirable of men." The praise of Raphael here may pass for what it is worth, and, at worst, for blind epitaph-writing,—although it is only lately, we believe, that biographers have discovered that he did not die worn out with dissipation ; but the assertion as to other painters is a libel so gross and monstrous as to be re- futed by the very names of men such as Cimabue, Giotto, Era Angelico, Lionardo, or the Bellini.
That which distinguishes these volumes from other mediocre summaries about art is its reference to pictures in England, and the final catalogue of such works. Lady Jervis is doubtless right in saying that no previous undertaking of the kind could pretend to completeness, and the task was one well worth accomplishing. The entire omission of English pictures is a serious, but, according to the scheme of the attempt, a warrantable one. How far Lady Jervis has advanced towards supplying the deside- ratum, we cannot venture to say with precision. Some omissions occur to us. Among the thirty-three Giorgiones catalogued—a number obviously exorbitant for genuine specimens—we miss Sir James Caraegie's so-called Lucrezia Borgia, exhibited this year at the British Institution. None of the Holbeins or Lelys at Knole Park appear ; nor, indeed, do we find Lord Amherst down among owners at all. The Masaceio at the National Gallery is recorded, but not some others of the same purchase ; and Raphael's Massacre of the Innocents has slipped out unaccountably. But a great deal has been done, for which we ought to be grateful, if something has been left undone. As to the arrangement and supervision, however, we find the same faults which disfigure the rest of the book. Names are still misspelled, and differently spelled moreover from the form in which they stand in the text. The absence of any hint of the locale of the various galleries is a grave deficiency ; nor do these appear in alphabetical or other systematic order, but just as the case may happen, and sometimes even broken into by others. Bronzino is blunderingly recatalogued after he has already figured in his own name of Allori : and so is Manzuoli di San Friano.
There is no distinction between the elder and the younger Cranach, though it must be as good as certain that all the works are not by
one of the two only. The concert called a Titian at the National Gallery is set down both to Titian and to Giorgione. And two curious names have insinuated themselves into the list—that of Valentine Bartholomew, our living English water-colour flower- painter, and that of the Marchese d'Azeglio, the amateur Sardinian. Minister.
Previous page
