Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

height of the wails is about 18 feet. But to the cove? (Mr Wilkins) 22. The hall is 30 feet high, and that would contain a great many pictures. What is the size of the Cartoons? The Cartoons, I should think, are about 12 feet by 16;-they are long. And what is the height? I should think 16 feet. And at what height do you consider they ought to be placed from the floor to be properly seen? I should say as high as they now are in Hampton Court. How high is that? About 12 feet from the ground. So that, in that case you would require a space of 22 feet? Yes-which is about the height of the room they are now in. I believe there are some very fine Rubenses in the banqueting room at Whitehall, are there not? They are magnificent pictures, and where they are, quite thrown away. In short, nothing can be so absurd as to have them in a Chapel--they would have been very desirable works indeed for a National Gallery. And if they should come into the possession of the National Gallery, do you think they will be able to dispose of them? The centre picture is 40 feet by 30. And what may the height be? It is an ob

by you for pictures? For pictures of a large size; that we should call in this country a very large sized picture. Is there light enough? Yes- very good light. How many will it hold? It will not hold many. Will it hold a picture thirty feet high? The room itself is thirty feet high. Would it hold the Paolo Ver

onese in the Louvre ? O yes, there is a room that would. What room is it? It is a room given for sculpture. Chairman, but does not that belong to the Royal Academy? Yes-not to the nation? Is there so large a room in that part given to the nation? O no, certainly not-I think the greatest length we have might be made fifty-five feet by twenty-two. (To Mr Seguier.) But a room that requires a picture of large size to be placed on the ground, does not give it an opportunity of exhibition? Certainly not; it ought to be at a greater height from its size. In fact, most of the large pictures were intended for elevated altars? Certainly."

It is very manifest from the evidence of Dr Waagen and others, that all governments and courts of Europe are

long picture, 40 feet one way, and 30 feet strenuously endeavouring at this mo

the other. So that it will be quite impossible that those shall be placed in the National Gallery? Quite. Then I think the fine specimens of the Venetian School are generally a very large size? Yes, generally, and for that reason cannot be placed very near the eye. Then, if the public should ever obtain possession of any specimens of that school, do you think they would be able to dispose of them in the National Gallery? I do not think in the present building that there would be room. (Mr Wilkins). Certainly not for pictures of those dimensions. (Chairman, to Mr Wilkins.) Can you tell us the highest part of the gallery at Munich? No, I do not know. These galleries are planned more with reference to our present collection than to any larger pictures. (To Mr Seguier.) Does the present gallery merely include those pictures that are in the present National Gallery, or those that are in possession of the public, that may be added to the National Collection? There are some not hung up. The King presented six pictures, five of which are very large, and there was no room to put them up here. Were you consulted as to the formation of the present National Gallery? No. 1665. Then, I understand, you had no immediate communication with the architect who planned the National Gallery, so that there might be a connexion between the pictures to be placed in the National Gallery, and the construction of the Gallery itself? No. (To Mr Wilkins.) Was the great hall of entrance intended

ment (and have been long most earnest in the pursuit as the state of their galleries proclaims) to procure the finest works of art. And what are we doing? What have we been doing? The Seven Sleepers," or all the sleepers are not yet awake! The great man of general management, to take down and put up at his pleasure, to advise, to seek, and to purchase, appears to be Mr Seguier. The uninitiated may be desirous of knowing who Mr Seguier is, and what are his high qualifications for this important national trust which seems really to devolve upon him. Mr Seguier is keeper of the National Gallery-keeper of the King's pictures, and has the superintendence of the British Institution. If the public are to judge of his qualifications by his superintendence at the British Institution, they will not think very highly-as some few very inferior pictures, and bad copies have been there admitted, and we have reason to think that some very good have either been overlooked or refused by him. But then he has to study the whims of the great, and perhaps cannot do what he would, and must do what he would not. He is thought, howeved, to be exclusive. Mr Seguier's evidence differs from that of other witnesses-he strikes " The Mill" by Claude, though he never has seen the

one in the Doria Palace, and has never 'been in Italy; he thinks the horrid performance called Andrea del Sarto (which others do not) an original-is a judge of Andrea del Sarto, because he has seen seven works of that master in the possession of Lord Cowperwhich he considers Andrea del Sarto's finest works, though he has never seen his finest works in his native town, Florence and, by-the-by, we had some years ago, the grandest specimen of that master in this country, mentioned by Vasari and Lanzi, and which was latterly offered for sale in Paris, and was purchased last Christmas by Dr Waagen for the Museum at Berlin-vide Solley's evidence, who adds " And which I think that the committee of taste, and their adviser Mr Seguier, ought to have purchased for the National Gallery; we should then have been enabled to have compared a true and fine picture of the master, who may be called the Senza errore, or the Faultless,' with the abortion now called Andrea del Sarto,' in the National Gallery." The same evidence likewise confirms Mr Peel's view of the bad state of the national pictures, which Mr Seguier considers to be in a good state. Then we know not, if Mr Seguier advised the Institution to purchase, at 3000 guineas, or to present to the nation, Mr West's detestable display of oil and brickdust, but he certainly speaks of it in high terms, and adds, "if it has a defect." He asserts that he purchased the "Holy Family" by Sir Joshua, which he considers a very fine picture, and which others consider faded, and gone to a shadow, and which in its most perfect state must have been a burlesque, a caricature of a" Holy Family." Mr Seguier is acquainted with the galleries of Flanders, Holland, and France, but has never been at Munich. Mr Seguier then has never been in Italy nor at Munich, where is the finest gallery, and perhaps the finest collection of pictures in Europe, and yet is the adviser for purchases for the nation. Then what do

*

the committee do? They have perhaps ten or twelve meetings in a year. "Examine letters," for there are "a great many offers of pictures." "There have been no purchases made lately." "But what proposals have been made?' Mr Seguier is asked." There has been only, in a very trifling instance, two pictures by Gainsborough."—" But of Italian pictures?" "There have been no offers of Italian pictures."-To make up for all this, it appears that "at this moment some pictures which I consider of the very first importance are offered. Mr Byng, the member for Middlesex, handsomely offered to give up two of the finest Italian pictures-one a Salvator Rosa, and the other a Parmegiano." We presume that these are the pictures recently exhibited at the British Institution"Mercury and the Woodman"-Salvator; and a portrait of the painter". Parmegiano. The latter is undoubtedly a very fine portrait. The Salvator is so disguised by a dirty, stainy, something all over it (such as Gainsborough washed over his pictures latterly), that there is no saying what it is. We have seen this very subject, with fine ultramarine sky and distance, and great variety of colour in parts, though in other respects perhaps injured; and before purchase, we should wish to see the disguise taken off this picture—in its present brown tobacco-stained state we know not what it is.

66

From Mr Seguicr's evidence, we almost fear an influx of weak and washy Murillos. We know not Marshal Soult's in particular, but we are suspicious of the master and of the fashion -more particularly after the crimsoncurtained exhibition of the Duke of Sutherland's, which we have criticised in another paper. Mr Seguier is evidently in the secret about some negotiation for Murillos, or the best of Marshall Soult's Collection of Spanish plunder, but must not speak out. We will however add-beware of Murillos. But here we must do justice to Mr Seguier, who "does not consider Murillo a painter of the first class."

Poor Sir Joshua! what will become of his really fine pictures a century hence, and of all the works of magellup and varnish painters, if now, after so few years, his works are thus spoken of-would that Parliament would offer a reward for the rediscovery of the medium of the old masters-we could prove it to be different from that now in use, if other proof were wanting than that of the condition of Sir Joshua's pic

tures.

Whatever opinion we of the magazines and reviews, public critics, and criers may have, we do not think it quite courteous in a Committee of the House to ask an opinion, which they are to publish in their report, of the pictures belonging to an individual (the Duke of Sutherland's Murillos); even if offered for sale to the Gallery (and we hope not, most sincerely), such evidence should be given privately. We are surprised at Mr Brotherston's question as to what Mr Seguier thinks of them. Now the Committee of Taste really seem to be as inactive and indifferent, as if fine pictures were to be dug out of the earth at any time, like coal for a winter's supply. Why, the painters have been dead and buried these hundreds of years. They are limited in number; and while we have been sleeping, all European cabinets have had their multitudes of emissaries, judges, and "experts," collecting with the greatest industry, whilst we are dozing over the trifling offer of two Gainsboroughs. We are really indignant that the reputation, honour, and great advantage of the country should be in such hands. There is not a moment to be lost. Pictures will be soon like the sybil's books-you will have to give ten times the amount for them a few years hence. Only consider a moment the number of great painters. They had but limited lives; calculate the number of their works, and see how the galleries abroad are filling, whilst we remain satisfied with a really contemptible number, for our poor 126 might be well weeded. We have appointing committees and commissioners ad infinitum to the cost of more than half a million of money (!!) and for what? But we must let every petty state go before us in the arts; we cannot afford to send proper persons about the world to collect for us, and must, through the Committee of the House, go about like beggars, and ask if people may not be encouraged to give money as well as pictures. We are persuaded that all this would be unnecessary, if the thing were properly placed before the nation; who should take it to their shame, and to the reproof of those who have had to cater for them, that since 1824, the establishment of the National Gallery, we have not done so much as one

merchant or private gentleman would do in half the time for the ornament of his country house; and what is the expense of our National Gallery?—not including cost of pictures-not L.1000 per annum. The evidence of Dr Waagen and others will sufficiently show what other countries are and have been doing. The Committee, in their report, refer to the valuable evidence of Dr Waagen and the Baron Von Klenze, on the subject of arrangement of schools. We confess we a little fear the arranging them historically, least it lead rather to the curiosities of art than its excellences; and we doubt if there be not too great a stress laid upon the difference of requisites for a public and a private collection. The first thing is to get good pictures. The arrangement for the schools in the Munich Gallery seems to be perfect. That gallery has three peculiarities. 1st, There is a long corridor from which you can branch off into any school, without going through the intermediate schools; 2dly, For separate schools large rooms are formed, which are appropriated to the largest and most magnificent pictures, and attached to these large are smaller rooms for mere cabinet pictures. Lastly, a copying-room, where artists are allowed to copy without disturb. ing visitors. However, the consideration of all this, if we had room for the discussion, may be well deferred, until we have pictures to arrange; for to speak of our own poor 126 is absurd. But still our National Gallery ought to have been built with a view to the future; and why a long future to better things? It should have been a

66

κτημα εις αει.” What is it now? As an architectural design, it is a mixture of pretension and meanness. The little windows, like small eyes, on each side the great proboscis entrance, trying to make up by their number for their deficiency of proportion. It wants room, though it is large; it wants dimensions in the rooms it has, and by confession a great part of it wants light. It is that "monstrum horrendum informe ingens cui lumen ademptura."

The commands given by the King of Bavaria to Baron Von Klenze, were in another spirit. We extract from Mrs Jameson's amusing work, "Sketches at Home and Abroad," the declaration

from the Baron to herself:-" Build me a palace, in which nothing within or without shall be of transient fashion or interest-a palace for my posterity and my people, as well as myself; of which the decorations shall be durable as well as splendid; and shall appear one or two centuries hence as pleasing to the eye and taste as they do now." "Upon this principle," said the Baron, looking round, and no doubt with the pride of genius, "I designed what you now see."

The Committee recommend the purchase of pictures by British artists, approved works, and that a portion of the National Gallery should be devoted to them; "especially such paintings as are more adapted by their style and subject to a gallery than a cabinet." After the evidence we have quoted, showing the entire inadequacy of the Gallery to its evident purposes, it will not be expected that either room has been provided, or any efforts whatever made to procure works of living British artists. Is the country to conclude that since the establishment of the National Gallery in 1824, the British artists have not produced one picture worthy the admiration of the public, and that so utterly hopeless is British art in the eyes of Mr Seguier the adviser, and the advised or non-advised Committee of Taste, that it has not been thought worth while to take it into consideration in the building of a National Gallery? We venture to say, that both in the report and in the evidence an unnecessary distinction is made (and too much stress laid upon it), between gallery and cabinet pictures. What difference should there be, unless it be in size-scarce in subject-though the report connects that with style? Many of the most celebrated pictures by the old masters were necessarily large,

because they were painted for particular situations in churches, and other large buildings, where size was required. But perhaps the greater part are not too large for private collections, which it is presumed the word cabinet implies. We do not, however, know of the subject of any of them, that is unfit for either national or private gallery. If size be really the thing meant (the necessity not existing now as it did when churches were to be adorned), it is feared encouragement will be given by a recommendation of the Committee to British artists to paint pictures of such a size and character as will, if they fail of obtaining the distinction of public purchase, leave them a very unprofitable speculation in the painter's hands. Size is, after all, a very ambiguous merit, and certainly has many disadvantages. There cannot be a doubt of the propriety of the British school having a place in a National Gallery; but we fear large dimensions, especially with West's three thousand guineas cost of canvas-daubing before our eyes, which we do not know the private collector who would risk his reputation by accepting. But it is time to conclude this paper, which we will do by recommending, that as the National Gallery is evidently unfit for a national collection; and as one half of the whole building is already given up to the Royal Academy, that the other half be given up to the British artists, and-and then there will be no room for complaint of the monopoly of the Royal Academicians. Either establish a rival society or societies, or throw it open to the world of artists, under wise regulations, and let them make what use they can of it. We will resume this sub

ject.

DESPATCHES OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON,

NO. II.-ARMAMENT AT TRINCOMALEE.

THE biographer of Wellington necessarily labours under the disadvantage that the chief incidents he is called on to record, are already familiar to his readers. Let him shape his narrative as he may, the attraction of novelty is one which no exercise of his ingenuity can supply. He finds no province which he can regard as peculiarly his own. He attempts biography, and involuntary writes history. His dates are epochs; his incidents, events; and, wishing only to narrate the circumstances of a life, he records achievements of great and imperishable interest. In short, he finds it utterly impossible to separate the personal from the public, and forced, like Molière's Doctor, to assume a new character, he becomes historien malgré lui.

Into this predicament all who write about Wellington must necessarily fall.

The category is one, however, in which we hold ourselves to be only partially included. We pretend neither to be annalist nor biographer, our chief object being by no means to write about Wellington, but simply to

illustrate what Wellington has written
about himself. True it is, that the
most conspicuous and memorable of
his achievements have, in our imagi-
nation, become somewhat tainted and
fly-blown by the vast number of litera-
ry blue bottles always on the watch
for such prey, and who eagerly fasten
on every occurrence which may ex-
cite the sympathy, or command the
admiration of the public. Let us take
Waterloo as an example.* With the
details of that splendid victory every
one is so familiar, that any further al-
lusion to them, at the present day,
would almost be regarded as an im-
pertinence. Times are changed. Its
localities are no longer the object of
pilgrimage to
66 gentlemen of the
press." The very names of Hougo-
mont and Quatre Bras have become
caviare to the most omnivorous reader,
and the word Waterloo, which, when
duly emblazoned on a titlepage, could
once sell a bad book, would now go
very far to ruin a good one. And why
is this? Not assuredly because Eng-
lishmen have ceased to regard that
memorable triumph with sentiments

66

We have been favoured by the Rev. John Sinclair with the following letter -direct to this point-from the Duke of Wellington to Sir John Sinclair :—"DEAR SIR, 'Bruxelles, April 28, 1816. "I have received your letter of the 20th. The people of England may be entitled to a detailed and accurate account of the battle of Waterloo, and I have no objection to their having it; but I do object to their being misinformed and misled by the novels called relations, impartial accounts, &c. &c. of this transaction, containing the stories which curious travellers have picked up from peasants, private soldiers, individual officers, &c. &c., and have published to the world as the truth. Hougomont was no more fortified than La Haye Sainte; and the latter was not lost for the want of fortification, but by one of those accidents from which human affairs are never entirely exempt.

"I am really disgusted with and ashamed of all that I have seen of the battle of Waterloo. The number of writings upon it would lead the world to believe that the British army had never fought a battle before; and there is not one which contains a true representation, or even an idea, of the transaction, and that is because the writers have referred themselves to the authorities above quoted instead of to the official sources and reports.

"It is not true that the British army was unprepared. The story of the Greek is equally unfounded, as is that of Vandamme having 46,000 men. Upon this last point I refer you to Marshal Ney's report, who, upon this point, must be the best authority. Ever, dear sir, yours most faithfully,

"WELLINGTON."

« AnteriorContinuar »