THE FELTON PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE.
The following is the advertisement of the sale of this celebrated portrait, which took place at Christie’s Rooms on the 30th April 1870:—
MESSRS. CHRISTIE, MANSON, & WOODS, respectfully give notice that they will SELL by AUCTION, at their great Rooms, King Street, St. James’s Square, on Saturday, April 30th, at 3 o’clock, the FELTON PORTRAIT of SHAKSPEARE. This celebrated picture forms part of an estate in course of administrationunder orders of the Court of Chancery. It is generally supposed to be the portrait from which Droeshout engraved his plate, the first portrait published of Shakspeare, and has the reputation of Ben Jonson’s testimony of its resemblance to the immortal bard,—‘This figure, that thou here seest put, it was for gentle Shakspeare cut; wherein the graver had a strife with nature, to out-doo the life: O, could he but have drawn his wit as well in brasse, as he hath hit his face; the print would then surpass all that was ever writ in brasse.’ The picture is painted on wood, life-size, little more than the countenance remaining. On the back is an inscription in old writing, ‘Gu. Shakspeare, 1597.—R. B.’; presumed to be Richard Burbage, a well-known player and artist, contemporary with Shakspeare, and to whom report has always given the honour of painting the only portrait for which Shakspeare sat.”
MESSRS. CHRISTIE, MANSON, & WOODS, respectfully give notice that they will SELL by AUCTION, at their great Rooms, King Street, St. James’s Square, on Saturday, April 30th, at 3 o’clock, the FELTON PORTRAIT of SHAKSPEARE. This celebrated picture forms part of an estate in course of administrationunder orders of the Court of Chancery. It is generally supposed to be the portrait from which Droeshout engraved his plate, the first portrait published of Shakspeare, and has the reputation of Ben Jonson’s testimony of its resemblance to the immortal bard,—‘This figure, that thou here seest put, it was for gentle Shakspeare cut; wherein the graver had a strife with nature, to out-doo the life: O, could he but have drawn his wit as well in brasse, as he hath hit his face; the print would then surpass all that was ever writ in brasse.’ The picture is painted on wood, life-size, little more than the countenance remaining. On the back is an inscription in old writing, ‘Gu. Shakspeare, 1597.—R. B.’; presumed to be Richard Burbage, a well-known player and artist, contemporary with Shakspeare, and to whom report has always given the honour of painting the only portrait for which Shakspeare sat.”
The picture had but few admirers, and realized only fifty pounds.
PARISIAN CARICATURISTS.
In March, 1851, a singular circumstance occurred in Paris, namely, the conviction and sentencing of Charles Vernier, the caricaturist on theCharivari, to a fine of 100 francs and two months’ imprisonment. His crime was designing a head of the Constitution. M. Léon Faucher and other politicians were shooting arrows at this wonderful mark. The President was handing them the arrows. Underneath was written, “Who upsets it completely shall be my minister.” M. Leopold Pannier, the editor, was condemned to pay 2000 francs fine, and suffer six months’ imprisonment. The passion of the French for political ferment must be extraordinary to require such severityexercised towards the press and the arts, added to an extensive system of espionage, which appears to pervade every society of every grade throughout France. Where “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” are upon every lip, we find French citizens amerced and imprisoned for an offence which in England, monarchical England, is allowed to pass unnoticed. Our caricaturists, had they been in France, would have been pillaged of every farthing, and rotted in a felon’s gaol, for producing merely a tithe of the bold, political hits at royalty, the ministry, and the political events of the French war, during the reigns of George III. and George IV. The most biting caricatures were thrown off by thousands within a stone’s throw of the palace of St. James’s, and wet impressions taken to the King, whose good nature was above making war upon Art, even if his knowledge of the English character, and the experience of many years—from the days of Sir Robert Walpole—had not shown him that disappointment, or even public spleen, is harmlessly dissipated by a laugh and a stinging article from some journal,—the true safety-valve for the expression of public hatred to political partisans or measures.—Almanac of the Fine Arts.
ITALIAN POTTERY AND GLASS-MAKING.
The early celebrity of Italian pottery is attested by the French word for earthenware,—faïence,—which is only a corruption of the name of the Italian town, Faenza; and its flourishing condition in past ages is shown by the works now so eagerly sought for, in which the genius of Italian art is displayed. But the present commercial importance of this branch of industry in Italy does not equal the historicalinterest that belongs to it. Production is limited, not exceeding the value of 3,200,000 francs in porcelain and earthenware of all kinds; while the value of importations from foreign countries amounts to a somewhat larger sum, One porcelain manufactory, that of Doccia, near Florence, seems to deserve special notice, This establishment, the property of the Marquis Ginovi, is chiefly remarkable for the successful imitations which it produces of old majolica. The total annual value of the articles made in it is estimated at about 320,000 francs. The introduction of the art of glass-making into modern Europe is due to the Venetians, who, until comparatively late times, enjoyed an undisputed superiority in it. They discovered the means of rendering glass colourless by the employment of manganese. They had the monopoly of mirrors, the silvering of which was a secret long kept from other countries, But the mirrors of Venice have now lost their reputation, the manufacturers of this place being unable to produce plates equal in dimensions to those made by their foreign competitors. Glass beads became at an early period an important article of trade with Africa and the East. They are still made in considerable quantities for exportation. Venetian enamels have always been famous, and among the peculiar productions of this place may be reckoned the beautiful composition called Aventurine, the secret of which is said to be in the possession of a single manufacturer. Some articles, such as beads, are made to a certain extent in the city of Venice itself; but the great glass works are to be found at Murano, one of the islands of the lagoon. This little island, which had at one time 30,000 inhabitants, formerly enjoyed a sort of local independence, with distinct laws and institutions. It had a wealthy nobility of its own, whose names were inscribed in a separate golden book. Itsprivileges have disappeared, its population and riches have declined, but its industrial establishments are still active, and show signs of prosperity. Before the fall of the old Venetian republic, the glassmakers constituted a close corporation with exclusive privileges. The trade was thrown open in 1806 under the government of the then kingdom of Italy, and a period of keen competition and low prices ensued, until the year 1848, when the conditions of the trade were regulated by an agreement among the manufacturers. The number of persons employed in glass-making at Murano and Venice is 5000, of whom one-third are men, and two-thirds women and children. The highest wages are, for men, 12 francs; for women, 1 franc 50 centimes; the lowest for men, 2 francs, and for women, 75 centimes. The annual cost of the substances employed in the manufacture is estimated at between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 francs, and that of the fuel consumed at 600,000 francs. The gross receipts obtained come to little more than double this aggregate amount. The principal markets for Venetian glass are in France, England, Germany, and, above all, in the East, where there is a constant demand for the beads and other articles known by the denomination of “conterie.” The above facts are taken from the interesting report by Mr. Herries, published in a recently issued series of consular reports.—Pall Mall Gazette.
THE PORTLAND VASE.
The Portland Vase is a beautiful cinerary urn of transparent dark blue glass, found about the middle of the sixteenth century, in a marble sarcophagus near Rome. It was at first deposited in the Barberini Palace at Rome (andhence often called the “Barberini Vase”): it then became (1770) the property, by purchase, of Sir William Hamilton, from whose possession it passed into that of the Duchess of Portland. In 1810, the Duke of Portland, one of the trustees of the British Museum, allowed it to be placed in that institution, retaining his right over it as his own property. In 1845, William Lloyd dashed this valuable relic to pieces with a stone. Owing to the defective state of the law, only a slight punishment could be inflicted; but an act was immediately passed making such an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years; and one, two, or three public or private whippings. The pieces of the fractured vase were carefully gathered up, and afterwards united in a very complete manner, and thus repaired. It still exists in the Museum, but is not shown to the public.
A LOST ART.
The most remarkable Chinese porcelain is the Kiasing, or azure pressed; the secret of its manufacture has been lost, but the specimens which are preserved are of inestimable value. The art was that of tracing figures on the china, which are invisible until the vessel is filled with liquid. The porcelain is of the very thinnest description,—almost as thin as an egg-shell. It is said that the application in tracing these figures is internal, and not by external painting, as in ordinary manufacture; and that after such tracing was made, and when it was perfectly dry, a very thin covering or coating was laid over it of the same paste of which the vessel had been formed, and thus the painting lay between two coatings of chinaware. When the internal coating became sufficiently dry, they oiled it over, andshortly after placed it in a mould and scraped the exterior of the vessel as thin as possible, without penetrating to the painting, and then baked it in the oven. It is evident that if such be the mode that was adopted, it would require the nicest dexterity and patient care, for which the Chinese are remarkable; but, although they constantly endeavour to recover the exact method, their trials have been hitherto unavailing.—Sirr’s “China and the Chinese.”
FANS.
Old English and French fans are both scarce and costly; in 1865 a collection of old French fans, painted by Boucher and Watteau, was sold by Messrs. Foster at prices varying from £6 to £30 each; the set of fourteen fans fetching as much as £195. Recently, three old French fans were sold by Messrs. Christie and Manson for the large sum of 55 guineas.
An Exhibition of Fans on loan took place at the South Kensington Museum in May, 1870, a collection both curious and interesting; the objects of the promoters being to encourage a taste for fans of elegant and artistic designs, and to promote the employment of female artists in their manufacture. Much has been done by Mr. Cole and his able co-adjutors to foster a correct taste, and enable those who follow Art, as a means of livelihood, to obtain true artistic instruction. The number of fans in the collection consisted of over five hundred, many being works of high Art; and it was astonishing to see what little effect time had had on these little frail and perishable articles of luxury.
Her Majesty the Queen, the Empress of the French,the Comtesse de Chambrun, and Lady Wyatt, alone contributed over one hundred and fifty, all of exquisite design and workmanship.
Mr. Samuel Redgrave, in his Introduction to the Catalogue, says, “The present Exhibition is part of the scheme of the Department of Science and Art for the Art Instruction of Women. To promote this object, the Department offered prizes in competition for fans painted by the students in the Female Schools of Art in 1868, and again in 1869.” Her Majesty the Queen, the Baroness Meyer de Rothschild, Lady Cornelia Guest, and the Society of Arts also offered prizes for competition at the International Exhibition of the present year (1871), which have produced many designs of great merit.
The use of the fan has been traced back to very ancient times. They are evidently of Eastern origin, and are absolutely necessary in the East, to temper in some degree the fierce heat of the sun. But from tropical regions they found their way at an early date into Europe, and were in use at Rome at least as early as the second century before Christ, when they are mentioned by Terence in one of his comedies. One of the oldest fans preserved to the present day is that of Theodelinda, a queen of Lombardy, who lived in the latter part of the sixth century. It is preserved at Monza, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Lombardy, and is made of purple vellum, embellished with gold and silver.
The fan has served a variety of purposes besides its natural use of producing a cool breeze. Spanish ladies, who are accustomed to attend bull-fights, carry with them fans containing a programme of the entertainment, and adorned with portraits both of the bulls and the fighters. In Japan they serve many uses, from being a rod in the hands of the schoolmaster, to a receptacle for alms in thoseof the beggar. The fan has been largely used, too, in religious ceremonies. In the middle ages it was customary to wave a fan over the elements of the Sacrament. Fans of this description were attached to long handles, often elaborately worked in gold and silver. On great occasions, when the Pope is carried in state through the streets of Rome, he is preceded by large fans made of peacock feathers, and said to be copies of ancient fans used in the temple of Jupiter. And in the Greek Church, when a deacon is ordained, a fan is given to him, part of his duty being to keep off flies and other insects from the superior priests when celebrating the Sacrament. The custom is carried out in all parts of Russia, though, as has been observed, the office must, in that climate, be a sinecure, at least for great part of the year.
In the middle ages, fans were made of feathers, and their chief ornamentation was in the handles, which were made of gold, silver, or ivory, and often set with precious stones. The beautiful wife of Rubens is represented in portraiture as carrying in her hand a single feather.
The French have long been famous for their fans, and the manufacture was introduced so early, that a company of fan-workers was established at Paris in the sixteenth century. In 1683, Louis XIV. formed them into a special guild. In his and the two following reigns, fans were of such universal use that no toilet was considered complete without one. They were made of perfumed leather or paper, and decorated by Watteau, Boucher, and other artists, the handle being often elaborately carved and adorned with jewels. At the present day, the making of fans is an important branch of industry at Paris to the extent of £100,000 yearly; one manufacturer employing, it is said, upwards of two thousand hands, some of his fans being most tastefully decorated bythe best artists in Paris, the price of a single fan reaching as high a sum as £1000.
The fan was probably introduced into England early in the sixteenth century. Stow indeed says that “masks, muffs, fans, and false hair for women were devised in Italy, and brought to England from France in 1572, that being the year of the Huguenot massacre, and of the supremacy in France of Catherine de Medici and her Italian followers.” Fans were, however, in use at least as early as the reign of Henry VIII., when they were carried by young gentlemen, sometimes on horseback. When ladies walked out, their fans were carried by servants. They consisted of a tuft of feathers set on the end of a handle or stick, and had much the appearance of powder puffs. The most costly were of ostrich feathers, and looking-glasses were often placed in the broad part above the handle, which was elaborately decorated.
The fan was received into great favour by Queen Elizabeth, who, notwithstanding her great ability in managing the affairs of the State, and her haughty and imperious temper, was singularly susceptible to flattery, and bestowed great care on her personal adornment. Many instances are on record of her courtiers trying to ingratiate themselves with her by the present of a fan. Amongst them the great sailor, Sir Francis Drake, gave her a fan of white and red feathers, with a gold handle embellished with pearls and diamonds. Her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, also presented her with a fan. It was made of white feathers with a gold handle set with pearls, emeralds, rubies, and diamonds, and a device of “a lion ramping, with a white bear muzzled at his foot,” in token of his own complete subjection to his royal mistress, his cognizance being a bear. At Elizabeth’s death, her wardrobe was found to contain an immense quantity of clothingand finery of all descriptions, including as many as twenty-seven fans.
In her reign a fan was deemed an essential part of a lady’s dress, and the handle was often made of gold, silver, or ivory, of curious and expensive workmanship. In a comedy written about this time occurs the passage, “She hath a fan, with a short silver handle about the length of a barber’s syringe;” and a little later, in 1649, Sir William Davenant says, inLove and Honour, “All your plate, Vaso, is the silver handle of your own prisoner’s fan.” Shakspeare, too, repeatedly mentions the fan, as, for instance, in the following passage inRomeo and Juliet, the scene of which is in Italy:—
“Nurse.—My fan, Peter.”
“Mercutio.—Prythee, do good Peter, to hide her face, for the fan’s the fairer of the two.”
And again, in the same play, showing the custom of carrying the fan before ladies:—
“Nurse.—Peter, take my fan, and go before.”
Most writers on costume consider that folding-fans, similar to those used in modern times, were introduced into England, probably from France, in the reign of James I. Fan-painting soon became a distinct profession, but we hear little of the folding-fan during the time of the Stuarts. The small feather-fan still kept its place as full-dress, as is shown by a print of the wife of Sir Henry Garway, who was Lord Mayor of London in 1640, She is represented as holding in her hand a fan similar to those used in the reign of Elizabeth.
By the early part of the eighteenth century the fan seems to have become an object of general use, and to have given considerable employment to painters, engravers, and makers. The manufacture, indeed, became so important that in1709 the company of fan-makers, which is still in existence, was incorporated by letters patent from Queen Anne. The fraternity was governed by a master, two wardens, and twenty assistants; but they have never had either a hall or livery. The age of Queen Anne produced many distinguished writers, both in prose and verse; and, as we might expect, the fan did not escape their observation. It is mentioned both by Addison and Pope, but more particularly by Gay, who published, in 1714, a poem entitled “The Fan,” where he says:—
“The fan shall flutter in all female hands,And various fashions learn from various lands.For this shall elephants their ivory shed,And polished sticks the waving engine spread,His clouded mail the tortoise shall resign,And round the rivet pearly circles shine.On this shall Indians all their art employ,And with bright colours stain the gaudy toy;Their paint shall here in wildest fancies flow—Their dress, their customs, their religion show.So shall the British fair their minds improve,And on the fan to distant climates rove.”
“The fan shall flutter in all female hands,And various fashions learn from various lands.For this shall elephants their ivory shed,And polished sticks the waving engine spread,His clouded mail the tortoise shall resign,And round the rivet pearly circles shine.On this shall Indians all their art employ,And with bright colours stain the gaudy toy;Their paint shall here in wildest fancies flow—Their dress, their customs, their religion show.So shall the British fair their minds improve,And on the fan to distant climates rove.”
“The fan shall flutter in all female hands,And various fashions learn from various lands.For this shall elephants their ivory shed,And polished sticks the waving engine spread,His clouded mail the tortoise shall resign,And round the rivet pearly circles shine.On this shall Indians all their art employ,And with bright colours stain the gaudy toy;Their paint shall here in wildest fancies flow—Their dress, their customs, their religion show.So shall the British fair their minds improve,And on the fan to distant climates rove.”
“The fan shall flutter in all female hands,
And various fashions learn from various lands.
For this shall elephants their ivory shed,
And polished sticks the waving engine spread,
His clouded mail the tortoise shall resign,
And round the rivet pearly circles shine.
On this shall Indians all their art employ,
And with bright colours stain the gaudy toy;
Their paint shall here in wildest fancies flow—
Their dress, their customs, their religion show.
So shall the British fair their minds improve,
And on the fan to distant climates rove.”
Doubtless, the most reasonable deduction to be arrived at is, that the fan has its origin in necessity; and in itself, trivial as it may appear, is perhaps of an importance few would conceive. It is not only an ornament to anélégantefor the purpose, it is said, of flirting and coquetry, but serves as an instrument to chastise a lap-dog or a puppy.
From theSpectatorof June 27, 1711, it appears that it was no easy matter for a lady to learn the necessary tactics and manœuvres of the fan, which, correctly acquired, no doubt formed one of the “accomplishments” of that age. They are thus described:—“Handle your fan; unfurl your fan; discharge your fan; ground your fan; recover your fan;flutter your fan. By the right observation of these few plain words of command, a woman of a tolerable genius, that will apply herself diligently to her exercise for the space of but one half-year, shall be able to give her fan all the graces that can possibly enter into that modish machine.” Directions are also given for the several evolutions, but the last, “Flutter your fan,” was undoubtedly by far the most important.
Among the many subjects devised for fans about this period is a painted one of Bartholomew Fair, temp. 1721, representing a view of Lee and Harper’s great booth, Faux, the conjuror, etc. They included also subjects from the Beggars’ Opera, and the famous works of Hogarth were called into request for the same purpose. Fans at this time were of such proportions as to give many opportunities to caricaturists and writers to make them the object of their ridicule and wit:—
“Say, Jenny, why that monstrous fan?What purpose does thy bosom move?Is it to save us or trepan?Is it to cure or quicken love?If worn in pity’s gentle cause,Beneath, unseen, you mean to lie;I know a thousand eyes it draws,Which else, perhaps, had wandered by.”
“Say, Jenny, why that monstrous fan?What purpose does thy bosom move?Is it to save us or trepan?Is it to cure or quicken love?If worn in pity’s gentle cause,Beneath, unseen, you mean to lie;I know a thousand eyes it draws,Which else, perhaps, had wandered by.”
“Say, Jenny, why that monstrous fan?What purpose does thy bosom move?Is it to save us or trepan?Is it to cure or quicken love?
“Say, Jenny, why that monstrous fan?
What purpose does thy bosom move?
Is it to save us or trepan?
Is it to cure or quicken love?
If worn in pity’s gentle cause,Beneath, unseen, you mean to lie;I know a thousand eyes it draws,Which else, perhaps, had wandered by.”
If worn in pity’s gentle cause,
Beneath, unseen, you mean to lie;
I know a thousand eyes it draws,
Which else, perhaps, had wandered by.”
Mrs. Abington, a celebrated actress, was considered an adept at flirting a fan; and being possessed of the highest refinement of taste in dress, her judgment and opinion were often solicited by ladies of rank.
“Pray, ladies, copy Abington;Observe the breeding in her air;—There’s nothing of the actress there.Assume the fashion, if you can,And catch the graces of her fan.”
“Pray, ladies, copy Abington;Observe the breeding in her air;—There’s nothing of the actress there.Assume the fashion, if you can,And catch the graces of her fan.”
“Pray, ladies, copy Abington;Observe the breeding in her air;—There’s nothing of the actress there.Assume the fashion, if you can,And catch the graces of her fan.”
“Pray, ladies, copy Abington;
Observe the breeding in her air;—
There’s nothing of the actress there.
Assume the fashion, if you can,
And catch the graces of her fan.”
In theWestminster Journalof February 23rd, 1751, a writer proposed a tax on fan mounts, which, he considered, would produce a revenue of £30,000 per annum.
In the following year an advertisement appeared in theDaily Advertiserfromemployésin the fan trade, thanking the Company of Fanmakers for their efforts to abolish the importation of fans, and their endeavours, by asserting the superiority of home-made fans over those of foreign manufacture, to gain the patronage of the ladies, and the consequent relief of the distressed members of the trade, who, through the extensive imports of foreign-made fans, were prevented from obtaining employment.
In the year 1753 the journeyman fanmakers presented the Dowager Princess of Wales with an elegant fan, which they represented to be far superior to Indian fans. In the same year a correspondent of Sylvanus Urban published complaints of snuff-taking by both sexes at church; the ladies also giving grave offence by the use of the fan mounts which he saw displayed by a row of ladies while kneeling at the Communion Table. Among the subjects were:—“Meeting of Isaac and Rebekah,” “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” “Darby and Joan,” “Vauxhall Gardens,” “The Judgment of Paris,” “Harlequin, Pierrot, and Columbine,” “The Prodigal Son,” scenes from the “Rake’s Progress,” etc.
During the latter part of the last and the beginning of the present century, fans seem to have ceased to be a necessary accompaniment to a lady’s toilet, although they are still to be seen at balls and theatres, and of some utility, perhaps, judging from a print in which a lady and gentleman are represented sitting by each other, the gentleman “fluttering the fan,”—
“The suit obtained, they tread the mazy round;At length fatigued, a seat’s convenient found.Harry, assiduous, plies the glittering fan,And proves himself a very nice young man.”
“The suit obtained, they tread the mazy round;At length fatigued, a seat’s convenient found.Harry, assiduous, plies the glittering fan,And proves himself a very nice young man.”
“The suit obtained, they tread the mazy round;At length fatigued, a seat’s convenient found.Harry, assiduous, plies the glittering fan,And proves himself a very nice young man.”
“The suit obtained, they tread the mazy round;
At length fatigued, a seat’s convenient found.
Harry, assiduous, plies the glittering fan,
And proves himself a very nice young man.”
THE TRIALS OF A PORTRAIT PAINTER.
Who can conceive the troubles attendant upon the daily labour of a face painter? Hoppner once remarked to a young painter, “I’ll tell you what, sir: when you have to paint a portrait, particularly of a woman, make it handsome enough,—your sitter or her friends will find the likeness. Never you forget that.”
An Italian painter, on taking the portrait of a lady, perceived that when he was working at her mouth she was twisting her features in order to render it smaller, and put her lips into the most extreme contraction. “Do not trouble yourself so much, madam,” exclaimed the limner; “for, if you choose, I will draw you without any mouth at all.” It is needless to repeat here all the tales that have been told of the difficulties of a face painter. The following anecdotes will show to what extent of vanity and folly those people are subject who, though wishing to hand down to posterity their own portrait or that of some member of their family, are entirely ignorant of the simplest rules of Art; and, consequently, give considerable trouble and anxiety to the artist. For instance, how often in our exhibitions do we find a portrait painted of a citizen in the dress of a military man, or a naval officer in the costume of a Roman general in a toga, with bare arms! Most must be drawn in the manner of ancient Greece or Rome, instead of their proper habits; the sitter having his head so full of antiquity that everything must be according to the ancient taste.
“The grandest commission,” remarks an artist, “that ever blessed my hopes was a series of family portraits,—father, mother, a daughter just simpering into womanhood, and three as noisy, ugly, wiry-looking lads as any one would wish to hear, and be anxious not to see. All wereprogressing with great satisfaction to the affectionate family until, in an unlucky moment, I strengthened the shadow under the nose of Mr. Jones. In a moment all was uproar, one and all declaring that ‘Father never takes snuff, because mother thinks it a nasty, filthy habit.’ Out, therefore, came the shadow, and of course in, therefore, went the nose. The only objection made to Mrs. Jones’s ‘likeness’ was, that it did ‘not look at you;’ but how the deuce it ever should I could never find out, for the original was wholly incapable of bringing both eyes to bear upon any given object at one and the same time. The portraits of the juvenile male Joneses were, as their mother fondly expressed herself, ‘the very mottle of them;’ ‘but, sir,’ said she, ‘there is one thing I wish you to alter, I don’t like the eyes at all. I have been married to Jones these twenty years, and, as you see, have been a fruitful wife to him; I have, besides these, two babbies at home, and I do assure you, sir, and Jones knows it, I never had a child born in all our marriage days that had a speck in its eye. Please, sir, to oblige me by putting them out.’ With a groan I submitted, and painting out the lights I had, as I thought, properly introduced into the eyes, sent home the portraits of the young Joneses, every one as blind as a bat. I should not forget, that when I requested to know whether Miss Adeliza would be painted in a high or a low dress, her mother confidentially whispered to me that it was to be a low one, but I must mind and let the portrait be ‘partic’lar modest about the neck,’ as it was for a gentleman.”
Another story which he relates is of a rough, honest-hearted naval captain. “All that I did vastly pleased him, until, when nearly finishing the picture, I had begun to throw an incidental shadow across the lower part of the figure. The gallant gentleman saw in a glass that stoodopposite what I was about to do, and rushing from his seat, seized my hand, crying out, ‘Avast there, young gentleman, what are you about? Who the devil ever saw an officer on the quarter-deck with his breeches in that mess? No, no, that won’t do.’ I submitted to my fate, and sent home the portrait with a pair of unpronounceables of unexceptionable whiteness.”
SEDDON’S PICTURE OF “JERUSALEM.”
On the 23rd November, 1856, the gifted young artist, Thomas Seddon, died at Cairo on his way to the Holy Land. He was buried with all due solemnity in the same small cemetery whither he had, two years before, followed the remains of Mr. Nicholson (a traveller whom he accidentally met on his first journey to the East), and which he has touchingly described in a letter written at that time. A marble slab, surmounted by a simple, plain cross, with the following inscription at its foot,
“To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,”
marks the spot where his remains rest. On the slab itself is engraved,
“THOMAS SEDDON, Artist,
Who died at Cairo, the 23rd of November, 1856.”
To which is added a verse from one of his favourite hymns,
“Thou art gone to the grave, but we will not deplore thee,Whose God was thy Ransom, thy Guardian, thy Guide;He gave thee, He took thee, and He will restore thee,—And death had no sting, for the Saviour hath died.”
“Thou art gone to the grave, but we will not deplore thee,Whose God was thy Ransom, thy Guardian, thy Guide;He gave thee, He took thee, and He will restore thee,—And death had no sting, for the Saviour hath died.”
“Thou art gone to the grave, but we will not deplore thee,Whose God was thy Ransom, thy Guardian, thy Guide;He gave thee, He took thee, and He will restore thee,—And death had no sting, for the Saviour hath died.”
“Thou art gone to the grave, but we will not deplore thee,
Whose God was thy Ransom, thy Guardian, thy Guide;
He gave thee, He took thee, and He will restore thee,—
And death had no sting, for the Saviour hath died.”
A short time after the melancholy news of his death hadarrived in England, some of his artist friends met together at the house of Ford Maddox Brown, Esq., for the purpose of considering what steps they could take to testify their respect for his memory, and their admiration of his works, which they felt deserved some public notice. They afterwards invited the co-operation of other gentlemen who had been acquainted with him and appreciated his efforts, and convened a meeting at the house of W. Holman Hunt, Esq., which was numerously attended. Professor Donaldson, John Ruskin, Esq., and others addressed those present, Mr. Ruskin, remarking, “that the position which Mr. Seddon occupied as an artist appears to deserve some public recognition quite other than could be generally granted to genius, however great, which had been occupied only in previously beaten paths. Mr. Seddon’s works are the first which represent a truly historic landscape art; that is to say, they are the first landscapes uniting perfect artistical skill with topographical accuracy; being directed, with stern self-restraint, to no other purpose than that of giving to persons who cannot travel, trustworthy knowledge of the scenes which ought to be most interesting to them. Whatever degrees of truth may have been attained or attempted by previous artists have been more or less subordinate to pictorial or dramatic effect.” At this meeting a committee was formed, and Mr. W. M. Rossetti appointed honorary secretary, “for the purpose of raising a subscription for the purchase of the oil picture of ‘Jerusalem,’ painted by the late Mr. Thomas Seddon, from his widow, for the sum of four hundred guineas, and to offer it to the National Gallery.”
The efforts of the committee were most successful. The Society of Arts kindly lent their spacious rooms for the exhibition of his works, which were collected for the purpose,and visited by a large number of persons. Mr. Ruskin again came forward, and delivered a most able address on the subject at a conversazione held for the purpose; and the result of these generous efforts was that a sum of nearly £600 was raised by public subscription. With this the committee purchased his picture of “Jerusalem,” as they had proposed, and offered it to the Trustees of the National Gallery, by whom it was accepted; and it is now at the South Kensington Museum. The balance of the subscription, after paying the contingent expenses, was presented to Mrs. Thomas Seddon, as a testimony of the recognition by the public of the merits of her husband.—Memoir and Letters of Thomas Seddon, by his Brother.
We cannot conclude this interesting account of the late Thomas Seddon, without introducing the following eloquent appeal made at the meeting of the Society of Arts already referred to, by that powerful writer on Art, John Ruskin:— “Whether they would further the noble cause of truth in Art, while they gave honour to a good and a great man, and consolation to those who loved him; or whether they would add one more to the victories of oblivion, and suffer this picture, wrought in the stormy desert of Aceldama, which was the last of his labours, to be also the type of their reward: whether they would suffer the thorn and the thistle to choke the seed that he had sown, and the sand of the desert to sweep over his forgotten grave.”
A GREAT PICTURE AND ITS VICISSITUDES.
One of the noblest paintings of the modern school is Lawrence’s “Hamlet Apostrophizing the Skull,” in the churchyard scene, as represented by the famous tragedian,John Kemble. It is a full-length, life-size, and was painted in 1801. Cunningham justly describes it as a work of the highest order,—sad, thoughtful, melancholy; with looks conversing with death and the grave; a perfect image of the great dramatist. About the year 1812, this celebrated picture was exhibited, and for sale, at the European Museum, King Street, St. James’s, London. Mr. Robert Ashby, the engraver, of Lombard Street, on visiting the gallery was surprised to see so fine a specimen of modern art so situated, and inquired of the keeper as to the circumstance which led to its degradation, from whom he learnt that Mr. Maddocks, M.P., had previously purchased it with the intention of placing it as an altar-piece in a church which he had recently erected in a village called Tre Madoc, in Wales; but the bishop of the diocese having expressed his disapproval of its being placed in the church, the purpose of Mr. Maddocks was defeated, and he sent the picture for sale as above. The price demanded was two hundred guineas, which Mr. Ashby agreed to give: at the same time observing that if any other purchaser offered during the time of the gallery remaining open, he would relinquish his right; his motive being solely to prevent the picture being returned unsold. The result was that Mr. Ashby became the purchaser at the price stated, and retained it in his possession for a time; when the artist, Mr. Lawrence (afterwards Sir Thomas) wrote to him (Mr. A.), inquiring whether he would part with the picture, he (Mr. L.) being desirous of obtaining it for the then Marquis of Abercorn, who had designed to place it in the saloon at his seat at Stanmore. Mr. Ashby immediately consented to the re-sale, at the same sum which he had paid, much gratified at the prospect of its being so suitably placed. Here another interruption occurred; the Marquis of Abercorn died, and with him theproject of removing the “Hamlet” to Stanmore. From this time it remained in the possession of Mr. Lawrence, until he obtained the patronage of George IV., who displayed his liberality and fine taste by purchasing it for one thousand guineas. William IV., in 1836, presented the painting to the National Gallery, whence it has since been transferred to a distinguished place in the South Kensington Museum.
THE FRESCOES IN THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
“Mr. Herbert is, we think, the first painter who has divested the sacred legislator of adventitious solemnity and conventional marks of power, and substituted for them the worn countenance and wasted frame of a chief who leads an army through the desert, and confers upon them laws destined to maintain a moral dominion over all the generations of mankind.
“One reason why Mr. Herbert’s picture is so worthy of its fame, is, that the painter never grudged labour or loss upon it. In 1850 he was commissioned to paint nine frescoes in the Peers’ Robing Room at the price of £9000. For several years before he had been earning nearly £2000 a year, yet he was willing to give up nine years to work for about half the sum. When he found that the fresco process was imperfect, he unhesitatingly obliterated his work, and began it anew in the water-glass method. He was to have received £2000 for the ‘Moses,’ but the commission appointed in 1864 recommended that the price should be raised to £5000. The same sum is to be paid to Mr. Maclise for the ‘Death of Nelson,’ and, of course, for the‘Meeting at La Belle Alliance.’ It is plain that when the thought of decorating the Houses of Parliament with frescoes was first entertained, no great expense was anticipated. Mr. Dyce said he understood that in Munich Professor Schnorr was paid at the rate of £500 a year, which would be equal to £700 in this country, and had to pay his assistants. For this sum Mr. Dyce thought the services of the chief English artists might be commanded, ‘those at least who are engaged in subjects of fancy. The services of those who paint portraits would not be obtained at that sum; but I believe it is taking a high average to state the income of the more respectable artists of this country at £500 a year.’ Accordingly, the first frescoes in the House of Lords were ordered at the rate of £400 for the cartoon, and £400 for the fresco. Mr. Dyce was to paint the ‘Legend of King Arthur’ in the Queen’s Robing Room, and to receive £800 a year for six years. The eight compartments in the Peers’ and Commons’ corridors were to have been painted in oil, and £500 was to have been paid for the first picture, and £450 for each of the remainder. But when frescoes were substituted, the remuneration for each was raised to £600.
“The prices paid are not extravagant, though of course somewhat higher than those paid in Germany. It is well known that King Louis always bought in the cheapest market. Count Raczynski states that Hess received £3700 for his frescoes in the chapel of All Saints, and £5000 for those in the basilica of St. Boniface. For the Nibelungen halls in the Palace, Schnorr, according to the same authority, was paid £2600; for his frescoes from Walther von de Vogelweide in the Queen’s first Ante-chamber, Gassen received £360; Folz for the Burger Room, £460; Kaulbach for the Throne Room, £300, and for the SleepingChamber, £666; Hess for the Theocritus Room, £600; and Moriz von Schwind for the Tieck Room, £240. Contrast with these figures the price paid to Kaulbach for his paintings in the New Museum at Berlin—£37,500, with an allowance of £3,750 for materials.”—Edinburgh Review, January, 1866.
THE RIDING MASTER AND THE ELGIN MARBLES.
Shortly after the Elgin Marbles were thrown open to the public indiscriminately, a gentlemanly-looking person was observed to stand in the middle of the gallery on one spot for upwards of an hour, changing his attitude only by turning himself round. At last he left the room, but in the course of two hours he again took his former station, attended by about a dozen young gentlemen; and there to them he made nearly the following observations:—“See, gentlemen, look at the riders all round the room,” alluding to the Friezes; “see how they sit; see with what ease and elegance they ride! I never saw such men in my life; they have no saddles, no stirrups; they must have leaped upon their horses in grand style. You will do well to study the position of these noble fellows; stay here this morning instead of riding with me, and I am sure you will seat yourselves better to-morrow.” I need hardly tell the reader that this person was a riding-master, and that after he had been so astonished at the sculptor’s riders, he brought all his pupils to whom he was that morning to have given lessons at his riding-school.—Smith’s “Nollekens and his Times.”
A HALLOWED SPOT.
I had intended to prolong my route to the western corner of the Green (Kew), but in passing St. Anne’s Chapel, I found the pew-openers engaged in wiping the pews and washing the aisles. I knew that child of genius, Gainsborough, the painter, lay interred here, and, desirous of paying my homage to his grave, I inquired for the spot. As is usual in regard to this class of people, they could give me no information; yet one of them fancied she had heard such a name before. I was therefore obliged to wait while the sexton or clerk was fetched, and in the interim I walked into the chapel. I was in truth well repaid for the time it cost me; for I never saw anything prettier, except Lord le Despencer’s exquisite structure at West Wycombe. As the royal family usually attend here when they reside at Kew, it is superbly fitted up, and the architecture is in the best taste. Several marble monuments of singular beauty adorn the walls, but the record of a man of genius absorbed every attraction of ordinary rank and title. It was a marble slab to the memory of Meyer, the painter, with lines by the poet Hayley.
JEREMIAH MEYER, R.A.,Painter in Miniature and Enamel toHis Majesty George III.,Died January 19th, 1789.
Meyer! in thy works the world will ever seeHow great the loss of Art in losing thee;But Love and Sorrow find the words too weak,Nature’s keen sufferings on thy death to speak;Through all her duties, what a heart was thine.In thy cold dust what spirit used to shine;Fancy, and truth, and gaiety, and zeal,What most we love in life, and, losing, feel,Age after age may not one artist yieldEqual to thee, in Painting’s ample field:And ne’er shall sorrowing Earth to Heaven commendA fonder parent, or a firmer friend.William Hayley, 1789.
Meyer! in thy works the world will ever seeHow great the loss of Art in losing thee;But Love and Sorrow find the words too weak,Nature’s keen sufferings on thy death to speak;Through all her duties, what a heart was thine.In thy cold dust what spirit used to shine;Fancy, and truth, and gaiety, and zeal,What most we love in life, and, losing, feel,Age after age may not one artist yieldEqual to thee, in Painting’s ample field:And ne’er shall sorrowing Earth to Heaven commendA fonder parent, or a firmer friend.William Hayley, 1789.
Meyer! in thy works the world will ever seeHow great the loss of Art in losing thee;But Love and Sorrow find the words too weak,Nature’s keen sufferings on thy death to speak;Through all her duties, what a heart was thine.In thy cold dust what spirit used to shine;Fancy, and truth, and gaiety, and zeal,What most we love in life, and, losing, feel,Age after age may not one artist yieldEqual to thee, in Painting’s ample field:And ne’er shall sorrowing Earth to Heaven commendA fonder parent, or a firmer friend.William Hayley, 1789.
Meyer! in thy works the world will ever see
How great the loss of Art in losing thee;
But Love and Sorrow find the words too weak,
Nature’s keen sufferings on thy death to speak;
Through all her duties, what a heart was thine.
In thy cold dust what spirit used to shine;
Fancy, and truth, and gaiety, and zeal,
What most we love in life, and, losing, feel,
Age after age may not one artist yield
Equal to thee, in Painting’s ample field:
And ne’er shall sorrowing Earth to Heaven commend
A fonder parent, or a firmer friend.
William Hayley, 1789.
From hence I strolled into the vestry, when the clerk or sexton’s assistant made his appearance; and on the south side of the churchyard he brought me to the tomb of Gainsborough. “Ah, friend!” said I, “this is a hallowed spot,—here lies one of Britain’s favoured sons, whose genius has assisted in exalting her among the nations of the earth.” “Perhaps it was so,” said the man; “but we know nothing about the people buried, except to keep up their monuments, if the family pay; and, perhaps, sir, you belong to this family; if so, I’ll tell you how much is due.” “Yes, truly, friend,” said I, “I am one of the great family bound to preserve the monument of Gainsborough; but if you take me for one of his relatives, you are mistaken,” “Perhaps, sir, you may be of the family, but were not included in the will, therefore are not obligated.” I could not now avoid looking with scorn at the fellow; but, as the spot claimed better feelings, I gave him a trifle for his trouble, and mildly told him I would not detain him. The monument being a plain one, and making no palpable appeal to vulgar admiration, was disregarded by these people. It did not fall in the way, of the untaught, on this otherwise polite spot, to know that they have among them the remains of the first painter of our national school in fancy-pictures, and one of the first in the classes of landscape and portraits; a man who recommended himself as much by his superiority, as by his genius; as much by the mode in which his genius was developed, as by the perfection of his works; and as much by his amiable private character, as by his eminence in thechief of Fancy’s Arts. The following are the words engraven on the stone:—
THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH,Esq.,died Aug. 2, 1788.Also the body ofGAINSBOROUGH DUPONT,Esq.,who died Jan. 20, 1797,aged 42 years.Also,Mrs.MARGARET GAINSBOROUGH,wife of the aboveThomas Gainsborough, Esq.,who died Dec. 17, 1798,in the 72nd year of her age.
A little to the eastward lie the remains of another illustrious son of Art, the modest Zoffany, whose Florence Gallery, portraits of the Royal Family, and other pictures, will always raise him among the highest class of painters. He long resided on this Green, and like Michael Angelo, Titian, and our own West, produced masterpieces at four-score. The words on the monument are—
Sacred to the MemoryofJOHN ZOFFANY, R.A.,who died Nov. 11, 1810,aged 87 years.
Abridged from Sir R. Phillips’s “London to Kew.”