to transmit a most gracious message to the President of the Royal Academy, inquiring by what means he could best promote the interests of the fine arts. This message, nobly and generously intended, proved the tocsin to arouse the liberal" worthies of the age-to induce them to revive the outcry against all incorporated societies-and more especially to assemble a host of disappointed artists, critics, and would-becritics, for the purpose of assailing-or rather of assaulting the Royal Academy, its president, its council, and its members. It was boldly asserted, by those liberalminded sages, that that establishment was corrupt in its constitution, in its patronage, and in its general conduct; consequently, that, so far from having advanced, it had essentially retarded the progress of the fine arts—particularly in the branch of historic painting, towards the encouragement of which the king's message was understood to bear pointed reference. If we mistake not, much of the absurdity, and the falsehood, not to say malignity of this, has been already shewn by implication. The Royal Academy, instead of having done less, has achieved infinitely more than could, with reason be expected. It was broadly insinuated-and in a quarter whence a greater shew of good sense, liberality, and sound information ought to have emanated-that the Academy, as an exclusive party of artists, managed all the concerns of art; a principle which was in itself objectionable, since every individual must have personal and private interests opposed to those of the profession as a mass. But in what sense can the Royal Academy be said to manage all the concerns of art? The best answer to this question will be found in the very existence of the respective societies we have named-the British Institution, &c. Further:-"There ought unquestionably to be a fair proportion of eligible persons unconnected with the practice of any of the arts (sculpture, architecture, painting, engraving,) upon the council of the Academy, where their mere presence would lead to justice being done to the numerous, and often most accomplished, aspirants who were not academicians." We should like amazingly to be informed, where such eligible persons are to be found, and by what means they may have acquired their eligibility. Are they to be sought for amongst the "committees of Taste" (!!) to which the plans and models for our new houses of parliament, our Wellington and Nelson memorials, have been referred ?-We pause for a reply. Another serious charge was inferentially made :—" In the annual exhibitions it is too much to expect that an artist, who has the power of choosing favourable places for his own productions, will voluntarily yield them up to some other claimant who is not of the pale, and throw himself into the back-ground;" and "thus," it was added, "there is no season in which we are not inundated with complaints on this subject." However, since the opening of the mock Temple of the Arts, at Charing Cross, for the purposes of the Academy, these complaints, groundless as in most instances they were, have died a natural death; for, by some lucky architectural chance, in Mr. Wilkins's baby-house structure, light, and tolerably favourable place, are allotted to all. But the academicians have not the power, nor ever had-not even the council not even the president himself—of choosing "favourable places" for their “ own productions." If they had, we should not have heard the grumbling which has sometimes met our ears, from the academicians themselves. Some of our readers may probably recollect the chagrin and dissatisfaction which, several years ago, were expressed at the exhibition of Sir Thomas Lawrence's celebrated picture of Mr. Lambton's (now Lord Durham) son in the School of Painting. Had Sir Thomas possessed the choice of place, he would, as a matter of course, have had the picture hung, where its merit entitled it to be hung, in the great room, and not in the School of Painting. On the other hand, we have repeatedly known instances of academicians withdrawing one or two from their own complement of paintings to make room for the productions of non-academicians. Further:-" Another part of the existing mode is perhaps still more objectionable; we allude to the members of the Academy being allowed to paint on their pictures after they are hung up. Every one at all acquainted with the nature of the art knows, that is the making our exhibition rooms mere patch-work, where pictures of intrinsic excellence are completely destroyed by the overwhelming glare of their neighbours, wrought up to the requisite pitch of gilding and colour. Nothing can be more unfair than this; and we have often been astonished when we saw pictures when the show was over, and found, on examinanation, that its brilliant ornaments were daubs, and some of its obscured and unnoticed performances honours to the English school." Admitting the premises to be correct, the argument is fair, though somewhat meretriciously expressed; but, as the former happen to be founded in error, the latter falls helplessly to the ground. On this point the academicians do not possess an exclusive privilege. What the practice, or rule, might be in the days of Sir Thomas Lawrence and his predecessors in the academic chair, we know not; but we do know that such is not the practice or the rule now, nor has it been since the holding of the presidentship by Sir M. A. Shee. Immense is the quantity of nonsense yearly, quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily, hourly, poured forth in the shape of criticism on new books; but immense as is that mass, it is only as a drop in the ocean compared with what we are condemned to meet with relative to works of art. That Lord Byron thought lightly of the Elgin marbles said little for his taste. In fact, poet as he was, he had no true taste for the arts. The truth of this position is abundantly shewn in Lady Blessington's admirable volume of "Conversations with Lord Byron," and in her ladyship's more recent work, "The Idler in Italy," Byron, however, adhered pretty closely to the maxim, ne sutor ultra crepidam, and rarely, very rarely, affected to play the critic. Had the artist to bear up only against the tide of ignorance, he might make tolerable way; but when, as is too frequently the case, consummate ignorance is combined with consummate malignity, the odds are fearful. Hundreds of instances could we indicate, in which the pretending critic, without the slightest knowledge of the principles of art-without the faintest scintillation of genuine taste-without a particle of solid judgment—has dared to pronounce the awful sentence of condemnation on works of sterling merit; has yet more basely dared to pronounce that sentence for the gratification of mean personal pique, or even for the sake of turning his period with an epigrammatic point. Do these pompous and conceited amateurs sans amour-these connoisseurs sans connoisance-or rather, these creatures with out hearts, souls, or minds-these common pests of society-ever have their moments of reflection? Does it ever occur to them that, by a dash of their pen, they may stab a man of worth and genius to the heart? But what are the ruined hopes, the blighted prospects, the destruction of health and fortune, fame and family, to them? They are critics! To return to the subject of patronage.— The rage, thank Heaven! for collecting old pictures-merely because they happen to be works, or presumed works, of the ancient masters-to the neglect of native talent, has in a great measure subsided. By the true connoisseur, by the true patriot, it ought long since to have been scouted. "Shame on the man, whate'er his rank or state, Scorn of the good, and scandal of the great; Who callous, cold, with false fastidious eye, The talents of his country can decry; Can see unmoved her struggling genius rise, Repress the flight, and intercept the prize, Profuse of fame to art's past efforts roam, And leave unhonoured humble worth at home." It is, however, for the historic and poetic departments of painting that patronage is especially required. How is it to be obtained? The council of the Royal Academy will, we hope and trust, be able to furnish a satisfactory answer to this question. Patronage is essential in every department of the art. It cannot create genius; but it may foster, promote, and reward it; it may prevent it from sinking into obscurity and oblivion— into utter annihilation. If due patronage were accorded to the higher branches of art, would such men as Howard, Wilkie, Etty, Pickersgill, and others, with all their lofty, poetic, and sublime imaginings, wear out their lives and sacrifice their noblest energies in portrait-painting? It is gratifying to observe, that, to a certain extent, her present Majesty has evinced a disposition eminently favourable to the advancement of the fine arts. The circumstance of her coronation has given birth to several paintings of historic character: Wilkie's picture of the Queen at her First Council; a view of the Coronation, by the poetically imaginative Martin; another picture of the Coronation, by Leslie; a fourth by George Hayter, whose painting of the Trial of Lord William Russell, in which the figure of Lady Rachel alone was worth a * SHEE'S Rhymes on Art, king's ransom, must be in the recollection knowledgment and reward of talent, he was pleased to confer upon several members of the Academy the insignia of various orders of the state. This was one feature in the reign of the emperor Alexander that we should be most happy to see adopted in that of Her Majesty, Victoria, of Britain. It is true that two or three of the presidents of the Royal Academy have been knighted-five or six artists, we believe, have been knighted in the course of seventy or eighty years! But it is not an increase of numbers alone that would prove beneficial-that would render the honour desirable. We wish to see the banner of knighthood "with a difference," as the heralds would phrase it. So far as the army and the navy were concerned, this long-entertained wish was graciously attended to in the reign of George IV. Might not the distinction be extended, with advantage, to the literati, to artists, to members of all the liberal professions--more particularly to those who, by the nature of their pursuits, are precluded from making their way to the higher honours of the state? Orders of Merit, strictly so designated, are eminently desirable-eminently gratifying to those who may obtain them. And surely it is desirable, also, that when the honour of knighthood is graciously conferred by the Sovereign, the gentleman the professional man-should be distinguished from the grocer or the chandler, who may chance to have the sword laid across his shoulders for the important service of carrying up to the throne some insignificant address from some insignificant corporation. Once more to our immediate theme, though the digression may well be pardoned for the sake of its subject.-Influenced by that generous and munificent spirit which mostly characterized his actions, the Emperor Alexander of Russia, in the early part of his reign, not only increased the salaries of the professors of painting, and of other persons employed in the Academy, but ap- On the other hand, although pecuniary propriated, for the maintenance of the insti- grants might occasionally be acceptabletution, the annual sum of 146,000 roubles although premiums, prize-medals, and the (about £30,000. sterling) instead of 60,000, endowment of professorships might be yet previously assigned for that purpose. He more extensively beneficial-it is not by also added the yearly sum of 10,000 roubles, rendering the members of a liberal and for the compensation of artists whose works honourable profession pensioners of the should be adjudged worthy of adorning the state, that the arts can be effectually propublic buildings of the empire. Nor did the moted. No; this is not the patronage most sovereign's liberality and noble-mindedness required. "In affording protection to the end even here; for, as a distinguishing ac-arts of architecture, painting, and sculpture, which then began to revive in Italy," ob *Hayter's picture is understood to be on a serves Roscoe, in his Life of Lorenzo de large scale. Martin's also, is very large, not Medici, " Cosmo set the great example to less than eight feet in height. The figures, how-those who, by their rank and their riches, ever, are mentioned as not being more than six inches in height: it may therefore be presumed that every thing will be rendered subordinate to grand architectural effect-a style to which Martin's genius seems naturally to lead him, could alone afford them effectual aid. The countenance shewn by him to those arts was not of that kind which their professors generally experience from the great; it was not conceded as a bounty, nor received as a favour, but appeared in the friendship and equality that subsisted between the artist and his patron." There could be no surer mode than this for creating a demand for historic and poetic pictures. Let but a demand for such subjects be created, and quality, as well as number and quantity, would be abundantly forthcoming; for then the labourer, certain of his reward, would call his proudest powers into action. their artists are more aspiring than ours, and their productions more numerous. On the other hand, we leave them at an immeasurable distance in landscape, in portrait, and in animal painting. We have yet a few words to say with reference to our own approaching Royal Academy exhibition, which commences on Monday, the 6th of May. Excepting a few subjects, with the sight of which we have been favoured in the artists' atteliers, we can report only from hearsay. We know, however, that Sir David Wilkie has a large, splendid, and powerful picture, upon which he has been engaged some years; its subject, the finding of the body of Tippoo Saib, after the storming of Seringapatam, in the sally-port gate where he fell. As yet, we believe, this is the only monument in existence to the memory of General Sir David Baird: it was ordered several years ago by Lady Baird, his wife. With reference to districts, societies, corporate bodies, &c., were every undecorated church in the kingdom to give a commission for an altar-piece, in proportion to its means of compensation-were every county, city, town, and borough-every corporate body and public institution of note, to follow the exciting example, by ordering a historic picture for its hall or council chamber, what a world of genius would be elicited to what an incalculable extent Pickersgill has whole length portraits of would the country be enriched-how splen--Miss Pardoe; the Duke of Somerset ; didly, how enviably, would the inspired the Hon. Mount Stuart Elphinstone, for the artist be patronized and rewarded! Oriental Club; and Masterman, Esq., an officer of the Life Guards; with portraits, of the usual size, of Lord Lyndhurst, Thomas Bucknall Estcourt, Esq., and Lee Warner, Esq. The city of Paris, be it remembered, has, for all her national productions of the fine arts, oil-painting, water colours, crayons, architecture, sculpture, porcelain-painting, engraving, &c., only one grand annual exhibition, that of the Louvre, now open. London, on the other hand (we say nothing of the provinces), has at least five annual exhibitions; the Royal Academy, the British Institution, the Society of British Artists, and the two Water Colour Societies. This year the Louvre exhibits a catalogue of 2404 subjects; a number startling at the first glance, yet regarded comparatively small. The average annual number of subjects exhibited at the Royal Academy may be taken at 1300; at each of the other institutions, from 400 to 500. Thus, taking the lower number, we find an annual aggregate of no less than 2900; or, in round numbers, 3000. The French boast of the superiority of their "School of Design." Giving them credit for some superiority of drawing, a superiority which we ought not to suffer them any longer to enjoy, we may remark, en passant, that though they have much manner, they cannot yet be said to possess a school of painting. In this respect they are evidently behind the English; yet in the historic department We were informed, some weeks ago, that her Majesty had commissioned Edwin Landseer to paint a representation of Van Amburgh and his lions, &c., as they were seen at Drury Lane Theatre. The picture is finished, and is expected to be in the exhibition. Hart, one of the most rising artists of the day, has a large painting of the execution of Lady Jane Grey, the figures in which are of the size of life. Pickersgill's portrait of Miss Pardoe, the spirited and highly-gifted oriental traveller, we have seen; and we venture to predict that it will prove one of the stars of the exhibition. Indeed, we should not hesitate to pronounce it the first picture of its class that Pickersgill ever painted. With all the fidelity of portrait, it combines all the elegance and refinement of poetry. The composition, with its accessories, is good, In the costume, which is eastern, the casting of the drapery is broad, notwithstanding its complicated character: all is rich, warm, glowing, gorgeous—yet without the slightest approximation to the tawdry or the meretricious. Ꮎ MOORISH BALLADS. No. II. THE DEATH OF ALI ATAR! The banks of the Xenil are covered with blood, The waves of the Xenil are crimson with gore, The death-struggle's fierce 'tween the Christian and Moor; The warrior of life, not of fame is bereft ; For valour is virtue, and virtue is fame, Be the arm of the striker but sinless of shame; And his banner that soars shall as proudly fall down The waves of the Xenil in wrath are upcurled, "By the god of my fathers, the beard of my strength, "Don Alonzo d' Aguilar, well meet we at length: 66 By the shrine of our Prophet, I've sought thee afar, "And hurl thee the vengeance of Ali Atar!" With quivering hatred the spear-wrath of fire The demon of brightness went forward beguiled, Two keen swords are gleaming with savage delight, The Moor chief grows faint from the thirst of the steel : |