THE
ROYAL
ACADEMY
IN
BED.
————
The
opening
of
The
Royal
Academy
Exhibition
of
eighteen
hundred
and
fifty-nine
is
the
first
opening that
I
have
missed for
something like
a
score
of years
past.
Illness,
which
confines me
to
my
bed, has
been
the
sole cause
of my
absence
when
the rooms
in
Trafalgar-square were
thrown
open
to an
immense
shilling
public, for
the
present
season.
My
admiration for
modern
Art
almost amounts
to
fanaticism;
and my
disappointment
at
missing the
first
week
of the
Exhibition
is not
to
be
described in
words
or depicted
on
canvas.
My
doctor
informs
me
that
I
may
hope
to
get
out
again before
the
doors
of the
elegant
and commodious
Palace
of
Art, which
occupies
the north
side
of
Trafalgar-square, are
closed
at the
end of
July.
While
I am
waiting
for
the happy
period
of my
emancipation,
I have
been
finding consolation
and
occupying
the
weary hours
by
a careful
perusal
of the
Royal
Academy
Catalogue for
the
present
year.
Thanks to
this
invaluable document,
I
have
found myself
in
a
condition to
plan
out my
future
visit
to the
Exhibition,
in its
minutest
details,
beforehand.
I have
decided what
pictures
I
shall see
and
what
pictures I
shall
miss; I
know
where
I shall
want
to
look up
and
where I
shall
want
to look
down;
I have
even
settled in
my
own
mind when
I
shall
tread on
the
toes of
other
people,
and
when other
people
will
return the
compliment
by
treading on
mine—in
short,
I have
excited
my
imagination to
such
a
pitch of
preternatural
lucidity, that
I
have
all but
got
the
whole picture-show
at my
fingers’
ends
already, though
I
have
not the
slightest
chance
of
paying a
visit
to it
for
at least
six
weeks
to come.
Allow
me
to
present
my
Private
View
of
The
Royal
Academy Exhibition,
taken
from
my bedroom
at
Peckham
Rye,
by the
telescopic
help
of the
Catalogue
for
the present
year.
To
begin
(as
the
critics
do)
with
general
characteristics.
I
find
the
Exhibition
to
be,
in
two
respects,
negatively
unlike
its
predecessors. The
Vicar
of Wakefield
is,
unless
I
mistake, at
last used
up;
and
there is
no
statue
of
Musidora (“at
the
doubtful breeze
alarmed”)
in the
Sculpture
Room.
In regard
to
positive
changes, I
observe
a
remarkable tendency
in
the
artists, this
year,
to take
each
others’
likenesses;
and (judging
by
certain
quotations)
to
plunge into
abstruse
classical
reading,
through
the
medium of
some
highly unintelligible
English
translations.
In other respects, the Catalogue affords cheering evidences of strictly
Conservative policy on the part of the Academy in particular, and of the Artists
in general. There is still a strong infusion of the recently-imported Spanish
element. Certain painters still stagger and drop under the weight of the English
grammar, in composing their titles, or offering their necessary explanations in
small type. Certain subjects which have been perpetually repeated in countless
numbers, are reiterated once again for the benefit of a public faithful to its
darling conventionalities. Poor old Venice continues to be trotted out, and has
no present prospect of retiring into private life. Our more juvenile, but still
well-known old friend, the transparent pool, with the wonderful reflexions, the
pretty sky, and the unpronounceable Welsh name to distinguish it in the
Catalogue, still courts the general admiration. So do the Campagna of Rome, the
Festa Day at Naples, the Contadina, Rebecca, the Bride of Lammermoor, the
portrait of a gentleman, and the portrait of a lady. As for Cordelia, Othello,
Macbeth, Falstaff, and Ophelia, they all cry “Here we are again!” from their
places on the walls, as regular to their time as so many Harlequins, Clowns,
Pantaloons, and Columbines, in so many Christmas Pantomimes. Thus much for the
general character of the Exhibition. Descending next to details, I beg to
communicate the following classification of the thirteen hundred and odd works
of art, exhibited this year, as adapted to the necessities of my own Private
View. I divide the Catalogue, then, for my own purposes, into—
1. The pictures that are vouched for by their artists’ names.
2. The pictures that are sure to be hung scandalously high, or scandalously low.
3. The pictures that I don’t think I shall look for.
4. The pictures that I shall be obliged to see, whether I like it or not.
5. The pictures that puzzle me.
6. The pictures that I am quite certain to come away without seeing.
Past experience, close study of titles, and a vivid imagination, enable me to
distribute the whole of this year’s collection of works of art quite easily
under the foregoing six heads. The first head, embracing the pictures that are
vouched for by their artists’ names, naturally gives me no trouble whatever,
beyond the exertion involved in a moderate exercise of memory. Here in my bed, I
know what main features the new works of the famous painters will present, as
well as if I was looking at them in the Academy Rooms. Mr. Creswick again gives
me his delicate, clear-toned, cheerful transcripts of English scenery. Mr.
Leslie still stands alone, the one painter of
ladies—as distinguished from many
excellent painters of women—whom
England has produced, since Gainsborough and Sir Joshua dropped their brushes
for ever.* Sir Edwin Landseer may be as eccentric in his titles as he pleases: I
know very well that there are deer and dogs on the new canvases such as no other
master, living or dead, native or foreign, has ever painted. Mr. Stanfield may
travel where he will; but I am glad to think that he cannot escape from that
wonderful breezy dash of sea-water which it will refresh me to look at the
moment I can get to Trafalgar-square. Mr. Ward has only to inform me (which he
does by his title) that he has happily stripped off his late misfitting Court
suit, and I see his old mastery of dramatic effect and his old force of
expression on this year’s canvas as plainly as I see my own miserable
bed-curtains. Mr. Roberts finds the most formidable intricacies of architecture
as easy to master this season as at any former period of his life. Mr. Danby is
still writing poetry with his brush, as he alone can write it. Mr. Stone has not
lost that sense of beauty which is an artist’s most precious inheritance. Mr.
Egg is as manfully true to nature, as simply powerful in expression, and as
admirably above all artifice and trickery of execution as ever. And Mr.
Millais—who must only come last to pay the enviable penalty due from the
youngest man—has got pictures, this year, which will probably appeal to all
spectators to empty their minds of conventionalities, and to remember that the
new thing in Art is not necessarily the wrong thing because it is new.
It is time now to get to the second head‑to the pictures that are sure to be
hung scandalously high or scandalously low. How can I—in bed at Peckham Rye at
this very moment—presume to say what pictures are under the ceiling, or what
pictures are down on the floor, in Trafalgar-square? There is no presumption in
the matter. I consult the Catalogue by the light of past experience, and certain
disastrous titles immediately supply me with all the information of which I
stand in need.
“Dead Game,” “A View near Dorking,” “A Brig signalising for a Pilot,” “A
Madonna,” “An Autumnal Evening,” “A Roman Peasant,” “The Caprices of Cupid,”
“Fugitives escaped from the Massacre of Glencoe,” and “Preparing the Ark for the
Infant Moses”—are nine specimens of pictures which, I am positively certain,
before I see them, are all hung scandalously high or scandalously low. In the
interests of these works, and of others too numerous to mention, I shall take
with me, when I get to the Academy, at the end of July, a telescope for the high
latitudes, and a soft kneeling-mat for the humble regions of the wainscot. In
the mean time, I would privately suggest to the painters of this uniformly
ill-treated class of works the propriety of changing their titles, in such a
manner as to administer a few dexterous compliments, next time, to the Academy
authorities. If the “Caprices of Cupid” had been called “Ideal View of a Member
of the Hanging Committee;” or if “Preparing the Ark for the Infant Moses” had
been altered to “Preparing a nice Place for a meritorious Outsider,” the destiny
of these two pictures might have been happier. “Dead Game,” again, might have
done better if the artist had added to the title, “not higher than you would
like it at your own hospitable table, and not low, out of consideration for the
landed aristocrat who once preserved it.” I throw out these slight hints on the
assumption that even an Academician is a man, and that, as such, he is not
inaccessible to flattery.
Head Number Three: The pictures that I don’t think I shall look for. Here, once
more, I trust myself implicitly to the titles. They warn me, when I go to the
Exhibition, to be on my guard (without intending any personal disrespect towards
the artists) against the following works, among many others:
“Pœonian Woman. ‘When she came to the river, she watered her horse, filled her
vase, and returned by the road, bearing the water on her head, leading the
horse, and spinning from her distaff.—Herod. Terps. 12.’ “ No, no, madam; I know
you, and your extract from “Herod. Terps. 12” has no effect upon me. I know your
long leg that shows through your diaphanous robe, and your straight line from
the top of your forehead to the tip of your nose, and your short upper lip and
your fleshy chin, and your total want of all those embraceable qualities which
form the most precious attribute of your sex in modern times. Unfascinating
Pœonian woman, you can do three things at once, as I gather from your extract;
but there is a fourth thing you can’t do—you can’t get me to look at you!
“Warrior -Poets of Europe contending in Song? Well? I think not. What can
Painting do with such a subject as this? It can open the warrior-poets’ mouths;
but it cannot inform me of what I want to know next—which is, what they are
singing? Will the artist kindly stand under his work (towards the end of July);
and, when he sees a sickly -looking gentleman approach, with a white
handkerchief in his left hand, will he complete his picture by humming a few of
the warrior-poets’ songs? In that case, I will gladly look at it in—any other,
No.
“So sleepy!” Dear, dear me’! This is surely a chubby child, with swollen cheeks,
and dropsical legs. I dislike cherubs in Nature (as my married friends know),
because I object to corpulence on any scale, no matter how small, and I will not
willingly approach a cherub, even when presented to me under the comparatively
quiet form of Art. “Preparing for the Masquerade”? No; that is Costume, and I
can see it on a larger scale in Mr. Nathan’s shop. “Felice Ballarin reciting
Tasso to the people of Chioggia”? No; I never heard of Felice Ballarin; and it
does not reconcile me to his being painted, to know that he is reciting at
Chioggia. “The Monk Felix”? Bah! a snuffy man with a beard; let him move on,
with the Pœonian woman to keep him company. “Ideal Bust of a Warrior”? I fear
the temptation to look at this will be too much for me; although I know, by
experience, that ideal busts of warriors always over-excite my system even when
I am in perfect health. It will be best, perhaps, not to venture into the
sculpture-room at all. “ Unrequited Love”? “The Monastery of Smolnoi”? “Allsopp’s
new Brewery”? No, no, no; I must even resist these, I must resist dozens more on
my list—time and space fail me—let me abandon the fertile third head in my
classification, and get on to my fourth: The pictures that I shall be obliged to
see, whether I like it or not.
“Equestrian Portrait of His Grace the Duke of Bedford.” The horse will run me
down here, to a dead certainty, the moment I get into the room. “Cordelia
receives Intelligence how her Father had been ill-treated by her Sisters.”
Cordelia had better have received intelligence first on the subject of English
grammar—but, no matter; right or wrong in her construction, she has been from
time immemorial the most forward young woman on the Academy walls, and she will
insist, as usual, on my looking at her, whether I like it or not. “ General Sir
George Brown.” This case involves a scarlet coat and decorations—and who ever
escaped them at an exhibition, I
should like to know? “Dalilah asking Forgiveness of Samson.” When I venture to
acknowledge that I am more unspeakably tired of these two characters (on canvas)
than of any other two that ever entered a painter’s studio, all intelligent
persons are sure to understand that Dalilah and Samson will be the very first
picture I see when I look about me in the Academy. For much the same reason,
“Portrait of a Lady,” and “Portrait of a Gentleman,” will of course lay hold of
me in all directions. Are not pictures of this sort always numerous, always
exactly alike, always a great deal too large, and always void of the slightest
interest for any one, excepting the “ladies” and “gentlemen” themselves? And,
granted this, what is the necessary and natural result? I must see them, whether
I like it or not—and so must you.
Head Number Five: The pictures that puzzle me. These are so numerous, as judged
by their titles, that I hardly know which to pick out, by way of example, first.
Suppose I select the shortest—“Happy!” Not a word of quotation or explanation
follows this. Who (I ask myself, tossing on my weary pillow)—who, or what is
happy? Does this mysterious picture represent one of the Prime Minister’s
recently made peers, or a publican at election time, or a gentleman who has just
paid conscience-money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a group of
enraptured ladies at the period when watch-spring petticoats were first
introduced, or boys at a Pantomime, or girls at a dance, or dogs in a cover, or
cats in a dairy? Impossible to say: there are ten thousand things the picture
might represent, and it probably depicts the ten thousand and first, of which I
have no suspicion. Hardly less puzzling is “ A Lesson on Infant Treatment.” What
is infant treatment? In some families it means a smack on the head; in others,
it means perpetual cuddling; in all it implies (for such is the lot of
mortality) occasional rhubarb and magnesia. Is the lesson painted here a lesson
on the administration of nauseous draughts, fond kisses, or corrective smacks?
Do we read in this mysterious picture a warning against the general nursery
error of pinning up a baby’s skin and a baby’s clothes both together? Or is the
scene treated from a heartlessly-comic point of view; and does it represent a
bedchamber by night—papa promenading forlorn with his screeching offspring in
his arms, and mamma looking on sympathetically from her pillow? Who can say? It
is a picture to give up in despair.
“Gretna Green.—A runaway match; the postboy announcing pursuit; one of the last
marriages previous to the alteration of the Scottish law, with portraits painted
on the spot.” More and more puzzling! Portraits painted on the spot, when the
bride and bridegroom are running away, and the postboy is announcing pursuit!
Why, photography itself would be too slow for the purpose! Besides, how did the
painter come there? Was he sent for on purpose beforehand, or did he take up his
position on speculation? Or is the artist himself the bridegroom, and was the
taking of his own likeness and his wife’s the first idea that occurred to him
when he was married? Curious, if it was so. I am a single man myself, and have
no right to an opinion; but I think, if I ran away with my young woman, that I
should give up my profession for the day, at any rate.
No. 835—No title; nothing but this quotation:
A guid New-year I wish thee, Maggie!
Hae, there’s a ripp to thy auld baggie, &c.
What can this be? a sonsie lass takes a walk on a New-year’s morning, with an
old bag over her shoulder; a mischievous Scotchman rips it open most improperly;
exclaims, “Hae!” for which he is little better than a brute; and abandons the
poor girl in a situation which it rings the heart to think of. Is that the
picture? I object to it as “painful” if it is.
“Death-bed of Lorenzo de Medici. Father-Confessor Girolamo Savonarola demands,
as the condition of absolving Lorenzo de Medici of his sins, that he should
restore liberty to Florence, refusing which, he abandons him to his fate.” How,
in the name of wonder, can this be painted? Which of the two things is the
father-confessor doing? Is he making his demand, or abandoning the unfortunate
victim to his fate? If he is making the demand, he must be painted saying
something, and how can that be done? If, on the other hand, he is abandoning the
patient, the question arises whether he ought not to abandon the picture also,
or at least be three parts out of it, so as to convey the two necessary ideas of
rapidity of action and of personal absence from the bedroom. I don’t see my way
to this work of art at all. Still less do I understand “Harvest,” the pervading
sentiment of which is supposed to be expressed in this one alarming line of
quotation:
When labour drinks, his boiling sweat to
thrive.
CHAPMAN’S Hesiod.
Incredulous readers must be informed that the above is copied from the catalogue
of the present year, at page twenty-seven. What on earth does the line mean,
taken by itself? And how in the world do the resources of Art contrive to turn
it to graphic account in a picture of a Harvest? Say that “When labour drinks”
is personified, in the foreground of the scene, by Hodge, with a great mug in
his hand, how, in that case, does the illustrative faculty of the artist grapple
next with “his boiling sweat to thrive?” Is Hodge presented bubbling all over
with beer, at a temperature of I don’t know how many hundred degrees Fahrenheit?
And if he is, how does he “thrive” under those heated circumstances? Or is he
hissing and steaming out of his own large bodily resources; and is he trying to
condense his own vapour with successive jets of cold small beer? Nay, is he even
one Hodge only, boiling, sweating, and thriving? May he not be possibly
multiplied into all the Hodges in the neighbourhood, collected together in the
harvest-field, and obscuring the whole fertile prospect by scalding agricultural
exudations? I protest I am almost in the condition of Hodge myself, only with
thinking of this boiling perplexity—except, indeed, that I see no chance of
thriving, unless I drop the subject forthwith to cool my heated fancy. When I
have done this, all succeeding titles and quotations become mirrors of truth,
that reflect the pictures unmistakably by comparison with such an inscrutable
puzzle as a harvest-field, painted through the medium of Chapman’s Hesiod. With
that work my bewilderment ends, through my own sheer inability to become
confused under any other circumstances whatever; and here, therefore, the list
of the pictures that puzzle me may necessarily and appropriately come to an end
also.
As to my final head, under which are grouped The pictures that I am quite
certain to come away
without
seeing,
every
reader,
who
has
been
to
the
Royal Academy
Exhibition,
can
enlarge on
this
branch of
the
subject
from
his own
experience,
without
help
from me.
Every
reader knows
that
when
he gets
home
again,
and
wearily reviews
his
well-thumbed Catalogue,
the
first picture
that
attracts
his
attention is
sure
to be
one
among many
other
pictures
which
he especially
wanted
to
see, and
which
he has
accurately contrived
to
miss
without suspecting
it
in the
crowd.
In the
same
way,
the one
favourite work
which
our
enthusiastic friends
will
infallibly
ask us
if
we
admire is,
in
the
vast majority
of
cases,
provokingly
certain
to be
also
the one
work
which
we have
unconsciously
omitted to
notice.
My own
experience
inclines
me to
predict,
therefore,
that
when I
come
back
from my
first
visit to
the
Academy,
I
shall find
I
have passed
over
in a
general
sense
one full
half
of the
whole
exhibition,
and in
a
particular
sense, something
not
far
short of
one-third
of the
pictures
that I
expressly
intended
to
see. I
shall go
again
and
again and
diminish
these
arrears, if
the
doors only
keep
open
long enough;
but
I shall
still
have
missed some
especially
interesting things
when
the
show has
closed
and
there is
no further
chance
for
me. The
Academy
is not
to blame
for
that;
it is
only
our
mortal lot.
In the
greater
Exhibition-room
of
Human Life,
how often,
in
spite
of all
our
care
and trouble,
we miss
the
one
precious picture
that
we
most wanted
to see!
Excuse
a sick
man’s
moral. When
he
has
closed his
Catalogue,
what
has he
left
to do
but
to
turn round
in
bed,
and take
his mental
composing-draught
in the
form
of
sober reflection?
* The ink was hardly dry on these lines, when the writer received the news of
this admirable painter’s death. Insufficient though it be, let the little
tribute in the text to one only of Mr. Leslie’s many great qualities as an
artist, remain unaltered; and let a word of sincere sorrow for the loss of him
be added to it here. No man better deserved the affectionate regard which all
his friends felt for him. He was unaffectedly kind and approachable to his
younger brethren, and delightfully genial and simple-minded in his intercourse
with friends of maturer years. As a painter, he had no rival within his own
range of subjects; and he will probably find no successor now that he is lost to
us. In the exact knowledge of the means by which his art could illustrate and
complete the sister-art of the great humorists—in the instinctive grace,
delicacy, and refinement which always guided his brush—in his exquisite feeling
for ease, harmony, and beauty, as applied to grouping and composition—he walked
on a road of his own finding and making, following no man himself, and only
imitated at an immeasurable distance by those who walked after him. Another of
the genuinely original painters of the English School has gone, and has made the
opening for the new generation wider and harder to fill than ever.
First published:
All The Year Round
28 May 1859 vol. I, pp. 105-109.