THE ROYAL ACADEMY

FROM REYNOLDS TO MILLAIS

Edited by Charles Holme

OFFICES OF ,THE STVDIO', LONDON PARIS, AND NEW YORK MCMIV

PREFATORY NOTE

In the following pages an effort has been made to gather together a number of illustrations, including portraits, autograph letters and other documents, that may be of service to readers desirous of obtaining a general idea of the progress of the Royal Academy during a period that is regarded by many as the most vitally interesting of its existence. Such w^orks as have hitherto appeared upon the subject have been either inadequately illustrated or confined solely to letterpress. The subject is a vast one — too vast to permit of exhaustive treatment in a single volume, and no such attempt is made here.

In the preparation of this work the Editor desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to those who have rendered him assistance by the loan of pictures, prints, photographs, etc., and by according him permission to reproduce them in this publication. In particular he tenders his best thanks to Messrs. Ernest Brown and Phillips, Sir Edward Durning-Lawrence, Bart., M.P., Mr. James Orrock, R.I., and Mr. C. M. W. Turner, who have entrusted him with original works ; to Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi, Mr. F. B. Daniell, Messrs. Maggs Brothers, Mr. F. Pollard, and Messrs. J. Rimell and Sons, the owners of many of the engravings reproduced ; and to the Autotype Company of New Oxford Street, for a series of photo- graphs placed at his service.

ARTICLES

"The Royal Academy : Its Origin and History." Written by W. K. West.

Pages R i to R xvi

" Painters of the Royal Academy, 1 768-1 868." Written by W. S. Sparrow.

Pages P i to P xvi

"The Sculptors of the Royal Academy, 1 768-1 868." Written by W. S. Sparrow.

Pages s i to s viii

"Engravers of the Royal Academy, 1768-1868." Written by W. S. Sparrow.

Pages E i to E viii

"The Architects of the Royal Academy, 1768-1868." Written by W. S. Sparrow.

Pages A i to A viii

" Notes on Portraits of some Leading Academicians." Written by T. Martin Wood.

Pages I, A i to LA iv

FACSIMILE LETTERS

P. Sandby, R. Cosway, J. F. Rigaud, W. Beechey, and H.

Tresham, to the President of the Royal Academy To face page

J. S. Copley, James Wyatt, John Yenn, F. Bourgeois, to

the President of the Royal Academy P. Sandby, R.A. ^ Sir Thomas Lawrence, P.R.A. P. J. de Loutherbourg, R.A. Henry Fuseli, R.A. William Etty, R.A. J. M. W. Turner, R.A. Sir A. W. Callcott, R.A. James Ward, R.A. Sir M. A. Shee, P.R.A. Sir C. L. Eastlake, P.R.A. " ^ ""'^

John Flaxman, R.A. " ^ ^

Sir Francis Chantrey, R.A. Sir Charles Barry, R .A.

5, R V

n R vi

„ R ix

3) R X

5, R xii

» R XV

„ P vii

„ P ix

« p X

S IV

s vi A iv

b

GENERAL INDEX OF ILLUSTRA-

TIONS

Bacon, J., Bailey, E. H., Banks, T., Barry, Sir Charles Bartolozzi, F., e i, e Beechey, Sir W., Bromley, W., Browne, J.,

Callcott, Sir A. W., Chalon, J. J., Chambers, T., Chantrey, Sir F. L., Cipriani, J. B., Collyer, J., Constable, J., Copley, J. S., Cosway, R., Cotes, F., Cousins, S., Creswick, T.,

Dance, G., Daniell, W., Dawe, G.,

De Loutherbourg, P. J., Doo, G. T.,

Eastlake, Sir C. L., Edridge, H., Elmore, A. E., Etty, W.,

FiTTLER, J.,

Flaxman, J., Foley, J. H,

Gainsborough, T., Gibson, J., Gilpin, S., Graves, R., Green, V.,

Hamilton, W. Haward, F., Heath, J., Hoppner, J.,

Kauffman, a.,

Landseer, Sir E. H., Landseer, J.,

S3

s 13, s 16 s 4

s P

2, e 3, e 4, and s p E 21, and s p e 21 E 6

p 25 s p p 50

s 7

s II, s 12 s P E 14

p 43, p 44 s p p 12 p II

p 2

E 31, E 32 P 52

S P P 41

P 39 p 13

E 33j e 34

P45 p 40

P 53

8 P E 17

p 27, p 28, s 5, s 6 s 19

p 9, and s p s 14 p 24

E 23, E 24 E 9, E 10, E II

S P

E 12, E 13 E 15 P 22, P 23

S P

p 46, P 47, and s P E 18

Lane, R. J., e 22

Lawrence, Sir T., p 19, and s p

Leslie, C. R., p 42

McDowell, P., Major, T., Marshall, W. C, Millais, Sir J. E., Mortimer, J. H., Moser, M., Mulready, W.,

s 15 E 8 s 18

P 55, P 56, P 57 P 15 P7 s p

Nollekens, J.,

Opie, J.,

Phillip, J.,

Raeburn, Sir H., Ravenet, S. F., Reynolds, Sir J., Rigaud, J. F., Roberts, D., Robinson, J. H., Rooker, M. A., Rossi, j. C. F., Russell, J.

Sandby, P. Shee, Sir M. A., Smirke, R., Smith, A., Stanfield, W. C, Stothard, T.,

Theed, W.,

Turner, C, e 25, e

Turner, J. M. W., p 29, p 30,

P 33, P

p I

s 2 s p

P 54

P38

E 5 ^ and s p p 17

P 49 E 29, E 30 p 8 s 7 p 16

p6 p 26 p 18

E 16 P 48 P 20, P 21

Ward, J., Ward, W., Webster, T., West, Sir B., Westmacott, Sir R., Wilkie, Sir D., Willmore, J. T., Wilson, R., Wilton, J., Wright, J, Wyon, W.,

Zoffany, J.,

p

E 19, E

s 10 26, and s p

P 3i> P 32,

34, and s p

37, and s p 20, and s p p 51

P 3 s 8, s 9

P 35, P 36

E 27, E 28

P4, P5

s I

P 14 s 17

p 10, and s p

PORTRAIT SECTION

Banks, Thomas, Bartolozzi, Francesco, Beechey, Sir William, Bourgeois, Sir Francis,

Carl INI, Agostino, Chambers, Sir William, Cipriani, John Baptist, Cosway, Richard, Cousins, Samuel,

Daniell, William, De Loutherbourg, P. J.,

Eastlake, Sir Charles,

Flaxman, John, Fuscli, Henry,

A T *7 A 17	r^wnnTT'? Andrew.	a 21
. A 4. A 15	HcppNER, John,	A II
A9	Jackson, John,	A 20
A 4 A 5	Lawrence, Sir Thomas,	A 13
A A A 4 A 6	NoRTHCOTE, James,	A 0
A 23	Raeburn, Sir Henry, Reynolds, Sir Joshua,	A 14
A 18	A I
A 7	Stan field, W. Clarkson,	A 22
A 19	Turner, J. M. W.,	A 16
A 12
A 10	West, Benjamin,	A 2

LIST OF SPECIAL PLATES

SPECIAL PLATES IN PHOTOGRAVURE

" f Devonshire," from the mezzotint by Valentine

Green, after Sir T. Reynolds r •

The Vestal Virgin," LA4eIicaKauffina„,R.A. I

1 he Jiather," by W. Etty, R.A '* Portrait, by John Opie, R.A * ' R xiv

Mrs. Robinson, « Perdita," by Thomas Gainsborough, R.A. "

J, R XVI

» P ii

SPECIAL PLATES IN COLOUR

« Musidora," by Wilham Hamilton, R.A. p ■

On the Rhine," by J. M. W. Turner, R.A. ^""^ '

On the Sea Coast," by Sir A. W. Callcott, R.A. " l V.

Donkeys," by James Ward, R.A " ^

The Wedding-Day," by William Mulready, R.A. " ^ ^

LowLife,"bySirE. H. Landseer, R.A. " o

"Harvesting," by John Constable, R.A ^ p 19

Portrait of Angelica KaulFman, R.A., after Sir T Reynolds " ^

Portrait of J. M. W. Turner, R.A., by Char JTurn'^^^^^^^^ ' "

LA n

SPECIAL PLATES IN HALF-TONE

Portrait of Joseph Nollekens, R.A., by Sir W Beechev R A ■ " Louisa," by William Ward, A.R / ^ ' * -"^^^^ey^ ^- A. Faang The Royal Academy of Arts, by Johann Zoffany, R.A.

E VI

» A viii

SPECIAL PLATE IN LITHOGRAPHY

Victoria Tower, Westminster, by Sir Charles Barry, R.A.

Fachig A iv

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF AS- SOCIATES AND MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY

{An asterisk slgniHes that the artistes work is illustrated in this publication ; special plates being indicated by the letters S.P.)

PAINTERS* SECTION

ELECTED A.R.A. R.A.

ISP

CXD

(U

a

G O

1769 1769 1770 1771

1770 1783 1770

1770 1770 1770 1770

1771 1777

1771 1771 1771

/ Sir Joshua Reynolds* Francis Cotes* 2 George Barret Charles Catton Jeremiah Meyer Benjamin West* 3 Paul Sandby* 6 John Baker Samuel Wale Mason Chamberlin John Richards Peter Toms Nathaniel Hone Francesco Zuccarelli Dominic Serres G. Baptista Cipriani* s p Richard Wilson* 4, 5

Edward Penny Francis Milner Newton Angelica KaufFman* s p Mary Moser* 7 Francis Hayman Thomas Gainsborough*

Sir Nathaniel Dance Johann ZofFany* William Hoarc Richard Cosway* Edmund Garvey George James Elias Martin Antonio Zucchi Michael Angelo Rooker* William Pars Rev. Mathew William

Peters, res. 1790 Nicholas Thomas Dall Biaggio Rebecca William Tomkins

9 s p

10 s p

1 1

PAINTERS' SECTION— continuea

ELECTED A.R.A. R.A.

1772 1773 1772 1784 1772 1788 1772 1773

1776 1779 1776 1778 1778

1779 I79I 1779

1780

1780 I781

I781

1783 1784

1785

1786

1787

1788

1790

I79I

179I

I79I

I79I 1792 1793 1793 1795 1795 1796 1798

785 789 791 787 787 787

793 812 814 790 791

793 794 794

799 794 795 798

797 799 800

PLATE (P)

17 16

12

15

James Barry, exp. 1779 John Francis Rigaud* John Russell* Stephen Elmer Edward Edwards John Singleton Copley* William Parry John H. Mortimer* James Nixon Ozias Humphrey Horace Hone George Stubbs Philip James de Louther-

bourg* Joseph Wright (of Derby)*

Joseph Farington William Hamilton* John Webber John Opie* James Northcote William Hodges Sir Francis Bourgeois Philip Reinagle William Radmore Bigg Henry Fuseli Francis Wheatley Robert Smirke* Thomas Stothard* 20. Sir Thomas Lawrence*

13

s p

s P

21

19

S P

Henry Tresham Richard Westall John Hoppner* 22, 23 Sir William Beechey* s p John Downman Sawrey Gilpin* 24 Thomas Daniell Sir Martin Archer Shee* 26

PAINTERS' SECTION— continued

ELECTED

A.R.A>	R. A.
1799	1 002
1800	1807
1 800	1 000
1 800
1 0(J 1	1 004
I oOI	lol I
1003
1 804.	I 806
1 004-	1 000
1 ouu	1 0 1 (J
1 ooy	T 8t T 1 0 I 1
1 007	1 02Z
T 80*7
1 000
I0O9	loll
T ^^^^^^ 1 ouy	t8t/«
I 8 10
I0I2	IOI5
1012	IOI5
I 0 I Z	1010
1012
IOI3	T 8 T /-V 1 0 1 9
I8I3
IOI4	1020
1014	1023
I0I5	lOIO
1815	1817
I816	1822
IOI7	I 020
I 0 1 0
IOI9	1029
1 020
182I	1826
182I
1822	1824
1822	1826
1824	1828
1825
1825	1832
1825	1835
1826	I83I
1827	1830
1827	I84I
1828	1832

PLATli (P)

Joseph Mallord William Turner*

31

29) 30, ) 32, 33> 34 s p

Samuel Woodforde Henry Howard George Garrard Henry Thomson Henry Bone Theophilus Clarke William Owen Thomas Phillips Sir Augustus Wall Call

cott* James Ward* William Daniell* Archer James Oliver Samuel Drummond Sir David Wilkie*

25 s p 37 s P 41

35,

36 39

George Dawe* George Arnald Edward Bird Sir Henry Raeburn* 38 Alfred Edward Chalon William Westall William Hilton George Francis Joseph William Collins Ramsay Richard Reinagle William Mulready* s p John Jackson Richard Cook Abraham Cooper Washington AUston John Constable* 43, 44 s p Henry Edridge* Charles Robert Leslie* George Clint George Jones Henry William

Pickersgill William Etty* Francis Danby Henry Perronet Briggs Sir William Allan Sir Edwin Henry

Landseer* 46, 47 Sir Charles Lock

Eastlake* John James Chalon* Gilbert Stuart Newton

ELECTED A.R.A. R.A.

1830 1840

40 42

S P

45 50

1832 1832

1833 1834 1835 1835 1836

1837

1837 1838

1838

1840

1841

1842

1843

1843 1844

1845

1846

1847

835

838 838 840 840 844

845 841

843 846 851 846 851 851 851

848

853 856

855 861

857 860

1848 1848 1850 1851 1851 1851 1852

1853 1863 1855

1857 1859

1857

1859

i860

1861

PLATE (P)

Frederick William

Witherington Wm.Clarkson Stanfield* 48 Andrew Geddes Thomas Uwins Frederic Richard Lee Daniel Maclise Solomon Alexander Hart John Prescott Knight George Patten Charles Landseer David Roberts* 49 Sir William Charles Ross Thomas Webster* 51 Richard Redgrave John Rogers Herbert Sir John Watson Gordon Thomas Creswick* 52 Sir Francis Grant John Hollins Charles West Cope Thomas Duncan William Dyce William Powell Frith Alfred Elmore* 53 Thomas Sidney Cooper Edward Matthew Ward Paul Falconer Poole William Edward Frost Frederick Richard Pickers-

gill

Augustus Leopold Egg

Robert Thorburn

James Clarke Hook

William Boxall

Frank Stone

Edward William Cooke

Frederick Goodall

Sir John E. Millais* 55,

56, 57 John Callcott Horsley John Phillip* 54 George Richmond John Frederick Lewis Henry Nelson O'Neil Wm. Chas. Thos. Dobson Richard Ansdell Thomas Faed James Sant

ENGRAVERS' SECTION

ELECTED A.E.R.A.

PLATE

(E)

1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 1775

1783 1786 1791 1797 1800 1806

^ /Francesco Bartolozzi* ^1 2, 3, 4

Thomas Major* Simon Francis Ravenet* Peter Charles Canot John Browne* Thomas Chambers* Valentine Green* Francis Haward* Joseph CoUyer* James Heath* Anker Smith* James Fittler* John Landseer*

9- 12,

s p

6

7 1 1

13 14 15 16

17 18

ELECTED A.E.R.A. R.A.

1814 1819 1827 1828

1835 1855

1836 1843

1853 1856

1856 1857

PLATE

William Ward* 19, 20 s p William Bromley* 21 Richard James Lane* 22 Charles Turner *25, 26 s p Samuel Cousins (New

Class)* 31 Robert Graves* 23. James Tibbetts Will- more* 27 Lumb Stocks John Henry Robinson

(New Class)* 29, 30 George Thomas Doo

(New Class)* 33, 34

32 24

28

SCULPTORS' SECTION

A.R.A. R.A.

'Joseph Wilton*

PLATE

(s)

■73 ^

w 00

1770 1770 I77I 1784

I79I 1797

1798

1805

I77I

1778

1772

1785

1809 1800

1802

I8II

George Michael Moser Richard Yeo Agostino Carlini Edward Burch John Bacon* 3 Joseph Nollekens* 2 Thomas Banks* 4 Nathaniel Marchant John Flaxman* 5, 6 & p 27 p 28

Charles Felix Rossi* 7 Sir Richard Westma- cott* 8. Q

A.R.A. R.A. ^^(s™

181 1 1813 William Theed* 10

1816 1818 Sir Francis Chantrey* 11,12

1 81 7 1 82 1 Edward Hodges Baily*

I3> 16

1 83 1 1838 William Wyon* 17

1833 1836 John Gibson* 14

1838 1849 Richard Westmacott

1 84 1 1846 Patrick McDowell* 15

1844 1852 William Calder Marshall* 1 8

1849 1858 John Henry Foley* 19

1 85 1 Henry Weekes

1 86 1 Baron Carlo Marochetti

ARCHITECTS' SECTION

A.R.A. R.A.

1770 1770

1774 1789

1795 1803

1785 I79I

1802

Thomas Sandby Sir William Chambers ( John Gwynn William Tyler George Dance Edward Steevens James Wyatt John Yenn Joseph Bonomi Sir John Soane Joseph Gandy

A.R.A. R.A.

1811 1824 1826 1838

li

1822 1823 1826

1829

1839 1840

1847 1855 1861

1836 i8ii 1842 1859 i860

Sir Robert Smirke, Jun. Sir JefFry Wyatville William Wilkins John Peter Dearing

(formerly Gandy) Charles Robert Cockerell Philip Hardwick Sir Charles Barry Sydney Smirke Sir G. Gilbert Scott Edward Middleton

Barry

s p

THE ROYAL ACADEMY: ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

^HERE are not many art societies which can point to such a career as the Royal Academy has enjoyed since its creation nearly a century and a half ago. During this long period its prosperity has been continuous and progressive ; Its authority has steadily increased, and its popularity has become so surely established .... ^ . ^^^^ seems to be proof against all possible vicissitudes. It is now, and has been for very many years accepted both by the puHic and the majority of art workers as the governing influence in the British art world, and neither criticism nor opposition, of which it has had its fair share at all stages of Its development, can be said to have perceptibly affected Its progress. A number of causes have combined to give it the remarkable position which it now holds. It has been from the very beginning under the direct patronage of the Crown, and has acquired in consequence a social standing of a very definite kind It has maintained a free school for students of art under the direction of the leading artists of this country, and so has played a part of no little significance in artistic education. It has by its annual exhibi- tions provided the many people who are interested in or curious about art matters with a periodical entertainment. In many other ways, by taking an active part in schemes intended to promote the credit of British art at home and abroad, by giving frequent and generous contributions of money for the assistance of artists in distress, by the administration of funds entrusted to it for various professional purposes, and by constant intervention in the politics of the art world, it has year by year strengthened its claim to considera- tion, until at last it cannot be said to have a rival or even a serious competitor.

Jt is probable that the success of the Academy is in some measure due to the pecuharity of its constitution. Unhke most societies with a public mission, it has never been hampered by hard and fast regu- lations, which might have prevented its expansion. Really it has been given every opportunity, from the outset, of managing its affairs in Its own fashion, and it has been responsible to no one save the Sovereign personally. It may be defined, rather paradoxically, as a private institution which holds a public position, and which, though

R 1

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY it is under the actual control of the Crown, has not to give an account of itself to Parliament or to any of the State departments. At the same time, while it does work which is in many ways of national importance, it has no subsidy from the Government, and therefore is not subject to any inquiry as to its expenditure or as to the conduct of its concerns. If it were in financial straits it would be entitled by early precedents to expect assistance from the Sovereign, but it could claim nothing from the Treasury in the way of a grant in aid. Whatever disadvantages there may be in a position which requires of the Academy such absolute dependence upon its own resources are more than counterbalanced by the accompanying liberty to fix its own policy and to vary its arrangements practically as it chooses. This liberty, enjoyed for nearly a century and a half, has, it can scarcely be doubted, been very helpful to an institution which needs particularly to keep itself in touch with popular demands. The Academy was by no means the first society founded in this country to watch over the interests of modern art. Several attempts had been made during the earlier years of the eighteenth century to organise an efficient school of art and to provide facihties for the exhibition of pictures and sculpture. Some of these attempts met with a fair measure of success, others were immediate failures ; but in them all the incapacity of the artists associated to agree on any settled policy stood in the way of real progress. They can be taken, however, as evidences of the feeling which was steadily growing up that some regular system of art education was really necessary, and that some central organisation, round which the scattered forces of English Art could rally, would be generally helpful. That the growth of this feeling should have been so long delayed may be attributed to the fact that in previous centuries most of the artists of note who practised in this country had been importations from abroad. There was little encouragement given to men of native birth, and consequently comparatively few of them adopted a profession in which the chief prizes were reserved for foreigners. Moreover, even as late as the seventeenth century the social con- ditions in England were hardly such as to foster any definite art taste — they were very unlike those which, at the same period^ encouraged in such a marked manner the activity of the French School.

Yet it is clear that the question of art education was at this time beginning to occupy the minds of some Englishmen of intelligence. For instance, there is in John Evelyn's " Sculptura," which was published in 1662, a suggested scheme for an Academy, which is. R ii

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

S_ SANDBY, COSWAY, RIGAUD, REECHEY, TIJKSHAM.

^^^^

THJb: KUYAJ^ AUAUiLMY : Lib UKlLrllN AiMJ nia IV^JK. I

fV»o o^<-nol /-/-.t-i<-rr>1 thf^ Prnwn V>as not to P'lve an account

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY interesting not only as an expression of his personal opinion, but also because it embodies many ideas which were afterwards put into a practical form by the Royal Academy itself. His scheme is worth quoting :

" It is proposed that a house be taken with a sufficient number of rooms : two contiguous to each other for drawing and modelling from life ; one for architecture and perspective ; one for drawing frorn plaster ; one for receiving the works of the school ; one for the exhibition of them ; and others for a housekeeper and servants. "That sortie fine pictures, casts, bustos, bas-relievos, intaglias, antiquity, history, architecture, drawings, and prints, be purchased. "That there be professors of anatomy, geometry, perspective^ architecture, and such other sciences as are necessary to a painter,, sculptor, or architect.

" That the professors do read lectures at stated times on constituent parts of their several arts, the resources on which they are founded,, and the precision and immutabihty of the objects of true taste, with proper cautions against all caprice and affectation. " That living models be provided of different characters, to stand five nights in the week.

" That every professor do present the Academy with a piece of his performance at admission.

" That no scholar draw from the Hfe till he has gone through the previous classes, and given proof of his capacity. " That a certain number of medals be annually given to such students as shall distinguish themselves most.

" That every student after he has practised a certain time, and given some proofs of his abiHty, may be a candidate for a fellowship. " That such of the Fellows as choose to travel to Rome to complete their studies, do make a composition from some given subject, as a proof of their ability. He who shall obtain the preference shall be sent with salary sufficient to maintain him decently a certain time^ during which he is to be employed in copying pictures, antique statues, or bas-relievos, drawing from ancient fragments or such new structures as may advance his art, such pieces to be the property of the Society.

" That other medals of greater value, or some badges of distinc- tion, be given pubHcly to those who shall manifest uncommon excellence.

" That some professors should be well skilled in ornaments, fruits, flowers, birds, beasts, &c., that they may instruct the students in these subjects, which are of great use in our manufactories.

R iii

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY " That drawing masters for such schools as may be wanted in several parts of the kingdom be appointed by the professors, under the seal of the Academy.

"That a housekeeper shall continually reside at the Academy, to keep everything in order, and not suffer any piece to go out of the house without a proper warrant."

Between this plan of Evelyn's and that drawn up more than a century later by the men who organised the Royal Academy there are similarities which are probably more than coincidences, so that his excellent ideas on the subject may be said to have ultimately borne good fruit. But in his own time no attempt was made to carry them out. Nothing, in fact, was done for the advancement of art education until after 1700, when Sir Godfrey Kneller, the painter of Sovereigns and Court beauties, started a private school, which seems to have continued till his death in 1723. Not long after. Sir James Thornhill, the historical painter to George I., drew up a scheme for an Academy which, with an estimate of the cost of carrying it out, he submitted to the Government. Assistance was, however, refused by the Treasury, so with commendable public spirit he opened a school at his house in James Street, Covent Garden. This school, during the comparatively short period of its existence, became sufficiently popular to prove to the artists of the time that some such institution ought to be estabhshed on a permanent basis. Accordingly, not long after Thornhill's death a few men, headed by G. M. Moser, combined together and started a class, first in Arundel Street, Strand, and later in Peter's Court, St. Martin's Lane, which had during many years a quietly prosperous career. In its formation some part was played by WilUam Hogarth, who proposed that every member of the association should pay a fixed subscription towards the cost of its maintenance and have an equal share in the conduct of its affairs. This suggestion was adopted, and Hogarth gave further help by handing over the school furniture which had belonged to his father-in-law, Thornhill.

It may fairly be said that this small association of a few artists anxious for chances of self-improvement was the direct ancestor of the Royal Academy which was founded thirty years later. Educated people outside the profession were now far more inclined to take an interest in artistic questions, and a conviction that some strong organisation was needed to undertake the responsibility of a system of general art education was becoming widespread. One evidence of the growth of this feeUng was provided in 1749, when the Society of Dilettanti conceived the idea of establishing a gallery of R iv

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

" ■> /- r .1 i_r I.

COI'LEY, WYATT, VENN, BOURGEOIS.

A^i^^, 7*~^.v. v^-**--^*- ji^-f •

/

i/-?-^ ^€^^^- ^^t.^^^ , y''^^

tr<^ -y-ti

7

^ ---- ^ '

^<C':Ar^-^ /^^"^^^'V "^^^"^ ''^^ ^

'7,.^^^ -^.^^*«>-^'

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

works of art and of casts from the antique, and of making this gallery a properly equipped teaching-place with a staff of qualified professors. By 1753 this scheme had advanced so far that a site had been bought in Cavendish Square and a supply of stone for the erection of the building.

But for the proper working out of its idea the Society ot Dilettanti had to seek the collaboration of the members of the St. Martin's Lane Academy ; and these men, who now called themselves the Society of Artists, were by no means disposed to hand over to another body the authority they had acquired. Indeed, they made such demands and insisted so strongly that the management of the new school should be left entirely to them, that at last the Society of Dilettanti abandoned their project in the belief that they would be excluded from all part in the working of an institution which was to be created and maintained at their expense. Even among the artists themselves there was great diversity of opinion concerning the advantage of creating a school on so ambitious a scale ; Hogarth opposed the scheme, and he had with him many others who viewed it with strong disfavour.

Yet only two years later a similar suggestion was under discussion. This time it was proposed to found "The Royal Academy of London, for the Improvement of Painting, Sculpture, and Archi- tecture," with a president, thirty directors, fellows, and scholars. A committee was formed to arrange preliminaries, and the co-operation of the Society of Dilettanti was again invoked. But again the scheme failed, partly for want of public support and partly because the Dilettanti, made probably more wary by their recent experience, would not assent to anything which tended to narrow their sphere of activity. They wanted, naturally, to have a voice in setting the policy of an institution which was to be, nominally at all events, under their patronage, while the artists, with their usual jealousy of men who patronised but did not practise art, wished to avoid every- thing that looked like interference in an artistic association which was to benefit art workers rather than the public. Meanwhile, another influence was developing, which was destined to have a definite effect upon these negotiations between the artists and the art lovers. In 1754 the " Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in Great Britain" had been brought into existence by the efforts of a few men of taste, and it had become almost at once something of a power in the art world because it offered prizes and other rewards to young artists who were capable of doing good work in painting, sculpture, and archi-

R V

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

tecture. So when a committee of artists decided that it would be to their advantage to hold an annual exhibition of their works and to give the public an opportunity of seeing what was being done hy- men of ability, it was natural enough that the place chosen for this exhibition should have been the rooms occupied by the Society of Arts. When the artists asked for permission to use the rooms the Society readily responded, with the sole condition that no charge should be made except for the catalogues of the show. Even with this restriction, the venture was financially a very definite success. The collection, which consisted of a hundred and thirty works by sixty-nine artists, was on view from April 21 to May 8, 1760, and the attendance was so good that after all expenses had been paid a profit of £100 remained.

When, in the following year, the artists wished to hold their second exhibition they tried to evade the former stipulation as to free admission and to make the purchase of a catalogue, which was to serve also as a season ticket, compulsory on all visitors. To this, however, the Society of Arts would not agree, so the promoters of the show split up into two parties, each of which organised an exhibition on its own account. One occupied the rooms of the Society of Arts and adhered to the original conditions, the other took a room in Spring Gardens and called itself the " Society ot Artists of Great Britain " ; the former association, which was formally enrolled in 1763 under the title "A Free Society of Artists," continued for a while to exhibit in the rooms of the Society of Arts, then moved to other quarters, and finally ceased to exist in 1778.

The Society of Artists had a much more active career. Its in- dependence was amply justified by results, for in its first exhibition at Spring Gardens, where the idea of using the catalogue as a voucher for admission was put in force, the visitors numbered thirteen thousand ; and as years went on its prosperity increased. In 1765 it received a charter of incorporation, and was known thence- forward as " The Incorporated Society of Artists of Great Britain." This definition of its position seems to have inspired it with the belief that it ought to become a teaching institution as well as an exhibiting one, and it began to consider how it could best arrange this addition to its responsibilities. A house was eventually taken in Pall Mall, to which were removed the effects of the St. Martin's Lane School, and over the door was inscribed "The Royal Academy." Apparently there was some justification for this suggestion of Royal patronage. The King had, in some manner not explained, given R vi

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

L. S.— PAUL SANDIiY, R. A.

C<rV i

«^ (TfJ^^ ^^r^fr^ ^ y ^ ^^^^^^

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

countenance to the scheme, and had subscribed £ioo to the funds of the society.

Not long after various dissensions arose between two sections of the association. On one side were the twenty-four directors by whom its affairs had hitherto been managed, on the other was a group of men who were anxious to fill the positions of authority from which they held that they were unjustly excluded. These dissensions came to a head in the autumn of 1768, when the opposition by its superiority of numbers succeeded in carrying its scheme of reform, in ousting sixteen of the directors, and in electing a new president and secretary. About a month later the remaining eight directors, seeing that their position had become impossible, sent in their resignation in a body. Many members who sympathised with them also retired ; and as these seceders included some of the ablest artists of the time the effect of the reformers' action was to diminish greatly the authority of the Incorporated Society, and to seriously weaken its position.

No time was wasted by the seceding party in vain regrets. With wonderful promptitude they set to work to create for themselves a better position than the one from which they had been driven. A committee of four, Moser, Cotes, Chambers, and West, was appointed at once to draw up a scheme for the formation of a new society, and with great shrewdness they began by enlisting the sympathy of the King. So quickly did they dispose of preliminaries that, although the resignation of the eight directors had not taken place till the loth of November, on the 28 th a memorial signed by twenty-two artists — among them West, Richard Wilson, Moser, Cipriani, George Barret, Paul Sandby, Edward Penny, Francis Cotes, and Bartolozzi — was ready for presentation to George III. This memorial was well received, a general consent was given to the scheme by the King, and fuller details were asked for so as to enable him to come to a final decision. Some slight delay was caused at this stage by the hesitation of Reynolds, whom the artists desired to make president of the projected society. He was first sounded on the subject by Penny, but refused to take any part in the proceedings ; then West was sent, and his persuasions were so far successful that he was able to bring Reynolds to the meeting of artists which had been called together to settle the details which were to be laid before the King and to draw up a list of officers. When Reynolds appeared he was unanimously voted to the Presidency, and, though even then he deferred his acceptance for some days, he ultimately agreed to fill the post. On December 7 the complete scheme was presented to the

R vii

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY King, and three days later he signified his consent by writing on the document drawn up by the artists, " I approve of this plan ; let it be put into execution."

In this way was constituted "The Royal Academy ot Arts in London, for the purpose of cultivating and improving the Arts of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture." It may be questioned whether even the men who were most strenuous in their support of the scheme which had been drawn up in such haste, and carried through in so unusual a manner, realised what kind of institution they were calling into existence. They certainly could not have foreseen how it was likely to develop, or what a commanding position it was destined to take among the art societies of the world. Even the severest of the present-day critics of the Royal Academy must admit that exceptional discretion must have been used by every one concerned in its operations, and that a remarkable spirit of loyalty to its traditions must have pervaded the whole body of members to make possible that progi-ess in social and artistic authority which has been one of the most striking features of the history of this association. No doubt the Royal patronage, which has been accorded by every occupant of the British throne since 1768, has counted for much ; but in a self-governing society making its own rules and ordering its own affairs, the chance of internal dissensions is always present. Nothing, however, has occurred to interfere seriously with its activity, and its advance in prosperity has been without a break. For such a record there are few precedents, and it seems the more surprising when the condition of British art in the middle of the eighteenth century is taken into account.

The " Instrument," as the document was called, which had been drawn up by the committee of artists and signed by the King, followed so closely both in its general Hues and in its details the suggestions made by John Evelyn a century before, that there seems some reason for assuming that his ideal scheme had been laid under contribution. But whether the agreement between his views and those of the organisers of the Royal Academy was intentional, or merely a coincidence, is scarcely material ; the important point is that at last a way had been found of establishing an art society under such conditions that there was every hope of its becoming per- manently useful. The Instrument was a common-sense statement of the working principles which must be observed by any association intending to become influential in the art world. It embodied all the necessary rules and regulations for the working of an Academy which R viii

was to exercise educational functions and to provide £

A. I,. S. — SIR THOMAS LAWRENCP:, P. R. A.

irs

0 T 1

^ ^ ^'^^X' i.

^ ^ - Z_ bich

-4-

^^^^ -t-^ /y^^^

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY was to exercise educational functions and to provide facilities for the periodical exhibition of works of art, and it laid down a number of laws for ensuring the proper management of the affairs of the society. In accordance with its provisions the number of members was limited to forty, of whom thirty-four were appointed at the outset, two were added early in 1769, and the remaining four shortly afterwards. On December 14, 1768, four days after the King had appended his signature to the Instrument, the Academicians met and signed a kind of acknowledgment, in which they agreed to observe all the regula- tions laid down in the document, and promised " on every occasion to employ our utmost endeavours to promote the honour and interest of the establishment, so long as we shall continue members thereof* ; and formal appointments were made of Reynolds as President, G. M. Moser as Keeper, F. M. Newton as Secretary, and others as Visitors and Members of the Council. Three days later a general assembly was held, at which the first professors were elected by ballot — Edward Penny for painting, Thomas Sandby for architecture. Dr. William Hunter for anatomy, and Samuel Wale for perspective. So far the whole of these proceedings had been, by the King's desire, kept a profound secret. The first announcement of the existence of the Royal Academy was made, according to the story told in John Gait's " Life of Benjamin West," by the King himself West had brought his picture of " Regulus " to Windsor Castle for the inspection of the King and Queen, and while they were examining the painting, Kirby, the new President of the Incorporated Society of Artists, arrived, and was admitted. He was introduced to West, admired the " Regulus," and said : " I hope, Mr. West, that you intend to exhibit this picture." West replied : " It is painted for the Palace, and its exhibition must depend upon his Majesty's pleasure." " Assuredly," said the King ; " I shall be very happy to let the work be shown to the public." " Then, Mr. West," said Kirby, " you will send it to my exhibition ? " " No," interposed the King, " it must go to my exhibition — to that of the Royal Academy." Kirby, shocked and humiliated, retired, and not long afterwards presented on behalf of the Incorporated Society a petition in which, among other matters, a plea was advanced for the King's exclusive patronage. To this he received a reply that "the Society had his Majesty's protection ; that he did not mean to encourage one set of men more than another ; that having extended his favour to the Society by Royal Charter, he had also encouraged the new petitioners ; that his intention was to patronise the arts ; and that he should visit the exhibition as usual." But the King's real intention may be judged

R ix

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY from the fact that in 1769 he visited the exhibition of the Incorporated Society for the last time, and presented to it his last donation of £100. His sympathies were for the future reserved for the Royal Academy ; and the Incorporated Society, deprived of his support and unable to hold its own against its rival, finally expired in 1 79 1, after undergoing various vicissitudes. Its books, papers, and charter were presented by its last surviving member, Mr. Robert Pollard, to the Academy in 1836.

The new society lost no time in getting to work after the formalities of its founding had been completed. Within a month it was busy with the arrangemements for the school which was to be one of its most useful spheres of activity, and this school was duly opened at the beginning of January 1769, in some rooms in Pall Mall. At the opening, Reynolds, who had just received the honour of knighthood, delivered the first of his admirable discourses, and dwelt at some length upon the purpose and intentions of the Academy, and upon the advantages which the institution enjoyed under the Royal patronage. Three months later, in March 1769, notices were issued concerning the coming exhibition, the first of the long series which has continued without a break to the present day. These notices desired " artists who intend to exhibit with the Academicians to send their several works to the Royal Academy, in Pall Mall, on Thursday, the 13th of April, or before six o'clock in the evening of Friday the 14th ; after which time no performance will be received." On Wednesday, April 26, the exhibition was opened, and was continued for a month. It contained a hundred and thirty-six works, nearly eighty of which were by members ; and as it was very well attended, it produced a sum which fell short by only a few shillings of £yoo. The expenditure of the Academy in its first year of working so far exceeded its receipts, however, that a contribution of over £goo was necessary from the King.

During this year some changes were introduced into the constitution as set forth in the Instrument, changes which aimed at making the society more efficient and more fully representative. One of these was the regulation agreed to on March 25, under which " a number of engravers, not exceeding six, shall be admitted Associates of the Royal Academy " ; the other, passed on December 1 1 at a General Assembly, created " a new order, or rank of members, to be called Associates of the Royal Academy." These Associates were to be in addition to the engravers already agreed upon ; they were to be twenty in number, and to be chosen from among the painters, sculptors, and architects who might contribute to the exhibitions.

R X

They were also intended to form a class from wh:

• 1 . A _j -^-uld

—p. J. I)E LOIjTHERBOURG, R. A.

4j/^^'^^^ ^^^n^ r>tA^*^^ A ^i^***—

k

3ciety for the last time, and presented to it his last

u: .u: r. .. .1 r .

lerm

ible

lerg(

irese

Aca(

y lo!

hac ;eme leres >fja )lds, irst s pu

wh iree

con: ivith

wh< )rks )ril, hich )ril :

It C(

1 we im \ •e of :eipt the : ir so :he ] fficie ion ; ot e?

ted ' le R e en iber, arch

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY They were also intended to form a class from which vacancies which might occur among the Academicians should be filled. Sixteen Associates were elected under this new rule during 1770, and five Associate engravers. A sixth engraver was added in the following year, but the full number of Associates was not made up until 1773. The second exhibition of the Academy was even more successful than the first ; it produced over £(^Jo, and the deficiency, which had to be met by the King, was reduced in consequence to a little under £730.

P'urther evidence of the King's interest in the society, the establish- ment of which he had done so much to encourage, was provided in 1 77 1, when, by his command, rooms were assigned to the Academy in Somerset House, which was at that time one of the Royal palaces. These rooms were utilised for the purposes of the school, and included a library and council chamber, in which the meetings of the members were held, and the business of the society conducted ; the gallery in Pall Mall was still used for the annual exhibitions, which were held there for another nine years, until in 1780 the Academy was provided with accommodation which allowed it to carry on the whole of its operations under one roof. As years passed, its financial position became more secure, and the demands made upon the King for contributions to meet the annual deficiency were steadily reduced. After 1780, by which date the total amount he had given came to over j(^5ooo, the Academy was able to pay its way without assistance, and had no longer any need to ask for money to properly balance its accounts. In twelve years it had tided over the difficulties inevitable in the earlier stages of such an institution, and had prepared an excellent foundation for its future developments. Not long after the Academy had been accommodated at Somerset House, that building was transferred from the Crown to the Govern- ment, and was converted into public offices. In making this change, however, the King took care that the society for which he had done and was still doing so much should not suffisr in any way. He reserved to himself the right to house it and other learned societies in a certain part of the new building, and early in 1780 the Academy was notified that the rooms specially designed for it in the block facing the Strand were ready for occupation ; these rooms included a gallery on the ground floor for exhibiting sculpture and drawings, a library, a lecture-room, and other apartments for the use of students, on the first floor, and above, a large gallery in which the annual exhibitions were to be held. Here the Academy was able to carry on its work to the best advantage, and under conditions which

R xi

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY relieved it from all anxiety as to its future. As soon as it entered into possession of its new home— which it was destined to occupy for fifty-seven years— it proceeded to fit up and decorate the rooms in an appropriate and attractive manner. Ceilings were painted by Reynolds, West, and AngeHca Kauffmann ; other painted decorations were carried out by Cipriani, and Biaggio Rebecca, and sculptured details by Carlini and Nollekens were also introduced. The general effect of the interior so ornamented is said to have been extremely dignified and quite expressive of the purposes of the institution. The first exhibition at Somerset House was opened on May i, 1780. It included four hundred and eighty-nine works by many of the most famous artists of the day— among them Revnolds, West, Gains- borough, Richard Wilson, Stothard, Sandby, Beechey, Cosway, and De Loutherbourg— and it excited a great deal of attention. Vhe merits of the show and the curiosity of the public concerning the new galleries caused a marked increase in the number of visitors, and the total receipts amounted to over jCsooo. This accession of prosperity put the Academy finally on its feet ; it received a contribution of ^144 in that year from the King, but this was the last occasion on which any demand upon the privy purse was necessary. It was now in a position of authority, a recognised institution which could defy competition and could look forward with reasonable con- fidence to an honourable career. As a teaching centre, where students could receive a proper education under masters of acknowledged eminence, it had sufficiently proved its value, and as a medium for bringing artists before the public its usefulness was undisputed. Indeed, that there was a general desire among the members of the profession to be represented in its exhibitions can be seen by the outcry which was even then raised by the men whose works were occasionally, to use the present day term, "crowded out" of the exhibitions. The want of space difficulty seems to have become pressing in the very early days of the Academy history ; and though It has in modern times grown in a marked manner on account of the greater disproportion between the available wall-space at the disposal of the Academy and the number of would-be contributors,, there seems to have been long before the end of the eighteenth century very serious heartburnings over the decisions of the com- mittees by which the periodical shows were arranged. Appeals to the President and to members of the Council on behalf of artists who considered themselves slighted were not infrequent ; there is an instance of an eloquent intercession made by Dr. Samuel Johnson to obtain a revision of the verdict pronounced by the hangers-on the R xii

THE ROYAL ACADEMY: ITS ORIGIN AMn HTSTOTJV

S. — HENRY FUSELl, R.A.

fJnY ^^ -^ ^

■^H"jyf»i^ /i?, .4/ws- TM emf-

tola j/:^ r/^Ujif/ HddfiL mip^umK .

-frio /tf^rM. a/j^o^^ ^Md/

THE ROYAL ACADEMY: ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY works of a painter who was a friend of his — an intercession which, it may be remarked, resulted in the admission of the rejected pictures. But such episodes are only important because they suggest that acceptance by the Academy was regarded at this early stage in its history as to some considerable extent setting a seal upon an artist's claims to popularity.

The next important event to be noted is the death of Sir Joshua Reynolds, on February 23, 1792. He had held the Presidency for nearly four and twenty years, and had shown himself in every way fitted for this responsible position. The relations between him and the other members had been excellent throughout ; few of the dis- agreements practically inevitable in a society which was creating the precedents by which its operations were to be guided in years to come had occurred to mar the progress of affairs, and those which did arise were easily smoothed over. He had seen some extensive changes in the membership of the Academy during his tenure of office. Eighteen of the Academicians had died, two of the Associates, and two of the Associate Engravers ; and twenty-five Academicians — nineteen painters, four sculptors, and two architects — had been elected. Two of these were appointed by the King, and others were chosen by the vote of the members, soon after the creation of the society, to bring the total number on the roll up to the full forty required by the Instrument. With the death of Reynolds ended the first, and in some respects the most important, chapter in the history of the Academy. He was succeeded in the Presidency by Benjamin West, who held the post until his death in 1820, except for twelve months in 1805-6, when James Wyatt took his place. When he died there remained alive three only out of the original forty Academicians. Sir Thomas Lawrence was the next President, and he was followed in succession by Sir Martin Archer Shee (1830-1850), Sir C. L. Eastlake (1850-1865), Sir Francis Grant (i 866-1 878), and in more recent times by Lord Leighton, Sir J. E. Millais, and Sir E. J. Poynter.

In 1837 the Government, having decided to convert the whole of Somerset House into public offices, housed the Academy in the new National Gallery which had just been built in Trafalgar Square. A few years later these rooms were required for the extension of the National Gallery, and for some while a discussion went on as to the arrangements which could be made to provide for the Academy, which was generally admitted to have definite claims to considera- tion. Suggestions were made in Parliament that it should be ousted without compensation, although there had been already an offer on

R xiii

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

the part of the Government to pay it the sum of ,£40,000 to defray the cost of erecting new galleries. Finally, in 1863 the whole question was submitted to a Royal Commission, which reported " that the Royal Academy have no legal, but that they have a moral claim to apartments at the public expense," and suggested various ways of disposing of the existing difficulties. This amounted to an acknow- ledgment that the institution, though independent of all State control, had acquired a right which the Government could not equitably ignore. Nothing, however, was done until 1866, when the Academy renewed certain negotiations, which had been opened tentatively some time before, for a lease of part of the site of Burlington House. In 1867 these negotiations were successfully concluded, and the Academy was granted by the Government a lease for 999 years, at a peppercorn rent, of the house itself, which was still standing, and of a piece of the garden at the back. This space was sufficient for the erection of schools and exhibition galleries, while the house, to which some additions were made, was utilised for the working purposes of the society. In it are the library, the council chamber, and the other rooms to which members only have access ; and there are, as well, galleries for the display of the diploma pictures and other works which are the property of the Academy, and to view which the public are admitted. The cost of these additions and of the recon- struction of Burlington House was defrayed by the society out of its savings, and it is said to have spent more than 60,000 on its building operations. It has no contribution from the State towards the expenses of maintaining the place, and is still dependent entirely upon its own resources. The lease under which it holds the site specifies that " the premises shall be at all times exclusively devoted to the cultivation of the fine arts," so that although the Academy owns the house in which its work is carried on it cannot use it for any purpose which would be outside its scope as an artistic institu- tion. But these restrictions help to define its position and to give it security against interference in the future. So long as it respects its obligations, and makes no effort to evade the covenants by which it is bound, it is free to manage its own afi^airs, and no official inspec- tion or supervision can be imposed upon it. To its credit it can be said that it has not shown any disposition to shirk its responsibilities as the leading art society in this country, and that it has gone on its way, despite frequent criticism and opposition, with a faith in itself that commands respect. That it has a monopoly of infallibility would be too much to claim for it ; but at least it has been consistent and self-respecting, and this may be counted to it as a virtue. R xiv

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTO

T3<»,r^.«J ^1- _ A _-J 1 1

-V/II.I.! \M l-'l TY, U. ,V.

0 €^1^4.. /(-(^dcc./-.

^^^^^ .

- 1 _r

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

Beyond doubt the Academy is deeply indebted to the Crown for many favours which have had a very definite effect upon its develop- ment, and have helped greatly to put it in a position that is prac- tically unassailable. The grant of free accommodation made to it in the beginning by George III. saved it from the necessity of setting aside any portion of the small income which it earned during the earlier years of its existence, for the purpose of paying the rent of suitable premises, and the readiness of the King to make up deficiencies in its annual accounts prevented the possibility of any accumulation of debts which might have hampered its later progress. The grant of accommodation once made established, moreover, a precedent which, as events have proved, was especially helpful, " a moral claim to apartments at the public expense," which the many opponents of the institution, and the many critics of its privileges, have never been able to upset. The value of such a secure founding can be seen now to have been almost inestimable ; it was as great a safeguard against internal dissension as against interference from without, and it made unnecessary from the very first any wranglings over petty economies or any appeals to the public for support.

The close connection with the Crown has been scrupulously main- tained. The Academy is still what it was declared to be in a note delivered by the President to the Secretary of the Treasury seventy years ago, " a private institution, under the patronage and protection of the King, existing by his will and pleasure, communicating imme- diately with His Majesty, submitting all its laws and proceedings to his sanction, and responsible only to His Majesty for the manner in which its concerns are administered." The direct communication with the Sovereign is a peculiar privilege. It enables the President of the Academy to have access to the King and to consult with him on all matters affecting the interests or the government of the institu- tion, and it allows the chief officers of the Academy to submit to him personally for his approval the proceedings connected with the election of the President and certain other officials, and to ask for his sanction to new laws and regulations. All proceedings of this nature are entered in a special volume, called " The King's Book," and these entries are signed by the Sovereign and not countersigned by any Minister of State. So carefully is this personal connection preserved that the Academy will not divulge any of its affairs without the permission of the Crown. Of this habit a characteristic instance was afforded in 1834, when a member of Parliament called in the House of Commons for returns stating certain details affecting

R XV

THE ROYAL ACADEMY : ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY

the working of the Academy. The President, however, while expressing his wiUingness to provide these returns, refused to recog- nise the right of Parliament to make any such demand, and the information asked for was not furnished until the King had been consulted and his consent obtained. Other instances could be quoted to show how consistently the Academy has observed what may fairly be called the essential conditions of its constitution and how judiciously it has retained the exceptional privileges that it enjoys. It has had through the long years of its existence a very real appre- ciation of the advantages that accrue from its unusual relations with the Crown, and, rightly no doubt, it has always been impatient of every attempt — and more than one has been made — to impose upon it reforms which would change its character. That it will now, after so prolonged an experience, alter its ways in response to outside suggestions may be accounted extremely improbable.

W. K. West.

R xvi

F'OKTRAIT

BT OF MS3S«!" ERNEST BROWN" AND FCTT.T .IP^

BY ^OHN OPIE, R.A..

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

HERE are two sorts of men of genius, those who submit to their environment, and those whose temperaments and characters run counter to their surroundings, and rule some- times even in defiance of the artists. Since Hogarth founded the purely English school of painting, each of these two classes of genius has been well represented in English art ; but by far the more numerous representatives belong to the first class. Indeed, the triumph of temperament over the conditions of life has been so rare, that we find only a few such men as Cotman, Miiller, Alfred Stevens, and Wilham Blake. These men excepted, one may say with strict justice that the English school of art has won its highest honours by appealing directly to the tastes of the purchasing public, unassisted by any of those artificial means of encouragement which, in France and else- where on the Continent, show themselves in the commissions that promising artists receive from their governments or from their municipalities.

This thorough dependence on the public taste is the most noteworthy fact among the fundamental things to be found in the history of the English school. Yet, somehow, it is a truth which writers on art in England are slow to recognise ; and, as a consequence, they very frequently go wrong in the estimates they form of the great majority of English painters. It is absurd for any one to write of English art without keeping constantly in mind the near relationship existing between that art and the strength and weakness of the English character. It may be doubted whether any other school, even the Dutch, has a closer kinship with the actual life and tastes of a given people. A good student of English social history, without having seen any examples of English painting, might divine without difficulty all the phases of pictorial expression into which the genius of art in England has divided itself ; and he would probably give the following list, or one very much like it :

(a) Portraiture, appealing to the pride of family and the wish

of every Englishman of birth to preserve some record of his

ancestry ;

(^) Small easel pictures, with the balance of effect oscillating

p i

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 between humour of no real depth and domestic sentiment of an anecdotal kind ;

(c) A great regard for the actual truth of contemporary manners and contemporary costume — a truth expressed with a rather laboured touch, but often effective by reason of the sincerity of purpose shown in the patient handling ;

(a) MoraUsings, frequently of a copybook kind, often tearful, and sometimes with a strong bitterness or satire ;

{e) Pictures of games and sports, and of battles by land and sea, in which an effort to be true and historic is often more remarkable than the more painter-like qualities that a French artist would strive to attain ;

(/) River scenes, coast scenes, and the open sea, all having an astonishing and intuitive understanding of the life, the movement, the changeful majesty and might of water ;

{g) Landscapes — the most impressive being home landscapes, but with a persistent wish to get away from home surroundings and seek new subjects in distant countries. Hence a certain cosmopolitanism in the actual subject-matter ;

(h) Running through all these phases a certain thoroughbred earnestness and depth of purpose which serve to reconcile a critic to many defects of art training ;

(/) A certain something, often indescribable, that not only gives the work a pronounced English character, but that proves that the EngUsh genius in art can play the colonist in many countries, and yet keep its own integrity and its own handmark ;

(/) A classicism more or less firmly based on a careful study of the old masters and of Greek and Roman literature — a study, frequently enough, that is more literary in character than painter- like, but yet so English, despite its foreign trappings, that it sometimes commands attention and admiration by virtue of its thoroughness and its poetical import. Such are the main departments into which any student ot English character and English history might guess that the English school of painting would be divided. Each department has interests ot its own, and may be found well exemplified in the story of the Royal Academy. It will be well, therefore, to study the painters of the Academy under the several classifications, dwelHng upon each one very briefly. But before a start is made, the point of view from which the present subject should be looked at throughout ought to be reiterated. It is not a point of view of high abstract aestheticism, but a standpoint that forces us to take into account the incessant p ii

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 pressure that the conditions of life have exerted, and do still exert, upon the artist's temperament in England, compelling it, far more often than not, to reach its allotted height of greatness even whilst proving to its patrons that those who live to please must please to live.

Portraiture.— '^htn it is remembered that portraiture followed sign- painting as the chief mainstay of our native English artists, it will not seem surprising that the Foundation Members of the Academy should have been largely chosen from among the best recognised makers ot likenesses. At their head stood the great and genial Sir Joshua Reynolds, with his radiant sanity and his wholesome and invigorating joy in youth, and health, and love. A bachelor himself, he yet dehghted in children and in motherhood : and ii Hogarth was the father of the English school of painting, Reynolds was certainly the lather of the English art or portraying the family life of an epoch in its mothers and fathers, and their offspring, Reynolds' children are of two kinds : those that came to him as sitters and those that he transformed into pictures through the exercise of a certain Puck-Hke gaiety in his happy genius. It is doubtful whether some of these Fuck-hke children would be comfortable to live with day by day throughout a year ; but they give a rare grace and interest to a public collection, and they are certainly among the most genuinely original works that Sir Joshua created. In the portraiture of women he con- trived, by some gift of penetrative insight, to make use of a subtle flattery by means of which the mere Hkeness of the sitter was merged in a type of beautiful womanhood, a type that belonged to his own imagination. Hence all his women have a certain family likeness, not merely in their cast of feature and expression, but also in their sweet serene grace and smiling beauty. But, despite that, the actual women who sat must have been in these pictures, too, for Reynolds seldom failed to delight his cHents. In thinking of these gracious women of Sir Joshua, one cannot help wondering how they managed to pass their lives in company with the hard-riding, hard- drinking squires and country gentlemen whom they married. Next as regards the male portraits, what could be finer than the rugged and ennobled uncouthness of the Lord Heathfield in the National Gallery ? It embodies all the qualities that one would wish to find in the portrait of a taciturn EngHshman of action : it has a large impressive- ness a bold and vigorous handhng, great weight in technique, and much character in the facial expression.

One trait in the portraiture of Reynolds is apt to be disconcertincr especially to any expert to whose lot has fallen a reputation beyond

p ill

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 the wishes of its owner. It was often a custom of Reynolds to get the draperies and even the hands painted by an assistant That assistant, as a rule, perhaps, was Peter Toms, a Foundation Member of the Royal Academy, a man of needy circumstances, but ot very real ability. Poor Toms' Hfe was a tragic one. He wearied ot working for others, of living unknown and at second hand in the reputations of his employers. Though it is true that he laboured for the greatest painters of his times— for Sir Joshua, Gamsborough and Francis Cotes— this did not reconcile him to his position ot subserviency, nor to the inadequate reward of his undoubted talents For painting the draperies, hands, and background of a tull-length portrait he received twenty guineas, and for a three-quarter portrait three guineas. Growing discontented with his lot, and recognising the great difficulty of breaking away from his subordinate position, he at last wrenched himself free from his life in London and went to Ireland to practise as a portrait-painter in the suite ot the Lord- Lieutenant, the Duke of Northumberland. But fortune remained still his foe: commissions did not come to him, and he grew desperate and returned to London. And there, being still pursued by the same ill-luck, he lost faith in himself and began to drink : until at last, in 1776, he took life so very seriously that he put an end to himself, as did Turner's master, Edward Dayes, m the next

ITother^unhappy portrait-painter among the Foundation Members was Nathaniel Hone, a miniaturist, who worked also in oil and in enamel. Between him and Reynolds there was considerable friction, tor Hone accused his President of pilfering from other men in his choice of attitudes. He then attacked Angelica KaufFman, ^-A., a Jriend ot Reynolds, and soon set the whole Academy by the ears. When this was done, he began to nurse a sort of dropsical self-pity, and, by way of spiting his fellows, held in 1775 a separate exhibition consisting of from sixty to seventy of his paintings. Had he not married in early life a lady of some property, Nathaniel Hone (b. 1730, d. 1784) might have followed in the steps of Peter Toms. Neither of these portrait-painters can be looked upon as a man of genius ; but one feels strongly tempted to assign this title to Francis Cotes (b. 172b, d 1770), another Foundation Member, and a pastellist and painter of high rank. He is little known to-day, for his work is partly hidden in old country houses, and partly swallowed up in the auction histories of Reynolds and Gainsborough, between whom Francis Cotes may be fitly placed as a sort of connecting-link. T^e portrai of Mrs. Brocas, by which Cotes is represented in the National

P IV

WILLIAM HAMILTON, R.A. a751-1801.) ELECTED 1789.

MUSIDORA.

From the Water-Colour lent by Messrs. Ernest Brown and Phillips.

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 Gallery, is not one of his best works ; still, it is assuredly good, having distinction both in colour and also as a piece of delicate and light-handed craftsmanship. In looking at this portrait, a. critic may easily guess that Cotes formed his schemes ot colour in oil- painting after working in pastels. He has a number of delicate and subtle greys that belong to crayon work ; and amongst them is a distinctive grey in the flesh-tones, a grey, namely, in which there is a slight tinge of black, of lamp black or bone black. It is rather dead this grey, not silvery and " singing "like the greys of Reynolds ; but students would do well to remember the tone as eminently characteristic of Francis Cotes.

Gainsborough, too, after the period spent at Bath, became fond of a grey very similar to that which Cotes used so well. But it had a different effect in Gainsborough's work ; for Gainsborough used turpentine in preference to oil as a medium, so that he might get a sort of running or fluid quality in his brushwork. If the expres- sion may be used, Gainsborough became a water-colour painter in oil-colours, as he liked to obtain the liquid qualities of technique peculiar to water-colour. It is not at all necessary to speak here of Gainsborough's female portraits ; they have taken their place for all time among the masterpieces of the British school. Even when they are faulty in drawing, as happens again and again, they have yet a delicious witchery that stamps them as works of undeniable genius. As to the portraits of men, they arc always elegant as well as manly, and what could be more subtle in its appeal to British patriotism than the superb character-study of General Wolfe now in the collection of Mr. Arthur Sanderson in Edinburgh ? Everybody has read of Wolfe and many have seen that preposterous likeness of him by Schack in the National Portrait Gallery. One has to own, of course, that Wolfe, with his slanting forehead and receding chin, his upturned nose, fiery red hair, narrow shoulders, and attenuated legs, was not such a man as any ordinary artist would wish to paint. But Gainsborough, being himself a poet-painter of genius, understood the boy general intuitively, and caught the dual character that placed Wolfe in the first rank of British soldiers and also among the most enthusiastic admirers of English poetry. Almost all the figure-painters ot the Academy turned out portraits from time to time, and it would serve no useful purpose to write down a long list of their names. But an attempt to pick out a name or two here and there may be useful to the student, as it will remind him of the course which the main line of portraiture has taken through the history of the Royal Academy. First, then, it is

p v

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 necessary to return to the Foundation Members, in order that we may take a look at Sir Nathaniel Dance (b. 1734, d. 181 1), and Edward Penny (b. 1714, d. 1791). In his best portraits, like the historic one of Lord Clive, Dance proved himself an unobtrusive painter with a good and manly appreciation of the character of his sitters. But for his marriage with Mrs. Dummer, a very wealthy widow, who brought with her an income of 18,000 a year, it is quite possible that Dance would have won for himself a place among the foremost of our English portrait-painters ; but his acquired riches caused him to leave the Academy and to start a new career as a Member of Parliament, adding the name of Holland to his own. He was made a Baronet in 1 800. In his leisure moments he painted landscapes which to-day are quite forgotten, whereas a few among his early portraits have been mistaken for works by Reynolds. This has happened also to Edward Penny, who studied under Hudson, the master of Reynolds, and whose small portraits in oil-colour, often oval in shape, had a real vogue. Many of them have certainly some rich and pearly notes of colour that give him a rank of some importance in Sir Joshua's school ; but his touch is heavier than that of Reynolds, and Penny's -tendency was to allow his portraits to look too small-bodied, that is to say, the heads seem too large and the bodies too small. Besides his portraiture. Penny gave some attention to sentimental subjects and even to historic pieces ; but the chief work he did for the arts of his time was found in his portraits and in the lectures which he delivered before the students of the Royal Academy. The lectures were given between the years 1768 and 1782, during which time he was the first professor of painting, preceding in that capacity James Barry, Henry Fuscli, John Opic, Henry Tresham, Thomas Phillips, Henry Howard, C. R. Leslie, Solomon Alex. Hart, Sir William Blake Richmond, etc. J. F. Rigaud, R.A., who translated Leonardo da Vinci's " Treatise on Painting," turned out some portraits that deserve attention, though lie himself would have chosen those subject-pictures that won so many honours from abroad, as from the Academy of Bologna, the Royal Academy of Stockholm, and also from Gustavus IV. of Sweden. Rigaud became a full member of the Academy in 1784, his election being three years earlier than those of John Opie and James Northcote, and four years earlier than that of John Russell. These three artists deserve to be mentioned here, although Northcote's fame to-day is determined by his delightful conversations with Hazlitt and James Ward rather than by his art. John Russell, whose treatise on the " Elements of Painting in Crayons " should be known to students, p vi

^^r^4■«^c iir»r1^»r FranriR Cntes. and eaualled

•J. M. W. TURNER, R. A. q£

/

^.^^ ..^^i^ ^^^^^ /s^^^D

^^y/^ '

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 studied pastels under Francis Cotes, and equalled his master. He was a dashing, vigorous fellow, with something of the spirit of Franz Hals. It is said that he prepared his own crayons in a manner invented by himself, and the surface of his work has certainly a painter-like quality which the brittle pastels of to-day would not give us. Ozias Humphry, R.A., was a very successful miniature- painter from 1764 to 1772. In the latter year he fell from his horse and received a shock that unfitted him for the execution of such delicate work. He then took to oil-painting, and, in 1773, went to study in Rome, accompanied by his friend Romney. During his stay there, which lasted four years, he regained his health ; and when, after some years' work in London, he went to India in 1785, he was able to return to his miniatures, and to accumulate quite a large fortune in the courts of Lucknow, Moorshedabad, and Benares. These small portraits, though good, cannot be placed on a level with those ofCosway (b. 1740, d. 1 821), who was justly the most fashionable miniature-painter of his day. But we must now pass from Humphry to Sir Thomas Lawrence, who appeals to us as a courtier among portraitists — an English Van Dyck, let us say, who needed and missed, during his apprenticeship, the discipUne and teaching of an English Rubens. But, in spite of his limitations, Lawrence is a favourite with connoisseurs. His character was noble, his kindUness of heart sincere and deep ; and his portraits contain much of the man's fine nature. Hoppner and Sir William Beechey may be bracketed with Lawrence, for the three of them became full members between the years 1794 and 1798. Beechey's reputation has suffered much from time, whilst that of Hoppner shows signs of settling into permanence among the leading portrait-painters of the second rank.

As to George Dawe, who became an Academician in 18 14, he was a portrait-painter of considerable vigour, and it is worth while to recall his name, as he was the first Englishman of any note who carried with him into Russia the traditions of his country's art, and made them famous there. Raeburn comes next in chronological order, being born in 1756 and elected R.A. in 1815. For some time his fame was under a cloud. Critics either misunderstood hmi, or else his personal equation was offensive to that temper of senti- mental dilettantism which, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, enfeebled the whole art of English criticism. To-day, it is pleasant to add. Sir Henry Raeburn's manly genius is justly valued in the best quarters. Certain writers, it is true, pick holes in his strong handling ; but they are those whose judgment has been

p vii

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 narrowed by partial study and whose influence is limited. To those who do not spend their time in the backwaters of art, the name of Raeburn is rightly looked upon as a great one. It is always as a painter that Raeburn makes his appeal, and more often than not the character of his work shows that, in his genius, the masculine elements over-ruled the feminine. It is this that separates him from the other great portraitists of the early English school. True it is, no doubt, that Raeburn painted some very good pictures of women ; but it is always in his male portraits that he reaches his highest level of achievement. A Scotsman, he had the good Scot's eye for colour ; and his technique, his manipulation of the paint, ought to be studied to-day by all youngsters in the schools. No other painter of the Royal Academy has shown so much regard lor the decorative value of plain spaces of simple colour. Examine the actual work- manship of his coats, and you will find usually that this quality of his handling connects him with Mr, Frank Brangwyn, A.R.A. Raeburn, too, like every original colourist, gives us peculiar and fascinating greys, that lie between and unite into harmony the more positive colours that lend richness to the general impression. Many other Academicians have painted good portraits, like Sir Edwin Landseer, Sir William Allan, and, on a lower level, Sir Francis Grant. But it is not until we come to Millais that we meet with such manifestations of genius as mark a new development in the traditions of EngUsh portrait-painting. Millais was elected a Royal Academician in 1863, two years before the death of President Eastlake. His genius, then, just comes within the scope of the present article. A well-known French critic, M. Georges Lafenestre, when speaking of the English portraits at the great Exhibition of 1889, singled out the work of Millais for special reference, and joined it, in his criticism, to the portraits by Ouless, Holl, and Shannon. He admired them all, and then, in a few brief sentences, showed the difference between the modern school of English portraiture and the rival French school :

" Tandis que les portraitistes fran9ais etablissent la dignite de leurs figures et ennoblissent I'aspect de leurs physionomies, soit par la fermete des contours et du modele, soit par I'ampleur et la puissance de la touche coloree, les portraitistes anglais arrivent a I'expression de la grandeur par I'extraordinaire justesse des details multiplies. Cette fa9on de comprendre et d'exprimer, qui est celle aussi des romanciers et des historiens, anglais, ne saute pas d'abord aux yeux chez MM. Holl et Shannon, plus penetres des methods continen- tales ; elle est flagrante chez MM. Millais et Ouless, dont les ceuvres p viii

< O

PAINTERS OF THii RUYAi. AUAUJLMY, 1705-1000

,1R A. \V. CALLCOTT, R. A.

^

'2<

no rccuru ui wiiai niigciicct jtvctuinnan ougg\-StC

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 sont typiques et de premier ordre. Qu'on compare le martelage pointille, minutieux, acharn6, de taches innombrables, au moyen duquel sont construits les corps, si solides pourtant, et les visages, si nobles et si parlants, de M, Gladstone et du Cardinal Manning, avec la simplification rapide de touches fermes et hardies par lesquelles MM. Bonnat ou Carolus Duran representent un personnage inter- essant, on comprendra, du coup, la difference entre les deux ecoles. II y a plus de saveur pittoresque chez nos peintres, il y a peut-etre plus de saveur intellectuelle chez les peintres anglais, au moins chez ceux-la, car lorsque le systeme n'est pas applique par des artistes de cette force, il n'aboutit qu a des enluminures froides et mcsquincs, d'un aspect sec ct jaunatre, assez penibles a regarder." M. Lafenestre speaks truly, and his criticism has a twofold interest. Not only does it mark the difference between the modern schools of portraiture in France and England : it reminds us also of the points that distinguish the modern English methods from those of Reynolds, Raeburn, Romney, Lawrence, and their contemporaries. It is true that the influence of Mr. Sargent is to-day at variance with the principles that Millais upheld and exemplified : and thus we arc in the midst of yet another transformation of English portraiture. Classic and Historical Subject-Pictures.— Thtvt is pathos in the Academy's persevering and fruitless efforts to establish in England a generative set of traditions in these great branches of art. From the beginning it has spared no pains in its endeavours to raise up a school of figure-painting, having less homely and fireside aims than those which have been fostered by the nation's delight in small pictures of famiHar genre. In its schools the Royal Academy has struggled hard to give importance to classic and historical subjects : and it has spent much money in sending its Gold MedaUists to Italy, and to other countries, there to search for the " great style." One remembers, too, many another mark of the unflagging enthusiasm which has ever distinguished the Academicians in their attitude to the higher achievements of design in figure-painting. Thus, in 1773, the members or the Royal Academy offered to paint at their own expense a set of Biblical histories for the decoration of St. Paul's Cathedral. The artists chosen to do the work were Reynolds, Cipriani, James Barry, Benjamin West, Nathaniel Dance, and Angelica Kauffman. Reynolds wished to paint the Virgin with Christ in the Manger; James Barry, Christ Rejected by the Jews, before Pilate ; Dance, the Raising of Lazarus ; and West, Christ Raising the Widow's Son. There is no record of what AngeHca Kauffman suggested for her subject.

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 and certainly one would never think of associating Angelica's pretty romance of style with the superb dignity and strength oi Wren's cathedral. In any case, the King was friendly to the Academy's proposals, and it was thought that the ecclesiastical authorities would follow the King without the least hesitation. The Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Newton, was well pleased with the generous offer ; but the trustees of the Cathedral, the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, opposed it, believing that the introduction of pictures into St. Paul's would stir up a great deal of noise and be looked upon as a harking back to the old beliefs of Popery. This put an end to the whole project. Shortly afterwards, \^ ^774-^ the Society of Arts and Manufactures, recently established in the Adelphi, invited the members of the Royal Academy to paint for their great hall a number of pictures, eight dealing with English history, and two emblematical designs relating to the aims of the Society. Reynolds, Dance, Mortimer, West, Cipriani, Wright, Penny, and Angehca Kauffman, were mentioned as the artists who would do full justice to the subjects. But the Academy, chilled by the snub just received from the trustees of St. Paul's, declined to accede to the wishes of the Society of Arts. For all that, the scheme did not fall to the ground without some good arising from it. James Barry, a hot-temperedenthusiast,and a man of headlong determination, proposed to the Society of Arts, in 1777, that he should undertake alone a set of paintings on " Human Culture " — a piece of work that kept him busy for nearly seven years. The remuneration he received was derived from two exhibitions of his pictures, that brought him ^^503; a small sum, but the Society added to it a vote of two hundred and fifty guineas and their gold medal. Alas for James Barry, he had won fame, no doubt ; but his success turned his head, and he began to tyrannise over his brother Academicians. It got into his Irish mind as a fixed idea, that the surplus funds of the Academy ought to be spent on the formation of a gallery of old masters for his pupils in the painting school to study ; and although this wish of his was in flat hostiUty with the Instrument ot Institution, Barry clung to it in a passionate manner and satirised every Academician who ran counter to him. Yet he was not altogether a fool. There was a touch in him of wild Irish humour. Thus, when thieves broke into his house and left him poorer by £^00, he put up a paper to announce that the burglary was committed by the thirty-nine Academicians who opposed him. He even made fun of his colleagues before the students, a quite unpardonable offence ; till at last he made himself so troublesome that

P X

S. — JAMES WARD, R. A.

^.*=^^^**- c<^::^^^^

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 a General Assembly of his fellows, with the full approval of the King, struck his name off the roll and expelled him. One might give many other examples of the efforts made, in official quarters, to infuse life into a national school of historical figure- painting. You will think, no doubt, of Alderman Boydell and his Shakespeare Gallery ; but what, after all, has been the net artistic result of all the striving ? How many large pictures of a classic type, or paintings based on history, retain their first freshness ? Are there a score which have a perennial charm — an inspiration and a style which Time transmits, always as a new heritage, from one generation to another ? One does not care even to name those

O •111

Academicians who, during the life of their institution, have devoted so much patience and infinite care and industry to the production ot huge compositions. They have been leaders of a forlorn hope, all fired with a noble spirit, and it is not their fault that they did so little good by toiling in opposition to the spirit of their time and the needs of their countrymen. From West to Howard, from Howard to S. A. Hart, and from Hart to the present day, our English historical painters have enjoyed short-lived periods of fame. Their works survive chiefly as fragments of art-history ; and their reputations recede from us.

Genre Painting. — It is in the various forms or genre that the Royal Academicians have produced such things in figure-painting as arc vital, various, and full of the impulses and eccentricities of the English character. Criticism may scoff at many of the English genre painters, and assure us that such old Academicians as Wheatley and Hamilton, Mulrcady, MacHse, Webster, Frith, and E. M. Ward have long had their day, being as nothing to anyone who believes in the newer theories and methods of artistic practice. Criticism may say all this and more, but the English nation will form its own opinion, and will remain true to itself and its offspring. We may be perfectly sure that Webster's playful homeliness is as national to-day as it ever was ; we may be certain, too, that Frith and E. M. Ward did not waste their time when they gave such infinite and loving care to every detail in their painted stories. Even it the public should weary of their technical peculiarities, many of their pictures will yet live on as relics of the social life of their time, and be very useful to students of social history.

George Dawe, R.A., in his " Life of Morland," speaks in a patronising way of his friend's rustic art, and regrets that Morland's mind, unlike his own, did not occupy itself with nobler ambitions. Well, Morland's art is still alive, whilst Dawe's high ambitions in figure-

p xi

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 painting have passed into the limbo of forgotten things. It is useful that facts of this kind should be remembered here ; for the criticism of to-day has no sympathy at all with even the fine-tempered genre of C. R. Leslie, who had a rare gift of subtle humour, and a charming €ase of power in the distribution of his figures. As to Sir David Wilkie, the people love him still, and all good painters dehght in his inimitable personality; but Wilkie himself grew tired of the spirited pictures that he painted as a bird sings, and, changing his style, turned out such large and ambitious half-failures as John Knox Preaching the Reformation at St, Andrews, He should have remained faithful to his first manner, in which he won lasting fame as the Robert Burns of English art.

Another Scot of true genius, John Phillip, R.A., a man who suffered much from ill-health and depression, may be mentioned here as the antithesis of Wilkie. He painted by fits and starts, but when the working impulse came to him, he brushed off a picture with extraordinary swiftness, his first efforts being clever scenes from Scottish life. In 1851, owing to a breakdown of health, he went to Spain, where he continued to live, paying visits once a year to London and Aberdeen. The Spanish sun was not long in finding a home in his colour, and the pictures he did in Spain have a virile and masterly technique, that bears some kinship with the spirit of Velasquez. Phillip, indeed, became a great colourist, a master painter. He stands apart from the followers of the literary and narrative genre that belongs to the home-bred English school. Phillip's greatness has yet to be appreciated at its real value : his day is coming, but not yet come. He died in 1867, at the age of fifty, three years after Millais was received by him and others as a full member of the Royal Academy.

Many are inclined to regard Millais as a painter of history, yet his real strength was shown throughout his career in subjects that come within the range of genre painting. His most direct and persuasive appeal is that in which he shows his heart, and proves himself to be a humanist, a humanist more manly than any other painter of the English school. He has a love of childhood, a delight in womanhood, not less beautiful than Sir Joshua's ; but it differs from the earlier master's, being often charged with a certain wistfulness, that came to him, as it came to Dickens, out of the spirit of his over-anxious time. When viewed from a technical standpoint, Millais is often dry in touch, sometimes even brittle, and, again and again, the inspiration in his work seems to break off, to leave him suddenly, as though he were overcome by a spasm of self-distrust, or a fatigue that he could p xii

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 not master. But if Millais has limitations, he is none the less ai genuine master and a true man in all his achievements. Painters of the Sea and the Sea Coast. — There are but few painters of" the sea in the history of the first ninety-seven years of the Academy. Brett, who has been described as the painter of Britannia's realm and of searching, blinding sunlight, did not enter the Academy until 1 88 1. E. W. Cooke, a marine painter of some distinction,, comes within our period, the date of his election as R.A. being 1863. He died in 1880 ; and one fears that his numerous pictures do not keep his reputation from waning. An artist of vastly greater power, freshness, and charm, is J. C. Hook, who, happily, at the age of eighty-four, is still busily at work. It has been his fortunate lot to bring home to us, in our city life, the perfume of the- sea and the invigorating toil of the fisherfolk. He is a true sailor at heart, a fragrant colourist, a cheery and resourceful painter. And as a pastoral artist, he has taken us many times into the Surrey lanes, and fields ; but his chief claim to our constant admiration rests on his gallant sea-pictures. When one thinks of him, and then calls up to memory the work of Dominic Serres, a Foundation Member of the Royal Academy, one cannot but marvel at the immense progress, which has been made in the treatment of the sea by British painters. Serres, though a Gascon by birth, was truly English in feeling, and took much pleasure in commemorating the victories won by Lord Hawke and other naval officers. Dominic Serres had a wide fame in his day, but to us his pictures are inferior to the naval and military scenes brushed with so much vigour by P. J. De Loutherbourg, R.A., a man of many gifts, who had not a little influence over the early work of J. M. W. Turner. Indeed, Turner's Death of Nelson, now in the National Gallery, and his Battle of^ Trafalgar in Greenwich Hospital, were painted in rivalry with De Loutherbourg, and won a complete victory all along the line. That Turner still remains the greatest of all sea-painters, is a truth that few judges venture to dispute. Much later men, like Henry Moore,, have equalled him in their interpretations of certain aspects of light and movement ; but Turner's knowledge of the sea, and of moving waters generally, remains unexampled in its range and accuracy.. One reason of this is that he, as a young man, gave profound study to the whole drama of the sea's life, taking it, as it were, scene by scene, and concentrating his whole attention in the effort to make real one given effect. In the Shipwreck, for instance, his intention is to represent the irresistible weight and terrifying power of storm- beaten water. The boats are introduced, partly as elements of

p xiii

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

design, and partly to contrast their fragility with the sea's strength. He forgets that everybody in the boats would be drenched with spray, if not with water ; and the sails, too, are perfectly dry. But such details did not trouble him so long as his main purpose was achieved. After the infinite variousness of Turner's art, it is rather risky to mention the other Academicians who have refreshed us with their own delight in the salt air and the colour ot sea-water. There are William Collins, R.A., 1820 ; Sir A. W. Callcott, R.A., 1810; Clarkson Stanfield, R.A., 1835 ; and J. J. Chalon, R.A., 1841. Animal and Sporting Pictures. — What can be said of George Stubbs, who became an Associate of the Academy in 1780 ? He may be described as the Sturgcss of his time ; for his undoubted talent never reached its full maturity. He had his living to earn, and, being thus dependent on a limited purchasing public, he was forced by circumstances to pass the greater part of his time in doing portraits of racehorses. In a water-colour by Turner in the Wallace Collec- tion, entitled Grouse Shooting, with Portrait of the Artist, the dogs are by Stubbs, and their treatment is quite in keeping with Turner's tech- nique. Stubbs shows much observation, as one would expect from a man who devoted not a little of his spare time to the preparation of technical books dealing with his special branch of art. Stubbs, in 1766, completed a book on " The Anatomy of the Horse," illustrated with plates etched by himself after his own drawings. Not long before his death, which took place in 1806, he issued three numbers of another work, under the quaint title : " A Comparative Anatomical Exposition of the Structure of the Human Body with that of a Tiger and a Common Fowl."

The art of Sawrey Gilpin, R.A., 1797, has much in character with that of Stubbs, inasmuch as it represents a good many racehorses ; but, taking it as a whole, it has stronger qualities, despite such defects as the insipidity which often gives weakness to the colour. A man ot spirit himself, he was greatly interested in the habits of wild animals, and proved in several pictures that he had a painter-like knowledge of tigers. Among the Diploma paintings of the Royal Academy, Gilpin is represented by a picture of Horses in a Storm. It is spirited in composition, and fairly interesting in technique ; but for dash and diablerie it cannot be compared with Philip Reinagle's Eagle and Vulture Disputing with a Hycena, which recalls to mind a rather similar work painted by Verlat, a modern Belgian artist who died some years ago. Philip Reinagle's son, Richard Ramsay, born in 1775, and elected R.A. in 1823, is another animal painter to whom students may be referred. He was expelled from the Academy in p xiv

x/vyv/-

1848, having exhibited as his own work a pi<

-SIR MARTIN A. SIIEE, P. R. A.

^^^^

saic an: I sc sts tri an nd >n ; an( •roi ef e b wh

:ts ( ibei lov i^hc

A.irs 1 ur iJnjL kuial, i\^n.ur.Lvii , 1 700-1000 contrast their fraeilitv with the sea's strength. ;ryt atei tro i in

^ ^^^^^^^

848, having exhibited as his own work

^Xi"<( X XjXVO WX- X XXXl^ 1. jr^^jryxj ±l,lvx i ^ a / v^u— a <j>-hj

) contrast their fraffilitv with the sea's strength, eryl ^atei tro e in s ot ith

, R. R.A

Pic.

soci

rgcs

urit

a li

5S tl:

L wa

S/ioi

eatn

ws :

not

eali:

look

by

lich

lert

ruci

1."

IJilf

nuc

hok

ich (

s gi

l1 pi

:he

lb)

fair

be

vit/i

d b

hili

.A.

;rre

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 1848, having exhibited as his ov^^n work a picture by a young man named Yarnold which he had purchased at a broker's shop. As for Abraham Cooper, R.A., 1 820, he was at his best in his least ambitious efforts, many of his simple sketches being admirable from all points of view. It was in 1867 that his namesake, Thomas Sidney Cooper, began his long reign as an Academician, rising, now and then, to the level of Adrian van de Velde, then sinking to the elaborately groomed style of Eugene Verboeckhoeven. But T. S. Cooper was happy in some of his early water-colours, and his pencil sketches should be as useful to landscape painters as the etchings by Robert Hills have been for many years. Notwithstanding this, it is a joy to switch off one's thoughts to the greatness of James Ward, R.A., and of Edwin Landseer, R.A. These men have little in common. Ward being a true descendant of Rubens, while Landseer is an English moralist and story-teller — a sort of JEsop, whose animals speak and divert us with homilies. Landseer, too, though a profound student and a wonderful draughtsman, was not a great painter, being seldom a fine colourist or a master of constructive brushwork. He has left us no painter's masterpiece equal and similar to that study of Pigs Sleeping in the Sunlight by which Ward is represented at South Kensington. This is an amazing little piece of nature, hanging by the side of the large picture oi Bulls Fighting, in which James Ward makes known his direct descent from the great Flemish master.

Landscape-Painters. — Although it cannot be said that the Royal Academy has done honour to itself by including amongst its members all the leading landscape-painters of the English school, it is none the less true that its landscape history has interests of a surprisingly diverse kind. The mind is bewildered when it tries to summon up into critical focus the many and various aims and styles ; ranging from the laboured semi-classicism of Barret and Zuccarelli to the austere and penetrating genius of Richard Wilson ; or, again, passing from the serene water-colours of Sandby, Pars, and Edridge, to the path-finding patience and intuition of Gainsborough, of Turner, of Constable. These names have in themselves the force, the meaning of histories ; to mention them is to speak in one breath a completed book : just as the word Alps is, in brief, the whole topography ot Switzerland, so the names of Turner, Gainsborough, Constable, Wilson, Cotnian, sum up immediately the greatest results of past landscape- painting in England. But there are other members of the Academy whose claim to our respect must not be overshadowed by the fame of their betters. WilHam Daniell, for instance, whose work ought to

P XV

PAINTERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 have been mentioned in connection with the sea-coast, left behind him a good many landscapes which have a quite disconcerting resemblance to those of Turner's dark period. Indeed, his picture in the Diploma Gallery, an impressive view on the coast of Scotland, has finer qualities of a Turneresque kind than Turner's own Dolbadarn Castle that hangs opposite to it. Many an expert, if left to his own judgment, would attribute Daniell's picture to the greater man. Then we have Thomas Daniell, R.A., 1799, whose Indian scenes have real historic value ; nor should some tribute of hearty praise be withheld from the breeziness of J. J. Chalon, the persuasive sincerity of F. R. Lee, and the patient thoroughness of David Roberts. And there are other men, gentle painters like Thomas Creswick, or W. F. Wither- ington, whose talents are not great, but whose quiet silvern modesty has much of that charm which rings out with such a glad freshness in the Robin Hood ballads :

In somer when the shawes be sheyne

And leves be large and longe Hit is full merry in fair foreste

To here the foulys song.

To see the dere draw to the dale

And leve the hilles hee, And shadow hem in the leves grene

Under the grene wode tre.

W. S. Sparrow.

p xvi

P 1. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS (1723-179:), First President ot the R.A.

P 3. FRANCIS COTES (1725-1770i, Foundation Member

POPwTKArr OF MRS. BROCAS

Id the National Gallery

P 3. BENJAMIN WEST 1733-I3a0\ Foundation Member, P.R.A.. 1792-1830)

BELINDA'S TOILET; POPE'S RAPE OF THE LOCK

From the Drawing in the British Museum

P B. MICHAEL ANGELO RGOKER (1743-1801,1, Elected A.R.A. 1770

VIEW OF DEDHAM

In the National Gallery

P 10. JOHANN ZOFFANY (1733-lSlO), Bleated R.A. 1769

PORTRAIT OF GAINSBOROUGH

In the ivational Galler

P 11. RICHARD COSWAY il7±0-132h, Electei R.A. 1771

PORTRAIT OP MRS. PLOODEN

From the Drawing in the British Museum

03 QJ

O 2 o 5

SIR EDWIN HENRY LANDSEER, R.A. (1302-1373.) ELECTED 1331.

LOW LIFE.

From the Painting m the Collection of James Orrock, Esq.. R.I.

P 21. THOMAS STOTHARD, R.A.

RUTH

Trom an EiigTaviiiR- by James Heath, A. R.A. iPrint lent by Messrs. J Rimell & Sons;

P 24. SAWREY GILPIl^ 1 1723-1307), Elected R.A. 1797.

P 31. J. M. W. TURNER, R.A.

ON THE SEINE

In the National Gallery

P 33. J. M. W. TURNER, H.A.

Tlit; MED WAY

ill the National Gallery

P 33. SIR HENRY KAEBURN fl756-1323), Elected R.A. iSlo

PORTRAIT OF A LADY

In Lhe National Galleiy. Photogirph hy the Autotype Co.

P 3J. GEORGE DAWE aTii-l^"-^", Elected R.A. 1814

PORTKAIT GFIFKIKCESS CHARLOTTE OE WALES

In the Kational rortrait Gallery. Photograph by Walker and Ccckerell

P 40. HENRY EDRIDGE (1769-1831), Elected A.R.A. 1820

RUE DE LA GROSSB HORLOGE, ROUEN

In. the South Kensington Museum

P 44. JOHN CONSTABLE, R.A.

TREES NEAR IIAMPSTEAD CHU-iCH

In the South Kensington Museum

P 45. SIR CHARLES LOCKE EASTLAKE (1793-1866), Elected R.A. 1830, P.R.A. 1850

THE ESCAPE OF THE CARRARA FAMILY

In the Tate Gallery

P 49. DAVID ROBERTS (1796-1S64), Elected R.A. 1341

INTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL, XERE3

From the Water-Colour in the British Museum

P 51. THOMAS WEBSTER (1800-1886;, Elected R.A. 1846

beating: fob recruits

In the South Kensington MuseTim

P 52. THOMAS CRESWICK (1311-1869), Elected R.A. 1351

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

CULPTURE, like architecture, has rarely received its due share of encouragement from the Royal Academy ; and for this reason, naturally enough, the sculptors, like the archi- tects, have seldom been quite satisfied with their • position as Academicians. But we must not misunderstand the true origin of this neglect. _ It would be unfair to say that the Royal

Academy has found pleasure in reducing architecture and sculpture to a status below that of the arts of painting. We must remember, in this connection, that the first and foremost aim of the Academy was to become self-supporting ; and hence it was necessary to give the first and foremost place to those forms of art which would attract the largest number of sightseers to the annual exhibitions. Now, for one person that takes a serious delight in sculpture or in -architectural drawings, there are at least a hundred who are curious about pictures. In this one fact is to be found the real cause of the subordinate place which the Academy has allotted to sculpture and architecture. Not that this explanation does away with the bad results of the subserviency in question; and the need of founding a strong institute of British sculptors was long ago thought out by some of the Academicians. Indeed, such an institution was formed between the years 1 852-1 857.

After these few words of necessary introduction, we may turn at once to the sculptors who were Foundation Members of the Academy. Setting aside Michael Moser, a goldsmith and enamel-worker, we find sculpture represented by only three men— Joseph Wilton, Richard Yeo, and Agostino Carlini. Richard Yeo is quite forgotten. He died in 1779, having earned for himself a good reputation as chief engraver at the Mint, and also as a medallist, his best efforts being the Culloden Medals, 1746 ; Freemasons and Minorca, 1749 ; Academy of Ancient Music, 1750 ; Chancellor's Medal, Cambridge, 1752 ; and Captain Wilson's Voyage to China, 1760. Yeo s con- temporary, CarHni, a native of Geneva, succeeded Moser as Keeper of the Royal Academy in 1783. He was a clever craftsman, not inferior to his better-known rival, Joseph Wilton, R.A. (b. 1722, d. 1803), whose education in sculpture seems to have been unusually thorough for an Englishman of those days. He studied first in

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868

Brabant under Laurent Delvaux; in 1744, at the age of twenty-two, he went to Paris and won the Silver Medal given by the Academy there ; while three years later he journeyed to Rome with L. F. Roubillac, where the Roman Academy, in 1750, gave him the Gold Jubilee Medal awarded by Benedict XIV. Wilton, having spent eight years in Italy, returned to England in 1755, in company with Cipriani and Sir William Chambers, and started work in London as a director of the Duke of Richmond's sculpture gallery at Whitehall. He then came in touch with the Court and designed the coach that was used for the Coronation of George III. A man of great geniality, he was on intimate terms with Reynolds and Doctor Johnson, and with many other famous men of his age. Wilton's best remembered work is the large monument to General Wolfe in Westminster Abbey, which, though much too theatrical, is worth attention. The composition is over-crowded, and the lions at the base are ridiculous ; but the principal group has some good modelling. Wilton produced many fine chimneypieces to embellish the houses designed by Sir William Chambers.

The first sculptor to enter the Academy by election was Edward Burch. He became an Associate in 1770 and a Royal Academician in 1 77 1. He has been mentioned elsewhere in this volume, as a gem-engraver, and we now pass on to one of his admirers, Joseph NoUekens, R.A., a man of somewhat eccentric character. During the ten years of his stay in Italy, he purchased fragments ot antique marbles and terra-cottas and carefully restored them into complete works of art. By this means he introduced himself to many rich collectors, like Towneley and the Earls of Besborough and Yar- borough, and started a profitable business. Fortune was also his friend in several other ways, for he made large sums on the Stock Exchange, and received three thousand guineas for his statue of Pitt (now at Cambridge in the Senate House), and ^2000 for his too- conspicuous monument to Rodney's three Captains (now in West- minster Abbey). But he grew generous as well as rich, and was generally liked as the most picturesque figure of his day. NoUekens died in 1823, in his eighty-sixth year, leaving a fortune of more than ;^20o,ooo. It is said that he executed a hundred busts and a great number of duplicates, not to speak of the semi-classical statues, technically known as " Venuses," that won for him so many patrons and admirers. His best work is to be found among his portraits.

It would be easy to exaggerate the actual merit of the work of NoUekens ; and in this respect the sculptor's reputation differs s ii

PORTRAIT OP JOSEPH NOLLEKENS, R.A. (1737-1823.) ELECTED 1773.

BY SIR W. BEEOHEY, R.A.

After an EngraAang by Charles Turner, A. R.A.

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

widely from that of John Bacon (b. 1740, d. 1799). In Bacon we meet with a Httle-known sculptor of great ability, who may be described as one of the strongest monumental workers that England has yet produced. This may seem excessive praise to those who have not given attention to such achievements as his monuments to the memory of the Earl of Chatham, or, again, to the memorial in Bristol Cathedral to Sterne's Eliza, Mrs. Draper. In estimating the genius of John Bacon, however, some allowance has to be made for those characteristics of the eighteenth century which are too artificial for the simpler taste of the present time. For alJ that. Bacon has a high place in the history of British sculpture, appealing to us by his ample strength and his largely handled modelling. From Roubillac he borrowed certain little affectations of grace in the composition of his draperies ; but he did not allow any influence to subjugate his personality. He is not very imagina- tive, but the personal qualities of his virile style have genius enough to counteract the limitations.

As a contrast to the giant-like energy and skill of Bacon are the gentle and classic talents of Thomas Banks, R.A., whose Falling Titan^ in the Diploma Gallery, though somewhat overburdened with rocks, has many excellent points. Banks perceived, when in Rome, that the chief thing to be learnt from the Italians was their technique in marble, so he took lessons in carving, and throughout his life he impressed upon his brother sculptors in England the need of perfect craftsmanship. Among his best works are the Sleeping Child (Penelope Boothby), in Ashbourne Church, Derby- shire, and the Portrait bust of Warren Hastings here reproduced. Flaxman, like Sir Joshua Reynolds, was a great admirer of Banks, and spoke very highly of his genius and character. Banks died in 1805, at the age of seventy.

When a critic begins to think of Flaxman (b. 1755, d. 1826), he is apt to be troubled by two conflicting thoughts. He feels sure, as he surveys the variousness and the learned refinement of Flaxman's work, that he is here in presence of a genius, a genius, too, of high rank among the most gifted men of his century. But, some- how, side by side with this conviction is the belief that Flaxman attempted to do too much, and that his technical performance, as a draughtsman and modeller, frequently lagged behind his noble gifts as a composer. A famous Frenchman, after studying some of Flaxman's illustrations, once exclaimed : " Good gracious, how fine in composition, how feeble in mere draughtsmanship !" This criticism is too severe, but it draws attention to the limitations of Flaxman's

s iii

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-186S technical equipment. But when the influence that Flaxman has. had over the taste of his countrymen is remembered — over the scholar through his book-illustrations, over the household through his designs for silver and for Wedgwood ware, and over his brother- sculptors through his own work and his manly sympathy — when all this is remembered, there is good reason to express gratitude and admiration. It may be said of him that he taught the old Hellenic spirit to speak EngUsh ; or perhaps it is truer to say that Flaxman was born a Greek, like Ingres and like Keats.

It is something of a fall to turn from him to Charles Rossi, R.A.„ since Rossi, though a sculptor of some distinction, is not by any means a leader in the EngHsh school. There is no difficulty in finding examples of his work, as some of his best productions are in St. Paul's Cathedral. One, a monument to Lord Cornwallis, is in the nave opposite to Flaxman's Nelson ; and two groups commemorate, in a manner much too theatrical, the greatness of Rodney and the ill- starred fortunes of Captain Faulknor. The doubtful taste in these- two groups belongs to Rossi's period, when few persons were shocked at the appearance of extravagance in a monument destined for a Christian church. Happily for Rossi, he is represented at St. Paul's by a single figure, a statue of Lord Heathfield that has. real merit.

To a firm believer in the present-day school of sculpture, ranging from Meunier and Rodin to Frampton and Gilbert, it must needs be difficult to speak of such sculptors of the past as Sir Richard Westmacott, R.A. (b. 1775, d. 1856), a pupil of Canova, and a man whose mind was impregnated with the past effiDrts of his art rather than with its future progress. Few Englishmen have been received in Italy with a more ardent enthusiasm than fell to the lot of the young Richard Westmacott. In 1791 the Academy of Florence gave him the first prize for sculpture, and shortly afterwards the Academy of St. Luke gave him the Pope's Gold Medal for a low- relief of Joseph and his Brethren. The aim of Westmacott being classical, he never broke away from a routine of dignity into a mood of impassioned enthusiasm. Thd titles of his imaginative pieces describe his style : Cupid and Psyche, Euphrosyne, Devo- tion, Cupid Captive, A Nymph unclasping her Zone, A Sleeping Infant, and what not besides, as though the daily Hfe of his- time were not filled with such fine subjects for his art as would have brought into being a new race of sculptors. Men who think too closely of the past seal up their eyes to the opportunities that lie in the present. Any one who desires to know something more about s iv

/ ^^^^ x/i/f^/?^

2 J//(X^'rn

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 Sir Richard Westmacott should go to Westminster Abbey and look at his statues of Fox, Pitt, Addison, and Spencer Perceval ; and then pass on to the monument raised to Mrs. Warren. In St. Paul's Cathedral, too, there are six examples of his work, so that West- macott is not likely to be forgotten.

Sir Richard's son, Richard Westmacott, R.A. (b. 1799, d. 1872),, followed in his father's steps, visiting Italy and remaining there for six years. When he returned to England, bringing with him a thorough knowledge of Greek and Roman art, it was to find that his style was one that would make him popular, and widely known. He was particularly fortunate in his portraits of ladies. As to his monumental sculpture, it is usually reposeful and impressive, as in the figure of Archbishop Howley in the choir of Canterbury Cathedral. Students of his work will remember his Ariel, his Cymbal Player, his Paolo and Francesca, and his busts of Lord John Russell, Sir Frederick Murchison, Sydney Smith, and John Henry Newman. Richard Westmacott, in 1857, succeeded his. father as professor of sculpture, and, in 1 861, he represented England at the Congress of Artists which assembled at Antwerp. Like the two Westmacotts, William Theed, R.A. (b. 1764, d. 1817),, formed his style in Italy by imitating the classic models. When in Rome he had the good fortune to become the friend of Flaxman ; and when he returned to England, bringing with him a French wife,, he followed an example which Flaxman had set years before by working for the Wedgwoods. This was an excellent training for him, and he carried it further at a later date by designing presentation works in gold and silver for Messrs. Rundell and Bridge, whose gold and silver plate he designed for many years. In 1 8 1 1 the Academy received him as an Associate ; he was elected an Academician in 1 81 3. During the last years of his life he produced some important things in sculpture, like the large statue of Mercury and the bronze group of T/ietis returning from Vulcan with Arms for Achilles. Dying in his fifty-third year, he left a family of three children, one of whom, William Theed by name, became a sculptor, and his work was greatly admired by Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort.

There is often a grim humour in the ups and downs of fortune Take the case of Sir Francis Chantrey, R.A., who is said to have begun life by driving an ass laden with milk-cans, and from working in a grocer's shop, and who rose to one of the proudest positions that any sculptor has yet reached in England. To-day the world has gone, so far from him that, if any one were asked who and what Chantrey-

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 was, we should probably get some such answer as this : " Why, the man who left the Bequest that the Academy is said to muddle year by year." Yet Chantrey's art is still good in several of its phases, and above all in its treatment of children, and also in its portraiture. A pretty story is told of Nollekens and Chantrey. In 1806, when Chantrey was twenty-five, he sent to the Academy a bust of Raphael Smith. Nollekens was greatly struck and cried : " It is a splendid work ; let the man be known : remove one of my busts and put this in its place." The group of the Sleeping Children^ a monument in Lichfield Cathedral, is probably the most beautiful piece of sculpture that Chantrey has left us. Another fine work, representing Lady Frederica Stanhope with her infant child, is in Chevening church. Chantrey was a good critic, and the delight he took in representing the realistic qualities of flesh was one influence that helped our English sculpture to break away from the frozen traditions of an obsolete classicism. Chantrey died in 1 841 . Eight years later, George Jones, R.A., published an account of him, entitled " Sir Francis Chantrey : Recollections of his Life, Practice, and Opinions." E. H. Baily, R.A. (b. 1788, d. 1867), was a pupil of Flaxman, and a winner of the Gold Medal in the R.A. Schools. He stands fairly high in his profession as an artist, and many will remember his domestic subjects, Hke Motherly Love, while others will recollect such fanciful pieces as Eve at the Eountain, Eve listening to the Voice, exhibited in 1841 ; Hercules casting Hylas into the Sea, Psyche, The Graces Seated, and the statues of Lord Mansfield (at Chelmsford), of General Sir Charles Napier, and of C. J. Fox and Earl St. Vincent. Baily's style is remarkable for its grace and large-hearted simplicity. He was not a man of transcendent genius, but he certainly helped the progress of English sculpture at a time when its up-hill advance was slow and halting. And this applies also to John Gibson, R.A., whose name is much more widely known than Baily's, but whose reputation does not wear so well as the prophets of his time foretold. Gibson studied under Thorvaldsen, and, following the custom of the time, won his way into the Academy with such subjects as the Cupid of 1829, the Nymph untying her Sandal, 1831, and the Venus and Cupid, 1833. Gibson died in 1866, leaving an abundant amount of work, among which may be named the Wounded Amazon falling from her Horse, the Greek Hunter and his Dog, Hylas and the Nymphs, the Hours leading forth the Horses of the Sun, the statue of George Stephenson, and the monument to Sir Robert Feel in Westminster Abbey.

But it is time to speak of WiUiam Wyon, R.A. (b. 1795, s vi

( d. 1 551) J who belonged to a tamous family of m t- enpravers. and whose own arin nf the^ AifFimilt ^.Tt

SIR FRANCIS L. CHANTREY, R. A. Up

of }ue

sou

CULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1868

oba!~' - - . xxr,

Beq

lant

; tre

old

ity-]

; w;

I be

le g

ledr;

itre

tanl

T W

ealii scu cisn

Re

• (fc

le G

proJ :ts, s as

; L

the

:S N

arks of

ich ; we ler ' int( f)h i 5on h m k B the e m

o speak of William Wvon, R.A. Cb. i7qc.

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 d. 1 851), who belonged to a famous family of medallists and gem- engravers, and whose own grip of the difficult art of the numismatist justly entitled him to an honoured place in the Academy. Wyon followed Chantrey's designs in his coins of George IV. and William IV. ; but made his own for those of Queen Victoria. It is said that he produced two hundred pieces of work, ranging from his war medals (that commemorate Trafalgar, Cabul, Jellalabad, and the Peninsular campaigns), to the Portuguese coinage that all students of his art know. There is nothing really modern in Wyon's style, so that we still keep in touch with the old subserviency to the classic spirit. Indeed, Wyon may be said to have suffered from too much training. He would have done better work, probably, had his talents been allowed in youth to run wild, Hke those of the able Irish sculptor, Patrick MacDowell, R.A. (b. 1799, d. 1870), whose genius was entirely self-taught. It is true that he went to Rome for eight months, but this happened after the year 1841, when, to his great surprise, the Academy chose him for an Associate. There is a very pleasing freshness, a pretty, ingenuous grace, in the style of MacDowell, but it cannot be said that he broke new ground in a daring manner, or ventured to court unpopularity by running counter to the accepted fashion in style. MacDowell, like his fellows, was haunted by Cupids^ by Love T^riumphant, and even by a Girl in Prayer. There was a First Thorn in Life, and a Slumbering Student, and a Day- Dream; but probably MacDowell's Irish nature was rejoiced when it turned from such subjects to the marble statues in St. Stephen's Hall, representing William Pitt and the Earl of Chatham. From a point of view of simplicity and refinement, there is a distinct resemblance between MacDowell and WilHam C. Marshall, R.A., a Scotsman, born at Edinburgh in 18 13. A student of the Royal Academy, he carried off the Gold Medal in 1841, and then, instead of looking at the life of his own time, he went to Rome, a poor art sheep following a beaten track. There is no room here for an account of his life, but the following list of his works may be useful to the student : The Creation of Adam, Ophelia, Una and the Lion, all exhibited in 1840 ; the Broken Pitcher (1842), May Morning (1843), Caractacus before Claudius (1844), Hero guiding Leander (1846), the First Step, 2Lnd Eury dice (1847), a Toung Satyr Drinking (1848), the statue of Thomas Campbell (1849), ^ Hindoo Girl (1852), Fresh from the Bath (i860), and the statue of Doctor Jenner, now in Kensington Gardens, and of Peel, in Manchester. It has been said of Marshall that he was a man " with some resources of a tangible Philistine sort, but with no more poetry, or fancy, or classic percep-

s vii

THE SCULPTORS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 tions than a cow." There is a certain amount of truth in this, and unfortunately it applies to a good many early sculptors of the Royal Academy. It does not apply to J. H. Foley, R.A., who died in 1 874 at the age of fifty-six. It is much to Foley's honour that he was content to study in England without giving way to that reverence for the classics which had done so mucli to hinder the development of English sculpture. Foley, to be sure, was not daringly modern, but he was true to his own nature, and produced good thingt. His most vigorous achievements are the equestrian statues at Calcutta (of Lord Canning, Viscount Hardinge, and Sir James Outram), and his name is remembered also by many other statues and monuments, like the Admiral Cornwallis, in Melfield Church, the Clive at Shrewsbury, and the statues of O'Connell, Gough, Burke, and Goldsmith, all in Dublin. There is perhaps less convention in Foley's style than in that of Henry Weekes, R.A. (b. 1807, d. 1877), but both these able sculptors have one thing in common : both lack the impassioned manHness which has renewed the youth of sculpture, thanks to the heroic daring of Barye, Rodin, Meunier, and the great Alfred Stevens, who died without recognition, alone and in poverty, but not before he had shown that the dignity and strength of the Anglo- Saxon character were not at odds with the genius of sculpture. That Henry Weekes also did some good things, particularly in portrait sculpture, no one will deny, but, fearing to lead, he passed from works of real merit, like the Shelley Memorial in Christchurch Abbey, and dallied too often with sentimental trivialities. It cannot be said that the earlier sculptors of the Royal Academy have frequently shown the enterprise and courage of pioneers.

W. S. Sparrow.

s viii

S 1. JOSEPH WILTON (1722-1803), Foundation Member

PART OP THE MONUMENT TO GENERAL WOLEE In Westminster Abbey

S 3. JOHN BACON (1740-1799), Elected R.A. 1778

VENUS

In South Kensington. Museum

PORTRAIT BUST OP WARREN HASTINGS

Photograph by Messrs. Walker & Cockerell

S 5. JOHN FLAXMAN (1755-1826), Elected R.A. 1800

THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

lu South Kensington Museum

S 6. JOHN FLAXMAN, R.A.

MOKL"MEi\T TO WILLIAM, EARL OF MANiyiELl

In Westminster Abbey

S 9. SIR R. WESTMACOTT, R.A.

.1" K PR, „! V( ,

MEMORIAL TO ELIZABETH WARREN

In Westminster Abbey

S 13. SIR P. CHANTRBY, R.A.

;S 14. JOHN GIBSON (1790-1866), Elected R.A. 1840

S 17. WILLIAM WYON (1795-1851), Elected R.A. 1833

MEDALS OF SIR JOHN SOANE AND J. M. W. TURNER, R.A.

In the Collection of C. Mallord Turner,

S 18. W. CALDER MARSHALL (1813-1894), Elected R.A. 1352

THE PRODIGAL SON

In the Tate Gallery

S 19. JOHN HENRY FOLEY (1818-1874), Elected R.A. 1858

STATUE OF CHARLES JOHN, EARL CANNING In Westminster Abbey

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

HERE were some who said that the art of engraving had been left unmentioned in the Instrument of Institution, only because Sir Robert Strange, the well-known engraver, had made himself too notorious as an ardent Jacobite. Sir Robert himself was delighted with this explanation : it pleased his vanity, fired his indignation, and prompted him to make one of his periodical attacks on the sweet-tempered Barto- lozzi, who never once deigned to retaliate. In other quarters, it was believed that the Foundation Members of the Academy were proud, vainglorious fellows, who, from a great height of self-esteem, looked down upon the engravers and their art, and regarded both as wanting in such originality as would justify their recognition by the charter of the Royal Academy. There is probably more truth in this report than there was in the flattery which Sir Robert Strange was so ready to accept as gospel truth. Anyhow, the Academicians made a very serious blunder. To snub the engravers was really to harm themselves, since it was their work that the engravers translated and popularised. Paintings were multiplied a thousandfold by the engraver's skill, and then distributed throughout the kingdom. This was an unpaid advertisement, and the Academy wa» wise to apologise for its mistake and so prevent the engravers from boycotting the work done by its Foundation Members.

Indeed, the first step taken by the Academicians, after the opening of the schools, was to bring into existence a class of members to be known as Associate Engravers ; and the rule by which a number of these, not exceeding six, should be admitted as Associates, was passed on March 25, 1769. The following year, five engravers were elected — namely, Thomas Major, Simon Ravenet, P. C. Canot, John Browne, and Thomas Chambers, and in 1775 the full number was completed by the admittance of Valentine Green. How pleased Sir Robert Strange must have been when the first list of Associate Engravers became the talk of the cofi^ee-houses ! But the main point is that the Academy had made some amends for its want of tact. Not that the engravers were entirely satisfied. They objected, and long continued to object, to that part of the regulation which denied them the right of attaining full membership. Their efforts

E i

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

to win for themselves the rank of R.A. went on and on ; but it was not until February 10, 1855, that the first engraver was admitted to full academical honours, under the Presidency of Sir Charles Lock Eastlake. This step of progress was not brought about by persuasive argument alone. It was partly due to the fact that the Academy found it difficult to fill the six associateships allotted to the engravers — a fact which C. R. Leslie, in 1852, used as an argument before his colleagues on the Council ; and in the same year a petition to Queen Victoria was prepared and signed by seven engravers, including G. T. Doo, J. H. Robinson, and J. Pye, praying her Majesty to give her assent to any proposal that the Academy might think right to make, with the object of raising the engravers to full membership. Queen Victoria received the petition, and recommended the General Assembly to consider in what way the wishes of the engravers could be met, the result of this advice being a modification of the laws relating to the subject in dispute. It was in 1854 that a new class of engravers was enrolled, consisting of Academicians and Associates, who were not to exceed four ; it might consist of less at the discretion of the Academy ; and the proportion of Academicians was not to be more than two. It was decided, also, that future vacancies in the original class of six Associate Engravers should not be filled up. For the rest, the first engraver to receive the long-coveted title of R.A. was Samuel Cousins. This is all that need be said here about the actual rank of the engravers, though one may point out that the grade is one which the Academy, at any time, with the consent of the Sovereign, may transform into something quite different — into a class, let us say, of Craftsmen Associates and Craftsmen Academicians ! And if this were done, the Academy would bring itself more vitally in touch with the needs of to-day. Although the art of engraving found no place in the Instrument or Institution, there was yet one engraver whom George III. received as a Foundation Member. This was Francesco Bartolozzi, an Italian of great ability (b. 1728, d. 1815), who came to England in his thirty-seventh year, and remained faithful to his adopted country till 1 802, when he went to Lisbon to superintend a school of engravers. The Prince Regent of Portugal took a great fancy to his genial and frank nature, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. He died at Lisbon in the eighty-seventh year of his age. It is easy to over-estimate the real worth of Bartolozzi's various plates. He did so much himself and owed so much to his pupils that his artistic output suffered in its average of merit. But the collector will find many excellent things among his prints, particularly among his E ii

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 line-engravings and also among his fine proofs after Holbein and Guercino. It was Bartolozzi who brought into vogue in England that kind of soft-ground etching which was first used by the French engraver Demarteau in his reproductions of the red-chalk drawings by Boucher. In this process the quaHty of the soft line was obtained by the use of a roulette, which gave a result similar to that which a modern etcher gets with a pencil and tissue paper. We have now to consider, very briefly and in chronological order, the twenty-two engravers who belonged to the Royal Academy during the period dealt with in this book. Thomas Major, born in 17 15 or 1720, passed his youth in Paris, where he studied in a good school, engraving plates after Berghem, Arnold Maas, Wouwerman, and Teniers. On his return to England he became a friend of Gainsborough, whose beautiful Madonna he engraved. His land- scapes after Claude and Poussin, like his general subjects after Murillo and the early Dutchmen, have a style remarkable for its neat precision. Major lived to be nearly eighty, dying in 1799. His abilities were less remarkable than those of S. F. Ravenet, a Frenchman, born in Paris about 1706. He left his native country, at the invitation of Hogarth, that he might help to engrave the famous scenes made known to us in the Marriage a-la-Mode. He worked also for Alderman Boydell, copied Houbraken's portraits for Smollett's " History of England," busied himself with the Italian old masters, and turned out several portraits after Reynolds. His work has colour, penetration, and a rather sombre vivacity. He died in 1774. Another Frenchman comes next, P. C. Canot by name, born in 1 710, who, at the age of thirty, came to England and settled there for good. He was a clever engraver, and no student of the sea (as represented in English art) should fail to study his plates after Paton, Scott, and Peter Monamy. As for John Browne, who was born at Oxford in 1742, he must be placed among the best engravers of landscape that our early EngUsh school produced. He is especially admirable in his plates after Rubens, G. Poussin, Hobbema, Claude Lorraine, and Salvator Rosa. Woollett finished several pieces of work etched by Browne, and among them the Celedon and Amelia in Thomson's "Seasons." 1801 was the date of Browne's death, and his widow for thirty years received a pension from the Academy. Browne was a better engraver than his Irish contemporary, Thomas Chambers, whose prints after Murillo's Holy Family and Van Dyck's Helen Forman are not sympathetic. Chambers, indeed, had a style which, though firm, was cold and mechanical. Being unsuccessful, he fell into despair, and drowned himself in the Thames in 1789.

E iii

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 Valentine Green, who follows now in chronological order, was a justly famous mezzotint-engraver, his work being so various in subject that his admirers never tire of it. Born at Hales Owen in 1739, he started in youth to read law ; but, forsaking this uncongenial pursuit for art, he began to study line engraving at Worcester, and then passed on to the more coloured processes of mezzotint. At the age of twenty-six he came to London, and soon proved that he was a thorough master of his craft. During the forty years of his working career he produced nearly four hundred plates, including an excellent selection from the pictures in the Dusseldorf Gallery. In 1798, when the French laid siege to Dusseldorf, the Gallery and castle were destroyed, and thus Green's occupation there came to an end. He died in London in 181 3, leaving behind him, among his best works, no fewer than sixteen plates after Benjamin West and the same number of portraits after Sir Joshua Reynolds. Besides these, he engraved three fine works after Van Dyck, one of which, representing Henry Danvers, Earl Danby, will be found among the illustrations. One circumstance in the life of Francis Haward recalls to mind a similar piece of bad fortune in the life of John Browne. He died in poverty, leaving a widow, who, for two-and-forty years, received a pension from the Academy. Haward was born in 1759. In 1776 he became a student at the Academy, and in 1783 he was elected an Associate Engraver. He was a charming craftsman, gentle and suave in manner, full of tenderness, but sometimes too sweet and deHcate. His most vigorous engraving is that of Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse after Reynolds, while the Infant Academy after the same master is probably the most gracious among his prints. He had his home in Lambeth, and died there in 1797. Haward's contemporary, Joseph Collyer (b. 1748), was another engraver who was fascinated by the genius of Reynolds, and who showed real penetration in his plates after Sir Joshua's Miss Palmer and the Girl with the Cat. The great painter himself was delighted with Collyer's interpretation of his Venus and Una, and Alderman Boydell had every reason to be pleased with the print of the Irish Volunteers from the picture by F. Wheatley, R.A. Collyer's election as A.R.A. took place in 1786. Collyer's pupil, James Heath (b. 1765, d. ' ^35)5 whose name is associated with the work he did after the designs of Stothard, followed his master in the taste he cultivated for book illustration, and every artist for whom he laboured found in him a ready and responsive interpreter. He turned out several large plates after pictures by the Academicians, like the Dead Soldier after Wright, the Death of Nelson after West, the Death of Major Pierson E iv

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

after Singleton, or, again, like the Riots in ijSo after Wheatley. It was through the influence of James Heath that our next engraver, Anker Smith (b. 1759,(1. 1 8 1 9) , forsook the law and became the pupil of Taylor, under whom he worked for three years, from 1 779 to 1782. He then joined Heath as an assistant, and it is said that Heath allowed Smith to do too much of his work. Any one who desires to study Smith must hunt after his small illustrations, like those in Bell's edition of the " British Poets " or his engravings after Smirke's illustrations to " Don Quixote." And now a few words must be said about James Fittler (b. 1758, d. 1835), another good engraver of book illustrations. Many of the plates in Bell's " British Theatre " are by Fittler, and others will be found in Dibden's " Aedes Althorpianae " bearing the date 1822. He did justice also to De Loutherbourg's spirited naval pictures, the Battle of the Nile and Lord Howe's Victory.

John Landseer, born at Lincoln, in 1769, lived to be eighty-three years old, dying in 1852. He had three sons, and all became famous. He was the father of Thomas Landseer, the mezzotint-engraver, and of Charles, a Member of the Royal Academy, and of Edwin, our iEsop of the brush. Among the good things that John Landseer engraved was a picture by his son Edwin, the Dogs of Mount St. Bernard. His line engravings for Bowyer's History of England, and for Moore's Views in Scotland, and for Macklin's Bible, are well worth attention ; and the student of animals will return again and again to his able prints after Snyders, Gilpin, and Rubens. In strong and pleasing contrast to the work of John Landseer is the art of William Ward, the elder brother of James Ward, R.A., and for some time his early teacher. William followed the mezzotint process, and his work in this medium is united for all time with the paintings of his brother-in-law, George Morland. He and Morland lived together at Kensal Green on the Harrow Road, and the friendship between the two famines led to a sort of exchange in marriage. Ward marry- ing Maria Morland, and Morland Anne Ward. The weddings took place in the summer of 1786, and the two young couples set up their homes together, but soon quarrelled and separated. It may be of use to give a list of some of Ward's engravings after Morland, taking them in the order in which they were produced : The Angler s Repast, 1780 ; Tom Jones and Molly Seagrim, 1786 ; Domestic Happiness, 1787 ; Sportsman's Hall, 1788 ; the four seasons, 1788 ; Juvenile Navigators, 1789 ; Children Bird's-nesting, 1789 ; the ^te Entangled, 1790 ; Cottagers, 1791 : Travellers, 1791 ; The Woodcutter, 1792 ; The Country Stable, 1792 ; The Barn-door, 1792 ; The Farmer s

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 Table ^ 1792 ; T^he Sportsman s Return^ 1792 ; T^he First of September^ Morning and Evenings 1794 ; ne Farmyard^ ^795 ; Inside a Country Alehouse, ^797 ; Sailors' Conversation^ 1802; "Turnpike Gate, 1806; Rabbits, Guinea-pigs, The Warrener, and The Thatcher, 1806 ; and Bathing Horses, 18 14.

William Bromley (b. 1769, d. 1842) made a name for himself by engraving for Macklin's Bible, and by illustrating an English history with plates after designs by Stothard. For many years he worked for the trustees of the British Museum, engraving the Elgin marbles from drawings by Henry Corbould. In addition to this, he linked his fame with that of Flaxman, Fuseli, Lawrence, and other Academicians, and proved by his print of the Woman taken in Adultery after Rubens that the Academy did well to elect him in 18 19. The lithographer and line engraver, Richard J. Lane (b. 1800, d. 1872), was the grand-nephew of Gainsborough, his mother being a niece of the famous painter. At the age of sixteen he was articled to Charles Heath, and he was only twenty-seven when his engraving after Lawrence's Red Riding Hood won him his way into the Royal Academy. He was a persona grata with everybody, from Macready and Malibran to the street arabs, and from his occasional creditors to the members of the Royal family. He was a musician, as well as an artist, and his tenor voice made him welcome everywhere. It may be said, indeed, that he had a tenor voice in all his work, a very sweet tenor, even too sweet very often. One can have too much gentleness and refinement ; and Lane's lithographs and engravings, like his drawings in chalk and pencil, would be all the better if they had more real strength in their constructive handling. Lane finished a great many prints after Chalon, LesHe, Richmond, Landseer ; and in the same medium he achieved success in his imitations of Gains- borough's sketches, in which he does justice to the original charm of his great-uncle's manner. Not less effective, as examples of his imitative skill, are the prints which he executed after Lawrence. Charles Turner (b. 1774, d. 1857) practised mainly in mezzotint, though he did some notable things both in stipple and in aquatint. Being a hard worker, he produced six hundred plates, two-thirds of which are portraits. He worked much for his namesake, J. M. W. Turner, engraving and pubHshing the first twenty plates of " Liber Studiorum," between the years 1 807-1 809. But they squabbled over a question of money, and separated for a while ; the quarrel was eventually made up, and Charles became a trustee under the conditions of J. M. W. Turner's will. Among his portrait prints it will be enough to name the following : the Marlborough Family E vi

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 after Reynolds, Lord Nelson after Hoppner, Sir Walter Scott after Raeburn ; Charles X. of France, Mrs. Stratton, The Marquis Wellesley, after Lawrence, and Eastlake's Napoleon on board the " Bellerophon:' His subject plates include the Age of Innocence (Reynolds), the Beggars (William Owen, R.A.), the Water Mill (Sir A. W. Callcott, R.A.), and the Shipwreck, after Turner, which is probably the noblest specimen of the mezzotint work by Charles Turner. There is little room in which to speak of Robert Graves, the line engraver (b. 1798, d. 1873), but his art may be followed in Dove's " English Classics," in Caulfield's "Portraits," 18 19-1820, in Neale's "Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster," 1818-1823, as well as in Burnet's "History of the Reformation" and the author's edition of the " Waverley Novels," in which he has some capital prints, after Landseer, Wilkie, and several others. His best achievement is probably the Highland Whiskey Still after Sir Edwin Landseer. A Ime engraver of note, J. T. Willmore (b. 1800, d. 1863), who studied under William Radclyffe, and worked under Charles Heath from 1845 to 1848, is another man who owed much to the influence and supervision of J. M. W. Turner. From 1827 till 1838 his thoughts were chiefly given to the " England and Wales " series : and Turner set great store by his services. The well-known print after the Mercury and Argus, recalls a little speculation that Willmore and Turner undertook together. Collectors have not yet discovered all the beauty and value in Willmore's reproductions of the Old Temeraire, the Golden Bough, Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, and Anctent Italy. There are good qualities also in the Wind against Tide after Clarkson Stanfield, R.A., and in Crossing the Bridge after Sir Edwin Landseer.

During the Presidency of Eastlake, two men were elected Associate Engravers— Lumb Stocks and J. H. Robinson. The first contributed to the success of Finden's Gallery, and produced many plates from pictures in the Vernon Gallery and the Royal Collections. There is excellent workmanship in his interpretations of Leslie's Uncle Toby and the Widow Wadman and the Spanish Letter-writer by John Phillip, R.A. He ^passed, also, from W. P. Frith's Evening Prayer to the same artist's Claude Duval and Many Happy Returns of the Day. As for J. H. Robinson, he was a pupil of James Heath, whose manner of hne engraving he followed with success. One may give here a few examples of his more noteworthy plates. After Murillo, the Flower Girl ; after Van Dyck, the Countess of Bedford; after William Mulready R.A., the Wolf and the Lamb ; after Sir David Wilkie, R.A., Napoleon and Pius VIL ; and after Sir T. Lawrence, Sir Walter Scott.

E vii

ENGRAVERS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 We have now to consider, in very brief space, the two earliest Academician Engravers — Samuel Cousins and G. T. Doo, who were received as full members, the former in 1855, the latter in 1857. Samuel Cousins was a mezzotint engraver, and a pupil of S. W. Reynolds. He was born in 1801, and died in 1887. After serving his apprenticeship, he became his master's assistant at a salary of ^(^250 a year ; but he soon grew tired of his subordinate position, and in 1825 or 1826 he set up for himself. Cousins was a man of delightful character and a most strenuous and ardent worker. He amassed a considerable fortune, and gave some 5,000 to the Royal Academy, to be held in trust for the relief of distressed artists. In 1874 he wished to retire from work into private life, but com- missions bound him to a sort of treadmill existence, and it was not till 1883 that he was able to retire. It was in 1825 that Cousins was engaged by Sir Thomas Acland to engrave in mezzotint Lawrence's portrait of Lady Acland and her children. When Lawrence saw a proof, he immediately asked Cousins to reproduce the well-known picture of Master Lambton. And from that time the names of the two artists have been bracketed together in art criticism. Not that Cousins gave all his time to the transla- tion of Lawrence's portraits. He worked also after Sir Edwin Landseer, as in Bolton Abbey in the Olden "Time, the Midsummer Night's Dream, and the Return from Hawking. And, again, he was very much struck with the pictures by Millais, and engraved the Order of Release. But even a short list of the plates by Cousins cannot be given here, as there is barely space enough left in which to make mention of the very excellent line engravings of G. T. Doo, R.A. (b. 1800, d. 1886). He is very well represented in the illustrations by a plate after Lawrence, the Proffered Kiss, published in 1836, and also by a stronger and better work that interprets William Etty's famous picture, Mercy interceding for the Vanquished. His small plates after F. M. Newton, R.A., called Fortia and Bassanio, and Sterne and the Grisette, will be interesting to all students of the earlier Academicians ; while those who delight in less frivolous subjects will find what they need in the best proofs of Doo's engravings of Correggio*s Ecce Homo, Raphael's Infant Christ, and the Resurrection of Lazarus, after Sebastian del Piombo. Doo was a Fellow of the Royal Society ; and in 1853, or thereabouts, he not only relaxed his work as an engraver, but began to paint portraits in oils for the naturalists of his time.

W. S. Sparrow.

E viii

E L. FRANCESCO BARTOLOZZI (1728-1S15) Foundation Member

ASSOCIATES' DIPLOMA

Engraved after C]priani. (The Print lent by Mr. F. Pollard)

E 2. TRANCESCO BARTOLOZZI, R.A.

LORD OLIVE

Engraved- auer Uaiic;:. vThe Print lent by Mr. F. PoUarJ;

E 4. FRANCESCO BARTOLOZZI, R.A.

HLR GKACE THE DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE

Engraved after Downman. (The Print lent by Mr. F. B. Darnell)

E 13. FRANCIS ITAWARD, A.R.A.

AlES. SIDDONS AS THE TRAGIC MUSE Engraved after Reynolds. (The Print lent by Messrs. P. & D. Colnaghi & Co.^

E 16. ANKER SMITH a7oa-1319;, Elected Associate-Engraver 17'J7

SOFONISBA

Engraved after Titian. CThe Print lent by Mr. F. B. Daniell)

E 18. JOHN LANDSEER (1769-1852), Elected Associate-Engraver m 1806

THE ANGEL BINDING SATAN Engraved after De Loutherbotirg for Macklm's £ib!e

ilri^m the Print m the British Museurn^

E 19. WILLIAM WARD (1766-1326), Elected Associate-Engraver 1314

E 21. WILLIAM BROMLEY (1769-13421, Elected an Associate-Engraver 1819

E 23. H.ICHARD JAMES LANE (1800-1872;, Elected Associate -Engraver 1827

MRS. SEYMOUR BATHLTRST

Engraved after Lawrence. (The Print lent by Messrs. J. Rimcll & Sons)

E 24. ROBERT GRAVES, A.R.A.

THE ORIGIN OP THE HARP

Engraved after Maclise. ^Prom the Print in the British Museum)

NAPOLEON

Engraved after Eastlake. (The Print lent by Messrs. P. & D. Colnaghi & Co

E 26. CIIAHLES TURNER, A.R A,

THE WATER-MILL

Engraved after Callcott

E 29. JOHN H. ROBINSON (1796-1371), Elected an Associate -Engraver 1856, R.A. 1367

THE WOLE AND THE LAMB

Engraved after Mulread^r. (The Print lent by Mr. E. Foliard)

E, 30. J. H. ROBINSON, R.A.

PORTRAIT OF SIR WALTER SCOTT

Engraveil after Lawrence. The Print lejrt by Messis. Maggs Brothers)

I

E 33. SAMUEL COUSINS, R.A.

PORTRAIT OF PRINCE METTERNICH-WINNEBURG Engraved after Lawrence. CFn ..rait m the

British Museum)

E 33. GEORGE THOMAS DOO (18C0-18S6), Elected an Associate-Engraver 1856, R.A. 1857'

THE PKOFFERED KISS

Engraved after Lawrence and his Pupil Wyatt. (The Print lent by Mr. F. B. Darnell)

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868

HE names of five architects are found among the Foundation Members of the Royal Academy, and in thinking of the work of their period, one is often reminded of the famous criticism in verse that Pope sent to the Earl of Burling- ton after his Grace had published Palladio's. drav^ings of the Antiquities of Rome :

" You show us, Rome was glorious, not profuse. And pompous buildings once were things of use Yet shall, my Lord, your just, your noble rules. Fill half the land with imitating fools ; Who random drawings from your sheets shall take. And of one beauty many blunders make "...

No criticism could have foretold more truly than this the course which English architecture was long destined to take in its vain endeavour to raise up some Phoenix of a living art out of the ashes of dead classic styles. It is thus somewhat dispiriting to think of the work done by most of the architects who have been members of the Royal Academy. With few exceptions they have been slaves to precedent, and have done little to give us a set of vital and national traditions in architecture. This applies particularly to the designs of our public buildings, for in domestic architecture there has been less imitation and more enterprise and originality. It is true, no doubt, that, during the early days of the Academy, the large houses built in the country were houses rather than homes, inasmuch as their chief characteristic was grandeur, not comfort or conveni- ence ; but even then there was a vernacular style of domestic architecture, a style encouraged by the middle classes, and its type is still admired in those square-built dwellings that are known as Georgian and Queen Anne.

However, if our English architects, as a rule, have been singularly reluctant to show initiation, they have certainly given proof of a determined spirit in their professional quarrels. Every one has been steadily faithful to the style adopted by the little group of workers to which he attached himself when young. Sir WiUiam Chambers (b. 1726, d. 1796), the first treasurer of the Royal Academy, was very much opposed to the Greek revival begun in his time, pre- ferring to lead the Anglo-Palladian school, and to prove how much he had learned in Italy from Palladio, Vignola, and other Itahan

A i

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868

architects. His best work is Somerset House, which, though simple in its parts and dignified, somehow seems to lack a co-ordinating strength in the design. Chambers built several large mansions in the country, like Milton Abbey, in Dorsetshire, which he carried out in the Gothic style. His contemporary, George Dance, R.A., Nathaniel's elder brother, was the designer of Newgate Prison, now destroyed. St. Luke's Hospital was also built by him. After the death of Thomas Sandby in 1798, George Dance became professor of architecture in the Academy, but he resigned the office in 1805, without having delivered a single lecture. He is little known to-day as an architect, but his original portrait-sketches of the famous persons of his time are justly valued. He died in 1825 in his eighty-fourth year.

Thomas Sandby, R. A. (b. 172 1, d. 1798), became Deputy Ranger of Windsor Great Park when he was twenty-four, a position which he held until his death. He began at once to make many improve- ments in the Park, and in 1754 he thought out a plan for the construction of Virginia Water, the largest artificial lake in the United Kingdom. Students of his work should consult his archi- tectural drawings in the Soane Museum and the Royal collection at Windsor ; though it may be more profitable to admire his water- colours, which are not greatly inferior to those by his well-known brother, Paul Sandby. Another Foundation Member of some note was John Gwynn, who designed the Magdalen Bridge at Oxford and the English Bridge at Shrewsbury, and who published a book in which many suggestions were given for the improvement of London — suggestions which have since been carried out by other hands. The book was entitled " London and Westminster Im- proved." Doctor Johnson wrote a Dedication for it, and lent his support on other occasions to the talents and the schemes of Gwynn. Then, as regards William Tyler, R.A., who died in 1801, he built in 1786 the Freemasons' Tavern in Great Queen Street, a separate building from Freemasons* Hall, that Thomas Sandby had erected in 1776. Tyler was a sculptor as well as an architect, and exhibited busts and reliefs at the Royal Academy.

During the Presidency of Reynolds (i 768-1 792) two architects were included among the early Associates. There was Edward Stevens, who died in 1775, five years after his election ; it was he who designed the Royal Exchange in Dublin. Then there was Joseph Bonomi, an Italian, born at Rome in 1739, who at the age of twenty-eight came to England in order that he might lend his services to the brothers Adam, for whom he did a great deal of work. A ii

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868 His name is associated with many country houses, like that of Longford Hall, Salop, and of Roseneath in Dumbartonshire ; but Bonomi is now remembered chiefly by the fact that Sir Joshua not only took a very keen interest in his career, but resigned his Pre- sidency in 1790 because the members ran counter to his wishes by electing Fuseli instead of Bonomi to be a Royal Academician. Reynolds was greatly offended, and it required much persuasion to make him withdraw his resignation. Bonomi died in 1808. Our next architect, James Wyatt, R.A. (b. 1748, d. 181 3), filled the office of President for twelve months when Benjamin West retired in 1805, but only to be re-elected in the following year. Wyatt studied much in Italy, and when he returned to England in 1766 he soon gained a wide popularity, though his Greco-Italian houses are not remarkable for any great diversity of conception. He had so much work to do that he sometimes schemed out his plans as he drove from one client to another. In 1778 he turned his attention to Gothic architecture, and his misdeeds in this style caused Pugin to speak of him as Wyatt the Destroyer. It was a thousand pities that he undertook to restore the cathedrals in England and Wales ; but the true spirit of Gothic architecture was not understood in those times, and Wyatt did his best, no doubt. His buildings in London are the Pantheon in Oxford Street (1772) and White's Club ; and it was he who erected Bowden Park, Wiltshire, Castle Cootc, in Ireland, and Lee Priory, in Kent. Another architect of Wyatt's time, John Ycnn, R.A., seems to have devoted his talents to domestic architecture in town and country. He was a man of fine character, and George III. showed the trust he had in him by asking Yenn to fill the post of Treasurer, an office then held by special warrant under the King's sign-manual. Yenn accepted the honour and discharged the functions appertaining to it from 1796 to 1820. He died in the following year.

But we must turn to a man of greater note. Sir John Soane (b. 1752, d. 1837), a pupil of Dance, the architect of Newgate, and the son of a small builder (some say a bricklayer) at Reading. The boy started life as Dance's errand-boy, but worked his way up until he won his spurs as a very promising pupil. He studied also in the schools of the Royal Academy, where the Gold Medal was awarded to him in 1776 for his drawing of a triumphal bridge. After this success John Soane was sent to Italy for three years, with an allowance to pay for his expenses. Whilst in Italy he became acquainted with Thomas Pitt, afterwards Lord Camelford, who obtained for him the appoint- ment of architect to the Bank of England, in succession to the late

A iii

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 Sir Robert Taylor. This happened in 1788. The north-west corner of the Bank kept him busy for many years, and is justly looked upon as his masterpiece. Soane in this work made use of the Corinthian order of the Temple at Tivoli, but critics say with justice that his plans lack the suitability of purpose that Dance respected in his design of Newgate. Soane, indeed, though a man of originality, had an eccentric bias of mind which constantly tempted him to lose dignity and proportion by a display of inappropriate details. His tastes, again, as is proved by the museum which he bequeathed to the nation, were too diffuse, too eclectic, though they certainly did much in his day to stimulate interest in the fine arts. Only one architect was added to the list of Associates during West's presidency — Joseph Gandy, who became a student of the Royal Academy in 1789, whose design for a triumphal arch won the Gold Medal in 1790, and whose career as an Associate began in 1803, and ended with his death in 1844. He was the elder brother of J. P. Gandy, R.A., also an architect, born in 1787 and dying in 1850. J. P. Gandy began his professional life by going on a mission to Greece for the Dilettante Society. When he returned he and William Wilkins, R.A., built the University Club-house, finishing their work 1826. A few years later, in 1831, J. P. Gandy erected Exeter Hall in the Strand. Between the two dates just given he had changed his name to Deering, having inherited a landed property in Buckinghamshire. He now lost touch with his profession, and tried his luck as a Member of Parliament, representing Aylesbury after the passing of the Reform Bill.

But a greater name than either of these is that of Sir Robert Smirke, R.A., the eldest son of Robert Smirke, R.A., and the brother of Sydney Smirke, also an Academician. He was born in 1780, and received his first teaching in art from his father. At the age of sixteen he entered the schools of the Academy, and in 1799 he carried ofi^ the Gold Medal with his design for a national gallery for paintings. He then started on a tour through Italy, Greece, Sicily, and Germany, returning to England in 1805. The following year he published a folio volume entitled " Specimens of Continental Architecture " ; and his interest in the remains of the earlier styles was shown also in his contributions to Donaldson's " Antiquities ot Athens," not to speak of other publications. His first efibrt as an architect was Covent Garden Theatre, a building carried out in the Greco-Doric style, having a large portico decorated with sculpture in relief by Flaxman. The interior of the theatre was altered in 1856. Among the other achievements of Smirke's busy life one may A iv

Sir Robert Tavlor. This haooened in ttRR. The nnrf-h-wpst- rnmet

FROM THE ORIGINAL PENCIL DRAWING BY SIR CHARLES BARRY, R. A.

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

mention the Mint (erected in 181 1), the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand (begun in 1823, finished in 1829) ; the College of Physicians and the Union Club in Trafalgar Square ; King's College, London, 1831 ; the extension of King's Bench Walk at the Inner Temple ; the restoration of York Minster ; and, last of all, his masterpiece, the British Museum, commenced in 1823 and completed in 1847. This important building of the Greco-Ionic order has a frontage 370 feet long,' with many columns in the portico, each measuring forty-five feet in height and five feet in diameter. The alto-relievo in the tympanum is the work of Westmacott, the Academician. Smirke entered the Academy as R.A. in 181 1, was appointed treasurer in 1820, and held this office till 1850. Nine years later, on May 20, old age and failing health caused Sir Robert to resign his position as an Academician, and his brother Sydney was appointed in his stead.

Sydney Smirke, R.A. (b. 1798, d. 1877), another winner of the Gold Medal for architecture in the R.A. Schools (18 19). According to the custom of the time, he travelled through Italy and the Continent, thinking more of the self-imposed duty of adapting old styles than of showing some little respect for the independence of his own good sense and talents. It was he who helped his brother to build the Oxford and Cambridge University Club, his share in this undertaking being the hideous Corinthian front in Pall Mall. We owe to him also the Reading-room of the British Museum, and the Carlton Club, Pall Mall, in imitation of the Library of St. Mark's, Venice, by Sansovino. Sydney Smirke became an Associate in 1 847, an Academician in 1859, and in i860 succeeded Mr. Cockerell as professor of architecture.

Sir Charles Barry, R.A., the architect of the Houses of ParHament, was born in 1795, in Bridge Street, Westminster, a street opposite the clock-tower in his famous building. Another singular coincidence is the fact that the first drawing he exhibited at the Academy, in 1 8 12, was a view of the interior of Westminster Hall. On the death of his father in 181 6, he came into some property, and there- upon he began to waste time in the usual trips through Italy and Greece. But it is worth noting that his mind, during his travels, was not wholly given to the usual course of plagiaristic study. He wras an admirable sketcher, and his trip up the Nile and through the Holy Land was illustrated by himself and afterwards engraved among Finden's " Landscape Illustrations of the Bible." Then, as regards his buildings, it is well to mention the Travellers' Club (1832), the College of Surgeons (1835), Birmingham Grammar School (1833),

A V

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868 Bridgwater House in the Green Park (i 847-1 850), and the houses which he reconstructed in the country for the Duke of Sutherland — Trentham, Cliefden, and Dunrobin Castle. Sir Charles Barry died very suddenly on May 12, i860, and was buried ten days later in Westminster Abbey. It has been said of him with truth that he marks the close of the classic revival. The Gothic influence became all important even before Barry died, since the followers of that style not only led the way at the great Exhibition of 1851, but laid a sure foundation for the progress which the arts and crafts have made since those times. Barry began the Houses of Parliament in 1837, and brought them to completion in i860. The House of Lords was opened on April 15, 1847, while the nearly-finished House of Commons was first visited in state by Queen Victoria on February 2, 1852. The architect was knighted at Windsor Castle on the nth of the same month. Professor Bannister Fletcher remarks that " the immediate effect of the design of this great building was slight. It was the climax of the first idea of the movement — that of carrying on the Tudor style — so that, at the time of its completion, in i860,, the attention of all was riveted on the earlier phases of mediaeval architecture, which every one was engaged in imitating." Sir Jeffrey Wyatville, R.A. (b. 1766, d. 1840), was first known to- the world as Jeffrey Wyatt, being the son of Joseph Wyatt and the nephew of James Wyatt, R.A. He was a boy of great spirit, and on two occasions ran away from home to become a sailor, but was pursued and brought back. When the American War came ta an end, Jeffrey Wyatt gave up his wish to follow the sea as a profession, and entered the office of his uncle, Samuel Wyatt, art architect, with whom he remained for seven years. He then became the pupil of his uncle James, so that he might study Gothic and Old English architecture. In 1823 the Academy received him as an Associate, and the higher honour was conferred upon him in 1826. The year following his election as Associate, he was summoned one day to Windsor by the King, who invited him to remodel the Castle. Jeffrey Wyatt brought this great work to completion between the years 1824 and 1828, at a cost of over ^700,000. On August 12, 1824, when George IV. laid the first stone of the main entrance into- the quadrangle on the south side, Jeffrey Wyatt, by Royal authority,, changed his name to Jeffrey Wyatville, so that he might be known from the other architects of his family name. He was not knighted until December 9, 1828. The transformation of Windsor Castle brought into vogue a style of castellated country-house, a style that remained true internally to the modern requirements of a house, but A vi

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1 768-1 868

externally imitated the battlements and turrets of ancient Edwardian castles.

Among the contemporaries of Wyatville, William Wilkins, R.A., occupies a place of some distinction, although the work by which he is best known — namely, the National Gallery — has always been severely criticised. But Wilkins was so fettered by conditions during the six years (i 832-1 838) in which he was occupied upon this building that he had really no fair chance to accomplish what he wished to do. Wilkins is always named in connection with the University College, London ; St. George's Hospital, London ; the Grange House, Hants (1820) ; New Court, Trinity College, Cam- bridge ; the New Buildings, King's College, Cambridge ; and Downing College, Cambridge. He was born in 1778, and died in 1839. After the death of Sir John Soane in 1837, Wilkins was elected to succeed him as professor of architecture in the Academy. Professor C. R. Cockerell, R.A. (b. 1788, d. 1863), having travelled in Greece and Italy, published the well-known book the "Greek Temples of iEgina and Bassas." It was he who built the Taylor and Randolph Institute at Oxford, Lampeter College, the Sun Fire Office, Threadneedle Street, London, now altered and spoilt, and the Banks of England at Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol. It was he, too, after the death of H. L. Elmes (1847), ^^^^ finished the interior decoration of St. George's Hall, Liverpool, the best work of the classical school in England. Cockerell followed Wilkins as teacher of architecture in the Academy, and in his lectures he called special attention to the forms of architecture familiar to the student's eyes, and above all to the great works of Wren. Indeed, Cockerell never tired of doing honour to Wren's genius, and once, in 1838, he exhibited at the Academy a design in which all the principal works of Wren were arranged together and drawn to the same scale. The real bent of Cockerell's mind was towards the classic styles based on Greek and Roman types. But he felt, too, the influence of the Gothic revival, as is proved by the College at Lampeter and the Chapel at Harrow.

We turn now to the last two architects who were members of the Academy during the years which separate the death of Eastlake from the Foundation of the Society under Reynolds. These were Philip Hardwicke, R.A. (1841), and Sir George Gilbert Scott, who became an Academician in i860. PhiHp Hardwicke, a Londoner by birth, born in 1792, was the son of John Hardwicke, an architect of note. After studying at the Royal Academy and visiting France and Italy, he in his twenty-fourth year was appointed to the position of architect

A vii

THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY, 1768-1868

to the Hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem, a position which he held for twenty years. In 1825 Hardwicke and Telford, the engineer, built St. Katharine's Docks ; two years later he took his father's place as architect to St. Bartholomew's Hospital ; and in 1829 he served in the same capacity to the Goldsmiths' Company, and started to erect their New Hall, a very important piece of work that was not completely finished until 1835. For the Goldsmiths' Company, in 1832, he designed the Tudor-Gothic Grammar School at Stockport, while in 1842 he began the New Hall and Library for the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn — a structure in red brick and in the Tudor style. In this latter work the architect was assisted by his son, Mr. P. C. Hardwicke, after being overtaken by an illness from which he never quite recovered.

Then, with regard to Sir George Gilbert Scott (b. 18 10, d. 1877), it is well-known that the first large public work with which he was connected was the Martyrs' Memorial at Oxford, that he and Mr. W. B. MofFatt carried out together. In 1846, after dissolving partnership with Mr. Moffatt, he won a great reputation in Germany by his design for the Church of St. Nicholas at Hamburg, a Gothic building higher internally than any English cathedral except Westminster and York. Among the many other churches erected by Scott one may refer to Camberwell Church, St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, St. George's, Doncastcr (1853), St. Mary's, Stoke Newington, St. Andrew's, Ashley Place, London, and the Cathedral of St. John, Newfoundland. To him we owe several fine country houses, like Kelham Hall, near Newark, Walton House, Warwick, and Ripbrook House, near Dorking.

W. S. Sparrow.

A viii

NOTES ON PORTRAITS OF SOME LEADING ACADEMICIANS

^^^^^^^^^&A IDE by side with the history of achievement in ^^^^^^^ art there must have been going on in each ^^^"^■^ lllx succeeding generation, overlapping from one to ^^-?S\2]^W^\ the other, the story of friendships made by W ^VmIx^^ drawn together by the practice of the

uu //^^J-^^A^^^"^^ crafts ; there must have been the social life, where opinions were formed and ex- ^"'"^ "^^^ pressed which ultimately took shape ; and in dealing with a record of the Academy, this social life is out of place, except in so far as it finds expression in the business of the institution. But the portraits chosen for reproduction just hint at this side of things, and it is permissible to believe that several of them were inspired by friendship. It is seldom on record that a painter commissions his own portrait from a fellow painter. In some cases, of course, the distinction of the sitter made it a profitable speculation to publish in an engraving his portrait, or, as in the case of the Presidents, portraits were commissioned by the members themselves or the interested public. The love of artists for that form of self-analysis which displays itself in the portray- ing of their own features has been often attributed to the vanity supposed to be consistent with the artistic temperament. No love of his own features in some cases could have betrayed the all too sensitive artist into this indiscretion. But the belief which has carried most painters forward in their endeavour — the belief in the verdict of posterity in their favour, is the particular form of vanity with which they may be charged. The shuffling of the cards in the hands of Time has altered the position of many a favourite, and brought forward from comparative obscurity others whose belief in themselves could alone have sustained them against their adversities. There are cases such as that of Bartolozzi's in which affection dictated many portraits of him, and in his case we have an instance of one who counted on the popularity of his work in his own time, and whose name since his death has increased in reputation. In the case of Turner, towards the end of his life more than one portrait-sketch may have been provoked by his eccentricity, and the joy of the hunter was there also, for it was something to circumvent and capture a likeness of the evasive and retiring painter, who, though so anxious for the nation to have the best of all his work,

L A i

NOTES ON PORTRAITS OF SOME LEADING ACADEMICIANS sought ever to efface himself. A right instinct as to the value that would eventually be set on the genius of Turner gave persistency to the endeavours of his contemporaries to picture him as he w^s. His portrait of himself as a young man is the portrait of that side of him which lives in his art. The drawing by George Dance, which is reproduced, is a sympathetic rendering of the noble cast of his features, always retained, though as old age advanced, and with it growing eccentricity and indifference to appearances, it became less patent to those who were not sympathetic.

Bartolozzi seems to have been one of the most beloved of the members who first constituted the Academy ; the kindly heavy face is well portrayed in the Engraving reproduced, and seems to be an excellent likeness, judging by the fact that the picture in the National Portrait Gallery of the famous engraver by Opie, although full-face, attri- butes a similar expression of smiling common sense to the sitter. And the engraving reproduced of Carlini, Bartolozzi and Cipriani does not show any of that confliction in the matter of likeness, which in many cases makes it so difficult to know exactly how this or that painter may have looked at any period of his life. In his calling Bartolozzi was so frequently associated with Cipriani, who more than any one else furnished the paintings and drawings for his graver^ that a picture including them both gathers some interest as a portrait of two friends of whose happy co-operation we see the outcome in so many works of genius. In this picture he has, with his fine clothes, all the air of prosperity that his talents and his personal popu- larity brought him. This painting has also the title of " Three Italian Artists," and was painted by Rigaud as a pendant to the portraits of " Three English Artists " (Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sir William Chambers and Joseph Walton), a painter, an architect, and a sculptor. Another portrait of Sir William Chambers engraved by Houston is also reproduced.

The portrait that we give of Benjamin West shows him as he was as President, and behind him, on an easel, is depicted a painting, in all probability " Death on the Pale Horse," a subject upon which he was engaged about this time. There is another portrait of West in the National Portrait Gallery, painted by Gilbert Stuart. Some of the most interesting and reliable contemporary portraits arc by George Dance, R.A. It were well if in every generation there were some able artist who would give to posterity these valuable souvenirs of celebrated painters of his time, for from studies such as these one gains a truer impression of the individuality of their subject than from the formal poses and conventional attributes of large L A ii

PORTRAIT OF J. M. W. TURNER, R.A.

BY CHARLES TURNER, A. R.A.

From the Painting m the Collection of C. M. W. Turner, Esq.

NOTES ON PORTRAITS OF SOME LEADING ACADEMICIANS

canvases. Cosway has left a monument to himself and his art in a miniature in the National Portrait Gallery. Very similar in pose to the portrait of Northcote in the engraving, here reproduced, is the picture of him in the same gallery, although the one there was painted by himself, and that from which the illustration is taken is by Harlow. For some reason Fuseli appears to have had no great admiration for the face of his fellow Academician, since he said, in describing Northcote's nervous face, that it looked like a rat which had seen a cat.

The portrait of Fuseli here reproduced illuminates this remark. One sees in the face there portrayed of that self-centred Academician a certain cynicism and downrightness that would lend emphasis to such a remark, and this is borne out by the impetuosity depicted in the face in the Artists' Gallery. There is also a portrait of this painter in the National Gallery. To George Dance again we are indebted for the fine drawing of Hoppner. In the engraving by Cousins after the portrait of Sir Thomas Lawrence we are shown him, except for a small palette in his hand, exactly as he is in Evans' portrait in the Portrait Gallery. The engraving is after the painting by Lawrence of himself now in the possession of the Royal Academy, from which Richard Evans copied the one in the Portrait Gallery, and save for the palette which he added, it would be difficult to dis- tinguish them if placed side by side.

There is a portrait of Flaxman in the Gallery by George Romncy, representing him modelling the bust of Hayley, whose son, a pupil of Flaxman's, is introduced into the picture. It cannot by any means be considered a good Romney, and was apparently sketched in quite rapidly after the manner of some of his paintings of women, though entirely lacking the mastery that characterises his sketches of Lady Hamilton. A far better likeness of the sculptor, we may presume, is the engraving by C. Turner after the portrait by Jackson. There is a portrait of Sir William Beechey in the National Portrait Gallery begun by himself, and finished from the life by John Wood ; the illustration is after a drawing by W. Evans. In the same Gallery there is a portrait of Eastlake in the painting of the " Fine Arts Commission " Meeting at Whitehall in 1846. This picture contains twenty-eight portraits, and was painted by John Partridge, but has now fallen into such a state of decay through the artist's use of injurious mediums, that it is no longer fit for exhibition, though a photographic reproduction is to be seen in the National Portrait Gallery. In the same Gallery there is an interesting portrait of Alderman Boy dell. He was Lord Mayor of London in 1791, and is

L A iii

NOTES ON PORTRAITS OF SOME LEADING ACADEMICIANS painted in robes. To his enterprise and encouragement many of the engravers of the early nineteenth century owe some measure of their success, and not a few of the originals from which the reproductions in the Engravers' section were taken were published originally by him. The portrait of Nollekens in the National Portrait Gallery shows the successful sculptor with a kindly humorous face, but he is described on the label of the frame as an " Eminent sculptor, and noted for his parsimonious habits " — surely a quite superfluous commemoration. In a special plate is given another portrait of the sculptor. In the Painters' section, as representative of ZofFany's art, there is reproduced his portrait of Gainsborough in the National Gallery, thus serving, as in several other cases, the double purpose of representing by one plate the work of one Academician and the portrait of another.

T. Martin Wood.

L A iv

A 1. PORTRAIT OF SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P.R.A.

Aft.ei' an Engraving by Valentine Green, A.R.A.

(Print lent by Messrs. Maggs Bros.)

From the Painting Sir Joshua Reynold

A 3. PORTRAIT OF FRANCESCO BARTOLOZZI, R.A.

After an Engraving by I. Bouillard

From the Drawing by P. Violet

A 7. PORTRAIT OF PHILIP JAMES DE LOUTHERBOURG, R.A.

After an Engraving by H. Meyer

From the Drawing by J. Jackson

A 8. PORTRAIT OF JAMES NOBTHCOTE, E.A.

(Frmt lent by Messrs. Maggs Bros. j

A 11. PORTRAIT OF JOHN HOPPNEa, R./V.

A 16. PORTRAIT OF J. M. W. TURNER, R.A.

After a Lithograph from the Drawing by George Dance, R..A.

(Drawn m Turner's 25th Year)