302
NOTES AND QUERIES. [n s. x. OCT. 17,
together, and often in the most exquisite
manner, though they might be books
of little consideration in the eyes of the
general public as, for example, ' The
Boy's Own Book,' published by D. Bogue,
without date, in 1849. He and his co-
illustrators in this book made a group repre-
sentative of the best artists of the day.
Gilbert also did subject illustrations fre-
quently, as for The British Workman, where
his drawing on the front page was the
attraction, there being no story except that
which he pictured.
Most of the biographers mention the number of pages required to catalogue the books illustrated by Gilbert in the National Library Catalogue. I find about 124 dif- ferent books, but I doubt if that represents more than a fifth of the number he illus- trated, for the artist's name is not given in this Catalogue unless actually mentioned on the title-page of the book ; in. the Preface or elsewhere is not sufficient.
Though Gilbert seems to have drawn any- thing to order, he was never under the neces- sity of doing " pot-boilers," like so many of his brother-artists. All was fish that came to his net, even fashion plates (see The Illustrated London News, 4 Dec., 1847, p. 372) and swimming, for in my book on that subject I find several references to his woodcuts. One full of action is repro- duced on p. 276. If at the time I had known there were such things as proofs to be got, that should have been reproduced from a proof, not a print.
Greatly do I regret that I am unable to give any account of the " woodpecker " who was Gilbert's skilful ally in all this London Journal work, and, I have little doubt, sup- plied many omissions. As I have said (11 S. vii. 222), I never noticed his name until lately. I refer to Walter Gorway, whose work, in point of technical skill, as shown in the proofs of The London Journal illustrations in the Print-Room, I should think must have been of the highest. I do not find his name anywhere. Is anything known of him ? A similar question might be asked with regard to C. M. Gorway, and also H. White, a wood engraver who put his initials only to one of Gilbert's cuts on 5 Aug., 1848 but his name in full on 10 March, 1849, to a splendid drawing (I ought to say picture in black and white) by Gilbert of ten figures and a dog in a public- house bar, illustrating the tale of ' Godfrey Malvern.'
When one thinks of the hard, carefully studied, yet unnatural and ill-at-ease pro-
ductions of other artists who have attempted
drawing on wood without the early educa-
tion which was absolutely indispensable
take, for example, one of the greatest of
them, Sir J. E. Millais the work of Sir John
Gilbert appears the more extraordinary. It
is the very reverse of that of Millais, being
soft, hit off apparently without study or
thought, and perfectly at ease. In examin-
ing Gilbert's illustrations, we are fortu-
nately not confined to the roughly printed
examples in the popular periodicals. The
Print - Boom possesses twenty carefully
printed proofs from the woodblocks of
Smith's romance ' Minnigrey,' acquired by
purchase in 1 894. From these can be seen the
vast difference between proofs and prints.
The Victoria and Albert Museum also has
several volumes of Dalziel proofs, though
none are of those in The London Journal.
It would not surprise me to hear that Gilbert never saw any of The London Journal proofs ; indeed, it is to be hoped he did not, for truly great must have been his grief at the terrible deterioration in the Journal of his and the wood engraver's skilful work. In the proofs the lines look like those of a copperplate etching, and it is difficult to imagine that the rough illustrations printed off by hundreds of thousands in The London Journal are from the same woodblocks, as they undoubtedly must be, for reproduction by process was not then known.
John Gilbert, painter and illustrator, and George Cruikshank, illustrator, but not v successful painter, were both able to work for upwards of seventy years, so no wonder the amount of their output was enormous. As the ' D.N.B.' says, " Gilbert's fertility and quickness were amazing " ; but Gilbert had a great advantage in that he had to draw only once, whereas Cruikshank had to make first a rough sketch he often made several and then the final drawing, fre- quently traced first on the copper ; and then, having drawn it on the copper, had to bite it in, the last process often taking as long as or longer than the drawing. Gilbert could thus produce three illustrations to Cruikshank's one.*
- Cruikshank was more fortunate than Gilbert,
as he got into the Royal Academy Schools : hut when he complained that he could not find a seat, he was told to " fight for one " (Jerrold's ' Life of Cruikshank,' 1883). According to The Spectator (6 Dec., 1862, p. 1359) Cruikshank was originally placed in a lawyer's office, where he made caricatures of his master and fellow- clerks. That he ever was in an attorney's office I should like to see confirmed ; but if he was, nobody will doubt that he caricatured everybody*
