celli is surpassingly fine, interpreting, as it does, with a success one could hardly have hoped for in an etching, the wealth of colour and peculiar glamour of that remarkable painter's work. The plates by M. Zilcken show power in dealing with the resources of etching as etching. Their technical grasp is effective in the presentment of certain works—for instance, the picture by Mauve. But on account of Mr. Hole's frank self-surrender, and evident desire simply to render sympathetically the qualities of works in which feeling is the dominant motif, his etchings have a subtle charm transcending all technicalities. Alike in inception and execution, therefore, they are thoroughly in sympathy with the spirit of Romanticism in Art.
The focusing of so much good work of this kind in the volume under notice not only forms a peculiarly satisfactory memorial of the exhibition the book commemorates, but it should also stimulate others to emulation, and result in turning the efforts of some of our artists into a useful and beautiful direction. The poor we have always with us, in art as in life; in the nature of things the comparatively few fine pictures the world contains cannot be the property of many persons, nor can they be continually accessible. Therefore art can perform no kindlier office than in adequately transfusing the spirit of such works into forms that bring them within general reach, thus making possible the gracious presence of art of a high order in the homes and in the lives of many. No less for their intrinsic worth than for this reason these etchings are therefore especially welcome.
The sketches printed in the text show Mr. Hole's efforts in another direction, wherein he has not been so successful as with the copper. The work in these sketches is mostly 'tight'—as if the artist had been troubled in using his material. Going beyond mere outline translation of the works sketched, they attempt to give light and shade without suggesting the tonality of the pictures from which they are taken. As line sketches they go too far, and as light-and-shade sketches they are not treated in a way to make success possible. With a few exceptions — notably that of an excellent sketch of a picture by Israels, on p. 103,—they fail to catch the spirit of the works they are intended to indicate. An etching by M. Zilcken, printed in the text on p. 130, is also a good example of slight treatment adequately conveying the spirit of the picture sketched.
Turning to the letterpress, Mr. Henley's Note on Romanticism introduces the subject to the reader. It is chiefly the Romantic movement in literature that is dealt with. The field surveyed is a large one. As the result of wide research a myriad of facts are collated and compared, and deductions are made from them. The whole is presented to the reader in a well-ordered way, and in a literary style admirably lucid and pointed. Yet having regard to the wealth of noble works of which he required to treat in dealing with the Loan Collection, it is disappointing that Mr. Henley should thus linger on the threshold of the subject. Especially is this felt when, after perusal of so much information more or less germane to the matter in hand, it is found that there has not been laid down in the form of a handy definition a clear statement of the nature of Romanticism in Alt. This would have been practically useful in entering on consideration of the pictures of the Romantic Painters of France and Holland, which formed the collection under notice. It is precisely by such means that Literature may throw upon the sister arts that side-light which is the only raison-d'etre of any writing on art. In this respect Mr. Henley's thirty-six folio pages contain less of practical value than do the following pregnant sentences by Professor Sidney Colvin on the distinction between Romantic and Classical Art:—
It is a distinction much less of subject than of treatment, although to some subjects the one mode of treatment may be more appropriate, and to some the other. ... In classical art every idea is called up to the mind as nakedly as possible, and at the same time as distinctly; it is exhibited in white light, and left to produce its effect by its own unaided power. In romantic art, on the other hand, all objects are exhibited as it were through a coloured and iridescent atmosphere. . . . The temper, again, of the romantic artist is one of excitement, while the temper of the classical artist is one of self-possession. No matter what the power of his subject, the classical artist does not fail to assert his mastery over it and over himself, while the romantic artist seems as though bis subject were ever on the point of dazzling and carrying him away. On the one hand there is calm, on the other hand enthusiasm: the virtues of the one style are strength of grasp, with clearness and justice of presentment: the virtues of the other style are glow of spirit, with magic and richness of suggestion.
Mr. Henley says that craftsmanship is the strong point of the romantic artists. The opposite is surely the case, both in literary and pictorial art of this school. Byron, whom Mr. Henley justly places in the front rank among romantic writers, produces his effects not because of good, but in spite of indifferent technique. Gainsborough in his day was a romantic painter as compared with classical Sir Joshua, par excellence the stylist of English art. Yet untutored Gainsborough produced works that evoked Sir Joshua's admiration for the very fact that, in spite of technical deficiency, they achieved results quite equal to those of the accomplished Sir Joshua.
Passing from the Note on Romanticism to the rest of the literary part of the book, the sense of disappointment felt on concluding the Note is all but wholly counteracted by the admirable character of the short Biographies of artists. Mr. Henley's comprehensive grasp of facts and felicity of literary presentment have here produced excellent results, in the way of succinct narrative in which much is related and more suggested. But, besides this, in these Biographies fine discrimination and judgment are shown in 'placing' the various men. Here is a specimen from the note on Millet, of which we would gladly quote the whole did space permit:—
