is that of a highly-nerved, somewhat physically irritable and intelligent person of the nineteenth century. The awful burden he bore, and the awfulness of his task, have not sufficed to open that countenance with glory. Possibly this will be the first thought of those who are nothing if not critical, and who never look at a picture without asking what they can find against it. But a little reflection shows us that Mr. Herbert's view of Moses is right as well as original. The general representation has that amount of conventional grandeur which pleases at the first view, and leaves the mind unsatisfied. Kaulbach's Moses is a good instance of this; it is a fine model, reminding you partly of Michael Angelo, partly of When Pan to Moses lent his Pagan horn.' We naturally suppose that the man who led his people out of Egypt, who subdued Pharaoh, made the Red Sea divide, and smote the rock, must have had a grand presence and majestic features. Yet if we remember the true effect of such a mission as that of Moses, and the character of Moses himself as we find it in the Bible, we shall be more apt to side with Mr. Herbert. An old man who had fasted forty days and forty nights, who had been in the presence of the terrible God of the Hebrews, interceding for a stiff-necked people, and remembering what had been done when he was absent before, might well be bowed down beneath his awful burden. We have many proofs of the diffidence of the character of Moses, his reluctance to be sent to Pharaoh, his Who am I that I should bring forth the 'children of Israel out of Egypt?' He declared that the children of Israel would not believe him when he said that he had seen God. Pharaoh would not listen to him, for he was of uncircumcised lips. He could not expect to convince either Israelites or Egyptians, for he was slow of speech and of a slow tongue. Lest it should be thought that all this was changed by his Divine legation, he says, 'I am not eloquent, neither 'heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant.' Mr. Herbert is, we think, the first painter who has divested the sacred legislator of adventitious solemnity and conventional marks of power, and substituted for them the worn countenance and wasted frame of a chief who leads an army through the desert, and confers upon them laws destined to maintain a moral dominion over all the generations of mankind.

One reason why Mr. Herbert's picture is so worthy of its fame is, that the painter never grudged labour or loss upon it. In 1850 he was commissioned to paint nine frescoes in the Peers' Robing Room at the price of 9,000l. For several years before he had been earning nearly 2,000l. a-year, yet he was

6

willing to give up nine years to work for about half the sum. When he found that the fresco process was imperfect, he unhesitatingly obliterated his work, and began it anew in the water-glass method. He was to have received 2,000l. for the 'Moses,' but the commission appointed in 1864 recommended that the price should be raised to 5,000l. The same sum is to be paid to Mr. Maclise for the Death of Nelson,' and, of course, for the Meeting at La Belle Alliance.' It is plain that when the thought of decorating the Houses of Parliament with frescoes was first entertained, no great expense was anticipated. Mr. Dyce said he understood that in Munich Professor Schnorr was paid at the rate of 500l. a-year, which would be equal to 7007. in this country, and had to pay his assistants. For this sum Mr. Dyce thought the services of the chief English artists might be commanded, those at least who ' are engaged in subjects of fancy. The services of those who

Mr.

'paint portraits would not be obtained at that sum, but I believe 'it is taking a high average to state the income of the more ' respectable artists of this country at 500l. a-year.' Accordingly the first frescoes in the House of Lords were ordered at the rate of 4007. for the cartoon, and 4001. for the fresco. Dyce was to paint the Legend of King Arthur' in the Queen's Robing Room, and to receive 8001. a-year for six years. The eight compartments in the Peers' and Commons' corridors were to have been painted in oil, and 5007, was to have been paid for the first picture, and 450l. for each of the remainder. But when frescoes were substituted the remuneration for each was raised to 6007. The truth is, that the artists to whom we are indebted for these works have made immense sacrifices of time and of money to the public; and, what is more, they have not scrupled, in seeking to extend and improve their powers in art, to risk the reputation they had previously acquired in it They are entitled not only to an ample remuneration whic Parliament will not grudge to any great and successful work and they are entitled to adequate payment and respectf consideration, even when they have been less completely s cessful. For whatever the result may be, these eminent n have willingly devoted the best years of their lives to the w which was pressed upon them by the late Prince Consort the Government in the name of the nation. We should be to think that these just principles have never been lo stsig

The prices paid are not extravagant, though of course what higher than those paid in Germany. It is well knowat King Louis always bought in the cheapest market. unt Raczynski states that Hess received 3,7001. for his frey's in

the Chapel of All Saints, and 5,000l. for those in the Basilica of St. Boniface. For the Nibelungen halls in the palace, Schnorr, according to the same authority, was paid 2,6007. For his frescoes from Walther von der Vogelweide in the queen's first ante-chamber, Gassen received 3601.; Folz for the Bürger room, 4601.; Kaulbach for the throne-room, 3007., and for the sleeping-chamber, 6667.; Hess for the Theocritus room, 6007. ; and Moriz von Schwind for the Tieck room, 2401. Contrast with these figures the price paid to Kaulbach for his paintings in the New Museum at Berlin-37,500l., with an allowance of 3,7507. for materials.

We are not among those who think that a nation cannot afford to pay as high prices as individuals, or that a nation cannot encourage art. The English nation can afford the very highest prices for works that are worthy of them. The truest and noblest art is that produced by popular encouragement, and not that countenanced by princely patrons. So long as royalty is content to be one of the first supporters of art, to pay liberally and to patronise tastefully, it may help, or it may lead, the general endeavour. But if royalty is to be all in all, if there is to be no appeal from the Mæcenas, if all artists are to please him or starve, the results will be such as we have seen in Munich. One patron cannot always employ a school of painters, and if national taste be left dormant while the patron's works are being executed, his painters will find themselves empty-handed when they have done all that he required. If men would read history rightly, they would always look for popular encouragement as the first essential. They would not look back to Leo X. associating with Raphael, Julius II. inspecting the ceiling of Michael Angelo, Charles V. picking up the mahl-stick of Titian, Francis I. supporting the dying Leonardo. These honours were graceful to both parties, but they were merely the expression of something far deeper. The pontiff or the monarch made himself the mouthpiece of that national admiration which had given the painters their supremacy. If modern painters would look first to the effect on he people instead of intriguing for royal favour, they would nd themselves recipients of a truer homage.

Too close an imitation of one part of artistic tradition has, believe, exercised an injurious effect on modern German Piters. They have looked first to royalty and to distinhed patronage. In painting scenes from the history of art e Loggie of the Pinacothek at Munich, Cornelius has chos incidents that reflect credit on patrons as characteristic of pinters. But in England we have suffered more by a too

in

strict adherence to another part of tradition.

Our painters

have thrown away much labour on the fresco of the Italians, which has not proved suitable to our tastes or our climate. We have shown in the course of these remarks that tradition was chiefly appealed to in proof of the excellence of fresco, and that the success of the early painters weighed with us against constant discouragement and failure. We believe that the adoption of the water-glass process will silence that argument. It is true that Mr. Barlow pronounces water-glass to be essentially the process of fresco-secco, and that good authorities consider fresco-secco inferior to buon-fresco. But the question is not if one art is inferior to another, but if it will last better than another. If water-glass is easier, more pleasing, and more durable than buon-fresco, we cannot detect its inferiority. We should rather think an easier method a gain than a loss, as it leaves the painter free to devote all his energies to his subject, instead of hampering him with his materials.

Mr. Herbert's success is to our minds the most hopeful feature of our great national undertaking. That one man has conquered the former indifference of the public leads us to a good assurance that others will follow, and when Mr. Maclise's two noble pictures are equally well known to the public, we are convinced that they will be appreciated as they well deserve to be. We do not wish other painters to imitate Mr. Herbert, to affect his deep religious feeling, or ape his peculiar execution. But we hope to see his followers undertake their subjects in the same spirit as he devoted himself to his. We hope to see them earnest and thoughtful, full of their art and not mastered by half considerations of it, patient without being sluggish. That the last few years have worked many improvements in the spirit of English art will, we think, be generally admitted. But it depends on the next few years whether these improvements will continue growing, or yield to a reaction, whether the stride we have made in advance will be followed by total exhaustion, or the words of Cornelius be fulfilled that there could not be a more admirable 'opportunity than the building of the new Houses of Parlia 'ment, not merely for illustrating English history and poetry 'but for founding a school of fresco-painting (though it be in the new method), which would emulate, if not surpass, that o any other in Europe.'*

6

* We cannot close this article without observing that an Engli amateur, Mr. Gambier Parry, of Highnam Court, near Gloucest has published a plan for painting on walls in our climate, whiche

VOL. CXXIII. NO. CCLI.

D

ART. II.--La Jeunesse de Mazarin. Par M. VICTOR COUSIN. Paris: 1865.

THIS

HIS book contains some novel and interesting details of the youth of Cardinal Mazarin, and an elaborate account of his first essay and triumph in diplomacy. Few of our readers are acquainted with this part of the life of that eminent personage. They are familiar with his successful manhood, when, pursuing the system of Richelieu, he secured the ascendency of France in Europe, and inaugurated the despotism of Louis XIV.; and, notwithstanding De Retz and Brienne, they can appreciate the subtle craft of the statesman who baffled the deadly plots of the Importans, and reduced the anarchy of the Fronde to order. But it is not likely that they have followed carefully the long game of arms and diplomacy played in the affair of the Mantuan succession-a prelude to the terrible contest between France and the House of Austria which marked the course of the seventeenth century; or that they have formed a sufficient estimate of the ability shown by Mazarin at this juncture, when as a subordinate envoy of the Pope he secured peace for a time to Italy, and, though but a youth, won the respect of the foremost generals and politicians of Europe. M. Cousin, in the volume before us, has related and elucidated this episode in the career of the

contends possesses the luminousness of fresco and the strength of oil, whilst it differs from the former by its durability even in our climate, and from the latter by the absence of that gloss which is so offensive in wall-painting, and by not being liable to darken. The composition which he employs is a mixture of wax, Elemic resin, oil of spike-lavender, and the best copal.

Mr. Leighton, we believe, has executed a large painting in this mixture at the new church at Lyndhurst in Hampshire; and certainly the exquisite decoration of the nave of Highnam Church is calculated to impress every one with a very high sense of the value of the material, and a still stronger feeling of Mr. Gambier Parry's powers as an artist. We know few things finer than the way in which the two spandrils of the nave-arch are filled by the groups of angels sweeping down on either side from the throne of the Saviour as He sits in judgment, and the beauty of the heads and figures is exceedingly striking. The work has all the qualities of luminousness, breadth, flatness, and architectural symmetry which are required by its position and character.

Mr. Gambier Parry's work at Ely Cathedral we have not seen. It is, we believe, executed in oil. and we have not a doubt that it is worthy of the great building which it serves to complete.