340° 
every name. But the landscapes of G.-F. 
Robson (35 in No.) of G. Barret (32, 
yet less numerous than meritorious), of P. 
Dewen (only 9), some of the 54 of the 
fertile Copley Fielding, and of the larger 
ones of Varley, seized particularly on our 
attention. In those of Robson, we were 
particularly captivated with what may be 
ealled his atmospheric tints, which are 
almost invariably those which are most 
picturesquely, and we might say poetically, 
in harmony with the kind of subjects (the 
lake and mountain scenery) in which he 
seems principally to delight. If he spread 
not over forest-heads and mountain-tops 
the glowing tints of Glover’s ‘‘ authentic” 
evening suns, he has an object of his own, 
scarcely less delightful. It is real air we 
breathe, while we look upon his pictures, 
and the atmospheric medium,through which 
we gaze, is always such as gives, to the 
landscape, its most tranquillizing loveliness. 
His skies and clouds and mists haye a 
character in them that, accords with the 
spirit of the scene, and gives a sentiment 
even to inanimate nature. In a few in- 
stances, indeed, his pencil has wandered 
into tamer and less congenial scenes, and 
become comparatively ineffective; and in 
one has approached the chilling confines 
of the ostentatious pleasure ground, or 
ferme ornée. We hope the illiberal liberality 
of egotistical patronage, will never draw 
him within the paling. The style of Barret 
is less aerial: it has more depth of shadow, 
and more corporality, if we may so express 
ourselves: it brings its principal objects 
nearer to the eye, and is, therefore, more 
dependant upon discriminative particularity, 
and less upon the atmospheric, or modifying 
medium. It strains not the vision to the 
distant or bird’s-eye view; but brings a 
larger portion of the picture into the fore- 
ground; and, clothing it with more luxu- 
riant foliage, plunges you, at once, into its 
umbrageous recesses; yet leaves you not 
there in a palpable obscure: but is equally 
remote from the meretricious affectation of 
abrupt reliefs and elaborate detail, on the 
one hand, and murky masses of unmitigated 
shadow, on the other. His morning and 
his evening scenes (for he has several of 
both), whether the rookery or the river, 
the vista or the opening champaign be the 
principal subject, have an artist-like truth 
in their presentation. The principal fault 
we have to find with in Dewmt, is that the 
specimens he has presented are so few. His 
distant view of “‘ Ulles Water, Cumberland,”’ 
which first caught our attention, induced 
us to hunt him through the room, and we 
were disappointed in meeting with him 
only nine times in a range of 344: pictures. 
We hope the liberality of the public will 
encourage him to amend this fault. If we 
cannot assign to Copley Fielding quite as 
conspicuous a pre-eminence in merit as 
in numbers, he. has nevertheless several 
Topic of the Month :— Fine Arts. 
[May 1, 
highly meritorious pictures; and though 
we cannot yet regard his colouring as equal 
to his design and general composition, yet, 
even in this respect, his landscapes evince 
the progress of the art. We compliment 
him on the comparative abandonment of his 
faint blues, his thin-spread bistres, and his 
sickly yellows (heretofore the conspicu- 
ous feeblenesses of his style) ; but we 
are of opinion that these defects might be 
still further reformed; that a tendency to 
these tints is still predominant—that he 
wants body—that his paper is still occasion- 
ally too apparent through the thinness, 
rather than the transparency of his colours ; 
and that his pictures, occasionally at least, 
look more like the faint reflections of a 
beautiful landscape, than the vivid and 
substantial reality. ‘This mannerism has its 
charm, undoubtedly, in some eyes (as sickly 
delicacy, and feebleness of character, in the 
moral world, have also), but ours are not of 
the number. We lament that the greater 
portion of Varley’s drawings are upon too 
small a scale for any but a very minute in- 
spection, for which we had not time ; but 
those which were upon a sufficient scale 
to rivet attention, in a first and hasty sur- 
vey of so large a collection, were marked 
with the tasteful and effective boldness of 
his easy precision and expressive rapidity 
of touch. There are other exhibitors fairly 
entitled to commendatory animadversion ; 
and some of whose pictures are, perhaps, 
scarcely less worthy of specific notice than 
those to which we have alluded; but we 
have been obliged to confine ourselves to a 
few prominent features, without the 
slightest intention of invidious disparage- 
ment. The historical and fancy subjects 
are but few. Idle Richter has but one; 
but that, ‘ the School in Repose,’’ though 
not equal to his ‘‘ Widow going out of 
Mourning,” and some others that enli- 
vened former exhibitions, is sufficient to 
justify our regret that he has produced no 
more. Stephanoff has three of very dazzling 
splendour : the first of which, “the Recon- 
ciliation of Selim and Nourmahal, during 
the Feast of Roses,’’ can scarcely fail to 
be very captivating in the eyes of the poet 
it illustrates—for it is redolent of all his 
gorgeous graces—the very beau ideal of 
voluptuous grace and beauty. It is all the 
very luxury of floreage; the roses bloom 
not only in vegetative profusion, covering 
the landscape with a robe of blushes; but 
in the complexions, and in the very dra- 
pery of the clustered figures. Itisa world 
of flowers; and Sultana, Sultan, and the 
whole congregated harem, are but so many 
animated blossoms. It -is, however, in 
spite of all this dazzling glare, a very pretty 
preter-naturalism ; .and if it were in oil, in- 
stead of water-colours, we might look for- 
ward to the taming and mellowing in- 
fluence of a century, and expect its matu- 
rity into a beautiful cabinet picture. | P 
ORIGINAL 
