142 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[May, 



strained affection, of blind partiality shutting its eyes to all sober, 

 disagreeable trutbs. The example of ancient Greece is almost sure 

 lo be quoted on every occasion of the kind : yet what did art effect 

 there? it merely softened and refined manners, without purifying 

 morals, being in itself sensual, and often grossly so — to such a degree, 

 in fact, that it might be supposed to have been intended to coun- 

 tenance human vice by examples of deified profligacy — to sanction 

 depravity, and invest the most shocking turpitude with alluring 

 elegance conferred upon it by a master hand. If we turn to art during 

 its palmy state in more modern times, our scepticism as to the efficacy 

 claimed for it is not greatly diminished, when we observe the not 

 particularly laudable versatility of talent with which subjects the very 

 antipodes of each other in sentiment have been treated with equal 

 guslo by some of the first masters — those who have obtained credit 

 for having been almost inspired in many of their sacred compositions. 

 Their sympathies seem to have been so truly Catholic, that nothing 

 came amiss to their pencils. A Venus or a Virgin, a Magdalen or a 

 Messalina, the seven sacraments or a lewd bacchanalian revel, have 

 been treated by them with apparently the very same relish and 

 sincerity of feeling. He who worked one day for the church and 

 the devout, attempting themes celestial, glorified saints, and the 

 supernal paradise itself with its angelic hosts, could, the next, work, 

 nothing loth, for the carnal-minded and profane, and depict, with far 

 more of nature than decorum, the libidinous amours of the heathen 

 Olympians. The fact itself is indisputable ; but then have we not 

 acted unadvisedly, in calling attention to what seems fatal to our own 

 side of the argument— that is, supposing our real intention be to advo- 

 cate the introduction of [minting into our own churches ? 



Most certainly we should have kept such awkward and disagreeable 

 events, by urging only what w-ould show it to be of paramount and 

 all truth out of sight, did we either only seek to recommend painting at 

 unimpeachable excellence, or else imagine what we have thus frankly 

 stated to be in itself a fatal and insurmountable objection. Now, we 

 do not hold, as many others appear to do, that there is any abstract 

 unconditional merit either in painting, poetry, or any other of the fine 

 arts, let the talent— or, if it pleases better, the genius— exerted upon 

 them be how excellent soever in itself. It is not the power actually 

 manifested, but the aim to which they are directed, that renders litera- 

 ture and art a blessing or a curse and pestilence to society, accordingly 

 as they bring with them " airs from heaven, or blasts from hell." We 

 neither claim nor recognise for them any prerogative divine ; so very 

 far from it, that we abhor the cant which endeavours to do both. We 

 do not see, therefore, how the laudable use of art can be made to jus- 

 tify the abuse of it, or how its perversion can fairly be employed as 

 an argument against the application of it to a meritorious purpose. 

 Neither are we of opinion that Protestantism is so utterly irreconci- 

 lable with painting, as to be unable to avail itself of it without in some 

 degree compromising its principles and character. On the contrary, 

 it appears to us that it would in one respect be more favourable to art 

 than even Roman Catholicism, inasmuch as it would confine it to its 

 legitimate sphere — that of illustrating events recorded in Scripture ; 

 and would prohibit all those offensive extravagances which, in Catholic 

 countries, the pencil has been allowed to indulge in, such as represent- 

 ations of the Deity himself, and spiritual and invisible existences on 

 the one hand, and insipid groups of the Virgin and favourite patron 

 saints, together with traditionary legends and similar fancies, on the 

 tother. Nothing can be more shockingly irreverent, yet absurdly 

 puerile withal, than the anthropomorphism which presumes to image 

 forth the First Person of the Trinity under a figure and countenance 

 bearing more than an accidental resemblance to the personification of 

 the supreme Jove, the father of the gods, by the ancient sculptors. 

 The Protestant church, again, recognizes no female divinities, nor any 

 of those other divine personages to whom the polytheism of modern 

 Rome has erected altars ; its artists would, therefore, be in no danger 

 whatever of following too closely in the footsteps of Catholic painters. 

 Whether or not they would, in consequence, be prohibited from ap- 

 proaching subjects which, partaking as they do of the fancies and 

 fictions of a semi-paganism, afford a freer scope for the imagination 



and for the pencil than the mere records of Holy Writ, so that it would 

 be disadvantageously fettered down to literal truths, is what we leave 

 others to decide ; only remarking, that if fiction be essential to the 

 poetry of art, the Romish church possesses that element of poetry and 

 artistical inspiration more abundantly than its followers will care to 

 aUow. 



Let the pencil be strictly confined to such subjects as are supplied 

 by the historic records of the sacred writings, nor presume to reveal 

 to mortal eye the visions of a world to come — mysteries beyond the 

 faculties of finite beings to conceive— even to adumbrate in the most 

 inspired flights of poetry, much less to shape and budy forth tangibly 

 to the sense of vision. We strongly protest against such awful im- 

 pieties of art as are some "Last Judgments," even though as works of 

 the pencil they may seem almost superhuman achievements. Con- 

 sidered calmlvyet seriou-ily, what are the most miraculous productions 

 of the kind, other than splendid absurdities, gorgeous incongruities, 

 sublime jiuerilities ; in a vcord, the extravagance and the impotence 

 of art? Let their asthetic worth be ever so great, representations of 

 that kind must in themselves be mere conceits, because that is attempted 

 to be visibly embodied which in itself utterly surpasses conception; 

 accordingly, except as performances of art, they are not superior to 

 the vulgar, rude, bugbear pictures of purgatory so common in Roman 

 Catholic countries. But if the reader cares to be further edified on 

 this topic, let him peruse George Forster's criticism on Rubens' cele- 

 brated Last Judgment at Dusseldorff. 



There is no danger of our adopting such solemn extravagancies of 

 the pencil; but there most unquestionably is not only a strong prejudice 

 against countenancing painting in our churches, but it seems to be as- 

 sumed that, even were we disposed to do so, the spirit of Protestantism 

 itself is so uncongenial to that warmth of rapturous fancy, without which 

 the artist can neither worthily conceive nor finish up his conceptions of 

 subjects which ought to awaken corresponding emotions of reverence 

 in the spectator, that all patronage and encouragement would prove 

 totally unavailing — would be attended with no other effect than that 

 of furnishing employment to painters and colour-manufacturers. It is 

 far more easy to make similar assertions than to disprove them, for 

 the simple reason that no opportunity has been aftbrded of putting 

 them to the test, by any practical effort to demonstrate their futility 

 by proving the contrary. Fac periculum would, therefore, be our 

 advice. Yet when Reynolds and many of the Academicians of that 

 day offered to the Dean and Chapter to decorate St. Paul's with 

 paintings gratuitously, the scheme was frustrated by the opposition of 

 the then Bishop of London, who refused his consent on the grounds 

 that it would be introducing Popery into the metropolitan cathedral, 

 or rather, we presume, out of the apprehension of its being so con- 

 strued by others. It is not every Protestant clergyman, however, who 

 entertains the same scruples, for among Dr. Vicesimus Knox's Essays 

 there is one which warmly recommends the adornment of churches 

 with paintings, as being at all events harmless and unobjectionable, 

 and likely to be sometimes efficaciously impressive. If, indeed, it can 

 be shown that, so far from tending to promote devotional feeling in 

 any degree, pictures in churches would be calculated to produce a 

 contrary effect, the repugnance to them would be rational and laudable. 

 But to reject merely because the Romish church adopts them, seems 

 to us to savour quite as much of indiscretion as of sound policy j since 

 by laying too great stress upon what is utterly matter of indifference 

 as far as concerns the principles of the two churches, we elevate it 

 into a sort of virtual distinction, if which were repealed, there would 

 be danger of Protestantism and Popery being confounded together. 

 Surely the irreconcilability of their respective doctrines and tenets 

 might suffice to remove all apprehensions of such nature ; moreover 

 an argument on the other side might with equal propriety be founded 

 in favour of painting, inasiuuch as the introduction of it would serve 

 as an additional distinction between the Established church and all the 

 sects who dissent from it. Almost might it be imagined that painting 

 was the very badge and livery of Rome— the mark of the Beast— from 

 whom it behoves us to keep aloof; whereas intruthitis neither essen- 

 tial to Popery, nor at variance with Protestantism. Were St. Pau I's 



