SAMUEL COOK, ARTIST. 397 
the instance of Samuel Cook. Of all artists, none, perhaps, ever 
more realized in his personal appearance, manners, and character, 
what the expression of his pictures led the observer to expect. 
All the marks of superior mental and moral denotement shown 
in the paintings of Samuel Cook, were equally apparent in the 
presence of Samuel Cook himself—worthy of being Nature’s lover 
in that he was one of her own true gentlemen. 
I do not consider his drawings were ever seen to advantage in 
the Water Colour Gallery. They were so delicate in colour, and 
so wanting in all that false glare which is improvised by many 
artists, only for the exhibition room, that they frequently failed to 
attract the eye of either a purchaser or a critic, and they occasion- 
ally returned to the humble studio from which they had emanated. 
But Cook was one of the few prophets who have had honour in 
their own country, and his drawings (certainly most of his best 
works) were purchased in this locality. 
Cook never consented to ‘‘paint up for the exhibition.” To 
fully appreciate his works they should be seen apart from the glare 
of the exhibition room. His first aim appeared to be to insure a 
sufficient and proper atmospheric effect. It was this insistance that 
stamped his drawings as works of a high order. Many an inferior 
artist is satisfied to copy what he sees in Nature as literally as his 
ability to do so admits ; but the air which more or less affects all 
Nature is too often lost sight of. Another exceptional quality in 
Cook’s works was the entire absence of any manipulative dexterity. 
No witchery of the hand could ever be detected in them. The 
mind was there, and plenty of it, but the hand was an indefinable 
mystery. His colour, as I have said, was delicate almost to 
timidity ; but he certainly saw and painted more of the greys of 
Nature than most artists. 
I ventured to ask him once if he could not paint stronger 
pictures. He replied, “I am afraid if I did I should lose delicacy 
and refinement.” Doubtless, had he been a more powerful colourist, 
his works would have been far more attractive, but his subdued 
refinement of colour was typical of his physique ; he could no 
more have been a showy colourist than he could have been a 
ploughman. Thoroughly understanding the details of realistic Nature, 
which he never failed to study and admire, his drawings were 
nevertheless always more or less poems. He did not fail to see 
Nature in-prose, but when he represented her, his translation was 
