The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-26 00:00:00

11AY
1f41.71b' 13/4

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1853.

Already allusion has been cursorily made in
these columns to the pamphlet recently put for-
ward in reference to the formation and management
of a National Gallery by one of the most eminent
of our Royal Academicians. The question is of
such importance, however, that we cannot but re-
gard it as demanding at the hands of the journalist
the most careful and reiterated eonsideration.
Besides which, it must be especially borne in re-
collection, that the subject is one which appears
at length to have ripened from one of a merely
theoretical to one of a real practical charac-
ter. It has been acknowledged at last by
" the powers that be" that some change must
be brought about in reference to that confused and
inadequate institution, which is a disgrace to the
country at large, scarcely less by the indifferent
merit of the pictures collected together within its
walls than by the miserable appearance, both in-
ternal and external of its architecture. It has
come to pass after mature deliberation that the
necessity for this alteration has been recognised by
her Mak,resx-ses Government. In this respect, if in
no other, the memorable enterprise of 1851 has
not been unproductive of a very considerable im-
provement. Inspired, it would seem, by the
marvels which were there effected with so much
facility, the authorities have arrived at the deter-
mination to promote the encouragement of Art in
the United Kingdom by some more rational and
comprehensive system than that hitherto in vogue
with preceding Administrations. As an earnest that
some actual change of this description is about to
be effected, the surplus of the funds accumulated
by the Great Industrial Exhibition, has already
been devoted to the purchase of a site for the new
Palace of Art ; or, in other words, for a truly National
Gallery, to be dedicated at once to the conservation
of painting, sculpture, and architecture. That site,
it is by this time tolerably well known, has been
fixed at a certain cluster of market gardens situ-
ated between Bromptom and .Kensington. Re-
peatedly before this, we have taken occasion to
express our sincere regret at the prbcipitate selec-
tion of this particular spot for the great public
edifice about to be constructed. It were super-
fluous at this moment to do more than briefly
repeat our chagrin at this proceeding : for—be-
sides that the evil has been done beyond, we fear,
the possibility of reparation—our present object
is rather to comment on the method of arrang-
ing the proposed collection, than to pronounce
an opinion upon what might be considered the
most suitable locality for its arrangement.
Satisfied, as any rational judge of art might
readily be, under existing circumstances—that the
paintings stored up in that lamentable structure
in Trafalgar-square are altogether unworthy of ap-
pearing before the werld as the pictorial treasures
of a country like Great Britain, Mr. DYCE enters
at once upon the somewhat difficult inquiry as to
what might reasonably be regarded as a " National
Collection "—taking separately into account the
manner of its formation, and the system of its
management. In expounding his views upon
these subjects he indulges overmuch, we cannot
but think, in periphrase and circumlocu-
tion. Stripping his elaborate argument,
however, of all its redundant illustrations,
we find, after a careful perusal of his pamphlet—
(everything considered, one of the most remark-
able papers upon Art ever published in England)
—that he recommends in the " formation" of the
new National Gallery, completeness, and in its "man-
agement," concentration. These two words, we
believe, constitute the gist of the whole of this
lengthened ,treatise submitted to the scrutiny
of the public under the form of a letter addressed
to H.R.H. the Prince Consort, by our gifted
pamphleteer. The collection, in order to be
really a National Collection, ought, according
to Mr. DYCE, to be complete, and the
management of the Gallery ought to be
concentrated. Cordially and fully do we coin-
cide in the justice of the opinion expressed
upon these two important points by this intelli-
gent and experienced Academician.
As at present constituted, the National Gallery
is a most melancholy failure both in its formation
and in its management. Viewed as a collection,
it is literally nothing better than a jumble of odds
and ends--the merest waifs and strays picked up
at random by parties incompetent to adventure
Upon any such responsible task of selection.
Viewed as an institution, it is simply a disorderly
it
dis,d
in
fsorageat,nised body of clever but still (for the
most) insufficiently educated dilettanti. Something
moreover, veryquite obvious must be done, and that,
speedily, towards the rectification
of these evils, if we are to cherish the hope of
enabling our London Gallery to vie, in course of
time, with the Paris Louvre, or the Berlin Royal
Museum, or the Munich Pinacothek. Instead of
contenti .g ourselves with specimens of a few
masters—and even those indifferently selected—
we should, as Mr. DYCE here insists, so order the
new Gallery that it should embrace examples of
all masters of any note whatsoever. It should, in
truth, possess, above all merits, the merit of com-
pleteness. It should, in a manner, to sneak more
plainly, illustrate the history of Art from its com-
mencement. Mr. DYCE feels so strongly the necessity
ere
excellence of the pictures as altogether subordinate
of this, that he regards the question of the m