The Portland daily press., 1879-02-28
The Artist MiIlais.


With regard to Mllais, am in doubt wheth.
er can make my readers clearly understand
10 few words the extraordinary merits and
defects OF his work. Every one knows what
MS early work was; every one remembers the
ophelia and the Huguenots, and perhaps some
have seen the Apple-Blossoms, the most typi-
cal works of the painter in his younger days.
Many OF my readers are probably also readers
of Anthony Trollope's works, and if they will
take the trouble to turn to Framley Parsonage
or the Small House at Arlington, or best of all
Orley Farm, they will be in q position to Judge
of what Millais might have done, as well
as what he has done. In those early pre-
Raphaelite days (Millais was ole of the three
original "Brethren'') there were three things
that Millais did bstter than they had ever been
done before. The first ana the greatest was
the expression of emotion; the second was the
power OF investing the most simple incidents
with grace and beauty which have only been
equaled by one man (Fred Walker), whose work
will speak of directly TIE third was the repro.
duction of animal and inanimate nature faith
fally, and yet in perfect combination ard snb-
ordination to his chief subject Had he cor.
tinued as he began, had he lent to the pre-
Raphelite school the influence of his keen
sense OF beauty, both of emotion and nature. IL
Is impossible to say what the English school
might not have been at the present time. L do
not Judge OF any mans motives, and L will not
raise the question here, but from one cause or
another, Millais fOrsook his old ways, gradual
ly turned his attention to portrait and land
scape painting, became fashionable and threw
MS influence mainly against the school he had
once belonged to. When 1 think of tha
"Ophelia" and ''The Huguenots," and then Of
the series OF pictures called "Yes," "No," and
YES or No." the change seems to me almost
patnetc-that painter should begin bis work
with the noblest deeds of self-sacrifice and end
Dy paint Dg drown ulster" and beeteater's
uniform, for those are practically the chief
saolects OF the two last large hgure-paintings
OF THIS artist! Ths realism is still there, my
readers will perhaps say. Yes; that is iust the
whole point OF the question. That is just
what want to lead my readers to see clearly.
If may, In this article-tbat realism Is not
noble 10 Itself, II 1t have no higher object. Re-
alizing an inkstand or an ulster, will not give
you picture; what you want to realize is the
beauty which dwells in nature, and also the
relative degree in which various natural objects
possess 1t; and you can not stop even there
that Will M give you beauty, but onlg that of
DEATH The next is the all-important step,
the one which can only be taken by one
man in thousand, and which he must take.
unless he is false to his art and to himself.
This is simply the connection of material beau
space to dwell longer upon this. should like
to try and show how all nature really depends
for its chief interest on humanity; how dead
and cold it becomes the instant all trace Of
mans thought interest, and emotion is re-
moved from it. 1 once tried to show this lin an
article devoted to the purpose) to the readers Of
the Spectator, and straightway lot of WISE
a,res thought wanted q man in the fore
ground of every picture, and set TO and abused
me for so doing. So it is with fear and trem-
bling that let this sentence stsnd-that the
simple copying of nature, no matter how mi
mute or skillful, will never make q great pic
ture, or great artist. An artist must not only
see more clearly than other people-he must
also see more; he must, if he is to be an artist
in anything bat name, see those hidden signif-
canoes in commonplace Thugs; that poetry Of
the ordinary which, in another form, is re-
vealed to us by the poet. Like him, too, his
work must be-
"Bravely furnished all abroad to fling
The winged shafts of truth;
To throng with stately boUms the breathing spring
OF Hope and YOutn.o