The times., 1889-06-21
plp NOT Know Asr.
Shakespeare Evidently Was Not Familiar
with Painters and Painting.


with Painters and Painting.
Considering the universal character
of Shakespeare's knowledge, it seems
at first curious that he should have
displayed no very intimate acquaint-
ance with the actual art of paint.
ing. This is the more striking
when we recollect how much ne knew
OF the details and positive techni-
que OF nearly every other profession,
calling or handicraft under the sun.
His familiarity with them, as shown
by the use of purely professional
phrases and trade words, has given
birth TO host of profound treatises
wherein the writers have striven to
demonstrate that the poet must, in
sort, have served an apprenticeship
to dozen different trades. His en-
tire accuracy in these respects is un-
doubted, and is testified to by masters
and experts. On this ground it has
been attempted to prove that in turn
he practiced as lawyer, surgeon, {.
physician, a horse dealer, butcher,
soldier, sailor, farmer, gardener
school master and heavens knows
what besides; whilst travellers have de-
clared that unless he had himself Wis
tied many of the countries he describes,
and been familiar with their Ian
guages, he could never have alluded
as he does to their numerous minute
characteristics.
am not aware, however, that any
one has been bold enough to assert
that he was painter or artist, rs we
understand the term. Nor is this won
derful, perhaps, seeing, as | have
limited, that we look in vain through
hispagesfor ranythingmoret than aquite
superficial knowledge of the use of the
palette and brushes. Indeed the words
palette and brush nowhere occur, nor
do those of easel, maulstick or any
OF the paraphernalia of the studio.
And this, repeat, is rather singular,
for if the art, with the means and ma
terials for practicing it, were uncom-
mon in England in Shakespeare's day,
they could scarcely have been so in It.
ally, Germany, Flanders or France;
and he was so conversant with the
habits of continental nations that one
would have thought the artists life
and its surroundings would not have
escaped him in detail. Yet he never
even mentions the painters brush, it
is always his pencil; :" and although
we know that the word popularity eX-
presses the instrument by which ar
tistic work is produced, it is at least
odd that the poet avoids the use OF it's
literal synonym, especially remem-
bering the vast scope of his vocabulary.
- = The artist (Timon of Ath-
ens) talks no shop" tells nothing
about his models who sat to him, or
the difficulty of getting the sort of
heads he wants. Nothing is revealed
as to the technique, or the system of
priming the canvas, or laying in this
or that color first-or what, III q word,
the process and progress of the work
have been, as, l submit, might fairly
have been expected. Neither is any
further clew offered as to the nature of
the subject, nor any hint as to its di-
mensions; but later on, when tho pa
tron Timon sees it, he commends it,
and in spicing his admiration with
some philosophic moralizing, pays
Just tribute to the noble art thus:
Painting is welcome.
Painting is almost the natural man:
For since dishonor traffics with mans nature,
He is but outside; these penciled figures are
Even such es they give out. like your work;
And you shall find like it.
If this significant promise was
never performed, it was Master Paint
er's own fault, and he was rightly
served. In the last act of the play we
discover what he really is; and if our
heaven gifted "Swan of Avon" in
tended to typify in him the artistic
character generally, we can only say
his opinion of it was not high. Would
it be a terrible hcresy to add that it
also betrays the shallowness of his ac-
quaintance, if not with the art of
painting, at least with its professors2
The scene is too long to quote, but it
is little less than a libel upon the
whole community to have it exem-
plified in the person of such a mean,
contemplate, fawning sycophant as
the painter shows himself.-Magazine
of Art
Josh Billings Philosophy,