The times., 1899-08-06


Seminary of ST. Sulpiee. He then became
pupil of the Catholic Institute of Paris,
and afterward received at the Sorbonne the
degree of Licentiate aof Letters. For some
time he was professor of rhetoric IN the
free college of ST. Etienne. In course OF
time he withdrew from the church, and TINS
book, among others, is the result OF his
withdrawal.
1t is characterized by pure and high re-
ligous sentiment, by modesty of attitude,
and by beauty Of style. The translator has
done her work extremely well, and mas
preserved the delicacy and charm OF the
original French. So far as the author
opinions go, it may be said in a generai
way that he is a disciple of Emerson, put
the disciples of Emerson are of such wide
ly varying forms of belief that this is real
| ly not very definite classification.
There are sentences here and there
which are worth preserving, but the es-
| says as whole are rather uneven IN mer-
| it, and there is altogether too much quo
| tation. 1t is all very we'll for country
| clergyman, or lecturer on literature, TO
make up his sermon or discourse OF quota
! tions strung together by connecting links
| of explanation, but for the philosophical or
religious writer there is no more fatal mis-
| take. 1t may very well happen that the
! clergyman, though good man, and weil
| fitted to perform most of his multiiarlouS
duties in way which is far more Denefi-
cial to his people than the finest discourse
would be, is yet not a great original
| thinker; and it is far better for him to
| quote from those who have already writ
| ten of great truths than to waste his time
| in evolving theories of his own when he has
no bent that way.
| But when q man essays to write or re-
| iigious subjects he is addressing an audi
ence to whom his personality is nothing,
and his good works are unknown; who al
ready have before them all the writings
of the great men OF all the ages from
which to choose their thought; snd it is
his business, not to quote Emerson and
| Carlyle, but to give them whatever new
| thought or new light on an old TRUTH has
been vouchsafed TO him. II he does not 90
| this, it would be much better for people
not to buy his book, but to read their
Ruskin or Emerson and learn to under
stand these great souls, rather than give
their time to meandering with some little
soul around the library which he has only
half absorbed.
| Not that NJ. CharbonGei has made his
work tissue of quotations; far from 1t;
but he should not have quoted at all. He
has many good things to say. and he should
have said these in form as condensed
as that of a diamond, and reduced his book
to abcut one-third its present size. (Bos-
ton: Little, Brown s. Co. $1.50.)
Love in Art" by Mary Knight Potter,
is brief review of the great paintings and
statues of the world which have for their
subject love- stories, lovers, or the deities
of love. It might almost be said that the
book is written around the illustrations,
since there are thirty-six fine photcgra-
vures, each representing some famous work
of art, and the average reader will look at
the pictures first ana read the book after
ward, If az all. But the text is well writ
ten and full OF information which will be
useful to those wko wish to study the sub
ject.
The writer has taken these sculptures
and paintings in chronological order, be-
ginning with Creek art, and going on, first
to the Italian, then to the Spanish and
Dutch school, ana finally to the modern
French and English artists Among the
pictures reproduced are Botticelii's Birth
| of Venus" and later, Cabanei's painting
of the same subject; Eaphael.s "Fornari-
na," Da yinci's immortal "Monna Lisa, y
with her inscrutable smile which has puz-
zled the poets through four centuries; Mil
lais well-known Huguenot lovers, Rosset-
it's Head of the Blessed DamoZel. and
Watts Love and Death" It will be seen
! that the selection has not been made alto
gether from pictures which are known to
|
, There Is one piece of information in the
book which will interest those who have
sympathy with that born Bohemian faller
| on evil times, Fra Filippo Lippi. For {
long time it was generally stated that thi:
painter-monk carried of the young novice
Lucrezia Butt, and afterward refused th'
: Pope's permission to marry Ter. But from
some OLD documents lately unearthed i
has been discovered that the monk no
| tod no Dir Uh
| him, but gave UP his ecclesiastical rev
| enues and remained poor all his life fo
: her sake. The author says:
In al the principal works OF her husband
| Lucrezia's big, innocent eyes, wide, childlk
forehead, piquant nose, and tender mouth hav
J, been imuortaIzed. There is a grace,
patllralness and charm OF color in all Filippo'
j work. lie the first to give the Madonna
a tender earthliness, that, while it made her NOR
Z human did not detract from the exquisite purlt
| Of her face Il would as If these child
| mothers might have been proof enough, with
y out the resurrected papers, that the girl VIII
e posed for them was the well and faithfully be
T loved of the forsworn monk.
One is reminded In reading this of thos
{ lines of Browning, in which the painter
. monk says:
:. Suppose I've made her eyes all right and blue.
} Can't take breath and try to add life's flash,
3 Sorrow or Joy? Won't beauty go with these?
e II you get simple beauty and naught els
l. That's somewhat; and you'll find the soul 20
e have missed,
i Within yourself, when you return him thanks.
k A companion to this book is another
e gotten up in the same STYLE and entitle
i "Angels in Art" The text is by Clar
a Erskine Clement Among the illustration
e will be found some works by the sam
painters represented in the other volume
Il There are five Fra Angelicos, an Andre
,e del Sarto, two Filippo Lippis, Burn
I, Jones MARY Magdalene at the sepul
chre." and RENTS "Archangel M!chat
Oyerpowering Satan," besides many other
8 of equal interest.
+ The subject in itself affords material fc
a. oue of the most fascinating of psychology
= cal studies To the ordinary mind ange
/ are naturally more or less vague being
er made definite in outline only through tt
n, achievements of artists. What, then, mu
~ have been the mental processes Of the fir
,ae artist who attempted to put on canvas
~ representation of beings higher than ma
n vet like him In form and feature-beint
in inhabting g world so utterly different fro
IN this that the mind OF man cannot cor
es ceiye OF it? Add to this the fact state
&C. by Mrs. Clement that the Church for thr'
Ie centuries absolutely forbade the represeI
'iiss tation OF celestial beings In art, and II
strangeness Of this mental process is dol
bled. The artist had TO evolve his ang
ie out of his inner consciousness, and vel
De crudely he did 1t at first
& An additional complication OF the stu;
ton is the fact that the artist il mos
perhaps in all, cases, believed that his sui
"a jects were actual beings who could s.
IL. what he did, though ne could not s.
v ,11o,, Tn he preseDt hook curioiIg sfo