New-York tribune., 1919-09-14

VIC lHIcIlOT IuCfuDeTS OIL tnc OrAOc
The eighteenth century opened with
kneller in position as supreme as
Reynolds, later. But as time passed
the younger generation slowly freed it.
self. Richardson and Hudson were
hardly capable Of Bolshevism; but
when we know enough to marshal and
sift their works we shall recognize
that by a sustained series of good por-
traits they accomplished the prelimi-
nary needed steps in the gradual evo-
luton to which we have referred We
suggest, in passing, that in place Of
the mediocre Kneller portrait of Byng,
reproduced at page 76 in these His
torical Portraits, some justice would
have been done, and far better por-
trait given, by reproducing either of
Lord Strafford's pictures by Hudson.
And IN this context we might also ask
why Hogarth's fine Dublin portrait of
General Wade was not preferred to the
feeble effort of Van Diest. Joseph
Highmore, more important link, who
werp and so enlarging the technique Of
English portraiture, took longer
stride. he was not only one of our
earliest etchers and a draughtsman Of
grace and spirit, but also he developed
freedom of technique unthinkable in
Hudson or Richardson, and. radically
different from the freedom of Sir God
frey. His portrait of Samuel Richard
son in this series gives poor idea Of
him. and the attribution to him of the
general Wolfe" is very doubtful. SO
scanty is our knowledge of this period
that When portraits of surprising cx-
cellence and modernity, by men as
Ettle known as knapton, Thomas Hill
! or George Beare. are casually thrown
up from the obscurity, we cape as at
phenomena and put them down as
freaks.
But the iuster view would be that
work Of this kind, sound in craftsman
snip, living In character and rrevo-
cably severed from the manner of Dahl
and kneller, was going quietly on.
making the natural environment for
the splendid Reynolds and the brill
liant, more perceptive, Gainsborough
Some taTdy recognition of this quiet
uncercurrcnt OF cmancipated English
portraiture has been made at the Ma
tional Gallery by the acquisition Of a
little wholelength by Arthur Devils, ST..
painted apparently in tho 17505 None
would pit its modest charm and simple
competence against the rhetorical
splondor OF a Reynolds or the genius
of a Gainsborough. But in its indica-
tion of a distinct English tradition OF
portrature, Naf.ccted by The Kucller
schoo! and grown past the stage of
stiffness that always hampered Hud-
SON, it is significant. II we are eau
toned not to make too much Of these
rare manifestations, We may fairly an
swcr taat in our present state Of gno-
rance the onus lies on US to prove that
they really are so rare as to be practi-
cally negligible.
The spiendor and the genius OF Reyn-
olds and Gainsborough are handsome
~ rendered in this volume. We may in
deed agree with Mr.. Bell that in eigh-
teenth century portraiturc England
takes the lead. We might, indeed, 90
! further and ask when before in the
history of portrait painting so brilliant
and prolific a team OF painters had
cone into the field. Greater men. o,
course, had played a solitary Innings
but has there been before or s.nce a
side so strong in combination as K yn-
olds, iusborough, Ronnoy, Haeburn
and the young Lawrence.
English portraituro form 100 to 1850
took the usual course. First cmanci-
patton from old influences, hardly and
obscurcly gained by pioneers, then a
period of rich maturity lnsting nearly
forty years, followed by u long and
steep decline. AS Mr.. Bell says, Rcyn-
olds's effect on English art was s,er.-
ilzing, for the younger generation wa,
not made OF the right stuff to rebel
Hoppncr. sloppy craftsman, was a
popular success; Lawrence. who could
draw and paint, was dull and com.
mon mind; both were too succo ssful
and content TO trouble. Lawrence's ef.
feet was as steri.zing as Keyno ds's
for artistic dictatorship By artists o!
social eminence is fatal to a,t. 1t was
also more disastrous. Campbell's witty
description of his portrait by Lawrence
which made him "seem to have 90,
into drawing room in the mansion:
Of the blest and to be looking at him
self in the mirrors" is ludicrousl,
justified by the portrait Of Canning, re
produced in Part Il-an admiraol,
illustration Of the cheap and common
vein Of Lawrerce's mind. 1t is no
surprising that his following, composed
of Harlow, Phillips, Lane, Pickersgill
Simpson, Partridge and the rest, pro
duced so little that is interesting.
Mr.. Fletcher's share in this series i
Of great value. His biographies brin,
under fire virtually the whole of Eng
lish history between 100 ana 1886
and few Of them are not lit with neN
interest. We can imagine that in ques
tions of aesthetic criticism his persona
view will not be unchallonged Pos
sbly his estimate of Raeburn is to