DEAR CHRISTOPHER, I AM not a facetious gentleman, but a very plain man, who was so struck by the critical sagacity of Cæcilius Metellus, that I could not refrain from expressing it in print. Nor can I even conjecture the meaning of Mr Barker, when he accuses me of having pronounced an Harveian oration against him. However, as he assures me that I have mistaken my man, I am ready to retract my guess, for you may remember it was nothing more; and I am sorry that Mr Barker feels annoyed at so trifling a circumstance. I never made any attack on him, but merely conjectured that it was he who wrote in the disguise of Cæcilius, from the dexterity and freedom displayed by that writer in the use of the scissors, for which we all know Mr B. is so famous; and a very excellent accomplishment for a lexicographer it is. This then should satisfy Mr Barker; so let him no longer be one of those who laso do luere Metello. It were unfair if I did not add, that in spite of my facetiousness, the said Cæcilius is a respectable scholar, and somewhat of a wag in his way, as his Greek squib on Jeffrey, a very neat little mock-heroic (which, ut obiter dicam, some of your contributors ought to translate for you) can testify; but I think all will agree that he was peculiarly deserving of my panegyric, for his authentication of your Horæ Scandicæ.

Mr Barker calls my attention to the second part of his Aristarchus AntiBlomfieldianus, and recommends it as a proper butt for the exercise of my wit. It very probably is a fit subject for such a purpose; and I shall certainly read it, as I have read the first part; but whether I shall be droll on the occasion or not, is known only to the fates. Of this he may be sure, that there is no one who more sincerely desires that the great work in which he

is engaged may be executed in a manner worthy of our national literature; and also that I think he brings with him many requisite qualifications to his task, although I agree with the Quarterly Reviewer in nearly all his objections. His answer is rather a censure on Dr Blomfield (for which purpose he has even gone so far out of his way, as to translate some dull and forgotten German criticisms on that accomplished scholar's works) than a defence of his manner of editing Thes.-Valpy, in my opinion, has acquitted himself much better in the little pamphlet, which he has served up with the last number. Still, however, the main charge, unnecessary rambling and prolixity, is unanswered. Indeed I do not recollect any objection which has received a full reply; but the book will be a great depot of Greek after all.

I now make my bow to Mr Barker, and shall not trouble him again, unless I have strong cause. In case he wishes to call on me, I am ready, at a moment's notice, to march, caligatus in agros, and scatter Harveian orations as he calls them, upon him λ Buxán; but if not, I shall remain under my own vine and fig-tree, at quiet and secure, like the men of Laish. But let him not be a blood-thirsty Danite, to come and disturb me, or perhaps I shall not give my throat to the edge of the sword as easily as these children of the Gentile. I remain, Dear Sir,

Your's sincerely,

A CONSTANT READER. LONDON, March 3, 1821.

P.S.-In my former letter, for "the most doctriniacal Seidlerus," read, meo periculo, "the most dochmiacal Seidferus." That most facete scholar being particularly sublime upon the doch

mius.

MR EDITOR,

KNOWING that you take an interest in every thing relating to the arts, that is passing in this metropolis, it may not, perhaps, prove unacceptable to you to receive, for insertion in your excellent Magazine, a few casual observations, which I have been induced to throw together, on the re-opening of the above annual and national exhibition. I shall premise my remarks by stating, that, in speaking of its various performances, I shall constantly bear in mind the real views of the Governors in founding the Institution, and shall consider the British Gallery as established for the professed purpose of encouraging the higher departments of painting. It may perhaps appear, at first sight, very difficult to assign any adequate reason for its having so completely failed of producing the effects which were so fondly anticipated by its liberal and enlightened projectors, and by the public at large; but on taking a retrospective view of its annual exhibitions of modern art, and of the species of encouragement that has been afforded, the difficulty is solved, as it will be found that the latter, probably from the taste of the day, has been chiefly bestowed upon works that ought never to have found admission into an institution, originally intended to promote the highest branches of the profession. There are other exhibitions, in which ingenious productions, in the inferior departments of the art, may be seen to advantage; but in the one in question, the line of exclusion should have been as strictly drawn as it ought to have been rigidly adhered to. True it is, that a good deal of money is annually expended at the British Gallery, but it is wrongly directed; and when we look at the pictures which are generally purchased, they will be found to consist of subjects almost exclusively belonging to the lowest description of art, which, however excellent in their kind, may be bought, throughout all eternity, without promoting one jot the higher departments of design. The old-established maxim, in domestic economy, that, "if the pence be taken care of, the pounds will take care of themselves," should be completely reversed in matters of art; for, as Sir Joshua Reynolds has well remarked in

London, March 6, 1821. his first lecture, "If the higher arts of design flourish, the inferior ends will be answered of course." I am aware, that, in a public exhibition, it is impos sible to inform the public as to what it ought to direct its encouragement, nor is it becoming, in an individual, to censure any plans for the promotion of the fine arts, which a body of noblemen and gentlemen have deemed most conducive to their advancement. I merely wish to suggest it to the can dour and discernment of these distinguished personages, whether the mode in which the British Gallery is at present filled, may not have a positive tendency to lead the public taste to the fostering of trifles, rather than to fix its attention on the nobler purposes of art. It is not encouragement that is wanted chiefly in this country, but that its encouragement should be drected into proper channels; and I will venture to assert, that if one picture only of real excellence, or even of promise, in the higher walks of painting, were yearly purchased by the Direc tors, with a view of gradually forming a National Gallery, it would do more for the perfection of arts in general, than all the sums that are annually expended on inferior productions, which, as they are now applied, only tend to promote the most lamentable of all consummations in art-mediocrity and common-place!

These charges, I am fearful, may be applied with more than usual jus tice to the collection of pictures now exhibiting at the Gallery. The st tempts at historical, or poetical com position, are far from numerous, and are extremely feeble; and even the fire and talents of Mr Hilton appear to have been completely paralyzed in his picture of " Penelope recognising Ulysses." Mr Hayter's" Venus complaining to Mars," is yet more unsuccessful; and the only picture in the Gallery that possesses any claim to attention, in the historical style, is the original sketch of Chevy Chace, by the late Mr Bird, which is preferable even to his celebrated finished picture of the same subject. The rest of the exhibi tion is chiefly filled by such subjects as "Dead Game," Ducks from Nature,"-" Fruit," "-" Vegetables," and" Still Life," &c. &c. with a due

sprinkling of Hebes, Cupids, and Venuses. It is, however, but fair to add, that many of the above humble subjects are painted with great ingenuity and nature: One of the best, and belonging possibly to a somewhat superior order, is Mr Sharp's "Broken Window," the story of which is admirably told, and the picture extremely well painted. The two slight Sketches, by Mr Wilkie, certainly add nothing to his well-acquired fame, and it is to be regretted that this very eminent artist appears insensibly departing from that simplicity and truth, which so highly distinguished his early compositions. In the inferior departments of art, the most prominent exhibitor in the Gallery is unquestionably Mr Landseer, whose admirable compositions of animals can scarcely be spoken of too highly, for their spirit, fidelity, or painting. If any fault is to be found, it arises from their possessing too great a similarity to the animals of Snyders and Reubens, which, however excellent in their kind, cannot be followed as guides, with such confidence as the productions of nature herself. Mr Landseer has quite strength enough to draw from the fountain-head at once, without condescending to follow any one, in a style in which it is evident he is formed to go before. In the same walk of art, there is an extremely good picture by Mr M. T. Ward, not very felicitously termed "the Painful Bite;" but the thought is a happy one, and the subject is represented with great truth and humour. Many other pictures, of the same class, might be added, which reflect considerable credit on their respective painters, but all are unfortunately misplaced in an Institution purposely established for the encouragement of the higher walks of art. The landscapes, for the most part, are confined to the mere representation of individual places; but there is one splendid exception in the "Wood-scene at Evening," by Mr George Barrett, (the son of the celebrated painter of that name) which unites, with great truth and beauty of colour, many of the highest excellencies of this delightful department of painting. This artist has been, for the last few years, gradually rising into public notice, and there is little doubt that, by a VOL. VIII.

strict perseverance in the course he has hitherto pursued, his industry, knowledge, and unassuming worth, will be finally crowned with success, and general estimation.

Before I conclude, Mr Editor, I have to speak of an uncommon production, that adorns the Gallery, which has burst upon us with all the splendour of a meteor-I allude to the picture of Belshazzar's Feast, painted by Mr J. Martin, a gentleman who has, for some years, been known to artists and to the public for the originality and force of his conceptions, as well as for many other excellencies in his art.-It is difficult to criticise a production which in itself must be considered as almost unique; still more difficult is it to assign the precise style of art to which it can be said to belong-It is neither strictly architectural, nor historical, nor poetical, but partakes somewhat, and in almost equal degrees, of all-The whole forms one grand scenic representation, where nothing is seen in detail, but every thing in masses admirably managed, and adapted to express the general gradations of surprise, confusion, and consternation, with which the different portions of the multitude are supposed to be impressed, according to their proximity, or remoteness, from the warning and terrible vision on the wall: No single figure, however, will bear the test of examination either with respect to drawing, character, or expression,-nor was it probably the artist's intention that they should; his object seems to have been to give the grand general features merely, of a mighty assemblage of people placed under unusual circumstances of terror, without entering into individual distinctions-In short, the figures can only be looked on as accompaniments to the scene, and ought not to be regarded as historical, any more than those introduced in the landscapes of Wilson or Claude Lorraine.-It is perfectly ridiculous, therefore, to consider the picture as an attempt at the highest styles of art-The class to which it more properly belongs is the ornamental; and, considering it in this point of view, it may probably be fairly looked upon as one of the greatest and most original efforts that has been made in this country for years. The conception of the architectural part of the

4 R