him to sing the future of Democracy in a voice of full-toned ecstasy which never shakes or falters. On the other hand, it deprives him of humour and self-criticism; it changes his consciousness of strength into an arrogance which is blind to all merit in the work or the methods of others; it inspires him with an exaggerated contempt for that Art to the principles of which his genius pays a silent and perhaps unconscious homage. Like all modern versifiers, American poets of the cultured school are characterized by scholarly refinement of thought, command of dainty fancies, and mastery of the technicalities of their art. As the special birthright of their nation, they possess fluency of language, genius for effective illustrations, and power of condensing thought into portable epigrammatic shape. Their native nimbleness of mind enables them to approach their subjects from many different points of view, each of which suggests a profusion of novel associations. It is this power that imparts to their verse the charm of freshness. Their poetry has the transparent brilliancy, the sparkle, and the sharp outline of cut glass. But it is vitreous, not opaline. There is little depth of light and shade, no flesh-tints, no broad, massive effects of colour. This class of American poetry, as the abundance of the crop seems to indicate, is the fruit of extreme culture. The soil in which it grows is never rank or coarse, but neither is it deep or rich. There is not the gusto and relish of life among cultivated Americans which seem to belong to master-minds. The climate has sharpened the mental perceptions, but dried up the marrow and the juice. The intellect preponderates over all that is emotional and spontaneous: the critical and discerning elements overpower the passionate and fervid. Refinement seems to rob the literary character of its bone and sinew, and culture to bleach its flowers of their colour. And, after all, the grace of strength transcends all other grace. Touches of anything gross and strong are rare: the dauntlessness of Nature seems exhausted; there is little that is grand-hearted, tumultuous, and self-forgetful. On the other hand, and in these days it is a most legitimate source of pride, nothing is more remarkable than the consistent purity of the moral tone, and the unfailing delicacy of feeling. There are few, if any, lines in the whole range of this class of American poetry that a dying poet need wish to blot. From first to last, there are no insidious suggestions. The democratic school of poets, with all their glaring faults, recognize that dainty perfection of expression is no substitute for stimulating thought; and that subtle analyses of the lighter emotions or deft-fingered sketches of society may display in genuity genuity or fancy, but afford no occasion for the exercise of creative force or imaginative power. Whitman has failed to revolutionize poetry. Rhyme and metre will endure so long as the songs of men or birds; Art will outlive the longest life. But the future is, we believe, in other respects with him and his school. He illustrates, as often by failure as by success, what are the true needs of modern poetry. Power, and force, and freedom, confer an immortality which no culture can secure. Behind the poetry there must be a living personality, a nature, coarse-fibred perhaps, but strong, deep, and vehement. Modern poetry, again, must be full of human interest. The cultivated poets of America have carried description to the highest pitch of perfection, perhaps because it affords the readiest escape from the crudities of their material civilization. But pictures of Nature, however exquisite, are comparatively valueless, unless they form the backgrounds for human action. The living figures are too often absent. It is in this field of human life and character that American novelists have reaped abundant harvests. There is yet room for her poets. The dramatic element is strong in Bret Harte, and, though Whitman draws types rather than individuals, his poetry is thronged with the concrete realities of life. Lastly, the future position of poetry must largely depend on her attitude to modern science. Legends, and myths, and romance, seem destined to disappear: but in their place are revealed unsuspected expanses of knowledge, and unbounded vistas opened to the imagination. Here again Whitman has proved a worthy pioneer. In many striking passages he has anticipated and assimilated the latest results of scientific enquiry. To conjecture the future of poetry, whether in the Old or the New World, would be a fond and foolish task. Mr. Stedman considers that many causes combine at the present moment to check its growth in America. Among the principal causes of impaired vitality, and of the blight which destroys the promised fruit, this acute and fair-minded critic includes the Law of Copyright. The following paragraph, with which we conclude our survey of American poetry, is taken from his remarks upon this important subject: 'All classes of literary workmen still endure the disadvantage of a market drugged with stolen goods. Shameless as is our legal plundering of foreign authors, our blood is most stirred by the consequent injury to home literature, by the wrongs, the poverty, the discouragement to which the foes of International Copyright subject our own writers.' ART. ART. IV.-1. Annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery to the Treasury, for the year 1885. Presented to Parliament, 1886. 2. The Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery. Foreign Schools. 1885.* 3. Descriptive and Historical Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery, with Biographical Notices of the deceased Painters. British and Modern Schools. 1886. 4. Italian Art in the National Gallery. By Dr. Richter. 5. L'Arte Italiana nella Galleria Nazionale di Londra. By Dr. G. Frizzoni. MOR TORE than a quarter of a century has elapsed since we published an Article on the National Gallery. Many suggestions, which we then ventured to make for its improvement, have been carried out, and some of our predictions with regard to it have been fulfilled. On the other hand, some of the defects and shortcomings we pointed out still exist; opportunities which have occurred to render our national collection of pictures worthy, in every respect, of the nation have been, in some instances, neglected; and the building which contains it is in many respects as open to serious objections as it was five-and-twenty years ago. We propose in the present article to show what has been done and what left undone. The subject divides itself into three parts-the collection itself, the building containing it, and its administration. First, as to the collection. Upon this point we can write with almost unqualified satisfaction. From one of secondary importance among the great public galleries of Europe, it has risen within the period we have mentioned to the very first rank, both as regards the number of its pictures and its importance as illustrating the history of painting. In 1859 it contained 593 pictures, of which 259 were by the Old Masters,' and 334 of the British School. The latter included Mr. Vernon's munificent gift of 157 paintings-all, with the exception of two, by English artists; and those bequeathed by Turner to the nation, consisting of 282 of his own finished and unfinished pictures, and no less than 19,331 water-colour drawings and sketches by his own indefatigable hand-a collection unrivalled for its beauty, variety and instructiveness. At the present time the National Gallery possesses above * We regret that we cannot refer to the new edition of the full Catalogue, the publication of which has been long delayed. † 'Quarterly Review,' April, 1859. 1 1200 pictures, of which about 720 are by the Old Masters'-the number having thus nearly trebled within the space of one generation. Of the British school there are about 450 examples. In addition, the Trustees, under the authority of a recent Act of Parliament, have lent to various Government and Provincial Institutions 180 pictures in their keeping as part of the national collection. No other European gallery has shown so rapid an increase within so short a period. If we eliminate from the most famous European collections pictures of very inferior merit, and unworthy of exhibition, or by painters who have no claim to a place in the history of Art, we shall find that, although in actual numbers, and in the best examples of the greatest masters, the National Gallery may be inferior to some of them, it may claim superiority to them all as regards completeness, variety, and value to the art-historian and student. Many of us have felt the oppressive dreariness of the acres of painted canvas which cover the walls of the Louvre, scarcely relieved by the many gems which that vast aggregation of uninteresting works contains. Few persons, if any, we venture to say, will have experienced a similar sensation in the National Gallery, the pre-eminent feature of which is, that it contains scarcely one picture which the most fastidious critic would be disposed to remove, and which does not deserve a place there either from its merits as a work of Art, or as illustrating a period, or forming a link in a school, and consequently essential to the completeness of the collection. The power of sale conferred by an Act of Parliament upon the Trustees and Director has enabled them to weed it of pictures unworthy of a place in it-a power of which they availed themselves to sell a number of works by unknown early German painters, which Mr. Gladstone, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the exercise of his own judgment, had purchased for the nation from a collector of the name of Kruger.* Among the additions to the collection of the Old Masters made since our previous article was written, are many of the highest interest and importance. We may, perhaps, assign the first place in both these respects, and on account of the extreme rarity and value of the painters' works, to 'The Virgin and Child with the Infant St. John and an Angel,' by Leonardo da Vinci, * 28007. was paid for these sixty-four worthless pictures, only four of which have been considered as fit to remain in the National Gallery. Ten were sent to Dublin-no compliment to the Irish or their public Gallery, now one of real interest and importance under the able management of Mr. Henry Doyle. Thirtyseven were sold at Christie's for 2491. 8s., averaging about 61. 148. each! See 'Return of all Pictures purchased for the National Gallery,' &c. Presented to the House of Lords, 1860. purchased purchased in 1880 from Lord Suffolk for 9000l. Before the acquisition of this picture the National Gallery was without any example of this great master-from his universal acquirements, from the influence that he exercised upon art, and from his genius, one of the greatest that ever lived. The one long attributed to him, representing Christ disputing with the Doctors,' is now admitted to be by Bernardino Luini, in some respects his follower and imitator, and is ascribed to that gifted and graceful painter in the Catalogue. No great public gallery could be considered complete without an example of Leonardo's work; we may, therefore, consider the Trustees and Director as especially fortunate in having acquired this masterpiece for the nation. As it is well known, there is a repetition of the picture, under the name of the Vierge aux Rochers,' in the Louvre-also assigned to Leonardo. Although the two correspond in the general treatment of the subject, they differ in the details. The existence of the Louvre picture has led to doubts being cast upon the authenticity of that in the National Gallery. In these doubts we cannot concur. If there be grounds for any with regard to either picture, we are disposed to believe that they apply to the one in the Louvre, rather than to that in Trafalgar Square. The history of the latter picture can apparently be traced from the time when it occupied the position for which it was painted. Lomazzo, a writer on the Art of Painting, who lived in the second half of the 16th century, twice mentions an altarpiece by Leonardo da Vinci as then being in the Chapel of the 'Concezione,' in the Church of S. Francesco at Milan. His description of it applies to that in the National Gallery, and not to that in the Louvre. The picture is again alluded to as being in the same chapel by Carlo Torre, in his description of Milan published in 1674. He adds that it had originally been in the Church of S. Gottardo, whence it was removed to that of S. Francesco by Lodovico il Moro. It is further mentioned in guide-books of Milan, printed in 1737-8 and 1752, as still occupying the same place. But the Abbate Bianconi states in his Nuova Guida di Milano,' published in 1787, that the picture having been removed to a pious institution, had been taken from Milan ('passata ad un luogo pio, è partito da noi'). After this time it is no longer spoken of by local writers as among the works of art in that city, which would scarcely have been the case had the picture been still there. In 1779, the English painter Gavin Hamilton, who had recently returned from Italy, and was then living in Poland Street in London, offered to Lord Lansdowne for sale a picture by |