Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

hardness of the hardest of hard varnishes, are quite different things. We believe that no varnishes are thoroughly hard, unless there be something beside the oil incorporated with them. But what substances, or rather what mixture of substances, does M. Mérimée propose? He lays much stress upon an Italian varnish," prepared, as he says, in Italy from a very remote period: the ingredients are nut oil, wax, and mastic. To say nothing of the wax, we conceive the mastic to be one of the worst substances that can be mixed with paint, and that it never becomes really hard, and that it is subject to continual changes; and to the use of mastic do we ascribe that separation of the paint, which will perhaps pretty clearly distinguish the era of the work. Nothing can be more true than that the paint of the old masters is like iron, it is so hard; the cracks in it, which we believe to be mainly owing to the grounds, are like spider-lines, perfectly fine, as if the surface had been bent and broken; and though M. Mérimèe mentions, as a thing of rare occurrence, "cracks or gashes" in a picture of Titian's, we have ourselves never seen such cracks or gashes in any old pictures, excepting in such parts as have been repainted. We do not think this treatise throws any light upon the origin of painting in oil, although the Report states that the "author commences his first chapter by setting it down as an incontrovertible fact, that the brothers Van Eyck were the inventors of painting in oil, and refutes the assertions of Theophilus and Cennino Connini on that question." Now, who were Theophilus and Cennino Connini, and what do they actually say? The former was a monk, and wrote a treatise, De Arte Pingendi, towards the close of the tenth, or commencement of the eleventh century. The latter finished his treatise in 1437; but as then Van Eyck had already painted in oil more than ten years, nothing conclusive can be collected from him. Theophilus, however, does positively mention the painting in oil, and describes a method of making linseedoil, as well as varnish. But M. Mérimèe says, it is house-painting only that he speaks of. Were that the case, we cannot help thinking that the discovery of house-painting in oil is, in fact, the discovery of other painting, for surely the attempt so to

apply it must have been immediate. But great stress is laid upon the directions given by Theophilus to housepainters, not to lay on a second couch of colour until the first is completely dry; and it is said that he nowhere gives advice to apply oil-painting to pictures, but adds, to the above-mentioned directions, "this remarkable passage that such a method would be too slow and too laborious for painting pictures." It is somewhat singular that he should have mentioned" painting pictures" at all; for he must either speak of an existing, but inconvenient practice, or he must have conceived the attempt. But does Theophilus actually say that it "would be" too slow? &c. The translation certainly makes him say so; but he says no such thing. He says " it is;" as if he should say-in house-painting it is better not to put on a second couch of colour before the first is dry; a practice, indeed, not followed by painters of pictures, because to them it would be too slow and tedious. And such we take to be the meaning of his text-" Quod in imaginibus diuturnum et tædiosum nimium est." Mr Taylor, in his appended "Observations on the English School of Painting," seems to contradict, or at least to doubt, the strong assertion of his original, for he quotes Walpole upon this subject, and the more recent discoveries in St Stephen's Chapel; and quotes, from Smith's Antiquities of Westminster, the positive opinion of Mr Smith, and the examination of the apartments of the ancient palace, twenty years ago, by the late Sir John Soane, and Mr J. N. Cottingham. But, as we prefer facts to opinions, we venture to add what Mr Taylor has omitted, the actual experiments, in a letter to Mr Smith. It is of St Stephen's Chapel, fourth year of Edward the Third." In order to examine the colours, I was obliged, after having carefully scraped them from the stone, to employ a quantity of impure ether to dissolve the varnish which had been laid over them, and also to separate the oil with which the colours had been prepared. By this method I was enabled to procure the colours in a state of purity, after they had subsided to the bottom of the phial. The supernatant liquor, when decanted and mixed with water, became immediately turbid, and an oleaginous matter swam on the surface." The

items of expenditure are likewise cu rious:

"Thirty peacocks' and swans' feathers, and squirrels' tails, for the paint ers' pencils.

"Two flagons of cole for the same. "Nineteen gallons of painters' oil for painting of the chapel, at 3s. 4d. per flagon.

"One pound and half of hogs' bristles for the brushes of painters."

It is remarkable that here a distinction is made between pencils and brushes the pencils made of peacocks and swans' feathers, and peacocks' tails, were doubtless for the nicer work of picture-painting. Is not, then, the "incontrovertible fact" of the Report, after all the authorities through which it has passed, no fact at all?

If, therefore, the brothers Van Eyck invented any thing-and there is no reason to doubt that they did-it must have been a new method of painting in oil. And to this new method, and nearest to its invention, M. Mérimée ascribes the most astonishing effects in the preservation of the brilliancy of the colours, and the hardness given to the paint. As has been shown, he attributes its perfection to the admixture of varnish with the oils. We are very doubtful if such admixture have any such power, more especially if the varnish be mastic. As, however, M. Mérimée has formed his opinion from his own observation of ancient pictures, and sought a corroboration of it from the works of different authors who have written upon the subject, it may be worth while to examine these authorities. He candidly confesses that he has been disappointed in his search. Leonardo da Vinci makes no mention of the use of varnish, “except in cases where the acetate of copper (verdigris) is used." There is an anecdote that Pope Julius II., led by curiosity, entered Leonardo's painting room, expecting to see the designs for his work, but discovered only chemical apparatus, which he understood to be for making varnish, and that he remarked, "this artist begins his work where others finish." M. Mérimée himself combats the conclusion that has been drawn from this anecdote, that Leonardo painted with varnish. There is, undoubtedly, a fair ground of reason for his opinion, in the extract given from Armenini da Faerza, who lived towards the middle of the sixteenth century; and yet we think

the passage does not go the whole length of asserting a mixture of varnish with the colours in the general painting, but only in the glazing, and used equally over the whole that is, a coloured varnish. And it is somewhat remarkable that the first application of it mentioned by Armenini, is to verdigris, as recommended by Leonardo, though here differing in the manner of application. It may, therefore, be worth while to refer to Leonardo, and we shall find this use is to remedy a defect in that particular pigment. Leonardo says, "The green colour made of copper rust, commonly called verdigris, though ground in oil, will not fail to evaporate in smoke and lose its beauty, unless you cover it with a thin skin of varnish, immediately after laying it on: but this is not all; for, if you wipe it with a sponge dipped in clear water, it will rise from the bottom of the painting, and peel off like a water colour. This is particularly observable in moist weather, and seems to be owing to this, that verdigris, being a kind of salt, is easily dissolved in moist air, and especially if softened with the additional wetness of a sponge." And, after all, this varnish may have been nothing but nut oil; for Leonardo, speaking of a peculiar process, adds, "after which you may varnish it with nut oil and amber, or barely with nut oil, taking care that it be well purified, and thickened in the sun." what says Armenini? "In operating upon a green drapery, the process we have hinted at (predetto) is managed in this way: After having laid on the dead colour with green, black, and white (verde, nigro, e bianco), in a full, firm manner (che sia alquanto crudetto), some common varnish is then incorporated with yellow, lake, and verdigris (si giunge poi con verderame un poco di vernice commune di giallo santo). With this mixture, the parts prepared are glazed with a large tool. The same process is used for crimson, yellow, or other drapery, only mixing the appropriate colours with the varnish," (ma se sarà de lacca, si tien con quello il medisimo stile mettendovi dextro della predetta vernice; acosi si de fare d'ogni altro quando sie per velarli). We have, in part, quoted the Italian which is given in the notes, because we think the translation careless, and not faithful, and, therefore, asserting more than the Italian justifies.

And

But Leonardo's varnish for this particular pigment, may have been nothing more than another pigment, to which the old masters were partial, "aloes cavallino," horse aloes, and that either ground by itself in oil, or mixed with the verdigris, just as Armenini describes it; so that we do not see that Armenini's recipe necessarily differs from Leonardo's, whose authority M. Mérimée rejects. Leonardo says"Some aloes cavallino, mixed with your verdigris, will make it much more beautiful than it was before; and it would become still more so by the admixture of a little saffron, could it be prevented from evaporating. The goodness of your aloes will be found in its dissolving in hot aqua-vitæ, which dissolves it much better than cold; and if, after using any of the verdigris, you go slightly over it with some of this liquified aloes, you will find the colour become incomparably beautiful. Further, this aloes may be ground in oil, either by itself or with verdigris, or with any other colour that you please." We suspect that Armenini's recipe is but a repetition of Leonardo's, and are surprised these passages from Leonardo escaped the notice of the author. M. Mérimée then refers to Gerard de Lairesse. uses of varnish are likewise pointed out by G. de Lairesse, in his Treatise on Painting. He describes how to paint upon the dead colour of a picture. He tells us that the part intended for repainting, should be first moistened slightly by a couch of mastic varnish, mixed with thick oil, clarified in the sun." Is this, again, an instance of bad translation? Our edition of G. de Lairesse is 1778, translated by John Frederick Fritsch, painter. In this there is no mention whatever of mastic in the passage quoted. It runs thus: "To do well, rub your piece (or so much as you think you can paint of it at one time, and before the varnish grow dry) with a good thin picture varnish, mixed with some fat white oil, then work on this wet ground," &c. There is, however, here no mixture with the paint. But is the treatise under the name of G. de Lairesse any authority at all? In the first place, it is not the work of G. de Lairesse, but a collection from his observations by the Society of Artists, and not published till after his death, which took place so late as

"The

1711. This Treatise, therefore, may be considered to have incorporated with the observations of Lairesse the notions of the Society, and to have appeared at a time when the really good medium, whatever it may have been, may be considered as lost. Nor can we attach very much value to recipes, the examples of whose excellence is to be found in the works of G. de Lairesse. That painter was a whimsical theorist, if the treatise really represents him. His commencement of a picture was by fiddling; he sought the harmony of colour and composition through the harmony of music, and seems to have taken literally the precept of Horace, with the pun didicisse fideleter artes. If we are to judge of the materials, and the manner of using them, from the works of the painters, we doubt if we can safely look for examples beyond the close of the seventeenth century.

The author, in his preface, if he alludes to his own processes, speaks very boldly.. "When a pupil of the French school has attained that degree of experience which gives him a fair chance of gaining the first prize in the class of painting, there can be no doubt of his capability to make a copy from any picture of his master. Let him then be directed to copy a first-rate picture of the Flemish or Venetian schools, and I am quite sure he will encounter difficulties which he will be unable to surmount, should he not have been made acquainted with the process used by the colourist whom he wishes to imitate; but, if these processes have been shown to him, and if he have been taught the process for increasing the brilliancy and transparency of his colour, and how to preserve those fine qualities, or to recover them after he may have lost them, a practical knowledge of those methods may soon be acquired by a young painter, whose eye and hand have already attained to a high degree of correctness and facility. With such instruction, he may then set about to copy a picture of Rubens, Rembrandt, Titian, and Vandyke, without experiencing any greater difficulties than he would find in copying a work of his own master." This is perfectly true, if the real processes could be shown to him-but can they? How many attempts have we seen by the admixture of varnishes, and what are they but so many failures? They

either look flimsy at the time, or become leathery in texture, and altoge ther lack the purity of the originals the illumination, in which we lose all idea of oil and varnish, as if the oil which we know was used had undergone some chemical change, which, without destroying its richness, had taken from it every possible impurity. Did any one ever see, satisfactory in texture, a modern copy of Corregio, or of Titian-such as his Peter Martyr -and, of the Flemish school, is there a single copy of Teniers that is not offensive to the eye, which, under the name of the master, naturally looks for what it can never find? And yet, probably, the recipes of M. Mérimée have been, under various modifications not very material to their utility, long in practice. Certainly in this country, from the time of Sir Joshua to the present, very similar vehicles have been, and are still used: but are they safe?-do they preserve the brilliancy and hardness of the colours? We should decidedly say no; that in time they crack, and in a manner the works of the old masters never did; and that they very soon lose their first texture. M. Mérimée pays great deference to the chemical knowledge of M. Tingry, professor of chemistry at Geneva, whose work, in two volumes, entitled The Painter's and Varnisher's Guide, published in 1803, is of great value. În it will be found nearly all that has since then been published which is of any use. "This work," says M. Mérimée, "would have been the best that could have been produced at that time, if he had united to the information he possessed that knowledge which practice can bestow. But at all times, the work of Tingry upon the preparation and use of colours and varnishes, is one of those that may be consulted with the greatest advantage." Did the following passage from Tingry's work escape the notice of M. Mérimée? He is speak ing of preserving the colours in newlypainted pictures before they are varnished, by covering them with white of egg, and adds—" Some of the English painters, too anxious to receive the fruits of their composition, neglect these precautions. Several artists even paint in varnish, and apply it with the colours. This precipitate method gives brilliancy to their compositions at the very moment of their being finished; but their lustre is temporary,

and of short duration. It renders it impossible for them to clean their paintings, which are, besides, liable to crack, and to lose their colour. In a word, it is not uncommon to see an artist survive his works, and to have nothing to expect from posterity." Now, without practical experience in the mechanical operation of painting, it may fairly be admitted that Tingry is of great authority with regard to chemical effects; and, judging from his knowledge of these effects, he pronounces that an admixture of varnish with the paint does not preserve the colour, nor give durability to the paint; while the great object of M. Mérimèe's work is to prove that it does both. But lest it be urged that Tingry's work is rather addressed to painters of another description than painters of pictures, we venture to add his observations immediately following the above quotation. "Nothing that relates to the house-painter is foreign to the artist of a higher order, who paints compositions; in like manner, the precepts admitted by the celebrated painters deserve the attention of the varnisher, to whom the painter intrusts his greatest interests. The observations contained in this note, are the brief result of some instructive conversations I had with Saintours, a celebrated painter, my friend and relation."

The varnish, the manufacture of which is minutely described by Theophilus, is the oldest recipe known; if we may say known, for the chief ingredient is at best doubtful. M. Mérimèe thinks it is copal-in the original it is "gummi quod vocatur fornis ;" and again, "gummi fornis quod Romana glassa vocatur"-Roman glass, not, as it is translated, " called by the Romans glassa.' There does not appear any sufficient grounds for deciding upon this to be copal; and M. Mérimée admits the varnish as described, if it were copal, would be unusable, as it could not then have been thinned with distilled or essential oils, which had not then been discovered.

It is extremely probable, that in the transition from distemper to oil painting, much of the former method, and many of the substances were employed in the new art. The union of the two may still have its advantages. This seems to be the opinion of M. Mérimee. Titian and P. Veronese laid in their pictures with solid colour, and

very often painted on cloth primed in distemper: but, in the latter case, they laid their sketches on with water colours. This very expeditious process, which ought to lead from distemper to oil-painting, is described by Leonardo da Vinci. "I have seen several pictures produced in this manner, which evidently belong to the period when painting in distemper had in some degree been given up. I am astonished that no person of our school has ever tried this method." He then proceeds to describe the manner in which Rubens sketched in his pictures on distemper grounds; and as serts the impossibility of so working with colours prepared as ours are. "The colour would glide over a surface too fine to retain it." He unquestionably did not use colours prepared as ours are; and here we may be allowed to remark upon our absurd practice of using bladder colours, which are ground in oil of one character and quality, while we use as our vehicle oil of another character, and perhaps varnishes too; so that we have in fact unequal and discordant mixtures over the whole surface of the picture, enough to make the colours change and paint separate. But to return to the distemper method. "I have had occasion to analyse a portion of the ground of a picture by Titian, painted on wood. This ground was composed of plaster of Paris, with starch and paste, but no glue or size, flour paste being used instead of gelatine.' Afterwards, in page 224, he recommends-" The dead colour is to be laid on with water colour, and a little size, to which may be added a small portion of oil, or the emulsion of nuts or poppy-seeds." Why, then, may we not suppose that Titian and P. Veronese painted in the pictures mentioned, in the very same manner and with the same substance as they made these grounds? In fact, plaster, or any earth or colour, and starch, and a very small quantity of oil, will make a very strong ground-distemper ground; and the same starch, with very little oil, make a very good ve hicle for getting in the subject, indeed for painting it completely over, and even much glazing may be done with it. It is surprising how small a quantity of oil will suffice, and how firm what is so painted, is upon the canvass. It is true, if with very little oil it will dry dead, but it will be

This

equally so; and when the whole is varnished out, the picture will be very brilliant. The colours, of course, must not be in bladder, but mixed up with the starch and oil, as for making the ground. We were not aware, until we had read this account of starch in the ground of a picture of Titian's in M. Mérimèe's book, that starch had been ever so used; but we had (as amateurs) practically seen its use. We tried first a ground with it, wishing to avoid animal glue, which we are persuaded, by chemical processes, changes the colours, and goes through them. Having made such a ground, the use of the same vehicle in painting in the subject suggested itself. was about four years ago; and we have, within this week, and for the first time, varnished a picture so painted, and it came out in all respects better than any we had ever painted in any other method. The rapidity with which it enables one to work is a great advantage; and we believe such colours as Prussian blue, and others, which are much affected by oils, may be thus used with safety; and we may venture to assert, that pictures so painted will become exceedingly hard; for, let any one try a mass of pigment, starch, and oil, and expose it to the air, and he will find it in a short time a perfect stone. Perhaps it would be an excellent cement, and a good substance in which to mould ornaments, &c. I have washed and scrubbed with much force the surface of pictures so painted, not many days after the work, with warm and cold water, and adding common kitchen yellow sand, and have not found the paint move. fact, one of the most indestructible things in nature.

Starch is, in

It may be thought strange, that the exact medium used by the old masters should not have reached us, but many other arts have shared the same fate; we believe painting on glass, is rather a revival than continuation of the art as it was. Certain it is that there is no work that throws any light upon the subject. "Rubens is said to have written an essay in the Latin language, entitled De Lumine et Colore. This manuscript was, it appears, about fifty years ago in the library of M. Von Parys, a canon of Antwerp, who was a descendant of that great painter." We know not what information that

« ElőzőTovább »