On the Old Road, Vol. 2 | Page 5

would not take any master who did not in some way excel. For
instance, I would not take a mere imitator of Cuyp among the Dutch;
but Cuyp himself has done insuperable things in certain expressions of

sunlight and repose. Vander Heyden and others may also be mentioned
as first-rate in inferior lines.
Taking from the rise of art to the time of Raphael, would you in the
National Gallery include examples of all those masters whose names
have come down to the most learned of us?--No.
Where would you draw the line, and where would you begin to leave
out?--I would only draw the line when I was purchasing a picture. I
think that a person might always spend his money better by making an
effort to get one noble picture than five or six second or third-rate
pictures, provided only, that you had examples of the best kind of work
produced at that time. I would not have second-rate pictures.
Multitudes of masters among the disciples of Giotto might be named;
you might have one or two pictures of Giotto, and one or two pictures
of the disciples of Giotto.
Then you would rather depend upon the beauty of the work itself; if the
work were beautiful, you would admit it?--Certainly.
But if it were only historically interesting, would you then reject
it?--Not in the least. I want it historically interesting, but I want as good
an example as I can have of that particular manner.
Would it not be historically interesting if it were the only picture
known of that particular master, who was a follower of Giotto? For
instance, supposing a work of Cennino Cennini were brought to light,
and had no real merit in it as a work of art, would it not be the duty of
the authorities of a National Gallery to seize upon that picture, and pay
perhaps rather a large price for it?--Certainly; all documentary art I
should include.
Then what would you exclude?--Merely that which is inferior, and not
documentary; merely another example of the same kind of thing.
Then you would not multiply examples of the same masters if inferior
men, but you would have one of each. There is no man, I suppose,
whose memory has come down to us after three or four centuries, but

has something worth preserving in his work--something peculiar to
himself, which perhaps no other person has ever done, and you would
retain one example of such, would you not?--I would, if it was in my
power, but I would rather with given funds make an effort to get perfect
examples.
Then you think that the artistic element should govern the
archæological in the selection?--Yes, and the archæological in the
arrangement.
125. Dean of St. Paul's. When you speak of arranging the works of one
master consecutively, would you pay any regard or not to the subjects?
You must be well aware that many painters, for instance, Correggio,
and others, painted very incongruous subjects; would you rather keep
them together than disperse the works of those painters to a certain
degree according to their subjects?--I would most certainly keep them
together. I think it an important feature of the master that he did paint
incongruously, and very possibly the character of each picture would be
better understood by seeing them together; the relations of each are
sometimes essential to be seen.
Mr. Richmond. Do you think that the preservation of these works is one
of the first and most important things to be provided for?--It would be
so with me in purchasing a picture. I would pay double the price for it
if I thought it was likely to be destroyed where it was.
In a note you wrote to me the other day, I find this passage: "The Art of
a nation I think one of the most important points of its history, and a
part which, if once destroyed, no history will ever supply the place
of--and the first idea of a National Gallery is, that it should be a Library
of Art, in which the rudest efforts are, in some cases, hardly less
important than the noblest." Is that your opinion?--Perfectly. That
seems somewhat inconsistent with what I have been saying, but I mean
there, the noblest efforts of the time at which they are produced. I
would take the greatest pains to get an example of eleventh century
work, though the painting is perfectly barbarous at that time.
126. You have much to do with the education of the working classes in

Art. As far as you are able to tell us, what is your experience with
regard to their liking and disliking in Art--do comparatively uneducated
persons prefer the Art up to the time of Raphael, or down from the time