Part 14

Among his works are important masterpieces. I name only Bossuet, the famed _Eagle of Meaux_; Samuel Bernard, the rich Councillor of State; Fénelon, the persuasive teacher and writer; Cardinal Dubois, the unprincipled minister and favorite of the Regent of France; and Adrienne Le Couvreur, the beautiful and unfortunate actress, linked in love with Marshal Saxe. The portrait of Bossuet has everything to attract and charm. There stands the powerful defender of the Catholic Church, master of French style, and most renowned pulpit orator of France, in episcopal robes, with abundant lace, which is the perpetual envy of the fair who look at this transcendent effort. The ermine of Dubois is exquisite; but the general effect of this portrait does not compare with the Bossuet, next to which, in fascination, I put the Adrienne. At her death the actress could not be buried in consecrated ground; but through Art she has the perpetual companionship of the greatest bishop of France.

* * * * *

With the younger Drevet closed the classical period of portraits in engraving, as just before had closed the Augustan age of French literature. Louis the Fourteenth decreed engraving a Fine Art, and established an Academy for its cultivation. Pride and ostentation in the king and the great aristocracy created a demand, which the genius of the age supplied. The heights that had been reached could not be maintained. There were eminent engravers still, but the zenith had been passed. Balechou, who belonged to the reign of Louis the Fifteenth, and Beauvarlet, whose life was protracted beyond the Reign of Terror, both produced portraits of merit. The former is noted for a certain clearness and brilliancy, but with a hardness as of brass or marble, and without entire accuracy of design; the latter has much softness of manner. They were the best artists of France at the time, but none of their portraits are famous. To these may be added another contemporary artist, without predecessor or successor, Étienne Ficquet, unduly disparaged in one of the dictionaries as “a reputable French engraver,” but undoubtedly remarkable for small portraits, not unlike miniatures, of exquisite finish. Among these the rarest and most admired are La Fontaine, Madame de Maintenon, Rubens, and Van Dyck.

Two other engravers belong to this intermediate period, although not French in origin,--Georg Friedrich Schmidt, born at Berlin, 1712, and Johann Georg Wille, born near the small town of Königsberg, in the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, 1717, but, attracted to Paris, they became the greatest engravers of the time. Their work is French, and they are the natural development of that classical school.

Schmidt was the son of a poor weaver, and lost six precious years as a soldier in the artillery at Berlin. Owing to the smallness of his size he was at length dismissed, when he surrendered to a natural talent for engraving. Arriving at Strasburg, on his way to Paris, he fell in with Wille, who joined him in his journey, and eventually in his studies. The productions of Schmidt show ability, originality, and variety, rather than taste. His numerous portraits are excellent, being free and life-like, while the accessories of embroidery and drapery are rendered with effect. As an etcher he ranks next after Rembrandt. Of his portraits executed with the graver, that of the Empress Elizabeth of Russia is usually called the most important, perhaps on account of the imperial theme,--and next, those of Count Rasoumowsky, Count Esterhazy, and Mounsey, Court Physician, which he engraved while in St. Petersburg, whither he was called by the Empress, founding there the Academy of Engraving. But his real masterpieces are unquestionably Pierre Mignard and La Tour, French painters, the latter represented laughing.

Wille lived to old age, not dying till 1808. During this long life he was active in the art to which he inclined naturally. His mastery of the graver was perfect, lending itself especially to the representation of satin and metal, although less happy with flesh. His _Satin Gown_, or _L’Instruction Paternelle_, after Terburg, and _Les Musiciens Ambulants_, after Dietrich, are always admired. Nothing of the kind in engraving is finer. His style was adapted to pictures of the Dutch school, and to portraits with rich surroundings. Of the latter the principal are Comte de Saint-Florentin, Marquis Poisson de Marigny, Jean de Boullongne, and Cardinal de Tencin.

* * * * *

Especially eminent was Wille as a teacher. Under his influence the art assumed new life, so that he became father of the modern school. His scholars spread everywhere, and among them are acknowledged masters. He was teacher of Bervic, whose portrait of Louis the Sixteenth in his coronation robes is of a high order, himself teacher of the Italian Toschi, who, after an eminent career, died as late as 1858; also teacher of P. A. Tardieu, himself teacher of the brilliant Desnoyers, whose portrait of the Emperor Napoleon in his coronation robes is the fit complement to that of Louis the Sixteenth; also teacher of the German, J. G. von Müller, himself father and teacher of J. F. W. von Müller, engraver of the Sistine Madonna, in a plate whose great fame is not above its merit; also teacher of the Italian Vangelisti, himself teacher of the unsurpassed Longhi, in whose school were Anderloni and Jesi. Thus not only by his works, but by his famous scholars, did the humble gunsmith gain sway in Art.

Among portraits of this school deserving especial mention is that of King Jerome of Westphalia, brother of Napoleon, by the two Müllers above named, where the genius of the artists is most conspicuous, although the subject contributes little. As in the case of the Palace of the Sun, described by Ovid, “_materiam superabat opus_.”[165] This work is a beautiful example of skill in representation of fur and lace, not yielding even to Drevet.

Longhi was a universal master, and his portraits are only part of his work. That of Washington, which is rare, is evidently founded on Stuart’s painting, but after a design of his own, which is now in the possession of the Swiss Consul at Venice. The artist particularizes the hair, as being modelled after the French master Masson.[166] The portraits of Michel Angelo and Dandolo, the venerable Doge of Venice, are admired; so also is the _Napoleon_ as King of Italy, with the iron crown and finest lace. But his chief portrait is that of Eugène Beauharnais, Viceroy of Italy, full length, remarkable for the plume in the cap, which is finished with surpassing skill.

* * * * *

Contemporary with Longhi was another Italian engraver of widely extended fame, who was not the product of the French school,--Raffaello Morghen, born at Portici in 1761. His works have enjoyed a popularity beyond those of other masters, partly from the interest of their subjects, and partly from their soft and captivating style, although they do not possess the graceful power of Nanteuil and Edelinck, and are without variety. He was scholar and son-in-law of Volpato, of Rome, himself scholar of Wagner, of Venice, whose homely round faces were not high models in Art. The _Aurora_ of Guido and the _Last Supper_ of Leonardo da Vinci stand high in engraving, especially the latter, which occupied Morghen three years. Of his two hundred and fifty-four works no less than eighty-five are portraits, among which are the Italian poets,--Dante, Petrarc, Ariosto, Tasso, also Boccaccio,--and a head called Raphael, but supposed to be that of Bindo Altoviti, the great painter’s friend,[167] and especially the Duke of Moncada on horseback, after Van Dyck, which has received warm praise. But none of his portraits is calculated to give greater pleasure than that of Leonardo da Vinci, which may vie in beauty even with the famous Pomponne. Here is the beauty of years and of serene intelligence. Looking at that tranquil countenance, it is easy to imagine the large and various capacities which made him not only painter, but sculptor, architect, musician, poet, discoverer, philosopher, even predecessor of Galileo and Bacon. Such a character deserves the immortality of Art. Happily, an old Venetian engraving, reproduced in our day,[168] enables us to see this same countenance at an earlier period of life with sparkle in the eye.

Raffaello Morghen left no scholars who have followed him in portraits; but his own works are still regarded, and a monument in Santa Croce, the Westminster Abbey of Florence, places him among the mighty dead of Italy.

* * * * *

Thus far nothing has been said of English engravers. Here, as in Art generally, England seems removed from the rest of the world,--“_Et penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos_.”[169] But though beyond the sphere of Continental Art, the island of Shakespeare was not inhospitable to some of its representatives. Van Dyck, Rubens, Sir Peter Lely, and Sir Godfrey Kneller, all Dutch artists, painted the portraits of Englishmen, and engraving was first illustrated by foreigners. Jacob Houbraken, another Dutch artist, born in 1698, was employed to execute portraits for Birch’s “Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great Britain,” published at London in 1743; and in these works may be seen the æsthetic taste inherited from his father, (the biographer of the Dutch artists,[170]) and improved by study of the French masters. Although without great force or originality of manner, many of these have positive beauty. I would name especially the _Sir Walter Raleigh_ and _John Dryden_.

Different in style was Bartolozzi, the Italian, who made his home in England for forty years, ending in 1805, when he removed to Lisbon. The considerable genius which he possessed was spoiled by haste in execution, superseding that care which is an essential condition of Art. Hence sameness in his work, and indifference to the picture he copied. Longhi speaks of him as “most unfaithful to his archetypes,” and, “whatever the originals, being always Bartolozzi.”[171] Among his portraits of especial interest are several old wigs, as Mansfield and Thurlow; also the _Death of Chatham_, after the picture of Copley in the Vernon Gallery. But his prettiest piece undoubtedly is _Mary, Queen of Scots, with her little Son, James the First_, after what Mrs. Jameson calls “the lovely picture by Zuccaro at Chiswick.”[172] In the same style are his vignettes, which are of acknowledged beauty.

Meanwhile a Scotchman, honorable in Art, comes upon the scene,--Sir Robert Strange, born in the distant Orkneys in 1721, who abandoned the law for engraving. As a youthful Jacobite he joined the Pretender in 1745, sharing the disaster of Culloden, and owing his safety from pursuers to a young lady dressed in the ample costume of the period, whom he afterwards married in gratitude, and they were both happy. He has a style of his own, rich, soft, and especially charming in the tints of flesh, making him a natural translator of Titian. His most celebrated engravings are doubtless the _Venus_ and the _Danaë_ after the great Venetian colorist; but the _Cleopatra_, though less famous, is not inferior in merit. His acknowledged masterpiece is the Madonna of St. Jerome, called “_The Day_,” after the picture by Correggio in the Gallery of Parma; but his portraits after Van Dyck are not less fine, while they are more interesting,--as Charles the First, with a large hat, by the side of his horse, which the Marquis of Hamilton is holding; and that of the same monarch standing in his ermine robes; also the three royal children, with two King Charles spaniels at their feet; also Henrietta Maria, the Queen of Charles. That with the ermine robes is supposed to have been studied by Raffaello Morghen, called sometimes an imitator of Strange.[173] To these I would add the rare autograph portrait of the engraver, being a small head after Greuzé, which is simple and beautiful.

One other name will close this catalogue. It is that of William Sharp, who was born at London in 1746, and died there in 1824. Though last in order, this engraver may claim kindred with the best. His first essays were the embellishment of pewter pots, from which he ascended to the heights of Art, showing a power rarely equalled. Without any instance of peculiar beauty, his works are constant in character and expression, with every possible excellence of execution: face, form, drapery,--all are as in Nature. His splendid qualities appear in the _Doctors of the Church_, which has taken its place as the first of English engravings. It is after the picture of Guido, once belonging to the Houghton Gallery, which in an evil hour for English taste was allowed to enrich the collection of the Hermitage at St. Petersburg; and I remember well that this engraving by Sharp was one of the few ornaments in the drawing-room of Macaulay when I last saw him, shortly before his lamented death. Next to the _Doctors of the Church_ is his _Lear in the Storm_, after the picture by West, now in the Boston Athenæum, and his _Sortie from Gibraltar_, after the picture by Trumbull, also in the Boston Athenæum. Thus, through at least two of his masterpieces whose originals are among us, is our country associated with this great artist.

It is of portraits especially that I write, and here Sharp is truly eminent. All he did was well done; but two are models,--that of Mr. Boulton, a strong, well-developed country gentleman, admirably executed, and of John Hunter, the eminent surgeon, after the painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the London College of Surgeons, unquestionably the foremost portrait in English Art, and the coëqual companion of the great portraits in the past; but here the engraver united his rare gifts with those of the painter.

* * * * *

In closing these sketches I would have it observed that this is no attempt to treat of engraving generally, or of prints in their mass or types. The present subject is simply Portraits, and I stop now just as we arrive at contemporary examples, abroad and at home, with the gentle genius of Mandel beginning to ascend the sky, and our own engravers appearing on the horizon. There is also a new and kindred art, infinite in value, where the Sun himself becomes artist, with works which mark an epoch.

WASHINGTON, 11th Dec., 1871.

* * * * *

NOTE.--When Mr. Sumner began the publication of his Works in 1870, he engaged Mr. George Nichols, of Cambridge, to read the proofs editorially. This Mr. Nichols did, with great care and ability, until about ten days before his death, which occurred on the 6th of July, 1882. His work of supervision ended on p. 334 of this volume.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW PROTECTED BY NATIONAL STATUTE.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON HIS SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMNESTY BILL, JANUARY 15, 17, 31, FEBRUARY 5, AND MAY 21, 1872.

Brave Theseus, they were MEN like all before, And human souls in human frames they bore, With you to take their parts in earthly feasts, With you to climb one heaven and sit immortal guests.

STATIUS, _Thebaïd_, tr. Kennett, Lib. XI.

* * * * *

I was fully convinced, that, whatever difference there is between the Negro and European in the conformation of the nose and the color of the skin, there is none in the genuine sympathies and characteristic feelings of our common nature.--MUNGO PARK, _Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa_, (London, 1816,) Vol. I. p. 80, Ch. 6.

* * * * *

The word MAN is thought to carry somewhat of dignity in its sound; and we commonly make use of this, as the last and the most prevailing argument against a rude insulter, “I am not a beast, a dog, but I am a Man as well as yourself.” Since, then, human nature agrees equally to all persons, and since no one can live a sociable life with another who does not own and respect him as a Man, it follows, as a command of the Law of Nature, that _every man esteem and treat another as one who is naturally his equal, or who is a Man as well as he_.--PUFENDORF, _Law of Nature and Nations_, tr. Kennett, Book III., Ch. 2, § 1.

* * * * *

Carrying his solicitude still farther, Charlemagne recommended to the bishops and abbots, that, in their schools, “they should take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs and of freemen, _so that they might come and sit on the same benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic_.”--GUIZOT, _History of France_, tr. Black, (London, 1872,) Vol. I. p. 239.

INTRODUCTION.

May 13, 1870, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill “Supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866,” which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

July 7th, only a few days before the close of the session, Mr. Trumbull, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bundle of bills, including that above mentioned, adversely, and all, on his motion, were postponed indefinitely.

January 20, 1871, Mr. Sumner again introduced the same bill, which was once more referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

February 15th, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, again reported the bill adversely; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Sumner, it was allowed to go on the Calendar. Owing to the pressure of business in the latter days of the session, he was not able to have it considered, and the bill dropped with the session.

* * * * *

At the opening of the next Congress, March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner again brought forward the same bill, which was read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, and on his motion ordered to lie on the table and be printed. In making this motion he said that the bill had been reported adversely twice by the Committee on the Judiciary; that, therefore, he did not think it advisable to ask its reference again; that nothing more important could be submitted to the Senate, and that it should be acted on before any adjournment of Congress. In reply to an inquiry from Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, Mr. Sumner proceeded to explain the bill, which he insisted was in conformity with the Declaration of Independence, and with the National Constitution, neither of which knows anything of the word “white.” Then, announcing that he should do what he could to press the bill to a vote, he said: “Senators may vote it down. They may take that responsibility; but I shall take mine, God willing.”

At this session a resolution was adopted limiting legislation to certain enumerated subjects, among which the Supplementary Civil Rights bill was not named. March 17th, while the resolution was under discussion, Mr. Sumner warmly protested against it, and insisted that nothing should be done to prevent the consideration of his bill, which he explained at length. In reply to the objection that the session was to be short, and that there was no time, he said: “Make the time, then; extend the session; do not limit it so as to prevent action on a measure of such vast importance.” An amendment moved by Mr. Sumner to add this bill to the enumerated subjects was rejected. The session closed without action upon it.

* * * * *

At the opening of the next session, Mr. Sumner renewed his efforts.

December 7, 1871, in presenting a petition from colored citizens of Albany, he remarked: “It seems to me the Senate cannot do better than proceed at once to the consideration of the supplementary bill now on our Calendar, to carry out the prayer of these petitioners”; and he wished Congress might be inspired to “make a Christmas present to their colored fellow-citizens of the rights secured by that bill.”

December 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, which had already passed the House, “for the removal of the legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” Mr. Sumner, insisting upon justice before generosity, moved his Supplementary Civil Rights Bill as an amendment. A colloquy took place between himself and Mr. Hill, of Georgia, in which the latter opposed the amendment.

MR. SUMNER. I should like to bring home to the Senator that nearly one half of the people of Georgia are now excluded from the equal rights which my amendment proposes to secure; and yet I understand that the Senator disregards their condition, sets aside their desires, and proposes to vote down my proposition. The Senator assumes that the former Rebels are the only people of Georgia. Sir, I see the colored race in Georgia. I see that race once enslaved, for a long time deprived of all rights, and now under existing usage and practice despoiled of rights which the Senator himself is in the full enjoyment of.

MR. HILL. … I never can agree in the proposition that, if there be a hotel for the entertainment of travellers, and two classes stop at it, and there is one dining-room for one class and one for another, served alike in all respects, with the same accommodations, the same attention to the guests, there is anything offensive, or anything that denies the civil rights of one more than the other. Nor do I hold, that, if you have public schools, and you give all the advantages of education to one class as you do to another, but keep them separate and apart, there is any denial of a civil right in that. I also contend, that, even upon the railways of the country, if cars of equal comfort, convenience, and security be provided for different classes of persons, no one has a right to complain, if it be a regulation of the companies to separate them.…

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, we have a vindication on this floor of inequality as a principle and as a political rule.

MR. HILL. On which race, I would inquire, does the inequality to which the Senator refers operate?

MR. SUMNER. On both. Why, the Senator would not allow a white man in the same car with a colored man.

MR. HILL. Not unless he was invited, perhaps. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. The Senator mistakes a substitute for equality. Equality is where all are alike. A substitute can never take the place of equality. It is impossible; it is absurd. I must remind the Senator that it is very unjust,--it is terribly unjust. We have received in this Chamber a colored Senator from Mississippi; but according to the rule of the Senator from Georgia we should have put him apart by himself; he should not have sat with his brother Senators. Do I understand the Senator as favoring such a rule?

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not.

MR. HILL. I do not, Sir, for this reason: it is under the institutions of the country that he becomes entitled by law to his seat here; we have no right to deny it to him.