pride, he had enthroned it here; but his pride was a part of him. Driven out forcibly from one palace, it had a sure refuge in himself. Nothing, no outward act of malice or tyranny could rob the world's history of Wolsey. He knew it, and even in his fall was greatest. This noble fabric of Hampton Court was, however, readily resigned by Wolsey into the king's hands, who afterwards seized, too, his palace afterwards called Whitehall. It is a curious fact, and one that marks a visible retribution upon things, names, and persons, whereby a sort of moral history of the world is written by a Divine hand, and carried on in continuance by striking incidents-it is a curious fact that these two palaces of Wolsey, as they are monuments of the rapine of royalty, so are they of the humiliation of royalty. We see the crime, the penance, and the punishment; and we must regard rather the official than the personal characters of the agents and sufferers. The facts and places must have, and suffer the consequences. It is the tale of Naboth's vineyard. These two palaces, plunder ed by the royal hand, were, in their due time, one the prison, the other the place of execution of royalty. Wretched, unfortunate Charles! who can visit Hampton Court and not think of him, and detest his brutal persecutors? Yet there is intermediate interesting matter for reflection that may not be entirely passed over. The amiable, excellent Edward, VI. resided here, and yet, as if the guilty punishment of the house began early, not without fear of having his person seized, the short-lived successor of of the rapacious Henry. Then follows the inauspicious honey-moon of Queen Mary and Philip of Spain which was passed in this palace; then indeed the evil and prophetic spirit of the house might have uttered their epithalamium in the words of Cassandra the doomed.

Φόνον δόμοι πνέουσιν αἱματοσταγῆ. Unhappy nuptials! from which, in the place of other offspring, was begotten the furious bigotry that deluged the land with blood-the blood of saints and martyrs. But for this retribution on the Papal bigots was at hand. Protestantism triumphed in the succeeding reign; and here Eliza beth held her festivities. A respite is

given to the house to perform this act of justice, to make it indeed complete; for the bigotry, here engendered, was here put down under James I. For at this very palace was the conference held, the blessed effects of which were found in the improved translation of the Holy Scriptures, at which conference James uttered the grave aphorism, "No bishop, no king." Hampton Court now becomes interesting to us, having witnessed Charles I.'s happiness and his misfortunes. It was the scene of his happiest days, for here he, too, passed his honeymoon; and of his worst, for it was his prison. Poor King Charles! It was to his taste and love for the arts that Hampton Court owes its present glory They

the Cartoons of Raffaele. alone make up to us for all the architectural diminution this fine palace has suffered. These cartoons were purchased at the recommendation of Rubens. They had been cut into slips, for the purpose of making tapestry from them; and we must not omit our gratitude to William III., who had them carefully attended to, put them on frames, and built the gallery for their reception. Hampton Court owes its present appearance to William III. The alterations by Sir Christopher Wren are easily distinguished from the original buildings of Wolsey. The public are now indebted to him more for the Dutch style of the gardens than for some of the ornaments of the palace. It was the residence of Queen Anne-the scene of Pope's Rape of the Lock. Courts were occasionally held here by George I. and George II.; and Frederick, Prince of Wales, afterwards occupied it. Since then it has been appropriated, in apartments, to various persons. But the mind naturally reverts to the misfortunes of Charles. Here was he a prisoner of Parliament, in the very scene of his former happiness, that he had adorned with pictures worthy the taste of a king; and what became of the majority of them ?-Sold by the tasteless republicans, and dispersed throughout the courts of Europe, and many destroyed-even the most sacred subjects torn down, or defaced, in sour relentless bigotry, which then, as a general disease, infected men's minds; and, however mitigated, the disease has never been eradicated, and occasionally breaks forth, even now,

with more or less strength. The king-killing, picture-destroying, tastedespising, virulent faction is still in existence; and had they full play, the results would be the same. King James's aphorism is for all ages, "No bishop, no king.' There were multitudes rife for the full mischief, when, under the Reform mania, they would have murdered the bishop at Bristol; did mutilate and burn the Bible; set fire to the bishop's palace and the cathedral, and were ready to march to London to dethrone the king. No man, with the slightest pretensions to taste, or indeed to any true feeling,, can pardon the atrocious acts of the Puritans, which have retarded to this day the cultivation of the arts introduced into this country and fostered by the first Charles. Go where we will, we see still their mutilations, their barbarities, monuments of their hypocrisy and infamy: and we see worse monuments in the characters of their descendants. The historical events that offer themselves so readily to the mind, upon a visit to Hampton Court, are of themselves sufficient for many a day's speculation; and the extremely valuable and curious portraits give an identity to such speculations that can scarcely be obtained elsewhere. We could not help smiling, however, at the whimsical notice with regard to the Portrait Gallery, which we found in our amusing and useful guide-book, to this effect,-"There are several interesting and curious portraits in this room, that are unknown." Our object in visiting Hampton Court was not to make historical speculations, but to see the pictures; and we hope we have not wandered too far from

our purpose. In fact, we consider some such preface is necessary; that something of the history of the place, its founder, and its inhabitants, must be known and felt before any person can fully enjoy the works of art at Hampton Court. For ourselves, had we confined our views to the mere pictures, we should not have written at all; for we do not presume, in a few hours, to have been able to have formed a correct judgment, where there is so much to see, and much so arranged as not to be very visible. We write, therefore, mostly with the hope that these remarks, through Maga, may direct the public attention, or the attention of those whose business it is,

and who really, as we believe they do, wish to cater for the taste of the public, to the state, and condition, and hanging of the pictures at Hampton Court. There is unquestionably a great deal of trash, mere rubbish, and no little of this cast that occupies a large space. But we could not help thinking that there are, or might be, some really fine things so placed as to be lost. Perhaps this is more the case with the portraits than with other subjects. We do not despise ornamental painting when it affects nothing beyond ornament. It is generally disgusting when it assumes subject, and conspicucus folly when it plays vagaries in allegory. Allegory, in fact, has been an incubus upon art and poetry, However Spencer and Rubens may have given it an eclat by their genius, we cannot but perceive that it was a clog upon their powers—but in bad hands what does it become? An insipid, senseless display of pictorial or poetical riddles not worth solving. It is the handiwork, at best, of a smart intelligence without feeling. That presuming allegory should show its barefaced audacity in a palace sanctified by the cartoons, is to be lamented-but more glaringly absurd allegories than those large performances on the staircases and ceilings at Hampton Court, were never perpetrated. But we admire, how it could ever enter into the brain of mortal man to twist the grave buffooneries of the heathen gods and goddesses into a courtly flatterly of modern princes. On entering a gallery of allegory, the visiter should be forewarned that he is expected to lay aside his common sense. Never was there such confusion of allegorical personages as figure on the walls of "The King's Grand Staircase"-painted by Verrio. It is quite after the fashion of the description in the Groves of Blarney

"Julius Cæsar,

And Nebuchadnezzar, &c.,
All standing naked in the open air."

Verrio was an ass, as a wholesale manufacturer of fulsome allegories must needs be. He was the man that introduced himself and Sir Godfrey Kneller, in long periwigs, as specta tors of our Saviour Healing the Sick. What hole of mythology has he left unransacked for ornamenting this staircase? It is "Allegory at Home,"

or a fancy-ball given by Folly and Flattery jointly to Heathenism. Here are Apollo, the Muses, and Pan and Ceres, and Thames and Isis, and Flora and Ganymede, Juno and her Peacock, the Fatal Sisters and Jupiter. The Signs of the Zodiac, the Zephyrs and Destiny, and Venus with her legs upon a Swan, and Venus and Mars her lover. Pluto, Proserpine, Coelus and Terra, Neptune and Amphitrite, Bacchus, Silenus, Diana, nd Romulus and his Wolf. Herccules Peace, Eneas, and the Twelve Cæsars, and the Genius of Rome; and (we must suppose, not in compliment to the Christian religion) Julian the Apostate writing at a Table, with Mercury the God of Eloquence attending upon him. But if the king's grand staircase is shocking, there is a very proper matrimonial agreement between that and the queen's; for that blockhead Kent was allowed to daub the ceiling, and Vick to perpetrate the great picture upon the wall representing the Duke of Buckingham as Science, in the habit of Mercury, introducing the Arts and Sciences (that is, duplicates of himself) to Charles II. and his queen. Was there in those days no lunatic asylum to have provided "Custos virorum mercurialium?" But we must confess, that of all these vile perpetrations, Verrio's are the best-we trouble not ourselves about the designs of any of them-but Verrio's keep up the ornamental intention best. They are light and gay in colour, and are at once both rich enough and weak enough to set off the more solid furniture. Some are dingy and heavy; and to have allegories ready to drop en masse as a dead weight, and overwhelm the spectator and his ideas, and bury him under Titans of brown umber, is a sad check upon a lively imagination. The "First Presence Chamber," too, presents us with a big allegory, 18 feet by 15William III. on horseback, in armour, and with a helmet that Mercury and Peace think it necessary to support, decorated with laurel and Neptune with his attendants by the side of a rock acting master of the ceremonies villanously-while Plenty and Flora present flowers; for all which King William would have done well, had such a happy invention been then in existence, to have sent Sir Godfrey Kneller to the treadmill, and Flora

a

NO. CCCII. VOL. XLVIII.

with him. Would we wish to see these allegories destroyed? It is a puzzle. They contain, some of them at least, portraits-and are, therefore, curiosities. It is to be lamented, then, that they are so large-the staircase walls, we protest, would look better whitewashed than as they are. But we fear, were we called upon to decide, it would be that they remainfor the precedent of destruction is a bad one; and there are who may take a fancy to have their fling at the cartoons. It is, perhaps, fortunate that those noble efforts of the mature genius of Raffaele were not set up in their present state, when by an ordinance of parliament, " Sir Robert Harlow, 1645, gave order for the putting down and demolishing of the Popish and superstitious pictures in Hampton Court, where this day the altar was taken down, and the table brought into the body of the church; the rails pulled down, and the steps levelled; and the Popish pictures and superstitions images that were in the glass windows were also demolished; and order given for the new glazing them with plain glass; and, among the rest, there was pulled down the picture of Christ nailed to the Cross, which was placed right over the altar; and the pictures of Mary Magdalen and others weeping by the foot of the cross; and some other such idolatrous pictures were pulled down and demolished." We extract this from Jesse's little, useful, and amusing volume, "Hampton Court," which, as a guide, judiciously contains much information which a visiter would wish to refresh his memory with, and to which we stand indebted for this and other matters. He took the above passage from a weekly paper of that date, 1645. The Parliamentary Commissioners, to the disgrace of the country, sold the treasures of art collected by the first Charles, and among them the nine pictures in distemper "the Triumphs of Julius Caesar," by Andrea Mantegna. They at that time sold for a thousand pounds, and were repurchased, at the Restoration, by Charles II., and are now in Hampton Court. We do not pretend to offer any detailed account of these admirable designs: they require much time to study them. We should be glad to learn if they have ever been engraved. Andrea Mantegna was a great master of design: his

3 с

engravings are very scarce, and very valuable, some being subjects from Raffaele. He has been thought to have been the inventor of engraving. Nor shall we attempt to say much of the cartoons, which, though they have been so often described, may yet be critically examined, both with regard to their effect on the general spectator, and with regard to the rules and principles of art employed in, and to be discoverable from them. This, as well as a particular account of the pictures throughout the palace, we hope to make the work of some future day. But we earnestly recommend Mr Burnett, who is now bringing out the cartoons in a new and most effective manner, (and, we are happy to add, at a very low price), to write a small treatise upon them to accompany his plates. His great knowledge of all the details of art, and his judgment and feeling for the great master, particularly qualify him for the work. We had intended, when we began this paper, to have extracted from our note-book our remarks upon the pictures in Hampton Court; but, upon reflection, think it better, on some future occasion, to examine them more closely; and we do hope that the good will be, by a discreet hand, separated from the rub. bish. Many, too many, by far the greater number, are worthless-injure those those that are good, as evil company is apt to do; and surely nothing little or contemptible should be suffered in a palace originally erected by Wolsey, and rich in associations of what is great, and what is important in history. So should all the unauthenticated portraits be removed. Where there are so many undoubtedly genuine, it is a pity that a doubt should arise. There should be a delightful confidence in such a portrait gallery ; that the vision, the waking dream of olden times, should pass before the mind, or linger where desired, with the most complete power and true enchantment. The faithfulness of Holbein should have nothing that is false near it. We are sure of the truth in Holbein's Queen Elizabeth, when young, probably thirteen or fourteen years of age. It is the only portrait of the great maiden queen that is pleasing. The countenance is very interesting, even pretty; the figure graceful; and with the countenance expressive of a sweet simplicity of

Self-will had

manner-a gentilezza. not yet overcome the submission of her mind. Power had not enthroned the "glorious Gloriana." But, from this maiden age, there is not a portrait of Queen Elizabeth that is not hideous. The most unaccountably whimsical is that of Queen Elizabeth, in a fantastic dress, by F. Zucchero. It is as inex. plicable in its hieroglyphic as it is ugly in dress, and strange in every accompaniment. It is said that the Queen would not allow her face to have any shadow, whether from ignorance of art, or from a conceit partly belonging to herself, and partly the fault of that age of fulsome flattery, so that here all the shadow is in the back ground. She is supposed to be in a forest, a stag behind her, and a tree on which are inscribed mottoes, the meaning of which is past conjecture; her dress would disgrace a Kamschatkan milliner. On a scroll are some verses, by some supposed to be her own, and by some to have been from the pen of Spencer; we should acquit the latter of unintelligibility. The picture of the Queen, allegorically treated by Lucas de Heere, is extremely curious; but, for some specimens of this kind, we could scarcely credit the fulsome allegory of those days-allegory that wellnigh quenched the fire of genius, not that we mean to speak of the genius of De Heere. Allegory was then the court etiquette; in language and in art it was the veil between majesty unapproachable and her people. In language, it had its ameliorating and courtly use, when modified by genius and a love of truth; and perhaps even the wonderful power and fascination of the language of Shakspeare may be not a little indebted to this faulty source. But this only obiter, we fear getting out of our depth, and so return to this picture of Lucas de Heere. It represents the sudden appearance of Queen Elizabeth before Juno, Pallas, and Venus. Queen. ly is the step of the terrestrial majesty. Juno is in the act of retreating; Pallas is in utter astonishment, and Venus blushes at being overcome in beauty. The goddesses forget their own discord, each conscious that Queen Elizabeth alone would have been worthy the golden apple. Now the wonder is that Elizabeth herself did not start aghast at the ugliness of the picture, and particularly of the representation

of herself; and yet her two attendants have grace; but the ingenuity of the painter in this is admirable; for, as he could not preserve the queen's likeness, and give beauty at the same time, he makes her the standard of beauty, by representing Venus as much like her as possible, preserving, nevertheless, a very manifest inferiority on the part of the goddess.

The following Latin lines beneath describe the picture :—

"Juno potens sceptris, et mentis acumine Pallas,

Et roseo Veneris fulget in ore decus. Adfuit Elizabeth, Juno perculsa refugit,

Obstupuit Pallas erubuitque Venus." It is scarcely fair to poor De Heere to place this his picture directly under Holbein's Queen Elizabeth when young. It has been asserted, that there is no undoubted portrait of Mary Queen of Scots. What is, then, to be said of this by Janette. It is exquisitely beautiful, and, in style of art, surpassed only by Raffaele. It is like both Raffaele's and Holbein's portraits. It bears a "royal presence" and sweetness: as a picture, it has wonderful grace, and truth, and power. There are several others by this master, and all of them strikingly good. The historical portraits of this period are most interesting; few before that time can be relied upon; but here we find the satisfactory attestation of Holbein and Janette. After that, art dwindled, and nearly sunk under senseless allegory, and has little to attract till we come to the beauties of Charles II.'s reign. These are so well known, and all that can be said about them has been so well said by

Mrs Jameson, that we can only refer to her book. We believe that, besides portraits, there are some very excellent pictures at Hampton Court; but, placed as they are, they do not tell their own story. They are in a wretched state. We could have wished, for the sake of art, that would not be conspicuous in her defects, that Mr West had been a miniature painter. He occupies far too much space, considering that he has not dignified what he has occupied; and his works are a satire upon the taste and patronage of good old George III. There has been an attempt made, and is not yet altogether relinquished, to have the cartoons removed to the National Gallery, or to some National Gallery within the city smoke. If there is danger of injury thereby, as some say there is, who would wish the removal? and why rob Hampton Court of its greatest treasure; and surely now it is accessible enough? We fear they must suffer deterioration where they are, their surfaces being exposed to the atmosphere. We should think no cost too great to put glass before them, if, at the same time, they could be so placed as to be well seen. The first thing to consider is their preservation. It is said, too, others of the set are extant; if it be the case, surely they should be secured to the nation.

This is a slight notice of Hampton Court; but if it be allowed to be a precursor to more detailed observations, and may attract the attention of those concerned in these matters to a careful scrutiny of the pictures, we may have our pleasure, not without some public profit.