THROUGH the initiative of a prominent citizen, Edinburgh has been in possession, for some autumn weeks, of a gallery of paintings of singular merit and interest.They were exposed in the apartments of the Scotch Academy; and filled those who are accustomed to visit the annual spring exhibition, with astonishment and a sense of incongruity.Instead of the too common purple sunsets, and pea-green fields, and distances executed in putty and hog's lard, he beheld, looking down upon him from the walls of room after room, a whole army of wise, grave, humorous, capable, or beautiful countenances, painted simply and strongly by a man of genuine instinct.It was a complete act of the Human Drawing-Room Comedy.Lords and ladies, soldiers and doctors, hanging judges, and heretical divines, a whole generation of good society was resuscitated;and the Scotchman of to-day walked about among the Scotchmen of two generations ago.The moment was well chosen, neither too late nor too early.The people who sat for these pictures are not yet ancestors, they are still relations.They are not yet altogether a part of the dusty past, but occupy a middle distance within cry of our affections.The little child who looks wonderingly on his grandfather's watch in the picture, is now the veteran Sheriff EMERITIS of Perth.And I hear a story of a lady who returned the other day to Edinburgh, after an absence of sixty years: "I could see none of my old friends," she said, "until I went into the Raeburn Gallery, and found them all there."It would be difficult to say whether the collection was more interesting on the score of unity or diversity.Where the portraits were all of the same period, almost all of the same race, and all from the same brush, there could not fail to be many points of similarity.And yet the similarity of the handling seems to throw into more vigorous relief those personal distinctions which Raeburn was so quick to seize.He was a born painter of portraits.He looked people shrewdly between the eyes, surprised their manners in their face, and had possessed himself of what was essential in their character before they had been many minutes in his studio.What he was so swift to perceive, he conveyed to the canvas almost in the moment of conception.He had never any difficulty, he said, about either hands or faces.About draperies or light or composition, he might see room for hesitation or afterthought.
But a face or a hand was something plain and legible.There were no two ways about it, any more than about the person's name.And so each of his portraits are not only (in Doctor Johnson's phrase, aptly quoted on the catalogue) "a piece of history," but a piece of biography into the bargain.It is devoutly to be wished that all biography were equally amusing, and carried its own credentials equally upon its face.These portraits are racier than many anecdotes, and more complete than many a volume of sententious memoirs.You can see whether you get a stronger and clearer idea of Robertson the historian from Raeburn's palette or Dugald Stewart's woolly and evasive periods.And then the portraits are both signed and countersigned.For you have, first, the authority of the artist, whom you recognise as no mean critic of the looks and manners of men; and next you have the tacit acquiescence of the subject, who sits looking out upon you with inimitable innocence, and apparently under the impression that he is in a room by himself.For Raeburn could plunge at once through all the constraint and embarrassment of the sitter, and present the face, clear, open, and intelligent as at the most disengaged moments.This is best seen in portraits where the sitter is represented in some appropriate action: Neil Gow with his fiddle, Doctor Spens shooting an arrow, or Lord Bannatyne hearing a cause.Above all, from this point of view, the portrait of Lieutenant-Colonel Lyon is notable.Astrange enough young man, pink, fat about the lower part of the face, with a lean forehead, a narrow nose and a fine nostril, sits with a drawing-board upon his knees.He has just paused to render himself account of some difficulty, to disentangle some complication of line or compare neighbouring values.And there, without any perceptible wrinkling, you have rendered for you exactly the fixed look in the eyes, and the unconscious compression of the mouth, that befit and signify an effort of the kind.The whole pose, the whole expression, is absolutely direct and ******.You are ready to take your oath to it that Colonel Lyon had no idea he was sitting for his picture, and thought of nothing in the world besides his own occupation of the moment.
Although the collection did not embrace, I understand, nearly the whole of Raeburn's works, it was too large not to contain some that were indifferent, whether as works of art or as portraits.Certainly the standard was remarkably high, and was wonderfully maintained, but there were one or two pictures that might have been almost as well away - one or two that seemed wanting in salt, and some that you can only hope were not successful likenesses.Neither of the portraits of Sir Walter Scott, for instance, were very agreeable to look upon.
You do not care to think that Scott looked quite so rustic and puffy.And where is that peaked forehead which, according to all written accounts and many portraits, was the distinguishing characteristic of his face? Again, in spite of his own satisfaction and in spite of Dr.John Brown, I cannot consider that Raeburn was very happy in hands.Without doubt, he could paint one if he had taken the trouble to study it;but it was by no means always that he gave himself the trouble.Looking round one of these rooms hung about with his portraits, you were struck with the array of expressive faces, as compared with what you may have seen in looking round a room full of living people.But it was not so with the hands.
