THE TECHNICS OF WOOD ENGRAVING.

73.  I am to-day to begin to tell you what it is necessary you should observe respecting methods of manual execution in the two great arts of engraving.  Only to begin to tell you.  There need be no end of telling you such things, if you care to hear them.  The theory of art is soon mastered; but ‘dal detto al fatto, v’è gran tratto;’ and as I have several times told you in former lectures, every day shows me more and more the importance of the Hand.

74.  Of the hand as a Servant, observe, ­not of the hand as a Master.  For there are two great kinds of manual work:  one in which the hand is continually receiving and obeying orders; the other in which it is acting independently, or even giving orders of its own.  And the dependent and submissive hand is a noble hand; but the independent or imperative hand is a vile one.

That is to say, as long as the pen, or chisel, or other graphic instrument, is moved under the direct influence of mental attention, and obeys orders of the brain, it is working nobly; ­the moment it moves independently of them, and performs some habitual dexterity of its own, it is base.

75. Dexterity ­I say; ­some ‘right-handedness’ of its own.  We might wisely keep that word for what the hand does at the mind’s bidding; and use an opposite word ­sinisterity, ­for what it does at its own.  For indeed we want such a word in speaking of modern art; it is all full of sinisterity.  Hands independent of brains; ­the left hand, by division of labor, not knowing what the right does, ­still less what it ought to do.

76.  Turning, then, to our special subject.  All engraving, I said, is intaglio in the solid.  But the solid, in wood engraving, is a coarse substance, easily cut; and in metal, a fine substance, not easily.  Therefore, in general, you may be prepared to accept ruder and more elementary work in one than the other; and it will be the means of appeal to blunter minds.

You probably already know the difference between the actual methods of producing a printed impression from wood and metal; but I may perhaps make the matter a little more clear.  In metal engraving, you cut ditches, fill them with ink, and press your paper into them.  In wood engraving, you leave ridges, rub the tops of them with ink, and stamp them on your paper.

The instrument with which the substance, whether of the wood or steel, is cut away, is the same.  It is a solid plowshare, which, instead of throwing the earth aside, throws it up and out, producing at first a simple ravine, or furrow, in the wood or metal, which you can widen by another cut, or extend by successive cuts.  This (Fi is the general shape of the solid plowshare:  but it is of course made sharper or blunter at pleasure.  The furrow produced is at first the wedge-shaped or cuneiform ravine, already so much dwelt upon in my lectures on Greek sculpture.

77.  Since, then, in wood printing, you print from the surface left solid; and, in metal printing, from the hollows cut into it, it follows that if you put few touches on wood, you draw, as on a slate, with white lines, leaving a quantity of black; but if you put few touches on metal, you draw with black lines, leaving a quantity of white.

Now the eye is not in the least offended by quantity of white, but is, or ought to be, greatly saddened and offended by quantity of black.  Hence it follows that you must never put little work on wood.  You must not sketch upon it.  You may sketch on metal as much as you please.

78.  “Paradox,” you will say, as usual.  “Are not all our journals, ­and the best of them, Punch, par excellence, ­full of the most brilliantly swift and slight sketches, engraved on wood; while line-engravings take ten years to produce, and cost ten guineas each when they are done?”

Yes, that is so; but observe, in the first place, what appears to you a sketch on wood is not so at all, but a most laborious and careful imitation of a sketch on paper; whereas when you see what appears to be a sketch on metal, it is one.  And in the second place, so far as the popular fashion is contrary to this natural method, ­so far as we do in reality try to produce effects of sketching in wood, and of finish in metal, ­our work is wrong.

Those apparently careless and free sketches on the wood ought to have been stern and deliberate; those exquisitely toned and finished engravings on metal ought to have looked, instead, like free ink sketches on white paper.  That is the theorem which I propose to you for consideration, and which, in the two branches of its assertion, I hope to prove to you; the first part of it, (that wood-cutting should be careful,) in this present lecture; the second, (that metal-cutting should be, at least in a far greater degree than it is now, slight, and free,) in the following one.

79.  Next, observe the distinction in respect of thickness, no less than number, of lines which may properly be used in the two methods.

In metal engraving, it is easier to lay a fine line than a thick one; and however fine the line may be, it lasts; ­but in wood engraving it requires extreme precision and skill to leave a thin dark line, and when left, it will be quickly beaten down by a careless printer.  Therefore, the virtue of wood engraving is to exhibit the qualities and power of thick lines; and of metal engraving, to exhibit the qualities and power of thin ones.

All thin dark lines, therefore, in wood, broadly speaking, are to be used only in case of necessity; and thick lines, on metal, only in case of necessity.

80.  Though, however, thin dark lines cannot easily be produced in wood, thin light ones may be struck in an instant.  Nevertheless, even thin light ones must not be used, except with extreme caution.  For observe, they are equally useless as outline, and for expression of mass.  You know how far from exemplary or delightful your boy’s first quite voluntary exercises in white line drawing on your slate were?  You could, indeed, draw a goblin satisfactorily in such method; ­a round O, with arms and legs to it, and a scratch under two dots in the middle, would answer the purpose; but if you wanted to draw a pretty face, you took pencil or pen, and paper ­not your slate.  Now, that instinctive feeling that a white outline is wrong, is deeply founded.  For Nature herself draws with diffused light, and concentrated dark; ­never, except in storm or twilight, with diffused dark, and concentrated light; and the thing we all like best to see drawn ­the human face ­cannot be drawn with white touches, but by extreme labor.  For the pupil and iris of the eye, the eyebrow, the nostril, and the lip are all set in dark on pale ground.  You can’t draw a white eyebrow, a white pupil of the eye, a white nostril, and a white mouth, on a dark ground.  Try it, and see what a specter you get.  But the same number of dark touches, skillfully applied, will give the idea of a beautiful face.  And what is true of the subtlest subject you have to represent, is equally true of inferior ones.  Nothing lovely can be quickly represented by white touches.  You must hew out, if your means are so restricted, the form by sheer labor; and that both cunning and dextrous.  The Florentine masters, and Duerer, often practice the achievement, and there are many drawings by the Lippis, Mantegna, and other leading Italian draughtsmen, completed to great perfection with the white line; but only for the sake of severest study, nor is their work imitable by inferior men.  And such studies, however accomplished, always mark a disposition to regard chiaroscuro too much, and local color too little.

We conclude, then, that we must never trust, in wood, to our power of outline with white; and our general laws, thus far determined, will be ­thick lines in wood; thin ones in metal; complete drawing on wood; sketches, if we choose, on metal.

81.  But why, in wood, lines at all?  Why not cut out white spaces, and use the chisel as if its incisions were so much white paint?  Many fine pieces of wood-cutting are indeed executed on this principle.  Bewick does nearly all his foliage so; and continually paints the light plumes of his birds with single touches of his chisel, as if he were laying on white.

But this is not the finest method of wood-cutting.  It implies the idea of a system of light and shade in which the shadow is totally black.  Now, no light and shade can be good, much less pleasant, in which all the shade is stark black.  Therefore the finest wood-cutting ignores light and shade, and expresses only form, and dark local color.  And it is convenient, for simplicity’s sake, to anticipate what I should otherwise defer telling you until next lecture, that fine metal engraving, like fine wood-cutting, ignores light and shade; and that, in a word, all good engraving whatsoever does so.

82.  I hope that my saying so will make you eager to interrupt me.  ’What!  Rembrandt’s etchings, and Lupton’s mezzotints, and Le Keux’s line-work, ­do you mean to tell us that these ignore light and shade?’

I never said that mezzotint ignored light and shade, or ought to do so.  Mezzotint is properly to be considered as chiaroscuro drawing on metal.  But I do mean to tell you that both Rembrandt’s etchings, and Le Keux’s finished line-work, are misapplied labor, in so far as they regard chiaroscuro; and that consummate engraving never uses it as a primal element of pleasure.

83.  We have now got our principles so far defined that I can proceed to illustration of them by example.

Here are facsimiles, very marvelous ones, of two of the best wood engravings ever produced by art, ­two subjects in Holbein’s Dance of Death.  You will probably like best that I should at once proceed to verify my last and most startling statement, that fine engraving disdained chiaroscuro.

This vignette (Fi represents a sunset in the open mountainous fields of southern Germany.  And Holbein is so entirely careless about the light and shade, which a Dutchman would first have thought of, as resulting from the sunset, that, as he works, he forgets altogether where his light comes from.  Here, actually, the shadow of the figure is cast from the side, right across the picture, while the sun is in front.  And there is not the slightest attempt to indicate gradation of light in the sky, darkness in the forest, or any other positive element of chiaroscuro.

This is not because Holbein cannot give chiaroscuro if he chooses.  He is twenty times a stronger master of it than Rembrandt; but he, therefore, knows exactly when and how to use it; and that wood engraving is not the proper means for it.  The quantity of it which is needful for his story, and will not, by any sensational violence, either divert, or vulgarly enforce, the attention, he will give; and that with an unrivaled subtlety.  Therefore I must ask you for a moment or two to quit the subject of technics, and look what these two woodcuts mean.

84.  The one I have first shown you is of a plowman plowing at evening.  It is Holbein’s object, here, to express the diffused and intense light of a golden summer sunset, so far as is consistent with grander purposes.  A modern French or English chiaroscurist would have covered his sky with fleecy clouds, and relieved the plowman’s hat and his horses against it in strong black, and put sparkling touches on the furrows and grass.  Holbein scornfully casts all such tricks aside; and draws the whole scene in pure white, with simple outlines.

85.  And yet, when I put it beside this second vignette, (Fi,) which is of a preacher preaching in a feebly lighted church, you will feel that the diffused warmth of the one subject, and diffused twilight in the other, are complete; and they will finally be to you more impressive than if they had been wrought out with every superficial means of effect, on each block.

For it is as a symbol, not as a scenic effect, that in each case the chiaroscuro is given.  Holbein, I said, is at the head of the painter-reformers, and his Dance of Death is the most energetic and telling of all the forms given, in this epoch, to the Rationalist spirit of reform, preaching the new Gospel of Death, ­“It is no matter whether you are priest or layman, what you believe, or what you do:  here is the end.”  You shall see, in the course of our inquiry, that Botticelli, in like manner, represents the Faithful and Catholic temper of reform.

86.  The teaching of Holbein is therefore always melancholy, ­for the most part purely rational; and entirely furious in its indignation against all who, either by actual injustice in this life, or by what he holds to be false promise of another, destroy the good, or the energy, of the few days which man has to live.  Against the rich, the luxurious, the Pharisee, the false lawyer, the priest, and the unjust judge, Holbein uses his fiercest mockery; but he is never himself unjust; never caricatures or equivocates; gives the facts as he knows them, with explanatory symbols, few and clear.

87.  Among the powers which he hates, the pathetic and ingenious preaching of untruth is one of the chief; and it is curious to find his biographer, knowing this, and reasoning, as German critics nearly always do, from acquired knowledge, not perception, imagine instantly that he sees hypocrisy in the face of Holbein’s preacher.  “How skillfully,” says Dr. Woltmann, “is the preacher propounding his doctrines; how thoroughly is his hypocrisy expressed in the features of his countenance, and in the gestures of his hands.”  But look at the cut yourself, candidly.  I challenge you to find the slightest trace of hypocrisy in either feature or gesture.  Holbein knew better.  It is not the hypocrite who has power in the pulpit.  It is the sincere preacher of untruth who does mischief there.  The hypocrite’s place of power is in trade, or in general society; none but the sincere ever get fatal influence in the pulpit.  This man is a refined gentleman ­ascetic, earnest, thoughtful, and kind.  He scarcely uses the vantage even of his pulpit, ­comes aside out of it, as an eager man would, pleading; he is intent on being understood ­is understood; his congregation are delighted ­you might hear a pin drop among them:  one is asleep indeed, who cannot see him, (being under the pulpit,) and asleep just because the teacher is as gentle as he is earnest, and speaks quietly.

88.  How are we to know, then, that he speaks in vain?  First, because among all his hearers you will not find one shrewd face.  They are all either simple or stupid people:  there is one nice woman in front of all, (else Holbein’s representation had been caricature,) but she is not a shrewd one.

Secondly, by the light and shade.  The church is not in extreme darkness ­far from that; a gray twilight is over everything, but the sun is totally shut out of it; ­not a ray comes in even at the window ­that is darker than the walls, or vault.

Lastly, and chiefly, by the mocking expression of Death.  Mocking, but not angry.  The man has been preaching what he thought true.  Death laughs at him, but is not indignant with him.

Death comes quietly:  I am going to be preacher now; here is your own hour-glass, ready for me.  You have spoken many words in your day.  But “of the things which you have spoken, this is the sum,” ­your death-warrant, signed and sealed.  There’s your text for to-day.

89.  Of this other picture, the meaning is more plain, and far more beautiful.  The husbandman is old and gaunt, and has passed his days, not in speaking, but pressing the iron into the ground.  And the payment for his life’s work is, that he is clothed in rags, and his feet are bare on the clods; and he has no hat ­but the brim of a hat only, and his long, unkempt gray hair comes through.  But all the air is full of warmth and of peace; and, beyond his village church, there is, at last, light indeed.  His horses lag in the furrow, and his own limbs totter and fail:  but one comes to help him.  ‘It is a long field,’ says Death; ’but we’ll get to the end of it to-day, ­you and I.’

90.  And now that we know the meaning, we are able to discuss the technical qualities farther.

Both of these engravings, you will find, are executed with blunt lines; but more than that, they are executed with quiet lines, entirely steady.

Now, here I have in my hand a lively woodcut of the present day ­a good average type of the modern style of wood-cutting, which you will all recognize.

The shade in this is drawn on the wood‚ (not cut‚ but drawn‚ observe‚) at the rate of at least ten lines in a second:  Holbein’s‚ at the rate of about one line in three seconds.

91.  Now there are two different matters to be considered with respect to these two opposed methods of execution.  The first, that the rapid work, though easy to the artist, is very difficult to the wood-cutter; so that it implies instantly a separation between the two crafts, and that your wood-cutter has ceased to be a draughtsman.  I shall return to this point.  I wish to insist on the other first; namely, the effect of the more deliberate method on the drawing itself.

92.  When the hand moves at the rate of ten lines in a second, it is indeed under the government of the muscles of the wrist and shoulder; but it cannot possibly be under the complete government of the brains.  I am able to do this zigzag line evenly, because I have got the use of the hand from practice; and the faster it is done, the evener it will be.  But I have no mental authority over every line I thus lay:  chance regulates them.  Whereas, when I draw at the rate of two or three seconds to each line, my hand disobeys the muscles a little ­the mechanical accuracy is not so great; nay, there ceases to be any appearance of dexterity at all.  But there is, in reality, more manual skill required in the slow work than in the swift, ­and all the while the hand is thoroughly under the orders of the brains.  Holbein deliberately resolves, for every line, as it goes along, that it shall be so thick, so far from the next, ­that it shall begin here, and stop there.  And he is deliberately assigning the utmost quantity of meaning to it, that a line will carry.

93.  It is not fair, however, to compare common work of one age with the best of another.  Here is a woodcut of Tenniel’s, which I think contains as high qualities as it is possible to find in modern art. I hold it as beyond others fine, because there is not the slightest caricature in it.  No face, no attitude, is pushed beyond the degree of natural humor they would have possessed in life; and in precision of momentary expression, the drawing is equal to the art of any time, and shows power which would, if regulated, be quite adequate to producing an immortal work.

94.  Why, then, is it not immortal?  You yourselves, in compliance with whose demand it was done, forgot it the next week.  It will become historically interesting; but no man of true knowledge and feeling will ever keep this in his cabinet of treasure, as he does these woodcuts of Holbein’s.

The reason is that this is base coin, ­alloyed gold.  There is gold in it, but also a quantity of brass and lead ­willfully added ­to make it fit for the public.  Holbein’s is beaten gold, seven times tried in the fire.  Of which commonplace but useful metaphor the meaning here is, first, that to catch the vulgar eye a quantity of, ­so-called, ­light and shade is added by Tenniel.  It is effective to an ignorant eye, and is ingeniously disposed; but it is entirely conventional and false, unendurable by any person who knows what chiaroscuro is.

Secondly, for one line that Holbein lays, Tenniel has a dozen.  There are, for instance, a hundred and fifty-seven lines in Sir Peter Teazle’s wig, without counting dots and slight cross-hatching; ­but the entire face and flowing hair of Holbein’s preacher are done with forty-five lines, all told.

95.  Now observe what a different state of mind the two artists must be in on such conditions; ­one, never in a hurry, never doing anything that he knows is wrong; never doing a line badly that he can do better; and appealing only to the feelings of sensitive persons, and the judgment of attentive ones.  That is Holbein’s habit of soul.  What is the habit of soul of every modern engraver?  Always in a hurry; everywhere doing things which he knows to be wrong ­(Tenniel knows his light and shade to be wrong as well as I do) ­continually doing things badly which he was able to do better; and appealing exclusively to the feelings of the dull, and the judgment of the inattentive.

Do you suppose that is not enough to make the difference between mortal and immortal art, ­the original genius being supposed alike in both?

96.  Thus far of the state of the artist himself.  I pass, next to the relation between him and his subordinate, the wood-cutter.

The modern artist requires him to cut a hundred and fifty-seven lines in the wig only, ­the old artist requires him to cut forty-five for the face, and long hair, altogether.  The actual proportion is roughly, and on the average, about one to twenty of cost in manual labor, ancient to modern, ­the twentieth part of the mechanical labor, to produce an immortal instead of a perishable work, ­the twentieth part of the labor; and ­which is the greatest difference of all ­that twentieth part, at once less mechanically difficult, and more mentally pleasant.  Mr. Otley, in his general History of Engraving, says, “The greatest difficulty in wood engraving occurs in clearing out the minute quadrangular lights;” and in any modern woodcut you will see that where the lines of the drawing cross each other to produce shade, the white interstices are cut out so neatly that there is no appearance of any jag or break in the lines; they look exactly as if they had been drawn with a pen.  It is chiefly difficult to cut the pieces clearly out when the lines cross at right angles; easier when they form oblique or diamond-shaped interstices; but in any case some half-dozen cuts, and in square crossings as many as twenty, are required to clear one interstice.  Therefore if I carelessly draw six strokes with my pen across other six, I produce twenty-five interstices, each of which will need at least six, perhaps twenty, careful touches of the burin to clear out. ­Say ten for an average; and I demand two hundred and fifty exquisitely precise touches from my engraver, to render ten careless ones of mine.

97.  Now I take up Punch, at his best.  The whole of the left side of John Bull’s waistcoat ­the shadow on his knee-breeches and great-coat ­the whole of the Lord Chancellor’s gown, and of John Bull’s and Sir Peter Teazle’s complexions, are worked with finished precision of cross-hatching.  These have indeed some purpose in their texture; but in the most wanton and gratuitous way, the wall below the window is cross-hatched too, and that not with a double, but a treble line (Fi.

There are about thirty of these columns, with thirty-five interstices each:  approximately, 1,050 ­certainly not fewer ­interstices to be deliberately cut clear, to get that two inches square of shadow.  Now calculate ­or think enough to feel the impossibility of calculating ­the number of woodcuts used daily for our popular prints, and how many men are night and day cutting 1,050 square holes to the square inch, as the occupation of their manly life.  And Mrs. Beecher Stowe and the North Americans fancy they have abolished slavery!

98.  The workman cannot have even the consolation of pride; for his task, even in its finest accomplishment, is not really difficult, ­only tedious.  When you have once got into the practice, it is as easy as lying.  To cut regular holes WITHOUT a purpose is easy enough; but to cut irregular holes WITH a purpose, that is difficult, forever; ­no tricks of tool or trade will give you power to do that.

The supposed difficulty ­the thing which, at all events, it takes time to learn, is to cut the interstices neat, and each like the other.  But is there any reason, do you suppose, for their being neat, and each like the other?  So far from it, they would be twenty times prettier if they were irregular, and each different from the other.  And an old wood-cutter, instead of taking pride in cutting these interstices smooth and alike, resolutely cuts them rough and irregular; taking care, at the same time, never to have any more than are wanted, this being only one part of the general system of intelligent manipulation, which made so good an artist of the engraver that it is impossible to say of any standard old woodcut, whether the draughtsman engraved it himself or not.  I should imagine, from the character and subtlety of the touch, that every line of the Dance of Death had been engraved by Holbein; we know it was not, and that there can be no certainty given by even the finest pieces of wood execution of anything more than perfect harmony between the designer and workman.  And consider how much this harmony demands in the latter.  Not that the modern engraver is unintelligent in applying his mechanical skill:  very often he greatly improves the drawing; but we never could mistake his hand for Holbein’s.

99.  The true merit, then, of wood execution, as regards this matter of cross-hatching, is first that there be no more crossing than necessary; secondly, that all the interstices be various, and rough.  You may look through the entire series of the Dance of Death without finding any cross-hatching whatever, except in a few unimportant bits of background, so rude as to need scarcely more than one touch to each interstice.  Albert Duerer crosses more definitely; but yet, in any fold of his drapery, every white spot differs in size from every other, and the arrangement of the whole is delightful, by the kind of variety which the spots on a leopard have.

On the other hand, where either expression or form can be rendered by the shape of the lights and darks, the old engraver becomes as careful as in an ordinary ground he is careless.

The endeavor, with your own hand, and common pen and ink, to copy a small piece of either of the two Holbein woodcuts (Figures 2 and 3) will prove this to you better than any words.

100.  I said that, had Tenniel been rightly trained, there might have been the making of a Holbein, or nearly a Holbein, in him.  I do not know; but I can turn from his work to that of a man who was not trained at all, and who was, without training, Holbein’s equal.

Equal, in the sense that this brown stone, in my left hand, is the equal, though not the likeness, of that in my right.  They are both of the same true and pure crystal; but the one is brown with iron, and never touched by forming hand; the other has never been in rough companionship, and has been exquisitely polished.  So with these two men.  The one was the companion of Erasmus and Sir Thomas More.  His father was so good an artist that you cannot always tell their drawings asunder.  But the other was a farmer’s son; and learned his trade in the back shops of Newcastle.

Yet the first book I asked you to get was his biography; and in this frame are set together a drawing by Hans Holbein, and one by Thomas Bewick.  I know which is most scholarly; but I do not know which is best.

101.  It is much to say for the self-taught Englishman; ­yet do not congratulate yourselves on his simplicity.  I told you, a little while since, that the English nobles had left the history of birds to be written, and their spots to be drawn, by a printer’s lad; ­but I did not tell you their farther loss in the fact that this printer’s lad could have written their own histories, and drawn their own spots, if they had let him.  But they had no history to be written; and were too closely maculate to be portrayed; ­white ground in most places altogether obscured.  Had there been Mores and Henrys to draw, Bewick could have drawn them; and would have found his function.  As it was, the nobles of his day left him to draw the frogs, and pigs, and sparrows ­of his day, which seemed to him, in his solitude, the best types of its Nobility.  No sight or thought of beautiful things was ever granted him; ­no heroic creature, goddess-born ­how much less any native Deity ­ever shone upon him.  To his utterly English mind, the straw of the sty, and its tenantry, were abiding truth; ­the cloud of Olympus, and its tenantry, a child’s dream.  He could draw a pig, but not an Aphrodite.

102.  The three pieces of woodcut from his Fables (the two lower ones enlarged) in the opposite plate, show his utmost strength and utmost rudeness.  I must endeavor to make you thoroughly understand both: ­the magnificent artistic power, the flawless virtue, veracity, tenderness, ­the infinite humor of the man; and yet the difference between England and Florence, in the use they make of such gifts in their children.

For the moment, however, I confine myself to the examination of technical points; and we must follow our former conclusions a little further.

103.  Because our lines in wood must be thick, it becomes an extreme virtue in wood engraving to economize lines, ­not merely, as in all other art, to save time and power, but because, our lines being necessarily blunt, we must make up our minds to do with fewer, by many, than are in the object.  But is this necessarily a disadvantage?

Absolutely, an immense disadvantage, ­a woodcut never can be so beautiful or good a thing as a painting, or line engraving.  But in its own separate and useful way, an excellent thing, because, practiced rightly, it exercises in the artist, and summons in you, the habit of abstraction; that is to say, of deciding what are the essential points in the things you see, and seizing these; a habit entirely necessary to strong humanity; and so natural to all humanity, that it leads, in its indolent and undisciplined states, to all the vulgar amateur’s liking of sketches better than pictures.  The sketch seems to put the thing for him into a concentrated and exciting form.

104.  Observe, therefore, to guard you from this error, that a bad sketch is good for nothing; and that nobody can make a good sketch unless they generally are trying to finish with extreme care.  But the abstraction of the essential particulars in his subject by a line-master, has a peculiar didactic value.  For painting, when it is complete, leaves it much to your own judgment what to look at; and, if you are a fool, you look at the wrong thing; ­but in a fine woodcut, the master says to you, “You shall look at this, or at nothing.”

105.  For example, here is a little tailpiece of Bewick’s, to the fable of the Frogs and the Stork. He is, as I told you, as stout a reformer as Holbein, or Botticelli, or Luther, or Savonarola; and, as an impartial reformer, hits right and left, at lower or upper classes, if he sees them wrong.  Most frequently, he strikes at vice, without reference to class; but in this vignette he strikes definitely at the degradation of the viler popular mind which is incapable of being governed, because it cannot understand the nobleness of kingship.  He has written ­better than written, engraved, sure to suffer no slip of type ­his legend under the drawing; so that we know his meaning: 

“Set them up with a king, indeed!”

106.  There is an audience of seven frogs, listening to a speaker, or croaker, in the middle; and Bewick has set himself to show in all, but especially in the speaker, essential frogginess of mind ­the marsh temper.  He could not have done it half so well in painting as he has done by the abstraction of wood-outline.  The characteristic of a manly mind, or body, is to be gentle in temper, and firm in constitution; the contrary essence of a froggy mind and body is to be angular in temper, and flabby in constitution.  I have enlarged Bewick’s orator-frog for you, Plate I. c., and I think you will feel that he is entirely expressed in those essential particulars.

This being perfectly good wood-cutting, notice especially its deliberation.  No scrawling or scratching, or cross-hatching, or ‘free’ work of any sort.  Most deliberate laying down of solid lines and dots, of which you cannot change one.  The real difficulty of wood engraving is to cut every one of these black lines or spaces of the exactly right shape, and not at all to cross-hatch them cleanly.

107.  Next, examine the technical treatment of the pig, above.  I have purposely chosen this as an example of a white object on dark ground, and the frog as a dark object on light ground, to explain to you what I mean by saying that fine engraving regards local color, but not light and shade.  You see both frog and pig are absolutely without light and shade.  The frog, indeed, casts a shadow; but his hind leg is as white as his throat.  In the pig you don’t even know which way the light falls.  But you know at once that the pig is white, and the frog brown or green.

108.  There are, however, two pieces of chiaroscuro implied in the treatment of the pig.  It is assumed that his curly tail would be light against the background ­dark against his own rump.  This little piece of heraldic quartering is absolutely necessary to solidify him.  He would have been a white ghost of a pig, flat on the background, but for that alternative tail, and the bits of dark behind the ears.  Secondly:  Where the shade is necessary to suggest the position of his ribs, it is given with graphic and chosen points of dark, as few as possible; not for the sake of the shade at all, but of the skin and bone.

109.  That, then, being the law of refused chiaroscuro, observe further the method of outline.  We said that we were to have thick lines in wood, if possible.  Look what thickness of black outline Bewick has left under our pig’s chin, and above his nose.

But that is not a line at all, you think?

No; ­a modern engraver would have made it one, and prided himself on getting it fine.  Bewick leaves it actually thicker than the snout, but puts all his ingenuity of touch to vary the forms, and break the extremities of his white cuts, so that the eye may be refreshed and relieved by new forms at every turn.  The group of white touches filling the space between snout and ears might be a wreath of fine-weather clouds, so studiously are they grouped and broken.

And nowhere, you see, does a single black line cross another.

Look back to Figure 4, page 54, and you will know, henceforward, the difference between good and bad wood-cutting.

110.  We have also, in the lower woodcut, a notable instance of Bewick’s power of abstraction.  You will observe that one of the chief characters of this frog, which makes him humorous, ­next to his vain endeavor to get some firmness into his fore feet, ­is his obstinately angular hump-back.  And you must feel, when you see it so marked, how important a general character of a frog it is to have a hump-back, ­not at the shoulders, but the loins.

111.  Here, then, is a case in which you will see the exact function that anatomy should take in art.

All the most scientific anatomy in the world would never have taught Bewick, much less you, how to draw a frog.

But when once you have drawn him, or looked at him, so as to know his points, it then becomes entirely interesting to find out why he has a hump-back.  So I went myself yesterday to Professor Rolleston for a little anatomy, just as I should have gone to Professor Phillips for a little geology; and the Professor brought me a fine little active frog; and we put him on the table, and made him jump all over it, and then the Professor brought in a charming Squelette of a frog, and showed me that he needed a projecting bone from his rump, as a bird needs it from its breast, ­the one to attach the strong muscles of the hind legs, as the other to attach those of the fore legs or wings.  So that the entire leaping power of the frog is in his hump-back, as the flying power of the bird is in its breast-bone.  And thus this Frog Parliament is most literally a Rump Parliament ­everything depending on the hind legs, and nothing on the brains; which makes it wonderfully like some other Parliaments we know of nowadays, with Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Lowe for their aesthetic and acquisitive eyes, and a rump of Railway Directors.

112.  Now, to conclude, for want of time only ­I have but touched on the beginning of my subject, ­understand clearly and finally this simple principle of all art, that the best is that which realizes absolutely, if possible.  Here is a viper by Carpaccio:  you are afraid to go near it.  Here is an arm-chair by Carpaccio:  you who came in late, and are standing, to my regret, would like to sit down in it.  This is consummate art; but you can only have that with consummate means, and exquisitely trained and hereditary mental power.

With inferior means, and average mental power, you must be content to give a rude abstraction; but if rude abstraction is to be made, think what a difference there must be between a wise man’s and a fool’s; and consider what heavy responsibility lies upon you in your youth, to determine, among realities, by what you will be delighted, and, among imaginations, by whose you will be led.