Engravings of Lions, Tigers, Panthers, Leopards, Dogs, &c.

Transcriber’s Note
CHIEFLY AFTER THE DESIGNS OF
SIR EDWIN LANDSEER,
BY HIS BROTHER,
THOMAS LANDSEER.
PRINTED FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1823 AND 1828.
LONDON:
HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
MDCCCLIII.
That there has hitherto existed no good book of Engravings of the nobler wild animals, to assist the progress of the student in that department of Art, is to be regretted. The talents of Mr. John Scott, brought into action by those of Gilpin, Cooper, and the Reinagles, have presented the public with excellent representations of the distinguished ornaments of the turf: the sports of the field, and the habits and manners of the canine race, were also duly honoured: but of the ferocious Tiger tribe, and the lordly Lion, we have nothing extant that would bear critical inspection, beyond a few detached prints:—nothing like a collection of figures, whose justness and accuracy of form, action, character, and expression, might be relied on.
Does any reader imagine that the various Etchings which have been performed—chiefly abroad—by Artists of no mean ability, may be considered as exceptions? They are not exceptions: or at best, the number which might be so regarded is but small, and those, for the most part, of dimensions not accommodated to the drawer of the cabinet, or the shelf of the library.
But they are not objectionable on this ground alone. Speaking of them in the aggregate, the heavier charge lies against them of being insufficient to those purposes of taste and information which are the ends of Art. Even those after Titian and after Rubens (the latter of whom has perhaps painted a greater number than any other of the old masters) are far more deficient in form, character, and expression, than is generally supposed, or than will be easily believed, by those who have not actually compared them with the Lions, Leopards, and Tigers of Nature. They have been taken too much on the credit which attaches to the great names of their authors.—Nor is this intended to impugn the merits, as historical or poetical painters, of those distinguished Artists, but simply as an assertion of truth. It is possible, that as a painter of allegory, Rubens might consider that strong infusion of human form, character, and expression, by which his Lions, for example, are distinguished, as necessary, or conducive, to his allegorical purposes; or, it is possible that his knowledge of this animal may not have been thoroughly well-grounded, and that he may have laboured under early prejudice of mind, or of vision, in this part of his education as a Painter, and may not have seen Lions as they really are. This is what the writer is most inclined to believe, (though not to insist); for even in treating the subject of Daniel in the den of Lions—the scene of which, by the way, he has not represented as a royal menagerie, but as a wild, rocky cavern—his animals partake of the artificial character of which we cannot bring ourselves to approve.