American Masters of Painting / Being Brief Appreciations of Some American Painters

by Charles H. Caffin

And it was in such places that Abbey gathered material for his illustrations to “Selections from the Hesperides” and “Noble Numbers” of Robert Herrick; to the “Old Songs” and “She Stoops to Conquer”; a spot wherein there must have been so much akin to his own moods of imagination. What wonder that his drawings have the fragrance of apple blossom and new-mown hay, the sweet musicalness of rippling brooks, the delicate atmosphere of the quiet life, and the savour of the old-time spirit! Within the limits of their particular intention, I doubt if any drawings are more perfect. Nor do I forget those drawings of the country by Alfred Parsons, made about the same time and around the same spots; drawings which show such apprehension of the subtle qualities of rural beauty, such an eye for lovely fragments, such a sensitive artistry in picturing them. But the difference in the work of these two close friends throws a clear light on the special quality of Abbey’s mind. Parsons pictured what he saw, interpreting the bit of nature in daintiest terms of art; while Abbey has the power of calling up a picture in his imagination. Yet in these drawings, at least, there is not an act of pure imagination; for the text of the poem or play supplies the idea. His skill is shown in the vivid recreation of the borrowed theme; in a delicate tact of choice, in his way of representing it and of illuminating it with a few choice details, and in his manner of setting the figures and objects in an atmosphere of their own. And I am not thinking now of that technical accomplishment which surrounds the figures with an envelope of lighted air, but of that more poetical gift which enables him to recreate the impression of the old-time feeling. As he says himself, a picture of bygone manners should be treated as an artist of its own period might have treated it. It is undoubtedly Abbey’s faculty of borrowing the habit of mind as well as of manners of the past that gives a special distinction to these drawings.

But the recognition of this should not obscure the larger faculty of which this is only a phase, of being able to illuminate the text; to illustrate it in the true sense, for the term has fallen into discredit. This is partly the fault of publishers who are apt to insist on the most literal interpretation of the text, instead of allowing the artist to reinform the essence of the text with the spirit of his independent art; and partly, no doubt, to the inability of many draughtsmen to do more than baldly literalize. Thus we have a perpetual crop of so-called illustrations, either crowded with detail or almost flippantly negligent of anything but a certain loose bravura of line and spacing, clever, if you like, but tediously similar in general character. “She rose to greet him”—can you not predicate with tolerable accuracy how such and such a one among many illustrators would represent the incident? In Abbey’s case you could not. The phrase would formulate in his mind a picture; complete, daintily suggestive, full of the charming quality of unexpectedness. But it is when an illustration tries to enforce the text by picturing some incident of prime importance in the story, with its play of passion, perhaps, and diverse possibility of appeal to different minds, that the effort of the ordinary illustrator is so hopelessly jejune. Such subjects are only partially acceptable when one like Abbey essays them. Indeed, many of us may have felt that where, as in Shakespeare, the scene is one of very full significance, affecting the sensibility of different thoughtful readers as diversely as the same passage of music will affect its auditors differently, one’s intelligence and power of appreciation can hardly be satisfied with any one man’s crystallizing of such fluidity and diversity of appeal into a fixed presentment.

Abbey’s illustrations to Shakespeare, though I know they are considered one of his greatest triumphs, have seemed to me to mark the beginning of less perfection. Again, I am not speaking of the craftsmanship, but of the spirit that animates the artist. So long as he confines himself to fragments from the scenes and to subordinate persons, or to those whose character is very simple and direct, his old charm remains; but when he attempts a complex character, as that of Portia, he necessarily cannot please all comers; and when he essays to build up scenes, the old spontaneity of imagination seems to dwindle. It is as if the foliage of a tree were beginning to lose its freshness and twinkle of artless movement; as if by degrees the leaves were losing sap and falling; and the naked boughs, the bare construction of the tree, were gradually being revealed. And in Abbey’s case it seems to be a process that has been going on more and more as he passed to the use of paint and to the building up of important mise en scènes, such as “Hamlet,” “Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the Lady Anne,” or “The Penance of Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester.”

His passage to paint was but a question of time; not only because to all artists it seems to offer the largest scope, but because, as a draughtsman, he has always had the feeling of a colourist. He has avoided hardness of contours, softening them with light and atmosphere, and merging the figures in the ensemble. The latter are not merely set against a background, they are always in and part of the picture. Further, he sees them as masses. You will scarcely find in his drawings authority of line, or fascination in the direction and quality of the line as line; instead, an infinity of little lines, not without feeling, doubtless, but without a separateness of æsthetic value. It is in the mass that they count; so that a woman’s gown will not afford a sweep of movement, but a delightful tissue of lights and shadows. And when he proceeds to colour it is again the mass that captivates him—masses, especially of black, of crimson and white. But with this very marked love for colour, he is not a colourist in the sense of weaving harmonies of colour. His pictures are still a balancing of masses rather than an effect of orchestration; and in the voluminous draperies that he introduces, while there is much influence of the amplitude of Venetian painting, there is little of its love of light or bigness of architectonic use of colour. In his treatment of coloured masses he is nearer to the manner of Holbein or Van Eyck. He does not seem to have an antecedent realization of the structure of his colour scheme, but builds it bit by bit, and the units more or less retain their separateness. Yet, while there is a lack of breadth in the picture as a whole, the parts are broadly treated, and often with a fine freedom of stroke. In his earlier paintings, such as the “Pavane,” belonging to Mr. Whitelaw Reid, he was still drawing with his brush, but in his later ones the manner has become a painter’s.

But no less natural than this progress of his technical evolution has been that of his mental one. In the course of this how could he well escape the Shakespeare cycle; not only because he had begun by interpreting old English poems and plays, and it was only a question of time as to when he would feel the influence of the poet-dramatist, but also because his imagination is of the dramatic kind. He would have made an ideal stage manager of the highest type. As I have said, it is less by any originality of conception that his imagination is distinguished than by an aptitude for grasping the thought of another, reclothing it with actuality, setting it in its appropriate environment, and making it breathe again with the spirit of its time. But such a gift, on the stage at least, is rarely, if ever, accompanied by personal histrionic ability. It is a gift, of selecting, assembling, and combining, rather than of absorption of self in a given line of motive. The stage manager gives the appearance of life to a scene, the actor makes it live, and I wonder whether it be not true that in these Shakespearian canvases of Abbey’s and in his mural decorations of the Holy Grail in the Boston Public Library there is a marshalling of the scene without the dramatic force. Do they carry us away and fill us with the emotion that we should receive in presence of the play well acted on the stage or in the reading of the legend intelligently? We find ourselves, I believe, rather studying the parts of those elaborate productions, the accuracy and beauty of detail, admiring the manipulative ability that has collected and coördinated, and waiting, meanwhile, for the drama to begin.

And if this is true, may it not be the result of choosing for pictorial representation a subject of such complex emotions as the player’s scene in “Hamlet,” or one of such almost inexplicable subtlety as Richard’s love advances to Anne as she follows in the funeral procession of her dead husband, or even one of comparatively directer significance as that of “The Penance of Eleanor”? In his last picture, the “Trial of Queen Katherine,” he has not attempted to portray the climax of the scene, but the first pathetic pleading of the “most poor woman.” Surely he did well to seize for representation this intermediate movement in the scene. He has gained thereby our human sympathy for a subject which might easily have been too complicated with highly strung emotions to be immediately intelligible. And it is one of the merits of this picture that its appeal is not only impressive but immediate. He has exhibited a tactful modesty, and I use the word with a thought of its real meaning, which is something choicer than moderation. He might have attempted a more heroic note, pitched it to the extreme possibility of the scene. But he avoids a tour de force; and draws us as much by persuasion as by strength; by the strength, in fact, of what he holds in reserve.

For the peculiar qualities of his strength are quietness and depth. One may find it in “The Jongleur,” where coming from the castle gate, flanked on each side by a sheltering range of roof, cheerless outside, but suggesting cheer within, across the waste of snow the man in motley’s solitary figure is seen, wincing as he faces the cold and touching a strain on his mandolin to keep up his spirits. It is a beautiful picture, full of significant suggestion, not only of the immediate incident, but of the pathos of the life which lives to amuse others and of the emptiness of the world for one whose spirit is apart from it. It is a picture that compares in spontaneousness of expression with the earlier drawings, and has the fuller import of a maturer mind. Surely it is along lines such as this of purer imagination that Abbey will find his truest self.

To his decorations at the Boston Public Library much of what one has said of the Shakespeare paintings is applicable. They are not dramatic; their impressiveness is of a quiet and tempered sort. As one becomes familiar with these pictures, their power to make one feel the reasonableness and the beauty of the old thought; to feel it, too, not as something entirely strange, but as of present interest, grows and grows upon one. The intellect that has conceived them is not of the kind that leaps to an inspired result. Its quality is choiceness and delicacy of imaginativeness that wins us by persuasion.

In these pictures, as generally in his others, it is the women that he introduces who are the most captivating features of the conception. How beautiful they are! The alluring purity of expression, for example, in the faces of the Virtues is irresistible. Their heads, fragrantly pure, sway like a row of lilies in a gentle wind. Their motionless bodies are arrayed in costumes of delicate richness, each one of which is differently exquisite; the expression is mostly signified by movement of the hands and head; along the line there is a simultaneous act of unveiling, diversified by separate traits of modesty. Perhaps the most captivating of all the figures is that of the one who holds the young knight’s left hand. She draws back and yields at the same moment, with a gesture in which there is a most subtle mingling of confidence and hesitation. The touch of man is so new to her, yet who may doubt this youth?

One of the gems of the whole series is the representation of Blanchefleur, sitting in her dove-gray wedding gown; rose-wreathed and holding roses in her lap; gazing before her with a look of surrender, so infinitely spiritual. In her as in the Virtues the painter has made purity adorable; neither ascetic nor ecstatic, not at variance with the humanity of womanhood, but represented as its choicest flowering. Again, in his rendering of the angels he helps us to realize that they are creatures of the imagination; especially in the last picture, where their form is vague and they are felt rather as presences. And to this detachment from mere humanity spiritualized corresponds the expression of their faces; the rapt adoration of beings raised above the stir of human passion, in an atmosphere of calm where passivity is action.