As it was considered that Fuseli's claims had not been fairly met, those who were wavering in opinion before, now became fixed in his favour, and when the numbers were declared, there were twenty-one votes for, and only nine against him. This decision was evidently unexpected by Sir Joshua, who, on leaving the chair, shewed some degree of mortification; and on the 23d of February, 1790, thirteen days after the election had taken place, he wrote a letter to the Academicians, in which were these words: "I resign the Presidency of the Royal Academy, and also my seat as an Academician." It is unnecessary, in this place, to detail the means which the Academy took, and successfully, to recall him to the chair: suffice it to say, that, notwithstanding the chagrin which he experienced, in failing to carry the point for M. Bonomi, Sir Joshua was unaltered in his kindness to Fuseli, during the remainder of his life.
The employment which had been given to Fuseli by Mr. Alderman Boydell, for the Shakspeare Gallery, enabled him to save some money; he therefore proceeded with a degree of confidence in the great work which he had for some years meditated, and on which he was now actively employed,—the pictures which were to form the "Milton Gallery." In aid of these means, however, he expected to be able to maintain himself, during the execution of the work, by painting occasionally small pictures for the printsellers and booksellers, on whom the historical painters of this country have principally depended for support. But in this he was in a great measure disappointed, for his competitors in the art raised a report, that his time was so much occupied in a scheme of such magnitude from Milton, that he had no leisure for any other subject,—hence their usual commissions began to decline, and at length almost ceased.
Fuseli felt this disappointment of his hopes, and in a letter to Mr. Roscoe says, "I am convinced that of all the lies Nero told, that in which he asserts art was supported by all the earth, was the most atrocious; and although laudatur et alget seems to be intended for my motto, and though despondence often invades my pillow, yet my head and hand still keep on steady in the prosecution of my great work. May the hope which carries me on, not prove delusive."
The monotony of painting from one author, however, was in a degree broken by the variety of subjects which Milton's poetical works afford, for he could at will turn "from grave to gay:" this transition, Fuseli often acknowledged, afforded him considerable relief and pleasure.
In the year 1793, the Rev. R. A. Bromley, rector of St. Mildred's in the Poultry, issued proposals for publishing by subscription, two large quarto volumes of "A Philosophical and Critical History of the Fine Arts, more especially Painting;" and at the instance of Mr. West, the Royal Academy subscribed for a copy. The first volume appeared early in 1794, and the author, after having discussed and criticised the works of Michael Angelo and Raphael, thus expresses himself:—"The dignity of moral instruction is degraded whenever the pencil is employed on frivolous, whimsical, and unmeaning subjects. On this head, it is to be feared, there ever will be too much cause for complaint, because there ever will be persons incapable of solidity, although very capable of executing this art with power: strength of understanding, and ability in art or science, are very different things; they are derived from different sources, and they are perfectly independent of each other. The one can no more be instrumental to the communication of the other, than either can communicate temper or disposition. The finest art in the world may therefore be combined with the lightest and most superficial mind. Books are written of a light and fantastic nature by those who cannot write otherwise, and yet will write something. And so it is with painting; the mind of the artist can but give such subjects as are consecutaneous to its turn.—The Nightmare, Little Red Ridinghood, The Shepherd's Dream, or any dream that is not marked in authentic history as combined with the important dispensations of Providence, and many other pieces of a visionary and fanciful nature, are speculations of as exalted a stretch in the contemplation of such a mind, as the finest lessons as were ever drawn from religion, or morals, or useful history; and yet the painter who should employ his time on such subjects, would certainly amuse the intelligent no more than the man who should make those subjects the topics of a serious discourse. But what good has the world, or what honour has the art, at any time derived from such light and fantastical speculations? If it be right to follow Nature, there is nothing of her here,—all that is presented to us is a reverie of the brain. If it be allowable to cultivate fancy, that which has little or nothing of nature in its composition becomes ridiculous. A man may carry the flights of imagination even within the walks of the chastest art or science, till they become mere waking dreams, as wild as the conceits of a madman. The author of Observations on Fresnoy de Arte very properly calls these persons, 'Libertines of painting:' as there are libertines of religion, who have no other law but the vehemence of their own inclinations, so these have no other model, he says, but a rodomontado genius, which shews us a wild or savage nature that is not of our acquaintance, but of a new creation.
"If not in subjects altogether, yet in manner, one of the first examples of this kind, if not the very first, appeared about the latter end of the sixteenth century, in a Neapolitan, who is commonly known by the name of Giuseppe d'Arpino."
After having thus openly condemned some of the subjects painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds and Fuseli, the author shortly after launches out in unqualified praise of the works of West, particularly his "Death of Wolfe," of which he gives an elaborate description, and concludes by considering it as "one of the most genuine models of historic painting in the world." The series of pictures painted by Barry, which adorns the great room of the Society of Arts in the Adelphi, are also eulogized by him.
It was generally known to the academicians, that Mr. Bromley had assisted Mr. West in arranging and getting up the discourses which the latter delivered to the Royal Academy; and it was conjectured that Mr. West had given his friend some of the observations on modern art, even those in praise of his own works. These circumstances, and Mr. Bromley's strictures upon a living artist (Fuseli), disgusted many of the members of the Royal Academy, and they requested Fuseli not only to animadvert upon them, but to prove (what he broadly asserted) that Mr. Bromley did not understand the subject, and that he was equally ignorant of the classical authorities which he quoted in his Dissertation upon Ancient Art. Fuseli immediately undertook the task, and published in a journal, a letter addressed to Mr. Bromley, pointing out a variety of errors in his work. I regret, after having employed much industry to find this, that I have not succeeded. Mr. Bromley answered it by publishing two letters in the Morning Herald of the 12th and 18th of March 1794, in which he deeply complains of the injury he sustained, as an author, by the observations of Fuseli; admits that several of these are correct which regard classical quotations, but shields himself by stating that his manuscript was right, and that the errors are to be attributed to the printer.