[14]
E. Spilsbury delt. T. Landseer sculpt.
Leopard & Panther after Stubbs.
[No. XIV.]
Stubbs, who had most likely paid sufficient attention to what the naturalists had previously said on the subject—and whom no naturalist has exceeded in accuracy of observation—appears to have here sketched out the differences, and the resemblances, between these two animals—if two they may be termed. It will be observed that the one which we esteem to be the Leopard—the nearer figure of the two—is somewhat smaller than the other, and that the dark spots on her body are not clustered in roselets, or oilettes, as they have sometimes been called; while on the body of the Panther, they are, and indeed everywhere, excepting on his head and fore-legs. In short, Stubbs’s delineation agrees best with the definition of Cuvier, whose discernment and philosophical tact are by no means inferior to that indefatigability for which he is praised by Griffith.
Of this Leopard and Panther, the actions and expression (although not the character—their noses and mouths being of longer and larger proportions) are very much those of the common domestic Cat, when in a playful mood. Something there is of burlesque clumsiness in their play—resembling Hercules with the distaff; and something of that assumed look which may be observed among Cats while frolicking with their young. And these kindly and droll expressions of countenance—these “quips and cranks, and wanton wiles,”—are doubtless very well understood among the carnivorous comedians, notwithstanding that to some of ourselves, they may not appear to amount to much: yet the difference of these our engraved heads of a playful Leopard and Panther, and the ocular expressions of such animals when raging with hunger, or rendered angry by opposition, is immense, and could not fail, if presented together, to be strikingly obvious to those who are in the least studious of the physiognomical variations of the ferocious tribe. Let the reader compare them with the threatening Lion and defying Tiger among the rocks, after the same master, which we have numbered 19.
Horse-play is proverbially unwelcome: Panther-play must be worse. We cannot associate the idea of the endurance of it within reach of man. But where Cats and Kittens are occasionally permitted in the parlour, there is comparative harmlessness. And who has not witnessed with delight, among the rat-catching carnivora in their joyous moments, those spontaneous and electrical kindlings of various and rapid fun, which must have made Heraclitus laugh, could he have seen them, and have been a lesson to Lavater.
[No. XV.]
A Lion and Lioness, after Rubens, where we esteem the execution—more especially of the parts which are brought into muscular action, and the rich hairy texture of the fur—to be highly creditable to the artists concerned. In these respects, it transcends beyond all comparison the Etching by Picart of the same subject. We were about to say more of these things, and to request attention more particularly to the hinder parts of the female, but the knit brow and threatening eye of the Lion glares upon us with its high claims, and terrible truth, and we cannot but perceive a broad, pervading, and dextrous display of light, shade, and expression of texture.—Now, where there is just harmony of parts, it is the whole which merits praise; and this praise is of a higher kind than could possibly be bestowed with propriety on any part.
The Expression of the Lion is not here so self-possessed and majestic as in some of the examples which we have passed. His magnanimity is exchanged for that dark treachery and cruel-mindedness, which some modern authors ascribe to him. Nor is the Lioness more amiable: both seem lurking, malicious, and as if animated by some horrid hope.