[7]
E. Spilsbury delt. T. Landseer sculpt.
Lion & Snake after Nature.
Could any painter of talent proceed to represent either of these facts, without finding in the countenance of the Lion, the muscles and the means of expressing a corresponding gentleness, or generosity, of feeling?
What could be said or thought of these things? Why it may be said, and will be thought, by all those who take both sides of the argument fairly into the question—that Mr. Bell has discovered and declared, that the muscles of affection, do not exist in the carnivora. Ergo, that the sentiment which we so translate or acknowledge—the appearances (that is) with which we may find ourselves affected—can only be expression of a negative kind; resulting from the relaxation of those muscles whose tension is necessary to the purposes, or the expression, of ferocity: that “the force of Nature can no further go;” and that the painter—the supposed painter, of such subjects, who is appealed to above—in order to be in any degree successful, must “make a third, by joining the former two”—that is to say, by mingling a portion of human nature with that of the animal: which brings us round to the practice and the probable theory of Rubens; of which it affords more justification, and of a higher kind, than superficial reasoners can be aware of.
But, when muscles of affection are mentioned, do we talk of a positive and acknowledged certainty; or only of a construction that has been put upon certain muscles of the face, by those who have an hypothesis to maintain, or who can trace affectionate expression in no other? And, are we thence to infer the exhaustion of the subject, and non-entity of the expression?
[No. VII.]
Mr. Spilsbury’s Lion, who has turned round his head to look at a Snake, affords a delineated example in point. Here is no more, we think, than the latent capability of ferocity: just so much as cannot be separated from the native character of this noble quadruped.—The eye-ball is here, not “terrible;” nor is “the most savage fury” indicated by the retraction of the lips, although the lower canine teeth are exposed. Here is a general sense of dignity; but the leading, present expression of the moment, (as it strikes us,) is that of curiosity, or excited attention; mingled with some degree of surprise that a contemptible little Snake should presume to roll his puny volumes in the royal presence. It would appear that the Lion has heard something hiss, and cares a little, to know what it may be.
Will it be further objected that this is Art?—To be sure it is. But we think that such Lion-looks are to be seen in Nature; and that such were seen, when the Dog which appealed to, and obtained, the royal pity, was first thrown into the Lion’s den at the Tower. We believe that this representation of the Lion and Snake is not taken from any old master, but is Mr. Spilsbury’s own design.