Gibraltar. We must secure to this passage an acknowledgment of international right, securing it against all the eventualities of war, and render it as accessible to the smallest nation and community as to the richest and most powerful State. For this purpose we must bear in mind two essential points: First, the interests and duties of the territorial Sovereign; secondly, the general and political interests of the world at large. Sir Travers Twiss, in the article before referred to, points out the dangers to which the traffic on the Canal may be exposed in case of war beween the Porte and any other nation. The trade of the world might be hindered by the blockade of the Canal ports on the part of any one State waging war against Turkey, and as no provision has been made against such an event by a common understanding, no State, however much aggrieved, would have the right of remonstrance against the legitimate exercise of belligerent rights. Precedents, or at all events analogies, are, as we have seen, not wanting for the political part of the question so far as it regards other countries, but we see a jealousy on the part of the Porte to the jurisdiction of an international Commission, and we must also conciliate the territorial rights and the well-founded financial pretensions of the Viceroy himself. We do not contemplate any serious difficulties in treating with the shareholders. If the worst comes to the worst, their rights last only the term of their lease, which, however long in the limited span of human life, is short for what we believe to be the duration of this great work. But if the Powers of Europe are prepared to make a certain pecuniary sacrifice, easy to nations when dealing with individual interests, the redemption of the Canal from the shareholders must be followed at once by a political condition, not difficult of achievement, if the Powers of Europe will only approach the question with a desire to settle it. We would refer our readers to a despatch from Sir Andrew Buchanan, dated Vienna, March 24th, 1875, giving the outline of such a scheme. To what in the despatch are called crude ideas we must add some suggestions which may call to the subject the attention. of politicians at a moment when a European Congress is, perhaps, imminent. First, we will suggest a common international treaty establishing the neutrality of the Suez Canal much in the form of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Secondly, negotiations should be entered into with M. de Lesseps and the Company, either for purchasing the shares at once at a price, or for converting them into debentures charged on the proceeds of the Canal, to be extinguished by rapid drawings with a bonus. Thirdly, there must be established an understanding on on which every country is to be assessed for its proportion of redemption, and for its share in the further works to be carried out. Fourthly, a certain annual sum should be agreed upon as a revenue to the Khedive to make up his fifteen per cent. of the profits, and as a permanent tribute for the perpetuity of the concession. This annual revenue might, if desired by the Khedive, be capitalised, by which means a large sum would be available to relieve his present financial difficulties. Fifthly, the Khedive, as Sovereign of the territory, should be held responsible under the guarantee of all nations for the repairs, police and general management of the Canal and its accessories, which should be given to him as an unencumbered property. He should be bound to publish annually an account of the expenditure; and to prepare an annual budget to be submitted to the Consular representatives at Cairo. The tolls should be charged sufficiently to cover the repairs on the Canal, the payments in respect of its present burdens, if not extinguished by common consent previously, and the annual tribute to the Viceroy, unless redeemed by a lump sum. Thus we may open to the world a work-almost a wonder— which we owe to the genius and energy of M. de Lesseps, to the constant support of his fellow-countrymen, and to the enlightened policy of the Rulers of Egypt. Whatever arrangement may take place, the deference due to the services and character of M. de Lesseps, must be a primary consideration. We can only hope to perpetuate his achievement for the benefit of mankind by taking up the thread of enthusiasm where he may leave it. We cannot confer upon him a greater honour than to make his work an object of individual acknowledgment and world-wide gratitude, by giving to it a perpetuity and permanence with which it is not yet invested, a political condition not yet achieved, and a utility which cannot depend merely on the clauses of a private concession, or on the exigencies of a Company, however ably and uprightly administered. At present the neutrality of the Canal depends simply upon the declaration of the Viceroy of Egypt. By the statutes this declaration of neutrality is co-existent with the concession of the Company. It is personal to the Egyptian Government, and confirmed by Europe only by the possibility of force. Merchant ships alone are affected by the stipulation. The rights given are merely municipal, and no provision is made for the crucial periods of international conditions-viz., war and the rights of belligerents. No mind can imagine or foresee how great the disturbance of trade from peaceful states if war should find these problems still unsettled. Closely examined, their early solution appears not only feasible, but pressing. The task would be worthy the daring genius of Lord Beaconsfield, and the clear intellect which has won the bâton for Sir Stafford Northcote, were they to adorn their careers with the full and lasting enfranchisement of this universal roadway. ART. VI.-1. A Collection of Prints from Pictures painted for the purpose of Illustrating the Dramatical Works of Shakespeare by the Artists of Great Britain. Boydell. London, 1803. 2. The Boydell Gallery: a Collection of Engravings illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakespeare by the Artists of Great Britain, reproduced from the originals in Permanent Woodbury Type. London, 1874. 3. Illustrations of Shakespeare. By Moritz Retzsch. 1828-1845. 4. The Works of Shakespeare edited by Howard Staunton. The Illustrations by John Gilbert. London, 1864. No O painter has ever translated a play of Shakespeare into the language of the pencil as Mendelssohn has translated the Midsummer Night's Dream' into the language of music. We may account for this superficially by saying that no painter who has arisen since Shakespeare has possessed a genius at all approaching that of the poet in sublimity and comprehensiveness. But a truer explanation of the phenomenon will be discovered in the fact that we rarely find one genius in exact harmony with another. Sympathetic appreciation may exist in a high degree, but yet 'deep' may not answer to deep.' Each artist must body out his own conceptions. Originality will make a way for itself, and create forms. It cannot be diverted into channels hollowed out by another. It was well said of Hogarth that he could think like a great genius, but not after Here we have the primary explanation of the inadequacy of illustrations to Shakespeare; and until a painter shall be found possessing the sympathy with the poet which Mendelssohn proved himself to possess when he composed the 'Overture' and the 'Wedding March,' we may despair of a satisfactory result. Thus it will be seen we think it best to admit at the outset that the works of Shakespeare, though they undoubtedly present to the mind's eye of the reader an endless variety of glowing and beautiful images, have not hitherto proved so deep and sparkling a fountain of inspiration to the painters as we should have at first expected. But though this article must go to show that the one. translation translation of his scenes into the language of the pencil has been at best only moderately successful, still the attempts to illustrate the plays have been sufficiently numerous and important to lead us to think that a notice of them may be of some service. The review may at least show the salient errors of past attempts, and point out the richness of the mine that lies waiting to be worked. Of course, in spite of all that may be alleged, a certain class of critics will continue to say that the adequate illustration of the bard is a hopeless task; that to do justice to the Shakespeare of the pen, whose existence is almost a miracle, we must call into being a Shakespeare of the pencil, whose creation would be a miracle scarcely less astonishing. In a certain sense this is undoubtedly true; and Horace Walpole's remarks on the project of the Boydell Gallery are sure to be echoed if any attempt at a complete illustration of the dramas should be made: Mercy on us!' says Horace, writing to the Countess of Ossory, our painters to design from Shakespeare! His commentators have not been more inadequate. Pray, who is to give an idea of Falstaff now Quin is dead? And then Bartolozzi, who is only fit to engrave for the "Pastor Fido," will be to give a pretty enamelled fan-mount of Macbeth! Salvator Rosa might; and Piranesi might dash out Duncan's castle; but Lord help Alderman Boydell and the Royal Academy!' The state of art in England at the time when the 'commercial Mæcenas,' as it was the fashion to call him, started his scheme was unquestionably low; but we have learned much since, and it will not be difficult to show that, though we must count fifty failures to one success in every volume or gallery of Shakespeare pictures, there are grounds of better hope. We cannot fail to gain information by an examination, however cursory, of what has been already done; and therefore, without further preface, we may begin our rapid survey of the principal attempts to illustrate Shakespeare made during the last ninety years. Suggestions towards a more thorough accomplishment of the task will come in best when we have seen the various methods of treatment adopted by eminent artists, compared their representations of the more prominent scenes, and observed the advantages accruing to the painter from the ever-increasing insight into the poet's meaning which the labours of critics and students have afforded and are now affording. The most ambitious and costly attempt at Shakespearian illustration was undoubtedly that of John Boydell. Though the result was far from satisfactory, we must not forget the debt *Letters of Horace Walpole,' ed. Bohn, vol. ix. p. 83. H En which English art owes to the labours of the enterprising printseller. From the time of his arrival in London, in 1739, to his death in 1804, he exerted himself to forward three objects :1. To improve the English school of engraving; 2. To create an English school of historical painting; 3. And to make both subserve to the adequate illustration of the great poet. His services to the art of engraving are unquestionable. When Boydell began business there were no English engravers of eminence, and the cabinets of collectors were chiefly furnished by the artists of France. He lived to see the condition of his trade reversed; the importation of prints was almost entirely discontinued, and the productions of English engravers were eagerly purchased in Holland, Flanders, and Germany. couraged by his success in his own department of art, he attempted the far bolder and more difficult task of founding a school of historical painting; and in order to give a definite shape to his design, he resolved to set all the eminent painters of the day at work upon his Shakespeare. The pictures were collected and exhibited in a gallery, built upon the site of Mr. Dodsley's house in Pall Mall,' and engravings of them were issued in a magnificent folio. Thirty painters, two sculptors, and thirty-three engravers were employed in the work, and an outlay of one hundred thousand pounds attested the liberality of the projector. A clear conviction of the ruinous cost of the undertaking may have prevented the cautious Garrick, to whom the scheme was first broached, from giving it the sanction of his authority. For though it was suggested amidst the fervours of the celebrated Shakespeare Jubilee at Stratford, the proposal was not received with enthusiasm, and it was not until several years after that it was seriously discussed. The conversation that led to the present undertaking,' says the preface to the original edition, was entirely accidental. It happened * at the table of Mr. Josiah Boydell, at West-end, Hampstead, in November, 1781. The company consisted of Mr. West, Mr. Romney, Mr. P. Sandby, Mr. Hayley, Mr. Hoole, Mr. Braithwaite, Alderman Boydell, and our host. In such company, it is needless to say that every proposal to celebrate genius or to cultivate the fine arts would be favourably received." It is more true, but less flattering, to say that from such a company nothing but artistic mediocrity was to be expected. The presence of the Quaker Academician was unfavourable to originality. West's style, correct, but cold, seems to have exerted a 6 So says the preface to the original edition. Hayley ascribes the first thought of the undertaking to a conversation between the Alderman and Romney at the latter's house in Cavendish Square.—' Life of Romney,' p. 106. chilling |