ieces, we might almost say none of his figures,
are, or pretend to be, real life. If it be said that they are
theatrical, we know not but that the term expresses their merit; for as
Sir Joshua has well observed, there must be in the theatrical a certain
ideal--which is, nevertheless, the higher representative of nature. Mr
Maclise has adopted the elaborate finish and lavish ornament, but with
so much breadth, and powerful execution, that the display scarcely
offends--and he generally seeks subjects that will bear it. As a fault
it was conspicuous in his Lady Macbeth: the strong emotions of that
banquet-scene are of too hurrying, too absorbent a nature, to admit
either the conspicuous multiplicity of parts, or the excess of ornament
which that work exhibited. It was the very perfection of the "Sleeping
Beauty," and singularly enough, begat a repose; for the mind was
fascinated into the notion of the long sleep, by the very leisure
required and taken to examine the all-quiescent detail.

May we not call the style of Mr Redgrave original? perhaps more so in
his execution than his subject. He has appropriated the elegant
familiar. Many are the painters we might name under whose hands the arts
are advancing; those we have named, however, appear to us to be more or
less the chief originators of new styles. Nor does it follow from this
that their pictures are always the best in any exhibition, though they
may be generally found so to be. If we are to congratulate the world of
art on the particular advancement of this year, we shall certainly limit
our praise to one picture, because it is the picture of the year; and it
is a wondrous improvement upon all our former historical attempts.
Whoever has visited the Exhibition will at once know that we allude to
Mr Poole's "Plague of London." There has not been so powerful a picture
painted in this country since the best days of Sir Joshua Reynolds. For
its power we compare it with the "Ugolino" of the President, and we do
so the more readily as both pictures are now publicly exhibited. Unlike
as they are, unquestionably, in many respects, and painted indeed on
opposite principles, regarding the mechanical methods and colour; yet
for power, for pathos, they come into competition. The subject chosen by
Mr Poole was one of much more difficulty, more complication: he has had,
therefore, much more to do, much more to overcome; and he has succeeded.
Both, possibly, to a certain extent, were