sive in its solemnity and stillness. 'Dawn' and 'Hope'
show what different notes Watts could strike in his treatment of the
female form. At the other extreme is 'Mammon', the sordid power which
preys on life and crushes his victims with the weight of his relentless
hand. The power of conscience is shown in a more mystic figure called
'The Dweller in the Innermost'. Judgement figures in more than one
notable design, the most familiar being that which now hangs in St.
Paul's Cathedral with the title of 'Time, Death, and Judgement'. Its
position there shows how little we can draw the line between the
different classes of subjects as they were handled by Watts. A courtier
like Rubens could, after painting with gusto a rout of Satyrs, put on a
cloak of decorum to suit the pageantry of a court, or even simulate
fervour to portray the ecstasy of a saint. He is clearly acting a part,
but in Watts the character of the man is always seen. Whether his
subjects are drawn from the Bible or from pagan myths, they are all
treated in the same temper of reverence and purity.

It is impossible to avoid the question of didactic art in writing of
these pictures, though such a wide question, debated for half a century,
can receive no adequate treatment here. We must frankly allow that Watts
was 'preaching sermons in paint', nor would he have repudiated the
charge, however loud to-day are the protests of those who preach the
doctrine of 'art for art's sake'. But the latter, while stating many
principles of which the British public need to be reminded, seem to go
beyond their rights. It is, of course, permissible for students of art
to object to technical points of handling--Watts himself was among the
first to deplore his own failures due to want of executive ability; it
is open to them to debate the part which morality may have in art, and
to express their preference for those artists who handle all subjects
impartially and conceive all to be worthy of treatment, if truth of
drawing or lighting be achieved. But when they make Watts's ethical
intention the reason for depreciating him as an artist they are on more
uncertain ground. There is no final authority in these questions. Ruskin
was too dogmatic in the middle years of his life and only provoked a
more violent reaction. Twenty years later the admirers of Whistler and
Manet were equally intolerant, and assumed doctrines which may hold the
field to-day but are certain to be questioned to-m