Lectures on the true, the beautiful and the good Part 28

[267] FRAGMENTS DE PHILOSOPHIE CARTeSIENNE, p. 429: _Des Rapports du Cartesienisme et du Spinozisme_.

[268] Part 1st, lectures 1 and 2.

[269] Part 2d.

[270] Part 3d.

[271] On Condillac, 1st Series, vol. i., _pa.s.sim_, and particularly vol.

iii., lectures 2 and 3.

[272] We have never spoken of Locke except with sincere respect, even while combating him. See 1st Series, vol. i., course of 1817, _Discours d'Ouverture_, vol. ii., lecture 1, and especially 2d Series, vol. iii., _pa.s.sim_.

[273] See 1st Series, vol. iv., lectures on Reid.

[274] _Ibid._, vol. v.

[275] For more than twenty years we have thought of translating and publis.h.i.+ng the three _Critiques_, joining to them a selection from the smaller productions of Kant. Time has been wanting to us for the completion of our design; but a young and skilful professor of philosophy, a graduate of the Normal School, has been willing to supply our place, and to undertake to give to the French public a faithful and intelligent version of the greatest thinker of the eighteenth century.

M. Barni has worthily commenced the useful and difficult enterprise which we have remitted to his zeal, and pursues it with courage and talent.

[276] Part 1st, Lecture 3.

[277] Lecture 5, _Mysticism_.

[278] This pretended proof of sentiment is in fact, the Cartesian proof itself. See lectures 4 and 16.

[279] M. Jacobi. See the _Manual of the History of Philosophy_, by Tennemann, vol. ii., p. 318.

[280] On spontaneous reason and reflective reason, see 1st part, lect. 2 and 3.

[281] Lectures 4 and 5.

[282] See particularly lecture 5.

[283] We place here this a.n.a.logous pa.s.sage on the true measure in which it may be said that G.o.d is at once comprehensible and incomprehensible, 1st Series, vol. iv., lecture 12, p. 12: "We say in the first place that G.o.d is not absolutely incomprehensible, for this manifest reason, that, being the cause of this universe, he pa.s.ses into it, and is reflected in it, as the cause in the effect; therefore we recognize him. 'The heavens declare his glory.' and 'the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made;' his power, in the thousands of worlds sown in the boundless regions of s.p.a.ce; his intelligence in their harmonious laws; finally, that which there is in him most august, in the sentiments of virtue, of holiness, and of love, which the heart of man contains. It must be that G.o.d is not incomprehensible to us, for all nations have pet.i.tioned him, since the first day of the intellectual life of humanity. G.o.d, then, as the cause of the universe, reveals himself to us; but G.o.d is not only the cause of the universe, he is also the perfect and infinite cause, possessing in himself, not a relative perfection, which is only a degree of imperfection, but an absolute perfection, an infinity which is not only the finite multiplied by itself in those proportions which the human mind is able always to enumerate, but a true infinity, that is, the absolute negation of all limits, in all the powers of his being.

Moreover, it is not true that an indefinite effect adequately expresses an infinite cause; hence it is not true that we are able absolutely to comprehend G.o.d by the world and by man, for all of G.o.d is not in them.

In order absolutely to comprehend the infinite, it is necessary to have an infinite power of comprehension, and that is not granted to us. G.o.d, in manifesting himself, retains something in himself which nothing finite can absolutely manifest; consequently, it is not permitted us to comprehend absolutely. There remains, then, in G.o.d, beyond the universe and man, something unknown, impenetrable, incomprehensible. Hence in the immeasurable s.p.a.ces of the universe, and beneath all the profundities of the human soul, G.o.d escapes us in that inexhaustible infinitude, whence he is able to draw without limit new worlds, new beings, new manifestations. G.o.d is to us, therefore, incomprehensible; but even of this incomprehensibility we have a clear and precise idea; for we have the most precise idea of infinity. And this idea is not in us a metaphysical refinement, it is a simple and primitive conception which enlightens us from our entrance into this world, both luminous and obscure, explaining everything, and being explained by nothing, because it carries us at first, to the summit and the limit of all explanation.

There is something inexplicable for thought,--behold then whither thought tends; there is infinite being,--behold then the necessary principle of all relative and finite beings. Reason explains not the inexplicable, it conceives it. It is not able to comprehend infinity in an absolute manner, but it comprehends it in some degree in its indefinite manifestations, which reveal it, and which veil it; and, further, as it has been said, it comprehend it so far as incomprehensible. It is, therefore, an equal error to call G.o.d absolutely comprehensible, and absolutely incomprehensible. He is both invisible and present, revealed and withdrawn in himself, in the world and out of the world, so familiar and intimate with his creatures, that we see him by opening our eyes, that we feel him in feeling our hearts beat, and at the same time inaccessible in his impenetrable majesty, mingled with every thing, and separated from every thing, manifesting himself in universal life, and causing scarcely an ephemeral shadow of his eternal essence to appear there, communicating himself without cessation, and remaining incommunicable, at once the living G.o.d, and the G.o.d concealed, '_Deus vivus et Deus absconditus_.'"

APPENDIX.

Page 188: "What a destiny was that of Eustache Lesueur!"

It is perceived that we have followed, as regards his death, the tradition, or rather the prejudices current at the present day, and which have misled the best judges before us. But there have appeared in a recent and interesting publication, called _Archives de l'Art francais_, vol. iii., certain incontrovertible doc.u.ments, never before published, on the life and works of the painter of St. Bruno, which compel us to withdraw certain a.s.sertions agreeable to general opinion, but contrary to truth. The notice of Lesueur's death, extracted for the first time from the _Register of Deaths of the parish church of Saint-Louis in the isle of Notre-Dame_, preserved amongst the archives of the Hotel de Ville at Paris, clearly prove that he did not die at the Chartreux, but in the isle of Notre-Dame, where he dwelt, in the parish of St. Louis, and that he was buried in the church of Saint-Etienne du Mont, the resting-place of Pascal and Racine. It appears also that Lesueur died before his wife, Genevieve Gousse, since the _Register of Births_ of the parish of Saint-Louis, contains under the date 18th February, 1655, a notice of the baptism of a fourth child of Lesueur.

Now, Genevieve Gousse must have deceased almost immediately after her confinement, supposing her to have died before her husband's decease, which occurred on the 1st of the following May. If this were the case, we should have found a notice of her death in the _Register of Deaths_ for the year 1655, as we do that of her husband. Such a notice, however, which could alone disprove the probability, and authenticate the vulgar opinion, is nowhere to be found amongst the archives of the Hotel de Ville, at least the author of the _Nouvelles Recherches_ has nowhere been able to meet with it.

In the other particulars our rapid sketch of Lesueur's history remains untouched. He never was in Italy; and according to the account of Guillet de Saint-Georges, which has so long remained in ma.n.u.script, he never desired to go there. He was poor, discreet, and pious, tenderly loved his wife, and lived in the closest union with his three brothers and brother-in-law, who were all pupils and fellow-laborers of his. It appears to be a refinement of criticism which denies the current belief of an acquaintance between Lesueur and Poussin. If no doc.u.ment authenticates it, at all events it is not contradicted by any, and appears to us to be highly probable.

Every one admits that Lesueur studied and admired Poussin. It would certainly be strange if he did not seek his acquaintance, which he could have obtained without difficulty, since Poussin was staying at Paris from 1640 to 1642. It would be difficult for them not to have met. After Vouet's death in 1641, Lesueur acquired more and more a peculiar style; and in 1642, at the age of twenty-five, entirely unshackled, and with a taste ripe for the antique and Raphael, he must frequently have been at the Louvre, where Poussin resided. Thus it is natural to suppose that they frequently saw each other and became acquainted, and with their sympathies of character and talent, acquaintance must have resulted in esteem and love. If Poussin's letters do not mention Lesueur, we would remark that neither do they mention Champagne, whose connection with Poussin is not disputed. The argument built on the silence of Guillet de Saint-Georges' account is far from convincing; inasmuch as being intended to be read before a Sitting of the Academy, it could only contain a notice of the great artist's career, without those biographical details in which his friends.h.i.+ps would be mentioned.

Lastly, it is impossible to deny Poussin's influence upon Lesueur, which it seems to us at least probable was as much due to his counsels as to his example.

Page 190: "But the marvel of the picture is the figure of St. Paul."

We have recently seen, at Hampton Court, the seven cartoons of Raphael, which should not be looked at, still less criticised, but on bended knee. Behold Raphael arrived at the summit of his art, and in the last years of life! And these were but drawings for tapestry! These drawings alone would reward the journey to England, even were the figures from the friezes of the Parthenon not at the _British Museum_. One never tires of contemplating these grand performances even in the obscurity of that ill-lighted room. Nothing could be more n.o.ble, more magnificent, more imposing, more majestic. What draperies, what att.i.tudes, what forms! Notwithstanding the absence of color, the effect is immense; the mind is struck, at once charmed and transported; but the soul, we can speak for ourselves, remains well-nigh insensible. We request any one to compare carefully the sixth cartoon, clearly one of the finest, representing the Preaching of St. Paul at Ephesus, with the painting we have described of Lesueur's. One, immediately and at the first sight, transports you into the regions of the ideal; the other is less striking at first, but stay, consider it well, study it in detail, then take in the whole: by degrees you are overcome by an ever-increasing emotion.

Above all, examine in both the princ.i.p.al character, St. Paul. Here, you behold the fine long folds of a superb robe which at once envelops and sets off his height, whilst the figure is in shade, and the little you see of it has nothing striking. There he confronts you, inspired, terrible, majestic. Now say which side lays claim to moral effect.

Page 193: "The great works of Lesueur, Poussin, and so many others scattered over Europe."

Of all the paintings of Lesueur which are in England, that which we regret most not having seen is _Alexander and his Physician_, painted for M. de Nouveau, director-general of the _Postes_, which pa.s.sed from the Hotel Nouveau to the Place Royale in the Orleans Gallery, from thence into England, where it was bought by Lady Lucas at the great London sale in 1800. The sale catalogue, with the prices and names of the purchasers, will be found at the end of vol. i. of M. Waagen's excellent work, _Oeuvres d'Art et Artistes en Angleterre_, 2 vols., Berlin, 1837 and 1838.

We were both consoled and agreeably surprised on our return, to meet, in the valuable gallery of M. le Comte d'Houdetot, an ancient peer of France, and free member of the Academy of Fine Arts, with another Alexander and his physician Philip, in which the hand of Lesueur cannot be mistaken. The composition of the entire piece is perfect. The drawing is exquisite. The amplitude and n.o.bleness of the draperies recall those of Raphael. The form of Alexander fine and languid; the person of Philip the physician grave and imposing. The coloring, though not powerful, is finely blended in tone. Now, where is the true original, is it with M.

Houdetot or in England? The painting sold in London in 1800 certainly came from the Orleans' gallery, which would seem most likely to have possessed the original. On the other hand, it is impossible M.

Houdetot's picture is a copy. They must, therefore, both be equally the work of Lesueur, who has in this instance treated the same subject twice over, as he has likewise done the Preaching of St. Paul; of which there is another, smaller than that at the Louvre, but equally admirable, at the Place Royale, belonging to M. Girou de Buzariengues, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences.[284]

We borrow M. Waagen's description of the works of Lesueur, found by that eminent critic in the English collections: _The Queen of Sheba before Solomon_, the property of the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re, vol. i., p. 245.

_Christ at the foot of the Cross supported by his Family_, belonging to the Earl of Shrewsbury, vol. ii., p. 463, "the sentiment deep and truthful," remarks M. Waagen. _The Magdalen pouring the ointment on the feet of Jesus_, the property of Lord Exeter, vol. ii., p. 485, "a picture full of the purest sentiment;" lastly, in the possession of M.

Miles, a _Death of Germanicus_, "a rich and n.o.ble composition, completely in Poussin's style," remarks M. Waagen, vol. ii., p. 356. Let us add that this last work is not met with in any catalogue, ancient or modern. We ask ourselves whether this may not be a copy of the Germanicus of Poussin attributed to Lesueur.

The author of _Musees d'Allemagne et du Russie_ (Paris, 1844) mentions at Berlin a _Saint Bruno adoring the Cross in his Cell, opening upon a landscape_, and pretends that this picture is as pathetic as the best Saint Brunos in the Museum at Paris. It is probably a sketch, like the one we have, or one of the wanting panels; for as for the pictures themselves, there were never more than twenty-two at the Chartreux, and these are at the Louvre. Perhaps, however, it may be the picture which Lesueur made for M. Bernard de Roze, see Florent Lecomte, vol. iii., p.

98, which represented a Carthusian in a cell. At St. Petersburg, the catalogue of the Hermitage mentions seven pictures of Lesueur, one of which, _The infant Moses exposed on the Nile_, is admitted by the author cited to be authentic. Can this be one of two _Moses_ which were painted by Lesueur for M. de Nouveau, as we learn from Guillet de Saint-Georges?

Unless M. Viardot is deceived, and mistakes a copy for an original, we must regret that a real Lesueur should Lave been suffered to stray to St. Petersburg, with many of Poussin's most beautiful Claudes (see p.

474), Mignards, Sebastian Bourdons, Gaspars, Stellas, and Valentins.

Some years ago, at the sale of Cardinal Fesch's gallery, we might have acquired one of Lesueur's finest pieces, executed for the church of Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, which had got, by some chance, into the possession of Chancellor Pontchartrain, afterwards into that of the Emperor's uncle. This celebrated picture, _Christ with Martha and Mary_, formed at Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, a pendent to the _Martyrdom of St.

Lawrence_. Will it be believed that the French Government lost the opportunity, and permitted this little _chef-d'oeuvre_ to pa.s.s into the hands of the King of Bavaria? A good copy at Ma.r.s.eilles was thought, doubtless, sufficient, and the original was left to find its way to the gallery at Munich, and meet again the _St. Louis on his knees at Ma.s.s_, which the catalogue of that gallery attributes to Lesueur, on what ground we are not aware. In conclusion, we may mention that there is in the Museum at Brussels, a charming little Lesueur, _The Saviour giving his Blessing_, and in the Museums of Gren.o.ble and Montpelier several fragments of the _History of Tobias_, painted for M. de Fieubet.

Page 193: "Those master-pieces of art that honor the nation depart without authorization from the national territory! There has not been found a government which has undertaken at least to repurchase those that we have lost, to get back again the great works of Poussin, Lesueur, and so many others, scattered in Europe, instead of squandering millions to acquire the baboons of Holland, as Louis XIV. said, or Spanish canvases, in truth of an admirable color, but without n.o.bleness and moral expression."

Shall we give a recent instance of the small value we appear to set on Poussin? We blush to think that in 1848 we should have permitted the n.o.ble collection of M. de Montcalm to pa.s.s into England. One picture escaped: it was put up to sale in Paris on the 5th of March, 1850. It was a charming Poussin, undoubtedly authentic, from the Orleans gallery, and described at length in the catalogue of Dubois de Saint-Gelais. It represented the _Birth of Bacchus_, and by its variety of scenes and mult.i.tude of ideas, showed it belonged to Poussin's best period. We must do Normandy, rather the city of Rouen, the justice to say, that it made an effort to acquire it, but it was unsupported by Government; and this composition, wholly French, was sold at Paris for the sum of 17,000 francs, to a foreigner, Mr. Hope.

Miserable contrast! while five or six hundred thousand francs have been given for a _Virgin_ by Murillo, which is now turning the heads of all who behold it. I confess that mine has entirely resisted. I admire the freshness, the sweetness, the harmony of color; but every other superior quality which one looks to find in such a subject is wanting, or at least escaped me. Ecstasy never transfigured that face, which is neither n.o.ble nor great. The lovely infant before me does not seem sensible of the profound mystery accomplished in her. What, then, can there be in this vaunted Virgin which so catches the mult.i.tude? She is supported by beautiful angels, in a fine dress, of a charming color, the effect of all which is doubtless highly pleasant.

Page 195: "We endeavor to console ourselves for having lost the _Seven Sacraments_, and for not having known how to keep from England and Germany so many productions of Poussin, now buried in foreign collections," etc.

After having expressed our regret that we were unacquainted with the _Seven Sacraments_ save from the engravings of Pesne, we made a journey to London, to see with our own eyes, and judge for ourselves these famous pictures, with many others of our great countryman, now fallen into the possession of England, through our culpable indifference, and which have been brought under our notice by M Waagen.

In the few days we were able to dedicate to this little journey, we had to examine four galleries: the National Gallery, answering to our Museum, those of Lord Ellesmere and the Marquis of Westminster, and, at some miles from London, the collection at Dulwich College, celebrated in England, though but little known on the continent.

We likewise visited another collection, resulting from an inst.i.tution which might easily be introduced into France, to the decided advantage of art and taste. A society has been formed in England, called the British Inst.i.tution for promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom.

Every year it has, in London, an exhibition of ancient paintings, to which individual galleries send their choice pieces, so that in a certain number of years all the most remarkable pictures in England pa.s.s under the public eye. But for this exhibition, what riches would remain buried in the mansions of the aristocracy or unknown cabinets of provincial amateurs! The society, having at its head the greatest names of England, enjoys a certain authority, and all ranks respond eagerly to its appeal.

We ourselves saw the list of persons who this year contributed to the exhibition; there were her Majesty the Queen, the Dukes of Bedford, Devons.h.i.+re, Newcastle, Northumberland, Sutherland, the Earls of Derby and Suffolk, and numerous other great men, besides bankers, merchants, _savants_, and artists. The exhibition is public, but not free, as you must pay both for admission and the printed catalogue. The money thus acquired is appropriated to defray the expenses of the exhibition; whatever remains is employed in the purchase of pictures, which are then presented to the National Gallery.

At this year's exhibition we saw three of Claude Lorrain's, which well sustained the name of that master. _Apollo watching the herds of Admetus_; a _Sea-port_, both belonging to the Earl of Leicester, and _Psyche and Amor_, the property of Mr. Perkins; a pretended Lesueur, the _Death of the Virgin_, from the Earl of Suffolk; seven Sebastian Bourdons, the _Seven Works of Mercy_,[285] lent by the Earl of Yarborough; a landscape by Gaspar Poussin, but not one _morceau_ of his ill.u.s.trious brother-in-law's.