GUSTAVE DORE 301 made up of a thousand such formulae — methods of expression that convey the idea readily enough to the spectator, but have little relation to fact. So it is thai Dore never learned, in the true sense, to draw. He had made for himself a sort of artistic shorthand, which enabled him to convey his superabundant ideas quickly and certainly to his public, but his drawing is what is called mannered in the extreme. It is not representation of nature at all, but pure formula and chic. He is said to be a master of drapery, but he never drew a single fold cor- rectly. He is said to show great knowledge of Gothic architecture, but he never drew well a single column or finial. In his later years he studied anatomy with great perseverance, and advocated the necessity of dissection, saying, " II faut fourrer la main dedans " (You must stick your hand in it) ; but the manner was formed, and he never drew a leg with a bone in it. With this equipment he illustrated Don Quixote, Dante, the Bible. Is it strange that he shows no sympathy with the grand simplicity of Dante, or the subtle humor of Cervantes, and that we can only be thankful that he never com- pleted his projected illustrations to Shakespeare ? Dore, the illustrator, was fe- cund beyond precedent, possessed a certain strange drollery, had a wonderful flow of ideas, but was superficial, theatrical, and mannered, and as far from expressing real horror as from expressing real fun. What shall we say of Dor£ the painter and sculptor ? Mr. Jerrold reports a discussion between Dore" and Theophile Gautier, in which the roles of artist and man of letters are strangely reversed. " Gautier and Dore" he says, " disagreed fundamentally on the aims and methods of art. Gautier loved correctness, perfect form — the technique, in short, of art ; whereas Dor£ con- tended that art which said nothing, which conveyed no idea, albeit perfect in form and color, missed the highest quality and raison d'etre of art." What is plain from this is, that Gautier was an artist and cared first of all for art, while Dore was never an artist, properly speaking, at all, and never understood the artist's passion for perfection. To Dor6, what was necessary was to express himself anyhow — who cared if the style was defective, the drawing bad, the color crude ? The idea was the thing. His admirers can defend him only on this ground, and they adopt of necessity the Philistine point of view. The artists of Dore's time and country were very clear in their opinion. "The painters," says Mr. Jerrold. "said he could not paint." The sculptors admitted that he had ideas in his groups, but he was not sculpt- uresque. His friends protest against this judgment, and attribute it, ad nauseam, to " malevolence " and " envy." What if his technique was less brilliant than that of Hals, they say ; what if his shadows are less transparent than those of Rem- brandt (and they will make no meaner comparison)? He is "teeming with noble thoughts," and these will put his work " on a level with the masterpieces of the Italian masters of the sixteenth century." It is the conception, the creation — not the perfect painting of legs and arms and heads, the harmonious grouping, the happy and delicate combination of color — by which the observer is held spell bound. All these qualities, which his admirers grudgingly admit that Dore" had
