Skip to main content

Full text of "Pen drawing and pen draughtsmen, their work and their methods: a study of the art to-day with technical suggestions"

See other formats























Cornell University Library 
NC905 .P41 

++ 2 

Pen drawing and pen draughtsmen, their w 

3 1924 030 667 582 

olin Overs 

^,^5^ V^3^ 













. .^O 

P .- ,' -f--^ 







•^^ >/ 










pOPULAR ilhistration is the product of the nineteentJi centtiry. It has never 
been treated seriously, and to-day it covers such a wide field and is so many- 
sided that it is impossible to discuss more than one of its phases at a time. The best 
illustrators are as conscientious in their profession as the best painters or sculptors. 
But zuith the enormous grozuth of and demand for, illustration, drauglitsmen 
liave appeared ivho care nothing at all for their art, whose only desire apparently 
is to produce more than any one else, and who threaten, oiuing to tlie cheapness and 
rapidity wit/i which they work and the avidity with zuhic/i certain publishers seize 
upon the results, to drag illustration doion to their owii low level. I have 
endeavoured to show what a hio-h standard the best illustration reaches, and to 
give, for puif OSes of study, the most notable examples from all over tJie world. 

I am afraid my book may not appeal very strongly to the book-love^', since 
in it I have transgressed many of the established lazus of book-making, and 
tJiought more of facing the text with tJie appropriate illustration than of the size 
and shape of the page. In some cases the actual appearance of the drawing as 
book decoration is very unpleasant to me. But it zuas a case of sacrificing either 
practical examples for study, or else here and there the decoration of a page. If 
the book is to have any value, it must be of use to the student ; therefore, in certain 
places I have not kept to traditional forms. I object as much as any one to the 
meaningless and senseless dotting of pictures over the margin and their eccentric 
arrangement on t lie page, and I think it will be realised that necessity, and not 
eccentricity, has occasioned any placing of tJie cuts in oilier than the true decora- 
tive form. 



It IS also because the book is intended primarily for the student that I publish 
tmtch work tJiat has been seen before, gathered from every available sotirce and 
piLt together, I Iiope it ivill be found, not in a Iiapliazard mamier, but as carefully 
as I could. Many artists have been consulted in the selection; to many otJiers 
it will probably be a surprise to see their drawings here ; I think there are very 
few zvJiom, from ignorance of their work, I have omitted. I Iiave not included 
examples of very original men like Majiet and Jean B/iraud,for, tJiough I admire 
tlieir zaork as the supreme expression of individuality and originality, it is only 
of value from the man who produces it, and t lie copy by tlie student is worse than 
worthless. And for the same reason examples of many well-known comic 
draughtsmen will not be found ; their reputation is based on tJieir wit and 
liumour which cannot be imitated, ivhile the student can leai'n notliing from tJieir 
technique. I trust tlie critic may not be obliged to point out that I have foigotten 
any ivell-known pen draughtsmen or important pen drawings published during 
tlie last half century, within zvhich time pen drawing has taken rank as a separate 
art. If I have unwittingly overlooked any one, I shall be only too glad, if I am 
allozved the chance, to insert or describe his work on a future occasion. Tlie 
spelling of some of the names of lesser known artists may be questioned, while 
there is at least one man zvhose nationality may be wrongly given. But when 
artists themselves spell their names in three or four fashions, I cannot be expected 
to knozu which is right ; I have tried to use the most common form. And when 
they are continually changing their nationality, one cannot tell to what country 
they really belong. 

Where old reproductions have been used it has not been for cheapness, but 
because these reproductions were the best made at the time the drazvino-s were 
published, and because if I had commissioned — and Ulessrs. Macmillan were 
willing to order — drazoings from artists of established reputation, it is extremely 
doubtful, even for this purpose, if they would have surpassed the best work they 
had already done, and my object has been to sliozo their best zvork. While in the 
making of the book I have had the interest and enthusiasm, generosity and 
encouragement of the leading publishers zvitli very feio exceptions, these fezo to 
my great surprise have come altogether from France, and I have no hesitation 
in saying that they have prevented my including cither any zoork of certain artists 
or that which I specially desired. 

Many critics and literary men have allozaed themselves to be carried away 


in praise of drawings whicli artists cannot respect, and have even devoted volumes 
to the zL'ork of men and women whose names are not in the folloiving pages. 
But 7ny book is technical, and unless a draiuing possesses technique I care not 
a jot or a tittle for its ifitellectical, social, or spiritual qualities. Without 
technical merit such zvork is useless for study. I have made no endeavour to 
estimate the value of the drawing of the artists represented, nor to claim for 
them any place among the immortals. I believe much of the zvork will live and 
will be known as long as there is any real love for art. But since all the greatest 
men here represented, with one or two exceptions, are living and working to-day, 
it IS impossible to form any estimate of the place they will occupy in the future, 
nor is it my business to do so. 

In the preparation of the book, instead of having, as in most cases, authorities 
to consult and acknowledgment to make for information gained from tlicm, I can 
only say that there are no authorities on my subject, this indeed being one of my 
reasons for writing. No works of importance, so far as I have been able to 
discover, have been written upon pen drazuing since the introduction of process 
which has made it into a separate and distinct art. However, I have deep 
acknowledgments to make to artists, — the real but usually unconsulted and ignored 
authorities, — to publishers, and, above all, to my wife. 

This book, which is the outcome of Mr. Richmond Seeleys offer to publish 
a small Iiandbook on pen drawing, zvould never have appeared in its present form, 
had not Mrs. Pennell devoted much time to the writing from my dictation of 
the text. She has managed all the correspondence in connection with it, and 
relieved me of the drudgery of the work. Without her aid and encouragement, 
the almost insurmountable difficulties, altogether unforeseen but encountered at 
every step, could not Jiave been overcome. 

I must next thank Messrs. Macmillan, especially Mr. Frederick Macmillan, 
for their generosity in allowing the illustrations to be so complete, for their 
permission to use or reproduce drazoings which have appeared in their publications, 
and for their willingness to reject process block after process block, the most 
imperfect of whicJi perhaps not half a dozen people in the zoorld would have 

The Century Company, my friends and patrons — for publishers to-day are 
the o-reatest art patrons who ever lived, — Jiave freely lent me all the drazoings 
I wanted from their unrivalled collection. In this matter I am particularly 



indebted to Mr. Charles F. Chichester, t/ie assistant treasurer, and Messrs. 
A. jr. DraJce and W. Lewis Fraser, the art editors. 

Mr. David Douglas of Edinburgh lias lent me tlie plate by Amand- 
Durand after Mr. George Reid. Messrs. George Routlcdge and Sons have 
also contributed the blocks after Randolph Caldecott engraved by Mr. Edmund 
Evans. Messrs. Harper have given me permission to use t/ie two drawings 
by Messrs. Abbey and Parsons from She Stoops to Conquer ; and Mr. Charles 
Parsons, the late head of their Art Department, ivas good enough to select drawings 
and have electros under his supennsion made from them in Neiu York. Messrs. 
Carrcre and Hastings undertook the printing of an edition of Blum's draivnig 
from their book on the Ponce de Leon Hotel ; zvhile Messrs. Cassell, Charles 
Scribners Sons of New York, Bradbury, Agneza and Co., and R. See ley 
and Co., have furnished me with editions and plates and blocks from tJieir 
different publications. As to the great mass of French, German, Ltalian, and 
Spanish work, zaith the exception of original drazvings, it zuas obtained through 
the Electrotype Agency, the proprietor of zvhich, Mr. D. T. N'ops, has on 
several occasions gone to much trouble in obtaining certain electros, as well as 
in other matters. 

But after all there would be no illnstraled publications zvere it not for 
artists and engravers, and from them I have received directly more sympatJiy 
and substantial assistance than I ever could have expected. It is useless to specify 
the many interesting letters I have received from all quarters of the world. But 
when in several cases these letters have been accompanied by original drazvings 
as freely given as they have been gratefully accepted, I hardly know hozu duly 
to acknozaledo'c the kindness. On commissioning^ Martin Rico to make a drazvino-, 
he gave me zaith it another quite as important — the one zvhich begins the chapter 
on his zvork — simply, as he put it, as a petit soLu-enir. Casanova, reftsing to 
make a drazuing at any price, sent instead zvhat he called a little sketch ; it 
appears as a fullfage photogravure. I must also specially acknozvledge my 
indebtedness to jMessrs. Alpred Parsons, E. A. Abbey, ]]lro-nian, JJ^. L. JJ\llie, 
George Reid, David Murray, Mackmurdo and Home. Harry Furniss, Linley 
Sambourne, and the artists of Pick- Me- Up; zvJiile I must at least refer to 
the kindly aid and interest of Adolf JMenzel, Vierge, Dantan, Mine. Lemaire, 
Messrs. W. AL Rossetti, Elozoard Lflc, Charles Kecne, and /. G. Lego-e, the 
latter having attended to many difficult business details for me in Paris. But 


the list IS endless. I have already tried to thank each individually ; I am glad 
to be able to again thank all collectively. 

Messrs. Dalziel with the greatest possible generosity — a generosity which 
can only be appreciated when 1 say that these draiuings were lent solely for the 
purpose of endeavouring to surpass their own ivoodcuts, in which I have succeeded 
— fu7-nished me with the original draioings by Sir Frederick Leighton, iMessrs. 
F. M. Brown and Poynter, which were published in their Bible Gallery. 
Messrs. Dalziel and Swain have not only given me much invaluable information 
about the greatest period of English illustration with which they were so 
intimately associated, but Mr. Szoain has also furnished me with the photographic 
negative from which the Sandys plate was made. As to the photo-engravers 
who have been particularly successful in the reproduction of drawings, I have 
sought to give them due credit where their zvork appears. 

I have not space to mention all the collectors I have bothered, all the 
collections I have waded through, but I must at least alloiv myself the pleasure 
of again thanking Mr. J. P. Heseltine for lending me the draioing by Frederick 
Walker, Mr. Edmund Gosse for his book plate by Mr. Abbey, and Mr. Hall 
for the drawing by the same artist from She Stoops to Conquer. The 
authorities of the British and Sojith Kensington Museums will probably re- 
member me as one who has given them an immense amount of muscular' exercise 
in the mere carting of bound magazines ; the fact that they not only never 
rebelled, save on one occasion in the British Museum, but were willing to aid 
7ne by other than physical means, calls for my very best thanks. 

I must also explain that when I say that American printing is the best, 
I refer especially to magazine zvork — that is the rapid printing of large editions. 
BtU this would not be true in speaking of the printing of a book like this. 
Messrs. Clark have taken the greatest possible pains with it, and have been 
completely successful. I do not believe it could have been better printed anywhere. 

Westminster, August 1889. 



Titian .... 

Some Comparative Heads : Old and 
Mariano Fortuny 
Daniel Vierge 
G. Favretto 
J. F. Raffaelli 
A. Montalti 
Antonio Faeres . 
Louis Galice and Ferrand Fau 
Martin Rico 

E. Tito .... 
A. Casanova y Estorach 
Adolf Menzel 

W. Dietz .... 
H. Schlittgen 

Robert Haug and Hermann Luders 
Ludwig Marold . 
A. Oberlander 














Albert Richter and other Artists in " Universum 

A. Stucki . . ■ ■ ■ 

Waldemar Frederick .... 

Leon Lhermitte . . ■ • 

Edouard Detaille . . . • 

Madeleine Lemaire .... 

E. Dantan ..... 

P. G. Jeanniot ..... 

Louis Leloir . . . . ■ 

Maxime Lalanne .... 

Ulysse Butin ..... 

Drawings of Sculpture 

H. Scott ..... 

Mars ...... 

A. LANgoN ..... 

A. Lalauze ..... 

M. DE Wylie ..... 

Caran D'Ache ..... 

Introduction ..... 

Frederick Sandys .... 

Ford Madox Brown .... 

E. J. Poynter ..... 

Sir Frederick Leighton 

William Small ..... 

W. L. WVLLIE ..... 

T. Blake Wirgman .... 

Frederick Walker .... 

George du Maurier .... 

Charles Keene .... 


Harry Furniss .... 

George Reid ..... 
Walter Crane ..... 
Randolph Caldecott .... 
Maurice Griffenhagen 
Hugh Thomson, Herbert Railton 
Leslie Willson and J. Raven Hill . 
Alfred Parsons .... 











1 10 

1 12 










Edwin A. Abbey .... 

C. S. Reinhart .... 

Reginald B. Birch 

H. F. Farny .... 

Howard Pyle .... 

Arthur B. Frost, Frederick Remington, E. W. Kemble 

Alice Barber .... 

Arthur B. Frost — Caricatures 

Robert Blum .... 

Alfred Brennan 

Frederick Lungren . . 

Harry Fenn .... 

Kenyon Cox .... 

Wyatt Eaton .... 
INDEX ...... 






2 10 
"•2 7 





1. Titian. Landscape. Process block ; unsigned. From the Gazette des Beaux-Arts^ vol. 

XXV. 1882, p. 239 ....... . . 14 

2. Maxime Lalanne. La Porte St.-Antoitte, K\-as^.iirAa.Tci. Process block ; unsigned. From Zrt 

Hotlande a Vol d'Oiseait par. H. Havard, Ouantin, p. 237 . . . .15 

3. Albert DuRER. Study for a figure. Process block ; unsigned. From Life of Diirer by C. 

Ephrussi, Quantin, p. 177 . . . . . . . .16 

4. Vandyke. Head of a child. Process block ; unsigned. Yxovci Aijtoine Vandyke ; Sa Vie et 

son CEiivre, par Jules Guififrey, Quantin, p. 59 . . . . . .17 

5. D. G. ROSSETTI. Study of a head. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From the English Illus- 

trated Magazine, 1884, p. 38 . . . . . . . . 19 

6. Louis Desmoulins. Portrait of Georges Ohnet. Process block ; unsigned. From La Vie 

Moderne, vol. vi. 1884, p. 354 . . . . . . . .19 

7. Louis Galice. Portrait of Mme. Madrazo. Process block ; unsigned. From La Vie 

Moderne, vol. vii. 1885, p. 57 . . . . . . . .20 

8. Louis Desmoulins. Portrait of M. Jundt. Process block ; unsigned. Yxom La Vie Moderne, 

vol. vi. 1884, p. 324 ......... 20 

9. Vandyke. Head of Snyders. Process block ; unsigned. Yxova Ajitoine Vandyke, <t\z.,'^. T ^ 2 1 

10. Rembrandt. Head of an old man. Process block; unsigned. From Gazette des Beaux- 

Arts, vol. xxxii. 1885, p. 498, seq. ....... 22 

11. Rembrandt. Landscape. Process block ; unsigned. From the same . . .22 

12. Rembrandt. The Unfaithful Servant. Process block; unsigned. From L'Art, vol. xix. 

1879, p. 126 . . . . . . . . . .23 

13. Mariano FortuNY. A man reading. Process block ; unsigned. From Z'^rz", vol. xxv. 188 I, 

p. 141 . ■ . . • . ■ • ■ • -37 

14. Daniel Vierge. Drawing made for Pablo de Segovie, par Francisco de Ouevedo, Leon 

Bonhoure, p. i. Process block by Gillot ...... 40 

1 5. Daniel Vierge. Don Quixote. Photogravure by Dujardin. From Portfolio, Nov. 

1888 .......... to face 40 

16. Daniel Vierge. Drawing made for Pablo de Segovie, p. 40. Process block by Gillot . 42 

17. Daniel Vierge. Drawing made for Pablo de Segovie, p. 148. Process block by Gillot (?) 43 

1 8. G. Favretto. Study. Process block ; unsigned. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. xxx. 

1884, p. 89 .......... 44 





19. J. F. RAFFAitLLI. Homme du Peuplc. Process block ; unsigned. From Gazette des Beaux- 

Arts, vol. xxix. 1884, p. 337 ..■••■•• 

20. A. MONTALTi. Pen drawing on lined paper. Tl Tirit), T\. Process block by Fratelli 

Treves of Milan. From Cera una Volta, by Luigi Capuana, Fratelli Treves . . 47 

21. A. Fabres. a Roman peasant. Process block; unsigned. From VArt, vol. xxiii. 1880, 

facing p. 22 . . . • ■ • ■ • • .49 

22. Louis Galice. Sketch. Process block by Michelet. From Zrt Vie Moderne, \o\. \\. 1884, 

p. 611 . . . . . . • ■ ■ • -51 

23. Ferrand Fau. Figures. Process block by Michelet. From La Vie lifoderne, vol. vii. 

1885, p. 262 . . . . . . . • • -51 

24. Martin Rico. A corner of St. Mark's, drawn for this book. Process block by Waterlow 

and Sons, Limited .....•••• 5^ 

25. Martin Rico. Study, Venice, drawn for this book. Photogravure; unsigned . to face 52 

26. Martin Rico. A Venetian canal. Process block ; unsigned. From La Ihestracion 

Espauola y Americana, vol. xxiii. 1879, p. 292 . . . . . -54 

27. Martin Rico. Reminiscence of Seville. Process block ; unsigned. From La Ilustracion 

Espailola y Americana, vol. xxiii. 1879, p. 292 ....•• 55 

28. E. Tito. Piazetta di Santa Marta. Process block ; unsigned. From Z'^r/, vol. xxxv. 1883, 

p. 218 . . . . . . . . . • .57 

29. A. Casanova v Estorach. Study. Process block by Yves et Barret. From LArt, vol. vi. 

1876, p. 217 .......... 58 

30. A. Casanova y Estorach. Study of a head, drawn for this book. Photogravure ; 

unsigned ......... to face 58 

31. A. Casanova y Estorach. Two monks. Process block by Gillot. From LAj-t, vol. xviii. 

1879, p. 31 • • • . . • • • • -59 

32. A. Menzel. Portrait of Blucher. From Germania j drawing loaned by the Berlin Museum. 

Photogravure by the Berlin Photographic Co., by permission of the Keeper of the Gallery 

and A. Menzel ......... to face 69 

33. A. Menzel. Sentinel on duty. Process block from a pen drawing on stone; unsigned. 

From Uniforms of t/ie Army of Frederick the Great, published in Les Maitres Modernes, 
Menzel, p. 8 . . . . . . . . . .70 

34. A, Menzel. Drum-major. See above, p. 9 . . . . . .71 

35. A. Menzel. Studies of costume. See above, p. 10 . . . . .72 

36. W. DiETZ. Revellers. Process block ; unsigned. From Kunst fiir Alle . . -73 

37. H. Schlittgen. Head of officer. Process block ; unsigned. From Ein Erster tmd ein 

Letzter Bal, by Hacklander, Carl Krabbe, p. 2 . . . . . .74 

38. H. Schlittgen. At Trouville. Process block ; imsigned. From Trouville, by F. W. 

Hacklander, Carl Krabbe, p. 25 . . . . . . . -75 

39. Robert Haug. Saluting an officer. Process block ; unsigned. From Ein Scldoss in den 

Arde7inen, by F. W. Hacklander, Carl Krabbe, p. 93 . . . . -77 

40. Hermann Luders. A review. Process block by Angerer and Goschl. From Ein 

Soldatenleben, etc., by H. Luders, Deutsche Verlags Anstalt, p. 167 . . .78 

41. LUDWIG Marold. Sketch, three girls. Process block; unsigned. From Zwisclien Zwei 

Regen, by F. W. Hacklander, Carl Krabbe, p. 49 . . . . -79 

42. A. Oberlander. The Doctor. Woodcut by Roth. From Oberliinder's collection of 

sketches . . . . . . . . _ .Si 

43. Albert Richter. Three small drawings from Universum. Process blocks ; unsigned . 82 83 

44. A. Stucki. a cup. Process block by Meisenbach. From Das Dciitche Zimmer, G. Hirth 84 
45 Waldemar Frederick. Idyl. Photo-lithograph, from a pen and wash drawing; unsigned. 

From Universum ........ to face 86 

46. Leon Lhermitte. The Ragpickers' Street, Paris. Photogravure by Amand-Durand. A 

process block from the same drawing was published in Hamerton's Paris . to face 96 


47. Edouard Detaille. Figure from DAlcrte. Process block by Yves and Barret. From 

L'Art, vol. xiv. 1878, p. 33 . 

48. Madeleine Lemaire. La Marchande de Violettes. Process block ; unsigned. From the 

Ccita.\ogue of the Soch'ii' d'A(^uare/^isies Frangais, 1888 . 

49. E. Dantan. Corner of a studio. Process block by Yves and Barret. From L'Art, vo 

xxii. 1880, facing p. 166 ........ 

50. P. G. Jeanniot. Kiosque at night. Process block ; unsigned. From Z« Vie Moderne, 

vol. V. 1883, p. 2 

51. P. G. Jeanniot. Soldiers drilling. Process block; unsigned. From Za Vie Modenie, wo\ 

V. 1883, p. 284 ......... 

52. P. G. Jeanniot. Study of furniture. Process block by Rose. From La Vie Moderne, vol 

iv. 1882, p. 61 . 

53. Louis Leloir. Study of a figure. Process block; unsigned. From VArt, vol. xxv, 

1881, p. 365 ■ 

54. Maxime Lalanne. Zutphen. Process block ; unsigned. From Havard's j^/Zaw^/f?, p. 88 

55. Maxime Lalanne. Kampen, Eglise St. Nicholas. Process block; unsigned. From 

Havard's Hollande, Quantin, p. 112 . 

56. Maxime Lalanne. Roermond Vue du Marche. Process block; unsigned. See above, 

p. 17 . 

57. UlysSE Butin. Au cabaret. Process block by Yves and Barret. From L'Art, vol. xiii 

1878, facing p. 54 . 

58. L£on Gaucherel. Sarpedon. Process block by Yves and Barret. From L'Art, vol. x 

1877, p. 104 . 

59. St. Elme Gautier. La Genie des Arts. Process block by Yves and Barret. Yxom L'Art, 

vol. X. 1877, p. loi ........ 

60. Marie Weber. Tetes d'Anges. Process block; unsigned. From L'Art, vol. xxviii. 188: 

p. 35 . 

61. Ringel D'Illzach. Head of De Lesseps. Drawing in crayon and ink on lined pape 

Process block; unsigned. From L'Art, vol. xxxviii. 1885, p. 8 . 

62. H. Scott. Clock tower of Chantilly. Process block ; unsigned. From La Vie Moderne. 

vol. V. 1883, p. 402 ........ 

63. H. Scott. Pierrefonds. Process block; unsigned. From La Vie Moderne, vol. vi. 1884 

p. 148 . 

64. Mars. Pierrot blanc et Pierrette noir. Process block ; unsigned. From La Vie Moderne. 

vol. v. 1883, p. 136 . 

65. A. LaN(JON. Cats. Process blocks; unsigned. From La Vie Moderne,' yo\. ii. 1881, p, 

523 ......... . 

66. A. L.alauze or Louis Leloir. Study of a figure in pen and pencil. Process block by 

Yves and Barret. From L'Art, vol. xxxvi. 1884, p. 62 . 

67. M. DE Wylie. Twilight. Process block ; unsigned. From La Vie Moderne, vol. v 

1883, p. 309 . . . . 

68. Caran D'Ache. All Pesage. Process block by Krakow, on which colour wash is to be 

applied. From Les Courses dans L'Antiquite, Plon, Nourrit, and Cie, p. 28 

69. Frederick Sandys. Amor Mundi. Photogravure ; unsigned. From a negative, owned 

by Mr. J. Swain, made from the original drawing on the wood. The woodcut from this 
drawing was published in the 5/«'///;zf yJ/ag'a^zVz^ for 1865. . . . to face 

70. Ford M.ADOX Brown. Elijah and the widow's son. Process block by A. and C. Dawson. 

From the original drawing owned by Messrs. Dalziel. From this drawing a woodcut, made 
by them, was published in their Bible Gallery ...... 

71. E. J. Poynter. Daniel's prayer. Process block; Walker and Boutall. See above 

72. Sir Frederick Leighton. Samson. Photogravure; unsigned. See above . to face 

73. William Small. Studies. Process blocks by Waterlow and Sons, and unsigned. From 

original unpublished drawings loaned me by Mr. T. Blake Wirgman 






1 10 

1 10 

1 1 1 














74. W. L. Wyllie. Black Diamonds. Drawing from his picture of the same name, with brush 

and pen. Process blocl< ; unsigned. From the original drawing. Reproductions of this 
drawing have also been pubhshed in catalogues and Cassell's Afaffl^/Vz^ <?/-4r^ . -15? 

75. T. Blake Wirgman. Sketch of Reynolds' portrait of Mrs. Smeaton. Process block ; 

unsigned. From original unpublished drawing, loaned me by the artist . 

76. T. Blake Wirgman. H. H. Armstead at work. Process block ; unsigned. From original 

drawing, by permission of the Century Co., loaned me by the artist. This drawing m 
smaller size was cut on wood in the Century Magazine, as an illustration to Some English 
Sculptors, 1882. 

77. Frederick Walker. The Vagrants. Photogravure ; unsigned. From the original un- 

published drawing loaned by Mr. J. P. Heseltine . . • • • to face 162 

78. George Du Maurier. Right of Translation. Woodcut by J. Swain. From Pimch 

for 7th Jan. 1865 ..■•■••■• 

79. Charles Keene. "Little Chickmouse," etc. Woodcut by J. Swain. From Punch for 

24th Sept. 1864 ....•■•••■ 

80. LiNLEY Sambourne. A water baby. Process block by A. and C. Dawson and woodcut 

by J. Swain. From Water Babies, -p. 109. Macmillan and Co. . . • .168 

81. LiNLEY Sambourne. A lobster. Woodcut by J. Swain. See above, p. 162 . . 169 

82. LiNLEY Sambourne. Tail-piece. See above, p. 235 . . . • • 169 

83. LiNLEY Sambourne. Worth Cultivating. Process block by A. and C. Dawson, from the 

original drawing. A woodcut of the same drawing was published in Punch, 24th Dec. 

1887 ......•■•■■ 170 

84. Harry Furniss. Education's Frankenstein. Woodcut by J. Swain. From Punch's 

Almanac hi 1884 . . . . ■ • • • .172 

85. Harry Furniss. Portraits. Woodcut; unsigned, and process block by Waterlow and 

Sons. YromXkiit English Illustrated Magazine, 1884, pp. 12 and 13 ■ • ■ I73 

86. George Reid. Portrait of the Author, from Johnnie Gibb. Photogravure by Amand- 

Durand, the plate loaned by David Douglas of Edinburgh. . . . to face 174 

87. Walter Crane. Process block ; unsigned. From the original drawing . . .177 

88. Randolph Caldecott. Cat waiting for a mouse. Woodcut by Edmund Evans. From 

R. C.'s. House that Jack Built. Routledge and Sons . . . . .179 

89. Randolph Caldecott. The Mad Dog. From The Mad Dog. Woodcut by Edmund 

Evans. Routledge and Sons . . . . . . . .180 

90. Randolph Caldecott. The Stag. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From R. C.'s yEsop's 

Failles. Macmillan and Co. . . . . . . . .180 

91. Randolph Caldecott. The Fox. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From ALsofs Fables. 

Macmillan and Co. . . . . . . . . .181 

92. Randolph Caldecott. The Lamb. See above . . . . . .181 

93. Randolph Caldecott. Some Round Hats. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From the 

English Illustrated Magazine, 1886, p. 415 . . . . . . 181 

94. Maurice Griffenhagen. Evening on a house boat. Process block by A. and C. 

Dawson. From original drawing loaned me by Messrs. Dalziel . . . .183 

95. Hugh Thomson. A hunting morning. Process block by Waterlow and Sons. From the 

English Illustrated Magazine, 1889 . . . . . . .184 

96. Herbert Railton. The Judge's houses at East Grinstead. Process block by Waterlow 

and Sons (?) From the Englisli Illustrated Magazitie, 18S8, p. 434 . . .185 

97. Leslie Willson. Evening fete. Process block by J. Swain. From Pick-Me-Up for 30th 

March 1889 . . . . . . . . . .187 

98. L. Raven Hill. Visions of the future. Process block by J. Swain. From Pick-Me-Up 

for 1 6th March 1S89 . . . . . . . . .189 

99. Alfred Parsons. Marston Sicca. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From the English 

Illustrated Magazine, 1885, p. 275 . . . . . . , 190 



lOO. Alfred Parsons. Initial Letter. Woodcut by E. Schladitz. From the English Illus- 
trated Maga::ine, 1884, p. 478 . . . . . . .190 

loi. Alfred Parsons. Field thistle. Woodcut by J. D. Cooper. From the English Illiis- 

tratcd Maga:iine, 1884, p. 169 . . . . . . . .190 

102. Alfred Parsons. An old garden. Process block ; unsigned. Yxoxn Harper's CJwistmas 

A limber^ 1887. . , . . , . . . .191 

103. Alfred Parsons. Title-page to She Stoops to Conquer. Photogravure by Amand-Durand. 

From original drawing, by permission of Messrs. Harper Brothers. Drawing loaned by 

Mr. Parsons ......... to face 192 

104. Edwin A. Abbey. Book plate. Process block by A. and C. Dawson. From original 

drawing loaned by Mr. Edmund Gosse ....... 202 

105. Edwin A. Abbey. 'Q'C2i\mVL'g^ixo\-\\ She Stoops to Conquer. Photogravure by Amand-Durand. 

From original drawing, by permission of Messrs. Harper Brothers, loaned by Mr. Hall 

to face 202 

106. Charles S. Reinhart. Drawing from Tlieir Pilgrimage. Process block by Franklin 

Electro Co. Yrom. Harper^ s Monthly, 1886 ...... 204 

107. Reginald Birch. Two di'a.wm'g^ irom Little Lord Fauntleroy. Process blocks ; unsigned 205 

108. H. F. Farny. An Indian chief Process block by A. and C. Dawson. From original 

drawing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in smaller size in the 
Century Magazi?ie . . . . . . . . .206 

109. Howard Pyle. Drawing from the Wonder Clock. Process block by Moss Engraving Co. 208 

110. Arthur B. Frost. A discussion. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. From original 

drawing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in smaller size in the Century 
Magazine . . . . . . . . .211 

111. Frederick Remington. A question of brands. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. 

From original drawing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in smaller size 

i n the Century Magazine . . . . . . . .212 

112. E. W. Kemble. Boiling sugar cane. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. From original 

drawing loaned by the Centuiy Co. of New York. Published in smaller size in the Century 
Magazitie . . . . . . . . . .213 

113. Alice B.arber. A music lesson. Process block by Moss Engraving Co. From Harper's 

Young People, 188S . . . . . . . . .215 

114. A. B. Frost. Our Cat Eats Rat Poison. Process block; unsigned. From Harper's 

Monthly, 1881 . . . . . . . . .216 

115. Robert Blum. Portrait of Joe Jefferson. Photogravure ; unsigned. From original drawing 

loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published as a woodcut much smaller in 
Scrihner's Monthly . . . . . . . .to face 2 1 8 

116. Alfred Brennan. Illustration for story. Process block ; unsigned. From drawing loaned 

by the Century Co. of New York. Published in much smaller size in St. Nicholas . 221 

1 1 7. Alfred Brennan. Stairway at Chantilly. Process block by C. L. Wright Gravure Co. 

From Harpet^s Monthly, 1887. . . . . .223 

1 1 8. Frederick LUNGREN. Illustration for story. Process block ; unsigned. From original draw- 
ing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in much smaller size in St. Nicholas 225 

119. Harry Fenn. Hallway of his house. Process block; unsigned. From the Magazine 

of Art . . ■ ■ . . . . ■ . .227 

120. Kenyon Cox. Figure from photograph. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. From 

original drawing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in much smaller size 

in the Century Magazine ■ . . . , . . .229 

121. Wyatt Eaton. Drawing of relief Process block by the C. L. Wright Gravure Co. From 

the Century Magazine, January 1889 . . . . . . .231 

122. Robert Blum. Alcazar. Photo-lithograph done under the superintendence of Gilliss 

Brothers and Tournure. Y-com Florida, the American Riviera . . . to face 246 


















Albert Durer. Angels carrying the Crown. Process block ; unsigned. From Life of 

Diirer by Ephrussi, Ouantin, p. 194 . 

Albert Durer. St. George and the Dragon. See above, p. 203 
Alfred Parsons. The Hawk. Decoration for Si. Guido by Richard Jefiferies. Woodcut 

by J. D. Cooper. From the English Illustrated Magazine, 1885, p. 186 
Alfred Parsons. The Swallow. See above, p. 181 . 
Hugh Thomson. Title : A Morning in London. Process block by Waterlow and Sons 

YxovLi\\ift English Illustrated Magazine, \'&?,1,T^. Z^i ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Louis Davis. Tail-piece. Process block by Waterlow and Sons. Used as head-piece in 

t\i& E?iglish Illustrated Magazine, 1887, p. 245 . 
Heywood Sumner. Head-piece. Woodcut; unsigned. See above, 1884, p. 390 
A. C. Morrow. Tail-piece. See above, 1886, p. 498 . . . ■ 

Heywood Sumner. Head-piece. See above, 1885, p. 718 

Henry Ryland. Tail-piece. Process block ; unsigned. See above, 1888, p. 629 
Henry Ryland. Head-piece. Process block by Waterlow and Sons. See above, 18 

p. 210 . 
Heywood Sumner. Tail-piece. Process block ; unsigned. See above, 1887, p. 373 
Louis Davis. Head-piece. Process block ; unsigned. See above, 1888, p. 524. 
E. Grasset. Head-piece, landscape. Process block ; unsigned. From Baschet's illustrated 

Salon Catalogues ........ 

E. Grasset. Introductory head-piece. Process block by Gillot. See above 

F. Bracquemond. Tail-piece. Process block ; unsigned. Yrora Gazette des Beaux-Arts. 
voL xxix. 1884, p. 420, etc. ....... 

Heywood Sumner. We have no Souls, etc. Process block by Waterlow and Sons. From 
\\i& English Illustrated Magazine, 1887, p. 298 ...... 

Alfred Parsons. Title : Shakespeare's Country. Woodcut by J. J. Cocking. From 
\h^ English Illustrated Magazine, 1885, p. 271. 

Herbert P. Horne. Diana. Process block by Walker and Boutall. From the Century 
G\x\\A Hobby-Horse, 1888 

Herbert P. Horne. Initial F. Process block by Walker and Boutall. From the 
Century Guild Hobby-Horse ....... 

H. L. Bridwell. Initial M. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. From original drawing 
loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in smaller size in the Century 
Magazine ......... 

E. Unger. Head-piece. Woodcut ; unsigned. From Universum 

H. L. Bridwell. Initial S. Process block by Louis Chefdeville. From original draw- 
ing loaned by the Century Co. of New York. Published in smaller size in the Century 
Magazine ......... 

Haeert-Dys. Initial A. Process block by Pettit. From the Alphabet of Habert-Dys 

F. Bracquemond. Initial D. Process block ; unsigned. From Gazette des Beaux-Arts. 
vol. xxix. 1884, p. 420 ......... 

E. Unger. Tail-piece. Woodcut ; unsigned. From Universum 

Habert-Dys. Tail-piece. Process block; unsigned. From VArt, vol. xxxvi. 1884 

p. 195 ■ 
P. Renouard. Cock fight. Process blocks ; unsigned. From La Vie Modernc, vol. iii 

1882, p. 84s . 

Walter Crane. Page of decorative lettering. Process block by Waterlow and Sons 

7 torn ih& English Illustrated Magazine, 1885, p. 628 
Walter Crane. Head and tail-pieces. Process blocks by Walker and Boutall. From 

drawings designed for Messrs. R. and R. Clark ..... 
Habert-Dys. Head-piece. Process block by Pettit. From L'Art, vol. xxxvi. 1884 

P- 194 • 























154. Herbert P. HoRNE. Tail-piece. Process block by Walker and Boutall. From the Century 

G\xM Hobby-Horse . . . . . . . ■ .271 

155. A. Edelfeldt. Study of a head. Woodcut by Charles Baude .... 296 

156. Albert Durer. Big Horse. Woodcut by R. Paterson. From the English Illustrated 

Magazine^ 1885, p. 20 . . . . . . . . • 298 

157. Albert Durer. Big Horse. Photogravure by A. and C. Dawson. From print in 

British Museum ......... to face 298 

158. Albert Durer. Big Horse. Process block by A. and C. Dawson. From print in 

British Museum .......... 299 

Note. — Many of the plates and blocks being unsigned, I am unfortunately unable in certain cases to give the en- 
gravers who reproduced them credit for their work. There are also a few illustrations to which the date of publication 
is not appended. This is due to the fact that either original drawings were sent me by artists or publishers without date 
or title, or else examples were selected from unsigned and undated collections of proofs. 


Pages 30 and ^2, for "Illustradon," ax\A page ^S,, for '■^ Ilhistrazion" read 

" llustracion.'" 
Page 1^0, for " Armand Durand " read " Amand-Durand." 

143, /^r "Leslie Wilson" read "Leslie Willson." 

154, /&^ "Ford Maddox Brown" read "Ford Madox Brown." 

\Z-],for "J. Raven Hill" read " L. Raven Hill." 

200, for " Thurlstrop " read " Thulstup." 

245, /(^r " British Artists " read " British Architects." 

277, y^r " Tabor " ;ra(/ " Taber. " 

2Z0, for "Windsor and Newton" read " Winsor and Newton." 

295, /w " Beaude " read " Baude." 



I "HERE are three reasons why I wish to write of pen drawing 
-L at the present time. The first is because I believe that, just 
as none but the physician is allowed to speak with authority on 
medicine, none but the scientist on science, so only the man who 
has made and carefully studied pen drawings should have the 
right to speak authoritatively of them. Only the writing on art by 
one who has technical knowledge of it is of practical value, and 
I think this explains why it is, that of the many books on art written 
of late years, so few are of real use to the artist. Such volumes as 
Lalanne's Treatise on Etching, Mr. Hamerton's Etching and Etchers, 
and some parts of Ruskin's Elements of Drawing, are indeed the 

This leads me to my second reason for writing : the very un- 
satisfactory manner in which pen drawing has hitherto been treated. 
The principal critics of the day hold their own estimation of con- 
temporary and earlier art in all its many branches to be the only 
right one, and abuse every other as vitally at fault ; while it is the 
tendency of many modern writers to so enlarge upon the divine mission, 
the intellectual value, the historical importance of art in the past, as to 
belittle contemporary art, and to altogether ignore technique, which is 
as great to-day as in any former time. Without the nearest possible 
individual approach to technical perfection, according to the standard 



of the age in which it is produced, art work cannot be of value 
as a whole, although in parts it may be instructive. 

If often this belittling of contemporary art is to be expected, it is 
unwarranted when extended to pen drawing, which, as a distinct art, 
belongs only to the last few years. This fact has been so completely 
overlooked that in treatises accepted as authorities, pen drawing 
in its modern development has not received the attention it deserves. 
This is true even of Mr. Hamerton's chapter on the subject, though it 
must be remembered that The Graphic Arts was published in 1882, 
before pen drawing had developed to any extent in England ; and, 
knowing how careful and painstaking Mr. Hamerton is in all his 
work, I think it probable that this chapter was written at a much 
earlier date. Looking in The Graphic Arts, I find that not one 
of the pen drawings is reproduced by any intaglio process of photo- 
engraving, and it is the development of photo-engraving, side by 
side with pen drawing, that has brought the latter to its present 

Of course the pen drawings or sketches of Albert Diirer, of 
Da Vinci and Raphael, of Michael Angelo and Titian, in fact of 
every old master, and above all of Rembrandt, are unquestionably 
instructive and interesting and curious. Of the drawings of several 
of these men I shall speak further on. As a rule, however, 
they are but memoranda, the adjuncts of another art. To-day pen 
drawing is not only an art in itself, but one which, as well as 
painting in oils, requires its own technical perfection. It may 
be objected that the old masters often made elaborate pen drawings. 
So they did ; just as Rossetti elaborated with his pen or pencil 
until one wishes he had put the same time and infinite amount of 
work that went to his illustrations of Tennyson, and copies of 
his pictures, for example, into his beautiful pastels. True, in the 
end he succeeded in getting what he wanted, but he was no 
technician ; like the old masters, he did not in the modern sense 
know how to make a pen drawing. I should except some of his 
slight early sketches, and notably a fine head of his mother. 

With a certain class of writers on art I am not here concerned, 
since to them eloquent writing is of more importance than honest 
criticism, and their ignorance of the technique of any art is only 
equalled by their ability to write on it. There have been men, 


however, who have sought to treat pen and ink drawing technically, 
and the third reason for my writing is that some of these writers, 
who call themselves pen draughtsmen, have evidently the very smallest 
knowledge of their subject. One such manual states on cover and 
title-page that pen and ink drawing is commonly called etching, 
showing at once to what manner of audience it is addressed, 
viz. people who draw with pen and ink on antimacassars and 
call it etching, and who are continually asking what is the difference 
between a pen drawing and an etching anyway.^ If Mr. Hamerton 
and Mr. Ruskin have not been able to show this elementary difference, 
it would be not only presumptuous, but a great waste of paper on my 
part to quote their words. However, for the benefit of such people, 
to whom it probably will be information, I may say that pen 
drawing is, was, and ever shall be, drawing with a pen, and nothing 
else. As to etching, it is a method of engraving on a metal plate 
with which I am not here concerned. 

Neither do I propose to make this a treatise on drawing. For 
one must not only know something of art, but all that one can find 
out for one's self about drawing, before good work can be done with 
the pen. Strange as it may seem to the crowds who are actually 
flooding the world with pen drawings, the same qualities go to make 
a good pen drawing which Mr. Hamerton rightly says are indispens- 
able to the production of a good etching. The only advantage is, that 
instead of having a treacherous material to work with, you have the 
simplest possible. This being so, only proves the great difficulty of 
really drawing well with the pen. 

When one sees pen and ink copies of woodcuts, of oil paintings, 
of anything and everything, all worked out with an awful and reverent, 
but utterly misplaced and wasted fidelity, one best realises that pen 
drawing, like etching, is one of the most facile, least understood, and 
most abused of the arts. 

I do not believe with one of the few men who have already 
written of pen drawing that he or any one else can, in a book, " teach 
drawing in Indian ink, upon principles so easy and progressive that 

1 The Master of the Architectural School of calls a perspective etched in brown ink. Other 

the Royal Academy also falls into this careless architects are continually talking of a drawing 

mistake. On page 47, paragraph 143, of his being etched when they mean it is drawn in pen 

Architectural Drawing, writing of pen drawings, and ink. 
he illustrates his matter by reference to what he 


individuals may attain this pleasing amusement without the aid of a 
master" ; or indeed, unless the student has great ability, with his aid. 
But I am not without hope that the pen drawings published here will 
show many, who are pleased to call themselves pen draughtsmen, that 
they are without the faintest idea of the aims, objects, and limitations 
of the art; as well as bring to the notice of amateurs, collectors, 
critics and print-sellers, a healthy, vigorous, flourishing art which is 
being developed and improved in all its branches, and owes nothing 
whatever to their fostering care or encouragement. 

For examples, I have selected the best work, so far as I have 
been able to find it, of all schools, and not merely of one narrow 
French, English, Italian, German, Spanish, or American method, the 
merits or shortcomings of which one would be unable to point out 
without using this comparative plan. 

Mr. Hamerton calls pen drawing a " simple process," and some 
people may unwisely suppose that a simple process implies an easy 
and trifling form of art. To the incipient artist encouraged by the 
financial success of pen drawing hacks, I would only say : unless you 
feel that pen drawing is something to be reverenced, something to be 
studied, something to be loved, something to be wondered at, that you 
are the motive power behind the pen, and that you must put all your 
individuality and character into your work, you will never become a 
pen draughtsman. And you should be prouder to illustrate the greatest 
magazines of the world, thus appealing to millions of readers, than to 
have your drawings buried in the portfolios of a few hundred collectors. 
For I believe that, in these days, artists, who show their work to the 
people through the press, are doing as did the masters of other days, 
who spoke to the people through the church. 




OF pen drawing in the past I shall say but little, for the 
simple reason that there is little to be said. No artist 
would study the old masters, with a very few exceptions, notably 
among the old Dutchmen, for the technical qualities of pen 
drawing. As painters now look to Titian and Velasquez, Rem- 
brandt and Franz Hals, so men in future times will look back 
to some of the pen draughtsmen of to-day as not only the early, 
but the great masters of the art. It is not necessary to do more 
than to point out the scope and aim of pen drawing as it existed 
among the great artists of other days, in order to emphasise its 
far wider scope and higher aims among the men of the present. 
A knowledge of its immaturity in the past helps one to the appre- 
ciation of its development in our own time. 

It must be understood, however, that if the pen drawing of the 
old masters was undeveloped in comparison with the work of to-day, 
it was simply because with them there was no call for it as an art 
apart. It was quite perfect for the purpose they wished it to serve. 
Since in engravings on wood and steel all the pen quality of a 
drawing is lost, when they wanted to reproduce their work auto- 
graphically, they etched. What Mr. Hamerton says generally of pen 
drawings, is really applicable only to theirs: they were "sketches of 
projects and intentions." They are to be studied, of course, for their 


composition and arrangement, suggestion of light and shade, and 
rendering of the figure, of Avhich I have no intention to speak, since 
in these matters pen drawing is subject to the same laws as any other 
art ; but for pure technique these pen memoranda, as a rule, have 
little to teach the modern draughtsman. 

That the old masters made great use of the pen is well enough 
known. One cannot go to any of the galleries of the world without 
seeing many of their pen drawings, which are interesting in their 
relation to the pictures of which they were the germs, and as records 
of strong impressions and ideas vigorously and simply put down. 
And here let me insist again that, while one may make notes and 
sketches as they did, and study their marvellous facility and vigour 
in so sketching, such sketches are not, as many modern art critics 
and artists consider them, pen drawings. This is proved at once by 
the very different methods used by these same masters in their 
etchings, to which the pen drawings of to-day are equivalent. But 
their pen sketches, or rather memoranda, really were for them very 
much what instantaneous photographs are for the modern artist — 
suggestions and notes of action and movement. By all means these 
old sketches should be studied. But it is the veriest affectation 
nowadays to imitate them. 

If the artists of to-day were not possessed of such external aids 
as photography, they would probably excel all old masters in sketch- 
ing — always excepting Rembrandt, though Whistler in his etchings 
of architecture is quite the equal of Rembrandt. The modern artist 
has many aids and adjuncts which the old men knew nothing about, 
and which make the work of to-day much more true and accurate and 
scientific than that of any other time. But because of his dependence 
on these aids, the modern artist has lost much of the old facility in 
sketching. What I say applies even to colour. And if a man with 
the gifts of Titian were to come to-day, he would surpass Titian 
himself, just as Corot surpasses all the old landscapists. 

Michael Angelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael often made the first 
sketches for their pictures with pen and ink : sketches full of character, 
which have lately been made better known by Braun's autotypes and 
numberless photographs. Botticelli's delicate and refined illustrations 
for the Divina Commedia, though drawn in with sympathetic silver 
point, were gone over with pen and ink. 


Landscapes by Titian, with little villages or houses in the middle 
distance, have a delightful suggestion of picturesqueness ; but it is 
curious to compare these with modern pen and ink landscapes by Rico 
or Vierge, for example. Titian's, the honest critic must admit, suffer 
when comparison of their technical points is made. A drawing of a 
Turk by Giovanni Bellini in the British Museum can, for beauty of 
modelling with a pen and delicacy of handling combined with sim- 
plicity, be advantageously studied by the pen draughtsmen of to-day. 
It shows what the old men might have done with a pen. 

There are pen studies of horses and carriages by Velasquez, very 
simply and strongly suggested. But it is unnecessary to go through 
the list of all the masters whose drawings have been preserved. It is 
endless, and, differing as the drawings do in character, they are nearly 
all alike in being mere notes or records of facts; or if, as rarely 
happens, carried out, they are, save in few more than the cases I have 
mentioned, valueless for study of technique. There are ideas enough 
to be learned from them, and sometimes the best and strongest work 
of the artist is to be found in his pen drawings. 

The pen draughtsman will study to best advantage such old work 
as Holbein's Dance of Death, and beautiful designs for metal work, 
many of the originals of which may be found in the British Museum ; 
Albert Diirer's and Israel von Meckenen's engravings ; Rembrandt's 
etchings ; the lovely Renaissance decorative head and tail pieces. 
Durer, having no perfect process by which to reproduce his work, 
wisely put little delicacy of line into his wonderful drawings for the 
wood-cutter, and delicacy is all that is lacking to make them in 
technique equal to the drawings of to-day. That he could draw 
delicately is shown by his etchings, every one of which is worthy of 
reverent study. That he did not, only proves that he understood 
the limitations of wood-cutting. This want, however, added to a 
certain archaic decorative feeling that pervades all his engraved 
work, makes it affectation for an artist to-day to model his style 
on that of Dtirer. 

But, on the other hand, nothing could be nearer perfection for an 
artist of a northern countiy to study than Rembrandt's drawings and 
etchings of out-of-door subjects, especially his little views of towns. 
Even Mr. Ruskin gives this advice in his Elements of Drawing. 
Rembrandt's etchings have so many of the same qualities as pen 



drawings that, I feel certain, had he lived in our age, he would not 
have etched so much, but would have made innumerable pen draw- 
ings, for the same reason the best pen draughtsman of to-day, who 
could etch if he chose, once gave me. Why, when he could have his 
drawings reproduced perfectly, should he use a nasty, dirty process, 
which is successful more by good luck than good management ? You 
can see by reproductions in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts how well 
Rembrandt's simpler etchings, as well as Vandyke's, are rendered by 
process blocks from clean wiped prints. Many of Rembrandt's etch- 
ings come veiy Avell without any wiping.^ Collectors now appreciate 
old etchings for their rarity, but when they were made, they were 
appreciated because of their perfect reproduction of the master's work. 
There were then no fancy prices attached to Rembrandt's etchings, or, 
in his time, to Meryon's either for that matter. They were sold for a 
few pence, as are our best illustrated magazines. 

There is a little of the modern feeling and go in some 
of Tiepolo's drawings. Claude's landscape sketching in pen and 
ink is also marked by more of the modern spirit. Mr. Hamerton, 
indeed, thinks that with him modern pen work began. Both these 
artists used washes of bistre or sepia in their pen drawings. But to 
this I see no reason to make objection. I am no purist in art, 
and therefore no advocate for "pure pen drawing." I think it 
more important to give a desired effect, no matter how, than to 
limit the means by which it is to be obtained. 

The development from Claude and Tiepolo, through Paul Huet 
and others, onwards to our time, could be easily traced. Doubtless 
many pages could be filled were I to follow this growth in detail, 
and the average art critic would have ample opportunity to discover 
my omissions and praise my discoveries. But I do not think it 
worth while, since it is in its maturity, rather than in its making, 
that pen drawing is most interesting. And besides, as I have 
said, the introduction of photo-engraving had so much to do with its 
development that there seems to be but one step from the old 
" sketches of projects and intentions " to the modern comparatively 
perfect work. 

The history of the development of pen drawing and the history 

^ For reproductions of Rembrandt's etchings par Emilc Michel, Paris; Librairie de L'Arf, 
by process, see Les Artistes C'dcbres ; Rembratidt, iSS6; and DaJieiiu, Leipzic, Sept. iSSS, scq. 


of the development of photo-engraving are two distinct subjects, 
neither of which do I propose to treat. Mr. H. Trueman Wood in 
his Modern MetJwds of Illustrating Books devotes a chapter to 
mechanical processes, in which he gives the bare dates and facts 
about photo - engraving. I think it more than likely that the 
processes he mentions were used in France and America before 
they were ever attempted in this country, though Mr. Fraser of the 
Century says the first really successful process was Woodbury's 
in England. However, the first successful reproductions which 
appeared in any English magazine, I have found in Once a Week, and 
they were taken from French periodicals. 

There are, on the other hand, innumerable histories and 
biographies of the great and lesser masters of all times from Giotto 
to the man who died yesterday, all of whom have helped to develop 
pen drawing. But until about the year 1880 pen drawing did 
not begin to flourish as an art in itself. Before this no artist, 
except as an experiment, would have his work reproduced by these, 
then, only partially developed processes. The drawings of the old 
masters, when reproduced at all, were drawn on wood and then 
cut all to pieces, and this method was continued until a very 
few years ago, when photography was made use of to transfer 
the image of natural objects on to the wood. Thence it was 
only a step to photograph the pen or other drawing on to the 
block, the original work remaining untouched. The last step of 
all is the photographing of the pen or other drawing — with pen 
drawings alone I am of course here concerned — on to a sensitised 
block, gelatine film or zinc plate, or other substance, from which a 
mechanical or process engraving is made. It is this development of 
process which has made pen drawing into a distinct art, equal in 
importance to etching. 

Throughout this volume I use the word process to express the 
reproduction of a drawing. It is the word used by artists, and there- 
fore the right one. 





T SHOW this drawing by Titian, and with it a Httle sketch in Holland by 
-*- Maxime Lalanne, for the purpose of comparison. I am quite aware that it 
will be thought absurd on my part to compare the study for a great picture, 
which this may have been, — I confess I do not know for what picture it was a 
study, if indeed it was ever used, for I cannot recall any of Titian's pictures in 
which the composition recurs, — with an apparently slight and trivial drawing by 
Lalanne. I know it will at once be said that the hand of a greater man and a 
larger and broader mind is shown in a pen drawing which, like Titian's, can 
give a rocky foreground with a great tree, a middle distance with a town and 
woods, a lake stretching away to a mountainous horizon, and above all, a fine 
cloud effect. I would be the first to admit this, if the drawing by Titian 
expressed, with the same simplicity and meaning of line, a result as artistic as 
that of the drawing by Lalanne. But this is certainly not the case. 

Before analysing Titian's drawing, I must do that which will seem gratuitous. 
I must make an apology for it by saying that I do not believe Titian ever in- 
tended it to be shown. And because Titian was one of the greatest, if not the 
o-reatest Italian painter who ever lived, there is absolutely no reason why we 
should bow down and worship everything that came from his hand. Though 
the composition is suggestive and may have been of great value to the artist, 
the actual lines are useless for study. They are careless and trivial from one 
end of the drawing to the other. To come down to details, the idea of the 
tree trunk which comes out towards us is very well given, although there is 
in it absolutely no feeling for line. But it grows out of a meaningless blot at 
the bottom and disappears at the top in meaningless scrawls which common 
sense tells us are meant for foliage. Compare it for a moment with the young 



tree by Lalanne ; ^ note how gracefully the growth of the tree is indicated, 
and the way in which Lalanne shows the direction of the prevalent wind in 
Holland, which causes the tree to bend and its branches to grow on the side 
away from it. Then in Titian's drawing it is impossible to tell where the 
rocky foreground ends and the water of the lake begins, even though the lake 
lies far below. Everything is obscure. In Lalanne's this is shown in the 
clearest manner with about one-third the number of lines Titian has used. In 
the Titian there are blots in the water, and you cannot make out the construc- 

tion ot the boat. In the Lalanne this is plain enough ; you can even see the 
different colours in which his boat is painted. Look at the careful and yet 
slight indication of the roadway leading back to the towered gate. But can 
any one tell me what the cross-hatched, scrawled-in hill on the right of Titian's 
is composed of? Titian's middle distance of a town, woods, and a house under 
the trees on the opposite side of the lake have the handling of a small child, 
while the perspective is all out. In Lalanne's, note how every line has a 
purpose, how beautifully the shadows are given on the houses, how the little 

1 La Porte Saint-Antoine, Amsterdam. La Hollande d Vol d'Oiscau, Henry Havard Decaux and 
Quantin, Paris. ' 



blots all have a meaning, while Titian's are due to pure carelessness. There 
is quite as much suggestion in Lalanne's pure white paper sky, as in Titian's 
laboured clouds. I know that any critic can see these things. But the point 
I wish to emphasise is that students are bidden, and do study drawings like 
this of Titian's ; because he was a great master of painting, he is supposed to 
be a great master of everything ; but Lalanne, who was an equally great master 
as a pen draughtsman, is ignored because he is a modern and rarely painted. 
And I want to insist in the strongest manner that this, and all other drawings 
of Titian's I have ever seen — and I have gone through almost all the great 
galleries, — are simply of no value whatever for the study of technique. I 
repeat what I have already said that neither pen drawing nor landscape 
painting was then developed, or had even become an independent and separate 
art of any great importance. I do not for a moment assert that Titian could 
not have made a fine pen drawing. I only say that, judging from his drawings 
which we possess, he did not. 

Note. — For other Lalannes, see Illustrations to Chapter on French Pen Drawing. 




In showing these heads I have thought it best to compare the old work with 

the new, even though I am thus grouping together two or three different 

countries, in order to 

explain more easily the 

difference between 

ancient and modern 


Commencing with 
Dlirer ; we all know what 
he could do with a pen 
from his designs and 
decorations, so refined 
as to be models for use 
to-day, and from his 
woodcuts, for whether 
he drew these with a 
pen, pencil, or brush is 
of very little importance 
since the results resem- 
ble pen drawings on the 
block. But when we 
come upon a drawing 
like this, of which he 
must have been proud 
or he would never have 
signed it, we find at 
once, exquisite though 
the drawing is and fine as is every line in it, that Durer had not a knowledge 
of the wealth and depth of colour which can be obtained with a pen. By 
comparing it with the drawing by Rossetti this becomes apparent, even though 
the Rossetti has lost very much in the woodcut. The lines in the Diirer are 




of course far finer than those in the Rossetti, but the latter suggests far more 

colour and is much more 
freely handled than the 
earlier drawing of Durer. 
Neither of these drawings 
was intended for reproduc- 
tion, and the Diirer no 
more resembles his etch- 
ings than the Rossetti re- 
sembles his designs which 
were put on the block. 

That a man like Van- 
dyke, for example, could 
draw with a pen is shown 
most conclusively by the 
accompanying head of a 
child, though, of course, 
in his day such a drawing 
could never have been re- 
produced ; but to-day it 
could be, as indeed it has 
been perfectly. Even the 
chalk work in it comes 

admirably. However, the head of Mme. Madrazo by Galice, though not to 

be compared with it in knowledge of form 

or in beauty of line, in some ways shows 

plainly the advances we have made techni- 
cally. While all of Vandyke's shadows are 

made, or at any rate have been reproduced 

in nearly pure black, Galice's, being drawn 

with a fine pen, give variety to the whole, 

and allow him to concentrate his blacks 

where he wants. Vandyke has scattered his 

blacks all over. Nevertheless his drawing 

is but another proof that the old men could 

have drawn with a pen had there been any 

necessity for it. 

I have had a process made from Vandyke's 

etching of the head of Snyders and it is upon 

his etchings that Vandyke's reputation as a 

black-and-white man rests. I have placed with it two heads by Louis Des- 

moulins from La Vie Moderne, which I think any one must admit are quite 





equal to Vandyke's work, and yet utterly different. The smaller drawing is as 

full of character and the model- 
ling as well given as in the 
Vandyke ; in the larger one 
the feeling- of flesh is far more 
completely carried out than in 
the Vandyke, while the hair, 
moustache, and imperial, some- 
what similar in both, are vastly 
better rendered by Desmou- 
lins. Here is a man who, I 
venture to say, is almost un- 
known, and yet in black and 
white he has surpassed Van- 
dyke with his world-wide re- 
putation. However, Vandyke 
has had but a handful of fol- 
lowers ; Desmoulins, whether 
the fact is known to newspaper 

editors or not, is the man who com- 
menced the drawing of portraits in 
pen and ink for illustrated journalism. 
Vandyke gave to a few of his friends 
a most interesting gallery of his con- 
temporaries ; Desmoulins has given / 
the whole world a most artistic render- 
ing of many great and little French- 
men, and has influenced a vast army of 
pen draughtsmen of whom he still 
remains the master. 

These drawings also demonstrate 
another fact : we moderns have ad- 
vanced very little, if at all, in merely 
getting a likeness. But we have made 
great strides in technical execution in 
the drawing of portraits. If any one 



will dispassionately compare the manner in which Vandyke has dotted and 
stippled the light side of the face of Snyders, and lined the shadows without 
reference to the modelling, with the very simple yet suggestive line of Des- 
moulins, he will find that Desmoulins has carried his subject further and 
rendered the head more completely with an expenditure of probably half the 
time and labour. The actual time and labour given to a drawing is of course 
of no importance. But if one can show a good result produced simply, it cannot 
but be an advantage. 

As I have said elsewhere I should like to give the beautiful Bellini — the 
drawing of a Turk — which is in the British Museum. But the delicate lines 
are so faded it would have been impossible to render them adequately. It 
has more of the spirit of a modern pen drawing than any old pen work I 
have seen. 


Rembrandt, great in every way, shows his knowledge of the limitation of every 
art by his admirable and right work in it. The etching of the old man's 
head here given is a perfect study for a pen sketch. It is as free as it can be, 
and yet every line is put in carefully. The most positive proof that Rembrandt 
would have been a pen draughtsman had he lived to-day is the fact that this 
head reproduces charmingly by process. Compare it with the head of the master 
in the Unfaithful Servant, the full-page pen drawing, and note that though every 
line in the latter is put down with a purpose, and there is in it none of the 
wild scrawling so visible in Titian, it is without the delicacy and refinement 
shown in the two etchings. It is only a note to be used in a picture or 
an etching, and I am sure is not a work upon which Rembrandt would have 
wished to base his reputation. 

As I have said of other men, Rembrandt knew perfectly the limitations of 
pen drawing in his day and he respected them. When he wanted the quality 
which now is to be had in pen drawing, he etched, and in his simple etchings, 
which are not dependent on dry point, he obtained this quality, though of course 
they possessed a certain softness which no process has yet been able to give. 
No man among the ancients is greater than Rembrandt as an etcher, but 
Whistler in his etchings of Old London is even greater than Rembrandt. 
Therefore, if you wish a simple style good for all times, you will find it in many 
of these landscape and figure subjects of Rembrandt's. But for work of to-day 
— and Rembrandt gave the things that were about him — the student would 
learn more from the work of Whistler. 





T3EN drawing as an art in itself belongs to the nineteenth 
-*- century, especially to the last quarter. Mr. Hamerton, who 
in his Graphic Arts gives a brief sketch of its history, says : 
" Fortuny, the Spanish painter, introduced a new kind of pen 
drawing which has been followed by Casanova and others of the 
same school, and which has had some influence outside of it, as 
well as upon the practice of etching." 

But when he wrote, though but six years ago, the real signifi- 
cance of this new kind of pen drawing had not been brought 
to the notice of even so keen an observer. For the truth is, in 
Fortuny's day pen drawing was revolutionised ; he, Madrazo, Rico 
and Vierge in Spain, Menzel and Dietz in Germany, Lalanne 
and De Neuville in France, with the new method of photo- 
engraving to help them, may be said to have made it the art 
it now is. You have but to place a drawing of Fortuny's or 
Menzel's by one of Michael Angelo's or Raphael's to realise how 
completely modern pen draughtsmen have broken away from the 
old limitations, and shown that the pen can be used for something 
more than the mere sketching of projects and intentions. As 
Mr. Hamerton says, pen drawing is a painter's process, and nearly all 


these artists were or are great painters as well as great pen 

Fortuny's chief innovation in methods was, as Mr. Hamerton also 
points out, the use of short broken lines. He adds that Fortuny 
preferred them probably because he wanted to get variety, and 
because he saw nothing in nature "that could be fairly interpreted by 
a long line." But a far more likely reason is that he found 
with short lines he could model and break up the mechanical 
look often given by long conventional lines — though all lines are 
conventional. Fortuny's drawings are full of the most delicate 
modelling ; his figures, instead of being simply and strongly 
suggested as in the pen sketches of the old masters, are as carefully 
worked in as if with a brush, and their strength is increased 
rather than lessened by this care. Mr. Hamerton asserts that the 
apparently " coarsest pen drawings are usually the work of great 
artists ; the delicate and highly-finished are usually the work of 
amateurs, or else of workmen who are paid to imitate engravings 
for the purpose of photographic reproduction." True as this was 
in a certain sense, it shows that Mr. Hamerton did not foresee 
the development of photo-engraving, and it is misleading, since 
nothing could be more delicate and less suggestive of engraving 
than the drawings of Fortuny. They are moreover full of the 
most wonderful brilliancy. It was in Africa that his eyes were 
opened to the strong effects of light and shade under a hot sun, 
and the desire to reproduce these effects had much to do with his 
breaking away from academical traditions to originate and develop 
new methods. 

One cannot study too long, too carefully, or too lovingly, the 
unfortunately few examples of his work which Fortuny has left 
to us. These are to be found scattered in the, illustrated papers of 
France and Spain, for which he occasionally worked. Poor as were 
at first many of the reproductions, mostly woodcuts, they stood out 
from the other work, just as one of his pictures will when by chance 
it makes its way into an exhibition. His drawings may also be 
found reproduced in some of the lately published lives of the artist, 
notably in that by Davillier, his great friend. Here and there 
in other of Davillier's books are a few of Fortuny's drawings of 
bronzes and of Spanish and Moorish trappings. The woodcut 



reproductions, however, are not to be studied, for fine as a few are, 
notably Leveille's of tlie portrait of M. D'Epinay in the fashion 
of Goya's time, the feeling of pen and ink work is in them cut out 
to a great extent. It is best to see direct reproductions or the 
photogravures that have been made. It may be asked. How is one 
to know the difference between woodcuts and process reproductions ? 
This IS difficult to explain. In the former there are little dots and 
engraved lines which can, after some practice, be detected, at times 
only through the magnifying glass ; while the fine grey lines made 
with a pen are nearly always much harder and broader. ^ Fortuny 
lived a little too soon for the processes by which his followers have 
profited. Otherwise there would doubtless have been a still greater 
number of beautiful pen drawings as well as fine reproductions from 
them. As it is, many of the process reproductions give his drawings 
a rough and hard look, which the photogravure reproductions in 
Davillier's Life prove most conclusively to have been the fault of 
the undeveloped process. 

I have spoken as if Fortuny was the leader of the new movement 

in Spain. There is very little doubt that he was ; but he gave his 

time almost entirely to painting, and though his few drawings prove 

him to have been a master, he did not devote himself to the 

development of pen drawing to the same extent as did some of the 

other men who worked with and around him. However, Fortuny 

is known to the whole world as a pen draughtsman, but, owing to 

the persistent way in which black and white Avork has been ignored 

by critics and artistic associations, especially in England and America 

— notwithstanding the fact that it is the only healthy art developed 

in the nineteenth century, — the names of the men who have made 

illustration what it now is, and whose work is studied by intelligent 

illustrators the world over, are absolutely unknown even to the 

many who are flooding the world with pen drawings. And yet, men 

who have studied Rico, Fortuny, and Vierge, are thought to be 

masters, and their work is praised as being original, when originality 

is the last merit they would claim for it. 

As a landscape pen draughtsman, there is not and has not been 

^ This difference can easily be seen by com- in the explanatory chapter, " Some Comparative 
paring the drawing by Rossetti, which is a wood- Heads : Old and New." 
cut, with the other heads done by process, given 


in any country or time a greater man than Martin Rico. Tliough 
it may be information to many, Rico, co-worker with Fortuny, 
is living to-day, still producing those beautiful pen drawings of 
the canals of Venice and the palaces of Spain which are the admiration 
of all who know them. He is almost faultless as a draughtsman, 
and can on white paper with pen and ink catch the sunlight of a 
Venetian day and the glitter and transparency of a moving, shimmer- 
ing canal. He understands the true limitations of his art and never 
goes beyond them ; he knows just where to put a blot of colour 
and where to leave it out. With his wonderful facility, he can do 
what seems an impossibility : fill a piece of white paper with modelling, 
and make a brilliant black with six grey lines. Everything he 
touches glitters and shines with sunlight, and there is not one 
superfluous stroke in his drawing ; neither is a necessary line omitted. 
How true he is only those can realise who have reverently studied 
him in the countries alone adapted to glowing, glittering, out-of-door 
pen work — that is in Spain, Italy and Southern France, Africa and 
the East. Abortive attempts to follow this great master are almost 
daily made by people ignorant of his work, of the scope of pen 
drawing, and the reasons for a brilliancy that does not exist north 
of Southern France and Italy. It is perfectly true that on a summer 
day some of the little white-washed villages of England and many 
towns in the United States, especially in the south, are not without 
the brilliancy best reproduced by the methods of Rico. But how 
much better it is for the English artist, in a country where these 
effects are the exception and not the rule, to strike out in a new 
direction for himself, as has been done, for example, by Alfred 
Parsons and George Reid, two of the very few British landscape 
pen draughtsmen of originality. Rico's work is very difficult to 
find. Many of his original drawings are never reproduced, but 
are bought up immediately by collectors to be given an honourable 
place in their galleries. I have seen a number in New York. A 
few have been reproduced in L Art, La Illustraciou Espanola y 
Americana, and La Vie Moderne. 

In fact, the work of these Spaniards must be more difficult to 
find than I imagined. Although I believe that all real pen draughts- 
men know it, an article in Harpers Magazine, for March 1888, 
absolutely failed to mention the work of either Casanova, the best- 


known Spaniard after Fortuny and Madrazo, or of Vierge, while 
the writer only refers to some artists who have studied under Rico. 
This is merely an ordinary example of the utter worthlessness of 
inartistic art writing-. 

I think one of the Spaniards who should be ranked with Fortuny 
and Rico, and indeed above them, as a pen draughtsman and 
illustrator, is Vierge, a man who has all the draughtsmanship of 
Fortuny and Menzel, the colour and brilliancy of Rico, the grace 
and beauty of Abbey, the eccentricity and daring of Blum, Brennan, 
and Lungren ; in a word, a man who, in the few short years of 
his working life, has proved himself the greatest illustrator who 
ever lived. I rank Vierge thus above Fortuny and Rico because 
he has devoted himself more entirely to black and white work. 

He flashed out upon the artistic world in a few drawings in 
La Vie Moderne, Le Monde Illustv^, the Spanish papers, and The 
Century (then Scribners Monthly) ; in many books, some compara- 
tively commonplace, but one, the most brilliantly illustrated work 
ever published, which illness, however, prevented him from finishing. 
Before the illustrations for Pablo de Sdgovie were all made, his right 
side and right hand were paralysed, and he lost the power of speech. 
But when a man is as great as Vierge, his career is only checked, 
not stopped by a misfortune that would have killed another less 
strong. A few months after this attack, we find him learning to 
draw by painting with his left hand — and painting with a cleverness 
unknown outside of this group of Spaniards. Even the French 
were so struck with this astonishing marvel, as they called it, that 
in the papers of that time are to be found drawings of Vierge 
sitting out of doors, beginning to paint with his left hand. Now 
he is slowly regaining the use of the right, but still works with 

the left. 

Viero-e seems to have learnt everything and to have mastered 
that cleverness, or the knowledge of how to use one's ability, which 
is indispensable to good pen drawing, an art only for so-called 

clever men men who are interested in their work and who, to 

attain their ends, are ready, if necessary, to use other than con- 
ventional methods, or to get other than commonplace results by 
ordinary means. If the pen draughtsman who thinks he has dis- 
covered some new method looks in that wonderful book, the 


history of Pablo de Sc^govie, he finds that Vierge discovered it long 
before him, and can give him a few new hints into the bargain. 
You cannot examine the smallest drawing in his masterpiece of 
illustration without seeing how much study prepared the way for 
its brilliancy and grace. 

Such an influence did this book have upon French pen drawing, 
that after its publication an entire school of pen draughtsmen 
following Vierge appeared, and their work was more clever than 
that of any other draughtsmen, though it did not equal the drawing 
of their master. Among these men are Ferrand Fau, L. Galice, 
V. Poirson, and F. Lunel. Their drawings can be seen in the 
early numbers of La Vie Moderne}- a complete file of which is to 
be found in the South Kensington Museum. At the present time, 
however, this paper is artistically worthless. 

Daniel Vierge must not be confounded with his very talented 
but less brilliant brother, who signed his name S. Urrabieta, while 
Vierge always omits the Urrabieta and simply signs himself D. 
Vierge. His brother died recently. 

In' the Fortuny group, for originality Casanova must be given 
a very high place — indeed, one almost equal to that of Fortuny 
himself. I have not seen any large photogravures, or even any very 
good reproductions of his drawings. They could hardly be engraved 
on wood, and in the more or less rough and almost cruel reproductions 
for the Salon Catalogue and in French illustrated papers they 
necessarily lose enormously. The best are in L!Arf. But even 
in the poorest reproductions can be seen the exquisite modelling 
of a monk's head or a woman's hand, the wonderful sparkle of a tiny 
jewel. His delicate grey lines would be lost in any ordinary attempt 
at a woodcut. 

In the list of the Spanish-Italian school of figure draughtsmen, 
Madrazo, Fabres, and a host of others, hold a high rank. But to 
describe their work in detail would be endless repetition. There 
is nothing to do but to study it for one's self. To-day the Spanish 
and Italian illustrated papers are full of the work of imitators of the 
greater men who revolutionised the whole art of France and Italy- — 
work with which the pages of these papers glitter and sparkle and 
glow, though it is Avithout the originality of Fortuny, Casanova, and 

^ Also see Les Premieres, the French theatrical journal, Paris Illiistrl^ etc. 


To speak of an Italian school separately would be impossible, 
since all alike these children of the sunlight, as they might be called, 
spend their winters in Paris, Rome, or Madrid, in the life schools 
or domg nothing, while in summer they lind their work out of doors 
in Spain, Southern France, Italy, or Africa. Senzanni, whose 
decorative compositions are most charming and graceful, Paolocci, 
Chessa, Scoppetta, Fabbi, all have a style and character which is 
well worth study, although it has been founded on that of the great 
Spaniards. Men like Ximenez, Michetti, Tito, Favretto, Raffaelli, 
Gomar, Montalti, whether born in Italy, Spain, or France, as artists 
can hardly be said to have any nationality. The sun is their god, 
and Fortuny and Rico are his prophets. Another reason for not 
speaking separately of Italian pen drawing is, that the greater number 
of Italian papers and books are so badly printed that the principal 
pen draughtsmen strive to get their work into French publications, 
which are not only better made, but appeal to a much larger 

The work of the Spanish school may still be a problem to critics 
who, though they admit its brilliancy, think it all wrong and 
stupefying because of its contradiction to their preconceived notions 
of art, it never seeming to occur to them that perhaps their notions, 
and not the methods criticised, are at fault. But all artists with 
technical knowledge and broad opinions have recognised new masters 
in these innovators whose influence has continued steadily to increase. 




' I ^HE full name of Fortuny is Jose- Maria- Bernardo, but as he dispensed 
-*- with the greater part of it, we may as well follow his example. He was 
born in 1838 at Reus, a little town in the province of Tarragona, where he 
lived until the age of fourteen years, attending the village school. Then his 
grandfather proposed that they should start out to seek their fortunes, and 
they footed it to Barcelona. I make these bare statements about Fortuny's 
early life — statements which are usually the backbone of all art books — simply 
because I wish to show, first that Fortuny was born years after Menzel, and 
secondly, that, though this would seem as if from the beginning he had been 
influenced by Menzel, as were all northern artists, he most probably knew 
nothing about the great German's work until he went to Rome in 1857. 

But there, when studying in the Academy, in the course of the ordinary 
academical training he most likely, as his biographer Yriarte, who knew him 
well, says, came under the influence of the followers of Overbeck. I have not 
the slightest doubt that these Germans possessed examples of Menzel, if indeed 
at the German embassy or some of the Roman libraries was not to be found a 
complete set of his already published drawings, which certainly must have been 
makino- a profound sensation among the students of that time. Fortuny, not 
having yet worked out a style of his own, doubtlessly was equally influenced by 
the drawings of Menzel, the like of which had never been seen before. The 
chances are, drawings by Fortuny showing this influence might somewhere be 
found. But just then, war breaking out between Spain and Morocco, Fortuny 
went off with a Royal Commission to paint on the spot. 

It was here in Morocco his eyes were opened to the wonderful effects of 
lio-ht and shade— effects which Menzel had never seen, and had therefore never 
tried to render. Just as Menzel, influenced by all the old men who, as far back 
as Bellini, as I have shown, had produced occasional pen drawings which were 


wonderfully fine, was the first man to take up pen drawing and seriously work 
at it to express his ideas — why I do not know unless because of an innate love 
of the medium ; so Fortuny, when he got to Africa and back again into Spain, 
discovered that here was a method by which he could give not only modelling 
with Menzel, but the brilliancy of sunlight as well. Though, as I have said, 
he lived too soon for the processes which have enabled his followers to improve 
on his methods, at the same time we owe all the brilliant work of the modern 
Spanish school to him. 

Fine as is the drawing which I show, I cannot help thinking that the 
drawings done by Fabres and Blum, which also are in this book, made years 
afterwards for process and with a full knowledge of the means to be employed 
and the results to be obtained, are of more value to the student ; because there 
is in this drawing of Fortuny's the freedom of a master which in the student 
would merely lead to carelessness, while the background and the floor are 
worked over so much that, without a vast amount of intelligent hand-work, no 
process block could reproduce the lines. Knowing some of Fortuny's original 
work, I fancy that in this block a great many of his delicate greys have been 
lost. Had he lived later I have no doubt he would have somewhat modified 
his style, as Vierge has done, to meet the requirements of process. Just as in the 
Blum plate one can see the texture of the coat with its gold lace and silk lining, 
the shine of the silken breeches and stockings and the polish of the shoes, so 
one can study these same indications of texture in the Fortuny block. But 
when you come to the face you find that it is almost impossible to follow the 
lines, they having been made probably with grey ink, the back of a quill pen, or 
anything to be had, without thought of reproduction. The effect is right, but 
one cannot altogether commend the means by which it has been obtained ; in 
fact the drawing was done for study and not for reproduction. But if this is all 
we have, we ought to be only too thankful for a drawing which has had so much 
influence on pen work. 

I have explained elsewhere why I have not given a photogravure from 
Fortuny's work. To me, this block shows it as well as could any other re- 
production. There are photogravures in Davillier's Life, but they are scarcely 
important enough to use again. Among the other well-known reproductions 
are the engraving by Leveille, which does not show the work at all ; a very 
good process block in the Magazine of Art, and other blocks in L Art and 
La Vie Moderne, and in Davillier's books. Beyond these I know of very few 
published examples of Fortuny's work. I have no doubt he made hundreds of 
drawings, but they would probably be found in the portfolios of his friends. 

Finally, what I say is not merely my opinion but that of the men who have 
devoted their lives to pen drawing. Only the other day I saw in the artistic 
end of a journal a statement to the effect that the opinions of artists are of no 
value, and that only the thoughts of the critics are worth preservation. How- 


ever, the opinions of Vasari, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Lalanne, have had some 
influence on the development of art-work. Just as Sir Joshua Reynolds was 
opinionated enough to believe that the men of the future would look upon the 
art of his day as he looked to the art of the Red Indians or the Byzantines, so 
pen draughtsmen believe that these same men of the future will look to the 
pen work of Menzel and Fortuny, as we look to the paintings of Giotto and 

1 ■'■ ', \ 



As Menzel is responsible for the development of pen drawing in Germany and 
England, so is Vierge for the present style and the great advance in technique 
of draughtsmen in France, Italy, Spain, and America. I know that Vierge 
falls apparently under Sir Joshua Reynolds' condemnation of superficial clever- 
ness. But when a man draws with Vierge's knowledge and adds to it his skill 
in handling, his work is something vastly more than clever, although every line 
might seem to deserve this condemnation. Because Vierge is followed by a 
number of men in France, Italy, Spain, and America, who, if they lack a certain 
amount of his inventive cleverness, have added to it much that is original of 
their own, — although I admit they would never have worked after his manner 
had he not led the way, — a certain number of critics, and artists too, jump to 
the conclusion that anybody can do this sort of work. Yet the fact remains 
that the number of these clever men has not increased, nor have any other 
draughtsmen been able to .supersede them. They in their turn have had their 
imitators, men without the slightest knowledge of the means used by Vierge to 
obtain his effects, but no one, even among Vierge's immediate followers, has yet 
succeeded in surpassing him. 

Vierge doubtless owed much to Fortuny. The greater part of his work, 
and certainly the most characteristic, is clone with pen and ink, and, like Fortuny, 
he uses the pen to fill his drawings with delicate modelling. But however much 
he learned from his great countryman, he brought to his work a strength, a 


delicacy, and a character that were all his own. From the beginning there was 
no mistaking it for that of any other draughtsman. Not that it is in the least 
mannered ; In looking over the pages of Pablo de St^govic one is struck with the 
entirely different methods used in the many drawings. With this cleverness of 
technique one finds the most perfect modelling in the tiniest figures and faces, 
the most artistic rendering of architecture, the most graceful suggestions of 
landscape ; and the assured touch of the master stamps each and every drawing 
with individuality. 

To get the refinement given in the beautiful little cuts from Pablo de 
Sdgovie, it is necessary to make one's drawings very large and yet at the same 
time to work with the greatest amount of delicacy. For instance, the photo- 
gravure is made from a drawing nineteen by twelve inches. The consequence 
is that in the shadows, which are seemingly put in with such wonderfully 
delicate lines, though these were delicately drawn, as the drawing was so large 
the refinement was produced with no special difficulty. There is next to no 
cross-hatching except in Vierge's later work done since his illness, of which 
the photogravure is an example, and therefore his drawings can be reduced 
to almost any extent without the lines filling up. Still, in the volume of Pablo 
de S(fgovie, the blocks were almost too small to do full justice to his work, as 
any one can see by comparing them with the larger reproductions here given 
and with the plate. Then, again, when he wishes to get a rich colour, he 
uses a positive black, in the reproduction of which there is apparently no 
change, although it is a perfectly well-known fact that the whites of any re- 
production grow whiter and the blacks blacker as the size decreases. Another 
quality to be noted in his work is the amount of colour suggested without the 
use of it. In the plate there is no pure black at all. 

There is really very little to be said about Vierge's drawings, except to 
advise the student to study them in the most thorough manner, and to remind 
him that their cleverness and apparent freedom is the result of years of the 
hardest study, and, in each drawing, of days and sometimes weeks of the most 
careful work. After all I have said, it is almost useless for me to repeat that 
the effects of light and shade in Vierge's work, being intended for Spanish or 
southern subjects, are of course utterly out of keeping in drawings made in 
England. But the cleverness, the skill, is never out of keeping, and the nearer 
it can be approached, the better for the pen draughtsman and the art of pen 

I know quite well that the most slovenly attempts to imitate Vierge are 
constantly made and daily applauded ; but if you have any real feeling and love 
for the art, you will, in studying his work, seek, not to make a direct imitation, 
but to introduce his beauty of drawing and brilliancy of handling into your own, 
remembering always that such drawings are not knocked off in a morning. 



This is only a simple study from 
one of Favretto's pictures, I think. 
I use it here to show how much 
colour can be suggested with very 
little work. Any one can see that 
the figures stand in front of a bright, 
sunlit, glittering wall, and yet there 
is no work in it at all. The plant, 
which tells so well against this wall, 
the bright colours of the flowers, 
and the still more brilliant tints of 
the kerchief about the girl's neck, 
are all rendered charmingly, to any 
one who can feel them, in this little 
pen study. To me it is just as 
much Favretto's work as one of his 
Venetian paintings. The only thing 
to be regretted is that we shall 
never have any more of it. Favretto 
died but a little more than a year 


This is an excellent example of a simple direct, straightforward drawing of a 
head. The greater part of it, I should say, was drawn with a quill. The bony 
formation of the head is remarkably well rendered, and yet, as it should be, in 
the simplest manner possible. Notice how Raffaelli has drawn the tassel by a 
flat mass, and still made it look round, and kept its proper relation and form. 
Notice too how the stubby beard and the lines of the face are drawn to show 
the growth of the beard and the direction of this growth, and to express the 
construction of the face ; and only one set of lines is used. Raffaelli's work is 
very like Herkomer's. Indeed it is much more like German work than Italian. 



This is a drawing from Cera una Volta, a book of Italian fairy tales published 
by the Fratelli Treves of Milan in 1885. The whole book is a proof of the 
possibilities of pen work on grained paper, of which I speak in the Chapter on 
Materials. There is no possible comparison to be made between Montalti's 
drawing and the head of De Lesseps by Ringel.^ That is a pure exercise in 
the rendering of a low relief; this is an example of artistic decoration applied to 
book illustration. Not only does it illustrate a passage in the story, but it is 
given with the greatest amount of decorative feeling, and in a style which goes 
to prove that there is no reason why we should be dependent on the decorative 
methods of other times. Conventional forms, of course, are the property of the 
whole world. It may be argued that there is no meaning in this decoration. 
Neither to me — and I am sure I speak for all artists who have any honesty 
in their opinions — is there meaning in nearly all decoration except that of 
pleasure in the beauty of the design itself. We may be told in Smith's 
Classical Dictionary, or in any of those useful cribs much affected by the 
intellectual artist, that such and such mysterious swirls and scrawls mean life 
and immortality, but we are not impressed by this hidden meaning ; we only 
look to see if the line is gracefully drawn. 

Montalti's decorations at the side and top of his drawing are graceful. 
They may have been derived from old iron-work or from his inner conscious- 
ness — I do not care from which. The result is pleasing and restful. The white 
circle behind the girl may be a swirl of life or the bull's eye of a target ; but 
it really is a proof that Montalti is an illustrator who knows the requirements of 
his art. He has used this white circle for his mass of light which draws 
attention to the figure of the girl ; the figure of the piping shepherd is his great 
black, and the positive black and white really neutralise each other. It also 
may be said that the half-decorative, half-realistic daisies at the bottom of the 
drawing are out of place : nothing is out of place in art if the result is good, 
and it is nobody's business but the student's how it is obtained. This state- 
ment, of course, seems to necessitate the abolition of art critics. But all I can 
say is that those who criticise art without ever having studied it, have more 
assurance than it has entered into the brain of any but an art critic to conceive. 

The drawing was made on the Fratelli Treves tinted paper, on which I 
have worked, but at that time it was not so good as the Papier Gillot. The 
original paper can be seen in places where the mechanically -ruled horizontal 
lines are visible. The positive blacks in the decoration, for example, were 
probably put in with a pen first, as well as in the figure and the flowers, which 

1 See French Illustrations. 



probably were done with both pen and brush. Having gotten in his darks, 
Montalti scraped with an eraser or pen-knife the Hght round the shepherd, and 
thus made a hghter tone by means of cross-hatching, bringing out a perpen- 
dicular line in the white. He then obtained his high lights by scraping with 

much more force, and removing all the tint from the paper, as in the circle and 
in the white blots of the decoration. In some places he very probably used 
Chinese white, because you will often find in working on this paper that after 
scraping it, if you again attempt pen work, you will be sure to get blots. The 
drawing cannot be reduced very much in size, while to obtain any but mechanical 
results is difficult. 



This is not only a masterpiece of feeling for pen work, but a remarkable 
example of reproduction. Published in L' Art a few years ago, and drawn in 
1879 in Rome, of course under the influence of Fortuny, this drawing not only 
surpasses anything Fortuny himself did, but has exerted an enormous influence 
on pen drawing. I have no hesitation in saying that Fortuny never made a 
drawing which can approach it for technique, although any one comparing it 
with the Man Reading on another page will see a great similarity. Fortuny 
has just as carefully studied the man's embroidered coat as Fabres has the 
peasant's breeches. But Fabres' rendering of the texture of the coat, the vest, 
and the trousers of the peasant, reproduces much more perfectly than Fortuny's 
work, and this is the point to be noted. Again, Fabres' head is better than the 
Fortuny, and he has boldly drawn the hands which Fortuny shirks. To me, 
at least, his rendering of the whole is more successful than Fortuny's. But 
Fortuny, being the original man, is responsible for Fabres, just as Fabres is 
for half the French and American illustration of to-day. 

How is this drawing done? The greater part of it, including the most 
delicate modelling of the head and hands and legs — in fact everything, but part 
of the hat and coat and a little of the hair, is drawn with a pen. The coat and 
all the hair may have been drawn by a pen by dragging it in various directions, 
allowing all the ink to run into a blot, and then lifting some of it off with the 
finger or with blotting paper. The hat most likely was drawn with a brush or 
with an inked thumb, the background with both, in a manner I have elsewhere 
described. On these flat tints, the rouletted effect, that is the effect of wash, 
has been produced by a roulette in the hands of a photo-engraver who is an 
artist. But this example is the most successful result I know of a very 
unreliable experiment on the part of the draughtsman. With any but a most 
skilful artistic workman, the result is certain failure. I am very sorry that the 
photo-engraver's name is not on the print. I should be glad to give him full 
credit for his surprising success. The printing of such a drawing is extremely 
difficult. Do not imagine that the apparently wildly-scrawled background is 
composed of nothing but wild scrawls. It is indication and suggestion, every 
bit of which is put down with a purpose. Notice how the background grows 
out of the deep shadows of the coat, and how the wash and pen work are com- 
bined in the shadows between the legs ; how the wash work in places is reinforced 
by pen work, as on the left side near the coat sleeve, and how wonderfully the 
effect has been reproduced. There are other drawings by Fabres in L'Art} 
notably a photogravure of a Moor with a gun over his shoulders. But I do 
not think any of them compare with this. 

1 Also see Illiistyazion Artistica. 


These charming little drawings give a good idea of the work of two followers 
of Vierge. The drawing in both is excellent, but it is easy to see that the 
artists, who would probably be the first to admit it, are inspired by their great 
master Vierge. The work of men of this school can be seen any week in Paris 
Illustrd, Les Premieres, Le Monde Ilbistrd ; in fact, they are the pen draughts- 
men of France to-day. But I have given so much space to the master that it 
would be only repetition, beautiful as is their work, to dwell upon the followers. 




Owing to the in- 
terest which Rico 
has taken in this 
book I am able 
to pubHsh, not only 
two of his well- 
__- , known drawing-s, but 

,J'-" Y two new ones which 
H|t/ he has made expressly 
for me. These are the 
photogravure and the 
corner of St. Mark's. 
The other two, originally 
published in La Illustra- 
cion Espafiola y Americana, 
have been known to me for 
years, and I have reproduced 
them here because I consider 
them two of the best pen draw- 
ina:s Rico ever made. 

The great beauty of Rico's 

work is the grace of his line, and 

the brilliancy and strength of light 

and shade which he obtains with 

comparatively little work. Not only 

is there not a superfluous stroke in 

his drawing, but each line is used, 

either singly, to express or, together 

with others, to enforce certain effects 

he wishes to give. In bright sunlight, 

the characteristic of Italy and Spain, all 

' : his drawmgs and pamtnigs are made. In 

^5~^? / the photogravure, the fact of sunshine is 

not more evident than the actual position 



of the sun directly behind the spectator, shown by the direction of every line 
which goes to make up a shadow. Notice how he has concentrated his only 
pure black in the two open windows near the centre of the drawing ; and yet, 
he has relieved this black by bits of pure white, in one window by the flowers 
trained across it, in the other by the charmingly-placed patches of sunlight just 
behind the half-closed shutter and on the rich decorations which he has indicated 
and which we know so well on many Venetian windows. Notice too the light, 
giving such value to the darks on both sides of it, which shows through the 
crack between the window-frame and the shutter ; see how the light and shade 
are managed on the little shrine and on the wall and window under it, and the 
way in which the light on one wall is carried into the shadow on the other by 
the arrangement of the foliage. Everything is toned up from these two blacks ; 
there is not another pure black of importance in any part of the drawing. The 
effect is thus concentrated and your eye attracted, as he meant it should be, to 
the very centre of the composition. You should also study the manner in which 
he works out to the edges of the drawing, leading you into it by the most delicate 
and graceful lines. His architecture is only hinted and suggested, but so 
thoroughly does he know his Venice that an architect could work from his 
suggestions, while for an artist they are simply perfect of their kind ; the capitals, 
the decorated mouldings running around the buildings, the under side of the 
cornice, the little shrine, the balcony with its pots and vines and awning, are all 
well indicated. Bits of these things in nature were of course as dark as his two 
windows, but he knows, and every one who wishes to make a good drawing 
should learn, that force must be reserved for one particular point and blacks 
must not be scattered, if an effective whole is to be produced. 

Rico's knowledge of the necessity of concentration is specially notable in 
the drawing of the Canal with a gondola, in which the inside of the felze, or 
cover of the gondola, is the only pure black ; but it is so skilfully managed with 
little touches of white, suggestions of the carving, the window on the opposite 
side and the lamp, that you do not see it is a pure black, for your eye is carried 
at once to the keynote to the whole picture — the large door which is really not 
so black as the gondola, but, because there are here no opposing whites, it 
seems, as Rico intended, much blacker. 

In all his drawings Rico invariably breaks his long straight lines, in each, 
however, in a different manner. The long mouldings in the photogravure are 
broken by shadows and by foliage ; in the corner of St. Mark's, pigeons not 
only add grace, but take away from the monotony which would otherwise, un- 
avoidably, be too prominent in this part of the drawing, and even the water-spout 
helps to serve the same purpose. In the Canal, the gondolas, sandolas, and 
other boats carry out the straight lines and break them at the same time, while 
the suggestion of foliage and the balustrade are done as no one ever did them 
before Rico ; in the Reminiscence of Seville, the carved balcony, beautiful in 




itself, would become monotonous were it not relieved by the drapery thrown 
over it, by the keynote of black supplied in the head of the leaning figure, and 
by the stone pine farther along. Note how thoroughly the effect of a glittering 
hot wall is given by the shadow of one drain-pipe, and how rightly the grille 
with the flower-pots leads into the drawing. 

The amount of expression Rico gets in his rendering of reflections in water, 
always drawn in a very simple manner, is wonderful. There is absolutely no 
black in them, except where, as in the Canal, I think it is the result of bad 
reproduction. And yet the suggestion of the effect of a Venetian Canal is right. 
Here is a point I wish to note : these drawings are not intended to be pictures 
or records of transient effects ; they are line drawings made in brilliant sunshine. 
Do not try to imitate them in countries where the effects they give do not exist. 

As to the reproduction, in the photogravure it is as good as I can get it and 
gives an excellent idea of the drawing. There is a certain rottenness about 
some of the lines which is not in the original, but their relative value is almost 
right. The lines which appear very fine are really so, and were drawn either 
with a very fine pen or the back of the pen Rico was using. The drawing is 
scarcely reduced. It was made in bluish-black ink on white smooth Whatman 
paper, and, as far as I can see, with very little pencil work, though, as I have 
already explained, I have seen Rico making very elaborate pencil drawings. 
He is a master of this sort of work and can do what he wishes ; but for the 
student it would be very foolish to attempt such a drawing without preliminary 
pencil work — even with it, he can hardly hope for such results. However, I 
know of no better models than these four, but it must be remembered that the 
photogravure is somewhat hard all over and rotten, and that in the process 
blocks many of the blacks come from the filling up in the printing and the fact 
that the lines will not stand alone ; a momentary comparison between the blocks 
and the photogravure will show how much thicker the lines in the former have 
become in every part. 

To realise the great development of pen drawing it is only necessary to 
place the drawings of Rico by the side of Braun's reproductions of Canaletto's 
pen work. Rico's are as much in advance of Canaletto's as his were of the 
drawings of every one of his predecessors. Both artists are true ; but Rico 
shows how much more we have learned to express by pen drawing. 

The drawing of the corner of St. Mark's has been very well reproduced by 
Waterlow and Sons. It was a difficult piece of work, but they have succeeded 
in keeping the character of the original. 


Tito is one of Rico's cleverest pupils. He has the power of seeing things for 
himself, and though he works in Venice, where Rico draws and paints, he 
chooses different subjects, and his figures are drawn much larger and made 
more important than Rico's. Looking at this drawing, though one sees at once 
whence its inspiration is derived, it is also evident that, though he works out 
his drawings in the manner of his master, his subjects are all his own. 



Casanova is one of those men who seem to be always amusing themselves with 
their drawings and experimenting, making a dainty suggestion in one place or 
elaborately working out a figure in another, jotting down notes or trying a pen 
in the most fascinating manner on the margin of the paper, and always wander- 
ing about over the drawing just for pleasure. But if the student should 
endeavour to imitate this freedom and to wander in this way before he has gone 
through the necessary training, his results will probably not be so satisfactory 
to himself or to the public. For Casanova has told me it takes a long time to 
make a drawing like the plate, and I can well believe it. 

This plate is the first large one I have ever seen in which Casanova's 
work has been worthily rendered. The large process of the monks is from 
one of his pictures, and the smaller is apparently made for his own enjoyment. 
One can say really very little about the way such work is done, but I should 
imagine it was taken up and worked on, a little here and a little there, just 
when Casanova was in the humour, part of it done with a fine pen, part with 
a quill, part with his fingers ; in fact it is doubtlessly all experimenting, but 
the experimenting of a man who is almost certain of the results he will obtain. 

I do not publish his drawings so much as examples of pen work to be 
studied, since it would be almost impossible even to copy him, but rather to 
show the command over the pen of one of the most accomplished of the modern 



school of Spaniards— men who have something to say and who say it in a fashion 
ot their own. 

Casanova is not an illustrator but a painter who cares very little about the 

reproduction of his drawings. He knows that no process save photogravure is 
yet able to render them, for the fineness of his lines and the greyness of his ink 
make it impossible at the present time to reproduce his work and print it with 
type. But it is the work of just such experimenters which advances the 


technique of the art and its reproduction. Had it not been for Menzel we 
probably never should have had good fac-simile woodcutting. Vierge no doubt 
has done more than any one else to develop process. Casanova is one after 
whom woodcutters and process -workers struggle in vain, but this struggle in 
the end will perfect woodcutting and process, until we have reproductions which 
will be as good as photogravures and yet may be printed with type. The art 
workmen who look ahead are those who are really of service in the world, the 
workmen, that is, who understand the methods of the past and can make use of 
their valuable qualities, but who at the same time can look to the future and 
make improvements. 




T N Germany the greatest pen draughtsman is Adolf Menzel, 
-'- who, in point of age at least, takes precedence of almost all 
the modern men. Like Fortuny and Rico, he cut himself loose 
from academical methods and traditions, and like them he had his 
eyes opened to see in what a valley of dry bones he had been 
walking by going straight to nature, though, at the same time, he 
may be said to be a direct descendant of Holbein and Chodowiecki. 
I do not pretend to know exactly who or what originated the great 
movement in pen drawing, but there is little doubt that if, just 
before the introduction of photo-engraving, men in the south of 
Europe were influenced by Fortuny, artists in the north were by 
Menzel. Not only German pen draughtsmen, but some of the 
most brilliant Americans, Englishmen, and Frenchmen owe much 
to the study of his work. 

A very old man — he was born in 1815 — Menzel still lives. His 
most famous illustrations are in the Life and Works of Frederick the 
Great, Germania, and La Critche Cass^e. The drawings for the Life, 
made on the wood, were given to the best Parisian engravers, but 
Menzel himself was far from being satisfied with the results, for the 
reason that these engravers reproduced everything in a mannered 
fashion, giving theirs and not the artist's idea of the original work. 
This utter subjection of the artist to a mechanical and inartistic 


engraver is what ruined the work of many clever young Englishmen 
of a few years ago. The preposterous idea of getting the engraver's 
and not the artist's lines, although it must have been disheartening 
to the latter, had at least the good effect of developing wood- 
cutting, and photographic reproduction, all over the world. 

Menzel was so discouraged by the results obtained by the French 
engravers that the greater number of his drawings were afterwards 
given to Germans, who were artists enough to know that they were 
nothing more than machines gifted with human intelligence and 
artistic sensibility, and that they should devote the whole of their 
skill, under the artist's direction, to the absolute subjection of them- 
selves, in order that they might perfectly reproduce his work. Even 
the best results of this perfect subjection, as exemplified in America 
by men like Cole, Whitney, Collins, Gamm, and Jungling, in fac- 
simile line-work, do not equal those of a photographic process 
when assisted by an engraver of less ability, but still a clever man. 
Moreover the saving of time by these mechanical processes is 
enormous. Among the engravers who worked for Menzel on the 
Life of Frederick the Great were Bentworth, Unzelmann, and Albert 
Vogel. Menzel's efforts to have his own work and not the engraver's 
given, produced not only a resurrection but a revolution in the art 
of woodcutting in Germany, and this revolution has spread where- 
ever fac-simile woodcutting is used. However, the use of wood- 
cutting in this way, though marvellous in the results produced, will 
soon become a lost art ; but, unlike most lost arts, one we can 
very well dispense with. With the present art of wood-engraving, 
that is the translation of tone into line as practised by the really 
great wood-engravers of to-day in Germany, France, and America, 
I am not concerned. All that I wish to state is, that when we 
have a process which will give automatically in a few hours exactly 
the same result the workman obtains after weeks of toilsome and 
thankless drudgery, there is no reason why we should not use it. I 
think I am quite right in saying with every artist, excepting probably 
the reproductive and therefore the more or less mechanical and com- 
mercial etcher, that I look forward to the days when wood and all 
other engravings will again hold the place they held in the time of 
Dtirer, and all drawings that are not suited to them will be repro- 
duced by some mechanical process. Nobody has felt this more than 


Menzel, for his first attempt to do without the wood-engraver is shown 
in his drawing on stone for the lithographer, either to be directly 
reproduced, or, later, by photo-lithography. Many French critics have 
said that the German wood-engravers reproduced his work perfectly. 
But any one who has had drawings reproduced by wood-engraving 
knows that it is absolutely impossible for the best wood-engraver to 
preserve all the feeling of the original drawing, while of course the 
drawing itself is all cut to pieces, if made on the block. 

In his Frederick the Great, Menzel, as all real artists do in their 
work, really developed his talent and genius. He began a student, 
he ended a master. No illustrator ever had a greater opportunity. 
In the Works of Frederick the Great there are over two hundred 
illustrations by Menzel, engraved by Unzelmann, Hermann Miiller, 
Albert and Otto Vogel, and this work in thirty volumes was published 
by the Academy of Sciences of Berlin at the command of Frederick 
William IV. Nearly all the illustrations had to be made of a certain 
size, rarely more than twelve centimetres, and they were principally 
head and tail pieces. But into these Menzel has put some of the 
greatest black and white art of the century. For example, each one 
of his little portraits, so full of character, is taken from an original 
picture, or the most authentic source. We hear a great deal about 
painters going to the Holy Land and the East to get the background 
for a more or less unimportant picture, and how their paint-boxes and 
canvases go wrong. But who hears of the hundreds and thousands of 
studies made for his Frederick tJie Great by Menzel, or for that matter 
of the thousands of miles travelled, and the difficulties overcome by 
the artists of the principal illustrated magazines of the day ? Their 
object is the result which they get, and not the belauding of 

Almost every one who has had royalty for a patron has enjoyed 
great liberality in some ways, but in others has had to endure almost 
as great disadvantages. For many years Menzel's work was lost in 
the thirty volumes of the official edition. This work, to which the 
artist gave six years of his life, and which he filled with his imagina- 
tion and knowledge, remained almost unknown to the world at large. 
Fortunately the Museum at Berlin at length issued a special edition 
of Menzel's drawings. Now his work is almost as well known in 
France as in Germany, not long ago an exhibition of it having been 



held in Paris. Master of his art, he recognises the fact that Germany 
is not the country for brilliancy of effects, and he aims above all at 
perfection of modelling and the expression of detail. 

Dietz, to say nothing of a whole school of followers, is another 
of the marvellous German draughtsmen. Within the last three or 
four years, since the introduction of photo-engraving — and here and 
elsewhere under this term I of course include photo-lithography — and 
what is known as the Meisenbach process of reproducing wash draw- 
ings, an entire change has been effected, notably in the pages of 
Flicgende Blatter, and in the small illustrated books either published 
in Munich by the proprietors of that journal, or else illustrated by the 
artists who work for it. These men, some of whom are not Germans, 
but Austrians and Hungarians, after studying probably in the Munich 
Academy, started on the lines laid down by Menzel and Dietz, and 
have already proved the possibilities of pen drawing in rendering the 
last fashion in gowns, and the pictorial quality that lies hidden in a 
dress coat and a pair of patent leather pumps. Their work shows the 
development of a nineteenth century school, whose only point in 
common with those of other ages is good drawing. There is in it no 
affectation, or imitation, or endeavours to reproduce bygone methods ; 
but it is a healthy growth brought about by men who feel and know 
that the work of to-day can, in its own way, equal that of any other 
time, and it is their aim to show this in a style of their own. Such 
books as Hacklander's Troiiville, Ein Erster inid eiii Letzter Ball, 
Familien Concert, In der Ai'dennen, In Danien coupe, Ziuischen 
Ziuei Regen, are, in their turn, like the work of Menzel and Fortuny, 
influencing the whole world of pen draughtsmen. 

I consider the first of these younger men to be H. Schlittgen, an 
artist whose improvement and march onward is simply marvellous. 
I have now before me drawings made by him in 1884, 1885, and 1886, 
and there is no comparison between those of 1886 and those of 1884. 
Instead of improving backward, like so many illustrators, he is going 
forward with every book. For the pictorial quality of German life in 
the nineteenth century, one has only to look for his drawings every 
week in Flicgende Blatter. His work is simple, direct, and right to 
the point, and everything is drawn with a feeling for its artistic eftect. 
Not a line is wasted. In Hacklander's Huinoristische, there is on 
page 5 the study of an advocate, which rivals in simplicity, directness. 


and expression, anything Randolph Caldecott ever did, and the draw- 
ing is infinitely better. The drawing on page 9 of a girl is almost 
perfection in its rendering in blacks and whites of a modern dress, and 
no one has ever done anything as full of character as his pompous 
German officers. For expression and colour, combined with the least 
amount of work, nothing can be found to surpass the drawing on page 
19 of Trouville of the interior of a railroad carriage. 

H. Albrecht's work is almost as good as that of Schlittgen, but 
he does not use his blacks and whites with the same strength and 
vigour. This can also be said of F. Bergen, who, to my mind, puts 
rather too much work in his drawings. One of the most independent 
of these Germans, a man who works much more like a Frenchman or 
an Italian, is Ludwig Marold. 

Hermann Liiders and Robert Haug do for the German soldier 
of to-day that which Menzel did for the soldier of Frederick the Great's 
time, and they have an advantage which Menzel did not enjoy — direct 
reproduction. Their work is quite equal to and much more varied 
than anything of De Neuville's and Detaille's. 

Though Germans are traditionally supposed to be somewhat 
stolid and phlegmatic, there is no doubt that they are the funniest of 
comic draughtsmen. When the art of a nation is so expressive that 
one has only to see to understand it, it becomes a universal language. 
Oberlander's and Busch's drawings at a glance can be understood 
by the civilised, and, for that matter, probably by the uncivilised 
world. Like much of Randolph Caldecott's work, there is nothing 
in Busch's to study for technique. The greater part of it is as 
slight as the funny and charming sketches Caldecott put in his 
letters to his friends. Indeed, Busch's work is a perpetual letter 
to the whole world, which one who runs may read. You cannot 
look at it without bursting into roars of laughter. The books 
which appeal to me as much as anything Busch has done, though 
he has made thousands of drawings, are Max and Movits, in which 
there is a colour wash over the pen drawing and Fiffs der Affe. 
Oberlander's work, on the contrary, is careful and serious. I only 
know it in wood blocks, but many of these, like the famous Bad 
Pen and the Doctor, are equal to Menzel at his best. Oberlander 
and Busch are only two among a hundred comic draughtsmen. 
Whoever cares for the work of these artists should study not only 


FHegeiide Blatter, but their little books which are continually being 

Englishmen, and especially Americans, congratulate themselves 
continually on the cleverness of their pen draughtsmen and illustrators. 
But, as a matter of fact, no cheap book has ever been published in 
America, or illustrated by English or American artists, that can be 
compared with the German publications I have just mentioned. The 
sooner therefore we get to know the work of German pen draughts- 
men, carefully studying it and applying it to our own country, or the 
country where we may happen to be, — though this admission may 
be very damaging to our own good opinion of our work, — the 
nearer will our magazines come to being, what we are pleased to 
think them, the best illustrated publications in the world. It may 
be interesting to know that some of those wonderfully illustrated 
books are published and sold for sixpence, while the most expensive 
cost the enormous sum of a shilling. 

^9/iy^^€^f^>;yy.^^y .ri^-^/fft^'^i-H'y'- ■ -' -^ 





T HAVE made every endeavour to obtain a new drawing from Menzel, but 
-*• I regret to say my efforts have only resulted in, to me, an interesting corre- 
spondence which shows, that in the short working time still remaining to him, he 
feels that unfinished work already planned must be completed in preference to the 
undertaking of new schemes. But the Berlin Photographic Company were good 
enough to obtain permission for me to reproduce by photogravure the drawing 
of Blucher from the Gennania, the original of which was not, with so much of 
Menzel's work, cut to pieces on the block, but is now in the National Gallery at 
Berlin. It has never been reproduced, so far as I know, except by a woodcut. 
Fortunately, however, it is a remarkably good example of his style, for even 
though Menzel did revolutionise illustration and bring again to life fac-simile 
woodcutting, like all other masters who have devoted themselves to developing 
any branch of art, he has suffered for those who have followed him in every part 
of the world. I do not know of but one other photogravure ever made from his 
pen drawings, and I have seen very few process blocks from them. Charles 
Keene has shown me two or three lithographs, which he owns and which are 
apparently viemi cards and programmes done by Menzel for his friends, and one 
or two small very clever little drawings, all of which have been reproduced by 
photo-engraving. I do not know, nor does he, where they were published. An 
almost parallel case is that of Meissonier, who also devoted many years to 
illustration, and yet in the numberless books he has illustrated I have only been 
able to find one photogravure from a pen drawing. But Meissonier has given 
up illustration, while Menzel has been and always will be primarily an illustrator. 
Menzel's pen work began, I believe, with his drawings on stone for the 
lithographer, and though much of his early work on the stone is absolutely of no 
value to the student, there is at least one book illustrated with drawings made in 
this way with a pen and afterwards coloured, I think by hand, which every 



student should know : this is his Uniforms of the Army of Frederick the 
Great, produced while he was occupied on the History and the Life and Worfis 
of Frederick, and Germania. The drawings, three of which I have here given, 

are simply studies of costume — indeed, one might 
say, nothing more than fashion plates which show 
the cut of the clothes of Frederick's army, but 
such fashion plates as had never before been done 
in this world. Instead of the ordinary stupid dis- 
play of mere costume without the slightest artistic 
feeling for the subject, every drawing is a portrait 
of a model, and every one of these models is, not 
a lay figure to hang clothes on, but a live man. 
The drawing of the sentinel shows the cut of the 
front of his coat perfectly, and what more could 
you want ? the make of his gun, the way he carries 
his accoutrements, and yet, though but a fashion 
plate, note that he is not stupidly standing just to 
show his coat, but is plainly a sentinel on duty, 
yawning with the bored expression a man in his 
position would probably have. This or another 
model can be seen in two or more positions simply 
to show the back or the side of the same uniform, 
but always the primary idea is character, expres- 
sion, action, and not the mere stupid rendering of 
a coat. Contrast this bored sentinel with the 
conceited self-satisfied swaggering drummer who, 
in the original drawing on the stone, will be 
found talking to two or three of his companions. 
I should like to have published a complete plate 
of these uniforms, but the drawings are so laro-e 
each figure nearly as tall as 
the text of this book, that the 
whole drawing could not have 
been put on the page without 
ruinous reduction. Techni- 
cally, I cannot entirely com- 
^ mendeither of these drawings, 

because the very strong and decided blacks which one finds all over them,^ in 
the knee of the sentinel, in his coat and his hat, and in the boots of the 
drummer, were put in to take a colour wash in the book, where they do not 
tell so strongly as they do here. But nevertheless, much of Menzel's work 
does show this impatience with the greying of tones, and a desire to use 

A'/ / 





pure black to get his effect at once and be done with it. This can be seen 
in the photogravure of Blucher. The head is massive and grand, but the 
coat is put in carelessly. If I were merely 
criticising the drawings from the standpoint 
of the critic I would have no right to object 
to certain technical details in such master- 
pieces, since the effect is all right. But 
this slapdash manner of blotting — not the 
clever blotting of the Spaniards and Italians 
— cannot be commended for the student. 
With him it would only be carelessness ; 
with a master like Menzel, it is an impa- 
tience with details which he knows he can 
render if he wants to. For a proof of this, 
look at the coat of the full-dress uniform of 
Frederick. The gold lace is worked out 
as carefully as a mechanical draughtsman 
would draw the parts of a machine, or a 
naturalist study the wings of a fly. Note 
how he has given the set of the coat, the 
hang of the folds, expressed the colour and 
sheen of the silk, although the actual colour 
was put on over it, and do not attempt 
to say he could not draw detail when he 
wanted. Why, everything is even mea- 
sured, and this is only a bit of one of the 
enormous pages ; on the same page there 
are details of hats and swords and of canes, 
even down to a measured drawing of the 
weaving of a sash. But if Menzel were 
doing these things to-day, I cannot help 
thinking he would get a better result, for 
two reasons : these were drawn on the 
stone with lithographic ink which is, first, 
a tedious and slow process, and secondly, ^ . 
it is almost impossible to print lines as 
finely as they were drawn, because, as any 
one who has tried it knows, lithographic 
ink blots easily, or if it does not blot, the result is much thicker and harder 
and blacker on white paper than the original drawing on the beautifully-toned 
stone. I really wish to show them as models of expression and good drawing 
rather than of technique. Personally, I prefer the delicate refinement of Abbey 



in this sort of work to the brute strength of Menzel. Both men can draw 
details ; but Abbey seems to love them ; Menzel, though he never slights or 
draws them badly, apparently hates to be obliged to do them. But it must 
be remembered that when these drawings were made, Menzel stood absolutely 
alone in the world as an illustrator. I am sure, however, that future generations 
will look back to him as the Michael Angelo of illustration. It is all very well 
to say he was influenced by Chodowiecki, whom I believe he acknowledges to 
be his master, but Menzel is as much greater than Chodowiecki as Reynolds 
was greater than Hudson. And as I have said in the Chapter on Fortuny, the 
sensation his drawings made when they first appeared was so great, I believe 
they were what sent Fortuny straight, not to copying them as a weaker man 
would have done, but to nature. 

In conclusion, I do not want it to be thought that Menzel did not as a rule 
draw details. When working for the woodcutter he used the most marvellous 
refinement of detail ; when working for himself, as the illustrator of to-day 
works, he was bold and free as these drawings show. No one has ever 
approached the exquisite delicacy of the little head and tail-pieces in the Works 
of Frederick. I have not used them because they are all woodcuts. 

— ^ 


I SUPPOSE this is by the well-known Dietz of Munich. In the title of the 

drawing given in Kitnst fiir Aile, where it was published, the name was printed 

Diez. In English publications it is usually spelt with a T. It is scarcely 

probable there could have been two men of the same name, both working at the 

same time, and in the same place. The late Munich professor, I know, made any 

number of illustrations for Fliegende Blatter, and I believe this to be one of his 

drawings. But the design is of great value, and this is really the important point. 

It shows how well he was able to carry out the feeling of the old Dutchmen with 

a handling all his own, though it suggests both Menzel and Vierge. Still I 

cannot help saying that the barrels in the foreground, the drawing of the grass, and 

the toned side of the house, might have been much better rendered with no greater 

work. But the group of little figures is, I find, in power and completeness of 

expression equal to anything in the book. And it is this power of expression, 

combined with care in the selection of each line, which marks the modern 

German style of drawing, several excellent examples of which I have been 

fortunate enough to secure. This thought for line, which interests and fascinates 

all artists, distinguishes the work of these Germans from the equally simple but 

utterly careless and thoughtless engraved line of men like Leech and his English 




ScHLiTTGEN IS the best known of all the German draughtsmen, and these two 
drawings are fair examples of his style. To the simplicity of character sketch- 
ing of Haug and Liiders is added the use of pure strong colour, as in the dress 
of the girl in the foreground of the large drawing. There is very little to say, 
except that his work is very clever and has influenced the pen draughtsmen of 
the world. The most superficial glance at it will show where many illustrators 
of to-day have got their style. Notice the charming grouping of the figures, 
and the action and movement which pervades the whole drawing and which is 
given in very few lines. Notice, too, the thoughtful placing of the little blacks 
and whites, their arrangement against each other so as to tell with the utmost 
effect. Everything in Schlittgen is studied and thought out in the most 
careful manner. 

The large drawing is from Tronvilk ; the smaller one, which shows most 
perfectly what might be called his serious caricature, is from Ein Erster 7ind ein 
Letzter Ball, and is a wonderful rendering of that wonderful creation, the 
German officer. 

All the Hacklander books, from which these are taken, should be seen 
and studied ; the price of each is a shilling, and they can be obtained at 
Triibner's in London. 




None of the German publications and books, with the exception of Fliegende 
Blatter and the Httle volumes, I have mentioned, illustrated by the artists of 
that paper, have a very wide circulation among English-speaking people. 

- \//.- '"-''- 

While nearly every German city of any importance possesses an art academy, 
one at least having a world-wide reputation, it is rather strange that a greater 
number of really good pen drawings are not seen. Though probably there are 
innumerable Germans who do very good work with a pen, the fact remains that 
but very few seem to care to, or do, get their work published. I do not know 
if in Germany there exists a prejudice against the employment of a new man, 
as I regret to say there does in certain quarters in England. However that 
may be, only the work of the men here represented is seen to any great extent, 
and, interesting as it would be to discover work done by the artist for study or 
practice, it is the object of this book to show the work of men well known 
as illustrators. 

As I have said, Hermann Liiders and Robert Haug are two most notable 
followers of Menzel, and in the two small drawings here given — all their draw- 
ings I know are small — can be seen most clearly their style of work, which is 
very similar, and which consists of the greatest expression of character given in 



the fewest possible lines. Contrast the light clapper officer in Luders's drawing 
of a review, in Ein Soldateuleben, with the heavy files which are passing. 
Although the drawing is almost in outline, you can see the different quality of 
the cloth in the officer's and in the privates' uniforms, and every soldier's face 
has a character of its own, although it may be given in only two lines. Notice 
the curve shown in the feet of the advancing file — the curve which is always 
seen in any column of marching men. To me, at least, the portraits of the 
Emperor, the Crown Prince, and Von Moltke, are quite as complete and 
satisfactory as any elaborate work in oil, and this small drawing contains as 
much character and as much feeling for the artistic quality of line as any etching 
that was ever produced. I know, of course, there would be more refinement in 
the etched line, but these two drawings in their way are perfect. 

The drawing by Haug of the cavalry passing is from Ein Sckloss m den 
Ardennen, and of it, especially of his drawing of horses, exactly the same things 
may be said as of Luders's work. Both of these books — and it may here be 
noted that Ein Soldateuleben is written as well as illustrated by Hermann 
Liiders — should be known and studied, as well as Vierge's Pablo de Sdgovie and 
Abbey's and Parsons's Old Songs, by all who wish for style and care for the best 
results in pen drawing. These drawings were reproduced in Vienna. 


Marold's work possesses more of the cleverness of half a dozen Italians, though 
it is not an imitation of any one of them, than that of any other German I know. 
The drawing in the hands of the three girls is very careless ; but the simplicity 
of the work combined with the stronsf bits of colour and the character in the 
faces makes a whole which is very pleasing and interesting, and which certainly 
has a style of its own. 



Oberlander is always called a caricaturist, and he is a caricaturist in the true 
sense of the word, for he shows in his drawings the humorous side of his sub- 
ject without aggressive exaggeration, and in a manner which interests artists as 
well as people who have no knowledge of art. The caricaturist who merely 
puts a little head, a big nose, or long legs to a figure, without drawing it in a 
good technical style, and expects people to laugh at it, although he may appeal 
to a vast inartistic public for a moment, because this abomination somewhat 
suggests a notoriety or celebrity, cannot permanently attract those who really 
care for art work. Can anything be more wearisome than to go through either 
one of the histories of caricature or a file of the political comic papers ? You 
turn over page after page only to find the stupid portrayal of forgotten men and 
unremembered and trivial events. Without the legend accompanying them 
they are unintelligible, and nearly always the events which led to the publication 
of the picture are forgotten and all interest in the subject has ceased. The man 
who puts down such trivialities and the public who appreciate them are not 
much above the schoolboy who scrawls the effigy of his schoolmaster on a back 
fence. I do not mean to say for a moment that all caricatures should be as 
elaborate as this example of Oberlander's work. He and many another man 
can tell a story in half a dozen artistically disposed lines. But a caricaturist who 
can work out a drawing, and yet keep in it the comic and amusing element, 
possesses a power given to few. 

I care not for a minute if this is a portrait of a doctor in Berlin or Munich, 
or only of a model. The subject is of absolutely no importance, but the way in 
which it is worked out is of the greatest value to artists. I am very sorry that 
the drawing has been engraved on wood ; though it has been very well cut by 
Roth, in all of the darker parts the pen drawing quality is lost in the woodcut 
line. But as the drawing was most likely made on the block — at least I have 
never been able to find out anything about the original — this was all I could give. 
However, what remains of it, to my mind, reaches the high-water mark of 

Any number of Oberlander's drawings can be found in the German papers, 
from which they are often taken by the periodicals of the whole world, as they 
can be understood by every one without a story to explain them. 






While Fliegende Blatter and its artists — among whom I probably ought to have 
mentioned Hengel, who tells his stories all over the page, and Stubbe — are 
known everywhere, magazines like Universum, Kunst fiir Alle, Felz ziim Meer, 
DaJieim, have little, if any, circulation in English-speaking 
countries. And moreover, it is only occasionally, for a year 
or six months at a time, that these magazines rise to the level 
of originality. It has been less 
a surprise to find my own work 
in some of them than to dis- 
cover good original drawings. 
For though they borrow from 
all sources, they rarely keep up 
a hig;h standard in work done 
specially for them. I have al- 
ready referred to the series of 
reproductions by Angerer and 
Goschl after Rembrandt in 
— Daheini, where they made an 
oasis in a desert of common- 
placeness ; in half a ton of Felz 
zum Meer, there is hardly a 
;'■ notable drawing done by a 
German in pen and ink ; but in Universum, at 
times straight away for a year, one will find a 
number of good drawings, and then the maga- 
zine will degenerate, only to be revived again. 
All through it, however, there is good decora- 
tive work by E. linger, two of whose very 
characteristic designs I have included in the Chapter on Decoration. There 
is Scheyner who draws like Haug, and Mandlick who works like Schlittgen. 





But I think the most original of all the men who have illustrated this magazine 
is Albert Richter, who draws landscape and interiors, and three of whose draw- 
ings are given. The expression of detail in the ■ ' / ; 
carving over the open doorway and in the corner 

of the room is very well rendered, while the bit . . ' . ■ 

of a German town is extremely characteristic, the 
German feeling being well kept. The drawings 
are very slight, but despite this slightness there 
is evident a great desire to show with the simplest 
means the most picturesque aspects of very com- 
monplace subjects. In fact they possess the true 
illustrative quality. 

The only other drawings worth notice, except 
the single Vierge-like drawing by Dietz, the helio- 
type by Waldemar Frederick, and those of the 
other men I mention when describing it on another 
page, are by the military painter Lang in Kunst 
filr Alle, from whom very likely Haug, Luders, 
and Scheyner got their ideas, but he is not an 
illustrator and they are. 




There is nothing more difficult to draw with a pen than low relief or 
decoration, and while Jacquemart, with his books made rare by limited editions, 
illustrated with etchings and therefore only for collectors and amateurs, gained a 
great reputation for himself, this man who can draw just as well and with as 
much feeling for light and shade and colour and the play of reflections on 
polished surfaces, in which lay Jacquemart's great strength, is unknown because, 
though he treats the same objects in the same manner, he draws them with a 
pen. The sole difference is that he works for the people, and Jacquemart, 
though himself an artistic man, catered to the collector who is usually unable to 
appreciate his work technically. The chasing and the roundness and the 
metallic feeling of this cup or chalice could not be better rendered by any other 
medium. Lately, notably in the Century and Harper s, there have been 
published drawings by Will H. Drake which approach, but I do not think 
equal, this. Drake's work is more artistically put together ; his backgrounds 
have some relation to the objects drawn, this is meaningless. But I do not find 
that the subjects themselves are as well treated by Drake and the other 
Americans, that is in feeling for surface and material. 



Universum contains one sort of work which has not been used to very great 
extent by any other popular magazine. For a year or two it gave a heHotype 
or photo-print as a frontispiece to each number. The architectural papers have 
almost always employed some form of this method of reproduction, and it can 
also be seen in the Universal Review. It is very cheap but exceedingly effective, 
and there is no reason why it should not be more extensively adopted. Among 
the men whose drawings have been published in this way are Waldemar 
Frederick, K. Richfelt, and Hugo Kaufman. The pen drawings in which there 
is a wash come very well by this process, though they cannot be printed with 
the text. This, of course, is the objection to it. It gives the character of the 
artist's work comparatively perfectly and is usually printed in two or more 
colours. The results are not as accurate as those obtained by photogravure, but 
for the reproduction of wash It is superior to a relief block. The drawings are 
merely photographed on to a lithographic stone or gelatine film, and printed in a 
lithographic press. The process is well enough known all over the world with 
more variety in name than in method. For it is indifferently called heliogravure, 
heliotype, photo- tint, ink photo, and it is not infrequently palmed off as 
photogravure. The process is altogether different, a photogravure, as the name 
implies, being printed from an engraved plate, the heliotype from the surface, as 
a lithograph. 

Waldemar Frederick's drawing of the figure is excellent, and thoroughly 
German in character, and the reproduction is good, though it seems to me that 
much must have been lost in the shadows. Of this I cannot be sure, as I have 
not seen the original drawing. But the prints themselves even in an edition as 
small as this vary very much, and the want of accuracy in printing is enough 
to prevent the success of any process as a method for popular illustration. 




CRITICS have spoken of French drawings as tricky. I am 
not c^uite sure what this may mean, but I am certain that in 
French, as in Spanish drawing, dull mechanical work was done 
away with, and clever handling took its place. At the same 
time that the great Spaniards were beginning to be famous, 
Detaille and De Neuville appeared in France. They studied 
under Meissonier. A reference to this artist's pen drawings, even 
though they are engraved on wood, will show that his method 
of working with a pen was careful, reverent, and accurate. But 
as he does not illustrate any more, and as I have never seen but 
one of his drawings reproduced by photo-engraving, there is no more 
reason why I should speak of him than that I should go back 
to Vernet, and then to Claude and Nicholas Poussin — in fact to 
the beginning of French art. As I have said, it is with the pen 
drawing of to-day, and of no other time, that I am here concerned. 

Even before De Neuville and Detaille and Meissonier, Paul 
Huet had already given signs of the coming change. But his 
drawings were not known until after his death, when they were 
looked upon as revelations. Rousseau, when he took a pen, was 
too careless, or I suppose some would say too old-masterish, to 
care about line, but he managed his blacks effectively in his wood 
interiors. Millet, too, worked with a pen, especially a quill, not 



exactly as the old men did, but still with simplicity, making a 
few lines tell a whole story. Dore, of course, produced hundreds 
and probably thousands of pen drawings ; but I suppose it is now 
almost universally admitted that his facility killed his art, as it 
eventually killed himself. Not only this, but the greater part of 
his work, was done for the engraver. 

Looking at great men like Menzel and Vierge, one is struck 
by the fact that their original work is expressed by pen drawing. 
With the majority of Frenchmen, pen drawing has been the 
means of giving the public an artistic rendering of their pictures 
in black and white. It has also been used in this way in England, 
but, as a rule, in anything but an artistic manner. De Neuville 
and Detaille and hundreds of others drew in pen and ink with 
the adjunct of wash, not that the pen was to them of any special 
importance ; it simply happened to be the medium that was the 
fashion. Their sketches were really a working-out of the old 
projects' and intentions' scheme. With the introduction of photo- 
engraving, the publication of L'Art and the Salon Catalogues, 
and the coming of the Spaniards of whom I have spoken, the 
revolution began in France. Of course the Frenchmen were ready 
for this artistic change in their work, and only adapted their style 
to the new requirements. 

In De Neuville's well-known drawings of war subjects, as 
in Menzel's work, there is the most careful modelling, obtained 
by simple and direct means, and the utmost refinement. Mr. 
Hamerton devotes much space to justly praising his Coups de 
Ftisil, published by Charpentier, but to praise De Neuville and 
to omit Detaille is to slight an artist who is no less brilliant 
as a pen draughtsman. To write of these two men and to omit 
Jeanniot would be an inexcusable oversight. 

In my estimation Jeanniot is the leading French pen draughts- 
man. He has of course painted, but he is more of a pen draughts- 
man than a painter, and therefore should be here ranked above 
these two better- known men who, owing to the magnificent series 
of photogravure reproductions of their paintings published by Goupil, 
have acquired a wide-spread popularity. Jeanniot has devoted 
himself almost exclusively to illustrating the magazines, and showino- 
the French life of to-day. I hardly know where or when he beo-an 


to draw, but the first numbers of La Vie Moderne are filled 
with examples of his work. Exactly the same can be said of 
Adrien Marie and Renouard, who are known in England through 
the Graphic. Indeed, the Graphic, as it admits, is at the present 
moment very much dependent on the drawings of these men. Of 
late most of the work of Renouard, however, is in chalk. Mars 
also has done much for English papers, with his rendering of 
life on the sea-shore, and his charming children. 

At one time, in almost every number of La Vie Moderne, 
was to be seen work which, though the artists' names might be 
unknown to us outside of France, was clever and marked with 
originality. The same can be said of an innumerable host in 
Paris Illustrd, Le Petit Journal pour Rire, La Vie Parisienne, 
L Illustration, Le Monde Illustrd, Revue Illustrde, Le Conrrier 
Francais ; or if you look any week in books which bear the little 
card Vient de Parattre, you will probably find in their pages some 
exquisite little gem by a man you never heard of before. Almost 
every French pen draughtsman has made the books and papers of 
the day — whether big or little, comic or serious, important or 
frivolous — beautiful and worthy of study. The early volumes of 
La Vie Moderne and L!Art are the best masters that any pen 
draughtsman could have. 

It would really be much easier to name the French artists 
who cannot draw with a pen than those who can. However, among 
the better known draughtsmen I might mention Duez, whose brilliant 
sketches transfer scenes from the theatre to the pages of the theatrical 
papers ; Jean Beraud, who makes wonderful interiors with effects of 
light and shade ; Maurice Leloir, who has given us a new Sterne ; 
Auguste Lan^on, whose drawings of animals have an enormous 
amount of strength and vigour, and who, I believe, has been 
called the "Cat Raphael"; Lucien Gautier, who can make a bronze 
statuette or a marble group with the sunlight glowing on it and 
its soft reflected shadows, real for us in LArt ; Bracquemond, 
the etcher, whose head and tail -pieces are charming, while his 
little sketches are as Avonderful as Japanese work ; Ringel, the 
modeller, who seems able to do anything, and whose drawings after 
his own placques are the most clever that have ever been made ; 
H. Scott, who is a delightful architectural draughtsman ; E. Adan, 


who renders his own pictures charmingly; Rochegrosse ; Mme. 
Lemaire ; Edmond Yon ; Robida, who is very popular both as a 
caricaturist and an artistic traveller; Brunet-Debaines, who was 
one of the first to show Englishmen what pen drawing for process- 
reproduction should be; Habert-Dys, who draws an initial or the 
border of a page with most effective brilliancy by means of almost 
pure blacks and whites ; graceful swallows flit about chimney-pot 
initials, Japanese dolls tumble all around the text, perfect oriental 
feeling pervades his head and tail pieces, and all his work is 
suffused with his own personality. 

There is one Frenchman who stands apart from all these men, 
and who is the landscape pen draughtsman of France. This is 
Maxime Lalanne, who has recently died full of honours, if not of 
years. Without his beautiful drawings Havard's HoUande would 
be veritably dead as the cities of the Zuyder Zee. His bird's-eye 
views have made them live again. For quick, bright, strong, incisive 
work, for getting at the essence of a thing with sharp, short, brilliant 
strokes, perhaps no one can equal him. The only possible drawback 
to his work is that there is too much Lalanne in it. He knew, if 
anything, too well what he was going to do. He can hardly be 
called mannered, because a mannered man usually cares nothing 
for nature with its variety and subtlety, while Lalanne really did 
care and makes you feel that he cared. I may perhaps best explain 
what I mean by saying that Rico in his work seems to ask, " Is this 
the way a tree or a bit of water ought to look ? I think it is ; " while 
Lalanne in his is more positive : "This is the way the tree or bit of 
water looks; I know it," he seems to say. He is almost too sure of 

In speaking of French pen drawing one cannot help noticing 
that a few years ago it was the fashion in Paris to draw with the 
pen — a fashion, as I have said, started by the Spaniards, then living 
there. The work of the French artists, although not so clever as 
that of the Spaniards, was almost all good, simple, and careful. But 
at the same time the leading attraction of the French magazines 
and journals was the fact that week after week Vierge, his brother 
or his followers, or other Spaniards, contributed, as they still continue 
to do, the most striking drawings. But since the introduction of 
the Guillaume and Meisenbach processes much of this work has 


been given up, and only those artists who care for line and the 
quality to be gotten with a pen still produce pen drawings. What 
has given that which is known as French art its reputation with 
art students and art lovers, is the fact that it is not French art 
at all, but the art of the whole world ; for there is not the slightest 
doubt that the work of the greatest artists of the day is to be seen 
at one time or another in Paris, which has therefore become the 
art metropolis. The Salon is really the broadest and most varied 
exhibition in the world, and far less French than the Royal Academy 
is English. 

Almost every French pen draughtsman to whom I have referred 
is a well-known painter. If you take up to-day a Salon Catalogue,^ 
you find it full of charming pen drawing reproductions, pictures in 
themselves. Of these I have given several as examples. Indeed, 
the list of the greatest pen draughtsmen is, as I said of the Spaniards, 
the list of the great painters. The fashion of illustrating catalogues 
commenced, I believe, in France, and grew and developed there under 
the care of H Art and the publishers of the Salon Catalogue until 
its influence has made itself felt, even in England, though here very 
little of the French feeling has been retained. The French work 
is done for the sake of the drawing; the English catalogue is but 
an inartistic reading book for the artless. There have been some 
exceptions. Some good drawings have been made for English 
catalogues, just as of late years the Salon Catalogues have been given 
over to less able draughtsmen, for this reason ; at the present moment 
many of the best known artists are having their paintings reproduced 
by a mechanical tone process. In some ways this is unfortunate 
for pen drawing ; in others it is fortunate, since it helps to confine 
pen drawing to its proper sphere, which is not the reproduction 
of tone, but of line only. The publication of LArt and these 
catalogues not only created a school of French pen draughtsmen, 
whose sole work it Avas to reproduce other men's art, but, so 
powerful was its influence, that it produced a few English artists, 
who for a time did very fine work of the same kind, but of them 

1 I want to make an exception of the Catalogue ruins them. The Catalogue for i88S is not very 

for 1887, which is very bad. Some of the much better. The most artistic cheap French 

drawings may have been good, but over them Catalogue published, as far as I know, is that of 

has been put a grey tone which gives them a the Societe d'Aquarellistes. 
uniform cheap look, and, in nearly every case. 


I shall speak in the English Chapter. It is owing to the same 
influence that the finest catalogues ever issued have been published in 
America, and that in that country catalogue-making and advertising 
have become a fine art. 

If the healthy black and white art, which is the art of the 
nineteenth century, is put into advertisements, catalogues, the daily 
and weekly papers, journals and magazines, and the people really 
appreciate, understand, and care for it, as they do in France, Germany, 
and America, I believe it is doing just as much good as pictures 
buried away in churches, which they look and wonder at through 
the eyes of a guide-book or of a religious art teacher, and the beauties 
of which seeing, they do not perceive, and the meaning of which 
hearing, they do not understand. 




T N every branch of art work at which I have ever known him to try his hand, 
-*- Lhermitte seems equally at home. His pictures are always among the 
most distinguished in the SaloH ; his water-colours are always to be included 
with the successes at the exhibitions of the Socidtd des Aqiiarellistes Fra?icais ; 
his pastels surprise every one who sees them ; his charcoal drawings are worked 
out with a massive and big completeness which proves that this medium can 
be used for something more than the pretty finicky work to which it is de- 
voted on the one hand, or to the making of slight studies or rapid sketches for 
which it is so often employed on the other ; his etchings of interiors of churches 
and his west front of the Cathedral of Rouen are known all over the world ; and 
I have now, through the kindness of Messrs. Seeley, the opportunity of properly 
showing one of his pen drawings. 

Although not almost exclusively, like Abbey, an illustrator, or unable, like 
Menzel, to express himself equally well in colour, he is quite as much at home 
in the many books and papers he has decorated as they are. There is an 
entire absence of all cleverness in his work — I mean in the sense in which that 
of the Spaniards is clever — yet a straightforward way of rendering every subject 
he attempts makes his drawings most interesting, and he certainly possesses a 
very strong and marked individuality. Although he does not confine himself 
by any means to the life of the peasant, as Millet did, all his work which I have 
seen treats some one or other phase of French life, and is done with the greatest 
possible endeavour to show the truth about his subject without affectation or 
exaggeration. The drawing I have reproduced gives one of the old streets in 
Paris. It is made with blue ink, evidently with an ordinary pen on a piece of 
very poor white drawing paper, and is handled in exactly the same way as are 
his etchings. He has endeavoured to show the mass of objects, which fill one 
of these old rag-pickers' streets in the heart of Paris, without giving undue 


prominence to any one part, or without any apparent brilliancy of execution. 
But if the drawing- is looked into, it will be realised that every object in it keeps 
its proper place, while he has suggested not only light and shade by very 
simple means, but colour as well. He works in his important figures in the 
foreground, or the objects he wishes to emphasise, by using a broader pen or 
by greater pressure just as an etcher would ; and at the same time he allows 
portions of them to sink into other parts of the drawing just as they do in 
nature. I do not want any one to think I publish it altogether as an example 
of style, because many of the lines are put in with an effect of carelessness, and 
it is only when one examines them carefully that one sees they are right. The 
modelling, which at first is almost hidden, will also be found. But I cannot 
help pointing out that a drawing, like Abbey's, in which every line is carefully 
thought about is far better for study. If the student fears that he is becoming 
too careful with each line — which is really an impossibility — he can easily allow 
himself greater freedom. But apparently this drawing of Lhermitte's could not 
be done much more freely. And yet, on looking into it closely, it can be seen 
that a pencil drawing was originally made under the freest part of the ink 
work ; it is really only by having a solid groundwork that one can indicate and 
express the various parts which go to make up a whole as interesting as this. 
Then of course there is another reason for not working so freely as Lhermltte 
does here : no process but photogravure would reproduce this work accurately. 
The original reproduction In Mr. Hamerton's Paris gave no idea whatever of 
the drawing. 

There is one quality to be noted, however, in such work. It Is unmistak- 
ably clone out of doors and from nature, with probably little thought about line, 
and therefore has none of the cut and dried sort of freedom that can easily be 
distinguished from the genuine thing. Notice how all the forms of the stones 
and the stains on the wall are given on the left-hand side, and so freely, and yet 
so carefully, you know they must be facts recorded from nature. Notice how 
the whites in the men's shirts and baskets tell, not too strongly but just right, 
and how Lhermltte has indicated the grey misty distance in the old high narrow 
street. Of course the windows and the doors on the riofht mieht have been 
drawn much more carefully, and the lamp-post which sticks out at the side is 
very bad. But throughout the whole drawing there Is a good honest endeavour 
to represent a street he has seen, though the way in which this was to be done 
was of minor importance. With Parsons or with Blum or with Rico, the hand- 
ling is of no less importance than the subject. These men give as much thouoht 
to the reproduction as to any special quality in the drawing. A man like Lher- 
mltte evidently does not, but he knows what he wants to express, and, as I have 
said in several other places, it is only by working after drawings like his that 
photo-engraving advances at all. 




Nothing has been more of a surprise to me in preparing this book than to find 
how comparatively few pure pen drawings have been made by two men so well 
known for black and white work as De Neuville and Detaille. I have not 
forgotten that I have said in another place I myself care little whether a draw- 
ing is pure pen work or not, and I have shown other drawings where wash is 
used with the pen work. But, as I have also said, nothing but a pure pen 
drawing can be reproduced with so little labour and without hand work. These 



two men studied under Meissonier before the coming of process, and they drew 
on the wood ; therefore, though their work was well reproduced, it made very 
little difference whether there was a wash in it or not. During the last decade, 
in which their reputation has been made, and De Neuville unfortunately has 
died, though they have done a vast amount of work for reproduction — in fact, 
almost all their work was intended for this purpose, — it has been for reproduction 
by photogravure, either in colour or in black and white, from their paintings and 
not from their line drawings. 

There are, of course, a great number of sketches in pen and ink, more or 
less slight and always interesting, to be had from them like this sketch and 
the series for the Coiips de Fusil, which have a great deal of wash in them, 
and which I do not think were a great success, or else I should have shown 
one or two here. The accompanying drawing by Detaille is a sketch of the 
principal figure in the picture called L'Alerte, and though it was exhibited, as 
are hundreds of his and De Neuville's drawings, it is nothing more than a sketch 
of projects and intentions, but far better than any old man could have done it. 
The drawing itself is good, and the action and movement of the man and horse 
are very well expressed. But it is filled with careless blots and smudges. It 
is the sketch of a master, primarily done for his own use, though he is willing 
to show it. A glance at the work of Jeanniot or Haug and Luders will show 
that Detaille's drawing is a work for study, theirs are works for exhibition. 
Having studied the methods of fifteen or twenty years ago, and having met 
with success in other ways, he has never paid the necessary attention to the 
essentially modern illustrative methods. From his standpoint there is no reason 
why he should. He paints for reproduction, and in the reproductions published 
by Goupil, from the cheapest to the most expensive, he does appeal to the 
people. No one to-day knows more about painting for reproduction than 
Detaille. He is one of the men who have given up pen drawing because their 
wash drawings can be reproduced equally well. In his great work, L'Arm^e 
Frangaise, there are scarcely any pen drawings at all. 




I AM not yet sure whether I should have 
selected this charming figure of a flower- 
girl, or one of Madame Lemaire's studies 
of flowers, which she renders with more 
colour and less work than even Alfred 
Parsons, though I cannot think she gives 
as much attention to the delicacy of each 
individual form and the expression of its 
growth. But there is no doubt whatever 
to her right to a place as a figure draughts- 
woman. There is no one livinsf who can 
approach her for refinement of drawing 
and rendering of colour in a simple un- 
affected manner. Louis Leloir was cer- 
tainly her equal, but I know of no one 
else. I think she is even superior to 
Abbey in the suggestion of colour in 
a single figure. But then Abbey can 
carry out a drawing more completely, 
making a picture - illustration, while 
Madame Lemaire's designs are only 
notes of her pictures, but notes of a 
most artistic sort. The principal quali- 
ties to be studied in her work are the 
simplicity of line and the grace of 


This drawing shows a consummate mastery of technique in a man who has 
given the world very little pen drawing — at least very little that I have been 
able to find. Of course in the original picture the greatest cleverness was 
manifested in the scheme of light, the posing of the figures, and the arrangement 
of the different parts. But to suggest this cleverness in pen and ink without 
over elaboration is quite as wonderful. The reserving of blacks here, as in all 
other good drawings, will be noted. But the great feature is the rendering of 
the greys, and especially the flesh tints of the model in the foreground. You 
feel instinctively the difference between the relief on which the sculptor is 
working, the litde coloured figure, the model herself, and the cloth which carries 
the light from the relief down her arms on to the box where she is sitting. All 
of this is produced by the most simple means, and yet the different surfaces are 
perfectly suggested. It cannot be said there is any great cleverness in the 
handling ; the drawing itself in places might be much better. The model's 
hands and one of the sculptor's are probably not up to those in the picture. 
But this drawing should be studied mainly for its suggestion of colour, and for 
the very careful and, at the same time, very artistic manner in which Yves and 
Barret have engraved it. The skilful use of cross-hatching has contributed in 
many places to the successful rendering of the character of the different surfaces. 
And yet in some of the most difficult passages, notably in the model herself, 
there is none of this hand work ; the whole effect is entirely due to the artist. 
But right alongside the model, look at the delicate way in which Dantan's name 
is engraved. It might be remarked that this is too trivial to notice ; but it is 
such apparent trivialities that make the difference between good and bad work. 

The outlines of the figure on the relief are somewhat rough and hard. I 
think they should have been cut down and thus softened. The hardness is 
probably due to a defect in the block. As it is, the outlines catch one's eye 
unpleasantly. As to the rendering of the canvasses in high light above the 
relief, the placques and reliefs on the wall which runs at right angles to it, at the 
left hand of the drawing, I think the surfaces and the colour and texture 
suggested are worked out, though unobtrusively, as well as the principal motive 
in the picture. But every part of this drawing is worthy of the most careful and 
thorough study. 

Dantan assures me that the drawing is his own work, and, as I have said, 
it is simply wonderful that a man who has shown so little pen work should get 
such perfect results. I have no doubt that he is responsible in a great measure 
for the careful engraving, and therefore it is almost presumptuous of me to offer 
any criticism upon it. This drawing is but another proof of what I have 
asserted : if an artist can reproduce his own picture in pen and ink artistically, 
he produces not only a valuable record but a new work of art. It is to this 
drawing, as much as to the picture itself, that Dantan owes his fame.^ 

1 For work of this class Emile Adan's Ferryman's Dauglitcr and Autumn should be seen. 


The reason I have not given 
a photogravure to Jeanniot, 
whom I have called the lead- 
ing French pen draughtsman, 
is because his work comes 
perfectly well by process. He 
has a style and character of 
his own, and by the simplest 
means he obtains the most 
artistic results. Take this 
little drawing of the boule- 
vards at night with a kiosque ; the effect of the light which comes from it, the 
light of the shop windows, and their reflections on the wet asphalt, are given 
as well as if the drawing was made in wash. There is no over elaboration and 
unnecessary work. The tones are suggested in a remarkable manner. Of 
course they are all wrong, but they give the right effect. In fact, the little 
drawing which heads this page should be carefully studied. 

Then take the drawing of the soldiers drilling. Randolph Caldecott never 
did a better dog than the one standing in the foreground looking at the officer, 
and the recruit close by is simply the thing itself. Look at the character in 
the awkward squad, in all the spectators, in the officers. The houses in the 
background, however, are careless. They might have been suggested much 
more artistically with very little more work. But the figures are altogether 
delightful in their suggestion of character, and every line shows careful thought. 

What could be more stupid and monotonous to draw than the mass of 
furniture in the third example. I think the background might with advantage 
have had less work in it ; Brennan would have rendered every one of the details 
much more cleverly. But Jeanniot has made an interesting picture as a whole, 
breaking up one really inartistic line by another, and with the most unpromising 
details producing the best results. It is in artistically rendering furniture, 
bric-a-brac, and even old shoes, that men like Jacquemart have made their 
reputation as etchers. The same effects can be rendered quite as well in pen 
and ink, and stupid trade catalogues could be made interesting and worthy 
of preservation instead of being, as they are now, only fit to be thrown away 


as a nuisance. Business men are beginning to understand that there is 
something in artistic advertising ; but it will take them some time to learn to 
pay for an artistically drawn advertisement. I have been told that a large piano 
manufacturer in America has produced just such a catalogue, but I have not 
seen it. With this drawing, those continually appearing in the Century and 
Harper s by Brennan, Drake, and Du Mond, and with the etchings and pen 
drawings by Jacquemart in his various books, there is no difficulty in finding 
good studies by good men. 

Jeanniot has illustrated an almost endless succession of books and papers, 
La Vie Moderne, La Revue Illustrde, etc. etc. The book b}^ which his work 
has been made most widely known is, of course, the Dentu edition of Tartarin 
de Tarascon, which contains a vast number of pen drawings. 






This Leloir must not be confounded with Maurice Leloir, the illustrator of 
Sterne. The drawing here shown is a most refined rendering of character. 
The face has been drawn so well for reproduction that the printed result is more 
successful than any work I know of. And yet this is one of the very few 
drawings of Louis Leloir's that I have seen. Of course it is nothing more 
perhaps than a sketch for a picture, but when a man can make such a sketch he 
is a great master of pen drawing. The face and hands cannot be too thoroughly 
and carefully studied. 

I lO 



To my mind, at least, Lalanne was one of the most exquisite and refined 
illustrators of architecture who ever lived. His ability to express a great 

building, a vast town, or a 
•— ,r-,_ delicate little landscape, has 

-^ — - - -v^^?ir never been equalled, I think, 

_^ ■ by anybody but Whistler. 

To a certain extent he was 
mannered ; so was Rem- 
brandt ; Whistler is the only 
man I know of who is not. 
The three little drawings 
which I have given show 
Lalanne's style very well. I 
do not know what was the size of the originals ; in Havard's HoUande the 
illustrations are reproduced in many different 
sizes, but I think the small ones like those 
I give are the most successful. The student 
will find the book extremely useful. 

Lalanne probably acquired his refinement 
of handling in the production of his innumer- 
able delicate etchings. It is scarcely neces- 
sary to analyse his drawings here, as I have 
considered one of them in an earlier chapter, 
and all are characterised by the same sim- 
plicity and refinement of expression, the same directness of execution. There is 
in them great knowledge of architecture, but this knowledge is not aggressive. 
The Portfolio contained many examples of Lalanne's work, among others 
sketches in Rouen and illustrations for Mr. Hamerton's Paris. His etchino- 
of Richmond and the Thames, which appeared in the Portfolio, is the 
most exquisite example ot his work I have seen in any English periodical. 
Nearly the same results could be obtained with pen and ink. 

However, the books which Lalanne illustrated are numberless. He did a 
great deal for Ouantin, I believe. His work can be found in back numbers of 


1 1 1 

L Art and nearly all the French magazines and periodicals, for he was a most 
prolific draughtsman. But perhaps the best, certainly the most complete, 
example of his work is Havard's Hollande. He was a very successful teacher, 
but because of the class of people who patronised him — principally royalties of 
more or less importance — this part of his life was wasted. 



It may be wondered why I give so much space to a drawing which is apparently 
crude and very hlce the projects and intentions of the old men. I give it simply 
to show the difference. The old work either is in pure outline, or if modelling 
is attempted, it is done in the most conventional manner. Here you have no 
outline, but, on the contrary, a masterly sketch in which the suggestion of model- 
ling and the feeling for light and shade are remarkable for strength and 
character. Notice how the fio;ure of the sfirl is suo-o;ested under her dress, and 
the simple yet excellent rendering of her hair, and the difference between her 
face and that of the man sleeping beside her. Of course this is rough work if 
you like, and the reproduction is probably about the size of the original drawing. 
But though the work is put in strongly and boldly, it is not done carelessly, and 
it is most interesting to see the way in which a man like Butin works. Note, 
too, that none of the lines are done with unnecessary coarseness in hopes that 
they will reduce into the proper relations with other light ones, but all are 
drawn apparently with a big quill pen. As I have said, I show this drawing 
more to mark the contrast between modern sketching of projects and intentions 
and old work of the same sort. It was published in L' Art. 


"T^Ttfss ^JumiT, 


In looking over the catalogues of different art exhibitions, which are perhaps the 
only places where are to be found pen drawings of sculpture with any pretence 
to artistic rendering, one is struck by one of two facts. Either the sculptors 
have not made the drawings themselves, or else they have produced slight and 
trivial renderings of their own often very beautitul work. The chief cause for 


this is that many sculptors out of France, singular as it may seem, cannot 
draw ; that is, they cannot make a drawing of any artistic value. Of course in 
Paris this is not so often the case. A man who has gone through the Beaux- 
Arts is almost always able to draw. But in other countries it is the exception 
when the sculptor can. And again, it is extremely difficult to give with a pen, 
either with simple lines or complicated drawing, the real feeling of marble, terra- 
cotta, or bronze. 

The consequence is that the majority of French sculptors, when they wish 
an artistic rendering in pen and ink of their work, not infrequently employ one of 
the three draughtsmen whose work I have here given to do it for them. Let 
us take the large drawing by St. Elme Gautier, after the high relief by Mercie, 
over one of the doorways of the Louvre. Mercie is a painter as well as a 
sculptor, Jiis painting often being seen in the Salon, and he realises the difficulty 
of giving with pen and ink the effect of a newly-modelled relief which has none 
of the marks of time, or the interesting smudges and breaks and fractures which 
save the artist much work and lend charm to the results. But from new work 
you have to draw sharply and cleanly, depending upon nothing but your ability 
to draw correctly, taking the utmost care with every line, and yet avoiding that 
liny mechanical look which j^ou will find at once in your drawing unless you are 
very skilful. One cannot call this drawing of Gautier's very artistic, but it is a 
clean, sharp rendering of the subject, and as such is a good study. 

Contrast it for a moment with these heads of angels by Marie Weber. She 
has got all the modelling and the effect of the surfaces and the rendering of 
light and shade without a single outline, though Gautier's work is almost 
altogether outline. But a drawing like this could not be made unless the 
draughtsman was quite Gautier's equal. Notice how, though she indicates the 
lights and shades and the darks in the mouths, she has concentrated her blacks 
on the base on which the heads stand. And yet you will find little blacks all 
over the drawing, which is one of the most delightfully artistic renderings of 
sculpture I have ever seen. Other of Marie Weber's drawings are to be found 
in UArt, but none that are as fine as this one. 

Half-way between Gautier's and Marie Weber's work comes this drawing 
of Teucer by L. Gaucherel, which is an excellent combination of their two 
methods — of Gautier's firm bold outline in the light part of the figure, and of 
Weber's delicate modelling in the shadows. The effect has been obtained 
without a single pure black, just as, of course, there was no black in the figure 

Lastly, the head of De Lesseps by Ringel is an example of the work of a 
man who can model as well as he can draw, and draw as well as he can etch. 
Not only have his series of medallions of contemporary Frenchmen been most 
original in their conception and true in their execution, but the drawings are in 
no way inferior, and made a profound sensation a few years ago upon their 



publication in L Art. They are drawn on the Papier Gillot, and the cross- 
hatch, the double tone which increases the light, can be seen all over the side 
of the face, while the pure whites are obtained in the manner I have described 
in another chapter. It is, of course, quite possible that some of my critics will 
remark that this is not a pen drawing at all. I am quite well aware of this. 
There may not be a single pen line in it, though I think there is pen work in 
the hair. The darks are put in with a crayon. But as I wish to give an 
example of pen work on this tinted paper, even though it consists of only a few 
lines, and as this is one of the finest examples to be had, I think it best to give 
it, since I am sure it will be useful to students. By means of this tinted paper 
one can get nearer to the effect of a relief or an entire figure than can be done 
in any other way, except by wood -engraving, or by direct process from the 
relief or statue itself without the intervention of any engraver. 

Among Americans, Blum, Wyatt Eaton, Kenyon Cox, and Brennan, by a 
process of his own, which I believe did not turn out very successfully, have 
made some interesting drawings of sculpture which may be seen in the Century. 
But by process or wood-blocks from the statue or relief itself a more telling 
result may be had, because sculpture depends not on lines but on surfaces, and 
by translation into line it loses enormously. 


I DO not know if this artist 
is a Frenchman. But he 
lives in France, and his 
work always appears in 
French periodicals. I pre- 
sume, therefore, he is one 
of the many Frenchmen of 
English or foreign parent- 
age, among whom one at " 
once recalls men, at any- 
rate with English names, 
like Alfred Stevens, Albert 
Lynch, and many another. 
However, nowadays the 
only artists living in a 
foreign country, who think 
it worth while to maintain 
and even assert their na- 
tionality, are Americans, 
owing to the duty of 
thirty-three per cent with 
which a beneficent g-overn- 
ment has seen fit to tax the works of art of all who are not fortunate enough 
to be citizens of my great and glorious country. 

Scott has devoted himself to the picturesque rendering of architecture. He 
is not a master by any means, but he has done more of this work than any one 
else in France. Looking at his drawing, I should say most undoubtedly he was 
educated as an architect. In the headpiece, at Chantilly, the drawing of the flat 
mansard roof is absolutely expressionless and without character. It is im- 
possible to tell whether it is of slate, shingle, or stone ; I suppose it is slate, the 
material of which all French roofs are built. But there is no reason why a man 
should make a long series of parallel lines when a few, drawn with discretion, 
would have shown the material much more plainly. The drawing, or at least 
the reproduction, contains a great number of blacks, thus scattering his effects ; 
but its chief merit is its expression of details which are very well rendered. 

The large drawing is of course far more of a picture. The scraggy grape 



vine in the foreground is atrocious and meaningless. But the Hght is excellently 
carried up the long street leading to the chateau ; the chateau itself is very well 
drawn, though there is but little light and shade in it, and some careless cross 
hatching on the towers. The masses of trees are very wire-worky. Taken 
altogether, however, as an impressive representation of a vast building 
dominating a small town, the effect is extremely well given. He has shown 
everything, from the sally-port to the tops of the towers, from the great mansard- 
roofed mairie standing among trees on the left to the little working-men's 
cottages on the right, with great intelligence. The roofs in all his buildings, 
save in the mansard of the mairie — and it might be better — neither represent 
light or shade nor their materials. A simple reference to the Rico or Blum 
drawing will show what I mean. The long straggling lines on the left of the 
cJiateau, though they lead into the wood and hillside beyond, are confusing. 
But with the exception of these details, and especially of the foliage, the 
mechanical treatment of which is to be avoided, I think the drawing an 
excellent model for study. It is not given with the cleverness of Rico's work, 
an intelligent cleverness which very few draughtsmen may hope to attain. But 
this style is one that can be acquired and is very well adapted to northern 
countries, as there is no attempt to render the brilliant glittering sunshine of 
the south. 


Mars is evidently — I may use the term correctly in this case — a nom de pliune. 
But here I care little for the draughtsman's personality, or sex either for that 
matter. I am not even sure if Mars is a man or a woman. But I am sure that 
as a caricaturist, rendering his drawings with an artistic feeling far beyond any 
mere artless or slovenly caricaturing, as an illustrator of fashion magazines, 
as a delineator of French liig life, or as one who produces charming children's 
books, Mars stands alone, and his work is recognisable anywhere. But there 
is frequently so much carelessness and so much caricature in his drawings, 
which are intended to be serious, that it is really difficult to find a good example 
of his work, though it appears every week in the French papers. 

However, a drawing like this of Pierrot blanc et Pierrette noir shows 
the character of one side of his work — the only side I find worth consider- 
ing seriously — as well as it could be shown. There is nothing remarkable 
about the drawing ; it is most probably all cliic ; but it is filled with graceful 
lines, and is specially characteristic as an example of his delightful use of pure 
blacks and whites. It may look as if it were very simple to silhouette a figure 
in either pure black or white, but it is really very difficult to do it and still give 
any effect of roundness. It is this which Mars can do so well. Of course 
several of the Germans — Schlittgen and Marold — and Birch in America also 
draw in this way, but no one does it with the grace and charm of Mars. On 
one side it is only a step from his drawing to the German silhouette work, and 
on the other to the pure outline work of Caran d'Ache. Exactly the same 
criticism could be applied to Boutet de Monvel's drawings of children. But 
I do not think they are quite so simple or clever, and they are nearly always 
printed with a wash of colour, as indeed are many of Mars'. 


Lancon has often been called the Cat- Raphael. His drawing of cats was no 
doubt masterly. But in his pen drawings there is very little or no attempt to 
render the texture oi the fur ; it is the modelling, the pose, the expression 
he has been trying for, and to me the work, especially the side view of a cat, 
looks as if it were drawn from a bronze of Barye's. This may have been the 
case. But what I wish to call special attention to is the fact that these drawings 
are made with the double-line pen of which I have spoken, and you will see all 
through them the three lines made at one stroke. Of this I speak at length in 
the Chapter on Materials. The two drawings are a practical example of the 
working of the double-line pen, and as such are here given rather than as 
examples of technique. 




I PUBLISH this little sketch of Lalauze to show that the clumsy lines without 
feeling or character, used so much by many English and American illustrators, 
can be avoided, and graceful sympathetic lines substituted for them. This want 
of grace of line tells greatly in pen drawing. The excuse for the liny line work 
of many illustrators is that it reproduces better, but I am sure Lalauze's and 
Louis Leloir's drawings prove the contrary. Even Maurice Leloir's Sterne 
drawings are to me unpleasantly liny ; the lines are aggressive all through them. 
In this connection I must insist that only too often English and American 
photo -engravers are but mechanical middlemen, who in many cases do not 
pretend to do their own work, while, in others, they are so utterly ignorant 
of art they make no pretence to artistic reproduction. When the reproduction 
becomes in the least difficult, they assure you that it is quite impossible. The 
desire to produce really artistic work they do not understand. But I hope this 
book may serve to show most conclusively what may be done with process. 

There is a considerable amount of chalk work in Lalauze's drawing. As I 
have not seen the original I cannot say whether the pen work was done over the 
chalk, the chalk being used for an outline sketch ; but I think it more probable 
the chalk was worked in with the pen to remove the liny effect and to 
strengthen the pen-work. 

Lalauze's etchings, especially his refined little illustrations in numberless 
books, are perfectly well known. 

Note. — I have lately seen this drawing also attributed to Louis Leloir. 



The Wylie here represented I know nothing about, except that he has an 
EngHsh name and is mentioned in the Salon Catalogue as M. de WyHe. 

His drawing of twilight is one of the most complete renderings in pen and 
ink of tone-work I have ever seen. Pen and ink, of course I maintain, is, like 
etching, the shorthand of art. But when a man can work out a drawing of this 
kind, and give the most difficult effect of twilight even with elaboration, there is no 
reason why he should not do so. This, however, is the only successful example 
of complete tonality in pen and ink that I know. The wire-work sky is very 
bad, and though the artist has given the right effect in it, the work is aggressive ; 
the means and not the result first strike your eye, and this in any case is wrong. 
But the masses of the trees and the distance could not be given better in any 
other medium. There is an enormous amount of work in the rich foreground, 
and in some of the deep shadows under the trees ; the solid masses of black are 
disposed with the greatest knowledge, and, unlike the sky, this part of the 
drawing does not show the means employed, and the lines are not aggressive. 
Had the sky been made twice as low in tone and the block hand-worked, it 
would have been better as a whole. But there is very little, if any, hand-work 
in the block. 

The drawing is a wonderful example of the rendering of colour by black 
and white, and an especially good study of tree masses. It was published in 
La Vie Moderne. Some of Felix Buhot's drawings from pictures in L' Art 
approach, but I do not know any that equal it. 



Caran D'Ache, whose real name is Emmanuel Poirie, is to-day the most ap- 
preciated living caricaturist. His work contains all the essentials of caricature. 
His drawings amuse the whole world. No one but a blind man would refuse to 
laugh at them. They are composed of the simplest possible lines and these are 
arranged by a masterly technician. It is true the drawings are commonly 
printed with a flat colour wash, or else in silhouette, but he does not depend on 
this wash to hide imperfections of drawing. And in addition to its other 
qualities nearly all his work possesses that local colour, that quality of ridiculing 
notorieties to which the English caricaturist makes everything else subordinate, 
with the result that in English, or in fact Anglo-Saxon caricature, unless you 
happen to know the person or the subject caricatured, you can scarcely ever 
appreciate the humour. Take this drawing Att Pesage; I do not know who these 
judges, or weighers-in, or whatever they may be called in horsey terms, are, 
but I have no doubt, knowing as much of Caran D'Ache's work as I do, that 
each one is a portrait of some Parisian notoriety from Longchamps. For Caran 
D'Ache first came into public notice through the shadow pictures of the Chat 
Noir, every one of which had a double meaning of the strongest kind. These 
were silhouettes, and it is strange that silhouette work so well adapted to pen 
drawing has been used so little. Since then he has continued to produce either 
these silhouettes or caricatures in black or white or colour in the pages of Figaro, 
U Illustration, and La Revue Illustrde, and he is now devoting himself more or 
less to illustrating books, among which are the CoviMie du Jour, Com^die de 
Notre Temps, and Les Courses dans L'Antiqjiitif, from which this drawing is 
taken. The whole idea is perfectly absurd ; the combination of the Parisians 
of to-day going to Les Courses and the Elgin marbles running a race is simply 
side-splitting, especially when it is worked out technically so well. There is no 
doubt that we outsiders miss half the point, but nobody can fail to roar while 
admirino- the cleverness of Station de Centanres de la Compagnie Gdnifrale ; the 
LJe2U'e2tx Pere, Heurese Mere ; II y a du tirage ; Mile. Pli^-ynd ; Dcje^mer dii 
Favori ; F Arrivde, which is a masterpiece ; La Mere des Grace lies, with all the 
little Gracchi in Cab, No. 1482 ; the arrangement of the De Lesseps family of 
which he never tires ; and Le Mail du Prince Apollo, where Apollo drives a 
four-in-hand, while the President Carnot, as Jupiter with the thunderbolts under 


his arm, is trying to control the Char de L'Etat. The book is filled with this 
absurd combination of Greek art and modern French life, but it must be seen to 
be appreciated. It is published by Plon, Nourrit, and Co., who have been good 
enough to furnish me with the pen drawing — that is, the key-block over which 
the colour wash is placed. 

I must refer every one to the Figaro Illustrd tor Christmas 1888. This 
holiday number contained what I think is Caran D'Ache's greatest work, com- 
ment on fait un chef-d'ceuvre. But the publishers would not permit its being 
reproduced. I have endeavoured to obtain one of the series of drawings which 
have made Caran d'Ache's reputation, but this has been impossible — I mean 
one of the series like the Frost drawings, a style introduced, or at least popu- 
larised, by Oberlander. The omission, too, of work in this manner by Job 
Willette, Courboin, or a whole army of comic illustrators, may be noted ; but 
I cannot help thinking that their reputation is owing more to their wit, their 
vulgarity, or their personality, than to the technical qualities of their drawings. 




T N all the countries of which I have spoken, and in America 
-^ too, the introduction of photo-engraving proved of the greatest 
advantage to the artist. It enabled him to work without considering 
a wood-engraver, who would have to pick out with the utmost 
difficulty and care, work which the artist did freely and sometimes 
in as many minutes as the engraver would require hours or even 
days to reproduce. But the pen drawings made by a brilliant 
band of young men for Once a Week, Cornhill, Good Words, the 
Sunday Magazine, and others — between about 1859 ^^^ 1865, 
degenerating towards 1875 — and for many books, especially the 
illustrated edition of Tennyson's Poetns, the Arabian Nights, etc., 
were the best ever made in England. Nearly all, however, were 
drawn on the block and consequently lost. That the proprietors 
of Once a Week looked forward to the introduction of photo- 
engraving, and probably endeavoured to foster it, is shown by the 
numerous examples of mechanical processes which they published. 

But in England, until French and American magazines proved 
the artistic value, and not merely the pecuniary advantage, of pen 
drawing for process reproduction, comparatively little attention was 
paid to it by draughtsmen. Even yet, but few publishers have 
discovered anything beyond the cheapness of the invention. There 
have been, of course, notable exceptions. The Portfolio, for which 
Brunet-Debaines and Lalanne did some of their best work years 



ago, has always, more or less, for its small cuts used photographic 
methods of reproduction, and usually pen drawings have been made 
for this purpose. The Magazine of Art has also begun to publish 
them within the last four or five years. But most of the English 
process reproductions have been until lately of inferior quality. 
The competition of the photo-engraver was directed towards cheap- 
ness rather than excellence ; and artists could feel little satisfaction 
in the results of drawings reproduced in this way. For example. 
Punch preferred — and still prefers — wood -engravings, which cut so 
much out of the drawings, to process blocks, which ruined them 
altogether. But within the last few years several fairly good repro- 
ductive processes have been brought out here, and one photo-engraver, 
Mr. Chefdeville, a Frenchman, is doing work which can scarcely 
be surpassed anywhere. Many drawings are, however, still sent 
to Paris for reproduction ; while, as a rule, English block printing 
does not begin to compare with French or American, and without 
good press work you cannot have good results. 

It is unfortunate that in England few leading artists now draw 
with a pen. I have been repeatedly given to understand that this is 
because it is the tendency of the English school to think more of 
colour than of line ; and so pen drawing seems with the many to be 
thought of no account except for a rapid unimportant sketch. If 
anything has to be done in a hurry, " Oh, make a pen sketch," is 
suggested. Naturally, this manner of regarding it has not been con- 
ducive to the progress of the art in England. There are probably still 
many English artists who agree with Mr. Hamerton in his belief that 
"one very great educational advantage of the photographic process is 
that the public, which formerly looked upon real sketches with in- 
difference or contempt, as ill-drawn or unfinished things unworthy of 
its attention, is now much better able to understand the short-hand of 
drawing, and consequently is better prepared to set a just value on the 
pen sketches of the great masters." But it would be no great comfort 
or satisfaction to men of to-day to believe that drawings, on which 
they spend their lives, have no other merit than that of assisting the 
public to appreciate work, not so well done technically, by artists four 
or five hundred years ago,^— that pen drawings, the real masterpieces 

1 Of course, in saying this, I except Diirerand where, work which I appreciate as much as any 
the other old men whose work I refer to else- done to-day. 


of Fortuny, Rico, and Menzel, are only helps to the understanding of 
the sketches of old masters. Work done in an old-masterly way by 
Sir Frederick Leighton, which can be seen in the South Kensington 
Museum on the original blocks, is quite as good technically as that of 
any old master. But in the so-called fac-simile woodcuts from these 
blocks the work is so cut to pieces that many are almost worthless 
for study. 

When I speak of drawings made on the block, I cannot help 
touching on another subject with which I have nothing to do in this 
book, namely, drawing on wood with a pen or hard pencil for cutting. 
With the starting of the publication of Once a IVeek, about the year 
1859, as I have said, the editors or publishers of that paper succeeded 
in drawing around them the most original draughtsmen who probably 
ever lived in England. On the cover of each number it was announced 
that its illustrators were Leech, Tenniel, Millais, H. K. Browne, C. 
Keene, Wolf, and others. The word others on this title-page hides 
the names of Fred Walker, G. J. Pinwell, A. Boyd Houghton, Luke 
Fildes, Henry Woods, H. S. Marks, Cecil Lawson, J. Mahoney, E. 
Griset, J. M. Lawless, Paul Gray, C. H. Bennett, Poynter, Holman 
Hunt, F. Madox Brown, Du Maurier, W. Small, and F. Sandys.^ 
No paper, probably not even the Vie Moderne, ever had a more 
brilliant staff. Most of these artists, seeing their Avash drawings 
utterly ruined by wood and steel engravers, — all the character being 
cut out of them, and the drawings themselves lost in the process, 
— drew on the wood blocks with pen or pencil, thus compelling the 
wood-engraver to follow their lines. Even with this method, so 
much was still cut out of the drawing, it is usually impossible to 
tell whether it was made with pen, pencil, or chalk. Therefore, 
while the drawings of the men of the Vie Moderne exist to-day, 
as well as their comparatively perfect reproductions in the pages of 
the paper, in Once a Week we have neither the drawings nor their 
fac-simile reproductions, but a translation according to the wood- 
engraver. The loss of British black and white work between the 
years 1850, and I should say about 1875, can never be replaced. 
Nor can it be too deeply deplored. I suppose what is left is 
better than nothing, but it certainly is not the original work. 

The least known but perhaps the best pen draughtsman in Great 

■^ For fuller description of this work see explanatory chapter on these men. 


Britain to-day is George Reid of Edinburgh. He can, in a pen 
drawing, give the whole character of northern landscape, so different 
in every way from that of the country of the great southern pen 
draughtsmen, while his portraits contain all the subtlety and refine- 
ment of a most elaborate etching by Rajon ; in fact, he seems to think 
Rajon and Armand Durand the only men who can interpret him. 
He not only understands the use of a pen, but apparently fears that 
no process except photogravure or etching can reproduce his beautiful 
and reverent work, a fear which at the present day I do not share 
with him. Abbey's drawings are quite as delicate, if not so much 
elaborated, and are well reproduced in Harpers, though their absolute 
fineness is lost. It must not, however, be thought for a moment that 
I mean to say any process for printing with type is equal to photo- 
gravure, which gives all the richness and delicacy of the drawing, 
together with a softness and fulness of colour, not possessed by it. 
It is to be regretted that Reid does not, by using process methods 
and coming out in some of the larger magazines, take the place which 
so justly belongs to him as one of the foremost pen draughtsmen 
of the day. 

An artist who easily stands at the head of his profession, as a 
landscape pen draughtsman, in England is Alfred Parsons. He can 
draw decorative designs of flowers with all the grace and beauty with 
which Grinling Gibbons could carve them, and no higher praise can 
be given. He will, with pen and ink, make a rosebud which one cares 
to keep far more than a painting of the same subject by any other 
Englishman ; he will show a little valley farm down by the reeds in 
the river, a group of trees on a hillside, or a wind-swept moor ; and of 
late he has begun to draw figures ; while much of his work is so inter- 
woven with Abbey's that at times you cannot tell one from the other. 
Though Parsons' work is imitated even to his signature, there is no 
one in England who can be named with him. 

It is curious to note the inability of English artists to translate 
their own work into pen and ink, or to do anything outside the sphere 
of some one art. The surest proof of this assertion is that a few 
years ago, when English art was adequately represented in LArt, 
instead of the artists, as in the case of many distinguished French 
painters, making their own drawings, and thus giving their own ideas 
and adding the value of originality to the reproduction of their 


painting, they allowed a clever young Scotchman, Robert W. 
Macbeth, to do the work for them. He did it very well, and by 
this practice has made himself the best reproductive etcher in 

How little good pen drawing there is in this country is 
shown in looking over Henry Blackburn's catalogues, in which it 
is the exception to find, from one end to the other, a pen sketch 
one would wish to preserve. It may be said that English painters 
do not care to give more than the merest rough notes of their 
pictures. But the truth is, to produce a pen drawing requires great 
technical skill only to be obtained after careful study and continuous 
practice. In England, and in the course of time the same thing will 
happen in America, a successful draughtsman as soon as he finds 
he can make, if not a greater reputation, certainly much more money 
by painting, gives up his drawing as if he were ashamed of it. The 
difference in this respect between the English artist and a Frenchman 
like Detaille needs no comment. Not only is the French artist 
willing to produce black and white work, but glad to do so. The 
same can be said of Menzel with his thousands of drawings, while 
Alfred Parsons and George Reid are exceptions in Great Britain. 

Among the few breaks in the monotony of the long years of 
Mr. Blackburn's catalogues are the drawings by E. J. Gregory, 
one or two by Boughton, Colin Hunter, Herkomer, Charles Green, 
Sir J. D. Linton, Cecil Lawson, and some charming heads by Frank 
Holl. But the only drawings which really merit mention, as works 
of art in themselves, are those by T. Blake Wirgman, done after 
his own pictures. He has really cared, and he alone, and the 
result is his drawings stand out as by far the best that have been 
contributed to Mr. Blackburn's catalogues. 

Hubert Herkomer is one of the very few men who have ever 
illustrated their catalogues with drawings which have a value of 
their own. His sketches of heads are full of character, strongly 
and simply put in, while his studies in the Bavarian Highlands, 
though greatly elaborated and almost too large for reproduction, are 
very successful. 

Fred Walker made many pen drawings, but unfortunately 
scarcely any survive to be studied technically, having been drawn 
mostly on the block for the wood-engravers, like the work of so many 


of the other artists of Once a Week. One very charming example 
of his drawing can be seen on the wood at South Kensington 
Another, probably the best he ever did, which has not, so far as I 
know, been reproduced before, is in this book. He died before the 
days of successful process reproduction. 

Some of Wyllie's drawings, notably those of the " Toil, Glitter 
and Grime of the Thames," published a few years ago in the 
Magazine of Art, are models for the drawing of boats and the 
suggestion of light and the movement of water. If Whistler would 
only give us some pen drawings like his etchings of thirty years 
ago, he would show himself to be as a pen draughtsman what he 
was then as an etcher of old houses — the greatest who ever lived. 
A process block from one of his first series of London etchings 
would be a perfect study for a pen drawing. 

Walter Crane's beautiful decorative draAving, his book covers, 
his designs, his initials, his head and tail pieces, in pen and ink, 
entitle him to be ranked as the first English decorative draughts- 
man of the day ; while Selwyn Image's work is quite as striking 
and original. 

Although Du Maurier is probably the best known of the so- 
called comic draughtsmen, his genius to-day lies rather in his 
wit and humour and satire than in the technical excellence of his 
drawing. In the Court and Society Review for November 23, 1888 
he calls himself a pictorial satirist, and this describes him perfectly. 
There is much for which we must thank the creator of Mrs. Ponsonby 
de Tomkyns, but at the same time it would be best for the student 
not to imitate his technique, since Du Maurier to-day, in his desire 
to express his ideas, seems to care little how he does it. He appeals 
far less to the art student than to the lover of satire. His drawinQ^s 
are a sort of sermon which happens to be drawn, instead of written 
with a pen. Every one, however, should study his work in Once 
a PVeek of nearly thirty years ago. I can easily understand the 
appreciative enthusiasm with Avhich it was greeted by the critics 
of the last generation. It then contained all and a great deal more 
than is claimed for it to-day. 

Harry Furniss is an extremely clever man ; his drawings are 
full of character and style, and frequently his slightest sketches are 
the most interesting. His best work, I think, is found in his large 


drawings of the Essence of Parliament and in his small ones of 
the different members. Linley Sambourne's drawings also are 
intensely clever, but so near being mechanical that it would be 
impossible for any one to study from them without becoming wholly 
so. In his work, however, as in that of many another original man, 
the result is simply wonderful. Charles Keene's work in Punch is 
unfortunately nearly always engraved on wood and, before I had 
seen his original drawings, had he not written and told me that most 
of them were made with a pen, I never should have imagined it. 
The originals are among the best character drawings ever made in 
England. It is to be regretted that so much is lost in the cutting. 
Thirty years ago one could tell much more easily how his drawings 
were made ; to-day it is absolutely impossible, a fact which is not 
very flattering to the art of woodcutting at the present time, 
as exemplified in the work of the engravers for Pitnch. Therefore, 
excellent as are Keene's drawings, it is useless for the student to 
study the reproductions in Punch, which give no idea of the original 

As a matter of fact, some of the younger artists of Jtidy are the 
men on English comic papers who give most thought to style and 
technique. The drawings of Leslie Wilson and Maurice Griffen- 
hagen, who started out by working as much like Schlittgen as they 
could, are probably, technically, the best of all. Griffenhagen has 
since developed a style of his own which is very charming. The 
work of Partridge and Forestier of the London News is also full of 
character. Caton Woodville has made numerous pen drawings, 
but for the student I would suggest, rather than his work, that of 
Germans like Haug and Frenchmen like Jeanniot. 

Cruikshank, Leech, and Phiz are responsible for the style, or 
rather want of style, of too many English draughtsmen. They had 
genius, but most of their followers have nothing but their weaknesses 
and imperfections of technique. The latter forget that the drawings 
of the artists they imitate were rarely done with the pen, and that if 
they were, it was only to be reproduced by engraving or etching on 
wood or steel, mostly by other men, and hence that the qualities of 
the pen work were cut out. It is a delight to turn from the English 
so-called comic papers to Fliegende Blatter, La Vie Parisiejine, or the 
American Life, in which not only is there wit and humour, but a 


feeling for art not always to be found in English journals of the 
same class. 

In the case of Sir John Gilbert, who has done much good work, 
freedom is the result of study. The same freedom, however, indulged 
in by a student would lead to meaningless blots and wild scrawlings, 
though all of Sir John Gilbert's blots and lines are put down with 
a purpose. A far better man to study would be Mulready, some of 
whose drawings are marvellous in their old-masterish feeling. A 
collection of them is to be seen at South Kensington. However, were 
Mulready and Wilkie living to-day, I believe they would utterly 
change their style. The attempt at so-called freedom, which on the 
part of the student is nothing but carelessness, is often sure to be his 
ruin. Look at the apparent freedom of a man like Forestier and then 
try to imitate it. Far better would it be for the student to follow 
the painstaking, careful lines of Tenniel in such work as Alice in 
IVonderland, for, though these drawings may have been made in line 
with a hard lead-pencil, and the student will probably not keep for 
long to Tenniel's methods, he will at least learn from them that 
pen drawing is not the easy slip-shod art he is pleased to think it. 

The late Randolph Caldecott, separated from his humour and 
observation, shows very little technically to study. Unless a man has 
the genius to make in half a dozen lines a drawing like that of the mad 
dog or the cat waiting for a mouse, in which case he would be another 
Randolph Caldecott, it would be useless for him to study these draw- 
ings. Caldecott had enough genius to make him superior to technique. 
One can pardon his faults and ask for more of his delightful work 
because of his humour. I have recently seen drawings of dogs, cats, 
and children by Ernold Mason, which, technically, are far superior 
to anything Randolph Caldecott ever did. 

It is just this pardoning that has such a bad influence on art, and 
has made men, who really technically never studied their profession, 
its leaders. The trouble is that because artists have good ideas, the 
fact that they cannot express them technically is overlooked. No 
ideas can be expressed in a really artistic manner without technique, 
which is nothing more than the grammar of art. 

Hugh Thomson, a very young man, who draws figure subjects ; 
Herbert Railton, who is very clever and draws architecture ; and 
Gordon Browne, whose Fairy Tales were excellent, and who seems 


to have the facility of Dorc, are three men who have devoted them- 
selves almost exclusively to pen drawing. But one cannot help 
being conscious that it is the demand for photographic draughts- 
men, rather than the real feeling for line, which has sent them to 
pen drawing. Hugh Thomson's best work is his decoration, some 
of which is very effective. Herbert Railton, having been educated 
as an architect, has probably better knowledge of architectural con- 
struction than any other draughtsman. But one finds in his drawing, 
as in all architectural sketching, a confusion between architectural 
and artistic lines. His drawings have not the effect of being made 
from nature, though they may be, while his architectural training 
asserts itself everywhere. This is less Railton's fault than that 
of the English system of architectural drawing. 

G. P. Jacomb-Hood has made some notable drawings for In 
his Name, and beautiful decorative head and tail pieces for Mr. 
Lang's translation of A ncassin and Nicolette. Frederick Barnard 
also has done some very clever pen drawings, but he seems to have 
preferred, until lately, when he has come out strongly in Harper s, 
other mediums for his black and white work. 

Finally, in summing up, I think that the examples in this book 
will show most conclusively that, with the exception of Parsons, Reid, 
Walter Crane, Griffenhagen, Forestier, Partridge, and Charles Keene 
to-day, the artists of the Continent and of America have paid more 
attention to, and have been more successful in, pen drawing for 
process reproduction than artists in England. 





TI^OR the publication of pen drawings made some thirty years ago, I feel 
-*- that an explanation is needed. While pen drawing, owing to photography, 
has advanced in all other countries, there is no doubt that in England its 
greatest period was just before photographic reproduction was invented. Very 
good work was being done all over the world at the same time. Meissonier, 
for example, was illustrating in France. But not only has he given up illustra- 
tion, but his methods have been improved upon by the men who have followed 
him. In Germany, though Menzel still retains his position as an illustrator, 
he has always worked in a style well adapted to reproduction. In Italy and 
Spain at this period, no one was doing pen work of any special importance. 
But the Englishmen who illustrated Once a Week, The Cornhill, Good Words, 
the SiLiiday and Shilling Magazines, and the early numbers of The Graphic 
and Punch, have had, even in these days of development both in woodcutting 
and in process, no worthy successors working for English periodicals. The 
consequence is that I am obliged to show drawings by these men or else to 
ignore the best period of English work. 

In some cases I have found that the original drawings were preserved or 
photographed through the interest the engravers took in their work, and also 
because, realising the uncertainties of woodcutting, they feared the drawing 
might be spoiled and no record of it left. The case of the Dalziel Bible is 
different. Messrs. Dalziel commissioned all of the rising young artists to 
produce a series of drawings. But the work turned in was difficult to do full 
justice to on the wood block ; Messrs. Cassell about the same time brought out 
their Dore Bible, and it was almost impossible for any one to rival Dore's 
popularity and productiveness. The consequence was that Messrs. Dalziel, 
looking ahead and seeing that photography would be used to transfer drawings 
to the block for cutting, finished a certain number and put the others aside for 


twenty years, and their Bible Gallery did not appear until iSSo, when the 
drawings were photographed on to the block and cut, the original work thus 
remaining untouched. And now, nine years later, I have the admission from 
Messrs. Dalziel that they themselves consider the process reproductions I now 
publish from these drawings much more satisfactory than their own woodcuts. 
This, in connection with the fact that Mr. W. J. Linton is devoting the ripest 
years of his life to reproducing the masterpieces ot wood -engraving, not by 
new woodcuts, but by process plates, is the strongest proof that I, at any rate, 
desire, not that woodcutting is a failure, but that it is a waste of time, labour, 
and skill, provided the drawing is made with as much attention to the require- 
ments of process as the old men devoted to the requirements of wood-cutting, 
for a skilled craftsman to compete with a mechanical yet accurate invention. 

Among the men whose work I have not shown, but whom I should like to 
have had represented is, to begin with, Rossetti. When I said in the Introduc- 
tion that I wished Rossetti had not elaborated with pen or pencil in his drawings, 
I referred more especially to the dravv^ings from his paintings which have been 
photographed and published in rather large size. For technically these do not 
compare for a minute with his illustrations of Tennyson, particularly those in the 
Palace of Art, drawn on the block and cut to pieces. Mr. William Michael 
Rossetti kindly offered to lend me a set of negatives which were rather generally 
thought to have been made from the drawings on the wood before they were 
cut, as in the case of the Sandys drawing. But the slightest examination of the 
photographs shows them to have been made merely from preparatory studies 
before the drawings were put on the wood, and their publication would be most 
unfair to Rossetti. Nor would it be fair to show as an example of his work 
the illustrations in the Princes Progress and the frontispiece to the Early 
Italian Poets, which give no idea of its exquisite refinement. The only 
drawing I know of which may have been made for engraving is the portrait 
of his wife, which was never cut, and can be seen at South Kensington. There- 
fore I have not shown any Rossettis, except the one small cut in "Some 
Comparative Heads." He can hardly be considered an illustrator, thouo-h he 
did make so marvellous a success in the Tennyson. But even in it, there is 
but one drawing — the first illustration to the Palace of Art engraved by Messrs. 
Dalziel — really worthy of the extravagant praise lavished upon it ; and as I 
have a beautiful Sandys, which is the work of an illustrator and technically 
even better, and as it is impossible to obtain anything but the wood block of 
the Rossetti, I have not considered it worth while to put it here. Moreover it 
would be the greatest waste of time to draw in such a manner and on such a 
scale in these days of process. That Rossetti and Dalziel did produce their 
result calls for all praise ; a repetition of it would be laborious and misplaced 


The work of other men in the pages of the magazines I have referred to 
was engraved by Messrs. Swain and Dalziel, I doubt not with the greatest 
possible fideUty for hne, but the actual quality of the line, that is the quality 
given by pencil, brush, or pen, is in nearly every case lost. Therefore, though 
these magazines and Tlie Cornliill and Good Words collections of proofs should 
be seen and known by all students, it is really useless to publish any of the 
blocks as examples of pen drawing. But as cuts, the series of Parables by Sir 
J. E. Millais, especially the Good Samaritan, published in Good M'ords, April 
1863, and the Lost Piece of Silver, in September of the same year, are enough 
to make any man's reputation. One of these men who, to my mind, is much 
less well known than he deserves to be, is J. Mahoney, whose drawings in the 
Sunday Magazine for November i, 1867, and March i, 1868, are, even as wood- 
cuts, equal to anything Alfred Parsons has ever done, and Parsons is the only 
man who can for a minute be compared with him ; the engravings by Whymper 
from Mahoney's drawings in Scrambles among the High Alps should also be 
seen. Of the rest, there are J. D. Watson with his great delicacy; Fred 
Walker's Adventitres of Philip and Denis Dnval in The Cornhill ; Gordon 
Thomson ; J. W. M'Ralston's illustrations to Mrs. Craik's novels ; Sir Frederick 
Leighton's Romola ; T. Morten, who was good yet sketchy; R. Barnes, Saul 
Solomon; Basil Bradley; A. Murch ; while the work of Pinwell, Sir James 
D. Linton, and the later men is to be found in the early volumes of The 
Graphic. Dickens was a magnificent field for Charles Green, Fred Barnard, 
and others. 

It would be most interesting to publish examples of all this work; but as 
it was not done for process, even if the original drawings could have been 
obtained, in many cases they could not have been rendered satisfactorily by 
photo-engraving, not through any fault of the process but because the artists 
worked without knowledge of it, while the reproductions of the cuts themselves 
would only prove the possibilities of process for reproducing woodcuts, and 
nothing about the drawings. Therefore, interesting as it would be, and difficult 
as it is for me to resist showing them, to do so is not within the limits of this 



I HAVE been told that it must not be supposed Frederick Sandys revived 
illustration in the manner of the Germans of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 
but that this revival, on the contrary, was due to the Pre-Raphaelites, and more 
especially to Saul Solomon, all of whom were themselves influenced by Menzel. 
But however this may be, there is no doubt that Sandys surpassed in technique 
all the artists of the best period of English draughtsmanship. His designs may 
not have possessed from their subjects that elevation of ideas which was so 
markedly the characteristic of the Germans, and which was the outcome of the 
spirit of their age. But there is no question that technically many parts of this 
drawing are quite equal to Durer's work ; while the modelling of the faces, the 
legs of the man, and the gown of the woman are drawn in a manner absolutely 
unknown to Diirer. There is a feeling- of colour throuo-hout which Dlirer 
never attempted on the wood, because he knew it could not be retained in the 

I admit that the photogravure in certain particulars is not as satisfactory as 
the woodcut of the same drawing by Swain, because it was made from an old 
negative taken from the drawing on the block. It shows the colour of the 
block, which Sandys never intended, and, owing to this or to the ink not 
having been uniformly black or having run, the lines are blurred to a certain 
extent. The negative too has faded, and many of the lines of the under- 
growth about the middle of the right side of the drawing were apparently 
confused in the drawing, though they were corrected when cut. But I publish 
the plate because, with all these imperfections, I am not afraid to have it 
compared with the wood block in the Shilling Magazine for 1S65. The wood 
block shows the drawing in the manner in which Sandys and Swain wished it 
to appear ; the plate shows it exactly as it was drawn on the block. Had the 
drawing been made on a piece of white paper, and could I have obtained 
that white paper, the result would have been perfect, because no one has ever 
drawn better for process than Sandys. I do not say that it would have been 
an improvement on the woodcut, but it would have been reproduced autographi- 
cally with infinitely less labour, and would have given Sandys' actual lines 
without the intervention of another hand. 


Lmvtttf 1 



If this is Pre-Raphaelite work it is excellent. It is carried out with the careful 
reverence for line which is so characteristic, not of the men before Raphael's 
time, but of the Germans of Durer's age, though without slavish imitation of 
any one. Not only is every detail, save the very funny chicken in the fore- 
ground, well drawn, but the feeling for the various substances and the differing 
texture of the garments is well given. Contrast the heavy robe of the Prophet 
with the lighter stuff of the widow's cloak and the grave clothes of the boy ; note 
the difference, although the tone is very nearly the same, between the Prophet's 
robe, the steps, the shadow, and the widow's gown, and the delightful difference 
of handling in each. Every part is worked out with the feeling not only for 
light and shade, but for line. In fact, one can see that Madox Brown took the 
greatest interest in the making of this drawing, in rendering a subject of the 
past with the technical knowledge of the present — the true and right spirit in 
which all art work should be produced. 

Though for my own purpose I should prefer the cleverness of a man like 
Fabres, a cleverness which is amazing and which in a southern subject I would 
unquestionably follow, to the student I would recommend this drawing quite as 
highly as the one by Fabres. However, I must say that I do not think the 
effects of strong light, which exist in the East, have been rendered by Madox 
Brown so truly as by Fabres in Italy. This probably comes from the fact that 
Fabres worked from nature, Madox Brown in the studio. But the delicate 
suggestion of bits of light telling against the dark on the steps, the wooden 
stand relieved against the stairs, the relief of the heads against the white walls, 
and the delightful way in which the shadow of the little bird flying to its brick 
nest is studied, make the drawing equal to the work of Rico or any of the 
Spaniards and Italians ; though it is not so realistic, it is worked out far more 
thoroughly than any of their drawings, and in it the peculiarly English artistic 
idea of telling a whole story is expressed, not in an aggressive, but in the right 
spirit. Notice how the light from the lamp in the little upper chamber is 
carried down the light side of the post to which the rope that serves as banister 
is attached, down the rope itself, on by the widow's gown into the most carefully- 
studied interior of the living room. The contrast between the delicate face of 
the child, the severe head of the Prophet, and the agonised expression of the 
widow is completely rendered. In fact the subject could not be treated in a 
more satisfactory manner in any other medium. 

By publishing these three illustrations from Dalziel's Bible, I hope I may 
show, not only my appreciation of them, but that the methods of thirty years 
ago were sometimes adapted to the requirements of to-day. There are certain 
details of line which will not reproduce, but I believe Madox Brown would 
have changed them had he known what was wanted. 


This drawing of Daniel's Prayer for Dalziel's Bible is one of the three blocks 
made from the original drawings which I have been able to show. The drawmg 
differs from Sir Frederick Leighton's and that of Ford Madox Brown in being 
carried out in the most complete manner all over, and in resembling m the 
handling a clean wiped print from an etched plate. Had I made a copper plate 
from this drawing and printed it with retroussage, I do not believe that any one 
could have told it from an etching. The drawing of Daniel and the figure m 
the background are excellent, and the careful way in which the detail has been 
all worked out is something remarkable. The result is extremely good ; it is 
indeed by far better than any pen drawing made before Menzel's time, for of 
course to Menzel this style of drawing is entirely due, and Mr. Dalziel has told 
me he bought copies of Menzel's drawings and gave them to the artists who 
were then at work on his Bible. But, though this drawing of Poynter's is a 
wonderful example of careful honest work, I cannot conscientiously say that 
its style is a good one for a student to follow. The same effect could have been 
produced in wash with one-tenth the time and labour. 

But as I have elsewhere said, this was the commencement of the reaction 
against translative wood-engraving. These lines of course had to be followed 
by the engraver, and when it is remembered for a moment that the engraver 
had to cut the whites out between these lines, some estimation of the difficulty 
of the task can be formed. And when it is considered that the process block 
from the original drawing from which this impression is printed was made 
automatically, I think it shows most conclusively what strides mechanical 
reproduction is making. As to the reproduction itself, the lines nearly all over 
have thickened appreciably, and in some places they have filled up, because the 
drawing was made on yellowish-toned paper and in parts in a very grey ink, 
and having been made nineteen years ago, it has also probably faded to a 
certain extent. I think a French, and I am quite sure an American process 
block from the same drawing would have given these grey lines, which in a few 
places have been entirely omitted, and in other places have thickened perceptibly 
or become rotten. But the principal thing I want to show is that it is possible 
to reproduce a drawing like this simply and easily by process, giving the 
character and feeling of the work, which this block certainly does ; while the 
engraving of it on wood, line for line, is an almost impossible task with really 
no better results. For, as I have shown, in the woodcut you do not have the 
lines but the effect produced by cutting round them ; in the process block you 
have the lines themselves reproduced just as they were drawn. 















It may be a surprise to many to find Sir Frederick Leighton included among 
pen draughtsmen, and I have no doubt I shall be told that this is not a pen but 
a brush drawing. But when a man makes a drawing as notable, — technically so 
remarkable, — conveying such an idea of strength and size and power, and show- 
ing conclusively what may be done with a brush used as a pen, it ought to be 
known. I publish it as an example, not of style for reproduction, but of the 
successful use of means which one would not think were fitted to the desired 
end. The whole effect could have been rendered, not with the point of a half- 
dry brush as it has been, but by splatter work and a pen. I would not re- 
commend any one to attempt to imitate it, because, except by photogravure, 
it cannot be autographically reproduced ; and though the forms and modelling 
have here been obtained, they could have been much more easily rendered 
with a wash. 

Though the effect of the drawing has been reproduced almost perfectly, the 
lines in the hand to the right and in the leg have thickened appreciably, and it 
has darkened all over. The photogravure, however, is much better than the 
woodcut, which may be seen in Dalziel's Bible Gallery. The woodcut was a 
failure ; the photogravure is an undoubted success. 


I PUBLISH these four draw- 
ings as examples of good 
careful sketchinij of the figure 
in pen and ink, not by any 
means an easy performance. 
They have not been very 
well reproduced, but owing 
to the greyness of the ink, 
it has proved impossible for 
the photo -engravers to ob- 
tain the true value of the 
lines. I publish them also 
because Small's work, so far 
as I know, is always cut on 
wood, and I thought these 
little figures would be an in- 
teresting contrast to his best 
known drawing, and also to 
the work of Butin and of the 
old men. 




When one considers the extreme picturesqueness of river life, especially of life 
on a river like the Thames, it is very remarkable that pen draughtsmen have 
not turned it to more profitable account. On the Thames, however, the reason 
for this neglect may be because Wyllie has made it so completely his own. 
This drawing done largely, freely, and boldly, mainly with a quill pen, shows, 
not only his command of the pen, but his knowledge of the construction of 
boats, the movement and swing of the water and the effect of sunlight shining 
through the bright but misty and smoky atmosphere of the river. The quill 
and brush have both been used. Where the roulette work is seen, it indicates 
his greyish brush-marks. 


I SHOW two drawings by Blake Wirgman which differ both in style and subject, 
but are alike in their mastery of method. The portrait of Mrs. Smeaton after 
Reynolds, though apparently knocked off, is full of knowing suggestion of the 
modelling and colour of the original. In the other, of Mr. Armstead, he has 
expressed himself by line. Dantan in his drawing of a similar subject shows 
colour, Wirgman uses almost pure line, by which, however, he gets the modelling 
and suggestion of colour and indicates the surfaces. He makes the fewest lines 
tell with the greatest effect. This drawing and others of English sculptors, 
engraved on wood and much reduced, appeared in the Century some few 
years ago. 



Walker is considered by tlie older men of to-day to be one of the greatest 
illustrators who ever lived. His subjects were always interesting, his sentiment 
popular, and his drawing exceedingly graceful. But owing to the fact that he 
worked before process, as well as to the methods employed by English wood- 
cutters, he was limited in certain ways in using the pen. For this very reason 
the results he did obtain are the more surprising. 

The sentiment in his pictures is very charming, but in this drawing, as in so 
many others, it is neither true nor real. The colour and line and composition 
are most admirable, but in his time such a drawing could not be reproduced, and 
even to-day it cannot be well reproduced except by photogravure. This plate 
is the first fairly successful reproduction which has been made from the drawing, 
one on which Fred Walker, I think, would have liked to base his reputation ; 
at any rate it was done in exactly the way he liked to work. At the time it was 
made, however, it was absolutely impossible to do anything with it. The 
consequence was it had to be redrawn in a much more open and much more 
mechanical manner for engraving, and the result can be seen in one of the early 
numbers o{ L'Ari. 

The English engraver of Fred Walker's time seems to have endeavoured 
to compel him and Pinwell and Keene and Du Maurier and their fellow- 
draughtsmen, even when they were at the height of their success, to draw lines 
which he, the engraver, could cut in the easiest manner. The consequence 
is that it is impossible to tell whether many of the drawings were done with a 
pen, a pencil, or a brush. I know it will at once be said that most of them were 
not done with a pen at all but with a brush, that is with the sensitive point of a 
very fine brush such as the Japanese use. They were also worked on with a 
lead-pencil and a pen, but in the engraved result, in the majority of cases, you 
cannot tell which line was made with a pen, which with a brush, which with a 
pencil ; and I say that such a subjection of the artist to the engraver is utterly 
wrong. It is not that the wood-engraver could not cut almost every line 
that Fred Walker ever drew, but the fact is that he did not engrave it so as to 
show the actual means used to produce it. Wood -engraving can do almost 
everything, and even this drawing of Fred Walker's could be engraved on wood. 
But when we have a mechanical process like photogravure which will produce, 


in as many hours as the wood-engraver would have to take days, an equally 
artistic and true result, there is no reason why we should not use it. This is 
one of the cases where science has rightly come to the aid of art. It is all 
very well for certain artists, who are not illustrators, to say that another man 
can render your work better than a machine ; in a line drawing, in which you 
do not want any one's ideas or feelings but your own, no man can equal, though 
he may very materially aid, an accurate machine in its reproduction. 

Though the idea, the composition, and the lines in the drawings of the men 
of Fred Walker's day are all most charming, and though the artists themselves 
considered the engraved results on the wood obtained from them most admirable, 
any one who will take the trouble to compare these engravings with the fac- 
simile engravings, or rather woodcuts, after Menzel, or with the work of some 
of the American engravers like Whitney and Cole, or Frenchmen like Baude, 
or Englishmen like Paterson, will see they are not admirable at all, but give, 
instead of the actual quality of the artist's line, that which it was easiest tO' 
reproduce. The engravers may deny this, but the comparison I suggest will 
prove at once the truth of what I say. Though no one can think more highly 
than I do of the endless number of varied effects which Fred Walker obtained, 
I cannot help feeling to-day that many of these are utterly unsulted to pen 
work, that they could have been gotten with far more ease with a brush, and 
that the reason Fred Walker drew with a pen was not from any particular 
love of line but to make for, or give to, the engraver lines to follow. One 
method some of his fellow-draughtsmen very frequently used was to make the 
foreground, or the part they wished accentuated, with a pen or brush in line 
which the engraver followed, while the background, in which of course they 
only wanted flat tints, was done with wash which the engraver could cut as he 
chose. The advantage of working in this way was that, if they made a mistake 
on the wood, they simply went over it with wash on which they worked with 
Chinese white, and the engraver made what he wished out of it. A good 
example of their manner of working can be seen by looking over the reproduc- 
tions from the Graphic, published in the Universal Review for September 1888 ; 
though I do not wish it to be thought that I can commend anything which has 
yet appeared in this Review as good original drawing, reproduction, or printing. 
But in the number I mention these drawings, very much reduced, are all brought 
together and are therefore more accessible than in the Graphic. 

There is another matter to which attention can be most easily called here. 
In studying the handling in the clothes of the figures in almost any of these 
drawings, especially those by Fildes, William Small, Pinwell, Houghton, and to 
a certain extent Herkomer and Macbeth, you find that exactly the same line is 
used by all, and that this same line appears in Du Maurier's drawings to-day. 
Either these men became mannered in an exceedingly short space of time, 
or else the engravers compelled them to draw in this abominable, mechanical. 


cross-hatched manner. Of course this same touch can be found in Ditrer 
and the old men. But it is not a fine quahty in their drawings. It is the 
expression of a mechanical difficulty which they could not surmount and which it 
is foolish for us to follow, imitate, or commend to-day. And so also I believe 
the growth of this cross-hatch work, twenty or thirty years ago, which has been 
mistaken to be a good style by so many draughtsmen, was not at all the fault of 
the draughtsmen but of the wood-engravers. And the reason for the position 
which Fred Walker holds among these men is, not so much because his draw- 
ings were better than theirs, for I do not think they were, but because he was 
more independent and refused to draw in this mechanical manner, although even 
in his work you sometimes see it cropping up wherever the engraver could put 
it. It is really the independence of his style, and not the excellence of the style 
itself, which has given Fred Walker the place he holds — and this is the surest 
proof that if one wants to succeed in illustration, one has simply got to do some- 
thing for one's self. 


When I first saw the engravings after the drawings signed Du Maurier made 
twenty or thirty years ago for Once a Week and Punch, I understood at once 
the sensation their appearance created among artists and critics. This worl<;, 
really unknown to us of the younger generation, is as original as any ever pro- 
duced. This drawing was published in 1865, and I only chose it because it was 
one of the first which specially appealed to me when studying his work in Pzmch. 
I might have shown a hundred others just as delightful, but all different and 
now unrecognisable as the work of Du Maurier. And yet with these drawings, 
at times published in the same number or even on the opposite page, we find 
the Du Maurier of to-day who, I must confess, from an artistic standpoint, I am 
utterly unable to understand. In saying this, I refer to his use of a mechanical 
cross-hatch to express almost all sorts of surfaces and of one type of face, and 
to his conventional and mannered drawing of landscape. But it seems to me 
that in the beginning his mannerisms must have been imposed upon him by the 
engravers, though now they are to be found in all his drawings. Du Maurier 
did not commence as a comic draughtsman. There is no comic element, no 


humour in his early drawings, for that matter, nor in many of his later ones. 
But every artist would wonder at his technique, his expression, and the clever- 
ness he put into the very inartistic dresses of the last generation. No effect 
seems to have been impossible to him. He has tried in his early drawings to 
render daylight and nightlight, and even to work in all sorts of styles. There 
is one set of drawings in Punch in which you find Du Maurier burlesquing the 
Pre-Raphaelite movement so seriously as to be almost Pre-Raphaelite himself. 
In the early days of Punch he was pre-eminently a technician. He cared 
hardly at all for the story he was telling, but he cared infinitely for the way in 
which he told it. He possessed what Mr. Kenyon Cox calls the executive 
talent ; and this talent, the talent of the technician, is, as he says, in its highest 
forms as rare as any other. Du Maurier possessed this technical power of 
showing the beauty in the most commonplace and really uninteresting subjects. 
It is almost impossible to analyse it. One has simply got to feel it for one's 
self in the delightful way in which the absolutely uninteresting folds of the 
woman's gown are worked out, in the suggestion of modelling in the man's 
trousers, and in the study of light and shade on the polished leather of the 

His work of to-day can be reproduced perfectly by process without the 
least trouble, and I should imagine, from the look of the woodcuts in Punch, that 
the old work — a drawing like this, for example — would have come equally well, 
in fact much more truly than in the woodcut. 


There are very few men in this world about whose work every one has a good 
word to say. But Charles Keene is and deserves to be one of the few. The 
technique of his drawing is always excellent, his subjects interesting or amusing, 
and he has always striven to improve on his own methods. There is no draughts- 
man in England who has reached such a high standard, maintained it, and 
continually tried to improve it. I am not even certain whether this is a pen 
drawing, for the pen quality has been entirely cut out of it. But I have seen so 
many exactly like it done with a pen that I think it probably is. At any rate it 
is an example of very good line-work, of the study of character in the two figures, 
the modelling of the ground, and the suggestion of distant landscape. There is 
absolutely no reason why I should have selected this particular drawing. Those 
which have appeared in Ptmch during the last few weeks are equally good, if 
not better ; and indeed the last thirty years of Punch are a record of Keene's 
efforts to produce the best character sketching in the best possible manner. His 
methods are those of extreme simplicity and directness of work, thought in 
composition, attention to modelling, and care in arrangement. Owing to the 
fact that he uses grey ink, always drawing for the engraver, washes here and 
there, and introduces pencil work, no process save photogravure will give a 
better result than the woodcuts by Mr. Swain. Photo-engraving would of course 
reproduce his work, but it would not be any more true than the woodcut. 


When I speak in the English Chapter 
of Sambourne's worlv being almost 
mechanical, I do not wish to say any- 
thing that Sambourne or any one else 
could object to, for I admire his draw- 
ings very much. But the peculiarity 
of his style is that the actual technique 
seems to be founded on mechanical 
drawing, that is on the sharp, clean 
cut lines of engineering or architectural 
work. As his drawings are always 
more or less conventional, and seldom, 

Engra\'ed by Swain. 

process block of the water baby compared 

Process Block by Dawson. 

if ever, wholly realistic, this is per- 
fectly allowable ; and that he should 
get such remarkable results using 
such peculiar handling is all the more 
notable. On looking over his original 
drawinofs I find that a certain amount 
of this mechanical look is gotten by 
the engraver; for example, the angular 
lines surrounding eyes and mouths are 
enormously intensified, and while of 
course these lines do exist in the 
drawings themselves you do not feel 
them as you do in the reproductions. 
Sambourne, working almost always 
for and with Mr. Swain, knows the 
result he is o-oinfj to obtain, but one 
of his drawings engraved by some 
one else would probably not have 
this excessive Sambourne look, which 
is the only thing I can call it. The 
with the woodcut shows this at 



once, though the actual changes in detail — in the reeds and the water, for 
example — were put in by Sambourne on the wood before it was cut ; but the 
hardness in the dragon-fly's wings and the very wooden lines in the woodcut 

are due to the engraver. The actual loss in the quality of the line is visible 
all over ; I can feel it everywhere. That the process block is really not vastly 
superior to the woodcut in the pen quality is not owing to a defect in the 
process, but entirely to the fact that the ink used in the original drawing was 
weak and pale. Sambourne knew this perfectly well, for he offered to go over 
the lines. But the comparison could not then have been made with fairness 
to Mr. Swain. As it is, I find the process block the more pleasing of the two 

Of Sambourne's composition, which is always good, the lower drawing on 
this page from the IVater Babies is an excellent example, while it also shows his 

ability to express himself in a small space. His drawing of the lobster and the 
small boy looking at it, from the same book, is a characteristic example of 
another phase of his work — that is 


his combination of human fip-ures and 



animal forms, often very grotesque. This large lobster drawing was done in 
such poor ink it would not have come by process. Though Sambourne uses 
but one female type, there is much grace and beauty in it combined with fine 
decorative feeling. The pages of Punch are filled with such drawings. The 
tail-piece is a characteristic example. It would be almost useless for the student 
to copy his work because, owing to this conventional treatment, he would only 
obtain an exceedingly weak Sambourne. 

His drawings, to use an illustrator's phrase, are sure to make a hole in the 
page. His effects are almost always novel and catch your eye and interest you, 
even though the subject is very local. This is as it should be, for if a drawing 
is done in an interesting manner the subject is of minor importance. But it is 
for the pleasing fantastic medley which he produces in an impossible book like 
the Water Babies, or in his social and political allegories in Punch, filled with 
good drawing, that Sambourne's work interests the whole world, whether the 
local subject is understood or not. 


-/Vayz^ ^^^^^^m^ 



Of all the artists of Punch, the only one 

who habitually attempts caricature is Harry 

Furniss. But in his larafe drawinafs, called 

for some unknown reason cartoons, there is 

shown, especially in the one he has sent me 

to represent his work, the absolute want of 

all the qualities which I have noted in those 

of Oberlander, Frost, and Caran D'Ache. 

For you must be an Englishman to appre- 
ciate it, and you must have been on the spot 

and thoroughly in the swing at the time the 

drawing was made to understand it, while the 

work of the German, American, and French 

caricaturists does not altogether depend upon f-j/T*- 

time or nationality. Even the most delight- ^""-^ 

ful drawing which I know Furniss ever to have pro- 
duced, the burlesque of Pears' Soap, was unintelligible 
to any one who had not seen the advertisement. This 
drawing of Education's Frankenstein, interesting as 
it is, will really explain what I mean. It is not done 
for all the world, but for a small section of the British 
public. In Furniss' smaller drawings, two of which I 
also show, and in his Parliamentary sketches, there is 
much more cleverness of handling, while there is no 
doubt that they give the character of their subjects. 
They look as if models had been used for them, but 
they also depend in almost every case, no matter how 
well they are drawn, on something exceedingly local. 
The consequence is that although one appreciates 
Furniss' great talent, at the same time unless one is 
thoroughly in with his public one cannot see the point 

of his drawings, which in themselves are not sufficiently amusing to make one 


The large drawing could not be satisfactorily reproduced by process, neither 

could the small ones. Furniss was working in each case for the wood-engraver 

and therefore did not consider the quality of his ink and paper. I have tried 

process with the lower figure on this page, but the woodcuts are better because 

the ink was not good. Furniss does at times work for process, and then shows 

that he understands its limitations. 



George Reid's pen work contains all the subtleties and refinements of a 
most delicate etching. He is one of those exceptional draughtsmen who can 
combine breadth with delicacy, who can elaborate a drawing on a piece of paper 
scarcely larger than this plate, — for Reid's drawings are mostly done the same 
size as their reproductions, — and yet obtain valuable results without niggling. 
The great feature of his work is its wonderful delicacy, its suggestion of colour. 
Look how the collar tells white simply by means of the fine lines which surround 
it, for it is no lighter than other parts of the drawing. Of all the men whose 
work I have shown Reid is the only one who succeeds in obtaining such delicate 
effects and yet makes his drawings the size he wishes to have them printed. 
However, the enormous difficulty of doing so must be apparent to every one, and 
Reid rarely makes any more pen drawings. Those he has already given to the 
world, however, are sufficient to secure his reputation as a pen draughtsman. 

He tells me that he makes a pencil drawing from nature, then from this 
works out an elaborate study in pen and ink of the proposed size of its reproduc- 
tion. This of course accounts for his remarkable certainty in his drawings. I 
cannot conscientiously advise any one to follow his methods, however, because 
they are too difficult. But if you can draw in his manner and succeed as he 
does, there is absolutely no reason why you should not. He seems to have no 
trouble in getting his figures and landscapes just the way he wants them, for he 
draws landscapes as well as portraits, and with them has illustrated three or four 
books. It is true that some of Parsons' work is very little reduced, but Parsons 
does not strive for Reid's very delicate lines, many of which could not be re- 
produced perfectly except by photogravure ; though with a little more breadth 
of drawing and strength of line, I believe Reid could obtain exactly the same 
effect more easily by reduction. Du Maurier's drawings also are very nearly 
the same size as their reproductions. But then, in comparison with Reid's 
drawings, there is no fine work in them. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the 
photo-engraver tells you your work must be reduced to get fineness ; Reid's and 
Parsons' work is the most positive refutation of such statements. But if with 
process and reduction one can obtain these effects I see no objections to doing 
so. Certainly it is sensible to take advantage of every means at one's disposal. 
Turn to the Blum drawing for example ; it was not very much larger than the 

HelioSravure et imp , A, Durand _Paris 


plate given in this book, but it was made for a very much greater reduction. 
In it there is nothing Hke the elaborate work which Reid has put in his drawing, 
and yet the result is just as good. The only characteristic feature of Reid's 
drawing is that he gets almost the etched line ; but very nearly the same line 
will be found in Blum's work. 

The truth is that, although you must do your work with good technical 
style and distinction, if you wish it to have any value — and I believe all the work 
shown here has this distinction — you may use any style or combination of styles. 
What you want is to get a good result by good means ; so long as you do get 
this result it makes little difference what your methods are, provided they are 



Walter Crane has furnished me with this design as a characteristic example of 
his illustrative work. His manner of working is to make with lead-pencil or 
chalk a more or less elaborate study of his subject, with a great and very proper 
idea of its decorative motive, on a piece of paper of the proposed size of the 
final drawing. He then makes a tracing from this and works it out in pen and 
ink. The drawing was scarcely larger than the reproduction. There is nothing 
gained by reducing his work ; in fact I think the nearer the original size it is 
reproduced the better it comes. 

The feeling of long sweeping lines and the suggestion of modelling in the 
drawing are very fine. But when we look at the lines of which the drawing is 
composed, and we compare them with the work of men whom Crane considers 
to be the ideal draughtsmen, we find that, in his reverence for them, he seeks to 
perpetuate even the defects and imperfections which, had they been able, they 
would have been the first to overcome. These defects were really due to the 
undeveloped stage of engraving and printing, when there were endless mechani- 
cal difficulties which the woodcutter and the printer could not surmount. But 
in the preservation of the defects of these early draughtsmen Crane seems to be 
quite as faithful as in his admiration of their perfections. Again, when we 
compare his cross-hatching and shadow lines with the work either of the early 
Italians or of Durer for example, we find that he does not work with the care 
for each individual line which characterised all their autographic drawing, that 
is, their etched work or their work engraved on steel, which, and not the wood- 
cutting, is equivalent to the pen drawing of to-day. This can be most clearly 
seen in the woman's face or the shading of the man's back. The general effect 
is quite right, but the student who followed the lines would most certainly come 
to grief. Crane's decorative feeling is also very fine and he gives good colour 

He has repeatedly told me and seems to think that process cannot 
reproduce his work, though he finds this reproduction satisfactory. Nothing 
could really be easier to reproduce by process than his drawings were 
it not that he uses a very poor ink, sometimes for his shadows, getting 
in the result, notably in the shadows on the armour which express the 

2 A 


modelling of the man's back, instead of the grey he wants, a black line, the true 
quality of which can only be obtained by the most minute, laborious, and careful 
hand-work, either in process or woodcutting, though this work could be avoided 
if he were to adopt either the line of Diirer or the style of the pen draughtsmen 
of to-day. For example, Howard Pyle's work shows admirably what I mean. 
As it is. Crane's drawings cannot be reproduced without this elaborate and, I 
cannot help thinking, useless expenditure of time on the part of the wood- 
engraver or the photo-engraver.-' 

1 For other work by Walter Crane, see Chapter on Decoration, 




I THINK there is probably no one who has been so unjustly treated, by having 
been given a place to which he had no claim, as Randolph Caldecott. I believe 
I am right in saying he wished to succeed as a painter, a sculptor, and perhaps 
as a serious illustrator. As a modeller he was a success. Some of his beautiful 
little low reliefs are not half so well known as they deserve to be. As a painter 
he was a complete failure. As a serious illustrator, he either servilely copied 
the men working about him, or else, as in many of his horses and other subjects, 
borrowed from Menzel without approaching him. His so-called character 
sketching in Italy and America was either characterless or caricature, and even 
the best of this work in Breton Folk is technically of no value to the student. 
But there is a side to his drawing which, though it has been almost altogether 
ignored, is really the only side to be considered by the student. This is his 
power of showing expression and action by a few lines, often by a single line 
of his brush used as a pen. There 
is no one in England who has ever 


equalled him in this respect, and I 
very much doubt if any one anywhere 
ever surpassed him. I do not see 
how it would be possible to give with 
fewer lines the intense expression of- 
the cat stealthily approaching the 
mouse. But curiously enough, al- 
though there are several other cats 
in The House that Jack Built, there 
is not one which comes near it, unless 
perhaps I except the cat worried by 
the dog on page 15, in which, how- 
ever, the dog is characterless, while the intense expression which characterises 
the cat I give is wanting in all the others. 

Again, has anybody ever given such a delightful absurdity as this of the 
dog who, to gain some private ends, went mad and bit the man ? It is the 
concentration of action and expression. Could anything be finer than the two 
dots for eyes which glitter with madness, or the aimless expression of the fore 



>. ^ 


paws and the undecided pose of the whole body ? You have not an idea in 
which direction the dog will spring, but you are very sure you ought to get 

out of the way. The coloured plate on the 
opposite page is very good, but what could be 
more inane than the absolutely vacant expres- 
sion of the young man in the background ? The 
whole arrangement is excellent, but there is no 
reason why, when a man tries to elaborate a 
drawing, he should put in the houses in so 
careless and slovenly a manner. The big dog 
too, on page 14, sitting among broken pots and 
plates is good, but Caldecott simply could not 
work out a foreground. When a man draws 
plants and flowers and grass, I at once compare 
him with Alfred Parsons ; if he cannot give 
^ them so well as Parsons, it is useless for the 
"^^^ student to turn to his work. 

These drawings of course were done with a brush used as a pen, in sepia 
or some other liquid colour, a method which, as far as I can see, was merely a 
fad. Unless the printing is in brown, as in the picture-books and ALsop's Fables, 
it is impossible to give any idea of the work. It cannot be reproduced in its 
proper value, and absolutely the only object in using this brown ink to-day 
would be to make work for engravers and colour-printers like Messrs. Cooper 
and Edmund Evans. The latter has reproduced, as far as I know, all the 
colour-work of Caldecott, with whom his name has come to be very closely 
associated. The work of Caran D'Ache is done with a pen in black ink, and 
the flat colour washes, which he like Caldecott uses, are lithographed or pro- 
cessed. The work is far simpler and the colours seem to keep in their right 
places with a great deal more ease. 

It would be almost impossible to give a better idea of bounding free motion 
than in this stag from the ^sop, with 
the whole of Scotland stretching away 
behind him, though probably the lines 
in the shadow were better in the orio;inal 
drawing. Then look at the happy fox 
after he has fooled the stork, and the 
innocent young lamb, probably just be- •■ — 
fore he entered on his discussion with 
the wolf Take this Iamb especially ; 
technically I cannot conceive of anything "-- 

more innocent and childlike ; it would be simply absurd to attempt to copy such 
a drawing, and yet everything you want is in it. It shows Caldecott's marvellous 




power in expressing a whole story in a few lines, technically worthless, in his 
hands perfect. But the minute he went beyond this expression in pure outline, 
only to be surpassed by the cleverness of handling of Caran D'Ache, he began to 


fall off. Note the action and go of these Three Round Hats. The first figure 
and horse are good, the boy on a pony is indifferent, the third man and horse and 
the landscape are absolutely bad ; for when he began to elaborate, Caldecott was 
not able to express with many lines what he could indicate with one. If a man 
can express so much in one line as he did, he is really great ; no one can follow 
him. If you have the same ability, you can do the same thing ; if you have not, 
your imitation is sure to be artless and valueless. I know it will be said that 
there are cases in which Caldecott drew figures and elaborated landscape well ; 
perhaps there are, but they are the very rare exceptions, and even in these 
exceptions his work cannot be compared with that of a man like Charles Keene, 
for example. What I want to show is every man's best work, and what I have 
shown is, I think, Caldecott's. 





Griffenhagen's work ranks to-day, in my estimation, with that produced by 
Du Maurier twenty-five years ago, though it has not the same variety. Each 
of his drawings is made with the understanding of the possibilities of pen 
drawing which characterised Du Manner's work and so justly made his reputa- 
tion. Although Grifienhagen started in the manner of Schlittgen and the other 
Germans, he has developed a style and character of his own. The features of 
his work are his refinement and delicacy of line, and his suggestion of modelling, 
surfaces, and texture by single lines. He uses scarcely any cross-hatching, and 
therefore his drawings come well by process. 

Jfiiiliu,' t 


Hugh Thomson began, to a certain extent, by studying tlie imperfections of 
Caldecott. His horses were Caldecott's horses, his figures were caricatures of 
Caldecott's caricatures ; and until lately he has always drawn the same horse and 
the same man. But I am able to show one of his most recent drawings in 
which he has got rid of a vast amount of these mannerisms, and has commenced 
to work in a style of his own. This drawing is as full of go and movement as 
anything in the book ; he has probably taken his ideas from Remington, who, 
however, is a far better man to study for the purpose than Caldecott ; but these 
ideas he has expressed entirely in his own way. If he continues to improve at 
this rate, there is no doubt that he will produce something far better than he has 
ever done. The grass in the foreground is over elaborated without being 
expressive, and the faces have very little character, though still much caricature ; 



but this can be overlooked because there are so many good quahties in the draw- 
ing, which is unquestionably the best of his I have yet seen. 

I put Herbert Railton with Hugh Thomson because they have done so 
much worls; together, especially in the English Ilhistrated Magazine. It is true 

Railton has his figures drawn by John Jellicoe, and I cannot but think it an 
enormous mistake for him, or any one else, to depend upon others in this 
manner. The first time one sees Railton's work, one is struck with its bright- 
ness, cleverness, and go. Looking at this drawing alone, one is charmed by the 
clever way in which he draws a plain wall, indicates a bulging old roof, and 
throws in a bit of sky, and although it is at once seen that he has paid no atten- 

2 B 


tion to the light and shade or tone of the drawing, one is interested in studying 
the way he works. But when one takes up drawings of Westminster Abbey, of 
all the post-roads of England, of the towns of Normandy, and of the walls of 
Nuremberg, and sees exactly the same touch ; when one finds that all his 
windows open in the same manner and all his trees grow in the same fashion, 
one must regret that a man of his cleverness and ability either never draws 
directly from nature, or, if he does, seems to care so little for what is about him. 
His mannerisms give his drawings, at first very pretty, an endless monotony. 
He is apt to elaborate patches of meaningless shadow in the midst of his lights, 
to fill his reflections in water with spotty blacks, and to kill what might be fine 
effects by scattering these blacks all over the drawing. But it is because he has 
such great ability that one cannot help criticising him, as one would not criticise 
a man less strong. The best reproductions of Railton's drawings, all of which, 
however, come very well by process, are the photogravures in a late edition of 
Lamb's Essays, in which they are reduced so much that his mannerisms are 
lost sight of and the results are very pleasing. It is to be regretted that the 
publishers call these etchings, in the endeavour to give them a commercial 
fictitious value. That the critic calls them etchings is not surprising ; it would 
be surprising if he were able to distinguish between a photogravure and an 


Whenever a man endeavours in any 
way to produce something out of the 
common, he is deserving of praise. Both Leslie Willson and Raven Hill, 
seeking inspiration on the Continent, have infused some life and go and 
technique into English comic drawings, and have shown, in their publication 
Pick-Me-Up, that there is no necessity to overload a paper with politics in 
order to obtain comedy. The example by Willson proves that he has 
broadened, at least in this drawing, and cleared himself of the charge I 
made against him of only working after Schlittgen ; save in the figure ot 
the near woman there is little German feeling in it, while it has a large 
amount of character of its own, though one can see he has studied, as every 
draughtsman who wishes to get breadth and character into his drawing should, 
the methods of the best men on the Continent. I find suggestions of Myrbach 
and Mars, Rossi and Rochegrosse. 

In the drawing by Raven Hill, clever as it is, for he has utilised the 
methods of Jean Beraud and Ludwig Marold, I do not find any English 
character at all. The flower-girls are characterless, and the hansom and 


lamp -post, which should give at once the stamp of London, are excessively 
careless. But the execution is brilliant and the concentration of blacks ex- 
tremely good. I also want to call attention in this block to the dotted 
tint which may be seen in the overskirt of the girl to the left, on the 
ribbons of the girl in the foreground, and in the extreme background ; it 
is very useful often to fill up unpleasant white spaces and to give the effect 
of a wash. The artist has either made a wash on his drawing or indicated 
that a wash should come within the boundaries of this dotted space ; the 
photo-engraver places a dotted film over his negative or on the drawing and 
photographs the whole ; the solid lines show through it, and the dots are 
also photographed on to the zinc plate or gelatine film from which the en- 
graving is made. This has been greatly used by Courboin, Mars, and 
Adrien Marie in France ; while drawing on dotted films or placing differ- 
ently arranged dotted or lined films over the drawing was patented by Ben 
Day in America. But this method, unless very skilfully and cleverly employed 
as in Raven Hill's drawing, is apt to look mechanical, and I do not think it 
compares to the tinted ruled paper. However, it is needless to say that 
Vierge succeeded in using it without mechanical results. 

There are several other Englishmen on Pick-Me-Up, among whom is 
Edgar W. Wilson, some of whose suggestive backgrounds, worked out in 
a Japanese decorative manner, are very pleasing and full of colour. The 
editor is also obtaining the work of such foreigners as Willette, Lunel, and 
Caran D'Ache, and by this method of procedure and his desire for the draw- 
ings of outsiders, I hope his paper may have the success it deserves. 


Alfred Parsons is a man who has transgressed almost every law of pen 
drawing. There is no shorthand about his work, there is no suggestion in 
line ; but he has with a pen succeeded where every one else has failed. His 
pen work has the richness and fulness of colour and the delicacy of execution 
of an etching, combined with the most artistic elaboration that could be obtained 
with a colour medium. When a man can successfully carry pen drawing to 
this perfection of completeness, there is no 
reason why he should not, provided the 
result is, as with Parsons, artistic. With 
other men, however, it is usually laboured 
and over-worked. 

|HE manner in which he has arrived 

at this complete mastery of pen 

drawing is simply by regarding it 
as no less serious a medium than any other, 
by studying the light and shade in his subject 
as in the drawing at Long Marston, by seek- 
ing for tone and colour where other men 
only strive for line. Note the drawing of the 
distant trees, the curves of each leaf in the 
foreground plants in all the drawings, and 
the individuality which he puts into the stem 
and leaf and blossom of every plant he draws. 
His drawings of plant forms are also full of 
decorative feeling. He is a perfect com- 
bination of decorator and illustrator ; if he gives you an eighteenth-century 

From Harper 9 Magazine 

^opjTigiit Ub b\ Harper & Brother 


initial, you may be sure it has been obtained from the best authority, just 
as you know, if you are a botanist, that his flowers are right. But work 
Hke Parsons' can only be produced by the most careful study from nature, 
and in no other fashion. As a general rule, I consider Rico's methods much 
better, and in a certain sense they are more difficult to follow, because Rico 
has the mind of a great analyst, and the analytical faculty is probably rarer 
than that of selection and complete rendering. But Parsons possesses this 
latter quality, as well as that of decoration, to a greater degree than any other 
man living, and the possession of such ability gives him a place apart. As 
to the drawings themselves, they are made on smooth Whatman paper with 
inks more or less diluted with water. Their great feature is not the clever- 
ness with which they are done, but the truth with which every thing is drawn, 
and the marvellous manner in which difficulties hitherto considered insurmount- 
able by pen draughtsmen have been conquered. 

The photogravure from She Stoops to Conquer, reproduced by Amand- 
Durand, is the best example of decorative realism that I could possibly show. 
The shield and the lettering might be the work of a decorator of Goldsmith's 
day. But no one has ever made such exquisite studies of roses as those which 
surround and build up this most original title. The flowers grow and stretch 
across the design with all that feeling for curves and direction which the old 
men rendered by a single line. Parsons' work contains these lines, but they 
are hidden among the flowers, and each spray and each flower and each leaf is 
worked out in a manner unknown before our time. 

llcinjo''^ <"^ '"'f"'' '■" 'J"a ''^ 


2 C 



T F Spain and Germany were the homes of pen drawing, then 
-*- certainly America is its adopted country. There the art has 
been developed altogether within the last ten years, more especially 
within the last seven. At one time American artists imitated the 
good English pen drawing of some thirty years ago, much of which, 
as I have said, was executed for the wood-engraver, and was there- 
fore only known to them in the form of woodcuts. But they ceased 
to do so as soon as they saw the work of the Continent, which they 
could study in fac- simile reproduction. The principal American 
illustrators of the day unquestionably owe much to their study and 
appreciation of continental draughtsmen. Whom they took as 
models depended much on where they studied. Many adopted, 
as have Americans studying any branch of art, what seemed best 
to them in each of the different schools. Hence, though like 
Englishmen we have no national art school comparable with the 
Ecole des Beaux-Arts, nor the standard which such a school 
supplies, Americans have on the other hand, what Englishmen 
have not, and, whether rightly or wrongly, do not seek to cultivate, 
an eclectic appreciation of good art whenever we see it, no matter 
where it comes from. Any one, who has been at all out of England, 
knows how really little good modern art of any foreign school 
is to be seen in this country. 


One American has taken Menzel as his model; another Dietz 
and the artists of Fliegende Blatter ; a whole school now worships 
Fortuny, Vierge, Rico, Casanova, and the other Spaniards, reverently 
but with judgment at the same time ; while there are some artists 
who follow Detaille and De Neuville, intelligently adopting French 
methods to their own needs. These men have in turn many 
imitators who, however, are without knowledge of all the underlying 
principles of pen drawing. The principal credit for this development 
must be ascribed to the intelligent support which Mr. A. W. Drake, 
the art editor of the Century, then Scribners Monthly, was the first 
to give to the group of young men who, about this time, returned 
from a course of several years' study in Munich with the idea of 
revolutionising art in America — then a not very wonderful thing to 
do — by converting it to the school of Munich, especially to the 
school of Dietz. Among the Munich men were William M. Chase, 
who made some strong figure studies, Walter Shirlaw, who gave 
some of the most artistic renderings of commonplace things ever 
produced in America, Frederick Dielman and Henry Muhrman. 
A little later Reginald Birch returned, and though he was heralded 
by less blowing of trumpets, he has sustained and improved the reputa- 
tion he made with his first drawings. The last book he has illustrated. 
Little Lord Faiintleroy, is probably the best thing he has ever done. 
Every number of St. Nicholas is made more interesting by his 
work. The infection quickly spread to what was then Harper's 
brilliant shop, working in, or for which were such artists as Edwin 
A. Abbey, Charles S. Reinhart, Howard Pyle, A. B. Frost. The 
entire revolution was not altogether due to the Munich students. 
But certainly they, together with the Centennial Exhibition, showed 
to a vast number of Americans, among others to those artists who 
had never been abroad, what foreign standards of technique really 

About the same time, or a little later, between 1877 and 1879, 
Alfred Brennan and Robert Blum began to be known. They com- 
menced to study in Cincinnati to a certain extent under Frank 
Duveneck and H. F. Farny. The latter is in many ways one of the 
most original, if erratic, of American artists. He had then already 
produced some very good pen drawings published in the Art Review, 
and he has added to his reputation by his brilliant drawings of 


Indians published in the Century and Harper s, and by his illustra- 
tions for school books, of which he has made something artistic. 
From Cincinnati, Blum and Brennan went to Philadelphia where, 
like many another student, they received everything but encourage- 
ment to continue in the way they had marked out for themselves. 
But they found a friend in Stephen J. Ferris, w^ho then, though 
he did not own originals, had photogravures or reproductions of 
almost all the drawings of Fortuny, Rico, and Boldini ; and through 
these he introduced them and his son, Gerome Ferris, as he later 
did me — and for this I can never be thankful enough to him — 
to an entirely new world. Ferris, Peter and Thomas Moran, J. D. 
Smillie, and several others, by reproducing the pen drawings and 
the pictures of the greatest men of the Continent for the art books 
issued by Gebbie and Barrie, probably did as much to make known 
the work of European pen draughtsmen to Americans as any one 
else. However, even in the present state of international copyright, 
it is not likely that any of these books will be seen in Europe. 

Ferris was one of the first artists to practise etching on glass, 
as it was miscalled — that is, drawing on a sheet of glass coated 
with collodion, which had been exposed in a camera at a white 
wall and so turned a dark grey or brown colour, and then varnished ; 
then on this plate a drawing was made with an etching needle, a 
pen or any sharp point, and the result was either reproduced by 
photo-lithography or printed in a photographic printing-press. It 
was work like this, done about ten or fifteen years ago, which had 
an enormous influence in developing photo-engraving. Mrs. Elinor 
Greatorex, in her illustrations of old New York, I believe used the 
same process. Another man who made many experiments in other 
ways was B. Day. Brennan, too, continually made discoveries in 
process work, in which he was aided by the Century s Art Depart- 
ment. But without the assistance of Mr. De Vinne, the printer of 
the Century — a man who has devoted his life to artistic printing 
and succeeded in it — comparatively little advance would have been 
made. A glance at the magazines of 1876 will prove this. 

In New York, Blum and Brennan found instant recognition, and 
a place for their work both in a sort of memorial to Fortuny and in 
the Centtiry, then Scribners. Here they were joined by F. Lungren 
and Kenyon Cox. From that day to this their work has contributed 


to maintain the high position which the Century and St. Nicholas 
hold among illustrated magazines. Much has been said about their 
originality. But their real originality consists in their intelligent 
adaptation of the methods of Fortuny, Rico, and Vierge, of the artists 
of Fliegende Blatter, and of the draughtsmen of Japan, and in their 
production, under all these many and opposing influences, of vigorous 
and charming pictures of their own. Brennan most certainly was 
and is the master of this school of American pen draughtsmen. 

In 1878, I think, Abbey, who was then illustrating Herrick's 
Poems, came to England, and a knowledge of the country and things 
he had long cared for started him on a brilliant career, and has carried 
him forward until he is now the greatest English speaking illustrator 
the Avorld has ever seen. For grace and refinement he ranks second 
to no one. In England of the eighteenth century he is as much at 
home as Austin Dobson. He can reconstruct its old rooms and 
village streets and fill them anew with beauty and life. In his old 
furniture and bits of glass and silver ware he rivals in fidelity and 
execution De Neuville and Jacquemart. And all of his work is in a 
style that delights the purist. It is simple, honest, and straight- 
forward. So also is the drawing of Reinhart, who, about the same 
time as Abbey, came abroad again — he having studied before in 
Germany — and, finding his chance in illustrating a trip to Spain, 
began an equally brilliant career. His work is always devoted to 
the things of modern life. He puts Mr. Howells' characters on 
paper with just that last touch of realism which an illustrator can 
give better than the author ; while he has only finished telling the 
world what he thinks about American sea-shore resorts and the 
people who go to them. His drawings of France and England, 
done boldly, directly, and vigorously, are life itself. Nothing better 
than the work of these two men could be found for Enelishmen 
and Americans to study. One cannot but wish that Abbey too 
would give us a little more of what is happening about him, 
instead of occupying himself almost altogether with the people and 
things of other days. His editions of She Stoops to Conquer and 
Herrick's Poems have never been approached in modern times. 

Howard Pyle has given in his pen drawings the quaintness 
of American life in the colonial period, and, in Robin Hood, some 
beautiful ideas of a country he does not know. His Pepper and Salt 


and other children's books are as beautiful in their old and quaint 

Harry Fenn has illustrated many books and magazines. He 
works apparently with equal facility in all sorts of mediums. If he 
would concentrate his power on something that he made distinctly 
his own, as he did with wash in Picturesque America, he would hold 
a very high place as a pen draughtsman. There is no one probably 
who has such perfect command of his materials, and who, though 
often doing work which cannot be interesting to him, is always sure 
of getting striking and, very often, novel and artistic results. His 
drawings of interiors are models of arrangement and knowledge of 
details, and very clever as a whole. His work, as well as its re- 
production, has vastly improved since he made the illustrations for 
Picturesgtie America. 

A. B. Frost and W. A. Rogers, who can be either funny 
or serious to good purpose, have produced some of the funniest 
drawings, which rival those of Fliegende Blatter in their technical 
work and humour — though very different ; and, like them, are good 
because they are understandable in all languages, and need no label 
to explain them. Of caricatures, pure and simple, are to be mentioned 
those of Thomas Nast and M. A. Wolf, which, however, have no 
technical pretensions. The same can be said of those of Mat Morgan 
and a host of other caricaturists. J. D. Mitchell, S. W. Van Schaick, 
W. H. Hyde, C. J. Taylor, are other comic pen draughtsmen who 
really are clever. But to mention them all would be to make a 
catalogue. Among the older men, of course, we have Darley's litho- 
graphed outline illustrations to Washington Irving, which I suppose 
were done with a lithographic pen on stone ; but, of course, he started 
and formed his ideas and settled his style long before the time of 
process. Among the painters is Mr. Wyatt Eaton, who produced 
the noble head of Lincoln, engraved by Cole, in the Century, and 
the drawings after Olin Warner, also published in the Century; 
while another man who h^s done a great deal of portrait work in 
the style of, though not equal to, Desmoulins, is Jacques Reitch. 

The only men of any note who have appeared in the last two or 
three years are E. W. Kemble, whose delineations of old darkies and 
the wild west are very life-like, but often very careless; Frederick 
Remington, whose drawings of horses in action are wonderfully 


spirited ; and F. Childe Hassam, whose work has certainly a character 
of its own. 

Miss Jessie M'Dermott and Miss Alice Barber both draw well, 
but have not illustrated other work, or done work of their own to 
sufficient extent, to be given the place they would otherwise hold. 
The same may be said of many other men and women — Thurlstrop, 
Graham, Zogbaum, Redwood, for example. But the great bulk of 
their work is not done in pen and ink, and they do not seem to care 
for it more than for other mediums. The drawings of the artists I 
have mentioned will live long after the present generation. 

So much of Alfred Parsons' work is published in America that 
one has come to think of him as an American. But of his pen 
drawings I have already spoken. Frank L. Kirkpatrick makes 
excellent pen drawings, but painting almost altogether, one sees 
comparatively little pen work from him. And this is also to be said 
of F. S. Church, Avho is strikingly original in his treatment of birds 
and animals. L. S. Ipsen, — who, among other things, has recently 
published some charming decorations, though the figures are not 
good, for Mrs. Browning's Poems, — George Wharton Edwards, 
and H. L. Bridwell, have given a decorative character to many of 
the books and magazines of America, which places them second only 
to men like Habert-Dys. W. H. Drake and Otto Bacher render 
arms and armour and many unpicturesque subjects in an original 
manner ; while Hughson Hawley, F. Du Mond, and Camille Piton 
have devoted themselves to architecture. 

In looking at pen drawing, or rather all illustrative work in 
America, outside of the Harper, Century, and Scribner publications, 
Life and Wide Awake, the process work in Puck, and a few of the 
art periodicals, it seems as if the art editors of the various illustrated 
papers were trying to see which one could fill his magazine or weekly 
with the worst and cheapest drawings. One cannot but fear that 
unless there is another reaction like that which followed the Cen- 
tennial Exhibition, art in America will fall to a lower level than it 
has ever held before. 




nr^HE fact that I have devoted more space to certain Spaniards, Frenchmen, 
-^ and Germans, and less to some of the equally well-known and important 
Englishmen and Am,ericans, deserves, I think, a word of explanation. Too 
many of Menzel's drawings could not be shown, nor could I give too many of 
Abbey's. But while it is the duty of every illustrator and every one who cares 
for illustration to see all the work which Abbey produces — and it can be seen 
in the pages of Harper s Monthly — and while every pen draughtsman should 
own the charming Herrick, the monumental She Stoops to Conq7ier, and the 
lovely Old Songs, which have been reproduced by the best modern mechanical 
and wood engravers and printed in the most careful manner, it is scarcely 
possible for any one to obtain the original editions of Menzel's work, and in 
many cases reproductions from these original editions or new editions have 
never been published. Of the Uniforms of the A7'my of Frederick the Great 
I know of only one easily accessible copy in England ; this one is in the British 
Museum, but very likely there may be a few more. The case of Rico and 
Vierge is almost parallel ; it is even more difficult to find the drawings of 
many of the principal Spaniards than those of Menzel. 

Abbey began in the wood-engraving office of Van Ingen and Snyder in 
Philadelphia, and, like so many other illustrators, he learned the mechanical 
part of his work in the daytime and studied art at night, to a certain extent 
under Isaac L. Williams and in the Academy of Fine Arts. But he soon 
went to New York and entered the office of Messrs. Harper and Brothers, 
where he continued for several years, producing much work in many different 
mediums for all of Messrs. Harpers' periodicals. Though his early work was 
wanting in the grace and refinement which has now placed him in a position 
without a rival among English-speaking draughtsmen, it was always remarkable 
for its quiet humour and its suggestiveness, while his marvellous mastery of 

2 D 



technique was quickly attained. Although he has gained a knowledge of 
composition, a largeness of feeling, and a completeness of expression with his 
years of practice, some of the drawings in the Herrick are equal in many ways 
to his later work. As a whole, however, his last book, the Old Songs, is 
infinitely finer than anything he has yet done. His drawings have become so 
refined that no engraving can reproduce every line in them. He has selected 
the two girls on the sofa from She Stoops to Conquer, and it is interesting to 

compare this reproduction, which is probably better than any made from his 
work, with the block in the magazine and the plate in his book ; I think It will 
at once be seen that it contains more of the feeling of his drawing than either of 
the others. 

While the superficial qualities of Abbey's work can be imitated by any one, 
his rendering of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which he has recon- 
structed so wonderfully, will never be approached on the lines he is following. 
His present position as an illustrator has been attained and maintained simply 
by treating illustration, as it should be treated, as seriously as any other branch 
of art. He is remarkable not so much for academic correctness — as is Menzel, 


for example — but rather for his truth, the beauty of his line and his power of 
expression. No illustrator has realised more beautiful women or finer swagger- 
mg gallants, and no one has placed them in more appropriate surroundings. 
He makes the figures real for us because all the backgrounds and accessories 
are taken directly from nature. 

Any one can see for one's self how drawing like this is produced ; a more 
or less rough pencil-sketch is made on a sheet of very thin smooth paper 
mounted on pasteboard, something like London board, and the completed 
subject, which he has in his mind before he touches the drawing, gradually 
grows out of the models he has before him, and nature to which he always 
refers ; and this is the only way in which great illustration can be and should 
be produced. The book plate, the drawing for which Mr. Gosse was good 
enough to lend me, is one of those numberless designs Abbey is for ever 
making for his friends ; other examples of these charming suggestive conceits 
may be found in the frontispiece of Mr. Ashby-Sterry's Lazy Minstrel, Mr. 
Austin Dobson's Sign of the Lyre, Miss Strettell's Spanish and Ltalian 
Folk-Songs, in many other books and catalogues of his friends' pictures. In 
the book plate for Mr. Gosse, the greys all over the drawing are utterly lost; 
no process or engraver could render them. But no matter how much is lost, 
a vast amount of beauty remains. It has already been very well engraved by 
Mr. J. D. Cooper, but the result is not better than, if as good as, Messrs. 
Dawson's photo-engraving. I suppose that one might criticise the drawing 
for the utter want of the old conventional decorative feeling, but when so much 
that is new and good can be found in it, I think one ought rather to rejoice 
for what we have obtained and not mourn over what has not been given. 

Note. — After a rather careful examination of the country in the world, men who are seeking to carry 

drawings and engravings in the Paris Exhibition out his method of brilliant drawing carefully and 

of this year (1889), I cannot help being conscious seriously executed. And really on the same plane 

of the fact that I have not given Abbey the place with him must be placed Alfred Parsons and Rein- 

which he really deserves. Menzel is the founder hart. 

of modern illustration; Fortuny, Rico, and Vierge American pen drawing, this Exhibition conclusively 

have been its most powerful apostles, and among proves, is the best, and American process reproduc- 

the cleverest men their influence will never grow tion is the most sympathetic, and American printing 

less. But while Menzel's methods are obsolete, the most careful, and it is this harmonious co-opera- 

and Vierge's style can only be attempted by the tion which has enabled Abbey to become not only, 

most brilliant, any one can see that a new school is as I have written, the greatest English-speaking 

arising, and this is the school of Abbey, who has illustrator, but the greatest living illustrator, 
at the present moment followers in every illustrating 

From Harper's Maprazine. 


Copyri-;bt, 1886, by Harper & Brothers 


It would be a mere waste of time on my part to try to praise or even to criticise 
Reinhart at his best. He has been influenced both by Germans and French- 
men, with whom he has studied and among whom he has hved for years. His 
drawings are notable for their simplicity, directness and freedom, often for their 
grace, and always for their character and expression. There is probably no 
one else who, with such simple means, could so well show the three American 
mothers in this drawing. He has concentrated his attention on the faces, but 
he has not been slovenly in the costumes, while his grouping is extremely 
pleasing. It is unnecessary to give more examples of a man whose work is 
so characteristic and well known, and should be studied by all who wish to 
produce good as well as realistic renderings of the life of to-day. His drawings 
for the last twenty years have been seen in Harper s, where he has shown his 
ability to work in all sorts of mediums. It is only of late he has in his black 
and white drawings used a pen to any great extent. 




Birch is one of those men who have studied abroad, and taken what they 
have learned to America. Not only does he know how to draw well, but he 
is familiar with the life of two continents. His drawings in the beginning 
were Americanised Schlittgens, but, while he is quite as clever as Schlittgen, 
he possesses, I think, more grace, combined with wider knowledge of character. 
In the concentration of blacks, the drawing of little Lord Fauntleroy carried off 
to bed might suggest Vierge, but the footman, the two housemaids, and the 
merest indication of the housekeeper's cap and one eye are thoroughly English, 
though the little lord himself is completely American. The other drawing is 
equally full of character, and the handling in these, as in all his work, shows 
the greatest amount of expression obtained with the simplest and most direct 
means. He scarcely ever uses models in his final work, but makes his drawings 
from studies, tracing these on to Bristol board which he thus keeps thoroughly 
clean ; consequently his work reproduces perfectly well. 



Farny's drawing is an example of wliat is Isinown among illustrators as splatter 
work, which I have described in the Chapter on Technical Suggestions. But 
it deserves a place far more because of its suggestion of colour and the strong 
character of the face ; there is a figure, too, wrapped up in the blanket. The 
decorative manner in which the shield and bow are put in and balance each 
other is good, and in fact the whole drawing is very well put together. But, as 
I said before, I wish to call special attention to the way in which the splatter 
tint is managed. The figure, apparently, was drawn and then covered, prob- 
ably with a piece of paper to protect it, and the splattering done all over it. 
Everything outside the frame of the background was then painted with Chinese 
white and the drawing continued on this ground when dry. The difference 
in the quality of the lines made on the two grounds can easily be seen in 
the reproduction, in which the Messrs. Dawson have been very successful in 
keeping this difference. But in their process they do not seem able to get very 
fine single lines, such as those in the lower part of the blanket which are rotten, 
though there is no rottenness in the drawing. The feeling of the drawing, 
however, has been very well retained. 

From Pyle'a " Wondiir t'lock." 

Copyright, 13s7, by Harpor i brothLi 


A COMPARISON between this drawing, Walter Crane's, and the plate after Diirer 
will best show whether pen drawing has advanced. When I can print along 
with text a drawing by Howard Pyle, which contains many qualities Diirer 
could not have obtained save in an etching, and then never could have printed 
with type, it shows decided progress, not only in technique, but in the printing 


of an autographic reproduction of a pen drawing with type without the aid of a 
woodcutter, a process which of course was unknown to Durer, but of which, had 
he known it, I have not the shghtest doubt he would have availed himself to 
the fullest extent. 

The most superficial comparison of Pyle's composition and handling with 
DLirer's will show what a careful student the nineteenth-century American is of 
the sixteenth-century German. I admit, with certain American critics whom I 
respect, that in some qualities it is very hard to tell where Durer ends and 
Howard Pyle begins. In his Otto of the Silver Hand, for example, there are 
compositions which are almost entirely suggested by Durer. But who has not 
made use of the suggestions of other men ? That Pyle should do this in telling 
and illustrating a mediaeval tale, merely proves his ability to saturate himself 
with the spirit of the age in which the scenes are laid, and to give his work 
the colour and character of the biggest man of that age. The entire figure 
of Time, in the drawing I show from the Wonder Clock, is Dlireresque. But 
the figure of the small boy piping, although the lines of shadow are drawn in the 
manner of the old Germans, is not German at all but nineteenth -century 
American, and this is true of the tree in blossom and the stony foreground. 
They are better than anything in Dtirer, for the simple reason that we know 
more about landscape than the Germans of his time. This way of adapting the 
methods of an earlier generation to our own requirements is exactly what the 
old men did, and it is only by so doing art advances. Pyle has preserved all 
that was good in their work, and yet kept pace with modern technical and 
mechanical developments. I know his drawing is a frank imitation, while 
Walter Crane's is not, but I do not see where the latter has improved upon the 
old work. Every line in Pyle's drawing is as careful as any to be found in 
Durer's, and this cannot always be said of Crane's. I have published two 
almost similar drawings and compared them, because unless one is able to see 
together drawings by two men who work for the same end by almost the same 
means, it is impossible to judge of their relative positions. 

Among the books by Howard Pyle which every student should know, are 
Robin Hood, Pepper and Salt, Otto of the Silver Hand, and the Wonder Clock. 
Many of the drawings are wanting to a certain extent in local colour, a want 
only due to the fact that Pyle has, as far as I am aware, never visited Europe. 
But in technique they are far superior to anything that has been done in 
America, and, I hope It will not be too presumptuous for me to say, therefore 
to any modern work of this sort. They are carried out with a thoroughness 
and completeness which give them originality, even though they preserve all 
the feeling of the old work. They are almost equal as decoration to Abbey's 
and Parsons' realistic revivals, and would be quite equal to them did Pyle 
know Europe as well. 

2 E 




I GROUP these three men together, for not only is there great similarity in their 
methods of work, but they seem to me the most distinctly American illustrators 
we have. On the one hand, their work does not possess much of that intense 
brilliancy and cleverness which is so characteristic of the Spaniards ; nor, on the 
other hand, has it any of the slovenliness which characterises so much English 
work of exactly the same sort. 

In the three drawings you see that models have been used for all the 
figures, though Remington's has the photographic look which marks all his 
work. But, as I have said elsewhere, there is no reason why a man should not 
use photographs, if from them he can get good results. 

The style of Frost's work is, I fancy, that which the men of Fred Walker's 
time would have used, had they been transported to an American town and 
taken enough interest in it to make a drawing of a subject like that of Frost's. 
Of course there is an exaggeration in all the figures ; they are not so real as 
Remington's, but then Frost's indication of the men's clothes is much more true 
and carefully studied than Remington's, while Kemble, to a great extent, has 
ignored all details and only attempts the large mass and long folds of the 
women's simple garments. But in none of them is there any of that everlasting 
machine-made cross-hatch. 

Each of these drawings gives to an American a characteristic rendering of 
country life : Frost's of the middle states or the northern part of the southern, 
Kemble's of the extreme south and Remington's of the far west. All will 
probably fall under the English critic's ban because they are not pretty or 
beautiful ; but they are more than this, they are real, and genuine realism was 
the one quality lacking in the brilliant Englishmen of thirty years ago. In 
Frost's drawings I do not think there is a line which could be omitted or any- 
thing that could be changed to its advantage. In all three, the reserving of 
blacks is well managed. In Remington's there is a certain scrawl of meaning- 
less lines over the grass which is found in nearly all his work ; the drawino- 
is not so well thought out as Frost's, and it has a mechanical look which is 
much more evident in this reproduction than ordinarily, because his drawino-s 


are usually reduced to a much smaller size. The intelligent critic will of course 
ask what has become of the cow's other horn. My only answer is that I am 
sure I do not know. For a man with such a thorough knowledge of animal 
anatomy this omission is rather curious. His drawing of the men's hands is 
not as careful as Frost's or Kemble's. 

Kemble's drawing contains more of his good qualities and less of his faults 
than almost any which I have seen. There is a very striking difference in 
the rendering of the old Congo woman with her brilliant shiny jet-black face — 
though in the drawing of it, by the way, there is not a bit of black — and the tall 
statuesque mulatto who stands in front of her ; the action of this figure is re- 
markably fine. Rendering of types is Kemble's strong point, and his weak one 
is carelessness in detail, a carelessness which at its worst is positively aggressive 
The mass of wire-work to the left of the figures is thoroughly bad. It is in- 
tended for bushes or grass, but, as line-work, is meaningless. The dress of the 
old woman is also careless when compared with the delightful drawing in the 
other woman's gown. The sugar-pans and the brick oven are also careless, and 
the smoke is really childish. I criticise Kemble because he is such a remarkably 
clever draughtsman, and yet there would be no use for students to copy im- 
perfections which with him are but the result of carelessness. With far less 
work he could in these details get a far better effect. Compare the tree trunk 
in Frost's drawing with the bushes in Kemble's and what 1 mean will at once 
be seen. 

These drawings have been reproduced by Louis Chefdeville, and, like all 
his reproductions, are in advance of the work of any other reproductive engraver 
in England. He has not only reproduced the drawings excellently, but he has 
kept the quality of the line which each man uses. The reason of this is not 
difficult to find. Mr. Chefdeville is an artist and reproduces drawings in an 
artistic manner — that is, he seeks to reproduce the character of the draughts- 
man's work. His rendering of separate lines is infinitely better than that of 
any other English photo-engraver. 

I ^J^H.J J J. I .J 

From Harper's Yoans People. 

CopjTight, 1833. by Ilarper & BroUicn. 


Miss Barber's work is a good example of careful honest drawing without clever- 
ness of handling. She knows how to construct her figures, and she puts them 
together very well. There is a good colour scheme in her work, and the whole 
drawing is simple and direct. The only thing to criticise is a cross-hatching in 
the floor which might be omitted. The figure of the girl against the light thin 
curtain is specially well drawn. Every one knows how difficult it is to give light 
clean work with a pen, and in doing this Miss Barber has been very successful. 
She carries her work out more thoroughly, with a real feeling for line and without 
over-elaboration, than any woman I know of. 

From Harper's Magazine.— Copy nght, 1881, by Hnrpev ^ Brothers. 

From Harjier'a Magazine.— Copyright, 163 1, by Harper & Broa 

From Harper's Mntrazlne.- Copyright, 1681, by Harper & Brotbeva. 

From Harper's Mapaziue.— Copyright, 1S81, by Harper & Brothers. 

rrora Harpt-r s Magaz nc— Coijr t,lit, Ubl, bj ll.irjir i^. LfuUl. 

From liar]iLT"9 Magazine.— Copyrlglit, ISSl, by Harper & Brothers. 




These are not models of technique — Caran D' Ache's simple outline is very 
much better — but the style is good enough for the purpose. They are examples 
of comic drawings which appeal to the whole world without any label to explain 
them. The only title ever tagged on to them was Oitr Cat Eats Rat Poison, 
which to any one with the slightest sense of humour or drawing is all-sufficient. 

2 F 



For giving a full-page photogravure to a comparatively unknown illustrator — 
for, I reiterate it, all illustration is unknown or ignored — and omitting to give a 
photogravure to Fortuny, I suppose I shall be criticised. But I have very good 
reasons for doing so. There are several drawings in existence by Fortun)' which 
have been reproduced either by woodcuts or photo -engravings, or which as 
photogravures are unimportant. I have been unable to obtain any originals. 
However, I should have managed to show one here, if it had not been that the 
Century Company loaned me the drawing of Joe Jefferson as Bob Acres by 
Robert Blum. From an historical point of view, it would have been more 
interesting to make a photogravure from one of the Fortunys. For the student 
the Blum is of much more value, for this reason. As I have said, Fortuny 
lived a little too soon for the process work by which many of his followers have 
profited. Among them all, there has been no more careful and at the same time 
more brilliant student of his work than Blum. And this drawing was done for 
reproduction, while Fortuny's were not. It therefore possesses many qualities 
of value to the draughtsman which are absent from the more original work 
of his master. As I have also said, in almost all Fortuny's work there are 
smudges and blots, and though these are artistically right, they cannot be 
depended upon in any process -reproduction. The Fabres drawing, however, 
is a most successful exception. Everything in this drawing of Blum's will 
come as nearly right as photo-engraving and printing can make it. The photo- 
gravure is a little too hard all over. It would be impossible to render the 
face more delicately than Blum has. Notice how he gets the colour of the 
hair darker than the face by means of the fine lines under the modelling of 
it, and how he gets the tone of the face down lower than the cravat and shirt 
front ; and how well the legs are expressed, and every line goes to show the 
form that is inside the breeches. I cannot help feeling that the boots are 
somewhat too black, but this black is used to emphasise and bring out the 
delicate lights all the way from his feet to the under side of his hat. This 
is a contradiction to my advice not to use too many blacks ; but at the same 
time it is a proof of my assertion that a man who is a master of his art can do 
what he chooses. The lines which surround the drawing and which in most 
men's hands would be a meaningless affectation of Fortuny's searching for his 


forms and modelling, although they are with Blum to a certain extent an 
affectation, -^and I doubt if he would use them to-day, — serve to bring the drawing 
out of the paper and to connect the black of the coat with the white of the paper 
without producing a hard crude line around it. Take these apparently careless 
lines away and you will at once discover that the drawing becomes hard and 
loses much in refinement. And just here I want to express another opinion. 
This drawing may have been made from Joe Jefferson on the stage, or studied 
in the studio, or done from a photograph. The fact that one cannot tell how it 
was done is a proof of its excellence. If a man is compelled to work from a 
photograph — and there are very few who can without the fact being known at 
once, for it is much more difficult to make a picture out of a photograph than 
one from nature — it is nobody's business how the work is done, nor would the 
use of a photograph detract from the artistic value of the drawing. 

Under this head come some of Blum's drawings for Carrere and Hastings' 
descriptive pamphlet on the Ponce de Leon Hotel in St. Augustine, Florida, the 
most artistic piece of architectural drawing and hotel advertising combined I have 
ever seen. It is a book which should be in the hand of every architectural 
draughtsman. The drawings, having been made in the southern states of 
America, are rightly based on the work of Rico. There is not an architectural 
draughtsman in the world who could equal, or even come anywhere near them. 
Blum has given all the architectural details with the utmost fidelity, and to 
them he has added an artistic rendering while he has avoided all stupid 
results by means of his delicate play of light and shade. Interest has been 
added by carefully-drawn figures, and the trees and flowers are put in wi,th a 
knowledge of their form in nature and not evolved from the imagination of the 
architectural "J" square brain. i 




Brennan's work is unconventional and often startling. Much of it, of course, 
is but an imitation of the Fortuny manner. His skill is shown in his con- 
centration of blacks, and in this drawing in his rendering of the Chinese 
weapons, about which he probably knows nothing except what he has learnt 
from museums ; he here impresses us with the idea of a completely toned 
drawing, though it is not a toned drawing at all ; he breaks up great spaces 
of light or dark by either pure black or pure white — ^in fact every line and 
touch is a triumph of technical skill combined with a thorough command of his 
materials and resources. 

The original was a huge drawing — a. drawing which took as much thought 
and time in execution and as much knowledge of composition as would be 
required to make a water-colour or oil of the same size, and there is scarcely a 
painter who has the technical ability to produce such a masterpiece. Because 
this man chooses to illustrate, his work, which the critic does not understand, is 
dismissed with a line. Had he made a painting of the same subject with the 
same amount of work in it, he would have been known all over the world. As 
it is, he is only an illustrator, but for pure cleverness there is no one who has 
ever surpassed him. 

In the drawing of a stairway, which is a study in beautiful line, the lines 
have all the character, the meaning, and the value of the best etched line Whistler 
ever did. What could be better as a model for the architectural student than 
this ? — if indeed the student could ever learn to work like Brennan. The draw- 
ing is full of interest, vitality, and distinction. There is nothing stupid and 
nothing photographic, and yet it was made from a photograph. 

Brennan's decorative work is also filled with his individuality and character, 
and though, to me, much of it is absolutely incomprehensible, it is always striking 
and often beautiful ; it is taken from any motive which he may happen to find 
around him, but instead of making a mere copy, he adapts this motive to his 
own wishes and requirements. He has illustrated several children's books and 
nursery rhymes, and these, when at their best, are, like his other work, techni- 
cally unapproachable. Of course I know if it had not been for the influence of 
Fortuny, Casanova and Vierge, and the Japanese, there might not have been a 



living who hl'a "«! ,;: ™ °'; f ''^ °™- '^''-^ - P-b-bl/„o „„f 
possrbilities of proofs w,h*t' "' f «q--me„.s and limitations and 

u I piuLCbb. With the thoroughness of thp^i^ a 

he has studied the subject in a workshop. ^^" ''■"^^'"^""' 

From flarper's Magazine. 

CopyriVht, 18S:, by Harp.r .«; Brothers. 



LuNGREN is the third of the quartette of Americans of whom I have spoken, 
and though with them he was at first very much under the influence of Fortuny, 
Vierge, and Rico, and though his work now has many of their quahties, he has 
added to it, not only by his study abroad in Paris, but by uniting to the brilhancy 
of these Spaniards and of Frenchmen hke Jean B^raud some of the methods of 
Germans Hke Schlittgen. The consequence is that while his work is in many 
ways suggestive of that of many men, it is at the same time his own. 

What is to be specially noted in Lungren's work is the great power of 
expression conveyed with very few and simple lines, as well as the striking use 
of solid blacks, and the beauty of every line he uses. For example, in the 
accompanying drawing he expresses a great field with no work at all, excepting 
in exactly the right place, that is in the foreground, where he shows the growth 
of the grass and the weeds just where it would be seen, and the modelling of the 
ground which is given just in the right place to connect the two figures together 
in a good but not obtrusive manner. Notice too the use of pure blacks in the 
stockings and shoes of both children and in the sash and ribbons of one, and 
how carefully the folds of the drapery are rendered ; the faces of the little girls, 
though perhaps not very interesting, are pretty and pleasing. The house among 
the trees is put in so that every line tells, while the distant wood has been drawn 
with chalk or crayon. The drawing itself was on smooth paper, but, as I have 
explained, lithographic chalk not only comes by process, but holds fairly well on 
this paper, which, though almost smooth, has a slight grain in the surface. 

This drawing was merely an illustration for a child's story in 5/. Nicholas, 
and yet it is worth more study and attention — and if anything but an illustration 
would receive more — than a vast mass of the pictures painted every year. 

2 G 


It is always possible to render architecture picturesquely, even though it may 
be the latest American device in Queen Anne or a city shop front, if one only 
knows how, and Harry Fenn does. He not merely makes every line tell 
something, but he uses a different line for each substance. Notice how he 
gets the effect of the stairway with one line, the light wood of the hall with 
another, and how well the old chair and chest, drawn with still another, tell 
against it. The rug and the hangings are quite differently handled, while the 
fire-place in the dining-room beyond is in line and splatter work, the rest of the 
room in outline, which again varies the treatment. There is not such brilliant 
and strong colour in this drawing as in many of Fenn's, but it is an excellent 
example of picturesque working-out of a new, and therefore somewhat stiff in- 
terior, and, above all, of the use of line to express, not only surfaces, but the 
construction of a building in the best and simplest manner. Any number of 
Fenn's drawings can be seen in the American periodicals, especially in the 
Century. This one, however, was published in the Magazine of Art. 



Kenyon Cox, I believe, commenced his illustrative vi^ork with Blum, Brennan, 
and Lungren. But on going to France he gave up the methods which they 
thought to be the only right ones, that is those of intense brilliancy and clever- 
ness, and has devoted himself to an entirely different manner of working. 

Here he shows an excellent way of taking the photographic look out 
of a photograph, only retaining those features which give the character of the 
subject and suppressing all others. Thus the pose of the figure is indicated 
with freedom and grace, and the colour and texture of the clothes are well 
expressed, while the African type is self-evident. There is no obtrusive 
cleverness, nor indeed any cleverness of handling at all, in the drawing, but 
there is a very successful and serious attempt to render a type, a pose, and a 
costume, and the work can be thoroughly commended as good, serious, and 
honest, as well as for its non-photographic rendering of a photograph. 


Not only is this a good example of directness and freedom of line, with scarcely 
any cross-hatching and certainly no mechanical work, of beauty of modelling and 
suggestion of various surfaces, and of a man's individuality in his drawing, but it 
is a marvellous example of mechanical reproduction, probably the best in the 
book. It was engraved by the C. L. Wright Gravure Company of New York. 
Their aim is not, as I have found with too many other mechanical engravers, to 
succumb before the slightest difficulty, but, to use their own words, "to reach 
the acme of perfection in reproducing drawings," and, "to give an absolute 
fac-simile of the artist's work." It is only by such endeavours that blocks like 
this can be produced, that photo-engraving can advance at all. 



2 H 




THERE are probably good pen draughtsmen in Belgium, 
Holland, Austria, and Russia. But the best known artists 
of all these countries almost invariably leave their native land to 
live in Venice with Van Haanen, or in Paris with Jan Van 
Beers, Munkacsky, and Chelmonsky, or in London with Alma 
Tadema. One feels as if even a country like Austria, where the 
only large comparative exhibition of black and white illustrative 
work has ever been held, — most of its examples as shown in the 
Catalogue, however, were very commonplace, — is out of artistic 
touch with the rest of Europe. The trouble is the illustrated 
books and papers — the exhibition rooms of pen drawing — of these 
countries do not circulate all over the world, as do those of 
France, Germany, England, and the United States. Niccolo Masic, 
a Hungarian I think, and Repine, a Russian, are men whose pen 
work stands out in any illustrated catalogue. In Masic's there is 
a suggestion of Vierge. In referring to nearly all illustrated cata- 
logues I also find that the same pictures, which have been the 
admiration of the Salon, travel around with their accompanying 
reproductions, from one art centre to another. 

It would be impossible to write of pen drawing in Europe 


and America without acknowledging the debt which all artists, 
who have thought and worked and striven in their art, owe to the 
Japanese. All know and try to reverently study the sketch-books, 
the drawings on silk, in fact all the decorative work of Japanese 
artists which is so freely and beautifully rendered by the pen, or 
rather by the brush. Whether these drawings are right according 
to instantaneous photography is of small importance ; they are the 
most beautiful, the most decorative, the most careful studies of 
birds and flowers, fish and animals, ever made. I do not even 
pretend to know the styles, nor would it be worth while to give a 
catalogue of the names of Japanese artists. But I do know that 
one can learn more about art, decoration, and beauty from a Japanese 
sketch-book, which can be bought at Batsford's, High Holborn, 
for half-a-crown, or at John Wanamaker's, Philadelphia, for fifty 
cents, than is often to be learned from a whole season of modern 
European picture-galleries. In making this assertion I am sure 
I should have the support of men like Habert-Dys, Felix R^*gamey, 
Alfred Brennan, Frederick Lungren, Abbey, and Parsons, as well 
as that of the commissioners, appointed by the Japanese Government, 
who have just said, in their report, that there is very little to learn 
in European art to-day. 

But unless one can assimilate Japanese methods to one's own 
requirements, in the manner of Brennan and Habert-Dys, — that 
is, unless one can engraft Japanese methods on European subjects, 
— it is better simply to study their drawings as an old master's 
pen work might be studied. Otherwise the result would be a 
medley, neither Japanese nor European, with about the value of a 
tea-chest made in Birmingham. 

I have no intention, however, of attempting a detailed account 
or analysis of Japanese pen drawing, for so different is it from 
European work that it would require a volume apart, and several very 
able books on Japanese art are to be had. 

After examining carefully the wonderful collection of Japanese 
drawings shown in the Burlington Fine Arts Club in the spring of 
1888, I cannot help thinking that it might be better for western 
artists to give up drawing with a pen and take to the brush — that 
is, I mean, the brush used by the Chinese and Japanese. We 
should get better effects of certain kinds with a brush than we can 


with a pen. In their making and reproduction of pen drawings, the 
Japanese are hundreds of years ahead of us in other ways. Their 
ink is better than any we have, their wood-engravers are far more 
sympathetic, reverent, and careful than even the fac-simile men of 
America, and their printing is excellent.^ 

^ I sec no reason to alter what I have said very large and complete. But it did not show 
after seeing the Paris Exhibition. The display me that any other but the countries I have men- 
of printed books, drawings, and engravings was tioned possesses a great and original illustrator. 




A RCHITECTURAL drawing to-day is not artistic. Of course 
^^^- architects would explain that it is not intended to be so ; 
but I maintain that in one of its branches it should be, and it 
is of this only that I have any right to speak. I am not an 
architect, and therefore I am not qualified to criticise technical 
architectural drawing. 

But, on referring to Mr. R. Phene Spiers's book on the subject, 
which has just appeared, I find he says that the term architectural 
drawing " is intended to include every kind of drawing which 
may have to be executed by an architect at any period of his career, 
whether for the purposes of elementary study, professional practice, 
or recreation." As such a variety covers all sorts of artistic and 
mechanical work, I feel myself as free to speak of the artistic side as 
Mr. Spiers himself. 

Architectural draughtsmen have opportunities of making artistic 
drawings, but they seldom take advantage of them. Nor is this, as 
is sometimes supposed, because exactness prevents their seeing 
the picturesque, or rather the artistic side of architectural drawing. 
The truth is they are often much less exact than artists, for the 
simple reason that they know too much. They understand so well 
how a building should be, that they do not see it as it is. As a 
very striking example of what I say, I would refer the reader to the 

2 I 


American ArcJiitect for 23d July 1887, in which the results of 
a competition v/ere published. A photograph of an old house in 
Normandy had been given as a subject, and of the dozen or more 
drawings made from it by as many draughtsmen, none had the 
slightest pretensions to architectural exactness or artistic truth, or 
more especially to technical knowledge of pen drawing, save those 
drawn by Harry Fenn and J. D. Woodward, the only artists 
represented. I have before me at this moment a drawing by a 
Royal Academician of a recently erected public building, in which 
he has been careful to omit certain prominent and very artistic 
details of his own, in order to insert the stone jointing which, 
if actually true, would make each stone as big as an Egyptian 

The drawings to which I refer were not working drawings 
intended for architects only, but were meant to be shown to the 
general public. If it be said they were done to the best of the 
ability of the architectural draughtsmen this is but a proof of my 
assertion that architects to-day are not artistic draughtsmen. Of 
course I am not here concerned with working drawings, details, 
and perspectives for the architect's own use, which are technical 
architectural drawings and not drawings of architecture — a difference 
pointed out by the late Mr. E. W. Godwin. But there is no reason 
why the drawings architects make for the public or for their clients 
should not be artistic. Mr. Spiers says the public, as a rule, fail 
"to estimate correctly from a drawing of any description the pro- 
portion, mass, or scale of a building." He then says, farther on, 
that in competition for an exhibition, however, the object is "to set 
off the drawing in an attractive manner ^ (The italics are his.) 
" The finish of the drawing and the method by which this is attained, 
whether in pen and ink or tinting in monochrome or colours, is 
consequently of some importance." He again says, "A study of 
an important building, in which colour forms the chief element of 
its beauty, as in one of the Venetian palaces, St. Mark's at Venice, 
Giotto's tower at Florence, or a portion of the interior of the church 
at Assisi, may claim long expenditure of time, because these subjects 
are worth it, and art as well as nature (or the effect produced by age) 
have contributed to their beauty." On the whole, Mr. Spiers's book 
only shows that he does appreciate the fact, though he is loath, as is 


almost every architect, to acknowledge it, that architectural drawing 
must be artistic if it is to have any value. He also quotes Mr. 
Ware, who says that architectural drawing lies between mechanical 
and artistic draughtsmanship ; therefore unless a student has studied 
both mechanical and artistic draughtsmanship, as he does in the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, — Mr. Ware's school, — I 
should very much like to know how he is to tell when he is either 
mechanical or artistic. That the architectural student commonly 
knows nothing about artistic drawing — in London at any rate — 
Mr. Spiers himself admits, since he says that probably not more 
than one per cent of the articled pupils here avail themselves of 
the opportunity of attending the schools of art. 

In looking into the three divisions of architectural drawing 
as defined by an architect, Mr. Maurice B. Adams, ^ it is clear that 
but one — that which includes working plans and details — is ex- 
clusively technical. These are not for exhibition or publication 
any more than are the anatomical studies of the painter. Detail 
drawings and elevations are the anatomical drawings of architecture. 
But it is quite different with drawings prepared for clients or 
exhibition, in which what is needed is picturesque and graphic 
perspective, as well as exactness. That even to architects they 
do not answer the purpose of working drawings is easily to be 
seen, since the draughtsman, to make them intelligible architecturally, 
has to supplement them with a frieze of plans and elevations. 
And certainly clients and public would take more interest and 
pleasure in them if the perspective drawings were picturesque as 
well as conventionally correct. But if the architectural draughtsman 
is to attain this picturesqueness, if he is to be concerned with his 
sky-lines and "the general massing of parts for effect," he must 
have knowledge of something beyond the mere construction of 
elevations. He must do as he is made to do in the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, for example : study decoration, perspective, 
the point of view, outline, interiors, etc. ; quite as important, if 
an artistic result is to be attained, as a knowledge of the resisting 
power of wood or metal which any engineer understands ten times 
as much about as any architect. He must be not simply an 

■^ Lecture on Architectural Drawing delivered before the Royal Institute of British Architects, 
and published in the Transactions of that Society. 


architect but an artist as well, and if artists cannot be made, 
neither can architects. Mr. Adams seems to realise the increasing 
tendency to forget this fact. He says, " It seems to me more than ever 
desirable in this essentially commercial age of push and steam, to 
take particular care lest we allow the science of building to crush out 
the higher and nobler spirit which constitutes the life and character of 
our Art." Mr. Walter Millard in a paper read before the Archi- 
tectural Association was even more emphatic on the subject. " Every 
day," he declared, "it seems to be more generally understood, that 
the first thing necessary for good architecture is that the architects 
must be artists. Good designs are not to be produced by accident 
any more than good pictures or good sculpture, but by men endowed 
with artistic ability, who have taken all care to cultivate it to the 

But it is not merely for the benefit of clients and public that 
architects should aim to become artistic draughtsmen. If they 
are unable to draw — that is, see artistically — they cannot build art- 
istically, and here again I may quote Mr. Adams. " If," he says, 
" drawing for the architect is only at best a means to an end, 
we must, if we aim at good architecture, have correspondingly 
able and sympathetic draughtsmanship." Mr. Burges also urged 
the artistic training of architects. He even went so far as to say^ 
"no amount of architectural drawing would make a man an artist 
or an architect, unless he knows the human figure. When the 
Institute draws for itself instead of going to past ages, we may 
have an architecture." Mr. Millard advocates the "habit of 
sketching " in the student or draughtsman of architecture, because it 
" must tend to bring out whatever artistic ability he may happen to 
be endowed with, to accustom his eye to appreciate delicacies of form, 
subtlety of proportion, and beauty of composition, and all those 
niceties that go to make just the difference between the work of an 
artist and a ' cobbler ' ; thereby to set him thinking and rouse his 
imagination ; and in a word, to at once furnish him with ideas, and 
give him skill and readiness in expressing them." 

Of the architects of to-day Mr. Ernest George, who has a 
world-wide reputation among architects as a draughtsman, builds 
houses which have the most character of their own. This was 

^ Paper on Architectural Drawing, published in Transactions of the R. I. B. A. for 1S60-61. 


also the case with Mr. Richardson in America. That details can 
be drawn artistically, as well as accurately, thus interesting not 
only architects but artists also, is shown by the careful, beautiful 
drawing of a capital by Mr. Spiers, published in the Transactions 
of the Royal Institute of British Artists, and by the wonderful 
detail drawing of the porch of St. Paul's by Mr. Schultz. And 
though these are merely technical drawings for the benefit of 
architects, they are filled with the feeling for art, and real love 
for the artistic possibilities, and beauty of the subject drawn. But 
to call the slovenly notes by Mr. Street,^ which may have been 
useful to himself, an admirable example of a useful drawing, or 
the checker-board windows of Mr. Norman Shaw's perspectives 
fine, makes one admire the half-trained, but very ambitious, efforts 
of a man like Mr. Beresford Pite, to cut himself loose from such 
very careless masters. 

For the last hundred years or more, English and American 
architects have been trained apart, without coming within artistic 
influence, with the result shown in the buildings which line the 
streets of American and English cities. The trouble is that 
architects must be business men first, social swells next, and then 
engineers, sanitary authorities, builders and surveyors, — if they 
happen to have a slight knowledge of art, it will not do them any 
harm. Architecture in our times is too much of a business, too 
little of an art. Like the law, it has become a good opening for 
impecunious younger sons. As Mr. Millard says, if architecture 
is "nothing less than the entire profession of building-surveying, 
with a knowledge of the quality and market value of all kinds 
of material and labour sufficient for an enterprising contractor ; 
a grasp of physical science, constructive formulae, and methods 

1 Mr. Street is responsible for the greater part unfortunately they have given him the reputation 
of the present slovenliness of architectural drawing of being master of a subject — drawing and sketch- 
in England. He not only drew very carelessly, ing — of which he was not even a proficient pupil, 
though probably well enough to suit his own ends, The worst of it is, that drawings which he prob- 
but he was one of those men who insist that an ably would be ashamed to show, were he alive, 
architect must do everything for himself, even are published in architectural journals as models 
down to the most trifling and mechanical details. for students, with the result that in the last 
Instead of getting artists to draw his perspectives, few years, architectural drawing has greatly 
he always drew them himself They may, even degenerated. 
if not artistic, have answered his purpose, but 


of calculation so essential to an engineer ; acquaintance with 
authorities, and skill in expounding the mysteries of easements 
and arbitrations, compensations and contracts, and cases of ' ancient 
lights,' such that a lawyer might envy ; as well as a general capacity 
for conducting affairs of all management of property, insurance 
agency, or advertising ; in fact so many and such varied accomplish- 
ments, — the wonder is, what room there can be left for architecture 

In looking over years of architectural Avork, I do not see any 
drawings which, artistically, can equal those made by professional 
illustrators who have absolutely no pretensions to architectural 
science. The consequence is, I can only recommend to the student 
of architectural pen drawing the work of these illustrators. Some 
architects, especially in America, — M'Kim, Meade and White, 
Carrere and Hastings, for example, — have their perspectives drawn 
by artists, and an art which in the hands of its own craftsmen 
is perfectly stupid, by artistic draughtsmen has been made attractive 
to the public, as well as to architects themselves. Notable 
examples of this are the illustrations for Mrs. Van Renssalaer's 
series on American Architecture in the Century, and M. Camille 
Piton's drawings in Harper s ; and all or nearly all these drawings 
were made by painters or draughtsmen ; Avhile there are many 
French illustrators, such as Lucien Gautier and H. Scott, whose 
work is equally good. If this were done more frequently, and 
such drawings were hung at the Royal Academy, there would 
be less complaint that the public does not appreciate architectural 
drawing. The public does not care for technical drawings, which, 
though good from an architectural standpoint, are utterly unin- 
telligible to all but architects, any more than it would prefer 
an anatomical study to a portrait. One cannot be expected to 
admire in a drawing trees which look like masses of wire work 
or wooden toy trees ; or the graceful lines of a beautiful building, 
when drawn as if from a balloon or the bottom of a well. Neither 
can one enjoy drawings set up with all the crudities and imper- 
fections of the draughtsmanship of three or four hundred 3'ears 
ago; or drawings perfectly artless in execution, in which all the 
laws of light and shade are ignored, even though the buildino-s 
represented may look brand-new, and have all the jointing of their 


Stone-work carefully drawn out. In the Architectural Gallery of 
the Royal Academy of 1887 I only remember two or three drawings 
which appealed to me : one water-colour by Mr. Lessore, and pencil 
and wash drawings by Mr. Arnold B. Mitchell. The pen drawings 
were utterly uninteresting and inartistic, and yet when you came 
to look at them, you saw that artistic results could have been 
had in all, without in the least detracting from their architectural 
value. I must again repeat that I speak in this chapter only 
of drawings published and exhibited to the public, or made for 
clients, and which need not necessarily be subject to conventional 
architectural laws. 

Architects should give up showing the public inartistic repre- 
sentations of what may have been artistic originals, and instead, 
have their buildings photographed, confining themselves to their 
often very beautiful working drawings for practical purposes ; or 
better still, secure the aid of an artistically trained draughtsman ; 
or, best of all, arrange their system of architectural education so 
that the coming generation of architects will know some little about 
art, and not become mere business men with no artistic appreciation 
of the profession of architecture. But, as I have said, I cannot 
mention a single architectural draughtsman of to-day whose work 
I would recommend to students who wish to make artistic pen 
drawings of architecture. In this connection architects will probably 
note the omission of several well-known names. I probably know 
the work of these men as well as architects themselves. But 
artistically it does not compare with that of the illustrators upon 
whose style theirs is modelled. 

Even at meetings of architects, drawings by artists are shown 
as models of what the drawing of architecture should be. I cannot 
but differ, however, from architects who uphold Turner as a model, 
simply because Mr, Ruskin has said that he "leads to rightness." 
This cannot be believed by any one who has studied Turner's 
work, and the buildings which he drew or painted. I can think 
of no worse architectural work for artists or architects to study 
than that of Turner. He cared to show places and buildings, not 
as they really are, but as it pleased him that they should look. 
Rightness was nothing to him. He was never half so accurate as 
Mr. Ruskin himself. 


Finally, in its greatest days, architecture was an art practised 
by painters and sculptors ; so it must be to be an art at all. To 
think that any one can make an architectural drawing, to say 
nothing of building a house of any artistic value, without being 
an artist, is absurd. One cannot produce art work until after years 
of patient study, and in order to secure artistic results, one has got 
to know what good drawing is, and then be able to do it. 

Probably architects will suppose that I intend setting up as 
a rival to Lord Grimthorpe. But the reason I write as I do is 
because I have such a great respect for artistic architecture. When 
one sees around one all traces of old London, or rather of old 
England, disappearing under the puny hands of knighted and titled 
jerry builders, drain constructors and sanitary engineers ; when the 
old churches of the city rise up from their beauty, scraped, white- 
washed, and re-arranged according to the ideas of these decorators, 
house-painters, and upholsterers, one can do nothing but utter 
what of course will be an unavailing protest against the unchecked 
sway of the building trade, into which architecture in this country 
is degenerating. 


2 K 




"P ECENTLY certain artists have sought 
-*-^ to separate the conventional decoration 
of books from their pictorial illustration, and 
to treat each as a distinct art. Though, in a 
measure, the illustrator has become divorced 
from the decorator, there is no real reason 
for this separation. In the greatest age of 

book decoration, I believe the decorator and illustrator worked together, and 

were in the best examples one and the 

same man. No one would ever deny that 

Durer or Holbein, Mantegna or Bellini, or 

whoever illustrated many of the beautiful 

books from the Aldine press, was not both 

decorator and illustrator ; if the work was 

not actually done by the same hand, it was 

the product of the same mind. No one 

but a master of anatomy, of figure drawing, 

could have produced the figures which are 

interwoven in the decoration of almost all 

these works. I refer, not to the pictures 

inserted in the text, in the initial letters 

or in the margins, but to the conventional 

decorative figures themselves. Neither do 



( N 

I mean to say that Dlirer did all the work with 
his own hand ; I would as soon assert that he 
drew and cut all his wood blocks, but he invented 
it, sketched it and touched it up. And as with 
Dtirer, so with the other great book decorators 
m the past. 

But while I have no intention of separating 
the illustrator and the decorator, since I believe 
no such separation should be recognised, there Is 
a distinction between drawings which, while they 
ornament the text, are specially intended for its 
elucidation, and those which, though they may 
illustrate the text, are intended primarily to orna- 
ment the page according to conventional rules. 
Of these latter I propose to speak here. Of the 
drawings reproduced in other chapters, there is 
not one which would not be a decoration in any 
book ; many I now give are illustrative ; and yet 
a certain difference in motives and in treatment, 
even when conventional laws are set aside, is 

The old MSS., the missals, and early printed 
books were treated very much as are modern 
illustrated publications. The MSS. were made 
rich with ornament, sometimes confined to a very 
elaborate initial letter, sometimes extending^ down 
the margins, and they also contained many pictures 
wholly realistic in treatment, either placed in the 
page very much as are the cuts in our magazines, 
or else so interwoven with the ornament as to 
be almost inseparable from it. And so it was 
with the early printed books. At times the text 
was enclosed in a border of graceful spirals or 
purely conventional forms ; at others it enclosed 



a picture ; often picture and ornament were not to be 
separated. These MSS. and books, therefore, are a mine 
to the modern illustrator, but it is a mine which I do not 
intend to work. In the first place, those in which the 
most beautiful examples occur were either printed in 
colour, or afterwards coloured by hand, and were not 
meant to be seen in black and white ; consequently when 
one does reproduce them in black and white, the effect 
is frequently extremely poor. Such use of old decora- 
tion which has no mechanical relation to modern printing, 
instead of being praiseworthy, really calls for all the con- 
demnation which I have lately heard devoted to what is 
known in this country as American work — that is, work 
in which the artist, the engraver, and the printer have 
striven together, as they did of old, to produce beautiful 
and appropriate results, such as are to be seen in the 
books of Abbey and Parsons and of Howard Pyle. 
Modern work of this kind, however, is really no more 
American than it is French or German ; look, for example, 
at Leloir's Sentimental Jotirney or Manon Lescant, or at 
Poirson's Vicar of Wakefield, from which I regret to say 
I have been unable to show examples, not finding it pos- 
sible to obtain the necessary permission from the pub- 
lishers. This old work was mainly conventional or sym- 
bolical ; to-day we have found that realistic drawings 
decorate a page as well as geometrical forms, and that 
a flower by Alfred Parsons or a vase by Jules Jacquemart 
is quite as decorative as the illustrations in any old missal, 
and infinitely superior to the realistic decoration which the 
old rnen themselves used. 



Mornine in LONDON. 

A second reason for not giving examples of old book decoration is 
that, even when not coloured, it was drawn on the wood and seldom 
engraved by the artist himself, and therefore, to a certain extent, was 
not autographic. Of course drawing on the wood in the time of Durer 
and Holbein, especially when intended for the decoration of the text, 
was more or less conventional, as a reference to the etched work of the 
same men will show. The artist, when working for the engraver, could, 
by drawing less freely, do much to help him to obtain accurate results 
and to lighten his labour. As we are often reminded, artists and crafts- 
men then worked together. Books were produced entirely by art 
workmen in a workshop, a beautiful example of which remains to-day 
in the Plantin Museum at Antwerp, with its type -founding rooms, its 
artists' designing rooms and designs, its printing presses, and its 
"hutches" for tame authors and artists and proof-readers; it was the 
house, the home, and the workshop of the publisher. But save that 
publishers and authors and artists do not live on the premises, the same 



IgCfcj^ ^ 












state of affairs, carried out in a much broader manner than even Plantin 
would have thought possible, will be found in many of the great publish- 
mg houses to-day. However, because we see the business details and the 
shoppy working of such firms, and because they have produced results 
undreamed of by Durer or Plantin, only the beautiful side of whose 
work survives, we younger men are told by unsuccessful engravers, 
visionary dreamers, incompetent middlemen, or mediocre illustrators, 
that we must go back to the time of Durer, that we must give up our 
improved printing presses, our process work, our overlays, and our art 
for the people, made by the people and enjoyed by the people, and 
return to the work which was made only for the few and given to the 
few — to the fine illustrated volumes intended rather as curiosities for 
presentation to popes and kings and nobles, than books which the 
people, or even artists, should ever see. If this is to be, why should 
we stop with the Renaissance, with the decorative work of Rome, with 
those mummy cases of Egypt which show how much more the Greeks 
knew about painting than Giotto, or why should we look at the beauty 
of Greek art at all ? Why, the reasoning of these people would carry 
us back to painting ourselves blue and drawing with a burnt stick on 
the walls of a cave. 

The great difference between the conditions ot early and modern 
book-making is too often lost sight of, and yet, without understanding 
it, it is impossible to justly value the great development accomplished in 

illustration and decoration within the last few years. The old illustrators 
attempted the same scheme of illustration as that which is carried out 
to-day ; they would have used the same realism had it been possible 
— or the same idealism, whichever you choose to call it, for I suppose 
it is universally admitted that between idealism and realism of the 
highest kind there is no difference ; — they arranged their pages in the 
same manner, a manner which is praised in their work and condemned 
in ours ; but they had not the same technical knowledge or the same 
mechanical facilities. To begin with, the methods of the printers of 
the fifteenth century could not be applied to the large editions of to-day. 
The old books, which either were carefully chained in one place or were 
the rare possessions of the great of the earth, could be decorated to any 
extent ; their size was not an important consideration. But if the books 
of to-day — intended for wide circulation — were equally decorated, with 
every page of text enclosed in a border as in books of the fifteenth and 
sixteenth centuries, they would be so swollen as to be almost entirely 
unmanageable. This is a fact regretted by a select few, though even if 
the old methods could be applied to modern editions, they would not 
equal those now adopted. We are told much about Caxton and Dtirer, 
Holbein and Plantin. But were these men living to-day, instead of 
looking back to Gutenberg and MS. illuminators who were their pre- 
decessors, they would use steam presses and avail themselves of every 
appliance of mechanics, science and art, as they did in their own day, thus 



placing themselves far in advance of their time and their contemporaries. 
The draughtsman to-day who is most in sympathy with Diirer is he who 
adapts his work to the methods of Theodore de Vinne in New York or 
the Guillaume Freres in Paris. It is owing to the progressive men who 
have not spent their time lamenting the past and mourning present 
degeneracy, but have always sought to advance, that the world has de- 
veloped at all. To have the inventions and improvements of to-day called 
bad because they were . mechanical impossibilities three hundred years 
ago is rubbish ; and it is on such rubbish that modern art is nourished. 

For a time, especially about the beginning of this century, it seemed 
as if the art of book decoration was dormant. There was, it is true, 
what was accepted as decoration, but it was really desecration. Old 
books were borrowed from unreservedly and their designs used without 
the least sense of fitness or proportion. A publisher would not have 
hesitated to embellish a cook-book with head and tail pieces from the 
Divine Comedy. He employed decorators — really desecrators — to 
scrawl all over the inside and outside of his book covers, and to spread 
themselves unrestrainedly on the pages in the most obnoxious manner. 
This sort of thing came to a crisis in the Books of Beauty. The 
consequence was that many draughtsmen in disgust gave up all attempt 
at decoration. But within the last few years a new impetus has been 
given to the decoration of books, — using the term to express the dis- 

2 L 



tinction I have pointed out, — and it is to this modern woric that I will 
pay most attention, since it alone, having been done for reproduction by 
process, comes within my present scope. 

The principal conventional motives were very early evolved in 
every country ; we have, as a rule, endeavoured to make little or no 
advance upon them, and they are still accepted as standards only admis- 
sible of slight changes. This, however, is far from meaning that all 
that is possible to-day is to copy what has already been done. No 
matter how conventional the treatment or what the motive, the decora- 
tion should have some relation not only to the size and shape of the 
page, but to the subject of the text. If we surround our pages with 
designs of the sixteenth century — as some draughtsmen still do and 
would have all others do — which have no relation to the text, it is 
not decoration but senseless display. Durer's designs for the Missal 
of Maximilian might be appropriate to a nineteenth -century prayer- 
book, but there must be a great lack of ideas on the part of the 
nineteenth -century illustrator who cannot work into sixteenth -century 
forms nineteenth-century feeling. It is always wise to go to Durer, to 
Meckenen, to Mantegna, or to any of the illustrators of the fifteenth 
and sixteenth centuries for motives, but to literally copy their designs 
and to print them on a modern page reveals an absolute sterility of 
invention or a conservative servility which is disgusting. The accom- 
panying cuts of the two little angels carrying the crown and St. George 
and the Dragon show how admirably some of Durer's work would be 
adapted to many of our needs ; but on looking through Howard Pyle's 
Otto of the Silver Hand, one finds the little tail -pieces there have 
much the same motives and are carried out in much the same spirit, 
and yet are altogether original in subject, while they are reproduced 
mechanically with an ease which would have surprised DUrer. There 
is probably no draughtsman as successful as Howard Pyle in working 
in the manner of the sixteenth-century artists, always, however, adding 
something distinctly his own. His mediseval tales have given him aood 
reason to adhere to the old models. The book I have just mentioned 



would not have been so appropriately- 
illustrated with designs less conven- 
tional in treatment and more modern 
in feeling ; the full pages, though re- 
produced by process, look like old wood blocks ; the head and tail 
pieces at a glance might be mistaken for Diirer's. But that Pyle 
knows how utterly out of place these designs would be in books 
relating to other periods is proved by the very different methods he 
employs for other subjects. His Pepper and Salt gives an excellent 
idea of the great extent of his knowledge and his perfect under- 
standing of the limitations and possibilities of the decoration of a page. 
An equally good example of the perfect use of old methods en- 
grafted on modern work is to be found in the cover — too large to be 
reproduced here — of any number of the Miinchejier Kalender. In it 
again all the old feeling is preserved, and yet we find the proper 
adaptation to modern requirements in the coat of arms, the eagle, 
and the emblems of the printer by whom it is issued. But still, I 
cannot help saying that from my standpoint at any rate, such schemes 
of decoration as those by Grasset are even more appropriate. In 
his work we have, in the first place, the old decorative line in the 
borders, in the centre are the charming little suggestions of a picture 
carried out exactly in the way the old men would have done it, realistic 
figures and landscape being given in a shape which accords with, and 
decorates and illustrates the page at the same time. A realistic picture 
can be just as decorative as any number of conventional lines. The 
illustrations of the earlier illustrators seem more conventional to us^ 
simply because technical conditions allowed them less freedom than 
is now possible. I say and I maintain that there is no earthly reason, 
save narrow, conservative, hide -bound tradition or inability to draw, 



which prevents the modern man from producing 
decoration of this sort. The designs are not only 
well drawn, but are perfectly appropriate in their 
places, and they prove Grasset's power to pro- 
duce decoration which has some relation to the nineteenth century as well 
as to the Catalogue of the Paris Salon which he was illustrating ; just as 
the decorative illustrations of sixteenth-century artists had some relation 
to their time. The mixing up of conventionalism and realism in decoration 
is to be found in almost any old book. 

But because, if I may so express it, realism prevails in the decorative 
work of Alfred Parsons, though he is able to draw flowers as no one else 
ever drew them, and to fill his page with the mingling of decoration and 
realism that Durer never dreamt of, though his every line is as beautiful as 
Diirer's, are we not to use it, not to study it ? As far as I can see, the 
only reason why it should be considered not altogether right is because it 
is produced to-day, and because there is no one else in the world who 
can do anything like it. It is interesting to compare the photogravure 
after Parsons in the English Chapter with the designs by Walter Crane 
worked out in such a different spirit. The organic lines in the latter are 
very beautiful, but the Parsons' plate, and also the heading In SJiakcspcares 


Coitntry, show there is 
of decorative drawing 
think a great deal better 
to books pubHshed to- 
Crane's work are two 
made, not for any 
Messrs. Clark, that is 
Fine as all are, they 
tion of two, absolutely 
can see, to the work of 
er or the publisher, and 
itself to any one. On 
Echoes of Hellas, he 
his splendid ideas of 
design is appropriate, 
out that he seems to 
dern life and feeling to 
referring only to his 
notable examples in 

ler and newer way 
which I, for my part, 
and more appropriate 
day. The examples of 
of a series of designs 
special books, but for 
for trade purposes, 
have, with the excep- 
no relation, as far as I 
the printer, the engrav- 
a design should explain 
the other hand, in his 
has really carried out 
decoration, while the 
I simply want to point 
object to applying mo- 
decoration. I am here 
pen drawing. The only 
which he has succeeded 
old cover oiSt. Nicholas 
But even in them there is a con- 

in doing this are the 
and the cover of the Chants of Laboti,r. 
ventionality for which I do not admit the necessity. I do not consider 
that conventional or geometrical lines are more decorative than any 
others ; and this. Parsons' work proves, as also does that of men like 
Caran D'Ache and Rochegrosse and Mars, who work the life of to-day 
into their initials and decorations instead of trying to copy old conven- 
tionality. Look at the swallow by Habert-Dys, or the tail-pieces by Unger. 

A C H number of the English Illustrated Magazine 
has always contained reproductions of old work and 
new designs which were appropriate to, and specially designed for, 
the articles they decorated. Among them I cannot help mentioning — 
though they are not drawn in pen and ink — several by A. C. Morrow 
for articles on different industries ; these were most decorative and most 
appropriate, and I only regret they were not done in pen and ink, so that 
I might use them. Caldecott and Herbert Railton and Hugh Thomson, 
the two latter in their Coaching Ways and Coaching Days, have produced 
head and tail pieces which were most appropriate, as well as good in 
design. But the best decorative work in the Eno;lish Illustrated is to 
be seen in many drawings by Alfred Parsons, Heywood Sumner, and 
Henry Ryland. To my mind Heywood Sumner's illustrations to his 
article on Undine are the most beautiful decorations it has yet published. 
And if all of his drawings are worked out in a more quaint than decora- 
tive style, they often convey the ideas of the life, character, and feeling 
of the time and country he was illustrating or decorating, though some- 
times, notably in The Besom-Maker, he seems to have striven only 
to perpetuate the imperfections and crudities. 

A set of men in England who have persistently set themselves up 
solely as conventional decorators are the artists of the Century Guild, 
and three of their designs they have kindly loaned me. Selwyn Image, 
Arthur Mackmurdo, and Herbert Home are the best known of these 
men who, to me in an incomprehensible manner, refuse to make use of 
any of the adjuncts with which science has in our time furnished the 
book-maker. The full page drawing of Diana is so remarkably well 
done that one sees, if it were not that Herbert Home refuses to make 




himself comprehensible to the ordinary mortal, he might easily do much more 
good in the world and fill a far wider sphere than the narrow niche in which 
he deliberately places himself It would be difficult to explain in what way 

art is served by using bad paper ; and from the stand- 
point of printing illustrations, the paper of the Hobby- 
Horse is thoroughly bad, handmade papers of all sorts 
being unsuitable for the printing of pen drawings, or any 
illustrations printed from blocks, in fact. The initial by 
Home is of equal value with that by Bridwell given 
farther on, but it is no better. The tailpiece also is 
extremely good, that is, the spaces are well kept. It 
may have some hidden meaning ; to me, however, its only meaning is the 
beauty of line. Nor do I understand the printing of the Hobby-Horse page ; 
it is very good as a mass, but very bad for practical purposes, that is, for 
reading. In many of the decorative designs, notably the cover by Selwyn 
Image, I fail to grasp the significance or to discover any relation to any age ; 
and certainly, if Dlirer was right, the Hobby-Horse men are all wrong. I 
prefer to believe that a man like Albert Dtirer, whose work was understood 
by the people of his age, or Parsons, whose work is understood by those of 
to-day, really does more good than one whose designs can only be made 
intelligible by a continual reference to the history of symbolism. 

Those who have strong faith in the degeneracy of modern art often contend 
that we cannot make purely decorative initials equal to those of the men of the 
sixteenth century. That the initials of the old men were very beautiful and 
very decorative no one would be foolish enough to deny. 

^^/■\ ORE OVER, that in the original draw- 
ings there was far more refinement 
than could be given in the woodcuts, 
we know from the little blocks with 
the drawings on them, for one reason 
'^ or another left uncut, and now to be 
seen in the Plantin Museum. In 
delicacy of execution this work is 
very much akin to modern pen draw- 
ing, and would be reviled, was its 
)-) existence known to them, by those 
who now can find praise only for 
_ the really excessively bad reproduc- 
Ol/I tions of that early period. Indeed, 
there is no better proof of the fact 
that, before the days of process, much of the draughtsman's work was lost in 
the cutting than a comparison between these drawings on the block and the 

printed initials of the same date, while the realistic treatment in the original 
drawing also shows that much of the old conventionalism was due to the 
limitations of the woodcutter. But that the designing of initials is not a 
lost art is demonstrated by reference to the initials by Bridwell, designed for 
and published in the Century Magazine, two of which the Century Company 
have allowed me to reproduce, as well as those by the Century Guild artists 
to which I have just referred. They are quite equal to any initials ever 
designed. The actual drawing in Bridwell's lines might in places be some- 
what firmer, but it must be admitted that some of Diirer's work of this kind 
is about as slovenly as possible. Take Bridwell's letter S, for an initial to 
decorate an article on nature, or more especially on a pine wood, could anything 

be more appropriate 1 And it is ut- 
terly and entirely different in motive 
from the other ; one is classic, while 
the other shows the free motive of 
the Japanese. 

I have not published any Japanese 
designs because they are not appro- 
priate to a European work, not having 
been designed for it. But it is quite as 
admissible to use Japanese as classical 
motives, if we can adapt them to our 
purpose. Neither have I given any 
of the Europeanised Japanese of Felix 
Regamey who, of course, did so much 
to introduce this style to western 
illustrators. His work to me is always purely that of a European who attempts 
to be Japanese, and not the engrafting of European ideas on Japanese motives. 

2 M 


MONG all the men who have used Japanese sugges- 
tions, there is not one who has yet succeeded better 
than Habert-Dys. I confess I do not 
like the circular form of this design, 
because it is impossible to properly 
build it into the type, and though I 
grant, from this point of view, it is 
imperfect, it contains so many beauti- 
ful lines and so many good qualities 
that I do not hesitate to use it. An- 
other method of work adopted by 
Habert-Dys is his decorative treat- 
ment of birds. He most probably got 
his idea from Giacomelli, but he has 
improved on it and has added the 
Japanese feeling to the whole com- 
position, which has been copied all 
over the world. F. S. Church too has 
worked out this idea, but I do not 
think really as well as Habert-Dys. The little drawings of a cock fight by 
Renouard are as Japanese as they can be, but yet no Jap would have drawn 
them exactly like this. They are as French as they are Japanese. 

IRECT copying is, I insist, always bad, 
but in the initial and the tail-piece by 

Bracquemond there is most skilful com- 
bination of German and Japanese, while' 
the whole result is French. 

Not only the time but a country's 
national characteristics can be perfectly 
easily e.xpressed in book decoration. 
The two designs by E. Unger are as 
German as they possibly can be. A 
good deal of the tree drawing is bad 
and careless, though much of this may 
be due to the woodcutting, for it was 
drawn on wood. But the spaces are 
well filled, there is absolutely no mistaking the Munich model who has posed for 
the figure. The same can be said of the drawing by Walter Crane for the 
Chants of Labour, to which I have already called attention, where the work- 
man is most characteristically an Englishman, and where the whole space is 
better filled than in the example of lingers work, and the design is a great 
deal more aispropriate, for Unger's was made to be used as a head-piece in 



Universwn very much in the same manner as Walter Crane's designs were 
drawn for Messrs. Clark. 

I have said nothing as yet about decorative lettering. The pages of MSS. 
and early printed books are often 
held up as models, but effective as 
they are from a decorative stand- 
point, they are only too frequently 
extremely difficult to read, and, what- 
ever books may have been to their 
owners in the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries, they to-day are intended 
above all to be read. Those who 
believe decoration must be primarily 
useful, cannot but admit that a le- 
gible page is of far more value than a beautiful page which is unreadable. The 
MSS. are often, simply in their lettering, far more beautiful than any printed 
books. But the men who are held up to-day as masters of book decoration 
were only too ready to sacrifice this beauty in order to make use of the 
invention of printing, and by it to save time and labour. The profession of 
the scribe was doomed from the moment the first printed book was published. 
Just as the illustrators after Gutenberg recognised the folly of having the 





text, which accompanied their drawings, cut on wood instead of being set up 
in type, so it would be useless for the illustrator of the modern magazine to 

, seek to return to the methods of the first 

,rj^^ printers. There is not much doubt that a 
Wi,W book with all the lettering reproduced from 
the MSS. would be much more trying for 
readers than a book with all the text set up 
in type. However, for an occasional page 
or for a title page, the artists' lettering in- 
stead of the ordinary type is very charming. 
Walter Crane works, probably to a greater extent than any one else, in this 
manner. But I do not altogether like his lettering ; it is nearly always the 
same, it is not easy to read, and I do not think it is well spaced. Compare 
the sameness of his or Heywood Sumner's lettering with the infinite variety 
used by Alfred Parsons, or Howard Pyle, 
or Alfred Brennan. The latter vary their 
letterinsf to suit their text, and this Walter 
Crane and Heywood Sumner never do. 
Nor do they even draw it carefully. 
Though they believe type and decoration 
to be of equal importance they slight the 

Many examples of good conventional 
decorative work I cannot give, simply 
because it was designed for pages of a certain size and shape, and therefore 
would not be seen here in its proper relations, and justice could not be done 
to it. I can, however, refer the student to almost all American artists or 
other draughtsmen who contribute to American magazines. Reginald Birch 

has done much work which is filled with the feeling of 
the German Renaissance, in him developed by study in 
Munich. Ludwig S. Ipsen has brought his knowledge 
of Celtic art to the decoration of American books, where, 
however, one feels it to be a foreign element. Roger 
Riordan's designs for stained glass oua^ht to be men- 
tioned in this connection, for, reproduced in black and 
white, they become beautiful page decorations. George 
Wharton Edwards' decorative pen work is frequently 
very good, though it is not always very original. It 
would be an unpardonable omission to leave out Elihu 
Vedder, the greatest American decorator, in some ways 
the greatest decorator of modern times, if I were concerned with all forms of 
book decoration. But I am only treating of pen work, and Vedder seldom 

J i 'Lu, Wntn GimjV loroodm^ bird clid pafimt'^il' 
pLjbon Ktf 5pKif £d £^^-,Tks. world ,To wll; 
rohm wirn lijt-.i'n octan. , lal'tn, (^ aup, 
Gr'L tvtr |<u( la or jlowtr' did btobk if: 

«;<s — }inc€ whtn jrom countliii ^trmi liicstrst diddVoiv' 
1 roTn wrilkin^ wormi abouT ils roots oilow, 
Ir^m d.ra^on.- rkapis "mit'cliaip ib fossil btcm, 
Go btaur lovts Yruii',d kuman. p 

vuman. flowers aroto. 

vlJ Ktft GkoucTkU winc;£d kind amonJ ifs krdncKa / 
jiDtill jirtlliztd b/piauh/s ^pill ; 

^asT <^ rt-casT in ILcxt'Mri js sqppk moLilo/, 
Gkrou^k d.taHi c$ cn.anJ"£,«^ blrtiii tVaAi^Iomiiii^ciil. 

LV. r- 

Owa.5 pictqffd htrt.- wifii DoucJ"Ks ouhbriEdd triTt)' 
Jolossomtd witk siar^ uj^ontkt skys 5wart'|ac£., 
' CCj itk dlolain^ worlds "for |•rMi^,l"ka^ cool or djow 
t/ls n((5W" <?^ day, lika. Isavt^ tii«ir snadow^ cka5£. 




( ll 





n "/^2kiJ>."». w 


1 ' ro^^^^^^IStffe. ' 'r^^ 




. .. 1 

works with a pen, nor is his brush work carried out with the pen 
feeling. In France the late Paul Baudry did some very fine book 
decoration, but, as far as I know, his life was not devoted to this 
work, of which he has left comparatively few examples. Much the 
same can be said of Luc Ollivier Merson, whose drawings from his 
paintings are very decorative in feeling. In Germany there is an 
endless number of draughtsmen who use the work of Dtirer to a 
greater or less degree, copying it without the least attempt to adapt 
it to the special subjects they are illustrating. But I cannot attempt 
to give a complete list of the decorators for the simjole reason that all 
illustrators are decorators. 

Decoration is appropriateness, and it really makes no difference 
whether it is realistic or conventional, so long as it improves the 
appearance of the page. But at the same time I consider the modern 
thoroughly developed realistic work in its best form superior to that 
of the old men, because it shows most plainly the advances we have 
made in knowledge and technique. However, I cannot conceive how 
any liberal-minded person can fail to appreciate the fine qualities 
contained in the two drawings of birds by Habert-Dys and Herbert 

Home, one done with all the feeling of the nineteenth century, the other, good as it is, 
but a copy of the sixteenth. Both are equally decorative. 

Nowhere for a moment will such a statement be questioned, except in this country. 
But here, within the last thirty years, people have been continuously taught to believe 
that book decoration, like all other art work, to be artistic must have a spiritual, moral, 
social, political, literary, or sixteenth -century value, while beauty of line and perfection 
of execution have been subordinated to these qualities ; as a result the many pay no 
attention to the real artistic merits or defects of a drawing, but simply consider it from 
an entirely inartistic standpoint. The excuse is the elevation of the masses and the 
reformation of the classes. Art will never accomplish either of these desirable ends, 
its only function being to give pleasure, but this pleasure will be obtained from good 
work produced in any fashion. If the work is equally well, or, as usually happens, 
better done in a modern style, it will give more pleasure to a greater number, simply 
because it will be far more widely understood. 


2 N 



A S I have said before, the making of a pen drawing is the 
-^^- simplest process possible. Only four things are absolutely 
necessary — that is besides the rather indispensable qualification, 
ability. First, a piece of white paper; second, a hard lead-pencil, 
with its adjuncts, a very sharp knife and a rubber ; third, a pen ; 
and fourth, a bottle of ink. 

First, as to the paper : the photo-engraver will tell you that the 
only paper to be used is hard white Bristol board, which undoubtedly 
is excellent, and can be worked on more freely with less practice than 
any other paper. When I say with less practice, I mean you must 
have just about the same amount of preparation as a great violinist 
has before he ever appears in public. The comparison is not out of 
place, for there are not more great pen draughtsmen to-day than there 
are great violinists. But Bristol board is at times very cumbersome 
to take about with one ; when it is more than two sheets in thickness 
it will not roll without breaking. Though I know every photo- 
engraver will declare that my advice will "drive him mad," I can 
recommend several other kinds of paper on which good results can 
be had. As to whose Bristol board you use, it is of no particular 
importance. Goodall's is excellent, but as good is made by Pierre 
and Sons, and other firms. I have heard that Reeves' mounting 
board is also good. You must only be careful to get a board which 


is uniformly hard, and has been well dried, and through the surface 
of which the pen will not cut as it does sometimes on badly made 
boards. With good Bristol board, a good pen and great practice, you 
ought to be able to draw as freely in any direction as with a needle 
on an etching plate. But you cannot do this after six weeks' or even 
six months' work. The chances are you will never be able to. It 
is interesting to know that Vierge uses Bristol board. You can see 
the trade mark, Bristol A. L., in a garter, a very well-known mark, 
shining through a drawing on page 73 of Pablo de Sdgovie, a book 
which no one who cares about pen drawing should fail to possess. 

Probably the next easiest paper to draw on with a pen is London 
board, which I believe is Whatman paper pressed into sheets. It is 
usually very good, but you must be very careful to get it from a 
reliable dealer, or you will be sure to find soft places. I have always 
had mine from Newman in Soho Square and have found it excellent. 
However, any thin smooth paper, mounted and pressed, is extremely 
good, and if you go to Roberson and Co., Long Acre, they will mount 
and press it for you better than any one I know of. 

The next paper I might mention is one against which I know 
photo-engravers will and do exclaim, that is good, hard, smooth writing- 
paper without any lines or water marks. Why they object I do not 
know, as either they or the artist, after the drawing has been made, 
can with a little care mount the paper, thus making it as solid as 
Bristol board. The results are certainly equal to those to be obtained 
on Bristol board. I have made many drawings on this paper. More- 
over, a great convenience is that in making a tracing from an original 
sketch in which you may wish to preserve its fresh feeling, you can 
fasten a sheet of thin hard correspondence paper over your original 
sketch, and the paper being so thin, you can see the drawing right 
through and work on the top of it. Lalanne and many others used 
paper of this kind. 

Another paper is good hard Whatman paper with a slight grain. 
The photo-engraver will object to this too, but in the reproduction 
the result is a broken line, which, in the case of old houses, gives a 
richness to be had in no other way. This is a point on which most 
writers on art would give very explicit and elaborate directions. But 
all I shall say is, if you use Whatman paper, get whatever kind or 
quality suits you best. It is all very hard to work on at first, because 


the pen catches in the interstices of the grain, splutters and drags over 
the paper, and often runs into it, malcing a great blot very difficult to 
erase. I find Newman's art tablets, which consist of Whatman paper 
pasted on both sides of a stiff board, excellent. You can work on 
both sides and then split the tablet down the middle. It may be well 
to note that to remove blots, or to tone down lines that are too hard, 
a very useful instrument is a razor ; though there is a French eraser 
with a curved blade, made for working on Papier Gillot, which is still 
better. The simplest plan, however, is to paste a piece of paper over 
the blot, and to join the lines at the edges. 

White crayon papers are used most cleverly by Frenchmen, like 
Ulysse Butin and Lhermitte, and by Americans, especially by Tabor 
and Lungren ; while Reinhart works on Bristol board in the same 
way. Part of the drawing, which is usually large and bold, is put in 
with ordinary lithographic crayon, or crayon coiitd, some of the blacks 
often with a brush, and the delicate work with a pen. The grain, or 
crayon, leaves ridges, which of course reproduce white. No attempt 
must be made to use stumps, or to get an even tone by filling up 
these accidental whites. The result is like a charcoal drawing with 
pen work on it. 

There are various sorts of grained paper, the most popular being 
that with a horizontal line, which may be taken for the middle tone, 
as on a grey toned paper ; on scratching this with a sharp knife either 
before or after you have drawn on it, a vertical line in white appears 
under, doubling the lightness of the light tone ; this may be again 
scratched into pure white. There are three difficulties in using this 
paper. One is that the effect of these accurately drawn lines in the 
paper is always more or less mechanical ; another, that the drawing 
cannot be reduced in size very much without blurring and indistinct- 
ness ; and the third is that there is a great tendency to blots. This 
paper has been most successfully managed by Vierge, some of whose 
drawings made on it, and reproduced in Le Monde Ilhistrd, are, like 
all his other work, the wonder and despair of every artist. Adrien 
Marie and Montalti have also used it very cleverly, and on it Adolf 
Ringel can perfectly reproduce his own bronzes. I have tried enough 
just to know how difficult and unsatisfactory the paper is. It is to 
be had from almost all the French photo-engraving houses in Paris, 
and from the colour shop at the foot of Regent Street. There are 


numerous varieties ; some have dots, some lines, and some chalky- 
surfaces on which you draw, or try to draw, and then lighten your 
drawing by scratching through it. You can also wash with colour 
and scratch through it. Sandham in America uses this paper to 
a very great extent. Personally I do not care for drawings made 
on it, with the exception of those of Vierge, who seems to have 
succeeded perfectly with it as wath everything else he puts his hand 
to. Some of the drawings in Pablo de Si^govie seem to have been 
made on paper of this kind, though the white lines may have 
been cut through by the engraver, but of this I shall speak later. 
However, such draughtsmen as Rico and Abbey use ordinary w^hite 

Of the second necessary, a hard lead-pencil, all I shall say is that 
you will want it, as well as a rubber ; why, I shall explain farther on. 

With the pen as with the paper, it is a case of finding out what 
suits you, and then using it. But I do not think the photo-engraver 
will object to any sort of pen. Half a dozen different kinds are often 
useful in the same drawing. The most useful all-round pen I know 
of is Gillott's Lithographic Crow Quill, No. 659, which, when once 
you have mastered it, can be used with the utmost freedom for any- 
thing, from the boldest to the most delicate line. It is almost like a 
living thing ; it springs and responds to every impulse of your hand, 
and is vastly more pleasant than the dull heavy etching needle. 
There are many other crow quill pens, but they are all cheap, and, 
my experience is, very nasty. A J pen is very useful at times. In 
fact any pen you like is serviceable, and what you ought to use. An 
ordinary sharp school pen is as good as anything you can have. A 
quill pen works beautifully on Whatman paper in any direction, no 
matter how you hold it, and you can almost wash with the back of it, 
using it as a brush. Vierge, who has used everything, and men who 
have made pen and ink copies of Corot's pictures in order to get 
something of their softness, have used a double lined pen, but of 
this I have had no practical experience. Sometimes a quill pen will 
wear so that you can make this double line with it. The author of the 
Excellency of the Pen and Pencil, published in 1668, recommends 
" pens made of a raven's quill, which will strike a more neat stroke 
than the common quill," but for the truth of this I cannot answer. I 
have endeavoured to use various sorts of stylographic and fountain 


pens, which theoretically are perfect. But I have found that, unless 
charged with a very watery writing fluid which is sold with them, but 
would not answer for reproductive pen drawing, they are practically 
useless. It is a pity that makers cannot produce a fountain pen which 
an artist could use. 

Only lately, in trying to find out what ink a certain pen draughts- 
man used, I was told it was a profound secret. And yet by the aid of 
a photo-engraver and the careful analysis of a corner of one of his 
drawings, in fifteen minutes there was no great difficulty in discovering 
that it was Winsor and Newton's liquid lamp black, which is sold at 
sixpence or a shilling a bottle. Of such stuff are made most of the 
secrets of art. To know what good ink is, and then to get it, means 
ease in drawing and success in reproduction. I suppose in this 
regard I am in the same condition as all other pen draughtsmen, each 
of whom thinks he has the best ink. I might as well give at once 
the name of the ink I use, and which of course I believe cannot be 
equalled. It is Higgins's American Drawing Ink, not to be bought 
at present in England. But it can be had by sending to G. S. Wool- 
man, 116 Fulton Street, New York. The price for which an artist 
can get it from any dealer in artists' materials in America is twenty- 
five cents, or a shilling a bottle. Woolman, however, will charge, or 
endeavour to, about sixpence a bottle more, and the expressage from 
New York to London, which makes it cost about a guinea a dozen. 
It is therefore not cheap, but it is well worth the price. There is no 
ink equal to it for half a dozen reasons. First, it is put in a sensible 
flat bottle almost impossible to upset. It has a cork with a quill 
running through it which forms a handle, and thus keeps your 
fingers clean, prevents the cork from dropping into the bottle, keeps 
the ink off anything on which you may lay the cork, so beautifully 
is it balanced, while there is a pen-wiper attached. I know of no 
other ink for artists which is put up in so sensible a manner. Every 
one who draws knows how much ink usually goes on one's clothes 
and surroundings. As the quill in the cork reaches to the very 
bottom of the bottle, every time you pull it out, you stir the ink, so 
that there is no necessity to shake up the bottle, and the ink over 
yourself, as so frequently happens. Another advantage is that the 
bottle is filled with ink, and not with dirty water and a solid sediment 
which settles at the bottom, if it is left alone for half an hour. This 


ink is just as good at the last drop as when you open the bottle. I 
never knew but one photo-engraver to complain of it. It is jet black 
without shine, flows freely, and never clogs the pen. In short, from 
the time you open the bottle until you have put all its contents on 
paper, you have no reason to find fault with it. It is made in two 
qualities, water proof and not water proof. 

Encre de Chine Liqiiide is very good, but I do not think it equals 
Higgins's ink. Liquid lamp black is a dead black and has no shine, 
and therefore reproduces well. Windsor and Newton's, Newman's,^ 
and in fact all made artists' inks I have tried, have this fault : the ink 
sinks to the bottom of the bottle, leaving a dirty grey liquid. The 
makers will tell you that an advantage of their ink is that it will 
wash ; but what the artist wants primarily is to make, not a wash, but 
a black and white pen and ink drawing. Of course, theoretically, India 
ink is excellent. But it not only shines, which is unsuitable for 
photo-engraving, but it is very tedious to grind it down for yourself, 
and almost impossible to keep it a uniform black. Almost all the 
preparations I know of are abominable. Brown inks are very pretty 
to look at, but of course are utterly worthless for reproduction, because 
the delicate brown tone is all lost, and your drawing is nearly always 
printed in black, not in brown. 

I do not think there is any other recommendation to be made, 
except to insist on the fact that good materials must be used if good 
results are Avanted. But enough materials to make several pen 
drawings can be had for half a crown. 

1 Mr. Mills of Newman's has been, at my suggestion, making many experiments. Their ink 
is now very much better. 


2 O 



IV /TOST writers on any branch of art begin by laying down 
■^^-^ definite laws for working. Mr. Hamerton in his Etching 
and Etchers says that the great value in an etching depends upon 
the etcher's own individuality in his method of work. He then 
goes on to give, in the most clear and lucid manner, directions 
for making an etching. I have faithfully followed Mr. Hamerton's 
suggestions, and I know into what quagmires they have led me ; 
not from any fault of his, but simply because his methods were not 
suited to my needs. I therefore know by experience that a man 
must work in his own way ; that what is good for one is simply 
artistic death for another. 

One of the truest old artistic saws is that art can be learned but 
not taught. Therefore I do not intend to give infallible laws or 
directions on the subject of pen drawing, I only wish to make 
suggestions which are the result of a considerable amount of ex- 
perience. But the study of good work is really of more practical 
value to the student than suggestions, and to show a series of 
examples of the best is the reason for the publication of this book. 

Theoretically, it is very easy to take a piece of white paper, a 


pen, and any kind of ink, and draw away. This is really what the 
old men did, not minding blots or anything else, so long as they 
suggested the idea at which they aimed, and very charming are 
many of the sketches they produced in this manner. But now, pen 
and ink drawing is another thing. 

I might start by saying, though it sounds as if I were trying to 
make a bull, that the best way to make a pen drawing is to make a 
pencil drawing. Whoever can make a good pen drawing without a 
preliminary pencil sketch of more or less importance, may set himself 
up for a genius, and be congratulated on his ability to avoid much 
drudgery. For convenience sake it will be better to suppose that 
my readers are not geniuses, and after all I shall only be ranking 
them temporarily with men like Fortuny and Rico. I know a study 
by Fortuny of a man draped, in which may be seen under the 
drawing, not only the nude figure, but the anatomy as well, drawn 
in pencil which has never been rubbed out. I have seen Rico on 
the canals of Venice making a pencil drawing more elaborate than 
the work which was to succeed it. In Z.'^r/, vol. i., 1884, p. 63, 
there is an unfinished pen drawing by Louis Leloir, which is the 
strongest proof of what I say on this subject. One side is worked 
out with pen, the other is in the preliminary pencil. The pencil has 
all the care and reverence of a hard-working but brilliant student, 
and the pen, the freedom of an accomplished master, who knows he 
has a good foundation and goes ahead. Ruskin tells the student 
to make outlines with a hard pencil, and also that a drawing should 
be, not only free but right. Other men, Blum and Brennan, I have 
been told, never make a preliminary pencil sketch. It is to be 
hoped the reader is, but to be feared he is not, as clever as they 

The best way is to make a careful sketch with a hard, an H, 
or HH lead -pencil on the sheet of paper on which you intend to 
make your pen drawing, in which case, in order to save the surface 
of the paper, only outline your shadows. In fact, make the sketch 
in outline as much as possible, as it must be rubbed out afterwards, 
and much rubbing will spoil the surface and grey the ink. Or make 
the drawing just as you want it on another sheet of paper, and then 
transfer it by means of black transferring paper, or else, as I sug- 
gested, use thin correspondence paper. When this is done, go to 


work with your pen. It would be well to study from masters of 
pen drawing, but you must remember, if you study from repro- 
ductions, to choose only masterpieces, and that these, unless they 
are the same size, do not look like the original drawings, and 
even if they are the same size, much delicacy, refinement, and grey- 
ness of line have been lost. In this book several of the most 
important drawings are reproduced by photogravure exactly the size 
they were made, and can therefore be followed line for line. As 
a rule, however, the drawings are very much reduced, and you are 
consequently not looking at the drawing as it was made, but at the 
reproduction the artist wanted you to see. Therefore it must be 
borne in mind that the artist made his drawing, not necessarily crude, 
but with the lines farther apart than you see them, because, if these 
drawings have to be reduced very much, the spaces between the 
lines are so diminished that, unless the printing is very careful, as 
in the best American magazines and books, you have, instead of 
the delicate grey drawing you expected, a dirty black mass, owing 
to the ink filling up the spaces between the lines and to the lines 
themselves running together. 

I hope it will be understood that this is not a manual for 
beginners, and that I am not concerned with such questions as, 
" How do you draw trees?" or, " How do you make bricks?" You 
go to nature and draw them as faithfully as you would if you were 
drawing with a pencil or painting in oils. As to light and shade, 
colour and tone, pen drawing is subject to the same laws as crayon 
drawing, pencil drawing, and etching. There is, therefore, no necessity 
for my going into detail on the subject. 

You must remember that if you want a sharp line, your work 
must be perfectly black, and must stand out clean and alone on the 
paper. If you want to get a grey, you will not succeed by putting 
water in the ink, but by making the lines light — I mean fine and 
separate. This is the general rule to follow. Of course a master 
will grey his lines, and run them together, and make a tender grey 
where the student would make but a muddle, and in fact do all sorts 
of things that I might say should not be done. You will also find 
that if you put one solitary line in the sky to mark the outline of a 
cloud, it will come out in the reproduction three times as strong as you 
intended it to, for the simple reason that though four or five light grey 


lines may stand up together, one will not, and will have to be thickened 
in the type-metal by the photo-engraver. Of course in a photogravure 
you can get the lines as fine as you choose to make them. In 
drawing your foreground, do not make it too coarse under the 
impression that it will be brought by reproduction into proper 
relations with the delicate distance. It probably will always remain 
coarse. Though there are few things to be remembered in connection 
with pen drawing, these few that I have mentioned, such as keeping 
the lines apart, not getting too many blacks, are of the utmost 
importance. But these are things which must be remembered in 
any sort of drawing, if you want a good result. 

The size of pen drawings for reproduction is a matter of experi- 
ence and personal liking. It is not, as the photo-engraver insists, 
necessary to make the drawing one-third or one-half as wide again 
as the block is to be. Of course if your drawing is to fill exactly a 
certain space, you will have to shape it to fit in. But in most 
magazines or books the space is made to suit the drawing, and 
all the art editor need do is to reduce the longest side of the 
drawing to fit his page, and the type will come in around it. As 
to size, for example I believe in many cases Mr. Parsons' drawings 
are exactly the same, or very slightly larger than their reproductions, 
a contradiction — also proven in this book — to the photo-engraver's 
oft-repeated statement that drawings must be reduced in order to 
get fine work. On the other hand, I have frequently seen drawings 
by Brennan which filled a sheet of Whatman imperial paper, and 
were reduced — and beautifully— to five inches the longest way. But 
for general advice, it would probably be wisest for the draughtsman 
to make his drawing twice the width of the intended reproduction. 

There are many devices adopted by every clever pen draughtsman, 
which to the purist are very shocking. As, for example, in putting 
on in two minutes a flat tone with a brush, which will afterwards 
be rouletted by the photo-engraver. It is really a question of getting 
what is wanted in five minutes or in five hours. Often, too, one 
finds that the distance comes entirely too strong, and will have to 
be toned down by a skilful engraver. Frequently the engravings 
of French drawings will be cut all over in this way, and are thus 
given a soft grey misty effect, often very beautiful. Nearly all the 
better pen drawings in Harpers and the Centitry are hand-worked, 


as it is called, by skilful engravers. All fine work must be cut 
at the edges if you do not want it to look hard and rough. 

The thumb is a very useful auxiliary in pen drawing. By 
inking your thumb, and pressing it on the paper, you can often get 
a strong rich effect, the lines on the skin being marked on the paper, 
and reproducing beautifully. 

In Fortuny's work are to be found dear delightfully- smeared 
dirty blotches, a trial to the purist, but a joy to the artist, since their 
value and expression are always just right. 

A foreground, old walls of houses, can be richly varied very 
beautifully by taking a tooth brush, dipping it in ink, and then 
running a match stick under it, and splattering the necessary parts 
of the drawing, stopping the others out with paper. The most 
charming effects are to be had in this way. But any one who goes 
into pen drawing, will learn all these and more devices in a very short 
time if he has any facility for it. But he Avill also learn that pen 
drawing is an art which requires as much skill and experience on 
the part of the artist as etching does, and though less treacherous, 
and much more simple in its actual mechanical operation, is also 
much less dependent on accidental effects than etching. But the 
great thing to remember is, not to try to draw everything under the 
sun with a pen, but only those things which by simplification lend 
themselves easily and naturally to it. I have already said, you must 
know how to draw before you can make a pen drawing, and after 
you have learned to draw, you must be able to arrange the most 
simple lines in the most artistic manner, or else you will never be a 
great pen draughtsman. It is just this want of artistic feeling for 
line that makes a man, who may be a great painter, say " O scribble 
it down anyway," with a bad drawing as the result. While if you 
take a pen drawing by a great master you will find that, though it 
may look as if it was scribbled down hurriedly and hastily, it is done 
with the greatest care. 

I hope none of my readers would be so foolish as to follow the 
calmly-given advice of Mr. H. R. Robertson, to copy woodcuts or 
steel engravings of any subjects except those done with the pen, and 
never then if you can help it. As Mr. Hamerton says: "There is a 
wide distinction in every art between possibility and prudence. A 
delicate line engraving may be so closely imitated with a fine pen that 


few people, at a little distance, would at the first glance detect the 
difference ; but no artist who knew the value of his time would waste 
it in such foolish toil." The only sensible course, if you must copy, 
is to copy pen drawings of the greatest pen draughtsmen, if you can 
see the originals ; if you can only see their reproductions, to 
remember that these have been reduced. For a man to say that 
pen drawings are obtained in two distinct methods, one by a few 
lines drawn slowly, the other by many lines drawn rapidly, and then 
to cite Rembrandt as a man to be studied for the second method, is 
to suppose that everybody is an embryo Rembrandt. Had photo- 
engraving been invented when Mr. Ruskin wrote his Elements of 
Drawiitg, he never would have made the mistake of advising the 
draughtsman to cover quickly a space of paper with lines, without 
troubling himself as to how they are made, and then to place other 
sets of lines on top of them. Certainly the man who can with one 
set of lines get the exact grey, which according to Mr. Ruskin is to 
be produced with many sets, will be not only doing a much more 
artistic piece of work, but saving much time. The consequence 
is, if one wishes to get a grey he should cover his paper with 
straightish lines, troubling himself infinitely to draw them very 

As a matter of fact, what you want to do is to take the French 
advice and, no matter how good a draughtsman you may be, go 
slowly at first in order that you may go fast in the end. 


2 P 



TDEN drawings may be reproduced in two radically different 
-^ ways. First, by what is commonly known among artists as 
photo-engraving or process, for printing with the type in book, 
magazine, or newspaper ; and secondly, by photogravure on a 
copper or other plate, for printing like a steel plate or etching. 
These two processes may be subdivided, the first into innumerable 
methods, and the second into a dozen or more. In the first, the 
object is to make a relief block, as I have said, for printing with 
type ; and in the second, to produce an engraved plate for printing 
separately. Examples of both are given throughout the book. 

In the photo-engraving, the drawing is photographed and then 
directly etched into a zinc plate, or, after numerous processes, finds 
itself on a gelatine or some other film, the film in relief with the 
drawing sunken in it. From this film a casting is made, from which 
electros may be taken in relief just exactly like type. The production 
of this result would be neither clear nor interesting to any but a 
photo-engraver or a photographer. It would require a whole book to 
be explained, as it has been, and very well, in Modern Methods of 
Book Ilhistration. 

Photogravures are similarly produced by photographing the 
drawing on to a copper plate, which is then bitten more or less in the 
same manner as an etching, and worked up afterwards with a graver, 


or by building up a plate in a bath on a gelatinous film. The result 
resembles an etching closely. 

Reproduction is a purely mechanical process, but so important 
as to be destined almost entirely to supersede all but the best wood- 
engraving, and all other sorts of reproductive art. In it no human 
intelligence comes between the drawing and the result to any great 
degree, although intelligent aid can always be given. For example, 
it is almost impossible for a wood-engraver to cut the delicate grey 
lines of many a pen drawing. It is equally impossible for the photo- 
engraver to reproduce them mechanically. But their intelligent 
co-operation, added to the accuracy of the process, will give the desired 
effect. I mean the fine line which the wood-engraver cannot cut by 
himself, and which is so fine that if reproduced accurately it will 
scarcely stand on the process block, can be cut down to the required 
fineness on the relief block by the wood-engraver, or by the photo- 
engraver, if he is artist enough to do it. 

Mr. Hamerton sets forth the great economy of process reproduc- 
tions as one of their chief advantages. "It so happens," he writes, 
" that nothing we can draw reproduces quite so perfectly as a clear 
black ink line on perfectly smooth white paper, and in consequence of 
this the art of drawing with the pen has suddenly become the princi- 
pal means of disseminating artistic ideas when economy is an object." 
But it is very doubtful whether a cheap photo-engraving is really 
much cheaper than a cheap woodcut. The latter will look better, as 
it is almost impossible to print a cheap process block. Publishers 
should reject all but the best reproductions by photographic processes. 
Otherwise they only lead to carelessness and the ruin of the artist's 

Of course it would do the pen draughtsman no harm, but rather 
an enormous amount of good, to not only study with the photo- 
engraver before he sets himself up as a draughtsman, but also when- 
ever his work is being reproduced. No explanation will supply the 
criticisms which an intelligent photo-engraver will make on a novice's 
drawings, that is criticising them with a view to their reproduction. 
Unless men to-day are willing to come out of their luxurious studios — 
as some of the best do — and go down to the dirty shop of the photo- 
engraver and try experiments, or intelligently consult with him, we 
shall never have really artistic workmen and thoroughly good results. 


There are certain processes by which results resembling pen 
drawings are produced. Prepared surfaces of paraffin, or other 
materials from which a cast can be made, are laid on plates of 
blackened brass or other metal, and you draw with a sharp point 
through the film of paraffin, and a cast is taken from the drawing so 
made. The result is very like a sharp pen drawing. But there are 
two great difficulties to be surmounted ; one is that reduction is 
impossible, and the drawing must therefore be the size of the desired 
print, and the other is that the mechanical process is much harder to 
learn than drawing with a pen, and entirely different. The technical 
difficulties are really so great as to be scarcely worth the trouble of 
overcoming. They have been mastered, however, with some very 
good results by Herkomer and Dawson, the inventor. Randolph 
Caldecott also tried this process ; and the late Kent Thomas did 
some extraordinary things with it. I believe it is excellent for 
the drawing of maps. 

Since the introduction of photo-lithography, it has not been 
necessary for an artist who is a draughtsman to become a skilled 
lithographer in order to have his line drawings reproduced on stone. 
For though he should understand the process, there is no more reason 
why he should give his time to it than that he should reproduce his 
own drawings by photo-engraving. Intelligent supervision of repro- 
duction is one thing ; unintelligent waste of time over mechanical 
details is quite another. The drawing of the Ponce de Leon Hotel 
by Blum, and the example of Waldemar Frederick in the German 
Chapter, have been reproduced by some form of lithographic process. 

The real advantage of mechanical reproduction can be easily 
explained. Unless the artist draws expressly with the thought of 
the woodcutting of every single line he is making, no wood-engraver 
can follow him. It will be said that the draughtsmen on wood 
of Diirer's time did this ; but it really is not likely that they 
often did. So tedious, so difficult, and so laborious is this manner 
of working that, not only is it an exploded theory that Diirer cut 
his own blocks, but I believe he scarcely ever even drew on the 
wood. It is more probable that he made the studies which we 
possess to-day, that these studies were traced or enlarged or re- 
duced on to the block by his pupils, or by the woodcutter himself, 
that the design was then touched up by Durer and cut by the 


engraver. It is impossible otherwise that he could have produced 
such an amount of work. I say this as a practical illustrator, 
knowing perfectly well the time which must have been given to 
one of these drawings. Besides, this was the course the old men 
always adopted in their other art work ; they had a shop full of clever 
young students, whose hands and brains they used whenever they 
could. If Diirer, the typical illustrator at any rate of the Middle 
Ages, drew every line for the woodcutter with a handling utterly 
different from that which we see in all his etchings, the lesser 
men who surrounded and followed him and would have been in- 
fluenced by him, did nothing of the sort. They made their draw- 
ings on the block with the greatest care, in inks of different degrees 
of blackness, and with beautifully arranged lines, and the wood- 
engraver cut the blocks without the slightest feeling for the artist's 
work. It might very reasonably be asked why did I not then use 
more of the old drawings? Because, made on the wood-blocks, 
they were cut all to pieces, the engravers not following the artist's 
lines, but engraving lines which were easy to cut, ignoring all but 
the main ideas of the design, and being, I maintain, incapable, 
slovenly, or slipshod, and not to be compared for a minute to the 
engravers who have been developed since the time of Menzel. 
When they did follow the original lines, it was only because the 
artist drew expressly for them, as did the English draughtsmen of 
thirty years ago. Everything I say can be proven by a reference 
to the spoiled wood-blocks, the only evidence we have, but all we 
need, in the Plantin Museum. These drawings were made on the 
block in exactly the same way as the draughtsman works on paper 
to-day. But I have not used them for two reasons : they could not 
be reproduced without infinite labour, since they are spoiled blocks, 
and, having been made three hundred years ago, are faded ; and, 
moreover, they are no better than work done to-day. 

It may be objected that I have elsewhere stated one must draw 
specially for reproduction. But the requirements in this case are 
even at the present moment the simplest, and may be done away 
with in the future ; nothing is necessary but a reasonably clean line, 
good ink and white paper. The reason that a certain number of 
examples throughout the book are cut on wood is not that process 
was unable to reproduce them, but either that the engravings were 


made before the time of process or that the artists were too indifferent 
as to the quality of their ink or paper. There is not a single wood- 
cut in the book from which a process block could not be made so 
cleverly that it would be impossible to tell, were they placed side by 
side, which was the original block and which the process. The 
photo-engraving, however, is really superior to the wood-engraving 
for this reason : there are not a dozen engravers who can equal the 
best process. The work of J. D. Cooper, Paterson, and Swain I 
have shown; that of Whitney, Cole, and Collins can be seen in 
almost any number of the Century. Cole's marvellous reproduction 
of the head of Lincoln after a drawing by Wyatt Eaton in the 
Scribner collection of proofs from that magazine, now the Century, 
should be mentioned in this connection ; and I now give a woodcut 
by the Frenchman, Charles Beaude. These men, and probably a 
few others, are the only engravers who can equal process. Some of 
Cooper's work is as good as any process. Cole's Lincoln gives 
Wyatt Eaton's drawing because it was drawn for him. But the 
portrait by Wyatt Eaton reproduced by process in the American 
Chapter is far more freely drawn, and there is no wood-engraving 
about it. The cut by Beaude after Edelfeldt is most remarkable. 
Any woodcutter can show the actual lines, this being the easiest 
thing possible to do, so long as there is not too much fine cross- 
hatching in the drawing. But few can give the pen quality of the 
line, which is extremely difficult. The men to whom I have referred 
can. So, too, could some of Menzel's engravers and some of the 
English engravers of thirty years ago, though none ever surpassed 
the work of Beaude. But the minute even Beaude comes to the 
elaborate cross-hatching, the delicate greys, or the pencil marks in 
the drawing, he meets an insurmountable barrier. I say most un- 
hesitatingly that marvellous as is his woodcut, I much prefer to it 
the process blocks after Louis Leloir and Lalauze in the French 

But suppose that none of this cross-hatching, these delicate greys 
or pencil marks existed in the drawing, and that the wood-engraver 
could cut a perfect facsimile in line and in feeling ; it is a crying 
shame to put an artist of such consummate ability to doing the work 
a machine can accomplish equally well in as many hours as he would 
take days. There is no more false subjection of art to mechanism 



in the adoption of process than there was in the substitution of 
movable types for block types, in the development of woodcutting in 
the time of Durer, in the resurrection made by Bewick, in the famous 
white line loved by Mr. Linton, in the use of the steam press, or 
in any other development. Why, if we had not made use of these 
improvements and hundreds of others, we would not even have been 

apes and winkles ! The minute that any real and true improvement 
is introduced and shown to be an improvement, we are blind and 
fools not to adopt it. It is not its cheapness which gives value to 
process ; neither is it the inability of woodcutting to obtain the 
same results — a great engraver almost can ; but it is the fact that 
unless this great artist wishes to display his power, it is useless to 
compel a wood-engraver — a vastly different person from a woodcutter 
— to toil and slave for a result in which a machine so often surpasses 


him. In a word, this book is merely an exhibition of the best 
possible pen drawings I could obtain and the best possible mechani- 
cal reproductions of them. It is a plea for pen drawing and an 
exposition of process. 

These three prints of Dtlrer's Big Horse will show the difference 
in the three methods of reproducing the same engraving better than 
any amount of written explanation. The first example is a woodcut 
by Paterson. A careful comparison of it with the photo-engraving 
by the Dawsons, entirely a mechanical reproduction, on the following 
page, will make clear the points wherein the photo-engraving fails 
and the wood-engraver has succeeded. But the failures of the 
mechanical photo-engraving have been less than those of the skilled 
craftsman, and the results obtained by photography are truer than 
those obtained by the wood-engraver; the block mechanically re- 
produced under the supervision of Alfred Dawson, without any 
hand-work on it at all, has much more of the feeling of Diirer's 
work than Paterson's engraving. The reason for this is simple. 
The lines are directly and automatically reproduced by photography, 
while each one has to be re-made by the wood-engraver. The photo- 
engraver has reproduced the actual lines of Diirer ; the wood-engraver 
has had to cut around and produce new ones for himself, which 
never can be perfectly done. The Dawsons' block contains no more 
lines than Paterson's engraving, — in fact it does not contain as many, 
for Paterson has added some that do not exist in the original, and 
patched up certain imperfections in the original plate, giving in 
consequence a certain wooden feeling to his block and not the look 
of metal lines, but this the Dawsons have reproduced in their block, 
which therefore comes nearer to the original engraving. Of course 
the photogravure is still truer to the original because it contains the 
tone, of ink and colour of time found on the print in the British 
Museum, and shows that fulness of colour which no wood or process 
engraving has yet been able to obtain. These differences between 
the woodcut and the process block can only be appreciated by 
students, though they should be by collectors. To feel them, a 
long study of the cuts will be necessary, and an examination of the 
blocks and a comparison with the original is the only way in 
which they can be appreciated. The reproduction of a line engrav- 
ing by woodcutting is one of the most difficult operations possible ; 

2 Q 



the reproduction of a line engraving by photo-engraving is really 
absurdly easy. 

As to the photogravure also made by the Dawsons, it is not 
nearly so much better than their photo-engraved block as it should 

be. It ought to be a perfect facsimile, but though it is probably as 
good as anything that could be done in England, it does not compare 
with the plate of the same subject by Amand-Durand, which, owing 
to an unfortunate business complication, I could not use. To have 
properly shown the absolute difference between these forms of re- 



production and the original, as well as the manner in which they 

vary from it, I should have given prints from the Durer plate. 

This being impossible, I have tried to point out how they differ 

from each other. But even though I have explained that both of 

the plates by the Dawsons are mechanically reproduced, as in fact 
are all the photogravures in the book, I have no doubt that many 
people will speak of them as etchings and call the process blocks 
woodcuts. This wilful ignorance on the part of critics and the 
public would do no special harm, if it were not that certain publishers 


are taking advantage of it at the present time to palm off mechani- 
cally reproduced plates as etchings, attaching a fictitious value to 
them, thus perpetrating a fraud. A careful study of the different 
quality of line and the different points in which the three plates 
fail and succeed, is the only way in which one can distinguish 
between an etching and a photogravure, a process block and a 

In all my references to old work, I have used the name of Diirer, 
but I do not mean to imply that Diirer was the only illustrator in 
the past. I could have proved what I wished as well by reference 
to other artists or engravers on steel or wood or copper — to the work 
of Lucas Van Leyden, Mantegna, Martin Schongaur, Lucas Cranach, 
Hans Holbein, the Venetians, Botticelli, or even Claude. But just 
as Adolf Menzel in Germany is the embodiment of modern pen 
drawing, in fact of modern illustration, so is Albert Diirer of illustra- 
tion in the past. The motives of other days have been given up ; 
the motives of to-day have replaced them. Which are the greater 
and which the lesser, I have no intention of discussing. As to 
technique, of far more importance, it is now infinitely better, and I 
do not hesitate to maintain that if Diirer were alive to-day, he would 
do twice as good work as he ever did. For Diirer had to draw 
directly for the engraver, and then he was not sure of getting the 
results he wanted ; the modern illustrator draws for himself. 

Neither have I given another example of that oft trotted out 
Egyptian brick stamp, nor turned up as a trump the everlasting 
playing card, nor quarrelled over the original Saint Christopher. 
Indeed, I have purposely omitted all this old work, and begun 
where the usual authority leaves off. For I hold that if writers 
would only pay some slight attention to what is going on around 
them, and stop disputing over the unknowable and undiscoverable 
in the past, they would at least collect data which would serve as a 
basis for historians of art in the future. Pen drawing or illustration, 
the art of to-day, has so far been quite as much ignored as wood- 
engraving was in its early stages of development. The illustrators of 
the Middle Ages worked for the people ; so do the illustrators of 




I HAVE tried to show what pen drawing is, and in conclusion I 
should like to state my great hopes, and greater fears, for the 
future of the art. I have already pointed out that pen drawing is 
supposed to be despised by almost everybody but a few artists and 
art editors, some of the latter having given it recognition simply 
because of its cheapness for reproduction. I hope therefore to see 
an art, which is looked down upon to-day by the same people who 
despised etching until Mr. Hamerton opened their eyes to its true 
value, put in its proper place — that is, in equal rank with etching. 

A good etching is only a successful pen drawing after all. 
The qualities of softness, richness, and mistiness can be given by a 
master of pen drawing, and reproduced in photogravure so cleverly, 
as to deceive the most accomplished art critic. Smudges, accidental 
foul biting, and a thousand other things that go to make the value 
of the state of an etching by Whistler, Haden, or Mdryon, can be 
obtained in ten minutes by a clever man with an old tooth brush and 
a rough skinned thumb, while the drawing, the only autographic 
and valuable part of the production, is exactly the same, and the 
tone, the softness, and effect of any unwiped plate can be produced by 
a good printer for a few pence extra. It is really for blemishes and 
defects, accidental or intentional on the part of the very thoughtful 
artist, that the collector prizes its rare first state. The value 


attached to the print from an etched plate is fictitious ; the value 
of a pen drawing is real. The pen drawing is the artist's work ; 
the etching is only a print from it, often not satisfactory to the artist, 
for though he sees just what he wants on the copper-plate, neither 
he nor the printer can get it from the plate to the paper. With the 
etching, as with the pen drawing, there is only one person who can 
own the original. A print from a photogravure of a pen drawing 
is really of as much value as the print from an etching. The only 
difference is that in nine cases out of ten the etching is a failure, 
the photogravure a success. The collector may own the single pen 
drawing, but he hardly ever troubles himself to buy the original copper- 
plate which is owned by the dealer, and which — and not the print 
from it — is the real equivalent to the pen drawing.^ But so ignorant 
are some amateurs and collectors that they pay high prices for artists' 
proofs of photogravures and autotypes, which cannot even boast of 
rarity, and are only better than prints inasmuch as an early pull of 
any plate is of course sharper and clearer, and therefore better 
than a later one. I have heard the intelligent collector persuaded 
into paying £20 for an etching which was quite without artistic 
merit, and which in a few years will sell for 20s. ; while, 
for a guinea or so more, he had a gorgeous frame thrown in, 
which, he was assured, he only got at that price because all the 
other subscribers were having exactly the same thing ! 

To value a work of art only for its rarity is a feeling with 
which I have no sympathy. But it is strange that collectors 
should not see that an original drawing which they can own and 
preserve, and which need not be duplicated if they do not wish it, 
is of more value according to their own standard than a print, 
which five hundred or fifty thousand other people can own, and 
over which they have no control. They are in fact influenced 
by dealers who publish almost all the etchings, and are not willing 
to encourage the work which would bring them comparatively small 

In a recent conversation with a dealer, he admitted my facts to be 

^ Of course the pecuniary value of a work of no one else can duplicate it is, as Mr. Will H. 

art is, like that of other things, determined by Low says, " essentially vulgar, and when exercised 

the law of supply and demand ; but apart from in the domain of art excessively so." But then 

this, the mere ambition to own a thing because Mr. Low is an artist and not a collector. 


perfectly true, but in the next breath he said he would fight against 
them so long as he continued in the print business. For the simple 
reason that he could purchase an etched plate for the same amount of 
money he would have to pay for a good pen drawing ; that if the 
plate proved popular, he could sell thousands of proofs from it, some 
of which, containing cabalistic and inartistic scrawls, would bring 
ten times more than others which only contained the artist's signa- 
ture, while these would sell for twice as much as the ordinary plain 
prints ; the plain prints themselves being probably quite as good as 
the first pulls from the plate, because the artist now steels his plate 
the moment it is finished. Exactly the same result could be obtained 
by the dealer buying a pen drawing, having a photogravure made 
from it and selling the prints. I know that this result is to be had 
with absolute certainty, while every etching ordered by a dealer is 
an uncertain speculation. Still, if dealers would go to the leading 
pen draughtsmen of the day, they would be as sure to get good 
drawings as they are now certain of getting bad etchings from 
artless etchers. All that is needed is a little exploiting, but dealers 
will never do this for themselves. For all business — and etching 
is no longer an art, but only a business and a trade — is conducted 
on the most short-sighted principles — principles w^hich are rapidly 
running etching into the ground. But until nothing more can be 
made from etchings, though the market is flooded with them, dealers 
will refuse to turn their attention to anything else. I know, as I 
have said, that if pen drawing can be made to seem worth the 
financial attention of dealers, the result will be, mainly, more money 
in their pockets. But still, with so many good pen draughtsmen 
now at work, it may show the public that there is at the present 
moment a healthy, flourishing art. However, somebody must compel 
the dealers to take up pen drawing, if it is to be taken up by them at 
all, for they will never do so of themselves. 

The objection most art editors find to pen drawing is, that it is 
not understood by the masses. I have made many pen drawings, not 
only in the house, but among the people, and I have heard from 
them more expressions of pleasure in a pen drawling, both while it 
was being made and after it was finished, than I have ever heard 
given to a pencil or a wash drawing. The reason is easy to explain. 
In pen drawing the details, the windows of houses, the delicacy 

2 R 


of trees or the study of a figure, half an inch high, are all worked 
out carefully, lovingly, and artistically, while in wash drawings these 
details may be only suggested, and to the average mortal artistic 
suggestion is absolutely meaningless. 

That children like pen drawings needs no proof. The success 
of Randolph Caldecott's,^ Kate Greenaway's, Adrien Marie's, and 
Reginald Birch's drawings, — whether they have a slight wash of 
colour or not is of no consequence, — answers all arguments to the 
contrary. Of course, as the educated child grows up, its innate 
ideas of art are so quickly suppressed that in the end bad drawings 
are not infrequently preferred to good. It is only wonderful that 
any one cares in the least for drawing. 

That some people do, however, is proved by the popularity of 
magazines like the Century and Harper s, and of illustrated weeklies 
like Le Monde Illiistre, and Fliegende Blatter. As far as I know, 
the utterly inartistic and pseudo-comic papers, which are usually 
illustrated by pen drawings, have the largest circulation of any 
illustrated English periodicals — Ally Slopers Half-Holiday, for 
example, though I ought to add that, technically, the late Mr. 
Baxter's rendering of Ally Sloper was excessively clever. 

Newspapers which really appeal to the masses, and in which 
there is never mention of the word art, are beginning to use pen 
drawings, some of which are not bad, though the majority are 
atrocious. A few of the portraits and little sketches that have 
appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette are good, but frequently they 
have been remarkable only for their artlessness. But it is in 
newspapers that my greatest hopes and fears for the future of pen 
drawing lie. I hope that some great inventor like Walter or Hoe - 
may turn his attention — as I believe he will — to artistic news- 
paper printing. If he does he will kill every magazine. For 
just as literary men are only too willing to work for the 

1 Some people say children do not appreciate more to obtain the best results from artists' 
Randolph Caldecott's work. But any one who drawings than any one else, and whose work 
was a child when his books began to come out, comes nearer satisfying artists than that of any 
as I was, or who knows anything about children, other printer — he said he had been making 
need not be told that such a statement is not experiments continuously for the last few years, 
true. in order that when there is a demand for good 

2 In fact, in a recent conversation with Mr. De illustrated newspapers he will be able to print 
Vinne of New York — the man who has done them. 


newspapers, so would the pen draughtsman be, if he could get 
his work well printed. And this would merely mean bringing art 
to the people, where we are told it was in Italy some hundreds of 
years ago. For just as the people are said to have gone to church 
to see their art, so many now seek for everything, art included, 
in the newspapers. But I fear that when this comes to pass, the 
second state of art will be worse than the first, unless the newspaper 
office is revolutionised and an art editor introduced. For the news 
editor would very likely accept whatever came to hand. 

Not only can an illustrated newspaper be printed daily, but 
more than one is published to-day. The New York Daily Graphic 
and the Paris Charivari are examples. The last time I saw the 
New York Graphic, however, it was still suffering under the dis- 
advantage of not having any good men to work for it. Instead of 
employing good artists, it was content with cheap-looking work, 
just as the average newspaper, instead of getting a staff of men whose 
writing would give literary value to its columns, employs people 
whose special aim seems to be to write stupidly and to enlarge upon 
the power of journalism — i.e. of themselves. That their power 
is great, owing to the ignorance of the public, is unfortunately 
unquestionable. And for this reason, Avith the general use of 
drawings in papers, they would be able to bring art down to the 
same level to which they too frequently debase literature. In the 
illustrated daily of the future, the plan that will have to be pursued 
is this : all sorts of illustrated news must be reproduced by the 
Meisenbach or other process from photographs ; slight sketches could 
be made by clever men in three or four hours, and reproduced 
in time to appear in the next, or possibly the same, day's paper ; 
more important work must be delayed several days or a week, 
but still the daily would be much ahead of the weeklies with its news. 

My greatest fear is only that such a paper would be an instant 
and phenomenal success, and that its managers would make their 
fortunes and then, like those of other papers started by a brilliant 
set of young artists, engravers, and journalists, become merely stock- 
holders, pocket the profits, and allow the paper to fall to a lower level 
than that of the publications it was going to improve. It is just this, 
one fears for pen drawing in every direction. The difficulty of 
keeping to a very high standard is shown in LArt, which has very 


noticeably gone down during the last few years. The only con- 
solation is that pen drawing eventually ruins the people who use 
it by abusing it. Our Continent, an American publication, which 
started with the most brilliant prospects, was wrecked exactly from 
this cause; it began to publish nothing but poor pen drawings 
and quickly came to grief. Papers which do continue to improve 
week by week and month by month are the Century, Harpers, 
Fliegende Blatter. Unless there is an art editor w^ho can draw to 
himself a clever staff of artists and keep them, an illustrated paper 
can neither go on, nor maintain the position it has reached. 

There is an enormous demand for pen drawing growing daily, 
and though the supply apparently equals it, pen drawing as an 
art is not advancing. There are a few artists who really care 
for it in itself, and endeavour with each new drawing to make 
something of value, but outside of the larger magazines in which 
their work usually appears, they apparently make no impression 
on the majority of pen draughtsmen who are filling books and 
papers with artless drawings. Any one who will look back, 
especially through the European magazines and the Century, will 
see that some of the very best pen drawings were made between 
1879 and 1883, before this vast army of scribblers had sprung 
up and found that their wretched work was of value to people as 
ignorant as themselves. Just as architects are wanted to restore 
or ruin whatever little beauty is left in the world, so this ever- 
increasing army of pen draughtsmen, one might think, is wanted 
to lower the standard of pen drawing and turn it farther and 
farther away from its legitimate end. 

Because so many pen drawings are now made, it has been 
said that for artists who work in pen and ink " their only chance 
of relative immortality is a reputation won in some other department 
of art." A sufficient answer to this assertion is to be had in the 
drawings of four men — to mention no more,- — Fortuny, Rico, Menzel, 
and Vierge, which will be known so long as there is any love 
for art. It might as well be said that because thousands of artless 
pictures are painted and exhibited every year, a good painter, in 
order to be remembered, must make his reputation as a sculptor or an 

Though it seems as if Mr. Hamerton and Mr. Haden have 


shown people the beauty and true province of etching, only to 
make the fortune of print dealers and to set on pinnacles men who 
transgress every law governing etching as a fine art, yet at the same 
time, etchers like Whistler, Haden, and Buhot occasionally produce 
plates which prove the beauty and province of the art have not been 
entirely forgotten. In like manner there is a strong saving remnant 
among pen draughtsmen, and upon it hopes for the future of pen 
drawing can safely rest. But if good pen drawing is to be confined 
to these few men, and elsewhere to be used as a medium for 
disseminating the cheapest and worst art, the outlook is dark enough. 
Whether the few will leaven the whole is doubtful. But they certainly 
will never be swallowed up entirely, and their work, like all good art, 
will live. 


Abbey, Edwin A., x, xi, 31, 71, 72, 78, 95, 96, 
99, 140, 196, 198, 201, 202, 203, 209, 236, 
253, 278. 

Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, 201. 

Adams, Maurice B., 243, 244. 

Adan, E., 91, 100. 

Adventures of Philip, Fred Walker's illustrations 
for, 149. 

jEsop's Fables, Caldecott's illustrations for, 180. 

Albrecht, H., 67. 

Aldine press, 251. 

Alice i?i Wondei'land, Tenniel's illustrations for, 

Ally Sloper's Half-Holiday, 306. 

Alma Tadema, L., 235. 

Amand-Durand, x, 140, 192, 298. 

America?! Architect and Bidldiiig NeiL'S, the, 242. 

Angerer and Goschl, 82. 

Arabian Nights, the, illustrated, 137. 

Architectural Association, 244. 

Armstead, H. H., Wirgman's drawing of, 160. 

Art criticism, worthlessness of inartistic, 31. 

Art critics, praise given by, viii, ix ; teaching of, 
I ; indifference to black and white of, 29 ; on 
the Spanish school, 33 ; importance attached to 
thoughts of, 36 ; abolition of, 46 ; on French 
art, 89; on etching and photogravure, 186; 
English, 210. 

Art patrons, publishers as, ix; royalty as, 65, ill. 
Art Review, the, 196. 

Aucassin and Nicolette, Jacomb - Hood's illustra- 
tions for Lang's translation of, 145. 

Backer, Otto H., 200. 
Barber, Alice, Miss, 200, 215. 

Barnard, Fred, 145, 149. 

Barnes, R., 149. 

Barye, A. L., 125. 

Baude, Charles, 163, 295. 

Baudry, Paul, 270. 

Baxter, W. G., 306. 

Beaux-Arts, Ecole des, 116, 195. 

Bellini, Giovanni, 9, 21, 35, 251. 

Bennett, C. H., 139. 

Bentworth, 64. 

Beraud, Jean, viii, 91, 187, 224. 

Bergen, F., 67. 

Berlin Photographic Co., 69. 

Besom -Maker, The, illustrated by Heywood 
Sumner, 262. 

Bewick, T., 296. 

Bible, Dore, the, 147. 

Bible Gallery, Dalziel's, xi, 147, 148, 153, 154, 

Birch, Reginald, 124, 196, 205, 268, 306. 

Blackburn, Henry, his catalogues, 141. 

Bliicher, Menzel's drawing of, 69, 71. 

Blum, Robert, x, 31, 36, 96, 120, 122, 174, 175, 

196, 197, 218, 219, 228, 284, 293. 
Boldini, J., 197. 
Books of Beauty, 257. 
Botticelli, 8, 300. 
Boughton, G. H., 141. 
Bracquemond, Fehx, 91, 266. 
Bradbury, Agnew, and Co., x. 
Bradley, Basil, 149. 
Braun's autotypes, 8, 56. 
Brennan, Alfred, 31, 103, 104, 120, 196, 197, 

198, 220, 223, 228, 236, 268, 284, 286. 
Breton-Folk, Caldecott's illustrations for, 179. 



Bridwell, H. L., 200, 264, 265. 

Brown, Ford IMadox, xi, 139, 153, 154. 

Browne, Gordon, 144. 

Browne, H. K., 139. 

Browning", Mrs., Poems, Ipsen's illustrations for, 

Brunet - Debaines, A., 92, 137. 
Buhot, Felix, 128, 309. 
Surges, W., 244. 
Busch, W., 67. 
Butin, Ulysse, 112, 158, 277. 

Caldecott, Randolph, x, 67, 103, 144, 179, 

180, 181, 184, 262, 293, 306. 
Canaletto, 56. 
Caran D'Ache (Emmanuel PoiriiJ), 124, 131, 133, 

173, 180, 181, 188, 217,261. 
Caricaturists, 80, 131, 173, 199, 217. 
Carrere and Hastings, x, 219, 246. 
Casanova y Estorach, A., x, 27, 30, 32, 58, 59, 

60, 196, 220. 
Cassell and Co. (Limited), x, 147. 
Caxton, 256. 

Centennial Exhibition (Philadelphia, 1876), influ- 
ence on American artists, 196, 200. 
Century hx^ Department, 197. 
Century Company, the, ix, 218, 265. 
Century Guild, artists of, 262, 265 ; Hobby-Horse, 

Century Magazine, 11, 31, 85, 104, 120, 160, 196, 

197,198,199,227,246,265,286, 295, 306,308. 
Ccnticry publications, 200. 

C^cra una Volta, Montalti's illustrations for, 46. 
Chants of Labour, cover by Crane, 261, 266. 
Chase, William M., 196. 
Cliat Noir, shadow pictures of, 131. 
Chefdeville, Louis, 138, 214. 
Chelmonsky, J., 235. 
Chessa, 33. 

Chichester, Charles F., x. 
Chodowiecki, D. N., 63, 72. 
Church, F. S., 200, 266. 
Cimabue, 39. 
Clark, R. and R., excellence of printing of, xi ; 

Crane's designs for, 261, 267. 
Classical Dictionary, Smith's, 46. 
Claude, 10, 89, 300. 
Coaehing ]Vays and Coacliing Days, Railton and 

Thomson's illustrations for, 262. 
Cole, T., 64, 163, 199, 295. 
Collins, R. C, 64, 295. 
Comic draughtsmen, viii. 67, 80, 131, 142, 165, 

166, 199, 217. 
Cooper, J. D., iSo, 203, 295. 
Cornliill, The, 137, 147, 149; collection of proofs, 


Corot, 8, 278. 

Coups de Fusil, De Neuville's illustrations for, 90, 

Courboin, E., 133, 188. 
Court and Society Review, 142. 
Cox, Kenyon, 120, 166, 197, 228. 
Craik, Mrs., M'Ralston's illustrations for novels 

by, 149. 
Cranach, Lucas, 300. 
Crane, Walter, 142, 145, 176, 17S, 208, 209, 

260, 261, 266, 267, 268. 
Cruikshank, George, 143. 

Da Vinci, 2, 8. 

Dahieim, 10, 82. 

Daily Graphiic, New Yorh:, 307. 

Dalziel Brothers, xi, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 157. 

Dance of Deatli, Holbein's, 9. 

Dantan, E., x, 100, 160. 

Darley, F. O. C, 199. 

Davillier, Baron, Life of Fortuity, 28, 29, 36. 

Dawson, A. and C, 203, 207, 293, 297, 298, 

Day, B., 188, 197. 

D'Epinay, M., Fortuny's portrait of, 29. 
De Lesseps, Ringel's drawing of head of, 46, 116. 
De Monvel, Boutet, 124. 

De Neuville, A., 27, 67, 89, 90, 97, 98, 196, 198. 
De Vinne, T. L., 197, 257, 306. 
De Wylie, M., 128. 

Denis Duval, Fred Walker's illustrations for, 149. 
Desmoulins, Louis, 19, 20, 21, 199. 
Detaille, E., 67, 89, 90, 97, 98, 141, 196. 
Dickens, Charles, illustrations for his books, 149. 
Diclman, F., 196. 

Dietz, W. (Diez), 27, 66, 73, 83, 196. 
Divine Comedy, Botticelli's illustrations for, 8 ; 257. 
Dobson, Austin, 198, 203. 
Dore, G., 90, 145, 147. 
Douglas, David, x. 
Drake, A. W., x, 196. 
Drake, Will H., 85, 104, 200. 
Du Maurier, G., 139, 142, 162, 163, 165, 166, 

174, 182. 
Du Mond, F. B., 104, 200. 
Duez, E., 91. 
Diirer, Albert, 2, 9, 16, 19, 64, 138, 150, 153, 

164, 176, 178, 208, 209, 251, 252, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 264, 265, 270, 293, 

294, 296, 297, 299, 300. 
Duveneck, F., 196. 

Farly L TALLIN PoETs, frontispiece by Rossetti for, 

Eaton, Wyatt, 120, 199, 231, 295. 
Felloes of Hellas, Crane's illustrations for, 261. 



Edelfeldt, A., 295. 

Edwards, G. W., 200, 268. 

Ein Erster wid em Letzter Ball, 66 ; Schlittgen's 
illustrations for, 74. 

Ein Schloss in den Ardmnen, 66 ; Liiders' illus- 
trations for, 7S. 

Ein Soldatetileben, by Liiders, 78. 

English Illustrated Magazine, the, 185, 262. 

Etching, difference between pen drawing and. 3 ; 
old masters', 8; Durer's, 9 ; Vandyke's, 19, 
20, 21; why appreciated by collectors, 10 ; 
Rembrandt's, 10, 22; Whistler's, 22, 142; 
influence of pen drawing on, 27 ; Jacquemart's, 
85, 104; Lhermitte's, 95; Lalanne's, no; 
Lalauze's, 126; photogravure miscalled, 1S6, 
299, 300; drawing on glass miscalled, 197 ; 
Hamerton's directions for, 283 ; pen drawing 
compared with, 303, 304, 305 ; financial value 
of> 305 ; conditions of the art to-day, 309. 

Evans, Edmund, x, 180. 

Fabbi, 33. 

Fabres, A., 32, 36, 48, 153, 218. 

Eainilien Concert, 66. 

Farny, H. F., 196, 207. 

Fau, Ferrand, 32, 51. 

Favretto, G., 33, 44. 

Feh zum Meer, 82. 

Fenn, Harry, 199, 227, 242. 

Ferris, Gerome, 197. 

Ferris, Stephen J., 197. 

Fiffs der Affe, illustrated by Busch, 67. 

Figaro, 131. 

Figaro Illicstre, 133. 

Fildes, Luke, 139, 163. 

Fliegendc Blatter, 66, 68, 73, t;, 82, 143, 196, 
198, 199, 306, 308; artists of, 82, 196, 198. 

Forestier, A., 143, 144, 145. 

Fortuny, M., 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, -:,e, 
39, 40, 48, 63, 66, 72, 139, 196, 197, 198, 
203, 21S, 220, 224, 284, 287, 308. 

Fraser, W. Lewis, .\, 11. 

Frederick, Waldemar, 83, 86, 293. 

Frederick the Great, Life aiid IVorks of, illus- 
trated by Menzel, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72 ; Uniforms 
of the Army of, illustrated by Menzel, 70, 201. 

Frost, A. B., 133, 173, 196, 199, 210, 214, 217. 

Furniss, Harry, .x, 142, 173. 

Galice, Louis, 19, 32, 51. 
Gamm, A., 64. 
Gaucherel, L., 116. 
Gautier, Lucien, 91, 246. 
Gautier, St. Elme, 116. 
Gazette des Beaux- Arts, 10. 
Gebbie and Barrie, 197. 

George, Ernest, 244. 

Germania, illustrated by Menzel, 63, 69, 70. 

Giacomelli, J., 266. 

Gibbons, Grinling", 140. 

Gilbert, John, Sir, 144. 

Giotto, II, 39, 242, 255. 

Godwin, E. W., 242. 

Gomar, 33. 

Good Words, 137, 147, 149; collection of proofs, 

Gosse, Edmund, xi, 203. 
Goupil and Co., 90, 98. 
Graham, C, 200. 
Graphic, The, 91, 147, 149, 163. 
Grasset, 259, 260. 

Gray, Paul, 139. ' • 

Greatore.K, Elinor, Mrs., 197. 
Green, Charles, 141, 149. 
Greenaway, Kate, Miss, 306. 
Gregory, E. J. 141. 
Griffenhagen, M., 143, 145, 182. 
Grimthorpe, Lord, 248. 
Griset, E., 139. 
Guillaume Freres, 257. 
Gutenberg, 256, 267. 

Habert-Dys, J. A., 92, 200, 236, 261, 266, 270. 
Hacklander, Trouville, etc., 66 ; Humoristische, 

66 ; books, 74. 
Haden, F. Seymour, 303, 308, 309. 
Hall, J. F., xi. 
Hals, Franz, 7. 
Hamerton, P. G., 3, 4, 7, 1°, 28, 90, 138, 287, 

292, 303, 308; Etching and Etchers, I, 283 ; 

Graphic Arts, 2, 27 ; Paris, 96, no. 
Harper and Brothers, x. 
Harpe>^s Alonthly, 30, 85, 104, 140, 145, 197, 

201, 204, 246, 286, 306, 308; office, 196, 

201 ; publications, 200, 201. 
Hassam, F. Childe, 200. 
Haug, R., 67, 74, TJ, 78, 82, 83, 98, 143- 
Havard, H., La Hollande a Vol d'Oiseau, Lalanne's 

illustrations for, 14, 92, no, in. 
Hawley, Hughson, 200. 
Heliogravure, or heliotype, 86. 
Heliotype, in Ujiiverstim, 83, 86. 
Hengel, O., 82. 

Herkomer, Hubert, 45, 141, 163, 293. 
Herrick, Poems, Abbey's illustrations for, 198, 

201, 202. 
Heseltine, J. P. xi. 
Hill, L. Raven, 187, 188. 
Hoe, R., 306. 

Holbein, 9, 63, 251, 254, 256, 300. 
HoU, Frank, 141. 
Home, Herbert P., x, 262, 264, 270, 271. 

2 S 



Houghton, A. Boyd, 139, 163. 

House that Jack Built, The, Caldecott's illustra- 
tions for, 179. 

Howells, W. D., Reinhart's illustrations for his 
books, 198. 

Hudson, T., 72. 

Huet, Paul, 10, 89. 

Hunt, W. Holman, 139. 

Hunter, Colin, 141. 

Hyde, W. H., 199. 

Illustrated London News, 143. 

Image, Selwyn, 142, 262, 264. 

In his Name, Jacomb-Hood's illustrations for, 145. 

In Damen Coupe, illustrated, 66. 

Ink, 279, 280 ; used by Rico, 56 ; lithographic, 
71; brown, 180, 280; Higgins' American draw- 
ing, 279 ; Winsor and Newton's lamp black, 
279, 280; Encre de Chine Liquide, Newman's, 
Winsor and Newton's, India, etc., 280. 

Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts, 243. 

Ipsen, L. S., 200, 268. 

Irving, Washington, Darley's illustrations for his 
books, 199. 

Jacomb-Hood, p. G., 145. 

Jacquemart, J., 85, 103, 104, 198, 253. 

Japanese art, influence of, 220; debt of American 
and European artist to, 236 ; motives and de- 
signs of, 265, 266. 

Jeanniot, P. G., 90, 98, 103, 104, 143. 

Jefferson, Joe, Blum's drawing of, 218, 219. 

Jellicoe, John, 185. 

Job, 133. 

Journalism, Desmoulins' influence on illustrated, 
20 ; power of illustrated, 307. 

Judy, artists of, 143. 

Junghng, J. F., 64. 

Keene, Charles, x, 69, 139, 143, 145, 162, 167, 

Kemble, E. W., 199, 210, 214. 
Kirkpatrick, Frank L., 200. 
Kunst fitr Alle, 73, 82, 83. 

L'ArmAe Franqaise, Detaille's illustrations for, 98. 
L'Art, 30, 32, 36, 48, 90, 91, 93, III, 112, 116, 

120, 128, 140, 162, 284, 307. 
L Illustration, 91, 131. 
La Comidie de Notre Temps, illustrated by Caran 

D'Ache, 131. 
La Comedie du Jour, illustrated by Caran D'Ache, 

La Cruche Casse'e, illustrated by Menzel, 63. 
La Ilustracion Artistica, 48. 

La Ilustraeioti Espaiiola y Americana, 30, 52. 

La Revue Illustree, 91,1 04, 131. 

La Vie Moderne, 19, 30, 31, 32, 36, 91, 104, 128, 


La Vie Parisienne, 91, 143. 

Lalanne, Maxime, i, 13, 14, 15, 27, 39, 92, no, 
137, 276 ; Treatise on Etching, i. 

Lalauze, A., 126, 295. 

Lamb's Essays, Railton's illustrations for, 186. 

Langon, Auguste, 91, 125. 

Lang (German painter), S3. 

Lawless, J. M., 139. 

Lawson, Cecil, 139, 141. 

Lazy Minstrel, J. Ashby-Sterry's, Abbey's draw- 
ing for, 203. 

Le Charivari, 307. 

Le Cout rier Franqais, 9 1 . 

Le Monde Illustre, 31, 51, 91, 277, 306. 

Le Petit Jour7ial pour Rire, 91. 

Leech, J., 73, 139, 143. 

Legge, J. G., x. 

Leighton, Frederick, Sir, xi, 139, 149, 154, 157. 

Leloir, Louis, 99, 109, 126, 284, 295. 

Leloir, Maurice, 91, 109, 126, 253. 

Lemaire, Madeleine, Mme., x, 92, 99. 

Les Artistes Celebres, Rembrandt, 10. 

Les Courses dans VAntiqidtc, illustrated by Caran 
D'Ache, 131. 

Les Premieres, 32,51. 

Lessore, J., 247. 

Leveille, A., 29, 36. 

Lhermitte, Leon, 95, 96, 277. 

Librairie de L'Art, 10. 

Life, New York, 143, 200. 

Lincoln, W. Eaton's drawing of head of, 199, 295. 

Linton, J. D., Sir, 141, 149. 

Linton, W. J., 148, 296. 

Lithography, Menzel's drawing for, 65, 69, 71 ; 
change affected by introduction of photo-, 66, 
293 ; Darley's outline drawings reproduced by, 

Little Lord Fauntleroy, Birch's illustrations for, 
196, 205. 

Low, Will H., 304. 

Ltiders, Hermann, 67, 74, 77, 78, 83, 98. 

Lunel, F., 32, 188. 

Lungren, Frederick, 31, 197, 224, 228, 236, 277. 

Lynch, Albert, 121. 

M'Dermott, Jessie, Miss, 200. 

M'Kim, Meade, and White, 246. 

M 'Ralston, J. W., 149. 

Macbeth, R. W., 141, 163. 

Mackmurdo, A. H., x, 262. 

Macmillan and Co., viii, ix. 

Madrazo, Mme., Galice's drawing of, 19. 



Madrazo, R., 27, 31, 32. 

Magazine of Art, 36, 138, 142, 227. 

Mahoney, J., 139, 149. 

Mandlick, 82. 

Manet, Edouard, viii. 

Maiion LescMif, Leloir's illustrations for, 253. 

Mantegna, 251, 258, 300. 

Marie, Adrien, 91, 188, 277, 306. 

Marks, H. S., 139. 

Marold, Ludwig, 67, 79, 124, 187. 

Mars, 91, 124, 187, 18S, 261. 

Masic, Niccolo, 235. 

Mason, Ernold, 144. 

Mar und Moritz, Busch's illustrations for, 67. 

Meckenen, Israel von, 9, 258. 

Meissonier, J. L. E., 69, 89, 98, 147. 

Menzel, Adolf, x, 27, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 60, 63, 

64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 90, 95, 
139, 141, 147, 150, 154, 163, 179, 196, 201, 
202, 203, 294, 295, 300, 308. 
Mercid, M. J. E., 116. 
Merson, Luc Ollivier, 270. 
Meryon, C, 10, 303. 
Michael Angelo, 2, 8, 27, 72. 
Michel, Emile, Rembrandt by, i o. 
Michetti, 33. 

Millais, John E., Sir, 139, 149. 
Millard, Walter, 244, 245. 
Millet, Jean Francois, 89, 95 
Missal of Maximilian, 258. 
Mitchell, A. B., 247. 
Mitchell, J. D., 199. 
Montalti, A., 33, 46, 47, 277. 
Moran, Peter, 197. 
Moran, Thomas, 197. 
Morgan, Mat, 199. 
Morrow, A. C, 262. 
Morten, T. 149. 
Muhrman, Henry, 196. 
Miiller, Hermann, 65. 
Mulready, W., 144. 
Miinchencr Kalender, 259. 
Munkacsky, M. de., 235. 
Murch, A., 149. 
Murray, David, x. 
Museum, Berlin, edition of Menzel's drawings issued 

by, 65 ; Menzel's drawing of BRicher in, 69. 
Museum, British, xi ; old prints in, 9, 21, 297; 

Uniforms of the Army of Frederick the Great 

in, 201. 
Museum, Plantin, 254, 264, 294. 
Museum, South Kensington, xi ; illustrated papers 

in, 32 ; original blocks in, 139, 142 ; Mulready's 

drawings in, 144 ; Rossetti's drawing of his wife 

in, 148. 
Myrbach, 187. 

Nast, Thomas, 199. 

Nops, D. T., Electrotype Agency, x. 

Oberlander, a., 67, 80, 133, 173. 

Old masters, pen drawings by, 7-2 3 ; sketches of 
projects and intentions, 7 ; comparison between 
their etchings and pen drawings, 8; com- 
parison of Butin's methods with those of, 112 ; 
relation of modern to pen drawing of, 138, 
139 ; contrast of Small's pen drawing with that 
of, 158. 

Old Songs, Parsons' and Abbey's illustrations for, 
78, 201, 202. 

Once a Week, 11, 137, 139, 142, 147, 165. 

Otto of the Silver Hand, Pyle's illustrations for, 
209, 258. 

Our Continent, 308. 

Overbeck, J. F., 35. 

Pablo Dii Segovie, illustrated by Vierge, 31, 32, 
41, 7S, 276, 278. 

Pall Mall Gazette, 306. 

Paolocci, 33. 

Paper, Papier Gillot, 46, 120, 277 ; grained, 
46, 277, 278 ; Whatman, 56, 192, 276, 
277, 278, 286 ; London board, 203, 276 ; 
Bristol board, 205, 275, 276, 277 ; Pierre and 
Sons', and Goodall's Bristol board, 275 ; 
Reeves' mounting board, 275 ; crayon, 277 ; 
Roberson and Co.'s, 276 ; Newman's London 
board and art tablets, 276, 277. 

Parables, Sir J. E. Millais' illustrations for, 149. 

Paris Exhibition, drawings and engravings at 
(1889), 203, 237. 

Paris Illustre, 32, 51, 91. 

Parsons, Alfred, x, 30, 78, 96, 99, 140, 141, 145, 
149, 174, 180, 190, 192, 200, 203, 209, 236, 
253, 260, 261, 262, 264, 268, 286. 

Parsons, Charles, x. 

Partridge, B., 143, 145. 

Paterson, R., 163, 295, 297. 

Pen drawing, no authorities on, ix, i ; modern 
development of, 2, 10, ii ; H. R. Robertson 
on, 3 ; difference between etching and, 3 ; aims 
of, 4 ; in the past, 7-23 ; Spanish and Italian, 
27-60; a painter's process, 27; Fortuny's in- 
novation in, 28 ; ignored by critics, 29 ; an art 
for clever men, 31 ; German, 63-86; Menzel's 
influence on, 63; French, 89-133; original 
work expressed in, 90 ; a fashion in Paris, 92 ; 
used in illustrating catalogues, 93 ; of sculpture, 
114, 116, 120; example of tonality in, 128; 
English, 137-192; in Once a Week, 139; best 
period in England of, 147 ; American, 195-231 ; 
in other European countries, 235 ; Japanese, 
236, 237 ; architectural, 241 - 248 ; for book 



decoration, 251-271 ; materials for, 275-280; 
technical suggestions for, 28 3-2 88 ; things to be 
remembered in, 286 ; size of, 286 ; devices in, 
2S6, 287 ; proper subjects for, 287 ; models for, 
288; reproduction of, 291-300; art of to-day, 
300 ; hopes and fears for, 303 ; etching com- 
pared with, 303, 304, 305 ; financial value of, 
305 ; objections made to, 305, 306 ; for news- 
papers, 306, 307, 308 ; demand for, 308 ; 
future of, 308, 309. 

Pen and Pencil, Excellency of, 3, 278. 

Pennell, Mrs. E. R., ix. 

Pens, used by Raffaelli, 45 ; used by Casanova, 
58; used by Butin, 112; double line, 125, 
278; brush used as, 157, 162, 180; used by 
Wyllie, 159; Gillott's lithographic crow-quill. 
No. 659, J., and quiU, 278 ; stylographic and 
fountain, 278, 279. 

Pepper and Salt, Pyle's illustrations for, 198, 209. 

Phiz, 143. 

Photo-engravers, of Fabres' drawing, 48 ; Ameri- 
can, 126; English, 126, 138; size of drawing 
suggested by, 174, 2S6 ; their methods to 
give effect of wash, 18S; Chefdeville, 214; 
paper recommended by, 275, 276 ; value of 
criticism by, 292 ; co-operation with wood- 
engraver, 292. 

Photo-engraving, influence on pen drawing of, 2, 
27, 66, 90; history of, 11 ; aids to develop- 
ment of, 60, 96, 197; Menzel's work repro- 
duced by, 69; of Dantan's drawing, 100; 
advantage to the artist of, 137 ; Dawson's, 203, 
207; drawings made for, 218; best example 
of, 231 ; inks suitable for, 280; object and 
methods of, 291 ; economy of, 292 ; superiority 
to wood-engraving of, 293, 294, 295 ; compared 
with woodcutting and photogravure, 297, 29S, 
299, 300. 

Photo-lithography. See Lithography. 

Photo-print, or heliotype, 86. 

Photography, aid to artists of, 8 ; applied to repro- 
duction of pen drawings, 11, 64, 138, 147; 
artistic use of, 210, 219, 220, 228; use to 
architects of, 247. 

Photogravure, reproductions of Fortuny's drawing 
by, 29 ; of- Vierge's drawing, 41 ; of Fabres' 
drawing, 48 ; of Rico's drawing, 52, 53, 56 ; 
of Casanova's drawing, 58, 59, 60 ; of Menzel's 
drawing, 69, 7 1 ; difference between heliotype 
and, 86 ; of Detaille's and De Neuville's work, 
90, 98 ; of Lhermitte's drawing, 95, 96 ; advan- 
tages of, 140, 162, 163 ; of Sandys' drawing com- 
pared with woodcut, 150; of Sir F. Leighton's 
drawing compared with woodcut, 157; of Fred 
Walker's drawing, 162 ; of Reid's drawing, 
174; miscalled etching, 186; of Parsons' draw- 

ing, 192, 260; of Abbey's drawing, 202; of 
Blum's drawing, 218; important drawings 
reproduced by, 285 ; object of, 291 ; how made, 
291, 292 ; compared with photo-engraving and 
woodcutting, 297, 298, 299, 300; real and 
fictitious value of, 304, 305. 

Pkk-Me-Up, artists of, x, 187, 188. 

Picturesque America, Fenn's illustrations for, 199. 

Pinwell, G, J., 139, I49, 162, 163. 

Pite, A. B. Beresford, 245. 

Piton, Camille, 200, 246. 

Plantin, 255, 256. 

Plon, Nourrit, and Co., 133. 

Poirson, V., 32, 253. 

Ponce de Leon Hotel, descriptive pamphlet of, x, 

Portfolio, Tlie, no, 137. 

Poussin, Nicholas, 89. 

Poynter, E. J., xi, 139, 154. 

Pre-Raphaelites, the, 150. 

Pre-Raphaelite movement, Du Manner's burlesque 
of, 166. 

Pre-Raphaelite work, 153. 

Prince's Progress, The, Rossetti's illustrations for, 

Printing, American, xi ; R. and R. Clark's, xi ; of 
process blocks, 56 ; comparison of French and 
American to English block, 138 ; De Vinne's, 
197 ; progress in, 208, 209, 218 ; of old work, 
253 ; early and modern, 256, 257 ; of Hobby- 
Horse, 264 ; of photo-engraving and photo- 
gravure, 291 ; of illustrated newspapers, 306. 

Process, reproduction of "\'andyke's and Rem- 
brandt's etchings by, 10; influence on pen 
drawing of, 1 1 ; meaning of, i i ; advantages 
of, 29, 64, 137, 168, 169; value of drawings 
made for, 36 ; printing of, 56 ; Vierge's in- 
fluence on, 60 ; iNIeisenbach, 66, 92, 307 ; 
Guillaume, 92 ; paintings reproduced by, 93 ; 
Jeanniot's work adapted to, 103 ; possibilities 
of, 126, 154; English, 138; English draughts- 
men who have worked for, 145 ; reproduction 
of old woodcuts, 148, 149 ; compared to wood- 
cuts, 168, 169; Furniss' work for, 173 ; Bren- 
nan's knowledge of, 223 ; economy of, 292 ; 
processes resembling pen drawing, 293 ; re- 
quirements of, 294, 295 ; true value of, 296, 
297 ; for newspapers, 307. 

Puck, 200. 

Punch, 138, 143, 147, 165, 166, 167, 170, 173. 

Pyle, Howard, x, 17S, 196, 198, 20S, 209, 253, 
25S, 259, 268. 

OUANTIN, 14, no. 

RAFF.-\iiLLI, J. F., 33, 45. 

Railton, Herbert, 144, 145, 184, 185, 186, 262. 



Rajon, Paul, 140. 

Raphael, 2, 8, 27, 153. 

Redwood, A. C, 200. 

Regamey, Felix, 236, 265. 

Reid, George, x, 30, 140, 141, 145, 174^ 175. 

Reinhart, C. S., 196, 198, 203, 204, 277. 

Reitch, J., 199. 

Rembrandt, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 82, no, 288. 

Remington, Frederick, 184, 199, 210, 214. 

Renouard, Paul, 91, 266. 

Ri^pine, 235. 

Reynolds, Joshua, Sir, 39, 40, 72, 160. 

Richardson, 245. 

Richfelt, K., 86. 

Richter, Albert, 82, 83. 

Rico, Martin, x, 9, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 52, 53, 56, 
57, 63, 92, 96, 122, 139, 153, 192, 196, 197, 
198, 201, 203, 219, 224, 278, 284, 308. 
Ringel d'lllzach, 46, 91, 116, 277. 

Riordan, Roger, 268. 

Robertson, H. R., Pen Drawing hy, 2, 287. 

Robida, A., 92. 

Robin Hood, Pyle's illustrations for, ig8, 209. 

Rochegrosse, G., 92, 187, 261. 

Rogers, W. A., 199. 

Romola, Sir F. Leighton's illustrations for, 149. 

Rossetti, D. G., 2, 16, 19, 29, 148. 

Rossetti, W. M., x, 148. 

Rossi, 187. 

Roth, 80. 

Rousseau, J., 89. 

Routledge, George, and Sons, x. 

Royal Academy, 93, 246, 247 ; Architectural 

School of, 3. 
Royal Institute of British Architects, Transactions 

of, 243, 244, 245. 
Ruskin, John, 3, 247, 284 ; Elements of Drawing, 

I, 9, 288. 
Ryland, Henry, 262. 

St. Nicholas, 196, 198, 224, 261. 

Salon, 93, 95, 116, 235. 

Salon Catalogue, 32, 90, 93, 128, 260. 

Sambourne, Linley, x, 143, 168, 169, 170. 

Sandham, H., 278. 

Sandys, F., xi, 139, 148, 150. 

Scheyner, 82, 83. 

Schlittgen, H., 66, 67, 74, 82, 124, 143, 182, 

187, 205, 224. 
Schongaur, Martin, 300. 
Schultz, R. W., 245. 
Scoppetta, 33. 

Scott, H., 91, 121, 122, 246. 
Scrambles among the High Alps, Mahoney's illus- 
trations for, 149. 
Scribner's, Charles, Sons, x; Monthly {Century), 

31, 196, 197 ; publications, 200; collection of 
proofs, 295. 
Seeley and Co., ix, x, 95. 
Senzanni, 33. 
Shaw, Norman, 245. 
She Stoops to Conquer, Abbey's and Parsons' 

illustrations for, x, xi, 192, 198, 201, 202. 
Shilling Magazine, 147, 150. 
Shirlaw, Walter, 196. 

Sign of the Lyre, Abbey's illustrations for, 203. 
Small, William, 139, 158, 163. 
Smeaton, Mrs., Wirgman's drawing of portrait of, 

Smillie, J. D., 197. 
Snyders, Vandyke's head of, 19, 21. 
Socicte d' Aquarellistes Fran^ais, Catalogue of, 93 ; 

exhibition of, 95. 
Solomon, Saul, 149, 150. 
Spanish a?id Italian Folk-Songs, Miss Strettell's, 

Abbey's illustrations for, 203. 
Spiers, R. Phene, 245 ; Architectural Dra'wi7ig, 3, 

241, 242, 243. 
Sterne, Leloir's illustrations for his books, 91, 109, 

126 ; Sentimental Journey, Leloir's illustrations 

for, 253. 
Stevens, Alfred, 121. 
Street, G. E., 245. 
StLibbe, 82. 
Stucki, A., 85. 

Sumner, Heywood, 262, 268. 
Sunday Magazine, 137, 147, 149. 
Swain, Joseph, xi, 149, 150, 167, 168, 169, 295. 

Taeer, W., 277. 

Tartarin de Tarascon, Jeanniot's illustrations for, 

Taylor, C. J., 199. 

Technique, value of, ix ; importance of, i ; in 
drawing of portraits, 20 ; influence of Vierge on, 
40 ; Fabres, 48 ; advanced by experimenters, 
60 ; its absence from Caldecott's and Busch's 
work, 67 ; Menzel's, 69, 71 ; Dantan's mastery 
of, 100; Du Maurier's, 142, 166; of English 
draughtsmen, 143, 144 ; of Sandys' compared 
with Diirer's, 150 ; Sambourne's, 168 ; Abbey's 
command of, 20l, 202 ; progress in, 208, 209 ; 
Brennan's, 220 ; suggestions for, 283-28S ; to- 
day, 300. 

Tenniel, J., 139, 144. 

Tennyson, Poems of, Rossetti's illustrations for, 2, 
137, 148; Palace of Art, 148. 

Thomas, R. Kent, 293. 

Thomson, Gordon, 149. 

Thomson, Hugh, 144, 145, 184, 185, 262. 

Thulstup, T. de, 200. 

Tiepolo, 10. 



Titian, 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22. 

Tito, E., 33, 57. 

Treves, Fratelli, 46. 

Trouville, Schlittgen's illustrations for, 66, 67, 74. 

Triibner and Co., 74. 

Turner, J. M. W., 247. 

Unger, E., 82, 261, 266. 
Universal Review, 86, 163. 
Unive7-sutn, S2, 86, 267. 
Unzelmann, F., 64, 65. 
Urrabieta, S. (Vierge), 32. 

Van Beers, J., 235. 

Van Haanen, C, 235. 

Van Ingen and Snyder, 201. 

Van Leyden, Lucas, 300. 

Van Renssalaer, M. G., Mrs., 246. 

Van Schaick, S. W., 199. 

Vandyke, 10, 19, 20, 21. 

Vasari, 39. 

Vedder, Elihu, 268. 

Velasquez, 7, 9. 

Vernet, Horace, 89. 

Viear of Wakefield, Poirson's illustrations for, 253. 

Vierge, Daniel, x, 9, 27, 29, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 
51, 60, Tl, 78, 83, 90, 92, 188, 196, 198, 201, 
203, 205, 220, 224, 235, 276, 277, 27S, 308. 

Vogel, Albert, 64, 65. 

Vogel, Otto, 65. 

Walker, Fred, xi, 139, 141, 149, 162, 163, 164, 

Walker and Boutall, 154. 
Walter, John, 306. 
Ware, W. R., 243. 
Warner, Olin L., 199. 
Water Babies, Sambourne's illustrations for, 169, 

Waterlow and Sons, Limited, 56. 
Watson, J. D., 149. 
Weber, Marie, 1 16. 

Whistler, J. M'N., 8, 22, no, 142, 220, 303, 309. 
Whitney, J. H. E., 64, 163, 295. 
Whymper, Edward, 149. 
Wide Awake, 200. 
Wilkie, D., Sir, 144. 
Willette, A., 133, 18S. 
Williams, Isaac L., 201. 
Willson, Leslie, 143, 187. 
Wilson, EdL'ar W.. 188. 

Wirgman, T. Blake, x, 141, 160. 
Wolf, M. A., 139, 199. 

Wonder Clock, the, Pyle's illustrations for, 209. 
Wood, H. Trueman, Methods of Illustrating Books 
by, I I, 291. 

Woodbury process, i i. 

Woodcuts, DUrer's, 16; of Fortuny's drawings, 
28, 29 ; difference between process and, 29, 
169 ; of Menzel's work, 69, 72 ; in Once a 
Week, 139; of Sir F. Leighton's drawings, 
139; in Dalziel's Bible Gallery, 148; in Eng- 
lish magazines before process, 149 ; of Sandys' 
drawing compared with photogravure, 150; com- 
pared with process blocks, 154 ; of Keene's draw- 
ings, 167 ; of Furniss' drawings, 173 ; draughts- 
man's work lost in early, 264 ; Paterson's, of 
Durer's Big Horse, 297 ; compared with photo- 
engraving and photogravure, 297, 298, 299, 

Woodcutters, difificulties and limitations of early, 
176, 265, 295 ; of Diirer's work, 293, 294. 

Woodcutting, Menzel's influence on facsimile, 60, 
69 ; development and future of, 64 ; in greatest 
period of English pen drawing, 147, 148, 149 ; 
compared with process and mechanical repro- 
duction, 14S, 168, 169; in Durer's time, 293. 

Wood-engravers, of Menzel's work, 63, 64, 65, 
295 ; labour of, 137 ; Fred Walker's drawing 
for, 141, 142 ; oi Bunch, 143 ; of Fred Walker's 
time, 162, 163, 164, 295 ; of Japan, 237 ; con- 
ventionality of work drawn for, 254, 293 ; co- 
operation of photo-engraver with, 292. 

Wood-engraving, definition of present art, 64 ; in 
Bunch, 138, 164, 165 ; reproduced by process, 
148 ; commencement of reaction against trans- 
lative, 154; compared with photo -engraving, 
162, 163, 295. 

Woods, Henry, 139. 

Woodville, R. Caton, 143. 

Woodward, J. D., 242. 

Wright, C. L., Gravure Company, 231. 

Wyllie, W. L., x., 142, 159. 

XlMENEZ, 33. 

Yon, Edmond, 92. 

Yriarte, C, Life of Fortuny, 35. 

Yves and Barret, lOO. 

ZOGBAUM, R. F., 200. 
Zwischen Zwei Rccen, 66. 

PriiUcdhy R. & R. Clark, Ediid'in-^h.