well
expressed, laconic truth.

Sec. 35. Works of David Roberts: their fidelity and grace.

Among the members of the Academy, we have at present only one
professedly architectural draughtsman of note, David Roberts, whose
reputation is probably farther extended on the continent than that of
any other of our artists, except Landseer. I am not certain, however,
that I have any reason to congratulate either of my countrymen upon this
their European estimation; for I think it exceedingly probable that in
both instances it is exclusively based on their defects; and in the case
of Mr. Roberts, in particular, there has of late appeared more ground
for it than is altogether desirable in a smoothness and over-finish of
texture which bears dangerous fellowship with the work of our Gallic
neighbors.

The fidelity of intention and honesty of system of Roberts have,
however, always been meritorious; his drawing of architecture is
dependent on no unintelligible lines, or blots, or substituted types:
the main lines of the real design are always there, and its hollowness
and undercuttings given with exquisite feeling; his sense of solidity of
form is very peculiar, leading him to dwell with great delight on the
roundings of edges and angles; his execution is dexterous and delicate,
singularly so in oil, and his sense of chiaroscuro refined. But he has
never done himself justice, and suffers his pictures to fall below the
rank they should assume, by the presence of several marring characters,
which I shall name, because it is perfectly in his power to avoid them.
In looking over the valuable series of drawing of the Holy Land, which
we owe to Mr. Roberts, we cannot but be amazed to find how frequently
it has happened that there was something very white immediately in the
foreground, and something very black exactly behind it. The same thing
happens perpetually with Mr. Roberts's pictures; a white column is
always coming out of a blue mist, or a white stone out of a green pool,
or a white monument out of a brown recess, and the artifice is not
always concealed with dexterity. This is unworthy of so skilful a
composer, and it has destroyed the impressiveness as well as the color
of some of his finest works. It shows a poverty of conception, which
appears to me to arise from a deficient habit of study. It will be
remembered that of the sketches for this work, several times exhibited
in London, every one was executed in the same manne