noble relief, is in such "fine contrast to the pale and
feminine sweetness of the scribe at his feet, that for
a time you are satisfied. But by and "by you begin to
doubt whether this picture is not rather imposing than
majestic. The dignity of the prophet's appearance
seems to lie rather in the fine lines of the form and
drapery than in the expression of the face. It was
well observed by one who looked on him, that, if the
eyes were cast down, he would become an ordinary
man. This is true, and the expression of the bard,
must not depend on a look or gesture, but beam with
mild electricity from every feature. Allston's Jeremiah
is not the mournfully indignant bard, but the robust
and stately Jew, angry that men will not mark his
word and go his way."
The test here Imagined, that of concealing the eyes, would answer as little in real as in pictured life. Although the method of these criticisms is arbitrary, the conclusion to which they bring Margaret is one in which many will agree with her:—
"The more I have looked at these pictures, the more I have been satisfied that the grand historical style dish not afford the scope most proper to Mr. Allston's genius. The Prophets and sibyls are cor the Michael Angelos, The Beautiful is Mr. Allston's dominion. Here he rules as a genius, but in attempts such as I have been considering, can only show his appreciation of the stern and sublime thoughts he wants force to reproduce."
Margaret is glad to go back from these more laboured and unequal compositions to those lovely feminine creations which had made themselves do beloved that they seemed to belong to the spiritual family of Boston itself, and to “have floated across the painter's heaven on the golden clouds of fantasy."
