DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.62037#0061
38 JOHN RAPHAEL SMITH
stantiate his claim. And little as we can regard him as a
draughtsman or as a colourist, he was accounted both by
his contemporaries, who, after all, had a higher standard
for engraving, Northcote notwithstanding, than obtains
to-day. For otherwise West’s proposition to the King
had not been made. And Smith’s bad drawing was occa-
sional, accidental, unaccountable, like the moods of a
froward woman, characteristic, too, of the period. Give
him, on the other hand, a picture, one with which he is
in sympathy, that inspires him, and straight, without
etching or indication, he repeats it on the grounded
copper, scraping with eager responsive fingers, not only
the flow of the drapery, the contour of the face, the pose,
the gesture, but the very spirit and soul of the subject
that becomes his own as he gazes. Smith was a mar-
vellously rapid worker. That he could dispense with
outlines is indubitable. When he laid his own grounds
he used a coarse rocking tool, and he used it compara-
tively few ways. When all other evidence as to authen-
ticity, or concerning signature, is doubtful, Smith’s grounds
are unmistakable. When he scraped, he scraped relent-
lessly ; when he proved his plate finally, it happened very
often that, contrary to the experience and practice of
many engravers, he had over - scraped, not under-
scraped, his plate. His unerring hand and eye found
easily the necessary delicacy, but his emotional methods
missed the necessary caution. Here, then, we get another
index finger to the indubitable “ Raphael Smith ” manner.
He resorted to—may one call it ?—trickery, to hide the
result of his impulsive speed. He added a texture ; that
is to say, he made a pretence of re-rocking his ground ; he
worked it up just so slightly as to mark the difference
between delicacy and disappearance. The work he had
over-reduced reappeared with a difference ; it was a trick
never safe in the hands of an engraver who was less an
artist than J. R. Smith. To judge him fairly, however,
one must judge him by his early, if not his very earliest,
proofs. The very earliest I have seen required no altera-
tion in the outlines 1 Here there is a light to be height-
stantiate his claim. And little as we can regard him as a
draughtsman or as a colourist, he was accounted both by
his contemporaries, who, after all, had a higher standard
for engraving, Northcote notwithstanding, than obtains
to-day. For otherwise West’s proposition to the King
had not been made. And Smith’s bad drawing was occa-
sional, accidental, unaccountable, like the moods of a
froward woman, characteristic, too, of the period. Give
him, on the other hand, a picture, one with which he is
in sympathy, that inspires him, and straight, without
etching or indication, he repeats it on the grounded
copper, scraping with eager responsive fingers, not only
the flow of the drapery, the contour of the face, the pose,
the gesture, but the very spirit and soul of the subject
that becomes his own as he gazes. Smith was a mar-
vellously rapid worker. That he could dispense with
outlines is indubitable. When he laid his own grounds
he used a coarse rocking tool, and he used it compara-
tively few ways. When all other evidence as to authen-
ticity, or concerning signature, is doubtful, Smith’s grounds
are unmistakable. When he scraped, he scraped relent-
lessly ; when he proved his plate finally, it happened very
often that, contrary to the experience and practice of
many engravers, he had over - scraped, not under-
scraped, his plate. His unerring hand and eye found
easily the necessary delicacy, but his emotional methods
missed the necessary caution. Here, then, we get another
index finger to the indubitable “ Raphael Smith ” manner.
He resorted to—may one call it ?—trickery, to hide the
result of his impulsive speed. He added a texture ; that
is to say, he made a pretence of re-rocking his ground ; he
worked it up just so slightly as to mark the difference
between delicacy and disappearance. The work he had
over-reduced reappeared with a difference ; it was a trick
never safe in the hands of an engraver who was less an
artist than J. R. Smith. To judge him fairly, however,
one must judge him by his early, if not his very earliest,
proofs. The very earliest I have seen required no altera-
tion in the outlines 1 Here there is a light to be height-