The "_facile princeps_" of daily critics of art (he of the Post) has the following, in a criticism of Herbert's _Gregory and Choristers_:-- "There is a want of _modulative melody_ in its colours and mellowness in _its hand_ (whose?), pushed to an _outré_ simplicity in _the plainness and ungrammatical development of its general effect_. The handling is firm and simple, though in the drapery occasionally too square and inflexible." [Illustration: MANNERS AND CVSTOMS OF YE ENGLYSHE IN 1849 YE EXHYBITYON. AT YE ROYAL ACADEMYE.] The neglect and rough handling of the treasures of the National Gallery, where pictures presented to the nation were buried in a vault, is a frequent source of indignant comment throughout this period--note for example "The Pictures' Petition" in 1853. But in another sense contemporary pictures were roughly handled by _Punch_. Thus in 1849 he puts in an effective plea for realism as against Wardour Street "Old Clo'," and appeals to artists to "paint human beings instead of clothes-horses." There is indeed a strangely familiar ring in "Mr. Pips's" notes on the R.A. Exhibition of the year:-- "The Exhibition at large I judge to be a very excellent middling one, many Pictures good in their kind, but that Kind in very few cases high. The Silks and Satins mostly painted to admiration, and the Figures copied carefully from the Model; but this do appear too plainly; and the action generally too much like a Scene in a Play." The same complaint recurs in the following year, when _Punch_ is moved, as the result of visiting all the exhibitions then open to ask certain questions:-- Is painting a living art in England at this moment? Is there a nineteenth century? Are there men and women round about us, doing, acting, suffering? Is the subject matter of Art, clothes? Or is it men and women, their actions, passions and sufferings? If Art is vital, should it not somehow find food among living events, interests, and incidents? Is our life, at this day, so unideal, so devoid of all sensuous and outward picturesqueness and beauty, that for subjects to paint we must needs go back to the Guelphs and Ghibellines, or to Charles the Second, or William the Third, or George the Second? [Sidenote: _The P.R.B._] [Illustration: CONVENT THOUGHTS] But much more interesting than these generalities--sound and sensible though they are--is the first reference to "certain young friends of mine, calling themselves--the dear silly boys--Pre-Raphaelites" in the same volume. It must certainly be admitted that in his earlier criticisms of the P.R.B.'s _Mr. Punch_ managed to dissemble his affection pretty effectively. The initial compliment in the notice of 1851 is largely discounted by what follows:--