_Punch_ took the criticism in good part, while declaring that he had found this commonplace nineteenth century and its humdrum materials pretty well suited to his purpose; and after indulging in a whimsical dialogue between the editor, Giovanni Tennielo, and Ruskino in Venice, comes to the conclusion that after all the Queen of the Adriatic may have had even in her great days something less noble to lose than that condemned typical "pudding" which John Bull as yet has fortunately known how to guard. In this context I may add that in 1885 _Punch_ reprinted an advertisement in which a young man, seeking for a place, stated amongst his credentials that he could "paint and talk Ruskinesque." [Illustration: WHAT PORTRAIT-PAINTING IS COMING TO THE DUKE OF DILWATER: "I--a--have taken the liberty of calling to say that I shall esteem myself highly honoured if you will be so very kind as to accept from me a Commission to paint my Portrait, at any time most convenient to yourself!" FASHIONABLE ARTIST (_after careful survey of His Grace's features_): "You must excuse me, Duke, but I really can't. I--a--always choose my own Subjects now, you know, and I'm sorry to say that your Grace won't do!"] As I have not minimized _Punch's_ limitations as an art critic, it is only fair to add that he was often sound and sometimes even acute. He said the right thing on the _parvenu_ as art patron, and delicately hinted his approval of the independence of portrait painters. His appreciation of the strength of "Phiz" (Hablot K. Browne) as the illustrator of Dickens and Lever in helping us to visualize and fix certain types is excellently done, and generous admiration does not prevent him pointing out "Phiz's" weaknesses--his sketchiness, thin and skimpy style, and simpering mannerisms. This was said on the occasion of the show of "Phiz's" drawings in 1883 (the year after his death) which _Punch_ recommended to "genial Middle-age with memories and unpriggish Youth without hyperæsthetic prejudices." Nothing could be better in its way, again, than the castigation of the "slick" and deliberate eccentricities of Jan Van Beers in 1886. _Punch_ admits the Dutch artist's talent, his capacity for higher work, proved in historical paintings, and then sets to work to wield the lash:-- Popinjay Art is plentiful enough. It is the trick whereby mediocrity antics itself into a sort of notoriety, and cynical cleverness indolently plays the fool with an easily humbugged public. It is probably calculated--perhaps with some reason--that these stagey tricks, and limelight effects, and dismal draperies, and bogey surprises, and peep-show horrors will perplex people into a foolish wonder, if not into an impossible enjoyment or an honest approval. Maybe that is all which is aimed at? But what an aim for anything calling itself Art!