diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63719-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63719-0.txt | 13998 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13998 deletions
diff --git a/old/63719-0.txt b/old/63719-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1cd9d56..0000000 --- a/old/63719-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13998 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Louvre: Fifty Plates in Colour, by Paul -G. (Paul George) Konody and Maurice W. Brockwell, Edited by T. Leman Hare - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Louvre: Fifty Plates in Colour - - -Author: Paul G. (Paul George) Konody and Maurice W. Brockwell - -Editor: T. Leman Hare - -Release Date: November 13, 2020 [eBook #63719] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LOUVRE: FIFTY PLATES IN -COLOUR*** - - -E-text prepared by Turgut Dincer, Robert Tonsing, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images -generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 63719-h.htm or 63719-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/63719/63719-h/63719-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/63719/63719-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/louvrefiftyplate00konorich - - - Some characters might not display properly in this UTF-8 - text file (e.g., empty squares). If so, the reader should - consult the html version or the original page images noted - above. - - -Transcriber’s note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - - - - -THE LOUVRE: -FIFTY PLATES IN COLOUR - - - [Illustration: - PLATE IV.—LEONARDO DA VINCI - - (1452-1519) - - FLORENTINE SCHOOL - - No. 1601.—PORTRAIT OF MONA LISA - - (La Joconde) - - The portrait of Lisa di Anton Maria di Noldo Gherardini, third wife - of Francesco di Bartolommeo de Zenobi del Giocondo. She is seated - in a chair on which her left arm rests, her right hand superposed - on the left. She is turned three-quarters to her right. Her hair, - divided in the centre and seen under a transparent veil, falls - in curls on her shoulders; her dark almond-shaped eyes look out - at the spectator; the mouth is smiling. She wears a dark-green - dress with golden-brown sleeves; a dark cloak is draped over her - shoulders. The background is formed by a mountainous landscape full - of incident. - - Painted in tempera on panel, and restored in oil. - - 2 ft. 6½ in. × 1 ft. 9 in. (0·79 × 0·53.)] - - -THE LOUVRE: -FIFTY PLATES IN COLOUR - -by - -PAUL G. KONODY and MAURICE W. BROCKWELL - -Joint-Authors of “The National Gallery: One Hundred Plates in Colour” - -Editor: T. Leman Hare - - -[Illustration] - - - - - - -New York -Dodge Publishing Company -214-220 East 23rd Street - - - - - PREFACE - - -Those who wish to make a thorough, comprehensive, and systematic study -of the pictures of the great national collection contained in the -Louvre, which extend from the early years of the fourteenth century -down to almost the present day, will be well advised to deal with the -artists by the countries, schools, and periods to which they belong. -That is the scheme which we have followed here. - -We do not hesitate to refer to painters, especially those of the -Italian schools, under the names by which they are generally known to -modern critics, as opposed to those under which they are officially -catalogued by the Louvre authorities. Thus, Raphael, Titian, and Giulio -Romano, and not Santi, Vecelli, and Pippi, are the names which we shall -use in this book. Special attention is drawn to the fact that the -official attributions of a certain number of the pictures, mainly of -the Italian schools, and notably several by Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, -and Titian, are not accepted by us. - -The authors of any critical book on a large national collection which -includes several hundred Italian paintings of varying importance -must of necessity be under heavy obligations to Mr. Berenson, whose -scholarly, scientific, and constructive criticism, following on that of -Morelli, has entirely revolutionised the study of Italian art. - -It will be noticed that in many instances the dates used in these -pages do not coincide with those given in the official Catalogues and -repeated in a large number of text-books, while in a few cases it has -been thought desirable to draw the attention of the student to the -questionable accuracy of some of the titles and “pedigrees.” - -The illustrations which have been selected represent, as far as -possible, the whole range of the art of each country and school -comprised within the limits of the fifteenth to the nineteenth -centuries. The Plates are arranged in the order in which reference is -made to them in the text, but it has been found impossible to place -them opposite the pages on which the critical remarks are given. - -In the descriptions of the pictures the terms _right_ and _left_ are -used in reference to the right and left of the spectator, unless -the text obviously implies the contrary. Moreover, in the titles of -pictures containing the Madonna and several Saints, the names of the -Saints are given in the order they occupy in the composition regarded -from left to right. The titles we have used are descriptive rather than -mere translations of those contained in the official Catalogue. The -official numbers are those marked in large figures and placed at the -top of the frames; the numbers in small figures affixed to the bottom -left corner of some of the frames are obsolete. - -The surface measures of the pictures are for convenience given in feet -and inches as well as in metres, the height preceding the width. The -technical conditions as to panel or canvas and tempera or oil are also -noted. - -Most of the Rooms containing pictures are open:— - - 1. On Sundays all the year round, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. - - 2. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays from April 1 to - September 30, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. - - 3. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays from October 1 - to March 31, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. - - 4. On Thursdays in the Summer Months, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and in the - Winter Months, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. - - 5. Rooms IX.-XIII., which contain French pictures and Rooms - XIX.-XXXV., which contain Flemish and Dutch pictures are not open - before eleven o’clock. - - 6. The Louvre is closed on Mondays all the year round, and on - January 1, July 14, and Ascension Day; it is also closed on the - Feast of the Assumption (August 15), All Saints Day (November 1), - and Christmas Day, unless these last three days fall on a Sunday. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - PAGE - PREFACE v - - INTRODUCTION 1 - - EARLY SIENESE SCHOOL 15 - DUCCIO’S FOLLOWERS 16 - - THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL 19 - THE GIOTTESQUES 20 - FRA ANGELICO 23 - PAOLO UCCELLO 26 - THE GOLDSMITH PAINTERS 32 - LEONARDO DA VINCI 34 - MONA LISA 36 - BOTTICELLI 39 - ALBERTINELLI 43 - ANDREA DEL SARTO 45 - - THE LATER SIENESE SCHOOL 49 - - THE UMBRIAN SCHOOL 53 - PERUGINO 54 - RAPHAEL 56 - - THE VENETIAN SCHOOL 61 - THE BELLINI 62 - GIORGIONE 66 - TITIAN 68 - TITIAN’S FOLLOWERS 72 - PAOLO VERONESE 74 - - THE PADUAN SCHOOL 79 - ANDREA MANTEGNA 80 - - THE SCHOOL OF VERONA 85 - - THE SCHOOL OF FERRARA 89 - - THE SCHOOL OF MILAN 93 - ANDREA SOLARIO 95 - BERNARDINO LUINI 96 - - THE SCHOOL OF LOMBARDY 99 - - THE SCHOOL OF FERRARA-BOLOGNA 101 - - THE SCHOOL OF CREMONA 103 - - THE SCHOOL OF BRESCIA 105 - - THE SCHOOL OF MODENA 107 - - THE SCHOOL OF VICENZA 109 - - THE SCHOOL OF VERCELLI 111 - - THE SCHOOL OF PARMA 113 - - THE SCHOOL OF BOLOGNA 115 - - THE DECADENT SCHOOLS 117 - THE “MANNERISTS” 117 - THE “ECLECTICS” 118 - THE “NATURALISTS” 120 - - THE EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL 123 - JAN VAN EYCK 124 - THE SCHOOL OF TOURNAI 124 - HANS MEMLINC 125 - MEMLINC’S “VIRGIN AND CHILD, WITH DONORS” 127 - GERARD DAVID 128 - HIERONYMUS BOSCH 130 - THE ANTWERP SCHOOL 131 - BAREND VAN ORLEY 133 - - THE LATE FLEMISH SCHOOL 135 - PIETER BRUEGHEL 136 - JAN BRUEGHEL 137 - THE FRANCK FAMILY 138 - PETER PAUL RUBENS 139 - RUBENS AT ANTWERP 140 - THE MÉDICIS SERIES 142 - MÉDICIS PORTRAITS 143 - LATE WORKS BY RUBENS 145 - ANTHONY VAN DYCK 146 - VAN DYCK’S SECOND ANTWERP PERIOD 147 - “LE ROI À LA CHASSE” 148 - FRANS SNYDERS 149 - JACOB JORDAENS 150 - FOLLOWERS OF RUBENS 151 - ADRIAEN BROUWER 152 - DAVID TENIERS 153 - PHILIPPE DE CHAMPAIGNE 155 - VAN DER MEULEN 156 - MINOR FLEMISH PAINTERS 156 - - THE GERMAN SCHOOL 159 - “THE MASTER OF THE BARTHOLOMEW ALTAR” 159 - COLOGNE PAINTERS 160 - ALBRECHT DÜRER 161 - DÜRER’S FOLLOWERS 162 - LUCAS CRANACH 162 - HANS HOLBEIN 163 - THE KRATZER PORTRAIT 164 - PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES 166 - THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 167 - THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 167 - - THE SPANISH SCHOOL 171 - LUIS DE DALMAU 171 - LUIS MORALES 172 - EL GRECO 173 - THE SCHOOL OF SEVILLE 175 - ZURBARÁN 176 - RIBERA 177 - VELAZQUEZ 179 - THE INFANTA 181 - MARIANA OF AUSTRIA 182 - COPIES AND SCHOOL PICTURES 183 - THE “MEETING OF THIRTEEN PEOPLE” 184 - MURILLO 185 - “THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION” 186 - “THE BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN” 187 - “THE ANGELS’ KITCHEN” 188 - THE SCHOOL OF MADRID 189 - GOYA 191 - - THE DUTCH SCHOOL 193 - GERARD OF HAARLEM 193 - SIR ANTONIS MOR 195 - SPANISH OPPRESSION 196 - HISTORY AND PORTRAIT PAINTERS 197 - CORNELIS JANSSEN 198 - FRANS HALS 198 - DUTCH INDEPENDENCE 201 - REMBRANDT 201 - THE PUPILS OF REMBRANDT 205 - VAN DER HELST 205 - GENRE PAINTERS 207 - ADRIAEN VAN OSTADE 207 - GERARD DOU 208 - DOU’S PUPILS 210 - GERARD TERBORCH 211 - JAN STEEN 212 - PIETER DE HOOCH 213 - NICOLAS MAES 214 - GABRIEL METSU 215 - LANDSCAPE PAINTERS 216 - AELBERT CUYP 217 - JACOB VAN RUISDAEL 218 - HOBBEMA 219 - PHILIPS WOUWERMAN 219 - THE ITALIAN INFLUENCE 220 - ARCHITECTURAL PAINTERS 221 - MARINE PAINTERS 222 - STILL-LIFE PAINTERS 223 - THE DECLINE 224 - - THE EARLY FRENCH SCHOOL 227 - THE MAÎTRE DE MOULINS 228 - THE DE SOMZÉE “MAGDALEN” 230 - JEAN FOUQUET 231 - NICOLAS FROMENT 232 - - THE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL 235 - JEAN CLOUET’S DRAWINGS 235 - FRANÇOIS CLOUET 237 - CORNEILLE DE LYON 238 - THE SCHOOL OF FONTAINEBLEAU 239 - JEAN COUSIN 240 - - THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL 243 - THE BROTHERS LE NAIN 244 - NICOLAS POUSSIN 245 - CLAUDE LORRAIN 247 - LE SUEUR 248 - CHARLES LE BRUN 249 - PIERRE MIGNARD 250 - LE BRUN’S FOLLOWERS 251 - BATTLE PAINTERS 253 - JEAN JOUVENET 253 - THE PORTRAIT PAINTERS 254 - LANDSCAPE PAINTERS 257 - DESPORTES 258 - - THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL 259 - GENRE PAINTERS 259 - RAOUX AND DE TROY 260 - WATTEAU 261 - THE WATTEAUS IN THE LA CAZE GALLERY 263 - WATTEAU’S FOLLOWERS 263 - THE VAN LOO FAMILY 264 - FRANÇOIS BOUCHER 265 - SIMÉON CHARDIN 267 - FRAGONARD 268 - GREUZE 269 - PORTRAIT PAINTERS 270 - TOCQUÉ, VESTIER, AND LÉPICIÉ 270 - MME. VIGÉE LE BRUN 272 - JOSEPH VERNET 273 - HUBERT ROBERT 273 - JACQUES LOUIS DAVID 275 - THE “CORONATION” PICTURE 276 - BARON GÉRARD 277 - BARON GROS 278 - PIERRE PRUD’HON 278 - - THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL 279 - GÉRICAULT 279 - DELACROIX 280 - DELACROIX’S ORIENTAL PICTURES 282 - INGRES 283 - DELAROCHE AND SCHEFFER 285 - DECAMPS 286 - THE ORIENTALISTS 287 - REGNAULT 288 - ACADEMIC PAINTERS 288 - MICHEL AND HUET 289 - THE BARBIZON SCHOOL 290 - COROT 290 - T. ROUSSEAU 292 - C. TROYON 293 - J. DUPRÉ 293 - DIAZ 294 - DAUBIGNY 295 - MILLET 296 - DAUMIER 298 - COURBET 298 - MEISSONIER 299 - RICARD 300 - MANET 301 - - THE BRITISH SCHOOL 303 - CONSTABLE AND HIS IMITATORS 303 - BONINGTON 305 - RAEBURN 306 - SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE 306 - OTHER PORTRAIT PAINTERS 307 - - - - - LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - NO. | ITALIAN SCHOOLS | PLATE | PAGE - | | | - 1601 | LEONARDO DA VINCI— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF MONA LISA_ (_LA JOCONDE_) | IV |_Frontispiece_ - | | | - 1383 | SIMONE MARTINI— | | - | _CHRIST BEARING HIS CROSS_ | I | 16 - | | | - 1344 | FRA FILIPPO LIPPI— | | - | _MADONNA AND CHILD, WITH ANGELS, AND TWO_ | II | 28 - | _ABBOTS_ | | - | | | - 1322 | DOMENICO GHIRLANDAIO— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF AN OLD MAN AND HIS GRANDSON_ | | - | (“_THE BOTTLE-NOSED MAN_”) | III | 32 - | | | - 1297 | BOTTICELLI— | | - | _GIOVANNA DEGLI ALBIZZI AND THE THREE GRACES_| V | 40 - | | | - 1566A| PERUGINO— | | - | _ST. SEBASTIAN_ | VI | 56 - | | | - 1496 | RAPHAEL— | | - | _LA BELLE JARDINIÈRE_ | VII | 58 - | | | - 1505 | RAPHAEL— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF BALDASSARE CASTIGLIONE_ | VIII | 60 - | | | - 1134 | ANTONELLO DA MESSINA— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF A CONDOTTIERE_ | IX | 64 - | | | - 1136 | GIORGIONE— | | - | _PASTORAL SYMPHONY_ | X | 66 - | | | - 1399 | PALMA VECCHIO— | | - | _THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, WITH A_ | | - | _FEMALE DONOR_ | XI | 68 - | | | - 1592 | TITIAN— | | - | _THE MAN WITH A GLOVE_ | XII | 70 - | | | - 1584 | TITIAN— | | - | _THE ENTOMBMENT_ | XIII | 74 - | | | - 1375 | ANDREA MANTEGNA— | | - | _PARNASSUS_ | XIV | 80 - | | | - 1117 | CORREGGIO— | | - | _THE MYSTIC MARRIAGE OF ST. CATHERINE_ | XV | 112 - | | | - | | | - | FLEMISH SCHOOL | | - | | | - 1986 | JAN VAN EYCK— | | - | _THE VIRGIN AND CHILD, AND THE CHANCELLOR_ | | - | _ROLIN_ | XVI | 122 - | | | - [1] | HANS MEMLINC— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF AN OLD LADY_ | XVII | 128 - | | | - 1957 | GERARD DAVID— | | - | _THE MARRIAGE AT CANA_ | XVIII | 130 - | | | - 2029 | QUENTIN MATSYS- | | - | _THE BANKER AND HIS WIFE_ | XIX | 132 - | | | - 1997 | JAN MABUSE— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF JEAN CARONDELET_ | XX | 134 - | | | - 2093 | RUBENS— | | - | _HENRY IV. LEAVES FOR THE WARS_ | XXI | 144 - | | | - 2113 | RUBENS— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF HÉLÈNE FOURMENT AND TWO OF HER_ | | - | _CHILDREN_ | XXII | 146 - | | | - 1967 | VAN DYCK— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF CHARLES I. OF ENGLAND_ | XXIII | 148 - | | | - | | | - | GERMAN SCHOOL | | - | | | - 2715 | HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF ERASMUS_ | XXIV | 164 - | | | - | | | - | SPANISH SCHOOL | | - | | | - 1731 | VELAZQUEZ— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF THE INFANTA MARGARITA_ | XXV | 180 - | | | - 1709 | MURILLO— | | - | _THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION_ | XXVI | 186 - | | | - | | | - | DUTCH SCHOOL | | - | | | - 2384 | FRANS HALS— | | - | _THE GIPSY GIRL_ | XXVII | 198 - | | | - 2385 | FRANS HALS— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF A LADY IN BLACK_ |XXVIII | 200 - | | | - 2539 | REMBRANDT— | | - | _THE PILGRIMS AT EMMAUS_ | XXIX | 202 - | | | - 2547 | REMBRANDT— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF HENDRICKJE STOFFELS_ | XXX | 204 - | | | - 2394 | VAN DER HELST— | | - | _THE SHOOTING PRIZE_ | XXXI | 206 - | | | - 2348 | GERARD DOU— | | - | _THE DROPSICAL WOMAN_ | XXXII | 208 - | | | - 2589 | TERBORCH— | | - | _THE CONCERT_ |XXXIII | 210 - | | | - 2580 | JAN STEEN— | | - | _BAD COMPANY_ | XXXIV | 212 - | | | - 2415 | PIETER DE HOOCH— | | - | _DUTCH INTERIOR, WITH A LADY PLAYING CARDS_ | XXXV | 214 - | | | - 2456 | JAN VER MEER— | | - | _THE LACE-MAKER_ | XXXVI | 216 - | | | - | | | - | FRENCH SCHOOL | | - | | | - 734 | NICOLAS POUSSIN— | | - | _THE SHEPHERDS IN ARCADIA_ |XXXVII | 246 - | | | - 317 | CLAUDE— | | - | _VIEW OF A SEAPORT_ |XXXVIII| 248 - | | | - 982 | WATTEAU— | | - | _THE EMBARKATION FOR THE ISLAND OF CYTHERA_ | XXXIX | 262 - | | | - 36 | BOUCHER— | | - | _VULCAN PRESENTING ARMS TO VENUS_ | XL | 266 - | | | - 92 | CHARDIN— | | - | _GRACE BEFORE MEAT_ | XLI | 268 - | | | - 291 | FRAGONARD— | | - | _THE MUSIC LESSON_ | XLII | 270 - | | | - 372 | GREUZE— | | - | _THE BROKEN PITCHER_ | XLIII | 272 - | | | - 522 | MME. VIGÉE LE BRUN— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AND HER DAUGHTER_ | XLIV | 274 - | | | - 199 | DAVID— | | - | _PORTRAIT OF MME. RÉCAMIER_ | XLV | 276 - | | | - 338 | GÉRICAULT— | | - | _THE RAFT OF THE “MEDUSA”_ | XLVI | 280 - | | | - 207 | DELACROIX— | | - | _DANTE AND VIRGIL_ | XLVII | 282 - | | | - 422 | INGRES— | | - | _THE SPRING_ |XLVIII | 284 - | | | - 2801 | COROT— | | - | _THE DELL_ | XLIX | 292 - | | | - 2867 | DUPRÉ— | | - | _THE POND_ | L | 294 - | | | - 2818 | DAUBIGNY— | | - | _THE WEIR GATE AT OPTEVOZ_ | LI | 296 - | | | - 644 | MILLET— | | - | _WOMEN GLEANING_ | LII | 298 - | | | - 613A| MANET— | | - | _OLYMPIA_ | LIII | 302 - | | | - | | | - | ENGLISH SCHOOL | | - | | | - 1809 | CONSTABLE— | | - | _HAMPSTEAD HEATH_ | LIV | 304 - - [1] This picture has not yet received an official number. - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - -To form a just appreciation of the magnificent collection of paintings -which the Louvre to-day contains would require an exhaustive study -which might be spread over a term of years spent in the famous French -capital itself. In the limited space at our disposal we can only -touch lightly upon the historical events, the sociological causes, -the grandeur of royalty, and the taste of the people, all of which -contributed towards bringing about the formation of the great Musée -National du Louvre as we now know it. It has been our endeavour to -throw into prominent relief the outstanding features in the history -of the Gallery and to sketch them in chronological order. The -architectural claims of the building, its priceless collections of -statuary and of _objets d’art_ of every age do not here immediately -concern us; it is to the formation of the superb collection of -paintings that we primarily desire to call our readers’ attention. - -A small part of the building which is to-day known as the Louvre was -first occupied as a royal residence by Philippe-Auguste (reigned -1180-1223), who converted a hunting-seat of the early French kings on -this site into a feudal fortress with a strong _donjon_ or keep, the -exact plan of which may still be traced by the white line marked since -1868 on the pavement in the southwest corner of the old courtyard. -Charles v. (reigned 1364-80), who may be regarded as the first royal -collector of art treasures in France, greatly enlarged the building -of the Old Louvre as a residential palace; he is also said to have -decorated the building with statues and paintings which have long -since disappeared. The real foundations of the collection of _la -maison du Roi_ were laid by François I. (reigned 1515-47), who during -his Italian campaigns acquired a respect for art that proved to be an -honour to his taste and a dowry for his country. The æsthetic movement -had developed rapidly by 1541, when he laid the foundations of the -present palace[2] and had already begun to form a collection of easel -pictures. François I. invited to his court the master-painter Leonardo -da Vinci (1452-1519), who in 1516 left his native land for France, -where he did the king little more than the compliment of dying in his -realm, although not, as an unveracious tradition recounts, in his arms. -Andrea del Sarto (1486-1531) was also employed at the French court, -at which he arrived in 1518. Giovanni Battista Rosso (1494-1541), a -painter of little genius but great ability, was summoned by François -I. in 1530 to decorate the Château at Fontainebleau. Benvenuto Cellini -(1500-71), the Florentine goldsmith, having “determined to seek another -country and better luck,” was yet one more artist who set out for -France, where, between 1540 and 1544, he adorned the royal tables with -objects precious in workmanship and material. Primaticcio (1504-70), -who is known to have cleaned at Fontainebleau in 1530 four of the large -reputed Raphaels now in the Louvre, remained at the French court until -his death. The strict authenticity of these four pictures—_The Holy -Family of Francis I._ (No. 1498), the _St. Margaret_ (No. 1501), the -large _St. Michael_ (No. 1504), and the _Portrait of Joan of Arragon_ -(No. 1507)—does not here concern us. François I. also possessed at this -date, among other notable pictures, Raphael’s _La Belle Jardinière_ -(No. 1496, Plate VII.), Leonardo da Vinci’s _Virgin of the Rocks_ (No. -1599), and the same artist’s _Mona Lisa_ or _La Joconde_ (No. 1601, -Plate IV.), while the art of Sebastiano del Piombo, Andrea del Sarto, -and other painters, Flemish as well as Italian, was well represented in -the royal collection during his reign. - -[2] “François I. voulant avoir dans Paris un palais digne de sa -magnificence et dédaignant le vieux Louvre et l’hôtel des Tournelles, -amas irrégulier de _tournelles_ (tourelles) et de pavillons gothiques, -avait fait démolir, dès 1528, la grosse tour du Louvre, ce donjon de -Philippe-Auguste duquel relevaient tous les fiefs du royaume. C’était -démolir l’histoire elle-même; c’était la monarchie de la renaissance -abattant la vieille royauté féodale.”—Martin, _Hist. de France_. - -The example set by François I. was followed by his successor, Henri II. -(reigned 1547-59), for whom Niccolò dell’ Abbate (1515-71), an artist -of secondary importance, was working from 1552 onwards. Henri II.’s -queen, Catherine de Médicis, was also a patron of art, being herself a -collector of coins and medals. To her influence was due the decoration -of the Château of Fontainebleau and the erection of the Palace of the -Tuileries,[3] which was subsequently connected with the Louvre by means -of the Long Gallery, now Room VI. Her eldest son, François II. (reigned -1559-60), the husband of Mary Queen of Scots, first converted the new -buildings of the Louvre into a royal residence. Henry IV. (reigned -1589-1610) enlarged the Tuileries, and almost completed the Long -Gallery, which now contains such a large proportion of the pictures. -Louis XIII. (reigned 1589-1610), his eldest son, seems to have taken -little interest in the royal collection; but his mother, Marie de -Médicis, invited Rubens (1577-1640) to Paris to decorate the Palace of -the Luxembourg with that series of imposing canvases representing her -own life-history which are to-day seen to their best advantage in the -Salle Rubens (Room XVIII.) of the Louvre. - -[3] An inscription on a tablet placed high up on the left of the -Pavillon Sully records that François I. began the Louvre in 1541, and -Catherine de Médicis the Tuileries in 1564. - -No complete record has been found of the pictures which formed the -royal collection previous to the year 1642. To that date belongs -a meagre Catalogue of the objects of art which then remained at -Fontainebleau, but it is supposed that when Louis XIV. (reigned -1643-1715) succeeded to the throne he inherited about one hundred -pictures, the property of the Crown. With his accession a new era in -the history of art in France began. - -Meanwhile, across the water, a superb royal collection had been -formed. Charles I. of England (reigned 1625-49) had begun his career -as a patron of art before his accession, with the acquisition of the -paintings and statues collected by his deceased brother, Henry. During -his matrimonial visit to Madrid in 1623 he was presented by Philip -IV. with Titian’s _Venus del Pardo_, now in the Louvre (No. 1587). -Soon after his accession he began to collect systematically, employing -trusty agents to buy for him in different parts of Europe. His most -notable purchase was that of the collection of the Duke of Mantua, -for which he paid £18,280 between 1629 and 1632. He is said to have -possessed in all 1760 pictures by the date of his execution. Most of -them were disposed of at auction by order of Cromwell between 1649 and -1652. - -One of the most persistent bidders at the sale of Charles I.’s pictures -was Eberhard Jabach, a native of Cologne, who settled in Paris and -became a naturalised Frenchman in 1647. He was an enthusiastic buyer -of pictures, and his collection soon surpassed that of the French -king. It was known to all French connoisseurs, and was visited by -all travellers of note. In time, however, Jabach’s energies as a -buyer exceeded his financial resources, and when his debts amounted -to 278,718 _livres_ he offered his collection to Louis XIV., who was -most anxious to distinguish his reign by the formation of a gallery -of pictures which should be in all respects worthy of it. To this end -he purchased Eberhard Jabach’s collection, paying 220,000 _livres_ -for the 5542 drawings and 101 pictures which it contained. The price -originally asked by Jabach was 463,425 _livres_. Among the masterpieces -thus acquired by the king were Titian’s _Entombment_ (No. 1584, -Plate XIII.), which Jabach had had the good fortune to purchase from -the English royal collection for the absurdly small sum of £128, and -Giorgione’s _Pastoral Symphony_ (No. 1136, Plate X.), which had also -been among the treasures of the English Crown. - -To Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642), who founded the French Academy in -1635, at one time belonged Andrea Mantegna’s _Parnassus_ (No. 1375, -Plate XIV.), the same painter’s _Wisdom victorious over the Vices_ (No. -1376), Lorenzo Costa’s _The Court of Isabella d’Este in the Garden of -the Muses_ (No. 1261), and the same painter’s _Mythological Scene_ (No. -1262), together with Perugino’s _Combat of Love and Chastity_ (No. -1567). - -Another important buyer at the sale of Charles I.’s collection was -Cardinal Mazarin (1602-61), who acquired several valuable pictures, -besides statuary, tapestries, and other fabrics. Of Mazarin’s pictures -the Louvre now possesses Raphael’s small _St. Michael_ (No. 1502) and -a _Holy Family_ (No. 1135), which is catalogued under the name of -Giorgione, but it is more probably from the hand of Cariani. - -It is said that Louis XIV. preferred the pictures of his own -court-painter, Charles Le Brun, to those of the Venetian master, Paolo -Veronese, whose large canvas, _The Supper at Emmaus_ (No. 1196), was -nevertheless acquired during his reign. Eight pictures by Annibale -Carracci, all of which are not now publicly exhibited in the Louvre -(Nos. 1218, 1220, 1222, 1226, 1231-34), Albani’s _Diana and Actæon_ -(No. 1111), nine compositions by Guido Reni (Nos. 1439-55 and 1457), -and ten paintings by Domenichino (Nos. 1609-10 and 1612-19), also -enriched the royal collection during Louis XIV.’s reign. Nor were -the great French painters neglected. The four pictures (Nos. 736-39) -of _The Seasons_, by Nicolas Poussin, which had been commissioned in -1660 by the Duc de Richelieu for the decoration of the Château de -Meudon, together with four of the largest Claudes now in the Louvre -(Nos. 312, 314, 316, 317), were obtained for the royal galleries by -the ever-watchful Colbert (1619-83), who had been appointed Minister -of Finance on the death of Mazarin (1602-61). Flemish art, as seen in -the stately pictures of Van Dyck, was represented by seven examples -(Nos. 1961-63, 1970, 1973-75). On the other hand, Louis XIV. is said -to have failed altogether to appreciate the work of Teniers and to -have exclaimed, when some of that artist’s pictures were brought to -his notice, “_Ôtez-moi ces magots-là!_” Only one of the thirty-nine -pictures by Teniers now in the Louvre, the _Interior of a Cottage_ (No. -2162), passed into the Gallery at that date. The almost entire absence -of Dutch pictures is also to be noticed. - -An event of extreme importance in this pompous reign was the -institution of the French Academy of Arts, in 1648, with Charles Le -Brun (1619-90) as Director, the despotic power which he exercised in -art matters bringing about his further appointment as Director of the -Gobelins tapestry works in 1660. - -In 1681 the Crown pictures and other royal art treasures were brought -to the Louvre from Versailles and were temporarily exhibited there, -the king paying a state visit to the capital on December 5 to see his -_cabinet de tableaux_. We read that the walls of eleven rooms were -covered up to the cornices. The collection, putting on one side all -doubts as to strict authenticity, included six paintings by Correggio, -ten by Leonardo da Vinci, eight by Giorgione, twenty-three by Titian, -nineteen by A. Carracci, twelve by Guido Reno, and eighteen by Paolo -Veronese. These treasures, however, did not remain long at the Louvre, -but were “packed up, loaded on rough carts, and taken back over the -paved roads to Versailles,” which had now taken precedence over -Fontainebleau as a royal residence; and at Versailles the Court mainly -resided until the Revolution, although Louis XIV. greatly enlarged the -Louvre Palace and planted the Tuileries Gardens. At the death of _le -Roi Soleil_ the Crown pictures numbered 1500. - -The energy of Louis XIV. was followed by the apathy of his degenerate -successor, Louis XV. (reigned 1715-74), who, however, added 300 -pictures to the royal collection. The _Virgin with the Blue Diadem_ -or _Virgin with the Veil_ (No. 1497), which still passes under the -name of Raphael, was among the pictures which then passed out of the -collection of the Prince de Carignan into the possession of the Crown. -It was now a sorry moment for the pictures which, “scattered through -the interminable and then ill-kept country palaces of the French Crown, -exposed to every injury of time, ignorance, and weather, regarded -at best in the light of old furniture and too often in that of old -lumber, pleaded in vain for respect and care. No public Catalogue told -of their existence; the generation that had talked of them had passed -away; it was nobody’s business to ask for them, and few actually knew -where they were. Even the new-comers passed into the same void which -had swallowed their predecessors.” Some of the pictures previously -recorded now disappeared completely, without leaving a clue to their -fate. Eventually, in 1746, M. de la Fonte de Saint-Yenne in a pamphlet -directed public opinion to the fact that these Crown pictures had -for fifty years been hidden and neglected in “_une obscure prison de -Versailles_.” As a result of this, in 1750, by the king’s permission, -110 pictures selected from the different schools of painting were -brought from Versailles to the Palais de Luxembourg, where the large -canvases by Rubens (now in the Salle Rubens at the Louvre) were -regarded as forming a _centre d’études_. Here for the first time, -and for two days only in the week, they were shown under certain -restrictions to a limited public. In 1785 they were again removed to -Versailles. - -Although Louis XIV.’s well-known grudge against Holland probably -accounted for the almost entire absence of Dutch pictures from the -Crown possessions, Louis XVI. had the good taste to acquire works by -Aelbert Cuyp (No. 2341, _Landscape_); Jan van Goyen (No. 2375, _Banks -of a Dutch River_, and No. 2377, _A River in Holland_); B. van der -Helst (No. 2394, _The Officers of the Arquebusiers of St. Sebastian_); -G. Metsu (No. 2461, _The Alchemist_); Adriaen van Ostade (No. 2495, -_The Painter’s Family_[?], and No. 2496, _The Schoolmaster_); Isaac van -Ostade (No. 2510, _A Frozen Canal in Holland_); Rembrandt (No. 2539, -_The Pilgrims at Emmaus_, No. 2540, and No. 2541, _The Philosopher -in Meditation_, No. 2555, _Portrait of Rembrandt aged_); Jacob van -Ruisdael (No. 2559, _Landscape_, and No. 2560, _Sunny Landscape_); -Terborgh (No. 2587, _The Military Gallant_); and Philips Wouverman (No. -2621, _The Prize Ox_, and No. 2625, _The Stag Hunt_). Five of the less -important of Murillo’s pictures now in the Louvre (Nos. 1712-15 and No. -1717) were also acquired at this period, and the series of twenty-two -large canvases illustrating _Scenes from the Life of St. Bruno_ by -Eustache Le Sueur were also purchased by Louis XVI. - -From 1725 onwards the Salon held its Exhibitions in the Salon Carré -(Room IV.), but after 1848 this room was used only for Paintings by the -Old Masters. - -In 1790 a Commission was appointed by the National Assembly “to -register and watch over all that was most valuable,” and on May -26, 1791 a decree was made that the Louvre should be thenceforward -dedicated to the conservation of objects of science and of art. On -August 26 of the same year a further Commission was appointed by the -National Convention to inspect and gather together the treasures of -art scattered through _les maisons royales_. The Convention decided -that the “Museum of the Republic” should be officially opened in the -Long Gallery of the Louvre on August 10, 1793, and from November 8 of -the same year the Museum was open to the inspection of the public -three days in every ten. This, the first public exhibition of art -treasures in the Louvre, was the foundation of the present institution. -The Catalogue of this date contains reference to only 537 pictures, -the greater number of which came from Paris churches and national -buildings. The inhabitants of Versailles now petitioned that their town -should not be despoiled of its pictures, “and so be deprived of its -last attraction in the eyes of the world”! - -The Louvre was now destined to become for a few years the temple of the -_spolia opima_ which the victorious French army brought home. “This -system of levying pictures, statues, and other objects by means of -treaties, so called, in which the conqueror dictated terms to those -incapable of refusing them, was a dishonourable novelty in the annals -of modern warfare. Disdaining the usages of Christian nations and -overleaping especially the traditions of French courtesy and chivalry, -Buonaparte turned back to the ages of pagan history for a precedent for -his measures of spoliation.” By the Treaty of Bologna of June 23, 1796, -and the Treaty of Tolentino of February 19, 1797, he became possessed -of twenty pictures from Modena, twenty from Parma, forty from Bologna, -ten from Ferrara, while Rome, Piacenza, Cento, Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, -Ancona, Loreto, and Perugia also had to yield up a portion of their -treasures. - -The first exhibition of this booty was held in the Louvre in January -1798. Here, during the next few years, were gathered together many of -the world’s most famous pictures, including Raphael’s _St. Cecilia_, -now in the Bologna Gallery; Correggio’s _St. Jerome_ and his _Madonna -della Scodella_, now in the Parma Gallery; Raphael’s _Transfiguration_, -now in the Vatican, and his _Madonna della Sedia_, now in the Pitti -Palace at Florence; Domenichino’s _Last Communion of St. Jerome_, now -in the Vatican; Titian’s _Martyrdom of St. Peter Martyr_, destroyed -by fire in 1867, and his _Assumption_, now in the Venice Gallery; -Van Eyck’s _Adoration of the Lamb_, now dismembered and distributed -between Ghent, Berlin, and Brussels; Paris Bordone’s _Fisherman of St. -Mark_, now in the Venice Gallery; and Paul Potter’s _Bull_, now at The -Hague. “Here was seen the unexampled sight of twenty-five Raphaels -ranked together, the great master complete in every period and walk of -his art. Here twenty-three Titians glowed in burning row. Here Rubens -revelled in no less than fifty-three pictures and in almost as many -classes of subject. Van Dyck followed his illustrious master with -thirty-three works, while thirty-one specimens of Rembrandt’s brush -shed a golden atmosphere upon the walls. The later Italians especially -were magnificently represented—thirty-six pictures by Annibale -Carracci, sixteen by Domenichino; twenty-three by Guido; including the -largest altarpieces by each; and twenty-six by Guercino, were perhaps -the most popular part of the wondrous show.” - -However, in September 1815, the pictures and other valuable works of -art which France had plundered from her foes had to be given back, and -the spoliation of the Louvre began. In all, 5233 objects, of which 2065 -were pictures, were taken away from the Royal Museum by the Allied -Powers. - -An event rare in the history of public galleries took place in 1813, -when the Louvre received Carpaccio’s _Preaching of St. Stephen_ (No. -1211), Boltraffio’s _Madonna of the Casio Family_ (No. 1169), Marco -d’Oggiono’s _Holy Family_ (No. 1382), Moretto’s _St. Bernardino of -Siena and St. Louis of Toulouse_ (No. 1175), and the same artist’s _St. -Bonaventura and St. Anthony of Padua_ (No. 1176), in exchange for five -pictures by Rubens, Rembrandt, Van Dyck, and Jordaens. - -It is curious to notice that at this period very little importance -was attached to Italian primitives, which were, indeed, deemed -“barbarous.” Many beautiful works of the very early Italian schools -were actually not considered worth the trouble and expense of -transport, and were therefore left for the lasting glory of the -Louvre. Among them may be mentioned Fra Angelico’s _Coronation of -the Virgin_ (No. 1290); the _Madonna and Child and Two Saints_, (No. -1114), now officially ascribed to Albertinelli; Bronzino’s _Christ and -the Magdalene_ (No. 1183); the _Madonna and Angels_ (No. 1260), which -passes under the name of Cimabue; Gentile da Fabriano’s _Presentation -in the Temple_ (No. 1278); the _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 1303), -still officially ascribed to Raffaellino del Garbo; _St. Francis of -Assisi receiving the Stigmata_ (No. 1312), which still passes under the -name of Giotto; Benozzo Gozzoli’s _Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas_ (No. -1319); Fra Filippo Lippi’s _Madonna and Child between Two Saints_ (No. -1344); Pesellino’s two small predella pictures (No. 1414); Piero di -Cosimo’s _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 1416); _The Madonna in Glory -between St. Bernard and St. Mary Magdalene_ (No. 1482), which is still -assigned to Cosimo Rosselli; Lorenzo di Credi’s _Madonna and Child with -St. Julian and St. Nicholas_ (No. 1263); Cima’s _Madonna and Child_ -(No. 1259); Vasari’s _Annunciation_ (No. 1575), which is now in one of -the storerooms of the Louvre; the Ferrarese _Madonna and Child with -St. Quentin and St. Benedict_ (No. 1167), which is still assigned to -Bianchi; Andrea Mantegna’s _Calvary_ (No. 1373) and _Virgin of Victory_ -(No. 1374); Domenico Ghirlandaio’s _Visitation_ (No. 1321); and -Perugino’s _St. Paul_ (No. 1566). Further proof of the slight regard -in which certain pictures that we cherish to-day were then held is -afforded by the readiness with which the authorities sent two panels of -Mantegna’s altarpiece, the centre-part of which is now in the Church of -San Zeno at Verona, to the Museum at Tours, and parted with Perugino’s -altarpieces to the public galleries of Lyons and Marseilles. - -Under Louis XVIII. (died 1824) 111 pictures were purchased for the -national collection at a cost of £26,730, but during the reign of -Charles X. (1824-30) only 30 were acquired, £2511 being expended on -them. An outlay of £2965 by Louis Philippe (reigned 1830-48) enriched -the Louvre with 33 more pictures, but that king concentrated his -efforts on the restoration and decoration of the Château of Versailles, -on which he spent £440,000. - -In the early years of the Second Republic a large number of -improvements were effected in the Louvre, and in 1848 £8000 was spent -on restoring several of the rooms now hung with pictures, which were -first systematically arranged three years later. Although the Museum -had at that period an annual grant of £2000 for the purchase of -pictures, special grants in aid were made from time to time, notably -on the occasion of the sale of Marshal Soult, pictures from whose -collection were acquired in 1852 for £24,612. In this way Murillo’s -_Immaculate Conception_ (No. 1709, Plate XXVI.) passed to the Louvre -from the “Plunder-master-General” of the Spanish campaign. - -During the Second Empire the Musée du Louvre acquired about 200 Italian -primitives from the Campana collection, while seven years later it -was further enriched by the important bequest by Dr. La Caze of 275 -paintings of different schools. Since 1870, when the Palace of the -Tuileries was destroyed, the permanent collection has been increased -by the purchase in 1883 for £8000 of the Morris Moore “Raphael” (No. -1509), which has since come to be universally regarded as a work by -Perugino; while about 300 other paintings of varying importance have -also been acquired from time to time with Government funds. In recent -years the national collection has benefited largely by the generosity -of private donors, among whom we may mention MM. Duchâtel, Gatteaux, -His de la Salle, Lallemant, Maciet, Rodolphe Kann, Sedelmeyer, -Grandidier, Vandeul, and several members of the Rothschild family. - -In 1896, by the sale of a large proportion of the Crown jewels, a -_Caisse des Musées_ was organised, and the annual income devoted to -the purchase of pictures notably increased. A year later the _Société -des Amis du Louvre_, which corresponds to the National Art-Collections -Fund in England, was founded to assist in securing pictures and other -works of art for the nation; by that means the _Madonna and Child_ (No. -1300A or 1300B) which passes under the name of Piero dei Franceschi was -acquired by the Louvre. - -In May 1900, on the inauguration of the _Exposition Universelle_, the -opportunity was taken to rehang a large part of the collection, and -the Galerie de Médicis (Room XVIII.) and the eighteen small cabinets -built round it were first used for the better exhibition of a large -proportion of the Flemish and Dutch pictures. Shortly afterwards, -by the death of M. Thomy Thiéry, an Englishman who had become a -naturalised Frenchman, over 100 paintings, mostly of the school of -Barbizon, became an exceedingly valuable addition to the Louvre, and -filled a void in the history of French painting in the nineteenth -century. During the last two years the most memorable purchases by the -Government have been that of Chardin’s _Child with a Top_ (No. 90A), -which was acquired together with the same artist’s _Young Man with a -Violin_ (No. 90B) for £14,000, and Hans Memlinc’s _Portrait of an Old -Lady_ (Plate XVII.) for £8000. - -The national collection of the Musée du Louvre now includes in its -Catalogue nearly two thousand eight hundred oil and tempera paintings, -about four hundred of which have not been exhibited for many years. - - - - - EARLY SIENESE SCHOOL - - -This school of painting, one of the earliest in the history of art in -Italy and probably the earliest with which the ordinary student of -art in Italy will concern himself, was affected throughout the whole -range of its history by the influence of the miniaturists. It was -characterised by naïveté, and in the hands of its earliest painter, -Duccio di Buoninsegna (1255-1319), strove to realise an effect of -hieratic sumptuousness, its precision and grace being that of “a -sanctuary swept and garnished.” - -The Louvre possesses no picture by Duccio, who derived his technique -from the Byzantine miniaturists, although he modified their methods. -Standing between the old world and the new, Duccio occupied an -important position at the head of the school of Siena, which in the -early years of the fourteenth century set a noble example to the other -towns and incipient schools of Tuscany. Passing reference may here be -made to the artistic aims and religious aspirations of the cities of -Rome, Pisa, and Arezzo, but it is Siena which stands out pre-eminently -at this early date as interpreting scenes of quiet rapture and sacred -peace, its own social life being bound up in “chivalry, the meat of -the eye,” and “piety, the wine of the soul.” Both Duccio, who was -first employed by the Government of his native city as early as 1278, -and Cimabue, his senior by fifteen years (if we are to accept the -much contested records), have alike been hailed as the author of the -_Rucellai Madonna_ which still hangs in the Church of S. Maria Novella -in Florence. This picture was a generation ago almost unanimously -accepted by responsible critics as the work of the Florentine painter, -and those who still advocate the claims of “Florentinism” are loath to -destroy their cherished illusions. It is not our duty here to bring -forward the arguments in favour of its later ascription to Duccio, who, -we are led to believe, painted it early in his career, before he had -learnt to free himself from the stiff gestures and Byzantine types of -a former tradition. Duccio, it must be conceded, never quite succeeded -in giving to his compositions that sense of life, character, and design -which we find in the works of Giotto, his junior by some twenty years, -who was the first artist to accomplish vast schemes of monumental -decoration. Duccio, however, was the bearer of that torch which was -to kindle the flame of religious art both in Siena and Florence. -Nevertheless, Sienese painting was destined, almost from the moment of -its birth, to show signs of dwindling into a school of trite copyists -and shallow quietists. Early in the fourteenth century the lofty ideals -manifested by emotional Siena spread to scientific Florence, and by -the beginning of the fifteenth century the city on the Arno gave -unmistakable signs of becoming the leading art centre in Tuscany. - - - DUCCIO’S FOLLOWERS - -The greatest of Duccio’s followers was Simone Martini (1285?-1344), who -was also slightly influenced by Giotto. Simone, whose _Christ bearing -His Cross_ (No. 1383, Plate I.) is the earliest Sienese picture in the -Louvre, has been well described as “a reactionary who made a whole -beautiful world of his own.” In this small picture the colours stand -out most clearly, although the drawing and perspective are, of course, -faulty. It belongs to a series of which other panels are at Antwerp -and in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin. A _Crucifixion_ (No. -1665) that is catalogued as being by an unknown Sienese artist may be -attributed to Ugolino da Siena (fl. 1290-1320); it would seem to be -the centre panel of a large and lost altarpiece. - - [Illustration: - PLATE I.—SIMONE MARTINI - - (1285?-1344) - - SIENESE SCHOOL - - No. 1383.—CHRIST BEARING HIS CROSS - - (Jésus-Christ marchant au Calvaire) - - Christ, preceded by the executioner, soldiers, and two children, is - bearing His Cross to Calvary. He is attended by a large crowd in - which may be recognised the Virgin Mary, in blue robes, supported - by St. John; St. Mary Magdalene in red, with her long hair falling - over her shoulders, raises her hands in grief. - - Painted in tempera on panel. - - 10 in. × 4 in. (0·25 × 0·10.)] - -Pietro Lorenzetti (fl. 1305-50) was probably a pupil of Duccio, and -was influenced by Simone Martini, but Pietro and his younger brother, -Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1285?-1348?), who represented a new movement and -endeavoured to set forth the civic ideal, are not represented in this -collection. - -Simone Martini’s brother-in-law, Lippo Memmi (died 1357?), is possibly -the author of the _St. Peter_ (No. 1152), a poor picture which is -officially assigned to Taddeo di Bartolo (1362?-1422). The art of -the latter is, in the opinion of Mr. Berenson, seen in the small -_Crucifixion_ (No. 1622), which the Louvre authorities modestly -catalogue as being by an unknown fourteenth-century Italian painter. - -To Bartolo di Maestro Fredi (1330?-1410), who came under the influence -of Lippo Memmi and the Lorenzetti, is given a _Presentation in the -Temple_ (No. 1151). Paolo di Giovanni Fei (fl. 1372-1410), whose -pictures are rarely met with out of Italy, may be regarded as the -author of the _Madonna and Saints_ (No. 1314) which is officially held -to be by an unknown Florentine painter of the school of Giotto. The -Louvre possesses no example of the art of Sassetta (1392-1450), who, -together with Paolo di Giovanni Fei, deeply impressed Giovanni di Paolo -(1403?-1482). The latter may be credited with the small panel (No. -1659A) which is officially entitled _The Entry of Pope Martin into the -Castle of Saint Angelo_, and included in the Catalogue as being by an -unknown Florentine, but labelled “School of Masaccio.” There can be no -doubt that this quaint little picture depicts _Pope Gregory the Great’s -Vision of the Archangel Michael sheathing his Sword over the Castle of -Saint Angelo_. According to the legend, Gregory had been indefatigable -in nursing the plague-stricken in Rome in the sixth century, and while -on his way at the head of a procession to offer up prayer for the -cessation of the plague, saw “the warrior of God” in the attitude here -shown. Gregory, after fleeing from those who wished to make him Pope, -was elected to wear the papal tiara under the title of Gregory the -Great. He is chiefly known to us as having sent missionaries to preach -the gospel in England, having been moved to pity by seeing British -captives exposed for sale in Rome, and for his arrangement of the music -of the chants which are after him known as Gregorians. The official -title of the picture, on the other hand, assumes that we have here Pope -Martin V., a man of saintly character, making his entry into Rome in -1421 amid the acclamations of the people. He had been elected Pope in -1417 on the deposition of John XXIII. - -By this time the art of Siena had progressed some distance on the -road that its religious aspirations and technical accomplishments -indicated, but it soon became evident that the more intellectual aims -of Florentine art were shaping the course of all the painters of Italy. - - - - - THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL - - -Although we have begun our study of the art of Italy with a review of -the Sienese School, which owes its importance to Duccio, the earliest -Italian picture in the Louvre is the _Madonna and Angels_ (No. 1260), -which may be accepted as a characteristic example of the type of -picture that passes under the name of Cimabue (1240?-1302). - -Giovanni Cenni de’ Pepi, to give him his full name, has been hailed -as “the father of modern painting.” The Louvre _Madonna_, which was -formerly in the Church of San Francesco at Pisa, was carried off to -Paris by Napoleon, but not considered worth the trouble of repacking -when in 1815 the Allied Armies called upon the French to surrender -the pictorial spoils of war. It is known that Cimabue was working at -Pisa at the very end of his life, and, although he was engaged there -as mosaicist rather than as a painter, the _provenance_ of this large -painting, which is executed in tempera on panel, has to be taken -into account in any discussion as to its strict authenticity. It is -certainly reminiscent of the _Rucellai Madonna_, and shares much of -its character. The painter has repeated, with certain modifications, -the Byzantine type of Madonna, whose almond-shaped eyes and long, bony -fingers should be noticed. It has been freely restored. - -From the same church in Pisa comes Giotto’s _St. Francis of Assisi -receiving the Stigmata_ (No. 1312). According to the descriptive -account handed down to us by the unveracious Vasari, Giotto (1266-1337) -was originally a shepherd boy whose latent talent was recognised by the -discerning Cimabue, who forthwith took him as his pupil and taught -him how to paint, the boy’s genius enabling him early to surpass his -master. Although it would be rash unquestioningly to accept this -archaic production as an authentic work by Giotto, it is one which any -national collection would treasure. It depicts the supreme event in -the life of St. Francis, when during his vision virtue passed from the -wounded hands, the wounded feet, and the wounded side of the Christ -into the same parts of the saint’s body. In the predella are three -scenes from the life of St. Francis: (_a_) _Pope Innocent III. dreaming -that St. Peter reveals to him that unless the Franciscan Order is -founded the Church_ (typified here by the Church of S. John Lateran in -Rome) _will fall down_; (_b_) _The Pope founding the Order_; and (_c_) -_St. Francis, wearing the brown robes of his Order, and preaching to -the birds_: “Whenas St. Francis spake these words to them, those birds -began all of them to open their beaks, and stretch their necks, and -spread their wings, and reverently bend their heads down to the ground, -and by their acts and by their songs to show that the Holy Father gave -them joy exceeding great.” - - - THE GIOTTESQUES - -Four school pictures (Nos. 1313, 1315-1317) illustrate the example set -by Giotto, who influenced very strongly indeed all art-manifestation -during the fourteenth century, an age when the human body was denied -all intrinsic significance. His profound feeling, gay colour, high -dramatic power, and sense of form mark the emancipation of Italian -art from the rigid formalism of the Byzantine manner. He discovered -a style which was admirably suited to the spirit of his time, and -developed for his own purposes a sense of perspective which he employed -with considerable effect, although he never really found a scientific -statement of the artistic principles which he instinctively perceived. -His indefatigable energy and innate genius enabled him to distance his -rivals and to bequeath to his countrymen a heritage which profoundly -affected the art of Italy. - -Foremost among his followers, who imitated his mannerisms without -understanding the full significance of his ideas, was Taddeo Gaddi -(1300?-1366), to whom are assigned in the official Catalogue the -predella pictures (No. 1302) of (_a_) _The Death of St. John the -Baptist_, (_b_) _Calvary_, and (_c_) _Judas Iscariot_. Taddeo Gaddi, a -painter and architect, was the godson and pupil of Giotto as well as -the pupil of his father, Gaddo Gaddi. Taddeo’s desire to give suitable -expression to each of his figures often resulted, as in that of the -daughter of Herodias in the second of these panels, in exaggeration. - -Taddeo’s son, Agnolo Gaddi (1333-1396), who was described by Ruskin as -“rather stupid in religious matters and high art,” may be the painter -of the _Annunciation_ (No. 1301), in which we see the Virgin seated in -a loggia to the right of the picture. The Archangel Gabriel announces, -by the gesture of the right hand, that the Virgin shall be the Mother -of the Christ. God the Father is shown in the heavens. Notice the -gold background and the mosaics of the loggia. The mechanical methods -and uninspired aims of the Giottesques, the artists who worked during -the century which followed the death of Giotto, are well seen in the -productions of Lorenzo di Bicci (fl. 1370-1409), his son Bicci di -Lorenzo (fl. 1373-1424), and his grandson Neri di Bicci (1419-1491). -Neri is represented by a _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1397). He might -justly be described as a mere manufacturer of Giottesque pictures to -order. He brought art down to the level of a trade, his work being flat -and his colour raw and inharmonious. - -A _Virgin and Infant Christ_ (No. 1563), inscribed “TVRINVS VANNIS DE -PISIS ME PIQSIT P,” is evidently by Turino Vanni (fl. 1390-1398), a -rare artist of this group of Florentine painters. The brief list of his -pictures might be increased by having added to it a few panels at Pisa -and Assisi, which are erroneously ascribed to Buffalmacco. - -Andrea Orcagna (1308?-1368?) and his brother Nardo are not represented -in the Louvre, but we have a follower of Agnolo Gaddi in Lorenzo Monaco -(1370?-1425), who is seen to advantage in his _Christ in the Garden of -Gethsemane_ and his _Holy Women preparing the Tomb_ (No. 1348A), which -is inscribed “ANNO DÑI 1408,” and was formerly attributed to Gentile da -Fabriano. Lorenzo Monaco is officially credited with a triple picture -(No. 1348) of (_a_) _St. Agnes_ with her lamb and a martyr’s palm -branch; (_b_) _St. Lawrence_, the artist’s name-saint, holding in his -right hand a book and palm branch, and enthroned on a gridiron, the -symbol of his martyrdom; and (_c_) _St. Margaret_, the patron saint of -Woman as Mother, standing on the dragon. Lorenzo Monaco, who is reputed -to have been the master of Fra Angelico, usually depicts long, slender, -and sinuous bodies. Below this picture hangs a small panel, apparently -part of the predella of an unidentified altarpiece. It does not seem -to be included in the official Catalogue, and has neither a number by -which to identify it nor a label to denote its subject or authorship! -The picture has apparently never been referred to or described in any -article or book. It certainly represents the Emperor Heraclius carrying -the True Cross into Jerusalem. The picture appears to have been painted -by Giovanni del Ponte (fl. 1385-1437). - -Neither Starnina (1354-1408), who took the traditions of Early -Florentine painting to Spain, Masolino (fl. 1383-1435), who is rarely -met with out of Italy, nor Masaccio (1401-28), who may be said to -have vitalised Italian art, is represented in the Louvre. Tommaso -Masaccio, the “Hulking Tom” of Browning, gave to Italy and the world -the magnificent series of frescoes which still decorate the Brancacci -Chapel of the Carmine Church in Florence. He imparted to his figures -such natural movement, vivacity of expression, free attitudes, simple -draperies, and excellent modelling that he entirely revolutionised the -art of Florence. His figures are, as Vasari said, “so lifelike that -they seem to live and breathe.” This series of frescoes was studied -with enthusiasm by all the great Florentine painters; Leonardo, -Raphael, Michelangelo, and innumerable other artists derived the -greatest possible benefit from them. - - - FRA ANGELICO - -On the threshold of the Renaissance stands Fra Angelico (1387-1455), -who was trained in the school of miniaturists and influenced by Lorenzo -Monaco and Masaccio. His life was devoted to “the service of God, the -benefit of the world, and his duty towards his neighbour,” as Vasari -says. He regarded painting as one of the duties of the monastic life, -and never began to paint without first kneeling in prayer. His pictures -are aspirations towards heaven, while the figures with which he peoples -his saintly compositions have faces which show peace, joy, hope, -and communion with God. They are clothed in draperies of the purest -colours, crowned with glories of burnished gold, but are never dramatic -in their action. One of his best easel paintings outside Florence, -where alone his art can be adequately studied, is his early _Coronation -of the Virgin_ (No. 1290). This imposing, if overcrowded, composition -is painted to the glory of God and in honour of the Dominican Order, -to which the painter belonged. In the right bottom corner we see St. -Agnes with her lamb, next to her St. Catherine with her wheel, above -is St. Lawrence with his gridiron, and to the latter’s right St. Peter -Martyr in Dominican robes and with wounded head. In the foreground -kneels St. Mary Magdalene in red, her box of ointment in her left -hand. St. Nicholas with the three golden balls at his feet, St. Thomas -Aquinas in Dominican robes and holding the theological book from which -rays of golden light issue, St. Louis (Louis IX., King of France), -and St. Dominic himself—all help to swell the heavenly company. In -the predella, or lower part, of this panel picture are depicted -_Scenes from the Life of St. Dominic_, the founder of Fra Angelico’s -own Order: (_a_) Pope Innocent III. in his vision sees St. Dominic -supporting the falling Church; (_b_) the Pope receives, through the -agency of St. Peter and St. Paul who hand him a staff and the Gospel, -Divine authority to found the Dominican Order; (_c_) the Saint brings -back to life a young noble named Napoleon who had been trampled under -foot by a horse; (_d_) Christ in the tomb, the Virgin and St. John; -(_e_) St. Dominic challenges heretics whose books are consumed in the -fire, while his own book of the true Gospel issues forth unhurt by the -action of fire; (_f_) angels descend from heaven to feed the starving -monastery of St. Sabina at Rome immediately after St. Dominic has asked -a blessing; these two blue-clad figures are among the loveliest of all -Fra Angelico’s angelic beings, and perhaps the most inspiring figures -in the whole of the Louvre collection; (_g_) the death of the Saint at -Bologna and the passing of his soul up to heaven in accordance with the -vision of the monk at Brescia. This early Cinquecento panel picture, -which was formerly in the Church of S. Domenico at Fiesole, near -Florence, was painted before the Beato went to beautify the cells of S. -Marco with frescoes. It is one of the best of the primitive pictures in -the Louvre. - -From the hand of the same saintly painter are the _Adoring Angel_ (no -No.), which until 1909 was in the Victor Gay collection, the _Martyrdom -of St. Cosmo and St. Damian_ (No. 1293), part of the predella of -a dismembered altarpiece, and the large fresco painting of the -_Crucifixion_ (No. 1294) which hangs on the Escalier Daru. The latter -was purchased, together with Domenico Ghirlandaio’s _Bottle-nosed Man_ -(No. 1322, Plate III.), in 1879 for £1960. The _Beheading of St. -John the Baptist_ (No. 1291) and the _Resurrection_ (No. 1294A) are -unauthentic. - -In Benozzo Gozzoli (1420-1498) we have an assistant and follower -of Fra Angelico. He worked at different towns in Italy, notably at -Montefalco, Orvieto, Florence, San Gimignano, Rome, and Pisa, where -he died. Although his earlier work reminds us of Fra Angelico, than -whom he is much more dramatic and much less spiritual, in later life -he depicts the costumes and life of his time in a more realistic and -objective manner. His _Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas_ (No. 1319), -which originally hung in the Cathedral at Pisa, deals with a subject -often met with in the art of the period. The great Dominican teacher, -whom the heathen philosophers, Aristotle on the left, and Plato on -the right, recognise as their master in philosophy, is enthroned, his -books of theological learning on his knees. At his feet, subdued, is -Guillaume de St. Amour, the author of a book entitled _De Periculis -Novissimorum Temporum_, in which he exposed the various abuses then -prevalent among the mendicants. The dramatic action seen in the lower -part of the panel embraces Pope Alexander IV. presiding over the -religious council of Agnani, and the envoys of St. Louis (Louis IX. of -France) who took steps to end the religious conflicts of 1256. A large -altarpiece (No. 1320) representing the _Madonna and Child Enthroned_, -_St. Cosmo_, _St. Damian_, _St. Jerome_, _St. John the Baptist_, _St. -Francis d’Assisi_, and _St. Lawrence_ in the central panel is also -assigned to Benozzo. The frame also contains seven predella pictures, -and at either end is the coat of arms of the Medici family. - -The great French Museum, which is weaker than the National Gallery, -the Berlin Gallery, and certain other national collections in Italian -primitives, affords us no example of the art of Andrea del Castagno -(fl. 1410-1457), whose compositions are characterised by harsh colour, -hard lines, and crude forms. Nor do we find here any painting by that -very rare artist, Domenico Veneziano (1400?-1461), who, it has been -said, was the first Tuscan artist to work in an oil medium. - - - PAOLO UCCELLO - -Prominent among the masters who were influenced by Donatello, the -sculptor, and Lorenzo Ghiberti, the first metal-worker in elegant -forms, is Paolo di Dono, generally known as Uccello. His profound study -and ultimate discovery of the laws of linear perspective was enhanced -by the inquiries into the laws of aerial perspective that Fra Angelico -studied so deeply. Paolo Uccello (1397-1475) was a pupil and assistant -of Lorenzo Ghiberti, who made the bronze doors for the East Side of -the Baptistery at Florence. He gave himself up to the scientific study -of perspective, the principles of which he was one of the first to -apply to painting, thus rendering incalculable services to art. In his -_Battlepiece_ (No. 1273) is seen a mounted soldier in armour with his -sword drawn; on the left are horsemen about to charge with couchant -lances, while on the right cavalry-men are drawn up awaiting orders, -their lances in rest. The correctness of the perspective and the -justice of the foreshortenings and the movements of the foot-men in the -intervals of the cavalry mark an epoch in art. This is the third and -right-hand panel of the series of three battle-pictures which Uccello -painted for the Casa Medici (now the Riccardi Palace) in Florence -for Cosimo de’ Medici about the year 1457, and not, as the official -Catalogue asserts, for the Bartolini family. The best preserved of -these three large panel pictures illustrating the _Rout of San Romano -in 1432_ is that in the National Gallery (No. 583), while the second or -centre panel of the series is now in the Uffizi (No. 52). The Louvre -panel is in a deplorable condition, caused by long neglect. - -Uccello’s _Portraits of Giotto, Paolo Uccello, Antonio Manetti, and -Filippo Brunelleschi_ (No. 1272), whose names are in this order on the -panel, is a work of considerable importance, as marking an early stage -in the development of portraiture. This picture, which is referred -to at some length by Vasari, constitutes a historical document. The -Italian chronicler tells us that Uccello “was a person of eccentric -character and peculiar habits, but he was a great lover of ability -in those of his own art, and, to the end that their memory should -remain to posterity, he drew with his own hand on an oblong picture -the portraits of five distinguished men, which he kept in his house -as a memorial of them. The first of these portraits was that of the -painter Giotto, as one who had given light and new life to the art; -the second was Filippo di Ser Brunellesco, for architecture; the third -was Donatello, for sculpture; the fourth was himself, for perspective -and animals; the fifth was his friend Giovanni (_sic_) Manetti, for -mathematics. With this philosopher Paolo conferred very frequently, and -held continual discourse with him concerning the problems of Euclid.” -Manetti’s real Christian name, Antonio, is correctly inscribed on the -panel, but is inaccurately given as Giovanni by Vasari and on the -official label. - -The _St. John the Baptist as a Child_ (No. 1274), which hangs in the -Long Gallery, is labelled as a picture of the Florentine school, and -catalogued as being by Uccello. It is perhaps by Piero di Cosimo. - -We enter on the first period of the coming Renaissance with Fra Filippo -Lippi (1406-1469), who was trained in the best school of Florentine -painting. He was a pupil of Lorenzo Monaco, came under the influence -of Fra Angelico, and was affected by the magic spell of Masaccio, whom -he must have seen at work in the Brancacci Chapel. In the latter half -of the Quattrocento the cult of love and beauty was rapidly dethroning -the more austere ideals of an earlier age. Filippo Lippi’s stormy and -romantic career passes into a new phase with his residence at Prato -in 1452. Four years later he was appointed Chaplain to the nuns of S. -Margherita in that town. The year before his arrival in Prato, Lucrezia -and Spinetta, the orphan daughters (aged eighteen and seventeen -respectively) of Francesco Buti, had, apparently much against their -will, been placed in the Convent, the abbess of which commissioned the -Frate to paint a picture of the _Madonna della Cintola_. Lucrezia posed -to the painter-chaplain for the figure of the Madonna in that picture. -On May 1, 1456, on the occasion of the exhibition of the Holy Girdle of -the Virgin, a precious relic still preserved at Prato, the painter bore -off Lucrezia out of the safe keeping of the convent. A short summary of -these well-known facts is suggested by the view which is put forward in -the official Catalogue of the Louvre, to the effect that the _Madonna -della Cintola_ is to be identified with the _Nativity_ (No. 1343) -in this Gallery. The weight of evidence is against this theory; in -fact, this large panel picture has little claim to be regarded as the -work of Fra Filippo. One critic has given it as his opinion that the -_Nativity_ was begun by Fra Filippo and completed by Fra Diamante, who -succeeded him as Chaplain at Prato. Others have attributed the picture -to Pesellino, Baldovinetti, and Stefano da Zevio respectively. It seems -to show the influence of Andrea del Castagno. The official Catalogue -does not indicate the _provenance_ of the picture, although it implies -that it came from the Convent at Prato at the time when it was brought -to Paris by Napoleon. There can be little doubt that the _Madonna della -Cintola_ is the painting thus named which still hangs in the place of -honour in the Municipal Gallery at Prato. - -The Louvre does, however, possess in the _Madonna and Child with Angels -and Two Abbots_ (No. 1344, Plate II.) one of the best of the Frate’s -creations, although the colouring has suffered considerably. It is an -early work, and was painted about 1437 for the Barbadori Chapel -in Santo Spirito. It contains beauty of line, freshness of colour, and -much variety in the composition. The cast of the draperies is ample and -the motives are novel and bold, the Renaissance background throwing -into prominent relief the soulful and ideal figure of the Madonna. The -predella panels of this dismembered altarpiece, for which Fra Filippo -received forty gold florins, are now in the Accademia at Florence. They -depict (_a_) _St. Frediano deviating the Course of the River Serchio_; -(_b_) _The Virgin receiving the Announcement of her Coming Decease_; -and (_c_) _St. Augustine in his Study_. The _Madonna and Child_ (No. -1345) is only a school picture. - - [Illustration: - PLATE II.—FRA FILIPPO LIPPI - - (1406-1469) - - FLORENTINE SCHOOL - - No. 1344.—MADONNA AND CHILD, WITH ANGELS AND TWO ABBOTS - - (La Vierge et l’Enfant Jésus entre deux abbés) - - The Virgin stands before the throne holding the Infant Christ to - the adoration of two kneeling abbots and surrounded by six angels - carrying lilies. To the left a monk leans over the balustrade, and - two small child-angels flank the composition on either side. - - Painted in tempera on panel. - - 7 ft. 1½ in. × 8 ft. 0¼ in. (2·17 × 2·44.)] - -In 1457, the year that Fra Filippo’s son Filippino was born, his -household effects and box of colours were seized for debt. He lived on -until October 4, 1469, when he died of a sudden and somewhat mysterious -illness. The Frate, who is the connecting link between Masaccio, the -first blossom, and Raphael, the full flower of Florentine painting, was -the master of Botticelli. A small _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1345) has -little claim to be regarded as the work of Fra Filippo. - -In our attempt to unravel the skein of Italian art in this collection -and to sketch its history in strict chronological order we may now -consider two small predella panels of (_a_) _St. Francis receiving -the Stigmata_ and (_b_) _An Incident in the Life of St. Cosmo and St. -Damian_ (No. 1414) by Francesco Pesellino (1422-1457). The former deals -with a subject we have already met with in this Gallery (No. 1312); the -latter is a new theme. St. Cosmo and St. Damian were wealthy men and -spent their time in doing charitable works as doctors without monetary -reward, and are thus sometimes known as “the Holy Money-despisers.” -According to the legend here represented, a Christian was one day -praying to these saints in the church dedicated to them in Rome in -the fervent hope that he might be healed of cancer in the leg. While -thus at prayer he imagined that his leg was amputated and replaced by -that of a dead Moor. In this small panel the saints are shown in the -act of placing the black man’s limb on the body of the Christian, who, -no doubt, will before long be healed. St. Cosmo and St. Damian being -patron saints of the Medici family are often met with in Florentine -art. We have already in this collection looked at a picture (No. 1293) -by Fra Angelico illustrating their martyrdom. Pesellino, who studied -the art of Fra Angelico, Masaccio, and Domenico Veneziano, and followed -somewhat closely in the steps of Fra Filippo Lippi, can hardly have -painted the small three-panel picture officially ascribed to him of -(_a_) _The Dead Christ_, (_b_) _A Cardinal supporting the Bodies of Two -Men who have been hanged_, and (_c_) _A Cardinal appearing in a Vision -to a Bishop_. This small work (No. 1415), which was formerly in the -Campana collection, has been claimed by Dr. Venturi and Mr. Berenson to -be by the Umbrian artist, Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. - -The _Madonna and Child and St. Augustin, St. John the Baptist, St. -Anthony, and St. Francis_ (No. 1661), which is officially catalogued -as being by an Unknown Florentine artist, and has been variously -attributed to Andrea del Castagno, Fra Filippo Lippi, and Andrea -Verrocchio, may be assigned to that nameless contemporary of Pesellino -whose artistic personality was a few years ago constructed by Mrs. -Berenson under the name of “Compagno di Pesellino.” - -The art of the Umbrian artist, Piero dei Franceschi (1415?-1492), who -is so well represented in the National Gallery, is not seen at the -Louvre, where, however, a _Madonna and Child_ passes under his name. -This panel (the official number of which is given in the Catalogue -as 1300B and on the frame as 1300A) was formerly in the Duchâtel -collection before passing into that of the Duc de la Trémoïlle, from -whom it was purchased in 1898 for £5200 by the _Société des Amis du -Louvre_. It was recognised over twelve years ago by M. Ary Renan as -the work of Alessio Baldovinetti (14271499), who, like Piero dei -Franceschi, was formed on Domenico Veneziano, and was also influenced -by the discoveries and methods of Uccello. - -Crowe and Cavalcaselle also had made that attribution before the -question was taken up by Mr. Berenson, who on morphological and -æsthetic grounds unhesitatingly ascribes it to Baldovinetti. “Compared -with Baldovinetti,” writes Mr. Berenson, “Piero dei Franceschi is -sterner and harder and more monumental. Piero’s Madonnas have a fixed -and severe physiognomy, massive structure and immobile pose; never a -smile, never a touch of tenderness.” How different from all this is the -_Madonna_ by Baldovinetti before us, with her “refined features and -her pensive gaze of adoration—a look that unveils her inner life, a -look that will soon develop into the mystery which we feel in the face -of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.” Vasari tells us that Baldovinetti -was “extremely careful and exact in his work, and of all the minutiæ -which Mother Nature is capable of presenting, he took pains to be the -close imitator. He delighted in the representation of landscape, which -he depicted with the utmost exactitude; thus we find in his pictures -rivers, bridges, rocks, herbs, fruits, paths, fields, cities, castles, -sands, and objects innumerable of the same kind.” A goodly number of -these are included in the background of this picture. - -With Antonio Pollaiuolo (1429-1498) and his brother Piero (1443-1496) -we enter on a more scientific era in Florentine art. Masaccio had -already advanced the study of the nude, and the influence of Donatello -(1386-1466) and other sculptors had drawn the attention of all -art-workers to the fuller significance of the human form. A more -serious attempt was now made by the rising generation of sculptors and -painters, among whom Antonio Pollaiuolo and Verrocchio (1435-1488) -now played the leading parts, to impart to the human figure a more -exact physiological accuracy and so give it greater effectiveness. The -advance made by Baldovinetti in landscape tended also to a more real -sense of movement in a natural environment. The Louvre catalogues no -picture under the name of either of the Pollaiuoli, but a _Madonna_ -(No. 1367A) here credited to Bastiano Mainardi was probably executed by -Piero, who frequently worked on his elder brother’s designs. - -The influence of Alessio Baldovinetti is reflected in the pictures of -Cosimo Rosselli (1437-1507). Nothing is officially ascribed to him in -this collection, but the _Annunciation, with St. John the Baptist, St. -Anthony, St. Catherine, and St. Peter Martyr_ (No. 1656), which is here -catalogued as by an Unknown fifteenth-century Florentine painter, is -apparently his work. It is inscribed with the date A.D.M.CCCCLXXIII. - - - THE GOLDSMITH PAINTERS - -During the generation which preceded the activity of Domenico -Ghirlandaio (1449-1494) (who appears in the official Catalogue under -the name of Grillandaio) the art of the painter had often been combined -with that of the architect and sculptor. In time the influence of the -goldsmith is seen in the inclination of the more prosaic painters, -among whom Ghirlandaio holds an important place, to subordinate the -pictorial qualities of their compositions to the gold-worker’s love -of ornamental detail and fanciful jewellery. Paintings carried out -in the goldsmith’s shop thus contained in the action of the figures, -the treatment of the draperies, and the fanciful head-dresses, -imitations of silver and bronze work. Domenico Bigordi owed the name -of Ghirlandaio, by which he is now generally known, to his having been -apprenticed to a goldsmith who acquired fame as a maker of the jewelled -coronals (_ghirlande_) that became fashionable. This pupil of Alessio -Baldovinetti, who was a craftsman quite as much as a painter, is -to-day best known by the large number of frescoes he painted in Tuscany. - - [Illustration: - PLATE III.—DOMENICO GHIRLANDAIO - - (1449-1494) - - FLORENTINE SCHOOL - - No. 1322.—PORTRAIT OF AN OLD MAN AND HIS GRANDSON - (“THE BOTTLE-NOSED MAN”) - - (Portrait d’un Vieillard et de son petit-fils) - - An old man, wearing a red robe edged with fur, looks down tenderly - at his golden-haired little grandson who lifts up his face to be - kissed. Through an open casement is seen a landscape. - - Painted in tempera on panel. - - 2 ft. 0½ in. × 1 ft. 6¼ in. (0·62 × 0·46.)] - -In Ghirlandaio’s _Visitation_ (No. 1321) the Virgin, her conventional -robes fastened by a morse such as this goldsmith-painter repeatedly -introduced into his pictures, stoops to greet St. Elizabeth. On the -left is Mary Cleophas, and from the right Mary Salome trips lightly on -to the scene. As always in a painting of this subject, the principal -figures are silhouetted against the arch in the background, through -which the sky is seen. Characteristic of Ghirlandaio’s paintings is the -jewelled architecture which bears the date 1491, three years previous -to his death. The Catalogue suggests that this large picture was -finished by either Davide or Benedetto, the brothers and assistants -of Domenico, but it is possible that his brother-in-law, Bastiano -Mainardi, may have worked on it. The French, having pointed out to the -Duke of Tuscany in 1815 that Florence possessed many better examples of -this painter’s art, were allowed to retain this panel picture, which -had been brought in 1806 from the Church of S. Maria Maddalena dei -Pazzi at Florence. - -The delightful _Portrait of an Old Man and his Grandson_ (No. 1322, -Plate III.), which is usually known as _The Bottle-nosed Man_, is an -admirable study from life. The winsome attitude of the little boy and -the refined expression of the old man are very pleasing. It is an -incontrovertible, but perhaps not obvious, fact that mere physiological -ugliness can in the hands of an accomplished artist be transformed into -a medium of beauty. The picture has unfortunately been damaged, notably -in the forehead of the principal figure. The certainty of touch and the -delicacy of the modelling indicate that this panel belongs to the last -period of the artist’s activity, when he also executed the magnificent -_Portrait of Giovanna degli Albizzi_, now in the collection of Mr. J. -Pierpont Morgan. - -One of Domenico’s brothers, Benedetto Ghirlandaio (1458-1497) is -credited with a _Christ on the Way to Calvary_ (No. 1323). His own -son, Ridolfo (1483-1561), painted the _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. -1324) in 1503, the date being inscribed on the panel. Mainardi (fl. -1482-1513), the brother-in-law, pupil, and imitator of Domenico, -painted many pictures which usually pass under the name of his more -illustrious relation. This pupil has painted in the tondo of the -_Madonna and Child_ (No. 1367) a morse somewhat similar to that seen -in the _Visitation_ (No. 1321). In this same group of artists must be -placed a nameless assistant of Domenico. His pictures have been grouped -by Mr. Berenson, who calls him by the descriptive name of “Alunno di -Domenico,” and tentatively identifies him with Bartolommeo di Giovanni, -of whom very little is known. Alunno di Domenico is thus credited with -having executed the companion pictures (No. 1416A and No. 1416B) of -the _Nuptials of Thetis and Peleus_, a pagan subject which suggests -the advent of the decadence in Florentine art. These two panels are -officially catalogued under the name of Piero di Cosimo. - - - LEONARDO DA VINCI - -We now have to pass from the mediocre artists who worked in the school -of Domenico Ghirlandaio to that great master, Leonardo da Vinci -(1452-1519), whose work in the oil medium can nowhere be studied so -profitably as in the Louvre. This many-sided genius was the natural -and first-born son of a country notary, and became a pupil of the -sculptor-painter, Andrea del Verrocchio, in whose workshop he met -Botticelli, Lorenzo di Credi, and many less distinguished Florentine -painters. His interests and occupations were so various that a -detailed study of his life-work reveals him as scientist, philosopher, -architect, sculptor, military engineer, mathematician, botanist, and -musician. The _Annunciation_ (catalogued as No. 1602A and labelled -No. 1265), which in the official Catalogue is now only attributed -to him after having long passed under the name of Lorenzo di Credi, -is doubtless an early work of about 1472 by Leonardo. Some ten years -later Leonardo entered the service of Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, -in which city he shortly afterwards painted the _Virgin of the Rocks_ -(No. 1599). This fine painting—whose virtues are concealed under a -thick coat of chilled varnish—is reputed to have been in the collection -of François I., although it has no continuous pedigree earlier than -the year 1625, when it was in the royal collection at Fontainebleau. -It is very similar to the painting of the same subject which the -National Gallery (No. 1093) purchased in 1880 for £9000. The points -of difference between the two versions are numerous but trifling. The -nimbi in the National Gallery picture were added much later and are not -found in the Louvre panel, which in the greater perfection of detail, -in the treatment of the foreground and the brushwork, prove it to be an -earlier and more authentic work. A careful examination of the documents -which came to light in the year 1893 shows that a dispute arose as to -the price to be paid by the Brotherhood of the Conception of Milan for -the picture now in the Louvre, and that Ambrogio da Predis and Leonardo -da Vinci petitioned the Duke of Milan to intervene. It would seem that -the National Gallery picture was executed in great part by Ambrogio, -who worked under the supervision of the great Florentine master, in -1494, about twelve years later than the version in this collection. -Leonardo’s greatest contribution to Florentine art consisted in his -practice of the science of _chiaroscuro_, the laws of which he was the -first to fully investigate. - -Having begun his celebrated “Treatise on Painting” and recommenced his -work on the colossal equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza, which at -the moment of its destruction by the French bowmen in 1500 had earned -him lasting fame as a sculptor, Leonardo undertook his _chef d’œuvre_, -_The Last Supper_, at Milan. Executed in tempera on a badly prepared -stucco ground, the painting unfortunately soon began to perish, and -although it was restored in 1908 with great success by Professor -Cavenaghi, only a faint idea of its pristine beauty remains. The Louvre -possesses a contemporary copy (No. 1603A) of this fresco by Marco -d’Oggiono, which was commissioned by the Constable de Montmorency and -long hung in the Château d’Ecouen. A similar copy of Leonardo’s _Last -Supper_ was purchased from a grocer in Milan in 1793 for £600, and is -now in the Royal Academy, London. - - - MONA LISA - -When Lodovico Sforza was conquered by the French and his city occupied -by them, Leonardo set out for Mantua and Florence. It may have been in -the spring or summer of 1500 that he began to work on the _Portrait -of Mona Lisa_ (No. 1601, Plate IV.) which officially passes under the -title of _La Joconde_. Vasari says that Leonardo worked on this picture -for four years, and finally left it unfinished. The words of Vasari -must not be taken too literally. We know, in fact, that Leonardo did -not work in Florence for four consecutive years during the period to -which the Louvre’s treasured picture belongs, but in 1502 visited -Orvieto, Pœsaro, and Rimini, acting as engineer to Cesare Borgia. -He probably began it in 1500, resumed work on it in 1503, and did -not complete it until the following year. This would make Vasari’s -statement substantially correct. The subject of this world-famous -portrait was Lisa di Anton Maria di Noldo Gherardini, the third wife -of Francesco di Bartolommeo de Zenobi del Giocondo, whom she married -in 1495. It is from the surname of her husband that she derives the -name of “_La Joconde_” by which her portrait is now officially known. -(The title has nothing to do with any reference to her jocund outlook -on life.) A French critic has shown that Mona Lisa’s child died while -this portrait was being painted. “Whoever shall desire to see how far -Art can imitate Nature,” says Vasari, “may do so to perfection in this -head, wherein every peculiarity that could be depicted by the utmost -subtlety of the pencil has been faithfully reproduced. The eyes have -the lustrous brightness and moisture which is seen in life, and around -them are those pale, red, and slightly livid circles also proper to -Nature. The nose, with its beautiful and delicately roseate nostrils, -might be easily believed to be alive; the mouth, admirable in its -outline, has the lips uniting the rose tints of their colour with -those of the face, in the utmost perfection, and the carnation of the -cheek does not appear to be painted, but truly flesh and blood.” This -eulogistic criticism may seem to-day to be somewhat excessive, but -allowance must be made for the drastic restorations to which the panel -has been subjected from time to time. As early as 1625 it is recorded -to have been in a bad condition. Tradition says that it was purchased -by François I. for 4000 _écus d’or_, equal to-day to about £1800, and -hung in the _Cabinet doré_ at Fontainebleau. Cassiano del Pozzo has -left it on record that the Duke of Buckingham, in 1625, when he was -sent to escort Henrietta Maria to England as the bride of Charles I., -expressed the hope that he might be permitted to take the picture back -with him as a present from Henri IV. of France, who was with difficulty -prevented by his courtiers from acting on the suggestion. The picture -was at Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV.., and appeared in the -Louvre for the first time at the Revolution. In recent years it has -been placed in an excellent frame of the period. - -By May 1506 Leonardo had returned to Milan, and there entered the -service of the French king. About 1508-12 he seems to have worked upon -the _Madonna, Infant Christ, and St. Anne_ (No. 1598), which appears -to have been in part executed by an assistant, possibly Salaino. This -large panel was purchased by Cardinal Richelieu in 1629. A sketch by -Leonardo for part of this picture is in the Louvre (Drawing No. 391); -other sketches are in the Venice Academy and in the Royal Library, -Windsor. The name of Andrea Salaino (fl. 1495-1515) has been put -forward as the painter of the mysterious picture entitled _St. John -the Baptist_ (No. 1597), which was evidently painted from a female -model. It is difficult to accept the view put forward by Théophile -Gautier that in this androgynous figure we have “another portrait -of _La Joconde_, more mysterious, more strange, freed from material -likeness, and showing the soul through the veil of the body.” The -picture passed into the collection of Charles I. from Louis XIII. -in exchange for Holbein’s _Portrait of Erasmus_ (No. 2715, Plate -XXIV.) and a now unrecognisable _Holy Family_ by Titian, but on the -dispersal of the English king’s collection was purchased for £140 by -Jabach, from whom it ultimately passed to Louis XIV. It is a Milanese -production, but not, in all probability, from the hand of Leonardo -himself, although officially so regarded. The same criticism applies -to the so-called _Portrait of Lucrezia Crivelli_ (No. 1600). Lucrezia -was a lady-in-waiting to Beatrice d’Este, and in 1496 Lodovico Sforza -became enamoured of her, a historical event which has no bearing on the -identity of this portrait or on its official, although uncertain, claim -to strict authenticity. It has also been described under the misleading -title of _La Belle Ferronnière_, apparently in reference to the wife -of one Ferron, a blacksmith, who had according to tradition been the -mistress of François I., but was already dead when Leonardo passed into -the service of that king and came to France in 1516. The picture’s -pedigree cannot be traced further back than 1645, and the theories put -forward in connection with it are largely conjectural. It is, however, -a Milanese production of the school of Leonardo. _The Profile Portrait -of a Woman_ (No. 1605) was also a century ago loosely described as -the _Portrait of La Belle Ferronnière_; it is catalogued as a school -picture, but is regarded by Mr. Berenson as the work of Bernardino de’ -Conti. The same critic is of the opinion that the _Bacchus_ (No. 1602) -is “based no doubt on a drawing by Leonardo,” but the Catalogue accepts -it unhesitatingly. It seems to have been originally intended as a St. -John the Baptist with a staff, and subsequently altered into a Bacchus -with a thyrsus. The _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1603A), an attributed -work, is only an old Flemish copy of a slightly warped panel picture of -the _Madonna with the Carnation_ (No. 1040A) at Munich. The _Madonna -of the Scales_ (No. 1604), which still passes as a school picture, has -long been regarded by responsible critics as being by Cesare da Sesto, -a pupil of Leonardo. _The Holy Family_ (No. 1606), which was formerly -in the His de la Salle collection, is not now exhibited. - -In 1516, within three years of his death, the great Florentine left -Italy for the Manor House of Cloux, near Amboise, in Touraine, to enter -the service of the French king. His right hand was paralysed—he was -left-handed and wrote from right to left—and his health was failing -fast. The end of that great life came on May 2, 1519, when every one -lamented the loss of a man and a painter “whose like Nature cannot -produce a second time.” - -The _Madonna and Child, St. Julian, and St. Nicholas_ (No. 1263) is -perhaps the masterpiece of Lorenzo di Credi (1456?-1537), who was -another pupil of Verrocchio. He also painted the _Christ appearing to -Mary Magdalene_ (No. 1264). The _Annunciation_ (No. 1602A), which was -formerly assigned to Lorenzo in the Catalogue (No. 1265), is, as has -already been pointed out, an early work by Leonardo da Vinci. - - - BOTTICELLI - -The ever-increasing regard in which pictures by Botticelli (1444-1510) -are held is traceable to the fact that they show the mystic spirit of -mediæval times mingled with a fantasy that is almost modern. He was a -pupil of Fra Filippo Lippi, and studied the more scientific methods -which Antonio Pollaiuolo adopted in his treatment of the human figure. -Painting in an age when poets penned canzones to many mistresses, and -lovelorn gallants spoke in impassioned verse of the great platonic -emotions which stirred them to the depth of their love-tormented -souls, Botticelli stands forward as the representative of the later -years of the Medicean age. The mystic tendency of his genius, his -poetic imagination, his highly developed sense of linear design, and -the charm of his colour impart to his works a delicacy and refinement -which distinguish them from the works of his contemporaries, pupils, -and imitators. His fame had long been in eclipse when half a century -ago Ruskin rescued it from oblivion. Botticelli, who now has become the -object of a cult at the hands of fervent enthusiasts, is, however, not -to be ranked as a supreme master. He cannot be placed on the same plane -as Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Giorgione. - -Botticelli is inadequately represented at the Louvre, which possesses -only two authentic paintings from his hand. Neither of these is on -panel or canvas, but in fresco. He was commissioned in 1486, the year -following his _Mars and Venus_ in the National Gallery (No. 915), to -execute two wall paintings (No. 1297, Plate V., and No. 1298) in the -hall on the _piano nobile_ of the Villa Lemmi, at Chiasso Macerelli, -between Fiesole and Florence, to commemorate the marriage of Lorenzo -Tornabuoni and Giovanna degli Albizzi. These exquisite, but much -injured, frescoes were covered over with whitewash until 1873, and -in 1882 they were removed from the wall and sold to the Louvre for -£1860. In the first (No. 1298) of the series _Lorenzo Tornabuoni, -as Bridegroom, is admitted into the Circle of the Liberal Arts_, -who give a gracious welcome to this friend of all the Muses. This -fresco, curiously enough, is in the official Catalogue regarded as -only a school picture. The second of these wonderful creations depicts -_Giovanna Tornabuoni and the Three Graces_ (No. 1297, Plate V.). We -see the Three Graces bringing to Giovanna their gifts of Chastity, -Beauty, and Love, depicted symbolically as flowers. A tragic fate -awaited the loving pair, as Giovanna died within a few years in -childbirth, while Lorenzo was condemned to death in 1497 for conspiracy. - - [Illustration: - PLATE V.—BOTTICELLI - - (1444-1510) - - FLORENTINE SCHOOL - - No. 1297.—GIOVANNA DEGLI ALBIZZI AND THE THREE GRACES - - (Giovanna Albizzi et les Trois Grâces ou les Vertus) - - To the right Giovanna, a young woman in a red-brown dress, - wearing a white veil on her golden hair and a necklace of pearls - round her neck, advances towards four lovely maidens clad in - delicately-tinted robes. She holds in her outstretched hands - a white linen cloth into which the four maidens throw flowers - symbolic of the Virtues. - - Fresco painting detached from the wall. - - 7 ft. 3 in. × 9 ft. 4 in. (2·12 × 2·84.)] - -The _Madonna and Child and St. John_ (No. 1296), which was formerly -put forward by one critic as a “work of Botticelli’s early years, but -showing collaboration,” and which is still catalogued as being by the -master himself, is now generally recognised as a school picture only. -The background is formed by cypresses and rosebushes. The circular -panel (No. 1295), which is still credited officially to Sandro, is only -a copy of the _Madonna of the Magnificat_ now in the Uffizi at Florence -(No. 1267 _Bis_). - -Authenticity cannot be claimed for the _Fragment of a Predella_ (No. -1300), containing the figures of St. Peter Martyr, the Virgin, St. -Elizabeth, Christ and the Magdalene, David, St. Francis, St. Dominic, -and St. John the Baptist. The _Scene from the History of Virginia_ -(No. 1662A or No. 1662 _Bis_), a cassone front, and the _Portrait of -a Young Man_ (No. 1663), which was purchased in 1882 for £600, are -catalogued as being by an unknown Florentine painter. These have, -however, been included by Mr. Berenson among the numerous pictures -painted by the nameless imitator of Botticelli, whom the eminent -critic has identified under the significant name of “Amico di Sandro,” -_i.e._ “The friend of Sandro Botticelli.” The _Madonna and Child -adored by Angels_ (No. 1300A), bequeathed by the Baroness Nathaniel de -Rothschild, is regarded by the same high authority as a copy by Jacopo -del Sellaio (1442?-1493), a pupil of Fra Filippo Lippi and an imitator -of Botticelli, of a lost picture by “Amico di Sandro.” The unbeautiful -_Venus_ (No. 1299) from the Cardinal Fesch and Campana collections -(which is very similar to a picture (No. 916) in the National Gallery), -the _Esther crowned by Ahasuerus_ (No. 1643A), and the _St. Jerome_ -(No. 1658), must also be included among the mediocre works of Sellaio. -In the same group of Florentine painters is placed Francesco Botticini -(1446-1497), who worked under and was influenced by Cosimo Rosselli -(1437?-1507); _the Virgin in Glory between the Magdalene and St. -Bernard_ (No. 1482) is by Botticini although placed under the name of -Rosselli in the Catalogue. Many pictures by Botticini pass in public -galleries under the more illustrious name of Botticelli. - -From Cosimo Rosselli we naturally pass to his pupil Piero di Cosimo -(1462-1521), who derived great pleasure from the painting of such -scenes from classic fable as enabled him to depict grotesque monsters, -strange animals, and fantastic costume. At first sight it might be -assumed that the _Nuptials of Thetis and Peleus_ (No. 1416A and No. -1416B) were from his brush; but although these two panels pass under -his name in the Catalogue, they are, as we have seen, by “Alunno di -Domenico.” Piero is represented in the Louvre exclusively by religious -pictures, the most imposing of which is the _Coronation of the Virgin, -with St. Jerome, St. Francis, St. Bonaventura, and St. Louis of -Toulouse_ (No. 1416). An unpleasing _Madonna_ (No. 1662) has long ago -been assigned to Piero di Cosimo, who is also the author of a _St. John -the Baptist as a Child_ (No. 1274), which is labelled with the name of -Uccello. The two last pictures hang in the Long Gallery on either side -of the door leading into Room VII. - -The authorities catalogue as the work of Raffaelino del Garbo -(1466-1524) the large _Coronation of the Virgin, with St. Benedict, St. -Salvi, St. John Gualberto, and St. Bernard degli Uberti_ (No. 1303), -which is in reality the centre part of a large altarpiece by Raffaelle -dei Carli (1470-1526?), who worked with Garbo and his group. - -The great French Museum does not possess one of the only three easel -paintings which are now assigned by the safest critics to Michelangelo -(1475-1564), who as a painter is best known for his fresco paintings -in Rome. This collection is, however, fortunate enough to own the -two sculptures of the _Slaves_, represented as fettered and overcome -by grief at the death of Pope Julius II., for whose tomb they were -intended. - - - ALBERTINELLI - -By the end of the fifteenth century, Florence had become the æsthetic -capital of Italy, and painters innumerable were plying their trade -within her walls. As they worked in close contact and unconsciously -reflected the influences which beset them on every side, it becomes -increasingly difficult to assign to any given artist the execution -of certain works. The task becomes even more difficult, and indeed -thankless, when one is brought face to face with such a composite -picture as the _Madonna and Child, St. Jerome and St. Zenobius_ (No. -1114), which is officially ascribed to Albertinelli (1474-1515). The -leading authority on Italian art has given it as his opinion that this -large canvas, which is inscribed: - - MARIOCTI DEBERTINELLIS OPUS - Ā. D̄. M̊. DVI, - -was “begun by Filippino Lippi, who laid in the St. Jerome, while -Albertinelli was assisted by Bugiardini in the execution of the rest, -especially in the child and landscape.” Albertinelli was the intimate -friend of Fra Bartolommeo, whose partner he eventually became. When it -is remembered that Albertinelli worked in the studio of Cosimo Rosselli -with Piero di Cosimo, who was the master of Fra Bartolommeo and had -some influence on Filippino Lippi, it will be recognised that it is -only the discerning critic of wide experience and consummate _flair_ -that can detect the hand of various painters in a composite picture of -this kind, as Mr. Berenson has done. - -The _Christ appearing to the Magdalene_ (No. 1115), which passes -officially as the work of Albertinelli, was most probably an early -picture by Fra Bartolommeo (1472-1517), who, having like Botticelli -come under the spell of Savonarola, took the vows of a Dominican in -July 1500, and temporarily relinquished the professional activity of a -painter. The Frate took up his brush again and, while working between -1509 and 1512 as the partner of Albertinelli, achieved the large and -imposing _Holy Family, with St. Peter, St. Vincent, St. Stephen, and -St. Catherine of Siena on the left, and St. Dominic, St. Francis, and -St. Bartholomew on the right_ (No. 1154). It is signed on the base of -the throne, in characteristic manner: - - ORATE PRO PICTORE - MDXI - BARTHOLOME FLOREN̄. - OR. PRAE. - -Four years later he also completed his Annunciation (No. 1153), which -is inscribed: - - _F. Bartᵒ_ Florenˢ orⁱˢ pre. - _1515._ - -The introduction of St. Paul, St. John the Baptist, and St. Margaret on -the left, and St. Mary Magdalene and St. Francis on the right, tends to -destroy the full significance of the principal theme. Fra Bartolommeo’s -pictures helped to emancipate Raphael from the mannerisms he had -acquired from Perugino; they mark a late period in the Renaissance art -of Florence. He lived until 1517, when Florentine painting was on the -verge of a fast approaching decadence. - -Equally influential in the art of this period was Filippino Lippi -(1457-1504), whose tendency to over-ornamentation became more -advanced in his later years. In his fascinating pictures spiritual -significance is at times sacrificed to a love of mere display, the -baroque flutterings of his draperies and the air of affectation that -he sometimes imparted to his figures. The Louvre exhibits no example -of the art of Filippino which in its latest phase shows the early, -although unmistakable, signs of decline. - - - ANDREA DEL SARTO - -The highly technical skill and mellow colouring of Andrea del Sarto -(1486-1531) have long been known in France, where he was invited by -François I. For that monarch he executed the _Charity_ (No. 1514), -which, having been transferred from panel to canvas by Picault in 1750 -when the process was little understood, suffered accordingly. In its -present state we can get little idea of the former brilliance of the -picture which secured to the “faultily faultless painter” in 1518—the -year he arrived in France—a very considerable income. It is inscribed: - - ANDREAS SARTUS - FLORENTINTUS ME PINXIT - MDXVIII. - -A _Holy Family_ (No 1515), by the same facile painter, has been said by -some to portray in the features of the Virgin those of his own infamous -wife Lucrezia del Fede. It has been enlarged, and has suffered in the -operation. Less authentic are the _Holy Family_ (No. 1516), which is -said to bear the inscription: - - ANDREA DEL SARTO FLORENTINO FACIEBAT - -followed by a monogram, and a lunette of the _Annunciation_ (No. 1517). -The _Portrait of Andrea Fausti_, which is given in the Catalogue under -the name of Sarto, and described as being the work of a pupil, is held -by some critics to have been painted by Franciabigio (1482-1525), who -came under the influence of Andrea. - -The insignificant _Portrait of a Young Man_ (No. 1506), which since -1709 has passed under the quite fictitious title of the _Portrait -of Raphael_, and is indeed still catalogued under his name, is an -ill drawn and badly coloured production. It seems to issue from the -influences we have just outlined. Morelli regarded it as the work -of Bacchiacca (1494-1557), who churned up reminiscences of Andrea -del Sarto, Franciabigio, and Perugino. Mr. Berenson has tentatively -assigned it to Sogliani, who imitated Albertinelli and many other -Florentines. - -An unattributed Florentine _Portrait of a Young Man_ (No. 1644), -which has been enlarged about three inches all round, had at one time -or another been ascribed without much discrimination to Raphael, -Giorgione, Sebastiano del Piombo, Francesco Francia, Ridolfo -Ghirlandaio, and Franciabigio! It is apparently from the hand of -Giuliano Bugiardini (1475-1554), a mediocre artist who endeavoured to -appropriate all the conflicting influences that he came under. It has -long been hung to the left of Raphael’s _La Belle Jardinière_. - -A Florentine painter of no great accomplishment or originality in the -first half of the sixteenth century was Jacopo da Pontormo (1494-1557), -who painted the _Portrait of an Engraver of Precious Stones_ (No. 1241) -and the large _Holy Family_ (No. 1240). The _Visitation_ (No. 1242) is -a copy by a pupil of his fresco in the Annunziata, Florence. By another -pupil, Agnolo Bronzino (1502-1572), are the _Christ and the Magdalene_ -(No. 1183), not now exhibited, and the _Portrait of a Sculptor_ (No. -1184); the _Holy Family_ (No. 1183A or No. 1183B) which was formerly -in the Vandeuil collection is only a copy. Giovanni Battista Rosso -(1496-1541), who is called Rosso Fiorentino to distinguish him from -Francesco Rosso (Il Salviati), came to work at the French Court -about 1530; he painted a _Pietà_ (No. 1485), and a _Challenge of the -Pierides_ (No. 1486), which are hung among the French pictures. _The -Portrait of a Musician_ (No. 1608), by Paolo Zacchia; the _Madonna, -St. John and St. Stephen_ (No. 1133), by Michelangelo Anselmi; the -_David overcoming Goliath_ (No. 1462), a repulsive production painted -by Daniele da Volterra (Ricciarelli) on both sides of a large piece of -slate; a _Flight into Egypt_ (No. 1209), by Lodovico Cardi (Il Cigoli), -and Matteo Rosselli’s _Triumph of David_ (No. 1483), are unworthy of -comment. They show unmistakably the characteristics of the Decadence in -full operation. - - - - - THE LATER SIENESE SCHOOL - - -We have already sketched the earliest period of the art of Siena, and -seen how for a brief space of time it dominated that of Tuscany. The -greater precision of the Florentine technique, and the wider mental -outlook of its artists in the fifteenth century, placed it in the van -before long. - -Sano di Pietro (1406-1481), a pupil of Sassetta, undoubtedly painted -the five small characteristic panels (No. 1128-32), which illustrate -scenes from the _Life of St. Jerome_, and at one time formed the -predella of a large altarpiece. St. Jerome, with others of his order -who run away, kneels under a portico of the monastery he founded at -Bethlehem, and is extracting a thorn from the lion’s paw. According to -the legend, the lion was afterwards placed in charge of an ass which -the monks employed to carry wood; we see here that while the lion was -asleep in the heat of the day under a clump of trees, the ass was -stolen by merchants. St. Jerome naturally believed that the ass had -not been carried off by a passing caravan, but eaten by the lion, who -subsequently saw his old friend the ass in the possession of the same -merchants that chanced to pass that way again. The lion is here seen -(No. 1130) in the act of compelling, one might almost say pushing, the -ass and the other beasts of burden laden with provisions back into the -monastery, while the merchants flee away in terror. - -The Louvre does not contain any work by Vecchietta (1412-1480), who -was architect as well as painter. A _Birth of the Virgin_ (No. 1660), -catalogued as being by an unknown Florentine artist, is most probably -from the hand of Matteo di Giovanni (1435?-1495), who was most likely -at one time a pupil of Vecchietta. Another of the latter’s pupils, -Francesco di Giorgio (1439-1502), perhaps executed the panel of the -_Rape of Europa_ (No. 1640A or No. 1640 _Bis_), which the cataloguer -relegates to the lengthy list of unattributed Florentine works. - -From these influences spring Girolamo di Benvenuto (1470-1524), whose -_Judgment of Paris_ (No. 1668) passes in the Catalogue as a late -fifteenth century Bolognese picture. Bernardino Fungai (1460-1516), who -trod in the steps of Giovanni di Paolo, Francesco di Giorgio, and the -Umbrian artist Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and yet evinced no real signs of -development from within, is unrepresented in this collection. - -This rapid survey of the School of Siena shows that it is not well -exemplified in the Louvre. The third-rate painters, Pacchiarotto -(1474-1540) and Beccafumi (1486-1551), will not detain us. Another -accomplished late Sienese eclectic, Girolamo del Pacchia (1477-1535?), -has been credited with a _Crucifixion_ (No. 1642), but not by the -official cataloguer. Sodoma (1477-1551) also worked in Siena. Towards -the year 1501 other artists of the various schools of Central Italy, -including Pinturicchio, Signorelli, and Perugino, visited the city, -their advent bringing about an artistic revolution. Before long the -religious fervour, the delicate ornamentation, the gesso-embellishment, -the drawing in the flat, and the miniature-like delicacy of an earlier -age became extinct. The artistic glory of Siena was dimmed, and rapidly -passed into a period of decadence. - -Among the last Sienese artists of any distinction were Baldassare -Peruzzi (1481-1536), an architect and painter, and Matteo Balducci (fl. -1509-1553), to whom we may perhaps ascribe the _Judgment of Solomon_ -(No. 1571) and the _Judgment of Daniel_ (No. 1572). In any case -these pictures belong to the Umbro-Sienese period of Central Italian -art; they are officially regarded as being by Perugino himself. When -all originality had passed out of Sienese painting, Francesco Vanni -(1563?-1609) produced his _Repose on the Flight into Egypt_ (No. 1561) -and the _Martyrdom of St. Irene_ (No. 1562). - - - - - THE UMBRIAN SCHOOL - - -At the head of the various local centres of painting which form the -school of Umbria we must place Alegretto Nuzi (died 1385), whose works -are very rarely met with in museums north of Italy. He inherited -the best Giottesque traditions, and became the teacher of Gentile -da Fabriano (1360?-1428), an early master whose influence was more -far-reaching and inspiring than we can to-day trace in any detail. -The Louvre has the good fortune to contain a precious little predella -panel of the _Presentation in the Temple_ (No. 1278), which is very -decorative and exhibits a strongly marked appreciation of architecture. -It is the only separated panel from the predella of Gentile’s large -and magnificent altarpiece of the _Adoration of the Magi_, of 1423, -which was seized by Napoleon but was returned in 1815. It is now in the -Accademia at Florence. - -The _Miracle of St. Nicholas giving a Dowry to the Three Daughters -of a Nobleman_ (No. 1659), which is officially classed among the -unattributable works of the Florentine school, is now considered to be -by Giovanni Francesco da Rimini, while the _Madonna and Child_ (No. -1300A or 1300B) which is officially ascribed to Piero dei Franceschi, -the leading painter of his generation in the school of Umbria, must, as -we have seen, be given to Alessio Baldovinetti of the Florentine school. - -Again, the three-panel picture (No. 1415) which is credited to -Pesellino of Florence is in reality from the hand of the Umbrian -artist Fiorenzo di Lorenzo (1440-1521). The collection is not rich in -the works of the earliest painters of this school, but the _Birth of -the Virgin_ (No. 1525), a detached panel from a lost or unidentified -altarpiece by Luca Signorelli (1441-1523), gives us some idea of the -great power of this influential master, whose knowledge of composition -and anatomy is best seen in his frescoes at Orvieto. Signorelli’s sense -of complicated movement and crowded action mark an epoch in the art of -Umbria. The _Fragment of a Large Picture_ (No. 1527) seems to be imbued -with his spirit, but the large _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. 1526) which -comes from Città di Castello, and a _Madonna and Child with St. Louis -of Toulouse, St. Catherine, and other Saints_ (No. 1528), contain none -of the vigorous originality of that master from whom even Michelangelo -did not disdain to borrow on occasion. Three predella panels (No. 1120) -have been dismembered from a large altarpiece by Niccolò da Foligno, -and were originally painted for a side altar in the Church of S. -Niccolò at Foligno. In the art of this over-emotional Umbrian, what is -meant for deep religious feeling is by exaggeration almost transformed -into grimacing passion. - - - PERUGINO - -Niccolò’s most illustrious contemporary in this school was Pietro -Perugino (1446-1523). Over fifty of the religious pictures of this -influential and accomplished master were carried off from Central Italy -by Napoleon. He is well represented in this Gallery. The contemplative -and deeply impressive pictures of his less mannered style are among -the best pictures which Umbria has given us, but there is a tendency, -notably towards the end of his career, to repeat his compositions, -only altering the attitude of a single figure, and so exhibiting a -marked lack of originality. His early _Holy Family with St. Rose and -St. Catherine_ (No. 1564), painted about 1491, is a little cramped; -the tondo hardly provides sufficient space to contain the rather stiff -figures, and the treatment is unpleasantly conventional. It also -recalls the art of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. The _St. Sebastian_ (No. 1566A, -Plate VI.), which is inscribed: - - SAGITTÆ TVÆ INFIXÆ SVNT MICHI, - -is a favourite subject with this master, who painted it at least eight -times on a large scale, as well as in a miniature now lent to the -National Gallery by Mr. H. Yates Thompson. The _Holy Family with St. -Catherine_ (No. 1565) is said to bear the characteristic signature: - - PETRUS PERVSINUS PINXIT. - -The _Combat of Love and Chastity_ (No. 1567) was commissioned by -Isabella d’Este, Duchess of Mantua, in 1505, and removed at the sack -of that city in 1630 to the Château of Richelieu, where it remained -down to the Revolution. The _St. Paul_ (No. 1566) is a very late and -not very attractive work. In his best pictures Perugino loved to paint -a purist landscape with its buoyant spaciousness of view, but too -frequently his figures are insufficiently dramatic and have a tendency -towards sentimentality. A very late _St. Sebastian_ (No. 1668A), -which is on a much smaller scale than the subject of our illustration -(Plate VI.), is officially catalogued as being by an Unknown Umbrian -painter. The _Apollo and Marsyas_ (No. 1509), which was purchased at -Christie’s in 1850 for £70 by Morris Moore, with an ascription to -Mantegna, was in 1883 sold to the Louvre for £8000. It long hung in -the Salon Carré as a Raphael, but is now only attributed to him by the -cataloguer. This gem of Umbrian art has successively been ascribed by -critics to Pintoricchio, Timoteo Viti, Francesco Francia, and others, -but is to-day generally regarded as a very fine example of the art of -Perugino. Two pictures (No. 1573 and No. 1573A) of the _Madonna and -Child_ are by unidentifiable pupils of Perugino. - -One of the most recent acquisitions is a _Madonna_ by Antoniazzo -Romano (1440?-1508), the gift of M. Lucien Delamarre. The art of -Pintoricchio (1454-1513) is shown in the _Madonna and Child with St. -Gregory and another Saint_ (No. 1417), while Lo Spagna (1475?-1528?), -a pupil of Perugino, is represented by a _Nativity_ (No. 1539), -a _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1540), and by three small pictures -illustrating the _Dead Christ, the Virgin, and St. John_ (No. 1568), -_St. Francis of Assisi receiving the Stigmata_ (No. 1569), and _St. -Jerome in the Desert_ (No. 1570). - -A mediocre pupil of Perugino and Pintoricchio, Giannicola Manni (fl. -1493-1544), is doubtless responsible for the _Baptism of Christ_ (No. -1369), the _Assumption_ (No. 1370), the _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. -1371), and the _Holy Family_ (1372) which pass under his name. The -last-mentioned panel was attributed by Villot, apparently without much -reason, to L’Ingegno. - - - RAPHAEL - -The majority of the thirteen pictures which in the Louvre are -unreservedly catalogued under the great name of Raphael (1483-1520) -certainly belong to his third or Roman period, and in many of them -he obviously received a large amount of assistance from his pupil, -Giulio Romano. It is this fact, no doubt, which has led the compiler of -the Catalogue to place the “Divine Urbinate” in the Roman school. It -will, however, be readily admitted that such a classification is both -arbitrary and misleading. - - [Illustration: - PLATE VI.—PERUGINO - - (1446-1523) - - UMBRIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1566A.-ST. SEBASTIAN - - (Saint Sébastien) - - The Saint stands with his hands behind his back bound to a pillar, - with his head raised towards heaven. An arrow pierces his right arm - and another his left breast. The body is nude, but for a white loin - cloth striped with red and blue. In the background is a rounded - arch supported by two highly ornamented pillars. Through the - archway is seen a beautiful landscape. - - Painted in tempera on panel. - - Signed:—“SAGITTÆ TVÆ INFIXÆ SVNT MICHI.” - - 5 ft. 7 in. × 3 ft. 10 in. (1·70 × 1·17.)] - -Although he lived but thirty-seven years, Raphael gave to the world a -vast amount of art treasure. Brought up in Urbino, where his father, -Giovanni Santi, was poet as well as painter, he passed before he -was fifteen under the direct influence of Timoteo Viti, who had -worked at Bologna under Francesco Francia. Raphael became the pupil -of Perugino at Perugia about 1500, and also worked as the assistant -of Pintoricchio. His art being thus formed on the best Umbrian -tradition, Raphael in October 1504 left Perugia for Florence, and it -was only at that date that he began to acquire a distinctive style of -his own. During his second or Florentine period he painted the _St. -George and the Dragon_ (No. 1503), in which is seen the chivalrous -knight mounted on a pure white steed; his lance is broken in his combat -with the monster, and he is forced to use his sword, while the little -Princess Cleodolinda flees in abject terror into the background. The -very small panel of _St. Michael_ (No. 1502), which is a chessboard on -the back, was painted for Guidobaldo, Duke of Urbino, and eventually -passed into the collections of Cardinal Mazarin and Louis XIV. The -_Madonna and Child_ which has come to be known as _La Belle Jardinière_ -(No. 1496, Plate VII.) is rather later than the _Madonna del Gran’ -Duca_ in the Pitti Palace, the _Cardellino Madonna_ in the Uffizi, -and the _Ansidei Madonna_ in the National Gallery. It is one of the -most famous of Raphael’s saintly and ideal Madonnas; the pose of the -figures is easy, the treatment simple, the colour exquisite. The -landscape background is poetic in feeling, and conveys the mood which -makes this one of Raphael’s most pleasing creations. The thin feathery -trees and the treatment of the Virgin’s hair are still Peruginesque, -but the superiority of the pupil to the master is gradually making -itself felt. The Infant Christ is standing on the right foot of His -mother. Tradition says that Raphael entrusted to Ridolfo Ghirlandaio -the task of painting in the blue of the Virgin’s garment. The drapery -is apparently inscribed: - - VRB. RAPHAELLO MDVII. - -After working for four years in Florence, Raphael went in the summer of -1508 to Rome, where he achieved such a vast amount of work for Popes -Julius II. and Leo X. His work was increased by his appointment, -on the death of Bramante in 1514, as Architect of St. Peter’s and -Inspector of Antiquities. - -About 1515-16 Raphael delighted to paint the _Portrait of Baldassare -Castiglione_ (No. 1505, Plate VIII.), who was his lifelong friend and -adviser as well as the author of _Il Cortegiano_. This picture, which -is eloquent testimony to Raphael’s skill as a portrait painter, was -originally on wood, but it was long ago transferred to canvas, which -has unfortunately abraded, the paint having peeled off the hands. After -the death of Castiglione in Spain, this picture which he had taken with -him passed into the possession of the Duke of Mantua, and thence into -the collection of Charles I., where it seems to have been copied by -Rubens. It subsequently became the property of a Dutch amateur named -Van Asselen, and was copied by Rembrandt. Later, it was sold for 3500 -florins to Don Alfonso Lopez, a collector at Amsterdam, and after -figuring in the collection of Mazarin was acquired by Louis XIV. - -The _Holy Family of Francis I._ (No. 1498) was commissioned by Lorenzo -de’ Medici and presented to the Queen of François I. by Pope Leo X. It -was originally painted on wood, and was forwarded to Lyons on April 19, -1518. During the reign of Louis XIV. it hung in the _grand appartement_ -at Versailles, and having been placed near a fireplace had to be -relined. It then had wings, but they were destroyed at the time of the -Revolution. Although it is very ostentatiously signed - - RAPHAEL VRBINAS PINGEBAT MDXVIII - -on the edge of the robe of the kneeling Madonna, there can be no -question that it was only designed by Raphael, the execution being -wholly or in great part carried out by the master’s best pupil, Giulio -Romano. In the _Sistine Madonna_ and such works as Raphael painted -at this period entirely with his own hand we see that his technique -had become masterly and his powers of composition had developed to the -utmost. Compared with _La Belle Jardinière_ of a decade earlier, a -greater knowledge of craftsmanship has been accompanied by a loss of -purity and simplicity. - - [Illustration: - PLATE VII.—RAPHAEL - - (1483-1520) - - UMBRIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1496.—LA BELLE JARDINIÈRE - - (_La Vierge_ dite _La Belle Jardinière_) - - The Virgin is seated in a flowery meadow. She wears a red tunic - edged with black, yellow sleeves and a blue mantle; a book is on - her knees; her fair hair is confined under a transparent veil. She - looks down to the left at the Infant Jesus, who leans tenderly - against her knee and draws her attention to the little St. John the - Baptist who kneels to the right, his reed cross in his right hand. - The background shows a landscape containing a small town with its - church, and a lake surrounded by mountains. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - The signature seems to be:—“VRB. RAPHAELLO MDVII.” - - 3 ft. 8 in. × 2 ft. 7½ in. (1·22 × 0·80.)] - -Two years before his death Raphael had designed the large but by no -means imposing _St. Michael overcoming Satan_ (No. 1504), the execution -of which on panel was certainly due to Giulio Romano. It was a gift -from Lorenzo de’ Medici to François I., the original cartoon being -presented by Raphael to the Duke of Ferrara. This picture, like the -_Holy Family of Francis I._, was originally protected by folding wings, -the inner sides of which were lined with green velvet, while the outer -were gilded and painted with arabesques. The two pictures arrived at -Fontainebleau in July 1518, having been carried on the back of mules -by way of Florence and Lyons. As early as 1530 the _St. Michael_ was -restored by Primaticcio and by many others subsequently, notably in -1752. The picture was transferred to canvas by Picault, who received -for his labours the large sum of 11,500 _livres_, a sum quite out of -proportion to its æsthetic or financial value to-day. It was again -restored in 1776, 1800, and 1850. It is signed in gilt characters on -the edge of the Archangel’s tunic: - - RAPHAEL VRBINAS PINGEBAT MDXVIII. - -The Demon is not shown, as in the early and small picture of the same -subject (No. 1502), as a dragon, but as a half-human monster with -horns and tail. The foreshortening is undoubtedly clever, but the -picture is too instantaneous in its dramatic action. In the course of -time the high lights have gone down and the shadows darkened in the -metallic-looking figure of the Archangel. - -The _Virgin with the Blue Diadem_ or the _Virgin with the Veil_ (No. -1497) is one of at least ten pictures in this collection which were -carried out by Giulio Romano (1492?-1546). It is here credited to -Raphael. It has been repeatedly restored. A very large number of -replicas, variants, and old copies of this panel exist. The following -“Raphaels” may be regarded as the work of Giulio: the _Small Holy -Family with St. Elizabeth_ (No. 1499); the much restored _Saint -Margaret_ (No. 1501); the _Portrait of Joan of Arragon_ (No. 1507), -whom Raphael apparently never saw; and the _Portraits of Two Men -seen to the Bust_ (which has been called _Raphael and his Fencing -Master_) (No. 1508). Giulio certainly painted the _Triumph of Titus -and Vespasian_ (No. 1420), the _Venus and Vulcan_ (No. 1421), and the -_Portrait of a Man_ (No. 1422), which are catalogued under his name, -and in all probability the three large Cartoons entitled _A Triumph_, -_The Triumph of Scipio_, and _The Taking and Burning of a City_, which -hang on the Escalier Daru. The _Circumcision_ (No. 1438) which figures -officially under the name of the Bolognese painter Bartolommeo Ramenghi -(Il Bagnacavallo) (1484-1542) is by Giulio Romano. - -The fresco painting of _The Eternal Father_ (No. 1512), which is now -inserted over the door of the Salle des Primitifs (Room VII.), was -certainly executed during the lifetime of Raphael, and probably under -his supervision. It was painted for the chapel attached to the Villa -Magliana, a favourite hunting-box of Pope Leo X., who commissioned it. -It was purchased in 1873 for the large sum of £8280. - -From the hand of Giannicola Manni (fl. 1493-1544) come the _Baptism of -Christ_ (No. 1369), the _Assumption_ (No. 1370), the _Adoration of the -Magi_ (No. 1371), and a _Holy Family_ (No. 1372), while a fully signed -_Dead Christ supported by Two Angels_ (No. 1400) is by the mediocre -Umbrian artist Marco Palmezzano (fl. 1456-1538). The latter’s pupil, -Zaganelli da Cottignola (1460?-1531), may have painted the _Christ -bearing His Cross_ (No. 1641) which is catalogued as an unattributable -Italian work. - - [Illustration: - PLATE VIII.—RAPHAEL - - (1483-1520) - - UMBRIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1505.-PORTRAIT OF BALDASSARE CASTIGLIONE - - (Portrait de Balthazar Castiglione, ambassadeur et littérateur) - - He is seen nearly in full face. He wears a white linen - under-garment, an over-dress of black velvet with grey sleeves, and - a cap. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 0½ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·62 × 0·67.)] - - - - - THE VENETIAN SCHOOL - - -The conquest of Byzantium during the Fourth Crusade by Doge Enrico -Dandolo in 1204, an epoch-making event in the history of Venice and -Venetian art, strengthened the intercourse between the East and the -City of the Lagoons. At the same time it riveted the fetters of -Byzantinism on to the nascent art of Venice, to which it also imparted -a sense of intense Oriental colour. - -The frescoes painted in Tuscany on the lines of Giottesque tradition -and the environment under which its painters worked, in time gave -to the Florentines a sense of line and form which produced a school -of idealists: on the other hand, the colour-impressions created on -the mind of the Venetian painter by the relics from the East and the -brilliant mosaics which he saw around him resulted eventually in the -formation of a school of colourists with a realistic tendency. - -It will cause little surprise that the Louvre contains no polyptych by -the very early Venetians, Niccolò Semitecolo (fl. 1351-1400), Jacobello -del Fiore (died 1439), and Michele Giambono (fl. 1420-1462). The -Gallery possesses, however, a fourteenth-century Venetian arched panel -of the _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1541) which is attributed to Stefano -Veneziano. - -In the early fifteenth century the dominating influence exerted on -the painters of Venice was that of Jacopo Bellini (1400?-1470), whose -sons, Gentile and Giovanni, and son-in-law, Andrea Mantegna, were to -shape the destinies of the school throughout the Renaissance. Jacopo’s -drawing is seen in its full maturity in the Sketch-book of about 1450 -which belongs to the Louvre but is not publicly exhibited. Another -Sketch-book by him of about 1430 is one of the treasured possessions -of the British Museum. Jacopo had in early life been the pupil of -Gentile da Fabriano, who, together with Alegretto Nuzi, stands at the -head of the Umbrian school, and of Antonio Pisanello (1397-1455), -the medallist-painter who played such an important part in the art -of Verona. Both Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello worked for a time -at Venice. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is not surprising -to find that a _Madonna and Child with a Donor_ (No. 1159A, formerly -No. 1279 and No. 171), which is now justly ascribed in the Catalogue -to Jacopo Bellini, was long assigned officially to Gentile Bellini, -although held by some critics to have been painted in the school of -Pisanello. The name of the Donor in this picture is given in the -Catalogue as Leonello d’Este and on the frame as Pandolfo Malatesta; it -would, however, seem to be the portrait of Sigismondo Malatesta. - -Four small triptychs (Nos. 1280-83) from the Campana collection still -pass officially under the ambiguous designation of “School of Gentile -da Fabriano”; they may, however, without much doubt be ascribed to -Antonio Vivarini, who remained outside the Bellini sphere of influence, -and died about 1470. - - - THE BELLINI - -The sunny splendour of Venetian painting reached its zenith in the -_bottega_ of the Bellini. Gentile, who was sent to Constantinople with -the authority of the Republic in 1479, painted portraits, ceremonial, -religious, and historical pictures, many of which are on a large scale, -while Giovanni was for many years the greatest teacher and the most -influential painter in Venetian territory. Giovanni executed a large -number of panels and canvases which in the period of his maturity -exhibit a profound sense of dignity, beauty, religious feeling, and -rich deep colour. Most of those which are signed in a _cartellino_ -“IOANNES BELLINUS” (in capitals and, of course, in pigment of the -period) are authentic works from his own hand. The majority of those -which bear what to the unpractised eye might be taken for his personal -signature, but are only signed in uncials (“_Ioannes Bellinus_”), must -be regarded as mere studio productions. In the sixteenth century no -one was misled by these alternative methods of personal signature and -studio-mark. Although the Louvre authorities catalogue two pictures -under the name of Gentile and three under that of Giovanni, none of -them is from the hand of either of these brothers. - -Bartolommeo Vivarini of Murano (fl. 1450-1499) was the pupil of -Giovanni d’Allemagna, who worked in Venice, and Antonio Vivarini. He -painted a large panel of _St. John of Capistrano_ (No. 1607), which is -signed and dated - - OPVS BARTHOLOMEI VI[V]ARINI DE MURAHO—1459. - -Alvise or Luigi Vivarini (fl. 1461-1503), the nephew of Bartolommeo, -was the last and most distinguished painter in the Murano school. He -carried on the old traditions of Early Venetian art until the day when -the rival school of the Bellini had become supreme in Venice, and so -had begun to prepare the way for the triumphs of the Giorgionesque -period—the golden age of Venetian painting. The _Portrait of a Man_ -(No. 1519), catalogued under the name of Savoldo (1480?-1548?) is by -Alvise. This magnificent bust-length picture represents Bernardo di -Salla, who holds in his gloved right hand a paper inscribed “_Dono -Bnardo di Salla_.” It vividly recalls the _Portrait of a Man with a -Hawk_ at Windsor, which, although it traditionally but erroneously -bears the name of Leonardo da Vinci and has been ascribed to Savoldo, -is in all probability another of the rare portraits by Alvise. - -From the Vivarini group issues Carlo Crivelli (1430?-1493?). His -morosely ascetic compositions, with their elaborate draperies, -jewelled ornamentation, and at times grotesque anatomy, distinguish -his polyptychs, all of which are painted in tempera, from those of any -other painter in the whole range of art. His large panel picture of -_St. Bernardino of Siena_ (No. 1268) is inscribed - - OPUS CAROLI CRIVELLI VENETI, 1477. - -It belongs to his middle period, and was painted nine years earlier -than his magnificent _Annunciation_, now one of the gems of the -National Gallery (No. 739); both these pictures came from the Church of -the Annunziata at Ascoli. - -Another painter who carried on the Vivarini tradition but was -influenced by Giovanni Bellini, was Giovanni Battista Cima -(1460?-1517?), whose art is adequately shown in the _Madonna and Child -with St. John the Baptist and St. Mary Magdalene_ (No. 1259). The -signature - - IOANIS BAPT. - CONEGLANES. - OPVS. - -as well as the internal evidence of the picture show it to -be an authentic work. - -One of the best, but until recent years one of the least known, members -of that brilliant group of painters who flourished at Venice in the -early half of the sixteenth century was Lorenzo Lotto (1480-1556). He -practised his art in many parts of Italy, and for that reason has been -less generally known than many of his contemporaries. He was a pupil -of Alvise Vivarini, but benefited largely by the example of Giovanni -Bellini and Giorgione. His art is not well seen in the small _St. -Jerome_ (No. 1350), which is signed and dated “LOTVS 1500” and -must therefore be one of his earliest and least ambitious works, nor -in his _Holy Family_ (No. 1351) which was formerly attributed to Dosso -Dossi. Replicas have been found of his _Christ and the Woman taken in -Adultery_ (No. 1349). - - [Illustration: - PLATE IX.—ANTONELLO DA MESSINA - - (1430-1479) - - VENETIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1134.—PORTRAIT OF A CONDOTTIERE - - (Portrait d’homme dit le Condottiere) - - Bust portrait, turned three-quarters to the left. He wears a - black doublet, above the collar of which is visible the edge of a - white linen under-garment. Under his cap is seen his _zazzara_ of - red-brown hair. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - Signed: - “_1474 - Antonellus Messaneus me - pinxit._” - - 1 ft. 1 in. × 11 in. (0·33 × 0·28.)] - -Although we possess very detailed records of Antonello da Messina -(1430-1479), his movements and his life’s work, it is only in recent -years that they have been studied with any care. This Sicilian-born -artist obviously cannot have set out for Flanders and there have learnt -from Jan van Eyck (who died in 1441) the “discovery” of oil as a -medium in painting, as Vasari tells us. But he may have seen in Italy -a picture by the great Northern artist and from it have acquired some -facility in the use of oil and in finishing with glazes of oil panels -which had been begun in tempera. He was certainly in Venice in 1475-76, -if not earlier, and his _Portrait of a Condottiere_ (No. 1134, Plate -IX.), which is characteristically signed and dated - - _1474 - Antonellus Messaneus me - pinxit_ - -belongs to that period of his full maturity. It was -purchased at the Pourtalès-Gorgier sale in 1865 for £4767. In any case, -the discoveries with which Antonello is credited within a few years -completely revolutionised the methods of painting throughout Italy, and -prepare us for the wonderful achievements of the later Venetians, who -followed and improved upon the Bellini tradition. - -Vittore Carpaccio (1455?-1526) was, like Gentile Bellini, a painter of -Venetian fêtes, pageantry, and religious pictures on an imposing scale. -Nothing is known of Carpaccio’s artistic descent, but his work shows -traces of the influence of Jacopo Bellini and of Lazzaro Bastiani, who -was the head of a group of artists whose art was based on the tradition -of such early painters as Jacobello del Fiore. Carpaccio’s _Preaching -of St. Stephen at Jerusalem_ (No. 1211) is one of the series of five -incidents from the _Life of St. Stephen_ which were painted by this -artist between 1511 and 1520 for the Scuola di S. Stefano at Milan. The -others of the series are now in the Milan Gallery (No. 170—signed and -dated 1513), at Berlin (No. 23), and at Stuttgart. The Louvre obtained -this canvas, which varies from the others in size, from the Milan -Gallery in 1813, when together with Boltraffio’s _Madonna of the Casio -Family_ (No. 1169) and other pictures it was exchanged for works by -Rembrandt, Rubens, Van Dyck, and Jordaens. - -To Vincenzo Catena (14..?-1531?) may be assigned, on stylistic grounds, -the _Reception of a Venetian Ambassador at Cairo in 1512_ (No. 1157). -In any case, it cannot have been executed by Gentile Bellini, as -alleged in the Catalogue, as the audience here depicted did not take -place until five years after that master’s death! - -Another Bellinesque painter was Bartolommeo Veneto (fl. 1505-1555). We -shall, following the suggestion of Venturi, assign to him the excellent -but officially unattributed _Portrait of a Lady_ (No. 1673) which hangs -to the right of Raphael’s _La Belle Jardinière_. - - - GIORGIONE - -Although a large number of really representative examples of the great -lyricist Giorgione (1477-1510) have not come down to us, he is to be -regarded as the greatest of the Venetian artists, and perhaps the most -romantic painter that Europe has ever known. He was, together with -his illustrious contemporary Titian, a pupil of Giovanni Bellini. His -_Pastoral Symphony_ (No. 1136, Plate X.) is one of the most beautiful -idyllic groups in the whole range of painting, and shows that Giorgione -could naively reveal the inner depths of thought and feeling and -depict “passionate souls in passionate bodies.” Early in the sixteenth -century the austere traditions of the Bellinesque era were passing -away. Giorgione now began to unseal the eyes of his contemporaries, -among whom Titian occupied an important place, to the “life-giving and -death-dealing waters of love,” making the landscape background of his -lyrical compositions respond to the mood of the incident illustrated. -The _Pastoral Symphony_ was acquired by Charles I. from the collection -of the Duke of Mantua; it then passed to Jabach, and subsequently to -Louis XIV. Although it has been slightly restored and has from time to -time been without any reason ascribed to Titian, Sebastiano del Piombo -and a large number of Venetian artists, it is to-day recognised on all -sides as an excellent example of Giorgione. - - [Illustration: - PLATE X.—GIORGIONE - - (1477?-1510) - - VENETIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1136.—PASTORAL SYMPHONY - - (Concert Champêtre) - - Two young men are seated on the grass; the one, wearing a green - tunic with red sleeves, a red cap and parti-coloured hose, is - playing on the lute; his companion bends over to listen to him. - Before them a nude woman, her back turned to the spectator, is - seated holding a flute. To the left another nude woman, with a - drapery across her left hip, is drawing water at a fountain. In the - background to the right is seen a shepherd with his flock. In the - centre background are some houses. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 3 ft. 7½ in. × 4 ft. 6½ in. (1·10 × 1·38.)] - -The same influences which formed the art of Giorgione inspired the -pictures of Palma Vecchio (1480-1528), whose _Adoration of the -Shepherds with a Female Donor_ (No. 1399, Plate XI.) is brilliant in -colour. The signature in the right foreground of this canvas, TICIAN, -is false. Palma left a large number of pictures unfinished at his death. - -The _Visitation_ (No. 1352) is an admirable example of the art of -Sebastiano del Piombo (1485-1547), and is signed - - SEBASTIANVS VENETVS FACIEBAT - ROMAE MDXXI. - -It was purchased in the year indicated in the inscription by François -I., who added it to his collection at Fontainebleau, whence it was -removed by Louis XIV. to Versailles. The canvas, which has been a good -deal injured, has at some time been cut into three pieces. The name -by which this artist is generally known was derived from the office -which he held late in life at the Papal Court. There he forsook the -traditions of his native school and gradually came under the influence -of Michelangelo. In Rome he also met Raphael, who was much impressed -by his colour schemes: the _St. John the Baptist in the Desert_ (No. -1500), here catalogued under the name of Raphael, and a few pictures -similarly attributed in other galleries, were painted by Sebastiano in -his Roman manner. - -A prominent place among the less important artists generally included -in this school must be accorded to Cariani (1480?-1547?). A large -proportion of the pictures of this Bergamask painter usually pass under -more imposing names, and it is a remarkable fact that we do not find -any work attributed to him in the official Catalogue. He, however, -painted a _Holy Family_ (No. 1135), here assigned to Giorgione, as -well as the _Madonna and Child and St. Sebastian_ (No. 1159) given to -Giovanni Bellini. The _Portrait of Two Men_ (No. 1156), which for no -very apparent reason was once regarded as the portraits of Gentile and -Giovanni Bellini, must be by Cariani, although still placed to the -credit of Gentile. - -Another of the less efficient pupils of Giovanni Bellini was Niccolò -Rondinelli (fl. 1480-1500), whose _Madonna and Child, St. Peter, and -St. Sebastian_ (No. 1158) masquerades as a work by Giovanni Bellini, -whose full name, IOANNES BELLINVS, is inscribed in capitals (not, -however, placed in a _cartellino_) on the parapet which runs across the -front of the panel. - - - TITIAN - -Although we have only limited space to deal with the differences of -the critics as to the probable date of Titian’s birth, we may point -out that it was, until recent times, placed in the year 1477. Mr. -Herbert Cook has, however, put forward a very strong case in favour -of the year 1489, pointing out the remarkable fact that there is no -record of Titian earlier than Dec. 2, 1511, or, according to the usual -chronology, until he was thirty-five years of age! Again, L. Dolce, in -1557, wrote that Titian was “scarcely twenty years old when Giorgione -was painting the façade of the Fondaco de’ Tedeschi”; and we know that -Titian was his assistant on that work in 1507-8. Vasari also -asserts, as Mr. Cook reminds us, that the famous Venetian was “about -seventy-six years old in 1566-67,” when he visited him in Venice. No -reliance is to be placed on the date contained in the well-known letter -which Titian addressed to Philip II. in 1571, as he evidently had a -motive in referring to himself as “an old servant of ninety-five.” -There is, however, no doubt that Titian died in 1576. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XI.—PALMA VECCHIO - - (1480-1528) - - VENETIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1399.—THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, WITH A FEMALE DONOR - - (L’Annonce aux Bergers) - - The Virgin is seated and holds the Infant Jesus on a cradle formed - of basket-work; she wears a red robe with blue and green draperies - and a white veil, under which her brown hair is seen. To her right - St. Joseph is seated leaning on his staff; before him a shepherd - boy kneels in adoration to the Infant Christ. To the left kneels - the _donatrice_, her hands folded. In the ruined shed behind the - Holy Family are the ox and ass. To the right of the composition is - a landscape background in which several figures appear. A small - group of angels in the sky. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 4 ft. 7 in. × 6 ft. 11 in. (1·40 × 2·10.)] - -Titian, who was a native of Cadore, left his home at an early age -for Venice. He was first placed as a pupil of Sebastian Zuccato, a -mosaicist and perhaps a painter; he then seems to have worked in the -studio of Gentile Bellini before passing into that of Giovanni, where -he met Giorgione. Titian, like Giotto, has been called “the Father of -modern painting.” The early Florentine had provided his countrymen -with a set of fundamental principles of art, but it remained for -the illustrious Venetian to endow his contemporaries and artistic -descendants with a more complete equipment and a new sense of pictorial -effect. The profound impression exerted by Giorgione on the youthful -Titian inspired him to achieve those idyllic compositions and “poesies” -which stand out so prominently among the world’s pictures. - -Titian’s earliest picture in the Louvre is the _Virgin and Child, -with St. Stephen, St. Ambrose, and St. Maurice_ (No. 1577), of about -1508-1510. It is very reminiscent of a picture by Titian in the Vienna -Gallery (No. 166), in which he has substituted St. Jerome for St. -Ambrose. - -No doubt can exist as to the authenticity of the so-called _Portrait -of Alfonso da Ferrara and Laura de’ Dianti_ (No. 1590), but the title -under which it has passed for many years is probably incorrect. -It was in the collection of Charles I., and was then described as -“Tytsian’s Mrs., after the life by Tytsian.” In the collection of -Jabach it was called _La Maîtresse du Titien_, and as such was sold -to Louis XIV. for £100. This picture would correctly be described -under the less ambitious title of _A Woman at her Toilet and a Man -holding Two Mirrors_. Laura was the daughter of a hatter of Ferrara. -She was _persona grata_ at the court of Alfonso I., Duke of Ferrara -(reigned 1505-1534), and there held the title of _Illustrissima Donna -Laura Eustochia d’Este_. The Duke’s first wife, Anna Sforza, died in -1497, when he was twenty-one years old. In 1501 he married, as his -second wife, Lucrezia Borgia (died 1519), the natural daughter of Pope -Alexander VI. It seems probable that shortly afterwards the Duke took -Laura as his third wife, and that she was painted by Titian a little -later. The Louvre picture (No. 1590) appears on stylistic grounds to -be a work of about 1515-1517. A portrait which can be more certainly -identified as that of Laura is the single figure picture, painted by -Titian about 1523, in the collection of Sir Frederick Cook at Richmond. - -The influence of Giorgione is still clearly seen in Titian’s _Man with -a Glove_ (No. 1592, Plate XII.). It is a noble portrait of an unknown -man; the colour is rich, and the light and shade are contrasted with -great mastery; the bare right hand and the gloved left holding the -second glove are admirably modelled. The canvas, which seems to have -been painted about 1518, is signed “TICIANVS F.” Soon afterwards Titian -must have painted the _Portrait of a Man in Black with the Thumb of -his Left Hand in the Belt of his Doublet_ (No. 1591), the _Madonna -with the Rabbit_ (No. 1578), which is inscribed _Ticianus F._, and -the magnificent _Entombment_ (No. 1584, Plate XIII.). This priceless -picture, which was painted not later, than 1523 for Federigo Gonzaga, -passed from Mantua into the collection of Charles I. It was sold off by -Cromwell for £128 and, after being one of the masterpieces for a few -years in the collection of Jabach, was acquired by Louis XIV. The deep -religious feeling and the rich, sonorous harmony of colour make this -one of the world’s most precious pictures. Notice the sunburnt arm -of Joseph of Arimathæa; it is significant of the art of Venice. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XII.—TITIAN - - (1489?-1576) - - VENETIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1592.—THE MAN WITH A GLOVE - - (L’homme au Gant) - - He is standing and seen nearly in full face, the head turned - three-quarters to the right, the eyes directed to the right. He - wears a black costume with a white pleated under-garment, a gold - chain round his neck, and white frills in his sleeves. His right - hand, with a ring on the forefinger, holds his girdle. His left - hand, gloved and holding the second glove, rests on a stone plinth. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Signed on the plinth:—“TICIANVS. F.” - - 3 ft. 3½ in. × 2 ft. 11 in. (1·00 × 0·89.)] - -At an interval of about eight years we come to the _St. Jerome_ -(No. 1585), a religious scene set, curiously enough, in a moonlight -landscape, which has darkened. The exact interpretation to be placed -upon the _Allegory in honour of Alfonso d’Avalos_ (No. 1589), of -about 1533, has been much discussed; it is supposed to represent -Alfonso bidding farewell to his wife on his departure for the wars, -and entrusting her to the safe keeping of Chastity, Cupid, who bears -a sheaf of arrows, and a third figure. The _Portrait of Francis I._ -(No. 1588), whom Titian never saw, appears to have been painted about -1536 from a medal, and represents the King in profile. François I. died -in 1547. It belongs to the same period as the _Portrait of a Man in -Damascened Armour with a Page holding his Helmet_ in the collection of -Count Potocki. Another portrait, painted about 1543, represents a _Man -with a Black Beard resting his Hand on the Ledge of a Pilaster_ (No. -1593). By this time Titian’s art was rapidly maturing, as we see from -his magnificent and imposing _Supper at Emmaus_ (No. 1581) of the same -year. It had passed from Mantua to England before being acquired by -that excellent connoisseur, Jabach. It is said to be signed _Ticianus -F._, while the _Christ Crowned with Thorns_ (No. 1583), which was -painted for a church in Milan about 1550, is inscribed TITIANVS _F._ -When Charles I., as Prince of Wales, visited Madrid in 1623, he was -presented with the _Jupiter and Antiope_ (No. 1587), which has the -alternative title of the _Venus del Pardo_. It had been painted for -Philip II., and had already escaped the fire which broke out in the -Prado. Jabach acquired it for 600 guineas, and passed it on to Cardinal -Mazarin, from whom it was acquired for 10,000 _livres tournois_ by -Louis XIV. It escaped destruction by fire in the Old Louvre in 1661. It -has been very much repainted from time to time. - - - TITIAN’S FOLLOWERS - -The _Madonna and Child, with St. Catherine (? St. Agnes), and St. John -the Baptist as a Child_ (No. 1579), which has been enlarged by the -addition of a strip of canvas down the left side, contains a glimpse of -the country near Pieve di Cadore, the native place of Titian. Fourteen -of the twenty pictures here officially credited to him are to be -regarded as authentic. Polidoro Lanzani (1515?-1565), an imitator of -Titian, however, painted the _Holy Family with St. John the Baptist_ -(No. 1580), and the _Holy Family and Saints_ (No. 1596) in the La Caze -Room; while Andrea Meldolla (Schiavone), who was a pupil of Titian, -no doubt executed the _Ecce Homo_ (No. 1582) credited to the great -Venetian artist, as well as the _St. John the Baptist_ (No. 1524) which -is rightly assigned to him. - -The German painter Johan Stephan von Calcar, who to Italian biographers -is known as Giovanni Calcar (1499-1546), was a pupil of Titian. He -painted the imposing _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 1185). He is seen at -half length standing, and holding a letter in his right hand; his left -hand to his waist. On a column in the background is painted the coat -of arms, reputed to be that of the Buono family of Venice, which is -repeated on the bezel of the ring on the forefinger of his left hand. -Below his right hand is the inscription: - - ANNO 1540 - ÆTATIS 26. - -Paris Bordone (1500-1570), who “painted women with more of an eye on -the fashion-plate than on the expression of their features,” is not -the author of a _Portrait of a Lady_ (No. 1180A), nor of the _Portrait -of a Man and a Child_ (No. 1180), which seems to be a Flemish rather -than a Venetian picture. His _Vertumnus and Pomona_ (No. 1178) is less -representative than his _Portrait_ (so called) _of Jeronimo Croft_ (No. -1179). It takes its title from the inscription, “_Spss. Domino Jeronimo -Crofft ... Magior suo semper obsero ... Augusta_,” which is written on -the letter held in the right hand. - -The last dying echo of the “fire” and poetry of Giorgione is seen in -some of the works of Bonifazio Veronese (1487-1553), who was also a -pupil of Palma. Bonifazio is now regarded as a single individual, -although formerly the varying differences in his style of painting -led certain critics to regard him as three different members of the -same family. The varied grouping seen in the large canvas entitled -_Holy Family, with St. Francis, St. Anthony, St. Mary Magdalene, St. -Elizabeth, and St. John the Baptist_ (No. 1171), and the colouring -of this canvas, seem to prove its authenticity. The smaller picture -of a _Holy Family_ (No. 1172), with a similar pedigree and a Greek -inscription, which includes the same saints, is a mediocre work. The -_Madonna and Child, with St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, St. Paul, -and St. Ursula_ (No. 1674D) is a poor picture. - -From the studio of Bonifazio issued Jacopo Bassano (1510?-1592), whose -_Vintage_ (No. 1428) shows his predilection for introducing animals and -kneeling peasants into genre pictures, the treatment of which is apt -to be rugged. This did not prevent his at times painting striking and -vigorous portraits. The Louvre contains a good example of this branch -of his art in the _Portrait of Giovanni da Bologna_ (No. 1429), which -is at present not exhibited. _The Animals entering the Ark_ (No. 1423), -_Moses striking the Rock_ (No. 1424), _Cana of Galilee_ (No. 1425), -_Christ bearing His Cross_ (No. 1426), and the _Descent from the Cross_ -(No. 1427) are also credited to him in the Catalogue. - -Leandro Bassano (1558-1623), his son, is represented in the La Caze -collection by an _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. 1430) and a _Rustic -Labour_ (No. 1431). - -The vigorous, ambitious and late Venetian painter Tintoretto -(1518-1594), who painted portrait-groups, religious subjects, -and mythological compositions on a large scale, and brought his -achievements to completion with extraordinary rapidity, is not -adequately represented in this Gallery, in which, however, no fewer -than eleven works pass under his name. His _Susanna and the Elders_ -(No. 1464) testifies to the increasing frequency with which painters -or their patrons at that period preferred the representation of -sensational incidents from the Apocrypha. The subject is unattractive, -but the picture, which is in a very dirty state, is wonderfully painted. - -The _Paradise_ (No. 1465) is but a preliminary sketch for the colossal -painting, measuring 84 ft. × 34 ft.,—the largest oil-painting by an -old master in existence,—which Tintoretto painted for the end wall of -the Sala del Maggior Consiglio in the Doge’s Palace at Venice. The -_Portrait of a Man holding a Handkerchief in his Hand_ (No. 1467) -reveals his great power as a portrait painter. - -The _Portrait of Pietro Mocenigo_ (No. 1470), signed PETRUS MOCENIO -SENATOR, and the _Portrait of a Venetian Senator_ (No. 1471), inscribed -ANNO ÆTATIS LVII MVII IACOMO TENTORETO . F, are among the pictures of -the La Caze collection. - -In Room XV., which is given up to self-portraits by artists, hangs -a picture which passes as an authentic _Portrait of Tintoretto_ -(No. 1466) by himself. It is inscribed JACOBVS TENTORETVS PICT^{OR} -VENET^{IVS} and IPSIVS. F. - - - PAOLO VERONESE - -The harmonious colour, the sense of material magnificence, and the -masterly draughtsmanship of Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) are seen to the -greatest advantage in his _Marriage at Cana_ (No. 1192). He signed a -contract in June 1562, to paint this large picture, which measures -21 ft. × 32 ft., for the refectory of San Giorgio Maggiore at Venice, -and completed it by September 8, 1563. According to the agreement, -Paolo was to receive 324 ducats, a sum equal to-day to about £200; -to be fed during the time he was engaged on the work; to be repaid -the cost of the materials; and to receive a pipe of wine. The picture -was seized by Napoleon during his victorious campaign of 1797, and -brought by road to Paris. In accordance with the terms of the Peace of -Campo Formio of 1814, it should have been returned. As it had proved -a very difficult matter to take it to Paris, where it had to go into -the restorer’s hands, the French urged that it was too vast and too -dilapidated to bear a second journey. Astonishing as it may seem to -us to-day, the Italians accepted the suggestion and in exchange took -Charles Le Brun’s large but mediocre _Magdalene at the Feet of Jesus_, -perhaps because it measured 12 ft. 6 in. × 10 ft. 4 in. Le Brun’s -picture now hangs in the Venice Gallery (No. 377), the Catalogue of -which pointedly remarks that “the exchange is much to be regretted.” - - [Illustration: - PLATE XIII.—TITIAN - - (1489?-1576) - - VENETIAN SCHOOL - - No. 1584.—THE ENTOMBMENT - - (La Mise au Tombeau) - - The dead body of the Christ is borne on a white cloth by Nicodemus - and Joseph of Arimathæa. Nicodemus is seen from the back wearing - a pale red tunic and a parti-coloured scarf; Joseph of Arimathæa - in green robes is in profile towards the right. St. John in a red - robe supports the right arm of the Christ. To the left St. Mary - Magdalene, with her arms around the Virgin, gazes in profound grief - at the Christ. The Virgin with clasped hands bends forward to look - at her Son. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 4 ft 10½ in. × 7 ft. 1 in. (1·48 × 2·15.)] - -Paolo Veronese’s masterly work contains no devotional feeling. The -Scriptural story merely serves as a pretext for depicting a scene -of Venetian festivity and material magnificence with imposing -architectural background. The grouping of the figures is varied, -dexterously disposed and stately, while the colour is harmonious and -sparkling. The changing of the water into wine is, however, merely -incidental. It is a significant fact that a work of this description, -in which Art in Venice begins to trick herself out in meretricious -embellishments, should have been regarded as a seemly decoration for -the refectory of a convent. An additional but frankly worldly interest -is imparted to the work by the introduction of a portrait of Alfonso -d’Avalos (whose portrait by Titian we have already seen) as the -bridegroom, on the extreme left of the composition; to his left is the -bride, with the features of Eleonora of Austria. The other figures -include François I., dressed in blue and wearing a curious headdress; -Mary of England, sister of Henry VIII. and widow of Louis XII., in -yellow; the Sultan Soliman, in green, at the side of a negro prince -who addresses a servant. On the left of the next figure sits Vittoria -Colonna, whom Michelangelo described as “a man within a woman,” plying -her toothpick! At the end of the table, speaking to a servant, is the -Emperor Charles V., seen in profile and wearing the Order of the Golden -Fleece. The introduction of the fool with the bells in the centre of -the picture is perhaps intended to express the pomp and pleasure of -the world pursued without thought of Christ, who, however, occupies -the place of honour in the centre of the composition. The couple of -dogs in leash, one gnawing a bone, and a cat, lying on her back as she -scratches at one of the vases which hold the wine on the right of the -composition, may stand for merely brutal nature. - -The painter’s personal interest in the scene is depicted in the group -of four artists in the foreground. Paolo himself is playing a viol; -just behind him is Tintoretto with a similar instrument; while on the -right are Titian, in red with a bass viol, and Bassano playing the -flute. The theory put forward by Mr. Herbert Cook that Titian was born -as late as 1489, and so would be seventy-four years old in 1562-63, -the year in which this picture was painted, certainly seems to find -corroboration in the features here given to Titian by Paolo Veronese. -He certainly does not look eighty-seven years of age, as he should do -if he had been born as early as 1476. - -In the Catalogue sixteen pictures are assigned to Paolo Veronese. The -_Portrait of a Lady and a Child playing with a Dog_ (No. 1199) is an -early work. The _Disciples at Emmaus_ (No. 1196), which is signed -“PAOLO VERONESE,” is another of the master’s imposing canvases, as -also is the _Feast in the House of Simon the Pharisee_ (No. 1193), -which was presented to Louis XIV. by the Venetian Republic in 1665, and -was for many years hung at Versailles. This artist is also officially -credited with the _Burning of Sodom_ (No. 1187), a _Holy Family, with -St. George, St. Catherine, and a Male Donor_ (No. 1190), a _Holy -Family, with St. Elizabeth and St. Mary Magdalene, and a Female Donor_ -(No. 1191), a _Christ heeding Peter’s Wife’s Mother_ (No. 1191A), a -_Christ fainting under the weight of the Cross_ (No. 1194), a _Calvary_ -(No. 1195), and an _Esther fainting before Ahasuerus_ (No. 1189). -The _Susan and the Elders_ (No. 1188) is a replica of a picture in -the collection of the Duke of Devonshire. The _St. Mark crowning the -Theological Virtues_ (No. 1197), and the _Jupiter hurling Thunderbolts -on Criminals_ (No. 1198), were originally executed as ceiling paintings -for the Doge’s Palace. The _Christ with the Terrestrial Globe_ (No. -1200) and the _Portrait of a Lady in Black_ (No. 1201) are only studio -pictures. - -Little artistic ability is shown in the empty abstractions, and -at times meaningless productions, of many of the late sixteenth, -seventeenth, and eighteenth century Venetian artists. Felice Riccio -(Il Brusasorci the Younger) (1540-1605) is given as the painter of a -_Holy Family_ (No. 1463); Alessandro Turchi (Orbetto) (1582-1648) of -three pictures (Nos. 1558-1560); Sebastiano Ricci (1659?-1734) of four -compositions (Nos. 1458-1461); Antonio Pellegrino (1675-1741) of an -_Allegory_ (No. 1413); Alessandro Varotari (1590-1650) of an utterly -uninspired _Venus and Cupid_ (No. 1574); and Pietro della Vecchia -(1605-1678) of a dull _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 1576). - -A century later than the stupendous achievements of Tintoretto and -Veronese the art of Venice had passed into decline, but a glimmer of -the genius that had found expression in the gorgeously decorative art -in Venice in the sixteenth century was yet to be reflected in the work -of Giovanni Battista Tiepolo (1692-1769). His _Last Supper_ (No. 1547) -was purchased for £400 in 1877, and his sketch for the _Triumph of -Religion_ (No. 1549A) for £1200 in 1903. By him also is the _Banner_ -(No. 1549), depicting on the one side _St. Martin saying Mass_, and on -the other _The Madonna and Child_. An _Apparition of the Virgin to St. -Jerome_ (No. 1548) is one of the less striking pictures in the La Caze -collection. - -Another decorative painter was Antonio Canale, generally known as -Canaletto (1697-1768), who is well represented in the _View of the -Church of Santa Maria della Salute and the Grand Canal_ (No. 1203). The -Louvre appears to contain nothing by Bernardo Bellotto (1720-1780), -who is sometimes referred to as Canaletto, and is seen to the best -advantage at Dresden. - -Canaletto’s pupil, Francesco Guardi (1712-1793), who was born of -Austrian parentage, is the painter of seven Venetian scenes: _After -wedding the Adriatic, the Doge embarks at the Lido on the “Bucentaur”_ -(No. 1328); _The Doge proceeds to S. Maria della Salute to commemorate -the Preservation of Venice from the Plague in 1630_ (No. 1329); _Fête -du Jeudi Gras in the Piazzetta_ (No. 1330); _The Procession of Corpus -Domini in the Piazza of S. Marco_ (No. 1331); _The Visit of the Doge to -the Church of S. Zaccharia on Easter Day_ (No. 1332); _The Doge seated -on his Throne in the Sala del Collegio_ (No. 1333); _Coronation of the -Doge_ (No. 1334); and a _View of the Church of S. Maria della Salute_ -(No. 1335). Guardi’s pupil, François Casanova (1739-1805), a painter of -battle-pieces, worked in France; some of his pictures are hung in the -French Rooms. - -With Guardi we close the chapter of Venetian art which, owing to four -centuries of high aspiration and magnificent achievement, came to an -end later than the art of any other school of painting in Italy. - - - - - THE PADUAN SCHOOL - - -Far-reaching influences were to be exerted by classical Padua on the -art of the neighbouring cities of Northern Italy. Padua was a city of -great antiquity, and had been sufficiently powerful and prosperous -even in Roman times to excite the cupidity of its enemies. Eventually -the Goths and other barbarian hordes had destroyed its monuments of -the Roman age; the spirit of antiquity, nevertheless, survived until -Giotto came at the very beginning of the fourteenth century to decorate -the walls of the Chapel of the Madonna dell’ Arena, which had been -founded in 1303 by Enrico Scrovegno on the site of an ancient Roman -arena. These very precious frescoes by Giotto, which fortunately are -still preserved, revolutionised art, and the movement initiated by him -quickened the art-life of this University city. - -Half a century later, Altichiero Altichieri (fl. 1320-1385) developed -his art under the influence of Giotto, and beautified the churches -of Padua with frescoes, the figures in which he clothed in fanciful -attire. An art movement was now on foot, and the influence of -Altichieri, who was later to become the founder of the school of -Verona, was to be revealed in the work of his follower Pisanello, the -Veronese painter and medallist. - -The long residence in Padua of Donatello (1386-1466), the great -Florentine sculptor, and the erection of his famous equestrian statue -of Gattamelata initiated in Padua the Renaissance movement, which -soon took deep root in this ancient city. The example of Donatello in -sculpture before long brought about the foundation of a local school -of painting which was rapidly developed through the shrewd commonsense -rather than the artistic achievements of Francesco Squarcione -(1394-1474). It is noteworthy that Squarcione had travelled in the -East, and had there formed a collection of antique works of plastic art -which became the basis of his art-teaching. - -One of the numerous pupils of Squarcione was Gregorio Schiavone (“The -Slavonian”) (fl. 1440-1470), a native of Dalmatia, who in the studio -of his Paduan master met Andrea Mantegna. The Louvre authorities with -some hesitancy attribute to Schiavone a _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1523). -Although it is hardly by him, it exhibits some of the characteristics -of Schiavone, who was fond of decorating his pictures with festoons of -flowers and fruit in much the same way that his Venetian contemporary, -Carlo Crivelli, delighted to adorn his large panel pictures. - - - ANDREA MANTEGNA - -Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506) was adopted at the age of ten by -Squarcione, and so naturally became his pupil. No better training -could have been chosen for the boy, who had a natural taste for the -classics, proof of which is further afforded by the Latin inscriptions -on his pictures. Andrea seems to have quickly realised the connection -between the traditions of Paduan antiquities and the classical models -of ancient Greece which his adoptive father Squarcione had brought home -with him from his travels. Andrea in time became deeply impressed with -the methods of Jacopo Bellini, whose daughter Niccolosia he married -in 1453, to the great displeasure of Squarcione. Another powerful -influence on Mantegna may be traced to the bronzes which Donatello -executed for the Church of Sant’ Antonio of Padua in that city. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XIV.—ANDREA MANTEGNA - - (1431-1506) - - PADUAN SCHOOL - - No. 1375.—PARNASSUS - - (Le Parnasse) - - On the summit of an arched rock stand Mars and Venus before a - draped bed backed by orange trees. To the left is Cupid, while - Vulcan stands before his forge. Below, to the extreme left, Apollo - plays his lyre to the strains of which the Muses dance. To the - right Mercury, wearing the _petasus_ and _talaria_ and carrying the - _caduceus_, leans against Pegasus. Landscape background. - - Painted in tempera on canvas. - - 5 ft. 3 in. × 6 ft. 3½ in. (1·60 × 1·92.)] - -After painting the frescoes in the Church of the Eremitani at -Padua, Andrea in 1457 executed a large and striking altarpiece for -the Church of San Zeno in Verona. It was removed by Napoleon’s agents -to France in 1797, but only the principal panel was returned to that -church in 1815. The three predella panels were retained in France. The -centre one of these, depicting the _Calvary_, is now in the Louvre (No. -1373); the other two, representing the _Agony in the Garden_ and the -_Resurrection_, have long hung in the Museum at Tours. The severity of -the statuesque figures and the certainty of the drawing seen in the -_Calvary_ are characteristic of the early period of the master. - -Mantegna now removed to Mantua, where he entered the service of -Lodovico II., Marquis of Mantua, as his Court Painter, remaining -there for the rest of his life. The _Madonna of Victory_ (No. 1374) -was painted to commemorate the victory gained at the Pass of Fornovo -on the Taro on July 6, 1495, by Giovanni Francesco III., Marquis of -Mantua, over Charles VIII. of France. In the centre of the picture the -Madonna and Child are enthroned. On the left kneels the Marquis, and -on the right is St. Elizabeth, the patron saint of Gonzaga’s wife, -Isabella d’Este, “at the sound of whose name all the Muses rise and do -reverence.” St. Michael standing behind the Duke, and St. George behind -St. Elizabeth, hold the robe of the Madonna, who is thus represented -as taking under her protection the two principal figures. In the -background on the left is St. Andrew, name-saint of the painter and one -of the patrons of Mantua. On the right is St. Longinus with the spear -with which he pierced the side of Christ. His relics were preserved -in the Church of St. Andrea in Mantua. The garlands of flowers and -festoons of fruit are a well-known device in Mantegna’s pictures. - -Mantegna’s _Parnassus_ (No. 1375, Plate XIV.) illustrates the _amours_ -of Mars and Venus, which were discovered by her husband, Vulcan. In -the foreground the Muses are dancing. The group of the Muses was -afterwards appropriated by Giulio Romano for his _Dance of Apollo -and the Muses_ in the Pitti Palace at Florence. This painting was -executed in 1497, just before the coming of the Renaissance feeling -into Venetian art and the representation of classical myth. Notice the -excellently drawn and highly characteristic shells and stones placed -in the foreground. In the same year Mantegna painted the _Triumph of -Wisdom and Virtue over the Vices_ (No. 1376), the last of the four -pictures by him in this Gallery. In the corner to the extreme left is -Virtus Deserta, who appears under the guise of a laurel tree with a -woman’s head; about the stem is wound a scroll with inscriptions in -Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Latin inscription reads: - - AGITE PELLITE SEDIBUS NOSTRIS - FAEDA HAEC VICIORV̄ MONSTRA - VIRTUTVM COELITVS AD NOS REDEV̄TIVM - -and on the inside of the scroll: - - DIVAE COMITES. - -This painting formerly decorated the _camerino_ of Isabella d’Este at -Mantua. It was seized at the sack of Mantua by Cardinal Richelieu in -1630, together with the _Parnassus_ (No. 1375), Perugino’s _Combat of -Love and Chastity_ (No. 1567), and Lorenzo Costa’s _Court of Isabella -d’Este_ (No. 1261). _The Mythological Scene_ (No. 1262), which is not -now exhibited, represents the _Realm of Erotic Love_; it was begun by -Mantegna the year he died, and was gone over and completed by Lorenzo -Costa. - -Mantegna became involved financially towards the end of his life, and -the collection he had formed was sold. His last years were clouded by -pecuniary embarrassment. His compositions are essentially classic in -spirit, his figures noble and painted in imitation of the antique, -while his pagan conceptions prepared the way for those of a later -generation in the art of Venice. By this process of gradual evolution -the school of Padua came to be distinguished among the other local -schools of Northern Italy in the lifetime of Mantegna, whose example -gave a new impulse to contemporary art. - -A small _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. 1678), which is officially -unattributed, is regarded by Mr. Berenson as the work of Bernardo -Parenzano (1437-1531), who was influenced by Mantegna, and imitated the -methods of his contemporaries. - -Many other artists bore their part in the work of this school, and -so contributed to the development of this movement which spread to -Veronese and Venetian territory. They are, however, unrepresented in -the Louvre. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF VERONA - - -The foundations of the art of Verona were laid in Paduan soil by -Altichieri, who initiated the school of Verona. Veronese art early -found expression in the naive pictorial and mediæval style practised -by the medallist-painter Antonio Pisanello (1397-1455), whose name -appears to have been an endearing diminutive. He was a follower, if -not a pupil, of Altichieri. The frequency with which he signed himself -“PICTOR” on his medals leads one to suppose that he looked upon himself -as a painter first and foremost, and contemporary records seem to -confirm this. His art was so highly reputed in Northern Italy that -the Venetians thought it advisable to invite him to Venice in 1421 to -assist Gentile da Fabriano in painting frescoes, now destroyed, in the -Doge’s Palace. - -Jacopo Bellini also worked at Verona. He is known to have painted -a picture of the _Crucifixion_ for the Chapel of S. Niccolò in the -Cathedral at Verona in 1436, but, after exercising considerable -influence on the art of Northern Italy, it was in 1759 hewn down by a -Canon with a view to beautifying the chapel! - -Unfortunately, there are only two frescoes from the hand of Pisanello -at Verona, while no more than four authentic easel paintings by him -are known to exist, two of them being in the National Gallery. He is -known to have travelled extensively in Italy, and to have worked also -at Mantua, Ferrara, and Rimini. The traditions of mediæval chivalry and -the pictorial parade of pomp and mundane realism which are reflected in -his work show that his contemporaries were justified in the high esteem -in which they held him. - -Pisanello’s love of depicting birds and animals is shown in his two -pictures in the National Gallery, but in the _Portrait of a Princess -of the Este Family_ (No. 1422A, or No. 1422 _Bis_) he is shown to have -been a lover of flowers also. This small panel was formerly attributed -to Piero dei Franceschi, the Umbrian artist. For many years it hung -among the Drawings, being apparently considered unworthy of a place in -its proper environment, among the Italian primitive paintings, where -it is now hung. It was purchased in 1893 out of the Felix Bamberg -collection. The lady is seen in profile to the left. Her hair is -dressed according to the fashion of the period, the front hair being -plucked out to render the forehead round and high, while the nape of -her neck for the same reason is hairless. She wears a white dress -with loose-falling red sleeves; a sprig of juniper (_ginevra_) is let -into her dress just above the left shoulder. It has been assumed from -this that we here have a _Portrait of Ginevra d’Este_. She was the -daughter of Niccolò II. d’Este by his second wife, the infamous and -ill-treated Parisina Malatesta, who was decapitated in 1425. Ginevra -(1419-1440) became the wife of Sigismondo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, in -1433, and died three years later. The background is composed of pinks -and columbines, among which fly four highly decorative butterflies. -The embroidery on the left sleeve of the dress is patterned with the -_impresa_ of a crystal vase set round with pearls. It is interesting -to note that Ginevra’s husband, Sigismondo, is probably the Donor in -the _Madonna and Child and a Kneeling Donor_ (No. 1159A or No. 1279) -by Jacopo Bellini which hangs next to it on the left. The only other -painted portrait by Pisanello known is the later, and larger, one of -Leonello d’Este in the Bergamo Gallery. - -Bono da Ferrara (fl. 1450-1461) was a pupil of Pisanello, and Oriolo -(fl. 1450) was a follower of his; their pictures are extremely rare. -The Louvre contains no picture by Liberale da Verona (1451-1536), -a master who had many pupils, among whom may be included Girolamo -dai Libri (1474-1556) and Francesco Caroto (1470-1546). The _Madonna -and Child and St. John the Baptist_ (No. 1318), which is officially -catalogued under the name of Girolamo, has long been held to be by -Caroto. - -Domenico Brusasorci (“The Rat-burner”) (1494-1567) was the father of -Felice Riccio and a pupil of Caroto. He has been claimed as the author -of the _Madonna and St. Martina_ (No. 1163), which passes in the -Catalogue as being by the very late Roman painter Pietro Berretini da -Cortona (1596-1669). Other versions of this composition, representing -St. Martina triumphing over the Idols, are known. A large number of the -prominent Veronese painters are unrepresented in this collection, but -the influence of Liberale is frequently seen. The _Council of Trent_ -(No. 1586) may be assigned to Paolo Farinati, although it is regarded -by the authorities as coming from the hand of Titian. By the time that -Farinati died, art in Verona had passed into decline. - -One of the most decorative painters in Italy in the sixteenth century -was Paolo Veronese, who although a native of Verona spent the best -years of his life in Venice. He is usually included among the artists -of Venice. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF FERRARA - - -According to tradition the most famous artist in the school of Ferrara -before Tura was Ettore de’ Bonacossi, of whom little is known. - -At Ferrara, the city of the Este family, as at all the Italian courts, -the art of painting was liberally patronised. All Ferrarese art was -more or less Paduan both in origin and style, Cosimo Tura (1430?-1495), -the founder of this school, having worked at Padua as a pupil of -Squarcione. - -The seriousness of Cosimo Tura’s realism was unyielding to those -intellectual qualities that dominated the art of Florence in his -day; but, in spite of a certain harshness of effect, the vigour of -his design and the dignity of his conception give permanent value to -the work of this master. Tura is represented in the Louvre by two -pictures; the figures seen in his large lunette of the _Pietà_ (No. -1556) are admirably designed to fill up the space they occupy. This -panel is a dismembered part of an altarpiece which was painted for -the Roverella family, and was formerly in its entirety in the Church -of S. Giorgio fuori le Mura at Ferrara. The _Pietà_ eventually passed -to the Campana collection, and so to the Louvre. The drapery in this -panel, which is cracked horizontally, is tinny, and the flesh is -metallic with its white and purple lights, while the bones in the -faces being over-prominent create an unpleasant effect. The centre -panel of the original altarpiece represents the _Madonna and Child -Enthroned_. It passed in time into the Frizzoni collection at Bergamo, -and was subsequently purchased in 1867 from Sir Charles Eastlake for -the National Gallery (No. 772). The sinister wing of the original -altarpiece depicts the _Bishop Lorenzo Roverella presented to the -Virgin by St. Maurelius and St. Paul_, and is now in the private rooms -of the Colonna Palace in Rome. - -The Church of S. Giorgio fuori le Mura at Ferrara also at one time -contained another altarpiece painted by Cosimo Tura. It was placed -over the altar of St. Maurelius, but has long ago been dismembered. -One of its panels is the _Flight into Egypt_, in the collection of -Mr. R. H. Benson; two others, representing a _Scene from the Life -of St. Maurelius_ and _The Martyrdom of St. Maurelius_, are in the -Ferrara Gallery; another is the _Adoration of the Magi_, in the -possession of the Contessa di Santa Fiora, in Rome; while a fifth, the -_Circumcision_, belongs to the Marchesa Passeri, in Rome. - -The Louvre possesses an arched panel of _A Monk_ (No. 1557) by Tura. -The panel is split and the cheek of the saint injured. - -The seriousness of purpose which inspired Cosimo Tura was absorbed by -his pupil Francesco Cossa (1435-1477), whose art is not seen at the -Louvre. One of Cossa’s pupils was Lorenzo Costa, who in 1483 passed -from Ferrara to Bologna, to which city he carried the principles of -Tura’s training. Francesco Bianchi (1460-1510) was another of Tura’s -pupils, but he belongs more strictly to the school of Modena. Another -pupil in the studio of the _chef d’ecole_ of Ferrarese painting was -Ercole Roberti (1430?-1496), who also worked at Padua. This painter, -whose full name was Ercole de’ Roberti Grandi, has been justly claimed -as the author of the two small panels representing _St. Apollonia_ (No. -1677A), holding in her hand the pincers, the symbol of her martyrdom, -and _St. Michael_ (No. 1677B). These companion pictures are officially -described under the ambiguous designation of “Ferrarese School, XVI -century.” They, however, clearly belong to the earlier century, and are -probably by Roberti. - -The Louvre contains nothing by Ercole Roberti’s pupil, Ercole di Giulio -Cesare Grandi (1465?-1531). Ercole Grandi’s influence is sometimes seen -in the exceedingly rare pictures of Giovanni Battista Benvenuto, who is -better known under the name of Ortolano (“the gardener”), and takes his -name from the occupation of his father. The art of Ortolano (1460-1529) -is seen to the greatest advantage in the _St. Sebastian, St. Roch, and -St. Demetrius_, in the National Gallery (No. 669). An immature work by -him is apparently the _Nativity_ in this Gallery (No. 1401), which in -the opinion of the compilers of the Catalogue is by Domenico Panetti -(1450?-1512?), a pupil of Lorenzo Costa. Panetti’s works are rarely met -with out of Italy. - -Among the pictures of this school, those of Lodovico Mazzolino -(1478?-1528) are perhaps the easiest to recognise. His _Holy Family_ -(No. 1387) is not now exhibited, but the _Christ preaching to the -Multitude on the Sea of Galilee_ (No. 1388) is evidently by him, -although it has been ranked by one critic as a Flemish picture painted -under the inspiration of Mazzolino and Dosso Dossi. - -Panetti was the master of Benvenuto Tisi, a very prolific painter who -is better known by the name of Garofalo (1481?-1559), owing to his -occasionally painting a gillyflower into his pictures as a signature. -Although the Catalogue includes four small works by this artist, a -_Circumcision_ (No. 1550), a _Holy Family_ (No. 1552), a _Madonna and -Child_ (No. 1554), and a _Sleeping Child Jesus_ (No. 1553), only the -last of them is now exhibited. - -Another artist in this school who signed his pictures with a _rebus_ -was Giovanni Lutero (1479?-1542), who is better known under the name -of Dosso Dossi. A typical instance of this punning use of his name is -the _Money Changers driven out of the Temple_, in the Doria Gallery at -Rome; it is signed with a “D” traversed by a bone (_osso_), obviously -a play on his name of Dosso or D OSSO. No picture by Dosso Dossi is now -exhibited. - -Francesco Bonsignori (1455-1519), Marco Zoppo (fl. 1471-1498), Michele -Coltellini (1480-1542), Ippolito Scarsellino (1551-1620), Girolamo -da Carpi, and other Ferrarese painters are unrepresented in this -collection. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF MILAN - - -The painters who practised in Milan in the fourteenth century were -little better than provincial craftsmen who had come within the range -of the Giottesque tradition without grasping the more vital of its -principles. Those who worked in Milanese territory in the first half of -the fifteenth century acquired some of the reflected influences which -passed from the work of Pisanello and Jacopo Bellini in Verona, and -from the more striking achievements of the Paduan and early Venetian -schools, but their work lacked all trace of originality. - -A painter of the name of Michelino Molinari da Besozzo (fl. 1394-1442), -or Michele da Pavia, was painting at Milan about 1420. However, -there cannot be said to have been a school of painting, but only an -aggregation of painters in Milanese territory, prior to the arrival at -Pavia and Milan of the Brescian-born master, Vicenzo Foppa, about 1458. -Previous to that important event, if not throughout the whole range of -its activity, Milanese art lacked the higher elements of genius in all -matters æsthetic. As a school it was to the end too inclined to mere -prettiness and superficial sweetness. - -The Umbrian-born architect and painter, Bramante (1444-1514), who had -received his education in Florence, painted in Lombardy from 1472-1474, -as his Panigarola frescoes now in the Brera testify. Bramante also -influenced Foppa, whose work is well defined and whose colouring is -subdued. - -Side by side with Foppa at the head of the Milanese school comes -Bernardino Butinone (fl. 1450-1507), a great deal of whose work may -still be seen at Milan. A _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1523), which is -doubtfully ascribed in the Catalogue to Gregorio Schiavone, a pupil of -Squarcione at Padua, may possibly be by Butinone, whose art is marked -by an austerity and dryness which are absent from the paintings of -Zenale, who was the partner and perhaps a pupil of Butinone. - -The _Circumcision, with the Portrait of the Donor_ (No. 1545), although -catalogued under the name of Bramantino, may be by Zenale (1436-1526). -This panel is inscribed “XL. ANNO 1491. F͞R] I͞A LAPUGNANVS P͞P HVMIL -CAN̄.” Bramantino (1455?-1536?), whose name was Bartolommeo Suardi, -came under the influence of Foppa and Bramante, and from the latter -acquired his _sobriquet_. - -The pictures of Borgognone (1455?-1522?) are easily recognised -by the ashen grey pallor of his faces, relieved occasionally by -eyelids reddened by grief. He was a prolific painter of religious -pictures which show simple pathos. With the possible exception of -the _Family Portraits_ in the National Gallery (Nos. 779-780), which -are indeed fragments of a standard, and may have been painted by -Zenale, Borgognone, whose name was Ambrogio da Fossano, is not known -to have painted a secular subject. This typical Milanese painter -was another of the pupils of Foppa. Being an architect as well as a -painter, Borgognone delighted in giving an architectural setting to -his compositions. He also loved to introduce brightly coloured carpets -and draperies, and minutely painted jewellery into his pictures. These -characteristics are seen in his companion pictures of _St. Peter Martyr -and a Donoress_ (No. 1182), and _St. Augustine and a kneeling Donor_ -(No. 1182A). The latter of this pair of panels of his early period was -purchased from Lord Aldenham in 1899 for 1000 guineas. They originally -formed part of a dismembered altarpiece, the centre panel of which is -now lost or unidentified. His _Presentation of Christ in the Temple_ -(No. 1181), although originally painted on panel, was transferred to -canvas in 1885. Borgognone might almost be termed the Perugino of the -Milanese school. - - - ANDREA SOLARIO - -Andrea Solario (1460?-1515?), who was perhaps the pupil of his brother -Cristoforo a sculptor and architect, went with him to Venice in 1490 -and remained there at least three years. During this time he came under -the influence of Alvise Vivarini and Giovanni Bellini. Earlier in his -career he was impressed by the pictures of Antonello da Messina, who -was in Venice and Milan in 1475-1476. Solario can hardly have become -Antonello’s pupil at that early age. He must also have come within the -sphere of Leonardo da Vinci’s influence. Leonardo, who worked in Milan -between 1482 and 1500 and from 1506 to 1513, was asked by the Cardinal -George of Amboise to decorate a chapel in the Château at Gaillon in -Normandy. He, however, advised the Cardinal to employ Solario. Solario -in consequence went to France in August 1507 to undertake the work. -The Louvre is rich in his pictures. His charming _Madonna of the Green -Cushion_ (No. 1530) is inscribed: - - _Andreas de Solario fa._ - -This small panel was once the property of Marie de Médicis. The -_Crucifixion_ (No. 1532) was formerly catalogued under the name of -Andrea de Milan, which led some to confuse Andrea Solario with the much -less efficient painter, Andrea Salaino. This picture is inscribed: - - ANDREAS MEDIOLANENSIS FA 1503, - -a form of signature which is said to have been employed by Solario only -for such of his pictures as were destined for other towns than Milan. -The _Head of St. John the Baptist on a Charger_ (No. 1533) is said to -be signed and dated - - ANDREAS DE SOLARIO, FAT, 1507. - -The _Portrait of Charles d’Amboise, Seigneur of Chaumont and Governor -of Milan_ (No. 1531), like many other of Solario’s pictures, has in -the past, when the range of his art was not so well understood, been -attributed to other artists. - - - BERNARDINO LUINI - -In Bernardino Luini (1475?-1533?) we have a lyrical artist. He is said -to have been a pupil of one Stefano Scotto, but he was deeply impressed -by the art of Borgognone, and early in the sixteenth century came under -the influence of Leonardo. Indeed, it was almost impossible at that -period of Milanese art for a painter in that school to resist the style -of Leonardo. Although Luini’s works are reminiscent of the greater -master, he strove after originality; he was an industrious painter -rather than an artist of genius. Luini is never very emotional, never -passionate, never dramatic. His figures are characterised by sweetness -and grace; his types are refined but insipid and are apt to become -monotonous. It is as a painter of frescoes that he succeeds best, and -the Louvre is fortunate in possessing several of his works in that -medium. The best are a _Nativity_ (No. 1359), and an _Adoration of the -Magi_ (No. 1360). The _Head of Christ_ (No. 1361) is inscribed: - - POSCE NE DUBITA QUOD - QUODCV̄ PATRI IN NOMINE MEᵒ - PETIERIS FIET TIBI. - -They were acquired in 1867 from the collection of the Duke Antonio -Litta Visconti Arese, of Milan. The Louvre also contains fragments of -large fresco paintings of the _Forge of Vulcan_ (No. 1356), a _Child -Seated_ (No. 1357), and a _Child Kneeling_ (No. 1358). They form part -of the series, which is now preserved in Milan, but formerly decorated -the Villa Pelucca near Monza; they were removed from there in 1817. -These three fragments have been transferred from plaster to canvas or -panel. The four frescoes (Nos. 1362-1365) are by a pupil. The art of -Luini as a painter on panel is seen to advantage in the _Holy Family_ -(No. 1353), the _Virgin and the Infant Christ_ (No. 1354), and _Salome -receiving the Head of St. John the Baptist_ (No. 1355). - -The arrival of Leonardo da Vinci, when little over thirty years of age, -at the court of Lodovico Sforza at Milan revolutionised art in that -city. The exquisite rhythm and balance and the remarkable gestures and -facial expression seen in his _Last Supper_ must have made a profound -impression on all the Milanese, people and painters alike. Not having -been educated in the profound principles that gradually built up the -school of Florence, whence the great painter came, the majority of the -native artists were so overcome by his power that in time they became -enslaved by the magic of his brush. - -Ambrogio da Predis (1455?-1506?), who worked as Leonardo’s assistant -on the National Gallery’s replica of the _Virgin of the Rocks_ in this -collection (No. 1599), is not represented here. Another assistant -and pupil of Leonardo was Bernardino de’ Conti. As we have seen, he -may be the painter of the _Profile Portrait of a Lady_—or _La Belle -Ferronnière_ (No. 1605)—which is officially regarded as being of the -“School of Leonardo.” A similar attribution is also given to the -_Madonna of the Scales_ (No. 1604), which should rather be assigned -to Cesare da Sesto (1477-1523), a sickly and insipid imitator of -the master. Another of Leonardo’s imitators was Marco d’Oggiono -(1470?-1540). His copy of Leonardo’s _Last Supper_ (No. 1603) is -perhaps of greater interest than his own _Holy Family_ (No. 1382) and -_Madonna and Child_ (No. 1382A). - -One of the more original of the imitators of Leonardo was Boltraffio -(1467-1516), whose _Madonna of the Casio Family_ (No. 1169) was -formerly in the Milan Gallery, where any picture containing a portrait -of that poet might reasonably have been expected to remain. This -picture is the painter’s masterpiece. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF LOMBARDY - - -After the activity which had prevailed in Milan during the last half of -the fifteenth century and the first quarter of the sixteenth century, -art in Lombardy rapidly deteriorated. Before the decline had passed -into decadence Pier Francesco Sacchi (fl. 1512-1527) painted at Pavia -his _Four Doctors of the Church_ (No. 1488), which is signed in the -cartouche - - PETRI FRANCISCI - SACHI DE PAPIA - OPUS 1516. - -Each of the Doctors duplicates the part of an Evangelist. On the left -St. Augustine, with his book inscribed “De Civitate Dei,” is also shown -as St. John with his eagle; St. Gregory, with his dove, is also St. -Luke with his bull; St. Jerome, with his cardinal’s hat, is also St. -Matthew with his angel; while St. Ambrose, with his scourge, is also -St. Mark with his lion. The scourge held by St. Ambrose, a patron saint -of Milan, alludes to his refusing the Emperor Theodosius admittance -into the church at Milan in consequence of the general massacre he -ordered with a view to subduing a sedition at Thessalonica in A.D. 390. - -Another early-sixteenth-century Pavian painter was Bartolommeo Bononi, -whose only known picture is the _Madonna and Child, St. Francis, a -Bishop, and a Monk_ (No. 1174). It is signed - - OPUS BARTOLOMEI BONONII CIVIS PAPIENSIS 1501. - -on the stump of the tree in the centre foreground. - -A striking, although mediocre, _Family of the Virgin_ (No. 1284) by -Lorenzo de’ Fasoli, who is also known as Lorenzo di Pavia, and who died -about 1520, illustrates the tradition that St. Anne, the mother of the -Virgin Mary, was three times married, Joachim being her third husband; -the other two were Cleophas and Salome. This composition of seventeen -figures is signed - - LAURENTIVS PAPIEN FECIT MDXIII, - -and is one of the latest examples of this tradition, which about 1520 -passed out of art. - -A large Triptych (No. 1384), signed - - JOH̄NES MAZONVS - DE ALEXĀ PINXIT, - -is by Giovanni Massone, who worked at Alessandria in the second half -of the fifteenth century; it contains the portraits of Pope Sixtus IV. -with St. Francis of Assisi and Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere under -the protection of St. Anthony of Padua. Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere -was Bishop of Savona about 1483; he was in 1503 elected Pope under the -title of Julius II., and became the patron of Raphael. - -The remaining pictures of this school are of little account. Bernardino -Campi (1522-1592?) is represented by a _Mater Dolorosa_ (No. 1202); and -Bartolommeo Manfredi (1580?-1617) by a _Fortune Teller_ (No. 1368), a -subject which demonstrates the Decadence in full operation. Giovanni -Paolo Panini (1695-1764), who came to Paris in 1732 and became an -Academician, seems to have got some satisfaction out of committing to -canvas a _Concert given at Rome on Dec. 26, 1729, in Honour of the -Birth of the Dauphin, the son of Louis XV._ (No. 1409) and a large -_Interior of St. Peter’s at Rome_ (No. 1408), the latter being signed -and dated 1730. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF FERRARA-BOLOGNA - - -The city of Bologna was visited in 1268 by Oderigi of Gubbio (fl. -1268-1295), who had the benefit of personal intercourse with Giotto in -Rome. Bologna produced a skilled miniature painter in Franco Bolognese -in the fourteenth century, but gave birth to few native painters -of merit. Until Francesco Cossa removed from Ferrara to Bologna in -1470, art in the City of the Colonnades was in an undeveloped state. -The school of Bologna, which may be considered as an offshoot of the -Ferrarese school, was further strengthened by the arrival of Lorenzo -Costa. - -Lorenzo Costa (1460-1535), who had been a pupil of Francesco Cossa at -Ferrara, worked for the Bentivogli family in Bologna until 1509. In -that year he was induced to fix his abode in Mantua at the instance of -the Marquis Francesco Gonzaga and his wife Isabella d’Este, whose court -painter, Andrea Mantegna, had died three years earlier. Costa there -painted about 1510 his _Court of Isabella d’Este in the Garden of the -Muses_ (No. 1261), which is signed - - L. COSTA F. - -This famous canvas shows a weakness of drawing and a “want of force -that mars what is meant for grace.” Costa’s _Mythological Scene_ (No. -1262) is not now exhibited, but in it, as in the majority of his works, -the figures have no real existence. The heads are usually “screwed -on—not always at the proper angle—to crosspoles hung about with -clothes.” His landscapes, however, “without being in any sense serious -studies, are among the loveliest painted in his day.” - -Costa’s shortcomings were to dominate to the end the school of -Bologna, which was essentially, almost from its incipience, one of -Decadence. He became the first direct master of Francesco Francia -(1450-1517), the typical Renaissance painter in Bologna who seems to -have taken to painting at the relatively advanced age of thirty-five. -Francia had matriculated in the Goldsmiths’ Guild in 1482 and was -Master of the Guild in 1483, the year of Costa’s arrival; but until he -came under the influence of Costa he had worked only as an engraver of -_paci_ in niello-work, a die-sinker, and a medallist. They soon went -into partnership, the upper storey of their joint workshop being used -for the painting of pictures, while metal-work was executed below. -Francia is not seen to the best advantage in the Louvre. His _Christ -on the Cross_ (No. 1436) is somewhat unusual in treatment, as a nude -figure of St. Job, a plague saint, is painted in the foreground. This -large picture bears the characteristic signature - - FRANCIA AURIFABER, - -and shows his practice of demonstrating the versatility of his many -talents. The small _Nativity_ (No. 1435) is an authentic work. The -_Madonna and Child, with St. George, St. Sebastian, St. Francis, and -St. John the Baptist_ (No. 1436A), is known as the _Guastavillani -Madonna_ from the inscription to the effect that Filippo Guastavillani, -a Bolognese senator, ordered the picture of Francia. Nevertheless, -this large panel appears to have been executed by his son, Giacomo. -A _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1437) and a _Holy Family with St. Francis -d’Assisi_ (No. 1437A) are only by pupils. - -The Louvre contains no example of the work of the Umbrian artist, -Timoteo Viti (1467-1524), who was a pupil of Costa, and from July 1490 -to April 1495 worked in the studio of Francia. There are no other -sixteenth-century Bolognese paintings in this collection. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF CREMONA - - -This small and unimportant school includes Boccaccio Boccaccino -(fl. 1460-1518?), who was formed on various Venetian and Milanese -influences. The _Holy Family_ (No. 1168) which is credited to him, but -not now exhibited, seems to be an unattributable panel by some artist -of the Lombard school. This school includes an early-sixteenth-century -imitator who has received the significant name of “Pseudo-Boccaccino,” -but is not here represented. - -The _Mater Dolorosa_ (No. 1202) appears to be by Bernardino Campi, -a mediocre sixteenth-century painter of the Lombard and Cremonese -schools. Sofonisba Anguissola (1528-1625), a female artist, was his -pupil and the wife of Orazio Lomellini. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF BRESCIA - - -This small town seems to have produced little local talent previous to -the birth of Foppa. Ottaviano Prandino, who had worked with Altichiero -at Padua, and Bartolommeo Testorino (died about 1429) are little more -than names. - -Vincenzo Foppa (1427?-1516?) was born near Brescia. The theory that -he studied under Squarcione at Padua lacks confirmation. On the other -hand, he seems to have been little affected by the Squarcionesque -traditions, and is rather to be regarded as the artistic product of -the school of Verona, where he would have come under the influence -of Pisanello and Jacopo Bellini. He may have been a friend of Andrea -Mantegna. It is, however, not in Brescia, but in Milan that Foppa’s art -may be studied to-day. He arrived in Pavia about 1458, and became the -founder of the school of Milan twenty years before Leonardo first took -up his abode at the court of Lodovico Il Moro. - -Foppa’s pupil Vincenzo Civerchio (1470?-1544) and Floriano Ferramola -(1480-1528) were the joint founders of the school of Brescia; Romanino -(1485-1566) was a pupil of the latter. The Louvre is singularly poor -in its representation of this school, which cannot here be studied -earlier than the (so-called) _Portrait of Gaston de Foix_ (No. 1518) by -Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo (1480?-1548?). This canvas, which appears to -be signed - - _Opera di Jovanni Jeronimo di Bressia di Savoldi_, - -shows unmistakably the conflicting influences, mostly Venetian, under -which this artist worked. - -Moretto (1498?-1555?), who was a pupil of Ferramola and was influenced -by Savoldo and Romanino, produced large and striking altarpieces as -well as portraits. He met with some success in his attempts to combine -a subtlety of feeling peculiar to himself with the “silvery” tones of -which he was so fond. His _St. Bernardino of Siena and St. Louis of -Toulouse_ (No. 1175) and his _St. Bonaventura and St. Anthony of Padua_ -(No. 1176) are arched panels on a much smaller scale than he often uses. - -Moretto’s pupil, Giambattista Moroni (1525?-1578), painted many far -better portraits than that of _An Old Man seated_ (No. 1395). The only -other Brescian painting in this collection seems to be the _Portrait of -a Man_ (No. 1646), who is seen at half length, seated three-quarters to -the left and wearing a robe trimmed with fur. Although catalogued as -an unattributable Italian work, it is in our opinion by Calisto Piazza -of Lodi (fl. 1520-1560), the son of Martino Piazza of the Milanese -school. To Calisto da Lodi has been assigned the _Portrait of a Knight -of Malta_ (No. 1594) which is catalogued as being by Titian. - -The Louvre is very inferior to the National Gallery in both the quality -and quantity of pictures of this school. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF MODENA - - -The city of Modena gave birth to the early painters Tommaso da Modena -(1325-1379) and Barnaba da Modena (fl. 1377), who worked in many -different parts of Tuscany. The prominent figure in this school, -however, is Francesco Bianchi (1460-1510). This painter, whose name is -sometimes given as Francesco Bianchi Ferrari, was in all probability -a pupil of Cosimo Tura at Ferrara. He left that city about 1480 for -Modena. His style of painting has been the subject of much discussion, -chiefly because he is regarded as the master of Correggio of Parma. -The _Madonna and Child, with St. Benedict and St. Quentin_ (No. 1167), -although officially catalogued under his name, is not now generally -accepted as his work. In 1725 it was in the Church of St. Quentin -at Parma and attributed to Francia. Certain critics have ascribed -it to Alessandro da Carpi and others to Pellegrino Munari of Modena -(1450?-1523). Bianchi’s work can only be studied in the Pinacoteca -Estense and in the churches at Modena. - -The three pictures officially catalogued under the name of the -third-rate artist Bartolommeo Schidone (1570?-1615) are not exhibited, -nor are they missed,—a remark which will also apply to a _St. Cecilia_ -(No. 1253) by Jacopo Cavedone (1577-1660). - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF VICENZA - - -The first Vicentine painter known to us is Battista da Vicenza (fl. -1450), but it was not until the last quarter of the fifteenth century -that Vicenza produced a painter of any note. Bartolommeo Montagna -(1460?-1523) studied the art of the Vivarini, and so became the central -figure in an unimportant school. His _Ecce Homo_ (No. 1393), which -bears the signature: - - _Bartholomeus Montagna - Fecit_ - -in a _cartellino_ fastened to a twig, is a mature work. The delightful -and late picture of _Three Angel Musicians_ (No. 1394), which is signed -in a _cartellino_ - - _Opus Bartholomei - Montagna_, - -shows the unmistakable influence of Gentile Bellini. The same motif is -found in the three musician angels in Montagna’s magnificent _Madonna -and Child, with St. Andrew, St. Monica, St. Ursula, and St. Sigismund_, -of 1498, in the Brera. - -Montagna’s son, Benedetto (fl. 1500-1540), Giovanni Buonconsiglio -(1470?-1536?), and Giovanni Speranza (1480-1536) also practised as -painters; but Vicentine art from the middle of the sixteenth century -has little claim on our attention. - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF VERCELLI - - -One of the earliest painters in this school was an obscure artist of -the Old Lombard school named Martino Spanzotti. He was the master of -Gaudenzio Ferrari (1471-1546), whose frescoes are easily recognisable -by the crude colour, exuberant imagination, and forceful, almost -brutal, realism which have caused him to be termed, somewhat loosely, -the Rubens of Italy. A very late work by him is the _St. Paul_ (No. -1285), which is signed and dated - - 1543 - GAUDENTIUS. - -Another of Spanzotti’s pupils was Sodoma, who was born at Vercelli in -Piedmont, in 1477. He is best known for the large amount of work that -he executed at Siena. This prolific artist, like a number of other -painters of this unimportant school, is not represented in the Louvre. -He died in 1551. - -A faint echo of the teaching of Spanzotti may at times be detected in -the works of Defendente Ferrari (fl. 1500-1535) and Girolamo Giovenone -(fl. 1513-1527), who are not represented in the Louvre. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XV.—CORREGGIO - - (1494-1534) - - SCHOOL OF PARMA - - No. 1117.—THE MYSTIC MARRIAGE OF ST. CATHERINE - - (Mariage mystique de Sainte Catherine) - - The Virgin, in a red tunic and blue mantle, is seated to the - left of the composition holding on her lap the Infant Christ. He - is about to place the wedding-ring on the third finger of the - outstretched right hand of the kneeling St. Catherine, who wears - a gold-brocaded robe. Behind her stands St. Sebastian, looking on - with interest and clasping in his hand the arrows, the symbol of - his martyrdom. In the landscape background are depicted scenes of - the martyrdom of the two Saints. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 3 ft. 5½ in. × 3 ft. 4 in. (1·05 × 1·02.)] - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF PARMA - - -One of the most distinctive and perhaps the most sensuous of the -Italian masters is Correggio (1494-1534), who takes his name from his -birthplace, Il Correggio, a small town near Modena. It was natural, -therefore, that he should have become the pupil of Francesco Bianchi -of the school of Modena. Correggio came under almost all the leading -influences which distinguish the principal Italian schools of the -early sixteenth century. His “sidelong grace,” his subtle gradations -of tone, his daring foreshortening, his sublimity of space and light, -his vivid imagination, his profound knowledge of chiaroscuro, render -him an isolated phenomenon in Italian art at the moment when it was -passing into precipitate decline. His _Marriage of St. Catherine_ -(No. 1117, Plate XV.) entirely lacks the dignity and solemnity which -are the dominant features of truly religious art. The figures which -make up this fascinating composition are delicate, but by no means -of an elevated type. This pseudo-religious picture, when studied -together with the _Jupiter and Antiope_ (No. 1118), shows the justice -of the criticism that Correggio’s pictures are “hymns to the charm of -femininity the like of which have never been known before or since in -Christian Europe.” It is more remarkable that this mythological canvas, -which is so full of sensuous vitality, should have been added to the -royal collection of England in the seventeenth century than that it -should have been allowed by Cromwell to leave the country a few years -later. Two Allegories of _Virtue_ and _Vice_, executed by Correggio in -gouache, hang in one of the Rooms of Drawings. - -Parmigianino (1504-1540), an imitator of Correggio and in a less degree -of Raphael, who were both shortlived artists, painted the two small -panels of a _Holy Family_ (No. 1385), and a _Holy Family and Saints_ -(No. 1386). - - - - - THE SCHOOL OF BOLOGNA - - -After the deaths of Francia in 1517 and Lorenzo Costa in 1536, painting -in Bologna rapidly decreased in quality, although not in volume. A -distinctive feature was the work of Marc Antonio Raimondi (b. 1475), a -pupil of Francia, who developed the process of engraving on copper. - -Bologna, which like other cities of Italy felt the effects of humanism, -acquired an increased importance in political activity through the -meeting there of Pope Leo X. and Francis I., in 1515, and by the -Coronation of Charles V., on Feb. 24, 1530. It also obtained within -a few years a great reputation as an art centre, although it is not -easy for us now to realise why. The esteem in which its art was held -in foreign countries is also difficult to explain. Innocenzo da Imola, -who had studied under Francia, was the master of Primaticcio, who was -summoned to France by François I. in 1531. Primaticcio at that time -was working at Mantua with Giulio Romano, the favourite pupil and the -imitator of Raphael. While Primaticcio took with him the influence -of Bolognese art to Fontainebleau, where he died in 1570, Pellegrino -Tibaldi (1527-1591), a pupil of Bagnacavallo, carried the Bolognese -influence into Spain. - -The appreciation by a foreign artist of the art of Bologna is shown in -the case of Denis Calvaert of Antwerp, who thought the Bolognese school -to be in so flourishing a state, when he passed through on his way to -study in Rome, that he decided to abandon his original intention and to -stay on in the city of the Colonnades. - -A striking feature of the literature and art of painting at Bologna -was that its University had always accorded equal terms to women -students with men, and had women professors. Female painters—they were -without exception only of the third rank—had worked in Bologna from the -days of Caterina di Vigri, painter and saint, who was born as early -as 1413. In the last quarter of the sixteenth century, art in Bologna -passed into the complete control of the Eclectics. - - - - - THE DECADENT SCHOOLS - -In the Florentine and Roman schools the Decadence may be said to have -begun with the death of Raphael in 1520. With the exception of the -Venetian school, in which art did not languish until after the death -of Tintoretto in 1594, painting rapidly degenerated during the second -half of the sixteenth century. Paintings were, of course, produced in -great profusion in every art centre of Italy, but form and subject were -not in true harmony. To a great extent local traditions were abandoned, -the earlier types varied, and three distinctive movements developed—the -“Mannerists,” the “Eclectics,” and the “Naturalists.” - - - THE “MANNERISTS” - -Giulio Romano (1492?-1546) was content to imitate the works of Raphael; -and Daniele da Volterra (1509-1566) tried, as we have seen in his -_David overcoming Goliath_ (No. 1462), to reproduce the swelling -muscles of Michelangelo. Baroccio (1526-1612) in his _Circumcision_ -(No. 1149), which is signed and dated 1570, and in his _Virgin in -Glory, with St. Anthony and St. Lucy_ (No. 1150), sought to reproduce -the ineffable grace of Correggio; while others endeavoured to -repeat the enigmatic smile, the “greyhound” eye, and the mysterious -chiaroscuro of Leonardo da Vinci. - -Although the “Mannerists” were to be met with in most of the centres of -painting in the sixteenth century, they made Rome the centre of their -operations. Domenico Feti (1589-1624) is represented in the Louvre by -four canvases, _Nero_ (No. 1286), _Life in the Country_ (No. 1287), -_Melancholy_ (No. 1288), and _The Guardian Angel_ (No. 1289), the -subjects being highly significant. - -In the _Holy Family_ (No. 1493) by Sassoferrato (1605-1685) are shown -the shallowness and empty formalism which produced the fair-haired, -blue-eyed, hyper-sentimental _Madonnas_ with which his name is -associated. Carlo Dolci is not represented in the Louvre. - -One of the more estimable artists in the Late Roman school is Carlo -Maratta (1625-1713), who may be judged by the unsigned _Portrait of -Marie Madeleine Rospigliosi_ (No. 1379) and _His Own Portrait_ (No. -1380). - -Two paintings of _Fruit_ (Nos. 1254, 1255) stand to the credit of M. -A. Cerquozzi (1602-1660), and the art of G. B. Castiglione, of Genoa -(1616-1670), is seen in his _Abraham and Melchizedek_ (No. 1250) and -_Animals and Utensils_ (No. 1252). - - - THE “ECLECTICS” - -A revolt against the methods of the “Mannerists” was made by the -Carracci when they opened their school of art at Bologna in 1589. -These “Eclectics” (“Pickers and Choosers”) advocated a careful study -of “the drawing of Rome, the Venetian shadow, the terrific force -of Michelangelo’s manner, the natural truth of Titian, the pure -and sovereign style of Correggio, the true symmetry of Raphael, -the dignity and principle of Tibaldi, the invention of the learned -Primaticcio, together with a little of the grace of Parmigianino”! It -is not surprising that they in their turn soon sank into mere academic -mediocrity. - -The Louvre is notoriously rich in representative examples of the -“Eclectic” painters’ art. The name of Lodovico Carracci (1555-1619), -the founder of this school at Bologna, is included in the official -Catalogue, but neither of his two pictures is at present exhibited. -Lodovico had as cousins, Agostino (1557?-1602) and Annibale -(1560?-1609), who also worked in Rome. Six of Annibale Carracci’s -fifteen pictures in this collection are now exhibited. The _Madonna of -the Cherries_ (No. 1217) and the _Sleeping Child Jesus_ (No. 1218) are -characteristic, while his huge canvas of _The Virgin appearing to St. -Luke and St. Catherine_ (No. 1219) in every way exemplifies the art of -this painter and his school. It is inscribed: - - ANNIBAL CARACTIUS F. MDXCII. - -Pictures of this type were much sought after and prized in the -eighteenth century, when this one was seized by Napoleon in Italy, -but to-day a higher standard of æsthetics has deservedly ruled them -out of fashion. On the other hand, sufficient attention is not now -paid to some of the landscape pictures which the “Eclectics” painted; -Annibale’s _Fishing_ (No. 1233) and _Hunting_ (No. 1232) are worth the -attention of the student. Antonio Carracci (1583-1618), a less-known -member of this family, is the author of a large canvas depicting _The -Deluge_ (No. 1235). - -Guido Reni, after working under Denis Calvaert at Bologna, entered -the school of the Carracci. This fitful sentimentalist indulged in -idealised abstractions that were neither human nor divine, as may -be seen from his _David and Goliath_ (No. 1439) and _St. Sebastian_ -(No. 1450) on the one hand, and his _Ecce Homo_ (No. 1447) and _Mary -Magdalene_ (No. 1448) on the other. Four of his large mythological -paintings (Nos. 1453, 1454, 1455, 1457) show some technical ability. - -Francesco Albani (1578-1660) was influenced by the Carracci and Guido -Reni. The _Diana and Actaeon_ (No. 1111) may be selected out of his -nine productions mentioned in the Catalogue. Domenichino (1581-1641), -a pupil of the Carracci, the assistant of Annibale and a friend of -Guido Reni in Rome, was a sentimentalist of the most pronounced order. -His hard execution and unpleasant colouring can be judged in his _St. -Cecilia_ (No. 1613),—her features are singularly ill-proportioned,—but -nine of his other pictures do not take up any of the valuable wall -space. - -The self-taught artist and insipid Guercino (“The Squintling”) -(1591-1666), after working in Rome, settled in 1642 at Bologna, where -he died in affluent circumstances. His _Raising of Lazarus_ (No. -1139), the large _Patron Saints of Modena_ (No. 1143), together with a -_Circe_ (No. 1147) and _The Painters Own Portrait_ (No. 1148), are now -exhibited. These and such pictures as were painted by G. A. Donducci -(1575-1655), G. F. Grimaldi (1606-1680), S. Cantarini (1612-1648), and -G. M. Crespi (1665-1747), provoked a fresh reaction. - - - THE “NATURALISTS” - -A natural reaction against the selective methods of the “Eclectics” -gave rise to the “Naturalists,” who, headed by Michelangelo Caravaggio -(1569-1609), made Naples the centre of their operations. The utterly -repulsive picture entitled _The Death of the Virgin_ (No. 1121), by -Caravaggio, is merely large. Neither _The Fortune Teller_ (No. 1122) -nor the _Concert of Nine Musicians_ (No. 1123) can be compared with -the really striking and well-painted _Portrait of Alof de Wignacourt, -Grand-Master of Malta_ (No. 1124). - -Salvator Rosa (1615-1675) is represented by _Tobias and the Angel_ (No. -1477) and a _Vision of Saul to Samuel_ (No. 1478). His _Landscape_ (No. -1480) shows that he delighted in “ideas of desolation, solitude and -danger, impenetrable forests, rocky and storm-lashed shores, in lonely -dells leading to dens and caverns of banditti, alpine ridges, trees -blasted by lightning or sapped by time.” His _Battle_ (No. 1479) is a -strange production. - -Caravaggio was the master of Ribera (1588-1656), who is also called -Spagnoletto, and is included in the Catalogue among the Spanish -artists. This “Naturalist” school of Naples also included Luca -Giordano (1632-1705), who lived in Spain at one period. - -The aim of the “Naturalists” is displayed in the prominence they gave -to all that was vulgar, coarse, and vile. With them art in Italy came -to an ignominious end, although in technical accomplishment, in mere -craftsmanship, they can hold their own with painters of much higher -rank. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XVI.—JAN VAN EYCK - - (1390?-1441) - - EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 1986.—THE VIRGIN AND CHILD AND THE CHANCELLOR ROLIN - - (La Vierge au donateur) - - An angel in a blue alb and with peacock-blue wings is placing an - elaborate gold crown on the head of the Madonna, who holds the - Infant Christ on her knee, and is seated towards the right of - the composition. On the other side the Chancellor, kneeling at - a _prie-Dieu_, and with his hands joined in adoration, wears a - richly brocaded robe, and is seen in profile towards the right. The - figures are grouped in a portico opening on to a flower-garden and - a crenellated wall; in the distance is seen a seven-arched bridge, - and beyond it a castled island. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 2 ft. 2 in. × 2 ft. 0½ in. (0·66 × 0·62.)] - - - - - THE EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL - - -The early art of Flanders, unlike that of Italy, does not present -itself at the Louvre, or indeed at any Gallery, in orderly sequence -from the immature groping for artistic expression to masterly -achievement. With the exception of the exquisite work of the -late-fourteenth-century miniaturists, which forms a special branch -of study, there is nothing to bridge the immense gulf that divides -Melchior Broederlam, the earliest known Flemish painter, from the -brothers Van Eyck, whose earliest known work, the wonderful Ghent -polyptych of _The Adoration of the Lamb_, is, if not quite the -starting-point, the noblest achievement of the Early Flemish school. -The invention of oil-painting, in the sense of the word as it is -applied to-day, with which the Van Eycks are credited, no doubt -contributed largely towards this amazingly sudden progress; but their -art also marks a new era in the conception of life and pictorial form. -An ardent love of truth and nature takes the place of the earlier vague -idealism. At the same time, the realism of the brothers Van Eyck and -their followers, notwithstanding its insistence on literal truth in -the representation of frequently ugly details, was kept in check by -deep sentiment, love of splendid colour, and a great sense of style in -composition. Details, even in the far-away distance, were certainly -elaborated with minute precision, but they are never unduly obtrusive, -and are invariably subordinated to the main motive. - - - JAN VAN EYCK - -The earliest important Flemish painting in the Louvre is the famous -_Virgin and Child with the Chancellor Rolin_ (No. 1986, Plate XVI.) by -Jan van Eyck (_c._ 1390-1441), which was taken by order of Napoleon -I. from the Collegiate Church of Autun in Burgundy. In a three-aisled -colonnaded hall with stilted arches and pavement of geometrical inlay -is seen Nicholas Rolin, Chancellor of Burgundy and Brabant, kneeling -at a prayer-desk before the Virgin, on whose right knee is seated the -Infant Saviour holding an orb in His left and raising His right hand -in benediction. An angel with peacock-blue wings is floating above the -Virgin and holding an elaborately wrought golden crown over her head. -The exquisite detail of the river landscape with a view of Maastricht -extending beyond the open colonnade, the sumptuous brocaded dresses, -the carved capitals of columns and piers, and many other details -painted with inimitable minute skill, help towards an ensemble of -jewel-like splendour dimmed but not marred by the yellow varnish which -covers the surface. The _Virgin with the Donor_ was formerly generally -attributed to Hubert, but is most probably a late work by Jan van Eyck, -painted perhaps about 1432. - - - THE SCHOOL OF TOURNAI - -Neither Petrus Christus (1412?-1473), the only master who was directly -influenced by Jan van Eyck, nor Robert Campin (1365-1444), who is now -known to be identical with the so-called “Maître de Flémalle,” and -who was the head of the important Tournai school, are represented -at the Louvre. The official Catalogue ascribes to Campin’s greatest -pupil, Rogier van der Weyden (_c._ 1400-1464), the two panels _The -Virgin and Child_ (No. 2195), and _The Deposition from the Cross_ (No. -2196), of which at least the former is only a school version of an -often repeated theme by the master, whilst the _Deposition_ is by no -means an important example of his work. Rogier was born at Tournai, -but went to Brussels after 1432, and practised in that city until his -death in 1464. A journey to Italy in 1449 did not appreciably affect -his art, which always retained an archaic flavour, especially in the -rather tortured rendering of the nude. In this respect, and also in -his utter disregard of beauty (except the beauty of rhythmic line), he -compares unfavourably with the brothers Van Eyck, as may be clearly -seen on comparing his work with Jan van Eyck’s _Virgin and Donor_. His -occasional use of gold backgrounds, as in the _Virgin and Child_ (No. -2195), is another archaic trait. - -The hand of a nameless contemporary and follower of Campin and Rogier -van der Weyden, who is also represented at the Galleries of Vienna, -Turin, and Antwerp, is to be recognised in the small panel of _The -Annunciation_ (No. 2202), which was formerly attributed to the much -later painter Lucas van Leyden, and has also been claimed to be only a -copy of a picture by the Maître de Flémalle. - - - HANS MEMLINC - -The influence of Rogier van der Weyden determined the entire course -taken by the Flemish school until its decline with the introduction -of those Italian Renaissance tendencies which only became a vital -factor and led to the birth of a new Flemish art through the genius of -Rubens. Again, Rogier’s chief pupil, Dierick Bouts (_c._ 1410-1475), -is unrepresented at the Louvre. In the art of Hans Memlinc (_c._ -1430?-1494), who was the founder of the great school of Bruges, may be -found clear traces of the influence of Rogier and of Bouts, although -we have no certain knowledge as to that master’s actual pupilage. He -may have been born at Mömlingen, near Aschaffenburg on the Main, and -apparently had already risen to fame as a painter before 1467, the -date of his great altarpiece at Dantzig. By that time he was settled -at Bruges. Mr. W. H. J. Weale’s researches have shown that the legend, -according to which Memlinc first came to Bruges as a wounded soldier -and was nursed back to health at the Hospital of St. John, is not -founded on fact. It is probable that Memlinc served his apprenticeship -under some Cologne painter, but all theories regarding his early life -must remain largely conjectural. - -What is of real importance is that he introduced into the detailed -realism of his precursors a note of pious fervour and tender idealism, -which is the nearest approach in Northern art to the angelic sweetness -of Fra Giovanni da Fiesole. Not without good reason has he been called -“the Fra Angelico of the North.” Fromentin was certainly right in -saying that “Van Eyck saw with his eyes, Memlinc begins to see with -his soul.” It is this warmth of feeling that makes Memlinc the most -lovable painter of the Flemish school, for he could neither rival the -dramatic power and realistic truth of the Van Eycks, nor the firm -draughtsmanship of Van der Weyden, nor Bouts’s skill in landscape -painting. Nor did he take full advantage of the possibilities of the -oil technique, his method remaining that of the tempera painters, -although he availed himself of the new medium. - -The earliest work by Memlinc in the great French national collection -is the charming little diptych, painted about 1475, and representing -on one leaf _The Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine_ (No. 2027), and -on the other _The Donor, John du Celier, presented by St. John_ (No. -2027A). In the first the Virgin is seen seated in a flowering meadow in -front of a rose-covered trellis and supporting the Infant Christ, who -bends forward to place the ring on the finger of St. Catherine on the -left. Behind the saintly bride are St. Agnes and St. Cecilia; whilst -the group on the right comprises St. Barbara, with St. Margaret and -St. Lucy, all accompanied by their characteristic attributes. On the -other leaf the Donor is seen kneeling, with hands joined in prayer, -in front of St. John the Baptist, who is pointing to Our Lord. The -landscape background shows, on the left, the Apocalyptic vision of St. -John the Evangelist, and on the right, St. George fighting the Dragon. -This leaf, after passing through the collection of Mr. Herz and Mr. -Heath, was presented to the Louvre in 1895 by Mme. André, and was thus -reunited with its companion, which had been bequeathed to the Gallery -fourteen years earlier by M. E. Gatteaux. It is on the whole in an -excellent state of preservation, although some of the accessories in -the background are so thinly painted that they have almost disappeared. - - - MEMLINC’S “VIRGIN AND CHILD, WITH DONORS” - -About 1490 Memlinc must have painted the admirable _Virgin and Child, -with Donors_ (No. 2026), which was commissioned by James Floreins, a -member of the Bruges Merchant Grocers’ Guild, but subsequently found -its way to Spain, whence it was taken to France by General d’Armagnac. -The Donor, who is kneeling on the left, in front of his seven sons, -is presented by St. James the Great, the same office being performed -by St. Dominic for Floreins’s wife and her twelve daughters, on -the opposite side. The scene is laid in a Romanesque church, with -openings at either side, through which glimpses of the landscape -beyond are obtained. The characterisation of all the faces, which -bear a strong family likeness, is as admirable as the painting of the -noble architecture. Remarkable, too, is the effect of perfect symmetry -obtained in the arrangement of the two unequal groups through the -simple device of placing the Virgin and Child more towards the less -crowded side, although the canopy is in the exact middle of the panel. -This altarpiece is certainly one of the most important works by Memlinc -that are to be found outside Belgium. - -The two little panels, _St. John the Baptist_ (No. 2024), and _St. Mary -Magdalene_ (No. 2025), both standing in a landscape with small scenes -from their respective legends, formed originally, with two further -panels representing St. Christopher and St. Stephen, the shutters of a -triptych. The centre part had disappeared before the wings, carefully -sawn through the thickness of the panels so, as to separate the obverse -from the reverse, came into the possession of Lucien Bonaparte, and -afterwards of William II. of Holland. The two Saints now at the Louvre -were purchased in 1851 for £469. - -In 1908 the Louvre obtained, at the high price of £8000, the _Portrait -of an Old Lady_ (Plate XVII.), to which attention was first drawn -at the Bruges Exhibition in 1902, when it was shown by M. Nardus, -from whom it passed into the hands of M. Kleinberger. Both the Paris -portrait, which is drawn with exquisite precision but has apparently -suffered from over-cleaning, and its companion, the portrait of this -anonymous lady’s husband at the Berlin Museum, were until 1884 in the -Meazzu collection in Milan. - -The triptych (No. 2028) with (_a_) _The Resurrection_, (_b_) _The -Ascension_, and (_c_) _The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian_, which was -bought at Turin in 1860 for £540, and is officially considered to be -of doubtful authenticity, is included by Mr. Weale in his catalogue of -Memlinc’s works. - - - GERARD DAVID - -The reconstruction and the rescuing from oblivion of the artistic -personality of Gerard David, begun by Mr. Weale and completed by -Freiherr von Bodenhausen, is one of the triumphs of the modern -scientific method of criticism. The Louvre is fortunate in possessing -two important examples from the brush of this master, who, born -at Ouwater in Holland about 1460, was in his early studies influenced -by Albert van Ouwater, but, after settling at Bruges in 1483, came -under the spell of Van Eyck, Bouts, and above all of Memlinc, whom he -succeeded as leader of the Bruges school. On his death in 1523, the -supremacy of that school came to an end, and passed on to the city of -Antwerp, which by that time had also superseded Bruges as a commercial -centre. Gerard David was not Memlinc’s equal as regards intimate charm, -but in his work is to be found a summing-up of all the achievement of -the Flemish Quattrocento—“the last concentrated expression of the aims -of all the great masters of that fertile age.” - - [Illustration: - PLATE XVII.—HANS MEMLINC - - (1430?-1494) - - EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No.—[4].—PORTRAIT OF AN OLD LADY - - She is seen in full face and at half-length, wearing the costume of - the period; her hands are superposed; landscape background to the - left, with a winding sandy path. A porphyry column to the right. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 1 ft. 2¼ in. × 1 ft. (0·36 × 0·30.)] - - [4] This picture has not yet received an official number. - -After having been successively attributed to Van Eyck, Van der Weyden, -Memlinc, and David’s pupil Ysenbrant, the _Marriage at Cana_ (No. -1957, Plate XVIII.) is now generally admitted to be designed and -partly executed by Gerard David, although the panel shows unmistakable -evidence of being completed by another and less skilful hand. Mr. Weale -has shown, on the strength of a certain document, that the picture may -have been finished by Ysenbrant, but he has been unable to establish -that the document quoted by him refers to this particular picture. -There can be no doubt that David himself painted the figure of the -Donor, kneeling on the left, a marvellous example of early portraiture, -and the Donor’s son, the Christ, and the boy carrying the cake. Some of -the other heads are almost wooden in their hardness. The head of the -Dominican looking into the hall through an opening beyond which is to -be seen the Place du Saint-Sang, at Bruges, is clearly an afterthought, -and is introduced so clumsily that the wall and the page-boy with the -cake-dish really leave no room for the friar’s body. There is a curious -lack of spiritual cohesion in the picture—the majority of the figures -look away from the Saviour as well as from the bride, although the -significance of the moment is such as to demand a concentration of -everybody’s attention on the Christ. The picture, of which there are -several replicas, notably one at the Stockholm Museum by David’s pupil -Ambrosius Benson, was until 1580 in the Chapel of the Saint-Sang at -Bruges, and then in the collection of Louis XIV., from which it passed -into the Louvre. - -The triptych (No. 2202A) of the _Virgin and Child, with Two Angels_, -in the centre, and _Two Donors presented by St. John the Baptist and -St. John the Evangelist_, on the wings, is officially catalogued as -an anonymous picture of the Flemish sixteenth-century school, but is -unquestionably an early work of Gerard David. It is interesting to note -that the male Donor is the same as the Donor in the _Marriage at Cana_, -though younger in years, and that the delightful and strangely Italian -_putti_ on the capitals of the columns that flank the Virgin’s throne -recur again, reversed, in David’s _Judgment of Cambyses_, at Bruges. -The _Adam_ and _Eve_ on the outside of the shutters are inspired by the -corresponding figures on the great Van Eyck altarpiece at Ghent. The -Louvre triptych was bought at the Garriga sale in Madrid, in 1890, for -£248. - - - HIERONYMUS BOSCH - -Before passing on to the school founded at Antwerp by Quentin Matsys -(_c._ 1466-1530), mention should be made of Hieronymus Bosch van Aeken -(_c._ 1462-1516), who, a follower of Ouwater, has as much right to -be counted among the masters of the Dutch as of the Flemish school. -Of his life we know but little. His pictures reveal that realistic -observation of everyday life which was to become the characteristic of -the Dutch school; but, added to it, there is a tendency towards the -grotesque which made him delight in subjects that gave him full scope -for the invention of weird monsters, devils, and spectres, such as the -demons in _The Damned_ (No. 1900), which is attributed to Bosch in -the official Catalogue, but is, like its companion, _Heaven_, at -the Lille Museum, the work of the unknown painter of the famous _Last -Judgment_ at Dantzig, which has by various experts been given in turn -to Jan van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden, and Memlinc. There is at the -Louvre a drawing which corresponds to so remarkable a degree with the -panel No. 1900, that it has long been held to be a study from the same -hand. This drawing is, however, more probably an early study by the -German master Martin Schöngauer after the Louvre panel. The picture was -formerly in the Duchâtel collection, and was given to the Louvre by the -Duc de la Tremoïlle. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XVIII.—GERARD DAVID - - (1460?-1523) - - EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 1957.—THE MARRIAGE AT CANA - - (Les Noces de Cana) - - The scene takes place in a richly appointed chamber, which on the - left side looks out on to the Place du Saint-Sang at Bruges. The - Bride is seated on the farther side of the table; towards the left - the Virgin bows her head in the direction of the Christ. In the - left-hand corner of the composition kneels the Donor, wearing the - costume of a Provost of the Company of the Holy Blood; on the right - kneels the Female Donor. Guests and servants variously disposed - complete the picture. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 3 ft. 2 in. × 4 ft. 2½ in. (0·96 × 1·28.)] - - - THE ANTWERP SCHOOL - -Quentin Matsys, the painter of _The Banker and his Wife_ (No. 2029, -Plate XIX.), of which numerous replicas and variants are known, some -probably from the hand of his pupil Marinus van Roymerswaele, still -owes his training to the primitives of his race, but heralds the new -era which was to culminate in the art of Rubens, by passing from the -earlier minute precision of detail to a certain breadth of style and -boldness of brushwork, necessitated partly by the larger scale adopted -for his figures. Neither _The Saviour Blessing_ (No. 2030) nor _The -Virgin and Child_ (No. 2030A), both of which are catalogued under his -name, can be accepted as authentic; but the interesting genre group of -_The Banker and his Wife_ is not only fully signed and dated - - QVENTIN MATSYS, SCHILDER, 1514, - -but is unmistakably the work of his brush, although the woman’s face -and hands appear to have been badly repainted. It was bought in 1806 at -the low price of £72. The best version of the same subject is the one -in the Sigmaringen Gallery. By Quentin Matsys is also, probably, the -_Pietà_ (No. 2203), which is catalogued officially as “Flemish XVIth -Century.” Quentin’s son Jan, who followed his father’s tradition and -achieved considerable distinction, is the painter of the hideous _David -and Bathsheba_ (No. 2030B), which bears the inscription - - 1562. IOANES MASSIIS PINGEBAT. - -Next in importance among the Antwerp masters is Jan Gossart (_c._ -1470-1533?), better known as Mabuse, from the name of his native town -Maubeuge in the Hainault. In his early work he followed the tradition -of the great masters of his own country, but a journey to Italy in -1508 made him change his manner, and led him to adopt, together with -the amplitude of Italian design, a certain floridness which compares -unfavourably with the honest realism of his precursors and which led to -the rapid decadence of the Flemish school. In the magnificent portrait -of _Jean Carondelet, Perpetual Chancellor of Flanders_ (No. 1997, Plate -XX.), although it was painted as late as 1517, he is still faithful -to the great tradition of his country for honest, straightforward, -shrewdly observed, and delicately wrought portraiture. An inscription -on the top of the arched gilt frame reads: - - REPRÉSENTACION DE MESSIRE JEHAN CARONDELET, - HAVLT DOYEN DE BESANÇON, EN SON EAGE DE 48Ā, - -and, below, “FAIT L’AN 1517.” In a niche behind the panel are the -letters “I C” entwined with strings, and the motto “MATVRA.” The -portrait was, therefore, obviously painted just before Carondelet -accompanied Charles V. to Spain in 1517. - -This portrait panel, together with _The Virgin and Child_ (No. 1998), -which bears on the frame the inscription - - MEDIATRIX NOSTRA QVE EST POST DEVM - SPES SOLA TVO FILIO ME REPRESENTA, - -and the signature “JOHANNES MELBODIE PINGEBAT,” formed a -diptych which was bought in 1847 from a Valenciennes architect for -the ridiculous price of £40! A later portrait of Carondelet by -Mabuse, dated 1531, appeared in 1907 at Christie’s under the name of -C. Amberger, and realised the price of £3885. Another portrait of -Carondelet, by B. van Orley, is in the Munich Gallery, where it is -officially ascribed to Quentin Matsys, who is probably the painter -of yet another portrait of the Chancellor which was recently in the -Duchâtel collection in Paris. The _Portrait of a Benedictine_ (No. -1999) bears the date 1526 and the signature - - JOANNE MALBOLD PINGE. - -The decline of the Antwerp school through the introduction of Italian -mannerisms is illustrated in _Young Tobias restoring Sight to his -Father_ (No. 2001), a fully signed late picture by Jan van Hemessen, -who flourished in that city towards the middle of the sixteenth -century, and in whose art the last traces of the great national -tradition disappear. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XIX.—QUENTIN MATSYS - - (1466?-1530) - - FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 2029.—THE BANKER AND HIS WIFE - - (Le Banquier et sa femme) - - On the far side of a table covered with a green cloth and strewn - with various objects, which include a crystal cup and a circular - mirror, are seated the banker, wearing a dark blue robe edged with - fur, and his wife who is turning over the leaves of an illuminated - book of hours. At the back are shelves, on which are displayed - books and many decorative objects. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - Signed on a roll of paper in the background:—“QUENTIN MATSYS, - SCHILDER, 1514.” - - 2 ft. 5¼ in. × 1 ft. 11¾ in. (0.74 × 0.60.)] - - - BAREND VAN ORLEY - -Of the school that flourished in Brussels before Italianism appeared -in the person of Barend van Orley (_c._ 1495-1542), the only name that -has come down to posterity is that of Rogier van der Weyden’s follower, -Colin de Coter, thanks to the clear inscription - - _Colin de Coter pinxit me in Brabancia Bruxelle_ - -on the hem of the dress of the kneeling Magdalen in _The Holy Women_ -(No. 1952B), which, with _The Trinity_ (No. 1952A) and another lost -panel, probably originally formed a triptych. The signed wing was -presented to the Gallery in 1903; whilst the _Trinity_ centre-piece was -bought two years later from the Abbé Toussaint at St. Omer for £120. - -Like Mabuse, Barend van Orley, after showing in his early work clear -traces of his descent from the Flemish primitives, drank deeply at the -fountain of Italian art. He was profoundly impressed by Raphael, from -whom he endeavoured, with a certain degree of success, to learn the -noble flow of drapery and the harmonious disposition of the design. On -the other hand, he sacrificed the lustrous richness of Early Flemish -colour and became addicted to dull grey shadows and pinkish lights. -His _Holy Family_ (No. 2067A) does not rank with his finest works, -_The Last Judgment_ at Antwerp and the _Holy Family_ at Liverpool. The -architectural setting, with a statue of Neptune in a square in the -background, indicates the advent of the Renaissance. The picture was -bought at the Otlet sale in Brussels, in 1902, for £540. With Barend -van Orley closes the chapter of the Early Flemish school. Indeed, he -was rather the first of the new era than the last of the primitives. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XX.—JAN MABUSE - - (1470?-1533?) - - EARLY FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 1997.—PORTRAIT OF JEAN CARONDELET, PERPETUAL CHANCELLOR - OF FLANDERS - - (Portrait de Jean Carondelet, chancelier perpétuel de Flandre - (1469-1544)) - - He is bare-headed and wears a blue robe; he is turned - three-quarters to the right; his hands are folded in prayer. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - Inscribed on the frame:—“REPRÉSENTACION DE MESSIRE JEHAN - CARONDELET, HAVLT DOYEN DE BESANÇON, EN SON EAGE DE 48Ā,” and, - below, “FAIT L’AN 1517.” - - 1 ft. 5 in. × 10¾ in. (0·43 × 0·27.)] - - - - - THE LATE FLEMISH SCHOOL - - -The period of the great struggle of the Netherlands for religious and -political independence from the yoke of Spain and the Inquisition -was not propitious for the fostering of the Fine Arts. Not only did -the troubled provinces, as was quite natural, slacken in artistic -production, but a vast portion of the treasures owned by churches -and monastic establishments were destroyed by the fanaticism of -Protestant iconoclasts. The separation of the Protestant North from -the Catholic South by the Utrecht Union in 1579 became in a way the -determining factor for the future course of painting in Holland and -in the Belgic provinces. The Dutchmen practically had no further use -for religious painting, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the -domestic genre, portraiture, and landscape; whilst the Flemings applied -themselves largely to infusing new vitality into the representation -of Scriptural characters and incidents which, through constant -mechanical repetition, had become mere allegorical hieroglyphics, or -generalised ideas without the all-important sense of pulsating life. -This regeneration was the great deed of Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), -who, whilst still benefiting from the example of the great Italians, -remained the very embodiment of Flemish character and thought, and -became the founder of the second important period of Flemish national -art. He was a man of exuberant vitality and boundless energy, endowed -with a creative force unequalled in the whole history of art. He must -rank for all time among the very giants of the brush, with Rembrandt, -Titian, and Velazquez, his contribution to the progress in pictorial -art being the use of pigment and sweeping brushwork as a constructive -element—an advance as significant as the Venetians’ admission of -light into the pictorial scheme, which with the Florentines was based -entirely on linear design. - - - PIETER BRUEGHEL - -But before considering the magnificent array of close on fifty -authentic works by the master which form part of the French national -collection, reference will have to be made to a few Flemish artists -of the singularly barren decades that precede the advent of Rubens. -First and foremost among these is Pieter Brueghel (or Breughel) the -Elder (1530-1569), who was born at Breda in 1530, became a pupil of -Pieter Koeck, and died at Brussels in 1569. In spite of his early -travels in Italy—which were then already considered indispensable for -the completion of an artist’s training—he remained unaffected by the -all-pervading Italian influence. He was pure Flemish in thought and -expression, and devoted himself to the realistic painting of peasant -life. Certain realistic features which make his pictures sometimes -appear obscene and coarse to modern eyes are merely an expression of -the humour of his age. The exquisite little painting, _The Beggars_ -(No. 1917), which is fully signed - - PETER BRUEGHEL, M D L VIII, - -is probably some satirical political allusion to the revolutionary -party who called themselves the _Gueux_ (beggars). A similar political -significance is probably the intention of _The Parable of the Blind_ -(No. 1917A). The single file of blind men following their blind -leaders into a river is meant to satirise the moral blindness of the -artist’s compatriots following their political leaders into disaster. -This excellent version of Brueghel’s famous masterpiece at Naples -was bought at the Leys sale at Antwerp, in 1894, for £724. The type -of picture to which the elder Brueghel owes his sobriquet “Peasant -Brueghel” is exemplified at the Louvre by two little panels, _A -Village_ (No. 1918) and _Peasants Dancing_ (No. 1918A), which can, -however, only be accepted as school pictures. - - - JAN BRUEGHEL - -Of Brueghel’s two sons, Pieter the younger, known as “Hell” Brueghel, -is not represented at the Louvre, which, on the other hand, boasts -possession of eight examples from the brush of “Peasant” Brueghel’s -second son, Jan (1568-1625), known to fame as “Velvet” Brueghel, either -owing to his love of splendid apparel or to the velvety softness of his -brush. He began as a still-life and flower painter, in which capacity -he often collaborated with Rubens. Having journeyed to Rome in 1593, he -devoted himself more exclusively to landscape enlivened with many small -figures, for which some Scriptural or mythological subject generally -provided the excuse. Where his pictures contain figures on a larger -scale, they are generally put in by Rubens, Rottenhammer, or Van Balen. -The last-named is certainly responsible for the figures in _Air_ (No. -1920), one of a series of the Four Elements, painted by Jan Brueghel -for his Roman patron, Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, in 1621. To the same -series belongs _Earth_, or _The Earthly Paradise_ (No. 1919), a subject -often repeated by him, as for instance in the versions at The Hague -and at Budapest. Of his other pictures at the Louvre _The Bridge of -Talavera_ (No. 1925), and the _Landscape_ (No. 1926), are signed and -dated BRUEGHEL, 1619, and J. BRUEGHEL, 1620, respectively. _The Battle -of Arbela_ (No. 1921) is a characteristic work with many minutely -wrought figures. The _Landscapes_ (Nos. 1923 and 1924) are of doubtful -authenticity, and were formerly attributed to Paul Bril. They are not -now exhibited. - -There are scarcely any Flemish characteristics in the art of Paul -Bril (1556-1626), the younger brother and pupil of Matthias Bril. He -was born at Antwerp, but worked nearly all his life in Rome. There is -little to distinguish this precursor of Poussin in the art of landscape -from his Italian contemporaries. In _Duck Shooting_ (No. 1908), _Diana -and her Nymphs_ (No. 1909), and _Pan and Syrinx_ (No. 1911) the figures -are believed to have been painted in by Annibale Carracci. _The -Fishermen_ (No. 1910) bears his signature PA. BRILLI, and the date 1624. - - - THE FRANCK FAMILY - -Although the Louvre owns no picture by Frans Floris, the head of the -Italianising mid-sixteenth-century Antwerp school, his uninteresting -style may be studied in _The Story of Esther_ (No. 1989) by his pupil -Frans Franck (1542-1616). To that second-rate artist’s son, Frans -Franck the Younger (1581-1642), who already benefited to a certain -extent by the example of Rubens, is given in the official Catalogue -_Ulysses recognising Achilles among the Daughters of Lycomedes_ (No. -1991A). _The Parable of the Prodigal Son_ (No. 1990), which is also -catalogued under his name, is obviously by his son Frans Franck III., -since the date 1663 precedes the signature, and F. Franck the younger -died in 1642. - -Frans Pourbus the Younger (1569-1622) was born at Antwerp, but spent -the later part of his life in Paris, where, like his father, he enjoyed -considerable reputation as a portrait painter. He had previously been -working at the Mantuan Court, and became painter to Marie de Médicis -after 1609. Although he occasionally produced altarpieces like the -rather uninspired _Last Supper_ (No. 2068) and _St. Francis receiving -the Stigmata_ (No. 2069), he was essentially a portrait painter. In -this capacity he belongs rather to the age that was coming to a close -than to the new era initiated by Rubens. His portraits are quite -soundly painted, rich in colour, and convincing as likenesses, but lack -depth of character and suavity of touch. By far his best pictures at -the Louvre are the _Portrait of Henri IV._ (No. 2071) and the large -_Portrait of Marie de Médicis_ (No. 2072), in which the details of -the costume are particularly noteworthy. Less important is another -_Portrait of Henri IV._ (No. 2070), and one of _Guillaume du Vair_ (No. -2074). - -Octavius van Veen, or Otto Venius (1558-1629), the painter of _The -Artist and his Family_ (No. 2191), owes his fame more to the fact that -he was one of the three masters under whom Rubens studied than to any -intrinsic merit of his art. - - - PETER PAUL RUBENS - -The Louvre owes its almost unequalled wealth in paintings by Rubens to -the master’s relations with Marie de Médicis and her Court; and to this -reason is due the fact that by far the largest portion of the fifty-one -authentic works wholly or partly from his brush, which now form part of -this great collection, date approximately from, or immediately before -and after, the time during which he was busy with the famous series -painted by order of that queen for the decoration of the Luxembourg -Palace, and now to be seen in a setting appropriate to their florid -sumptuousness in the new Rubens Gallery at the Louvre. Even so, the -collection comprises examples of every phase of the master’s colossal -activity—religious and historical compositions, allegorical paintings, -landscapes, portraits, still life, and even _genre_-pieces, like the -_Kermesse_ (No. 2115), in which he successfully competes with Teniers -on a ground peculiarly his own. - -Born at Siegen in 1577, Rubens received his artistic education at -Antwerp from Tobias Verhaecht, a landscape painter, Adam van Noort, -and O. van Veen. At the age of twenty-three he went to Italy and -entered the service of Vincenzo Gonzaga of Mantua, studying in their -own country the works of the great Italian masters, and especially the -Venetians, from whose glorious colour he derived more benefit than -from his early training. With the exception of a journey to the Court -of Philip III. at Madrid, where he was sent on a mission by the Duke -of Mantua in 1603, Rubens spent the eight years from 1600 to 1608 in -the various Italian centres, and especially in Rome, where he painted, -about 1606, the little _Landscape with Ruins_ (No. 2119), which is -of interest not only as showing to what degree he was at that time -influenced by the Roman school, and by the Carracci, but also as being -the very first landscape known to have been produced by him. The same -view of the Palatine Hill is to be recognised in the background of -the _Four Philosophers_ at the Pitti Palace, and in the portrait of -Woverius in the Arenberg collection. Of about the same time, though the -figures would appear to have been added at a considerably later date, -is the _Landscape with a Rainbow_ (No. 2118). - - - RUBENS AT ANTWERP - -Having returned to Antwerp in 1608, and married his first wife, -Isabella Brant, in the following year, Rubens, who was now made Court -painter to Archduke Albrecht, entered upon a period of stupendous -artistic activity, which extended to about 1621, when he began to -divide his time between art and diplomatic missions, and, having -previously organised a vast studio with an army of assistants, often -left the execution of his brilliant sketch designs to less capable -hands. This early Antwerp period is not particularly well represented -at the Louvre, although the collection includes _The Virgin surrounded -by the Holy Innocents_ (No. 2078)— a Virgin of characteristic -Flemish coarseness and fulness of form, in the midst of a dense swarm -of delicious, plump, dimpled, wingless angel-children, whose rosy -baby-flesh is painted with inimitable mastery. The picture was painted -about 1615, six years before _The Virgin and Child within a Garland of -Flowers_ (No. 2079), executed in 1621 for Cardinal Federigo Borromeo. -The tasteless floral wreath in this picture, as in the similar versions -at Munich and New York, is from the brush of Jan Brueghel. To about -the year 1615 belongs also the _Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin, -the Magdalen and St. John_ (No. 2082), which can, however, hardly be -entirely from the master’s own hand. The mass of unbroken vermilion -in the robe of St. John is one of Rubens’s favourite devices at that -period. _The Resurrection of Lazarus_ (No. 2081) is the original sketch -for the Berlin picture. - -In 1620, when Rubens undertook to paint a series of thirty-nine -_Miracles of SS. Ignatius Loyola and François Xavier_ for the ceiling -of the Jesuit Church at Antwerp, the business-like organisation of his -studio was an acknowledged fact, as may be gathered from the terms of -the agreement which stipulated that the master himself should provide -the designs, though the execution was to be entrusted to his most -competent assistants. The actual paintings were destroyed by fire in -1718, but of the original sketches seventeen have been preserved, and -are now distributed between the Louvre, the Vienna Academy, the Museums -of Gotha and Brussels, and the Dulwich Gallery. The four in the La Caze -collection at the Louvre are _Abraham’s Sacrifice_ (No. 2120), _Abraham -and Melchisedek_ (No. 2121), _The Elevation of the Cross_ (No. 2122), -and _The Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 2123). The whole series, but -especially the first two of these, is remarkable for the boldness of -the foreshortening, calculated for the position of the panels on the -ceiling, and for the swift bravura and inimitable expressiveness of the -brushwork. To the same period belongs _Philopœmen recognised by an Old -Woman_ (No. 2124), which is essentially a brilliant still-life study -for a lost picture. - - - THE MÉDICIS SERIES - -We come now to the series of twenty-one large allegorical paintings, -designed by Rubens and executed mostly by his pupils, from 1621 to -1625, for the decoration of the Luxembourg Palace for Marie de Médicis, -whose by no means inspiring career had to furnish the subjects for -the series. It was a thankless task which could only be accomplished -by a _tour de force_—by removing the events of the queen’s life from -actuality into the sphere of mythology and allegory. That the strange -mingling of the real and the ideal should sometimes verge on the -grotesque was almost inevitable—as inevitable as that the work of -his assistants should have failed to do full justice to the master’s -conception, even if it was “pulled together” by the easily recognisable -touches added by Rubens to the finished panels. The florid exuberance -of design and colour was entirely in keeping with the purpose and the -surroundings for which the paintings were intended. It is impossible -here to enter into a full description of this extensive series, or -to define exactly Rubens’s share in each of the eleven pictures. We -must confine ourselves to the brief enumeration of the subjects in -the order in which they are now to be seen in the new Rubens Gallery. -The series begins with _The Fates spinning the Destiny of Marie de -Médicis_ (No. 2085). Then follow _The Triumph of Truth_ (No. 2105); -_Henri IV. receiving the Portrait of Marie_ (No. 2088); _The Marriage -of Marie by Procuration with Henri IV._ (No. 2089); _Marie landing at -Marseilles, Nov. 3, 1600_ (No. 2090); _The Marriage at Lyons, Dec. 10, -1600_ (No. 2091); _The Birth of Louis XIII. at Fontainebleau, Sept. -27, 1601_ (No. 2092); _Henri IV. leaves for the War with Germany and -entrusts the Government to the Queen_ (No. 2093, Plate XXI.); _The -Coronation of the Queen_ (No. 2094); _Apotheosis of Henri IV. and the -Queen’s Regency_ (No. 2095); _The Queen’s Journey to Ponts-de-Cé_ (No. -2097); _Exchange of the Two Princesses, Nov. 9, 1615_ (No. 2098); _The -Prosperous Regency_ (No. 2099); _The Majority of Louis XIII._ (No. -2100); _The Queen’s Nocturnal Flight from Blois_ (No. 2101); _The -Reconciliation of the Queen with her Son_ (No. 2102); _The Conclusion -of Peace_ (No. 2103); and _Marie’s Interview with her Son_ (No. 2104). -But _The Birth of Marie de Médicis, at Florence, on April 26, 1575_ -(No. 2086); _The Education of Marie by Minerva, Mercury, Apollo, and -the Graces_ (No. 2087); and _The Gods in Olympus protecting the Queen’s -Government_ (No. 2096), which belong to the same series, have been -placed in another room. - -Of the first and the last paintings the Louvre owns the original -sketch on one panel, by Rubens, for _The Triumph of Truth_ and _The -Fates spinning the Destiny of Marie_ (No. 2110), the other preliminary -sketches being at the Hermitage and the Munich Gallery. It is -interesting to note that all these sketches are designed in a very -light key, almost in grisaille, with touches of rose and other tender -colour notes, so that apparently Rubens’s assistants were allowed great -liberty in the matter of colour. - - - MÉDICIS PORTRAITS - -Several other pictures by Rubens at the Louvre—all of them -portraits—are more or less directly connected with the Médicis series, -and were painted between 1621 and 1625. These are the _Portrait of -Anne of Austria_ (No. 2112), which was formerly known as _Elizabeth of -Bourbon_; the _Portrait of Francesco de’ Medici_ (No. 2106), Grand Duke -of Tuscany, and father of Marie de Médicis, which was painted for the -Luxembourg Gallery; the _Portrait of Johanna of Austria_ (No. 2107), -daughter of the Emperor Ferdinand, and wife of Francesco de’ Medici; -the _Portraits of Marie de Médicis_ (Nos. 2108 and 2109) (the former in -the character of Bellona, and both studio works with the final touches -added by the master); and the _Portrait of Baron Henri de Vicq_ (No. -2111), who, as Flemish Ambassador to the French Court, was instrumental -in procuring Rubens the important commission for the Luxembourg -pictures. This admirable portrait was bought at the King of Holland’s -sale in 1850 for £637. - -To the same period belongs the beautiful _Portrait of Susanne Fourment_ -(Rubens’s handsome, large-eyed sister-in-law, whose features are best -known from the _Chapeau de Paille_ at the National Gallery), which -is still officially catalogued as _Portrait of a Lady of the Boonen -Family_ (No. 2114); and the important composition _Lot’s Flight from -Sodom_ (No. 2075), which bears the rare full signature and date - - PE.-PA.-RUBENS FE, Aᵒ 1625, - -to prove the master’s satisfaction with his own handiwork. It is a -design of carefully studied rhythm, dramatic expressiveness, and subtly -harmonised colour, carried out with the swift sureness of his later -work. - -In 1627, a year before his mission to Spain on behalf of the Infanta -Isabella, widow of the Archduke Albrecht, Rubens designed for his -patroness an important series of tapestries, which were, as was his -wont at that period, sketched out by him, executed by his assistants, -and touched up by his own hand. The tapestries were subsequently -presented by the Infanta to a convent at Madrid; some of the paintings -for them perished by fire, others were preserved at the Convent of -Loeches, near Madrid. Two of these, _The Prophet Elijah in the Desert_ -(No. 2076) and _The Triumph of Religion_ (No. 2083), were part of -General Sebastiani’s loot from Spain, and were bought by the Louvre for -£2400; whilst four others, now at Grosvenor House, were bought -by the Marquis of Westminster for £10,500. Of about the same date is -the brilliant _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. 2077), with its Titianesque -scheme of strong red, blue, and golden yellow, of which a replica is in -an Irish private collection. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXI.—SIR PETER PAUL RUBENS - - (1577-1640) - - FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 2093.—HENRI IV. LEAVES FOR THE WAR WITH GERMANY, AND ENTRUSTS THE - GOVERNMENT TO THE QUEEN - - (Henri IV. part pour la guerre d’Allemagne et confie à la reine le - gouvernement du royaume, 1610) - - The King, attended by warriors and holding the banner of France, - prepares to leave the country to make war against Germany; he hands - the Globe, the emblem of State, to Marie de Médicis; the Queen - gives her hand to the little Dauphin, who later became King under - the title of Louis XIII. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 12 ft. 11 in. × 11 ft. 4 in. (3·94 × 2·95.)] - - - LATE WORKS BY RUBENS - -The closing decade of Rubens’s life is represented by five pictures -of considerable importance. Of _Queen Tomyris with the Head of Cyrus_ -(No. 2084) there is an earlier, large, and deservedly famous version in -Lord Darnley’s collection; but the Louvre picture exceeds it in beauty -of design and in unity of colour. It was painted about the same time -(_cca._ 1632) as _Religion crowned by a Genius_ (No. 2126), one of the -sketches for the ceiling at Whitehall. Of peculiar interest, owing to -its unfinished state which reveals the master’s method of portraiture, -is the superb portrait group of _Hélène Fourment, the Artist’s Second -Wife, and Two of her Children_ (No. 2113, Plate XXII.). Only the heads, -which are remarkable for an intensity of expression that is rarely to -be found in Rubens’s paintings, are finished. All the rest is loosely -and thinly sketched in sepia heightened with swift touches of brighter -colour. It was painted about 1636, which is also the approximate date -of _A Flemish Kermesse_ (No. 2115), an almost unique instance of the -master applying the exuberant energy of his magic brush to a subject in -which the expression of intense vitality and full-blooded sensuousness -assumes the aspect almost of bestiality—which, however, in no way -detracts from the artistic value of the painting. To turn from this to -_A Joust by the Moat of a Castle_ (No. 2116) is to pass from coarse -realism to pure romanticism, inspired probably by the associations of -the picturesque Castle of Steen, which Rubens had bought in 1635, and -which forms the setting for this scene of knightly prowess. This, and -the marvellous and strangely modern little _Landscape_ (No. 2117), in -which the morning sun is seen rising from the autumnal mist, belong to -the closing years of Rubens’s life. He died at Antwerp on May 20, 1640. - - - ANTHONY VAN DYCK - -Born at Antwerp in 1599, Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641), after having -worked a few years under Hendrick van Balen, entered Rubens’s -studio in 1615, and soon became so conversant with the method of -his famous master, that he was at an early age entrusted with the -execution of important designs. Before he had reached his twentieth -year he was a member of the Guild of St. Luke, and had acquired a -reputation second only to that of Rubens himself. The _Portraits of -Jean Grusset Richardot, President of the Netherlands Council, and -his Son_ (No. 1985), which was bought in 1784 for 16,001 _livres_, -so closely resembles the work of Rubens, especially in the brilliant -flesh-painting, that the picture—a posthumous portrait, by the way—for -a long time passed under the elder master’s name, although it is now -admitted by the best authorities to be an early picture by Van Dyck. - -Van Dyck paid a short visit to England in 1620. He went to Italy in the -following year, studying the works of the great masters, and especially -of Titian, and finally settling in Genoa, where he remained until his -return to Antwerp in 1628. During these years he devoted himself almost -exclusively to portraiture, in which he endeavoured successfully to -emulate the golden warmth of colour which had drawn him towards Titian. -Unfortunately this, to some the most attractive, phase of Van Dyck’s -art is but indifferently shown at the Louvre, the only example being a -_Portrait of a Man_ (No. 1976). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXII.—SIR PETER PAUL RUBENS - - (1577-1640) - - FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 2113.—PORTRAIT OF HÉLÈNE FOURMENT, THE ARTIST’S SECOND WIFE, - AND TWO OF HER CHILDREN - - (Portrait d’Hélène Fourment, seconde femme de Rubens, et de - ses enfants) - - The artist’s second wife, wearing a felt hat trimmed with feathers, - is seated in an arm-chair, and turned three-quarters to the left; - on her lap is her little son, François; on the left her daughter, - Claire-Jeanne, dressed in brown, plays with her white pinafore. - - Painted in oil on panel. The picture is unfinished. - - 5 ft. 8¾ in. × 2 ft. 8½ in. (1·13 × 0·82.)] - - - VAN DYCK’S SECOND ANTWERP PERIOD - -Some of the master’s most precious works at the Louvre belong to his -second Antwerp period, which extended from his return from Genoa in -1628 to his departure for England in 1632. It was probably then that he -painted _The Virgin and Child, with the Penitent Sinners_ (No. 1961) -(Mary Magdalen, David, and the Prodigal Son), in which the influence of -the Venetian colourists is so clearly to be noticed. Indeed, the bosom -of the female penitent is copied from the nymph in Titian’s _Education -of Cupid_ at the Borghese Gallery, of which there is a drawing in the -Chatsworth Sketch-book with the comment in the artist’s handwriting, -“_quel admirabil petto_.” Shortly after his return from Italy he -also painted _The Virgin and Child with Donors_ (No. 1962), one of -his greatest masterpieces. The Madonna is of a youthful, pure type, -vastly different from the buxom Flemish women so often depicted by his -master in saintly characters. The painting of the Infant’s body is as -admirable as that of the kneeling Donors, and a spiritual connection is -established by the action of the Child and the expression of the man -towards whom He is holding out His hand. - -The companion groups _A Gentleman and a Child_ (No. 1973) and _A Lady -and her Daughter_ (No. 1974), date from about 1630. They are full of -that aristocratic distinction which is the hall-mark of Van Dyck’s -Genoese portraits, and which in his later English period was apt to -degenerate into effeminacy. This air of distinction is also to be -noted in the children, although they are perfectly natural in action -and expression, and have none of that stiffness which makes so many of -the earlier masters’ portraits of children look like undergrown men -and women. The imposing equestrian portrait of _Francisco d’Aytona, -Marqués de Moncada_ (No. 1971), Generalissimus of the Spanish troops -in the Netherlands, which in its general disposition recalls the -portrait of Charles I. at Windsor Castle; the small study for it of the -same sitter’s head and shoulders (No. 1972); and the portrait of _The -Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, Regent of the Netherlands_ (No. 1970), -in the costume of the Sisters of St. Clare, whom she had joined after -the death of her husband the Archduke Albrecht, belong to the same -period. Then also was painted the _Rinaldo in the Garden of Armida_ -(No. 1966), which is probably the picture bought from the artist at -Antwerp by Endymion Porter, on behalf of King Charles I., in March -1629, for the price of £78. - - - “LE ROI À LA CHASSE” - -Van Dyck’s manner of life in England, as the petted Court painter of -Charles I., and the factory-like output of his well-organised studio at -Blackfriars, are too well known to need further comment. In justice to -his fair fame it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the -innumerable replicas turned out by his assistants under his guidance, -and such magnificent original works from the master’s own brush as the -glorious _Portrait of King Charles I. of England_ (No. 1967, Plate -XXIII.), known as “_Le Roi à la Chasse_,” which is one of the proudest -possessions of the French national collection. The king is seen, -resting his gloved hand on a stick, in a glade, with the sea in the -distance. Behind him are two attendants and his white charger pawing -the ground in impatient action. The king’s noble, quiet dignity is such -as to dominate the entire composition, without, however, the slightest -hint of the theatrical. Here, as in most of his English portraits, -Van Dyck has departed from the glowing sumptuousness of his earlier -Venetian palette, and arrived at a cooler, mellow, and more personal -harmony of decorative colour. As if conscious of the superior merit of -this picture, which is more than a mere portrait of the king, and -depicts the very personification of royalty, the artist, who was not in -the habit of signing his pictures, inscribed on a stone the lettering - - CAROLUS I REX MAGNÆ BRITANNIÆ · VAN DIICK F. - -Painted for the king in 1635 for £100, it passed through many hands -before it was bought by Louis XV. for Mme du Barry, by whom it was -ceded in 1775 to his successor for 24,000 _livres_. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXIII.—SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK - - (1599-1641) - - FLEMISH SCHOOL - - No. 1967.—PORTRAIT OF KING CHARLES I. OF ENGLAND - - (Portrait de Charles Iᵉʳ, roi d’Angleterre (1600-1649)) - - The King, wearing a white satin coat, red riding-breeches, boots, - spurs, and a large felt hat, stands proudly forward towards the - left of the composition; his right hand rests on his stick, his - left is placed on his hip. The Marquess of Hamilton, in attendance - on the King, grasps the bridle of the charger; in the landscape - background is a page. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Signed on a stone in the right foreground:— - - “CAROLUS I REX MAGNÆ BRITANNIÆ. - VAN DIICK F.” - - 8 ft. 11½ in × 7 ft. (2·72 × 2·12.)] - -To Van Dyck’s English period, which only terminated with his death in -1641, belong the group of _Charles Louis, Elector Palatine, and Rupert, -Prince of Bavaria_ (No. 1969), and the _Portrait of James Stuart, Duke -of Lennox_ (No. 1975)—not the _Duke of Richmond_, as stated in the -official Catalogue—in the character of Paris. Another twelve pictures -are catalogued under Van Dyck’s name, but they are either of minor -importance, or, like the _Three Children of Charles I._ (No. 1968), -mere studio repetitions. - - - FRANS SNYDERS - -The powerful personality of Rubens dominated the art of Flanders -during the seventeenth century. His direct or indirect influence is -traceable in the art of most of his contemporaries and of the painters -of the next generation, who divided his artistic heritage without -attaining to his universality. Thus his collaborator Frans Snyders -(1579-1657), after studying under “Hell Brueghel” and H. van Balen, -acquired the bravura of his brushwork and his unrivalled skill in -depicting animals in violent movement from Rubens, in whose pictures -of the chase he frequently painted the animals, whilst he often had to -seek the assistance of other painters for the figures introduced into -his own compositions. Among the thirteen pictures from his brush at -the Louvre (Nos. 2141-2153) the _Wild Boar Hunt_ (No. 2144) serves -best to illustrate Snyders’s power to suggest the furious onrush and -wild excitement of the chase. His skill as a still-life painter may be -judged from the masterly treatment of the wet glittering fish in the -large _Fish Merchants_ (No. 2145). - - - JACOB JORDAENS - -Whatever appears coarse in the art of Rubens is accentuated to the -point of grossness in the paintings by his fellow-student under Van -Noort, Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678). He is the painter of _Le Roi boit_ -(No. 2014) or _The Twelfth Night Feast_, which is by no means the best -of his many versions of his favourite subject. He was a realist who, as -may be seen from this picture and from the _Concert after a Meal_ (No. -2015), found his most congenial subjects in the carousals of Flemish -merrymakers, which he depicted with more than a touch of coarse humour. -That his temperament and limitations debarred him from achieving -success in the higher flights of art is clearly shown by his large but -by no means noble canvas _Christ driving the Moneylenders from the -Temple_ (No. 2011). On the other hand, his firm grasp of character -stood him in good stead in portraiture. The so-called _Portrait of -Admiral de Ruyter_ (No. 2016), which was bought in 1824 for £800, is a -good example. - -We can only briefly refer to a number of seventeenth-century Antwerp -painters, who were either pupils of Rubens or close followers of his -tradition. Gonzales Coques (1614-1684), the painter of the admirably -lighted _Family Party_ (No. 1952), was essentially a portrait painter -who became known as “the little Van Dyck,” although his manner had more -in common with that of the Dutch “small masters” than with the tempered -elegance of Charles I.’s Court-painter. - - - FOLLOWERS OF RUBENS - -Gaspar de Crayer (1584-1669), a pupil of Raphael van Coxie, modelled -his art entirely on Rubens, and was equally successful as a portrait -painter and in his religious compositions. Both phases of his art -figure in the Louvre collection, which owns the _St. Augustin in -Ecstasy_ (No. 1953) and the life-size _Equestrian Portrait of the -Infante Ferdinand, Governor of the Netherlands_ (No. 1954). It was a -portrait of the same sitter that led to Crayer’s appointment to the -position of Painter to the Infante’s Court, accompanied by considerable -emoluments. - -Abraham van Diepenbeeck (1596-1675), Pieter van Mol (1599-1650), and -Paul de Vos (1593-1676) need not here detain us. They are all capable -followers of their master’s style, without any personal distinction. -David Ryckaert (1612-1661), the third of four artists of the same -family that bore this name, is outside the immediate circle of Rubens. -His _Interior of a Studio_ (No. 2137), which bears the signature “D. -RYC. f. 1638,” is of peculiar interest as a document illustrating the -_milieu_ in which a Flemish artist of that period lived and worked. - -Gerard Seghers (1591-1651), the painter of _St. Francis in Ecstasy_ -(No. 2140), although a pupil of Van Balen and Abraham Janssens, and -indirectly, through Manfredi, of Caravaggio, must be counted among -those who were influenced by the dominating personality of Rubens. An -important pupil of Snyders was Jan Fyt (1611-1661), who excelled as -an animal painter and colourist. He was at his best when he treated -animals more in the manner of still life, but remained vastly inferior -to his master when he tried to emulate his hunting scenes. Not all the -five pictures catalogued under his name can be accepted as his own -work. His great skill in rendering the varied textures of furs and -feathers may be judged from _Game in a Larder_ (No. 1993), which is -unquestionably authentic although it does not bear the signature which -testifies to his authorship of _A Dog devouring Game_ (No. 1994). - - - ADRIAEN BROUWER - -Both the Flemish school and the Dutch have an equal right to claim -Adriaen Brouwer (1605 or 6-1638), who, born at Oudenarde, carried on -the tradition of Bouts and the elder Brueghel. While still young, he -was at Haarlem powerfully impressed by the art of Frans Hals, although -it is extremely doubtful that he ever actually worked in his studio. -Finally, having settled at Antwerp in 1631, he benefited by the example -of Rubens. _The Smoker_ (No. 1916), in spite of the doubts that have -been cast upon it, is a characteristic work of his at the time when, -inspired by Frans Hals, he adopted a full impasto instead of his -earlier glazes. It is signed with his initials “AB” in the bottom -corner on the right. The handling is far coarser than that of the later -_Interior of a Tavern_ (No. 1912), which is quite Rembrandtesque in the -rendering of light and chiaroscuro. His inclination towards grimacing -expression often made him depict such scenes as _The Operation_ (No. -1915), in which the patient’s face is contorted with pain, while the -surgeon is bandaging his left shoulder. - -Brouwer was the master of Joos van Craesbeeck (1606-1654?), who not -only closely followed his teaching, but actually painted many replicas -of Brouwer’s pictures which still pass under the better known artist’s -name. _The Artist painting a Portrait_ (No. 1952D) was supposed to -represent, and to be from the brush of, Brouwer, when the picture -was bought for the Louvre. But on technical grounds it must be given -to Craesbeeck—quite apart from the extreme improbability that the -dissolute Brouwer, who spent most of his time in low taverns, should -have lived in the elegant, not to say luxurious, surroundings here -depicted, and died young. There can be no doubt that the painter -seated before his easel, to whom a man-servant is offering a glass of -wine, is Joos van Craesbeeck. - - - DAVID TENIERS - -There is at the Louvre no picture by the elder David Teniers -(1582-1649), who therefore only interests us here as the father and -first master of the much greater artist David Teniers the Younger -(1610-1690), who completed his artistic education under Rubens, -without, however, abdicating his own personality. Indeed, those of -his pictures which reflect the manner of Rubens too closely are of -little account in the achievement of the younger Teniers, who only -begins to be himself when he devotes his prolific brush to the social -life of his contemporaries, and especially of the lower classes. His -pictures constitute the most realistic and convincing record of the -tastes, manners, and amusements of his time. His types are full of -character, but without the exaggerations so often found in Brueghel and -Brouwer. What he retained of Rubens, even in his Village Fêtes, Tavern -Scenes, Dances, and Carousals is the application of the great master’s -principles of light and harmonious colour. But apart from this, he -rejected the “grand style” and the conscious search for beauty. The -ugliness of his types and gestures led Louis XIV. to exclaim in front -of his pictures, “_Ôtez-moi ces magots-là!_” - -Few painters are as exhaustively represented at the Louvre as the -younger Teniers. The Catalogue includes no fewer than thirty-nine -entries under his name, two of which, in the La Caze collection -(Nos. 2189 and 2190), are copies after pictures by Lotto and Titian -respectively in the collection of the Archduke Leopold William, -Governor of the Netherlands, to whom Teniers was appointed Court -painter. It would serve no purpose here to enumerate the long list -of Kermesse, Village Fête, and Alehouse Scenes in the French national -collection. Among his most deservedly famous masterpieces is _The -Return of the Prodigal Son_ (No. 2156), which belongs to a series of -which another scene is to be seen at the Dulwich Gallery. The subject -is really only a thinly veiled excuse for the painting of a _genre_ -piece of the contemporary life of the better classes of his country. -The scene of the feast is laid outside a country inn that figures in -many of Teniers’s pictures. Fully signed, and dated 1644, the picture -belongs to the beginning of Teniers’s very best period. In _The -Temptation of St. Anthony_ (No. 2158) he rivals Bosch in the invention -of grotesquely fantastic monsters. Among other important works by the -master in the Louvre must be mentioned _The Denial of St. Peter_ (No. -2155), a painting of exquisite silvery quality, signed and dated - - DAVID TENIERS, f. AN. 1646; - -_The Works of Mercy_ (No. 2157); the _Village Fête_ (No. 2159); and the -_Peasants dancing by an Inn Door_ (No. 2161), which was stolen from the -collection in 1815 and returned in the following year with a letter -explaining that it had been removed by a Frenchman who feared that it -might fall into the hands of the Allied Forces. - -By Teniers’s pupil, François Duchatel (1616?-1694?) is the excellent -_Portrait of a Gentleman_ (No. 1960). Duchatel is a very rare master, -whose style in portraiture so closely resembles that of Gonzales Coques -that his pictures have been at times ascribed to that painter. Jacob -van Artois (1613-1684?), the painter of the _Landscape_ (No. 1901) in -the La Caze room, was one of the leading Flemish landscape painters -of his time, and frequently collaborated with Teniers, who added the -figures to some of his landscapes. He was the master of Cornelis -Huysmans (1648-1727), who frequently assisted the battle painter, -Van der Meulen, and is here represented by eight pictures (Nos. -2002-2009). Among the landscape painters of that period must also be -mentioned Jan Siberechts (1627-1703), who spent the closing years of -his life in England, but does not seem to have had much influence on -the evolution of the English landscape school. By him is the _Rustic -Scene_ (No. 2140A). - - - PHILIPPE DE CHAMPAIGNE - -Both Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) and Adam Frans van der Meulen -(1634-1690), though born at Brussels, resided in France the best part -of their life, and are therefore generally classed with the painters of -the French school, which accounts for their being represented at the -Louvre in a manner which is quite out of proportion to their artistic -significance. Still, if Philippe de Champaigne appears second-rate when -compared with Rubens and Van Dyck, he is unquestionably the leading -portrait painter of the contemporary French school in which he received -his training. His powers were insufficient for the higher flights of -imagination, and when his ambition led him to such compositions as -_Christ in the House of Simon_ (No. 1927) or _Christ celebrating Easter -with His Disciples_ (No. 1928), he was as dull and bombastic as most -of his French contemporaries, whom he far excelled as a colourist. -His portraits, on the other hand, are painted in a broad, honest, -straightforward manner which has nothing in common with the monotonous -pompousness of his age, as may be seen from the admirable group of two -nuns in prayer, _Mother Catherine Agnes Arnaud and Sister Catherine de -Sainte-Suzanne_ (No. 1934). The younger of the two nuns represents the -artist’s daughter, who was healed from paralysis by a miracle recorded -by a Latin inscription on the wall. The twenty pictures from Philippe -de Champaigne’s brush, which are actually on view, also include -the fine group of the two architects _François Mansard and Claude -Perrault_ (No. 1944), bought in 1835 for the low price of £80; _The -Provost and Aldermen of Paris_ (No. 1945); and the signed and dated -portrait of _Robert Arnaud d’Andilly_ (No. 1939). - - - VAN DER MEULEN - -Van der Meulen, a native of Brussels and pupil of Snayers, was the -historiographer of Louis XIV.’s campaigns and victories. He was invited -by Colbert to come to Paris, and was first employed to furnish designs -for the Gobelins manufactory. Afterwards he accompanied Louis XIV. -on his warlike expeditions, which he immortalised in numerous large -paintings, most of which are now at the Louvre and in the Château at -Versailles. His paintings are of considerable topographical interest, -as they give accurate representations of the aspect of famous towns -and fortresses in the seventeenth century, as in the _Entry of Louis -XIV. and Marie-Thérèse into Arras_ (No. 2035), a similar scene at -_Douai_ (No. 2033), and the _Arrival of the King in the Camp before -Maastricht_ (No. 2040). It was Van der Meulen who founded the “tactical -school” of battle painting, which substituted the orderly movement of -masses for the wild mêlée of the hand-to-hand combat. Whole armies are -seen advancing or retreating in long lines from a high vantage-ground -which is generally occupied by the considerably larger figures of the -army-leaders on rearing and caracoling horses, and looking for all the -world like “_gens de qualité qui joueraient aux échecs avec des soldats -de plomb_.” The official Catalogue mentions no fewer than twenty -pictures by Van der Meulen. - - - MINOR FLEMISH PAINTERS - -With the exception of Justus Sustermans (1597-1681), who was Van Dyck’s -fellow-student under H. van Balen and afterwards rose to great fame -as Court painter to Grand-Duke Cosimo II. of Tuscany (whose kinsman -_Leopold de’ Medici_ is portrayed in No. 2154), and Pieter Neefs -(1577?-1661?), whose _Church Interiors_ (Nos. 2059-2064) are remarkable -for the faultless accuracy and precision of his architectural drawing, -there are no other painters of the Flemish school whose works at the -Louvre require close attention. We must content ourselves with the -mere mention of the landscape painters Jan Frans van Bloemen, called -Orizonte, a follower of Poussin and Claude; Jan van Breda, Francisque -Millet, and Mathys Schoevaerts; Carl van Falens and Anton Grief, -painters of hunting scenes; Jan Miel, who worked most of his life in -Italy and was completely influenced by the masters of that country; -the still-life painter Gaspard Pieter Verbruggen; the battle painter -Sebastiaen Francken; and the prolific painter of large altarpieces, -Jacob van Oost the Elder. With Balthasar Paul Ommeganck (1755-1826) -and the still-life painter Jan Frans van Dael (1764-1840) we reach the -beginning of the nineteenth century, a period of absolute stagnation in -Flemish art which preceded the brilliant revival of the modern Belgian -school. - - - - - THE GERMAN SCHOOL - - -Of all the important European schools of painting, the Early German -school is the one of which it is almost impossible to gain anything -like an adequate idea from the pictures that have found their way into -the Galleries of foreign countries. The fact is that with the exception -of two or three leading masters, like Holbein and Dürer, the Early -Germans found but scant favour beyond the confines of their own country -until comparatively recent years—that is to say, until the majority -of important examples had been systematically gathered in by the -museums of Germany. Now that the importance of the German primitives -and Early Renaissance painters has been generally recognised, it -will be practically impossible to regain the lost ground and to fill -up the serious gaps which prevent our forming an adequate idea of -the evolution of German art in the museums of other countries. The -Louvre is no exception to this rule. The numerical weakness of the -German section is unfortunately not atoned for by the importance of -the examples included, which, with but few exceptions, are of little -artistic account. - -Under the circumstances it would be useless to attempt a consecutive -narrative of the evolution of German art as illustrated by the pictures -at the Louvre, and we must confine ourselves to a brief discussion of -the few noteworthy works in the collection. - - - “THE MASTER OF THE BARTHOLOMEW ALTAR” - -The first picture of importance belongs to the period when the idealism -of the Early Gothic primitives was already replaced by a strong -naturalism, and the creation of types by that of clearly characterised -individualities. This picture, the _Descent from the Cross_ (No. 2737), -by the unknown “Master of the Bartholomew Altar,” is so called, in -accordance with German custom, from his best known work, the great -altarpiece in the Pinakothek at Munich. In the large Louvre picture, -which bears a close resemblance to the precious little panel by the -same master in the possession of the Hon. Edward Wood, at Temple -Newsam, the Saviour is being lowered from the Cross by Nicodemus into -the hands of one of the Holy Women on the left, and of Joseph of -Arimathæa on the right. The group is completed by St. John supporting -the Virgin on the extreme left, the Magdalen and another Holy Woman on -the right, and a Disciple seated on a ladder above the central group. -The figures are shown, as in the Temple Newsam painting of the same -subject, against a gold background framed with rich Gothic tracery. -This altarpiece is believed to be the last picture by this Cologne -master, who flourished between 1490 and 1515, and was in his later -manner influenced by Rogier van der Weyden and other Flemish masters. -This eminently important Early German picture was painted for a Jesuit -establishment in the rue St. Antoine, Paris, which accounts for its -presence in the French national collection. - - - COLOGNE PAINTERS - -The “Master of the Death of Mary,” to whose school belongs the _Descent -from the Cross_, with a predella representing _The Last Supper_, and a -lunette with _St. Francis receiving the Stigmata_ (No. 2738), has been -identified by Wauters and Aldenhoven with the early-sixteenth-century -Flemish painter Joos van Cleef the Elder, and belongs to the Antwerp -rather than the Cologne school. The “Master of St. Severin,” to whom -the official Catalogue ascribes the two _Scenes from the Life of St. -Ursula_ (Nos. 2738C and 2738D), was probably a Flemish painter who -worked at Cologne at the beginning of the sixteenth century. But the -two panels at the Louvre, which were formerly at the Cluny Museum, are -not from his brush. They are the work of his pupil, the “Master of the -Ursula Legend,” and belong to a series of which other panels can be -seen at the Victoria and Albert Museum and at Cologne. - -The first definite name in the annals of the Cologne school is -that of Bartolomäus Bruyn (_c._ 1493-1555), who was a follower of -Joos van Cleef but subsequently became completely imbued with the -Italian spirit. His portraits, in which he remained more faithful to -the tradition of his country, are of greater significance than his -religious compositions, and closely resemble those by Joos van Cleef; -but the _Portrait of a Man with a White Cross on his Breast_ (No. 2702) -is only a school picture of indifferent quality. - - - ALBRECHT DÜRER - -The flourishing school which had its centre at Nuremberg is represented -at the Louvre by the master who marks its zenith and who, if his -craftsmanship was not always on a level with the perfection of -Holbein’s, shares with the Augsburg master the honour of uncontested -leadership of all German artists. Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) was born -at Nuremberg, of Hungarian descent. He studied his art under Michael -Wohlgemut, a very able Nuremberg painter, who was, however, led by his -popularity to factory-like production of pictures that passed under his -name, although they were largely executed by inferior pupils. Dürer, -who excelled equally as an engraver and as a painter, was, on the -other hand, one of the most sincere and personal artists of his time—a -profound thinker, a shrewd observer, a student of life in all its -phases, an idealist who was ever striving for beautiful expression, -even though the realistic tradition of his country did not allow him to -attain to the abstract ideal of beauty which had been reached by some -of the contemporary Italians. Indeed, Dürer may with justice be called -the Leonardo of the North. He studied Venetian art on a visit to Venice -in 1505, whither he had been preceded by his fame. He also travelled to -the Netherlands in 1520, the year in which he painted the signed and -dated _Head of an Old Man_ (No. 2709), his other picture at the Louvre -being the not very masterly _Head of a Child_ (No. 2709A). - - - DÜRER’S FOLLOWERS - -Dürer died in 1528 from a disease contracted during his journey to -the Netherlands. Among his principal pupils were Georg Pencz (_c._ -1500-1550), to whom is without sufficient reason attributed the -indifferent half figure of _St. John the Evangelist_ (No. 2730); and -Hans Sebald Beham (_c._ 1500-1550), the famous engraver, of whom the -Louvre is fortunate to possess the only known painting, a table top -divided by golden lances into four compartments, each of which contains -a _Subject from the Story of David_ (No. 2701): the _Entry of Saul -into Jerusalem; David and Bathsheba_ (in which scene is introduced -a portrait of Archbishop Albrecht of Mayence, for whom the work was -executed); the _Siege of Rabbath_; and the _Prophet Nathan before -David_ (with a portrait of the artist and the initials of his name, “H. -S. B.”). - - - LUCAS CRANACH - -This same Archbishop Albrecht, whose features are also known to us -from two engravings by Dürer and a painting by Grünewald, was one of -the most generous patrons of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553), -whose busy workshops at Wittenberg supplied the whole north and east -of Germany with portraits, altarpieces, historical and mythological -pictures. Lucas Cranach was a follower of Grünewald, the great head of -the Colmar school. Apart from his merit as a colourist and an excellent -draughtsman, he attracts by the naïve grace of his nude figures and -by the complete manner in which he reflects the taste of his time and -country. But of the five little pictures that figure in the Louvre -Catalogue under his name, not one is from his own hand. Indeed, the -_Venus in a Landscape_ (No. 2703) is the only one that may with a -degree of safety be attributed to his son, Lucas Cranach the Younger, -who carried on the management of the studio some years before his -father’s death, and continued to imitate his style until his own death -in 1586. The _Venus_ bears the usual Cranach signature of a winged -serpent and the date 1520. The same crest, with the date 1532, figures -on the portrait of _Johann Friedrich III., Elector of Saxony_ (No. -2704), who is known on one occasion to have given a wholesale order of -sixty replicas of the same portrait to the Wittenberg master. It may be -imagined that a commission of this nature would not be executed by the -head of the studio, but left to his staff of assistants. The _Fighting -Savages_ (No. 2702A) and the two _Portraits_ (Nos. 2703A and 2705) are, -at the best, studio works. - - - HANS HOLBEIN - -We now come to the second of the two commanding figures in German -art, Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543), who was born at Augsburg -and studied under his father, the elder artist of the same name. When -he reached his maturity the Italian influence had already permeated -German art, but he was the first Northern master who knew how to -benefit by the real spirit of the Renaissance without imitating the -letter; the first to develop a noble, dignified style, free from the -florid trivialities which so many Northerners took from certain Italian -painters. He was above all a marvellous portrait painter who, in his -drawings as well as in his paintings, combines the most exquisite -delicacy and subtlety with rare strength, the greatest precision of -detail with freedom and breadth of handling. Only this phase of his art -is represented at the Louvre, which certainly owns one perfect example -of Holbein’s portraiture in the _Portrait of Erasmus_ (No. 2715, Plate -XXIV.). - -Holbein had settled in Basle in 1519. He went to England in 1526, with -a letter of introduction from Erasmus to Sir Thomas More. From one -of Erasmus’s letters it would appear that Holbein had portrayed him -at least three times before 1524; and the picture now in the Louvre -was probably the one that was painted for Sir Thomas More—a better -recommendation than any letter of introduction! The profile is drawn -with inimitable mastery; and the whole character of the man can be read -from the expression of the tight-pressed lips and mobile features, as -he sits writing at his desk. Note, also, the marvellous expressiveness -of the hands, studies for which are to be found in the collection of -drawings at the Louvre. - -In view of the personal relations which link together Holbein, Erasmus, -and Sir Thomas More, it would be pleasant if we could accept the -so-called _Portrait of Thomas More, Great Chancellor of England_ (No. -2717), as authentic. It does not, however, represent Holbein’s first -English patron, nor does it appear to be from the master’s own brush. - - - THE KRATZER PORTRAIT - -Holbein’s first sojourn in England extended from 1526 to 1528, in which -year he returned to Basle. It must have been shortly before his -departure that he painted the _Portrait of Nicolas Kratzer, Astronomer -to King Henry VIII._ (No. 2713); it is an unquestionably authentic -work, although it has been so extensively repainted that little is now -left of the original, save the general disposition of the design and -the instruments placed on the table and hung on the wall, which are -executed with all the loving care that Holbein was wont to bestow upon -such accessories. Still, even in its present condition, the portrait -is a thoroughly convincing likeness of “a man who is brimful of wit, -jest, and humorous fancies”—as Kratzer is referred to by one of his -contemporaries. A sheet of paper on the left of the table appears to be -inscribed:— - - _Imago ad vivam effigiem expressa - Nicolai Kratzeri monacensis qui bavarus erat - Quadragessimum annum tempore illo complebat. - 1528._ - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXIV.—HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER - - (1497-1543) - - GERMAN SCHOOL - - No. 2715.—PORTRAIT OF ERASMUS - - (Portrait de Didier Érasme) - - The Humanist is seen at half length and in forefile to the left, - before a table at which he is writing. He wears a fur-lined coat - and a dark cap. A green figured curtain forms the background. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 1 ft. 4¾ in. × 1 ft. 0¾ in. (0·42 × 0·32.)] - -Although decidedly superior to another version of the same picture -at Lambeth Palace, the _Portrait of William Warham, Archbishop of -Canterbury_ (No. 2714), which bears the inscription, - - ANNO. Dm. MDXXVII. ETATIS. SVE, LXX., - -cannot without hesitation be accepted as an original work. It lacks, -at any rate, the _finesse_ of the beautiful drawing at Windsor Castle, -upon which it is evidently based. - -To the same year belongs the _Portrait of Sir Richard Southwell_ (No. -2719), to whose treacherous accusation was due the execution of Henry -Howard, Earl of Surrey. But this picture, again, is only a replica, by -an inferior hand, of the magnificent portrait in the Uffizi Gallery -(No. 765). An inscription in the background, at both sides of the head, -reads: - - on the left: X.^O IVLII. ANNO. and on the right: ETATIS SVÆ - H. VIII. XXVIII. ANNO XXXIII. - -It would thus appear that the picture was painted in 1537, the -twenty-eighth year of Henry VIII.’s reign. The _Portrait of a Man -holding a Carnation and a Rosary_ (No. 2720) is a picture of poor -quality and has no connection whatever with Holbein. - - - PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES - -Of far greater importance and undisputed authenticity is the _Portrait -of Anne of Cleves, Fourth Wife of Henry VIII._ (No. 2718). No -credence is to be attached to the legend invented by Bishop Burnet -more than a century after that ill-treated lady’s death, according to -which Holbein’s flattering portrait was instrumental in “bluff King -Hal’s” choice of his fourth spouse and responsible for the king’s -disappointment at setting eyes upon Anne. The picture, which was -painted in 1539, seven years after Holbein’s definite return to England -and to the service of Henry VIII., has not only that air of inevitable -truthfulness which distinguishes all Holbein’s portraiture, but tallies -to a remarkable degree with the descriptions sent to Henry VIII. by his -agents. Whilst not exactly unpleasant to behold, the features are those -of a spiritless, dull woman—an impression which is intensified by the -absence of life and character in the hands, which Holbein invariably -studied as closely as the face. The painting of the richly embroidered -and jewelled costume, the stately symmetry of the design, and the -beautiful scheme of colour are really the chief attractions of this -picture. - -The _Adoration of the Magi_ (No. 2711A), which was at one time -attributed to the elder, and subsequently to the younger, Holbein, is -now rightly given to the latter’s contemporary and compatriot Gumpold -Giltlinger, an Augsburg painter of no particular distinction. - - - THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY - -Before the end of the sixteenth century German art had entered upon a -period of complete decadence. The only painter who claims attention, -not so much for the undeniable merit of his very highly finished -landscapes, but for the fact that he exercised a certain influence upon -Rembrandt, is the Frankfort painter, Adam Elsheimer (1578-1621?), who -worked at Rome, and who is represented at the Louvre by _The Flight -into Egypt_ (No. 2710) and _The Good Samaritan_ (No. 2711). - -For the rest, the German painters of his period and of the whole of the -seventeenth century retained scarcely a trace of national character, -and were completely under the sway of the foreign, and particularly -of the Italian, schools. Thus, Johann Rottenhammer (1564-1623), the -painter of _The Death of Adonis_ (No. 2732) and _Diana and Calisto_ -(No. 2733), was successively dominated by Jan Brueghel and by -Tintoretto. The flower painter, Abraham Mignon (1640-1679), though born -at Frankfort, was a pupil of David de Heem and a Dutchman in his art. -His pictures at the Louvre (Nos. 2724-2729) are distributed between -the German and the Dutch sections. Philipp Peter Roos, better known as -Rosa da Tivoli (1665?-1705), who painted the _Wolf devouring a Sheep_ -(No. 2731), lived in Rome and adopted the style of the country of his -domicile. _The Bear Hunt_ (No. 2734) is the work of Carl Ruthart, -another unimportant Italianising German of the second half of the -seventeenth century. - - - THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY - -The work of the Hamburg painter, Baltasar Denner (1685-1749), has no -claim to be considered as a manifestation of art: it is merely a -display of mechanical skill in the microscopic rendering of the little -lines and pores and stubbly hair on the skin of old people’s faces. He -lived for seven years in London, where he painted in 1724 the signed -_Portrait of an Old Woman_ (No. 2706), which was bought in 1852 for -£756. Another characteristic example of his misapplied skill is the -portrait (No. 2707) in the La Caze Room. - -Christian Wilhelm Dietrich (1712-1774) and Heinrich Wilhelm -Schweickhardt (1746-1787) are too insignificant to deserve serious -consideration. The same remark applies to Christian Seybold -(1703?-1768), who became Court Painter to the Empress Maria Theresa; -and to Johann Ernest Heinsius, who was active as a portrait painter in -France during the reign of Louis XVI. All that is to be noted in their -pictures at the Louvre is the total absence of all artistic merit. - -Of somewhat greater importance, though by no means of the first rank, -are the two last German artists who claim our attention: Raphael Mengs -(1728-1779) and Angelica Kaufmann, (1741-1807), who is catalogued -among the painters of the German school, although she was Swiss by -birth, Italian by education, and English by domicile. Her sex was no -bar to her becoming one of the Foundation members of the English Royal -Academy, and she is generally counted among the English painters. The -portrait group of _The Baroness von Krüdner and her Daughter_ (No. -2722) is a poor example of her art, which invariably sought to please -by conventional prettiness. - -Raphael Mengs, the painter of the portrait of _Marie Amelia Christina -of Saxony, Wife of Charles III. of Spain_, was born at Aussig in -Bohemia, studied whilst still a boy in Italy, and became Court Painter -to Charles III., who invited him to Madrid in 1761. Mengs was an -exceedingly accomplished technician and draughtsman, who modelled -himself on Raphael and the Italian eclectics, but was wholly lacking -in originality and inspiration. He tried his hand in every branch -of his art, and was most successful in portraiture, although even -his portraits are lacking in penetration of character. He, however, -excelled as a copyist, and died in Rome in 1779. - - - - - THE SPANISH SCHOOL - - -Though numerically by no means imposing, the Spanish pictures at the -Louvre form an exceedingly interesting section of the great French -national collection, comprising, as they do, characteristic examples of -the art of practically all the most prominent figures in the evolution -of Spanish painting. Compared with the schools of Italy and Flanders, -that of Spain was tardy in its development and very much dependent -upon foreign influences. The activity of Flemish and Italian masters -in Spain—we need only mention Starnina, Dello Delli, Rubens, Luca -Giordano—and the visits of several eminent Spanish masters to Italy, -could not fail to leave their clear mark on the art of the Peninsula, -the renaissance of which was almost entirely due to the stimulus -received from abroad. The short visit of Jan van Eyck to Portugal in -1429 also had a profound influence on the art of the Peninsula. But -the local conditions, the strict rule of the Church and the tyranny of -the Inquisition, the stiff ceremonial of the Court,—the only rival of -the Church in the patronage of the arts,—and especially the sombre, -passionate character of the Spanish race,—all helped to transform the -imported styles into an art of definite national stamp, an art that -is marked by sombreness, asceticism, dramatic intensity, and deep -religious feeling. Throughout it is dominated by realistic tendencies -and rude strength rather than by the striving for grace and beauty and -rhythm which characterise Italian art. - - - LUIS DE DALMAU - -The Louvre is fortunate in possessing an authentic and extremely -important, though badly restored, altarpiece by Ludovico Luis de -Dalmau, the first Spanish painter whose personality emerges definitely -from the obscurity of the Gothic period in Spain. Dalmau was a Catalan -who flourished about the middle of the fifteenth century, and who, -although not a direct pupil of the Van Eycks, shows such close affinity -with their style that certain modern critics are inclined to ascribe -to him, with insufficient reason, certain pictures, like the _Fountain -of Living Water_ at the Prado, by the heads and founders of the Bruges -school. In spite of the different types and the increased angularity -of the drapery folds in Dalmau’s _Enthronement of St. Isidore_ (No. -1703A), this Eyckian influence is clearly traceable in the Louvre -picture, which shows the Virgin enthroned under a Gothic canopy wearing -a crown of typically Spanish form, and handing the pallium to the -saintly Bishop of Seville, who kneels on the left. Further back on the -same side are four angels with the episcopal insignia. The group is -balanced on the right by St. Anthony the Hermit in the foreground, and -SS. Catherine, Margaret, Agatha, Odilia, and Apollonia grouped around -the throne. The picture was originally in a church at Valladolid, and -was bought for the Louvre at the Bourgeois sale at Cologne in 1904 for -£3025. - - - LUIS MORALES - -We need not here pay attention to the few unimportant pictures by -unknown early Spanish masters in the collection, and may pass on to -Luis Morales, called “El Divino” (“The Divine”) (1509-1586), who was -born at Badajoz, and worked at Toledo, when the whole Spanish school -was already addicted to the Italian mannerisms introduced by Berreguete -and other native artists trained in Rome. Morales, however, remained -faithful to the tradition of his own country, and was essentially a -painter of those religious subjects which enabled him to follow the -national bent for the sombre and tragic—the sufferings of Christ and -of the Virgin, and similar themes. The _Christ carrying the Cross_ (No. -1707) is a typical instance of the tragic intensity of his conception. -All the suffering of the Saviour is expressed in His drawn features -and His heavy, swollen eyelids. The picture is not dated, but was -evidently painted before 1564, in which year the master was called to -the Escorial and, while in the service of Philip II., to a great extent -lost his individual style in the imitation of the Italians, that was -probably forced upon him by the taste of his patrons. - - - EL GRECO - -We now come to one of the most interesting figures in the history of -Spanish painting—Dominico Theotocopuli, better known as “El Greco” -(1548-1614), from the country of his birth. Born in Crete about 1548, -El Greco entered at a very early age the studio of Titian in Venice. -This at least we know from a letter written by Clovio from Rome in -1570, without which, if we were to judge from the master’s early -style, we should be forced to the conclusion that he acquired his art -from Tintoretto, and more particularly from Jacopo da Ponte, to whom -several of his earliest works in private collections were formerly, -and in some cases are still, ascribed. He went to Rome in 1570, and -after five or six years took up his abode at Toledo, his first dated -picture in that city, the scene of his chief activity, bearing the -date 1577. Between that year and his death in 1614, his extant works -illustrate the gradual evolution of his art, the change of his Italian -into a typically Spanish manner, the rapid acquisition of a very -personal style, and the straining of that personal style to extreme -mannerism. The notes and flashes of rare, cold, almost acid, but always -harmonious, colour lend a peculiar distinction to El Greco’s work. His -predilection for long, narrow faces and slender, emaciated bodies led -him in his declining years to extravagant exaggeration; the ecstatic -passionate action and gesture of his figures reveal contortion and -frenzy. As a portrait painter El Greco is second only to Velazquez in -the school of his adopted country. His biographer, Señor Cossío, has -called him “a painter of souls,” because he had that intense power of -penetration which perceives and retains at a glance the sum total of a -person’s traits of character. - -El Greco’s conception of portraiture enters largely into his pictures -at the Louvre, from which we must exclude as an imitation by an -inferior hand the _St. Francis and a Novice_ (No. 1729A). It is -certainly an important feature in the large _Christ on the Cross, with -Two Donors_, one of the comparatively recent acquisitions, which still -hangs on a screen in Gallery XV. This great altarpiece has little -of the master’s fierce passion and lightning flashes of colour. The -expression of the two Donors, Diego and Antonio Covarrubias, who are -seen to the waist at the foot of the Cross, does not go beyond normal -pious devotion; and the Saviour seems rather to stand with spread arms -than to hang on the Cross with all the weight of His characteristically -elongated body. A leaden grey dominates the whole colour scheme. The -composition is singularly empty and simple for a master who seemed to -have a perfect horror of empty spaces. The picture, which is fully -signed, must have been painted soon after El Greco’s arrival at Toledo -(and not, as Sñr. Cossío thinks, between 1590 and 1600), since one of -the Donors, the priest Diego Covarrubias, died in 1577. - -Comparison of the two Donors’ faces with their portraits by the same -master in the Toledo Library can leave no doubt as to their identity. -The _Christ on the Cross_ was offered by the deputy Isaac Pereire -of Prades (Pyrenées-Orientales) to the local parish church, but was -refused and hung in the Palais de Justice at Prades, whence it was -removed to the Mairie in 1904, and finally sold to the Louvre in 1908 -for £1000. The picture measures 8 ft. 8 in. by 5 ft. 8 in. - -The _St. Louis of France and a Page_ (No. 1729B), which was formerly -wrongly catalogued as _King Ferdinand the Catholic_, is a more typical -example of El Greco’s management of colour. The boldly painted armour -is identical with that of the St. Martin on horseback, at Toledo. The -probable date of the picture, which was bought in 1904 at the high -price of £2800, is between 1594 and 1600. - -By El Greco’s favourite pupil and assistant, Luis Tristan (1586-1640), -is the realistic half-figure of _St. Francis of Assisi_ (No. 1730). -A more scientific classification of the works by the Toledo painters -has reversed Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell’s judgment that Tristan had all -the virtues and none of the faults of his master. He was in reality a -mediocre imitator of El Greco, without a spark of his master’s genius -and without any of his distinction. - - - THE SCHOOL OF SEVILLE - -The naturalistic tendencies inherent in the national Spanish genius, -which even in the period of Italian mannerism were not to be entirely -denied, bore full fruit at Seville, where Francisco Herrera “the -Old” (1576-1656) was the first entirely to reject the tyranny of the -Italian manner, and with it to a certain extent the tyranny of Church -patronage. He was a man of fiery character, with whom the technique -of his art became a veritable passion. It was left to a painter of a -later century and of another race to proclaim that it does not matter -_what_ you paint, but _how_ you paint; but Herrera’s work at times -almost suggests that he was guided by similar principles, although an -instinctive sense of pictorial fitness saved him from the consequences -to which their unrestricted application might easily lead. - -In spite of the repelling fierceness, the fanaticism, the cruelty -of every single face—all of them portraits, no doubt—in the _St. -Basil dictating his Doctrine_ (No. 1706) at the Louvre, in spite of -the essentially Spanish manner in which the design fills the space -(the figures being grouped in horizontal courses right across the -canvas, with very little space above for the sky, and this little -space filled with angels’ heads and with a Holy Ghost as fierce as -the rest of the assembly), there is a noble rhythm of line as well as -of the distribution of light and shade, which proclaims the mind of a -master. The two Saints in the immediate foreground, St. Dominic and -St. Bernard, are cut through at the waist—another favourite device of -Spanish composition, which we have already noticed in the Donors of El -Greco’s _Christ on the Cross_. - - - ZURBARÁN - -Considerable though it be, Herrera’s artistic achievement does not -constitute his chief claim to fame; for his name will ever be best -known as that of the first master of the greatest of all Spanish -painters, Don Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velazquez. But before -discussing the pictures by, or catalogued under the name of, Velazquez -at the Louvre, we must consider the work of two other painters of -the Naturalistic school: Francisco de Zurbarán (1598-1661) and José -de Ribera, called “Lo Spagnoletto” (1588-1656). Zurbarán, a pupil of -the Sevillan Juan de las Roelas, was essentially a painter of church -pictures, his favourite subjects being types of monks and scenes of -monkish life. There is something so sincere and convincing in his -unrelenting realism, that even his pictures of rapturous ecstasy and -strongly emphasised emotion impress one as truthful renderings of types -observed by the artist in the streets and churches of monastic Seville. -The sombre passion with which his subjects are instinct is reflected by -his colour and masterly chiaroscuro. Zurbarán became Court Painter to -Philip IV. in or before 1633, in which year he added the words “_Pintor -del Rey_” to his signature on one of his pictures; and in this -capacity he painted at Madrid his only known secular pictures, a series -of ten Scenes from the History of Hercules. - -Two admirable pictures from his brush figure in the Louvre Catalogue as -_St. Peter Nolasque and St. Raymond de Peñafort_ (No. 1738) and _The -Funeral of a Bishop_ (No. 1739). As a matter of fact they represent -two scenes from the life of St. Bonaventura: _The Saint presiding at a -Chapter of Minor Brothers_, and _The Funeral of St Bonaventura_. The -second of these companion pictures which were originally in a convent -at Seville is particularly striking for the unconventionality of its -composition, the strong character of the heads, and the masterly -treatment of the chiaroscuro. Note again the placing of the heads -almost in a horizontal line right across the canvas, and the anxious -avoidance of empty spaces. The third picture that stands to Zurbarán’s -name is the figure of _A Lady of Fashion in the Character of St. -Apollonia_ (No. 1740), a work of not very striking merit. - - - RIBERA - -Ribera, though born near Valencia, where he received his early -education in the painter’s art in the studio of Ribalta, was still -young in years when he left his native land for Italy, never to -return. Studying and working at Rome, Parma, and Naples, he was so -strongly influenced by Caravaggio, and to a minor extent by Correggio, -that, taking also into account his long domicile, there is some -justification for those who treat him as belonging to the Italian -school of Naturalists. The most prominent feature of his art is the -violent and abrupt contrasting of brilliant lights with very deep and -heavy shadows, which enforces the almost cruel dramatic intensity of -his scenes of torture, convulsions, and suffering. In this use of -chiaroscuro he was a true follower of Caravaggio, but Ribera, even -where he is most Italian, never denies his Spanish nationality and the -teaching of his first master. - -Nowhere are his racial characteristics more pronounced than in -the admirable character-study, in the La Caze Room, of a grinning -beggar-boy who suffers from an infirmity from which the picture derives -its popular name, _The Club-foot_ (No. 1725). The boy is standing -in bold silhouette against a clouded sky. He shoulders his crutch -like a gun, and carries in his left hand a sheet of paper with the -inscription—DA MIHI ELEMOSINAM PROPTER AMOREM DEI. - -If _The Club-foot_ is scarcely typical of the qualities that are -generally associated with Ribera’s art, the Louvre owns two thoroughly -characteristic examples of his more violent manner, of his dramatic -use of sharply contrasted light and shade, in _The Entombment_ (No. -1722) and _St. Paul the Hermit_ (No. 1723), which bears on a stone the -signature - - JUSEPE DE RIBERA ESPAGNOL P.F. - -In _The Entombment_ the master-hand is revealed by the superb breadth -with which the limp yet weighty body of the Saviour is painted. It is -not modelled in all its plastic roundness, but cut into sharp flat -passages of light and shadow, the plastic relief being suggested by the -perfection of the anatomical drawing and foreshortening. Poignant grief -is expressed in the faces of St. Joseph of Arimathæa, the Virgin Mary, -St. John, and Nicodemus, who surround the body, the head of which is -supported by St. Joseph. The same subject is treated with less masterly -authority in _The Entombment_ (No. 1725A), which can only be accepted -as a school picture. - -The ascetic fervour tinged with a sense almost of cruel pleasure -in self-inflicted suffering, with which Ribera loved to invest his -semi-nude figures of emaciated saints, hermits, and martyrs, will be -found in the _St. Paul the Hermit_. The picture was bought in 1875 for -£252. - -Without loss of realistic power, and without affectation or conscious -striving for prettiness, Ribera shows more human tenderness and gentle -emotion in _The Adoration of the Shepherds_ (No. 1721), a picture -signed and dated on a stone in the right-hand corner, - - _Juse Ribera español Academico romano, F. 1650._ - -In accordance with the nature of the subject he has here refrained from -making use of abrupt light and shade, the whole scene being enveloped -in a warm glow. The types are not idealised, but are apparently -faithful portraits of their respective models. Very similar to the -central group in this canvas, but more sonorous in its depth of colour, -from which gleam forth the strong lights, is the _Virgin and Child_ -(No. 1724) in the La Caze Room. The four pictures of _Philosophers_ -(Nos. 1726-1729), likewise in the La Caze Bequest, which the official -Catalogue gives to Ribera, are certainly not by that master. It has -been suggested that they may be the work of Ribera’s facile and -versatile pupil, Luca Giordano (“Fa Presto”), but the poor quality of -these paintings scarcely justifies even this attribution. They were -formerly in the collection of General Mazzavedo. - -Ribera had a romantic career, rising as he did from absolute penury to -almost despotic power as a member of a triumvirate that would brook no -competition in Naples and would shrink from no means to further their -schemes. Nothing is known as to how he died. He disappeared in 1656, -and probably found his death in the depths of the sea. - - - VELAZQUEZ - -The Catalogue of the Louvre collection contains an imposing list of -seven works by the king of Spanish painters. Critical examination of -these pictures will, however, result in the elimination of all but -two that figure in the list. Velazquez, who was destined to stamp his -great personality on a whole generation of Spanish painters, but whose -art was little known in Northern Europe previous to the Peninsular -War, has exercised a paramount influence on modern art. He was born of -noble descent at Seville in June 1599. Although originally destined for -another profession, he showed such talent for art that he was allowed -to enter the studio of Francisco Herrera, of whose realistic tendencies -and rugged strength we have already had occasion to speak. - -From his studio he passed into that of the cultured and erudite -Francisco Pacheco, whose artistic achievement at its best was far -in advance of his professed academic principles. Summoned to Madrid -in 1623 by the powerful Count Duke of Olivarez, Velazquez entered -the service of King Philip IV. Velazquez became his favourite Court -Painter, received other important offices and emoluments, and after -his return from his second visit to Italy in 1651—the first visit had -taken place in 1629—he was appointed _Aposentador del Rey_, a post -which approximately corresponds with that of Court-Marshal. He died on -the 6th of August 1660, from the results of fatigue and overwork in -supervising the arrangements for the betrothal of the Infanta Maria -Teresa to Louis XIV. at the Palace on the Isle of Pheasants, at Irun. - -With the exception of the early _bodegones_ of his student-years and -a few rare excursions into the realm of religious and mythological -composition, Velazquez’s life-work, as conditioned by the patronage of -the king and the Court, was practically confined to portraiture. His -unrivalled greatness in this sphere is due to the perfect clearness -of his vision, which made him grasp the person or scene before his -eyes at a single glance, and transpose his impression to canvas with -undisturbed directness and completeness, and with an apparent disregard -of the means of expression. There is dignity and soberness in all his -portraits; perfect spacing; noble, firm contour; complete unity of -all the parts produced by the sense of ambient atmosphere. And never is -there the slightest hint of trick of hand, or mannerism, or painting by -recipe. Each picture is the result of close observation, recorded with -admirable directness and honesty. This supreme master of the painter’s -technique seemed to pay no attention to technique—or, at least, the -result is invariably so significant and so absorbingly interesting -that the spectator, unless he approaches the picture with deliberate -intention to probe its secret, never thinks of the technical means by -which life so convincing has been breathed on to the canvas. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXV.—VELAZQUEZ - - (1599-1660) - - SPANISH SCHOOL - - No. 1731.—PORTRAIT OF THE INFANTA MARGARITA - - (Portrait de l’infante Margarita Maria) - - The Infanta, who appears to be about four years of age, is wearing - a white robe embroidered with black. She is seen standing at half - length, her right hand on the arm of a chair. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Inscribed:—“LINFANTE MARGUERITE.” - - 2 ft. 3¾ in. × 1 ft. 11½ in. (0·70 × 0·59.)] - - - THE INFANTA - -In the Louvre collection there is but one picture from which it is -possible to judge the greatness of Velazquez’s art. That picture is -the deservedly famous and often-copied portrait of the little _Infanta -Margarita_ (No. 1731, Plate XXV.), which has rightly been placed in the -Salon Carré among the proudest possessions which the Gallery can boast. -The little princess, who was born in 1651, the first child of Mariana -of Austria, is here depicted at the age of about four, so that the date -of the portrait may safely be assumed to be about the year 1655, and -not 1659, as suggested by M. Lafenestre. She is dressed in a white robe -with black lace trimmings. A pink ribbon is tied on her right side to -her soft light golden hair, which falls in curls to her shoulders; her -right hand rests upon a chair, whilst the left, the fingers of which -have been repainted owing to the addition of a narrow strip of canvas -at the bottom, holds a flower. On the top the words LINFANTE MARGVERITE -are painted in heavy block letters across the whole width of the -canvas. This picture, in which childlike ingenuousness is so happily -blended with quaint dignity, and in which even the forbidding ugliness -of the dress of the period cannot destroy the little princess’s grace -and doll-like charm, Velazquez has surely left to the world one of the -most entrancing portraits of lovable childhood that is to be found in -the whole history of art. - - - MARIANA OF AUSTRIA - -The other unquestionably authentic work by the master at the Louvre is -to be found in the La Caze Bequest. It is catalogued as _Portrait of -the Infanta Maria Teresa, afterwards Queen of France_ (No. 1735), but -is in reality a portrait of _Queen Mariana of Austria_, the mother of -the Infanta Margarita Maria. Mariana was married to Philip IV. as his -second wife in 1649, at the age of fourteen. Velazquez was at that time -in Italy, so that the duty of painting her first portrait for the royal -bridegroom fell to the Court Painter’s son-in-law and chief pupil, Juan -Bautista del Mazo (1610-1667). - -The portrait at the Louvre was, if we may judge from the apparent age -of the child-queen as she is here represented, painted in 1651, when -Velazquez had returned from his second Italian journey and when Mariana -was sixteen years of age. It was probably a preliminary study from life -for the larger portrait in the Vienna Gallery. This admirable portrait -is another artistic triumph over unfavourable conditions imposed by -the hideousness of contemporary female attire, although the forehead -has been spoilt by clumsy repainting. The coiffure in particular, a -cascade of false hair, bows, jewels, and feathers, is more suggestive -of some exotic idol or fetish than of a human being. In 1863, before -the judgment of a tasteless age, which gave Velazquez a position far -below the then absurdly overrated Murillo, was revised, this portrait -of Mariana appeared at the Viardot sale and failed to realise more than -£200! - - - COPIES AND SCHOOL PICTURES - -Two other portraits in the La Caze Room are attributed to Velazquez. -One of these, a _Portrait of Philip IV._ (No. 1733) at the age of about -fifty, is unquestionably a wholly uninspired and fairly modern copy of -the head in the Prado (No. 1080). The other, a _Portrait of a Young -Woman_ (No. 1736), is an extremely feeble imitation of the superficial -aspect of Velazquez’s manner—so bad in drawing, especially in the -attachment of the nose to the face, that it is difficult to accept -Señor Beruete’s attribution of this picture to Juan Carreño de Miranda -(1614-1685), an able painter of the Madrid school. M. Henri Rodolphe -Elissa, who exposed the “Tiara of Saitaphernes” forgery, has asserted -that he can prove both the _Philip IV._ and the _Young Woman_ to be -the work of the Spanish painter Escosura, who died in the last decade -of the nineteenth century. There appears to be no reason to doubt his -assertion. The head of Philip, more than the other picture, appears to -be nineteenth-century work. - -The _Portrait of Philip IV., King of Spain, in Hunting Costume_ (No. -1732), with a gun in his right hand and a dog sitting by his side, in -a landscape background, is only a contemporary copy of a very similar -picture in the Prado, to which it is vastly inferior in execution. It -is true that in the Prado picture the king’s hat is on his head, whilst -in the Louvre version, which is probably by Mazo, he carries it in his -left hand. It is, however, possible to detect in the Prado portrait -clear evidence of a pentimento, from which it can be seen that here, -too, the hat was originally in the same position as in the Louvre -canvas. Presumably Velazquez subsequently made the alteration; but the -copy was executed at an earlier date. - - - THE “MEETING OF THIRTEEN PEOPLE” - -There have been great divergences of opinion concerning the strange -little painting representing a _Meeting of Thirteen People_ (No. 1734) -on a hill. It was formerly known as _A Meeting of Artists_, because -two of the Spanish cavaliers depicted in the group were believed to -represent Velazquez and Murillo. Lauded at first as one of Velazquez’s -masterpieces by those who were carried away by the truly extraordinary -beauty of the pearly, opalescent colour harmony and the atmospheric -quality of the painting, the little picture has lately been as -violently abused for its “poor design, weak execution, and commonplace -arrangement.” As a matter of fact the arrangement is anything but -commonplace, and the picture has great qualities of technique which -will always be the delight of professional artists. It is moreover -admirably varied in gesture and action, even if it has certain -weaknesses which render impossible its unqualified attribution to -Velazquez. Here we have clearly an excellent example of his son-in-law -and imitator, J. B. del Mazo. If any proof were needed for this -attribution, it will be found in the figure on the extreme left of the -composition. Both his legs are slanting forward so much that his centre -of gravity plumbs behind his heels. It would really be impossible to -maintain this posture, which, though it offends against the laws of -gravity, is to be found in quite a number of Mazo’s pictures, as, for -instance, in the small figure of Olivarez (?) in the middle distance -on the right in the Duke of Westminster’s _Don Baltazar Carlos in the -Riding School_, in the portrait of _Don Baltazar Carlos_ at The Hague, -and in the second boy in _The Family of Mazo_ at the Vienna Gallery. - -The soundly painted _Portrait of Don Pedro de Altamira, Doyen of the -Chapel Royal at Toledo, afterwards Cardinal_ (No. 1737), inscribed -on the background “ÆT 54 DV, 1633,” is a good character-study of an -energetic and rather worldly-looking Church dignitary, but does not -appear to be either by Velazquez or one of his immediate followers. - -There is in the Spanish section of the Louvre another superbly painted, -but very problematic, _Head of a Man_ (No. 1747), which, on no more -plausible grounds than an accidental likeness to one of the figures -in _The Forge of Vulcan_, has by some critics been believed to be by -Velazquez. The rich impasto and the careful finish of the painting are -utterly unlike Velazquez’s manner; nor does the picture appear to be -of his period. But whoever may be its author, it is one of the most -remarkable paintings in this section of the Louvre. - - - MURILLO - -By far the best represented of all the masters at the Spanish school is -Bartolomé Estéban Murillo (1618?-1682). He was born at Seville, of poor -parents, and studied as a boy under Juan del Castillo. Forced before he -had reached manhood to gain his livelihood, he took to manufacturing -artistically worthless devotional pictures on saga-cloth, for sale at -the weekly fairs in the poor quarter of Seville. This early practice -of rather mechanical production, and the habit, acquired by necessity, -of working to please the public, clung to him in after life and are -responsible for much that the modern mind finds distasteful in his -art—a certain sickly sentimentality that often takes the place of real -sentiment, and an artificiality of arrangement even where the types are -realistic renderings of the people among whom he spent his days. - -With his small savings from the proceeds of his crude popular pictures -Murillo proceeded to Madrid, where Velazquez assisted him by deed, -advice, and example, though the two artists were probably never in the -relation of master and pupil. After about two years thus profitably -spent at Madrid, Murillo returned to Seville, where he continued to -work until his death in 1682, and rose to the very summit of fame and -popularity. At his best Murillo was a colourist of great charm and a -technician of the rarest skill. His art is most admirable where he -adheres most closely to the realistic tradition of his country. It -is scarcely to be credited that the same hand which produced so many -vaporous and vapid Madonnas is responsible for a picture painted with -such superb breadth and incisive vigour as _The Young Beggar_ (No. -1717), which is almost worthy of the brush of Velazquez in his Sevillan -period. The decidedly unsavoury subject is made acceptable by the -consummate artistry of the treatment. - - - “THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION” - -It is not, however, to pictures of this type that Murillo owed his -widespread popularity. Generations of enthusiastic admirers have -stood in silent awe before his large painting of _The Immaculate -Conception_ (No. 1709, Plate XXVI.), which is certainly one of the best -of innumerable versions of the same subject—the Virgin standing on a -crescent moon, with ecstatic gaze, and hands pressed to her breast, -and surrounded by swarms of joyous angel-children—painted by Murillo -to meet an apparently insatiable demand. There is something of real -ecstasy in this conception. To find a similar _morbidezza_ of pigment -one must turn to certain famous works by Andrea del Sarto: it is a -quality which is generally conspicuously absent from Spanish painting -and which, if carried a step farther, as it sometimes was carried by -Murillo, would result in fuzzy vapidness. This famous picture has the -distinction of being the most costly purchase ever made for the Louvre, -the price paid for it at the Marshal Soult sale in 1852—that is -many years before American competition had established the vastly -enhanced standards of value which now prevail—being as much as 615,300 -fr., or £24,612. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXVI.—MURILLO - - (1618?-1682) - - SPANISH SCHOOL - - No. 1709—THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION - - (La Conception immaculée de la Vierge) - - The Virgin, wearing a white robe with a blue mantle over her left - shoulder, has her hands crossed over her breast; she is standing in - the hollow of a two-horned crescent, and gazing heavenwards. About - twenty-one cherubs and ten heads are seen in different parts of the - composition. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 9 ft. 0 in. × 6 ft. 3 in. (2·74 × 1·90.)] - -Apparently of earlier date is the other version of the same subject at -the Louvre. This _Immaculate Conception_ (No. 1708) is not painted in -the same spirit of exaltation as the version just described, but has -a happy passage of realistic character-painting in the six kneeling -figures on the left. On the right two angels carry a scroll with -the inscription IN PRINCIPIO DILEXIT EAM. The picture was painted -in 1656-57 for the Church of Santa Maria la Blanca at Seville, and -was carried off to France, with many other of the master’s works, by -Marshal Soult. - - - THE “BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN” - -Another picture that formed part of the loot taken by Napoleon’s -general and was taken in 1855 from his son, the Duke of Dalmatia, in -liquidation of a debt of £6000, is _The Birth of the Virgin_ (No. -1710). The National Gallery in London owns a small preliminary study -for this painting, which was executed in 1655 for Seville Cathedral. -The centre is occupied by a beautifully disposed group of four women -and four winged heavenly visitors attending to the Infant’s bath; in -the background on the left St. Anne, raised in her bed, is receiving -visitors, and on the right are seen two attendants airing linen at -a fireplace. The strange assemblage, in which the earthly and the -heavenly are without incongruity brought into such close contact that -one of the boy-angels is actually occupied with a dog, is completed -by another four angels floating in the air above the Infant. In -composition, distribution of light and shade, and in harmonious -blending of mellow colour this picture ranks among Murillo’s highest -achievements. According to Cean Bermudez, the roundness, beauty of -shape, and rosy complexion of the waiting-woman’s arm in the foreground -“excited the jealous envy of the ladies of Seville.” It is interesting -to note that before its acquisition by the Louvre the _Birth of the -Virgin_ was brought to England in 1823, when the owners vainly tried to -find a purchaser. - - - “THE ANGELS’ KITCHEN” - -Yet another deservedly famous work by Murillo, removed from a -Franciscan convent at Seville by the insatiable greed of Marshal Soult, -is the now extensively restored large picture known as _The Miracle of -San Diego_, or _The Angels’ Kitchen_ (No. 1716). The composition is -divided by two large figures of angels into two halves. On the left two -knights of Calatrava are shown in by a Franciscan brother and behold -St. Diego in prayer miraculously raised into the air and surrounded -by a flood of light. On the right the angels are occupied with the -preparation of the repast for which the Saint has sent his prayer to -the Virgin. A Franciscan is watching the scene from the distance with -a gesture of amazement. Here again the real and the supernatural are -blended with unaffected naïveté, the unity of the contending elements -being established by the masterly rendering of light and atmosphere. -An account of the miracle is given on a cartouche in the foreground; -whilst a piece of paper on the left holds the signature - - BART-EST. MURILLO, 1646. - -_The Angels’ Kitchen_ was bought from the despoiler’s heirs for £3420. - -_The Virgin of the Rosary_ (No. 1712), unlike the majority of Murillo’s -representations of the Mother of God, has scarcely a trace of spiritual -exaltation, but is merely a handsome type of a happy and contented -Spanish mother. The folds of her outer garment are arranged in florid -and meaningless profusion. - -_The Holy Family_ (No. 1713), also known as _The Virgin of Seville_, is -a genuine and characteristic, though strangely overrated work by the -master, and bears the signature - - BARTOLOM DE MURILLO F. HISPAN. - -_The Virgin in Glory_ (No. 1711) is, to say the least, of doubtful -authenticity. The small companion pictures, _Christ in the Garden of -Olives_ (No. 1714) and _Christ at the Column and St. Peter_ (No. 1715), -are painted on marble, to which fact they owe the unpleasant coldness -of their colouring. - -In the La Caze Room are two portraits, _The Poet Quevedo_ (No. 1718) -and _The Duke of Ossuña_ (No. 1719), which the official Catalogue -ascribes to Murillo. Quite apart from the fact that the artist was -only six years of age when the Duke of Ossuña died, the quality of -the painting does not justify these attributions. Like the head of -Philip IV. in the same room, they were probably painted by Escosura, a -late-nineteenth-century Spaniard - - - THE SCHOOL OF MADRID - -We must now return to Madrid, where the example of Velazquez had -inspired a fairly numerous group of able painters without particular -genius, whose art, being entirely derivative, carried within itself -the germ of decay and sank to complete insignificance before the close -of the century. The most distinguished artist of this group is Juan -Bautista del Mazo, who has already been referred to as the author -of the _Meeting of Thirteen People_ and probably of the _Philip IV. -in Hunting Costume_. So well did he succeed in appropriating his -father-in-law’s style that his best works have frequently passed under -his illustrious master’s name. - -Another important painter of the Madrid school is Carreño de Miranda -(Nos. 1614-1685), who benefited by Velazquez’s patronage, became -painter of the Palace in 1669, and Court Painter and Assistant -Seneschal in 1671. Although in his later years he devoted himself -largely to subject pictures which are distinguished by a warmer -colouring than most of the productions by the Madrid school of the -period, he achieved his greatest successes as a portrait painter. He -was considerably influenced by the paintings of Van Dyck, which he -had occasion to study in the royal palaces. His large _St. Ambrose -distributing Alms_ (No. 1702), in the La Caze Gallery, is a hurriedly -executed work which does not show his art to the best advantage. It -figured in the sale of the Soult collection, when it failed to realise -£20. - -Far more typical of its author’s best manner is _The Burning Bush_ (No. -1703) by Francisco Collantes (1599-1656), a Madrid painter who studied -under Vincente Carducho, but was influenced by Bassano. He was an -excellent colourist, especially in his landscape paintings with small -figures. His most famous picture is _The Vision of Ezekiel_, formerly -at the Buen Retiro Palace and now in the Prado Gallery. - -Juan de Arellano (1614-1676), the painter of the _Flowers_ (No. 1701), -worked at Madrid, unknown and in abject poverty, until at the age of -thirty-six he began to devote himself to flower-painting, a branch -of art in which he developed considerable skill, and rose to great -popularity. - -Yet another Madrid painter who is but indifferently represented at the -Louvre by a still life of _Fruit and Musical Instruments_ (No. 1720) -in the La Caze collection, is Antonio Pereda (1599-1669). Although a -contemporary of Velazquez and working in the same city, he was not -appreciably influenced by that master. He was a pupil of Pedro de las -Cuevas, and his style shows certain affinities with Ribera. His works -are rarely to be met with outside the galleries and churches of his own -country. - -The end of the seventeenth century marked the complete decadence of the -Spanish school, which was precipitated and received its final seal by -the advent in 1692 of the Neapolitan Luca Giordano, whose rare facility -in the production of showy, flashy, meretricious works earned for him -the sobriquet “Fa Presto,” and whose prodigious success was a powerful -incentive to emulation. More fatal even than the influence of Luca -Giordano was that of the German artist Raphael Mengs, an uninspired -eclectic who became Court Painter to Charles III., and who is referred -to in the chapter dealing with the German pictures at the Louvre. - - - GOYA - -In this time of complete stagnation the fascinating personality of -Francisco Goya y Lucientes (1746-1828) flashes like a bright meteor -through the dark night of Spanish art. Goya takes a unique position -in the art of his country—or, indeed, of the world. He was as much -the last of the old masters as he is the first of the moderns. A man -of fiery temperament, impulsive, unruly, opposed to authority, he was -terribly unequal in his performance. It is as unnecessary to state -who were his masters as it is impossible to speak of his style in -general terms, for there probably never was an artist who worked in -so many different styles, experimented in so many different mediums, -and treated so vast a range of subjects as Goya. He was a creature of -moods, and changed his method of painting as easily as his political -allegiance from Bourbon to Bonaparte and back again to Bourbon. - -His four pictures at the Louvre are without exception portraits, and do -not therefore illustrate his highly developed sense of the dramatic. -But they serve admirably to show his active protest against the -classicist affectation prevalent at his time, and his return to the -healthy realism which is the heritage of his race. The _Portrait of F. -Guillemardet, Ambassador of the French Republic to Spain_ (No. 1704), -is an admirably honest piece of portraiture, dignified but perfectly -natural in pose, strong in expression and pleasing in colour. It was -bequeathed to the Louvre by Guillemardet, together with the _Young -Spanish Woman_ (No. 1705) in a black mantilla, standing with crossed -arms against a pearly-grey landscape background. The seated half-figure -of the rather corpulent _Young Spanish Woman_ (No. 1705A) was bought -at the Kums sale at Antwerp for £1276; and the portrait of _Don Perez -de Castro_ (No. 1705B) was acquired in 1902 for £1200. Goya was an -isolated figure in Spanish art of the time. He left no “school,” but -his influence was one of the leading factors in the rise of the modern -movement in France. - - - - - THE DUTCH SCHOOL - - -We have already followed the development of the early Flemish or -Netherlandish art during the fifteenth century, and observed how -it eventually passed under the Italianising influences which are -unmistakable in the pictures of Barend van Orley (1495?-1542) and -his contemporaries. The early painters of Holland as distinct from -Flanders cannot be traced with any certainty much farther back than -Albert von Ouwater (fl. 1420-1460), who worked at Haarlem from 1430 to -1460. As we have already seen, the early Flemish painter, Gerard David -(1460?-1523), was born at Ouwater, which may well have had its school -of painters. Neither Albert von Ouwater, who is represented to-day by -a single work, the _Raising of Lazarus_ in the Berlin Gallery, nor his -unidentifiable contemporary who painted the _Exhumation of St. Hubert_, -in the National Gallery (No. 783), are included in the collection of -pictures at the Louvre. - - - GERARD OF HAARLEM - -The influence of these painters and Dierick Bouts is seen in the rare -works of Geertgen tot S. Jans, or Gerard of Haarlem (1465-1493) whose -_Raising of Lazarus_ (No. 2563A) in this collection is an achievement -of the highest order, and was purchased as recently as 1902 for £4000 -from Baron d’Albenas, after having been for many years in Spain. This -pupil or follower of the Ouwater master was a native of Leyden, and -worked at Haarlem. He took his name from the commandery of the Knights -of St. John at Haarlem for whom he worked, as we see from the careful -inscription, “_Gerardus Leydanus pictor ad S. Io. Baptist. Harlem -pinxt_,” on his triptych at Vienna. - -Among his contemporaries were Cornelis Engelbrechtsen, who was born -in 1468 at Leyden, where he died in 1533, and Lucas van Leyden -(1494-1533). The latter played an important part as an engraver quite -as much as a painter in the university town of Leyden, which now -possesses his large _Last Judgment_ and became famous as the birthplace -of Rembrandt in 1606. The Louvre possesses no picture by either -Engelbrechtsen or Lucas van Leyden. - -Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (fl. 1470-1533) is also unrepresented -here. Portraits by painters in this group are often confused, as in -the case of the _Portrait of the Duke of East Friesland_, in the -Oldenburg Gallery, which has been attributed to both Lucas van Leyden -and Jacob Cornelisz. A pupil of the latter may have painted the _Cana -of Galilee_ (No. 2640C). It is safe to assign to “the Master of the -Female Half Figures,” the _Young Lady Reading_ (No. 2641C), which has -a close analogy with the well-known picture in the Harrach collection -at Vienna, representing half-length figures of three young ladies in -crimson velvet dresses cut square at the neck, and singing to the -accompaniment of a flute and a lute. The name of this painter is -not known, but his pictures, which are neither numerous nor of any -conspicuous merit, are easily recognisable. - -To this period of transition and mediocre painting belongs Jan Scorel -(1495-1562), whose _Portrait of Paracelsus the Doctor_ (No. 2567A) is -inscribed: - - “FORMOSO DOCTOR PARASELSUS,” - -and is in every way superior to the _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2641B), -which is labelled with the name of Scorel, but catalogued as being by -an unknown artist. From Scorel, a much travelled Dutch artist, who at -one time worked at Nuremburg with Albrecht Dürer and visited Venice -and the East, we naturally pass to Jan Mostaert of Haarlem. Mostaert -of Haarlem is unrepresented at the Louvre, a remark which equally well -applies to the anonymous “Pseudo-Mostaert,” who painted so much in his -style that a large number of inferior productions have been credited to -him from time to time. Pictures of this type vary so considerably that -the name “Pseudo-Mostaert” is little more than a generic designation -for unassignable Flemish and Dutch pictures of the middle of the -sixteenth century; such pictures bear some relationship to the _Christ -bearing His Cross_ (No. 2299), and the _Abraham’s Sacrifice_ (No. -2300), officially attributed to the little-known and quite negligible -painter Alart Claeszoon (1498-1564) of Leyden. - - - SIR ANTONIS MOR - -From Leyden we may pass to Utrecht, which was the birthplace of the -much-travelled, distinguished, and cosmopolitan painter, Antonis Mor -(1512-1578?). He was a pupil of Jan Scorel, but soon freed himself -from the hard manner he acquired under that master by his study in -Italy of the best works of the Venetians. Indeed, some of his pictures -have passed as the work of Calcar, the pupil of Titian. Mor, or Moro, -excelled as a painter of vigorous and truthful portraits, and the -portraits and replicas he painted of Queen Mary are well known. The -Prado Gallery at Madrid and the Vienna Gallery contain good examples -of his art, and he is fairly well represented in the Louvre. While he -was in the service of Philip II. of Spain he lived in much splendour, -and was amply paid for his work. His close intimacy with the monarch -induced him on one occasion to take the liberty of touching with a -brush dipped in red paint the hand of the king. This serious breach -of Court etiquette created a profound impression on the courtiers -present; and, although the painter sued for pardon and obtained it from -the king, he soon recognised that he had made himself obnoxious to the -Inquisition, who asserted that Moro had got from the heretic English, -while painting the portrait of Queen Mary, a charm that enabled him to -bewitch the Spanish monarch. Being thus compelled to leave Spain, he -settled in Antwerp, where he died between 1576 and 1578. - -The pictures of Mor, who was the contemporary of Titian, at different -periods of his art bear traces of the Dutch, Spanish, and Flemish -schools. He in turn also had an influence on the portrait painters of -Spain half a century before the birth of Velazquez. The _Portrait of a -Man_ (No. 2478), which is signed and dated: - - “_ANT MORO pingebat, 1565_,” - -was in the past held by some writers to bear the features of Sir -Francis Drake, who was, however, at the date here given only twenty-one -years of age. The two large paintings in the Duchâtel Bequest which -pass as the _Portrait of Louis de Rio_ and _His Wife_ (No. 2480 and No. -2481) are, judging by the attitudes of the figures and the shape of the -panels, the wings of a large altarpiece. _The Dwarf of Charles V._ (No. -2479) reminds us that the painter, while still young, was taken into -the service of that emperor. _The Portrait of Edward VI. of England_ -(No. 2481A) bears a very suspicious-looking inscription. - - - SPANISH OPPRESSION - -The political events of the reign of Philip II. of Spain, the mistaken, -mischievous, and oppressive policy he adopted with regard to his -territory in the Netherlands, and the contempt with which he treated -his Dutch subjects, soon alienated their sympathies; but the Duke of -Alva by his harshness and bigotry incited them to frenzy. When he set -forth in 1567, all hope of peace and mercy fled before him, and within -a short period his tyranny and ferocity fanned the flame of rebellion, -which after a struggle of eighty years was to end in the Peace of -Münster of 1648. In that year Spain ignominiously surrendered, and -the independence of the northern Netherlands was recognised. During -the long period which elapsed between the Union of Utrecht in 1579 -and the negotiations at Osnabrück and Münster in 1648 must have been -destroyed innumerable religious pictures, the loss of which renders it -almost impossible for us to estimate the full significance of artistic -endeavour in Holland in the closing years of the sixteenth century. - -A new era in Dutch history, social life and art was beginning to -open out by the year 1612, when Abraham Blomaert (1564-1651) painted -and signed his very large _Nativity_ (No. 2327), which was formerly -attributed to Bernardino Fassolo. Blomaert’s _Portrait of a Man_ (No. -2327A) is also a signed work. - - - HISTORY AND PORTRAIT PAINTERS - -Blomaert’s contemporary, Michiel Jansz Mierevelt (1567-1641), who -was at one time Court painter to the Princes of Orange at The Hague, -and was with undue flattery hailed as the “New Xeuxis of Delft,” is -represented by the _Portrait of Olden Barnevelt_ (No. 2465) and three -other portraits, one of which (No. 2466) is in a very bad state. Stiff -but characteristic is the _Portrait of a Woman_ (No. 2534), which was -painted by Jan van Ravesteyn (1572-1657) in 1633, while his initials -are also found on a panel (No. 2535) which was commissioned of him in -the following year. Although Gerard Verspronck (1600-1651) was many -years his junior, and in 1641, in the period of his maturity, achieved -the _Portrait of a Lady_ (No. 2576A), the top corners of which have -been added, he painted on the lines of tradition, and showed little -originality. He came under the influence of Frans Hals, under whose -name his pictures often pass. - - - CORNELIS JANSSEN - -Nor can it be said that the numerous portraits which Cornelis Janssen -van Ceulen (1593-1664?) undertook in England, give signs of the new -artistic impulse which was daily manifesting itself in Holland in the -early works of Frans Hals. Janssen, who was baptized at the Dutch -Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London, throve until the establishment -in England of Van Dyck, before whom he quickly had to give way; -although he withdrew to Kent and lived in retirement, he did not -receive the Speaker’s warrant to pass beyond seas until 1643. That -“Cornelius Johnson Picture Drawer” made use of pallid flesh tones and -lifeless grey tones, is obvious from the two portraits (No. 2338 and -No. 2339) exhibited in the Louvre. - -The very modern looking _Portrait of a Young Man_ (No. 2303A), signed -“D. BAILLY,” is officially held to be the work of a Leyden painter of -that name who would appear to have been a contemporary of Cornelis -Janssen. - - - FRANS HALS - -Although the great Dutch painter, Frans Hals (1580?-1666) was born -at Antwerp, his parents were natives of Haarlem, whither he removed -about 1600, and where he settled for the remainder of his eventful, -irregular, and improvident career. This lusty and unromantic master by -his forceful characterisation, his rapid wielding of his brush, and his -frank realism, in a few years transformed the earlier portrait-making -of Holland, and the rendering of the commonplace and obvious -likeness of an individual, as seen in the works of Moreelse and -others, into the region of great art. He was by about a quarter of -a century the senior of Rembrandt, who is the greatest genius among -Dutch painters, and developed his art on logical lines. It is, however, -necessary to know the outstanding facts of his personal history, the -fluctuating circumstances under which he worked, and the grinding -poverty of his latest period. Perhaps no other painter in the whole -range of art was so affected by his environment as Hals. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXVII.—FRANS HALS - - (1580?-1666) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2384.—THE GIPSY GIRL - - (La Bohémienne) - - She wears a red dress, which is open at the neck; she smiles as she - turns her eyes to the right; half-length figure. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 6 in. × 2 ft. 3 in. (0·76 × 0·68.)] - -Whether he was a pupil of Cornelis Cornelissen, Hendrick Goltzius, and -Karel van Mander (the Dutch Vasari), is not known with any certainty, -and no picture painted by him earlier than 1613, when he may have been -thirty-three years of age, is known to-day. Early in the year 1616, -when he painted his famous _Banquet of the Officers of the St. Joris -Shooting Guild_, one of his early masterpieces still preserved in the -small gallery at Haarlem, he was summoned before the Burgomaster of the -“town of the tulip,” and reprimanded for his cruelty to his first wife. -Exactly a year later he married a second time, and as the years went on -he became the father of at least six sons who adopted the profession -of the painter but earned no permanent success. The Louvre possesses -no example of his Doelen-pieces of archer-groups which won him his -earliest fame in his own country, but is fortunate enough to contain -the famous _Gipsy Girl_ (No. 2384, Plate XXVII.), which alone would -have earned for him the title of “the master of the laugh.” It passed -through the Ménars sale in 1792 for 301 livres. The three pictures of -the Beresteyn family were bought for £4000 in 1884, when his paintings -were not as highly prized as they are to-day. They give an excellent -idea of the virility his art had attained by about 1629. The best of -these is the _Portrait of Nicolaes van Beresteyn_ (No. 2386), which is -inscribed, “AETAT SUAE 40. 1629.” His hands are superbly painted; while -the companion _Portrait_ (No. 2387) of his wife is equally striking. -The large and imposing _Portrait-Group of the Beresteyn Family_ (No. -2388) is marred by the excessive use in places of a strong red, and has -been enlarged by the addition down the right side of the canvas of a -strip about fourteen inches broad, but yet shows a certain felicity of -grouping, and a joyous and exuberant outlook. _The Portrait, of René -Descartes, the French Philosopher_ (No. 2383) is so simple in treatment -and so easy in pose, that it makes an instant appeal to the student. -Another _Portrait of Descartes_ (No. 78), by Sébastien Bourdon, is -in this gallery, and a third was in the Arsène Houssaye collection. -The _Portrait of a Lady in a Black Dress_ (No. 2385, Plate XXVIII.) -is unaffected and lifelike, while the subtle and hasty brushing in of -the gloves could only have been done by a great painter. It seems to -have been generally overlooked that a study for this picture is in the -collection of Lord Ronald Gower, and has for some time past been on -loan to the FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge. In the study, however, the -artist had not yet thought of the gloves. - -In 1654, Hals had to appear before a public notary of Haarlem at the -instance of his landlord, who sued him for debt. The great Dutch -painter in his testimony affirmed that his only possessions were two -pictures by Vermander and Van Heemskerck, and three by himself and one -of his sons, as well as three mattresses and bolsters, a cupboard and a -table! The Louvre exhibits no pictorial record of Hals’s latest phase, -when he was deserted by his friends, neglected by art patrons, and no -longer possessed any inner moral support. - -The colouring of his early portraits is vigorous, the tone deep, -and the execution careful; gradually he employs richer colouring, -subordinates the local colours, and becomes broader in treatment. From -about 1650 his olive-greens gradually take on a more ash-grey hue, -until we are inclined to the belief that if the master had been -able to dispense with colour altogether, he would have willingly done -so. It is then that the colours on his palette, like the outer world, -became grey and black for him. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXVIII.—FRANS HALS - - (1580?-1666) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2385.—PORTRAIT OF A LADY IN A BLACK DRESS - - (Portrait de Femme) - - A middle-aged woman wearing a black dress, with white collar, cuffs - and cap, is seen at three-quarter length, standing and turned - three-quarters to the left; in her hands, which are superposed, she - holds her gloves. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 3 ft. 3½ in. × 2 ft. 7½ in. (1·00 × 0·80.)] - -This great master of the brush some time before his death had to avail -himself of poor relief granted by the municipality of Haarlem, and -after his death, in 1666, his widow received an allowance of fourteen -sous a week! Such was the tragic end of one of the most accomplished of -portrait painters in the whole range of art. - - - DUTCH INDEPENDENCE - -Holland after a terrible struggle had ultimately succeeded in throwing -off the Spanish yoke before the art of Hals was on the wane. Dutch -art then became gradually more independent, self-centred, democratic -in outlook, and Protestant in tendency. Religious subjects became -less frequent, and domestic scenes dealing with indoor and outdoor -life were before long largely on the increase. Before we pass to the -detailed study of the most striking characteristics of art in Holland -in the last half of the seventeenth century, we must examine at some -length the far-reaching influence and the world-famous achievements of -Rembrandt, for whom Hals may be said to have prepared the way. - - - REMBRANDT - -As his name denotes, Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn (1606-1669) was born -on the banks of the Rhine, his father being a miller at Leyden. When -fourteen years of age he entered the university of his native town and -had a classical education, which stood him in good stead through his -long and troubled career. Although he was at first placed as a pupil -of Jacob van Swanenburgh, he at an early age removed to Amsterdam. -There he worked under Pieter Lastman (1583-1633), whose _Abraham’s -Sacrificing Jacob_ (No. 2443A) of 1616 is hung opposite the works -of his illustrious pupil. The independent spirit of Rembrandt soon -asserted itself, and as early as 1627 he placed his name on pictures -which still exist, notably in the Berlin and Stuttgart museums. His -earliest picture in the Louvre is the _Old Man Reading_ (No. 2541A), -which is signed and dated 1630, and was presented by M. Kaempfen, a -former Director of this gallery, on his retirement. Three years later -came the two small and very similar versions (No. 2540 and No. 2541) -of the _Philosopher in Meditation_, the former of which is signed and -dated; in 1633 was painted the _Portrait of the Artist_ (No. 2552), -while another oval picture of the same subject (No. 2553) is inscribed -1634. In this early period the artist was in the habit of portraying -members of his own family, who were naturally his most accessible -models. - -At this moment of his career Rembrandt had to measure himself with -many rivals in Amsterdam, notably with Thomas de Keyser (1596?-1667), -whose _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2438A) was formerly in the Rodolphe -Kann collection, while a half-length _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2438B), -also by de Keyser, was formerly at Versailles. From the trammels -and restrictions which the art of de Keyser would have been likely -to impose on a less gifted and original mind, Rembrandt readily set -himself free; and he must have had great hopes for the future when, in -1634, he took to wife the wealthy Saskia van Uylenborch. However, the -oval _Portrait of Himself wearing a black cap_ (No. 2554), dated 1637, -is of marked inferiority to the dignified and deeply religious panel, -_The Archangel Raphael leaving Tobias and his Father Tobit_ (No. 2536), -of the same year. A year later he must have painted the _Portrait of an -Old Man_ (No. 2544), and his first pure landscape. - -The influence of domestic bereavements on Rembrandt’s art is -clearly reflected in the choice of his subjects, in their more -intimate setting, and in the deep feeling which evidently inspired -them. No better example of this side of his character and his art could -be found than the _Holy Family in the Carpenter’s Shop_ (No. 2542), -which he painted in 1640. In that year his mother died, an event which -followed rapidly on the death of his two infant daughters and his son, -and his wife’s frequent illness. He, however, still went on painting -such varied compositions as the _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2546), of -1645, and the _Woman Bathing_ (No. 2550), which he achieved two years -later. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXIX.—REMBRANDT - - (1606-1669) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2539.—THE PILGRIMS AT EMMAUS - - (Les Pèlerins d’Emmaüs) - - In a lofty room in front of a shallow niche in a wall, Christ and - the two disciples sit at table; a young serving-man enters from the - right, carrying a dish. Christ, whose bare feet are seen underneath - the table, gazes heavenward as He breaks bread, by which act the - disciples recognise Him as their Lord. The room is lit from the - left. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - Signed below on the left:—“_Rembrandt f. 1648._” - - 2 ft. 2¾ in. × 2 ft. 1¾ in. (0·68 × 0·65.)] - -The famous _Night-Watch_, in the Amsterdam Gallery, testifies to his -inventive faculty in 1642, the year in which the death of his beloved -Saskia caused him intense grief. From this he never really recovered, -as we see from the frequency with which during the remainder of his -life he painted pathetic subjects. What artist in the whole history -of painting has been able to impart to his rendering of the _Good -Samaritan_ the kindly solicitude of the principal character in this -parable, and the feeling of complete collapse seen in the body of the -wounded man, as Rembrandt has done in his superb canvas (No. 2537) of -1648 in this gallery? No less poignant is the grief depicted on the -face of the barefooted Man of Sorrows in the _Christ and the Pilgrims -at Emmaus_ (No. 2539, Plate XXIX.) of the same year. Here we see -convincing proof of the dexterous use that the Dutch “magician-painter” -could make of chiaroscuro, which he has handled with such masterly -effect in the _Portrait of Hendrickje Stoffels_ (No. 2547, Plate XXX.). -All these paintings belong to the same period as the soul-moving -_Polish Rider_, which in 1910 passed from the collection of Count -Tarnowski at Dzikow in Galicia into that of Mr. H. C. Frick in New -York for £60,000. The _Portrait of a Man holding a Bâton_ (No. 2551), -in the La Caze collection in this gallery, was painted three years -later than the _Bathsheba_, or _Woman Bathing_ (No. 2549), of 1654. -The wonderfully realistic and in no way repellent _Carcase of an Ox_ -in this gallery (No. 2548), like the picture of the same subject at -Glasgow, is an achievement of a very different kind, and belongs to the -year 1655. - -The Louvre authorities have been well advised in recent years in -hanging all the pictures by Rembrandt in this collection in one Bay of -the Long Gallery. Here now we may study the _Portrait of a Young Man_ -(No. 2545), the wonderful and rather later _Portrait of the Artist at -his Easel at the age of Fifty-four_ (No. 2555), and the striking _St. -Matthew_ (No. 2538) of 1661. Before these three works were painted, the -great Dutch master had been declared bankrupt, the sale of his most -treasured possessions realising a ridiculously small sum in the winter -of 1657. - -Although Rembrandt’s own standard of morality offended his neighbours, -and his relations with Hendrickje Stoffels seem to have caused much -scandal in Amsterdam, we are not concerned with the morals of one of -the greatest and most esteemed of the world’s painters, but only with -his _œuvre_, a high place in which must be accorded to the _Portrait of -Hendrickje Stoffels and her Child as Venus and Cupid_ (No. 2543), which -was painted in 1662, the year that the large _Syndics_, now in the -Amsterdam Gallery, was completed. - -He is also to be credited with the alternative version of the _Pilgrims -at Emmaus_ (No. 2555A), a painting of the same date, which for many -years was at Compiègne, where, however, it passed only as a school -picture. This profoundly creative painter, who learnt as time went on -to handle his chiaroscuro with increased effect, was also an etcher of -the highest order. - -We may here note that the art of Jan Lievens (1607-1674), a -fellow-pupil with Rembrandt under Pieter Lastman, is seen in the large -but far from imposing _Visitation_ (No. 2444). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXX.—REMBRANDT - - (1606-1669) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2547.—PORTRAIT OF HENDRICKJE STOFFELS - - (Portrait de Hendrickje Stoffels) - - She is seated, and looks at the spectator. Over her rich brown - hair she wears a grey cap with narrow red ribbons; pearl pendants - are in her ears, and she wears a brooch on her breast. Life-size - half-length figure. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 4½ in. × 1 ft. 11¾ in. (0·72 × 0·60.)] - - - THE PUPILS OF REMBRANDT - -That Govaert Flinck (1615-1660) was a pupil of Rembrandt, is evident -from his _Announcement to the Shepherds_ (No. 2372) rather than from -his _Portrait of a Young Lady_ (No. 2373), a signed work of 1641. -Ferdinand Bol (1617-1680) was a pupil and imitator of the great Dutch -master, and his _Portrait of a Mathematician_ (No. 2330) is one of his -best paintings; but his _Philosopher in Meditation_ (No. 2328) compares -most unfavourably with Rembrandt’s two early pictures of the same -subject which hang opposite it. - -The ineffectual productions of Jan Victoors (1620-1670) include the -_Portrait of a Young Lady_ (No. 2371), a typical example of the “niche” -portrait which became so popular, and a large _Isaac blessing Jacob_ -(No. 2370), which vividly recalls his small canvas in the Dulwich -College Gallery that in less critical days passed as a Rembrandt. - -G. van den Eeckhout (1621-1674) in his picture (No. 2364) shows his -dependence on Rembrandt; and Cornells Drost’s repulsive _Bathsheba_ -(No. 2359A) has no claim to be regarded as a “_fort bonne peinture_,” -as a French critic has thought fit to term it. - - - VAN DER HELST - -Bartholomeus van der Heist (1612-1670), a native of Haarlem, who -painted under the early Dutch master, Nicholas Elias, surnamed -Pickenoy, and subsequently worked at Amsterdam, has fully signed his -_Shooting Prize_ (No. 2394, Plate XXXI.), which is dated 1653. It has -been regarded as a replica on a very reduced scale of _The Officers -of the Brotherhood of St. Sebastian at Amsterdam_, in the Amsterdam -Gallery, which, curiously enough, bears the date 1657, and is also -signed on a slate. - -Pieter van der Faes, who is better known as Sir Peter Lely -(1618-1680), after painting at Haarlem in the school of Pieter de -Grebber, went to England in 1641. He there succeeded Van Dyck as Court -painter, and at the Restoration became the favourite Royal painter. The -affectation and mannerism of his _Windsor Beauties_, now at Hampton -Court, is well known. He had a certain facility in painting - - “The sleepy eye that spoke the melting soul.” - -Three pictures (Nos. 2367-2369) are placed to his credit here, but - - “The bugle eyeball and the cheek of cream” - -have done their magic now. - -The name of H. van Vliet (1611?-1675) is, doubtless, correctly -connected with two portraits on canvas (Nos. 2605 and 2605A), while his -contemporaries, Cornelis Saftleven (1606-1681) and D. van Santvoort -(1610-1680), are represented by _The Artist’s Portrait_ (No. 2562) -and the _Pilgrims at Emmaus_ (No. 2564) respectively. Jakob van Loo -(1614-1670), who became a naturalised Frenchman, may be judged by his -diploma picture (No. 2451) and a very poor _Nude Female_ (No. 2452). - -Such mediocre producers of uninspired and unconvincing panels as Dirk -Hals (1591-1656), the brother and pupil of Frans Hals, whose _Festive -Repast_ (No. 2389) hangs in Room XXIII.; Cornelis van Poelenburg -(1586-1667), whose art is here admirably illustrated (Nos. 2518-2523); -Hendrick Pot (1585-1657), who evidently derived some satisfaction from -the elaborate inscription he has placed on his quite ineffectual, but -fortunately diminutive, _Portrait of Charles I._ (No. 2525); and the -little-known and less-esteemed L. F. Zustris (1526-1600), whose absurd -_Venus and Love_ (No. 2640) shows what a waste of time it was for him -to study under Titian in Italy—these and many more worked as “business -artists” for undiscriminating patrons. In the same category come -Adriaen van de Venne (No. 2601), Pieter Codde (No. 2339A), Jacob -Duck (No. 2360-2361), and A. Palamedesz (No. 2515A). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXI.—VAN DER HELST - - (1613-1670) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2394.—THE SHOOTING PRIZE - - (Les Chefs de la Gilde des arbalétriers) - - The four officers of the Brotherhood of St. Sebastian at Amsterdam - are seated at a table in the foreground, with the insignia of the - Brotherhood displayed before them. By the side of the officer who, - seated to the right, is addressing his companions, is a slate on - which are inscribed their names. In the background to the right - are three young men with bows and arrows. From the left enters a - maid-servant with a drinking-horn. - - Signed on the slate:—“BARTHOLOMEUS VAN DER HELST FECIT, 1653.” - - Painted in oil on canvas affixed to panel. - - 1 ft. 7¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·50 × 0·67.)] - - - GENRE PAINTERS - -This rough sketch must suffice for our study of the History and -Portrait Painters of Holland. Although, of course, portraiture played -a most important part throughout the whole range of Dutch art, we must -now deal with those of their contemporaries and successors who are -classed as painters of genre subjects, Interiors, Conversation-pieces, -and Rustic Scenes. The compositions of these men at first show high -technical excellence, and a refined feeling for light and shade; -they depict simple scenes and homely incidents which make a wide -appeal in any age. By the end of the seventeenth century their scenes -become festive, and eventually boisterous, and so degenerate into -unimaginative renderings of far-fetched incidents which are treated -with a parade of mere imitative skill. In the last phase of their art -the subjects become even more uninviting, the panels are smoothly -painted, and all originality disappears. - - - ADRIAEN VAN OSTADE - -Adriaen van Ostade (1610-1685), as a pupil of Frans Hals at Haarlem, -occupies an important position in his school. He is seen to very great -advantage at the Louvre. From his early _Interior of a Cabaret_ (No. -2506), which is signed on a form - - “A. V. OSTADE 1641,” - -we see the direction his life’s work was to take; and his _Interior of -a Cottage_ (No. 2498) of the following year, strengthens that view. -Although _Reading the Gazette_ (No. 2505), of 1653, is painted on -a very small panel, it heightens our appreciation of this able and -careful painter, who, a year later, must have spent a long time in -the completion of a _Family Group_, which traditionally passes as the -_Family of the Artist_ (No. 2495). The _Toper_ (No. 2401), of 1668, and -the intensely realistic _Smoker_ (No. 2500), are highly characteristic, -while the _Schoolmaster_ (No. 2496) shows great observation. The _Fish -Market_ (No. 2497), the _Business Man in his Study_ (No. 2499), the -_Man Drinking_ (No. 2502), the _Man Reading_ (No. 2503), the _Reading_ -(No. 2504), and the _Interior of a School_ (No. 2507), are both in -subject and handling good examples of his methods, which were affected -by a study of Adriaen Brouwer and Rembrandt. - -Adriaen van Ostade was the elder brother and the master of Isack van -Ostade (1621-1649), who is equally well represented at the Louvre. -Although he painted two _Interiors_ (Nos. 2512 and 2514), a _Toit à -porcs_ (No. 2513), a _Halt_ (No. 2509), and an overcrowded _Travellers -Halting_ (No. 2508), his best works, here as elsewhere, represent -landscapes and frozen river scenes. - -Adriaen van Ostade had also as pupils Cornelis Bega (1620-1664), by -whom the Louvre possesses a very late _Rustic Interior_ (No. 2312), of -1662; and H. M. Sorgh, called Rokes (1611?-1670), three of whose panels -(Nos. 2571-2573) are exhibited. - - - GERARD DOU - -Gerard Dou (1613-1675) was in his day a highly popular and prosperous -painter of petty tragedies. As a boy of fifteen he entered the studio -of “the skilled and far-famed Mr. Rembrandt,” who was, however, his -senior by only seven years. One is apt to tire of his irritating -parade of cleverness in the manipulation of light and shade effects, -and over-scrupulous and niggling treatment of detail. Yet it is these -very qualities that brought him financial success when in later life -Rembrandt was receiving scanty treatment at the hands of the art -patrons of Holland. The _Dentist_ (No. 2355) is an early work. Dou’s -_Portrait of an Old Lady_ (No. 2358) is now held to be a _Portrait of -Rembrandt’s Mother_, and is regarded as the companion picture to the -_Old Man Reading_ (No. 2567), by Dou’s pupil, Godfried Schalcken. The -_Grocer’s Shop_ (No. 2350), which has been, with needless precision, -“ranked about the seventh best of this master’s productions,” is signed -in full on the slate, and dated 1647 on the mortar, while the _Cook -with a Dead Cock_ (No. 2353) is signed on the window-sill, and dated -1650. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXII.—GERARD DOU - - (1613-1675) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2348.—THE DROPSICAL WOMAN - - (La Femme Hydropique) - - In a well-appointed room, lighted by an arched window on the left, - an old woman is seated in an arm-chair. The sick woman, who raises - her eyes to heaven and is taking a spoonful of medicine from a - young woman, gives her right hand to a girl who kneels on the left - by her side. Towards the right stands the doctor, who holds up to - the light a glass full of liquid. A chandelier hangs in the centre, - and on the right are a large tapestry curtain and a wine-cooler. - - Signed on the edge of the book placed on the reading-desk in the - left foreground:— - - “1663. G. DOV. OVT. 65 JAER.” - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 2 ft. 8¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·83 × 0·67.)] - -The _Trumpeter_ (No. 2351) is perhaps the pendant to the _Girl at a -Window_, of 1657, now in the Rothschild collection at Waddesdon Manor. -On the window-ledge in the _Trumpeter_ we see the same silver flagon -and a dish that also appear in the _Dropsical Woman_ (No. 2348, Plate -XXXII.), a world-famous, but not on that account a great, picture. It -bears a somewhat enigmatical inscription: - - “1663. G. DOV. OVT. 65 JAER” - -on the edge of the book placed on the reading-desk. Dou in 1663, the -year here given, was only fifty years of age, and the statement of -age in the second half of the inscription may be a later addition, or -capable of another interpretation. The light comes in from the window -on the left. The woman who is dying of dropsy is receiving a dose of -medicine, while her daughter in grief kneels and kisses her hand, and -the doctor holds up to the light the vial, the contents of which he -is carefully examining. The artist in this his largest picture is at -much pains to show the dexterity with which he can paint the fabric -of the dresses, the large tapestry hanging in folds on the right, -and the reflection of light on the chandelier. This panel, which is -Dou’s masterpiece and is in an excellent state of preservation, was -originally contained in an ebony case, the outside of which (in two -pieces) was formerly the still-life painting of a _Silver Ewer and -Dish_ (No. 2349). - -The _Man weighing Gold_ (No. 2354) is signed in full, and dated 1664; -elaborate care and much time have been expended, if not wasted, on -every wrinkle in his face, and every hair in his white beard. It -has points of analogy with Quentin Matsys’s _Banker and his Wife_ -(No. 2029), which was painted in Flanders nearly a century and a -half earlier. Dou’s meticulous art is also exemplified in the _Old -Man Reading_ (No. 2357), _Reading the Bible_ (No. 2356), the _Dutch -Cook_ (No. 2352), and the highly characteristic but quite negligible -_Portrait of the Painter_ (No. 2359). In many respects this type of -picture warns us that within a few years of Dou’s death, in 1675, the -art of Holland passed into decadence. - - - DOU’S PUPILS - -He had several pupils. Of these Quiryn van Brekelenkam (1620?-1668) -holds a respectable place among the Small Masters of Holland, as we -see from his _Consultation_ (No. 2337) in this collection rather than -from his _Monk Writing_ (No. 2338). Herman van Swanevelt (1620-1655), -who from his journeys south earned the name of Herman of Italy, gives -us three _Landscapes_ (Nos. 2584-2586). Karel de Moor (1656-1738), -a native of Leyden, who has signed his _Dutch Family_ (No. 2477), -worked under both Dou and Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635-1681). The -latter owes much of his technique and meticulous work to Dou, as is -revealed by a hasty inspection of his _Tea Party_ (No. 2471), with two -over-dressed women taking tea, and three other panels (Nos. 2469, 2470, -and 2472). Ary de Vois (1632-1680) was a pupil of the German painter N. -Knupfer and of his own countryman Abraham van den Tempel (1622-1672), -who is here represented by a _Portrait of a Lady with an Apple_ (No. -2586A); but he also came under the influence of the painter of the -_Dropsical Woman_ (Plate XXXII.), as is testified by his small interior -_Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2606), his _Portrait of a Painter at his -Easel_ (No. 2607), and his feeble _Woman cutting a Lemon_ (No. 2608). -Traces of Dou’s art are seen in J. A. van Staveren’s (1624?-1668) -_Philosopher in his Study_ (No. 2577); but P. C. van Slingelandt -(1640-1691) was a direct pupil. His _Dutch Family_ (No. 2568) is said -to have been bought by Louis XVI. from an English brewer, and the -_Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2569) and _Kitchen Utensils_ (No. 2570) have -long been in the collection. The _Magdalene_ (No. 2570A) and _St. -Jerome_ (No. 2570B) were bequeathed to the Louvre. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXIII.—TERBORCH - - (1617-1681) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2589.—THE CONCERT - - (Le Concert) - - A young lady in white satin dress and yellow bodice is seated - in the centre before a table covered with a richly coloured - tablecloth. She is singing to the accompaniment of a lady in the - left background; a page-boy enters from the right. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 5 in. (0·47 × 0·43.)] - - - GERARD TERBORCH - -Gerard Terborch (1617-1681) was the creator of the -“Conversation-piece,” and one of the earliest to portray the well born -engaged in music lessons and similar occupations; he was one of the -greatest of the Dutch “small-masters,” and in every way the superior -of the uninspired Dou. Terborch invites us to join him in the fine -decorum of a noble chamber where the appointments are carefully tended, -while its occupants give themselves up to cultured, if not perhaps -deeply intellectual, pursuits. We forget all about the carousing and -bestial profligates who people the taverns of Jan Steen and much -less accomplished painters, and watch the refined fingers stray over -the keyboard of the open spinet or sweep the strings of a well-made -mandoline, as in the _Concert_ (No. 2589, Plate XXXIII.). Equally fine -are the two _Music Lessons_ (No. 2588 and No. 2591), the former being -signed and dated 1660. - -The _Military Galant_ (No. 2587) exhibits Terborch’s dexterity in the -rendering of reflected light on a red tablecloth, although the subject -has an innuendo which hardly adds to its charm. The _Ecclesiastical -Assembly_ (No. 2590) is only a small sketch on panel, and affords but -a feeble echo of this painter’s masterpiece, the _Ratification of the -Peace of Münster_, in the National Gallery. Terborch was a pupil of -his father, who had visited Italy, and he studied also under Pieter -Molyn the Elder at Haarlem previous to visiting England in 1635. He -travelled much more extensively than most of his contemporaries, and -went to Spain during the best period of art in the Peninsula. He does -not seem to have been dependent on his professional success for his -living, which was passed in easy circumstances. Nor did he busy himself -as a teacher, his only direct pupil being Caspar Netscher (1639-1684), -who gives us a _Music Lesson_ (No. 2486), of the approved stamp, and a -_Violoncello Lesson_ (No. 2487). - - - JAN STEEN - -It is not known for certain whether Jan Steen (1626?-1679) was a pupil -of Nicholaes Knupfer, a native of Leipzig who resided for a time at -Leyden, but he certainly worked under Adriaen van Ostade at Haarlem, -and later became a pupil of Jan van Goyen, whose daughter Margaretha -he married as his first wife. Steen certainly leased a brewery in -Delft for six years, and he is frequently mentioned in the archives of -that town about 1656; he subsequently kept a tavern in the Langebrug -in Leyden in 1672. His art is vivacious if not boisterous, and the -strength and versatility he displayed in the nine hundred pictures with -which he is justly credited give him a high place among the artists of -Holland in the seventeenth century. The frequency with which he painted -the _Interior of a Tavern_ (No. 2578) has suggested that he carried -on the tradition of the Flemish-Dutch roysterer Adriaen Brouwer; but -such scenes, magnificently as they are handled, are apt to become -boring in time. This large canvas is dated 1674, and the coat of arms -of Charles V. is fastened on to the balcony in which are spectators. -The _Merry Company at Table_ (No. 2579) is somewhat sketchy in parts, -but the lighting is well regulated, and the canvas is signed in full -on the back of a blue-covered chair to the right. That the _Bad -Company_ (No. 2580, Plate XXXIV.) is admirably painted will be conceded -by all, but refinement is not its distinguishing feature. A young -man dressed in a red jacket is sleeping with his head on the lap of -a girl, while another girl is relieving him of his watch. The scene -is laid in a tavern, on the floor of which are painted with wonderful -precision a number of tiny objects. It was not Steen’s habit to paint -representations of cultured society such as Terborch delighted in. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXIV.—JAN STEEN - - (1626?-1679) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2580.—BAD COMPANY - - (La Mauvaise compagnie) - - The scene takes place in a tavern. A young man has fallen asleep - with his head in the lap of a girl, who is seated to the right - of the composition, and holds a glass of wine in her right hand. - Another girl has just taken the young man’s watch from his pocket - and is giving it to an old woman, who receives it with evident - glee. On the left a man sits at a table smoking his pipe, and - another is playing the fiddle. - - Signed in full in the left bottom corner. - - Painted in oil on panel. - - 1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 2¼ in. (0·47 × 0·36.)] - - - PIETER DE HOOCH - -The Louvre contains only two paintings by Pieter de Hooch, who was born -in 1629 at Rotterdam, a town which played a relatively unimportant part -in Dutch painting. He also lived at Delft and Leyden. The _Interior -of a Dutch House, with a Woman preparing Vegetables_ (No. 2414), is -a good example, and is fully signed in the bottom left-hand corner. -The _Dutch Interior, with a Lady playing Cards_ (No. 2415, Plate -XXXV.), is full of incidents, contains six figures, and is signed -on the base of one of the columns supporting the mantelpiece in the -left foreground. No museum in the world exhibits the art of Pieter de -Hooch in such excellence as does the National Gallery, which contains -three masterpieces from his hands that have indirectly been the cause -of assessing the whole of the artist’s life-work on too generous a -basis. It is indisputable that during the last ten years of his life, -of which nothing is known later than the signature and date, 1677, -on the _Music Party_ in the collection of Baron H. A. Steengracht at -The Hague, his art deteriorated very considerably both in colouring -and draughtsmanship. He may well have been a pupil of Karel Fabritius -(1624-1654), but it is almost incredible that he can have been a pupil -of the Italianiser Nicholaes Berchem, as Houbraken ventured to assert. -This museum contains nothing by Ochtervelt, many of whose pictures have -from time to time been accepted as the work of Pieter de Hooch. - -From the shortlived artist Karel Fabritius derives the almost -incomparable master Jan Vermeer van Delft (1642-1675), whose fifty -authentic pictures are to-day among those most coveted by collectors. -As a _painter_ skilled in the technicalities of his profession Vermeer -must be accorded the highest rank. The subtle and mysterious handling -of his _Lace Maker_ (No. 2456, Plate XXXVI.), with its cool colour -scheme and dominant tones of blue and lemon-yellow, make it difficult -for us to realise that until twenty years ago his works were neglected. -Indeed, this small canvas was acquired in 1870 at the Vis Blokhuyzen -sale for the ridiculous sum of £290. Jan Vermeer (or Van der Meer) -van Delft is not to be confused with Jan Van der Meer of Haarlem -(1628-1691), who is included in the official catalogue as the painter -of the _Outside of an Inn_ (No. 2455, marked No. 2022 on the frame). It -is fully signed, and bears the date 1652. - - - NICOLAS MAES - -One of the last lingering influences of Rembrandt is seen in the -art of Nicolas Maes (1632-1693). The genre pictures of his early -period are so vastly superior to his later portraits that it was -formerly assumed that there might well have been two artists of the -same name. He certainly delighted in painting several versions, -which vary considerably in size, of _Grace before Meat_ (No. 2454). -In his pictures we see the mind that broods, and women who meditate -rather than act. The best examples of his domestic scenes are finely -graduated, although the sadness of advancing age becomes monotonous in -time. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXV.—PIETER DE HOOCH - - (1629-1677?) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2415.—DUTCH INTERIOR WITH A LADY PLAYING CARDS - - (Intérieur hollandais) - - By the fireplace to the left a lady is seated. She is playing cards - with a gentleman, and shows her hand to a cavalier who stands - beside her. In the background stand two lovers, and a boy is - entering the room, a richly appointed room, hung with gilt leather. - - Signed on the base of one of the columns supporting the - mantelpiece:—“P. D. HOOCH.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 2½ in. × 2 ft. 6½ in. (0·67 × 0·77.)] - - - GABRIEL METSU - -A high place among the painters of “Conversation-pieces” must be -accorded to Gabriel Metsu (1630?-1667), a shortlived artist who was -born at Leyden and learnt the first principles of his art from Dou. As -early as 1644 he seems to have earned some reputation as a painter, -his signature appearing on his _Court Physician_ in that year. He came -under the influence of Rembrandt, and in later life practised as a -painter at Amsterdam, where he died. - -Metsu, whose work is at first sight not easily distinguishable from -Terborch’s, acquired a facility in the control of the expression and -the ever-varying gesture of the hands in his pictures, that was denied -to many of his contemporaries. Instances of this are the figure of the -Christ writing a long Latin inscription on the ground in the _Woman -taken in Adultery_ (No. 2457), the ease with which the young lady in -a white satin dress runs her fingers over the keys of the spinet in -the _Music Lesson_ (No. 2460), and the treatment of the _Dutch Lady_ -(No. 2462), who holds a jug in her right hand. The last-named panel is -evidently the companion to the very thinly painted _Dutch Cook peeling -Apples_ (No. 2463), which is signed “G. METSU.” Perhaps his best -outdoor scene of humble life is the _Vegetable Market at Amsterdam_ -(No. 2458), although his handling of the trees suggests that his forte -was the Conversation-piece of Dutch tradition, and that he would not -have risen to high rank as a landscape painter. The placing of the -signature on a letter, which in this instance lies on the ground, is -a favourite device with Metsu. He has derived much pleasure from the -treatment of the textures of the tablecloth, the curtain, and the chair -in the _Officer visiting a Lady_ (No. 2459). The _Alchemist_ (No. 2461) -may be the companion picture to the _Sportsman_ in the Gallery at The -Hague. Much speculative criticism has been indulged in by critics as -to whether the so-called _Portrait of Admiral Cornelis Tromp_ (No. -2464) represents that admiral, and some doubt has also been cast on its -attribution to Metsu. - - - LANDSCAPE PAINTERS - -The naturalistic treatment of the landscape background in the religious -pictures of Jan van Eyck and his successors, Memlinc, Bouts, Hugo van -der Goes, and other painters in the Netherlands, in time brought about -the promotion of landscape painting to an independent art. Among the -earlier Dutch artists who approached the study of Nature were Arent -Arentzen (1586?-1635?), as we see from his _Landscape with a Fisherman_ -(No. 2300A), and Roeland Roghman, who was born a year later than Jan -van Goyen, and lived as late as 1685. He painted the _Landscape_ (No. -2555B), which was formerly in the Paul Mantz collection. Indeed, -several Dutchmen of the period sought to commit to panel views of -nature, as in the case of Pieter de Bloot (1600-1652), who gives us a -_Landscape with a River_ (No. 2327B). - -The romantic feeling which so often pervades the background of -Rembrandt’s paintings, and is so apparent in such etchings as the -_Three Trees_, can only be touched on here. This new tendency is best -exemplified in the works of Jan van Goyen (1596-1656), who may be -regarded as the founder of a self-centred school of landscape painting -in Holland; but it was his ever handy sketch-book that enabled him to -outstrip his rivals in this branch of Dutch art. He is seen to great -advantage in his very fine _Banks of a Dutch River_ (No. 2375), his -superb _River View with eight Men in a Boat_ (No. 2378), a signed and -dated work of 1649, a large light-brown-toned _River in Holland_ (No. -2377), a good _Banks of a Canal_ (No. 2379), as well as a _Dutch Canal_ -(No. 2376) and a _Dutch River_ (No. 2377). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXVI.—JAN VER MEER VAN DELFT - - (1632-1675) - - DUTCH SCHOOL - - No. 2456.—THE LACE MAKER - - (La Dentellière) - - A girl, wearing a yellow bodice and a blue skirt, is seated behind - a table. She is bending her head over a light-blue lace pillow as - she adjusts the bobbins with both hands. A dark-blue cushion and a - book are on the table to the left. - - Signed in the upper right-hand corner:—“J. V. MEER,” the first - three letters being intertwined. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 9½ in. (0·24) square.] - -Aert van der Neer (1603-1677) painted with strong contrasts of light, -as in his _Banks of a Dutch Canal_ (No. 2483); and his monogram is -to be found on the seat at the foot of a tree in his _Dutch Village_ -(No. 2484), where his propensity for painting moonlight scenes is well -illustrated. Herman Saftleven’s (1609-1685) _Banks of the Rhine_ (No. -2563); Jan Asselyn’s _View of the Lamentano Bridge on the Teverone_ -(No. 2301), _Landscape_ (No. 2302), and _Ruins in the Roman Campagna_ -(No. 2303); and the two _Landscapes_ (Nos. 2332 and 2333) by Jan Both -(1610-1652), who worked in Rome and painted Italian landscapes under -the influence of the French artist Claude Lorrain, show the gradual -introduction of foreign influences. Joris van der Hagen (died 1669) -takes a new line in the representation of a very low horizon in his -_Environs de Haarlem_ (No. 2382); but his _Landscape with Peasants -crossing a Ford_ (No. 2381) is dull in tone and composed of unrelated -parts. - -The _Banks of a River_ (No. 2561D) is a superb example of the art of -Salomon van Ruysdael (1600?-1670), one of the founders of the Haarlem -school of landscape, and the uncle of Jacob van Ruisdael. The _Large -Tower_ (No. 2561C) gives a better idea of his power than the _Ford_ -(No. 2561B). Another painter in the same school, Cornelis Decker -(1618?-1678), has a _Landscape_ (No. 2346). Although Isack van Ostade -at times gave himself up to trivial subjects, as we have already -seen, the merit of his frozen river scenes (Nos. 2510, 2511, 2515) is -firmly established, and the happy way in which he combined a genuine -appreciation of nature with great skill in the placing and treatment of -his figures has earned for him a high place among the Dutch landscape -painters. - - - AELBERT CUYP - -Unlike most of the artists of his time in Holland, Aelbert Cuyp -(1620-1691) was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, his social -position and his good fortune in money matters freeing him from the -poverty which Hobbema and others endured. He painted portraits with -much skill, as we see from his _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 2345A) and his -_Portrait of a Boy and a Girl with a Goat_ (No. 2344); but he is best -known as a cattle painter, his sturdy cattle being artistically grouped -in thick green pastures flooded with sunshine, as in his _Herdsman -with Cattle_ (No. 2341). He attained much success also with his riding -pictures, and the _Starting for the Ride_ (No. 2342) and the _Riding -Party_ (No. 2343) are in every way preferable to his _Boats on a Rough -Sea_ (No. 2345). Following his usual habit, he has placed no date on -any of these six pictures. He had no pupil in the proper sense of the -term; but a host of imitators, such as Jacob van Stry and the much -later English Royal Academician Sidney Cooper, failed ignominiously in -their feeble attempts to copy his methods. - -Jan Wynants was another landscape painter in the Haarlem School, -although he settled in Amsterdam and died there in 1682. His _Outskirts -of a Forest_ (No. 2636) is signed and dated 1668, and is superior to -the _Landscape_ (No. 2637) which bears his own signature as well as -that of Adriaen van de Velde, who on numerous occasions inserted the -figures for him. Wynants has also placed his name on a small _Landscape -with Sportsman and Falconer_ (No. 2638). - -Adriaen van de Velde has been careful to sign and date each of the -seven pictures by which he is represented (Nos. 2593-2599). By Allart -van Everdingen (1621-1675), who travelled in Norway and painted rocky -scenes and waterfalls, we find two _Landscapes_ (Nos. 2365 and 2366). - - - JACOB VAN RUISDAEL - -The greatest of all Dutch landscape painters, with the possible -exception of Jan van Goyen, is Jacob van Ruisdael (1628?-1682), who -occupied himself more especially with rushing waterfalls and undulating -country. His _Storm on the Coast_ (No. 2558) is a fine achievement, but -his best picture in this collection is the _Landscape_ (no No.), which -was bequeathed by Baron Arthur de Rothschild. His _Woody Landscape_ -(No. 2559), the _Road_ (No. 2559A), _Landscape_ (No. 2561), and the -_Entrance to a Wood_ (No. 2561A), cannot, however, compare with his -_Sunny Landscape_ (No. 2560), which bears the artist’s monogram. - - - HOBBEMA - -The talents of Meindert Hobbema (1638-1709) were so disregarded by his -countrymen that in disgust he, at the age of thirty, took a humble -post in the Customs. His woody scenes seen in the pale sunlight of the -early afternoon are not copied from any chance scenery, but composed; -and his _Water Mill_ (No. 2404), fine though it is, contains passages -that will be met with elsewhere. The _Farm_ (No. 2404A) is a very good -picture, as also is the _Landscape_ (No. 2403) from the Nieuwenhuys -collection. A very large number of painters, including Wyntrack, who -gives us a _Farm_ (No. 2639), painted the figures into the foregrounds -of Hobbema’s best works. - - - PHILIPS WOUWERMAN - -In a large number of Philips Wouwerman’s pictures the landscapes are -of secondary importance to the figures; and although the execution -is careful and conscientious, the frequenter of picture galleries is -apt to tire of his make-believe genre-pieces, landscapes with horses, -riders, sportsmen, soldiers, robbers, gipsies, and the like. The Louvre -presents an imposing array of fifteen of the twelve hundred or more -pictures by Philips Wouwerman (1619-1668), and his brother and pupil -Pieter is credited with a poor but historically interesting _View of -the Porte de Nesles, Paris_, in 1664 (No. 2635). - -It will be convenient here to group Adam Pynacker (1622-1673) with his -three pictures, Willem Romeyn (1624?-1696?) with one, Abraham Begeyn -(1637?-1697) with one, Guilliam de Heusch (1625?-1692) with one, Dirk -van den Berghen (1645-1690?) with two, and Glauber (1646-1726) with -a single _Landscape_ (No. 2374) in which the figures are inserted by -Gerard de Lairesse. Mention must, however, be made of Paul Potter, -the highly esteemed cattle painter, who died in 1654 at the early age -of twenty-nine. One of his latest canvases is the _Cows and Sheep in -a Field_ (No. 2527), of 1652; but his _Horse in a Field_ (No. 2528) -of the following year, and the _Wood at The Hague_ (No. 2529), give -an excellent idea of his art. These and the _Horses at the Door of a -Cottage_ (No. 2526) show that Paul Potter had a sound knowledge of -animal anatomy. He is seen at his best in small compositions such as -are here exhibited, in which the construction and _mise-en-scène_ are -simple and the details delicately rendered. It is a popular fallacy -that his chief contribution to the fame of Dutch art was his large -_Bull_ of 1647, which measures 8 ft. by 12 ft., in The Hague Gallery. -He did not live long enough to form a “school.” - - - THE ITALIAN INFLUENCE - -The Italianising influence was already beginning to make itself felt, -to the lasting detriment of Dutch painting, and the typical example -of this downward movement is Nicolaes Berchem (1620-1683), who was -founded on his father, Pieter Claesz, and on Pieter de Grebber, and Jan -Wils at Haarlem, while he also was impressed by Claes Moyaert and J. -B. Weenix at Amsterdam, where he removed in 1677. There is scarcely a -well-furnished gallery in Europe that does not seek to pride itself on -possessing one of Berchem’s renderings of _Crossing the Ford_, or a -_Woman upon an Ass in conversation with another Person_. The Louvre is -no exception to this rule, and exhibits his _Cattle crossing a Ford_ -(No. 2315) and nine other canvases and panels, nearly all of which bear -his much-vaunted signature. His art is to-day deservedly out of fashion -with discerning collectors. - -Berchem’s pupil, Karel du Jardin (1622-1678), who is invariably at -much pain to sign his pictures, is seen to some advantage in his very -Italian and in every way characteristic _Italian Charlatans_ (No. -2427), the typical _Ford in Italy_ (No. 2428), and eight other works. -His attempts to depict a _Calvary_ (No. 2426) have not been crowned -with success, as the composition is overcrowded and undramatic; nor do -we experience any emotion on regarding his _Portrait of Himself_ (No. -2434), a small production on copper. - -Breenberg (1599-1659?), who was born at Deventer, the home of Terborch, -has depicted a _View of the Campo Vaccino at Rome_ (No. 2334), and a -_Ruins of the Palace of the Cæsars_ (No. 2335) in the Italian manner -beloved by Berchem and Pieter van Laer. The latter, who is also -named Bamboccio, is represented by two small oval panels. Lingelbach -(1622-1674), who frequently collaborated with other Dutch artists, may -be judged by his _Vegetable Market at Rome_ (No. 2447) and three other -canvases, and Frédéric de Moucheron (1633?-1686) by a _Leaving for the -Hunt_ (No. 2482). It will be convenient to mention here Reynier Nooms, -whose _View of the Old Louvre from the Seine_ (No. 2491) has some -historical interest. - - - ARCHITECTURAL PAINTERS - -A limited number of painters busied themselves in making faithful -transcripts of the streets and the exterior appearance of the -buildings. Jan van der Heyden (1637-1712) was perhaps the most -successful in this direction, and his _View of the Town Hall of -Amsterdam_ in 1688 is an excellent example of his methods, while -the Louvre also possesses three small panels by him. Jan Abrahamsz -Beerstraten (1622-1666), the son of a cooper at Amsterdam, travelled -to Italy and the Mediterranean, proof of which is afforded by his _Old -Town Gate at Genoa_ (No. 2310). The typical architectural painter is, -however, Gerrit Berckheyde (1638-1698). Although he never went to -Italy, his _View of Trajan’s Column_ (No. 2324) is a welcome relief -from the many versions he painted, with conspicuous success, of _The -Market-Place of Haarlem_. - -Hendrik van Steenwyck (1580-1648) almost invariably contented himself -with reproducing the _Interiors of Churches_ (Nos. 2582, 2583); but -his _Christ in the House of Martha and Mary_ (No. 2581) is an unusual -subject with him, and must be his masterpiece. The _Vestibule of a -Palace_ (No. 2490), by Isaac van Nickelle (fl. 1660), is very good of -its kind; but the _Interior of a Guard-Room_ (No. 2453), by Aart van -Maes, is a poor attempt at dramatic action. - - - MARINE PAINTERS - -The fact that the Dutch had fought with swamp and water and possessed -a large maritime commerce, is reflected in the _Seascapes_ of Simon de -Vlieger (1600-1660), and in the art of Ludolf Backhuysen (1631-1708), -who is represented by a _Stormy Sea_ (No. 2309) and five other -canvases; but one of the best works of this class in the Louvre is -the _Marine-piece_ (No. 2600) by Willem van de Velde the Younger -(1633-1707), who crossed over to England, and after a long career died -at Greenwich. These men sought to carry on the earlier tradition of Jan -van Goyen and the two Ruisdaels, but they showed less originality and -power. - - - STILL-LIFE PAINTERS - -Much appreciation and some extravagant praise has been lavished on -the still-life painters who, at the time when the higher aims of -artistic endeavour began to die out in Holland, displayed remarkable -ability. The cultivation of horticulture at Haarlem, the centre of the -tulipomania fever in the middle of the seventeenth century, may have -had an influence on the artistic presentation of inanimate nature; -this feeling was no doubt stimulated by the display made by the -goldsmiths in an age of great prosperity. Willem Claesz Heda, who was -born 1594, is among the earliest of the Dutch still-life painters, and -his picture (No. 2390) is dated 1637; he, however, did not die until -more than forty years later. Jan Davidsz de Heem (1606-1684), the -painter of _Fruit and a Vase on a Table_ (No. 2391) and of another and -much larger picture (No. 2392), was the pupil of his father, David de -Heem; as he spent many years at Antwerp, he is sometimes regarded as -a Flemish painter. That Abraham van Beyeren (1620-1675?), who painted -several sea-pieces, was specially fond of copying the appearance of -fish, is seen from his _Still-life: Fish_ (No. 2326A), at the Louvre, -which has in recent years also acquired another work (No. 2312A) by -him. Willem Kalf (1621?-1693) may have studied under H. G. Pot, the -Haarlem genre-painter. He was evidently impressed with the chiaroscuro -of Rembrandt, and often placed the drinking-cups, wine-glasses, and -fruit on a richly-coloured tablecloth. He is here represented by four -examples, of which the _Dutch Interior_ (No. 2436) is the best. Eight -pictures by Jan Huysum (1682-1749), two by Jan van Os (1744-1808), -and one by C. van Spaendonck (1756-1839) belong to the latest phase -of art in Holland, and mark the decadence in full operation. It will -be noticed that the Louvre has a much larger selection of still-life -pictures than the National Gallery, which seems to regard achievements -of this kind with disdain. - -Melchior Hondecoeter (1636-1695), the painter of the farmyard, gives -unmistakable proof of his power in his large signed _Eagle swooping -down on a Farmyard_ (No. 2405), and two rather smaller pictures (Nos. -2406-7). - -Jan Weenix (1640-1719), who usually concerns himself with dead game -and birds, is working on the usual lines in three (Nos. 2610, 2611, -and 2612A) of his four pictures in the great French museum; the -other represents _A Seaport_ (No. 2612). He was the fellow-pupil -of Hondecoeter in the studio of his father, Jan Baptist Weenix -(1621-1660), who studied for a time under the early Dutch master, -Abraham Blomaert, and worked in Italy for four years. For that reason -the latter has adopted an Italian mode of signing his only picture (No. -2609) in the Louvre. - - - THE DECLINE - -Although Gerard Honthorst (“Gerard of the Night”) was born as early as -1590, and was a pupil of Blomaert, he may he relegated to the period -of decline. Almost invariably he resorted to the trick of lighting the -figures in his pictures, whether he was painting religious subjects, -portraits, or conversation-pieces, with a candlelight effect. This -habit he had acquired in Italy by studying the style of Caravaggio. Of -his five pictures here, the best is perhaps the _Portrait of Charles -Louis, Duke of Bavaria_ (No. 2410), of 1640. His _Concert_ (No. 2409), -painted sixteen years earlier, is an ill-balanced and overloaded -composition. - -Such artists as Abraham Hondius, who paints a _Man Selling Pigeons_ -(No. 2407A); Karel de Moor, who was a pupil of G. Dou, and gives -us an insignificant _Dutch Family_ (No. 2477); Eglon van der Neer, -whose name is signed on a small panel, _A Man Selling Pigeons_ (No. -2485); Egbert van Heemskerck, whose _Interior_ (No. 2393) is in the La -Caze collection; Jan Verkolie, whose _Interior_ (No. 2602) has been -engraved; H. van Limborch, whose _Pleasures of the Golden Age_ (No. -2446) was in the collection of Louis XVI.; Louis de Moni, the painter -of a _Family Scene_ (No. 2476); and Willem van Mieris, a replica of -whose _Soap Bubbles_ (No. 2473) is at The Hague,—all these mediocre -painters are the despair of the critic, and afford merely momentary -entertainment for the curious. - -It is apparent that by this period the art of Holland was marked -by mechanical inventions, the surface of these eighteenth-century -paintings being highly fused and metallic in appearance. The four -panels of Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722), which include an -unpleasant _Magdalene in the Desert_ (No. 2617) and a repulsive -_Dancing Nymph_ (No. 2619), are characteristic examples of his -monotonous art. The _Disembarkation of Cleopatra_ (No. 2441) and the -_Hercules between Vice and Virtue_ (No. 2443) of Gerard de Lairesse -(1640-1711), have the enamel-like smoothness and meaningless expression -of academic art, although they have their usefulness as museum pieces. - -It is a remarkable fact that the Louvre does not contain a single -example of the revival of art in Holland in the third quarter of the -nineteenth century. - - - - - THE EARLY FRENCH SCHOOL - - -The early phases of the French school of painting—perhaps it would -be more correct to say of painting in France—present one of the most -interesting problems to the student of art history. It was not really -until the great Exhibition of French Primitives held in Paris in 1904 -that any serious attempts were made to construct a history of Early -French painting; but the learned arguments that have been brought -to bear upon the tangled question have so far failed to establish -the existence of an important autochthonous school in the fifteenth -century. It is true that contemporary records mention the names of a -few painters who seem to have enjoyed great repute at the Courts at -which they were employed, but it has been impossible to connect any -notable extant pictures with their names; whilst those other “French” -painters who have left tangible proofs of their activity are almost -without exception of Flemish birth and training. Indeed, most of these -early pictures show no characteristics that may be described as French, -save the types of the faces, which would naturally be taken from the -country where the artists worked. - -The difficulty of dealing with the Early French pictures at the Louvre -is considerably increased by the uncertainty of their authorship, -the attributions being in most cases tentative and much disputed. -Throughout we feel the lack of a definite basis for comparative -criticism—the absence of properly authenticated works by the very -masters whose names have been recorded in contemporary documents. One -of the earliest of these masters is Jean Malouel, a Fleming, whose -real name was Malwaele, and who worked in the service of the Dukes of -Burgundy at Dijon, where he died in 1415. To him has been attributed, -without sufficient proof, the tondo of _The Dead Christ supported by -the Eternal Father_ (No. 996) and mourned by the Virgin, St. John and -Angels. - -Equally uncertain is the attribution of the _Last Communion and -Martyrdom of St. Denis, First Bishop of Paris_ (No. 995), on which are -seen, against a gold background, in the centre, the Crucified Saviour -and the Eternal Father surrounded by cherubs; on the left, Christ -giving the Communion to the imprisoned bishop, with a praying angel -in the foreground; and on the right, the Decollation of St. Denis and -his two companions, St. Rusticus and St. Eleutherius. An attempt has -been made to identify this interesting picture with one ordered by -Jean-sans-Peur, Duke of Burgundy, from Jean Malouel, and finished after -that master’s death by Henri Bellechose, another Flemish painter, born -in Brabant, who worked at Dijon between 1415 and 1431. - -_The Entombment_ (No. 997) is the work of an unknown and presumably -Flemish painter, who shows a certain affinity with the painter of the -famous _Parement d’autel de Narbonne_ (No. 1342 _bis_) of about 1374. -This altar-front is supposed to be by Girard d’Orléans and his son -Jean, under whose name both the _Parement_ and the _Entombment_ were -shown at the Exhibition of French Primitives in 1904. But all these -attributions are largely conjectural. - - - THE MAÎTRE DE MOULINS - -Chauvinistic French critics have made much capital out of the important -national school that is supposed to have flourished towards the end -of the fifteenth century at Moulins, and especially of the mysterious -“Maître de Moulins,” so called from a famous triptych at Moulins which -cannot be proved to be the work of a French painter, and shows very -marked Italian characteristics, although the types of the faces are -distinctly French. Italian painters had been working in France ever -since Simone Martini (1285?-1344) was employed to decorate the Pope’s -Palace at Avignon; and in the absence of definite documentary evidence -it will always remain a difficult matter to decide whether certain -pictures, Italian in style and French as regards the types, are the -work of Italian masters painting in France, or of Frenchmen trained by -Italians. - -To the Maître de Moulins have been loosely ascribed certain pictures -in the Louvre collection, especially since attempts have been made, in -the face of great improbability, to identify him with Jehan Perréal, -or Jehan de Paris, one of the few painters of that period whose -French nationality has been satisfactorily established. Perréal was -born at Lyons, and became Court painter in Paris to Charles VIII. and -Louis XII. In this capacity he was sent to England at the time of the -marriage of Louis XII. with Princess Mary Tudor, to design the bride’s -toilettes. If Perréal be the painter of _The Virgin between Two Donors_ -(No. 998D, formerly No. 1048, and now labelled No. —48), which bears -upon the pilasters of a balustrade the letters “I P,” he is certainly -not identical with the Maître de Moulins to whom have been attributed -the portraits of _Pierre II., Sire de Beaujeu, Son-in-Law of Louis -XI._ (No. 1004), and his wife, _Anne of France, Duchess of Bourbon, -Daughter of Louis XI._ (No. 1005), which are apparently the wings of a -triptych of which the centre panel has disappeared. They are utterly -lacking in charm of colour and are anything but masterly in treatment. -Both the personages are portrayed kneeling, the husband being presented -by his Patron Saint and the wife by St. John the Evangelist. The -_Portrait of Pierre_ was bought in 1842 by Louis Philippe for £20. The -companion panel was presented to the Louvre in 1888 by M. Maciet. M. -L. Dimier has rightly pointed out that there is no evidence whatever -to prove these two pictures to have been painted by a French master. -_The Virgin between Two Donors_ (No. 998D) has lately been tentatively -attributed to the “Master of the Ursula Legend.” - - - THE DE SOMZÉE “MAGDALEN” - -To the Maître de Moulins has also been attributed the somewhat -overrated _Magdalen with a Female Donor_ (No. 1005A), which was -formerly in the de Somzée collection at Brussels, and was, some time -after the Exhibition of French Primitives in 1904, bought from Messrs. -T. Agnew & Son for £5000. The supposed similarities that have been -noticed between this picture and the Moulins triptych on the one hand, -and Jehan Perréal’s authenticated design for the tomb of the Duke of -Brittany at Rennes on the other hand, are not sufficiently convincing -either to arrive at a definite conclusion as regards the authorship of -this _Magdalen_, or to establish the identity of the Maître de Moulins -with Jehan Perréal. - -Of an even more problematic nature are the _Pietà_ (No. 998C, formerly -No. 998) and the _Calvary_ (No. 998A), of which it is only safe to -affirm that both were painted in France, the background showing in the -case of the former the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the Seine, -the Louvre, and the Butte Montmartre; and in the latter an equally -distinguishable view of the Seine, the Louvre, and other buildings. -Both pictures appear to be the work of Flemish painters who were not -entirely uninfluenced by Italian art. This _Calvary_ is labelled -“_Retable du Parliament de Paris_,” and was formerly in the Palais de -Justice in Paris. - -We need not dwell at any length upon the school of Douai, which should -be considered as a branch of the Flemish rather than a national French -school. Jean Bellegambe (_c._ 1470-1535) is its chief representative, -and presumably the author of the small wing of a triptych depicting the -figure of _St. Adrian_ (No. 13A) which was formerly catalogued as being -of the German school (No. 2739). - - - JEAN FOUQUET - -Of far greater importance is the school which flourished at Tours, for -here at last we meet with clearly marked personalities whose names are -definitely connected with extant works, even if the character of their -art remains essentially Flemish. The best known artist of this group -is Jean Fouquet (_c._ 1425-1480?), who was Painter to Charles VII. and -Louis XI. and wrought the wonderful miniatures in the famous Book of -Hours at Chantilly. He was distinctly more successful as an illuminator -than as a painter, although his masterpiece, the Chevalier diptych (of -which one wing is at the Antwerp and the other at the Berlin Museum), -is a work of considerable merit. The Louvre owns an interesting -painting from his brush—the portrait of the corpulent Chancellor of -France, _Guillaume Juvénal des Ursins, Baron de Trainel_ (No. 288). -He is depicted in three-quarter profile to the right, dressed in a -fur-edged red robe, with hands folded in prayer, before an open book on -a cushion. The pilasters in the rich architectural setting terminate -in two bears supporting the Chancellor’s coat of arms. This important -picture was bought in 1835 for the sum of £36. It was then attributed -to Michael Wohlgemuth! - -Fouquet is known to have painted Charles VII. in 1444; but the -_Portrait of Charles VII., King of France_ (No. 289), with the -inscription along the top, “LE TRÈS GLORIEUX ROY DE FRANCE,” and below, -“CHARLES SEPTIESME DE CE NOM,” cannot certainly be identified with the -picture referred to in contemporary records. The Louvre picture was -acquired in 1838 for £18. - -The name of Jean Fouquet has for a long time been connected with -the admirable little portrait known as _The Man with the Wineglass_ -(No. 1000, formerly No. 1000A). It was shown as a work of Fouquet at -the Exhibition of French Primitives; and the attribution is still -maintained by many French critics, although in the official Catalogue -the picture is given to an Unknown French painter of the fifteenth -century known as “The Master of 1456” from a dated picture in the -Liechtenstein Gallery in Vienna. The whole style of the painting would, -however, point to German origin, the only thing French about the -picture being the type of the personage represented. It is interesting -to note that this portrait, which was bought from a Paris dealer in -1906 for £7600, was formerly in the collection of Count Wilczek in -Vienna, and was bought by its former owner at Ulm. It is probably the -work of a painter of the Swabian school. - - - NICOLAS FROMENT - -Nicolas Froment, the painter of the diptych _King René and his Second -Wife, Jeanne de Laval_ (No. 304A), is frequently mentioned by those who -have constituted themselves champions of a supposed important Early -French national school. The few pictures with which he may be credited -include the _St. Siffrein_, now in the Seminary at Avignon, the -_Raising of Lazarus_, now in the Kaufmann collection at Berlin, and the -_Burning Bush_, which includes the Portraits of King René and Jeanne de -Laval, as the Donors who ordered the picture for the Cathedral at Aix, -where it still is. But the Louvre diptych is an inferior work. Nothing -is known about the dates of his birth and death. He flourished between -1460 and 1480, and was employed by good King René, who was himself a -painter of some distinction, if contemporary chroniclers are to be -believed. Froment died at Avignon, where he appears to have worked some -considerable time, allowing his art to absorb those distinctly Italian -tendencies which distinguished the productions of the Avignon school -ever since Simone Martini had early in the fourteenth century worked in -the Provençal city of the Popes. - -A very typical instance of this Avignon school, with its blending of -Northern realism and the noble sense of style of the early Italians, -is the _Pietà_ (No. 1001B). The group of the Virgin with the rigid body -of Christ across her knees, St. John on the left and the Magdalen on -the right, has a sculpturesque dignity and grandeur not to be found in -the Northern art of that period. The Donor on the extreme left rather -destroys the balance of the composition. The mourners and the landscape -are silhouetted against a gold background. The picture was formerly -in the Chartreuse of Villeneuve near Avignon, and was bought by the -Société des Amis du Louvre for the great French national collection at -the price of £4000. A well-known Spanish critic has claimed that this -is one of the very rare works by the Spanish artist Bartolomé Bermejo. - -Of the same school, but vastly inferior in conception and execution, is -the much restored _Christ rising from the Tomb, with a Donor and St. -Agricola_ (No. 1001C). There are in Gallery X. (Salle Jean Fouquet) a -few more anonymous fifteenth-century paintings, which need not here be -discussed as they are of no real significance. - - - - - THE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL - - -The mere fact that many of the drawings and paintings which are now -with good reason believed to be the work of Jean or Jehan Clouet -(called Jehannet) passed, at a time when art criticism followed methods -less scientific than those which prevail at present, under the name -of Holbein, should suffice to indicate that Clouet’s art belongs -essentially to the Renaissance, and that the Primitive or Gothic period -had come to a close when he arrived in France from the Netherlands, -where he was born about 1475. He apparently worked first at Tours, -where his presence in 1516 is testified by documentary evidence; and he -went to Paris before 1529. Although he was never naturalised, he became -Groom of the Chamber to François I., and enjoyed an enormous reputation -for his skill in portraiture. He died in 1540 or 1541. - - - JEAN CLOUET’S DRAWINGS - -Not a single drawing or painting that has come down to us from this -period, which was remarkable for its enormous production in Court -portraiture, bears the signature of Jehan Clouet; but as a number of -the best portrait drawings in the famous Chantilly collection—notably -that of the _Preux de Marignan_—are obviously from the same hand, and -extend, as can be proved from the age of the personages portrayed, from -1514 to 1540,—the very years when Jean Clouet is known to have worked -in France,—it is quite reasonable to assume that artist to be the -author of this group of drawings. Their superiority over all the other -drawings of the period would account for the fame enjoyed by the elder -Clouet among his contemporaries. - -On the strength of these drawings it has been possible to ascribe -to Jean Clouet a few painted portraits which are obviously based -on the drawings and show, apart from such differences as must -necessarily result from the use of a different medium, the same -characteristics—firm draughtsmanship, a sure delicate touch in the -delineation of the features, and also a certain stiffness and hardness -of contour which are never to be found in the otherwise very similar -but always supple and masterly handling of Holbein. It is now known -that practically all the painted portraits of the period were executed -from the delicate drawings in black and red chalk, of which so vast a -number have come down to our day. But the fact that the vast majority -of these drawings served as models to different painters leaves the -question of attribution in a state of uncertainty. The mere tracing -back of a picture to some extant drawing of acknowledged authenticity -cannot be taken as proof of their common origin. - -Two pictures at the Louvre are attributed to Jean Clouet. Both are -portraits of _François I., King of France_, but only the smaller one -(No. 127) appears to be from his hand. Clouet’s royal patron is here -depicted in three-quarter profile to the right, at the age of about -thirty, so that the picture may be assumed to have been painted about -the year 1524. It is based on a drawing in the Chantilly collection. -The larger _Portrait of François I._ (No. 126) has at various times -been attributed to Jean Clouet, Mabuse, and Joost van Cleef, but is, as -has been pointed out by M. Dimier, pronouncedly Italian in colour and -in the treatment of the costume and hands. - - - FRANÇOIS CLOUET - -Towards the end of his life Jean Clouet was assisted in the execution -of his numerous commissions by his brother Clouet de Navarre, to whom -is attributed the _Portrait of Louis de Saint-Gelais, Lord of Lansac, -Captain of one of the “Compagnies des cent Gentilshommes” under Charles -IX._ (No. 134), and by his son François Clouet (1500?-1572). It has -been stated that François Clouet, who was to become after his father’s -death the favourite portrait painter of François I., Henri II., -Catherine de Médicis, François II., and Charles IX., was born at Tours; -but it is far more likely that he too was born in the Netherlands, -and, while still young, accompanied his father to France. Practically -nothing is known of his life before the year 1541, when François I. -renounced to Clouet his kingly right to the artist’s inheritance, which -could have been claimed by the Crown as the estate of a foreigner. In -the same year François Clouet was appointed Groom of the Chamber and -Painter-in-Ordinary to the King. - -The Louvre is fortunate in possessing one of the exceedingly rare -signed pictures by this artist in the _Portrait of Pierre Quthe_ (No. -127A), which was found in Vienna a few years ago by M. Moreau-Nélaton -and presented to the Gallery by that active and patriotic institution, -the Société des Amis du Louvre. Pierre Quthe was a notable burgher and -apothecary of Paris, who owned one of the finest gardens in that city. -He was an intimate friend and neighbour of François Clouet in the rue -St. Avoye. In the Louvre painting, which bears in the left-hand bottom -corner the inscription - - FR. IANETII OPVS - E. QUTTO AMICO SINGVLARI - AETATIS SVE XLIII 1562 - -he is depicted three-quarter-length life size, dressed in a doublet of -black velvet with lace insertions, with a herbarium. The picture hangs -at present on a screen in Gallery XV. - -Another unquestionably authentic work is the charming _Portrait of -Elizabeth of Austria, Wife of Charles IX._ (No. 130), of which a -preparatory study in chalk, dated 1571, is to be found in the Paris -Print Cabinet. The face is drawn and modelled with rare delicacy, and -every detail of the richly jewelled gold brocade costume is rendered -with faultless and miniature-like precision. - -Yet another precious little picture from the same hand is the small -three-quarter-length _Portrait of Charles IX., King of France_ (No. -128), which is a reduced replica of the signed life-size version in the -Vienna Museum. Both pictures were originally in Vienna, whence they -were removed by Napoleon in 1809, but only the larger picture was taken -back to the Austrian capital in 1815. - -The _Portrait of Claude de Beaune_ (No. 133A) is possibly another, -though not very important, work from the master’s own brush; but -neither the _Portrait of François de Lorraine, Duc de Guise_ (No. -131), nor the _Portrait of Henri II., King of France_ (No. 129), are -of sufficient merit to justify their attribution to François Clouet; -whilst the portraits of _Charles IX._ (No. 132) and _Elizabeth of -Austria_ (No. 133) are frankly admitted to be copies after originals by -the master. - - - CORNEILLE DE LYON - -François Clouet’s chief rival in royal favour was another Netherlander -domiciled in France, who, from the city in which he spent the years of -his greatest activity, has become known as Corneille de Lyon. He was -apparently the head of a busy workshop at Lyons, from which were turned -out large numbers of thinly painted, daintily touched-in three-quarter -profile heads, executed almost transparently on a light ground. -Although these portraits are now generally described under the generic -name of Corneille de Lyon, only the best among them can be accepted as -the master’s own handiwork. Room XI. at the Louvre contains several -insignificant and badly repainted portraits of this type. They are of -no importance, as they are only copies or studio productions. Corneille -became naturalised in 1547, in which year he was appointed Painter to -the King. He died about 1575. - - - THE SCHOOL OF FONTAINEBLEAU - -The death of Perréal and Bourdichon a few years after the accession -of François I. had left France without any artists of note, save -the few foreign portrait painters employed by the Court. François -I., an enthusiastic art lover, who had seen and admired the great -Italian masters in their own country, spared no effort to attract the -leading masters to France. We have seen that he actually succeeded -in securing the services of the aged Leonardo da Vinci, and that -for a brief span Andrea del Sarto worked at his Court. When, about -1530, that art-loving king turned his attention to the decoration -of his palace at Fontainebleau, there was not a single painter of -French nationality, or artist living in France, who could have been -entrusted with so formidable a task, and François I. was again forced -to enlist the best Italian painters available for the purpose. Having -first engaged Pellegrino and other third-rate artists, he succeeded, -in 1531, in inducing the Florentine Rosso to undertake the execution -and supervision of the decorative work at Fontainebleau; and in the -following year the Bolognese Primaticcio entered his service. Both -belong to the Italian eclectic schools, and only concern us here in so -far as their example led to the founding of what has been called the -“School of Fontainebleau,” which was really an offshoot of the Italian -eclectic school. - -In the early years of Rosso’s and Primaticcio’s activity at -Fontainebleau practically all the work was done by these two painters -and their Italian assistants, whose band was joined by Niccolò dell’ -Abbate. It was only after the death of François I. that the teaching -of the Italian eclectics at Fontainebleau produced a generation of -French artists capable of doing justice to the decorative tasks -for which an ever-increasing demand had meanwhile arisen. That the -Louvre is singularly poor in works by these painters may partly be -accounted for by the comparative scarcity of easel pictures painted by -artists who were chiefly employed for interior decoration. There is -no reason for crediting any Frenchmen with the three anonymous school -of Fontainebleau pictures in Gallery XI.: _Diana_ (No. 1013), _The -Chastity of Scipio_ (No. 1014), and _The Toilet of Venus_ (No. 1014A). -_The Chastity of Scipio_ in particular would appear to be the work of -Niccolò dell’ Abbate. - - - JEAN COUSIN - -The most famous of all the French painters of the school is Jean -Cousin, who from the _Last Judgment_ (No. 155) at the Louvre—the only -known painting from his brush that has been preserved—has been called -“The French Michelangelo.” Nothing is known of his life, save that he -was born at Soucy, near Sens, that he worked in Paris in the third -quarter of the sixteenth century, and that he was still alive in 1583. -Comparison of his picture with Michelangelo’s great work in the Sistine -Chapel only helps to accentuate the absurd over-estimation to which -he owes his sobriquet. He was merely a follower of Primaticcio, an -excellent draughtsman with great knowledge of anatomy, but lacking in -taste, imagination, and real power. - -Ambroise Dubois (1543-1614) was born at Antwerp, but is generally -counted among the French painters of the school of Fontainebleau. He -was entrusted by Henri IV. with several important series of paintings -for the decoration of the apartments at Fontainebleau, notably with -eight scenes illustrating Tasso’s “_Gerusalemme Liberata_” for one of -the Queen’s rooms, and fifteen scenes from “_Theogenes and Chariclea_” -by Heliodorus for the “King’s Great Closet.” One from each series has -found its way into the Louvre collection: _The Baptism of Clorinda_ -(No. 272), and _Chariclea, undergoing the Ordeal of Fire, is recognised -by her Parents, King Hydaspes and Queen Persina_ (No. 271). - -The only other painter of this group who is represented at the Louvre -is Martin Fréminet (1567-1619), who was only indirectly connected with -the school of Fontainebleau, as he had received his art education in -Florence. His best known work is the ceiling of the Trinity Chapel at -Fontainebleau. His picture at the Louvre represents _Mercury ordering -Æneas to leave Dido_ (No. 304). - -The decline of the school of Fontainebleau was so rapid and complete -that, when Marie de Médicis decided to have the great gallery of the -Luxembourg Palace decorated, in 1620, there was not a single painter -left in France capable to undertake this important work, which was -eventually entrusted to Rubens. But the whole direction to be taken by -French seventeenth-century art had been determined by François I., and -the influence of the Late Italians remained paramount until the dawn of -the new era which was to be initiated by Watteau. - - - - - THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL - - -Throughout the seventeenth century the impulse for the artistic -activity of France emanated from Rome. But before discussing the -dominating personalities of the age we must refer to a few painters who -occupy a more or less isolated position in the art of their country. - -The naturalism of Caravaggio was introduced into France by two of -his followers, Jean de Boulongne, called Le Valentin (1591-1634), -and Simon Vouet (1590-1649), who was also slightly influenced by the -Venetians. Valentin spent the best part of his life in Rome, where he -died in 1634. The Louvre owns, among eight pictures from his brush -(not all of which are exhibited), his masterpiece, _The Innocence of -Susannah recognised_ (No. 56), which has the vigorous handling and bold -chiaroscuro of the Neapolitan school. - -Simon Vouet, who came to England at the age of fifteen, and -subsequently travelled in Turkey and Italy, where he remained until -his appointment as Painter to the King took him back to Paris in 1627, -tried to combine the naturalism of Caravaggio with the colouring of the -Venetians, an endeavour in which he was only partially successful, as -he was not equipped by nature with a sensuous appreciation of beautiful -colour. The Louvre owns a dozen Scriptural subjects and allegorical -figures by Vouet; but even the best of them, _The Presentation of Jesus -in the Temple_ (No. 971), is but a dull and heavy performance; whilst -his _Portrait of Louis XIII._ (No. 976) is wholly devoid of artistic -merit. Perhaps he owes his fame chiefly to the fact that he was the -master of the absurdly overrated Le Sueur and of that art despot of the -Louis XIV. era, Charles Le Brun. - - - THE BROTHERS LE NAIN - -Of far greater artistic significance are the three brothers, Antoine, -Louis, and Matthieu Le Nain, who were born at Laon, and flourished -in Paris during the first half of the seventeenth century. Antoine -and Louis died in 1648, and Matthieu in 1677. Very little is known of -their history, but the splendid array of their works in Gallery XIII. -proves them to have had close affinities with the contemporary Dutch -and Flemish schools, even if their manner of composition suggests close -acquaintance with Spanish art. Their subjects, too, like those of many -of the Northern masters of their time, are taken from the daily life of -the people, which is rendered with naïve honesty, and at times with a -real appreciation of beautiful pigment. So far it has been impossible -to distinguish between the works of the three brothers, as even the -signatures “LE NAIN, fecit 1647,” on the _Portraits in an Interior_ -(No. 543), and “LE NAIN, fecit anno 1642,” on the _Peasants at their -Meal_ (No. 548, La Caze Gallery), afford no clue to the solution of the -problem. The striking differences in brushwork and colouring, which -are to be noticed in the eleven Le Nain pictures at the Louvre, would -certainly suggest that the three brothers did not, or did only rarely, -collaborate on the same pictures. The painter of _The Return from -Haymaking_ (No. 542), with its prophetic suggestion of the _plein-air_ -effects of late nineteenth-century art, cannot have had much in common -with the painter of the dull and dingy _Denial of St. Peter_ (No. 547). - - - NICOLAS POUSSIN - -The founder of the Classicist school of French painting, which has -had official approval and support from his time to the present day, -was Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665). Born at Les Andelys in Normandy, he -went to Paris at the age of eighteen, and became so fascinated by the -examples of antique sculpture that, in spite of his extreme poverty, -he determined to continue his studies in Rome. It is unnecessary here -to relate the struggles that preceded his arrival at Rome in 1624. -He frequented the school of Domenichino; but what was more decisive -for the formation of his style was his unceasing study of antique -sculpture, in which he was guided and encouraged by his friend, the -sculptor Duquesnoy. After some years of continued poverty, he found -at last liberal patronage, and rose to such fame that on his return -to Paris in 1640 he was appointed Painter-in-Ordinary to the King. -However, the duties and restrictions attached to this position proved -so irksome to Poussin, that after two years he returned to Rome, where -he spent the rest of his life. - -At the Louvre is to be found an imposing array of forty canvases by -Poussin, whose art is as typical an expression of French genius as -the poetry of Corneille. It is essentially intellectual, based on -theoretical rules of design and composition, not in the least sensuous -or emotional, but always coldly classical. The vast majority of his -paintings at the Louvre are in such a deplorable state of deterioration -and neglect that it is almost impossible to form an adequate idea -of their original colour, but even the most ardent admirers of the -master do not maintain that he was a great colourist. His pictures are -entirely dependent on beauty of form and rhythmic design. They might -almost be described as painted reliefs. This applies at least to his -treatment of the human figure. His conception of landscape, though -still severely classical, is more pictorial and testifies to a genuine -love of Nature—Nature idealised by a lofty imagination. To appreciate -his greatness as a landscape painter, one has only to examine the -glorious setting to his _Orpheus and Eurydice_ (No. 740). The figures -here are really of quite subordinate importance—mere incidents in a -landscape painted with consummate mastery, perfect in linear and aerial -perspective. - -_The Shepherds in Arcadia_ (No. 734, Plate XXXVII.) may be quoted to -illustrate the calculated rhythm of his design and his indebtedness -to classic art from which he derived his nobility of form. Real -dramatic action was beyond Poussin’s range. His famous _Rape of the -Sabine Women_ (No. 724) is a striking instance of his failure to -grasp the significant difference between dramatic movement and mere -heroic posturing. Far more inspired, and therefore more natural and -dramatically effective, is the superb circular painting for a ceiling -commissioned by Cardinal Richelieu and representing _Time rescuing -Truth from the Attacks of Envy and Discord_ (No. 735). The allegory is -said to have been intended as an allusion to the circumstances which -induced Poussin to leave Paris for good. The design has more real -vitality than is generally to be found in Poussin’s work; the action of -the figures is more natural; and the colour music is not drowned by the -prevalence of dingy browns. The decorative effect heralds in a strange -way the art of the next century, and particularly that of Boucher. - -To see Poussin in the right perspective as regards the world’s great -masters, one need only compare his two _Bacchanals_ (Nos. 729 and -730) with Titian’s rendering of a similar theme. The comparison is -disastrous for the eclectic Frenchman. A _Portrait of the Painter_ (No. -743) from Poussin’s own brush is to be found in Room XIV., where no -fewer than thirty-seven of his pictures are on view. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXVII.—NICOLAS POUSSIN - - (1594-1665) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 734.—THE SHEPHERDS IN ARCADIA - - (Les Bergers d’Arcadie) - - In the centre of a landscape with receding ranges of hills, three - shepherds, leaning on their long staves, and a maiden in classic - garb, are gathered around an ancient tomb surrounded by trees. - An inscription on the tomb, “_Et in Arcadia Ego_,” engages their - attention. One of the shepherds is kneeling and reading the - inscription to his companion on the left, whilst the third man of - the group leans forward to point out to the maiden the significance - of the inscription. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 9½ in. × 3 ft. 11½ in. (0·85 × 1·21.)] - - - CLAUDE LORRAIN - -Strangely enough, the otherwise very complete collection of French -pictures at the Louvre does not contain a single example of Poussin’s -brother-in-law, Gaspard Dughet, better known as Gaspard Poussin -(1613-1675), who devoted himself more exclusively to landscape than -did his more illustrious relative. Nicolas Poussin’s influence also -became decisive for the formation of the style of Claude Gellée, -called Le Lorrain (1600-1682), who is represented at the Louvre by -seventeen pictures (Nos. 310-326), most of which also have suffered -considerably from discoloration and neglect. Claude, who was the child -of poor parents, started life as a cook. In this capacity he went to -Rome, where his talent for art was discovered by the landscape painter -Agostino Tassi, to whom he served as cook and apprentice. Having -learned all he could from his master, he returned to France in 1625, -but, like Poussin, preferred to go back to Rome after two years spent -in his native country. In the Papal city he lived the rest of his days, -and rose to fame and affluence. - -He was essentially a landscape painter. The historical and legendary -incidents introduced in such pictures as _The Disembarkation of -Cleopatra at Tarsis_ (No. 314), or _Ulysses restoring Chryseis to her -Father_ (No. 316), were to him a mere excuse for painting classic -landscapes and imaginary buildings of noble proportion bathed in a -golden atmosphere, which has hardly been rivalled by any contemporary -or later painter. It is only on rare occasions, as in the _View of -the Campo Vaccino at Rome_ (No. 311), that he applied his gifts to -the portrayal of nature. As a rule, his views are carefully arranged -combinations of architectural and landscape elements brought together -arbitrarily, and generally disposed in the manner of the wings and -backcloth of a stage scene, but connected by the unity of light and -atmosphere. Considering this method, it is amazing that his memory -enabled him to invent such imaginary scenes with so great a degree -of truth. _The View of a Sea Port_ (No. 317, Plate XXXVIII.), in the -subdued light of a misty day, is a magnificent instance of his masterly -management of aerial perspective. It is signed and dated “CLAUDE IN -ROMA, 1646.” It is generally known how much Turner in his first manner -owed to the example of Claude. That even Watteau was indebted to him -may be gathered from such pictures as _The Village Fête_ (No. 312), -which, signed and dated, “CLAUDIO, inv. Romæ, 1639,” contains in germ -the elements that constituted the greatness of the eighteenth-century -master. - - - LE SUEUR - -Whilst Poussin and Claude were working in Rome, two pupils of Vouet -reaped the highest honours in France. Eustache Le Sueur (1617-1655), -whom his compatriots in their incomprehensible over-estimation of his -mediocre gifts have called the “French Raphael,” certainly strove -to emulate the divine Urbinate; but how badly he succeeded in this -endeavour is to be gathered from the fifty-two paintings, by the -placing of which his memory is retained at the Louvre. What dignity -there is in the simple flow of line in his designs, is completely -ruined by the offensive crudeness of his colour. Even allowing for the -inevitable fluctuations of taste in matters of art, it is difficult -now to understand how enthusiasm could ever have been aroused by the -works that were considered his masterpieces, _St. Paul preaching at -Ephesus_ (No. 560), which at the beginning of last century was valued -at £10,000 (!), and the twenty-two _Scenes from the Life of St. Bruno_ -(Nos. 564-585), painted between 1645 and 1648 for the small cloister -of the Carthusians in Paris. This series, which is a severe tax on -the patience of the conscientious visitor, fills the whole of Gallery -XII., whilst other paintings connected with it intrude into the -adjoining room, which is consecrated to the brothers Le Nain. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXVIII.—CLAUDE GELLÉE, CALLED CLAUDE LORRAIN - - (1600-1682) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 317.—VIEW OF A SEAPORT - - (Vue d’un Port de Mer: Effet de Brume) - - In the foreground, on the beach, are groups of men occupied with - unloading merchandise and cattle. Sailing ships are at anchor in - the port, and boats are floating on the rippling water. On the left - a monumental staircase leads from the landing-steps to a palace, - beyond which is seen a fort; a classic temple on the right. Sunset - effect, the power of the sun being softened by a mist over the far - distance. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Signed on a stone in the left foreground:—“CLAUDE IN ROMA, 1646” - - 3 ft. 10¾ in. × 4 ft. 11 in. (1·19 × 1·50.)] - -Before passing on to Vouet’s most famous pupil, Charles Le Brun, -whose despotic power imposed upon French painting during the “_grand -siècle_” its pompous rhetorical character, mention should be made of -Sébastien Bourdon (1616-1671), who, but for his prolonged sojourn in -Rome, which fed his ambition to excel in the “grand style,” would -have been one of the most remarkable artists of his century. This -conclusion is, at least, justified by his precious little painting of -a group of _Beggars_ (No. 76), which is perhaps unrivalled in French -seventeenth-century art for quality of paint and appreciation of -tone values; and by his excellent _Portrait of the Philosopher René -Descartes_ (No. 78), who was also painted by Frans Hals (No. 2383). In -his treatment of scriptural and historical subjects he does not rise -above the dull level of his contemporaries. - - - CHARLES LE BRUN - -Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) studied first under Vouet, but, attracted -by Poussin’s stronger personality, followed that master to Rome in -1642, and continued his studies under his guidance. When Le Brun -returned to Paris four years later, his reputation was already firmly -established. Patronised by Louis XIV.’s powerful minister, Colbert, he -was placed at the head of the newly founded Academy of Painting, and of -the Gobelins Manufactory, became First Painter to the King and “Prince” -of the French Academy in Rome; and was, in fact, given absolute power -in all matters concerning the fostering of the arts and art industries. -This despotic power explains how it was possible that Le Brun, who -notwithstanding his brilliant executive skill and extraordinary -facility never rose above the level of mediocrity, could impose his -uninspired personality upon every phase of French artistic activity of -his time. - -His enormous canvases at the Louvre, which probably occupy more space -than has been allotted to any other painter, vainly endeavour to -conceal the lack of real emotion and of a central motif by theatrical -gestures and overcrowding. His masterpiece at the Louvre is _The Tent -of Darius_ (No. 511), which represents the family of Darius imploring -Alexander the Great for mercy. But even here one feels the absence of -dramatic inspiration and concentration. Less successful are the other -scenes from the history of Alexander: _The Passage of the Granicus_ -(No. 509), _The Battle of Arbela_ (No. 510), _Alexander and Porus_ -(No. 512), _Alexander entering Babylon_ (No. 513). The whole series -was painted between 1661 and 1668 for execution in tapestry and was -exhibited at the Salon in 1673, the year in which for the first time -an official catalogue was compiled. Besides many scriptural and -mythological subjects, and a few portraits from Le Bran’s brush, there -are at the Louvre his decorative paintings on the ceiling of the -Galerie d’Apollon in which the magnificent centre panel was added two -centuries later by Delacroix. - - - PIERRE MIGNARD - -Le Bran’s successor in the direction of the Academy and the Gobelin -works, Pierre Mignard (1612-1695), called “Le Romain” owing to his long -domicile in Rome after the completion of his studies under Vouet, did -not have his precursor’s large decorative faculty and sweeping ease of -execution. Yet the excessively affected grace and the careful finish -of his pictures, of which _The Virgin of the Grapes_ (No. 628) is a -thoroughly characteristic instance, helped to raise him to an exalted -position in the opinion of his contemporaries. To this day the affected -style of prettiness of which he was the high priest is known as -“_mignardise_.” His power was altogether insufficient for the ambitious -decorative tasks he set himself in emulation of Le Brun. If he has any -claim to the esteem of posterity, it is for having left the world a -portrait gallery of the notable men and women of his time—portraits -which are by no means free from flattery and mannered grace, but -constitute, nevertheless, a valuable historical record. Of these the -Louvre owns the _Portrait of the Artist at Work in his Studio_ (No. -640); the _Portrait of Françoise d’Aubigne, Marquise de Maintenon_ (No. -639); and the life-size group of _Louis of France, Son of Louis XIV., -his Wife, and their three Children_ (No. 638). - -Colbert and Le Brun had succeeded but too well in carrying out the -powerful minister’s ambition to direct French art towards industrial -and decorative aims, to train an army of capable producers, and to -place the whole organisation on what may be called a business basis. -The system was, however, not favourable for the growth of independent -genius. With few exceptions, the whole generation of painters that -grew up under Le Brun’s régime are of no significance to the history -of art. There were among them many capable craftsmen, but they only -repeated in a feebler way what Le Brun had done on a more imposing and -dazzling scale. Whole dynasties of painters arose, like the Boulognes -and the Coypels, who, under official patronage, filled acres of canvas -with florid, theatrical renderings of scriptural subjects, and with the -bombastic mock-heroics of classic history and mythology seen through -baroque spectacles. - - - LE BRUN’S FOLLOWERS - -It would be giving undue importance to these painters of the Louis XIV. -period if we were to go beyond a mere enumeration of their leaders and -their chief works at the Louvre. None of them possessed any marked -individuality; and most of them were linked together, not only by -similar aims and ambitions, but also by family ties. Four members of -the Coypel family rose to great eminence among their fellow-artists, -and to important official positions. Noël Coypel (1628-1707), the -painter of the four historical compositions, _Solon defending his Laws -before the Athenians_ (No. 157), _Ptolomy Philadelphus giving the Jews -their Freedom_ (No. 158), _Trajan giving a Public Audience_ (No. 159), -and the _Foresight of Septimus Severus_ (No. 160), all of which were -originally executed for the Council Chamber at Versailles; his sons -Antoine Coypel (1661-1722), whose best known pictures at the Louvre are -the _Susannah and the Elders_ (No. 169) and the _Democritos_ (No. 174), -which recalls Jordaens in its exuberant life, and Noël Nicolas Coypel -(1692-1734), whose goddesses and nymphs already reflect the taste which -dominated the eighteenth century; as well as Antoine’s son, Charles -Antoine Coypel (1694-1752), whose uninspired art may best be studied in -the _Perseus delivering Andromeda_ (No. 180). - -_The Triumph of Bacchus_ (No. 447) and _The Annunciation_ (No. 445), -by Charles de La Fosse (1636-1716); _Hercules fighting the Centaurs_ -(No. 53), by Bon Boulogne (1649-1717); and _The Marriage of St. -Catherine_ (No. 55), by his brother Louis Boulogne (1654-1733), only -serve to illustrate the mediocrity of their respective authors. The -impersonality of Bon Boulogne’s art had at least the advantage that his -teaching left free scope for personal expression to his many pupils. - -Even the still-life painting of the “_grand siècle_,” which found its -chief exponent in Jean Baptiste Monnoyer (1634-1699), partakes of the -love of pomp and display that characterises this period. Gold and -silver vases, precious stuffs and furniture generally accompany his -flowers, which are painted without real appreciation of their natural -beauty, and in purely local tints without a hint of the effect of each -colour upon its surroundings. The _Flowers_ (No. 648), in the La Caze -Gallery, may be mentioned as a typical example. - - - BATTLE PAINTERS - -The battle painter, Jacques Courtois (1621-1676), called Borgognone -and Le Bourguignon, though born in France, was so completely under the -spell of the art of Italy, the country where he spent almost his entire -life, that he can scarcely be reckoned as belonging to the French -school. His furious cavalry _mêlées_, though entirely imaginative (as -such confused encounters of horsemen piercing each other’s ranks have -never taken place in actual warfare), are painted, like the _Cavalry -Fight_ (No. 151), with a touch as swift as it is sure and expressive, -and full of exuberant vitality. - -Joseph Parrocel (1678-1704), who, during a prolonged visit to Rome had -benefited by Borgognone’s teaching, could not, after his return to -France in 1675, escape the current of thought which dominated his time, -and introduced the stage-heroic note into his master’s sham realism. -The glorification of his king is the purpose of such pictures as _The -Passage of the Rhine by Louis XIV._ (No. 678). The chief interest is -centred in the richly apparelled group on their prancing steeds in the -foreground. - - - JEAN JOUVENET - -_The Descent from the Cross_ (No. 437), by Jean Jouvenet (1644-1717), -which has been honoured by a position among the masterpieces in the -Salon Carré, is certainly one of the most estimable compositions -produced in France during this active but uninspired century. Not only -in the general disposition of the design, but also in the use of colour -as a constructive element, Jouvenet here acknowledges his indebtedness -to Rubens, although he could never rival the luminous glow of the great -Fleming’s palette. Most of his other pictures suffer from dull heavy -shadows and exaggerated expression. His strong and honest painting -of the kneeling group in _The Abbé Delaporte officiating at the High -Altar of Nôtre-Dame_ (No. 440), makes us regret that he did not devote -himself more to subjects taken from the life of his time. - -An artist who was less tied to the tyranny of the official school, and -imbued with a really profound sense of the beautiful, was Jean Baptiste -Santerre (1658-1717). The delicate perfection of form of the nude in -_Susannah and the Elders_ (No. 835) approaches him to David and Ingres -at their best. But this very perfection carries the germ of decay, -because it is incapable of progress, and stagnation in art signifies -death. As regards his technique, Santerre was extremely careful and -conscientious. He reduced his palette to but five colours, and waited -ten years after the completion of a picture before putting on the final -coat of varnish. - - - THE PORTRAIT PAINTERS - -The two great portrait painters who flourished under the “Grand -Monarque,” Rigaud and Largillière, were preceded by an artist to whom, -perhaps owing to the relative scarceness of his works, history has -done but scant justice. Whilst the Louvre contains thirteen portraits -by Largillière and seventeen by Rigaud, only two pictures stand to the -name of Claude Lefebvre (1632-1675); but his _Portraits of a Master -and his Pupil_ (No. 529) and the _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 530), are -distinguished by a penetrating insight into character and an incisive -vigour of style that form a striking contrast to the shallow bombast -introduced even into portraiture by the fashionable painters to the -Court. Lefebvre has been compared with Van Dyck. The _Portrait of a -Man_ (No. 530) has more in common with the brilliant audacity of Frans -Hals’s brushwork. Lefebvre worked for some years in London, where he -was a favourite at the Court of Charles II. - -Rigaud’s manner of portraiture has none of these serious, manly -qualities, but his skill in arranging the sumptuous accessories which -play so important a part in his portraits,—as important, at least, -as the actual features of the sitters,—secured him the patronage of -the pomp-loving, haughty nobility. Hyacinthe Rigaud y Ros (1659-1743) -was born at Perpignan and educated at Montpellier and Lyons. It was -the advice of Le Brun that saved him from the customary pilgrimage to -Rome and its inevitable consequences. It was Le Brun who recognised -Rigaud’s bent for portraiture, and launched him on the brilliant -career which gained for him the title of “the French Van Dyck.” Rigaud -was enormously productive. Between 1681 and 1698 he is said to have -painted six hundred and twenty-three portraits. And he had then another -forty-five years before him! - -Rigaud’s best known picture at the Louvre is the stately _portrait -d’apparat_ of _King Louis XIV._ (No. 781), a life-size full length, -in which the spirit of the time, the curious blending of supercilious -haughtiness, love of display, and affected grace of manner, are -happily expressed in the monarch’s attitude and in the whole setting. -The picture is signed and dated, “PEINT PAR HYACINTHE RIGAUD, 1701.” -The same tendencies are to be noted in the full length _Portrait of -Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux_ (No. 783), in which it is surprising that -the prelate’s personality is not completely smothered by the splendid -profusion of the accessories. His gifts appear, however, in a better -light in his excellent _Portraits of Marie Serre, the Artist’s Mother_ -(No. 784), with the same head, honestly and soberly painted, twice on -the same canvas, once in sharp profile looking to the right, and again, -facing this, a three-quarter profile to the left. Wholly unexpected -is the delicacy and softness of one of his pictures in the La Caze -Room: the _Portrait of the Duke of Lesdiguières as a Child_ (No. 792). -His solitary excursion into the domain of “grand art” at the Louvre -is at the same time his last work: _The Presentation in the Temple_ -(No. 780), which in grouping and lighting owes much to the study of -Rembrandt. - -Nicolas de Largillière (1656-1746) was born in Paris, but was taken -when still an infant to Antwerp, where he became a pupil of Goebouw. -From 1674 to 1680 he worked in London as an assistant of Sir Peter -Lely, from whom he acquired the clever tricks and mannerisms in the -painting of draperies and the textures of silks and velvets and other -materials, which were to form so important a part of his artistic -equipment. After Lely’s death Largillière went to Paris, where he not -only shared with Rigaud the patronage of the Court as portrait painter, -but secured many important commissions for historical paintings which, -perhaps to the advantage of his fame, are now all but forgotten. -Largillière was not without distinction as a brilliant and daring -colourist. Nor was he incapable, on occasion, of seizing the subtleties -of his sitters’ character. But his praiseworthy qualities are more than -balanced by his unpleasant affectations and by the baroque squirminess -of his line. This tendency carried him to such insufferable excesses as -the conglomeration of lumpy bosses which does duty for a hand in his -_Portrait of M. Du Vaucel_ (No. 484), in the La Caze Room. - -His boastful skill in the management of the satins and velvets in the -overrated portrait group of _Largillière with his Wife and Daughter -in a Garden_ (No. 491), cannot atone for the singularly unfortunate -and clumsy composition, and for the self-conscious affectation of each -individual pose. More satisfactory, in spite of the superabundance of -accessories and outward pomp, which in this case is a fitting attribute -to the character of the sitter, is the _Portrait of Charles Le Brun, -First Painter to King Louis XIV._ (No. 482), who is depicted in a -colossal wig, seated before an easel, and wearing a superbly painted -red velvet cloak. - - - LANDSCAPE PAINTERS - -It almost goes without saying that landscape art, which, even in its -most artificial and “classic” phase is inspired by the love and study -of nature, was sadly neglected in so artificial an age. Among its -leading exponents must be mentioned the two Patels, father and son, of -whose life we have but scant knowledge, and whose pictures resemble one -another’s so closely that it is often difficult to determine which is -by Pierre Patel, the father (1620?-1676), and which by Pierre Antoine -Patel, the son (1648-1708), especially as both adopted the signature, -“P. PATEL.” In the case of the older artist’s _The Exposure of Moses -on the Nile_ (No. 680), and _Moses burying the Egyptian whom he had -Slain_ (No. 681), and his son’s four landscapes representing the -months, _January_ (No. 684), _April_ (No. 685), _August_ (No. 686), -and _September_ (No. 687), all doubts are set aside by the dates which -accompany the signature. Both artists were close followers of Claude -Lorrain, although their precise technique suggests the influence of -Adam Elsheimer. - -A truer perception of nature came to France from the North, whence, -indeed, throughout the history of French painting vitality was infused -into an art that was cramped by officially imposed canons of Italian -perfection. As far back as the time of Le Brun, Félibien and Roger de -Piles had begun in the field of literary polemics the long struggle -between the _Poussinistes_ and _Rubenistes_, the adherents of an art -dominated by design and perfect drawing, against the partisans of -colour as a vital element. During the whole seventeenth century the -Poussinistes, who commanded all the official support, held the field, -though the Netherlandish strain was represented by some of the finest -painters of that period, like the brothers Le Nain, C. Lefebvre, -and Philippe de Champaigne. In the eighteenth century the Northern -influence became supreme through Watteau and Chardin on the one hand, -and on the other through Boucher and Fragonard, both of whom were -powerfully influenced by the study of Rubens’s works. - - - DESPORTES - -In landscape the healthy opposition to the prevailing classic style -appears first in the work of the Flemish battle painter Van der Meulen, -whose backgrounds, sketched on the spot, show a fine feeling for -aerial perspective and atmospheric effects. But his example apparently -attracted no followers. Though not, strictly speaking, a landscape -painter, François Desportes (1661-1743), who owed less to his early -training under Nicasius, a third-rate Fleming, than to his habit of -using his own eyes and studying nature direct, treated landscape with -similar freedom in the backgrounds to his portraits and pictures of -the chase. In his paintings of animals, dead or alive, limp bodies of -hares and birds arranged as still-life with flowers and fruits, or in a -very frenzy of movement in his hunting pieces, he endeavours to emulate -Snyders, without quite rivalling the Flemish master. Of his twenty-five -pictures at the Louvre, twenty-three (Nos. 225-248) belong to this -genre, but not all of them are actually exhibited. The _Portrait of a -Huntsman_ (No. 224), and the _Portrait of the Artist_ (No. 249) seated -under a tree, holding a gun in his right, and caressing with his left -hand a hound whose paw is resting on a pile of dead game, serve to -prove that he knew how to manage portraiture with the same bold, frank -spirit and summary breadth. He was particularly happy in rendering, -without laboured detail, the varying textures of fur and plumage. - -Desportes’s only successful rival as a painter of animals and hunting -scenes was Jean Baptiste Oudry (1686-1755). How closely his style -resembled that of the elder painter is to be seen from his _Wolf Hunt_ -(No. 667), the _Dog watching Dead Game_ (No. 668), and one or two -similar pieces at the Louvre. Oudry was first taught by his father, -and subsequently by Largillière, who encouraged him in the painting of -still-life, and directed his study particularly to the observation of -tone values and of the interchange of colour that takes place between -objects in close proximity to each other. In 1734, Oudry was appointed -Director of the Beauvais Tapestry Works, which took a new lease of life -under his able management. It was he who supplied the designs for the -_Fables of La Fontaine_, which figure so frequently in the tapestries -woven at that great establishment. Perhaps his most interesting picture -at the Louvre is the large landscape _The Farm_ (No. 670), signed and -dated 1750, one of the earliest examples in French art of a rustic -scene painted for its own sake, without any attempt at ennobling the -landscape by forcing it into a formal arrangement. - - - - - THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL - - - GENRE PAINTERS - -It is quite in accordance with the tendencies displayed by these -masters, that towards the end of the seventeenth and the beginning -of the eighteenth century an increasing number of artists preferred -to devote their talent to recording the life of their own days to -the endless repetition of the “grand-manner” subjects which had -occupied the energy of the preceding generations. Thus Jean Alexis -Grimou (1678-1740), who was Swiss by birth and entirely self-trained, -introduced into French art the drinking scenes beloved of the Flemish -masters. From his painting of _A Drinker_ (No. 385) and the two -_Portraits of Young Soldiers_ (Nos. 386 and 387), it may be seen how -little he was in sympathy with the official art of his time; this is -scarcely to be wondered at, since, instead of undergoing the customary -course of academic training, he had formed his style by copying the -works of Rembrandt and other Northern masters. - -Pierre Subleyras (1699-1749) was not quite so emancipated. In his large -religious compositions he still follows the affectations of the grand -style. His chief work of this kind is the _Mass of St. Basil_, at Sta. -Maria degli Angeli in Rome, of which No. 857 at the Louvre is a reduced -version. Of far more artistic significance are his small genre pieces, -in which he attains to a rich quality of pigment and a justice of -tone-values unique in French painting of his period. Subleyras is said -to have been of Spanish descent; and there are in his scenes from La -Fontaine’s “Fables”—notably in _The Hermit_ (No. 862)—clear indications -of his intimate acquaintance with Spanish art. The best of all his -pictures at the Louvre is _The Falcon_ (No. 861), which, apart from its -general quality of tone, contains some still-life passages worthy of -the brush of Chardin. - - - RAOUX AND DE TROY - -Just as Subleyras should be judged by his genre scenes rather than by -his scriptural subjects, so Jean Raoux’s (1677-1734) real significance -lies in the intimate note he introduced into his fancy portraits, and -not in his moderately successful excursions into mythology, like the -_Telemachus relating his Adventures to Calypso_, at the Louvre (No. -764). The _Young Woman reading a Letter_ (No. 765), in the La Caze -Room, is perhaps the most charming of many similar pictures from his -brush. In sentiment it belongs entirely to the amorous century of Louis -XV., which was to produce a Fragonard and a Greuze. Raoux was one of -the first French painters of contemporary life. Brought up in the old -tradition, he was in his last years influenced by the personality of -the great Watteau. - -If Raoux was the somewhat sentimental painter of bourgeois life, Jean -François de Troy (1679-1752) played not infrequently the chronicler -of the elegant life of the leisured classes. Unfortunately this -interesting phase of his art is not represented at the Louvre, which, -besides the three _Portraits_ (Nos. 886-888) in the La Caze collection, -contains two of his famous designs for tapestry, representing scenes -from the _History of Esther_ (Nos. 884-885); and his large historical -painting, _The First Chapter of the Order of the Holy Ghost, held by -Henri IV. in 1595_ (No. 883). - - - WATTEAU - -The master who was to break definitely with the cold, majestic, -uninspired art of the seventeenth century, and who in leading -French painting into new paths reached the very limits of poetic -expressiveness imposed by material means, was Antoine Watteau -(1684-1721). Born at Valenciennes six years before that city became -French through the peace of Nymwegen, Watteau, the son of a poor -Flemish tiler, was French, as it were, by accident only. In his early -years, when he studied in his native town under Gérin, a mediocre -local painter, he must have had occasion to become closely acquainted -with the paintings of the Flemish masters. On the death of Gérin, in -1702, he went to Paris, where he became assistant to the scene-painter -Métayer. Watteau suffered dire poverty, and completely undermined his -health through privation before his talent attracted the attention of -his next master, Claude Gillot, with whom he stayed until 1708, when he -became assistant to Claude Audran, a decorative artist of great repute -and Keeper of the Luxembourg collections. At the Luxembourg Palace he -was enabled to study the masterpieces of Rubens, Titian, and Paolo -Veronese, from which he benefited as much as from his work from nature -in the Luxembourg gardens. - -It was perhaps fortunate that he failed in the competition for the -Prix de Rome in 1709, and was dissuaded from going to Italy. He -was received by the Academy in 1717, when he painted his “diploma -picture.” _The Embarkation for the Island of Cythera_ (No. 982, Plate -XXXIX.), which may be considered an epitome of his art. Sketchy as -it is, this picture, which he painted in seven days, exceeds in -poetic charm and in the beauty of its entrancing sparkle of mellow -tones the more highly finished later version in the German Emperor’s -collection. It is the most striking instance of a purely imaginary -scene of unworldly happiness, tinged with that peculiarly Watteauesque -vague melancholy,—the consumptive’s _maladie de l’infini_ to which -M. Mauclair has drawn attention,—represented with such absolute -atmospheric truth as to make it appear an incomparably beautiful -reality. Technically, this picture, like _L’Indifférent_ (No. 984) -and _La Finette_ (No. 985) in the La Caze Room, embodies in germ -the theories which in the second half of the next century were -scientifically worked out by the French Impressionists. - -Some time in 1719 or 1720, Watteau was in England to consult a famous -physician. But his illness took a turn for the worse, and he had to -return to his native country. After six months spent in Paris, he went -to live at Nogent-sur-Marne, where he died on July 18, 1721. Watteau’s -influence upon eighteenth-century art was prodigious; but his work -remained unapproached by any of his followers and imitators, who too -often sacrificed artistic considerations to a desire to please the -lascivious tastes of a corrupt, pleasure-loving society. The _Faux Pas_ -(No. 989) is one of the rare instances where Watteau allowed a certain -suggestiveness to enter into his work; but even here “the smallness of -the subject is swallowed up in the greatness of the painting.” - - [Illustration: - PLATE XXXIX.—ANTOINE WATTEAU - - (1684-1721) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 982.—THE EMBARKATION FOR THE ISLAND OF CYTHERA - - (L’Embarquement pour Cythère) - - On a mound in the foreground, under a group of trees on the right, - by a garlanded terminal figure of Venus, are seated a young woman - and a pilgrim; at their feet is Cupid, whose wings are covered by a - black cape. To the left a cavalier helps a young woman to rise from - the lawn. In the centre of the composition another pilgrim leads - away his partner, encircling her waist with his arm. On the left, - in the middle distance, is a procession of lovers in pairs moving - towards a gilt barge with a chimera at the prow and two semi-nude - rowers. Cupids are floating in the air above the barge. In the - background a lake surrounded by bluish mountains. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 4 ft. 2 in. × 6 ft. 3½ in. (1·27 × 1·92.)] - - - THE WATTEAUS IN THE LA CAZE GALLERY - -It is a strange fact that but for the generosity of La Caze, _The -Embarkation_ would be the only example at the Louvre of the greatest -master produced by France. The reason for this extraordinary neglect -may be found in the scant esteem in which Watteau was held until -his eclipsed fame was resuscitated by the de Goncourts. The superb -life-size painting of _Gilles_ (No. 983), one of ten pictures by or -attributed to Watteau in the La Caze collection, was sold at public -auction in 1826 for £26; whilst _L’Indifférent_ and _La Finette_ -together realised the sum of £19 at the Marquis de Ménars’ sale! Of -the eleven pictures in the La Caze collection that were originally -attributed to Watteau, _L’Escamoteur_ (No. 622A, formerly No. 987) is -now acknowledged to be by his imitator Philippe Mercier (1689-1760), -who was born in Berlin of French parents, and spent the most productive -years of his life in London, where he died in 1760. The still-life -piece _Dead Game_ (No. 993), officially assigned to Watteau, has -rightly been doubted; but the aspersions thrown upon the authenticity -of the delicious _Pastoral_ (No. 992) do not seem sufficiently -justified. The profound influence of Rubens upon Watteau’s art is -nowhere more pronounced than in the sketch _The Judgment of Paris_ (No. -988), and in the beautiful oval composition _Jupiter and Antiope_ (No. -991), which has, however, also much in common with Titian. The superb -nude figure symbolising _Autumn_ (No. 990), and another _fête galante_, -entitled _Gay Company in a Park_ (No. 986), are no less creditable to -the master’s genius. - - - WATTEAU’S FOLLOWERS - -Although Watteau indicated the direction that French art was to follow -in a century when it had to cater no longer for the stateapartment but -for the boudoir, he left no follower worthy to carry on his tradition. -Nicolas Lancret (1690-1743), who had studied under Dulin and Gillot, -based his style upon Watteau, whom he almost rivalled as a draughtsman. -But he was an inferior colourist, and wholly lacking in poetic -inspiration. One has only to compare his _Actors of the Italian Comedy_ -(No. 470) with Watteau’s _Gilles_ (No. 983), or his _Music Lesson_ (No. -468) and _Innocence_ (No. 469) with their prototypes created by that -master, to realise the inferiority of these thin, vulgarised versions -of Watteau subjects. - -Jean Baptiste Pater (1695-1736), who, like Watteau, was born at -Valenciennes, became a pupil of his fellow-townsman in Paris, and -benefited considerably by his guidance. Although inferior as a -draughtsman to Lancret, whom he did not rival either in originality, he -far surpassed him as a colourist. With Lancret, colour was generally -an afterthought; with Pater, it entered into the primary conception -of the picture. His Academy diploma piece, the _Fête Champêtre_ (No. -689), is painted in the Watteau manner with true pictorial feeling, -even if it lacks the master’s precious, jewel-like quality of pigment. -The _Fête Champêtre_ (No. 203), by Bonaventure Debar (1700-1729), holds -promise of a considerable talent in a similar direction, cut short by a -premature death. - - - THE VAN LOO FAMILY - -No fewer than five members of the Flemish Van Loo family, which -flourished in France from about 1660 until the death of Julius Cæsar -Van Loo in 1821, are represented in the Louvre collection. The most -distinguished among them were Louis Van Loo’s sons, Jean-Baptiste -and Charles André, better known as Carle. Both of them were brought -up in the academic tradition; but their Flemish blood and the taste -of a time that had seen the master-work of Watteau, gave their art -more vigour and sensuousness than is to be found in the paintings -of their academic precursors. Still it is unnecessary to linger over -their historical and mythological compositions. The picture which does -most credit to Carle Van Loo (1705-1765) is _The Hunt Picnic_ (No. -899), which, in spite of a certain crudeness of colour, attracts by -the science of the composition, the Watteau feeling of the landscape -background, and by its fascinating reality as a record of contemporary -life among the leisured, pleasure-loving classes. - -François Le Moine (1688-1737) constitutes a link between the decorative -style of the preceding generation, which had become dull and ponderous, -and the art of Watteau and his followers. In this position he heralds -his great pupil François Boucher, whose characteristics, deprived of -his elegant grace and suave rhythm of design, are more than hinted -at in the _Juno, Iris and Flora_ (No. 536). The _Olympus_ (No. 535), -the sketch for a ceiling, recalls in its joyful decorative colour and -bravura of brush work the art of Tiepolo and Ricci. - - - FRANÇOIS BOUCHER - -Whilst such painters as Jean Restout (1692-1768) still continued to -follow the tradition of the Bolognese eclectics, as may be seen in -his _Herminia and the Shepherd_ (No. 775), the art of the Louis XV. -period was given its final stamp by François Boucher (1703-1770). This -favourite of Mme. de Pompadour, having gained the Prix de Rome in 1723, -went to Italy in 1727, whence he returned to Paris four years later. At -the age of thirty his _Rinaldo and Armida_ (No. 38A) caused him to be -“received” by the Academy—the first of many honours that fell to his -share, as he became in turn First Painter to the King, Director of the -Academy, and Inspector of the Beauvais Tapestry Manufactory. He was the -ideal painter of the age that was dominated by the personality of the -Pompadour, who kept him employed with commissions for the decoration -of her boudoir. Boucher was the true child of his time—licentious, -pleasure-loving, light-hearted, and without moral scruples. The -astonishing thing is that his pursuit of pleasure did not affect -his enormous productivity. His art is in perfect harmony with his -character—frankly sensual, exuberant, and unreliable; at times rising -to superb decorative splendour of the airy, graceful type demanded by -his patrons, and then again careless to the point of slovenliness. - -Boucher was not a great colourist in the sense in which this term is -applied to masters like Titian or Rubens. Indeed, more often than -not his application of purely local colours unaffected by their -surroundings is apt to result in the crudeness noticeable in his -_Pastoral_ (No. 33), and in the domestic scene called _The Breakfast_ -(No. 50A). Other pictures like the _Pastoral_ (No. 34) owe their -present tapestry-like mellowness to the fading of the pigments. But -it would be unfair to disregard the artist’s intention and to judge -his capacity as a colourist from the present appearance of his works -at the Louvre or in their usual environment in a public gallery. They -were intended for definite decorative purposes, and in their proper -Louis XV. setting fulfilled their function in admirable fashion. Few -artists excelled Boucher in rhythmic harmony of composition, although -it must be confessed that his emphatic insistence on triangular design -is apt to become monotonous. This predilection is to be noted in the -_Rinaldo and Armida_ (No. 38A), _Venus disarming Cupid_ (No. 44), -_The Rape of Europa_ (No. 39), the _Pastorals_ (Nos. 33, 34, and 35), -_Vulcan presenting Arms to Venus_ (No. 36, Plate XL.), and, indeed, -in the vast majority of his twenty-two exhibited pictures at the -Louvre. His mastery in flesh painting is best illustrated by the more -unconventionally designed _Diana leaving the Bath_ (No. 30), and the -brilliant sketch of _The Three Graces_ (No. 47) in the La Caze Room. -Among his other masterpieces at the Louvre, _Venus demanding Arms from -Vulcan_ (No. 31), which like No. 36 was designed for execution -in tapestry, and the charming _Portrait of a Young Woman_ (No. 50), -deserve special attention. It is unfortunate that they are not hung in -the rooms that contain the magnificent furniture of the period, instead -of being piled sky-high among pictures that seem to be primarily -regarded by the officials as mere museum specimens of the art of -painting. Boucher is better hung, and so may be much more effectively -studied in the Wallace collection in London. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XL.—FRANÇOIS BOUCHER - - (1703-1770) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 36.—VULCAN PRESENTING ARMS TO VENUS - - (Vulcain présentant à Vénus des Armes pour Énée) - - On the right, Vulcan, seated on a tiger-skin with his left elbow - resting on an anvil, presents a sword to Venus, who, supported by a - nymph, is resting on a cloud in the centre of the composition. In - the background, over the head of Vulcan, are two cupids carrying - a helmet with a blue plume; between them and Venus, two nymphs on - clouds under a rock. Cupids and doves are fluttering around the - central group. In the foreground, on the left, are the chariot - of Venus, doves, and cupids, one of whom, immediately below the - goddess, is holding a garland of white roses. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Signed:—“F. BOUCHER.” - - 10 ft. 6 in. × 10 ft. 6 in. (3·20 × 3·20.)] - -A little drier in touch than Boucher’s nudes, and considerably less -coherent in design, but still painted with remarkable ability, are -the figures of the goddess and her attendants in _The Triumphs of -Amphitrite_ (No. 863), by Boucher’s contemporary, Hugues Taraval -(1728-1785). - - - SIMÉON CHARDIN - -If Boucher and the army of painters of _fêtes galantes_ and boudoir -decorations reflect the tastes of the corrupt society of Louis XV.’s -age, Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin (1699-1779) is the painter _par -excellence_ of the lower bourgeoisie. His was an uneventful, colourless -life of unremitting work after the completion of his studies under -Cazes and N. N. Coypel. He never went to Rome; he never sought after -distinction in the “grand manner”; he never hankered after Court -patronage. He simply devoted himself to recording with the utmost -technical perfection the peaceful and domestic life of the lower middle -class, to which he himself belonged, with all his tastes and habits -of life, and to the painting of still-life, in which branch of art he -stands without a rival. There are among his thirty-two pictures at the -Louvre twenty paintings of _Still-life_ (Nos. 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 98, -100, 105-116, and the doubtful No. 118), all equally remarkable for -their inimitable skill in the rendering of the most varied textures and -reflections; for subtle observation of the mutual effect of coloured -objects upon each other through the interchange of coloured rays; and, -above all, for that “sense of intimacy, of life behind the scene,” with -which he knew how to invest even inanimate objects. - -This same sense of intimacy and of absolute pictorial unity is also -the great merit of his domestic genre pieces, into which enters, in -addition, the element of spiritual unity, of the absorption of each -person in his or her occupation. In the deservedly famous _Grace before -Meat_, at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, of which the Louvre owns -two admirable replicas (No. 92, Plate XLI., and No. 93), the most -casual observer cannot fail to notice that intimate bond between the -mother and the two children, which gives the impression of a scene -accidentally overlooked, without anybody being aware of the intruder’s -presence. _La Mère laborieuse_ (No. 91), _La Pourvoyeuse_ (No. 99), -and even the cat in the still-life piece _The Cat in the Larder_ (No. -89), are equally innocent of “posing,” and absorbed in their respective -occupations. _The Boy with the Top_ (No. 90A) and the _Young Man with -the Violin_ (No. 90B), under which titles we have the portraits of -the two children of the jeweller Charles Godefroy, were bought by the -Louvre in 1907 for £14,000. These two pictures and the _Castle of -Cards_ (No. 103) are sufficient to establish Chardin’s supremacy in -child portraiture. - - - FRAGONARD - -Chardin for but a few months, and Boucher for two years, were the -masters who taught Jean Honoré Fragonard (1732-1806) before, having -gained the Prix de Rome in 1752 and worked three years under Van Loo, -he set out for Rome, where under Natoire’s guidance he applied himself -to the copying of old masters. More important for the formation of -his style were the sketches he made in the company of his friend -Hubert Robert in the romantic gardens of the Villa d’Este, and the -deep impression created upon his mind by Tiepolo’s decorative -paintings in Venice, which city he visited before his return to Paris -in 1761. He scored his first great success in 1765 with the large and -still somewhat academic composition _Coresus and Calirrhoë_ (No. 290), -which was bought by Louis XV. for 24,000 livres for reproduction at his -tapestry works. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLI.—JEAN-BAPTISTE SIMÉON CHARDIN - - (1699-1779) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 92.—GRACE BEFORE MEAT - - (Le Bénédicité) - - In the centre of a room, by a round table with a white tablecloth, - stands a woman, about to pour the soup from a saucepan into a - plate. She turns her head to the left towards her two little girls, - who, with folded hands, are saying grace. A drum is suspended from - the back of the chair on which the younger child is sitting. In the - background, on the left, a dresser with pewter and crockery; on the - right, a shelf with a canister, a bowl, and some bottles. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 1 ft. 7¼ in. × 1 ft. 3½ in. (0·49 × 0·41.)] - -Patronised by Mme. du Barry, the dancer Marie Guimard, and other -priestesses of Venus, Fragonard now devoted his exceptionally facile -and spontaneous talent to subjects that in licentious frivolity, -voluptuousness, and suggestiveness had never been equalled even by his -master Boucher. It is only his marvellous technique, ranging from the -liquid transparency of his swift oil sketches to the rich luminous -impasto of the _Sleeping Bacchante_ (No. 294); from the elegant -arabesque of the _Bathing Women_ (No. 293), so full of _joie de vivre_ -and youthful fire, to the almost brutal strength of the portrait of -a writer or poet, known under the title of _Inspiration_ (No. 298). -But in all these, as well as in the charming _Music Lesson_ (No. 291, -Plate XLII.), _The Student_ (No. 297) and the _Young Woman_ (No. 300), -Fragonard proves himself one of the greatest colourists produced by -the French School. It was Fragonard’s sad fate to outlive his fame, to -witness the collapse of the ancient régime and the triumph of his pupil -David’s classicism, and to die in obscurity and neglect. - - - GREUZE - -Twenty-three paintings represent at the Louvre the art of Jean-Baptiste -Greuze (1725-1805), who trod the safe path of flattering the taste of -the multitude by the mawkish sentimentality of his genre-pieces and the -prettiness and half-concealed sensuality of his “fancy portraits” of -young women, which in their suggestiveness are perhaps more insidious -than the frank improprieties of Boucher and Fragonard. The sentimental -and melodramatic side of Greuze’s art is strikingly revealed in _The -Village Engagement_ (No. 369), in _The Paternal Curse_ (No. 370), and -in _The Punished Son_ (No. 371), which aroused the enthusiasm of that -singularly misguided critic Diderot. But it is the painting of pictures -like _The Broken Pitcher_ (No. 372, Plate XLIII.), _The Milkmaid_ (No. -372A), and _The Dead Bird_ (No. 372C; a replica of the picture in the -Scottish National Gallery), that has made him the idol of a certain -undiscriminating section of the public, and established him among the -world’s most popular painters. - - - PORTRAIT PAINTERS - -The leading position among the portrait painters of Louis XV.’s corrupt -Court was occupied by Jean Marc Nattier (1685-1766), who was a good -colourist, but was utterly lacking in sincerity, and placed his able -brush at the service of the basest flattery. He has left a whole -gallery of Court beauties posing as, and invested with the attributes -of, Greek goddesses and allegorical personifications in the manner of -the group of _Mdlle. de Lambesc and the Comte de Brienne_ (No. 659) as -Minerva preparing the hero for warlike exploits. The _Magdalen_ (No. -657) is probably another contemporary portrait in fancy costume. His -best picture at the Louvre is the _Portrait of a Young Woman_ (No. -661A). - -François Hubert Drouais (1725-1775), the painter of the group of the -_Comte d’Artois (afterwards Charles X.) and Madame Clotilde, afterwards -Queen of Sardinia_ (No. 266), who received a good share of Court -patronage, showed considerable ability when he had sufficient strength -to resist the temptation to flatter his sitters. But unfortunately he -too often followed the example of Nattier in this respect. - - - TOCQUÉ, VESTIER, AND LÉPICIÉ - -A portrait painter of a very different stamp was Nattier’s son-in-law, -Louis Tocqué (1696-1772). Although he, too, was a favourite not -only at the French, but also at the Russian and Danish Courts, the -examples of his art at the Louvre suggest that he was but indifferently -successful—from the artistic point of view—with his “official” -portraits, like the _portrait d’apparat_ of _Marie Leczinska, Queen of -Louis XV._ (No. 867), or the affected _Portrait of the Dauphin Louis at -the age of ten_ (No. 868). On the other hand, when he was not weighed -down by the importance of his task, he attained to a solidity of style, -strength of character painting, and beauty of technique that place -him at the head of the French portraitists of his period. Tocqué was -apparently never in England, but such masterpieces from his brush as -the _Mme. Danger embroidering_ (No. 868A), and the supposed portrait of -_Mme. de Graffigny_ (No. 869), show distinct affinity with Allan Ramsay -and Hogarth, with superadded French _finesse_ and suavity. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLII.—JEAN HONORÉ FRAGONARD - - (1732-1806) - - FRENCH SCHOOL - - No. 291.—THE MUSIC LESSON - - (La Leçon de Musique) - - A fair-haired young girl in a low-cut white dress is seated, in - profile towards the right, before a spinet. A youth, standing at - her left, behind the instrument, is holding with his left hand the - score, whilst his right is clasping the back of the girl’s chair. - In the foreground a chair on which are a cat and a mandoline. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 3 ft. 9½ in. × 3 ft. 11½ in. (1·10 × 1·20.)] - -In the case of Antoine Vestier (1740-1824) the pronounced leaning -towards the English style of the period is to be accounted for by that -artist’s lengthy sojourn in England. The _Portrait of a Young Woman_ -(No. 961), in the La Caze Room, might on superficial inspection pass -for a work of Francis Cotes. Even in the _Portrait of the Painter’s -Wife_ (No. 959), which was painted in 1787, long after Vestier’s return -to his native country, the figure of a boy caressing a dog has a -curiously English flavour. - -Honesty of purpose and serious concern with artistic problems mark the -art of Nicolas Bernard Lépicié (1735-1784), whose _Portrait of Carle -Vernet_ (549A) is a picture of precious quality. He devoted himself -more particularly to the domestic genre, which he treated without the -sentimentality and theatricality of a Greuze. Indeed, if there is any -contemporary painter with whom he shows affinity, it is Siméon Chardin. -That he was a landscape painter of no mean ability may be gathered from -his _Farmyard_ (No. 549), which, in spite of the predominating brown, -is remarkable for its luminous transparency. - - -M^{ME.} VIGÉE LE BRUN - -Before turning to the landscape painters Joseph Vernet and Hubert -Robert, we must close the chapter of eighteenth-century portraiture -with Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun (1755-1842), since her art, -although her life extended far into the nineteenth century, belongs -essentially to the degenerate days of the _ancien régime_—an art not -devoid of grace, but exceeding in shallowness and insipidity the -shallowest and most insipid productions of pre-Davidian days. Of the -many masters from whom Vigée, herself the daughter of a painter, -received advice, Greuze appears to be the one with whom she was -most in sympathy. Married at an early age to Le Brun, a painter and -picture-dealer from whom she was divorced after many years of wretched -conjugal life, her career, of which she has left a full account in -her autobiography, was one of adventure and truly extraordinary -professional success. - -She was the favourite painter of Marie Antoinette, had to leave Paris -during the Terror, and made an almost triumphal progress from Court -to Court before she definitely settled in Paris in 1809. At Naples, -Vienna, Dresden, St. Petersburg, Berlin, London, and other centres, -Royalty and the world of fashion crowded to her studio; and her art -even gained the unstinted approval of a judge like Sir Joshua Reynolds, -which is the more surprising as Vigée Le Brun’s colour was almost -invariably cold and unsympathetic. Her personal charms may have been -partly responsible for her universal success, if reliance is to be -placed on the questionable honesty of her flattering brush from which -the Louvre owns two _Portraits of the Artist and her Daughter_ (No. 521 -and No. 522, Plate XLIV.). Among her other pictures in the Louvre are -the _Peace bringing Abundance_ (No. 520), her reception piece at the -Academy, and a portrait of her early friend and master, _Joseph Vernet_ -(No. 525). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLIII.—JEAN-BAPTISTE GREUZE - - (1725-1805) - - No. 372.—THE BROKEN PITCHER - - (La Cruche Cassée) - - A young girl, in white dress and gauze fichu, stands facing the - spectator, holding with both hands some loose flowers in the - gathered-up folds of her dress. She carries a broken pitcher on her - right arm. In the background, on the right, is a fountain with a - crouching lion. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - Oval, 3 ft. 10½ in. × 2 ft. 9½ in. (1·18 × 0·85.)] - - - JOSEPH VERNET - -One has to realise that the art of landscape painting had become almost -extinct in France, and that the art of seascape had never existed, if -one wishes to account for Diderot’s enthusiasm with regard to Claude -Joseph Vernet (1714-1789), which made him exclaim, “What pictures! He -rivals the Creator in celerity, Nature in truth!” Our cooler judgment -cannot so easily pass over all that is cold and formal in his art. -But, taken in relation to his contemporaries, he deserves respect for -his emotional attitude towards nature, for a sense of the dramatic -that approaches Salvator Rosa’s, and for his admirable drawing of the -figures introduced into his landscapes. Vernet’s love of the sea awoke -when at the age of eighteen he journeyed to Rome, where he became -imbued with the classic tradition. He only returned to Paris in 1752, -and soon afterwards received from Louis XV. the commission to paint the -large series of _French Seaports_ (Nos. 940-954) which are now to be -seen in the rooms in this collection given up to the Musée de Marine. -In his other marines and landscapes (Nos. 912-939), not all of which -are actually exhibited, he allowed his imagination freer play than in -the _Seaports_, which were naturally of more topographic character. - -Both his son Carle Vernet (1758-1836), a historical painter who -excelled in the rendering of horses in movement, and his grandson -Horace Vernet (1789-1863), a popular battle painter, are represented at -the Louvre, the former by the _Stag Hunt in the Forest of Meudon_ (No. -955), and the latter by the _Barrière de Clichy (Defence of Paris in -1814)_ (No. 956), and the uninspired _Judith and Holofernes_ (No. 957). - - - HUBERT ROBERT - -Hubert Robert (1733-1808), of whose classic landscapes the collection -contains nineteen examples (Nos. 797-815), was not, as might be -imagined from the general character of his paintings, influenced by the -art of Claude Lorrain, but derived his love of antique buildings and -landscapes peopled with classic figures from the general atmosphere of -archæological enthusiasm engendered by the excavations on the site of -Herculaneum, which prevailed in Rome when the young artist arrived at -that Mecca of his profession in 1754. Robert lived and worked in Italy -for twelve years, and became thoroughly imbued with this antiquarian -spirit. Unlike Claude, he rarely, if ever, drew upon his imagination -for the details of his classic landscapes, which are faithful -transcripts of existing ruined or half-ruined buildings, though not -infrequently they are arranged for greater pictorial effect. Of this -half-realistic, half-classic nature—the introduction of people in -classic garb among the ruins of buildings, which in classic times wore -a very different aspect, is a pardonable anachronism—are the _Interior -of the Temple of Diana at Nimes_ (No. 799), and several similar pieces -at the Louvre. In his smaller pictures, of which the best are the -_Fountain under a Portico_ (No. 812) and the _Winding Staircase, with -three Figures_ (No. 813), in the La Caze Room, he rivals the rich -quality of pigment and mellow tone of Guardi at his best. Robert was -Fragonard’s constant companion in Rome, and exercised considerable -influence upon his friend, as may be seen from Fragonard’s landscape -drawings. - -There is scarcely a trace of Italian classicism in the superb _View -in the Neighbourhood of Paris_ (No. 650), by Louis Gabriel Moreau -(1740-1806), which in its silvery-grey tonality, in its sense of -atmosphere, and in the treatment of the receding distances, rather -recalls the manner of the Dutchman Philips de Koninck. That Moreau, who -also worked in England, was not always free from conventionality, is -proved by the rather formal composition of the _View of the Hills of -Meudon from Saint-Cloud_ (No. 651). - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLIV.—ELISABETH LOUISE VIGÉE LE BRUN - - (1755-1842) - - No. 522.—PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AND HER DAUGHTER - - (Portrait de Mme. Le Brun et de sa Fille) - - The artist, in a white bodice with purple sleeves and a yellow - satin skirt, is seated on a green sofa. Her head is inclined - towards her right shoulder. She presses towards her, with both - arms, her little girl, who is resting on her lap, with her head - turned towards the spectator. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 3 ft. 5½ in. × 2 ft. 9½ in. (1·05 x 0·85.)] - - - LOUIS DAVID - -The boudoir art of the _ancien régime_ came to a natural end through -the great social upheaval of the Revolution, of which Jacques Louis -David (1748-1825) is the very personification in the realm of painting. -As a pupil of Boucher, David in his early years was essentially a child -of the eighteenth century. That he became the founder and head of a -new classicist school, as tyrannical in his sway as had been Le Brun -during the reign of Louis XIV., was due to the teaching of Joseph Marie -Vien, whom he accompanied to Rome in 1775, the year in which Vien was -appointed Director of the École de Rome. Vien was an eclectic and a -purist of greater ability than would appear from his two dull pictures -at the Louvre, _St. Germain and St. Vincent_ (No. 964) and _The -Sleeping Hermit_ (No. 965). - -David’s participation in the events of the year 1789 and his ardent -republicanism did not, as has often been stated, attract him to -subjects from Republican Roman history. Indeed, he had already painted -_The Oath of the Horatii_ (No. 189) and _The Lictors taking to Brutus -the Corpse of his Sons_ (No 191), for Louis XVI., and was only -following the current of taste in devoting himself to the study of the -antique and to antiquarian research. These two pictures, in spite of -their cold classicism and theatricality, met with sensational success -on their first appearance at the Salon. It is not in such works as -these, nor in the _Rape of the Sabine Women_ (No. 188), compared with -which even Poussin’s version of the same theme appears like a glimpse -of actual life, that David’s talent found its happiest expression, but -in the unaffected and irresistibly charming _Portrait of Mme. Récamier_ -(No. 199, Plate XLV.) reclining on an Empire sofa. Whatever this -picture may owe to the sitter’s grace and beauty and to the fact that -it was never finished, and thus retained the freshness of a sketch, -it is certainly one of the most attractive masterpieces of the French -school. Here, as in the group of _Three Ladies of Ghent_ (No. 200A), -in which the luminous quality of the fresh tones is enhanced by the -general greyness of the scheme, we have the work of a real painter, -whilst David’s bombastic historical compositions are scarcely more than -tinted cartoons. - - - THE “CORONATION” PICTURE - -When Napoleon rose to power, David became his favourite painter. The -erstwhile Jacobin was chosen to paint the official _Coronation_ picture -(No. 202A), an enormous canvas, which, like most ceremonial pictures of -this kind, has more historical than artistic significance. The lifelike -portraiture of the numerous personages surrounding the central group of -Napoleon placing the crown on Josephine’s head, is the chief point of -interest. On the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, David was sent -into exile. He died at Brussels in 1825; but his influence is reflected -in official French art to this day. It was he who imposed upon the -modern academic school a rigid canon of formal classic beauty which is -fatal to evolution and progress, because it does not permit personal -emotional expression. - -Less severely classic in form, and showing at least an attempt at -approaching a little nearer to truth than David, is the painting of -the figures of _The Three Graces_ (No. 769), by David’s rival, J. -B. Regnault (1754-1829), in the La Caze collection. The worst type -of academic art is represented in the bituminous reconstructions of -classic antiquity by his pupil, P. N. Guérin (1774-1833), whose _Return -of Marcus Sextus_ (No. 393) enjoyed, perhaps owing to its supposed -political allusion to the return of the emigrants, a success which -cannot be accounted for on artistic grounds. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLV.—JACQUES LOUIS DAVID - - (1748-1825) - - No. 199.—PORTRAIT OF MME. RÉCAMIER - - (Portrait de Mme. Récamier) - - The sitter wears a white Empire dress, the train of which - hangs down to the ground from the Empire sofa on which she is - half reclining, with her left elbow resting on a pair of round - horse-hair bolsters. Her face is turned towards her right shoulder. - A wide black riband is tied round her fair curled hair. A low - footstool in front of the sofa on the right, and a standing - candelabrum of classic design on the left. - - The candelabrum is said to have been painted by Ingres. - - Painted in oil on canvas (unfinished). - - 5 ft. 7 in. × 7 ft. 10½ in. (1·70 × 2·40.)] - - - BARON GÉRARD - -Among the numerous pupils and followers of David who rose to fame, -honours, and wide popularity before Ingres became the acknowledged -head of the official school, the most distinguished were Gérard, -Girodet, and Gros. Baron F. P. S. Gérard (1770-1837), whilst following -on the whole the principles laid down by his master, knew how to -invest his work with more individual character, which stood him in -particular good stead in his portraiture. That this was recognised -by his contemporaries is proved by the fact that he became the -portrait painter _par excellence_ of the First Empire and the Bourbon -restoration, although his inclination drew him towards allegory and -mythology. There is undeniable distinction and fine characterisation -in such portraits as _The Painter Isabey and his Daughter_ (No. 332). -The nature of the subject debarred him from showing the strongest side -of his talent in the chillingly unemotional, but undeniably graceful, -_Psyche receiving Cupid’s First Kiss_ (No. 328), and in the _Daphnis -and Chloë_ (No. 329), which was bought in 1825 for £1000. They have -their counterpart in the cold and antique French sculpture of the -period. - -A. L. Girodet de Roucy-Trioson (1767-1824) was of all David’s artistic -progeny the one painter who devoted himself to the purely pictorial -problem of concentrated light and shade, without, however, being able -to free himself from the domination of linear design. The compromise -of the two principles led to such unfortunate results as _The Sleep -of Endymion_ (No. 361) and _The Burial of Atala_ (No. 362). In _The -Deluge_ (No. 360), which was painted later, he shows pronounced -leanings towards a crude naturalism which exceeds in horror the most -cruel inventions of Ribera’s genius. - - - BARON GROS - -Antoine Jean Gros (1771-1835), though a classicist by training, was -forced by circumstances, and by the patronage of Napoleon who ennobled -him, to devote his brush to an important phase of contemporary life—the -glorification of his hero’s warlike achievements. He was by no means a -realist; and although he followed Napoleon on many of his campaigns and -presumably brought back with him rich material in sketches and vivid -recollections, his forceful compositions accentuate the heroic aspect -and the imaginative appeal of warfare, and are not spontaneous glimpses -of actuality. The whole glamour of the Napoleonic legend is expressed -in the group of wounded soldiers who, oblivious of their suffering, -cheer their great captain in _Napoleon at the Battle of Eylau_ (No. -389). The sense of the heroic is as pronounced in the large painting, -_Napoleon visiting the Plague-stricken at Jaffa_ (No. 388), in the -_Bonaparte at Arcole_ (No. 391), and even in the impressive _Portrait -of Lieutenant-General Fournier-Sarlovèze_ (No. 392A), silhouetted -against a smoke-filled battlefield. A careful inspection of this large -canvas shows _pentimenti_ in the painting of the legs, of which the -General seems now to have two pair! Gros’s weakness, like that of all -David’s pupils, was his neglect of colour. His popularity waned rapidly -after the fall of Napoleon. He became a victim to melancholia, and -drowned himself in the Seine in 1835. - - - PIERRE PRUD’HON - -Though not entirely detached from the ruling school of the period, -Pierre Prud’hon (1758-1823) occupies a unique position among his -contemporaries. Having absolved his preliminary studies at Dijon, he -became the pupil of the old masters—of Correggio and Leonardo—first -in Paris and then in Rome, where he worked for seven years before -definitely settling at Paris in 1789. To his sympathy with the -Italian masters he owed that mellowness of colour and understanding -of chiaroscuro which escaped the grasp of the Davidists. He was a -real _painter_ as distinguished from the classicist _draughtsmen_ of -the official school. Even if it is impossible to share to-day the -enthusiasm at one time evoked by the somewhat grotesque allegory, -_Justice and Divine Vengeance pursuing Crime_ (No. 747), this picture, -which was intended for the Palais de Justice, rises immeasurably above -the average of the “imaginative” paintings produced by Prud’hon’s -contemporaries. - -Vastly superior as regards pictorial quality and the whole conception, -is the _Abduction of Psyche by Zephyrus_ (No. 756). In the -_Crucifixion_ (No. 744), his last picture, Prud’hon rises to telling -dramatic effectiveness of colour, and heralds the advent of Delacroix. -But the most masterly of his seventeen paintings at the Louvre is the -magnificent _Portrait of a Young Man_ (No. 753), which the Louvre was -fortunate enough to secure for £35 in 1895. It is a strangely living -evocation of a personality, searching, intimate, and mysterious—a -portrait not so much of the superficial features, but of the inner life -of the sitter. The large _Portrait of the Empress Joséphine_ (No. 751) -suffers from comparison with this masterpiece. The pose is affected, -the background dingy, and the red of the shawl introduces a harsh and -disconnected note of colour. - - - - - THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH SCHOOL - - - GÉRICAULT - -The revolutionary movement of the Romanticists, which was to find a -strong leader in Eugène Delacroix, may be said to have been initiated -by Géricault’s epoch-making picture _The Raft of the Medusa_ (No. 338, -Plate XLVI.). Théodore Géricault (1791-1824), a pupil of Carle Vernet -and Guérin, was an unusually gifted draughtsman, who from the outset -strove to go beyond the dead perfection of the David school, and to -infuse into his work the spark of life. The _Raft of the Medusa_, which -caused an enormous stir at the Salon of 1819, was inspired by a tragic -incident from actual life; and Géricault was the first who dared to -represent in all its horrible reality this scene of human suffering—the -survivors of a shipwreck driven by hunger to madness and mutual -destruction. He set aside all arbitrarily ignored canons of formal -beauty and the “grand style,” and applied himself to depicting fierce -passions and emotions. - -Géricault was a passionate lover of horses; but his knowledge of equine -anatomy did not prevent him, in his portrait of an _Officer of the -Guard_ (No. 339), from exaggerating the action of the charging horse to -a point dangerously near the border-line between the sublime and the -ridiculous. Most of his other pictures at the Louvre are studies of -soldiers, and horses on the race-course or in the stable. He died in -1824 from the effects of a fall from a horse. - - - DELACROIX - -The topical interest of the _Raft of the Medusa_ had caused the public -to receive this picture with favour, in spite of its daring departure -from the generally accepted canons of the “grand style.” The case was -different when Delacroix showed at the Salon of 1822 the _Dante and -Virgil_ (No. 207, Plate XLVII.), which was inspired by Géricault’s -great picture, but applied that artist’s principles to a subject taken -from literature,—from Dante’s “Inferno,”—and was therefore considered -as a direct challenge to the academic host. To-day it is difficult to -understand the indignation aroused by the young artist, who became -forthwith the acknowledged head of the so-called Romanticist school, -although he refrained from taking part in any propaganda. In this, -his first important exhibited picture, he proved himself a true -painter in the sense in which Rubens was a painter—that is to say, -he no longer gave primary importance to drawing, with colour added -afterwards in the manner of a tinted cartoon. In the _Dante and Virgil_ -colour and the actual sweep of the brush assumed at once a vital and -constructive function, no longer separable from drawing and design. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLVI.—JEAN LOUIS ANDRÉ THÉODORE GÉRICAULT - - (1791-1824) - - No. 338.—THE RAFT OF THE MEDUSA - - (Le Radeau de la Méduse) - - The raft of the wrecked Medusa, with the survivors of the crew, - is floating on the stormy sea. In the foreground on the left, - surrounded by dead sailors, a father is holding with his left hand - the nude body of his dying son. On the right, a corpse is partly - resting on the raft, partly floating on the water. Farther back the - officer, Corréard, is seen pointing out to the surgeon, Savigny, - the brig _Argus_, which appears on the far horizon under the - clouded sky. At the far end of the raft a mulatto and a sailor have - hoisted themselves on to some barrels to wave some rags, so as to - attract the attention of the distant ship. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 16 ft. 1½ in × 23 ft. 6 in. (4·91 × 7·16.)] - -Eugène Delacroix (1798-1863), who belonged to a family that had given -to France many distinguished statesmen and soldiers, was a pupil -of Guérin, whose conventional teaching, however, was little to the -taste of a young man whose passionate nature had been fired by his -extensive reading of romantic literature, and who preferred to form -his style on the works of Rubens and other old masters at the Louvre, -and to benefit from his intercourse with Géricault and Bonington. The -_Dante and Virgil_, which is now in a deplorable state of neglect, was -bought by the State at the not very generous price of £50. Delacroix’s -next Salon picture, _The Massacre of Scio_ (No. 208), caused an even -greater storm of abuse of the young artist who had dared to depict the -horrors of this scene from the Greek War of Independence, as it was -thought, in all their crudeness, without the heroical and theatrical -poses that were deemed necessary for pictorial “histories.” The -magnificent atmospheric background owes its origin to Delacroix’s -first acquaintance with the _Hay Wain_ and two other pictures sent by -Constable to the Salon of 1824, which caused the impetuous young artist -to repaint in a few days the sky and landscape. The picture was again -bought by the State, the price this time being raised to £240. A superb -study for the dead mother and child in the right-hand corner has been -bequeathed by M. Cheramy, the present owner, to the National Gallery, -where it is to be hung next to “the best Constable.” - -It is impossible here to give a full account of the twenty-one -paintings by Delacroix at the Louvre, to which should be added his -decorative masterpiece, the centre of the ceiling in the Galerie -d’Apollon. We must content ourselves with a brief reference to his -more important canvases, first of which in order of date is _The 28th -of July 1830: Liberty leading the People_ (No. 209), better known as -_The Barricade_. The introduction of a bourgeois with a top-hat in this -stirring scene of contemporary heroism was another act of defiance. -But the dramatic power of the conception, which suffers but is by no -means destroyed by the wretched allegorical figure of Liberty, and -the artist’s appeal to political passion, caused the picture to be an -enormous success. - - - DELACROIX’S ORIENTAL PICTURES - -Delacroix’s journey to Morocco, with Count Morney’s mission in 1832, -was of the greatest benefit to the artist’s progress as a colourist. -Although he had no time during his travels to paint any pictures, he -brought back with him a wealth of rapid sketches which, with his vivid -recollections of Eastern life and colour, led to the production of such -masterpieces as the _Algerian Women in their Apartment_ (No. 210), the -_Jewish Wedding in Morocco_ (No. 211), and _The Entry of the Crusaders -into Constantinople_ (No. 213). In the sumptuous scheme of _Crusaders_ -the last traces of the influence of Gros’s colourless palette have -vanished. The picture was commissioned by Louis Philippe for the -Château at Versailles, the remuneration being fixed at £400. A copy of -the picture is in one of the Salles des Croisades at Versailles, and -a small sketch is at Chantilly. The _Algerian Women_ is particularly -remarkable for the luminous sparkle of rich pigment through the ambient -of silvery atmosphere. - -Among Delacroix’s masterpieces must be counted the _Portrait of -the Artist_ (No. 214), which he left on his death to his servant, -Jenny le Guillon, stipulating that she should give it to the Louvre -on the day of the restoration of the Orléans family—an event which -never happened, though the picture reached its destination in 1872 -through the generosity of Mme. Durien. _The Shipwreck of Don Juan_ (No. -212), painted in 1840, is based on Lord Byron’s epic poem, of which -it is, however, by no means a literal illustration. It is one of the -most stirring renderings of human passion and despair in the whole -history of art, the livid light and general sombre scheme of colour -contributing towards the tragic effect, as though Nature herself were -entering into the mood of the horrible scene. - -Although, on the whole, an unsatisfactory picture, Delacroix’s _Roger -delivering Angelica_ (No. 2845) may serve to illustrate the true -significance of his art in its relation to the official school, as -there is in the same collection another rendering of the identical -subject (No. 419) by his great antagonist Ingres, the greatest -draughtsman of his century, and the acknowledged leader of the -Classicist school. Comparison between the two works will show that -Delacroix’s version, with all its obvious imperfections, far surpasses -Ingres’s in emotional intensity and fierce vitality. The academic -perfection and exquisite finish of Ingres’s picture only accentuate the -dulness and lifelessness of his conception. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLVII.—FERDINAND VICTOR EUGÈNE DELACROIX - - (1798-1863) - - No. 207.—DANTE AND VIRGIL - - (Dante et Virgile aux Enfers) - - In a boat, steered by Charon across the river Styx, Virgil, - laurel-crowned and dressed in a red cloak, holds with his right - hand the left hand of Dante, who, in a blue cloak with a red - hood, raises his right arm in a gesture of horror at the sight - of the Damned, who, half-buried in the turbulent waters, cling - despairingly to the sides of the boat. In the background are seen - the towers of the burning city of Dite. - - Signed:—“EUGÈNE DELACROIX.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 5 ft. 11 in. × 7 ft. 10½ in. (1·80 × 2·40.)] - - - INGRES - -Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1780-1867) was a pupil of David. Having -gained the Prix de Rome in 1801, he did not leave for Italy until 1806, -but spent the next eighteen years in Rome and Florence, returning to -Paris in 1824. Although Ingres was brought up in the cold tradition -of the David school, he had a much clearer perception of the true -spirit of Greek art than his master. When he became acquainted with -the work of Raphael in Rome, he found it the very acme of perfection, -and henceforth frankly strove to emulate that master, seeking to -arrive at an eclectic ideal of the human form which in its dogmatic -rule of the proportions that constitute absolute beauty, allowed none -of the accents and variations which make for life and character. -Himself greater than his theories, Ingres achieved that perfection -of grace and beauty in his deservedly famous _The Spring_ (No. 422, -Plate XLVIII.), one of the few “gems” in the Salle Duchâtel, and in -the very Raphaelesque _Odalisque_ (No. 422B), which was purchased in -1899 from the Princesse de Sagan for £2400. On the other hand, the -imposition of an inflexible, rigid ideal of form did incalculable harm -to his numerous and less gifted followers, in whom every spark of -individuality was extinguished by the tyranny of the dogma. - -Yet Ingres, when he applied himself to portraiture, was as -uncompromising a realist as Holbein, of whose sensitive, subtle drawing -and plastic modelling, without the introduction of entirely unnecessary -shiny high lights, we are forcibly reminded by the _Portrait of -the Painter’s Friend, M. Bochet_ (No. 428A). Something of the same -perfection of modelling, suggested rather by the sensitive contour than -clearly stated by pronounced lights and shadows, is to be noticed in -the nude figure of _The Odalisque_, and in the creamy white drapings -of the oval _Portrait of Mme. Rivière_ (No. 427). Perhaps his best -portrait at the Louvre is the one of _M. Bertin, Founder of the Journal -des Débats_ (No. 428B), a masterpiece of character painting, in which -the marvellously drawn fleshy hands, with their tapering fingers, are -as expressive as the fine head. This portrait was acquired in 1897 for -the sum of £3200. - -The less admirable side of Ingres’s talent is illustrated by the -circular composition of the _Virgin of the Host_ (No. 416), a -crude scheme of “Sassoferrato blue” and red, on entirely conventional -lines; and by the _Apotheosis of Homer_ (No. 417), a tame Raphaelesque -design in which Homer is seen enthroned in the centre, with allegorical -figures of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ seated on the steps of the throne, -and a winged goddess placing a laurel wreath on his head. To the left -of the central group are the figures of Hesiod, Æschylus, Apelles, -Raphael, Virgil, Dante, Tasso, Corneille, and Poussin; to the right, -Pindar, Plato, Socrates, Alexander, Camoens, Racine, Molière, and -Fénelon. There is a touch of the grotesque in the combination of rather -mechanical dry portraiture with trite allegory that constitutes the -design of the terribly cracked _Portrait of the Composer Cherubini_ -(No. 418). His failings as a colourist are most aggressively obvious in -the _Christ handing the Keys to St. Peter_ (No. 415). Ingres died in -Paris on the 14th January 1867. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLVIII.—JEAN AUGUSTE DOMINIQUE INGRES - - (1780-1867) - - No. 422.—THE SPRING - - (La Source) - - A nude figure of a fair-haired young maiden stands facing the - spectator, the background being formed by a perpendicular rock - partly overgrown with clinging plants. She raises her right arm - over her head to hold the foot of a tilted vase, the mouth of which - is supported by her left hand, and from which issues a streamlet of - water that falls into a pool at the base of the rock, in which are - reflected the feet of the maiden. - - Signed on a stone on the left:—“INGRES, 1856.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 5 ft. 5 in. × 2 ft. 7½ in. (1.65 × 0.80.)] - - - DELAROCHE AND SCHEFFER - -Among the painters who were influenced by Delacroix, and whose name was -associated with the Romanticist movement, none rose to greater fame -than Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), a pupil of Gros, and the Dutchman Ary -Scheffer (1795-1858), who, like Delacroix, studied under Guérin. But -neither of these artists managed wholly to shake off the trammels of -the academic tradition, and both became popular for the very reasons -for which a more critical generation has denied them the right to -figure among the world’s great artists: Delaroche for the theatricality -of his historical anecdotes, of which _The Death of Queen Elizabeth_ -(No. 216) and _The Princes in the Tower_ (No. 217) are typical -examples; and Scheffer for the sickly sentimentality displayed in such -pictures as _St. Augustine and St. Monica_ (No. 841). - -Contemporary with the fighters in the great battle between the -Romanticists and the Classicists were a group of able painters who were -not connected with either of these main currents of artistic thought, -but drew their inspiration from the Dutch genre painters. _The Arrival -of a Diligence at the Messageries_ (No. 28), by Louis Leopold Boilly -(1761-1845), and _The Interior of a Kitchen_ (No. 261), by Martin -Drolling (1752-1817), may be quoted as characteristic instances of -these “small masters” without possessing the luminosity of their Dutch -exemplars. - - - DECAMPS - -Something of the precious quality of pigment and of the luminosity -of these Dutchmen is to be found in the genre pictures of Alexandre -Gabriel Decamps (1803-1860), of which a large number form part of -the Thomy Thiéry Bequest—notably _The Knife-Grinder_ (No. 2831) -and _The Gipsy Encampment_ (No. 2833). Decamps owes his historical -importance to his position as the head of the Orientalists. Unlike his -contemporary explorer of the East for pictorial purposes, Delacroix, -he found the facts of Eastern life, scenery, and customs sufficiently -attractive to be satisfied with the realistic statement of his visual -impressions, instead of making them the basis for the invention of -romantic incidents. Yet the _Street in Smyrna_ (No. 2827) and similar -works are by no means of merely topographic interest, for Decamps was -a great painter to whom pigment yielded beauty independent of the -subject represented. _The Rat retired from the World_ (No. 2834) vies -in quality with the still-life pictures of Chardin. Decamps was also -the greatest animal painter of his time, as may be gathered from his -_Chevaux de halage_ (No. 204), _The Bull-Dog and Scotch Terrier_ (No. -206), and the precious little genre piece, _The Kennel-Boy_ (No. 2838). - - - THE ORIENTALISTS - -Brought up in the tradition of the Classicist school, Prosper Marilhat -(1811-1847) only “formed himself” when the world of colour was -discovered to him under the glowing sky of the Holy Land and Egypt, -where he painted _The Mosque of the Khalif Hakem, at Cairo_ (No. -615). Another Orientalist of great distinction, who, after being a -favourite pupil of Ingres, became attracted by the fiery romanticism -of Delacroix, was the Creole Théodore Chassériau (1819-1856). His -works at the Louvre illustrate the earlier better than the later phase -of his art. Chassériau was still entirely under the spell of Ingres -when he painted, in 1844, the decoration of the Cour des Comptes, -which building was destroyed under the Commune. _Peace_ (No. 121A) is -a fragment of this important decorative work, which may be said to -constitute a link between Ingres and Puvis de Chavannes. _The Chaste -Susannah_ (No. 121) and the _Portrait of Father Lacordaire, Dominican -Preacher_ (No. 121B), are again clear evidence of Ingres’s influence -upon Chassériau at the beginning of his brief career. - -A man of profound culture and rare critical acumen, Eugène Fromentin -(1820-1876) was perhaps greater as a critic than as a painter. He, too, -travelled repeatedly in Algeria and Egypt, where he found abundant -material both for his brush and pen. He did not look upon the East -with the curiosity of the traveller, nor did he let the strange land -work upon his romantic imagination. His pictures, somewhat timid in -technique but marked by great refinement, reveal, on the other hand, a -thorough understanding of the sad monotony of the sun-parched desert, -and the chivalrous, noble bearing of its Arab inhabitants. His refined -talent shows to best advantage in _Hawking in Algeria_ (No. 305). - - - REGNAULT - -The Orient was by no means the uncontested field of the Romanticists. -But the followers of the official school who devoted themselves to -the depicting of Eastern life and scenery, approached these subjects -in the same spirit of _parti pris_ which robs all their work of real -significance—unless, like Henri Regnault (1843-1871) in his famous -and often reproduced _Moorish Execution_ (No. 771), they treated them -as rank melodrama. Regnault is, however, not to be judged by this -overrated piece of sensationalism. Killed in the Franco-German War in -1871 at the early age of twenty-eight, this young painter gave rare -promise of brilliant achievement in an altogether unacademic direction -in his superb equestrian portrait of _General Prim_ (No. 770). There is -something truly heroic in the way the Spanish general sits his horse, -arresting its forward movement with a sudden jerk at the reins; but -the ruggedness and unkempt appearance of the rider displeased General -Prim to such an extent that Regnault, who would not alter the picture, -preferred to keep it on his hands. - - - ACADEMIC PAINTERS - -It will suffice here merely to indicate the names and chief works at -the Louvre of the principal artists who carried on, about the middle of -the nineteenth century, the academic tradition,—capable painters all, -but without clearly-marked individuality. Thomas Couture (1815-1879), -a pupil of Gros and of Delaroche, in painting the huge composition, -_Romans of the Decadence_ (No. 156), produced a picture which may be -taken as typical of the ambitions and failings of the whole school—of -their literary tendencies, theatricality, and uninspired dulness. He -was, however, an accomplished master of technique, which is more than -can be said of Joseph Devéria (1805-1865), the painter of _The Birth -of Henri IV._ (No. 250); or of Ingres’s pupil, the dull Hippolyte -Flandrin (1809-1864), who is only represented by two _Portraits_ (Nos. -284 and 285). Nor is it possible to-day to grow enthusiastic over the -historical paintings of Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury (1797-1890), whose -_Conference at Poissy_ (No. 2982), _Galileo before the Inquisition_ -(No. 2983), and _Christopher Columbus received by Ferdinand and -Isabella on his Return from America_ (No. 2984), can only be regarded -as unnecessarily large coloured illustrations. - - - MICHEL AND HUET - -In the much-neglected branch of landscape painting the classic -tradition of Claude ruled supreme until a new conception arose with -the victory of the romantics in the third decade of the nineteenth -century. Two names only need be mentioned before we pass on to the -new movement—the return to nature—which was inaugurated by the group -of painters vaguely known as the Barbizon school. Both Georges Michel -(1763-1843) and Paul Huet (1804-1868) may be regarded as forerunners -of that great movement; and both have only in recent years received -the recognition which is their due. Michel developed his style in -copying and closely studying the Dutch landscape masters, and must -in his maturity have been well acquainted with the art of Constable, -who exercised, together with Bonington, a prodigious influence on the -whole course of French landscape painting. If Michel’s breadth of -style, which may be judged from _Near Montmartre_ (No. 626), had been -accompanied by a greater range of subject-matter, he would probably -rank more highly in the roll of French artists; but he contented -himself with the endless repetition of the same motifs which he found -close to Montmartre, where he spent his whole life. The care with which -he studied the works of Jacob van Ruisdael earned for him the nickname -of “the Ruisdael of Montmartre.” - -Huet, again, learnt more from the old masters and from his friends, -Bonington and Delacroix, than from his actual teachers. He, too, -thrust aside the recipes of composing classic or “noble” landscapes, -and was inspired by an altogether emotional outlook upon nature, calm -and serene, as in _The Still Morning_ (No. 413), or threatening and -tempestuous, as in _The Inundation at St. Cloud_ (No. 412), or in his -masterpiece, _The Breakers at Granville_ (No. 2952). - - - THE BARBIZON SCHOOL - -The term “Barbizon school” has been extended from its narrower meaning, -in which it merely comprises Rousseau, Diaz, Millet and the disciples -who joined them, to form a little artistic colony on the edge of the -Forest of Fontainebleau, to a less accurate but now generally accepted -wider application, embracing “the men of 1830,” who collectively and -individually set out, inspired indirectly by Constable, upon the -conquest of light and atmosphere through intimate communion with -nature. In a pedantic survey of this Barbizon school, Rousseau would -have to take honour of place as the leader of the group, whilst Corot -and Daubigny, neither of whom actually worked at Barbizon, would have -to be altogether excluded. But in the more liberal interpretation of -the term, which we have here adopted, Jean Baptiste Camille Corot -(1796-1875) must be given first place as the doyen of the whole group, -since he alone was born before the eighteenth century had run its -course. - - - COROT - -Corot, the son of a _coiffeur_ and a _modiste_ in comfortable -circumstances, was destined in his youth for the drapery trade, and -was only enabled to follow his bent for the artistic profession when, -at the age of twenty-five, he entered into possession of a small -annual allowance, sufficient to meet his modest requirements and to -save him from the desperate struggle for very existence which was the -fate of some of his later friends and companions. His early work from -nature had already laid the foundations for his subsequent style when -he entered the studio, first of the academic painter Michallon, and -then of Bertin. In 1825 Corot went to Rome, where he painted, among -many pictures of equally rich luscious quality, the _View of the Forum -Romanum_ (No. 139), and the _View of the Coliseum_ (No. 140), which -he himself bequeathed to the State. Although these early works have -none of the elusive charm and lyrical feeling of his mature style, -and are of rather topographic character, they reveal in every touch -the artist enamoured of atmosphere and of the quality of pigment. The -touch is precise, but not tight. The two pictures were painted in 1826, -but already they hold more than a hint of that unrivalled mastery of -tone-values which found supreme expression in _A Street in Douai_ (No. -141F), painted in 1871. - -From the precision of his early manner Corot gradually advanced to -freedom and airy looseness of touch; from statement of fact, to the -suggestion of the very spirit and essence of nature in terms of paint -that, more than any other artist’s work, justify the expression -“colour music.” His later canvases are filled with the soft shimmer -of vibrating atmosphere and with the tender poetry of dawn and dusk. -Whilst retaining a truly classic sense of style, and adapting nature -to his purposes by arrangement and generalisation, he never fails to -convince the beholder of the reality of the scene represented. Even -if his glades are peopled with dancing nymphs and satyrs, as in _A -Morning_ (No. 138), these mythical beings no longer suggest classic -statuary, but they belong as much to the landscape as do the trees -and shrubs and clouds, as do the peasant woman and the cow in _The -Dell_ (No. 2801, Plate XLIX.), or the piping shepherd in the exquisite -_Souvenir d’Italie: Castel Gandolfo_ (No. 141B). Of the twenty-two -paintings by the master at the Louvre, no fewer than twelve form -part of the Thomy Thiéry Bequest to which the great French national -collection owes so many of its chief treasures of nineteenth-century -art. - - - T. ROUSSEAU - -The real head of the Barbizon school was Théodore Rousseau (1812-1867), -who was one of the first exponents of the “romantic” as opposed to the -“classic” landscape. If Corot was the lyric, Rousseau was the epic -poet of Nature. In his early works he was considerably influenced -by Constable, but he failed for a long time to gain the approval of -the public and of the Salon juries. Fourteen times in succession his -pictures were refused admission to the Salon, and success only came to -him late in life. In 1851, at about the same time as Millet, he settled -at Barbizon, on the outskirts of the Forest of Fontainebleau, where -henceforth he found the subjects for his pictures. Rousseau was a most -conscientious artist, who “constructed a group of trees with the care -that an Academician puts into the construction of a nude figure.” His -love of accurate detail did not, however, make him lose sight of the -general effect. His insistence on bold silhouettes made him favour the -sunset hour when, as in his masterpiece, _An Opening in the Forest at -Fontainebleau_ (No. 827), the trees would form effective dark masses -against the glowing sunset sky. More characteristic of his favourite -manner of composition is the imposing group of oak trees in the middle -of a plain in the picture known as _Les Chênes_ (No. 2900). In this, -as in _Marais dans les Landes_ (No. 830), which was bought in 1881 for -£5160, and, indeed, in all the pictures where cattle are introduced, -it will be noticed that the animals form part and parcel of the -landscape, and are no longer individual “portraits” of animals, as they -were apt to be in the pictures by the earlier Dutch cattle-painters. -The same unity of vision is to be noted in all his sixteen pictures at -the Louvre. - - [Illustration: - PLATE XLIX.—JEAN-BAPTISTE CAMILLE COROT - - (1796-1875) - - No. 2801.—THE DELL - - (Le Vallon, avec des paysannes et une vache) - - A grass-covered hill descends from the horizon line on the left - to the right-hand bottom corner of the picture. A low hedge with - a clump of trees in the centre divides the grassy plot from the - field rising beyond towards the horizon-line, from which projects - a church in the far distance. The sun is behind the trees, which - throw a deep shadow on the dale. A cow occupies the centre of the - foreground. To the left a group of three peasant women and a child; - to the right a farm labourer. - - Signed on left:—“COROT.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 1 ft. 1¾ in. × 1 ft. 9¼ in. (0·35 × 0·54.)] - - - C. TROYON - -This oneness of inanimate and animate nature is less completely -realised in the art of Constant Troyon (1810-1865), who, having been -trained as a porcelain-painter, was subsequently attracted by the -romanticism of Dupré, but followed such Dutch masters as Paul Potter in -subordinating the landscape to the cattle. It is for this reason that -Troyon is known to the public as a “cattle-painter” rather than as a -landscape painter. At the same time, he was a close observer of the -effects of light on fields and meadows, which he rendered with a skill -only rivalled by the solidity, the suggestion of weight and movement, -the well-accentuated forms and sinuosities of his cattle. The huge -canvas _Oxen going to Work_ (No. 889) is an unrivalled achievement of -its kind—a piece of realism that is not without poetry and grandeur. -Next to it in importance ranks the _Return to the Farm_ (No. 890). -Among the eleven Troyons (Nos. 2906-2916) of the Thomy Thiéry Bequest, -the _Morning_ (No. 2909) strikes a more cheerful and hopeful note than -is this artist’s wont. - -Another artist of this group, who devoted himself almost exclusively -to the painting of sheep, is Charles Jacque (1813-1894), from whose -brush the Louvre owns the _Flock of Sheep in a Landscape_ (No. 430A), a -characteristic work of unusually large dimensions. - - - J. DUPRÉ - -Jules Dupré (1811-1889) began, like Troyon, as a china-painter, and, -like Rousseau, with whom he was for years on terms of intimate -friendship, benefited by the example of Constable, whose art he had -presumably occasion to study during a visit to England. It was from him -that he acquired the sense of movement in nature, which is so much more -pronounced in his landscapes than in Rousseau’s, whom he exceeded in -breadth of touch and in power. More particularly in his later manner he -loved to apply his colours in a thick impasto laid on to every part of -the canvas, including the sky. Only on rare occasions did he adopt the -more fluid, suave manner shown in _Morning_ (No. 2940) and _Evening_ -(No. 2941), the two decorative panels executed for Prince Demidoff, and -acquired by the Louvre in 1880 at the San Donato sale. More typical of -his virile, forceful style are the twelve signed pictures by Dupré in -the Thomy Thiéry Bequest (Nos. 2864-2875), especially the fine autumn -landscape _The Pond_ (No. 2867, Plate L.), the intensely sad, sunless -_Flock in the Landes_ (No. 2871), _The Large Oak_ (No. 2873), and -_The Sunset on a Marsh_ (No. 2874), with the golden glow of the sky -reflected in the water. - -Before turning to Diaz, who has been aptly called “the most romantic of -the Romanticists,” we must briefly mention Eugène Isabey (1804-1886), -who connects the art of the First Empire with Romanticism, and who -knew how to invest his historical paintings with genuinely pictorial -interest at a time when that class of subject was generally treated -from the literary and anecdotal point of view. His exuberant -temperament led him not infrequently to exaggerated movement. The -twelve pictures which bear his signature at the Louvre (Nos. 2878-2884, -2953-2956, and 2953A) are illustrative of every phase of his art. As a -landscape painter he may be considered a forerunner of Rousseau. - - - DIAZ - -Narcisse Diaz de la Peña (1809-1876) was born at Bordeaux, the son of -political fugitives from Spain, and, like so many artists of this -group, started his artistic career as a china-painter. He afterwards -gained considerable success with his romantic figure pictures of -mythological and Oriental subjects, like the _Nymphs in a Wood_ (No. -2854), _Venus and Adonis_ (No. 2858), _Venus disarming Cupid_ (No. -2859), and above all the _Fée aux Perles_ (No. 256). As a landscape -painter he delighted in rendering the sparkle of sunlight penetrating -through the dense foliage of forest and brushwood. Diaz must be placed -between Isabey and Millet, who followed his example in his early figure -pieces; but he was also influenced by Rousseau and by Delacroix. Among -his eighteen pictures at the Louvre are several landscapes of superb -quality, notably the _Study of a Birch Tree_ (No. 252), _Sous Bois_ -(No. 253), and _Dogs in the Forest_ (No. 257A). - - [Illustration: - PLATE L.—JULES DUPRÉ - - (1811-1889) - - No. 2867.—THE POND - - (La Mare) - - Autumnal landscape with a pond in the middle distance on the left, - bordered on the right, in the centre of the composition, by a group - of oak trees. In the foreground some cattle and a cowherd. Cloudy - sky. - - Signed on left:—“JULES DUPRÉ.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 1 ft. 1 in. × 1 ft. 6½ in. (0·32 × 0·46.)] - - - DAUBIGNY - -Of all the Barbizon painters and their artistic kinship, Charles -François Daubigny (1817-1878) is the one who approached nature with the -most reverent spirit. He is in a way the least subjective of them all, -because his love of nature even in her simplest aspects prevented him -from imposing his own personality upon her; and for this very reason he -is more varied in his range of landscape subjects than any of the other -masters of this important group. The most fugitive effects of light -and atmosphere were seized by him with a masterly sureness which found -expression in every touch of his summary brush. Every hour of the day, -every season of the year, every mood of nature appealed to him with -equal intensity, although the choice of his subjects is most frequently -inspired by serene optimism. - -Daubigny belonged to a family of artists. He received his first -instruction from his father, and afterwards studied under Delaroche. -Before he began to paint landscapes in the neighbourhood of Paris, -he gained his livelihood by painting sweet-boxes! He found his best -subjects on the banks of the Oise, but worked also in other districts -of France, in Italy, and in England. Of his sojourn in England we are -reminded by _The Thames at Erith_ (No. 2821), one of the thirteen -Daubignys bequeathed to the Louvre by Thomy Thiéry, which also include -the sun-flooded _Weir Gate at Optevoz_ (No. 2818, Plate LI.), _The -Pond with Storks_ (No. 2815), _Les Péniches_ (No. 2820), _Morning on -the River_ (No. 2824), and _The Banks of the Oise_ (No. 2823). _The -Vintage in Burgundy_ (No. 184), which was bought by the State at -the ridiculously low price of £400, is a picture of unusually large -dimensions for an artist who generally needed but a small surface to -express his ardent worship of nature. The delicious _Spring_ (No. -185), with its blossoming apple trees and young grass, must be counted -among his finest achievements. It is a picture that fills the heart -of the beholder with the joy and contentment engendered by the blithe -atmosphere of a bright spring day in the country. - - - MILLET - -The Louvre is fortunate in possessing no fewer than a dozen pictures by -Jean François Millet (1814-1875), the great painter of the peasant’s -unceasing struggle with the forces of nature to gain his livelihood -from the soil. Millet himself was the son of a peasant, and was kept -busy with farm work until he had attained the age of twenty, when -he began to study art at Cherbourg. His studies were repeatedly -interrupted before he definitely took up art as his profession. Before -he went to Barbizon, in 1849, to devote himself exclusively to the -genre in which he was to achieve immortal fame, he gained popular -favour and admission to the Salon by following the eighteenth-century -tradition of mythological art, and painted a number of nude studies -of nymphs, goddesses, and cupids, not unlike in style to those -of Diaz, but already marked by that firmness of design and by the -monumental character that are so remarkable in his later work. The -study of _Bathing Women_ (No. 642) belongs to that period. - - [Illustration: - PLATE LI.—CHARLES FRANÇOIS DAUBIGNY - - (1817-1878) - - No. 2818.—THE WEIR GATE AT OPTEVOZ - - (La Vanne d’Optevoz) - - In the limpid clear water of the river, in the foreground, are - reflected the blue sky and the opposite river bank, which, from a - grassy slope on the left changes abruptly, near the weir gate, into - a steep, low, sandstone cliff, on the crest of which some trees and - bushes are silhouetted against the sky. On the left some ducks are - swimming on the mirror-like water. - - Signed on left:—“DAUBIGNY, 1859.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 1 ft. 7¾ in. × 2 ft. 4¾ in. (0·49 × 0·73.)] - -After he had settled at Barbizon, Millet, whose peasant origin was -probably the cause of his intense sympathy with the struggles and -hardships of the field labourers’ fatiguing work, devoted his brush -to creating that profoundly moving record of labour and toil which -constitutes his claim to be considered one of the world’s great -masters. He knew how to invest scenes of humble life with truly -monumental grandeur, and brought out the hopeless monotony and cruel -hardships of the life led by the tillers of the soil with such incisive -strength, that he was accused of propagandist tendencies. Nothing, -however, was further from his aim. He was an artist pure and simple, -who, in following his own unpopular ideal, preferred to suffer neglect -and extreme poverty to a compromise with the taste of the vulgar. - -The _Women Gleaning_ (No. 644, Plate LII.) may be considered his -supreme achievement, and an epitome of his whole art. Millet alone -could have invested so bald and unpromising a subject with so much epic -grandeur. There is in the rhythmic repetition of the action of the -two women in the centre of the composition a sense of the inevitable -hopeless monotony of labour in the fields, even if the picture is -not “a plea against the misery of the people.” The same struggle for -existence and the resulting physical fatigue are admirably expressed -in the statuesquely silhouetted figure of _The Weed-burner_ (No. -2890). _The Woodcutter_ (No. 2895), _The Strawbinders_ (No. 2892), and -_The Winnower_ (No. 2893) all exemplify this phase of Millet’s art. -The domestic life of the peasantry is treated with equally profound -sympathy in _Maternal Precaution_ (No. 2894), _La Couseuse_ (No. 644A), -and _La Lessiveuse_ (No. 2891). Among his comparatively rare pure -landscape subjects _The Church of Gréville_ (No. 641), which was found -in an unfinished state in the artist’s studio after his death, takes -very high rank. It is as remarkable for the simple telling truth with -which the normal aspect of the landscape is rendered, as the _Spring_ -(No. 643) is for the realisation of a more uncommon effect—a rainbow -and the shrill accent of sunlight in the orchard under the leaden grey -of the departing thunder clouds. - - - DAUMIER - -What Millet did for the life of the country, Honoré Daumier (1808-1879) -did for the life of the town, of which he was a shrewd and critical -observer. But his long practice as a caricaturist made him look upon -the types that engaged his brush with a certain cruel bitterness which -is far removed from Millet’s human sympathy. With a palette restricted -almost to black and grey, Daumier yet proved himself a great colourist -through the infallible accuracy of his tone-values and the suggestion -of rich colour in his almost monochrome schemes. His design is as -massive and monumental as Millet’s. The touch of the _macabre_, which -is so characteristic of Daumier’s art, is very evident in _The Thieves -and the Donkey_ (No. 2937). The _Portrait of the Painter Théodore -Rousseau_ (No. 2938) holds a hint of the caricaturist’s vision. - - - COURBET - -Equally far removed from, and hostile to, Classicism and -Romanticism was Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), who as head and -founder of the Realistic school exercised a prodigious influence -upon nineteenth-century art. He was essentially a fighting spirit, -determined to overcome official hostility to his revolutionary -principles. Excluded from public exhibitions, he held a private show -of his own works, and defended his theories by spoken and written -arguments. His just claim was that it did not matter _what_ you paint, -but _how_ you paint what you actually see; and in conformity with -his loudly proclaimed principles he often chose subjects that were -offensive to the taste of his day. At the same time we can see now that -he was endowed with a keen instinctive feeling for pictorial fitness, -and that most of his pictures are far from being haphazard snapshots -of actuality. In his student years he had copied many masterpieces by -Rembrandt, Velazquez, Hals, and Van Dyck. How much he benefited from -the example of the old masters is to be judged from his portrait of -himself, known as _The Man with the Leather-belt_ (No. 147). - - [Illustration: - PLATE LII.—JEAN FRANÇOIS MILLET - - (1814-1875) - - No. 644.—WOMEN GLEANING - - (Les Glaneuses) - - In a harvest-field three female gleaners, seen in profile to the - left, are occupied with picking up blades of corn. Two of them are - bending right down, with their right hands touching the ground; the - third woman is half erect. In the background some ricks, a cart and - horses, harvesters, a farm building, and a horseman. - - Signed on right:—“J. F. MILLET.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 2 ft. 8¾ in. × 3 ft. 8¼ in. (0·82 × 1·12.)] - -By far his most famous picture is the gigantic _Funeral at Ornans_ -(No. 143), which, as a study of the life and types in a small French -provincial town, has aptly been compared with Flaubert’s great novel -_Madame Bovary_. Each individual head in this vast composition is -a marvellous study of facial expression. In his landscapes, again, -he was by no means photographic, and he never failed to consider -the decorative effectiveness of his pictures. His influence upon -Whistler’s early work is to be judged from _The Wave_ (No. 147A). If -his landscapes retain to a certain extent the atmosphere of the studio, -such pieces as _La Remise des Chevreuils_ (No. 145A) and _Le Ruisseau -du Puits noir_ (No. 146A) clearly show that he possessed a sound -understanding of the way in which colours react upon, and modify, each -other. Courbet’s revolutionary tendencies made him take part in the -political movement of the Commune, and forced him to leave his native -country. He died in Switzerland in 1877. - - - MEISSONIER - -It was realism of a very different kind that made public opinion place -Jean Louis Ernest Meissonier (1815-1891) on a pinnacle, from which he -has only in recent years been transferred to the more modest position -due to him, for the exquisite minute care he bestowed upon the working -out of insignificant details. Meissonier was a draughtsman and an -illustrator rather than a painter. As a colourist he does not count. -He had no appreciation of values, textures, substances, and surfaces. -Nothing could be more to the point than Manet’s mordant remark that in -Meissonier’s pictures “everything is of iron except the cuirasses.” -Still, the mind that finds delight in small things will dwell with -pleasure upon the microscopic details of his little costume pictures -_The Flute Player_ (No. 2887), _The Poet_ (No. 2889), and several -similar “gems” at the Louvre. Strangely enough the _Portrait of Mme. -Gerriot_ (No. 2965), which he painted at the age of nineteen, has more -breadth and real character than any of his later works. The chief task -of Meissonier’s life was the glorification of Napoleon I.’s campaigns. -Of this famous series the Louvre includes no example. On the other -hand, the collection owns three important historical pictures from his -brush in _Napoleon III. at Solferino_ (No. 2957), which long hung in -the Luxembourg Gallery, _Napoleon III. surrounded by his Staff_ (No. -2958), and _The Siege of Paris_ (No. 2969), in the painting of which he -had at least the advantage of personal experience, as he had followed -the Emperor’s army on the Italian campaign, and was in Paris during the -siege. Altogether the Louvre owns no fewer than twenty-nine paintings -by Meissonier. - - - RICARD - -If Meissonier is beginning to find his proper level after having been -grossly overrated, Louis Gustave Ricard (1824-1873), one of the most -remarkable portrait painters of his century, has only just in recent -years been rescued from almost complete oblivion. A pupil of L. -Cogniet, Ricard spent several years in copying the works and analysing -the technical methods of the old masters, and in travelling in Italy, -Belgium, Holland, and England. It was not before his return to Paris -in 1850 that he began to exhibit. Ricard was exclusively a portrait -painter. Technically his early studies enabled him to arrive at a -method of singular morbidezza and warm luminosity. There is a certain -truth in a modern critic’s description of Ricard’s pigments as being -composed of “crushed jewels, flower juice, and gold and silver powder.” -The great merit of Ricard’s portraits is, however, his extraordinary -insight into his sitters’ psychology. To him a portrait meant more than -a correct record of the model’s superficial aspect: he endeavoured to -paint the very soul in so far as it can be read from eyes and lips. In -this respect he is the descendant of Giorgione and the forerunner of -Watts and Carrière. The portraits of _The Painter Heilbuth_ (No. 778A), -of _Mme. de Calonne_ (No. 778E), of _His Own Portrait_ (No. 778), and -the badly cracked _Portrait of Paul de Musset_ (No. 778B), may be -quoted as admirable instances of his art. - - - MANET - -We must close this necessarily fragmentary survey of French art at the -Louvre with the mention of Edouard Manet (1832-1883), whose _Olympia_ -(No. 613A, Plate LIII.) is the first, and so far the only painting of -the Impressionist school that has gained access to this gallery. It -was formerly exhibited at the Luxembourg. Hung as it is now in Gallery -VIII. amid the works of David, Gros, Ingres, Delacroix, Delaroche, and -other early nineteenth-century painters, this _Olympia_ fully explains -the sensation, but certainly not the indignation, caused by its first -appearance at the Salon of 1865. It sings out with such brilliant -purity of colour and is so emphatic in the patterning of its design, so -daring in the placing side by side of almost unmodulated but infallibly -accurate colour masses, that everything around appears more or less -dingy and artificial. Manet’s _Olympia_ marks the dawn of a new era, -not because it is based on a revolutionary rejection of tradition, but -because it is true to the _spirit_ of the best tradition, which is not -carried on by literal and mechanical imitation, but by evolution and -adaptation to modern life and thought. - - [Illustration: - PLATE LIII.—ÉDOUARD MANET - - (1832-1883) - - No. 613A.—OLYMPIA - - A nude woman, with blue-edged yellow satin slippers on her feet, - a narrow black riband round her neck, and a gold bracelet on her - right arm, is reclining on a bed, her right arm resting on the - cushion. Beneath her is spread a yellowish, flowered Indian shawl. - A black cat with raised tail stands at her feet on the bed. Behind - the bed is seen a negress, who brings a large bouquet of flowers to - her mistress. - - Signed on left:—“ED. MANET, 1865.” - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 4 ft. 2 in. × 6 ft. 3 in. (1·27 × 1·90.)] - - - - - THE BRITISH SCHOOL - - -If the representation of French art at the National Gallery in London -is admittedly meagre and inadequate, the British section at the Louvre -can scarcely be considered worthy of serious consideration. Its entire -removal, with the exception of about half a dozen pictures, would not -only entail no serious loss to the collection, but would be an act of -justice to the reputation of several great artists who are here made -responsible for pictures upon which they presumably never set eyes. -Under these circumstances it is quite impossible to illustrate the -progress of British art by the two-score or so examples in the Long -Gallery, part of which is devoted to the English pictures. Of the -leading masters, Hogarth (1697-1764) and Gainsborough (1727-1788) will -be vainly looked for, since the two _Landscapes_ (Nos. 1811 and 1811B) -attributed to the latter in the La Caze Room are inferior conventional -compositions in Italian taste, which can no more be connected with the -name of Gainsborough than the wretched _Still Life_ which has lately -been added to the Louvre collection. - - - CONSTABLE AND HIS IMITATORS - -In view of the powerful influence exercised by Constable and the -British Landscape school in general upon modern French art, it is -surprising that no attempts should have been made to secure a few -examples of greater importance and more certain authenticity than the -ones now exhibited. Six pictures are catalogued under the name of John -Constable (1776-1837); the only one that can be unreservedly accepted -as the work of his brush is the little view of _Hampstead Heath_ (No. -1809, Plate LIV.), which was presented to the Louvre in 1877 by the -painter’s son, Mr. Lionel Constable. It is a fresh, masterly study for -the picture in the Sheepshanks collection at the Victoria and Albert -Museum. - -The _Weymouth Bay_ (No. 1808), which realised as much as £2240 at the -Marquis de la Rochebrune’s sale in 1873, has been enthusiastically -commented upon by Bürger, but cannot pass the ordeal of searching -criticism. It is incoherent, and in the details of the foreground and -the painting of the figures and sheep lacks the purposeful sureness of -touch which is the hall-mark of Constable’s art. _The Cottage_ (No. -1806) has the same provenance. Mr. P. M. Turner, in an article in the -_Burlington Magazine_, suggests that F. W. Watts, a feeble imitator -of Constable, is the real author of this timidly executed painting—an -attribution which is certainly more convincing than the one in the -official catalogue. The _Glebe Farm_ (No. 1810) tallies closely, as -regards the superficial aspect, with the picture of the same title at -the National Gallery, to which it is, however, so inferior as to put -Constable’s authorship out of the question. _The Windmill_ (No. 1810A), -a gift of Mr. Sedelmeyer, seems to be a copy of the _Spring_ at the -Victoria and Albert Museum. _The Rainbow_ (No. 1807) may possibly be -by Constable, although its authorship has been questioned by several -reliable authorities. - -James Webb (1825?-1895), a painter of undeniable talent for imitating -the manner of artists greater than himself, is beyond much doubt -responsible both for the _Landscape_ (No. 1820), which is officially -given to Richard Wilson (1714-1782), and for the view of the _Pont -Neuf_ (No. 1819), which is still exhibited as an example by the -greatest English landscape painter J. M. W. Turner (1775-1851). -Unfortunately Turner’s name has to be added to Hogarth’s and -Gainsborough’s in the list of eminent British masters who are not -represented at the Louvre. - - [Illustration: - PLATE LIV.—JOHN CONSTABLE - - (1776-1837) - - No. 1809.—HAMPSTEAD HEATH - - (Vue de Hampstead Heath) - - A wide-spreading landscape view, with little incident, from - Hampstead Heath looking in a northerly direction. - - Painted in oil on canvas. - - 1 ft. 1¼ in. × 1 ft. 2¼ in. (0·26 × 0·36.)] - - - BONINGTON - -That Richard Parkes Bonington (1801-1828) should be seen to better -advantage in this collection, is only natural in view of the fact -that by his training at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris and under -Gros he belongs to the French rather than to the English school. -He was closely allied by the bond of friendship to Delacroix, and -played an important part in the romantic movement. The two little -pictures _François I. and the Duchesse d’Etampes_ (No. 1802) and -_Mazarin and Anne of Austria_ (No. 1803) are conceived quite in the -spirit of the French Romanticists. Bonington’s genius as a colourist -is, however, best displayed in the sparkling and animated _View of -Venice_ (No. 1805). Admirable, too, in their spontaneous freshness are -the _View of the Gardens at Versailles_ (No. 1804) and the _View of -the Coast of Normandy_ (No. 1804A). _The Old Governess_ (No. 1805A), -one of Bonington’s rare attempts at portraiture, is remarkable for -the accentuation of the modelling, which somehow suggests the broad -treatment of the planes adopted by a wood-carver. - -The picture which is catalogued as _La Halte_ (No. 1814), by George -Morland (1763-1804), is merely a poor copy of that artist’s painting -_The Public-house Door_, engraved by Ward. It was presented to the -Louvre by the proprietors of the magazine _L’Art_. - -When we come to the great school of British portrait painting, we have -to record at least two or three masterpieces worthy of being included -in a great museum. A picture of unquestioned authenticity and great -charm is the _Portrait of Master Hare_ (No. 1818B) by Sir Joshua -Reynolds (1723-1792), who in this, as in other similar pieces, proved -himself the painter _par excellence_ of childhood in all its innocence -and ingenuousness, even though this picture is by no means impeccable -as regards draughtsmanship. The _Master Hare_ was bequeathed to the -Louvre by Baron Alphonse de Rothschild in 1905. The badly repainted -_Portrait of a Lady_ (No. 1818A) in a white dress, and with powdered -hair, is certainly not the work of Sir Joshua, under whose name it -figures in the catalogue. - - - RAEBURN - -Among the recent additions to the Louvre collection is the excellent -life-size portrait of _Captain Robert Hay of Spot_, by Sir Henry -Raeburn (1756-1823), which still hangs on a screen in Gallery XV. and -has not yet been provided with a number. It is a full-length portrait -of the sitter, in uniform of scarlet coat, white breeches, black -gaiters, and fur busby, his hand resting upon his gun, standing against -a conventional landscape background with a sky of characteristic tawny -hue. The picture was formerly in the collection of Mr. Sanderson, at -the sale of which, in 1908, it was bought by Messrs. Agnew for 650 gs. -To Raeburn are also ascribed the extremely puzzling _Portrait of an Old -Sailor_ (No. 1817), which, in spite of certain technical affinities -with the British eighteenth-century school, is so un-English in spirit -that it would be rash to ascribe it to any master of that school; the -negligeable _Portrait of Anna Moore, Authoress_ (No. 1817A); also the -utterly commonplace and wretchedly drawn _Mrs. Maconochie and Child_ -(No. 1817B), which was bought in 1904, together with the equally -questionable _Portrait of a Lady and a Young Boy_ (No. 1812B), by -Hoppner, for £4000. - - - SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE - -The strangely exaggerated estimation in which Sir Thomas Lawrence -(1769-1830) is held by French connoisseurs, is to a certain extent -to be accounted for by the superb quality of the picture by which he -is best known in France: the portrait group of _J. J. Angerstein and -his Wife_ (No. 1813A) at the Louvre, which was acquired in 1896 for -£3000. This fine group displays all his bravura and pleasing freshness -and brightness of colour, without any of the vulgar tricks and -shallow mannerisms of his later years. Next to it should be mentioned -the charming half-length life-size _Portrait of Mary Palmer_ (No. -1813C), in a yellow dress, seated in a garden. The completely wrecked -_Portrait of Lord Whitworth, English Ambassador to France in 1802_ (No. -1813), and the _Portrait of a Man_ (No. 1813D), are of no artistic -significance. - -Neither is it necessary to dwell upon the mediocre _Brother and -Sister_ (No. 1801), by Sir William Beechey (1753-1839); the _Portrait -of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Princess of Wales_ (No. -1818), by Allan Ramsay (1713-1784); and the _Portrait of Lamartine, -French Poet and Politician_ (No. 1816A), by Henry Wyndham Phillips -(1820-1868). _The Woman in White_ (No. 1816) is at least a sound piece -of craftsmanship, even if the attribution to John Opie (1761-1807), -“the Cornish Wonder,” is subject to doubt. - - - OTHER PORTRAIT PAINTERS - -We have already mentioned the portrait group (No. 1812B), a picture in -deplorable condition, to which the name of John Hoppner (1758?-1810) -has been attached without sufficient reason. No less doubtful is the -authenticity of the _Portrait of the Countess of Oxford_ (No. 1812A), a -meretricious picture which serves to show the mannerisms and striving -after prettiness of Lawrence’s rival, rather than the more estimable -qualities by which his better achievements are distinguished. - -George Romney (1734-1802), on the other hand, is seen in his -most serious mood in the _Portrait of Sir John Stanley_ (No. -1818C)— a thoroughly honest “likeness,” well drawn, and painted -straight-forwardly, without tricky accents and mechanical recipes. On a -screen in Gallery XV. has been temporarily placed a recently acquired -_Portrait of the Artist_, by Romney. He is seated, palette in hand, in -a landscape background. The features are well modelled, and the light -and shade managed with considerable skill. - -Strangely enough the most remarkable English picture at the Louvre -is by a little known painter, who is not represented in any of the -leading British galleries. Charles Howard Hodges (1764-1837), who was -born in London, but went at the age of twenty-four to Holland, where -he spent the rest of his life, was really a mezzotint engraver, in -which craft he had been trained by John Raphael Smith. He produced many -plates after pictures by the Dutch masters, and also painted a few -portraits, among them the masterly _Portrait of a Woman_ (No. 1812), -at the Louvre. At a time which was too much given to conventionality -and to the desire to please by concessions to a popular craving for -prettiness, this picture strikes a note of almost brutal realism. It -is painted with surprising vigour and with an appreciation of correct -tone-values, in a low key, which heralds the art of the Glasgow school -in the later decades of the nineteenth century. - -With _The Bathing Woman_ (No. 1810B), by William Etty (1787-1849), and -_The Watering Place_ (No. 1815), by William Mulready (1786-1863), we -reach the full decadence of the British school in early Victorian days -before the great revival initiated by the pre-Raphaelites. - - - - - INDEXES - - - I. INDEX OF ARTISTS - - Albani, Francesco, 5, 119. - - Albertinelli, 11, 43, 46. - - Altichieri, Altichiero, 79, 85, 105. - - “Alunno di Domenico,” 34, 42. - - Amberger, C., 133. - - Ambrogio da Fossano, 94. - - Ambrogio da Predis, 35, 97. - - “Amico di Sandro,” 41. - - Andrea dal Castagno, 25, 28, 30. - - Andrea de Milan, 193. - - Andrea del Sarto, 2, 3, 45-46, 186, 239. - - Angelico, Fra, 10, 22-24, 26-27, 126. - - Anguissola, Sofonisba, 103. - - Anselmi, Michelangelo, 47. - - Antonello da Messina, 65, 95. - _Portrait of a Condottiere_, Plate IX. - - Antoniazzo Romano, 55-56. - - Arellano, Juan de, 190. - - Arentzen, Arent, 216. - - Artois, Jacob van, 154. - - Asselyn, Jan, 217. - - Audran, Claude, 261. - - - Bacchiacca, 46. - - Backhuysen, Ludolf, 222. - - Bagnacavallo, H., 60, 115. - - Baldovinetti, Alessio, 28, 30-32, 53. - - Balducci, Matteo, 50. - - Balen, Hendrick van, 137, 146, 149,156. - - Bamboccio, 221. - - Baroccio, 117. - - Bartolo di Maestro Fredi, 17. - - Bartolommeo di Giovanni, 34. - - Bartolommeo, Fra, 43, 44. - - Bartolommeo Veneto, 66. - - Bassano, Jacopo, 73, 76, 173. - - Bassano, Leandro, 73, 190. - - Bastiani, Lazzaro, 65. - - Beccafumi, 50. - - Beechey, Sir Wm., 307. - - Beerstraten, Abrahamsz, 222. - - Bega, Cornells, 208. - - Begeyn, Abraham, 220. - - Beham, Hans Sebald, 162. - - Bellechose, Henri, 228. - - Bellegambe, Jan, 230. - - Bellini, Gentile, 61-63, 65-66, 68, 69, 109. - - Bellini, Giovanni, 61-64, 66, 68-69, 95. - - Bellini, Jacopo, 61-65, 80, 85, 105. - - Bellini, Niccolosia, 80. - - Belotto, Bernardo, 78. - - Benozzo Gozzoli, 11, 25. - - Benson, Ambrosius, 130. - - Benvenuti, Giovanni Battista, 91. - - Berchem, Nicolaes, 213, 220-221. - - Berckheyde, Gerrit, 222. - - Bermejo, Bartolomé, 233. - - Berreguete, 172. - - Berrettini, Pietro, 87. - - Bertin, N., 291. - - Besozzo, Michelino da, 93. - - Bianchi, Francesco, 11, 107, 113. - - Bicci di Lorenzo, 21. - - Bicci, Lorenzo di, 21. - - Blomaert, Abraham, 197, 224. - - Bloot, Pieter de, 216. - - Boccaccino, Boccaccio, 103. - - Bol, Ferdinand, 205. - - Boltraffio, 10, 66, 98. - - Bonifazio Veronese, 73. - - Bonington, R. P., 281,289-290, 305. - - Bono da Ferrara, 86. - - Bononi, Bartolommeo, 99. - - Bonsignori, 92. - - Bordone, Paris, 10, 72. - - Borgognone (Ambrogio da Fossano), 94-96. - - Borgognone (Le Bourguignon), 253. - - Bosch van Aeken, Hieronymus, 130, 154. - - Both, Jan, 217. - - Botticelli, 29, 34, 39-41. - _Giovanna degli Albizzi and the Three Graces_, Plate V. - - Botticini, Francesco, 42. - - Boucher, François, 246, 258, 265-269. - _Vulcan presenting Arms to Venus_, Plate XL. - - Boulogne, Bon, 251-252. - - Boulogne, Louis, 251-252. - - Boulongne, Jean de, 243. - - Bourdichon, 239. - - Bourdon, Sébastien, 200, 249. - - Bouts, Dierick, 125-126, 154, 193, 216. - - Bramante, 58, 91, 92. - - Bramantino, 92. - - Breenberg, 221. - - Brekelenkam, Quiryn, 210. - - Bril, Matthias, 138. - - Bril, Paul, 137-138. - - Broederlam, Melchior, 123. - - Bronzino, Agnolo, 11, 46. - - Brouwer, Adriaen, 152-153, 208, 212. - - Brueghel, “Hell,” 149. - - Brueghel, Jan, 137, 141, 167. - - Brueghel the Elder, Pieter, 136-137, 152. - - Brueghel the Younger, Pieter, 137. - - Brunelleschi, 27. - - Brusasorci, Domenico, 85. - - Brusasorci the Younger, 77. - - Bruyn, Bartolomäus, 161. - - Bugiardini, 43. - - Buonconsiglio, Giovanni, 109. - - Butinone, Bernardino, 92. - - - Calcar, Giovanni, 72, 195. - - Calvaert, Denis, 115. - - Campi, Bernardino, 100, 103. - - Campin, Robert, 124-125. - - Canale, Antonio, 78. - - Canaletto, 78. - - Cantarini, S., 120. - - Caravaggio, Michelangelo, 120, 151, 177, 224, 243. - - Cardi, Lodovico, 47. - - Carducho, Vincente, 190. - - Cariani, 68. - - Caroto, Francesco, 87. - - Carpaccio, Vittore, 10, 65. - - Carpi, Alessandro da, 107. - - Carracci, Agostino, 118. - - Carracci, Annibale, 5, 6, 10, 119, 138. - - Carracci, Antonio, 119. - - Carracci, Lodovico, 118. - - Carreño de Miranda, Juan, 183, 190. - - Carrière, 301. - - Casanova, François, 78. - - Castagno, Andrea dal, 25, 28, 30. - - Castiglione, G. B., 118. - - Catena, Vincenzo, 66. - - Caterina di Vigri, 116. - - Cavedone, Jacopo, 107. - - Cazes, 267. - - Cellini, Benvenuto, 2. - - Cenni de’ Pepi, Giovanni, 19. - - Cerquozzi, M. A., 118. - - Cesare da Sesto, 39, 97. - - Champaigne, Philippe de, 155, 258. - - Chardin, J. B. S., 13, 258, 260, 267-268, 271. - _Grace before Meat_, Plate XLI. - - Cigoli, H., 47. - - Cima, Giovanni Battista, 11, 64. - - Cimabue, 11, 15, 19. - - Civerchio, 105. - - Claesz, Pieter, 220. - - Claeszoon, Alart, 195. - - Claude, 6, 157, 217, 247-248, 257, 274, 289. - _View of a Sea Port_, Plate XXXVIII. - - Clouet, François, 237. - - Clouet, Jean, 235-236. - - Codde, Pieter, 207. - - Cogniet, L., 301. - - Collantes, Francisco, 190. - - Coltellini, Michele, 92. - - “Compagno di Pesellino,” 30. - - Constable, John, 281, 289-290, 292, 294, 303-304. - _Hampstead Heath_, Plate LIV. - - Conti, Bernardino de, 38, 97. - - Cooper, T. Sidney, R.A., 218. - - Coques, Gonzales, 150, 154. - - Corneille de Lyon, 238. - - Cornelissen, Cornelis, 199. - - Corot, J. B. C., 290-292. - _The Well_, Plate XLIX. - - Correggio, 7, 9, 107, 113-114, 117, 177, 278. - _Marriage of St. Catherine_, Plate XV. - - Cossa, Francesco, 90, 101. - - Costa, Lorenzo, 5, 90-91, 101-102, 115. - - Coter, Colin de, 133. - - Cotes, Francis, 271. - - Cottignola, Zaganelli da, 60. - - Courbet, Gustave, 298. - - Courtois, Jacques, 253. - - Cousin, Jean, 240. - - Couture, Thomas, 288. - - Coxie, Raphael van, 151. - - Coypel, Antoine, 252. - - Coypel, Charles Antoine, 252. - - Coypel, Noël, 252. - - Coypel, Noël Nicolas, 252, 267. - - Craesbeeck, Joos van, 152. - - Cranach the Elder, Lucas, 162. - - Cranach the Younger, Lucas, 163. - - Crayer, Gaspar de, 151. - - Credi, Lorenzo di, 11. - - Crespi, G. M., 120. - - Crivelli, Carlo, 64, 80. - - Cuevas, Pedro de las, 190. - - Cuyp, Aelbert, 8, 217. - - - Dalmau, Luis de, 171-172. - - Daniele da Volterra, 47. - - Daubigny, Charles François, 295-296. - _The Weir Gate at Optevoz_, Plate LI. - - Daumier, H., 298. - - David, Gerard, 128-130, 193. - _Marriage at Cana_, Plate XVIII. - - David, Jacques Louis, 254, 269, 275-276, 278. - _Portrait of Mme. Récamier_, Plate XLV. - - De La Fosse, Charles, 252. - - Debar, B., 264. - - Decker, Cornelis, 217. - - Delacroix, Eugène, 250, 279, 281-283, 285, 290, 295. - _Dante and Virgil_, Plate XLVII. - - Delaroche, Paul, 285, 288, 295. - - Delli, Dello, 171. - - Denner, Baltasar, 167. - - Desportes, François, 258. - - Devéria, Joseph, 289. - - Diamante, Fra, 28. - - Diaz de la Peña, N., 290, 294-295. - - Diepenbeeck, Abraham van, 151. - - Dietrich, Christian W., 168. - - Dolci, Carlo, 118. - - Domenichino, 5, 10, 119, 245. - - “Domenico, Alunno di,” 34. - - Domenico Veneziano, 26, 31. - - Donatello, 27, 31, 79-80. - - Donducci, G. A., 120. - - Dossi, Dosso, 65, 91-92. - - Dou, Gerard, 208-211, 215. - _The Dropsical Woman_, Plate XXXII. - - Drake, Sir Francis, 196. - - Drost, Cornelis, 205. - - Drouais, F. H., 270. - - Dubois, Ambrose, 241. - - Duccio di Buoninsegna, 15, 19. - - Duchâtel Collection, 30. - - Duchatel, François, 154. - - Duck, Jacob, 207. - - Dulin, 264. - - Dupré, Jules, 293-294. - _The Pond_, Plate L. - - Duquesnoy, 245. - - Dürer, Albrecht, 159, 161-162, 195. - - - “Eclectics,” 117-119. - - Eeckhout, G. van den, 205. - - Elias, Nicholas, 205. - - Elsheimer, Adam, 167, 257. - - Engelbrechtsen, Cornelis, 194. - - Ercole de’ Roberti Grandi, 90-91. - - Ercole Roberti, 90-91. - - Escosura, 183, 189. - - Ettore de’ Bonacossi, 89. - - Etty, William, R.A., 308. - - Everdingen, Allart van, 218. - - - Fabritius, Karel, 213, 214. - - Faes, Pieter van der, 205. - - Farinati, Paolo, 87. - - Fassolo, Bernardino, 197. - - Fei, Paolo di Giovanni, 171. - - Ferramola, Floriano, 105-106. - - Ferrari, Defendente, 111. - - Ferrari, Francesco Bianchi, 107, 113. - - Ferrari, Gaudenzio, 111. - - Feti, Domenico, 117. - - Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, 30, 50, 53. - - Flandrin, Hippolyte, 289. - - Flinck, Govaert, 205. - - Floris, Frans, 138. - - Foppa, Vincenzo, 93-94, 105. - - Fosse, Charles de La, 252. - - Fouquet, Jean, 231, 233. - - Fragonard, J. H., 258, 260, 268-269, 274. - _Music Lesson_, Plate XLII. - - Francesca, Piero della, _or_ Franceschi, Piero dei, 13, 30, 31, 53, - 86. - - Francesco di Giorgio, 50. - - Francia, Francesco, 46, 55-56, 102, 105, 115. - - Francia, Giacomo, 102. - - Franciabigio, 46. - - Franck, Frans, 138. - - Franck the Third, Frans, 138. - - Franck the Younger, Frans, 138. - - Francken, Sebastiaen, 157. - - Franco Bolognese, 99. - - Fréminet, Martin, 241. - - Froment, Nicolas, 232. - - Fungai, Bernardino, 50. - - Fyt, Jan, 151. - - - Gaddi, Agnolo, 21. - - Gaddi, Taddeo, 21. - - Gainsborough, T., R.A., 303-304. - - Garofalo, 91. - - Geertgen tot S. Jans, 193. - - Gentile de Fabriano, 11, 53, 62, 85. - - Gérard, Baron F. P. S., 277. - - Gerard of Haarlem, 193. - - Géricault, J. L. A. Théodore, 281-282, - _The Raft of the “Medusa,”_ Plate XLVI. - - Gérin, 261. - - Ghiberti, Lorenzo, 26. - - Ghirlandaio, Benedetto, 33. - - Ghirlandaio, Davide, 33. - - Ghirlandaio, Domenico, 11, 24, 32-34. - _Portrait of an Old Man and his Grandson_ (“_The Bottle-nosed - Man_”), Plate III. - - Ghirlandaio, Ridolfo, 34, 46, 57. - - Giambono, Michele, 61. - - Gillot, Claude, 261, 264. - - Giltinger, Gumpold, 166. - - Giordano, Luca, 121, 171, 191. - - Giorgione, 6, 40, 46, 64, 66, 68-70, 73. - _Pastoral Symphony_, Plate X. - - Giottesques, 20, 61. - - Giotto, 11, 16, 19-21, 27, 69, 79, 101. - - Giovanni d’Allemagna, 63. - - Giovanni di Paolo, 17, 50. - - Giovanni Francesco da Rimini, 53. - - Giovenone, Girolamo, 111. - - Girard d’Orleans, 228. - - Girodet de Roucy-Trioson, A. L., 277. - - Girolamo da Carpi, 90. - - Girolamo dai Libri, 87. - - Girolamo di Benvenuto, 50. - - Giulio Romano, 56, 58-60, 115, 117. - - Glauber, 220. - - Goebouw, 256. - - Goltzius, Hendrick, 199. - - Gossart, Jan, 132-134, 236. - - Goya, 191-192. - - Gozzoli, Benozzo, 11, 25. - - Grandi, Ercole de’ Roberti, 90-91. - - Grebber, Pieter de, 206, 220. - - Greco, El, 173-176. - - Greuze, J. B., 269-272. - _The Broken Pitcher_, Plate XLIII. - - Grief, Anton, 157. - - Grimaldi, G. F., 120. - - Grimou, J. A., 259. - - Gros, Baron A. J., 277, 278, 282, 288, 305. - - Grünewald, M., 162-163. - - Guardi, Francesco, 78, 274. - - Guercino, 10, 120. - - Guerin, P. N., 276, 279, 281, 285. - - - Hals, Dirk, 206. - - Hals, Frans, 152, 198-201, 206, 249, 299. - _The Gipsy Girl_, Plate XXVII.; - _Portrait of a Lady in Black_, Plate XXVIII. - - Heda, Willem Claesz, 223. - - Heem, David de, 167, 223. - - Heem, J. Davidsz de, 223. - - Heemskerck, Egbert van, 224. - - Heinsius, Johann E., 168. - - Herrera “the Old,” Francisco, 175, 180. - - Heusch, Guilliam de, 220. - - Hobbema, Meindert, 219. - - Hodges, C. H., 308. - - Hogarth, W., 271, 303-304. - - Holbein the Elder, Hans, 163. - - Holbein the Younger, Hans, 38, 159, 161, 163, 236, 284. - _Portrait of Erasmus_, Plate XXIV. - - Hondecoeter, Melchior, 224. - - Hondius, Abraham, 224. - - Honthorst, Gerard, 224. - - Hooch, Pieter de, 213-214. - _Dutch Interior_, Plate XXXV. - - Hoppner, John, R.A., 306-307. - - Huet, Paul, 289. - - Huysmans, Cornelis, 154. - - Huysum, Jan, 223. - - - Ingegno, L’, 56. - - Ingres, J. A. D., 254, 277, 283-285. - _The Spring_, Plate XLVIII. - - Innocenzo da Imola, 115. - - Isabey, Eugène, 277, 294, 295. - - Isenbrant, Adriaen, 129. - - - Jacobello del Fiore, 61, 66-67. - - Jacque, Charles, 293. - - Janssen, Cornelis, 198. - - Janssens, Abraham, 151. - - Jardin, Karel du, 221. - - Jordaens, 10, 66, 150, 252. - - Jouvenet, Jean, 253. - - - Kalf, Willem, 223. - - Kauffmann, Angelica, 168. - - Knupfer, N., 210, 212. - - Koeck, Pieter, 136. - - Koninck, Philips de, 274. - - - Laer, Pieter van, 221. - - Lairesse, Gérard de, 220, 225. - - Lancret, N., 264. - - Largillière, Nicolas de, 254, 256, 259. - - Lastman, Pieter, 202, 204. - - Lawrence, Sir T., _P_.R.A., 306. - - Le Brun, Charles, 5, 75, 244, 249-251, 257, 273. - - Le Brun, Mme. Vigée, 272. - _Portrait of the Artist and her Daughter_, Plate XLIV. - - Lefebvre, Claude, 254. - - Le Guillon, Jenny, 283. - - Lely, Sir Peter, 205, 256. - - Le Moine, F., 265. - - Le Nain, Antoine, 244, 248-249, 258. - - Le Nain, Louis, 244, 248-249, 258. - - Le Nain, Matthieu, 244, 248-249, 258. - - Leonardo da Vinci, 2, 3, 6, 23, 34-40, 64, 95, 97, 117, 162, 239, - 278. - _Portrait of Mona Lisa_, Plate IV. (_Frontispiece_). - - Lépicié, N. B., 271. - - Le Sueur, Eustache, 8, 244, 248. - - Liberale da Verona, 86. - - Lievens, Jan, 204. - - Limborch, H. van, 225. - - Lingelbach, 221. - - Lippi, Filippino, 29, 43-44. - - Lippi, Fra Filippo, 11, 27-30, 39, 41. - _Madonna and Child with Angels and Two Abbots_, Plate II. - - Lodi, Calisto Piazza of, 106. - - Lomellini, Orazio, 103. - - Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 17. - - Lorenzetti, Pietro, 17. - - Lorenzo de’ Fasoli, 100. - - Lorenzo di Bicci, 21. - - Lorenzo di Credi, 11, 34-35, 39. - - Lorenzo di Pavia, 100. - - Lorenzo Monaco, 22-23, 27. - - Lotto, Lorenzo, 64, 153. - - Lucas van Leyden, 194. - - Luini, Bernardino, 96. - - Lutero, Giovanni, 89, 91-92. - - - Mabuse, Jan, 132-134, 236. - _Portrait of Jean Carondelet_, Plate XX. - - Maes, Nicolas, 214. - - Mainardi, Bastiano, 32, 33-34. - - “Maître de Flémalle,” 124-125. - - “Maître de Moulins,” 228-230. - - Malouel, Jean, 227. - - Malwaele, Jan, 227. - - Manet, Edouard, 300-302. - _Olympia_, Plate LIII. - - Manfredi, Bartolommeo, 98, 151. - - Manni, Giannicola, 56, 60. - - Mantegna, Andrea, 5, 11, 55, 61, 80-83, 105. - _Parnassus_, Plate XIV. - - Maratta, Carlo, 118. - - Martini, Simone, 16-17, 229, 232. - _Christ bearing His Cross_, Plate I. - - Masaccio, 17, 22-23, 27, 29, 31. - - Masolino, 22. - - Massone, Giovanni, 100. - - “Master of 1456.” - - “Master of St. Severin,” 160. - - “Master of the Bartholomew Altar,” 159-160. - - “Master of the Death of Mary,” 160. - - “Master of the Female Half Figures,” 194. - - “Master of the Ursula Legend,” 161, 230. - - Matsys, Quentin, 130-131, 210. - _The Banker and his Wife_, Plate XIX. - - Matteo di Giovanni, 50. - - Mazo, J. B. del, 184, 189. - - Mazzolino, Lodovico, 91. - - Meissonier, J. L. E., 299-300. - - Meldolla, Andrea, 72. - - Memlinc, Hans, 13, 125-128, 131, 216. - _Portrait of an Old Lady_, Plate XVII. - - Memmi, Lippo, 17. - - Mengs, Raphael, 168-169, 191. - - Mercier, P., 263. - - Metsu, Gabriel, 8, 215-216. - - Meulen, A. F. van der, 258. - - Michallon, A. E., 291. - - Michel, Georges, 289. - - Michelangelo, 23, 40, 42, 76, 117-118, 240. - - Michelino da Pavia, 91. - - Miel, Jan, 157. - - Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz, 197. - - Mignard, Pierre, 250. - - Mignon, Abraham, 167. - - Millet, Francisque, 157. - - Millet, J. F., 290, 292, 295-298. - _Women Gleaning_, Plate LII. - - Modena, Barnaba da, 107. - - Modena, Tommaso da, 107. - - Molyn the Elder, Pieter, 211-212. - - Moni, Louis de, 225. - - Monnoyer, J. B., 252. - - Montagna, Bartolommeo, 109. - - Montagna, Benedetto, 109. - - Moor, Karel de, 210, 224. - - Mor, Sir Antonis, 195-196. - - Morales, Luis, 172-173. - - Moreau, Louis Gabriel, 274. - - Moreelse, Paulus, 199. - - Moretto, Alessandro, 10, 106. - - Morland, George, 305. - - Moroni, Giambattista, 106. - - Mostaert, Jan, 195. - - Moyaert, Claes, 220. - - Mulready, William, 308. - - Munari, Pellegrino, 107. - - Murillo, B. E., 8, 12, 185-189. - _The Immaculate Conception_, Plate XXVI. - - - Natoire, 268. - - Neefs, Pieter, 157. - - Neer, Aart van der, 217. - - Neer, Eglon van der, 224. - - Neri di Bicci, 21. - - Netscher, Caspar, 212. - - Nicasius, 258. - - Niccolò da Foligno, 54. - - Niccolò dell’ Abbate, 240. - - Nooms, Reynier, 221. - - Nuzi, Alegretto, 53. - - - Oderigi of Gubbio, 101. - - Oggiono, Marco d’, 10, 36, 97. - - Ommeganck, B. P., 187. - - Oostsanen, Jacob Cornelisz van, 194. - - Opie, John, R.A., 307. - - Orbetto, 77. - - Orcagna, Andrea, 22. - - Oriolo, 86. - - Orizonte, 157. - - Orley, Barend van, 133-134. - - Ortolano, 91. - - Oudry, J. B., 259. - - Ouwater, Albert van, 129, 193. - - - Pacchia, Girolamo del, 50. - - Pacchiarotto, 50. - - Palamedesz, 207. - - Palma Vecchio, 67, 73. - _Adoration of the Shepherds, with a Female Donor_, Plate XI. - - Palmezzano, Marco, 60. - - Panetti, Domenico, 91. - - Panini, Giovanni Paolo, 100. - - Paolo di Giovanni Fei, 17. - - Parenzano, Bernardo, 83. - - Parmigianino, 114, 118. - - Parrocel, Joseph, 253. - - Patel, Pierre, 257. - - Patel, Pierre Antoine, 257. - - Pater, J. B., 264. - - Pellegrino, Antonio, 77, 239. - - Pencz, Georg, 162. - - Pereda, Antonio, 190. - - Perréal, Jehan, 229-230, 239. - - Perugino, 5, 11-12, 46, 50-51, 54-56. - _St. Sebastian_, Plate VI. - - Peruzzi, Baldassare, 50. - - “Pesellino, Compagno di,” 30. - - Pesellino, Francesco, 11, 28-29, 53. - - Phillips, H. W., 307. - - Piazza, Calisto, 106. - - Piazza, Martino, 106. - - Pickenoy, 205. - - Piero di Cosimo, 11, 27, 34, 42-43. - - Pietro da Cortona, 87. - - Pinturicchio, 50, 55-56. - - Piombo, Sebastiano del, 3, 46, 67-68. - - Pisanello, Antonio, 62, 79, 85, 86, 103. - - Poelenburg, C. van, 206. - - Polidoro Lanzani, 72. - - Pollaiuolo, Antonio, 31, 40. - - Pollaiuolo, Piero, 31-32. - - Pontormo, Jacopo da, 46. - - Pot, Hendrick, 206, 223. - - Potter, Paul, 10, 220, 293. - - Pourbus the Younger, Frans, 138. - - Poussin, Gaspard, 248. - - Poussin, Nicolas, 5, 138, 157, 245-246, 275, 285. - _The Shepherds in Arcadia_, Plate XXXVII. - - Prandino, Ottaviano, 105. - - Pre-Raphaelites, 308. - - Primaticcio, 2, 59, 115, 118, 239-240. - - Prud’hon, Pierre, 278-279. - - “Pseudo-Boccaccino,” 103. - - “Pseudo-Mostaert,” 195. - - Pynacker, Adam, 220. - - - Raeburn, Sir H., R.A., 306. - - Raffaelino del Garbo, 11, 42. - - Raffaelle dei Carli, 42. - - Raimondi, Marc Antonio, 115. - - Ramenghi, Bartolommeo, 60. - - Ramsay, Allan, 271, 307. - - Raoux, Jean, 260. - - Raphael, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 23, 29, 40, 46, 55, 56-60, 66-68, 114, - 117-118, 134, 248, 284-285. - _La Belle Jardinière_, Plate VII.; - _Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione_, Plate VIII. - - Ravesteyn, Jan van, 197. - - Regnault, Henri, 288. - - Regnault, J. B., 276. - - Rembrandt, 8, 10, 58, 66, 135, 167, 194, 199, 201-205, 208, - 214-216, 223, 256, 260. - _Christ and the Pilgrims at Emmaus_, Plate XXIX.; - _Portrait of Hendrickje Stoffels_, Plate XXX. - - Reni, Guido, 5-6, 10, 119. - - Reynolds, Sir J., _P_.R.A., 272, 305-306. - - Ribalta, 177. - - Ribera, 120, 176-179, 191, 277. - - Ricard, L. G., 300-301. - - Ricci, Sebastiano, 77. - - Ricciarelli, 47, 117. - - Riccio, Felice, 77. - - Rigaud y Ros, Hyacinthe, 254, 255. - - Robert, Hubert, 268, 273-274. - - Robert-Fleury, J. N., 289. - - Roberti, Ercole, 90-91. - - Roelas, Juan de las, 176. - - Roghman, Roeland, 216. - - Rokes, 209. - - Romanino, 103. - - Romano, Giulio, 56, 58-60, 115, 117. - - Romney, George, 307-308. - - Rondinelli, Niccolò, 68. - - Roos, P. P., 167. - - Rosa de Tivoli, 167. - - Rosa, Salvator, 120, 273. - - Rosselli, Cosimo, 11, 32, 42. - - Rosselli, Matteo, 47. - - Rosso Fiorentino, 2, 46, 239. - - Rosso, Francesco, 46. - - Rosso, Giovanni Battista, 2, 46, 239. - - Rottenhammer, Johann, 137, 167. - - Roucy-Trioson, A. L. Girodet de, 277. - - Rousseau, Théodore, 290, 292, 294-295, 298. - - Roymerswaele, Marinus van, 131. - - Rubens, P. P., 3, 7, 10, 66, 111, 125, 131, 135-139, 141, 146, 149, - 151-153, 155, 171, 241, 254, 258, 263, 266, 281. - _Henry IV. leaves for the War_, Plate XXI.; - _Hélène Fourment and two of her Children_, Plate XXII. - - Ruisdael, Jacob van, 8, 218, 222, 290. - - Ruthart, Carl, 167. - - Ruysdael, Salomon van, 217, 222. - - Ryckaert, David, 151. - - - Sacchi, Pier Francesco, 99. - - Saftleven, Cornelis, 206. - - Saftleven, Herman, 217. - - Salaino, 37-38, 95. - - Salviati, 46. - - Sano di Pietro, 49. - - Santerre, J. B., 254. - - Santi, Giovanni, 56. - - Santvoort, D. van, 206. - - Sassetta, 17, 49. - - Sassoferrato, 118. - - Savoldo, Giovanni Girolamo, 63-64, 105. - - Scarsellino, 90. - - Schalcken, Godfried, 209. - - Scheffer, Ary, 285. - - Schiavone, Andrea, 72. - - Schiavone, Gregorio, 80, 92. - - Schidone, Bartolommeo, 107. - - Schoevaerts, Mathys, 157. - - Schöngauer, Martin, 131. - - Schweickhardt, Heinrich Wilhelm, 168. - - Scorel, Jan, 194-195. - - Scotto, Stefano, 96. - - Seghers, David, 151. - - Sellaio, Jacopo del, 41. - - Semitecolo, Niccolò, 61. - - Seybold, Christian, 168. - - Siberechts, Jan, 155. - - Signorelli, 50. - - Simone Martini, 16, 17. - _Christ bearing His Cross_, Plate I. - - Slingelandt, J. A. van, 211. - - Snyders, Frans, 149, 151, 258. - - Sodoma, 50, 111. - - Sogliani, 46. - - Solario, Andrea, 95-96. - - Solario, Cristoforo, 95. - - Sorgh, H. M., 208. - - Southwell, Sir Richard, 165. - - Spaendonck, C. van, 223. - - Spagnoletto, 120, 176-179, 191, 277. - - Spanzotti, Martino, 111. - - Speranza, Giovanni, 109. - - Squarcione, Francesco, 80, 94, 105. - - Starnina, 22, 171. - - Steen, Jan, 211-213. - _Bad Company_, Plate XXXIV. - - Steenwyck, Hendrik van, 222. - - Stefano da Zevio, 28. - - Suardi, Bartolommeo, 94. - - Subleyras, P., 260. - - Sustermans, Justus, 156. - - Swanenburgh, Jacob van, 201. - - Swanevelt, Herman van, 210. - - - Taddeo di Bartolo, 17. - - Taraval, H., 267. - - Tassi, Agostino, 247. - - Tempel, A. van den, 210. - - Teniers the Elder, David, 153. - - Teniers the Younger, David, 6, 153-154. - - Terborch, Gerard, 8, 211-213, 221. - _Concert_, Plate XXXIII. - - Testorino, Bartolommeo, 105. - - Theotocopuli, D., 173-176. - - Tibaldi, Pellegrino, 115, 118. - - Tiepolo, 77, 269. - - Tintoretto, 74, 76-77, 117, 167, 173. - - Tisi, Benvenuto, 91. - - Titian, 4, 6, 9, 38, 66-72, 76, 87, 106, 118, 135, 146, 153, 173, - 246, 261, 263, 266. - _Man with a Glove_, Plate XII.; - _Entombment_, Plate XIII. - - Tocqué, Louis, 270-271. - - Trioson, 277. - - Tristan, Luis, 175. - - Troy, J. F. de, 261. - - Troyon, Constant, 293. - - Tura, Cosimo, 89-90, 107. - - Turchi, Alessandro, 77. - - Turner, J. M. W., R.A., 248, 304. - - - Uccello, Paolo, 26-27, 31, 42. - - Ugolino da Siena, 17. - - - Valentin, Le, 243. - - Van Balen, 137, 146, 149, 156. - - Van den Berghen, Dirk, 220. - - Van Beyeren, A., 223. - - Van Bloemen, Jan Frans, 157. - - Van Breda, Jan, 157. - - Van Cleef the Elder, Joos, 160-161, 236. - - Van Dyck, 10, 66, 146-150, 155-156, 190, 198, 206, 254-255, 299. - _Portrait of Charles I._, Plate XXIII. - - Van Eyck, Hubert, 124-125, 130. - - Van Eyck, Jan, 10, 65, 123-126, 129-130, 172, 216. - _The Virgin and Child and the Chancellor Rolin_, Plate XVI. - - Van Falens, Carl, 157. - - Van der Goes, Hugo, 216. - - Van Goyen, Jan, 8, 212, 216, 218, 222. - - Van Goyen, Margaretha, 212. - - Van der Hagen, Joris, 217. - - Van Heemskerck, 200. - - Van der Heist, Bartholomeus, 8, 205. - _Shooting Prize_, Plate XXXI. - - Van Hemessen, Jan, 133. - - Van der Heyden, Jan, 221. - - Van Leyden, Lucas, 125. - - Van Loo, Carle, 265. - - Van Loo, Charles André, 265. - - Van Loo, J. B., 264. - - Van Loo, J. C., 264. - - Van Loo, Jacob, 206. - - Van Mander, Karel, 199. - - Van der Meer van Delft, Jan, 214. - - Van der Meer of Haarlem, Jan, 214. - - Van der Meulen, Adam Frans, 154-156. - - Van Mieris the Elder, Frans, 210. - - Van Mieris, Willem, 225. - - Van Mol, Pieter, 151. - - Van der Neer, Aart, 217. - - Van Noort, Adam, 140, 150. - - Van Oost the Elder, Jacob, 157. - - Van Oostsanen, Jacob Cornelisz, 194. - - Van Orley, Barend, 133, 193. - - Van Ostade, Adriaen, 207, 212. - - Van Ostade, Isack, 8, 208, 217. - - Van Ouwater, Albert, 129, 193. - - Van Roymerswaele, Marinus, 131. - - Van Staveren, J. A., 211. - - Van Stry, Jacob, 218. - - Van Veen, Otto, 139-140. - - Van de Velde, Adriaen, 218. - - Van de Velde the Younger, Willem, 222. - - Van de Venne, Adriaen, 207. - - Van Vliet, H., 206. - - Van der Weyden, Roger, 124, 126, 129, 131, 133, 160. - - Vanni, Francesco, 51. - - Vanni, Turino, 21. - - Varotari, Alessandro, 77. - - Vecchia, Pietro della, 77. - - Vecchietta, 49-50. - - Velazquez, 135, 174, 176, 179-186, 190, 299. - _Portrait of Infanta Margarita_, Plate XXV. - - Veneto, Bartolommeo, 66. - - Veneziano, Bartolommeo, 66. - - Veneziano, Domenico, 26, 31. - - Veneziano, Stefano, 61. - - Venius, Octavius, 139-140. - - Verbruggen, G. P., 157. - - Verhaecht, Tobias, 139. - - Verkolie, Jan, 224. - - Vermander, 200. - - Vermeer van Delft, Jan, 214. - _The Lace-Maker_, Plate XXXVI. - - Vernet, Carle, 273, 279. - - Vernet, Claude Joseph, 273. - - Vernet, Horace, 273. - - Vernet, Joseph, 272-273. - - Veronese, Bonifazio, 73. - - Veronese, Paolo, 5, 6, 74-77, 87, 261. - - Verrocchio, Andrea del, 30-31, 34, 39. - - Verspronck, Gerard, 197. - - Vestier, Antoine, 271. - - Vicenza, Battista da, 107. - - Victoors, Jan, 205. - - Vien, J. M., 275. - - Vigée Le Brun, Mme., 272. - _Portrait of the Artist and her Daughter_, Plate XLIV. - - Vinci. _See_ Leonardo da Vinci. - - Viti, Timoteo, 55, 56, 102. - - Vivarini, Alvise (or Luigi), 63-64, 93, 109. - - Vivarini, Antonio, 62-63. - - Vivarini, Bartolommeo, 63. - - Vlieger, Simon de, 222. - - Volterra, Daniele da, 47, 117. - - Von Calcar, Johan Stephan, 72, 195. - - Vos, Paul de, 151. - - Vouet, Simon, 243, 248-250. - - - Watteau, Antoine, 241, 248, 259-264. - _Embarkation for the Island of Cythera_, Plate XXXIX. - - Watts, F. W., 304. - - Watts, G. F., 301. - - Webb, James, 304. - - Weenix, Jan, 224. - - Weenix, J. B., 221, 224. - - Werff, Adriaen van der, 225. - - Wils, Jan, 220. - - Wilson, Richard, 304. - - Wohlegmut, Michael, 161, 231. - - Wouwerman, Philips, 8, 219. - - Wouwerman, Pieter, 219. - - Wynants, Jan, 218. - - Wyntrack, 219. - - - Ysenbrant, Adriaen, 129. - - - Zacchia, Paolo, 47. - - Zaganelli da Cottignola, 60. - - Zenale, 94. - - Zoppo, Marco, 92. - - Zuccato, Sebastian, 69. - - Zurbarán, 176-177. - - Zustris, L. F., 206. - - - II. GENERAL INDEX - - - Academy of Arts, French, 6. - - _Adoration of the Lamb_, at Ghent, 10. - - Aix, Cathedral at, 232. - - Albizzi, Giovanna degli, 33, 40. - - Albrecht, Archduke, 144, 148. - - Albrecht of Mayence, Archbishop, 162. - - Alexander IV., Pope, 25. - - Alexander VI., Pope, 70. - - Alexander the Great, 250. - - Alfonso da Ferrara, 69, 70. - - Alfonso d’Avalos, 71, 75. - - Allied Powers, 10, 19. - - Alva, Duke of, 197. - - Amboise, 39. - - Amsterdam, 201-220. - - André, Mme., 127. - - Anne of Austria, 143. - - Antonio Litta Visconti Arese, 97. - - Antwerp, 16, 129-130, 133-134, 138-139, 141, 146, 148, 152, 196, - 198, 223, 231, 241, 256. - - Archduke Leopold William, 153. - - Arenberg Collection, 140. - - Arezzo, 15. - - Armagnac, General d’, 127. - - Aschaffenburg, 125. - - Ascoli, 64. - - Augsburg, 163. - - Autun, 124. - - Avignon, 229, 232. - - Aytona, Francisco d’, 147. - - - Badajoz, 172. - - Baltazar Carlos, Don, 184. - - Bamberg, Felix, 86. - - Barbadori Chapel, 29. - - Barbizon, 13, 290, 292, 296-297. - - Barnevelt, Olden, 197. - - Basle, 164. - - Bavaria, Charles Louis, Duke of, 224. - - Bavaria, Rupert, Prince of, 149. - - Beauvais Tapestry, 259, 265. - - Benson, Mr. R. H., 90. - - Bentivoglio Family, 101. - - Berenson, Mr. B., v, 17, 30-31, 34, 38, 41, 43. - - Berenson, Mrs., 30. - - Beresteyn and Family, Nicolaes, 199-200. - - Berlin, 10, 16, 25, 66, 128, 202, 231-232, 272. - - Bermudez, Céan, 188. - - Bernardo di Salla, 63. - - Blackfriars, 148. - - Bodenhausen, Freiherr von, 128. - - Bologna, 9, 99, 115-116, 118-120. - - Bologna, Treaty of, 9. - - Bonaparte, Lucien, 128. - - Borghese Gallery, 147. - - Borgia, Lucrezia, 70. - - Borromeo, Cardinal Federigo, 137. - - “_Bottle-nosed Man_,” 24. - - Bourgeois Sale, 172. - - Brancacci Chapel, Florence, 22, 27. - - Brant, Isabella, 140. - - Brera, 93. - - Brescia, 93, 105. - - Browning, 22. - - Bruges, 125-130, 172. - - Brussels, 10, 125, 136, 141, 276. - - Buckingham, Duke of, 37. - - Buen Retiro Palace, 190. - - Burnet, Bishop, 166. - - Buti, Francesco, 28. - - Buti, Lucrezia, 28. - - Buti, Spinetta, 28. - - Byron, Lord, 283. - - Byzantine Miniaturists, 15. - - Byzantinism, 61. - - - _Caisse des Musées_, 13. - - Cambridge, 200. - - Campana Collection, 12, 41, 62, 87. - - Campo Formio, Peace of, 75. - - Carondelet, Jean, 132-133. - - Casio Family, 96. - - Castiglione, Baldassare, 58. - - Cavenaghi, Prof., 36. - - Celier, John du, 126. - - Cento, 9. - - Chantilly, 231, 235-236, 282. - - Charles I. of England, 4, 37-38, 58, 67, 69, 70, 148, 150, 206. - _His Portrait_, Plate XXIII. - - Charles II., 255. - - Charles III. of Spain, 168, 191. - - Charles V., 1, 76, 115, 132, 196, 212. - - Charles VII., 231. - - Charles VIII., 229. - - Charles IX., 237-238. - - Charles X., 12, 270. - - Charles d’Amboise, 94. - - Château Gaillon, 95. - - Chatsworth Sketch-book, 147. - - Christie’s, 133. - - Christus (or Cristus) Petrus, 124. - - Cloves, Anne of, 166. - - Cloux, Manor House of, 39. - - Clovis, 173. - - Cluny Museum, Paris, 161. - - Colbert, 6, 156, 251. - - Colmar, 163. - - Cologne, 126, 161, 172. - - Colonna Palace, Rome, 90. - - Colonna, Vittoria, 76. - - Compiegne, 204. - - Constantinople, 62. - - Cook, Mr. Herbert, 68, 77. - - Cook, Sir Frederick, 70. - - Corneille, 245. - - Cosimo II., Grand-Duke, of Tuscany, 157. - - Cossío, Señor, 174. - - Covarrubias, Diego and Antonio, 174. - - Crivelli, Lucrezia, 38. - - Croft, Jeronimo, 73. - - Cromwell, Oliver, 4, 70, 113. - - - Dandolo, Doge Enrico, 61. - - Dantzig, 131. - - Darius, 250. - - Darnley, Lord, 145. - - Davidists, 279. - - Delamarre, M. L., 56. - - Delft, 212, 213. - - Descartes, René, 200, 249. - - Devonshire, Duke of, 77. - - Dijon, 228. - - Dolce, L., 68. - - Douai, 230. - - Drawing in the Louvre, 38, 131. - - Dresden, 78, 272. - - Du Barry, Madame, 149, 269. - - Duchâtel, 12, 131, 133, 196, 284. - - Dulwich College Gallery, 141, 154, 205. - - Dutch Independence, 201. - - - “Eclectics,” 117-119. - - Ecouen, Château d’, 36. - - Edward VI. of England, 196. - - Elector of Saxony, Johann Friedrich III., 163. - - Elector Palatine, Charles Louis, 149. - - Eleonora of Austria, 76-77. - - Elissa, M. H. R., 183. - - Elizabeth of Austria, 238. - - Emperor, German, 262. - - Empire, Second, 12. - - Erasmus, 38. - - Eremetani, Church of the, 80. - - Escorial, 173. - - Este, Beatrice d’, 38. - - Este Family, 89. - - Este, Ginevra d’, 86. - - Este, Isabella d’, 55. - - Este, Leonello d’, 62, 86. - - Este, Niccolò d’, 86. - - _Este, The Court of Isabella d’_, 5, 101. - - Exposition Universelle of 1900, 13. - - - _Family of the Virgin_, 100. - - Fausti, Andrea, 45. - - Félibien, 257. - - Ferdinand, Infante, 151. - - Ferrara, 9, 83, 89, 101. - - Ferron, 38. - - Ferronière, La Belle, 38. - - Fesch, Cardinal, 41. - - Floreins, James, 127. - - Florence Academy, 53. - - Foix, Gaston de, 103. - - Fondaco de’ Tedeschi, 68. - - Fontainebleau, Chateau de, 2-3, 6, 35, 37, 58, 67, 142, 239, 241, - 290. - - Fourment, Hélène, 145. - _Her Portrait_, Plate XXII. - - Fourment, Susanne, 144. - - Fournier-Sarlovèze, Lieutenant-General, 278. - - François I., 2-3, 35, 37, 58, 59, 67, 115, 235, 237, 239, 240. - _His Portrait_, 71, 76. - - François II., 3, 237. - - French Primitives, Exhibition of, 227, 228, 231. - - Frick, Mr. H. C., 203. - - Frizzoni, Dr., 87. - - - Galileo, 289. - - Garriga, 130. - - Gattamelata, 79. - - Gatteaux, M., 12, 127. - - Gautier, Théophile, 38. - - Gay, Mr. Victor, 24. - - Genoa, 118, 146-147. - - George of Amboise, Cardinal, 95. - - Ghent, 10, 123, 130. - - Giovanni da Bologna, 73. - - Glasgow, 204. - - Gobelins Manufactory, 6, 156, 249. - - Godefroy, C., 268. - - Gonzaga, Federigo, 70. - - Gonzaga, Francesco, 101. - - Gonzaga, Vincenzo, Duke of Mantua, 140. - - Gotha, 141. - - Goths, The, 79. - - Gower, Lord Ronald, 290. - - Grandidier, 13. - - Greenwich, 222. - - Guastavillani, Filippo, 102. - - Guidobaldo, Duke of Urbino, 57. - - Guillaume de St. Amour, 25. - - Guillemardet, 192. - - Guimard, Marie, 269. - - - Haarlem, 193, 198, 223. - - Hague, 184, 197, 213, 225. - - Hague, Potter’s _Bull_ at the, 10, 220. - - Hampton Court, 206. - - Harrach Collection, 194. - - Heath, Mr., 127. - - Henri II., 3, 237-238. - - Henri IV., 3, 37, 139, 142, 261, 289. - - Henrietta Maria, 37. - - Henry VIII., 76, 166. - - Heraclius, Emperor, 22. - - Hermitage Gallery, St. Petersburg, 143, 268, 272. - - Herz, Mr., 127. - - His de la Salle, M., 12, 39. - - Houbraken, 213. - - Houssaye Collection, Arsène, 200. - - Howard, Earl of Surrey, Henry, 165. - - - Iconoclasts, 135. - - Infanta Margarita, 181. - - Innocent III., Pope, 20, 24. - - Inquisition, Spanish, 135, 171, 196, 289. - - Isabella Clara Eugenia, 148. - - Isabella, Infanta, 144. - - Italy, Van der Weyden in, 125. - - - Jabach, Eberhard, 4-5, 38, 67, 69-71. - - Jean-sans-Peur, Duke of Burgundy, 228. - - _Joconde, La_, Plate IV. (_Frontispiece_), 36. - - Johanna of Austria, 144. - - Josephine, Empress, 276. - - Julius II., Pope, 43, 57, 100. - - - Kaempfen, M., 202. - - Kann Collection, 202. - - Kann, M. Rodolphe, 13. - - Keyser, Thomas de, 202. - - Kleinberger, M., 128. - - Kratzer, Nicolas, 164-165. - - Krüdner, Baroness von, 168. - - - _La Belle Ferronière_, 97. - - _La Belle Jardinière_, 2, 46, 57, 59, 66. - - La Caze, Dr., 12, 153. - - La Fontaine, 260. - - _La Joconde_, Plate IV. (_Frontispiece_), 36. - - Lallemant, M., 13. - - Lambeth Palace, 165. - - Laura de’ Dianti, 69, 70. - - Leczinska, Marie, Queen of Louis XV., 271. - - Lennox, James Stuart, Duke of, 149. - - Leo X., Pope, 57-58, 60, 115. - - Les Andelys, 245. - - Leyden, 193-194, 212. - - Leys Sale, 137. - - Liechtenstein Gallery, 232. - - Lille, 131. - - Liverpool, 134. - - Loeches, Convent of, 144. - - Lopez, Don Alfonso, 58. - - Loreto, 9. - - Louis IX., 24, 25. - - Louis XI., 231. - - Louis XII., 76, 229. - - Louis XIII., 3, 38, 142, 244. - - Louis XIV., 3-8, 38, 58, 67, 130, 156, 244, 249, 251, 253, 255, - 257, 275. - - Louis XV., 7, 149, 260, 269-270, 273. - - Louis XVI., 8, 168, 211, 225, 275. - - Louis XVIII., 11. - - Louis Philippe, 11, 229, 282. - - Louvre, Spoliation of the, 10. - - Lucrezia Borgia, 70. - - Luxembourg, Palais de, 3, 7, 139, 142, 144, 261. - - Lyons, 11, 58, 229, 238. - - - Maciet, M., 13, 229. - - Maconochie, Mrs., 306. - - _Madonna della Sedia_, 9. - - Maintenon, Marquise de, 251. - - Malatesta, Pandolfo, 62. - - Malatesta, Parisina, 86. - - Malatesta, Sigismondo, 62, 86. - - Manetti, Antonio, 27. - - “Mannerists,” 117. - - Mansard, François, 156. - - Mantua, 70-71, 83, 99, 115, 138. - - Mantua, Duke of, 4, 140. - - Maria Theresa, 168, 182. - - Mariana of Austria, 181-182. - - Marie Antoinette, 272. - - _Marriage at Cana_, by Paolo Veronese, 75. - - Marseilles, Gallery at, 11. - - Martin V., Pope, 18. - - Mary Cleophas, 33. - - Mary of England, 76, 196. - - Maubeuge, 132. - - Mazarin, Cardinal, 5-6, 57-58, 71. - - Meazzu Collection, 128. - - Medici, Casa, 26. - - Medici, Cosimo de’, 26. - - Medici Family, 30. - - Medici, Francesco de’, 143-144. - - Médici Leopold de’, 157. - - Médici, Lorenzo de’, 58-59. - - Médicis, Catherine de’, 3, 237. - - Médicis, Marie de’, 3, 93, 138-139, 142, 144, 241. - - Médicis Series of paintings by Rubens, 142. - - Milan, 66, 71, 105, 128. - - Mocenigo, Pietro, 74. - - Modena, 9, 90, 107. - - Mömlingen, 125. - - _Mona Lisa, Portrait of_, Plate IV. (_Frontispiece_), 36. - - Moncada, Marqués de, 147. - - Montmorency, Constable de, 36. - - More, Sir Thomas, 164. - - Morgan, Mr. J. Pierpont, 33. - - Morris Moore, 12, 55. - - Moulins, 228. - - Munich, 39, 143. - - Münster, Peace of, 197, 211. - - Murano School, 63. - - - Naples, 137, 177, 179, 243, 272. - - Napoleon I., 9, 19, 53-54, 75, 119, 124, 187, 238, 276, 278, 300. - - Napoleon III., 300. - - Narbonne, Autel de, 228. - - Nardus, M., 128. - - National Art-Collections Fund, 13. - - National Assembly, 8. - - National Convention, 8. - - National Gallery, 25-26, 35, 40, 57, 64, 86, 90, 91, 94, 97, 144, - 193, 211, 213, 223, 281, 303. - - “Naturalists,” 117, 120-121. - - Nuremberg, 161, 195. - - - Oldenburg, 194. - - Olivarez, Count Duke of, 180, 184. - - Osnabrück, 197. - - Ossuña, Duke of, 189. - - Otlet Sale, 134. - - - Padua, 79, 94. - - Panigarola, 93. - - Paracelsus, 194. - - Paris, 138. - - Parma, 9, 107, 113. - - Passeri, Marchesa, 90. - - Pavia, 93, 99, 105. - - Pazzi, Church of S. Maria Maddalena dei, 33. - - Pereire, Isaac, 174. - - Perrault, Claude, 156. - - Perugia, 9. - - Pesaro, 9. - - Philip II., 69, 71, 173, 195-196. - - Philip III., 140. - - Philip IV., 4, 176, 180, 183, 189. - - Philippe-Auguste, 1. - - Piacenza, 9. - - Picault, 45. - - Pieve di Cadore, 72. - - Piles, Roger de, 257. - - Pinacoteca Estense at Modena, 107. - - Pisa, 15, 19, 25. - - Pitti Palace, 9, 57. - - Pompadour, Mme. du, 265. - - Porter, Endymion, 148. - - Potocki, Count, 71. - - Pourtalès-Gorgier Sale, 65. - - Poussinistes, 257. - - Pozzo, Cassiano del, 37. - - Prato, 28. - - Prim, General, 288. - - Primitive Italian Pictures, 10. - - Primitives, Exhibition of French, 227-228, 231. - - - Quevedo, 189. - - Quthe, Pierre, 237. - - - Ravenna, 9. - - Récamier, Mme., 275. - - Renan, M. Ary, 30. - - René, King, 232. - - Rennes, 230. - - Republic, Second, 12. - - _Retable du Parliament_, 230. - - Riccardi Palace, 26. - - Richardot, Jean Grusset, 146. - - Richelieu, Cardinal, 5, 37, 246. - - Richmond, Duke of, 149. - - Rimini, 9, 85. - - Rio, Louis de, 196. - - Rolin, Chancellor Nicholas, 124. - - Rome, 9, 15, 18, 24-25, 115, 120, 137-138, 167, 173, 177, 243, 247, - 249, 260, 273-274, 278, 283, 291. - - Rospigliosi, Marie Madeleine, 118. - - Rothschild, Baron Arthur de, 219. - - Rothschild, Baroness N. de, 41. - - Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor, 209. - - Rothschild Family, 13. - - Rovere, Cardinal Giuliano della, 100. - - Roverella Family, 89. - - Royal Academy, London, 36. - - Rubenistes, 257. - - _Rucellai Madonna_, 15. - - Ruskin, 40. - - Ruyter, Admiral de, 150. - - - St. Bruno, 248. - - St. Cosmo and St. Damian, 30-31. - - St. Denis, 228. - - St. Gregory the Great, 17-18. - - St. Jerome, Legend of, 49. - - St. Omer, 133. - - Saint-Yenne, M. de la Fonte de, 7. - - Salon of 1673, 250. - - Salon, the, 8. - - San Gimignano, 25. - - Santa Fiora, Contessa di, 90. - - Saskia van Uylenborch, 203. - - Scrovegno, Enrico, 79. - - Sebastiani, General, 144. - - Sedelmeyer, M., 13, 304. - - Seville, 187, 188. - - Sforza, Anna, 70. - - Sforza, Francesco, 35. - - Sforza, Lodovico (Il Moro), 35-36, 38, 97, 105. - - Siena, 15, 111. - - Sigmaringen, 131. - - Sixtus IV., Pope, 100. - - Sketch-books of Jacopo Bellini, 62. - - _Société des Amis du Louvre_, 13, 30, 237. - - Somzée Collection, 230. - - Soult, Marshal, 12, 186-187. - - Spain, 22, 120, 127, 132, 135, 144, 171, 211, 244, 294. - - Steen, Castle of, 145. - - Steengracht, Baron H. A., 213. - - Stockholm, 130. - - Stoffels, Hendrickje, 203-204. - _Her Portrait_, Plate XXX. - - Stuttgart, 66, 202. - - Sultan Soliman, 76. - - Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, 165. - - - Tarnowski, Count, 203. - - Temple Newsam, 160. - - Thompson, Mr. F. Yates, 55. - - Thomy Thièry, 13, 292-293, 296. - - Toledo, 172-173. - - Tolentino, Treaty of, 9. - - Tornabuoni, Giovanna, 40. - - Tornabuoni, Lorenzo, 40. - - Tournai, 125. - - Tours, 11, 231, 235, 237. - - Toussaint, Abbé, 133. - - Trainel, Baron de, 231. - - _Transfiguration_, Raphael’s, 9. - - Trémoïlle, Duc de la, 30, 131. - - Tromp, Admiral Cornelis, 216. - - Tuileries, Palace of the, 3, 12. - - Tulipomania, 223. - - Turin, 125, 128. - - Turkey, 243. - - Tuscany, Duke of, 33. - - - Uffizi Gallery, 41, 57, 165. - - Ulm, 232. - - Ursins, Guillaume Juvénal des, 231. - - Utrecht, Union of, 135, 197. - - - Vair, Guillaume du, 139. - - Valladolid, 172. - - Van Asselen, 58. - - Vandeul, 13, 46. - - Vatican, 9. - - Venice, 93. - - Venice, Doge’s Palace, 74, 77. - - Venice, Gallery at, 10, 38, 75. - - Venturi, Dr., 30. - - Vercelli, 111. - - Verona, 83, 105. - - Verona, Church of San Zeno at, 11. - - Versailles, Château de, 6-7, 9, 12, 37, 58, 67, 77, 156, 252, 282. - - Vicenza, 109. - - Vicq, Baron Henri de, 144. - - Victoria and Albert Museum, 161, 304. - - Vienna, 123, 184, 194-195, 232, 238, 272. - - Vienna Academy, 141. - - Villa Lemmi frescoes, 40. - - Villa Magliana, 60. - - Villa Pelucca, 97. - - Villeneuve near Avignon, Chartreuse of, 233. - - Visconti Arese, Antonio Litta, 95. - - - Wallace Collection, 267. - - Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, William, 165. - - Weale, Mr. W. H. James, 126, 129. - - Westminster, Marquis of, 145. - - Whitehall, 145. - - Wignacourt, Alof de, 120. - - Wilczek Count, 232. - - William II. of Holland, 128. - - Windsor Castle, 63, 148. - - Windsor, Royal Library, 38. - - Wittenberg, 162-163. - - Wood, Hon. Edward, 160. - - Woverius, 140. - - - _Printed by_ MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED, _Edinburgh_ - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber’s note: - - - Blank pages have been removed. - - - Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. - - - Some missing or mismatched chapter headings have been corrected - to match the table of contents. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LOUVRE: FIFTY PLATES IN COLOUR*** - - -******* This file should be named 63719-0.txt or 63719-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/7/1/63719 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |