| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Louvre: Fifty Plates in Colour
Author: Brockwell, Maurice W., Konody, Paul G. (Paul George)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Louvre: Fifty Plates in Colour" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
COLOUR***
generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)
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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Louvre: Fifty Plates in Colour" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.