JAN, 4g 1

Luz 200, sad ;

ze University Library
ND 50.W:

‘Hua
THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,
 

LA MADONNA DI FOLIGNO, 1511.

(RAPHAEL. IN THE GALLERY OF THE VATICAN.)
Page 27.
THE

EPOCHS OF PAINTING

4 Biographical and Critical Essay

ON

PAINTING AND PAINTERS

OF ALL TIMES AND MANY PLACES.

BY

RALPH NICHOLSON WORNUM,

KEEPER AND SECRETARY, NATIONAL GALLERY,

LONDON:
CHAPMAN AND HALL, 193, PICCADILLY.

MDCCOLXIV.
[The Author reserves the right of Translation.]
R
  

    
 
 

ot
\ President White f
Library

m EIVED *

ou UN IVERg,
tle

   
       
Go the Memorp

OF

ROBERT WORNUM.

BORN OCTOBER ist, 1780,

DIED SEPTEMBER 29TH, 1852,
PROLOGUE.

Txoucu in the designation of this book I have retained the leading
words of the titles of two earlier works on the same subject—the
brief essay of 1847, and the enlarged edition prepared for the
Oxford Middle-class Examination, in 1859—it would be an injustice
to suffer this to be considered a mere revise of a former work.
Though founded upon, and incorporating all I have thought proper
to preserve of the essay of 1859, this Epocus or Parntine is a new
work, containing a vast mass of new matter, and much interesting
information that it was impossible to give in 1859, assuming that
there had been space for it, for since that time, through the active
researches of Dutch, Flemish, German, and Italian writers, many
very important biographical and other facts have been discovered ;
and they are still turning up monthly, rendering the revision of a
work of this kind a periodical necessity.

I speak of the various Epochs of Painting, but I do not pretend
to number them. Every variation of taste or practice in the art-
world constitutes a new Epoch, and many are those experienced in
the history of art, in all countries, whether caused by material
discoveries or the vagaries of fashion. There have been Epochs of
all kinds—heroic, hierarchic, historic, mythologic, ecclesiastic,
pietistic, ascetic, philosophic, histrionic, ethic, epic, lyric, satiric,
civic, romantic, anatomic, eclectic, machinistic, naturalistic, aca-
demic, iconic, and innumerable others.

I have preserved the plan of the earlier essays as regards the
division of the work into seven books and thirty-three chapters,
because, though my treatment of the subject is altered, the subject
vill PROLOGUE.

itself remains the same, and this particular division still meets my
plan: the arrangement, however, in detail, is somewhat altered,
and references to the earlier works will no longer suit this, except
in some very few cases; some chapters are run together, others are
separated into several, as, for example, Chapter XXXL, formerly
comprising all the Lowland painters noticed, except the school of
Bruges, is now enlarged into Chapters XXIII., XXX., and XXXI.
Of the nine chapters of the first book, devoted to ancient art, four
are new; the first, seventh, eighth, and ninth: the second book
remains much as it was: the five chapters of the third book are
all new; of the six chapters of the fourth book four are new, the
first, fourth, fifth, and sixth: of the four chapters of the fifth book
the first three are new: and the remaining seven chapters, consti-
tuting bvoks six and seven, are likewise almost entirely new.
Thus out of the whole thirty-three chapters, twenty-three are new,
in the place of twenty cancelled, and the remaining ten, comprising
thirteen of the enlarged work of 1859, have been carefully revised,
though but little altered. The amount of matter in this volume is
more than double that of the essay of 1859; the portions most
enlarged are those relating to Germany and the Low Countries,
Spain, France, and England especially ; these now have nearly as
much space devoted to them as is given to Italy and antiquity,
which occupied three-fourths of the previous volume. I trust that
the statistical table concluding the account of the British school, and
showing the entire contributions to the Academy Exhibitions, of
sixty of the more eminent British painters, may prove useful in
many ways.

T have not ventured to speak of the works of living men, in any
country; nor have I in this work noticed the revived art of
Germany ; the subject has now grown too large for an episode.
Indeed I do not find that interest in it which I formerly felt, nor
do I consider that it has fulfilled the promises of thirty years ago.
It has too much convention, and too little nature.

For some of the most important illustrations of this volume I am
indebted to the kindness of Mr. James S. Virtue.

Dates among the most important facts of historical works gene-
PROLOGUE, ix

rally are particularly important in books on painting and painters.
Half the worth of a picture to a collector depends, or ought to
depend, on its authenticity. It is a wearying labour, looking at a
long series of anonymous pictures: name them, and a new interest
is at once created: it is, however, but a depressing pilgrimage,
wandering in a boundless wilderness without landmarks, and the
art-lover is much in this predicament when he knows neither the
time of a picture nor the exact period of the supposed painter of
it. The dates of the birth and the death of a painter are two of the
most important facts of his life, not to himself only, but to all
posterity interested in his work, And it is remarkable what uncer-
tainty still exists in this respect, with reference to some of the
greatest painters: the date of the death is more especially
important. It is within the last few years only that the precise
dates have been ascertained of the birth or the decease of some of
the most popular masters in the history of Painting, as, for example,
in the cases of Masaccio, John van Eyck, Memling, Rembrandt,
Gerard Dou, Hobbema, and Holbein. M. E. Van Even, of Louvain,
has just added another name to the list; he has discovered, from
authentic documents, that Quintin Matsys was born in that city in
1466, and settled in Antwerp in 1490: his father and brother were
locksmiths, but if Quintin ever followed the same pursuit, he must
have very early forsaken it for painting, as he was already, in 1491,
a master of the Antwerp guild of Painters. It was on the faith of
the tradition that he had distinguished himself as a smith, that I
have, in the text, suggested about 1450 as the period of his birth:
we may next learn that Quintin’s popular story is.a mere romance.

The birth is anticipated, and a man is apparently unnaturally active
in his old age ; or it is deferred, and he is a phenomenon of precocity ;
his life is curtailed a dozen years at the other end, and we are
astonished at his activity; or it is prolonged by that amount of
time, and we find his works comparatively rare; or his contem-
poraries are robbed to make up the deficiency.

Holbein has suffered both ways; by retarding his birth three
years, he has been made unnaturally precocious, and by prolonging
x PROLOGUE.

his life eleven years, he has been made resporisible for a vast
amount of work, done after his death; and those who survived
him have been robbed of their deserts, their names have well nigh
perished ; and deluded collectors have been doating on imaginary
Holbeins.

The term of a man’s working life tells another way: when we
find some eight or nine hundred elaborately-painted pictures in
the various private and public galleries of Europe attributed to
the same man, we naturally assume that he must have laboured
diligently some sixty years at least, but when, on investigation, we
find that the span of his professional activity cannot have amounted
to at most. half that time, the whole artificial fabric of such attri-
bution must fall to pieces at once, as an absurdity; and that
instead of the eight or nine hundred pictures given to him by
the experts, some ninety is most surely to be a number nearer to:
the truth: I allude to Philip Wouverman, whose real work is in a
hopeless entanglement. f

Taking fifty of our own most eminent. painters, and computing
together the sum of their contributions to the Royal Academy
Exhibitions, from their first picture to their last, I find that the
average allowance for one is but 126 pictures, and many long and
active lives, and several portrait-painters, are comprised among
them. Wilkie exhibited 100 works, Mulready 78, and Leslie 76
only. I imagine therefore that there can scarcely be two opinions
on the importance of dates in the History of Painting. Wouver-
man’s working life was about half that of Mulready’s; assuming
him to have been twice as active, he may have painted some hundred
pictures or thereabout, which would leave us about 700 to distribute
among his contemporaries who laboured in the same field; as his
two brothers Pieter and Jan, Pieter Laer, Hugtenburg, and De
Vlieger. I would suggest, as a mere hint, by way of unravelling
this entanglement, that the best works conspicuous for their want of
manner be given to Philip himself, that the purple pictures be given
to Pieter, the frost scenes to Jan, the brown Italian-looking pictures,
which are not many, to Laer, the yellow works to Simon De
PROLOGUE. xi

Vlieger, and the bolder fresh pictures, chiefly of incidents of
battle, containing fewer and often larger details, to Hugtenburg.
The monograms can tell little either way, as it is as easy to paint
them in as to paint them out.

In this work I have endeavoured to attend especially to this
matter of dates, as well as to facts generally: I have written
of the ways of painters, not only as artists, but of their ways as
men also. I have indulged in the expression of my own opinion
on pictures only when I have felt a disinclination to reserve it,
but I have generally ventured on some remarks characterising the
painter’s style: description of pictures I have asa rule avoided, and
the reader will not often find himself troubled by such an improvi-
dent use of space, at the same time tiresome and profitless ; anyhow,
my single volume contains too many facts to admit of such an indul-
gence, and the substitution of mere opinion and description for
facts would be simply an impertinence.

The commercial value of pictures is an element I have generally
avoided, though the remuneration of painters, especially of remoter
periods, I have generally noted, when possible. The art value of a
picture is intrinsic, the commercial value is an accident depending
on the characteristics of the passing epoch. The vagaries of taste
have sometimes,made comparatively worthless works of art objects
of great request, and have thus enhanced the price, in enhancing
the demand, which, with the rise of a new fancy in a succeeding
epoch, is sure to sink again to its natural level. Of course each
generation considers its own taste infallible; but the vicissitudes
of taste show how fallacious such a consolation is; and I take it
for granted that the market prices as indicated in auction-rooms
are no test whatever of the real value of pictures, though truly good
works of art are sure to maintain eventually a permanent apprecia-
tion, Sometimes a mere name, right or wrong, sets a price upon
a picture; and just as often the mere fact that a few wealthy
buyers require to fill gaps in their collections, gives to pictures a
forced price, as well as a false name, out of all proportion to their
intrinsic worth as art creations.
xii PROLOGUE.

My authorities are given throughout in the references, which
will be found to constitute a very comprehensive Bibliography of
Painting: and the more important or general works are grouped
together at the end of each chapter or separate subject.

May, 1864.
CONTENTS.

BOOK I.

AncrenT Parntine: 17s Brrtu, GRowrTu, AND DEcuine.
CHAPTER

I. Asiatic Art .
II. Egyptian Painting
III. Early Art in Greece and Asia Minor
IV. Development of Painting in Greéce : about 600 B.c. 7 aieseniia Style
V. Period of Establishment: about 400 8.c.—Dramatic Style.—Indi-
viduality 3 .
VI. Period of Refinement: about 340 B.C. 5 eitael csderciatiege of the
mere Form of Art: the development of the essential powers of
Painting superseded by mere technical excellence as an end .
VII. The Decline: the ancient genre-painters: from about 300 B.c.
VIII. Roman Painting: Portraits: Decorative Art
IX. Ancient remains: Methods: Colours used .

BOOK II.
Tue Dark Aces—Superstition—ByzantTine Ant.

X. The Destructions. Early Christian Painting—Representative Art
XI. The Manuscript Mluminations: from about 500 a.p. ‘

BOOK ITI.

PAGE

18
24

34

58
62
68

76
86

Tue RENAISsANCE— DEVOTIONAL ART—ASCENDANCY OF SENTIMENT

—New TEcanics.

XII. The Revival of Painting in Italy in the thirteenth century : Cimabue

and Giotto. The Giotteschi . . 3 :

XIII. Individuality of Form: the Antagonism of’ Art with Tradition :
Masaccio and his contemporaries

95

119
Xiv CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE
XIV. The Early Schools of ics and the Netherlands. The Van

Eycks—1410 . : . 180
XV. New Technics—Oil Painting. The School of iia Van Bycks:
Antonello da Messina: the Early Flemish and Dutch Oil-

painters . j . . - 142
XVI. The Quattrocentisti, or itor of the fifteenth century in asta
Umbria, Venetia, Bologna, and Naples. Progression from the
Representative to the Imitative, through the gradual develop-

ment of Naturalism . : : ; ‘ _ : . 155

BOOK Iv.

Tue Re-ESTABLISHMENT OF PAINTING; THE CINQUECENTO SCHOOLS: Co-oRDI-
NATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENSUOUS AND THE SENTIMENTAL : MaToRITY
AND MASTERY A SECOND TIME.

XVII. The Florentine School : Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Bartolomeo, and

Michelangelo Buonarroti: ideal form . ‘ , : . 186

XVIII. The Roman School: Raphael: the Cartoons 203
XIX. The Frescoes of Raphael and Michelangelo in the Vatican Fee

1508 to 1541. , . 219

XX. The School of Raphael ; drninatio sorepnatiian dignity of _ . 281
XXI. The Schools of Lombardy—Chiaroscuro: Correggio, and Parmi-

giano ‘ 239
XXII. The Venetian ehicsleactaares Giondone ae ‘Titian, aed their
followers . ‘ ‘ - i ‘ i t i . 248
BOOK V.

TRANSALPINE ART. DETERIORATION oF PattTine in Itaty, THROUGH
THE ASCENDANCY OF THE Sensuous ELement oF ART. MATERIALISM
AND ECLECTICISM.

XXIII. The Schools of the Netherlands, under Italian influence. Church
Patronage _ . . . : . . 267

XXIV. Albert Diirer and his. cruteinpaneeae the Italianized Art of
Germany . . » 279

XXV. The Anatomical Macnerista at Boing ond Pharonnet in the sixteenth
century . . . : ° + 303

XXVI. The Eclectic School of the ee at Baopts, ats 1595 - 815
CONTENTS. xv

BOOK VI.
ProcresstvE DEcLINE : THE ACADEMICIANS AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES :
UNiForMITY IN THE PLACE of INDIVIDUALITY, FoR Nature an ArtiI-
FICIAL MECHANISM.

CHAPTER PAGE

XXVIL. The Carracceschi: Academic style. The Tenebrosi at Rome and
Naples. : 324

XXVIII. The Academic Schools of Italy ; in the weiner fs aes sicioth
centuries: the Naturalisti and Macchinisti . 3 . 843

XXIX. The Schools of Painting in Spain; technical influence of Cara-
vaggio: asceticism . : ‘ . : ‘ . 371

BOOK VII.

Revrvat or ParntTinc.—ExPEDIENCY anpd Common SENSE.

XXX. New vitality in the Netherlands; the subjective styles of Rubens
and Rembrandt, succeeded. by the highest objective develop-
ment of the art .. ‘ ‘ . 396
XXXI. The Dutch and Flemish “genre” and bates painters and
their imitators, Imitation to Illusion the established prin-
ciple of Painting. Pictures now agrecable articles of furniture 437
XXXII. Painting in France—Distinctively characterized by the influence
of the Antique—A buse of the Ideal of Form—David. Reaction 461
XXXITI. Painting in England—Distinctively characterized by the influence
* of Rembrandt, mediately through Sir Joshua Reynolds—Colour
and effect as an end. Imitative Revival : ‘ . 490

Epilogue * “ » 558
Table of Clnbethactions to he Hewil ieee Exhibitions . 566—571
Index. ‘ ; ‘ é : e i 5 . 573
ILLUSTRATIONS.

An Egyptian Artist at work. British Museum

An Egyptian Entertainment. British Museum

A Domestic Supper-party. Pompeii : :

Figure, from the House of the Female Dancers. Pompeii .

Funambuli, or Dancing Fauns. Pompeii :

Jobn preaching in the Wilderness. By Giotto, in the Carmine, Florence _

Peter and Paul restoring a youth to life. By Masaccio and Filippino = s

Figure of St. Paul. In the Brancacci Chapel, Florence

From the “Entombment.” In the Pitti a a Pietro Perugino

Head of Leonardo da Vinci

Head of Michelangelo Buonarroti

Head of Raphaello Santi

“Lo Sposalizio.” Raphael, in the Brom, Milan 4

La Madonna di Foligno, 1511. Raphael, in the Gallery a the ations

The School of Athens. Raphael, in the Vatican 5 ‘ 5

Jonah. Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo . < ; 3 s

From the “ Heliodorus.” Raphael, in the Vatican .

Julio Romano. ‘The Woman taken in Adultery.” From ‘this Engraving by
Diana Ghisi .

Moses Breaking the Tables of ‘the Law. Purmiviniy

“San Sebastiano.” By Titian, in the Gallery of the Vatican 5 s

Virgin and Infant Christ. Albert Diirer Fi ¥ . a ‘

Christ Mocked. Albert Diner ‘ a

“Communion of St, Jerome.” Domenichino, i in n the Gallery of the Vatican ‘

The Rospigliosi “ Aurora.” By Guido, Rome .

Santa Petronilla. Guercino, in the Capitol, Rome

Cupids. Albani . ;

St. Romualdo. Andrea Bacckd, Rome

Flight into Egypt. Rembrandt

From an Etching by Rembrandt

Sportsman. Metsu, the Hague

Shed, with Horses. Wouverman . 3

Crossing the Ford. Adrian Vandevelde . .

Cornfield. Ruysdael . : F ‘i ji

A Girl Milking a Goat. Berdhem si : : ‘

Still-Life. Kalf . ‘ : ‘

Wreck of the Medusa. Chationult . 4

Lear. After a study, by Sir Joshua Reynolds ‘

Marriage “ A la Mode.” Hogarth %

On the Stour. Constable d r .

Group from the Village Festival. Wilkie

551
THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

BOOK IL

ANCIENT PAINTING; ITS BIRTH, GROWTH, AND DECLINE.

 

CHAPTER I.

ASIATIC ART.

‘Tat the degree of excellence in the fine arts attainable by any
nation igs limited according to the nature of its climate, was a
favourite theme with a few writers in the latter part of the last
century. That any considerable excess of either heat or cold may
materially influence the human mind and character as well as body
is sufficiently evident; but that the differences of climate in the
various regions of the temperate zone can have any important influ-
ence in regulating the greater or less degree of the intellectual
faculty of man, is a theory which appears to be contrary to the
evidence of experience ; and in the case of the fine arts, is sufficiently
contradicted by the present high state of excellence of many
branches of art in nations of Europe where formerly the arts of
Painting and Sculpture scarcely existed, and of which the climates
vary considerably from those of Greece and Italy. If a particular
and warm climate were requisite towards the development of a
natural taste and ability for art, then every nation within the
Grecian latitudes might, according to the similarity of climate, ex-
pect to possess artists more or less Grecian in quality and degree.
An opposite conclusion would be equally justifiable by the present
state of art in Europe, and a warm climate might be said to be
prejudicial to the development of art. The arts have scarcely a
home in Greece at present ; and they are in a very languid state and
of a low degree in other southern countries of Europe when com-
pared with the high character of the modern French, English, or

B
2 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

German schools, or with their state in other northern parts, not even
excepting the ice-girt capital of Russia.

If the genius of Painting appear to be fickle because she has
hitherto abided not long with the same pedple, climate is certainly
not one of the causes of her apparent love of change. It has been
often asserted that the arts cannot remain stationary. Every school
has had its rise and fall, and with few nations have three centuries
passed without very great changes having taken place in the state of
tae arts among them : Egypt appears to present an exception from this
rule: but the arts never attained to maturity in Egypt. Painting
never even acquired that development which was reached by its sculp-
ture, and both arts have been wholly abandoned there since the estab-
lishment of Christianity. In Egypt and Greece, and throughout agreat
part of Asia, the Mohamedan religion rendered a resuscitation of the
arts in the middle ages impossible; and at all times religion and
government have been the most influential ‘causes of the rise or
decline of art.

The arts of India, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Italy, and Spain, were
controlled by, or dependent upon, their respective religions; they
flourished more or less according to the liberty allowed the artist,
and the state of respect in which he was held by his fellow-men.
In no other country was the artist so much respected personally as
in Greece, and in no other country have the arts ever attained to
such perfection as in Greece. The remains of imitative art amongst
almost all Asiatic people, but particularly the Indians and Persians,
are chiefly sculptural or toreutic.1 The remains of painting in Asia
and in Egypt are comparatively few, and it was probably practised
to a much less extent than sculpture, though from its more perish-
able nature there would naturally be fewer monuments of it than of
toreutic art, of which many specimens have been found and still
exist not only in Egypt, but in Persia, India, and other Asiatic
countries, and they possess many excellent points of design. The
sculptures of Persepolis, Nakshi Roustam, Nakshi Rajab, and Shiraz,
so long undervalued, were shown by the excellent drawings of Sir
R. Ker Porter to possess merits unknown to the ponderous works of
Egypt, and to be little inferior to the best sculptures found in Asia
Minor.

A great development of formative art is not to be expected among
the Asiatics or the Egyptians when we consider the hierarchical vas-
salage of art, and the never-ceasing censorship of a jealous priest-
hood, which invariably prescribed the rules by which artists worked.
There was apparently no dramatic or formative art for its own sake

1 Toreutic (4 ropevtixn) in its widest sense signifies purely formative art in any

style and in any material, modelled, carved, or cast; but the term is sometimes re-
stricted to metallic carvings or castings in basso-rilievo.
ASIATIC ART. 3

among the Egyptians or the Asiatics not originally Greek ; all
Oriental remains of art are monumental, and of a symbolic and
superstitious character, or mere hieroglyphics. The technical
characteristics of these remains are detail of execution, uniformity
of design, symmetrical composition, positive or brilliant colour in
painting ; and in sculpture, especially among the Egyptians, colossal
form. The execution of Egyptian sculpture though it is not so
varied is generally superior to that of Indian: the sculptures of
Persepolis are well proportioned, and the heads are executed with
much characteristic detail ; the physiognomy is Jewish ; the animals
also are expressed with great power, particularly in the combats of
the Pontiff King with various monsters.

The Assyrian marbles also recently imported into this country,
and now arranged in the British Museum, display a similar grandeur
of style, and are a noble example of the conventional art of
antiquity.

All the ancient people of Asia, Africa, and America, in all their
traditions as developed in their art-remains, seem to have been
guided by one and the same principle—the symbolic or hierogly-
phic: the Indians and Chinese in Asia, the Egyptians and Ethio-
pians in Africa, and the Mexicans and Peruvians in America.

There is little to be said about the remains of Asiatic painting ;
but this is a result brought about by something else besides the
decay of time. In the Mohamedan districts, imitative art is rigidly
proscribed ; and as this faith is spread over wide districts of Asia,
it is not to be expected that much can have escaped the plastic
antipathy and iconoclastic zeal of the proselytizing Arabs or other
Mohamedan races.

In comparing the ruins of the temples and the cities of Egypt,
with those of India, we find the remains of painting considerably
less in India than in Egypt. In Indian architectural remains, deco-
rations in basso-rilievo prevail, while in Egypt there is preserved a
vast amount of flat painting, as well as the coloured reliefs. Still
colour, no doubt entered into the elements of effect aimed at by the
Indian sculptors and those who directed them. Captain Seely found
ona close inspection of the goddess Indranee at Elora, that her eyes
were formed of highly-polished black stones, and that her face was
coloured with red ochre.’

Two periods are assigned to Indian art, the Braminical and the
Buddhist: all existing remains belonging to the latter. The old
Bramins like the Hierarchs of Egypt had the arts under their own
control, and they were applied essentially to religious purposes. In

1 Sir R. Ker Porter’s “Travels in Georgia, Persia,” &e.
2 Seely’s “ Wonders of Elora,” p. 250.
B2
4 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the neighbourhood of the Ganges and on the coast of Malabar,
Painting has existed from a very remote period, and there are
remains of it from the time of the Pagodas of Salsette, Mahamalaipur,
Perwuttum, Elephanta, and the caves of Elora. The last are sup-
posed to be of a date subsequent to Buddha, or as recent as about
five centuries before our era. The Bramins date their origin from
Eel or Eeloo Rajah, who is said to have executed them about 6000
years before Christ; and according to a Mohamedan account, they
were made as late as the ninth century.’

Among the most important earlier examples of Indian painting
are the illustrations of the “Ragmalas” which are noticed by Sir
William Jones in his essay on the ‘“‘ Musical Modes of the Hindoos.”?
They are upon chalk grounds in water colours, and executed with a
fine hair pencil. The colours of these Indian drawings are clean
and lively, but their pretensions as regards form, light and shade, or
composition, are of the humblest degree, resembling the crudest of
medizval works in Europe. The symplegmas or beast-aggregates
are characteristic designs both of the painting and the sculpture of
the Hindoos. They consist of bodies of many beasts or human
beings united into one figure, commonly representing the attributes
of their deities; but Rajahs and Princes are also thus represented,
seated on horses or elephants formed of the women of their harems.
The British Museum contains several good examples of these re-
markable compositions,—elephants composed of women, the groups
of some of which are skilfully arranged; and the portraits of the
various women are delicately drawn and with some variety of
expression.®

Bishop Heber in his “ Narrative ’ says the paintings of the palace
of Jeypoor, which are entirely mythological, reminded him, in style
of colouring, in the attitude of the figures, and in the general gloom
of the effect, of Belzoni’s model of the Egyptian Tomb.

Forbes in his “ Oriental Memoirs,” speaking of the principal
temple of Chandode, in Gujerat, says—the interior of the dome,
which is forty feet in diameter, is painted by artists from Ahmeda-
bad, with subjects from the Hindoo mythology. They are executed
in distemper, very durable in that climate. The drawing he de-

994

1 Sir Charles Malet, Asiatic Researches, vol. vi.

*,He refers especially to the Rigaméla of Mr. Hay, drawn and engraved by the
scholars of Cipriani and Bartolozzi— Works, p. 431, vol. i. 4to ed.

3 See MSS. 18,802 and 18,803 containing uw variety of Hindoo drawings and
portraits, No. 11,747 contains some good similar examples of costume of the
Persians, among which a “ Lion Hunt” exhibits more than usual energy. A very
fine collection of Indian drawings, the “Shah Nama,” is in the Royal Library at
Windsor,

4 Vol. ii p. 404. 5 Vol. iii. p. 16.
ASIATIC ART. 5

scribes as bad, and the style altogether hard, incorrect, and deficient
in the effect of light and shade: a light and dark shade being seem-
ingly all the painters were acquainted with. The modern artists,
he says, have no idea of middle tints or the harmony of colouring,
but in the character of their outline their efforts bear a rude resem-
blance to the designs on the Greek and Etruscan vases.

The same writer remarks that the palaces of Indian princes are
frequently disfigured with indelicate paintings, as inferior in execu-
tion as they are wretched in taste.

With the modern Indians portrait painting seems to have been
fashionable in the last century, if not earlier. Bishop Heber de-
scribes some portraits in oil, which he saw in the house of a wealthy
Baboo of Benares, as being well executed. And Colonel Todd in
the “ Annals of Mewar,” relating the history of Sanga Rana, says—
“T possess his portrait given to me by the present Rana, who has a
collection of full-lengths of all his royal ancestors, from Samarsi to
himself, of their exact heights and with every bodily peculiarity,
whether of complexion or form. They are valuable for the costume.
He has often shown them to me, while illustrating their actions.”

Mr. Mill also in his “ History of British India,” speaking of the
Hindoo powers of copying, notices the exactness of their portraits,
as to mapping out features or figures, but deplores their want of
taste and power of catching the expression, and their total ignorance
of perspective. Tennant in his “Indian Recreations,” speaking of
Indian painters, observes :— The laborious exactness with which
they imitate every feather of a bird, or the smallest fibre on the leaf
of a plant, renders them valuable assistants in drawing specimens of
natural history ; but further than this they cannot advance one step.
If your bird is to be placed on a rock,, or upon the branch of a tree,
the draughtsman is at a stand; the object is not before him and his
imagination can supply nothing.”

This last objection is perhaps rather a merit than a defect, if the
painter will make the effort to supply his want of imagination by
recourse to nature: one of the fatal defects of European painters
has been and is, too great a readiriess to substitute their own
imaginings for nature.

Painting, like other things in China has undergone probably but
little change for ages. Critiques upon the recent state of Chinese
painting are not wanting in the reminiscences of Chinese travellers,
and we have had some opportunities of inspecting their art in this
country. 7

Jean Denis Attiret, a French painter, called Frére Attiret, lived
many years at Pekin, and died there a great favourite with the

1 Page 307 note. 2 Vol. ii. pp. 35, 36. 3 Vol. i. p. 299.
6 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Emperor Kéen-Loong, who created Attiret a Mandarin, but as a
Jesuit, the Frenchman could not assume the distinction: he had
joined the missionaries in China in 1737, and died in Pekin in 1768,
having spent the whole period in the service of the Chinese
emperor.

An account of Attiret, by Pére Amiot, appeared in the ‘‘ Journal
des Scavans,” for June, 1771, according to which Attiret himself
admitted that he was surpassed by the Chinese painters in several
accessary departments of his works; as in the costume, in the
animals, and even in the landscape, which parts he consequently
generally intrusted to his Chinese assistants, of whom he employed
many.

In 1758, and following years, the Emperor Keen-Loong obtained
several victories over the Tartar tribes of the north-west, and in
1754, he sent for Attiret to paint his triumphs on the spot. Attiret
produced many pictures from the studies he made on this occasion,
which were highly prized by the Emperor, and carefully preserved
in his palace at Pekin: it was considered a special privilege to
inspect them, and they were shown only by the permission of the
emperor. They consisted of processions, triumphs, festivals, &c.,
and were executed with such care and attention to historical truth,
says Father Amiot, that many officers, who had distinguished them-
selves, had to travel many hundred leagues to sit to Attiret for
their portraits.’

Giuseppe Castiglione, another missionary and painter, also made
many drawings for the Emperor of China, but, by express order,
strictly in the Chinese taste. An old eunuch of Yuen-min-Yuen
endeavoured to pass off some of these drawings to Sir John Barrow,
as the work of a native artist.

This introduction of European art among the Chinese cannot but
have exerted some influence on the taste of their own painters,
though little enough, as appears from Barrow’s “ Travels in China.”
When Lord Macartney: went on his embassy to the Emperor of
China, he took with him among other presents for the emperor, a
portrait of George III. This picture was attentively examined by
several illustrious Chinese, and one of the ministers observed,
alluding to the shadows, and especially that under the nose, “ it is
a great pity it is spoiled by the dirt on the face,” a criticism which
is borne out certainly by their own practice, as seen in the examples
of their portraits which have reached this country. There is fault
doubtless, on both sides, the Chinese give too little, and the

‘ Sixteen of these or similar drawings, were brought to France to be engraved
at the Emperor's expense, by C. N. Cochin the younger. The prints are extremely
searce in Europe, as with the exception of a few examples reserved for the Royal
Family of France and the Library of Paris, they were all sent to China.
ASIATIC ART. 7

Europeans too much, shadow. They reason that because our vision
is imperfect, and that we see things rather as they appear than as
they are, is not a justification for misrepresenting nature.

To judge, however, from the specimens of portraiture by Chinese
painters, in the exhibition at Hyde Park Corner, in 1842, when
upwards of three hundred Chinese pictures were exhibited, the
Chinese portrait painters seem to have been much belied by travel-
lers, or they must have made great progress during the early part
of this century.

In the many examples of their painting there exhibited, bright
colouring was by no means the chief excellence displayed, nor were
the flower pieces the best examples shown. The glass paintings,
rice-paper drawings, and furniture decorations, were generally such
as we are familiar with; but they are evidently the conventional
works of journeymen rather than painters.

Some of the decorations bore a strong resemblance to the ancient
paintings of Pompeii, but surpassed them even, in their display of per-
spective. Others bore great resemblance in character to the average
works of the early German painters; as the military exercises or
reviews, in which some of the soldiers are represented holding
shields at arms-length, covered with hideous devices.

Of all the works in this Collection, the portraits in oil were cer-
tainly the best. There was one of an old money-broker, which was
excellent, the shading very skilfully managed, and the old broker
would have not easily procured a better portrait in London or in
Paris.2 Some of the landscapes also had great merit, but those in
oil were generally muddy and very heavy. Of perspective both
prospective and architectural there were many good specimens, but
the point of sight was generally chosen injudiciously high.

As arule, chiaroscuro is wholly neglected by the Chinese painters,
and shadow of any kind but little attended to; and their reputation
for brilliancy of colouring was not corroborated by this exhibition,
except in their drawings of birds, insects, and flowers. In this
class of drawings, says Sir John Barrow, judging from examples he
saw in China, the Chinese have reached an exactness and brilliancy
which European painters have not yet attained. The same writer,
however, notices their extreme difficulty in drawing the naked
figure, and gives an instance. He says ‘‘the Emperor's favourite
draughtsman, who may of course be supposed as good or better than
others of the same profession in the capital, was sent to make draw-
ings of some of the principal presents, to carry to his master then in

! Such shields may now be seen at Woolwich.

2 The number of this picture is 1330 in the catalogue. See “ Descriptive Cata-
logue of the Chinese Collection, now exhibiting at St. George’s Place, Hydv Park
Corner, London, &. By W. B. Langdon,” 1842.
8 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Tartary, as elucidations of the descriptive catalogue. This man
after various unsuccessful attempts to design the elegant time-pieces
of Vulliamy supported by beautiful figures of white marble, suppli-
_cated my assistance in the matter, which he represented as of the
last importance to himself. It was in vain to assure him that I was
no draughtsman; he was determined to have the proof of it; and he
departed extremely well satisfied in obtaining a very mean per-
formance with the pencil to copy after, or cover with his China ink.”
Every part of the machines, except the naked figures, he drew with
neatness and accuracy, but all his attempts to draw these figures
were preposterous.

The works of the Japanese are similar to those of the Chinese, but
in many respects the Japanese appear to surpass their continental
neighbours in both taste and general excellence of execution.

About twelve centuries past, during the religious disturbances, in
the eastern districts of Asia, between the followers of Buddha and
those of Bramah, it is supposed that certain hordes wandered over
from Tartary to the western coast of North America, and after several
revolutions, were the founders of the Mexican empire as discovered
and conquered by Cortez in the fifteenth century. The Aztecs
of Anahuac have a remarkable species of pictorial hieroglyphic, but
which seems to have served rather as a representative record than a
symbolic hieroglyphic such as the Egyptian. These records are
drawn and coloured upon a kind of paper made from the aloe, called
metl by the Mexicans; they were most of them destroyed by the
fanatic zeal of the missionary Archbishop Zummaraga. There are,
however, several collections of them now preserved in Europe, fac-
similes of which have been published by Lord Kingsborough.? Spe-
cimens of what may be strictly called painting, are sufficiently rare ;
the majority of the designs or hieroglyphics being grotesque human
figures composed of various objects, but often with a well-defined
expression in the heads, though the features are but indicated. As
one of the few examples of drawing, may be instanced a well-marked
figure of a man, naked, with hands and arms extended, and from
twenty different parts of whose body proceed twenty various
hieroglyphic symbols, said to have reference to so many distinct
diseases, or so many parts subject to disease: the figure is some
species of talisman consulted by Mexican physicians.®

1 An interesting account of the preparation and the quality of Chinese pigments
appeared in the Mechanic’s Magazine for 1824, signed William Galward.

2 « Antiquities of Mexico; comprising Fac-Similes of ancient Mexican Paintings
and Hieroglyphics,” by A. Aglio, 9 vols., folio, 1830-48—a magnificent work.

5 See “Mexican Antiquities,” plate 75 of a Vatican manuscript, in the second
volume, and vol. vi., p. 222; plates 76, 77, and 78 of this MS. are also remarkable;

as are likewise some from the so-called *« Codex Telleriano-Remensis” in the Paris
Library, both for their subjects and their execution.
 

 

EGYPTIAN ARTIST AT WORK, (British Musrom.)

Page 9.
EGYPTIAN PAINTING. 9

Nearly all the figures in these singular records are in profile,
and their general characteristics are thick heads, large noses, thin
bodies, and very long toes. Sometimes they are merely outlines of
the most imperfect kind; some of the figures are black, and some
are without hands or feet; the last are possibly chronicles of
punishment. The Mexicans were most barbarous in their customs;
human sacrifices are prominent in these illustrations. Representa-
tions also of the hanging of missionaries occur often. In one tablet,
published in Humboldt’s “ Views of the Cordilleras,”' is a repre-
sentation of Eve in conversation with the serpent. It is supposed
that this Jewish tradition was spread over the Asiatic countries
by the Nestorians, though it may just as easily have been handed
down by much more ancient tribes.

The figures drawn upon the rocks by the Hottentots at the Cape
of Good Hope, may be classed with these efforts of the Aztecs.
They are the Hottentot chronicle of the first Dutch invasion of the
Cape, and the invaders are represented as short thick figures emit-
ting fire from long tubes in their mouths; such was the Hottentot
notion of the musketeer.

CHAPTER II.

EGYPTIAN PAINTING.

Eeyprian painting cannot be reviewed separately from Egyptian
sculpture, and its history belongs rather to the history of science and
archeology than to that of imitative art; for the art of Egypt, purely
symbolic in its principle and historic in its practice, was the mere
tool of a hierarchy, and its artists the slaves of superstition. All
Egyptian pictures appear to be simple records, social, superstitious,
or political, and Egyptian painting was accordingly more a symbolic
writing than a liberal art—in a word, a coloured hieroglyph. It is,
however, owing to this centralization and unity of purpose that
Egyptian art has acquired its almost perennial durability, and that
imposing grandeur of its works now so impressive upon the modern
traveller along the banks of the Nile.
The Eternal Pyramids,

Memphis and Thebes, and whatsoe’er of strange,

Sculptured on alabaster obelisk,

Or jasper tomb, or mutilated Sphinx,

Dark Ethiopia on her desert hills

Conceals?

1 Pl. 13, No. 2, p. 101. 2 Shelley, “Spirit of Solitude.”
10 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The history of art in Egypt may be divided into two periods, each
subject to various changes and revolutions. What took place
during the reign of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, before and
during the period of the Israelite captivity, and during the imme-
diate generations preceding the eighteenth dynasty, or that of
Rhamses the Great, or Sesostris, who lived about fourteen centuries
before the Christian wra, may be considered the incunabula or first
beginnings of Egyptian art, of which we know nothing beyond what
is said by Moses in the Book of Genesis and in the account of the
Exodus.

From this time then, about 1400 3.c., until the short reign of
Psammetichus, the son of Amasis, about 525 B.c., when the Egyptians
were subdued by the Persians under Cambyses, and Egypt became
a Persian province, may be considered the first, or the Sesostrid
period. This is the great era of Egyptian art, and the establish-
ment of the dynasty of Sesostris constitutes its chief subject. Two
epochs of this period are divided by the Ethiopian invasion of
Sabacos, about 800 B.c., when a period of anarchy ensued which
continued until order was restored by the twelve kings and by
Psammetichus, about a century afterwards.

The second period embraces the styles of Egyptian art under
foreign influence, and brings us down to the latest times of the
Roman Empire. The first epoch of this period was that of the Ptole-
mies, from 332 B.c. until the death of Marcus Antoninus in 30 B.c.;
the second was that of the Roman Emperors after the conquest;
from the death of Marcus Antoninus and the establishment of the
Roman Empire under Augustus until the invasion of the Arabs
638 A.D.

In'the latter period the arts were still active in Egypt, especially
in the reign of Hadrian, but they had lost their Egyptian character,
and, like most other arts in Asia and Africa, after the division of
the Roman Empire into East and West, chiefly through the esta-
blishment of Christianity, rapidly declined, and were finally
obliterated through the hordes of Arabs who eventually possessed
themselves of the southern portions of the Eastern empire. The
Arabic occupation was more fatal to Egypt than any of the preceding
invasions.

Pliny’ tells us that, according to their own account, the Egyptians
had been masters of painting full six thousand years before it passed.
from them to the Greeks, ‘“‘a vain boast, as is evident,” says Pliny.
The Egyptians were certainly what is termed a “civilized people”
at a very early date ; the Israelite Exodus took place about 1491
B.c., after a sojourn in Egypt of 215 years; and the journey into

1 «Hist Nat.” xxxv, 5—15,
EGYPTIAN PAINTING. 11

Egypt took place long after the visit of Abraham, when Egypt was
already a populous and wealthy country—‘ The riches of the world
were poured into the coffers of Pharaoh.” Artists of almost every
description were among the Jews at the Exodus, and the arts of the
Jews were of course the arts of the Egyptians. Moses, however,
does not speak of painters.

Plato speaks of an antiquity which renders the six thousand
years of Pliny but a moderate age. In alluding to the works of
art which were executed in his own time, he compares them with
works which, he says, according to the traditions of the priests,
were of a date ten thousand years anterior, yet he did not discover
the slightest difference of style between them. But the reason of
this similarity, even supposing them to have been executed at
periods remote from each other, he has himself explained. He
states that painters and sculptors were forbidden to introduce any
change or innovation whatever into the practice of their respective
arts, or in any way to add to them. Thus, through an established
style of art in perpetuum, the practice of the Egyptian artists was
uniform from generation to generation, and perpetually the same,
according to the rules prescribed. We learn also from Synesius,?
that it was considered a necessary system, that painting and
sculpture should not be practised by illiterate people, lest they
should attempt anything contrary to the established order of sacred
things; among which the representations of the gods were certainly
of the first importance.

This similarity is also partly explained by Diodorus,’ who informs
us that the Egyptians did not judge of the proportions of a statue by
the eye alone, as he says the Greeks did, but that they first made a
small statue as a model, then divided it into a number of parts, from
which, in the same number of parts and in any given proportion,
they executed their large statues. They divided the whole figure
into 21} parts, in which were comprised all the proportions of the
body; when therefore the size of the statue was agreed upon, the
sculptors could work separately, each on his own part or portion of
the figure; and it is surprising, says Diodorus how well they
succeeded in producing pieces that exactly fitted to one another.
Such a practice shows a well-established system of conventional
proportions. Egyptian painting is undoubtedly an art of great
antiquity, and probably as old as any other art practised by the
Egyptians, and certainly coeval with their sculpture. The Greeks
themselves appear to have considered Egypt as, in a great measure,
the parent of civilization. ‘The people of this country,” says
Herodotus,’ “ first invented the names of the twelve gods, and

1 “De Leg.” ii. p. 656. ® “De Providentia.” *Lic.98 4 Lita &
12 E THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

from them the Greeks borrowed them. They were the first also
who erected altars, shrines, and temples; and none before them
ever engraved the figures of animals on stone. Lucian also, in
his treatise upon the Syrian Goddess, says, that it was the generally
received opinion that the Egyptians were the first who conceived a
notion of the gods, consecrated temples, and instituted assemblies
for the purposes of divine worship; that these temples and sanc-
tuaries were at first without sculptures, but that eventually they set
up images of the gods in them; and the Egyptian worship passed
on to the Assyrians. The Egyptian was not originally an animal
worship ; this practice, says Plutarch,’ arose from an opinion that it
was a greatermark of respect to worship their gods in an animate than
in aninanimate form. Porphyrius says they worshipped originally
but one god,? and Herodotus also shows that they retained the idea
of a god, self-existent, and from eternity to eternity. They believed
in the immortality of the soul.*

Tn the opinion of Heeren and others‘ Ethiopia was the parent of
Egyptian civilization. And Heeren supposes El Megaourah, a
valley in the desert about nine leagues south of Chendy, where
there is a vast collection of ruins, to have been the locality of the
ancient Ammonium, the original seat of the oracle of Jupiter
Ammon, ‘whence issued those religious colonies which carried
civilization, arts, and religion from Ethiopia as far as the Delta and
the Oasis of the Libyan desert ;” and it was the source of the “ far-
famed oracle, which at last found its most hallowed abode in the
wide plains of Thebes, and on the sand-girt islands of the Wady
Sivah.”

There are very few historical facts known connected with the
history of painting in Egypt, but the earliest portrait, and one of
the earliest pictures on record, is an Egyptian painting, namely the
portrait of Amasis, king of Egypt, mentioned by Herodotus.> Amasis,
upwards of six centuries B.c., sent a golden image of Minerva and
his own painted portrait to the Greeks established at Cyrene—xiu
zxdva eavrov yoagm éxacueyny. He sent two wooden images of
himself to the Hereeum or Temple of Juno at Samos, which were
still there in the time of Herodotus: and he sent also a curious
_ linen cuirass to the Temple of Minerva, at Lindus, in Rhodes.. It is
quite probable that his own picture was a complete full-face por-
trait, and painted upon panel. Such portraits have of late years been
found in mummy-cases attached to the mummies, and they are

1 “De Isid. et Osir.” 2 “De Abstinentia,” iv. 6. 3 Herodotus, ii. 123.

4 “Tdeen,” p.416. See the“ Egyptian Antiquities,” by Mr. Long, published for
the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, which is the best work the
English reader can consult for a general knowledge of the history and antiquities
of Egypt. 5 ii, 182,
EGYPTIAN PAINTING, 18

most probably the portraits of the persons to whose mummies they
have been attached. They are generally nearly full-faces painted
on small panels of cedar or sycamore, and, though they express
little individuality, are the best specimens of Egyptian paint-
ing extant. Some of them may be very ancient, but others belong
to a period subsequent to the Greek occupation of Egypt, for
such a portrait was found upon a mummy which was opened at
Paris in 1836, with a Greek inscription upon it. There is an
excellent specimen of this kind of painting in the Egyptian
Museum of the Louvre at Paris; there is one also in the British
Museum.

Three classes of paintings have been discovered in Egypt,—those
on the walls, those on the cases and cloths of mummies, -and those
on Papyrus rolls: the first class is the most numerous. The coloured
bassi-rilievi also, of which several specimens are exhibited in the
British Museum, in as far as they are coloured, may be classed
among the paintings. All these paintings have a common character,
but none can be strictly called imitative, though they are sufficiently
so to be intelligible. One striking characteristic is the brightness
and purity of their colours; but Egyptian paintings, from what has
hitherto been discovered, can scarcely be considered as fine art.
In the opinion of Gau' those of Ipsambul in Nubia are the best.
The paintings of Ipsambul are supposed to be among the most
ancient in Egypt, and if they were executed in the Sesostrid period,
as is supposed, they must be considerably upwards of 3000 years
old; yet the colours still retain their primitive freshness. The
paintings still extant on the walls of tombs and temples are very
numerous, many of the interiors of these extensive buildings being
wholly covered with them. The crypts or subterranean tombs are
most numerous along the western bank of the Nile and in the
Libyan mountains; the most extensive and important for their
decorations, yet discovered, are—the Biban el Molouk, or the
tombs of the kings near Thebes; the Osymandeium or tomb of
Osymandyas at Thebes, supposed to be the tomb of Rhamses
the Great, or Sesostris; and the grottoes of Hileithuias, or El
Cab, and Beni Hassan. The principal subjects of these decora-
tions are burial ceremonials and various domestic occupations,
which, though of a low scale as works of art, are excellent illus-
trations of the manners and customs of the Egyptians.? There
are several paintings in the British Museum, which were found
in the grottoes of the western hills of Thebes, where the peasants

1 « Nubien.” ;

° Many of these sculptures and paintings are engraved in the French work on

Egypt published by the Institut du Caire, and in Rosellini’s great work, “‘ Monu-
menti dell’ Egitto e della Nubia.”
14 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

have of late years broken down many pieces of painted stucco and
sold them to travellers. 2

The paintings on the cases and the cloths of mummies are of very
inferior interest to those in the tombs and temples, both as works of
art and as pictures of manners. The paintings on the papyrus rolls
are scarcely more than a coloured hieroglyph, or are little besides
the phonetic symbols mixed with demotic or enchorial characters,
the common Egyptian writing.

The mummy-cloths are prepared for painting by a covering of
white plaster, as indeed are all other materials upon which the
Egyptians painted, whether stone, wood, or cloth; and the plaster
served in the place of white paint. The following is Belzoni’s?
description of executing and painting the Egyptian bassi-rilievi
which he found in the Biban el Molouk, or tombs of the kings at
Thebes. In this instance the reliefs are cut out of the natural rock
in which the excavation was made, and are raised above the surface,
instead of being sunk into it, as is generally the case. All the
figures and hieroglyphics in this tomb are painted, with the ex-
ception of one chamber, which Belzoni has called the outline
chamber, from its being unfinished and in a state of preparation
only for the sculptor; which is a circumstance of great interest, as
it leaves no doubt as to the method in which the Egyptian artists
commenced their work. The outlines have been first drawn in red
upon the flattened wall, and have been afterwards corrected in black,
probably by the master himself. When the sculptor had finished
his work, the next process was to lay on acoat of lime-wash, which
in these tombs is so clear and beautiful as to surpass the finest
white paper. The colouring was then executed by the painter upon
this white ground ; and when the painting was completed, the whole
was covered with a coat of varnish.

The process of painting upon the walls where there were no
sculptures was the same. The ground or wall was covered with a
thin smooth coat of plaster which was whitewashed over, and the
colours were laid on over this as on the relief. The colours were
mixed with glue, and probably sometimes even with wax; there is
an example in the British Museum of the colours being mixed with
wax in a small funeral group of two figures.

The ordinary colours upon the bassi-rilievi and stuccoes are red,
yellow, green, and blue, of which there are two tints; black also
was used, but for white, as already mentioned, the ground itself
was sufficient. These colours are sometimes modified with chalk,
but they are always applied singly and unmixed. Different colours
are reserved for different objects : men and women are painted red,

1 « Eeyptian Antiquities,” Soc. Dif. U. K.
° P, 238; “Egyptian Antiquities,” Soc. Dif. U. K., vol. ii, “ Painting.”
EGYPTIAN PAINTING. 15

the men being browner or redder than the women; some prisoners
are painted yellow, as in the case of the captives in the temple of
Ipsambul, who have yellow bodies; their beards are black, but this
distinction may be intended to mark a people of fairer complexion
than the Egyptians, as the Syrians and inhabitants of Asia Minor
would necessarily be: black men frequently occur. Animals are
generally brown, but cattle are sometimes brown, grey, spotted, and
white; birds are generally blue and green, but often vari-coloured ;
water also is blue, furniture and other articles of use are sometimes
painted with a great variety of colours. The Egyptian colours
were analysed by Professor John of Berlin, and the analysis is
given in the appendix to Minutoli’s Journey to the temple of Jupiter
Ammon.' The dlues appear to be carbonates of copper with a small
intermixture of iron; none of them contain cobalt. Belzoni, there-
fore, who supposed the Egyptian blues to be indigo, appears to be
in error. The reds are red oxide of iron mixed with lime. The
yellows, which are sometimes of a pure bright sulphur colour, appear
from the chemical analysis to be vegetable colours; the greens are
a mixture of this vegetable yellow with copper blue; the vegetable
might be the henné plant, which is still used in the East for such
purposes. The bluish green which sometimes appears on Egyptian
antiquities is a faded blue. The blacks might be from wine-lees,
burnt pitch, charcoal, or soot.

The Egyptians, besides painting the bas-reliefs, painted also
detached statues; the group of the man and woman and child, of
sandstone, in the British Museum, has been painted. They painted
also columns, sarcophagi, and other similar objects in stone. There
is a painted stone sarcophagus in the Museum, which has been
varnished. Some of the Egyptian varnishes were made of glue,
others appear to be resinous; a bright varnish of some painted
woods, as the outer sarcophagi, analyzed by Professor John, was
dissolved in alcohol with a yellow colour, and, by mixing water
with it, was precipitated in. masses, whence it appears to be a
resinous substance, which probably had been dissolved in oil of
turpentine. On a sarcophagus belonging to Minutoli the colours
were varnished with glue; the layer was so thick as to enable a
satisfactory experiment to be made with a small quantity. When
dissolved in warm water, it showed a thready texture, and dried
into a horny translucent skin; the solution was immediately decom-
posed by alcohol, and an infusion of galls. From the very thready
nature of the glue, it appears to have been made from very hard
‘hides, such as those of the rhinoceros or hippopotamus.

1 “ Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon,” &c.; and the “ Egyptian Antiqui-
ties” of the Soc. Dif. U. K.
16 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

There are several Egyptian wall paintings in the Museum, of
which the groundwork consists of loam containing chopped straw,
several inches thick: the paintings are executed on a layer of fine
plaster. These pictures are decaying, though they are now placed
under glass, but copies have been made from them.’ The following
are of considerable interest, and sufficiently characteristic of the art
among the Egyptians:—1, a picture of various provisions, with
fruit and flowers. 2, reapers returning from the field with sheaves
of barley, and carrying a young fawn and some rabbits. 3, a picture
in three compartments ; in one appear to be mowers or reapers in a
corn field; in the others are Egyptian bigz, or two-horse chariots,
the horses are in a good style: the charioteer is standing behind
one of them, and restraining the horses; the horses of the other are
resting ; one is about to eat or drink from avessel. The charioteer
is seated in the chariot, with his back to the horses. 4, a picture in
two compartments, which appears to represent an Egyptian social
entertainment, the dancing girls have fine forms. 5, a picture in
two compartments, of men driving cattle, of various colours, which,
from the very humble attitude of the figure on the upper compart-
ment kissing the foot of another figure, appear to be offerings of
some kind; the hieroglyphics probably explain the subjects on
which they occur. 6, an artist seated in a beautiful chair, with a
chisel and mallet, and brush, apparently engraving; the chair is
covered with the spotted skin of an animal. 7, a man and assistants,
probably his own family, catching birds in a canoe in the marshes
of the Nile; a decoy-bird stands at the head of the canoe, and just
above it a cat, also in the service of the fowler, has caught three
birds: the eye of the cat has been. gilt. 8,a plan, rather than a
picture, of a garden with a pond; in the pond are birds and fish.
9, figures, with flocks of geese with red legs and beaks, probably a
market; geese were a very common article of food in Egypt. 10, a
large party, chiefly of ladies, with very showy head-dresses, at an
entertainment, in two compartments. The chairs are very distinct,
and of a beautiful form; in this painting, a table, loaded with eat-
ables of various kinds, is in each compartment of the picture.

In none of the above paintings is there the slightest evidence of
perspective. There is, indeed, beyond drawing, in some respects
good in style, scarcely a single principle of art illustrated in any
Egyptian painting yet discovered, if we except perhaps one or two
of the small cedar portraits which have been found in mummy-
cases ; and in these relief is distinctly expressed by light and shade,
which, next to outline, is the most important principle in pictorial.

1 Twelve specimens in the Egyptian saloon, Nos. 169—182, omitting 172 and
178. No. 117 is a good example of the coloured hieroglyphs; containing the
names of Egyptian kings to xix. dynasty.
 

AN EGYPTIAN ENTERTAINMENT, (Brrrisu Mosevx.)

Page 16.
EGYPTIAN PAINTING. 17

art. Animals and birds are generally represented with perfect in-
telligence in Egyptian works, especially. in sculpture, in which they
have a positive form; but in painting they are always flat. Animals
are more easy of representation than the human figure; but this is
probably not the reason of their superiority: in painting many
varieties of animals, a certain degree of individuality is necessary,
to distinguish one species or genus from another. Hasselquist, a
Danish naturalist,' speaks in high terms of some of the birds upon
the’ great obelisk at Heliopolis. He says, ‘‘ At Matarie (Heliopolis)
is an obelisk, the finest in Egypt. I could not have believed that
natural history could be so useful in matters of history as I found it
here. Aun ornithologist can determine at first glance to what genus
those birds belong which the ancient Egyptians have sculptured.
I recognized the screech-owl (Strix), which stood above at the top
of the obelisk; a kind of snipe (Scolopax); a plover (Pluvialis) was
the best likeness ; a duck (Anas); and what I thought most worthy
of notice, and than which I recognised none more readily, the stork
(Ardea Ibis alba), in the very attitude in which he may now be
seen in the plains of Egypt, with upraised neck and drooping tail.”

In the great work by Rosellini already quoted, in which Egyptian
painting is fully illustrated in all its branches, there is a series of
the portraits of the kings and rulers of Egypt, plain and coloured,
all in profile, and nearly all taken from bassi-rilievi. This series is
among the most interesting remains of Egyptian art; and though
there is perhaps not one that is quite correctly drawn, several are
works of considerable merit and individuality. These portraits go
as far back as Amenof, the first king of the eighteenth dynasty
(that of Sesostris), and extend to the Ptolemaic dynasty down to
Cleopatra, and her and Julius Ceesar’s son Czsarion. Some of the
latter portraits are the best, but their eyes and ears are generally
out of drawing. In the time of the Ptolemies, works of Greek art
were largely imported into Egypt,’and influenced greatly the style
‘of Egyptian art of the period.’ In the British Museum‘ there are
specimens of the tools and instruments used by Egyptian painters,
as some pallets, remains of colours, and a colour-box, also three
brushes made of the fibres of palm-leaves.

Egyptian art was not without its influence upon all people con-
nected with Egypt; on the Jews, on the Greeks, and more espe-
cially on the Persians after the plunder of Thebes by Cambyses,
who, Diodorus Siculus informs us,’ carried back to Persia a whole

1 « Reise nach Palaestina,’ quoted in “Egypt. Antiq.” Soc. Dif. U. K,

? See ch. vii.

3 Besides the works already noticed, the reader may consult—Hamilton’s « “Bgyp-
tiaca ;” and Sir J. G. Wilkinson's “ Ancient Egyptians,”

4 Egyptian Room, case 39. 5 T, 46.
18 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

colony of Egyptian artists; and we still see their influence in the
monumental remains on the borders of the Persian Gulf, and
throughout the whole basin of the Euphrates, from Persepolis to
Nineveh. The so-called Nineveh sculptures in the British Museum
are nearly identical in style with those of Persepolis, the work of
the Egyptian colony, introduced by Cambyses in the latter part of
the sixth century before our era; but the works were chiefly carried
out under the direction of his successors Darius and Xerxes. Inde-
pendent of this tradition there is evidence of Egyptian influence in
the works themselves. What change of character and style they
display may be explained by the fact that the Egyptians worked
in Persia under the influence of the Persian priesthood instead of
their own. The subject Bull, which figures so prominently in the
Persepolitan sculptures, is explained as signifying the overthrow of
the Assyrian power by the Persian. The Persepolitan as well as
the Assyrian sculptures are inscribed with arrow-headed characters,
a mode of writing persevered in to much later times.

 

CHAPTER III.

EARLY ART IN GREECE AND ASIA MINOR.

Lirtie has been said on the subject of Egyptian painting; and any
extension of remarks on this subject could be litfle more than the
description of the numerous existing paintings of Egypt, but which,
as far as the art is concerned, are all described when a few are
described. With Greece the case is the reverse: few Greek paint-
ings remain to corroborate ancient criticism, or to show a similar
development of painting among the Greeks, as of the sister art of
sculpture; while, on the other hand, the works of ancient writers
contain abundant historical information on the subject.

The patriotism, or perhaps the egotism, of the Greeks endeavoured
to assign to painting, in Greece, a Greek origin; and various anec-
dotes relating to its accidental discovery or invention are recorded
by ancient writers... These, however, are mere traditions; an art
like painting was not invented at once. It is, doubtless, one of the
natural channels of the activity of the human mind, and after a cer-
tain stage of civilization is, to a certain degree, natural to man
under all circumstances.

Painting, like many other arts, appears to have been first esta-

1 See the “ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,’ Taylor and Walton,
London, 1842, article Parnrine, by the author of this essay.
EARLY ART IN GREECE AND ASIA MINOR. 19

blished in Greece, mainly through communication with Egypt and
Asia Minor, and was long sustained only through continued inter-
course between Greece and these countries, where it flourished
many centuries before the earliest evidence of its existence in
Greece itself. The earliest or most remote period of Greek art may
be termed the Pelasgic. The Pelasgi, who, according to historians,
are the most ancient known inhabitants of Greece, were a migratory
and a widely-scattered race, and may easily have become acquainted
with the arts of the Egyptians,’ both by intercourse with them, and
by early colonizations from Egypt or from Phoenicia; and the
ancient stories of Cecrops, Cadmus, and Danaus, though little, are
still some evidence of such colonization. The only remains of this
age are the lions of Mycenz. The Pelasgi of Greece, however, would
have a knowledge of the arts in common only with the whole
Pelasgic race; and the Siciliots, Italiots, Tyrrhenians, and Ionians
of Asia Minor, at first far outstripped the Greeks themselves, or
Hellenes, in the practice of the arts, until about the period of the
second Messenian war, or the thirtieth Olympiad, nearly seven
centuries before the Christian era, until the time of Cypselus of
Corinth, and of Psammetichus of Egypt, when a more active exra
in every department of knowledge commenced in Greece.

The time of Psammetichus is particularly marked out as a period
in which the arts of Greece may have received an impulse from
those of Egypt: an active commercial intercourse was then esta-
blished between the two nations.” Pausanias speaks of the original
statue of Apollo Lycius at Argos, which was dedicated by Danaus,
as an Egyptian Edavov, or wooden image.’ Sesostris had several
monuments erected in Asia Minor and in Syria, in commemoration
of his victories. Some of these were extant in the time of Hero-
dotus, and he describes two figures, perhaps of Sesostris, which he
saw in Ionia.* One was in the way from Ephesus to Phocea, the
other between Sardis and Smyrna; both were about five palms
high, with a javelin in their right hands and a bow in the left.
The rest of the armour was Egyptian and Ethiopian ; across their
shoulders was the following inscription in the Egyptian sacred or
hieratic characters :—‘‘ I conquered this country by the force of my
arms.” Such instances, however, can have had little effect com-
pared with the consequences of the well-established intercourse
between the Greeks and Egyptians, after the time of Psammetichus.

Psammetichus, having about 660 B.c. obtained the kingdom of
Egypt through the aid of some Ionians and Carians, who, on a
voyage of plunder, had been forced by bad weather to land in
Egypt, conferred on them certain lands near the Pelusian mouth of

1 Herodotus, ii. 52. 2 Herodotus, ii. 154. * Pausanias, ii. 19. * ii. 106.
; c 2
20 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the Nile, in gratitude for their services; and gave them some Egyp-
tian children to bring up in a knowledge of the Greek language,
who, as well as their descendants, subsequently acted as inter-
preters between the Greeks and Egyptians. These Greeks were
removed afterwards by Amasis to Memphis, but they always kept
up a communication with Greece, and the Greeks, says Herodotus,'
had from this time a perfect knowledge of Egyptian affairs; and
the arts of the Egyptians cannot be excepted from this knowledge.
Psammetichus maintained the IJonians and Carians as auxiliaries, as
did also his successors: in the reign of his grandson Apries, they
constituted an army of 30,000 men. They were defeated by the
usurper Amasis, who succeeded Apries, at the battle of Momemphis..
Amasis was, however, very partial to the Greeks: he did all in his
power to encourage commerce with them; he allowed them to
establish themselves at Naucratis, on the Canopic branch of the
Nile, which became a commercial city of great importance, and was
resorted to by traders from all parts of Greece. The portrait of
himself, which he sent to the Greeks of Cyrene, has been already
mentioned ; his wife, Ladice, was a native Greek of Cyrene. The
arts were particularly active in Egypt in the time of this king; he
built the temple of Isis at Memphis. |

Both the plastic and the graphic art continued, doubtless, for many
ages in their primitive rude state, without any material improvement
in style or distinctive character ; and they only assumed a decidedly
Greek or Hellenic character about the time of the great Persian
war. We have no historical knowledge of the arts of Greece until
about the time of Solon, and after the period when a constant inter-
course was established with Egypt and with Asia, through the
Tonian Greeks of Asia Minor, among whom the arts were in a high
state before they can be positively said to have existed in Greece.
Painting was certainly not practised as an independent art in Greece
until after the Persian war. Before that period it was purely orna~
mental or representative, and its application was almost limited to
the decoration of sacred edifices, and a few other religious purposes,
as colouring or imitating bas-reliefs, and in representations of
religious rites on vases or otherwise.

The period from the earliest time until the Persian invasion, or
about five centuries before Christ, may be said to constitute the
first era, or the mythic age of Grecian art; which chiefly through
the great mythic poems of Homer and Hesiod eventually threw off
all traces of its original Egyptian parentage, and was gradually
prepared for that theocratic, heroic, and historic character which it
finally assumed, and which was immediately brought about in its
peculiar splendour by the memorable destruction of the invading

Herodotus, ii. 152—169.
EARLY ART IN GREECE AND ASIA MINOR. 21

armies of Persia under Xerxes. ‘The true age of Greek art, as art,
must be dated from this event, or at least the period subsequent to
it is, as far as our present knowledge reaches, the earliest that can
be made a satisfactory subject of history. Many isolated facts,
however, are recorded of the earlier period, and many traditions
and many opinions; but these do not belong to a general sketch of
the nature of this essay. Ancient opinions are however of them-
selves facts, and the history of any subject is indeed imperfect when
the ideas of early ages regarding it are altogether overlooked, for
the impressions and associations made or suggested by any intellec-
tual pursuit, are, as one of its effects, a part of the subject itself.

As has been already observed, painting was in an apparently

advanced state in Asia Minor and in Magna Grevia long before it
made any progress in Greece itself. The Greeks of course have
their legend accounting for its discovery among themselves. The
daughter of a certain Dibutades, a potter of Sicyon, but settled. at
Corinth, struck with the shadow of her departing lover, cast by her
lamp upon the wall, traced its outline; and the father—surprised at,
and delighted with, the resemblance—cut away the plaster of the wall
within the profile, took a squeeze in clay from the cutting, and
baked it with the rest of his pottery. Thus the graphic and the
plastic arts were invented at the same time. And this original
work, says tradition, was reverently preserved at Corinth, even to
the destruction of the city by Mummius.'| But instead of dwelling
here upon the gradual growth of the art, we may proceed at once to
the consideration of the earliest evidences of its development.
'* Homer does not mention painting as an imitative art, nor is there
in Greek theogony, or hero-worship, any god or hero, or an indi-
vidual of any kind, who represents the class of painters, similar to
Vulcan and Dedalus, representing workers in metal and carvers
in wood. Homer speaks only of red-prowed and purple-prowed
ships; he speaks, however, of elegant and elaborate embroidery as
something not uncommon, and this is painting in principle, though
not actually in practice; it is textile painting, or painting with the
needle, and this is what it is termed by the Romans; such expres-
sions are used by Cicero, by Virgil, and by Horace.2 Homer
mentions the splendid diplax of Helen, in which were embroidered
the battles of the Greeks and Trojans.3

Pliny * relates a curious story of a picture which was painted in

1 Pliny xxxv. 43, Athenagoras, “Legat. pro Christ.” 14; p. 59, ed. Dechair.
I have traced the gradual progress of Greek painting, from its essential first
principles to its development, in the article already alluded to, in the “ Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Antiquities.”

2 Cie, “ Ver.” IT. iv. 1; “ Tuse.” v.21; Ovid. “Met.” vi. 23; Virg. “Ain.” ix, 582.

s “TL” iii, 126. 4 « Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 34; vii. 39.
22 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Lydia in Asia Minor, about 720 years before Christ, and by the
earliest painter on record. This was a picture of a battle of the
Magnetes, by a painter of the name of Bularchus, probably of Lydia,
and about 716 B.c. Candaules, then king of Lydia, paid him for it
either its weight in gold, or as much gold coin as would cover it.
The amount might be the same either way, or the story may not be
true; yet there must have been a good foundation for it, and the
picture was evidently sold for a high price, which is a sign of con-
siderable refinement of taste already at that remote period. To offer
to buy a picture now-a-days with as much gold coin as would cover
its surface even two or three times over, would, in many cases of
small works, be offering a very inadequate price.’ This picture
by Bularchus was probably of the school termed by Pliny, the
“ Genus picture: Asiaticum,” which appears to have declined after
the Persian conquest of Ionia, little more than a century and a half
after the time of Bularchus. Driven from the mainland, painting
found shelter in the islands of the Aigean Sea ; and Samos became
a famous seat of the arts. Pictures were apparently common in
Ionia at this time. Herodotus? mentions that when Harpagus be-
sieged the town of Phocewa, 544 B.c., the inhabitants, having collected
all their valuables except paintings and such works in metal or stone
as could not easily be removed, fled with them to the island of Chios.
From which it appears that paintings, accounted by the Phoceans
among their valuables, were both numerous and on a large scale, or
their removal would not have been difficult.

At Samos, the Hereum, or Temple of Juno, became at a later age
a celebrated picture gallery, muvaxobjxn: it is so called by Strabo.?
In this temple a curious picture was dedicated, about 508 B.c., by
Mandrocles, the architect of the bridge of boats which Darius
Hystaspes had thrown over the Bosporus for the passage of his army
across, on his expedition against the Scythians. It represented the
passage of the army, and Darius on his throne reviewing it as it
passed. Two statues of Amasis, king of Egypt, sent by himself to
this temple, have been already mentioned ; it was in his time ap-
parently a celebrated depository for works of art, and this was nearly
six hundred years before the visit of Strabo, when it was still a
great gallery of arts; the history of modern art cannot yet afford an
approximating example of stability, though possible, in point of
time. Pausanias* says that this temple was dedicated, according to
tradition, by the Argonauts, and notices only the ancient statue of

1 Between 202. and 301. a square inch have been already paid for small pictures.
The small “ Holy Family,” by Correggio, in the National Gallery, which cost 3,8001.,
has a surface of only 140 square inches; the “ Vision of a Knight,” by Raphael
which cost 1,0507., contains less than 50 square inches.

2 i, 164. 3 xiv. p. 637. 4 vii. 4.
EARLY ART IN GREECE AND ASIA MINOR. 23-

the goddess by Smilis, the contemporary of Daedalus; the temple
was therefore in his time probably stripped of the majority of its
treasures. All the temples in’ Greece had their votive offerings,
and in later times most of the temples had buildings attached to
them, erected expressly for the reception of works of art; conse-
crated or votive pictures constituted a considerable portion of the
votive offerings of the Greeks, whether on panels, tablets, or on the
walls themselves.’ A similar custom prevailed formerly to a great
extent in Italy, and still prevails.

The Greeks of Magna Grecia, those of Crotona, Sybaris and Ta-
rentum, were not behind their contemporaries of Asia Minor in
matters of art or learning. Though of painting itself there is little
to be said, Aristotle mentions a very remarkable piece of embroidery
which belonged to a citizen of Sybaris of this period. He describes
a magnificent purple shawl or pallium, probably of Milesian wool,
which was made for Alcisthenes, a native of Sybaris. It was em-
broidered with the representations of cities, of gods, and of men;
and from the Greek word £wéia used to signify the representations,
it appears that the cities also, as well as the gods and men, were
represented in a human form. Above was a representation, probably
an allegoric female impersonation, of the city of Susa; below were
figures of Persians; in the middle were Jupiter, Juno, Themis,
Minerva, Apollo, and Aphrodite or Venus; on one side was an im-
personation of Sybaris, on the other the portrait of Alcisthenes him-
self. This shawl was the wonder ‘of the Italiots; it came subse-
quently into the possession of the elder Dionysius, tyrant of
Syracuse, about 400 z.c., who sold it to the Carthaginians for the
enormous sum of 120 talents, about 29,000/. sterling. Alcisthenes
lived probably about 520 or 580 B.c?

According to Pliny, painting was established throughout Italy at
an early period, as early as Tarquinius Priscus; he mentions some
very ancient paintings at Care, and a naked group of Helen and
Atalante, painted upon the wall of a temple at Lanuvium, and others
by the same painter in the temple of Juno at Ardea, on which was
an inscription in old Latin characters, recording the name of the
painter, and the gratitude of Ardea. The forms of these works
were particularly praised: the painter’s name is doubtful; in the
common editions of Pliny it is Ludius.’

1 Pausanias, i. 22; x. 25; Athenzeus, xiii. p. 606, b. Strabo, ix. p. 396.

2 Aristotle, “ De Mirab. Auscult.” c. 99; Schweighauser, “ Animady. in Athen.”
vol. xi. p. 477.

3 Pliny, “Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 6, Sillig, partly on the authority of MSS., suggests
Clecetas as the name of this painter—*Catalogus Artificum,” s. v. Ludius.
24 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

CHAPTER IV.

DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE; ABOUT 600 B.C.—ESSENTIAL
STYLE.

Cimon or CLron@ is the first name of importance we meet with in
the history of Greek painting, though there are earlier artists who, ac-
cording to Greek tradition, performed important services to the art, as
Philocles of Egypt; Cleanthes, Ardices, and Cleophantus of Corinth ;
Telephanes of Sicyon; Hygiemon, Dinias, and Charmadas, famous
old monochromists, or painters of pictures in a single colour, such
probably as some of the black designs on the vases; or even pic-
tures such as the four discovered in the ruins of Herculaneum, which
are red in red, that is, indicating relief; but these now in the museum
at Naples are, from their style, comparatively late works.’ And
lastly, Eumarus of Athens, who appears to have been the most im-
portant of these early painters. He first, says Pliny, distinguished
the sexes ; giving probably to each its characteristic style of design
in the draperies, actions, and complexions of his figures, clearly
illustrating the dispositions and attributes of each, exhibiting a
more robust and vigorous form in the males. Such distinctions
are perfectly compatible with the rudest execution.

Cimon of Cleonez advanced upon the improvements of Eumarus,
and may perhaps be considered the earliest Greek artist worthy of
the name of a painter: he was probably not earlier than Solon, with
whom he may have been contemporary, and he lived accordingly
about a century before the time of Polygnotus. Pliny supposes
that he must have preceded Bularchus, concluding them to have
been of a common school, for which there is not the slightest pro-
bability. It would also leave Greece for three centuries without a
painter of name; on the other hand, in the time of Solon, when
there is known to have been a regular intercourse and trade be-
tween Greece and the Asiatic colonies, the arts of Greece, and
particularly of the eastern coast, could not be otherwise than im-
proved by the connection. Polygnotus himself, the first great
painter who appeared in Greece, came from the island of Thasos.

Cimon of Cleonz is recorded as the inventor of Soreshortenings, or
the first to make oblique views of the figure, which the Greeks,
according to Pliny, termed C' atagrapha. He also first made muscular
articulations, indicated the veins, and gave natural folds to dra-
peries.”

1 «Le Antichita d’Ercolano,” I. pl. 1—4. 2 Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxy. 34,
DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE. 25

This fidelity of imitation was apparently not accomplished in
sculpture, according to Pliny, until some time subsequent to Cimon ;
for he says! that Pythagoras of Rhegium, who flourished about
Olym. 73 (488 8.c.), was the first who exhibited any such refine-
ment in sculpture. lian also bears testimony ’ to the great supe-
riority of Cimon; for he says he was much better paid for his
works than any of his predecessors; which implies a great advance-
ment in art. He appears to have emancipated the art in Greece
from its archaic rigidity, and his works were probably of a middle
degree, between the early style and that of the period of the essen-
tial development of painting, between Eumarus of Athens and Po-
lygnotus of Thasos, or possibly even between the Aigina marbles
and those of the Parthenon at Athens.

Up, to this period, and to the completion of the great works of
Polygnotus at Athens and Delphi, when painting attracted the
attention of all Greece, the only cities that paid. any consider-
able attention to the arts were Aigina, Sicyon, Corinth and Athens.
Sicyon and Corinth had long been famous for their paintings upon
vases and articles of furniture. Athens was a comparatively
recent devotee to the arts, and had attained no celebrity what-
ever in this respect, until the arrival of Polygnotus from Thasos
about 463 3.c., when, from that time forth, for about two centuries,
she became, through various circumstances, the capital of the arts
of Greece, though few of the great painters of Greece were natives
of Athens.

The essential development of painting in Greece must be dated
from the arrival of Potyenotus or Tuasos, who ascompanied Cimon
to Athens, probably after his conquest of Thasos, 463 B.c. Previous
to this period painting appears not to have been practised indepen-
dently in Greece, and when not subservient to the mysteries or
religious purposes, was still confined to ornamenting furniture and
decorating architecture. The position of sculpture was very simi-
lar. The school of sculpture established by the Cretans, Dipcenus
and Scyllis, at Sicyon, about 580 3.c.,2> was apparently the first
positive commencement of the application of pure formative art,
unshackled by tradition, and free from conventionalisms, in fur-
therance of the anthropomorphite system of the Greeks. Before
this time, their wooden and other images of the gods were mere
representative forms.

With Polygnotus painting was fully developed in all the essential
principles of art, though many of the more delicate excellences of
execution were doubtless still wanting. The essential style of
Polygnotus bore probably the same relation to the refined style of

1 xxxiv. 19. 2 “Var, Hist.” viii. 8. * Pliny, “ Hist, Nat.” xxxvi. 4,
26 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.;

the period of Alexander, as the Florentine school in the time of
Michelangelo bore to that of Bologna immediately subsequent to
the Carracci. The style of Polygnotus was however sufficiently
finished to be fully competent to portraiture, and this is a high test.
The first portrait on record, by a known painter, is the portrait of
Elpinice, the sister of Cimon, and his own mistress, which Poly-
gnotus painted in the picture of the Rape of Cassandra in the
Peecile, a celebrated colonnade or portico, in the Ceramicus at
Athens—i qolAn oroa, the variegated gallery, a name which it
received on account of its paintings. There can be no question that
this was a complete’ portrait, for Polygnotus was not only one of
the most. distinguished of the ancient painters in the essentials of
form and expression, but in colour also. He was one of the four
‘greatest colourists, according to Lucian.’ Polygnotus is spoken of
in the highest terms by Greek writers, from which Pliny’s cursory
notice of him ?.is evidently an injustice to him,

There is a memorable passage in the Poetics of Aristotle ® regard-
ing this painter. He says that imitation must either be superior or
inferior, or else equal to its model; and he illustrates the remark
by instancing the styles of three painters. Dionysius, he says,
paints men as they are, Pauson worse, and Polygnotus better than
they are. From which we must infer that, in the opinion of Aris-
totle, the design of Polygnotus was of an exalted and ideal charac-
ter ; and in design may be included expression, in which, according
to the same high authority, Polygnotus was one of the greatest
masters. Aristotle* speaks of him as an excellent delineator of
moral character and expression; he terms him the Ethograph, and
assigns him in this respect a complete superiority over Zeuxis.
Lucian’ mentions him as one of those painters who best understood
the laying on and proper mixing of colours; the others, with whom
he is classed in this respect are Euphranor, Apelles and Aétion.
Lucian notices in the same passage the truth, the elegance, and the
flowing lightness of the draperies of Polygnotus. The most im-
portant of his works are those which were in the Lesche, a public
hall or portico (suchas are called Loggie by the Italians), near
the temple of Apollo at Delphi: these pictures were consecrated to
Apollo by the Cnidians, and were in honour of Pyrrhus Neoptole-
mus, the son of Achilles; who was killed in the temple by the
priest Machereus during a sacrifice, ostensibly on account of his
impiety in calling upon Apollo for vengeance upon his father’s
murderer, or really becanse the priest feared that Neoptolemus in-
tended to lay violent hands upon the treasures of the temple.®

* Lucian, “ Imag.” 7. 2 “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 35.

3 « Poetica,’”’ c. 2. + “Poetica,” c. 6. 5 “Imagines,” ¢. 7.

6 Strabo, ix. p. 645, a.; Bottiger, “Ideen.zur Archaologie der Malerei,” p. 301.
DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE. 27

These pictures, which were on opposite walls of the Lesche, on the.
right and the left on entering, are minutely described by Pausanias.*
On the right was the destruction of Troy and the preparation for
Helen’s return to Greece; on the left was the visit of Ulysses to
Hades to consult the soul of Tiresias, much the more important,
both as a work of art and as an illustration of the philosophy and
religion of the Greeks. They were termed the Iliad and the
Odyssey of Polygnotus, but Polygnotus had used other sources be-
sides Homer. Their composition was what at present would be
considered peculiar, if not barbarous: the various groups were not
arranged dramatically, or even according to the rules of perspective,
but in separate rows one above another, and of which there were
three in each picture. There is, however, nothitig in Pausanias’s
description to lead us to suppose that the separate groups were not
judiciously arranged, both as to individual treatment dramatically,
and as to general arrangement of the groups according to their sub-
jects. There is evident design in the general arrangement, and great
comprehensiveness in the whole; but each group appears to have
constituted a distinct picture, and to have had no other connection
with its contiguous group than that of similarity of purpose; all
contributing to the completeness of the one great subject of each
picture—the destruction of Troy; the preparations for the return ;
and the region of the Shades or Hades; and the whole in commemo-
ration of Neoptolemus.? For these works Polygnotus was granted
by the Amphictyonic Council public hospitality throughout Greece ;
and they still excited the wonder and admiration of Pausanias,
although they had been painted as much as six hundred years when
he saw them.

The style of Polygnotus may be called the essential style, and it
was purely ethic in its object: it can scarcely be termed historical ;
this requires a certain dramatic development in composition and
local truth and circumstantial detail of execution—these qualities
evidently did not exist in the works of Polygnotus, as they are
described by Pausanias, for objects and events are rather indicated
than represented, and when this indication was intelligible the end
was accomplished. This is true chiefly of the accessories: a house
or a wall represented a city ; a man throwing down the stones of
the wall, the destruction of the city; a tent, an encampment; the
taking down a tent, a departure; and a ship, a fleet; a few captives
represented a conquest, a few warriors an army, and two or three

1x, 25, 31.
2 Two German artists, the brothers Riepenhausen, have attempted to restore
these works from the description of Pausanias : “ Peintures de Polygnote & Delphes,
_dessinées et gravées d’apres la description de Pausanias.” See also Géthe’s
“ Polygnot’s Gemilde in der Lesche zu Delphi,” among his Essays “ Ueber Kunst.”
28 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

dead bodies with even a single individual still bent on slaughter, a
victory.

Such was the character of the destruction of Troy by Polygnotus.
The dramatic range of painting was still no greater than that of
sculpture, and probably there was at that time little perceptible
difference between a picture and a coloured basso-rilievo, though
the picture may have been.in design and expression of the utmost
excellence, That the works of Polygnotus were distinguished for
character and expression is sufficiently testified by the surname of
Ethographos (painter of character) given to him by Aristotle.

Polygnotus first raised painting to the dignity of an independent
art, and he brought it to that degree that it became the admiration
and the wonder of all Greece. ‘‘ As Homer,” says De Pauw, ‘‘ was the
founder of Epic Poetry, so was Polygnotus the founder of Historic
Painting.” From Polygnotus may be dated the commencement of
subjective style in painting ; that is its subjective treatment. Sub-
jective is here used in contradistinction to objective: a work of art
may be said to be subjectively treated when it is characterised more
by the peculiar esthetic or idiosyncratic development of the artist
himself than by the ordinary condition of the object or objects
treated. The art of painting, or of delineating the appearances of
bodies, is, in its form, purely an art of imitation ; and, in the develop-
ment of its powers, is confined to what is visible.

Much is said about a painter’s “invention,” but is it certain that
a painter ever does invent? He receives impressions, more or less
forcible, of things heard or seen, and from his power of delineation
developed by an habitual accuracy of observation, he is enabled to
represent these impressions; his invention would appear to be
original arrangement or composition.

Nothing can be represented that does not already exist in form,
either in whole, or in its component parts ; and the invention of the
artist consists in the arrangement of these parts, in their apposition
and in their various combinations. No idea of form can be conceived
which has not entered the mind through the senses, which has not
therefore pre-existed, ani there can accordingly be no essentially
original form ; all must be arrangement: to see much is therefore
the basis of the education of the painter. Thus the imitation of forms
is the power of painting, and the invention of the painter is the com-
position of forms. As long as homogeneous objects are combined
in one whole a composition may be termed natural; but where
heterogeneous objects are combined together, the composition is evi-
dently unnatural, and whatever value it may possess must be due to
convention. So far art may become a creation, and the incorporation
of the mind of the artist; but, as addressed to another mind, it can
only be understood and appreciated in as far as the minds of the artist
DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE. 29

and spectator are similarly constituted. Without a reciprocal con-
vention and mutual understanding art sinks into the mere material : it
is a poem in a strange language. We are at present speaking only of
the sentiment of art, without reference to mere illusion or imitation of
objects.

A high grade of pictorial effect is however far from being accom-
plished by the mere combination and apposition of homogeneous
parts and objects; it depends upon the composition and juxtaposi-
tion of harmonious parts, which constitutes beauty. Harmony of
parts is not less essential to beauty in pictorial art, than it is to true
effect in music.

In determining the merits of a work of art perception will often
be just where laws are of no avail. Though there are conditional,
there are perhaps no positive laws, of criticism in art; every work
must be considered with reference to the motive, or end designed to
be attained; whether that of mere illusion or imitation, or the
excitement of another or several of the sensations of which the
‘mind is susceptible. This brings us to the consideration of two
distinct developments of painting—imitation with, and imitation
without, an ulterior object—the sensuous and the sentimental, for
the purely sensuous is closely allied to the sphere of mere imitation
as an end: the sensuous as an end is a form of the perfect develop-
ment of imitation, as a means it isthe most powerful element of art.
A distinction between imitation and the object of imitation is ob-
vious: these two departments as evidently require the exertion of
two distinct faculties of the mind—one the perception of visible
forms, the other a knowledge of their normal and incidental appear-
ances and the appreciation of their uses. This may be illustrated by
the various appearances incident to the various passions ; and thus, in
the representation of any particular passion or sentiment, a work of
art must be imperfect unless its cause and effect are adequately
understood by the artist. These two departments of painting may be
respectively termed the imitative-formative and the imaginative ;
and there is a degree of their combination which, when regulated by
a just refinement of feeling, must constitute the perfection of art.

The distance from this supposed degree, which constitutes perfec-
tion, qualifies the merits of the artist and determines the class to
which he belongs. It may be advanced that, as mind is superior to
matter. so a style in which sentiment has an eminent ascendancy
must be proportionably superior to one in which the opposite is the
case; but this is true only to a very limited extent in an art in
which imitation of form is the essential element, and in which
mind can only be evinced through forms, otherwise the art is merely
representative or illustrative ; verging from the sphere of imitation
into that of symbol, satire, or caricature. This limitation marks the
30 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

essential difference between painting and poetry, which on the
other hand only suggests images, while painting presents them :
the description of consecutive action, through sound, in time, is the
power of poetry; the representation of simultaneous action, through
form, in space, is the element of painting.

It is only in the approximation to this supposed degree of the
combination of the two faculties of imitation and imagination that
the respective powers of artists can be judged. In determining,
however, the merits of a painter, it is not only necessary to consider
the end to be produced, but also his means of attaining that end;
and of these, example is of the utmost importance, as all excellence
in art is relative to what has been already accomplished.

The services of Polygnotus therefore were of the highest order,
and for originality and discernment he has perhaps never been
equalled by any artist, whether ancient or modern. The times,
however, contributed much to develop his powers, as they did also
those of Phidias ; the eventful period, the heroic achievements of
the Greeks, had prepared the public mind for glories of a more
exalted nature, and from glorious deeds of arms had directed its
ambition towards excellence in the more noble acquirements of the
mind. And eventually, the religion, philosophy, poetry, and
domestic habits of the Greeks, all combined to carry the liberal
arts among them to the highest degree of development and refine-
ment yet attained by the efforts of man.

The most distinguished contemporaries of Polygnotus, but proba-
bly some years his juniors, were, Micon of Athens, Panenus of
Athens the nephew of Phidias, and Dionysius of Colophon.

Dionysius or CoLorHon, from the testimony of Aristotle already
quoted, appears to have been an excellent portrait-painter: ‘‘ he
painted men as they are.” We can form a still more accurate idea
of his style from a remark of Plutarch,! who says that the works of
Dionysius wanted neither force nor spirit, but that they were too
much laboured. These observations remind very strongly of the
school of Holbein in style and execution, though the errors in the
drawing of the earlier German painters can scarcely have existed in
the works of the Greek contemporary of Phidias. Dionysius was
not only a portrait-painter, he executed similar works in small to
the great works of Polygnotus. lian” says that he imitated in
every respect, except in size, the art of Polygnotus, which. evidently
refers to the style of the two painters, not their pictures, as some
have supposed : the same might be said of Garofolo with respect to
Raphael, without implying that Garofolo copied in small the large
works of Raphael.

1 «Timol.” 36. 2 lian, “ Var. Hist.” iv. 3.
DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE. 3L

Micoy, the son of Phanochus of Athens, was greatly distinguished
for his horses, and he was in other respects one of the most cele-
brated of the Greek painters. He was one of the painters employed
to record the victories of the Athenians in the Peecile, and in some
of the principal temples in Athens. He painted the battle of the
Amazons and the Athenians under Theseus in the Peecile, and in the
Temple of Theseus, where he painted also opposite to it the battle of
the Centaurs and the Lapithe, and some other picture on a third
wall, which, however, was so much defaced by time when Pausanias
saw it, that he could not distinguish the subject of the painting.
He painted in the temple of the Dioscuri, where there were also
some paintings by Polygnotus, the Return of the Argonauts to
Thessaly, with Medea and the daughters of Pelias, in which picture
Acastus and his horses are particularly praised by Pausanias.. A
fault that was found with the horses of Micon by an eminent judge
of horses, named Simon, who was the first writer on equitation,
speaks rather in favour of this painter’s horses than otherwise, if we
may suppose that they had no other fault which so experienced a
critic could detect: Micon painted eyelashes to their under eyelids,
which horses have not. According to Atlian, this fault was at~
tributed by some to the horses of Apelles.? The horses of Micon
must have been of at least equal excellence as those of the frieze of
the Parthenon, executed under the. direction of Phidias, as they
were produced atthe same time and were distinguished for their
excellence.

Micon assisted Panzenus in the Battle of Marathon in the Peecile,
and he was fined 30 mine, or half a talent, for painting the bar-
/barians larger than the Greeks.’

Varro* speaks of the style of Micon as crude and unfinished when
compared with the works of Apelles and other later artists; but in
Varro’s time, age must have materially injured the works of Micon;
still, refined execution was not likely to have been one of the
qualities of Micon’s works; such excellence was the characteristic
of a later age, as was the case also in the history of modern art. <A
similar objection to that made by Varro to the works of Micon
might be made to many of the great works of Raphael and Michel-
angelo when compared with the finished execution of the great
scholars of the Carracci. There were, however, many who pre-
ferred the characteristic generic works of this earlier period to the
more finished productions of later times. Mere refinement of
execution will never counterbalance essential excellence of design

1 Pausanias, i. 15. 18; viii. 2.

2 Pollux, ii. 4; lian, “De Anim.” iv. 50; Bottiger, “Ideen zur Archaologie der
Malerei.”’

3 Sopater, “ Rhett. Gr.” p. 340, ed. Ald. 4 «De Lingua Latina,” viii.
32 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

and composition, as is abundantly testified in the present day by
the relative positions of the great painters of Italy : besides, fineness
of execution may be quite lost through dirt, or even want of light,
while the great essential qualities of design proclaim themselves in
spite of either dirt or gloom. Few conversant in such matters
prefer the works of the artists of the seventeenth century to those
of the fifteenth and sixteenth, though they are generally infinitely
superior to the earlier works in execution. In allusion to this snb-
ject, Quintilian' says, notwithstanding the simple colouring of
Polygnotus, which was little more than the mere foundation of
what was afterwards accomplished, many preferred his works to
those of the greatest painters who succeeded him, but not, as Quin-
tilian thought, without a certain degree of affectation. It is also at
the present day considered an affectation by the many to prefer the
works of Raphael to those of Domenichino, Guido, or the Carracci,
and a host of others that might be mentioned.

Pananus or ATHENS was another very distinguished painter of
this period, though, as the nephew of Phidias,” he was probably
much younger than Polygnotus or Micon. His principal work was
-the Battle of Marathon in the Peecile, in which, as remarked above,
he was assisted by Micon. This picture appears to have been in
several divisions ’—the positions of the armies before the battle, the
incidents of the battle, and, lastly, the flight and destruction of the
Persians. It contained iconic portraits of Miltiades, Callimachus,
and Cynegirus, generals of the Athenians; and Datis and Arta:
phernes, the Persian generals. From a remark in the speech of
AXschines against Ctesiphon, it would appear that this picture was
painted during the lifetime of Miltiades; but this is only possible if
we suppose that it was painted upon a panel, or panels, and after-
wards fixed up in the Peecile. Aischines says that Miltiades wished
to have his name attached to his portrait, which the Athenian
people would not permit; but they suffered him to be painted at
the head of the troops, leading on the attack. The picture, there-
fore, if not painted during the lifetime of Miltiades, was, if Aischines
speaks the truth, at least determined upon during his lifetime, and
consequently immediately after the battle was fought, for Miltiades
died in the following year, 489 B.c. The Poecile was, however, built
by Cimon about twenty years after the Battle of Marathon, or about
470 B.c., after his victories over the Persians; and the picture was
apparently, from the date of other works by Panenus, not painted
until upwards of twenty years later still, and accordingly so long
after the death of all the generals represented, that their portraits

1 «“Tnst. Orator.” xii. 10. 2 Strabo, viii. p. 354.
3 Pausanias, i. 15; v.11; Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 34.
DEVELOPMENT OF PAINTING IN GREECE. 33

must have been mere iconic figures, the likeness depending more
upon their costumes and positions than upon their features, unless
we suppose that they were copied from earlier portraits, which is
not very probable. The Olympian Jupiter of Phidias, which
Panznus was employed to decorate, was not executed until after
the eighty-sixth Olympiad, or 436 3.c.' The Battle of Marathon,
therefore, if painted by Panenus, as Pliny and Pausanias state,
cannot have been painted many years before. The pictures of the
Peecile appear to have been painted on panel, for they were all
removed in the reign of Arcadius, 395-408 a.p.”_ This is, however,
not conclusive, as the Romans found a method of safely removing
slabs of plaster from Greek walls.*

The decorations of the Olympian Jupiter by Paneenus were on the
throne and on the wall around the throne of the statue. The sub-
jects of the pictures were—Atlas supporting Heaven and Earth,
with Hercules near him, about to relieve him from his burden;
Theseus and Pirithous; figures representing Greece and Salamis,
the latter bearing the rostra of a ship in her hands; the Combat of
Hercules with the Nemean Lion; the Rape of Cassandra by Ajax;
Hippodamia, the daughter of (inomaus, with her mother; Prome-
theus chained, and Hercules apparently about to destroy the vulture
which preyed upon him; Penthesilea dying, supported by Achilles ;
and the Hesperides with the Golden Apples.‘

Prize contests in painting were established in Greece, already in
the time of Paneenus, at Corinth, and at Delphi, in one of which, at
the Pythian games, Panzenus was defeated by a painter of Chalcis,
of the name of Timagoras, otherwise unknown, but he must have
been an artist of some consequence from this single incident. He
celebrated his own victory in verse.°

PuisT£NETUS is mentioned by Plutarch’ as the brother of Phidias,
and as a famous battle painter, but he is otherwise unknown. He
may have painted the battle of the Athenians and Spartans at
(ince, which was one of the pictures of the Poecile noticed by
Pausanias.

1 Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 34; xxxiv. 19; compare Heyne, Ueber die Kiinstler-
epochen beym Plinius, “ Antiquarische Aufsatze,” i. p.165, and Sillig, “ Catalogus
Artificum,” v. Phidias.

2 Synesius, “ Ep.” liv. 135.

3 Whether the Greeks painted on panels set in the walls or on the walls them-
selves, see Raoul Rochette, “ Sur l’emploi de la Peinture,” &c., and Letronne, “ Lettres
d'un Antiquaire,’ &c.

4 Strabo, viii. p. 354; Pausanias, v.11; Pliny, “Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 35.

5 Pliny, 1. ¢. § «De Glor. Athen.” 2.

b
34 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

CHAPTER V.

PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT: ABOUT 400 B.C.—DRAMATIC STYLE.—
INDIVIDUALITY.

AxpourT a generation or more subsequent to the arrival of Polygnotus
at Athens, and shortly after the death of Phidias, dramatic effect
was added to the essential style of Polygnotus and his contempo-
raries. This epoch was brought about chiefly by the efforts of
Apollodorus of Athens and Zeuxis of Heraclea (probably of Mace-
donia), and henceforth we find a unity of sentiment and action, and
ay imitation of the local and accidental appearances of objects, com-
bined with the historic and generic representation of Polygnotus,
which was chiefly characterised by individual representation with-
out any reference to the accidental combination of accessories; and
neither the picturesque, nor an indiscriminate picture of nature,
appeared to have at all belonged to the art of that period. The
most distinguished contemporaries of Apollodorus and Zeuxis, and
those who carried out their principles, were Parrhasius of Ephesus,
Eupompus of Sicyon, and Timanthes of Cythnos. Athens and
Sicyon were the great seats of the arts at this time. Apollodorus,
who, according to Plutarch,’ was the inventor of tone, or the first
great master of light and shade, was born at Athens, probably about
460; he was apparently a few years older than Zeuxis,’ for he com-
plained that Zeuxis had robbed him of his art.

ApoLLoporus oF ATHENS was the first great master of light and
shade. Earlier painters, however, and especially Dionysius of Colo-
phon, had distinguished themselves in this respect, but doubtless
in a different and in a less degree than Apollodorus, who was the
first to attain a perfect, or rather, an approximate imitation of the
various effects of light and shade invariably seen in nature, arising
from light reflected reciprocally from one contiguous object to an-
other, which always partakes in a slight degree of the colour of the
object from which it is reflected. If we may depend upon the
criticisms of ancient writers, the works of Apollodorus were not
inferior in this respect to the works of the most distinguished
masters of modern times. The distinction between this quality of
the works of Apollodorus, and the force and tone of Dionysius, which
Plutarch himself speaks of,’ is, that what in the works of Dionysius

1 “De Glor. Athen.” 2.
° Pliny mentions 400 B.c. as the period of Zeuxis, but this, as will be presently
shown, was the close of the career of Zeuxis, 3 © Timol,” 36.
PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT. 85

was a mere gradation of light and shade, or a gradual diminution of
light, was in those of Apollodorus a gradation also of tints, the colour
gradually diminishing and changing with the diminution of light,
The former was termed révoc, or tone, among the Greeks, and the
latter dpyoyf, or harmony. The English term ‘one, however, when
applied to a coloured picture, comprehends both: it is equivalent
to the “splendour” of Pliny. Apollodorus was the first painter
whose pictures, says Pliny,’ riveted the eye; he first proclaimed the
pencil’s honours, and he was the first who painted men and things
as they really appear. From the force and effective character of
his light and shade, he received the surname of the Shadower
(6 cxtaypagoc).” He may be termed the Greek Rembrandt.

‘Pliny commences his compendious sketch of the history of Greek
painting with Apollodorus, whom he terms the first luminary in
art; but he mentions only two of his pictures—a priest in the act
of devotion; and Ajax wrecked, which, in Pliny’s time, was at
Pergamum. A picture of the Heracleide, Alomena, and the daugh-
ter of Hercules, supplicating the Athenians when under fear of
Eurystheus, which is commonly attributed to Pamphilus, is said
in the scholiast on the ‘‘ Plutus” of Aristophanes (v. 385) to have
been painted by Apollodorus. This painter was in the habit, says
Plutarch, of writing upon his works, ‘It is easier to find fault than
to imitate ”—pwpioerai tre paddov 7) pupoerac. According to Pliny,
Zeuxis wrote the line upon one of his works ; he did it probably in
triumph over Apollodorus, whose fame he materially eclipsed?

ZeEUXIs OF HeRAcLEA, one of the most celebrated painters of an-
tiquity, was born, from his connection with Archelaus, probably at
Heraclea in Macedonia, certainly not later than 450 B.c., and very
possibly several years earlier. Harduin and others have assumed
Heraclea in Lucania to have been the birth-place of Zeuxis, simply
apparently from the story of the virgins of Croton, who stood to
him as models for his celebrated picture of Helen. But this town
of Heraclea was not founded till after the destruction of Siris, 433
B.c* long after the birth of Zeuxis, who was at the height of his
reputation daring the reign of Archelaus, king of Macedon, from
413 until 399 B.c.; and he was already so wealthy during the life-
time of this Lug, that he ceased to sell his pictures, but made
presents of them. Archelaus himself was presented with a picture
of Pan by Zeuxis. Archelaus had previously employed Zeuxis to
decorate the palace at Pella; for which, says Allian,® he was paid
400 mine, about 1600/. stérling—a small sum for the decoration of
a palace, compared with what was afterwards received by the

1 « Fist. Nat.” xxxv. 36. ? Hesychius.
3 Plutarch, “De Glor. Athen.” 2. “Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36.
+ Diodorus Siculus, xii. 6. Strabo, p. 264, 5 “Var. Hist.” xiv. 17.

D2
36 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

painters of the Alexandrian period, but it was a considerable amount
probably at that time.

The characteristics of Zeuxis’s style are indicated by, several
ancient writers: his peculiar excellence seems to have beena grand
style of form which was happily combined with a high degree of
execution. That he must have excelled in general effect is evident
from the complaint of Apollodorus, that he had robbed him of his
art; and from what Aristotle says of his inferiority in expression
to Polygnotus, form and effect obviously predominated in his works,
and itis a powerful and rare combination. Quintilian bears ex-
cellent testimony to the high character of his forms; he says Zeuxis
followed Homer, who loved powerful forms even in women.’ Cicero
also speaks of the fine forms of Zeuxis.?, These qualities were well
calculated to enable him to excel in painting the naked female
form. But Zeuxis added to these qualities a dramatic effect of com-
position, and he was distinguished also by his original and peculiar.
choice of subject. Lwucian* has given us a most interesting account
of Zeuxis and of one of his works—a family of Centaurs—of which
he saw a copy at Athens; the original was lost at sea on its way
to Rome, whither it had been sent by Sulla. Lucian, before de-
scribing this picture, makes the following prefatory observations :—
He says that Zeuxis seldom or never exerted his powers upon such
vulgar or hackneyed subjects as gods, heroes, or battles: but he
always selected something new and unattempted, and when he had
chosen his subject, he laboured his utmost to render it a master-
piece. He thus describes the picture—‘‘On a grass-plat of the
most glossy verdure lies the Centauress, with the whole equine
part of her stretched on the ground, the hind feet extending back-
wards, while the upper female part is gently raised and reclining
on one elbow. But the fore feet are not equally extended, as if she
lay on her side ; yet one seems to rest on the knee, having the hoof
bent backward, whereas the other is lifted up and pawing the
ground, as horses are wont to do when they are going to spring up.
Of her two young, one she holds in her arms to give it the breast,
the other lies under her, sucking like a foal. On an elevation be-
hind her is seen a Centaur, who appears to be her mate, but is only
visible to the half of the horse ; he looks down upon her with a com-
placent smile, holding up in one hand the whelp of a lion, as if
jocosely to frighten his little ones with it. . . In the male Centaur
all is fierce and terrific: his shaggy mane-like hair, his rough body,
his broad and brawny shoulders, and the countenance, though
smiling, yet wild and savage; in short, everything bears the charac-
ter of these compound beings. The Centauress, on the other hand,

4 «Tnst. Orator.” xii. 10. 3. 2 « Brutus,” 18.
3 Zeuxis or Antiochus.
PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT. 37

as far as she is brutal, resembles the finest mare of the Thessalian
breed, which is yet untamed, and has never been mounted; by the
other moiety, she is a woman of consummate beauty, excepting only
in the ears, which have somewhat of the Satyr shape. The blending
however, of the human and the animal nature is so artificial, and
the transition from one to the other so imperceptible, or rather,
they so gently lose themselves in one another, that it is impossible
to discern where the one ceases and the other begins. Nor in my
mind was it less admirable that the new-born young ones, notwith-
standing their tender age, have somewhat wild and fierce in their
aspect, and that mixture of infantine timidity and curiosity with
which they look up atthe whelp, while at the same time they continue
eagerly sucking, and clinging as close as they can to the mother.”
Zeuxis exposed this picture to public view before his house; but
finding that the singularity of the subject was the common source of
admiration, he ordered it to be removed, at the same time complain-
ing, that provided the people have some novelty, they care little
about the art that has produced it. Other celebrated works by
Zeuxis were—the Infant Hercules strangling the serpents sent by
Juno, in the presence of his mother Alemena and Amphitryon,
which he presented to the Agrigentines; Jupiter in the midst of
the assembly of the gods; Penelope bewailing the absence of her
husband ; Menelaus mourning the fate of Agamemnon; and, above
all, the famed Helen of Croton, which was painted from five of the
most beautiful virgins of that place,? and on which Zeuxis wrote
three lines from Homer,’ thus rendered by Pope—
“No wonder such celestial charms
For nine long years have set the world in arms!
What winning graces! what majestic mien !

She moves a goddess, and she looks a queen.”
dl. iti. 156-158,

Zeuxis exhibited this picture before it was placed in its destination,
the temple of Juno Lacinia at Croton, and charged a head-money,
whence it acquired the nickname of the Prostitute. People flocked
from distant parts to see it, and Zeuxis made a great deal of money
by the exhibition.* It appears to have retained its reputation
undiminished in after-times. Stobzeus’ relates that Nicomachus,
the celebrated painter of Thebes, observed to one who did not per-

ceive its great attraction—‘‘ Take my eyes, and you will see a god-
dess.””

1 Tooke’s Translation. 2 Cicero, “De Invent.” ii. 1.

3 Vulerius Maximus, iii. 7. 3. 4 Ailian, “ Var. Hist.” iv. 12.

5 «Serm.” 61. Compare Mlian, “ Var. Hist.” xiv. 47.

6 Ariosto has made admirable use of this story of the virgins of Croton in the
description of his heroine, the incomparable Olympia, and the following stanza
38 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

There are several stories told abvut illusive pictures painted by
Zeuxis and Parrhasius of Ephesus; and they are so far valuable that
they show that illusion was one of the properties of painting among
the Greeks,—which is an adequate proof of perfect materials and
finished execution. Illusion, however, was a quality which the
Greeks estimated at its proper value: there is scarcely a passage
in ancient authors out of Pliny which praises mere finish or exact-
‘ness of imitation. Pliny occasionally speaks with admiration of
some piece of elaborate finish, but he was certainly one of the least
critical of the ancient writers on art: his remarks are not unfrequently
puerile.

Zeuxis seems to have been very proud of his reputation and
ostentatious of his wealth, yet not more so than his rivals Apollo-
dorus and Parrhasius. He used to wear a shawl or mantle with his
name woven in letters of gold in the border of it. He resided
apparently in various places; he must have lived at Athens, at
Pella, at Croton, and at Ephesus. There can be no truth in the
story of his dying in a fit of immoderate laughter at the picture of
an old woman which he had painted, or it would have been noticed
by others besides a very late Latin author.!’ Zeuxis was slow in
execution.”

It is very remarkable that Pausanias does not mention Zeuxis, as
he notices most of the other great painters of Greece. The Romans
probably had not left a single picture by Zeuxis in Greece at the
time of Pausanias; and we may infer that Zeuxis painted easel
pictures only or on tabula (wivaxec), wooden panels, which, from
their perishable nature and facility of removal, are very easily lost.
If Zeuxis had painted upon walls, or even had his pictures been
inserted into walls, Pausanias would most likely have seen some of
his works. Few of the great painters of Greece painted directly
upon the walls. Apelles never did, and even the works of
Polygnotus, at Delphi, have been supposed to have been painted on
panels which were inserted into the wall. The same is supposed of

forms an almost indispensable episode to the account of this celebrated picture by
Zeuxis :—
‘“‘E se fosse costei stata a Crotone,
Quando Zeusi |’ imagine far volse,
Che por dovea nel tempio di Giunone,
E tante belle nude insieme accolse
E che per una farne in perfezione,
Da chi una parte da chi un altra tolse,
Non avea da torr’ altra che costei,
Che tutte le bellezze erano in lei.”
Orlando Furioso, xi. 71.
1 Festus, from Verrius, sub voc. Pictor. 2 Plutarch, “ Pericles,” 13.
PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT. 39

the pictures of the Poecile at Athens, as already observed, as they
were subsequently removed.’

Parruasius oF Eruesus is allowed even to have surpassed Zeuxis.
He combined in some of his works the effect of Apollodorus, the
design of Zeuxis, and the invention and expression of Polygnotus ;
his works were remarkable both for their invention and their exe-
cution. He so circumscribed all the powers and ends of art, says
Quintilian,? that he was called the “legislator.” He was himself
well aware of his ability; he termed himself, on his pictures, the
elegant (apodiaroc), and the prince of painters, declaring also his
descent from Apollo. He was, says Pliny, the most insolent and
the most arrogant of artists.* He placed his own portrait in a
temple as the god Mercury, and thus received the adoration of the
multitude.*

The branch of art in which Parrhasius eminently excelled was a
beautiful outline, as well in form as execution, particularly in the
‘extremities. The intermediate parts, says Pliny, when compared
with himself, were inferior. By which probably he means, that
Parrhasius did not so much excel other painters in the general
modelling of the figure, as in a beautiful contour, and in the out-
lines or drawing of the extremities. Pliny and other ancient
writers mention several of the works of Parrhasius, which appear to
have been in a great variety of styles. Among the most celebrated
was his allegorical figure of the Athenian people or Demos, which
represented and expressed equally all the good and bad qualities of
the Athenians ; which he can scarcely have done otherwise than by
accessory symbols. He painted also a picture of the feigned insanity
of Ulysses; and many single figures of gods and heroes; among
which was a Hercules, painted exactly, Parrhasius declared, as the
god had repeatedly appeared to him in dreams.© Among his most
celebrated works were also two pictures of Hoplites, or heavy-
armed soldiers, one in action, the other in repose. He painted a
Theseus, which Euphranor, comparing with one painted by himself,
said appeared to have been fed upon roses, while his own looked as
if it had lived upon beef,’ alluding, no doubt, to the delicacy of the
form rather than to the colour. This picture was afterwards in the

1 The question whether the Greeks painted more generally upon walls, or panels
of wood, has been discussed at considerable length by the two eminent French
antiquarians, M. Letronne and M. Raoul Rochette: the latter, in his “Peintures
Anciennes,” &c. maintaining that they painted on panels; M. Letronne, on the
other hand, in his “Lettres d’un Antiquaire & un Artiste,” maintaining that they
painted as frequently upon walls.

2 “Inst. Orator.” xii. 10. 3.

3 Atheneus, xii. p. 543, v.; xv. p. 687, b.; Mlian, “Var. Hist.” ix. 11; Pliny,
“Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36. 4 Themistius, xiv.

5 Atheneus, xii. p. 543, d. § Plutarch, ‘‘ De Glor. Athen.” 2.
40 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Capitol at Rome. Parrhasius painted libidinous pieces; the Em-
peror Tiberius preserved two remarkable pictures of this class by
him, in his bed-chamber. One, of Meleager and Atalante, he
received by rather a curious bequest: the picture was bequeathed
to the Emperor, with the provision that if he should be offended by
the indelicacy of the subject, he should receive in its stead a million
sesterces, about 8500/1. sterling. Tiberius preferred the picture to
the money. The second piece was the Archigallus, the chief priest
of Cybele; this picture was valued at 60,000 sesterces, or about
500/. sterling.

Pliny mentions a prize competition at Samos between Parrhasius
and Timanthes of Cythnos, in which Timanthes defeated him. The
subject was the contest of Ulysses and Ajax for the armour of
Achilles ; and Parrhasius, indignant at the decision of the judges,
remarked, with perfect satisfaction as to the injustice that had been
done him, that the unfortunate son of Telamon was a second time
defeated in the same cause by an unworthy rival.? The story told
by Seneca,’ of Parrhasius crucifying an old Olynthian captive, in
order to paint from him a picture of Prometheus chained, is highly
improbable, and is most likely either error or fiction. It appears
an inconsistency in point of time ; Olynthus was taken by Philip in
the second year of the 108th olympiad, or 347 B.c., which is nearly
half a century after the latest accounts we have of Parrhasius, who
was the contemporary of Zeuxis, and a painter of celebrity already
in the lifetime of Socrates, who died 399 B.c.* The story occurs no-
where but in the Controversies of Seneca. Similar stories are told of
Giotto and Michelangelo, and they are utterly without foundation.

Seneca and some other ancient writers speak of Parrhasius as an
Athenian painter, but in an epigram he wrote upon himself, pre-
served in Athenzus, he proclaims Ephesus as his birth-place.’ Plu-
tarch speaks of his being honoured by the Athenians fora picture of
Theseus ; he was, probably, as Carlo Dati has conjectured, awarded
the citizenship of Athens for this picture. It was a common prac-
tice among the ancients, as it is at present, to award citizenship as a
mark of respect or honour.®

TIMANTHES OF CyTHNos, or Sicyon, was distinguished for origi-
nality of invention, and for expression. The particular charm of his
invention was, that he left much to be supplied by the spectator’s
own fancy. Pliny’ says of him, that though in his works the exe-
cution is always excellent, it is invariably surpassed by the concep-

' Suetonius, “ Tiberius,” c. 44; Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36.

2 Atheneeus, l. c.; Adlian, “ Var Hist.” ix. 11, 3 “Controvers.’ 34, or vy. 10.
4 Xenophon, “ Memorabilia,” iii. 10. 5 Athenzus, xii. p. 543. ¢.

6 Plutarch, “ Theseus,” 4; Dati. “ Vite de’ Pittori Antichi,’ Parrasio.

7 “Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36.
PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT. 4]

tion. As an instance, he mentions a picture of a sleeping Cyclops,
which was painted upon a small panel; but Timanthes had ingeni-
ously conveyed an adequate idea of the giant’s huge form, by paint-
ing a group of little Satyrs measuring his thumb with a thyrsus.
There are but four other pictures by ‘Timanthes mentioned by ancient
writers, but more has been written, both by ancient and modern
writers, upon one of these pictures, than perhaps upon any other
work of art whatever—namely, the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, by which
he obtained the prize in competition with Colotes of Teos. The
pivot of criticism in this celebrated picture was: the concealment of
the face of Agamemnon in his mantle. The following portion of
the abundant criticism upon this work may be here repeated :—
The ancients have all given the incident their unqualified approba-
tion, but its propriety has been questioned by several modern critics,
especially by Falconet and Sir Joshua Reynolds. Fuseli, however,
in an elaborate and excellent critique in his first lecture, has pro-
bably settled the matter in favour of the painter. The Sacrifice of
Iphigenia was given as the subject of a prize picture to the students
of the Royal Academy in 1778, and all the candidates imitated the
“trick ” of Timanthes, as Sir Joshua Reynolds terms it, which was
the origin of his criticism upon the subject in his eighth lecture.
He says :—‘‘ Supposing this method of leaving the expression of
grief to the imagination to be, as it was thought to be, the invention
of the painter, and that it deserves all the praise that has been
given to it, still it is a trick that will serve but once; whoever
does it a second time will not only want novelty, but be justly sus-
pected of using artifice to evade difficulties.”

The criticism of Quintilian, Cicero, and others, that the painter,
having represented Calchas sorrowful, Ulysses much more so, and
having expressed extreme sorrow in the countenance of Menelaus,
was in consequence compelled to conceal the face of the father, is
not more pertinent than that of the modern critics. ‘They were
not aware,” says Fuseli, “that by making Timanthes waste expres-
sion on inferior actors at the expense of a principal one, they call
him an improvident spendthrift, and not a wise economist.” Fal-
conet observes that Timanthes had not even the merit of inventing
the incident, but that he copied it from Euripides. Upon this point
Fuseli remarks :—‘‘ It is observed by an ingenious critic that, in
the tragedy of Euripides, the procession is described; and upon
Tphigenia’s looking back upon her father, he groans and hides his
face to conceal his tears ; whilst the picture gives the moment that
precedes the sacrifice, and the hiding has a different object, and
arises from another impression.”

1 The author, in the “Penny Cyclopedia,” vol. xxiv. p. 456.
42 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

“Tam not prepared with chronologic proofs to decide whether
Euripides or Timanthes, who were contemporaries about the period
of the Peloponnesian war, fell first on this expedient; though the
silence of Pliny and Quintilian on that head seems to be in favour
of the painter, neither of whom could be ignorant of the celebrated
drama of Euripides, and would not willingly have suffered the
honour of this masterstroke of an art they were so much better
acquainted with than painting, to be transferred to another from its
real author, had the poet’s claim been prior:” so far Fuseli. As
regards priority, the “expedient ” was made use of by Polygnotus
long before either Timanthes or Euripides; in the Destruction of
Troy, in the Lesche at Delphi, an infant is holding his hands over
his eyes, to avoid the horrors of the scene.!| The shallow remark of
Falconet about Timanthes exposing his own ignorance by concealing
Agamemnon’s face, is scarcely worthy of an allusion, It may be
questioned whether Agamemnon, under such circumstances as he
was placed, could have been well or even naturally represented in
any other way. Although many things might combine to render
his presence at the sacrifice absolutely necessary, still it is not to be
supposed that he could calmly stand by and be an eye-witness of his
own daughter’s immolation. Notwithstanding his firm conviction
that his attendance was necessary to sanction the deed, he could not
look upon it ; it would be unnatural. The concealment of the face
of Agamemnon must be looked upon as another instance of the in-
genious invention of Timanthes.

Another celebrated picture by Timanthes was the stoning to
death of Palamedes, the unfortunate victim of the ignoble revenge
of Ulysses, for detecting and proclaiming his feigned insanity—a
highly dramatic and pathetic subject, and worthy of the pencil of a
great master. The picture is said to have made Alexander shudder,
when he saw it at Ephesus.?, There was also a beautiful picture of
a hero by him preserved in Pliny’s time, in the temple of Peace at
Rome. The fifth work by Timanthes is the picture already men-
tioned of the contest between Ulysses and Ajax for the arms of
Achilles, by which he defeated Parrhasius at Samos.

Eurompus oF Sicyon, the last very distinguished painter of this
period, was the founder of the Sicyonian school of painting, which
was afterwards established by Pamphilus, as the most celebrated
school in Greece. Eupompus was the most eminent critic of his
time, and such was the influence of his style, that he added a third,
the Sicyonic, to the only two then recognised distinct styles of
painting—the Helladic and the Asiatic, but subsequently to Eupom-

1 Pausanias, x. 26.

2 Photius, “Myriobiblon,” Cod. 190, vol. i. p. 146, ed. Bekker; Tzetzes,
“ Chiliad.” viii. 198; Junius, “ Catalogus Artificum,” v. Timanthes.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 43

pus distinguished as the Attic and the Ionic; which, with his own
style, the Sicyonic, thenceforth constituted the three characteristic
styles of Grecian painting."

In this Sicyonic school was accomplished ie last of the great
steps of Greek art, the last progression; its influence was equal
over painting and sculpture. The predominant characteristic of the
new school was individuality ; this is evident from the advice which
Eupompus gave to Lysippus. Eupompus, being consulted by the
young statuary whom of his predecessors he should imitate, imme-
diately directed his attention to the surrounding crowd, and
observed, “ Let nature be your model, not an artist.” This cele-
brated maxim, which eventually had so much influence upon the
arts of Greece, was the first professed deviation from the principles
of the generic style of Polygnotus and Phidias. Only one picture
by Eupompus is mentioned by ancient writers—a victor in the
gymnastic games holdinga palm-twig.® Eupompus appears to have
been more occupied with the theory of art than its practice.

ActaopHon the younger, the son of Aristophon, and the nephew
of Polygnotus, likewise attained distinction in this period. He was
celebrated for two pictures of Alcibiades. He is enumerated among
some of the greatest painters by Cicero, who, in speaking of the
general identity of the principles. of art, shows that it may be
variously developed, and he instances the pictures of Zeuxis, Aglao-
phon, and Apelles, though all different from each other, as yet all
perfect in their several styles.

CHAPTER VI.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT: ABOUT 340 B.c.

GRADUAL ASCENDANCY OF THE MERE Form oF ArT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ESSENTIAL POWERS OF PAINTING SUPERSEDED BY MERE TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE
AS AN END.

THE time of Alexander, or the Alexandrian period, has been termed
the period of refinement in painting. The characteristic of the
painters of this time were more varieties of effect and execution
than of any of the essential qualities of art. The differences of the
various masters were chiefly in external qualities, and much the
same transition from the essential to the sensuous in art took place
in the schools of painting in Greece in the time of Alexander, as

' Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36. 2 Pliny, xxxiv. 19.

3 Pliny, xxv. 36. 4 Cicero, “ De Orat.” iii. 7.
44 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

from existing specimens we know to have transpired with the
schools of Italy in the seventeenth century. The principal works
of the Florentine and-Roman schools during their best period, when
compared with the works of the Bolognese, Lombard, and Venetian
painters of a subsequent period, show fully the transition spoken of,
and, as far as can be judged from Greek and Roman writers, appear
to illustrate the respective relative positions of the schools of
Greece during the times of Pericles and Alexander. The Form be-
came paramount over the Essence.

In painting, of which colouring is so essential a department, the
characteristics of the latter period would be doubtless more generally
attractive, as more generally appreciable: and we accordingly find
this period represented in ancient writers as that of the highest
flourish of the art.1 Yet, as already stated, when we examine the
characteristics of its various masters, we find them distinguished
only for external qualities, if we except the grace of Apelles, which
probably was but a happy combination of them all.

The great painters of this time were Pamphilus of Amphipolis ;
his pupils, Apelles and Melanthius; Protogenes of Caunus ; Nico-
machus and Aristides, brothers, of Thebes; Pausias of Sicyon ;
Nicias of Athens; Euphranor the Isthmian ; Athenion of Maronea;
and Theon of Samos; all of the greatest fame, and nearly all dis-
tinctively characterized, though probably on an equality in the
general character of their design and execution.

Pamphilus and Melanthius were distinguished for their effective
composition; Apelles for grace or beauty ; Protogenes for elaborate
execution ; Pausias and Nicias excelled in light and shade of various
kinds; Euphranor was distinguished for his universal excellence,
or what, perhaps, may be termed academic precision ; Nitomachus
for boldness and rapidity of execution ; Aristides for intense expres-
sion; Theon of Samos for his prolific fancy or devices ; and Athe-
nion of Maronea, forming an exception to the characteristic develop-
ment of the period, was, like Euphranor, distinguished for general
perfection, combined, however, with austerity of style, especially in
colour. Besides these painters, the following also attained distinc-
tion: Philoxenus of Eretria; Asclepiodorus of Athens; Echion,
Cydias, Philochares, Theomnestus, Pyreicus, and Antiphilus of
Naucratis, extending over a period of upwards of a century.

Of some of the above painters sufficient accounts have been
handed down to us; concerning others, much is still matter of mere
conjecture.

The celebrated school of Pampuitus already mentioned, which
was established in the early part of the fourth century before Christ,
appears to have effected important results for the arts of Greece.

1 Quintilian, “Inst. Orator.” xii. 10.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 45

Through his influence, says Pliny,’ the noble or free youths of
Greece were taught the art of drawing before all others. The
school of Pamphilus himself was ‘probably attended only by those
who designed to follow the arts as a profession : the course of study
in it occupied ten’ years, and the fee was proportionately high, an
Attic talent (at a mean estimate about 2201. sterling), Pamphilus took
none for less; that is, every student entered for the whole course of
study, whether he actually attended the school for that time or not.
Apelles, Pausias, and Melanthius were pupils of Pamphilus; but
Apelles, according to Plutarch,’ attended the school more on ac-
count of its celebrity than of any instruction that he was in need of;
he had already studied in the school of Ephorus of Ephesus when
he entered that of Pamphilus: the mere reputation of having studied
under Pamphilus appears to have created a prestige or prejudice in
an artist’s favour. The modern history of painting is not without
its parallel cases. The course of study in this school comprehended
instruction in drawing,’ arithmetic, geometry, anatomy,‘ and paint-
ing in all its branches,—encaustic, &c. Pamphilus was a kind of
Leonardo da Vinci; he was the first painter, says Pliny, who -was
skilled in all the sciences, particularly arithmetic and geometry,
without which he denied that art could be perfected. It is not
very evident how these sciences are applied, especially to painting,
though they are however connected with the elements of propor-
tion and motion. By arithmetic are signified probably the relative
proportions of the parts of the human figure; by geometry, their
adjustment through perspective, and the laws of motion so far as
they are requisite in properly representing and balancing the figure

; 1 “Hist. Nat.” xxv. 36. Compare Pollux vii. 128. 2 « Aratus,” 12.

3 « Graphice, hoc est pictura in buxo,” that is drawing, in which the elementary
process consisted in drawing lines or outlines, with the graphis, upon tablets of box ;
the first exercise was probably then, as now. to draw asimple line—ypapyhy érrioa,
Pollux, vii. 128.

"The anatomy, probably, was more strictly the physiology of the bones and
muscles from the skeleton and the living subject; for the anatomy or dissection of
the dead subject, whether practised by the Greeks or not, is of little or no service
to the painter or sculptor. The artist studies the forms assumed by the muscles in
various action: after death the flesh becomes flaccid and the muscles lose their
shape, even that which they had when in repose; and the mere knowledge of the
origins and insertions of muscles could avail little towards a comprehension of their
various forms on the healthy living subject. A model of the human figure with the
superficial muscles exposed, and a guod living subject (or model, in academical
language), to show the forms and uses of the muscles on, is all that the anatomical
demonstrator requires in treating the subject for artists. Among the Greeks, in
consequence of their customary athletic games, excellent models must have been
numerous and accessible; and to this facility is doubtless owing much of the ex-
cellence of the Greek sculpture. Antonio Pollajuolo is said to have been the first
among the moderns to dissect the dead subject for the purposes of art.
46 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

under any cirumstances. Flaxman remarks on this subject,—“ How
geometry and arithmetic were applied to the study of the human
figure, Vitruvius informs us from the writings of Greek artists,
perhaps from those of Pamphilus himself:’—‘‘ A man,” says he,
‘may be so placed, with his arms and legs extended, that his navel
being made the centre, a circle can be drawn round touching the
extremities of his fihgers and toes. In the like manner a man
standing upright, with his arms extended, is enclosed in a square,
the extreme extent of his arms being equal to his height.” Flaxman
_continues—“ It is impossible to see the numerous figures, springing,
jumping, dancing, and falling, in the Herculaneum paintings on
the painted vases, and the antique basso-rilievos, without being
assured that the painters and sculptors must have employed geo-
metrical figures to determine the degrees of curvature in the’ body,
and angular or rectilinear extent of the limbs, and to fix the centre
of gravity.”

Pamphilus, like his master Eupompus, painted apparently few
pictures: he was probably occupied more with the theory of art
thamsthe practice. Four only of his works are mentioned by ancient
writers—the Heraclide noticed by Aristophanes,’ and the three
mentioned by Pliny ? the battle of Phlius and Victory of the Athe-
nians ; Ulysses on the raft ; and a relationship, ‘‘ Cognatio,” perhaps
a family portrait. Pamphilus left writings on painting and famous
painters, but, like the works of all other ancient artists, they are
lost.

Nicomacuus of Thebes, and his younger brother and pupil Anris-
TIDES, were likewise two of the most celebrated painters of ancient
Greece. The school of Thebes, though not particularly noticed by
ancient writers, was probably little inferior to the more celebrated
schools. A regulation which was in force at Thebes, is particularly
worthy of notice, and appears unique of its kind. Alian* says that
all painters and sculptors who practised their arts in Thebes, were
compelled to execute their own portraits or busts, to the utmost of
their ability, as a proof of their proficiency ; and that those artists
whose works were considered as inferior or unworthy of their pro-
fession, should be heavily fined. Such a regulation, if impartially
carried out, must have had a very beneficial effect, by intimidating
inefficient persons from clogging a profession, and from degrading
the public taste by unworthy productions.

Nicomachus, says Pliny,* was the most rapid painter of his time:
he combined, however, such vigour and power with his rapidity,
that Plutarch’ compared his pictures with the verses of Homer.

1 “Plutus,” 385. ?« Hist, Nat.” xxxv. 36. 3 © Var, Hist.” iv. 4.
4“ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36. 5 « Timoleon,” 36.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 47

And Cicero,! in speaking of the crude performances of earlier
artists, instances the works of Nicomachus, Apelles, Protogenes, and
Echion, as examples of perfect execution. Nicomachus’s great
fame, however, appears to have been of a posthumous kind, for
Vitruvius’ enumerates him among those artists who, though of the
greatest ability, met with little substantial success in life. Of his
numerous scholars, his brother AkisripEs was the most distinguished ;
he has the reputation of having been the greatest master of expres-
sion among the Greek painters. Pliny mentions a picture at Thebes
of the sack of a town by Aristides, which so impressed Alexander
the Great when he saw it after the storming of Thebes, that he took
it for himself, and ordered it to be sent to Pella. The chief
incident of this picture is one that has been closely imitated by
Nicolas Poussin in his plague of Ashdod in the National Gallery—
a wounded mother was lying with her infant near her at the point
of death, and the expression of her face was remarkable for the
intense agony she felt lest the child should suck blood instead of
milk from her breast. Aristides seems to have been much more
fortunate than his brother Nicomachus, for he received apparently
very high prices for his works, and after his death they rose to an
enormous value. Mnason, tyrant of Elatea, paid him for a Persian
battle, containing a hundred figures, at the rate of ten mine for each
figure, or a thousand mine for the piece, not much short of 40001.
sterling. As the picture was a panel or easel piece (tabula), the
figures were probably of a small size. About two centuries later,
or about 146 B.c., when Corinth was destroyed by Mummius, Attalus
III., king of Pergamum, gave one hundred talents for a single pic-
ture by Aristides; six times the amount paid to Aristides by Mnason
of Elatea.? The same King Attalus bought from the plunder of
Greece, a picture of Dionysus and Ariadne, by Aristides, for nearly
six thousand pounds—so great a price that it excited the suspicions
of Mummius, and the soldier, imagining that the work possessed
some hidden value unknown to him, withheld it from Attalus, and
sent it to Rome, where it was dedicated in the temple of Ceres.
Pliny erroneously supposed that this was the first foreign picture
which was publicly exhibited in Rome. The pictures brought by
Marcellus from Syracuse, and dedicated in the public buildings of
Rome, were placed nearly seventy years (B.c. 211) before the sack of
Corinth by Mummius; many other works were also exhibited in
Rome before those sent from Greece by Mummius.*

Among the pictures by Aristides at Rome there was one of a tragic

1 « Brutus,” 18. 2 6. iii. in proem.

3 Pliny, “Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36; vii. 89.

4 See the author's article, Aristides of Thebes, in the “ Biographical Dictionary ”
of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
48 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

poet and a boy, which was destroyed by a picture-restorer to whom
the pretor Junius had given it to clean, before the celebration of
the Apollinaria. Such incidents as this, of which there are several
very similar, show how little change is produced by time in the
habits of civilized people. Nearly two thousand years ago there
were probably as many destructive picture-cleaners as there are at
the present day: not that pictures do not require cleaning, but
this necessary process is too often undertaken by incompetent or
not sufficiently conscientious persons.

APELLES, the Corypheus of painters, whose career appears to have
been from about 350 to 310 B.c., was, according to Pliny, a native of
Cos, or, according to Suidas, of Colophon: the Apelles of Ephesus
mentioned by Lucian! was another painter of the name who lived
in Egypt more than a century later, at the court of Ptolemy Philo-
pator, for the conspiracy alluded to by Lucian took place during the
reign of this king.

Apelles is completely Pliny’s hero; yet his great superiority over
other painters is asserted, not shown. The grace for which his works
are said to have been so particularly distinguished, appears to have
been an external quality, and to imply almost perfect execution.
This is evident from his own pretensions as recorded by Pliny. He
claimed for himself the first place in grace or beauty, xapue,
venustas ; he allowed that Protogenes was equal to him in all re-
spects, save knowing when to leave off; and he admitted that he
was surpassed by Asclepiodorus in symmetry (proportion ?). ‘‘ His
great prerogative,” says Fuseli, in his first lecture, ‘‘ consisted more
in the unison than the extent of his powers; he knew better what
he could do, what ought to be done, at what point he could arrive,
and what lay beyond his reach, than any other artist. Grace of
conception and refinement of taste were his elements, and went
hand in hand with grace of execution and taste in finish; powerful
and seldom, possessed singly, irresistible when united.” His most
celebrated work was the famous Venus Anadyomene, or Venus
rising out of the waters. It was painted for the people of Cos, and
was placed in the temple of Aisculapius on that island, and remained
there until it was removed by Augustus, who took it in lieu of one
hundred talents tribute, and dedicated it in the temple of Julius
Cesar the Dictator at Rome. The beautiful goddess was represented
squeezing the water from her hair, and her only veil was the spark-
ling shower which fell from her dripping locks. Ovid pays the
Greek painter the poetic compliment of having established the repu-
tation of Venus for beauty ; for, he says, but for this picture she would
have remained concealed beneath her native waters :—

1 «De Calumnia.”
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 45

“Si Venerem Cous nunquam pinxisset Apelles,
Mersa sub aequoreis illa lateret aquis.”}

The picture received some injury on the voyage, and was in such
a decayed state in the time of the Emperor Nero, that he removed
it and substituted a copy of it by Dorotheus in its place: what then
became of it isnot known. This was about three centuries and a
half after it was painted. European galleries contain many pictures
much older, in a comparatively perfect state. The model for this
Venus is said to have been Campaspe, a beautiful slave presented to
Apelles by Alexander, as a reward for a picture of her painted by
him for the King. But the composition of the figure is said to have
been suggested by Phryne who entered the sea publicly as Venus at
a festival of Neptune at Eleusis. Phryne going to the Bath on this
occasion, is the subject of one of Turner’s pictures in the National
Gallery.

In portrait Apelles was unrivalled; his master-piece, according to
competent judges, says Pliny,? was a portrait of King Antigonus on
horseback. He painted Alexander several times; and for one of
these portraits, or rather pictures, which was in the temple of Diana
at Ephesus, Alexander gave him twenty talents of gold (upwards of
50,0001. sterling)—so large a sum that it was weighed, not counted,
from the royal treasury. Alexander was represented wielding the
lightnings of Jupiter, and his hand, says Pliny, quite stood out of
the picture. Plutarch complains of the brownness of the com-
plexion; but in a piece where fire was imitated, the tone of the
picture would naturally require to be kept much lower and
warmer than the light of day, and the complexion of Alexander
would necessarily undergo a corresponding change. This effect and
its pictorial value were overlooked by Lysippus, who criticised as
a sculptor when he observed that a lance would have been much
more suitable than lightning in the hand of Alexander.®

The limited space of this essay will not admit an enumeration of
all the works of Apelles, about which many notices are preserved in
ancient writers.

The story, however, of the celebrated contest of lines between
Apelles and Protogenes, as a subject of general inquiry among
artists for ages, may be here detailed at length. Apelles paid a
visit to Rhodes, to see the works of Protogenes, a celebrated painter
of that place, and the following is Pliny’s account of the contest
between the two painters on this occasion. Apelles upon his

1 Ovid, “ Art. Amat.” iii. 401. See also “ Trist.” ii. 527.

2 « Hist. Nat.” xxx, 36,

3 Plutarch, “ Alex.” 4; and “Is. et Os.” 24. It was this picture that gave rise

to the saying that there were two Alexanders,—the one of Philip, the Invincible;
the other of Apelles, the Inimitable. Plutarch, “ Fort. Alex. Mag.’ 2, 3.

E
50 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

arrival at Rhodes immediately sought out the studio of Protogenes,
who happened to be from home, but an old woman was in attend-
ance taking charge of a large panel, which was standing ready pre-
pared upon the easel. When the old woman inquired what name
she should give to her master upon his return, Apelles answered by
taking a pencil wet with colour, and drawing a line (linea) on the
panel, saying simply “ His.” When Protogenes returned, the old
woman pointed out what had happened, and the story says that
Protogenes, when he saw the panel, cried out instantly, “‘ Apelles
has been here, for that is the work of no other hand ;” and he took
a pencil and with another colour drew upon the same line—or
panel, in ill4 ipsa (linea or tabula ?)—a still finer line, and going
away, gave orders to the old woman that when Apelles returned
she was to show him “that” and tell him it was whom he sought.
Apelles returned, and blushing to see himself surpassed, drew a
third between or upon those two (secuit lineas) in a third colour,
and attained the summit of subtilty, leaving no possibility of being
surpassed.

When Protogenes returned a second time, he confessed himself
vanquished, and immediately sought out Apelles.

This panel, continues Pliny, was handed down a wonder for pos-
terity, and particularly to artists; and, notwithstanding it contained
only those three scarcely visible lines (tres lineas), still it was the
most noble work in the gallery, although surrounded by the finished
paintings of the most renowned masters. It was preserved in the
gallery of the Imperial Palace on the Palatine, and was destroyed
by the first fire which consumed that palace in the time of Augustus,
and was therefore not seen by Pliny, who must consequently have
described the picture either from a written account or from some
other indirect source; and it is to this circumstance, perhaps, that
much of the obscurity of this subject is owing.

The interpretation of the word linea is not the only difficulty ;
whether as sketch or line, the account is equally obscure. It may
be objected that if this panel contained only three lines upon its
surface, it could scarcely be termed a noble work, much less the
most noble work of the Palatine Collection (omnique opere nobili-
orem), or the wonder of painters. Such a display, however dexter-
ously the lines may be drawn, is not within the province of painting.
This is the intrepretation, however, which is adopted by several
antiquaries of reputation, and of all those who abide by the letter
of Pliny: but the bare meaning of the word is all that it has in its
favour. ;

If the text of Pliny will not admit of a deviation from the literal
meaning, and allow us to interpret the linee as three distinct rival
sketches, we may still suppose that Apelles made an outline or pro-
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 51

file of some part of the human figure according to the ancient
standard of beauty, which was improved upon by Protogenes, whose
line was in its turn improved upon by the second effort of Apelles,
the unerring line passing both upon and between his own original
line and the correcting line of Protogenes: thus he intersected the
two former lines (secuit lineas), all three being easily distinguished,
as each was executed in a distinct colour. The fact of these
painters using different colours for their different sketches favours
this interpretation, for unless the lines were intermingled, there
would be no occasion for different colours—their respective merits
would in the case of distinct sketches be more apparent if all
executed in one colour. This appears to be the only probable inter-
pretation of this much-discussed subject.

The mere line interpretation, however, is not without its merits:
supposing the three lines to have been one within the other, and the
feat to have been the accomplishment of a subtilty of line; the
three colours would be equally necessary, and the third line may be
strictly said to have cut the other two (secuit lineas). The singu-
larity of the contest and the extraordinary nature of the production
are by no means diminished, but rather enhanced by this inter-
pretation, for it supposes a much more difficult, though a more
manual feat, than that of making the mere profile of a part of the
human figure, which can have required no effort from the expe-
rienced pencils of such painters as Apelles and Protogenes. But if
they were three simple, nearly invisible lines, one within another,
as Pliny appears to affirm, the command of hand required, as well
as the excellence of the hair-pencils used to accomplish them, must
have been prodigious: and a panel with such lines upon it, and
such a history attached to it, may certainly have been a general
object of wonder, and especially to painters, independent of its
singularity.

The character of Apelles shows itself in a noble light in his
conduct towards Protogenes, who was not duly appreciated by the
Rhodians. Apelles, finding many of his pictures on his hands,
offered to purchase them of him at his own price, but Protogenes
named so low a sum that Apelles fixed fifty talents for the purchase
of the whole, and allowed it to be reported at Rhodes that he
intended to sell them as his own; this conduct opened the eyes of
the Rhodians to the merits of their painter, and they secured the
pictures for themselves at the price fixed by Apelles—upwards of
10,0002.

Apelles was famed for his industry: he never spent a day without
exercising his pencil in some way or other (nulla dies sine lined).
The old proverb also of “‘ Let the cobbler keep to his last,” origin-
ated, it is said, with him: it was a custom with the Greek painters

E2
52 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

to expose their pictures when finished to the public view, in the
front or in the porches of their houses, just as the Italian painter
used to expose his works in his Bottega; and a cobbler found fault
with the sandal of one of the figures of Apelles thus exposed; but
perceiving it corrected on the following day, was bold enough to
venture his criticism upon the leg also, when Apelles came out and
indignantly told him that the “cobbler should keep to his last,”
which from that time became a proverb—Ne sutor supra crepidam.

The majority of the works of Apelles seem to have been portraits,
or of a portrait character; his subjects seldom contained more than
one or two figures. ‘T'wo pictures only by him are mentioned by
ancient writers as compositions of many figures; Diana surrounded
by her Nymphs, in which he was allowed to have surpassed the
lines of Homer, from which he took the subject; and the pomp or
procession of the high priest of Diana at Ephesus. His horses,
which he appears to have often introduced into portraits, were very
celebrated; ancient writers tell various anecdotes attesting their
excellence. Many anecdotes also are related attesting his familiarity
with Alexander the Great.

Apelles used to glaze or tone his pictures with a dark transparent
varnish, after they were finished: Lucian, as already mentioned,
reckons him among the four greatest colourists. He survived
Alexander many years, but neither the date nor the circumstances
of his death are known. He left writings on the Arts.

Prorocenes of Caunus, or, according to Suidas, of Xanthus in
Lycia, the Rhodian painter already mentioned, was chiefly dis-
tinguished for the elaborate finish of his works. Petronius’ says
that he had observed pictures by Protogenes, elaborated to a degree
of detail which gave him a kind of horror—a Greek Denner or
Seybold, probably. His most celebrated picture was Jalysus and
his dog, on which he is said to have been occupied for seven years.
This is quite probable: Sir Thomas Lawrence has taken twice as
many years over a lady’s portrait; but in such case he certainly
touched upon the picture only at intervals. Jalysus was the grand-
son of Phoebus, and apparently the patron and founder of the town
of that name on the island of Rhodes. This picture was preserved
in a certain part of Rhodes, and was the means of preserving the
city, for Demetrius, when he besieged it, 304 B.c., respected that
part of the city lest this picture should be destroyed with it2 Foam
was represented at the mouth of Jalysus’s dog, and it was accom-
plished by Protogenes by throwing his sponge at the dog’s head in

1 « Sat” 83,

2 This event is somewhat variously related by different writers. Compare

Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” vii. 38, and xxxv. 36; Plutarch, “ Demetrius,” 22; Gellius, xv.
3, and Strabo, xiv. p. 965 : see also Carlo Dati, “ Vite de’ Pittori Antichi.”
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 53

a fit of ill humour, having tried over and over again in vain to pro-
duce the desired effect with his pencils. The same story is told of
other animals by other painters.

Protogenes was a famous animal painter: in a picture of a Satyr
reposing, with a flute in his hand, he introduced a quail or partridge,
80 exquisitely painted, that it took the general attention from the
rest of the picture, and he obtained accordingly permission to efface
it. Another of his most celebrated pictures, Nausicaa, painted at
Athens, was apparently called Hemionis from the mules of her
chariot.’ A composition of the kind was on the chest of Cypselus
of Corinth, at Olympia; Nausicaa and her maid were riding on
mules to the waterside to wash her clothes. A picture of this sub-
ject might very naturally get the name of the Mule picture
(‘Hpwovic), if the’ animals were painted with extraordinary skill.
Another celebrated picture by Protogenes, at Athens, was Paralus.
Both the Paralus and the Hemionis (or Ammonias, as some read it)
are supposed by several to have been pictures of ships; painters,
however, do not paint miniature ships as accessories to large ones,
and such little ships were introduced into the picture of Paralus,
not by Protogenes, as Pliny says, to show his own origin, but in al-
lusion to the distinction of Paralus as inventor of war-galleys.?
Small ships were likewise introduced into the Nausicaa; the back
ground was probably a view of the sea, and Protogenes had appa-
rently studded it with a few distant vessels. This Paralus was a
human figure, and Cicero® classes it with the most famous statues
and pictures, which he would not have done if it had been the
sacred ship Paralus. The origin of Protogenes alluded to, is, that
he was a ship painter until he was fifty years of age: this however
is altogether improbable, unless he were merely a ship decorator,
and painted easel pictures at the same time. Protogenes was in
Athens, and during the lifetime of Aristotle, whose mother he
painted. Aristotle exhorted him to paint the exploits of Alexander,
who must have been then in Asia. The time may have been about
330 or 825 B.c.: and Protogenes can certainly not have been a mere
ship painter then, but must have already attained distinction, and
was therefore; in accordance with this tradition, about sixty years
ofage. He was, however, still in his prime during the siege of
Riedie 504 B.c.; he painted at that time one of his best pictures,
the reposing Satyr already mentioned, and, according to Plutarch,
he had only just then completed his Jalysus after seven years’
labour. It is not very probable that he was ninety years old when

1 Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36, “ubi fecit nobilem Paralum, et Hemionida quam
quidam Nausicaam vocant;” with which compare Pausanias, v.19; Homer,
“Odyssea,” vi. 71; and Carlo Dati, “ Vite,” Protogene,

2 Pliny, ‘‘ Hist, Nat.” vii. 56. 3 Cicero, “in Verr.” v. 60.
54 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

he painted these pictures, and this tradition, therefore, must be er-
roneous, except as above explained, and has arisen probably from
some misunderstanding of Pliny’s.

Pliny mentions that the picture of Jalysus was painted over four
times ; which shows that the manner in which the ancients em-
bodied their colours can have differed little from that adopted by
most modern schools of painting. The four times of Protogenes
were probably the dead colouring, a first and second painting, and,
lastly, glazing with scumbling. The Jalysus was burnt at Rome, in
the Temple of Peace, in the fire which consumed that temple.

Evraranor the Isthmian was equally celebrated as painter and as
statuary. One of his most celebrated works was a picture of
Theseus, which (as already remarked) he boasted was distinguished
from that of Parrhasius, in that it appeared to have been fed upon
beef, while that of Parrhasius looked as if it had lived upon roses.
Euphranor probably alluded to a distinction in style as well as in
colour: there was the divine and the human hero; the Theseus of
Parrhasius approximated perhaps too much to the divine. We have
examples in both styles in the Apollo and Laocoon, or in the An-
tinous and the (so-termed) Discobolus of Naucydes. There are
notices of many other works by Euphranor, both in painting and in
sculpture: he painted in encaustic. Among his pictures are con-
spicuous the feigned insanity of Ulysses; the Battle of Mantinea,
which happened in 362 B.c., painted for the Ceramicus at Athens;
and a very celebrated assembly of the gods, of which Eustathius
relates the following anecdote :—Whilst the picture was in progress,
Euphranor, at a loss for a model for his Jupiter, was wandering
about Athens despairing of finding one, when, as he passed the
Gymnasium, he happened to hear the following lines of Homer :—

“ Kronion spoke, and gave the nod of assent with his dark eyebrows,
And the ambrosial locks of the king were shaken
On his immortal head,” Iliad. i, 539.

and crying out ‘I have found my model,” he hastened home and
produced a corresponding head. Some accounts, however, say that
he copied the head of the Olympian Jupiter of Phidias, which
indeed well corresponds with the above description from Homer.
Valerius Maximus’ says that Euphranor having exhausted his whole
power upon the head of Neptune, was driven of necessity to copy
the head of Phidias for his Jupiter. A very similar criticism has
been circulated about Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper at Milan,
and the one may be as unfounded as the other. The same remarks

1 Valer. Max. viii. 11. 5; Eustathius, “ad Il.” i. 529; Pliny, “Hist. Nat.”
xxxv. 40.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 55

.also were made on the Sacrifice of Iphigenia by Timanthes, as has
been already recorded. Huphranor left writings on symmetry and
on. colours.

Pausias or Sicyon painted likewise in encaustic, in which style
he appears to have distinguished himself before either Euphranor
or Nicias. He was eminent for a bold and powerful effect of light
and shade, which he enhanced by contrasts and strong foreshorten-
ings. His picture of the Sacrifice of a Bull was one of the most
famous paintings of antiquity: he painted a black bull upon a light
ground; the animal was foreshortened, but to show its size Pausias
cast his shadow upon part of the surrounding ground: it was in the
hall of Pompey at Rome in Pliny’s time. It would have been a
subject of the highest gratification to have been enabled to compare
this ancient sacrifice with an equally celebrated sacrifice of modern
times—Raphael’s cartoon of Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, now at
Hampton Court. Pausias was a distinguished flower-painter:
L. Lucullus bought at Athens a copy of a picture by him of his
wife or mistress Glycera wreathing a garland of flowers, for two
talents, or about 450]. sterling; an enormous price for a copy of a
single figure with a wreath of flowers.

Nicras or ATHENS, another great encaustic painter, was likewise
celebrated for his chiaroscuro, and for delicacy of execution, espe-
cially in pictures of females. His masterpiece was a picture of the
Region of the Shades, from the Odyssey of Homer, which he de-
clined to sell to Ptolemy. I. of Egypt,’ although he offered him the
enormous sum of 60 talents for it, about 14,000/.; he presented it
to the city of Athens. He was at this time old, and probably rich.
Ptolemy ascended the throne of Egypt 306 3.c., and Nicias nearly
half a century before was employed by Praxiteles to paint some of
his marble statues. Praxiteles was probably one generation the
senior of Nicias, but certainly not more; and Nicias may have been
about seventy years of age at the close of the fourth century B.c., or
when he refused to sell his ‘‘ Necromantia Homeri” to Ptolemy,
which may have been somewhere about or a little before 300 B.c.
Pliny intimates a doubt whether the Nicias of Praxiteles and the
celebrated Nicias were the same artist; and Sillig in his “ Cata-
logus Artificum” has concluded that they cannot be the same.
Only one Nicias, however, is known and spoken of by ancient
writers; and the only ground for doubting the identity of person
here, is Pliny’s unsatisfactory method of assigning their dates to
artists and their scholars, mentioning a single year or olympiad for
each, which, vaguely expressed as it always is, may not give us the
exact time of an artist within half a century: he may have lived

1 Plutarch, “ Mor. Epicurus,” 11.
“

56 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

fifty years before or after the date which Pliny gives, although wel
known and active in the given year.

Pliny’ relates that Praxiteles being asked which of his marble
statues he preferred, answered—‘‘ Those which Nicias had had a
hand in,” so much did he attribute to his circwmlitio. This word
circumlitio has been variously interpreted: Fuseli supposed it sig-
nified the outlining of the clay model; but Pliny is speaking of
marble statues, and the circumlitio must have been some superficial
application, and cannot imply a correction of form. The question
is also about a process which marble statues have undergone at the
hands of a painter, at least Pliny understood it as such, Cicero has
“‘ Persee mortuos cera circumlitos condunt.”?

There is a very great prejudice against the idea that the Greeks
painted their statues; that they did so, however, is an indisputable
fact, though it may have been far from a universal practice. The
statue painters, of dvdpcdvrac ypadorrec, as they are termed by Plato,?
are more definitely spoken of by Plutarch‘ as “Ayadparwy éyxavorat
—the encaustic painters of statues; and the art itself as ’A-yahpdaroy
éykavoic, showing beyond question that statues were coloured in
encaustic. The Greek statues seem to have been sometimes entirely
painted in accordance with nature, which appears from the following
words of Plato: he observes, in speaking of statue painters, as given
above :—‘“‘It is not by applying a rich or beautiful colour to any
particular part, but by giving every part its local colour, that the
whole is made beautiful.” From which I conclude that the Greek
sculptors were by no means afraid of giving a full natural effect to
their statues, and that they did not timidly tint them, making them
neither one thing nor the other, but that they painted them boldly.
That it was not, however, a general practice to paint the marble
entirely is evident from the conversation between Licinus and
Aristratus, in the dialogue of the portraits, or Panthea, in Lucian ;°
from which it is plain that the Venus of Cnidus, by Praxiteles, and
other celebrated statues, were not painted, though parts may have
been coloured, and the whole body covered with an encaustic
varnish. "We may infer, therefore, in this case, that the circumlitio
of Nicias, applied to some of the marble statues of Praxiteles, was
neither more nor less than the dyaApdrwy éyxavore of Plutarch, and
that Nicias was accordingly an dyaApdrwy éycavorie, or painter of
statues, in his youth. In his circumlitio the naked form was occa-
sionally probably merely varnished, the colouring being applied
only to the eyes, eyebrows, and lips; to the hair, the draperies,
and the various ornaments of dress; and there can be little doubt

1 © Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 40. 2 «Tn Tuse.” i. 45. 3 “De Republ.” iv. 420, e.
4 “De Glor. Athen.” 6. > “Tmag.” 5—8.
PERIOD OF REFINEMENT. 57

that marble statues, especially of females, must have had a very
beautiful appearance when well coloured in this way."

Nicias was, according to Pausanias,’ the most excellent animal
painter of his time. He was honoured with a public funeral, and
was buried on the road from Athens to the Academy, the cemetery
of all great Athenians. He was a very studious, and appears to
have been anabsent, man, Allian® says he sometimes forgot to take
his meals. -

ArHenion oF Maronra, who was also an encaustic painter, was
compared, and by many preferred, to Nicias; but he died young,
or, says Pliny, he would have surpassed all men in painting.” He
was more austere in his colouring than Nicias, and appears to have:
attempted a combination of the style of his ownage with the generic
style of Polygnotus and Phidias. A picture of a groom with a
horse, by Athenion, is mentioned by Pliny’as a very remarkable
painting.

ASCLEPIODORUS of ATHENS is ranked by Plutarch’ with Euphranor
and Nicias, and is mentioned by him as one of those artists who
have done honour to their country. He was particularly dis-
tinguished for symmetry or proportion; but it is difficult to say
what is exactly meant by symmetry in this case. Asclepiodorus
painted pictures of the Twelve Gods for Mnason, the tyrant of
Elatea, already mentioned, for which he was paid one hundred
ming each, or upwards of a thousand guineas for each figure.°

Kcuion also is mentioned by Pliny and Cicero as a famous painter ;
the latter appears to rank him with Polycletus.". He was dis-
tinguished for a picture of a marriage, of which some have supposed
the so-called Aldobrandini marriage to be a copy.

Pliny speaks of the picture as a “ Bride, remarkable for her ex-
pression of modesty.” The same may be said of the bride in the
Aldobrandini marriage, now in the Vatican, as regards the general
pose of the figure; but this picture is, notwithstanding all that has
been written about it, a mere sketch. It is executed with great
freedom, but is probably simply some skilful decorator’s version of a
celebrated easel picture, such as the “ Bride” of Echion; just as the
“* Battle” of Alexander and Darius, executed in mosaic in the casa
del Fauno at Pompeii, may be & reproduction of the “Battle” by
which Philoxenus of Eretria made himself celebrated.®

! The artigle Nictas in the Supplement to the “ Penny Cyclopedia,” and in the
“English Cyclopedia,” contains an account of all the known works of Nicias.

2 vii. 22. 3 «Var, Hist.” iii. 31. 4 “Hist, Nat.” xxxv. 40.

> «De Glor. Athen.” 2. 6 Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 36.

7 Pliny, 1. c.; Cicero, “ Brutus,” 18; “ Parad,” v. 2.

“ Pliny, “Hist. Nat.’ xxxv. 36; Nicolini, “Quadro in musaico scoperto in
Pompeii ;” Mazois, ‘‘ Pompei,” iv. 48, 49.
58 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Though not nearly so important as a composition as this mosaic,
the “ Aldobrandini Marriage ” is one of the most valuable relics of
ancient painting. It was discovered on a ruined wall in the time of
Clement VIIL., in the beginning of the seventeenth century, at Rome,
near the Arch of Gallienus, on thé Esquiline. It was sawed from
the wall for the Cardinal Aldobrandini, and, after being restored
by Domenico del Frate, was placed in the Aldobrandini villa on
the Quirinal, whence its present name. In 1818 it was purchased
for 10,000 scudi (about 2000 guineas) by Pius VII, and added to
the Vatican collections. It is a simple composition of ten smal]
figures, arranged much as an ordinary bas-relief, representing three
distinct scenes: in the centre is the Bride seated on a bed with
another female, who is speaking to her, while the Bridegroom,
crowned with ivy, is seated ona stool at the end of the bed with his
head turned towards the bride; on the spectator’s left are attend-
ants preparing a bath, and on the right, musicians singing the
Epithalamium or wedding song.’

Txeon oF Samos, distinguished as Quintilian informs us for his
fanciful inventions—gayracia, is likewise ranked by him among
the great painters of Greece, though Pliny places him among the
second class. lian givesa spirited description of a young warrior
painted by Theon, who has hastily armed himself with his sword
and shield and is rushing to the combat; but before showing the
picture Theon had a trumpeter to sound a charge; he then drew
aside a curtain and exposed his warrior.’

CHAPTER VII.
THE DECLINE: THE ANCIENT GENRE PAINTERS: FROM ABOUT 300 B.C.

PainTIne was said among the Romans to have flourished chiefly
during the period of Alexander and his successors; yet during the
period of the immediate successors of Alexander a very sensible
decay also had taken place in the art. The causes of the decline
are evident. The political revolutions with which Greece was
convulsed, and the dynastic changes which ensued, were perhaps
the principal obstacles to further great efforts in art; the more
intelligent and wealthy classes being probably either engrossed by

1 Engraved by P. 8. Bartoli: Platner and Bunsen, “ Beschreiburg der Stadt
Rom,” II. ii. 10; Miiller, “ Denkmaler der Alten Kunst,” pl. 43.
2 « Var. Hist.” ii. 44.
THE DECLINE. 59

politics or engaged in war. The public buildings also were at this
period rich to overflow in works of art, almost even to the ex-
haustion of the national history and mythology; and thus the very
source of the arts themselves, the public demand, was virtually
dried up. New rulers also must have found the transfer of already
renowned works a more expeditious mode of adorning their halls
and palaces, and likewise less hazardous, than the more tardy alter-
native of commissioning the living artists for new and original pro-
ductions. Thus many artists probably changed their pursuit,
others doubtless had recourse to various expedients in order to
attract attention, which they could only do by novelty or variety.
If the temples and public buildings were full, the private dwellings
of the wealthy still afforded an inexhaustible field for the painters
of small pictures and popular subjects. Inferior classes of art
became predominant, and even wholly new styles developed them-
selves, and characterised the period. High art, however, though
suborned, was still far from being extinguished for several centuries
from this time: there appear to have been some few eminent Greek
painters down to the latest times of Grecian history. Among the
Romans the higher branches of painting were scarcely cultivated
at any time. The falling off was not so much in mere technicalities
as in the spirit of art; the artists of this day doubtless drew as well
and coloured as well as those of the earlier times. Works of the
highest class in sculpture were still produced at Rhodes: the Anti-
nous, the Laocoon, the famed Torso of Apollonius in the Vatican,
are all works of a late date. It was the general debasement of taste
and public morals that fostered their decline, though pornography
or obscene painting was not limited to the Romans; it prevailed at
no particular period in Greece, but was apparently tolerated at all
times: Parrhasius, Aristides, Pausanias, Nicophanes, Chaerephanes,
Arellius, and others were ropvoypago. In the time of the Romans,
however, this species of painting was practised with the grossest
licence.

Among the characteristic styles of this period were caricatures,
and what the Greeks termed rhyparography, which is almost equiva-
lent to the French Genre, and expresses well the distinguishing
characteristics of the Dutch school of painting. Of this time was
Pyreicus, the most famous of all the Greek genre painters: he
painted barbers’ shops, cobblers’ stalls, shell-fish, and eatables of all
kinds. And although in so humble a province, he obtained a great
name through the skill and truth of his representations; his small
panels being more valuable than the large pictures of many eminent
masters.

1 Athenzus, xiii. p. 567 b; Plutarch, de aud. Péet, 8; Pliny, xxxv. 37; Proper-
tius, ii. 6; Suetonius, “ Tib.” 43, and Vit. Hor. ;
60 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.
“ Pyreicus parva vindicat arte locum,”

says Propertius. He was called Rhyparographos (jumapoypagoc), from
the meanness of the subjects illustrated by his pencil; purapoypagia
is literally dirt-painting. Thus, without reflecting upon modern
genre-painting, the term genre-painter, or “‘ peintre du genre bas,”
owes its origin to the same sentiment which established the Greek
term rhyparographos. The subjects of such painters, taken from the
ordinary objects and incidents of the commonest life, were essen-
tially mean compared with the religious, poetic, historic, or heroic
subjects of the renowned masters hitherto. ANTIPHILUS, a native of
Egypt, was likewise a genre painter, but he was also distinguished.
for pictures in the highest departments of art; he had great facility.
As specimens of his genre pictures may be mentioned—a boy blow-.
ing a fire, with the light reflected upon the objects around; and a
room full of dressmakers. Antiphilus is the painter who through
jealousy accused Apelles of Ephesus, then, after 222 8.c., residing at
the court of Ptolemy Philopator, of being concerned in the con-
spiracy of Theodotus, governor of Coele-Syria. Upon the innocence
of Apelles being established, Ptolemy presented him with 100
talents, and condemned Antiphilus to be his slave. Avpelles was,
however, not satisfied with this reparation, but when he returned.
to Ephesus he painted his celebrated picture of Calumny, in which
Ptolemy played a principal part. Lucian, who saw this picture,
thus describes it? :—“ On the right hand was the sitting figure of a
man, with ears very much like those of Midas, holding out his hand
to Calumny, yet at a distance, who was approaching him. Near
him, on each side, stood a female figure, representing Suspicion and
Tgnorance. Calumny was represented as a beautiful maid, but with
a most malicious expression ; in her left hand she bore a burning
torch, while with her right she was dragging along a young man
by the hair, who was extending both his hands towards heaven ;
she was preceded by Envy, as an emaciated man, and followed by
two females, representing Deceit and Artifice. In the back-ground
was Repentance weeping, and Truth approaching her.”

Painting was applied also among the Greeks to the ordinary
decoration of furniture, and it would appear even by distinguished
painters, as among the Italians in the sixteenth century: for Pxizo-
cHargs, the brother of the orator Aischines, who is ranked by Pliny
among distinguished artists, is contemptuously termed by Demos-

1’ Millin, “ Dictionnaire des Beaux Arts,” vol. iii. p. 160.

2 «De Calumnia,” or wep) rod wh padlws moretew A:aBoay, ed. Hemsterhusius,
iii. 127. Sandro Botticelli and some other modern painters have reproduced this
composition from Lucian’s description; there is an example by Federigo Zucchero
at Hampton Court.
THE DECLINE. 61

thenes a@ painter of perfume pots and tambowrs—éddafaorpobn'xac Kat
Toprava.

Of the few painters who still maintained the dignity of the dying
art, the following may be mentioned: Mydon of Soli; Nealces,
Leontiscus, and Timanthes, of Sicyon; Arcesilaus, Erigonus, and
Pasias, of uncertain country ; and Heracleides, a Macedonian.

The school of Sicyon, to which the majority of the distinguished
painters of this period belonged, is particularly noticed by Plutarch,”
as the only school which still retained any traces of the purity and
the greatness of style of the art of the renowned ages. It was
already the fashion to speak of the inimitable works of the great
masters, yet apparently only as objects to be praised, not to be
imitated. Works with great names attached to them then, as now,
realized enormous prices, for many princes vied with each other in
the value of their collections. Ptolemy Soter employed agents in
Greece to purchase the pictures of celebrated masters, and Plutarch
mentions also that Aratus bought old pictures, especially those of
Apelles and Melanthius, and sent them as presents to Ptolemy III.
of Egypt, to concilitate his favour, and induce him to join the
Achean league.’ Athenzus* mentions the pictures of Sicyonian
masters which contributed to the pomp and display of the celebrated
festival of Ptolemy Philadelphus at Alexandria.

Greece had now to undergo what Italy has undergone for already
several centuries, contemporary art was sacrificed in a great mea-
sure to past reputations, and as collectors spent large sums on the
old masters, there was necessarily less patronage for the new. No
doubt the chief causes of the decay of ancient painting were poli-
tical, much more than moral, though these contributed. With the

_ pictures the artists also had to migrate, and the stability and pros-
perity of the old schools was necessarily broken up. Even at
Sicyon the respect for art was not sufficiently great to protect a
collection of the portraits or pictures of the tyrants of that city
against the zeal of Aratus. One only, and that but partially, was
saved—“ Aristratus tyrant of Sicyon, standing by the Chariot of
Victory,” by the painter Melanthius : Nealces saved the “ Victory ”
by painting a palm-tree over the figure of Aristratus.> Aratus died
218 B.c.

The spoliations of Greece, of the Grecian kingdoms of Asia, and
of Sicily, continued uninterruptedly for about two centuries, yet
according to Mucianus, says Pliny,’ such was the wealth of Greece

1 « Pals. Legat.” p. 415, Reiske. 2 « Aratus,” 12.

3 Plutarch, “Mor. Epicur.” 11; and “ Aratus,” 12. A more circumstantial
account of this period of the history of painting is given in the author’s article on
Painting already referred to in the “ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.”

+ v. p. 196. e, 5 Plutarch, “ Arat.” 13. 6 « Hist. Nat.” xxxiv. 17.
62 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

in works of art, that Rhodes alone still contained upwards of 3000
statues, and there could not have been less at Athens, at Olympia,
or at Delphi.

CHAPTER VIII.
ROMAN PAINTING: PORTRAITS: DECORATIVE ART.

Rome was more distinguished for its collections than for its artists ;
there was not a single Roman painter of great name, though many
Greek artists were assembled at Rome. The destruction of Corinth
by Mummius, 146 B.c., was in the first respect a great event for
Rome, for from that time forth, for two or three centuries, Rome
almost drained the ancient world of its works of art. This system
adopted by the Romans of plundering Greece of its pictures and
statues, reprobated by Polybius, was not without precedent even
among the Greeks themselves. The Carthaginians before them,
had plundered all the coast towns of Sicily; and the Persians, and
the Macedonians, carried off all works of art as the lawful prize of
conquest. The Roman conquerors at first plundered with some
degree of moderation, as Marcellus at Syracuse and Fabius Maximus
at Tarentum, who carried away no more works of art than were
necessary to adorn their triumphs or decorate some of the public
buildings. The works brought by Marcellus from Syracuse, and
displayed at his triumph, 211 B.c., were the first productions of the
class, according to Plutarch,’ which were brought to Rome, and
were the promoters of that taste for pictures and statues in their
public buildings, which eventually became an absorbing passion
with many distinguished Romans. At first, however, Marcellus
was accused of having corrupted the public morals by his intro-
duction of -such works, since from that period, says Plutarch, the
people of Rome, it was alleged, wasted much of their time in dis-
puting about arts and artists. Marcellus, however, gloried in the
fact, and boasted, even before Greeks, that he was the first to teach
the Romans to esteem and tv admire the exquisite productions of
Greek art.

Pliny tells us that painting was early cultivated by the Romans:
the head of the noble house of the Fabii acquired the surname of
Pictor, from his skill in this art, 304 B.c. Pacuvius also, the tragic
poet (180 8.c.), was a painter. Afterwards, says the same writer, the
art was not practised by polite hands (honestis manibus) among the

1 « Marcellus,” 21, 30. Livy, xxvi. 21. Clinton, “ Fasti Hellenici.”
ROMAN PAINTING. 63

Romans, except perhaps in the case of Turpilius, an amateur of his
own time, who executed some good pictures at Verona.

The various triumphs of Roman generals gradually familiarized
the Roman people, both gentle and simple, with works of art, and
naturalized the love of possessing such productions.

When Paullus Aimilius had conquered Perseus, 168 B.c., he
commanded the Athenians to send him their most distinguished
painter to commemorate his triumph, and their most approved phi-
losopher to educate his sons; the Athenians replied that they were
both comprised in the same individual, and recommended Metro-
porus, the painter, and a native Athenian. Plutarch tells us that
after his first consulship, 182 8.c., Paullus was so desirous of educating
his sons in the arts of Greece, that he entertained both painters
and sculptors in his house expressly for that purpose. Even before
this time it had become the fashion for Greek artists to visit Rome.
Livy’ expressly mentions them as being present at the ten days’
games appointed by Fulvius Nobilior, 186 B.c.

At the triumph of Paullus Amilius over Perseus, in the year 167
B.C, SO numerous, says Plutarch, were the works of art which he
had carried off from Macedonia, that the pictures and statues borne
in the procession filled 250 waggons, and the spectacle lasted the
entire day.

As a people the Romans can scarcely be considered patrons of the
arts, notwithstanding the general richness of their architecture.
The words above quoted from Pliny show that the practice of paint-
ing, as a profession, was not considered the work of polite hands.
Roman sculpture is characterized by its bad taste, being chiefly used
for mere military records, and their painting a vulgar display of
gaudy colouring, notwithstanding the city was crowded with the
finest productions of ancient Greece.

Rome was, about the end of the republic, full of painters. They
were, however, almost exclusively portrait painters and decorators.
Marcus Ludius, in the time of Augustus, was a very celebrated
decorator of halls and corridors; he painted landscapes, generally
enlivened by figures appropriately occupied according to the situa-
tion of the picture. There were at this period only two distin-
guished painters in high art, Timomacnus of Byzantium, and
Afron, of whom Lucian has given an account, and with whom he
was contemporary.? A picture by Aéteon of the Marriage of Alexan-
der and Roxana, when exhibited at Olympia, so pleased Proxenidas,
one of the judges atthe games, that he chose the painter for his son-
in-law. Julius Cesar purchased two pictures by Timomachus at an
enormous price; but whether Timomachus was living at the time

1 xxxix. 22. 2 Lucian, “ Herodotus,” or “ Aéteon.”
64 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

is doubtful. The two pictures were an Ajax, and Medea meditating
the destruction of her children.”

Julius Cesar, Agrippa, and Augustus ‘were among the earliest
great patrons of artists. Suetonius’ informs us that Cesar expended
great sums in the purchase of pictures by the old masters.

There are three distinct periods observable in the history of
painting in Rome. The first or great period of Greco-Roman art
may be dated from the conquest of Greece to the time of Augustus,
when the artists were chiefly Greeks. The second, from the time of
Augustus, until Dioclesian ; or from the beginning of the Christian
zra to the latter part of the third century, during which time the
great majority of Roman works were produced. The third compre-
hends the state of the arts during the Exarchate; when Rome, in
consequence of the foundation of Constantinople, and the changes it
involved, suffered similar spoliations to those it had previously
inflicted upon Greece. This was the period of the total decay of
the imitative arts among the ancients; though the Byzantine school
was a Christian development from what remained of the heathen
art. As already observed, Roman painting was chiefly characterized
by portraiture. It is the earliest age of which we have any notice
of portrait painters as a distinct class (Jmaginum Pictores).

There is probably no use of portraits, of which we do not find
mention among the Romans; and they employed them in several
ways to which we have no record of similar uses since. It was
an early practice among the Greeks and Romans for warriors to have
their portraits engraved upon their shields. These shields were
dedicated in the public temples, either as trophies or as memorials
‘of the deceased.

From the time of Pericles, and especially during the period of
Alexander and his successors, portraits were common among the
Greeks also: the art of portraiture is of course coeval with painting
itself; some very early examples have been already noticed. Statues
and portraits were, at an early period, decreed by the Greeks, as
public testimonials in honour of distinguished deeds, as to Harmodius
and Aristogiton; and the same honour was awarded to those who
had been thrice victors at the Olympic games.’

Alcibiades exhibited at Athens two portraits of himself, by Aglao-
phon, after his return as victor at the Olympic games: in one he
was represented lying on the knees of Nemea, in the other he was
being crowned by Olympiasand Pythias.* Much stress is laid upon the
beauty of Alcibiades in the former picture, but no allusion is made to
the resemblance, which appears to have been a matter of secondary

1 Pliny, “Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 40; Ovid, ‘ Trist.” ii. 525.

2 « Julius Cesar,” 47. 3 Pliny, “ Hist. Nat.” xxxiv. 9.
4 Atheneus, xii. p. 534; Plutarch, “ Alcib.” 16.
ROMAN PAINTING. 65

importance until a comparatively late period among the Greeks.
It was on this account probably that it was not unusual or difficult
to make portraits and iconic figures of distinguished men after their
death. Pliny’ says that Lysistratus of Sicyon, the brother of
Lysippus, invented the taking of casts from the life, and was the first
to make resemblance the principal object of a portrait or bust;
before his time, beauty engrossed the artist’s chief attention. We
recognise here a modern principle also in practice, though not
professedly, and one which experience has shown gives more satis-
faction than the rational innovation of Lysistratus.

Likeness was, of course, a matter of easy attainment to the skilful.
Pliny relates an instance in which the ability of the great Apelles
was of signal service to him when in Egypt. Ptolemy Soter and
Apelles, during the life of Alexander, were not on good terms: and
when the painter was afterwards forced by bad weather to put into
the port of Alexandria, during the reign of Ptolemy, in Egypt, some
of the great painter’s rivals, aware of the antipathy Ptolemy had to
Apelles, induced the king’s clown to invite the painter to sup with
the king. He accordingly went, much to the surprise and indigna-
-tion of Ptolemy, who angrily demanded by whose authority he had
ventured into his presence. Apelles, though unable to answer,
unabashed, seized an extinguished coal from the hearth, and in an
instant sketched a man’s face upon the wall, in which Ptolemy, even
from the first lines, immediately recognised the features of his
buffoon, and the painter was thenceforth received into favour with
the king.

There was, perhaps, no class of portraiture that was not practised
by the Greeks: they had their satirists and their caricaturists. A
painter otherwise unknown, of the name of Clesides, residing at
Ephesus, considering himself neglected by the Court, painted Queen
Stratonice waltzing with a fisherman, with whom there was a
report that she was enamoured, and having hung the picture up in
a public place he escaped from the port by sea. The queen, how-
ever, far from being offended, was delighted with the likeness of
herself and partner, and gave orders that the picture should not be
removed.”

Bupalus, a sculptor or painter of Chios, is said to have fallen a
victim to his own graphic satire. It is related that the poet Hip-
ponax, who was extremely ugly, was in love with the artist’s
daughter, but Bupalus would not let him have her: whereupon the
poet wrote some satirical verses upon him, which Bupalus retaliated
by putting up a portrait of Hipponax in a public place,—like him,
yet sufficiently ugly and deformed to cause common ridicule. This,

1 «“ Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 44. ° Pliny, xxxv. 40,
Kr
66 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Hipponax revenged by such pungent iambics that Bupalus, according
to the story, hanged himself; and ‘the bitter enemy of Bupalus”
seems in after ages to have been a sort of title of Hipponax : Horace
mentions him simply by that designation, ‘‘ Acer hostis Bupalo.”

Pliny’ makes some curious observations on portraits. He says
that in olden time, that is, compared with his own day, portraits
were made to resemble the original as much as possible both in
colour and in form; a custom in his time grown quite obsolete.
And we have instead, he continues, shields and escutcheons of brass,
with portraits inlaid in silver, which have neither life nor individu-
ality. Now all men think more of the material in which their
likenesses are made, than of the art, or the resemblance. The effigies
they leave behind them are rather images of their wealth, than of
their persons. Thus it is that noble arts decay and perish.—With
our ancestors it was very different: their halls were not filled with
either strange images of brass or of stone, but with the lively
portraits of themselves and their forefathers in wax, exact simili-
tudes.

These portraits so pathetically regretted by Pliny were wax
busts, and they were preserved in wooden shrines in the most con-.
spicuous parts of the house. The custom therefore so minutely de-
scribed by Polybius* seems to have grown into disuse before Pliny’s
time. Polybius says—‘“ Upon solemn festivals, these images are
uncovered, and adorned with the greatest care. And when any
other person of the same family dies, they are carried also in the
funeral procession, with a body added to the bust, that the repre-
sentation may be just, even with regard to size. They are dressed
likewise in the habits that belong to the ranks which they severally
filled when they were alive. If they were consuls or pretors, in a
gown bordered with purple: if censors, in a purple robe: and if
they triumphed or obtained any similar honour, in a vest embroi-
dered with gold. Thus apparelled, they are drawn along in chariots
preceded by the rods and axes, and other ensigns of their former
dignity. And when they arrive at the forum, they are all seated
upon chairs of ivory; and there exhibit the noblest object that can .
be offered to a youthful mind, warmed with the love of virtue and
of glory. For who can behold without emotion, the forms of so
many illustrious men thus living, as it were, and breathing together
in his presence ? Or what spectacle can be conceived more great
and striking? The person also that is appointed to harangue, when
he has exhausted all the praises of the deceased, turns his discourse
to the rest, whose images are before him ; and, beginning with the
most ancient of them, recounts the fortunes and exploits of every

1 Horace, “Epod.” ode vi.; Pliny, “Hist. Nat.” xxxvi.5; Junius, “ Catalogus
Artificum.” 2 « Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 2. 3 vi. 53.
ROMAN PAINTING. 67

one in turn. By this method, which renews continually the
remembrance of men celebrated for their virtue, the fame of every
great and noble action becomes immortal; and the glory of those,
by whose services their country has been benefited, is rendered
familiar to the people, and delivered down to future times.”
(Hampton’s Translation.)

They had also the statues and portraits of authors in the public
libraries: the portraits of authors were placed over the cases which
contained their writings; and below them chairs were placed for
the convenience of readers.1 Suetonius’? mentions the statues and
portraits of authors in libraries on many occasions in the Lives of
the Emperors, and notices several edicts respecting the placing of
them. Marcus Varro took great delight in portraits, and seems to
have invented some method of multiplying them. Pliny’s allusion,
however, to the fact is so very concise, that it is scarcely safe to
venture upon any explanatory conjecture as to the means. He made
(aliguo modo) and inserted in his writings the portraits of seven
hundred distinguished men, and dispersed them to all parts of the
world: and this he did for the gratification of strangers. Pliny’
appears here clearly to speak of more than one set of portraits, and
they must have been, therefore, either repeatedly copied in sets or
printed, and if so, possibly from wooden. cuts, though this is scarcely
probable, or something of the kind would have been handed down,
if not to our own day, atleast for a few centuries, so that some traces
of such an art would appear in the earliest manuscripts. Portraits
were sometimes prefixed to the writings of authors; Martial* men-
tions one of Virgil, which was prefixed to a manuscript of his works.

Cassiodorus,’ in alluding to the extraordinary wealth of Rome in
respect to its works of art, and bringing it into comparison with the
Grecian world and its wonders, seems to be at a loss for an expres-
sion, and simply says that Rome was one vast wonder. Notwith-
standing all this wealth, however, such was the corrupt state of
taste, that painting was almost left to be practised by slaves, and
the painter was estimated by the quantity of work that he could do
in a day. Juvenal® speaks of an artist or a painter as a slave or
household domestic :—‘‘ Some bow-backed artificer or other, who
can paint many faces in a short time.”

We may safely assume that we have an adequate illustration of
the kind of painting referred to by Juvenal, and the debased art
deplored both by Vitruvius and Pliny, in the ordinary wall-decora-
tions so fortunately preserved for us by the ashes of Mount Vesu-
vius at Pompeii.

1 Pliny, “Hist. Nat.’ xxxv. 3, 4,40; Cicero, * Ad Attic.” iv. 10.

2 Suetonius, “ Tib.” 70, 26; “ Calig.” 34, 3 « Hist. Nat.” xxxv. 2.

+ xiv. 186. 5 “Variarum,” iii. 15. 6 “Sat.” ix. 145.
F2
68 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

CHAPTER IX.

ANCIENT REMAINS; METHODS; COLOURS USED,

 

Picture representing a domestic Supper-party. Pompeii.

TuE painiings of Pompeii and Herculaneum have incontestably
tended rather to lower the reputation of the ancient painters than
otherwise, in the estimation of the world generally, though the com-
petent judge will find, upon a judicious examination, the confirma-
tion of ancient criticism in these remains; for they contain many
great beauties, especially in composition, though they are evidently
the works of the inferior artists of an inferior age. To judge, how-
ever, of the ancient masterpieces of art from such specimens, is
tantamount to estimating the great works of modern ages by the
ordinary patterns on common crockery and French paper-hangings,
to which the immense superiority of the designs on the vases and
other ancient remains is some index of the excellence of those
great works of antiquity which are uniformly praised by ancient
writers.

These remains of painting at Pompeii and Herculaneum, the
style of the paintings of which is condemned in strong terms by
Pliny and Vitruvius, nevertheless induced Sir Joshua Reynolds to
form a very high opinion of ancient painting. He says, ‘‘ From the
various ancient paintings which have come down to us, we may
form a judgment, with tolerable accuracy, of the excellences and
the defects of the arts among the ancients. There can be no doubt
 

¥ROM THE “ HOUSE OF THE FEMALE DANGERS.” (PompPet.)

Page 69.
ANCIENT REMAINS; METHODS; COLOURS USED. 69

but that the same correctness of design was required from the
painter as from the sculptor; and if what has happened in the case
of sculpture, had likewise happened in regard to their paintings,
and we had the good fortune to possess what the ancients them-
selves esteemed their masterpieces, I have no doubt but we should
find their figures as correcthy drawn as the Laocoon, and probably
coloured like Titian.”? The mosaic of the Casa del Fauno, dis-
covered in 1831, and supposed to represent the battle of Issus or
some other of Alexander’s battles, is the most valuable discovery
that has yet been made respecting the composition of the ancient
painters : it shows also a thorough understanding of perspective and
foreshortening, and is probably the copy of some celebrated picture.

The common neglect of perspective found in the mass of the
Pompeian decorations must be attributed more to the inferior rank
and carelessness of the decorator, than to any insufficiency in the
state of ancient painting itself. We occasionally find a proper at-
tention to perspective in very ordinary works. We know that the
Greeks were acquainted with this science from a passage in Vitru-
vius,” who tells us that when Aischylus was exhibiting tragedies
at Athens, Agatharcus made a scene, and left a treatise upon it.
By the assistance of this, Democritus and Anaxagoras wrote on the
same subject, showing how, by the extension of lines from a fixed
point of sight, painted scenes might have the appearance of reality,
and though painted on a flat vertical surface, some parts should
seem to recede, and others to come forward.

Clisthenes of Eretria, Serapion, Eudorus and others are men-
tioned as scene-painters.

The pictures found at Pompeii and other places are painted in
common distemper, and in a harder and more durable kind, in
water-colours, called by the Italians a guazzo ; it is a species of dis-
temper, but the vehicle or medium, made of egg, gum, or glue,
completely resists water, and the impasto is surprisingly solid. It
appears that no veritable fresco painting has been yet discovered,
though the plain walls in many cases, especially in the better
houses, and those serving as grounds for pictures, are coloured in
fresco.

Vitruvius® describes the method of preparing these fresco walls,
and says that they were often varnished, in the Greek fashion, with
wax, And they employed with wax several resins, as sarcocolla,
mastich, turpentine, amber, and frankincense or olibanum : they had
likewise a black and a white asphaltum.*

The Greeks painted also with a medium of wax, but so pre-

1 “Notes to Fresnoy,” 37. 2 vii. “ Praef.” 3 vii, 9.
4 See the article Painting in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,

1842.
70 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

pared as to enable the colours to be used with water. Wax be-
comes a water-colour medium when boiled with sarcocolla or

 

 

 

he
te e
Rg wage ,
xxcce nee
Funambuli or Dancing Fauns. Pompeii.

mastich, in the proportion of five of mastich with two of wax,' so
that the ancient cere or wax-colours may have been water—as
well as encaustic—colours. Turpentine, also used by the ancient
painters, may be made a water-colour vehicle by mixing it with
white of egg. Fig-milk, or sap, was likewise a vehicle of the
ancient painters. They do not appear ever to have used oil for
painting, though they tempered their encaustic wax varnish with oil.

The method of preparing wax, cera Punica, as they termed it, was
by boiling the ordinary yellow wax, or Punic wax, three several
times in fresh sea-water, with a little nitre: it was then covered
with a thin cloth and placed in the sun to dry.? Wax thus pre-
pared was the ordinary material with which the colours of the

1 Abbato Requeno, “ Saggi sul ristabilimento dell’ Antica arte dei Greci e Ro-
mani Pittori.’ Parma, 1787.
2 Pliny, xxi. 49; Dioscorides, ii. 105.
ANCIENT REMAINS; METHODS; COLOURS USED. 7

Greek painters was mixed, and, as explained, it served for an en-
caustic or a water-colour vehicle, as required.

Encaustic was considered the most durable method, among the
Greeks, but was not much practised by the earlier painters ; it was
not generally adopted until after the time of Alexander.

In encaustic painting the wax colours were burnt into the ground
by means of a hot iron (called cauterium) or pan of hot coals being
held near the surface of the picture; the mere process of burning
in constituting the whole or chief difference between encaustic and
the ordinary method of painting with wax colours. The ancients
painted on wood, clay, plaster, stone, parchment, and canvas. Can-
vas was, according to one account, not used until the time of Nero;
and though this statement appears to be doubtful, the use of canvas
was most probably of late introduction, as there is no mention of
its having been employed by the Greek painters of the best ages.
Nero had his portrait painted on canvas 120 feet high, and Pliny
notices it as one of the insanities of his time.

Among the various methods of painting of the ancients, mosaic
claims a place. The Pictura de Musivo, or Opus Musivum, was very
largely practised by the Greeks and Romans; the British Museum
contains some valuable specimens of Roman which have been dis-
covered in this country. It appears to have been used chiefly for
floors, and we have examples of elaborate figure pieces even, applied
to such decoration, though this is certainly not a legitimate use of
such work, for it violates every principle of esthetics. The ancients
practised various kinds of mosaic, and there was one species, the
Lithostrotum, as distinguished from the Musivum, which was expressly
fitted for floors, as it was simply a flat geometrical decoration, and
which therefore when applied to a floor offended against no zsthe-
tic sentiment. There were three kinds of Lithostrotum—the sectile,
the tessellatum, and the vermiculatum, which all express different kinds
of geometrical figures composed of slabs or pieces of marble of
various shapes and sizes, cruste ; small cubes of stone or composition
called tessere, or tesselle, being used in the tessellatum, and in the
musivum ; all pictorial or imitative mosaics being classed under the
latter head, and being invariably composed of minute tesselle of a
great variety of tint. Sosus and Dioscorides of Samos are names of
ancient musivarii, or workers in mosaic, which have come down to
us. The most magnificent example of ancient mosaic preserved is
the ‘“‘ Battle” of the Casa del Fauno already noticed.!

1 See Nicolini, “ Quadro in Musaico Scoperto in Pompeii ;” Mazois, Pompéi, iv. 48
and 49; see also Ciampini, “ Vetera Monumenta, in quibus preecipue Musiva opera,”
&c. Rom. 1690, fol.; Furietti, “De Musivis.” Rom. 1752, 4to; Al. De Laborde,
“Descripcion de un Pavimento en Musayco, &c., con varias investigaciones sobra la
pintura en Musayco de los Antiguos,” &c., fol. Paris, 1802.
72 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

There are various literary works and books of prints, plain and
coloured, which illustrate the painting in Rome of the time of the
Emperors. Many of these works may have been executed at an
earlier period, but some were certainly of this time, as those of the
Baths of Titus, which contain the beautiful arabesques from which
Raphael obtained bis ideas for the arabesques of the Vatican. The
paintings of the Tomb of the Nasoni (the family of Ovid) were like-
wise of this period.

Of all the ancient works, one of the most beautiful series of paint-
ings is the Life of Adonis, discovered in 1668 in some ruins near
the Colosseum, and close to the Baths of Titus. These pictures
were engraved by Pietro Santi Bartoli for his well-known work,
with text by Bellori, on the paintings of the grottoes of Rome— Le
Pitture Antiche delle Grotte di Roma, e del Sepulcro de’ Nasoni,” folio,
Rome, 1706. The four subjects from the Life of Adonis, engraved
in plates iii-vi. of this work, are worthy of any age of art, though
they are characterised by great simplicity of composition.

The paintings of the Tomb of the Nasoni are good examples of the
taste in decoration of the period.

Several costly works have been published on the remains of
Pompeii, especially the great work of Zahn, which contains coloured
representations carefully imitated from the originals, ‘‘ Die Schénsten
Ornamente und merkwiirdigsten Gemidlde aus Pompeii, Herculanum, und
Stabiae,” Berlin, 1828, ff. (“The most beautiful Ornaments and most.
remarkable Pictures of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabie”). See
also Mazois, ‘‘ Pompéi ;” Sir W. Gell, ‘ Pompeiana ;’ and the work on
Pompeii of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Fac-
similes of ancient paintings are given in the “ Recueil de Peintures
Antiques, imitées fidélement pour les couleurs et pour le trait, @aprés les
desseins coloriés faits par P. 8. Bartoli,” Paris, 1757, folio; also in R.
Rochette’s “‘ Peintures Antiques ;’ Gerhard’s “ Auserlesene Grriechische
Vasenbilder,” Berlin,1839, ff. ; and other numerous works on the Greek
vases. There are several specimens of Greek or Roman painting
now in the British Museum: some few in the Temple collection,
from Pompeii, are more especially worthy of notice; as an Apollo,
from the house of Castor and Pollux; a Venus and Cupid, unfor-
tunately much decayed; and some small pieces with a bird, and
animals, very freely and skilfully executed.

Vase-painting cannot be adduced to determine the general nature
or character of ancient painting, though the rude designs upon the
vases throw considerable light upon the progressive development of
the art as relates to style of design, and in some degree upon the
principles of Greek composition of the early times; but their chief
interest and value consist in the faithful pictures they afford of the
traditions, customs, and habits of the ancients.
ANCIENT REMAINS; METHODS; COLOURS USED. 73

The ancient vase-painters were probably mere workmen attached
to the potteries, or themselves constituted distinct bodies, or both ;
which, from the general similarity of style and execution of the
designs upon the vases, is not improbable. They do not seem to
have been held in any esteem, for their names have not been pre-
served by any ancient writer, and we are acquainted with the names
of the very few only of whom we have the signatures on the vases
themselves, as—Taleides, Assteas, Lasimos, Calliphon, and others.

Vase-painting had evidently ceased long before the days of
Pliny, for in his time the painted vases were of immense value, and
were much sought after: but the manufacture of vases themselves
still continued ; they appear, however, to have been remarkable
only for the fineness or durability of their clay and the elegance
of their shapes. Even in the time of the Empire painted vases
were termed “ Operis Antiqui,” old art, and were then sought for
in the ancient tombs of Campania and other parts of Magna Grecia.
Not a single painted vase has been discovered in Pompeii, Hercula-
neum, or Stabie. The majority of the vases that have been as yet
discovered have .been found in ancient tombs about Capua and
Nola.

They may be divided generally into two great classes,—the
black and the yellow; that is, those on which the figures are in
black, or what the Greeks termed Skiagrums, the same as our Silhou-
ettes, and those on which the figures are in outline, with black back-
grounds to the designs. The black are the most ancient ; the best of
the others belong to about the time of Alexander ; their outline de-
signs being what the Greeks termed Monograms, executed with the
hair-pencil in dark lines, the vehicle being the same as that with
which the background is covered, a kind of black varnish made of
gagates lapis, or jet; which Pliny tells us was used for earthenware.
There appear to be no specimens of the perfect monochrom on the vases,
and but very few examples of the polychrom, and these are rude
and unfinished. The British Museum, however, affords abundant
examples of the painting on the ancient vases.

As regards the colours used by the ancient painters, we are
pretty well informed ;' they were in this respect perhaps as well off
as we are, though itis doubtful whether they possessed ultramarine
as.a colour. I will enumerate their varieties in the prismatic
order :

Reps :—KuvéBage "Ivéucév, cinnabaris Indica, dragon’s blood, or
the resin of the Calamus palm.- MiAroc, cerussa usta, red-lead ;

1 See Vitruvius, Book vii.; Pliny, “Hist, Nat.” xxxiii., xxxiv. and xxxv.; Dios-
corides, v.; Theophrastus, “De Lapidibus;” Sir Humphry Davy, “Phil. Trans.

Roy. Soc.” 1815 ; and Professor John, “ Malerei der Alten,” Berlin, 1836, part iii.
p. 103, “ Ueber die farben der alten nach Vitruv.”
74 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

but this Greek word is used variously, sometimes signifying Cinna-
baris, Minium and Rubrica. The last is common red ochre, and was
called by the Greeks Zuwmic, because the best came from Sinope.
Minium is properly vermilion, but red-lead is sometimes so called
by the Romans, and the Greeks called it acvédapaxn, the Sandaracha
artificialis of the Romans, of which again there were several varieties,
as the pale or massicot, yellow oxide of lead, and a mixture of this
with Minium: it was mixed also with calcined Rubrica, when it
was called Zdrdvi, a colour supposed by Sir Humphry Davy
to approach our crimson. When Sandyx was mixed with Rubrica
Sinopica, it was called Syricum.

YELLOws :—The base of orange and yellows was dypa, hydrated
peroxide of iron, the Roman Si, mixed with other colours and car-
bonate of lime. They had also ’Apcevexov, auripigmentum, orpiment,
yellow sulphuret of arsenic.

GREENS :—ypvodcodAa, Chrysocolla, green verditer, green carbonate
of copper or malachite; this was the principal green of the ancients,
and was varied according to the degree of carbonate of lime mixed
with it. Besides this they had many greens from verdigris, di-
acetate of copper ; from acetate of copper, and from cupreous oxides.
Of the last were an earth called Qsoddriny; Appianum; and the
creta viridis, the common green earth of Verona.

Bivuzs :—These likewise were numerous, but the celebrated ’Appé-
vov, Armenium, from Armenian stone, was, according to Professor
John, not the fine ultramarine; Lapis Armenius and Lapis Lazuli
being distinct. The xvavoc, or ceruleum, azure, was a kind of
verditer or blue carbonate of copper: there was a superior example
of this colour known as the Alexandrian; it was called coelon: there
were common examples known as Lomentum and Tritum. Indigo,
"Ivduxéy, Indicum, the ancients were well acquainted with; but
cobalt has not been discovered in the remains of ancient painting.

Pourees :—Of this secondary colour varieties abounded, simple and
compound. The best was the Purpurissum, prepared by mixing
creta argentaria with the purple secretion of the murex—zop$ioa.
Ostrum was a compound of red ochre with blue oxide of copper.
toywor, Hysginum (teyn, woad), was a very red purple, according to
Vitruvius, who mentions also a purple from cooling the ochra usta
with wine vinegar. ‘They had also the madder root, Rubie radix.

Browns were calcined ochres, and oxides of iron, and manganese,
besides compounds.

Buacss:—Of black Médav, Atramentum, the varieties were also
numerous, and mostly carbonaceous—’EXegarrivor, Elephantinum,
ivory black; Tpiywov, Tryginum, vine black. The Atramentum
Indicum was probably Indian ink; they had likewise sepia—Atra-
mentum Sepie, and black woad, or hydrated binoxide of manganese.
ANCIENT REMAINS; METHODS; COLOURS USED. 75

And lastly, in Wuirts the ancients were very rich, the best being
Mnvrtdc, or Melinum, an earth of Melos; rapacrévoy, or paretonium, an
African earth. The Melinum, says Professor John, was zinc white.
There were also Eretrian earth, annulare or Creta anularia, made from
soap stone, and white lead or cerussa; but this last deleterious
pigment was not much used in ancient decoration or painting.

The above colours are only the principal of those known to and
used by the ancient painters of Greece and Rome. They were
made up into cerae (waxes), being fit either for the tempera or
encaustic painter, and were kept in colour boxes such as are in use
at the present time. The brushes, pallets, and easels also of the
ancient painters were very similar to those used by the moderns.

’
76 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

BOOK Il

THE DARK AGES. SUPERSTITION. BYZANTINE ART.

 

CHAPTER X.
THE DUSTRUCTIONS. EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING. REPRESENTATIVE ART.

ANCIENT art, as distinguished by its characteristics, may perhaps be
said to have ceased at about the close of the third century of the
Christian era. The establishment of Christianity, the division of
the empire, and the incursions of barbarians, were the first great
causes of the important revolutions experienced by the imitative
arts, and the serious check they received. It seems, however, to
have been reserved for the fanatic fury of the earlier Iconoclasts
most effectually to destroy all traces of their former excellence.

The foundation of Constantinople and the Exarchate of Ravenna
were a great blow to the magnificence of Rome. Byzantium, the
Rome of the East, became more rich in works of art than Rome
herself: the principal cities of Europe and Asia were despoiled of
their treasures to enrich the new city of Constantine: its principal
streets were adorned with colossal statues in bronze; and before the
church of St. Sophia alone were disposed several hundred statues by
ancient masters. Of these many were melted down and plundered
for the sake of the metal, others broken up. Immense collections
also were destroyed accidentally by fire; much likewise was doubt-
less lost by neglect and indifference, though it appears that in
Rome repeated efforts were made by the Popes and others to pre-
serve what remained. In 410 Rome was plundered by Alaric ;' and
it suffered still greater misfortunes under Genseric, king of the Van-
dals, in 455, in the pontificate of Leo the Great, “‘ when all that
yet remained,” says Gibbon, “of public or private wealth, of sacred
or profane treasure, was diligently transported to the vessels of

1 Zogsimus, y. 41; Orosius; vii. 39; Gibbon, “ Decline and Fall,” c. 31,
THE DESTRUCTIONS. 77

Genseric.” Among the treasures carried by Genseric to Carthage
were the spoils brought by Titus from Jerusalem to Rome.’

In other parts of the empire religious fanaticism was equally
destructive to the cause of art. Theophilus, patriarch of Alexan-
dria, destroyed in 889 the celebrated Serapasum of that place, one of
the most renowned temples of the ancient world. The sons of
Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius, 395-408, issued general orders
for the destruction of all pagan temples and statues.’

The destruction by conflagrations was immense; many of the
finest paintings were destroyed by fire at Rome already in the time
of the early emperors; and much was lost by subsequent fires. At
Constantinople, the Lauseion was completely burnt in 475 A.D. ;
and in 582 the magnificent baths of Zeuxippus, founded by Severus
and adorned by Constantine, suffered a similar fate.® In 728 the
Iconoclasts (or image-breakers) commenced their systematic de-
structions, which with slight interruptions endured upwards of a
century. Leo III., the Isaurian, commenced this crusade against
images; it was pursued with still greater vigour by his successor,
Constantine V. The Popes of the West, on the contrary, encouraged
the use of images; and the contest was carried on with such vigour
that it convulsed the whole empire. The party in favour of the use
of images eventually triumphed through the influence of the Empress
Irene, the widow of the Emperor Leo IV., though the strife still
continued, and the Emperor Theophilus (829-842) protected the
Iconoclasts. The zeal of the Iconoclasts, however, was not directed
against pagan, but Christian images; the images of Christ, of the
Virgin, and the saints, as idols. Art can have suffered little by the
destruction of such works, if they were like the generality of those
which now overrun the Roman Catholic world. In the ninth and
tenth centuries, images were again tolerated in the Greek church.

Constantinople was apparently throughout the whole of the middle
ages the capital of the arts, and was the source of their revival in
the west of Europe. It, however, still suffered further devastations
by the Crusaders, especially in the great fires of 1203 and 1204,
when it was taken by the Venetians. It was this conquest of Con-
stantinople which, by opening an intercourse with the Venetians,
gave the first great impulse towards the revival of the arts in the
West. Greek artists were brought to Italy for the embellishment
of Italian temples; and from this school in Venice and Pisa the
great modern schools of Italy derived, if not their beginning, at
least that vitality which led to their more positive and immediate
development in the thirteenth century, the date of the modern
Italian revival.

1 Procopius, “De Bell. Vandalic.” i. 5; Gibbon, e. 36.
2 Winckelmann, “ Werke,”’ vol. vi. Notes. 3 Miller, “ Archiologie,” &c.
78 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Before entering, however, upon a consideration of what is termed
the Renaissance, a retrospective view is necessary. The early
Christians had a decided aversion to all works of imitative art, as
essentially conducive to idolatry, thus evidently overlooking the
art itself, and supposing a necessary ultimate object independent of
it. It was not for several centuries after the placing of images was
tolerated and encouraged by the Roman Church that this aversion
can have been overcome; and doubtless the very unnatural and
purely representative style of design of the early ages of Christian
art is due to it, resolving itself into a kind of superstitious awe and
dread of approximating the forms and appearance of the idols of
the Pagans. In early times the image was not worshipped, but
what it represented, so that an intelligible impersonation was fully
adequate to the desired end. It is quite evident that no early work
of Christian art was produced as art, but as a symbolical inculcation
of certain religious principles. The ancient schools of art were
sensuous; a principal object was to convey pleasure and produce
effect by fine forms and beautiful colours. Such ends probably
never entered the minds of the early Christian artists; and the
suggestion of such an innovation would have appeared probably
sacrilegious, or not less heretical than a suggestion to change the
forms of prayers. The image would have immediately become a
Pagan image. Similar restrictions, though from a different cause,
were imposed on Egyptian artists, down to the Greek conquest.
There is this, however, to be observed, that Paganism seems to have
consisted in the form, not in the colour, of an image. The above
motives cannot be asserted with certainty, but they may be in-
ferred; for the early Christians commenced their works of art ata
time when fine works of antiquity must have been common in every
city, and almost in every street. Imitation is not difficult, and
man is naturally prone to imitate; the absence, therefore, of this
imitation, for it scarcely exists in the most remote degree, supposes
the presence of some animosity or active predisposition prohibiting
it, The typical style, therefore, first adopted from religious preju-
dice, became sanctioned by use, and in time became sacred, at least
from long habit, if not from principle or positive injunction.

Such was the Jewish dread of idolatry that artists were, according
toOrigen,’ even forbidden to enter the Jewish state. The object of this
prohibition was that uneducated persons should have no opportunity
of being seduced by the works of artists from the worship of the true
God. As the original church sprang from the Jews, from these the
introduction of idolatry was not to be feared; but shortly the con-
verted Gentiles far outnumbered the Jews, and it was very
easy for them to pass back to idolatry. It was the interest

1 “Contra Celsum,” iv. 31.
EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING. 79

therefore of the Church to forbid images in the strongest terms, as
when once admitted the result was obvious and inevitable.’ This
was seen by some of the early Fathers, who made constant efforts to
ward off so imminent a calamity from the Church. Tertullian
writes with great zeal against artists, as persons of iniquitous occu-
pations.?. They could not even be baptized until they had forsworn
their art; and if an artist was found, subsequently to his admis-
sion into the Church, to have recurred to his former occupation, he
was excommunicated. But this was the case chiefly only with the
Catholic or rather the Romanist Church.?

Tertullian calls Hermogenes the African painter and philosopher,
who was a Gnostic, “Bis falsarius, et cauterio et stylo,” twice
forger, both with the cauterium and with the pen; a remark with
reference to our subject of double interest: the expression cauterium
(the instrument, already described, used by encaustic painters, to
blend and fix their colours) shows that encaustic painting was still
a method in common practice in the second century of our era.

This animosity against Pagan customs was of course carried into
the more minute affairs of life, and had its influence in the choice
and adoption of articles of dress, ornament, and other luxuries.
Clemens of Alexandria in one of his discourses‘ specifies the limits
to which the engraving of signet rings, &c., might extend; he
deprecates all images and recommends only symbols; as—the dove,
the fish, a ship, a lyre, an anchor, and similar, emblems of the early
Christians. This picture presents a very striking contrast to the
state of feeling and opinion on this matter which shortly
supervened.

The great change respecting the toleration of images which took
place in the third and fourth centuries was doubtless owing to the
rapidly increasing stability of Christianity; it could afford to be
tolerant: the result, however, justified the fears of the earlier digni-
taries of the Church, and for many centuries the principal ecclesias-
tics protested against the growing abuse of images pictorial as well
as plastic. The Gnostics appear to have been the first who had re-
course to their use. The churches were painted to a considerable
extent, probably as early as the beginning of the fourth century.
The first notice of this use of painting occurs in a canon of the
Council held at Illiberis (Granada) in Spain about 305 a.p., which
decreed that there should be no images in the churches, and that that
which was revered and adored should not be painted on the walls
—a canon which has since been explained as referring only

1 See Miinter, “Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der Alten Christen,’ Altona,
1825; a work containing much interesting matter on this subject.

2 «De Idololatria,” c. 11. 3 Bingham, “ Orig. Eccles.” iv. p. 223.

+ “Paedag,” iii. c. 11.
80 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

to the Trinity, and not to saints or martyrs, as these were not-
adored.?

Towards the close of the fourth century images appear to have
increased ; an interesting letter of Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, to
John, bishop of Jerusalem, is preserved by St. Jerome, and in it the
following remarkable passage occurs:—“On my journey through
Anablata, a village in Palestine, I found a curtain at the door of
the church, on which was painted a figure of Christ or some saint,
I forget which. As I saw that it was the image of a man, which
is against the command of the Scriptures, I tore it down, and gave
it to the church authorities, with the advice to use it as a winding
sheet for the next poor person who might have occasion for one, and
bury it.”

Many other notices, however, occur in the Greek and Latin writers
of the fourth century which show that the dread of a restoration of
Paganism through the influence of images had very generally ceased ;
and in some instances the painters are even exhorted to celebrate:
the glories of the martyrs with their colours.”

Paulinus, bishop of Nola, introduced paintings into two churches
of St. Felix which he built at Nola and Fondi at the close of this cen-
tury ; and these paintings were probably among the earliest decora-
tions of their class in Italy. The reason given by the bishop for these
decorations is remarkable and highly creditable to him. Drunken~
ness appears to have been a common vice of that period; and the
annual celebrations of the festivals of the saints, by bringing many
illiterate people together, were the immediate causes of many gross.
excesses and much debauchery. To mitigate this disgraceful state,
Paulinus had recourse to the decoration of the churches with Bible
stories and illustrations of the lives of the martyrs, trusting by this
means to elevate the feeling of the populace and to draw them from
their gross sensuality to the contemplation of a higher state, and to
a more worthy expenditure of their leisure hours. It was a noble
effort at popular education by the best means probably in his power; -
but his success was doubtless little commensurate with his in-
tentions.

Throughout the fifth century it became a gradually more prevalent
custom to decorate the churches erected in honour of the saints with

1 Labbei, “ Cone.” i. p. 970; Miinter, 11. It became later very common to repre-
sent the Trinity, notwithstanding this canon : and the National Gallery possesses
several examples of the Italian Trinita; the Father being represented as an old
man supporting the crucified Son on the cross, above whose head hovers a dove,
All three persons were sometimes represented in a human form, and this practice
was only formally prohibited by Gregory XIV. See Quandt, “ Programma de
Picturis Spiritum Sanctum sub Juvenis speciosi forma representantibus a Bene-
dicto XIV. Pont. Rom. nuper prohibitis”’ Regiomonti, 1751.

2 See Miinter, 1.1. Einleitung.
EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING. 81

illustrations of their martyrdoms, in colours and in mosaics; the
latter style became eventually preferred as more durable ; and being
more costly, it was a greater evidence of devotion —not to the saint,
but to the cause in which he suffered.

Sixtus IIL, and Leo the Great or St. Leo, are conspicuous among
the first who carried this mode of decoration to a magnificent degree :
the great apsis of the choir of the church of St. Paul, outside the
walls of Rome, is still adorned with the mosaics executed by the
order of Leo: similar works were executed for Hilarius in the
church of St. John on the Lateran, and Simplicius decorated that of
Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome. The example of these Popes was
followed by the Emperor Maximian at Ravenna; the mosaics
executed by his orders in the church of St. Stephen still exist.

All these works, as well as many others that have perished, were
executed in the fifth century ; from which it is evident that at this
time it was a general practice to decorate the churches with pictures
and statues; and the artists of the period must have been consider-
ably numerous, though they are wholly unknown at present. The
grosser form of Christian idolatry commenced from this period; a
populace unable to read, and obsessed by a superstition commensu-
rate with its ignorance, was not likely to appreciate exactly the
original nature or purport of these images which their bishops had
set up; and, instead of examples of fortitude and incentives to a
higher intellectuality, they were looked upon as holy images and
mediators, and from mere moral records or spiritual symbols, were
converted into material saints, and became the objects of gross idol-
atry. What earlier prelates had foreseen and warned against in
vain, was in vain resisted by contemporary dignitaries of the Church ;
and notwithstanding several edicts of Councils against the adoration
of images, their use gradually prevailed, and, surviving all the efforts
of the Iconoclasts in the eighth and ninth centuries, finally tri-
umphed throughout the whole of Christendom, both in the western
and in the eastern empire, which was as palpably idolatrous as ever
the pagans were.

The various images of Christ still held sacred in the Roman
church were declared spurious in two separate Councils; in the
seventh general Council held at Constantinople in 754, and in the
Council assembled by Charlemagne at Frankfort in 794, in which
the Sancta Veronica or Sudarium, the famous miraculous image of
Edessa, was expressly mentioned.’

Before the time of Constantine the early Christians used symbols
only, as the monogram of Christ and the alpha and omega. The
monogram is composed of the first two letters of the Greek name of

1 Ciampini’s “ Vetera Monumenta, &ec.” contains engravings from these mosaics.

> Miinter, 1.1.

G
82 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Christ, X and P, the P being placed upon the X, but it was variously
written. To these were added the fish, the dove, the lamb, the
cock, the ship, the palm, the vine-branch, and others. Christ him-
self was first represented as the good shepherd, but variously : in
later times he was represented with his right hand raised in the
act of benediction. Various typical representations also occur from
the Old Testament, as Moses striking the rock, Daniel in the lions’
den, and others.'
Several early Christian paintings were discovered in the Roman
catacombs in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The best
were found in a chamber in that part of the catacombs on the Via
Appia under the church of St. Sebastian, called after St. Calixtus,
who was Pope from 219 to 223 a.p. These paintings will serve asa
specimen, of the art of the period.’ This chamber is painted on three
of its sides and upon the ceiling. On the wall opposite to the en-
trance, in a niche, is Orpheus. Over the arch in the middle is the
Adoration of the Kings; of which, however, the Madonna and
Child, and a town (Bethlehem) in the background, are all that
remains. Lower on the left is a man pointing upwards, supposed
by Dr. Kugler to be the prophet Micah, and to have reference to
the words—“ But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth
unto me that is to be ruler in Israel” (Micah v. 2). On the right
is Moses striking the water from the rock. On the wall to the left
of the entrance, in a niche, is Daniel in the lions’ den. The centre
above the arch is obliterated. On the left isa figure supposed to be
Job; on the right is Moses unbinding his sandals; on the wall to
the right of the entrance, in the niche, is the ascension of Elijah;
above the arch in the centre Noah looking out from the ark, and the
return of the dove ; to the left a woman praying; and on the right
the raising of Lazarus. On the ceiling, within a circle, is a bust
portrait of Christ, the body being naked, with the exception of sume
drapery hanging upon the left shoulder.’ This is supposed to be
the earliest of the portraits of Christ, and to have served as the type
of subsequent portraits. The resemblance, however, in the early
portraits of Christ is a general one + they are very little like the
description given of Christ by John Damascenus in the eighth
century, but there is considerable resemblance in them to the head

1 Boldetti, “ Osservazzioni sopra i Cimiteri de’ SS. Martiri e Antichi Christiani,”
1720; Minter, “‘Sinnbilder,” &c.

2 Antonio Bosio, “Roma Sotteranea,” 1632; Aringhi, “Roma Subterranea
Novissima,” 1659; Bottari, “Sculture e Pitture Sagro estratti dai Cimiteri di
Roma,” 1737; D'Agincourt, “ Histoire de l’Art par les Monuments,” &c.

3 Kugler, “ Hand-book of Painting,” &c., book i. § 6.

4 Some of these old portraits were engraved in 1861 in the Art-Journal as illus-
trations of papers on the subject, by Mr. T. Heaphy.
EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING. 83

described in the pretended letter of Lentulus:—“ A man of stately
figure, dignified in appearance, with a countenance inspiring vene-
ration, and which those who look upon it may love as well as fear.
His hair, rather dark and glossy, falls down in curls below his
shoulders, and is parted in the middle after the manner of the
Nazarenes. The forehead is smooth and remarkably serene; the
face without line or spot, and agreeably ruddy. The nose and mouth
are faultless; the beard is thick and reddish, of the colour of the
hair, not long, but divided ; the eyes bright, and of a varied colour.”

This letter, purporting to be addressed to the Roman Senate,
first appears in the writings of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury,
in the eleventh century.’

The image of Hdessa, already alluded to, has a remarkable history
attached to it; its origin is related by Evagrius,’ a writer of the
sixth century. This is the Sancta Veronica, or holy true image,
which is mentioned by John Damascenus,® Cedrenus,* and other
historians of the Church. The tradition is as follows :—Abgarus,
king of Edessa, in Mesopotamia, who was confined by sickness,
from which the treatment of his physicians gave him no relief,
having heard of the miracles performed by Christ in Judea, sent a
messenger to him to invite him to come to Edessa to cure him of his
complaint, This messenger was a certain Ananias, who was a
painter, and Abgarus had ordered him that, if he could not persuade
Christ to come to him, he was at least to bring his portrait. Ana-
nias delivered his letter, and on account of the crowd around him
retired to an eminence close by, and there attempted to make a
drawing of his face. This, either owing to Christ’s repeated move-
ments, or, as Damascenus says, the refulgence of his countenance,
he found it impossible to do. Christ himself, however, accom-
plished his purpose for him: having called for water to wash his
face with, he wiped it with a linen cloth, which he gave, with an
answer for Abgarus, to Ananias, who found Christ’s likeness im-
printed on it. Abgarus, as he had anticipated, was cured by the
touch of this portrait, and it became afterwards an object of uni-
versal veneration at Edessa, until it was removed to Constantinople
by Nicephorus Phocas, in the second year of his reign, a.p. 964.
.It was subsequently carried to Rome, where it is still preserved in
the church of San Silvestro in Capite. Another account states that
it was taken to Genoa and deposited in the church of San Bar-
tolomeo.

The interchange of letters between Christ and Abgarus is men-
tioned by Eusebius and Procopius, but Evagrius is the first to

1 Gabler, “De aidevtia Epistolae Publii Lentuli ad Senatum Romanum de
Jesu Christo scriptae,” Jena, 1819. 2 « Hist.” iv. 27.
3 “© De Fide Orthodoxa,” iv. 16. 4 « Annal.” p. 145, Xyland.
G2
84 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

mention this miraculous portrait, or Sancta Veronica—the image
framed by God, which the hands of man have not made, but Christ
God sent to Abgarus. There is another Sancta Veronica at Rome,
of which the traditional origin is different. It is said to be a cloth
which was presented by a woman to Christ to wipe his face with,
in the procession to Calvary.1 It is mentioned in various old
Church documents.

The principal monuments of early Christian painting (for they
must have been made from paintings) are, as already observed, the
mosaics of the old Christian churches, or Basilicas, in Rome, Ra-
venna, and other parts of Italy. ‘‘ The Basilicas, for so were called
the earliest churches erected after the model of ancient buildings—
consisted of an oblong space, the nave, to which in general were
attached side-aisles, and which was terminated by a spacious semi-
domed recess (the apsis, also called the tribune). In front of this
recess stood the altar; the apsis consequently formed the most
sacred part of the building, and was always richly ornamented,
even when other parts were comparatively plain. The figure of
Christ (seldom that of the Virgin) was represented in the upper
part of the recess, with the Apostles and other saints at his side, all
of gigantic size, and a hand generally appears above Christ (the
Almighty power of the Father), holding a crown over his head.
Underneath, on a narrower division, stands the Lamb of the Revela-
tion, with twelve sheep (representing the disciples); above, and
on each side of the arch which terminates the recess, there are
generally representations from the Apocalypse, alluding to the
advent of the Lord; in the centre frequently the Lamb on the
throne, and near it the symbols of the Evangelists, the seven
candles, the four and twenty elders, who raise their arms in adora-
tion toward the Lamb, &c. In the larger Basilicas, where a tran-
sept is introduced before the recess, it is divided from the nave by
a large arch, called the arch of triumph; in this case the subjects
from the Apocalypse were generally represented on the arch.”
These mosaics, mostly executed from the fifth to the ninth centuries,
are similar in character to the illuminations in the manuscripts of
the period, and with them constitute the only remains of the time.
They must, however, be considered as good representations of the
art of the time, as works of such importance would hardly be exe-
cuted from the designs of any other than the most distinguished
artists. ;

1 See upon these sacred portraits generally :—Chifilet, “ De Linteis Sepulchralibus
Christi Servatoris Crisis Historica,” c. 33, 34; and Gretser, “Syntagma de Imagi-
nibus manu non factis, deque aliis a San Luca pictis,” fol. Par. 1625, or “ Opera,”
vol. xv. p. 178, ef seq.

2 Kugler, “ Hand-book of Painting,” &., book i. § 7.
EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING. 85

The whole period from the establishment of Christianity in the
fourth and fifth centuries, until the revival of the arts and letters,
has been familiarly termed the dark ages. There can, however, be
scarcely a question that the darkness is somewhat reciprocal; that
is, the dark ages are those of which we are ignorant ;—-the darkness
is more subjective than objective. Certainly the historian of art
has little information to offer concerning this long period, but of
which the one universal subject was the Christian mythology, which
is not wanting in abundant materials for very effective illustration.
The mosaics and the manuscripts both show that the arts were not
extinct, and from some few MSS. it is evident that painting was
still much cultivated in Constantinople about the fifth and sixth
centuries. The monks, however, were probably the principal artists.
Almost incessant wars, pests, and famines, had driven those studi-
ously inclined, as much as the religiously disposed, to seek the
retirement and protection of the cloister; and rendered the convents
the chief conservatories of literature and the arts. Many monas-
teries of the middle ages attained celebrity by the ingenuity of
their artists ; amotig these is particularly deserving of mention the
convent of Saint Gall, in Switzerland. Tutilo, or Tuotilo, and
Notker, monks of this convent, were the most celebrated painters,
sculptors, and gold-workers of their time in Germany. Tutilo was
particularly distinguished ; he was contemporary with the Abbot
Salomo of Saint Gall (891-921), who was a great patron of art, and
he made for him a golden crucifix of wonderful workmanship. An
old German writer of the name of Ekkehard speaks of Tutilo as
“mirificus’ aurifex ;” he was however also musician, poet, orator,
and statesmay: the emperor Charles the Thick complained that
such a man should be immured in a convent. A celebrated picture
or image of the Virgin, which was long an object of veneration at
Metz, was the work of this monk.’ Lessing supposes that this
Tutilo, or Tuotilo, was the same person as the Theophilus Pres-
byter, who wrote a Latin treatise on painting—‘‘ De omni Scientia
Artis Pingendi”—called also ‘‘ Theophili Presbyteri Diversarum
Artium Schedula ;” there are several MSS. of this old treatise, more
or less complete; one has been recently acquired by the British
Museum. Lessing published the complete treatise in 1781 from
the MS. at Wolfenbiittel, in the sixth number of his “ Beitrige zur
Geschichte und Litteratur.” It contains directions for painting in oil,
which has caused those who have confounded the Van Eycks’
method into one of painting simply with oil, instead of compounds
with oil, to regard it as spurious.’

1 Goldast, “Rerum Alemannicarum Scriptores,” &c.
? An English translation of this,work, together with the original, was published
by Robert Hendrie in 1847. “An Essay upon various Arts,” &.
86 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Though painters were doubtless in considerable numbers through-
out the whole of the middle ages, the illuminations in MSS. con-
stitute the principal or almost entire remains of actual painting of
the period; the first portion of the series of Popes’ portraits in the
old Basilica of St.Paul, near Rome, constituting the chief exception.
This remarkable series of paintings, which was nearly entirely
destroyed in the conflagration of the church in 1823, consisted. of
the portraits of two hundred and fifty-three popes, and was com-
menced in the fifth century by St. Leo, who brought the series
down to his own time; it was continued by St. Symmachus, and
again afterwards by Benedict XIV. and Pius VII. The bronze
gates of this church, which are decorated with engraved designs
filled in with various metals, were cast in 1070 at Constantinople
by the founder Stauracius, at the expense of the consul Pantaleone
Castelli! This is evidence of the superior state of the arts at
Constantinople to what they had attained in the West: the same
evidence is shown by the Byzantine MSS., which are very superior
in their illuminations to the Latin. There can be little doubt that
painting was in a much higher development isi the capital of the
East than in any other part of the empire. This may be partly
accounted for by the constant presence of a great court, and partly
by the much greater security enjoyed at Constantinople than at
Rome, or in any other part of the empire, especially in the northern
and western portions.’

CHAPTER XI.

THE MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATIONS: FROM ABOUT 500 A.D.

Tue illuminating of manuscripts is generally considered as a con-
necting link between ancient and modern painting. This is, how-

1 Nicolai, ‘‘ Della Basilica di San Paolo;” Platner and Bunsen, “ Beschreibung
der Stadt Rom,” vol. iii. pt. 1.

2 The remarkable constancy which has been observed in the practice of Byzan-
tine art from the early middle ages until even our own time is thoroughly explained
in the Guide or “Manual of Painting,’—‘Epunveta ris (wypapixjs, printed by
M. Didron from a manuscript of the eleventh century, procured by him from Mount
Athos, and published at Paris in 1845 under the title “Manuel d’Iconographie
Chretienne, &. Traduit du MS. Byzantin par le Dr. Paul Durand.”

There is also a German translation by Dr. Schiffer, “Das Handbuch der Malerei
yom Berge Athos,” &c. Trier, 1855. In this “Guide,” which is indispensable to
the Greek painter, are given not only the subjects to be represented, and their
orthodox treatment, but even the costume and lineaments of the characters
described.
THE MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATIONS. 87

ever, giving it an importance which certainly does not belong to it.
These illuminations, though all that is now left, are, as already
shown, only one form of the painting of the middle ages. The
reason of their preservation is obvious ; being of small dimensions,
and as part of MSS. having a value beyond their illuminations,
there was both greater facility and greater interest in their pre-
servation; and further, being painted on vellum, there was little
danger of their decay through time. On the other hand, panels,
canvasses, and paintings on walls, independent of the difficulty of
their removal and deposit in safe places in cases of emergency, were
constantly exposed to injuries from which the illuminations of
MSS., from their situation and character, were always preserved.
It would scarcely have been extraordinary if the illuminations of
MSS. had been much more numerous than they are, and there had
been no other traces of a middle-age painting whatever. The
monasteries were doubtless the chief manufactories and depositories
of MSS., and the monks their principal scribes: but the writers and
illuminators of MSS. were distinct persons; the ornamental initial
letters and borders were not even made by those who wrote the
MSS., which is evident from the fact that some MSS. want the
initial letters altogether, the spaces being left to be filled in by the
proper artist. From what Vasari says of Don Jacopo of Florence,
in the Life of Don Lorenzo, it appears that initial6r large-letter
writing was still a distinct occupation, for he celebrates this monk
as the most distinguished large-letter writer (Scrittore di Lettere
Grosse) of Europe in the fourteenth century. This Don Jacopo left
his convent, Degli Angeli, sixteen folio choral books with miniature
illuminations by a brother of the same convent, Don Silvestro; and
the extraordinary skill of these men was so highly venerated by
their brother monks that they embalmed their right hands after
their death and preserved them in a tabernacle. The portion of
these books which was executed by Don Silvestro is probably as
much as was ever at any time done by the painter or illuminator,
the miniatore, as he was called (from minium or minio, vermilion, or
red lead, the first decorations consisting simply of red lines or
initials on the titles or at the commencement of MSS.), and it was
doubtless undertaken by him as any other ordinary matter of busi-
ness. For although it is probable that some monks and artists dis-
tinguished as miniatori were exclusively occupied on such illumina-
tions, they were also executed by some of the greatest painters of
their time, who, we know, were far from being so exclusively
engaged; as Simone Memmi, Franco Bolognese, Giotto, Don Barto-
lomeo, Squarcione of Padua and his pupils, Liberale da Verona,
Girolamo da’ Libri, Giulio Clovio, Cosimo Tura, Fra Angelico da
Fiesole, Gerard of Ghent, and the celebrated Memling. Many more
88 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

names doubtless might have been added, had not the custom of
illuminating MSS. declined as painting progressed. The above-
named painters, however, were it not for our more accurate infor-
mation concerning them, might have been classed as mere links of the
chain of miniatori, who are supposed not only to have been the pre-
servers of painting during the middle ages, but also the instructors
of the earliest masters of the Renaissance. The idea therefore
broached by Lanzi and others, of the miniatori or illuminators of MSS.
being the preservers of painting, is a mere theory founded on the
assumption, that because these illuminations are the only remains we
possess of certain ages, they were the only paintings of those ages.

Miniature painting, however, as one of the forms of art, may
be safely considered as an index to the state of the art of the period:
for we find that the best miniatures were produced about the begin-
ning of the sixteenth century, when the art of painting itself was
in its highest state. Memling, as seen in the Grimani Breviary,
may be perhaps pronounced as the best of illuminators: the minia-
tures of Giulio Clovio, who was nearly contemporary with him,
are too highly finished, and are much less vigorous than those of
the great Flemish painter. Our space will admit of only a slight
review of the progress and character of this department of painting.

It appears that the earliest MSS. of Greek and Roman origin are
only slightly ornamented, their embellishment consisting in little
more than the occasional introduction of red titles, or commence-
ments and initials. Some of the most valuable MSS. known are in
the celebrated collection of the Vatican. The earliest of these is
probably the Virgil (Vaticana, No. 3225), containing fifty minia-
tures, which it is conjectured may be of as early a date as the
fourth century. The execution of the designs is very coarse, and
inferior to their conception ; they may be copies from earlier works:
the lights are picked out with gold. The Byzantine MSS., of
which there are many in the Vatican, are better illustrated than
those of the Western Empire; many of them are executed with
great care and detail. No. 405 Vaticana is a MS. of the book of
Joshua; it is a volumen or roll of parchment, thirty-two feet long,
and is of the seventh or eighth century. The illuminations of this
MS. are among the best of the early Christian illustrations: they
have all the characteristic imperfections of Byzantine painting in
the extremities; but in treatment, costume, and in the military
equipments they approach the designs of antiquity. In the Vatican
is also (No. 1613 Vaticana) the celebrated Menologium or Calendar,
executed about 1000 a.v. for the Emperor Basilius II., called Por-
phyrogennetus, and supposed to have been procured from Constan-
tinople by Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan. It is imperfect, there
being but the months from September to February inclusive ; it
THE MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATIONS. 89

contains, however, four hundred and thirty miniatures upon gold
grounds, illustrating the Life of Christ, and the lives of all the
saints whose days occur in these months of the year. The names
of the painters are inscribed upon the miniatures—Pantaleon,
Simeon, Michael Blachernita, Georgius Menas, Simeon Blachernita,
Michael Micros, and Nestor. The illustrations are poor in inven-
tion, but have considerable merit in the expression of the heads, in
the draperies, and in the general detail of execution. The figures
in action are the most defective; those in repose are frequently
natural. The subjects from the Lives of the Saints are chiefly their
martyrdoms: Byzantine architecture is introduced in many of the
back-grounds. It was presented by the Cardinal Sfondrato to Pope
Paul V., who placed it in the Vatican in 1615. It was published
in 1727, with a Latin translation, by Cardinal Annibale Albani;
but the engravings do not do the miniatures justice. The Calendar
was completed from a MS. in the library of Grotta Ferrata, in
which, however, there are no illustrations.

The best Greek MSS., according to Platner,’ are those of the
period of the Comnene Emperors, from 1056 until 1204 a.p., from
Michael VI. until the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders ;
and particularly during the reigns of Alexius I., Johannes II., and
Manuel I.; and this opinion is justified by the engravings from
those MSS. in D’Agincourt’s “Histoire de Art par les Monu-
ments,” &c. Of these MSS. the following are the best:—The
Homilies of St. Gregory Nazianzenus (Vaticana, No. 463), exe-
cuted in 1063; it contains however only one illustration—the
author writing: the ‘“‘Dogmatica Panoplia,” fortifications against
heresies (Vaticana, No. 666), executed for Alexius Comnenus
(1081-1118); it contains three large illustrations upon a gold
ground—two representing the Fathers of the Church bringing
the materials of the book to the Emperor, above whose head is a
vision of the Saviour; and the third the Emperor presenting the
finished work to the Saviour seated on the throne: the first portion
of the subjevt is on the two sides of the same leaf, which suggests
the idea that it is a copy of the original picture of the subject,
and as there was not room for the whole design on one page, it was
finished on the other side. The figures of these paintings are perhaps
the best contained in early MSS.; they are about nine inches high,
are brilliantly coloured, and the heads have a great deal of expres-
sion; the Emperor is dressed in Oriental costume, which is executed
with minute attention to detail.’

Another MS. of great interest (Biblioteca d’Urbino, No. 2) is an
Evangelium, or the four Gospels, executed in 1128, in the reign of
Johannes Comnenus. The illustrations of this MS. are:—Christ

1 “Beschreibung der Stadt Rom,” vol. ii. pt. 2. * D’ Agincourt, vol. v. pl. lviii.
90 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

séated between Justice and Love, both crowned—the Saviour is
blessing with his right hand the Emperor, with his left the Em-
peror’s son, Alexius; the Evangelists writing; the Birth of the
Saviour; his Baptism; the Birth of John the Baptist; and the
Saviour releasing the souls from purgatory or limbo, the Devil
lying chained under his feet. The draperies in these illustrations
are good, as are also the heads of the Emperor, his son and the
Evangelists, which are the best; this MS. is likewise ornamented.
Vaticana No. 394, a MS. of St. John Climachus, contains some very
curious designs; it is called the Ladder, «Aéyaé from its contents,
which treat of the virtues as the steps of the ladder to heaven; the
vices also are personified accompanied by devils, and causing
precipitation from the ladder: the vices are blue and the devils
black. The figures are very small, but carefully executed, and well
coloured; the male, however, are much better than the female
figures. Platner remarks that short plump figures are a charac-
teristic defect of the inferior Byzantine MSS.

The great superiority of the Byzantine over the Latin MSS. of
the Middle Ages agrees with all other evidence in indicating Byzan-
tium or Constantinople as the head seat of the Arts in this period,
and also corroborates the view stated above as to the relative im-
portance of manuscript illuminations in the history of Art. The
examples which we have already considered bring us to the begin-
ning of the thirteenth century, when the dawn of the revival of
painting commences.

The great period for manuscript illuminations in the West was
apparently the age of Charlemagne, who, as well as his grandson,
Charles the Bald, was a great patron of such works of taste. The
celebrated so-called Charlemagne Bible, long preserved at Rome
in the church of St. Paul, but now in the church of San Calisto, in
Trastevere, is one of the most valuable Latin MSS. extant. The
first illustration is an allegorical picture of Charlemagne, and his
protection of the church: about two-thirds of the illuminations are
from the Old Testament, the rest from the New, and they constitute
together the entire history of the fall and redemption of man, a
series which is known as the “Speculum Humanae Salvationis,”
and which, with variations in the detail, constantly recurs in the
works of later ages. The figures are designed with the characteristic
defects of the period, but the illuminations are distinguished for the
beauty of their ornamental decorations.

England also had its illuminators, who were no way behind their
Continental neighbours in decoration. Among the Saxons at the close
of the tenth century, says Sir F. Madden, a peculiar style of orna-

1 In the Introduction to Shaw’s “Dluminated Ornaments selected from MSS.
and early printed Books from the Sixth to the Seventecnth Century.” London, 1833.
THE MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATIONS. 91

ment prevailed, which for boldness, correctness of design, and rich-
ness, is not surpassed by any works executed on the Continent at
the same period. The ‘“ Benedictional of St. Ethelwold,” belonging
to the Duke of Devonshire, written and illuminated between 963
and 970, is the most complete example of this Artin England. It
was executed by a monk of Hyde Abbey (then the most celebrated
place in England for such works), named Godeman, for Ethelwold,
Bishop of Winchester. It is a folio of 119 leaves of vellum, measur-
ing 114 inches in height, by 8% in width, and contains thirty large
richly-coloured drawings.! There are several interesting MSS. in
the British Museum illustrating old Saxon customs.

Large illuminated initials are said to have commenced with the
Greeks in the seventh century; and they attained their utmost
elaboration in the twelfth. Some of these letters are ornamented
with all kinds of fanciful figures, composed of men, animals, birds,
fish, and flowers; as they generally illustrate the text, they have
been termed lettres historices. In French and English MSS. of the
fourteenth century, initials in purple, red, and gold are very fre-
quent, which contain figures of men and animals, and terminate in
spiral scrolls, which extend along the upper and lower margins of
the page, and support small groups or single figures of dogs, hares,
apes, &c., much resembling the arabesque decorative etchings and
woodcuts of the modern German schools.

The designs in the MSS. advance in equal relative progression
with painting itself; and when we come to the fourteenth, fifteenth,
and sixteenth centuries, we meet with many illuminations which
show an advanced period in Art, though these illustrations them-
selves, except those of Memling or Clovio, are rather epitomes of
the defects of the Art of their period than its excellences. Several
MSS. in the British Museum contain good specimens of the charac-
teristic illuminations of these centuries. After the sixteenth cen-
tury, though illuminated MSS. were still occasionally produced,
the demand for MSS. themselves comparatively ceased ; their illu-
mination therefore, and this branch of painting, were likewise sus-
pended.

These illuminated books were very expensive, necessarily, as one
or more illuminators were sometimes employed on them several
years, which at twenty sous a day each, would soon amount to a
considerable sum, independent of the relative value of money then
and now. From about 300 to 3000 francs would be ordinary
prices for the simpler and more costly, according to the amount of
labour bestowed.

Though the discussion of the character of these later MSS. is here

1 See Mr. Gage’s “Dissertation on the St. Ethelwold Benedictional,” in the
« Archzologia,” vol. xxiv. p. 22, where all the illustrations are engraved.
92 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

against the order of time, as we must presently consider the works
of a more remote period of history, it is as well to say in one place,
what little our space will admit on the subject of MSS.

Besides the painters already mentioned there were very few illu-
minators of celebrity. One of the earliest was Oderigi of Gubbio,
noticed by Dante in his “ Purgatorio” (canto xi.) ; he died about
1300 a.v. His more celebrated pupil, Franco Bolognese, likewise
noticed by Dante in the same canto, was still living in 13813.
Simone Memni, the painter of Laura, and by whom there is a mi-
niature of Virgil writing, in a MS. of that poet, in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, died at Avignon in 1342.

Attavante, a Florentine artist of the fifteenth century, was a very
celebrated illuminator of MSS. There is in the Library at Brussels
a magnificent Missal, which he illuminated for Matthias Corvinus,
King of Hungary. The former regents of Belgium used to take
their official oath upon this volume; the first to do so were the
Archduke Albert and Isabella in 1599; and the Prince of Saxen-
Teschen, in the name of Joseph II., was the last, in 1781. It was
probably brought to Brussels by Maria, sister of Charles V.; she
obtained the Government of the Netherlands after the death of
her husband, Ludwig II. of Hungary. Attavante was still living in
1487. Julio Clovio’s illuminations are injured by their excessive
finish: he spent, according to Vasari, nine years in executing
twenty-six miniatures in a breviary of the Virgin, for the Cardinal
Alessandro Farnese; it is now in the Royal Library at Naples.
Clovio died in 1578. Oderigi and Attavante, and the few before
mentioned, are the only illuminators of MSS. known exclusively
as such, who have obtained great fame; and they were probably
not exclusively engaged on such works.

There is a Psalter in the British Museum, supposed to be of
English origin, of perhaps the latter part of the thirteenth century,
or probably the early part of the fourteenth (Reg. 2, b. 7.), in
which the drawing of the period is much better represented than
is generally the case in MSS. Some of the illuminations are fair
specimens of the design of the Italian frescoes of the period; and
it isa matter of rare occurrence to find the illuminations of MSS.
even approximating the best style of design of their respective
ages. It is an octavo volume, containing 320 leaves of vellum;
on the first sixty-five are illustrations from the Old Testament, in
transparent water-colours, in the usual style of such drawings, the
designs being drawn in outline, and the colours lightly washed in.
These are followed by drawings of Saints, in body colours or dis-
temper, which are likewise first drawn in outline; but in this style
the outline is frequently obliterated by being painted over with the
body colour. These designs are followed by a Calendar, and finally
THE MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATIONS. 93

comes the Psalter, which fills the greater part of the volume, and
is ornamented with many designs both of events and customs. It
belonged to Queen Mary, to whom it was presented in 1553 by its
then possessor, Baldwin Smith.

An interesting MS. of the fifteenth century is the celebrated
Bedford Missal, executed in France for John, Duke of Bedford,
and Regent of France,’ in the reign of Henry VI., in the pos-
session of Sir John Tobin at Liverpool, in 1833, who purchased
it at a sale for 1100/. Itis a small folio, and contains fifty-nine
illustrations nearly of the size of the page, and about a thousand
small illustrations with ornamental borders, &c. In this MS. is
the only known portrait of the Duke of Bedford: the portrait of
the duke, engraved by Vertue for Rapin’s ‘‘ History of England,”
was engraved from this illustration. It was presented by the duke
to Henry VI., at his coronation in France. There are several illu-
minated French romances of the fifteenth century in the British
Museum, with many valuable illustrations with regard to costume.
Among the most interesting are:—the famous “ Romance of the
Rose” (Harl. MSS. 4425) ; the collection presented by Talbot, Earl
of Shrewsbury, to Margaret of Anjou (Royal MSS. 15 E. vi.); and
the “ Poems of Christine of Pisa” (Harl. MSS. 4431). The “ Romant
de la Rose,” supposed to have been executed towards the close of the
fifteenth century, is very richly illuminated. The poem itself dates
from the thirteenth century; it describes a dream, and contains
22,000 lines in 100 chapters: it was commenced by William de
Lorris, and completed by John De Mehun. The British Museum
MS. is considered the most beautiful one extant of this poem, which
has, however, been several times printed. The last edition was
published at Paris in 1814.

The Anglo-Saxons were long among the best illuminators; and
the Irish also were distinguished for their excellence in this depart-
ment of art. The British or Hiberno-Saxon school of illumination
shows a distinct character, as seen in the so-called ‘‘ Durham Book,
or St. Cuthbert’s Gospel,” of the beginning of the eighth century, now
in the British Museum. The initials are characterised by an extreme
intricacy of pattern, interlacing of knots, something on the principle
of the so-called Runic knots and tracery, so common in the sculp-
tured monuments of Ireland and of the North. They are sometimes
interwoven with animals and birds, and often terminating in the
heads of serpents. These peculiarities indicate a Byzantine origin.

The serpent figures largely in Byzantine art, as the instrument
of the Fall, and one type of the Redemption. The cross planted
on the serpent is found sculptured on Mount Athos; and the cross
surrounded by the Runic knot is only a Scandinavian version of the
original Byzantine image,—the crushed snake curling round the
94 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

stem of the avenging cross. The ordinary Northern and Irish
crosses, so conspicuous for their interlaced ornaments and grotesque
monsters, and all the similar initial letters of the MSS., appear
to be purely modifications of this idea. There are some very
characteristic examples of this tracery in Chalmers’ Sculptured
Monuments of Angus.

There are no British illuminations later than the reign of Henry
VII. After the establishment of printing, and consequent multi-
plication of books, MSS. became gradually more rare, though still
occasionally executed as works of luxury or curiosities of calligra-
phy. Their writing is often equal to the finest types, and some-
times even superior. Perhaps the latest of the illuminated missals,
says Sir F. Madden, is the immense folio in the library of Rouen,
which is nearly three feet high, and cost the monk of St. Andoen,
who illuminated it, thirty years of labour: it was completed in
1682."

1 A fuller account of the illuminations of MSS. is given in the article “« PaLzo-
GrapHy” in the “Supplement to the Penny Cyclopedia,” and the whole subject
will be found thoroughly treated in the following works :—Dibdin’s “ Bibliogra-
phical Decameron,” 1817: D’Agincourt’s “ Histoire de l’Art par les Monuments,’
&c., 1823: Shaw’s “ Iluminated Ornaments,” already cited; and the magnificent
work published in Paris by Champollion Figeac, and Aimé Champollion, Fils,
“Paléographie Universelle; Collection de Fac-Similes d’Ecritures de tous les
Peuples et de tous les Temps,” par M. Silvestre, 1839-42, 4 vols. folio. Lately
photography, also, has been brought into aid for the illustration of MS. illumina-
tions, as well as of painters’ original drawings; and a fine selection from Flemish
wjniatures, in the Grimani Breviary las been published in Venice by Antonio
Perini—* Fac-simile delle Miniature contenute nel Breviario Grimani, conservato
nella Biblioteca di San Marco.” The principal illuminators of this missal were
Memling, Gerard of Ghent, and Livin of Antwerp, both probably Memling’s
pupils. The Breviary belonged to Antonello da Messina, who sold it to Cardinal
Grimani for 500 ducats. See the “ Anonimo di Morelli,” p. 77.
THE REVIVAL OF PAINTING IN ITALY. 95

BOOK III.

THE RENAISSANCE. DEVOTIONAL ART. ASCENDANCY OF
SENTIMENT. NEW TECHNICS.

 

CHAPTER XII.

THE REVIVAL OF PAINTING IN ITALY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: CIMA-
BUE AND GIOTTO.—THE GIOTTESCHI.

WHATEVER were the causes, and they are not obvious, the forma-
tive arts made a surprising and comparatively sudden progress in
the thirteenth century. Various promoting causes have been sug-
gested as the source of this improvement; but it was doubtless
owing to the combination of many influences. The Latin conquest
of Constantinople in 1204, and the greater intercourse generally
which then arose between the Italians and the Greeks or Byzan-
tines, appears to have been one of the principal sources of the
advancement. Many Greek artists were established in Italy in the
thirteenth century, and were apparently particularly active at
Venice, at Siena, and Pisa; Greek artists, however, were certainly
in the habit of going to Italy long before this time. Part of the
improvement was doubtless owing to the study of ancient bassi-
rilievi, which first attracted the notice of artists about this time;
and also much must be attributed to the more than ordinary powers
of observation of some few individual artists, who shook off the
trammels of convention and ancient precedent, and had immediate
recourse to Nature herself. The gold grounds, however, which
characterize this epoch, appear to have belonged to the Byzantines,
who also were probably the masters of the Italians in the preparing
of their paints and colours and other technicalities; for it is more
probable that such arts would be even improved at Byzantium,
which, since its elevation to the imperial capital, had never, until
1204, been wasted by a foreign enemy, than that they could be so
96 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

much as preserved in Italy, for ages the common prey of all the
marauding tribes of the North.

The great fact of the revival of art is that it became imitative as
well as representative, though in the first two centuries, or before
Masaccio, the imitation was as much imaginary as real: the art of
looking at Nature had to be learnt before the imitating her could be
acquired, It is worthy of remark, that the more positive revival of
Art was simultaneous, or immediately following the discovery of
gunpowder and the invention of printing. The discovery of gun-
powder, by rendering the baronial and other strongholds untenable,
and thus putting an end to the impunity of tyranny and plunder at
once, enabled the peaceful and industrious classes to devote them-
selves to commerce and the useful arts, with comparative security
and proportionate success. Gunpowder was certainly a most valu-
able pioneer in modern civilization. Printing likewise, of incalcu-
lable consequences, disseminated both ancient lore and modern
science, spreading a new spirit of inquiry, and a taste for know-
ledge of every description. The immense improvement which took
place in the Arts in the fifteenth century was doubtless greatly
owing to this new impulse given to the whole range of the intellec-
tual and perceptive faculties of man, henceforth under other in-
fluences besides ecclesiastical tradition.

TUSCAN SCHOOL.

Among the modern schools of Italy, the Florentine or Tuscan
rather takes the precedence in point of time; not that there were
not painters in Venice and Pisa and Siena, as early as at Florence,
but it was the earliest school which distinguished itself. Another
reason of the prominence of the Florentine school in history is that
Vasari, being himself a Florentine, has made his native place con-
spicuous above all others in his lives of the painters, and has pre-
served much information concerning many Florentine artists of
little general repute, while he has left us in ignorance about many
masters of the highest merit, belonging to other parts of Italy; and
these hiatus, left by him in the history of painting, are not wholly
made good by the works of other writers, though modern researches
are constantly supplying deficiencies.

The earliest known Tuscan artists are of the thirteenth century ;
these are Niccola and Giunta, of Pisa. Niccola, who was a sculp-
tor, was the first who approximated Nature in design since the time
of the ancients. GuiunTa Pisayo was a tempera painter of so-called
frescoes and easel pictures; there are several of his works still
extant: a crucifixion of about the year 1236, in the church of Santa
Maria Degli Angeli at Assisi, by him, is remarkable for the solidity
THE TUSCAN SCHOOL. 97

‘of its impasto ; it is in water-colours, and yet is unaffected by water.'
Contemporary with Giunta were Guipo pa Siena and Bonaventura
Brruineuieri of Lucca, and all belong still to the Byzantine school
in style—brown carnations, emaciated faces drawn in coarse out-
lines with hatchings for the shadows, elongated extremities, even
when the figures are short and thick, which they occasionally are,
and positive colour in the draperies.

There is a Madonna by Guido in the Malevolti chapel in the
church of San Domenico at Siena, which is a work of great merit
for its time; it is engraved in Lastri’s “ Etruria Pittrice,” which
contains also many other specimens of early Tuscan painting. This
is the oldest Sienese picture, it is dated 1221, and has the following
Latin inscription :—

“FA Me Gopo ps Senis Dmsvus Derinxir AMENIS
Quem XPS Lenis Nuuuis vewir AGERE PENIS.”
AXo. D!, M°, CC.XX.1.

Quite Greek in its technical qualities, says Rumohr, it is as much
beyond the meagre Byzantine types as it is inferior to the full
round forms of Cimabue. The attitudes are dignified, but purely
conventional; the fact of the child’s hand being in the attitude of
benediction, with the Latin position of the fingers, is in itself suf-
ficient to show the absence of Greek influence: the difference
between the two positions will be explained presently. There is a
signed St. Francis, by Berlinghieri, in the church of the Saint at
Pescia, dated 1235. It is engraved in Rosini’s “Storia della Pittura
Ttaliana.”

Marcaritone or AREZZO, the son of Magnano, was born in Arezzo
in 1236, and is accordingly another painter who was antecedent to
Cimabue. There is a Crucifixion by Margaritone in the church of
Santa Croce at Florence, placed near another of the same subject
by Cimabue ; and it is evident, by a comparison of these two works,
that there is not that difference between them to warrant the denial
of the title of painter to Margaritone, if Cimabue has a right to it,
though Margaritone remained under Byzantine influence. A pic-
ture of San Francesco in the church of Sargiano near Arezzo, has a
dignified expression. The inscription on this picture, ‘“ Marcarir
De ARivI0 PINGEBAT,” seems to indicate directly or indirectly a
Greek source of instruction, as the word pingebat is in the imperfect
tense, according to the custom of the Greek artists. He was also
sculptor and architect ; and the best of all his works, says Vasari, is
the marble monument of Pope Gregory X., in the episcopal palace

1 A tracing, the full size of this interesting work, has been published by Ram-

boux in his “ Umrisse zur veranschaulichung alt Christlichen Kunst in Italien,”
from the year 1200 to 1600, Large Folio.

H
98 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

at Arezzo. Other artists of this period were MazsTro BarroLomMEo
of Florence, and Anprea Tari, who was twenty-seven years older
than Cimabue. Tafi, says Vasari, was the restorer of mosaic in
Tuscany. The master of Tafi was a Greek of the name of Apol-
lonius, who was at that time engaged at Florence to execute some
mosaics in the church of San Giovanni.

A good evidence of the Greek influence in early Italian art is
the rare example by Margaritone, in the National Gallery. In this
picture the Virgin is seated in the centre with the Child in her
lap, surrounded by the Jchthus or Vesica glory;.around the glory
outside are the four symbolic images of the four evangelists,—the
angel, the ox, the lion, and the eagle. Hight small pictures are
arranged, four on each side of the Vesica: the Nativity, and Annun-
ciation to the Shepherds; St. John the Evangelist liberated from
the caldron of boiling oil; St. John resuscitating Drusiana; St.
Benedict rolling himself among thorns to avoid the temptations of
the Evil Spirit; the ‘Martyrdom and Burial of St. Catharine on
Mount Sinai; St. Nicholas of Bari exhorting the Sailors to throw
overboard the Vase given them by the Devil; the same Saint
liberating three condemned; and St. Margaret, in prison, swal-
lowed and disgorged again by the Dragon unhurt. It is painted in
tempera on linen attached to wood, and is signed Margarit de Aritio
me fecit.

These subjects illustrate the spirit of the art of the time; but
what is particularly Greek is the right hand of the Infant Christ,
which is blessing according to the Greek rite, that is, in the name
of Jesus Christ ; and the fingers are so placed as to form the Greek
monogram of Christ,—IC XC, the first and last letters of the names
*InoovC XpicrdC: the first finger is straight, the second slightly
curved, the thumb holding down the third, forming the X, and the
fourth slightly curved. In the Latin form of blessing, the thumb
and first and second fingers are extended.

The aureole and nimbus in this picture are also early Christian
forms, and are derived from the Byzantines. The aureole, or long
glory, circumscribing the figure, represents the acrostic symbol, the
Fish, derived from the circumstance of the common Greek word for
fish, ix@vc (ichthus), containing the initials of the following sen-
tence :—'Inaoie Xgeorde, Oot “Yioc, Zwrnp, Jesus Christ the Son of God
the Saviour. Hence this glory, which is given only to Christ or to
the Virgin holding the Infant Christ, is called the Jchthus, and, from
its shape, the Vesica or bladder; it is called also the Vesica Piscis,
and sometimes by the Italians the Mandorla or almond.

This remarkable picture is not only noticed but praised by Vasari :
it was formerly an altar front in the church of Santa Margherita at
Arezzo. It is a good illustration of medieval painting, and shows
THE TUSCAN SCHOOL. 99

the very great necessity there was for a Renaissance. Margaritone
died at Arezzo in 1313, aged seventy-seven, weary of life, says
Vasari, having quite outlived the art and taste of his own time.

The first painter of great fame, however, among the moderns, was
Giovanni GUALTIERI or CimaBur, who was born at Florence in the
year 1240. Great prominence is given to the name of Cimabue,
through Vasari commencing with him his “ Lives of the most emi-
nent Artists from the Revival of Art in Italy ;”! a distinction which
is not justified by any remarkable superiority of his paintings over
those of his immediate predecessors, though great improvement is
evident in his works; his proportions are better, and his figures
have more life; and awkward as they are, he has evidently had
recourse to nature.

Notwithstanding Vasari’s account of Cimabue, and the high place
he occupies in his work, his life is involved in obscurity; much
that Vasari has said of him is the offspring of his own imagination.
He is supposed to have been the pupil of Giunta Pisano, whom he
assisted in 1253, in his thirteenth year, in his wall-paintings at
Assisi: Vasari says he learnt of some Greeks who were employed
to decorate the church at Santa Maria Novella at Florence. This
may be true, for Cimabue, as well as Giunta, must be reckoned
among the painters of the Byzantine school. One apparently of his
early and most remarkable pictures is the Colossal Madonna still
in the Rucellai chapel in the church of Santa Maria Novella, to
which it was carried, says tradition, with great rejoicing in formal
procession by the people when finished.

According to Vasari, Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, visited
Cimabue when he was painting this picture. Charles was in Flo-
rence in 1266, when he was on his passage to Naples to take pos-
session of his kingdom; this picture, therefore, must have been
completed not long after that time, for it was nearly if not quite
finished then: the picture was exhibited to the populace on the
occasion, in honour of the King’s visit. If there is any truth in
the story, which is doubtful, Charles probably paid Florence a visit
on some later occasion, for in 1266 Cimabue was only twenty-six

1 Vasari, “ Vite de’ pit eccellenti Pittori, Scultori e Architetti,” published at
Florence in 1550, and again by himself in 1568, in three vols. 4to, with portraits
cut in wood, and many corrections and new lives of deceased artists down to the
year 1567. This is the great text-book for the history of Italian art: it has gone
through many subsequent editions, of which the best is Bottari’s, printed at Rome
in 1758, and at Leghorn and Florence in 1767-72. The German translation by
Schorn is valuable on account of its notes. There has been also a new edition
published at Florence by Le Monnier, 1846-57, in 13 vols., with many additional
valuable notes; but as yet the promised index is wanting, greatly to the injury of
the usefulness of the edition. Iam aware that an English translation has been
published by Mr. Bohn, but I am not acquainted with it.

H2
100 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

years old, if born in 1240, and yet-at Charles’s visit he had already
executed several celebrated works at Assisi, Florence, Pisa, and:
other places, which he could scarcely have done at so early an age.
From the great rejoicing on the occasion of the exhibition of this
picture upon the King’s visit, the district of Florence where Cima-
bue lived received the name of the Borgo Allegri; there is still a
street of this name near the Port’ alla Croce. Another good pic-
ture in the same style is the Madonna and Child in the Academy
at Florence ; formerly in the church of the Trinita: the Madonna
in the National Gallery was in the church of Santa Croce. Itis not
known what works were executed by Cimabue in the lower and
upper church of San Francesco at Assisi; a few of those attributed
to him by Vasari still remain, others are destroyed. Cimabue re-
turned to Florence before the wall-paintings were completed, and
they were finished many years afterwards by Giotto. Cimabue
was still living in 1302, when he was engaged on a mosaic in the
Duomo at Pisa. He died at Florence, the date is not known, and
was buried in the church of Santa Maria del Fiore.

Duccio pi BuontnsEeena of Siena, was one of the most distin-
guished contemporaries of Cimabue, but he was some years his
junior. He was to the school of Siena what Cimabue was to the
Florentine. He, too, painted a picture which was carried in public
procession to its destination, the Cathedral of Siena, where, as well
as this picture, some other of his works are still preserved. This
remarkable altar-piece, originally painted (between 1308 and 1310)
on both sides, is now cut in two. On one side, the former front, is
a Madonna and Infant Christ, surrounded by angels; on the other
side, or former back, is a series of small pictures illustrating the
life of Christ in thirty-eight stories, all containing many figures,
executed with great industry and surprising skill and judgment
when compared with the art of his time. There can be no doubt of
the fact of this altar-piece having been carried in public procession
to its place of destination, for some of the bills of charges are still
preserved among the archives of Siena.'' The prices also received
by Duccio are likewise preserved : for the altar-piece he was paid
at the rate of sixteen soldi, or eightpence, the working day; and
for the pictures on the back, which were executed after the altar-
piece, he contracted for two and-a-half gold florins each, about eight
shillings of our money, so that he was entitled to less than twenty

’ Milanesi, “ Documenti per la storia dell’ Arte Senese,” vol. i. pp. 169, 178.
This work and the “Carteggio Inedito d’ Artisti” of Dr. Gaye, Flor. 1840, have
thrown much light on the early history of Italian painting. As regards Mlustra-
tions, an interesting series of outline tracings is that published by Ramboux
already referred to.—‘ Umrisse zur veranschaulichung alt Christlichen Kunst in
Italien,” &c.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 101

pounds for the entire series of thirty-eight pictures. He was, how-
ever, at. no expense for materials, which, owing to the quantity of
gold and ultramarine used, raised the whole cost of the altar-piece
to upwards of 3000 gold florins! Tura del Grasso, an old Sienese
chronicler, says of it, ‘Fu la pit bella tavola che mai si vedesse et
facesse et chostd pil di tremila florini d’oro.” Duccio painted be-
betwen 1282 and 13397? There is a small triptych attributed to
Duccio in the National Gallery. We have also an example of the
work of his pupil, Seena pr Buonavenrura, who painted between
1305 and 1319: It is Christ on the Cross, painted on a cross, and
the nimbus has the inscription IHs NAZARENUS REX JUDEORUM, where
the 1Hs are the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus.°
Uaottno pa Siena, who died old in 1339, must also have been a
painter of some distinction at this period, as he was the author of
the principal altar-piece of the church of Santa Croce, at Florence,
subsequently removed to the dormitory of the convent, and even-
tually sold and dispersed. Parts of it, formerly in the collection of
Mr. Young Ottley, represented scenes from the Passion of Christ ;
they were in the Byzantine style on a gold ground, and one of the
compartments of the predella is inscribed Ugolinus de Senis me pinsit,
Gapbo Gappr also, another celebrated artist, was the contempo-
rary and friend of Cimabue; he was, however, chiefly distinguished
as a worker in mosaic. He assisted Tafi in the mosaics of San
Giovanni; and executed alone the mosaic of the Coronation of the
Madonna in Santa Maria del Fiore, or the Cathedral of Florence,
which is still extant. He was invited, through the reputation he
acquired by this work, to Rome in 1308 by Clement V., to execute
some mosaics in the new church and palace of San Giovanni in
Laterano, which were rebuilt after the fire of 1307. There are some
mosaics also by Gaddi in Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome; and there
is a Madonna in the Cathedral at Pisa. Gaddi executed likewise
many pictures in distemper; none, however, are preserved. He
died in 1312, aged sixty-three, and was buried in Santa Croce.
We come now to the first great name in Italian painting, Grorro
pt Bonpons, born at Vespignano in 1276, who is the first modern

1 The value of the gold florin varied at different times and in different places;
but the modern scudo or Francescone, about four shillings English, is sufficiently
near to the gold florin, the ducat, or the scudo d’oro, to give an adeqnate idea of a
sum computed in gold florins, &c. The florin was worth.between three and four
shillings, but in the fourteenth century money had about twenty times its present
value. ;

2 See Rumohr, “Italienische Forschungen,”’ who terminates Duccio’s labours at
about 1320.

3 The interpretation of Jesus Hominum Salvator, now very commonly given to
these three originally Greek letters, is said to have originated with St. Bernardino
of Siena.
102 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

painter who can be declared free from the superstitious reverence of
ancient forms, the trammels of Byzantine or middle-age art, and he
surpassed his master Cimabue, as much as Cimabue surpassed those
who preceded him. It was not the least of Cimabue’s merits to
have discovered and cultivated the ability of Giotto. The story of
Giotto is more like a romance than history. He was a shepherd
boy, and one day, while tending his father’s sheep, and amusing
himself by drawing one of the animals on the ground, he was sur-
prised in the act by the great master Cimabue, who struck with
astonishment at the boy’s talent, asked him to go and live with him ;
and Giotto, having obtained the consent of his father, followed his
new patron to Florence with delight.

Though the design of Giotto is extremely hard and Gothic, and
he paid little attention to either perspective or chiaroscuro, there
are no traces of the Byzantine style’in his mature works, which
constitute the first great epoch in modern painting ; and Florence
dates its preponderance in the history of the Tuscan school from the
time of Giotto. Great as was the fame of Cimabue, says Dante, it
was obscured by that of Giotto :—

“Credette Cimabue nella Pintura
Tener lo campo; ed ora ha Giotto il Grido,
Si che Ja fama di colui s’ oscura.”— Purgatorio, xi. 32.

Giotto made an immense advance in composition and expression,
and his forms have much nature. He painted history, portrait, and
miniature, and worked in mosaic; he was also sculptor and archi-
tect: the celebrated Campanile of Florence is his design, though it
was not built until some years after his death, by Taddeo Gaddi.
He enriched many of the cities of Italy with his works, of which
the wall paintings of the church of San Francesco at Assisi, exe-
cuted in what is called fresco-secco,’ appear to have been the most
extensive. But the greater part of his paintings have perished ;
those of the church del Carmine at Florence, so lately as 1771, by
fire; they are however preserved in the prints of them by Thomas
Patch, published at Florence, together with some of the works of
Masaccio and Fra Bartolomeo, in 1770-1772, and one of the original
fragments is now in the National Gallery. The works in the church

1 Veritable Fresco, that is painting on the newly plastered wall is, like Gothic
architecture, a comparatively recent art in Europe, and it is pretty well decided
that Giotto never painted in Buon-fresco, the earliest example of which is supposed
to be the work of Pietro D’Orvieto executed in the Campo Santo at Pisa in the
year 1390. The process of secco painting is described by Theophilus in the treatise
mentioned above: the already dry wall is first saturated with water, the picture is
then painted with colours mixed with lime. On Italian processes generally see
Sir Charles Eastlake’s “Materials for a History of Oil Painting,” which is very
complete on all older methods of painting.
 

re

 

Ae LE,
A yy HD oe Soe
My mn i

efi yi

i 4 // fi ij).
cali

Hfh
i.

fh

I

 

 

JOHN PREACHING IN THE WILDERNESS.

(By Giorro, IN THE CARMINE, FLORENCE.)

Page 102,
THE GIOTTESCHI. 103

of San Francesco at Assisi are engraved in Fea’s ‘‘ Descrizione della
Basilica di San Francesco d’Assisi.”

One of the results of the progress made by Giotto through his
abandoning conventional forms for Nature herself, as a principle
which appears to have guided him in everything that he painted,
was the accomplishment of portraiture. Portrait had been attempted
before, but Giotto, according to Vasari, was the first of the moderns
who successfully attempted it. In 1840 a most interesting recovery
was made of some portraits painted by Giotto in the chapel of the
Palazzo del Podesta. He painted here the portraits of Dante, Bru-
netto Latini, Corso Donati, and others. Some years after they were
executed, they were whitewashed over by the political enemies of
Dante and his party during their triumph. The hope of recovering
these interesting works had been long entertained, and after various
unsuccessful attempts at different times, the labours of Mr. Aubrey
Bezzi were finally crowned with success in July, 1840, when the
plaster was removed, and the portraits were discovered in good
preservation."

Giotto was at Rome in the pontificate of Boniface VIII., and
there, in the ancient Basilica, he executed in 1298, with the assist-
ance of Pietro Cavallini, his well-known mosaic of the Disciples in
the Storm, called the Navicella of Giotto; it is now in the vestibule
of the present St. Peter’s. It has been frequently moved, and has
also undergone many restorations. In 1306 we find him engaged at
Padua, where he painted in the Scrovegni chapel, in the church of
the Madonna dell’ Arena, a noble series of subjects from the life of
the Virgin, and the Passion of Christ, with other representations, the
greater part of which still exist.? Giotto left also valuable works
at Naples, Ravenna, Milan, Pisa, Lucca, Avignon, and at many other
places. He went to Avignon between 1306 and 1314, when he took
a present of a bronze crucifix to Pope Clement V. from Andrea
Pisani, which led to that sculptor’s commission from Clement for
the bronze gates of the Baptistery of Florence. Giotto was again
in Florence in 1316; in 1322 he visited Lucca; and in 1327 he was
at Naples, where he executed some works for King Robert in a
chapel in the Castel Nuovo there, which has been destroyed.
Giotto returned to Florence, and died there in 1336. He was
buried with great pomp in the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore.

The scholars and imitators of Giotto, known as the Giotteschi, were
very numerous, and his works had doubtless an indirect influence
in all parts of Italy. His principal followers were Stefano Fioren-
tino, Tommaso di Stefano, called Giottino, and Taddeo Gaddi, the
son of Gaddo Gaddi. These painters worked in the same style as

1 « Hand-book of Painting,” Italy, Editor's note, p. 50.
2? See the valuable publications of the Arundel Society.
104 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Giotto, sometimes inferior and sometimes superior to him in exe-
cution. Stefano Fiorentino obtained the nick-name of the ape of
Nature— Scimia della Natura,”—from the supposed close imitation
of his works.

Tappro Gappt, says Vasari, excelled Giotto in colouring, and in
light and shade. He was born in Florence in the year 1300. Giotto
was his godfather, and Taddeo lived with him twenty-four years. He
enlarged somewhat upon the style of Giotto, and was the most dis-
tinguished of his numerous scholars; he gave more bulk and motion
to his figures, but adhered to the general principles of the style,
especially its formal symmetrical composition. His principal works
were painted in the church of Santa Croce,! and in the chapel degli
Spagnuoli in the church of Santa Maria Novella. The figures of
the three saints seated in this chapel are magnificent in the character
of the heads and in the style of the draperies; they represent San
Dionysio Areopagita, San Pietro Lombardo, and San Severino
Boezio: they are engraved in Lastri’s ‘ Etruria Pittrice.” Taddeo was
still living in 1366, as shown in a document discovered by Rumobr.*
On the the 20th of August of that year, Taddeo undertook a commis-
sion connected with the building of the present Cathedral of Florence.
He was a distinguished architect as well as painter; he constructed
the celebrated Campanile or belfry of Florence from the design of
Giotto, and Florence owed to him her two principal bridges—the
Ponte Vecchio, and the Ponte della Triniti which was destroyed by
the flood of 1557. He made a great fortune, and was the founder of
the distinguished Florentine family of the Gaddi.

The National Gallery possesses three examples of the school of
this painter; one, a fine altar-piece executed in tempera in 1387,
representing the Baptism of Christ. It was formerly in the Abbey
del Sasso di Camaldoli, in the Casentino, is in its original form and
state, with cuspidi and predella, containing in all eleven pictures.
And in spite of its unquestionable faults and conventionalities, there
is much dignity of character in the figures, and something very
charming and natural in the small pictures of the predella.

Contemporary with Giotto was Buonamico pr Cristorano, called
Buffalmacco; he was the scholar of Andrea Tafi, and is celebrated
for his humour by Boccaccio and Saccheti, and for his ability by
Ghiberti and Vasari. Of the works attributed to him there are still
some remaining in the Campo Santo at Pisa, and at Arezzo. Buffal-
macco, when he chose to exert himself, says Vasari, which, however,
was not often, was equal to any of his contemporaries. He died in

1 In the Giugni chapel. They are engraved in Lasinio’s “ Affreschi Celebri,” &.,
and he is now supposed to have been the painter of the “ Last Supper” in the

Refectory, formerly attributed to Giotto; see “Ramboux’s Tracings.”
2 Arch, dell’ op. del Duomo di Fir. 1363-96, folio 71. “Italienische Forschun-

gen,” ii. p. 82.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 105

very poor circumstances, according to Vasari, in 1340, aged seventy-
eight. Should this be true, he was an older painter than Giotto.

Ayprea pr Crone, called L’Arcagnuolo, or, in the contracted form,
Orcagna, was one of the most distinguished of the immediate suc-
cessors of Giotto ; he did not, however, go beyond Giotto in paint-
ing; he was apparently more distinguished as a sculptor and archi-
tect than as a painter. He painted several works, together with his
brother Bernardo, in the churches of Florence, and in the Campo
Santo at Pisa where the Triumph of Death and the Last Judgment
were by Andrea, and the Hell by Bernardo.’ Orcagna repeated
them in Santa Croce at Florence; and he had previously painted a
Hell from Dante’s ‘‘ Inferno” in the Strozzi Chapel in Santa Maria
Novella; he placed his friends among the blessed, and among the
damned his enemies.

The Coronation of the Virgin in the National Gallery, is a noble
example of the works of Orcagna and of the Tuscan school of the.
fourteenth century, thoroughly illustrating the character of the
great altar decorations of the period, architecturally and aesthetically,
as to the conventional religious style of pictorial representation. In
the centre is Christ crowning the Virgin, both seated: two angels
are standing on each side of the throne, and ten others are below;
eight of them kneeling, some playing musical instruments,—a keyed
organ, harp, lute, viol, guitar, and bagpipes : on each side are kneel-
ing in adoration twenty-four saints, in distinct divisions; on the left
is St. Peter, supporting on his knee the model of the church of San
Pietro Maggiore, in Florence, for which the picture was painted.
Above these three principal pictures were placed six small panels
with subjects from the life of Christ,—the Nativity, the Adoration
of the Kings, the Resurrection of Christ, the three Maries at the
Sepulchre, the Ascension of Christ, and the Descent of the Holy
Spirit; and above these were the three smaller pictures forming the
Cuspidi, or tops of the altar-piece,—the Trinity in the centre, and
angels adoring on either side: the whole enclosed in a Gothic frame-
work.®

As an architect, Orcagna built the church of Or San Michele and
its Tabernacle in 1359 : he designed also the “‘ Loggia de’ Lanzi” in
the Piazza Granduca at Florence; it was, however, not constructed
until 1377, after his death; but neither the exact date of his
birth nor death is known: he was active probably from about 1340
to 1375.

The most distinguished scholar of Andrea Orcagna was Francesco

1 See Lasinio, “ Pitture del Campo Santo di Pisa,” and the article « Orcagna,”
in the “Supplement to the Penny Cyclopedia.”

2 See the “Descriptive and Historical Catalogue of the National Gallery,”
Nos. 569-578.
106 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Traini of Florence ; there is a celebrated picture of Thomas Aquinas
in Santa Caterina at Pisa, by Traini, who was apparently still
living in 1378. Orcagna’s unfinished works were completed by his
brothers; the pictures by Bernardo, and the sculpture by Jacopo
di Cione. ;
Though not a scholar of Giotto, certainly among the principal of
the Giotteschi must be enumerated Justus or Pavua ; he was the son
of Giovanni de’ Menabuoi of Florence, but seems to have been a
diligent student of the works of Giotto, perhaps in the Arena
Chapel at Padua, where he settled and obtained the rights of citizen-
ship in 1375. The National Gallery possesses a beautiful triptych
by Justus, signed, and dated 1367; in its chief composition, “ the
Coronation of the Virgin” the painter has quite anticipated some
of the chief beauties of Fra Angelico: the grace of the Virgin is
remarkable; and the hands of the figures are exquisitely painted.
Justus died at Padua on the 29th of September in the year 1400."
Smone pr Martino of Siena, the well-known painter of Laura,
was one of Giotto’s principal rivals. He is commonly known as
Simone Mrmr (the son of William, Memmo or Guglielmo was the
name of his father-in-law), and is the subject of two of Petrarch’s
sonnets, and this poet further says in one of his letters: “I
have known two distinguished and excellent painters—Giotto, a
citizen of Florence, whose fame among moderns is immense, and
Simone of Siena.” Simone was born at Siena, about 1284, and after
distinguishing himself by his works in many cities of Italy, he went
to Avignon, where he died in 1344. He is the chief representative
of the early school of Siena; showing considerable powers of inven-
tion, but devoid of taste. He is supposed to have been the scholar
of Giotto, and to have worked with him at Rome; but Rumohr
questions this report: Simone was rather Giotto’s rival. Few of
his works now remain, and those few are dry and meagre perform-
ances: the principal are the wall paintings of the chapter of the
chapel degli Spagnuoli at Florence, painted in 1332. Among these
works are the reputed heads of Petrarch and Laura; but this story,
as Lanzi says, is a mere fable, for Memmi did not paint Laura until
four years after the completion of those works, in 1336, after he was
called to Avignon. Of this portrait of Laura, however, nothing
whatever is known. The reputed head of Lauraabove mentioned
is engraved in D’Agincourt’s Histoire de l Art par les Monuments, §c.,
Peint., pl. exxii. 2, and in Cicognara’s Storia della Scultura, i. pl. 43.
The only authentic portrait of Laura extant appears to be a miniature
in a MS. in the Bibliotheca Laurentiana at Florence, which however
may be a copy of Memmi’s ; there is an outline of this portrait also

1 See the “ Catalogue of the National Gallery,” 38th edition.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 107

in Cicognara’s work, i. pl. 42. A miniature of Virgil by Memmi
has been already noticed.

In the Liverpool Institution there i is a “ Holy Family,” or Christ
returned to his parents, by Simone, three completely draped figures
with large glories round their heads, inscribed—Symon de Senis
me pinait. Sub. A°.D, M.CCC.XLI,—very valuable, as authentic, though
in itself rude enough.

Lippo Memmi, Simone’s brother-in-law, completed some of his
unfinished works: he was still living in 1361,

The two Lorenzetti were the principal contemporaries of Simone
at Siena ; they were the scholars or imitators of Duccio. Prerro,
the elder brother, is highly spoken of by Vasari, who says some
wall-paintings executed by him in the Cathedral of Arezzo were
‘grand and expressive, rich and graceful in costume and ornament,
and the best, up to their time, in Italy. These, and nearly all his
other works have perished. He was one of the Campo Santo
painters; the “Fathers and Hermits in the Wilderness,” by him,
is still preserved there; and in the Uffizj Gallery, at Florence, is a
“Madonna and Child, with Angels,” signed Petrus Laurentii de
Senis me pinxit, Anno Domini, M.ccc.xL, The “ Fathers in the Desert”
is engraved by Lasinio; the single groups are good and varied for
their time, but as they are unconnected, the composition as a whole
is utterly without taste ; and much allowance must be made for the
conventionalities of the time, to enable us to look at these paintings
with ordinary patience even, much less appreciate fairly their
general merits.

Amprogio, who was painting in 1323, executed in 1337-40 some
remarkable works in the Sala de’ Nove, in the Palazzo Pubblico at
Siena; they are inscribed Ambrosius Laurentit hic pinait utrinque. They
are of an allegorical character, moral, civil, and political ; embody-
ing the philosophy of Aristotle: the whole with a view. of in-
culcating good government. The ‘subjects of the three great
schemes of the Sala are Justice, Concord, and Peace, showing
their consequences, and the consequences of their absence—the
effects of good, and bad, government. The other important works
of this painter, highly spoken of by Lorenzo Ghiberti, have entirely
perished.

Painters began to be very numerous in Florence at this time ;
they formed themselves in 1349 into a society or guild under
the name of Compagnia di San Luca, Company of St. Luke, so
called from the middle-age tradition that St. Luke was a painter.

This tradition is of very early origin. Johannes Damascenus, who
lived in the eighth century, speaks’ of the portrait of the Virgin

1 “Qpera,” pp. 618, 631. Paris, 1712.
108 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

which St. Luke painted upon a panel. There is a picture of the
Madonna in the Byzantine style, painted on a panel of Cypress,
which is attributed to St, Luke, in the church of Ara Celi at Rome.
There are other similar works attributed to him. D. M. Manni, in
his treatise “‘ Dell’ Errore che persiste di attribuirsi le Pitture al
Santo Evangelista,” published in Florence in 1776, was the first who
ventured to point out the error and inconsistency of attributing
these works to St. Luke. As Manni however erred in the particular
of assigning the origin of the tradition to the confounding an old
Florentine painter of the twelfth century of the name of Luca,
and nicknamed Santo or the Saint, for his piety, his argument was
weakened by Tiraboschi, who showed that the tradition was of an
earlier date than the old painter Luca Santo of Florence. There
was, however, a Greek hermit of a much earlier age of the name of
Lucas, who painted images of the Virgin, and thus St. Luke the
Hermit became confounded with St. Luke the Evangelist.’ Inde-
pendent of the inconsistency of assigning the most meagre Byzan-
tine paintings to the contemporary of the first Roman emperors,
when the arts were still in a high state, and all the masterpieces of
antiquity still preserved in the temples and the public galleries,
painting and all other imitation of the human form was strictly
forbidden the Jews; and as already observed, artists themselves
were excluded from the Jewish provinces.

A similar society was established at Siena in 1355; there was also
a society of sculptors at Siena whose statutes were translated into
the vulgar tongue as early as 1292. Vasari, in the Life of Jacopo
di Casentino, gives a brief account of the origin of the Compagnia
of Florence, from which it was evidently a religious institution. It
was founded, he says, by the artists of Florence, both those who
followed the Greek manner, and those who adopted the new manner
of Cimabue, in order that they might return thanks to God for the
flourishing state of the art at that time; that they might meet to-
gether occasionally ; and that they might be enabled to afford each
other assistance in cases of need. Their first house of prayer was
the principal chapel of the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, given to
them by the Portinari family. The original statutes were drawn
up, or at least sanctioned, by the following painters—Lapo Gusci,
Vanni Cinnuzzi, Corsino Buonaiuti, Pasquino Cenni, Segna d’Antig-
nano, Bernardo Daddi, Jacopo di Casentino, Consiglio Gherardi,
and Domenico Pucci.

Of this period, Cecco di Martino (about 1380), and Bernardo or
Berna da Siena, killed by a fall from his scaffold in 1380, were
celebrated at Siena; at Florence, Giovanni and Angelo Gaddi, sons

1 See Lanzi, “Storia Pittorica dell’ Italia,” ii. 10.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 109

of Taddeo, were distinguished painters; but the former died young.
Anexto Gappi (about 1325-90) was an excellent colourist, though
he was content to imitate the works of Giotto and of his father.
His scholar, Cennino Cenyin1, who is the oldest Italian author on
painting, was likewise a good colourist.

Cennino’s “ Trattato della Pittura” may be termed the oldest
modern book on painting; it was first published in Rome in 1821,
by the Cav. Giuseppe Tambroni, with a preface, notes, and an
index. The work is divided into 171 chapters, and occupies 157
octavo pages. There are three MSS. of it extant :—that in the
house of the Beltramini di Colle, which may be the original MS.
noticed by Vasari; another in the Laurentiana at Florence, Banco
78, No. 24; and a third in the Vatican Library, MSS. Ottoboniana,
No. 2964, dated 1737, and formerly in the possession of Baron
Stosch; it is, however, badly transcribed. The first and second
mentioned may be the same MS. The original MS. was finished
July 31, 1437, in the prison for debtors, and when Cennini was
about 80 years of age. Cennini was born about the middle of the
fourteenth century, for he was apprenticed to Angelo Gaddi in 1375
at the latest, as he was with Gaddi twelve years, and Gaddi died in
1387. Supposing Cennino to have been born therefore about 1360,
his book may be considered as belonging to the fourteenth century,
and to give us the practice of that period. In this work Cennino
treats of the rudiments of design; colouring; materials and their
use: on the preparation of colours, their nature and origin; and on
tools: on fresco painting, on distemper on walls, and on perspective :
on oil-painting with oil thickened in the sun; on gilding; on dis-
temper (guazzo) for panels and canvasses, and on the method of
preparing grounds; on gilding, varnishing, and illuminating parch-
ments: and on taking casts from the life, &.'

The elder of the two Peselli was a renowned painter of this
period. GrvL14No PEsELLO, or GivocH!, was born in 1867, and, as an
older master, can scarcely have been the scholar of Andras del
Castagno, as stated by Vasari; the reverse was possibly the case.
Giuliano was admitted into the society of the painters of Florence in
1385; he joined, in 1419, in the general competition respecting the
best method of constructing the proposed Cupola for Santa Maria
del Fiore at Florence, and he was concerned in the construc-
tion of the work in 1424: he died on the 6th of April, 1446, and
was buried in the church of the Carmine. His grandson, Frav-
cesco DI Pxsetto, called also PEsELLINo, born in 1422, was, owing
to the death of his father Stefano, brought up by Giuliano, his

1 There is an English translation of this interesting work by Mrs. Merrifield,
“ Cennino Cennini’s Treatise on Painting,” 8vo. London, 1844.
110 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

grandfather ; and as long as his grandfather lived was his constant
assistant.'

The works of Pesello are so exceedingly scarce, that it is evident
they must be, to a great extent, attributed to other and better
known masters of the period: his long life was an industrious one,
and many of his pictures must be still extant. The altar-piece
attributed by Vasari to Pesello, which was formerly in the church
of the Trinita at Pistoja, representing the Trinity, with San Zeno
and San Jacopo, is too finished and delicate a work for this old
painter, being executed in the manner of the best finish of Fra
Filippo Lippi: the chief group, the Trinita, is now in the National
Gallery, where it is attributed to the grandson, Pesellino. There
is a Madonna and Child, ascribed to Pesello, in the Berlin gallery.
He excelled in painting animals. :

The following masters also, among the most eminent of their
time, all painted more or less in the style of Giotto, as did likewise
all the artists of Tuscany, until a better taste was spread by the
works of Masaccio.

Guerarpo Srarnina, born at Florence in 1354, was still living in
1408. He was the scholar of Antonio Veneziano, and carried the
Florentine art to Spain, whence he returned home well rewarded.

Detto pr Niccoro Det, born in 1404 at Florence, sculptor and
painter, was much employed in decorative work, for furniture, &.
He was the friend and companion of Paolo Uccello and Donatello ;
and he executed some of the frescoes in the cloisters of Santa Maria
Novella. He, too, went to Spain, and died there: he was still
living in 1464.

Jacopo Di CAsENTINO, or Jacopo Landini, of Prato Vecchio, in the
Casentino, was born about 1310, and was the pupil of Taddeo
Gaddi; he was architect and painter, and executed many wall
paintings in various places in Tuscany, some of which are highly
spoken of by Vasari; but few traces of them now remain. Vasari
calls these old wall paintings frescoes, but, as already remarked, the
method of Buon Fresco, that is when the picture was actually painted
on the fresh intonaco, was not yet in use. Jacopo was one of the
founders of the Florentine Academy of St. Luke; he was enrolled
one of the company of painters in 1351; and died eighty years of
age at his native place, about the year 1390. In the National
Gallery is an altar-piece by Jacopo, which was formerly in the
church of San Giovanni Evangelista, in Prato Vecchio. This is
probably the painter’s masterpiece; it is in tempera, and is in

1 See Milanesi, “ Vite di alcuni artefici Fiorentini scritte da Giorgio Vasari
corrette ed accresciute coll’aiuto de’ Documenti,” in the “Giornale storico degli
Archivi Toscani,” 1860, where is a very interesting Portata al Catasto, or property
return made by Pesello in 1427.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 111

twenty-two compartments; the principal subject being the “ Lifting
up of St. John the Evangelist into Heaven,” in accordance with the
old legend! There is great dignity in many of the figures, and
some of the heads are of a very appropriate character, but drily
painted, and with only a very faint appreciation of the value of
colour.

Spinetto ARETINO, or Spinello di Luca Spinelli,? was the scholar
and assistant of Jacopo di Casentino, and aided hifn in some of his
numerous works at Arezzo, where Spinello was born about 1330.
Spinello had a great reputation in his time, and was much employed
in Tuscany : for the monks of Camaldoli; for the Monastery of San
Miniato al Monte; for the Convent of the Innocenti at Arezzo, in
1377, and for the Convent of Monte Oliveto, near Florence, in 1384.
His principal works, ‘however, were the wall paintings or frescoes,
of the Campo Santo at Pisa. Spinello painted three of these com-
positions, for which he received 150 gold florins, about 301. of our
money; he was then, 1392, interrupted by the murder of Pietro
Gambacorti, and compelled, by the disturbances which ensued, to
leave Pisa and return to Florence. After spending a short time in
Florence, Spinello returned to Arezzo, and there painted his cele-
brated “Fall of the Angels,” in the church of Santa Maria Degli
Angeli, preserved till very recently. This is the work in which
Spinello represented the devil so hideous, that, indignant, he
appeared to the painter in a dream, and asked him where he had
seen him so ugly, and why he had given him so frightful a form; a
vision which is said to have shortly afterwards caused the painter’s
death.* If so, the dream must have taken place some years after
the completion of the fresco, for Spinello survived to execute many
other works. There is a ‘“‘Coronation of the Virgin,” in the Aca-
demy of Florence, painted in 1401; and in 1404-5, he painted the
frescoes of the church of San Niccolo at Arezzo. In 1405, he was
in Siena, and on the 18th of June, in 1407, he contracted for him-
self and his son, Parri Spinelli, to paint the series of frescoes still
preserved in the Sala dei Priori, in the Palazzo Pubblico there,
illustrating the struggle for supremacy between Pope Alexander III.
and the Emperor Frederick II. Spinello was to receive, for the

1 See the “Legenda Aurea,” St. John Evan, p. 27; and Peter De Natalibus,
“ Catalogus Sanctorum,” ii. 7.

2 Professor Tomei of Lucca, is or was in possession of a picture of the Virgin
with Saints, signed: Hoc opus Puyxrr Sprvetitus Luce Dr Arrmo in a. 1391.
Vasari, “ Vite,” &c., ed. Le Monnier, vol. ii., p. 196.

3 This fresco was engraved by Carlo Lasinio in 1821; it is in the “ Affreschi
Celebri del XTV. e XV. Secolo,” 1841. A fragment of the original work, trans-
ferred to cloth, and containing part of the St. Michael, the principal figure, is now
in the possession of Mr. Layard”; it was exhibited at Manchester in 1857, and is
remarkable for the grandeur of its expression.
112 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

two, fifteen golden florins per month, besides maintenance. The
gold florin was worth, then, between three and four shiJlings; taking
the month at thirty days, it would amount, therefore, to about
twenty pence a day for the two. Just a hundred years before this
time, 1308, Duccio of Siena was engaged at eightpence the working
day, without maintenance ; the work of the painter had therefore
risen very much in value during the century that had intervened ;
Spinello’s pay was, at least, double Duccio’s, independent of the main-
tenance. Money may have been of somewhat less value in the time
of Spinello than in the earlier period, just as Spinello’s twenty pence
may have procured him the value of forty shillings of our money at
the present day, certainly not very much less. A payment was
made to Spinello on the 4th of April, 1408, but his name does not
occur in the accounts after the 11th of July of that year: he died
at a very advanced age at Arezzo; the exact time is not known.

Vasari, who was Spinello’s townsman, has somewhat exaggerated
his importance and merits; he places him above Giotto: Spinello’s
works, no doubt, display great comparative powers, more especially
in colouring and in the arrangement of his draperies, but his remain-
ing compositions are wanting in taste both of form and composition,
and are generally sketchy and careless. His scenes from the life of
St. Benedict in San Miniato, are spirited conceptions, and belong to
the good works of the school of Giotto. Vasari awards the greatest
praise to the Campo Santo frescoes, from the lives of Saints Efeso
and Potito. The National Gallery specimen, three saints formerly
in the hospital church of Santi Giovanni e Niccolo near Florence,
is effective in colour, and dignified in expression, but the ex-
tremities are exceedingly poor in drawing.

Parr, or GASPARRI SPINELLI, was still living in 1444; he was a
clever practical fresco painter, but without taste in drawing: his
figures were too long. He is said to have been one of the assist-
ants of Ghiberti in preparing the gates of the Baptistery.

Lorenzo pi Biecr (about 1350-1427) a scholar of Spinello, was one
of the last of the Giotteschi: he was the founder of a family of
painters, who were very active in Tuscany during the fifteenth
century. The most distinguished of these were his son Brcct pi
Lorenzo (1373-1452) and his grandson Nert pi Biccr (1418-86) of
whom there is an interesting journal preserved in the Library of
the Uffizj at Florence, extending over 23 years, from 1453 to 1475.
This book shows the ordinary subjects for the painters ; those con-
stantly occurring are :—The Annunciation, the Assumption, and the
Coronation of the Virgin; the Virgin and Child, the Crucifixion and

1 Milanesi, “ Documenti per la Storia dell’ arte Senese,” vol. i. p. 43, and vol. ii,

p. 32, 1854; sce also Rumohr, “Italienische Forschungen,” vol. ii; and Forster,
“ Beitrage zur neuern Kunstgeschichte,” p. 118, 1835.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 113

the Trinity. They were in tempera, and the sums range from 3).
to 51. of our money, for a large picture; this must be con-
sidered good pay, when we reflect that in those days a small house
could be bought for the same prices: Paolo Uccello paid but 100
florins for his house, about 61.

Matteo pr GIOVANNI DA SieNA carried the art southwards, and
became a distinguished master at Naples. He was painting between
1462 and 1491, and has been called the Masaccio of his school, as
he was the first to leave the traditional manner of the Sienese
painters, and to adopt the advanced style of the Florentine quattro-
centisti. His draperies are disposed with greater attention to nature
than was customary at that period; and, says Lanzi, his heads,
though not beautiful, are varied in expression. “ The Slaughter of
the Innocents,” was a favourite subject with him; four examples
are still preserved.'. Lanzi remarks that Matteo was the inventor
of marble painting or chiaroscuro; he constructed his figures in his
designs with various coloured marbles. A portion of the pavement
of the Cathedral of Siena was so decorated by him, when he again had
recourse to his favourite subject, the “ Slaughter of the Innocents.”

Umertan ScHOOL.

During the progress of painting in Tuscany, it was making nearly”
equal advancement in Umbria, in Rome and Venice, and in other
parts of Italy. Painting was first developed in the Roman state in
the cities of Umbria, Gubbio, Fabriano, Matelica, Borgo San Sepolcro,
Urbino, Assisi, and other places. The influence, however, of the
Umbrian school, as the early painting of these districts is termed,
was extended not only over Romagna, but likewise over Tuscany.
The early Florentine and Umbrian schools are not so different from
each other that they can be considered as distinct when compared
with the schools of Florence and Rome during the great ages of art.
The decorations of San Francesco at Assisi were the joint produc-
tions of Umbrian and Florentine painters, and many painters of the
schools of Florence, Umbria, and Siena had common masters,

Of the early masters of the Roman school, Pirrro Cavauuini, who
is said to have been the assistant of Giotto while in Rome, is the
most remarkable. He was painter, architect, and worker in mosaic.
He executed many works at Rome about the commencement of the
fourteenth century, but none of his paintings there now remain:
some of his mosaics, however, are still preserved. Cavalliniexecuted
also several wall-paintings at Florence, Orvieto, and at Assisi; some

1 Della Valle has engraved one of these, full of spirit, but without taste, which
is signed Marreus Jonannt Dr Sents Prystr, mecccxvim., 1418 for 1468. Della
Valle assumes that an 1% (50) before the x has been inadvertently omitted. See
“ Lettere Sanese,” vol. iii. p. 56.

I
114 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of which are still ina tolerable state of preservation. A Crucifixion in
the church of Assisi, is the best-preserved of these works ; it contains
a crowd of figures, some on foot, some on horseback, and dressed in
great variety of costume; angels are seen in the sky, which is ofa
deep bright blue. Considering the few examples which Cavallini
can have had to assist him in this composition, it is a work of great
merit, notwithstanding the want of perspective, and the angular
and occasionally distorted design of the figures. The heads are infe-
rior to Giotto’s, but have still considerable character and expression.
He appears to have been an older painter than Giotto: he died in
1344, according to Manni and Lanzi; Vasari states that he was
eighty-five when he died, which places his birth in 1259, seventeen
years before the birth of Giotto."

The arts made much more rapid progress at Rome towards the
end of the fourteenth century, when it again became the seat of the
Papal government, after the long absence of the Popes at Avignon.
Though spiritual lords, the Pontiffs of Rome required their terrestrial
palaces as well as the temporal princes of the earth ; and distin-
guished artists soon became numerous in Rome, of whom may be
mentioned Ottaviano Martis or Martini, and GENTILE Da Fapriano, a
painter of much greater fame.

In Santa Maria Nuova at Gubbio, is a fresco of the “ Virgin and
Child,” by Ottaviano, remarkable for its colour and delicacy of expres:
sion, notwithstanding its dry and meagre forms and deficiency of
composition. It is inscribed Octavius Martis Eugubinus pinxit, Anno
M.CCCC.IL.

In the register of the Cathedral of Orvieto, Gentile is styled
Egregius magister magistrorum. He was born at Fabriano about
1370; his father Niccolo instructed him in the physical and mathe-
matical sciences, and Gritto da Fabriano was his master in paint-
ing. In 1423 he was engaged at Orvieto, and in the same year he
painted a picture of the Adoration of the Kings for the sacristy of Santa
Trinita; and this picture is now one of the choicest specimens of
the early schools in the collection of the Academy at Florence.
Gentile worked also with great distinction at Venice: the Venetian

1 Vertue supposed that Cavallini was the architect. of the crosses which were
erected to Queen Eleanor, and of the shrine of Edward the Confessor in West-
minster Abbey. But, according to the dates mentioned above, Cavallini can have
been only twenty years of age when the tomb was finished; 1279 or 1280, accord-
ing to the inscription. However, where there is so much uncertainty no dates can
be relied on, and Cavallini may possibly have been the Petrus Romanus Civis
mentioned in the inscription on the tomb. Walpole adopts the supposition, and
concludes that Oavallini returned to England with the Abbot Ware, who was
elected in 1260, and went shortly afterwards to Rome to receive consecration from
Urban IV. (1261-64). Between 1261 and 1279, however, is a long interval.
(* Anecdotes of Painting,” &c., ch. i.)
THE GIOTTESCHI. 115

senate presented him with the patrician toga, and granted him a pen-
sion for life for a picture of the naval victory of the Venetians over
Frederick Barbarossa in 1177 ; it was, however, destroyed by damp
as early as the sixteenth century. At Rome likewise he executed
many works, but they have all perished. A fresco of the Madonna
and Child with Saints Benedict and Joseph, over the tomb of Car-
dinal Adimari, led Michelangelo to declare this painter’s style, like
his name, Gentile. He taught Jacopo Bellini at Venice, and that
painter’s son Gentile was named after Fabriano. He died about
1450. He has signed his name Franciscus Gentiuis DE Fasrrano.
Though much inferior to Masaccio or Fra Giovanni Angelico, Fa-
briano was one of the most meritorious artists of his time, and went
far beyond Giotto and his immediate school. He was also well
acquainted with the theory of his art; he left writings on the
mixing of colours and on the art of drawing lines; he was an
excellent colourist.

VENETIAN ScHOOL.

It was not until after the time of Giotto, who executed some
works in Padua and Verona, that there were any distinguished
painters in the Venetian state. The historians of Venetian art,
however, date the commencement of modern painting in Venice
from the eleventh century. The Doge Selvo invited some Greek
mosaic-workers to Venice as early as 1070, to decorate the church
of St. Mark. In the thirteenth century, after the taking of Con-
stantinople by the Venetians, both artists and works of art became
ordinary objects in Venice. Among the works of art brought from
Constantinople to Venice are the four celebrated bronze horses of
St. Mark, which are of ancient workmanship : St. Mark’s itself is on
a pure Byzantine model. Maestro Paolo of Venice, however, is
the earliest Venetian painter whose time is known; an old parch-
ment illuminated by him bears the date of 1346. There is not
space in the proposed limits of this sketch to enumerate all artists
that are recorded, of many of whom little more than their names
is known, as Magister Paulus, Lorenzo of Venice, Niccolo Semi-
tecolo, all of the fourteenth century.

Of the fifteenth century more worthy names are recorded; and
the early Venetian painters of this period produced many admirably
coloured pictures, as regards brilliancy and composition of colour,
though they still designed with great stiffness, and in the Gothic
taste. The small island of Murano was the seat of the new school,
and Quitico, Bernardino, and Andrea da Murano were its founders;
but the Vivarini were its greatest ornaments.

Awprea DA Murano, who was an established painter about the
year 1400, is one of the fathers of Venetian painting; he was the

12
116 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

master of the Vivarini, and an example of his work is preserved in
the Academy of Venice: he improved the treatment of the extre-
nities, and planted his figures better than had hitherto been done.

Antonio Vivarus1, who was active in 1444-51, painted several
works in company with Joannes de Alemania: the Venetian Academy
possesses a ‘“‘ Virgin enthroned with the four Doctors of the Church,”
signed Gio di Alemagna e Antonio da Murano, and a “ Coronation of
the Virgin,” signed Giovanni ed Antonio da Murano; each somewhat
in advance of their time in Italy, both for drawing and for colour-
ing: the large altar-piece, however, at Berlin, from the Solly collec-
tion, but not signed, is a hard and ugly performance. His brother,
BaRToLomEo VivaRInI, painting 1459-98, is distinguished as having
executed the first oil picture exhibited in Venice; a large altar-
piece, painted in 1473, and still preserved in the church of SS.
Giovanni e Paolo in Venice: he was probably shown the Van Eyck
method by Antonello da Messina. Bartolomeo’s works in Venice
are not without great merit, but they are strictly quattrocento in
taste. The example by this master in the National Gallery is richly
coloured, but is very imperfect in its drawing. It represents the
“Madonna and Child with Saints Jerome and Paul,” and, as a
genuine signed picture, is a precious example of old Venetian
tempera painting: the signature is Opus BARTOLOMEI VIVARINI DE
Morano; but written in a way peculiar to the old Italian painters,
making some vowels do duty twice.! The best of this family of
painters was Luici, by whom there is a really great work, a large
altar-piece, in the gallery of Berlin, formerly in the Solly collection ;
it represents “The Madonna enthroned, with Saints and Angels,”
and is signed ALVVIxE® VivaRin, but unfortunately not dated. Some
have supposed that there must have been two painters of this name,
from the reported fact of a picture in the church of SS. Giovanni e
Paolo, being dated 1414 (?); while another picture in the Scuola de’
Milanesi ai Frari, has the inscription Aloisius Vivarinus de Murano
P. 1490: the earlier reading is most probably incorrect.

The works of Luigi are an advance upon those of Bartolomeo;
his masterpiece, in the opinion of Zanetti, is “St. Jerome caressing
a Lion,” in the Scuola di San Girolamo, at Venice. The Sala delle
Antiche Pitture, in the Academy at Venice, contains several works by

1 See the fac-simile in the National Gallery Catalogue, 1864. The Vienna Gal-
lery contains an altar-piece by this painter on which the framemaker’s name is
inscribed as well as his—Bartholomeus Vivarinus de Muriano Fecit. Jacobus De
Faencie incisit. There are other examples of this custom, f

* Not Atowrxe as given in Dr. Waagen’s Catalogue, eds. 1842-1860. Unhappily
a large proportion of the inscriptions in this catalogue are incorrectly printed, espe-
cially among the more important Italian pictures; the catalogue requires thorough
revision in this respect.
THE GIOTTESCHI. 117

the Vivarini, which show that these early masters were, in some
respects, but little inferior even to the Bellini or Basaiti and their
contemporaries. Basaiti completed an altar-piece of ‘St. Ambrose
enthroned, with Saints,” now in the Academy, which had been left
unfinished by Luigi.

The early Venetians greatly improved the colouring of the art of
the fifteenth century, while they scarcely emancipated themselves
from the archaic design of the fourteenth; their style of drawing,
in fact, when compared with the Flemings, or their Tuscan and
Umbrian contemporaries, was an anachronism.

Canto CriveL1i, another of these worthy old masters, and perhaps
the best of the Venetian tempera painters, was born at Venice, in the
early part of the fifteenth century, and is said to have studied with
Jacobello del Fiore, who was still painting as late as 1436. Though
of a Venetian family, Crivelli appears to have lived and worked
chiefly at Ascoli and its neighbourhood. His earliest yet known
picture is an altar-piece in the church of San Silvestro, at Massa,
which is dated 1468. His pictures are generally signed Carolus Cri-
vellus Venetus, but he rarely added the date. The latest date yet
known, is 1495, on a picture in the Grosvenor gallery. A picture
in the Oggioni collection at Milan, inscribed Carotus CriveLius
Venetus Mines pinxit, has the year 1493. He added the title of
Miles (knight) to his signature in 1490, when he was ennobled
by Ferdinand II., of Naples (then Prince). Crivelli’s pictures are
exceedingly hard, and have all the faults of manner of the quattro-
cento painters, though they are often well coloured, and are always
carefully executed. They do not want expression, but they are
almost invariably ugly. Like some few other masters of his time,
he was very fond of introducing fruit and festoons of flowers, as
ornamental decorations to his compositions, which are frequently on
gold grounds, and rigidly symmetrical in their arrangement.!

The National Gallery possesses three unusually well-painted and
signed specimens, in tempera, of this master, which illustrate per-
fectly his powers of expression, his colouring, and the delicate hatch-
ing of his method of painting—a Pieti; a portrait of the “ Beato
Ferretti,” an ancestor of Pope Pius IX.; and a fine altar-piece, for
its time, from Matelica, known as the “‘ Madonna della Rondine.”
The St. Sebastian in this picture conveys a magnificent idea of the
Italian gentleman in the fifteenth century. The predella pictures,
very carefully executed, appear to be practically tinted drawings.

There was nothing definite or finite in the style of this period
from Cimabue to Masaccio; it was essentially one of transition or
passage, and did not even attain to a decided appreciation either of

1 Ridolfi, “Le Maraviglie,’ &.; Orsini, “ Guida D’Ascoli;” Ricci, “ Memorie
Storiche delle arti, &c. della Marca di Ancona, Macerata, 1834.”
118 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the crudest principles of objective representation or of the simplest
rules of dramatic composition.

Not that this was from any actual incapacity of the painters of the
fifteenth century especially, for they gave all that was required of
them; and had more been required more could easily have been
given. Painting was as yet but slightly removed from the province
of sacred decoration, though far from being trammelled by such
conventionalism as suppressed all development of imitative art
among the Byzantine Greeks. Even in the great altar-pieces of the
fourteenth century the work of the painter was secondary ; what we
should now call the frame being the principal decoration, the archi-
tectural element ruling the whole. The National collection possesses
three examples of this principle :—the fine characteristic altar-piece
by Jacopo di Casentino ; that of the school of Taddeo Gaddi, dated
1387; and the grand altar-piece by Orcagna, as explained above.
Of these, the most complete is that by Jacopo di Casentino, the able
scholar of Taddeo Gaddi, representing “St. John the Evangelist
lifted up into Heaven,” according to the legend,’ painted about
1850, and formerly in the church of San Giovanni Evangelista, at
Prato Vecchio, in Tuscany. This altar-piece consists in all of
twenty-two pictures, corresponding with so many panels or divisions
of the Gothic framework: centre panels, upper panels, or cuspidi
(points), the predella, and the panels of the side pilasters, besides
other sunken portions introduced at the discretion of the architect
or constructor of the frame, the labours of the painter being wholly
controlled by such divisions or arrangement. It is quite possible
that, in some cases, the painter designed his own framework, but
the rule was probably otherwise. In 1384, Spinello Aretino, the
scholar of Jacopo, painted an altar-piece for the convent of Monte
Oliveto, near Florence, on which were inscribed the names of
Simone Cini, the carver, and Gabriello Saracini, the gilder, of the
frame, as conspicuously as the name of Spinello himself.

With such conditions, and the force of religious precedent and
conventional practice together, free scope was impossible to the
painter. Hence we find, with very few exceptions, even the best
works of the fourteenth century, though occasionally abounding in
religious sentiment and dignity of character, in spite of the obtruding
asceticism, as works of art positive and crude in colour, rigid and
lifeless in form, and merely symmetrical in composition. The works
of this period have, however, one characteristic defect, in their own
special province of the pious or the sentimental, and this is a capital
one, the too prevailing error, but not of this time only, of looking
upon God as the Judge, rather than the Father, of mankind.

1 See the “Catalogue” of the National Gallery, Art. Jacopo di Casentino.

° Vasari, Ed. Le Monnier, vol. ii. p. 194, note. See a very similar inscription,
p. 116, note 1.
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 119

Ecclesiastical patronage and the cravings of popular superstition
were still almost the sole support of art. What we now dignify
with the style of painters’ studios, were in Italy in the fourteenth
century, and in Spain much later, mere shops or factories for the
manufacture of Madonnas and Bambinos, or of painted images of the
saints. It was doubtless by the production of such works only
that painters could secure a living. The painters of the Romanist
church, however, were never oppressed by the hideous convention-
alisms which quite crushed the mind of the Greek or Byzantine
artists.

Such innovations as were introduced by the great Cinquecento
masters in the sixteenth century would, no doubt, have been consi-
dered not only profane but even shocking in some instances by both
painters and patrons of this period, being an absolute violation of
their prejudices, It is to custom and prejudice that the defects and
peculiarities of the time must be assigned, not in any way to artistic
incapacity. We have a fine illustration of this in the picture of the
“ Battle of Sant’ Egidio,” by Paolo Uccello, now in the National

collection, In this picture the horses are ridiculous, looking more
like wooden toys than horses, while the men and armour are in
many respects admirably painted. In representing the last objects
a certain standard of excellence had been already fixed, while it
was a comparative innovation to paint horses ; and so long as these
were intelligibly represented and equal to what had hitherto been
done, both painter and patron were, as a matter of course, satisfied.
Paolo Uccello was quite capable of carrying the imitation further if
the standard of the day had demanded it. Each painter as a rule is
satisfied if he has simply surpassed his rivals; thus improvement is
gradual, and the progress to perfection necessarily slow.!

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ANTAGONISM OF ART WITH TRADITION: INDIVIDUALITY OF FORM:
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES,

Iw the fifteenth century, when the rule of the Medici was established
in Florence, and that city gradually extended its power over the

1 After the editions of Vasari cited, the most useful general works for the history
of this period are Baldinucci, “Notizie dei Professori del Disegno da Cimabue in
qua ;” Lanzi, “Storia Pittorica dell’ Italia ;” Rosini, “Storia della Pittura Italiana ”
(illustrated) ; and Rumohr, “ Italienische Forschungen :” for details, the documents
published by Gaye and Milanesi are of great value.
120 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

neighbouring territories, it became the capital of Tuscany in Art,
as well as in matters of state. With the rise of Florence, the im-
portance of Siena and Pisa gradually declined, and the history of the
school of Florence is the history of painting in Tuscany from this
period. This was not, however, a mere political distinction : through
the extraordinary abilities of a few individual painters, Florence was
throughout the whole of the fifteenth century justly distinguished
above all other cities of Europe, for the great progress it made in the
sister arts of painting and sculpture. Doubtless much of the vigour of
capitals is owing to the fact. of their being capitals ; for, as such, they
afford a greater field for enterprise, and cause a concentration of
ability within their precincts. This was the case with Florence:
for, of the great founders of the various epochs of Art in Florence
and Tuscany;:not one was.a Florentine. Giotto (1276-1336) was of
Vespignano ; Masaccio (1402-1428-9), of Castell’ San Giovanni ; Leo-
nardo da Vinci (1452-1519), of Vinci; Michelangelo (1475-1564), of
Castell’ Caprese ; Ludovico Cardi (1559-1613), of Cigoli; and Pietro
Berrettini (1596-1669), of Cortona. :
The improvements which took place in painting at the commence- ,
ment of the fifteenth century were of the first importance; one of
these, which was indeed essential to the more important develop-
ment of form which immediately followed it, was the cultivation of
Perspective: the chief promoters of this science were Pietro della
Francesca and Paolo Uccello; the latter almost neglected every
other department of art for this one study, and all his principal
works were to exemplify its value, There is in the first cloister of
Santa Maria Novella a picture of the Drunkenness of Noah, by Uc-
cello, in which the foreshortening of the figure of Noah is managed
with great mastery and effect. Vasari says he would have been one
of the greatest painters had he bestowed as much Jabour upon
men and animals as he did upon perspective. He was very fond of
painting animals, and particularly birds, whence he derived his
name of Uccello. He used this name himself; the pedestal of the
great equestrian figure in terra verde by him, of John Hawkwood in
the Cathedral of Florence, is inscribed Pavitt Uccett Opus.
Hawkwood was an English adventurer who died in the Florentine
service in 1393. Paolo’s more correct name is Paoto pi Dono: he
was a scholar of Ghiberti, and was originally brought up as a gold-
smith. He wasted so much time on perspective, says Vasari, that
he became ‘‘ more needy than famous.” . His wife complained to her
friends that he sat up the whole night studying the rules of his
favourite science, and that the only answer she got to her remon-
strances was, Oh! che dolce cosa é questa prospettiva—What a delightful
thing is this perspective! We have an illustration of his attempt in
perspective in the dead man in armour in his delightful picture of the
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 121

“ Battle of Sant’ Egidio”! in the National Gallery, the best of all his
remaining works, which are very few; the painted armour in this pic-
ture is very precious. In the gallery of the Louvre is a panel by him
containing the heads of Giotto, Donatello, Brunelleschi, Giovanni
Manetti, and himself, representing painting, sculpture, architecture,
mathematics, and perspective. He studied geometry with Manetti.

He does not appear to have been so very poor, as he lived in his
own house, which he purchased in 1434 for 100 florins. And for
some giants painted by him in light and shade, in the Casa de’
Vitali at Padua, which were admired by Mantegna, he earned a
ducat a day. He died at Florence in 1479, aged eighty-three.?

Brunelleschi studied perspective, but Piero della Francesca seems
to have been the first who reduced it to a practical system. His
theoretical knowledge also of perspective seems to have been con-
siderable ; and he was, according to Vasari, one of the best geome-
tricians of his time: he wrote treatises on these subjects, some of
which are still preserved at Borgo San Sepolcro, his native place.

Another essential to art, which was wanting in the school of
Giotto, was a proper understanding of light and shade. This was
in a great degree supplied by Masoxino pA PanicaLE (1383-1440),
who executed some excellent works for the period in the chapel of
San Pietro in the church del Carmine at Florence. Masolino is said
to have been the master of the celebrated Masaccio, who, if such a
distinction can be claimed for an individual artist, deserves, more
than any other, the title of the father of modern painting. The
style of Masaccio was, in the common acceptation of the term, as
used by Vasari, modern; that is, his composition was dramatic, his
forms and character were individual, and, in the more external
qualities of art, his representations were natural: this cannot be
said of any previous painter. The labours alone, however, of Ma-
saccio’s predecessors rendered Masaccio’s art possible. But the
great reformers of the art, or rather those who contributed towards
its final development, were more the contemporaries of Masaccio
than his predecessors. This is strictly the case with Paolo Uccello,
Masolino da Pinicale and Piero della Francesca.

Masolino, the son of a painter of the name of Cristoforo di Fino,
was the scholar of Lorenzo Ghiberti, and of Gherardo Starnina.
There are few certain data concerning his life; but after painting in
the Brancacci chapel, in which he was interrupted by a visit to
Hungary or the North, we find him at work in the north of Italy.

1 One of four battle-pieces originally painted for the Bartolini family in Gual-
fonda; there is one at Florence, and w third in the Louvre; the fourth appears to
be lost.

2 Morelli, “Opere di Disegno,” p. 23; Gaye, “Carteggio Inedito,” &.; Vasari,
“ Vite,” &e.
122 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

At Castiglione d’Olona, near Como, are some frescoes by him in the
collegiate church, illustrating the history of the Virgin, and the
lives of St. Lawrence and St. Stephen, signed Masolinus de Hlorentia
pinzit, And in the Baptistery of the same church are some frescoes
in the same style, not signed, but dated 1435. These frescoes were
only recovered from whitewash in 1843."

* That many of the painters who preceded Masaccio had great
ability even for any period, is certain ; and it is certain also that they
had recourse to the study of nature—a fact which proves that the
mere study of nature, without the knowledge of what to select for
imitation, will not lead to the production of fine forms. Although
beautiful forms are occasionally visible in the works of the early
painters, these must be attributed more to the accident of the model,
than be looked upon as the result of choice; for we occasionally
find the finest parts associated with the most fatal conventionalisms,
and defective development in other parts of the same figure ; proving
the total absence of any ruling judgment, or select standard of
form; one of the chief obstacles to which was an intuitive respect
for custom. The proprieties of tradition are as fatal to the progress
of ordinary minds as enforced prohibitions: tradition is essentially
antagonistic to all progress. In Art, however, there is often the will
without the faculty ; education and convention, if founded on error
or prejudice, preclude the power of viewing nature correctly. ‘I'hus
it is that we sometimes find the most beautiful parts associated with
others so inferior, that, from the juxtaposition, the whole appears a
deformity. This defect may, however, partly arise from an error of
an opposite character, from a too strict adherence to an individual
model, as well as from only an occasional resort:to the model, or
only a partial attention to it. It appears therefore that even a strict
attention to nature will not exempt us from the error of ugliness or
deformity, without some standard by which to guide our labours—
a standard which experience has shown us it would require centu-
ries to attain from an unassisted study of nature alone, on account
of the infinite varieties of form in the individual. This standard
had, however, in Masaccio’s time, already existed for ages, in the
works of ancient sculpture ; and it required only the master mind
to appreciate and appropriate it; and to have been the first to do this
efficiently constitutes the chief merit of Masaccio, who further ap-
propriated all the excellences of his immediate predecessors.

1 See Vasari, Ed. Le Mounier, vol. iii. p. 138.
ear abog

(idar'T ONIdalTIy UNV O1OOvsY WN Ag)

“GaIT OL HLNOA V ONTYOISAY TOVd GNV ALI

 

 

 

oS ENN Tees
Piss SE SEEES

 

 

 

 
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 123

Tue ScHoot or FLORENCE.

Tommaso Guin, commonly called Masaccio (which in the complete
form is Tommasaccio, and means Slovenly Thomas), was born at
San Giovanni in the Valdarno, in 1402, and while still a youth
became the pupil, or assistant, of Masolino da Panicale, who was
employed about 1423-5, on a series of pictures illustrating the life
of St. Peter, in the Brancacci chapel in the church del Carmine at
Florence. This series was continued by Masaccio when Masolino
left Florence for Hungary; and his frescoes were executed appa-
rently during 1426 and the following year.

Masaccio, before having completed the work assigned to him in
this chapel, visited Rome, and died there in 1428 or 29,)in his
27th year, under the suspicion of having been poisoned. It was
therefore not owing to this visit that he was enabled to appreciate
fully the labours of his eminent contemporaries, the sculptors Dona-
tello and Ghiberti. He attained about the same degree of excel-
lence in his forms as was reached by these sculptors. We find in
Masaccio’s works a more careful study of individuality of form than
is found in those of any earlier master. His drawing of the nude
is both masterly in style and in the detail of the modelling: his
figures have a great natural ease as well as truth; the same indi-
viduality is even more prominent in his heads; and his draperies
are grand, simple, and natura]. Yet the great service of Masaccio was
not so much the perfecting of the art, as freeing it from the tram-
mels of conventionalism: he altogether forsook traditionary habit,
and led the artist directly to nature; and, as an original observer,
vindicated the objective from its hitherto complete dependence on the
subjective, view of nature : he thus became the first among the moderns
to successfully open the paths of naturalism in historic art; and we
may still join in the high praise so eloquently awarded him by
Sir Joshua Reynolds, a hundred years ago :—‘‘ He appears to be the
first who discovered the path that leads to every excellence to
which the Art afterwards arrived, and may, therefore, be justly con-
sidered as one of the great fathers of modern Art.”?

Masaccio’s paintings of the Brancacci chapel were—the Expul-
sion from Paradise; the Tribute-money ; Peter baptizing the People,
in which is the celebrated naked boy trembling with cold; the
Blind and the Lame cured by the Shadow of Peter; the Death of
Ananias; and the story of Simon Magus, and Peter and Paul restor-
ing a Youth to Life. The other frescoes were executed by Maso-

1 Milanesi, “Le Vite di aleuni artefici Fiorentini scritte da Giorgio Vasari
corrette ed accresciute coll’ aiuto de’ Documenti.” From the “Giornale Storico
Degli Archivi Toscani.” Anno IV., July and September, 1860.

2 Disc, XII.
124 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

lino, and Filippino Lippi, the son of Fra Filippo Lippi,’ to whom
the celebrated figure of St. Paul there, hitherto given to Masaccio,
is now attributed: this figure was adopted by Raphael in the car-
toon of Paul Preaching. Filippino painted also the Consecration of
the Church of the Carmine, in the cloisters of the convent.

_ Some writers have observed a difference in style in these paint-
ings; the characteristics of Masaccio are much less developed in the
Expulsion from Paradise and in the Tribute-money, than in the
Restoring a Dead Youth to Life, which is supposed to be the
last work of the series. The youth of Masaccio when these works
were commenced sufficiently explains this difference ; his skill keep-
ing pace with his experience. Now that the date and place of his
death seem to be pretty certainly established, the difference can
scarcely have been owing to any intervening visit to Rome (though
such a visit is quite possible), as I ventured to suggest in a former
edition of this work; and certainly not to his prosecution of the
work after the recall of Cosmo de’ Medici to Florence, the period to
which Vasari erroneously assigns all the paintings. Cosmo de’
Medici was recalled in 1434.

The fact of Masaccio’s going to Rome, and leaving these works
in an unfinished state, as was the case with the ‘‘ Resuscitation of
the Boy,” which was finished years afterwards by Filippino Lippi,.
might be accepted as an evidence that his Roman visit was under-
taken in the prosecution of his studies as much as for the carrying
out works in Rome, where he is said tou have painted a series of
frescoes in the church of San Clemente. There is no proof, how-
ever, that this last fatal visit to Rome was his first or only visit.

Masaccio introduced his own portrait into the picture of the
Tribute-money, and he is there represented as a very young man.
A very admirable head, in tempera, similar to this portrait, is now
in the National Gallery, and it is one of the most life-like heads in
the collection. If the portrait of this interesting painter, as it is
said to be, its value in an historical collection could hardly be
over-estimated ; the probability is, however, that it represents the
portrait of Filippino Lippi. The fact of some of these frescoes
having been executed when Fra Filippo was a boy, and in the Con-
vent del Carmine (1420-30), seems to have escaped the notice of
all the commentators on the time and character of these works,

1 There is a ground-plan of the chapel, with a scheme of the frescoes, in Kugler’s
“‘ Hand-book of Painting,” translation. The works of this chapel fortunately escaped
the general destruction when the convent was consumed by fire in 1771. They are
all engraved by Lasinio, in his collection of engravings after the old Florentine
Painters. Some of the heads are engraved by Patch in his “ Masaccio, sua Vita e
Collezione di 24 Teste ;” and some of the paintiugs by Piroli. Parts also are given
in the “ Etruria Pittriee ;” and in other works.
 

FIGURE OF ST. PAUL. (In THe Brancaccr Cuarrt, Frorencr,)

Page 124.
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 125

when they were under the supposition that Masaccio’s death did
not take place until 1443. Vasari was assumed to be wrong in his
statements both as to the time of the frescoes and the duration of
the painter’s life, both periods having been erroneously deferred for
the space of about fifteen years. The recovery of the truth that
Masaccio did actually die as originally asserted by Vasari, at the
early age of 26 years, makes these frescoes still more worthy of the
admiration they have generally commanded.

The Brancacci chapel was till the time of Raphael, nearly a cen-
tury, the school of all the great painters of Rome and Tuscany, Michel-
angelo and Raphael included. In it Masaccio introduced a style of
composition and design, which until the appearance of Leonardo da °
Vinci and Michelangelo experienced no material change. Da Vinci
and Fra Bartolomeo enlarged only upon Masaccio’s style ; Michel-
angelo invented a style of design of his own, but he outlived it;
while the style of Masaccio, expanded to its utmost, still survived
in the works of Raphael and the great painters of the Roman school,
not because it was Masaccio’s, but simply because it was true. The
great improvement in design, however, which was accomplished in
the works of Masaccio, was not entirely due to him; for Lorenzo
Ghiberti and Donatello had made great advancement in sculpture ;
and Gentile da Fabriano and Vittore Pisanello, with whom Masaccio
became acquainted at Rome, had made great improvements upon
the Giottesque school of painting.

Virrore PisanELto or Pisanus (1404-51) is better known as a me-
dallist than as a painter. He was about the same age as Masaccio,
and his medals bear dates from 1444 to 1448, but some are earlier.
All are signed Opus Pisani Pictoris ; and he was a charming painter,
as the small picture of “Sant? Antonio and San Giorgio,” formerly in
the Costabili Gallery at Ferrara, sufficiently proves.’ Pisanello is
said to have done for the advancement of art in Ferrara what
Masaccio did for Florence. He was particularly distinguished for
his skill in painting horses.

The most able contemporaries, however, of Masaccio, and those
whose works contributed most to the establishment of the modern
school of art, were Fra Giovanni da Fiesole, commonly called Fra
Angelico, Benozzo Gozzoli, and Fra Filippo Lippi.

Fra ANGELICO was not so much distinguished for any external
quality of art, as for the high religious sentiment of his works. It
was this strong religious character which earned him the surname
of L’Angelico, and also I] Beato Angelico, a title inferior only to
that of saint. His name was Giovannit Guino; he was born near
the Castello di Vicchio in the Mugello in 1387, and he entered the

1 Now in the collection of Sir Charles Eastlake. It is signed “ Pisanus Pi.”
126 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

order of the Predicants at Fiesole in 1407. His elder brother Be-
nedictus Petri de Mugello, or Fra Benedetto, an illuminator of
MSS., appears to have been Giovanni’s instructor, and Giovanni
himself executed many illuminations of MSS. He left Fiesole in
1409, and practised for several years as a fresco painter at Cortona,
where some of his best works are still preserved. In 1418 he
returned to Fiesole, where he resided until 1436, when he was
invited to Florence. His principal works are some frescoes in the
churches of Florence, and especially in the convent of San Marco,
where he painted the history of the Passion of Christ, which oc-
cupied him nine years. He painted also others for Niccolo V. at
Rome, in the chapel of San Lorenzo in the Vatican. He visited
Rome in 1445.

The frescoes in the chapel of Niccolo V. are still in a good state of
preservation. They were neglected for about two centuries, owing
to the loss of the key of the chapel, and were almost forgotten.
Hirt, of Berlin, first drew the public attention to them: they are
now well known in prints. They represent subjects from the lives
of Saints Stefano and Lorenzo, with their martyrdoms; the evan-
gelists, and the principal fathers and doctors of the Church. Some
frescoes were commenced by Fra Giovanni in the chapel of the
Madonna di San Brizio in the cathedral of Orvieto, but he appears
to have had no opportunity of completing them. They were
finished many years afterwards by Luca Signorelli.

These works and the frescoes by Fra Giovanni in the convent of
San Marco at Florence, then the abode of the Predicants, are
chiefly distinguished for their purely religious sentiment : as works
of pictorial art merely, they belong rather to the school which pre-
ceded Masaccio, as in point of time Fra Giovanni himself does like-
‘wise, for, though he survived, he was fifteen years older than
Masaccio. With reference to their sentiment, however, his produc-
tions are finished works, and have not been surpassed in expression
even by the greatest painters of any subsequent period. They are
exclusively religious or ecclesiastical; they breathe the purest piety
and humility, and are the vivid impressions of his own mind and
character, not acquired or imitated, but proceeding from an un-
tutored simplicity, pure nature. The genuineness of his sentiment
and expression was so prominent, that his works became in a great
degree, mediately when not immediately, the type of character
for religious art to his own and to subsequent generations. His
execution is sometimes extremely elaborate and beautiful, especially
in small easel pictures, in distemper, of which there are many good

1 Giangiacomi, “‘ Le Pitture della Capella di Niccolo V. Opere del B. Giov. Ang.
da Fiesole,” Rome 1810. See also Platner and Bunsen, “Beschreibung der Stadt
Rom,” and D'Agincourt, “ Histoire de l’Art par les Monuments,” &c.
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 127

specimens in the collection of the Florentine Academy. The superb
Predella in tempera, from the church of San Domenico in Fiesole, in
the National Gallery, gives a very adequate notion of both the per-
fections and imperfections of Fra Angelico. Many of the heads are
exceedingly fine, and though on so small a scale, have the grandeur
of the heads of Raphael.

The sincerity of his sentiment was justified by the simplicity of
his life; he was of so high a character as to be offered the arch-
bishopric of Florence by Pope Niccolo V.; but he declined the dig-
nity, upon the plea that to govern or to lead were alike incom-
patible with his nature. He recommended to the Pope, Fra Anto-
nino, a brother of his order, as more worthy of the post. This monk
received the appointment, and became so distinguished a prelate as
to be afterwards canonized by Adrian VI.

Fra Giovanni was remarkably methodic in his habits; it was his
persuasion that whoever would represent the works of Christ must
be with Christ, and he accordingly commenced every undertaking
with prayer, and invariably carried out his first impression, treating
it as an inspiration. He died in Rome in 1455, and was buried in
the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva. The following inscrip-
tion was placed on his tomb :—

Hic Jacer Ven. Picror. Fr. Jo. De Fror. Orv. P. stcccciy.!

Benozzo Gozzout, the pupil of Fra Giovanni, was likewise a very
distinguished painter of this period; but though he studied the
works of Masaccio, he remained behind him in design. His best
works are those in the Campo Santo at Pisa, where he painted
twenty-four frescoes, covering one whole side of the building. He
commenced in 1469, and finished in 1485, and was paid for each
picture about ten ducats (66 lire). He died probably in 1488, aged
about eighty. There is the tomb of Benozzo in the Campo Santo,
which was presented to him by the city of Pisa in the year 1478.
It is evident that, he was then living, from the inscription itself—
“Hic tumulus est Benotii Florentini qui proximé has pinxit his-
torias. Hunc sibi Pisanorum donavit humanitas, meccelxxviii.”
(This is the tomb of Benozzo of Florence, who painted these
nearest histories. The gratitude of the Pisans gave it to him in
1478.) Vasari therefore was in error if he placed the death of
Benozzo in 1478 from this authority.

Benozzo was hard but rich in colour: the National collection is
fortunate in possessing two fine specimens by this master—a small

! Vasari, “Vite,” &. Ed. Le Monnier; Marchese, “Memorie dei piu insigni
Pittori, &c., Domenicani,” Florence 1845; and “San Marco Convento dei Padri
Predicatori in Firenze, illustrato e inciso principalmente nei dipinti del B. Giovanni
Angelico,” &¢. Folio, Florence, 1852.
128 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

altar-piece, and the lid of a casettone—the former representing “The
Virgin and Child enthroned,” for which the original contract, dated
23rd Oct., 1461, is still preserved; and the latter giving a quaint
representation of the ‘‘Rape of Helen,” in which we have an ad-
mirable illustration of the costume of the fifteenth century.’

The chief merit of Fra Fiurero Liver was in tone, or light and
shade, and colour ; and in this respect he was the immediate pre-
cursor of Leonardo da Vinci and Fra Bartolomeo. He was one of
the first painters of the Revival who devoted his chief attention to
external qualities, and cultivated the sensuous element of art.
This quality, as a distinctive characteristic of his works from those
of Fra Giovanni, was the faithful exponent of their moral distinction
of character. Fra Filippo, however, will ever hold a prominent
place among the great painters of the Renaissance of art.

He was born at Florence about 1412, and having lost his parents
when young he was placed by an aunt, about 1420, in the convent
of the Carmelites at Florence. Here he saw Masaccio paint, his
ambition was excited, and he devoted himself with passion to his
art. He left the convent in 1430, was captured by pirates on a
boating excursion near Ancona, and carried to Africa, where he ex-
perienced the hardships of slavery for some eighteen months, when
he acquired his liberty, having delighted his master by drawing his
portrait. He went first to Naples, but was again in Florence in
1438, and gradually acquired a great name by his works.

The fine altar-piece ascribed to Fra Filippo in, the National
Gallery is possibly the work of Alessio Baldovinetti,? to whom it
has been attributed ; if his own, it is an early work. It is in tem-
pera, and represents the Madonna and Child enthroned, surrounded
by angels, with standing figures of saints, in the two side compart-
ments. It has been assumed to be the picture painted in or before
1438, when the painter was only twenty-five years of age, for
Gherardo di Bartolomeo Barbadori, to be placed in the church of
Santo Spirito at Florence, where this picture was formerly pre-
served. It corresponds with Vasari’s description of the Barbadori
altar-piece, and shows greater care in its execution than Fra Filippo’s
later works. It was painted before his capture by the pirates off
Ancona, and romantic imprisonment in Barbary.

Fra Filippo died at Spoleto, October the 8th, 1469, aged fifty-
seven. He is said to have been poisoned by the relations of Lucrezia

1 See the “ Catalogue ” of the National Gallery.

2 Baldovinetti was born in Florence, in 1422, and is supposed to have been
the pupil of Paolo Uccello; like that master, he was a devoted student of nature,
especially of landscape. He was fond, also, of mosaic, and instructed Domenico
Ghirlandajo, says Vasari, in that art. He died in the hospital of San Paolo, in
Florence, on the 29th of August, 1499.
MASACCIO AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. - 129

Buti, a young Florentine lady whom he carried off from the convent
of St. Margaret at Prato: this is probably a mere report; the rela-
tions of Lucrezia could do her little service by poisoning Filippo,
whom she evidently loved. There was also an interval of about
eleven years between her abduction and his death. Filippino, their
son, was in his tenth year when his father died.

Fra Filippo was the precursor of Fra Bartolomeo and Leonardo
da Vinci in tone: his figures are often grand, and his draperies are
massive and majestic.

The National Gallery as well as the Academy of Florence con-
tain some admirable specimens of Fra Filippo’s easel pictures: the
best of his frescoes are those of the Cathedral of Prato.! He exe-
cuted some works also in the convent of Santa Margherita at Prato,
and it was during their progress in 1458 that he seduced and
carried off Lucrezja Buti, who was being educated by the nuns in
the convent; Filippo was then forty-six years of age. He was en-
gaged on the frescoes of the cathedral of Prato from 1456 to 1464.
The Martyrdom of St. Stephen, one of these compositions, is rec-
koned Filippo’s masterpiece : he introduced his own portrait in it,
and he painted that of Lucrezia Buti, says Vasari, as Herodias in
one of the scenes from the Life of John the Baptist, forming also °
part of these frescoes. Fra Filippo is said to have painted a few
pictures in what is termed oil; he was one of the first Italian
painters who adopted this new method, of which a more particular
account will be given in the next chapter. The facts are briefly
these: it was introduced into Italy by Antonello da Messina in
about 1450-55, and was made known at Florence by Domenico
Veneziano, in about 1460. Anprea pEeL Casragno of Castagno, in
the Mugello, where he was born about 1410, obtained the secret
from Domenico, and is said afterwards to have killed him; appa-
rently in the year 1463, thinking thus to be the sole possessor of so
valuable an art.

Domenico VENEZIANO, a native of Venice, and of the same age as
Andrea, was the scholar of Antonello da Messina, who is recorded to
have imparted to Domenico the method of the Van Eycks’, which
he had learnt in Flanders.*

1 «Delle Pitture di Fra Filippo Lippi nel coro della Cattedrale di Prato, e de’
loro restauri; relazione, compilata dal G. F. B. (Canonico Baldanzi),” Prato, 1835.

2 Perhaps the only existing work of Domenico is a fresco of the Madonna En-
throned, which was removed from a tabernacle on the exterior wall of a house in
Florence, and transferred to canvas by Rizzoli of Cento, in 1852. It is now in the
possession of M. Louis Hombert at Florence, who has published a photograph of
it. Two heads of zaints, parts of the same fresco, are in the possession of Sir
Charles Eastlake. On the foot of the throne of the Madonna is written Dominicus
D, Venucns. P. This fresco is noticed by Vasari, Ed. Le Monnier, vol. iv. p. 145,

K
130 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

About the year 1460, Domenico and Andrea del Castagno were
employed to execute some paintings in the Portinari chapel, in
Santa Maria Nuova, when the greater sensation caused by the pic-
tures of Domenico excited the envy of Andrea, who, according to
Vasari, insinuated himself into the confidence of Domenico, acquired
his secret from him, and then waylaid him, on returning from his
work, in the evening, struck him on the head with a piece of lead,
and returned to his own work in the chapel, whence he was called
out to his wounded friend Domenico, who died in the arms of his
treacherous companion. This story rests entirely on the recorded
confession of Andrea; but it was never contradicted. During his
lifetime he had been called Andrea degli Impiccati (of the hanged),
but after his death he was surnamed the Infamous. His title of
Degli Impiccati was given him from the pictures of the Pazzi and
other conspirators concerned in the death of Juliano de’ Medici,
whom he painted in 1478 on the facade of the palace of the Podesta,
hanging with their heads downwards—Andrea’s best work.

Although these painters are thus recorded to have painted in oil,
no single work certainly in this method, either by Domenico or
Andrea, or by Fra Filippo, is now known to exist. Andrea’s
manner is hard and vigorous, but has none of the graces of art. He
taught Vittore Pisanello.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE EARLY SCHOOLS OF GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS. THE VAN
Eycks, 1410.

Tue obscurity already referred to, connected with the revival of
art in Italy, likewise overhangs that of the North of Europe. Some
evidences of activity in the arts of painting and sculpture in Ger-
many, previous to the conquest of Constantinople, have been
already noticed, but they are mere isolated facts. Manuscripts of
the period of Charlemagne have been mentioned. This prince
seems to have been a liberal patron of all the arts, especially of
architecture. He built towards the close of the eighth century a
magnificent church and palace at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), and
sent to Greece and Italy for artists to embellish them. He built
also palaces at Nymegen and Ingelheim. Aachen was called the
Second Rome; it was enriched by many works of ancient art
brought from Ravenna; and in the palace are said to have been
paintings of the campaigns of Charles in Spain, sieges of towns,
EARLY GERMAN SCHOOLS. 131

and many other works, allegorical and historical. Ingelheim was
constructed on a similarly magnificent scale.’

Tuotilo and Notker, the celebrated monks of Saint Gall, have
been already noticed ;? Alfred and Ariram, two Bavarian monks,
were perhaps of a still earlier age, of the ninth century. They
were the principal artists who embellished the palace of the
Emperor Arnulf at Regensburg: Alfred was a priest of the convent
of Tegern-see; he is styled in an old writer, quoted by Fiorillo,
“ Alfridus, presbyter, e¢ magister cujusque artis’ (master of every
art). Ariram, according to another old writer, was the most in-
genious*man of his age; he was a monk of the convent of Saint
Emmeram. A century later Gosbert and Absolon, two monks of
Trier, are noticed for their skill in modelling, and perhaps found-
ing: they made a highly ornamented copper basin for the fountain
of the refectory of the convent of Saint Maximin; their names
were recorded in Latin verses on the base of the basin, in the
inside of which were representations of frogs, toads, and other
amphibia.*

The convents of Germany afford other examples of skilful artists,
but the earliest evidence of schools of painting, using the term in a
wide signification, is in the ‘“ Parcival” of Wolfram of Eschenbach,
a poet of the thirteenth century; in which Cologne and Maastricht
are noticed, sv as to indicate a considerable reputation for their
painters.

Some of these painters are known by name, and many extant
works have been attributed to them; we know, however, of no
painter contemporary with Wolfram of Eschenbach, who, in his
“ Parcival,” speaking of the beauty of a knight on horseback, says
that no painter of Cologne or Maastricht could have painted a
better picture than he appeared :—

Von Chélne noch von Maastricht
Dechein Sciltere entwurf en baz
Denn als er ufem orse saz.4

The consecration of the new cathedral of Cologne in 1322, seems
to have given a great impetus to the arts of that place in the
fourteenth century; and no independent school of painters can

1 The early history of the arts of design in Germany is entered into with con-
siderable detail by J. D. Fiorillo in the last four volumes of his “Geschichte der
Zeichnenden Kiinste, Mahlerey,” Gottingen and Hanover, 1798, 1820; they have
also the distinct title ‘Geschichte der Zeichnenden Kiinste in Deutschland und den
Vereinigten Niederlanden.”

2 Chapter xii.

3 The inscription is preserved in Hontheim’s ‘‘ Prodromus Historie: Trevirensis.”
See Fiorillo, “Geschichte,” &c., i. ii.

4 Fiorillo, I. c.; Passavant, “ Altkélnische Malerschule,” in his “‘ Kunstreise
durch England und Belgien.”

K 2
132 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

have been established there before that time. It has its deco-
rations of the thirteenth century; but these scarcely come into the
category of paintings.

The sacristy of St. Gereon, at Cologne, contains wall decorations
of some figures of saints, of this period: consisting, however, chiefly
in isolated figures, of slightly shaded outlines, somewhat in the
style of the earliest figures painted on glass, and of the manuscript
illuminations, of the time. Similar works have been recently re-
covered from whitewash, in the neighbourhood of Cologne; and at
Soest and other towns of Westphalia, on the eastern side of the
Rhine.' °

The church of St. Ursula at Cologne, contains some pictures of
the Apostles on panels of slate, ascribed to the early date of 1224;
but as they are much repainted, they are of little historical value.
The name of a painter of Soest—Everwin—who lived in 1231, is
associated with these early works. The towns of Halberstadt,
Hildesheim, and Brunswick, have still more important remains of
an evidently well-established system of church decoration of this
period; and it was doubtless a branch of that very Byzantine art
which was at the same time rapidly developing the revived taste
for art in Italy; the Greek attitude of the hand in the rite of
benediction, here employed, in the convent of Brauweiler, is con-
clusive of this influence. The old churches of these districts are
chiefly Romanesque. There are no actual altar-pieces of this
period ; the decorations seem to have been limited to the rude wall-
paintings referred to. The cutting up of the wall spaces by the
gradual establishment of Gothic or pointed architecture, no doubt
tended in a great measure to the final development of altar-pieces
and panel pictures generally as a substitute for the wall-painting,
which necessarily requires large well-lighted spaces for its proper
display. The German decorations of the fourteenth century were
not limited to religious subjects for the churches; the saloons of
the baronial residences and castles were also decorated with scenes
of chivalry, hawking, and the ordinary life of the time.

Meister WILHELM von CoELy, or William of Cologne, is the oldest
painter of repute of this school, and the oldest German painter to
whom existing pictures of worth are attributed. He lived in the
middle and latter part of the fourteenth century; and, although
his authorship of certain works at Cologne and Munich is merely
conjectural, there can be no doubt of his own existence, as it is
proved by some authentic documents still extant.

1 See W. Liibke, - Die Mittelalterliche Kunst in Westfalen,” &c., with an atlas
of plates, fol. Leipzig, 1854; and Schnaase, “Geschichte der Bildenden Kiinste,”
vol. v. 1856.
EARLY GERMAN SCHOOLS. 133

In one of these, the Annals of the Dominicans of Frankfort, he
is spoken of as the greatest master of his time: it says— “In
that time, 1380, there was at Cologne a most excellent painter, to
whom there was not the like in his art; his name was Wilhelm,
and he made pictures of men which almost appeared to live.” He
seems to have been a native of Herle, a village near Cologne; at
least there is a painter, in some documents called Wilhelmus de
Herle, who was settled at Cologne with his wife Jutta, as early as
1358 ; he received payment for a miniature in 1372, the last year
in which he. appears by name in the public accounts. In 1378
Wilhelm died, and his widow married Henry Wywricy, also a dis-
tinguished painter, and apparently the pupil of Wilhelm. Wynrich
was still living in 1414, and had then served five times on the
town-council. In 1370-80, a master at Cologne, not named, re-
ceived 220 marks for a painting on the Town-hall, pro pictura super
donw civium, and Meister Wilhelm is assumed to be referred to.!

There are several fine old pictures in the Pinacothek, at Munich,
especially two groups of saints, and a ‘Sancta Veronica,” which
are attributed to Meister Wilhelm, on mere conjecture, however, as
is also the “Sancta Veronica” in the National Gallery; all which
have much of the hand of Meister Stephan, his scholar. Ours is a
very good example of this early school, which was possibly the
nursery of Hubert van Eyck; the tempera impasto is excellent.

The picture over the tomb of Cuno von Falkenstein, in the St.
Castor’s-Kirche at Coblenz, painted in 1388, is by some other
master, if we rightly assume Meister Wilhelm to have been the
same as Wilhelmus de Herle.

A large altar-piece in a chapel in the cathedral at Cologne, for-
merly in the church of St. Clara, illustrating the history of the
Life and Passion of our Lord, in twenty-four, compartments, is the
most important of the works attributed to this old master; it is,
however, according to German critics, by different hands. The
figures are on gold grounds, their tints are well mixed, but the
drawing is incorrect and feeble. A Crucifixion, painted on the
wall of the sacristy of the church of St. Severin at Cologne, is
supposed to have been painted by the master of the St. Clara altar-
piece: it shows much skill in the management of the draperies,
a quality to be observed in many others of the pictures of this
early school of Cologne, which displays also considerable force
of colouring.

Another celebrated painter of this school is Muisrer Srepuan,
supposed to be the scholar of Meister Wilhelm. Stephan was the
painter of the famous Dom-bild, in the cathedral of Cologne, as

1 Schnaase, “ Geschichte der Bildenden Kiinste,” vi. p, 425.
134 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Albert Durer informs us in his “ Diary.” He seems to have been
Stephan Lochner, or Loethener, as some read the name, a native of
Constanz, but settled in Cologne; he bought a house there in 1442,
and died in 1451. Though he served twice on the town-council,
Stephan died poor, and left his wife unprovided for.' We have a
genuine piece of this painter’s work in the National Gallery—
three saints on a gold ground—but very careless in execution, and
evidently a mere piece of “Roba di Bottega.” The Dom-bild
(cathedral picture) at Cologne is, however, a really great work;
the principal figures are excellent, for their time. They are small
life-size, and well planted, and the heads are good, but pale in
colour; the draperies are well cast and carefully painted.* It was
painted about the year 1430, not much before, for the chapel of
the Rath-haus, first founded in 1426, and is generally considered
Meister Stephan’s capo d’opera: it consists of a centre and two
revolving wings, the centre representing the adoration of the
kings; on the interior of the wings are the patrons of Cologne,
St. Ursula and her XI. Martyr Virgins on one side, and St. Gereon
and his companions on the other; on the outside of the wings is
represented the Annunciation. The picture is said to be painted in
oil, but this is very doubtful, and it is a matter not easily settled ;
the old Cologne tempera was excellent, as our Sancta Veronica
shows ; and the Dom-bild has a similar appearance.*

Another remarkable picture of the school is the ‘‘ Madonna with
the Violet,” a large standing figure of the Virgin, now in the Archi-
episcopal Museum of Cologne, holding in her right arm the infant
Christ, and in her left hand a violet. The upper part of the back-
ground is gold, on which are painted the Father, the Dove, and various
Angels; the lower part is arich hanging, and in a corner belowis
the portrait of the donor, Elizabeth von Reichenstein, abbess of the
convent of St. Cecilia in 1452. The Virgin has no crown, the dra-
pery is very simple and massive, and the whole figure is graceful :* it
is attributed to the painter of the Dom-bild. So also is a really
very pleasing little picture, on a gold ground, in the Celogne Gal-
lery, representing the Virgin and Child seated in a Rose-bed—the
Madonna in der Rosenlaube ; it is the best of all the works attributed
to Meister Stephan.°

Of the Westphalian School, closely allied to the Colegne, we

1 J. J. Merlo, “Nachrichten von dem Leben und den Werken Kélnischer
Kiinstler,” Cologne, 1850-52; Schnaase, “Geschichte der Bildenden Kiinste,”
vol. vi. 1861.

2 There is an outline in Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s “ Early Flemish Painters.”

3 On this subject consult Sir Charles Eastlake’s “ Materials,” &c., p. 101.

4 Engraved in Schnaase’s “ Geschichte,” &c., vol. vi. p. 452.

5 «Katalog des Museums Wallraf-Richartz in Koln,” by Dr. W. Miiller, 1862.
EARLY GERMAN SCHOOLS. 135

have also some good specimens in the National Gallery. Besides
the two fragments of the Liesborn altar-piece, which show much
delicacy of execution, there is the important “Presentation in the
Temple,” the gift of her Majesty, which is ascribed to the master
of the so-called “ Lyversberg Passion,” a series of eight composi-
tions from the life of our Lord, painted in oil (?), on gold grounds ;
formerly belonging to Herr Lyversberg, but now the property of
his daughter Frau Baumeister, at Cologne. The Pinacothek at
Munich possesses several works by the same painter, and they are
there ascribed, but without any sufficient foundation, to Israel van
Meckenem. Another of these unknown Westphalian painters is
the Meister von Werden, who is by some assumed to have been
the painter of the “Lyversberg Passion.” All the various works
ascribed to these masters are sufficiently alike to have been exe-
cuted by the same painter; the dates given to them vary from
about 1465 to 1490.

The Liesborn altar-piece was an important work; it was in the
second convent church of the Benedictine Abbey of Liesborn, near
Minster, which was consecrated in 1465, and suppressed by
Napoleon in 1807, when the altar-piece was sold and dispersed.
It was executed partly in oil and partly in tempera, on canvas
stretched on wood, the colours being well manipulated; and
painted on a gold ground, or at least relieved by a gold back-
ground. In the centre was Christ on the Cross, with four angels
receiving the blood, from the hands, side, and feet, in golden
chalices: by the cross, on a field of flowers, were standing, on one
side—Saints John, Scholastica, and Benedict; on the other—Saints
Cosmas and Damianus, and the Virgin Mary; and the upper por-
tions of these six figures are now in the National Gallery. On the
sides of this centre composition were represented—the Annuncia-
tion, the Nativity, the Adoration of the Kings, and the Presenta-
tion in the Temple; the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Descent
of the Holy Spirit, and the Last Judgment.

Of the so-called Werden master, that is of the painter of several
pictures found in the abbey of Werden, near Diisseldorf, a very
interesting specimen is the “‘ Conversion of St. Hubert ;” one of the
Kriiger pictures of the National Collection, but deposited for the
present in the Gallery of Edinburgh: it represents a mountainous
landscape, with a gold background: St. Hubert, richly dressed, has
dismounted from his horse, and is kneeling before a stag, and
adoring the crucifix between its horns.

It may be a question whether IsraueL van Mecxenem, as he him-
self has written his name on his fine portrait engraved by himself,
in the British Museum, was connected with this early school as a
painter, though he has the repute of having been painter as well as
136 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

engraver and goldsmith: on the portrait referred to, however, he
calls himself simply “goldsmit.” He is the Meister Israel the
painter mentioned by many old writers, and is assumed to have
been born at Meckenen, near Bocholt, where he was buried in
1503. His name occurs in documents at Bocholt, from 1482 to
1498, but exclusively as a goldsmith: that he was an engraver is
evident from his signature on prints,—I. V.M. The fact of his
having been an engraver has led some to argue that he cannot have
been the old painter, Meister Israel, who is supposed to have
flourished before the discovery of engraving; this is, however, an
error. Israel the painter is mentioned by Jacob Wympfeling, in
his ‘‘ Rerum Germanicarum,” c. 67, “de Pictura et Plastice,” where
he is styled Israel Alemannus; and this writer speaks of him as of
his own time, and as contemporary with Albert Diirer, while he
notices Martin Schoen or Schongauer, an excellent engraver, as
already dead: he says of Martin, “ qui fuit tam eximius”—who was
so excellent. This objection is, therefore, wholly removed, for he
evidently writes at a time when engraving was completely esta-
blished. Wympfeling, further, does not say picture, or tabule
depictee, but icones Israélis Alemanni, which may signify prints as well
as paintings. Wympfeling’s book was published at Strasburg, in
1505, only two years after the death of Israel Van Meckenem. If
the works attributed to this painter, in the Pinacothek, at Munich,
are really by him, he must be reckoned among the best masters of
that age, for they are certainly not inferior to the works of any of
the early painters of Germany, as for example—the Ascension and
the Coronation of the Virgin; Joachim and Anne at the Golden
Gate; and several pictures of Apostles.

However, the works of this school, which are to be seen chiefly
at Cologne and Munich, whoever the individual masters may be,
are generally upon gold grounds and upon panel, and are remark-
able for the richness of their colouring and the careful detail of
their execution. Though painted in water-colours, or tempera, for
the most part, if not always, they have the effect of oil-paintings, or
indeed few oil-paintings have so good an effect as these works have;
their impasto appears to be perfect.’ With respect to higher quali-
ties of art, their weakest part is the drawing, especially in the
extremities, which recall to mind the curiosities of the contempo-
raries of Cimabue; many of the heads, however, are distinguished
for a true nobility of expression, worthy of any age and of any
master. The subjects are exclusively religious, and relate chiefly

1 The Cologne painters, like the English, were in the habit of mixing a little
honey with their tempera or vehicle, which by rendering it less siccative made a
slow and careful manipulation quite practicable. See Hastlake’s “ Materials,” &c.
p. 100.
EARLY GERMAN SCHOOLS. 137

to the earliest history of the Church. Single figures of saints are
common; active and complicated scenes likewise occur, but they
exhibit only a very remote approximation to the real drama.

All the better early German pictures in the Cologne Museum are
not necessarily by Cologne painters. One of the best examples in
that strange collection of curiosities is the “Crucifixion,” a triptych,
formerly in the Charterhouse of Cologne, and the bequest of Peter
Rinck, a lawyer, who, in 1501, left the convent 200 gold florins for
the purpose. This picture, wonderful in its execution, but utterly
without taste in its forms, has every appearance of being of the
school of Albert Diirer.

Although Cologne holds the most prominent place in the history
of painting in Germany, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centu-
ries, all the other great seats of government had their painters.
Prague, the residence of the Emperors, had very early attracted
artists from foreign parts, as Tommaso pi Barisino, of Modena, who,
according to a vague tradition, painted for Charles IV., a picture at
Prague, not very uncouth, a small triptych, which is now in the
Belvedere Gallery, in Vienna. It represents the Virgin and Child
in the centre ; on one side St. Wenceslas, on the other St. Palmatius,
on gold ground, and is signed in Gothic characters—

Quis opus hoe finxit Thomas de Mutina pinsit :
Quale vides lector Barisini} filius auctor.

Nico.aus Wuemser of Strasburg was painter to the Emperor
Charles IV., at Prague, as early as 1359: the Belvedere Gallery
possesses a Crucifixion by him, an indifferent performance. Tuxo-
pore Dittricx, called Macisrer TuHEoporicus, was the contemporary
of Wurmser, at Prague: he painted the chapel of Karlstein for the
Emperor Charles IV., in 1367 ;?, and several of his works are still
preserved ; two pictures of saints, on gold ground, Augustin and
Ambrose, large half-length figures, not bad for their time, are in the
Belvedere Gallery at Vienna. The above are all tempera pictures.

A much more celebrated school than that of Cologne, and little
subsequent to it in point of time, was established by the Van
Eycks at Bruges in Flanders, a city which through its connection
with the introduction of the new method of oil-painting holds a
very prominent position in the history of art. Bruges may be con-
sidered the nursery of Flemish art, and it was its geographical
capital for a long period, though it was afterwards superseded by
Antwerp. [Each city has had its day, and they both testify to the

1 The new Catalogue by Engerl reads Rabisini. Some German writers have
erroneously claimed this painter for Bohemia.

? Dlabacz, “ Kiinstler Lexicon fiir Bohmen.” Prague 1815; Federici, Memorie
Trevigiane sulle opere di Disegno.” Venezia, 1803.
138 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

high importance to the arts of an active life in both politics and
commerce,

These. cities have been to the Low Countries what Pisa and
Venice were to Italy.. The great importance of Bruges dates from
the residence of the Dukes of Burgundy there, as Counts of
Flanders; from the time of Philippe le Hardi, who, in 1369,
married Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, Count of Flanders
and Artois. He and his successors, Jean Sans Peur, and Philippe
le Bon, were active patrons of the arts, which culminated in
Bruges in the earlier part of the fifteenth century.’ After the
revolt of the Brugeois against the Archduke Maximilian in 1488,
the prosperity of the city rapidly declined.

Tradition has preserved the names of four members of the Van
Eyck family, which however does not appear to have been ori-
ginally of Flanders, but from the convent to which John’s daughter
eventually retired, Maaseyck or its neighbourhood, in Limbourg.
The names are Hubert, John, Lambert, and Margaret ;—we know
that three of them were painters, but there is no real evidence that
Lambert was of the same profession. John was most probably
the youngest of the family.

Whether Hubert was connected with the school of Cologne is
not known; but possibly he was. Van Mander fixes his birth in
the year 1366, and the small village of Eyck (now Alden-Eyck),
near Maaseyck, was probably his birthplace. He was established
first at Bruges, and afterwards for some time at Ghent: both
Hubert and John were granted the freedom of the profession by
the corporation of painters of Ghent in the year 1421.?

Joun Van Eyck, the younger brother by many years of Hubert,
has, through the report of his having taught the method to Anto-
nello of Messina, obtained the reputation of being the inventor of oil-
painting. And asthe invention, in the account of Vasari, is given to
John Van Eyck, universal rumour has repeated the report; even Van
Mander re-echoed Vasari, yet it amounts almost to a certainty that
the elder brother Hubert was the inventor of the new method.

In the first place, John was more than twenty years younger

1 Melchior Broedlain, a painter, was in receipt of an annual pension from Philippe
je Hardi, of 200 francs in 1385-95: some specimens of his work, of a respectable
character for their time, are still preserved in the Museum of Dijon. See outline
in Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s “Early Flemish Painters.” Many interesting facts
relating to the arts and artists of this school, especially with reference to accounts,
are recorded by Count De Laborde in his “ Ducs de Bourgogne,” &c., Paris, 1849,
8vo. The Index to the first volume of Preuwves is published separately as an “ Essai
d’un Catalogue des Artistes originaires des Pays-Bas ou employés & la Cour des
Ducs de Bourgogne aux xIVv. et xv. sitcles.” Paris, 1849.

2 See “ Notice sur |’Ancienne Corporation des Peintres et Sculpteurs 2 Gand,” by
Edmond de Busscher. Brussels, 1853.
JOHN VAN EYCK. 139

than his brother, who was born perhaps of a different mother. This
is inferred from various evidence: Hubert died, aged about sixty,
September 18, 1426, and John died fourteen years later, still a young
man, according to Marcus Van Vaernewyck, in his History of Bel-
gum, published in 1565. This is corroborated by the portraits of
Hubert and John in the Museum of Berlin, in which John appears
to be about thirty years of age, and the other between fifty and
sixty ; they are both painted on one of the wings or doors of the cele-
brated altar-piece of St. Bavon, at Ghent, the extreme lower door
containing the Just Judges, now in the Berlin Museum. Both por-
traits were probably painted at the same time, or within an interval
of five years at most, 1425-30, otherwise the disparity of age may
have been greater than it appears. The whole picture was com-
pleted by John in 1432, six years after the death of Hubert.

From the above facts, therefore, John may have been born about
the year 1390: according to this assumption he was about fifty years
old when he died, which, though not young, is certainly in many
cases the period of the greatest vigour ; and as youth is really rela-
tive, an old man might consider even fifty young. Van Mander
fixes the discovery of the Van Eycks’ new method at about the year
1410, when John was a mere youth, while Hubert had reached the
mature age of about 44, and was already a master of reputation. The
whole, or certainly the centre of the upper part of the St. Bavon altar-
piece was finished by Hubert, who was therefore evidently complete
master of the method; thus again, the circumstances are in favour of
Hubert, as itis more likely that the youth was taught by the painter
than that the painter was taught by the youth. Lastly, in the in-
scription on the work, the chief merit is given to Hubert, John
being mentioned as the completer of the work, and as the second in
art; Hubert being declared without an equal in the world.

The following is the inscription, the last line being what is
termed a Chronogram, the Roman capitals added together making,
according to their value as numerals, the date 1432, the year in
which the picture was fixed in its place :—

“ Pictor Hubertus e Eyck, major quo nemo repertus
Incepit; pondusque Johannes arte secundus
Frater perfecit, Judoci Vyd prece fretus
VersV seXta MaI Vos CoLLoCat aCta tVerl.’”!

This celebrated altar-piece, of which only a portion is now in the
church of St. Bavon, at Ghent, consisted originally of a centre with

1 The picture was painted for Judocus Vyd. M. Michiels, in his “ Peintres
Brugeois,” terms this ‘barbarous inscription” a mere compliment paid by the
younger to the elder Van Eyck. If so, he appears to have taken the opportunity
of paying himself a compliment likewise. Many inscriptions might be disposed of
in this summary way, but with little benefit to readers, and less credit to critics.
140 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

double folding-doors or wings on each side, the whole being divided
into two rows, making ten pictures on the inside, but, the upper
centre being in three compartments, there were in all twelve differ-
ent subjects visible when the folding wings were thrown back ; the
outsides of the doors were likewise painted with representations of
the Annunciation, above; and below, John the Baptist, and John the
Evangelist, as statues; and portraits of Judocus Vyd and his wife,
on each side. Immediately above the figures of the Angel Gabriel
and the Virgin are, in three lunettes, the prophets Zechariah and
Micah, and the Cumean and Erythrean Sibyls. The altar-piece
itself, or the interior representations, are as follow :—the actual Ado-
ration of the Lamb, in small figures, occupies the lower centre ; in
the three compartments above it are, in large figures, God the
Father, and the Virgin Mary on his right hand, and John the Bap-
tist on the left; the Deity is represented in the pontifical robes of
the Roman Church. These three figures are the finest part of the
altar-piece. On the two wings of this row to the right, are angels.
singing, and Adam; on the two to the left, St. Cecilia with angels
playing musical instruments, and Eve; on the two wings of the
lower row to the right, are the Just Judges, and the Soldiers of
Christ ; to the left, the Holy Hermits and the Holy Pilgrims." The
two central panels are all that now remain of this work in the
church of St. Bavon, at Ghent; the two wings on which Adam and
Eve are painted, long preserved at Ghent, are in the gallery at
Brussels; the remaining six wings are in the Museum at Berlin.
The upper portion only of the interior is attributed to Hubert, the
rest to John, who painted also the outside : Hubert was the greater
painter of the two, judging from this altar-piece; the three prin-
cipal figures are quite in advance of his time. The celebrated copy
of this picture which was made by Michael Coxcien, for Philip II.

of Spain, is likewise dispersed in various galleries : the three large
figures are, in the Pinacothek, at Munich.

Another great work by either Hubert or John Van Eyck, or both,
is the Triumph of the Christian Church over the Jewish, or the
« Fountain of Living Waters,” at Madrid, in the museum of the
Santa Trinidad ; itis described by Passavant* as the work of Hubert.
The figure of the Enthroned Saviour, and the Virgin and Baptist on
each side of him, strongly resemble the principal figures of the
St. Bavon altar-piece.

1 There are outline prints of this altar-piece in Passavant’s “Kunstreise,” &c.,
1833; and in Waagen’s “ Handbuch,” 1862; and there is a large copy on exhibi-
tion now (1864) in the South Kensington Museum.

2 «Die Christliche Kunst in Spanien,” Svo, 1853, p. 126. Outlines in Crowe
and Cavalcaselle’s “ Early Flemish Painters;” and in Waagen’s “Handbook of

Painting,” Murray, 1860. Among the group of Christians below, Passavant has
assumed one of the figures to represent Hubert himself.
JOHN VAN EYCOK. 141

Of the life of Hubert little is known beyond what has been already
stated. Of John we have many more facts. He was painter and
chamberlain—“ varlet de chambre”—to Jean Sans-Pitié, Duke of
Burgundy, and to his successor, Philippe le Bon. His emolument
as painter was 100 francs a-year, and he had other advantages .as
chamberlain to the Duke. John Van Eyck was employed by
Philippe also on diplomatic missions. In 1428, he visited Portugal
with the Duke’s ambassador, and painted the portrait at Lisbon of
the Princess Isabella, daughter of King John I., who was demanded
by the Duke in marriage. After the completion of this portrait in
1429, the painter made a tour of several months in Spain. He re-
turned home at the end of the year; and for this portrait and
‘“ certain secret services,” he received the sum of eighty francs. Van
Eyck made other journeys for the Duke, in 1431, 1434, and 1486.

When his brother Hubert died at Ghent, John was already a
tenant of a house at Bruges; but in 1431 he purchased a house in
that city; he paid the first seigneurial rent of 30 schellings (7s. 6d.
English), to the Cathedral, on the 24th of June, 1482, and the last
on that day in 1440: from 1441 to 1443, the rent was paid by his
widow.

The date of John’s marriage is not known; but his wife presented
him with a daughter in 1434, to whom Philippe le Bon became god-
father. The present given on the occasion was six cups of silver,
weighing 12 marks, and costing 96 francs 12 sous; equivalent
almost to the painter’s salary for an entire year. Van Eyck does
not appear among the number of the Duke’s chamberlains after
1438, He died on the 9th of July, 1440, and was-buried in the old
church of St. Donatian. The funeral was an ordinary one, the fees
amounting only to 12 francs of Paris, and the charge for bell-
ringing being 24 schellings, or 6 shillings English. How long
his widow survived him is not known. His daughter Liévine
appears to have entered the convent of Maaseyck, about 1448; and
her mother was then probably dead. Lampert Van Evcx, the
third of the brothers, survived John some years. Of the sister
Marcaret, who was also a painter, little is known. She died, and
was buried, at Ghent, in John’s lifetime, about 1430, in the Vyd
vault by the side of her brother. Both Lucas de Heere and Van
Mander speak of her as an excellent painter. She was inscribed in
1418, in the Register of the Society of Notre-Dame-aux-Rayons, of
the church of St. Bavon, at Ghent. The Academy of Bruges pos-
sesses an excellent portrait of John’s wife, painted in 1439, when
she was 33 years old.

1 L’Abbé Carton, “Les Trois Freres Van Eyck,” Bruges, 1848; Weale, “ Notes
sur Jean Van Eyck,’ &c. London and Brussels, 1861; and the “ Catalogue de
L’Académie de Bruges,” 1861, by the same writer.
142 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The works of the Van Eycks, though in their style perfect, are
not exempt from a certain offensive stiffness of design, and the cut-
ting outlines which characterize generally the pictures of the
fifteenth century. A more scientific treatment probably as to atmo-
spheric effect, would have secured them a more harmonious unity as
pictures; but, taking all the parts singly as studies from nature,
they must be allowed to be as nearly perfection as the works of
human hands can be; and so consistent was John with himself,
that we may take it as a rule that, unless an early Flemish work be
perfect in all its parts, it cannot have been painted by John Van
Eyck. Excellent as the elder Vander Weyden and Memling cer-
tainly were, in none of their works have they equalled the Van
HKycks, who are not even approached by the general mass of their
followers ; who earned, notwithstanding, well-merited reputation in
the latter half of the fifteenth century.

We are fortunate in possessing three signed Van Eycks in the
National Gallery. One specimen of John Van Eyck, John Arnol-
fini and his wife, is as fine an example of the characteristics and ex-
cellences of his style as is to be seen anywhere; the very signature
is an extraordinary piece of work as a specimen of writing. It ex-
hibits a perfect understanding of objective truth of representation ;
and shows also a high appreciation of the pictorial value of perspec-
tive and accidental appearances. ‘Two others, heads, are also re-
markable examples. All three pictures are signed :—Joh. de Eyck;
Joh’es de Eyck; and Johannes de Eyck; and respectively dated
1482, 1433, 1434.1

CHAPTER XV.

NEW TECHNICS. OIL-PAINTING. THE SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS; AN-
TONELLO DA MESSINA. THE EARLY FLEMISH AND DUTCH OIL-PAINTERS.

THE new method of painting, or rather the new colouring medium
discovered by the Van Eycks, has been frequently mentioned.
What the method was is not known ; but to distinguish it from the
common method previously in use, it is sufficiently described by the
general though vague term of oil-painting; it was, however,
literally varnish painting. Oil-painting, in the strict sense of the
term, was neither a mystery nor a novelty in the time of Hubert
Van Eyck; it is mentioned both by Theophilus and Cennini. The
work of Theophilus is conclusive; that of Cennini is not so, as it

1 See the signatures in the Catalogue, 1864.
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYOKS. 143

was written twenty-seven years after the common date assigned to
the discovery in question : but no fixed date can be assigned to it.

Vasari, who is the principal authority for this piece of history,
speaks only generally ; but yet he is sufficiently particular to ex-
plain that the Van Eyck medium was a compound of resins or resin
with oils; and though in some passages he merely alludes to the
discovery in the general term of oil-painting, he never meant to
convey the simple idea of oil-painting; but in speaking of a time
when nearly all works were painted in distemper, the general term
oil-painting was, after what he had already said, sufficiently descrip-
tive of the new method. The Cavaliere Tambroni, in his preface to
Cennini’s book, has disingenuously argued against the general ex-
pression of Vasari—oil-painting, showing, what it was easy to show,
that oil-painting was known before Van Eyck’s time; and, by the
evidence of Cennini, practised in Italy at least at the commence-
ment of the fifteenth century, if not earlier ; and he accordingly
treats the whole account as a fable, never once referring to the only
passage in Vasari which should be atall adverted to in an argument
on the subject. This passage is—‘ At last, having tried many
things, separately and compounded, he discovered that linseed and
nut-oils were the most siccative: these, therefore, he boiled with other
mixtures, and produced that varnish which he, and indeed every
painter in the world, had long desired.” This passage occurs in
the Life of Antonello of Messina, the painter who made the voyage
from Naples to Bruges, to learn with what medium John Van Eyck
produced the wonderful impasto of his works. It is worth noting
that Vasari in this passage calls the medium or vehicle a varnish,
from which some resin was evidently one of its compounds. The
whole passage clearly shows that Vasari did not contemplate ever
being misunderstood or misrepresented as he has been.

The Germans were in the habit of painting in oil before Hubert
Van Eyck, as we have seen. The method seems to have been com-
mon among them, and the oil-painting taught by Cennini was this
German method, for he prefaces his remarks on the subject. of oil-
painting with the following words :—‘ I will now teach you to
paint in oil, a method much practised by the Germans.” The oil
which Cennini recommends is linseed oil, which has been thickened
in the sun; he describes boiled linseed oil as inferior to this, which
for every pound of oil must have one ounce of liquid varnish (vernice
liquida),‘ some resinous gum. Though not probable, it is possible
that Cennini alludes to the Van Eyck medium; Cennini had appa-
rently painted in oil himself, from the minuteness with which he
describes the various processes.

1 « Trattato,” c, 91.
144 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

According to Vasari, the Van Eycks’ method was made known in
Italy in the following manner :—ANTONELLO DEGLI ANTONI, a young
painter of Messina, commonly called ANTONELLO DA Messina, saw in
the possession of the King Alfonso I. of Naples, a picture of the
Annunciation, by John Van Eyck, or Giovanni da Bruggia, as Va-
sari calls him; and being struck with the beauty of the impasto, set
out immediately for Bruges in order to discover by what means it
was produced. He obtained the secret from John Van Eyck, and
remained several years in Flanders until he had mastered the pro-
cess. He returned to Italy, and, while at Venice, communicated
the secret to Domenico Veneziano, who was, as recorded, on account
of its possession, murdered by Andrea del Castagno, at Florence,
about the year 1463. Such is the general account of Vasari, but it
would appear that John Van Eyck must have been dead already two
years when Antonello arrived at Bruges; supposing he saw the pic-
ture in question at the Court of Alfonso I. of Naples, who did not
ascend the throne until 1442, for we now know that John died in
July, 1440. We must, therefore, either assume that it was at the
court of King Réné, of Anjou, that Antonello saw the Van Eyck
picture, otherwise he cannot have acquired John’s secret from him- -
self, or he must have had it from his brother Lambert, or some one
of his scholars. Lambert may have been a painter himself, but of
this there is no evidence.

Antonello was born about 1414, and was therefore between
twenty-five and thirty years of age, when he made his journey to
Flanders. His first visit to Venice was made about the year 1451;
he then practised some years at Milan, and in 1465 he was back
again in his native city, Messina. The National Gallery possesses
a head of Christ, a Salvator Mundi, painted in this year, sufficiently
hard and brown, but well drawn and expressive; and as one of the
first oil-pictures painted in Italy, it is a work of very great histori-
cal interest ; it is dated and signed Antonellus Messaneus me pincit.

Soon after 1470, Antonello returned to Venice and established
himself there; he cultivated a numerous school and spread a
general knowledge of his method as early as the year 1473, as
already mentioned in the notice of Bartolomeo Vivarini.

There is a picture painted by Antonello at this time in the
museum of Antwerp, representing the Crucifixion between the Two
Thieves, signed—1475, Antonellus Messaneus me O° pinxt; the
O° signifying apparently Oleo.' The picture is painted on a small

1 Some Flemish writers have asserted the date of this picture to be 1445, and
presumed it a proof that Antonello was still residing in Flanders at that time.
This may be a fact; but the date of the picture is 1475, as the writer can testify,
having carefully examined it with a Coddington lens; September 13, 1846: and
again in 1863. This lens magnified the figures, scarcely visible to the naked eye,
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS. 145

panel of wild chestnut; it is somewhat in the style of the Van Eyck
school, but is more like early Venetian work: the Deposition from
the Cross, in the Munich Gallery, attributed to Marco Basaiti, is
very similar in execution to this Crucifixion by Antonello. This
painter died at Venice between 1493 and 1496."

One of the oldest but least known painters of the Van Eyck
school appears to have been Preter Curistus (erroneously called
Christophsen), of whose pictures several are still extant, of a good
quality though brown and hard, yet very inferior to those of the
Van Eycks themselves. He was born in the village of Baerle, near
Deynze, in Flanders, and his father’s name was also Peter: he
bought the right of citizenship in Bruges, as a painter, on the 6th of
July, 1444. In 1449, he painted a picture, some time in the posses-
sion of the jewellers of Antwerp, representing the ‘‘ Legend of St.
Godeberta,” the scene being a jeweller’s shop; it is now in the pos-
session of Herr Oppenheim, at Cologne, and is signed Petr’ Xfi me
fecit a° 1449. In 1452, he painted the two pictures now in the
Berlin Gallery, which formerly served as wings to another work long
in the Cathedral of Burgos. They represent ‘‘ The Annunciation,”
with “ The Nativity,” in the background; and the “ Last Judg-
ment;” and are inscribed—on the former—Petrus Xpi me fecit ; on
the latter—anno domini MCCCCLIL. In 1454, he made at Cambrai
three copies of a “ Miraculous Byzantine Madonna,” Notre Dame
de Grace, brought from San Sepolcro, at Rome; and one of these
copies is still preserved in the Hospital at Cambrai. Jn 1462, Peter
and his wife were both members of the Society of Notre Dame de
L’ Arbre Sec, at Bruges; and in 1463, he executed for that city a
“Tree of Jesse,” which was still preserved, and used in proces-
sions in 1548. He is mentioned also in the archives of the city in
1469; and on the 19th of March, 1472, he was present, in the
cloister of St. Donatus, as one of the council of the Corporation of

to more than a quarter of an inch in length. The inscription is written upon a
white ground : the figures do not appear to have been in any way tampered with,
nor could it be to the interest of any party to convert the 45 into 75; the 7 is not
a defaced 4; the construction of the two figures is different, and the position of
the 7 is an impossible one for the remains of a half cleaned out 4, as implied in
Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s “Early Flemish Painters.” The inscription is given,
but somewhat coarsely, in the new Antwerp Catalogue, the editors of which read
hesitatingly 1445, in Edit. 1849, but positively 1475, in Edit. 1857. The Berlin
Gallery does possess a genuine picture by this painter, dated 1445; itis a fine
small portrait, the head of a young man, with a landscape background, and is
signed Antonellus Messaneus me pinxit.

1 See the National Gallery Catalogue, in which there is a notice of Antonello, in
great detail. Consult also Sir Charles Eastlake’s “Materialx,” &c.; Puccini,
“ Memorie Istorico-Critiche di Antonello degli Antoni,” &c. Flor. 1809; “Me-
morie dei Pittori Messinese,” Messina, 1821; and Vasari, “ Vite,” Ed, Le Monnier,
vol. iv.

* L
146 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Painters, to hear the sentence on one John Hervy, who was prohi-
bited from practising as a painter in Bruges until he paid the pro-
scribed fee of that corporation, a sum exceeding sia livres de gros*
(thirty shillings of our money).

This last is the latest mention of Pieter Christus. The date of
1472, however, is sufficiently late to cause some doubt as to the
proper reading of the original inscription, before its restoration, which
was on the interesting oil-picture of the Virgin and Child with
SS. Jerome and Francis, now in the Stidel Museum at Frankfort,
and supposed to be dated 1417; not an impossible date, but both
the character of the picture itself, and the fact of Pieter’s first ac-
quiring his painter’s licence in Bruges in 1444, indicate 1447 as
the more probable year. We have no work even of the Van Eycks
so early as 1417.

The great scholar of John Van Eyck was Rocirr VanDER WEYDEN,
of Brussels, or of Louvain, called by Vasari Rogier of Bruges—
Ruggieri da Bruggia. He is termed by the French, Maitre Rogel,
and was the painter of the small altar-piece which the Emperor
Charles V. used to carry about with him; it is now in the Berlin
Gallery, and was formerly in the collection of the King of Holland,
at the Hague. It is composed of a centre and two doors, measures
when open about four feet wide by two high, and represents the
Nativity of Christ, his taking down from the cross, and his appari-
tion to the Virgin Mary after his resurrection. It is not one of
Rogier’s best works, if really by him. The reputed masterpiece of
this painter is a similar work on a much larger scale, representing
the Last Judgment, in the hospital at Beaune, in Burgundy; it
measures about eight feet in height and eighteen in width. It was
painted apparently before 1447, and was presented to the hospital
by the founder, Nicolas Rollin. Four likewise of his most cele-
brated works were the remarkable acts of Justice, painted on can-
vas in the town-hall of Brussels: Rogier was painter to the city
of Brussels between 1436 and 1449, certainly, and probably till his
death. These pictures are now lost.2 The Museum of Berlin
possesses a Nativity by Vander Weyden, which was originally
painted for the church of Middelburg, built in his own time, by
Pieter Blandelin, who founded Middelburg, in 1446.

The same gallery possesses an excellent small triptych, illustrat-

1 See Weale’s “ Beffroi,” vol. i, pp. 205 and 235-42, where all the facts relating
to this painter are given in full. His name is written in the documents Pieter
Cristus, Xpristus, Xpus, XPs, and Xpi (¢.e., Xps and Xpi for Christus). The abbre-
viations have led to the popular misnomers of Christophorus and Christophsen.
There was also a Sebastian Christus, a painter at Bruges, who was probably the son
of Peter: he and his wife both died before the 27th May, 1501.

2 Guicciardini makes particular mention of them in his “Descrizione di Tutti i
Paesi Bassi,’’ &c., 1588, p. 128.
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS. 147

ing the life of John the Baptist, which was formerly in Spain. But
the most magnificent of the works attributed to this grand old
master is probably the large triptych of the Van Ertborn Collec-
tion, in the Antwerp Gallery, representing the Crucifixion and the
Seven Sacraments—the Communion, Baptism, Confirmation, Confes-
sion, Ordination, Marriage, and Extreme Unction. It appears to
have been painted for Jean Chevrot, Bishop of Tournay, who died in
1460, as his arms with the episcopal arms of Tournay surmount the
principal composition. Rogier died at Brussels, June 16, 1464,’
aged upwards of sixty, and was buried in the church of Saint
Gudule: this is assumed from the fact of a gift by his widow to
the convent of St. Jacques sur Caudenberg, for the perpetual cele-
bration of a service to the memory of Rogier and his widow; and
such a service used to be performed on the day in question at Saint
Gudule. Vander Weyden, according to Van Mander, greatly re-
formed the Flemish style of design; he divested it considerably of
its Gothic rigidity. He wasa great master of expression, and his
heads are often much softer than those of Van Eyck, though his
general outline is on the whole more cutting. He is said to have
been at Rome in the year 1450, and to have been much struck with
the excellence of the works of Gentile da Fabriano. He painted in
distemper and in oil, and was the first to paint on fixed canvases
for the decorations of apartments ; he appears also to have been the
first to prefer canvas to panel to paint upon.

Facius* notices some pictures by Rogerius Gallicus, which in
1456 were in the possession of Alphonso, King of Naples, as being
painted on canvas or linen—nobiles in linteis picture. A picture of
this description, purchased in Italy, was added in 1860 to the Na-
tional Collection ; itis in tempera, on rather fine linen, and is painted
with extreme care and much taste in the treatment of the heads.
The subject is the ‘ Deposition in the Tomb ;” Joseph of Arimathea,
St. John, the Virgin Mary, and others, being present; in all eight
small figures in a landscape. John Van Eyck being discontented
with the varnished tempera panels, appears to have endeavoured to
obviate his difficulties or objections by mixing his colours with
varnish in the first instance, and thus doing away with the necessity
of varnishing and sun-drying. Vander Weyden, on the other hand,
seems to have objected to the wooden panel rather than to the ve-
hicles or method of painting; and instead of changing his method
was contented to substitute linen for wood to paint upon; and we
are fortunate to possess one of these earliest canvas pictures. The
two methods can now be examined side by side in the National Gal-
lery: the effect is certainly greatly in favour of Van Eyck and var-
nish painting.

’ Michiels, 0. c. ? “De Viris illustribus,” &e., p. 48, Flor. 1745.

L2
148 ‘THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

A Rogier Vander Weyden was received as a franc-maitre into the
guild of St. Luke, at Antwerp, in 1528, and this must be the painter
who died of the suette, at Antwerp, in 1529, if Van Mander is not in
error in his statement. This younger Rogier was most probably the
grandson of the elder painter of the name. The National Gallery.
possesses some admirable specimens ascribed to this master—por-
traits of himself and wife, and a Magdalen reading; and the Berlin
Gallery possesses an excellent “ Deposition from the Cross,” attri-
buted to him, dated 1488 ; which would show at least thatthe elder
Vander Weyden is not the author of the work. What justification
there is for these attributions, or otherwise, the future may clear
up. Rogier had a son, Cornelis, who became a monk, and died in
the Charter House of Herinnes, near Enghien, in 1475, aged 48.
A Goswin Vander Weyden was admitted a Master of the Com-
pany of St. Luke in 1503, and in the years 1514 and 1530 served
the office of Dean; he also may have been the grandson of the elder
Rogier. There is a picture by Goswin in the Gallery of Brussels,
painted in 1535, in his seventieth year, according to an inscription
upon it. :

Other very distinguished painters of this school were Hans Mem-
ling, Hugo Vander Goes, and Gerard Vander Meire. Hans or
Jan Memuine or Memuinc, has now a reputation almost rivalling
that of John Van Eyck. He was, according to some accounts, the
pupil of the elder Vander Weyden; but where or when he was
born it is equally uncertain. As he was settled and had property
at Bruges, he probably belonged to that city, and he was born some-
where about 1425. The Hans Hemling, according to an old
chronicle, born at Constanz, in 1439, was apparently another, much
younger man. There is a romantic story told of Memling, that he
served Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, both as painter and
as warrior; was at the battles of Granson and Morat; and was
admitted, in 1477, exhausted by wounds and fatigue, into the
hospital of St. John at Bruges. He is also assumed to have been
the Juan Flamenco (John the Fleming) who executed some paint-
ings for the Carthusian convent of Miraflores, near Burgos, in Spain,
in the year 1499. However, as it is now ascertained that Memling
was already dead in 1495, this Juan Flamenco was some other
Flemish Hans; and as Memling was a married man after 1477, he
is not likely to have ever been a brother of the Hospital of St. John.
His wife Anne was already dead in 1487; she left three children
by Memling, two boys and a girl, who were orphans and still
minors in 1495. Memling was already settled in Bruges, in 1479,
in his own house in the Rue St. George, as an established painter}
and he was then a citizen of property and consideration. He was
one of those who, in 1480, contributed to the city loan towards
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS. 149

defraying the expenses of the war between the Emperor Maximilian
and France.!

Among the most remarkable productions of Memling, is the cele-
brated Chasse de St. Ursule, or relic-case of St. Ursula, in the above-
mentioned hospital. It is of a Gothic design, and is embellished on
every side by miniature pictures in oil, illustrating, in six scenes,
the history of Ursula and her attendant eleven martyr virgins (XI.
M. Y.). The colouring is extremely beautiful, and all the composi-
tions are dramatic and agreeable, and executed with as much taste
as care.” In this hospital there are likewise other admirable works
by Memling : the Marriage of St. Catherine, painted in 1479, is one
of the finest paintings of the fifteenth century: it has two doors or
revolving wings, which are painted on both sides.

The marriage of the saint is on the centre piece ; on the left hand
is the beheading of John the Baptist, with some exquisite figures,
recalling the works of Stuerbout; and on the right, the Vision of
John the Evangelist on the Island of Patmos, a grand and most ex-
tensive composition, full of sentiment: the outsides of the doors have
—on the left, two hospital brothers, with St. James, and St. Antony
of Padua; on the right, two hospital sisters, with Saints Agnes and
Clara. Though this picture is better drawn and better coloured
than that of Quintin Matsys at Antwerp, and has a higher art feel-
ing, it is yet not by far so striking a work: an effect which may,
perhaps, be attributed to the comparative insignificance of the sub-
ject—the imaginary marriage of St. Catherine against the solemn
entombment of Christ. The picture is certainly much smaller, and
is nearly perfect of its kind ; but many a painter has missed a great
reputation by wasting his labour on frivolous subjects. The four
(or rather three) other works by Memling, in this hospital, are
small, but the triptych, with the “ Adoration of the Kings” in the
centre, and the ‘Presentation in the Temple” on the left wing, is
one of the most perfect of all, and this small “‘ Presentation” is per-
haps the most charming thing Memling ever painted: here the
result is worthy of the pains taken to produce it, and though not
superior to John Van Eyck in execution, itis more perfect in senti-
ment, and more universal and monumental in the quality of its
forms and expression, than is met with in the works of that won-
derful painter; it also belongs to the year 1479, and was painted for

1 We are indebted for these facts to the persevering researches in Bruges of Mr.
W. H. J. Weale, who has published some very interesting documents concerning
Memling in the “ Journal des Beaux-Arts,” 3rd year, p. 21, &c., and in his “Cata-
logue du Musée de l’Académie de Bruges,” 1861.

2 This shrine has been made the subject of a special dissertation by Baron von
Keversberg—* Ursule, Princesse Britannique, d’aprés la Légende, et les Peintures
d’Hemling ;” see also “ Notice des Tableaux qui composent le Musée de I’ Hopital
Civil de S, Jean,” & Bruges, 1842.
; a
150 -THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Jan Floreins, alias Van der Ryst, the Hospital-brother, for whom, in
the same year, the Marriage of St. Catherine was painted. The
“Sibylla Sambetha,” painted in 1480, appears to be by another
hand ; but the same lady is introduced by Memling into the picture
of St. Christopher, in the left-hand wing, painted in 1484. The two
remaining works by Memling are a‘* Descent from the Cross,” and
a “ Madonna and Child,” on one panel, with Martin Van Nieuwen-
hove, in adoration, on another; painted in 1487. The National
Gallery example, from the Weyer Collection, No. 686, is another
exquisite specimen of this painter’s work; the Madonna and Child
in it are constantly repeated by Memling, and appear to be por-
traits of his own wife and child, the former of whom he had already
lost in 1487, when she must have been yet in the prime of life, as
her children, one girl and two boys, were still minors in 1495. The
larger example in the Gallery, No. 709, from the Wallerstein Col-
lection, is from the same models.

The Academy of Bruges possesses another grand work by Mem-
ling, also a triptych—St. Christopher with the Infant Christ; St. ,
Benedict and St. Giles, in the centre; the wings are unimportant;
they represent the portraits of the donor and his wife, with figures
in grisaille of St. John the Baptist and St. George, on the outsides.
The head of St. Giles of the centre picture is exceedingly fine.
This triptych was taken to Paris in 1794, and restored to Bruges
in 1815, and placed in the gallery of the Academy.

But probably the most extraordinary, though not the most beau-
tiful, of all this painter’s productions is the wonderful picture at
Munich, representing the Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin — or
rather the joys, few of the sorrows being introduced, and the
Journey of the Three Kings from the East. This picture is said to
contain altogether about fifteen hundred figures and objects, two
hundred being human figures or heads; all is elaborately, and
much is beautifully painted. The most prominent act in this com-
plicated drama is the Adoration of the Kings, all other events are
in a manner secondary to it; but Memling, instead of painting
merely the Epiphany or the Adoration, has represented the Kings
in every stage of their journey, from the leaving their homes to
the actual Adoration; and even the territories of the Kings are
indicated, with their towns and palaces, elaborately painted, in the
extreme distance.' The whole panel, six feet five inches long by
two feet eight inches high, is nearly one mass of life, and yet there
is nowhere confusion; the view comprises an immense tract of
country, and as the point of sight is fixed very high in the picture,
the whole lies as it were at the spectator’s feet. Everything is

1 Outline in Waagen’s “ Handbook.” Murray, 1861.
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS. 151

exactly represented, all is brilliantly coloured, and many of the
figures are admirably drawn and modelled. Representations of
some of the principal Joys and Sorrows’ occupy the more imme-
diate foreground : as the ‘‘ Nativity,” the ‘‘ Adoration,” the ‘“ Re-
surrection,” and the “ Descent of the Holy Spirit ;” in the middle
ground are the ‘Annunciation,’ the ‘Murder of the Inno-
cents,” the ‘“‘ Ascension of Christ,” and the “ Assumption of the
Virgin.” The figures range in size from about one to six inches.
The “ Anonimo di Morelli”? noticed a small portrait in oil of
Isabella of Aragon, wife of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy,
by Memling, in the Grimani Palace at Venice, in 1521, and dated
1450, Memling was a great miniatore, or miniature painter; his
participation in the illumination of the Grimani Breviary has
been already mentioned.
_ Hugo Vanper Goes, a scholar and imitator of John Van Eyck,
known as Hugo d’Anversa by the Italians, was a native of Ghent,
and enjoyed a great reputation there in 1467; he was employed by
the municipality of that town in 1468, at the pay of fourteen sols
or sous the day, much beyond the average remuneration of the
time. Hugo’s works are very scarce, though about fifty in various
galleries are attributed to him; many of them, no doubt, perished
under the hands of the Dutch and Flemish iconoclasts of the
following century. There is still an altar-piece by him, of con-
siderable pretensions, in the choir of Santa Maria Nuova, at
Florence, originally executed for Tommaso, one of the Portinari
family, then resident in Bruges; Tommaso’s portrait, also by Hugo,
is in the Pitti Palace. The Pinacothek, at Munich, possesses a
picture by him, a small panel of ‘St. John in the Wilderness,”
signed H. V. D. Gors, 1472, which is finished with great delicacy,
and has an Italian character in its style. It is quite possible that
several other pictures by Vander Goes may be preserved among
the great mass of anonymous works of this time, at Brussels and
some other of the collections of the rich cities of Belgium. He
did, however, I should imagine, not live to be old, as he died not

1 The principal Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin were: Joys—1. The Annuncia-
tion; 2. The Visitation ; 3. The Nativity; 4. The Adoration of the Kings; 5. The
Presentation in the Temple; 6. Christ found by his Mother in the Temple; 7. The
Assumption and Cvronation of the Virgin.

The Sorrows were likewise seven :—l. The Prophecy of Simeon (Luke ii. 35);
2. The Flight into Egypt; 3. Christ, while disputing with the Doctors in the
Temple, missed by his Mother; 4, Christ betrayed; 5. The Crucifixion, with the
Virgin and St. John only, present ; 6. The Deposition from the Cross; and, 7. The
Ascension of Christ, the Virgin being left on Earth. See the “Speculum Salva-
tionis,” Augsburg ed.; and Kugler’s “Handbook of Painting,’ Italy, Editor's
Preface, where other series of religious representations are described.

2 « Notizia D’Opere di Disegno,” &c. Bassano, 1800. p. 75.
152 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

later than 1479, in the Augustine convent of Rooden Closter, near
Brussels, to which he had not long before retired, through dis-
appointment in love, a piece of sentimentality not very consistent
with old age. He was shortly before his death, 1478-9, chosen as
umpire between the Corporation of Louvain and the heirs of
Stuerbout, to value some unfinished works left by that painter.’

Of Grrarp Vanper Metre, also of Ghent, very little is known,
but he can scarcely have been born early enough to have been the
pupil of Hubert Van Eyck, though he may have easily worked
with John. He was enrolled a master of the Ghent Guild of St.
Luke in 1452; and we know also that he painted the portrait of a
nun of St. Clara, named Colette, who died at Ghent in 1447. In
1474, Gerard served as one of the two “sworn members” of the
corporation of painters at Ghent, and he was then probably an old
man. Jan Vander Meire, a brother of Gerard, died at Nevers in
1471.

Gerard Vander Meire painted a picture of the Virgin for the
church of St. John at Ghent; and the church of St. Bavon there still
possesses an altar-piece by him, a composition of many figures, and
a very ordinary picture; Christ on the Cross between the two
Thieves constituting the centre, with the Brazen Serpent, on the
right, and Moses Striking the Rock, on the left. In the National
Gallery are two works ascribed to him—one, a small portrait of
Marco Barbarigo, who was Venetian Consul in London in 1449,
may have been painted at that time either in Ghent or in Bruges.
Vander Meire has been supposed to be the Gerard of Ghent who
executed a great number of the miniatures of the Grimani Breviary
already mentioned; but it is just possible that a much younger
man—GERARD Horempout—was the painter of these miniatures ;
but in this case they must have been executed about 1490 rather
than 1475, a date which has been suggested for them, and a possible
one for Vander Meire, or for Memling, who was about thirty-five
years of age at that time; but Gerard Horembout was a generation
later, and was then but a child. Gerard was the father of Susanna
Horembout, who was born at Ghent about 1503, and was a dis-
tinguished artist in 1521: both she and her father settled and died
in England.’

There is another Gerard, an illuminator, and contemporary of
Horembout, who has also been supposed to be the master referred
to by Vasari and Guicciardini, in speaking of the Flemish minia-

* Van Mander; Michiels; and Count De Laborde, “ Les Dues de Bourgogne.”
Preuves, Vol. I., introduction.

2 See Ch. xxxiii.; see also Passavant, “Kunstreise,” &c.; Rathgeber’s “ Anna-
len,” &c.; Michiels, “ Peinture Flamande et Hollandaise ;” Busscher, ‘Notice sur
PAncienne Corporation des Peintres & Gand,” Brussels, 1853.
SCHOOL OF THE VAN EYCKS. 153

ture painters, and this is Geraxp Davin, a native of Oudewater,
and an excellent painter. Guicciardini says, ‘‘ Gherardo eccellen-
tissimo nel alluminare,” and assumes him to have been a native of
Bruges. He settled in Bruges about 1487, was a member of the
Corporation of Painters there in 1488, and served as Dean in
1501-2: he married the daughter of one of the principal jewellers
of Bruges. In 1508, Gerard became a member of the Society of
Notre Dame de l’Arbre Sec at Bruges, and died in that city on
the 13th of August in 1523.)

By Gerard David there are two excellent pictures in the Gallery
of Bruges, the long admired works representing the story of
Cambyses, and the Unjust Judge, Sisamnes, as related by Hero-
dotus : the son of Sisamnes succeeded to the judgment-seat, but as
a warning, the leather with which it was covered was made of his
father’s skin. The first picture represents the seizure of Sisamnes ;
the second, his flaying: they were painted in 1498. In style
they resemble the works of Stuerbout; the figures are large,
about three feet high. These two panels were taken to Paris in
1794; but were restored to Bruges in 1815, when they were placed
in the Museum: the same gallery contains two miniatures on
vellum by Gerard David. :

Judging from the style of the pictures above described, and their
resemblance to the works of Stuerbout, it is not improbable that
this great Dutch painter was the master of Gerard, by whom there
are certainly many other pictures among the mass of the mis-
named and unnamed works of the fifteenth century which abound
in the galleries of the Low Countries.

Dirrick Stusrsout, or contracted, Bouts, called by Guicciardini
and Van Mander, Dirk Van Haarlem, was born in that city about
1391; his father, Dirk Stuerbout of Louvain, was a skilful landscape
painter: he died, aged seventy-four, on the 6th of May, 1400; and
is the Dirick da Lovano noticed by Guicciardini.

Stuerbout is the earliest distinguished historical painter of Hol-
Jand, and is in some respects not second to any of the painters of
the Netherlands: his colouring is particularly rich, and in the
character of the drawing of his figures, though they are somewhat
elongated, he attained an excellence not reached by some of his
immediate successors even of great name. He seems to have lived
chiefly at Haarlem, for he was an old man in 1461, the year he
is supposed to have settled in Louvain, on being appointed painter
to that city. His now most celebrated pictures were executed, or
finished at least, when he was nearly eighty years of age.

1 For these facts respecting this hitherto unknown painter we are indebted to
Mr. Weale; see the “ Beffroi,” vol. i., p. 223, opposite to which is a portrait of Gerard
photographed from a drawing. ;
154 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The paintings: alluded to are the two of the Golden Legend, for-
merly in the collection of the King of Holland at the Hague; they
were painted for the Council-hall at Louvain in 1468, and Dierick
was paid 230 crowns for them. These works are called the
First and Second pictures of the Emperor Otho and the Empress
Mary. They illustrate a remarkable event which took place in
985. The story is recorded in the.Chronicles of Louvain, and is
known as the Golden Legend. The Emperor, Otho III., while
at Modena, on his return from a journey to Rome, condemned to
death one of his courtiers, an Italian Count, upon the accusation
of the Empress Mary that he had attempted her honour during the
emperor’s absence; the accusation was, however, false; she had
attempted in vain to seduce the Count, and pursued this course out
of revenge. The Count was beheaded; but his widow, confident in
his innocence, threw herself at the feet of the emperor, with the
head of her husband in her arms, and holding in her hand a red-
hot bar of iron with impunity, supplicated him for justice. The
emperor, convinced by the fire-ordeal, an infallible proof, determined
to make what reparation he could, and ordered the empress to be
burnt at the stake.

From this story Stuerbout painted these two large pictures, mea-
suring about six feet wide by eleven high. In the first the emperor
is listening to the accusation of the empress, and the Count is being
led out in his shirt to execution, which is represented in the back-
ground. In the second the widow is kneeling before the emperor
with the head of her husband on her left arm, and the hot bar of
iron inher right hand; and in the distance of this piece the em-
press is being burnt at the stake: in both pictures are various
attendants. These paintings are much in the style of the Van
Eycks, or rather Vander Weyden and Memling, in execution, and
are extremely elaborated, especially the Second picture which is supe-
rior to the First. They were fixed on the wainscoting of the justice-
hall at Louvain; and by each was a panel containing an explanation
of the subjects in the Flemish language and in gold Gothic letters.
Being in a very dirty state and exposed to decay, they were pur-
chased by the then King of Holland in 1827, were long in the
palace of the Prince of Orange at Brussels, in 1841 were placed in
the royal gallery at the Hague, and have recently been purchased
for the Gallery at Brussels, in which they are now permanently
located.

The galleries of Berlin, Munich, and other places, certainly have
some fine examples of this painter, under other names, which are,
however, gradually being restored to him.

Stuerbout died in 1479-80, aged about eighty-seven, leaving some
important commissions for the Town Council of Louvain unexecuted.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 155

In the “ Annales et Antiquités de Louvain,” first made known by
M. De Bast, we learn that Stuerbout was commissioned on the 20th
May, 1468, that is, after the completion of the two Golden Legend
pictures, to paint two other works for the town-hall, for the sum
of 500 crowns :—a ‘Last Judgment,” six feet high by four
feet wide, and another, twelve feet high by twenty-six feet wide.
The former was executed, and was for many years in the town-
hall; the larger work was never completed, What was done was
valued by Hugo Vander Goes at 306 florins 36 plekken, which
money was accordingly paid to the painter’s family. His brother
Giles succeeded him in his office of painter to the city of Louvain,
and he appears to have had also two other brothers, Hubert and
Frederic. Molanus speaks of an Albertus Bouts as a painter, but
Hubert is supposed to be meant.’

This school of art continued in the Netherlands with but little
variety until the sixteenth century, when great changes were
effected by the Flemish artists who had studied in Italy, after the
production of the great works by Raphael and Michelangelo at
Rome. The character of the art of Germany was of a kindred
quality, and was in part derived from this early school of the
Netherlands.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE QUATTROCENTISTI OR MASTERS OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY IN TUS-
CANY, UMBRIA, VENETIA, BOLOGNA, AND NAPLES. PROGRESSION FROM
THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE IMITATIVE, THROUGH THE GRADUAL DEVE-
LOPMENT OF NATURALISM,

Notwirastanpine the great advances made by Masaccio and his
contemporaries, the art was still more representative than imita-
tive; or rather, every picture was more the representation of a
subject, than the imitation of objects, which a true reproduction of
nature requires. Filippino Lippi, Perugino, Francia, Mantegna,
the Bellini, and others, attained this stage, to a great extent, though
not perfectly ; and it is the more natural treatment and elaboration

1 Edw. Van Even, in the “ Dietsche Warande,”’ 1858, pt. 1, has given an out-
line portrait of Stuerbout, and some extracts about the early Dutch and Flemish
painters, from the unpublished “ History of Louvain,” by Jan van der Molen, com-
monly called Molanus, who died in 1585: these extracts fix some important dates.
The Latin title of the MS. is “ Historie Lovaniensium libri xiv., auctore Joanne
Molano.”
156 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of details which constitutes the peculiar service of the later Quattro-
centisti. But the art was even not yet purified from the per-
nicious alloy of ecclesiastical tradition ; and until such consumma-
tion pure dramatic art and pure unaffected sentiment were alike
impossible.

: Tuscan ScHoor.

Fiuireixo Lirrt (1460-1505) was a Florentine by birth; and in
consequence of his father’s death during his childhood he became
the pupil of Sandro Botticelli, his father’s famous scholar: he went
far beyond his father and his master in excellences of execution,
‘and was in every sense one of the greatest painters of his century ;
indeed, in some respects he left little to be done by the great
cinque-centisti, of whom he failed to be one only on account of his
early death ; but, like other artists, he was not always equal.

He was employed about 1485 to complete the frescoes in the
Brancacci chapel in the church del Carmine in Florence, which had
been left unfinished by Masolino da Panicale and Masaccio. His
works in this chapel are full of dramatic power: they are,—“ the
Restoring of the Youth to Life” (commenced by Masaccio); the
Crucifixion of St. Peter; St. Peter and St. Paul before Nero or the
Pro-consul; St. Peter liberated from Prison; and, according to
some critics, also the celebrated picture of “St. Paul visiting St.
Peter in Prison,” from which Raphael borrowed the figure of
St. Paul for the cartoon of ‘‘ Paul preaching at Athens,” as already
mentioned in the notice of Masaccio. This figure, so long attri-
buted to Masaccio, was given to Filippino by Vasari himself, in his
first edition, but the passage was omitted in the second. The
editors of the new edition of Vasari have adopted the opinion which
restores the picture to Filippino. Rumobr, however, in his “ Italian
Researches,”* gives the whole side-wall on the left to Masaccio, with
the exception of certain portions of the ‘ Resuscitation of the
Youth,” executed later by Filippino; and Gaye, in his valuable
“Unedited Correspondence of Artists,”® taking into consideration
the distinction of style, assigns the fresco of “St. Paul visiting
St. Peter in Prison” positively to Masaccio, while he assigns the
opposite fresco of the ‘ Liberation of St. Peter” to Filippino. Thus
the authorship is still a question. The most important fresco in
the chapel, however, Peter and Paul before the Pro-consul, is now
unanimously, with the exception of Rosini in his “ History of
Painting in ltaly,” assigned to Filippino, a restitution due to
Rumohr and Gaye, for Vasari had himself, in his first edition, given
it to Filippino: and the introduction of certain portraits in it,

1 “*Ttalienische Forschungen,” ii, 246,
2 “Cartegzio Inedito d’Artisti,” ii, 47 1, 472.
THE QUATTROOENTISTI, 157

independent of the distinction of style, renders it impossible that
either Masolino or Masaccio can have executed the work: on the
other hand, the fresco of the “ Fall,” which has been attributed to
Filippino, is now assigned to Masolino da Panicale.

Filippino painted also at Rome and Bologna: he was at Rome
about 1493. The National Gallery possesses two remarkable easel
pictures in tempera by this painter,—the Madonna and Infant
Christ, with St. Jerome and St. Dominic adoring, formerly in the
Rucellai chapel in San Pancrazio at Florence ; and a small “ Adora-
tion of the Kings,” with a crowd of small figures exquisitely painted :
this is so remarkable a work for its time that it may well be the
picture of which Vasari relates the following anecdote :—having
painted a composition of small figures for his friend Piero del
Pugliese, he executed it with such skill and care that, when another
citizen expressed a wish to have a similar work, Filippino declined
the commission, remarking that it was impossible to paint a second
picture like it.

Filippino’s last work, a Descent from the Cross, in the Academy
at Florence, was left unfinished by him, and was completed by
Pietro Perugino. His figures generally are executed with peculiar
energy and ease; his women are elegant, the men dignified, and his
forms full of life, the emotions well expressed, their action true
and dramatic; and he probably surpassed all his contemporaries in
the power of representing appearances, one of the last accomplish-
ments in the perfection of the art.

The younger Pesello, already mentioned, was a very remarkable
painter of this period, but it is difficult to award to each master his
own works, as the manner of the school was so decided that several
painted in a very similar taste in every respect; as the Peselli,
Pollajuolo, Ghirlandajo, and others.

Giuliano Pesello’s grandson, Francesco pi Pesetto, called Psszn-
LINO, though first taught by his grandfather, was, it seems, also
the scholar and imitator of Fra Filippo Lippi; and he was a most
excellent master for his time, but he died young, aged only thirty-
five, July 29th, 1457. The Liverpool Institution possesses a good
example of this painter—St. Bernardino Preaching, and the exhi-
bition of a Relic: it contains portraits of Cosmo de’ Medici, his son
Piero, and his grandsons Lorenzo and Giuliano. It is a very
interesting picture, sharply and carefully painted. Pesellino’s
works are not so delicate as the best of Fra Filippo’s, but there is
in the Louvre a picture by him, which was formerly a worthy
Predella to an altar-piece by Fra Filippo, in Santa Croce at Flo-
rence. His masterpiece, however, is probably the Trinit& in the
National Gallery, a magnificent work, and painted about twenty
years before the birth of Michelangelo. A Piero di Lorenzo, of
158 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Pratese, is mentioned as having kept shop (Bottega) with Pesellino,
after his grandfather’s death, in 1446.!

The greatest of the other contemporaries of the two Lippi were
Antonio del Pollajuolo, Domenico del Ghirlandajo, and Luca Sig-
norelli of Cortona: others of less distinction were Raffaelino
del Garbo, Cosimo Rosselli, Piero di Cosimo, and Andrea Ver-
rocchio, the master of Leonardo da Vinci and Pietro Perugino.

Antonio Pottasvoto (about 1430-1498), sculptor, goldsmith, and
engraver, of Florence, turned his attention only latterly to paint-
ing: he was one of the assistants of Lorenzo Ghiberti in the archi-
trave of the second gates of the Baptistery of Florence, completed in
1452, and was a celebrated sculptor, or rather founder ; and, accord-
ing to Vasari, was the first artist who had recourse to dissection
for the purposes of art. In painting he generally worked conjointly
with his brother Piero, ten years his junior, and who had studied
under Andrea del Castagno: there is a Coronation of the Virgin,
in the Church of San Gimignano, which was painted by Piero
in 1483.

Antonio’s masterpiece in painting is the “ Martyrdom of St. Sebas-
tian,” formerly in the Pucci chapel in the church of San Sebastiano
de’ Servi at Florence, now in the National Gallery: it was com-
pleted in 1475, the year in which Michelangelo was born, and,
though exceedingly hard in style and symmetrical in the general
composition and in the actual attitude of the several figures, it
displays a good natural drawing of the figure, especially in the
extremities. The muscular action of some of the limbs is much
praised by Vasari: the four principal bowmen in the foreground
are four views of only two attitudes, the corresponding figures
being back and front views of the same posture. It is a fine ex-
ample of early Italian oil-painting. The smaller picture in the
National Gallery, No. 296, ‘‘ The Virgin adoring the Infant
Christ,” is also most probably the work of this painter; and it is a
remarkable specimen of the skill in manipulation of the Italian
tempera painters of the fifteenth century. Pollajuolo died rich at
Rome, whither he had gone in 1484, by the invitation of Innocent
VIIL., and was buried in the church of San Pietro in Vinculis. By
his will, dated Nov. 4th, 1496, he left to each of his two daughters
the handsome fortune of 5000 golden ducats. His works in Rome
were almost exclusively monumental. He engraved a few plates.
His death is placed in the beginning of 1498, but his birth is not
positively known within seven years: 1430 is the mean time.®

Domenico Bicorp1, commonly called De. GuirLanpago (1449-98),
was born at Florence, and was called Ghirlandajo from his father, a

1 See Milanesi, “ Documenti,” &c., quoted in p. 110.
2 See Gaye, “ Carteggio,” &c.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 159

goldsmith, famed for his manufacture of garlands. Domenico, besides
being a jeweller and goldsmith of eminence, and one of the most
refined and skilful painters of his time, combining the sentiment of
Fra Angelico with the manliness of Masaccio, had the distinction
of being, for three years, the master of Michelangelo, who was
articled to him in 1488. Domenico has left many famous works in
Florence, in fresco and in tempera, still in good preservation ; those
in the Sassetti chapel in the Sma Trinita, representing the life of
St. Francis, and completed in December, 1485, of which series the
death of the Saint is one of his greatest works; and those of the
Tornabuoni chapel in Santa Maria Novella, finished in 1490, in
which is the celebrated portrait of the beautiful Ginevra de’ Benci.
They have been engraved by Carlo Lasinio. He was also one of
the painters employed by Sixtus IV. in the decoration of the Sistine
chapel at Rome in 1480-4. The National Gallery possesses an
exceedingly beautiful specimen ascribed to this painter, but his
authorship of the work is much doubted. The Berlin Gallery con-
tains several very fine tempera pictures attributed to Ghirlandajo ;
among them the portrait of a young lady of the Tornabuoni family ;
and a Madonna and Child in glory with St. Francis, John the Evan-
gelist, Jerome, and John the Baptist; the last being finished by
his pupil Francesco Granacci, who became afterwards a great
admirer and imitator of Michelangelo. Ghirlandajo worked also
in Mosaic. Among his assistants were his two brothers, David and
Benedetto.

Cosmo RossELii (1439-1506) was the son of Lorenzo Rosselli, a
Florentine mason, and was the pupil of Neri di Bicci. He was the
master of Fra Bartolomeo, and was the companion of Ghirlandajo in
the decoration of the Sistine chapel. When Sixtus invited the best
painters of his time to visit Rome, about 1480, to decorate his new
chapel, he offered a prize to the most successful, and Vasari relates
that Cosimo, conscious of his inability to rival his more able com-
petitors, among whom were also Luca Signorelli and Pietro Pe-
rugino, and equally doubtful of the Pope’s judgment, loaded his
figures with ultramarine and gold; by which artifice he won the
Pope’s admiration and gained the prize. These frescoes are still
preserved. Rumohr has observed that Cosimo, though a follower
of the footsteps of Fra Giovanni and Masaccio, in his earlier career,
eventually neglected these great examples, and fell into a lifeless
and hideous mannerism,—a censure somewhat justified by the
Rucellai altar-piece by this painter in the National collection.

Rosselli’s eccentric pupil and assistant Piero pi Cosimo (about
1460-1521) was a greater genius than his master: he delighted,
and was skilled in painting landscape. He accompanied Cosimo to
Rome, and painted the landscape to his “Sermon on the Mount” in
160 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the Sistine chapel.. Piero preferred the pagan to the Christian
mythology, and we have a charming example of his work in the
“Death of Procris ” in the National Gallery.

Filippino’s master, Sanpro Borriceiit (1447-1515), though capable
of expressing beautiful and refined sentiment, was another of the
distinguished painters of this period who was comparatively void of
taste in the treatment of his forms, his works displaying almost all
the faults of the quattro-centismo. The National Gallery, however,
possesses a fine example of his happier expression in the Madonna
and Child, numbered 275, which as regards sentiment is certainly a
work of a high order of beauty, however technically imperfect. His
type of female face is, as a rule, coarse, and altogether without
beauty, though Venus was a favourite subject with him.

Luca Signoretti of Cortona is one of those artists whose works
contributed most towards the great epoch of art which immediately
followed the close of the fifteenth century. He was born at Cor-
tona about 1441, and became the pupil of Piero della Francesca.
His earliest works are at Arezzo, where he was painting in 1472.
He was then engaged at Citta di Castello, afterwards in Perugia,
and in 1484 in Rome. He gained so great a reputation that Citta
di Castello voted him a citizen, and his native town of Cortona
elected him in 1488 one of its chief magistrates. His most cele-
brated works are the frescoes in a chapel of the Cathedral of
Orvieto,' executed between 1499 and 1503. They represent the
history of Antichrist, the Resurrection of the Dead, Hell, and
Paradise. ‘The usual biblical and theological subjects,” says Sir
Charles Eastlake,’ “which appear to have been authorized during
the middle ages, were adopted by the great painters, with no other
change than that of superior treatment. These illustrations existed
originally in illuminated MSS., and when wood-engraving was in-
vented, the same subjects, and sometimes precisely the same designs,
were repeated. The wild mystery called the History of Antichrist
may perhaps be less ancient, or, being probably of Greek origin,
may have been less known among the Italian and German painters
than the usual Scriptural and legendary subjects. The block-book
‘Der Entkrist, printed about 1470, was not, however, the first
that added this series of representations to those in general use ;
since a similar work, the Historia Sancti Johannis Hvangeliste, ejusque
Visionis Apocalyptice, appeared more than twenty years earlier.
Luca Signorelli appears to have adopted his general inventions at
Orvieto from these or similar sources.” The painting of this chapel
of the Madonna di San Brizzio was commenced in 1447 by Fra
Giovanni da Fiesole, who painted only a part of the ceiling. The

1 Engraved in Della Valle’s “Storia del Duomo d’Orvieto,” Rome, 1791.
° Kugler, “ Handbook of Painting,” Italy : Note.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 161

frescoes were continued by Luca Signorelli in 1499: his contract is
dated April 5 of that year. He undertook the completion of the
ceiling for two hundred ducats, and the painting of the walls for
six hundred ducats, besides free lodging, and two measures of wine,
with two quarters of corn every month. The ceiling was finished
in 1500, and the amount of remuneration for the rest of the chapel
will enable us to form a good conjecture as to the completion of the
whole. As the ceiling therefore occupied one season, the rest may
have occupied three, which would bring the conclusion of the
whole at the latest down to 1503, which is only three years before
Michelangelo exhibited at Florence his celebrated design known as
the “Cartoon of Pisa:” and such is the vigour and boldness dis-
played in these works, in invention, in the drawing of the naked
figure and in foreshortening, that Vasari and many others have
indicated Signorelli as the immediate precursor of Michelangelo.
Vasari says that Michelangelo always expressed high admiration
for the works of Signorelli, and observes that all may see that he
made use of the inventions of Luca in his great work of the Last
Judgment in the Sistine chapel at Rome, especially in the forms of
the angels and demons, and in the arrangement.

Luca Signorelli died after 1524 at Arezzo, whither he had retired
in his old age, and where he lived, says Vasari, more after the
manner of a nobleman than an artist. Luca’s nephew, Francesco
Signorelli, also distinguished himself as a painter: he was still
living in 1560.

GIANNANTONIO Razzi, or, correctly, Bazzi (De Bazis), commonly
called In Sopoma,' though a native of Vercelli in Piedmont, where
he was born about 1477, represented the great cinque cento develop-
ment of the art at Siena, where he settled and became a citizen,
His father, Giacomo, was a shoemaker, and the son’s education is
obscure; but he was the scholar of Martino Spanzotti of Casale at
Vercelli, and seems to have spent some years at Rome previous to
his establishment in 1501 at Siena.* Agostino Chigi invited him to
Rome about 1502 to decorate his villa on the Tiber, afterwards
known as the Farnesina; and Julius IJ. employed him in the
Vatican Stanze; but what he did there, with the exception of a few
ornamental decorations, was destroyed to give place to the new

1 Sodoma appears to be a corruption of the name Sodona, used by himself,
according to an inscription by his own hand on a picture in the chapel of the Com-
mune in the town-hall at Siena :—“ Ad honorem Virginis Marie Jo. Antonius... .
Sodona Eques et Comes Palatinus faciebat MDX XXVIII.” Della Valle, “ Lettere,”
vol. iii, p. 251; Gaye, “Carteggio Inedito d’Artisti,” vol. iL, 274.

.” See on the name of Bazzi, and some other particulars of this painter’s life, the
“Notizie intorno alla patria e ai primi studi del Pittore Giovan Antonio Bazzi,”
&e., dal P. D. Luigi Bruzza, in the “ Miscellanea di Storia Italiana,” vol. i. Razzi
is an old misprint for Bazzi.

M
162 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

series of decorations undertaken by Raphael. Chigi was led to
invite Bazzi to Rome from the reputation he acquired by the con-
tinuation of a series of frescoes commenced by Luca Signorelli in
the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Oliveto, on the road from
Siena to Rome. His chief works were executed at Siena, where he
was already established, and married, in 1510. These are the two
frescoes of the Chapel of Santa Caterina da Siena, in the Church of
San Domenico, completed in 1526. They have been the constant
admiration of painters from Baldassare Peruzzi, and Annibale
Carracci, down to the present time. On one side of the altar is
St. Catherine in Eestasy, according to the legend; on the other
side she is represented fainting, and about to receive the Eucharist
from the angel. Both are remarkable for their expression and
composition. Bazzi excelled in these qualities, and was also a good
eolourist. He was, however, unequal: his latest works are un-
worthy of him; and Lanzi pays him the doubtful compliment that,
“though unwilling to paint well, he did not know how to paint
badly.” The scenes from the ‘Life of the Virgin,” painted in
1536-8, in conjunction with Pacchiarotto and Beccafumi in the
Palace of the Signoria, and in the Oratory of San Bernardino, do
not come under this censure. But Rumohr prefers his earlier works
at Monte Oliveto for their simple dignity and character. Vasari
describes Bazzi’s habits as so eccentric that he acquired the nick-
name of Mattaccio from the monks of Oliveto. He certainly managed
his affairs badly; for though enjoying a great reputation, and em-
ployed in many other Italian cities, as Volterra, Pisa, and Lucca,
he seems to have squandered away his property, and he died poor,
though not destitute, in the great hospital of Siena, February 14,
1549. He left his wife a small house and vineyard. His reputa-
tion was extraordinary in his time. Paolo Giovio compares it with
that of Raphael.! Leo X. created him a Cavaliere of the Order of
Cristo, and, like Titian, he was made a Count Palatine by the
Emperor Charles V. His works are rare in galleries, as his time
was chiefly devoted to fresco-painting. He painted in oil a “‘ Death
of Lucretia” for Leo X., which was reckoned among his best
works. This may be the picture formerly in the Kestner Collec-
tion, mentioned by Kugler, as worthy of Raphael. Speth® notices
especially as Bazzi’s masterpiece the ‘“ Deposition from the Cross”
over an altar in the church of San Francesco, at Siena, painted in
1513, and which he compares with the Borghese “ Entombment,”
by Raphael.

Bazzi had a considerable school, of whom the principal were

1 In his Eulogium on Raphael—« Plures pari pzene gloria certantes artem exce-

perunt, et in his Sodomas Vercellencis.” Lanzi, “ Storia Pittorica,” &c. i. p. 282.
2 « Kunst in Italien,” ii. p. 134. ‘
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 163

Bartolomeo Neroni, called Il Riccio (living 1573), married to his
only daughter, and Michelangelo Anselmi (1491-1554), who be-
came afterwards an imitator of Correggio.

Though the school of Florence took a decided lead in matters of
art at the close of the fifteenth century, Rome, Venice, Padua, and
Bologna were not unworthy competitors for fame.

Umsrian ScHoou.

At Rome, Prerro Vanuccl, born at Citta della Pieve in 1446, but
commonly called Prruaino, from Perugia, in which place he settled,
enjoyed a very distinguished name: it was, however, to the
Florentine painters that he owed much of the excellence of his
works. Whether he was the pupil of Verocchio or not, he had
during his residence in Florence the example of the noble works of
Fra Giovanni and of the Brancacci chapel; and no painter, even of
ordinary ability, could at that time have beheld such works with-
out being incited to emulation and improved by them. His taste
in form or design was generally mean or little; his forms are dry
and meagre when correct, and his draperies extremely stiff and
formal. His composition is mere symmetrical arrangement; his
figures, however, often show a graceful delicacy of attitude and
motion, and a softness and simplicity of expression unequalled by
any of his immediate contemporaries; in colouring he was perhaps
in advance of all his contemporaries: this is, however, a quality
which he had in common with the majority of the best Umbrian
painters, as Piero della Francesca, or even Lorenzo di San Severino,
an early painter comparatively unknown, by whom there is a
signed picture in the National collection,. exceedingly warm and
rich in colouring.

The painters of Umbria are remarkable for a characteristic bril-
liancy of colouring beyond, perhaps, any of their contemporaries.
There is also a simplicity and devoutness about their works which
is characteristic of them. Perugino never lost these characteristics.
Piero DELLA Francesca, so called from his mother, for he was born
after his father’s death, was the most distinguished of the early
Umbrian painters. He was born at Borgo San Sepolcro about 1410,
not earlier; hence he is also sometimes called Piero Borghese; and
he was, according to Vasari, Perugino’s master; though Mariotti!
mentions Niccolo Alunno as the master of Pietro.

1 “Tettere Pittoriche Perugine,” &c., 8vo., Perugia, 1788. Alunno painted from
1458 to 1499; he was a native of Foligno, and he is assumed by Rumohr to have
been the master who signed “ Nicolai Fulginatis opus.” There are some remains
of his work, in the church of San Francesco at Assisi, which was praised by Vasari.
There is a “ Madonna and Child” in the Brera at Milan ; and our National Gallery

possesses an Hece Homo by this painter, who is said to haye been the master also of
Pinturicchio and L’Ingegno.

M 2
164 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Piero received a scientific education in his youth, but at the age
of fifteen turned his attention to painting; and in after life made
valuable use of his early instruction in an attempt, among other
similar pursuits, to develop the laws of perspective, as already
mentioned.1_ He must have been a painter of great consideration in
his time. His first patron was Federigo di Montefeltro, Duke of
Urbino. He was employed also at Arezzo, Perugia, Pesaro,
Ancona, and Rimini. He was in Rimini in 1451. A fresco by
him is still preserved in the church of San Francesco, signed Pztri
ve Boreo orus, MCCCCLI. In this picture is the portrait of Sigis-
mondo Malatesta, the husband of Isotta da Rimini (she was his
fourth wife), of whom there is in the National Gallery a tempera
portrait in profile, attributed to Piero. In spite of the singularity
of the costume and the pose of the figure, this is a beautiful picture,
finished with the utmost care, even to the reflexes, and it is ex-
ceedingly brilliant in colour. It was probably painted at this
time, 1451. It was perhaps from Rimini that Piero was invited
by the Duke Borso to Ferrara, where he was employed to embel-
lish the palace Schifanoja; but what he did here was destroyed
when the palace was rebuilt and enlarged by the Duke Ercole in
1469; and the new decorations were intrusted to Cosimo Tura,
about 1471. Piero della Francesca was probably then blind.
Vasari states that in his sixtieth year Piero became blind owing to
a cold in his eyes. This would be about 1470; and this date accords
with another fact recorded by Vasari, that Piero survived the loss
of his sight twenty-six years, for he was still living in 1494. Fra
Luca speaks of him as living, in his “Summa de Arithmetica,” p. 68,
which was published in that year. Piero was one of those invited
to Rome by Pope Nicholas V., and whose works in the Vatican
were destroyed to make room for the frescoes of Raphael. The
‘‘ Resurrection of Christ,” one of Piero’s best works, is still preserved
in the Palazzo de’ Conservadori, at Citta San Sepolecro.

Perugino displayed a charming taste for colour in his tempera
pictures, and when he adopted the new method of oil-painting he
added a force and effect unprecedented in the schools of Rome and
Florence, and afterwards equalled only by Francia at Bologna.

1 Sig. Giuseppe Bossi of Milan was in 1810 in possession of an original MS. work
on Perspective, by Piero, See “ Del Cenacolo,” &c., p.17. Some of his writings were,
according to Vasari, dishonestly published by his pupil, Fra Luca dal Borgo, or
Luca Pacciolo, as his own; but the accuracy of this statement is doubted. Fra
Luca has published no work on perspective : his works are, “Summa Arithmeti-
ce ;” “La Divina Proporzione,” with figures by Leonardo da Vinci; and “ Inter-
pretazione di Euclide.” Where Luca speaks of perspective, he notices Piero della
Francesca as El Monarca de la Pintura. A life of Piero was published at Florence
in 1835, by Gherardi Dragomanni. The date, 1898, commonly assumed as the year
of Piero’s birth, is, from facts stated above, very improbable ; it is much too early.
 

FROM THE “ ENTOMBMENT,” 1 THE Pitrr PaLace.

By Pietro PEerucixo.
Page 165.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI, 165

The National Gallery possesses examples of both styles,—the ex-
quisite small Madonna, of the tempera colouring, and the large
Madonna, with the archangels, of the oil-painting, the latter being
the lower portion of the celebrated altar-piece of the Certosa of
Pavia: the small fish in the hand of Tobias in this picture is
worthy of the most illusive of Dutch painters.

Pietro, like Margaritone, outlived the art of his own time. When
he saw the rival cartoons of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo
at Florence in 1506, he felt that his own star was declining, and
accordingly set himself against the innovation, and unreservedly
expressed his disapproval of the new style of design in the presence
of Michelangelo himself, who, so far from respecting the prejudices
of the worthy sexagenarian, called him a dunce in art (goffo nell’ arte).
Perugino took him before a magistrate for the affront; but the dis-
pute ended, says Vasari, with little credit to the complainant.

Pietro was settled at Perugia, where he established an academy
of great reputation; but, according to Vasari, his love of money
rendered it more a picture factory latterly than a genuine school of
art: he is said to have lost some important commissions on account
of the exorbitance of his charges. He had already gained his repu-
tation at Perugia before 1495, as Giovanni Santi, the father of
Raphael, mentions him in the highest terms as a painter, in his
poetical chronicle, or ‘‘ Life” of the Duke Federigo of Urbino,
where he is charmingly compared with Leonardo da Vinci :—

Due giovin’ par d’etate e par d’amori
Leonardo da Vinci e ’1 Perusino
Pier della Pieve, che son’ divin pittori.)

He appears to have been an extraordinary character; Vasari says
he denied the immortality of the soul. He died at Castello di
Fontignano in 1524, having refused either to take the sacrament or
to confess, and he was accordingly buried in unconsecrated ground
in a field by the public road: he was curious, he replied to the
remonstrance of the priest, to ascertain the fate of a soul that had
never confessed. Such is the statement of Gasparo Celio, a Roman
painter of the sixteenth century, as cuming from Niccolo dalle
Pomerance, whose wife was related to Pietro’s. He signed himself
sometimes Perrus Perusinus, and sometimes Petrus pr Castro
Puesis: he was a citizen only of Perugia, and was born at Citta
della Pieve.*

1 Passavant, “ Rafael,” &., vol. i. p. 53.

2 Memoirs of Perugino are numerous: see Mariotti, “ Lettere Pittoriche Peru-
gine,” 1788; Orsini, “ Vita, Elogio e Memorie dell Egregio Pittore Pietro Perugino
e degli Scolari di esso,” Perugia, 1804; Mezzanotte, “Della Vita e delle Opere
di Pietro Vannucci da Castello della Pieve,” &., Perugia, 1836 - and Vermiglioli,
“Memorie, &e., of Pinturicchio and Perugino,” Perugia, 1837.
166 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Perugino’s greatest glory is that of having been the master of
Raphael. He had many other scholars more or less distinguished,
as Bernardino Pinturicchio, Lo Spagna, Andrea Luigi of Assisi,
called L’Ingegno on account of his great abilities ; but all that now
certainly remains of his work, is a coat-of-arms at Assisi, painted
in 1484; Domenico and his son Orazio, di Paris Alfani, Eusebio da
San Giorgio, Giannicola da Perugia, Berto di Giovanni, Sinibaldo
da Perugia, Adone Doni of Assisi, and Palmerini of Urbino. No
pupils ever imitated their master so closely as did those of Peru-
gino, Raphael himself, before his visit to Florence and acquaint-
ance with Fra Bartolomeo, painted completely in his style.

BERNARDINO PINTURICCHIO was born at Perugia in 1454. He is
more correctly Bernardino di Betto—that is, the son of Benedetto:
his family name is not known. Pinturicchio is a variation of
Pentorichio, “the little painter!” After Raphael, Pinturicchio was
the most distinguished of Perugino’s school; though it is assumed
that he studied with Niccolo Alunno before he joined Perugino,
with whom he was as much an assistant as a scholar: he was with
him at Rome about 1484. In 1492 he was employed at Rome and
at Orvieto, and in 1502, on the 29th of June,! he received his great
commission from Cardinal Piccolommini to decorate the library of
the cathedral of Siena. In this work Pinturicchio employed
Raphael (then a mere youth) as one of his assistants; but how far
that assistance extended is quite unknown: the works occupied
until 1509. They represent in ten frescoes the principal events of
the life of Enea Silvio Piccolommini, who was afterwards Pope
Pius II.; and Pinturicchio treated his subject in a purely dramatic
or natural sense, attempting to represent the incidents chosen as he
imagined they must have happened, without respect to convention
or custom of any kind. Still he has imbued his works with but
little of the spirit of the cinquecento. Though he forsook the manner
of Perugino, he did not master that of the great revivers of the art,
as indeed was scarcely possible, considering that little was then
achieved, and of that little but a very small portion must have
been known to him. Pinturicchio was latterly careless, and, like
Perugino, was accused of allowing the love of gain to supplant
devotion to art: like his master in another respect, he trusted too
much to his pupils. He was a great decorator. The vault of the
choir of Santa Maria del Popolo, at Rome, painted before 1502, was
perhaps the most magnificent pictorial decoration that had been at
that time produced in Rome. His landscape views executed in the
Vatican have perished. He had a great taste for landscape, and
showed himself throughout his works an original observer of

1 Milanesi, “ Documenti,” &e. iii. p. 9.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 167

Nature: many of his incidents, in subject and treatment, border
on naturalism. Vasari relates that he died throngh his avarice;
but this story is indignantly contradicted by Mariotti and others.
The true account of his death, however, is sufficiently melancholy :
he was confined to his bed: by sickness, and the infamous woman
his wife Grania, deserted him. She locked him up alone in his
house, and there left him to starve. This happened at Siena,
December 11, 1513."

Giovanni DI Pierro, commonly called Lo Spacna, and sometimes
Lo Spagnolo, the Spaniard, was a close imitator of Perugino. Few
of the circumstances of his life are known. He was painting in
Italy probably as early as 1503, and certainly in 1507. In 1516 he
was made a citizen of Spoleto, and in the following year was
elected head or captain of the Society of Painters there—Capitano
del? arte dei Pittori2 The “Madonna Enthroned,” in the chapel of
San Stefano in the lower church of San Francesco, at Assisi, painted
in 1516, is considered by Rumohr, Lo Spagna’s masterpiece.
Latterly he endeavoured to appropriate the enlarged style of
Raphael, but was not successful. He was still living in 1530.

Of the majority of the other scholars of Perugino, little beyond
their names is now known. The examples of their work that are
known to exist are chiefly at Perugia; doubtless many of the speci-
mens assigned to the Caposcuola and to his greater scholars, are by
the hands of the more obscure Umbrian painters. In the Fran-
ciscan church at Matelica there is an altar-piece representing the
Virgin and Child enthroned, with many saints, &c., signed—1512.
Euszsius Dr 80 Grorcio Perusinus Punxir. It is Raphaelesque in
character, but poor in colour.

Jacopo Paccurarorro (1474-1540) of Siena is frequently ac-
counted among the scholars of Perugino, but there is no evidence of
this pupilage. Pacchiarotto surpassed Perugino in perhaps every
respect save colouring, though he painted much in the same style.
His greatest work is in Santa Caterina at Siena, representing that
saint visiting the body of St. Agnes of Montepulciano, which, says
Speth,* can be compared only with Raphael: and he adds that, to
describe Pacchiarotto as ‘“‘ of the school of Perugino” is only magni-
fying the injustice he has already undergone, in having had some of
his best works attributed to that master. His forms are fuller than
Perugino’s, and, though his taste is that of the quattrocento, his heads

1 Vermiglioli, “ Bernardino Pinturicchio,” &¢., 1837.

2 Mariotti, “Lettere Pittoriche Perugine,” p. 95; Rumohr, “Italienische For-
schungen,” ii. 349.

3 See Mariotti, “Lettere,” &c., Perugia, 1788 ; where many details may be found
relating to the Umbrian School, and the Arts in Perugia.

4 “Kunst in Italien,” Munich, 1821, vol. ii. p. 57.
168 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

occasionally have great beauty of form and sweetness of expression.
He executed great works at Siena; but, as he is omitted by Vasari,
he has been neglected and forgotten by posterity: he is not the
Girolamo di Pacchia slightly noticed by Vasari in the life of Razzi.
Pacchiarotto was poor and unfortunate : his life was a troubled one ;
he mixed himself up in the political disturbances of his time, and
was involved in a conspiracy against the authorities in 1535, when
he is said to have fled to France for safety. He returned to Siena,
but was banished in 1539, and outlawed by the government; he
was, however, through the intercession of his wife, restored to his
family in 1540, when we lose all further account of him.

Two other Umbrian painters of this period, Melozzo da Forli and
Marco Palmezzano, were of considerable distinction in their time.
Metozzo pa Forti (1438-1494) was one of the first to paint on
ceilings what the Italians term the sotto in su figures, that is, fore-
shortened as seen looking up from below. In an Ascension of
Christ, painted in 1472, in the church of the Santi Apostoli at
Rome, Melozzo completely anticipated the foreshortenings of Cor-
reggio in his cupola at Parma. The chapel in which these frescoes
were has been rebuilt; but the frescoes were preserved and re-
moved in 1711, some parts to the Quirinal Palace, and some to the
Vatican.' In the Vatican Gallery also is to be seen a large fresco
by Melozzo, which was transferred from the wall of the old Library
to canvas, by Domenico Succi for Leo XII. It represents Sixtus IV.
installing Platina (Bartolomeo Sacchi), in 1475, as Prefect of the
Vatican Library: it contains many portraits of distinguished per-
sons of the time. The expression of many of the heads is good, but
the picture is in the hard manner of the time, and in the severe
style of Mantegna, with whom Melozzo is supposed to have studied
in the school of Squarcione at Padua.

Marco Patmezzano, born about 1456, and who painted from about
1486 to 1537, was also a native of Forli, and was the scholar of
Melozzo : he occasionally signed himself Marchus de Melotius. There
is an example of this master in the National Gallery. His earlier
works have all the hard dryness of the quattrocento, but with occa-
sionally some grace of expression.®

The same fault of taste in design and composition which has been
found with Perugino and his school, characterized also in some
measure the otherwise able works of the Bellini, the most distin-
guished contemporary painters of Venice.

1 All the portions are engraved in D’Agincourt’s “ Histoire de l’Art par les

Monuments.”

2 The Palmezzani family at Forli is in the possession of « portrait of this
painter, on the frame ot which is inscribed—“ Marcus Patmesanus Nos. Forou
SEMeETIPSUM PINXIT OCTAVA ... HTATIS st#, 1536.” Memorie intorno a Marco

Palmezani, &¢., Forli, 1544.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 169

VENETIAN SCHOOL.

Jacopo Brtuini, the father of two celebrated sons, was born in
Venice about 1395-1400, and studied under Gentile da Fabriano,
for whom he had an extraordinary veneration, and with whom he
worked apparently in Florence some time before 1424. The British
Museum now contains the interesting Vendramin-Mantovani book
of light hard lead-pencil sketches by Jacopo, inscribed at the begin-
ning—De mano de m iacabo bellino veneto, 1430, in venetia—by the
hand of Messer Jacopo Bellini, Venetian, 1430, in Venice. This
date is probably that of the year in which the painter commenced
the sketches. They are apparently the designs for pictures, and he
cannot have executed nearly so many by this time. There are in
all ninety-nine leaves of drawings, some compositions extending
over the two open leaves. They are chiefly scriptural and legend-
ary subjects, but not exclusively, and all have a remarkably Man-
tegnesque character. No. 19, the ‘“‘ Adoration of the Kings,” is a
remarkable drawing. No. 44 has an especial interest for the
English public, as it represents the ‘Agony on the Mount,” the
character of the design being similar to our so-called Bellini picture
as regards style and incident, but the two have no similarity of
composition as a whole or in detail, with the single exception that
the figure of our Lord is kneeling before a rock, with his back to
the spectator in both, as is the case also in Mr. Thomas Baring’s
Mantegna, but the position is reversed. In the Mantegna and in
the Bellini sketch the head of Christ has a nimbus: in the gallery
picture there is not any nimbus.*

The works of Jacopo Bellini have nearly all perished, or are
preserved under other names. One known work still remains—
Christ on the Cross, a life-size figure, dull in colouring, on canvas,
in the sacristy of the Episcopal palace in Verona, and signed ‘opus
Jacobi Bellini? He died in 1470.

Giovanni BeLuini was born at Venice in 1426, and was the pupil
of his father, Jacopo Bellini. According to Ridolfi,® his style was
an aggregate of all the excellences of painting of his time. And
Lanzi finds only a hardness of outline, which prevents his works
from being a just representative of the style of the sixteenth cen-
tury, or the cinguecento style. His style is individual, and he ex-
celled in portrait; and his forms are rather full than meagre. He
paid great attention to the detail of costume and the elaboration of
ornament. The Doge Loredano in the National collection is an

1 There is a series of papers on this book of Bellini drawings by Gaye, in the
“ Kunstblatt,” for 1840.

2 Gaye, “ Kunstblatt,” 1. ¢.

3 «Te Maraviglie dell’ Arte, ovvero le Vite degli illustri Pittori Veneti, e dello
Stato,” 4to. Venice, 1648.
170 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

epitome of his style. His best works are in oil, and consist chiefly
of Madonnas and portraits. Antonello of Messina, who had learnt
oil-painting in Flanders, settled in Venice about 1470, but it is not
at all probable that oil-painting was still unknown there at this
time, as it had been practised at least ten years by the Florentines.

Ridolfi tells the improbable story, that Giovanni Bellini, being
struck with the brilliancy of Antonello’s pictures, disguised himself
as a Venetian cavaliere, sat to Antonello for his portrait, and by
watching his process, discovered the secret of oil-painting, Gio-
vanni’s colouring is always brilliant, and his works are highly
finished ; but his drawing is generally what is called hard and dry.
However, unlike most painters, he improved as he grew old, and
condescended to borrow beauties from much younger masters: he
endeavoured in his later works to imitate the design and colouring
of his own pupil, Giorgione. He painted until 1516, in which
year he died, aged ninety, on the 29th of November.’

The Duke of Northumberland possesses at Alnwick Castle, the
celebrated Bacchanalian scene, formerly in the Cammucini collec-
tion at Rome, which Giovanni left unfinished, and to which Titian
painted the landscape background. A Madonna in Santa Giustina,
at Padua, is Giovanni’s latest work; it is signed Joannes Bellinus,
1516. Of the National Gallery four specimens assigned to this
great painter, two are signed, the Portrait of Loredano and the
Madonna and Child. The St. Jerome in his Study, is an exquisite
and most delightful example of old Venetian painting whoever the
author may be, whether Giovanni Bellini, Marco Basaiti, or Lorenzo
Lotto. The same may be said of the glorious piece of colouring
“ Christ's Agony in the Garden,” whether by Giovanni, Mantegna,
or Bono Ferrarese, whose colouring approaches nearest to it.

Bellini’s celebrated pictures, described by Vasari, which he
painted in the Sala del Gran Consiglio, in the ducal palace of
Venice, were destroyed by firein 1576. He was assisted in these
works by his elder brother, Gentile Bellini, and Luigi Vivarini the
younger.

GentILE BELLINI, born in 1421, so named after Gentile da
Fabriano, his father’s master, was also a distinguished painter,
though inferior to Giovanni as far as known examples show. He
was sent by the Venetian government to Constantinople, to paint
the portrait of Mahomet II., and execute some other works for that
Sultan, who had sent to Venice for a painter. Gentile had a lesson
in objective truth of imitation, from the Sultan, during his stay in
Constantinople, which made him very anxious to terminate his
visit as quickly as possible. He presented the Sultan with a
picture of the head of John the Baptist on a charger; and the

1 Cadorin, “Dello Amore ai Veneziani di Tiziano Vecellio,’’ Veuiec, 1833.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 171

Sultan remarked that he had made the adhering portion of the
neck project from the head, which he said was incorrect, as it
always retired close to the head when this was separated from the
body: and, to show the painter that he was correct in what he
asserted, he had the head of a slave cut off for the occasion, esta-
blishing his criticism by terrible reality. Gentile, not knowing
whether he himself might not perform a similarly exemplary
part in confirmation of some other statement of the Sultan, took
his departure from Constantinople as quickly as decorum would
admit.

The works of Gentile Bellini are very scarce: the Brera, at
Milan, possesses an immense canvas crowded with figures repre-
senting the ‘“ Preaching of St. Mark at Alexandria ;” the Venetian
Academy contains a ‘“‘ Procession on the Piazza di San Marco,”
dated 1466, and a “Miracle of the Cross,” both formerly in the
Scuola di San Giovanni Evangelista, and good quattrocento works.
A fine picture of a similar character is in the Louvre—‘“ The Re-
ception of a Venetian Ambassador at Constantinople,” in which he
has introduced his own portrait: the Louvre possesses also an
interesting canvas of the two heads of Gentile and Giovanni
Bellini, painted by the former; a repetition, or copy of these por-
traits, formerly in the Solly Collection, is now at Berlin, where
there is also a Madonna and Child, in tempera, from the same col-
lection, signed Opus Genritis BELLINus.?

Sir Charles Eastlake possesses a ‘‘ Madonna Enthroned,” signed
on the foot of the throne Orus Gentimis BELLINI EQUITIS VENETI.
Gentile died at Venice on the 23rd of February, 1507.5

Among the better scholars of Giovanni Bellini who adhered
much ‘to the quattrocentismo, was ANDREA Previrati of Bergamo.
An altar-piece at Borgo Sant’ Antonio, signed Andreas Bergomensis
Discipulus Jo. Bellini, is dated 1506. He died of the plague at Ber-
gamo, on the 7th of November, 1508. Previtali was so good a
portrait painter, says Ridolfi, that his heads have passed for those
of his famous master.*

The following painters also of the numerous school of Giovanni
Bellini may be cursorily mentioned:— Bellin Bellini, a close
imitator of Giovanni; Girolamo Mocetto of Verona; Niccolo
Moreto, or Miretto, of Padua; Jacopo Montagnana of Padua, paint-
ing 1469-1508; Marco Marziale of Venice, painting 1488-1506;
Tl Cordella, or Andrea Cordelle Agi, of Venice; and Giovanni Mar-

1 Ridolfi, 1.1.
2 Not merely ‘Gentilis Bellinus, as given by Dr. Waagen, in his Catalogue.
3 Vasari, “‘ Vite,” &c. ; Ridolfi, “ Le Maraviglie,” &c.
4 Tassi, “Vite de’ Pittori, &c., Bergamaschi,” 1793; Ridolfi, “Le Maraviglie,”’
ke.
BS
172 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

tini of Udine: no doubt several of the many works attributed to
John Bellini, are by the hands of some of these painters.

Other masters of this school of more considerable merit, were :—
Virrors Brvuinrano of Venice, still living in 1526; and Barto-
Lomeo and Beneverro Moyraena of Vicenza, both likewise engra-
vers ; Bartolomeo was the better painter, though hard and dry in
his manner, and Benedetto was the better engraver; several of
their works are’still preserved at Vicenza: an altar-piece by Barto-
lomeo, in the cathedral, is dated 1502, There is occasionally a
considerable dignity about the figures of Bartolomeo Montagna.

Jacopo Tintorello, and Marcello Figolino of Vicenza, were also
artists of the fifteenth century of great merit for their period,
especially the latter, who excelled in chiaroscuro and architectural
perspective, and painted with great delicacy. In the church of
Santa Corona, is a Christ crowned with Thorns, by Tintorello; by
Figolino there are several works preserved in the churches of
Vicenza.’

Marco Basarrt, or Baxarri, of the Friuli, was a worthy rival of
John Bellini; he appears to have been of a family originally Greek,
and was apparently a pupil of Bartolomeo Vivarini: he was active
from about 1470 to 1520, and must have painted many pictures.
He was in colour, and perhaps in other respects, superior to Bellini.
He was superior in composition, in accessory groups, and in the
management of the background and scene generally. He was still
living in 1520, and accordingly most likely survived Raphael; yet
to judge from some of his works, one would suppose almost a
century to have intervened between the periods of these painters,
so different are they in character. Everything in Basaiti’s pictures
is finished with the utmost care, even to such details as the grass
and stones. Still his figures have much character, and his colour-
ing is very brilliant; rivalling even in effect the best early Flemish
pictures. The Venetian Academy possesses two important works
by Basaiti; one, ‘Christ in the Garden with his Disciples;” the
other, ‘‘The Calling of St. Peter and St. Andrew,” painted in
1511.

The Belvedere Gallery at Vienna possesses also a beautiful com-
position of the ‘‘ Calling of James and John:” the landscape with
the sea of Tiberias is charming, and the figures are elegant; it is
signed 1515, Marcus Baxarrty, F.

In the Gallery at Munich there is a ‘‘ Deposition from the Cross,”
in the style of Antonello da Messina, hard but excellent in colour;
and the National Gallery now possesses two works of great beauty
by this painter, of a delicacy of execution, and a force of colour

' Mosca, “ Descrizione delle Architetture,” &., in Vicenza, 1779.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 173

rarely equalled: “St. Jerome reading,” and “ The Virgin seated
in a Meadow with the Infant Christ asleep on her lap.”

GiamBarrista Cima pA CoNEGLIANO was another painter of this
school, of perhaps equal merit; he, too, was distinguished for his
colouring, his careful execution, and his elaborate landscape back-
grounds : he was more varied and more skilful even in his drawing
than Giovanni Bellini. His pictures bear dates from 1489 to 1517;
and are generally signed Joannes Baptista CoNEGLIANENSIS, either
in full or abbreviated. The Castello di Conegliano, Cima’s native
place, is often represented in the backgrounds of his pictures. His
son, Carlo Cima, imitated his works. The National Gallery pos-
sesses two signed examples by Giambattista, the larger one of
which is a work of exceeding beauty’ of its time and school ; for, as
yet, the great objects of the painter were brilliancy of colour and
accuracy of imitation, besides that general devotional sentiment
which was unquestionably a genuine characteristic of the period:
the art of this time was literally religious.

Virtore Carpaccio painted much in the style of his contemporary
Basaiti, and sometimes gave still more attention to the accessories
of his works; he introduced into them, more than any of his con-
temporaries, the ordinary objects and incidents of life. Vittore
likewise survived Raphael ; he was still living in 1522. The Belve-
dere Gallery, Vienna, has a ‘‘ Christ adored by Angels,” with some
finely-drawn heads, signed Victoris Carpatio Venetj opus. 1496.

Martino or Peviecrino pA Upine, where he was born, called Da
San Danietto, from having settled and married there, painted
between 1497 and 1529. He was, after Pordenone, the best painter
of the Friuli. He at first worked in the style of Giovanni Bellini,
and then endeavoured to imitate Giorgione. His principal works
are the frescoes in the church of Sant’ Antonio at San Daniello, re-
presenting scenes from the life of Christ, executed between 1497
and 1522.!

Vincenzo Catena (1470-1532), at first a follower of Giovanni
Bellini, became afterwards a good imitator of Giorgione: and
acquired considerable reputation as a portrait painter.

Francesco BissoLo, who painted from about 1500 to 1528,? was
distinguished for a delicacy of execution not usual with the pupils.
of Bellini. The portrait of a lady in the National Gallery, remark-
able for its beautiful and elaborate dress, is similar in style to the
authentic works of this master in the Academy at Venice, where is
the picture of St. Catherine of Siena receiving the crown of gold
for the crown of thorns, signed Franciscus Bissolo.

1 Numbered 300 in the Gallery.

2 Maniago, “Storia delle Belle Arti Friulane,’ Udine, 1823.
3 Moschini, “ Guida di Venezia.”
174 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

GiroLamo pa Santa Croce, still painting in 1548, was also in-
fluenced by the large manner of Giorgione; he devoted much care
to his landscape backgrounds. His colour is good, and his execu-
tion very careful, without being minute: the Saint with the Red
Cross standard, in the National collection, is a good example of his
later style.

Among the most distinguished painters of this period must be
accounted Loreyzo Lorro, of Treviso, where he was born about
1480. He also was of the school of Giovanni Bellini, but after-
wards studied under Giorgione. His general style was of a middle
degree, between the quattrocento and the cinquecento, yet he some-
times painted in both tastes. Lotto’s reputation is chiefly that of a
portrait painter, and he has left some exquisite works of this class ;
but he has painted also many fine figure pieces. His known works
are dated between 1508 and 1554 inclusive. The Belvedere Gal-
lery at Vienna possesses a picture of “An Angel crowning the
Virgin,” who holds the child in her arms, with Saint James the
Elder and St. Catherine in adoration, which is a masterpiece of its
school, The Pinacothek at Munich likewise has a fine small Mar-
riage of St. Catherine, but the face of the virgin has certainly not
been painted from a handsome model; it is signed Laurent. Lotus F.
This gallery also contains a magnificent portrait, said to be Gior-
gione, by himself; but it is evidently the portrait of Lotto, by
himself, noticed by Vasari and Ridolfi. In the Berlin Gallery is his
own portrait, signed LZ. Lotus Pictor. And we have a superb por-
trait by him at Hampton Court, of Andrea Odoni, mentioned both
by Vasari and the “ Anonimo di Morelli,”! signed Laurentius Lotus,
1527: it has till lately been attributed to Correggio,—Lotto’s signa-
ture had been cunningly painted over; it were well if many other
supposititious pictures had been no worse treated. The National
Gallery picture of Agostino and Nicold della Torre, is likewise
signed and dated—L. Lotus, P. 1515.

Lotto sometimes signed himself Pictor Venetus, whence he has
been claimed by the Venetians for Venice, but Treviso is in the
Venetian state. He first established himself in Venice, then re-
turned to Treviso, and removed to Bergamo about 1513, and hence
Boschini called him Bergamasco; in 1544, however, he had re-
turned to Treviso a second time: he is supposed to have died at
Loreto about 1558.?

ScHoot or Papua.

At Padua, Francesco Squarcrone spread a taste for antique art.
Squarcione’s school was distinguished from that of Bellini, in that

1 Morelli, “ Notizia d’Opere di Disegno nella prima meta del Secolo XVI.
Scritta da un Anonimo,” Bassano, 1800.

2 Federici, “ Memorie Trevigiane,” &c.; Tassi, “ Pittori Bergamaschi.”
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 175

it made form its principal aim. This school, of which Andrea
Mantegna is the great exponent, arose from a study of ancient
bassi-rilievi, and its fault is that it adhered too exclusively to its
models. Squarcione had one of the greatest schools that are known
in the whole history of art; he is said to have had 137 scholars:
he was called the father and primo maestro of painters; his
scholars were proud of him, and some added to their signatures,
the words Discipulus Squarcioni.1 His house was one of the chief
attractions of Padua: and his museum of drawings and casts from
remains of ancient sculpture was the most extensive and celebrated
of its time. He had travelled over many parts of Greece, and all
over Italy, for the express purpose of making drawings of the most
valuable remains of ancient art. He lived in great affluence, and
divided many of his commissions among his scholars. The cele-
brated Book of Anthems, in the church of the Misericordia, long
ascribed to Mantegna, is now considered to have been one of the
commissions of Squarcione, executed by his numerous scholars.
Squarcione himself appears to have been more engaged in teaching
than in the practice of painting: there is only one picture at Padua
by him that is known; it was painted for the Lazara family in
1452; it represents San Girolamo and other saints, and is con-
spicuous for good colour, expression, and accurate perspective.
Squarcione died in 1474, aged eighty. He must, by-his numerous
scholars, have had much influence in the establishment of the
various schools of the north of Italy. His three most distinguished
scholars, and the heads of three celebrated schools, are :—Jacopo
Bellini, of the Venetian school; Marco Zoppo, one of the earliest
painters of the Bolognese school; and Andrea Mantegna, the
founder of the school of Mantua.

While alluding to the state of painting in the north of Italy
‘at this period, the following masters also are deserving of men-
tion :—Vincenzo Civerchino, at Crema; Stefano da Zevio or Sibeto,
and his son Vincenzo di Stefano, at Verona; where also, in the
latter part of the fifteenth century, there were two very dis-
tinguished painters—Liberale, the pupil of Vincenzo di Stefano,
and Vittore Pisanello, already noticed. Ferrara likewise had its
good masters of this century—Cosimo Tura and Bono Ferrarese.

LIBERALE DA VERONA was a distinguished miniatore of MSS. Ex-
amples of his illuminations still exist in the cathedral of Chiusi,
and in the library of the Duomo at Siena, executed between 1467
and 1474. The Berlin Gallery possesses a hard careful work by
him, of the “Madonna enthroned with Saints,” signed Liberatis
Veronésis me fecit, 1489. He was an imitator of Giovanni Bellini.

1 We have an example in the National Gallery, in the “Madonna enthroned

with Saints,’ by Gregorio Schiavone, which is signed in a cartellino—Oprs.
Sciavons. Disrputs. Squarctont. 8.
176 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Costmo Tora, called Cosmé, born about 1418, and still living in
February, 1481, is called the Mantegna of Ferrara; he was the
scholar of Galasso Galassi, also a Ferrarese master, but of the
archaic taste. Cosimo succeeded Piero della Francesca as painter
to the Duke Ercole of Ferrara, and about 1471 commenced a series
of decorations in the Schifanoja Palace, now a tobacco manufactory,
some of which are still preserved. The Costabili collection at
Ferrara possesses several examples of Cosimo’s work, and there is a
portrait of Tito Strozzi in the Strozzi Palace there. Cosimo Tura’s
is good quattrocento work, somewhat harsh in its lights, but full of
masculine vigour; the Berlin Gallery possesses a grand altar-piece,
formerly in the Solly collection, attributed to him, that has some-
thing stupendous in the amount of the honest labour bestowed
upon it, and is a work of very great effect. Some of these quattro-
cento painters were certainly masters in producing the results they
desired, or others desired for them, and such an altar-piece no doubt
had its due influence on its Romanist devotees, who could have
faith in the possible reality of such representations. The Infant
Christ is asleep on the lap of the magnificently enthroned Madonna ;
above her are three angels; on the steps of the throne, on her
right, is St. Catherine; on her left, St. Apollonia, near whom is
standing in front, St. Jerome with his lion; and on the other side is
St. Augustin with his eagle. Tura had many of the great qualities
of a good painter, but wanted the refinements of the art, which,
however, were not generally understood until the following century.
We have a small picture ascribed to him, in the National Gallery.

Another very able painter of Ferrara of this century, was
Bono Ferrarese, of whom very little is known; he was engaged
in the Duomo of Siena, in 1461 He is supposed to have been the
scholar of .Squarcione, but was certainly the scholar of Vittore
Pisanello, as he has himself inscribed on the Costabili picture of
“St. Jerome in the Desert,”! Bonus Ferrariensis Pisanr Discrpuus.

This small picture is admirable for its rich evening light, and is
identical in its effect with the “Agony in the Garden,” in the
National Gallery, lately bought at the Davenport Bromley sale,
though it is surpassed in the quality of its execution by that noble
work of art. Bono is certainly the painter of more than one so-
called Bellini or Mantegna in the galleries of Europe.’

Anprea MAnTEcNA is the greatest painter that had appeared in
the north of Italy up to his time. He was born in the neighbour-
hood of Padua in 1430-1,’ and is one of the earliest painters whose

1 Now forming one of the choice collection of Sir Charles Eastlake.

2 Laderchi, “La Pittura Ferrarese,” 1856.

3 This is ascertained from the following inscription :—“ Andreas Mantinea
Patavinus ann. septem et decem natus sua manu pinxit MCCCCXLVIIL.” It was
found on a picture, now lost, formerly in the church of Santa Sofia in Padua, and is
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 177

works are distinguished for a full and vigorous development of
form; but, as already observed, according to the characteristic of
the school in which he was educated; his style of design is too
exclusively drawn from ancient bassi-rilievi, and his composi-
tions have much the character of coloured pieces of sculpture in low
relief,

Mantegna’s story somewhat resembles that of Giotto: he was,
according to Vasari, a shepherd boy, but having early displayed
great aptitude for drawing, he attracted the notice of Squarcione,
who received him as his pupil, and had such a good opinion of his
abilities that he entered his name, as early as 1441, in the register
of painters of Padua as follows:—Andrea fiuslo de M. Francesco
Squarzon depentore. It was Squarcione’s intention to make him his
heir, but the tradition states that. Mantegna forfeited the friendship
of his patron by marrying, about 1456, Nicolosia a daughter of
Jacopo Bellini, Squarcione’s rival; and that. he became accordingly
the brother-in-law of Gentile and Giovanni Bellini. There is, how-
ever, nothing to authenticate this statement, and the facts are
against it. Coddé asserts that the family name of Mantegna’s wife
was Nuvolosi, and that she was of a family of Mantua! This would
accord much better with the ages of Mantegna’s sons, who were still
young when their father died.

If Mantegna married a lady of Mantua, his marriage should be
probably dated upwards of ten years later than 1456, as he did not
go to Mantua until 1468, when he entered the service of the
Marquis Ludovico Gonzaga. In the summer of 1488 he took a
letter of introduction, dated the 10th of June, from Francesco
Gonzaga, to Pope Innocent VIIJJ.; he returned to Mantua Septem-
ber 6th, 1490.4 While at Rome he wrote a letter to the Marquis,
requesting that he would procure some benefice from the Pope for
his eldest son, Lodovico, whom he terms figliolo, showing that he
was still but a youth ; the date of the letter is January 31st, 1490;
the Marquis answered the letter February 23rd following, using
the same word, figliolo, and observing that Lodovico was deserving
of a benefice as he was following in the steps of his father ; from
all which it is evident that Mantegna’s son was not then a man
upwards of thirty years of age, but a mere youth commencing his

 

 

preserved in Scardeone’s “ Antiquities of Padua.” Moschini, ‘Della Origine, &c.,
della Pittura in Padova,” p. 35, 1826; see also Brandolese, “ Testimonianze intorno
alla Patavinita d’ Andrea Mantegna,” Padova, 1805.

1 This appears from documents, and from his will, still existing at Mantua, among
the archives of 1504. Coddé, “ Memorie Biografiche dei Pittori, &c., Mantovani,”
p. 97, Mantua, 1837. The will is given in D’Arco's “Delle Arti di Mantova,” 1857.

2 Gaye, “Carteggio Inedito,” &e., vol. iii, p. 561; Moschini, “Della Origine,”
&e., pp. 43 and 49.

N
178 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

career ; and we may conclude therefore, with Coddé, that Mantegna
was not married until after he settled in Mantua, and that the
story of his early marriage with Giovanni Bellini’s sister is un-
founded. His only danghter, Taddea, appears to have married Viano
Viani in 1499: his wife’s Christian name was Nicolosia.

Mantegna received an allowance of 75 lire a month, about £30
a year, at that time a considerable salary. At a later period the
Marquis presented him with a small piece of land near the church
of San Sebastiano, upon which, in 1476, Mantegna built himself a
house. He died at Mantua September the 13th, 1506, and was
buried in his own chapel of St. John the Baptist, in the church of
Sant’ Andrea. In 1560 his grandson Andrea, the son of Lodovico,
placed a stone to his memory, inscribed :—Ossa. AnpRrAE. Man-
TINEAE. F'amosissimi. Picroris. cum. Duosus. Fitus. 1x. Hoc. SEPULCRO.
PER. ANDREAM. MantineAM. NepoTEM EX. Finio. consTructo. Reposiva,
MDLX.

Lodovico Mantegna died in 1511; Francesco, the other son,
was still living in 1517; both were painters: they completed their
father’s unfinished works: a Carlo del Mantegna is also mentioned
among his scholars and assistants. Mantegna’s works of every
kind, both engravings and paintings, are now scarce, though he is
fairly represented in this country, in private collections, in the
National Gallery, and at Hampton Court. In the small altar-piece
of the “ Virgin and Child, with the Magdalen and John the Baptist,”
which may have been formerly in his own chapel of the Baptist,
in Sant’ Andrea, he is well represented in every respect, especially
in form, and a certain dignity or grandeur of character, which
seems to have been a characteristic of his works, though they are
generally hard and severe in manner. His drawing is correct, his
modelling fine, his execution vigorous and elaborate at the same
time, and his colouring positive and yet harmonious. His draperies
are particularly well disposed ; and, like his master Squarcione, he
was a diligent student of the antique. Without question, Man-
tegna’s principal works extant are the nine cartoons of the
“Triumph of Julius Cesar,” which are now at Hampton Court.
These works were originally painted for Francesco Gonzaga,
Marquis of Mantua, about the year 1487; they were not finished
until after Mantegna’s return from Rome, in 1492; but they were
certainly commenced before his visit to that city: they were painted
for the palace of San Sebastiano. They were brought to England
in the reign of Charles I., who purchased them, with many other
pictures, from the Duke Carlo. They are painted in distemper, on
paper stretched on canvas.'| The “Madonna della Vittoria,” in

1 They were engraved in wood in chiaroscuro by Andrea Andreani in 1599; the
drawings were made on the wood by Bernardo Malpizzi. There are also several
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 179

the Louvre, is also one of Mantegna’s principal works; it was
painted in 1495; the decorative.portions, however, are exceedingly
tasteless: among the figures is the full-length portrait of Man-
tegna’s patron, the Marquis Francesco Gonzaga. The National
Gallery example, though less important as a specimen of the master,
is a more delicate and tasteful work.

Mantegna engraved some of his own designs: there are upwards
of thirty prints known to be by his hand. He was one of the first
painters who practised this art, which was discovered, according to
the common account, by Maso-Finiguerra, a goldsmith and niello-
worker! of Florence, in the year 1452. It appears that Finiguerra
was in the habit of taking sulphur casts from his niellos, and
printing with them upon damp paper, to see the effect of the
design. This process, or some accident, appears to have led
him finally to’ print with the niello itself; and a small design
engraved by him in silver, representing the Coronation of the
Virgin, commonly known as the Pax (Pix) of Maso-Finiguerra, is
reputed to be the first print that was so produced. ‘This curious
silver plate was originally engraved for the church of San Giovanni
at Florence, and it is now preserved in the collection of the Grand-
Duke of ‘Tuscany. The only known impression from the original
niello is in the library of Paris; it is dated 1452. There are wood
engravings of an earlier date.

Francesco ‘Bonsianori of Verona (1455-1519), erroneously called
Monsignori, was one of the best of Mantegna’s scholars, and was
established at Mantua, near which city he fica He was an excellent
portrait painter, and excelled also in painting animals and architec-
ture. Bonsignori acquired the name of the modern Zeuxis, from
having deceived birds and animals by his pictures. He signed
himself Franciscus Bonsignorius. G10. Francesco Caroto, also of
Verona (1470-1546), was one of Mantegna’s favourite scholars and
assistants, and a good painter. He has signed F. Carotus, P. and
J. EF. Charotus.*

After the death of Mantegna, Lorenzo Lroxsruno, born in Mantua
in 1489, and a scholar of Lorenzo Costa, attracted the notice of the
Marquis Federigo Gonzaga 1V., for whom he executed some works
in the palace of San Sebastiano. Leonbruno became court painter,
and a pensioner of the Marquis; he was architect and engineer, and

later sets of prints from them in copper; as Van Audenaert’s, 1692; S. Clarke's,
1712.

1 Niello-work means literally black work. Niello (nigellum, black) is the name of
the black composition of lead and silver, which was rubbed into the design en-
graved on the metal plate, to render it perfectly visible.

2 Da Persico, “ Descrizione di Verona,” 1821.
180 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

was altogether the most important artist in Mantua, until he suc-
cumbed to the rivalry of Giulio Romano; when he is supposed to
have removed to Milan: he seems to have left Mantua. in 1537.
Most of his. works have perished ; but three oil pictures by him are
still preserved at Mantua—a ‘St. Jerome;” a “Judgment of
Midas ;” and a ‘ Piet&;” all highly spoken of by Coddé, who has
only recently rescued the name of Leonbruno from oblivion."

There are still to be noticed a few painters of great, but of un-
equal merit, who, though they survived some of the greatest
masters of the cinquecentostyle, or golden age of painting, belong,
from the character of their works, to the quattrocentisti, or to the
class of painters whose works illustrate that intermediate develop-
ment of style, sometimes called the Antico-Moderno, which arose
after the time of Masaccio, and characterized the whole of the
fifteenth century, up to the appearance of the works of Leonardo
da Vinci and Fra Bartolomeo. These painters represent the earlier
schools of Bologna and of Naples—including Francia, the prince of
Quattrocentisti.

Botognesé ScHooL.

Francesco RAIBoLiNI, commonly called Francta, from the name of
his master the goldsmith, was born at Bologna about 1450: his
father, Marco di Giacomo Raibolini, was a carpenter. Marco Zorro,
of whom there are works still extant, ranging in their dates between
1471 and 1498, is said to have been Francia’s master in painting.
Zoppo, as already noticed, was one of the numerous school of
Squarcione at Padua; he was a hard, but careful and laborious
painter, and without a rival in Bologna in his time: he is some-
times styled the founder of the Bolognese earlier school.? Fran-
cia’s pictures are a refinement upon his master’s, but not wholly
exempt from their traditionary conventionality of style and compo-
sition. Francia must have been distinguished as a painter in 1490,
as he was then employed on extensive works in the Palazzo Benti-
voglio at Bologna. He was originally a goldsmith and a die and niello
engraver, and he generally signed his pictures Aurifex, jeweller ;
he was, however, a painter by profession likewise, for he has signed
himself Pictor, painter, on his jewellery. The time of his death has
been variously given; Lanzi places it in 1533: and Malvasia
mentions a picture of Saint Sebastian, which bears the date 1522,
and another work of the year 1526. On the other hand, Calvi, in a

1 « Pittori, &c., Mantovani.”

= There is now a very admirable specimen of this interesting old master in the
National Gallery, representing St. Dominic as the Institutor of the Rosary. See
the “Catalogue.” He signed his name Zoppo di Squarcione, and Marco Zoppo da
Bologna.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 181

‘Life of Francia, quotes a MS. document in which the death of
‘Francia is recorded as having happened January 6th, 1517; and
the later pictures spoken of by Malvasia are now correctly accre-
dited to the son of Francia,! Giacomo; also an able painter: he
imitated his father’s style, and the works of the son have been not
unfrequently confounded with those of the father, from Malvasia
downwards. Giacomo died in 1557; Bologna still possesses many
of his works. Francia’s second son, Giulio, was likewise a painter,
‘but he is only known as his brother’s assistant.

The fact of Francia’s receiving some important commissions from
the Bentivogli family so early as 1490, when he must have been
already a practised painter, would seem to cast some doubt upon
the supposition that he was advanced to middle life before he took
up painting as a profession: he must certainly have painted
some years before 1490. The ‘ Madonna and Child enthroned,
surrounded by Saints,” formerly in the church of the Misericordia,
now in the Gallery of Bologna, is signed and dated Opus Franciae
Aurifics MCCCCLXXXX. In the same collection is another
similar altar-piece of the ‘‘ Madonna and Child with Saints,” which
is signed 1. Francia Aur. Bononien. Fe. A. MDXXVI.,> which is the
signature of Jacobus or Giacomo Francia, the son, who we learn
from this inscription was likewise a goldsmith.

The document relating to Francia’s death, published by Calvi, is
an extract from a manuscript chronicle by Cristoforo Saraceni, a
Bolognese goldsmith, where, p. 233, under the year 1517, is written :
A di 6 Gennaro mort Francesco Francia orefice, e pittore eccellente. In
another Bolognese chronicle by Nicolo Seccadenari, p. 110, under
the year 1517 is a most interesting memorandum, in which his
personal appearance is as much praised as his artistic qualifications :
“he was most beautiful and eloquent, notwithstanding he was the
son of a carpenter :” Mori M. Francesco Francia miglior orefice @ Italia,
et buonissimo pittore, bravissimo giqelliere, bellissimo di persona, et eloquen-
tissimo, benché fosse figliuolo di un falegname.

January, 1517, according to the old Italian mode of com-
mencing the year in the month of March, would be according to
modern reckoning 1518, which sufficiently coincides with the date
of Francia’s death, given in Vasari’s account; but this practice of
commencing the year with Lady-day appears never to have been
established at Bologna; the correct date is therefore 1517.

But he died suddenly, according to Vasari, with grief, at finding

1 J, A. Calvi, “ Memorie della Vita e delle Opere di Francesco Raibolini, detto il
Francia,” Bologna, 1812; Passavant, ‘‘ Rafael von Urbino und sein Vater Giovanni
Santi,” Leipzig, 1839 ; Schorn, Translation of Vasari.

2 Jt was from this inscription that Malvasia contradicted Vasari’s statement
about the death of Francia, mistaking the son’s signature for that of the father. >
182 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

himself so much surpassed by his young friend Raphael, in painting.
Raphael had consigned to Francia (about 1516-17) the picture of
St. Cecilia for the church of San Giovanni in Monte at Bologna,
requesting him to repair any damage that might have happened to
it, or to correct it, if necessary, and to superintend the placing of it
in the church, Francia placed the picture, and shortly afterwards
died; at least such is the story, and his death was attributed to
dejection at discovering his own inferiority. Few will be disposed
to believe such a very improbable story; there is no necessity for
accounting for tke death of Franciain any remarkable way; he was
sixty-seven years old in 1517, and the circumstance of his death
happening soon after the arrival of the St. Cecilia, is no more
worthy of attention than the fact of its happening after any
other event which took place at the same time. The St. Cecilia,
according to Vasari, arrived in 1518 at Bologna; but there is no-
thing of that superiority in it to cause the painter of the altar-piece
in the National Gallery to die of vexation at his own inferiority.
Vasari is, therefore, pretty correct about the time of Francia’s
death, though we may doubt the cause for it assigned by him:
it is certainly a mere coincidence of two events.

The works of Francia are the most perfect specimens extant of
the antico-moderno (quattrocento) or intermediate style of painting
already described above. As a mere painter Francia belongs to
the most consummate artists known in history, and were it not for
that quattrocentismo which pervades everything of his that remains,
he would have ranked among the greatest of painters. The figures
of his compositions are generally so formal and so quiescent, that
they appear to be independent of the others in the groups, and have
the appearance of people standing or sitting for their portraits.
He was of necessity a good portrait painter ; his figures individually
are nearly always admirable. The excellent head of a meditative
youth in the Louvre, long ascribed to Raphael, is now, doubtless
correctly, attributed to Francia. Though to be ranked with Pietro
Perugino and John Bellini, Francia was, perhaps, in every respect -
more advanced than either of those painters; his altar-pieces,
equally highly-finished, are on a larger scale than those usually
painted by Bellini and Perugino. Francia and Perugino may be
fairly compared in our National Gallery; Bellini is not yet with
certainty adequately represented there. The two large pictures
formerly constituting the altar-piece of the Buonvisi chapel in San
Fiidiano, at Lucca, are probably Francia’s master-pieces ; the small
picture from the Beaucousin Collection is also an exquisite example
of the master, especially of his colouring. Francia surpassed even
Squarcione in the number of his scholars: they exceeded two hun-
dred.
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 183

Lorenzo Costa (1460-1535),' may be considered of the school of
Francia, though he. probably painted earlier than that master.
He was the assistant of Francia at Bologna, but he had previ-
ously studied under Benozzo Gozzoli at Florence. Lorenzo was
a native of Ferrara, and after living many years at Bologna,
settled in Mantua, where he died in the service of the Duke Fran-
cesco Gonzaga. An altar-piece in the National Gallery, signed
Laurentius Costa F. 1505, and formerly in the oratorio delle Grazie
at Faenza, though an authenticated good example of the master,
is a weak imitation of Pietro Perugino and Raphael, and bears
no traces of the excellences of Francia; a ‘‘ Dead Christ” in
the Berlin Gallery, dated 1504, is a fine example of his work.
Costa left two sons, painters; Ippolito and Girolamo: a younger
Lorenzo Costa was the son of Girolamo; he died in 1583, aged
forty-six.

Domenico Payerti, born in Ferrara in 1460, is supposed to have
been the pupil of Francia or of Costa; he was, however, the con-
temporary of those painters. He was the master of Garofalo, and
afterwards enlarged his own style on the example of his distin-
guished scholar. In the Berlin Gallery is a good picture from the
Solly Collection, of the “ Entombment,” by Panetti, signed Dominici.
‘Paneti. Opus. The date of his deathis not known. Near this work,
and from the same collection, is a good ‘‘ Adoration of the Shep-
herds,” by Amico Aspertini of Bologna (1474-1552), and of the
school of Francia; it is signed Amicus Bononiemsis faciebat2 Amico
was an eccentric character, and from the fact of his painting with
both hands, and good and bad works alternately, he was known
among his contemporaries as Amico da due Penelli.

NEeEaPoLitan ScHOOL.

Another painter, and Capo-Scuola, alluded to as still wanting to
complete the catalogue of great masters of this progressive period,
is Giovanni Anroyro D’Amato (Il Vecchio) of Naples, where he
was born in 1475; and he lived there to the age of eighty. He
appears to have eaucated himself, and to have formed his style
upon the works of Silvestro Buono, and an altar-piece by Perugino
in the Cathedral of Naples. Naples, however, had its artists of
distinction previous to Amato. Colantonio del Fiore, and his son-
in-law Antonio Solario, called the Gipsy (Lo Zingaro), both eminent
quattrocentisti, were among the best painters of the fifteenth century.

CoLaNToNIO DEL Fiore (1354-1444) was the pupil of Francesco

1 Strictly 1536; see the ‘*Memorie” of Gualandi, Serie iii., p. 8, 1842; and
Laderchi, “‘ Pittura Ferrarese,” p. 39, -1856.
2 Given incorrectly in Dr. Waagen’s Catalogue,
184 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Simone, and was the first of the Neapolitans to forsake tradition for
nature, but scarcely any of his works remain. Dominici, quoting
an old writer, states that Colantonio painted in oil as early as 1375.
Simple painting with oil was not the method of the Van Eycks ;
should this statement be true, it must have been a very crude kind
of oil-painting ; but it is probably an error. The St. Jerome, the
best of this painter’s remaining works, and now in the Gallery at
Naples, is in tempera. Colantonio’s son-in-law, known as Lo Zin-
garo, has of late years attracted much attention from the connoisseurs
of Naples. The simple romance of his life has given an undue
prominence to the painter.

Awronio Sonario (1382-1455), a native of Civita, in the Abruzzi,
or according to another account, of Solario,' in the Venetian state,
the scholar of Lippo Dalmasio, was originally a blacksmith ; and,
working in the house of Colantonio, he fell in love with his
daughter. The painter, pointing to one of his own works, told the
young smith that when he could paint such another picture he
should have his daughter in marriage. Antonio, nothing daunted,
like Quintin Matsys, forsook the anvil for the easel, travelled all over
Italy in pursuit of his new art, studying the works of various
masters; and after nine years returned to Naples, produced his
picture, and won his bride. He became the principal painter of
Naples, and the Neapolitans are proud of him. His most important
works are some frescoes in the court of the Monastery of San
Severino, at Naples, illustrating the life of St. Benedict; and a
Neapolitan writer? speaks of them as the most perfect works of
their class in Italy; it is, however, certain that several works are
attributed to Antonio which belong to his school. The Studj
Gallery in the Museo Borbonico, possesses a picture by him of the
“Madonna and Child enthroned, between Saints;” the head of
the Virgin is a portrait of the Queen Jeanne II., of Anjou; his own
wife is represented behind St. Peter, and he has placed himself
behind St. Asprenus. Solario euriched his pictures with land-
seape backgrounds of a much better character than was usual at
that time: he was also an illuminator of manuscripts. Some
Neapolitan writers have assumed that he also painted in oil, but
this is very improbable.®

The link between these old painters and the elder D’Amato was
SitvesrRo Buono, the scholar of Lo Zingaro, and, according to the
Cav. Stanzioni, the master of Amato; but as Buono died in 1485 at
latest, Dominici doubts this statement. Buono painted much in the

1 Moschini discovered a picture signed Antonius de Solario, Venetus ; see Rosini,
“Storia,” &c., vol. iii. p. Y,

2 D'Aloé, in 1846, published an account of these frescoes with eighteen plates.

3 Dominici “ de’ VidePittori,” &e,
THE QUATTROCENTISTI. 185

taste of the Umbrian painters, and was as much distinguished for
his pious life as his beautiful works.

D’Amato was a complete imitator of Perugino, and rivalled Fra
Angelico in the piety of his life. The Madonna and Child was his
favourite subject, and he was in the habit of taking the Sacrament ~
before he commenced his pictures. When the emperor Charles V.
visited Naples, Amato was appointed to execute the decorations
of the triumphal arch which was erected on the occasion ; but he
declined on account of the profaneness of the subject, and the
impropriety of painting some partly naked women which he was
required to introduce: he recommended Andrea da Salerno for the
work. D’Amato died in 1555.

There are several of Amato’s oil-paintings still preserved at
Naples, but his frescoes have almost wholly perished. His master-
piece is the ‘“‘ Dispute-on the Sacrament” in the Cathedral at
Naples, excellent both in composition and in colouring, He was a
man of great acquirements, and had a numerous school. The follow-
ing were his principal scholars:—Gio. Bernardo Lama (1508-79),
Vincenzo Corso (about 1490-1545), Pietro Negrone (1505-65) some-
times called 11 Giovane Zingaro; Simone Papa the younger
(1506-67), Cesare Turco (1510-60); and his nephew Giovanni
Antonio D’Amato, called Il Giovane, or the young. He was born
at Naples in 1535, and died there in 1598. His colouring is ex-
ceedingly rich: a large and celebrated altar-piece of the “Infant
Christ ” is still in the church of the Banco de’ Poveri, at Naples.
186

BOOK IV.

THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PAINTING: THE CINQUECENTO
SCHOOLS—CO-ORDINATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENSUOUS:
MATURITY AND MASTERY A SECOND TIME.

 

CHAPTER XVII.

THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL : LEONARDO DA VINCI, FRA BARTOLOMEO, AND
MICHELANGELO BUONARROTI; IDEAL FORM.

In the preceding book we considered the attainment of individu-
ality of form, and remarked upon the predominant sentimental
character of the works of the quattrocento schools, when compared
with their development as mere works of formative art. In this
period we at last arrive at a co-ordinate development of essence and
form.

We now come to the consideration of individuality combined
with an ideal selection of form, with dramatic composition, and
with local colour and light and shade; in which combinations we
have the perfect development of painting in its essential principles.
This new epoch was brought about by Leonardo da Vinci, Fra
Bartolomeo, and Michelangelo Buonarroti ; but the works of Leo-
nardo and Fra Bartolomeo are distinct in style from those of
Michelangelo. The works of Da Vinci and Bartolomeo hold a
middle place between those of the quattrocentisti and the perfect
cinquecento style of Michelangelo and Raphael. The same vigour of
design, however, which distinguishes the works of the latter, dis-
tinguishes in nearly an equal degree those of Da Vinci and Barto-
lomeo in their principal works; the chief difference between these
masters is in their compositions. In light and shade the last two
named were superior.

Leonarpo pa Vinct was born at Vinci, in the Val d’Arno, below
Florence, in 1452. His father Pietro da Vinci was a notary, and
in 1484 notary to the Signory of Florence. Leonardo became the
pupil of Anprea Veroccuio (1432-88), who was at first apparently
proud of his young pupil; but when Leonardo, says a popular
tradition, painted an angel in a picture of the Baptism of Christ,
 

LEONARDO DA VINCI.

1452-1519.

Page 186,
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 187

(now in the Florentine Academy), so superior to the other figures,
that it made the inferiority of Verocchio apparent to all, the latter
gave up painting and confined himself to sculpture.

The figure in question, however, shows no marked superiority,
and the story, like many similar traditions, has doubtless much less
fact than fiction in it. Verocchio was at this very time at the
summit of his reputation as a sculptor, and was so completely occu-
pied that he can have had little time for painting. As the scholar
of Donatello he might easily have devoted more of his attention to
sculpture than to painting. The bronze sepulchre of Giovanni and
Piero de’ Medici, in San Lorenzo, was completed in 1472. In 1479
Verocchio was invited to Venice to execute the bronze equestrian
statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni. When he had completed the horse,
he was surprised to learn that Vellano of Padua was to make the
figure of Colleoni; and this so exasperated him that he broke up
the head of the horse and fled. The indignant Signory sent him an
intimation that he had better not return to Venice if he valued hix
head. He replied that he would bear in mind their admonition, for
they were as incapable of restoring him his head, as they were of
finding another fit for his horse. The Signory, however, soon
thought better of the matter, and substituted persuasion for threats,
and induced Verocchio to return and complete the work. The
return proved fatal to the sculptor, nevertheless, for he caught cold
while casting the statue, and died at Venice without completing it.
It was finished by Alessandro Leopardi, and fixed in its place in
1495: Leopardi has inscribed his own name on the saddle girth.!
Verocchio’s remains were brought to Florence by his distinguished
scholar Lorenzo di Credi, and he was buried in the church of Sant?
Ambrogio.

Verocchio’s general qualifications and versatility of powers—for
he was musician, goldsmith, and architect, as well as painter and
sculptor—must have had peculiar influence on the young Leonardo,
and doubtless have stimulated him to aim at equally general accom-
plishments. Verocchio is said, by Vasari, to have been the first,
but by Bottari to have been only one of the first, to take plaster
casts from the limbs, living and dead, to serve as models for art
studies: this was a practice familiar to the ancient Greeks. Veroc-
chio’s principal work is the group of the “ Incredulity of St. Thomas,”
in the church of Or’ San Michele, at Florence, finished in 1483, and
weighing 3,981 lbs. As a painter, his style is in no way exempt
from the rigid conventionalisms of the guattrocento.

Although Leonardo devoted himself chiefly to painting, and con-
sidered it his greatest accomplishment, he too found time for many

1 There is a cast of this statue at Sydenham.
188 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

other studies: he appears to have been a universal genius. It would
be almost easier to say what he was not than what he was: he
appears to have had an extensive knowledge of architecture, en-
gineering civil and military, and mechanics generally, botany,
anatomy, mathematics, and astronomy; and he was likewise sculp-
tor, poet, and musician ; he was also one of the best extempore
performers on the lyre, of his time. He himself has given the
best picture of his acquirements in his letter to Lodovico Il Moro,
Duke of Milan, whom he wrote to, offering him his services, about
the year 1483, when Leonardo was little more than thirty years of
age. The following is a translation of this celebrated letter :—

“Most Illustrious Signor,

“Having seen and sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who
repute themselves inventors and makers of instruments of war, and found them
nothing out of the common way : I am willing, without derogating from the merit
of another, to explain to your Excellency the secrets that I possess; and I hope at
fit opportunities to be enabled to give proofs of my efficiency in all the following
matters, which I will now only briefly mention.

“1. [have means of making bridges extremely light and portable, both for the
pursuit of or the retreat from an enemy; and others that shall be very strong and
fire-proof, and easy to fix and take up again. And I have means to burn and
destroy those of the enemy.

“2. In case of a siege, I can remove the water from the ditches; make scaling-
ladders and all other necessary instruments for such an expedition.

“3, If, through the height of the fortifications or the strength of the position of
any place, it cannot be effectually bombarded, I have means of destroying any such
fortress, provided it be not built upon stone.

“4, I can also make bombs most convenient and portable, which shall cause
great confusion and loss to the enemy.

“5. Ican arrive at any (place?) by means of excavations and crooked and
narrow ways made without any noise, even where it is required to pass under
ditches or a river.

“6, I can also construct covered waggons which shall be proof against any force,
and entering into the midst of the enemy will break any number of men, and make
way for the infantry to follow without hurt or impediment.

“7, T can also, if necessary, make bombs, mortars, or field-pieces of beautiful and
useful shapes, quite out of the common metliod.

“8. If bombs cannot be brought to bear, I can make crossbows, ballistae, and
other most efficient instruments; indeed I can construct fit machines of offence
for any emergency whatever.

“9. For naval operations also I can construct many instruments both of offence
and defence: I can make vessels that shall be bomb-proof.

“10. In times of peace I think I can as well as any other make designs of build-
ings for public or for private purposes; I can also convey water from one place to
another.

«J will also undertake any work in sculpture, in marble, in bronze, or in terra-
cotta: likewise in painting I can do what can be done, as well as any man, be he
who he may. 7

“T can execute the bronze horses to be erected to the memory and glory of your
illustrious father and the renowned house of Sfurza.

«And if some of the above things should appear to any one impracticable and
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 189

impossible, I am prepared to make experiments in your park, or in any other place
in which it may please your Excellency, to whom I most humbly recommend
myself,” &.

The original letter is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan: like
all the MSS. of Leonardo da Vinci, it is written from right to
left.

The Duke took Leonardo into his service, at a salary of 500
scudi per annum. No good reason is given for Leonardo’s leaving
Florence; the rejection of some of his schemes of improvement
could scarcely be the cause. Among his propositions was the
grand scheme of converting the Arno from Florence to Pisa into a
canal.

Leonardo established an Academy of the Arts at Milan about
1485, and formed a numerous school of painters. He executed several
pictures for Lodovico; the most celebrated, however, of all the
pictures he produced at Milan was the great picture of the Last
Supper, painted in oil in the refectory of the Dominican Convent of
the Madonna delle Grazzie.

This celebrated picture was the greatest work that had hitherto
appeared in painting: it was at least commenced, if not finished, in
1497, nine years before Michelangelo drew his famous cartoon of
Pisa; eleven years before Raphael commenced the frescoes of the
Vatican; and fifteen years before the completion of the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo.

Leonardo is said to have used some new oil medium of his own
in painting this picture, and the vehicle appears to have been a
bad one, for the picture had almost perished within the first half
of the sixteenth century. Many copies of it, however, were made
before this time, and it is well known from the prints of it by Frey,
Morghen, Wagner, and others; and its present state may now be
seen, from excellent photographs.

One of the best of the old copies is that in the Royal Academy of
London, which was purchased on the Continent by Sir Thomas
Lawrence. This copy is painted in oil, and was executed about
1510 by Marco d’Oggione for the refectory of the Certosa di Pavia;
and as it was copied when the original was still in a perfect state,
the now almost total decay of the latter renders it very valuable.
The Cav. Giuseppe Bossi, who was employed in 1807 by Eugene
Beauharnais, then Viceroy of Italy, to make a copy of the picture
to be worked in mosaic, did not approve of the copy by Oggione,
but preferred that made by Vespino (Andrea Bianchi), which is in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan: this copy was, however, painted
in 1612, upwards of a century after Oggione’s, and when the original
cwas very much decayed.

Marco d’Oggione’s copy must be a better criterion of what the

¢
190 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

original was, than the remains of the original itself, which was
restored and much painted over in 1726 by Michelangelo Bellotti,
an obscure Milanese painter. Lanzi says there was nothing of the
original work remaining at the close of the last century, besides
the heads of three of the Apostles, and these were very indistinct.
All subsequent judgments, therefore, with respect to the merits of
D’Oggione’s copy must be received with due reservation, as they
must be more the result of individual fancies of what the original
might have been, than of what by actual comparison it was found to
be. No deviation from the original can be demonstrated, and none
should be assumed.

D’Oggione made two large copies, both, it is said, from a small
copy, made by himself for the purpose, the one in oil, now in the
Royal Academy, and one in fresco for the refectory of the Convent
of Castellazzo. ;

This fresco copy was partly used by Bossi for his version of this
celebrated composition ; for his picture, made partly from one copy,
partly from another, from studying other works of Da Vinci, and
from his own feeling of Da Vinci’s style,’ is a restoration or transla-
tion, and certainly not a copy: it may have no resemblance to the
original beyond size and composition, and to the true lover of art
can have little value compared with the old unassuming copy of
Oggione. The mere fact of. D’Oggione’s copy having been painted
for people acquainted with the original, and from the original in its
perfect state, by a distinguished scholar of Da Vinci himself, ought
to be a sufficient guarantee for its fidelity, making of course due
allowances for the different capacities of the two men.

Marco Da Oaeionz, or Usaions, though not equal to Luini, was
one of the best painters of Leonardo’s school or followers. Some
good examples of his work, both in fresco and in oil, are preserved
in the Brera Gallery at Milan. He died in 1530, aged about sixty.

The Mosaic, which was made from the Cav. Bossi’s copy, is now
at Vienna, and his first study, the Cartoon, is in the Leuchtenberg
Gallery now in Russia.

Another copy was made by Fra Girolamo Bonsignori, the brother
of Francesco, and was taken to France. This, too, must have been
made not very long after the original was painted.”

The picture of the Last Supper was the last painting of conse-
quence executed by Leonardo at Milan, which he left in 1499,
when Lodovico fled before Charles XI]. of France. In 1500 Leo-
nardo was again in Florence, and was well received by the Gon-
faloniere Pietro Soderini, who took him into the government

1 Goethe, “ Propylaeen.”
2 There are said to have been at one time three old copies of this picture in Paris;
one smaller than the original is now in the Louvre. See Rigollot, “ Catalogue,” &c.

.
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL, 191

employ at a fixed salary. In 1503 Soderini commissioned him to
paint one end of the Council Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio. Michel-
angelo was commissioned to paint the opposite end.

The subject chosen by Da Vinci was the defeat of the Milanese
under Niccolo Picinino, by the Florentines, at Anghiari, near
Borgo San Sepolcro. Leonardo, however, did not even finish the
cartoon of this composition, and jealousy of his young rival, Michel-
angelo, is said to have been the cause of his leaving it incomplete ;
but this is hardly probable. Michelangelo’s rival cartoon, well
known as the Cartoon of Pisa, represented some Pisan soldiers
suddenly called to arms while bathing in the Amo; and it is
remarkable for the hurry of the soldiers, the vigour of their forms,
and the great variety of attitudes in which it displays the human
figure. Leonardo’s composition represented a battle in which
horse and foot soldiers were wildly engaged: the only portion of it
preserved is a group of horsemen contending for a standard, with
some fallen foot-soldiers, and is known as the Battle of the
Standard: Vasari praises the beauty and anatomical correctness of
the horses, and the costume of the soldiers. Michelangelo’s car-
toon is a much superior work, though ueither appears to have been
distinguished for anything more than mere animal vigour; and
from this period the development of mere physical qualities became
the predominating characteristic of the Florentine school.

Benvenuto Cellini terms these two cartoons the school of the
world, and Vasari speaks much to the same effect. They were,
however, both lost or destroyed a few years after they were pro-
duced, in a manner never accounted for. Michelangelo’s is said to
have been cut in pieces. There is an old print by Edelinck, of
part of Leonardo’s, but it appears to have been made from a very
bad drawing, for it is utterly extravagant. An engraving in the
“Etruria Pittria” is little or no better: it is without taste and
without truth. Marcantonio and Agostino Veneziano both en-
graved parts of Michelangelo’s; and there is a good print of the
principal group, by L. Schiavonetti, from an old study preserved at
Holkham. These cartoons appear to have been first exhibited at
Florence in 1506. Michelangelo’s was made in a large room in the
Dyer’s Hospital of St. Onofrio, and was there first seen by the
artists of Florence.

After paying two visits to Milan, Leonardo set out for Rome in
the train of Giuliano ‘de’ Medici, the brother of Leo X., Sept. 24,
1514. He received some commissions from Leo, but the impatient
pontiff seeing a great apparatus, and no signs of commencement,
and hearing that Leonardo was about to make some varnishes,
exclaimed, “ Dear me, this man will never do anything, for he
begins to think of the finishing of his work before the commence-
192 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

ment,” This want of courtesy, and the invitation of Michelangelo
to Rome at the same time, are said to have given offence to Leo-
nardo Da Vinci, and he left Rome in disgust. He joimed Francis I.
of France, at Pavia, and entered his service for the salary of seven
hundred crowns per annum. He went in the beginning of 1517
with Francis to France, and Francis made an attempt at Milan
to remove the painting of the Last Supper, with the intention
of carrying it to Paris, but its removal was found to be im-
practicable.

Da Vinci’s health, when he arrived in France, was so much
enfeebled, that he executed little or nothing there; Francis could
not prevail upon him to colour a cartoon of St. Anne which he had
brought with him from Florence, and which is now in the posses-
sion of the Royal Academy of Arts, in London. Leonardo died at
Cloux, near Amboise, on the 2nd of May, 1519, in his sixty-seventh
year. Vasari relates that he died in the arms of Francis I., who
happened to be on a visit to him, in his chamber, when he was
seized with a paroxysm, which ended in his death. This story may
not be true, but though contradicted, it has not exactly been dis-
proved; its incorrectness has rather been inferred than shown.
The French court was then at St. Germains, and no journey of the
king is recorded on that day.

This great painter had three different styles of execution. He
painted at first in the dry manner of his master and of the age. He
subsequently appeared with a roundness of form and softness of
light and shade, which is almost peculiar to him; this is his
Milanese style, and constitutes the chief characteristic of his
works, and of the Lombard schools: his influence was greater in
Lombardy than in Florence. His third or Florentine style differs
little from his second, but it was characterized by a greater free-
dom of execution and less formality of design: of this period are
his cartoons of St. Anne, and of the Battle of the Standard; the cele-
brated “‘Mona Lisa” in the Louvre; and his own portrait in the
Florentine Gallery, which is not surpassed for painting by any
production of Titian’s. The great majority of the works attributed
to him are in his second or Milanese style, and probably many of
them are productions of some of his numerous Milanese or Lom-
bard scholars, as Bernardino Luini, Andrea da Solario, Francesco
Melzi, Beltraffio, Cesare da Sesto, or Gaudenzio Ferrari who, though
not actually the scholar of Leonardo, was of the school established
by him.’

1 Amoretti, “Memorie Storiche su la Vita, gli Studj, e le Opere di Lionardo da
Vinci,” Milano, 1804 ; Brown, “The Life of Leonardo da Vinci, with a Critical
Account of his Works,” London, 1828; Vasari, “ Vite de’ Pittori,’ &e.; Lomazzo,
“ Trattato della Pittura,” Milano, 1584; Kugler, “ Hand-book of Painting,” transla-
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 193

“Tf any doubt,” says Hallam, “could be harboured, not as to the
right of Leonardo da Vinci to stand as the first name of the fifteenth
century, which is beyond all doubt, but as to his originality in so
many discoveries, which probably no one man, especially in such
circumstances, has ever made, it must be on an hypothesis, not very
untenable, that some parts of physical science had already attained
a height which mere books do not record.” ‘The discoveries
which made Galileo, and Kepler, and Maestlin, and Maurolicus,
and Castelli, and other names, illustrious, the system of Copernicus,
the very theories of recent geologers, are anticipated by Da
Vinci.” }

Bernarnino Luis, or Lovint (about 1460-1530), was born at
Luino on the Lago Maggiore, and if not the actual scholar of
Leonardo, was the greatest of his followers or imitators. His
reputation is comparatively recent, owing partly to his omission
by Vasari, or rather his being only cursorily mentioned by the
Florentine biographer as Bernardino da Lupino, and partly to the
best of his works being attributed to Leonardo himself; as is the
case for instance in our own National collection, in which the
Christ disputing with the Doctors,” bearing the name of Da
Vinci, is, according to many critics, a work by Luini. Many fine
works, however, by this painter are preserved and admired at
Milan. His’ best pictures are elaborately finished, beautifully
coloured, and forcibly shaded, yet they want the exquisite tone,
the fulness of style, and the dignity of character of the works of
Leonardo : Luini’s was a less masculine pencil than his master’s.

Luini was one of the ablest of the. old Italian fresco-painters ; his
frescoes are executed with much more freedom than his oil-pictures.
His colouring is warm and transparent, the lights of his draperies
being merely thinly glazed with the colour of the drapery, mixed
with a little white, while the shadows are the pure colours laid on
thickly, the outlines being often strongly indicated in a dark warm
colour. He does not appear to have worked from cartoons: in his
faces the features are merely indicated by straight lines, yet many

*

tion; and Rigollot, “Catalogue de l’Giuvre de Leonard de Vinci,’ 1849, who
enumerates altogether ninety works, pictures and drawings, at one time or another
attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, many of which are now lost.

1 “Introduction to the Literature of Europe.” Extracts from Leonardo’s writ-
ings were published in Paris by Venturi in 1797. An interesting collection of his
anatomical studies is preserved among his drawings in the Royal Library at
Windsor, selections from which were published by Chamberlain in 1812. Some
portions of the human body, supposed in the history of anatomy not to have been
known till a century later, are well defined in Leonardo’s sketches; but, though
careful and minute, they are not always correct, says Dr. Sharpey, with whom I
examined them: very few can be of the least service to artists.

0
194 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of his female heads, painted upon such slight preparation, are
among the most beautiful of the Italian frescoes.’

ANDREA DA Souario, called also Andrea Milanese, and Andrea
Del Gobbo, from his brother the sculptor, was born at Solario, near
Milan, about 1458, and was still living in 1509, when he was in
France, employed at the Chateau de Gaillon, by Charles d’Amboise,
at the handsome pay of one franc the day.? He was an excellent
colourist. Lomazzo states that he was the scholar of Gaudenzio
Ferrari : as he was, however, a much older man, this is not probable.
The date of Solario’s death is not known, but it seems to have taken
place at Pavia, as he died, says Vasari, while engaged on the “ As-
sumption of the Virgin,” in the sacristy of the Certosa, which was
finished by Bernardino Campi. In the National Gallery is a fine
portrait, signed Andreas, D. Solario. F. 1505.

Francesco Metzt, a Milanese count and an amateur, still living in
1567, was the intimate friend of Leonardo, and accompanied him to
France. He inherited Leonardo’s studies and manuscripts, and he
furnished Vasari.and Lomazzo with much of their information
respecting him. It was on the back of a copy of Leonardo’s will,
belonging to the Melzi family, that was found the exact date of the
great painter’s death in these words—‘‘ Morse in Ambosa, 2 May,
1519,” and most probably in Francesco’s own writing.? The Count’s
pictures are very scarce. In the family castle of Vaprio is a large
fresco of the Madonna and Child; in the Berlin Gallery is a fine
picture of Vertumnus and Pomona, ascribed to him.

Giovanni Antonio BreLTRAFFIO was likewise an amateur, and a
distinguished Milanese citizen. His works also are scarce; but
there is a beautiful example ascribed to him in the National collec-
tion, a ‘Madonna and Child.” The Madonna has been painted
from a fine Italian model, and the costume is rich and tasteful.
Beltraffio died at Milan on the 15th of June, 1516, aged forty-nine.
His epitaph, formerly in the crypt of San Paolo in Compito, is now
preserved in the Brera. Amoretti has assumed Beltraffio to be the
“Giovanni”? who accompanied Leonardo to Rome in 1514; but as
Beltraffio was known as Giovannantonio, this is questionable.‘

CESARE DA Sesto, called also Cesare Milanese, was long faithful to
the style of Leonardo, but latterly studied under Raphael at Rome,
and endeavoured to appropriate the style of the great Roman
painter: an ‘“‘ Adoration of the Kings,” in the Gallery at Naples,
shows these combined influences. Cesare was one of Lomazzo’s

1 Mr. OC. H. Wilson, in the Appendix to the “Report of the Commissioners on
the Fine Arts, 1843.”

2 Deville, “Comptes, &c., du Chateau de Gaillon,” 1850.

3 Count De Laborde, “ La Renaissance des Arts 2 la Cour de France.”

4 Amoretti, “‘ Memorie Storiche,” &c., p. 112.
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 195

heroes, who speaks very highly of his chiaroscuro, and of his
works, as if he never allowed one to pass from his hands that was
not perfect.! His masterpiece is considered San Rocco, painted
for the church of that saint at Milan, but now in the Melzi collec-
tion there. Cesare da Sesto, like Gaudenzio Ferrari, was excellent
in Cangianti, or shot-colours. He died about 1524.

Gauprenzio Ferrari of Valdugia (1484-1549), the pupil of
Luini, though not, as Lomazzo writes, one of the seven pictorial
wonders of the modern world, was correct in design, laborious and
careful in execution, and brilliant in colouring; but was deficient
in that special excellence of the Milanese school—tone, and in the
essential quality, harmony: he used positive or primary colours
beyond all natural proportion, a defect which, as regards time,
characterises the fifteenth rather than the sixteenth century. Still,
after Da Vinci, Luini and Ferrari are the principal masters of the
Milanese school. Ferrari’s best works are at Varallo.

Giovanni Paoto Lomazzo was himself a good painter of the
Milanese school, though he is chiefly known for his writings on
art. This is a circumstance we most likely owe to the fact of his
becoming blind when thirty-two years old only, as he himself
informs us, both in the “ Trattato dell’ Arte della Pittura, &c.,” and
in the “‘ Idea del Tempio della Pittura.” As he was born in 1538,
he became blind about the end of 1570, or the beginning of 1571.
The “ Trattato ” was published in 1584-5, and the ‘‘ Idea” in 1590.
The first was translated into English as early as 1598° when
Lomazzo was probably still living. Some ‘Rime Varie” were
published in 1687, and his two more important works have been
republished since ‘his death. His style is somewhat rambling, but
his powers of observation must have been great, and his memory
remarkable. The information he conveys is chiefly of a practical
nature, although many useful critical and theoretical remarks are
scattered throughout his writings. He was in his practice an
eclectic, endeavouring to appropriate the excellences of various
masters; his pictures were, therefore, necessarily cold and with-
out feeling, like light without heat. His chief excellence was as a
practical fresco-painter. A few specimens are still preserved at
Milan, as “Christ on the Mount of Olives,” in the church of the
Servi, and a “Madonna and Child,” in the church of San Marco.
The Brera also possesses two of his works—a ‘Madonna and
Child ;” and a portrait, said to be of himself.

1 «Tdea del Tempio della Pittura,” p. 158; and “Trattato dell’ Arte,” &c.,
lib. ii, ec. 1.
2 Bordiga, “ Notizie, &c., di Gaudenzio Ferrari.” 1821.
3 «A Tracte containing the Arts of curious Painting,” &¢., by Joseph Barnes,
Oxford, 1598.
0 2
196 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

Lombard light and shade, distinguished for its harmonious tone,
subsequently proverbial, was one of the immediate results of the
efforts of Leonardo at Milan.

No man borrowed less from others than Leonardo da Vinci; he
may almost be termed the inventor of Chiaroscuro, in which and in
design he was without a rival in the earlier part of his career. He
anticipated both Fra Bartolomeo in tone, and Michelangelo in
grandeur of design. Of his numerous treatises, though many are.
preserved, few have been published : the principal is the “Trattato-
della Pittura,” of which there are many editions and many trans-.
lations.

Lorenzo pr Crepi, though not a pupil of Leonardo da Vinci,
seems to have been much influenced by his example in elaborating
the effects of light and shade; and ‘he carried high finish even
beyond Leonardo, Lorenzo was born at Florence in 1459, and was
the fellow-pupil of Leonardo with Verocchio. He was sculptor
and painter, but he owes his reputation exclusively to his painting.
He must have been, however, not unskilled in sculpture, since his
master, Verocchio, expressed a desire in his will, dated 1488, that.
Lorenzo might be employed to finish the colossal equestrian ‘statue’
of Bartolommeo Colleoni at Venice, which Verocchio had left in-
complete : a wish which was not carried out.

Lorenzo di Credi’s principal pictures are very extraordinary
‘examples of painting—large altar-pieces with figures the natural
size, finished with all the care of a Vanderwerff, and always in
thorough keeping with themselves. His works, however, give
little satisfaction ; they are mannered in their colouring and draw-
ing; his figures are never beautiful, and indeed they have but
little merit beyond their remarkably elaborate execution. He
must have been a man of marvellous patience, but he evidently
had very little taste. The “Madonna and Child, with Saints
Julian and Nicolas,” noticed by Vasari as Lorenzo’s masterpiece,
is now in the Louvre. The ‘Adoration of the Shepherds,” for-
merly in Santa Chiara at Florence, now in the Academy there, is
also an admirable example of this painter. There are two small
characteristic specimens in the National Gallery. Lorenzo died at
Florence, January 12th, 1537.1 He cannot be classed with the
cinquecento painters in style, though he survived to so late a date:
the impressions of his youth or early manhood were too fixed to be
influenced by any innovations.

Giovanni Antonio Soeiiant (about 1491-1544) of Florence was
the scholar and a close imitator of Lorenzo di Credi, and his works
pass for those of his master; but Sogliani, though inferior to
Lorenzo di Credi, is less sharp in his outlines or the boundaries of

1 Gaye, “ Carteggio,”’ &c., vol. i.
‘THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 197

his figures. Sogliani’s colouring is good; his masterpiece is con-
sidered the “Last Supper,” in Santa Maria del Fosso, in Anghiari.
There are also some graceful Madonnas by Sogliani.t

When Da Vinci returned in 1500 to Florence, Fra BarroLomeo
pi San Marco, or Baccio della Porta, as he is also called, was the
only painter there of extraordinary power, and he was then in his
thirty-first year only. .He was born at Savignano, near Florence,
in 1469, and died at Florence in the convent of St. Mark on the
‘6th ‘of October, 1517. Michelangelo was five years younger than
Fra Bartolomeo, and had up to that time done nothing in painting,
having confined himself almost exclusively to sculpture. Fra
Bartolomeo himself also had given up painting for a time. An
interval of about six years elapsed from his assumption of the
monastic garb to his return to his profession and the world. The
immediate cause of his retiring to a convent—he joined the Domini-
cans at Prato—was the melancholy end of his friend Savonarola.
‘A curious episode in the history of art, caused by the influence of
this famous monk, may be here briefly noticed.

‘Savonarola, after the death of Lorenzo, and the banishment of
Piero, de’ Medici, in 1494, headed a popular party in favour of a
democratic government; and, having met with considerable suc-
cess, assumed -the character of a prophet. Among the objects of
his fanatical deprecation were all naked representations, whether
in painting or sculpture; and, indeed, any female representation
seems to have been offensive to him. In 1497 he obtained such
influence over his followers that it was equalled only by his
fanaticism. During the celebration of the Carnival of that year,
instead of the usual bonfire in the market-place, Savonarola had a
large scaffolding prepared, and upon this he piled many of the most
excellent works of Florentine artists, paintings and sculpture,
including the busts and portraits of several beautiful Florentine
females, and many foreign tapestries, condemned on account of
‘their nakedness; and they were all consumed amidst the rejoicings
of the populace. He repeated the exhibition on a much larger
scale in the following year; and among the works of interest
sacrificed on this occasion was an illuminated copy of Petrarch.
Not the least remarkable part of this exhibition is that Fra Bario-
lomeo, Lorenzo di Credi, and other artists, were induced to con-
tribute their own works towards the common destruction.

In May, however, of this year, 1498, Savonarola was condemned
to be strangled by the opposite party, with which was Pope
Alexander VI.; and his body, with those of two of his companions,
was publicly burnt. From the death of Savonarola things began

1 Vasari, “ Vite,” &e.
198 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

to assume their ordinary course. But this interregnum doubtless
had some pernicious effect on the arts, or at least retarded the
beneficial results of the school or academy established by Lorenzo
de’ Medici in his garden near the church of San Marco, where he
had made a good collection of works of ancient sculpture, from
which the youths of Florence were permitted to draw. In 1512
the Medici were re-established in Florence.

Fra Bartolomeo was the scholar of Cosimo Rosselli, and imitated,
or rather painted in a very similar style to, Leonardo da Vinci: to
class him as one of Da Vinci’s imitators is perhaps unjust. He is
the painter of many admirable works, which combine some of the
chief excellences of both Da Vinci and Raphael. He has been
termed the true master of Raphael: these two painters formed a
close friendship when the latter was in Florence in 1504, and much
of the improvement evinced in the works produced by Raphael
after this visit is attributed to his intimacy with Fra Bartolomeo.
On the other hand, benefits were mutual: Fra Bartolomeo himself
greatly improved after this period: his great figure of St. Mark in
the Pitti Palace at Florence is one of the finest productions of the
Italian schools of painting : it combines with the style of Raphael
much of the grandeur of the Prophets and Sibyls painted by
Michelangelo on the vault of the Sistine Chapel. One of the
greatest works of this master is the Madonna della Misericordia
at Lucca. Vienna also possesses a magnificent work by this
painter,—‘‘ The Presentation in the Temple,” of which there is a
large print by Rahl. Though the figures of this picture have a
grand Raphaelesque character, and the execution is free, the
colouring is harsh; the scarlet, red, and orange draperies of
St. Joseph and St. Simeon are overpowering, and the picture has a
defect not uncommon with the works of Fra Bartolomeo—the eyes
are too prominent for the faces: it gains, however, on a more dis-
tant inspection, which would be enforced if in its original place of
destination in the Cappella del Noviziato of San Marco. It is
inscribed—1516. Orate pro pictore olim sacelli hujus Novitio. The
large picture in the Louvre is unfinished, and is in every sense an
inferior work.

Though Fra Bartolomeo died in his forty-eighth year only, and
abstained so many years from the practice of his art, the number of
his works preserved is considerable, both at Florence and in other
places. The Academy at Florence possesses a fresco of Five
Saints, one of which represents the profile of Savonarola. Fra
Bartolomeo is said to have been the first painter who used a lay-
figure, that is, a wooden figure with joints, contrived for the
placing of draperies on for study.

Maniorro ALBERTINELLI was the most distinguished of Fra Barto-
 

MICHELANGELO BUONARROTI.

1475-1564.

Page 199.
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL, 199

lomeo’s scholars, and in some instances equalled him in tone: he
became the intimate friend of Bartolomeo, their acquaintance having
commenced in the school of Cosimo Rosselli: they painted several
works together, and when the latter in his fit of asceticism entered.
the monastic life, Albertinelli finished some of the pictures for him
which he had left in an imperfect state. Albertinelli was of an
impatient temper; and, being offended with the criticisms which
were passed upon his works, he forsook painting, says Vasari, and
turned publican: he, however, soon became disgusted with this
new occupation, and returned to his former profession. He exe-
cuted several fine works in Florence, Viterbo, and in Rome. The
Florentine Academy possesses a fine example by him, of what is
termed tone in painting, in the Annunciation of the Virgin, formerly
in San Zenobio. Albertinelli died in Florence, aged forty-five,
about 1520, and was buried in San Pietro Maggiore, having hastened
his death by dissipation. He was the master of several very able
scholars, as Giuliano Bugiardini, Marcantonio Franciabigio, and
Innocenzo da Imola.

MicuELanceLo Bouonarrotr was born at Castel’ Caprese, near
Arezzo, in Tuscany, March 6, 1475 :' his father, Lodovico Buonar-
roti, was governor of the castle of Caprese and Chiusi. Michel-
angelo is distinguished as poet, painter, sculptor, and architect.
He was bound for three years to Domenico del Ghirlandajo in 1488,
and, contrary to the usual practice, Ghirlandajo paid an annual
stipend for the boy’s assistance, instead of charging for his imstruc-
tion, a deviation from custom attributed to Michelangelo’s preco-
cious abilities: the sum, however, was sufficiently moderate,—
twenty-four florins for the whole term. He is represented by all
accounts as having made surprising progress, though up to the time
of the production of his celebrated cartoon, 1505, exclusively as a
sculptor. He soon distinguished himself from the other pupils of
Ghirlandajo, and attracted the notice of Lorenzo de’ Medici, by the
superior ability of his drawings and models made in the garden or
so-called Academy of Lorenzo, near the church of San Marco. It
was while studying in this academy that a quarrel is said to have
occurred between him and Torregiano the sculptor, who so injured
the nose of Michelangelo by a blow he gave him in the face, that
the great Florentine bore the marks of it for life. Lorenzo was so
much impressed with the superiority of Michelangelo over other
students of his academy, that he gave him a room in his own
palace; and the young sculptor executed several pieces of sculpture
for his magnificent patron, whom, however, he lost in 1492. To
avoid the disturbances which ensued after the accession of Lorenzo’s

1 This date is commonly given as 1474, because the Florentines commenced
their year at that time with the 25th of March, the Annunciation day.
200 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

son Pietro to the government of Florence, Michelangelo removed
for a time to Bologna, and he visited also Venice. He had, how-
ever, returned to Florence in 1494; and in 1495 he made his cele-
brated Sleeping Cupid, which was sold at Rome as an antique to
the Cardinal Riario: this brought about his first visit to Rome in
1496: he returned in 1501. His second visit was not made until
the end of 1504,,or the beginning of 1505, when invited by Julius
II. He had already, in 1501, received his great commission from
the Gonfaloniere Soderini to make the colossal statue of David, now
in the Piazza Granduca at Florence, carved from a solid block of
marble, which had been so injured by some incompetent artist that
Michelangelo had a difficulty in making a figure out of it. This
difficulty and the magnitude of the figure seem to have biassed the
judgment of the Florentine critics of the time, when they pro-
nounced this figure, certainly an outrage on ordinary human pro-
portions, to be a triumph of art, rivalling the great. efforts of
antiquity. It shows the unique powers and facilities displayed
afterwards by Michelangelo in many of the parts; but these parts
belong neither to each other nor to the body: head, neck, ankles,
feet, and hands are monstrous for the body.1_ Such mannered pro-
portions, or somewhat analogous peculiarities, characterize most of
the subsequent figures of Michelangelo, whether in sculpture or in
painting. The celebrated Dead Christ, made during his first visit
to Rome, is very superior. This Pietd, or group of the Virgin with
the dead Christ on her knees, now in St. Peter’s, was executed by
Michelangelo at Rome in 1499. He was invited to Rome by Pope
Julius II. to construct that pope’s tomb, which was commenced on
a grand scale; but owing to many interruptions, chiefly caused by
Julius himself, during his lifetime, the contemplated mausoleum
was never finished. Many years afterwards, in 1550, an unpre-
tending monument was substituted for it, in the church of San
Pietro in Vinculis, the principal feature of which is the well-known
noble figure of the seated Moses.

Up to 1503 we know Michelangelo exclusively as a sculptor: in
this year he received a commission from Soderini to decorate one
end of the Council Hall; the oppusite wall being intrusted to
Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo began, but did not complete his
picture; Michelangelo’s was never even commenced, though he
executed the cartoon for it. This is the celebrated design, already
noticed, known as the “Cartoon of Pisa,” from its representing
some Pisan soldiers while bathing in the Arno, surprised by Floren-
tines; its progress was interrupted by his visit to Rome in 1505,
but it was completed after his return, in that year, or in the begin-
ning of 1506. It displays the greatest variety in action and atti-

1 A cast is now in the Museum at Kensington.
THE FLORENTINE SCHOOL. 201

tude, and makes a fine display of anatomical knowledge ‘and skill
of foreshortening. Michelangelo’s contemporaries declared that he
never produced a work so perfect in its style of form: Benvenuto
Cellini calls it “‘ the School of the World;” it had doubtless great
influence on the art of that period. The Earl of Leicester possesses,
at Holkham, an old copy in light and shade of the principal portion
of this work, all that remains of it, and now well known from the
prints by Schiavonetti, and others. It was during the progress of
this cartoon that he was called to Rome by Julius I].; but Michel-
angelo, offended by the treatment he received from: some of the
pope’s servants, returned to Florence without permission, which
offended his holiness. They were, however, reconciled at Bologna,
where, in 1507, he made a bronze statue of Julius, which was after-
wards converted in 1512 into a cannon by the Bolognese, and used
against the pope himself. In 1508 Michelangelo made his third
visit to Rome. The vast Scriptural series of frescoes of the vault of
the Sistine Chapel was executed during this third visit, by the order of
Julius. These were the first frescoes, and probably the first paintings,
executed by Michelangelo; and he endeavoured to escape the re-
sponsibility of so great a work, recommending Raphael, then already
occupied in the Vatican Stanze, as a more fit person for such a
task ; but the Pope would not be put off, and Michelangelo was
forced to make preparations for the work. Report says that Bra-
mante, who was supposed to be related to Raphael, instigated the
Pope to this command, in hopes of showing Michelangelo’s inferiority
to his already renowned countryman.

Michelangelo was so diffident of his powers in this new department
of art, that he summoned some of his old Florentine companions to
execute the frescoes from his cartoons: he, however, was not satis-
fied with what was done by these painters, and he accordingly
knocked down their work and executed the whole with his own
hand; he completed the entire frescoes of the vault in the in-
credibly short time of twenty months. The Chapel was opened,
according to Vasari, on All Saints’ day (Nov. 1); he does not give
the year. Richardson’ and Roscoe” both give the year 1512,
without quoting their authority, but many circumstances tend to
corroborate this date. Michelangelo was himself certainly in
Florence in October 1512. These great works will be more par-
ticularly described in the chapter devoted to an account of the
Vatican frescoes. In their style Michelangelo adhered to that which
characterized his sculpture and the ee Cartoon of Pisa; they
are, however, less exact in design than the figures of the car (oan, a
deficiency which is more than counterbalanced by their superior
grandeur of conception.

1 « An Account of Statues,” &c., 1722. 2 «Tife of Leo X.”
202 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

There is no evidence of Michelangelo’s having been in Rome
between 1513 and 1525. After the death of Julius II., in 1513,
his great powers were comparatively wasted. Julius’s successor,
Leo X.—Giovanni de’ Medici, the second son of Lorenzo the Magni-
ficent—employed this now great painter as well as sculptor, nearly
the whole of his pontificate, in selecting marble at the quarries
of Pietra Santa, for the facade of the church of San Lorenzo at
Florence. In fact, for the twenty years which elapsed between the
cpmpletion of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the commence-
ment of the “ Last Judgment” on the altar-wall of that chapel, at
the close of the pontificate of Clement VII—Giulio de’ Medici, in
1533—Michelangelo was employed exclusively as architect, engi-
neer, and sculptor: during a part of the time he superintended the
fortifications of Florence, which were used against Clement himself
in 1529,

The “ Last Judgment” was completed in 1541, in the pontificate
of Paul III., who in 1535 had made Michelangelo, painter, sculptor,
and architect of the Vatican Palace. The inferior works of the
Cappella Paolina, finished in 1549, were his last paintings. He was
now exclusively employed as an architect, having in 1547 succeeded
San Gallo as architect of St. Peter’s. He altered the plan of this great
cathedral, but he did not live to see the completion of its magni-
ficent dome, of which he had made the model in 1558. He died
at Rome in the night of the 17th of February, 1564; having nearly
completed his eighty-ninth year, and having gratuitously conducted
the building of St. Peter’s throughout the five pontificates of Paul
III., Julius IIT., Marcellus II., Paul IV., and Pius 1V. Gherardo
Fidelissimi, one of the physicians who attended Michelangelo
during his illness, in announcing his death to Cosmo I., Duke of
Florence, in a letter written on the morning of the 18th of Feb-
ruary, speaks of him as a Miracol di Natura, and terms him the
greatest man that ever lived upon the earth.' His body was taken
to Florence, and, on the 14th of March following, was buried in a
vault in the church of Santa Croce. He was never married, but is
said to have been in love with Vittoria Colonna.

As painter Michelangelo is almost exclusively known for his
productions in fresco ; he never painted in oil-colours, and there is
only one tempera picture attributed to him—a “ Holy Family,” now
in the Gallery at Florence—which has any pretensions to be well au-
thenticated ; it is said to have been painted for Angelo Doni: it bas,
however, every trace of having been painted by Angelo Bronzino,
whatever may be the origin of the design. The same may be said
of the picture in the possession of Lord Taunton, hitherto attributed
to Domenico Ghirlandajo, but now assigned to Michelangelo; it

1 Gaye, “ Curleggio,” &e., vol. iii, p. 126.
 

RAPHAELLO SANTI.

1483-1520,

Page 203.
THE ROMAN SCHOOL. 203

shows a remarkable identity of execution with that of the magni-
ficent example of Bronzino in the National Gallery—the allegory
of “‘ Sensual Love.”

The chief characteristics of Michelangelo’s works, which revolu-
tionized painting, not only in Florence, but throughout ltaly, are
severe grandeur of design, and an occasional sublimity of invention.
His style is, however, injured by an excessive muscular development,
and by a too great uniformity of character. But one standard of form
is evident for man, woman, and child, of every age and of every
degree: his women have been justly termed female men, and his
children diminutive giants. All his principal and particularly his
single figures bear the impress of the sculptor; they are painted
statues, and, whether single or not, have an abstract isolated cha-
racter, both from their attitude and expression. His Daniel and
Jeremiah or Isaiah want but the substance to make them as monu-
mental and statuesque as his Moses or his Lorenzo de’ Medici. The
element of Michelangelo’s art, whether in painting or in sculpture,
is an abstract impersonation of dignity under the various affections
of humanity.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE ROMAN SCHOOL—RAPHAEL—THE CARTOONS.

In Raphael painting attained its highest dramatic development.
The art of Raphael was in its element essentially opposed to that of
Michelangelo: if intellect may be said to characterize the works of
Michelangelo, passion or the affections may be said to characterize
those of Raphael. But the latter is much less a description of the
style of Raphael than the former is of that of Michelangelo. The
works of Raphael from the very nature of their characteristics could
not have that unity or singleness of character which belongs to
those of Michelangelo. Intellect, in whatever shape it may appear,
must have a unity, or harmony with itself, in all its evidences: the
affections, on the other hand, can be evinced only by variety of
character, action, and expression. If, therefore, equal formative
and imitative powers are bestowed upon the plastic development
of these two spheres of vitality, the latter, as a field of art, is
almost infinite, while the former is narrow in comparison, and can
command only a proportionate share of our sympathies. Further,
in the works of Raphael we perceive, as it were, a marriage of the
intellect with the affections; while the abstract dignity of Michel-
angelo too often inspires but one sentiment,—that of awe.
Michelangelo and Raphael, however, were both eminently Chris-
204 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

tian painters ; and the lofty quality of their works is due to high
development of Christian character. The religion of the Greeks
could probably never have produced such artists. Essentials of
character so much preponderate in the works of both, that it appears
almost derogatory to their unrivalled productions to speak of the
mere external qualities of art, as form, colour, light and shade, &c. ;
yet it is almost exclusively in such qualities that their works can
be compared with those of other masters. Not that these external
qualities are to be in the slightest degree depreciated; on the
contrary, without an adequate development of the external there
can be no just evidence of the internal; but they must be sub-
ordinate. And every artist knows that this relative position could
never be acquired by any neglect of the material representation of
his subject, but that it depends wholly upon his command over these
essential means of art.

RapHactto Santi, or RarraeL_o Sanzio, as Vasari and the modern
Italians write his name,! was born at Urbino, in the Contrada del
Monte, on April 6, 1483. His first instructor was his father, Gio-
vanni Santi, who was a good painter for his time. He painted in
fresco, in tempera, and in oil, and was, from the few works by him
still preserved, certainly one of the better quattrocento painters,
though much inferior to Pietro Perugino, with whom Raphael was
placed by his uncles Simone Ciarla and Bartolomeo Santi, as soon
as his extraordinary abilities were decidedly developed. The best
of Giovanni Santi’s works is considered the Madonna and Child
enthroned, with various saints, in the church of the Franciscans
at Urbino, and painted in 1489 for the Buffi family. Fano pos-
sesses two good works by him: one is signed, Jonannus Santis

1 T take this opportunity of humbly protesting against the affectation in England
of writing the name of this great painter as the name is now generally spelt in
Italy—Raffaelle, and yet utterly disregarding the Italian pronunciation of the name
so written, but speaking it out as if it were a French word. Those who persist in
‘writing Raffaelle should pronounce it Raf-fa-el-le. They never do this, but pro-
nounce the name Raphael. There is only one published fac-simile of Raphael’s
signature, and that is raphaello, at the end of his letter to his uncle Simone Ciarla,
in April 1508, and given in full in Longhena’s “Istoria della Vita e delle Opere di
Raffaello Sanzio,” Milan, 1829. On his pictures this great painter nearly
always wrote RarPHarL. On fourteen signed pictures he has written RaPHaEL
twelve times, generally followed by Ursrnas, once by Santivs, once by Dr
Ursrno, and once alone by itself: the “Belle Jardinitre”’ in the Louvre is signed
Rarwaerto. Urs. Passavant mentions a small portrait, in the Royal Collection,
formerly supposed to represent Raphael himself, but injured and repainted, as
signed on two halves of a buckle—Rarrarito—Ursinas. Feo. If genuine, it is
the only instance of the ff instead of the ph. The form Raffaelle never occurs.
Passavant has written Rafael, but admits that Raphael always wrote Raphaello.
The French write Raphael; an agreeable exception to their common practice of
so transforming names that they are scarcely intelligible to any but themselves.
 

 

 

 

“10 SPOSALIZIO.” (Rarnatt., Ix tHe BRERA, MILAN.)
Page 205.
THE ROMAN SCHOOL. 205

Urs. P.; the other, Jomannes Santis De Ursino Piyxir.’ Raphael
lost his mother when he was only eight years old; and his father
died Aug. 1, 1494, before he had attained the age of twelve. It
was probably shortly after his father’s death that he was placed
by his uncles with Pietro Perugino; and one of his first inde-
pendent works is the very interesting ‘‘ Crucifixion ” in the Dudley
Gallery, painted for the Gavri family in Citta di Castello, and signed
Rapuact. Ursinas. P, After assisting, and visiting various places
with his master Perugino, Raphael at length, in 1504, visited Flo-
rence, whither he carried a letter of introduction to the Gonfaloniere
Soderini, from Johanna, the sister of the reigning duke of Urbino.
In 1508, he had already attained sufficient celebrity to justify Bra-
mante in recommending him to Pope Julius II., who invited him in
that year to Rome. ,

It is not known how long Raphael remained in Florence after
his visit in Oct. 1504; but, having once become acquainted with
the great school of that city, he was not likely to have heen satisfied
with a mere visit; and from an existing letter we find that he was
there before his settling finally in Rome in 1508. He is supposed
to have left Florence in the spring of 1505, when he went to
Perugia to execute some works there, and to have returned to
Florence in the autumn of the same year. The celebrated ‘‘ Sposa-
lizio,” in the Brera at Milan, was painted probably at Florence in
1504; the Ansidei Madonna, at Blenheim, in 1505. The whole
of 1506 and 1507 seem to have been spent in Florence, except a
short interval in 1506, passed at Bologna and Urbino: in Bologna
Raphael became personally acquainted with Francia.

He returned from Urbino in 1506, at the time that Michelangelo
exhibited his cartoon of ‘‘The Surprise of the Pisan Soldiers.” On
this occasion, Raphael had an opportunity of making the acquaint-
ance of the principal artists then at Florence; and he contracted a
friendship with Fra Bartolomeo, who had gout over his ascetic fit
that year, had recovered from the effect of Savonarola’s death, and
returned to his art and to usefulness. No doubt these painters
mutually benefited each other: they have much in common in some

1 Pungileoni, “ Elogio Storico di Giovanni Santi, Pittore e poeta, padre del gran
Raffaello da Urbino.” Urb. 1822. Giovanni was also a poet; a long chronicle of
the “Gesta gloriose del Duca Federigo d’Urbino,” in rhyme, is preserved in the
Vatican Library, and is published in part in Passavant’s “Rafael von Urbino und
sein Vater Giovanni Santi.” 1839-58. The fine altar-piece (No. 120) in the
Berlin Gallery, containing the portrait of a boy, falsely assumed to be the young
Raphael, and formerly attributed to, and engraved by Rosini as the work of,
Giovanni, from a false inscription on it, is now ascribed to Timoteo Viti: this
gallery has, however, still two works ascribed to Giovanni Santi—an altar-piece
formerly belonging to the Matarozzi family in Urbino, and a Madonna said to
have belonged to the Bartolini family of that city.
206 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

works. Bartolomeo’s “Presentation in the Temple,” at Vienna, is
quite worthy of the prince of painters.

The cartoon of Michelangelo, from the sensation created by its
new and remarkable drawing, according to several accounts of the
day, must have produced also some effect upon Raphael, though,
owing to the animosity which existed between Michelangelo and
Perugino, and Raphael’s respect for the latter, he perhaps allowed
himself to be less influenced than he otherwise would have been.
Certainly a great advancement in style is shown in the Entomb-
ment, in the Borghese Palace, painted in 1507; also the St. Cathe-
rine in the National Gallery, and La Belle Jardiniére, in the Louvre,
painted in the same year; the Madonna del Baldachino, in the Pitti
Palace, and indeed. the majority of his best easel pictures, date
their origin from this period. But several of his Holy Families
and many of his portraits belong to an earlier time. The date of
the Canigiani Holy Family, signed Rarart Ursrnas, sometimes
called the Pyramid, at Munich, a grand early work, exceedingly
free in the handling, is not fixed. It appears therefore, from these
repeated returns to Florence, that Raphael, from the time of his
first acquaintance with it, as might be expected, made that city his
head-quarters until he was invited to Rome. He arrived at Rome
about the middle of the year 1508, from which time to 1513 he was
almost constantly employed by Julius II.; and from 1513 until his
death on Good Friday, April 6, 1520, he was equally as much
occupied by the successor of Julius, Leo X.

The works of Raphael show three distinct styles, corresponding
with three periods of his life. The works executed up to his visit
to Florence in 1504 constitute the first or his Perugino manner ;
those done after his acquaintance with the Florentine school up to
the painting of the Theology, or the Dispute on the Sacrament, in
the chamber Della Segnatura in the Vatican, finished about 1509,

7 Raphael lived exactly 37 years: this is the substance of the following part of
the inscription on his tomb in the Pantheon written by Cardinal Bembo—

Vixit An. XXXVII. Integer Integros.
Quo die Natus est, co esse Desiit
VIII. Id. Aprilis MDXX.

He died on the day on which he was born, April 6, which in 1520 was Good
Friday, and this circumstance appears to have led to a vulgar error that he was
born on Good Friday and died on Good Friday, which is repeated by Vasari, and
many after him, apparently overlooking the fact of Good Friday being a moveable
feast. The mistake was further promulgated by Passavant and other recent
writers. Schorn suggests an error in the inscription; but it does not appear to
have occurred to him that the error may be in the assertion of Vasari. Good
Friday happened in the year 1483 on the 26th or 28th of March. A communica-
tion on this subject from Mr. J. Dennistoun appeared in the Art-Union Journal, in
the number for January, 1842. Passavant has, in his third volume of the “ Life of
Raphael,” published in 1858, changed his view on the matter, and adopted April
the 6th as Raphael’s birthday.
THE ROMAN SCHOOL. 207

or at latest in the following year, constitute his second or Florentine
style; all later works belong to his third style, or that which par-
ticularly characterizes him, and which constitutes the Roman
school in its highest development.

Though the pictures painted by Raphael in his second period
belong to the best examples of painting in perhaps its greatest age,
it is in the works of the last ten years of his life that he has esta-
blished his claim to the title of the greatest of painters. The great
oil-pictures of this period are:—The Madonna di Foligno, in the
Vatican ; the Madonna della Sedia, in the Uffiz]; the Madonna del
Pesce, at Madrid; the St. Cecilia, at Bologna; Christ bearing his
Cross, called “Lo Spasimo di Sicilia,” and the Holy Family, called
“La Perla,” at Madrid ; the Archangel Michael, and the Holy Family
of Francis I., in the Louvre, both signed Rarwact. Ursinas. Pince-
BAT. and dated 1518; Leo X., with Cardinals Giulio de’ Medici and
Lodovico de’ Rossi, in the Pitti Palace; the Madonna di San Sisto, in
the Gallery at Dresden; and the “Transfiguration,” in the Vatican ;
besides some few small Madonna pictures of exquisite grace and
beauty, of which several are in this country: as the Madonna dai
Candelabri,’ the Madonna del Passeggio,? the Niccolini Madonna,’
and the Aldobrandini Madonna.* It ig in these works that Raphael
has exhibited a nearer approximation to perfection than any other
painter; or rather, in these works he has elevated the standard of
perfection, which must always depend upon existing examples, and
probably every new excellence must remove it still more remote
from that which has been actually attained, as probably nothing
can be presented to us so excellent as not to suggest a still higher
excellence. There must be, however, a degree in imitative forma-
tive art, which would exhibit so effective a combination of the
powers of invention with those of representation as to constitute
perfection in painting; and it is not more than justice to Raphael
to assert that he has on the whole approached this degree more
nearly than any other painter.

In all his works the treatment is subordinate to the conception ;
many men have surpassed him in mere execution, in which respect
he was often, if not generally, careless, and certainly indifferent to
high finish. He has, however, scarcely been approached in pro-
priety of invention, composition, or expression, and is almost
without an equal in design ; for moral force in allegory and history,
unrivalled; for fidelity in portrait, unsurpassed; and in sublimity
and grandeur inferior only to Michelangelo, whose Prophets and
Sibyls in the Sistine Chapel are in these respects indisputably the
triumphs of modern art.

In his forms Raphael] was neither so ideal, nor in one sense so

1 Mr. Munro's. ? The Earl of Ellesmere’s. 3 Earl Cowper’s. 4 Lord Garvagh’s.
208 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

perfect, as the antique; but he is nearly equally grand, and moré
natural. Such forms as the Apollo or the Mercury would be in-
compatible with his style; they are supposed to represent beings
beyond the common emotions of mankind. He has, however,
perhaps never approached the grandeur of design of the Torso of
Apollonius, nor in beauty and elegance ever equalled the Antinous.
His colouring and light and shade are in perfect accordance with
the character of his works. Colour was to Raphael always a means,
and never an end, as it is with the painters of some schools; and
indeed, with some of the Venetian painters it appears to have been
the paramount end of their efforts. In all compositions where
colouring predominates it engrosses the attention, and injures the
impression that any other higher excellence which the work may
possess might otherwise convey. Colour admits of no partition or
division of attention; it is either wholly subordinate to the higher
aims of the picture or is principal. When it is subordinate, it is
in its place; and this is eminently the case with the works of
Raphael, and in which no person capable of appreciating higher
aims in art.can feel any deficiency of colouring. This is equally true
of the frescoes of Michelangelo on the vault of the Sistine Chapel.
Raphael lost his life in some measure, owing to his overwhelming
occupations, for independent of the extraordinary demands on him
for the Vatican Stanze, and other paintings, he had in 1514 suc-
ceeded Bramante as architect of St. Peter’s; and this was no sine-
cure, for he attended to the work. Of a subtle and delicate
organization, he must of necessity have been harassed and ex-
hausted by this incessant application involved in so many under-
takings, and health and reputation equally suffered; for a vast
proportion of his work must have been carried out by his scholars,
and they were too numerous to have been all constantly overlooked
by him. He is assumed to have made an extraordinary effort
in his last picture, the Transfiguration, owing to the rivalry of
Sebastiano del Piombo, whom Michelangelo has the credit of having
pitted against Raphael as an oil-painter. This picture, and Sebas-
tiano’s “‘ Raising of Lazarus” in the National Gallery, were both
painted for the Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, then bishop of Narbonne,
afterwards Pope Clement VII.; and the second, it is said, was
presented to the Cathedral of Narbonne as a substitute for the
“Transfiguration,” considered too precious a work to be sent out
of Rome. Raphael’s picture was not finished.

It was while under the pressure of his numerous occupations that
Raphael on one occasion, in March 1520, when engaged at the Far-
nesina, was suddenly summoned by Leo X. to the Vatican, and in
his haste to meet the Pope, he overheated himself; in that state he
had his audience with Leo, within the cool precincts of the Vatican,
THE CARTOONS OF RAPHAEL. 209

caught a cold, which ended in a fever, fatal to him in fourteen days.
After lying in state, with his picture of the “ Transfiguration ” at his
head, he was buried with great pomp in the Pantheon. *

Raphael was of a sallow complexion, had brown eyes, was slight in
form, and about five feet eight inches high: he was never married,
but was engaged in 1514 to Maria Bibiena, the niece of Cardinal
Bibiena, who preceded him to the grave. Raphael had two houses,
one in Rome, and one in the Villa Borghese; he left property to the
value of 16,000 ducats, out of which an independence was secured.
to Margarita, his constant friend and mistress, the Fornarina.

Raphael’s untimely death is assumed to have been a calamity to
art, this may be safely questioned; too many of his later works
seem to proclaim that he had fulfilled his destiny and performed his
work: his period of progress had terminated. His commissions
and occupations were too numerous and multifarious to admit of
perfect performance for the future, and much must of necessity
have been left almost wholly to scholars and assistants. The
“ Heliodorus” of the Vatican frescoes; the ‘‘Madonna di San
Sisto,” in oil-painting; and the Cartoons at Hampton Court, as
designs, were not to be surpassed even by himself; and as all the
circumstances seemed to fully promise that his works must hence-
forth be chiefly executed: by deputy, the Stanza dell’ Incendio, the
Psyche series of the Farnesina, or the Arazzi della Scuola Nuova,
are rather the true exponents of the character of his ultimate style,
than the Cartoons, or the ‘‘ Transfiguration” itself, executed under
peculiar incitement. On the whole, perhaps, the Cartoons at Hamp-
ton Court must be considered the noblest and most characteristic
of Raphael’s productions: it is only in them that his style is com-
pletely developed.

THE Cartoons oF RAPHAEL.

These celebrated compositions, seven of which are now at Hampton
Court, were apparently originally ten in number, and they were
executed by Raphael for Leo X. in the years 1515 and 1516, as
patterns for tapestries which were hung on the lower part of the
walls of the Cappella Sistina, in that part called the Presbyterium,
which is reserved for the use of the Cardinals; it is at the altar end,
and comprises the larger portion of the chapel, being separated from
the rest by a balustrade. Raphael received for these ten cartoons
434 ducats, or about 1501. sterling, which is less than half the price
he was paid for the large frescoes of the Stanze, for each room (?) of

1 His tomb was opened in 1833, and the skeleton, with all the teeth, found
entire: a mould was taken from the skull.

P
210 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

which he received 1200 scudi d’oro, or about 400/.' This last’ sum
appears a large amount, when compared with the remuneration
which, according to Vasari, Michelangelo received for the paintings
of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, namely, 3000 scudi, or about
6501. Condivi says ducats, which would considerably reduce the
amount, and adds that the painter must have laid out twenty or
twenty-five for his colours. Michelangelo doubtless produced a
more extensive series of illustrations than the Pope expected, or
than he himself had anticipated. .

Before Michelangelo painted the Last Judgment on the altar-wall,
two horizontal series of paintings went round the chapel, below the
windows; the upper was a series from the Old and New Testaments,
illustrating the acts of Moses and of Christ; the second or lower
series were mere representations of hangings, with the arms of
Sixtus 1V. painted in the centre. It was as a substitute for these
painted hangings in the portion of the chapel appropriated to the
Cardinals, that Leo X. ordered the tapestries from the designs of
Raphael. The order of the tapestries, as given below, is conjectured
by the Chevalier Bunsen, in the “‘ Description of Rome,”* and has
every appearance of being accurate. After the completion of the
fresco of the Last Judgment, the arrangement was of course altered.

The subject of these designs is the history of the Apostles; and
five are from the life of St. Paul alone. They are—1. The Miracu-
lous Draught of Fishes, or the Calling of Peter; 2. Christ’s Charge
to Peter ; 3. The Stoning of St. Stephen ; 4. The Healing of the Lame
Man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple; 5. The Death of Ananias ;
6. The Conversion of St. Paul; 7. Elymas the Sorcerer struck
blind; 8. Paul and Barnabas at Lystra; 9. Paul preaching at
Athens; and, 10. Paul in Prison at Philippi during the Earth-
quake. Passavant* mentions an eleventh tapestry, of the Coronation
of the Virgin, which decorated the altar of the chapel, but it is now
lost.. The ten subjects mentioned were arranged five on each side
of the altar—two on the altar-wall, and four on each side. The
walls are divided by painted pilasters into compartments, to which
the tapestries are proportioned in size. One space, however, on

1 This is the sum he tells his uncle, Simone Ciarla, in a letter dated 1514, that
he is to receive for the frescoes of the Stanze containing the “ Incendio del Borgo.”

2 Vasari, “ Vita di Michelangiolo.” Condivi, “Vita di Michelagnolo,” p. 28. The
15,000 ducats contract mentioned by Vasari, vol. xii. p. 189, and in the « Beschreibung
der Stadt Rom,” vol. ii. pt. 1, p, 259, is, I assume, a mistake or misprint for 1500
ducats. Raphael’s salary, as architect of St. Peter’s, was only 300 ducats a year,
or about a ducat a day, the pay of an English labourer; it is far more probable,
therefore, that 1500 ducats should be the contract for painting a chapel than
15,000.

3 Platner and Bunsen, “ Beschreibung der Stadt Rom,”’ vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 408.

4 “Rafael von Urbino,” vol. i. p. 279; ii. p. 258.
THE CARTOONS OF RAPHAEL. 211

each side is much smaller than the rest, owing to the Papal chair on
the right hand of the altar and the gallery of the choristers on the
left; and among the ten tapestries are two smaller ones which suit
these smaller spaces—the Stoning of St. Stephen, and Paul in
Prison at Philippi, —two, of which the cartoons are lost. The car-
toon of the Conversion of St. Paul is likewise lost. The tapestries
are supposed to have been placed in the chapel in the order in
which they are numbered, commencing at the right hand of the
altar with No. 1, and on the left side with No. 6; the series from
the life of St. Paul being opposite to the Papal chair. The side
walls remain as they were originally painted; and on all great
festivals of the Church the painted hangings used formerly to be
covered by these tapestries from Raphael’s designs. They are,
however, now no longer used for church purposes, but are pre-
‘served, with a later series, in a corridor of the museum of the Vati-
can which was built for them by Leo XII.; they were first placed
in the museum by Pius VII., in 1814, in the apartments of Pius V.
They were carried off from Rome during the French occupation
after the Revolution, to be destroyed for the sake of the gold that
is worked in them: they were, however, repurchased and restored
to Rome in 1808. They had been previously carried off in the year
1527, with other plunder, by the soldiers of Charles V.; but were
returned by the Constable Montmorency to Paul III. in 1553.

The later series of tapestries alluded to, which is preserved with
the others in the Vatican, consists of twelve designs from the Life
of Christ; they are on a larger scale than the others, with which
they have no connection. They are supposed, from their style and
their mannered drawing, to have been executed from cartoons made
by Flemish masters from small sketches by Raphael; they are much
too bad in their style of design to have been executed from cartoons
‘by Raphael himself. The fragment of the Slaughter of the Inno-
cents in the Foundling Hospital is a portion of a cartoon of one of
these tapestries.

These two sets of tapestries are distinguished as those of the old
and new school,—Arazzi della scuola nuova, and Arazzi della scuola
vecchia; those executed for the Sistine Chapel being of the old
school. The new school appears to signify that mannered, cum-
brous style of design which prevailed at Rome shortly after the
death of Raphael ; and during the lifetime of Michelangelo, whose
admirers and imitators were the originators of this corrupt taste.

In considering the care that has been taken of these tapestries,
many are struck with surprise at the unaccountable neglect with
‘which the original designs were treated. They appear never to have
been inquired for after the tapestries were completed ; their preser-
vation seems to be due to Rubens, who mentioned them to Charles L.,

p 2
212 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

and persuaded him to purchase them. If, however, the cost of a
work of art is a criterion of its value, the Roman authorities were
not guilty of such indifference as might otherwise appear. The
cost of the tapestries is given variously, but the lowest, and probably
the correct estimate, is that given by Fea,! who states that they cost
Leo X. 34,000 scudi, about 7,000/. sterling,—an immense sum com-
pared with the 150/. paid for the cartoons.

The cartoons were, after the completion of the tapestries in 1519,
probably left at the Tapestry fabric at Arras, and were there found
by Rubens. Seven, all that remained, were brought to this country
about 1630, cut in slips and packed in boxes, and were deposited in
Whitehall, previously to their being sent to Mortlake,’ to be again
worked in tapestry. In 1649, at the sale of Charles’s effects, they
were, through the influence of Cromwell, purchased for the nation
for the sum of 3001. In the reign of Charles II., however, but for
the representations of the Earl of Danby, that king would have sold
them to Louis XIV., who offered a large sum for them. At length,
after a lapse of nearly two centuries, William ITI. had them stretched
on canvas, and ordered Sir Christopher Wren to build a room for
their reception at Hampton Court. Here they remained until 1764,
when they were removed to Buckingham House: in 1787 they
were again removed to Windsor, and were finally restored to Hamp-
ton Court in 1814, where they still remain, and are now protected
with glass; but it is to be hoped that it will not be many years
before they will grace the walls of a new National Gallery in the
metropolis, and be accessible to the lovers of art, without involving
a day’s journey into the country. Then we shall be able to exclaim
with the enthusiastic Richardson,® ‘God be praised that we have
so near us such an invaluable blessing!’ ‘“‘ When a man enters,”
says the same writer, ‘‘ into that awful gallery at Hampton Court,
he finds himself amongst a sort of people superior to what he has
ever seen, and very probably to what those really were. Indeed this
is the principal excellence of those wonderful pictures, as it must be
allowed to be that part of painting which is preferable to all others.*

“What a grace and majesty is seen in the great Apostle of the
Gentiles in all his actions, preaching, rending his garments,
denouncing vengeance upon the sorcerer! What a dignity is in

1 “Notizie intorno di Raphaele,” &., p. 92: Platner, “Beschreibung der Stadt
Rom,” ii. 2, p. 393.

2 Where King James had established a tapestry manufactory, under the direction
of Franz Cleyn, a German painter, of Rostock, in Mecklenburg Schwerin.

3 « ssay on the Theory of Painting,” third edition, p, 62, 1773.

4 There are some very bold and effective engravings from these works, by Mr.
John Burnet, which are sold at a very low price; they have more of the character
of the originals than any previous prints, notwithstanding their too great elabora-
tion of shadow : their somewhat rongh execution is rather an advantage to them.
THE CARTOONS OF RAPHAEL. 213.

the other Apostles wherever they appear, particularly the prince of
them in the cartoon of Ananias! How infinitely and divinely great,
with all his gentleness and simplicity, is the Christ in the boat!
But these are exalted characters, which have a delicacy in them as
much beyond what any of the gods, demi-gods, or heroes of the
ancient heathens can admit of, as the Christian religion excels the
ancient superstition. The proconsul Sergius Paulus has a greatness
and grace superior to his character, and equal to what one can sup-
pose Julius Cesar, Augustus, Trajan, or the greatest amongst the
Romans to have had. The common people are like gentlemen; even
the fishermen, the beggars, have something in them much above
what we see in those orders of men.

“The scenes are answerable to the actors; not even the beautiful
gate of the Temple, nor any part of the first Temple, nor probably
any building in the world, had that beauty and magnificence as
appears in what we see in the cartoon of Healing the Cripple.
Athens and Lystra appear in these cartoons to be beyond what we
can suppose they were when Greece was in its utmost glory.”

Richardson has made some other excellent general remarks on the
colouring and execution of these works, pointing out their great
superiority in these minor respects. The younger Richardson com-
pares the frescoes of the Vatican Stanze with the Cartoons; and the
latter are, in his opinion, “better painted, coloured, and drawn;
the composition is better, the airs of the heads are more exquisitely
fine ; there is more grace and greatness spread throughout; in short,
they are better pictures, judging of them only as they are commonly
judged of, and without taking the thought and invention into the
account.” Francesco Penni was Raphael’s chief assistant in the
execution of these works ; he was assisted, likewise, by the co-opera-
tion of other scholars; ‘‘ Yet in almost all the Cartoons,” says Sir
Charles Eastlake,’ ‘‘ the hand of the master is apparent; most, per-
haps, in the calling of Peter, and least in the Paul preaching at
Athens, and Christ’s Charge to Peter. As designs they are univer-
sally considered the finest inventions of Raphael. At the time he
was commissioned to prepare them, the fame of Michelangelo’s ceil-
ing, in the same chapel they were destined to adorn, was at its
height; and Raphael, inspired with a noble emulation, his practice
matured by the execution of several frescoes in the Vatican, treated
these new subjects with an elevation of style not perhaps equalled
in his former efforts. The highest qualities of these works are un-
doubtedly addressed to the mind, as vivid interpretations of the
spirit and letter of Scripture; but as examples of Art they are the
most perfect expressions of that general grandeur of treatment in
form, composition, and draperies, which the Italian masters contem-

' Kugler’s “ Handbook of Painting,” Italy, note.
214 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

plated from the first, as suited to the purposes of religion and the
size of the temples destined to receive such works. In the Car-
toons this greatness of style, not without a due regard to variety of
character, pervades every figure, and is so striking in some of the
Apostles, as to place them on a level with the Prophets of Michel-
angelo.”

Above a century and a half has elapsed since the elder Richard-
son first made his observations on the Cartoons; and all the numer-
ous criticisms that have since been made have added little that is
essential to the excellent remarks scattered throughout his treatise
on “ The Theory of Painting,” where they have the double interest
of truth and originality. Richardson was the contemporary of Sir
Christopher Wren, and is probably the first author who published
criticisms on the Cartoons themselves.

The seven Cartoons at Hampton Court are, without reference to
any particular order, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes ; Christ’s
Charge to Peter; the Sacrifice at Lystra; Elymas struck with
Blindness ; St. Peter healing the Cripple; Paul preaching at
Athens; and the Death of Ananias. They are painted in distemper
upon paper, whence their appellation of cartoons.’ The figures are
of a very large size, varying from six to nine feet, and the pictures
themselves are about twelve feet high, and three of them are about
fourteen and the rest about eighteen feet in width. :

Tue MrracuLous Dravueur or FisHes, oR THE CaLLine or PeTER.—
«‘ And when they had this done, they enclosed a great multitude of
fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their part-
ners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help
them. And they came and filled both the ships, so that they began
to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees,
saying, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. And Jesus
said unto Simon, Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.”
—(Luke v. 6-10.) On this composition Richardson observes—‘‘ In
the cartoon of the Draught of Fishes, Raphael has made a boat too
little to hold the figures he has placed in it; and this is so visible
that some are apt to triumph over that great man as having nodded
on that occasion ; which others have pretended to excuse by saying
it was done to make the miracle appear the greater. But the truth
is, had he made the boat large enough for those figures, his picture
would have been all boat, which would have had a disagreeable
effect : and to have made his figures small enough for a vessel of
that size would have rendered them unsuitable to the rest of the set,
and have made those figures appear less considerable; there would
have been too much boat and too little figure. It is amiss as it is,
but would have been worse any other way, as it frequently hap-

} From the Italian cartone, pasteboard,
THE CARTOONS OF RAPHAEL. 215

“pens in other cases. Raphael, therefore, wisely chose this lesser
inconvenience, this seeming error, which he knew the judicious
would know was none; and for the rest, he was above being solici-
tous for his reputation with them. So that, upon the whole, this is
so far from being a fault, that it is an instance of the consummate
judgment of that incomparable man.”

Richardson further notices the good effect of the birds in the fore-
ground of this cartoon. He says—‘“ There is a certain sea-wildness
in them; and as their- food was fish, they contribute mightily to
express the affair in hand, which was fishing.” They also “ prevent
the heaviness which that part would otherwise have had, by break-
ing the parallel lines which would have been made by the boats and
the base of the picture.”*

Curist’s Cuarce To Perer.—“ He saith unto him the third time,
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? and he said unto
him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.
Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.” (John xxi. 17.)

The keys in the hands of Peter have reference to a previous pro-
mise to that Apostle :—“ And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; and whatsover thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. xvi. 19). Both the promise and the
charge are represented in the cartoon by obvious symbols, as the
only way of conveying them as subjects of representation. Richard-
son has remarked somewhat largely upon this cartoon, on its sub-
ject, its composition, and on its colouring, which he considers to be
“a wonderful harmony.’ With regard to the subject he observes—
“The intention of this picture was doubtless to honour the Papal
dignity. St. Peter was to be here represented in his brightest
character, which consists in his having the keys, and the flock of
Christ committed to him; but this last being conferred on him after
the other (for Christ was then risen from the dead, and the keys he
was in possession of before the crucifixion), both histories could not
be brought in without making a double picture. The first is there-
fore expressed by his baving the keys in his hand.” “In this car-
toon,” he observes in another place, ‘‘ Our Saviour is wrapped only
in one large piece of white drapery, his left arm and breast and part
of his leg naked; which undoubtedly was done to denote him now
to appear in his resurrection body, and not as before his crucifixion,
when this dress would have been altogether improper.”?

1 Pages 49 and 73, ed. cit.
2 Pages 56,50. Richardson supposed that the dress of Christ here alluded to
was done on second thoughts. This he infers from an old drawing of this cartoon
216 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Tue Sacririce at Lystra.— Then the priest of Jupiter, which
was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and
would have done sacrifice with the people: which when the Apostles
Bamabas and Paul heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in
among the people, crying out, Why do ye these things? we also
are men of like passions with you,” &c. (Acts xiv. 13-15.)

Richardson observes on this picture: ‘‘In the cartoon where the
people of Lycaonia are going to sacrifice to St. Paul and Barnabas,
the occasion of this is finely told: the man who was healed of his
lameness is one of the forwardest to express his sense of the
Divine power which appeared in those Apostles ; and to show it to
be him, not only a crutch is under his feet on the ground, butan old
man takes up the lappet of his garment, and looks upon the limb
which he remembered to have been crippled, and expresses great
devotion and admiration; which sentiments are also seen in the other
with a mixture of joy.” /

Eiymas, THE SoRceERER, sTRUCK BY PavUL WITH BLINDNESS IN THE
PRESENCE OF SeERcIUs Pautus.—‘‘ And now, behold the hand of the
Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for
a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a dark-
ness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.”
(Acts xiii. 11.)

“« Klymas the Sorcerer,” says our critic, “is blind from head to
foot; but how admirably are terror and astonishment expressed in
the people present, and how variously according to the several cha-
racters! The proconsul has these sentiments, but as a Roman and
a gentleman; the rest in several degrees and manners.” And in
another place he observes: ‘It doth not appear that the proconsul |
was converted, otherwise than by the writing; nor do I conceive
how it was possible to have expressed that important circumstance
so properly any other way.’”

Sr. Perer HeaLine THE CRIPPLE AT THE BrauTiFUL GATE—‘‘ And
he took him by the right hand and lifted him up ; and immediately
his feet and ankle-bones received strength.” (Acts iii. 7.)

The naked boys in this cartoon are, says Richardson, a “ proof of
Raphael’s great judgment in composition. One of them is in such
an attitude as finely varies the turns of the figures; but here is
moreover another kind of contrast, and that is caused by their being
naked, which, how odd soever it may seem at first, and without

 

in his possession, in which the Christ was fully clad, that is, with the same large
drapery, and another robe under it that covered his body and arms, and reached
down to his feet.

1 Page 56. ° Pages 53, 61.
THE CARTOONS OF RAPHAEL. 217

considering the reason of it, will be found to have a marvellous
effect. Clothe them in imagination, dress them as you will, the
picture suffers by it, and would have suffered if Raphael himself
had done it. It is for the sake of this contrast, which is of so great
consequence in painting, that this knowing man, in the cartoon we
are now upon, hath placed his figures at one end of the Temple near
the corner, where one would not suppose the beautiful gate was.
But this varies the sides of the picture, and at the same time gives
him an opportunity to enlarge his buildings with a fine portico, the
like of which you must imagine must be on the other side of the
main structure ; all which together makes one of the noblest pieces
of architecture that can be conceived.

“He hath departed from historical truth in the pillars that are
at the beautiful gate of the Temple; the imagery is by no means
agreeable to the superstition of the Jews at that time, and all along
after the Captivity. Nor were those kinds of pillars known even
in antique architecture, I believe in any nation; but they are so
nobly invented by Raphael, and so prodigiously magnificent, that it
would have been a pity if he had not indulged himself in this
piece of licentiousness, which undoubtedly he knew to be such.” .

Richardson notices also the judicious introduction of the burning
lamps in this cartoon: he says, ‘one sees that the place is holy, as
well as magnificent.”?

Pau Preacuine at ATHENs.—‘ Then Paul stood in the midst of
Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things
ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devo-
tions, I found an altar with this inscription, To tus Unknown Gop.
Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.”
(Acts xvii. 22, 23.)

In this admirable cartoon, observes Richardson, ‘‘ the expressions
are very just, and delicate throughout ; even the background is not
without its meaning: it is expressive of the superstition St. Paul
was preaching against. But no historian or orator can possibly
give me so great an idea of that eloquent and zealous Apostle as that
figure of his does ;? all the fine things related as said or wrote by
him cannot; for there I see a person, face, air and action, which no
words can sufficiently describe, but which assure me as much ag
those can, that that man must speak good sense and to the purpose;
and the different sentiments of his auditors are as finely expressed ;
some appear to be angry and malicious; others to be attentive, and

1 Pages 75, 49, and 28.

2 The attitude of the figure of Paul in this cartoon is,as already observed, much
the same as that of the figure in the Brancacci chapel, generally attributed to
Masaccio, but recently to Filippino Lippi.
218 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

reasoning upon the matter within themselves, or with one another >
and one especially is apparently convinced. These last are the
freethinkers of that time, and are placed before the Apostle ; the
others are behind him, not only as caring less for the preacher, or
the doctrine, but to raise the Apostolic character, which would lose
something of its dignity, if his maligners were supposed to be able
to look him in the face.”

Our very intelligent critic’s observations on the colouring of this
picture are distinguished for the same soundness of judgment which
characterises his remarks generally: ‘As the tout-ensemble of a
picture must be beautiful in its masses, so must it, be as to its
colours. And as what is principal must be the most conspicuous,
the predominant colours of that should be diffused throughout the
whole. This Raphael has observed remarkably in the cartoon of
St. Paul preaching ; his drapery is red and green, and these colours
are scattered everywhere, but judiciously ; for subordinate colours
as well as subordinate lights serve to soften and support the prin-
cipal one, which otherwise would appear as spots, and consequently
be offensive.”

Tue DearH or Anantas.—“ But Peter said, Ananias, why hath
Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back
part of the price of the land? While it remained was it not thine
own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power? Why
hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? ‘Thou hast not lied
unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell
down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that
heard these things.” (Acts v. 3-5.)

In this cartoon Richardson notices the admirable expression of
terror and astonishment in the people present, together with the
‘sentiments of joy and triumph which naturally arise in'good minds
upon the sight of the effects of Divine justice and the victory of
truth. He notices also how justly in this cartoon the Apostles are
made a subordinate group; subordinate ‘‘ because the principal
action relates to the criminal, and thither the eye is directed by
almost all the figures in the picture.’

In the palace at Hampton Court, in a small apartment next to
the Cartoon Gallery, is a large drawing of another of the most cele-
brated works of Raphael, the “ Transfiguration,” the last and most
finished of all Raphael’s paintings: this drawing and the Cartoons
together show Raphael to greater advantage than he is to be seen
anywhere else. Another very justly celebrated picture in oil by
this great painter is the Madonna di San Sisto, at Dresden, which

1 Pages 52, 6¢. 2 Pages 53, 70.
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN, 219

for sublimity of invention is probably the greatest of all his
works.’

In the Farnesina at Rome he has displayed an ability also in the,
treatment of mythological subjects, almost equal to his power in
representing the sacred or historical: as frescoes these works are
inferior ; they were however not executed by Raphael. They are
also much decayed, and were little more than a ruin in the time of
Carlo Maratti, who restored these frescoes as well as those of the
Vatican; and to him probably we owe what remains of them.’

CHAPTER XIX.

.

THE FRESCOES OF RAPHAEL AND MICHELANGELO IN THE VATICAN:
From 1508 ro 1541.

Tue frescoes painted by these two great masters in the Papal palace
on the Vatican at Rome, are the greatest accomplishments of
modern art. Those by Raphael are painted in the apartments
which were formerly inhabited by the Popes, but which are now
known as the Stanze di Raffaello; those by Michelangelo are prin-
cipally in the Sistine Chapel, on the ceiling and upon the altar-
wall. The dates of the execution of these respective works are not
exactly known, but they can be very nearly approximated.

Some of the works of Raphael in the Camera della Segnatuia
preceded those of Michelangelo on the vault of the Capella Sistina
by one or two years; for he was certainly engaged on those works
before Michelangelo received any commands to paint the ceiling of
the chapel; and Michelangelo was still engaged in the chapel
twenty-one years after the death of Raphael: the Last Judgment
was not completed until 1541. Raphael arrived at Rome by invita-
tion of Julius II. in the middle of the year 1508, when he was
twenty-five years of age; but it is not probable that he commenced
any of the frescoes this year.

1 It is engraved by C. F. Miiller, and lithographed by F. Hanfstangl. In the
new Gallery at Dresden this picture has a cabinet to itself, an arrangement which
has been much praised ; and the arrangement is good so long as only four or five
people are in the room at one time, but more cannot conveniently contemplate it;
as the cabinet is small, and is lighted by a side window, and as the picture is
covered with glass, the proper place for inspecting the picture is very circum-
scribed.

2 The frescoes of the Farnesina have been lately etched by F. Schubert, a
German painter long resident in Rome; Munich, 1846. See the notice of Maratti
for his method of cleaning the frescoes.
220 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The stanze of Raphael! are four rooms on the third floor of that
part of the Vatican palace which was rebuilt by Nicholas V. and
Sixtus IV. They had already been decorated with frescoes before
the time of Raphael by Piero della Francesca, Bramantino da
Milano, Bartolomeo della Gatta, Luca Signorelli, Pietro Perugino,
and Il Sodoma. But all the works of these painters were ordered
by Julius to be knocked down to make room for the works of
Raphael. Those of Perugino, however, and some of I Sodoma’s,’
were saved by Raphael: the rest were destroyed.

The following is the order of the rooms on entering from the
corridors, the celebrated “ Loggie” of Raphael. The first on.
entering is the Sala del Costantino, or Hall of Constantine; the
second, the Camera or Stanza della Segnatura (of the signature), or
delle Scienze, from the nature of the frescoes in it; the third, the
Stanza dell’Eliodoro (of Heliodorus); and the fourth and last, the
Stanza dell’ Incendio (of the fire).

The second, or the Stanza della Segnatura, was the first painted ;
and all the frescoes of this apartment were finished in 1511, having
oceupied Raphael about three years, being accordingly all com-
pleted about one year before Michelangelo finished the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel, on which, as already stated, he was occupied
with the frescoes alone twenty months,’ being engaged on them up
to Nov. 1, 1512.

This date is of considerable importance, as Raphael is said to
have been indebted for the general superiority of his works to these
frescoes by Michelangelo.* This assumption has been carried by
no one to a greater length than by Sir Joshua Reynolds, who says,
in his Fifteenth Discourse, that “The artists of that age, even
Raphael himself, seemed to be going on very contentedly in the dry
manner of Pietro Perugino; and if Michelangelo had never
appeared, the art might still have continued in the same style.”
The utter groundlessness of this assertion is evident from what is
contained in the immediately preceding chapters; it is not only

1 Bellori, “ Descrizione delle Immagini depinte da Raffaello da Urbino, nel
Palazzo Vaticano,” &c.; Richardson, “An account of the Statues, Bas-reliefs,
Drawings, and Pictures in Italy,” &c., London, 1722; Ramdohr, “Ueber Mahlerei
und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom,”-Leipzig, 1787; Speth, “ Kunst in Italien,’ Munich,
1821; Montagnani, “ Esposizione descrittiva delle pitture di Raffaello Sanzio da
Urbino nelle Stanze Vaticane,” &c., 1828; “Beschreibung der Stadt Rom” von
Ernst Platner, Carl Bunsen, &c., 1832, vol. ii.; Passavant, “Rafael von Urbino,’
1839; Kugler, “Handbook of Painting.” Richardson’s very original account is
well worth reading.

2 See Giannantonio Bazzi, p. 161.

3 Vasari, “ Vita di Michelangiolo.” Some accounts say twenty-two months.

4 The scaffolding of Michelangelo was not removed by Christmas-day, 1512,
which is seen from the “ Diary of Paris de Grassis,” Pungileoni, p. 131; Passavant,
“ Rafael von Urbino,” i. 167.
le
4!
Ve

ait

 

 

(RarnarL. IN THE VATICAN.)

THE SCHOOL OF ATHENS,

Page 221,
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN. 221

unjust to Raphael, but to Leonardo‘da Vinci and Fra Bartolomeo
also. Even if it may be said that Raphael had the opportunity of
acquiring a new view of art from the cartoon of Pisa, the same may
be said with regard to the cartoon of Leonardo da Vinci, who
certainly did not take his style from Michelangelo. Other artists
also besides Raphael had the same opportunities, and they appear
to have made a very different use of them.

Whatever benefit, however, Raphael derived from the Cartoon of
Pisa, must have been shown in the works which he executed imme-
diately afterwards, as the famous “Entombment,” in the Borghese
Gallery. His aggrandizement of manner in the Stanza della Segna-
tura, more particularly in the School of Athens, in which the
characteristics of his third style are at least essentially, if not com-

‘pletely developed, proceeded most certainly from some other causes

than the mere acquaintance with this Cartoon of Pisa; from his
own additional experience, and also from the study of the excellent
works of ancient sculpture, the best of which were then already
displayed at Rome, and to which, in common with Michelangelo,
he was doubtless much indebted.

The first frescoes executed in the Stanza della Segnatura appear
to have been the eight pictures of the ceiling, representing per-
sonifications and illustrations of the subjects painted on the walls
beneath. The personifications are Theology, Poetry, Philosophy,
and Justice. The Fall of Man is given as the illustration of
Theology; the defeat of Marsyas, as that of Poetry; a female
figure contemplating the globe with some allegorical accessories is
the illustration of Philosophy; and the Judgment of Solomon
illustrates Justice. They are all painted on gold grounds, and are
in Raphael’s second manner. The first executed of the great wall
pictures, which are semicircular at the top, in consequence of the.
vaulted ceiling, was the THroLocy, or, as it is sometimes er-
roneously called, the Dispute on the Sacrament. It measures
about fifteen feet in height by twenty-five in width, being of the
same size as the other larger frescoes of the three rooms which were
painted during Raphael’s lifetime. This great picture is in two
principal parts: the lower portion represents a council or assembly
of the dignitaries of the church on earth ; and above in the clouds
is a heavenly synod of saints and angels with the three persons of
the Trinity, according to the Roman church, in the centre. God
the Father is represented above with his right hand in the attitude
of benediction, and holding in his left the world; Christ is imme-
diately beneath, bearing the marks of his passion, and surrounded
by a glory of angels; below him the Holy Ghost appears in the
form of a dove. This picture also is in Raphael’s second manner,
but it contains some of the finest and most expressive heads in
222 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

modern art, and many of the draperies are cast with much gran-
deur of effect; the drawing also in the majority of the figures is
unobjectionable : the composition is formal and strictly symmetrical,
and contains many conventionalisms of the previous age of art.

The second great work of this chamber was the Porrry, which is
an assembly of the great Greek, Roman, and Italian poets of all
ages up to that time, on Mount Parnassus, with Apollo and the Muses
in the centre. This picture is also symmetrically arranged, but
the individual figures are treated with more freedom than those of
the Theology ; and Raphael has in all possible cases adhered to the
portraits, traditional or authentic, of the respective poets.’

The third great work of this chamber was the PurnosoprHy, or the
School of Athens; it is on the wall opposite the picture of Theo-
logy. The background of this picture, which is a rich architectural"
scene, is supposed to be from a design by Bramante.

The disposition of the numerous groups is also in this piece sym-
metrical in the general composition of the masses; but in the
arrangement of the individual figures, Raphael has left the conven-
tionalities and formalities of his contemporaries completely behind
him, and in his proportions and the style of design he has displayed
a perfect familiarity with the works of ancient art. There is no
obvious cause, beyond Raphael’s enlarged experience and the
example of the works of ancient art, to account for his aggrandize-
ment of style in this great work. The two principal figures in the
centre of the composition are Plato and Aristotle, supposed to be
disputing on the merits of their respective systems. Plato, a
majestic and venerable figure, is represented with his arm raised
and pointing upwards, an attitude significative of his own spiritual
doctrine: Aristotle, on the other hand, in the vigour of age, is
pointing to the earth, thereby implying that all true philosophy
must be derived from investigation and experience.

The fourth wall in this apartment is devoted to the representation
of JURISPRUDENCE, Which is illustrated (on account of the window
which occupies the middle of the wall) in three distinct compositions.
In the centre above are three female figures, personifications of
Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance. At the sides are two repre-
sentations of Ecclesiastical and Civil Law—Gregory XI. delivering
the Decretals to a consistorial advocate, and the Emperor Justinian
delivering the Pandects to Tribonianus. ‘he figures of these com-
positions are eminently natural and powerful representations.’

While Raphael was engaged on the frescoes of the second

1 Apollo is in this picture represented, with doubtless questionable propriety,
playing the fiddle, and this instrument is said to have been chosen out of compli-
ment to Giacomo Sansecondo, a very distinguished violinist of that day.

2 See the prints of these frescoes by Volpato.
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN. 223

chamber painted by him, the Stanza dell’ Eliodoro, the Sistine
Chapel, with the wonderful creations of Michelangelo, was thrown
open to the public gaze and admiration; and as it is one of the
objects of this chapter to give a chronologtcal view of the respective
labours of these two great masters in the Vatican, the frescoes of
the chapel may be here briefly described before proceeding with
the account of the remaining works of Raphael.

The Cappella Sistina forms part of the same pile of building
which contains the Stanze of Raphael, and was built by Baccio
Pintelli, for Sixtus 1V., in 1473, whence its name of Sistine. It is
of an oblong shape, and is covered by a vaulted roof; it measures
about 133 feet in length, 43 in width, and is 58 feet high.1 The
Sistine Chapel is reserved for the especial use of the Popes: the
church ceremonies of the first Sunday in Advent and of the Holy
Week are performed in it. The scrutiny also of the votes for the
Popedom takes place in this chapel, when the Conclave is held in
the Vatican. The Popes, however, now reside the greater part of
their time in the Palazzo Quirinale on Monte Cavallo.

It is not known when Michelangelo commenced his cartoons for
the ceiling of this chapel; but if the work is to be dated from the
contract, the time is definitely fixed ; for the Buonarrotti family at
Florence is in possession of an autograph document by Michel-
angelo, dated May 10, 1508,” in which he acknowledges the receipt
of five hundred ducats earnest money’ from Julius II., and under-
takes to commence the work from that day. Michelangelo had
then only shortly returned. to Rome: from this date, therefore,
every preliminary labour had to be gone through,—the erection of
scaffoldings, the destruction of the old decorations, the preparation
of the vault for the frescoes, and, lastly, the preparation of the
cartoons, to enable his Florentine assistants to carry out the actual
frescoes, for whom he sent, after the completion of the cartoons.
Among these assistants were Francesco Granacci, Giuliano Bugi-
ardini, Jacopo di Sandro (Botticelli), Jacopo L’ Indaco, Angelo di
Donnino, and Aristotile di San Gallo; all practical fresco-painters.
The work, however, performed by these painters was so dissatis-
factory to Michelangelo that he destroyed the whole of it, and sent
them back to Florence.

To whatever time the above preliminary operations required, we

1 There are a ground-plan and sections of this Chapel, in the Appendix No. 14
to the Third Report of the Commisioners on the Fine Arts.

2 Published by Gualandi, “ Memorie di Belle Arti,” ii. 176; in the “Kunstblatt,”
Dee. 31, 1844; and in Vasari, Ed. Le Monnier, vol. xii. p. 349, 1856.

3 The entire contract, says Vasari, was for 15,000 ducats; so enormous and
unprecedented a sum for that time that one cannot help suspecting an error for
1500. “Vite,” Ed. Le Monnier, vol. xii. p. 189. See Note p. 210.
224 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

have to add the twenty months which Michelangelo was occupied
in the actual execution of the frescoes with his own hands, unaided.
The work was finished by All Saints’ Day, 1512, but the scaffolding
was not removed even by Christmas in that year, as noticed in the
old diary already quoted. If twenty months are deducted from the
autumn of 1512, it will give the beginning of 1511 as the date of
the commencement of the frescoes; or, allowing for the interval
which elapsed in the prosecution. of the work, owing to Michel-
angelo’s refusing to admit the Pope during its progress, the actual
painting may have been commenced in 1510: this will still leave
1509 for the preparation of the cartoons, the whole operations
having occupied about four years. In October, 1512, Michelangelo
had already returned to Florence.

It would appear, therefore, that the Stanza della Segnatura was
completed before the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and that if
Raphael were indebted to that great work for his own advancement
in 1511, he must have seen it in progress. That this was so appears
to have been the common opinion in Rome, not only from Vasari’s
general statement, but from an interesting passage in a letter
written by Sebastian del Piombo to Michelangelo soon after his
departure from Rome, October 15, 1512, in which Julius II. is
reported to have said, in a conversation with Sebastian, “‘ Look at
the works of Raphael, who, when he had seen the works of Michel-
angelo, suddenly forsook the manner of Perugino, and approached
as near as he could to that of Michelangelo: but he is terrible, as
you see; one can do nothing with him.” The last words referring
to the character, not to the style of Michelangelo.

This was Michelangelo’s own opinion, expressed many years
afterwards in a letter to the Duke of Urbino,? in which he com-
plains that Bramante and Raphael were the cause of his troubles
with Julius II.; and he alludes to Raphael’s ingratitude, remarking
‘‘what he had of art he got from me.”

The frescoes represent the Creation of Man, his Fall, and the
early History of the World, with reference to man’s final redemp-
tion and salvation. The great argument of the cycles of Scriptural
representations was the Fall and the Redemption; to the latter
every subject had reference, more or less directly ; but some types
in the Old Testament were supposed to have reference to the Virgin.
The middle or flat part of the ceiling is divided into nine compart-
ments, ‘the centre of which contains the Creation of Eve : the Creation
of Adam ; and the Temptation, Fall, and Expulsion from Paradise,
in one composition, are in the two nearest compartments to it. The

1 Gaye, “Carteggio inedito d’ Artisti,” ap. vol. ii. p. 489.
2 Published by Sebastiano Ciampi in 1834, and in the “Le Monnier,” Vasari,
vol. xii, 1856.
y}
Mt

 

ty
=

JONAH. (SISTINE CHAPEL. MICHELANGELO.)

Page 225.
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN. 225

Creation of Eve is always made prominent in the cycles of Scrip-
tural types, in allusion to the Messiah being born of the woman
alone.! The remaining six compartments contain the following re-
presentations: the Separation of Light from Darkness ; the Gather-
ing of the Waters; the Creation of the Sun and Moon; the
Deluge ; the Thanksgiving of Noah ; and the Drunkenness of Noah,
At the four angles of the ceiling are—David beheading Goliath ;
Judith with the head of Holofernes; the Punishment of Haman;
and the Brazen Serpent. In the soffits of the window recesses,
and on the wall above the windows, are introduced many figures
and groups illustrating the genealogy of Christ. Between these
recesses on the triangular vaulted portions of the roof are painted,
in a colossal size, the Prophets and Sibyls so often spoken of in
the history of modern art. There are twelve in all, five on each
side, and one on each end between the compositions of the four
angles already mentioned.

Over the altar end is Jonah ; on the opposite end Zachariah: on
the sides the Prophets and Sibyls are arranged alternately—they
are Jeremiah, Persica, Ezechiel, Erythraea, Joel, Delphica, Isaiah,
Cumaea, Daniel, and Libyca.’

We may now return to Raphael and the Stanze of the Vatican,
where, according to the date of these works, as explained, he was
engaged in the chamber of the Heliodorus. Vasari says that
Raphael immediately changed his style after he saw the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel; and reters as a proof to the Prophets and Sibyls
of the Chigi Chapel in the church of Santa Maria della Pace; and
also alludes to Raphael’s destruction of the first figure of the

1 See Sir Charles Eastlake’s Notes on these frescoes in the translation of Kug-
ler’s “ Handbook of Painting; Italy,” where there is an outline engraving of the
ceiling.

2 The following Note by Sir Charles Eastlake (Kugler’s “ Handbook of Paint-
ing, Italy,”) will explain how the Sibyls came to be introduced into a Chris-
tian temple :—“ The Sibyls are alluded to by Greek, Roman, and Jewish writers,
and by most of the Christian fathers. The latter, on the authority of Varro,
enumerate ten of these prophetesses (see Lactantius, ‘De Falsi Religione,’ i. 6).
The authority of the Sibylline writings with the Pagans soon suggested the pious
fraud of interpolating them; the direct allusions to the Messiah which they con-
tain are supposed to have been inserted in the second century (see Blondel], ‘Des
Sibylles Célébres’). But, notwithstanding the occasional expression of some sus-
picion as to their authenticity, these spurious predictions continued to be held in
veneration not only during the middle ages, but even to a comparatively modern
date, and the Sibyls were represented in connexion with Scripture subjects before
and after Michelangelo’s time by various painters. The circumstance of their
appearing in works of art as equal in rank with the prophets may have arisen from
the manner in which St. Augustine (‘De Civit. Dei,’ xviii. 47) spcaks of the
Erythraean Sibyls’ testimony, immediately before he adverts to that of the prophets
of the Old Testament. The fullest of the numerous dissertations on the Sibyls is,
perhaps, that of Clasen, ‘ De Oraculis Gentilium, Helmstadt, 1673.”

Q
226 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

prophet Isaiah which he painted in the church of Sant’ Agostino.
These works, however, do not show any improvement on the
“ School of Athens,” or other frescoes in the Stanza della Segnatura ;
they are certainly different, but are not in any respect superior,
and they are generally acknowledged to be among the inferior
productions of Raphael; as they are also among the very few works
in which he has shown any disposition to imitate the peculiar cha-
racter of Michelangelo’s style of design. It is here worthy of note
that the frescoes of the Pace were painted in the pontificate of
Leo X., and were not finished until 1514.1 The Isaiah was painted
in 1512,

The frescoes of the Stanza dell’ Eliodoro are,—on the vaulted
ceiling, the Promise of God of a numerous posterity to Abraham ;
the Sacrifice of Isaac; Jacob’s Dream; and Moses before God in
the Burning Bush ; and on the walls, the Exruision or Hezioporus
FROM THE Tempte of Jerusalem. The subject of this grand composi-
tion is from the Second Book of Maccabees: ‘For there appeared
to them a horse with a terrible rider upon him, adorned with a very
rich covering : and he ran fiercely and struck Heliodorus with his
fore-feet ; and he that sat upon him seemed to have armour of gold.
Moreover, there appeared two other young men beautiful and
strong, bright and glorious, and in comely apparel: who stood by
him on either side, and scourged him without ceasing with many
stripes” (ch. ii. ver. 25 and 26).

The subject is said to have been chosen to commemorate the
deliverance of the States of the Church from foreign enemies
through Julius II., in whose pontificate it was painted: Julius is
himself introduced into the Temple as a witness of the scene. This
picture was probably completed before the opening of the Cappella
Sistina. Though not the greatest, it is the grandest of all Raphael’s
works in design; it is also unsurpassed in the vigour and beauty of
the conception, and has more the character of what it represents, an
angelic vision, than of the work of human hands. What is par-
ticularly grand is the expression of the angel on horseback, and
the transcendent energy of the two other angels with rods, not
flying, but rushing through the air by the power of will only: their
forms also are exceedingly fine.

The next picture of this apartment is the Mass or Botsena, also
painted in 1512, representing a miracle demonstrating the truth of
the doctrine of transubstantiation to a doubting priest, while conse-
crating the Host in the church of Santa Christina at Bolsena, in the
year 1263: the wafer bled. This event was the origin of the
celebration of the procession of Corpus Christi.

1 Passavant, “ Rafael von Urbino,” ii. 167.
‘90a abog

(SVOWYA SHL 8ST “TavHavy) ,'SQUOUOLISH » AHL, WOUd

 

 

 

 
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN. 227

On the third wall, opposite to the Heliodorus, is the fresco known
as the Arrina. It represents St. Leo turning Attila from his
design of plundering Rome: above the Pope are seen visions of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. This composition is supposed to have re-
ference to the expulsion of the French from Italy by Leo X. in 1513.

The fourth picture in this room is the Dettvery or St. Perer our
or Prison; a Night Scene, with several lights admirably contrived ;*
it is likewise supposed to have an allusion to a passage in the life
of Leo, who himself escaped from his captivity after the battle of
Ravenna, the year previous to his elevation to the Popedom; he
was elected in February, 1513.

All the paintings of this chamber were finished in 1514; and for
design, colouring, and execution, they are the best of all Raphael’s
frescoes. Doubtless much of their superiority of style may be
owing to the grand works of Michelangelo on the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel; but an equal portion must likewise be attributed to
the gradual and more complete development of Raphael’s own
powers in the natural course of events.

From the painting of this chamber the Vatican frescoes went on
slowly, though Raphael now employed many scholars; but he had
so many other commissions from Leo, and from others of his Roman
patrons, that it was impossible for him to give that attention to
these works which their importance and his own reputation
demanded.

The third chamber, the Stanza dell’ Incendio, was intrusted
much, if not wholly, to Raphael’s scholars. It contains representa-
tions of events from the lives of Leo III. and IV., with reference
to Leo X. They are—the Incenp1o pet Borgo, from which the apart-
ment takes its name; the conflagration was miraculously arrested
by Leo IV.: the Oars or Leo III., by which he purified himself
from the charges brought against him by his enemies, before
Charlemagne: the Coronation or CHARLEMAGNE BY Leo III.: and
the Vicrory over THE SaRAcens AT Ostia, in the time of Leo IV.

These paintings were all finished by 1517. Their execution is
comparatively careless, but they have much suffered from neglect
and restorations. The greater part of their execution is attributed
to the scholars of Raphael. In the Incendio del Borgo there is
much appearance of a striving after mere material forms, and in
the corrupt taste for anatomical display, which began to show itself
about this time, as one of the prejudicial consequences of an imita-
tion of Michelangelo’s style.

The works of the Sala di Costantino were painted after the death.
of Raphael, by Giulio Romano, Francesco Penni, and other scholars

1 See the remarks of the younger Richardson on this composition.
Qa 2
228 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of Raphael, under Giulio’s direction. The principal subjects are
from the life of Constantine, in connexion with the establishment
of the Christian church. The most celebrated of the series is the
great Barrie or Consrantine anp Maxenrius at the Ponte Molle,
near Rome. The other subjects are the APPEARANCE OF THE Cross;
the Bavrism or CoNsTANTINE; and the PRESENTATION oF RoME TO THE
Pope.

Raphael intended to paint these compositions in oil, and two
allegorical figures of Justice and Benignity are executed in oil-
colours; but Giulio Romano and Penni continued the works after
his death in fresco, They were painted in 1523, in the pontificate
of Clement VII. ;

During the progress of the above works Raphael directed also
the painting of the Loggie of the Vatican, or the corridors and
galleries by which the Stanze are approached. The compositions
of the Loggie are taken from the Old Testament; they are very
numerous, and are commonly spoken of in the aggregate as
“* Raphael’s Bible.” The painters of these designs, which are on a
small scale, were Giulio Romano, Francesco Penni, Raffaellino dal
Colle, Pierino del Vaga, and Pellegrino da Modena.’

The last of the great frescoes of the Vatican was the Last Judg-
ment, painted by Michelangelo for Popes Clement VII. and Paul III,
on the altar-wall of the Sistine Chapel. It was commenced in 1533,
and was completed in 1541: its dimensions are 47 feet in height by
43 wide. Though avast composition, and executed with unrivalled
power and freedom, it is more conspicuous for the qualities which
constitute the manner of Michelangelo, than for the sublimity and
grandeur of the paintings of the ceiling, of which there are little if
any traces in the Last Judgment. The opinions concerning it are
many, and various: by some it is raised above all other works of
painting; while by others it is condemned as wholly unworthy of
its great subject. Flaxman, in comparing it with ancient composi-
tions, and a similar work of a later age, the Fallen Angels of
Rubens, says*—“In the great compositions of modern times, the
Last Judgment of Michelangelo, and the Fall of the Angels by
Rubens, there are multitudes, legions in comparison with the
' separate figures and single groups in the most considerable of the
ancient works. The beholder is thunderstruck by angels falling
in groups and forked masses, amalgamating in the vivid flashes,
and darkening in the sulphurous smoke, in the various dismay,
horror, and torpor of the deadened intellect in their lost con-
dition. In this picture, the undulation of figures and groups,
the entwining of limbs, the breadth and quantities of light and

1 See the writer's “ Analysis of Ornament,” 1860, on the style of the arabesques.
2 In his Lecture on Composition.
FRESCOES IN THE VATICAN. 229

shade, may be studied by the painter and sculptor with equal
advantage.}

“The Last Judgment by Michelangelo is, however, a more con-
summate work, and the parent from which Rubens’ Fall of the
Angels has derived its being. If the Judgment is inferior to the
Falling Angels in general effect—in the breadth of light and shade
——the strength of approaching parts—and the gradual distance of
those which retreat, by diffusion of middle tint and the vivid varie-
gations of reflex, it is superior in the sublimity and extent of
character and action—in the gradations of sentiment and passion,
from exalted beatitude to the abyss of hopeless destruction—in the
kinds and species of these degrees,—in relations to the theological
and cardinal virtues, opposed to the seven deadly sins—in uncom-
mon, original, distinct, and fit appropriation in the groups or
separate figures. The sentiment of particular figures and groups
is in the whole, and all the parts, penetrating, sympathetic, and
true.

“ Despair plunges headlong downwards; the fall of the conten-
tious is aided by strife and blows; the malignant, drawn down-
wards by the fiends, is tormented in his way by the biting serpent ;
for some there is a terrific contest between angels and infernals.

“‘“Among the happy, brotherly love is evident in three figures
which shoot upwards together, whose faces, seen a little beyond
each other, appear to be reflections of the same self: several rise
to the heavenly region by the attractions of purity, piety, and
charity.

‘In this stupendous work, in addition to the genius of the
mighty master, the mechanical powers and movements of the figure,
its anatomical energies and forms, are shown by such perspective
of the most difficult positions, as surpass any examples left by the
ancients on a flat surface or in low relief, and are only to be
equalled in kind, but not in the proportion of complication, in the
front and diagonal views of the Laocoon, and all the views of the
Boxers, which are both entire groups.”*

} This picture, one of Rubens’ finest works, is in the Pinacothek at Munich ; the
figures are on a small scale,

2 All these great frescoes have been much neglected, and suffered to fall into a
very decayed and dirty state. The Last Judgment is now so much obscured that
it is only partially visible, and these parts are not distinct. It is only possible to
form an adequate idea of it at present from copies and prints, which are numerous.
There is a beautiful small copy in the Gallery of Naples, by Marcello Venusti, a
distinguished scholar of Michelangelo. The frescoes of the Stanze were only saved
from imminent ruin by Carlo Maratti, who cleaned and restored them in 1702 and
1703, in the pontificate of Clement XI.; and from that time they have been the
objects of the careful attention of the Roman government. The chamber which
appears.to have suffered most from neglect and injudicious restoration is that of
230 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

It was the intention of Michelangelo to paint the Fall of Lucifer
on the wall opposite to the Last Judgment. The cartoons of this
design, or some of them, were actually made ; and a fresco was
painted from them by one of his scholars in the church of the Trinita
de’ Monti, but it has long since perished.

If Michelangelo had executed this work, the decorations of the
Sistine Chapel would have illustrated the whole cycle of Biblical
types and antitypes connected with the creation and regeneration
of man. The Fall of Lucifer would have been the commencement
of this cycle. Then would follow the paintings of the ceiling,
illustrating the creation and the fall of man; with which are con-
nected the Prophets and Sibyls, the Jewish subjects, and the
genealogy of Christ, in commemoration of the promised redemption.
Below these again, on the walls of the chapel, in the tapestries from
the Cartoons of Raphael and other works, the advent of the Re-
deemer is represented, and the actual regeneration of man is com-
menced. The whole series is closed by the final scene of the
Judgment, and the reconciliation of God with man. Such is the
high import of the vast series of pictorial decorations in the chapel
of the Popes at Rome.*

the Incendio del Borgo. The Prophets and Sibyls on the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel are still in a good state of preservation. The etchings of these great works
by Piroli convey an adequate idea of their character. There is a large copy of the
Last Judgment at Paris, which was made for Louis-Philippe, by the late French
painter Sigalon; it is in the Chapel of the Académie des Beaux Arts. There are
also several large copies from the paintings of the Stanze, in the Louvre at Paris.
There is a large print of the Last Judgment, in eleven pieces, by Giorgio Ghisi,
called Mantovano.

1 An authority for Michelangelo, besides Vasari, is his scholar Condivi, “ Vita
di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, Gentiluomo Fiorentino, Pittore, Scultore Architetto e
Poeta,” in folio, Florence, 1746, but first published in 1553, that is, during Michel-
angelo’s life-time. His Poems, chiefly sonnets, were first published by his great-
nephew, Michelangelo Buonarroti, at Florence, in 1623, and again by Bottari in
1726. Select specimens have been published in English by Mr. J. E. Taylor,
“Michelangelo, Considered as a Philosophic Poet; with Translations,’ &c., 8vo.,
London, 1840. A “ Life of Michelangelo,” by Mr. J. 8. Harford, was published in
1856, London, 2 vols., 8vo., with a folio of plates.
 

JULIO ROMANO. “THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.”

(From THE ENGRAVING BY DIANA GHisl.)

Page 231.
THE SCHOOL OF RAPHAEL, 231

CHAPTER XX.
THE SCHOOL OF RAPHAEL. DRAMATIC COMPOSITION, DIGNITY OF FORM.

RapuarL had many scholars and imitators; and among them are
comprised a majority of the greatest painters who succeeded him in
Italy. But the great school established by him in Rome was broken
up and dispersed through the wretched political disorders which
overwhelmed the papal capital in the year 1527.

Of his scholars, Grutio Prep, born at Rome in 1492 or 1498, and
commonly called Jutio Romano, was the most eminent. His family
name was Giannuzzi, his father was Pietro di Pippo or Pippi (for
Filippo) dei Giannuzzi: Giulio became early the pupil and assistant
of Raphael at Rome.’ He was distinguished for the correct and power-
ful design of Raphael, but in other respects he scarcely approached
him. Although he possessed great powers of invention, there is a
want of sentiment and expression in his works, and his design and
colouring are heavy. The heaviness of his colouring has been
attributed to the circumstance of his having been much employed
by Raphael in the dead colouring of his oil-pictures.

After the completion of the great series of frescoes in the Hall of
Constantine in the Vatican, which, as already observed, he painted
with the assistance of Gianfrancesco Penni, from the designs of
Raphael, after that great painter’s death, Giulio was in 1524 invited
to Mantua, by the Duke Federigo Gonzaga, and he there painted in
the Palazzo del Té his celebrated frescoes of the Fall of the Giants,”
and the story of Cupid and Psyche. These frescoes were however
executed chiefly from Giulio’s designs, by his scholars, of whom
Benedetto Pagni, Rinaldo Mantuano, and Primaticcio, were the
principal: the last worked with Giulio Romano for six years.

Of Giulio Remano’s oil-pictures, two of the most celebrated are
the Martyrdom of San Stefano, in the church of that saint at Genoa;
and a large familiar Holy Family at Dresden, quite Raphaelesque ;
it was painted for the Duke Federigo of Mantua, and is one of the
best works of its class extant. The Virgin is represented washing
the child, who is standing in a large metal basin, and the little

1 Carlo D’Arco, “ Istoria della Vita e delle opere di Giulio Pippi Romano.” Fol.
Mantua, 1838.

2 Bottani, “ Descrizione Storica delle Pitture del Regio-Ducale Palazzo del Te,
fuori della Porta di Mantova detto Pusterla,” Mantua, 1783. Some of these
frescoes are engraved by P. 8. Bartoli; by Diana Ghisi; by Antonio Veneziano ;
and in D’Arco’s “ Vita,” &e.
232 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

St. John is playfully pouring water over him ; Elizabeth is standing
on one side with a towel in her hands; Joseph is looking on at the
opposite side.?

Giulio distinguished himself also as an architect and ornamental
decorator at Mantua, and through his numerous scholars established
an important school of painting there. He died at Mantua, Nov. Ist,
1546.2, He was married to Elena Guazzo-Landi, in 1529, who
survived him, and by whom he left three children. His son Raphael
died young, in 1562. One daughter, Virginia, married Ercole
Malatesta, and the other, Griselda, was married to Alberto Erri, and
settled in Modena, in 1550. Giulio left to each of his daughters a
dowry of 1500 scudi?

(iIANFRANCESCO PENyi, coheir with Giulio Romano to Raphael,
was born at Florence in 1488. He, however, went early to Rome,
and became eventually Raphael’s favourite scholar; and he appears
to have been in a manner his steward, whence he was commonly
called Il Fattore, or Il Fattore di Raffaello. He had more of the
grace of Raphael than Giulio, but less vigour: there are copies by
him of some of Raphael’s most celebrated oil-pictures. Penni is
said to have been Raphael’s chief assistant in the preparation of the
Cartoons for the tapestries of Leo X.; and he assisted him also in
the Farnesina. Of his copies, the principal is the “‘ Transfiguration,”
in the Sciarra Palace, at Rome. Luca Penni was his brother; he also
was an assistant of Raphael and of Pierino del Vaga. Gianfrancesco
died in 1928, at Naples, where he had at least spread a knowledge
of the Roman school.

Piero Buonaccorsi, commonly called Pierino pe~ Vaca, the bro-
ther-in-law of Penni, was likewise one of the painters engaged in
the Hall of Constantine. He was born at Florence, June 28th, 1500,
but went very young to Rome with a Florentine painter of the
name of Vaga, whence his own name. Raphael employed him on
the frescoes of the Loggie, and he obtained the reputation of being,
after Giulio and Penni, the most able of Raphael’s school. Vasari
considered him the best designer among the Florentines after

' This picture is called “La Sainte Famille au Bassin,” or the “Madonna del
Bawine ;” it is engraved by J. J. Flipart.

? This is ascertained from the “Archivio della Sanits” of Mantua, in which is
the following entry against Nov. 1, 1546 :—* Sig. Giulio Romano, superintendent
of all the ducal buildings, after fifteen days’ illness, died of fever, aged forty-seven.”
This fixes sufficiently the date of Giulio’s death, but his age is most probably in-
correctly given. According to this statement he was born in 1498 or even 1499,
instead of 1492 as stated by Vasari; and if this be correct he must have been only
a boy when first employed by Raphael, in the Vatican. See D’Areo, “ Vita,” &¢.;
and Gaye, “ Carteggio Inedito,” &.; also the“ Kunstblatt,” No. 71, 1838, and No.
31, 1847.

3 Campori, “ Artist: Estensi,” &¢, Modena, 1855, p. 372; D’Arco, “ Vita,” &.
THE SCHOOL OF RAPHAEL. 233

Michelangelo. He went to Genoa after the sack of Rome in 1527,
and what Giulio Romano did for Mantua, Del Vaga did for the
school of Genoa. He introduced the grand design of Rome among
its painters; and he likewise painted there a great) composition in
fresco of the Fall of the Giants, in the palace of Prince Doria, his
patron, besides many ornamental decorations in the style of the
cinquecento arabesques. After the execution of these and other
works he returned to Rome in the pontificate of Paul IIL, and there
enjoyed a reputation second only to Michelangelo’s. He died at
‘Rome, Oct. 19th, 1547. There is, at Althorp, a portrait of Cardinal
Pole, by Pierino; and in the Dudley Gailery there is a fine altar-
piece by him.

Even the slightest biographical sketch of all the numerous scholars
and imitators vf Raphael would occupy more space than the limits
of this work will admit; none, therefore, except the most consider-
able masters, in this as well as in other schools, can be here noticed
much beyond an enumeration of their names, and a statement of
their periods: a mere record of their principal works would be
uninteresting, and an almost endless labour.

The following masters, though all entitled to rank among the
great painters of Italy, did little more than spread the style ot
Raphael; and though this of itself is an important service to art,
their labours are recorded in that statement; at the same time they
carried into the various parts comparatively but a feeble reflection
of the powers of their great master: Giovanni da Udine; Andrea
da Salerno; Pellegrino da Modena; J] Bagnacavallo; Vincenzo da
San Gimignano; Timoteo della Vite ; Raffaellino dal Colle; Polidoro
da Caravaggio, and I] Garofalo.

Giovanni RicaMATORI DA UpineE was born at Udine, Oct. 11th, 1487,
and studied under Giorgione before he joined the school of Raphael
at Rome. He is distinguished chiefly for painting accessary objects
in Raphael’s designs: he was, in his time, unrivalled in his repre-
sentations of animals, birds, fruit, flowers, and objects of still life.
Giovanni copied for Raphael the then recently discovered arabesques
of the Baths of Titus, at Rome; and he was intrusted with the
carrying ont the greater portion of the arabesques of the Vatican
Loggie. He was an architect as well as painter, and was in later
life appointed surveyor of his native city, Udine. In the cathedral
there, is a picture of St. Mark with various saints, which must be
one of Giovanni’s earliest works; it bears the modest signature—
Johannes Utinensis hoc parvo ingenio fecit, 1501.1 He died at Rome in
1564.

ANDREA SABBATINI DA SALERNO, who was one of the chief instru-

1 Maniago, Storia delle Belle Arti Friualane,” 1819, p. 124.
234 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

ments in spreading the principles of the Roman school southwards,
should perhaps be strictly noticed in the account of the Neapolitan
school. He was born at Salerno, about 1480, and he was one of those
Neapolitan painters whose attention was attracted by the altar-
piece of Perugino, in the cathedral of Naples: he was so fascinated
‘by this work that he set out, about 1510, to join Pietro at Perugia;
on his way, however, he heard, at a road-side inn, of the ‘“‘ School
of Athens,” and other ‘ divine” works of Raphael in the Vatican ;
and he accordingly gave up his original intention, and joined the
school of Raphael at Rome. Sabbatini assisted in the frescoes of
the Chiesa della Pace, and, according to Dominici, remained with
Raphael seven years, when he was called home through the death of
his father ; and he eventually settled in Naples, where he died about
1545. He was a good fresco-painter, and there are still some care-
fully finished works by him in the gallery and churches of Naples ;
some executed in Raphael’s second manner, which are Sabbatini’s
best, and others, mannered works in Raphael’s later style; his colour-
ing is generally, and his heads are often, good.

Petiecrino Arerust or Muwari, pa. Mopena, returned, after
Raphael’s death, to Modena, and introduced the Roman taste into
that city, but his career was short after his return; he died in 1523,
according to Tiraboschi,' when he was assassinated, in consequence
of a family feud.

BarroLomeo RameEneui, called, from his birthplace, In Bacna-
CAVALLO, was born in 1484, and was one of the numerous school of
Francia, at Bologna, before he became the assistant of Raphael in
‘the Vatican. Bagnacavallo made less pretensions to originality
than many others of Raphael’s school, and being more modest,
adhered more strictly to the style of his great model. He was one
of his principal assistants, and perhaps his most devoted worshipper :
he maintained that more was to be learned from Raphael than from
Nature herself, inasmuch as men of ordinary ability must be content
of necessity to learn mediately through higher geniuses. He
returned to Bologna after Raphael’s death, and distinguished him-
self by a picture of the Crucifixion, painted in 1522 for the church
of San Pietro; this picture he signed Bartolom. Ramen. Bagnacawal. f.
MDXXII. He died at Bologna, in August, 1542. Such of his
pictures as are known are well coloured; but they are rare in
galleries; the “Madonna and Child in Glory,” with Saints Gemi-
nianus, Peter, Paul, and Anthony of Padua below, now at Dresden, is
one of the finest,’ and is probably his masterpiece, if really by him:

1 Lanzi, “ Storia Fittorica,” &c., vol. iv., p. 32.
2 Baruffaldi, “ Pittori Ferraresi,” &c., vol. ii., pp. 486—501; Vaccolini, “ Bio-
grafia di Barto. Ramenghi,” &c., 4th Ed., Bagnacavallo, 1848.
THE SCHOOL OF RAPHAEL. 235

it has in its figures something of the richer works of Moretto. It is
lithographed by Hanfstangl.

Vincenzo pa San Gimignano, where he was born about 1490,
belonged to the Tamagni family. He also was one of the assistants
in the Loggie. After Raphael’s death he returned to San Gimignano,
aud was still painting there in 1529.

Timoreo DELLA Vrre, or Dr’ Viti, was born at Urbino, in 1469,
whence he is also called sometimes Timoteo da Urbino. He too
was first the scholar of Francia, at Bologna, before he visited Rome ;
and he commenced his career asa jeweller. He appears first as a
painter in 1503, when he painted the arms of Cesare Borgia on the
gates of Urbino. He was not long with Raphael, and he is said to
have displeased that painter by leaving him, to return to his native
place. Timoteo painted more after Francia than Raphael, though
some few of his later works are in the style of that master. Several
of his works are still preserved at Urbino and elsewhere. The fine
altar-piece in the Berlin Gallery, till lately attributed to Giovanni
Santi, but now given to Timoteo Viti, representing the Madonna
enthroned, with St. James the greater and St. James the less, entitles
Timoteo to rank with the good masters of his time. Pietro,
Timoteo’s brother, also a painter, is probably the Prete di Urbino,
who was one of Raphael’s heirs, according to Baldinucci. Timoteo
died, Oct. 10th, 1523.1

RaFFAaELLINO DAL Coie, born at Colle, near Citta San Sepolero,
about 1490, was still living in 1546. ,After the death of Raphael
he appears to have engaged himself to Giulio Romano, and to have
followed him to Mantua; he, however, returned to his native country,
and obtained a considerable reputation in various cities of Umbria.
Raffaellino was of a modest and amiable disposition; he was at San
Sepolero when that city was visited by I] Rosso, about 1530, and to
show his great respect for the Florentine painter, he surrendered
to him a commission he had just undertaken. In the church of
San Rocco, and in San Francesco, of the Osservanti, are two fine
altar-pieces by Raffaellino; one representing the ‘“‘ Resurrection of
Christ,” the other, the ‘‘ Assumption of the Virgin.’”?

Jacopo Bertuccr, called Jacopone da Faenza, who was active
between 1513 and 1532, copied and imitated the works of Raphael
with great success, and executed some good works at Faenza.

Potmworo CaLpaka was born at Caravaggio about 1495, and was
originally a mason’s labourer. He was employed in this capacity
at the Vatican in 1512, when he attracted the attention of Matturino,
of Florence, one of the decorators employed by Raphael. Matturino

1 Vasari, “ Vite,” &c.; Pungileoni, “ Elogio storico di Raffaello Santi,” p. 257.

2 Lanzi, “Storia Pittorica,” &c.; Mancini, “ Artefici di Citta di Castello,” vol. ii.
1832.
236 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

instructed Polidoro in drawing, and took him as his own especial
assistant, and their joint works were so excellent as to attract
particular notice from Raphael. They consisted chiefly of fresco
‘chiaroscuri for friezes, in imitation of bronze or marble, displaying
great talent in the drawing of the figures. These works have long
since perished, but some have been preserved in the engravings of
Cherubino Alberti, P. §. Bartoli, and Galestruzzi. Their master-
piece was considered a frieze of the story of Niobe, on the fagade of
a house opposite the Lancellotti Palace: it is engraved by Galestruzzi.

The sack of Rome, in 1527, put an end to the labours of Matturino
and Polidoro, as of most other artists; of the first nothing more is
known ; he possibly returned to Rome in the following year, and
there died of the plague. Polidoro fled to Naples, and was received
into the house of Andrea da Salerno; but finding little success, now
separated from Matturino, he repaired to Messina, where in 1536 he
was intrusted with the superintendence of the decorations got up
in honour of the visit of Charles V., on his return from Tunis.
Polidoro established himself as a painter of reputation at Messina,
no longer confining his labours to chiaroscuri, but executing even
altar-pieces : Vasari mentions a “ Christ led to Calvary ” asa master-
piece. The comparative failure of the chiaroscuri, after the separa-
tion of the two friends in Rome, would seem to imply that the chief
merit of those works belonged to Matturino, notwithstanding Vasari
gives the chief praise to Polidoro.

Tn 1543, having by his syccesses as a painter accumulated a con-
siderable sum of money, Polidoro determined to return to Rome,
and packed for his journey; but a wretch who had lived some
years with him as his servant, imagining an easy prize within his
reach, bribed some assassins to murder his master and lay his body
on the steps of a house in which a lady dwelt that Polidoro had
been in the habit of visiting. A friend of the painter’s, however,
suspected the man’s treachery, and had him put to the question; he
soon confessed his infamous crime, and in due course was tortured,
hanged, and quartered. The Gallery at Naples possesses some of
Polidoro’s oil-paintings.

Benvenvro Tist, called from his monogram (a Gilliflower)
GAROFALO, was an important painter for Ferrara, near which place
he was born in 1481. He first studied under Domenico Panetti,
a good Ferrarese master; then with Boccaccio Boccaccino, at
Cremona, with whom he remained until the death, in 1499, of his
uncle, Soriani, with whom Garofalo was residing. Boccaccino was
an excellent master, of whom little is known, but he executed many
good works in Cremona between 1496 and 1518. Garofalo visited
Rome as early as the year 1500, studying under Giovanni Baldini,
but he returned again to the north, and worked with Lorenzo Costa
THE SCHOOL OF RAPHAEL. 237

at Mantua in 1506. In 1515 he returned to Rome and engaged
himself with Raphael, whose great powers and personal qualities
exeited in Garofalo, as in other painters, a species of enthusiastic
veneration for him, and he was a close and successful imitator of
Raphael in his smaller works; he was a Raphael in little. Business
called Garofalo back to Ferrara, and he left Rome before Raphael's
death. He there executed some frescoes which gave him the rank
of the head of the Ferrarese school: he is, however, best known out
of Ferrara for his small pictures in oil, which evince many of the
characteristics of Raphael’s style, though they are executed in a
dry manner: they possess too much of the quattrocentismo, or that
crudity of style which characterizes the schools which preceded
Leonardo da Vinci and his great contemporaries. But in colouring
Garofalo was more than successful ; some of his small pictures rival
the works of the early Venetians in this respect; they are con-
spicuous for pure positive tints, which are perfectly preserved to
this day. One of Garofalo’s best works is the “ Adoration of the
Kings,” in the gallery at Ferrara. But his large altar-pieces are
very scarce; one of the principal, from San Guglielmo, in Ferrara,
is now in the National Gallery ; it has a good decorative effect, and
is sufficiently well treated for its purpose as a piece of ecclesiastical
furniture, but it is deficient in half tints, and is otherwise not a
work of the highest order. This painter is, however, on the whole
well represented in the National Gallery. Garofalo died at Ferrara,
Sept. 6, 1559, baving been blind the last nine years of his life.
Several of his frescoes are still extant at Ferrara, the principal of
which, painted about 1519-24, are in the church of San Francesco,
in which is the “ Slaughter of the Innocents.”*

As Garofalo is accounted’ among the Capiscuole, the few remarks
which our space will admit on the Ferrarese painters, his contem-
poraries and followers, will be more in place here than elsewhere ;
more especially as the Ferrarese school of this period was, through
Garofalo, an off-shoot of the Roman.

The older contemporaries of Garofalo were Excoue Granp1 (1462-
1531), known as Ercole da Ferrara, a hard quattrocento painter, whose
chief works, the frescoes of the Garganelli chapel in San Pietro, in
Bologna, were destroyed in 1605; and Lopovico Mazzotini (1481-
1530), a delicate but mannered master, by whom we have in the
National Gallery, perhaps his best work—The Holy Family, with
St. Nicolas of Tolentino adoring the Infant Saviour.

Giovansi Battista Benvenuti, who from the occupation ‘of his
father, a gardener, was called L’Ortolano, is confounded with
Garofalo. He was still living in 1525, and, to judge from the fine

1 See Laderchi, “La Pittura Ferrarese,” p. 73.
238 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

altar-piece in the National Gallery, of Saints Sebastian, Rock, and
Demetrius, formerly in the church of Bondeno, near Ferrara, he may
be accounted among the great masters of his time.

The two Dossi, of Dosso, near Cento, Dosso and Giambattista, are
honoured by the praises of Ariosto :—

E quei che furo a’ nostri di, o sono ora,
Leonardo, Andrea Mantegna, Gian Bellino,
Due Dossi, e quel ch’ a par sculpe e colora
Michel, pit che mortale, Angel divino.
Orlando Furioso. Cant. xxxiii. 2.

Dosso Lutert, called Dosso Dosst (about 1479-1560), was the pupil
of Lorenzo Costa; he likewise studied some time at Rome, and was
the most distinguished contemporary of Garofalo at Ferrara. His
brother, Giampattista, who died in 1549, painted the landscapes
in Dosso’s pictures; they generally painted together; and the
“ Infancy of Jupiter,” in the National Gallery, though long ascribed
to Giulio Romano, is considered by some a joint work of these two
Ferrarese painters, and they may be right: the picture is on deal,
a wood used by the Swiss painters and the artists of the north of
Italy. The Dresden Gallery has by Dosso, a grand altar-piece of
the “Four Doctors of the Church meditating on the mystery of the
Immaculate Conception ;” Saints Gregory, Augustin, Ambrose, and
Jerome, have much of the dignity of Moretto and Raphael in their
style, but the visionary portion of the picture above, representing
God blessing the Virgin Mary, is a very ordinary piece of work.

Of Garofalo’s own scholars, the principal was GiroLamo Carpi, or
Der’ Carpi, who was born at Ferrara in 1501, or towards the close of
the fifteenth century, and died there in,1556 or 1568; he executed
many works at Ferrara and Bologna, both in oil and in fresco,
endeavouring to appropriate the style and grace of Correggio; and
he was an excellent portrait painter. He was a decorative painter,
and also an architect ; in the last capacity he was with the Cardinal
Ippolito d’Este in Rome, in 1550, and the Pope, Julius III. wished
to make him superintendent of the Vatican buildings; but the
jealousy of rivals made Girolamo’s residence in Rome so unpleasant
that he returned to his own family in Ferrara.

Barrotomeo Faccini succeeded Girolamo de’ Carpi as ducal painter
at Ferrara, and executed for Alfonso II., in the court of Bartolino di
Novara’s grand old castle of Ferrara, in chiaroscuro, in imitation of

1 His existence, however, has been doubted by some, though the title of a book
of sketches noticed by Baruffaldi, “Studio di me Zoane Bapt? d. Benvegni, fatto
in Bologna,” &c., would seem to prove such existence, except that the m with a
flourish, which is read in this and other cases as me, should, I imagine, in nearly
every case be read as m, the contraction for messer—master. See the National
Gallery Catalogue, 1864.
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY. 239

bronze, a series of portrait figures, ndw all but perished, of the
Princes of Ferrara, of the house of Este: a somewhat similar series
had been painted by Girolamo in the ducal palace of Copparo, for
Duke Ercole. It was in making some corrections in this series of
chiaroscuri that Faccini fell from the carelessly-arranged scaffolding,
in 1577, and was killed on the spot, in his forty-fifth year."

Two other painters of this school were distinguished in the
sixteenth century: Gio Francesco Surchi, called Dielai, a scholar
and assistant of the Dossi, he died in 1590; and his scholar, Giuseppe
Mazzuoli, called I] Bastaruolo, from the occupation of his father,
who was a corn-chandler ; he was drowned in 1589, while bathing
in the Po. There are works of both at Ferrara.

CHAPTER XXII.
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY :—CHIAROSCURO—CORREGGIO AND PARMIGIANO.

Wau form and expression were almost exclusively cultivated at
Florence and Rome, chiaroscuro and colour were perfected in the.
north. One of the chief branches of the Lombard school was the
Milanese; and the principal painters of this school have been
already noticed among the followers of Leonardo da Vinci. But
throughout all the Italian schools in this period the religious spirit
of the quattrocento art gradually gave place to classical mythology
and history, and the sensuous development of art became the
highest aim of the artists ; this is a predominant quality of what is
styled the cinquecento* art.

Correggio is the greatest master of chiaroscuro, or light and dark,
whether effected by light and dark colours or light and dark
shades.

Antoyio ALLEGRI, or Lieto, commonly called Correceio, from his
birth-place of that name, near Modena, was the son of a respect-
able merchant, Pellegrino Allegri, and was born in the latter end
of the year 1493, or in the beginning of 1494. Scarcely anything
is known of his early career. He is supposed to have been the
pupil of one Tonino Bartolotto, of Correggio, but he probably ac-
quired much from the works of Leonardo da Vinci and his Milanese

1 Baruffaldi, “ Pittori Ferraresi, 1844.”

2 Cinquecento, or five hundred, is a mere abbreviation for one thousand five
hundred, and signifies the style of art which arose shortly after the year 1500, and
therefore strictly the art of the sixteenth century, as also the quattrocento means
that of the fifteenth.
240 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

scholars ; as his earlier works have a greater affinity to this school
than any other, especially the San Francescv at Dresden, which
has something of Gaudenzio Ferrari in the quality of its tone and
colour. Correggio probably also had ‘opportunities of studying
works of the schools of Mantua and Modena, both of which were
influenced by the painters of Venice: he was in Mantua in 1511-12,
having fled from Correggio on account of the plague, that perpetual
scourge of the “good old times” of dirty habits. The pictures of
Giorgione, who died when Correggio was a boy, were alone suffi-
cient to attract the studies of Correggio to those qualities of light
and shade for which his own works are so distinguished. In 1519,
when he was only twenty-five years of age, we find Correggio a
master of established reputation at Parma, and contracting in the
following year to paint in fresco the dome of the church of San
Giovanni Evangelista: the payments for these frescoes extend from
1520 to 1524.1 He had before this time painted several fine altar-
pieces at Correggio, two of which are now among the principal
ornaments of the celebrated Gallery of Dresden—the Madonna en-
throned, surrounded by saints, known as the Madonna del San
Francesco, which is assumed to be the picture painted by Cor-
reggio in 1515 for the Franciscans of Correggio, for 100 ducats in
gold, or 400 lire, which we may consider as about 400 francs or
151. sterling. This picture is signed Anrorus DE ALzcris, P., but
is certainly unlike any other known work of the painter: the sig-
nature is a singular one; it is, however, at least a century and a
half old, and may be genuine. Such a painting is certainly a great
and a surprising work for a youth of twenty-one years of age; it
must not be forgotten, however, that Correggio’s altar-piece dis-
appeared from the convent of the Franciscans about the year 1577,
and cannot be traced to the Modena Gallery, whence this picture
came.” The other early work is the picture known as the “Saint
George,” * a brilliant masterpiece, but with no trace of the hand
which painted the “Saint Francis.” The third large Madonna in
this collection, the ‘“ Madonna del San Sebastiano,” a superior, but
an injured work, was painted at, or for, Modena, in 1525 or 1526.
His first works in Parma were some mythological subjects in the
convent of San Paolo. The next in importance to these is the
Ascension of Christ in the presence of the Apostles, in the church
of. San Giovanni. Correggio had painted also the apse or tribune

’ For the cupola Correggio received only 130 golden ducats, and for the choir,
65. This seems certainly small pay, especially when we think of the 30/. per inch
paid for the “ Vierge au Panier.” Affo, “ Il Parmigiano Servitor di Piazza,” 1796,
p. 37.

2 See Pungileoni, “‘ Memorie,” &c., vol. ii. p. 69.

3 These works have been lately admirably lithographed by F. Hanfsting].
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY. 241

of the choir of this church of San Giovanni; but the monks wishing
to enlarge the choir, the old tribune was destroyed, and, with the
exception of some fragments, the frescoes of Correggio perished
with it. The monks had, however, taken the precaution to have
the frescoes carefully drawn by Cesare Aretusi, and he reproduced
them on the new tribune; this was in 1587: the cartoons made by
Aretusi are still preserved in Naples, at Capo di Monte. Aretusi
received 200 scudi d’oro for his copy, or about three times what
Correggio was paid for the original fresco.t A still greater work
than the cupola of San Giovanni is the Assumption of the Virgin,
on the dome or cupola of the cathedral of Parma. He contracted
for this work in 1522, and undertook to paint the whole dome and
choir for 1000 ducats, or about 150/. sterling, which may have been
worth at that time about 30001.% Correggio, however, never ful-
filled this engagement; he did not even complete the dome, which
was finished by his scholar Giorgio Gandini. The Apostles like-
wise witness the Assumption of the Virgin; and in the four
lunettes on the piers of the dome Correggio has painted in the
same size the patron saints of Parma—John the Baptist, Sant’
Tlario, San Tommaso, and San Bernardo degli Uberti. There is no
window or lantern above this dome, the light being admitted from
long oval windows in the lower part: a circumstance which adds
greatly to the effect of the composition, and of which Correggio
has taken the utmost advantage. He has made the whole illumi-
nation of the subject proceed from the glory around Christ in the
centre of the cupola; Christ is descending from amidst a glory of
angels to meet the Virgin borne up from the earth by another
crowd of angels; the Apostles, witnesses of the Assumption, are
painted between the windows in the lower part of the cupola.
The whole forms one great host of saints and angels, all illumined
from the central glory in the summit; and the light has a
wonderful effect upon the apostles and saints below. -A striking
peculiarity of these and other works by Correggio is the violent
perspective in which most of the figures are seen.* Foreshorten-

1 Affo, lc. p. 88. Cesare Aretusi was probably the grandson of Pelegrino da
Modena: he was a good portrait painter as well as fresco painter. He died at
Parma about 1612.

2 The common report circulated by Vasari about Correggio’s poverty seems
unfounded; he appears from existing documents to have been generally, if not
always, well paid for his works. In considering his prices we must not overlook
that money had at that time, in some parts of Europe, twenty-fold its present
value. Pungileoui, “ Memorie Istoriche di Antonio Allegri, detto il Correggio,”
Parma, 1817-21; “Sketches of the Lives of Correggio and Parmigiano*”’ London,
1823 ; Lanzi, “ Storia Pittorica dell’ Italia.” x

3 Engraved by G. B. Vanni : a new series of prints from these and the frescoes
of San Giovanni has been engraved by the Cav. Toschi.

R
242 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

ing appears to have been a passion with him, though in the frescoes
of these cupolas, in which the subject events are supposed to take
place immediately above the spectator, the figures must of neces-
sity have been foreshortened if naturally or justly represented. In
many, however, of Correggio’s altar-pieces, he has displayed his
skill in this department of art when the occasion did not necessarily
require it.

Besides the above frescoes, which are accounted Correggio’s
masterpieces, there are many very celebrated easel-pictures and
altar-pieces in oil by him, particularly the Nativity at Dresden, or
the “‘ Notte” (Night), as it is called in Italy. And one of the best,
in all respects, isthe ‘San Girolamo,” or St. Jerome adoring the
Infant Christ, of the Gallery of Parma, which is a work of exceed-
ing beauty, combining, with all the academic requirements of art, a
refined sentiment, but yet not free from that affectation of posture
which is the general result of his over-wrought efforts at grace of
attitude. This isalso a “‘ Nativity,” but it is “11 Giorno,” the Day,
contrasting with the effect of the other, which represents the
Night. This was painted in 1524.

The “Notte” was painted, or at least commissioned, in 1522, and
Correggio received for it only 208 lire, about 7/7. 10s. of our money ;
this was, however, by no means an inconsiderable sum at that
time,’ though only half what he had received seven years before
for the “San Francesco” altar-piece. The light of this picture,
which is an “ Adoration of the Shepherds,” proceeds from the
Infant Saviour, a circumstance upon which much has been written,
as an original and happy invention; the principle was, however,
previously applied by Raphael in the fresco in the Vatican of the
Liberation of St. Peter from Prison: in the central portion of this
composition, the Angel visiting St. Peter in the Prison, the entire
illumination proceeds from the angel.

The “Notte,” the St. Sebastian, the Magdalen, and the other
works by Correggio, in the Gallery at Dresden, were purchased in
1745 from the Duke of Modena, with the rest of that prince’s col-
lection, by Frederick Augustus IJ., Elector of Saxony. There is
or was a copy of the ‘“ Notte” in the church of San Giovanni at
Parma,’ made by Cesare Aretusi: another copy is spoken of as
being in the church of San Prospero at Reggio. The praises of this
picture seem exceedingly exaggerated ; it may have had a brilliant
effect in its original state, but though improved by its recent re-
storation, it has no such effect now. It was cleaned and restored

1 See the fine print by Strange.
2 « Abrégé de la Vie des Peintres,’ &c., or Dresden Catalogue of 1782.

3 Bertoluzzi, “ Guida di Parma,” 1830, says this copy has been sold, and a very
inferior one substituted for it.
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY. 248

in 1827 by Pietro Palmaroli, and may have suffered somewhat
under the operation.?

The nation possesses three of Correggio’s most celebrated pro-
ductions—the “‘ Ecce Homo,” “‘ Venus and Mercury teaching Cupid
his letters,” and the small Madonna known as the “ Vierge au
Panier,” in the National Gallery. The last is a fine example of
the cabinet pictures of Correggio: it was formerly in the King of
Spain’s collection; as was likewise another equally remarkable
cabinet picture, representing “Christ’s Agony in the Garden,” in
the collection of the Duke of Wellington: it was presented to the
first duke by Ferdinand VII. The same subject, in the National
Gallery, appears to be a repetition or copy of the Duke’s picture.
The most celebrated, however, of all Correggio’s cabinet pictures
is the small ‘Reclining Magdalen reading,” in the Dresden
Gallery, of which there are also many copies, and, probably,
some repetitions; several old copies, with slight variations in the
background, were, according to Baldinucci, made by Cristoforo
Allori: a very fine example of this composition is in the Dudley
Gallery.

This great painter died of a fever in the prime of life, at his
native place, Correggio, on the 5th of March, 1534, in his forty-first
year.

The so-called grace of Correggio, or that general beauty and
softness of effect which depends upon the combination of certain
technical excellences of design, colour, and chiaroscuro, with taste
and expression, is now, as formerly, still a distinctive characteristic
of this painter. He was the first among the moderns who pos-
sessed it in a very emin’nt degree, and is allowed to be still un-
equalled in this attractive quality.

The works of Correggio were so distinctly conspicuous for’ this
quality before the rise of the modern school of Bologna, that the
first sight of some of his easel-pictures forced Annibale Carracci,
in a letter to his cousin Lodovico, to declare that after them the
St. Cecilia of Raphael appeared to be wooden. Annibale, in a
letter to Lodovico from Parma, dated April 18, 1580, says,—
“Tibaldi, Niccolino, Raphael himself, are nothing to Correggio.
The St. Jerome, the St. Catherine, the Madonna della Scodella; I
would rather have any one of them than the St. Cecilia. How
much grander and at the same time more delicate is St. Jerome

’ Engraved by P. L. Surugue, by C. H. Rabl, and drawn in lithography by
Hanfstangl. See Schifer, “ Gemaelde-Gallerie zu Dresden,” 1860.

2 Ramdohr speaks of this “Ecce Homo” as the best Correggio in his time at
Rome, 1784. See “Ueber Mahlerei und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom,” &c. The
“Ecce Homo” is engraved by G. T. Doo, R.A. ; the “ Venus and Mereury,” by Arnold
de Jode ; and the “ Vierge au Panier,” by Diana Ghisi, in 1577; by Doo and others.

R 2
244 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

than that St. Paul,' which at first appeared to me to be a miracle!
but now I feel as if it were made of wood, it is so hard.”’ These
remarks, besides expressing the delicacy of Correggio’s style, ex-
plain also the tendency of the rising Eclectic school of Bologna:
it was sensuous and technical. Amnnibale, however, was only
twenty years of age when he wrote this letter; probably he could
not have used such expressions after his acquaintance with the
works of Raphael at Rome: he could at this time only judge of
Raphael by the St. Cecilia.

Though the style of Correggio had much influence upon the arts
of Lombardy, and the north of Italy generally, he seems to have
had no very distinguished scholars. The most eminent was Ber-
nardino Gatti, called I] Soiaro. The others were Giorgio Gandini,
already mentioned; Antonio Bernieri, also sometimes called
Antonio da Correggio; and his own son Pomponio, who, though
much noticed by the princes of Parma, appears to have been a
painter of very moderate ability.®

BernaRvino Gatt, called In Soraro or Sogliare, from the trade
of his father, was apparently a native of Cremona, though he is
claimed both by Vercelli and Pavia; it is not even certain whether
he was the scholar, or only the imitator, of Correggio. Gatti
painted the cupola of the Steccata at Parma, in a similar style to
the cupolas of Correggio, for which he received 1400 scudi d’oro,
about 2801. sterling. He executed also an Assumption of the
Virgin, and many other excellent works at Cremona, completely
in the style of that master; especially in the cathedial there. He
died in 1575, aged about eighty. Many old writers speak of J1
Soiaro as an excellent painter, but a waft of originality seems to
have rendered a great reputation impossible for him: he was great
as an imitator—he completed the unfinished tribune of Pordenone
in the church of Santa Maria di Campagna in Piacenza, so that the
whole appeared to be the work of one hand. Gervasio Gatti, still
living in 1631, was the nephew and scholar of Bernardino, and an
imitator of Correggio: he is also called I] Soiaro sometimes.‘

1 The figure of Paul in the picture of St. Cecilia. /

? Malvasia, “Felsina Pittrice,’ i p. 365. The St. Jerome is now the principal

ornament of the Academy at Parma; it is engraved by Agostino Carracci, C. Cort,
Strange, and others.

5 Correggio was married in 1520 to Girolama Merlini, a young lady of Mantua,
then seventeen years old ; he received with her a dowry of 257 ducats, equivalent,
perhaps, at present, to about 10001. sterling. She is supposed to have been the
original of the Madonna in the Holy Family—known as La Zingarella, the
Gipsy. He had by this lady four children ; the above-mentioned Pomponio, born
in 1521, and three daughters. His wife, his son, one daughter, and his father
survived him. Pungileoni, “‘ Memorie,” &c.

4 Baldinucci, “Notizie,” &c.; Zaist, “Pittori Cremonesi;’” Panni, “Cremona ;”
Pungileoni, ‘‘ Memorie,” &c.
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY. 245

Groreio Ganvin1, called also Det Grano, was a native of Parma;
he was the favourite pupil of Correggio, and a good imitator of his
style. Gandini survived Correggio only a few years; his death,
which happened in 1538, having interrupted the completion of the
unfinished works of Correggio in the cathedral of Parma, a task
which he had partly carried out. He contracted, June 30th, 1535,
to paint the choir and its tribune for 350 scudi d’oro, 70/.; some of
this money was restored by Gandini’s son, Francesco, the debt being
acknowledged June 5th,1538, soon after the father’s death."

Antonio Bernier (1516-63), of Correggio, called also Antonio
da Correggio, was an able miniature painter. He seems to have
restricted himself to miniatures after the death of Correggio.

Pomronio Quirino ALLecri, the son of Antonio, was born at
Correggio on the 8rd of September, 1521. As he was only thirteen
when his father died, he can have derived little benefit from his
instruction. He married Laura Geminiani of Correggio, and settled
in Parma, where he appears to have been constantly employed
until 1593. He left a son, Antonio Pellegrino Allegri, who was
also a painter. Affd notices a fresco by Pomponio in the cathedral
of Parma representing Moses receiving the Tables of the Law.?

Among the imitators, though not a scholar of Correggio, may be
mentioned Bernarpino Lanint of Vercelli (about 1508-78): he was
the most able of the scholars of Gaudenzio Ferrari, and was dis-
tinguished for his delicate chiaroscuro: in drawing he was not
very successful. Though Lanini has executed some good altar-
pieces, his chief works are his frescoes, especially the Sibyls and
other works in the cathedral of Novara. At Borgo Sesia, near
Varallo, is an altar-piece inscribed Bernardinus pausillum hoc quod
cernis effigiabat, 1539; and the National Gallery possesses an altar-
piece with the Holy Family, the Magdalen, Pope Gregory the
Great, and St. Paul, presenting an apple to the Infant Saviour,
signed Bernardinus effigiabat, 1543: it has something of Leonardo in
its tone, of Gaudenzio in its colouring, and of Correggio in its
expression and attitudes; the Magdalen reminds strongly of
Correggio.

Francesco Maria Mazzoua, or Mazzuoti1, commonly called Par-
miciano and Parmiaianino from his birthplace, Parma, is, after Cor-
reggio, the most distinguished painter of this school. His style
resembles Correggio’s in those qualities which distinguish Cor-
reggio, but, as Annibale Carracci has remarked, it is only a distant
resemblance :* in design he was a successful imitator of Michel-
angelo. Parmigiano was engaged to paint a chapel in the church of

1 Pungileoni, “‘ Memorie Istoriche,” &e., vol. iit. p. 30.

2 Affo, “Il Parmigiano Servitor di Piazza ;” Pungileoni, “ Memorie Istoriche,” &e.

3 Malvasia, in the letter quoted, i. 356.
246 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

San Giovanni while Correggio was painting the cupola, but he was
never the pupil of that painter. He was the son of Filippo Maz-
zola, and the pupil of his uncles Michele and Pietro Ilario.. He,
however, evidently derived much benefit from the study of Cor-
teggio’s works; but in 1523 he left Parma for Rome, where he
painted some celebrated pictures. He was engaged, during the sack
of Rome, in 1527, on the Vision of St. Jerome, in the National
Gallery. After the sack of Rome he repaired to Bologna, and from
this period are to be dated his best productions. He returned to
Parma in 1531, and soon afterwards commenced the frescoes of the
choir of Santa Maria della Steccata; but owing to some causes not
quite clear, some say his own dissipation, he never completed this
work; and after undergoing imprisonment on account of his
breach of contract, and other difficulties, he died a fugitive at Casal
Maggiore, August 24, 1540, in his thirty-seventh year only: he
was born January 11, 1504. The celebrated figure of Moses
breaking the Tables of the Law, is a part of the frescoes of the
Steccata. Of this figure Sir Joshua Reynolds says, ‘‘ We are at a
loss which to admire most, the correctness of drawing or the
grandeur of the conception.”! Of his easel-pictures, one of the
most beautiful is the celebrated Cupid making his Bow, painted for
Francesco Boiardi, commonly attributed to Correggio, now in the
Gallery of Vienna, but well known in copies and in prints. The
most celebrated of his altar-pieces is the Santa Margherita, now in
the Academy of Bologna. When Guido was asked which he pre-
ferred, this picture or the St. Cecilia of Raphael, he exclaimed,
“That, the St. Margaret of Parmigiano.”*

The large picture of the “ Vision of St. Jerome,” in the National
collection, is not a favourable specimen of this master, though cha-
racteristic of his taste in form. ‘There is a grand effect in the
Madonna and Child, but the restriction as to width in the panel has
caused him so to distort the figures of the two saints as to make
the composition on the whole exceedingly disagreeable.® It was
painted in Parmigiano’s twenty-fourth year, for Maria Buffalina, to
be placed in her chapel in San Salvatore di Lauro, at Citta di Cas-
tello: he was in the act of giving the last touches to the picture at
Rome when the city was stormed by the soldiers of Bourbon, and
so absorbed was he in his work, says Padre Affo, that the first
intimation the young painter had of this disastrous event was the
rush of some soldiers into his painting-room, when exploring the
houses for plunder; but their astonishment was even greater than
his, and as it happened that the captain of the band was a lover of

1 Discourse XV.

2 Affo, “ Vita di Francesco Mazzola,” Parma, 1784; Lanzi, “Storia Pittorica,” &¢.
3 It is engraved by Giulio Bonasone.
 

MOSES BREAKING THE TABLES OF THE LAW. (Parmictano.)

Page 246.
SCHOOLS OF LOMBARDY. 247

art, he compelled his men to respect the painter and his pro-
perty, and was contented with the present of some pen-and-ink
sketches and other drawings for himself. ‘The picture was placed,
for better security, in the monastery of Santa Maria della Pace,
whence it was subsequently moved to Citta di Castello.

The mannerism observable in the figures of this picture is cha-
racteristic of Parmigiano generally: he imitated the peculiarities
of Correggio, and they became in him so exaggerated and pro-
minent as to constitute the characteristic defects of a manner.
Foreshortening and soft gradated roundness of form, mere acces-
sories with Correggio, became important or even paramount ends
with Parmigiano; he endeavoured further to combine the forms of
Michelangelo and Raphael with his own peculiarities of manner,
but his elongated necks and limbs rendered such a result im-
possible. :

Girotamo Mazzoxa, a good colourist, was still living at Parma in
1580; he was the cousin of Parmigiano; he executed several works
in the Steccata, and was employed about 1560 to complete the
frescoes there left unfinished by Michelangelo Anselmi, who had
been engaged by the monks to continue a portion of Parmigiano’s
neglected work.

MIcHELANGELO ANSELMI, a native of Lucca, where he was born in
1491, is called also Michelangelo da Siena, because he studied
under Bazzi there; but his family was of Parma. When Cor-
reggio was commissioned in 1522 to paint the cupola and choir of
the cathedral of that city, the chapels were given to Parmigiano,
Rondani, and Anselmi, which shows that the last was held in great
estimation at Parma. He was an enthusiastic admirer and follower
of Correggio, though his senior inyears. He executed many works
in the churches of Parma, of which Lanzi has singled out as the
most graceful and nearest to the style of Correggio, a Madonna
with St. John the Baptist and St. Stephen adoring, in the church
of San Stefano: there is a picture of this subject in the Louvre,
but of no great merit. Anselmi was weak in composition, yet large
and full in his forms, studied in his heads, and gay in his colour-
ing: he was fond of red, of which he introduced various tints in
the same picture. He died at Parma in 1554.

Francesco Marra Roxpani, of Parma, was an imitator of Cor-
reggio, and his assistant in the cupola of San Giovanni Evangelista :
he was a distinguished painter as early as 1522, but was already
dead in 1548.’

Leto Orsi, called Lerio pa Noveriara, was born at Reggio in

1 Affo, “ Vita,” &. p. 61.
° Affo, “Il Parmigiano Servitor di Piazza,’ p. 29,
248 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

1511, and died at Novellara in 1587. He was one of the best
imitators of Correggio, but few of his pictures are preserved or can
be now identified. His life was passed chiefly at Reggio and
Novellara, where some works remain, and hence, says Lanzi, he is
little known; he, however, had studied both at Venice and at
Rome.! .

Girolamo de’ Carpi, a scholar of Garofalo, already noticed, was
also a great student of the works of Correggio at Parma, and copied
many of his pictures there.

CHAPTER XXII.

VENETIAN SCHOOL :—COLOUR—GIORGIONE AND TITIAN, AND THEIR
FOLLOWERS.

In the works of Giorgione and Titian at Venice, we find the
perfect accomplishment of the last great principle we have to
consider in the review of the complete development of painting—
local colouring.

While the rest.of the Venetian painters were with more or less
success contentedly following the dry manner of Gian Bellini, it
was completely exploded by these two great masters, Bellini’s own
scholars.

Giorcio BaRBaRELLl, on account of the beauty of his person com-
monly called GiorcionE, was born in the neighbourhood of Castel-
franco in 1477. He is the first painter who practically and de-
cidedly gave up the mere sentiment or religion of art for its exclu-
sive sensuous development. He threw aside all convention, and
embraced art for its own sake. Beauty of form, colour, and effect
appear to have been his principal motive in all his works: he was
essentially an artist. This is the characteristic development of the
Venetian school; and as such a development could not be more
powerfully evinced than by a consummate mastery of colouring,
colour became the predominant quality of the works of the Vene-
tian painters.

Giorgione appears to have worked upon the principle that the
imitation of the effect of nature as a whole was the true object of a
painter, whatever might be the nature or purpose of his represent-
ation: this is applying the dramatic tothe lowest principles. The
difficulties, however, involved in carrying out this system are im-
mense; the very mechanical process of painting becomes in the

1 Pungileoni, “ Mcmorie,” &e., vol. ii.
VENETIAN SOHOOL. 249

highest degree laborious, and requires an accuracy of observation
and patience in delineation which it falls to the lot of few to pos-
sess. When, however, this accuracy of representation is all that
a painting evinces, it is more a work of mechanical than creative or
imaginative art. The greatest difficulties, however, of this style,
local colour and tone, are those which the painters of Venice have
most fully mastered. Mind appears from the beginning of the six-
teenth century to have been ever less an object of study with the
Venetian painters than the mere pictorial representation, which
may perhaps be safely said to be the end of their efforts as a
school; the moral or lesson of a picture, if it has any, being always
subordinate to the one great aim of displaying a beautiful composi-
tion of colours: this is a style which may be fairly characterized as
the ornamental.

Giorgione was in a great measure the founder of this new style,
though the roundness and tone of light and shade for which his
works are conspicuous may have been acquired from the works of
Leonardo da Vinci, with some of which he must have been ac-
quainted. Giorgione appears to have been the first to imitate the
texture of stuffs: he painted all his draperies from the actual stuff
represented, and imitated as nearly as possible their various sub-
stances. Before his time draperies were generally represented as
of the same material, and differed only in their colours or patterns.
The exceptions to this practice, if any in Italy, are very few;
Raphael appears in the cartoon of the Beautiful Gate, and in others,
to have attempted an imitation of shot-silk, or some such stuff, in
some of his draperies; but the effect alluded to may have arisen
from some change which has taken place in the colours,

Giorgione was a great master of portrait, for, with the power of
objective imitation already described, he combined good drawing;
and his handling was remarkably skilful and precise. He executed
several historical pictures and some extensive frescoes, but a few
portraits are now the chief of his productions which remain. He
died young, in 1511, having attained only his thirty-fourth year.
Whether, if he had lived longer, he would have executed great
works, in which every part and object would have been as perfectly
wrought as some of his single figures and their costumes, must
remain a matter of opinion. Titian did attain this high degree of
excellence, and produced such a series of masterpieces that, though
originally the assistant and imitator of Giorgione, his fame com-
pletely eclipsed Giorgione’s, and he became the acknowledged
head of the new and great Venetian school of painting. Titian,
doubtless, owed much to the example of Giorgione: they worked
together, about 1507, on the exterior of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi,
and their works were so similar, that these frescoes were supposed
250 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

by his friends to have been wholly by the hand of Giorgione. And
Vasari tells us that some of the portraits of Titian executed at this
time are hardly to be distinguished from those of Giorgione. Fra
Sebastiano del Piombo was the scholar of Giorgione. The small
picture of Gaston de Foix, or Knight in Armour, the study of the
figure of San Liberale in the altar-piece by Giorgione at Castel-
franco, now in the National Gallery, is a fine specimen of Venetian
objective painting,

Trriano VECELLIO,' commonly called Tittan, was born at Capo
del Cadore, in the Venetian state, in 1477. He studied succes-
sively with Gentile and Giovanni Bellini, but he remained only a
very short time with Gentile. In 1512, owing perhaps to the great
age of Giovanni, Titian was employed to complete his unfinished
works in the Sala del Gran Consiglio. The Senate were so well
satisfied with the manner in which he executed this task, that they
conferred upon him the office of La Sanseria, with a salary of 120
crowns, by which he was obliged to paint for eight crowns the
portrait of every Doge created in his time, to be placed in the
palace of St. Mark. He accordingly painted by virtue of this place
the portraits of five Doges; he lived to see two others, but he was
too infirm to paint their portraits. About 1515-16 he painted the
Tribute Money in the Dresden Gallery, and the Bacchus and
Ariadne, which is now in the National Gallery; and in 1516 he.
produced his great masterpiece, the Assumption of the Virgin, now
in the Academy of Venice: it was originally painted for the high
altar of the church of Santa Maria Gloriosa de’ Frari. This is one
of the finest pictures in the world; it is of very large dimensions,
the figures being larger than life. The Virgin ascends surrounded
by angels into the presence of the Creator, who, attended by angels,
is seen in the uppermost part of the picture: below are the assem-
bled Apostles indicating by their attitudes various degrees of ad-
miration and astonishment. The St. Peter Martyr, another of
Titian’s masterpieces, was painted in 1528, twelve years later than
the Assumption. Others of his most celebrated works are the
Entombment of Christ, in the Louvre at Paris,’ and the Martyrdom
of San Lorenzo, at Madrid, of which there is a repetition in
the church of the Jesuits at Venice. This picture also is one of
the finest productions of modern art.* The ‘San Sebastiano,” in
the Vatican, is a less successful work, though of high repute.

Jn portraits and pictures of a cabinet size, by Titian, the Belve-
dere Gallery at Vienna is very rich: among many are conspicuous,

1 He signed Titiano Vecellio, Titianus, and Ticianus; and sometimes Titianus
Eques Cres. The modern Italians write Tiziano.

2 There is a very remarkable etching and engraving of this picture by Jobn Le
Mare. 3 Engraved by OC. Cort.
 

 

“SAN SEBASTIANO.” (By Titian. In THE Vatican.)

Page 250.
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 251

the portrait of Vesalius; Benedetto Varchi; his own portrait; his
physician, I] Parma; Isabella d’Este; a half-naked girl (No. 35); a
Madonna and Child (No. 41); and the Madonna and Child, with
St. John, Joseph and Zacharias, a fine early masterpiece.

In 1530 Titian was invited to Bologna, by the Emperor Charles V.,
who sat to him there for his portrait: from Bologna he went to
Mantua, with the Duke Federigo Gonzaga, for whom he executed
several commissions. In 1532 he returned to Bologna, and painted
a second portrait of the Emperor, whom he is supposed to have
accompanied this year into Spain, and remained there some months,
during which time he painted several excellent works. He appears
to have left Spain in May, 1533, when Charles started on his expe-
dition to Africa; but before he left, the Emperor created the painter
Count Palatine of the empire, and Knight of the Order of St. Iago.
The patent of nobility was dated at Barcelona, May 10, 1533.
Charles granted Titian a pension of 400 crowns, which was con-
tinued by his son Philip IT.’

In 1545-46 Titian visited Rome, and painted a second portrait of
Paul ITI.: he had already painted him at Bologna two years before.
In the second picture he introduced the portraits of the Cardinal,
and the Duke Ottavio, Farnese. Michelangelo and Vasari visited
Titian together, while he was engaged in the Belvedere on a picture
of Danaé; and Michelangelo praised the picture very much, accord-
ing to Vasari, but remarked afterwards that it was a pity the Vene-
tian painters had not a better mode of study, that they were not
early disciplined in drawing; adding, that if Titian had been as
much assisted by art as he was by nature, nothing could have sur-
passed him. According to the same writer Titian was offered the
leaden seals by the Pope, after the death of Sebastian del Piombo
in 1547; an honour, however, which the Venetian painter declined,
as it involved his living in Rome.

In 1566 Vasari visited Titian at Venice; and although he was
then eighty-nine years of age, Vasari found him still busy with his
pencil, and derived great pleasure from his conversation. Titian,
however, survived still ten years; he died of the plague, August
27th, 1576, almost one hundred years of age.’ His son Orazio, an
excellent portrait painter, died at the same time, of the .same
complaint.

Orazio was his second son, and was born about 1527. Titian
had three children by his wife Cecilia, who died in the summer of

1 Ridolfi, “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &c., has 1553: Cean Bermudez, in his ‘ Diccion-
ario Historico de los mas Ilustres Profesores de las Bellas Artes en Espana,” has
assumed that this must be a misprint for 1535. But the right date, 1533 is given
by Cadorin, “ Dello Amore ai Veneziani di Tiziano Vecellio,” Venice, 1833.

2 Cadorin, I. l.; Ticozzi’s “ Vite dei Pittori Vecelli di Cadore,” is inaccurate.
252 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

1530, not long after the birth of his daughter Lavinia, whom Titian
has frequently painted. Lavinia married in 1547 Cornelio Scarci-
nelli, and died in 1560 in bringing her sixth child into the world.
These two were the painter’s favourites; his eldest son, Pomponio
Vecellio, born in 1525, was brought up to the priesthood, and was
a great scoundrel: he wasted his patrimony and led a scandalous
life, but was still living in 1594.

Titian’s reputed mistress, Violante, is said to have been the
beautiful daughter of the elder Palma, but this can scarcely have
been during Palma’s lifetime, and it is not likely to have been the
case after the death of Titian’s wife. Palma’s Violante was in her
prime about 1520, before Titian’s marriage. It was about this
time that her father painted those beautiful pictures of her and her
sisters, which are now among the chief attractions of the galleries
of Vienna and Dresden. Even in the height of the convivial life
of Aretin, Sansovino, and Titian, 1540-50, Palma’s Violante was
already a middle-aged woman. Indeed, Ridolfi tells us that
Titian’s Violante was introduced into one of the Bacchanals, which
he painted, in 1516, at Ferrara, but he does not hint even that she
was Palma’s daughter, who was then but a girl.

Titian is one of the many masters now well represented in our
National Gallery: we have examples of his three periods,—youth,
maturity, and age. The Bacchus and Ariadne, painted in 1516, is
a fine example of the first period, and is considered by some judges
unsurpassed by any other of his works: colour, form, and com-
position are all admirable in the figures and in the landscape; and
though the letter of the old classical myth is disregarded, the picture
does ample justice to its spirit. The most fascinating quality for
painters in this picture is its colouring, which is exceedingly rich
and transparent. The Portrait of Ariosto, probably painted in
1516, and the picture of the “ Virgin and Child with St. Catherine,”
are likewise excellent examples of his earlier and more careful period ;
the latter is very similar in quality of colour to the Bacchus and
Ariadne: it is signed Ticran, and there are apparent remains of a
date partly obliterated; it was possibly painted in Spain in 1533.
The Ariosto portrait is like a gem in its brilliant beauty, and
shows what may be made of a portrait when a fine subject is sub-
mitted to a great master like Titian, who in this picture seems to
have surpassed himself. Of works of his maturity there are three
adequate specimens,—the ‘ Venus and Adonis,” or ‘‘ Cephalus and
Procris,” as it was formerly called; ‘‘ Christ in the Garden ;” the
‘Music Party ;” and the “Rape of Ganymede,” unless this should
prove to be the work of his able scholar Damiano Mazza. It corre-
sponds with the description of a picture mentioned by Ridolfi ori-
ginally on a ceiling in the Casa Sonica at Padua, painted by Mazza,
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 253

and, by common repute, attributed to Titian, and as such sent else-
where.’ Of the last period is the ‘Tribute Money,” formerly in
the collection of Marshal Soult, in which it would be difficult to
find perhaps a single merit beyond a certain richness of colour
which Titian could scarcely have missed at any time: this is, how-
ever, an inferior example of his inferior works.

Orazio Vecellio accompanied his father to Rome, and he assisted
him in many of his works: some of this painter’s portraits are said
to be attributed to Titian.

Francesco Vecellio, the brother of Titian, was likewise a good
painter, but he forsook the art in later life for the pursuit of a
merchant, as it is said, at the advice of Titian, who is reputed to
have been jealous of*him. Francesco died in 1560, aged seventy-
five. At Cadore, in the church of San Vito, is a fine altar-piece by
Francesco, signed F, V. P. mpxxiv.

Much has been said by the Florentines, and some recent critics
of different schools, in disparagement of the drawing of Titian ; yet,
as far as regards propriety of design, there can be no comparison
between the earlier and best works of Titian and those of the
anatomical school of Florence of the sixteenth century. In the works
of Titian there is no ostentation of any kind, no artifice whatever.
In his earliest works he rivals the best of the Dutch painters in
finish, as in the Cristo della Moneta, or Tribute-money, at Dresden.
In composition, in design, in chiaroscuro, in colouring, Titian
sought only truth, and that according to his own perception of it.
It is generally allowed that for the pictorial imitation of nature,
without any addition or selection, Titian has surpassed all the other
great painters of Italy; but in invention, composition, and design,
he was very inferior to many of the great masters of Rome and
Florence; yet in design he has had no superior in the Venetian
school. His works are purely historical, or simple pictures of
recorded facts: and he is said to have always painted from nature.
‘It is in colouring that Titian is pre-eminent: the same grandeur of
cglour and effect characterize everything that he painted, whether
in the figure, in the landscape, in the draperies, or in other acces-
sories. He was, however, in nothing ideal ; the scrupulous fidelity
with which he represented natural appearances necessarily pre-
cluded this quality from his works; but in ‘composition, though
generally simple, he was often grand: in colour, local and absolute,
he is allowed to have surpassed all other painters; in landscape
few have surpassed him; in portrait few have equalled him,—and
there is no finer specimen of his style in this respect than the picture
of himself and the Senator, at Windsor, formerly supposed to be

1 Ridolfi, i. p. 290; Moschini, “ Della Pittura in Padova,” 1826, p. 69.
254 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Titian and Aretino. The Gallery “ Ariosto” is also an admirable.
example of portrait painting, Ariosto was the personal friend of
Titian ; they became acquainted at the court of Alfonso I., of Ferrara,
in 1516. The poet has celebrated the painter’s powers in the Orlando
Furioso :—

Bastiano, Rafael, Tizian ch’ onora

Non men Cadore, che quei Venezia e Urbino.

C. xxxiii. 8. 2.

Titian excelled greatly in painting women and children; his
numerous Venuses, as his naked women are generally called, are well
known : one of the finest of them is the celebrated Dresden Venus.

The principal scholars and imitators of Titian were Paris Bor-
done, Girolamo di Tiziano, and Bonifazio da Verona, called by Vasari,
Bonifazio Veneziano.

Paris Borvong, of a noble family of Treviso, was an imitator of
Giorgione ; he studied only a short time with Titian. He obtained
great distinction for his female portraits, and was invited to France
by Francis I. to paint the ladies of his court. His fair auburn heads
are well known for their brilliant pink complexions, and we possess
two fine examples in the National Gallery—in the portrait of a
Genoese Lady, signed Paris B. O.; and in the picture of Daphnis
and Chloe. His colouring is sometimes exceedingly delicate and
beautiful; but he also executed works on a grand scale, coloured
with the characteristic vigour and force of the Venetian school,
as his great picture, of “The Fisherman presenting the Ring of
St. Mark to the Venetian Doge.” Paris Bordone died at Venice,
January 19th, 1571, aged seventy.

GiroLamo Dante, known as Girolamo di Tiziano, was the constant
assistant of Titian, and resided in his house ; he is therefore com-
paratively unknown, but he spared Titian much labour in preparing
his pictures, and most of the few original compositions painted by
him pass probably as the works of his master. It is right, however,
that the labours of so useful an assistant should be recorded.

‘Bonrrazio DA VERonA (1491-1553), though a scholar and follower
of Titian, is generally weak. He never mastered that fulness of
form or blending of the colours which was proper to the Venetian
school of his own time: he retained much of the simplicity and
crudeness of the quattrocento. The Venetian Academy possesses
raany of Bonifazio’s pictures, but a certain discrepancy of dates
seems to establish the fact that there were two painters of this
name whose works are now confounded.

Other distinguished painters of the school were—Francesco Tor-
bido, called I] Moro; Pietro Luzzo, called Zarotto (by Vasari, Morto
da Feltro) ; and Lorenzo Luzzi,—all scholars of Giorgione.

Giovanni Carrano, of Bergamo, was an imitator of Giorgione, and
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 255

an excellent portrait painter. His masterpiece is a ‘‘ Madonna and
Saints” in San Gottardo, painted in 1510; he was still living in 1519.

Francesco Torsipo, called In Moro, was a native of Verona, and
was still living in 1535. He studied with, and became the assistant
of, Liberale, after he left Giorgione; he painted many frescoes at
Verona, and executed also some good portraits. He signed himself
Franciscus Turbidus. His portrait by himself is in the Pinacothek
at Munich.

Pierro -Luzzo, called Zarorto, a native of Feltre, in the Venetian
Alps, is the same, according to Lanzi (who quotes a MS.), as the
Morro pa Ferro of Vasari. He went young to Rome, but whether
before he assisted Giorgione in the Fondaco dei Tedeschi or after-
wards is not certain. He was employed on the decorative portions
of those frescoes ; and he was the reviver, according to Vasari, of
the art of painting grotesques and arabesques, in imitation of the
ancient decorations of that class, in the grottoes and other ruins
about Rome. Morto may have revived the more grotesque style of
the cinguecento arabesques, such as it was practised by Giulio
Romano and others of that time; or he may simply have carried the
taste from the north to the south, and given a great impulse to the
style. The purer arabesque was common both with the painters
and the sculptors of the north of Italy, towards the close of the
fifteenth century. The Lombardi of Venice, Baccio Pintelli, and
Bramante, were great masters of arabesque, a style fully developed
about 1480.' Vasari himself observes that though this style was
carried to perfection by Giovanni da Udine and others, the chief
merit was still due to Morto. As the Fondaco dei Tedeschi was not
completed until 1508, it is most probable that Morto’s Roman
experiences belong to an earlier period, about 1495: he was em-
ployed at Florence after he left Rome. He was not only the
assistant of Giorgione in his art, but was also his successful rival in
love, and carried off his mistress. Some years afterwards’ Morto
became a soldier, and accompanied the Venetian army to Zara in
Dalmatia, where he was killed, aged forty-five. As he was still
painting in 1519, this may have happened about the year 1520.

Lorenzo Luzzi, or Luzzo, was probably of the same family; he was
a skilful painter both in fresco and in oil-colours. He was still
painting in 1511, ‘

Catisro pA Lopr, the son of Giovanni Piazza, was also a very
distinguished scholar of the school of Titian; he excelled particu-
larly as a colourist in fresco, and in this respect he had, according
to Lomazzo, no superior. His principal works are at Lodi; others
are at Brescia, Codogno, and Milan: they are dated between 1524

! See the writer’s “ Analysis of Ornament.”
256 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

and 1556. He signed himself Calixtus Laudensis, omitting his family
name of Piazza.

Gurotamo paz Lisri, so called from the occupation of his father,
Francesco, who was a miniature painter, was a native of Verona,
where he was born in 1472. Girolamo was himself a distinguished
miniatore, but he was also a painter of altar-pieces. San Giorgio
Maggiore, at Verona, contains a picture signed Hizronymus a Lipris:
he belongs in style to the quattrocento rather than to the cinquecento
painters. He died at Verona, July 2nd, 1555. Girolamo’s son, Fran-
cesco dai Libri the younger, was also a distinguished miniatore. GIULIO
Crovio (1498-1578), considered the prince of Italian illumina-
tors, was the scholar of Girolamo dai Libri: he was born at Grisone,
in Croatia, and died in Rome. He is an example of what industry
may do without genius or taste; his execution is mannered and
his drawing ill-proportioned, but he has his admirers in the lovers
of high finish. His Farnese Breviary has been already noticed.’

Together with Girolamo dai Libri, Vasari notices FRancesco
Moroxe, also a Veronese, who was born in 1474: they painted
together in Santa Maria in Organo. Francesco’s works are rich in
colour and tasteful in their forms, but his style likewise is alloyed
by the primness of the quattrocentismo. We have a good specimen,
a Madonna and Child, in the National Gallery: a very similar
Madonna is in the Berlin Gallery, signed Franciscus Moronvs,
Priyxit. He died at Verona on the 16th of May, 1529.

Guan Antonio Lictyio, the scholar of Pelegrino da San Daniello,
called from his birthplace Porpenons,? and also Cuticelli and di
Regillo, was the contemporary of Titian; he painted in a similar
style to Giorgione, but with greater force of light and shade.
Pordenone is one of the most distinguished of the Venetian fresco-
painters: he died at Ferrara in 1539, aged fifty-six.

Of GiroLamo pA Treviso (1497-1544), we have the master-
piece in the National Gallery—the “ Virgin and Child enthroned,”
from the Boccaferri Chapel in San Domenico, in Bologna, signed
Leronimus Trevisius P. He had settled in Genoa, but finding the
rivalry of Pierino del Vaga too strong for him, he gave up painting
and came to England, where he entered the service of Henry VIIL.,
as architect and engineer; he was killed by a cannon ball when
acting in the latter capacity, near Boulogne, in his forty-seventh
year only.’ Treviso possessed two other good painters of. this
period, and of the school of Titian—Lodovico Fiumicelli, and
Francesco Dominici.

Bergamo had other great painters—Jacoro Pauwa, called In

1 Page 92.

2 He has signed his name Antonius Portunaensis, and De Portunaonis.
3 Federici, ‘‘ Memorie Trevigiane,” &c. 1803.
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 257

Veccui0, the friend and companion of Lotto. He was born at
Serinalta, near Bergamo, about 1475, and painted already in 1500.
From being a follower of Bellini he became an imitator of Titian
and of Giorgione in Venice. He excelled in pictures of the Virgin,
and in figures of Saints, for which his own daughters are said to
have been the models; one especially, Violante, was a favourite
subject with him. She was the model of Saint Barbara in the
church of Santa Maria Formosa, at Venice. His colouring is rich
and warm, but somewhat yellow in the flesh, and he was an excellent
portrait-painter, especially of women; his heads are generally very
carefully finished, the hair being most admirable. Palina was living
in 1521, and according to Vasari he died aged forty-eight. Te is
called I] Vecchio to distinguish him from his great-nephew of the
same name, with whom he is sometimes confounded. His master-
piece is the St. Barbara with other Saints, in Santa Maria Formosa,
mentioned above: a so-called Venus, in the Dresden Gallery, is
also a noble picture. Dresden possesses a charming picture by
him, known as the ‘“‘Three Graces,” his own daughters; and the
Belvedere Gallery at Vienna possesses, among other fine things,
a female portrait of exquisite beauty; indeed, a divine picture, if
such an expression is now admissible; it was painted, probably,
from his daughter Violante.’

Axessanpro Bonvicino, known as In Morerro pa Brescra, where
he was born at the close of the fifteenth century, was one of the
greatest masters of the school out of Venice, and one of the best
painters of his time. He was a scholar of Titian, after having learnt
the rudiments of his art from Fioravante Ferramola, a painter of
Brescia; but he became eventually an imitator of the style of
Raphael. His works range from 1524 to 1556;? the year of his
death, like that of his birth, is unknown. Moretto was great in
fresco and in oil; in the former method is a fine series of works in
the Martinengo Villa at Novarino, near Brescia; and of his grand
altar-pieces several are still preserved at Brescia, and in the public
galleries of Europe. Our own Gallery possesses a noble work -
for its class; there is, perhaps, no finer group of Saints than
St. Bernardino and his four companions, in the lower part of this
picture. In the Gallery of Vienna is a celebrated picture of
St. Justina, by Moretto, which was long attributed to Pordenone;
it is engraved as his by Rahl. His name of Moretto seems to have
been adopted by the painter himself; in Santa Maria della Picta, at
Venice, is a picture signed Alex. Morettus Brix. F. 1548. He was
the master of the portrait-painter Moroni, and he was himself

1 No. 9 of the 2nd Room, Venetian School. Tn Engert’s Catalogue, 1860.
2 Brognoli, “Nuova Guida per la citta di Brescia,” 1826; Moschini, « Guida
di Venezia,” Kunstblatt, 1844, p. 160.
s
258 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

distinguished in the same department of the art; the picture of the
Count Sciarra Martinengo, in the National collection, is a good
example, though somewhat hard, and the general effect has been
disregarded by the painter in his anxiety to accurately represent
the individual details introduced. Moretto’s pupil, Moroni, with
equal attention to detail, achieved a greater unity of general effect.

Another great painter of Brescia, and the rival of Moretto, was
Girolamo Rumani, or Romani, commonly called In Romansno; he
was born at Brescia about 1480, and was the scholar of Stefano.
Rizzi. His pictures range from 1502 to 1541, and an ‘‘ Ecce Homo”
by him in the cathedral of Cremona is signed Hier. Roman. Brix. ;
that is, Hieronymus Rumanus, Brixzianus. The great altar-piece of the
“Nativity,” in the National Gallery, originally executed in 1525
for the high altar of Sant’ Alessandro at Brescia, is mentioned by
Brognoli as one of Romanino’s master-pieces ; he particularly notices
the excellence of the figure of the titular Saint’ Alexander, which is
much in the style of Giorgione. Romanino was freer in his execu-
tion and richer in colour than Moretto, but was less choice and
less dignified in his forms.' Campori? gives 1566 as the date of
Romanino’s death, without however citing any document; but he
mentions a contract for an oil picture for the Benedictine monastery
of San Pietro, in Modena, dated the 15th December, 1557, and for
which the painter was to receive forty scudi.

Grampattista Moroni (1510-78) was born at Albino, near Bergamo;
he studied under I] Moretto, and with perhaps the single exception
of Titian, was the most distinguished portrait-painter of his time,
Titian is said to have recommended the Bergamaschi who went to
him for their portraits, to go to their own Moroni, if they were
desirous of having faithful pictures of themselves. The Duke of
Sutherland possesses at Stafford House an admirable portrait of
Ercole Tasso, a Jesuit, by Moroni, sometimes called Titian’s school-
master; and the National Gallery possesses a companion to it: the
portrait of a tailor, which has been long celebrated as the Tuglia-
panui: both pictures were together in the Grimani palace at Venice
in the time of Boschini, who notices them in high terms in the
Carta Del Navegar Pittoresco.

There are still three great painters, or families of painters, of
this school to be noticed—Jacopo Bassano, Tintoretto, and Paul
Veronese.

Jacopo DA Ponte, commonly called In Bassano, from his birth-
place, was perhaps the earliest of the Italian genre painters. He
treated all subjects as familiar scenes of his own time; he excelled

1 Chizzola, ‘‘Pitture e Sculture di Brescia,’ 1760; Brognoli, ‘‘ Nuova Guida,”

&e.; National Gallery Catalogue.
2 «Gli Artisti negli stati Estensi,’ Modena, 1855, p. 410.
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 259

in painting landscape and animals, and introduced the latter into
his works on all occasions when admissible, even with or without
propriety, and he was often very careless in his execution. The
above is, however, strictly the character of his later works only ;
some of his best and earliest differ little from the works of other
painters of the Venetian. school. they are all excellent in colour,
and in light and shade. The Good Samaritan, in the National
Gallery, is an excellent example. It is his later productions only
that are chiefly distinguished for their accessories, which render
them more pictures of domestic or ordinary life than any preceding
works; they do not belong to a particular class, but in some degree
to every class, whence his pictures may be termed Genre-pictures,
that is, of a kind which, for want of a definite character, cannot be
definitely described. It has already been observed that this style
of painting had its votaries also among the Greeks ; Pyreicus being
the most distinguished of the class.1_ Jacopo died at Bassano Feb.
13th, 1592, aged eighty-two. He had four sons, all of whom he
brought up as painters. These were Francesco, Giambattista,
Leandro, and Girolamo Bassano. Francesco, the eldest, but second
of the name (for Jacopo’s father, Francesco da Ponte, was a scholar
of John Bellini), was the most distinguished ; he was born in 1550,
and died July 4th, 1592, when in a fever he threw himself from a
window, and was killed. Gtamparrisra (1553-1613) and Grrotamo
(1560-1622) chiefly copied or imitated the works of their father,
Leanpro, the third son (1558-1623),.was a good portrait-painter,
but by no means equal to his father in that respect: he completed
some of the works left unfinished through the untimely death
of his brother Francesco. They used Bassano as a surname.

One of the chief attractions of old Bassano’s works is their facility
and mastery of touch; but both he and his school had the bad habit
of concealing hands and feet, a practice equally to be deprecated,
whether arising from incapacity, indifference, or idleness.?

Jacopo Rosusti, called T'rytoretto from the trade of hig father,
who was a dyer (Tintore), was born at Venice in 1512, and was
placed by his parents with Titian. He remained, however, only
ten days with this great painter, who is said to have sent him homé
on account of jealousy for his great abilities, which even in that
short time had sufficiently evinced themselves to excite the jealousy
of an already renowned master. Tintoretto distinguished himself
very early both in fresco and in oil; but his most celebrated pro-

1 The Greek term Ryparography has been already explained. The French
term “ Peintre du genre bas,” implies also a certain inferiority of aim, but a green-
picture need not necessarily be low in its subject; yet it must be a picture of some
familiar object, or ordinary custom or incident. See ch. vii. p. 59.

2 Ridolfi; Verci, “ Notizie intorno alla Vita e alle Opere de’ Pittori, Scultori, ed
Intagliatori della citta di Bassano.”

s2
260 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

ductions are his oil pictures: among these the Miracolo dello Schiavo
holds the first place. In this picture St. Mark delivers a Venetian,
who had become a Turkish slave, from the punishment ordered
him by his master, by rendering him invulnerable, so that various
instruments of torture are broken on his body without hurting him.’
The picture is now in the Academy at Venice; it was painted in
1549 for the brotherhood of St. Mark; and though at first the
worthy friars made some difficulty about the price, they were after-
wards, on account of the great praise the picture elicited, very glad
to have three other pictures honouring their saint, at the painter’s
own price: these pictures are still in the Scuola di San Marco at
Venice, where the other originally was. Pietro da Cortona is
reported to have said that if he lived in Venice he would never pass
a holiday without visiting these four pictures by Tintoretto: he
admired chiefly the drawing. The pictures he painted for the
Scuola di San Rocco are likewise among his most celebrated works :
the famous Crucifixion, by engraving which Agostino Carracci so
much delighted the old painter, is one of these pictures. Tinto-
retto embraced Agostino, and insisted upon being allowed to stand
godfather to his son Antonio, who was born at that time at Venice,
1589.

The two pictures above mentioned, and the Marriage at Cana in
the church of Santa Maria della Salute at Venice, are said to be the
only works on which Tintoretto wrote his name.* He was so rapid
a painter, that he was called Il Furioso by his contemporaries:
Sebastian del Piombo used to say that Tintoretto could paint as
much in two days as he could in two years. His great picture of
Paradise, fixed to the ceiling of the library in the ducal palace at
Venice, is the largest oil-painting in the world. It is on canvas,
and was commenced in several pieces in the Scuola della Miseri-
cordia, but was finished in its place. He was assisted in it by his
son, Domenico Robusti, who was born in 1562. This picture
measures 74 feet by 34, and contains a surprising number of
figures; but its great size is its chief distinction.

Though a rapid painter, Tintoretto was generally as careless as
rapid ; and many of his works rival the pictures of Giuseppe Crespi
in coarseness of handling, and yet want that painter’s skill and
judgment. Some of his earliest works, however, are very carefully
finished; but they are few. On the other hand, some of his
largest pictures are merely dead-coloured, and many were evidently
painted off without the slightest previous preparation. The great
Crucifixion, at Schleissheim, now a wreck, is an example of Tinto-

1 There is a print of the Miracolo dello Schiavo, by J. Matham.

2 Malvasia, “ Felsina Pittrice.”
3 The Marriage at Cana has been engraved by Volpato and by Fialletti.
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 261

retto’s worst work, painted with his iron pencil. The Venetians
used to say he had three pencils, one of gold, one of silver, and a
third of iron: it isa pity he did not use his golden pencil oftener.
In form and colouring Tintoretto is also unlike the generality of
the Venetian painters: he professed to draw like Michelangelo and
to colour like Titian. He is said to have written the following
words on the wall of his studio—
“Tl disegno di Michelangelo, e ’1 colorito di Tiziano.”

His works, however, show neither the one nor the other. In
design he was certainly muscular, but often lean and incorrect: in
colouring he was heavy and cold. When he was once asked which
were the prettiest colours, he answered, “Black and white.” His
pictures exemplify this taste: they are, some of them, merely light
and dark, not disposed scientifically or harmoniously, but alter-
nately and capriciously: shade predominates perhaps in all his
works. In portraits, however, he is often very grand; he certainly
had some grand subjects, and the old Venetian costume was ad-
vantageous for the painter. The “St. George,” in our Gallery, is
a fine sketch,

Tintoretto always kept up his rivalry with Titian; and Aretin
seems to have shared in the animosity of Titian, until a ludicrous
incident put an apparent stop to it. Aretin was previously in the
habit of occasionally abusing Tintoretto. The painter one day
meeting the poet, asked him to go and sit for his picture, to which
Aretin assented; but he had no sooner seated himself in the
painter’s studio than Tintoretto pulled out a pistol, with great
violence, from underneath his vest, and approached him with it in
his hand; but Aretin jumping up in a great fright, called out,
“ Jacopo, what are you about?” ‘Oh, don’t alarm yourself,” said
the other, ‘‘I am only going to take your measure,” and suiting
the action to his words, he said, ‘ You are just two pistols and a
half.” “What a mountebank you are!” observed Aretin; “you
are always up to some frolic.” From this time, however, the poet
wasmore guarded in what he said of the painter, and the two
became better friends. Tintoretto died at Venice in 1594, aged
82.1 His daughter, Marietta, was an elegant portrait-painter and
musician: she died in 1590, aged only thirty years. Domenico
Rosusri (1562-1637) caught some of the fire of his father’s manner,
and was likewise very successful as a portrait-painter.

Paoto CatiaRI, or CaGLiaRI, commonly called Paolo Veronese,
was born at Verona in 1528. The general principles of the
Venetian school are more effectively developed in the works of this

1 Ridolfi, “ Le Maraviglie dell’ Arte,” or “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &c.; Zanetti, Della

Pittura Veneziana.” The reader will find an account of the life and works of this
painter in the author's article TinrorErTo in the “ Penny Cyclopedia.”
262 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

painter than in any other; they may be truly designated magnifi-
cent. Splendour of effect appears to have been the chief end of his
efforts : and though in the principles of his colouring he is identical
with Titian and the other great masters of Venice, he may be said,
through the peculiar magnificence of his works, to have established
a style of his own. The pictures of Paul Veronese are distin-
guished by crowds of people arrayed with all the pomp and
splendour that the imagination can conceive or colours accomplish ;
in his backgrounds are piles of architecture of a vastness and rich-
ness without a parallel in reality; these, however, are said to have
been painted by his brother Benedetto Caliari. The frescoes of
the Stanze of the Vatican, or the ceiling of the Capella Sistina,
appear more easy of attainment than the wonderful works of this
great painter. The art of the Roman frescoes, from its evident
principles, points itself to the way to its attainment; but the magic
creations of Paul Veronese only dazzle the mind by their splendour,
and leave no other impression than that of a gorgeous dream.

There is, perhaps, not a better example of this painter’s style
than the Marriage at Cana, in the Louvre at Paris. This great
work, measuring nearly thirty-three feet in width and about
twenty-two in height, contains about one hundred and twenty
heads and figures, many being portraits of some of the most dis-
tinguished people of the painter’s time, not omitting the painters.
The famous Pisani picture in the National Gallery, ‘‘ The Family
of Darius at the feet of Alexander,” is better painted, and contains
some of the finest efforts of Paul’s pencil, but it is far inferior to the
great Louvre picture in effect: our picture is indeed little more
than one-sixth of the size of the Paris picture.’

We are, however, fortunate in possessing one of the great master-
pieces of Paul Veronese, who is one of many renowned painters
well represented in our National collection. Of the four examples
of him in the Gallery, not one is an ordinary picture, and the
“Consecration of St. Nicolas” is a capital illustration of his very
best method of colouring. As regards the Pisani picture, if we
look upon it as a “ Family Portrait,” it is a monument of the genius

1 Purchased from Count Vittore Pisani at Venice, in 1857, for £13,650.

2 More exact measures of these two great pictures are—the “ Nozze di Can,”
according to the catalogues, 21 ft. 10 in. high, by 32 ft. 5 in. wide; the “ Family of
Darius,” 7 ft. 83 in. high, by 15 ft. 63 in. wide. The “ Nozze,’ I think, hangs too,
high in the Salon Carre, which is also too narrow to show the picture to full advan-
tage: this room, though wide compared with the long gallery, is, according to
plans published in 1837, only 9 metres by 12, or about 30 ft. wide by 40 long : the
long gallery is only 6 metres wide, or less than 20 ft., while its length is 220 metres,
or about 720 feet; but not quite the whole length is hung with pictures. The
Salon Carré is therefore the same width as the new Italiam room in the National
Gallery, aud about 35 ft. shorter, according to the plans referred to.
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 263

of Paul Veronese, exceeding everything in modern art. As a
gorgeous painting it equals the famous ‘‘ Rape of Europa,” in the
Ducal Palace at Venice, and in effect yields only to the stupendous
‘“Nozze di Cana” in the Louvre. Paolo Veronese was the real
master of Rubens. His works, however, have their defects: he
was, as Algarotti observes, careless in design, and in costume
extremely licentious; but these faults are completely concealed by
the absorbing magnificence of his colouring, which, added to his
noble fancy and inexhaustible invention, render his defects as a
grain of sand in the balance. Paolo Veronese died at Verona in
1588. Before concluding our observations on the painting of
Venice of this period, we may quote the remarks of Sir Joshua
Reynolds,’ on these Venetian painters, and Venetian colouring
generally: ‘‘ However great the difference is between the composi-
tion of the Venetian and the rest of the Italian schools, there is full
as great a disparity in the effect of their pictures as produced by
colours. And though in this respect the Venetians must be
allowed extraordinary skill, yet even that skill, as they have
employed it, will but ill correspond with the great style. Their
colouring is not only too brilliant, but, I will venture to say, too
harmonious,® to produce that solidity, steadiness, and simplicity of
effect which heroic subjects require, and which simple or grave
colours only can give to a work. That they are to be cautiously
studied by those who are ambitious of treading the great walk of
history is confirmed, if it wants confirmation, by the greatest of all
authorities, Michelangelo. This wonderful man, after having seen
a picture by Titian,® told Vasari, who accompanied him, ‘that he
liked much his colouring and manner;’ but then he added, ‘that
it was a pity the Venetian painters did not learn to draw correctly
in their early youth, and adopt a better method of study.’ *

“ By this it appears, that the principal attention of the Venetian
painters, in the opinion of Michelangelo, seemed to be engrossed by
the study of colours to the neglect of the ideal beauty of form or pro-
priety of expression. But if general censure was given to that
school from the sight of a picture of Titian,> how much more
heavily and more justly would the censure fall on Paolo Veronese,
and more especially on Tintoret! And here I cannot avoid citing

1 Discourse IV.

2 This appears to be a wrong position; there can be nothing prejudicial in
harmony; grave or sombre colours may be as harmonious as gay colours.

3 The Danaé, already noticed in this chapter.

4 Vasari, “ Vita di Tiziano.”

5 Michelangelo may have spoken partly from his acquaintance with Sebastiano
del Piombo and his mode of painting; he also was a Venetian painter. Michel-
angelo must have referred to other Venetian works, or he could not have imputed
to the whole school defects which he had observed only in one master.
264 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Vasari’s opinion of the style and manner of Tintoret: ‘Of all the
extraordinary geniuses,’ says he, ‘that have practised the art of
painting ; for wild, capricious, extravagant, and fantastical inven-
tions—for furious impetuosity, and boldness in the execution of his
work—there is none like Tintoret; his strange whimsies are even
beyond extravagance, and his works seem to be produced rather by
chance than in consequence of any previous design, as if he wanted
to convince the world that the art was a trifle, and of the most easy
attaimment. For my own part, when I speak of the Venetian
painters, I wish to be understood to mean Paolo Veronese and
Tintoret, to the exclusion of Titian; for, though his style is not so
pure as that of many other of the Italian schools, yet there is a sort
of senatorial dignity about him which, however awkward in his
imitators, seems to become him exceedingly. His portraits alone,
from the nobleness and simplicity of character which he always
gave them, will entitle him to the greatest respect, as he un-
doubtedly stands in the first rank in this branch of art. It is not
with Titian, but with the seducing qualities of the two former, that
I could wish to caution you against being too much captivated.
These are the persons who may be said to have exhausted all the
powers of florid eloquence to debauch the young and inexperienced,
and have, without doubt, been the cause of turning off the atten-
tion of the connoisseur and of the patron of art, as well as that of
the painter, from those higher excellences of which the art is
capable, and which ought to be required in every considerable
production. By them and their imitators, a style merely orna-
mental has been disseminated throughout all Europe. Rubens
carried it to Flanders, Vouet to France, and Luca Giordano to
Spain and Naples.”

Of the assistants and scholars of Paolo, among the most distin-
guished were his brother Benedetto, and his son Carlo Caliari,
called Carletto. Gabriele Caliari, likewise the son of Paolo, was
also a painter; but the most eminent of all his followers was
Battista Zelotti. Breneperro Cantar, and Caro Catiari the son
of Paolo, are known as the heirs of Paul Veronese. They com-
pleted his unfinished works, and commonly signed themselves
Gut Erepi pt Paoto Veronese, or Heredes Pauli Caliari Veronensis.
In Vienna is an Adoration of the Shepherds, signed Hau. Pa. 4
Ve. 5 Fa, Benedetto, whose speciality was architecture, was the
principal painter of the magnificent architectural backgrounds
which enrich many of Paolo’s pictures. He died in 1598, aged sixty.
Carlo, commonly called Carletto, the better painter of the two,
preceded his uncle to the grave. He died still very young,
aged only twenty-four, in 1596. He had studied under old
Bassano, as well as his father, and acquired somewhat of the
VENETIAN SCHOOL. 265

execution of that painter; but Zanetti mentions a few pictures
by Carlo which are so like his father’s as to be easily mistaken
for them. -Gabriele, though a painter for some time, forsook
the arts for commerce, and it seems was not one of the “ Eredi”
of Paolo. There is no work by him known. He died in
1631, aged sixty-three. Barrisra Zetortr of Verona (about 1532-
92) is called Battista da Verona by Vasari, who states also that he
studied with Titian. Ie was the fellow-pupil of Paolo Veronese
in the school of Badile, and was for some time his assistant, and
quite his equal as a fresco-painter. Battista is by some considered
to have been superior to Paolo in the warmth of his colour and in
the correctness of his drawing. His reputation is less than he
deserves, as his works were executed for the most part for obscure
provincial towns or for private families. His oil-pictures, however,
have been frequently taken for those of his great rival. The
pictures by Zelotti in the Sala del Consiglio de’ Dieci, in the Ducal
Palace at Venice, were engraved as Paolo’s by Valentine Le Febre.
His “Presentation of the Infant Christ in the Temple,” in the
Gallery of Berlin, is completely in the style and manner of Paolo
Veronese. Zelotti was, however, less graceful and less effective
than Paolo. Zelotti’s principal work is the series commemorating
the history of the Obizzi family, in the former villa of the count of
that name at Cataio, painted in 1570.'| Other great painters
of Verona, were Paolo Morando, who died young; Battista
D’ Angelo, called Del Moro; Domenico Riccio, called Brusasorci ;
and Paolo Farinato, surnamed degli Uberti.

An interesting picture by Morando, one of the earliest of the good
Veronese painters, has been recently added to the National Gallery,
the “San Rocco,” formerly in the Church of Santa Maria della
Scala at Verona, where it was seen by Vasari, who has noticed it.
The saint is looking up at an angel, above; at his feet is a little
dog: the picture, executed in a fine Cinquecento taste, is signed
PauLus Moravus, v.P: and was originally dated mpxvit., but the
last five figures have been obliterated. Paoto Moranpo, sometimes
called, after his father, CavazzoLa, was born in Verona apparently
in 1484, and died there, August 15th, 1522, aged 37.?

Bartista D’Anceto, still living in 1568, was called Dex Moro
from having married I] Moro’s daughter. He studied in her
father’s school. Battista painted in competition with Paul Vero-
nese in the cathedral of Mantua; and there are good works by him
in the churches of Venice and Verona. Marco del Moro, his son,
and Giulio, his brother, were his assistants. Del Moro painted

1 Ridolfi; Zanetti; Lanzi; and Dal Pozzo, “ Pittori Veronesi,” &c.

2 See Da Persico “ Descrizione di Verona” &c., 1820, 1. 227; and the National
Gallery Catalogue, 39th Edition, 1864.
266 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

also miniatures, and was an engraver. His family adopted Moro as
asurname. Giulio inscribed a statue in San Salvatore in Venice—
Julius Maurus Veronensis, Sculptor, Pictor, et Architectus, f.

‘Domenico Riccio (1494-1567), nicknamed Brusasorct from the
circumstance of. his father having invented a rat-trap, has been
called the Titian of Verona. There are still great works by him at
Verona: as the frescoes of the Palazzo de’ Murari, a mythological
series; the Cavalcade of Clement VII. and Charles V., at Bologna,
in 1530, in the Ridolfi Palace ; and the Saint Mark in the church of
the Padri Agostiniani. Like the Venetians generally, he devoted
more attention to ancient mythology and civil history than to the
hackneyed traditions of the Church.

Paoto Fariato (1526-1606) must be accounted among the great
ornamental painters. Some of his works are worthy of Paul Vero-
nese himself. He was the scholar of Niccolo Giolfino, and a
student of the works of Titian and Giorgione. His pictures are
bold, vigorous, and tasteful: a “Pagan Sacrifice” at Vienna is a
magnificent picture. His master-piece is considered the ‘“‘ Miracle
of the Loaves and Fishes,” in the church of San Giorgio at Verona,
which was painted in his old age. It is a composition of many
figures, containing several fine groups of women and children,
among which he has introduced portraits of his own family, and is
inscribed, mpciv. Pautus Farinarus pe Usertio recit AETATIS
SUZ Lxxix. Farinato and his wife died on the same day. No
doubt many works painted by Paolo Farinato now pass as pictures
of Paolo Veronese.

Before proceeding with the history of the decline of Painting in
Italy, it is necessary to give some account of the progress of the
art in Transalpine Europe, where, as we have seen, it had likewise
advanced to a high degree of development in many respects at a
very early period; and as it appears independently of the revived
art of Italy.
267

BOOK YV.

TRANSALPINE ART. DETERIORATION OF PAINTING IN ITALY
THROUGH THE ASCENDANCY OF THE SENSUOUS ELEMENT
OF ART. MATERIALISM AND ECLECTICISM.

 

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE SCHOOLS OF THE NETHERLANDS UNDER ITALIAN INFLUENCE.— CHURCH
PATRONAGE,

Wuite the art was hurrying to a rapid consummation in Italy,
owing to the growing preponderance of colour, and the morbid
desire for striking effects of composition, produced rather by spas-
modic action than by natural vigour and perfect development of
form, the sober Flemings were plodding on producing their
quaint forms, until gradually becoming aware of the higher attain-
ments of the Italian cinquecentisti, they turned all their energies
into a competing rivalry, and laboured hard to appropriate the
more showy style of design of their fellow-labourers in Italy.
Quintin Metsys, Massys, or Matsys (he wrote his name all three
ways), the celebrated smith of Antwerp, who was born apparently
at Louvain’ about 1450, was in every respect one of the most
extraordinary painters of this period, both in his personal history
and for the diligent labour of his elaborate works. He was brought
up as a blacksmith, and was distinguished for his skill in orna-
mental ironwork. At Louvain and its neighbourhood, and in Ant-
werp, where he eventually settled, there are still shown several
good examples of his skill in working iron. It is popularly re-
corded that, while engaged on one of these works at Antwerp, he

1 L. Guicciardini, “ La Description des Pays Bas,” 1569, p. 131. This authority
is not admitted by Antwerp critics, as a family of the name was established in that
city some time before the birth of Quintin, and one Jean Metsys was distinguished
as a Smith there: he died in 1490-1. But Molanus also, in his unpublished
“History of Louvain,” “ Histories Lovaniensium Libri XIV.,” auctore Joanne
Mowano, speaks of Quintin as a native of Louvain. See extracts given by
FE. Van Even, in the “ Dietsche Warande,” Amsterdam, 1858.
268 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

fell in love with a painter’s daughter, and in order to please the
father and win the daughter, Quintin forsook the anvil for the
easel: he received some instruction, says Molanus, from Roger
Vander Weyden (the younger), and not only gained his suit, but
became the most able painter in the city, and raised the reputation
of the school of Antwerp to a celebrity equal to that of the school
of Bruges. He was admitted Franc-Maitre into the Antwerp Guild
of Painters in 1491.

His master-piece, the great altar-piece in the Museum at Ant-
werp, is one of the wonders of its age. It consists of a centre and
two folding wings or doors: in the centre is represented, The
Taking Down from the Cross, a composition of many figures; on
the left wing, Herodias is carrying the head of John the Baptist to
Herod; on the right wing, is St. John the Evangelist in the caul-
dron of boiling oil: the figures are of the natural size, and the
most important are finished with the utmost elaboration, though
somewhat Gothic in taste of design, and there is a want of depth in
the general tone. It was painted in 1508, the year that Raphael
went to Rome, for the altar of the chapel of the Joiners’ Company,
in the cathedral at Antwerp, for the small sum of 300 florins, about
251. sterling, only enough to pay for. five such dinners as Lucas
Van Leyden gave the painters of Middelburg in 1521; but, as
already observed, money had then about twenty times its present
value. Philip II. of Spain offered large sums for it in vain; and
Queen Elizabeth of England is said to have been likewise refused
at the enormous price of 5,000 rose nobles, or 40,000 florins. It
was eventually purchased, through the recommendations of Martin
de Vos, in 1577, by the magistracy of Antwerp, for 1500 florins, and
was placed in the chapel of the Circumcision, in the cathedral,
where it remained until 1794. It is now one of the chief orna-
ments of the Gallery there.

Though Quintin’s works are generally of a religious character, he
painted some portraits, and a favourite subject with him was a
couple of Misers or Money-changers counting their money; a fine
example of this, a man and his wife, known as “The Misers,” is at
Windsor: and two admirable examples, of a different character,
Christ as the Saviour of the World, and the Virgin in Adoration,
have been lately added to the National collection; they were for-
merly in the King of Holland’s Gallery at the Hague, and, like all
the other works of the painter, are distinguished for a carefulness of
execution, elaborated to a perfection rivalling that of John Van
Eyck. Two similar heads are in the Antwerp Gallery. The
“Mater Dolorosa” and the “Ecce Homo,” two of the Wallerstein
pictures in the National collection, appear to be by the same hand.

Quintin died of the swette in the Carthusian Convent at Antwerp,
TRANSALPINE ART. 269

and was originally buried in the cemetery of the Carthusians; but
Cornelius Van der Geest, whose portrait is in our gallery as Gevar-
tius, removed his remains a century afterwards, and had them
reburied in front of the cathedral. The spot is marked by the
simple memorial M. Q. M., obiit 1529; and in the wall of the
cathedral is a slab recording the story of his love, which had con-
verted a smith into an Apelles: “ Quintino Matsys, Incomparabilis
artis Pictori, admiratrix grataque posteritas anno post obitum
Seculari mM.poxx1x. posuit.— Connubialis amor de Mulcibre fecit
Apellem.”

The original tombstone, formerly in the convent of the Carthu-
sians, is now preserved in the Museum at Antwerp: the inscription
is—Sepulture van Mr. Quinten Matsys, in seinen leven grofsmidt en
daernaers fameus Schilder. Sterf anno 1529.1

Quintin left a son, Jan Massys, by whom there are several pic-
tures extant: in the Gallery at Antwerp is a panel signed Joannes
Massiis pingebat, 1564.2 He was admitted into the Antwerp Guild
in 1531, and was still living in 1569. Quintin had two wives; the
name of the first was Alyt or Adelaide Van Tuylt, by whom he
had five sons and one daughter, among them the Jan just men-
tioned. By his second wife, Catherine Hyens, to whom he was
married in 1508-9, and who survived him, he had three sons and
four daughters. If there is any truth in the romantic tradition of
his life, Alyt is the heroine of the story; but the sequel shows that
they did not pass very many years together. Portraits of himself
and his second wife are in the Gallery of the Uffizj at Florence ;
the wife’s picture is dated 1520.

Bernarp Van Ortey, called also Barend van Brussel, was born
at Brussels in 1470-1, and is one of the first of the Flemings who
attempted to adopt an Italian style of design. His pictures are

careful, and brilliant in colour. This brilliancy is said to have
been partially obtained by painting on a gold ground: some of the
pictures attributed to him certainly have the appearance of having
been so prepared.

Van Orley went to Italy, and worked under Raphael at Rome.
He and Michael Coxcien had the superintendence of the manufac-
ture of the tapestries for the Vatican, made from Raphael’s cartoons
for Leo X. Van Orley painted in oil and in tempera, and for glass.

1 According to some documents discovered by M. Van Ertborn, the date 1529 is
erroneous; it should be 1530. See the ‘Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857;
see also Van Mander, “ Het Leven der Schilders,” &c., ed. 1764; Van Fornenberg,
«Leven van Quinten Matsys,” Antwerp, 1658 ; Schnaase, “ Niederlindische Briefe,”
1834; Rathgeber, “Annalen der Niederlindischen Malerci,” &c., pp. 205-487 ;
Michiels, “ Histoire de la Peinture Flamande,” &

2 «Cat. du Musée d’Anvers.”
270 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Some of the windows of St. Gudule, at Brussels, were executed
from his cartoons. He was in the service of Margaret, Regent of
the Netherlands, and he had also the title of court painter to the
Emperor Charles V. He died at Brussels January 6th, 1541.7

One of Van Orley’s best works, if not his master-piece, is the fine
large picture in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, representing on
one side the “Desecration of the Temple of Jerusalem, by Antio-
chus Epiphanes,” and on the other the “ Descent of the Holy Spirit
on the Apostles :” on a shield in the centre, dividing the two com-
positions, the painter has written his name—Bernart VAN ORLEL
The large and equally remarkable picture in the Dresden Gallery,
representing the ‘Adoration of the Kings,” formerly attributed
to Albert Direr, but now to Mabuse, is, to judge from the
Vienna picture, a fine example of the same painter, Bernard van
Orley. , .

Micuaxt Coxcien, or Van Coxcyen, was the scholar of Van Orley,
and was born at Mechlin in 1499. He also resided in Italy, and
studied the works of Raphael. He is sometimes dignified with the
style of the Flemish Raphael. Vasari made Coxcien’s acquaint-
ance in Rome in 1532. Wis original works in the Antwerp
Gallery are of an ordinary character compared with his celebrated
copy of the St. Bavon Van Eyck, made for Philip II. of Spain,
which certainly contains much admirable work. Coxcien was so
particular in copying this picture, that he solicited Philip to pro-
cure him some ultramarine, as, he said, there was none to be had in
Flanders good enough. Philip wrote to Titian, who sent him some,
and Coxcien used over the drapery of the Madonna alone a quan-
tity to the value of thirty-two ducats. The copy was finished in
1559 after a labour of two years, and Coxcien received, by the
award of four masters, 2000 ducats for his work (somewhere about
300/.). This, however, though then a large sum, did not content
him; and, says Guicciardini, the king is said to have added to the
amount. Independent of the great price, Coxcien was at no cost
for materials or for his keep while he was employed on the copy.
The copy is certainly admirably executed, more especially the
larger figures. It was sent to Madrid, whence it was brought by
the French during the Spanish war, and now some portions are in
the Gallery at Munich, others at Berlin, and the rest—six side-
pieces—which were in the King of Holland’s collection in the
Hague, were again sold in 1850.

Coxcien was painter to Philip II. He was admitted into the
Antwerp Company of Painters in 1539, and died at Mechlin on the
5th of March, at a very advanced age, in 1592, in consequence of a

' Michiels, “La Peinture Flamande,” &e., vol. iti.
TRANSALPINE ART. 271

fall, at Antwerp. In the Antwerp Gallery is a “Martyrdom of
St. Sebastian” signed Micue, V. Coxcyin Arratis suaz 76, FE 1575,
but the inscription is not perfectly legible; a Triumph of Christ
in the same gallery is signed Michiel v. Coasys fecit. Few of these
old Flemish painters seem to have had a fixed mode of writing their
names: a Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, in the cathedral of Mechlin,
is signed Micnart D, Coxcren Picror Reelus Fecrr Anno 1587.
Michael had a son, RarHart Coxien, named after the great Italian
painter : he was born in 1540, and became a master of the Antwerp
Guild in 1585.

JAN GossaERT, commonly called Jan DE Masuse from his birth-
place, now Maubeuge, on the Sambre, and within the French
frontier, was born about 1470, and died at Antwerp, October Ist,
1532.'_ Mabuse visited Italy, and England, where he was employed
by Henry VII. The picture of that King’s family at Hampton
Court, painted in 1495, is attributed to him. There are several
other pictures at Hampton Court attributed to Lucas Van Leyden
and Mabuse, but with very little authority: a very curious and
interesting. picture of a “Card Party,” by Lucas, was exhibited at
Manchester by the Earl of Pembroke in 1857; and at Castle
Howard is one of the master-pieces, of Mabuse, ‘‘ The Adoration of
the Kings,” one of the most laborious and admirable works of the
Flemish school, illustrating the simple imitation of nature as repre-
sented in the manners of the Lowlands: his visit to Italy seems to
have had but little influence on his style or treatment of acces-
sories, the elaboration of which appears to have been a passion with
him. Such is the character of his earlier and best works, as this
admirable example at Castle Howard, which the painter has signed
with his patronymic Gossaert, though he generally signed himself
Joannes Malbodius, that is, John of Maubeuge. Mabuse had
resided from 1528 at Middelburg, where one of his master-pieces,
the “Descent from the Cross,” was the most important ornament of
the place: it was unfortunately burnt by lightning on the 24th of
January, 1568. Albert Diirer saw this picture, and has noticed it
in his Diary; he admired its colouring.

Lucas van LeYvEN was a painter of great ability and perseverance,
but he introduced a very affected style of design, and gave his
figures a coquettish air, which injures the effect of his works. Lucas
was the pupil of Cornetis Enextprecutsz, or Enextpertsz (about
1468-1533), a distinguished master, but of whom scarcely anything
personally is known. A very fine picture, a small altar-piece in
the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, is ascribed, but without any real
authority, to Engelbertsz; it represents the Madonna and Child

1 “Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857.
272 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

enthroned, and from its style belongs to the school of the Van
Hycks.

In his twelfth year Lucas was both an engraver and painter of
reputation. He painted in distemper, in the year 1506, a picture of
St. Hubert, for a citizen of Leyden, who was so astonished at the
excellence of the work that he gave Lucas twelve gold pieces for it,
one for each year of his age; he was born in 1494. The greatest
excellences of Lucas in painting are his colouring and his aérial
perspective ; but though one of the best of the old Dutch painters,
he was more celebrated in his own time as an engraver. Vasari
speaks of the prints of Luca d’Ollanda, as he is called by the
Tialians. Some of his engravings are among the greatest rarities of
print collectors; his Eulenspiegel, a notorious clown of the four-
teenth century, is the rarest print extant ; there are not more than
half-a-dozen of the original impressions, but copies are numerous ;
the earliest is that engraved by Hondius in 1644, when the original
was even then worth fifty ducats. Lucas, however, though an excel-
lent engraver for his time, is not to be compared with Albert Diirer
or Marcantonio, who were both contemporary with him. He exe-
cuted also some cuts in wood. Albert Diirer visited Lucas at Ant-
werp in 1521, and his journal contains the following note of the
circumstance—‘‘ I was invited to dinner by Master Lucas, who
engraves in copper: he is a little man, and is a native of Leyden.”
This visit was paid while Lucas was on a journey through Zealand,
Flanders, and Brabant. He had Mabuse with him as a companion,
in a sloop fitted up at his own expense. The two painters were
clad more like princes than artists; they committed many extra-
vagances and indulged in a round of dissipation, which ruined the
health of Lucas. He entertained the artists of Middelburg, Ghert,
Antwerp, and Mechlin, with public feasts; that at Middelburg cost
him sixty florins, doubtless a very large sum at that time, 1521.
Lucas died in 1533, aged only 39.1

Mabuse died in the previous year; but he was about twenty years
the senior of Lucas. Van Mander relates an anecdote showing the
recklessness and improvidence of Mabuse: he was for some time in
the service of the Marquis De Veere, who, on an occasion when he
expected a visit from the Emperor Charles V., provided for his
principal retainers some splendid white silk damask in order that
they might be becomingly attired for the occasion. Mabuse under-
took to superintend the making of his own suit, and received the
damask. The Emperor noticed the painter’s splendid suit, and
touched the damask; to his astonishment it was painted paper.

2 Van Mander, “Het Leven der Schilders;” Bartsch, “ Catalogue Raisonné de
toutes les Estampes qui forment l'GEuvre de Lucas de Leyde;” Van Eynden and
Vander Willigen, ‘‘ Geschiedenis der Vaterlantsche Schilder-Kunst,” &e.
TRANSALPINE ART. 273

Mabuse had sold the silk and had manufactured a substitute out of
paper and paint.

Among the first of the painters of the Low Countries who really
appreciated or appropriated in any great degree the Italian taste,
was JAN ScHoorEL, so called from his birth-place near Alkmaar. He
was born August Ist, 1495, and studied under Mabuse at Utrecht,
and Albrecht Diirer in Niirnberg; he then visited Italy and became
a complete convert to Italian taste at Venice. He afterwards visited
the East, and spent some short time at Rhodes and at Jerusalem.
The election of his countryman Adrian Florent, the Emperor's
tutor, to the papal chair in 1522, as Adrian VI., opened out great
prospects for Schoorel, and induced him to settle in Rome. He
devoted himself to the study of the antique, and to the works of
Raphael and Michelangelo; and though Adrian cared nothing for
the Arts, he employed Schoorel’s pencil, and appointed him Keeper
of the Belvedere Gallery. His prospects were, however, soon
blighted ; the Dutch Pope died in 1523, and the Dutch painter
returned to his own country, where he died, in Utrecht, on the 6th
of December, 1562, a canon of St. Mary’s there. Schoorel was one
of the first of the moderns to pay much attention to landscape
painting; but his example was in this respect followed by many of
his countrymen, who for the next century, though they did not yet
make an independent profession of landscape painting, divided
pretty generally their attention between landscape and figures,
making sometimes the figures accessory to the landscape, Schoorel’s
pictures are scarce and not easily identified; his figures have a
great softness of execution and a decided Italian character in their
style of form. He was not only a good painter, but was also a
musician, a poet, and a linguist. He was the master of Antony
Moro.

A respectable painter of this time, though till recently + unknown,
is ALBERT CorNELIS, whose name is associated with a lawsuit of
some interest in the history of painting in Bruges. He was an
established master in 1518, and he was one of the officers of the Cor-
poration of Painters in 1518: he died in 1532. At Bruges the
painters exposed their works for sale twice a year in the market-
place, near the Freres Mineurs, in January and in May; and there
are records of Cornelis having paid for stalls for eleven years,
between 1515 and 1530, both inclusive : he took sometimes as many
as five stalls at one fair or market. In 1517 Albert Cornelis under-
took to paint within two years an altar-piece for the Fullers’ Com-
pany for 30 livres de gros, or 180 francs, to make the composition
himself, and to execute the nude and other principal parts with his

1 Weale’s “ Beffroi.” vol i., 1863, which begins with an account of this painter.
r
274 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

own hands. Having failed to deliver the work within the stipu-
lated time, the painter was summoned before the authorities, and
was ordered to deliver the work by Easter, 1521, or to forfeit six
livres de gros. He did not deliver the picture in time, and his em-
ployers afterwards refused to accept it, not only because the painter
had not kept his time, but because he had employed an assistant to
paint it, and to whom he had given only 8 livres de gros, 48 francs.
Cornelis maintained that this was the usual proceeding, that the
composition was his, and that he had painted the most important
parts; he accordingly sued them for this in court on the 15th April,
1521, and won his cause, the matter of the fine standing over. The
subject of this picture—the centre of which, a very ordinary work,
is still preserved in its chapel, in St. Jacques at Bruges—is the
Coronation of the Virgin, with the nine choirs of angels; it is 5 ft.
6 in. high by 5 ft. 9 in. wide.

Mabuse was the master of the celebrated Lamprecht Susterman,
or Lamserr Lomparp, commonly called Lambertus Lombardus, who
persevered in the effort to Italianize the art of his country. He was
born at Liége in 1506, according to dates on engraved portraits of
him, married when very young, travelled in France and Germany,
and visited Italy in the suite of the English Cardinal Pole.

Lambert seems to have depended abroad on some allowance from
the Cardinal Bishop of Liége, Erhard de la Marck, for after the
death of that prelate in 1538, he was shortly, compelled to return
home. He seems to have returned in 1539-40, from a remark in his
letter to Vasari, dated April 27th, 1565, where he states it to be
twenty-five years since he left Italy. Vasari speaks highly of Lam-
bert, with whom he had become acquainted in Rome, and, among
other things, he terms him “an excellent architect.” Lambert has
also the credit of having been the best antiquary of his time and
district. Guicciardini notices him as a collector of ancient medals.
He died poor, it is said, at Liége, in the hospital of Mont Cornillon,
about 1566. He was three times married, and having children by
each wife, his numerous family imposed burdens on him that the
art-patronage of Liége did not enable him to support.

The year 1566 was a very unfavourable one for the Arts in the
Low Countries. It was the year the Flemish Iconoclasts commenced
their destructions, through the introduction of the Inquisition by
Philip II. They began in Antwerp by smashing to pieces the
image of the Virgin, carried in procession on the 15th of August,
the Assumption-day ; they then went to the cathedral and destroyed
the crucifix. The destruction of the images of the churches of Ant-
werp gave them three days’ work, and vast numbers of pictures and
statues were destroyed. If they could have overthrown the “ Holy
Office ” itself with the images, they would have done some good ser-
TRANSALPINE ART. 275

vice for posterity ; as it was, the sombre fanatic, Philip himself, paid
the penalty of his intolerance by the loss of the Seven Provinces to
the Spanish crown.

The pictures of Lambert Lombard are scarce, but they are gene-
rally carefully drawn, and the colours and shadows are only slightly
scumbled over a light ground. We have a good specimen—a
‘Deposition ”—in the National Gallery.’

In a notice of the good Flemish painters of this period LANcELOT
BiondeEet should not be omitted. He was originally a mason, whence
his monogram of the trowel. He was also engineer and architect,
and was fond of enriching his pictures with architectural back-
grounds, in the style of the Renaissance, on some occasions pro-
fusely gilt. Blondeel was an established painter at Bruges in
1520, and died there on the 4th of March, 1561, aged 65. He left a
daughter, who married the really great master Pizter Poursus, one
of the best portrait-painters of a century of portrait-painters. He
appears to have been a native of Gouda, but was settled early in
Bruges, where he was admitted a master of the Guild of St. Luke,
on the 26th August, 1543: he served as Dean of the Corporation in
1569. He died on the 30th of January, 1584, and his widow was
pensioned by the town.

Bruges is rich in fine works of Peter Pourbus: the Academy has
a ‘* Last Judgment” by him, with many small figures, well com-
posed, and conspicuous for its fine drawing, in a decided Italian
taste, in the spirit of the cinquecento and of Michelangelo: it’is
dated 1551, and has his mark’ between two P’s. Pourbus evidently
thought more of his art than of church tradition, for his style is
what may be termed secularized; and yet there is an unassuming
modesty about all his portraits, which are carefully and smoothly
finished, though not unpleasantly so. He received one hundred
florins (8/.) for his picture of the “Judgment,” which is on panel,
and measures 7 feet 4 inches high by 5 feet 10 inches wide.* The
same collection has a ‘Descent from the Cross,” signed Perrus
Poursus FaciEBat, 1570; and the cathedral church of Saint Sauveur

’ Dominicus Lampsonius, a scholar of Lambert, published a “Life” of him in
1565, —‘‘Lamberti Lombardi apud Eburones Pictoris Celeberrimi Vita,” S8vo.
Bruges. Ratbgeber’s “ Annalen,” &c., and the “ Peinture Flamande” of Michiels,
both contain lists of Lambert's works. The latter remarks on the omission of
Lampsonius to inform us of the date of Lambert’s death; but the simple fact is
that Lambert Lombard was living when the Biography of Lampsonius was pub-
lished. Lambert Lombard is commonly supposed to have died in 1560; this is,
however, a decided mistake. He was certainly living on the 27th of April, 1585,
for that is the date of his letter to Vasari ; see Gaye, “Cartegzio Inedito d’ Artisti,”
iii. 173. Further, Guicciardini, “Descrizione di Tutti i Paesi Bassi,” p. 130, 1588,
places Lambert among the living, and he wrote in 1566.

2 A St. Andrew’s and a common cross surmounted by the figure 4 all in one.

3 Weale, “Catalogue du Musée de Bruges,” 1861.

T 2
276 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

has a fine “ Last Supper,” carefully elaborated, and signed P. Pour-
bus Faciebat, an°. pf1. 1562, Several Galleries possess portraits by
Pourbus; some are signed, some are acknowledged, and some are
given to other masters.

Peter was the father of Fraws Poursus the elder, who was born at
Bruges in 1540, and was admitted a master in the Antwerp Guild of
Painters in 1569. Frans studied under Frans De Vriendt, and
married that painter's niece: he died young, in 1580. His son
Frans, called the younger, was born at Antwerp in 1570, was
admitted a master painter in 1591, and died in great repute at Paris,
in 1622. Both were good portrait-painters. The Louvre possesses
two small portraits of Henri IV., and a large full-length of Maria de’
Medici, by the younger; at Hampton Court also are two excellent
heads of Henri IV. and Maria de’ Medici, ascribed to the same hand.
His colouring is sometimes dark and heavy. The Amsterdam
Museum has a portrait of Queen Elizabeth, ascribed to the elder
Frans. The youngest Pourbus sometimes signed himself Junior.
The Louvre possesses a ‘‘ Last Supper,” signed F. Poursus, Jv. Fac.
A’. 1618.

Frans DE VRIENDT, commonly called Frans Froris, was born at
Antwerp about 1520, and was the scholar of Lambert Lombardus at
Liége, under whom he acquired a taste for the Italian Schools of
Art. He studied also in Italy, and was a painter of unqnestionable
power, but of very questionable life. He was admitted a master of
the Antwerp Guild as early as 1540; and he died in his native place
on the 1st of October, 1570, leaving two sons, both painters; the
younger of whom distinguished himself at Rome.

One of the most remarkable productions of Floris is the large pic-
ture of the “Fall of the Rebel Angels,” in the Gallery at Antwerp,
full of power and originality, but possessing little beauty; it is
signed FF. 1V. er. F. A 1554.1

Aytontus, or Antonis Moro, the celebrated portrait-painter, born
at Utrecht in 1525, was the scholar of Schoorel. He also studied in
Italy, and eventually became, in every respect, the best portrait-
painter of his time in the Netherlands. He forsook the more timid
and careful manner of his own people, and made Titian his model,
though he never quite appropriated the easy and rich style of the
Venetian portrait-painters. Moro early acquired the favour of the
Emperor Charles V., for whom, in 1552, in the capacity of his por-
trait-painter, he visited both Madrid and Lisbon, to paint the royal
families of Spain and Portugal. Te was sent also by the Emperor
to England to paint Queen Mary, his son Philip’s second wife. It is
of this painter that Van Mander relates the anecdote, that he was on

1 “Catalogue du Musée d’Anyers,” 1857.
TRANSALPINE ART. 277

such familiar terms with the morose Philip, that during his second
visit to Madrid, after the death of Queen Mary, on an occasiun when
the King struck Moro with his hand familiarly on the shoulder, the
painter playfully returned the blow with his rest-stick. Such an
unprecedented liberty astounded the Spanish nobles, and Moro was
denounced to the Inquisition ; he was, however, warned by a friend
in time, and he obtained the King’s permission to visit Brussels, with
the understanding that he was to return to Madrid; an imprudence
he of course never committed. Moro settled at Brussels, and
enjoyed the protection of the afterwards notorious Duke of Alva,
and eventually died rich at Antwerp in 1581.1. The prices he
received were so high that he could scarcely fail to make a fortune:
he received from one to two hundred ducats in Portugal, and one
hundred pounds in England. lis own portrait is in the Painters’
Gallery at Florence, and there is another.at Althorp. The National
Gallery possesses a fine portrait of a girl, by Moro, Jeanne D’Archel,
dated 1561. Moro did not study the Italians in vain; and he repre-
* sents the intermediate perfection of Flemish art between the last
epoch of the Van Eyck school and the new vitality inaugurated by
Rubens and Rembrandt.

Maxrin ve Vos, of a Dutch family, born at Antwerp in 1521, was
the scholar of Floris, after having learnt the first rudiments of art
from his father, Pieter de Vos, who entered the Antwerp Guild in
1519, and was dean in 1536. Martin afterwards visited Italy, and

‘studied under Tintoretto in Venice. He returned to Antwerp, and
was admitted a master among his fellow-professors of the ‘‘ Art of St.
Luke,” in 1559; and he served as Dean of the Corporation in 1572:
he died December 4th, 1603.

In the Antwerp Gallery is an altar-piece representing the “ Incre-
dulity of St. Thomas,” painted in 1574, which.is a master-piece of
the Flemish school of that time: a ‘‘ Baptism of Christ,” and a
“ Beheading of John the Baptist,” originally wings of this picture,
are also admirable works. Another picture of the many by this
painter, in the same collection, is a representation of the popular
tradition of “St. Luke Painting the Portrait of the Virgin ;” it was
executed in 1572 for an altar-piece for the chapel belonging to the
Corporation of Painters, in the cathedral of Antwerp. As a paint-
ing it is hard, and its chief interest consists in the reported fact of
the principal figures representing Martin and his wife. Their son,
Martin dE Vos the younger, was received a franc-maitre of the Cor-
poration in 1607.?

1 Van Mander, “Leven der Schilders,” &. vol. i. p. 172, 1764; Walpole, “ Anec-

dotes of Painting,” &e.
2 “Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers.”
278 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

In the Antwerp Gallery, also, is a very remarkable picture by
CorneELis pr Vos, probably of the same family, who was Dean of the
Corporation of St. Luke in 1609 and 1619, and was still living in
1648, This picture is a half-length portrait of Abraham Grapheus,
concierge or messenger of the Corporation of Painters, and repre-
sents a stout man standing by a table covered with a cloth, on which
are placed several chased gold cups; the man himself is covered
with medals, all then the property of the Corporation, but now dis-
persed. The picture is signed C. Devos, F. 1620. Everything is
very freely but carefully executed; and this portrait, which was
presented by the painter himself to the Corporation, is certainly one
of the curiosities of the art, and gives the impression of having been
some silversmith’s signboard rather than a monumental effigy of the
trophies of the Antwerp Guild of Painters, which it really is. A
‘portrait of Cornelis de Vos, by Vandyck, has been engraved by
Lucas Vosterman.

There are a few other painters of some note and some ability who
might be yet added but for the limit of our space. Of these Patinir’
and De Bles are conspicuous, more especially for their great atten-
tion to landscape painting. JoacHim DE Patinir was born at Dinant
about 1485-90, and became a master of the Corporation of St. Luke
at Antwerp in 1515, and died in 1548. Patinir was married while
Albert Diirer was on his visit in the Netherlands in 1520; and
Albert tells us that he was one of the wedding guests: he drew
Patinir’s portrait. The National Gallery has three examples of this
master, in which not only the landscape portions are excellent for
their time, but the figures also are good. A picture of the “ Flight
into Egypt,” in the Antwerp Gallery, by this painter, is signed
Opos. Joacuima. D. Patinir.

Henrik ve Buies, or Met de Bles, with the forelock, according
to report the scholar of Patinir, was born at Bouvignes in 1480. He
-too combined figures with landscapes, but was inferior to Patinir :
he died at Liége about 1550. He lived some time at Mechlin,
where he was residing in 1521. The Italians named de Bles
Civetta, because he often painted an owl in his pictures; but other
painters of that time have done the same thing— painted an owl on a
branch, in a dark corner.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. . 279

CHAPTER XXIV.

ALBERT DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES.—THE ITALIANIZED ART OF
GERMANY.

 

Virgin and Infant Christ.— Albert Diirer.

Tue school of the Van Eycks appears to have had an immediate
influence upon the schools of Germany, at Ulm, Colmar, Nirnberg,
and other places. The earliest distinguished master of these schools
was Marrin §cHoNGAUER, commonly called Martin Schoen. He was
born at Ulm, in the early part of the fifteenth century, about 1420,
as he was an established artist in 1441. He appears io have been
originally an engraver, and an excellent one, and to have first
turned much of his attention to painting, after a visit to the
Netherlands, where he dwelt some time, chiefly at Antwerp: he is
called by the Italians Martino d’Anversa, and also Bel Martino.
From a letter of Lambertus Lombardus to Vasari, dated Liége,
April 27, 1565, it is inferred that he was a scholar of Rogier Van-
der Weyden,’ or Roger of Bruges. Martin was still at Ulm in 1461,
but he appears to have settled at Colmar about 1470, and was the
founder of a school of painting there: where also his principal
works are still preserved. He died at Colmar, February 2nd,

1 Gaye, “ Carteggio Inedito d’Artisti,” ii. 177.
280 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

1488.' Martin’s pictures are similar in style to those of the old
Flemish school, but he does not approach his reputed master Van-
der Weyden; his execution is not nearly so delicate or refined, and
his drawing is very inferior; he is, however, accounted the best
German painter of the fifteenth century; his engravings also,
though crude in light and shade, are among the best of the early
productions of this class. He devoted too much of his time to en-
graving to become a good painter. His prints, though not so
well executed, have more taste, and are in a better style than
those of Albert Diirer.

German writers speak of the “ Maria im Rosenhag,” or Madonna
in the rose-bushes,—with life-size figures,—now in the sacristy of
the Martinskirche at Colmar, as the most important and most
characteristic of this painter’s works; and it constitutes, according
to Passavant, the key by which all other pictures attributed to him
are to be judged. Of the other works at Colmar assigned to him,
several in the Library are, according to the same authority, works
only of his school.

A very interesting small German picture on panel, formerly in
the King of Holland’s collection, in the taste of the early Flemish
school, representing the “ Death of the Virgin,” now in the National
Gallery, is attributed to this painter, but it resembles Albert
Diirer’s works, and is much more delicately executed than any-
thing by Martin, at Colmar. The composition is in accordance
with church tradition—the Virgin having received the last offices
of the Church, is lying in a bed, and is attended upon by the twelve
Apostles, who are all variously occupied around her: above is the
Deity, supported by angels, about to receive her soul. From a
window in the apartment is seen a square or place in a town,
executed with all the clearness and detail of John Van Eyck.
Some of the heads of the Apostles are of a very fine character,
much resembling the heads found in the early Gernfan woodcuts,
and nearly all are very richly coloured. The picture is a master-
piece of its kind, and is pronounced by Dr. Waagen the best of all
the pictures attributed to Martin Schoen;? it is, doubtless, much
better than anything ever painted by that master.

Schoen is said to have been the master of Albert Diirer; but
Albert did not visit Colmar until after Martin’s death. Lambert
Lombard makes this mistake in the letter referred to; he indeed
calls Martin ‘ the father of all the famous artists in Germany.”

Avsrecut Durer was born at Niirnberg, in 1471, and in 1486
was placed with MicnarL Wo.ermutH (1434-1519), the most dis-

1 Waagen, ‘‘ Kuntswerke und Kiintsler in Deutschland ;” Passavant, “ Beitrage
zi Kenntniss der alten Malerschulen Deutschlands,”’ in the Kunstblatt for 1846.
2“ Handbuch,” p. 176, 1862.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 281

tinguished painter and engraver at Niirnberg of that:time ; there is
a portrait of him by Albert in the Pinacothek at Munich, painted
in 1516, Michael’s eighty-second year, as inscribed on the picture.
Wohlgemnth appears to have kept up a complete manufactory of
pictures, by means of a numerous school of pupils, and such works
as are attributed to him are conspicuous for the prevailing ugliness
both of feature and of limb, which seems uniformly to characterize
the German painters of this period, passion being expressed by
distortion; as if they had had an especially ill-favoured people for
models; though this idea is not conveyed by the works of sculp-
ture of the period. And the portraits of Diirer, of Holzschuher,
and of Wohlgemuth himself, indicate, on the contrary, handsome-
featured men.'

His master-piece is considered the Peringsdorfer altar-piece,
1487, originally in the church of the Augustines at Nuremberg;
now in part in the Moritzkapelle there ; it is conspicuous for some
Jarge figures of saints. The Pinacothek at Munich possesses five
large pictures of the life of Christ by this painter, all conspicuous
for the characteristic defects of their time in Germany: the best of
these are the “Crucifixion” and the “Taking down from the
Cross ;” the former has much similarity with the ordinary works of
his pupil Direr. The Belvedere Gallery at Vienna has likewise
an altar-piece with wings, representing St. Jerome and other saints,
which may be reckoned among Wohlgemuth’s master-pieces; it
is dated Anno Dm meccccxt. Wohlgemuth’s services were more
important as a wood-engraver than as a painter. He and Pleyden-
wurff cut in wood the illustrations of a curious old work in folio,
known as the “‘ Niirnberg Chronicle ;” it was written by Hartmann
Schedel, a physician, who died, however, before its completion, in
1485. It was published in Latin in 1493, under the title “Liber
Chronicorum per viam Epitomatis et Breviarii compilatus.” A
German translation appeared in the following year. The cuts con-
sist of views of towns and portraits of eminent men.

Albert Diirer soon became the most celebrated master of his time,
north of the Alps; and his reputation reached even to the “ Eternal
City.” The great painter of Rome sent some drawings to Albert,
and received from him something by his hand in return. One of
these drawings by Raphael is still preserved at Vienna, in the col-
lection of the Archduke Charles. It represents two naked male
figures drawn in red chalk, a back and a side view; they are
studies from the life. On this drawing is written in Albert’s own
handwriting, “1515, Raphael of Urbino, who has been so highly

1 Von Rettberg, “Niirnberg’s Kunstleben in seinen Denkmalen Dargestellt,”
Stuttgart, 1854.
282 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

esteemed by the Pope, drew these naked figures, and sent them to
Albrecht Diirer, in Niirnberg, to show him his hand.”!

Fuseli,? who alludes to this exchange of drawings, conjectures
that Raphael, by transmitting this specimen of his hand to Albert
intended to make the latter sensible of the difference between imi-
tating nature and drily copying a model, a supposition not more
reasonable than it is charitable: the present can have been
prompted only by affection and admiration.

Albert was but partly German: his father, Albrecht Diirer the
elder (1427-1502), was a Hungarian goldsmith, who had settled in
Niirnberg in 1455; and Albert was himself brought up to his
father’s business, but he prefered painting, though eventually he
seems to have made it secondary to the study of engraving, both on
copper and on wood; as an engaver he was perhaps superior to all
men of his time in the practical execution of his work.

Having passed through his Lehr- and Wander-jahre (1486-92),
Albert settled in Nuremberg, and, in 1494, married Agnes Frey,
the pretty daughter of a singer and player on the harp, and with
her he received a dowry of 200 florins,—but for which, says an old
writer quoted by Arend,’ he had afterwards at least 2000 unhappy
days. She is said to have been jealous, imperious, avaricious, and
fretful, constantly urging him to work to make provision for her,
after his death.

In January, 1506, Albert visited the north of Italy, and when
at Venice he painted a picture of the “‘ Martyrdom of St. Bartholo-
mew,” or, according to others, the ‘‘ Coronation of the Virgin ;” and
he observes, in a letter to his friend Pirkheimer, “The Venetian
painters abuse my style, and say that it is not after the antique,

1 «1515, Raffahill di Urbin der so hoch peim Papst geacht ist gewest, hat diese
nackete Bild gemacht, und hat sy dim Albrecht Diirer gen Nornberg geschikt, In
sein hand zu weisen,” Passavant, “ Rafael,” &c.

2 Works, vol. iii. p. 265.

3 There is an interesting portrait of the elder Albert by his son, but not signed,
in the Frankfort Gallery, inscribed ALBRECHT THURER DER ELTER UND ALT 70 Jor,
dated 1494 (?). The similar portrait in the Munich Gallery is supposed to be a
copy of this. It is an early work, is hard and brown, and bears the following
inscription:—Das malt Ich nach meines Vatters Gestalt, da er war Siebenzig Jar
alt. Albrecht Diirer der elter, signed with the painter’s monogram, and dated 1497
instead of 1494. Which is the copy may be a question. A copy of the Frankfort
picture was exhibited by the Duke of Northumberland at Manchester in 1857; it
appears to be signed A.N. 1497 Albrecht Thurer der elter vi 1D. aet. 70 Jor.
vr w. aet. for vND alt? The Frankfort picture was engraved by Hollar in
1664, with the date 1497.

4 “Das Gedechtniss der ehren eines derer vollkomnesten KiinstJer seiner und
aller nachfolgenden Zeiten, Albrecht Diirers,” &. 12mo. Gosslar, 1728. See also
Sandrart’s “ Academie,” who publishes a leticr by Albert’s friend Georg Hartman,
ii. p. 229, 1675.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 283

and. therefore that it is not good.” Albert admired the works of
John Bellini, and said that he was the best painter in Venice;
Bellini was then eighty*years of age. He was altogether well
pleased with his visit to Venice: he painted several pictures there,
and writes to his friend Pirkheimer, with complete satisfaction,
that at Venice he was a gentleman, while at home he was but a
parasite. All his finest pictures were painted after this Venetian
visit; his powers seem to have culminated in 1511, when he
attained his fortieth year. He appears to have been well appre-
ciated by the Signory of Venice, for, in a memorial to the town
council of Nuremberg some years afterwards, he complained that
during the thirty years he had worked in that city he had not
received 500 florins of Nuremberg money; that his patrons were
princes and strangers, and that he spent strange money in the
town; while he might have remained at Venice with an annual
grant of 200 ducats from the Signory, and that he had received a
similar offer of 300 florins and free lodging at Antwerp, both of
which offers he had declined, purely out of love to his native city.
The Emperor Maximilian had appointed him his court painter, and
he held the same dignity under Charles V.; the emolument, how-
ever, was only 100 florins a-year.

The offer at Antwerp must have been made during his journey
through the Low Countries in 1520-21, which has been already
mentioned. He set out with his wife and her maid in Whitsun-
week in 1520, as we learn from his own diary (and not therefore,
as Arend says, to escape from the importunities of his wife). His
diary is preserved, and contains many interesting details? We
may judge from it that the chief object of his journey was to nego-
tiate the sale of his prints: he also made use of his opportunity of
taking portraits, generally drawn in pencil; but for which he
appears to have been commonly paid the seemingly small sum of
one florin, twenty pence English, though when we consider that in
those days two or three pence constituted the ordinary daily wages
of a skilled workman, the price is not contemptible.

Albert Diirer’s pictures are scarce, though few of the great
German Galleries are without a specimen of his work: St. John
and St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Mark, painted on two panels in
1526, and presented by the painter to the council of Nuremberg,
are two of his most praised oil-pictures: they are now in the Pina-
cothek at Munich, but are inferior works.

1 “Noch schelten sy es und sagen, es sey nit antigisch art, dozu sey es nit gut.”
Von Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgeschichte,” vol. x. p.7. This volume contains
eight letters from Albert to Pirkheimer.

2 Von Murr, “Journal,” &c.; and in the ‘“Reliquien von Albrecht Diirer,”
Niirnberg, 1828.
284 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

His ambition appears to have led him to try large figures, but
neither his natural taste nor his experience qualified him for
pictures of this class.

There is something interesting in the group of St. John and
St. Peter, and the head of St. Paul is not without grandeur. Both
pictures have great merit, and much dignity of style, compared
with the prevailing taste among German artists of this time; but
‘compared with the similar productions of the Italians of the same
period, they are, at best, but very formal and ordinary productions,
‘wanting in warmth and transparency of colour, very hard, and even
wooden in their draperies, harsh in expression—in fact, the expres-
sion borders on grimace,—heavy in their proportions, and the
‘extremities are ill drawn. A higher art in sentiment is displayed
‘in some of Albert’s wood-cnt designs for ‘‘ Christ's Passion” and the
“Life of the Virgin,” in spite of their coarse execution.

St. John and St. Peter are reading out of the same book;
St. Mark is looking attentively at some object out of the picture;
St. Paul, holding a book and sword, is in profile, and looks sternly at
the spectator. St.John and St. Peter are entirely seen; of the other
two, little more than the heads are shown. German writers speak of
these four figures as designed to represent the four temperaments :
St. John, the Melancholy; St. Peter, the Phlegmatic; St. Mark,
the Sanguine; and St. Paul, the Choleric; but upon what grounds
it is difficult to comprehend. In painting the St. John he seems
to have had the countenance of his friend Melancthon in his mind.

The Apostles by the old sculptor Peter Vischer, made in 1519,
in the St. Sebald’s Church, at Niirnberg, have more dignity than
these by Albert, and more refinement of character generally.

Asa painter, Albert is seen to greatest advantage in the Belve-
dere Gallery at Vienna; here are several good works by him, and
‘two stupendous examples of his skill and diligence in small figure
painting—the “Trinity, with a heavenly host in adoration,” and
the “Christian Martyrs in Persia ;” in both of which the painter
has introduced a full-length portrait of himself; in the second is
also his friend Pirkheimer. The Pope, the Emperor, and the King,
the three foremost figures below the host in the clouds adoring
the “Divine Trinity,” show the rare combination of the utmost
minuteness of finish with the utmost grandeur of effect; the vast
landscape underneath is equally perfect. The Trinity is repre-
sented after the ordinary Italian manner—the Father supports the

1 Dr. Waagen encourages this assumption, as enhancing the compositions, in his
English “ Handbook of Painting,” 1.163; but in his German work, “ Handbuch
der Deutschen und Niederlindischen Malerschulen,’ p. 216, note, he wholly
deprecates it as too preposterous or offensive to have ever entered the mind of the

painter,
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 285

crucified Saviour in his hand, while the Holy Spirit, as a dove,
hovers over the head of the Lord, as in the National Gallery
example by Pesellino. In this picture the painter is holding a
tablet, inscribed ALBERTUs Durer Noricus Factezar Anno a VIRGINIS
Parrv 1511.1. The other, a somewhat earlier work, is equally
extraordinary; but with much wonderful painting. it combines
much uglinces of form; his own figure, however, in the centre, in
black, is exceedingly fine. It is less florid than the “ Trinity,”
but it is also less well preserved. The subject, ‘The Massacre of
ten thousand Christians by Sapor IJ., King of Persia,” has given
the painter opportunity of introducing the human figure under a
great variety of aspects, and he has well availed himself of it.
This is inscribed on a flag held by the painter, IJste faciebat aiio
Domini 1508 Albertus Diirer Alemanus. Albert himself informs us
that for this picture, which occupjed him a year, he received only
280 florins, about twenty guineas. It was executed for the Elector
Frederick of Saxony, and afterwards passed into the possession of
the Emperor Rudolph II?

Both the portraits of Albert in these two pictures, though minia-
tures, are superior in effect to the large head of him, painted also by
himself, in 1500, and now in the Gallery at Munich: the hair of
this portrait is remarkable, but the hand is ill drawn.

He was, however, a good portrait-painter: one of his most cele-
brated pictures of this class is the head of Jerome Holzschuher, at
Nuremberg, painted in 1526: the head is magnificent, and perfectly
drawn.* This was only two years before his death: he died at
Nuremberg, April 6, 1528, leaving his wife, notwithstanding his
general poverty, the considerable fortune of 6000 florins. Direr
had joined the Reformers under Luther ; but Pirkheimer states that
he died amember of the Roman church.°

This celebrated old German artist was almost equally renowned
as painter, sculptor, and engraver; and though not patronised by
his townspeople, he was at least honoured in his epitaph, which
proclaims him without a rival in either art—Artium lumen, sol
artificum—Pictor, Chalcographus, Sculptor, sine exemplo.

1 Painted on wood, about 4 ft. 6 in, high, by 4 ft. wide. The Department of
Science and Art possesses a careful drawing of it.

2 Painted on wood, about 3 ft. 6 in. high, by 3 ft. wide. This subject, though
not this composition, has been engraved by Albert himself.

3 See Campe, “ Reliquien von Albrecht Diirer,” Niirnberg, 1828.

‘ Finely engraved by F. Wagner; and well given, cut in wood, in Rettberg’s
“ Niimberg’s Kunstleben in seinen denkmalen dargestellt,” Stuttgart, 1854.

5 Arend, ‘ Das Gedechtniss der ehren eines derer vollkomnesten Kiinstler,” &c. ;
Heller, “Das Leben und die Werke Albrecht Diirers,” Leipzig, 1831, the second
volume only, the first is not published ; Kugler, ‘Handbuch der Geschichte der
Malerei in Deutschland,’’ &.
286 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

As a painter, Albert was great both in invention and in his
powers of elaboration, rivalling the finest miniature-painters in
detail; but his forms are generally sharp and inelegant; he appears
to have copied his model with all its individual imperfections. He
belongs strictly to the quattrocento schools, and he is generally not
more free from the characteristic Gothic hardness of the fifteenth
century than any other of the most distinguished of his contem-
poraries who designed in a similar style; his pictures are also
strong and positive in colour. He is, however, greatly distinguished
by his powers of invention, which are nowhere better illustrated
than in his various designs for woodcuts. Of these there are
three great series—the Apocalypse; the Life of the Virgin; and
the History of Christ’s Passion. The first is in sixteen cuts, and
was published in 1498; the second is in twenty, and was published
in 1511; the History of the Passion appeared about the same time.
Many of these designs display great powers of invention and com-
position, but are coarse and ugly in their details. It was, however,
as an engraver on copper that Albert excelled chiefly; some of his
heads in this style are executed with an almost unrivalled delicacy
and precision. The Venetian painters, from Albert’s own account,
allowed that he was a good engraver, but denied his ability in
painting, upon which he painted a picture to convince them of their
error, and adds that all praised its beautiful colouring.

Albert had during his youth considered florid and varied colour-
ing the chief excellence of painting, and this he very much regretted
when he grew old and learnt to look at nature as she appears; he
then found that simplicity was the highest ornament of art; and
his early works often made him lament his error, as he was then
become too old to profit by his better knowledge. Some of his
pictures made him sigh when he looked upon them, “ Dicebat se
jam non esse admiratorem operum suorum ut olim, sed saepe gemere
intuentem suas tabulas, et cogitantem de infirmitate sua.” Such
was the complaint that Albert himself made to Melancthon.?

Albert had two brothers, John, born 30th June, 1478, and An-
drew, born 22nd April, 1484, who were both his own scholars.
The elder became court painter to the King of Poland, but returned
to Nurnberg in 14/02. Andrew was Albert’s constant assistant, and
inherited his pictures, plates, and other works of art.?

Among the contemporaries of Direr, one of the principal was
Marraias GRUENEWALD (about 1460-1530), of Aschaffenburg or of
Frankfort, where there is still a family of this name; but it is not

1 «Bpistola Ph. Melancthonis.” &c., Ep. 47, p. 42; “E. Apud Epist. D. Erasmi
Rotero et Ph. Melancth,” &., London, folio, 1642; quoted by Doppelmayr, Fiissli,
Kugler, &e.

2 Fiorillo, “ Geschichte der Malerei in Deutschland,” &., ii. p. 262.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 287

known either when he was born, or when or where he died; he
was still living in 1529. His principal patron was the Cardinal
Albert of Brandenburg, Elector of Maintz, for whom Griinewald
executed several altar-pieces; the same prince employed also Albert
Direr and Lucas Cranach, besides other less known German
painters. Though hard and ecrnde in taste, his colouring was rich,
and some of his heads approach those of Holbein for solidity and
character. A fine example, formerly in the Orford collection,
was exhibited by the Prince Consort, at Manchester, in 1857; in
the centre, the Virgin and Child, with Saints Catherine and Bar-
bara; St. Philip, St. James, and St. Erasmus on the inner sides of
the wings; and St. Nicholas and St. George on the outer sides.
His master-piece is a large altar-piece, in five compartments or pieces,
in the Munich Gallery, representing, in the centre, the portrait of
his patron, Albert of Brandenburg, as St. Erasmus converting
St. Maurice; the side figures being—the Magdalen and Lazarus,
Martha and St. Chrysostom ; they are, however, figures of no real
excellence, though of a high comparative merit, and in largeness of
style surpassing Cranach and even Direr. The Magdalen is the
portrait of Magdalena Riidinger, the daughter of a baker of Maintz,
and the prince’s mistress.’ Portraits of Albert and Magdalena are
also in the Castle collection at Aschaffenburg. Griinewald’s mono-
gram is a G upon an M, with a smaller n by the side or above the
monogram, not explained. He is supposed to have been the master
of Lucas Cranach, who, in the opinion of Passavant,? took part in
the altar-piece of the Frauenkirche at Halle, painted in 1529, the
latest known work of Grimewald’s.

Another remarkable old painter of this school was Hans Batnune
Grien (about 1480-1552), of Gmimd; he worked chiefly at Frei-
burg in Breisgau, and at Strassburg, where he died. A large altar-
piece representing the ‘‘ Coronation of the Virgin,” painted by him,
in 1516, is still in the cathredral of Freiburg. Kugler compares
him with Martin Schaffner and Grimewald. He had the advantage,
however, of being apparently a much younger master; yet he does
not show that Italian fulness of form which some critics perceive in
the works of Schaffner.’

Nicotas Manux., of Bern (1484-1530), besides being a distin-
guished painter, was sculptor, wood-engraver, poet, soldier, states-
man, and reformer. He is the Emanuelo Tedesco, who studied

1 Passavant, “ Kunstblatt,” 1841, p. 430.

2 «Kunstblatt,”’ 1846, p. 193.

3 «Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei,” Ed. Burckhardt, 1847, vol. ii.
p. 268.

4 Griineisen, “Nicolas Manuel, Leben und Werke eines Malers, Dichters,
Kriegers, Staatsmannes, und Reformators,” Stuttgart and Tiibingen, 1837.
288 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

under Titian at Venice, about 1511; and he acquired a great name
for a series of wall-paintings, probably in distemper, representing
the so-called ‘‘Dance of Death,” or Todtentanz, which he executed
between 1514 and 1522 in the cloister of the Dominican Convent at
Bern. This series, consisting of forty-six designs, is well known
from prints, but the originals have long since perished ; the wall on
which they were painted was pulled down in 1660. Manuel, in his
capacity of reformer, has in many of his compositions reflected upon
the abuses of the Romish Church. His own portrait, in oil, and
many drawings by him, are preserved in the Library at Bern.

Lucas Cranaca, born in 1472, at Cranach, near Bamberg, in
Bavaria, was Albert’s contemporary, and was little inferior in repu-
tation to Albert himself. His family name was Sunder, but he was
commonly called from his birth-place, Lucas Cranach. He resided
chiefly at Wittemberg, after 1495, where he lived in great distinc-
tion in the Electoral Palace. He was then painter to the Elector
Frederick the Wise, with whom he had visited Palestine in 1493.
He was also an intimate friend of Luther’s, whose portrait he
painted several times. He is said to have brought about the
marriage of Luther with Catherine Bora, of which he was one of
the witnesses.

Cranach served three Saxon Electors in the capacity of court
painter, and he was so much attached to John Frederick the Mag-
nanimous, that when that prince was taken prisoner by the Em-
peror Charles V., after the battle of Mihlberg, in 1547, Cranach
preferred sharing with him his five years’ captivity at Innsbruck,
to accompanying the Emperor to the Netherlands. They returned
to Wittemberg in 1552; but Cranach retired to Weimar, where he
died, in his eighty-first year, October the 16th, 1553. He was
twice Burgomaster of Wittemberg. His son, Lucas Cranach the
younger (1515-86), was the scholar and imitator of his father, and
was also Burgomaster of Wittemberg.

Cranach’s best pictures were painted between 1506 and 1540 ;
and he generally marked both his pictures and his prints with a
crowned dragon or flying serpent, the crest granted to him by the
Elector Frederick the Wise in 1508. A medal was struck in his
honour, after his death, with his portrait on one side, and this crest
on the other. He was in colour and laborious detail of execution
one of the most remarkable painters of his time; but in form,
elegance of design, unity of effect, and in composition, his taste was
strictly Gothic. His men are generally very ugly, and even his
female faces have no beauty. A good example is the small picture
of St. Christopher, and many other saints, in the Prince of Wales’
Drawing-room at Hampton Court. Cranach’s master-piece is the
large mystical Crucifixion in the church of Weimar, with portraits
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 289

of Luther and Cranach himself very prominently introduced; they
are indeed the two principal figures in the picture. He was a good
portrait-painter, and excelled in painting animals: he was like-
wise a good miniature painter; there are some manuscript illumina-
tions by him; and he was also an industrious engraver.’

The Berlin, Vienna, and other German Galleries, abound with
pictures ascribed to the Cranachs, and it would be difficult to
imagine anything in the shape of either man or woman much more
hideous than some of the caricatures of humanity which the
Germans exhibit as works of one of their principal painters.

It is rarely that the large figure-pieces of Cranach are even
tolerable ; one of the least offensive is the ‘‘ Woman taken in Adul-
tery,” in the Esterhazy Gallery: this is a subject he or his school
often painted with only slight variations. “Eve with an Apple in
her Hand,” in the Dresden Gallery, is also an exception to the
general offensiveness of the pictures attributed to Cranach. His
male portraits are his best works, and some of them are good.

The principal followers of Albert Diirer, who, like himself, were
both painters and engravers, were Aldegrever, Hans Scheuffelin,
Barthel and Hans Sebald Beham, Altdorfer, and Burgkmair.

Huiyrica ALDEGREVER (1502-62) was born at Soest, in Westphalia,
and acquired so much of Albert’s style as to be called Albert of
Westphalia; he is chiefly distinguished as an engraver. His prints
range from 1522 to 1562. Hus pictures are very laborious, but his
figures, like those of the Cranachs, and other Germans of this time,
are deformed, and often hideous. He seems, however, to have had
a good method of painting. The National Gallery possesses a very
characteristic picture by Aldegrever of the “ Crucifixion.” Among
his prints are portraits of—Luther, dated 1540; Melancthon; John
of Leyden, the King of the Anabaptists; and the fanatic Bernard
Knipperdolling. Ina print of Titus Manlius ordering the execution
of his son, dated 1533, Aldegrever has introduced a machine similar
to the guillotine used by the French revolutionists.

Hans ScHEUFFELIN was born at Nuremberg about 1490, and was
one of the favourite scholars of Albert Durer ; he removed to Nérd-
lingen in 1515, where he died in 1539. Both the pictures and
the woodcuts of Scheuffelin are often attributed to Albert himself,
though he was a very inferior master.

Hans Separp Benam is likewise distinguished chiefly as an
engraver. He was a native of Nuremberg, and of the school of

1 Heller enumerates 800 prints, chiefly woodcuts, as the work of Cranach. See
“Lucas Cranach’s Leben und Werke,” Niimberg, 2nd Ed. 1854; there is also a
life of Cranach by Chr. Schuchardt, “Lucas Cranach des A@Jteren Leben und
Werke,” Leipzig, 1851.

2 Presented in 1847 by Mr. Shipperdson. Not exhibited.
290 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Albert, but was forced, it is said, on account of the obscenity of
some of his prints, to leave that place, about 1530. He settled in
Frankfort, but apparently without any intention of reform; he
opened a wine-shop and brothel, and is reported to have been
drowned by the authorities, about 1550, in his fiftieth year. Hiis-
gen’ says it was the practice to condemn various kinds of criminals,
and among them pimps, to be drowned; he cites Lersner’s
“Chronik.” Beham’s cuts, etchings, and engravings amount to
about four hundred, of which the last are the best.

Barruet or BarrHotommus Benam, the cousin or uncle of Hans
Sebald, was one of the best painters of this school. He also was
the pupil of Albert, and gave so much promise of excellence that
the Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria sent him to study in Italy, where he
died in 1540, in the prime of life. His picture of the Resuscitation
of a woman by touching her with the cross, now in the Pinacothek
at Munich, is one of the most remarkable productions of the early
German masters. Barthel is said by Sandrart to have assisted
Marcantonio in his prints after Raphael.’

ALBrecat ALTDORFER was born at Altdorf, in Bavaria, in 1488.
He is equally distinguished as painter and engraver in copper and
in wood; but in the latter part of his life he appears to have been
more exclusively occupied in painting. Some of his pictures show
prodigious patience: there is a picture by him in the Pinacothek at
Munich, dated 1529, which represents Alexander’s Battle of Arbela.
It contains a countless mass of small figures, all dressed in the
German military costume of Albert’s own time, and every object
is defined with the most accurate minuteness of detail; it is, how-
ever, designed with a perfect disregard of perspective, aérial and
linear. This picture was formerly in the Gallery of Schleissheim,
and was taken by the French to Paris. Napoleon was so delighted
with it that he had it hung up in his bath-room at St. Cloud, where
it remained until 1815, when it was returned with the other foreign
works collected, during the war, in the Louvre.

It contains perhaps more figures than any other picture, but they
are very small; and the design is in the pure Gothic taste. In the
circumstantial detail of the parts, both of costume and the general
accessories, it is perfectly surprising: there is nothing indistinct in
the picture, and yet perhaps there is nothing that one would expect
to find in such a scene that is not to be found there. Altdorfer
seldom painted other than very small figures; the only large figures,
said to be by him, are some at the convent of Mélk, and these have

1 « Artistisches Magazin,” 1790.

2 Sandrart, “ Academia Todesca,”’ or “ Teutsche Academie der cdlen Bau-Bild-
und Mahlery-Kunste,” &c. 4 vols. folio, Niirnberg, 1675-79. Sandrart is the
German Vasari.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 291

been generally attributed to Albert Diirer: they represent the
Saviour and other figures, life size.

Although this painter was one of the most eminent of his time,
all we know of him in addition to what has been said is that he
lived chiefly in Regensburg: the report that he was the scholar of
Diirer wants confirmation. Regensburg was formerly rich in his
works, but many have been removed from it; only a few of his
paintings now remain there: the collections presented to the town
library by the lawyer Peuchel have been removed to Munich.
He seems to have given up engraving for painting in 1525, as that
is the last date on any of his prints: the last date on a picture is
1538, the supposed year of his death. A set of forty cuts of the
Fall of Man was published in 1604 as a series by Diirer. Strutt
considered the report that Holbein had studied the cuts of Altdorfer
to be borne out by a comparison of the works of the two masters.

Altdorfer is one of the best of the so-called German “little
masters,” from the smallness of their prints and cuts; he is second
only to Albert Direr of this school, as an engraver in wood; the
French call him le petit Albert. The woodcuts are the best of his
prints; they are supposed to have been engraved by himself.
Whether Albert Diirer ever cut in the wood is a matter of dispute.’
Altdorfer died about the year 1538.”

Hans Burexmair of Augsburg (1472-1559), rather the contem-
porary than follower of Albert Diirer, though he was doubtless
influenced by him, is ‘particularly distinguished for his woodcuts :
the Triumph of the Emperor Maximilian, in 135 large plates,
executed in 1519, is one of his most popular works in this class.
The various cuts attributed to Burgkmair amount to about 700.*
The Gallery at Munich has a good picture of Saints Liborius and
Eustace, by him, among several others that are indifferent.

Jost AMMAN was another remarkable artist of this school, though
a Swiss by birth; he was born at Zitirich in 1539, but established
himself in Nirnberg in 1560, and gave up his right of burghership
at Ziirich in 1577. Amman is also chiefly distinguished for his
woodcuts, which, according to some accounts, amount to upwards
of a thousand; they comprise almost every subject. One of his
most remarkable wqrks is Tavordia: it is a description of all the
principal trades and occupations of Amman’s time, and contains
115 illustrations on wood of various mechanics and tradesmen
in appropriate costume: Amman himself is represented as the

1 See the “Treatise on Wood Engraving, &c., with Illustrations by John Jack-
gon.”

2 Heineken, “ Dictionnaire des Artistes,” &c.; Bartsch, “ Peintre Graveur.”

4 See the “Treatise on Wood Engraving,” already quoted, which contains copies
of some of Burgkmair’s cuts.

u2
292 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

engraver. The book is very scarce; it was published first at
Frankfort, in 1564, and second and third editions appeared in 1574
and in 1588. Hans Sachs used the cuts for his work “ Eigentliche
Beschreibung aller Stinde auf Erden,”—Particular description of
all Ranks upon the Earth—which was printed at Frankfort, in 1568
and 1574. Another remarkable work is the “Icones Livianae,”
published in 1572-3, containing illustrations of Livy’s “ Roman
History.” There are several others by him of more or less merit
or interest. Siegmund Feyerabend, of Frankfort, was the publisher
of most of Amman’s works; and some were published after his
death: he died at Niirnberg in 1591.

His designs are nearly exclusively book illustrations; and
they comprise subjects from history, general and military costume,
field sports, natural history and heraldry. Strutt says of his style:
“It is neat and decided; but if his strokes are more regular than
was usual with the engravers of wood of his time, it is to be feared
that as much as he gained by the pains he took with this part of his
execution, he lost in freedom and spirit.” He was also an author;
he wrote a book on Poetry, Painting, and Sculpture, published at
Frankfort first in 1578, and later as a Manual of Painting—* Artis
Pingendi Enchiridion.”

Augsburg was already distinguished for its school of painting at
the beginning of the sixteenth century. Holbein was a native of
Augsburg, where he spent his youth, but his early manhood was
spent in Switzerland, and the remainder of his life in England.
The principal painter of Augsburg of this period was CHRISTOPHER
AMBERGER, the son of a stonemason of Amberg, and he was born
there, or at Niirnberg, about 1498. He is supposed to have been
the scholar of Hans Holbein the elder, and to have imitated the
style of the younger Holbein. He painted in distemper, and in
oil; and in the former method is said to have executed some very
successful works on the exteriors of houses at Augsburg. When
Charles V. visited Augsburg in the year 1532, he sat to Amberger,
and was so much pleased with the portrait when finished, that he
presented the painter with a gold chain and medal, and 36 rix-
dollars, about seven guineas, three times the price asked by Am-
berger; and Charles observed that it was as good a picture as the
one for which he had paid Titian 100 rix-dollars, about twenty
guineas. The Emperor was probably not a perfect judge of a
picture, though he may have been right in this instance. Am-
berger’s price of 12 dollars, or fifty shillings, here explained, was
not a bad price: we have already seen that Albert Diirer was con-
tent to draw a portrait for 20 pence. Titian’s fee of 100 rix-dollars
was certainly most princely payment for that age. The portrait by
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 293

Titian alluded to was painted at Bologna in 1530. There is a good
portrait of Charles by Amberger in the Gallery of Berlin, inscribed
Aetatis xxxu., which is probably the picture in question. Am-
berger died at Augsburg in 1568, aged about seventy.

Amberger’s oil-pictures are small, and consist chiefly of portraits,
after the manner of Holbein. FFiorillo' states that many of his
works pass as the originals of that painter, though they will not
bear comparison with those of Holbein for execution. Amberger’s
style generally is, like the characteristic hard gothic work of his
time in Germany, without any feeling for aérial perspective, though
the linear is observed; but some of his pictures are very well
coloured, and even freely handled, as the fine portrait of Sebastian
Minster, ascribed to him, in the Berlin Gallery, which is a superb
picture ; it is, however, not signed. His best works are at Amberg,
in the church of St. Martin, and. in the Franciscan convent there.
In the Berlin portrait of the Emperor Charles V., the colour is
thinly driven, with a clear outline, as in the heads of Holbein.

The Augsburg Gallery has a portrait of Henry VIIL., attributed
to Amberger, of the year 1535: this may be a copy from Holbein.
All the Holbeins preceded Amberger.

Hans Horsern the elder, the father of the celebrated painter, is
said to have been born at Augsburg about 1460; he was active
between 1495 and 1507, and died at Basel, in Switzerland. The
son, born in 1495, left Augsburg about 1510, so that Amberger
can have had but little opportunity of studying the works of the
son, certainly very rarely those painted in England; they were both
of the same age, and neither the art of the one nor the other can
have been developed at that time. Holbein formed himself in
Basel.’

If either, Amberger must have taken for his model the elder
Holbein, some of whose highly-finished works are in the Augsburg
Gallery, and in the Pinacothek at Munich: three in the Augsburg
Gallery were painted in 1495, 1502, and 1504. He has signed himself
Hans Hollbayn de Augusta, Hans Hotson, and Hans Holbein Civis
Augustanus. A still older Haws Howser was active at Augsburg
between 1459 and 1499; he was patronized by the Fuggers, and
there are good pictures by him bearing both dates. One a Madonna
and Child, signed Hans Horsein c.4. (civis Augustanus) 1459. The
other is the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Rome, signed
Hans Hoes, and dated 1499; now in the Gallery at Augsburg;
it was painted for Dorothy Rolingerin, for 45 florins.

Siemunp Hotsein, the uncle of the youngest Hans, became a

| “Geschichte der Mahlcrei in Deutschland,” &c., ii. p. 388,
2 See Chapter xxxiii. on Painting in England.
294 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

citizen of Bern, and in 1540 made his will, bequeathing all his
property in Bern to his celebrated nephew, then in England. The
National Gallery possesses a remarkable portrait ascribed to him,
presented by the Queen—a lady in a large white cap, of the maiden
name of Hoferin ; the picture is painted on deal.

Amsrostus and Bruno Hotsein were brothers of the youngest
Hans, the one older, the other younger than himself: they were
established at Basel.!. Ambrose was inscribed among the painters
of that place in 1517. There is a good small portrait ascribed to
Ambrose in the Belvedere Gallery, at Vienna.

Towards the close of the sixteenth century, the peculiar character
of German art was lost in the general imitation, real and imaginary,
of the great Italian masters, which from that time commenced
unopposed to influence all the Transalpine schools of Europe.
Martin Schaffner and Georg Penez, were among the first of the
Germans who attempted the 1 Italia style of design.

Martin ScHaFFNER was a citizen and an established painter at
Ulm in 1508, and was still living there in 1539 in great reputation,
as is evident from the price of 50 florins which he received for a
portrait in that year. It is judged from his rounder drawing, and
other qualities, that Schaffner must have studied in Italy; his
colouring seems faded. Till within the last forty years Schaffner was
unknown; his monagram, composed of an s on an M, having caused
his works to be assigned to the well-known Martin Schéen, though
the comparatively large style of Schaffner bears really no resem-
blance to the authentic works of the older master of Ulm. Among
the principal works of Schaffner are four large pictures, painted in
1524, from the life of the Virgin, in the Pinacothek at Munich:
one of them, the death of the Virgin, was lithographed by Strixner,
1812, as the work of Martin Schéen. Some works by him are in
the Wallerstein collection, purchased by the late Prince Consort.

Schaffner signed with a monagram composed of M.S., and M.S.Z.V.,
and M.S8.M.Z.V., which signifies Martin Schaffner Maler zu Ulm.
The cathedral of Ulm still possesses an altar-piece by him, painted
in 1521, A picture of the Holy Family, in the Vienna Gallery,
with a monagram similar to that of Schaffner, is dated 14903

Grore Pencz or Prns (about 1500-50), one of the best German
portrait-painters, was a native of Nirnberg, and a pupil of Albert
Direr. He went with Barth. Beham early to Italy, and studied en-
graving under Marcantonio at Rome, where he endeavoured at the
same time to appropriate the style of Raphael. Pencz acquired great

1 Pagsavant, “ Beitriige zur Kenutuiss der Alten Malerschulen Deutschlands,” in
the “ Kuntsblatt” for 1846. 2 Fr. Brulliot, “ Kunstblatt,” August 8, 1822.

3 Mcchel, “Catalogue des Tableaux, &e., de Vienne,” Basle, 1784, p. 233; and
the catalogues of Krafft or Engert.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 295

skill, and some distinction, as an engraver and as a portrait-
painter ; and he has executed also several religious pieces of
merit. The Galleries of Nirnberg, Augsburg, Munich, Vienna,
and Berlin, have some good specimens of the works of Pencz. His
copies from Marcantonio are said to pass for works by Marcantonio
himself. But Pencz’s prints, which amount to about 180, are
generally signed c.p.; they range from about 1530 to 1550. He died
at Breslau. There is an indifferent portrait attributed to him, at
Hampton Court; it is coarse and red: at Windsor is a more delicate
example.

The efforts at Italianizing northern art arose, according to Fuseli,
probably through the circulation of Marcantonio’s prints after
Raphael; and “ere long,” he observes, “the style of Michelangelo,
as adopted by Pellegrino Tibaldi, and spread by the graver of
Giorgio Mantuano, provoked those caravans of German, Dutch,
and Flemish students, who on their return from Italy, at the courts
of Prague and Munich, in Flanders and the Netherlands, introduced
that preposterous manner, the bloated excrescence of diseased
brains, which in the form of man left nothing human, distorted
action and gesture with insanity of affectation, and dressed the
gewgaws of children in colossal shapes; the style of Goltzius and
Spranger, Heynz and Ab Ach: but though content to feed on the
husks of Tuscan design, they imbibed the colour of Venice, and
spread the elements of that excellence which distinguished the suc-
ceeding schools of Flanders and of Holland.

“This frantic pilgrimage to Italy ceayed at the apparition of the
two meteors of art, Peter Paul Rubens and Rembrandt Van
Rhyn.”!

Hetyricn Gortztus, of Mulbracht, in Rhenish Prussia (1558-1617),
was brought up by his father as a glass-painter, but he preferred
engraving, to which he in his earlier life chiefly devoted himself.
He married at the age of twenty-one, and settled and died at Haar-
lem. Suffering from ill-health, he commenced in 1590, a tour
through Germany and Italy, in order to restore both body and
mind. He travelled, says Van Mander, under a feigned name,
with a servant; Goltzius occasionally acting the part of the servant
while the other represented the master: it was under these cir-
cumstances that he spent part of the year 1591 in Rome. He did
not take to painting till after his return from Italy, where he had
been greatly impressed by the prodigious works of Michelangelo in
the Sistine Chapel. He was one of the earliest of the northern
painters who laboured under the Michelangelo mania; his figures
are too obviously anatomical, but his colouring is rich. His reputa-

* Lecture IT,
296 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

tion now rests on his prints, which are numerous, but small:
they bear dates from 1578 to 1615, but were chiefly executed before
his Italian journey, in 1590.

Golizius’s contemporary, CorneLis Van Haarnem (1562-1637),
carried the representation of the nude to an excess, though he
does not appear to have ever visited Rome; he however studied for
a year at Antwerp, with Giles Coignet, who had lived some time in
Italy ; and Cornelis was himself a diligent student of casts from
ancient sculpture. The Gallery of the Hague possesses a remark-
able “ Murder of the Innocents” by Cornelis; a laborious well-
coloured picture, and with much fine drawing in parts, but wholly
devoid of taste. The Amsterdan Museum has a similar work,
painted in 1590, but very inferior to the Hague example: it is
altogether a detestable specimen of pictorial mannerism.

BarrHoLomzus Sprancer of Antwerp, where he was born in 1546,
studied first at Haarlem; then, in 1563, in France, and eventually
in Italy; at Milan and at Rome. In the Eternal City he was
patronized by the Cardinal Farnese, and by Pope Pius V., who
appointed Spranger his painter. In 1575 he left Rome by the invi-
tation of the Emperor Maximilian II., and settled in Prague. He
was afterwards still more highly honoured by the Emperor Ru-
‘dolph II., who in 1588 ennobled his family, adding the title Van
DEN ScuiLveE to the name of Spranger, He revisited his own country
in 1602 and was greatly féted, more certainly for his success and
position, than for any genuine admiration of his art: he returned to
Prague and died there, it is said, about 1625.

Spranger had great facility, painted from memory, and was
accordingly to the utmost degree mannered and incorrect. The
National Gallery possesses a monstrous work by him, entitled,
‘*Men destroyed by Dragons.”' His style quite justifies the sweep-
ing censure of Fuseli, quoted above: the long, general, and _bril-
liant success of such a painter is inexplicable; except under the
supposition that taste was generally corrupt at the close of the
sixteenth century, and especially so in Germany.

There is a large collection of Spranger’s works in the Gallery at
Vienna. Some of his best pictures are in the style of Vasari.

As Acu, or Hans Van Acuen, of Cologne (1552-1615), imitated
the style of Spranger. In his twenty-second year he went to Italy,
and was much struck by the magnificent colour of the Venetians,
of which he learnt some of the mysteries from Gaspar Rems, a
Fleming established at Venice. He then studied in Rome; and
was eventually installed as painter to the Elector of Bavaria, at
Munich, where he executed his best pictures. From Munich he

1 Presented by the Duke of Northumberland. Not exhibited.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 297

was invited to Prague by the Emperor Rudolph II.; and here he
lived the remainder of his life, constantly working for the Emperors
Rudolph and Matthias I., and the nobles of the Imperial court. He
had the reputation of being the richest artist of his time: he
married the daughter of the celebrated musician, Orlando di
Lasso.

Van Achen was a bold and easy painter, but, like Spranger, a
vicious mannerist, commonly disregarding both the antique and
nature, though he occasionally painted in the classical taste, and
has produced some fine portraits; as that of the Emperor Rudolph,
engraved by Raphael Sadeler, and that of ‘Spranger, engraved by
J. Miller. He was one of the principal agents in propagating that
gross and ponderous style, combining florid colour with ex-
aggerated forms, under the eclectic principle of uniting, in the
spirit of the vain boast of Tintoretto, the colouring of Titian with
the design of Michelangelo. With the cinquecento style of Italy
was revived also its most prominent subject, and heathen mytho-
logy again attained the ascendant.

The Gallery of Vienna possesses many of Van Achen’s works.
He was called Van Achen from the birth-place of his father, Aix-
la-Chapelle, or Aachen; the Schleissheim Gallery has a picture by
him, signed, Hans V. Acu. Fr. 1598.

Josrpa Heinz, of Bern (about 1565-1609), was the scholar of
Van Achen, but few of the circumstances of his life are known;
he was also a distinguished painter at the court of Rudolph II., who
sent him to Italy to complete his studies in Rome. Heinz studied
chiefly the works of Correggio, and considerably modified the manner
of Spranger and Van Achen. He obtained a great reputation by a
picture of “ The Rape of Proserpine,” and similar classical subjects,
painted for the Emperor Rudolph, at Prague.

Heinz died in the prime of life, leaving a son, and a beautiful
widow, who afterwards married the painter, MarrHaus GonpoLacu
of Cassel, who succeeded Heinz also in the Emperor’s favour.

The Gallery of Vienna possesses some small pictures by Heinz,
which are considered better than his larger works. The son was
also brought up as a painter, by his stepfather Gondolach. He was
in Venice with Sandrart.'

After the death of the Emperor Matthias in 1619, when the
Thirty years’ War had just commenced, the very flourishing school
of Prague was dispersed. Gondolach settled in Augsburg, where he
died, old, in 1653. He painted small pictures on copper, in the
manner of Heinz. In the Gallery of Vienna is such a picture of

1 Van Mander, “Het Schilder Boek,” &c.; Sandrart, “Teutsche Academic,”
&e., vol. i.; Fiorillo, “ Geschichte der Mahlerei in Deutschland,” vol. ii.

‘
298 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the “Marriage of St. Catherine, with various Saints,” in which
St. Matthew and St. Helena are portraits of the Emperor Matthias
and the Empress Anne: it is signed, M. Gondolach f. 1614.

CuristorHer Scuwarz of Ingolstadt (1550-97), enjoyed a great
position at the court. of the Elector, Wilhelm V., at Munich. He
had studied at Venice under Titian, and introduced into Munich
the practice of painting the exterior of the houses with frescoes.
The Galleries of Munich and Schleissheim still possess pictures by
Schwarz; and there are good altar-pieces by him in some of the
churches of Munich, and other towns of Bavaria: the Crucifixion, at,
Landshut, is considered one of his principal works.'

Jowann Rorrennammer, of Munich (1564-1622), another of the
many protégés of the Emperor Rudolph II., studied likewise in
Italy; at Rome, and at Venice, where he was chiefly taken up with
the works of Tintoretto, then still living. He married at Venice,
returned to Munich, and finally settled at Augsburg, where he died.

Rottenhammer painted some large altar-pieces, but he is now chiefly
remembered for his small mythological pictures, in which he was
aided with backgrounds sometimes by Velvet Brueghel, Paul Brill,
and other skilful landscape painters of his time. But sometimes
his figures are only accessories in the pictures of Brueghel. He
was unequal; being a man of extravagant habits, he was often in
want of money, and he then painted small worthless pictures at a
low price, for the dealers. On the other hand, many of his works,
especially his small pieces on copper, are elaborately executed,
and for some of these he received large prices; as for instance,
3,000 florins for a “Marriage at Cana,” from the Elector Palatine,
Johann Wilhelm. Though in constant receipt of a large income,
he spent it as fast as he made it, and died in poverty: Sandrart
says he squandered away at least 80,000 florins. The fine picture
of the “Feast of the Gods,” which Rottenhammer painted for the
Emperor Rudolph II., is now in the Gallery at Pommersfelden,
near Bamberg ; other pictures painted for this Emperor are in the
Belvedere Gallery at Vienna; where, and at Munich, Rottenhammer
is seen to advantage in his small works. The National Gallery
example is also a good specimen of them. Asa worthless example
of this master, if true, may be instanced the ‘Judgment of Paris”
at Hampton Court.

Among the good German painters who were not influenced by
the Italian machinists, of those who were acquainted with Italy,
may be especially distinguished Apam Erzutimer, who may be ac-
counted among the earliest genre-painters: Sandrart says he was
the first who painted small pictures at Rome.

Elzheimer, known also as Adam of Frankfort, was the son of a

1 Lipowsky, “ Baicrisclies Kiinstler Lexicon,” 1810.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 299

tailor of that city, where he was born in 1574. He studied under
Philip Uffenbach of Frankfort, and settled early in Rome, where,
as Avamo Trpesco, he acquired great distinction for his small
minutely-finished landscapes, on copper, into which he introduced
well-painted figures, from subjects both of Christian and classical
mythology, giving to both equal importance ; it is certain, however,
that there is more unity and character when some one element or
province preponderates. Elzheimer was also distinguished for his
night-pieces, with moonlight or with torch- or lamp-light effects,
and sometimes moonlight and torchlight combined in the same
picture ; in which, very properly, the effect of the light represented
is the prime feature. In these subjects, says Sandrart, he became
a model to other painters: as for example, “ The Flight into Egypt,”
in which Joseph leads the ass with one hand, and holds a torch in
the other; a subject treated by him several times. Sandrart also
tells us of Elzheimer’s enthusiastic love of nature: he would lie
half a day or a whole day, studying a cluster of trees or some
striking natural object, and without making any sketch would go
home and make a faithful picture of it. Turner and Horace
Vernet are reputed to have made similar studies, with like results.

Elzheimer married a Roman wife, and had so large a family that
he got into debt, as his pictures, by reason of the great labour he
bestowed upon them, did not pay him sufficiently to meet his
necessary expenses. He was cast into prison, and here he lost
courage, fell into a state of hopeless despondency, and died, in
1620, either in prison, or soon after he obtained his liberty, through
the intercession of Pope Paul V. Rubens, and his friend the Count
Goudt, are said to have liberally assisted him ; but it was in vain.

After his death Elzheimer’s reputation was greatly enhanced, and
as his pictures were exceedingly scarce, the works of Jacob Kénig
of Nurnberg, his imitator at Rome, were substituted for them, not
innocently but wilfully, Kénig’s signature being removed to further
the imposition, says Husgen.' There are about sixty engravings,
including a few duplicates, after the works of Elzheimer, twenty-
two of which are by Hollar, and seven, by the Count Hendrik
Goudt.? of Utrecht, who was a pupil and great patron of Elzheimer’s
at Rome. Elzheimer himself etched a few plates.

Among landscape and animal painters, Partie Roos of Frankfort
(1655-1705), called Rosa p1 Trvott, where he settled, was a bold and
effective painter. He was the son and pupil of John Henry Roos, a

1 « Artistisches Magazin,” Frankfort, 1790, p. 85. This writer went to a friend's
house to see an “ Elzheimer,” when to his astonishment he saw a picture which
he had known elsewhere as a signed “ Konig.”

2 This nobleman had a miserable end. When he returned home to Holland,
after the death of Elzheimer, some lady of Utrecht gave him in 1624 a love potion,
which so seriously injured him that it deprived him of his memory for the remainder
300 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

painter of similar subjects, and of some merit. Philip was consider-
ably mannered, but had extraordinary powers of execution, and
has left many works on a large scale. He died in Rome. Some of
the bolder works of Franz Werner Tamm, of Hamburg (1658-1724),
who likewise visited Rome, might be mistaken for those of Rosa di
Tivoli.

It would be an uninteresting labour to follow the Germans further ;
every petty capital has its own favourites, who reverse the old
proverb, and are unlike prophets, for while great in their own
country, they have little or no credit out of it. There are, indeed,
but very few German painters of the seventeenth or eighteenth
centuries who can justly claim a place in a summary general view
of the art, such as is attempted to be given in this work. The
Church was still the great patron of the German artists, but por-
trait, genre, landscape, animal, and architectural painting all had
their more or less worthy representatives.

Among these few painters may be mentioned CHRISTOPHER PAvD!T2,
an imitator, if not a pupil, of Rembrandt; who excelled in history,
portrait, and animal painting. He was a native of Lower Saxony,
but the date of his birth is unknown. The Gallery at Dresden
possesses a portiait of a young man, said to be his own, signed, and
dated 1600? Pauditz lived chiefly at Freising in Bavaria, where
he found a great patron in Albrecht Sigismund, Duke of Bavaria,
and made Bishop of Freising in 1639; his principal work is “ Christ
driving the Money Changers from the Temple,” in the old cathedral
of that city. His death is said to have taken place at Freising, in
consequence of a defeat in a competition with a painter of Nirn-
berg, of the name of Rosenhof; the subject was ‘“‘A Wolf destroying
a Lamb ;” both pictures are now in the Gallery at Munich, and are
dated on the back, 1666. That of Pauditz is the better performance,
certainly, but it is not particularly excellent; he has introduced
a skulking fox, watching his opportunity for a share in the prey.’
He has signed his name on this picture, Paudiss.

One of the most remarkable German painters of this period was
certainly BattrHasar Denner, who was the son of a Quaker of

of his life. Fiorillo, “Geschichte der Mahlerei in Deutschland,” ii. p. 553. His
seven plates after Elzheimer, are—* Tobias andthe Angel,” 1608; the same subject,
1613; “Ceres,” known as “The Witch,’”’ 1610; “Philemon and Baucis,’ 1612;
“The Flight into Egypt by Moonlight,” 1613; a small landscape, 1613; and
“The Beheading of John the Baptist,” oval, marked H. G.

1 Francesco Londonio of Milan (1723-83), better known for his etchings of
animals and landscapes, also painted in the manner of this painter.

2 Lipowsky, “ Baierisches Kiinstler Lexicon,” 1810; Schafer, “ Gemaelde-Gal-
lerie zu Dresden,” &c., 1860.
DURER AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES. 301

Hamburg, where he was born November the 15th, 1685. He died
at Rostock, April the 14th, 1749. He was chiefly a portrait-painter,
and was sometimes minute in his execution, even to the marking
of the peculiarities of the skin. Yet with all his microscopic finish,
his heads have an artificial effect, and appear less natural than the
bold and often even carelessly handled portraits of Paul Veronese
or Velazquez, Titian or Vandyck, Rembrandt or Reynolds : we
neither do see, nor care to see, such details as Denner loved to
elaborate. The great painters mentioned managed to produce a more
natural, and, therefore, a really more finished effect, with one tenth
of Denner’s labour : though there never was a great painter who
achieved his position without great labour, labour alone has never
made a great painter. The world was, however, fascinated by
Denner’s finish, and he was greatly patronized by the Courts of
Northern Europe. A fall in his youth made him a cripple for life,
and this circumstance inducing sedentary habits, no doubt con-
tributed much to that patient endurance which enabled him to
carry out his elaborate system of finishing. Some of his examples
of youth and age are taken from his own family, from his father
and mother and children. He married in 1712, and his wife
accompanied him in all his numerous journeyings; comprising a
visit to London in 1715, and again in 1721, when he was offered
500 guineas for the head of an old woman, which was afterwards
bought by the Emperor Charles VI. for 4700 florins (470/.), and
is now at Vienna, where also is his own portrait, painted in 1726.
Denner lived several years in England, and Hampton Court
possesses some disagreeable specimens of his highly-finished heads.
Excessive finish was rather exceptional with Denner; his ordinary
portraits were necessarily less elaborate than his professedly
sensation heads. He painted also miniatures, and fruit and flower
pieces, distinguished for their high finish.

Domiyicus Van per Smissen (1704-60), his pupil and brother-in-
law, painted in imitation of his style, and the works of the pupil
occasionally pass for those of the master; they are, however, usually
less laboured and much better, being executed with greater general
taste.’ Curistian SxvBop of Mainz (1697-1768), court painter to
Maria Theresa, was another good imitator of Denner, and a refine-
ment on him.

One of the most versatile geniuses of the later German painters
was Joann WitueLm Ernst Dietricu, who enjoyed a great repu-
tation at Dresden, where he was keeper of the celebrated Picture
Gallery. He was born at Weimar in 1712, and learnt painting
of I, Avexanper THiELe (1685-1752), the German Canaletto, by

1 « Hamburgisches Kunstler Lexicon,” 1854.
302 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

whom there are many good views at Dresden. Dietrich died at
Dresden April 24th, 1774. He painted almost all subjects, and was
remarkable for the facility and fidelity with which he imitated
the style and manner of other masters. After his Italian visit in
1733, he sometimes wrote his name Dietricy.

One more master deserves especial mention—Dominix Quactio,
who may take rank among the best architectural painters of any
time or country. He was born at Munich in 1787, and was taught
painting by his father, a scene-painter there; and Dominik com-
menced his own career in the same capacity. He soon forsook this
occupation, however, for architectural painting, and excited uni-
versal admiration by his carefully-studied pictures of the old Gothic
cathedrals, and other medieval buildings of Germany: he has
drawn also, in lithography, many admirable views on a large scale
of the most interesting old places in South Germany, in any way
remarkable for their architecture: one of the most delightful of
these is the Market Place of Nuremberg, 1819. Quaglio made also
many drawings in Italy for Gally Knight. He died on the 9th
of April, 1837, at Hchenschwangau, the castle of which he was
restoring for the late King of Bavaria, Maximilian II., then crown
Prince.

 

Christ mocked.—Albert Diirer.
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 303

CHAPTER XXV.

THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS AT ROME AND FLORENCE IN THE SIXTEENTH
: CENTURY.

THE accession of Adrian Florent of Utrecht, the tutor of Charles V.,
as Adrian VI., to the Papal chair, for a time paralyzed the arts : he was
wholly indifferent to them. The extravagance and worldliness of
his predecessors had reduced the temporal and spiritual affairs of
the Papal State and Church to a condition of ruin and disorder
beyond remedy. The great schism in the Church was rapidly
increasing; and Adrian, who has the character of having been a
conscientious man, was too much occupied by the anxieties of his
high office to turn any attention to the pursuits and enterprises of
his worldly predecessors.

In the year 1527, however, a much greater calamity happened to
the arts of Rome, in the sack of the city by the soldiers of Charles V.,
under Bourbon,' when the great school of Raphael was dispersed over
Italy. The Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici (Clement VII.) was then
Pope: he was a man of a very different character from Adrian ;
and when Rome had somewhat recovered from the excesses of that
memorable year, affairs began to assume their usual course previous
to the accession of Adrian. Giulio, a true Medici, was ambitious
and worldly, and costly undertakings in art were again commenced.
Clement VII. ordered the completion of the decorations of the
Sistine Chapel, and the Last Judgment by Michelangelo was com-
menced a few months before the death of this Pope. His successor
Paul III. was equally desirous of the prosecution of the picture,
which was at length finished, after a lapse of eight years in its
progress, during the reign of that Pope. This great work, how-
ever, appears to have contributed chiefly to hasten the decline of
the art. Hosts of copyists and mannerists arose, who, possessed,
from this great example, with a mania for representing the naked
human figure, sacrificed almost every beauty, quality, and motive,
to the paramount desire of anatomical display; and apparently
imagining the perfection of design to exist in violent action and
muscular protuberance, imitated only the manner, while they per-
suaded themselves that they had acquired the art, of Michelangelo.

The picture of the Last Judgment found many disapprovers even

1 Benvenuto Cellini, in his autobiography, gives a circumstantial account of some
of the incidents of this barbarous invasion, and claims the credit of having shot
Bourbon with his own hand: this is doubted, but some other homicides he boasts
of are no doubt true enough. See also Vasari, “ Vite,” &.
304 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

in the lifetime of Michelangelo, and the chief objection to it was its
nudities. Other weightier objections have been made to it since; a
want of appropriate sentiment and dignity being the most common
objection. The Richardsons’ opinion constitutes a summary of the
condemnatory criticisms which have been passed upon it :—‘‘ The
Vault is, I think, better than the Judgment,' which is full of
shocking improprieties and absurdities, though some of these have
been corrected since by other hands, by covering with draperies
what was most offensive. But the wrong manner of thinking in
other respects could not be so easily altered, unless by demolishing
the whole work. There is indeed a great variety of attitudes of a
human body, in which is seen profound skill in anatomy, as the
authors who so extravagantly commend this picture say. This
would have been a good character for a drawing-book, but it is a
very improper one for such a subject as the Last Judgment.”

This corrupt taste, which may be termed the anatomical, prevailed
both at Rome and Florence some years before the death of Michel-
angelo, who therefore may be said to have outlived the style which
he himself had created; and he who in the time of Julius II. had
himself been chiefly instrumental in raising painting to the high
degree which it attained in the pontificate of Leo X. lived to see it
degenerate, greatly through his own influence, into a mere handi-
craft in the time of Pius IV.

One of the most distinguished painters of this period, whose
style was a compound of those of Michelangelo and Raphael, with-
out the correctness or purity of the latter, and with only the
manner of the former, was GrroLamo Muziano, born at Acquafredda,
near Brescia, in 1530; he acquired his art under his celebrated
countryman Romanino, and afterwards spent some time in Venice,
devoting himself, as was orthodox, to the works of Titian, but, as
was not usual, was most fascinated by the landscape backgrounds

1 This extract proves Platner (“Beschreibung der Stadt Rom,” i. p. 503, note)
to be wrong, when he says that Carstens and other Germans were the first in
modern times to assert the superiority of the paintings of the Vault over the Last
Judgment. Asmus Jacop Carstens (1754-98), a native of Schleswig, and an
enthusiastic admirer of Michelangelo and high epic art, acquired a great reputation
by his vigorous designs from the ancient poets. He is considered to have roused
the Germans of the eighteenth century from their drowsy academical mechanism,
and to have been the pioneer to the new poetic and ethic sentiment which dis-
tinguishes their artists of the present age.

2 « An account of Statues,” &c., 1722, p.270. Daniele da Volterra painted some
of the draperies alluded to, in the life-time of Michelangelo, who had declined to do
it. Paul IV. was then Pope, and he threatened, in consequence of this refusal, to
destroy the whole picture: the affair was, however, finally accommodated by
Daniele, a favourite scholar of Michelangelo; but he went afterwards by the nick-
name of Braghettone (breeches or breeches-maker).——“ Beschreibung von Rom,” ii. 1.
293.
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 305

of that great painter. Such was Muziano’s delight in landscape
painting, that when he first settled in the Eternal City, while still
young, he was known as Girolamo dei Paesi. He was, however,
excellent in figures, in which he somewhat anticipated the purism
of the academicians, though at some slight cost to natural truth
and vigour. Michelangelo, however, who was still working in
Rome when Muziano settled there, had a high opinion of him, and
pronounced him one of the best masters of his age: he was not
altogether absorbed by the anatomical mania of that time, though
he was by no means free from it. His master-piece was considered
the ‘‘ Raising of Lazarus,” which was formerly in Santa Maria
Maggiore at Rome, but it has disappeared. This was a favourite
subject with him; he painted a Lazarus for the cathedral of
Orvieto in 1556; and there was one in the Orleans collection; and
there is a small one in the Louvre, from the church of San Luigi dei
Francesi at Rome, which may be the sketch of the celebrated pic-
ture by which he gained so much credit; not that work itself.

Muziano executed many good portraits; and he completed the
drawings of the bas-reliefs of the Pillar of Trajan, which were
commenced by Giulio Romano, and are engraved by Villamena,
He was the projector of the Roman Academy of St. Luke, which was
founded by Gregory XIII., and was its first president. He was
also, as architect, superintendent of the Vatican: he built the
Cappella Gregoriana ; and the perfection also of the Roman manu-
facture of mosaic was greatly indebted to the labours of Muziano.
He died at Rome, April 27th, 1592.

Tappro and Feperico Zuccuero, of Sant’ Angelo in Vado, were
the chief rivals of Muziano in Rome. Taddeo died September 2nd,
1566, aged thirty-seven, and was buried near Raphael in the Pan-
theon. Federigo had a long and great career, not only in Italy but
in other European countries. He executed some vast works in the
cathedral of Florence, but they were distinguished for their vast-
ness alone. He succeeded Girolamo Muziano as President of the
Academy of St. Luke at Rome. This academy was, however, not
completely established until 1595, after the death of Muziano, and
when Zucchero returned from Spain, in the pontificate of Sixtus V.
Federigio died in 1609, at Ancona, aged sixty-six. He left writings
on the arts, which, according to Lanzi, are full of bombast and
pedantry; and he adds that, instead of instruction, they present a
mere tissue of undigested speculations; and that all that. Zucchero
wrote, put together, is not worth one page of Vasari. At Hampton
Court there are two portraits of Queen Elizabeth by Federigo; and
a full-sized picture of her gigantic porter, dated 1580; also the
Calumny of Apelles, already noticed, and other works by him.

1 Baglione, “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &e.
x
306 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Taddeo was a superior painter to his brother. His principal
works are the frescoes of the palace of Caprarola, painted for
Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, and illustrating the glories of the
Farnese family.'

The principal contemporaries of the Zuccheri at Rome were—
Girolamo Siciolante of Sermoneta, Marcello Venusti, and Livio
Agresti of Forli, all scholars of Pierino del Vaga; also Scipione
Pulzone, called from his birthplace, Gaetano, the scholar of Jacopo
del Conte, who were both excellent portrait-painters.

In SeRMoNETA, a good oil-painter, and very successful in portraits,
was still living in 1572. Livio Aegresti died about 1580; he ex-
celled in oil and in fresco,

Maxcetto Venvsti, born at Mantua in the early part of the six-
teenth century, spent much of his life at Rome, but died in Florence
before 1585. He was the scholar of Michelangelo as well as of
Pierino. He executed several works from Michelangelo’s drawings
and compositions, among which is conspicuous the admirable small
oil picture of the “Last Judgment,” now in the Gallery of Naples;
it was copied under Michelangelo’s own superintendence, for the
Cardinal Farnese, and now, owing to the decayed state of the original
fresco, is of the utmost interest. Venusti excelled in works on a
small scale, and in portraits? the Capitol at Rome possesses a
portrait of Michelangelo by him. In the Manchester Exhibition,
contributed by Mr. J. 8. Harford, was a fine small copy by Venusti
of Sebastiano del Piombo’s fresco of the “Scourging of Christ,” in
San Pietro in Montorio, Rome, signed Ma. Venu. 1552. Ap. S. VEn.
, JACOPO, or JACOPINO DEL Conte (1510-98), born at Florence, lived
chiefly, and died, at Rome : though he executed some historical works,
both in fresco and in oil, he was chiefly distinguished as a portrait-
painter: this was a branch of art greatly patronized towards the
close of the sixteenth century at Florence and Rome, as well as at
Venice, where it more especially flourished. Pu1zone, or SciPIonE DA
Gaeta, as he is likewise called, died about 1590, aged thirty-eight.

Yet though the great works of Michelangelo were executed at
Rome, they influenced chiefly the painters of Florence, who were
not, like those of Rome, restrained in their imitation of Michel-
angelo by any veneration for the genius of Raphael. What has
been called the anatomical style was therefore much more palpable
and predominant at Florence than at Rome. Matter prevailed over
mind generally with the painters of this period.

1 Sebastiani, “ Descrizione e Relazione Istorica del real Palazzo di Caprarola,’”’
Rome, 1741. The paintings were engraved in 45 plates by J. J. Prenner, Rome,
1748-50. See the Article on the Zuccheri in the “Penny Cyclopedia.”

2 Baglione, “ Vite dei Pittori, &., del Pontificato di Gregorio XIII,” &c., 4to.,
Naples, 1733.
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 307

Anprra Vannuccul, or ANDREA D’AG@NoLo, that is, Andrea the son
of Angelo, called Det Sarto, from the trade of his father, who was a
tailor, must be accounted among the contemporaries, not the fol-
lowers, of Michelangelo. He was born in Florence in 1488, and
was the pupil of Piero di Cosimo. Though Andrea, from his early
admiration and study of the Cartoon of Pisa, acquired the peculiar
characteristics of Michelangelo’s style of design, the subject or
motive of his works took precedence of the mere outward forms of
art. Andrea was invited by Francis I. to France, whither he
went in 1518; but his wife, Lucrezia del Fede, a widow to whom
he had been only a few years married, induced him to return to
Italy for her. Andrea arrived in Florence with a sum of money
belonging to the king, with which Francis had trusted him to lay
out in art purchases in Italy for him. This money, seduced by the
habits of his wife, Andrea squandered in pleasure, and dared not
return to France. He died at Florence of the plague in 1530, aged
only forty-two. The National Gallery possesses a fine portrait of
him by his own hand. It is marked with the painter’s usual sig-
nature, a monogram composed of two A’s, one of which is inverted,
and signifying Andrea d’Agnolo.

Andrea is chiefly distinguished for his Holy Families in oil: but
he painted also several extensive works in fresco. In light and
shade and colour he appears to have been an imitator of Fra Barto-
lomeo. The Madonna del Sacco (so called from the sack which
Joseph is reclining on), a celebrated work by Andrea, is a portion of
the frescoes of the Convent of the Santissima Annunziata at Florence,
in which there are also some other excellent works by this painter.'
Some of his altar-pieces in oil, also, are very fine ; as the “Madonna
di San Francesco,” in the Tribune at Florence. The scholars of
Andrea, whom his admirers have called Andrea senza errori, that is,
the faultless, appear to have been much less led away by the pre-
vailing bad taste of the time than the majority of their Florentine
contemporaries. The works of In Rosso also, or Rosso pr’ Rosst,
known likewise as Giovambattista di Jacopo, called Maitre Roux by
the French, were a worthy exception to the generally corrupt taste
of the period. He was born in Florence about 1496, and became a
student of the works of Michelangelo. After painting in many cities
of Italy, he was invited about 1530, by Francis I., to France, and
was intrusted by that king with the superintendence of the works
and decorations of Fontainebleau, for which he received a salary of
400 crowns per annum, besides a residence in Paris and at Fontaine-

1 Vasari, “Vite de’ Pittori,” &c.; Biadi, “Notizie inedite della Vita d’Andrea
del Sarto, raccolte da manoscritti e documenti autentici?’ Florence, 1829. The
writer supposed Andrea to have been born in 1478, but he has confounded hini
with another Andrea. See the Le Monnier Vasari.

x2
308 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

bleau. In 1541, however, in an unlucky hour, he accused his
friend and assistant, Francesco Pellegrini, of having stolen some
ducats of which he had been robbed; but Pellegrini, after suffering
torture, was declared innocent, and Rosso, from remorse and shame
together, poisoned himself; much to the great grief and astonishment
of Francis, and of his own assistants. But few of I] Rosso’s works
remain at Fontainebleau, most of them were wantonly destroyed by
his successor and rival Primaticcio: those that are preserved were
restored by the orders of Louis Philippe, when he repaired the
palace at Fontainebleau. Rosso’s style was both grand and graceful,
but he failed in colouring: his oil or easel pictures are very scarce ;
one of the best is ‘‘ The Rival Songs of the Muses and the Pierides,”
in the Louvre, until recently attributed to Pierino del Vaga, but
now on sufficient authority restored to Il Rosso. This name of
Rosso, or Maitre Roux, seems to have been given to him on account
of his red hair: he was, it is said, a remarkably handsome man.
The so-called ‘school of Fontainebleau,” characterised by its man-
nered proportions, was not so much developed by Rosso, its founder,
as by Primaticcio, who was an imitator of Parmigiano.

Marcantonio Francrapiaio (1483-1524) studied with Albertinelli,
and was the companion rather than the scholar of Andrea; he
completed his frescoes in the Scalzo. Vasari speaks of Franciabigio
as an unrivalled fresco-painter: he executed, in competition with
Andrea, a ‘‘ Marriage of the; Virgin,” in the court of the Annunciata;
but the monks having uncovered the fresco before it was quite
finished, the incensed painter wilfully damaged the head of the
Virgin, and the injuries still remain as a monument of his own
folly: nothing could induce him to repair the work, Domenico
Puuieo, of Florence (1475-1527), was a good imitator of Andrea del
Sarto, and excelled in Holy Families, Madonnas, and portraits: his
works are frequently mistaken for those of Andrea.

Giuttano Buetarpini, of Florence (1481-1556), painted in the
style of Albertinelli his master, and excelled in portraits. He called
himself Julius Florentinus, and signed JVL. FLO. FAC. ; the Berlin
Gallery possesses a good picture of the “ Virgin adoring the Infant
Christ” so signed. Michelangelo sat to Bugiardini for his portrait.

Among the most distinguisned masters of this age and school
were also Sebastiano del Piombo; Daniele Ricciarelli da Volterra ;
Giorgio Vasari; Francesco Granacci; Francesco Rossi del Salviati ;
Jacopo da Pontormo; Angelo Bronzino; and Alessandro Allori;
all painters of great fame.

Fra SEBASTIAVO DEL Piompo! was a native of Venice, but is chiefly

! Del Piombo, that is, of the leaden seals; the bearer of the leaden seals was an
officer of the Papal court. Sebastian’s family name was Luciani. Biagi, “Sopra
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 309

distinguished as the companion and imitator of Michelangelo, to
whom the designs of some of his best pictures are attributed.
Such is the report concerning the Lazarus, in the large picture of
the Resurrection of Lazarus, in the National Gallery. Michel-
angelo, indeed, is said to have designed this picture, and to have
induced Sebastian to paint it in oil in competition with the Trans-
figuration of Raphael; a tradition for which I can find no real
foundation. Sebastian was correct in his design, an excellent
colourist, and was one of the greatest portrait-painters of his own
or any other age. There is probably no portrait in the world that
surpasses in dignity and grandeur the half-length figure by Sebas-
tian, of Andrea Doria, now in the Doria Palace at Rome. The
National Gallery possesses also a good specimen of Sebastian’s
portrait-painting in the picture of himself with the Cardinal Ippolito
de’ Medici, though it is so obscured by its opaque coat of oil varnish
as to be now scarcely visible. The hard massive female portrait in
the Gallery, formerly supposed to represent Julia Gonzaga, whom
Sebastian painted at Fondi, represents an Italian lady as St. Agatha,
and was painted in Rome; it is signed F. Szpastianus Ven, Facir-
BAT Roma. Mr. Thomas Baring has a fine example of the more
delicate work of Sebastian del Piombo, a “Holy Family, with
St. John the Baptist.”

The great picture of Lazarus is Sebastian’s master-piece, and is at
the same time one of the grandest examples of Italian oil-painting.
It was painted in Rome, and completed in 1519, for the Cardinal
Giulio de’ Medici, Bishop of Narbonne, afterwards Pope Clement
VII. The “Transfiguration” by Raphael, and this picture, were
both painted for this prelate, one of them to be placed in the
cathedral of Narbonne ;! the Cardinal was made Bishop of Nar-
bonne by Francis I. in 1515,. the commission for these pictures
was therefore subsequent to that date, and it is quite possible that
the sending of the “ Lazarus” of Sebastian del Piombo to Narbonne
was the result of an afterthought, to preserve the last work of the
deceased Raphael for Rome. Both pictures were publicly exhibited
together in Rome, and there were not wanting those who preferred
the work of Sebastian to that of Raphael.

The “Raising of Lazarus” was sent to Narbonne after Raphael’s
death, and remained there until it was purchased by the Duke of
Orleans early in the eighteenth century: it was brought to this
country with the rest of the Orleans pictures in 1792, and was
purchased by Mr. Angerstein, with whose collection it was bought
for the nation in 1824.

Ja Vita ed i Dipinti di Fra Seb. Luciani sopranominato Del Piombo,” in the
« Atento di Venezia,” vol. i, 1827.
* Passavant, “ Rafacl von Urbino,” &e.. vol. ii, p. 358.
310 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

According to Vasari, Sebastian was assisted by Michelangelo in
the design of this picture. Sir Thomas Lawrence was in possession
of two drawings of the Lazarus, which are attributed to Michel-
angelo; (they passed afterwards into the King of Holland’s collec-
tion, and have again changed hands). The great Florentine artist
is known to have made several sketches as suggestions for the
restoration of the ancient fragment in the Vatican known as the
Torso of Apollonius; and as the Lazarus is in the same attitude, it
is possible that it was adopted from one of these sketches, but the
aid of Michelangelo can have gone little beyond this. Michelangelo
was not in Rome when the picture was painted: there is no pub-
lished record of any visit by him to Rome between 1513 and 1525,
although from a passage in a letter from Sebastian in Rome to him in
Florence, dated 29th December, 1519, he must have visited Rome in
the meanwhile, or Sebastian’s picture was commenced before 1513.

The Cardinal had decided that the price of the picture should be
fixed-by Michelangelo and Maestro Domenico (probably Puligo,
who was the same age as Michelangelo), but was satisfied that
Sebastian and Michelangelo alone should settle it; and Sebastian
writes for the decision at once, as he was then very poor. His
words are: “It is enough that you saw the picture commenced, and
that it has forty figures altogether, besides those of the landscape,”
an expression he would not have used if Michelangelo had had any
hand in the painting, or even the composition of the picture.
Sebastian died at Rome in 1547, in the sixty-second year of his age.

DanieLe Ricctareui, called, from his birth-place, Da Votrerra,
where he was born in 1509, was perhaps the greatest of Michel-
angelo’s followers. His fresco of the Taking Down from the Cross,
in the church of the Trinita de’ Monti, is reckoned one of the finest
pictures in Rome, being classed with the Transfiguration by Ra-
phael, the Communion of St. Jerome by Domenichino, and other
celebrated works.? Daniele was more correct in design than Michel-
angelo; yet though his women, says Mengs,* have more grace,
they are ugly; but his draperies were even worse than Michel-
angelo’s; and he was also wholly deficient, says “Mengs, in chia-
roscuro. The picture of David and Goliath, on slate, in the Louvre,
and painted on both sides, formerly ascribed to Michelangelo, is by

1 “Basta che avete visto l'opera principiato et che ha quaranta figure in tutto
senza quelle del paese.” ‘The letter was published by Woodburn in the Catalogue
of the Lawrence Drawings.

2 This picture has been often engraved. It is still in the church of the Trinita
de’ Monti, but not in the chapel in which it was originally painted; and, is about
to be removed to Paris. It was transferred from the wall to canvas by* Pietro
Palmaroli in 1811, being the first fresco that was so transferred. This difficult
process is described in the article Fresco in the “Supplement to the Penny
Cyclopedia.” Platner, “ Beschreibung der Stadt. Rom.” iii. 3, 385.

3 « Werke,’ Halle, 1786, vol. i. p. 234.
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 311

Daniele. He died at Rome, April 4th, 1566, having devoted his
attention latterly chiefly to sculpture.

Jacoro Caruccr pa Powrormo (1494-1556) and his scholar Bron-
zino, though followers of the anatomical school of Michelangelo,
were two of the earliest good portrait-painters among the Floren-
tines, and were both occasionally admirable in the style.of their
figures. Pontormo, in his earlier works, when under the influence
of his master Andrea, was dignified and graceful in his figures,
animated and expressive in his heads, and in his colouring rich and
harmonious. The best of his remaining works are his portraits:
his great frescoes of the church of San Lorenzo, which occupied
him eleven years, have been long since whitewashed; they were,
however, at their best, mannered and worthless. The portrait of a
young Florentine nobleman, by Pontormo, in the National Gallery,
is a fine example of his great power as a portrait-painter, and does
honour to the Florentine school of portrait-painters.

ANGELO Bronzino, born at Monticelli, in the neighbourhood of
Florence, in 1502, was fully as mannered and as unequal in his
works as his master Pontormo: on some occasions exciting even
disgust by his exceeding want of taste in his style, and at others
commanding our admiration by his wonderful ability both in draw-
ing and in painting. His defects are conspicuous in his most
celebrated oil-picture, the ‘‘ Limbo” of the Uffizj Gallery at
Florence, hard and mannered in the extreme; and his higher
excellences are perhaps as conspicuous in the admirable allegory of
“Sensual Love,” in our National Gallery. Grand as this picture is
in the quality of its drawing, it is perhaps still more remarkable for
its mere painting. The forms are in parts exquisite, the colouring
even is beautiful, all the most trivial accessories are executed with
equal care and skill, There is no finer figure in art than the boy
Folly just on the point of throwing his handful of roses at the insidi-
ous Goddess of Beauty: the terrible head of Envy is as masterful in
its degree. The whole sixteenth century, perhaps, did not produce
a more admirable example of what the painter’s art is capable,
than this picture. Vasari informs us that it was painted for Francis I.
of France, and well characterises it as a work of “singular
beauty.” A “ Knight of St. Stephen,” by Bronzino, in the National
Gallery, is also a fine specimen of Italian portrait-painting.

Bronzino was a devoted admirer of Michelangelo, and the inti-
mate friend of Vasari; he died at Florence in 1572, having reached
his seventieth year.

His nephew and scholar, ALussanpro AtLori (1535-1607), also
called Bronzino, though an exceeding great mannerist in his
historical compositions, was a very good painter of portraits. He
published a Treatise on Anatomy for artists, in 1590.
312 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Giorcio Vasant, the great historian of Italian art, born at Arezzo
in 1512, was likewise a companion of Michelangelo’s, and was
completely an imitator of his style in design. He executed vast
works at Florence, and was also much engaged elsewhere, and
acquired a great name in his day; but he was a thorough mannerist,
though his design is generally good and occasionally dignified.
His present reputation is exclusively owing to his’ charming and
valuable collection of biographies of the most celebrated Italian
artists, down to his own time. This work, though partial to the
Florentines, is the chief source of our information concerning the
rise and progress of art in Italy.!| He died at Florence, June 27,
1574, aged sixty-two, and was buried at Arezzo, Vasari was
quite aware of the mannerism of his own time, and deprecates it
in his life of Raphael: “ We paint,” he remarks, “six pictures in a
year, while the earlier masters took six years to paint one picture.”

Francesco Granaccr (1469-1544) was the friend and fellow-
student with Michelangelo, in the school of Ghirlandajo, and be-
came afterwards an able imitator of his style: the Florentine
Galleries contain some good pictures by Granacci; and he is seen
to advantage in the Pinacothek at Munich and in the Gallery of
Berlin.

Francesco Rosst (1510-63), called also CreccHino pet SaLviatTt, from
his patron the cardinal of that name, was the intimate associate of
Vasari, and as great a mannerist. Salviati was in Venice in 1540,
and painted in many cities of Italy, but chiefly in Florence and in
Rome, where his patron the cardinal resided. He completed the
great altar-piece of the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo, left
unfinished by Sebastiano del Piombo. In 1554 he visited France,
but returned dissatisfied the following year. The National Gallery
possesses a small characteristic example by this painter, represent-
ing “ Charity.”

Though this is spoken of as a period of decline or deterioration,
it was so in taste or style only, not in technical power; on the
contrary, technical skill, and such as are usually considered as
academical qualities, were more highly developed than previously.
The very facility of the artist was fatal to the art. Where the
artist was in a measure limited by his subject, as in a portrait,
there was little scope for the corruption of manner so prevalent in
arbitrary compositions; the consequence was much really excellent
painting in that department of art, which, from its very excellence,
produced a reaction on the public taste, and caused this to be an

de Vite de’ pit eccellenti Pittori, Scultori,e Architetti.” As alrcady noticed, there
are several editions of this work; but that lately published by Le Monnier at
Florence in 13 vols., 12mo, is much the most valuable, on account of its numcrous
notes and commentaries in which modern discoveries are embodied.
THE ANATOMICAL MANNERISTS. 313

epoch of portraiture. There is scarcely a painter mentioned in
this chapter who was not a portrait-painter, and many of them
were great masters. of portrait; several the greatest of their
time.

Another painter of great reputation at Rome of this period, and
who to a great extent avoided the prevalent mannerism in form,
though a great admirer of Michelangelo, was Barocci; he appears,
however, to have failed in colouring.

Feper1go Baroccr was born at Urbino, in the Papal State, in
1528. His father Ambrogio Barocci, a sculptor, originally of a
Milanese family, gave him his first instruction in design; he was
afterwards placed with the distinguished painter Barrisra Franco
(1498-1561), a native of Udine, called sometimes I] Semolei, who
spent some time at Urbino in the service of the Duke Guidu-
baldo II. After the departure of Franco, who settled in Venice,
Barocci also left Urbino, and accompanied his uncle Bartolomeo
Genga, the duke’s architect, who taught him perspective, to Pesaro,
then under the dominion of the Dukes of Urbino; his uncle pro-
cured him permission to copy some pictures by Titian in the ducal
gallery there.

In 1548 Barocci visited Rome, devoting his time chiefly to the
study of the works of Raphael. He made the acquaintance there
of Taddeo Zucchero, and of Giovanni da Udine; he attracted also
the notice of Michelangelo, who encouraged him to persevere in
his studies.

After his return to Urbino, Barocci painted several pictures
which gained him great reputation. His admiration was at this
time excited by some parts of cartoons and crayon drawings of
heads by Correggio, which a painter had brought from Parma, and
which Barocci successfully imitated. This appears to have been
his only opportunity of studying after Correggio; yet he may have
acquired his peculiar softness of light and shade, well illustrated in
the “ Madonna del Gatto,” in the National Gallery, in some measure
from copying these fragments. The great knowledge of chiar-
oscuro, which they no doubt exhibited, may have fixed his atten-
tion; and to one accustomed to the works of the Roman school,
such a quality would, in some degree, have the charm of novelty, in
addition to its own inherent attraction.

In 1560 Barocci returned to Rome, and was employed in the
following year by Pius I1V., with Federigo Zucchero, in the Vatican.
While engaged in this work he was nearly poisoned, by some rival,
as supposed. Though the attempt failed, it wholly incapacitated
Barocci for painting for four years, and afflicted him for the
remainder of his life, fifty-two years, with a disease of the stomach
which rendered it impossible for him to work for more than two
314 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

hours in the day. From the period of this misfortune, with the
exception of three years passed at Perugia, and during which he
paid a short visit to Florence, Barocci spent the remainder of his
long life at Urbino, where he died of apoplexy on the last day of
September, 1612, aged eighty-four: he was buried there in the
church of San Francesco, with all the ceremony due to his great
merits and reputation.

Barocci executed several large and excellent altar-pieces, some
of which he etched himself—as the Pardon of San Francesco
d’Assisi, at Urbino, in 1581; and The Annunciation, at Loreto, a
few years later; two of his master-pieces.

According to his biographer Bellori, he invariably sketched his
attitudes from nature ; and he is said to have generally made models
of his figures, which he dressed in the required costume. He first
designed his compositions in chiaroscuro; from the sketch he made
a cartoon of the size of the intended picture, from which he traced
the outline upon his canvas, and then painted from a coloured
sketch.

Barocci is generally said to have founded his style upon the
works of Raphael and Correggio: his design is correct and his
colouring rich and varied, but his productions bear little resem-
blance in either respect to the works of those masters; they have,
however, considerable resemblance to those of Correggio in delicacy
of light and shade. In colouring Barocci was peculiar; Mengs' has
observed that his works are deficient in yellow tints. Bellori has
also pointed out the defects of his colouring, remarking that he
used too much vermilion and too much ultramarine.? Reynolds
observes that he ‘falls under the criticism that was made on
Parrhasius, ‘that his ‘figures looked as if they fed upon roses.’ ”*
His style had considerable influence upon the painters of his time,
both at Rome and Florence. But of all his followers, the most
distinguished was Lodovico Cardi, commonly called Cigoli, who,
partly through the example of Barocci’s works, became a reformer
of the then degenerate Florentine school.

Luca Campiaso, of Moneglia, near Genoa (1527-85), called also
Luchetto da Genova, was the son and pupil of Giovanni Cambiaso,
carried the art of Rome to Spain, and was buried in the arena of
his labours. He went to Spain in 1583 with his son Orazio, and
executed extensive works for Philip II. in the Escorial. He was a
painter of surprising facility and power, and had’ the fortune to

* Mengs, “ Hinterlassne Werke,” vol. i. p. 252.

2 Bellori, “ Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori, ed Architetti moderni,” &c., Rome, 1672.
Baldinucci, “ Notizie de’ Professori del Disegno da Cimabue in qua,” Florence,
1681-88.

3 Sir J. Reynolds, “ Notes on Du Fresnoy’s Art of Painting,” note ly.
SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCI. 315

please his royal patron, who rewarded Luca for his fresco of Para-
dise, on the ceiling of the choir of the church of San Lorenzo, with
12,000 ducats, probably the largest sum given up to that time in
the history of modern art for a single work.’

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE ECLECTIC SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCI AT BOLOGNA. ABOUT 1595,

‘WHILE various styles prevailed at Rome, Florence, Parma, and
Venice, a school of painters arose at Bologna, who, wholly pleased
with none of the styles which prevailed at these several great seats
of art, attempted to establish a new style which should combine the
excellences of all. The founders of this bold attempt were Lodovico
and his two cousins Agostino and Annibale Carracci.

Bologna had already a distinguished school in the time of the
Carracci; the characters of the Florentine, Roman, and Parmese
schools had their successful representatives at Bologna. Bagnaca-
vallo and Innocenzo da Imola propagated the principles of the
Roman school there. Bagnacavallo may be considered as the
founder of the second Bolognese school, the first closing with
Francia, and the third beginning with the Carracci.

Bagnatavallo derived much of his importance in the history of
Bolognese painting from his having instructed Primaticcio and
Pellegrino Tibaldi, the two greatest masters of the second period of
the art alluded to.’

Innocenzo DA Iona, or Innocenzo Francucci, who was born at
Imola in 1494, belongs to the Bolognese, and originally studied in
the school of Francia ; but he worked subsequently with Albertinelli
at Florence, and was eventually a devoted student at Rome of the
works by Raphael, from whom he sometimes borrowed entire
figures for his own pictures. He is now best seen in Bologna,
where he settled, and was still living in 1549.

Frencesco Primaticcio was born at Bologna in 1490, and after
studying some time under Bagnacavallo he repaired to Mantua, and
became the scholar and assistant of Giulio Romano. He remained
there six years, and obtained such celebrity by his works, that he
was invited by Francis I. to Fontainebleau to continue the decora-

1 Cean Bermudez, “ Diccionario Historico,” &e.
2 Barruffaldi, “Le Vite de’ piu insigni Pittori e Scultori Ferraresi,” Ferrara,
1846, This work was used by Lanzi in MS.
316 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

tions commenced by Il Rosso. Primaticcio, both from his own
works and the antiques and casts from the antique which by
Francis’s orders he brought to France, may be considered the
founder of the French school of art. Il Rosso committed suicide in
1541, and Primaticcio went about the same year to France; but the
paintings which Il Rosso executed at Fontainebleau were the greater
part destroyed by Primaticcio to make room for his own works,
which, however, were chiefly executed by Niccolo dell’ Abbate, who
is said to have derived his surname from the title of Primaticcio,
who was made abbot of St. Martin, near Troyes, by Francis I. ;
but Tiraboschi has shown that Niccolo’s family name was Abati.
Primaticcio died in France in 1570. His style was somewhat
similar to that of Giulio Romano, though strongly influenced by
Parmigiano, and was compounded of the Roman and Florentine
styles; it was distinguished also for some of the characteristics of
the remains of ancient sculpture.

Niccoto ABATI or DELL’ ABBATE, 80 conspicuously mentioned in the
well-known sonnet of the Carracci, was a native of Modena, where
he was born in 1512. He studied the works of Correggio, and the
followers of the Roman school; and, according to some critics,
attained a nearer approximation to the style of Raphael than any
other painter. Few, however, of his works now remain. After
having obtained considerable reputation at Bologna, he went in
1552, by the invitation of Primaticcio, to France, where he remained
until bis death in 1571. Niccolo was one of the most skilful fresco
painters, but of his numerous works in this method the following
only remain :—Those from the Aineid, in the Scandiano Palace at
Modena; some conversation pieces and concerts in the Institute,
a Nativity under a Portico in the Leoni Palace at Bologna;
and a symbolical picture in the Via di San Mamolo in the same
city! Algarotti discovered in the picture of the Nativity, the
symmetry of Raphael, the nature of Titian, and the grace of
Parmigiano.?

PELLEGRINO Trapt, called by the Carracci, Michelangelo Rifor-
mato, the reformed Michelangelo, was born at Bologna in 1527: his
father was a Milanese mason, settled at Bologna. After staying a
short time with Bagnacavallo, he went in 1547 to Rome, to study
the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel, and spent three years there.

Tibaldi, doubtless, made good use of his stay in Rome; but
whether he improved upon Michelangelo could only be debated by

1 The Modena frescoes are engraved by Gajani: the Nativity by Gandolfi; and
the other Bolognese frescoes are engraved in the work of Zanotti, “ Delle Pitture di
Pellegrino Tibaldi, e Niccolo Abbati, csistenti nell’ Instituto di Bologna,” Venice,

1756.
2 “Lettere sopra la Pittura.”
SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCI. 317

one who looked exclusively at the externals of art. The title of
Michelangelo Riformato appears to reflect some discredit on the
judgment of. the Carracci; but it is not inconsistent with the
general tenor of their principles. Fuseli has questioned more par-
ticularly Tibaldi’s right to this title. He says,’ “I will not do
that injustice to the Carracci to suppose that for one moment they
could allude, by this verdict, to the ceiling and the Prophets and
Sibvls of the Capella Sistina: they glanced, perhaps, at the technic
exuberance of the Last Judgment, and the senile caprices of the
Capella Paolina. These, they meant to inform us, had been pruned,
regulated, and reformed by Pellegrino Tibaldi. Do his works in
the Institute warrant this verdict? So far from it, that it exhibits
little more than the dotage of Michelangelo. The single figures,
groups, and compositions of the Institute, present a singular mixture
of extraordinary vigour and -puerile imbecility of conception,
of character and caricature, of style and manner. The figure
of Polyphemus groping at the mouth of his cave for Ulysses,
and the composition of Afolus granting to Ulysses favourable winds,
are striking instances of both. Than the Cyclops, Michelangelo
himself never conceived a form of savage energy, provoked by suf-
ferings and revenge, with attitude and limbs more in unison; whilst
the god of Winds is degraded to the scanty and ludicrous semblance
of Thersites, and Ulysses, with his companions, travestied by the
semi-barbarous look and costume of the age of Constantine or
Attila.”

Tibaldi was certainly an artist of great activity; he was as cele-
brated as an architect as he was as a painter. After distinguishing
himself in both capacities at Ancona, he was called in 1562 to
Pavia, by the celebrated Carlo Borromeo (afterwards canonized),
and built for him there the Palazzo della Sapienza. From Pavia he
went to Milan, where he built the church of San Fedele; and he
was, in 1570, appointed architect to the cathedral. The present
facade was built from his design.

In 1586 Tibaldi was invited by Philip II. to Spain to decorate the
Escorial, which had then been completed two years: it was com-
menced by Juan Bautista de Toledo in 1568, and was finished by
Juan de Herrera in 1584. Philip was so well pleased with the first
works executed by Tibaldi that he ordered the frescoes which had
been already painted by Luca Cambiaso and Federigo Zucchero to
be knocked down, to make room for others by Tibaldi; and these
frescoes are his most celebrated works. They are thus described by
Cumberland in his “ Anecdotes of Eminent Painters in Spain :”—
“The figures are models of correctness, and drawn in a free and

1 Lecture XI.
318 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

masterly style, with great attention to truth and nature. In these
paintings (in the lower cloister) he has treated the subjects of the
Purification, the Flight into Egypt, the Slaughter of the Innocents,
Christ in the Temple, the Temptations in the Wilderness, the
Election of the Apostles, the Resurrection of Lazarus, the Expulsion
of the Money-changers out of the Temple, and the various passages
of the Passion and Resurrection of the Saviour, with other subjects
of sacred history. The cloister is of the conventual sort, sad and
gloomy, neither very spacious nor lofty. It was, when I saw it,
very uncleanly; and I found it in the same condition upon repeated
visits. The frescoes have received great injury, not only from time
and climate, but from actual violence and notorious want of care.
Their effect, in my opinion, is by no means pleasing, whether owing
to the cause above mentioned, or to the dry, harsh uniformity of the
colouring, of a red and bricky hue, unrelieved by any accompani-
ment or compartment, and the sizes disproportionate to the cloister,
which, as I before observed, is neither lofty nor wide. I have no
doubt they would make a conspicuous figure as engravings, and the
date of their existence might be thereby prolonged; but that, I
conceive, will reach its final period without reprieve of this or any
other sort.

“Several paintings of Pellegrino are to be seen in the great
church, particularly a St. Michael, with the Fall of the Angels, a
Martyrdom ‘of San Lorenzo, and two very grand compositions of
the Nativity and Adoration, which he executed to replace those of
Zucchero on the same subjects, which Philip had rejected.

“But what, above all things else, establishes his reputation in
Spain, is the ceiling of the Library. In this composition the painter
has personified the Arts and Sciences in different compartments,
the four Doctors of the Church, with several eminent ancient philo-
sophers—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Seneca, accompanied with
all their proper attributes and insignia, interspersed with many
beautiful groups of children, and figures in the nude, supporting the
cornice and festoons in various postures and foreshortenings, of grand
force and expression, in the style of Michelangelo, in perfect draw-
ing and admirable perspective.”

Tibalbi, after a stay of nine years in Spain, returned to Milan
with the title of Marquis, and richly rewarded for his works. He
died at Milan, about the year 1600.1

Such, with Parmigiano, are the painters from whom the Carracci
were induced to select the qualities of their Eclectic style; for
Agostino and Annibale were, at the commencement of their career,
unacquainted with the works of the originators of the beauties

1 Malvasia, “ Felsina Pittrice ;” Cean Bermudez, “ Diccionario Historico,” &c.
SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCI. 319

which they professed to imitate. Before opening their celebrated
school, however, they visited Parma and Venice, and became
familiar with the works of Correggio and Titian; but it was only
nediately, through the works of the masters above mentioned, that
they could demonstrate their principles to their scholars. The St.
Cecilia of Raphael was not, and could not have been, taken as a
standard of the style of that great master. Lodovico is the real
founder of the Bolognese school; he was the guide and instructor
of ‘his cousins, who were some years his juniors.

Lopovico Carracct was born at Bologna, April 21st, 1555, and
was the pupil of Prospero Fontana, in whose school, like Domeni-
chino, he acquired the nickname of Il Bue (the ox) from his dul-
ness. He visited Parma, Mantua, Venice, and Florence, where he
studied some time with Passignano, a painter about Lodovico’s own
age, who had visited Venice, and was endeavouring to reform the
corrupt taste of the Florentine school of his period.

From the characteristics of these various schools, Lodovico con-
ceived the idea of selecting the beauties of each, and combining
them to form a perfect style. Whether any such scheme was at
once devised by him, or whether it developed itself gradually, is
immaterial: it was evidently matured; and Agostino illustrated
it in the following sonnet, in which the peculiar beauty of each
master is conceived to be accurately defined :—

°

Chi farsi ua buon pittor brama e desia,
Tl disegno di Roma abbia alla mano,
La mossa coll’ ombrar Veneziano,
E il degno colorir di Lombardia.
Di Michelangiol la terribil via ;
Il vero natural di Tiziano;
Di Correggio lo stil puro e sovrano,
E di un Raffael la vera simmetria.
Del Tibaldi il decoro e il fondamento,
Del dotto Primaticcio I’ inventare,
E uw po di grazia del Parmigianino :
Ma senza tanti studi e tanto stento,
Si ponga solo 1’ opre ad imitare
Che qui lasciocci il nostro Niccolino.!

This sonnet, certainly, as Lanzi has observed, more pictorial than
poetical, may be thus rendered :—‘‘ He who wishes to be a good
painter, let him acquire the design of Rome, Venetian shade and
action, and the dignified colouring of Lombardy; the terrible man-
ner of Michelangelo, the natural truth of Titian, the sovereign
purity of Correggio’s style, and the true symmetry of a Raphael;
the decorum and fundamental knowledge of Tibaldi, the invention

* Niccolo dell’ Abbate.
320 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

of the learned Primaticcio, and a little of Parmigiano’s grace: but
without so much toil and study, he need only imitate the works
which our Niccolino has left us here.”

Fuseli has treated this painter-recipe with some severity. He
says, “I shall not attempt a parody of this prescription by
transferring it to poetry, and prescribing to the candidate for
dramatic fame the imitation of Shakspeare, Otway, Johnson, Milton,
Dryden, Congreve, Racine, Addison, as amalgamated by Nicholas
Rowe. Let me only ask whether such a mixture of demands ever
entered with equal evidence the mind of any one artist, ancient or
modern; whether, if it be granted possible that they did, they
were ever balanced with equal impartiality; and grant this,
whether they ever were or could be executed with equal felicity?
A character of equal universal power is not a human character,
and the nearest approach to perfection can only be in carrying
to excellence one great quality with the least alloy of collateral
defects. To attempt more will probably end in the extinction
of character, and that in mediocrity—the cipher of art.” +

By Roman design, the works of ancient sculpture are probably
meant; and it is worthy of note that the Lombard school is
designated as the model of colouring, while that of Venice is
selected for its treatment of light and shade. The Lombard
painters alluded to were most probably Luini, Gaudenzio Ferrari,
and others of that school, who are distinguished only for strong
positive colouring. On the whole, therefore, this sonnet appears to
be wanting in critical acumen, independent of its impracticability
and mere technical tendency. It is, however, hardly to be
supposed that Agostino imagined any man would look upon it
as a grave precept. Agostino’s poetical and theoretical pro-
pensities were always offensive to Annibale: this is evident
from what he says on the subject in his letter to his cousin
from Parma, already quoted. However, this sonnet sufficiently
explains the Eclectic principle of the school.

Acostixo Carracci, the elder of the two brothers, was born
at Bologna, August 15th, 1558;? their father was a_ tailor.
Agostino was first placed with a jeweller, but by the advice
of Lodovico decided upon becoming a painter, and he studied
successively under Prospero Fontana, Domenico Tibaldi, and
Cornelius Cort, who taught him engraving. In 1580 he followed
his brother Annibale to Parma; he spent also some years at
Venice; and returned to Bologna in 1589, in which year the

1 Lecture XI.

2 The inscription from his tomb at Parma, in Bellori’s “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &c., is
given incorrectly; it is OB. V. ID. Mart. M.DCI. .ET. SUA. AN. XLII. Bel-
lori has 1602.
SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCI. 32]

cousins opened their celebrated school. Agostino was long the
most active teacher in this school; he was fond of discoursing
on art; he was a great theoriser. He is allowed to have been
the most learned of the Carracci in the principles of art. Malvasia
says he was more correct than his cousins; than Annibale, always ;
than Lodovico, sometimes. He joined Annibale at Rome, in
the year 1600, when Annibale was engaged on the Farnese
frescoes, and assisted him in these works." They, however,
soon quarrelled, and Agostino left Rome for Parma, where he
died on the 11th of March, 1601, in his forty-third year only:
he was buried in the cathedral of Parma, but his funeral
was celebrated with great pomp by the painters of Bologna.
Besides being a painter, Agostino was poet, musician, and one
of the most excellent engravers of his time: he devoted, in fact,
more time to engraving than to painting; his prints are dated
between 1576 and 1599 inclusive. He was generally accom-
plished, and was fond of what is called good society. ‘This
weakness of Agostino’s was, according to Malvasia, the cause of
the separation of the two brothers. Annibale placed a caricature
of their father and mother at work tailoring, in the hands of his
brother while he was conversing with a group of his fashionable
friends. Agostino’s masterpiece in painting is the ‘‘ Communion of
St. Jerome,” in the Gallery at Bologna. Among his many engravings,
the principal are his own “St. Jerome,” finished by Francesco
Brizio; Tintoretto’s ‘ Crucifixion,” of the scuola of San Rocco,
1589; and the half figure of “St. Jerome,” by Francesco Vanni.

Antonio Carracci, who was born in Venice in 1583, was the
natural son of Agostino: the Louvre possesses the ‘“ Deluge”
by him. He died at Rome in 1618.

ANNIBALE Carracci, who was born at Bologna, in 1560, was
intended by his father for his own business of a tailor, but
his cousin Lodovico succeeded in making a painter of him also.
Annibale appears to have had no other master than Lodovico.
After studying for two or three years the works of Correggio,
at Parma, he visited Venice, and returned some time before
Agostino to Bologna.

From 1589 to 1600 the three cousins appear to have been
all actively engaged in superintending their celebrated school.
They at first met with much opposition from the painters of
the old school, among whom the Fleming, Denis CALVART, was one

1 The two cartoons by Agostino Carracci, in the National Gallery, were made for
two of the chief compartments of the ceiling of the Gallery in the Farnese Palace,
See “Argomento della Galleria Farnese dipinta da Annibale Carracci, disegnata
ed intagliata da Carlo Cesio,” Rome, 1657.. Reprinted in the “Felsina Pittrice”
of Malvasia; as is also Vittorio Benacci’s description of Agostino’s funeral.

Y
322 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of their most obstinate opponents; Bartolomeo Cesi and Prospero
Fontana were likewise strongly opposed to what they termed
the new style. All detraction, however, appears to have been
put an end to by the celebrated frescoes of the Carracci in the
Magnani Palace. Calvart himself, a good painter, had established a
famous school at Bologna, and rivalled Squarcione in the number of
his scholars, but his school was wholly superseded by that of
the Carracci, though some of their most distinguished scholars
had first studied with Calvart; this was the case with Dome-
nichino, Guido, and Albani. Calvart was born at Antwerp, in
the same year as Lodovico Carracci, 1555, and they both died in
the same year, 1619. The Dresden Gallery has a fine copy of
Raphael’s St. Cecilia by Calvart.

In 1600, as already mentioned, Annibale went to Rome by
the invitation of the Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, and commenced
the celebrated frescoes of the Farnese Palace, which he completed
in four years; he was, however, assisted, as observed, by Agostino,
and by Domenichino and Lanfranco. These frescoes, which are on
the vaulted ceiling of the gallery, appear, from the letter of
Annibale’s intimate friend Monsignore Agucchi, to have been
completed in 1604; and he executed no extensive work after
this time. The frescoes of the chapel of San Diego in the
church of San Giacomo degli Spagnuoli were executed by Albani
from Annibale’s designs. Agucchi, in the letter alluded to, and in
which he sends the news of Annibale’s death to Lodovico, states
that Annibale scarcely painted anything during the last five years
of his life: he died July 15th, 1609. It would appear from
this, that the common story about his being engaged for eight
years on the Farnese frescoes is unfounded: and the statement
about his receiving only 500 scudi as his reward for them is
equally without foundation. When Annibale went to Rome, the
Cardinal, says Bellori, received him as a gentleman, and granted
him the usuai allowance of a courtier for himself and two servants:
he also assigned him a salary of ten scudi per month. The 500
scudi which he received at the completion of the work were a
present, and Annibale’s contemporary Baglione mentions them as
such,’ Annibale Carracci was buried near Raphael in the Pantheon.

After the depurture of his cousins, Lodovico conducted the
school at Bologna, alone. In 1601 he also visited Rome, but
he left it abruptly to be present at the celebration of his cousin
Agostino’s funeral, having stayed in Rome only fourteen days,
from May 31st to June 13th.2 After his return from Rome, he
executed a great series of frescoes for the convent of San Michele in

1 Malvasia, “Felsina Pittrice ;” Bellori, “ Vite de’ Pittori;” Baglione, “ Vite de’
Pittori.” 2 Malvasia, “ Felsina Pittrice.”
SCHOOL OF THE CARRACCL. 823

Bosco, which were generally considered his masterpieces. They
have long since perished, but the designs are preserved in the
prints after them by Giovannini.*

Lodovico died in the close of the year 1619, and his death
is said to have been in a measure due to the disappointment he
experienced in discovering some errors in the frescoes of the
Annunciation in the cathedral of Bologna, after the removal of the
scaffolding, when it was too late to correct them.

There is a higher feeling in the works of Lodovico than in
the works of his cousins. But their productions generally tend to
represent the mere form of art as the ultimate end of the painter.
The Farnese frescoes at Rome are eminently of this class: they are
mere coloured forms, and have no ulterior purpose beyond that
of giving pleasure, or exciting the sensation of objective magni-
ficence: they are not higher in their aim than the works of
the Venetian school, and they do not attain them in execution.
They are superior in form, but inferior in the accomplishment
of their only obvious purpose. These frescoes were, however,
preferred by Nicolas Poussin to all the works in Rome after
those of Raphael: with respect to style, they are doubtless among
the finest works of modern art.

In the works of Lodovico, and especially his oil-pictures, there is
a sombre dignity which elevates him quite above the school
which he has the credit of having founded. The effects, however,
of the eclecticism of the Carracci is rather to be looked for in
the works of their pupils than in their own. Sir Joshua Reynolds
gives Lodovico a high character. He says—“Style in painting
is the same as in writing, a power over materials, whether words or
colours, by which conceptions or sentiments are conveyed. And in
this Lodovico Carracci, I mean in his best works, appears to me to
approach the nearest to perfection. His unaffected breadth of
light and shadow, the simplicity of colouring, which, holding
its proper rank, does not draw aside the least part of the attention
from the subject,.and the solemn effect of that twilight which
seems diffused over his pictures, appear to me to correspond
with grave and dignified subjects better than the more artificial
brilliancy of sunshine which enlightens the pictures of Titian :
though Tintoretto thought that Titian’s colouring was the model of
perfection, and would correspond even with the sublime of
Michelangelo, and that if Michelangelo had coloured like Titian,
or Titian had designed like Michelangelo, the world would once
have had a perfect painter.” ?

1 «T] Claustro di San Michele in Bosco,” &c., with descriptions by Malvasia ;
Bologna, 1694.
2 Discourse IT.

Y 2
324 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

BOOK VI.

PROGRESSIVE DECLINE. THE ACADEMICIANS AND THEIR CON-
TEMPORARIES; UNIFORMITY IN THE PLACE OF INDIVI-
DUALITY; FOR NATURE AN ARTIFICIAL MECHANISM.

 

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CARRACCESCHI: ACADEMIC STYLE. THE TENEBROSI AT ROME AND
NAPLES,

Tue influence of the Carracci was spread, through their distin-
guished scholars, throughout Italy, and assisted greatly to suppress
the corrupt taste which had prevailed at Florence and elsewhere,
for upwards of half a century, through the indiscreet imitation of
Michelangelo and Raphael, but more particularly the former. The
works of Barocci and Cigoli had already created rival schools; but
all were alike eclipsed by the Academic school of the Carracceschi.
The first half of the seventeenth century is characterized by the
growth and establishment of the principle that a uniform attention
to the means of art is the true system by which art is to be culti-
vated, and this is the principle upon which all modern academies
are directed. The Academic is the true designation of the Car-
raccesque school, and Eclecticism, which is mere materialism,
though not professedly, is still practically taught in public aca-
demies, the tendency of which is to create an artificial standard
and establish a uniform mediocrity. If art is to be taught in
academies at all, the principles should be made as prominent as the
practice; and if not on this, it is difficult to say on what system it
is to be taught. “Genius,” it has been often said, “* begins where
rules end;” but where there is no genius, nothing but uniform
academic mediocrity—“ the ‘cypher of art,” as Fuseli terms it—can
ACADEMIC STYLE. 325

be attained. Italy, in the time of the Carracceschi, may be said to
have been one great academy, and it became the nursery of the
uniform mediocrity which characterized the art of Europe for the
two subsequent centuries.

When academies became numerous, the Academic style, from its
great prevalence, naturally became the goal of rising aspirants, as
by it alone honour was to be obtained ; and thus it has lain for ages
like an incubus on the genius of art. Oral instruction is too much
neglected in academies ;' if this powerful means were properly
applied, it would invariably act as a corrective to the mere material
tendency of the practical exercises in art. No subsequent academy
has been so successful as that of the Carracci, and in this we know
that much of the instruction was due to the discourse of Agostino,
its most active teacher; Annibale was purely practical. The
opposite character of the two brothers is well illustrated by an
anecdote told by Bellori,* which we will quote in the words of our
excellent critic, Richardson :—‘‘ Agostino Carracci, discoursing one
day of the excellency of the ancient sculpture, was profuse in his
praises of the Laocoon; and observing his brother Annibale neither
spoke nor seemed to take any notice of what he said, reproached
him as not enough esteeming so stupendous a work. He then
went on describing every particular in that noble remain of
antiquity. Annibale turned himself to the wall, and with a piece
of charcoal drew the statue as exactly as if it had been before him;
the rest of the company were surprised, and Agostino was
silenced ; confessing his brother had taken a more effectual way
to demonstrate the beauties of that wonderful piece of sculp-
ture. ‘Li poeti dipingono colle parole, li pittori parlano con
D opere,’ said Annibale,—Poets paint with words, painters speak
by works.”

Annibale was perfectly right, supposing he merely wished to
show what the Laocoon was, but Agostino was speaking of a work
of art well known to those whom he addressed, and was discoursing
on its excellences. Viewing the matter in the light of instruction
on excellence in art, the advantage was greatly on the side of
Agostino: put a print in his hand, and he combines the faculty of
Annibale with his own; but, on the other hand, if mere example is
sufficient, the greatest instructor in art is the hired cicerone who
conducts the visitor through the chambers of the Vatican. Anni-
bale himself confessed that he had learnt to appreciate the Flagel-
lation of St. Andrew, by Domenichino, from the observations of an

1 Lectures might perhaps as well be altogether suspended as limited to six in a
year, as they are at the Royal Academy of London. Students should attend two
or three lectures every week, to derive much benefit from them.

2 «Vite de’ Pittori,” &c., p. 9.
326 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

old woman (quoted below) who was explaining the picture to her
child.’

The greatest of the pupils of the Carracci were Domenichino,
Guido, Albani, and Lanfranco.

Of these, Domenico ZampirRi, commonly called Domeyicaino, born
at Bologna, October 21st, 1581, is generally allowed to hold the
first rank: he was originally the scholar of Calvart. He went
early to Rome, by the advice of Albani. Domenichino and Guido
competed together at Rome in the church of San Gregorio; and
though at first there appears to have been doubt as to the supe-
riority of the two works, that of Domenichino was soon allowed to
be superior. Annibale’s opinion was decided by the observations
of an old woman, as already observed. When he was asked his
opinion previously, he answered rather vaguely—that Guido ap-
peared to be the master and Domenichino the scholar, but that the
scholar knew more than the master. The two pictures were
St. Andrew going to Martyrdom, and the Flagellation of St.
Andrew; they were painted in fresco on the opposite sides of the
chapel. That of Guido is a somewhat confused crowd, and is
simply an ornamental work; that of Domenichino is a real drama,
and we will quote the instructive words of Annibale, and at the
same time of the old woman who confirmed him in his opinion.
“ Look!” said the old woman, to the child she led by the hand,
“look, how furiously that man raises the scourge to strike; and
look at that other, how savagely he threatens the saint with his
finger; and that one, how tight he is pulling the cords round his
feet; and look at the saint himself, with what faith he looks
upwards to heaven.” Having said these words, she sighed, and
then turned to the picture of Guido, and standing a moment before
it, she left the church without speaking another word. From this
scene Annibale was satisfied that Domenichino’s was the greater
work of art: in many cases the opposite might have been the just
conclusion. Neither of these ~vorks, however, can be accounted
among the masterpieces of those two celebrated painters.

‘The most celebrated picture by Domenichino is the “ Communion
of St. Jerome in the church at Bethlehem,” now in an apartment
of the Vatican, and placed opposite to the “Transfiguration,” by
Raphael. In this picture, says Bellori, he adopted the treatment
of Agostino Carracci, one of whose most celebrated pieces is the
picture of the same subject in the Gallery at Bologna. The saint,
an emaciated old man, is supported on his knees, before the altar,
and is on the point of receiving the sacrament from the administer-
ing priest; various attendants are present, and above is a group of

1 Bellori, “ Vite, &c.: Domenichino,” p. 3038, ed. 1672.
 

“COMMUNION OF ST. JEROME.”

(Domentcuino, IN THE GALLERY OF THE VATICAN.)

Page 326.
ACADEMIC STYLE. 327

angels. The figures are simply arranged, and are highly expres-
sive and natural in their attitudes: the colouring is rich and
harmonious, the light and shade effective, and the design and
execution have the characteristic excellences of the best produc-
tions of the Bolognese school. This picture, for which Domeni-
chino received only fifty scudi (about ten guineas), was accounted
by Andrea Sacchi and Nicolas Poussin one of the very finest paintings
in Rome, both masters comparing it with the Transfiguration of
taphael.*| Another work in which Domenichino has displayed his
fine taste in drawing and colouring is the fresco of the Martyrdom of
St. Sebastian, formerly in the chapel of St. Sebastian in St. Peter’s,
but now in the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, at Rome: a
mosaic is substituted in its place in St. Peter’s. The fresco was
removed from the wall, with the plaster on which it was painted,
in 1736, by Francesco Zabaglia.

Some early frescoes at Grotta Ferrata (1610) are also accounted
among this painter’s masterpieces. His simplest are his best
works. The two frescoes from the Life of St. Cecilia, in the church
of San Luigi, at Rome, have the defect imputed to Domenichino of
frequently forgetting his subject in the elaboration of secondary
groups or incidents; the same is the case with the “‘ Martyrdom of
St. Agnes,” in the Gallery at Bologna. His enemies also accused
him of borrowing some of his best figures from other painters, and
by such pleas, not without foundation, justified the persecution of
him. Domenichino was driven from Rome by the jealousy of rivals,
but he found no greater peace at Naples, where some of his most
important works were executed, as those from the Life of San
Januarius, in the Chapel of the Tesoro in the cathedral, a series
he did not live to complete.

Domenichino died at Naples April 15th, 1641, not without sus-
picion of having been poisoned: certainly worried to death if not
poisoned; he was incessantly persecuted by his rivals, both at
Rome and at Naples.’

Guipo Reyt, commonly called Gurpo, was born at Calvenzano,
near Bologna, November 4th, 1575. His father was a musician,
and Guido as a boy was brought up to play the flute. Having
acquired considerable mastery in painting, from Calvart and the
Carracci, he set out with Albani for Rome, and there, and at
Naples, acquired a brilliant reputation. He, however, returned
to Bologna, and opened a school of art, which was very nume-
rously attended. He died at Bologna August 18th, 1642; the last
years of his life being in constant trouble, from the want of money,

1 It is engraved by Cesare Testa, B. Farjat, and A. Tardieu.
“ Bellori, “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &.; Passeri, “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &e.
328 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

owing to his gaming and other extravagant habits. Though in
the receipt of a princely income for many years, he died in debt.
When he first returned to Bologna, he was content with moderate
prices for his pictures, as 25 scudi, or five guineas, for a head; but
he became more exacting as he advanced, and demanded eventually
25 guineas for a head, 50 for a half-length, and 100 for an entire
figure : enormous prices at that period; even for such a fine picture
asthe Dresden “ Reclining Venus,” which, as a Cupid is introduced
into the composition, may be considered as a work of two figures,
Such a rule will of course not hold at present; the ‘“‘ Ecce Homo,”
in the National Gallery, or that in the Dresden Gallery, both mere
heads, would now probably realize not only ten times, but nearer
one hundred times the scale of charges recorded.

Guido’s masterpiece is generally allowed to be the Aurora pre-
ceding the chariot of the Sun, surrounded by the Hours, painted in
fresco on the ceiling of one of the apartments of the garden-house,
of the Rospigliosi Palace at Rome. This work is well known by
copies, and the prints of Frey and Morghen: it is certainly one of
the finest ornamental pictures in the world.

Guido was fond of ideal forms, but his works have little expres-
sion, and a general sameness of character. He excelled chiefly in
painting women, old men, and children, of which beauty, of dif-
ferent kinds, is the characteristic distinction, depending in the
works of Guido chiefly on colouring, and a general delicacy of
execution: his old heads are generally very picturesque, but, if
ever, very seldom expressive, their beauty consisting in a fine
contrast of tints in the carnations and hair, and occasionally very
effective light and shade. He painted in three manners: his first
was distinguished for a broad and powerful effect of light and
shade; his second, for a rich and warm tone of colouring; and his
third, for a pale, green, silvery tone of colour, combined with great
affectation of attitude, and a striking inanity of expression. There
are, however, some noble exceptions, as the celebrated ‘‘ Ecce Homo”
at Dresden, or our own; and the Susannah in the National Gallery
has much appropriate expression: its model seems to have been
the head of Beatrice Cenci. Guido’s fancy appears to have been
engrossed by an imaginary grace, and to this ideal every other
quality in art was made subordinate. The individual was of so
little consequence to him, that his women are said to have been
painted from an old colour-grinder of his. Malvasia tells a curious
anecdote of Guido, relating to this subject. Richardson quotes it in
his own original way in his chapter on Grace; he says—A Bolog-
nese nobleman (Filippo Aldovrandi), a great patron of Guercino’s,
was induced by this last to endeavour to get out of Guido what
woman was the model he made use of for his fine and gracious airs
 

 

“AURORA.” (By Gurpo. Rome.)

‘THE ROSPIGLIOSI

Page 328.
ACADEMIC STYLE. 329

of heads. Accordingly he came to see him; and in conversation,
while he was admiring one of his fine heads, ‘“‘ For God’s sake,
Signor Guido, what astonishing beauty of a girl do you hug up to
yourself, that supplies you with such divine airs?” “ I will show
you,” said Guido (who found what he was about): so he called his
colour-grinder, a great greasy fellow with a brutal look like the
devil, and bade him sit down, and turn his head and look up to
the sky: and then taking his chalk, drew a Magdalen after him,
exactly in the same view and attitude, and same lights and sha-
dows, but as handsome as an angel. The Count thought it was
done by enchantment. ‘ No,” said Guido, ‘my dear Count; but
tell your painter, that the beautiful and pure idea must be in the
head, and then it is no matter what the model is.” Guido’s words
were—‘ Signore Conte mio, dite pure al vostro Centense,’ che le
belle idee bisogna averle qui in testa, che ogni modello poi serve.”
Guido’s ideal appears to have been taken from ancient sculpture.
His Magdalens and Madonnas have much resemblance to the Niobe.

Raphael speaks of an ideal in a letter to Count Baldassare Castig-
lione, but it was a different ideal from that of Guido: it was an
ideal of sentiment and expression, though he speaks of it merely as
beauty. He says, “To paint a beautiful woman, I must see several ;
with this condition, that your Excellence may be near me to select
the more beautiful. But as there are few good judges and few
beautiful women, I have recourse to a certain ideal in my mind.
Whether this be beneficial to art I know not; but I strive to form
such an ideal in my mind.” *

Among Guido’s followers was very conspicuous ELisaBerra
Srrani, born at Bologna, January Sth, 1638: she was the daughter
of Giovanni AnpREA S1RAnI (1610-70), a scholar and good imitator
of Guido; and she was looked upon as a species of prodigy in
her time, both for her industry and her ability. Although her
active career extended over little more than ten years, from 1655
to 1665, she painted upwards of one hundred and sixty pictures
and portraits, some of which are in the Gallery of the Academy
at Bologna. Elisabetta, like her father, was a most successful
imitator of Guido’s second manner, and she herself educated a
considerable class of female pupils. She was taken ill suddenly
and died on the 28th of August, 1665, under the supposition that
she was:poisoned by her maid; but nothing satisfactory arose from
the cruel investigation to which the girl had to submit, and the

1 Guercino was a native of Cento.

2 Malvasia, “ Felsina Pittrice,” ii. 8.

* Bernardino Pino, “ Nuova Scelta di Lettere,” &c.; Bellori, “ Descrizione delle
Immagini, &., nel Vaticano;” Passavant, “Rafael von Urbino,” App. x. vol. i.
p. 533.
330 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

post-mortem examination of the body showed no effects that might
not be produced by natural causes. Elisabetta was buried in the
church of San Domenico, in the same tomb as Guido. Her por-
trait and a list of her works is published by Malvasia, in the Felsina
Pittrice. Her sisters Barbara and Anna Maria were also painters,
and executed several pictures for the churches of Bologna.

Francesco ALBANI, another distinguished scholar of the Carracci,
was born at Bologna in 1578. He was the fellow-pupil of Guido,
in the school of Calvart, and Guido was the cause of his leaving
Calvart to attend the Carracci. Guido and Albani followed Anni-
bale Carracci to Rome at the commencement of the seventeenth
century, about 1602.1

Annibale employed Albani in the Farnese, and, as already men-
tioned, the frescoes of San Giacomo degli Spagnuoli were painted
by Albani from Annibale’s designs. Annibale offered Albani 1800
scudi for his assistance in these works, but as Annibale had re-
ceived only 2000 altogether, Albani declined to accept more than
1000, a transaction equally creditable to both painters. Some years
later Albani painted an extensive series-of frescoes in the Verospi
Palace, now Torlonia; they are mythological subjects from Ovid
and others, and are accounted his principal works in this style?
Albani, however, owes his reputation to his oil-pictures, which are
generally fanciful and mythological subjects, and they gave him
also a rank among landscape painters; for his scenes are generally
placed in the open air, and in many cases he has paid so much
attention to the landscape, that his figures often appear subordinate
to it.

He is said to have been led into this particular style of painting,
through the numerous family which he had by his second wife,
Doralice Fioravanti, belonging to a noble family of Florence.
Albani had by this lady, who is said to have been beautiful, twelve
children, all remarkable for their loveliness, and his wife and chil-
dren were the models for the numerous Venuses, Dianas, Nymphs,
and Cupids, which are the principal productions of his later years.
These children were of such perfect shapes, that the celebrated
sculptors Algardi and Fiammingo (Du Quesnoy) likewise made
them the objects of their diligent study.

Albani is one of the earliest of the Italian painters who bestowed
a principal portion of his time on the production of small cabinet
pictures, for their mere beauty’s sake. His religious pieces, which
are considerably numerous, are generally of large dimensions, but

1 Passeri says they arrived at Rome about 1611 or 1612; but this appears to be
an error of about ten years, or not much less: they were not very young men at
that time, and Annibale had been dead three years in the summer of 1612.

2 Frezza, “ Picture France. Albani in ede Verospia,” 1704.
ACADEMIC STYLE. 331

he produced an immense number of small pictures, which were
frequently mere landscapes embellished with figures, illustrating
some story from the poets or from ancient mythology: these works
are occasionally executed on copper, and are finished with extreme
care: his figures are generally naked. The four circular pictures
of the Elements, painted for the Borghese family, are of this class :
he repeated them for the Dukes of Mantua and Savoy. The Toilet
of Venus, and the Landing of Venus on the Isle of Cytherea, are
likewise among his most celebrated works of his later style: the
first is in the Louvre, the second in the Chigi Palace at Rome.
Albani died at Bologna on the 4th of October, 1660. The orna-
mental, the sentimental, and the picturesque, characterize the
works of Guido: the fanciful, the romantic, and the pretty, charac-
terize those of Albani.’

Henprix Van Limsoreu, of the Hague (1680-1758), a scholar of
Vanderwerff, painted pictures much in the style of Albani.

Giovanni Lanrranco, the last of the considerable scholars of the
Carracci, was born at Parma in 1581. He likewise followed Anni-
bale Carracci to Rome, where he executed his greatest works. He
was, however, chiefly distinguished for the facility of his execution
and the boldness of his manner: he appears to have always had in
view the cupolas of his great countryman Correggio, whose taste
for foreshortenings seems to have descended into Lanfranco. The
latter was, however, merely an ornamental painter: he is one of
the earliest of the great Italian machinists, or Macchinisti, as those
painters are termed who painted large works in fresco, distinguished
for little beyond their size and colour. Lanfranco’s masterpiece
is the cupola of Sant’ Andrea della Valle at Rome, executed in the
time of Pope Paul V., where he painted the Assumption of the
Virgin ; entering the lists in competition with his celebrated country-
man, not only in style, but in subject also. This cupola is one of
the triumphs of Italian fresco-painting: the figures are colossal,
and some of the foreshortenings are remarkable. Lanfranco was
the active rival of Domenichino at Rome and at Naples, and was a
relentless persecutor of that unfortunate painter; especially as re-
gards the chapel of the Tesoro in the cathedral of Naples, where he
destroyed the work of Domenichino, after his death, and substituted
his own. Lanfranco died at Rome, November 29, 1647, the day
that his frescoes in San Paolo & Catinari were uncovered.”

The styles of all schools approximated in this period as nearly to
one standard as possible: the influence of Raphael, however, was
still felt at Rome, and that of Titian at Venice: at Florence the

1 See the author’s article ALuant in the “ Biographical Dictionary of the Society
for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.”
2 Bellori, ‘‘ Vite de’ Pittori,”’ &e., 1672.
332 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Anatomical school yielded to a more partial application to colouring ;
and the influence of the Eclectic school was paramount everywhere,
notwithstanding the temporary prevalence of the strong and arti-
ficial light and shade of the Tenebrosi at one time, or of the gaudy
frippery of the Macchinisti at another.

These two opposing elements in art were in full vigour when
the Carracci and their pupils arrived at Rome. Guusepre Crsari
p’ARPINO (1568-1640), a solid and good painter sometimes, was the
leader of the latter; and he was without a rival in Rome until the
appearance of MicHELANGELO DA CarAvaacio, who was the founder of
the school of the Tenebrosi, or the Naturalisti, as they are like-
wise called,‘from the mere natural imitation which was the element
of their style. The heavy and vulgar nature of Caravaggio’s
style was directly opposed to the ideal mannerism of Cesari. They
both had their partisans, but the Naturalisti prevailed, and exerted
a great influence over all the schools of Italy, but especially that of
Naples, where Ribera, commonly called Spagnoletto, perhaps sur-
passed even Caravaggio himself.

MicueLanceLo Mrriet was born at Caravaggio, in the Milanese,
in 1569, and on this account is generally known as Michelangelo da
Caravaggio. His father was a mason; and it is remarkable that
the history of the two most celebrated painters of Caravaggio is
much the same. Polidoro and Michelangelo Merigi both com-
menced life as mason’s labourers ; were subsequently employed to
attend upon fresco-painters, the former at Rome, the latter at Milan ;
and from this humble beginning each became one of the most cele-
brated painters of his time: in their deaths, tod, they somewhat
resembled each other. Polidoro was assassinated when about to
return to Rome; Caravaggio’s death was, under similar circum-
stances, scarcely less unhappy. He was, however, no doubt, some-
what of the school of Benvenuto Cellini, who was a thorough
ruffian and vagabond, though scarcely so profligate as that accom-
plished scoundrel. Still the morals of these men were not perhaps
much below the average: the popes themselves were no exception:
Clement VII. and Benvenuto Cellini were not sympathetic in art
only.

He maintained himself for about five years painting portraits at
Milan ; he then went to Venice, where he studied the works of Gior-
gione, and painted some pictures which gave indications of a fine
taste in‘colour. From Venice he proceeded to Rome; but there,
owing to his poverty, he could not procure the requisite materials to
produce a picture; he therefore entered the service of the Cava-
liere Cesare d’Arpino, who employed him in painting fruit and
flowers and other ornamental parts of his own works. Caravaggio
at length produced the celebrated picture of “Il Giuoco di Carte,”
THE TENEBROSI. 333

or the Card-players ; it was purchased by the Cardinal del Monte,
and established the independence and the reputation of its author.
He also painted about this time the portrait of the poet Marino,
through whose kind offices he became acquainted with Virgilio
Crescenti, the heir of Cardinal Contarelli: Caravaggio was, in
consequence of this introduction, selected to execute several oil
pictures for the Contarelli Chapel, in the Church of San Luigi de’
Francesi. His first altar-piece in this chapel, ‘‘ St. Matthew writing
the Gospel,” was removed by the priests as too vulgar for such a
subject: Caravaggio painted a second, which gave satisfaction, and
the first was purchased by the Marchese Vincenzo Giustiniani. His
masterpiece at Rome is “The Pieta,” or Deposition of Christ,
formerly in the Chiesa Nuova de’ Padri dell’ Oratorio, or Santa
Maria in Vallicella, now in the Gallery of the Vatican ; a copy was
substituted in the church for the original, and there is a mosaic of it
in the Chapel of the Sacrament in St. Peter's.

Caravaggio was now fully established, with a reputation equal to
that of any painter of his time. He was introduced to Pope Paul
Y., and painted Cardinal Barberini, who became afterwards Urban
VIII.; but his disposition was violent and his habits peculiar, and
he owed entirely to himself the change which now took place in
his fortunes. He used to paint only a few hours in the early part of
the day; the rest of his time he spent in parade with his sword at
his side, or in amusement. On one of these afternoons, as he was
playing at tennis with an acquaintance, he became so violent in a
dispute that he killed his companion. He immediately fled to
Naples, whence, after executing a few pictures, he proceeded to
Malta, where he obtained the favour of the Grand-master Vigna-
court, who sat to Caravaggio for two portraits, and made him a
knight of the Cross of Malta. Here again his temper was his enemy,
he quarrelled with one of the knights, and was cast into prison;
he contrived, however, to escape, and fled to Syracuse. He after-
wards visited Messina and Palermo: having executed a few pictures
in those cities, he returned to Naples, where, after a little time, he
hired a felucca and set out for Rome, having by means of his friends
at length procured the pope’s pardon for the offence which caused
his flight from that city. .On his way, however, he fell in witha
Spanish coast-guard, who arrested him, mistaking him for another
person, and when he was at length liberated he found that the
people of the felucca had gone off with all his property. He
wandered despondingly along the coast until he came to Porto
Ercole, where, partly from his disappointment and partly from the
extreme heat of the weather, he was seized with a fever and died in
a few days, in 1609, aged only forty.

The followers of Caravaggio have been called naturalists: their
334 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

style, which was founded on a literal imitation of the model, was
thus opposed to that more deal view of nature which is founded on
selection. Caravaggio’s manner is well characterized by his bio-
grapher Bellori, who refers to some of the opinions of the painter's
contemporaries.' He was said never to emerge from his cellar: this
alludes to his habit of painting with a high small light, which cast
an isolated illumination upon his model; but instead of suggesting
a gradual concentration of light, with a transparent mass of shade,
such as we find in the works of Rembrandt, it led Caravaggio only
to adopt strong contrasts and dark rather than deep shadows. In
spite of the vulgarity of his taste and his defective design, his
influence upon many of his contemporaries was great. Bellori
accounts for this by the emptiness of the prevailing deal style,
which was founded exclusively upon examples and precepts, while
nature was overlooked. Caravaggio had a host of imitators among
the younger painters of the age; even Guido and Domenichino
were not exempt from the influence. Guercino in part adopted his
style, but Bartolomeo Manfredi, Spagnoletto, Carlo Saraceno, Valen-
tin, and Gerard Honthorst (Gherardo della Notte) became his
decided imitators.

An objection advanced by Bellori to this school is the custom of
painting only half figures, a practice detrimental to the higher aims
of art, as precluding a knowledge of the human figure. Nicolas
Poussin is reported to have said that Caravaggio came into the world
to destroy painting —“ costui era venuto per distruggere la pittura.”®

Barrotomro Mayrrepi, of Ustiano, near Mantua, where he was
born about 1580, was first a pupil of Roncalli, but eventually
became a follower of Caravaggio, loving the same subjects,
as soldiers, banditti, gamesters, &c., and he generally painted
only half figures. The works of Manfredi are accordingly very
scarce, as he has had the too common fate of imitators; his best
productions being ascribed to his caposcuole Caravaggio, or to
his bold imitator Valentin. He died at Rome in 1617. The Louvre
possesses some fair specimens of the pictures of Manfredi.

Girotamo Bont, called L’Ancoyirano, from his birth-place,
Ancona (living 1660), was also a good master of the school of
the Tenebrosi: he was the pupil, friend, and assistant of Albani.
Among them likewise may be reckoned Domenico Fett, of Rome
(1589-1624); and Grovanyr Barnsra Tixti, of Parma (about
1590-1620), an inferior master.

Giovanni Francesco Barsieri, commonly called Guercrxo, from
his squint, was born at Cento, near Bologna, February 2nd, 1592.
He is one of the few able self-taught painters, and certainly

1 Bellori, “ Vite de’ Pittori, Scultori, ed Architetti Moderni,” &c., Rome, 1672.
> Massi, “Galleria di Quadri al Vaticano,” p. 13,
 

SANTA PETRONILLA. (GuERcrno. IN THE CaPtroL, ROME.)

Page 335.
THE TENEBROSI. 335

developed his abilities under very adverse circumstances: his
father carried wood and faggots to the neighbouring towns, and
young Giovanni used to take care of the cart while his father
attended to his customers. Guercino’s earliest efforts were of
course made at Bologna, but his love of colour tempted him
to Venice; and he finally went to Rome, where, in the time
of Pope Paul V., he made the acquaintance of Caravaggio, and
became a decided imitator of his style. The incompatible temper,
however, of this painter soon showed to Guercino that friendship
with him was impossible; and he accordingly avoided his society.
Gregory XV.—Ludovisi, a Bolognese—became the patron of
Guercino; but when this pope died in 1623, the painter returned to
his native t--7n, and remained there until the death of Guido
in 1642, when he settled in Bologna, where he died in 1666.

Guercino’s great work is the immense picture of the ‘ Body
of Santa Petronilla raised from the tomb; to be shown to her
betrothed husband, Flaccus,” now in the Capitol at Rome;' a
mosaic has been substituted for it in the chapel of St. Peter’s,
for which it was originally painted for Pope Gregory. It is
considered one of the great Roman masterpieces of the Art.
The small ‘“‘Dead Christ,” in the National Gallery, is a beautiful
example of the better style of this master. Guercino, however,
forsook his forcible earlier style, when he settled in Bologna, for
a somewhat insipid: manner in imitation of Guido; in his more
vigorous time he was one of the most influential supporters of
the school of the Tenebrosi.?

BeneDeTTO GENNARI, of Cento (1633-1715), was, like his father
Ercole, a close imitator of Guercino, his uncle: a large allegory of
Painting by him, in the Dresden Gallery, might be mistaken for the
work of Guercino. Both the Gennari, father and son, no doubt
painted from the same models as Guercino ; Benedetto inherited his
uncle’s sketches. He was some time in this country, and was
distinguished for his portraits in the reigns of Charles IJ. and
James IJ, Pierro. Francesco Mona, of Milan (1612-68) was an
imitator both of Albani and Guercino; he was a good colonrist, and
excelled in landscape painting.

The more essential or characteristic qualities of this school
are discussed at length in the notice of Rembrandt, as the most
perfect representative of effect from colour and light and shade
combined: the very element of the style was misunderstood by
the Italian Tenebrosi.

1 Engraved by Fry and by Dorigny.
2 Passeri, ‘‘ Vite de’ Pittori,” &c.; Calvi, “ Notizia della Vita di Gio, Francesco
Barbieri,’ 1808.
336 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

It is necessary now to recur to Naples, and to give some account
of the Neapolitan School. It was here that the style of Caravaggio
found its most congenial home; there is something in the people
and climate of Naples which accords with its character—warm-
blooded, dark-complexioned, and in their characters exhibiting
violent contrasts. It is the style of colouring too which has
prevailed with the Spaniards, a kindred people with the Neapo-
litans.

It has been already stated that Gio. Francesco Penni, known
as Il Fattore, had introduced the cinquecento style into Naples, and
of this school there were three distinguished masters at Naples—
Andrea da Salerno, who has been already noticed among the
followers of Raphael; Francesco Curia; and his pupil Ippolito
Borghese.

Francesco Curia (about 1538-1610) also studied the works
of Raphael at Rome, but became eventually an imitator of the
showy mannerists Vasari and Federigo Zucchero. Curia, however,
executed some imposing altar-pieces for the churches of Naples;
especially a “Circumcision, or Purification of the Virgin,” in the
church of Santa Maria della Pieta, near San Giovanni 4 Carbonara,
which was a model for after generations of Neapolitan painters,
both for its composition and for its colouring.’

Ippotiro Bore@nese studied likewise in Rome; he was the most
distinguished of the scholars of Francesco Curia. He painted
in fresco and in oil; his principal work is an altar-piece of the
“Assumption of the Virgin,” in the chapel of the Monte della
Pieta, painted in 1605; a subject he repeated in 1620, in the
church of San Lorenzo at Perugia. Ippolito was employed also
in the north of Italy.

The characteristic school of Naples, however, has but little
affinity with that of Rome; it commences with Betisario CorEnzio,
Giuseppe Risers, and GIAMBATTISTA CaRaccioLo, who must be
accounted among the Tenebrosi. These three painters, the first
a Greek, the second a Spaniard, and the third a Neapolitan, formed
a memorable cabal, the object of which was to exclude all
extraneous competition from the distinguished masters of other
parts of Italy. They are said to have resolved to expel or
poison every painter of talent who should go to Naplts to execute
his art there. Domenichino is reported to have been one of the

1 Dominici, “ Vite dei Pittori Napolitani,” &c.; Romanelli, * Napoli,” ii. p. 149,
1815.
THE TENEBROSI. 337

victims of this infamous cabal: Annihale Carracci, the Cav.
D’Arpino, and Guido were certainly all forced by it to leave
Naples. To paint the chapel of St. Januarius, the famous Cappella
del Tesoro, in the cathedral, was the great object of ambition
of these three painters, and their selfish intrigues did for many
years succeed in excluding every other competitor. In 1641,
however, the year of Domenichino’s death, Caracciolo also died, in
his sixty-first year: the cabal was thus put an end to, and after all,
not one of the three thoroughly succeeded in his scheme, for
the bone of contention fell ultimately to the lot of Lanfranco. In
1643, only two years after the death of Caracciolo, Corenzio himself,
the head of the cabal, broke his neck by a fall from a scaffolding,
while repairing one of his own frescoes in the church of San
Severino. He poisoned his own scholar Luigi Rodrigo, but he
died penitent, says Dominici, who tells us that his life in his last
years had been exemplary! Ribera, the last and youngest of the
triumvirate, was a few years after dishonoured by his daughter,
Maria Rosa, a beautiful girl, who became the mistress of Don Juan
of Austria, a natural son of Philip IV. of Spain; and in 1648
he left Naples in despair, fo brood over his smitten pride in
obscurity."

This Corenzio, the Greek, was born about 1558 in Albania,
and after having studied some years under Tintoretto at Venice,
which he visited in 1580, he returned to his native country;
but eventually, about the year 1600, he settled in Naples. Partly
by ability, partly by violence, and’ partly by dissimulation,
Corenzio obtained a complete ascendancy at Naples, and exerted
a species of dictatorial authority over its painters. Some whose
position was too high for them to be quite subject to him, abstained
from opposition to him through fear; those whom he could neither
awe nor control, he associated with him; and these were only
two—Caracciolo, and Ribera the little Spaniard, known as Lo
Spagnoletto, who, though he had but alittle body, possessed a great
spirit.

Corenzio was a painter of extraordinary. power, especially in
fresco: his works abound in Naples, and he amassed a large
fortune, which enabled him to lead a sumptuous life and give
excellent dinners. He was very similar in his style to his
master Tintoretto, and was on the whole little inferior to him. Of

1 Dominici, “ Vite,” &c., says that Ribera disappeared from Naples about the
year 1648. Cean Bermudez, in his “ Diccionario Historico,” states that he died at
Naples in 1656, but cites no autliority: Palomino has this date. Dominici claims
Ribera for Gallipoli, in the Neapolitan province of Lecce, where he says he was
born of a Spanish father and an Italian mother. Cean Bermudez states that he
was a Spaniard born.

Z
338 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the three, however, the Spagnoletto was the most characteristic and
consistent in his style, in which he often surpassed its founder
Caravaggio himself.

Giuseppe Ribera, it has been ascertained by Cean Bermudez, was
born at Xativa, near Valencia, in Spain, January 12th, 1588; and
he studied under Francisco Ribalta before he visited Italy. He
lived some time in Rome in great poverty, diligently studying the
works of Raphael, until he was fascinated by the effective forms of
Annibale Carracci in the Farnese Palace. The little Spaniard, how-
ever, eventually became a decided follower of Michelangelo da Cara-
vageio. Having failed at Rome, and succeeding nowhere else,
he ventured his fortunes at Naples: here he won the heart
of Leonora Cortese, the daughter of a rich picture-dealer, and
by marrying her, at once secured a suitable position, and from
that time became one of the leading painters at Naples. He
painted a picture of the ‘“ Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew,” which
obtained him the appointment of painter to the Viceroy, the
Duke of Ossuna, a dignity to which a considerable salary was
attached.

The active operations of the cabal seem to have commenced in
1609, on the arrival of Annibale Carracci at Naples, and upon the
occasion of his being employed by the Jesuits to decorate their new
church Del Gest. The Spagnoletto then was still but a youth of
twenty, and can have been little more than a tool of the Greek.

One of Ribera’s principal patrons was the Count of Monterey, a
successor of the Duke of Ossuna in the viceroyalty; he purchased
several of Ribera’s pictures, and sent them to Spain to King
Philip IV. The Academy of St. Luke at Rome elected him a
member of their body, and Pope Innocent X. decorated him with
the order of the Abito di Cristo. Everything went prosperously
with him until the period of the Masaniello disturbances, in 1647,
and the fatal arrival of Don Juan of Austria at Naples.

Ribera was certainly a painter of prodigious ability, but the
natural ferocity of his character comes out even in the choice of
his subjects, which are often illustrations of the most atrocious
examples of cruelty on record. He did not, however, exclusively
paint such subjects. He executed many unpretending works, in
all of which he displays a remarkable power and facility; and he
was perhaps the most able of the so-called Naturalist painters. His
forms are generally correct, though of the most ordinary character,
and his pictures are rich in colour in spite of their strong shadows.
He had many imitators: his influence was felt throughout Italy
and Spain, but more especially at Naples; and though he may not
perhaps, on the whole, dispute the first rank, in his style, with
Caravaggio, of whom he was but the follower, the extensive spread
THE TENEBROSI. 339

and popularity of that peculiar class of painters known as the
Tenebrosi and the Naturalisti, depended as much upon the example of
Ribera as of Caravaggio. Of Ribera’s followers at Naples, Aniello
Falcone, the battle-painter, Salvator Rosa, and Luca Giordano were
the most distinguished. Anprea Vaccaro of Naples (1598-1670)
was also a good imitator of his style.

Among the most distinguished of the few Neapolitan painters
who did not succumb to this cabal of infamous notoriety, was the
Cavaliere Massimo Sranziont (1585-1656); he was the scholar of
Caracciolo, but he also studied the works of Annibale Carracci at
Rome, and there made the acquaintance of Guido, whose style he
imitated, whence he was called J] Guido di Napoli. Stanzioni was
the friend and admirer also of Domenichino. He was, however, after
his return to Naples, carried away by the current, and he added to
the numbers of the Tenebrosi, until the example of Lanfranco
stimulated him to a higher ambition, as shown in his ‘St. Bruno
promulgating the Rules of his Order,” in the chapel of that saint,
in the Carthusian church of San Martino, on the hill of Sant’? Elmo:
here, in the sacristy of the church, is the “ Descent from the
Cross,” which was partly destroyed by Ribera, who persuaded the
monks to clean it with potash, or some corrosive substance, mixed
with the water: Stanzioni afterwards declined to restore the
picture, preferring to leave it as a monument of the malice of the
invidious little Spaniard. Stanzioni’s masterpiece is accounted
the ‘‘ Miracle of St. Januarius,” in the Cappella del Tesoro, in the
cathedral. The Studj Gallery possesses some effective well-coloured
pictures by him. He died of the plague, a disease of no rare men-
tion in the obituary of this work. Stanzioni left a compendious
account of the painters of Naples, which Dominici has incorporated
in his own work on the Neapolitan artists.

Among the best scholars of Stanzioni were Anna pr Rosa, called
Annella di Massimo, distinguished for her beauty as well as her
accomplishments, and Acosrino BELTRANo, who were much em-
ployed as his assistants. Annella became the wife of Beltrano, and
still continued to work as the assistant of Stanzioni, though she
executed in the meanwhile several meritorious works of her own.
The intimacy between the two incited a malicious serving-girl to
insinuate the wife’s infidelity to her husband, who in a fit of
mad jealousy, in 1649, pierced his wife'through the body with
his sword, and killed her, in her thirty-seventh year; Annella,
however, survived long enough to pardon her husband’s insane act
of jealousy. Beltrano fled to France, a wandering but penitent
outcast; until, having obtained the pardon of her relations, he
returned to Naples about the year 1659: the plague had carried off
his principal persecutors in 1656, Beltrano resumed the practice

Z2
340 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of his profession at Naples in 1660, and died there in 1665, still in
the vigour of years, and still tormented with remorse. The “ Birth
and Death of the Virgin,” in the Chiesa della Piet& de’ Turchini, is
by Annella di Massimo.

The Cavaliere Luca GiorpAno, commonly called Fa Presto, from
the extraordinary rapidity and facility of his execution, was born
at Naples in 1632. After studying some time with Lo Spagnoletto,
he visited Rome and became a follower of Pietro da Cortona; still
combining much of the force of the Spanish painter with the style
of composition and showy colour of the Florentine. Their easel
pictures are often very similar; both are commonly bright and
variegated, and somewhat spotty, with a prevalence of light blue.
Giordano painted with equal facility in oil and in fresco, and could
imitate the style of any master. So ready was he with his pencil
that a few days sufficed for the painting of a large altar-piece. He
was invited to Spain by Charles II. in 1690, and there, besides
many other works for which he was handsomely remunerated, he
painted a ceiling in the Escorial. After the king’s death in 1702,
Giordano returned to Naples, where he died on the 12th of January,
1705, immensely wealthy, and having earned the reputation of
being the greatest painter of his age. His works are necessarily
numerous, and they are in various styles; several in fresco and in
oil are still to be seen at Naples, and many of the European
Galleries possess some example, yet most are conspicuous for their
technical facility only : at Schleissheim, near Munich, is, or was, a
“Taking down from the Cross,” which is finely grouped, and has
a sombre, grand effect. The Dresden Gallery has several gay and
dashing works by him, as “Hercules and Omphale,” “ Bacchus
and Ariadne,” the ‘‘ Rape of the Sabines,” ‘‘ Jacob and Rachel at the
well,” the ‘Israelites and Amalekites,” &c. A small picture of
“Mars and Venus,” in the Louvre, is a charming little gem; but
purely of the sensuous and ornamental school. His masterpiece is
possibly the large picture of the ‘“‘ Expulsion of the Fallen Angels,”
in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, which he has signed Jorpanus
F. 1666. Among his many other qualifications Luca Giordano was
a skilful etcher.

After the death of Giordano, Francrsco SoLimena, called from
the costume he adopted, L’Abbate, and also L’Abbate Ciccio (a
nickname for Francesco), was left without a rival in Naples.
He was born at Nocera de’ Pagani on the 4th of October, 1657,
and was the scholar of his father, Angelo Solimena. Like
Giordano, he painted in many styles, and imitated many masters,
put his chief model was Pietro da Cortona. Solimena had extra-
ordinary power and facility of execution both in fresco and in
oil painting ; but he was an eminent academic, and should be
THE 'TENEBROSI. 341

reckoned among the Macchinisti rather than the Naturalisti, and be-
longs strictly to the class of the ornamental painters. He painted
not only historical subjects and portraits, but also landscapes,
animals, and architecture. His great technical powers and love of
imitation led him into a purely mechanical style, and he was one
of the most influential of those able practical artists who—by their
facility and their success in creating incapable imitators, and
reducing the art to mere imitation and mechanical display of forms
and colours, with which mind had little or nothing to do—hastened
and consummated the final decline of painting in Italy during the
eighteenth century, from which the purely technical rules and
practical routine of academies could not possibly reclaim it. This
successful painter died at Naples, April the 5th, 1747, having
nearly completed his ninetieth year. He accumulated an immense
fortune for his time, having considerably raised his prices after the
death of Luca Giordano, Dominici tells us that his capital ex-
ceeded 200,000 scudi, and that he kept a stud of twelve horses,
eight in Naples and four at his country-house at Barra, for the use
of his family, his nephews: he never married.

fis works are very numerous, especially at Naples and at
Monte Casino. They are well known in prints; and there are
also a few etchings by his own hand. The “ Last Supper,”
in the refectory of the Conventuali at Assisi, is considered one
of his most successful works. The Gallery at Dresden is also
rich in the works of Solimena, as the “Madonna and Child with
St. Francis de Paul,” the “Death of St. Francis,” the “ Centaurs
and Lapithe,” &. He and Giordano are often very much alike, and
are sometimes excessively gay and variegated.

Solimena’s scholars were the last able painters of Naples of the
eighteenth century, and they only too faithfully carried out his
principles, striving at a pleasing general effect as the sole aim
and end of their art. They were numerous; the following few are
deserving of notice :—SrBastiano Conca (1676-1764), a native of
Gaeta, painted chiefly at Rome, where he was created a cavaliere
of the order of the “ Abito di Cristo,” by Clement XI. Graquinro
Corrano (1693-1765) of Molfetta, distinguished himself as a fresco
painter at Rome and at Turin; and in 1753 he was invited to
Madrid, and made court painter to Ferdinand VI., for whom he
executed many works, both in oil and in fresco: there are sixteen
of his pictures in the Gallery of Madrid. Frrpinanpo SAnFeLice, a
Neapolitan nobleman, born in 1675, and still living in 1744, more
distinguished, however, as an architect than as a painter, was an
intimate friend of Solimena; he practised the arts as an amateur,
and, besides altar-pieces, painted fruit, landscapes, and architec-
ture. Onorrio AVELLINO, born at Naples in 1674, was a battle and
342 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

portrait painter; many of his copies after Giordano and Solimena
were sold abroad as the original works of these once celebrated
masters. Avellino died at Rome in 1741. Lastly, Francesco pg
Moura, called Francesco to, still living in 1744, after painting
many works at Naples, completely in the style of his master,
obtained also a great reputation, in 1730, at Turin, as a fresco-
painter. Many of Franceschiello’s easel pictures were brought to
this country, says Dominici, where they were in much favour from
their similarity to the works of Solimena, whose name was here, in
England, greatly honoured.

1 For an account of the more recent painters of Naples I must refer the reader
to the interesting “ Notes” of Lord Napier. Among distinguished if not very meri-
torious masters, he notices Grusrpre CaMeRANO (1766-1850), a Sicilian, whose
short comings, however, were due as much to the bad taste of the times as his own
incapacity. Nico.a pr Lavrentus (1804-32) of Chieti, in the Abruzzi, is noticed as
an able painter, suddenly cut off from a very promising career. His masterpiece is
a “Nativity,” at Chieti. See “Notes on Modern Painting at Naples,’ by Lord
Napier. London, 12mo, 1855. Pp. 165.

 

Cupids— Albani.
343

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ACADEMIC SCHOOLS OF ITALY IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH
CENTURIES : THE NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI.

Tuer history of painting in Italy has been already brought down to
the establishment of the Academic schools; it now only remains
briefly to trace the course of these schools throughout the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. The Cinquecento style was the
last of essential development and progression; that of the Carrac-
ceschi the last of acquisition, and this in external qualities, and
almost exclusively in light and shade, and in the treatment of
accessories. Technical execution, as before observed, is the pro-
minent characteristic of the art of the seventeenth century, and
accordingly, as might be anticipated, its most excellent perform-
ances are in portraiture, whether of man or of any other object.

Tue Roman ScuHoon.

A slight influence had been produced at Rome by the works of
Barocci, who imitated the chaste effect of Correggio. But his
colouring was too artificial; its tone is unpleasant, a violet hue
prevailing throughout: in form he was less mannered. The Car-
racceschi, however, were the great -revivers of art at Rome—Do-
menichino, Guido, Lanfranco, and their scholars; but above all
Domenichino. These painters were the principal masters at Rome
during the pontificates of Paul V., Gregory XV., and Urban VIII.;
and what the painters of Bologna had borrowed from the school of
Rome in the pontificate of Clement VII., the pupils of the Carracci
returned with interest in that of Urban VIII.

As already observed, the school of the Carracci had a great effect
upon portrait painting, this branch of art depending in a great
degree on accuracy of delineation and competent execution. The
excessive mannerism of the period had induced so much incapacity
for individual detail, that the painters generally were utterly in-
competent to portraiture, which therefore required. a particular
study and became almost a distinct profession. Not that there
were not any eminent portrait-painters before the establishment
of the Carracceschi in Rome: several have been already mentioned,
and most of the great Italian painters executed occasionally very
fine portraits ; but portraiture was an accessory occupation rather

than a profession. In the seventeenth century it became what it is
now, a profession.
344 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Among the principal of those who devoted themselves more espe-
cially to portrait-painting at Rome were the following :—ANToNIOo
De’ Monti (about 1536-86), a Roman, who painted several portraits
of Gregory XIII.: he was gored to death by a buffalo in the streets
of Rome, during the pontificate of Sixtus V. Pierro Faccuerti
(1535-1613), of Mantua, was particularly celebrated for his portraits
of ladies, which were distinguished for their rich colouring: he
died in Rome, where he had established himself during the pontifi-
cate of Gregory XIII.

Antonio Scatvati (1559-1622), a Bolognese, who settled in
Rome also in the time of Gregory XIII., painted Pope Clement
VIII. several times, though his holiness never gave the painter a
sitting. Scalvati painted Leo XI..and Paul V., under the same
extraordinary circumstances, says Baglione.’

ANTIVEDUTO GRaMMATICA (1570-1626), president of the Academy
of St. Luke at Rome, was also greatly distinguished for his por-
traits. Grammatica had made enemies in the Academy; and an
accusation, apparently founded on truth, was brought against him
in 1624, of the intention of selling Raphael’s picture of “St. Luke
painting the Virgin,” which was the property of the Academy, and
substituting in its place in the church, a copy of his own. He was
accordingly removed from the chair, by the sanction of the Pope,
Urban VIII., and the Frenchman Simon Vouet was elected to
succeed him. This disgrace hastened the painter’s death, which
happened about a year afterwards. Grammatica’s copy is now in
the church of San Luca, and the original of Raphael has been re-
moved to the Academy.

The Cavaliere Orravio Lioni (about 1575-1628), the son of Lodo-
vico Lioni, of Padua, but born at Rome, was greatly distinguished
for his portraits. He was president of the Academy of St. Luke,
and brought on his death by a disease induced by too great applica-
tion to etching. His own and other excellent portraits etched by
Lioni were published at Rome in 1731, in a work entitled “ Ritratti
di alcuni celebri Pittori del Secolo XVII.,” &c.

And lastly, Batpassare ALoist (1578-1638), a Bolognese, called
GaLAnino, who succeeded to the position of the Cavaliere Lioni as
portrait-painter at Rome, was so excellent in this department of
art that he has been termed the Italian Vandyck.

Of the so-called historical painters, the following are the more
eminent of those who acquired a reputation above the mass of those
practising in Rome in the seventeenth century :—Anronio Temprsra,
born at Florence in 1555, was the scholar of John Stradanus, a

1 «Vite de’ Pittori, &c., dal Pontificato di Gregorio XIII. fino a’ tempi di
Urbano VII..” 4to., Naples, 1733.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 345

battle-painter of Bruges, settled in Florence; and Tempesta’s re-
putation was ultimately that of a battle-painter, though he executed
other works for Gregory XIII., at Rome, where he died in 1630.1
Awnronio Ricct, called Barpatunea, born at Messina in 1600, was
the scholar and imitator of Domenichino and died at Rome, No-
vember 2nd, 1649, Awprea Camasstt, born at Bevagna in 1602,
also a scholar of Domenichino, and of Sacchi, was distinguished
both as a painter in oil and in fresco, but died pvor at Rome. not-
withstanding, in 1648. Francesco Cozza (1605-82), of Istilo, in
Calabria, a scholar and friend of Domenichino completed some of
the works left unfinished at that master’s death. Pierro pet Po
(1610-92), of Palermo, after acquiring considerable distinction at
Rome, settled and died at Naples, where, however, he devoted him-
self chiefly to engraving. GIAMBATTISTA Passrrt (1610-79), a native
Roman, lived with Domenichino at Frascati: he was more a genre
and still-life, than historical painter, his purely figure-pieces being
rare. He was also poet and writer on art; and we owe to him one
of the best of the Italian Art-biographies—“ Vite de’ Pittori, Scul-
tori, ed Architetti che anno lavorato in Roma, morti dal 1641, fino al
1678,”—first published in Rome in 1772, in 4to. Passeri was pre-
sident of the Roman Academy of St. Luke: he had a great venera-
tion for Domenichino, and painted the portrait of that master, which
is now in the Uffizj Gallery at Florence. Lvici Scaramuccta, called
In Prrueino, from his birth-place, was born at Perugia in 1616, and
died at Milan of apoplexy, while in the church of Sant’ Antonio de’
Teatini, on the 13th of August, 1680. He studied with Guido, and
executed many good works at Perugia, Rome, Bologna, and Milan,
where, after the death of Guido, Scaramuccia ultimately settled ,
married, and established a popular school. He was a member of
the Academy of St. Luke at Rome, which possesses his portrait: he
also was a writer on art, and published at Pavia, in 1674, a now
interesting work in 4to., on the excellences of the Italian painters,

" He is still better known for his numerous etchings. This painter must not be
confounded with the notorious Cavaliere Pietro Tempesta, or Peter De Mulieribus,
as he was called, from his many mistresses. His name was Peter Molyn; he was
born at Haarlem in 1637, and was called Tempesta from his love of painting sea
storms: he was also a good animal-painter, especially of wild animals, of a nature
Kindred with himself. From Calvinist he turned Papist and went to Rome, where
he married the sister of his assistant, known as Tempestino. aking a fancy to a
Genoese lady, he hired an assassin to put his wife out of the way, and she was
murdered at Sarzana. The crime was afterwards discovered, and the Cavaliere
passed many years in prison at Genoa ; he eventually got out, deserted his second
wife, and notwithstanding his antecedents were known, became a very fashionable
painter at Milan, where he died of a fever in 1701. His history is recorded by
Pascoli: I have noticed both the Tempestas at some length in the “ Penny Cyclo-
peedia.”
346 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

entitled “Le Finezze de’ Penelli Italiani ammirate e studiate da
Girupeno, sotto la scorta, e disciplina del genio di Raffaello d Urbino.”
Girupeno is a mere anagram on the painter’s agnomen of Perugino.

The most distinguished Roman master contemporary with the
Carracceschi was ANDREA SaccuI, who in respect of pupilage may
be reckoned among the Carracceschi himself; he was the scholar of
Albani. He was born in the neighbourhood of Rome in 1598, was
one of the best colourists and best designers of the Roman school,
and was better versed in the theory of art than any of his contem-
poraries or immediate predecessors. There is a truth and breadth
in the style of Sacchi, and a simplicity about his treatment of the
subjects he illustrated, which place him on a level with any of the
great masters of the Roman school. He was inferior to Julio
Romano in invention, but in all other respects is inferior only to
the great Caposcuola of his school, Raphael himself.

Sacchi was a devoted admirer of Raphael: when considerably
advanced in life he visited Parma and other places in the north of
Italy, and he was so much struck with the effective beauty of the
Venetian and Lombard schools, that he expected to feel some want
in the works of Raphael when he returned to Rome; but immediately
he saw the Mass of Bolsena in the Vatican, he exclaimed—‘ Here
I find not only Titian and Correggio, but Raphael also.” He died
at Rome, June 21st, 1661.

Sacchi’s masterpiece is the St. Romualdo, now in the Vatican;
the saint is relating a vision to five monks of his order; and though
all are clad alike and in white, he has so well contrived the shadow
of a tree in the picture, that the whole has a grand and sufficiently
varied effect: it is generally accounted one of the finest pictures in
Rome." :

Carlo Maratti and Nicolas Poussin were both pupils of Sacchi.

Pietro BeRRETTINI DA Cortona (1596-1669) was the chief rival of
Sacchi at Rome; and though his style was attractive and calculated
to secure many followers, it was superficial and incorrect, and he
takes the lead in the class of painters termed machinists by the
Italians. He was one of the most active agents of the decay of
painting in Italy in the seventeenth century. Ready in invention,
and rapid in execution, he attained a more brilliant than solid
reputation, and is now almost forgotten. He painted the ceiling of
the grand saloon in the Palazzo Barberini at Rome, and several of
the frescoes of the Pitti Palace in Florence.

The followers of Cortona and Sacchi formed two rival factions of
art which divided Rome: that of Sacchi was headed by Canto

1 Passeri, “ Vite de’ Pittori,”’ &c.; and the author's article Saccut in the “ Penny
Cyclopedia.”
 

)

Rome.

0. (ANDREA SACCHI.

ROMU ALD!

ST.

rage 346,

L
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 347

Mararti,. supported by Lodovico Garzi: that of Cortona by Ciro
Ferri (1634-89), supported by Romanelli. The followers of Cor-
tona, or the Machinists, had for a period much the greater in-
fluence, especially in fresco, chiefly through the support of Bernini,
who, during the pontificates of Urban VIII. and Innocent X., was
all-powerful in matters of art at Rome. There is a large red picture
by Ciro Ferri at Hampton Court— The Triumph of Bacchus”—
hanging in the Queen’s Guard Chamber, opposite to a copy by
Romanelli from a picture of the same subject by Guido. Ferri’s
work shows to what an offensive degree mannerism in colour may
be carried.

Giovanni Francesco RomaNeELLt, of Viterbo (about 1610-62), was
in the school of Domenichino before he became the scholar of
Pietro da Cortona. He was a good ornamental painter, and though
he had less power than Pietro, he showed more delicacy of execu-
tion. Through his patron, the Cardinal Barberini, Romanelli was
introduced to the Cardinal Mazarin, and he worked some years in
France, painting in the Louvre the so-called Salles, des Saisons, de
la Paix, des Romains, and du Centaure, with subjects from the
Aneid, for which he was decorated with the Order of St. Michael
by Louis XIV.

After the death, however, of Ciro Ferri, Maratti was without a
rival in Rome; and upon the accession of Innocent XII. he was
confirmed in the post given him by Innocent XI., as inspector of
the Stanze in the Vatican, the frescoes of which, as already men-
tioned, he greatly contributed to preserve from decay. Innocent
XII. made him in 1693 superintendent of all the paintings of the
Vatican Palace; and when Cardinal Albani succeeded Innocent, as
Clement XI., he entrusted Maratti with the complete restoration of
the Raphael frescoes of the Stanze. This work was successfully
accomplished in 1702-3, and the Pope rewarded the painter with
the rank and insignia of the ‘Order of Christ.” It appears un-
questionable that Carlo Maratti did a good work in carrying out
these restorations: many of the mere decorative portions below had
to be almost entirely renewed; for, what with neglect and mis-
chievous name-writing, they were in part wholly destroyed. The
Pope, we are told, took such interest in this restoration, that he
used, while at the Vatican, to visit the chambers almost daily, to
watch the progress of the operations: of which not the least in-
teresting was the removal of earlier over-paintings. Maratti had
the aid of four assistants, and the ornamental portions were restored
by Domenico Belletti: the great frescoes previous to being repaired
were washed with Greek wine by Pietro Tossini, the Pope himself
being present at the first experimental washing. Maratti died
Principe or President of the Academy of St. Luke at Rome,
348 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

December 15th, 1713, at the advanced age of eighty-eight. He was
a native of Camurano, near Ancona, where he was born in 1625.1

Lopvovico Ganzi, of Pistoja, a favourite scholar of Andrea Sacchi,
survived Carlo Maratti a few years; he died in 1721, aged upwards
of eighty. He painted the cupola of the Cappella Cibo, in the
church of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome.

Maratti’s style was purely Academic ; he was also feeble in design,
and his attitudes are not free from affectation, which by some has
been mistaken for grace. His portraits, however, are well painted,
and in a good style. He has been called the Last of the Romans.
That he was the last great painter of Rome there can scarcely be
a doubt; for neither Pompzo GrroLamo Baroni, of Lucca (1708-87),
nor Anton RapudrL Menes, of Aussig, in Bohemia (1728- -79), can
be said to dispute the title with him, One of his best works is the
“Baptism of Christ,” in the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, in
Rome. Notwithstanding the studied affectation and occasional incor-
rectness of Maratti, there is a dignity of style and sentiment about
some of his works which is far from being compensated for by the
mere Academic precision of Batoni or Mengs, though both masters
were great in their style. Batoni gave too much importance to
finish ; Mengs was too blindly devoted to the antique. The former
was an excellent portrait-painter, and had so far the advantage over
Mengs that his mind was not so preoccupied as to exclude individu-
ality of form. Mengs was so absorbed by the ideal, that nature was
to him mere materials for its display, and life and character were
spirited away by the phantom of his mind. Both painters were
eminently Academic, and were great masters in the mere technicali-
ties of art; but Academic preciseness has evidently supplanted
every higher aim, and their works are accordingly eminently con-
spicuous for the insipidity and monotony which characterize mere
Academic style.

Mengs has left writings on the arts, which were printed by his
devoted friend and admirer Azara, the Spanish minister at Rome, in
both Italian and Spanish. Mengs had visited Spain, and was principal
cabinet-painter to the King, Charles III. A German translation of
his works, with a memoir, was published at Halle, in 1786, under the
title—‘‘ Des Ritters Anton Raphael Mengs Hinterlassne Werke,”
three volumes 8vo.

Pompeo Batoni is evidently the painter of whom Sir Joshua
Reynolds relates, in his Sixth Discourse, that he had, though living
in Rome, not entered the Vatican for fifteen years; that he had at
one time entered upon an engagement to copy one of the pictures of

1 Lioni, “Ritratti di alcuni celebri Pittori del Secolo XVII.” &c., 4to., Rome,
1781.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 349

Raphael, but that he regretted no settlement had been come to, as
his copy would have greatly surpassed the original.

Batoni’s principal work is ‘The Fall of Simon Magus,” in Santa
Maria degli Angeli, at Rome. At Hampton Court there is a por-
trait of Pope Gregory XIV. by him, showing the general quality of
his execution.

Batoni’s pictures are well drawn and well coloured ; but they are
so purely Academic, that they appear to have been painted solely
for the sake of their drawing and colouring. ‘St. John in the
Wilderness,” and “ The Magdalen,” both in the Dresden Gallery,
are perfect specimens of such ideal Academic art, the means supplant-
ing the end.

Nicotas. Poussin, born at Andelys, in Normandy, about June 19th,
1594, died at Rome, November 19th, 1665. Having received the first
instructions in his art from Quentin Varin, a painter of Beauvais,
he worked a short time in Paris, as the assistant of Nicolas Duchesne,
at the Luxembourg; and finally after various wanderings settled, in
1624,at Rome. Here, as already noticed, he entered the school of
Sacchi, and though by birth a Frenchman, became a Roman by
adoption; he lived and painted chiefly at Rome, and must be
accounted among the Roman painters. Though an ornament to
the arts of Rome, his style was very peculiar, and had no influence
upon his contemporaries. He was a great admirer of Domenichino
and Sacchi, both of whose academies he attended; but he formed
his style chiefly from Raphael and the antique. One of the greatest
objections to his works is, that they too often resemble painted
bassi-rilievi; they are defective in unity of light and shade. The
excellence of his landscapes is one of the remarkable features of his
works; he is conspicuous also for his classic design. He has been
styled the Learned Poussin, chiefly from the familiarity with ancient
customs displayed in his mythological pieces, his favourite subjects.
In all his compositions from ancient story he appears to have entered
thoroughly into the sentiment of his subject ; he was in this respect
much above the generality of his contemporaries ; he heartily hated
the Naturalist school of Caravaggio and his imitators. The “Bac-
chanalian Dance,” of Fauns and Bacchantes, in the National Gallery,
is one of Poussin’s masterpieces; so also is the “ Bacchanalian
Festival,” with the Drunken Silenus, and Centaurs, Satyrs, and Fauns,
in wild revelry: in both, the forms have quite the antique cha-
racter. “ No works of any modern,” says Sir Joshua Reynolds,' “ have
so much of the air of antique painting as those of Poussin. His best
performances have a remarkable dryness of manner, which, though
by no means to be recommended for imitation, yet seems perfectly

* Discourse V.
350 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

correspondent to that ancient simplicity which distinguishes his
style. Like Polidoro, he studied the ancients so much that he
acquired a habit of thinking in their way.”

It was probably owing partly to the influence of Du Quesnoy the
sculptor, known as Il Fiammingo, that Poussin acquired so decided
a love for the antique: they lived in the same house, and Poussin,
not content with drawing from the ancient bassi-rilievi, studied them
with the spirit of a sculptor also, and modelled them.

Poussin, after an absence of sixteen years from his native country,
returned by the invitation of Louis XIII., to France, in 1640, and
was presented to the king by Cardinal Richelieu. Though well
received by Louis, who gave Poussin apartments in the Tuileries,
and appointed him his principal painter, with a salary. of 1201. a
year, the art and society of the French painters was distasteful to
him; and on the plea of fetching his wife, he obtained permission in
1642 to revisit Rome; and Louis XIII. having died shortly after-
wards, Poussin considered himself at liberty, and never returned to
France. His portrait by himself is in the Louvre. Among this
painter’s most celebrated works are generally accounted the series of
compositions known as the “ Seven Sacraments,” originally painted
for the Commendatore Del Pozzo, and afterwards repeated for his
friend M. De Chantelon, Maitre d’Hétel to Louis XIII. ; but Poussin
is much stronger in profane or classical subjects than in the religious.
Both the above series of pictures are now in England: the first set
at Belvoir Castle, Rutlandshire; and the second at Bridgewater
House."

Gaspar Poussin (1613-1675), or rather Gaspre Dughet, was the
brother-in-law of Nicolas, who married in 1629, Anna Maria Dughet,
Gaspar’s sister; though of French parents, he was born in Rome:
he also was one of the most distinguished landscape-painters of his
time. Gaspar’s style and success were doubtless much due to the
example and instruction of Nicolas, who may be reckoned among
the earliest great landscape-painters. The first Italian painters who
paid much attention to landscape were the Venetians, who were
apparently directed to that branch of the art by various Flemings
who had occasionally resided in Venice. The Bolognese, among
whom Annibale Carracci and Albani are conspicuous, applied them-
selves still more generally and more specially to the study; and at
Bologna also, a Fleming, Denis Calvart, was the chief guide of the
Italians. Matthew and Paul Bril exerted a similar influence at
Rome. Paul was virtually the master of all the landscape-painters

1 They are engraved by Pesne. There is a life of Poussin in Bellori’s “ Vite
de’ Pittori,” &., Rome, 1672; another, ‘ Vie et Giuvres de Nicolas Poussin,” was
published by Gault de Saint Germain, in 1806; sce also Felibien, “ Entretiens
sur les Vies des plus exccllens Peintres,” &c., Paris, 1685.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 351

of Rome, and was the great promoter of the cultivation of the art
there. The National Gallery possesses likewise some of the master-
pieces of Gaspar Poussin. They have a solemn, melancholy charac-
ter about them; though this quality is not entirely esthetic. He
was in the habit of painting on dark grounds, and the deep gloom
of many of his pictures is doubtless owing to the accident of these
dark grounds gradually affecting and: lowering the tone of the
pictures.

Satvator Rosa, born in the village of Renella, in the neighbour-
hood of Naples, July 21st, 1615, was the son of an architect, and
was led to follow painting by a relative of the name of Ciccio Fra-
canzano ; he studied also with Spagnoletto and with Aniello Falcone,
the battle-painter. Apparently, through the advice of Lanfranco, then
at Naples, Salvator went in 1635 to Rome, where, with the exception of
some few intervals of travel, he chiefly resided from 1638 until his
‘death, on the 15th of March, 1673: he lived some time at Viterbo
and Volterra, where he wrote his Satires, and he resided several
years at Florence, at the close of his life. There is something very
remarkable about the pictures of Salvator Rosa: whether ieoceeype
or other pieces, there is a masterly vigour about them which dis-
tinguishes them from the works perhaps of every other painter.
His landscapes have somewhat the tone and colouring of those of
Gaspar Poussin; but seldom suggest the feelings of repose induced
by the French master. Fuseli has well described the landscapes
of Salvator: he delighted, says that writer, ‘‘in ideas of desolation,
solitude, and danger; impenetrable forests, rocky or storm-lashed
shores; in lonely dells leading to dens and caverns of banditti,
alpine ridges, trees blasted by lightning or sapped by time, or
stretching their extravagant arms athwart a murky sky ; lowering
or thundering clouds, and suns shorn of their beams. His figures
are wandering shepherds, forlorn travellers, wrecked mariners,
banditti lurking for their prey, or dividing their spoils.”

There seems to have been some analogy between Salvator’s art and
his life, though the story of his living with banditti, appears to be of
recent invention, and without foundation : it is not even alluded to by
Passeri, by Baldinucci, or by Dominici. There is some foundation
for his having been concerned, in 1647, in the disturbances caused by
Masaniello, whose portrait he certainly painted more than once.2
Salvator joined the Compagnia della Morte, of which his former master
Aniello Falcone was captain. He also made many enemies in Rome,
especially the party of Bernini and the Academicians, by his inde-

’ Note in Pilkington’s “ Dictionary of Painters,’ 4to., 1810.
” Dominici “ Vite de’ Pittori Napolitani,” &¢. A portrait by Salvator, said to
be that of Masaniello, is at Corsham House.
352 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

pendent and satirical character ; for though his satires were not pub-
lished until 1719, nearly fifty years after his death, he made them
sufficiently well known. These rivalries with his fellow-artists at
Rome seem to have caused his temporary removal to Florence in
his later years.

Salvator’s landscapes, though perhaps the most valuable, are far
from being the most pretentious of his works; he painted also
historical and religious pieces, battles, and portraits; and many of
the best are in this country, as “ Diogenes throwing away his cup,”
and “Democritus in his solitude,” in the Grosvenor Gallery; and
‘‘ Belisarius,’ at Raynham Hall, Norfolk: all most characteristic
works. Of his landscapes, “ Mercury and the Dishonest Woodman,”
in the National Gallery, is an admirable example. Of his greatest
works is the ‘Conspiracy of Catiline,” in the Pitti Gallery, at
Florence. In the Louvre also he is seen to advantage in “ A Battle,”
signed Satvator Rosa, painted in 1652, and “A Landscape.” Of
“Samuel appearing to Saul,” in the same Gallery, Fuseli character-
istically and justly remarks—‘“ His celebrated Witch of Endor is a
hag; and cauldrons, skeletons, bats, toads, and herbs, are vainly
accumulated to palliate the want of dignity and pathos in Saul, and
of sublimity in the apparition.”

Salvator has left us several portraits of himself, in the Pitti, at
Berlin, at St. Petersburg, in the Grosvenor Gallery, and in the Lans-
downe Collection. We have also many exceedingly spirited etch-
ings by him. He laboured to the very last on his satires, of which
there are six: on Music, Poetry, Painting, War, Babylon, and Envy.
He died prematurely, aged only fifty-eight, of dropsy, and was buried
in the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, where there is a monu-
ment to his memory raised by his son Augusto, who inherited some
considerable property from him; the mother, a Florentine, was
Salvator’s housekeeper ; he married her only a few days before his
death: his second son, Rosalvo, died before him.t

Reputation in landscape, however, appears to have been almost
usurped, till of late years, by Cuaune Gitixr, the humble pastry-
cook of Lorraine, who was born at Chateau de Chamagne, on the
Moselle, near Charmes, in the year 1600, and died at Rome on the
23rd of November, 1682. The cooks of Lorraine were famous at this
time, and to one of these, a pastrycook, his parents, who were poor,
apprenticed their son. According to his intimate friend and com-
panion, Sandrart, the future painter travelled to Rome in the company

1 Salvini, “Satire e Vita di Salvator Rosa,” 8vo., Flor., 1833; Passeri, “Vite
de’ Pittori,” &c. Lady Morgan has written a well-known work, called “The
Life of Salvator Rosa,” in which the many strange stories relative to this remark-
able painter are all carefully collected, fictitious and true together, and elaborated
into an interesting romance.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 353

of somé of these cooks, in order to seek employment there. He
found it with a landscape-painter, the profligate Acosrino Tassr
(1566-1644), with whom he engaged himself as an ordinary domestic
servant. He both prepared his master’s meals and ground his
colours for him; but the circumstance of Tassi’s being a landscape-
painter seems to have been the inciting cause of Claude’s following
the same pursuit.

How long Claude Lorrain served in this menial capacity is
not known, but Tassi’s principal works were executed in the
Lancellotti and Quirinal palaces, during the pontificate of Paul V.,
who died in 1621; and it was probably during their progress
that Claude was Tassi’s servant. In the pontificate of Urban VIII.
(1623-44), after many struggles and much hardship, we find
him acknowledged as a great landscape-painter; though his
best period was perhaps that of Innocent X. (1644-55). He was
known as an engraver as early as 1630. Sandrart first taught him
to paint from nature; and he tells us that Claude was so careful
and slow in his execution, that he would paint a week or a fortnight
at one part of a picture without showing any progress. He always
had great difficulty in painting the figure or animals, though
he attended the Academy of Rome for many years: these parts
of his pictures were commonly inserted by others. His chief
excellence is in aérial perspective and the management of light
generally; some of his moving waters are likewise admirable.
But his works vary greatly in their merit and character; some,
his earlier pictures, are in the dry manner of his master Tassi,
or some of the inferior landscapes attributed to Claude are probably
the works of Tassi. Even the known more pretentious works
of Claude are occasionally too obtrusively painted svenes, and’ few are
absolutely free from this defect. The most natural of his landscapes
are to be found probably in his small pictures, of which the
“ Annunciation,” in the National Gallery, is one of the finest he ever
painted. There are many etchings attributed to Claude, some
bearing dates between 1630 and 1663; many are signed, but
no two alike: the form of name most used is Claudio.1 The Duke
of Devonshire is in possession of an interesting series of drawings,
known as the Libro di Verita ; it consists of sketches of his pictures by
Claude, with dates and other memoranda, and was made as a
register for the identification of his works.”

’ Robert-Dumesnil, “Le Peintre-Graveur Francais,’ 8 vols., 8vo. Paris,
1835-50. .See also the Catalogue of the National Gallery, which, from the 37th
Edition, inclusive, contains.some of Claude's signatures.

2 Tt was engraved by Richard Earlom, for John Boydell, under the following
title :—* Liber Veritatis; or, a Collection of Two Hundred Prints after the original
designs of Claude le Lorrain, in the Collection of his Grace the Duke of Devon-

2a
354 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Such is the simple account of Claude as published during his own
lifetime, in 1675, by his intimate friend Sandrart, in his “ Academia
Todesca ;”! yet it has been repudiated by French writers, who
have preferred the more genteel story furnished by a nephew of the
painter to Baldinucci, whose memoir was published not only
long after Claude’s death, but after his own.” Baldinucci does
not contradict Sandrart; he merely gives a different account of
Claude’s journey to Rome, without, however, assigning any cause for
it. He states that Claude, after the death of his parents in 1613,
joined a brother in Alsace who was a wood engraver, and sub-
sequently accompanied a relative, a lace merchant, to Rome. This
is quite consistent with Sandrart’s story, who, during his intimate
intercourse with Claude at Rome,’ can scarcely have failed to learn
the incidents of his remarkable life from Claude himself, and
he relates it as an extraordinary story, prefacing his account
of Cuaupius GILL, as he calls him, with the words: “of him there
are wonderful incidents to relate.”* During his long life Claude paid
only one visit to his native country, about the year 1625. The
nephew, Baldinucci’s authority, and Claude’s heir, either did not
know his uncle’s career, or if he did, he was ashamed of it,
and furnished the Florentine biographer with a gloss of his own
in place of the true and heroic story.

shire,” London, 1777. It was copied by Ludovico Caracciolo, and published in
Rome in 1815. Caracciolo, in a Life of Claude prefixed to the work, pretends to
correct the above story of the painter’s origin, on the authority of the misprint in
the Latin translation of Sandrart, explained below. i

1 «T/Academia Todesca;” or, “Teutsche Academie der edlen Bau-Bild-und
Malerey-Kiinste,” 4 vols. folio, Ntirmberg, 1675-79. It was afterwards published
in a Latin translation in 1684—*“ Academia Nobilissimae Artis Pictoriae,” &e.,
in which there is the very simple but material misprint of Pictor for Pistor,
where Sandrart states that Claude was apprenticed to a Pasteten-Becker, which
in the Latin version is printed Pictort cuidam artocreatum, for Pistort cuidam
artocreatum, making Sandrart say that Claude was apprenticed to a painter of
pies instead of a pastry-cook or baker of pies. This error is repeated in the
margin and in the index of the work, and has led some writers, who have ap-
parently assumed the translation to be the original, into strange theories, such as
that Claude’s master was a painter of signs for cook-shops, &c., and that the
tradition about the pastry-cook was a fiction founded upon a misconception of
Sandrart’s statement. In Smith’s “ Catalogue Raisonné,’ and in Bohn’s edition
of Bryan’s “Dictionary of Painters and Engravers,” the spurious story is repeated
in great detail; Bryan himself has given the correct account.

2 “ Notizie dei Professori del Disegno,” &., 3 vols., 4to., Florence, 1681-1728.

3 “Lebenslauf Joachims von Sandrart,” &, p. 12, and in the “Academia
Todesca,” ii. p. 332.

4 “Von ihm fallen verwunderliche Begebenheiten zu erzehlen,” ii. p. 331.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 355

Tue Tuscan ScHOOL.

The course of painting at Florence and Venice, and other parts
of Italy, was similar to that already described at Rome. The
Caposcuola, or great leader of each school, was of greater im-
portance than Nature herself; and accordingly, with occasional
intermissions, the majority of the masters of the several schools
are distinguished only for an inferior repetition of the styles of
the leading masters of the schools, modified by the Eclecticism
of the Carracci: Michelangelo at Florence, Titian and Paolo
Veronese at Venice.

Barocci had some influence on the colouring of the Florentine
school, and Lodovico Cardi, commonly called Craont (1559-1613),
had still more. He combined correctness of drawing with bril-
liancy of colouring. Santi pr Tivo however (1538-1603), had before
him shown a great indifference for the Anatomical school. Cigoli
was greatly assisted in his reform of the Florentine school by
Gregorio Pagani and Domenico da Passignano, and the influence
of the Carracceschi, which was felt at Florence about the same
time. Cigoli owed much of his: style to the works of Barocci,
who was in some respects a faint revival of Correggio. The
ascendancy of this new school, more conspicuous for the absence of
great blemishes than for the presence of great beauties, was much
promoted by the works of Ligozzi at Florence, and by the school
of Francesco Vanni at Siena. Of this school were many good
portrait-painters ; indeed excellence in portraiture, as already
observed elsewhere, characterizes the Italian painting of the seven-
teenth century.

Crisrororo ALLORI, sometimes called also, after his great-uncle,
Bronzino, because his father, Alessandro Allori, went generally
by that name, was born at Florence in 1577. He was by some
considered the best painter of his time in execution. He was
first the pupil of his father, a devoted admirer of Michelangelo, but
they soon disagreed ; the son pronounced the taste of his instructor
to be perverted, and entered the studio of Gregorio Pagani.
Cristoforo was a great admirer of the works of Cigoli and Pagani,
and had a proportionate antipathy to the anatomical school of
Michelangelo, to which his father belonged. He was fastidious
in his execution, which at times was extremely delicate; he
consequently finished but few pictures: his style was particularly
suited to portraiture, in which he was excellent. He was also
considered the best landscape-painter of his time in Florence;
and he is said to have made some copies, with slight alterations
in the back-grounds, of Correggio’s Magdalen, which have passed as
duplicates by Correggio. A remarkable picture by Cristoforo is the

2a2
356 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

“Judith with the head of Holofernes,” in the Pitti Palace ;
there is a small copy or repetition of it at Dulwich; the Judith
is said to have been painted from his own ‘mistress, the head. of
Holofernes from himself. He died: at Florence in 1621. Besides:
the painters noticed above, the following masters deserve particular
mention: — Giovanni Buiitverri, of Florence (1576-1644), the
scholar of Cigoli; Fabrizio Boschi, of Florence (about 1570-1642), a
scholar of Passignano; Jacopo Chimenti da Empoli (about 1554-
1640), an imitator, of Andrea del Sarto, and distinguished for
his Madonnas; he was distinguished also for his love of good eating,
and acquired from his contemporaries the nickname of L’ Empilo,
instead of L’Empoli, which is as much as to say stewpan: also
Giambattista Vanni, of Pisa, or of Florence (1599-1660), L’Empoli’s,
scholar, who made good copies of the works of other masters,
a taste perhaps acquired from Cristoforo Allori, with whom he
worked some years. Further, Marreo Rosse.ur (1578-1650), of
the same family as the renowned Cosimo Rosselli, and one of
twenty-four children by the same mother—Elena Coppi; he was
a very popular teacher of painting, and has left many good.
works at Florence. Of Matteo’s scholars, the three following
acquired the greatest reputations as fresco-painters, more especially
Giovanni Manozzi of San Giovanni di Valdarno (1590-1656), hence:
called Giovanni da San Giovanni; he died of the gout: Baldassare
Franceschini (1611-89), called Il Volterrano ; and Francesco Boschi
(1619-75), a good portrait-painter. Francesco Furini (about.
1600-49), called the, Guido and the Albano of Florence, became
priest about 1640, but continued to paint nevertheless: Francesco’s
scholar, Simone Pignone (1614-76), was much praised by his
contemporaries; and Lorenzo Lippi (1606-64), was known as
poet as well as painter; he published a burlesque entitled
Malmantile Racquistato, in the spirit of the satires of his friend
Salvator Rosa. Baldinucci notices a “Triumph of David,” by
Lippi, which constituted a family portrait of the seventeen children
of Angelo Galli.

Caro Doxcr (1616-86) belongs also to the painters of Florence
of this period: he was chiefly distinguished for the high finish
of his works, which in great part are dramatized portraits; and
he generally painted mere heads or single figures reaching down to
the knees only. He was most successful in female figures: his
style was too effeminate for male character. His daughter Agnese
imitated and copied her father’s works.

During the prevalence of this style another new impulse was
given to painting at Florence by the florid compositions of Pietro da

1 Baldinucci, “Notizie de’ Professori del Disegno,” &¢.; Lanzi, “Storia Pit-
torica,” &c.; Fiorillo, ‘‘ Geschichte der Mahlerei,” &c., vol. i.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 357

Cortona, who carried away a host of imitators there as well as
at Rome; the effect of his style was indeed much greater at
Florence than at Rome. His principal works at Florence were the
extensive frescoes of the Pitti Palace, which, however, were only
commenced by Cortona; they were completed by Ciro Ferri. All
extensive works from the time of Cortona till towards the close
of the eighteenth century were purely decorative ornamental,
the best of all styles for the purposes to which it was applied—
the decorations of the ceilings of elaborately ornamented apart-
ments. Variety and gaiety of colour in continuous chains of
groups, and a light tone of chiaroscuro, were the chief requisites ‘for
such decorations, and they are the chief characteristics of Cortona
and his great cortége of Machinists. The most distinguished
Florentine artists of this class, the last great’ school of Tuscany,
were, Cesare, Vincenzo, and Pietro Dandini; Salvi Castellucci,
Giacinto and Lodovico Gimignani; Antonio Domenico Gabbiani,
and his scholar Benedetto Luti; Lazzaro Baldi, Alessandro
Gherardini, and Sebastiano Galeotti.

The Dandini were important masters in their day. Crsare
(1595-1658) studied with Cristoforo Allori and Passignano, and
assisted the latter in Florence and in Pisa; his brother Vincenzo
(1607-75) studied under Pietro da Cortona at Rome, and: was
the most distinguished of the family; Vincenzo’s son, Pierro
(1647-1712), acquired a great reputation abroad, but was careless in
his work, and his fame was ephemeral. CasTELLucci (1608-72) was
a native of Arezzo, and there worked in the spirit of Pietro da
Cortona.

Giacinto Guuenani, of Pistoja (1611-80), though a follower
of Pietro da Cortona, worked with Carlo Maratti in the Baptistery
of San Giovanni in Laterano at Rome; he was a good engraver;
his son Lopvovico (1644-97), born in Rome, was a respectable
painter, in some respects surpassing his father. Of Lazzarc Batpr
(1623-1703), also of Pistoja, there are still many works preserved in
Rome.

GaxBIANI (1652-1726) was the scholar of Vincenzo Dandini,
and worked with Ciro Ferri at Rome; he was very successful
in children or amorini; his pupil, Ignatius Hugford, published a
life of him in 1762;! he was killed by a fall from a scaffolding.
Hugford (1703-78) was born in Florence, but his father was
English; he practised as a painter, but had a greater reputation as
a connoisseur; he was an enthusiastic collector of old tempera
pictures; his taste, however, then found few sympathizers, and

1 «Vita di Auton Domenico Gabbiani Pittore Fiorentino, dedicata a Pietro
Mariette,” 4to., published also in folio, and containing a hundred designs by
Gabbiani—“ Raccolta di cento pensieri diversi di Anton Domenico Gabbiani.”
358 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

his collection was dispersed at his death. He was the instructor of
two English academicians, Cipriani and Bartolozzi.

Beyenetto Lui, Cavaliere (1666-1724), by some considered
the last of the great Florentine painters, settled in Rome in 1690;
his masterpiece is the “ Vest of San Ranieri,” in Pisa cathedral ; he
gave much of his time to pastel-drawing, a method afterwards
carried to great perfection by Mengs.

ALESSANDRO GHERARDINI (1655-1728) was a good imitator of
other masters; his scholar, Sxpastiano Gatxorri (1676-1746), ob-
tained reputation as a fresco-painter in several of the northern
cities of Italy, and died director of the academy of Turin.'

THE Bo.ocNnesE ScHOOL.

At Bologna in the seventeenth century the most distinguished
masters were—Simone Cantarini, Alessandro Tiarini, Lionello
Spada, Lorenzo Passinelli, and Carlo Cignani.

Smone Cantarini, called Il Pesarese, was born at Oropezza in
1612, and died at Verona, October 15th, 1648. He was the scholar
of Guido, and was one of the best of all the Italian portrait-painters,
and has seldom been equalled and perhaps never been surpassed in
execution. Nothing can be more perfectly painted than some of
the heads and extremities in his pictures: there is a head of Guido
by him in the Gallery of the academy at Bologna, which must be
reckoned among the best painted heads in the world. It appears
to be alive, and yet it is painted with great freedom, the very
touches are evident; it is a production of consummate mastery, not
of labour. Cantarini was very vain, and made himself very dis-
agreeable ; his life is supposed to have been cut short by poison.
There are some masterly etchings by him.

ALESSANDRO TIARINI (1577-1668), of Bologna, studied first with
Prospero Fontana at Bologna, then with Passignano at Florence,
and became an imitator of Lodovico Carracci, to whom it is assumed
some of his best works are attributed. He was sombre in colour,
but distinguished for his earnestness of character, invention, his
correct drawing, and bold foreshortenings. His most celebrated
work is the ‘‘ Deposition from the Cross,” in the Gallery of Bologna,
long attributed to Lodovico Carracci. In the Louvre is a cele-
brated picture by Tiarini of the “Repentance of St. Joseph,” for-
merly in the church of the Mendicanti at Bologna. The sombreness
of some of Tiarini’s pictures is said to be owing to his habit of
glazing on an under-painting of mere gray.

Lioneito Spapa (1576-1622), a pupil of the Carracci, was after-
wards a follower of Caravaggio, whose style, somewhat refined, he

1 Pascoli, “ Vite de’ Pittori,” &c.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 359

spread in Bologna; whence he was called the Scimia (ape) of Cara-
vaggio, ‘*Saint Dominic burning the Proscribed Books of the
Heretics,” in San Domenico, in Bologna, is his most celebrated
work, Spada was court-painter to the Duke Ranuccio of Parma,
where he settled and died.

Lorenzo Passinit (1629-1700), the scholar of Simone Cantarini,
became an imitator of the works of Paul Veronese; but the decline
may be said to have been thoroughly displayed in the works of
this painter.

Carto Ciavani (1628-1719), Cavaliere and Conte, a graceful
painter, has been called the last of the Bolognese: he was the
scholar of Albani, but studied also the works of Raphael and Cor-
reggio, and enjoyed so great a reputation in his lifetime as to be
called the Apelles of his age. His works are correct as well as
graceful, but eminently academic; exceedingly pretty, but void of
expression and sentiment. The ambition of his art was the display
of elegant limbs and postures. He died at Forli, where he painted
the cupola of the Madonna del Fuoco.

Cignani’s scholars, Francesco GALui (1659-1739), and FErpinanpo
Gat (1657-1743), Da Brsrena, were excellent scene-painters; the
latter was long employed at Parma and Vienna. Francesco was
also a practical architect.

Giovanni GHERARDINI, of Modena (1658-1723), went to China in
1698, and he decorated a church of the Jesuits in Pekin, which was
opened in 1704."

Giuserre Marta Crespr (1665-1747), called Lo Spagnolo di
Bologna, also the scholar of Cignani, was not an imitator of his
master: Crespi was as bold and coarse in his execution as Cignani
was refined. He was a painter of most capricious fancy, and even
in sacred subjects found occasion for caricature. His execution
was occasionally so slight that parts have disappeared through
time. Some of his pictures are executed with surprising freedom
and bravura, but are also exceedingly mannered in style. An
* Hicce Homo,” in the Gallery at Dresden, is a remarkable speci-
men of such work, exhibiting incontestable ability, notwithstand-
ing the vices of its manner. There is, however, prodigious ability
in some of the slight works of this master ; as in the ‘Seven Sacra-
ments,” also in the Dresden Gallery: he seems to have had a magic
pencil, and to have thrown his figures upon the canvas, The
Cumzan Sibyl at Vienna is in a good style. He combined some-
thing of Velazquez and of Rembrandt, but was much more careless
than either.

1 An account of his journey was published in Bologna by Gualandi, in 1853—
“La Relazione di un Viaggio fatto alla China in 1698.” See Campori, “Gli
Artisti Estensi,” 1855.
360 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

At Genoa, during this period, were Giovannt Cartone (1590-
1630) and Guamsatrista, his brother (1594-1680), good fresco-
painters, specially successful in colouring: they both studied
under Passignano at Florence. The younger brother was re-
markable for his large family: he had no less than twenty-four
children by his wife Niccoletta Scorza—a wonderful woman,
Spanish by birth but of a Genoese family ; and fortunately for Car-
lone she contributed an income towards their support. Of these
children, says Ratti,’ three sons were painters, some died in their
infancy, some led useless lives, and others (not useless, therefore ?)
took to the cloister. Bernarpo Srrozzi, called Il Cappucino and II
Prete Genovese (1581-1644), was a great fresco-colourist and a good
portrait-painter ; in the latter capacity he painted chiefly at Venice,
whither he had fled to avoid the persecution of the Capuchins of
Genoa. He had entered the Order when a boy of seventeen only,
and wishing, when he came to years of discretion, to return to the
world, he was retained and imprisoned by his Order; but after
three years’ close confinement he escaped to the city of the Adriatic.
He belongs to the Naturalist school: his portraits are red and
dark. ANpREA ANsaLpo (1584-1638), of Voltri, and the scholar of
Orazio Cambiaso, was one of the best painters of his age both
in oil and fresco, and was one of the few painters, says Lanzi, who
painted well and much at the same time. And Giovanni Benz-
DETTO CasTIGLIONE (1616-70), who excelled more particularly in
pastoral landscape and animals, in which class of work he acquired
a great reputation, and has yet had no superior in Italy. He is
sometimes called Il Grechetto. His brother Salvatore, and his son
Francesco, painted in a similar style.

‘ MinanesE Scoot.

The Eclectic schools were spread in Lombardy by the Campi at
Cremona and the Procaccini at Milan. The Milanese painters were
not conspicuous after the gradual disappearance of the scholars of
Leonardo and their followers. The principal of these have been
already noticed ; but there are still some few of the earlier painters
of the Milanese that must not be quite overlooked even in so
general a review of Painting as this essay; more especially as good
examples of the work of some of them can be referred to in our
National Gallery.

Vincenzo Forra, of Brescia, was the contemporary of Leonardo at
Milan ; he was painting between 1456 and 1492, and is sometimes
spoken of as the founder of the School of Milan: he attended to
foreshortening and perspective. There isa fresco of thé Martyrdom

1 «Vite dei Pittori, &c., Genovesi,” vol. ii. 1769.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 361

of St. Sebastian by Foppa, in the Brera; and several of his works
are still preserved at Brescia.’

Amsrocio Borcognoye, of Fossano, where he was born about
1455, architect as well as painter, was one of. the ablest artists
employed in the decoration of the magnificent Certosa, at Pavia.
Borgognone appears to have been engaged on this work from about
1475 to 1493, as architect; he seems to have taken to painting
later in life. There are pictures by him dated from 1490 to 1822;
a “Crucifixion,” in the Certosa, is inscribed Ambrosius Iosanus
pinzit 1490, May 14, and an “ Assumption of the Virgin,” in, the
Brera at Milan is signed Ambrosio Bgogoj, 1522. To show that
these two signatures refer to the same person, we have on a “ Bap-
tism of Christ,” in the sacristy of the church of Melegnano, the
signature—Ambrogio da Fosano Brgognone; the Solly “Madonna,”
now at Berlin, is signed Ambrosij Bergognoni, op'.2 The pictures of
Borgognone are painted in tempera, The “Marriage of St. Catherine,”
in the National Gallery, is a very fine example, and characteristic
of his style; his forms are refined, his colouring is pallid but delicate.

Contemporary with Borgognone was BarTroLomeo SuaRpI, commonly
called after his master the great architect, Bramantino; he also
was architect and painter, and was employed at the Certosa. He
went about 1495 to Rome with Bramante, and there painted a series
of portraits for Julius II. He was again in the North in 1513,
when he was painting for the monks of Clairvaux : in 1525 he was
appointed architect and painter to the Duke of Milan, Francesco
Sforza II. He was still living in 1529, but in 1536 was already
deceased.’

The “Adoration of the Kings,” from the Fesch collection, long
ascribed to Bramantino, and now in the National Gallery, combines
with much of the quattrocentismo some of the great qualities of the
cinquecento ; the Madonna and Infant Christ, and the old man kneel-
ing in adoration, have an unusual grandeur of character. The cos-
tume is generally very rich; some of the gold ornaments are in
relief.

GruserPe ARCIMBOLDO, a portrait-painter of Modena (1533-93), has
obtained a notoriety by some of the most grotesque pictures in
existence. Some kitcats of the Elements and Seasons,'now in the
Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, are among the most outrageous of his
devices: he painted many others similar to them. Figures, which

1 Brognoli, “ Nuova Guida per la Citta di Brescia,” 1826,

* Tt is impossible to vouch for all the letters of such inscriptions, as they are often
indistinct and injured, but this objection does not apply to words; e and rand i may.
be confounded, but not words. The last I can vouch for, as I copied it off myself :
it is given incorrectly in Dr. Waagen’s Berlin Catalogue.

3 See the “ Catalogue of the National Gallery,” Bramantino.
362 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

at some distance have the appearance of the portraits of men, when
approached are found to be mere groups of objects or utensils so
disposed and shaded as to appear only like human figures; the de-
ceptions are clever. One of the Vienna pictures, marked at the back
Tenis, 1566, and signed Josephus Arcimboldus Mtnensis. F., represents
a head and bust composed of fire and its implements; a second,
called Aqua, consists of a figure of fish and other sea animals. A
portrait of Summer, AESTas, signed and dated Giuseppe ARCiIMBOLDO,
F, 1563, consists of a head and “bust composed of fruits; and a
fourth, Winter or Hiems, is a similar portrait composed of the
knotty stem or root of a tree, bearing the same date and signature.
He executed a great variety of works, interiors of kitchens, &c., for
the amusement of the German Emperors Maximillian II. and Ru-
dolph, at Prague, where Arcimboldo chiefly lived, and died. Lo-
mazzo notices him, and he is commonly called a Milanese; but the
signature of Mtnensis, given above, seems to indicate Modena as his
birthplace.

Giutio Campi (1500-1572), the head of the Eclectics of Cremona,
was the scholar of Giulio Romano at Mantua. He attempted to
combine the excellences of the Northern and Roman schools, whence
his name of the Lodovico Carracci of Cremona, though Campi cer-
tainly preceded Lodovico in his effort. Campi studied with enthu-
siasm the works of Raphael at Rome, and was also a great admirer
of Giorgione and Titian. His brothers Antonio and Vincenzo were
his assistants, and Antonio added Correggio to their models for
imitation.

Bernarpino Campi (1522-92), of the same family, the scholar of
Giulio, and eventually his rival, was also an enthusiastic admirer
of Raphael. The Campi were great painters in their time, but
they: are the machinists of Cremona.’

Ercote Procaccint, called Il Vecchio (1520-91), a Bolognese, was
the founder of the Eclectic school established by his sons at Milan,
who took Correggio for their model. Ercole was a careful painter,
though of no great power; he opposed himself to the mannerisms
of his time, and directed his pupils to the study of the best
masters.

Camitio Procaccrni (1546-1626), the elder of Ercole’s two sons,
after studying at Bologna and Rome, established himself in 1590 in
Milan. He was a painter of extraordinary facilities of execution,
and produced works, according to Lanzi, sufficient to have occupied
ten other painters in the same time. This facility, however, con-
verted him into a mere machinist on some occasions, though many
of his works are delicate and graceful. His picture of ‘Saint Rock

1 Zaist, “ Notizie Istoriche dc’ Pittori Cremonesi,’ Cremona, 1774.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 363

administering to those Sick of the Plague,” im the Dresden Gallery,
is a fine work, worthy of a better period of art.

* Giuio Cesare Procaccinr (1548-1618), the most distinguished of
this family, made a special study of the works of Correggio at
Parma, and approached nearer in manner to that great master than
any others of his school. Some of his small cabinet pictures have
passed as works of Correggio; but, like his brother, he was un-
equal. The churches and collections of Milan, and other cities of
the North, abound with his works. Ercole Procaccini, called Jl
Giovane (1590-1676), followed the style of his uncles.

Barrotomgo Scurpone, of Modena (about 1580-1615), is enume-
rated among the scholars of the Carracci by Malvasia, but Correggio
was his real master; he was a most decided imitator of that painter,
though he never reached the delicacy of Correggio, either in his
outlines or in his light and shade. Schedone sometimes approaches
the Tenebrosi, in the quantity and force of his shadows, and some of
his pictures have a strong naturalistic character. He is seen to
great advantage in the Gallery at Naples: he latterly lived at
Parma, where he was painter to the Duke Ranuccio. His early
death is said to have been caused by vexation at his losses at play.

Giovanni Bartrista Cresei (1557-1633) was the most distinguished
of the followers of the Procaccini. He was painter, sculptor, and
architect, and executed several remarkable works for his patron,
the Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, among them the colossal statue of
San Carlo Borromeo in the Lago Maggiore. He studied at Rome
and Venice, and, though not free from the exaggeration and heavi-
ness of his school, displayed great power and facility. His son
Daniece Crespi (1590-1630) was also one of the most distinguished
of the Milanese painters of the seventeenth century.

GueLieLmMo Caccia (1568-1625), commonly called In Moncatvo,
of Montabone in the Novarese, was a celebrated fresco-painter, but
he painted also in oil, and paid particular attention to landscape,
which he studied for his backgrounds. He was established at Mon-
calvo, but painted in Milan, Novara, and many other towns of the
North: the Chiesa de’ Conventuali at Moncalvo contains many of
his works. In colouring he was gay; his style of form is derived
from Raphael and the great Lombard models; the circumstances of
his education are unknown. Moncalvo had five daughters, two
of whom were excellent painters, Orsola Maddalena, and Fran-
cesca ; the works of the latter are mistaken for those of the father.
He or his daughter Ursula founded a monastery of Ursulines at
Moncalvo, into which she and her sisters retired. Moncalvo had an
able assistant known as Il Sacchi, a good portrait-painter, whose
works now pass as his master’s.
364 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING..

VENETIAN SCHOOL.

At Venice the characteristic force of its great masters still re-
mained the distinguishing feature of painting throughout the whole
of the Academic perivd ; and as originally the qualities of Venetian
art were more of a material than esthetic character, its artists
remained at a less distance from her great Capiscuola than did those
of Rome and Florence from theirs. Rich colour and a free execution
were almost the only qualities which remained even among the
better masters of this latter epoch of the Venetian school. These
qualities, however, were occasionally seen in great excellence, as in
the works of Andrea Schiavone, or even the younger Palma.

Anprea Scuravony, or rather Mrpoa, a native of Dalmatia, was
born in 1522, settled in Venice, became a follower of Titian, and
attained an extraordinary power of colouring; but he was hasty
and careless, and his figures are often incorrect and wanting in
expression. He wasso poor that he was forced to work as a journey-
man for cabinet-makers and house-decorators. Yet, as is not
unfrequently the case, the despised pictures of Schiavone enriched
their possessors after his death. A very remarkable work by this
painter was exhibited at Manchester in 1857, by the Rev. J. Stani-
forth, representing ‘A Monk preaching ;” among his auditors are
the Emperor Charles V., his son Philip II., crowned, and the Pope.
The handling is very free, and the colouring extraordinarily rich
and transparent; but some of the figures are ill-proportioned and
carelessly drawn. Schiavone died in 1582: his name is correctly
Andrea Medola, Lo Schiavone, that is, the Sclave. In the Belvedere
Gallery at Vienna is a small portrait of himself, signed N= AnprEas
ScHIAVONE VON SEINER HANDT (by his own hand).

Jacopo Parma the younger, of Venice, great-nephew of the
elder Palma (1544-1628), was, says Lanzi,’ the last of the good age
and the first of the bad, in the history of Venetian painting: he
had, however, more of the good than the bad. Boschini? relates
that Guido and Guercino, upon seeing a picture by this master,
exclaimed, ‘‘ What a pity that such a painter should ever have
died !”

The following contemporaries of Palma, at Venice, are deserving
of mention:—Leonardo Corona of Murano (1561-1605), whose
copies of Titian, like those of many others, have passed, and do doubt-

“Storia Pittorica,” &c., to which the reader is referred for the detail of the
history of the later ages of painting in Italy. For Venice, Zanetti is the best
authority.

2 «Ta Carta del Navegar Pittoresco.”’
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 365

less now pass, for originals ;' Andrea Vicentino (1539-1614), called
also Andrea Michieli, he was an imitator of the elder Palma; Santo
Peranda (1566-1638), a scholar of the younger Palma; Antonio
Vasilachi called L’Aliense da Milo (1556-1629), a Greek, who studied
under Paul Veronese; Pietro Malombra (1556-1618), a scholar of
Salviati, who painted architecture as well as figures ; Girolamo
Pilotto (about 1570-1640) ; Giuseppe Porta, of Castel Nuovo, called
Del Salviati from his master; he settled in Venice, and was still
living there in 1572; and Pietro Damini, of Castelfranco, (1592-
1631).

In the neighbouring cities to Venice there were also some dis-
tinguished painters: ALESsANDRO Varorari (1590-1650), called
Papuanino (or rather Padovanino), from Padua, his birth-place, was
the most able painter of his time belonging to this school; many of
his works are worthy of Titian. His Marriage at Cana, now in the
Academy at Venice, is one of the best pictures that was produced in
the seventeenth century. He was good also as a portrait-painter,
but was most successful in women and children. Zanetti describes
his style by quoting the following line of Ariosto :—

“Le Donne, i Cavalier, ’arme, gli Amori.”

Dario Varorari (1539-96), the father of Paduanino, was a native
of Verona, which can boast of several other distinguished painters
of this period, as Alessandro Turchi (1582-1648), an imitator of
Paul Veronese, called L’Orbetto from his occupation of leading
about a blind man, said to have been his father; Pasquale Ottini,
called Pasqualotto (1570-1630); and Carto Rupoirr (1594-1568),
cavalere,.a native of Vicenza, the author of the principal authority
for the history of the. Venetian painters down to his own time, whence
he is sometimies called the Venetian Vasari.

' His “Lives of the Venetian Painters” first appeared in Venice in
1648, under the title “‘ Le Maraviglie dell’ Arte, ovvero le Vite degli
illustri Pittori Veneti e dello Stato.” A second edition was first
published in Padua in 1835, in two volumes, 8vo., but without the
promised notes and corrections, Boschini, Zanetti, Lanzi; and
Cadorin, have rectified many of the inaccuracies of Ridolfi. As a

1 Most Capiscuole have many imitators, but it is not only the good works of
these imitators, but even the bad copies of the imitations, which still find ready
purchasers. The prices realized at the present day by intrinsically worthless
pictures, amounting sometimes to many hundreds of pounds, would be astounding
were it not notorious that dame Fortune is very capricious in her bounties,
Nothing can be more deceptive than auction-room prices on some occasions, setting
aside the cases of buying in by deluded owners. This state of affairs will doubtless
continue just so long as ignorant people suffer themselves to be misled, either by
interested advisers; or by a mere name, from the pure love of acquisition.
366: THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

painter he was employed by Innocent X., in Rome ; he was less
mannered than many of his contemporaries, and excelled in portraits :
his best work is the “Visitation,” in the church of Ognissanti, at
Venice.

At Padua was Pierro Lisurt (1605-87), called Lisertino, from
his often painting naked Venuses. He was the scholar of Paduanino,
but studied also at Parma, Rome, and Venice, and became a bold and
effective draftsman : in the opinion of some, the best of the Venetian
school. Liberi had two manners, a free and careless, and a minute
and laborious ; the former, he said, for the intelligent ; the latter, for
the ignorant. He was the first President of the Academy of Venice,
where some great works by him are still preserved. A pupil of
Liberi, of great reputation in his day, and an able painter, was
Joann Cart Loru, of Munich (1632-98), called Carlotto by the
Venetians. He studied the works of Caravaggio at Rome, before he
became the scholar of Liberi, and he retained much of the feeling of
the Tenebrosi. He was painter and chamberlain to the Emperor
Leopold of Austria ;! and there are many pretentious works by him
in ‘the Churches and galleries of Germany. He died in Venice,
and was buried in the church of San Luca there, where there is a
marble bust of him, and his epitaph proclaims him the Apelles of his
age.

At Vicenza were Alessandro Maganza, and Francesco Maffei.

ALESSANDRO Macanza (1556-1640) was the son of Giovanni
Battista Maganza, a scholar of Titian and a good portrait-painter,
who was the first of this family established at Vicenza, supposed
from the name to have been originally of Mainz, of which Maganza
is a corruption. Alessandro was an imitator of Paul Veronese
and Battista Zelotti, and there are many excellent works by him at
Vicenza. Of his three sons, who were his assistants, Gio. Battista
the younger, was the most distinguished; he died young in
1617. Alessandro survived several of his family, who died of
the plague in 1630. The elder Gio. Battista, whose portrait
Ridolfi has inserted in his ‘‘ Maraviglie dell’ Arte,” published some
poetry under the name of Magagno.

Francesco Marrel, who. died in Padua in 1660, was also a
skilful imitator of Paul Veronese. Pierro Marroxr (1605-78)
was a remarkable painter of this period; he is commonly known
as Pirrro Veccuts, from his skill in restoring and imitating the
old masters. He executed many imitations of Giorgione and
others, which Zanetti states have found their places in celebrated
collections as originals of the masters imitated. His execution
was in most technical matters excellent, but his bent was more
for the ludicrous than for the. serious.

1 Lipowski, “ Baierisches Kiinstler-Lexicon,” 1810.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 367

The Caravaggieschi or the Tenebrosi were very much encouraged
in Venice: though strangers, they even supplanted the Venetian
painters of distinction in the public favour. Of this school were
Carlo Saraceno, of Venice (1585-1625); Pietro Ricchi, of Lucea,
called Il Lucchese (1606-75); Francesco Ruschi, painting (1650);
Stefano Pauluzzi, and Matteo da’ Pitocchi, painting (1660). Many
artists of the Venetian school were cut off by the plague which
visited Venice. in 1630 and 1631; and the decline of art was
more obvious from that period.

Of the eighteenth century the following masters were the most
distinguished :—Andrea Celesti, Antonio Zanchi of Este, Pietro
Negri, Francesco Trevisani, Antonio Molinari, Antonio Bellucci,
Giovanni Segala, Gian-Antonio Fumiani, Niccolo Bambini, Gregorio
Lazzarini, Gian-Antonio Pellegrini, Giambattista Piazzetta, Giam-
battista Tiepolo, and Sebastiano Ricci. Of all these painters,
the two last mentioned were the most distinguished, yet not the
best ; though all were great masters in their time, and should not be
passed over by a simple enumeration of their names only.

The Cavaliere ANDREA CELESTI was born at Venice in 1637,
and studied under the Cavaliere Matteo Ponzone, a Dalmatian, and
a scholar of Santo Peranda; but Celesti made Paul Veronese
his model, and became an exceedingly attractive colourist: he
was altogether one of the greatest masters of the Venetian de-
cadence. He was seen to great advantage in the Gallery of
Dresden, where, besides other works, were two vast compositions
by him, lately removed. Three, representing ‘“‘ Bacchus and Ceres,”
the “ Murder of the Innocents,” and the “ Israelites bringing offer-
ings for the making of the Golden Calf,” are remarkable for their
brilliant colour and facility of execution; the ‘‘ Sacking of a City
by Moonlight,” now removed from the Gallery, was the largest pic-
ture in the collection, the figures being the size of life; it is about
twenty-three feet wide by thirteen feet high. The works of Celesti
show well the vices of the time; effect and facility of execution
being the highest qualities aimed at by the painter. Though
Celesti was not of the TZenebrosi, his works have sometimes the
same effect as the pictures of those painters, owing to the sinking in
of the middle tints, which are often insignificant compared with
his lights and shadows, a defect which is attributed to his painting
upon. ill-prepared and dark grounds. He died in 1706.!

Antonio Zancui, of Este (1639-1722), an influential master of the
school of the Naturalists, was an imitator of Tintoretto; his master-
piece is the “Plague of Venice in 1630,” in the Scuola of San
Rocco, painted in 1666, and in which all the horrors of the
visitation are depicted with terrible force and circumstance.

1 Boschini, “ Pitture di Venezia,” 1733 ; Zanetti, “ Della Pittura Veneziana.”
368 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Opposite this, in San Rocco, is “ Venice liberated from the Plague,”
by Pimrro Negri, a painter very similar in his style to Zanchi,
and according to some accounts his scholar; he was painting
in 1679, and died about the close of the century.

Francesco Trevisanl, Cavaliere, was a scholar of Zanchi at Venice :
he was born at Capo WIstria, near Trieste, in 1656, and died at
Rome in 1746. After distinguishing himself at Venice, he
eloped with a young Venetian lady, and fled to Rome, where
he established himself and acquired new honours; but he forsook
the manner of the Venetians for that of the Romans, becoming
a follower of Carlo Maratti; hence he is sometimes called Roman
Trevisani, to distinguish him from Angelo Trevisani, a later
Venetian painter. Trevisani was fond of showing the versatility of
his powers, and painted nearly every variety of subject. The
Dresden Gallery possesses an immense “Murder of the Innocents,”
by him, but it is not nearly so effective a picture as the same
subject by Celesti in that Gallery. Anronto Mowinanr, still
living in .1727, was also the scholar of Zanchi, but emancipated
himself from the strong naturalist tendency of his master, and
distinguished himself by his tasteful, colouring.

Antonio Breiiucci, born at Pieve di Soligo, in 1654, died there
in 1726. He painted in Germany and in England. His nephew,
says Walpole, “went to Ireland, and made a fortune there by
painting portraits.” Bellucci excelled in small figures, many
of which he inserted into the landscapes of Tempesta :’ he was fond
of strong contrasts of light and shade, like the rest of the Tenebrosi,
but, says Zanetti, he made stich a judicious use of shadow as an
element of art, as in no way to injure the beauty of his colouring.

Another excellent colourist was Giovanni SecaLa (1663-1720),
he was the scholar of Pietro Vecchia. Gran-Anronio Fumiani
(1643-1710) executed many iinportant works for the churches
of Venice: he was educated in Bologna, but was an imitator
of Paul Veronese, the qualities cherished by the Caravaggieschi
having little attraction for him.

Niccoto Basin, Cavaliere (1651-1736), studied in Florence, and
in Rome under Carlo Maratti, and may be considered one of the
Venetian reformers of the eighteenth century. He painted the
subjects, and in the style of Liberi, and was distinguished for the
beauty of his women. There are many of his works still in the
churches of Venice. Bambini was the master of Zanetti.

Grecorio Lazzarini (1655-1730), originally a barber’s apprentice,
obtained great distinction in his time: he also avoided the dark
effects of the Zenebrosi, and paid great attention to form. Zanetti

1 The notorious Peter Molyn, see p. 345, note.
NATURALISTI AND MACCHINISTI. 369

notices “ Saint Lorenzo Giustiniani distributing alms,” as one of the
finest Venetian pictures of the eighteenth century. Lanzi' speaks
of Lazzarini as perhaps the “ Raphael of the Venetian school,” as
tegards correctness of drawing.

Gio. Antonio PELLEGRINI (1675-1741), the pupil of Paolo Pagano,
of Valsolda, in the Milanese, was distinguished in Venice and abroad.
He is claimed by Padua and by Venice : he was the son of a glover of
Padua established at Venice. Zanetti says that he received in 1720,
10,000 Venetian ducats at Paris, for painting a frieze in the
celebrated Hall of the Mississippi there, in the former Hotel de Maza-
rin, now the Library, over which he was occupied only eighty
mornings: it was shortly afterwards destroyed, in the arrangement
of the Libliothéque du Roi. The same writer mentions as his principal
work, “Moses and the Brazen Serpent,” in the Church of San Mose,
at Venice. Pellegrini married Angelica, the sister of Rosalba
Carriera, celebrated for her pastell-drawings. He was elected a

‘member of the French Academy in 1733.

GiaMBaATTista Piazzetta (1682-1754), one of the darkest of the
Tenebrosi, was originally a pupil of Molinari, but acquired his strong
naturalist manner from studying the works of Guercino, at Bologna.

Giovanni Bartisra Tinpoto, born at Venice in 1693, died at
Madrid, March 25th, 1769. He first studied under Lazzarini, was
then carried away by the bold manner of Piazzetta, but eventually
settled upon Paul Veronese as his model. His style was slight, but
graceful and brilliant; and his fame extended to Germany and to
Spain. His brilliancy of colouring was attained not so much by
the choice or purity of his materials, but much more by the skilful
apposition of his tints. Schleissheim, that lumber-house of worth-
less pictures, contains a splendid example of the skill and bravura of
Tiepolo, representing an “ Adoration of the Kings.”

Sepastiano Ricci or Rizzi, of Belluno (1659-1734), was one of the
most successful painters of his age: he was much employed in this
country in the reign of Queen Anne; but he was much more
remarkable for his facility of execution than’for any excellence of his
art, though his colouring was often brilliant. He was at best but a
weak imitator of Paul Veronese; and he very unscrupulously
adopted the groups and ideas of others in his compositions. There
is a little manner about his figures, and his style is altogether emi-
nently ornamental and meretricious. His nephew, Marco Riccr
(1679-1729), painted excellent landscapes after the manner of Titian.

To these may be added Antonio Balestra, of Verona, and his
celebrated pupils Pietro Rotari, and Gio. Bettino Cignaroli, both
likewise Veronese.

Aytonio Barrstra (1666-1740) became the scholar of Carlo

1 «Storia Pittorica,’ &. vol. iii., p. 219.
2B
370 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Maratti, at Rome, and adopted the taste and style of the Kclectic
schools, rather than that of Venice, though he always coloured well.

Il Conte Pirrro Rorart (1707-62), painted with Trevisani, in
Rome, and with Solimena, at Naples: he was a painter of great
practical skill, but a bad colourist. He was much employed in
Dresden, Vienna, and Munich; and finally settled in St. Petersburg,
where he died. He was a great favourite with the Empress
Catherine IT.

GramBeETrino C1eNnAROLI (1706-70), of Salonear Verona, who painted
in the manner of Maratti, was one of the most distinguished of
the Italian oil-painters of the eighteenth century, and was the most
eminent of his time. When the Emperor Joseph II. was in Verona,
in 1769, he visited Cignaroli in his studio, and he afterwards
related that,in Verona he had seen two very rare things—an ancient
amphitheatre, and the first painter of Europe.

Venice is further distinguished for its landscape-painters, of whom
Antonio CanaL, or CanaLe, commonly called CaNnaLEtro, enjoys a
European reputation. He was born in Venice in 1697, and was taught
by his father Bernardo, who was ascene-painter: he himself followed
the same occupation until 1719, when he gave it up entirely. Antonio
visited Rome at an early age, and here, like the great draftsman, his
compatriot, Giambattista Piranesi, he devoted himself to the study
of the magnificent ruins of the ancient capital of the world. He
returned to Venice and astonished the Venetians by his elaborate
views of the canals and palaces of the Queen of the Adriatic. In
1746 he came to England, and here excited equal wonder and admi-
ration by the many fine architectural pictures he produced of
historical buildings both of London and other places. Canaletto
was twice in England, and resided here altogether several years, and
acquired a fortune by his works. He accomplished the great accu-
racy of his views, when he chose, by means of the camera-lucida;
but be used this instrument only for the linear perspective and
outlines, the filling in with colour he painted directly from nature.
His method has somewhat injured the effect of his pictures now, for
the preparatory drawing has in many cases darkened and become too
heavy for the colouring. Tiepolo occasionally inserted the figures
in his Venetian scenes. Canaletto died at Venice, April 20th, 1768.

This great master had several imitators, with whose works his are
now not seldom confounded ; the chief of these were Belotto called
also Canaletto, Guardi, and Marieschi.

Bernarvo BELorro was known in Germany, where he settled, as

1 Bevilacqua, “‘ Memorie della Vita di Giambettino Cignaroli, eccellente Dipintor
Veronese,” Verona, 1771.

2 Zanetti, “Della Pittura Veneziana.” Some of Canaletto’s Venetian views
lave been engraved by himself; some by Vicentino; and others by Fletcher and
Boitard.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 371

Count Belotto: he was a member of the Academy of Dresden, and
died at Warsaw, October 17th, 1780, about sixty years of age. Te
was the nephew of Antonio Canal, and there are many pictures
by him in the Gallery at Dresden, exhibited under the name of
Canaletto, a diminutive of Canal, which he himself assumed and
signed on some of his pictures, thus—BrrnaRvo BrLorro DETTO CaNa-
LeTTO. These fine views of Dresden were mostly painted for Count
Briihl, during the years 1747-58, for 200 thalers (30/.) each. The
figures were inserted by Stefano Torelli, of Bologna, who died at
St. Petersburg in 1784, aged seventy-two.’ Belotto’s manner is
bolder and more solid than his uncle’s.

Francesco Guarpi, of Venice (1712-93), was rich and forcible in
his colouring, but very careless and sketchy in his figures; and
he remained far behind Canaletto in the accuracy and neatness of
his architectural details.

‘The architectural views of Micuene Marirscut, likewise of Venice
(1696-1748), are black, heavy, and chalky, and in every way inferior
to Canaletto’s. He executed many views of the churches and palaces
of Venice, some of which he also etched.

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN: TECHNICAL INFLUENCE OF
CARAVAGGIO.—ASCETICISM.

Tue Spanish School of painting appears to have been one of
the more recently established of the modern schools of Europe.
The characteristic Spanish school has a close connection with
the schools of Italy, especially those of Venice and Naples, in
style, though its earlier development seems to have been due to the
immigration of Flemish artists into Spain, of which there are
abundant records, some of these are incidentally noticed in previous
chapters. Gherardo Starnina, a Florentine painter of the fourteenth
century, was invited to Spain, and employed there by Juan J.
of Castile. He had executed some works for the Spaniards, in
the chapel of the Castilians in the church of Santa Croce in
Florence, illustrating the life of Sant? Antonio. An “ Adoration
of the Magi,” by Starnina, is still in the Escorial. Dello Fioren-
tino, the companion of Paolo Uccello and Donatello, was held
in great esteem at the court of Juan II. of Castile; he died
in Spain, after the year 1455, when he was still among the living.”

1 Hiibner, “ Gemialde-Gallerie zu Dresden,” 1862.
2 Vasari, Ed. Le Monnier, vol. iii.

232
372 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

One of the earliest of the native painters of Spain deserving
the name was Juan Sancuez DE Castro, of Seville, who in 1454
painted the Gothic altar decoration of the chapel of St. Joseph
in the cathedral of that city; and in 1484 he painted a St. Chris-
topher in the church of St. Julian there, so much repainted,
says Cean Bermudez, in 1775, that little of the original was
left. The same writer mentions other works by Sanchez, who was
still living in 1516.

The principal works undertaken in Spain date from the time
of Philip II.: they were chiefly executed by Italians, and the
principal Spanish painters studied in Italy. Titian, as already
noticed elsewhere, spent a few months in Spain in the reign of
Charles V.; but the works he executed were painted in oil, and
chiefly easel-pictures, which, though guides in colouring to the
Spanish painters, were less the models of the great masters of
Spain than those executed in Philip’s time, and the Capi @ Opera
of painting in Italy itself.

The painters of Spain have been classified in three principal
schools, but these divisions are as much local as characteristic:
they are those of Valencia, Madrid, and Seville. The following are
the principal masters of these several schools, with the names
of the places where they chiefly resided and worked, arranged
chronologically, from the sixteenth century inclusive. Of the
sixteenth—Antonio del Rincon, Toledo ; Alonso Berruguete, Castille
and Toledo; Luis de Vargas, Seville; Alonso Sanchez Coello,
Madrid; Luis de Morales, el Divino, Badajos; Dominico Theo-
tocopuli, el Greco, Toledo; Vicente Jodnes, Valencia; Gaspar
Becerra, Madrid; Miguel Barroso, Escorial and Toledo; Juan
Fernandez Navarrete, Escorial and Madrid ; and Pablo de Cespedes,
Cordova and Seville. Of the seventeenth century—Juan de las
Roélas, Seville; Francisco di Ribalta, Valencia; Juan del Castillo,
Seville; Francisco Pacheco, Seville; Alonso Vazquez, Seville;
Alonso Cano, Andalusia and Madrid; Antonio de Pereda, Madrid ;
Diego Velazquez, Madrid; Juan de Pareja, Madrid; Francisco
Zurbaran, Seville and Madrid; Francisco Rizi, Madrid; Claudio
Coello, Madrid and Zaragoza; Juan de Valdes Leal, Madrid;
Antonio Palomino y Velasco (the Spanish Vasari), Cordova;
Bartolomé Estéban Murillo, Seville; and Francisco de Herrera,
el Mozo (the young), Madrid and Seville.

This list comprises all the great painters of Spain; and in
so circumscribed a work as the present (treating in a single volume
of the history of painting in the whole civilized world), none
but the principal masters of so uniform a school as the Spanish,
need be the subject of even a mere superficial inquiry: as it
is, saving portraits, we have in the historical painting of Spain,
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 373

morally or intellectually, little besides the most abject superstition
and dismal ‘asceticism, the fruits of a sacerdotal nightmare of
centuries. There were no very distinguished Spanish masters
in the eighteenth century. The following are the most important
of those above mentioned—Antonio del Rincon, Luis de Vargas,
Morales, Jodnes, Cespedes, Roélas, Ribalta, Pacheco, Alonso Cano,
Velazquez, Zurbaran, and Murillo; the others are little known
out of Spain.

ANToNIO DEL Rincon, born at Guadalaxara, about 1446, was
court-painter to Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, whose
portraits he painted, copies of which are still preserved in the
Prado: the originals, formerly in the church of San Juan de
los Reyes, at Toledo, have long since disappeared. Rincon was
decorated with the order of Sant’ Iago: he was the first dis-
tinguished Spanish painter. Few of his works now remain:
the principal is the Life of the Virgin, in seventeen composi-
tions, in the church of Robledo de Chavela, near the Escorial,
on the road from Madrid to Avila. In 1483 Rincon executed
some works in the old sacristy of the cathedral of Toledo, but
they have long since perished. From the general superiority of the
style of his design over the majority of his contemporaries in
or out of Spain, del Rincon is supposed to have studied at Florence,
and probably under Andrea del Castagno or Domenico Ghirlandajo.
The merchants and churchmen of Spain must have been well
acquainted with the arts of Italy long before the time of Antonio
del Rincon, though we have no record of any pilgrimage of artists
to that country. Rincon died at Seville in the year 1500. His son,
Fernando del Rincon, was a good fresco-painter.

Atoyzo Berrueurre, much praised for his fine drawing by
Cean Bermudez, was born in Paredes de Nava about 1480, and was
the son and pupil of Pedro Berruguete, painter to Philip I.
Alonzo was in Florence in 1503, and accompanied Michelangelo
to Rome in 1505. He was the friend and assistant of the great
Florentine, as a sculptor, and having devoted many years to
the study of his art in Florence, he returned in 1520 to Spain,
complete master of the Florentine style, and was appointed painter
and sculptor in ordinary to. Charles V. He married and settled
in Valladolid, practising as painter, sculptor, and architect, and
executed there the high altar of the church of San Benito el
Real, for which he received 4,400 ducats. Berruguete acquired
a large fortune, and made a great name by his many fine works,
combining the three noble arts, and died at an advanced age
in 1561, at Toledo.

Luis pe Vareas was born at Seville in 1502, and was a painter of
very superior powers; he is said to have been the scholar of
374 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Pierino del Vaga at Rome, where, and in other parts of Italy,
he remained it is said twenty-eight years. He established the
Roman cinquecento style of design in Andalusia, where a Gothic
taste had previously prevailed; and he executed works at Seville
which fully entitled him to rank with the great painters of Italy.
Vargas established a greater reputation at Seville than any of
his predecessors; and had his works, says Cean Bermudez, been as
conspicuous for tone and harmony of colour as they were for
brilliancy, composition, character, and expression, he would have
been the greatest of Spanish painters. In Seville are still several of
his works, both in fresco and in oil, but some of them are much
decayed. The long sojourn of Vargas in Italy seems to rest
chiefly on the fact that the earliest date of any of his works
in Seville is 1555: he went to Italy in 1527. One of his most
celebrated works is the altar-piece of the Chapel of the Conception
in the cathedral, known as “La Gamba,” from the beauty of
the leg of Adam, kneeling in adoration of the infant Saviour:
this picture is signed Luisius de Vargas faciebat, 1561, the subject
is the ‘“‘ Temporal generation of Jesus Christ,” generacion temporal de
Jesucristo. The easel-pictures of Vargas are very scarce; the
Prado does not contain a single example. He was of a very
stern cast of mind, and somewhat of the ascetic, though he has
the reputation of having been an amiable character; he was in the
habit of chastising himself, and used to lie in a coffin some hours
a day meditating on death. He died at Seville in 1568.

Lois pE Morates was born at Badajoz about the year 1510;
his education is not known; he appears to have been home bred :
we have no record of his having visited Italy. He has been named
by his countrymen el Divino, or the Divine; he may be termed the
Lodovico Carracci of Spain, as regards his colour, and light and
shade ; in design and manner of execution, he has been termed the
Spanish Bellini, but he is not so hard as this painter. His
works, however, or at least those attributed to him out of Spain,
want vigour in the modelling and conception; and his title of
the Divine, as far as respects excellence in art, is a misnomer:
if applied to sanctity of purpose, expression, and subject, it is more
just, but is also then vague and equally inapplicable. The
prevailing sentiment of his pieces, generally mere heads, is some-
thing approaching exhausted despair or resignation; his style is
one exponent of Spanish asceticism. Morales seems to have lived an
obscure life, and part of it in great poverty: his pictures were
of the modest pretensions required for private oratories, and
perhaps for the American trade in saints and madonnas, for he
has executed few public works. In 1554 he seems to have been
living at Frexenal on the Andalusian border, for on the 22nd of
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 3875

November of that year, bis son Cristébal was baptized there;
and we learn from the entry that his wife’s name was Leonora
de Chaves. In 1564 he was called by Philip II. to Madrid,
with reference to the decoration of the Escorial, but Morales
painted one picture only for the king, “Christ going to Calvary,”
which was afterwards placed in San Geronimo, at Madrid. In
1575, his poverty increasing, he had to sell a small vineyard
he possessed, for which he received only 100 ducats; in 1581,
however, as Philip was returning from Lisbon, he visited Morales
at Badajoz, and the king having remarked to him that he was
very old, ‘‘ Yes, Sefior,” replied the painter, “and very poor ;”
by which answer the king was induced to order him a pension
of 300 ducats, which Morales lived only five years to enjoy.
He died at Badajoz in 1586, He is said to have never painted
on canvas.

Vicente JoANEs or Juanes, of Fuente la Higuera, in 1523,
studied in Italy, and chiefly the works of the Roman school. He is
the Caposcuola of the school of Valencia, and is sometimes called the
Spanish Raphael, not, however, that he really approached the
great Italian in any way. His subjects are exclusively sacred
or religious, and if, says Cean Bermudez, Morales deserved on
this account the title of el Divino, Jodnes is likewise entitled to
it. The sentiment too of his works is generally impassioned resig-
nation. Like Luis de Vargas, Jodnes is said to have habitually
taken the Sacrament before commencing a church picture. Cean
Bermudez has remarked that Jodnes paid particular attention
to the elaboration of the hair and the beard. His works are to
be seen chiefly in the churches of Valencia and its neighbourhood.
He died at Bocairente, December 21st, 1579. His son, Juan
Vicente Jodénes, was an imitator of his style: two of his daughters,
Dorotea and Margarita, likewise distinguished themselves for their
ability in painting. Jodnes’ most noted work was, “The Imma-
culate Conception,” formerly in the church of the Jesuits, and
known as “ La Purissima,” famous among artists for its excellence
and among friars for its miraculous powers.’

1 See Stirling’s “ Annals of the Artists of Spain,” p. 357, which contains the
following account of the production of this miraculous Madonna :—“On the
evening of an Assumption-day, the Blessed Virgin revealed herself to Fray Martin
Alberto, a Jesuit of Valencia, and commanded that her picture should be painted
as she then appeared, attired in a white robe and blue mantle, and standing on the
erescent-moon ; above her was to float the mystic dove, and the Father Eternal was
to be seen leaning from the clouds, whilst her Divine Son placed a crown upon her
head. To execute this honourable but arduous task, the Jesuit selected Jodnes,
whose confessor he was, and described to him with great minuteness his glorious
vision. The first sketches were, however, unsuccessful; and the skill of the
painter fell short of the brilliant dream of the friar. Both therefore betook them-
376 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Atoxso Saycurz Cortro, an excellent portrait-painter, was born
at Benifayro, in Valencia, about 1515, and succeeded Antony
Moro in the favour of Philip IJ. of Spain. He is assumed’ to
have studied in Italy, but he may have developed his style by
copying the pictures of Titian in Madrid, where he was residing in
1541. He accompanied Moro to Lisbon in 1552, and entered
the service of Don Juan of Portugal, which is probably the
cause that he has been sometimes termed a Portuguese; Philip
himself called Coello his Portuguese Titian: he was painter in
ordinary to Philip, and lodged at the king’s expense. Alonso
Sanchez painted many portraits of Philip, and also of the principal
personages of the Spanish court; but few of the king’s portraits
have survived to our time. The Prado at Madrid possesses seven
specimens of this painter, including a half-length of the ill-starred
Don Carlos; the Archduchess Isabella when young; and a
“ Marriage of St. Catherine,” signed Atonsus Santius, F. Coello
was a fine portrait-painter, but was more like Moro than Titian ;
his outlines are much harder, his handling is less free, and his
colouring is less rich and less transparent than the great Venetian’s.
He died in 1590. His daughter Isabella (1564-1612), married
to Don Francisco de Herrera y Saavedra, became also an eminent
painter, and was distinguished also as a musician. ‘The praises
of Coello have been sung by Lope de Vega :—

“The noble famed Protogenes of Spain,
Alonso Sanchez, from whose hand remain
Pictures, the masters most renowned of old
With looks of envious wonder might behold,

Eternal scenes of history divine,
Wherein for aye his memory shell shine,”!

Among the great fresco-painters of Spain was Gaspar Becerra,

selves to religious exercises, and to their prayers were added those of other holy
men. Every day the artist confessed and communicated, before commencing his
labours; and he would often stand for whole hours with his pencils and palette in
his hand, but without touching the divine figure until his spirit was quickened
within him by the fervency of his prayers. His piety and perseverance at last
overcame all difficulties; and he produced a noble picture of Our Lady, exactly
conformable to the vision.” This is a characteristic illustration of the ordinary
relative positions of priest and painter in Spain, though not every Jesuit can have
found so simple an instrument as Joanes.
1 “ El Espaiol Prothogenes famoso,

El noble Alonso Sanchez, que envidioso

Dejara al mas antiguo y celebrado,

De quien hoy ha quedado,

Horando su memoria,

Eternos quadrus de divina historia.”

See Stirling’s “ Annals of the Artists of Spain,” p. 234
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 377

born at Baeza, in Jaen, in 1520, and, like most of the distinguished
Spanish painters of that period, he was sculptor and architect like-
wise : he was perhaps more celebrated for his images than for his
pictures. He went early to Italy, and was there one of the assist-
ants of Vasari, and doubtless one of the worshippers of Michelangelo.
He was a devoted student of anatomy: he made the drawings for
Dr. Juan de Valverde’s work on that subject, published in 1554,
and he designed two anatomical figures, which became popular
with artists. Becerra matried a Spanish lady in Rome,.in 1556,
and shortly afterwards went to Spain, settling for a time at Saragoza.
In 1562 he was appointed sculptor to Philip IT., and in the follow-
ing year, one of his painters in ordinary, with a salary of 600 ducats
per annum. He executed many frescoes in the Alcdzar of Madrid ;
and in the convent of the Royal Barefooted Nuns, Descalzas Reales,
founded in 1559, he worked in all three capacities of painter,
sculptor, and architect. Becerra’s most celebrated production was
a miraculous image of the Virgin, known as Nuestra Seiiora de la
Soledad, made after a third effort, the first two having failed, in
1565, for Queen Isabel de la Paz. Sitting one winter’s night over
his work, and fatigued with anxious thought, he fell into a slumber,
from which he was suddenly aroused by a voice saying to him,
« Awake, and arise, and out of that log of wood blazing on the
hearth, shape the thought within thee, and thou shalt obtain the
desired image.” He immediately arose, plucked the burning brand
from the fire, and having quenched it, fell to work at dawn; the
auspicious block soon grew beneath his chisel into “a miracle of
art,” and became, says Palomino, “the portentous image of Our
Lady of Solitude, to this day had in reverence, in which are ex-
pressed beauty, grief, love, tenderness, constancy, and resignation,
and which, above all, is the refuge of our sorrows, the succour in
our ills, the solace of our toil, and the dispenser of heavenly mer-
cies.” Our Lady of Solitude, draped in widow’s weeds, presided
in her peculiar chapel in the convent of the Minim Fathers, at
Madrid, and became renowned for her miraculous powers, “ which
brought her masters much gain.” She disappeared during the war
of independence."

In 1569 Becerra completed his most important work, the high
altar of the cathedral of Astorga, containing many bas-reliefs and
figures of great merit, and which cost the chapter 30,000 ducats,
11,000 of which fell to the share of Becerra. He died at Madrid in
the prime of life in 1570.

Of the many scholars of Becerra the most distinguished was
Juan Fernanpez Navarrete, called El Mudo, or the Dumb: an

1 See Stirling’s “ Annals,” &c., p. 246.
378 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

excellent painter, strong in colouring and free in execution. He
was born at Logrono in 1526, and went early to Italy, devoting
much time to the study of the works of Titian at Venice. In 1568
he was appointed one of Philip’s painters, at a fixed salary of 200
ducats, besides, as was usual, a just payment for his works ; and he
executed many important pictures for the Escorial, the best of
which was “ Abraham receiving the three angels,” painted in 1576,
and for which he was paid 500 ducats. He died at Toledo, March
28th, 1579.

Dominico THEoTocoPuLl, or TEoscopoit,’ called El Greco, was doubt-
less by birth a Greek, and from the character of his painting may
have studied under Titian at Venice. He was, however, already
settled in Toledo in 1577, and executed many works there as painter,
sculptor, and architect. The reputation of El Greco spread beyond
Toledo, and Philip II. commissioned him to paint a picture for the
Escorial ; but the Greek was so solicitous that his picture should
not be taken for a work of Titian’s, a misfortune which had already
happened to him, that he did violence to his own natural taste, and
painted in a harder and more extravagant manner than usual, for,
like Tintoretto, he had his good and bad pencils, and the conse-
quence was that Philip disliked the picture, and substituted for it a
work by Romolo Cincinnato,? a Florentine painter, who was esta-
blished in Madrid. El Greco’s picture, representing the ‘‘ Martyr-
dom of St. Maurice,” was placed in the chapel of the college. He
died in 1625 at Toledo, aged seventy-seven, according to Palomino.

Cumberland speaks highly of the pictures of El Greco, which he
saw in Spain, especially of the “ Parting of Christ’s Raiment before
the Crucifixion,” then in the cathedral of Toledo, which he says
was quite worthy of Titian. He was an excellent portrait-painter.
Mr. Stirling exhibited at Manchester in 1857 a very beautiful head
of his own daughter, by Theotocopuli: he painted her also in the
altar-piece just mentioned.

Micuet Barroso was another of the better painters selected by
Philip II. to embellish the Escorial ; he was born at Consuegra in
1538, and learnt painting under Gaspar Becerra in Madrid. Bar-
roso was made painter to Philip II. in 1589, with an annual stipend
of 100 ducats, but he did not live long to enjoy the distinction ; he
died in the Escorial, September 29th, 1590.

1A portrait of a young man in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna is inscribed
Teoscopoli f., and dated MDC.

? Cincinnato executed several works for the Escorial, both in oil and in fresco:
he was the scholar of Salviati, and entered the service of Philip in 1567, at the
considerable pay of twenty ducats per month. He died at Madrid in 1593, having

reached the great age of ninety. F. De Boni, “Biografia degli Artisti,” Venice
1840.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 379

Paso pe Ckspepys was born at Cordova in 1538, and was in
many respects one of the most distinguished Spaniards of the six-
teenth century; he was distinguished as painter, sculptor, and
architect. He studied in Rome, where he acquired the friendship
of Federigo Zucchero, and was considered one of the best fresco-
painters there in the time of Gregory XIII. He acquired a great
reputation by his works in the church of Araceli, and in the Trinita
de’ Monti. Céspedes, after an absence apparently of many years—
for he was in Rome in 1559,? unless we assume two visits to Rome—
returned to Cordova in 1577, and was made one of the canons of the
cathedral there. Pacheco describes Céspedes as one of the best of
the Spanish colourists, and the first master of chiaroscuro in the
school of Seville; he excelled also in invention and composition.
It wasa practice with Céspedes to make a cartoon of his pictures of
the same size as the intended painting. Céspedes was known as an
Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholar, and he is one of the best
Spanish writers on art. He published several Essays, the principal
of which is a ‘‘Comparison between the ancient and the modern
arts of Painting and Sculpture.” ‘Discurso de la Comparacion de la
Antigua y Moderna Pintura y Escultura,” &., 1604, and republished.
by Cean Bermudez, in an appendix to the fifth volume of his ‘* Dic-
cionario Historico,” with other fragments by Céspedes, comprising a
Poem on Painting, a Letter on the Ancient Methods of Painting,
to Francisco Pacheco, and an Essay on the Temple of Solomon. He
wrote also a Treatise on Perspective, which is lost; and in 1583 he
assisted in drawing up a new Calendar of the Saints and Martyrs of
Cordova. In painting, his masterpiece was considered the ‘“ Last
Supper,” in the cathedral. Céspedes lived part of each year, when
not required at Cordova by the duties of his canonry, at Seville,
where he had formed a museum of antiquities; but he visited it for
the last time in 1603: he died at Cordova on the 26th July, 1608,
and was buried in the cathedral there,? to which he left a small
annuity for charitable purposes.

JUAN DE LAs Rokias was born at Seville about 1558, and is sup-
posed likewise to have studied in Italy, and particularly at Venice.
He has been compared with Tintoretto and the Carracci in the
general characteristics of his style and execution. He is the first
of the Andalusian painters of the school of Seville, in design and

! Stirling’s “ Annals,” &c., p. 321.

2 The following epitaph was placed on his tomb by the Chapter of the
Cathedral :—* Paulus de Céspedes hujus alme Ecclesie Porcionarius, Picture,
Sculture, Architecture, omniumque bonarum Artium, variarumque Linguarum
peritissimus, hic situs est. Obiit anno Domini M.DC.VIIL., septimo calendas
Sextilis.” Cean Bermudez, “Diccionario,” &e. Stirling’s “ Annals’ contains a
print from a portrait of Céspedes in his robes, by his own hand ; and some transla~-
tious of a few of the stanzas of his poem on Painting.
880 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

composition, and displays frequently a grandeur of form and majesty
of -character which distinguish only the greatest masters, and in co-
louring he will bear comparison even with the Venetians. No master,
says Ford,' ever painted the sleek grimalkin Jesuit, like Roélas.

Pacheco, who was censor of pictures at Seville, found occasion to
reprimand Roélas for what would now be considered very question-
able improprieties indeed: on one occasion for painting some ordi-
nary sweetmeats and other objects on a table, in a picture of “St.
Anne teaching the Virgin to read,” and on another, for painting a
sheet, intended to wrap the new-born Infant in, in a picture of the
“‘ Nativity,” in the chapel of the University.

Roélas died at Olivares, a canon of the college there, April 23rd,
1625. He was the master of Francisco Zurbaran. The works of
Roélas are not uncommon at Seville, and there are some in the
college of Olivares. His masterpiece is considered the Death, or
Transito of San Isidoro,in the church of that saint at Seville—
below is seen the archbishop dying, surrounded by his clergy ;
above appear the Saviour and the Virgin, surrounded by angels.
‘Other of his principal works are: “Sant Iago,” in the cathedral,
he is riding over Moors; painted in 1609; the ‘“‘ Conception,” in the
Academy; a “ Holy Family,” the “‘ Nativity,” and an ‘‘ Adoration,”
all three in the University of Seville.®

Francisco Ripatra was born at Castellon de la Plana in 1551.
Like that of Quintin Matsys, Antonio Solario, and not a few others,
Ribalta’s history begins with a romantic love story. He wentearly to
Rome with a view to advance himself as rapidly as possible, in order
that he might claim the hand of his Valencian master’s daughter, to
whom he had engaged himself before leaving. Ribalta returned after
three or four years’ absence to Valencia, and immediately sought out
his still faithful mistress. Her father was not at home; but an
unfinished sketch was standing on the easel, and the bold lover
completed it in the presence of the painter’s daughter. When the
old man returned, he was astonished at what he saw, and exclaimed
—‘If this man were your lover, you should marry him and welcome,
but not the poor Ribalta.” ‘It was Ribalta himself who did it,”
cried the delighted daughter, and the little romance was happily
terminated accordingly. Ribalta was correct and vigorous in design,
a good anatomist, and has sometimes displayed an uncommon
grandeur of composition ; he founded his style much on the works
of Sebastian del Piombo. Cean Bermudez says he studied the
works of the Carracci in Rome, but these Bolognese masters must
have visited Rome years after Ribalta. Valencia, of the school of
which he is one of the capiscuola, is still rich in his productions, more

1 “ Hand-book of Spain.” ° Ford’s “Hand-book of Spain.”
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 381

especially the Corpus-Christi College, the church of which contains
some of his greatest works, as the “ Last Supper,” in which he in-
troduced the portrait of a troublesome shoemaker, his neighbour, as
Judas; a “ Holy Family ;” and “ San Vicente de Ferrer, visited on
his sickbed by our Saviour and Saints.” The “ Entombment,” in
the cathedral of Valencia, is also one of Ribalta’s best works: he
painted many good portraits of the notables of Valencia. Out of
Spain his pictures are scarce. Ford pronounces the picture of
“Christ bearing his Cross,” the altar-piece of the chapel of Mag-
dalen College, Oxford, to be a work by Ribalta: it has been attri-
buted to Lodovico Carracci, to Guido, and to Morales; it is doubtless
Spanish ; it was brought from Spain by the last Duke of Ormond in
1702."

The able and notorious Ribera is enumerated among the scholars
of Ribalta; his own son also, Juan DE Riparta, who died aged only
thirty-one, in the same year, only a few months after his father, in
1628, was his successful imitator, and a painter of great promise.
Among his principal scholars and imitators were also Gregorio
Castafieda, who died in Valencia in 1629, and Gregorio Bausa, who
died in the same city in 1656. The pictures of the former, says
Cean Bermudez, pass for works of Ribalta: there is the same con-
fusion with the works of the two Ribaltas.

Francisco Pacueco studied exclusively at Seville, his native place,
where he was born of a noble family, according to his own account, in
1571; he was nephew of the Canon of the Cathedral, of the same name,
a distinguished divine, and celebrated Latin poet. He first visited
Toledo, Madrid, and the Escorial, in 1611, and then only became
acquainted with the works of the great Italian and Spanish masters,
which had such an effect upon him, that when he returned to Seville,
he opened a school with the view of giving his younger countrymen
all the advantage of a systematic and theoretic education: from this
school came Alonso Cano and Velazquez. Pacheco’s house was the
chief resort of all men of art, of literature, and of taste, and among
his most intimate associates were the Jesuits of Seville. He was
assisted by these Jesuits in his treatise on painting, ‘‘Arte de la
Pintura,”? who are said to have been the authors of the part devoted
to sacred art; and doubtless to them is due much of the austere
morality which characterizes Pacheco’s principles of art.

His master was Luis Fernandez, a painter of Serges, that is, of

} « Handbook of Spain;” see also the “ Oxford Guide.” The picture has been
engraved by Sherwin.

2 « Arte de Pintura, su Antigiiedad y Grandezas,” 4to., Seville, 1649, pp. 641;
a very scarce book, and the best work on the subject in the Spanish language; it is
in three parts, history, theory, and practice; but is, says Mr. Stirling, exceedingly
pompous, prolix, and wearisome; the best part being the history of the art in
his own country.
382 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

church standards, flags, &., on Sarga, a thin canvas prepared for
that purpose; and Pacheco himself first attracted notice by such
works ; he was one of the principal decorators of the catafalque
of Philip II., erected in the cathedral of Seville in 1598. He first
distinguished himself in the higher art in 1614, when he completed
a picture of the “ Last Judgment,” painted for the nuns of the con-
vent of St. Isabel, and which Pacheco has himself described in his
Treatise-on Painting, but the picture has disappeared: he received
700 ducats for it, though it seems to have occupied him the greater
part of three years, as it was inscribed and dated 1611.*

In 1628 Pacheco again visited Madrid in company with his great
scholar Diego Velazquez, who had a year or two before married
Pacheco’s daughter Juana, and was then invited to Madrid by the
Duke de Olivares, who procured him the appointment of painter to
Philip IV., a great patron of the arts. It was at this time that
Velazquez painted the equestrian portrait of the King, on which
his father-in-law wrote a sonnet, proclaiming Philip the greatest
monarch in the world, a greater even than Alexander, and promising
the painter the glory of an Apelles, worthy of so great a king? Our
Charles I., then Prince of Wales, happened to be at this time in
Madrid, and he too sat to Velazquez for his portrait.

Pacheco returned to Seville in 1625 and died there in 1654, aged
eighty-three, having devoted the last years of his long life chiefly
to literature. Pacheco, though a distinguished man, was not a great
painter in the true sense of the term: he was learned in his
art, and laborious and correct in his execution, but dry and heavy,
and quite wanting in that spirit or genius which some of his country-
men possessed in a great degree ; as Alonso Cano, Velazquez, and even
Murillo in his more successful works. Pacheco was, however, a
very good portrait-painter in small, and executed many drawings
and works of this kind: among the distinguished Spaniards painted
or drawn by him was Miguel De Cervantes Saavedra, the famous
author of “ Don Quixote.” TheDuke of Olivares possessed a large col-
lection of portrait sketches by Pacheco, bound together in a volume.

Cean Bermudez records a service performed by Pacheco to art,
which will appear singular to those unacquainted with Spanish
customs; he was the first who properly painted and gilded statues.
It became the rule in Spain to paint all kinds of images, whether

1 The inscription was written for him, and was as follows:—Futurum ad finem
Szculorum Judicium. Franciscus Paciecus Romulensis*. depingebat. Saeculi a
Judicis natali XVII, Anno XI.

2 Cean Bermudez, “ Diccionario,” &c., vol. v., p. 161; the Sonnet is translated
in Stirling's “‘ Annals,” p. 593.

 

« That is of Seville, called anciently Romula, or Julia Romula.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 383

woo, stone, or terra-cotta. Pacheco published an essay, partly on
this subject, in 1622, complaining of sculptors painting their own
statues. But the generality of Doradores and Lstofadores, as these image
decorators were called, worked so badly, that such sculptors as Juan
Martinez Montafies, and Alonso Cano, felt compelled to dress and
colour their own statues. Pacheco, however, coloured many statues
for Martinez Montajies, including the St. Jerome of the monastery
of Santiponce. This sculptor generally made a contract with his
employers to be allowed to superintend the toilet of his own works.
Ford, in his delightful “Handbook for Travellers in Spain,” gives
some curious details about the toilets of these Spanish images.

No man is allowed in Spain to undress the Paso, or Sagrada Imagen
of the Virgin; and some images had their mistresses of the robes
(Camerera Mayor) and a chamber (Camerin) where their toilet was
made. The duty has, however, now devolved upon old maids; and
“ Ha quedado para vestir imagines” (She has gone to dress images)
has become .a term of reproach. Embroidering rich dresses for
images of the Virgin is still a great occupation with the wealthy and
pious ladies of Spain. Similar customs prevailed with the ancients.
The ancients, however, paid somewhat more attention to the decorum
and propriety of costume than the Spanish clergy. In the remote
villages and in the mendicant convents the most ridiculous masque-
rades were exhibited, such as the Saviour in a court dress, with wig and
breeches. Some figures have only heads, feet, and arms, the bodies
being mere blocks because destined to be covered with drapery ; they
are called “ Imagines 4 vestir.” Before the French occupation of Spain
there were fifty of these images in Seville alone, which were carried
in various processions in the Holy Week, and on other great occasions,

In 1618 Pacheco was appointed by the Inquisition one of the
guardians of the public morals: he was made censor of all the
pictures which were exposed for sale in Seville; nakedness was
prohibited, and it was Pacheco’s business to see that no pictures of
the naked human form were sold.

It is to such mere external formal morality as this that the Spanish
school of painting owes its characteristic ponderous sobriety, and is
so directly opposed to the cinquecento schools of Italy. There is not
probably in the whole art of Spain such a thing as a naked female
of the size of life, if of any other size. It reflects the jealous morosity
of the Inquisition even in its portraits. This abominable prudery
was carried so far in the time of Ferdinand VII, that all the great
Ttalian works which could be reproached with nudities were re-
moved from the galleries, and condemned to a distinct set of apart-
ments, called the Galeria Reservada, which was only opened to view
to those who had procured special orders. ‘There is a “ Cabinet des
Objets Réservés” at Naples; and though this is separated from the
384 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

rest of the collection, with reason, there is, or at least was, no diffieulty
whatever in obtaining admission into it; but the Galeria Reservada
of Madrid is of a very different nature, and comparatively innocent ;
and the separation of such works, pure enough to the simple, from
the rest of the collection is a greater evidence of the subjective
immorality of the separators than of any objective indecency in the
pictures. Even the magnificent Correggio in the National Gallery,
“ Venus and Mercury teaching Cupid to read,” now essentially pure to
the pure, requires only the Spanish regimen of seclusion in a separate
chamber, and to be ceremoniously shown to a privileged few, to be con-
verted into an indecent exhibition. Ford terms this Spanish gallery a
sort of Magdalen or Penitentiary, into which were banished all peccant
pictures whose nudities might corrupt the purity of Madrid ; where the
Italian and Flemish Ledas, Danaés, and other i improper ladies blushed
unseen, lumped together like the naughty epigrams of Martial, when
collected into one appendix in well-intentioned editions. All these
pictures were the works of foreigners. “Nothing,” says Ford, p. 116,
“gave the Holy Tribunal greater uneasiness than how Adam and Eve
in Paradise, the blessed souls burning in purgatory, the lady who
tempted St. Anthony, or the last day of judgment, were to be painted,
circumstances in which small-clothes and long-clothes would be
highly misplaced. Both Palomino (ii. 137) and Pacheco (201)
handle these delicate subjects very tenderly. Describing the Last
Judgment of Martin de Vos, at Seville, Pacheco relates how a bishop
informed him that he had chanced, when only a simple monk, to
perform service before this group of nakedness; the mitre had not
obliterated the dim recollection; he observed (he had been a sailor
in early life) that rather than celebrate mass before it again he would
face a hurricane in the Gulf of Bermuda; the moral effect of the
awful Day of Judgment was so much counterbalanced by the immoral
deshabille.” :

JUAN DEL CasTILLo, the master of Alonso Cano and Murillo, was
born at Seville in 1584. He studied under Luis Fernandez, and
was an accomplished draftsman: he died in 1640. Pepro pe Moya,
another of the most distinguished painters of Andalusia, was like-
wise the scholar of Juan del Castillo. He was born in Granada in
1610, and having seen some exquisite work by Vandyck, he could
not rest till he had visited that painter in London, and was for a
short time his pupil. Moyaso far refined upon his Andalusian natu-
ralism as to attract the notice of Murillo. He died in Granada in
1666.

Atonso Vazquez, of Ronda, one of the painters employed with
Pacheco to decorate the catafalque raised to Philip II. at Seville in
1598, was distinguished as a painter also of still-life. A picture
of “The Rich Man and Lazarus,” then in the possession of the
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 385

Duke of Alcalé, and much lauded by Pacheco, was remarkable for
the skill with which the various vessels, fruits, and other acces-
sories were painted ; the style of his figures is also highly praised,
both for their anatomical precision and the cast of their draperies :
but most of his works seem to have perished. Vazquez had been
dead already some years when Pacheco published his “ Arte de la
Pintura,” in 1649.

Aytonio DE Pereva, born at Valladolid in 1599, died at Madrid
in 1669. He was distinguished for a rich Venetian taste in colour,
and a fine execution. He was the scholar of Pedro de las Cuevas,
and obtained a reputation while still a youth. This is the artist
whose wife made her husband paint her a Duenna to sit beside her,
as she could not afford to pay areal one. Pereda was noted for
his collection of drawings, prints, and books, though, they say, he
could not read; he could, however, be read to. He sometimes
painted pictures of still-life, genre, &c.

Atonso Cano was born March 19th, 1601, in the City of Gra-
nada, and died there October 3rd, 1667. He was painter, sculptor,
and architect, and is sometimes termed the Michelangelo of Spain:
in some respects they were similar, but rather in the extent than in
the quality of their abilities. Cano’s works are conspicuous for
vigour of design, richness of colour, and boldness of execution. He
was the scholar first of Pacheco, then of Juan del Castillo, and the
sculptor Martinez Montaies.

Cano was of a singular disposition, and of a violent, temper :
among several others, showing this, the following story is told of

-him. When in Granada, in the year 1658, he made a statuette of
St. Antony of Padua for a certain councillor of that city, and
demanded as its price 100 pistoles. The calculating councillor,
reckoning up the time Cano had been about the work, said, ‘‘ You
have been twenty-five days only over this figure; you are, there-
fore, charging me four pistoles per day for your work, an exorbitant
charge; for I, who am a councillor, do not receive half so much.”
Upon which the sculptor, furious at this rule-and-compass estimate
of his work, dashed the saint to pieces on the pavement, exclaim-
ing, “I have been fifty years learning to make this figure in
twenty-five days.” The staid councillor, astounded at the artist’s
impetuosity, and in dread anticipation of some mishap to himself
from a man who could thus unceremoniously demolish a saint,
rushed in consternation from his presence. It was, in fact, a
capital offence, but apparently never reached the ears of the In-
quisition. A similar destruction of an image of the Virgin caused the
death of Torregiano the sculptor, who was convicted of heresy, and
died or committed suicide in prison, and thus anticipated his sentence.

Cano was, however, accused of a greater enormity than icono-

20
386 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

clasm ; he was for years under the stigma of having murdered his
own wife. This was on the 10th of June, 1644, at Madrid or
Valladolid, when he found her, he stated, lying dead on her bed,
stabbed in fifteen places. He contrived to throw the suspicions
on an Italian servant he had who had disappeared, but eventually
still stronger suspicions fell on himself: he was jealous of this ser-
vant, was living in adultery with another woman, and was on
notoriously bad terms with his wife. Cano was accordingly put to
the question, his right hand being exempted on the plea of excellence
in art, but his courage and endurance saved him; he made no
confession, and was acquitted by the law. ‘From the scanty re-
cords of this transaction,” says Mr. Stirling, ‘ which remain to us,
it is impossible to decide whether Alonso Cano were a brave man
fallen on evil days and evil tongues, or a remorseless villain saved
from an assassin’s death by the iron strength of his nerves.”" My
experience in the biography of artists shows unmitigated scoundrels
to be very rare exceptions indeed; the greatest crop has been fur-
nished by Naples. You may count the notoriously bad reputations
on your fingers :—Andrea del Castagno, Benvenuto Cellini, Cara-
vaggio, Pietro Tempesta, Ribera, Cano; these have a double noto-
riety. Yet the infamy of Andrea del Castagno rests on mere hear-
say, which may have no foundation; Benvenuto Cellini was the
honoured of the princes of the church; and Cano himself was the
favourite of priests and princes after his disgrace.

Cano’s business flourished notwithstanding these difficulties. In
1650 he was employed by the chapter of the cathedral at Toledo,
but soon afterwards returned to Granada, and resolving to take.
priest’s orders, obtained a canonry in the cathedral, with the
sanction of Philip IV.; and procuring the Nuncio’s dispensation
from certain of the duties of his office, he took possession of his
stall on February 20th, 1652. He conciliated his fellow-canons
by his diligence in labouring for the embellishment of the cathe-
dral, but having neglected to take orders within the given time,
they procured his removal in 1658; Cano, however, recovered
it in the following year, and like many others when old, devoted
the remainder of a very boisterous life to outward acts of piety and
charity : among his virtuous indignations was feeling himself de-
filed by the touch of a Jew, however slight or accidental. He
carried his antipathy so far as to refuse, on his death-bed, to con-
fess to a parish priest who had ministered the sacrament to a Jew:
he died in his sixty-sixth year?

1« Annals of the Artists of Spain,” p. 787.

2 A very characteristic head, his own portrait when old, by himself, and formerly
in the Spanish collection of the Louvre, is engraved in Stirling’s “Aunals,” &e.
The countenance expresses little peace, and perhaps less humility, of mind.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 387

Dieco VeLazquez pe Sitva,! the head of the school of Madrid,
and the prince of Spanish painters, was born at Seville in the
spring of 1599, and- studied under Francisco Herrera the elder,
before he entered the school of Pacheco: that he was that painter’s
son-in-law has been already mentioned.

He visited Madrid first in 1622, and was invited back the year
afterwards by the Count Duke of Olivares, who procured him then
the appointment of painter to Philip 1V.; from this time Velazquez
was established asa royal favourite. Velazquez being better known
than any of the preceding painters, out of Spain, is accordingly
better appreciated out of Spain. He visited Italy in 1629, but had
formed his style befure he went there. He belongs strictly to the
naturalist school; there is much resemblance in his works to those
of Caravaggio and Ribera, but he applied all their natural force to
the portraiture of dignified characters, and thus he is exempt from
the often deprecated vulgarity of the naturalist school. Velazquez
ranks as a portrait-painter with Titian and Vandyck; and he had
besides the great power of objective imitation characteristic of the
naturalist school. There is, however, no laboured imitation in the
works of Velazquez; some of his objects and pictures are executed
with wonderful bravura, yet the exactness of character of the ob-
ject represented is no way sacrificed. The National Gallery pos-
sesses two excellent specimens of this celebrated master: an early
‘“« Adoration of the Shepherds,” in which the influence of Ribera is
evident, unless such life is as a matter of course picked up in the
streets of Seville; and “Philip IV. hunting the Wild Boar,” a
later and freer work, of which some foreground groups are admir-
able, and the landscape is generally excellent. Velazquez was
twice in Italy; in 1629-30, when he made the acquaintance of
~ Spagnoletto at Naples, and in 1648, when he painted his celebrated
portrait of Innocent X., in the Doria Gallery at Rome.

Among the most celebrated works of the earlier style of Velaz-
quez, are the “ Water-carrier of Seville,” engraved by Blas Ametler,
presented by Ferdinand VII. to the first Duke of Wellington, and
now at Apsley House; and the “ Topers,” or ‘‘ Los Borrachos,” a
group of coarse Spanish peasants, drinking wine; one as Bacchus,
crowning others with vine-wreaths; it was painted in 1624, and
is now in the Gallery at Madrid: this is engraved by 8. Carmona.”
The capital “Laughing Simpleton,” at Vienna, may be classed
with the “ Topers.”

1 According-to Cean Bermudez, his name is correctly Diego Rodriguez de Silva
y Velazquez, but he has inserted the other form in his “ Diccionario Historico,”
&c. Velazquez was, however, his mother’s name ; his father's was de Silva.
2 A copy by H. Adlard, after an etching by F. de Goya, is given in Stirling's
‘‘Aunals of the Artists of Spain,” p. 596.
2c2
388 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Another very celebrated work of this class is the large picture,
also in the Gallery at Madrid, known as “ Las Hilanderas,” or the
“ Spinsters.” Velazquez had no doubt heard from his father-in-law
Pacheco, of the “Room full of Dressmakers,” which had rendered
Antiphilus of Egypt famous in olden times. This picture repre-
sents a room in a tapestry-factory, and is executed with such freedom
that it caused Mengs to remark that Velazquez appeared to paint
with his will only, without the aid of his hand; it is engraved by
F. Montafies. In portrait-painting Velazquez was superb, and his
works of this class are, setting aside their subjects, of the utmost
value and importance as paintings."

Several such were exhibited at Manchester in 1857, as the Conde-
Duque de Olivares; the same on horseback ;? the Queen of Philip
IV. ;> and a Spanish nobleman ;* besides other fine examples.

Among the most celebrated of his portraits is that of himself,
painting the Infanta Margarita Maria, who was afterwards Empress
of Germany. This, likewise now in the Gallery at Madrid, is the
picture known as “‘ Las Menifias,” or the Maids of Honour, and from
the exclamation of Luca Giordano, as La Teologia de la Pintura:
it is engraved by Francisco de Goya and by P. Andouin.

Velazquez was a great favourite with the Spanish king, and held
several places and pensions at court. He, was an Usher of the
Chamber, and a Gentleman of the Chamber, with an allowance of
12 reals a day, and 90 ducats annually for adress. In 1631, after his
return from his first visit to Italy, Philip gave him rooms in the
palace; here he painted, and the king kept a key of his painting
room, in order that he might visit his painter at any time without

1 T regret not to be able to refer to examples in the National collection, not as
portraits, but as pictures. During a debate in the House of Commons on the Vote
for the National Portrait Gallery, it was suggested that this collection should form
part of the National Gallery. Such a consummation should, I believe, be most
devoutly deprecated by all lovers of art; it would amount almost to a catastrophe,
an esthetic calamity. Ordinary portraits may illustrate species and costume, both
unobjectionable in a picture gallery, if at the same time painting is illustrated; but
no picture should be tolerated in « National Gallery which does not illustrate
either the absolute excellence of the art itself, or its historical condition at any par-
ticular time or place. The portraits of Titian, Vandyck, Velazquez, or Reynolds,
perform both services, but ordinary portraits by ordinary painters far more frequently
burlesque the art of their time than illustrate it; and such things mixed up ina
choice collection of works, brought together as examples of painting, are liable only
to fatigue the visitor and corrupt his taste. The proper place for portraits, as such, is
a museum or a library, where they might be seen among the inventions or writings of
the originals, or the records of their works. Mere portraits have no more right
than wax-works have, to be in a picture gallery. The Romans showed that they
knew exactly the proper place for portraits of authors when they hung them over
the book-cases in which their writings were deposited. See ch, viii, p. 67.

2 No. 737, Col. Hugh Baillie’s, and No. 789, Earl of Elgin’s.

3 No. 738, Mr. Farrer’s. 4 No. 780, Earl Stanhope’s.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 389

inconvenience. It was on one of these visits, in 1639, that he came
suddenly upon the portrait of his Admiral Don Adrian Pulido
Pareja,’ and mistook the picture for the original. It is perhaps on
this account that the painter signed it, a certificate he has very rarely
given to his pictures, and when he did write his name it appears to
have been in Latin—Didacus Velazquius. After his return from his
second visit to Italy in 1651, where he had been busy in collecting
works of art for Philip, as well as painting for himself, the king
made him Aposentador Mayor (Quarter-Master), and decorated
him with the cross of St. Iago: the salary attached to this office, a
high one, was 3000 ducats, and he possessed a master-key which
opened every lock in the palace; yet it is a pity that the king did
not honour with the post some other courtier of more ordinary
abilities, whose time was of less consequence to the world than that
of a great painter. Its duties doubtless kept Velazquez much from
his easel, and seem to have shortened his life some ten years. Any
lord could have performed the duties of Aposentador Mayor, but not
one could have supplied the place of Velazquez at his easel. One
of its obligations was to accompany the king on his journeys, and
provide him quarters. It was apparently in consequence of the
exertions he made in providing the king with a fit lodging, on the
occasion of the conference at Irun, in June, 1660, which led to the
marriage of. Louis XIV. with the Infanta Maria Theresa, that he
was taken ill with a fever a few days after his return to Madrid : he
returned on the Slst of July, and died on the 7thof August follow-
ing, in the sixty-second year of his age. He lay two days in state,
and was buried with great pomp in the church of San Juan: his
wife Juana Pacheco followed him to the grave seven days after-
wards, on the 14th of August, and her body was placed in the same
grave with that of her husband. They had several children, but
no son seems to have followed the profession of the father; a
daughter was married to the painter Juan Bautista del Mazo
Martinez, the favourite scholar of Velazquez, who died in 1687,
with the dignity of painter to the king. Mazo Martinez is in-
cluded in the portrait of his own family by Velazquez, now in the
Belvedere Gallery at Vienna.

Velazquez was a good landscape-painter, but seldom attempted
church subjects; he probably had neither time nor taste for such
works, and his pictures accordingly afford a delightful oasis among
the dismal superstitious canvases of Spain. A “ Crucifixion,” in the
Gallery at Madrid, painted for the Nuns of San Placido, is a rare
exception to his ordinary subjects, of which the large majority are
portraits.’

1 A fine portrait of this admiral was in the Manchester Exhibition, contributed
by the Duke of Bedford.

2 Stirling’s ‘Annals of the Artists of Spain” has a portrait of the painter
when young, and a list of 219 works by, or ascribed to, Velazquez.
390 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

JUAN DE Pargsa, the mulatto slave of Velazquez, born at Seville
about 1606, was originally his master’s colour-grinder and attendant
upon him at his work. He secretly taught himself to paint, and one
of his performances having attracted the notice of Philip IV., the
king remarked to Velazquez that it was improper that such a painter
should remain a slave. Velazquez accordingly gave Pareja his
formal manumission, and retained him as a scholar. Pareja became
an able portrait-painter and askilful imitator of his master, whom he
continued to serve until his death; and he continued in the service
of the painter’s daughter, the wife of Mazo Martinez, until his own
death in 1670. Lord Radnor possesses a portrait of Pareja by
Velazquez.

Francisco pE ZuRBARAN was born at Fuente de Cantos, in Estre-
madura, and baptized November 7th, 1598, and entered the school
of Juan de Roélas at Seville, in which he made rapid progress. He
was of the naturalist school in light and shade and colour, and is
called the Spanish Caravaggio; but he too was less vulgar than his
Italian model. Some of his masterpicces are still at Seville ; the
chief of these is considered an altar-piece, formerly in the church
of the College of St. Thomas Aquinas, but now in the Museum at
Seville : it was painted about 1625, before Zurbaran’s thirtieth year.
Other capital works are those from the life of San Pedro Nolasco,
in the Merced Calzada; in these he has displayed a remarkable skill
in the treatment of white draperies. He made a special study of
draperies, which are invariably well managed in the pictures of
Zurbaran, who had constant recourse to the lay-figure for this pur-
pose. His reputation extended beyond Seville, and already in
1633 he was painter in ordinary to Philip IV. He died at Madrid
in 1662. The National collection possesses a characteristic picture
of a Franciscan monk by Zurbaran; and there is an admirable
“ Virgin and Child, with the Infant St. John,” at Stafford House by
him ; it is signed Fran. de Zurbaran. 1658.

Bernabe de Ayala, and the brothers Polanco, were scholars and
imitators of Zurbaran.

Bartolome Hst¥ean Muriito, born at Seville, and baptized
January 1st, 1618, is the best known of all the Spanish masters out of
Spain, and belongs to the same naturalist school as the above, though
he frequently represented the most exalted subjects. He is some-
times called the Spanish Vandyck; he, however, belonged toa very
different school of art from that of Vandyck. He is the great
Caposcuola of the school of Seville, and is generally considered
the prince of Spanish painters, though he had not the force or
readiness of Velazquez: he wants the manly vigour of that great
painter.

Murillo, having acquired a good knowledge of art from his rela-
tive Juan del Castillo at Seville, became in 1642 the pupil of Velaz-
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 391

quez at Madrid. He merely paid Velazquez a visit, his intention
being to prosecute his journey to Rome; but his countryman Velaz-
quez, aware of his slender resources and the difficulties of the
enterprise, at the same time admiring his manners and ability,
persuaded him to desist from his design of going to Italy, and to
stay and live with him.

Murillo had made a little money by working for the South
American saint-exporters, who carried on a great commerce with the
Spanish colonies at this time, and had been persuaded by Pedro de
Moya to go to England and become the pupil, or study the works of
Vandyck, and then go to Italy. De Moya himself, who worked
under Vandyck in England, does not appear to have yet known of
that painter’s death.

In 1644 Murillo had made such progress that Velazquez recom-
mended him then to proceed to Italy, but the other had now lost
all desire for the journey; Vandyck’s death removed his motive for
coming to England, and in 1645 he returned to Seville.

In 1648 he married Beatriz de Cabrera y Sotomayor, a lady of
fortune, and of a noble family of Pilas near Seville; from this time
his house became a favourite resort of people of taste and fashion.
And the painter is said to have greatly improved in style, adopting
fuller and softer forms, and a richer and more transparent colouring,
after his marriage.

In 1660 he established the Academy of Seville, of which he was
in that year president, but he never held the office afterwards. His
last work, and which he left unfinished, was an altar-piece, repre-
senting St, Catherine, commenced at Cadiz, for the church of the
Capuchins there: the work was interrupted by a fall from his
scaffolding, by which he was so much injured that he was compelled
to return to Seville, where he died shortly afterwards, on the 3rd of
April, 1682, aged sixty-four. Two sons and a daughter survived
him, but the daughter, Francisca, had taken the veil some years
before her father’s death. His son, Gaspar Estéban Murillo, imi-
tated his style: he died at Seville, a canon of the cathedral, on
the 2nd of May, 1709. Of Gabriel, the other son, nothing seems
to be known.

Like Velazquez, Murillo seldom signed his works ; but a picture
of a Franciscan cook in the Soult collection, known as La Cuisine
Celeste, is inscribed Bv Steph’ de Murillo, anno 1640, me f.

“Murillo, although the author of so many great works, says
Palomino, left only one hundred reals in money (about 11. sterling),
besides seventy crowns which were found in a desk. He certainly
did not die rich; and although he received prices which were at
the time respectable, Marshal Soult, the well-known French dealer,
has doubtless frequently pocketed, by the sale of a single * * *
392 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

picture, a sum larger than the whole gains of the artist’s laborious
life.” ,

Murillo in after life changed both his style and his subjects, and
adopted a manner more in accordance with the exalted character of
the subjects which he then represented: his greatest works were
executed after he was fifty years of age, being nearly all produced
between 1670 and 1680. His earlier works were of the low
naturalist type, and commonly of humble subjects: flower-girls,
beggar-boys, and the like; his later, much more refined and not
less true, were chiefly of a religious character, his favourite subject
being Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, which he often
painted, and sometimes with a beauty of composition and senti-
ment, and a richness and transparency of colouring far exceeding
any other Spanish painter: among them all perhaps the most
beautiful is the “ Virgin and Child in Glory,” belonging to Lord
Overstone, known as “ La Vierge Coupee.”

Among the principal works of Murillo, of a less graceful, but of a
more pretentious character than his numerous Madonnas, are the
eight large pictures painted and completed in 1674, for the Hos-
pital of St. George at Seville, called La Caridad, but now dispersed,
some in this country, some in France, and some still in Spain : several
were carried off by Marshal Soult to adorn his triumphs in Paris ;
but were afterwards profitably disposed of. Two are at Stafford
House—‘ Abraham visited by the Angels,” and the “Return of the
Prodigal Son:” a third, the “ Pool of Bethesda,” is in Mr. George
Tomline’s collection; the ‘‘ Angel liberating St. Peter from Prison,”
was lately still in the Soult collection; the “Tifioso,” or “ St. Isabel
of Hungary healing the Sick Poor,” is in the Academy at Madrid ;
two, “ Moses striking the Rock,” and the “Miracle of the Loaves
and Fishes,” very large pictures, are still at the Hospital of
La Caridad at Seville; the eighth, “San Juan de Dios, bearing a
poor man on his back,” as an illustration of Charity, seems to have
disappeared.

The two more important examples of Murillo in the National
Gallery are fair specimens of the master, especially the smaller

1 Stirling’s “ Annals,” p. 891. I have omitted one word, as I am not aware
either how much or how little the plundering an enemy’s country may be justified
by the customs of war.

2 The Virgin and Child had been cut out of the canvas, to save them from the
French, and Marshal Soult was forced to carry away a mutilated picture, con-
taining everything but the two principal figures; these were supplied in Paris by a
French painter, while the beautiful originals found their way to England, and
eventually into the possession of Lord Overstone, who finally succeeded in purchas-
ing the larger portion of the canvas from the Soult family, and now the two
parts are perfectly united again after a separation and wanderings of half a
century.
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 393

picture of “St. John and the Lamb;” the “‘ Holy Family ” is either
too much obscured by dirt, or wants transparency in its colouring.
It is a late work, was painted at Cadiz, and was there known as
the Pedroso Murillo: Cean Bermudez states, that in 1708 it was
valued at 12,000 reals, or 120]. sterling. As regards Murillo’s
prices, the highest mentioned by Cean Bermudez is 15,975 reals,
or about 1601, the sum he received for the large picture of the
“Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes,” in La Caridad, which is about
9 ft. high, by 21 ft. wide: for the two in the Duke of Sutherland’s
collection he received at the rate of 8000 reals each, or 80/.; they
are 7 ft. 9 in. high, by 8 ft. 6 in. wide. These prices.seem mode-
rate compared with Guido’s, but are high compared with Raphael’s
or Correggio’s.*

Murillo is the head of the school of Seville; his principal rivals
were Francisco Dz Herrera the younger, and Juan de Valdes Leal.
Herrera was born at Seville in 1622, was the son and scholar of
the elder painter of that name; and while still young left his
father’s house, fled to Rome, and did not return home until
after his father’s death in 1656. While in Rome, he was known,
from his love for painting fish, as J? Spagnolo de gli Pesci. The great
reputation of Murillo made Seville disagreeable to Herrera, who
in 1661 established himself in Madrid, where he painted for
Philip IV. the ‘“‘Assumption of the Virgin,” in fresco, on the
ceiling of the chapel of Our Lady of Atocha, a miraculous image
painted by St. Luke himself? Philip appointed Herrera his painter,
and made him superintendent of the royal works, for he was also an
architect: he died at Madrid in 1683.

JUAN DE VatpEes LeaL was born in Cordova in 1630, and died at
Seville on the 3rd of October, 1691. He held the first rank among
the painters of that city after the death of Murillo; and many of
his works are still preserved there. His scholar, Anronio Patomino
y Vevasco, of Bujalance (1653-1725), though an eminent painter
in his time, is now known almost exclusively for his work on
painting and painters,? and which has earned him the title of the
‘Spanish Vasari,” though Palomino’s biographies are a long way
from approaching the Italian’s in any respect, except in the number

1 Stirling’s “ Annals,” &c., contains a list of 384 works ascribed to Murillo.

2 « Fi] Museo Pictorico y Escala Optica,” in three parts—1. Teorica de la Pintura ;
2. Practica de la Pintura; 3. El Parnaso Espafiol Pintoresco Laureado; published
at Madrid in 2 vols., folio, 1715-24, The only portion of interest is the third, con-
taining the biographies. The English translation of the biographies, published
jn London in 1739, in 12mo., under the titlk—“An account of the Lives and
Works of the most Eminent Spanish Painters,” &., is too much abridged to
be either useful or interesting; it gives an account of 226 artists in 175 small
pages, with almost uniform praise, and facts and figures not to be de-
pended on.
394 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of their errors, which have incessantly occupied Cean Bermudez in
their rectification. He was painter to Charles IT.

Francisco Rizzi, born at Madrid in 1608, was the scholar of
Vincenzo Carducci, and had amazing facility as a fresco-painter.
He is considered one of those who, by the superficial attraction of
his works, hastened the decline of painting in Spain. Rizzi was
painter to Philip IV., Charles II., and the cathedral of Toledo—the
most important post of the three, as it gave its holder the privilege
of executing all works required for the cathedral in his time. He
died while engaged at the Escorial in 1685. Francisco’s elder
brother, Fray Juan Rizzi, born at Madrid in 1595, was also an
eminent painter, and a better draughtsman than his brother. He
retired to Rome and joined the Benedictines of Monte Casino, where
he died in 1675, having been shortly before created an archbishop
by Pope Clement X.

Rizzi’s scholar, CLaupto CoELLo (about 1635-93), anative of Madrid,
but a Portuguese by descent, by copying the pictures of Titian,
Rubens, and Vandyck, acquired a fine style of execution, and
became a good colourist; but he was more successful in oil than
in fresco-painting: he somewhat resembled Paul Veronese in his
style. Coello completed the picture of the ceremony of the “ Collo-
cation of the Host by Charles II., in 1684,” for the Retablo de la Santa
Forma, in the Sacristy of the Escorial, of which Rizzi had made only
a sketch. This is Coello’s masterpiece, and one of the finest pic-
tures in Spain: it is said to contain about fifty portraits, and
occupied the painter three years. Cumberland speaks in the
highest terms of it.

The Santa Forma Incorrupta is the miraculous wafer which
bled at Gorkum in 1525, when trampled on by the followers of
Zwingli. Rudolph II., Emperor of Germany, gave it to Philip I.
of Spain, whither it was transported in 1592; and in 1684
Charles II. constructed the gorgeous tabernacle in the Escorial for
its reception. The picture represents the ceremony of its col-
location. The altar is inscribed—En magni operis miraculum,
intra miraculum mundi, coeli miraculum consecratum. When the
Forma is exhibited for adoration, the picture, which forms a veil,
is let down, and is accordingly much injured. The French, under
La Houssaye, pillaged the Escorial in 1808, and carried off the
precious metals of this altar; but the precious wafer was hidden
by the monks in a cellar, and was restored to its place with great
pomp by Ferdinand VII. in 1814. Coello died, it is said, of vexa-
tion and jealousy in consequence of the arrival of Luca Giordano
at Madrid, by the invitation of the king, to paint the great stair-
case and other principal parts of the Escorial in fresco. he Italian
painter arrived in May, 1692, and the Spaniard, with one exception,
SCHOOLS OF PAINTING IN SPAIN. 395

doggedly adhered to his resolution to paint no more: he survived
Giordano’s arrival eleven months only. Ste transit gloria mundi.!

1 The chief authority for the history of the Spanish painters is the Dictionary of
Cean Bermudez, “Diccionario Historico de los mas Tlustres Profesores de las
Bellas Artes en Espana,” 6 vols.,12mo., Madrid, 1800. An account of Spanish
painting, and particularly of Murillo, was published by the same writer at Cadiz,
in 1806, in the form of a letter to a friend; it is translated into English in the
“Life of Murillo, compiled from the writings of various authors,” by Edward
Davies, London, 1819. Mr. Stirling’s work on Spanish painters, entitled “Annals
of the Artists of Spain,” 8vo., 1848, contains most that is of interest about
painters in the Dictionary of Cean Bermudez, and much information besides,
which he has put together in three volumes of very delightful reading. On
the Spanish painters generally the English reader may consult also Cumberland,
“Anecdotes of Eminent Painters in Spain,” and the articles in the “Penny
Cyclopedia’ and Supplement. See also Ford’s “ Hand-book of Spain,” for many
anecdotes relating to Spanish art and artists. The arts in Portugal have been
made the subject of a special treatise by Count Raczynski, “Les Arts en Portugal,”
Paris, 8vo., 1846. The same nobleman in the following year published a
“Dictionnaire Historico-Artistique du Portugal,’ with two illustrations of the
works of Vasco Frrnanpez, the great painter of Portugal, known as Gran-Vasco.
This Gran-Vasco, however, is altogether an imaginary character, who in the popular
belief was the painter of nearly all old Gothic work in Portugal. Vasco Fernandez
was born at Vizeu, September 18th, 1552, but little is known bout him. He was,
however, the painter of the “ Calvary,” and other pictures still in the cathedral of
Vizeu. This “Calvary,” Vasco’s masterpiece, like his other works, is strictly
Gothic in its taste, and no doubt Vasco derived his inspirations from early Flemish
or German examples. It represents “Christ crucified between the two thieves,”
and so far resembles the works of Albert Diirer, that it is not surprising that it
should have been long attributed to that master. Jt is engraved in Count
Raczynski’s work; the other illustration is “St. Peter as a Pope”’ When Vasco
Fernandez died has not yet been ascertained.
396 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

BOOK VII.

REVIVAL OF PAINTING. EXPEDIENCY AND COMMON SENSE. e

 

CHAPTER XXX.

NEW VITALITY IN THE NETHERLANDS; THE SUBJECTIVE STYLES OF
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT, SUCCEEDED BY THE HIGHEST OBJECTIVE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ART.

Tue Italianization of Flemish art has been already noticed in the
twenty-third chapter. The first masters who materially con-
tributed to this influence in the Low Countries, were Jan Schoorel,
Bernard van Orley, Michael Coxcien, Lambert Lombard, Frans
Floris, Martin de Vos, and Peter Pourbus.'’ The first great.
master, however, of this new development of Flemish painting was
Perer Paut Rusens,? “a meteor of art,” as Fuseli has well said,
though, after the productions of Paolo Veronese, he can hardly
be considered the inventor of a new style. His great distinction is
his extraordinary mastery of his materials.

Rubens was born at Siegen, in Westphalia, in 1577, on the day of
Saints Peter and Paul, June 29th. His parents, John Rubens, a
lawyer, and Mary Pypeling, natives of Antwerp, emigrated in
1568, lived some time at Siegen, settled in Cologne in 1578, and
remained there until he was ten years old, when his father died,
and in 1587 he was removed by his mother to Antwerp. His
principal master was Otho van Veen, a distinguished painter
of Antwerp, with whom he studied four years: he had worked
previously a short time with Adam van Noort, and some others
of less note. In 1598 he was enrolled a Master in the Corporation
of Painters of Antwerp, and in the spring of 1600 he went to Italy,
and studied the works of the great Italian colourists at Venice.

1 See Ch. XXIII.

2 After his residence in Italy Rubens commonly subscribed himself Prerro
Pavto Rupens.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 397

He visited and painted in many other cities of Italy, more
especially Mantua, where he entered the service of the Duke
Vincenzo Gonzaga, who sent Rubens in 1605 on a mission to
Madrid, to Philip 11. of Spain. In 1608 he returned to Antwerp,
his journey home being hastened by the illness of his mother, who,
however, died before his arrival; there is a reputed portrait of her
in the Dulwich Gallery, but it does not look like the work of
a young painter of two-and-twenty, which it must be if the portrait
of his mother, and by Rubens himself. He afterwards visited Paris,
and in 1628 Madrid, where he had Velazquez for acicerone. In 1629
he was in London. He served as Dean of the Antwerp Guild of
Painters in 1631; and finally died at Antwerp, honoured and
wealthy, May 30th, 1640, and was buried in the church of 8t.
Jacques, where there is an epitaph to his memory by his friend
Gevartius. He was twice married—first in October, 1609, to
Isaze.ta Brant; she died in 1626, leaving two sons, and their
magnificent father appointed Gevartius their tutor; his second wife
was HeLena Fourment, a girl of sixteen, his first wife’s sister’s
daughter, to whom he was married in 1630. She survived him and
married again; she had five children by Rubens. Both his wives
were handsome and served him as models; the dates of his pictures
will decide which, in the several cases. Rubens was knighted both
by Charles I. of England, and by -Philip IV. of Spain. He
lived in great splendour at Antwerp, where in 1610 he built him-
self a house which cost him 60,000 florins; and he accumulated
during his life such a valuable collection of works of art, that
a portion of it only realized after his death, by private sale,
‘the enormous sum of upwards of 20,000/. sterling.’

Rubens, speaking characteristically or esthetically, represents
magnificence arising from colour. “Rubens,” says Fuseli,? “born
in Germany, but brought up at Antwerp, then the depository of
western commerce, a school of religious and classic learning,
and the pompous seat of Austrian and Spanish superstition, met
these advantages with an ardour and success of which ordinary

1 See the list printed by Dawson Turner—“ Catalogue of the Works of Art in
the possession of Sir P. P. Rubens,” &c., 8vo., Yarmouth, 2nd ed., 1839. Some
very interesting facts relating to Rubens are published in “Original unpublished
Papers illustrative of the life of Rubens,” &., by W. N. Sainsbury, London,
Svo., 1859. :

2 Lecture II. On the birth-place of Rubens and the circumstances which led to
his being born not at Cologne, but at Siegen, see Alfred Michiels, “Rubens et
VEcole d’Anvers,” 8yo., Paris, 1854. The primary cause was an intrigue his
father had with Anne of Saxony, wife of William the Taciturn, for which he was
undergoing imprisonment. This wretched princess died insane, partly from her
own bad temper, and partly from the cruel treatment she was subjected to, in her

prison in the Electoral Palace of Saxony, on the 18th December, 1577. See also
Motley’s “ Rise of the Dutch Republic,” iv. ch. iii.
398 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

minds can form no idea, if we compare the period at which
he is said to have seriously applied himself to painting under
the tuition of Otto van Veen, with the unbounded power he
had acquired over the instruments of art when he set out for
Italy, where we instantly discover him not as the pupil, but as the
successful rival of the masters whose works he had selected for the
objects of his emulation. Endowed with a full comprehension
of his own character, he wasted not a moment on the acquisition of
excellence incompatible with its fervour, but flew to the centre
of his ambition, Venice, and soon compounded from the splendour
of Paolo Veronese and the glow of Tintoretto that florid system
of mannered magnificence which is the element of his art and
principle of his school. He first spread that ideal palette, which
reduced to its standard the variety of nature, and once methodized,
whilst his mind tuned the method, shortened or superseded indi-
vidual imitation. His scholars, however dissimilar in themselves,
saw with the eye of their master; the eye of Rubens was become the
substitute of nature: still the mind alone that had balanced these
tints, and weighed their powers, could apply them to their objects,
and determine their use in the pompous display of historic and
allegoric magnificence; for that they were selected; for that the
gorgeous nosegay swelled: but when, in the progress of depraved
practice, they became the mere palliatives of mental impotence,
empty representatives of themselves, the supporters of nothing but
clumsy forms and clumsier conceits, they can only be considered as
splendid improprieties, as the substitutes for wants which no
colour can palliate and ‘no tint supply.”

In another place’ Fuseli observes: ‘‘ What has been said of
Michelangelo in Form, may be said of Rubens in Cotour: they had
but one. As the one came to Nature and moulded her to his generic
form, the other came to Nature and tinged her with his colour—the
colour of gay magnificence. He levelled his subject to his style,
but seldom, if ever, his style to his subject: whatever be the sub-
ject of Rubens, legend, allegoric, stern, mournful, martyrdom, fable,
epic, dramatic, lyric, grave or gay—the hues that embody, the air
that tinges them, is an indiscriminate expanse of gay magnificence.
If the economy of his colours be that of an immense nosegay, he
has not always connected the ingredients with a prismatic eye: the
balance of the iris is not arbitrary : the balance of his colour often is.”

Of the principal masters of Rubens, one was a Fleming, the other
a Dutchman. ApaAm van Noort, the son and pupil of Lambert van
Noort, who ‘died in 1571 (sometimes incorrectly written Van Oort),
wag a painter of great ability and a good colourist: he was born at

1 Lecture XI.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 399

Antwerp in 1557, was received as master of the Company of St. Luke
in 1587: and after a long and turbulent life, through his own bad
habits and ungovernable temper, died in his native place in 1641,
aged eighty-four. Rubens had a high opinion of Van Noort’s ability,
and is reported to have said that he would have surpassed his contem-
poraries had he visited Rome and formed his style upon good models.

Orso or Octavius van VEEN, called also Orro Venius, was born
of a noble family at Leyden, in 1558. When still a boy he was
taken by his father to Liége, and was sent from there, by the
Cardinal de Groesbeke, in 1575, to Rome, where he became the
pupil of Federigo Zucchero, and he remained there five years. He
was settled in Antwerp in 1593,and was there admitted a mas-
ter or franc-matire in the Guild of Painters in 1594; he served as
Dean of the Corporation in 1603-4, but being made superinten-
dent of the mint by Albert and Isabella, then governors of the
Spanish Netherlands, he removed to Brussels in 1620, where he died
May 6th, 1629.1. The Antwerp Gallery possesses several examples
of Van Veen, among which “ The calling of St. Matthew,” his
masterpiece, is a noble work; it has fine qualities of composition,
form, and colour. Otho van Veen was also a poet and writer: of
his eight children, two sons and six daughters, by his wife Anne
Loots, one only, a daughter, Gertrude, cultivated the art of her
father: his portrait by her is in the Gallery at Brussels.

The works of Rubens are surprisingly numerous; but the majority
of the great works attributed to him were painted by his scholars
from small coloured sketches by his own hand. He is seen to
advantage in the National Gallery at London, in the Belvedere
Gallery at Vienna, in the Louvre at Paris, and in the Gallery of
Brussels: it is, however, only at Munich or Antwerp that his im-
mense powers can be adequately appreciated. The collection of
Manich alone contains ninety-four pictures by Rubens; Antwerp,
however, is still in possession of his greatest works—the Descent
from the Cross, in the cathedral, the Crucifixion and the Adoration
of the Kings, in the gallery of the museum, besides many others,
perhaps equally excellent, in its several churches. The Fallen
Angels, in the Gallery of Munich, has been already noticed at some
length.

The Descent from the Cross, however, in the cathedral at Antwerp,
is generally allowed to be the capo d’ opera of Rubens. Sir Joshua
Reynolds, who has made many excellent observations on the works
of Rubens, in his “Journey to Flanders and Holland,” remarks at
some length on this celebrated picture. He says: ‘“‘This picture,
of all the works of Rubens, is that which has the most reputation.

1 “Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857,
400 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

I had consequently conceived the highest idea of its excellence ;
knowing the print, I had formed in my imagination what such a
composition would produce in the hands of such a painter. I con-
fess I was disappointed. However, this disappointment did not
proceed from any deficiency in the picture itself; had it been in the
original state in which Rubens left it, it must have appeared very
different : but it is mortifying to see to what degree it has suffered
by cleaning and mending: that brilliant effect, which it undoubtedly
once had, is lost in a mist of varnish, which appears to be chilled
or mildewed.’1. The Christ is in many places retouched, so as to be
visible at a distance: the St. John’s head is repainted ; and other
parts, on a close inspection, appear to be chipping off, and ready to
fall from the canvas. However, there is enough to be seen to
satisfy any connoisseur that in its perfect state it well deserved all
its reputation.

“The composition of this picture is said to be borrowed from an
Italian print; this print I never saw; but those who have seen it
say that Rubens has made no deviation from it, except in the atti-
tude of the Magdalen. On the print is written Peter Passer, Invenit ;
Hieronymus Wirix, Sculpsit.

“The greatest peculiarity of this composition is the contrivance
of the white sheet on which the body of Jesus lies; this circum-
stance is probably what induced Rubens to adopt the composition.
He well knew what effect white linen, opposed to flesh, must have
with his powers of colouring,—a circumstance which was not likely
to enter into the mind of an Italian painter, who probably would
have been afraid of the linen’s hurting the colouring of the flesh, and
have kept it down of a low tint. And the truth is, that none but
great colourists can venture tc paint pure white linen near flesh ;
but such know the advantage of it: so that possibly what was stolen
by Rubens, the possessor knew not how to value, and certainly no per-
son knew so well as Rubens how to use. After all, this may perhaps
turn out another Lauder’s detection of plagiarism.? I could wish to
see this print, if there is one, to ascertain how far Rubens was indebted

1 Tt has lately been restored, and has recovered much of its original general
effect.

2 This has reference to a work by one William Lauder, a Scotchman, who in
1751 published a malignant book entitled “An Essay on Milton’s Use and
Imitation of the moderns in his Paradise Lost,” containing quotations forged by
himself and other impostors. Upon the detection of his infamous slanders, which
he was forced to confess, he vented his hatred in another essay, published in 1754,
entitled, “ The Grand Impostor Detected, or Milton convicted of Forgery against
King Charles I,” which was proved to be equally malicious and false with the
former essay. If such a print exists as that alluded to by Sir Joshua, it may
possibly have been the fabrication of some Flemish man of art suffering equally
from the torments of envy, as the Scotch man of letters; an envy which, in Lauder’s
case, appears to have amounted to insanity.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 401

to it for his Christ, which I consider as one of the finest figures that
ever was invented : it is most correctly drawn, and, I apprehend, in an
attitude of the utmost difficulty to execute. The hanging of the head
on his shoulder, and the falling of the body on one side, give such
an appearance of the heaviness of death, that nothing can exceed it.

“Of the three Marys, two of them have more beauty than he
generally bestowed on female figures, but no great elegance of cha-
racter. The St. Joseph of Arimathea is the same countenance
which he so often introduced in his works, a smooth fat face, a very
unhistorical character. -

“The principal light is formed by the body of Christ and the
white sheet; there is no second light which bears any proportion to
the principal; in this respect it has more the manner of Rem-
brandt’s disposition of light than any other of Rubens’s works ; how-
ever, there are many little detached lights distributed at some
distance from the great mass, such as the head and shoulders of the
Magdalen, the heads of the two Marys, the head of St. Joseph, and
the back and arm of the figure leaning over the cross; the whole
surrounded witha dark sky, except a little light in the horizon, and
above the cross.”*

Among the most magnificent of the compositions of Rubens are
certainly the three large pietures in the Belvedere Gallery at
Vienna, though they do not bear the marks of his own pencil. Yet
they are stupendous in their magnificence of effect; they are free
from the extravagant ponderosity of flesh with which he himself, as
well as some of his scholars, has too often deformed his figures. One
of these is ‘Ignatius Loyola casting out Devils ;” another, “ Francis
Xavier working Miracles, and preaching the Gospel.to the Hindoos ;”
and the third, ‘The Assumption of the Virgin.” It is worth a
journey to Vienna to see these pictures; and there are many others
by Rubens in the same apartment. Near these immense canvases is
avery superb sketch of an old man with white hair, in a purple
dress, a miracle of effect; it is by his own hand, and is signed
P. P. R. In the same room is a. portrait of the painter, signed
P. P. Rozens; and the original sketches. or first thoughts of the
great pictures of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier; the last of which
has certainly gained enormously by the working out; the sketch has
little or no effect. In this room is also the fine large picture of
“St. Ambrose excluding the Emperor Theodosius from the Cathe-
dral of Milan,” from which our small picture of the same subject by
Vandyck is a study. Jn another room is a beautiful small sketch of
“The Descent from the Cross,” signed P. P. Rusens, F, 1614.”

1 This picture has been many times engraved; the best prints after it are those
by Vorsterman, Pigeot, Earlom, V. Green, and Claessens.
2 See Erasmus Engert’s “Catalog der K. K. Gemilde-Gallerie im Belvedere zu

2D
402 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The “ Education of the Virgin,” in the Antwerp Museum, seems
to be portraits of the two wives of the painter; Isabella Brandt
being represented as St. Anne, and her niece, Helena Fourment, a
mere girl, representing the Virgin. It was painted probably about
1625. The Liechtenstein Gallery in Vienna has a noble picture of
Isabella Brandt’s two sons : there is an unequal repetition or copy of
it at Dresden.

Rubens is distinguished also as one of the first landscape and
animal painters of his time: his energetic lion and tiger-hunts and
other similar pieces are unrivalled in their class; they appear to be
variations of Leonardo da Vinci’s cartoon of the Battle of the
Standard, with the addition of wild beasts. Rubens certainly seems
to have had in mind, and competed with, this composition, when he
made the designs for his very remarkable pictures of these wild
hunts and contests.’

Frans Snypers, born at Antwerp in 1579, one of the most dis-
tinguished of animal painters, assisted Rubens in some of his works
of this class. The spirit and truth of the wild beasts of Snyders
are amazing; his skill and power in painting fruit and vegetables
were also extraordinary; and he enjoyed a great reputation with
his contemporaries. He was the scholar of Peter Brueghel the
younger, and of Henry van Balen the elder. He was received a
master of the Guild of St. Luke in 1602, and in 1611 he married
Margaret, the sister of Cornelius de Vos. He must have studied
in Italy, as he was a member of the Society of ‘‘Romans” of
Antwerp, and served as dean of that fraternity in 1628. Snyders
was court painter to the Archduke Albert. In 1647 he lost his
wife, and ten years later, on the 19th of August, 1657, he followed
her; his body was placed in the tomb beside his wife’s. Vandyck
painted both Snyders and his wife, and there is an admirable
etching of Snyders by Vandyck himself; he seems to have been a
very handsome man.

Antwerp had at this time another wonderful painter of fruit,
flowers, and animals, Jan Fyr (1609-61), who occasionally worked
with Jordaens, but does not appear to have been an assistant of
Rubens. Fyt was admitted Franc-maitre in 1629, and studied

Wien,” 1860. The inscriptions on the Vienna pictures are more carefully given in
the Catalogue of Albert Krafft, “ Catalogue de la Galerie,” &c., 1845. The first two
pfctures are about 18 ft. high by 13 ft. wide, and the “ Assumption” about 15 ft.
high by 10 ft. wide, sight measure. A comprehensive list of Rubens’s works is
given in Smith’s “Catalogue Raisonné, vol. ii, 1830.

1 The Notices of Rubens and his style are numerous. The most satisfactory
accounts are some recent publications: Emile Gachet, “ Lettres inédites de P. P.
Rubens,” Brussels, 1840; A. Michiels, “ Rubens et ‘Ecole d’Anvers,” Paris, 1854 ;
and W. N. Sainsbury, “ Original Papers relating to Rubens,” London, 1859.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT, 403

afterwards in Rome. He published several etchings of animals,
especially dogs, as admirable as his pictures. A large and mag-
nificent work of its class, ‘Some Dead Game, a Peacock, a Dog
and a Page, with an ornamental garden in the background,” is
conspicuous among several others by the same painter, in the
superb Belvedere Gallery at Vienna: it is signed Joannes Fyt. F.;
his usual signature, but he sometimes added the year.

Rubens’s influence was paramount at Antwerp, in the higher or reli-
gious art, but he had his rivals as well as his scholars and imitators:
the two most able of his rivals were perhaps Van Balen and
Janssens.

Henprik van Baten, called the elder, born in 1560 at Antwerp,
of an old Flemish family of painters, and the master of Snyders and
of Vandyck, was the scholar of Adam van Noort the first master
of Rubens. He was a member of the St. Lucas Gilde in 1593;
served as Dean of the Corporation in 1609-10, and died at Antwerp
July 17th, 1632. Van Balen visited Italy: Jan Brueghel used to
assist him in the backgrounds and floral decorations of his pictures.
Van Balen has executed many beautiful works of a cabinet size,
often on copper. The Belvedere Gallery possesses an ‘“‘ Assump-
tion of the Virgin,” and a “Rape of Europa,” of this class; there
are others at Dresden. He delighted in the pagan mythology: he
has signed H. V. Baten and H. V. Bart. Sometimes Van Balen’s
share of a picture is accessory only to Brueghel’s, in their joint
productions.

ABRAHAM JANSSENS, born at Antwerp in 1569, entered into a
thorough spirit of rivalry with Rubens. He was the scholar of
Hans Snellinck in 1585; was made a member of the Painters’
Guild of St. Luke in 1601, and served as dean in 1606-7. He was
a good colourist and fond of powerful contrasts, a taste he sume-
times indulged in by painting torch-lights. Many of the altar-
pieces of Janssens are still preserved at Antwerp, Mechlin, and
other towns of Belgium; but the well-earned fruits of the great
patronage he enjoyed, indicated by these various works, he wasted in
a vain competition with the princely state kept up by Rubens. He
died poor, in 1631, leaving a widow, and a son of his own name,
who appears on the books of the Guild of St. Luke at Antwerp
in 1636-7. The “Venus and Adonis,” by Janssens, in the Belve-
dere Gallery, is a fine picture, and must be reckoned among the
painter’s masterpieces; two other large pictures in the same col-
lection—Apollo with the Twelve Hours of the Day, and Diana
with the Twelve Hours of the Night—are notable examples of the
Flemish school.

Aprausm BLoeMART (1567-1647 ?), a distinguished contemporary
of Rubens, though not a rival, was the son of Cornelius Bloemart,

2n2
404 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

an eminent architect; he was born at Gorcum, was educated at
Paris, and settled and died at Utrecht. Bloemart was a great
mannerist, his colouring being gaudy and his execution mechanical,
without variety of surface; his pictures being too palpably paint:
a fault, however, in which he by no means stands alone. He
painted history, landscape, and animals; and was likewise an
engraver.

Paut Vansomer, of Antwerp (1576-1621), obtained a great repu-
tation as a portrait-painter, in England, during the reign of
James I. He came to this country about 1606, died in London,
and was buried in St. Martin’s in the Fields, as appears from the
Register :—Jan. 5. 1621. Paulus Vansomer, Pictor Eximius, sepultus fuit
in ecclesid, His pictures are good, but his reputation has been
eclipsed by that of Vandyck. Lord Bacon sat to Vansomer.*

Of the numerous scholars of Rubens, the most distinguished were
Vandyck and Diepenbeeck. Of these two painters, Fuseli, Lecture
II., remarks : “ Vandyck, more elegant, more refined, to graces which
the genius of Rubens disdained to court, joined that exquisite taste
which, in following the general principle of his master, moderated
and adapted its application to his own pursuit. His sphere was
portrait, and the imitation of Titiano ensured him the second place
in that. The fancy of Diepenbeeck, though not so exuberant, if I be
not mistaken, excelled in sublimity the imagination of Rubens: his
Bellerophon, Dioscuri, Hippolytus, Ixion, Sisyphus, fear no com-
petitor among the productions of his master.”

Anroyy Vanpyckx or Van Duck, was born at Antwerp, March the
22nd, 1599, and was the seventh of a family of twelve children.
His mother, Maria Cupers, was the second wife of his father, Frans
Vandyck, and is reported to have been an accomplished woman, but
she died in 1607, when Antony was only eight years old. The
father was a merchant enjoying a good position at Antwerp: he
died in 1622. Antony was placed with Hendrik van Balen so early
as 1609, but the true master of Vandyck was Rubens, with whom he
remained about four years: he probably entered the school of
Rubens about 1615, and he was still working as the assistant of
that master in 1620, though he himself had been admitted as a
master-painter into the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke already in 1618,
before his twentieth birthday.?

In 1623, after the death of his father, Vandyck, by the advice of
Rubens, visited Italy, and remained there four or five years, dividing
his time chiefly between Genoa, Venice, and Rome; executing some
peautiful portraits at these cities, of a very highly finished character :
some noble examples are still preserved at Genoa. He also visited

1 Walpole, “ Anecdotes of Painting in England,” &c.
2 “Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 405

Palermo. The exact time of his return home is not known, but
he was in Antwerp in 1628, for in that year he painted the altar-
piece of St. Augustin, for the church of the Augustines there ; and
he soon acquired so great a reputation, both for his pictures and his
portraits, that he was at length invited by Charles I. to England.

Vandyck came to this country in 1632, and was appointed prin-
cipal painter to the king, with a pension of 200/. a year for life; and
in 1633 Charles I. knighted him. He seems to have visited Eng-
land twice before 1632: once in King James’s time, in 1621, after
the death of Vansomer, and before his journey to Italy; and again
in 1630 or 1631; but having then failed to attract such notice as he
desired, he returned disappointed to Antwerp. He revisited the
continent in 1640-41, but returned,’ and died in London, December
9th, 1641, in the forty-third year of his age, and was buried in old
St. Paul’s, near the tomb of John of Gaunt. ;

Vandyck is chiefly distinguished as a portrait-painter ; he executed,
however, many historical pictures, some of which are works of the
highest merit, as the Crucifixion, in the church of St. Michel
at Ghent; and another with the two thieves in the cathedral of
Mechlin, which Sir Joshua Reynolds considered one of the finest
pictures in the world. He says: “This perhaps is the most capital
of all Vandyck’s works, in respect to the variety and extensiveness
of the design, and the judicious disposition of the whole. In the
efforts which the thieves make to disengage themselves from the
cross, he has successively encountered the difficulty of the art; and
the expression of grief and resignation inthe Virgin is admirable.
This picture, upon the whole, may be considered as one of the first
pictures in the world, and gives the highest idea of Vandyck’s
powers; it shows that he had truly a genius for history- “painting,
if it had not been taken off by portraits.”

Vandyck seems to have rarely signed his pictures: the fine por-
trait of the Marquis of Moncada, at Vienna, is inscribed A. Van
Dyck ; and the equally beautiful picture of the Prince of Carignan,
at Berlin, is signed Antony van Dyck, Eques. A portrait of Charles I.,
in the Louvre, is signed A. Vay. Discx. F.

As a portrait-painter Vandyck is generally allowed to dispute the
palm with Titian. His portraits are inferior to Titian’s in colour
and in solidity of effect; in all other respects Vandyck was fully
equal, if not superior, to the great Venetian painter. In individu-
ality, in attitude, and in costume, Vandyck leaves nothing to be
desired: in drawing and in the management of light and shade he
was equally excellent. Many of his portraits, however, being
deficient in colouring, and consequently tame and flat in effect, fail

1 See Carpenter’s “ Memoir of Sir Anthony Vandyck,” &c., Loudon, 1844,
406 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

in attracting that consideration as works of high art which they are
otherwise entitled to. It is rather remarkable that Vandyck does
not evince more of the impetuosity of Rubens in his works, which,
as his pupil, and so able a master, one would imagine that he could
not have jailed, in some degree, to appropriate: for force, the
portraits of Rubens are unequalled. The style would induce one
to conclude that the celebrated head popularly known as Gevartius
is not a work by Vandyck, but by Rubens: it is, however, not the
portrait of either Gaspar or John Gevartius. Gaspar Gevartius, the
friend of Rubens, and tutor to his sons, was not born until 1593; it
is therefore not his picture; and the canon John Gevartius died in
1623,’ whilst Vandyck was in Italy, and he certainly could not have
painted such a picture before he went there, for he was then but a
youth, and this portrait, one of the finest heads in the world, is
evidently the work of a hand old in mastery.

The portrait is really that of Cornelius Vander Geest, as is evident
from the head of that amateur of the arts, by Paul Pontius, among the
Centum Icones,? after Vandyck. Thereis a tradition that Vandyck used
to carry this portrait about with him; this would be an additional
argument for its being by the hand of his great master, rather than
by his own; it was originally a mere head, and has not been long
attached to, or inserted in, its present panel: the drapery and back-
ground are an addition, I have been told, by Sir Thomas Lawrence.

The Vandyck Gallery at Windsor, containing twenty-three pic-
tures, is a magnificent monument to this great painter, who died at
an age at which many other distinguished artists have considered
themselves fortunate even in commencing their career of success.
This country is especially rich in the portraits of Vandyck, and yet
two of his finest full-lengths in the country were only quite recently
added to its wealth in this respect: the portraits of Philippe Le Roy
and his wife, purchased in 1850, at the King of Holland’s sale, by
the Marquis of Heriford, for the large sum of 5,300/.; they were
painted in 1630-1. As aspecimen of an admirable half- ‘length lady’ s
portrait, that of the Princess Maria Louisa of Thurn and Taxis, in
the Liechtenstein Gallery at Vienna, is very remarkable.’

’ Passavant, “ Kunstreise,” &c.; and Waagen, “ Kunstwerke,” &c. in England.

2 «Tcones Virorum doctorum, pictorum Chalcographorum, &c., numero centum,
ab Antonio Vandyck pictore ad vivum expresse et ejus sumptu aeri incisae
Antverpiae,” 1645. Vandyck etched several of these plates himself. The originals
are small portraits in chiaroscuro, now dispersed over Europe: that of Vander
Geest is in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. See Smith’s “Catalogue
Raisonné,” vol. iii.

3 There is a fine print of it by C. Vermeulen, lettered Maria Luissa de Tassis.
There are several coarse and exceedingly extravagant pictures in some of the
continental galleries (as for instance in Berlin, where there is a signed (?) example)
which are attributed to Vandyck : it is very difficult to imagine when they can have
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 407

Vandyck had a country house at Eltham, in Kent, where he
spent a portion of the summer; he lived in great state when in
town; ‘‘he always went magnificently dressed, had a numerous and
gallant equipage, and kept so good a table in his apartment that few
princes were more visited or better served.” Notwithstanding this
expensive style of living, Vandyck left property to the value of about
20,0007. sterling. He left also an infant daughter, his only child by
his wife Mary Ruthven, granddaughter of the unfortunate Earl of
Gowrie, who was beheaded in 1584. The date of Vandyck’s marriage
is not known, but it cannot have been many years before his death.’

AsranamM vAN Dierenseeok (about 1607-75), of Bois-le-Duc, was
originally a painter on glass. He settled in Antwerp about 1629 ;
was admitted a citizen of Antwerp in 1636; married in 1637;
and was elected a master of the Corporation of St. Luke, in 1638.
He married a second time in 1652; and each time a lady of
Schelle, near Antwerp: by his first wife he had eight, by his
second, four, children?

Diepenbeeck’s masterpiece, long attributed to Rubens, is the
altar-piece of the church of Deurne, near Antwerp, representing
“St. Norbert giving the cross and his benediction to Waltman,
First Abbot of St. Michel.” He died at Antwerp, and was buried
in the church of St. Jacques. There are two large pictures,
good examples, in the Berlin Gallery attributed to him; one
silvery, and the other also’cleanly painted, like the good works of
Vandyck :—‘“ The Marriage of St. Catherine;” and “ Cleelia and
her Companions flying from King Porsenna.” *

Preter van Mon (1599-1650), though not a pupil, may be
reckoned among the good followers of Rubens : he was received into
the Antwerp Guild in 1622-3. He died in Paris, where he esta-
blished himself, and was elected a member of the Royal Academy
of Painting, in 1648: his works are in the Italian taste. The
Louvre possesses a ‘‘ Taking down from the Cross,” by Van Mol.

An imitator of Vandyck, and an excellent painter, was THroporE
BoryerMaNs, who was born at Antwerp in 1620. He was admitted
master in the Antwerp Guild in 1654, and died in his native
city in 1677-8. The Gallery of the Academy of Antwerp possesses
several good pictures by this master; especially notable is a “ Pool

been painted if Vandyck is to be held responsible for them. They are not the
works of a young man, and they were certainly not painted in this country: they
bear no resemblance in any way to his portraits, or to any of the finer works he is
known to have painted before he visited this country. They are of the school of
Rubens; but can scarcely be the work of its most accomplished scholar.

1 « Essay towards an English School,” London, 1706.

2 Walpole, “ Anecdotes of Painting,” &c.; Carpenter, “Memoir of Vandyck ;”
* Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857.

3 “ Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857.
408 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

of Bethesda,” a vast composition, painted in 1675. A signed
“Family Portrait,” is in the style of the quiet pictures by
Vandyck, brownish in tint, and delicate in execution; the hands
are altogether like those of Vandyck. The works of Boeyermans
are rare; he did not often sign his pictures, or if he did, his
signatures have been removed, and his works, instead of earning
a reputation for his own name, are probably simply swelling the
catalogue of spurious Vandycks.

JacoB VAN Oost the elder, of Bruges, was an imitator of Rubens
and of Vandyck; he was admitted a master in his native city in
1621, and shortly afterwards visited Italy, where he was attracted
by the works of Annibale Carracci. He returned to Bruges in
1629, and was elected Dean of the Corporation of Painters there, in
1633; and after a successful career as historical and portrait-
painter, died at Bruges in 1671, aged about seventy.’

Van Oost resembles Vandyck in some of his best works. His
son, Jacop van Oost the younger (1639-1713), was also a good
painter, following the practice of his father. He studied at
Paris and in Italy, but painted chiefly at Lille.

Erasmus QueLuinus the younger, son of the sculptor of that
name, was born at Antwerp in 1607, and is said to have studied
under Rubens. He was admitted a master-painter in 1634, but
dispensed with the then usual visit to Italy. Quellinus, or Quellin,
was distinguished for his portraits and*for his church-pieces, and
died in 1678. Gevartius, the friend of Rubens, was also intimate
with Erasmus Qudllinus. ;

Among the good Flemish portrait-painters of this time was the
friend, though not actually the scholar, of Rubens, Justus SusrER-
mans (1597-1681), a native of Antwerp, and the pupil of his fellow-
townsman William de Vos: he studied also some time with the
younger Pourbus at Paris. The career of Sustermans, however,
was Italian: he settled in Florence as early as 1620, and was
painter to three Grand Dukes of Tuscany—Cosmo II., Ferdi-
nand IJ., and Cosmo JIJ. The emoluments of the office were
considerable: apartments and maintenance in the palace, payment
for all work done, and a fixed stipend of 25 scudi per annum.
Sustermans painted the imperial family of Vienna; and their
Holinesses of Rome—Urban VIII., who presented him with the
Cross of Malta; and Innocent X. He also went with the Cardinal
de’ Medici to Spain, in 1649, in the suite of the Queen of Philip IV.

Rubens’s fine picture of ‘‘ Tragedy,” or ‘The Horrors of War,”
now in the Pitti Palace, and of which we have the sketch in the
National Gallery, was painted for Sustermans, and sent to him in

' Weale, “Catalogue du Musée de Bruges,” 1861.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 409

Florence, from Antwerp, in 1638: the letter written by Rubens on
the occasion is still preserved. In 1641 Vandyck and Sustermans
exchanged portraits. Among his many distinguished sitters were
Galileo and Viviani the mathematician.' His portraits are well
modelled, but they are somewhat dry in colouring, wanting both
richness and half tints.

Other scholars and contemporaries of Rubens, deserving special
mention, were Jacob Jordaens, Gerhard Seghers, Cornelius Schut,
Jan van Hoeck, Theodore van Thulden, Gaspar de Crayer, and
Daniel Mytens the elder.

Jacos Jorparns, of Antwerp (1593-1678), scholar and son-in-law
of Adam van Noort, and admitted into the Guild of St. Luke, a
master painter, in 1615, was one of the principal followers of
Rubens, but always remained very far behind him. Jordaens had
a careful, solid way of painting, but was crude in colouring, and
wholly void of taste and refinement in style and in composition:
he exaggerated the manner of Rubens.

Of his most successful works, two are in the possession of the
Duke of Devonshire—the ‘portrait of the Prince and Princess of
Orange, in Devonshire House; and the Boonkoning, or ‘Twelfth
Night,” at Chiswick; of which clever but absurd composition, a
set of mad topers, there is another example in the Belvedere
Gallery, with the inscription Mil similius Insano quam Ebrius, Ant-
‘werp also possesses some good examples of the works of Jordaens,
as the “Last Supper,’ in the Gallery there. Jordaens was a
Protestant, and joined the Calvinists in 1671. He died and was
buried in the village of Putten, on the Dutch frontier, leaving his
numerous family a considerable fortune.

GerHarp SecHers, or rather Zecers (1591-1651), likewise of
Antwerp, the pupil of Hendrik van Balen and Abraham Janssens,
was admitted into the Guild of St. Luke in 1608. He visited
Italy, and was there fascinated by the works of Caravaggio, of
whom he became an imitator. He then went to Madrid, and
painted several works for the king, Philip III., and returned to
Antwerp in 1620, where he married in 1621. Zegers was dean
of his guild in 1646-7, amassed a large fortune, and accumulated
a considerable collection of works of art. Like Caravaggio, he
painted indiscriminately sacred or profane subjects: he was of a
Protestant family which had returned to the Roman Church, and
Zegers brought up his own large family in the same faith. Pontius
has engraved his portrait, after Vandyck.

Cornenis Scaut, of Antwerp (1597-1655), an excellent painter,
belongs also to the school of Rubens. What year he became a

1 Baldinucci, “ Notizie dei Professori del Disegno,”’ &c.; Gaye, “ Carteggio
Inedito a’ Artisti.”
410 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Franc-maitre of the Corporation of St. Luke is not known, but he
was a member, as in 1634-35 he paid the fine of 200 florins, for
a perpetual exemption from serving the office of Dean of the Cor-
poration, which doubtless gave much trouble, and occupied a great
deal of time. The “ Decollation of St. George,” at Antwerp, is a fine
picture. Danze Zecrrs, the admirable flower-painter of Antwerp
(1590-1661), and Schut, sometimes worked together; there is a
fine example of their jomt labours in the Belvedere Gallery, in
Vienna: a Madonna and Child, with angels holding a garland of
flowers. In 1614 Zegers turned Jesuit, but prosecuted his painting
nevertheless, and greatly enriched his convent at Antwerp. Until
1718 the monks used to preserve his mahl-stick as a relic; it was
of gold, ornamented with a death’s-head at the top; and had been
presented to the painter as a mark of esteem, by the wife of
Frederic Heury, Prince of Orange.

Jan van Hoxck (1598-1651), of Antwerp, after studying under
Rubens, painted much at Rome; and for Ferdinand II. at Vienna:
he returned in 1647 to Antwerp, and died there, as principal painter
to the Archduke Leopold. He was one of the best masters of his
school, excelling in history and in portraits; he was a master of light
and shade, and a good colourist. His figures also are drawn in a
chaster style than is the case with Rubens and his school generally.

The “Christ on the Cross,” in the cathedral at Bruges, by Van
Hoeck, is one of the finest paintings in Belgium. The figure of
Christ has extracrdinary effect and reality, and is certainly superior
to the Christ of the celebrated Crucifixion by Vandyck, at Ghent;
the rest of the composition is inferior. There is an indifferent
print of this picture by Cornelius Galle the younger.

THEODORE VAN THULDEN (about 1607-76), a native of Bois-le-Duc,
entered the school of Rubens, and settled in Antwerp, where he
was elected a member of the Painters’ Guild of St. Luke, 1626-7.
He was then employed at Paris to paint some pictures for the
church of the Mathurins there, and in 1636 he became a burgess of
the city. He had the year before, married Mary, the daughter
of Hendrik van Balen, the painter: he served as Dean of the
Corporation of Painters in 1638-9. In 1656 he had already returned
to his native place, where he died: the years of his birth and death
are both uncertain.' Van Thulden was employed by Rubens as
an assistant, and is said to have been engaged as such on the
pictures of the Luxembourg Gallery at Paris. He painted genre
subjects as well as religious and historical pieces; and also
engraved a few plates. He worked very closely in the style of
Rubens in his large works, in his genre pictures he imitated

1 «Catalogue du Musee d’ Anvers,” 1857.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 411

Teniers. Van Thulden also sometimes inserted figures in the
works of landscape-painters.

Gaspar pe Craver, of Antwerp (1582-1669}, was rather the
contemporary than the imitator of Rubens. He was the scholar of
Raphael van Coxcien; and painted chiefly at Brussels, where he
was attached to the court as an archer of the Noble Guard, and at
Ghent, where he died in his eighty-seventh year, and where his
principal works are still preserved. The pictures of De Crayer are
generally on a large scale and of great pretensions, yet with all
their excellences, they are, with few exceptions, cold and formal.
Some of his large altar-pieces, however, are, from the dignity of
their subjects, and their bold execution combined with good draw-
ing, very impressive. Even Rubens, with his gorgeous taste, is said
to have been so impressed with admiration of a picture in the refec-
tory of the abbey of Affleghem, that he exclaimed aloud—“ Crayer!
Crayer! no one will ever surpass you.”

Crayer is seen to greatest advantage in the museum at Ghent,
where most of his masterpieces are assembled together, and where
also it is seen that this kind of ‘‘ High Art” which depends chiefly
upon its proportions for its effect, makes really but very little im-
pression upon the mind, if there is no particular natural force in
it, or no special individuality in the painter, as for example, Rubens
displays, to recommend it. The best of these works at Ghent is
“The Coronation of St. Rosalie by the Infant Christ,” which is one
of the pictures carried by the French to Paris, and restored after
the peace. There are among them “A Judgment of Solomon ;”
three large masterly decorative works, of which the figures are
colossal, painted in 1635 on the occasion of the solemn entry of
Prince Ferdinand, the Cardinal Infant of Spain, into Ghent, com-
memorating events of the Emperor Charles V.; and the ‘‘ Martyrdom
of St. Blaise,” the saint being suspended by his hands in a tree,
with weights at his feet. This is Crayer’s last work, and was
painted in 1668, when he was upwards of eighty-five years of age;
it is, however, slight and feeble, and is more a pictorial curiosity
thananything else. Theinscription is G. DUrayer F, a°. 1668 zr. 86.

In the Gallery at Munich, formerly at Diisseldorf, where it was
seen by Sir Joshua Reynolds, is an immense picture of the “‘ Ma-
donna and Child enthroned, with Angels, and surrounded by Saints :”
the lower figures are portraits of the painter and his family—his
brother, sister and nephew; his own head is a very fine one; he
was never married : it is signed and dated—Jasprr ne Craver FECIT
1646. Though it is a good piece of church decoration, so little
satisfactory was its dry conventional treatment to Sir Joshua Rey-
nolds, that he notices it in his “ Journey to Flanders and Holland ”
chiefly as a foil to the works of Rubens, in the same gallery. ‘The
412 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

dead and cold effect of this picture,” he remarks, “as well as many
others of modern masters in this gallery, sets off those of Rubens
to great advantage.”

The portraits of Crayer resemble those of Vandyck; he was never
drawn into the vortex of imitators of Rubens. Few of his large
works have been engraved, and, owing apparently to their great
size, they have been but little dispersed; they seem to exceed the
practicable dimensions for commerce.

The fine backgrounds occasionally seen in De Crayer’s pictures,
were put in either by Louis de Vadder, or by his scholar, Acht-
schelling. Their dates are not known. A contemporary of De
Vadder was Lucas van Vatcxenzorc, of a family of painters of
Mechlin ; he and his brother Martin were inscribed in the books of
the Antwerp guild in 1560; the family migrated from Antwerp in
1566. The Belvedere Gallery possesses several good landscapes by
Lucas, signed L. V. V., and dated from 1580 to 1590 inclusive.
He shows something of the taste of Ruysdael in his pictures.

Lucas AcuTscHeLine, of Brussels, was distinguished early in the
seventeenth century for a close imitation of nature and boldness
of style, especially in his foliage, combined with a transparency of
tint. Achtschelling’s somewhat coarse execution was well qualified
for the backgrounds of historical pictures such as De Crayer’s. His
is a good decorative style, and has a fine effect at a distance, the
predominance of browns and yellows giving force and individuality.
There is an example in the Ghent Museum.

Danie, MytTeEns, a native of the Hague, where he was born about
1590, but of whom few personal facts are known, was an admirable
portrait-painter, and was perhaps second only to Vandyck in his
time. His chief distinction was acquired in England; he was in
this country at the same period as Paul Vansomer, and Cornelius
Janssens, and preceded Vandyck about ten years, but had no great
position until the accession of Charles I., who in 1625 appointed
Mytens painter to the court, with a salary of 20]. a year; that is,
as an emolument attendant upon the dignity: he received in the
following year 125]. in payment for work done, independent of his
salary.t After the establishment of Vandyck in England in 1632,
Mytens became dissatisfied with his position, and though the king
encouraged him to stay, he obtained leave to return to his own
country, where he was still living in 16567

His great excellence as a portrait-painter is sufficiently shown by

1 Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting,” &c., which contains in the two later
editions of Dallaway and Wornum, Vandyck’s portrait of Mytens.

2 A Daniel Mytens was living at the Hague in 1667; this was probably a son of
the painter here spoken of; and he was, according to Van Gool, born at the Hague

in 1636.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 413

the few works by him still preserved in the Gallery at Hampton
Court—James, first Marquis of Hamilton, an excellent full-length ;
Prince Rupert as a boy; and the Duke of Brunswick. There are
many others in the public and private galleries of England. The
Queen possesses an excellent small picture of Charles I. and his
Queen, with their infant son, by Mytens. There are also two por-
trait pictures of Charles I. and Henrietta, in which Mytens has
introduced the dwarf Hudson; one at Dunmore Park, Falkirk, the
other at Serlby, Nottinghamshire. Sir Jeffrey Hudson was the
Queen’s dwarf; he was served up in a cold pie, at an entertainment
given by the Duke of Buckingham to the King and Queen at Burgh-
ley, and was then presented to the Queen by the Duchess; he was
at that time, it is said, only eighteen inches high, though already
seven years old.' The portrait of him by Mytens at Hampton Court
is of no great merit.

The colouring of Mytens is mellow and harmonious, his pictures
being frequently enriched with warm landscape backgrounds, and
his execution is generally bold and natural. WVandyck painted his
portrait, and it is one of the ‘ Hundred ”— Centum Icones, published
at Antwerp in 1645.

GerHarp Hontuorst, of Utrecht (1592-1666-8), a scholar of
Abraham Bloemart, lived long in Rome, and there became an imi-
tator of Caravaggio. Hé was called Gherardo dalle Notti by the
Italians, from his love of night or torch-light effects, doing on a
large scale, says Sandrart, what Elzheimer had already done with
great success in small; we have an example at Hampton Court in
a picture called ‘Singing by Candle-light.”’ Honthorst was also a
distinguished portrait-painter, he enjoyed the highest patronage as
such, not only in his own country, but in Denmark and in England.
He was in this country at the beginning of the reign of Charles I.,
about 1626-7 ; he painted a large “ Allegory of the Arts” for that king,
in which Charles and Henrietta are introduced as Apollo and
Diana in the clouds, and the Duke of Buckingham as Mercury,
below, is presenting various figures representing the arts and
sciences. It is now in the Queen’s Staircase at Hampton Court,
where also is a very good picture by hiin of the Queen of Bohemia,
the daughter of James I., and several other portraits, but of no par-
ticular merit. For this great allegory, and some other works, says
his scholar and assistant, Sandrart, which occupied Honthorst six
months, Charles paid him 3000 florins, and presented him besides
with a complete service of plate for twelve persons; an extravagant
remuneration, but which seems to imply that Honthorst must have
been in very great favour with the young king. Charles‘I. granted

1 Walpole, “ Anecdotes of Painting,” &c., where Sir Jeffrey's history is given.
414 : THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

him on another occasion, on May the 4th, 1629, the very large
pension of 300]. a year, which was apparently during a second visit
to England; and it must have been on this occasion that were
painted the majority of the portraits by him which are still pre-
served in this country. Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and his
family, was of course painted during the earlier period.!

Honthorst accumulated a large fortune, and settled at the Hague,
where he entered the service of William II., Prince of Orange; the
museums of the Hague and Amsterdam possess examples of his por-
traits, among them several of the House of Nassau. He died at the
Hague, and left two sons, who were both painters. His pictures
are signed Hondhorst and Honthorst.

Among the better Flemish masters of the seventeenth century
was PHILIPPE DE CHAMPAIGNE, born at Brussels in 1602. When still
young, in 1621, he settled in Paris, where he was employed to
assist the painter Nicolas Duchesne, then engaged on the deco-
ration of the Luxembourg, for the Queen Marie de Médicis. In
1627 he returned to Brussels, but hearing of the death of Duchesne,

1 Dallaway saw the order for this extraordinary pension; unaccountably large
when compared with the 201. granted to Mytens. Walpole’s “ Anecdotes of Paint-
ing,” note, art. Honthorst, p. 357, ed. Wornum.

Joacum von SanprartT (1606-88) of Frankfort, the scholar of Honthorst, was
with him in this country as his assistant, and in all probability was employed on
the large allegory referred to above, which was not burnt at Whitehall, as supposed
by Dr. Waagen. When Honthorst returned to Utrecht, Sandrart remained behind :
he seems to have left in 1628, after the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham
by Felton, which considerably deranged the peaceful pursuit of art at Charles’s
court for a time; though from the grant of the above-noticed pension, Honthorst
appears to have returned in 1629. See Sandrart’s often-quoted “ Teutsche Academie,”
Niirnberg, 1675, vol. i, p. 303, and his own life, same date, bound up with it, p. 5.
After he left England Sandrart went to Italy, and spent some time at Venice, and
Rome, where he painted Pope Urban VIIT. He acquired some distinction in his
day in Germany, both as an historical and portrait-painter; but posterity is
indebted to him chiefly for his laborious compilation on the History of Art, which
he published as his “German Academy.” His style is metallic and unnatural ;
he could not manage his lights ; almost all his figures and objects have a gloss, as
if they had been dipped in water.

Sandrart established himself in Amsterdam, after his return from Italy, the
troubles of the thirty years’ war having reduced his own country to a very un-
suitable state for the pursuit of art. But having inherited, through his wife, the
estate of Stockau, near Ingolstadt, Sandrart sold all his art effects at Amstérdam by
auction, realizing by the sale the large sum of 22,621 florins, and repaired to his
Bavarian property. In 1647, however, his house at Stockau was unfortunately
destroyed by the French : he rebuilt it, then sold the estate, and settled in 1649
in Niirnberg. Here he returned to the practice of his art, charging 50 rix-dollars
for a portrait. He afterwards visited Vienna, and was ennobled by the Emperor
Ferdinand III. In 1672 he became a widower, but married again in.1673 a lady
of Niirnberg, where he finally settled, and died. Though twice married, Sandrart
never had any family.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 415

Champaigne returned to Paris, married that paintet’s daughter in
1628, and prosecuted the interrupted works of the Luxembourg in
his place. He was one’ of the original members of the French
Academy of Painting, of which he was a professor and rector, and
died at Paris, August 12th, 1674. The Louvre possesses several
good examples of his pencil, which show that he was a much better
painter than Le Brun and other contemporary French masters in
Paris. Among these pictures is a full-length portrait of the Car-
dinal de Richelieu, one of Philippe de Champaigne’s principal
patrons." Champaigne’s masterpiece is perhaps the large picture of
“ Adam and Eve bewailing the Death of Abel,” in the Belvedere
Gallery at Vienna, it is signed Paits De Cuampaigne Factepar.
1656.

Jowannes Erasmus QueLuinus, born at Antwerp in 1634, may be
considered the last of the distinguished painters of this school, of
the eighteenth century. He was the son of Erasmus Quellinus the
younger, who after giving him the first instructions in his art, sent
him to complete his studies in Italy. John Erasmus was admitted
into the Antwerp Guild in 1660, and in 1662 married the daughter
of David Teniers the younger, at Perck, by whom he had eleven
children.

This painter was still living in 1709, when he held the dignity of
painter to the Emperor Leopold I. His works belong to the most
ambitious efforts of his period, rivalling those of Paul Veronese in
dimensions, if not in their original gorgeousness ; a good example is
the immense “Pool of Bethesda,” in the Gallery at Antwerp, but
now dead and heavy, partly owing to the ground of his canvas. It
was formerly in the church of the Abbey of St. Michel at Antwerp,
and is inscribed Joan. Erasmus Quellinus, Junior, Inv. et F. A® 1672:
with its lunette it is nearly fifty feet high, and is twenty-five wide.

Gonzates Cocques, of Antwerp (1618-84), the pupil of David
Ryckaert, was distinguished for his small groups, or family por-
traits, into which he contrived to put much of the spirit of the more
ambitious portraits of Vandyck. In the Queen’s Gallery is a beau-
tiful specimen ; at the Hague is also a picture of this kind by him,
showing prodigious industry. Gonzales, as he is commonly called,
executed also a few good genre-pictures, and he was fond of intro-
ducing dogs into his portraits. Some of his groups are most‘masterly :
they picture the upper classes of the seventeenth century ; most of
his Dutch contemporaries have been content to give us only the
lower.

I have neither inclination nor space to treat of the Flemish
painters of the eighteenth century. There was such a uniform de-

1 Villot, “ Notice des Tableaux du Louvre,” 1860.
416 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

basement of the art in most continental countries at that time,
that the investigation of the subject is in few cases rewarded with
any satisfactory result. An academic mediocrity prevailed gene-
rally, of an incapacity and uniformity, which must be quite offen-
sive to most connoisseurs familiar with the works of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, a familiarity now-a-days not at all un-
common, thanks to the valuable national collections formed and
forming throughout Europe. The superstition and sacerdotalism
which had for ages developed and fashioned the art of Europe,
began to lose their hold’on the European mind in the eighteenth
century ; but, except where these influences were crushed, or had
not for ages had any material sway, the want of a new stimulating
power left the arts completely stranded in Spain, Belgium, Ger-
many, and in Italy. In England, Holland, and in France, there
was sufficient freedom of thought and action to admit not only of
the preservation of old vitalities, but for the development also of
new. The history of the arts of the eighteenth century, therefore,
in France and England, has subject-matter sufficient to occupy and
satisfy inquiry: Holland affords but little that is interesting, and
Italy offers us still less.

Tae DotcH ScHoor.

At the same time, and in almost the same place also, arose another
school, different in its nature from the Flemish, which is founded
on general principles, or from that of Rubens based on magnificence
derived from colour; one characterized by and depending upon the
elaboration. of only a single element in art—that of tone or light
and shade. The founder of this subjective school was Remsranpt
van Ruyn, the most attractive and original of painters. He was
the son of Herman Gerritsz, a miller or maltster, and was born in
his father’s house, on the Weddesteeg, on the banks of the Rhine, at
Leyden, July the 15th, 1607 * the now famous wooden mill of his
father, long since removed, was on the water-side, opposite the
house.

He is commonly called Rembrandt Gerritsz van, Ryn, but his
correct name is Rembrandt Hermanszoon van Rijn; his father’s
name being Herman, or Harmen, and Gerrit that of his grandfather.
Rembrandt settled in Amsterdam about 1630, and was there mar-
ried, in 1634, to a lady of some fortune—Saskia Uilenburg. This
marriage took place on the 22nd of June, and Rembrandt declared
himself on the occasion to be twenty-six years of age: they did not,
however, live long together; he buried his wife on the 19th of June,
1642. The only surviving child of this marriage was a son, Titus,

1 See Vosmaer, “ Rembrandt Harmens Van Rijn,” La Haye, 1863.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 417

who had the reversion of his mother’s property after his father’s
death, or in case of his father’s second marriage—a contingency
which took place after his bankruptcy in 1656, but it is not known
when, nor is the lady’s name known. After his insolvency, which
was apparently brought about partly by hard times, and partly by
Rembrandt’s own extravagance in purchasing works of art, his
affairs were managed by the commissioners of the ‘‘ Boedelkamer”
of Amsterdam.

On the 5th of November, 1665, these commissioners paid the
son Titus van Rhyn, the sum of 6,952 florins, somewhat less than
600i. sterling, as his remaining share of the property inherited
from his mother. After this period Rembrandt lived in great ob-
scurity, though he still continued actively to pursue his art, even
to the year of his death, 1669. He resided’ last on the Rozengracht
(Rose-Canal) ; he had previously possessed a house of his own in
the Joden-Breestraat (Jews’-Broadway), near the church of Sint-
Antonie; it is called also the Antonij-Breestraat: this house’ was
given up to his son Titus in 1656, and it was sold for 11,218
florins.

His second wife may have been the “ Peasant Girl of Ransdorp,”
noticed by Houbraken: there were two children by this marriage,
whether sons or daughters is not known. Rembrandt died in his
house on the Rozengracht, and was buried on the 8th of Oc
tober, in the cemetery of the Westerkerk, 1669: his funeral was
a simple one, as the registered cost of fees is 15 florins—25
shillings?

Of all the schools of colouring that of Rembrandt is the most

1 It is engraved in the works of Smith, and of Burnet, cited below.

? The entry in the “Book of Accounts” of this church was communicated by
Dr. Scheltema, keeper of the archives of Amsterdam, to M. Villot, keeper of the
pictures of the Louvre, and is so published in the Louvre catalogue,—* 8 October,
1669. Rembrandt (van Rhiyn’, on the Roosgracht, 15 florins :”' it is not published
in the Doctor’s discourse on Rembrandt. Whether the Van Rhyn is here an
interpolation, as I suggested in my “ Epochs of Painting,” 1859, is immaterial, as
the fact of the death and identity is authenticated by another document, the
registry of the burial itself. In the work referred to, I have adopted the date
assigned to Rembrandt’s death, by Immerzeel—July 19th, 1664 ; but Dr. Scheltema
has shown this to be the date of the burial of a Rembrandt Van Ruynen, registered
that day in the cemetery of St. Antony’s, at Amsterdam—Sint-Antonie-Kerkhof.
The original entry of the register of burials of the West church, as discovered and
published by Dr. Scheltema, is “ Deynsdach, 8 October, 1669. Rembrandt van Rijn,
Schilder, op de Roosegraft, teghenover het Doolhof. Laet na 2 Kynders.” That
is,—Tuesday, 8th October, 1669, Rembrandt van Rhyn, painter, on the Rose-canal,
opposite the Labyrinth. Leaves behind two children.—* Redevoering over het Leven
en de Verdiensten van Rembrand van Rijn.” By Dr. P. Scheltema, 8vo., Amster-
dam, 1853, p. 86. Published also in French — “ Rembrand, Discours sur va Vie et
son Génie, avec un grand nombre de Documents Historiques,” &c. Revu et
annoté par W. Burger, Brussels, 1859.

25
418 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

recherché or studied, or, in other terms, the least obviously natural ;
yet it is perfectly natural. The variety of the effects of nature is
probably infinite ; but some appearances are so much more frequent
and constant in certain localities than others, that habit with us
induces us to consider them as the normal effects of nature, and
to look upon any variety as something singular and strange. To
our own observation it is evidently strange, or the conviction
would not be impressed upon us; but this is obviously owing to
the inexperience of our observation, and not in any way to the so-
called freaks of nature—an idea itself due only to the infinitesimal
experience of the individual man.

Though much originality of character may owe its origin to
accident, it can only be appropriated and matured by judicious’
observation; and it is this power of observation, allowing for some
partial influence of casualties, which constitutes the distinctive
character of every painter. Many painters, doubtless, before Rem-
brandt, had witnessed effects exactly similar to those which stamped
the distinctive character of his style; and yet how few, judging
from their works, have been, even in a slight degree, impressed by
them !

Rembrandt, like other great geniuses, owed little or nothing
to his masters, beyond those general practical elements in which
all are benefited by using the experiences of their predecessors,
His masters are sufficiently obscure: after attending the Latin
school at Leyden for a short time he was, by his own desire, placed
with Jacob Isaacsz van Swanenburg, an ordinary painter, but of good
family, and apparently a relative, with whom he remained three
years. He worked also for a short time under Pieter Lastman
at Amsterdam, and perhaps with Jacob Pinas at Haarlem. Of
Van Swanenburg’s career the chief fact known seems to be that he
was the master of Rembrandt; but he is recorded to have studied
some years in Italy, and was, though unknown to fame, no
doubt one of the best painters of his time at Leyden: he married an
Italian wife at Naples, returned home in 1617, and died in 1688,
There is through the Swanenburgs—father and son—a professional
relationship between Rubens and Rembrandt, for Jacob’s father
and instructor—Isaak, who was burgomaster of Leyden—was the
master of Otho van Veen, with whom Rubens studied: Otho
van Veen and Jacob van Swanenburg being fellow pupils under
the same master, Isaak van Swanenburg. Pieter Lastman also
studied in Italy and was there in 1604, and became both an
imitator of Elzheimer and of Caravaggio.

Rembrandt then derived nothing of his style from his instructors.
It is, however, true that his mind was particularly well schooled
into the observation of those peculiar characteristics which dis-
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 419

tinguish his style, and this, too, at a time when impressions
are, more than at all others, fixed upon the mind—in early youth.
His father’s mill was, doubtless, Rembrandt’s school; the strong
and solitary light, with its impenetrable obscurity around, the
characteristic feature of many of Rembrandt's best works,
is just such an effect as would be produced by the one ray
admitted into the lofty chamber of a mill from the small window,
its ventilator. And if you throw a few flowers, or even one
only, on the floor of a chamber so lighted, immediately in the
single ray of light, you will have the example in nature which will
exemplify Rembrandt’s principles, or rather practice of colouring,
for scientific principles of colouring he had none, beyond the mere
distinction of dark and light. In this respect, however, Rem-
brandt’s works are a real contradiction of that theory which
separates colour, in effect or pictorially considered, from light
and shade, or, in technical terms, colouring from chiaroscuro.
Colour in itself is light, and without shade would have but a
very flat, monotonous effect in a picture. It is indeed only
by means of shade that the real forms of objects are apparent,
The beautiful effect of interiors is produced almost wholly by
‘contrasts of light and shade; the greater part of the beauty
of foliage arises from the same source, and these effects are the
essential and principal qualities which constitute colouring as a
department of painting, and it is the due appreciation of the
influence of shade upon colours which distinguishes the good
from the bad colourist. The mere selection of colours is com-
paratively of little importance: the offensive effect of a wrong
juxtaposition of colours may be negatived by shadow, but no
composition of colour, however correct, will have an agreeable
or harmonious effect, if the picture be without its natural degree
of shade according to the circumstances of the representation.
If these positions were false, the painter, in representing an
object, would have to paint it of the colour he knew it to be,
without regard to its appearance; thus acting upon the theory
of Queen Elizabeth, who is said to have insisted that, as there
was no shade in the human face, hers should certainly not be
painted with any such artificial adjunct—a theory, to speak
paradoxically, which shows’ only the absence of theory, and is
one of the indications of the infancy of art. The early Italian
painters, although they painted the shadows of objects on the
ground, seldom expressed shade in the face, or even in draperies.
Rembrandt’s style of colouring, being difficult of accomplishment
and arising from accidental causes and local circumstances, is
naturally one of slow attainment and the result of Jong experience,
not cf an individual, but of ages, yet it is not artificial, but
2n2
420 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

perfectly natural; it was, however, not more natural in the
days of Rembrandt than in the earliest ages of the revival of
art. Its comparatively slow discovery arises more from man’s
natural disposition to do what he sees others do, than from its
own occasional and only local appearance.’ There are some men in
whom the love of originality is paramount; and they will not
do what has already been done, simply because it has been
done. It is by such men that new styles of art are developed
from the inexhaustible appearances and forms of nature, the
more partial and less obvious effect being naturally more slowly
developed in art than the more universal and more positive.

It can scarcely be considered surprising that certain striking
effects have not been attained at an earlier stage in the progress: it
is the same in art as in other things; many simple contrivances are
of very recent discovery, and new ones daily attract our notice.
The Spaniards could stand the egg on its end when Columbus
showed them the way. So it is in art; every original genius
finds many imitators, the new style becomes familiar and common,
and because the imitators have little merit and less claim to it,
they would detract from the caposcuola or first originator of the
style. But to add to our store of information and entertainment,
by the development of a new and hitherto wholly unexplored
field of art, as true as beautiful, as Rembrandt did, is the highest
merit of the artist, though he may be surpassed in practice by
his imitators, which, however, as regards Rembrandt, is not yet
the case.

Were it not for the habit of imitation which absorbs the great
mass of artists, or for that hero-worship which appears to be a part
of man’s nature, one would have expected to find some master mind
among the Roman painters, who might have preceded Rembrandt
in the development of that unity of effect, that concentration of
light and shade and colour, with which he is identified. The
Colosseum itself, a certain resort of the painters of Rome, affords in
its numerous vaults many and constantly varying types of Rem-
prandt’s pictures; it is only in the objects that they differ, the
principles are the same. There is the bright solitary ray dispelling
darkness, and illuminating the gloom around, in which it is finally
absorbed. Such ascene requires but a figure, a cloak, a turban, or
any object with colour in it, to become the exact type of a picture by
Rembrandt. The ancient ruins, however, generally, in Rome and
in other parts of Italy, afford exactly similar effects, and as complete
pictures in the perfect unity of light and shade and colour. Many
interiors also afford such effects, and particularly the warm and
sombre interiors of the beautiful churches of Rome, where occa-
sionally, in the early morning, one may see some dark pious monk
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 421

or vari-coloured mountain peasant in solitary devotion, illumined by
an accidental ray of light, dividing the gloom of the lofty vault
above, and thus becoming the centre of a picture of such unity and
force, that the eye is involuntarily fixed upon him as a focus of
light, the contrast raising thesbright spot into a constellation; and
converting into darkness the deep gloom around. The Roman
painters, however, could not perceive these effects, or if they saw
them, could not appreciate them. Some, absorbed in the veneration
of Raphael, others, the devoted imitators of Michelangelo, could
only see nature through the works of these masters, comprising in
their belief all that is great and worthy in art, thus renouncing
Nature for her imitator, and at once resigning birthright and fame.
Michelangelo da Caravaggio and Salvator Rosa appear to have been
the only painters at Rome who were much impressed with the power
and beauty of light and shade as an independent element of effect,
and these mastered only its coarser and more obvious appearances.
Andrea Sacchi and Raphael himself were great masters of mere shade
or shadow ; but this is quite a distinct quality from the perfect unity
and concentration of light and shade and colour, such as we often
find it in the works of Rembrandt. The shrine of Raphael itself,
long sacred to his followers and imitators, affords an admirable lesson
on light and shade. Placed within the walls of the Pantheon, the
vast area of which is illuminated solely by the small circular open-
ing in the lofty dome above, it is surrounded by a subdued and
sombre light, which, as if 1o harmonize with the feelings of the
votary, enshrines the tomb of the “divine painter” in a veil of
sanctity, as it were, to protect it from the unhallowed gaze of worldly
indifference and idle curiosity.

Rembrandt's is the glory of having first embodied in art and per-
petuated these rare and beautiful effects of nature. Tone and round-
ness of individual objects was fully understood and developed by
Leonardo da Vinci, and in this respect both Da Vinci and Correggio
were much superior to Rembrandt. The style of Rembrandt is one
of effects and contrasts, not gradually developed or slowly elaborated,
but, as it were, created instantaneously like the illumination of a
flash of lightning, sudden, brilliant, and partial—an illuminated
object in a dark space, his colour depending upon contrast, not on
any positive degree of its own. This is a style which requires
little instrumental skill, but great knowledge of, and prodigious com-
mand over, the materials of colouring. The tone and harmony of
Correggio, on the other hand, are the result of patient elaboration
and a perfect command of the tools or instruments of art, but may be
attained with only a moderate knowledge of the laws and means of
colouring. This distinction must be borne in mind; with Rembrandt
light-and-shade was colour. This distinctive character, however,
422 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

was only gradually developed to its full force even in Rembrandt,
though there are the elements of his luminous style in his very
earliest works. Some of his first pictures are very much laboured,
but the graceless form of his figures makes us regret rather than
rejoice at the pains he took with tMese works, for the elaboration
only makes their defects more apparent. The Woman taken in
Adultery, in the National Gallery, is one of the best of his earlier per-
formances on a small scale: it is signed, and dated—Rembrandt ff.
1644, and is very carefully executed, but his luminous system of
light and shade is fully developed init. At a later period of his life,
his whole attention was engrossed in the production of mere effect ;
and his pictures, though still greatly laboured, in another way—in
piling and glazing masses of light upon a dark transparent ground—
appear to have been executed with surprising rapidity and facility,
especially his portraits, which in some instances in the lights are a
raised mass of paint. The Portrait of a Woman, in the National
Gallery, signed—Rembrandt f. 1666, is a fine example of his latest
work, The roughness of his surfaces was occasionally objected to
by his sitters or patrons, but he retorted that he was a painter, not
a dyer; and when his visitors ventured upon too close an inspection
of a picture, thus diminishing its effect, he exclaimed that the smell
of paint was very unwholesome. His great power was portrait: his
pictures of this class are, as a whole, immensely superior to his
other works. The vulgarity of his design is less evident, the im-
propriety of costume almost wholly obviated, the transparent golden
hue of his carnations also has only its full force in figures of the
natural size, and it is to his one distinctive quality alone that he
owes his reputation. He commanded fame through his consummate
mastery of chiaroscuro, and his rich and brilliant colouring alone,
independently of his forcible and effective composition, which is not
only a skilful distribution of light and shade, butis highly dramatic
and poetic in its motives and sentiment. His defective design and
costume, therefore, when we consider the ordinary average degree
of talent which falls to the lot of an individual, are light in the
balance against such an array of excellence; and had he been as
superior in these respects as in others, the name of Rembrandt might,
in his art, as has been said of Napoleon in generalship, have cast a
veil over the past glory of others, and almost rendered the hope of
future fame impossible. ‘ He was,” says Fuseli,' “a genius of the
first class in whatever relates not to form. In spite of the most por-
tentous deformity, and without considering the spell of his chiaro-
scuro, such were his powers of nature, such the grandeur, pathos, or
simplicity of his composition, from the most elevated or extensive

1 Lecture IL.
 

FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. (RempBranprt.)

Page 423.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 423

arrangement to the meanest and most homely, that the best culti-
vated eye, the purest sensibility, and the most refined taste dwell on
them equally enthralled. He possessed the full empire of light and
shade, and of all the tints that float between them. None ever like
Rembrandt knew how to improve an accident into a beauty, or to
give importance to a trifle.”

Rembrandt had a contempt for so-called propriety of costume and
the cant about antique works of art and their proportions: though he
could doubtless appreciate the genuine art of antiquity as well as
any other, for he had in his own possession a group of the Laocoon,
and some other ancient works; he had also a great love for Italian
drawings. He used, however, to ridicule the whole science of con-
noisseurs, as well as all their talk about grace, sublimity, and
grandeur. He used to say that he had an antique museum and
academy of his own; his antiques, as he termed them, were old
clothes, curious turbans, unique weapons, pieces of armour, or any
antiquated piece of costume which he could procure in the maga-
zines of Polish Jews; and it was with such articles as these that he
dressed all his figures, ancient or modern, Christian, Jew, or
Gentile. The sacredness of a subject never gave him the slightest
trouble: he used the same attire for all ranks and persons, as it
suited his whim or humour: Christ may be found teaching in the
Temple, with a Turkish merchant on one side, and a Dutch peasant
on the other ; or a figure surrounded by a mob of Dutch boors and
beggars in a barn is dignified with the impressive title of Christ
healing the Sick. The Woman taken in Adultery, in the National
Gallery, already mentioned, contrasts admirably the beauty of
Rembrandt’s light and shade and colour, and his grotesque taste in
design. This picture is, however, a surprising work of art, and is
considered by many as one of his masterpieces. It gave Hazlitt
occasion to say, “When Annibal Carracci vowed to God that
Titian and Correggio were the only true painters, he had not seen
Rembrandt; if he had he would have added him to the list.” This
picture he characterizes as ‘‘ prodigious in colouring, in light and
shade, in pencilling, in solemn effect; but that is nearly all—

Of outward show
Elaborate, of inward less exact.”

‘«The marble pavement,” he observes, ‘‘of which the light is even
dazzling ; the figures of the two Rabbis to the right, radiant with
crimson, green, and azure ; the background, which seems like some
rich oil-colour smeared over a ground of gold, and where the eye
staggers on from one abyss of obscurity to another, place this pic-
ture in the first rank of Rembrandt’s wonderful performances. If
this extraordinary genius was the most literal and vulgar of draughts-
424 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

men, he was the most ideal of colourists.”" Whether Rembrandt's
colouring (and in his colouring must be comprehended his light
and shade) can be correctly called ideal depends upon the value of
the term: though it is a selection of what is comparatively rare
and beautiful in nature, it is still an ordinary and necessary natural
effect under certain accidental circumstances, and is probably so far
from being an elevation or aggrandisement of such appearances in
nature, that if his best works were tested by similar effects in
reality, they would appear to be exactly what they are, the feeble
efforts of the erring artist; but this is no detraction from RKem-
brandt’s merit. In this picture, however, Rembrandt has departed
from his usual unity of effect, and its deep yet transparent gloom is
illumined by two distinct lights, that on the woman, which is the
principal, and another on the high altar, which, though retiring
perfectly to its proper place, is, by the judicious contrast of the
impenetrable shade around it, made equally as luminous and effective
as the brilliant light in the foreground. The great light, however, on
the figure to the right hand of Christ, interferes with the principal
group; it spreads the light too partially, is not easily accounted for,
and acts so prejudicially on the figure of Christ himself, that to
obviate the evil, real or imaginary, Rembrandt appears to have made
him a head taller than nearly all the other figures, an artifice more
in accordance with the prescriptive laws by which artists were con-
trolled in the remote time of Sesostris than the well-matured age
of the seventeenth century.

This picture and the Nativity of Christ, in the National Gallery,
are equally effective. Though the light arises from the child in
the latter, the principle of light and shade is the same in both—
darkness made visible—they are both interiors, and it is only in
interiors that Rembrandt’s system of colouring has its due effect.
The Descent from the Cross, in the same collection, exemplifies this;
the partial light and great shade in that picture are clearly artificial
in the open air. This treatment gives effect to the celestial rays,
put Rembrandt has here virtually converted the open air into an
interior, and has resorted to a miracle in the sky for his window, at
thesame time showing his own conviction that such effects are
possible only in interiors. In composition this sketch is extremely
beautiful, and it is one of the best of Rembrandt’s works in this
respect. There is a landscape also by Rembrandt in the National
Gallery (No. 72), and in this picture likewise the distinctive charac-
teristic of his style, strong contrast of light and shade, is equally
conspicuous : it is here expressed by a thick cluster of trees, in
shadow, against the lightest part of the sky. The whole composi-

1 “Criticisms on Art,” vol. i, p. 14.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 425

tion is evidently chosen to illustrate in a new sphere his favourite
contrasts of light and shade, which on nearly all occasions, and most
especially in his compositions, are obviously the sole end or goal
sought to be attained; in this landscape the figures of Tobias and
the Angel merely serve to give a title to the picture. Rembrandt’s
choice of light falls with extraordinary effect upon single figures,
of which the National Gallery affords some excellent examples, as
the Woman Bathing, or Bathsheba in the Bath, the Jew Merchant,
and the Jew Rabbi. The first mentioned is free from that obscurity
which envelops many of Rembrandt’s most effective pieces; it is
signed and dated Rembrandt f. 1654. Nothing is here concealed or
disguised, and sacrificed to the one ruling idea of light ; all objects
are fully and solidly :painted, the very shadows are well defined and
modelled, and the whole is mellow‘and lustrous. There is just
such a work as this in quality of light and shade and colour, though
on a much larger scale, in the museum at the Hague. This is the
large and admirable picture of a celebrated professor of anatomy,
Tulp, lecturing on the structure of the human frame to several
professors and students around him, demonstrating his subject by
referring to a dead body laid out before him: the naked corpse, of
the natural size, is foreshortened, and the whole is distinctly and
powerfully painted and beautifully lighted: a true masterpiece, in
which nothing is slurred over, but all faithfully elaborated. Sir
Joshua Reynolds was struck with this picture, and thus describes
it in his ‘‘ Journey to Flanders and Holland :’—‘ The professor is
dissecting a corpse which lies on the table. To avoid making it an
object disagreeable to look at, the figure is but just cut at the wrist.
There are seven other portraits, coloured like nature itself, fresh
and highly finished. One of the figures behind has a paper in his
hand, on which are written the names of the rest. Rembrandt has
also added his own name, with the date 1632. The dead body is
perfectly well drawn (a little foreshortened), and seems to have been
just washed. Nothing can be more truly the colour of dead flesh.
The legs and feet, which are nearest the eye, are in shadow: the
principal light, which is on the body, is by that means preserved of
a compact form. All these figures are dressed in black.”

This picture was in the Surgeons’ Hall at Amsterdam in Sir
Joshua’s time, and was purchased of the corporation by the Dutch
government so lately as 1828, for the comparatively large sum of
32,000 florins. It was painted two years after Rembrandt settled in
Amsterdam, in his twenty-sixth year; and the majority of his more
luminous works, portraits, and others, were most prebably painted
before he was so much absorbed by his reputed love of money with
which he is stigmatized by Houbraken—and accordingly before he
gave himself up chiefly to the traffic in his etchings, which he found
426 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING,

to be much more profitable than painting. ‘The dates, however, on
his etchings, ranging from 1628 to 1661,' show that his devotion to
this art extended pretty well over his whole artistic career: the
dates on his pictures range only from 1627, but they extend to 1667,
and even 1669.?

Rembrandt’s peculiar style is perhaps more strikingly developed
in his etchings than in his pictures, notwithstanding the absence of
colour in the etchings, for, owing to their low tone and the
harmonious softness of his execution, colour is not necessary.
And, indeed, when colour is introduced into such works, it requires
to be so much subdued, that it is reduced to simple varieties
of light and shade, or, when this is not the case, the true harmony
of the picture must be defective.

The actual tint introduced into a picture is frequently imma-
terial, provided it has the exact degree of light requisite, so as not
to disturb the harmony of light and shade. Any bright colours
or light tints might be introduced indifferently in the highest
lights of a picture without changing its effect; but immediately
a deep colour, though with an equal degree of light, whether
cold or warm, is substituted for a bright light colour, the character
of the picture becomes changed, especially if it be at all dis-
tinguished for a unity of light and shade; and this is because
different colours or colours in different degrees of intensity, or
rather the substances which constitute them, have various
absorbing and reflective powers. Tone in colours, therefore,
depends more upon the reflective and absorptive power of their
nature than upon the tints or colours themselves, from which
it is evident that in the composition-of a picture, even though
with reference to its colour, the first and most essential operation is
the laying down and distributing the light and shade, applying
each colour in such place as where the degree of shade is in strict
agreement with the reflective power of the colour or tint in
question, Such an effect may of course be accomplished by
glazing down to the required degree of tone, by which process any
false colour may be corrected and reduced to harmony, for then the
colour assumes another tint, and is virtually changed. All colours
depend upon the degree of light to which they are exposed;
to represent, therefore, a colour in shade, the very quality of which owes
its eaistence to the full light which falls upon it, is a violation of nature and
of truth. All colours depend upon the power of their substances

1 Bartsch, “ Peintre Graveur.”

2 Kugler, “Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte,’ Ed. Liibke, 1861. At p. 468,
vol. ii., is described a signed picture at Pommersfelden with the early date. See
also Rathgeber, “ Annalen der Niederlindischen Malerei,” &c., 1839; Biirger,
“ Musées de la Hollande,” 1860, notices the latest date.
 

FROM AN ETCHING BY REMBRANDT.

Page 426,
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT, 427

to absorb and reflect light; in every ray of white light there
are the following primary colours, red, yellow, and blue, which
with their intermediate and extreme tints constitute what is
called the solar spectrum. Different rays are absorbed by different
substances; in opaque white substances none are absorbed; and in
black substances all are absorbed. In particular colours what
is absorbed is complementary to what is reflected: thus a blue
substance ‘has absorbed red and yellow, or orange, which is
complementary to blue; a yellow substance has absorbed red
and blue, or purple, which is complementary to yellow; and
a red substance has absorbed blue and yellow, or green, which
is complementary to red.'! As, therefore, colour itself depends wholly
upon light, it must be evident that light and shade and colouring cannot
be separated in painting; also that the colouring of every picture
must be regulated by the distribution or arrangement of its light
and shade; that colour can be positive only in positive light;
and that white itself cannot be white except in full light.
Rembrandt, though he cannot have been acquainted with the
laws of light and colour theoretically, appears still to have had
a thorough perception of their properties, owing partly perhaps
to organization, but certainly much to study and observation.
And it can only be because these principles are more than
ordinarily well illustrated and developed in his prints and pictures,
that we find them so attractive and pleasing. Shade is always
more pleasing to the eye than light; but it is only by means of
the light that the shade becomes perceptible and appreciated
by the eye. It is one of the greatest faults in art to paint a
picture without repose, to spread a uniform light, or to bestow
equal diligence upon every part of a picture. In nature the
eye dwells upon one spot at a time, to which it is attracted by
some prominent feature: this feature becomes the centre of a
natural picture; when the eye moves, it goes to some other object
of sufficient prominence to attract it, which becomes the centre
or point of sight of another natural picture. That such is par-
ticularly the case with interiors must be evideut even to the
most superficial observers; every interior, by some accidental
arrangement or other, presents a few obvious views or effects
by which the attention of the eye is arrested, and which thus
become the centres or points of sight of so many pictures; the eye
will not naturally rest upon any other points, and requires an
effort of the mind or an extraneous influence to direct it upon
them; they are, therefore, clearly not so well developed or so
prominent as the other parts, and these other parts accordingly

' See Dr. Brewster's Analysis of Light, in his “Treatise on Optics.’
428 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

acquire their importance by the retirement of the rest. It is
then an essential quality in art that every picture must have not only
its linear point of sight, but its focus of light and centre of attraction ;
and if it has not this it wants unity; the effect of one part is
injured by another, the eye wanders over the picture in search of a
central or principal object in vain, conveys no exact intelligence to
the mind, and turns away from the picture to some other fixed
point of interest to which it is impelled by the mind’s natural
operations. The artist, therefore, who neglects these essential
principles of pictorial art is his own judge, and has brought
about his own condemnation. Many otherwise elaborate and
comprehensive pictures, owing to the want of this centre of
attraction and unity of effect, have, to the astonishment of the
artist, failed to produce any effect beyond eliciting the extravagant
praise of certain accessory parts, as a crown, a footstool, a chalice,
or a piece of armour. But his own neglect or want of knowledge of
this great principle of art has actually Jed him to break up his
composition into so many distinct pictures, of which these acces-
sories have, by their injudicious prominence, been made the
centres of attraction, the whole being cut up into a certain number
of equally prominent parts, and the picture is viewed and judged
according to its merits. Rembrandt, however, is not an example of
the exact development of this principle, but rather of the abuse of
it, because in many occasions the unity itself is his picture, repre-
sented in various forms. With Rembrandt a means became an
end, for he made use of natural objects as a means of picturing
light and shade, whereas the legitimate application of light and
shade is to use it as a means of picturing natural objects. But
of course when a picture is a single object, such a defect becomes so
much diminished that it is only on rare occasions that it can
have any detrimental effect at all, and it could scarcely be
excessive on any occasion if the objects of the picture were cor-
rectly and individually modelled.

In the portrait of the Jew Merchant, in the National Gallery, on
which I have been unable to discover a signature, we have this
principle so often illustrated in the works of Rembrandt: the picture
is an effect of light, the object is but the means of showing the light, which
comes suddenly and forcibly upon the head, giving it prominence,
and then passes down the figure in a much expanded surface, until
it is gradually lost: the colours are subdued and harmonious, and
all of a tertiary degree. The distribution of light is very skilful;
the head, though the farthest object from the spectator, is still the
principal and most conspicuous; yet, by spreading the light over
the lower parts of the figure, Rembrandt has kept it perfectly in its
place; the concentration of light on the head being balanced and
RUBENS AND REMBRANDY. 429

prevented from appearing like a spot, by the broad base of light
below: and though this is fully as strong as that on the face, the
various parts act reciprocally in subduing one another, and allow
the head to retain its full importance.

Rembrandt is said to have arranged the light in his painting-room
expressly to produce the effect we have in this and many other
portraits ; and the universal admiration which succeeding genera-
tions have bestowed upon most of these pictures shows that Rem-
brandt’s taste was not the mere whim of the individual. The eye
rests with delight upon effects which contrast with its ordinary
experience, especially when such effects are calculated to give it
repose: harmony and unity of light and shade are as agreeable to
the eye as melody to the ear, and doubtless the same principles will
account for the pleasure we derive from each,

Sir Joshua Reynolds certainly does injustice to Rembrandt when
he says that his style is “equally distant from the demands of
nature and the purposes of art.” It has been the endeavour of

‘these remarks to show that Rembrandt’s style of light and shade is
both eminently consistent with nature and fully adequate to high
purposes of art. “Absolute unity,” says Sir Joshua, “that is, a
large work, consisting of one group or mass of light only, would be
as defective as an heroic poem without episode, or any collateral
incidents to recreate the mind with that variety which it always
requires.” This is not exactly the character of unity of light, but
isolation of light; a single light might be spread over a large com-
position, illuminate the whole distinctly and beautifully, preserve a
centre of light and vision, and yet not have the slightest character of
a spot, or be by any fixed boundary separated from that part of the
picture which is in shade: if the light is separated from the shade,
there is no unity; if it is not separated, there can be no spot.
Though Rembrandt, as already observed, sometimes carried his
principle to an extreme in practice, and occasionally applied it
where it was not applicable, when it became manner, he has seldom
produced what can be called a spot, or, in other words, has rarely
painted a picture in which there is not a complete unity of light
and shade. Sir Joshua continues, “Rembrandt’s manner is absolute -
unity ; he often has but one group, and exhibits little more than
one spot of light in the midst of a large quantity of shadow; if he
has a second mass, that second bears no proportion to the principal.
Poussin, on the contrary, has scarce any principal mass of light at
all, and his figures are often too much dispersed, without sufficient
attention to place them in groups.

“The conduct of these two painters is entirely the reverse of
what might be expected from their general style and character, the
works of Poussin being as much distinguished for simplicity as
430 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

those of Rembrandt for combination. Even this conduct of Poussin
might proceed from too great an affection to simplicity, of another
kind, too great a desire to avoid that ostentation of art, with regard
to light and shadow, on which Rembrandt so much wished to draw
the attention ; however, each of them run into contrary extremes,
and it is difficult to determine which is the most reprehensible,
both being equally distant from the demands of nature and the
purposes of art.”

Rembrandt’s works are, like the works of many other painters,
so far peculiar, that a sprinkling of them among works of a different
character in a collection is as much as can be desired; many of
them together, by reason of the uniformity of the principles upon
which they are produced, become disagreeable to the eye, and
fatiguing to the mind. Sir Joshua Reynolds complained of this
circumstance when viewing the Diisseldorf Gallery (now at
Munich); he found both too many Rembrandts and too many
Vanderwerfts’ together, which, by their equally individual charac-
ter, were equally tiring. He says, “ Here are too many Rembrandts
brought together; his peculiarity does not come amiss, when
mixed with the performances of other artists of more regular
manners: the variety then may contribute to relieve the mind

’ Discourse VIII.
2 Unity of light and shade has been attempted also by ADRIAN VANDERWERFF,
born at Kralingerambacht, January 21st, 165], and distinguished for the extra-
ordinary finish of his figures, but as in his pictures it is not combined with the
consistent gradation and degree of colour, he has failed in producing the desired
effect, though probably the light and shade in some of his works would appear
perfect in a good engraving, as for example—the ‘“‘ Ecce Homo,’ painted in 1698;
« Abraham and Sarah,” 1699; and the ‘‘ Magdalen,” 1707; in the Munich Gallery.
Yet the works of Vanderwerff have another defect which interferes with the
unity of light and shade; they are too uniformly modelled and elaborated, the
most prominent and the most unimportant objects being equally defined. This
gives a hard flatness to his pictures, which nevertheless, when considered with
reference to the light and shade alone, are very far from being flat. Vanderwerff
was fond of classical subjects, and, what is very unusual with the Dutch painters
of the seventeenth century, preferred painting the nude to the draped figure when
the subject permitted; and his peculiar execution makes these nude figures look
more like carved ivories than paintings. A whole cabinet is still devoted to the
works of this painter in the Pinacothek at Munich; there were formerly more; the
subjects of the pictures selected are chiefly religious. Vanderwerff married in
1687, was ennobled by the Elector Palatine, John William, in 1703, and died at
Rotterdam, November 12th, 1722.4 Vanderwerff was a knight, and in the Louvre is
a picture of Antiochus and Stratonice, signed—Ch" V* Werff. fec. An. 1721 : others
are signed Chev” V" Werff, &c., his title taking the place of his Christian name.

2 These facts are inscribed on the back of his portrait in the Museum at Amsterdam.
Sco “Notice des Tableaux du Musée d’Amsterdam,” &c., 1858.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 431

fatigued with regularity. The same may be said of the Vander-
werffs: they also are too numerous. These pictures, however, tire
the spectator for reasons totally opposite to each other; Rem-
brandt’s have too much salt, and the Vanderwerffs too much
water, on neither of which we can live.”

There are, however, several pictures by Rembrandt which have
much more than merely his characteristic concentration of light.
Sir Joshua himself has spoken of some of his works as exhibiting the
highest degree of excellence in colour, and he has compared the
colouring of others with Titian, as the picture of Professor Deeman
with the dead body in the Surgeons’ Hall at Amsterdam, his
Susannah, and the portrait of a young man with a black cap and
feathers, at the Hague; and his own portrait, then in the collection
of M. Danoot, a banker at Brussels, now at Lansdowne House.

Of the first he says, “Professor Deeman is standing by a dead body,
which is so much foreshortened, that the hands and the feet almost
touch each other; the dead man lies on his back with his feet
towards the spectator. There is something sublime in the character
of the head, which reminds one of Michelangelo: the whole is
finely painted, the colouring much like Titian.”

The etchings of Rembrandt have been alluded to as being in some
respects better illustrations of the unity of light and shade than
even many of the pictures. Of these, one of the most remarkable is
the so-called “ Hundred Guilders,” a composition of Christ healing
the Sick, which acquired its name of the Hundred Guilders because
Rembrandt refused to sell it for less—about eight guineas. A good
impression of it is now worth from fifty to sixty guineas. The
original plate was purchased by Alderman Boydell, and destroyed
after a few impressions were taken from it, and good impressions
are accordingly scarce ; there is an indifferent copy of it by Worlidge.
Rembrandt has distributed a larger body of light in this work than
is usual with him, but it is unfinished: Christ is standing on an
elevated spot in the centre of the composition, which contains about
forty figures in whole or part; they are equally distributed on either
side—one extremity, and Christ, being in full light, a sort of barn
light, while the other is gradually subdued into half-shadow—and
Rembrandt has added considerable charm to the effect by making
the light come from the shaded side. The attitudes of many of the
figures are remarkably expressive, and some are finely foresbortened,
but all the men are Dutch Jews. Rembrandt’s greatest works are
still in Holland, and though the picture of Professor Tulp is equa
to any that he ever painted, the large portrait-piece of the “ Amster-

1“ Journey to Flanders and Holland.”
2 Ibid. This picture is now in England.
432 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

dam Musketeers,” or the armed burgesses or uational-guard of
Amsterdam, known as La Garde de Nuit, formerly in the town-
house, but now in the Museum at Amsterdam, is one of the most
celebrated of his works; it was painted in 1642. Reynolds, how-
ever, did not concur in the common opinion on this work. He says,
speaking of a similar picture by Vander. Helst, ‘‘ Of this picture I
had before heard great commendations, but it as far exceeded my
expectation as that of Rembrandt fell below it. So far indeed am I
from thinking that this last picture deserves its great reputation,
that it was with difficulty I could persuade myself that it was
painted by Rembrandt; it seemed to me to have more of the yellow
manner of Boll, The name of Rembrandt, however, is certainly
upon it, with the date 1642. Itappears to have been much
damaged ; but what remains seems to be painted in a poor manner.”

These two pictures, which hang opposite to each other in the
same apartment in the Museum of Amsterdam, well illustrate the
effects of the unity and the uniform dispersion of light. The work
of Rembrandt is but one picture, that of Vander Helst might be a
hundred: every object in it is in the same relative position to the
eye; the work is therefore entirely wanting in unity, and can be
examined only in detail, and successively as to its parts. In the so-
called “ Night-Watch,” however, Rembrandt has allowed his peculiar
treatment to descend into manner; there is the unity of light and
colour without the relative perspicuity of the light with the relation
to the darkness: the light itself is but deviness of a less degree.
But the picture has doubtless suffered by time and inattention.
The subject does not represent a night-scene, the night effect is
purely owing to the darkening of the picture, which represents
an interior with a company of the Burgher-Guard of Amsterdam,
apparently just returned from, or perhaps starting for a shooting-
match; and a thoughtless member of the company has created
some alarm by discharging his piece in the hall; this incident seems
to have led to the picture being called a ‘ Torch-light." In

1 A beautiful small old copy of this work was bequeathed to the National
Gallery in 1857, and on the back of the picture is pasted a list of persons repre-
sented, with their names in full, said to be written by the hand of Van Coppenol,
the writing-master, and friend of Rembrandt. The officers are:—Frans Banning
Cock, captain; Willem van Ruijtenburg, lieutenant; Jan Visscher, ensign ;
Rombout Kempen and Reynier Engel, sergeants ; and Jan van Kampoort, drummer.
Some have supposed this copy to be by the hand of Gerard Dou; but as the
picture was painted in 1642, the copy must have been made a year or two later at
the earliest, and Gerard Dou was, one would suppose, then a painter of too much
standing to have devoted so much time and labour over a copy ; he must have been
between thirty and forty when this copy was painted, and some of the parts,
especially the hands, are quite unworthy of Gerard Dou; the colouring is more in
the taste of Bol, or De Gelder.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 433

an upper chamber of the same museum there is a still more
masterly picture by Rembrandt—the Staalmeesters: it repre-
sents the council or aldermen of one of the guilds of Amster-
dam, and consists of five figures seated at a table in consultation.
This picture is considered by some as Rembrandt’s masterpiece :
when new, although it is painted with his characteristic boldness,
it may have had an almost illusive effect of reality, so perfect are
the gradations of light and shade.

Many stories are told about Rembrandt’s avarice, and other
peculiarities attributed to him, through the scandalous or unscrupulous
gossip of his first biographer Houbraken. He is unfortunately one
of the many artists, modern as well as old, who have suffered from
the utter want of charity or discretion in their biographers. ‘There
appears to be no foundation for the stories of his avarice, the facts
show that he was rather a spendthrift. The parsimony of his house-
hold, if there were any, seems to have been due to his wife Saskia
Uilenburg, for after her death in 1642, he seems to have gradually
wasted his property through his mania for collecting works of art:
if he loved making money it was apparently for its uses, and not in
the spirit of a miser, for the mere insane loveof possessing it. In
1642, after his first wife’s death, he was worth 40,750 florins; while
five-and-twenty years afterwards he was still in the hands of the
Insolvency Commissioners. The beautiful youthful portrait of him,
recently acquired for the National collection, signed and dated 1640,
is so far from exhibiting anything mean either in character or
costume, that it shows a man well dressed, with a countenance of
the very highest intelligence, and a good manly expression: and it
at the same time displays the painter’s consummate mastery of
colour and light and shade, while the modelling of the features is
equally perfect. The older portrait in the Gallery, purchased from
the Pepper-harrow collection in 1851, still has palpable traces of the
younger man in it, though it shows the wear and tear of some quarter
of a century of toil and trouble, both in the artist and in his art.
Rembrandt’s pictures amount to upwards of six hundred, and his
etchings to nearly four hundred, and considering the elaborate nature
of a vast number of them, it is a result showing an industry worthy
of the ability brought to its application.

The most celebrated of Rembrandt’s scholars were Gerard Dou,
Vanden Keckhoui, Bol, Flinck, Philip de Koninck, Van Hoog-
straten, and Jan Victor. Grrarp Dow, or rather Grrrit Dou, was
born at Leyden in 1613 according to Orlers ;' his father was a glazier,
and Gerard was originally intended for a glass painter, but is said to

1M. Villot has erroneously assumed 1598 to be Gerard's natal year, from the

signature of the picture of the Femme Hydropique, in the Louvre, which he assumed
to be inscribed—]663, G. Dov. ovr 65 sarr; that is, G. Dou, aged 65 years;

QF
434 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

have entered the school of Rembrandt in 1628, and remained with
him three years. Dou is not more remarkable for his excellence,
than for the diversity of his taste from that of his great master:
he attained to wonderful mastery in delicacy of execution, and was
at the same time correct and vigorous. Houbraken relates that an
amateur of the name of Spiering used to pay Dou an income of a
thousand florins a year for the simple privilege of having the first
offer of his pictures. He died at Leyden, and was buried in the
church of St. Peter there, on the 9th of February, 1675. Smith’s
Catalogue Raisonné describes upwards of two hundred pictures at-
tributed to this painter; a sufficiently large number, considering
their elaboration, and Dou’s slow method of painting. His own
portrait, with a pipe in his hand, in the National collection, is a
fine specimen of his delicacy, and apparent freedom of touch. Gerard
Dou was the master of three other prodigies of execution—Mieris,
Metsu, and Schalcken. Prerer vay SuinceLand, of Leyden (1640-91),
was also a scholar of Dou, of considerable reputation likewise; he
was very commonly employed in inserting figures into the pictures
of landscape-painters. A Kitchen, in the Amsterdam Museum, is
signed P. V. Slingeland, Fecit.

GERBRAND VANDEN Excxnout, of Amsterdam (1621-74), acquired
entirely Rembrandt’s tone of colour, and approached the nearest to
his peculiar treatment of light and shade, in small figure-pieces :
he painted many religious pictures exactly in his style, such
as the “ Woman taken in Adultery,” at Amsterdam.

Ferpivanp Bot, of Dort (1611-81), and Govert Fiincx, of Cleves
(1615-60), were Rembrandt’s rivals in portraiture, but always
remained very inferior to their master. Bol’s portraits are
too often obtrusively yellow. He signed his pictures Bol and Bol
fecit, the B being composed of an F and a B in one. Flinck adhered
to the forcible style of Rembrandt, until Italian art came into
fashion again, and he had become acquainted with the works
of Rubens, when he changed his style and executed some admi-
rable subject-pieces; but his chief fame is in portraits, in which he
has had few superiors. There is a fine bust ofa man in black,
some Dutch preacher perhaps, in the Dresden Gallery, by Flinck ;
and the Museum of Amsterdam possesses two of his masterpieces,—
“ A Meeting of a Company of the Civic Guard of Amsterdam, under
their Captain Huidecoper, after the Peace of Mimster, in 1648,”
a large picture, signed Flinck f. 1648; the painter himself being

 

but the age may refer to the woman, or the dates may have been 1668 and 55;
such injuries to figures are common. The V in Dou’s signature here is
simply the capital U, as seen in the next word Out ; the painter's name is therefore
not Dov, as some recent writers have it, but Dou. His father’s name was Douwe
Janszoon, and his parents were married in 1609.
RUBENS AND REMBRANDT. 435

one of the company: the other, “Isaac blessing Jacob,” is a
picture painted in competition with Bol and Vanden Heckhout.
Flinck died in Amsterdam, where he was settled; he had been
made a burgess of that city, January 24th, 1652. Bol also died,
rich, at Amsterdam, where he was admitted a burgess the same day
and year as Flinck.

Pur ve Koninck (1619-89), of Amsterdam, is renowned only
for his landscapes; but some of these represent very extensive
scenes, and are very noble pictures; two examples were exhibited
at Manchester in 1857, one belonging to Mr. C. P. Grenfell;
the other the property of the Earl of Derby.

SamueL van Hooestratren (1627-78), of Dort, painted in various
styles—genre, architecture, landscape. He was the master of Arnold
Houbraken, and is supposed to have been the source of the mis-
statements published by his scholar in 1718 concerning Rem-
brandt. ‘A Young Lady with a Dog, under a Portico,” by
Hoogstraten, in the Gallery at the Hague, is remarkable both
for its Dutch detail, and its Dutch taste; colouring and lighting
are both forcible. An ‘Old Jew at a Window,” in the Vienna
Gallery, signed with his monogram composed of 8. v. H., and
dated 1653, is a capital picture. Of Jan Victor, or Ficroor? (1600-
70), little is known ; there were two other painters of this name who
must not be confounded with fhe scholar of Rembrandt—Jacomo
Vicror, who painted birds, &c., and Vicror Wo.Fvort, a scholar of
Rubens.’ The Museum of Amsterdam possesses a “‘ Joseph in Prison
interpreting the Dreams,” signed Johanes Victors, fo. 1648. A
“Young Girl,” in the Louvre, is signed Jan Fictoor f. 1640; and
a picture at Berlin 3 is signed Jan Victoor, fe. 1645, (No. 826a).

The principal contemporaries of Rembrandt were—Miereveld,
Hals, and Vander Helst, already noticed.

Micnien Muirrevenp, of Delft (1567-1641), a precocious and
laborious painter, is distinguished for the vast number of his
portraits, which Houbraken computes at about 5,000. He was
invited by Charles I. to this country in 1625, but kept away
for fear of the plague, which was then said to be in England.
Miereveld’s heads are well drawn and elaborately finished, but
some of them are very thinly coloured, and he seldom painted
much more than the head. The Museum of Amsterdam possesses a
fine portrait of the Prince Maurice of Nassau, and several other
works, by Miereveld. He had two sons, Preter and Jan Micmuesz,
who were good portrait-painters: they both died young.

JOHANNES VAN Ravestgw, of the Hague (1572-1657), was
likewise an excellent portrait-painter of this period.

1 Scheltema, “ Rembrand,” &c., p. 69; French translation of Biirger, p. 53.
2 See Biirger, “ Musées de la Hollande,” vol. ii.
‘ 2r2Q
436 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Frans Hats (1584-1666), born at Mechlin, was the pupil of Van
Mander, the Flemish Vasari, and was, after Rubens and Vandyck,
the greatest of the Flemish portrait-painters ; his heads are exe-
cuted in a bold and free manner, but are deficient in variety of half-
tints. This is the painter, of whom Houbraken tells the story, that
Vandyck sat to at Haarlem, as a stranger, on his road to England ;
and when the sitting was over, remarked, that it seemed very easy
to paint, and accordingly asked Hals to sit to him, and let him try.
The good-humoured painter lét his strange sitter have his whim;
and when asked to look at the performance, struck with astonish-
ment, exclaimed—‘“ You must be Vandyck! No other man could
paint such a head.” The Museum of Amsterdam possesses the half-
lengths of Hals and his wife, when young, formerly in the collection
of Six van Hillegom; it was purchased at Amsterdam for 600
florins, in 1852—50/.1. Hals was given to drinking, and led a low,
wretched life at Haarlem, where he died in poverty. Of several
children, a son, Frans, acquired some skill in portrait-painting,
after the style of his father. Hals was the master of Brauwer,
whom he has the credit of having greatly ill-used. He signed with
@ monogram composed of an F and H in one.

BarTHOLoMEus VANDERHELST, of Haarlem (about 1613-70), another of
the principal portrait-painters of his time, was as great in reputation
as Rembrandt, though he painted in an essentially opposite style,
somewhat hard in manner; but he drew perfectly and coloured
richly. In the execution of the accessories of his pictures, he was
almost unrivalled in the large scale in which he painted; his
masterpiece—the Civic Banquet, held June, 1648, to celebrate the
Peace of Mister, now hanging opposite Rembrandt’s ‘‘ Night-
watch,” in the Amsterdam Museum, has been already mentioned.
Sir Joshua Reynolds’ eulogy of this picture is extraordinary; he
says: “‘This is perhaps the first picture of portraits in the world,
comprehending more of those qualities which make a perfect portrait
than any other I have ever seen!” It contains thirty-five elaborate
life-size portraits of members of the civic guard of Amsterdam, and
must have been completed a few months after the event it comme;
morates : it is signed Bartholomeus Vander Helst, fecit A° 1648. There
is a large print of it by J. W. Kaiser. The circumstances of Vander
Helst’s life are very little known: he died at Amsterdam, but
neither the date of his birth nor death has been yet ascertained.

Aart, or ARNOLD DE GELDER, of Dort (born 1645, living 1715),
was a scholar of Rembrandt, and was a thorough imitator of
Rembrandt’s earlier manner: he dressed his figures in the same
fashion. He certainly does duty for Rembrandt in many collec-

1 «Notice des Tableaux du Musée d’Amsterdam,’’ 1858.
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 437

tions; his works, notwithstanding his long life, are scarce in
public galleries; the Dresden Gallery has two good specimens,
one an “Ecce Homo,” a fine sketch, is signed A. D. Gelder, 1671.
There is also one in the EHszterhazy collection. The Museum
of Amsterdam has a portrait of Peter the Great, by De Gelder.
Houbraken notices as his last works a series of twenty-two pictures,
illustrating Christ’s Passion, of which he had painted twenty in
1715; he was then a jolly old bachelor, says Houbraken, de-
lighting in his life of celibacy. He is said to have died suddenly
in his chair at Amsterdam in 1727, aged eighty-two.

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE DUTCH AND FLEMISH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS, AND THEIR
IMITATORS. IMITATION TO ILLUSION THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF
PAINTING. PICTURES NOW AGREEABLE ARTICLES OF FURNITURE,

 

“Sportsman.—Metsu. The Hague,

In Holland painting was as active at the commencement of the
seventeenth century as in Flanders and Brabant, but it was marked
by a distinct development. This was the great age for Genre
painters, a class of artists for which Holland is so denngutehe
that Genre and the Dutch Style may be considered synonymous terms.
438 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The Flemish school, conspicuous for its extensive and magnificent
works, almost rivalled the splendour of the Italian machinists in their
great frescoes, executed at the same period. The chief features of
these Flemish works are their extent and gaudy magnificence, yet
in subject they are generally historic or of a still more exalted cha-
racter. The works of their Dutch contemporaries, on the other
hand, were remarkable for scrupulous fidelity of imitation, and the
closest familiarity of subject. Painting was no longer a handmaid
to Religion; the Reformation had deprived it of all ecclesiastical
patronage in Holland as in England; and it accordingly developed
a new nature among the Dutch also: the ethic and historic provinces
were deserted for views by land and water, family portraits, and
scenes of practical life. The characteristic Dutch school dates its
origin from this period; and it may perhaps not unjustly be termed
technically the illusive or the microscopic school; minute exactness
of imitation being its principal element. Every branch of art—
still-life, genre, landscape, portrait—all are alike conspicuous for
the most scrupulous imitation, even to the careful elaboration of the
texture of substances.

Viewing, therefore, this school esthetically, Illusion may be said
to. be its characteristic element; though of course, practically, such
an end could be only occasionally attained, and that chiefly in mi-
nute or inanimate objects, which the human eye in its daily expe-
rience, from their familiarity, looks at but superficially : illusion is,
however, attainable in such objects.

But this category does not comprise all the Dutch painters of this
period: many had no other object than effective representations of
every-day life, in which style the individual objects may be suffi-
ciently indicated without having recourse to actual imitation of the
objects, but merely representations of their effects in general com-
bination with all the other parts forming one whole.

The excellence of the Dutch in this their characteristic art, can
be seen only to proper advantage in the Museums of Amsterdam and
the Hague: all other collections, not excepting that of Dresden,
give an inadequate idea of the wonderful skill the Dutch painters
have attained to in their chosen province of art. Of course the
Lowland painters who adopted this class of art were not exclusively
Dutch; the Flemings among them, however, are the exceptions ;
they are commonly Dutch.

One of the earliest of the Dutch genre painters was old Prerer
BRUEGHEL, said to be a native of the village so called near Breda,
but settled at Brussels: he was the father of the younger Pieter
and Jan Brueghel. He was admitted a master of the Antwerp Cor-
poration of St. Luke in 1551; married at Brussels in 1563, and died
there in 1569, aged about forty apparently, from the dates of the
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 439

incidents recorded above. Old Brueghel painted small landscapes
with soldiers and banditti; and boorish merry-makings. A very
wonderful picture by him of the Slaughter of the Innocents, is at
Hampton Court. It is a Dutch village in the snow, with heavily-
clad Dutch boors killing little children—a real curiosity of painting.

Prerer Brorenet the younger is commonly called Hrtt BrurcHe.,
from his delight in painting fantastic devices representing the
horrors of hell—imps and devils, and other infernal monsters, some-
thing after the manner of Jerome Bosch, but a refinement on that
old elaborator of foolish conceits, and painter of monstrosities. He
was born at Brussels about 1564, studied under Giles van Coninxloo,
and was admitted a master of the Antwerp Guild in 1585; married
in 1588; received the celebrated Frans Snyders as a pupil in 1593;
and died at Antwerp in 1637-8. His is one of the few portraits
etched by Vandyck. His son Pieter, the third of the name, was
admitted into the Antwerp Guild in 1608.

Jan, called VetveT Bruecuet, from his delight in a suit of that
material, was born at Brussels in 1568, married and settled at
Antwerp, entered the Painters’ Guild as master in 1597, and served
as Dean of that Corporation in 1602. He painted, at first, fruit and
flowers with great delicacy; but after a visit to Italy devoted
himself chiefly to landscapes and river scenes, with small figures,
painted sometimes by himself, sometimes by others. Rubens occa-
sionally inserted figures for him, as did Johann Rottenhammer also,
and the elder Van Balen; or perhaps sometimes Brueghel only
added landscape backgrounds to the classical figures of the other
painters. One of these joint productions, by Brueghel and Rot-
tenhammer, is in the National Gallery—‘ Pan pursuing Syrinx.”
Brueghel’s colouring is often defective, it is too cold and blue,
especially in the distances. He died at Antwerp, January the 13th,
1625. Some of the joint productions of Brueghel and his various
helpmates are very remarkable and elaborate pictures; the Four
Elements by him and Rottenhammer, in the Belvedere Gallery, is a
miraculous little work; it is on copper, 1 foot 44 inches high, by
2 feet 3 inches wide, and is signed BrugcueL, 1604.

Tueoporr DE Keyser, of whom nothing seems to be known, has
left some good portrait pictures, large and small; the Hague pos-
sesses a fine large portrait, and we have an example of the small in
the National Gallery. He is supposed to have been the son of the
famous sculptor and architect Hendrik de Keyser, who died at
Amsterdam in 1621. There are works by him dated from 1621 to
1650. He signed with a monogram composed of T. D. K.

Avrian Brauwer, or Brouwer, born at Haarlem in 1608, was un-
happy in his education. He was the son of a poor woman who
gained her living by embroidery, and Adrian made. drawings of
440 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

flowers for her. His great ability attracted the notice of Frans
Hals, who received him as a pupil, but the boy was, according to
report, so ill-treated by Hals, that he left him and Tandem at the
same time, and took to a wandering life, but finally settled at
Antwerp, where he was admitted into the Painters’ Guild in 1631-2.
He adopted a style of his own, delighting in representing boors in
their hours of low relaxation.

Brauwer’s figures are well drawn, but his subjects are vulgar : he
wandered from city to city, quickly earning money, and as quickly
spending it in low dissipation. His pictures are the counterpart of
his own life, which he contrived to waste away in the short term of
thirty-two years; dying miserably in a hospital at Antwerp in
1640. Rubens, whose love and admiration he had gained notwith-
standing his dissipated habits, and who was one of his chief patrons,
gave his body a decent burial. Vandyck also was among his friends,
and painted his portrait. David Teniers the younger, and Joost
VAN CRAESBEKE, or GAESBEECK (?), of Brussels (1608-41), originally
a baker, with whom he lived at Antwerp, were his scholars. Brau-
wer’s pictures are extremely scarce; but he is seen to great advan-
tage at Munich. There is a good picture at Dulwich attributed to
him—The Interior of an Ale-house.

Prerer van Laser, or Laar was, according to Houbraken, born at
Laren, near Naarden, on the Zuyder Zee, whence his name; though
his friend Sandrart speaks of him as a native of Haarlem. We
know neither the date of Laer’s birth nor that of his death: he was,
however, in Rome in 1623, as he left it in 1639 to settle in
Haarlem, after a residence in the Eternal City of sixteen years: he
died at Haarlem about 1673: he was, at least, already dead in
1675, when Sandrart published his great work, the “ Teutsche
Academie.”

Laer’s pictures are very scarce, and the best known are chiefly
Italian; they represent the ordinary incidents of out-door life in
Italy—fairs, markets, village scenes, &c., monks and mountebanks,
beggars and banditti; and often with good landscape backgrounds,
warm in colouring, and executed with great spirit, and sometimes

enriched with classical ruins. The Italians called Laer Bamboccio,
and, accordingly, his pictures Bambocciate ; and this name followed
the painter home to Haarlem, where after his residence in Italy he
was called Bamboots. The origin of this name of Bamboccio is
doubtful; Sandrart and Passeri both say he was so called from his
deformity—he had a very short neck and body, and very long legs ;
the combination of the two extremes producing a ludicrous effect.
He was, however, of a good and cheerful disposition, and appears to
have been a very agreeable companion. Nicolas Poussin and Claude
were among his intimate friends. Passeri gives rather a bad account
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 441

of his habits, and says he died in 1642, but he has apparently con-
founded him with one of his two brothers; the elder, Roeland van
Laer, painted in a similar style with Pieter: and both he and the
younger, J. O. van Laer, died young in Italy. Laer’s animals are
generally excellent, but his horses in his few published etchings
are neither in good style nor in good condition. His portrait
was published by Sandrart, and Houbraken has copied it for his
‘“‘Schouburg.”

Such subjects as were painted by Laer and other Dutch artists,
are described by Lanzi as Bambocciate, as the term designating that
class of picture generally. The German Elzheimer is said to have
set the fashion for the small pictures which became so common in
Rome and elsewhere in the seventeenth century, combining land-
scape with figures in equal importance.

Jan, or Jouann Lince.zacn (1625-87), born at Frankfort, studied in
Italy, and settled and died at Amsterdam. He also painted Bambocciate
at Rome ; and Italian scenes, seaports, and ancient ruins, much in
the style of Philip Wouverman and Wynants. Lingelbach was
likewise in request by landscape-painters to insert figures into their
pictures; his colouring is somewhat forced, being often unpleasant
and ont of harmony. He was made a Burgess of Amsterdam in
1653.

It was not unusual now even for the Flemish landscape-painters
to visit Rome. Marruew and Pavut Brit, of Antwerp, both settled
and died at Rome; the elder in 1580, aged only thirty. Paul, the
younger (1556-1626), and more able of the two, was distinguished
both for his oil pictures and some frescoes which he executed for
Gregory XIII. He painted also figures and animals; but was
somewhat too green and cold in his colouring, and was perhaps in
some measure responsible for the similar defects observable some-
times in the landscapes of his pupil Agostino Tassi, and through
him of Claude. He Bs signed Bril and Pril; a “ Tobias and the
Angel,” in the Dresden Gallery, is signed Pavoro Brinu, f. 1624.
Swanevelt, the follower of Claude, lived chiefly, and died, at
Rome. Also, Davrp pe Konincg, the clever landscape and animal
painter, of Antwerp, died at Rome in 1687, in his fifty-first year.

CorneLis PorLensure, of Utrecht (1586-1666), who studied first
under Abraham Bloemart, and afterwards in Italy, was a painter
of considerable repute, and was in request with landscape-painters
to insert figures into their pictures. The “Judgment of Paris,” in
the landscape by Both, in the National Gallery, is by Poelenburg.

Gerarp Tersure, a Vandyck in miniature, as well as one of the
most delicate of the Dutch genre painters, was born at Zwolle, in

1 Scheltema, “Rembrand,” &c., p. 71.
442 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

1608, learnt his art of his father, and after many wanderings settled
in his own province of Overyssel, and married and died at De-
venter, where he was Burgomaster, in 1681. He was a great
traveller, having visited and painted in Germany, Italy, France,
Spain, and, it is said, England: he executed many portraits, but
is better known for his conversation pieces, in which he has fre-
quently introduced a lady in a white satin dress, a substance he
painted with particular skill. Terburg’s pictures very rarely re-
present the low subjects which delighted Brauwer, Jan Steen, or
Ostade; the actors in his scenes belong nearly exclusively to the
upper classes, and convey a good picture of the better Dutch
society in the seventeenth century. An officer reading to a lady
a letter which has just been brought to him, in the Museum of the
Hague, is exquisitely painted: the same collection contains his own
portrait, a full-length, as Burgomaster.

GasrieL Metsu, born at Leyden in 1615, distinguished for his
masterly and delicate execution, was still living at Amsterdam in
1661: he occasionally painted large figures, boldly but coarsely
executed, with strong effects of light and shade. A ‘ Woman
Selling Fish,” by Metsu, at Manchester House, is wonderfully
painted. He generally signed G. Metsu.

Frans van Mieris, sometimes called Tue O1p, to distinguish
him from his grandson of the same name, also of Leyden (1635-81),
a pupil of Gerard Dou; and Gaspar Nerscuer, a pupil of Terburg,
who was born at Heidelberg in 1639, and died at the Hague in
1684, were likewise admirable painters of conversation pieces and
small portraits, much in the style of Terburg, and in the majority
of their works leave nothing to be desired. These painters even
often excite wonder at the perfection of their representation. They
were, at the same time, like Terburg, generally refined in their
choice of subjects; a merit by no means common to the Dutch
genre painters of the seventeenth century. Portraits of Mieris and
his wife, by himself, are in the same picture at the Hague. The
“Visit of the Physician,” in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, is a
wonderful little picture: it is signed Frans Mieris, f. 1656 (?).?

Wituem van Mreris (1662-1747), and his son Frans van Mirris

1 T have before me three official catalogues of the Vienna Gallery, all of which
give the inscriptions on the pictures: that of Mechel, 1784, that of Krafft, 1845,
and that of Engert, 1860. The first gives the signature to this picture as—Franz
van Mieris, ft, 1651; the second as Franz Mieris f, 1656; the third, as elsewhere,
only repeats the second. Another fine picture by Micris in this great gallery, the
“Draper's Shop,” is signed, according to the first, Franz van Mieris ft., 1660, but
according to the other two, F. Van Mieris, 1660. Franz should certainly be Frans.
I cannot decide, ag I did not verify these signatures when in Vienna last summer.
Inaccuracy of the inscriptions seems as much the rule as the exception in German

catalogues. *
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 443

the younger (1689-1763), lived and died at Leyden, respectable
imitators of the elder Mieris. Willem has painted some excellent
pictures; as the “Woman Nursing a Child,” in the Royal col-
lection at Buckingham Palace.

Appian van Ostapg (1610-85), another able pupil of Hals, was
born at Liibeck, but settled early at Haarlem, whence he removed
in 1662 to Amsterdam, where he died. He was the fellow-pupil of
Brauwer, and painted similar subjects in a similar taste, but almost
exclusively interiors: he seems to have taken especial delight in
vulgarity and ugliness. His brother, Isaac van Osrape (1617-71),
was his imitator; but very inferior to Adrian both in colour and in
light and shade.

The works of Adrian Ostade are very similar in size and subject
to those of the younger Teniers, but have less freedom of execution,
and are painted witha heavier brush. The figures of T'eniers, often
perfectly drawn, have the colour driven so thinly in his most cha-
racteristic works as to show much of the ground beneath. Ostade is
generally solid in his work, and does not show that minute precision
of modelling displayed in the light transparent touches of Teniers :
in the pictures in which Teniers adopted a more solid mode of execu-
tion, the modelling is extremely delicate and thoroughly true.

Niconas Maas, or Maes (1682-93), of Dort, painted interior
scenes with great skill; and, as was natural for a pupil of
Rembrandt, was a good portrait-painter. In the execution of
his later smaller pictures his touch is somewhat woolly ; the outline
is refined away. The colouring, however, is rich and harmonious,
and he is in this respect distinguished from the mass of the
Dutch genre painters; there is much of the golden splendour
of Rembrandt about the small figures of Maes. He died at Am-
sterdam, where he settled, in 1678. The National Gallery possesses
three good examples of this painter: two, “A Girl scraping
Parsnips,” and the “Idle Servant,” are signed N. Mas, 1655.

JAN vanveR Meer, born at Delft in 1632, was already dead
in 1696. He was an excellent genre and landscape painter, and
appears also to have been one of the numerous scholars of Rem-
brandt. The Dresden Gallery possesses a picture of a “ Courtesan,”
in the style and taste of this master, signed I’, Meer, 1656.
Other collections possess small, beautiful genre pictures in the
styles of Nicolas Maes and Pieter de Hooge, by Vander Meer,
of whom till recently little has been known; his name is some-
times written Vermeer, which has led to much confusion. The
sale of his remaining pictures took place May 16th, 1696, at
Amsterdam, where he seems to have died.*

Gorrriep ScuatcKeN, of Dort (1643-1706), a scholar of Gerard

1 See a list in Biirger’s “ Musées de la Hollande,” vol. ii., p. 81.
444 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Dou, is distinguished for his candlelight scenes and exquisite
finish ; but there is some peculiarity in his manner that obtrudes
upon the mind the notion of art at the expense of nature; his
colouring is artificial, too red and mannered, and his touch wants
vigour. A good example of Schalcken’s work was exhibited
in Manchester in 1857—“ Le Roi Detrousé,”’—a game at forfeits ;
from the Royal collection at Buckingham Palace.

Jan Sreen (1626-79), of Leyden, resembling Brauwer and
Ostade in subjects, expended a vast deal of art in perpetuating
scenes of low vulgarity. He is also often as coarse in his execution
as in his subject. Some critics and admirers have discovered a
moral in his works, in which he certainly sometimes posted
proverbs: yet faithful pictures of the low life around him could
searcely have a more practically moral effect than the example
of the real life itself. It is more than probable that Jan Steen
painted simply what he saw, because it did not occur to him to
paint anything else. Although his figurés are sometimes admirably
painted, they are often, more especially in his latest works, nothing
but hideous caricatures. The “Lady at her Toilet,” in the
Queen’s collection, painted in 1663, is a remarkable exception ;
it is treated with all the characteristic elegance of Mieris. He
seems to have signed J. Steen, Stéén, and Stiin.

Davw Teniers the younger, was born at Antwerp in December,
1610: after acquiring the first rudiments of his art from his father,
Davi Tenturs the elder (1582-1649), who was admitted a member
of the Antwerp Guild of Painters in 1606, the younger Teniers
became the imitator of Brauwer, and some say the scholar, which
is possible, though they were unusually near in age for such
a relationship. He was admitted a Master into the Guild of
St. Luke of Antwerp, in 1632-3, and served as Dean of the Corpo-
ration in 1644. He possessed an estate in the village of Perck, on
the road between Antwerp and Mechlin; and here in his country-
house, the Dry Toren, Teniers lived in great style. He was
court painter and chamberlain to the Archduke Leopold William,
then Governor of the Netherlands; and his house became a
constant resort of the Spanish and Flemish nobility. Don Juan of
Austria, whom we have already met with in association with
Ribera, took lessons in painting of Teniers, and presented him with
a portrait of one of his sons, by his own hand, as a token of his
regard. Teniers was twice married; first, to Anne, the daughter of
Velvet Brueghel, in 1637, by whom he had five children; secondly,
in 1656, to Isabelle de Fren, daughter of the Secretary of the
Council of Brabant, by whom he had three children; in all, four
sons and four daughters.' He survived his second wife also. He

1 “Cutalogue du Musée d’Anvers,” 1857,
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 445

died at Brussels in 1694, and was buried in the village of Perck,
leaving a considerable fortune. He had been chiefly instrumental
in founding the Academy of Antwerp in 1663.

Though in many respects similar to his contemporaries, there is
something large and grand in the way in which Teniers has
handled his vulgar materials: his execution varies,—it is some-
times solid, and sometimes exceedingly slight, but always free and
masterly, never laboured or painful, and never heavy or opake,
like the work of his father: the very Coryphaeus of genre painters,
he knew exactly the moment to leave off—a model for execution
in any style. Sir Joshua Reynolds, in speaking of his manipu-
lation, remarks :—‘‘ His manner of touching, or what we call
handling, has, perhaps, never been equalled ; there is in his pictures
that exact mixture of softness and sharpness which is difficult to
execute.”! The National collection possesses three small illustrations
of this perfect execution; there are also some good small specimens
at Dulwich, and the Queen is in possession of one of the best
of his more important works, “A Village Féte,” painted in 1645, in
the very vigour of his career. Two works, showing the extraor-
dinary versatility of Teniers, are, ‘‘ A View of his own Painting
Room at Perck,” with the artist himself seated painting an old
woman; and the “Interior of the Archduke Leopold’s Picture
Gallery,” at Brussels, in which Teniers is showing an engraving by
himself of one of the pictures, to the Archduke. In both of these
works he has introduccd many pictures of various schools, and in all
his minute copies, he has adhered to the styles of the originals.*
Many of his finest pictures are in this country.

Nearly nine hundred works are attributed to Teniers in Smith’s
Catalogue Raisonné; but some are certainly by the elder Teniers, and
a great many others, perhaps half of them, are doubtless by his
numerous scholars and imitators; as Davin Ryckarrr; Tu. van
AssHoven, of Antwerp (1648-90); M. van Hexmonr, of Brussels
(1653-1719); and some others.

Daviv Rycxazrt, of Antwerp (1612-61-2), the third of the name,

1 « Journey to Flanders and Holland.”

2 These interesting works were sold at Christie’s in 1860, in the sale of Sir
Culling Fardley’s Belvedere pictures, for 882/.; the “ Artist’s Painting Room,” for
4621. ; the “ Archduke’s Gallery,” for 4202. The print referred to above is one of a
series representing this gallery, published by Teniers at Brussels in 1660, in a folio
volume, entitled, “Theatrum Pictorium.” The picture of Teniers’s Painting
Room was bought by the Duke of Cleveland. These pictures were sold together
in 1742, at the Prince of Carignan’s sale, for 1052. They are valued in the third
volume of Smith’s “ Catalogue Raisonné of the works of the most eminent Dutch,
Flemish, and French Painters,” 9 vols., 8vo, 1829-42, at 11251.; a valuation
proved to be much too high, even for « date thirty years in advance of that
recorded, 1831.
446 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

was an extraordinary painter. He learnt his art from his father,
and was an imitator of Teniers. The Archduke Leopold-Wilhelm,
Austrian Governor in the Netherlands, was a patron of Ryckaert,
and the Belvedere Gallery possesses some excellent examples of his
pencil—a Village Féte, and the Sack of a Village, a pair of large
pictures, signed Davide Ryckaert, Fecit Antverpiae, and dated 1648
and 1649, respectively. Also a Witch, or ‘‘Schatzgriberin,” searcher
of hidden treasure, driving some infernal imps from a cave; one of
the most curious of all curious pictures; the cave is lighted by a
fire: Ryckaert excelled in fire-light effects. He was Dean of the
Guild of St. Luke at Antwerp in 1652. :

Pamir Wouverman or WouweErman,? born at Haarlem in 1620,
the son of Paul Wouverman, an obscure historical-painter, is said
to have been the scholar of Wynants. Although a painter of
extraordinary powers, he was not appreciated in his life-time, and
he lived and died poor: he appears to have wanted the ability of
making friends. Wouverman was in every sense one of the most
masterly of painters; his greatest excellence was perhaps in horses,
which he painted with unrivalled skill in his small size; and some
few specimens of this excellence may be seen at Dulwich, where a
picture of a small cart with a white horse is a notable example.
Popular tradition says that Wouverman never painted a picture
without a white horse; there are, however, certainly many pictures
attributed to him which have not white horses. His subjects are
generally—travelling, road-side, hunting, fighting, or plundering,
scenes: figures and landscapes are equally good, and his colourifg
is rich and transparent. He died at Haarlem, May the 19th, 1668, in
his forty-eighth year only. Pieter Wouvermay, his brother (1625-
83), was also a clever painter of the same subjects; and as his
pictures rarely occur, it must be assumed that they are generally
attributed to his elder brother Philip. Jan Wouverman (1629-66),
another younger brother, also painted similar subjects, and is said
to have been fond of frost scenes. He is probably the author of the
majority of the snow and winter scenes attributed to Philip.

It is with Wouverman as with Teniers, and some other very able
painters of the Netherlands; they have two or three times the
number of works attributed to them that they can ever have painted ;
and accordingly there are scarcely any pictures left to be assigned
to their numerous and able contemporaries. Each possessor, of
course, thinks his own works genuine; the spurious examples are
those belonging to his neighbour.

The active career of Philip Wouverman extended over thirty

1 “Catalogue du Musee d’Anvers,” Supplement, 1863.

2 The Dutch W is pronounced as our V, or rather has a sound between our V
and F.
‘opp ebDq

CXVIWEAIOM) “SUSHOH H.LIA ‘GAHS

 
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 447

years at most; that of his younger brother and imitator, Pieter, over
forty; yet in Smith’s Catalogue Raisonné, no less than 793 elaborately
finished pictures are assigned to Philip, that is one for about every
fortnight of his working life, independent of studies and sketches;
while of the brother’s work, two examples only are mentioned.
Of Jan van Hucrunsure (1646-1733), another imitator and a
fellow-townsman of Wouverman, one example only is mentioned in
the Catalogue Raisonné, ‘ The Cavalry Fight,” in the National Gallery.
Hugtenburg’s career extended over twice the period of that of
Philip Wouverman, yet where are his pictures? he was a distinguished
painter, in his own life-time, and cannot fail to have painted very
many pictures in his long career. In the Gallery of Amsterdam
there are—one work attributed to Hugtenburg; one to Pieter
Wouverman ; and nine to Philip; but of the last seven are marked
with monograms, of which three only are alike—composed of P. H. 8.
in one figure, signifying Philips, for Philippus, and two V’s together
forming the W. In the Gallery of the Hague are of Hugtenburg,
three; of Pieter Wouverman, not one; of Philip, nine. In the
Gallery of Munich are of Hugtenburg, two; of Pieter Wouverman,
not one; of Philip, seventeen. In the Gallery of Dresden are of
Hugtenburg, five ; of Pieter Wouverman, not one; of Philip, no less
than sixty-three! In the Louvre, of Hugtenburg, there is one example;
of Pieter Wouverman, one; and of Philip there are thirteen. In the
Museum of Madrid, of Hugtenburg, not one ; of Pieter Wouverman,
not one; of Philip, ten. In the Dulwich Gallery, there are of
Hugtenburg, not one; of Pieter Wouverman, one; of Philip, eleven :
and so on throughout the principal collections. The catalogue of
the Hermitage Gallery gives Philip fifty pictures in that collection.
The Eszterhazy Gallery in Vienna has a Pieter Wouverman; the
tone is very purple. The works of Jan Wouverman seem to have
disappeared in a most unaccountable way: there is a landscape
signed J. W. in the Arenberg Gallery at Brussels, assigned to him.
This example, however, and the few other pictures that are spared
by the experts to these rare masters, are apparently nearly all saved
to them by their inscriptions only. But for the inscriptions they
would certainly have lost these few also.

It is more than probable that of the above eight hundred pictures
so inconsiderately ascribed to the unsuccessful short-lived Philip, a
much geater number are by Pieter than the authentic works of
Philip amount to; which may still constitute much the best portion
of the Wouverman work, though but a fraction of the whole
numerically. A very large proportion are certainly the work of
Hugtenburg. Philip is one of those painters who, through the
necessities of a large family, was always poor, and thus became the
victim of picture dealers, to whom he was forced to sell at an inade-
448 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

quate price. He was so disgusted with his failure, that he burnt,
shortly before his death, all the studies he had made during his life,
for fear a son, who had a disposition for painting, should be induced
by the facilities offered by those studies, to follow it as a profession.
Another less charitable reason assigned for this act, is, lest they
should fall into the hands of his brother Pieter. A third account
says that the studies were not all his own, but chiefly Pieter Laer’s,
and that he did not wish to expose how much he had been indebted
to that clever painter. The story told by Houbraken of his giving a
dowry of 20,000 florins to his daughter, who married the fruit and
flower-painter, Hendrik de Fromantjou, is simply absurd under all
the circumstances of Wouverman’s life. These reports about his
reasons for destroying his sketches may be all equally groundless,
but they show the enmities and jealousies by which he was assailed.

Pauu Porrer, born at Enkhuizen in 1625, was taught painting by
his father, Pieter Potter, and died young at Amsterdam in 1654.
This animal painter earned a great reputation by a single work, the
large picture ofe‘* The Young Bull,” painted in 1647, and now one
of the common attractions of the State Gallery at the Hague. The
“ Boar Hunt,” in the Museum at Amsterdam, is another remarkable
picture, of a different kind: it is also on a large scale, and is signed
Paulus Potter £.1649. The “Young Bull” is certainly a masterpiece,
but it is a simple, coarsely-executed work, and the accessories are
not equally good; considering, however, that Potter was but twenty-
two years old when it was painted, it is a very notable work. Some
of his smaller pictures, of his maturer years, exhibit a much more
refined kind of art. There are also some admirable etchings of
animals by Potter.

The landscape and marine painters of this period were not less
admirable than the genre painters.

Lupotr BakHuizen was born at Emden, December 18th, 1631,
and died at Amsterdam in 1709. He was brought up as a govern-
ment clerk, but having a love for painting, took lessons from Albert
van Everdingen, and then became the scholar of a marine painter of
the name of Hendrik Dubbels, and is now reputed the chief of the
Dutch painters who have represented rough seas on a large scale.
He loved stormy seas, and is said to have been in the habit of
sketching from nature in an open boat, at the great peril, sometimes,
both of himself and boatmen. Peter the Great took lessons of
Bakhuizen, who also made for the Czar many constructive drawings
of ships. His pictures are generally hard, and he has been sur-
passed by several modern marine painters. Bakhuizen hada nephew
of his own name, who was a battle painter. Lirve Verscuuur, of
Rotterdam, was also a good marine painter of this period, but the
|

,

" i

 

CROSSING THE FORD. (Aprisan VANDEYELDE.)

Page 449.
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 449

circumstances of his life are unknown. His pictures are scarce, his
unsigned works being given, as usual, to masters of more renowned
names, as Bakhuizen and the younger Vandevelde. The Museum
of Amsterdam has two pictures by this painter, signed LD. Verschwur,
one of which represents the arrival of Charles II. of England, at
Rotterdam.

Simon pE VuiiEcER, a good figure, landscape and marine painter,
born in Amsterdam in 1612, and still living in 1656, was the master
of the younger Vandevelde, who painted like De Vlieger, but with
less glow of colour. De Vlieger, however, worked in various styles,
—like Wouverman, Ruisdael, Hobbema, and Vandevelde; his colour-
ing being generally warm or mellow. The Eszterhazy Gallery
possesses several examples; one, a fine sea-piece, is signed 8. DE
Vurrcer. He painted also portraits. De Vlieger adds another
name to the catalogue of painters, who have been cast into the dark-
ness by the vice of so-called connoisseurs, attributing indiscrimi-
nately all works of certain classes to a few stock names. _

Avrian VANDEVELDE (1639-72) of Amsterdam, the brother-of the
younger William,? was a pupil of Wynants, and the friend of Philip
Wouverman. He excelled in landscapes, but more particularly in
cattle, and in small figures. The figures in the landscapes of Ruys-
dael and of Hobbema, and other distinguished landscape painters,
were occasionally inserted by Adrian Vandevelde. He also etched
a few plates. ‘‘ Waiting for the Ferry Boat”— Le Passage du Bac—
in the Amsterdam Gallery, is a beautiful picture by this master.

Jacos Ruyspaex or van RuispaEL (about 1625-81), of Haarlem ;
and his scholar Minpernout or Meinperr Hossema, of Amsterdam
—he was apparently born in that city, in 1638°—are the most cele-
brated of the Dutch landscape painters. They generally repre-
sented ordinary daylight woody scenes, managing their foliage with
the utmost skill. Ruysdael was brought up to the medical profes-
sion, and is sometimes styled Doctor. Ashe painted much in the style
of Van Everdingen, he is supposed to have been instructed by that
painter ; he painted similar views, woody landscapes, with waterfalls ;
but there is no evidence of Ruysdael’s ever having visited Norway.

1 See Chapter xxxiii.

2 M. R. Elsevier has discovered that Ruysdael was the witness to Hobbema’s
marriage to Heltie Vinck, in the Reformed Church at Amsterdam, on the 2nd of
October, 1668, when Hobbema recorded his age as thirty. Wan Eynden and
Vander Willigen, “ Geschiedenis,” .&c., vol. iv. p. 101, state that Hobbema was the
son of Sergeant Willem Hobbema of the company of Captain Solema, some time in
garrison at Koeverden, and that he was baptized there August 6th, 1654; when he
was grown up therefore. They also notice a drawing attributed to him dated 1647,
when he was nine years old only. This circumstance has led the people of Koe-
verden to claim him; he is also claimed by the village of Middelharnis, and by
the city of Haarlem.

26
450 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

He sometimes painted marine pieces: there are also a few etchings
by his hand. He signed J. Ruijsdael f.

The National Gallery possesses three good examples of Ruysdael ;
but he is seen’ only in his full glory in such works as Mr. Walter’s
‘* Castle of Bentheim,” exhibited at Manchester in 1857, and at the
British Institution in 1861; or in the noble ‘ Westphalian Scene ”
which belonged to the late King of Holland; at the sale of whose
collection in 1850, it was purchased for the Brussels Gallery for
1075l.: the figures and animals in it are by Adrian Vandevelde.
The worthy companion of this picture, though but a quarter the
size, by the much rarer master Hobbema, representing a “ Water-
Mill,” was bought at the same sale, by the Marquis of Hertford, for
the large sum of 2,2501.1. Hobbema was, it seems, still living in 1689,
as there is a picture by him bearing that date.2 The best of his
works are in this country; the National Gallery and Dulwich both
possess good examples: he was a much warmer painter than Ruys-
dael, and more sunny. Jan van Kesse1 and Rexier van VRIES were
imitators of Ruysdael, and their works are as a matter of course,
when not signed, commonly attributed to Ruysdael. Solomon, the
elder brother of Jacob Ruysdael, was an ordinary landscape painter,
but his ‘pictures are more after the style of Van Goyen than of his
brother. He died in 1670. Their father was a maker of ebony
frames and cabinets at Haarlem.

Nicotas Bercuem, the son of Pieter Klaasze, was born at Haarlem
in 1624; he died there also, February 18th, 1683. Berchem is a
nickname, which is variously accounted for; it is, however, that
which the painter almost invariably signed: in a picture at Am-
sterdam the name is written Berighem. Nicolas was named after
his grandfather, Pieter Klaasze, signifying simply Pieter the son

1 The measurement of the Ruysdael, on canvas, is 4 ft. 4 in. high by 5 ft. 8 in.
wide; that of the Hobbema, on wood, is 2 ft. 2 in. high by 2 ft. 112 in. wide, that is,
less than a thousand square inches of surface, so that Lord Hertford paid for this
landseape (not a small picture like the Raphael and Correggio remarked upon above)
at the rate of more than two guineas per inch, literally covering the picture twice
over with gold, thus doubling the munificence of the old King Candaules. There
is this difference, however: the Lydian monarch gave his gold to the living painter ;
no painter was enriched by the money of the English nobleman. _Hobbema
received perhaps a few florins only for his picture; his works have increased one
hundredfold in value within the last hundred years. In 1860 Count Morny gave
the immense price of 105,000 francs for the not very much larger picture of a Mill,
formerly in the Sasseghem Collection at Ghent. The Nuational Gallery specimen
cost fifteen hundred guineas. "

2 Smith, “Catalogue Raisonné,” vol. vi. Out of one hundred and forty-two
pictures ascribed to Hobbema in this work, sixteen only are dated, and five bear
the year 1663. The earliest date is 1650, the latest 1689 (?), said to be inscribed on
a picture in the collection of Sir Robert Peel, Bart, The National Gallery example
is signed Mt. Hobbema ft.
|
|

|

|

 

CORNFIELD. (Royspazt.)

Page 450,
‘1gr 26nd

CRanougg) “\LVO9 V ONINIW THID V

 
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 451

of Nicolas. Berchem had many masters—his father, Van Goyen,
J. B. Weenix, and Jan Wils, whose daughter he mairied. Ber-
chem painted portrait, genre, battles, landscapes, and cattle; and he
excelled in all, but chiefly in his small landscapes with figures and
cattle. In the Gallery of the Hague is a picture by him, painted
in 1648, with life-size figures and animals: it is called an Italian
landscape, and was bought in 1827, when prices were much lower
than at present, for 6,000 florins—500/. Its scale is injurious to it,
though the figures are well drawn and well lighted: he does not
seem ever to have repeated the experiment.

Berchem’s works are well composed, carefully finished, yet freely
handled; they are generally warm and brilliant in effect, but his
foregrounds are frequently too positive in colour, while his middle
distances are too cold. When at the height of his reputation, in
1665, he sold his labour for ten florins a-day—1é6s. 8d. English.
He had, like Albert Diirer, a frugal wife, who took care of his
money for him, for he was himself too prone to spend it on Italian
drawings. At the sale of his effects, after his death, his pictures
produced 12,000 florins, and his sketches 800 florins. Berchem
also etched. There are 56 plates in all attributed to him, chiefly
animals: they are very scarce. The National Gallery possesses
one good specimen of his work, and there are at Dulwich several.
J. F. Sootemaker was a clever imitator of his style, and is doubtless
the painter of many Bercheins.

Jan Bors, born at Utrecht about 1610, enriched the art of his
country with many beautiful scenes from Italy: his father was a
glass-painter, but Bloemart was the master of both Jan and his
brother Ayprizs. The two brothers travelled and worked together,
both in France and Italy, and they lived some time in Rome, Jan
painting the landscape, and Andries painting the figures, of their
pictures, until 1650, when Andries fell into a canal at Venice and
was drowned :' Jan returned disconsolate to Utrecht, and died
there six years afterwards, in 1656. Some of the misty morning
effects of the landscapes of the Boths are very beautiful. We have
a fine large example, under dirty varnish, in the National Gallery :
Amsterdam has a beautiful small specimen, an Italian view, but with-
out the disadvantage under which the English picture is seen.
The pictures of these painters are usually signed Both, the leg of
the B serving also for the J.

AART or ARTHUR VANDERNEER, of Gorcum, excelled greatly in moon-
light scenes, and in other landscapes; excellent examples of both
classes are in the National Collection: in one of the larger pictures
the figures are inserted by Cuyp. The circumstances of Vanderneer’s

1 Sandrart, ** Academia Todesca,” &c., 1675; see also Houbraken.

262
452 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

life are very little known: he was still living at Rotterdam in 1691,
when he must have been very old; his usual place of residence was
Amsterdam. The gallery there possesses a good winter scene by him,
signed with his ordinary double monogram composed of A.V., D.N.
His son Eaton Henprik VANDERNEER, born at Amsterdam in 1648,
painted figures and landscapes, and may be reckoned also among
the better genre painters: he, doubtless, sometimes inserted the
firures in his father’s landscapes. Eglon Vanderneer settled in
Diisseldorf, where he married a third wife, and was appointed
painter to the Elector: he died there in 1703. Like Terburg, he
was fond of dressing his ladies in white satin. He was the master
of Vanderwerff. The Amsterdam Museum possesses a landscape
by him, representing “‘ Tobias and the Angel,” signed E. H. Vander-
Neer f. 1694.

AxBert Cove, the son of Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp, also a painter, was
born at Dort, in 1605. By trade a brewer, he was, notwithstanding,
one of the ablest of all the Dutch landscape painters ; a good por-
trait painter; and an excellent cattle painter: yet, like Claude, his
most remarkable quality was the power of painting atmospheres ;
whether the misty morning, the glowing noon, or the golden even-
ing. Compared with his great contemporaries Ruysdael and Hob-
bema, he shows less force and individuality of representation in
the details, but he is never so cold as Ruysdael, and is perhaps
always more sunny and cheerful even than Hobbema. Cuyp
painted also birds, fish, fruit, flowers, and still-life; was a skilful
etcher; and, in fact, seems to have had a universal genius for
painting, in its idyllic province, or in depicting whatever the eye
takes ordinary cognizance of, without having recourse to invention
—life and nature in ordinary routine and repose.

Cuyp’was one of those excellent painters, who, like Philip
Wouverman, were so unfortunate as not to be appreciated during
their own lives. His occupation of a brewer, perhaps, was one of
the causes of his being underrated by his contemporaries. His
works are now fully appreciated, and realize great prices at sales,
on the rare occasions when they come into the market.'| The large
“Evening Scene,” in the National Gallery, is a fine example of
Cuyp’s great powers as a landscape painter: Dulwich also pos-
sesses several excellent examples of this master. The date of his
death is not known, but he was still living at Dort January Ist,
1683. He commonly signed his name in full, A. Crugjp.

Jan van Goven, or rather Gorn, of Leyden (1596-1666), has a
considerable reputation as a landscape painter, but his pictures are

l The Saltmarshe picture, much smaller than the National Gallery specimen,
sold at Christie’s in 1860, was bought by Mr. White of Brownlow Street, for
£1,575: it is on canvas, and is 3 ft, 2 in. high, by 5 ft. 2 in. wide.
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 453

often undefined and colourless. His sea and river pieces are the best
of his works; a grey flatness, however, disfigures many of them:
this defect has been attributed by some to his indiscriminate use of
Haarlem blue, which appears to have turned ofa slate colour. Jan
Steen is said to have occasionally inserted figures in Van Goien’s land-
scapes. A river scene, in Amsterdam, is signed J. V. Goien, 1645.

Herman SaFTLEVEN or SAcHTLEVEN (1609-85), of Utrecht, was the
scholar of Van Goyen, and is also distinguished for his river scenes.
There are some admirable etchings of landscapes by Saftleven.

Jan Wynants, born at Haarlem about 1610, and still living in
1675, was a very able landscape-painter, and has the credit of
having been the master of Philip Wouverman, who sometimes in-
serted figures in the pictures of Wynants. Adrian Vandevelde and
Lingelbach were also occasionally so employed. Wynants was too
apt to break up, or fritter away, his foregrounds, and keep his
distances too blue; he is most successful in his middle grounds, in
which the foliage is very masterly.

ALBERT VAN EvERDINGEN (1621-75), of Alkmaar, painted landscapes
very much in the style of Ruysdael; cold, woody, cloudy scenes :
he is distinguished for his Norwegian views.

Kare pu Jarpin or GarpIN, as he has also written his name,
was born at Amsterdam about 1630, and was the ablest of Ber-
chem’s scholars and imitators: he lived long in Rome, and died
in the prime of life at Venice, November 20th, 1678. Du Jardin’s
pictures are remarkable for their soft high finish, and an occasional
yellow tone. The Gallery at Amsterdam possesses his own por-
trait by him, and a picture signed and dated 1655: the Italian
‘Trumpeter on Horseback,” in this collection, is a beautiful little
gem. There are some fine etchings by Du Jardin.

The Amsterdam Museum possesses another autograph portrait of
a reputed scholar of Berchem, that of Pierrr pe Hooae in his
nineteenth year, according to the inscription on it. De Hooge was
a good colourist, and is remarkable for the forcible effects of
light he produced, in interiors, especially of sunshine; he was
also a good figure painter, but his touch does not resemble that
of Berchem, it is much bolder. The circumstances of his life
appear to be quite unknown. A good specimen of his forcible
sunlights is in the Queen’s collection.

As distinguished painters of this class also, who ably combined
landscape with figure painting, should be noticed—Jan VANDER
Meer, of Delft, the genre painter already noticed; by whom there
‘ is a remarkable exterior view of Delft, with figures, in the Hague
Museum, quite singular for its forcible gitect and freedom of
execution."

1 This landscape, for which the King of Holland paid in 1816 the sum of 3,700
454 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Herman Swanevett (about 1620-1655), of Woerden, visited
Rome when still young, and is said there to have become the
scholar of Claude Lorrain. He was an imitator of Claude, and
after spending some years in Rome, established himself in Paris,
where in 1653 he was elected a member of the Academy of
Painting; but he returned to Rome apparently in 1655, and
died there the same year.’ Swanevelt painted landscapes with
figures and animals after the manner of Claude, and with,
occasionally, the same coldness of colouring. The Louvre pos-
sesses a pair of pictures of his, small oval landscapes with figures,
inscribed H. Swanevelt. Paris: 1654.

Apam Pynacker (1621-73), of Pynacker, also studied in Italy,
and though a master of great facility, painted too little from
nature, and too much from memory, especially in his decorative
works: his colouring is artificial, and sometimes offensively cold
and green. Such is the Italian lake scene, signed A. Pijnacker,
in the Amsterdam Museum. Of his better works the Gallery at
Dulwich possesses a good example on a large scale.

Simon Vanperpors (1653-1717), of Amsterdam, painted landscapes
with sheep and cattle, in the style of his father, Jacob Vanderdoes,
and was also a good figure painter. A very good example of
his work is a landscape with animals, and a shepherd and
shepherdess reading, in the Museum at Amsterdam, signed 8.
V. Does, 1706.

Antonr Warterioo (about 1618-62), of the neighbourhood of
Utrecht, was an admirable etcher of landscapes, and has the reputa-
tion of having been an excellent painter also; but his pictures are
exceedingly scarce; or, what is more probably the case, are
assigned by the experts to other painters of more popular name.
No great gallery except Munich has a picture by Waterloo;
the Museum of Rotterdam also possesses one, and these may in
time lead to the recovery of some others. Waterloo’s etchings,
which are numerous’ and beautiful—they are partly etched and
partly engraved —are admirable specimens of landscape composition,
yet their subjects are supposed to have been all found in the
vicinity of Utrecht. His landscapes, according to Houbraken, are
conspicuous for their clear skies, the fine colour and variety of
their foliage, and the transparency of their water. Weenix
sometimes painted the figures in them.

florins, was sold at Vander Meeyr’s sale at Amsterdam, in 1696, for 200 florins; and
this last sum was a large gmount at that time. See Smith’s “Catalogue Rai-
sonné,” vi., p. 182; and Biirger, “ Musées de la Hollande,” ii., p. 83.

1 Villot, “« Notice des Tableaux du Louvre,” 2° Partie, 1860.

2 Bartsch, ‘ Le Peintre-graveur,” describes 134.
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 455

Of architectural painters of note must be mentioned—the
laborious and minute Henprik van STEENWYK or STEINWyYCcK, born
about 1550, at Steenwyk, and still living in 1605. He was the
scholar of Hans de Fries, an architectural painter of Leeuwarden ;
and is distinguished for his Gothic interiors of churches and other
buildings, sometimes with candle-light effects, in which the figures
were sometimes inserted by Velvet Brueghel. Steenwyk settled
and died at Frankfort. The Gallery at the Hague possesses a
wonderfully elaborate example of his work. His son and scholar,
Hewnprik van Sreenwyk the younger, painted similar works, but
he was also a figure painter. He came to this country, and
was much employed by Charles I., and he is said to have put in the
architectural backgrounds to some of the pictures of Vandyck, who
painted Steenwyk’s portrait. In the Gallery of Vienna is a large
signed picture by this painter, of ‘‘ The Delivery of Peter from
Prison,” a night scene dated 1621, which was probably before
Steenwyk’s visit to England. He died in this country, in London,
and left a widow, who returned to Holland, settled in Amsterdam,
and there maintained herself by architectural painting.

The elder Steenwyk was also the master of Pinrer Nezrs (1570-
1651), of Antwerp, likewise distinguished for church interiors, in
which he has most successfully introduced torch-light effects: the
figures in these pictures were sometimes painted by the elder
Teniers.

G. Horxeezst, of whom very little is known personally, was
living in 1651, and may have been the son of Joacuim Hogxcessr, a
portrait-painter, who was dean of the corporation of painters of the
Hague in 1626. There are by this master two admirable views of
the interior of the church of Delft, in the Hague Museum, one of
which is dated 1631.

EMANUELDE WirTE (1607-92), of Alkmaar ; and Henprix van VuET
(1608-59), distinguished themselves by some effective interiors of
churches by sun-light. De Witte, overwhelmed with debt, ended
his own life at Amsterdam, at the advanced age of eighty-five.

Preven Sagyrepam (1597-1666), of Assendelft, is also greatly
distinguished for his distinct and beautiful views of churches and
other buildings, exterior and interior.

Lastly, Jan Vanper Heypren (1637-1712), of Gorcum, in whose
works Adrian Vandevelde often painted the figures, was distinguished
for general architectural views, combining landscape with archi-
tecture ; the buildings introduced, however, remaining always the
chief features of the picture. Vander Heyden was very successful
in representing brickwork. After the death of Vandevelde he had
recourse to Eglon Vander Neer and Lingelbach, for his figures. A
landscape with “A Stone Bridge,” in the Amsterdam Museum, by
456 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Vander Heyden and Vandevelde, is an admirable specimen of their
work,

There remains yet some account to be given of the painters
of birds, animals, still-life, fruit, and flowers, and the like.

Aprian van Urtrucut (1599-1652-3), of Antwerp, was perhaps the
best of all the Dutch and Flemish painters of game, dead birds, &c.
He was the scholar of Herman de Ryt in 1614, and became a master
of the Antwerp Guild in 1625. The finest of his works are said to
have been exported to Spain for the Royal collections. There are
two large pictures by Van Utrecht in the Gallery of the Prado at
Madrid, one of them with figures by Jordaens: he is surpassed
perhaps, even as an animal-painter, by Snyders alone. The “Fish-
monger’s Shop,” in the Ghent Museum, is a wonderful picture: a boy
is cutting away a woman’s purse, as a piece of byplay. He had
twelve children by his wife Constance, the daughter of Wilhelm
van Nieulant, a painter.

Wittem Kar was born at Amsterdam about 1620: he studied
under one Hendrik Pot, a portrait-painter of Haarlem, and was
already an established master in 1643, and died at his native place
in 1693. Some of Kalf’s pictures of still-life, fruit, plate, glass,
&c., are perfectly wonderful: the Museum at Amsterdam possesses a
remarkable example; the execution is unusually bold, yet the repre-
sentation is effective almost to illusion.’

Metcuior pvE HonpecorTer (1636-95), of Utrecht, an excellent
painter of birds and animals, foreign and domestic, was instructed
first by his father Gysbert de Hondecceter, and after his death in
1658, by his uncle Jan Baptist Weenix. He had a magnificent cock,
a favourite bird, that he had taught to stand in any position he might
be placed while his master painted him ; we have his portrait in the
picture of “‘ Domestic Poultry,” No. 202, in the National Gallery.

Jan Woenrx (1644-1719), of Amsterdam, was the successful
imitator of his father Jan Baprisr Weenix (1621-60), whom he
much surpassed in his pictures of hunts and dead game. The son
was much employed by John William the Elector of the Palatinate,
and the patron of Vanderwerff. A good example of his work is in
the National Gallery, signed J. Weentz, f.1704. The Hague also
has two good examples ; one, a ‘‘ Pheasant and other dead Game,” is
wonderful in its style.

Among the fruit and flower painters, reputation has been almost
monopolized by John de Heem, Rachel Ruysch, and Van Huysum.

1 This picture, 2 ft. 3 in. high by 2 ft. wide, contains « chased silver vase, a
glass, a porcelain dish of oranges and lemons, a knife and an open gold watch, all
on a marble slab; and the masterpiece cost the authorities of the Museum, in
1821, the sum of (wo guineas—twenty-five florins !
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. $57

JoHAN Davinsz pe Heem was born at Utrecht in 1640, and fol-
lowed the art of his father David, who was a good painter of fruit
and flowers. In 1670 he removed to Antwerp, to escape from French
naiilitary marauders, and he died there in 1674. Some of the
works of this painter are executed with the utmost mastery: his
son Cornelis was a good imitator of his style. The Museum at
Amsterdam possesses two remarkable pictures by De Heem: a
magnificent flower piece, and a still-life piece, representing plate
and glass: the former signed J. D. De Heem P.; the latter, ./ohan
D. Heem f.

Racuen Ruyscu (1664-1750) was a native of Amsterdam, and was
the pupil of Wittem van Aatst, the still-life painter of Delft (1620-
79), who was settled at Amsterdam. Rachel excelled in painting
bouquets. Her name is really Pool, as in 1695 she married the
portrait-painter Jurian Pool, and had ten children by him, which,
however, did not stop her painting. She was admitted, with her
husband, into the Hague Guild in 1701. John William of the
Palatinate appointed her in 1708 flower-painter to his court, and
treated her with great honour; some of the pictures painted for
him are in the Munich Gallery: the Museums of Amsterdam and
the Hague also possess fine examples of her work. She cuntinued
to paint till she was upwards of eighty years of age. She signed
herself Rachel Ruysch.

Jan van Huysum (1682-1749), of Amsterdam, was taught by his
father, Justus van Huysum, and painted in various styles: he is
remarkable for his laborious finish, which it would be difficult to
surpass, yet there is at times a want of ease and general harmony
of chiaroscuro in his groups; his materials are kept too much on
the same plain. As an illustration of the capricious fashion which
regulates prices—while a laboured fruit piece by Van Huysum,
No. 155 in the Amsterdam Museum, was bought at the Vander Pot
sale, at Rotterdam, in 1808, for 3,610 florins, the really more skil-
ful work of Kalf, No. 167 in the same collection, realized at the
sale of A. J. Brand at Amsterdam in 1821, the extracrdinary price
of 25 florins only ;—so much is there in a name. Van Huysum’s
flower piece, in the same Gallery, No. 156, painted in 1723, a
more masterly production than the fruit piece referred to, was
bought in 1735 for 450 florins. There are many fine specimens
of his work in this country, but it is scarcely possible that he
can have painted much more than half the flower pieces that are
attributed to him. ;

All the above painters were artists of the highest excellence in
their respective styles; they are not, however, much more than a
tithe of the respectable painters of Holland in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Those qualities which distinguished Dutch
458 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

art in the seventeenth century have been its characteristics through-
out, up to our time, and are so still.

Some of the landscape painters are not free from manner, espe-
cially Jan Both and Berchem: and all the most eminent Dutch
landscape painters have their distinctive characteristics. Berchem
is known by his positive local colours and smooth uniform texture
of surface for all objects; Both, by his misty atmosphere and spotty
dispersion of light; Cuyp, by a prevailing sunny evening effect and
general uniformity of colour with edgings of sunlight ; Wouverman,
Ruysdael, and Hobbema, however, are not distinguished by any
subjective peculiarity, their works being exact pictures of nature
under the ordinary aspect of daylight, yet with a cold atmosphere
generally. The execution of Wouverman is of the most masterly
in the whole province of art; and Ruysdael and Hobbema are dis-
tinguished for their excellent foliage, and the general natural aspect
of their pictures. The proposed limits of this work will not admit
of a more general notice of the very numerous masters of these
schools. The works of all amount to little else than a variety of
more or less exact examples of the same essential development of
art—imitation.

As the taste of art spreads with the increase of wealth, there will
be no lack either of the producers or the consumers of such works ;
they constitute an esthetic furniture, and are to the eye what music
is to the ear: though all picture collectors do not buy either for the
love of art, or upon esthetic principles of decoration, recent expe-
rience demonstrates only too clearly, that a great proportion of the
art expenditure of this and other countries arises out of the spirit
of commercial speculation.

I will close this chapter with a selection of a few conspicuous
names from those masters of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
turies who have most contributed to support the traditional reputa-
tion of their countrymen.

Jan van Os (1744-1808), of Middelharnis, was distinguished for
his flower pieces, after the manner of Van Huysum; but he painted
also marine views, and he wasa poet. He died at the Hague, where
his son Pierer Gerarp van Os was born, in 1776. After acquiring
the rudiments of his art from his father, Pieter became a student
of the works of Paul Potter, and was eventually the most distin-
guished Dutch animal painter of his time: he painted also a few
battle pieces, popular subjects during the French war, in which
Van Os served as a volunteer. He lived chiefly at the Hague,
where he died in 1839.

Jacop van Srry (1756-1815), of Dort, was remarkable for his
landscapes, which were generally such close imitations of Cuyp as
to be mistaken for the works of that master. His brother, ABRAHAM
DUTCH GENRE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTERS. 459

vaN Srry (1753-1826), of Dort, was also a good landscape and genre
painter: in the Museum at Amsterdam is a charming little picture
of a “Drawing Lesson” by this master, admirable in light and shade,
and in colour.

Of the later landscape painters, one of the most distinguished is
Batrwazar Paut OmmeEcanck (1755-1826), of Antwerp.

Jan Kopett (1782-1814), of Rotterdam, was a good painter of
animals; and Nico.as Bauer (1767-1820), of Harlingen, and Joan
Curisrian ScuoreL (1787-1838), of Dort, were both good marine
painters. Schotel has painted some admirable pictures in the style
of Bakhuizen, but with more effect and greater freedom of execu-
tion : he is the best Dutch marine painter, hitherto, of this century.
Seven of his works, large and small, were dispersed at the sale of
the King of Holland’s collection in 1850, at prices ranging between
2711. and 1807. A fine example is still in the State Gallery at the
Hague.

Wrnanp Jan Joseph Nuven, born at the Hague in 1813, was
the scholar of A. Schelfhout, a landscape painter; and though
he died young in 1839, he lived long enough to paint several
excellent sea-pieces, and to earn the reputation of being one of the
best marine painters of his time. The King of Holland, William IL.,
possessed six of Nuyen’s works, of which ‘Le Coup de Canon,” a
view of the Y, of Amsterdam, with a yacht firing a gun, is a cele-
brated picture: it was bought at the sale of 1850 by the Baron van
Brienen, for 375i.

Among the modern Dutch landscape painters, BAREND CoRNELIS
Korxxork, of Middelburg (1803-58), the son and pupil of J. H.
Koekkoek, a marine painter, is the most distinguished. He has
painted many large and admirable landscapes in the style of
Hobbema, whom, like our own Patrick Nasmyth, he adopted as
his prime model, both in his method of handling and treatment.’

1 Besides the works of Van Mander, Houbraken, Van Eynden, and Vander
Willigen, Immerzeel, and others more special, already referred to, the following are
of more or less good authority for Dutch and Flemish painters, and the most useful
for general reference :—De Bie, “Het gulden Cabinet van de edel vry Scliilder-
konst,” 4t0, Antwerp, 1661-2; Van Gool, “De Nieuwe Schouburg der Neder-
lJantsche Kunstschilders,” 2 vols. 8vo, The Hague, 1750; Passavant, “ Kunstreise
durch England und Belgien,” 8vo, Frankfurt, 1833; Schnaase, “ Niederlindische,
Briefe,’ 8vo, Stuttgart, 1834 ; Rathgeber, “ Annalen der Niederlandische Malerei,”
folio, Gotha, 1844; Michiels, “‘ Histoire de la Peinture Flamande et Hollandaise,”
4 vols. 8vo, Brussels, 1845-8; Crowe and Cavaleaselle, “Notices of the early
Flemish Painters,” &c., 8vo, London, 1857; Bitrger, “Musées de la Hollande,”’
2 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1858-60; the “Catalogue du Musée d’Anvers, 12mo. 1849 ”
(the second and much improved edition of 1857 is very important for the Flemish
painters: it was reprinted in 1861) ; the “ Notice des Tableaux du Musée d’Amster-
dam,” 12mo, 1858, which has fac-similes of signatures; Waagen, “ Handbook of
Painting : German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools,” London, Svo, 1860, or “ Handbuch
460 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

der deutschen und niederlaindischen Malerschulen,” 8vo, Stuttgart, 1862; Weale,
“ Catalogue du Musée de l’Académie de Bruges,’ 12mo, London, 1861; and his
“Le Beffroi,” important for the school of Bruges, 4to, 1st vol., 1863; Christiaan
Kramm, “De Levens en Werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche Kunstschilders
Beeldhouwers, Graveurs en Bouwmeesters, van den vroegsten tot op onzen tijd,”
2 vols. 8vo, 1857-63 ; and the brief Dictionary in course of publication by Adolphe
Siret, useful as regards the Dutch and Flemish artists, but I do not recommend it
for any other—* Dictionnaire historique des Peintres de toutes les Ecoles, depuis
lOrigine de la Peinture jusqu’s nos Jours,” 8vo, 1862-4. Itis somewhat remarkable
that Kramm has treated his work as a supplement only to Immerzeel’s, yet his is
twice the size of Immerzeel’s: Kramm does not supersede Immerzeel.

 

Still-life—Kalf.
461

CHAPTER XXXII.

PAINTING IN FRANCE—DISTINCTIVELY CHARACTERIZED BY A MARKED
INFLUENCE OF THE ANTIQUE—ABUSE OF THE IDEAL OF FORM—DAVID
—REACTION.

Tue French school of painting was, until the latter part of the
eighteenth century, in all respects a branch of the schools of Italy.
The earliest mature development dates from the reign of Francis L.,
who appears to have been a sincere lover of Italian art, and, as
already indicated elsewhere, employed many distinguished Italian
artists in France: what is termed the French school arose out of
the examples left by these Italians at Fontainebleau.

The principal masters who engrafted the Italian principles of art
among the French, were—I1 Rosso, Primaticcio, and Niccolo dell’
Abbate.

The earliest French painters of distinction, and the only able
masters who cannot be said to belong to this Italianized school of
the sixteenth century, were Jean Foucquet, the three Clouets, and
Jean Cousin; who belonged rather to what is termed the Gothic
school, than the Italian cinguecento, and painted somewhat in the
manner of the Van Eycks and the school of Bruges, though with
far less knowledge and ability than is displayed by the early
Flemish painters.

Jean Foucquer was in 1472 painter to Louis XI.; he was a
native of Tours, and appears to have been chiefly a miniature
painter and illuminator: the accounts of him extend from 1461
down to 1485. He painted a Book of Hours, for the Duchess of
Orleans, in 1472; and he furnished the king, for a design for his
tomb, in 1474, a coloured drawing on parchment, for which he
was paid seven francs five sous. Michel Colombe, the sculptor,
received at the same time thirteen francs fifteen sous, for the model
of a tomb for the king. Foucquet illuminated a celebrated Book
of Hours, and a Boccaccio, for Etienne Chevalier, the Treasurer of
Louis XI.; the first is dispersed, the second is at Munich. The
Library of Paris possesses a Josephus, illuminated partly by
Foucquet; and the Gallery of Antwerp has a “ Virgin and Child,”
attributed to him. The Virgin is said to be a portrait of Agnes
Sorel, the beautiful mistress of Charles VII., who died in 1450,
and is assumed to have been painted for Etienne Chevalier, who
dedicated the picture, and a portrait of himself, also by Foucquet,
in the church of Notre-Dame at Melun. The latter portrait is in the
462 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

collection of M. Brentano Laroche, at Frankfort, who possesses also
the greater portion of the Book of Hours, formerly belonging to
M. Chevalier; one miniature of which, ‘‘ The Vision of a Knight,”
was among the Rogers Drawings, sold in 1856. The Virgin at
Antwerp is pale and flat, like many of the feebler portraits of the
Clouets.!

The three Clouets have been hitherto confounded into one, Fran-
gois Clouet, the youngest, who is commonly called Jeannet; which
is simply the Christian name (John) of the two elder painters of the
name—JeHANNEr Cover, father and son. They appear to have
been originally Flemish: the elder Jean Clouet, who was living at
‘Brussels in 1475, arrived in France shortly after that date, and
settled at Tours, about 1480.

JEHAN Covet, the son, who came with his father from Brussels,
and died at Paris in 1541, was painter to Francis I. in 1518,? and
the veritable portraits of Jeannet belong to this painter, not to
Frangois Clouet,.who has hitherto had the credit of painting nearly
all the French portraits of the sixteenth century. Jeannet’s salary
was 240 francs a-year, then worth perhaps as many pounds now:
he is the painter of the equestrian portrait of Francis I, in the
Gallery at Florence, attributed to Holbein, of which there are
several repetitions; and also of the half-length portrait on panel
of the same king, at Versailles, in light gray satin, which has been
attributed to Mabuse. He has not written his name on any picture.

Francois Crovet (about 1510-74), the son of Jehan Clouet and
Jehanne Boucault, the daughter of a jeweller of Tours, from the
celebrity of his father, was also called Jeannet, which became a
species of surname, and the works of the son have been so con-
founded with those of the father that the very existence of the
latter has been overlooked, notwithstanding the father was more
able, says M. de Laborde, though much less fortunate, than his son.
Frangois had already succeeded his father as painter to the king in
1541, and there is a portrait of Francis by him in Lord Ward’s
collection: he was also painter to Henry II. In 1547 he painted
the portrait of Francis II. as a little boy, inscribed Frangot Dauphin,
which is now in the Museum at Antwerp, and ascribed also to
Holbein. Frangois painted the portraits of Henry II. and Catherine
de’ Medici several times; and also the Cardinal de Lorraine, and
others, for Catherine’s Cabinet doré, at the Luxembourg, which are

' De Laborde, “La Renaissance des Arts,” &c. Additions to Vol. i., p. 691,
Paris, 1855.

2“ Maistre Jannet Clouet, Painctre et Varlet de Chambre Ordinaire du Roi.”
“A Maistre Jehannet, Vun des Painctres du Roy.” ‘“ Jehannot Clouet, Painctre du
Roi.” Le Comte de Laborde, “‘La Renaissance des Arts 3 la Cour de France,”
1850; Additions au Tome Premier, 1855. Mariette possessed a medal inscribed—
JEHANNET CLovet Picror Franc. Reais.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 463

now lost. Lord Carlisle’s picture of Catherine and her Family, at
Castle Howard, is, in the opinion of Count de Laborde, certainly
not by this painter. The Louvre possesses Charles IX. and his
Queen, by him.

A fourth Clouet, the brother of “Jeannet,” was employed by the
King and Queen of Navarre, in 1529, with a salary of 200 francs.

Of Jean Cousin, living in 1560, when he was engaged at the
Chateau d’Anet, scarcely any facts are known: he is said to have
been born at Soucy, near Sens, in 1492; and was thrice married.
He was painter, sculptor, architect, and writer; and is celebrated
for his picture, in the Louvre, of the ‘ Last Judgment,” which
has been engraved in twelve plates by P. de Jode: it is minute,
hard, and florid. He appears to have been originally a painter on
glass, and he executed some works of this class at Sens in 1530;
and at other places.also at a later period of his life. The beautiful
Renaissance monument of Louis de Brézé in Rouen Cathedral, more
probably the work of Jean Goujon,' is by some attributed to
Cousin: and he was the author of a ‘Livre de Pourtraiture,”
folio, Paris, 1603, illustrated with woodcuts of the human figure.

I have stated above, with reference to the salaries of the Clouets,
that a franc may have been at that time of nearly equal value
with a pound sterling at the present day. This is founded on the
calculations of M. Deville,? who, in comparing the prices of labour
and provisions in Normandy in 1508 with those of 1849, found the
proportion to be as'1 to 18. A skilled mason could in the earlier
date be hired for 6 and 7 sous the day, and a common labourer for
2sous. Two hundred and forty francs per annum was, therefore,
more than double the wages of a skilled artizan, and must be con-
sidered a fair ordinary stipend for a painter, who was doubtless
paid for his works besides.

Of the successors of Cousin, the principal was Martin Freminer,
born at Paris, 24th September, 1567. In 1592 he visited Italy,
where he studied chiefly the works of Michelangelo and Parmigiano.
After his return to France, he was in 1603 appointed to succeed
Dumonstier as principal painter to Henri IV., and employed at
Fontainebleau, where he painted. the ceiling in the chapel, for
which he ‘was decorated with the order of St. Michael by Maria
de’ Medici in 1615. Freminet died at Paris, June the 18th, 1619,
and was buried in the Abbey des Barbeaux, near Melun. ‘ Mer-
cury admonishing Aineas,” in the Louvre, is a good example of his
forcible but mannered work.

Both Cousin and Freminet are, among many others, good ex-

1 See Deville, “ Tombeaux de la Cathedrale de Rouen,” 8vo, Rouen, 1837.
2 «Comptes de Depenses de Ja Construction du Ciateau de Gaillon,” 4to, Paris,
1850.
464 ; THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

amples of the ill effect of injudicious hero-worship in art. Dazzled
by great names, and perhaps still more fascinated by the hope of
equal success in a material sense, inferior minds, in which the
love of art is subjected to the love of self, bring about their own
abasement, by becoming, instead of students of nature and masters
of art, mere slavish propagators of the faults and manner of others.

The two Poussins and Claude have been already noticed in
Chapter XXVIII; though French by birth or descent, they are
not otherwise connected with the development or progress of paint-
ing in France. Nicolas Poussin’s early education was French, but
he formed his style in Italy; Gaspar Poussin was a native Roman;
and Claude also, as a painter, was of purely Italian development.

Of the new school the first distinguished French master was
Simon Vover, born at Paris, January 9th, 1590, and there he
died June 30th, 1649; he is sometimes dignified with the title of
the founder of the French school of painting. In 1611 Vouet
visited Constantinople, where he painted the Sultan, Achmet L,
after having had but a single interview with him. From Turkey
he went to Italy, and was greatly attracted by the works of Paul
Veronese at Venice, and of Caravaggio at Rome. His reputation
procured him a pension from Louis XIII., and he was elected
president of the Academy of St. Luke at Rome. In 1627 Louis
recalled him to Paris, appointed him his principal painter, and
gave him apartments in the Louvre. Though an artist of great
distinction in his time, he is still more celebrated for the number
of his able scholars, among whom were several of the greatest
painters of France, as Le Brun, Le Sueur, Dufresnoy, Pierre
Mignard, and Testelin. There was much of the mere machinist
in Vouet’s works. The same may be said of his contemporary,
Jacques BrancuaRrD (1600-1638), the once styled “French Titian.”
Jacques STELLA (1596-1657) was another contemporary competitor
for fame: he remained long in Italy, was patronized by Cardinal
Richelieu, and is distinguished for his Madonnas; but his later
works are very carelessly executed. VaLeytin (1600-1632), likewise
of the same period, and of the school of Vouet, adopted the style
of Caravaggio, and became one of the most distinguished masters
of the naturalist school at Rome, where ‘he chiefly resided, and died.
His Christian name is not known.

The seventeenth century, however, or the reign of Louis XIV.,
was the great age of the Italian school of painting in France: to
this period belong its two most celebrated masters, Eustache
Lesueur and Charles Le Brun.

Evusracue Lesveur, born at Paris, November, 1617, though the
ablest French painter of the seventeenth century, had no influence
on the art of his time; his predominant religious tendency was not
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 465

in accordance with the spirit of the age; and although he was, after
his death, and is now, acknowledged as a great painter, his works
were not appreciated in his lifetime, except by those who imagined
it to be their interest to depreciate them—Le Brun and his followers.
Le Brun is said to have openly expressed his satisfaction at the early
death of Lesueur, who died at Paris at the early age of thirty-seven
years, April the 30th, 1655. It is remarkable that Lesueur, one of
the most /talian of the French painters, never left Paris; he is
called the French Raphael, the prints after whose works he must
evidently have diligently studied: some of his masterpieces are
worthy of that great painter in style, though they are rather
histrionic than dramatic in their composition ; studied arrangement is
too obvious: this is true of his greatest work—‘‘St. Paul preaching at
Ephesus,” and “ The Gentiles burning their proscribed Books,”
painted in 1649, in his thirty-second year.’ Still Lesueur approached
Raphael in the character of his heads, the style of his compositions,
and the arrangements of his draperies, perhaps more nearly than
any of his Italian imitators. His great series of pictures illustrating
the life of St. Bruno is equal to any similar work of modern art,
notwithstanding the monotonous dulness of their colouring.

CuHARLEs LE Brun, born at Paris the 24th of February, 1619, where
he also died on the 12th of the same month, 1690, was a more
characteristic exponent of the spirit of his times than Lesueur: war
and tumult are the elements of his style: his masterpieces are the
five battles of Alexander, painted doubtless in adulation of his
master Louis XIV.; they are well known from the prints of Gerard
Audran. There is great vigour but little real taste and less refine-
ment of sentiment in the works of Le Brun. He studied under
Poussin, at Rome, but made the Carracci his models. He enjoyed
the friendship and benefited by the influence of Colbert, and was
elected, in 1655, the first Director of the Academy of Painting,
established by Louis XIV., in Paris, in 1648. The principal con-
temporaries of these painters, requiring special notice, were Pierre
and Nicolas Mignard, Philippe de Champaigne, Louis Testelin,
Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy, Sebastien Bourdon, Jacques Courtois
called Bourguignon, and Joseph Parrocel.

Pierre Mienarp, called the Roman, to distinguish him from his
brother Nicolas, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in November,
1610, and died at Paris, May the 13th, 1695. He-was an excellent
portrait painter. After painting some time with Vouet, he studied
in Italy, residing many years at Rome, where he was honoured with

1 Engraved by Stephen Picart and R. U. Massard. This was the so-called Mai
picture; that is the picture presented annually on the 1st of May by the goldsmiths
of Paris to the cathedral of Notre Dame, in honour of the Virgin. This custom
ceased in 1708.

25
466 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the patronage of three popes—Urban VIII., Innocent X., and
Alexander VII. His chief model was Annibale Carracci. Mignard
returned to France in 1657, and in the following year painted the
portrait of Louis XIV. for the Infanta of Spain. He then painted
his vast fresco of Paradise, on the interior of the dome of the
Hospital of Val-de-Grace, for the Queen-mother, Anne of Austria.
In 1664, the Roman Academicians of St. Luke elected Mignard
their President. And in 1690, he succeeded Le Brun as principal
painter to the king, and was elected in his place Chancellor of the
Academy, though not previously a member of that institution. His
jealousy of Lebrun would not suffer him to hold an inferior position
to that painter: the influence of Mignard, through the favour of
Louvais, is said to have hastened the death of Le Brun.

Mignard enjoyed the friendship of Moliére, who addressed to him
some complimentary verses, ‘“‘ La Gloire du Val-de-Grace,”! on his
painting of the cupola of the Val-de-Grace. In the Louvre is a
portrait of Madame de Maintenon, by this painter.

His countryman Poussin did not think much of Mignard’s
portraits : in writing to his friend Chantelou, in 1648, he says, “I
would have already had my portrait taken, and sent to you, as you
wish for it, but I have no inclination to spend ten pistoles on such
heads as Mignard’s, which are, nevertheless, the best here, notwith-
standing they are cold, artificial in colour, and without force or
vigour—froides, fardées, sans force ni vigueur.”

Nicouas Mienarp (1605-1668), called d’Avignon, where he prin-
cipally resided, also excelled in portraits, and attained the distinction
of Rector of the Academy of Painting.

One of the most able in every way, of all the painters in France
at this period, was Puitipre pe Cuamparcne, the friend of Poussin,
and already noticed.” He went so early to Paris, in 1621, where he
settled, that he may perhaps be as justly claimed by the French as
by the Flemish school. He was made one of the original professors
of the French Academy of Painting, and is seen only to complete
advantage in the Louvre, where there are no less than twenty-one
pictures by him, from religious history, and ancient mythology ;
portraits and landscapes. Among the portraits are those of Mansard,
Perrault, himself, and his own daughter, a nun of Port-Royal, known
as St. Suzanne. The last is pronounced by some the painter’s
masterpiece : she was associated with some miracle. The picture
is signed and dated : Pumirpus pe CHAMPAIGNE HANC IMAGINEM TANTI
MIRACULI, ET LETITIA SU TESTEM Apposurr. A° 1662.

Louis Tesrexin, of Paris (1615-1655), the friend and assistant of
Le Brun, was one of the original members of the Royal Academy of

1 L’Abbé de Monville, “La Vie de Pierre Mignard,” Amsterdam, 1731.
2 Oh, xxx., p. 414.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 467

Painting, in 1648, and became one of the twelve Anciens, or professors,
in 1650. His brother Henri was the first secretary of the Academy.
Testelin was one of the best masters of his time, but was of a retiring,
modest disposition, and little calculated to assume an eminent position
in an age of courtiers: he had the additional disadvantage of being
-a Protestant, and he died young. He, however, painted two of the
Mai pictures for the goldsmiths of Paris: one in 1652, and the
other in 1655, his last work; it represented the ‘“ Flagellation of
Paul and Silas at Philippi.”

Cuartes ALpHonse Durresnoy, of Paris (1611-1665), was essentially
the learned painter of his time, not only in classical literature, but
also in antiquities, perspective, and anatomy; and his pictures are
consequently scarce ; they are careful, and correct in their forms, but
want the animation of natural truth. Dufresnoy went early to
Rome, and his peculiar tastes and studies among the ancient remains,
and of the works of the old masters, developed a mind rather precise
than comprehensive. He is now chiefly known for his Latin poem
on Painting—in 549 lines, De Arte Graphicd, published after his
death by his intimate friend and former fellow-pupil with Vouet,
Pierre Mignard. De Piles translated it into French, and we have
a good English version by William Mason, to which Sir Joshua
Reynolds has added some very valuable notes... Dufresnoy’s subjects
were various—history, landscape, architecture.

Sesastien Bourpon (1616-1671) was another able and very versa-
tile painter of this period. He was a native of Montpelier, prose-
cuted his education in Paris, and studied some time in Italy. His
reputation was established in 1643, by his ‘Crucifixion of St.
Peter,” now in the Louvre, and he was one of the original twelve
Anciens of the Academy, in 1648; but, being a Protestant, he left
Paris, and settled for many years in Sweden, where he was appointed
principal painter to Queen Christina ; however, after her abdication,
Bourdon returned to France; and he died at Paris, Rector of the
Academy of Painting. He is distinguished for his landscapes,
which are somewhat in the taste of Nicolas Poussin and Salvator
Rosa, and have a wild, melancholy character; and, like many of his
contemporaries, he was also a skilful master with the etching needle :
his ‘‘Seven Acts of Mercy” are fine compositions. The National
Gallery possesses a characteristic example of his landscapes, which
belonged formerly to Sir Joshua Reynolds. His great subject pieces
are as often profane as sacred, and among his minor works are genre
pictures in imitation of the Dutch masters. There are two portraits
of Sebastien Bourdon in the Louvre; one entirely by himself, the
other by himself and Rigaud, was given by the latter to the
‘Academy of Painting as his presentation picture.

‘See “The Complete Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds,” &c., vol. iii, 12mo.

M‘Lean, London, 1824.
2H 2
468 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

At this time were two famous battle-painters—Jacquus Courrois
(1621-76) commonly called Bourevienon, remarkable for his spirited
execution ; who livéd chiefly in Italy, and died a Jesuit, at Rome:
and JosePH Parrocen (1648-1704), a similar painter to Bourguignon,
but who gave a more varied expression to his figures.

Among the remarkable French painters of this age were the.
three brothers Ley arn—Lours, ANTOINE, and Martuiev, who, unim-
pressed with any particular desire to emulate the labours of their
countrymen in the province of high art, were, in the spirit of
the Dutch artists, content to reproduce the common life around
them, and even in such few religious works as they painted,
like Velazquez in his early works, they portrayed the simple
people around them, invariably painting from nature. They
painted the so-called Bambocciate, and were among the first French
genre painters, but were likewise good portrait-painters, especially
in miniature. They were born at Laon in the latter part of the
sixteenth century. AwNroINneE, the second, was established as a master
in’ Paris in 1629, and Mathieu, the youngest, in 1633. All three
were admitted into the Academy of Painting in 1648; -and the
two elder, Louis and Antoine, died in March in that same year,
within a few days of each other; Mathieu survived many years,
until August the 20th, 1677, and must have attained to a great
age. The last was more especially the genre painter, but their
works are seldom distinguished, the simple name of Lenain being
common to all the productions of the three brothers. The Louvre
contains, by them, one picture with life-sized figures, a nativity,
called ‘The Cradle,” and three with small figures, “ A Farrier
at his Forge,” “The Watering Place,” and “‘ The Village Meal.”

Jean JouvENET, born at Rouen in 1644, settled in Paris in 1661,
and became an imitator of Poussin, who had been taught by Jean’s
grandfather, Noel Jouvenet. He was employed by Le Brun at
Versailles, rose rapidly to distinction, and eventually died at Paris,
April 5th, 1717, Rector of the Academy of Painting, a post he
had held for ten years. His last works were painted with his
left hand, he having lost the use of his right by an attack of
paralysis in 1713. Jouvenet painted in oil and in fresco, and
he belongs to the able academic painters of the eighteenth century,
whose works are for the most part void of sentiment; the effect of
the subject being lost in the obtrusiveness of the means employed to
represent it. His masterpiece, a “ Descent from the Cross,” painted
in 1697, and now in the Salon Carré of the Louvre, is dramatic
in composition, and effective in colour, in spite of its prevailing
brown; but it fails to attract by any higher qualities. Like
Le Sueur, he was entirely home-bred; neither ever visited ltaly,

1 Villot, “ Notice des Tableaux du Louvre, Ecole Frangaise,” Paris, 1861.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 469

a circumstance much boasted of by the French. Jouvenet, however,
scarcely approached Le Sueur in dignity and character, though
he must be considered on the whole a superior painter to Le Brun.

Hyacinrae Ricaup was the great representative of portrait-
painting in France at this period; he is said to have limited
himself to this branch of the art by the advice of Le Brun.
Rigaud was born at Perpignan, July 20th, 1659, and though
distinguished only as a portrait-painter, was, as a special honour, in
1700, admitted into the Academy as an historical painter, having
submitted a sketch of the ‘“ Crucifixion.” He died at Paris, a
Chevalier of the Order of St. Michel, December 27th, 1743. His
works are well composed and well drawn, and are said to have had
the essential merit of resemblance, but they are too uniformly
finished, and are far from justifying the flattering title given}to him
by his countrymen of the French Vandyck: his portraits do not
approach those of Vandyck, either in freedom of execution or in
dignity of bearing. His pictures amount to many hundreds.

Rigaud devoted himself exclusively to portrait-painting, a restric-
tion common at the present day, but then exceedingly rare.
Portrait-painters as a class were not yet recognized by the French
Royal Academy. Rigaud’s chief rival, Largilliére, was also land-
scape and animal painter, though distinguished only for his
portraits, more especially of women.

To the above may be added the following, as eminent painters of
the seventeenth century, though adding nothing to the art of ‘their
time—Bon pe Boutoeye, son of Louis de Boulogne, born at Paris
in 1649, where he also died in 1617, excelled in fresco and in
oil-painting ; but his works belong rather to the ornamental than the
expressive: he was a good imitator of the manners of Italian masters,
many of whom he studied during a long residence in Italy. He was
elected a member of the Academy of Paris in 1677, and among
many other important decorative works of the time of Louis XIV.,
executed some of the frescoes of the cupola of the Hétel des
Invalides. He commonly signed his name Boulogne Painé, to
distinguish him from his brother, Louis de Boulogne the younger.

Cuartes pb Larosse (1636-1716), also of Paris, who gained some
reputation likewise in this country for his decorations of old Mon-
tague House, was a pupil of Le Brun, and an imitator in a manner of
Paul Veronese; and was a good colourist: he too distinguished
himself by his works at the ‘‘Invalides.” But all such painting as
that which was most in vogue in the time of Louis XIV. is, really,
when compared with the truly ethic work of the great painters
of the cinquecento, or even with the higher art of the present day in
Europe generally, a mere superior class of decorative art; and is
only esthetic as far as it is suitably decorative. Lafosse’s easel

1 See “ Mémoires Inédits des Membres de l’Académie Royale,” vol. ii., 1854.
470 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

pictures, those with small figures especially, are of a higher
character. He was received into the French Academy in 1673,
and was Chancellor of that institution when he died.

Antoine Covrer (1661-1722), educated at Rome by his father
Nog Coype, (1628-1707), who held the post of Director of the
French Academy there, in 1672-5, is accused of having been
too uniformly French in his treatment of his subjects and cha-
racters. He was the friend of La Fontaine and Racine, and was
himself a poet. Coypel died Director of the Academy of the Arts
in Paris, and as principal painter to Louis XV. He painted
the ceiling of the Chapel of Versailles.

Jean Baptiste Monyoyer, the flower-painter, commonly called
Baptistx, born at Lille in 1634, was also a celebrity of this period,
and became a member of the French Academy at Paris in 1665.
He was employed by Le Brun at Versailles, and was eventually,
about 1680, invited to England by the Duke of Montague, then
British Ambassador at Paris. He remained henceforth in this
country, and died in London in 1699. Here he was much
employed, and acquired a great reputation by his beautiful composi-
tions of peonies, poppies, tulips, and roses, generally grouped
in marble vases. At Hampton Court are still many of Monnoyer’s
pictures, and though not so highly elaborated as those of Van
Huysum, they are uniformly masterly in execution, and in their
original state must have been brilliant in their effect. N1coLas
LarGi.uiire, of Paris (1656-1746), who acted some years as Sir Peter
Lely’s assistant in this country, and was received into the French
Academy for a portrait of Le Brun in 1686, and finally attained the
rank of Chancellor of the Academy, had so far acquired a taste for
the accessory branches of the art from his Flemish master Antoine
Goubeau, tbat he constantly painted pictures of animals, landscapes,
fruit, flowers, and such subjects, besides freely employing them as
accessory to his figure pieces.

Of the eighteenth century there are still fewer and less brilliant
names to chronicle than of the seventeenth; in this century, how-
ever, the genre painters become much more prominent, some few
attaining a lasting fame. Anrome Warreau, the son of a carpenter,
who was born at Valenciennes in 1684, and died young at Nogent-
sur-Marne, near Paris, July 18th, 1721, was greatly distinguished
for his fétes-champétres and conversation pieces, excellent pictures
of the court-life and manners of the age of Louis XIV. Though
Watteau’s works are to a great extent costume pictures, yet, as he so
thoroughly accomplished the task he set himeelf, he is justly placed
among the great artists of his time: in general effect of colour
he was a miniature Paul Veronese. In the Louvre is the “ Em-
barkation of Venus for the Island of Cythera,” painted for his
reception into the French Academy in 1717. He paid a short visit
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 471

to this country in 1720, but found the climate too trying for him:
he appears to have died of consumption.

Niconas Lancret, of Paris (1690-1743), an imitator of Wattean, has
given us similar pictures of the time of Louis XV. His works,
though displaying less facility than those of his great model, are
often more carefully executed. Lancret was admitted a member of
the French Academy, as a painter of Fétes Galantes, in 1719.

Jean Baptiste JoserH Pater, of Valenciennes (1696-1736), also
painted excellent pictures in the style of Watteau, and with perhaps
a more solid method of execution: he was nevertheless an imitator.
He learnt the practice of his art under a painter of the name of
Cazes, then became the assistant of N. N. Coypel, and first distin-
guished himself as a sign-painter.

Jean Baptiste Simeon CuarpiIn was another excellent painter
of conversation pieces, somewhat resembling Hogarth in style
of execution. He was the son of a carpenter, was born in Paris,
November 2nd, 1699, was made a member of the Academy on
the 25th September, 1728,’ pensionnaire du Roy in 1752, was
given apartments in the Louvre in 1757, and died December 6th,
1779. Chardin’s subjects are various; the best are two or three
small figures together, so true to nature and so skilfully handled,
that, unlike Watteau or Lancret, who everywhere obtrude the
pencil, he makes you forget the art employed, in the natural
interest you take in what it has produced. He was also admirable
as a painter of “still-life ;” his reputation among his contemporaries
was gained chiefly by his pictures of this class.

Animal-painters were also well represented by the French
school of this century. Francois Desporres (1661-1743) was
among the principal of these; he practised for some years in
Poland, but in 1699 was admitted a member of the Academy of
Painting in Paris. He painted animals—but especially dogs, land-
scapes, and flowers—worthy of the best of the Flemings; and
he was at the same time a skilful figure painter. His own portrait,
by himself, as a sportsman, with a dog and dead game, is in the
Louvre. Louis XIV. took great delight in the works of Desportes.

Jean Barrisre Ovpry (1686-1755), a pupil of Largillidre,
though he painted in many departments, and was received as an
historical painter into the Academy in 1719, owes his reputation
to his painting of animals, in which he was much employed by
Louis XV. He was a master of great taste and refinement,
and a most skilful colourist. It was the despair of surpassing
Desportes and Oudry which made Chardin forsake still-life for genre-
painting.

1 As painter of “ Flews, fruits, et sujets & caractéres.” “ Gazette des Beaux-Arts,”
December, 1863. See also Mariette, “ Abecedario,” vol. i, p. 356, note.
472 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Of this age, in historical painting, perhaps the prince was Francois
Lemorne, a native of Paris, where he was born in 1688. He studied
under Louis Galloche, became a member of the Academy in 1718,
and in 1733 was nominated professor. In 1724 he for the first time
visited Italy, where he spent a few months only, and became fasci-
nated by the gorgeous decorative works of Lanfranco and Pietro da
Cortona, with whom Lemoine was a kindred spirit. He painted in
fresco and in oil, and his “‘Apotheosis of Hercules,” completed in 1736,
painted in oil on canvas, and fixed to the ceiling of the Salon
d’Hercule at Versailles, is perhaps the most magnificent monument
of decorative painting in France, of an essentially decorative period ;
it contains one hundred and forty-two figures. It is, however, in
the superficial style of his model, Pietro da Cortona, and is strictly
a pittura di macchina ; it is sixty-four feet by fifty-four, and the ground,
which represents the blue vault of heaven, cost the painter, it is
said, ten thousand francs for ultramarine. Louis XV. was so well
pleased with this work that he gave Lemoine the post of principal
painter to the King, vacant since the death of Louis de Boulogne ;
but as he had not also the honours and emoluments granted to Le
Brun when holding that rank, he was deeply disappointed, and this
being added to the aggravations caused by the hostile criticism of
rivals, at a time when his spirits were depressed by the death of
his wife, a nervous weakness was superinduced, which brought on
chronic aberration of mind, and in a fit of insanity he destroyed
himself, on the 4th of June, 1737, only ten months after the com-
pletion of his great work.

The principal contemporaries and followers of Lemoine, who
enjoyed great reputations in their day, were Detroy, Restout,
Subleyras, Charles Natoire, Boucher, and Carle Vanloo.

Jean-Francois Dernoy, of Paris (1679-1752), of a numerous family
of artists, and the son of Francois Detroy, a portrait-painter, studied
some years in Italy, and was admitted into the Academy of Paris in
1708. He was made Director of the French Academy at Rome in 1738,
and Chevalier of the Order of Saint Michel, and in 1743 was elected
President of the Roman Academy of St. Luke: he died in Rome.
Detroy’s works are, like those of most of his French contempo-
raries, varied in their subjects and styles; he was equally at home
with great altar-pieces for the churches, classic and other stories for
the Gobelins’ tapestries, and genre scenes for the cabinet; often
abounding in ability, but careless, and too frequently reckless in
execution. He was one of those most jealous of Lemoine. The
Louvre possesses one of Detroy’s principal works, painted in 1732,
representing Henri IV. holding the first chapter of the Order of the
“Saint-Esprit,” in the convent of the Grands-Augustins.

Jean Restour, of Rouen (1692-1768), was a scholar of Jouvenet,
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 473

became a member of the Academy in 1720, and eventually attained
the rank of Chancellor of that institution in 1761. He was an
imitator of Jouvenet in style, and was equally heavy in colouring.
His principal work is the ceiling of the library of Sainte-Genevieve.

The Louvre is rich in the works of Pierre Susieryras, of Uzes
(1699-1749), though he lived and painted chiefly in and for Italy.
He went to Italy in 1728, as pensioner of the king, Louis XV.;
married an Italian, became a member of the Roman Academy of
St. Luke, and died in Rome. His ‘‘ Mass of St. Basil,” painted in
1745, of which the sketch is now in the Louvre, was executed in
mosaic for St. Peter’s, by order of Pope Benedict XIV. Subleyras
was less mannered than his Parisian rivals.

Onartes Josera Natorre, of Nismes (1700-1777), was chiefly distin-
guished for his frescoes and decorative works; the greatest, the paint-
ings of the chapel of the Foundling Hospital at Paris, were long
since destroyed. He was one of the most successful of the pupils of
Lemoine, and obtained so great a reputation in his day, that it is
difficult to reconcile it with his present obscurity; yet the fate of
most of these Louis Quatorze and Louis Quinze reputations, in
what is termed high art, par excellence, has been very similar; the
despised genre painters have stood the test of time far better. Le
Brun and the other great men of the age were the creatures of the
habits and fashions of the day; Watteau, Chardin, Desportes and
others, became eminent in spite of the prevailing taste of the period,
made the real life of their time the subject of their works, and have
become accordingly its only true historical exponents.

Natoire became a member of the Academy of Painting in 1734;
professor in 1737, and in 1751 was appointed Director of the French
Academy in Rome—a post he held until 1774, when he retired to
Castel’ Gandolfo, where he died. He was a Chevalier of the Order
of Saint Michel. ,

The mannerism, however, of the French painters, culminated in
the works of Francois Boucuer, of Paris (1704-1770), who appears to
have discovered a new race of human beings. He went to Italy in
1727, with Carle Vanloo, and returned to Paris in 1731. He was
admitted into the Academy the same year as Natoire, 1734. He
became Director of the Academy in 1765, and succeeded Vanloo,
with a salary of 6,000 francs, as principal painter to Louis XV. in
that year. He was made also superintendent of the tapestry manu-
factory at Beauvais, a function for which his peculiar taste well
fitted him, The talents and facilities of Boucher were remarkable;
as mere pieces of decorative painting, his works are generally beau-
tiful, but his forms, as well as his colouring, are wholly factitious.
He executed every kind of work, but in a uniform taste; and it
was his taste, not his art, which was at fault; for if ever a painter
474 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

thoroughly accomplished the task he set himself, this, Boucher cer-
tainly did: however, the best of his work is but pretty decoration,
yet in his own way it would be extremely difficult to surpass him.
He had many imitators, and his influence was corruptive.

Cuaries-ANpRE, called Cari, Vantoo, of Nice (1705-1765), was
the last of the great French mannerists of the eighteenth century.
After distinguishing himself in Rome, he returned to Paris, and was
elected a member of the Academy in 1735; he was made a Chevalier
of the Order of Saint-Michel in 1751, principal painter to the King
in 1762, and Director of the Academy in the following year. He
painted with equal skill in fresco and in oil. He too had a vicious
influence on the art of his time; it became so purely conventional
that scarcely a trace of nature was left in the composition of the
materials of even the best decorative schemes, any more, where men
and women were the actors, than in those purely ornamental acces-
sory works which constitute the characteristic decoration of the
period of Louis Quinze—the scroll and shell, and the other fan-
tastic forms composing the vast mass of the ornamental devices of
the gilded chambers of the sumptuous Palace of Versailles.

The varieties of painting successfully developed in France during
the seventeenth century, had their honourable representatives also in
the eighteenth : Vernet, Greuze, Casanova, and Leprince, are all dis-
tinguished names in their several departments of landscape and genre.

CraubE JosepH VERNET (1714-1789), a native of Avignon, was one
of the most distinguished of the French landscape-painters of the
old school, when originality of genius was thought more of than
the representation of nature. He was educated as an_ historical
painter, but was led to follow marine landscape by the beautiful
scenery of Genoa. After earning a reputation in Italy by the
labours of about twenty years, he was invited to return to France
by Louis XV., and was elected a member of the Academy in 1753.
It was in this year that he received his commission from the French
king to paint the views of the seaports of France, of which fifteen
are now in the Louvre; they are engraved by Le Bas and Cochin.
Vernet was laborious and accurate in his execution, but too uniform
in the elaboration of the details: his groups of figures are prim and
out of place, and he was monotonous and extremely cold in colour-
ing. The best, perhaps, as pictures, are his earlier works, painted
in Italy: his storm scenes are among the most successful. Among
his better works also must be reckoned the “Castle of Sant? Angelo,
Rome,” painted in 1750, now in the National Gallery... However
cleverly executed a landscape may be in other respects, if it is arti-
ficially or conventionally coloured, the consciousness of the presence
of paint becomes obtrusive and oppressive, and almost wholly pre-
cludes ‘enjoyment from what real merits the picture may possess ;
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 475

this drawback is so palpable in some of Vernet’s works as to make
them actually offensive. Some of Claude’s pictures, especially his
marine views, also suffer from the same character of artificial
colouring: nor was our own Wilson wholly free from it; but the
greater freedom of execution in the works of Wilson makes the
defect less conspicuous and therefore less mischievous. ANTUINE
Cuartes Horace Vernet, commonly called Carte Verner (1758-
1835), of Bordeaux, was the son of Joseph and the father of the
celebrated Horace Vernet. He was a battle-painter, and excelled in
his treatment of horses. Carle distinguished himself by two great
works—the ‘Battle of Marengo,” 1804; and the “Morning of the
Battle of Austerlitz,” 1808; for which Napoleon decorated him with
the Cross of the Legion of Honour; he was also a Chevalier of
the Order of St. Michel, and a member of the Institute of France.’
Jean Bapriste Greuze (1725-1805), of Tournus, in Burgundy, a
portrait and genre-painter of reputation, even in the present day,
was fond of moral and ethical subjects, but though exceedingly
able in some respects, was sufficiently mannered to damage the
effect of his works: this technical imperfection, however, does not
prevent their often strong dramatic interest from greatly attracting
the multitude, and it is perhaps hypercritical to depreciate such
works for a slight mannerism of execution. Greuze’s points or
incidents are commonly of a sad and deplorable nature; hence he
has been termed the Lachaussée of painting; but whether he
exactly justifies the title of the ‘‘ French Hogarth”’ may be safely
questioned, even supposing the comparison to be instituted between
their pictures only. As a specimen of his dramas may be men-
tioned the, for him, rather large picture in the Louvre, entitled
‘‘ Malédiction Paternelle ;”* though the selection of the subject is
in sufficiently bad taste, the picture displays all the good and bad
qualities of the painter. Greuze was made an associate of the
French Academy in 1755, but as he was placed among the genre
painters when he was elected an Academician in 1769, he con-
sidered it a degradation, retired from the Academy, and from
that time ceased to exhibit at the Louvre. He had painted a
picture that year of “Severus reproaching Caracalla with the
intent of compassing his death,” now in the Louvre, expressly
to secure his election into the class of historical painters; the
Academy, however, judged the work, both for its size and treat-
ment (it contains but four small figures), as decidedly belonging to

1 A comprehensive work on the Vernets has just appeared in Paris—* Les
Vernet — Joseph Vernet et la Peinture au XVIII. Siecle,” par Léon Lagrange;
1864.

2 Gault de Saint Germain, “ Les Trois Siécles de la Peinture en France.”

3 Engraved by R. Gaillard. .
476 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

the category of genre pictures, and classed the painter accordingly.
Greuze is best known in England by his girls’ heads; they are
sometimes well painted, but are very similar in their character,
affected in their costume and attitude, and: generally vapid in
expression. We have an example in the National Gallery.

Francesco Casanova (1730-1805), Italian by descent, was born in
London, studied under Guardi in Venice, gained considerable
reputation as a battle, landscape, and animal-painter, and “was
elected a member of the French Academy in 1763. He eventually
settled at Vienna, in the neighbourhood of which city he died.
The Louvre possesses two large battle-pieces by Casanova, repre-
senting victories of the “Grand Condé,” exhibited in 1771. At
Hampton Court is a fine drawing in chalk of Raphael’s “ Trans-
figuration,” by this painter.

Juan Baptiste Leprince, of Metz (1733-1781), of the school of
Boucher, spent some time in Russia, and was distinguished for his
pictures of Russian life. He became a member of the French
Academy in 1765. He painted landscapes, pastoral scenes, and
interiors; his small elaborate figures fascinate by their composition
and arrangement, their good drawing, and general effect, though
they are wanting in expression: there is also a certain formality
and want of animation in the general details of his landscapes.
Leprince was a skilful engraver in aquatinta ; he himself published
an essay on his manner of working, entitled ‘‘ Traité de la Gravure
au Lavis.”

In architecture Huserr Roserr, of Paris (1733-1808), acquired a
great reputation during the latter half of the eighteenth century;
he became a member of the Academy in 1766, Among his numerous
works are a great many excellent views of ancient ruins in Italy.

Contemporary with the above, but of very superior powers, was
JosepH Marie Vien, born at Montpelier in 1716. He learnt the
first principles of his art from a painter of the name of Giral, and
commenced his career ina porcelain manufactory or pottery at
Montpelier. In 1740 he settled in Paris, and became the pupil of
Natoire, and in 1744 visited Rome, where he remained five years.
He became a member of the old French Academy in 1754, and in
1775 he succeeded Natoire as Director of the French Academy at
Rome, and attained the coveted dignity of principal painter to the
King in 1789; the honours and emoluments of which, however, HS
lost at the Revolution.

Vien is considered the regenerator of painting in France. Vanloo
and Boucher had brought it to the lowest state of insipidity; and
as art never remains stationary, and could scarcely descend to a
lower state, an improvement apparently was the natural conse-
quence. It was, however, in the technical qualities, rather than
PAINTING IN FRANCE. ATT

in style, that Vien improved the art of his time; he restored it to
what it was about the middle of the seventeenth century in Italy,
during the reign of the Carracceschi. He strenuously inculcated
the necessity of studying nature and the antique, attributing the
excellence of the great Italian masters to the intimate combination
of these two studies. The peculiar development of painting during
the period of the French empire is, doubtless, much ,due to the
emphatic lessons of Vien regarding the imitation of the antique,
which was ultimately carried to an excess by his pupils, Vincent
and David, and their scholars.

Vien was highly distinguished also by the Emperor Napoleon,
who made him a member of the Senate, a Count of the Empire, and.
a Commander of ‘the Legion of Honour; this was, however, in his
extreme old age. He died at Paris, March the 27th, 1809, in his
ninety-third year.

Francois ANDRE VINCENT (1746-1816), one of the foremost of
Vien’s scholars, early visited Italy, where he had ample opportu-
nity of prosecuting his studies in that direction indicated by his
master; and the reign of Louis XVI. saw as complete a revolution in
art as in everything else; the great Italian painters of the seven-
teenth century, who had hitherto been the idols of French artists,
were set aside as false gods, and the painters of this age turned
all their energies to the imitation of the antique. Vincent was one
of the principal pioneers of the movement ; he was a Protestant, but.
even with the Roman Catholic painters, the church legends ceased
to furnish them with their principal subjects which, when not from
incidents of the day, were mostly from ancient Greek and Roman
story. And -durmg the Empire a host of military chroniclers
ascended the high places occupied by the mythological decorators
of Louis XV. Vincent had been elected a member of the old
Academy of Painting; after the Revolution he was nominated
a member of the Institute, and enrolled in the Legion of Honour.
The Academy of Painting was abolished, in 1793, with the other old
literary and scientific institutions of France, which were replaced
by the Institute in 1795.

Among the few good painters of the time who adhered to the old
taste, was ANTOINE FRangoisE CaLLet (1741-1823), by whom there is,
in the Louvre, a fine large classical set of the Four Seasons,
originally painted for Louis XVI., to be worked at the Gobelins.

Pierre Prop’Hon (1758-1823), the son of a mason of Cluny,
obtained the Roman studentship in 1782, and at Rome acquired the
friendship of Canova. He returned to Paris the year of: the
Revolution, 1789; and as he was not carried away by the growing
antique mania of the time, he had a hard struggle before he
acquired the recognition due to his powers: which, however,
478 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

eventually came. Prud’hon was chosen to teach the Empress
Maria Louisa, and was elected a member of the Institute of France
in 1816. His most popular work is the picture of ‘‘ Crime pursued
by Justice and Vengeance,” now in the Louvre. In many of
his works, from 1805, Prud’hon was assisted by his friend and
pupil, Constance Mayer, and her suicide on the 26th of May, 1821,
had such a depressing influence on Prud’hon, that he never re-
covered his spirits. He became subject to a fixed melancholy, and
died at Paris on the 16th February, within two years after her.

With Jacques Louis Davin, born in Paris the 31st August, 1748,
a new era of painting was inaugurated in France, but in its
first period it was characterized by what may be termed a morbid
imitation of the antique; it was little more ‘than a constant
repetition of the physical proportions of certain ideal Greek statues,
rendered still more offensive by the general adoption of the Greek
monumental heroic costume. Many of David’s pictures are mere
groups of statues, of uniform character; his very flesh is as hard
as marble: they are distinguished also for an extravagance of
attitude. David was doubtless a painter of immense power, though
wholly deficient in taste, and wanting in judgment. The painter of
the Revolution (he was principal painter to Napoleon), he died an
exile at Brussels, on the 29th of December, 1825. He was at one
time an actual agent of the Revolution and the faction of Robes-
pierre; but returned to his art in 1795.’

Of David’s numerous scholars, Gerard, Gros, and Girodet, are the
most distinguished. Drouais, Guérin, and his celebrated pupil
Gericault, belong to the same school; but Gericault was not
engrossed by that singleness of purpose which is the general
characteristic of the school. However, the majority of these
masters, though distinguished for the excessive partiality for the
antique which characterizes the works of David, were great
painters notwithstanding this peculiarity.

Puree Narcisse Guirin (1774-1833), was probably the most
characteristic representative of the style in question. His works
are the perfection of manner, in imitation of the antique. By
antique manner is meant the literal translation of the characteristic
ideality of Greek sculpture into colour, without giving it either life
or motion. ‘“ Aineas recounting the Fate of Troy to Dido,” a
picture by Guerin, in the Louvre, is a gorgeous and elaborate work,
especially in the costume and accessories, but is utterly inanimate,
and is not in the slightest degree dramatic, which is partly owing
to the uniformly dispersed light and the equal elaboration of all the
parts, by which its unity is destroyed. It is a mere juxta-position

1 Coupin, “ Essai sur J. L. David, Peintre d'Histoire,” 8vo, Paris, 1827.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 479

of four elaborately painted figures—Aineas, Dido, Ascanius, and
Anna. Aineas is not relating, nor is Dido listening. The whole of
this peculiarity is owing to the absorbing principle of classic
ideality of form.t Guérin was distinguished by the Emperor
Napoleon, by Louis XVIITI., and by Charles X. The last created
him a baron. He died at Rome while on a visit there, having
always suffered from bad health.

Francois Grrarp, born at Rome (1770-1837), one of the greatest
of modern painters, was much less exclusively devoted to this
antique affectation, though some of his early works rival those
of Guérin in this respect; but Gerard was also one of the principal
representatives of another style of painting which prevailed during,
and arose out of, the French Revolution—the great military
pictorial chronicles of that time. In fact, great battle-pieces
and ceremonies of martial pomp constituted the chief historic art of
the period: genre-painting on a large scale usurped the place
of high art, for all other productions were secondary to these great
battle-pieces, groups of uniforms, representing generally contem-
porary triumphs. Gerard’s masterpiece, however, in this class,
is the grand picture of the “Entrance of Henry IV. into Paris,”
in 1594, now at Versailles ;’ it was painted after the Restoration,
in 1817, as a substitute for the Battle cof Austerlitz, which he
had painted for the Tuileries during the empire, in 1810. Gerard
was principal painter to Louis X VIII., who created him a baron:
he was the best French portrait-painter of his time, and had
no superior in his own style as an historical painter.

ANTOINE JEAN Gros, born in Paris in 1771, was an’ enthusiastic
admirer of David. He attracted notice by a picture of Bonaparte on
the Bridge of Arcola, in 1801; and this was followed by a succession
of large pictures or painted chronicles of the great military events of
the Empire. Gros was a painter of great powers, but generally
coarse in his execution, and not seldom also in the treatment of his
subject. The “Plague of Jaffa, with Bonaparte visiting the Sick,”
and the “ Battle-field of Hylau,” are examples of this coarseness,
more especially the former, which he has contrived to make a most
disgusting exhibition. He painted, however, other historical works
of a more delicate character, and some excellent portraits. He was
likewise a decorator in the spirit of the great schemists of the
ante-revolutionary epoch in France; as in the cupola of St.
Genevieve, painted in oil, in 1824, and for which he was rewarded
with the dignity of baron by Charles X. Of his more refined works
may be mentioned—‘‘ Francis I. and Charles V. visiting the

1 There is an engraving of this picture by Forster.
2 There is a small repetition of it in the Louvre.
480 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Tombs of St. Denis,”! and “Sappho leaping from the Promontory of
Leucate.”* This last was a tragedy of which he produced a more
fatal imitation. Notwithstanding all his honours, he had not
strength of mind enough to bear the adverse criticisms of his oppo-
nents on his works exhibited in 1835, and on the 26th of June of
that year, he drowned himself in the Seine, near Meudon. ,
Anne Louis GrropeT (1767-1824), was the favourite pupil of
David, and was perhaps the most offensively mannered painter
of this school: his colouring is especially disagreeable, but he
possessed one essential quality of the great painter in a high
degree—the power of drawing the figure correctly. On this
account his drawings have a much greater value than his pictures.
Such pictures as by the repose of their subjects admit of the
simple display of form, and require little else, are the compositions
that such a talent as Girodet’s should have been restricted to.
He has left two such works in the “Dream of Endymion,” in
the Louvre, and “Pygmalion and his Statue,” in the Somariva
collection. He was exactly in his province in painting the
sleeping Endymion by moonlight. Jn the ‘“ Burial of Atala,” from
the story of Chateaubriand, also in the Louvre, there is already
a, want of animation, though the composition has but two figures in
it besides the body of Atala; they are as inanimate as the corpse
itself. The example, however, which shows the defect of this
conventional art in all its enormity, is the “Scene from the
Deluge,” painted in 1806, and by which Girodet established his
reputation with his contemporaries, and in 1810 carried off
the prize from David. It is also in the Louvre, having been
purchased in 1818, together with the “Endymion,” and the
“ Atala,” for the sum of. 50,000 francs. This composition, of which
there is a lithograph by Aubry le Comte, exceeds all bounds of
probability, is in fact, an outrage on every principle of natural
composition. A man is carrying on his back his father, and in his
right arm his wife; she again carries one child in her arms,
and another is hanging by her hair; and the whole support of
this family of three generations, is a broken branch in the left hand
of the father. The group has just lost its equilibrium, and they
are all about to fall headlong into the waters below, yet the
figures are perfectly motionless. The tree itself in its natural posi-
tion could not have been reached by the father, unless quite on the
rock, and if reached, the equilibrium of the group must have been
perfectly secure; to make the composition still more offensive, the
figures have the carnations of corpses. The whole picture is a good
illustration of the saying that there is but a line between the
sublime and the ridiculous; a subject in itself grand and awful has

1 Engraved by Forster. 2 Engraved by Langier.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 48}

been rendered absurd by the imbecility of its treatment. This
painter's “ Revolt of Cairo,” in the Louvre, is another extremely
extravagant composition. In 1829 was published a work entitled,
‘Les Ciuvres posthumes poétiques, et didactiques, di Girodet-
Trioson,” in two volumes, 8vo. It contains also his life and corre-
spondence. He adopted the name of Trioson in 1812.

Jean Germain Drovats, of Paris (1763-88), from whom much had
been expected, died at too early an age to produce many works: but
though his pictures are few, some of them are reckoned among
the best works of the modern French school: his masterpiece
is “ Marius at Minturne.”

There is a cut illustrating the peculiar character of the French
school at this period, in Count Raczynski’s ‘‘ Histoire de PArt Mo-
derne, &c.” It represents three celebrated compositions of three
of the most distinguished masters of the school:—the ‘Oath of
the Horatii,” by David; the ‘‘Offering to Esculapius,” by Guérin ;
and the Marius above mentioned, of Drouais; all of which works
sufficiently exemplify the then prevailing paramount imitation of
the antique.

Micneu Martin Drouune, of Oberbergheim near Colmar (1786-
1861), though less conspicuous than most of the above noticed,
cannot be omitted in an enumeration of the great scholars of David.
He was spared the infliction of the military chronicles, for his time
was after the Restoration. Drolling had his share of the patronage
of the government, but his subjects are from poetry, and classical or
religious history; and, like most of his contemporaries, he has
painted some good portraits. Two of the decorated ceilings: of the
Louvre are by Drolling. In 1833 he was elected a member of the
Institute of France. His services are sufficiently recorded in the
simple statement—that he was a good academic painter.

ALEXANDER Denis ABEL DE Puson (1787-1861), of a noble family of
Valenciennes, was likewise one of the most eminent and successful
masters of this school. He obtained the rank of Member of the
Institute in 1835, having succeeded to the place of Gros. He is
the painter of the ceiling in the Antique Museum of the Louvre,
representing the History of Joseph—also of two great altar-pieces
in Paris-—“‘The Preaching of St. Stephen,” in St. Etienne du
Mont; and “The Burial of the Virgin,” in Nétre-Dame.

With the restoration of the old government in France, a general
restoration of the taste in art was also evinced; the inordinate
battle-painting disappeared with the Empire, and other phases of
society besides the love of slaughter occupied the attention of
painters. Jean Louis Gericavtt, born at Rouen in 1791, was the
first to decidedly throw over the art of David. He is the greatest
of the French painters yet represented in the Louvre. His

21
482 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

principal master was Guérin, whose studio he entered about 1809 ;
in 1817 he visited Italy, spending only a short time in Florence
and Rome, when he was recalled to France by family affairs.
Gericault established a great reputation by a single picture, his
“Wreck. of the French Frigate Medusa,” which was lost off the
coast of Africa in 1816. It is an immense canvas, twenty-four feet
wide by eighteen high, representing a raft containing the fifteen
survivors of the original crew of the frigate, at the moment of
discovering the vessel that eventually rescued them: they had
been on the raft thirteen days. It was by his classical contem-
poraries, when exhibited in Paris in 1819, considered a mere piece
of genre-painting on a great scale, as the majority of Gericault’s
works belong to this class of art. It, however, represents in the
highest degree all the great qualities of the modern school of
France, with the single exception of colour: it is a prodigy of
dramatic power; and is to the utmost degree effective in its execu-
tion.’ Gericault allowed his great work to be brought to England,
and it was exhibited in the Egyptian Hall, in Picadilly, with great
success, not only to the glory of the painter, but to his profit also.
It was purchased after Gericault’s death by the Count de Forbin
for Charles X., for the insignificant sum of 2401.—6000 francs, and
is now in the Louvre. This ‘great painter died prematurely, of
consumption, on the 18th of January, 1824.

Another great painter of the modern school of France, or perhaps
rather of Italy, possessing an equal appreciation of nature with
Gericault, but less energy than that master, was Louis LropoLp
Roserr, by birth a Swiss. He was born at La Chaux de Fonds, in
Neufchatel, on the 13th of May, 1794. He was brought up as an
engraver, but soon showed himself one of the ablest painters of his
time: he too forsook the pomp of war, and the ideal of the antique,
for the real and the beautiful in nature herself. Leopold Robert
studied painting only,a short time in Paris under David, and as a
foreigner, being ineligible for the grand prix de Rome, he returned
to Neufchatel, in 1816, and, there for a while practised portrait-
painting. This enabled him to undertake the journey to Italy on
his own account: he arrived in Rome in 1818, and from this time
devoted all his energies to the picturing the striking passages of
ordinary life in Italy, which, from climate, position, architectural
monuments, and the character of its ‘people, presents, like Spain,
but one vast field of poetry, romance, and the picturesque. He
produced several most striking pictures during his Italian career,
all of which are distinguished as much by their excellence as works

1 The admirable print of this picture by 8. W. Reynolds, is « triumph of the
arl of mezzotint engraving.
|

ii

;
|
|

hal

 

WRECK OF THE MEDUSA. (Gericautt.)

Page 182.
_ PAINTING IN FRANCE. 483

of art as by their dramatic illustration of national character and
local customs. Pictures of banditti necessarily filling an important
place in such a category.

One of the first that attracted notice was the ‘ Neapolitan Impro-
visatore on Cape Misenum,” painted in 1821; but those on which the
fame of Leopold Robert chiefly rests are especially three, assumed.
to represent the various people and the various seasons in Italy ;
the execution of the fourth being intercepted by the painter's death.
They are—“ The Féte of the Madonna del Arco,” illustrating Spring
life at Naples ; ‘The Reapers of the Pontine Marshes,” representing
Summer among the peasants of the Romagna; and “ The Depar-
ture of the Fishermen of the Adriatic,” picturing one phase of
Winter life with the Venetians. All being what are commonly
called genre pictures, being neither history, mythology, nor allegory.
They are pictures of actual life; and in all respects perhaps, save
colouring, are works ofart of rare accomplishment; especially in
their sentiment of popular life: the Reapers, or Moissonneurs, now in
the Louvre, with the grand figure reposing between the two buffaloes,
is a striking work in this respect.|| Robert visited Paris in 1831,
the year in which his Moissonneurs, or Reapers, was exhibited in the
Louvre, and he was decorated with the cross of the Legion of
Honour on the occasion. In 1832 he went to Venice, to paint his
great Venetian picture, his last original work :? he complained
repeatedly of ill-health at Venice, and seems to have gradually fallen
into a state of utter despondency, and shortly after his ‘‘ Fishermen of
the Adriatic” was despatched to France, where, owing to custom-
house obstructions, it arrived too late for the exhibition of the Louvre,
he committed suicide: he died in front of his easel by his own hand
on the 20th of March, 1835, on the anniversary of the day, ten years
before, that a brother had committed the same act of insanity. A
post-mortem examination showed water on the brain.’

Francois Marius Gravet, of Aix (1775-1849), was a most able
architectural painter. He lived much in Rome, was highly honoured

1 All have been finely engraved by Zach. Prevost; there are also some good
lithographs of these, and of other of the painter’s works.

2 He repeated for Count Raczynski, but did not quite finish, his Mozssonneurs,
after the completion of the “ Fishermen of the Adriatic ;” this replica is, or was, in
the possession of his own family at Neufchatel.

3 ‘The reason of this suicide has never been explained. A disappointed affection
has been given as the cause, but the causes were no doubt several—his ill-health,
some apparent hereditary weakness, and his disappointment with regard to his last
picture. His “Fishermen,” however, was admitted into the exhibition after his
death. An exhibition of a collection of Leopold Robert’s works, many pictures,
and drdwings after others, by his brother Aurel Robert, took place at Neufchatel
in 1835. See the work published by Feuillet de Conches, “ Leopold Robert, sa
Vie, ses CEuvres, et sa Correspondance,” 2nd Edition, Svo., Paris, 1854; also
Kugler, “ Kleine Schriften und Studien zur Kunstgeschichte,” vol. iii., 1854.

212
484 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

by Louis XVIII., and left his large fortune to his native town, for
the establishment of an Art Museum. A fine specimen of his work
is the view of the Interior of San Francesco at Assisi, now in the
Louvre ; it is signed Granet a Assise, 1823. Granet is distinguished
for the effective light and shade of his interiors, and the interesting
and skilful treatment of his figures. He was a Member of the Insti-
tute, the highest distinction for cultivated men in France, corre-
sponding to the ancient dignity of Academician: the number of
painters admitted, in the division of the Beaux Arts, is fourteen only.

We now come to the immediate past; and the school of France
presents us four remarkable men, each taking the highest rank in
his own peculiar sphere—Delaroche, Ary Scheffer, Decamps, and
Horace Vernet: the first illustrating more especially the province
of the heart; the second, thought or sentiment; the third, material
life or sensuous nature, and the fourth, military prowess.

Paut DetarocHe was born in Paris in 1797, wag the pupil of
Baron Gros, and is in some respects the most distinguished of the
recent painters of France. Though not possessed of the surprising
facility and power of Horace Vernet, his works are of a higher
character, and display more variety: for him the classic school of
David appears to have had no attractions. His earliest historical
pictures were of religious subjects; and from ‘‘'The Examination
of Joan of Arc, in her Prison, by Cardinal Beaufort,” painted in
1824, to 1856, he produced a succession of masterpieces; but
mainly from dramatic incidents of ordinary life, especially during
the later middle ages, or the period of the Renaissance. In
colour he has few rivals in any of the schools of Europe; his
design, perhaps, in his larger pictures, may be termed academical, as
being of a somewhat uniform standard, but many of his works are
free from this disqualification and every other convention, being
perfect dramas: such, for example, as his “‘ Death of the Duke of
Guise,” 1835; his “Napoleon at Fontainebleau,” 1847; and the
remarkably effective picture of ‘“‘General Bonaparte crossing the
Alps;” all well known by admirable engravings: the last con-
trasts with singular advantage with the conventional horseman of
David, bearing the same title. Though the above pictures have
been ciassed as works of the higher genre, they contrast favourably
in every respect as art with some others, reputed works of history,
as the “‘Death of Queen Elizabeth ;” ‘Strafford ;” ‘Charles I.
insulted in the Guard Room,” at Bridgewater House; and others.
The fine picture of ‘‘Cromwell contemplating the Remains of
Charles L.,” belongs perhaps rather to the sphere of genre than of
history, if such a distinction can be made when an historical
incident, real or imagined, is treated on so large a scale. A man
looking into a coffin, ordinarily treated, is clearly a genre subject ;
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 485

but when represented with such grandeur as Delaroche has dis-
played on the occasion referred to, it becomes a great historical
picture. He painted also small religious pieces of a high sentimental
character.

The greatest work of Delaroche, in point of extent and labour, is
the “‘Hemicycle” of the theatre of the Ecole des Beaux Arts at
Paris, painted in 1837-41, in which he has represented the arts of
various countries and times in groups of portrait figures of the
several most distinguished artists of the various periods. This
must be enumerated among what we have ventured to term his
academic productions: it contains much fine painting, and is richly
coloured, but is by its very nature necessarily undramatic. The
symbolic figure of Gothic architecture is said to be the portrait of
the painter’s wife, Horace Vernet’s daughter, to ;whom he was
married at Rome in 1835. There is a beautiful small reproduction
of the’ composition of the “Hemicyle,” which was exhibited in
London in 1855.!| Among the most striking pictures of his latest
years is the great work “The Girondins ;” but no picture displays
the absolute ability of Paul Delaroche more than his “Assassina-
tion of the Duke de Guise,” though small: here, independent of
almost perfect art, are dramatic unity and probability, developed
to that extent that painting is forgotten, and one can think only of
the infamous assassination ; all art convention is utterly discarded :
the large chamber compared with the small figures; the prostrate
body, and the bed on one side; the great space between, and on the
other the group of skulking assassins, with the cowardly king, still
afraid of the duke though but a corpse.” If such art is to be called
genre, it is a genre of an altitude to which few historical painters
indeed have ever attained. He has displayed the same absolute
skill in many other of his pictures; and whether he is to be con-
sidered an historic or a melodramatic painter, as some of his
contemporary critics have discussed, is a matter of little importance.
Delaroche’s melodramas are, as a rule, infinitely greater works of
art than the factitious epics and conventional histories of the
majority of his contemporaries: if his pictures appeal forcibly to
the heart, it is from their genuine superior powers of thought and
representation; not owing to any histrionic exaggeration of senti-
ment. Where such exaggeration does occur, as in his “‘ Death of
Queen Elizabeth,” now in the Luxembourg, it has been almost fatal

. Engraved by Henriquel-Dupont. It contains 75 life-size figures, and occupied
the painter three years: the remuneration he received, previously stipulated, was
only 75,000 francs. The painter declined any further reward.

2 It belonged originally to the Duke of Orleans, and at the sale of bis collection
at Paris, in 1853, it was sold for 52,500 francs, the exact sum realized also by the

“Christus Consolator” of Ary Scheffer at the same sale—2000 guineas. The
“Death of the Duke de Guise” is engraved by T. V. Desclaux.
486 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

to the picture: despite all the technical merits of this work, the
queen herself is simply a caricature.

His principal works have been nearly all admirably engraved
by 8. W. Reynolds, Henriquel-Dupont, Desclaux, A. and J. Fran-
cois, Martinet, and other eminent engravers: their subjects are
drawn as prominently from English story as from French.

Delaroche became a Member of the Institute in 1832; and
obtained the Cross of an Officer of the Legion of Honour in 1834.
He was also a professor of the Ecole des Beaux Arts; but he
abstained from taking any part in the great International Exhibition
at Paris in 1855: it is said from political motives. Similar feelings
caused the absence also of the name of Ary Scheffer from that
Exhibition. In 1845 he lost his wife, Louise, the only daughter
of Horace Vernet, to whom he was greatly attached. He died in
Paris on the 8rd of November, 1856. /

Ary Scuerrer belongs to the class of so-called subjective painters :
he represented the sentiments of human nature rather than the
incidents of human life, so well rendered by Paul Delaroche; and
adds another to the group of the able painters of France, who
disregarded the affected revival of ancient art for the poetry and
inner nature of humanity.

German by descent, Dutch by birth, and French by education,
he could scarcely have any national prejudices or local bias. He
was born at Dort, his mother’s native city, on the 10th of February,
1795, and having passed his earlier years at Lille, was taken by his
mother to Paris in 1811, and entered the school of Guérin, where
he became acquainted with Gericault, and was evidently much
influenced by that master-mind. The subsequent idealization of
his style is said to have been owing to the influence of Ingres. He
mixed early in political matters, and remained always strongly
attached to the Orleans family, to which he was appointed teacher
of drawing and painting in 1826: the young Duke of Orleans
became the purchaser of some of Schefter’s finest works.’ In 1850
he married the widow of General Baudrand: for many years a
natural daughter, born in 1830, had been his companion and solace ;
but about 1846 she married a physician of the name of Marjolin.
On the 15th of June, 1858, he died, in his sixty-fourth year.?

Ary Scheffer was essentially the poet painter: he came into
general notice somewhat before Paul Delaroche, and attracted uni-
versal attention, not only in France, but throughout Europe, by his
remarkable picture of ‘Francesca di Rimini,” from Dante, painted

1 At the Orleans sale, in 1853, Scheffer’s four pictures were sold as follows :—
“Francesca di Rimini,” 43,600 francs; “Christus Consolator,’ 52,500 frances;
“The Giaour,” 23,500 francs; “Medora,” 19,500 francs. Maxime du Camp, Les

Beaus Arts, 1855.
2 See “ Memoir of the Life of Ary Scheffer,’ by Mrs. Grote ; London, 1860.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 487

in 1835; which appeared like a vision from the spiritual world,
after the modern antiques of the school of David, and the military
chronicles of the Government of July. Scheffer, too, painted what
the French have termed the higher genre; and he produced also
many admirable works of exalted religious sentiment, though of
somewhat austere ethics. Of the former class are his various
representations from Faust, the Mignons, Beatrice, the Giaour, the
“King of Thulé,” and others, which are all productions also of an
eminently pathetic and poetical character. Of the second, and com-
monly assumed higher class of works, are, among others—‘‘ Ruth and
Naomi,” “ St. Monica and St Augustin,” “The Holy Women return-
ing from the Sepulchre,” ‘“‘ Les Gémissemens,” or ‘‘ Les douleurs de
la Terre,” ‘“‘ Le Christ Consolateur,” and his last work; ‘‘ The Angel
announcing the Resurrection of Jesus.” Nearly all are well known
from the admirable engravings after them by Henriquel-Dupont,
Blanchard, Girard, Calamatta, Caron, and others. The uniform
mystic melancholy tendency, however, of Ary Scheffer’s works is
very striking; the sentiment bordering occasionally on the ascetic,
or on despair ; nearly all suggesting some actual evil or impending
doom, as if life were identified with misery. This character of the
painter’s works indicates something more than that common morbidity
of mind which is often induced by & weakly bodily health. His
‘“‘Christus Consolator” is not an exception to this melancholy
tendency, for it impresses the extent of misery rather than its
alleviation. In vain do we look for sunshine; for love or for hope.
However this may be, the chief quality in all Scheffer’s pictures, of
every kind, is sentiment or character; to this everything is subordi-
nate; there is an expression of grandeur in the treatment of the
least of his works: he was never merely academic in the execution
of his pictures, though they are sometimes dryly painted. Louis
Philippe endeavoured to enlist his powers in the service of ‘“ Zoutes
les Gloires de la France,” at Versailles, but he was nota trophy painter,
and his contribution to the vast picture repertory in the palace of
Versailles added neither to the glory of France nor to that of the
painter.

Ary Scheffer’s reputation is already as much European as it is
French. He was not a member of the Institute, but was made an
officer of the Legion of Honour in 1835: he never exhibited after
1846, and like Paul Delaroche, abstained from political sentiments
from contributing to the International Exhibition of 1855.

In ALexanpre Gasriet Decames, also one of the greatest orna-
ments of the modern school of France, we have the painter of actual
life: he was born in Paris, March 3rd, 1803. He excelled equally
in landscapes, animals, or genre pictures, and ihese were his ordinary
subjects, though he had been educated by Abel de Pujol as an
488 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

historical painter, and as such he commenced his career. He is
particularly distinguished for the force of his execution; and his
subjects have always been highly popular as taken from the life of the
day. Decamps visited the East, and he has left us many remarkable
pictures of Eastern life; some of which are among his best and
most interesting works. His facile, showy pictures quite astonished
the connoisseurs of Europe, at the Paris International Exhibition,
in 1855, where there were forty-four paintings, besides drawings, by
Alexandre Decamps. He loved the chase, and to this pursuit we
owe his premature death: he joined a hunting party in the Forest
of Fontainebleau, and was thrown against a tree by his horse, and
killed, on the 23rd of August, 1860. He had been nominated an
Officer of the Legion of Honour in 1851.

Eire Jean Horace Verver, the most masterly painter of modern
times, was born in the Louvre, Paris, on the 30th of June, 1789,
and after acquiring the elements of his art from his father,
Carle Vernet, entered the studio of Vincent. So great was Horace’s
ability, from mere childhood, that at fifteen he was his own master,
and maintained himself by his drawings: yet he failed in 1810 to
gain the travelling pension from the Academy of Painting, which
his father Carle had obtained in his day: the requirements of the
Academy were too exact and precise for the buoyant genius of the
young painter. He was, however, an exhibitor at the Louvre, and
was married to Louise Pujol, before he became of age. He also
served for a short time as a soldier, which experience proved a
valuable initiation for him into the specialities of that service, to
the illustration of which, by his pencil, he has acquired such
immortal fame. He obtained a medal of the first class for historical
painting in 1812; and in 1814 Napoleon decorated him with the
Cross of the Legion d’Honneur, not, however, for his painting, but
for his gallant conduct before the enemy, at the Barriére of Clichy:
he and his friend Gericault, served in a regiment of Hussars on that
occasion.! He became an Officer of the Legion of Honour in 1825,
a Commander in 1842, and shortly before his death a Grand Officer.

In 1826 Horace Vernet was elected a Member of the Institute ;
and in 1828 he succeeded Guérin as Director of the French Academy
of the Arts at Rome. He remained at Rome about seven years, and
there painted some of his most admirable works—among which is
conspicuous the very popular picture, now in the Luxembourg, of
“Raphael encountering Michelangelo on the steps of the Vatican ;”
he has introduced in this picture his daughter Louise, afterwards
Madame Delaroche, as 2 Roman peasant: it was exhibited in the
Louvre in 1833. He resided in many other countries besides Italy :

1 See the “ Fine Arts Quarterly Review,” No. IIL, 1864.
PAINTING IN FRANCE. 450

in Algeria, in Egypt, in Syria, in the Holy Land, in Russia, and in
England. There were few of the great European monarchs of his
day who did not delight to honour Horace Vernet: when at home,
he resided chiefly at Versailles; but he had apartments also at the
Institute; and he spent some part of the year on his estate of
“Les Bernettes,” at Hyéres. He was twice married: the second
time in 1858, to a widuw, Madame de Boiricheux, the daughter of
an English general, named Fuller.!. He died in Paris, full of years
and honours, on the 17th of January, 1863.

The facilities of execution and general powers of observation
displayed by Horace Vernet may be termed prodigious; he is said
to have possessed the rare faculty of having been able to paint
objects correctly from pure memory. He commonly painted alla
prima, as the Italians express it, that is, without retouching; and
often even without any previous preparation on the canvas; yet
there is a perfect unity in the general effect of his works. Political
changes sometimes interfered with his position and influence: but
on the whole his career was one of unbroken progress, and of un-
rivalled celebrity, in modern times; and he was without a peer in
his own more special department of painting—the incidents of war.
His sphere was, however, general as well as special; and though
he is in the higher spheres of art not, I imagine, to be compared
with either Paul Delaroche or Ary Scheffer, Horace Vernet was
far from being a mere military chronicler, as many of his school
have been, nor was he a mere naturalist or genre painter. A vast
display of his powers was shown at the Paris Universal Exhibition
in 1855, when he was awarded a Grand Medal of Honour: he
exhibited on that occasion twenty-two pictures: comprising, among
others of startling effect, the following important works:—the
Battles of Jemmapes, Valmy, Hanau, and Montmirail, now all
belonging ‘to the Marquis of Hertford; the ‘“Barriére de Clichy,
or the Defence of Paris in 1814,” painted in 1820 ; Mazeppa (1825) ;
Mazeppa and the Wolves (1826); the Cholera on hoard the Mel-
pomene (1830); Judith and Holofernes (1831); Rebecca at the
Fountain, painted in Rome in 1834; the Storming of Constantina,
13th October, 1837, a repetition, painted in 1855, of one of the
magnificent works of 1839, relating to this siege; the vast “ Taking
of La Smala,” of Abd-el-Kader, in May, 1843 (1845); and the
Battle of Isly, August, 1844 (1846). Other great works are—the
Battle of Tolosa (1817), and the Massacre of the Mamelukes (1819),
both now in the Luxembourg. He is seen to very great advan-
tage at Versailles, in the so-called Hall of Constantina, where is
the stupendous picture of the assault of that city, which was ex-

1 «Fine Arts Quarterly,” Ll. c.
490 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

hibited in the Louvre in 1839, and which is alone sufficient to
establish a great and lasting reputation for any painter. Horace
Vernet painted many portraits; and also a mass of what may be
called genre pictures, of a most striking character; such as the
“ Arab Camp Scene,” at Manchester House. <A very capital portrait
of this great French master was exhibited at the Royal Academy
in 1855, by a great English master, J. R. Herbert, R.A.

 

CHAPTER XXXIUI.

PAINTING IN ENGLAND—DISTINCTIVELY CHARACTERIZED BY THE INFLUENCE
OF REMBRANDT, MEDIATELY THROUGH SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS—COLOUR
AND EFFECT AS AN END—IMITATIVE REVIVAL.

 

Lear. After a Study by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

Wirn the following rapid view of the progress of painting in

1 The general authorities for the History of Painting in France are—Felibien,
“Entretiens sur les Vies et sur les Ouvrages de plus excellens Peintres,” &e.,
6 vols, 12mo., London and Trevoux, 1705-25; D’Argenville, “Abrégé de la Vie
des plus fameux Peintres,” &c., 3 vols. 4to., Paris, 1745-52; Gault de Saint
Germain, “Trois Sitcles de la Peinture en France,” &c., 8vo., Paris, 1808; De
Laborde, “La Renaissances des Arts & la Cour de France, Peinture,” Svo., Paris,
1850-55; “Mémoires Inedits des Membres de l'Academie Royale,” 2 vols., 8vo.,
Paris, 1854; Gabet, “ Dictionnaire des Artistes des I’Keole Francaise au XIX¢
Sitcle,” 8vo., Paris, 1831; Robert-Dumesnil, “Le Peintre-graveur Francais,” &c.,
8 vols., Svo., Paris, 1835-50; Baudicour, “Le Peintre-graveur Francais continué,”
2 vols., 8vo., Paris, 1859-61 ; and Villot, “ Notice des Tableaux du Musée Impérial
du Louvre. Ecole Francaise,” 8vo., Paris, 1861.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 491

England, the proposed object of this comprehensive sketch will be
completed. Painting and painters have been the theme through-
out; the art itself in its various development has been a chief
object of review; but I have also endeavoured to present the
painter himself in his social position and circumstances as fully, as
regards essential facts, as the space at my command would admit.
Such painters as have not been distinguished for any other service
than that of repeating what had already been done by others, have
been little more than named, and that only in such cases where
they were of high merit, or the principal promoters of the art in
their respective localities. The same course will be pursued, with
some slight allowance for home prejudice, in the review of painting
in England.

As we have seen it to be the case in many other countriés, so the
native school of England ix of comparatively recent date. What
the Italian painters did immediately in Spain and France, was
done by Flemish and German masters in England; the art of Italy
operating thus mediately likewise in this country. We have no
record of English artists of importance previous to the reign of
Charles I., and the masters of this period were almost exclusively
portrait painters. Before the time of Charles, all important works
in painting were intrusted to foreigners, and also during his and
some subsequent reigns foreign artists had more especially the
public favour.

England possessed one celebrated artist of her own in the reign
of Henry VI.; this was Wittiam Austen, the founder and the artist
of the celebrated monument to Richard de Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick, in St. Mary’s church, at Warwick: a work which shows
Austen to have been little inferior to his celebrated Italian con-
temporaries, Donatello and Ghiberti. Richard Earl of Warwick
died in 1439."

Henry VII. appears to have been one of the first British monarchs
who paid any attention to the arts. He employed some distin-
guished foreign artists; among the painters, JAn Masuse was the
principal. In the following reign, that of Henry VIII, a much
greater activity commenced: one of the first painters in Europe
was then domiciliated in this country—Holbein. England was,
however, not without its native painters at this time. Jouy Browne,
the builder of “ Painters’ Hall,” was appointed Sergeant-Painter to
Henry VIII. in 1511, “ with 2d. a day out of the issues of the lord-
ship of Whitley, in Surrey, and four ells of cloth at Christmas
annually, of the value of 6s. 8d. an ell, from the Keeper of the
Great Wardrobe.” He died in November, 1532. Another Ser-

1 See the writer's notice of Austen in the “Supplement to the Penny Cyclo-
pedia.”

 
492 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

geant-Painter was Andrew Wright, who preceded Holbein to the
grave in 1543. Anda Vincent Volpe, the king’s painter, was after
Holbein’s arrival receiving a salary of 20/. a-year.'

Hays Hosein, or Horsarin, the younger, though possibly of a
family originally Swiss, appears to have been born in Augsburg in
1495, and to have removed with his father to Switzerland about
1516. He resided chiefly at Basel until 1526, when he established
himself in this country, and he died in London, in 1543. These dates
mark the principal epochs of his life: the first is not only men-
tioned by an old writer, but is also derived from the inscription
of the picture of “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne,”® in the
Augsburg Gallery, known to have been painted in 1512, as that
year is inscribed on another portion of the original picture now
separated from it. Ona book in the lap of St. Anne, recent clean-
ing of the picture has discovered the following interesting inscrip-
tion :—Jussu Vener. Prenrque Marris Veronicz Wetser H. Hotpam
Aue. Air. Suz XVII-*

1516 is assumed to be the time of his settlement in Basel, as his
latest works painted at Augsburg bear that date; the exact time is,
however, uncertain, and he appears to have paid Basel one or more
visits before he finally settled there, which, according to Passavant,
was not until 1519, when his name was formally inscribed among
the painters of that city. In 1517 he was in Lucerne.

In 1526 Holbein came to England, with a portrait of Erasmus
and a letter of introduction from that great scholar to Sir Thomas
More, who received Holbein very kindly, and took him into his
house at Chelsea. Three years later he entered the service of
Henry VIII., who gave the painter an apartment in the palace,
and an annual stipend of 30/., besides the payment for works
executed for the king.

Holbein died of the plague, but not as hitherto reported in 1554,
when there was no plague in London, but in 1543, in his forty-
eighth year: his will, lately discovered,* is dated the 7th of October,
1543, and it was administered on the 29th of November of that year.
During his seventeen years’ residence in England, Holbein paid
only three visits to his family in Switzerland—once in 1529, again

1 See “The Contemporaries and Successors of Holbein,” by Mr. J. G. Nichols, in
the “ Archeologia,” vol. xxxix.

2 Carolus Patinus, or Patin.

% Engraved in Forster's “ Geschichte der Deutschen Kunst.”

4 Jussu Venerabilis pientissimeeque matris Veroniese Welser. Haus Holbain
Augustanus etatis suze xvii. Sce “De Johannis Holbenii celeberrimi pictoris,
origine, adolescentia, Primis operibus, Dissertatio,” &c., by Dr. Alfred Woltmann.
Vratislavie, 1863. .

5 In 1861, by Mr. W. H. Black, F.8.A., and now preserved in the Record Room
of St Paul’s Cathedral.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 493

in 1532, and again in 1538. He continued to receive a stipend of
50 florins a-year as painter to the town of Basel, even while residing
in England; his wife received also a small pension from the same
authorities? it does not appear that either his wife or his two chil-
dren, a boy and a girl, ever visited him in England : he died poor.

Perhaps the most excellent of all this great painter's works is
the portrait of Morett, the jeweller of Henry VIII, a half-length
on wood, now in the Dresden Gallery, where it was long miscalled
Leonardo da Vinci: an orignal drawing of it, from the Woodburn
collection, now hangs near the picture in the Gallery.

The so-called “ Meyer Madonna,” a beautiful work, in the Dres-
den Gallery, representing the family of the Burgomaster Meyer, is
probably a repetition or copy of the Darmstadt picture of the same
subject; it by no means displays the masterly hand so striking in
the portrait of Morett the jeweller, and it suffers by the close juxta-
position of that exquisite painting.”

Holbein is chiefly distinguished as a portrait-painter, though he
was not exclusively such. He represents the simple, exact, imitative
school of portraiture, in which the principal motive is mere re-
semblance, not of character, but of feature. Many of Holbein’s
works are perfect of their class; but he is not the painter of all the
pictures that are attributed to him: the shortening his supposed life
by eleven years has reduced the number of genuine known Holbeins
in this country to very few. The Barber-Surgeons’ picture contains
some very fine heads, but it has been considerably retouched. Hol-
bein’s colours are thinly driven, of a brownish-yellow, and a careful
outline is sometimes seen through the colour. From the following
anecdote, told by Walpole, it would appear that exactness was, un-

1 Dr. W. Schafer, “Die Konigliche Gemialde-Gallerie zu Dresden,” &c. ; Hegner,
“ Hans Holbein der Jiingere,” Berlin, 1827.

2 Tam led to this opinion not from a comparison of the two, for I have never
scen the Darmstadt picture, but from an inability to see the characteristic hand or
colouring of Holbein in the Dresden example. Dr. Kugler and also Dr. Waagen,
came to a similar opinion after a comparison of the pictures, that is that the Darm-
stadt preceded the Dresden example. See Kugler’s “Kleine Schriften,” vol. ii.,
p. 478, and Waagen’s “ Handbook of Painting,” p.192. There is a print of it by
Catherine Patin, and a fine lithograph by Hanfstingl. Among the best of the good
painters whose works are given to Holbein and some other of the greater masters,
is, I believe, BartHotomaEts Bruyn, of whom very little is known. He was
settled in Cologne as early as 1533, and he died there apparently in 1556. See
Merlo’s “ Nachrichten,” &. Two of his sons were painters, and he seems to have
had a numerous school in Cologne, where, in the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, are
some excellent portraits by him. His style resembles that of Peter Pourbus, the
surface being somewhat enamelled. The pair of portraits of a man and his wife in
the Van Ertborn collection of the Antwerp Museum, and ascribed to Van Orley,
appear to me the exact type of Bruyn’s work. Our “ Medical Professor,’ pur-
chased as a Holbein, is possibly another example of this painter.
494 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

fortunately, not always characteristic of Holbein. In 1539 he was
sent by Lord Cromwell, Henry’s minister, to take a portrait of Lady
Anne of Cleves; and, says Walpole, “by practising the common
flattery of his profession, was the immediate cause of the destruc-
tion of that great subject (Cromwell), and of the disgrace that fell
on the princess herself. He drew so favourable a likeness, that
Henry was content to wed her; but when he found her so inferior
to the miniature, the storm which really should have been directed
to the painter burst on the minister; and Cromwell lost his head
because Anne was a Flanders mare, not a Venus, as Holbein had
represented her.”

Holbein’s principal rival in England was probably Luxr Horne-
BOLT, or Horembout, of Ghent, who came to England before him,
and was in receipt of a higher salary—55s. 6d. per month: he sur-
vived Holbein only a few months, having died in the spring of 1544.
Luke’s father Gerard, and also his sister Susanna—all three are men-
tioned by Guicciardini—were also settled in this country. Gerard
had a monthly pay of 33s. 4d.,? and died in England as court painter
to Philip and Mary. Susanna, distinguished for her miniatures, was
born at Ghent about 1503; Albert Durer praises her ability ;* he
saw her in Antwerp in 1521, and purchased one of her drawings;
he notices her in his “‘ Diary ;” she is reported to have died in good
circumstances at Worcester, as the wife of an English sculptor of
the name of Whorstley.*

Holbein was succeeded by Sir Antonio More—Antonij Moro, the
principal painter of Queen Mary ; and Federigo Zucchero, employed
by Elizabeth. Moro, says Walpole, ‘remained in England during
the reign of Mary, and was much employed ; but having neglected,
as is frequent, to write the names on the portraits he drew, most of
them have lost part of their value by our ignorance of the persons
represented. The poorest performers have it in their power to add
so much merit to their works as can be conferred by identifying the

1 « Anecdotes of Painting,” &c. This is a little colowred. The original minia-
ture is still preserved. See Walpole’s “Anecdotes,” &c. A fine collection of
drawings by Holbein, at Windsor, of persons of rank of Henry’s court, some of
which are admirable works of art, was published in fac-simile by John Chamber-
laine in 1812. “Portraits of Illustrious Personages of the Court of Henry VIIL,
engraved in imitation of the original drawings of Hans Holbein, in the collec-
tion of His Majesty, with Biographical and Historical Memoirs by Edmund
Lodge.” A series of photographs from these valuable drawings has lately been
made for the department of art at South Kensington.

2 Nichols, in the “ Archsologia,” vol. xxxix.

8 “Ttem Maister Gerhart Tuminist hat ein Téchterlein, bey 18 jahr alt die
haist Susanna, die hat ein Platlein illuminirt, ein Salvator, dafiir hab ich geben
1 fi, ist ein gross wunder das ein Weibsbild also viel machen soll.” “ Reliquien
von Albrecht Diirer,” p. 133, Niirnberg, 1828.

4+ Immerzeel, “ De Levens en Werken,” &e.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 495

subjects, which would be a little reparation to the curious world,
though some families should miss imaginary ancestors," By whom
or when Moro was knighted, does not appear. He was court painter
to Queen Mary, and after her death, in 1558, he continued to hold
the same appointment under her husband, Philip II. of Spain.
Two English artists distinguished themselves in the reign of
Elizabeth—Nicuotas Hinirarp (1547-1619), and his pupil Isaac
Otiver (1555-1617), both celebrated miniature painters. Hilliard
was afterwards a favourite with James I. Their works are some-
times confounded. Oliver was one of the best miniature painters in
Europe; his son, Perr Oniver (about 1594-1654), was likewise
distinguished in the same branch of art. Father and son often
worked on the same miniatures, especially as Isaac got old. Peter
made for King Charles I. several minute copies of pictures by Titian
and Correggio: he made some copies also after Vandyck. The
following eminent foreign painters, however, were the principal
masters in England during the reign of James I. :—Paul van Somer,
Cornelius Janssens, and Daniel Mytens; the last was little inferior
to Vandyck himself, in portraiture. The sculptor Nicuonas Sronx
(1586-1647) was the most distinguised native artist of this reign.
He was the king’s master-mason, and was much employed in making
monuments, for which he received apparently very handsome pay-
ment, amounting altogether to 10,8897. He had 4s. 10d. a day as
master-mason when engaged in building the Banqueting-house,
Whitehall. The reign of Charles I. presents a numerous list of both
foreign and native artists. Of the former, Vanderdoort, Sir Balthasar
Gerbier,? Abraham Diepenbeeck, Mytens, Rubens, Vandyck, Hon-
thorst, Petitot,* and many others.

ABRAHAM VANDERDOORT was, from 1628, the Keeper of the King’s
Collections, and prepared a catalogue’ of his pictures as they were

1 « Anecdotes of Painting,” &., p. 141, ed. 1849.

2 See Chapters xxix. and xxx.

3 Sir Bartuasar Gereier D’OvvILLy (about 1591-1667), a native of Antwerp
but in 1641, a naturalized Englishman, was a miniature painter and architect,
and was settled in this country, in the service of the Duke of Buckingham, as
early as 1613. He was a favourite with Charles I., who knighted Gerbier in 1€28,
and was occasionally employed by the king on diplomatic service. He was a
great courtier, and contrived to be in favour also with Charles II. after the
restoration. He is the author of several literary works, still preserved. See
Watpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &e.

4 Joun Perrror (1607-1691), + native of Geneva, was a very eminent enamel
painter; he was also distinguished for his miniature copies of celebrated pictures,
including several of Vandyck’s portraits. He died at Vevay while engaged on a
portrait of his wife, Margaret Cuper, who had borne him seventeen children,
Walpole says Charles I. knighted Petitot.

5 «A Catalogue and description of King Charles the First’s capital collection of
Pictures, &e., now first published from an original MS. in the Ashmolean Museum
496 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

arranged in the palace at Whitehall: he was also Charles’s medallist,
and he appears to have enjoyed a distinct salary of 401. a-year for
each office, besides an allowance of 5s. 6d. a-day for his keep, or
board wages, which was granted him in 1625. All these favours
seem to have made Vanderdoort very nervous. The king had re-
quested him to take particular care of a miniature by Gibson, the
Parable of the Lost Sheep: poor Vanderdoort put it away so
carefully that when Charles asked him for it, he could not find it,
and in despair, he hanged himself: it was, however, found after his
death.

Of native painters the following were the most distinguished in
Charles’s time :—George Jamesone, William Dobson, Robert Walker,
Richard Gibson the dwarf, Francis Barlow, and Henry Stone,
commonly called old Stone.

Guorce Jamesone, called the Scottish Vandyck by Walpole, was

“born at Aberdeen in 1586, and was about 1616 a fellow-pupil with

Vandyck in the school of Rubens, at Antwerp. He had a delicate
pencil, and as he left his family well provided, had no doubt a
successful career. Yet the sum he received for a portrait, from his
patron Sir Colin Campbell of Glenorchy, was only twenty Scotch
pounds, or 17. 13s. 4d. English: this was in 1635, Charles I. visited
Edinburgh in 1633, and sat to Jamesone for his portrait, and the king
was so well pleased as to present the painter with a diamond ring.
Jamesone died in 1644.

Wituiam Dosson, a painter of far greater reputation, is considered
the English Vandyck, though Charles called him his English Tinto-
ret. He was born in London in 1610, was articled to Sir Robert
Peake, a painter and picture dealer, with whom Dobson’s chief edu-
cation consisted in copying the works of Vandyck and Titian: he
seems to have had some instruction also from Franz Cleyn, the
German, who conducted the king’s tapestry works at Mortlake.
One of these copies had been noticed by Vandyck himself, who
recommended the young painter to the notice of Charles I., and
after Vandyck’s death Charles made Dobson his sergeant-painter
and groom of the privy-chamber. His career was, however, short ;
he got into difficulties at the outbreak of the civil war, and was
imprisoned for debt. He lived many years at Oxford, but died in
St. Martin’s Lane, London, at the age of thirty-six only, and was
buried at St. Martin’s on the 28th of October, 1646. Dobson is the
painter of several good historical pieces, as well as portraits, which
he frequently painted in groups. Two fine examples of his work
were exhibited at Manchester in 1857—Sir Charles Cottrell em-

 

at Oxford, prepared for the press by Mr. Vertue, and printed by W. Bathoe,” 4to.,
1757. See Walpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &., Ed. Wornum, p. 264.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 497

braced by Dobson, and Sir Balthazar Gerbier, in the same piece,
contributed by the Duke of Northumberland ; and ahead of Cottrell,
contributed by Mr. ©. Cottrell Dormer. Sir Charles Cottrell was
master of the ceremonies to Charles I. Dobsonis said to have been
the first portrait-painter who required his sitters to pay half the
price of the picture beforehand.

Of Rogerr Waker, Cromwell’s painter, little is known. He
had a clever manly touch, without much refinement of colouring or
glazing. His head of Cromwell, in the Pitti Palace, where it is
attributed to Lely, is the work of a ready master. The Grand-
Duke of Tuscany’s agent paid 500/. for this portrait, in Cromwell’s
lifetime ; it belonged to a lady, a relative of the Protector’s, and,
very unwilling to part with it, she had vainly fixed this enormous
price on it, as prohibitive of its sale. Itisan extraordinary sum com-
pared with the twenty pounds Scotch of Jamesone. Walker him-
self had only 101. for a halflength, in 1652. Walker painted
Cromwell several times, and also many of his officers: he painted
Cromwell and Lambert in the same piece. His own portrait is at
Hampton Court. He died shortly before the Restoration.’

Ricuarp Gisson, the dwarf, was born in 1615, and died in 1690.
He was also the pupil of Cleyn, and an imitator of Lely, who painted
a portrait of Gibson in 1658. He had considerable reputation as a
painter, but excelled chiefly in water-colours: there is a good draw-
ing of Queen Henrietta by him at Hampton Court: his Parable of
the Lost Sheep, which was the innocent cause of Vanderdoort’s
death, has been already mentioned.’

Francis Bartow (about 1626-1702), a native of Lincolnshire, was
particularly distinguished for his pictures and drawings of birds of
prey, which he represented on the wing, sometimes painted on a
clear sky on the ceilings of gentlemen’s houses. MHollar. has en-
graved twelve of Barlow’s designs of hunting, hawking, and fishing;
and he himself etched some of his own illustrations to Ogilby’s
translation of Alsop’s Fables: Faithorn also engraved a book of
birds after him.’ Barlow painted also a few portraits.

Hevry Srong, called Oxp Stone, the eldest son of Nicholas Stone,
Charles’s master-mason, though a statuary also, was chiefly distin-

1 Graham and Buckeridge, “Essay towards an English School,” 1706; and
Walpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &e.

2 This remarkable dwarf, who was page of the back stairs to Charles I., was only
3 ft. 10 in. high, and he was married, in the royal presence, to Anne Shepherd,
who was of exactly the same height; both were painted several times by Vandyck
and by Dobson. They had nine children, five of whom lived to maturity and
attained the proper size : the mother died in 1709, aged eighty-nine. See Graham's
“ English School,” &c., and Walpole’s oi Anepdoben™ &e.

3 “ Diversee Avium Species studiosissimé ad vitam deliniate, per Fran. ‘Barlow
ingeniosissimum Anglum Pictorem. Guil. Faithorn excudit, 1658.” «

2k
498 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

guished as a painter: the copy at Hampton Court of Titian’s “ Cor-
naro Family” at Northumberland House, was painted by Henry
Stone, who died in 1653, and was buried in St. Martin’s Church,
near his father.’

In the reign of Charles II., the principal foreign painters em-
ployed in this country were Verrio, Lely, and the two Vandeveldes.

Antonio VerrIo (about 1639-1707), a Neapolitan, who had studied
in Venice, received large sums of money from Charles II. for much
worthless decoration, which has now almost entirely disappeared,
but enough remained in Walpole’s time to lead’ him to say, that
“ without much invention, and with less taste, Verrio’s exuberant.
pencil was ready at pouring out gods, goddesses, kings, emperors,
and triumphs, over those public surfaces on which the eye never
rests long enough to criticize, and where one should be sorry to
place the works of a better master—I mean ceilings and staircases.”
He received, in 1676-81, no less than 5,5451., for frescoes at Windsor
Castle, not including those of St. George’s Hall. Among his best
works are those of Burghley, where he was employed twelve years,
ata salary of 1,500/. a-year. Walpole pronounces his masterpiece
“The Incredulity of St. Thomas,” in the chapel at Chatsworth. He
died at Hampton Court, where he lived at the close of his life, in
the enjoyment of a pension of 200I. a-year, granted by Queen Anne.

Sir Perer Lery (1618-80), of Soest, in Westphalia, but of a
Dutch family, came to England in 1641, the year of Vandyck’s
death, and became a celebrated painter of women, rivalling Vandyck
in position and patronage, but in nothing else, though Vandyck
was Lely’s model: he had a manner in painting the eyes, which
gives a sameness to his faces; and he seems to want force of colour
and of light and shade; but his draperies are free and elegant.
Lely is said to be the painter to whom Cromwell remarked, “I
desire you will use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me,
and not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples,
warts, and everything as you see me, otherwise I never will pay a
farthing for it.” His style is well illustrated in the so-called Beau-
ties of Charles II., now at Hampton Court, of which one of the best
as a picture is the “ Princess Mary, as Diana.” Lely was knighted
by Charles II. ; and he made a great fortune. He was struck with
apoplexy while painting the Duchess of Somerset, and died No-

1 The following inscription to Henry's memory was placed by his brother John,
the youngest of the “ four rare Stones, the father and three sons,” Nicholas, the
second son, being the fourth :—*To the memory of Henry Stone of Long Acre,
painter and statuary, who, having passed the greatest part of thirty-seven years in
Holland, France, and Italy, achieved a fair renown for his excellency in arts and
languages, and departed this life on the 24th day of August, a.p. 1653, and lyeth
buried near fhe pulpit in this church.”
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 499

vember 30th, 1680; his body was buried in St. Paul’s, Covent
Garden, where a marble bust by Grinling Gibbons was placed to
his memory.'

Both the Vandeveldes, William the father and William the son,
were, from 1675,’ established in England in the service of
Charles II. and James II.; each with an allowance of 100/. a-year.
The son made pictures of, or from, the drawings of the father; and
this apparently by special arrangement with the king. The elder
Vandevelde being paid “for taking and making draughts of sea
fights,” and the son “for putting the said draughts into colours.”
These drawings were generally made on prepared canvas in pen
and ink: the sea-pieces at Hampton Court, painted in 1676-82, are
probably their joint productions: they have not the refinement of
the ordinary works of the son. Both father and son were eye-
witnesses to some of the great naval engagements between the
Dutch and the English, in the great war of maritime rivalry.

WILLEM VAN DE VELDE, the elder, was the son of Esaias Vandevelde,
and was born at Leyden in 1610, but settled:in Amsterdam, and
acquired great distinction there; executing many works for the
Dutch government. His pictures, however, seem, now to be very
scarce. After his establishment in this country he lived with his.
son at Greenwich, where he died in 1693.

WILLEM VAN DE VELDE, the younger, was born at Seristedign in
1633, and after receiving some instruction from his father, was
placed with the excellent marine-painter Simon de Vlieger, whose
style he seems to have appropriated, and improved upon. He died
in London, April 6th, 1707.

Among this master’s. most important works, and justifying his
great reputation as a marine-painter, are the following two large
sea-pieces—a Storm Rising, at Bridgewater House; and a Calm,
at Manchester House. The National Gallery possesses two cabinet
pieces of great beauty, equally characteristic, showing the same
contrast of Calm and Storm, and both signed W. V. V.

’ Destroyed in the fire of 1795.. Witt1am Wisstne, Lely’s assistant, « native of
the Hague, after Lely’s death, succeeded to much of his patronage, and was a
favourite with the ladies; he died at Burghley,.on the 10th of September, 1687,
aged only thirty-one. There are portraits of the Duke of Monmouth by Wissing.
GerrarD Sozst, called Zoust, a Westphalian, was Lely’s rival in male portraits;
he came to this country shortly before 1660, and died in February, 1681, aged
forty-four. He was the master of John Riley: he seems to have charged 3/. for a
head. Walpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &. Jacos Huysman, of Antwerp (1656-96), also
had a good business in London as a portrait-painter, in the time of Charles IT. .
the National Gallery possesses a fair portrait of Izaak Walton by him.

2«On the 20th day of February, in the twenty-sixth year of our reign.”
Walpole, * Anecdotes of Painting,” &c.; Kramm,. ‘Levens en Werken der
Hollandsche Kunstschilders,” &c. ;

22
500 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

The native artists of this time were less distinguished than
those of the preceding reign. Samuet Cooper, born in London in
1709, an admirable miniature-painter, was the only artist of great
eminence. He is said to have acquired great power by copying
the portraits of Vandyck, and was called the Vandyck in little.
Walpole, in comparing the works of Cooper and Oliver, says—
“Oliver’s works are touched and re-touched with such careful
fidelity, that you cannot help perceiving nature in the abstract:
Cooper’s are so bold that they seem perfect nature, only of a less
standard. Magnify the former, they are still diminutively con-
ceived; if a glass could expand Cooper’s pictures to the size of
Vandyck’s, they would appear to have been painted for that pro-
portion.”

His reputation extended across the Channel: he painted some
time in France and Holland, and met everywhere with the same
success. Vertue has engraved a fine head of Cromwell after
Cooper. He died in London, and was buried in old St. Pancras
Church: a pocket-book of Charles Beale—the husband of Mary
Beale, another fashionable portrait-painter of this time, especially
among the clergy—has the following entry: Sunday, May 5th, 1672,
Mr. Samuel Cooper, the most famous limner of the world for a face, dyed.
His widow, who was a maternal aunt of the poet Pope, was granted
a pension by the Crown."

In the time of William III., Sir Godfrey Kneller, Sir John
Medina,’ and the flower-painter Jean Baptiste Monnoyer,’ were
the chief foreign representatives of the art.

Sm Goprrey Kyetirer, Lely’s rival and successor, was born at
Liibeck, August 8th, 1646, and after studying some short time
under Rembrandt and Bol, in Holland, visited Italy. Having
settled in Hamburgh after his return from Italy, he was induced by
an English merchant of that city, of the name of Banks, to try his
fortune in London. Kneller came over here about 1676, and
Walpole records that, to save himself trouble, Charles IT. sat to
Lely and Kneller at the same time, and that Kneller finished his
portrait before Lely had got beyond the. mere dead colouring; and
Kneller’s fortune was made from that time.

Sir Godfrey painted no less than eight crowned heads :—
Charles If.; Louis XIV.; James II. (who is said to have been

1 Graham’s “ English School;” Walpole’s “Anecdotes,” &c.

2 Sir John Baptist Medina, of Spanish origin, was born at Brussels in 1659,
practised some time as a portrait-painter in London, but finally established him-
self in Edinburgh, where he was knighted, and met with great success. He was
the last knight made in Scotland before the Union, and died in Edinburgh in 1711.
Walpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &c.

3 See page 470.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 501

sitting to Kneller when the Prince of Orange landed at Torbay,
November the 5th, 1688); William III.; the Czar Peter; Queen
Anne; Charles VI. of Spain; and George I. of England, who, in
1715, created Kneller a baronet. Sir Godfrey died in London on the
27th of October, 1723, and was buried at Whitton ; but a monument
by Rysbrach, for the cost of which Kneller left 300/., was erected
to his memory in Westminster Abbey. Among Kneller’s most
popular works is the series of forty-three portraits, known as the
Kit-Cat Club! The National Gallery possesses a well-drawn head,
in the portrait of John Smith, the mezzotint engraver, who executed
many good plates after Kneller’s portraits, and which the painter
himself presented to the engraver. The back of the picture is
inscribed Johannes Smith. Godfridus Kneller, fecit, et dono dedit, 1696.?

Of native painters Joun Ritey, born in London in 1646, was the
most distinguished. He was an excellent portrait-painter, follow-
ing in the steps of Lely; and when that successful master died,
succeeded to much of his patronage, notwithstanding the rivalry of
Kneller. ‘‘ With a quarter of Sir Godfrey’s vanity,” says Walpole,
* “he might have persuaded the world he was as great a master.”
Riley painted Charles IT., James IT., and Mary of Modena, Charles,
when he looked upon his finished portrait, exclaimed, “ Is this like
me? Then, odd’s fish, I am an ugly fellow,” which greatly dis-
concerted Riley, who was extremely diffident of himself. In 1688
he was appointed state painter to William and Mary. Among
Riley’s masterpieces are reckoned the portraits of—the Lord Keeper
North, at Wroxton Abbey; Bishop Burnet, author of the “ History
of the Reformation ;” and the celebrated Dr. Busby, master of West-
minster School. He died in London, of gout, in 1691. He was the
master of the elder Richardson, who married Riley’s niece, and
inherited his small property. Sebastian Ricci* visited England in
the reign of Queen Anne, and remained here ten years, much
patronized by the great. Though superficial and incorrect, he
had great facility of execution, and his works were sufficiently
accurate for halls and staircases. Some of his better pieces are
preserved at Hampton Court. He left England on learning that
Sir James Thornhill was commissioned to paint the dome of St.
Paul’s.*

With the Georges a more active sra again commences, and the
foreigners were from this time gradually but steadily superseded by
native artists, who soon completely surpassed them, both in quality

1 Engraved by J. Faber, in 1795. .

2 “Hamburgisches Kistler Lexicon.’ Hamburgh, 1854. Walpole, “ Anccdotes
of Painting,” &e.

3 See page 369. * Walpole’s “ Anecdotes,” &e.
502 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

and in quantity. Laguerre,! Dahl,? Denner,? Arlaud,‘ the miniature-
painter, Amigoni,° and Jean Baptiste Vanloo,* were the last of the
host of foreign masters who reaped a harvest in England.

Their British contemporaries of ability were—Jonathan Richard-
son, Charles Jervas, William Aikman, Sir James Thornhill, Joseph
Highmore, Thomas Hudson, the son-in-law of Richardson and the
master of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and William Hogarth.

JonaTHAN RicHarpson was born in London about 1665, and became
the pupil of Riley, whose niece he married. He was a good painter
of a head, and perhaps the most original and penetrating critic on
art England has yet produced : his writings are still, in my opinion,
more matter of fact and comprehensive of their class than any
others in the English language, not excepting those of either
Reynolds or Fuseli.? One of his reasons for writing, was—‘‘to
combat a false taste, and a very low one; a taste so false, and so
low, as to imagine the meanest parts of Painting to be the whole,
or the perfection of it.” Thatis, the mechanical parts, which, he says,
are in Painting, what language, rhyme, and numbers are in Poetry.

1 Lovis Lacurrrz, born in Paris in 1663, was a pupil of Le Brun, and the
assistant of Verrio in England, where he painted many halls and staircases, some
of which still remain : he died of apoplexy in Drury Lane Theatre, April 20th, 1721.

? MicuarL DanL was born at Stockholm in 1656, settled in England in 1688,
acquired reputation for the vigour of his male, and the grace of his female,
portraits, enjoyed a happy old age, and died in London in 1743.

3 See page 300.

4 Jacques ANToOINE ARLAUD, famed for his miniatures, was born at Geneva in
1668, and came to England in 1721, with letters of introduction to the Prince of
Wales. Here, among many other distinguished persons, he painted the Duke of
Marlborough ; and he contracted a lasting friendship with Sir Isaac Newton: he
returned to Geneva in 1729, and died there, possessed of a considerable fortune, in
1748.

5 Jacopo Amigont was born at Venice in 1675, and after acquiring great
reputation in Munich, came in 1729 to England, where he was much patronized in
the decoration of staircases and similar works in the style of Ricci. He returned
to Venice in 1739 with 50002. of English money in his pocket. He afterwards
made another purse in Spain, where he was painter to Ferdinand VI. ; he died in
Madrid in 1752.

§ Jean Bapristt VANLoo was born at Aix, in Provence, in 1684; and having
acquired some distinction in Paris, came to London in 1737, and obtained a good
business here; but finding the climate disagree with him, returned to his own
country in 1642, where he died in Provence in 1746. Louis Michel Vanloo,
painter to Philip V. of Spain, and Charles Amadée Philippe Vanloo, painter to
Frederick the Great of Prussia, were sons of Jean Baptiste.

7 Richardson’s writings are—*The Theory of Painting;” “An Essay on the
Art of Criticism, so far as it relates to Painting ;” and “ An Argument in behalf of
the Science of a Connoisseur ;” all three published together, after his death, by his
son, as ‘The Works of Mr. Jonathan Richardson.” 8vo., London, 1773, pp. 346.
A very interesting work is ‘An Account of some of the Statues, Bas-reliefs, Draw-
ings, and Pictures in Ttaly, Ge. With Remarks hy Mr. Richardson, Sen. and Jun,’
8vo.. London, 1722.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 503

He was, indeed, one of the best-informed and soundest critics of
the whole province of art. Though the first painter of a head of
his time, he painted, nevertheless, in the dry manner which pre-
vailed generally in England during the period, and which was a
kind of third edition of Vandyck, deteriorating in regular progres-
sion. Lely and his school represent the second, and Sir Godfrey
Kneller and his contemporaries the third. Kneller was as much
inferior to Lely, as Lely was inferior to Vandyck. Though so great
a critic, Richardson was, of anything but the head, a very ordinary
painter. Much, however, of the unmeaning formality of the por-
traiture of that age was owing to the monstrous costume of the
period, which, with its crowning absurdity, the wig, made all men
of the same age look alike. Richardson died suddenly on the 28th
May, 1745, upwards of eighty years of age, leaving one son and four
daughters."

Caries JeRvas, an Irishman, one of Richardson’s rivals in face-
painting, studied under Kneller in London: he also visited Paris
and worked in Rome, where he learnt to copy the old masters.
Jervas established himself in London about 1708, and having
married a rich widow, had no difficulty in succeeding as a fashion-
able portrait-painter ; but he was distinguished also for his inordi-
nate vanity, which was grossly nourished by his friend and pupil
Pope, in his silly ‘‘ Epistle to Jervas,” who died on the 2nd of
November, 1739, aged about sixty-five. Jervas’s portraits are
ordinary heads, in the style of Kneller.

Wituiam AIkMAN was a Scotchman, and a pupil of Sir John
Medina. He was born at Cairney, in Aberdeenshire, in 1682, and
commenced his career as a law student, but having sold his paternal
estate, at Arbroath, in 1707, he left his native country for a
lengthened tour on the continent, and in the Kast; spending some
years in Rome. Aikman commenced as a portrait-painter in
Edinburgh in 1712; but he met with little success until 1723,
when he established himself in London ; here he contracted a friend-
ship with Sir Godfrey Kneller, of whom he was an imitator: but
his career was short. He died in 1731, in London, but was buried
in his own country. There is a good head of Gay by Aikman.

JoserH Hicumore, a good portrait but indifferent historical painter,
also originally bred to the law, was born in London in 1692, and

1 Richardson had a great collection of drawings, the sale of which, in February,
1747, lasted eighteen days, and produced 2,0601.; many of them being bought by
his son-in-law Hudson. His own pictures realized about 7001. At the Strawberry
Hill sale in 1842, a three-quarter-length of Horace Walpole by Richardson was
bought by the Earl of Waldegrave for one hundred guineas, while a similar
picture by him, of Robert Walpole, second Earl of Orford, realized only five

guineas; the hundred guineas being given for the portrait, not the picture. There
is a head of Richardson etched by himself.
504 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

was likewise a pupil and imitator of Kneller. Highmore was a
man of great general acquirements: he had considerable anatomical
knowledge, and made the drawings for Cheselden’s “ Treatise on
Anatomy ;” and we owe to him one of the best works on perspec-
tive for artists—< The Practice of Perspective, on the Principles of
Dr. Brook Taylor, in a Series of Examples, from the most simple
and easy, to the most complicated and difficult, cases.” 4to., London,
1763. He died at Canterbury in 1780, in the house of his daughter,
who was married to one of the prebendaries there. All Souls
College, Oxford, possesses a good portrait of Young the poet, by
Highmore.

Tuomas Hupson, born in Devonshire in 1701, was a good painter
of a head; he was the scholar of Richardson, one of whose daughters
he married, and was the first man of his profession after the retire-
ment of his father-in-law, and before the establishment of his fellow-
landsmap and pupil Reynolds, on his return from Italy; when
Hudson retired to his villa at Twickenham, where he died in 1779.

There are many good careful heads by Hudson, in the manner of
Richardson and Kneller; honest portraits, such as that of Handel,
at Oxford, though not effective pictures, yet better works of art,
perhaps, than the ordinary heads of the present day, in which nature
is adapted to the uniform standard of the painter, to whom, it
would appear, it does not occur to adjust his scale to the diversities
of nature: though the present generation of critics and patrons is
far less intolerant of varieties of method than the last two have
been. It may be a fair question whether the substitution of a rich
pictorial effect, which 1s not natural, is a real improvement upon a
simple copy of nature. We are naturally fascinated by clever handi-
craft, and showy art may be more agreeable than plain nature; but
truth is greater than fiction, and the plain copy of nature demands
higher accomplishments, both moral and technical, than the per-
formance of a mere skilful piece of handicraft: each doubtless has
its place, but the real element of portraiture is truth. Let us take,
for example, Holbein and Hoppner, as representative men, illus-
trating the two systems. Some men have combined both, as Titian
and Vandyck, or even Rubens and Velazquez, though in the two
last the art element has predominated. There are unfortunately
too many who will applaud the artifice, but will not appreciate the
truth. In portraiture, certainly, the objective is a higher school than
the subjective.

Down to this time, that is, to the latter part of the eighteenth
century, the History of Painting in England appears to be of necessity
but a simple review of portrait-painting ; and this is assumed to be
owing in a great measure to the want of public encouragement, from
the withdrawal of the one great source of art, church patronage,
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 505

through the change of religion—from Romanism to Protestantism.
Because the Romanists have decorated their churches, to decurate our
churches would be, in the minds of some, to return to Romanism,

It is a fact that we have still, in the middle of the nineteenth

_century, our Terricks, who will “not open their doors to Popery,”
in the shape of a painted illustration of Scripture. Yet how diffi-
cult it would be to demonstrate Popery in the hanging over our
communion tables, or on the walls of our churches, representations of
such incidents as “ Christ blessing little Children,” “ Christ’s Sermon
on the Mount,” “ Christ weeping over Jerusalem,” “ The Feeding of
the Five Thousand,” “ The Healing of the Sick,” and many others,
expounding the religion of love, proclaiming and honouring its
Founder, in a manner at once intelligible and expressive, to even the
most simple capacities. As each must imagine these things as they
are read of, in our churches, according to his capacity, good pictures
of the scenes could but add reality to the less perfect imaginings of
the more intelligent, and substitute a palpable reality for the vague
imaginings of those of lower and less cultivated capacities: there
is no Popery, no idolatry in all this: it is simply Christian educa-
tion. Thousands, besides children, can come to rational conclusions
from what they see, while they cannot realize a single image, often,
from what they hear only.

Church decoration must of necessity be selected. There is a
general and aspecial character in Romanist art, which is derived
from the combination of two distinct qualities, the Catholic or
Christian, and the Romanist or Sectarian. All that is great in art
belongs to the former, and might as naturally proceed from a Protest-
ant school as from a Romanist. Almost the whole historic art of
Spain belongs to the sectarian element: asceticism, sacerdotalism,
superstition, legend, have all nothing to do with Christianity; and
if all the abominable art they have given rise to were swept from the
earth, I believe the world would be a gainer by it.

What would the Roman Catholic churches lose, that a sane mind
should regret, by giving up their innumerable votive pictures, from
these realms of art? Or what the great galleries of Europe even,
if deprived of their Saints Jerome, Antony, Francis, Bruno, and
a host of others, and their places were supplied by pictures of a
universal character of sentiment; subjects of love and hope, instead
of useless selfish despair. The churches and their congregations
would, I imagine, be infinite gainers; and the great galleries
would convey a far more agreeable impression, if these narrow
sectarian elements did not contaminate them. A “woman with
a child on her lap,” whatever it may be called,—a Virgin and
Child, or a Madonna and Bambino,—is a subject of universal
interest; the popular “Marriage of St. Catherine,” separating
506 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

it from its legendary nonsense, is of a like character; but
such subjects as St. Simeon Stylites on his pillar; St. Jerome
beating his body with a stone; or St. Francis receiving the
stigmata, are simply odious; as are most of the so-called mar-
tyrdoms when embodied in pictures. Picture galleries would be
quite as instructive, and convey a far more agreeable impression,
without such works; their visitors might pass out of them, glad in
their hearts, rather than in a gloomy reverie on the miseries of
humanity. Who can pass through the Gallery of Bologna without
being impressed with the unhappiness of life in general, and of the
Bolognese in‘particular? The Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, from its
great predominance of Venetian and Flemish pictures, produces
quite another impression. The fine men and beautiful women of
the Venetian painters, and the gorgeous works of Rubens, at
Vienna, produce a very different feeling from the gloomy works
of the Bolognese at Bologna, where nearly all is mortification,
conciliation, sacrifice. And it is for such works as these last that
Art is especially indebted to Romanism. LExercising even the
most rigid exclusiveness with regard to such themes, there would
still be left infinite subjects for the decoration of our churches; for
‘it is only in this province of art that Protestantism will be found
wanting, when brought into competition with Romanism.

With Sir James TuornHILL, born at Weymouth in 1676, com-
menced, in the reign of Queen Anne, the first extensive employ-
ment of native talent in Great Britain; and this was due to the
patriotism of the Earl of Halifax, but for whom some of the works
executed by Thornhill would have been intrusted to Sebastian
Ricci; especially those at Hampton Court. That the Italian
would have done them better there can be no doubt; but if the
arts were to rise in Britain at all, some such surmounting of the
barrier of prejudice was imperative, whatever may. have been the
immediate cost. The productions of this painter in St. Paul’s, and
Greenwich Hospital, have little to recommend them as works of
high art; they are such indeed as might be fairly paid for by the
foot, as any other wall-colouring might be remunerated: and the
eight chiaroscuros of St. Paul’s, and the decorations at Greenwich,
were actually paid at the rate of 40s. the square yard; for the Hall
at, Blenheim he received only 25s. the yard. Thornhill painted
also the staircase and ceilings at Kensington. The example, however,
seems to have been without due effect; and this was not altogether
the fault of the painter.

The Royal Academy possesses a good set of Raphael’s cartoons,
copied by Sir James, which occupied him three years; yet (owing
to their great size, probably) they realized only 200i. at his sale,
the year after his death: they were purchased by the Duke of
 

MARRIAGE “A LA MODE.” (Hocarrs.)

Page 57.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 507

Bedford, and were some years afterwards presented to the Royal
Academy. Thornhill died at his paternal seat of Thornhill, near
Weymouth, on the 4th of May, 1734, aged only fifty-seven. He
sat in Parliament several years for his native town, Weymouth: he
was knighted by George I., who had created Kneller a baronet.

Sir James Thornhill’s son-in-law, Witt1am Hocartu, is the first
great name in the annals of British art; and he was more of the
satirist than the painter, though in this respect also he is entitled
to rank with the most eminent masters of his class in Europe: as a
painter, in his best examples, he belongs to the province of the
higher genre. He was born on the 10th December, 1697, in the
parish of Bartholomew, London; his father, who spelt his name
Hogart, was a corrector of the press, but had been a schoolmaster,
in Westmoreland, his native county. ‘My exercises when at
school,” says Hogarth, “were more remarkable for the ornaments
which adorned them, than for the exercise itself. In the former
I soon found that blockheads with better memories could much:
surpass me; but for the latter, 1 was particularly distinguished.”
And again, “Instead of burthening the memory with musty rules,
or tiring the eyes with copying dry and damaged pictures, I have
ever found studying from nature the shortest and safest way of
attaining knowledge in my art.” When his origin is considered,
it is remarkable that Hogarth attained to the great technical excel-
lence which indisputably distinguishes his best pictures. Born of
poor parents, and bred an engraver of crests and ciphers on silver
and metal plates, nothing but the most persevering energy could
have carried him to the eminence he afterwards attained. “ Our
juvenile satirist,” says Ireland, “ was apprenticed to a Mr. Ellis
Gamble, who kept a silversmith’s shop in Cranbourn-alley, Leices-
ter-fields. This vender of salvers and sauce-boats had in his own
house two or three rare artisans, whose employment was to engrave
ciphers and armorial symbols, not only on the articles his master
sold, but on any that he might have to mark from cunning workmen,
in silver or meaner metals. In this branch he covenanted to
instruct William Hogarth, who about the year 1712 became a
practical student in Mr. Gamble’s Attic academy. In this school of
science we may fairly conjecture his first essays were the, initials on
teaspoons: he would next be taught the art and mystery of the
double cipher, where four letters in opposite directions are so
skilfully interwoven, that it requires almost an apprenticeship to
learn the art of deciphering them. Having conquered his alpha-
pet, he ascended to the representation of those heraldic monsters
which first grinned upon the shields of the holy army of Cru-
saders, and were from thence transferred to the massy tankards
and ponderous two-handled cups of their stately descendants. By
508 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

copying this legion of hydras, yorgons, and chimeras dire, he attained
an early taste for the ridiculous, and in the grotesque countenance
of a baboon or a bear, the cunning eye of a fox, or the fierce front
-of a rampant lion, traced the characteristic varieties of the human
physiognomy. He soon felt that the science which appertaineth unto the
bearing of coat-armour was not suited to his taste or talents; and,
tired of the amphibious many-coloured brood that people the fields
of heraldry, listened to the voice of Genius, which whispered him to
read the mind’s construction in the face, to study and delineate May.”

After the expiration of his apprenticeship, in 1718, Hogarth earned
his livelihood by engraving prints for booksellers; but he often sold
some of his plates for little more than the mere value of the copper.
The greater part of his income was at all times dependent upon the
sale of his prints from his own designs.

In 1730, when thirty-three years of age, he married the only
daughter of Sir James Thornhill, against that painter’s consent ; and
he tried his fortune in painting small conversation pieces : he informs
us that he expressly chose a path ‘‘ between the sublime and the gro-
tesque.” His object was to make pictures similar to representations
on the stage, and he eminently succeeded: though many of his de-
signs are low and extremely vulgar, his best pictures are exquisitely
dramatic, without being in the least theatrical. “Comedy,” he says,
“should in painting, as in writing, be allotted the first place.” In
what is called historical painting, Hogarth was altogether unsuc-
cessful, as is sufficiently shown by the altar-piece he painted for
St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, for which, however, he received 5001.

He next set up as a portrait-painter, in which capacity he ob-
tained considerable employment, though his portraits were ridi-
culed by his rivals. His own portrait, in the National Gallery, and
Captain Coram’s, in the Foundling Hospital, are capital specimens
of his ability in this department of art. Many of his designs exist
only in prints. Of his paintings, the three following series are the
most celebrated :—the Harlot’s Progress, 1734; the Rake’s Progress,
1735; and the Marriage & la Mode, his best series—now in the
National Gallery—1744. Independent of the wholesome satire of
these works, the last are excellent costume pictures, and also very
good as paintings."

In 1753 Hogarth appeared as an author; he published in that

1 These last pictures, engraved in 1745, were completed in 1744, and were sold by
Hogarth, by auction, June 6th, 1750. They were purchased by Mr. Lane, of
Hillingdon, near Uxbridge, who, to the painter’s great disappointment, was the
only bidder; he obtained the pictures for the small sum of 110 guineas; the
frames alone had eost Hogarth 24 guineas. The pictures were bequeathed by
Mr. Lane to Colonel Cawthorne, who sold them, in 1797, for 1,3811. to Mr. Anger-

stein, with the rest of whose collection they were purchased for the nation in 1824.
See my catalogue of the National Gallery, British School, 12th edition, 1864.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 509

year “The Analysis of Beauty, written with a view of fixing the
Fluctuating Ideas of Taste,” in the literary department of which he
was assisted by Dr. Benjamin Hoadley and Dr. Morell. In 1757
Hogarth was appointed Serjeant Painter to the King, in the place
of Mr., the son of Sir James, Thornhill, who resigned. He died at
his house in Leicester-fields, October 26, 1764, aged sixty-seven,
and was buried in a vault at Chiswick, where he had a villa, and
where he generally resided in the summer. His widow survived
him twenty-five years.

“ Hogarth,” says Walpole, ‘had no model to follow and improve
upon. He created his art, and used colours instead of language.
His place is between the Italians, whom we may consider as epic
poets and tragedians, and the Flemish painters, who are as writers
of farce, and editors of burlesque nature. They are the Tom Browns
of the mob. Hogarth resembles Butler, but his subjects are more
universal, and amidst all his pleasantry he observes the true end of
comedy, reformation. There is always a moral to his pictures.
Sometimes he rose to tragedy, notin the catastrophe of kings and
heroes, but in marking how vice conducts insensibly and inciden-
tally to misery and shame. He warns against encouraging cruelty
and idleness in young minds, and discerns how the different vices
of the great and vulgar lead by various paths to the same unhap-
piness.””*

Hogarth’s was the period of the revival of painting in England
in every department of the art; the hitherto brightest names in the
annals of English painting were his contemporaries—Sir Joshua
Reynolds, Gainsborough, Wilson, Romney, Wright of Derby, Copley,
and West.

Sir Josuua Reynowps, the caposcuola of the British school of paint-
ing in the latter part of the eighteenth century, was born at Plymp-
ton, in Devonshire, July 16, 1723; his father, the Rev. Samuel
Reynolds, was master of the Grammar School of Plympton. Rey-
nolds was placed in 1741 with Hudson, the portrait-painter, who set
him to copy Guercino’s drawings,—a mode of teaching which seems
to have sown the germs of an inaccuracy and indecision of style
which characterized Reynolds throughout the whole of his career.
He remained with Hudson only two years, and set up as a portrait-
painter at Plymouth Dock, now Devonport, but in 1746 he ventured
his fortunes in London, and established himself in St. Martin’s Lane
as a portrait-painter. In 1749 he accompanied Commodore Keppel,

1 Walpole, “ Anecdotes of Painting,” &c.; Nichols, “ Biographical Anecdotes of
William Hogarth,” &c.; Ireland, “ Hogarth illustrated,” 3 vols., 8vo., Boydell,
1791-1812; the third contains an autobiography of Hogarth. There are several
sets of prints of Hogarth’s designs, more or less complete; but most of them are

copies. The best original set is that of 110 plates, sold by the Boydells, after the
death of the painter's widow.
510 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

as that officer’s guest, in the Centurion, to the Mediterranean: he
arrived at Rome in the same year, and spent altogether three years
in Italy. In this tour he visited also Florence, Bologna, Parma,
Modena, Milan, Padua, and Venice. He never made a practice of
copying whole compositions, as is common with young painters
abroad; in this he was of Hogarth’s opinion; he considered it a “de-
lusive kind of industry :” he was, however, a diligent student of any
parts of compositions which appeared to him of striking excellence.
It was while studying the works of Michelangelo and Raphael in
the Vatican that Sir Joshua caught a cold which caused his after
deafness. But it was in Venice that his taste was more permanently
influenced: the great masters of the Venetian school—Titian, Paul
Veronese, and Tintoretto, had a far greater influence upon his sub-
sequent practice than the great works in Rome. Venetian tone and
colour were much more allied to his genius, which was inclined to
the florid and ornamental; and, however much his better judgment
may have induced him to extol the grandeur of the Roman school,
in his Discourses, it was the magnificence of the Venetian that cap-
tivated him, that guided his practice, and excited his emulation.

He returned to England in 1752, and after a short stay at his
native place established himself in London, where he rapidly ac-
quired wealth and honours. In 1768 he was unanimously elected
President of the then newly-established Royal Academy of the Arts
in London, which was formally opened on the Ist of January, 1769;
on which occasion Sir Joshua, who had been knighted by the king,
delivered the first of his popular “Discourses.” In 1784 he suc-
ceeded Allan Ramsay as principal painter in ordinary to the king.
He died at his house in Leicester Square, which he bought in 1761,
February 23rd, 1792, in his sixty-ninth year, and was buried with
great pomp in St. Paul’s Cathedral, where there is a fine statue to
his memory by Flaxman, placed near one of the piers of the dome.
Reynolds was never married: the greater part of his large fortune,
amounting to about 80,000/., was inherited by his niece, Miss
Palmer, who married the Earl of Inchiquin, afterwards created Mar-
quis of Thomond.’

Reynolds has been justly styled the founder of the British school
of painting: the characteristics by which it has been hitherto dis-
tinguished are certainly due to his example. The partiality, how-
ever, of British criticism has awarded him an unqualified praise
little justified by his works generally, if even by his most capital.

1 When in full practice he was in the habit of receiving six sitters a day, and he
valued his time at 5 guineas an hour; he commenced with charging 10 guineas for
a head, 20 for a half-length, and 40 for a whole-length. In 1760 his charges were
25 guineas for u head, 50 for a half, and 100 for a whole-length; and as early as
1762 he was making about 60001. a year. His business declined after Romney
came into fashion.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 511

‘“‘To the grandeur, the truth, and simplicity of Titian,” says North-
cote, “and to the daring strength of Rembrandt, he has united the
chasteness and delicacy of Vandyck.” Titian was doubtless Sir
Joshua's model in colouring, and Rembrandt in effect; but with
the style of Vandyck, chiefly conspicuous for purity of form and
modelling, the works of Sir Joshua, beautiful as some of them are,
have little affinity : he was also less vigorous and less natural than
Titian, and much behind Rembrandt in force. Compared, however,
with the prevailing style of his own time—the dry manner of his
immediate predecessors—he was indeed a great master in portrait :
his graceful composition and breadth of light and shade, combined
with the rich and mellow tone of his colouring, were well calcu-
lated to fascinate the taste of a public familiarised only with the
uniform works of such painters as Hudson, Jervas, and Kneller,
though occasionally perfectly well drawn. The beauties of his style
are displayed to most advantage in the portraits of females and
children ; and perhaps they are displayed to their utmost in the
‘‘ Nelly O’Brien,” at Manchester House; and in the large fancy-
portrait-piece, in the National Gallery, representing three sisters
«* Adorning a Term of Hymen.” This picture illustrates his pecu-
liarities of style; in some of his best works, however, these pecu-
liarities are subordinate to higher qualities, as in the magnificent
allegorical portrait of Mrs. Siddons, at Dulwich, or in the Grosvenor
Gallery,’ his masterpiece, and in the portraits of Lords Heathfield
and Rodney; the former in the National Gallery, the latter in St.
James's Palace.. Reynolds’s principal object, and that of the school
which arose from his example, was efect—such an effect as is attained
in the best portraits of Rembrandt; and as this quality is rather
injured than advanced by minute and elaborate modelling, the very
grammar of the art, as it were, was neglected. The mere object of the
style ensured this result; but when negligence in modelling is virtually
inculcated as a principle, high art, or the grand style, as it is termed,
is attacked in its most vital element. The principle of Sir Joshua
was, that likeness and individual character depended more upon the
“general effect” than upon the “‘ exact expression of the peculiarities
or minute discrimination of the parts.” A painter whose practice
is guided by this principle must find his sphere very: circumscribed,
and will eventually discover the exact expression of peculiarity
and individual character very difficult of attainment. No better
examples are needed than the historical pictures of Sir Joshua him-
self; as the Holy Family in the National Gallery, and the Death
of Cardinal Beaufort, at Dulwich, both of which pictures are mere

1 The picture at Dulwich is said, by Hazlitt, vol. i., p. 100, to have been copied
by a painter of the name of Score from that belonging to the Marquis of West-
minster.
512 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

sketches on a large scale, with the attendant defects of such works
magnified in proportion. Reynolds had some influence upon his
contemporaries, but with his immediate successors he was para-
mount; and his florid unfinish and undefined forms not only charac-
terized painting in England, but became the principal goal of the
painter, and the general standard of excellence. Though Sir
Joshua’s good pictures are still very highly appreciated, and realize
enormous prices at sales, his influence, as the head of a school, has’
wholly declined of late years, and the following words from his own
writings appear remarkably applicable to his own case: ‘“ Present
time and future may be considered as rivals, and he who solicits
the one must expect to be discountenanced by the other.”

GerorGE Romnuy was born at Dalton, in Lancashire, December
15th, 1734. His father was a cabinet-maker of that town, and
brought Romney up to his own business; but the son having shown
a decided ability for drawing, the father was induced to place him,
at the age of nineteen, with a portrait-painter, of the name of Steele,
then established at Kendal.

In 1756 Romney married, and in the following year commenced
practice as a painter, and for five years he practised, at Kendal, por-
trait and fancy subjects; and ultimately with such success, that in
1762 he ventured to try his fortunes in the capital. In London he
rose rapidly to fame and fortune; and in 1773 he visited Italy ; he
returned to London in 1775, and took a house in Cavendish Square.
From this time he divided the patronage of the great and the
wealthy with Reynolds and Gainsborough; but his. wife and family
were never called to share his success; they remained at Kendal,
and during thirty-seven years he paid only two visits to the north.
In 1799, however, he broke up his establishment at Hampstead,
where he had latterly resided, retired to his native country, and
rejoined his family, at Kendal. He died at Kendal, November 15th,
1802, and was buried at his birthplace, Dalton.

1 Northeote's “Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds,” 2 vols., 8vo., London, 1819. Sir
Joshua read in all fifteen Discourses, in the Royal Academy. His literary pro-
ductions, besides these Discourses, are—three contributions to the “Idler ;” some
notes to Mason’s translation of Du Fresnoy’s “ Art of Painting ;” a few notes for
Dr. Johnson’s edition of Shakspeare; and his notes on his tour through Flanders
and Holland in 1781. Several complete editions of his works have been published.
A very magnificent work is the quarto edition of his Discourses, published by
Carpenter in 1842: “The Discourses of Sir Joshua Reynolds, illustrated by
Explanatory Notes and Plates by John Burnet, F.R.S.” In 1859 were published
some interesting “Notes and Observations on Pictures,” by Sir Joshua, with
anecdotes: and accounts, edited by William Cotton. Sir J oshua’s pictures are ex-
tremely numerous; the prints after them amount to about 700. For his contributions
to the Royal Academy Exhibitions, sce the table at the end of this chapter; where

will be found also the contributions of all the most eminent of the deceased painters
of the British School.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND, 513

Romney, though chiefly distinguished for his poetical composi-
tions, was many years the rival of Sir Joshua Reynolds in portrait-
ure. His style of painting, however, was very different, being
chiefly characterised by a vigorous expression of form. Romney
almost superseded Reynolds for a time in portraiture. This is
acknowledged by Northcote, who says, in his “ Life of Reynolds”:
“Certain it is that Sir Joshua was not much employed in portraits
after Romney grew into fashion.” Lord Thurlow also is reported to
have said: “ Reynolds and Romney divide the town; I am of the
Romney faction.” These two “factions” may be most obviously,
but not exactly, characterised as those of form and colour. Some of
Romney’s portraits are splendid; they are most remarkable both for
their freedom of touch and accurate drawing, and they were, no
doubt, good likenesses ; but they seldom have the rich transparency
of the best heads of Reynolds: Romney’s draperies also are very
free and masterly, a perfect effect being produced by very little
labour. Romney was, however, more distinguished for his poetical
conceptions, and for his cartoons, than for his painting. A very high
character is given to his works and genius by his friend and admirer
Flaxman, himself one of the most poetic designers who ever existed.!
He says: ‘“‘When Romney first began to paint, he had seen no
gallery of pictures, nor the fine productions of ancient sculpture :

1 Joun Fraxmay, though not a painter by profession, commenced as a painter,
and is otherwise entitled to be placed in the category of painters, for some of his
sketches of his own first thoughts, and for his unrivalled illustrations, in outline,
of Dante, and the great Greek poets—designs which are now world-celebrated ; they
are so great in sentiment, and in their creative power, that to speak of mere
technical qualities in relation to them, is as pertinent as to reject a diamond for
some inequality in its cutting: some of these outlines are unsurpassed even in
their style, as that of “ Prometheus chained to the rock.”’

Flaxman was born at York, July 6th, 1755, but came early to London, where his
father kept a plaster-cast shop. He gained the silver medal of the Academy in
1769, but failed in a competition for the gold medal in 1780. In 1782 he married
Ann Denman, and went with her to Italy in 1787, and it was at Rome that he
executed his “Outlines”—the “Iliad and Odyssey,” for Mrs. Hare: the
“ Tragedies of Auschylus,” for the Countess of Spencer; and the “ Dante,” for Mr.
Hope: they were all effectively engraved in outline by Thomas Piroli, and were
published at Rome in 1793, and have been copied in other countries; but none are
so good as the originals by Piroli. Flaxman returned to England in 1794, was
elected an associate of the Academy in 1797, a member in 1800, and was appointed
Professor of Sculpture in 1810. He lost his wife in 1820, and on the 7th of
December, 1826, he followed her to the other world. He was remarkable for the
purity and simplicity of his character. He delivered ten “Lectures on Sculpture”
to the students of the Royal Academy, which have been twice published ; the
second time by H. G. Bohn in 1838, with an introduction by Sir Richard Westma-
cott, and fifty-two illustrations, lithographed from drawings by himself. As a
sculptor he is now well’scen in the “ Flaxman Gallery” at University College,
where there is a collection of casts from his original models, presented to the
College by his sister-in-law, Miss Denman.

2.
514 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

but then women and children were his statues, and all objects under
the cope of heaven formed his school of painting.” “His genius bore
a strong resemblance to the scenes he was born in: like them, it
partook of the grand and beautiful; and like them, also, the bright
sunshine and enchanting prospects of his fancy were occasionally
overspread with mist and gloom.” “Few painters have left so many
examples in their works of the tender and delicate affections; and
several of his pictures breathe a kindred spirit with the Sigismonda
of Correggio. His cartoons, some of which have unfortunately
perished, were examples of the sublime and terrible; at that time
perfectly new in English art.” “His compositions, like those of the
ancient pictures and basso-relievos, told their story by a single group
of figures in the front ; whilst the background is made the simplest
possible, rejecting all unnecessary episode and trivial ornaments,
either of secondary groups or architectural subdivision. In his com-
positions the beholder was forcibly struck by the sentiment at the
first glance; the gradations and varieties of which he traced through
several characters, all conceived in an elevated spirit of dignity
and beauty, with a lively expression of nature in all the parts. His
heads were various; the male were decided and grand; the female
lovely ; his figures resembled the antique; the limbs were elegant
and finely formed ; his drapery was well understood.” ‘Few artists
since the fifteenth century have been able to do so much in so many
different. branches.”

Many of Romney’s works are to be seen in the Fitzwilliam Mu-
seum at Cambridge, and in the Royal Institution at Liverpool. He
never exhibited at the Royal Academy, and was, therefore, not a
member of that Institution.

Bensamin West, who succeeded Reynolds as President of the
Academy in 1792, is the principal historical painter of the English
school; he was of a Buckinghamshire family, though by birth an
American, but he is distinguished more for his persevering diligence
than for any brilliancy of talent. He was born at Springfield, in Penn-
sylvania, on the 10th of October, 1738, and having received some
instruction from an artist of the name of Williams, notwithstanding
the prejudices of his quaker friends, set up, first, as a portrait-painter
at Philadelphia, then removed to New York, whence, in 1760, he set
out for Rome. He remained in Italy about three years, and, finally,
in 1763, settled in England. A young lady West was engaged to
in America, Elizabeth Shewell, joined him in England, and they
were here married in 1765; she survived until 1817: her husband

1 Hayley’s “ Life of Romney.” There is a Life also of this painter by his son,
the Rev. John Romney; and another in Cunningham's “Lives of the British
Painters,” &c., and there are full memoirs both of Reynolds and of Romney in the
“ Penny Cyclopedia.”
PAINTING IN ENGLAND, 515

followed her in little more than two years; he died at his house in
Newman-street, on the 11th of March, 1820, and was buried with
great pomp in St. Paul’s Cathedral: two sons survived him.

West’s career was a very remarkable one; he was truly a royal
painter, yet all his most notable or imposing works were executed
after he lost his royal patron in 1801. During thirty-three years
which he worked for George III., he received 34,187/. from the
King; an income large at that time, but with which few successful
painters of the present day would be content. The “ Departure of
Regulus from Rome,” which was the first picture exhibited by West
at the Royal Academy, was also the first commission from George
III. ; it was in the first exhibition, in 1769.

West has left many and extensive works, historical, poetical,
and religious, but they are remarkably uniform in their style,
and are conspicuous also for a want of individuality of character,
and for a dull red monotonous colouring., His drawing is
generally good, and many of his designs are powerfully conceived and
finely composed, but in colouring he was very deficient. His first
picture which attracted much notice, which was exhibited in 177i,
was the “ Death of General Wolfe,” by which he conferred a great
service upon the arts through the breach of a common and absurd
practice prevailing at that time of representing in historical com-
positions modern characters in ancient costumes. Sir Joshua Rey-
nolds was among those who considered the innovation an injurious
one. The following is, according to Galt, West’s own account of
this subject :—‘‘ When it was. understood that I intended to paint
the characters as they had actually appeared on the scene, the Arch-
bishop of York called on Reynolds and asked his opinion; they both
came to my house to dissuade me from running so great a risk,
Reynolds began a very ingenious and elegant dissertation on the state
of the public taste in this country, and the danger which every inno-
vation incurred of contempt and ridicule, and concluded by urging
me earnestly to adopt the costume of antiquity, as more becoming
the greatness of my subject than the modern garb of European
warriors. I answered, that ‘the event to be commemorated happened
in the year 1758, in a region of.the world unknown to Greeks and
Romans, and at aperiod of time when no warriors who wore such
costume existed. The subject I have to represent is a great battle
fought and won ; and the same truth which gives law to the historian
should rule the painter. If, instead of the facts of the action, I
introduce fictions, how shall I be understood by posterity? The
classic dress is certainly picturesque, but by using it 1 shall lose in
sentiment what I gain in external grace. ‘I want to mark the place,
the time, and the people; and to do this I must abide by truth.’
They went away then, and returned again when had the painting

2142
516 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

finished. Reynolds seated himself before the picture,’ examined
it with deep and winute attention for half an hour; then rising,
said to Drummond, ‘ West has conquered—he has treated his subject
as it ought to be treated: I retract my objections. I foresee that
this picture will not only become one of the most popular, but will
occasion a revolution in art.’”! West has, however, let the General
die in his stock, which is contrary to probability, and it causes a
disagreeable black spot in the picture, which is altogether very
objectionable in colour. The original picture is in the Grosvenor
Gallery,? that at Hampton Court is a repetition.

Ricuarp Witson was born in 1718, at Pinegas, Montgomeryshire,
where his father was the clergyman. He showed an early taste for
drawing, and attracted the notice of Sir George Wynne, who took
him to London, and placed him with an obscure portrait-painter of
the name of Wright.

Wilson commenced his career as a portrait-painter, but soon
forsook portraits for landscape painting. In 1749 he visited Italy,
with a view of prosecuting his studies as a figure-painter; but
returned to London in 1755, after an absence of six years, a finished
landscape-painter. It was not, however, until 1760, when his
picture of “Niobe” was exhibited in the great room at Spring
Gardens, that his talents were appreciated in this country; but
he never attained very general popularity, and his life affords a
striking example of the caprice of the public taste. He was one of
the original thirty-six members of the Royal Academy, and after the
death of Hayman, in 1776, he succeeded him as librarian to
that institution. Wilson solicited this place, for, though the emolu-
ment connected with it is small, he was in such poor circumstances,
that even this small salary was of importance to him. For some
few of his pictures he was fortunate enough to find liberal pur-
chasers, and these subjects he generally repeated two or three times ;
other works he was compelled to hawk about to the picture-dealers,
and accept whatever trifling sum they might offer for them. Towards
the close of his life, however, his circumstances were considerably
improved, in consequence of a legacy froma brother. He retired
in 1780 to the villago of Llanverris, in Denbighshire, where he died
‘in 1782, in the seventieth year of his age.

It was in ltaly that Wilson turned landscape-painter ; and this
decision is said to have been made in consequence of the opinions
of Francusco Zuccare ii (1702-88), a fashionable but inferior Flo-
rentine landscape-painter then living at Venice, and of Joseph
Vernet, then at Rome, on some sketches that Wilson had made of
Italian scenery. He had little ability as a portrait-painter; such

1 Galt, “ Life and Studies of Benjamin West,” &c. London, 1820.
2 Admirably engraved by Woollett.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 517

few portraits as exist by him are like the works of Knapton, of
which there is a remarkable specimen at Hampton Court—* The
Family of Frederick Prince of Wales.”

Zuccarelli had himself turned from figure to landscape painting ;
and in 1752 settled in this country, where, in 1768, he was elected
one of the original members of the Royal Academy, and became so
formidable a rival to Wilson as to render a living only just possible
to him. In 1773, however, Zuccarelli returned to Florence.

Wilson, though of a very different character from Barry, was
scarcely less unfortunate in the patronage he met with from the
public at large; and this neglect is less easily accounted for than
that of many artists of greater pretensions; for Wilson’s style and
works are perfectly intelligible even to the many, and they are not
disfigured by any manner or characteristic imperfection. Zuccarelli
was his inferior in every respect.

For selection, composition, and the general treatment of his
subjects, Wilson, if not superior to all other landscape-painters, has
certainly yet never been surpassed, and very seldom been equalled :
his style is at the same time conspicuously natural and select, and
eminently poetical. In comparing him with some of the minute
painters of the Netherlands, his style may be termed generic,
while theirs is specific. His handling is regulated by principles of
effect, but of universal appearances, not of individual detail; and
there is nothing whatever of convention in his execution, Though
sometimes cold in colour, and too liquid and palpable in their
touch, his pictures generally display the beauties of Salvator Rosa,
Ruisdael, and Claude combined: bold and massive foregrounds,
picturesque and verdant foliage, aérial expanse, and endless dis-
tance."

Tomas GarnsBoroucH, the rival of Sir. Joshua Reynolds in
portrait, and of Wilson in landscape, is a master of whom any
school might boast. He was born at Sudbury, in Suffolk, in the
spring of 1727; came to London when only fourteen years of age,
and worked first with Gravelot the engraver, then under Francis
Hayman, an historical painter of repute in his day, and, like
Gainsborough himself, one of the original thirty-six members of
the Royal Academy.

Gainsborough set up as a portrait and landscape painter, in
Hatton Garden, but without success, and, after four years’ resi-

1 Wright, “Life of Richard Wilson,” &c. 4to., London, 1824. Some of Wilson’s
best pictures have been admirably engraved by Woollett, as—Phaéton; Celadon
and Amelia; Ceyx and Alcyone; Snowdon ; Cicero at his Villa, and its companion
piece, Solitude; Meleager and Atalanta; Apollo and the Seasons; and the Niobe,
in the National Gallery. The figures in his landscapes were not all painted by
himself ; he was assisted occasionally by Mortimer and Hayman.
518 THE KPOCHS OF PAINTING.

dence in London, he returned to his native place. When still
a youth, he married Margaret Burr, a young lady of some fortune,
and settled in Ipswich. One of his first pictures which attracted
notice was a view of Landguard Fort, of which there is a print by
Major; the picture has perished. His reputation gradually extend-
ing, he settled, in 1760, in Bath, as a more suitable field for the
exercise of his abilities. At Bath much of his time was devoted to
portraiture, which appears subsequently to have divided his atten-
tion with landscape-painting. In 1774 he settled in London, and
rented a portion of Schomberg House, Pall Mall; and shared with
Reynolds and Romney the patronage of the great. Sir Joshua
himself says of Gainsbrough,’ ‘‘ Whether he most excelled in
portraits, landscapes, or fancy pictures, it is difficult to deter-
mine.” He died in London, August 2nd, 1788, and was buried
in Kew churchyard.

Among his most successful and many able portraits are conspicuous
—Dr. Ralph Schomberg, and Mrs, Siddons, in the National Gallery ;
the Youth in Blue Satin, in the Grosvenor Gallery, known as “ The
Blue Boy,” equal to Vandyck, and said to have been painted to dis-
prove the opinion of Sir Joshua Reynolds, that the predominance
of blue in a picture is incompatible with a good effect of colour;
and the Hon. Mrs. Graham, now in the Gallery at Edinburgh. Of
his fancy subjects, genre pictures on a large scale, the following are
of deserved reputation :—the ‘Shepherd Boy in the Shower ;” the
‘Cottage Door ;” the “Cottage Girl with Dog and Pitcher,” the
“Shepherd Boys with their Dogs Fighting ;” and the ‘‘ Woodman
and his Dog in the Storm.” Of his landscapes there are several
fine examples in the National Gallery. Gainsborough is said never
to have put his name to any picture. He died in possession of 56°
of his pictures, and 148 drawings, which were exhibited at his
house in March, 1789. Many were sold on this occasion, and the
remainder at Christie’s, June 2nd, 1792.”

Shortly after Gainsborough’s death, Sir Joshua Reynolds, as
President of the Royal Academy, delivered a discourse to the
students, of which the “Character of Gainsborough” was the
subject. In this he alludes to Gainsborough’s method of handling
—his habit of hatching. “All those odd scratches and marks,” he
observes, ‘‘ which, on a closer examination, are so observable in
Gainsborough’s pictures, and which, even to experienced painters,
appear rather the effect of accident than design,—this chaos, this
uncouth and shapeless appearance—by a kind of magic, at a certain
distance, assume form, and all the parts seem to drop into their

1 Discourse XIV.
2 Edwards, “ Anecdotes of Painters,” &c.; Fulcher, “Life of Gainsborough,”
1856.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 519

proper places; so that we can hardly refuse acknowledging the
full effect of diligence, under the appearance of chance and hasty
negligence.”!

Joun Sineteton Copley was born in 1737, at Boston, in the United
States, where his father had then recently settled. His father was
English, his mother Irish? In 1774, having already attained
eminence as a portrait-painter at Boston, he set out for Italy by
way of England. He returned from Italy at the close of the year
1775, and established himself in London, where he was elected an
Associate in 1777, and a Member of the Royal Academy in 1779,
Jt was about this time that he was engaged on his two master
pieces, “The Death of Lord Chatham ;” and the ‘“ Death of Major
Peirson,” both now in the National Gallery: another of his best
pictures was ‘Charles J. ordering the Arrest of the Five Members
of the House of Commons.” None of these works were exhibited
at the Royal Academy. Copley sent almost exclusively portraits to
the Academy; of the few exceptions were, ‘‘The Offer of the
Crown to Lady Jane Grey,” exhibited in 1808, an inferior work;
and the ‘Resurrection of our Lord,” in 1812, his last exhibited
picture. Copley died September the 9th, 1815. He was the father
of Lord Lyndhurst. There is much free and masterly painting
in the Death of Peirson, which was painted for Alderman Boydell,
in 1783.

JosepH Wricut, commonly called, from his birth-place, Wricur
or Dersy, well known for his clever fire-light pieces, was born in
1734. In 1751 he visited London, and entered the school of
Hudson. He studied with the view of being an historical painter,
but his figure subjects are mostly rather genre or conversational
pieces than historical pictures. He professed himself a portrait-
painter, but acquired ‘his reputation by his fire or candle-light sub-
jects, in which he especially excelled. He was a fellow of the Incor-
porated Society of British Artists, established in London in 1765;
and he was one of the most prominent contributors to the exhi-
bitions of that Society. In 1773 he married, and went with his
wife to Italy, where he resided for two years, chiefly in Rome. He
saw while at Naples a fine eruption of Mount Vesuvius, of which
he painted some effective pictures; he also painted the periodical
display of fireworks from the Castle of St. Angelo at Rome, known
as the Girandola. In 1775 he returned to England, and set up at first
at Bath; but not finding the success he anticipated, he removed in
1777 to Derby, where he was well known and better appreciated ;
and there he remained until his death in 17972

1 Discourse XIV., delivered December 10th, 1788.

2 Cunningham, “ Lives of the most Eminent British Painters,” &c.
3 « Gentleman’s Magazine,” 1797.
520 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Wright was an occasional exhibitor at the Royal Academy after
his return to England. His “Eruption of Vesuvius” and ‘“ Giran-
dola” were both in the exhibition of 1778; and in 1782 he was
elected an Associate of the Academy ; but finding Edmund Garvey,
a landscape-painter, elected to the full honours of the Institution
before him, in 1784, he withdrew his name from the Academy
books; he, however, still continued to send pictures occasionally
to its exhibitions. He painted chiefly landscapes, towards the
close of his career. His last picture was a large view of the
“Head of Ulleswater.” Engravings from his works are numerous.
Like Hogarth and Copley, Wright painted in the solid old English
method, and his pictures are still in perfect preservation. Fuseli
says: “As a portrait-painter Wright can claim little notice. In
landscape, whenever connected with a phenomenon,—moonlight,
fire, storm; or with a sentiment,—solitude, tranquillity, melan-
choly,—he excelled. History he attempted; and in the pathetic
once eminently succeeded. Of heroic or poetic form he was totally
ignorant.” Fuseli refers to his ‘‘ Dead Soldier” as his successful
work. The National Gallery possesses one of his best candle-light
effects— An Experiment with the Air-pump;” an excellent pic-
ture.’

Maria Anceica Kaurmany, the daughter of a painter of Schwar-
zenberg, near Bregenz, in the Vorarlberg, was born at Coire in the
-Grisons on the 30th of October, 1741. From 1754 until her
mother’s death at Milan in 1757 she resided with her family in
Italy. In 1762 she returned with her father to Italy, visiting
Florence, Rome, and Naples: she spent the greater part of 1764 in
Rome, attracting great notice both for her portraits, and her musical
and other accomplishments. Her paintings are, however, feeble,
and uniformly in want of character. *

In 1765 she visited Bologna and Venice, and in the following
year came with Lady Wentworth to England, where she was
received with great distinction; she was elected one of the
original thirty-six members of the Royal Academy. In 1781 she
married Antonio Zucchi, a Venetian painter, and an Associate of
the Royal Academy in London, and left England a few days after-
wards: in 1783 she retired with her husband to Rome, where she
died, November 5, 1807, and wag buried in Sant Andrea delle
Fratte; having been a widow since 1795. The prints after her
works are very numerous, amounting to several hundreds; and
Angelica engraved some plates herself.

1 See the National Gallery Catalogue.
2 «Vita di Angelica Kauffmann, Pittrice, scritta dal Gav. Giovanni Gherardo De
Rossi.” Flor. 1810.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 52]

Among the most successful foreigners, domiciliated at this time
in England, were Zoffany and Loutherbourg.

Joun Zorran¥ (1735-1810), one of the original members of the
Royal Academy, was by descent a Bohemian, but by birth a
German, He studied in Italy, and established himself early as a
portrait-painter in London, where he met with great success, more
especially for his theatrical portraits. Zoffany spent some years
in Lucknow, and there also was highly successful: he returned to
England, about 1790, with a large fortune, and retired to Kew,
where he died. In the International Exhibition of 1862 were three
capital pictures by Zoffany—“ Dr. William Hunter demonstrating
Anatoiny to the Royal Academy ;” “Queen Charlotte and Family
Group ;” and “The Tribune at Florence.” The last was painted in
1774, and was bought by his royal patron George III.

Puiie James Loutuersoure, of Strasbourg (1740-1812), and a
member of the Academy of Paris, who had great facility as a land-
scape- marine- battle- and scene-painter, settled in this country in
1771, and after a successful career, retired to Chiswick, where he
died. He was a large contributor to the Royal Academy ex-
hibitions; and he is the author of many good etchings. Among
Loutherbourg’s principal pictures are—“ The Destruction of the
Spanish Armada;” “The Fire of London;” and “Lord Howe’s
Victory, June the 1st, 1794.” The last was in the International
Exhibition of 1862, and is not very satisfactory in its colouring;
he betrays too much of the scene-painter in it; the sea is decidedly
bad.

In so-called historical painting, the English school was, during
the last generation, only incipient; while in landscape, fancy
subjects, and portrait-painting, there were many able masters.
The principal contemporaries of Romney and Copley were Run-
ciman, Northcote, Mortimer, Barry, Opie and Fuseli; Richard
Westall,.. Henry Singleton, and G. H. Harlow. The names of
Hilton, Haydon, Bitty, and Dyce, bring the subject to our own
times.

ArexanpeR Runciman was born in Edinburgh in.1736. His
father was an architect, and Runciman commenced his career as a
landscape-painter, under the instruction of John Norris, but very
soon forsook this branch for history-painting, and in 1766 visited
Italy, where in Rome, a few years later, he made the acquaintance
of Fuseli: they were kindred spirits in the love of what is called
the sublime, but whether they respected that line which separates
the sublime from the ridiculous, may be fairly doubted; both were
extravagant in their conceptions and in their execution, and they
were similar in the nature of their defects, except that Runciman
was a better colourist than Fuseli.
522 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Runciman returned to Edinburgh in 1771, and succeeded Pavil-
lion as Director of the newly-established Academy of the Arts
there: this appointment gave him 120I. a-year, a very respectable
provision for Edinburgh at that time. In 1772 he visited London,
and lodged with Hogarth’s widow, who was then so reduced in
circumstances as to be compelled to let lodgings for a subsistence.’
Runciman died suddenly, before his own door, October 21st, 1785.
The most pretentious of his works‘is the “Hall of Pennicuick,”
painted for his patron Sir J. Clark, in which he has executed
twelve large compositions from Ossian. He exhibited some few
works in London: his best productions are his sketches.

James Nortucore, the son of a Plymouth watchmaker, was born
in 1746, came early to London, and became the pupil of Sir Joshua
Reynolds, with whom he lived and worked five years. In 1777 he
visited Italy, and the great works in Rome made him dissatisfied
with his own branch of portrait-painting, and directed his ambition
to history and the poets: in 1780 he returned to London. He
could ‘not wholly give up portrait-painting, and the greater repu-
tation and popularity of some of his contemporaries, developed a
natural taste for sarcasm in Northcote, who became notorious for
his somewhat invidious observations on his rivals; and his sayings
were carefully collected and preserved by his admirer Hazlitt, who
in 1830 published “ Conversations of James Northcote, Esq., R.A.,”
with the following motto from Armstrong—The precepts here of a
divine old man, I could recite: Northcote was then in his eighty-
second year. He died in London, July 13th, 1831: he was never
married.

There is no really excellent picture by Northcote, but there are
several respectable; as the “Murder of the two Princes in the
Tower,” and “ Hubert and Arthur,” painted for Boydell’s Shak-
speare: the National Gallery possesses a “Troilus and Cressida,”
by him, but which is not at present exhibited. He was a very
large contributor to the Royal Academy exhibitions.

A very extraordinary artist, though scarcely a practical painter,
was the designer and poet, WiLtiam Buaxe. He was the son of

1 Allan Cunningham, “ Lives of the most Eminent British Painters,” &.

2 See the Table at the end of thischapter. Northcote is now better known for his
contributions to literature than for his painting ; he was a large contributor toa. peri-
odical called “The Artist.” In 1813 he published “The Life of Sir Joshua Rey-
nolds, &c., and a brief Analysis of his Discourses,” one volume, 4o., of which a second
edition appeared in two volumes, 8yo., in 1819, In 1828 appeared “ One Hundred
Fables, Original and Selected,” with wood-cut illustrations; and in 1880 was pub-
lished his “ Life of Titian, with Anecdotes of the Distinguished Persons of his Time,”
two vols., 8v0. His biographies were passed through the press by his friends; the last
is badly arranged, and the facts respecting Titian are not accurate : our information
upon most of the great Italian painters has very much improved of late years.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 523

a hosier, was born in London in 1757, and was apprenticed to
an engraver of the name of Basire. His time from his very
boyhood was divided between poetry and drawing; his business, he
said, was “not to gather gold, but to make glorious shapes, express-
ing godlike sentiments.” He contrived to live a happy life
without the gold. At twenty-six years of age he married his
loving wife Catherine Boutcher, and in a few years afterwards
he gained the friendship and admiration of Flaxman, who had
a high opinion of Blake’s poems. A spirit of universal benevolence
and just appreciation of nature, whether animate or inanimate,
breathes throughout his poems.' As a designer he was hard and
extravagant, but his compositions have their grand passages; he
was very powerful in invention. He seldom painted. In 1809 he
privately exhibited a few pictures, among which was one of
Chaucer's “ Canterbury Pilgrimage” in distemper, not very true to
nature, and in the hard dry taste of his etchings, but with some
of their spirit and power of invention, and is, I imagine, on the whole,
a better work than Stothard’s.*? He printed a “ Descriptive Cata-
logue” of his exhibition, in which he made some severe strictures
upon Stothard’s picture of the “ Pilgrimage,” and upon the vicious
corruption of some of his fellow-labourers in art. The following
remarkable passage will serve as a specimen of the style of his
condemnatory judgments: “ As there is a class of men whose whole
delight is the destruction of men, so there is a class of artists whose
whole art and science is fabricated for the purpose of destroying
art; who these men are is soon known— by their works ‘ye shall
know them’—all who endeavour to raise up a style against
Raphael, Michelangelo, and the Antique; those who separate
Painting from Drawing; who look if a picture is well drawn; and

! The first of his publications was “ Songs of Innocence and Experience, showing
the two contrary states of the Human Soul,” which appeared in 1789, illustrated
by upwards of sixty etchings, executed and tinted by himself, his wife assisting him
in working off the impressions; the poems themselves are written on the copper-
plates. The next work was “The Gates of Paradise,” consisting of sixteen small
mystical designs: then followed, dated Lambeth, 1794, “ Urizen,” twenty-seven
small designs, laying open the mysteries of Hell. A few years later appeared his
« Jerusalem,” comprising one hundred designs of Men, Spirits, and Angels, and for
which, when tinted, he charged twenty-five guineas. This was followed by twelve
illustrations to Blair’s “ Grave,” which were, however, engraved by Schiavonetti for
Cromek the engraver, who gave Blake twenty guineas for the twelve drawings.
After a considerable interval came the “Book of Job,” in twenty-one illustrations ;
this is one of his most powerful works. His last publications were two works of
prophecies, one, on America, in eighteen plates; the other, on Europe, in seventeen
plates. Among his designs are also some illustrations to Young, Cowper, and
Dante.

2 It was among the water-colour drawings in the International Exhibition of
1862, and was contributed by Mr. Stirling.
524 THI EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

if it is, immediately cry out that it cannot be well coloured—those
are the men.” Blake died on the 12th of August, 1828: his
good wife survived him.

Though he seems to have lived in dream-land and in very
general poverty, and appears to have suffered vexation from the
ways and opinions of his contemporaries, Blake’s must be looked
upon, on the whole, as a very happy life: his wife was really
the “angel in the house:” Flaxman was his constant friend,
and he loved and venerated the great sculptor; he has addressed
him in his letters, as “Dear Sculptor of Eternity,” and “ Sublime
Archangel.” He was so thoroughly engrossed by the creatures of
his own imagination that he came to consider them realities, and we
accordingly have by him portraits of Moses, Homer, Pindar, Dante,
Milton, and many others, who all sat to him when he required them.’

Joun Hamitton Mortimer, the son of a miller of Sussex, though
an artist of great power, is better known for his very spirited
etchings than his paintings; he lived fast and died comparatively
young, oh the 4th of February, 1779, aged only thirty-seven; this
is a circumstance, however, in which his fortune was only similar
to that of Raphael, Paolo Morando, Taddeo Zucchero, and many
others of the renowned names in the History of Painting. Mor-
timer was the scholar of Hudson, the master of Reynolds, and he
enjoyed the friendship of the accomplished President. Among his
very few pictures, ‘St. Paul preaching to the Britons,” at High
Wycombe, is the most conspicuous. He was an exhibitor at the
Royal Academy, two years only, in 1778 and 1779; contributing
in the former year five works; and in the latter eight, comprising two
of his principal works, the “ Battle of Agincourt,” and the “ Meeting
of Vortigern and Rowena ;” three of the others were drawings in
water colours. He was elected an Associate of the Academy in
1778, and he died a few weeks after his election.

James Barry, a native of Ireland, the son of a coasting-trader
between England and Ireland, was born at Cork, October 11th,
1741, and commenced to paint as a mere boy. A picture of
‘St. Patrick baptizing the King of Cashel,” which he exhibited at
Dublin, attracted the notice of Burke, who furnished him with the
means of visiting London; and in 1765 the same generous patron

1 See Allan Cunningham’s Memoir, in his “Lives,” &c.; the preface to the
edition of his “Songs of Innocence,” published in 1839; and my notice of Blake in
the Supplement to the “ Penny Cyclopmdia.” A new life has just appeared, but I
have not seen it— Life of William Blake, ‘ Pictor Ignotus,’ with Selections from
his Poems and other Writings,” by the late Alexander Gilchrist, Barrister-at-Law,
2 vols, Cambridge, McMillan and Co. Considering how much Blake has been
talked and written about, the epithet Pictor Ignotus is scarcely applicable, unless
the writer meant to the masses; but how many painters are known to the masses ?
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 525

supplied his young countryman with funds for a tour in Italy, where
he spent several years in Rome, being chiefly delighted with the
remains of ancient sculpture there. In painting, he appears to
have been most attracted by the colouring of Titian; by the style
of the Carracci, as displayed in the Farnese Gallery, and the
best works of the Carracceschi in Rome. In the spring of 1770,
Barry left Rome, and passing deliberately through. the north of
Italy, returned to London early in 1771. He was one of those
most disappointed, in 1774, by the failure of the proposed scheme
for decorating St. Paul’s Cathedral with historical pictures. Dr.
Newton, the dean, was favourable to the proposition, but Dr.
Terrick, the Bishop of London, would not ‘suffer the doors of the
metropolitan church to be opened for the introduction of popery
into it.”! At that time the introduction of bad pictures was far
more to be dreaded than popery, by such an innovation. Barry’s
disappointment was in some measure relieved by the opportunity
given him in the great room of the Society of Arts, at the Adelphi,
where he painted in oil, gratuitously, a series of six great pictures,
illustrating the Civilization and Regeneration of Man.’

Barry was elected Professor of Painting to the Royal Academy in
1782, as successor to Penny, its first professor, and he delivered
in all six lectures between 1784 and 1798; he was expelled the
Academy in 1799, owing in part to the general brutality of his
manners, and in part to his intemperate “ Letter to the Dilettanti
Society,” published in 1797: but there were faults of temper
and personal animosity on both sides, as the published papers
sufficiently show ; however, Barry’s name was struck from the roll
of the Academicians by George III. He ended his wilful life
of strife and trouble, aggravated by poverty and solitude, on the
22nd of February, 1806, and his body, after lying in state at
the Adelphi, surrounded by the creations of his own pencil, was
buried with the usual ceremonies in St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Barry was the very opposite of West in the general character
of his works—his mind appears to have been engrossed by some
undefined idea of grandeur, of which he saw no traces in the works
of his contemporaries, and which accordingly his impetuous cha-

1 See Northcote’s “ Life of Reynolds,” i., 309,

2 They have been engraved, and are described, by Barry himself, in a pamphlet
entitled, “ An Account of a Series of Pictures in the Great Room of the Society of
Arts,” &., 1783. The engravings were not finished until 1792. The only
remuneration he received for this labour of seven years was the proceeds from their
exhibition and the sale of his etchings, and 250 guineas presented to him at
different times from the Society of Arts.

3 See the Appendix to Barry’s “ Works,” &c.; Edwards’ “Anecdotes of
Painters,” &¢.; and my “Introduction” to the “Lectures of the Royal Academi-
cians,” 1848.
526 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

racter treated with little charity. His notions of grandeur appear
to have been too closely identified with vastness: there is nothing
truly great in his own works. His “Adam and Eve,” now at
Kensington, are very ordinary figures; the Eve, indeed, is much
below mediocrity. The series of paintings at the Adelphi display
much power of thought, but at the same time exhibit, with equal
force, the undisciplined mind and pencil of their author. ‘These
pictures are intended to represent the history of the civilization of
man : there are in all six subjects—“ Orpheus ;” a “Grecian Harvest-
Home ;” “Crowning the Victors at Olympia ;” “Commerce, or the
Triumph of the Thames;” the “Distribution of Premiums in the
Society of Arts ;” and “ Elysium, or the State of Final Retribution.”
The “Crowning the Victors at Olympia” possesses the greatest
beauties of design, but the “ Harvest-Home” is, on the whole,
the most perfect as a picture and in composition: it is an illus-
tration of the sentiment in Virgil’s “Georgics” (ii. 458), “Ob,
too fortunate husbandmen, if they did but know their happiness.”

Barry is generally spoken of as a martyr to pure enthusiasm
for high art; his whole conduct, however, shows that his own
genius was the idol he worshipped; and perhaps all his
misfortunes may be traced to an inordinate esteem for his own
productions, and a heartless depreciation of the efforts of others."

Henry Foseui, or rather Féssti, was born at Ziirich, February
7th, 1741. He was educated for the church, took his degree as
Master of Arts, and entered into holy orders; but having a
difference with a magistrate of Ziirich, he left that city in 1763, and
visiting Berlin on his way, came to London. He maintained him-
self here for some years by literature, and took to painting, by the
advice of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in 1770, when he visited Italy,
where he remained, chiefly at Rome, eight years. He returned
to London in the spring of 1779, and in 1781 attracted considerable
notice by a picture of the ‘‘ Nightmare,’ distinguished for its
quaint originality, but nothing as a painting. He was elected
an Associate of the Academy in 1788, and married the same year.
In 1790 he became a full Member of the Academy, and in 1799,
after the expulsion of Barry, Fuseli was appointed to succeed him
in the Professorship of Painting. In March, 1801, he delivered
his first three lectures, which were published in the same year. In
1805 he became Keeper of the Academy, and Opie succeeded him as
Professor of Painting, as it was contrary to the law for two offices
to be held by the same member; notwithstanding this regulation,
however, in 1810, after Opie’s death, Fuseli resumed the Professor-
ship of Painting, and retained his Keepership at the same time. He

1 See his life by Allan Cunningham, in ‘“‘ The Lives of the most Eminent British
Painters,” &c.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 527

died at the residence of the Countess of Guildford, at Putney Hill,
April 16th, 1825,’ and was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Fuseli delivered in all twelve lectures at the Royal Academy, the
earlier are the most valuable—those on Ancient and Modern Art,
on Invention, and on Composition : the most characteristic feature
of all, is their excessive elaboration of style: there is, however,
frequently much force in his expressions, and his criticism is
mature, and often profound; in this respect, he goes far beyond
either Barry or Opie. Fuseli was, in one respect, somewhat similar
to Barry: his imagination was too active for the control of his
judgment, and his hand wanted the power to express, as works
of art, what his mind conceived: he was wholly deficient in the
faculty of representing individuality. Many of his works, conceived
with all the power of a fervid poetic fancy, are in their execution
as designs mere burlesques of Michelangelo and the antique; and
his forms arc a series of repetitions: practically he was not a
painter at all. Fuseli’s principal work is his Milton Gallery, in
forty-seven designs, powerful and extraordinary in their conception,
but equally extravagant and incorrect in their execution. His
eight compositions for Boydell’s Shakspeare Gallery are likewise
among Fuseli’s best works. As writers, however, both Barry and
Fuseli are certainly among the best critics on art in European lite-
rature, though their writings are not free from the extravagances of
their intellectual characters.

Joun Opis, the son of a carpenter, born near Truro, Cornwall,
in May, 1761, was brought to London at an early age, and intro-
duced to Sir Joshua Reynolds by Dr. Wolcot. For some time
he created a considerable sensation as the “Cornish genius;”
but, the novelty over, he had the same up-hill way to make as the
rest of his fellow-labourers in art. He maintained his position as
a portrait-painter nevertheless, and produced some good historical
pieces. His pictures were broad in effect, and usually harmonious
in colour, but are sometimes heavy, and generally wanting in
transparency, as his “Death of Rizzio:” his expression, however,
was often forcible. Opie succeeded Barry and Fuseli as Professor of
Painting at the Royal Academy, and delivered four lectures in 1807,
on Design or Drawing, Colouring, Chiaroscuro, and Invention; fluent,
forcible, and eloquent, but too exclusively the expression of feeling :
he dwells rather upon his own estimate of the value and importance
of art than upon its actual principles.

These lectures he delivered but once, and it was his intention to
add two more to them; he did not live, however, to write those
on Composition and Expression. Opie died in the prime of life,

1 See Knowles’s “ Life and Writings of Fuseli,’ 3 vols., 8vo., 1831, which
contains a good print of Fuseli from a portrait by Harlow.
528 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

April 9th, 1807, just one month after he had delivered his lectures
at the Royal Academy, and was buried by the side of Sir Joshua
Reynolds, in St. Paul’s Cathedral. He was twice married; from
his first wife he was divorced; the second was the accomplished
Amelia Opie, who survived him many years.’

Ricuarp WEsTatt, a prolific but a mannered painter, was a native
of Hertford, where he was born in 1765. He’was a contributor to
Boydell’s Shakspeare; was distinguished for his poetical subjects ;
and was a great illustrator of books. He was elected a Member
of the Royal Academy in the same year as Lawrence and Stothard,
1794: he died in London, December 4th, 1836. The altar-piece
at Marylebone church is a good example of his style.

Henry Sincieton, historical and portrait-painter, and designer for
books, was born in London in 1766, and commenced his career
fortunately ; he was the gold medalist at the Royal Academy in
1788, for a picture illustrating Dryden’s “Ode on Alexander’s
Feast.” Yet though a ready and tasteful designer, he attracted
but little public notice, and led a retired life. He never belonged
to the Academy, having written his name as a candidate only once
in its books, in 1807; he was, notwithstanding, a large contributor
to its exhibitions. His chief works are his Illustrations to Shaks-
peare. He died on the 15th of September, 1839, and was buried in
a vault in St. Martin’s church, near the body of his wife, who died
thirty years before him.

An excellent portrait picture of the “General Assembly of the
Royal Academy, 1793,” the property of the Academy, by Singleton,
was in the International Exhibition of 1862. The National Gal-
lery possesses two pictures by him, bequeathed by himself, not at
present exhibited—“ Tiresias and Manto,” and “ Ariel ;” and both
are superior to the average works of their time, more especially
the former, which has a fine sentiment. There are some large
prints after Singleton by Schiavonetti, Cardon, and others.”

Grorce Henry Hartow was born in London in 1787, and having
acquired the rudiments of painting from Samuel Drummond, a
portrait-painter, paid one hundred guineas for the privilege of
copying pictures in the studio of Lawrence. He had a ready
ability and a fine taste, and early attracted notice for his small
portraits in oil. In 1818, he visited Rome, where he excited great
wonderment by completing a copy of Raphael’s ‘‘ Transfiguration ”
in eighteen days, and through the favour of Canova, he was elected
a Member of the Academy of St. Luke, an honour he enjoyed in

1 «Tectures on Painting, &c., with a Memoir by Mrs. Opie,” London, 4to., 1809.
This work contains a mezzotint by Reynolds from a portrait of Opie by himself.
See also “The Lectures of the Royal Academicians,” &c. Ed. Wornum, 1848.

2 There is a memoir of Singleton in the “ Art-Union Journal” for 1839.
.. PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 529.

common with only a select few of his countrymen, West, Flaxman,
Fuseli, and Lawrence. And he returned ‘home full of hope; but
only to die of a virulent attack of the mumps, on the 4th of
February, 1819, in his thirty-second year. Harlow’s early death
was a great disappointment to his admirers, who expected much
from him. Of his few historical pieces, the most celebrated is the
“Trial of Queen Catherine,” which is, in its principal figures, a
portrait group of the Kemble family. It was in the International
Exhibition of 1862, and is now cracked in a deplorable manner ;
but it was never comparable as a painting with his separate small
portraits, of which those of Fuseli, Northcote, and Nollekens, are
admirably painted.

Witi1am Hittron was born at Lincoln, June the 3rd, 1786. His
father was a portrait-painter. In 1800 Hilton was placed with
J. BR. Smith, the engraver, in London, and he obtained admission
as a student into the Royal Academy about the same time. Already,
in 1803, he appeared as an exhibitor at the Academy, and very
soon acquired distinction for his choice of subject, his refined
taste in design, and a harmonious and rich style of colouring,
though, from an injudicions method of mixing and applying his
colours, his pictures are now rapidly and hopelessly perishing.
The use of asphaltum seems to be the chief cause of this mischief,
which, however, is more apparent in some pictures than in others.

He was. elected a member of the Royal Academy in 1819, and
succeeded Thomson in the office of keeper in 1827. He died in
London, December 30, 1839, in his fifty-fourth year.’

Hilton died in possession of most of his best pictures :—“The
Angel releasing St. Peter from Prison,” and “Sir Calepine rescuing
Serena,” both exhibited in 1831; “Comus;” “ Amphitrite ;” ‘Una,
with the Lion, entering Corceca’s Cave,”? exhibited in 1832; “The
Murder of the Innocents,” in the exhibition of 1838, the last picture
exhibited by Hilton; and “Rizpah watching the dead bodies of
Saul’s Sons,” but this was left unfinished at his death. A large
collection of his works was exhibited at the British Institution in
1840. He is one of those who exhibited few pictures at the
Academy ;. the painters who paint much and well at the same time,
are not many; and, upon an examination of the table at the end of
this chapter, it will be found that the English school presents no
exception to the rule. Hilton was a more careful and substantial
painter than his immediate predecessors in the same department;
and one of his best works is the fast-perishing “ Edith discovering
the Dead Body of Harold,” in the Vernon collection. Our his;

1 « Art-Union Journal,” 1840.
° Engraved by W. H. Watt for the London “ Art-Union ” in 1842.
2M
530 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

torical painters have, until of late years, rather indicated than
expressed the substance of their ideas, more especially as regards
the drawing of the human figure: we have indications of hands
and feet, but not the perfectly modelled form in light and shade
and colour—an imperfection happily now corrected in the best
examples of our school. There were two great works by Hilton in
the International Exhibition of 1862, but they were neither imposing
nor attractive :—the “ Angel delivering St. Peter,” and the “ Cruci-
fixion ;” the latter was very cold in effect.

BenJaMiN Rosert Haypon, an historical painter of unquestion-
able ability, was born at Plymouth, January 23, 1786, and came
to London in 1804, the year before Wilkie, his friend and fellow-
pupil at the Royal Academy. His ambitious views of art were
early developed: his picture of ‘‘ Dentatus,” of which there is a
celebrated woodcut by Harvey, was exhibited in 1809, and his
dissatisfaction at the place given to this picture at the Academy
exhibition of that year seems to have excited an animosity in him
towards that body, which finally developed itself’ into a monomania.
Many other vigorous works followed the “ Dentatus ;” as the “ Judg-
ment of Solomon,” for which he was voted the freedom of his native
town; “Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem,” now in America; ‘“‘ The
Raising of Lazarus;” ‘‘ Xenophon’s First Sight of the Sea;” and
some others, which met with more or less success, but never to:
the satisfaction of the inordinate ambition of the painter. His last
works were “Nero watching the .Burning of Rome,” and ‘“ The
Banishment of Aristides,” which were exhibited together in the
Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, in April, 1846, but the exhibition was a
complete failure, and he was now overwhelmed with pecuniary
difficulties. His disappointment at last overcame even his almost
indomitable energy, and he died by his own hand, in his painting
room at Connaught Terrace, on the morning of the 22nd of June,
1846."

Haydon has been considered by some a martyr to his love of
what is termed High Art: the facts of his life show anything but
this. He began his career with almost unexampled encouragement,
and appears at all times to have found helping friends. Haydon
had no other enemy than himself: his ambition was so excessive
that it destroyed his judgment, and his extraordinary talents
wanted that counterbalancing ability requisite to ensure a real
artistic success: he was impulsive and desultory, mistook the will
for the deed, and neglected the commonest elements of excellence
in execution: he was extremely mannered. With the exception of.

1 See his “ Life” from his Autobiography and Journals, edited by Tom Taylor,
1853.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 531

a large style of design, indicated but not expressed, and a warm
and powerful colouring, we miss every other requisite of a fine
picture in his works: yet such was his extraordinary vanity that
he identified the fate of the art of his country with that of his own’
efforts, and assumed all progress to have proceeded from himself;
while perhaps no individual artist ever had less influence on the
taste of his time, or even on that of his own pupils, who do not retain
a single trace of his style; indeed, Sir Charles Eastlake, Sir Edwin
Landseer, and George Lance, Haydon’s principal scholars, illus-
trate three as opposed paths as the whole province of painting
could possibly display.'

In an account of the remarkable painters of this country a place
may be claimed for Davin Scort, of Edinburgh, who excelled in
three of the highest qualities in art—invention, drawing, and
colouring; but he was too often extravagant and negligent. He
adds another to the list of geniuses who have been overwhelmed
by their own ambition. He was born in 1806, was the son of
Robert Scott, the engraver, and commenced his own career as an
engraver. He exhibited his first picture in 1828, “The Hopes of
Early Genius dispelled by Death,” which looks like a foreshadow-
ing of coming disappointment. In 1832 Scott visited Italy, where
he met his countryman, Dyce, bent on the same pursuit as himself.
He spent the greater part of 1833 in Rome, and there painted a
large picture of “ Discord,” or “ Household Guds Destroyed,” another
strange subject, indicating neither a hopeful nor a peaceful spirit :
the result of its exhibition in Edinburgh, in 1834, greatly disap-
pointed the painter, This was followed by a long series of ethic,
poetic, and mystic works, exhibited at thé Royal Scottish Academy,
of which he was a member. Scott died, partly exhausted by
depression of spirits, on the 5th of March, 1849, in his forty-third
year only. His industry was prodigious. He appeared, however,
only twice on the walls of the London Royal Academy; in 1840,
with “Queen Elizabeth in the Globe Theatre ;” and in 1845, with
“Pan Awakened.” Among his most remarkable works, and all of
them have something out of the common in them, are ‘ Para-
celsus,” a curious illustration of medieval charlatanry, which was
in the International Exhibition of 1862; ‘‘ The Triumph of Love ;”
*‘ Achilles addressing the Manes of Patroclus;” “Peter the Her-
mit ;” “Jane Shore;” “Richard III.;” and his immense “ Vasco
de Gama encountering the Spirit of the Cape,” a really magnificent

1 In 1840 Haydon commenced to combine lecturing with painting, and professed
to find the former the more profitable pursuit. His lectures on “Painting and
Design ” were published in 1844-6 in two vols, Svo. He had already published in
1842 “Thoughts on the relative Value of Fresco and Oil Painting as applied to
the Architectural Decorations of the Houses of Parliament.”

2u 2
532 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

work, now in the Trinity House at Leith, where it was placed by
his friends and admirers.' Scott is the author of some fine designs
illustrative of Coleridge’s “ Ancient Mariner,” and of Bunyan’s
“ Pilgrim’s Progress.” ‘

Witriam Erry, the greatest of English colourists, was the son of.
a miller, of York, where he was born, on the 10th of March, 1787,
and he was bound to a letterpress-printer at Hull in 1798, much
against his taste. He served his time, and then came to London in
1806, the year that Wilkie commenced his career in the great
metropolis. Etty lived with his uncle, William Etty, in Lombard
Street, and by his aid became for one year the private pupil of Sir
Thomas Lawrence; but the assistance he got for his hundred
guineas was of small avail in carrying him through the great dif-
ficulties of his profession. He himself tells us of his vain efforts
and of his despair: Etty and Collins entered the Academy as
students, the same week in 1807. For-long Etty’s pictures were’
rejected at the Royal Academy and at the British Institution. His
probation endured fifteen years; but at last, in 1820, his “Coral
Finders,” and, in 1821, * Cleopatra,” established his reputation as a
poetical painter and a great colourist. In 1822 he visited Italy,
where he devoted his chief attention to the works of the Venetian
masters: it was in Venice, he tells us, that he found the greatest
attractions ;—“ Venice, the birth-place and cradle of colour, the
hope and idol of my professional life!” He studied in the Academy
there, and was elected an honorary member of it. After his return,
in 1824, he exhibited his picture of “ Pandora Crowned by the
Seasons.” A long list of compositions, resplendent in their mag-
nificent colouring, followed. Etty has himself selected nine of his
productions, as his most important works :—‘‘‘ To the pure in heart,
all things are pure:’ my aim in all my great pictures has been to
paint some great moral on the heart,—‘The Combat,’ the beauty of
mercy ; the three ‘Judith’ pictures, patriotism, and self-devotion to
country, people, and God; ‘Benaiah, David’s Chief Captain,’
vulour ; ‘Ulysses and the Syrens,’ the importance of resisting
sensual delights, or an Homeric paraphrase on ‘The wages of sin
is death;’ three pictures of ‘Joan of Are,’ religion, loyalty, and
patriotism, like the modern Judith. In all, nine great pictures, as
it was my desire to paint three times three.”

1 Where, however, it has been very scandalously used as mere wall or back-
ground for some civic portraits! If Scott were overwhelmed by the neglect he
experienced in his lifetime, what would he have felt could he have imagined the
indignity that his great masterpiece has been subjected to since his death ?

2 The latter were engraved by his brother, W. B. Scott, by whom there is a
“Memoir of David Scott, R.S.A., containing his Journal in Italy, Notes on Art,
and other Papers, with seven illustrations,” 8vo., Edinburgh, 1850.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 533

In the summer of 1849 an exhibition of Etty’s works, to the
number of 130 pictures, took place in the great room of the Society
of Arts, at the Adelphi; displaying his great powers in a surprising
manner, especially as a colourist. He died in the same year, 1849,
in his native place, York, on the 13th of November; he was never
married, and having lived a very retired life, he accumulated a
considerable fortune.'

Etty was in every respect one of the most distinguished painters
ef the English school, but more especially as a colourist; if not
surpassing, at least rivalling, his great models Titian and Paul
Veronese. His drawing was too often affected and mannered, but
it too was occasionally tasteful, correct, and even grand. To speak
of Etty as purely a colourist, not as a painter, it is scarcely saying
too much to affirm that he has produced the most exquisite gems of
modern art, as in the ‘‘ Imprudence of Candaules,” and some other
specimens in the Vernon collection.

One of the most refined in his style of the British school of
historical painters, was Witu1am Dyce, by whose recent premature
death the Palace of Westminster and the Royal Academy have
both suffered a very serious loss. Dyce was born in 1806 at
Aberdeen, where he graduated in the Marischal College in 1823.
He became a student of the Royal Academy of London in 1824,
and in 1825 visited Italy, passing many months in Rome. One of
his first pictures was the ‘‘ Education of Bacchus,” exhibited at
the Royal Academy in London in 1827: and in 1828. he revisited
Rome, where he painted a picture of the “Madonna and Child,”
which attracted the admiration of Overbeck and other Germans
established in the Eternal City. In 1830 he was practising as a
portrait-painter in Edinburgh, but he again visited Italy in 1832.
4n’1837 he commenced, in the Trustees’ Academy in Edinburgh,
his connection with pattern designing for manufacturers; this led
to his afterwards having the directorship of the Government School
of Design, established in 1837 at Somerset House; but he resigned
the post in 1844. He was, however, again connected with the
school, as one of three head-masters, Dyce’s department being that
of Ornament: in 1848 his connection with the establishment finally
ceased, and from that time his attention has been more exclusively
devoted to painting, both in fresco and in oil: he was in that year
elected a member of the Royal Academy. The Houses of Parlia-
ment have, however, been too much the tomb of his art: his noble
series in the Queen’s Robing Room, from the Story of King Arthur,
which he was commissioned to execute in 1849-50, remains un-
finished; his health, of late, being unequal to the task of com-

! Gilchrist, * Life of William Etty,” 1855.
534 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

pleting them. He died at his house at Streatham on the 14th of
February, 1864.

Dyce was what is termed a learned painter, and his compositions
are severe; everything he did was precise and accurate, and he
bestowed little care in the accumulation of accessories: the follow-
ing oil-pictures are sufficiently characteristic of his style :—‘ King
Joash shooting the Arrow of Deliverance,” 2 Kings xiii., 1844;
“King Lear and the Fool in the Storm,” 1851; “The Meeting of
Jacob and Rachel,” 1853; ‘ Christabel,” 1855; “‘ The Good Shep-
herd,” 1859; “St. John leading Home his Adopted Mother,” 1860,
originally painted in 1844; and, as illustrating his versatility, the
exquisite little landscape—“ Pegwell Bay, Kent,” 1860. He has
executed several important frescoes, in a good style and well
manipulated; as St. Ethelbert, in the House of Lords; Religion,
Generosity, Courtesy, and Mercy, in the Queen’s Robing Room;
the great composition of King Arthur's Court, in the same apart-
ment, remains unfinished. He has also executed some beautiful
works for All-Saints church, Margaret Street.’

One of the most promising, to use a somewhat hackneyed term, of
our historical painters, was JoHN Cross, a man of real dramatic talent,
born at Tiverton in 1819; but his constitution proved too weak for
the wear and tear of the arduous career of an ambitious historical
painter, whose work is not only to oppose, but to conquer, the
prejudices of his time. Much of Cross’s boyhood was spent in
France, at St. Quentin, where his father had charge of a lace manu-
factory, belonging to Mr. Heathcote, and where he first studied art :
his education was completed in Paris, in the studio of M. Picot, an
historical painter: Cross was altogether French by education, and the
French school is entitled to the credit of developing his powers as a
painter. He started at orice into notoriety in England through his
noble picture of “ Richard Coeur de Lion forgiving Bertrand de
Gourdon,” by which he gained a 300/. prize in the competition at
Westminster, in 1847; and the picture itself was purchased for the
nation by the Royal Commissioners for the Decoration of the Houses
of Parliament, at the price of 5001.; it now hangs in one of the
Committee Rooms, of Her Majesty’s Palace, at Westminster; but
the painter received no further aid from the Royal Commissioners.

Cross now established himself in England, and married an English
wife. In 1850 he exhibited at the Academy another great effort, “The
Burial of thé two Sons of Edward IV., in the Tower, 1483,” though
it was less interesting, both in its subject, and in its composition,
than the “Richard.” His next great work, which was worthy of
his first, though of a less popular subject, and therefore less attractive,

1 There are notices of Dyce in the “ Art-Journal” for October, 1860, and April,
1864.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 535

was the “Death of Thomas & Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury,
December 29th, 1170-1,” in the Exhibition of 1853; and in 1858
appeared his last exhibited work, the “Coronation of William
.the Conqueror,” another great picture of unusual power and merit.
The moment chosen is a temporary alarm and confusion, as
expressed in the following quotation, from ‘‘ Knight’s History
of England.” ‘Meanwhile William, though trembling from head
to foot, and left almost alone in the church, or with none with him
save the Archbishop Aldred, and a few pale, panic-stricken priests,
all clustering round the altar, most resolutely refused to postpone
the celebration, and held the crown of England in his grip, as
though no mortal hand should ever wrest it from him.” The
figure of William, who is seated, and has turned to grasp the crown
in his left hand and his sword in the other, is a grand heroic
looking person, and constitutes the chief subject and interest of the
picture. Neither this work nor his Thomas 4 Becket, found
a purchaser, and Cross was reduced to very straitened means ;
a picture of “The Storm Scene on the Cliffs,” from the ‘“ An-
tiquary,” was rejected by the Academy. This disappointed
painter, not an imaginary, but a real victim to his devotion to
“high art,” died, broken in health and spirits, on the 26th of
February, 1861.1

The landscape-painters of the last generation were more allied to
those of the present school in style, than the historical painters are
to their successors of our time.

The works of Wilson had more influence upon his. contem-
poraries than those of Gainsborough; he is the pioneer of the
English school of landscape-painters, but Crome seems to have
been a genuine student of nature. The so-called water-colour
painters appear to have been more numerous than the oil-painters,
seventy-five years ago, but it has not been my fortune yet to see a
single washed drawing of this period worthy the name of a painting,
or approaching the drawings of Turner, or even the ordinary
efforts of the present day; nor do I imagine that any of these men
can have assisted the development of oil-painting in the slightest
degree. SamueLt Scorr, the marine-painter, who died in 1772;
Georce Barrer, of Dublin (1732-84); Prive Reinacte (about
1750-1833), who was much in Italy; Sir Georcr Beaumont (1753-
1827), a pupil of Wilson; Joun Giover (1767-1849), the English
Claude, who died in Van Diemen’s Land; and Tuomas and Bey-
Jamin Barker, brothers, of Bath (1769-1847, and 1775-1838),
may be looked upon as fair representatives of their class, and

1 Sce a notice of Cross in the “ Art-Journal” for May, 1862.
536 THE EPOCHS OF. PAINTING.

as showing the ordinary state of the art of the latter half of
the eighteenth century, as it was left by Wilson, and as it was
found by Turner. Another who may be added to the above
as among the excellent masters of his time, but of whom little.
is known, is Grorar Vincent; he was an exhibitor at the Royal
Academy from 1814 to 1823, both inclusive, and was conspicuous in
the International Exhibition of 1862: his pictures are like the
early works of Turner.

From the commencement of this century the English school
has been very prominent in landscape-painting ; selected names
even constitute an imposing list, as Turner, Constable, Reinagle,
Callcott, Crome, Bonington, Nasmyth, Collins, Miller, Danby.

‘Georck MorLanp was rather an animal- than landscape-painter,
though he combined both; but his animals and figures, or certainly
his horses, dogs, and pigs, were usually.the principal features of his
pictures; the landscape portions are commonly mannered, and
sometimes worthless, though always executed with freedom and
cleverness. He was born in London in 1768, and was evidently
endowed by nature with great powers of observation. and of
execution; some of his small earlier pictures, especially of horses,
are. admirable; but he latterly got into a very slovenly: way of
painting. Many of his pictures were executed in the Fleet Prison,
for the dealers: Morland was content so long as they supplied him
with his immediate wants, the chief of which was alcohol. He died
in his forty-first year in a sponging-house in Eyre-street Hill
Leather Lane, on the 29th of October, 1804, after drinking a
large quantity of spirits. He left a widow, from whom he had
been separated for some time; she, however, survived him only
about a fortnight: they had no children.’

Gores Stuses, another capital painter of dogs and horses, but
who preceded Morland by a generation, was born at Liverpool
in 1724, and died in London in 1808. The prints after his pictures
are numerous, and he etched some plates himself. He was the
author also of two able works on Anatomy, “The Anatomy of
the Horse,” completed in 1766; and towards the close of his
life appeared a portion of “A Comparative Anatomical Exposition
of the Structure of the Human Body with that of a Tiger and
acommon Fowl, in Thirty Tables.” Stubbs was an animal-
portrait painter; his powers do not seem to have gone beyond
this. His “ Phaeton with the Horses of the Sun,” which was in the
International Exhibition of 1862, is a very ordinary picture. Some,
however, of his single horses and dogs are admirable: Fuseli says

1 See Edwards, “ Ancedotes of ge 1808. A biography of Morland is
contained in Cunningham’s “ Lives.”
PAINTING IN ENGLAND, 537

of him, “his tigers, for grandeur, have never been equalled; his
lions are to those of Rubens what jackals are to lions.”!

The greatest of deceased English animal-painters was certainly
James Warp, who was born in ‘Thames Street, London, October 23rd,
1769, and commenced his career as an engraver; but he afterwards
took to painting, imitating the manner of Morland, his brother-in-
law. Some of Ward’s early pictures were engraved by his brother

‘William Ward, A.E., and some were sold in Ireland as works
of Morland. In 1794 James Ward was appointed painter and
engraver to the Prince of Wales, and he engraved Sir W. Beechey’s
large picture of the “Review of the Third and Tenth Dragoons,”
now at Hampton Court. .

It was shortly after this, that through a connexion with the
Royal Agricultural Society, Ward was led to take to animal-
painting, a branch of the art in which he eventually attained
such great eminence. His masterpiece is the large picture of
“ An Alderney Bull, Cow, and Calf,” painted in 1820-22, and now in
the National Gallery, and it is certainly without a rival of its kind
in Europe; it was painted professedly in emulation with Potter’s
“Young Bull,”’ in the Hague Museum. Ward died in London,
November 17th, 1859, in We ninety-first year.

JosepH Mautorp Wiruiam Turner, born on the 23rd of April,
1775, was the son of a hairdresser who lived in Maiden Lane,
Covent Garden ; and there, over: his father’s shop, the Fate
painter produced the first efforts of the art by which his name is
immortalized. Turner entered as a student of the Royal Academy
in 1789, and he exhibited a drawing of Lambeth Palace in the
following year; in 1799 he was elected an associate, and in April,
1802, he became a member of the Academy. In this year he
visited France and Switzerland. In 1807 he was elected Pro-
fessor of Perspéctive in the Royal Academy, succeeding Edwards,
an associate of the Academy, who had for many years filled the
‘office of its Teacher of Perspective. In 1807 also he began to
publish his “ Liber Studiorum,” or book of sketches, in imitation of
‘Claude’s “ Liber Veritatis ;” ‘anal for a few years he painted in
emulation of the style of Claude. In 1812 he built a house in
‘Queen Anne Street West, No. 47, which he retained until his
death, and in which he had a gallery, where for many years
he exhibited some of his pictures. He visited Italy three times—
in 1819, in 1829, and about 1840. For more than sixty years, with
scarcely an intermission, the works of Turner attracted attentive
gazers on the walls of the Royal Academy; and, after a life of
almost unrivalled success, and an industry unsurpassed, this great

1 Additions to Pilkington, 1810.
538 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

landscape-painter died unmarried, and under an assumed name,
in an obscure lodging at Chelsea.

His life was in every sense a remarkable one, for its humble
origin and for its splendid results: retired and reserved always
while living, the splendour of his fame among his contemporaries
does not contrast more strongly with his habits of life, than the
great and national character henceforth identified with his name,
does with the singular humility of his closing career. His large
fortune, both in pictures and in funded property, he bequeathed to
the nation: his pictures to be placed in a suitable gallery within
ten years; his funded property towards the establishment of an
institution for the benefit of decayed artists. The law, however,
has made a change in the disposal of his property, but the nation
possesses a noble gallery of pictures,—a lasting monument of
his genius.’

Turner had three styles as a landscape-painter: the first was
highly elaborated, especially in his water-colour drawings. The
contrast of style between his early and latest works is remarkable :
in the best of his early works he shows a strong imitation of
Wilson, and a certain coldness of colour; the latest are distin-
guished for their excessive looseness of execution and extravagance
of colouring. It is in his middle style that he is greatest, that
he is himself. This middle period may date from about 1802
to about 1832, from his election as an Academician to his return
from his second visit to Italy. But during this period the transi-
tion from the first to the last was gradual, his execution becoming
successively more free, and his colouring more brilliant—from
‘Calais Pier,” 1803, to “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,” a gorgeous
masterpiece, exhibited in 1832. His imitation of Claude in the
early part of this period, 1814-15, was an episode in his career,
brought on by the conventional criticism of the time, which held up
Claude as the great model of landscape-painters. Of this interval of
rivalry, “Crossing the Brook,” “ Apuleia in search of Apuleius,”
and ‘‘Dido Building Carthage,” are the great illustrations. The
“Dido,” and the “Sun Rising in Mist” (1807), show what Turner
forsook for the imitation of Claude, and how far more true to
nature, and at the same time more poetical, he was, than his model.

1 The will was disputed, but in accordance with a compromise between the
parties in litigation, it was decided, by an order of the Court of Chancery, dated
March 19th, 1856, that all pictures, drawings, sketches, finished or unfinished, by
the hand of Turner, should belong to the nation, and that all engravings should
belong to the next of kin. The finished pictures thus acquired for the National
Gallery amount to about one hundred in number. See “The Turner Gallery: a
series of sixty engravings from the principal works of J. M. W. Turner. With a
memoir and illustrative text by R. N. Wornum, &c.” Folio. London, J. 8. Virtue,
1859-1862.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 539

The imménse superiority of the “ Liber Studiorum,” of Turner,
over the “Liber Veritatis” of Claude, is not a fair test of the
comparative merits of the two painters; for while Turner’s are
highly elaborated studies, Claude’s are but incidental memoranda of
pictures.

Turner was, perhaps, most original and greatest between his
first and third visits to Italy, between 1820 and 1840, to which
time belong “ The Bay of Baia,” “* Ulysses deriding Polyphemus,”
‘“Caligula’s Palace and Bridge,” “ Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,’’ and
the “ Fighting Temeraire :” these are the works that are unlike any-
thing produced by any other master, and should alone establish the
name of Turner as that of the greatest of landscape-painters. The effect
of the two stone pines and the distant sea and mountains in the
“Bay of Baie,” is probably without a parallel in art; but, on the
whole, perhaps, the most poetical of Turner’s productions is the
“Pilgrimage.” Here, too, is the noble stone pine, to give remote-
ness and expanse to the distant landscape—the waste ‘‘more rich
than other climes’ fertility.” Italy, ancient and modern, are both
represented: the ancient ruin, the medieval convent and walled
town, the modern life—the party of pleasure seated on the river
bank ; Italian air, land, and foliage, all vividly realised. A vast
mountain country, with winding waters, a broken bridge, a pile of
ruins; the sun going down beyond the mountains, but still tinging
them with a warm and beautiful light, and shining alike upon the
glorious wreck of the past, and on the fascinating out-door life—
the feasting and dancing—of the present, Italy.

In the last ten years of his career, and occasionally before,
Turner was extravagant to an extreme degree: he played equally
with nature and with his colours. Light, with all its prismatic
varieties, seems to have been the chief object of his studies; indi-
viduality of form or colour he was wholly indifferent to. The
looseness of execution in his latest works has not even the apology
of having been attempted on scientific principles; he did not work
upon a particular point of the picture as a focus, and leave the
rest obscure, as a foil to enhance it, on a principle of unity ; on the
contrary, all is equally obscure and wild alike. These last pro-
ductions are a calamity to his reputation; yet we may, perhaps,
safely assert, that, since Rembrandt, there has been no painter of
such originality and power as Turner. He died on the 19th of
December, 1851, and was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Turner was, however, not alone in maintaining the glories of
English landscape-painting: Constable and Callcott are, as Jand-
scape-painters, inferior only to Turner himself.

Joan ConsraBLeE was born at East Bergholt, in Suffolk, in 1776.
His father, who was a miller, intended him for his own business ;
540 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

but Constable had’ resolved to become a painter; and in 1800 he
became a student of the Royal Academy, and received some instruc-
tion in painting from Ramsay Ricwarp Reinacte (1775-1862), him-
self an excellent landscape-painter, who, like his father Philip,
also resided several years in Italy, whence he brought many
beautiful sketches, from which, as was then the fashion, he com-
posed pictures: he was at one time very successful, and very much
employed in portraits likewise: he was a large contributor to the
Academy exhibitions. From 1820 Constable resided at Hampstead,
the beautiful neighbourhood of which chiefly occupied his pencil
for the remainder of his life. “I Jove,” said Constable, to his
friend Uwins, “every stile, and stump, and lane in the village: as
long as I am able to hold a brush, I shall never cease to paint
them :” and in this expression we have the exposition of his style:
he was emphatically the painter of country lanes, fields, and hedge-
rows. All his pictures are conspicuous for the simplicity of their
subjects—a cottage, a corn-field, a village church or green, a brook
or lane. He was, further, very fond of giving the effect of dew,
and this fancy he carried to such an excess as to make it a cha-
racteristic manner; and some of his views are accordingly most
obtrusively spotty. Yet some of his larger works, which have now
had time to mellow down, are certainly magnificent in effect: the
“ Corn-field,” and the “ Valley-farm,” in the National Gallery, are
both very fine examples. He died in London, onthe 30th of
March, 1837;' . : : ee

Sm Avuausrus Watt Caticorr, sometimes called the English
Claude, -was born at Kensington in‘’1779. He was a chorister
boy, and officiated. for some years in Westminster Abbey under
Dr. Cooke. He, however, adopted painting at an early age; and
having received some instruction from Hoppner the portrait-
painter, he originally pursued the same branch of art; but even-
tually, and until the last few years of his life, he devoted himself
exclusively to landscapes. And it is to his landscapes, which are
commonly distinguished for a, beautiful repose, that he owes his
reputation: in some of his pictures he resembles the early works of
Turner. In 1837 he first departed from his usual subjects, and
exhibited a picture of “Raphael and the Fornarina,” now well
‘known from the print of it by Lumb Stocks, which was distributed
to the subscribers of the London Art Union in 1843. His picture
of “ Milton and his Daughters” was éxhibited in 1840.

In 1837 he was knighted by the Queen, and in 1844 he was

! Sce the “ Memoir of the Life of John Constable, Esq., R.A., composed chiefly of
his Letters.” By C. R. Leslie, Esq, R.A. London, 1842. Tt contains twenty-two
engravings from Constable’s works. ;
‘org aod

(ATAYISNOD) “ANOLS AHL NO

 
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 541.

appointed the successor of Mr, Seguier as conservator of the Royal
Pictures; an office which he held for a few months only. He died
on the 25th of November, 1844, and was buried on the 30th, in
Kensal Green Cemetery, where his accomplished wife, Lady Call-
cott, known previously as Maria Graham, had been buried two
years before.

Joan CromE, commonly called Oxp Crome, to distinguish him
from other younger painters of the name and family, was an older
man, but not an older painter, than Constable or Callcott. He was
born at Norwich, in the Napoleonic year, 1769, and died in his
native city in 1821. Crome was brought up as a coach-painter, an
occupation he soon forsook, for the more genial one of a drawing-
master; and it was only his leisure time that he could devote to
oil-painting. This he spent diligently in.making oil-sketches from
nature, chiefly from the neighbourhood of Norwich.

The materials of Crome’s pictures are generally exceedingly
simple, but he has sometimes produced an admirable effect with
them; he was more simple in his choice of subject even than Con-
stable. He exhibited very rarely at the Royal Academy, and his
subjects were all views or landscapes, with one exception ; a “ Black-
smith’s Shop,” exhibited in 1809. His masterpiece is probably the
* View of Mousehold Heath,” now in the National Gallery.

Another fine English landscape-painter is, Richarp Parkes
Bonineron, who was born in the village of Arnold, near Notting-
ham, October the 25th, 1801. His father, a landscape and portrait-
painter, took him, when only fifteen years old, to Paris, and there
procured him permission to copy in the Louvre. Owing to this
circumstance, Bonington’s education was chiefly French; he
became a student of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, and attended
occasionally the studio of the Baron Gros. He devoted himself
chiefly to landscape-painting, working often in water-colours; but
his subjects are mostly marine or river views. |

Having obtained considerable reputation in Paris, Bonington
visited Italy, where in Venice he found ample materials suited to
his especial taste, and he executed some elaborate views there,
both in oil and in water-colours. By the exhibition of some few
of these works, at the Royal Academy, he acquired great reputation
also in England, which has risen still higher since the International
Exhibition of 1862, in which Bonington’s pictures, figures as well as
views, were among the most masterly and effective works in colour,
of the whole collection. He died of decline, in London, on the
23rd of September, 1828, shortly after his return from a second
visit to Paris, not having quite completed his twenty-seventh year.

Sir Thomas Lawrence, writing to a friend after attending Boning-
ton’s funeral, remarks, “IJ have never known in my own time an
542 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

early death, of talent so promising, and so rapidly and obviously
improving.”

Bonington exhibited only four pictures at the Royal Academy :
‘*A Scene on the French Coast,” in 1827; and the three following
in 1828: “Henry III. of France ;” a ‘Coast Scene;” and “The
Grand Canal, with the Church of La Vergine della Salute,
Venice.”

Patrick NasmyTH, sometimes called the English Hobbema (I
suppose it ought to be the Scotch), was born in Edinburgh in 1786.
He was the son and pupil of Alexander Nasmyth, and painted in a
similar style. When about twenty years of age he settled in
London, where he died, in South Lambeth, August the 17th, 1831.
Nasmyth’s landscapes are simple in subject, with much detail of
execution, but forcible in effect; one of his principal works is a
“View of Windsor Castle ;” another is a ‘‘ View in Hampshire,” in
the possession of Mr. Thomas Baring. Owing to an accident which
happened to his right hand, in his youth, he was in the habit of
painting with his left.*

Wituram Cottiys, born in London in 1787, was the son of a picture-
dealer in Great Tichfield-street, who was a native of Wicklow in
Ireland, and the friend of George Morland, of whom he wrote a
memoir. The son, from this intimacy, was in some measure the
pupil of Morland, who allowed Collins to watch him painting.
Collins became the chief support of his family in 1812, when he lost
his father. But he early found valuable patrons in Sir Thomas
Heathcote, Sir John Fleming Leicester, Sir George Beaumont, and
Sir Robert Peel.

His style is landscape, with the out-door incidents of ordinary
life prominently introduced, and both naturally and charmingly
expressed; as the “‘ Young Fifer,” the “Sale of the Pet Lamb,”
“« Bird Catchers,” the ‘‘ Fisherman’s Departure,” “‘ Hop Gatherers,”
“ Happy as a King,” “The Haunts of the Sea Fowl,” “ Fetching the
Doctor,” with cottage and coast scenes in great variety ; especially
Cromer Sands. He painted also a few portraits. Latterly, however,
Collins evinced a desire to treat higher subjects; he exhibited “Our
Saviour with the Doctors in the Temple,” in 1840; and “The Two
Disciples at Emmaus,” in 1841.

In 1817 he visited Paris; and made a tour in Holland and
Belgium in 1828. In 1836 he visited Italy, remaining there nearly
two years; in 1840, Germany, and in 1842, the Shetland Islands;
each tour affording new materials for his varied subjects. He died
in London, of disease of the heart, February the 17th, 1847.

1 Cunningham, “ Lives of the British Painters,” &c.

2 “Literary Gazette,” 1831.
3“ Art-Union Monthly Journal,” April 1847, His “ Life” by his son, 1848.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 543

Joun Martin, the well-known painter of architectural dreams,
was born near Hexham, in Northumberland, in 1789, and was
originally brought up to coach-painting, in Newcastle ; then worked
at enamel-painting in Newcastle and London, and, having married
early, he eked out a scanty living by giving lessons in drawing.
His first landscape was exhibited in 1811. In 1812 he appeared as
an exhibitor at the Royal Academy, of three landscapes, one of
which, ‘‘ Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion,” from the Tales
of the Genii, gave adequate promise of all the future wonders of
imaginative scenery which followed; Sadak, in the centre of a
wonderful agglomeration of rocks, is scrambling over the edge of a
precipice; the hero himself, like nearly all the figures of Martin’s
pictures which followed, is ill-proportioned ; the human limbs and
extremities being generally, with him, little more than indicated :
and in his best figures he exhibits one of the characteristic faults of
Haydon’s drawing, huge limbs with small extremities. No subject
was too grand or sublime for Martin’s pencil, and many of his ideas
were carried out in a very imposing manner; but in a somewhat
misty way, with the characteristic vagueness of dreams; he has made
them well known to the public by being his own engraver. His
style was scene-painting on a small scale, but his conceptions were
in the highest degree poetic; they are of a kind of impossible sub-
limity to which no execution could do justice, and which his own
was far from approaching. On the 12th of November, 1853, Martin
was struck with paralysis, and never recovered ; he died in the Isle
of Man on the 17th of February, 1854.

The following are the most impressive of his pictures :—‘“‘ Joshua
Commanding the Sun to stand still,” 1816 ; ‘ The Fall of Babylon,”
1819; and “ Belshazzar’s Feast,” 1821—his most popular work, and
for which he was awarded the 200/. premium by the Directors of
the British Institution. They were followed by other similar
compositions, as ‘‘ The Seventh Plague,” ‘‘ The Deluge,” “ The Fall
of Nineveh,” &c. Martin, like Haydon, quarrelled with the Royal
Academy, and, like him, after abstaining for many years, had again
resort to its exhibitions to show his pictures.’

Wituram Jouyx Mu wer, one of the best of English landscape-
painters, was born at Bristol, in 1812; his father, a German, was
curator of the Bristol Museum. Miiller became the pupil of his
townsman, J. B. Pyne, and displayed his own ability for landscape
at an early age.

In 1833 and 1834 he made his first tour upon the continent of
Europe, and in 1838 started upon a long and arduous journey
through Greece and Egypt, ascending the Nile beyond the

1 An autobiography of him appeared in the “ Athenzeum”’ for 1854,
544 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Cataracts; he settled in London after his return in 1839. In
1843 he accompanied Sir Charles Fellowes on his expedition to
Lycia; he returned to London in the following year. Many
sketches and pictures of Oriental manners and scenery were the
result of these journeys; they are painted with great freedom and
taste, and from the judgment displayed in their selection as
subjects, and their arrangement as pictures, are mostly works of
great beauty. Five were exhibited at the Royal Academy, and two
at the British Institution, in 1845; but Miller did not } long survive
to enjoy his growing reputation; he died at Bristol, of disease of
the heart, on the 8th of September of that year, at the early age of
thirty-three. His disease was aggravated by the disappointment he
felt at the unfavourable hanging of his pictures in that year. He
exhibited altogether only sixteen works at the Royal Academy.
His remaining “sketches and pictures, which were sold at Christie’s
in the spring of 1846, realised 4,3601.!

Francis Dansy, born in the county of Wexford, in Ireland, in
1793, was educated in Dublin, and there learnt his art under a
landseape-painter of the name of O'Connor. In 1813 he was esta-
blished as a teacher of water-colour drawing at Bristol. He first
attracted public notice by a picture of “Sunset at Sea after a
Storm,” exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1824; it was purchased
by Sir Thomas Lawrence. In the following year Danby removed
to London, and exhibited a still more remarkable work, ‘The
Delivery of Israel out of Egypt,” which procured him his election
as an associate of the Academy, in 1825. This picture, now at
Stafford House, and several others afterwards painted by Danby,
are in the style of John Martin’s extraordinary compositions.
Danby is, however, most distinguished for his calm evening scenes
at sea, generally sunsets, under various aspects, frequently wombined
with some poetic subject, incident, or sentiment, and nearly always
conspicuous for their brilliant colouring.

In 1830, Danby left England, and resided during the greater part:
of twelve years that he spent abroad chiefly in Switzerland. He
settled at Exmouth, in Devonshire, a few years after his return, and
died there on the 10th of February, 1861.

We have only quite lately (August, 1863,) lost a great master in
landscape, who is an honour to the English school—Freperick Lex
Brive, a native of Southampton, where he was born in 1831.
He seems to have been strongly under the influence of Turner's
genius; his finest pictures are in imitation of the Claudesque ex-

1 Some of Miiller’s letters, relating to his Eastern tours and his disappointment
at the hanging of his pictures, were published in the “ Art-Union Journal” for the
years 1844 and 1845.

2 « Ayt-Journal,” April, 1861.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 545

amples of Turner’s second period; Bridell’s skies, however, are
somewhat artificial and mannered, but the following, which were
sold at Christie’s in February last, are magnificent pictures :—
“The Colosseum by Moonlight,” exhibited at the Academy in
1860, 410 guineas; “The Temple of Venus, from Spenser’s Fairy
Queen,” 670 guineas; “ Etruscan Tombs at Civita Castellana,” 255
guineas; and perhaps the most beautiful of all, “Under the Pine
Trees at Castel’ Fusano,” exhibited at the British Institution in 1860,
200 guineas.

To the above may be added the names of two very able marine
painters, who both died early, Grorcz Cuampers and Grorer Puiie
Rernacie. Chambers was the son of a seaman of Whitby, where he
was born towards the close of the last century. He was himself a
sailor, by education, but having obtained an introduction to Horner,
the painter of the Panorama at the Colosseum, Chambers worked
for seven years as Horner’s assistant on that great work. He then
became scene-painter at the Pavilion Theatre; while there he
obtained, through Vice-Admiral Lord Mark Kerr, an introduction to
William IV., who appointed Chambers his Marine Painter, and he
was now in the full delight of his ambition ; but his health was bad,
and his hopeful career was suddenly cut short by death, in October,
1840. He has painted several naval battles of great excellence, and
the world is now beginning to appreciate his work.

G. P. Reinagle was the son of R. R. Reinagle, the Academician,
was born in London in 1802, and died in 1835, at the early age
of thirty-three. He appeared as an exhibitor at the Academy in
1822, and although he exhibited several excellent sea pieces, he will
probably in future be better known for his drawings of ships and
sea-fights on stone, than for his pictures, which are not numerous, as
his series illustrating Sir Charles Napier’s victories over the fleet of
Don Miguel, published in 1834. George Reinagle was present at
the battle of Navarino, October 20th, 1827; and in 1829 he
exhibited three pictures of Sir Edward Codrington’s fleet, the
“Battle of Navarino,” the “Asia and Albion leaving the Harbour
of Navarino,’ and the “Asia, Albion, and Rosa leaving Malta for
England.” In the exhibition of 1831 he had a picture of the Rus-
sian fleet, after the same battle, entering Valetta Harbour.

In portrait as in landscape-painting, the English school has now
long been the foremost in Europe.

Siz Tomas Lawrence was born May 4, 1769, at Bristol. His
father was landlord of the Black Bear Inn, at Devizes ; and the
first efforts of the young painter were some portraits in chalk of his
father’s customers. When ten years old only he set up as a portrait-
painter in crayons at Oxford; and soon afterwards took a house
at Bath, where he met with extraordinary success. In his seven-

2Nn
546 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

teenth year he commenced oil painting; in 1787, he settled in
London, and entered himself as a student in the Royal Academy.
His success in London was as great as it had been in the provinces.
In 1791, though under the age required by the laws (twenty-four),
he was elected an associate of the Academy, and after the death of
Sir Joshua Reynolds he succeeded him as painter to the King, He
painted at this time, in his twenty-third year, the portraits of the
King and Queen, which were presented by Lord Macartney to the
Emperor of China. In 1794, he was elected a Royal Academician ;
was knighted by the Prince Regent in 1815; and at the death of
West, in 1820, succeeded him as President of the Academy. Sir
Thomas Lawrence died in London, at his house in Russell Square,
January 7, 1830. He was never married.|. He was a member of the
Academy of St. Luke at Rome, and of many other foreign academies ;
and in 1825, he was created a Chevalier of the “ Légion d’Honneur.”
He had great facility, and was a fine colourist, but excelled chiefly in
the portraits of women and children, many of which are beautiful. In
male portraits his drawing was often incorrect and mannered, the
bodies being occasionally out of all proportion to the heads, which
were, however, frequently the only parts of the picture painted by
Sir Thomas himself: but his heads also are sometimes out of
drawing, and in some of his state or official portraits, the heads are
lost in the accessaries. The Waterloo Gallery, however, at Windsor
remains a noble monument of the skill of Sir Thomas Lawrence as a
portrait-painter : the pictures of the Emperor Francis, of Pius VII.,
and of the Cardinal Gonsalvi, in that collection, are among the
European masterpieces of the art of portraiture. They were painted
on the continent in the years 1818-19; as a specimen of the magni-
ficent domestic portrait, the full lengths of Mr. and Mrs. Dunlop, on
the same piece, for which Lawrence received 5001. could scarcely
be surpassed.

The principal rivals and contemporaries of Sir Thomas Lawrence
were Stuart, Raeburn, Beechey, Hoppner, Phillips, Shee, Owen,
Jackson, Clint, and Briggs.

Gipert Stusrr, one of the most distinguished American portrait-
painters, sometimes called American Stuart, was born of Scotch
parents at Narraganset, near Newport, Rhode Island, United States,
in 1755. He visited Scotland at a very early age, and was educated
at the University of Glasgow, where he graduated; he, however,
finally adopted the profession of a painter, and became the pupil of
his countryman Benjamin West, in London, and after having
practised with great success as a portrait-painter, both in London
and Paris, he returned, in 1794, to his native country, where he
settled for a time at Philadelphia.

' Williams, “The Life and Correspondence of Sir Thomas Lawrence,” 1831.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 547

In his own country six American presidents sat to Stuart, among
them, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. He retired in 1807
to Boston, where he died in 1828. His best portraits are chiefly
remarkable for character and freedom of effect: he excelled
exclusively in male heads.’

Sir Henry Rarsurn was born at Stockbridge, Edinburgh, in
1756. His parents died when he was a child, and he was apprenticed
to a goldsmith in Edinburgh, from whom, however, he soon obtained
his release ; and he then devoted himself to:miniature painting. At
the age of twenty-two he married a lady of some fortune, aud
came to London, with an introduction to Sir Joshua Reynolds, who,
when Raeburn set out for Italy, shortly afterwards, gave him a
letter to Pompeo Batoni at Rome. “He returned after a two years’
residence in Italy, to Edinburgh, and established himself there in
1787. In 1812 he was elected President of the Society of Artists
in Edinburgh, and became, in 1815, a member of the Royal
Academy in London. George IV. knighted Raeburn in 1822
when he visited Scotland ; and he was shortly afterwards appointed
Limner to the King in Scotland. He died on the 8th of July, 1823.
Some of Raeburn’s portraits are excellent; he had a manly
vigorous style, though he commenced as a miniature painter: his
heads are freely painted and very effective in light and shade: the
National Gallery of Scotland’ has several good examples of his work.
The very masterly life size sketch, by Raeburn, of his own son, on
a pony, was exhibited in London, at the International Exhibition
of 1862.

Sir Witi1am Bercuey was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, in
1753, and was originally articled to a conveyancer at Stow. But
feeling no inclination for the law, he resolved to become a painter,
and having obtained admission as a student into the Royal Academy,
in 1772, he devoted himself from that time to portrait painting, in
which he had a most successful career. He was appointed portrait-
painter to the Queen in 1793; and was knighted by George III,
for his large picture of the King reviewing the Third and Tenth
Dragoons, painted in 1798, and now at Hampton Court. Beechey
appears to have been hitherto the largest contributor to the Exhi-
bitions of the Royal Academy: in sixty-four years, he exhibited 362
portraits. He died at Hampstead in 1839.

Joun Hoppner was born in London in 1759. When a boy he
was one of the choristers of the Royal Chapel; but having a more
decided taste for the formative than the vocal art, he gave up music
for painting, and entered as a student in the Royal Academy. He

1 See the German “ Kunstblatt,” No. 100, 1828.
2 “Catalogue of the National Gallery of Scotland,” &. By W. B. Johnstone,
RS. .
2n2
548 THE EPUCHS OF PAINTING.

soon became, through the patronage of the Prince of Wales, a very
fashionable portrait-painter ; and painted many bold, effective, well-
drawn heads. Sir Thomas Lawrence was for many years his only
rival. Hoppner died of dropsy in 1810, in the fifty-first year of
his age.

Tuomas Puiniies was born at Dudley, in Warwickshire, in 1770,
and was placed, when still young, with a glass painter at Birming-
ham. In 1790, he came to London, with an introduction to West,
who employed him on the window of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor.
He was elected a member of the Royal Academy in 1808; and in
1825 he succeeded Fuseli as Professor of Painting. Phillips made
a tour in Italy after his appointment, in company with Hilton, to
enable him the better to discharge the duties of his office. He com-
posed in all ten lectures, which he published after his resignation
of his professorship in 1832.1 He died at his house in George-
street, Hanover-square, April 20th, 1845.

Sm Martin Arcuer Suez, born in Dublin, in 1770, met with very
early success as a portrait-painter. The full length of Lewis the
Comedian, in the National Gallery, is a remarkable work for so
young a man; it was painted in 1791, and it is in a better style than
his later works. He succeeded Sir Thomas Lawrence, as President
of the Royal Academy in 1830, and was then knighted. He died
at Brighton, August the 19th, 1850. Sir Martin rarely painted
anything but portraits; but some of his time was devoted to litera-
ture: his “Rhymes on Art” appeared in 1805, and he published a
poem, entitled “Elements of Art,” in 1809; in 1824, “Alasco,” a
tragedy ; and in 1828, «Old Court,” a novel.

Wituram Owen, born at Ludlow, in Shropshire, in 1769, held the
appointment of principal portrait-painter to the Prince Regent. He
became a member of the Royal Academy in 1806, but in the height
of his career, in 1818, he was seized with paralysis, and remained a
hopeless invalid, until his death, February 11th, 1825. Some of
Owen’s portraits are excellent; among the best is that of Lord
Stowell, painted for the Town Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne. He was
a more careful and less florid painter than Hoppner and some others
of his contemporaries.

Joun Jackson was born at Lastingham, in Yorkshire, in 1778.
His father was a tailor, and he was himself brought up to that
business. He, however, hated his occupation, and having shown
some ability for painting, the unexpired period of his apprentice-
ship was purchased by Lord Mulgrave and Sir George Beaumont.
The latter allowed Jackson 50/. a year, and gave him an apartment
in his house in town, to enable him to prosecute his studies in the
Royal Academy.

1 «Lectures on the History and Principles of Painting,’ 8vo. London, 1833.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 549

In 1819, Jackson visited Rome, in company with Sir Francis
Chantrey, and painted for him there a portrait of Canova. He was
elected a member of the Academy of St. Luke at Rome. His fine
taste in colouring, and his effective execution rendered him justly
popular. He died at his house in St. John’s Wood, June 1, 1831.

GeorGE CLINT, born in London in 1770, like Turner, was the son
of a hair-dresser; the family was originally of Hexham, in North-
umberland. Clint was first apprenticed to a fishmonger in the
City; but disgusted with this occupation, he procured employment
in an attorney’s office; equally dissatisfied, he then tried house-
painting, and from this he advanced to miniature-painting, which
he practised for some years. With his miniature-painting he com-
bined also mezzotinto engraving, and was employed to execute
several prints for Sir Thomas Lawrence. In 1807 he engraved
Drummond’s ‘‘ Death of Nelson ;” and shortly afterwards the still
more considerable work, Harlow’s ‘“‘ Kemble Family.” He took a
house about this time, 1816, in Gower Street, and there executed
his valuable series of dramatic pictures, comprising all the prin-
cipal actors of the time in their most successful scenes and cha-
racters, grouped, and individually; Kean, as Sir Giles Overreach,
and Richard [II.; Charles Kemble, as Charles II. ; Young, as Ham-
let; Liston, as Paul Pry; Matthews, as the Lying Valet; Bartley, as
Falstaff ; and Macready, as Macbeth, &c. Many of these pictures are
still preserved at the Garrick Club. Clint painted a long series of
portraits besides those of theatrical characters. He died at Ken-
sington, in 1854, having entered his eighty-fifth year.' He was
elected an associate of the Academy in 1821, and contributed
altogether ninety-four pictures to its exhibitions; but in 1836,
after repeated disappointments in not obtaining the full honours of
the Academy, he retired in disgust from all connection with it.

Henry Prrronet Brices, a fashionable and excellent portrait-
painter in the latter part of his career, for many years devoted
himself to historical painting, but with no great success. One of
his most effective historical pieces is “‘ Blood’s attempt to steal the
Regalia,” contributed by the Royal Academy to the International
Exhibition of 1862. Briggs was elected a member of the Aca-
demy in 1832. He died on the 19th January, 1844, aged fifty-
six: he was of a Norfolk family, and related to Opie. Though
Briggs was more distinguished as a portrait-painter than anything
else, he is not quite correctly classed among portrait-painters.

Genre-painter is now a convenient term, but there are figure-
painters who are neither history-, portrait-, nor genre-painters ; as
those who combined something of all three, yet chiefly devoted

1 « Ayt-Journal,” 1855,
550 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

themselves to poetical and fancy subjects; such men, for instance,
as Stothard, Howard, and Uwins, who were not what are commonly
called genre-painters, nor does the term lyric designate them.

Tuomas Srotwarp, the head of the earlier English Idyllic
school, if such a term may be so applied, was born in London,
August the 17th, 1755. His father, who kept the “Black Horse”
in Long Acre, died when Stothard was still young, and he was put
to school at Strelton, his father’s native place, near Tadcaster, in
Yorkshire. As he showed an early disposition for drawing, he
was apprenticed to a designer for figured silks, in London; finding,
however, little occupation as a pattern designer, he tried the illus-
tration of books; in this he soon found abundant employment.
Stothard was elected a member of the Royal Academy in 1794, and
in 1812 was appointed to succeed Burch as librarian, an office he
held until his death. He died at his house in Newman Street,
April the 27th, 1834, in his seventy-ninth year.

Stothard exhibited comparatively few works at the Academy,
but his designs are said to amount to as many as 5,000, of which
about 3,000 have been engraved, in various publications. Among
his last works of this class were his designs for Rogers’s Italy and
other poems, as companions to the landscape illustrations by Turner
for those works. One of the most popular of Stothard’s compo-
sitions is the procession of the “Canterbury Pilgrims,” well known
from the engraving of it by the brothers Schiavonetti and James
Heath, published in 1817; the picture was in the International
Exhibition of 1862, and is what would now be considered a mere
sketch. His most important work in painting is the large compo-
sition of “Intemperance,” executed in the staircase at Burghley,
the seat of the Marquis of Exeter, in Northamptonshire, the
original sketch of which now forms part of the Vernon collection.’
His pictures are of a slight sketchy character, and his drawing is
frequently faulty, as in ‘this Greek Vintage, in the Vernon collec-
tion; but his colouring is sometimes very forcible, and there is
often a fine sentiment in his compositions.

Henry Howarp, a painter of portraits and fancy subjects, was
born in London, in 1769. At the age of seventeen he was placed
with Philip Reinagle, R.A., to learn painting. In 1791 he deter-
mined to visit Italy. He remained there three years, chiefly at
Rome, where Flaxman was then residing; he returned home by
Vienna and Dresden, reaching England in September, 1794. Having
distinguished himself by his portraits, and many historical and
classical pieces, he was elected a member of the Royal Academy
in 1808; was made Secretary in 1811, and in 1833 Professor of

1 The “ Life of Thomas Stothard, with Personal Reminiscences” by Mrs. Bray,
with numerous illustrations from his works. Sm. 4to., London, 1851.
 

‘ROM THE VILLAGE FESTIVAL. (WILKIE.)

GROUP fF

Page 551.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 551

Painting, succeeding Phillips in that office. He died at Oxford,
October 5th, 1847.2

‘Tuomas Uwrns was born in London in 1782, and was originally
placed with an engraver; but he soon gave up the study of the
engraver’s art for that of the painter. He commenced his career
as a water-colour painter and illustrator of books; and was elected
a member of the Old Water-Colour Society in 1811. In 1814 he
visited the south of France; from this time he took to oil-colours,
and spent some years as a portrait-painter in Scotland.

In the Autumn of 1826 he visited Italy, and did not return to
England until 1831. In 1832 he exhibited, at the Royal Academy,
“The Interior of a Saint Manufactory at Naples ;” this was suc-
ceeded by “Taking the Veil,” and many other Italian, chiefly
Neapolitan, subjects, on the walls of the Academy, and Uwins
became an Academician in 1839. In 1842 he was appointed by
the Queen Surveyor of the Royal Pictures; and in 1847 he was
made Keeper of the National Gallery, a post which he resigned in
1855. He held also for some years the office of librarian to the
Royal Academy. He died at Staines on the 25th of August, 1857.7

The last generation, notwithstanding the great name of Wilkie,
was less distinguished for its genre- than for its landscape-painters.
It is I assume under the head of Genre that such names as the
following are to be placed, though several of them were also
portrait-painters :—Wilkie, Smirke, Bird, Thomson, Allan, Newton,
Wyatt, Stone, Egg, Leslie, and Mulready.

Sir Davi Wixi, the prince of British genre-painters, was born in
Fifeshire, November 18, 1785. His father was minister of Cults.
He was placed in 1799 in the ‘“‘ Trustees’ Academy ” at Edinburgh,
where in 1803 he won the ten-guinea premium for the best painting
of “Callisto in the Bath of Diana.” He came to London in 1805,
and entered as a student in the Royal Academy, and attracted
general notice by his “ Village Politicians,” which was exhibited
in the Academy in 1806. From this period Wilkie’s fame was
established, each succeeding work adding to his popularity. The
“Blind Fiddler,” the “Card-players,” the ‘‘ Rent-day,” the “Jew’s
Harp,” the “Cut Finger,” the ‘‘ Wardrobe Ransacked,” the “ Village
Festival,” and others, all followed in rapid succession. In 1825 he
proceeded to the Continent for three years, and after his return he
completely changed both his style and class of subjects. The
following are the principal works which he executed between 1811

1 See “ Lectures on Painting, delivered at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts.” By
Henry Howard, Esq., R.A., &. Edited, with a Memoir of the Author, by Frank
Howard. London, 1848.

2 « Art-Journal,” 1847-57.
552 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

and 1825 :—Blindman’s Buff,” the “Letter of Introduction,”
“Duncan Gray,” “Distraining for Rent,” the “Rabbit on the
Wall,” the “Penny Wedding,” the “ Whisky Still,” the “Reading of
the Will,” and the ‘‘ Chelsea Pensioners,” painted for the Duke of
Wellington. Up to 1825, Wilkie was known exclusively as a genre-
painter. After his Continental tour, during which he visited
France, Germany, Jtaly, and Spain, he appeared almost exclusively
as an historical and portrait-painter, substituting a light effective
style of handling for the carefully laboured execution of his earlier
works. This change he himself attributed to a more intimate
acquaintance with the old masters, which he had acquired by his
foreign tour. He was particularly struck by the works of Correg-
gio, Rembrandt, and Velazquez.? His most celebrated pictures in
this second style are his “ John Knox Preaching,” and “ Napoleon
and the Pope at Fontainebleau.” The “ Peep-o-day Boy’s Cabin,”
and the portrait of William Daniell, the landscape-painter, are also
good specimens of his second manner. But his future fame will
depend upon the pictures he painted from his “ Village Politicians ”
to his “Chelsea Pensioners” inclusive; and although his later
works might have established a reputation for another painter, they
were not sufficient even to uphold that of Wilkie. Of all his works,
the “Blind Fiddler” is perhaps his masterpiece.

After the death of Sir Thomas Lawrence in 1830, he was
appointed in his place Painter in Ordinary to his Majesty ; he was
already Limner to the King in Scotland: this post he had obtained
after the death of Sir Henry Raeburn in 1823. He was knighted in
1836. Inthe autumn of 1840 he set out for a tour in the east, and
at the close of the same year he arrived at Constantinople, where he
painted a portrait of the Sultan. From Constantinople Sir David
went to the Holy Land and Egypt. He complained of illness while
at Alexandria, and on the Ist of June, 1841, he expired on board
the Oriental steamer, off Gibraltar; his body was committed on the
same day tothe deep. This burial is the subject of one of Turner’s
most effective pictures, now in the National Collection?

Roperr Swrke, the earliest distinguished English genre-painter of
the new school, was born at Wigton, in Cumberland, in 1752, and
was originally a- painter of coach-panels. He first distinguished
himself by his illustrations from Don Quixote; his pictures are not

1 There are prints of all the above, and of many other works of Wilkie, by the
engravers, Raimbach, Burnet, Cousins, Doo, Fox, and others.

2 See his letters in the “ Life” by Allan Cunningham.

3 The coffin was lowered into the sea in 36° 20' north lat. and 6° 42' west long.
See the “ Life of Sir David Wilkie, with his Journals, Tours, and Critical Remarks
on Works of Art, and a Sclection from his Correspondence,” by Allan Cunning-
ham, 3 vols., 8vo. London, 1843.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 553

numerous ; as much of his time was occupied in designing for book-
sellers. Smirke was an excellent painter, and was a member of the
Royal Academy as early as 1793, but he was so completely
eclipsed by Wilkie that his reputation is now below his merits. His
drawing, colouring, and character are all good, though not of that
realistic quality exhibited by Wilkie in his early works, or such as
now distinguishes some of our best genre-painters. In spirit his
works resemble Leslie’s, but are very different from them in colour-
ing, in which Smirke was particularly quiet. His subjects are
commonly from Cervantes, Shakspeare, Milton, Thomson, Parnell,
or classical and other fable; the best being from Shakspeare and
Cervantes. Many of Smirke’s pictures, as well as his designs, are
engraved : he was a contributor to Boydell’s Shakspeare. His pre-
sentation picture to the Academy is Don Quixote and Sancho. He
died at his house in Osnaburgh-street January 5th, 1845, in his
ninety-fourth year. He was the father of Sir Robert Smirke, the
architect.

Epwarp Birp, the son of a carpenter, was born at Wolverhampton,
in 1762, and was brought up as atin and japan-ware manufacturer,
at a place called “the Hull,” Wolverhampton. At the expiration,
however, of his indentures, Bird was dismissed by his employers,
and he removed to Bristol to try his fortune as a japanner. :

From japanner he became drawing-master, and in 1807 he exhi-
bited some pictures at Bath, the success and sale of which confirmed
him in his purpose of following painting as a profession. He now
gained rapid distinction; his pictures were purchased by the most
eminent collectors of the metropolis; he was appointed painter to
the Princess Charlotte in 1814, and in 1815 was elected a member
of the Royal Academy. But he latterly turned from genre to history-
painting, an ambitious impulse that seems to have been a fatal one,
‘for the vexations he met with in procuring the requisite sittings for
his contemplated “ Embarkation of Louis XVIII. for France” are
supposed to have worried him to death. Bird died at Bristol on the
2nd of November, 1819. In his more genial subjects he followed
Wilkie, in his early pictures, but never approached the Scotchman
in excellence.

Henry Txomson was the son of a purser in the navy, and was born
at Portsea in 1773. He painted historical and fancy subjects, and
portraits, and first exhibited, on the walls of the Academy, a picture
of “Dedalus fastening wings on his son Icarus.” In 1825, he
succeeded Fuseli as keeper of the Academy, but, owing to ill
health, in 1827 he resigned his office, in which he was succeeded by
Hilton, and he retired in 1828 to his native place Portsea, where he
died April the 6th, 1843."

1 « Art-Union Journal,” 1843.
554 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Srr Wituiam ALLAN was born in Edinburgh in 1782, and was the
fellow student of Wilkie in the Trustees’ Academy there. Having
failed to meet with the success he desired in London, he started
in 1805 to try his fortunes in the capital of Russia; and through
the kind offices of Sir Alexander Crichton, then physician to
the Imperial family, he met with considerable success as a portrait-
painter in St. Petersburg. He subsequently visited the interior
of Russia, Tartary, and Turkey, and collected the materials for
the works which he afterwards painted, illustrating the life of
eastern Europe.

He returned home in 1814; and in 1815 he exhibited in London
his “Circassian Captives,” now in the collection of the Earl of
Wemyss. This was followed by similar pictures of the same class,
as “Prisoners conveyed to Siberia by Cossacks;” some of which
were purchased by the late Emperor Nicholas. About 1830
Allan paid a second visit to the continent; and in 1834 he visited
Spain. In 1838 he succeeded George Watson, the portrait-painter,
as President of the Royal Academy of Scotland ; and he succeeded
Sir David Wilkie as Limner to the Queen in Scotland; he was
knighted in 1842.

In 1848 Sir William exhibited at the Royal Academy a picture of
the ‘‘ Battle of Waterloo,” which was purchased by the late Duke
of Wellington. In 1844 he revisited St. Petersburg, and on
his return painted for the late Emperor, a picture of “ Peter the
Great teaching his Subjects the Art of Shipbuilding,” which was
exhibited in London in 1845, and is now in the winter palace
at St. Petersburg.

He died at Edinburgh, in his painting-room before a large
unfinished picture of the ‘Battle of Bannockburn,” on the 23rd
of February, 1850.7

Gitpert Sruart Newron, was born in 1794, at Halifax, in
Nova Scotia, and was the pupil of his uncle, Gilbert Stuart, the
portrait-painter at Boston; he came to England about the year
1818, and having first visited Italy, became a student of the Royal
Academy of Arts in London. He commenced by painting portraits,
but his small figure subjects soon attracted notice, and some
were engraved in the ‘‘ Literary Souvenir.” In 1832 he visited
his native country, and married there, and in this year he became a
member of the Royal Academy, but the picture exhibited in the
following year, “ Abelard in his Study” was his last work. He was
a laborious and fastidious painter; but he was unfortunately
afflicted with aberration of mind, and died at Chelsea, at the early
age of forty, August 5th, 1835. His wife and child returned to

1 © Art-Journal,” 1849-50.
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 555

America only a few months before his death. One of Newton's
principal works, “Captain Macheath,” exhibited at the Academy
in 1826, was purchased by the Marquis of Lansdowne for 500
guineas, It was in the International Exhibition of 1862.1

Henry Wyatr was born at Thickbroom, near Lichfield, in 1794.
He lost his father when a child, and in ‘1811 was sent by
his guardian to London, where he became a student of the Royal
Academy; and in 1815 the private pupil and assistant of Sir
Thomas Lawrence. At the end of the year 1817, Wyatt established
himself chiefly as a portrait-painter, first at Birmingham, then
at Liverpool and Manchester until 1825, when he settled in
London; but he did not confine himself to portraiture; there
are genre pictures and fancy portraits by him, such as his
“Vigilance,” and “ Archimedes,” in the National Gallery. In
1834, however, on account of ill-health, he removed to Leamington,
whence he returned in 1837 to Manchester, where he died
February 27th, 1840, and was buried in the village of Prestwich.?

One of the most graceful of English genre-painters was Frank
Stone, born at Manchester in 1800, and brought up as a cotton-
spinner. He for some years practised only as a water-colour-
painter, and first appeared as an exhibitor at the Royal Academy
in 1837. His subjects are commonly of a sentimental character,
and distinguished for their delicate allusions to the ‘gentle pas-
sion:” and his young women certainly seem very loveable persons.
But in later years he turned his attention much to French subjects,
illustrating local manners and customs, as well as the one sentiment
or “story” peculiar to no locality where men and women dwell
together. Stone was elected an Associate of the Academy in 1851,
and died on the 18th of November, 1859.

Many of his pictures have been finely engraved, and the prints
after them are among the most popular of recent years. Among
the most successful of his works are the following :—“ The Last
Appeal,” 1843; “The Course of True Love never did run Smooth,”
1844; “Ophelia and the Queen,” 1845; “The Impending Mate,”
and “Mated,” 1847; “The Duet, andante con moto,’ 1849; “The
Gardener’s Daughter,”—

“One arm aloft,
Holding the bush, to fix it back, she stood.”— Tennyson.

1850; “Bassanio receiving the Letter announcing Antonio’s losses,”
1851, a more ambitious composition than usual; “The Old, Old
Story,” 1854; “Bon Jour, Messieurs,” 1857; and “ The Missing
Boat, Pas de Calais.” 1858.

1 «The Gentleman's Magazine.” 2 « Art-Union Journal,” 1840.
556 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

Aucusrus Leopotp Eac, remarkable both for the comic and
the serious spirit of his works, was born in London in 1816.
He appeared as an exhibitor at the Academy as early as 1838, when
he contributed “A Spanish Girl.” This was followed by ‘“ Laugh
when you can,” in 1839; and “A Scene from Henry IV.” in 1840.
Egg seems to have at once entered upon that line of art by which he
ultimately gained his well-deserved reputation—the higher genre,
or social history. He exhibited several excellent works at the
Royal Academy during the twenty-two years he contributed to
its exhibitions, besides others shown elsewhere. The following are
Egg’s most important pictures :—“ Peter the Great sees Catherine, his
future Empress, for the first time,” 1850; “The Life and Death
of Buckingham,” an extraordinary work, full of excellent painting,
1855; ‘‘ Past and Present,” a social tragedy, in three groups, 1858;
“The Night before Naseby,” 1859; and ‘“ Catherine and Petruchio,”
1860, his last picture. He had the misfortune to suffer from a
weak constitution, and it was during a journey in Africa, under-
taken for the benefit of his health, that he died, at Algiers on
the 26th of March, 1863. He was elected a Member of the
Academy in 1860, but he never exhibited as an academician.

CuarLes Rosert Lesiie was born of American parents, in Clerk-
enwell, October 19th, 1794. He was taken by them in 1799 to
Philadelphia, and was there apprenticed to a bookseller. In 1811,
however, Leslie returned to England, and entered as a student in
the Royal Academy; he received some instructions also from
Washington Allston, and from the President of the Academy, West,
both Americans; for the latter, Leslie executed some copies for
America. He started first as a portrait-painter, but in a very few
yeats turned his attention more particularly to that style in which
he afterwards so eminently distinguished himself—the higher genre.

Leslie’s first important picture established his reputation, ‘Sir
Roger de Coverley going to Church,” which was painted for Mr.
Dunlop, in 1815, and he afterwards repeated it for the Marquis of
Lansdowne. In 1821 he exhibited ‘‘ May-day in the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth.” This procured him his election as an Associate of the
Academy. His fine picture, painted for Lord Egremont, of “ Sancho
Panza and the Duchess,” of which there is a repetition with slight
alterations, in the National Gallery, was exhibited in 1825, and in
the following year he was elected’a member of the Academy.

In 1833 Leslie was made Professor of Drawing at the Military
Academy of West Point, New York, but he gave up the appointment
after a five months’ residence there, and returned to London; and
from this time he produced a succession of masterly works, masterly
in every respect, perhaps, except their colouring, in which a dull red
or burnt sienna tint is too prevalent: this is, however, not the case
PAINTING IN ENGLAND. 537

with the “Sancho Panza,” and other early works. He is seen to
great advantage in the Sheepshanks Collection. .

In 1848 he was elected Professor of Painting at the Royal
Academy, but resigned this office in 1851; and in 1855 his lectures
were published under the title of a Hand-book for Young Painters.
He had already appeared as an author in 1845, when he published a
Life of Constable. THe died in London, May 5th, 1859, in his sixty-
fifth year.’

Wittiam Moutreapy, since Wilkie the most distinguished of
British genre painters, was born at Ennis, in the County Clare,
Ireland, on the 1st of April, 1786: his father was a leather-breeches
maker. He came early to London, and in 1803 married the sister
of John Varley, the water-colour painter, but they did not live
together many years. In 1809 he exhibited the picture in the
National Gallery, now called “Fair Time,” but then called “ Re-
turning from the Alehouse,” showing that already, at the early age
of twenty-three, he was a perfect master in that class of work for
which he has been so long eminent: indeed, his earlier pictures
such as this, the ‘‘Carpenter’s Shop,” 1808, the “Barber’s Shop,”
1811, and a few others, are among the best coloured, the most
comprehensive, and the truest of his works.

Mulready was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy in 1815,
and an Academician in 1816, both elections taking place between
the exhibitions of those years, so that his name never appeared in
the Catalogue as an Associate. His picture of 1815 was “Idle
Boys ;” that of 1816, “The Fight interrupted,” now in the Sheep-
‘shanks Collection. He exhibited altogether, comprising a few
drawings, seventy-eight works at the Royal Academy, of which
fifteen are now in the Sheepshanks, and four in the Vernon Collec-
tion, at South Kensington ; and in these two collections are many of
his most elaborate pictures.”

Among his most admirable works, besides those already noticed,
may be mentioned :—“ The Last in,” “Crossing the Ford,” “The
Fight interrupted,” “The Butt,” “Giving a Bite,” “First Love,”

1 See “ Autobiographical Recollections,’ by the late C.R. Leslie,R.A. 2 vols.,
8vo., 1860; and the National Gallery Catalogue, British School.

2 During the sixty years, from 1804 until his death, Mulready’s name was absent
from the Royal Academy Catalogue fifteen times. He generally exhibited but
one picture in the year, but in 1844 he had five in the Exhibition, his greatest
number in one year. The exhibition of his pictures, drawings, and sketches,
which took place at the Society of Arts in 1848, contained 214 works, but the
majority of these were sketches; there were only forty-four pictures and three
drawings which had been exhibited at the Royal Academy. In the exhibition
held this year in the South Kensington Museum, 478 works were shown, of which
118 were paintings, finished and unfinished. His Life-Studies-in chalk are some
of them of unapproached excellence. His pictures do not average two a year.
558 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

“Choosing the Wedding Gown,” “The Wolf and the Lamb,” “The
Whistonian Controversy,” and in some respects, the unfinished
“Toy Seller,” 1862, his last exhibited work. The “Whistonian
Controversy” is, 1 imagine, the most masterly of his later works.
Mulready died on the 7th of July, 1863, and was buried at Kensal
Green. With the exception perhaps of some slight deterioration in
his colouring, which of late years was obtrusively purple, he was in
the enjoyment of the full powers of his great abilities for upwards
of half a century. ‘

Mulready was one of the founders and most active members of the
“Society for the Management and Distribution of the Artists’
Fund,” of: which he held the office of President as early as 1815,
and at whose meetings he was never absent for seventeen years.

1 See Pye’s “ Patronage of British Art.”
EPILOGUE.

Sucu is the general Outline of the History of Painting; here
necessarily brief in many parts, and insufficient, within so circum-
scribed a limit.

We have seen that the progress of art is slow in all times and in
all places: two great periods of development have been traced—
that of Pericles and his immediate successors, from 400 8.c. to the
time of Alexander ; and that of Julius II., 1500 a.p., after a lapse
of nearly 2000 years; and in both cases the decline was sudden
compared with the slow steady progress of the establishment of the
art. Nearly three centuries elapsed in Greece from the first con-
siderable development of painting to the period of its ultimate
refinement—from Solon to Alexander; and its rapid decline com-
menced from that period. The course of the art in modern times is
very similar—from Giotto to Raphael almost an equal period
elapsed, and the very scholars of Raphael outlived the term of its
pure existence. A partial revival must be allowed to the Carracci,
but, as already shown, it was a revival of the form, not of the
essence of art.

I have now only to reiterate my argument in favour of the Italian
Cinquecento in relation to every other development of painting, at
least in modern times.

Setting aside the swaddling clothes or incunabula of Art, modern
Painting has undergone three stages : these are the Quattrocento, the
Cinquecento, and the Eclectic or Academic—the rise, the establish-
ment, and the decline: these are subdivided into many schools, all
similar in essentials, differing only in technical details, or in the
prevalence of some one or other of the essentials. The Quattrocento
560 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

is that in which the Art was gradually developing itself, and it
ceases with the accomplishment of a fair individual representation
of nature, independent of any esthetical or theoretical influence.
It appears in three distinct characters or styles, in which Sentiment,
Form, and Colour, respectively, dominate; to the first school belong
Gentile da Fabriano and Fra Angelico da Fiesole; to the second
the great mass of the remaining quattrocento painters of Florence
and many of those of Rome; and to the third the early Venetians,—
the Vivarini, Giovanni Bellini, Marco Basaiti, and many others; to
which may be added the old School of Cologne.

Such painters as Perugino and Francia, combining all the excel-
lences of the style in a nearly equal degree, are the quattrocento
masters, par excellence ; Francia, perhaps, best represents the beau
ideal of the style. Masaccio, Filippo Lippi, Luca Signorelli, and a
few others, whose great excellence in form contributed much to the
advancement displayed. in the Cinquecento, belong strictly to neither
one nor the other; they exhibit the transition, but they are generally
reckoned with Perugino and Francia as the great masters of the
Quattrocento.

With these masters, or with Francia rather, closes the first great
epoch of modern painting. Michelangelo marks the era of the Cin-
quecento, and this is the epoch of its greatest perfection among the
moderns. The Quattrocento is essentially a period of progress, all
that it displays was accomplished by long and slow degrees, and it
exhibits only the victory over the essential difficulties of the Art,
more especially those of a technical character. It is a matter of
necessity that the technical difficulties of an Art must be overcome
before that Art can appear in all the glory of its fully-developed
powers. The Quattrocento exhibits the Art simply in detail, many
perfect parts but no unity, no whole; the imitative faculty is fully
developed, but it was always displaying a faculty without using it;
it was ever painting: compared with the Cinquecento, or with the
school of Raphael, there is neither life nor motion in the Quattro-
cento. The compositions of the earlier period are full of sentiment
certainly, but only to those who can sympathise with it, knowing
the sentiments of the age to which the works of this style belong.
We recognise and can appreciate their sentiment, but it is all
thoroughly conventional. Lvery figure, as a general rule, is an actor
hired for the express attitude in which we find it. The best figures
in the best Quattrocento works seem to have assumed their attitudes
for a particular effect; they have sentiment, but it is nearly always
the same, chiefly a parade of pious resignation, and it has, like their
attitude, been put upon them, and not proceeded naturally, from
any emotions of their own affections, from the circumstances of
the composition.
EPILOGUE. 561

In this style then interiorly, there is little if anything of genuine
nature: what is natural in it is on the surface, and this it owes to
its skill in individual imitation, and certainly not to any generic
knowledge or power, such as characterises the antique. Perhaps
no painter was ever more capable of making an exact picture of an
individual model set before him ‘than Francia; and yet. it would
probably have been difficult for Francia to have given even three
figures a unity of action; in ornamental opposition he was sufficient
master, but dramatic unity of composition was no better appreciated
by him than by painters who preceded him a hundred years ; Masaccio
indeed understood it far better, and this is just one of the points
which constitutes Masaccio one of the masters of the transition.

If Francia’s model had happened to be deformed or mis-shapen,
so would most certainly his picture have been; but doubtless so great
a master as Francia would select his model, still having selected
it he would scrupulously abide by its peculiarities; at least such,
from their works, seems to have been the principle of the best
quattrocento masters. In sentiment they were thoroughly, what
we now term in Art-criticism, subjective; that is, all their figures
had to be imbued with their own prevailing idea, religious aspira-
tion in some shape or other, but chiefly in the spirit of resignation
or mortification ; this feeling, which seems to have been a charac-
teristic of the age, pervaded the whole province of Art, and
therefore in so far as this is only a very limited field indeed in the
human emotions, so the Art of the period was only a very limited
picture of nature, even in its own conventional Art sphere, and
therefore the Quattrocento presents not only an imperfect picture
of humanity, but also an imperfect picture of the individual, for
though the body is often given with surprising skill and fidelity of
imitation, it is a body with little life and a very conventional
spirit. The merit accordingly of this style, to put it for the sake
of argument, in its most disadvantageous shape, is a mere isolated
elaborate objective finish, and the sentiment being a species of
“fixed quantity,” it is only a kind of shell painting, compared with
the high dramatic art of the sixteenth century.

This is said without the slightest idea of depreciating the quattro-
cento masters, than which nothing can be further from my
sentiments; but solely with a view to fairly contrast the natures
of these two great historic Epochs of Art—the Quattrocento and
Cinquecento, and by endeavouring to lay down clearly the pecu-
liarities or characteristics of each, and bring them into critical com-
parison, to show their relative merits. Painting culminated in the
works of the great masters of the sixteenth century, not in the works
of any one, but certainly in those of the five capi scuole combined,
Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, and Correggio.

20
562 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

It is literally true that every defect or deficiency of the Quattro-
cento is supplied in the Cinquecento. The mere individual
representation becomes generic: for simple, ornamental, or sym-
metrical opposition we have dramatic action ; and to the expression
of an austere piety, pity, or despair, is added that of every human
emotion, joyful or painful. And though we cannot predicate
perfection of any of its individual works, still the style is in its
broad principles perfect in itself. As the large altarpiece by
Francia, in the National Gallery, served as an illustration of the
Quattrocento, we may take the cartoons of Raphael as examples of
the Cinquecento.

We have not in these works that minute elaboration of external
accidents such as we find in the more limited style; but such
finish, however, is not incompatible with the Cinquecento; it is
only unnecessary, for it may fairly be dispensed with as too trivial
to add either truth or dignity to the grand qualities of this consum-
mate style of Art. With the impressive dramatic action, imposing
dignity of appearance of the actors, extraordinary fitness of incident,
accessory and principal; and the interesting and exalted nature
of the subjects ; there is but slight occasion to regret a clean line,
a glossy surface, or a rosy complexion.

That the Cinquecento degenerated into the Academic in the
seventeenth century, is no fault of the style itself; the eclectics of
Bologna, though they might profess to bestow equal attention
upon the exalted character, and the physical perfection, of the
Cinquecento; they could not so easily point out to their pupils in
what this elevation of character consisted: but as it was evident
something was to be imitated, these naturally fell upon the more
obvious characteristics of technical qualities—form, colour, light
and shade; hence the utter preponderanée of these qualities in all
the Eclectic and subsequent Academic schools, even to this day.
Commendation and blame themselves were almost comprised in six
notions: a picture is well or badly drawn; is rich or dull and
muddy in its colour; is flat or masterly in its light and shade.
Whether the subject be dramatically treated, historically or estheti-
-cally true or probable, commonplace or judicious in its selection,
hackneyed or new, instructive or mischievous, worthily or inferiorly
rendered, painful or delightful, are in an Academic age all consi-
derations too subordinate to participate in the absorbing question
as to the mechanical handiness with which the paint has been laid
upon the canvas.

We have lately experienced a partial revolution in taste, in
which almost the opposite extremity has been reached; the material
has been entirely subjected to the sentimental. The sentimental,
however, is not the most difficult part of art, yet a little sentiment,
EPILOGUE. 563

happily displayed, has now elevated into favourable notice indis-
criminately, works in which the absence of nearly every other good
quality had hitherto condemned to deserved obscurity ; and there has
been a kind of mania for early Italian pictures, as if every example
possessed all the high qualities of its time. ‘The perfection of art
must consist in the co-ordinate development of the sensuous and
the sentimental. So far from the Quattrocento being a higher
development of art than the Cinquecento, it is nothing more than
a comparatively incipient or progressive stage, owing its indivi-
duality not to the possession of certain qualities but to the absence
of others belonging to a more advanced development. The
abnegation of the world, and its uses, was looked upon as a sign
of the love of heaven and the ways of heaven, instead of as the
bad sign of a bad age, in which pious idleness was considered
more worthy than worldly usefulness.

Piety and mortification of the body may be natural sentiments,
but it is a poor nature, and a still poorer art, that is made up
wholly of the ascetic. What with the so mis-called Pre-Raphaelite
revival in this country, and early Italian and German sentiment,
so much praise has been bestowed upon the earlier artists that
language has been fuund wanting to do justice to the great masters
of the sixteenth century, and modern criticism has had recourse to
the alternative of deprecating their defects rather than extolling
their beauties. The sentiment is in this early art, but the just
material representation is almost wholly wanting: there is the
soul, but its body is not yet matured, and this immaturity cannot
be a quality of perfection. No exalted sentiment can possibly be
aided by either ugliness or disease ; neither health nor comeliness
are incompatible with sorrow or piety. To attempt to represent
intellectual or spiritual power at the expense of the physical
condition is absurd. ‘he physical ideal can alone harmonize with
the spiritual ideal: lofty sentiment and physical baseness are
essentially antagonistic. It is a wholly groundless notion that
there is anything antayonistic to sentiment in the magnificent
physical development of the Cinquecento. The greatest Cinque-
cento masters themselves were always true to the spirit of their
style; soul and body were equally refined upon, equally gene-
ralised ; and they did not surpass the Quattrocento masters less
in sentiment than they did in their physical development.

The attempt, therefore, of Overbeck and others to re-establish
the early sentimental or ascetic art as the standard of excellence is, I
imagine, a retrograde movement; so is that style also which devotes
excessive attention to elaborate detail, and magnifies the eccentri-
cities or accidents of the individual into generic characteristics,

202
564 THE EPOCHS OF PAINTING.

But if such revivals are to be looked upon only as the reaction
of vigorous minds to counteract effete academic generalization, then
they are great services; they must rank however, accordingly, as mere
means, and are on no account to be admired for their own sakes
as ends to be attained. This will probably be the result of these
new art vitalities. It was just such a reaction which developed
the present high state of the art in France, as exemplified in the
works of Paul Delaroche and Ary Scheffer; such men as Gericault
being the pioneers who swept away the encumbering prejudices
and classical conventionalities of the school of David.
TABLE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS

OF SOME OF THE MORE EMINENT PAINTERS

TO THE EXHIBITIONS OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY,

WITH JNITIALS, SHOWING THE YEARS THEY FIRST EXHIBITED AS

ASSOCIATES OR ROYAL ACADEMICIANS.,
566 TABLE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

 

sH
~

~

NAMES OF PAINTERS.

1769
1770
1772
T13
1775
776
7
1778
1780
1781
1782

 

 

 

 

ALLAN, Sir W.-  -
Barry, J. --- -
Brrcury, Sir W.
Binp, BE, - - - - - - S
Bontneron, R. P.- - -

Briecs, H. P. - # - - - =
Cauicort, Sir A. W.
Co.ttivs, W.
ConsTABLE, J. -
Cortey, J. 8.
Crome, J. -
Cross, JOHN
Danesy, Fr. -
Dyce W. - - - -
Eee, A. L.- - -
Erty, W. -
Fuse, H. -

‘| GarnsBoroucH, TH.
Harnow, G. H
Hayopoy, B. RB. -
Hi.toy, W. -
Hoppner, J. - - = -
Howarp, H. -
Jackson, J. ----| - - : - -
Kavurmann, Anc. - -jRA4] 4] 6) 5] 5
LAWRENCE, Sir Tu. -
Lest, C. R.- - - - - -
Lovutuersoure, P. J. - 7) 8
Mortanp, G.
Mortimer, J. -
Miier, W. J.
Motreapy, W.
Newton, G. 8S.
Norrscore, J.
Orr, J. - -
Owen, W. -
Paurs, TH. -
Rarsurn, Sir H.
Remacuit, R. R, - -}| - - ~ - . :

Reynoips, Sir Josava| 4ft]/ 8| 6 | 6/12/13 /12]/13}13} 4]11) 7) 14) 15
Runcoman, A. - - 1

Surg, Sir M. A.
SmncLeton, H.
Suirce, R. -
Sronr, F. -
SroTHarp, Tu.
Sruarr, Gr, -
Strupss, G. -
Tuomson, HENRY -
Turner, J. M. W.
Uwiys, Tu. - - -
Vincent, G.
Warp, J. --
West, B. - -
Westatt, Rp. -
Witrir, Sir D. -
Witson, Rp.
Wraicut, Josep
Wyart, Ey.
ZOFFANY, J. -

1

rt

at [77
1
1

t

!

a8 | 3 ira4] 2) 2] - | -
t

pw
oo

rr
at &

mer ret yp

- | lj a4] 3 R.

trerpetboere
1
i
1
'
t

Rma4| 7] 7] 6] =- |] =

Poqget
ee
ow
a-
et
oO
a
he
amr

tt eh eee
I

port
ra
oe

qt tigt
Si eas
on
SS
ott
ee

RAG

KH

ee

a

at

2°
eat tat

>

rParuretraetrta
'
1
e
bo
-
a
1
1
~
Venpl treed

¥
1
t
;
'
:
{ope
bo

i
tent apt. ef be ee OP ee

oO
e
+

Tn ere
ie a

RAZ

m!
oO
ine}

on
_
sept
a1
a
ra)

RAB

wit teow

nD
mil
»
~
_
oo
amt Het
aR:
w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 | a2
me! 2| 3| Bi] 4 1 ; 3] 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

* A drawing with a poker. Tt PRA, 1769, t R.A, elect., 1781. § R.A,, elect., 1782.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* PRA, 1792.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITIONS. 567
3 H ie) co > ao o> So — a boa) le) © t lo) a a
PICS \2IS ZS lSlSlSlSleleieleleleis
onl a al rm ot al foal me rm re o ot mH al rc G
i = les |e ae AN czy Ml) ee - call Sols cee dP se 1

9] 9 9/7} 9] 9] 8] 4)/a9] 11) 41] a1 iras| of]
2 1 = = 3 5

3) Z| 21 3s Al {ral 1 2 2 - - : i 1 -
12 eS a -|- |) 96
5| 5| 6] 5] 41 5| 6| 3] 7| 7 a9 {to}a}iz)az} si -
1) 4] 6/10/10] 6] -
se et age SN (eat Se Me ea gl ae lta Perse Pe Aa eae Nee

-| 7} 6]13]12]11 lato} 9 leas! 9] 8) 6] 6] 6

e|to/70| 4] @| 4 8| 3| 3 : =| 4 3
-| 2) 7/1 1 1| 5 3 7 3.) =
- We 13
|) del ah ak etleeeell op dela ae ae ae HS) BL Be

51 8| 6| 7\nas| 6] 5] 2 3} -| 5] 2| 6] 5] 5] 9
eet eral aes i -|-|] 4] 3) 5] 5] 5/10] By -

a 1) 2] 3 5| 4) 7] 5
: sill als Bh eos aeclh os ti aij -
a neeaallt Suen dl eae|: Ae We wha at cia ie eee: 5 ce] bi) Be] =
10 | 16 | 16"| 18 | 13 | 18 | 18 | 7 245
mle so ff ep df ee ces Zs -| ou

~f-?-]./-/ a1) -1 4] 7] 8] 5] 4] -]10] 9 Jag

11 2] 9] 4] 4) 3] 4] 6) 8/11/10] 7/12/11] 9] 8
2 1 | a2 jral 3 4 1 3 -
- 1 1 4 |al 2 |Ra3 a 3 3 1 -
S| «= “ Ne me ce = |- 12

a2| 3] 1/1] 2) 4 2

” i} a) o| 9! #1 sla| #\a0| 2%

SM, Miter aN eer lala WL 41 6| a} al | 2) @| 2
4! e| 3) 2} 2] a1] 1! 41 6] 6 6; 8| 8| 9] 7/14) 9] -
1) 4) 7/13) 20/17 /a10} 13/12] 8/10; 11/15) -
es ull es sell ase - 31
5} 9| 2 37
eos : 3 Z 1} 4/ 1\/ 1] 44) 42

 
TABLE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

 

 

1801

1802

1803

1804

1805

1806

bY
So
wD
al

1808

1809

1810

1811

1812

1813

 

ALLAN, Sir W. -

  

5. Bee
uy, Sir W. - -
Bmp. H.- ---  -
Bonineron, R. P. -
Bricas, H. P.
Cauucotr, Sir A, W.
Cotiixs, W.

Cortey, J. 8.- - - -
Cromg, J. -
Cross, JoHN - -
Dansy, Fr. --
Dycr, W. -
Eee, A. L.= -
Erry, W. -
Fusevi, H. - - - - -
.Gatnsporoucn, TH. -
Hartow, G. H. -
Hayvon, B. R.
Hinton, W. -
Hoprner, J. -
Howarp, H.
Jackson, J.
Kaurmann, Ana. -
Lawrence, Sir Tu. -
Lesiin, C. R.- - - -
Louruersourc, P. J.
Moruanp, G, -
Mortrmtmr, J. -
Miter, W. J.
Mouureapy, W.
Nerwron, G. 8.
Norvrucote, J. -
Orin, J. - - -
Owen, W. -
Pururrs, TH. -
Raeburn, Sir H.
Rernacue, R. R.
Reynouips, Sir JosHca
Runerman, A.
Suer, Sir M. A.
Sincteron, H.
Sarge, R. -
Stonz, F. -
Stormarp, TH. -
Stuart, Gr.
Stusprs, G. - =
Tuomson, Hunry
Turner, J. M. W.
Uwins, Tu. - =
Vincent, G. -
Warp, J. -
West, B.
Wersratu, Ro. -
Witkin, Sir D.-) -
Wiison, Ro. -
Wricur, Josera = -

t

Wyatt, Hy. -
Zovrany, J.

 

ConsTaBLE, J. --|-

 

atoanacit !

Torn '

 

nm

Qaorntn! wan! a! moan i

Qo: l

oO

wmeco! § ype

Dreoartw-~1!

an!

Pose:

 

Tapl at

Y taal

 

or

an

BNoe! ot ag! anaonol! 1

aH!

x

_

bop

woloaterae'!

AaAnH' w'

 

~

ee Eat

Nnamtwil ?

b>
1 el pan:

or

Nop:

 

BQQe- o' pp!

oo a’

_ aa w' naorm'!

1s (eho.

moO

 

oo!

 

n

wl cra! !

woaonmteotlwil

mepwt ! ao! el goapl am: mp!

mT oO

a!

me rw! oo!

wleatlwh: etm ul

tra! a'r !

poo! bone

ra
math! wre!

10

 

 

bea!

Deweew!

Vp tl

me oD

eB! bart elomtoaret tla Waa

'pamwolppnw!

 

errr! ' wo!

Goch ais

wham wo!

Hol eowrm!l ow! wy! peowmt orl

1 >

00

re

oO

wotmtl _

i a

 

 

a

‘pe Reo'

pwaoamlaot HE byt gas pa et eolipns

wnt

prolly

pnewa~!

wee) ios tee See er pled Gast 4

 

Veo! aul n!

 
569

ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITIONS,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, a, COW aan BOM ,O2,rnn ,o Qnr,A On
IVLOL PST ae Sa IS Hm Nid 'ISSS (SSR 8A NBE 1 FS 1 BEG
= = ine) a Arr N N
Ogst r& , ,~ mmo t oH (_vSBOIO y ao | 10 110 Hig a iba OOH {OD
6Z8T} Te ee rIVy,_ YD ’ myn Oe Ay 10 Rn 12H ’ H ro .HwO, | m
SZ8I pr ON. HA, 1 4 roe, He Oy, y ret, 1.0 4H H HH {DAN : ee
a we
Leet | Mt ao scacs msm, om 1.100 ,om , mo 71D & {190 4 11d ym eK “1
gest} Wie 1Qanan rt ord as HO OS, Mp pO Uh, 10 oH 8 4 =
& sd
GZet | 1 ORD i 1a rom Oh OH, Ne 1, Yk mR ae 4c ot a
3
BEST | 1 OP - eats io roe yyy ho yor MOH Id, Oo , ON m4 10 ~ OO yr i 3
_«
EZST mph, pao rims ia 1 pwn kh, rANb poate 1 6B 60 ial pea NH HO oe
Best; TP ws Naa NO OG HAN HOME 1H AN .Aa OH AR
=
x
Test] Tr rHaot ,pa yAe po. Hho, mR MAH NEON HOM 1H FR yr {YN ’ S
—
OZST 1D, ~pWHAMA 1AM, prs .wWWo WR, maw , 1901010 1 OH a roa, a iA <
< Ss
- ay
GIST | Nr Sr iNaanea , rrr? yuagiha is AAD OOH 1, OH co 1A y~matan {AN ‘
S
BIST | TOM NO yp PHAM ype 1H aH DOH » M19 My, HRA AHA 1
LIST! Tier ia es ro NH yy NID Ow 12D 1 COED H Dre Ho Oe poem
a
=
gist] Temi ON , oe a a 1 WO |, OR1910 Mid, yh y~ AN , Aen ,
erst | 12s, ~Q@ 1 10, 1 Oy pawn yh ma. ,ORHO HoH HO Ome HHA
4 a i
vist | 12a ,an, 1 a i i 11D INE HH | WD NAN ~_OMnaNoNHA 11
570 TABLE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

 

NAMES OF PAINTERS.

1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843

 

ALLAN, Sim W. - - -
Barry, J. --- -
Berecuny, Sir W. -
Birp, E.---- -
Bonrneton, R. P. - -
Briees, H. P, - - -
Cattcort, Sir A. W.
Couiins, W.
ConsTABLE, J. -
Cortry, J. S.- -
Cromg, J.

Cross, JOHN
Danpy, Fr. - -
Dyce, W.

Kac, A. L. - -
Erry, W. --
Foset, H. -
GatnsporoucH, TH.
Hartow, G. H. -
Haypon, B. R. .
Hinton, W. -| 2 1 1 1
Horpner, J. ---| - . - -
Howarp, H. -| 38] 4] 5] 4
JACKSON, J. - = -
Kavrmann, ANG. - -| - - -
Lawrence, Sir Tu. -| - ” -
Lestiz, ©. R.- - -| 2 2 3
Lovutuernoure, P. J. - -
Mortann, G.  - -

Mortimer, J. -
Miiyr, W. J.
Mureapy, W.
Newton, G. 8.
Nortucorr, J. =
Ort, J. - -
Owen, W. -
Puiuures, Ta. - - -
Ragsorn, Sir H.
Reracye, R. R.
Reynotps, Sm JosHua
Runerman, A. ---/| - | -
Saur, Sir M. A. - -| 4*| 6
Sinetrron, H. ---{| 3] 38] 8
Suirkr, R, - - - - - -
Strong, F, - - - - -
Storwarp, Tu. -| - 1
Stuart, Gr, - =
Sroupss, G. -
TxHomson, Henry
Turner, J. M. W.
Uwins, TH. -
Vincent, G.
Wann, J. - =
West, B. - - -
Westaui, Ro, -
Wixi, Str D, -
‘Witson, Ro. -
Waicut, Josrra
Wyart, Hy. -; 1 3
ZoFFANY, J. -- -|- = -

=
ra
e
nw
roy
=

RAL

ol

oO
a!
a
’
tu
!

Dwor:
moan talue

Swan! lp!
ee!

pwwa!
otati

§ oo
Tt dept gt tart pp
' ' gomra !

'Vippoaat ' ota

~ Ett geemt Pb ty

er

1

mips! EE at poo! Fp t pp
nr

ot
wo

One !

@Qmlel tlt qntat
om! ip

eee tt

bo

a

no

Vege tit
oh opened

1

Lert £2 8 £ h et Po
oom
3 eo
i Uke eee Th

1
‘
ett

Lent |
Ven!
be
on
wo
Yep!

- EP yo t prt
wi Wot Pa ad eye 4 wemt tt ty | 1844

we ! bagl

Tip t Pt ayt ett
e
bo
=

De
KN
me
_
m
bo
_

‘et & Tt

torres
a'on
wo oo
"oO
ao ' ao
oO
svioayt
om
oo!
oO
"mM
xq
x
or

ao
po!
wo:
oD
nm
on

ei ipa!

Ut eset

mal

me lop:

mo mo!

ei tet

@ Pipe hb gg
iy

t
YT Pas £2 BORLA 4 4
ail
mor!
wat
Poe t td
mew: !
Ylia!
Bros!
lipo!
wo! wor!
alan:
eaqgia

po!
Ti l@mt ep! FE Ppt pat tata

ued
wo'rteq'
wo a Eo!
Ao' 0

ont mm!
awiol

for)

ow!

Ng

1

 

 

 

>
rl
is
a

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* pra. 1831,
ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITIONS.

571

 

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

1860

1861

1862

Toran.

 

bo

ra

1: i gyear

1

wo

eo

 

 

"po

3
Al

 

1

I'l ypren'

cat aes

 

np

Vl ae bp!

wo!

th pas

 

bo

 

ee!

Hl

eee pou ni

x

 

 

Ad

a'r

 

td

 

eeas

piel

 

ra

etrolil

 

1

T

EA Ae

mt ot

1

 

Hee

H

re

Ppt ft

 

Pigg Weegggeat 3 pura

11

Putt

 

“pie Fea | 1859

 

trrprde ts

Hort tt

tow tot

 

tren

Sint tus

 

rote

 

 

41

362
18

122
123

 
INDEX

OF

NAMES OF ARTISTS NOTICED OR MENTIONED IN THIS WORK,

AND OF SOME FEW OTHER MATTERS.

 

(The painters to whose names an asterisk (*)is attached are represented
in the National Gallery.]

Aalst, W. van, 457

Abel de Pujol, 481
Abbate, Niccolo del, 316
Abshoven, T* van, 446
Absolon, 131,

Ach, ab (J. van Achen), 296
Achtschelling, 412
Aétion, 63

Agatharcus, 69

Agresti, Livio, 306
Aikman, 503

Agilaophon, 43, 64

Albani, F., 330
*Albertinelli, Mariotto, 198
*Aldegrever, H., 289
Aldobrandinit Marriage, 58
Algardi, 330

Alcisthenes of Sybaris, 23
Alfani, D. and O, di Paris, 166
Alfred and Ariram, 131
*Allan, 554

*Allegri, Antonio, 239
———--, Pomponio, 244
Allori, Alessandro, 311

% , Cristoforo, 355
Allston, W., 556

Aloisi, B., 344

Altdorfer, A., 290
Alunno, N., 163

Amato, Gio. Antonio d’, 183
, the younger, 185
Amberger, 292

*Amerighi (Merigi)
Amigoni, 502

Amman, Jost, 291
Ananias, 83

Andrea di Cione, 105
——— da Murano. 115
*Angelico (sec Fiesole)
Angelo di Donnino, 223
Ansaldo, 360

 

 

 

Anselmi, M., 163, 247
Antignano, Segna d’, 108
Antiphilus, 44, 60

Apelles, 43, 44, 48, 61, 65
Apelles of Ephesus, 60
Apollodorus, 34, 35
Apollonius, Torso of, 59, 310
*Arcagnuolo (Orcagna)
Arcecilaus, 61

Arcimboldo, 361

Ardices of Corinth, 24
Arellius, 59

Aretusi, C. 241, 242
Aristides, 44, 47

Arlaud, 502

Arpino, 1 Cavaliere, d’, 332
Asclepiodorus, 44, 57
Aspertini, 183

Assteas, 73

Assyrian Marbles, 3
Athenion of Maronea, 44, 57
Attavante, 92

Attiret, 5

Auction Prices, 365

Austen, William, 491
Avellino, 341

Ayala, B. de, 390

Aztecs, the, 8

Bagnacavallo, 234
*Bakhuizen, 448
Baldi, 357

Baldini, 236
Baldovinetti, 128
Balen, H. van, 403
Balestra, 369
Bambini, 368
Bambocciate, 440, 468
Bamboccio (Laer), 440
Barbalunga, 345
*Barbarelli, Giorgio, 240, 248
574

Barbieri, 334

Barisino, Tommaso di, 137
Barker, ‘T. 535

—, B., 535

Barlow, 497

*Barocci, 313

Barret, G., 535

Barroso, 378

Barry, James, 524
Bartolomeo, Don, 87
—_—, Fra, 197, 205
——_——, Maestro, 98
Bartolotto, T. 239
*Basaiti, Marco, 145, 172
*Bassano, Jacopo, 258
Bassano, Francesco, 259
——, Giambattista, 259
———, Girolamo, 259
—— , Leandio, 259
Bastaruolo, I], 239
Batoni, Pompeo, 348
Bauer, N., 459

Bazzi, 161, 220

Beale, M., 500

*Beato Angelico (Fiesole)
*Beaumont, Sir G., 535
Becerra, 376

*Beecvhey, 547

Belham, Bart., 290

"__, Hans S., 289
*Bellini, the, 169

—, Bellin, 171
Belliniano, 172

Bellucci, 368

Belotto, 370

*Beltraffio, 194

Beltrano, 339

Benedetto, Fra, 126.
*Benvenuti, 237
*Berchem, Nicolas, 450
Berlinghieri, 97

Berna da Siena, 108
Bernardino, 115
Bernieri, 245
Berruguete, 373
Bertucci, J., 235

Bibiene, the, 359

Bicci di Lorenzo, 112
Bicci, Lorenzo and Neri di, 112
Biliverti, 356

«Bird, 553

*Bissolo, 173
Blachernita, M. and 8., 89
Blake, W., 522
Blanchard, Jacques, 464
*Bles, H. de, 278
Bloemart, Abraham, 403
Blondcel, L., 275
Boccaccino, 236
Boeyermans, 407

*Bol, Ferdinand, 432, 434
Bonifazio Vencziano, 254
*Bonington, 541

 

 

 

 

INDEX.

Bonini, 334

Bono Ferrarese, 176
*Bonsignori, 179, 190
Bonvicino, Alessundro, 257
*Bordone, Paris. 254
Borghese, Ip., 336
*Borgognone, A., 361
Bosch, J., 439

Boschi, Fab., 356

—, Fran, 356

*Both, Jan and Andries, 451
*Botticelli, Sandro, 60, 160
Boucher, Fr., 473
Boullogne, Bon, de, 469.
*Bourdon, Scbastien, 467
Bourguignon, 468

Bouts, (Stuerbout)
Bramante, 201, 224, 255
*Bramantino, 220, 361
Brawer, 439

Bridell, 544

*Briggs, 549

Bril, Matthew, 350, 441

, Paul, 350, 441
Broedlain, 138

*Bronzino, Angelo, 202, #41
Brower, Adrian, 439
Browne, J. 491

Brueghels, the, 438
*Bruges, Rogier van, 146
Brun, Le, 465
Brunelleschi, 121
Brusasorci, Domenico, 266
Bruyn, B., 493
Buffalmacco, 104
Bugiardini, 223, 308
Bularchus, 22

Buonaccorsi, Pierino, 232
Buonaiuti, Corsino, 108
Buonamico, 104
*Buonarroti (see Michelangelo )
Buono, §., 184

Bupalus, 65

Burgkmair, Hans, 291
Buti, Lucrezia, 128

 

 

Cabal of Naples, 336
Caccia, G. (Monealvo)
Caliari, B. C. and.G., 264
*. » Paolo (Veronese), 261
Caldara, Polidoro, 235
*Calleott, 540

Callet, 477 -

Calliphon, 73

Calvart, Denis, 321, 350
Camassei, 345

Cambiaso, Luca, 314
Camerano, 342

Campi, the, 362
*Canaletto, Antonio, 570
, Bernarde, 370
Cano, Alonso, 385
Cantarini, Simone, 358

 

 

 
Caracciolo, 336

*Caravaggio, Michelangelo da, 332

——,, Pildoro da, 235

Cariano, 254

Carlone, Gio. and Giamb., 360

Caroto, F., 179

Carpaccio, Vittore, 173

Carpi, G., 238, 248

*Cuntacci, Agostino, 319, 320, 325

-, Annibale, 243, 321, 325
———, Antonio, 321

*. —, Lodovico, 319, 323

Carricra, R., 369

Carstens, 304

Cartoon of Pisa, 191, 201
Cartoons of Raphael, 209

Casanova, 476.

*Casentino, Jacopo di, 108, 110, 118

Castagno, Andrea del, 129

Castellucci, 357

Castiglione, Giu., 6

, Gio. Benedetto, 360
Castillo, Juan del, 384

Catena, V., 173

Cavallini, Pietro, 103, 113
*Cavazzola, 265

Cecco di Martino, 108

Celesti, 367 :

Celio, Gasparo, 165

Cenni, Pasquino, 108

Cennini, Cemnino, 109, 143
Cesare da Sest), 19+

Cespedes, 379

Chaerephanes, 59

Chambers, G., 545
Champaigne, P. de, 414, 466
Chardin, 471

Charmadas, 24

Chinese Painting, 5

Christophsen (Christus)
Christus, Pieter, 145

, Sebastian, 146

Cignani, Carlo, 359

Cignaroli, 370

Cigoli, Lodovico, 120, 314, 355
*Cima, G. and C., 173
*Cimabue, Giovanui, 99, 102

Cimon of Cleonae, 24

Cincinnato, R., 378

Cini, §., 118

Cinnuzzi, Vann‘, 108
Cinquecento, 239

Civerchino, 175

*Claude, 352, 539

Cleanthes of Coriuth, 24

Clecetas, 23

Cleophantus of Coriuth, 24
Clesides, 65

Cleyn, F, 212

*Clint, 549

Clisthencs, 69

Clovio, Giulio, 87, 92, 256
*Clcuet, J. and F., 462

 

 

 

 

 

 

a

 

INDEX. 575

Cocques, Gonzales, 415
Coello, Alonso Sanchez, 376
— , Claudio, 394
Colantonio del Fiore, 183
Colle, Raffaellino dal, 228, 235
*Collins, 542

Colombe, M.. 461

Colotes of Teos, 41

Colours, ancient, 73

Conca, 341

Coninxloo, G. van, 439
*Constable, 539

Conte, Giacopo del, 306
Cooper, 500

*Copley, 519 é
Cordella, I, 171

Cordelle Agi, 171

Corenzio, 336

Cornelis, Albert, 273
Corona, 364

Corrado, 341

*Correggio, 239

Corso, V., 185

Cortona, P. da, 120, 346, 357
*Cosimo, Piero di, 159
*Costa, 183, 236

, Girolamo, 183

——., Ippolito, 183

——,, Lorenzo the younger, 183
Courtois, Jaques, 468
Cousin, Jean, 463

Coxcien, M. Van, 270
Raphael, 271
Coypel, Antoine and Noel, 470
Cozza, Francesco, 345
Craesbeke, J. van, 440
*Cranach, Lucas, 288

——.,, the younger, 285
Crayer, Gaspar de, 411
*Credi, L. di, 196

Crespi, Giu. Maria, 359

, Daniele, 363

-, Giovanni, B., 363
Cristus, (Christus)

*Crivelli, Carlo, 117
*Crome, J., 541

Cross, John, 534

Curia, F., 336

*Cuyp, 452

Cydias, 44

Daddi, Bernardo, 108
Deedalus, 1

Dahl, 502

Damini, 365

*Danby, 544

Dandini, the, 357

David, Gerard, 153

, Jacques Louis, 478
Decamps, 487

Delaroche, 484

Dello Fiorentino, 110, 371
Denner, Balthasur, 300

 

 

 

 

 

 
576

Desportes, 471

Detroy, 472

Dibutades, 21

Dielai, 239
Diepenbetck, 407
*Dietrich, 301

Dinias, 24

Dionysius of Colophon, 26, 30, 34
Dioscorides, 71
Dipcenus, 25

Dittrich, T. 137

Dobson, William, 496
Does, S. Vander, 454
Dolci, Carlo, 356

-, Agnese 156
*Domenichino, 326
Dominici, F., 256
Donatello, 125

Doni, Adone, 166
Dorotheus, 49

*Dossi, Dosso, 238

, Giambattista, 238
*Dou, Gerard, 432, 433
Drolling, 481

Drouais, 481

Dubbels, 448

Duchesne, N., 414
*Duccio di Buoninsegna, 100
Dutresnoy, 467

*Diirer, Albrecht, 272, 280
, Andrew, 286

, John, 286

Dyce, W., 533

Echion, 44, 57
Eeckhout, Gerbrand Vanden, 434
*Ege, A. L., 556
Elzheimer, 298
Empoli, J. da, 356
Encaustic, 71
*Engelbrechtsz, Cornelis, 271
Ephorus, 45
Erigonus, 61
*Etty, 532
Eudorus, 69
‘Bumarus of Athens, 24
Euphranor, 39, 44, 54
Eupompus of Sicyon, 34, 42
Everdingen, A. van, 453
Everwin, 132
Eyck, Hubert van, 138-143
*___, Jan van, 138-143

——, Lambert van, 138, 141
* , Margaret Van, 138, 141

Fabius, 62

Fabriano, Gentile da, 114, 170
——-,, Gritto da, 114
Faenza, Jacopo da, 116
Facchetti, 344

Faccini, B., 238

Falcone, A., 339, 351

Fa Presto, Luca (Giordano), 340

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX.

Farinato, Paolo, 266
Fernandez, L., 381
———-, Vasco, 395
Ferramola, J., 257
Ferrari, Gaudenzio, 194, 195
Ferri, Ciro, 347
Fiammingo (Calvart) m
Du Quesnoy, 330, 350
Fictoor (Victor)
*Fiesole, Fra Giovanni Angelico da,
87, 125, 160
Figolino, Marcello, 172
Finiguerra, Maso, 179
Fino, Cristoforo di, 121
Fiumicelli, Lodovico, 256
Flamenco, Juan, 148
Flaxman, 46,°513, 524
Flinck, Govert, 434
Floris, Frans, 276
Fontana, Prospero, 319, 322
Foppa, V., 360
Fornarina, the, 209
_Foucquet, 461
*Fra Filippo, 128
*Francesca, Pietro della, 120, 163, 220
Franceschiello, 342
Franceschini, 356
Francesco dai Libri, 256
*Francia, Francesco, 180, 560
, Giacomo, 181
» Giulio, 181
Franciabigio, 308
Franco, Battista, 313
Bolognese, 87, 92
Freminet, M., 463
Fresco-painting, 102
Fromantjou, H. de, 448
Fumiani, 368
Furini, F., 356
Fuseli, 526
Fyt, J., 402

Gabbiani, 357

*Gaddi, Giovanni and Angelo, 108

-—— , Angelo, 109

, Gaddo, 101

, Taddeo, 102, 104

*Gainsborough, Thomas, 517

Galanino, 344

Galeotti, 358

Gandini, Giorgio, 241, 245

Garbo, Raffaelino del, 158

*Garofalo, 236

Garzi, 348

Gatta, 13. della, 220

Gatti, Bernardino, 244

, Gervasio, 244

Gelder, A. de, 432, 436

Gennari, B., 335

—, Ercole, 335

Genre, 60

Genre-painters, 59, 437—48, 468, 470,
475, 551

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
INDEX.

Gerard, Fr., 479

Gerard of Ghent, 87, 152

Gerbier, 495

Gericault, 481

Gherardi, Consiglio, 108

Gherardini, A., 358

, G., 859

Ghiberti, L., 125

a Domenico del, 158, 199,

 

 

——, Benedetto and David, 159
Gibson, Richard, 497
*Gillée, Claude, 352, 539
Gimignani, G. and L., 357
Gimignano, Vincenzo da San, 235
Giolfino, N., 266
Giordano, Luca, 340
*Giorgione, 240, 248
Giottino, 103

*Giotto, 40, 87, 101, 120
Giovanni, Berto di, 166
—, Fra, (Fiesole)
Girodet, 480

Girolamo dai Libri, 87, 256
Giunta, 99

Glover, J., 535

Gobbo, Andrea del, 194
Godeman, 91

*Goes, Hugo Vander, 151, 155
Goltzius, 295

Gondolach, 297

Gosbert, 131

*Gossaert, 271

Goyen, Jan van, 452
*Gozzoli Benozzo, 127
Grammatica, 344
Granacci, 159, 223, 312
*Grandi, Er., 237

Granet, 483

Gran-Vasco, 395

Greco, El, 378

*Greuze, 475

Grien, H. B., 287

Gros, 479

Griinewald, 286
*Gualtieri (Cimabue)
*Guardi, 371

Guazzo, 69

*Guercino, 334

Guérin, 478

Guido (Fiesole)

(Reni)

—— da Siena, 97

Gusci, Lapo, 108

 

Haarlem, Cornelis van, 296
———~—, Dirk van, the elder, 153
—_-+— , Dirk van, the younger, 153
Hals, Frans, 436

, the younger, 436

Harlow, 528

*Haydon, 530

Hayman, F., 517

 

 

Heem, Jan Davidze de, 457
Heinz, 297
Helmont, M. van, 445
*Helst, B. Vander, 436
Hemling (Memling), 148
Heracleides, 61
Hermogenes, 79
Herrera, Juan de, 317

—, F. de, 393
Heyden, Jan Vander, 455
Highmore, 503
Hilliard, 495
*Hilton, W., 529
*Hobbema, Mindert, 449
Hoeck, Jan van, 410
Hoekgeest, 455
——_—_—, J., 455
*Hogarth, 507
Holbein, Amb. and Bruno, 294
, Hans, 293
-, the younger, 292, 492
* , Sigmund, 293
*Hondecoeter, 456
Hontborst, 413
Hooge, P. de, 453
Hoogstraten, 435
*Hoppner, 547
Horembout, G., 152, 494
, or Hornebolt, Luke, 494
——__——,, Susanna, 152, 494
Hottentot Figures, 9
*Howard, 550 /
Hudson, 504 -
Hugford, Ig., 357
*Hugtenburg, 447
*Huysman, 499
Huysum, Jan van, 457
Hygiemon, 24

 

 

 

 

 

Ichthus, the, 98

Image of Edessa, 83
Image-worship, 79
Imola, Innocenzo da, 315
Indaco, J. L’, 223
Indian art, 3

*Jackson, John, 548
Jacopo, Don, 87
Jamesone, George, 496
Janssens, Abraham, 403
, Cornelius, 495
Japanese Painting, 8
Jardin, Karel du, 453
*Jeannet, 462

Jervas, 503

Jodnes, Vincente, 375
Jordaens, 409

Jouvenet, 468

Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin, 151
*Justus of Padua, 106

 

Kalf, Willem, 456
*Kaufmann, A., 520
578 INDEX,

Kessel, J. van, 450
*Keyser, T. de, 439
*Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 500
Kobell, J., 459
Koekkoek, B, C., 459
Kénig, 299

Koninck, D. de, 441

—, P. de, 435

 

Laer, Pieter van, 440, 448
——, R. and J. O. van, 441
Lafosse, C. de, 469
Laguerre, 502

Lama, Gio. Bernardo, 185
*Lancret, 471

Landini (Casentino)
Lanfranco, 331

*Lanini, B., 245
Largiliére, 470

Lasimos, 73

Lastman, 418

Laurentiis, N. de, 342
*Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 545
Lazzarini, 368

Lely, Sir Peter, 498
Lemoine, 472

Lenain, Antoine, 468

: , Louis, 468
———, Mathieu, 468
Leonbruno, 179
Leontiscus, 61

Leopardi, Al., 187
Leprince, 476

*Leslie, 553

Leyden, Lucas van, 271
Liberale, 87, 175

Liberi, Pietro, 366
Ligozzi, 355

Limborgh, H. van, 331
*L’Ingegno, 163, 166
Lingelbach, Jan, 441
Lioni, O., 344

*Lippi, Fra Filippo, 124, 128
* , Filippino, 156

, Lorenzo, 356
Livin of Antwerp, 94
Lodi, Calisto da, 255
Lomazzo, 195

*Lombard, Lambert, 274
Londonio, F., 300
Lorenzetti, Ambrogio and Pietro, 107
Lorenzo, Bicci di, 112
Lorenzo of Venice, 115
*Lorraine, Claude, 352
Loth, 366

*Lotto, Lorenzo, 174
*Loutherbourg, 521
Lovano, D. da, 153

Luca Santo, 108
Lucchese, Il, 367

Ludius, 23, 63

, Marcus, 63
*Luigi, Andrea, 166

 

 

 

 

 

*Luini, Bernardino, 193
Luke, St., 107

Luti, B., 358

Luzzi, Lorenzo, 255
Lysippus, 43, 49
Lysistratus, 65
Lyversberg Passion, 135

*Maas, Nicolas, 443

*Mabuse, Jan de, 271, 273, 491
Maffei, 366

Maganza, 366

Malombra, 365

Mandrocles, 22

Manfredi, 334

| Manozzi, 356

*Mantegna, Andrea, 176
————.,, Carlo del, 178

/ *_____ Francesco, 178

————,, Lodovico, 177

| Manuel, N., 287

*Maratti, Carlo, 219, 346

Marcantonio, 272, 295

Marcus Ludius, 63

*Margaritone, 97

Marieschi, 371

Martin, J., 542

Martinez, M., 389

Martini, 171

Martino da Udine, 173

Martis, Ottavianuv, 114

Marziale, 171

*Masaccio, 96, 120, 122-5, 561

Massys, Jan, 269

*Matsys, Quintin, ix., 149, 267

Matteo di Giovanni, 113

Mattoni, 366

Matturino, 235

*Mazzolini, 237

*Mazzuola, or Mazzola, Francesco (Par-
migiano), 245

. Girolamo, 247

Mazzuoli, Giu., 239

Meckenem, Israhel van, 135

Medina, 500

Meer, J. Vander, 443, 453

*Meire, G. Vander, 152

Melanthius, 44, 61

Melozzo da Forli, 168

Melzi, F., 194

*Memling, Hans, 87, 148

Memmi, Simone, 87, 92, 106

» Lippo, 107

Menas, 89

Mengs, A. R., 348

*Merigi, M. da, 332

*Messina, Antonello da, 94, 144

Metrodorus, 63

Metsu, Gabriel, 434, 442

Mexican Painting, 8

Michelangelo, 40, 120, 199, 210, 219,
228

 

 

Micon, 30, 31
INDEX.

Micros, 89 |

Miereveld, 435

————,, Pieter and Jan, 435

Mieris, Frans van, 434, 442

, Willem, and Frans the younger,

 

442
Mignard, Nicolas, 466
———\—, Pierre, 465
Miniature-parnters, 87, 89, 94 —
Mocetto, 171
Modena, Pellegrino da, 228, 234
Moine, Frangois le, 472
Mol, Pieter van, 406
*Mola, P. F., 835
Molinari, 368
Moncalvo, 363
Monnoyer, J. B., 470
Montagna, Bart., 172
—, Ben., 172
Montagnana, 171
Monti, A. de’, 344
Morales el Divino, 374
*Morando, 265
Moreto, or Miretto, 171
*Moretto, Il, 257
Morland, G., 536
*Moro, Antonij, 276, 494
, Battista del, 265
——, Il, 255
, Giulio del, 265
, Marco del, 265
*Morone, Fr., 256
*Moroni, G. B., 258
Mortimer, 524
Morto da Feltro, 255
Mosaic, ancient, 69, 71
*Miiller, 543
*Mulready, 557
Mura, F. de, 342
Murano, Andrea da, 115
———, Bernardino da, 115
, Quirico da, 115
*Murillo, 390
Muziano, 304
Mydon, 61
Mytens, 412, 495

 

 

 

 

 

*Nasmyth, P., 542
Natoire, 473

Navarrete, J. F., 377
Neacles of Sicyon, 61
Neefs, Pieter, 455
*Neer, Aart Vander, 451
-, Eglon Vander, 452
Negri, 368

Negrone, Pietro, 185
Neroni, 163

Nestor, 89

Netscher, 442

*Newton, G. 8., 554
Nicias, 44, 55
Nicomachus, 37, 44, 46
Nicophanes, 59

 

Noort, A. van, 398
*Northeote, 522
Notker, 85
Nuyen, 459

Oderigi of Gubbio, 92
Oggione, Marco d’, 190
Oil-painting, 85
Oliver, Isaac, 495, 500
——.., Peter, 495
Ommeganck, 459
Oost, J. van, 408

—, the younger, 408
*Opie, 527

*Orcagna, 105

*Orley, Bernard van, 269
Orsi, Lelio, 247

Os, J. van, 458

 

—.-, P.G. van, 458
Ostade, Adrian van, 443
Ottini, 365

Oudry, 471

Overbeck, 563

Owen, 548

*Pacchiarotto, Jacopo, 167

Pacheco, 381

Pacuvius, 62

*Padovanino, 365

Pagani, G., 355

Pagano, P., 369

Pagni, B., 231

Painters’ prices, 22, 47, 49, 51, 55, 101,
111-2, 121, 154, 161, 209, 223, 240-1,
245, 268, 270, 278, 283, 285, 292, 298,
815, 327-8, 377-8, 385, 393, 451, 454,
461-3, 466, 480, 482, 485, 491, 494-9,
506, 508, 510, 515, 523, 525, 546, 555

Palma, Jacopo, 256

-, Jacopo, the younger, 364

Palmerini of Urbino, 166

*Palmezzano, 168

Palomino, 393

Pamphilus, 44

Panaenus, 30, 31, 32

Panetti, 183, 236

Panicale, Masolino da, 121

Pantaleon, 89

Paolo, Maestro, 115

Papa, Simone, 185

Pareja, Juan de, 390

*Parmigiano, 245

Parrhasius, 34, 39, 42, 54

Parrocel, 468

Pasias, 61

Passeri, 345

Passignano, D. da, 319, 355

Passinelli, 359

Pasture, R. de le (Vander Weyden, ki.

Pater, 471

Patinir, J. de, 278

 

 

Pauditz, 300
' Paulinus, 80
580

Paulus, Magister, 115

Pauluzzi, 367

Pausanias, 59

Pausias, 44, 55

Pauson, 26

Pellegrini, Fr., 308

—— .,, Gio, Ant., 369
Pellegrino da Modena, 228, 234
Pencz, Georg, 294

Penni, Gian Francesco, 213, 227, 232
, Luca, 232

Peranda, 365

Pereda, 385

Perspective, 69, 120

Perugia, Giannicola da, 166

-—, Sinibaldo da, 166
*Perugino, Pietro, 157, 163-6, 204, 226
*Pesellino, 109, 157

Pesello, Giuliano, 109

, Francesco di, 109, 157
Petitot, 495

Phidias, 32, 33, 43, 54

*Phillips, 548

Philochares, 44, 60

Philocles of Egypt, 24
Philoxenus, 44, 57

Piazzetta, 369

*Piero di Cosimo, 159

Pignone, 356

Pilotto, 365

Pinas, J., 418

Pintelli, B., 255

*Pinturicchio, 166

*Piombo, Sebastiano del, 208, 224, 308
*Pippi, Giulio (Romano), 227, 231
Pisanello, Vittore, 125

Pisani, Andrea, 103

—--, Giunta, 96, 99

~—--, Niccola, 96

Pisanus (Pisanello)

Pittochi, M. da’, 367
Plistsenetus, 33

Po, Pietro del, 345

*Poelenburg, 442

Polancos, the, 390

*Pollajuolo, Antonio del, 158
—, Piero del, 158
Polychromy, 55

Polygnotus of Thasos, 24, 25, 38, 48
Pomerance, N. Dalle, 165
*Ponte, Jacopo da, 258
*Pontormo, J. da, 310
*Pordenone, 256

Porta, Giu., 365

Tlopvoypdat, 59
Portrait-painters, 64, 67, 343, 545
Portraits, as such, their place, 388
Pot, H., 456

Potter, Paul, 448

Pourbus, Frans, 276

——.,, Pieter, 275

*Poussin, Gaspar, 350

*____., Nicolas, 349, 466

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX.

Praxiteles, 55
*Previtali, A., 171
Primaticcio, 231, 315
Procaccini, the, 362
Protogenes, 44, 49, 52
Prudhon, 477

Pucci, Domenico, 108
Pujol, Abel de, 481
Puligo, 308, 310
Pulzone, Scipione, 306
Punie Was, 70
Pynacker, 454
Pyreicus, 44, 59
Pythagoras, 25

Quaglio, D., 302

Quellinus, Erasmus, 408

-, John Erasmus, 415
Quirico, 115

Raeburn, Sir H., 547

Ragmalas, the, 4

*Raibolini (Francia)

Ramenghi, Bartolomeo, 234

*Raphael, 55, 201, 204, 209, 219, 225,
244, 329

Raphael's Autograph, 204

Ravestein, J. van, 435

Razzi (Bazzi)

 

——, BR. R., 540
*Rembrandt van Rhyn, 416
*Reni, Guido, 327

Restout, 472

*Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 220, 509
Ribalta, 380

, Juan de, 381
*Ribera, Giuseppe, 336, 381
Ricamatori (Udine G. da)
Ricchi, 367

Ricci, Domenico, 266

—., Marco, 369

——., Sebastiano, 369, 501
Ricciarelli, Daniele, 304, 310
Richardson, Jonathan, 214, 502
Ridolfi, Carlo, 365

Rigaud, 469

Riley, 501

Rinaldo Mantuano, 231
Rincon, Antonio del, 373
Rizzi, Francisco, 394
Robert, H., 476

———, Leopold, 482
Robusti, Domenico, 261
*—_—, Jacopo (Tintoretto)
——, Marietta, 261
Rodrigo, Luigi, 337

 

 

' Roélas, 379
' Romanelli, 347

*Romanino, 258
Romanism and Protestantism, 505
*Romano, Giulio, 227, 231
*Romney, George, 512
Rondani, F. M., 247
Roos, P., and J. H., 299
Rosa, Anna di, 339
*—_. Salvator, 351
*Rosselli, Cosimo, 159
——, Matteo, 356
Rossi, Fr., 312

——, Rosso de’ (il Rosso), 307
Rotari, 370
*Rottenhammer, 298
*Rubens, 211, 228, 396
Runciman, 521

Ruschi, 367

Ruysch, Rachel, 457
*Ruysdaels, the, 449
Ryckaert, D., 446

Ryt, H. de, 509

Sabbatini (Andrea da Salerno)
Sacchi, Andrea, 346
Sachtleven, 453

Saenredam, 455

Salerno, Andrea da, 233
Salviati (Porta, G.)

*Salviati, Francesco del, 312
Sanchez de Castro, 372

Sancta Veronica, 81, 84

San Daniello, Pellegrino da, 173
Sandrart, 414

Sandro, J. di., 223

Sanfelice, 341

San Gallo, A. di, 223

San Giorgio, Eus. da, 166
*San Severino, L. di, 163.
*Santa Croce, G. da, 17+
Santi, Gio., 204, 235

Santo, Luca, 108

Saraceno, 367

Saracini, Gab., 118

*Sarto, Andrea del, 307
Savonarola, 197

Scalvati, 344

Scaramuccia, 345

Schaffner, 294

+*§chalcken, Gotfried, 434, 448
Schedone, 363

Scheffer, A., 486

Scheuffelin, Hans, 289
Schiavone, And., 364
——,, Greg., 175

Schut, 409 :
*Schén, or Schongauer, Martin, 279
*Schoorel, 273

Schotel, J, C., 459

Schwarz, 298

Scott, David, 531

* 8., 535

 

Scyllis, 25

Segala, 368

Seghers, Gerhard, 409
*Scena di Buonaventura, 101
Semitecolo, 115

 

INDEX. 581

Semolei, I, 313
Serapion, 69

Seybold, 301

*Shee, 548

Sibyls, the, 225
Siciolante, Girolamo, 306
Sigalon, Xavier, 230
Signorelli, Luca, 160, 220
Silvestro, Don, 87
Simeon, 89

Simone di Martino (Memmi)
*Singleton, H., 528
Sirani, Elisabetta, 329
— Gio. Andrea, 329
Slingeland, 434

Smilis, 23

Smirke, 552

Smissen, D. Vander, 301
Snyders, Frans, 402
*Sodoma, 161, 220

Soest, 499

Sogliani, 196

Soiaro, Tl, 244

*Solario, Andrea da, 19+
, Antonio, 184
Solimena, 340

Somer, P. van, 404, 495
Soolemaker, 451

Sosus, 71

Spada, 358

*Spagna, Lo, 167
*Spagnoletto, 336, 381
Spanish Painters, 372
Spanzotti, 161

Spinelli, Luca, 111
———, Parri, 112
*Spinello Aretino, 111
*Spranger, 296
Squarcione, 87, 174
Stanze of the Vutican, 220, 225
Stanzioni, 339

Starnina, 110, 371
Statue-painters, 56
Stauracius, 86

Steen, Jan,, 444
*Steenwyk, H. van, 455
—, the younger, 455
Stefano Fiorentino, 104
———, Vincenzo di, 175
Stella, 464

*Stephan, Meister, 133
Stone, Frank, 555

—., H., 497

—, N., 495
xStothard, 550
Stradanus, 344

Strozzi, 360

Stry, A. van, 458

, J. van, 458
*Stuart, 546

Stubbs, G., 536
Stuerbout, Dierick, 153
——-, Frederic, 155

 

 

 
582

Stuerbout, Giles, 155
———-, Hubert, 155
Subleyras, 473

Sueur, Eustache, le, 464
Surchi, G. F., 239
*Sustermans, 408
Swanenburg, J. van, 419
Swanevelt, 441, 454
Symplegmas, the, 4

Tafi, Andrea, 98
Taleides, 73

Tamm, 300

Tassi, Agostino, 353
Telephanes of Sicyon, 24
Tempesta, A., 344
—--—_, P., 345
Tempestino, 345
*Teniers, David, 444
Terburg, 441

Testelin, 466
Theodoricus, M., 137
Theomnestus, 44

Theon, 44, 58
Theophilus, 85
Thetocopuli, 378

Thiele, J. A., 301
*Thomson, H., 553
Thornhill, Sir James, 506
Thulden, T. van, 410
Tiarini, Alessandro, 358
Tibaldi, Domenico, 320

, Pellegrino, 316
Tiepolo, 369

Timagoras, 33
Timanthes, 34, 40

— of Sicyon, 61
Timomachus, 63
Tintorello, 172
*Tintoretto, 259

Tisi (Garofalo)

*Titian, 250, 263

Tito, Santi di, 355
Tivoli, Rosa di, 299
Tiziano, Girolamo di, 254
Toledo, Juan B, de, 317
Tommaso di Stefano, 103
Torbido, Francesco, 254
Toreutic, 2

Torregiano, 199

Tossini, 347

Traini, Francesco, 106
Trevisani, Francesco, 368
*Treviso, Girolamo da, 256
*Tura, 87, 176

*Turchi, Alessandro, 365
Turco, C., 185

*Turner, 49, 537
Turpilius, 63

Tutilo, or Tuotilo, 85

 

 

*Uccello, Paolo, 113, 119, 120
Udine, Giovanni da, 233, 255

 

INDEX.

Udine, Pellegrino da, 173
Uffenbach, 299

Ugolino da Siena, 101
Unmitigated scoundrels, 386
Utrecht, Adrian van, 456
*Uwins, 55

Vaccaro, A., 339

Vadder, L. de, 412

Vaga, Perino del, 228, 232
Valdez Leal, Juan de, 393
Valentin, 464

Valkenborg, 412

Vanderdoes, 8., 454

Vanderdoort, 495

*Vandergoes, H., 151, 155

*Vanderhelst, 436

Vander Meer, J., 443, 453

*Vander Meire, 152

*Vanderneer, A., 451

—, E. H., 452

Vanderwerff, 430

Vanderweyden, 146

*Vandyck, 404

Vanloo, C., 474

B., 502

Vanni, Francesco, 355

, Giambattista, 356

*Vannucchi, Andrea (del Sarto)

*Vanucci, Pietro (Perugino)

Vansomer, 404

Vargas, Luis de, 373

Varin, Q., 349

*Varotari, Alessandro, 365

, Dario, 365

Varro, Marcus, 67

Vasari, Giorgio, 312

Vasco-Férnandez, 395
Vase-painters, 73
Vase-painting, 72

Vasilacchi, 365

Vazquez, 384

Vecchia, P., 366

*Vecellio, Tiziano, 250

—, Francesco, 253

———-, Orazio, 251

Veen, Otho van, 399

*Velazquez, 382, 387

Velde, Vande, Adrian, 449
—, —., William, sen., 499

*__, ——, William, jun., 499

Vellano of Padua, 187

Veneziano, Antonio, 110

——_——.,, Domenico, 129

Venusti, Marcello, 229, 306

Vermeer, 443

Vernet, C., 475

CO. J. 474

, H., 488

Verocchio, Andrea del, 186

*Veronese, Paolo, 261

Verrio, Antonio, 498

Verschuur, L., 448

 

 

 

 

 

 
INDEX. 583

Vicentino, Andrea, 365

Victors, the, 435

Vien, 476

Vincent, F, A., 477

» G., 586

Vincenzo di Stefano, 175

as Leonardo da, 54, 120, 186, 200,

 

Vite, Timoteo della, 205, 235
——,, Pietro della, 235

Viti (Vite)

Vivarini, the, 115

——, Antonio, 116
*___-__, Bartolomeo, 116
—, Lwuigi, 116
Vlieger, 8. de, 449

Vliet, H. van, 455 -
Volterra, Daniele cla, 303 10
Vos, Cornelis de, 278

——, Martin de, 277

——, Martin, the younger, 277
Vouet, 464

Vries, R. van, 450

 

 

Walker, 497

*Ward, J., 537

Waterloo, 454

Watson, G., 554

Watteau, 470
Waa-painting, 69
*Weenix, J. and J. B,, 456
Werden, Meister von, 135
Werff, A. Vander, 430
*West, 514

Westall, 528

*Weyden, Vander, R., 146

 

*Weyden, R. V., the younger, 148
, Cornelis, 148,
——, Goswyn, 148
*Wilhelm, Meister, 132
*Wilkie, Sir David, 551
*Wilson, 516

Wissing, 499

Witte, E. de, 455
Wolgemuth, M., 280
Wouverman, Philip, 446
——, Jan, 446
—— , Pieter, 446
Wright, A., 492

, Joseph, 519
Wurmeer, N., 137
*Wyatt, H., 555
Wynants, 453

Wynrich, 133

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Zampieri (Domenichinc
Zanchi, 367

Zarotto, 255

Zegers, Daniel, 410

, Gerhard, 409
*Zelotti Battista, 265
Zeuxis, 34, 35, 43

Zevio, Stefano da, 175
Zingaro, Lo, 184

——, Tl Giovane, 185
Zoffany, 521

*Zoppo, Marco, 180
Zoust, 499

Zuccarelli, 516
Zucchero, Federigo, 60, 305
—__—__—, Taddes, 305
*Zurbaran, 390

 

* This mark, though showing such painters here noticed as are represented in the National
Collection, does not indicate all the masters of our great Gallery ; I have omitted to mention in this
volume some twenty namvs, British as well as Foreign, which will be found in my Catalogues of

the National Gallery.

Evrrata.—Page 137, note, for Engerl read Engert.
Page 191, for Pittria read Pittrice.

THE END.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS,