THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/davidOOunse 
 

 
 
 
 

 
MASTERS IN ART 
 
 fl&jtasinjirt 
 
 ^ettesj^^y^-ittpnofltaplis 
 
 Among the artists to be considered during the current, 1906, 
 Volume may be mentioned, Sodoma, Constable, Bouguereau, 
 Goya, and Ingres. The numbers of 4 Masters in Art ’ which have 
 already appeared in 1906 are : 
 
 part 73, January stuart 
 
 Part 74, FEBRUARY DAVID 
 
 PART 75, THE ISSUE FOR 
 
 01 a r c Jj 
 
 WILL TREA T OF 
 
 Biu&lin 
 
 NUMBERS ISSUED IN PREVIOUS VOLUMES 
 OF ‘MASTERS IN ART * 
 
 VOL. 1. 
 
 Part i, VAN DYCK 
 Part 2, TITIAN 
 Part 3, VELASQUEZ 
 Part 4, HOLBEIN 
 Part 5, BOTTICELLI 
 Part 6,R EM BRANDT 
 Part 7, REYNOLDS 
 Part 8, MILLET 
 Part 9, GIO. BELLINI 
 Part 10, MURILLO 
 Part i i, HALS 
 Part 12, RAPHAEL 
 
 * Sculpt ur 
 
 VOL. 3. 
 
 VOL. 2. 
 
 Part 13, RUBENS 
 Part 14, DA VINCI 
 Part 15, DURER 
 Part 16, MICHELANGELO* 
 Part 17, MI CHELANGELOf 
 Part 18, COROT 
 Part 19, BURNE-JONES 
 Part 20, TER BORCH 
 Part 21, DELLA ROBBIA 
 Part 22, DEL SARTO 
 Part 23, GAINSBOROUGH 
 Part 24, CORREGGIO 
 f Painting 
 
 VOL. 4. 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 Part 
 
 25, PHIDIAS 
 
 26, PERUGINO 
 
 27, HOLBEIN g 
 
 28, TINTORETTO 
 
 29, P. dkHOOCH 
 
 30, NATTIER 
 
 31, PAUL POT TER 
 
 32, GIOTTO 
 
 33, PRAXITELES 
 
 34, HOGARTH 
 
 35, TURNER 
 
 36, LUINI 
 
 g Drawing . 
 
 VOL. 5. 
 
 Part 37. 
 Part 38 
 Part 39. 
 Part 40. 
 Part 41. 
 Part 42. 
 Part 43. 
 Part 44 
 Part 45. 
 Part 46 
 Part 47 
 Pari r 
 - * F 1 
 
 Part 47, 
 Part 50, 
 Part 51, 
 Part 52, 
 Part $3> 
 Part 54, 
 Part 5$, 
 Part 56, 
 Part 57, 
 Part 58, 
 Part 59, 
 Part 60, 
 
 BARTOLOMMEO 
 
 GREUZE 
 
 DURER* 
 
 LOTTO 
 
 LANDSEER 
 
 VERMEER 
 
 PINTORICCHIO 
 
 THE VAN EYCKS 
 
 MKISSON 1 ER 
 
 B A R Y E 
 
 VERONESE 
 
 COPLEY 
 
 • Engraving 1 
 
 Part 61, 
 Part 62, 
 Part 63, 
 Part 64. 
 Part 65, 
 Part 66, 
 Part 67, 
 Part 68, 
 Part 69, 
 Part 70, 
 Part 71, 
 Part 72, 
 
 ROMNEY 
 , FRA ANGELICO 
 , WATTEAU 
 RAP HA El ' 
 
 DON A 'I'EL LO 
 GERARD DOU 
 CAR P ACCIO 
 ROSA BONHEUR 
 1 - 1 I DO R EN 1 
 P. drCH AVANNES 
 , G I O R G I O N E 
 ROSSETTI 
 cos 
 
 VOL. 6. 
 
 WATTS 
 
 PALMA VECCHIO 
 VIGEE LE BRUN 
 , MANTEGNA 
 C HARDIN 
 BENOZZO 
 JAN STEEN 
 MEMLINC 
 CLAUDE 
 VFR ROCCHIO 
 RAEBURN 
 FILIPPO LIPPI 
 
 ALL THE ABOVE NAMED ISSUES 
 ARE CONSTANTLY KEPT IN STOCK 
 
 Prices on and after January 1 , 1906 : Single number* of 
 back volume*, 20 cent* each. Single number* of the current 1906 
 volume, l 5 cent* each. Bound volume* 1,2, 3,4, and 6. con tam- 
 ing t he part* li*tcd above, bound in brown buckram, with gilt 
 •tamp* and gilt top, Jt j . 75 eachj in green half morocco, gilt 
 stamp* and gilt top, 54-M each. 
 
 LETTERS # 
 LETTERING 
 
 AN Illustrated Treatise by Frank Chou- 
 
 J. teau Brown, containing two hundred 
 and ten Examples. A complete and varied 
 collection of Alphabets of Standard and Mod- 
 ern Forms, so arranged as to be most practi- 
 cally and conveniently useful to Designers, 
 Architects, Craftsmen, and all who have to 
 draw letter-forms. 
 
 WHAT THOSE WHO USE IT HAVE 
 TO SAY 
 
 I consider the work very good, and far ahead of any- 
 thing of its kind that I have seen before. 
 
 James F. Rudy, W. Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 It is very well adapted to my line of work, and is 
 used for general office lettering. It has many commend- 
 able features. 
 
 Walter H. W hitlock, Architect, Binghamton, N.Y. 
 
 It is comprehensive and at the same time concise, and 
 well adapted as a reference book. I find it the most 
 complete book on the subject that I have examined. 
 
 Mary Ketcham, 
 
 Inst. College of Fine Arts, Syracuse Univ. 
 
 The very best I have seen. I have handled many, 
 both Foreign and Domestic, but never found one that 
 gives so much good information and usefulness for the 
 price of $2.00. Bernhard Benson, 
 
 Art Industrial Works, Jamestown, N. Y. 
 
 I have used the work as a reference book when de- 
 signing the lettering for bronze tablets of every descrip- 
 tion, and find the method of constructing the Roman 
 letters very satisfactory. A. M. Long, Chicago, 111. 
 
 I find it a great help to me in my work. The most 
 valuable part in the book is the Roman capital letters, 
 also the construction of Roman small letters and the 
 spacing of Roman capitals. 
 
 Joseph Olsey, Marble and Granite Worker. 
 
 It is the best book I have seen on the subject. I 
 wished it especially for the Gothic and Black Letter 
 Alphabets, and consider them the best things in it, es- 
 pecially Mr. Goodhue’s Alphabet. 
 
 Miss Ruth S. Brooke, Gambier, O. 
 
 The most complete of any treatise on letters and 
 lettering I have ever seen. The artist who wishes to 
 make letter designing a study, to become proficient, 
 cannot well afford to be without it. 
 
 C. J. Boyd, McCunc, Kan. 
 
 In my work of designing I find myself constantly 
 referring to it for standard forms. I believe that any 
 one who is called upon to letter will find it to be of 
 lasting value in saving time and getting results. 
 
 Walter L. Burt, K1 Paso, Tex. 
 
 PRICE, $2.oo, POST-PAID. 
 
 MONEY BACK IF 
 
 NOT SATISFACTORY 
 
 Bates & Guild Company, Boston 
 
 In answering advertisements, please mention Masti rs in Art 
 
MASTERS IN ART 
 
 “IT HAS TAUGHT ME ALL THAT A TEACHER COULD HAVE TAUGHT — HOW 
 TO BEGIN RIGHT, HOW TO AVOID DIFFICULTIES, AND THE 
 ‘TRICKS OF THE TRADE.”' 
 
 iprn Braxotng 
 
 CHARLES D. MAGINNIS 
 
 nly practice will make an accomplished pen- 
 draughtsman; but this little treatise teaches 
 whatever can be taught of the art ; namely, 
 how to practise, what “style” is, and how to 
 attain it, what pens, inks, and papers have been found 
 most serviceable, how to use line and hatch, how to 
 produce textures and to represent various surfaces, val- 
 ues and colors, how to depict and treat details, — in a 
 word, imparts a knowledge of all the ways, means, and 
 processes that experience has proved useful. The key- 
 note of the book is practicality. Each of the 72 illus- 
 trations is a specific example of some important 
 method. It is written interestingly and clearly. With 
 this treatise at his elbow the draughtsman can make 
 most valuable use of his spare minutes. 
 
 Price, $1.00, Postpaid 
 
 THE BOOK MEASURES 7^ x 5 INCHES, CONTAINS 130 PAGES AND 72 ILLUS- 
 TRATIONS, IS PRINTED ON HEAVY PAPER, AND BOUND IN GRAY CLOTH. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 BATES & GUILD COMPANY, PUBLISHERS 
 
 42 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 In answering advertisements, please mention Masters in Art 
 
FRENCH SCHOOL 
 
MAHTKKH IN AMT IM.ATK I 
 
 l l'» ) 
 
 DA V ID 
 
 T>: ' IIOHHIMi Mm NT HT. IIKKN AIIH 
 I' AI.A* K III V KI(HA I I.I.KH 
 
 ioroo 
 
 in IN A I* A It 
 

THE OA TH OF THE HOHATTI 
 
M A HTKIIH IN A l«T I'l.ATF: III 
 
 i If IIMJN) Ci 4 C l. 
 
 | .-I 
 
 I > A V 1 1) 
 
 I'flltTK A IT ill' MO.NSIM I! H f'.H l/.l AT 
 
 l.ill \ III . I 1 A It I H 
 

MAHTFKH IN AMT l»LATK IV 
 
 Cl AC't 
 
 I -.1 ] 
 
 ^-OTOOI 
 
 DA VII) 
 
 VOHTI1AIT DF MADAM K HI- 1(1/1 \ T \.\D llF.lt ('.1111.11 
 LODV MIC, I* A It IS 
 
THE S A HI N E W DM EN 
 LOU V HE PA HIS 
 
" 
 
MAHTKHH I N AMT 
 
 ^••OTOON A f M «f MAUI, f 
 
 l Sfll 
 
 l)A VIII 
 
 POHTMAIT OK I'OPK P1DK VII. 
 I«OU V M K, I'A It 18 
 

 
 
PORTRAIT OF MADAM E RECAM I ER 
 LOUVRE, PARIS 
 
MA0TKMH IN A H I 
 
 HI. All- VIII 
 
 l» A V I I ) 
 
 OK III r. M A KUl'IHI 
 «»K I II K • MM | I |IK | 
 
 
 lutor 4 
 
 I'OHTK A IT 
 
 r.Ol.I.H liMN 
 
 M'OIIV I I.I.IKIIH 
 I III N N K. I* \ II IS 
 
MAHTKHH IN A IIT IMiATK IX 
 H »r •RAUft, Cl <M»*T 4 dl. 
 
 [«ll) 
 
 I » A V I 1 1 
 
 f»iOTOQR«r- 
 
 MICIIKI. ('.KIIAKIi A.VII HIS I AMII.T 
 UUMKUM «»K |,K MANS 
 
3 
 
PORTRAIT OF 1 ) A V I IJ I IT Iir.MSET.F LOUTM, PARIS 
 
 This portrait of David by himself, now in the Louvre, Paris, is a sketch, but 
 so full of character and individuality that we feel no lack of finish in its execution. 
 The painter wears a long, loosely fitting gray coat with red collar and cuffs and a 
 carelessly knotted white cravat. In one hand he holds a brush and in the other his 
 palette. The figure is the size of life and is painted on canvas. A description of 
 David’s personal appearance is given in the biographical sketch which follows. 
 
 [ 64 ] 
 
MASTERS IN ART 
 
 acciurs-?iotu5 
 
 3a^iitv 
 
 BORN 1 7 48: DIED 1825 
 
 FRENCH SCHOOL 
 
 J ACQUES-LOUIS DAVID (pronounced Dah'veed) was born in Paris on 
 August 30, 1748. When he was nine years old his father was killed in a 
 duel, and he was left to the guardianship of his mother and two uncles. 
 The talent for drawing which the boy evinced very early in life decided his 
 relatives that architecture was the profession he should adopt, but David him- 
 self was determined to become a painter, and held so tenaciously to this pur- 
 pose that he was allowed to have his way. Application was accordingly made 
 to the celebrated artist Boucher to take him into his studio. But Boucher, who 
 was then growing old, felt unwilling to undertake his instruction, and recom- 
 mended him instead to Joseph Marie Vien, a painter of growing influence and 
 repute who had lately returned from Rome, where a study of the antique had 
 lent a certain severity to his style wholly lacking in the light and decorative 
 manner of painting of Boucher and his followers. 
 
 Vien was struck by the ability shown in David’s drawings and agreed to ad- 
 mit him to his studio. There the young man worked diligently and pro- 
 gressed rapidly. Through the influence of a relative, Sedaine, then secretary 
 of the Academy of Architecture, he obtained a lodging in the Louvre, where 
 he made his first independent attempts at painting. When twenty-two he 
 determined to compete for the Grand Prize of Rome, a sort of traveling fel- 
 lowship entitling its holder to a residence of some years in Italy. Repeated 
 failures to win this much-coveted prize were deeply mortifying to David’s 
 proud, sensitive nature, and finally, convinced that he was the object of un- 
 just persecution, he decided to end his existence by starvation. Locking him- 
 self into his room, he remained for three days without food or drink, brooding 
 over his disappointment, and it was only with great difficulty that the friends 
 who found him there, pale and emaciated, could persuade him to renounce 
 his intention. 
 
 This incident seems to have brought David into notice, and through the 
 efforts of the architect Le Doux he was engaged by Mile. Guimard, a famous 
 opera-dancer of that day, to complete the rococo decorations begun by 1' rago- 
 nard in her house in Paris. His work evidently gave satisfaction, for besides 
 
 [ 65 ] 
 
24 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 generously recompensing the young artist, Mile. Guimard commissioned him 
 to paint her portrait. 
 
 In 1774 David again entered the competition for the Prize of Rome. This 
 time the picture he submitted to the judges, ‘Antiochus and Stratonice,’ a 
 mediocre work, vivid in color and affected in composition, was awarded the 
 prize, and in the following year he accompanied his master, Vien, who had 
 been appointed director of the French Academy in Rome, to Italy. 
 
 David was at that time twenty-seven years old. He is described as tall and 
 strongly built. His face, in which energy and will were indicated rather than 
 genius, was somewhat disfigured by a deformity of the upper jaw caused by 
 an accidental blow from a stone received when a child. This disfigurement be- 
 came more pronounced as he grew older, and increased a natural difficulty in 
 his speech. His character was still undeveloped. The vehemence and intensity 
 of his nature, his domineering spirit, were as yet dormant, and in the young 
 student not fully emancipated from the tenets and prejudices of the rococo 
 school of eighteenth-century painting in France, it is difficult to see the future 
 despotic leader, “the great high priest of classicism,” who, so soon to become 
 penetrated with veneration for the antique, was destined to head the movement 
 that revolutionized painting in France. 
 
 But David’s conversion was not immediate. Not at first did the works of 
 the greatest masters appeal to what he himself signalized as his “coarse Gallic 
 taste.” The sight of Correggio’s achievements in Parma filled him with en- 
 thusiasm, it is true, but for a time he chose to apply himself to copying the 
 works of Valentin, a French follower of Caravaggio and Ribera. He could 
 not long, however, escape the great neo-antique movement of which Rome 
 was the center. The theories of Lessing, the paintings of Mengs, the publica- 
 tions of Winckelmann, aided by the discoveries then being made in Pompeii 
 and Herculaneum, all tending as they did towards a revival of classic art, had 
 their effect upon his mind and his practice. He filled his sketch-books with 
 studies of the bas-reliefs on Trajan’s column; beauty of line and simplicity in 
 composition assumed more and more importance in his eyes; little by little the 
 traditions of the rococo school were forgotten or laid aside, and in the austerity 
 of such works as ‘Hector,’ an academic figure now in the Museum of Mont- 
 pellier, in a composition entitled ‘The Death of Patroclus,’ and in a large can- 
 vas painted somewhat in the style of the Bolognese school, representing ‘St. 
 Roch interceding with the Virgin for the Plague-stricken,’ now in Marseilles, 
 we see how widely David had departed from the codes of the popular French 
 school. In two important works that soon followed, ‘ Belisarius asking Alms,’ 
 now in the Lille Museum, and ‘Andromache weeping over the Body of Hec- 
 tor,’ both based upon a study of the antique, a complete departure from his 
 early traditions is apparent. 
 
 Before the exhibition at the Salon of 1781 of his ‘Belisarius, David, after 
 five years of study in Rome, had returned to Paris, where a short time after- 
 wards he was made an academician and assigned a lodging and a studio in the 
 Louvre. Two years later occurred his marriage with Mile. Marguerite Char- 
 lotte Pecoul, whose father was architect and superintendent of buildings to 
 
 [ 66 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 25 
 
 the king. M. Pecoul was not only rich, but generous, and upon finding that 
 David was desirous of returning to Rome to complete in more congenial sur- 
 roundings a large picture commissioned by the king, Louis xvi., the subject 
 of which was suggested by Corneille’s tragedy ‘ Les Horaces,’ he willingly fur- 
 nished means for the journey to Italy; and in 1784 David, accompanied by 
 his wife and by three of his pupils, found himself once more in Rome. 
 
 All his thoughts and time were now given to the completion of his picture, 
 ‘The Oath of the Horatii,’ which was finished at the end of eleven months. In 
 Rome it met with an immediate success. Princes, cardinals, artists, archaeolo- 
 gists, and men of letters crowded to David’s studio to see and admire. This 
 enthusiastic reception was repeated in Paris, when in 1785 the great canvas 
 was exhibited at the Salon. The cold, austere qualities of this famous picture, 
 its harsh coloring, and the theatrical and studied attitudes of the personages 
 represented render it difficult for us to-day to realize the intense feeling its ap- 
 pearance aroused in Paris. What little adverse criticism it provoked only 
 served to increase its fame. The subject appealed to every zealous Republican, 
 and David was felt to be “the man after the heart of the age.” 
 
 The ‘Oath of the Horatii’ was soon followed by ‘The Death of Socrates,’ 
 which achieved an almost equal success, and by ‘Lictors bringing to Brutus 
 the Bodies of his Sons.’ Because of the revolutionary spirit expressed in this 
 last, an attempt was made to prevent its exhibition, but the public, seeing in it 
 an allegory of the incorruptible justice of republicanism, insisted upon its be- 
 ing shown. 
 
 David’s triumph was complete. The recognized leader of a new school 
 based upon a study of Greek and Roman models, the regenerator of French 
 painting, his influence was felt not only in art, but in the dress and fashions of 
 the period. In emulation of the classic severity of costume portrayed by him 
 in his pictures, the voluminous and ruffled skirts and laced corsets worn by 
 ladies of fashion were thrown aside, and the loose flowing robes and simple 
 girdles of Roman matrons adopted. Flair-powder was discarded and a classic 
 arrangement of the hair became the vogue. Even in furniture the fashion 
 changed, and in place of the highly ornamented chairs and tables of Louis 
 Quinze, the severe simplicity of the antique became popular. David, indeed, 
 reigned supreme. His studio in the Louvre, furnished with austere but elegant 
 simplicity, was the resort of a large and increasing number of pupils, and was 
 visited by all the men and women prominent in France in that day. 
 
 In 1789 the disagreements which for some time past had been steadily in- 
 creasing among the members of the Academy of Painting, culminated in the 
 secession of those who had sought for a revision of its statutes, on the ground 
 that all members were entitled to equal rights, and that the Salons should be 
 open to all for the exhibition of their works. David, who had no sympathy 
 with the conservative views of many of his brother academicians, and who 
 despised the methods of instruction which then prevailed in the Academy 
 schools, was proclaimed president of the seceding faction. All this served to 
 increase his fame, and he was regarded as the champion of liberty in the do- 
 main of art. 
 
 [« 7 ] 
 
26 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 Between 1789 ar *d 1 79 2 he painted some of Ins finest portraits — a branch 
 of art in which he always excelled, and on which his fame as a technician rests 
 more surely to-day than on his large and dreary subject-pictures. 
 
 At the outbreak of the French Revolution David was over forty years old 
 and at the full maturity of his powers. When it was decided by the National 
 Assembly to commemorate in painting the famous oath taken on June 20, 
 1789, in the Tennis Court at Versailles, by the members of that body not to 
 separate until “the constitution of the kingdom had been established and con- 
 firmed on solid foundations,” David, the painter of the ‘Floratii’ and of ‘Bru- 
 tus,’ was chosen to portray the scene. This picture, ‘Le Serment du Jeu de 
 Paume’ (d he Oath in the Tennis Court), was never completed, but the pre- 
 paratory study for it, exhibited at the Salon of 1791, still exists. 
 
 An ardent Republican, David became a member of the famous Jacobin 
 Club (so-called because its headquarters were in the Jacobin convent in Paris), 
 made up of those whose views were most radically opposed to the government. 
 In September, 1792, he was elected a deputy to the National Convention and 
 took his seat among the “ Montagnards,” as the more advanced members 
 were called. The following June he was appointed secretary of the Conven- 
 tion, and not many months later became a member of the terrible “Committee 
 of Public Safety,” and was among those members of the Convention who, in 
 January, 1793, voted for the death of the king, Louis xvi. 
 
 Not gifted as an orator, and handicapped moreover by a hesitation in his 
 speech, David rarely addressed the meeting of the Convention, giving expres- 
 sion to his feelings, when any question of great political importance arose, by 
 vehement exclamations or by terse phrases full of force. But his brush, more 
 eloquent than his tongue, was always at the service of the cause he held dear, 
 and as the appointed organizer of all public fetes and ceremonies of the Revo- 
 lution, his rule was a despotic one. In recognition of his services the Conven- 
 tion elected him for a brief period to its presidency. The “Reign of Terror” 
 was then at its height. 
 
 Early in 1793 had occurred the assassination of Lepelletier de Saint- 
 Fargeau, one of the deputies who had voted for Louis’ death. The body was 
 publicly exhibited, and David with realistic force painted a picture of the 
 murdered man on his death-bed, presenting it to the Convention to be hung 
 in their chamber as the portrait of “the first martyr of liberty.” Six months 
 after this, Marat, “the man of terror,” fell a victim to the knife of Charlotte 
 Corday. The excitement caused by this event was intense. When the news 
 was brought to the Convention one of the deputies cried out, “David, where 
 are you ? You have transmitted to posterity the image of Lepelletier dying 
 for his country; one more picture remains for you to paint!” And in the 
 breathless silence that followed this impassioned appeal David responded, 
 “And I will do it.” Not many months later he finished his marvelous painting 
 — now in the Brussels Museum — of Marat dead in his bath, stabbed to the 
 heart by the young girl who risked all in her attempt to free France from the 
 monstrous deeds of this so-called “friend of the people.” 
 
 When Robespierre, the dictator before whom all France had bowed, fell 
 
 [ 68 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 27 
 
 from power and met death on the scaffold, David, his friend and admirer, 
 himself narrowly escaped the guillotine. Thrown into prison, it was five 
 months before he was liberated, and then only to be re-arrested on numerous 
 charges. The Convention, however, before disbanding, voted a general am- 
 nesty, and in 1795 he regained his freedom. During his days of suffering one 
 great happiness had been his: his wife, who, with her two daughters, had left 
 him at the time of his political prominence, alienated by the violence of his 
 revolutionary views, returned to him upon learning of his imprisonment, ex- 
 erted every effort to save him from his threatened fate, and ever afterwards 
 remained constant in her love and devotion. 
 
 When the Institute of France was founded, in 1795, David was elected one 
 of the forty-eight original members. From now on he took no active part in 
 politics. The Directory succeeded the Convention, and he was among the 
 members of that body who retired to private life. His time was now wholly 
 devoted to his art and to his pupils, among whom were many sculptors as well 
 as painters who became famous in after years — numbering in all, it has been 
 estimated, upwards of four hundred. 
 
 The friendship extended to David by Napoleon Bonaparte, elected First 
 Consul in 1799, went far towards effacing from the public mind the rec- 
 ollection of his political career, and once more his studio became the resort of 
 all the great people of the day. Napoleon himself was a frequent visitor, and 
 lost no opportunity of showing the painter special marks of favor. David in 
 his turn was completely fascinated by the personality of the man who had be- 
 come the nation’s hero, and yielded in all things to his wishes, even departing 
 from his classic style of painting to adopt a form of art more pleasing to the 
 ideas of Napoleon. 
 
 Upon Bonaparte’s being proclaimed emperor, David, who had already 
 been made a member of the Legion of Honor and was soon to become one of 
 its officers, was named first painter to the imperial court and commissioned 
 to execute four great Napoleonic pictures: ‘The Coronation of Napoleon and 
 Josephine;’ ‘The Distribution of the Standards;’ ‘The Enthronement of 
 Their Majesties;’ and ‘The Entrance of the Emperor and Empress into the 
 Hotel de Ville.’ The first two of these scenes alone were completed, and in 
 the first David may be said to have reached the culmination of his powers. 
 
 But although still the leader in that classic school of painting which in 
 France had for the time superseded all other manner of expression in art, 
 David was not without enemies. Many of his colleagues in the Institute re- 
 garded him with disfavor, and, weary of the restrictions imposed upon them 
 by his inexorable laws, they excluded him from the committee formed for 
 reorganizing the Lcole des Beaux-Arts. In order to assert his supremacy and 
 put a stop to the spirit opposing itself to his tenets, David requested to be ap- 
 pointed director of public instruction in the School of Painting and Sculpture. 
 But this request was refused. Mortified by the rebuff and vexed by the diffi- 
 culty he had to collect the payment agreed upon for his great canvases of ‘ The 
 Coronation’ and ‘The Distribution of the Eagles,’ David withdrew to a great 
 extent from official life. 
 
 [ 09 ] 
 
28 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 He now turned his attention to finishing a picture begun sometime before 
 — ‘Leonidas at Thermopylae’ — and to the execution of several portraits. In 
 the midst of all his celebrity, and notwithstanding the fact that his ambition 
 and his love of power were boundless, it is noteworthy that he was accustomed 
 to live in great simplicity. He loved music, especially Italian music, was fond 
 of the theater, which he frequently attended, and in his home he entertained 
 his friends with the utmost hospitality. Always quietly but elegantly dressed, 
 his manner was marked by extreme courtesy. By his pupils he was both ven- 
 erated and loved. Every Sunday morning it was his custom to receive them 
 in his home, where in winter he was to be found beside his fire, pipe in mouth, 
 and in summer in his garden, where he had erected a monument to the mem- 
 ory of his favorite pupil, Drouais, who had died in Rome. 
 
 David’s faith in the fortune of Napoleon was so firm that he had unhesi- 
 tatingly accepted whatever favors had been shown him by the emperor. His 
 elder son had been made an under prefect in Hanover, his younger son was 
 appointed chief of a squadron of cuirassiers, while his two daughters had been 
 married to officers warmly attached to the imperial cause. While that cause 
 was all-powerful in France everything went well with him and his family, but 
 evil days were at hand for both emperor and artist. Napoleon’s star, so long 
 in the ascendant, began to set, and on the approach of the allied armies, 
 David was filled with apprehension and resolved to transport many of his 
 pictures — his ‘Marat’ and ‘ Lepelletier,’ his ‘Coronation,’ ‘ Distribution of the 
 Standards,’ portrait of Napoleon, and various other works — to the coast of 
 France, where they were carefully hidden. So far as he himself was concerned, 
 however, his fears proved groundless. The restoration of the Bourbons left him 
 undisturbed, and on Napoleon’s return from Elba, David, among the first to 
 welcome his hero, found himself again in favor and straightway appointed 
 Commander of the Legion of Honor. 
 
 Unfortunately, during the “Hundred Days” which constituted Napoleon’s 
 brief return to power, David incautiously placed his signature to the “addi- 
 tional articles” excluding the Bourbons from the throne of France, thus ex- 
 posing himself, in the event of Napoleon’s downfall, to the vengeance of the 
 royalists. This downfall quickly followed. Early in 1 8 1 6, when Louis xvm. 
 had been reinstated as King of France, a law was passed sentencing to exile 
 all regicides who had signed the “additional acts.” 
 
 It is said that had David humbled himself to ask it, an exception to this de- 
 cree would have been made in his favor, in view of his services to art. Twenty 
 years of peaceful existence had passed since the stormy period of the Revo- 
 lution, when, as a member of the National Convention, he had voted for the 
 death of Louis xvi., and twenty years had wiped out all remembrance of the 
 part he had taken in those terrible days — so urged his friends; but David 
 would listen to no such counsel, and, bitter as exile was to him, said farewell 
 to France. His request that he might be allowed to go to Rome was refused, 
 and be took up his residence in Brussels. There he found many friends, and 
 was accorded a warm welcome by William I., King of the Netherlands, whose 
 government testified by every mark of consideration and regard its apprecia- 
 te] 
 
DAVID 
 
 29 
 
 tion of the honor shown it by the great painter who in his exile had selected 
 Brussels as his home. And David, on his side, gave proof of the value he 
 placed upon King William’s hospitality by declining the invitation of the King 
 of Prussia to go to Berlin, where he was offered the directorship of the Fine 
 Arts, as well as higher honors and greater pecuniary reward than had been 
 bestowed upon him in France as painter to Napoleon. 
 
 In Brussels David lived peacefully and by no means unhappily. Flis days 
 were spent in painting; his evenings at the theater, where a special seat was 
 reserved for him. Friends and pupils surrounded him, and no artist from 
 Paris or elsewhere, and, indeed, no stranger of note passing through Brussels, 
 failed to seek the honor of a visit to the man who was still regarded as the first 
 painter of France. 
 
 But David was growing old and his hand was no longer so steady, nor were 
 his eyes so strong, as in former years. The pictures painted at this period — 
 ‘Love leaving Pysche,’ ‘The Anger of Achilles,’ above all his ‘Mars disarmed 
 by Venus’ — show a decided diminution of his powers. 
 
 In the winter of 1824-25 his health broke dowm. He continued, however, 
 to work, but was interrupted more and more by illness, and his absence from 
 his accustomed seat in the theater became more and more frequent. Towards 
 the close of the year a serious affection of the heart prostrated him. When the 
 end was very near, a proof of an engraving of his ‘Leonidas’ was, at his re- 
 quest, brought to him one morning for correction, and as he lay in bed, sup- 
 ported by his attendants, he indicated with the cane which had been placed 
 in his hand the various places where he wished changes to be made. “Too 
 black here,” he said in a voice weakened by suffering, “too light just there. 
 The shading in this part is not well defined. . . . Here the touch seems un- 
 certain . . . and yet,” — the words became scarcely audible — “yet it is the 
 head of Leonidas. ...” The voice failed altogether, the cane fell from his 
 hand, and he breathed his last. This was on the twenty-ninth of December, 
 1825. David was seventy-seven years old. 
 
 His funeral was solemnized with impressive rites, and as the French gov- 
 ernment refused the earnest request of his family, his friends, and his pupils 
 that his body should be allowed to rest in France, he was buried with fitting 
 honors in the cemetery of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Brussels. 
 
 % fit Art of Ba\uti 
 
 JOHN C. VANDYKE ‘HISTORY OF PAINTING' 
 
 T HE classicism of David was a revival of Greek form in art, founded on 
 the belief expressed by Winckelmann, that beauty lay in form, and was 
 best shown by the ancient Greeks. It was the objective view of art which saw 
 beauty in the external, and tolerated no individuality in the artist except that 
 which was shown in technical skill. It was little more than an imitation of the 
 
 [ 71 ] 
 
30 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 Greek and Roman marbles as types, with insistence upon perfect form, correct 
 drawing, and balanced composition. In theme and spirit it was pseudo-heroic, 
 the incidents of Greek and Roman history forming the chief subjects, and in 
 method it rather despised color, light-and-shade, and natural surroundings. 
 It was elevated, lofty, ideal in aspiration, but coldly unsympathetic because 
 lacking in contemporary interest; and, though correct enough in classic form, 
 was lacking in the classic spirit. Like all reanimated art, it was derivative as 
 regards its forms and lacking in spontaneity. The reason for the existence of 
 Greek art died with its civilization, and those, like the French classicists, who 
 sought to revive it brought a copy of the past into the present, expecting the 
 world to accept it. 
 
 There was some social, and perhaps artistic, reason, however, for the revival 
 of the classic in the French art of the eighteenth century. It was revolt, and 
 at that time revolts were popular. The art of Boucher and Van Loo had be- 
 come quite unbearable. It was flippant, careless, licentious. It had no serious- 
 ness or dignity about it. Moreover, it smacked of the Bourbon monarchy, 
 which people had come to hate. Classicism was severe, elevated, respectable 
 at least, and had the air of the heroic republic about it. It was a return to a 
 sterner view of life, with the martial spirit behind it as an impetus, and it had 
 a great vogue. For many years during the Revolution, the Consulate, and the 
 •Empire, classicism was accepted by the sovereigns and the Institute of France, 
 and to this day it lives in a modified form in that semi-classic work known as 
 academic art. 
 
 Vien was the first painter to protest against the art of Boucher and Van Loo 
 by advocating more nobility of form and a closer study of nature. Fie lacked 
 the force to carry out a complete reform in painting, but his pupil David ac- 
 complished what he had begun. It was David who established the reign of 
 classicism, and by native power became the leader. The time was appropriate; 
 the Revolution called for pictures of Romulus, Brutus, and Achilles, and 
 Napoleon encouraged the military theme. David had studied the marbles at 
 Rome, and he used them largely for models, reproducing scenes from Greek 
 and Roman life in an elevated and sculpturesque style, with much archaeo- 
 logical knowledge and a great deal of skill. In color, relief, sentiment, indi- 
 viduality, his painting was lacking. Fie despised all that. The rhythm of line, 
 the sweep of composed groups, the heroic subject and the heroic treatment 
 made up his art. It was thoroughly objective, and what contemporary interest 
 it possessed lay largely in the martial spirit then prevalent. When he was 
 called upon to paint Napoleonic pictures he painted them under protest, and 
 yet these, with his portraits, constitute his best work. 
 
 RICHARD MUTHER ‘THE HISTORY OF MODERN PAINTING’ 
 
 D AVID was one of those rare artists who are the men of their hour. To a 
 new plebeian race, to whose feverishly excited patriotism the soft, luxu- 
 rious art of rococo must seem as a mockery of all the rights of men. he showed, 
 for the first time, the man, the hero, who died for an idea or for his country. 
 Lie applied art to the heroism of the day, gave it the martial attitude of patriot- 
 
 [ 72 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 31 
 
 ism, inspired it with the spirit of Robespierre, St. Just, and Danton. The 
 more obtrusively his heroes paraded their patriotism, the more people saw in 
 them a picture of the French nation, as true as a transposition could hope to 
 be. For this starched rhetorical pathos lay in the mind of the age. When 
 David painted, the state-declamations of the orators still rang in his ears. 
 Robespierre is said to have spoken from the tribune slowly, rhythmically, 
 artistically. His philippics were carefully divided into three sections, like 
 academic discourses. Patriotism resolved itself into tirades and correctly im- 
 posed periods. To that corresponds the calm composition of David’s pictures. 
 His cold pathos is the counterpart to that of the orators, whose fine feelings 
 were expressed in fine phrases. 
 
 In the earnest sentiment, the exalted Roman spirit, the declaiming over 
 rugged, masculine virtues, freedom and patriotism, that found expression in 
 David’s first pictures, there lived something of the Catonian spirit of the 
 Terror, and that still gives them historical value to-day. His enthusiasm was 
 not, in the first degree, for antique art, but for the ideas of country, duty, free- 
 dom, progress. The words “antiquity” and “ democracy ” were of like mean- 
 ing to him. 
 
 And how greatly this man was penetrated by the spirit of his age is shown 
 still more when he discarded Greek and Roman tragedy, and, boldly attacking 
 the present, gave himself up entirely to the delineation of what was in his own 
 life and experience, and his direct observation. There he became not only a 
 rhetorician, a revolutionary agitator, but a really great painter. Lepelletier on 
 his death-bed, and the assassinated Marat, are works of a mighty naturalist. 
 His portraits of the emperor, of the pope, of Cardinal Caprara, and others, 
 symbolize the brutal greatness of an age which worshiped strength. 
 
 In his portraits he is neither rhetorical nor cold, but full of fire and the 
 freshness of youth. Before any face to be modeled he forgot the Greeks and 
 Romans, saw life alone, was rejuvenated in the youth-giving fount of nature, 
 and painted — almost alone of the painters of his generation — the truth. 
 Here his effect, when otherwise he was lacking in all naivete, is actually naive 
 and intimate. The best painters have never treated flesh better. He had an 
 aversion to palette tones, and sought after nature with unexampled atten- 
 tion. . . . 
 
 When many of his portraits were reunited at the Paris Exhibition of 1889, 
 universal astonishment prevailed when it was discovered what a great painter 
 this Louis David was. He appeared in these pictures as an artist who stood 
 completely within his age, who shared its passions and was quite penetrated 
 by its greatness; he even appeared as a painter of decided charm, who handled 
 the phenomena of color and light as few others have done. Was this the man 
 who had painted that wearisome ‘Belisarius’ and that still more wearisome 
 ‘ Leonidas ’ ? 
 
 David showed himself in this favorable light at the Exhibition only because 
 the archaeological side of his talent did not come to light. Only those works 
 had been produced in which he spoke French and not Latin, did not seek 
 to resuscitate the antique, but painted what he had seen. The historian dare 
 
 [ 73 ] 
 
32 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 make no such selection, else the picture of David would be incomplete. He 
 was an artist with a Janus face, a quite peculiar medley of contraries. The 
 works which we saw in the Exhibition were only those in which he, in a 
 manner, protested against his own system. David himself would have put 
 them contemptuously aside as “occasional” pictures, and would have ex- 
 hibited those historical canvases through which he exercised an unhealthy 
 influence on the further development of French painting. He was at heart 
 as archaeological as Mengs, and it was only through the great occurrences of 
 the Revolution and the Empire that he was brought for a certain time into 
 contact with life. . . . 
 
 At a time when France had begun to strive after political freedom art was 
 again bowed down beneath the same yoke of the antique as it had been at the 
 fullest zenith of the monarchy under Louis xiv. To the generation of 1789 
 that was entering upon life with fresh hopes and fresh passions David had 
 nothing to offer but a borrowed formula of the past, only a sentiment of an- 
 other long buried age, whilst the Revolution was so new and full of life. He 
 endeavored to persuade these men who stormed the Bastille and founded a 
 new state, that the truth lay in archaism, and that the art of the future could 
 be founded only upon classical reminiscences. 
 
 And later, the more he lost touch with public life and found time to indulge 
 in meditations, the deeper he fell back again into that archaeological current as 
 it had been before the Revolution, under Vien. Before the year 1800 France 
 had extricated herself from the antique republican views which had introduced 
 the Revolution; thus David had to decide whether he should belong entirely 
 to modern Paris or to ancient Rome. He chose the last, and the spirit which 
 inspired his studio grew more and more pedantic. His ‘Sabine Women’ is 
 the most complete expression of this barren classicism. . . . 
 
 A paradoxical man! Endowed with wonderful realistic capacity, and there- 
 fore created to enrich his country with masterpieces, he let his talent lie under 
 the spell of Roman art and of a barren theory. Against all the caprice of the 
 eighteenth century, with its charming, alluring grace, he opposed a strict, in- 
 exorable system as he believed he saw it in the antique. Simplicity, however, 
 beneath his hands became dryness, nobility formal. The folk of yesterday, 
 too, had laughed, loved, lived; in David’s works life and love and laughter 
 were banished. It was as though an archaeologist had discovered some mum- 
 mies and taken them to be the actual inhabitants of some old town. He saw 
 in painting a sort of abstract geometry for which there existed hard and fast 
 forms. There was something mathematical in his effort after dry correctness 
 and erudite accuracy. The infinite variety of life with its eternal changes 
 was hidden from his sight. The beautiful, he taught with Winckelmann, does 
 not exist in a single individual; it is possible only by comparison and through 
 composition to create a type of it. The human being of art ought always to be 
 a copy of that perfected being, of that primitive man, whom the Roman sculp- 
 tors had before their eyes, but who had deteriorated in the course of ages. 
 
 Thus in France the sensuous art of painting was converted into an ab- 
 stract science of esthetics. The classic idea weighed upon French art and pre- 
 
 [ 74 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 33 
 
 scribed for all alike the same “heroic style,” the same elevation, the same 
 marble coldness and monotony of color. . . . 
 
 David completed his ‘Sabine Women’ in the year 1799. It was the legacy 
 that the eighteenth century left in France to the nineteenth, the century on 
 whose threshold that tender and great immortal, Watteau, had stood, which 
 had been so amiably frivolous with Boucher, had nourished itself upon virtue 
 with Greuze, had glorified simple domesticity with Chardin, and finally echoed 
 the beautiful phrases of young David — liberty, equality, and fraternity; — that 
 century so tender, witty, fashionable, dissolute and sane, aristocratic and ple- 
 beian, joyous and fanatical, ended in France in the most barren classicism. 
 
 ANTONY VALABRECUE ‘LA GRANDE ENCYCLOf EDIE’ 
 
 J ACQUES-LOUIS DAVID is one of those painters who have exercised a 
 most decided influence upon the artistic ideas of our time, as well as upon 
 the destiny of the whole French school. Nowadays, under the influence of 
 modern standards of art, he is variously judged. Both lauded and denounced 
 beyond measure, we see in him a strenuous reformer, an autocratic and often 
 brutal regenerator. His passionate nature made him the most powerful inter- 
 preter of the French Revolution. By some he is looked upon as one of the in- 
 stigators of that movement in art which left its mark upon a portion of the 
 nineteenth century; by others he is regarded simply as the head of the classic 
 and retrograde school of painting in France. It is but right that he should 
 be judged by us from the standpoint of the present, apart from all the prej- 
 udices of the past, our opinion of his work being based upon a study of his 
 great canvases in the galleries of France, and of those pictures which have 
 appeared from time to time in exhibitions. . . . 
 
 Assuredly a great artist, one whose ideals were of the highest, whose spirit 
 was noble and well balanced, who was indeed an apostle of the beautiful 
 such as he conceived it to be, David seems to us opposed to certain qualities 
 peculiarly French. Advancing with unswerving step towards his goal, he 
 scorned everything in the way of grace or sentiment. In color he felt no in- 
 terest, seeking above all else to attain exceeding accuracy in drawing. Be- 
 neath an apparent perfection his work presents serious faults. Not a single 
 note of color vibrates in his too uniform compositions. The nude is treated by 
 him as if he were a sculptor rather than a painter. Many of his works have 
 for their subjects scenes from classic tragedies, in which personages are ele- 
 vated and ennobled by an ideal at once human, philosophic, and austere. 
 
 For our part we infinitely prefer to this painter of history preoccupied with 
 his theories, the faithful and realistic portrayer of his own times. Alongside of 
 the impassioned artist, who, forceful and eloquent as heis, seems now to beout 
 of date, there is a calm, serene David, an observer keen and conscientious. 
 Such is the man who painted the fine portraits of Pope Pius Vi 1 ., General 
 Gerard, and Madame Recamier. Here we have the personal, the intimate 
 side of David, who is no longer the lawgiver of art, but the scrupulous and 
 expressive searcher after truth — in a word, the lover of nature. 
 
 A grand figure after all, that of this artist who, although no longer the leader 
 
 [ 75 ] 
 
34 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 of the French school, yet offers in his work and in his life fruitful lessons full of 
 force. The cold and mediocre style of certain of his pupils has tended to 
 diminish his influence, but still that influence could never have been lasting, 
 for like that of every absolute master, it rested upon purely individual prin- 
 ciples, which, being peculiar to himself, were for that very reason false. — 
 FROM THE FRENCH 
 
 LEON ROSENTHAL ‘LOUIS DAVID’ 
 
 D AVID exercised a powerful influence over French painting for the reason 
 that towards the close of the eighteenth century he embodied those ration- 
 alistic tendencies of the French mind which had been embodied by Poussin in 
 the seventeenth. He brought about a prescribed estheticism, because the 
 theories he formulated were in perfect accord with the instincts of his country; 
 he gained the support of almost all the artists, and created a unanimity of 
 sentiment such as no other artist since then has ever succeeded in accomplish- 
 ing, for the simple reason that his faults as well as his excellences were intrin- 
 sically French. He was a painter bound by codes and system; a painter by no 
 means flawless, it may be, but unquestionably a French painter. 
 
 Poussin could never have been said to have comprised within himself alone 
 all the national artistic characteristics; together with him the Clouets, the 
 Le Nains, the Chardins — painters of keen and close observation — must also 
 be considered, for they represent an important characteristic of the French 
 mind in art — the love of sincerity, of truth to nature. But in this respect 
 we find David actually in opposition to himself, for face to face with the 
 painter of the ‘Sabines’ stands tbe painter of ‘Marat’ and the ‘Coronation;’ 
 and if in his capacity as chief of the French school he inspires in us to-day only 
 a historic interest, we are conscious that as a realist he is still very near to us. 
 
 As this last David made no proselytes; his methods in this direction were 
 embodied in no formulae; he was no teacher. But if, strictly speaking, he had 
 no pupils in this kind of art, he undoubtedly forms a link between those 
 painters of truth who preceded him and the bolder ones who followed. In- 
 deed, the theorists who from observation of nature and from social and polit- 
 ical conditions deduce general laws, might well lay claim to David, and, as a 
 matter of fact, this they have not failed to do. In other words, those who ask 
 that an artist should be sincere without passion, that he should portray life 
 without taking part in it, will assign a high place to David as a portraitist; 
 and it is by his portraits above all else that his fame has been definitely estab- 
 lished. Because of them he steps forth from the rank of artists whose works 
 possess interest for only the generation which enthusiastically hailed their ad- 
 vent, and takes his place among those whose fame is recognized by posterity. 
 
 The historian of art can never ignore the role of David, leader of the French 
 school, but it has been many a long day since the painter’s historical works 
 have aroused the admiration of the public or have been studied by artists. 
 ‘The Coronation’ and ‘The Distribution of the Standards’ belong too exclu- 
 sively to a particular period to be unreservedly enjoyed; even ‘Marat,’ al- 
 though more detached from any special era, still belongs to the time when it 
 
 [ 76 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 35 
 
 was painted. David’s portraits, on the contrary, gain more and more admirers 
 as time goes on, so that to-day public galleries and private collections vie with 
 each other to obtain them. This revival of favor after so many oscillations and 
 revolutions of public taste is a sure proof of David’s enduring fame. 
 
 No doubt this is not the kind of fame for which he hoped. Great indeed 
 would have been his astonishment could he have known that his vast historic 
 compositions would sink into obscurity, and that of his whole achievement 
 posterity would retain only those works which he painted merely as pastime. 
 His pride as a painter of history would have been hurt; but we, who no longer 
 recognize the existence of any kind of hierarchy among the different branches 
 of art, but acknowledge simply the greater superiority of genius, maintain that 
 by what he accomplished his fame is sufficiently assured. 
 
 From David’s strange life a lesson can be learned. He was inflexible in his 
 formulae — formulae now as dead as are the canvases which they inspired; but 
 there were moments when he asserted his independence, and it is because of 
 these outbursts of his free inspiration that he lives to-day. And therefore it has 
 come to pass that by a striking paradox the great leader of the French school 
 of classicism himself proclaims the absurdity of formalism and system, and 
 throws wide open to art the doors of individuality and of freedom. — from 
 THE FRENCH 
 
 Cl >e E>or{;o of Dalnti 
 
 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PLATES 
 
 ‘BONAPARTE CROSSING MOUNT ST. BERNARD’ PLATE I 
 
 U PON Napoleon’s return from the campaign in Italy he desired David to 
 paint his portrait. As on a previous occasion, however, he was unwilling 
 to sit for the artist, averring that Alexander had never posed for Apelles, nor 
 had any of the great men of antiquity sat for the likenesses we possess of them; 
 that it was the character, the soul, which should be portrayed, rather than any 
 exact delineation of the features. And David, declaring that Napoleon was 
 teaching him the art of painting, agreed to execute an ideal portrait of his hero. 
 “I will paint you in battle, sword in hand,” he said. “No, my dear David,” 
 returned Napoleon, “it is not with the sword that battles are won. I would 
 be painted calm and serene upon a fiery steed.” David accordingly, with the 
 assistance of his pupil Gerard, painted the famous picture here reproduced of 
 Bonaparte crossing the icy summit of Mount St. Bernard, pointing the way 
 across the snow-bound Alps to Italy. 
 
 “This work,” writes M. Leon Rosenthal, “has a world-wide reputation, 
 but it is cold and formal in composition, the attitude is strained and theatrical, 
 and the figure of Napoleon on horseback resembles an equestrian statue rather 
 than a painting. I he color is monotonous and uninteresting, and, finally, the 
 
 [ 77 ] 
 
36 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 evident effort to impart a symbolic significance to the work is unfortunate, for 
 the idea is emphasized to such a point that truth is completely overlooked.” 
 The picture is one of David’s works to which he himself attached the great- 
 est importance. With the assistance of his pupils he made several copies, 
 which he frequently retouched with the utmost care. The original painting, 
 reproduced in plate I, is in the Palace of Versailles. It measures eight feet 
 nine inches high by about seven and a half feet wide. 
 
 ‘THE OATH OF THE HORATII’ PLATE II 
 
 D AVID’S celebrated picture ‘The Oath of the Horatii,’ begun in Paris in 
 1783 and finished a year afterwards, during his second sojourn in Rome, 
 was painted by order of the king, Louis xvi. The subject was one that ap- 
 pealed to the artist’s love of classic history as well as to the republican spirit 
 then rife in France. 
 
 The scene represents the three Horatii, brothers belonging to one of the 
 most ancient patrician families of Rome, receiving from their father weapons 
 with which to defend their country against the threatened supremacy of the 
 land of Alba. Even as they had been chosen to represent the cause of Rome, 
 so had that of Alba been intrusted to their cousins the Curiatii, three brothers 
 like themselves, whom they were to meet in deadly combat. 
 
 Now it happened that a sister of the Horatii was betrothed to one of the 
 Curiatii, and in the group of weeping women to the right of the picture David 
 has introduced her grief-stricken form. No thought of their sister’s sorrow, 
 however, deterred the Ploratii from duty to their country, and when the bloody 
 fray was over, and the sole survivor, one of the Horatii, had returned to Rome 
 in triumph with his threefold spoils, he mercilessly slew his sister for reproach- 
 ing him with her lover’s death. 
 
 First exhibited in David’s studio in Rome, ‘The Oath of the Horatii’ 
 created a furore of enthusiasm which was repeated in Paris when it was shown 
 in the Salon of 1785. Although possessed of some fine qualities, the picture 
 strikes us to-day as theatrical and artificial. As in all David’s works of this 
 description, coloring counts for little or nothing; all stress is laid upon the 
 drawing, the adherence to the statuesque in emulation of antique art, and 
 upon the loftiness of the idea expressed. 
 
 The picture is in the Louvre, and measures nearly eleven feet high by thir- 
 teen feet three inches wide. 
 
 ‘PORTRAIT OF MONSIEUR SERIZIAT’ PLATE III 
 
 T HIS striking portrait in the Louvre represents David’s brother-in-law, 
 Monsieur Seriziat, in riding-costume. The pose is admirably chosen, 
 the manner of painting vigorous, and the colors harmonious. Monsieur Seriziat 
 is seated out-of-doors on a rocky bank upon which he has thrown his cloak of 
 greenish-blue cloth. His coat is gray, his trousers buff, and his high boots are 
 topped with tan-colored leather. His hair is powdered, and he wears a dark 
 gray felt hat. The background is blue sky diversified with white clouds. 
 “This portrait and the one of Madame Seriziat,” writes M. Frederic 
 
 [ 78 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 37 
 
 Masson, “are among the most beautiful ever painted by David. They seem, 
 indeed, to stamp his achievement with a renewal of freshness, grace, and joy- 
 ousness attributable to the circumstances under which they were executed, 
 and the object which he had in mind in painting them.” The portraits were 
 painted in 1795, immediately after the artist’s term of imprisonment, and 
 when he was spending some three months at Saint-Ouen, near Tournan, the 
 country-seat of his brother-in-law, M. Seriziat, to whose efforts his liberation 
 was largely due, and for whom David painted both works in grateful acknowl- 
 edgment of his indebtedness. 
 
 ‘PORTRAIT OF MADAME SFRIZIAT AND HER CHILD’ PLATE IV 
 
 T HIS portrait of Madame Seriziat, who before her marriage was Emilie 
 Pecoul, sister to David’s wife, was painted in 1795 as a companion pic- 
 ture to that of her husband. She is represented seated upon a sofa of dull red, 
 dressed in a gown of creamy white, with a green ribbon knotted about her 
 waist. Her straw hat is trimmed with ribbon of the same shade of green, tied 
 in a bow beneath her chin. In one hand she holds a bunch of wild flowers, 
 their bright hues contrasting with the white of her skirt, while with the other 
 hand she clasps that of her little flaxen-haired child, who turns shyly away as 
 it looks over its shoulder at the spectator. 
 
 Not even the English school can offer a more charming example of portrait- 
 ure than this picture by David. Wholly lacking in the cold pedantic qualities 
 of his historic canvases, it is full of life and naturalism. There is nothing stiff 
 nor unreal in the composition, the modeling is admirable in its delicacy, and 
 the coloring cool and harmonious. 
 
 The canvas measures about four feet three inches high by three feet two 
 inches wide. It was acquired in 1902 by the Louvre, where it now hangs. 
 
 'THE SABINE WOMEN” PLATEV 
 
 D AVID’S famous picture in the Louvre of ‘The Sabine Women’ was 
 painted in his so-called Greek style. The subject, it is said, was sug- 
 gested by a design on an engraved stone, and when in prison in 1795 he con- 
 ceived the idea of the painting, which he completed four years later. It was 
 exhibited in one of the rooms of the Louvre, to which, contrary to all precedent 
 in France, an admission fee was charged. 
 
 Its fame had already been spread abroad by the artist’s admiring pupils, and 
 public curiosity was aroused by the knowledge that for many of the personages 
 introduced, well-known men and celebrated beauties of the day had served 
 as models. The success of the picture was immediate. So great were the 
 crowds that flocked to visit it that the exhibition was kept open for five years, 
 with the result that a sum exceeding 72,000 francs ($14,400) was realized. 
 And yet the ‘Sabine Women’ provoked much adverse criticism. Fault was 
 found principally with its composition, which, it was justly said, lacked unity, 
 and exception was taken to the nudity of the figures. 
 
 The scene represents that moment in the battle between the Sabines and 
 the Romans when the wives of the latter rushed into the fray to prevent the 
 
 [791 
 
38 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 slaughter of those dear to them in both the opposing armies by ties of blood* 
 and of affection. In the center stands Romulus, aiming his spear at Titus 
 Tatius, King of the Sabines, who at the left of the picture assumes an attitude 
 of defence. Between these is Hersilia, the wife of Romulus, with arms out- 
 spread, imploring them to desist from the combat. About this central group 
 are mothers distracted with terror, striving to protect their children, some 
 kneeling in supplication, some rushing madly among the warriors, one, beside 
 herself with fright, holding her child aloft in her arms. The background is 
 filled with the two armies. On the left are the ramparts of the Roman capitol, 
 and farther off is seen the Tarpeian rock. 
 
 The impression of this picture as a whole is far from agreeable. The color 
 is cold, the attitudes theatrical, and although the artist evidently intended the 
 scene to be full of movement, each figure is treated with such preoccupation 
 for nobility of form and attitude that the general effect is stiff and unreal. 
 Some of the details, however, possess much beauty. Taken separately, the 
 different groups, notably the one in the center, are well arranged, and the indi- 
 vidual figures are drawn with great purity and beauty of line. ‘The Sabine 
 Women’ admirably illustrates the cold classicism of David, in which formulae 
 were followed and theories adhered to, with the result that all life, spontaneity, 
 and naturalness were lost. 
 
 ‘PORTRAIT OF POPE PIUS VII’ PLATE VI 
 
 “ TN David’s portrait of Pope Pius vil.,” writes a French critic, “we are at 
 
 1 once struck by the realism, by the astonishing force of expression, which 
 reveals the very soul itself beneath the features of the face, by the superb free- 
 dom of execution, devoid of all rigidity, and by the vigor and beauty of the 
 coloring.” 
 
 This celebrated portrait, now in the Louvre, was painted in 1805, when 
 Pius vil. had gone to Paris for the purpose of crowning Napoleon Emperor of 
 France. In no other example of David’s work in portraiture do we more 
 forcibly feel his power than in this life-like presentment of the pope. Clad in 
 a velvet mantle of dull red, richly trimmed with bands of gold embroidery, 
 Pius VII. is seated before us in a chair covered with red and gold. The back- 
 ground is a neutral shade, well calculated to offset the figure and emphasize 
 the pale, emaciated face, with its dark eyes and fringe of dark hair. 
 
 Waagen says of this work, “It unites dignity and truth of conception with 
 very fine drawing, masterly modeling, and a touch which is broad and yet 
 delicate in an excellent impasto. No one of David’s historical pictures known 
 to me can assume, in its own class, anything like the same rank that this work 
 properly takes in its character of a portrait.” 
 
 ‘MADAME RECAMIER’ PLATE VII 
 
 O NE of David’s most charming portraits of women is this famous unfin- 
 ished picture in the Louvre of Madame Recamier, the celebrated beauty 
 and leader of society in Paris during the Consulate and the Empire. 
 
 [ 80 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 39 
 
 Unlike most of the artist’s works in portraiture, in which as a rule the sub- 
 ject is painted in so natural an attitude that there is no suggestion of a studied 
 pose, we have here a more carefully arranged composition. Madame Re- 
 camier, dressed in a white gown whose long folds are so disposed as to reveal 
 her bare feet, is reclining on a couch upon cushions of pale yellow bordered 
 with delicate grayish-blue. The pure outlines of her head and figure are clearly 
 defined against the plain surface of the background. At the head of the couch 
 is a tall bronze lamp, the only ornament introduced into the apartment, which 
 is severe in its simplicity. 
 
 David was engaged upon this w T ork in the summer of 1800, his pupil Ingres, 
 it is said, assisting him with the accessories. Before it was completed he 
 learned that his beautiful model, not finding the picture wholly to her fancy, 
 had decided to sit no more for him, but had, instead, commissioned Gerard, 
 one of his most famous pupils, to paint her portrait. David’s picture was ac- 
 cordingly left unfinished. “In admiring this masterly sketch,” writes M. 
 Charles Saunier, “so complete in its light transparent color, we ask ourselves 
 ‘Was it not, after all, just as well that David carried his work no farther?’ 
 We are inclined to think so, for it is possible that some of its delicate beauty 
 might have been lost had he put the finishing touches to his charming study.” 
 The painting measures a little over five and a half feet high by nearly eight 
 feet wide. The figure is life-sized. 
 
 ‘PORTRAIT OF THE MARQUISE D’ ORVILLIERS’ PLATE VIII 
 
 “'\T 7 ’HEN David paints young women,” writes M. Leon Rosenthal, 
 VV “whether they be attractive because of their beauty or their grace, 
 or only by reason of the charm of youth, his portraits are always characterized 
 by an ingenuousness and an entire freedom from affectation which straight- 
 way captivate the fancy. It may be that the Marquise d’Orvilhers, and various 
 others, have not features that are absolutely regular, but they are posed with 
 such a happy freedom from constraint, they seem to be so entirely at their ease 
 and so ready to engage in an informal conversation, that it never occurs to us 
 to find fault if the mouth be a trifle large, or the nose not strictly in accordance 
 with academic rules. We feel sure that they must have enjoyed posing, for 
 it is very evident that David enjoyed painting them.” 
 
 The charming portrait of the Marquise d’Orvilliers, here reproduced, was 
 painted in 1790. The canvas measures four feet four inches high by three feet 
 three inches wide, and is owned by the Comte de Turenne, Paris. 
 
 ‘MICHEL CERARD AND HIS FAMILY* PLAT El X 
 
 I N this picture we have a noteworthy example of David’s realism. Nothing 
 could be more unlike his stilted historical compositions, in which the per- 
 sonages are posed with the rigidity of statues, than this life-like group now in 
 the Museum of Le Mans, France. The principal personage is Michel Gerard, 
 a Brittany farmer, who in the days of the F rench Revolution was elected a 
 member of the National Convention. For the honesty and integrity of his 
 
 [ 81 ] 
 
40 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 character, as well as for his sound common-sense, “Father Gerard,” as he was 
 called, was universally respected. He always wore the simple dress of a Brit- 
 tany peasant, in which he is here represented. 
 
 1 he picture of Michel Gerard and his family,” writes M. Louis Gonse, 
 “is remarkably fine; the composition is compact and well centered, the per- 
 sonages being so skilfully grouped that the chief figure, the sturdy peasant in 
 his shirt-sleeves, is given all due prominence. The attitudes and actions are 
 varied, expressive, and highly characteristic. The whole work is frankly 
 painted and very charming.” 
 
 ‘THE CORONATION OF NAPOLEON AND JOSEPHINE’ PLATE X 
 
 T HIS celebrated picture, now in the Louvre, is regarded by many as 
 David’s masterpiece. It may be said to mark an epoch in the history of 
 French painting. Although by no means without faults, the composition as a 
 whole is stately, the grouping of the principal figures admirable, while the 
 coloring, though not brilliant and now somewhat dimmed by time, is harmo- 
 nious and, in parts, rich and beautiful. 
 
 The coronation of Napoleon and Josephine took place in the Cathedral of 
 Notre Dame, Paris, on December 2, 1804. In accordance with the wish of 
 Napoleon, David has represented the moment when the emperor, already 
 crowned by Pope Pius vn., who is seated behind him, is about to place the 
 crown upon the head of Josephine. Clad in a white robe and long crimson 
 mantle lined with ermine and bordered with gold, she kneels before him. He 
 himself, standing with upraised arms upon the steps of the high altar, is ar- 
 , rayed in robes of state and wears a laurel wreath upon his brow. All the per- 
 sonages present are portraits — the prelates grouped about the pope, the dig- 
 nitaries standing at the right, the princesses of the imperial family behind the 
 empress and her attendants, and the brothers of the emperor at the left. 
 Back of the central group, facing the spectator, are ranged the principal per- 
 sonages of the court, and in a tribune above is the mother of the emperor, 
 who, although not present at the ceremony, was here portrayed at Napoleon’s 
 wish. Still higher up David himself is introduced sketching the scene. 
 
 This vast painting, which measures thirty-three feet long and twenty-one 
 feet high and contains over two hundred figures, was begun in 1805 and fin- 
 ished three years later. In order to facilitate the artist’s work the government 
 placed at his disposal for a studio the old church of the College of Cluny. 
 There, on January 4, 1808, Napoleon went in state, accompanied by the em- 
 press, his ministry, and his staff, and preceded by a body of cavalry and a 
 band of music, to see the picture which had just been completed. For more 
 than half an hour he walked up and down in front of the great canvas, exam- 
 ining it in all its details. David and his assistants stood meanwhile motionless 
 and silent, anxiously awaiting his verdict. Finally, his eyes still fixed upon the 
 picture, he paused. “It is well done, David,” he said, “very well. You have 
 divined my thoughts; you have represented me as the embodiment of French 
 chivalry. I am indebted to you for handing down to posterity this proof of 
 affection which I have desired to show her who shares with me the cares of 
 
 [ 82 ] 
 
DAVID 
 
 41 
 
 government.” And then, with one of those dramatic effects of which he was 
 so fond, he advanced towards the painter, and, raising his hat and slightly in- 
 clining his head, said in a loud voice, “David, I salute you!” “Sire,” replied 
 David, deeply moved, “I receive your salutation in the name of all artists, 
 happy indeed to be the one whom you deign to address.” 
 
 The picture was exhibited in the Louvre prior to the opening of the Salon 
 of 1808, and met with an immense success. As a testimony of his appreciation 
 Napoleon appointed his first painter an officer of the Legion of Honor. 
 
 A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL PAINTINGS BY DAVID 
 WITH THEIR PRESENT LOCATIONS 
 
 B ELGIUM. Antwerp, Museum: Head of an Old Man — Brussels, Museum: Mars 
 Unarmed by Venus; The Flute-player, Devienne; Marat; A Boy — FRANCE. 
 Aix-en-Provence, Museum: A Young Man — Amiens, Museum: The Comtesse de 
 Dillon — Angers, Museum: Two Studies of Drapery — Avignon, Museum: Joseph 
 Bara — Cahors, Verninac Collection: Mme. de Verninac — Calais, Meunier Col- 
 lection: Mme. David; Baron Meunier; Baroness Meunier — -Chalon-sur-Saone, Chev- 
 rier Collection: De Blauw — Cherbourg, Museum: Patroclus — Dijon, Museum: 
 Mme. Berber and her Daughter — Douai, Museum: Mme.Tallien — Fontainebleau, 
 Palace: Pope Pius vii. (replica) — Lille, Museum: Belisarius asking Alms; Napo- 
 leon; Apelles painting Campaspe (sketch) — La Mans, Museum: Michel Gerard and 
 his Family (Plate ix) — Lyons, Museum: The Huckster — Marseilles, Quarantine 
 Office: St. Roch interceding with the Virgin for the Plague-stricken — Montpellier, 
 Museum: Hector; Alphonse Lerny; Head of a Young Man; M. Joubert — Nantes, 
 Museum: Death of Cleonice (sketch) — Narbonne, Museum: The Good Samaritan; 
 David and Goliath; Portrait; Bacchante and Attendants — Orleans, Museum: Mme. 
 Calis — Paris, Louvre: Coronation of Napoleon and Josephine (Plate x); Oath of the 
 Horatii (Plate 11); Oath of the Horatii (Sketch); Leonidas at Thermopylae; The Sabine 
 Women (Plate v); Lictors bringing to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons; Belisarius asking Alms; 
 Combat of Minerva and Mars; Paris and Helen; Three Ladies of Ghent; Pope Pius vii. 
 (Plate vi); Mme. Recamier (Plate vii); M. Pecoul; Mme. Pecoul; Mme. Chalgrin; 
 M. Seriziat (Plate 111); Mme. Seriziat and her Child (Plate iv); M. and Mme. Mongez; 
 Bailly; Portrait of David (Page 22) — Paris, Ecole des Beaux-Arts: Antiochus — 
 Paris, Museum of the Comedie Franchise: Mme. Joly — Paris, Baron Collec- 
 tion: Sketch for the Curtain of the Chantereine Theater — Paris, Bianchi Collection: 
 The Death of Socrates — Paris, De Chazelles Collection: Lavoisier and his Wife — 
 Paris, Didot Collection: Telemachus and Eucharis; The Anger of Achilles — Paris, 
 Durand-Ruel Collection : Marat (replica) — Paris, Feuardent Collection: Coro- 
 nation of Napoleon and Josephine (replica) — Paris, Jeaunin Collection: Meyer, Min- 
 ister Plenipotentiary; Baron Jeaunin; Baroness Jeaunin; Charles Jeaunin — Paris, De 
 Turenne Collection: The Marquise d'Orvilliers (Plate vm); The Comte de Turcnne 
 — Paris, De ViLLEquiER Collection: The Marquis de Sorcy de Thelusson — Rheims, 
 Museum: Marat (replica) — Rouf.n, Museum: Portrait, said to be of Mine. Vigee Le 
 Brun — Semur, Museum: Head of an Old Man — Toulon, Museum: The Daughters 
 of Joseph Bonaparte — Valence, Museum: Ugolino — Versailles, Palace: Barere; 
 Bonaparte crossing Mount St. Bernard(Plate 1); The Distribution of the Standards; Pope 
 Pius vii. (replica) — GERMANY. Berlin Gallery: Bonaparte crossing Mount St. 
 Bernard (replica) — IRELAND. Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland: Death of 
 Milo — RUSSIA. St. Petersburg, Collection of Prince Youssoupoff: Sapho and 
 Phaon — Villanov, near Varsovie, Chateau Potocki: Count Potocki. 
 
 [ 83 ] 
 
42 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 2Ba\uti 33tl)ltogiapl)P 
 
 A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL BOOKS AND MAGAZINE ARTICLES 
 DEALING WITH DAVID 
 
 ALEXANDRE, A. Histoire populaire de la peinture: ecole frangaise. Paris [1893] — 
 Benoit, F. L’Art frangais sous la Revolution et l’Empire. Paris, 1897 — Ber- 
 trand, L. La Fin du classicisme et le retour a P antique. Paris, 1897 — Blanc, C. 
 Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles: ecole frangaise. Paris, 1865 — Breton, J. Nos 
 peintres du siecle. Paris [1899] — Brownell, W. C. French Art. New York, 1901 — 
 Brun, C. Louis David und die franzosische Revolution. Zurich, 1886 — Chesneau, E. 
 La Peinture frangaise au XIX C siecle. Paris, 1862 — Chesneau, E. Les Chefs d’ecole. 
 Paris, 1864 — Cook, C. Art and Artists of Our Time. New York [1888] — Coupin, 
 P. A. Essai sur J. L. David. Paris, 1 827 — David, 'J. L. J. Le Peintre Louis David. 
 Paris, 1879 — Delaborde, H. Etudes sur les Beaux- Arts. Paris, 1864 — Delecluze, 
 E. J. Louis David, son ecole et son temps. Paris, 1855 — Gautier, T. Guide de 
 Pamateur au Musee du Louvre. Paris, 1882 — Hamerton, P. G. Contemporary French 
 Painters. London, 1868 — Head, Sir E. A Handbook of the History of the Spanish and 
 French Schools of Painting. London, 1 848 — Houssaye, A. La Revolution. Paris, 
 1890 — Jal, A. Dictionnaire critique de biographie et d’histoire. Paris, 1872 — 
 Kingsley, R. G. A History of French Art. London, 1899 — Larousse, P. A. David 
 (in Grand Dictionnaire Universel). Paris, 1866-90 — Lenoir, A. David, souvenirs his- 
 toriques. Paris, 1835 — Marx, R. Etudes sur P ecole frangaise. Paris, 1903 — Merson, L. 
 La Peinture frangaise au XVII e siecle et au XVIII e . Paris [1900] — Michel, A. Les 
 Chefs-d' oeuvres de Part frangais au XIX e siecle. Paris, 1890 — Miel, M. Notice sur 
 J. L. David. Paris, 1834 — Muther, R. The History of Modern Painting. London, 
 1 895 — Muther, R. Ein Jahrhundert franzosischer Malerei. Berlin, 1901 — Parisot, A. 
 David (in Michaud’s Biographie universelle). Paris, i843-[i865] — Pinset, R., and 
 d’Auriac, J. Histoire du portrait en France. Paris, 1884 — Regnet, C. A. Jacques 
 Louis David (in Dohme’s Kunst und Kiinstler, etc ). Leipsic, 1880 — Rosenthal, L. 
 Louis David. Paris [1905] — Saunier, C. Louis David. Paris [1904J — Springer, A. 
 Die Kunst wahrend der franzosische Revolution. Bonn, 1886 — Stranahan, C. H. A 
 History of French Painting. New York, 1888 — Thibaudeau, A. La Vie de David. 
 Paris, 1826 — Thiers, A. La Vie de David. Paris, 1826 — Thore, T. Les Peintres 
 du XIX e siecle; Louis David. Brussels, 1843 — Valabregue, A. Jacques-Louis David 
 (in La Grande Encyclopedic). Paris, 1886-1902 — Villars, M. de. Memoires de David. 
 Paris, 1850 — Wyzewa, T. de, and Perreau, X. Les Grands peintres de la France. 
 Paris, 1890. 
 
 ^RT, 1899: A. Hustin; Exposition Universelle de 1889. Les Peintres du cente- 
 
 naire — Les Arts, 1902: F. Masson; Les Accroissements des Musees. Deux por- 
 traits par Louis David. 1903: Un portrait de Louis David — Athenteum, 1857: Louis 
 David, his School and his Times — Bentley’s Miscellany, 1886: Louis David — Ga- 
 zette des Beaux-Arts, i860: A. Cantaloube; Les Dessins de Louis David. 1880: 
 L. Gonse; Review of ‘Le Peintre Louis David,’ par J.-L. David, son petit-fils. 1900: 
 A. Michel; La Peinture frangaise a 1 ’ exposition centennale. 1902: C. Saunier; Un dessin 
 inconnu de la ‘Distribution des Aigles’ de Louis David. 1903: J. Guiffrey; David et le 
 theatre pendant le sejour a Bruxelles. 1905: C. Saunier; La Mort de Seneque par Louis 
 David — Gentleman’s Magazine, 1856: Louis David, the French Painter — Nation, 
 1904: A. Laugel; Review of Rosenthal’s ‘David’ — Revue des Deux-mondes, 1896: 
 J. Michelet; David et Gericault — Revue Generale, 1881: G. Nieter; Le Peintre 
 David — Westminster Review, 1855: Review of Delecluze's ‘Louis David.’ 
 
 magazine articles 
 
 [ 84 ] 
 
Every woman of good taste and fine feelings demands a letter paper which shall 
 represent her upon which to express her real thoughts to her friends. No woman 
 of fineness can write well upon paper that is coarse, common or cheap looking. 
 
 Eaton-Hurlbut Writing Papers 
 
 are the best that are made, and three brands for particular women are — Berkshire 
 Linen Fabric, Highland and Twotone Linens, with their wide range of color, size 
 and surface to suit the individual; they are the recognized standard of elegance. 
 
 If you know a dealer who does 
 not carry these papers, send us 
 his name, and get our desk book, 
 "The Gentle Art of l.ctter 
 Writing," in return. 
 
 EATON-HURLBUT 
 PAPER CO. 
 
 P itts k i e l. d , Mass. 
 
MASTERS I N ART 
 
 MASTERS IN ART 
 
 BACK NUMBERS AND BOUND VOLUMES 
 
 71 /RASTERS IN AR r T was established in January, 1900. As will be 
 A VA. seen from the following list of painters and sculptors covered by the 
 first six years, the bound volumes form a fairly complete reference library of 
 
 The Cloth landing is a brown art buckram, with heavy bevelled boards, side and 
 back stamps in frosted and burnished gold, from designs by Mr. B. G. Goodhue, and 
 gilt top. 
 
 The Half-Morocco Binding is in green, with green and gold marbled paper sides 
 and end papers, gold tooled back designed by Mr. B. G. Goodhue, and gilt top. 
 
 In both styles of binding the forwarding is most thoroughly done, the front and 
 bottom edges are untrimmed. 
 
 PRICES 
 
 Art. The subjects, in the order of publication, are as follows: 
 
 All single numbers, except those of the current calendar year, are 20 
 cents each, postpaid, in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; 25 
 cents each, postpaid, to foreign countries in the postal union. Single 
 numbers of the current year are 15 cents. No reduction when yearly vol- 
 umes or complete sets are ordered. 
 
 Half- 
 Morocco 
 Binding 
 
 Volume I (1900) treats of Van Dyck, Titian, Velasquez, Holbein, 
 Botticelli, Rembrandt, Reynolds, Millet, Giov. Bellini, Murillo, Hals, and 
 Raphael. 
 
 Volume II (igoi) treats of Rubens, Da Vinci, Diirer, Michelangelo 
 (Sculpture), Michelangelo (Painting), Corot, Burne-Jones, Ter Borch, 
 Della Robbia, Del Sarto, Gainsborough, and Correggio. 
 
 Volume III (1902) treats of Phidias, Perugino, Holbein, Tintoretto, 
 Pieter De Hooch, Nattier, Paul Potter, Giotto, Praxiteles, Hogarth, Tur- 
 ner, and Luini. 
 
 Cloth Binding 
 
 Volume IV (1903) treats of Romney, Fra Angelico, Watteau, Ra- 
 phael’s Frescos, Donatello, Gerard Dou, Carpaccio, Rosa Bonheur, Guido 
 Reni, Puvis De Chavannes, Giorgione, and Rossetti. 
 
 Volume V (1904) treats of Fra 
 Bartolommeo, Greuze, Diirer’s En- 
 gravings, Lotto, Landseer, Vermeer of 
 Delft, Pintoricchio, The Brothers Van 
 Eyck, Meissonier, Barye, Veronese, 
 and Copley. 
 
 Volume VI (1905) treats of Watts, 
 Palma V ecchio, Madame Vigee Le 
 Brun, Mantegna, Chardin, Benozzo 
 Gozzoli, Jan Steen, Memling, Claude 
 Lorrain, Verrocchio, Raeburn, Fra 
 Filippo Lippi. 
 
 Bound volumes are $3. 75 each for cloth, $4.25 each for half-morocco, express prepaid. Terms 
 for purchasing the complete set on small monthly payments will be sent on request. 
 
 BATES GUILD COMPANY, PUBLISHERS 
 
 42 CHAUNCT STREET, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 In answering advertisements, please mention Masters in Art 
 
MASTERS IN ART 
 
 Interpretation of 
 
 iiapijacrs 
 
 i jo m s 
 
 By 
 
 Mrs. Adeliza Brainerd Chaffee 
 
 Second Edition, Illustrated, .paper covers, by 
 mail, 50 cents. 
 
 A limited edition of two hundred and 
 fifty numbered copies, hand illumined, 
 nineteen illustrations, beautifully bound, 
 in a box, $to.oo 
 
 Recent additions to the Raphael Prints 
 from original views in Spain, Sicily, and 
 Switzerland. Address, 
 
 Cl n Ctjaffee Irautito 
 
 1 HANCOCK STREET 
 WORCESTER, MASS. 
 
 The GREAT PICTURE LIGHT 
 
 FRINK’S PORTABLE 
 
 PICTURE REFLECTORS 
 
 For electric light, meetall requirements 
 for lighting pictures. Every owner of 
 fine paintings could use one or more of 
 these portable reflectors to advantage. 
 The fact that so many have ordered 
 these outfits for their friends is proof 
 that their merits are appreciated. 
 Height, closed, 51 inches; extended, 81 
 inches. The light from the reflector can 
 be directed at any picture in the room 
 and at any angle. 
 
 Frink’s Portable PictureReflector 
 with Telescope Standard 
 
 No. 7034, brass, polished or antique, 
 with plug and socket for electric 
 lamp .... ... $27.50 
 
 No. 7035, black iron, with plug and 
 socket for electric lamp . . $16.50 
 
 These special Reflectors are used by 
 all the picture-dealers in New York, and 
 by private collectors not only in this 
 country, but in Paris, London, Berlin, 
 and other cities. When ordering, kindly 
 mention the system of electricity used. 
 Satisfaction guaranteed. Parties order- 
 ing these Reflectors need not hesitate 
 Nos. 7034, 7035 to return them at our expense if not 
 Pat. Dec. 14, ’g7 found satisfactory. 
 
 I. P. FRINK, 551 Pearl St., New York City 
 
 GEO. FRINK c fcFNCER, Manager 
 Telephor. |sT6o Franklin 
 
 BRAUN’S 
 
 CARBON 
 
 PRINTS 
 
 FINEST AND MOST DURABLE 
 IMPORTED WORKS OF ART 
 
 NE HUNDRED THOUSAND direct 
 reproductions from the original paintings 
 and drawings by old and modern masters in the 
 galleries of Amsterdam, Antwerp, Berlin, Dres- 
 den, Florence, Haarlem, Hague, Lor ' ■> Ma- 
 drid, Milan, Paris, St. Pctersb- tome, 
 Venice, Vienna, Windsor, and c 
 
 Special Terms to Schi 
 
 BRAUN, CLEMENT ^ CO. 
 
 256 Fifth Avenue, corner 28th Street 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 
 Are You Building a 
 
 COUNTRY HOUSE 
 
 Or Do Y ou Own One ? 
 
 In cither case the following books will Interest you. 
 
 AMERICAN" COUNTRY HOUSES 
 
 Comprising the material gathered for a recent special num- 
 ber of ‘THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW — the leading 
 architectural paper of America— and showing, by 326 pho- 
 tographic Illustrations and plans, the exteriors and interiors 
 of tlie best country houses of moderate cost built In this 
 country during the last few years by architects of the high- 
 est standing. With ftill descriptive text. Price, bound, 
 $3.00, postpaid. 
 
 S T ABLES 
 
 A work of similar character to the nbovo, showing by over 
 650 Illustrations the exteriors, plans, and Interiors of stables 
 of every size and arrangement, with articles by exports on 
 stable planning, construction, hygiene, farm buildings, etc. 
 Price, hound, $3.00, postpaid. 
 
 AMERICAN GARDENS 
 
 The only volume existing which shows what Is possible In 
 garden-making under American conditions of cllmute ami 
 environment. Illustrates, by 'I'll superb nhotographs, sixty - 
 one of the loveliest American gardens, old and new. Plans 
 are given, and the preface treats of the principles of garden 
 design. Price, $7.50, express paid. 
 
 Special ilhutrated aw/ deAcrintire circular * concerning 
 each of the above bool a on appliculion . 
 
 Bates & Guild Company 
 
 I* U It LIS If K It S 
 
 412 Ciiauncy ST., Boston, Mass. 
 
 Tti answering advertisements, please mention Masters I M Akt 
 
MASTERS IN ART 
 
 Wanted ! — Capable Solicitors 
 
 TO SECURE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ORDERS FOR BACK VOLUMES OF 
 
 ^Has'tns in 3rt 
 
 W F vant only those who will devote time and energy 
 to the work, and preferably those possessing enough 
 knowledge of the great painters to talk intelligently about the 
 pub’ tion. To the right persons we will make liberal offers 
 and territory. Write, stating qualifications and giving 
 
 re 
 
 Bates l G tld Co., 42 Chauncy St., Boston 
 
 THE SFI AL WINTER NUMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL STUDIO 
 
 THE 1ANSIONS OF EN JLAND IN THE 
 CLDEN TIME. Joseph Nash 
 
 T HIS WORK is probably the most valuable and interesting work which has ever appeared upon 
 English architecture. It is valuable to the student of architecture on account of the elaborate de- 
 tail which Mr. Nash so carefully introduced into his drawings; it is valuable to the decorator 
 and designer of furniture, because of the beautiful examples shown in the interiors; it is valuable to the 
 general art-loving public, not only on account of its man 1 lggestions for the arrangement of rooms, 
 but also by reason of the beauty of the drawings them 
 Dealing, as it does, with the most perfect form 
 value of the book as a work of reference is unparallel 
 its preparation, was a consummate draughtsman and r 
 inal edition of the work now commands is in itself a 
 reproductions (although reduced in size) of each of the 
 appeared in four folio volumes at intervals from 1839 
 inal edition, in two printings. 
 
 An introductory chapter will be contributed by 
 
 ture in the past, the 
 spent many years in 
 price which the orig- 
 sic value. Facsimile 
 riginal edition, which 
 ere those of the orig 
 
 F.R.I.B. A. 
 
 PRICE: In Paper Cover, $1 
 In Cloth, $3.00 net 
 
 its 
 
 JOHN LANE COM 
 
 The Bodley Head v 
 
 
 V YORK 
 
 o ^ i nth Avenue 
 
 6 5 4 43 
 
 . - In answering adverti mts, 
 
 iasters in Art 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY MAIN 
 
 nsuesns ar, 
 
 c 1 
 Ocvld 
 
 3 3125 00157 7150