[Illustration: VELASQUEZ. HEAD OF ÆSOP, MADRID. ] A TEXT-BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF PAINTING BY JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L. H. D. PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF ART IN RUTGERS COLLEGE AND AUTHOR OF "ART FOR ART'S SAKE, " "THE MEANING OF PICTURES, " ETC. LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK LONDON, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 1909 COPYRIGHT, 1894, BY LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. * * * * * PREFACE. The object of this series of text-books is to provide conciseteachable histories of art for class-room use in schools and colleges. The limited time given to the study of art in the average educationalinstitution has not only dictated the condensed style of the volumes, but has limited their scope of matter to the general features of arthistory. Archæological discussions on special subjects and æsthetictheories have been avoided. The main facts of history as settled bythe best authorities are given. If the reader choose to enter intoparticulars the bibliography cited at the head of each chapter will befound helpful. Illustrations have been introduced as sight-help to thetext, and, to avoid repetition, abbreviations have been used whereverpracticable. The enumeration of the principal extant works of anartist, school, or period, and where they may be found, which followseach chapter, may be serviceable not only as a summary of individualor school achievement, but for reference by travelling students inEurope. This volume on painting, the first of the series, omits mention ofsuch work in Arabic, Indian, Chinese, and Persian art as may comeproperly under the head of Ornament--a subject proposed for separatetreatment hereafter. In treating of individual painters it has beenthought best to give a short critical estimate of the man and his rankamong the painters of his time rather than the detailed facts of hislife. Students who wish accounts of the lives of the painters shoulduse Vasari, Larousse, and the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ in connectionwith this text-book. Acknowledgments are made to the respective publishers of Woltmann andWoermann's History of Painting, and the fine series of art historiesby Perrot and Chipiez, for permission to reproduce some fewillustrations from these publications. JOHN C. VAN DYKE. * * * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I. EGYPTIAN PAINTING CHAPTER II. CHALDÆO-ASSYRIAN, PERSIAN, PHOENICIAN, CYPRIOTE, AND ASIA MINOR PAINTING CHAPTER III. GREEK, ETRUSCAN, AND ROMAN PAINTING CHAPTER IV. ITALIAN PAINTING--EARLY CHRISTIAN AND MEDIÆVAL PERIOD, 200-1250 CHAPTER V. ITALIAN PAINTING--GOTHIC PERIOD, 1250-1400 CHAPTER VI. ITALIAN PAINTING--EARLY RENAISSANCE, 1400-1500 CHAPTER VII. ITALIAN PAINTING--EARLY RENAISSANCE, 1400-1500, _Continued_ CHAPTER VIII. ITALIAN PAINTING--HIGH RENAISSANCE, 1500-1600 CHAPTER IX. ITALIAN PAINTING--HIGH RENAISSANCE, 1500-1600, _Continued_ CHAPTER X. ITALIAN PAINTING--HIGH RENAISSANCE, 1500-1600, _Continued_ CHAPTER XI. ITALIAN PAINTING--THE DECADENCE AND MODERN WORK, 1600-1894 CHAPTER XII. FRENCH PAINTING--SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES CHAPTER XIII. FRENCH PAINTING--NINETEENTH CENTURY CHAPTER XIV. FRENCH PAINTING--NINETEENTH CENTURY, _Continued_ CHAPTER XV. SPANISH PAINTING CHAPTER XVI. FLEMISH PAINTING CHAPTER XVII. DUTCH PAINTING CHAPTER XVIII. GERMAN PAINTING CHAPTER XIX. BRITISH PAINTING CHAPTER XX. AMERICAN PAINTING POSTSCRIPT INDEX * * * * * LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Velasquez, Head of Æsop, Madrid _Frontispiece_ 1 Hunting in the Marshes, Tomb of Ti, Saccarah 2 Portrait of Queen Taia 3 Offerings to the Dead. Wall painting 4 Vignette on Papyrus 5 Enamelled Brick, Nimroud 6 " " Khorsabad 7 Wild Ass. Bas-relief 8 Lions Frieze, Susa 9 Painted Head from Edessa 10 Cypriote Vase Decoration 11 Attic Grave Painting 12 Muse of Cortona 13 Odyssey Landscape 14 Amphore, Lower Italy 15 Ritual Scene, Palatine Wall painting 16 Portrait, Fayoum, Graf Collection 17 Chamber in Catacombs, with wall decorations 18 Catacomb Fresco, S. Cecilia 19 Christ as Good Shepherd, Ravenna mosaic 20 Christ and Saints, fresco, S. Generosa 21 Ezekiel before the Lord. MS. Illumination 22 Giotto, Flight into Egypt, Arena Chap. 23 Orcagna, Paradise (detail), S. M. Novella 24 Lorenzetti, Peace (detail), Sienna 25 Fra Angelico, Angel, Uffizi 26 Fra Filippo, Madonna, Uffizi 27 Botticelli, Coronation of Madonna, Uffizi 28 Ghirlandajo, Visitation, Louvre 29 Francesca, Duke of Urbino, Uffizi 30 Signorelli, The Curse (detail), Orvieto 31 Perugino, Madonna, Saints, and Angels, Louvre 32 School of Francia, Madonna, Louvre 33 Mantegna, Gonzaga Family Group, Mantua 34 B. Vivarini, Madonna and Child, Turin 35 Giovanni Bellini, Madonna, Venice Acad. 36 Carpaccio, Presentation (detail), Venice Acad. 37 Antonello da Messina, Unknown Man, Louvre 38 Fra Bartolommeo, Descent from Cross, Pitti 39 Andrea del Sarto, Madonna of St. Francis, Uffizi 40 Michael Angelo, Athlete, Sistine Chap. , Rome 41 Raphael, La Belle Jardinière, Louvre 42 Giulio Romano, Apollo and Muses, Pitti 43 Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, Louvre 44 Luini, Daughter of Herodias, Uffizi 45 Sodoma, Ecstasy of St. Catherine, Sienna 46 Correggio, Marriage of St. Catherine, Louvre 47 Giorgione, Ordeal of Moses, Uffizi 48 Titian, Venus Equipping Cupid, Borghese, Rome 49 Tintoretto, Mercury and Graces, Ducal Pal. , Venice 50 Veronese, Venice Enthroned, Ducal Pal. , Venice 51 Lotto, Three Ages, Pitti 52 Bronzino, Christ in Limbo, Uffizi 53 Baroccio, Annunciation 54 Annibale Caracci, Entombment of Christ, Louvre 55 Caravaggio, The Card Players, Dresden 56 Poussin, Et in Arcadia Ego, Louvre 57 Claude Lorrain, Flight into Egypt, Dresden 58 Watteau, Gilles, Louvre 59 Boucher, Pastoral, Louvre 60 David, The Sabines, Louvre 61 Ingres, Oedipus and Sphinx, Louvre 62 Delacroix, Massacre of Scio, Louvre 63 Gérôme, Pollice Verso 64 Corot, Landscape 65 Rousseau, Charcoal Burner's Hut, Fuller Collection 66 Millet, The Gleaners, Louvre 67 Cabanel, Phædra 68 Meissonier, Napoleon in 1814 69 Sanchez-Coello, Daughter of Philip II. , Madrid 70 Murillo, St. Anthony of Padua, Dresden 71 Ribera, St. Agnes, Dresden 72 Fortuny, Spanish Marriage 73 Madrazo, Unmasked 74 Van Eycks, St. Bavon Altar-piece, Berlin 75 Memling (?), St. Lawrence, Nat. Gal. , Lon. 76 Massys, Head of Virgin, Antwerp 77 Rubens, Portrait of Young Woman 78 Van Dyck, Portrait of Cornelius van der Geest 79 Teniers the Younger, Prodigal Son, Louvre 80 Alfred Stevens, On the Beach 81 Hals, Portrait of a Lady 82 Rembrandt, Head of a Woman, Nat. Gal. , Lon. 83 Ruisdael, Landscape 84 Hobbema, The Water Wheel, Amsterdam Mus. 85 Israels, Alone in the World 86 Mauve, Sheep 87 Lochner, Sts. John, Catharine, Matthew, London 88 Wolgemut, Crucifixion, Munich 89 Dürer, Praying Virgin, Augsburg 90 Holbein, Portrait, Hague Mus. 91 Piloty, Wise and Foolish Virgins 92 Leibl, In Church 93 Menzel, A Reader 94 Hogarth, Shortly after Marriage, Nat. Gal. , Lon. 95 Reynolds, Countess Spencer and Lord Althorp 96 Gainsborough, Blue Boy 97 Constable, Corn Field, Nat. Gal. , Lon. 98 Turner, Fighting Téméraire, Nat. Gal. , Lon. 99 Burne-Jones, Flamma Vestalis 100 Leighton, Helen of Troy 101 Watts, Love and Death 102 West, Peter Denying Christ, Hampton Court 103 Gilbert Stuart, Washington, Boston Mus. 104 Hunt, Lute Player 105 Eastman Johnson, Churning 106 Inness, Landscape 107 Winslow Homer, Undertow 108 Whistler, The White Girl 109 Sargent, "Carnation Lily, Lily Rose" 110 Chase, Alice, Art Institute, Chicago * * * * * GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. (This includes the leading accessible works that treat of painting ingeneral. For works on special periods or schools, see thebibliographical references at the head of each chapter. Forbibliography of individual painters consult, under proper names, Champlin and Perkins's _Cyclopedia_, as given below. ) Champlin and Perkins, _Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings_, New York. Adeline, _Lexique des Termes d'Art_. _Gazette des Beaux Arts_, Paris. Larousse, _Grand Dictionnaire Universel_, Paris. _L'Art, Revue hebdomadaire illustrée_, Paris. Bryan, _Dictionary of Painters_. _New edition_. Brockhaus, _Conversations-Lexikon_. Meyer, _Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon_, Berlin. Muther, _History of Modern Painting_. Agincourt, _History of Art by its Monuments_. Bayet, _Précis d'Histoire de l'Art_. Blanc, _Histoire des Peintres de toutes les Écoles_. Eastlake, _Materials for a History of Oil Painting_. Lübke, _History of Art, trans. By Clarence Cook_. Reber, _History of Ancient Art_. Reber, _History of Mediæval Art_. Schnasse, _Geschichte der Bildenden Künste_. Girard, _La Peinture Antique_. Viardot, _History of the Painters of all Schools_. Williamson (Ed. ), _Handbooks of Great Masters_. Woltmann and Woermann, _History of Painting_. * * * * * HISTORY OF PAINTING. INTRODUCTION. The origin of painting is unknown. The first important records of thisart are met with in Egypt; but before the Egyptian civilization themen of the early ages probably used color in ornamentation anddecoration, and they certainly scratched the outlines of men andanimals upon bone and slate. Traces of this rude primitive work stillremain to us on the pottery, weapons, and stone implements of thecave-dwellers. But while indicating the awakening of intelligence inearly man, they can be reckoned with as art only in a slightarchæological way. They show inclination rather than accomplishment--awish to ornament or to represent, with only a crude knowledge of howto go about it. The first aim of this primitive painting was undoubtedlydecoration--the using of colored forms for color and form only, asshown in the pottery designs or cross-hatchings on stone knives orspear-heads. The second, and perhaps later aim, was by imitating theshapes and colors of men, animals, and the like, to convey an idea ofthe proportions and characters of such things. An outline of acave-bear or a mammoth was perhaps the cave-dweller's way of tellinghis fellows what monsters he had slain. We may assume that it waspictorial record, primitive picture-written history. This early methodof conveying an idea is, in intent, substantially the same as thelater hieroglyphic writing and historical painting of the Egyptians. The difference between them is merely one of development. Thus thereis an indication in the art of Primitive Man of the two greatdepartments of painting existent to-day. 1. DECORATIVE PAINTING. 2. EXPRESSIVE PAINTING. Pure Decorative Painting is not usually expressive of ideas other thanthose of rhythmical line and harmonious color. It is not our subject. This volume treats of Expressive Painting; but in dealing with that itshould be borne in mind that Expressive Painting has always a more orless decorative effect accompanying it, and that must be spoken ofincidentally. We shall presently see the intermingling of both kindsof painting in the art of ancient Egypt--our first inquiry. CHAPTER I. EGYPTIAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Brugsch, _History of Egypt under the Pharaohs_; Budge, _Dwellers on the Nile_; Duncker, _History of Antiquity; Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs_; Ely, _Manual of Archæology_; Lepsius, _Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopen_; Maspero, _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_; Maspero, _Guide du Visiteur au Musée de Boulaq_; Maspero, _Egyptian Archæology_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Ancient Egypt_; Wilkinson, _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_. LAND AND PEOPLE: Egypt, as Herodotus has said, is "the gift of theNile, " one of the latest of the earth's geological formations, and yetone of the earliest countries to be settled and dominated by man. Itconsists now, as in the ancient days, of the valley of the Nile, bounded on the east by the Arabian mountains and on the west by theLibyan desert. Well-watered and fertile, it was doubtless at first apastoral and agricultural country; then, by its riverine traffic, acommercial country, and finally, by conquest, a land enriched with thespoils of warfare. Its earliest records show a strongly established monarchy. Dynastiesof kings called Pharaohs succeeded one another by birth or conquest. The king made the laws, judged the people, declared war, and wasmonarch supreme. Next to him in rank came the priests, who were notonly in the service of religion but in that of the state, ascounsellors, secretaries, and the like. The common people, with trueOriental lack of individuality, depending blindly on leaders, werelittle more than the servants of the upper classes. [Illustration: FIG. 1. --HUNTING IN THE MARSHES. TOMB OF TI, SACCARAH. (FROM PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. )] The Egyptian religion existing in the earliest days was a worship ofthe personified elements of nature. Each element had its particularcontrolling god, worshipped as such. Later on in Egyptian history thenumber of gods was increased, and each city had its trinity of godlikeprotectors symbolized by the propylæa of the temples. Future life wasa certainty, provided that the Ka, or spirit, did not fall a prey toTyphon, the God of Evil, during the long wait in the tomb for thejudgment-day. The belief that the spirit rested in the body untilfinally transported to the aaln fields (the Islands of the Blest, afterward adopted by the Greeks) was one reason for the carefulpreservation of the body by mummifying processes. Life itself was notmore important than death. Hence the imposing ceremonies of thefuneral and burial, the elaborate richness of the tomb and its wallpaintings. Perhaps the first Egyptian art arose through religiousobservance, and certainly the first known to us was sepulchral. ART MOTIVES: The centre of the Egyptian system was the monarch and hissupposed relatives, the gods. They arrogated to themselves the chiefthought of life, and the aim of the great bulk of the art was toglorify monarchy or deity. The massive buildings, still standingto-day in ruins, were built as the dwelling-places of kings or thesanctuaries of gods. The towers symbolized deity, the sculptures andpaintings recited the functional duties of presiding spirits, or thePharaoh's looks and acts. Almost everything about the public buildingsin painting and sculpture was symbolic illustration, picture-writtenhistory--written with a chisel and brush, written large that all mightread. There was no other safe way of preserving record. There were nobooks; the papyrus sheet, used extensively, was frail, and theEgyptians evidently wished their buildings, carvings, and paintings tolast into eternity. So they wrought in and upon stone. The samehieroglyphic character of their papyrus writings appeared cut andcolored on the palace walls, and above them and beside them thepictures ran as vignettes explanatory of the text. In a lessostentatious way the tombs perpetuated history in a similar manner, reciting the domestic scenes from the life of the individual, as thetemples and palaces the religious and monarchical scenes. In one form or another it was all record of Egyptian life, but thiswas not the only motive of their painting. The temples and palaces, designed to shut out light and heat, were long squares of heavy stone, gloomy as the cave from which their plan may have originated. Carvingand color were used to brighten and enliven the interior. The battles, the judgment scenes, the Pharaoh playing at draughts with his wives, the religious rites and ceremonies, were all given with brilliantarbitrary color, surrounded oftentimes by bordering bands of green, yellow, and blue. Color showed everywhere from floor to ceiling. Eventhe explanatory hieroglyphic texts ran in colors, lining the walls andwinding around the cylinders of stone. The lotus capitals, the friezeand architrave, all glowed with bright hues, and often the roofceiling was painted in blue and studded with golden stars. [Illustration: FIG. 2. --PORTRAIT OF QUEEN TAIA. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] All this shows a decorative motive in Egyptian painting, and howconstantly this was kept in view may be seen at times in thearrangement of the different scenes, the large ones being placed inthe middle of the wall and the smaller ones going at the top andbottom, to act as a frieze and dado. There were, then, two leadingmotives for Egyptian painting; (1) History, monarchical, religious, ordomestic; and (2) Decoration. TECHNICAL METHODS: Man in the early stages of civilization comprehendsobjects more by line than by color or light. The figure is notstudied in itself, but in its sun-shadow or silhouette. The Egyptianhieroglyph represented objects by outlines or arbitrary marks andconveyed a simple meaning without circumlocution. The Egyptianpainting was substantially an enlargement of the hieroglyph. There wasno attempt to place objects in the setting which they hold in nature. Perspective and light-and-shade were disregarded. Objects, of whatevernature, were shown in flat profile. In the human figure the shoulderswere square, the hips slight, the legs and arms long, the feet andhands flat. The head, legs, and arms were shown in profile, while thechest and eye were twisted to show the flat front view. There are onlyone or two full-faced figures among the remains of Egyptian painting. After the outline was drawn the enclosed space was filled in withplain color. In the absence of high light, or composed groups, prominence was given to an important figure, like that of the king, bymaking it much larger than the other figures. This may be seen in anyof the battle-pieces of Rameses II. , in which the monarch in hischariot is a giant where his followers are mere pygmies. In theabsence of perspective, receding figures of men or of horses weregiven by multiplied outlines of legs, or heads, placed before, orafter, or raised above one another. Flat water was represented byzigzag lines, placed as it were upon a map, one tree symbolized aforest, and one fortification a town. These outline drawings were not realistic in any exact sense. The facewas generally expressionless, the figure, evidently done from memoryor pattern, did not reveal anatomical structure, but was neverthelessgraceful, and in the representation of animals the sense of motion wasoften given with much truth. The color was usually an attempt atnature, though at times arbitrary or symbolic, as in the case ofcertain gods rendered with blue, yellow, or green skins. Thebackgrounds were always of flat color, arbitrary in hue, anddecorative only. The only composition was a balance by numbers, andthe processional scenes rose tier upon tier above one another in longpanels. [Illustration: FIG. 3. --OFFERINGS TO THE DEAD, WALL PAINTING, EIGHTEENTHDYNASTY. (FROM PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. )] Such work would seem almost ludicrous did we not keep in mind itsreason for existence. It was, first, symbolic story-telling art, andsecondly, architectural decoration. As a story-teller it was effectivebecause of its simplicity and directness. As decoration, the repeatedexpressionless face and figure, the arbitrary color, the absence ofperspective were not inappropriate then nor are they now. Egyptianpainting never was free from the decorative motive. Wall painting waslittle more than an adjunct of architecture, and probably grew out ofsculpture. The early statues were colored, and on the wall the chisel, like the flint of Primitive Man, cut the outline of the figure. Atfirst only this cut was filled with color, producing what has beencalled the koil-anaglyphic. In the final stage the line was made bydrawing with chalk or coal on prepared stucco, and the color, mixedwith gum-water (a kind of distemper), was applied to the wholeenclosed space. Substantially the same method of painting was usedupon other materials, such as wood, mummy cartonnage, papyrus; and inall its thousands of years of existence Egyptian painting neveradvanced upon or varied to any extent this one method of work. HISTORIC PERIODS: Egyptian art may be traced back as far as the Thirdor Fourth Memphitic dynasty of kings. The date is uncertain, but it issomewhere near 3, 500 B. C. The seat of empire, at that time, waslocated at Memphis in Lower Egypt, and it is among the remains of this Memphitic Period that the earliest and best painting is found. Infact, all Egyptian art, literature, language, civilization, seem attheir highest point of perfection in the period farthest removed fromus. In that earliest age the finest portrait busts were cut, and thepainting, found chiefly in the tombs and on the mummy-cases, was theattempted realistic with not a little of spirited individuality. Thefigure was rather short and squat, the face a little squarer than theconventional type afterward adopted, the action better, and thepositions, attitudes, and gestures more truthful to localcharacteristics. The domestic scenes--hunting, fishing, tilling, grazing--were all shown in the one flat, planeless, shadowless methodof representation, but with better drawing and color and more varietythan appeared later on. Still, more or less conventional types wereused, even in this early time, and continued to be used all throughEgyptian history. [Illustration: FIG. 4. --VIGNETTE ON PAPYRUS, LOUVRE. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] The Memphitic Period comes down to the eleventh dynasty. In thefifteenth dynasty comes the invasion of the so-called Hyksos, orShepherd Kings. Little is known of the Hyksos, and, in painting, thenext stage is the Theban Period, which, culminated in Thebes, in Upper Egypt, withRameses II. , of the nineteenth dynasty. Painting had then changedsomewhat both in subject and character. The time was one of greattemple and palace building, and, though the painting of _genre_subjects in tombs and sepulchres continued, the general body of artbecame more monumental and subservient to architecture. Painting wasput to work on temple and palace-walls, depicting processional scenes, either religious or monarchical, and vast in extent. The figure, too, changed slightly. It became longer, slighter, with a pronounced nose, thick lips, and long eye. From constant repetition, rather than anyset rule or canon, this figure grew conventional, and was reproducedas a type in a mechanical and unvarying manner for hundreds of years. It was, in fact, only a variation from the original Egyptian type seenin the tombs of the earliest dynasties. There was a great quantity ofart produced during the Theban Period, and of a graceful, decorativecharacter, but it was rather monotonous by repetition and filled withestablished mannerisms. The Egyptian really never was a free worker, never an artist expressing himself; but, for his day, a skilledmechanic following time-honored example. In the Saitic Period the seat of empire was once more in Lower Egypt, and arthad visibly declined with the waning power of the country. Allspontaneity seemed to have passed out of it, it was repetition ofrepetition by poor workmen, and the simplicity and purity of thetechnic were corrupted by foreign influences. With the Alexandrianepoch Egyptian art came in contact with Greek methods, and grewimitative of the new art, to the detriment of its own nativecharacter. Eventually it was entirely lost in the art of theGreco-Roman world. It was never other than conventional, produced by amethod almost as unvarying as that of the hieroglyphic writing, and inthis very respect characteristic and reflective of the unchangingOrientals. Technically it had its shortcomings, but it conveyed theproper information to its beholders and was serviceable and gracefuldecoration for Egyptian days. EXTANT PAINTINGS: The temples, palaces, and tombs of Egypt still reveal Egyptian painting in almost as perfect a state as when originally executed; the Ghizeh Museum has many fine examples; and there are numerous examples in the museums at Turin, Paris, Berlin, London, New York, and Boston. An interesting collection belongs to the New York Historical Society, and some of the latest "finds" of the Egypt Exploration Fund are in the Boston Museum. CHAPTER II. CHALDÆO-ASSYRIAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Babelon, _Manual of Oriental Antiquities_; Botta, _Monument de Ninive_; Budge, _Babylonian Life and History_; Duncker, _History of Antiquity_; Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_; Layard, _Discoveries Among Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_; Lenormant, _Manual of the Ancient History of the East_; Loftus, _Travels in Chaldæa and Susiana_; Maspero, _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria_; Place, _Ninive et l'Assyrie_; Sayce, _Assyria: Its Palaces, Priests, and People_. TIGRIS-EUPHRATES CIVILIZATION: In many respects the civilization alongthe Tigris-Euphrates was like that along the Nile. Both valleys weresettled by primitive peoples, who grew rapidly by virtue of favorableclimate and soil, and eventually developed into great nations headedby kings absolute in power. The king was the state in Egypt, and inAssyria the monarch was even more dominant and absolute. For thePharaohs shared architecture, painting, and sculpture with the gods;but the Sargonids seem to have arrogated the most of these things tothemselves alone. Religion was perhaps as real in Assyria as in Egypt, but it was lessapparent in art. Certain genii, called gods or demons, appear in thebas-reliefs, but it is not yet settled whether they represent gods ormerely legendary heroes or monsters of fable. There was no greatdemonstration of religion by form and color, as in Egypt. TheAssyrians were Semites, and religion with them was more a matter ofthe spirit than the senses--an image in the mind rather than an imagein metal or stone. The temple was not eloquent with the actions anddeeds of the gods, and even the tomb, that fruitful source of art inEgypt, was in Chaldæa undecorated and in Assyria unknown. No one knowswhat the Assyrians did with their dead, unless they carried them backto the fatherland of the race, the Persian Gulf region, as the nativetribes of Mesopotamia do to this day. ART MOTIVES: As in Egypt, there were two motives for art--illustrationand decoration. Religion, as we have seen, hardly obtained at all. Theking attracted the greatest attention. The countless bas-reliefs, cuton soft stone slabs, were pages from the history of the monarch inpeace and war, in council, in the chase, or in processional rites. Beside him and around him his officers came in for a share of thebackground glory. Occasionally the common people had representationsof their lives and their pursuits, but the main subject of all thevalley art was the king and his doings. Sculpture and painting werelargely illustrations accompanying a history written in theever-present cuneiform characters. [Illustration: FIG. 5. --ENAMELLED BRICK. NIMROUD. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] But, while serving as history, like the picture-writings of theEgyptians, this illustration was likewise decoration, and was designedwith that end in view. Rows upon rows of partly colored bas-reliefswere arranged like a dado along the palace-wall, and above themwall-paintings, or glazed tiles in patterns, carried out the colorscheme. Almost all of the color has now disappeared, but it must havebeen brilliant at one time, and was doubtless in harmony with thearchitecture. Both painting and sculpture were subordinate to anddependent upon architecture. Palace-building was the chief pursuit, and the other arts were called in mainly as adjuncts--ornamentalrecords of the king who built. [Illustration: FIG. 6. --ENAMELLED BRICK. KHORSABAD. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] THE TYPE, FORM, COLOR: There were only two distinct faces in Assyrianart--one with and one without a beard. Neither of them was a portraitexcept as attributes or inscriptions designated. The type wasunendingly repeated. Women appeared in only one or two isolated cases, and even these are doubtful. The warrior, a strong, coarse-membered, heavily muscled creation, with a heavy, expressionless, Semitic face, appeared everywhere. The figure was placed in profile, with eye andbust twisted to show the front view, and the long feet projected onebeyond the other, as in the Nile pictures. This was the Assyrian idealof strength, dignity, and majesty, established probably in the earlyages, and repeated for centuries with few characteristic variations. The figure was usually given in motion, walking, or riding, and hadlittle of that grace seen in Egyptian painting, but in its place agreat deal of rude strength. In modelling, the human form was not soknowingly rendered as the animal. The long Eastern clothing probablyprevented the close study of the figure. This failure in anatomicalexactness was balanced in part by minute details in the dress andaccessories, productive of a rich ornamental effect. Hard stone was not found in the Mesopotamian regions. Temples werebuilt of burnt brick, bas-reliefs were made upon alabaster slabs andheightened by coloring, and painting was largely upon tiles, withmineral paints, afterward glazed by fire. These glazed brick or tiles, with figured designs, were fixed upon the walls, arches, andarchivolts by bitumen mortar, and made up the first mosaics of whichwe have record. There was a further painting upon plaster indistemper, of which some few traces remain. It did not differ indesign from the bas-reliefs or the tile mosaics. The subjects used were the Assyrian type, shown somewhat slighter inpainting than in sculpture, animals, birds, and other objects; butthey were obviously not attempts at nature. The color was arbitrary, not natural, and there was little perspective, light-and-shade, orrelief. Heavy outline bands of color appeared about the object, andthe prevailing hues were yellow and blue. There was perhaps lesssymbolism and more direct representation in Assyria than in Egypt. There was also more feeling for perspective and space, as shown insuch objects as water and in the mountain landscapes of the latebas-reliefs; but, in the main, there was no advance upon Egypt. Therewas a difference which was not necessarily a development. Painting, aswe know the art to-day, was not practised in Chaldæa-Assyria. It wasnever free from a servitude to architecture and sculpture; it washampered by conventionalities; and the painter was more artisan thanartist, having little freedom or individuality. [Illustration: FIG. 7. --WILD ASS. BAS-RELIEF, BRITISH MUSEUM. (FROMPERROT AND CHIPIEZ. )] HISTORIC PERIODS: Chaldæa, of unknown antiquity, with Babylon itscapital, is accounted the oldest nation in the Tigris-Euphratesvalley, and, so far as is known, it was an original nation producingan original art. Its sculpture (especially in the Tello heads), andpresumably its painting, were more realistic and individual than anyother in the valley. Assyria coming later, and the heir of Chaldæa, was the Second Empire: There are two distinct periods of this Second Empire, thefirst lasting from 1, 400 B. C. , down to about 900 B. C. , and in artshowing a great profusion of bas-reliefs. The second closed about 625B. C. , and in art produced much glazed-tile work and a more elaboratesculpture and painting. After this the Chaldæan provinces gained theascendency again, and Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar, became the firstcity of Asia. But the new Babylon did not last long. It fell beforeCyrus and the Persians 536 B. C. Again, as in Egypt, the earliest artappears the purest and the simplest, and the years of Chaldæo-Assyrianhistory known to us carry a record of change rather than of progress inart. ART REMAINS: The most valuable collections of Chaldæo-Assyrian art are to be found in the Louvre and the British Museum. The other large museums of Europe have collections in this department, but all of them combined are little compared with the treasures that still lie buried in the mounds of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Excavations have been made at Mugheir, Warka, Khorsabad, Kouyunjik, and elsewhere, but many difficulties have thus far rendered systematic work impossible. The complete history of Chaldæo-Assyria and its art has yet to be written. PERSIAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before cited, Babelon, Duncker, Lenormant, Ely; Dieulafoy, _L'Art Antique de la Perse_; Flandin et Coste, _Voyage en Perse_; Justi, _Geschichte des alten Persiens_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Persia_. HISTORY AND ART MOTIVES: The Medes and Persians were the naturalinheritors of Assyrian civilization, but they did not improve theirbirthright. The Medes soon lost their power. Cyrus conquered them, andestablished the powerful Persian monarchy upheld for two hundred yearsby Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes. Substantially the same conditionssurrounded the Persians as the Assyrians--that is, so far as artproduction was concerned. Their conceptions of life were similar, andtheir use of art was for historic illustration of kingly doings andornamental embellishment of kingly palaces. Both sculpture andpainting were accessories of architecture. Of Median art nothing remains. The Persians left the record, but itwas not wholly of their own invention, nor was it very extensive orbrilliant. It had little originality about it, and was really only anecho of Assyria. The sculptors and painters copied their Assyrianpredecessors, repeating at Persepolis what had been better told atNineveh. [Illustration: FIG. 8. --LIONS' FRIEZE, SUSA. (FROM PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. )] TYPES AND TECHNIC: The same subjects, types, and technical methods inbas-relief, tile, and painting on plaster were followed under Dariusas under Shalmanezer. But the imitation was not so good as theoriginal. The warrior, the winged monsters, the animals all lostsomething of their air of brutal defiance and their strength ofmodelling. Heroes still walked in procession along the bas-reliefs andglazed tiles, but the figure was smaller, more effeminate, the hairand beard were not so long, the drapery fell in slightly indicatedfolds at times, and there was a profusion of ornamental detail. Someof this detail and some modifications in the figure showed theinfluence of foreign nations other than the Greek; but, in the main, Persian art followed in the footsteps of Assyrian art. It was the lastreflection of Mesopotamian splendor. For with the conquest of Persiaby Alexander the book of expressive art in that valley was closed, and, under Islam, it remains closed to this day. ART REMAINS: Persian painting is something about which little is known because little remains. The Louvre contains some reconstructed friezes made in mosaics of stamped brick and square tile, showing figures of lions and a number of archers. The coloring is particularly rich, and may give some idea of Persian pigments. Aside from the chief museums of Europe the bulk of Persian art is still seen half-buried in the ruins of Persepolis and elsewhere. PHOENICIAN, CYPRIOTE, AND ASIA MINOR PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before cited, Babelon, Duncker, Ely, Girard, Lenormant; Cesnola, _Cyprus_; Cesnola, _Cypriote Antiquities in Metropolitan Museum of Art_; Kenrick, _Phoenicia_; Movers, _Die Phonizier_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Phoenicia and Cyprus_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Sardinia, Judea, Syria and Asia Minor_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, etc. _; Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_. THE TRADING NATIONS: The coast-lying nations of the EasternMediterranean were hardly original or creative nations in a largesense. They were at different times the conquered dependencies ofEgypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and their lands were but bridges overwhich armies passed from east to west or from west to east. Located onthe Mediterranean between the great civilizations of antiquity theynaturally adapted themselves to circumstances, and became themiddlemen, the brokers, traders, and carriers of the ancient world. Their lands were not favorable to agriculture, but their sea-coastsrendered commerce easy and lucrative. They made a kingdom of the sea, and their means of livelihood were gathered from it. There is norecord that the Egyptians ever traversed the Mediterranean, theAssyrians were not sailors, the Greeks had not yet arisen, and soprobably Phoenicia and her neighbors had matters their own way. Colonies and trading stations were established at Cyprus, Carthage, Sardinia, the Greek islands, and the Greek mainland, and not onlyEastern goods but Eastern ideas were thus carried to the West. [Illustration: FIG. 9. --PAINTED HEAD FROM EDESSA. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] Politically, socially, and religiously these small middle nations wereinconsequential. They simply adapted their politics or faith to thenation that for the time had them under its heel. What semi-originalreligion they possessed was an amalgamation of the religions of othernations, and their gods of bronze, terra-cotta, and enamel wereirreverently sold in the market like any other produce. ART MOTIVES AND METHODS: Building, carving, and painting werepractised among the coastwise nations, but upon no such extensivescale as in either Egypt or Assyria. The mere fact that they werepeople of the sea rather than of the land precluded extensive orconcentrated development. Politically Phoenicia was divided amongfive cities, and her artistic strength was distributed in a similarmanner. Such art as was produced showed the religious and decorativemotives, and in its spiritless materialistic make-up, the commercialmotive. It was at the best a hybrid, mongrel art, borrowed from manysources and distributed to many points of the compass. At one time ithad a strong Assyrian cast, at another an Egyptian cast, and afterGreece arose it accepted a retroactive influence from there. It is impossible to characterize the Phoenician type, and even theCypriote type, though more pronounced, varies so with the differentinfluences that it has no very striking individuality. Technicallyboth the Phoenician and Cypriote were fair workmen in bronze andstone, and doubtless taught many technical methods to the earlyGreeks, besides making known to them those deities afterward adoptedunder the names of Aphrodite, Adonis, and Heracles, and familiarizingthem with the art forms of Egypt and Assyria. [Illustration: FIG. 10. --CYPRIOTE VASE DECORATION. (FROM PERROT ANDCHIPIEZ. )] As for painting, there was undoubtedly figured decoration upon wallsof stone and plaster, but there is not enough left to us from all thesmall nations like Phoenicia, Judea, Cyprus, and the kingdoms ofAsia Minor, put together, to patch up a disjointed history. The firstlands to meet the spoiler, their very ruins have perished. All thatthere is of painting comes to us in broken potteries and color traceson statuary. The remains of sculpture and architecture are of coursebetter preserved. None of this intermediate art holds much rank byvirtue of its inherent worth. It is its influence upon the West--theideas, subjects, and methods it imparted to the Greeks--that gives itimportance in art history. ART REMAINS: In painting chiefly the vases in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, the Louvre, British and Berlin Museums. These give a poor and incomplete idea of the painting in Asia Minor, Phoenicia and her colonies. The terra-cottas, figurines in bronze, and sculptures can be studied to more advantage. The best collection of Cypriote antiquities is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. A new collection of Judaic art has been recently opened in the Louvre. CHAPTER III. GREEK PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Baumeister, _Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums_--article "_Malerei_;" Birch, _History of Ancient Pottery_; Brunn, _Geschichte der griechischen Künstler_; Collignon, _Mythologie figurée de la Grèce_; Collignon, _Manuel d'Archaeologie Grecque_; Cros et Henry, _L'Encaustique et les autres procédés de Peinture chez les Anciens_; Girard, _La Peinture Antique_; Murray, _Handbook of Greek Archæology_; Overbeck, _Antiken Schriftquellen zur geschichte der bildenen Kunste bie den Griechen_; Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Greece_; Woerman, _Die Landschaft in der Kunst der antiken Volker_; _see also books on Etruscan and Roman painting_. GREECE AND THE GREEKS: The origin of the Greek race is not positivelyknown. It is reasonably supposed that the early settlers in Greececame from the region of Asia Minor, either across the Hellespont orthe sea, and populated the Greek islands and the mainland. When thiswas done has been matter of much conjecture. The early history islost, but art remains show that in the period before Homer the Greekswere an established race with habits and customs distinctlyindividual. Egyptian and Asiatic influences are apparent in their artat this early time, but there is, nevertheless, the mark of a racepeculiarly apart from all the races of the older world. The development of the Greek people was probably helped by favorableclimate and soil, by commerce and conquest, by republican institutionsand political faith, by freedom of mind and of body; but all thesetogether are not sufficient to account for the keenness of intellect, the purity of taste, and the skill in accomplishment which showed inevery branch of Greek life. The cause lies deeper in the fundamentalmake-up of the Greek mind, and its eternal aspiration toward mental, moral, and physical ideals. Perfect mind, perfect body, perfectconduct in this world were sought-for ideals. The Greeks aspired tocompleteness. The course of education and race development trainedthem physically as athletes and warriors, mentally as philosophers, law-makers, poets, artists, morally as heroes whose lives and actionsemulated those of the gods, and were almost perfect for this world. ART MOTIVES: Neither the monarchy nor the priesthood commanded theservices of the artist in Greece, as in Assyria and Egypt. There wasno monarch in an oriental sense, and the chosen leaders of the Greeksnever, until the late days, arrogated art to themselves. It wassomething for all the people. In religion there was a pantheon of gods established and worshippedfrom the earliest ages, but these gods were more like epitomes ofGreek ideals than spiritual beings. They were the personified virtuesof the Greeks, exemplars of perfect living; and in worshipping themthe Greek was really worshipping order, conduct, repose, dignity, perfect life. The gods and heroes, as types of moral and physicalqualities, were continually represented in an allegorical or legendarymanner. Athene represented noble warfare, Zeus was majestic dignityand power, Aphrodite love, Phoebus song, Niké triumph, and all thelesser gods, nymphs, and fauns stood for beauties of nature or oflife. The great bulk of Greek architecture, sculpture, and paintingwas put forth to honor these gods or heroes, and by so doing theartist repeated the national ideals and honored himself. The firstmotive of Greek art, then, was to praise Hellas and the Hellenic viewof life. In part it was a religious motive, but with little of thatspiritual significance and belief which ruled in Egypt, and later onin Italy. [Illustration: FIG. 11. --ATTIC GRAVE PAINTING. (FROM BAUMEISTER. )] A second and ever-present motive in Greek painting was decoration. This appears in the tomb pottery of the earliest ages, and was carriedon down to the latest times. Vase painting, wall painting, tablet andsculpture painting were all done with a decorative motive in view. Even the easel or panel pictures had some decorative effect aboutthem, though they were primarily intended to convey ideas other thanthose of form and color. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The gods and heroes, their lives and adventures, formed the early subjects of Greek painting. Certain themes takenfrom the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" were as frequently shown as, afterward, the Annunciations in Italian painting. The traditionalsubjects, the Centaurs and Lapiths, the Amazon war, Theseus andAriadne, Perseus and Andromeda, were frequently depicted. Humanity andactual Greek life came in for its share. Single figures, still-life, _genre_, caricature, all were shown, and as painting neared theAlexandrian age a semi-realistic portraiture came into vogue. The materials employed by the Greeks and their methods of work aresomewhat difficult to ascertain, because there are few Greek pictures, except those on the vases, left to us. From the confusing accounts ofthe ancient writers, the vases, some Greek slabs in Italy, and theRoman paintings imitative of the Greek, we may gain a general idea. The early Greek work was largely devoted to pottery and tombdecoration, in which much in manner and method was borrowed from Asia, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Later on, painting appeared in flat outline onstone or terra-cotta slabs, sometimes representing processionalscenes, as in Egypt, and doubtless done in a hybrid fresco-worksimilar to the Egyptian method. Wall paintings were done in fresco anddistemper, probably upon the walls themselves, and also upon panelsafterward let into the wall. Encaustic painting (color mixed with waxupon the panel and fused with a hot spatula) came in with theSikyonian school. It is possible that the oil medium and canvas wereknown, but not probable that either was ever used extensively. There is no doubt about the Greeks being expert draughtsmen, thoughthis does not appear until late in history. They knew the outlineswell, and drew them with force and grace. That they modelled in strongrelief is more questionable. Light-and-shade was certainly employed inthe figure, but not in any modern way. Perspective in both figures andlandscape was used; but the landscape was at first symbolic andrarely got beyond a decorative background for the figure. Greekcomposition we know little about, but may infer that it was largely aseries of balances, a symmetrical adjustment of objects to fill agiven space with not very much freedom allowed to the artist. Inatmosphere, sunlight, color, and those peculiarly sensuous charms thatbelong to painting, there is no reason to believe that the Greeksapproached the moderns. Their interest was chiefly centred in thehuman figure. Landscape, with its many beauties, was reserved formodern hands to disclose. Color was used in abundance, without doubt, but it was probably limited to the leading hues, with little of thatrefinement or delicacy known in painting to-day. ART HISTORY: For the history of Greek painting we have to rely uponthe words of Aristotle, Plutarch, Pliny, Quintilian, Lucian, Cicero, Pausanias. Their accounts appear to be partly substantiated by thevase paintings, and such few slabs and Roman frescos as remain to us. There is no consecutive narrative. The story of painting originatingfrom a girl seeing the wall-silhouette of her lover and filling it inwith color, and the conjecture of painting having developed fromembroidery work, have neither of them a foundation in fact. Theearliest settlers of Greece probably learned painting from thePhoenicians, and employed it, after the Egyptian, Assyrian, andPhoenician manner, on pottery, terra-cotta slabs, and rudesculpture. It developed slower than sculpture perhaps; but were thereanything of importance left to judge from, we should probably findthat it developed in much the same manner as sculpture. Down to 500B. C. There was little more than outline filled in with flatmonochromatic paint and with a decorative effect similar, perhaps, tothat of the vase paintings. After that date come the more importantnames of artists mentioned by the ancient writers. It is difficult toassign these artists to certain periods or schools, owing to theinsufficient knowledge we have about them. The followingclassifications and assignments may, therefore, in some instances, bequestioned. [Illustration: FIG. 12. --MUSE OF CORTONA, CORTONA MUSEUM. ] OLDER ATTIC SCHOOL: The first painter of rank was Polygnotus (fl. 475-455 B. C. ), sometimes called the founder of Greek painting, becauseperhaps he was one of the first important painters in Greece proper. He seems to have been a good outline draughtsman, producing figures inprofile, with little attempt at relief, perspective, orlight-and-shade. His colors were local tones, but probably more likenature and more varied than anything in Egyptian painting. Landscapes, buildings, and the like, were given in a symbolic manner. Portraiturewas a generalization, and in figure compositions the names of theprincipal characters were written near them for purposes ofidentification. The most important works of Polygnotus were the wallpaintings for the Assembly Room of the Knidians at Delphi. Thesubjects related to the Trojan War and the adventures of Ulysses. Opposed to this flat, unrelieved style was the work of a follower, Agatharchos of Samos (fl. End of fifth century B. C. ). He was ascene-painter, and by the necessities of his craft was led towardnature. Stage effect required a study of perspective, variation oflight, and a knowledge of the laws of optics. The slight outlinedrawing of his predecessor was probably superseded by effective massesto create illusion. This was a distinct advance toward nature. Apollodorus (fl. End of fifth century B. C. ) applied the principles ofAgatharchos to figures. According to Plutarch, he was the first todiscover variation in the shade of colors, and, according to Pliny, the first master to paint objects as they appeared in nature. He hadthe title of _skiagraphos_ (shadow-painter), and possibly gave asemi-natural background with perspective. This was an improvement, butnot a perfection. It is not likely that the backgrounds were otherthan conventional settings for the figure. Even these were not at onceaccepted by the painters of the period, but were turned to profit inthe hands of the followers. After the Peloponnesian Wars the art of painting seems to haveflourished elsewhere than in Athens, owing to the Athenian loss ofsupremacy. Other schools sprang up in various districts, and one tocall for considerable mention by the ancient writers was the IONIAN SCHOOL, which in reality had existed from the sixth century. The painters of this school advanced upon the work of Apollodorus asregards realistic effect. Zeuxis, whose fame was at its height duringthe Peloponnesian Wars, seems to have regarded art as a matter ofillusion, if one may judge by the stories told of his work. The taleof his painting a bunch of grapes so like reality that the birds cameto peck at them proves either that the painter's motive was deception, or that the narrator of the tale picked out the deceptive part of hispicture for admiration. He painted many subjects, like Helen, Penelope, and many _genre_ pieces on panel. Quintilian says heoriginated light-and-shade, an achievement credited by Plutarch toApollodorus. It is probable that he advanced light-and-shade. In illusion he seems to have been outdone by a rival, Parrhasios ofEphesus. Zeuxis deceived the birds with painted grapes, but Parrhasiosdeceived Zeuxis with a painted curtain. There must have been knowledgeof color, modelling, and relief to have produced such an illusion, butthe aim was petty and unworthy of the skill. There was evidently anadvance technically, but some decline in the true spirit of art. Parrhasios finally suffered defeat at the hands of Timanthes ofKythnos, by a Contest between Ajax and Ulysses for the Arms ofAchilles. Timanthes's famous work was the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, ofwhich there is a supposed Pompeian copy. SIKYONIAN SCHOOL: This school seems to have sprung up after thePeloponnesian Wars, and was perhaps founded by Eupompos, acontemporary of Parrhasios. His pupil Pamphilos brought the school tomaturity. He apparently reacted from the deception motive of Zeuxisand Parrhasios, and taught academic methods of drawing, composing, andpainting. He was also credited with bringing into use the encausticmethod of painting, though it was probably known before his time. Hispupil, Pausias, possessed some freedom of creation in _genre_ andstill-life subjects. Pliny says he had great technical skill, as shownin the foreshortening of a black ox by variations of the black tones, and he obtained some fame by a figure of Methè (Intoxication) drinkingfrom a glass, the face being seen through the glass. Again themotives seem trifling, but again advancing technical power is shown. [Illustration: FIG. 13. --ODYSSEY LANDSCAPE, VATICAN. (FROM WOLTMANN ANDWOERMANN. )] THEBAN-ATTIC SCHOOL: This was the fourth school of Greek painting. Nikomachus (fl. About 360 B. C. ), a facile painter, was at its head. His pupil, Aristides, painted pathetic scenes, and was perhaps asremarkable for teaching art to the celebrated Euphranor (fl. 360 B. C. )as for his own productions. Euphranor had great versatility in thearts, and in painting was renowned for his pictures of the Olympiangods at Athens. His successor, Nikias (fl. 340-300 B. C. ), was acontemporary of Praxiteles, the sculptor, and was possibly influencedby him in the painting of female figures. He was a technician ofability in composition, light-and-shade, and relief, and was praisedfor the roundness of his figures. He also did some tinting ofsculpture, and is said to have tinted some of the works ofPraxiteles. LATE PAINTERS: Contemporary with and following these last-namedartists were some celebrated painters who really belong to thebeginning of the Hellenistic Period (323 B. C. ). At their head wasApelles, the painter of Philip and Alexander, and the climax of Greekpainting. He painted many gods, heroes, and allegories, with much"gracefulness, " as Pliny puts it. The Italian Botticelli, seventeenhundred years after him, tried to reproduce his celebrated Calumny, from Lucian's description of it. His chief works were his AphroditeAnadyomene, carried to Rome by Augustus, and the portrait of Alexanderwith the Thunder-bolt. He was undoubtedly a superior man technically. Protogenes rivalled him, if we are to believe Petronius, by the foamon a dog's mouth and the wonder in the eye of a startled pheasant. Aëtion, the painter of Alexander's Marriage to Roxana, was not able toturn the aim of painting from this deceptive illusion. AfterAlexander, painting passed still further into the imitative and thetheatrical, and when not grandiloquent was infinitely little overcobbler-shops and huckster-stalls. Landscape for purposes ofdecorative composition, and floor painting, done in mosaic, came induring the time of the Diadochi. There were no great names in thelatter days, and such painters as still flourished passed on to Rome, there to produce copies of the works of their predecessors. It is hard to reconcile the unworthy motive attributed to Greekpainting by the ancient writers with the high aim of Greek sculpture. It is easier to think (and it is more probable) that the writers knewvery little about art, and that they missed the spirit of Greekpainting in admiring its insignificant details. That paintingtechnically was at a high point of perfection as regards the figure, even the imitative Roman works indicate, and it can hardly be doubtedthat in spirit it was at one time equally strong. EXTANT REMAINS: There are few wall or panel pictures of Greek times in existence. Four slabs of stone in the Naples Museum, with red outline drawings of Theseus, Silenos, and some figures with masks, are probably Greek work from which the color has scaled. A number of Roman copies of Greek frescos and mosaics are in the Vatican, Capitoline, and Naples Museums. All these pieces show an imitation of late Hellenistic art--not the best period of Greek development. THE VASES: The history of Greek painting in its remains is traced with some accuracy in the decorative figures upon the vases. The first ware--dating before the seventh century B. C. --seems free from oriental influences in its designs. The vase is reddish, the decoration is in tiers, bands, or zig-zags, usually in black or brown, without the human figure. The second kind of ware dates from about the middle of the seventh century. It shows meander, wave, and other designs, and is called the "geometrical" style. Later on animals, rosettes, and vegetation appear that show Assyrian influence. The decoration is profuse and the rude human figure subordinate to it. The design is in black or dark-brown, on a cream-colored slip. The third kind of ware is the archaic or "strong" style. It dates from 500 B. C. To the Peloponnesian Wars, and is marked by black figures upon a yellow or red ground. White and purple are also used to define flesh, hair, and white objects. The figure is stiff, the action awkward, the composition is freer than before, but still conventional. The subjects are the gods, demi-gods, and heroes in scenes from their lives and adventures. The fourth kind of ware dates down into the Hellenistic age and shows red figures surrounded by a black ground. The figure, the drawing, the composition are better than at any other period and suggest a high excellence in other forms of Greek painting. After Alexander, vase painting seems to have shared the fate of wall and panel painting. There was a striving for effect, with ornateness and extravagance, and finally the art passed out entirely. There was an establishment founded in Southern Italy which imitated the Greek and produced the Apulian ware, but the Romans gave little encouragement to vase painting, and about 65 B. C. It disappeared. Almost all the museums of the world have collections of Greek vases. The British, Berlin, and Paris collections are perhaps as complete as any. [Illustration: FIG. 14. --AMPHORE, LOWER ITALY. ] ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: See Bibliography of Greek Painting and also Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_; Graul, _Die Portratgemalde aus den Grabstatten des Faiyum_; Helbig, _Die Wandgemalde Campaniens_; Helbig, _Untersuchungen uber die Campanische Wandmalerei_; Mau, _Geschichte der Decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeii_; Martha, _L'Archéologie Étrusque et Romaine_. ETRUSCAN PAINTING: Painting in Etruria has not a great deal ofinterest for us just here. It was largely decorative and sepulchral inmotive, and was employed in the painting of tombs, and upon vases andother objects placed in the tombs. It had a native way of expressingitself, which at first was neither Greek nor Oriental, and yet areminder of both. Technically it was not well done. Before 500 B. C. Itwas almost childish in the drawing. After that date the figures werebetter, though short and squat. Those on the vases usually showoutline drawing filled in with dull browns and yellows. Finally therewas a mingling of Etruscan with Greek elements, and an imitation ofGreek methods. It was at best a hybrid art, but of some importancefrom an archæological point of view. ROMAN PAINTING: Roman art is an appendix to the art history of Greece. It originated little in painting, and was content to perpetuate thetraditions of Greece in an imitative way. What was worse, it copiedthe degeneracy of Greece by following the degenerate Hellenisticpaintings. In motive and method it was substantially the same work asthat of the Greeks under the Diadochi. The subjects, again, were oftentaken from Greek story, though there were Roman historical scenes, _genre_ pieces, and many portraits. [Illustration: FIG. 15. --RITUAL SCENE, PALATINE WALL PAINTING. (FROMWOLTMANN AND WOERMANN. )] In the beginning of the Empire tablet or panel painting was ratherabandoned in favor of mural decoration. That is to say, figures orgroups were painted in fresco on the wall and then surrounded bygeometrical, floral, or architectural designs to give the effect of apanel let into the wall. Thus painting assumed a more decorativenature. Vitruvius says in effect that in the early days nature wasfollowed in these wall paintings, but later on they became ornate andoverdone, showing many unsupported architectural façades andimpossible decorative framings. This can be traced in the Roman andPompeian frescos. There were four kinds of these wall paintings. (1. )Those that covered all the walls of a room and did away with dado, frieze, and the like, such as figures with large landscapebackgrounds showing villas and trees. (2. ) Small paintings separatedor framed by pilasters. (3. ) Panel pictures let into the wall orpainted with that effect. (4. ) Single figures with architecturalbackgrounds. The single figures were usually the best. They had graceof line and motion and all the truth to nature that decorationrequired. Some of the backgrounds were flat tints of red or blackagainst which the figure was placed. In the larger pieces thecomposition was rather rambling and disjointed, and the color harsh. In light-and-shade and relief they probably followed the Greekexample. [Illustration: FIG. 16. --PORTRAIT-HEAD. (FROM FAYOUM, GRAF COL. )] ROMAN PAINTERS: During the first five centuries Rome was between theinfluences of Etruria and Greece. The first paintings in Rome of whichthere is record were done in the Temple of Ceres by the Greek artistsof Lower Italy, Gorgasos and Damophilos (fl. 493 B. C. ). They weredoubtless somewhat like the vase paintings--profile work, withoutlight, shade, or perspective. At the time and after Alexander Greekinfluence held sway. Fabius Pictor (fl. About 300 B. C. ) is one of thecelebrated names in historical painting, and later on Pacuvius, Metrodorus, and Serapion are mentioned. In the last century of theRepublic, Sopolis, Dionysius, and Antiochus Gabinius excelled inportraiture. Ancient painting really ends for us with the destructionof Pompeii (79 A. D. ), though after that there were interestingportraits produced, especially those found in the Fayoum (Egypt). [1] [Footnote 1: See Scribner's Magazine, vol. V. , p. 219, New Series. ] EXTANT REMAINS: The frescos that are left to us to-day are largely the work of mechanical decorators rather than creative artists. They are to be seen in Rome, in the Baths of Titus, the Vatican, Livia's Villa, Farnesina, Rospigliosi, and Barberini Palaces, Baths of Caracalla, Capitoline and Lateran Museums, in the houses of excavated Pompeii, and the Naples Museum. Besides these there are examples of Roman fresco and distemper in the Louvre and other European Museums. Examples of Etruscan painting are to be seen in the Vatican, Cortona, the Louvre, the British Museum and elsewhere. CHAPTER IV. ITALIAN PAINTING. EARLY CHRISTIAN AND MEDIÆVAL PERIOD. 200-1250. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Bayet, _L'Art Byzantin_; Bennett, _Christian Archæology_; Bosio, _La Roma Sotterranea_; Burckhardt, _The Cicerone, an Art Guide to Painting in Italy, ed. By Crowe_; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _New History of Painting in Italy_; De Rossi, _La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana_; De Rossi, _Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana_; Didron, _Christian Iconography_; Eastlake (Kügler's), _Handbook of Painting--The Italian Schools_; Garrucci, _Storia dell' Arte Cristiana_; Gerspach, _La Mosaïque_; Lafenestre, _La Peinture Italienne_; Lanzi, _History of Painting in Italy_; Lecoy de la Marche, _Les Manuscrits et la Miniature_; Lindsay, _Sketches of the History of Christian Art_; Martigny, _Dictionnaire des Antiques Chrétiennes_; Pératé, _L'Archeologie Chretienne_; Reber, _History of Mediæval Art_; Rio, _Poetry of Christian Art_; Lethaby, _Medieval Art_; Smith and Cheetham, _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_. RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: Out of the decaying civilization of Rome spranginto life that remarkable growth known as Christianity. It was notwelcomed by the Romans. It was scoffed at, scourged, persecuted, and, at one time, nearly exterminated. But its vitality was stronger thanthat of its persecutor, and when Rome declined, Christianity utilizedthe things that were Roman, while striving to live for ideas that wereChristian. [Illustration: FIG. 17. --CHAMBER IN CATACOMBS, SHOWING WALLDECORATION. ] There was no revolt, no sudden change. The Christian idea made hasteslowly, and at the start it was weighed down with many paganisms. TheChristians themselves in all save religious faith, were Romans, andinherited Roman tastes, manners, and methods. But the Roman world, with all its classicism and learning, was dying. The decline sociallyand intellectually was with the Christians as well as the Romans. There was good reason for it. The times were out of joint, and almosteverything was disorganized, worn out, decadent. The military life ofthe Empire had begun to give way to the monastic and feudal life ofthe Church. Quarrels and wars between the powers kept life at feverheat. In the fifth century came the inpouring of the Goths and Huns, and with them the sacking and plunder of the land. Misery andsqualor, with intellectual blackness, succeeded. Art, science, literature, and learning degenerated to mere shadows of their formerselves, and a semi-barbarism reigned for five centuries. During allthis dark period Christian painting struggled on in a feeble way, seeking to express itself. It started Roman in form, method, and even, at times, in subject; it ended Christian, but not without a longperiod of gradual transition, during which it was influenced from manysources and underwent many changes. ART MOTIVES: As in the ancient world, there were two principal motivesfor painting in early Christian times--religion and decoration. Religion was the chief motive, but Christianity was a very differentreligion from that of the Greeks and Romans. The Hellenistic faith wasa worship of nature, a glorification of humanity, an exaltation ofphysical and moral perfections. It dealt with the material and thetangible, and Greek art appealed directly to the sensuous and earthlynature of mankind. The Hebraic faith or Christianity was just theopposite of this. It decried the human, the flesh, and the worldly. Itwould have nothing to do with the beauty of this earth. Its hopes werecentred upon the life hereafter. The teaching of Christ was thehumility and the abasement of the human in favor of the spiritual andthe divine. Where Hellenism appealed to the senses, Hebraism appealedto the spirit. In art the fine athletic figure, or, for that matter, any figure, was an abomination. The early Church fathers opposed it. It was forbidden by the Mosaic decalogue and savored of idolatry. But what should take its place in art? How could the new Christianideas be expressed without form? Symbolism came in, but it wasinsufficient. A party in the Church rose up in favor of more directrepresentation. Art should be used as an engine of the Church to teachthe Bible to those who could not read. This argument held good, andnotwithstanding the opposition of the Iconoclastic party painting grewin favor. It lent itself to teaching and came under ecclesiasticaldomination. As it left the nature of the classic world and loosenedits grasp on things tangible it became feeble and decrepit in itsform. While it grew in sentiment and religious fervor it lost inbodily vigor and technical ability. [Illustration: FIG. 18. --CATACOMB FRESCO. CRYPT OF S. CECILIA. THIRDCENTURY. ] For many centuries the religious motive held strong, and art was theservant of the Church. It taught the Bible truths, but it alsoembellished and adorned the interiors of the churches. All thefrescos, mosaics, and altar-pieces had a decorative motive in theircoloring and setting. The church building was a house of refuge forthe oppressed, and it was made attractive not only in its lines andproportions but in its ornamentation. Hence the two motives of theearly work--religious teaching and decoration. SUBJECTS AND TECHNICAL METHODS: There was no distinct Judaic orChristian type used in the very early art. The painters took theirmodels directly from the Roman frescos and marbles. It was the classicfigure and the classic costume, and those who produced the paintingof the early period were the degenerate painters of the classic world. The figure was rather short and squat, coarse in the joints, hands, and feet, and almost expressionless in the face. Christian life atthat time was passion-strung, but the faces in art do not show it, forthe reason that the Roman frescos were the painter's model, not thepeople of the Christian community about him. There was nothing like arealistic presentation at this time. The type alone was given. In the drawing it was not so good as that shown in the Roman andPompeian frescos. There was a mechanism about its production, acopying by unskilled hands, a negligence or an ignorance of form thatshowed everywhere. The coloring, again, was a conventional scheme offlat tints in reddish-browns and bluish-greens, with heavy outlinebands of brown. There was little perspective or background, and thefigures in panels were separated by vines, leaves, or other ornamentaldivision lines. Some relief was given to the figure by the brownoutlines. Light-and-shade was not well rendered, and composition wasformal. The great part of this early work was done in fresco after theRoman formula, and was executed on the walls of the Catacombs. Otherforms of art showed in the gilded glasses, in manuscript illumination, and, later, in the mosaics. Technically the work begins to decline from the beginning inproportion as painting was removed from the knowledge of the ancientworld. About the fifth century the figure grew heavy and stiff. A newtype began to show itself. The Roman toga was exchanged for the longliturgical garment which hid the proportions of the body, the linesgrew hard and dark, a golden nimbus appeared about the head, and thepatriarchal in appearance came into art. The youthful Orphic face ofChrist changed to a solemn visage, with large, round eyes, saint-likebeard, and melancholy air. The classic qualities were fastdisappearing. Eastern types and elements were being introducedthrough Byzantium. Oriental ornamentation, gold embossing, rich colorwere doing away with form, perspective, light-and-shade, andbackground. [Illustration: FIG. 19. --CHRIST AS GOOD SHEPHERD. MOSAIC, RAVENNA, FIFTH CENTURY. ] The color was rich and the mechanical workmanship fair for the time, but the figure had become paralytic. It shrouded itself in a sack-likebrocaded gown, had no feet at times, and instead of standing on theground hung in the air. Facial expression ran to contorted features, holiness became moroseness, and sadness sulkiness. The flesh wasbrown, the shadows green-tinted, giving an unhealthy look to thefaces. Add to this the gold ground (a Persian inheritance), the gildedhigh lights, the absence of perspective, and the composing of groupsso that the figures looked piled one upon another instead of receding, and we have the style of painting that prevailed in Byzantium andItaly from about the ninth to the thirteenth century. Nothing of atechnical nature was in its favor except the rich coloring and themechanical adroitness of the fitting. EARLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING: The earliest Christian painting appeared onthe walls of the Catacombs in Rome. These were decorated with panelsand within the panels were representations of trailing vines, leaves, fruits, flowers, with birds and little genii or cupids. It waspainting similar to the Roman work, and had no Christian significancethough in a Christian place. Not long after, however, the desire toexpress something of the faith began to show itself in a symbolic way. The cups and the vases became marked with the fish, because the Greekspelling of the word "icthus" gave the initials of the Christianconfession of faith. The paintings of the shepherd bearing a sheepsymbolized Christ and his flock; the anchor meant the Christian hope;the phoenix immortality; the ship the Church; the cock watchfulness, and so on. And at this time the decorations began to have a doublemeaning. The vine came to represent the "I am the vine" and the birdsgrew longer wings and became doves, symbolizing pure Christian souls. It has been said this form of art came about through fear ofpersecution, that the Christians hid their ideas in symbols becauseopen representation would be followed by violence and desecration. Such was hardly the case. The emperors persecuted the living, but thedead and their sepulchres were exempt from sacrilege by Roman law. They probably used the symbol because they feared the Roman figure andknew no other form to take its place. But symbolism did not supply thepopular need; it was impossible to originate an entirely new figure;so the painters went back and borrowed the old Roman form. Christappeared as a beardless youth in Phrygian costume, the Virgin Mary wasa Roman matron, and the Apostles looked like Roman senators wearingthe toga. Classic story was also borrowed to illustrate Bible truth. Hermescarrying the sheep was the Good Shepherd, Psyche discovering Cupid wasthe curiosity of Eve, Ulysses closing his ears to the Sirens was theChristian resisting the tempter. The pagan Orpheus charming theanimals of the wood was finally adopted as a symbol, or perhaps anideal likeness of Christ. Then followed more direct representation inclassic form and manner, the Old Testament prefiguring and emphasizingthe New. Jonah appeared cast into the sea and cast by the whale on dryland again as a symbol of the New Testament resurrection, and also asa representation of the actual occurrence. Moses striking the rocksymbolized life eternal, and David slaying Goliath was Christvictorious. [Illustration: FIG. 20. --CHRIST AND SAINTS. FRESCO. S. GENEROSA, SEVENTH CENTURY (?). ] The chronology of the Catacombs painting is very much mixed, but it isquite certain there was degeneracy from the start. The cause wasneglect of form, neglect of art as art, mechanical copying instead ofnature study, and finally, the predominance of the religious idea overthe forms of nature. With Constantine Christianity was recognized asthe national religion. Christian art came out of the Catacombs andbegan to show itself in illuminations, mosaics, and churchdecorations. Notwithstanding it was now free from restraint it did notimprove. Church traditions prevailed, sentiment bordered uponsentimentality, and the technic of painting passed from bad to worse. The decline continued during the sixth and seventh centuries, owingsomewhat perhaps to the influence of Byzantium and the introductioninto Italy of Eastern types and elements. In the eighth century theIconoclastic controversy broke out again in fury with the edict of Leothe Isaurian. This controversy was a renewal of the old quarrel in theChurch about the use of pictures and images. Some wished them forinstruction in the Word; others decried them as leading to idolatry. It was a long quarrel of over a hundred years' duration, and a deadlyone for art. When it ended, the artists were ordered to follow thetraditions, not to make any new creations, and not to model any figurein the round. The nature element in art was quite dead at that time, and the order resulted only in diverting the course of painting towardthe unrestricted miniatures and manuscripts. The native Italian artwas crushed for a time by this new ecclesiastical burden. It did notentirely disappear, but it gave way to the stronger, though equallyrestricted art that had been encroaching upon it for a long time--theart of Byzantium. BYZANTINE PAINTING: Constantinople was rebuilt and rechristened byConstantine, a Christian emperor, in the year 328 A. D. It became astronghold of Christian traditions, manners, customs, art. But it wasnot quite the same civilization as that of Rome and the West. It wasbordered on the south and east by oriental influences, and much ofEastern thought, method, and glamour found its way into the Christiancommunity. The artists fought this influence, stickling a long timefor the severer classicism of ancient Greece. For when Rome fell thetraditions of the Old World centred around Constantinople. But classicform was ever being encroached upon by oriental richness of materialand color. The struggle was a long but hopeless one. As in Italy, form failed century by century. When, in the eighth century, theIconoclastic controversy cut away the little Greek existing in it, theoriental ornament was about all that remained. There was no chance for painting to rise under the prevailingconditions. Free artistic creation was denied the artist. An advocateof painting at the Second Nicene Council declared that: "It is not theinvention of the painter that creates the picture, but an inviolablelaw of the Catholic Church. It is not the painter but the holy fatherswho have to invent and dictate. To them manifestly belongs thecomposition, to the painter only the execution. " Painting was in astrait-jacket. It had to follow precedent and copy what had gonebefore in old Byzantine patterns. Both in Italy and in Byzantium thecreative artist had passed away in favor of the skilled artisan--therepeater of time-honored forms or colors. The workmanship was good forthe time, and the coloring and ornamental borders made a rich setting, but the real life of art had gone. A long period of heavy, morose, almost formless art, eloquent of mediæval darkness and ignorance, followed. [Illustration: FIG. 21. --EZEKIEL BEFORE THE LORD. MS. ILLUMINATION. PARIS, NINTH CENTURY. ] It is strange that such an art should be adopted by foreign nations, and yet it was. Its bloody crucifixions and morbid madonnas were wellfitted to the dark view of life held during the Middle Ages, and itsinfluence was wide-spread and of long duration. It affected French andGerman art, it ruled at the North, and in the East it lives even tothis day. That it strongly affected Italy is a very apparent fact. Just when it first began to show its influence there is matter ofdispute. It probably gained a foothold at Ravenna in the sixthcentury, when that province became a part of the empire of Justinian. Later it permeated Rome, Sicily, and Naples at the south, and Veniceat the north. With the decline of the early Christian art of Italythis richer, and in many ways more acceptable, Byzantine art came in, and, with Italian modifications, usurped the field. It did notliterally crush out the native Italian art, but practically itsuperseded it, or held it in check, from the ninth to the twelfthcentury. After that the corrupted Italian art once more came to thefront. EARLY CHRISTIAN AND BYZANTINE REMAINS: The best examples of Early Christian painting are still to be seen in the Catacombs at Rome. Mosaics in the early churches of Rome, Ravenna, Naples, Venice, Constantinople. Sculptures, ivories, and glasses in the Lateran, Ravenna, and Vatican museums. Illuminations in Vatican and Paris libraries. Almost all the museums of Europe, those of the Vatican and Naples particularly, have some examples of Byzantine work. The older altar-pieces of the early Italian churches date back to the mediæval period and show Byzantine influence. The altar-pieces of the Greek and Russian churches show the same influence even in modern work. CHAPTER V. ITALIAN PAINTING. GOTHIC PERIOD. 1250-1400. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Burckhardt, Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafenestre, Lanzi, Lindsay, Reber; also Burton, _Catalogue of Pictures in the National Gallery, London_ (_unabridged edition_); Cartier, _Vie de Fra Angelico_; Förster, _Leben und Werke des Fra Angelico_; Habich, _Vade Mecum pour la Peinture Italienne des Anciens Maîtres_; Lacroix, _Les Arts au Moyen-Age et à la Époque de la Renaissance_; Mantz, _Les Chefs-d'oeuvre de la Peinture Italienne_; Morelli, _Italian Masters in German Galleries_; Morelli, _Italian Masters, Critical Studies in their Works_; Rumohr, _Italienische Forschungen_; Selincourt, _Giotto_; Stillman, _Old Italian Masters_; Vasari, _Lives of the Most Eminent Painters_; consult also General Bibliography (p. Xv). SIGNS OF THE AWAKENING: It would seem at first as though nothing butself-destruction could come to that struggling, praying, throat-cutting population that terrorized Italy during the MediævalPeriod. The people were ignorant, the rulers treacherous, the passionsstrong, and yet out of the Dark Ages came light. In the thirteenthcentury the light grew brighter, but the internal dissensions did notcease. The Hohenstaufen power was broken, the imperial rule in Italywas crushed. Pope and emperor no longer warred each other, but thecries of "Guelf" and "Ghibelline" had not died out. Throughout the entire Romanesque and Gothic periods (1000-1400) Italywas torn by political wars, though the free cities, through theirleagues of protection and their commerce, were prosperous. Acommercial rivalry sprang up among the cities. Trade with the East, manufactures, banking, all flourished; and even the philosophies, withlaw, science, and literature, began to be studied. The spirit oflearning showed itself in the founding of schools and universities. Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, reflecting respectively religion, classic learning, and the inclination toward nature, lived and gaveindication of the trend of thought. Finally the arts, architecture, sculpture, painting, began to stir and take upon themselves newappearances. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In painting, though there were some portraitsand allegorical scenes produced during the Gothic period, the chieftheme was Bible story. The Church was the patron, and art was only theservant, as it had been from the beginning. It was the instructor andconsoler of the faithful, a means whereby the Church made converts, and an adornment of wall and altar. It had not entirely escaped fromsymbolism. It was still the portrayal of things for what they meant, rather than for what they looked. There was no such thing then as artfor art's sake. It was art for religion's sake. The demand for painting increased, and its subjects multiplied withthe establishment at this time of the two powerful orders of Dominicanand Franciscan monks. The first exacted from the painters more learnedand instructive work; the second wished for the crucifixions, themartyrdoms, the dramatic deaths, wherewith to move people by emotionalappeal. To offset this the ultra-religious character of painting wasencroached upon somewhat by the growth of the painters' guilds, andart production largely passing into the hands of laymen. Inconsequence painting produced many themes, but, as yet, only after theByzantine style. The painter was more of a workman than an artist. TheChurch had more use for his fingers than for his creative ability. Itwas his business to transcribe what had gone before. This he did, butnot without signs here and there of uneasiness and discontent with thepattern. There was an inclination toward something truer to nature, but, as yet, no great realization of it. The study of nature came invery slowly, and painting was not positive in statement until the timeof Giotto and Lorenzetti. [Illustration: FIG. 22. --GIOTTO, FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. ARENA CHAP. PADUA. ] The best paintings during the Gothic period were executed upon thewalls of the churches in fresco. The prepared color was laid on wetplaster, and allowed to soak in. The small altar and panel pictureswere painted in distemper, the gold ground and many Byzantine featuresbeing retained by most of the painters, though discarded by some few. CHANGES IN THE TYPE, ETC. : The advance of Italian art in the Gothicage was an advance through the development of the imposed Byzantinepattern. It was not a revolt or a starting out anew on a whollyoriginal path. When people began to stir intellectually the artistsfound that the old Byzantine model did not look like nature. Theybegan, not by rejecting it, but by improving it, giving it slightmovements here and there, turning the head, throwing out a hand, orshifting the folds of drapery. The Eastern type was still seen in thelong pathetic face, oblique eyes, green flesh tints, stiff robes, thinfingers, and absence of feet; but the painters now began to modify andenliven it. More realistic Italian faces were introduced, architectural and landscape backgrounds encroached upon the Byzantinegold grounds, even portraiture was taken up. This looks very much like realism, but we must not lay too much stressupon it. The painters were taking notes of natural appearances. Itshowed in features like the hands, feet, and drapery; but the anatomyof the body had not yet been studied, and there is no reason tobelieve their study of the face was more than casual, nor theirportraits more than records from memory. No one painter began this movement. The whole artistic region of Italywas at that time ready for the advance. That all the painters moved atabout the same pace, and continued to move at that pace down to thefifteenth century, that they all based themselves upon Byzantineteaching, and that they all had a similar style of working is provedby the great difficulty in attributing their existing pictures tocertain masters, or even certain schools. There are plenty of picturesin Italy to-day that might be attributed to either Florence or Sienna, Giotto or Lorenzetti, or some other master; because though each masterand each school had slight peculiarities, yet they all had a commonorigin in the art traditions of the time. [Illustration: FIG. 23. --ORCAGNA, PARADISE (DETAIL). S. M. NOVELLA, FLORENCE. ] FLORENTINE SCHOOL: Cimabue (1240?-1302?) seems the most notableinstance in early times of a Byzantine-educated painter who improvedupon the traditions. He has been called the father of Italianpainting, but Italian painting had no father. Cimabue was simply a manof more originality and ability than his contemporaries, and departedfurther from the art teachings of the time without decidedly opposingthem. He retained the Byzantine pattern, but loosened the lines ofdrapery somewhat, turned the head to one side, infused the figure witha little appearance of life. His contemporaries elsewhere in Italywere doing the same thing, and none of them was any more than a linkin the progressive chain. Cimabue's pupil, Giotto (1266?-1337), was a great improver on all hispredecessors because he was a man of extraordinary genius. He wouldhave been great in any time, and yet he was not great enough to throwoff wholly the Byzantine traditions. He tried to do it. He studiednature in a general way, changed the type of face somewhat by makingthe jaw squarer, and gave it expression and nobility. To the figure hegave more motion, dramatic gesture, life. The drapery was cast inbroader, simpler masses, with some regard for line, and the form andmovement of the body were somewhat emphasized through it. In methodsGiotto was more knowing, but not essentially different from hiscontemporaries; his subjects were from the common stock of religiousstory; but his imaginative force and invention were his own. Bound bythe conventionalities of his time he could still create a work ofnobility and power. He came too early for the highest achievement. Hehad genius, feeling, fancy, almost everything except accurateknowledge of the laws of nature and art. His art was the best of itstime, but it still lacked, nor did that of his immediate followers gomuch beyond it technically. Taddeo Gaddi (1300?-1366?) was Giotto's chief pupil, a painter of muchfeeling, but lacking in the large elements of construction and in thedramatic force of his master. Agnolo Gaddi (1333?-1396?), AntonioVeneziano (1312?-1388?), Giovanni da Milano (fl. 1366), Andrea daFirenze (fl. 1377), were all followers of the Giotto methods, and wereso similar in their styles that their works are often confused anderroneously attributed. Giottino (1324?-1357?) was a supposed imitatorof Giotto, of whom little is known. Orcagna (1329?-1376?) stillfurther advanced the Giottesque type and method. He gathered up andunited in himself all the art teachings of his time. In working outproblems of form and in delicacy and charm of expression he wentbeyond his predecessors. He was a many-sided genius, knowing not onlyin a matter of natural appearance, but in color problems, inperspective, shadows, and light. His art was further along toward theRenaissance than that of any other Giottesque. He almost changed thecharacter of painting, and yet did not live near enough to thefifteenth century to accomplish it completely. Spinello Aretino(1332?-1410?) was the last of the great Giotto followers. He carriedout the teachings of the school in technical features, such ascomposition, drawing, and relief by color rather than by light, but helacked the creative power of Giotto. In fact, none of the Giottesquecan be said to have improved upon the master, taking him as a whole. Toward the beginning of the fifteenth century the school ratherdeclined. SIENNESE SCHOOL: The art teachings and traditions of the past seemeddeeper rooted at Sienna than at Florence. Nor was there so muchattempt to shake them off as at Florence. Giotto broke the immobilityof the Byzantine model by showing the draped figure in action. So alsodid the Siennese to some extent, but they cared more for theexpression of the spiritual than the beauty of the natural. TheFlorentines were robust, resolute, even a little coarse at times; theSiennese were more refined and sentimental. Their fancy ran tosweetness of face rather than to bodily vigor. Again, their art wasmore ornate, richer in costume, color, and detail than Florentine art;but it was also more finical and narrow in scope. [Illustration: FIG. 24. --A. LORENZETTI. PEACE (DETAIL). TOWN-HALL, SIENNA. ] There was little advance upon Byzantinism in the work of Guido daSienna (fl. 1275). Even Duccio (1260?----?), the real founder of theSiennese school, retained Byzantine methods and adopted the schoolsubjects, but he perfected details of form, such as the hands andfeet, and while retaining the long Byzantine face, gave it amelancholy tenderness of expression. He possessed no dramatic force, but had a refined workmanship for his time--a workmanship perhapsbetter, all told, than that of his Florentine contemporary, Cimabue. Simone di Martino (1283?-1344?) changed the type somewhat by roundingthe form. His drawing was not always correct, but in color he was goodand in detail exact and minute. He probably profited somewhat by theexample of Giotto. The Siennese who came the nearest to Giotto's excellence were thebrothers Ambrogio (fl. 1342) and Pietro (fl. 1350) Lorenzetti. Thereis little known about them except that they worked together in asimilar manner. The most of their work has perished, but what remainsshows an intellectual grasp equal to any of the age. The Siennafrescos by Ambrogio Lorenzetti are strong in facial character, andsome of the figures, like that of the white-robed Peace, are beautifulin their flow of line. Lippo Memmi (?-1356), Bartolo di Fredi(1330-1410), and Taddeo di Bartolo (1362-1422), were other painters ofthe school. The late men rather carried detail to excess, and theschool grew conventional instead of advancing. TRANSITION PAINTERS: Several painters, Starnina (1354-1413), Gentileda Fabriano (1360?-1440?), Fra Angelico (1387-1455), have been putdown in art history as the makers of the transition from Gothic toRenaissance painting. They hardly deserve the title. There was notransition. The development went on, and these painters, coming latein the fourteenth century and living into the fifteenth, simply showedthe changing style, the advance in the study of nature and the technicof art. Starnina's work gave strong evidence of the study of form, butit was no such work as Masaccio's. There is always a little of thepast in the present, and these painters showed traces of Byzantinismin details of the face and figure, in coloring, and in gold embossing. Gentile had all that nicety of finish and richness of detail and colorcharacteristic of the Siennese. Being closer to the Renaissance thanhis predecessors he was more of a nature student. He was the first manto show the effect of sunlight in landscape, the first one to put agold sun in the sky. He never, however, outgrew Gothic methods andreally belongs in the fourteenth century. This is true of FraAngelico. Though he lived far into the Early Renaissance he did notchange his style and manner of work in conformity with the work ofothers about him. He was the last inheritor of the Giottesquetraditions. Religious sentiment was the strong feature of his art. Hewas behind Giotto and Lorenzetti in power and in imagination, andbehind Orcagna as a painter. He knew little of light, shade, perspective, and color, and in characterization was feeble, except insome late work. One face or type answered him for all classes ofpeople--a sweet, fair face, full of divine tenderness. His art hadenough nature in it to express his meanings, but little more. He waspre-eminently a devout painter, and really the last of the greatreligionists in painting. [Illustration: FIG. 25. --FRA ANGELICO. ANGEL (DETAIL). UFFIZI. ] The other regions of Italy had not at this time developed schools ofpainting of sufficient consequence to mention. PRINCIPAL WORKS: FLORENTINES--Cimabue, Madonnas S. M. Novella and Acad. Florence, frescos Upper Church of Assisi (?); Giotto, frescos Upper and Lower churches Assisi, best work Arena chapel Padua, Bardi and Peruzzi chapels S. Croce, injured frescos Bargello Florence; Taddeo Gaddi, frescos entrance wall Baroncelli chapel S. Croce, Spanish chapel S. M. Novella (designed by Gaddi (?)); Agnolo Gaddi frescos in choir S. Croce, S. Jacopo tra Fossi Florence, panel pictures Florence Acad. ; Giovanni da Milano, Bewailing of Christ Florence Acad. , Virgin enthroned Prato Gal. , altar-piece Uffizi Gal. , frescos S. Croce Florence; Antonio Veneziano, frescos in ceiling of Spanish chapel, S. M. Novella, Campo Santo Pisa; Orcagna, altar-piece Last Judgment and Paradise Strozzi chapel S. M. Novella, S. Zenobio Duomo, Saints Medici chapel S. Croce, Descent of Holy Spirit Badia Florence, altar-piece Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Spinello Aretino, Life of St. Benedict S. Miniato al Monte near Florence, Annunciation Convent degl' Innocenti Arezzo, frescos Campo Santo Pisa, Coronation Florence Acad. , Barbarossa frescos Palazzo Publico Sienna; Andrea da Firenze, Church Militant, Calvary, Crucifixion Spanish chapel, Upper series of Life of S. Raniera Campo Santo Pisa. SIENNESE--Guido da Sienna, Madonna S. Domenico Sienna; Duccio, panels Duomo and Acad. Sienna, Madonna Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Simone di Martino, frescos Palazzo Pubblico, Sienna, altar-piece and panels Seminario Vescovile, Pisa Gal. , altar-piece and Madonna Opera del Duomo Orvieto; Lippo Memmi, frescos Palazzo del Podesta S. Gemignano, Annunciation Uffizi Florence; Bartolo di Fredi, altar-pieces Acad. Sienna, S. Francesco Montalcino; Taddeo di Bartolo, Palazzo Pubblico Sienna, Duomo, S. Gemignano, S. Francesco Pisa; Ambrogio Lorenzetti, frescos Palazzo Pubblico Sienna, Triumph of Death (with Pietro Lorenzetti) Campo Santo Pisa, St. Francis frescos Lower Church Assisi, S. Francesco and S. Agostino Sienna, Annunciation Sienna Acad. , Presentation Florence Acad. ; Pietro Lorenzetti, Virgin S. Ansano, altar-pieces Duomo Sienna, Parish Church of Arezzo (worked with his brother Ambrogio). TRANSITION PAINTERS: Starnina, frescos Duomo Prato (completed by pupil); Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration Florence Acad. , Coronation Brera Milan, Madonna Duomo Orvieto; Fra Angelico, Coronation and many small panels Uffizi, many pieces Life of Christ Florence Acad. , other pieces S. Marco Florence, Last Judgment Duomo, Orvieto. CHAPTER VI. ITALIAN PAINTING. EARLY RENAISSANCE. 1400-1500. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Burckhardt, Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafenestre, Lanzi, Habich, Lacroix, Mantz, Morelli, Burton, Rumohr, Stillman, Vasari; also Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _History of Painting in North Italy_; Berenson, _Florentine Painters of Renaissance_; Berenson, _Venetian Painters of Renaissance_; Berenson, _Central Italian Painters of Renaissance_; _Study and Criticism of Italian Art_; Boschini, _La Carta del Navegar_; Calvi, _Memorie della Vita ed opere di Francesco Raibolini_; Cibo, _Niccolo Alunno e la scuola Umbra_; Citadella, _Notizie relative a Ferrara_; Cruttwell, _Verrocchio_; Cruttwell, _Pollaiuolo_; Morelli, Anonimo, _Notizie_; Mezzanotte, _Commentario della Vita di Pietro Vanucci_; Mundler, _Essai d'une Analyse critique de la Notice des tableaux Italiens au Louvre_; Muntz, _Les Précurseurs de la Renaissance_; Muntz, _La Renaissance en Italie et en France_; Patch, _Life of Masaccio_; Hill, Pisanello, _Publications of the Arundel Society_; Richter, _Italian Art in National Gallery, London_; Ridolfi, _Le Meraviglie dell' Arte_; Rosini, _Storia della Pittura Italiana_; Schnaase, _Geschichte der bildenden Kunste_; Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy--the Fine Arts_; Vischer, _Lucas Signorelli und die Italienische Renaissance_; Waagen, _Art Treasures_; Waagen, _Andrea Mantegna und Luca Signorelli_ (in _Raumer's Taschenbuch_, (1850)); Zanetti, _Della Pittura Veneziana_. THE ITALIAN MIND: There is no way of explaining the Italian fondnessfor form and color other than by considering the necessities of thepeople and the artistic character of the Italian mind. Art in all itsphases was not only an adornment but a necessity of Christiancivilization. The Church taught people by sculpture, mosaic, miniature, and fresco. It was an object-teaching, a grasping of ideasby forms seen in the mind, not a presenting of abstract ideas as inliterature. Printing was not known. There were few manuscripts, andthe majority of people could not read. Ideas came to them forcenturies through form and color, until at last the Italian mind tookon a plastic and pictorial character. It saw things in symbolicfigures, and when the Renaissance came and art took the lead as one ofits strongest expressions, painting was but the color-thought andform-language of the people. [Illustration: FIG. 26. --FRA FILIPPO. MADONNA. UFFIZI. ] And these people, by reason of their peculiar education, were anexacting people, knowing what was good and demanding it from theartists. Every Italian was, in a way, an art critic, because everychurch in Italy was an art school. The artists may have led thepeople, but the people spurred on the artists, and so the Italian mindwent on developing and unfolding until at last it produced the greatart of the Renaissance. THE AWAKENING: The Italian civilization of the fourteenth century wasmade up of many impulses and inclinations, none of them very stronglydefined. There was a feeling about in the dark, a groping toward thelight, but the leaders stumbled often on the road. There was goodreason for it. The knowledge of the ancient world lay buried under theruins of Rome. The Italians had to learn it all over again, almostwithout a precedent, almost without a preceptor. With the fifteenthcentury the horizon began to brighten. The Early Renaissance wasbegun. It was not a revolt, a reaction, or a starting out on a newpath. It was a development of the Gothic period; and the threeinclinations of the Gothic period--religion, the desire for classicknowledge, and the study of nature--were carried into the art of thetime with greater realization. The inference must not be made that because nature and the antiquecame to be studied in Early Renaissance times that therefore religionwas neglected. It was not. It still held strong, and though with theRenaissance there came about a strange mingling of crime andcorruption, æstheticism and immorality, yet the Church was neverabandoned for an hour. When enlightenment came, people began to doubtthe spiritual power of the Papacy. They did not cringe to it soservilely as before. Religion was not violently embraced as in theMiddle Ages, but there was no revolt. The Church held the power andwas still the patron of art. The painter's subjects extended overnature, the antique, the fable, allegory, history, portraiture; butthe religious subject was not neglected. Fully three-quarters of allthe fifteenth-century painting was done for the Church, at hercommand, and for her purposes. But art was not so wholly pietistic as in the Gothic age. The study ofnature and the antique materialized painting somewhat. The outsideworld drew the painter's eyes, and the beauty of the religious subjectand its sentiment were somewhat slurred for the beauty of naturalappearances. There was some loss of religious power, but religion hadmuch to lose. In the fifteenth century it was still dominant. [Illustration: FIG. 27. --BOTTICELLI. CORONATION OF MADONNA. UFFIZI. ] KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANTIQUE AND NATURE: The revival of antique learningcame about in real earnest during this period. The scholars setthemselves the task of restoring the polite learning of ancientGreece, studying coins and marbles, collecting manuscripts, foundinglibraries and schools of philosophy. The wealthy nobles, PallaStrozzi, the Albizzi, the Medici, and the Dukes of Urbino, encouragedit. In 1440 the Greek was taught in five cities. Immediatelyafterward, with Constantinople falling into the hands of the Turks, came an influx of Greek scholars into Italy. Then followed theinvention of printing and the age of discovery on land and sea. Notthe antique alone but the natural were being pried into by the spiritof inquiry. Botany, geology, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, anatomy, law, literature--nothing seemed to escape the keen eye of the time. Knowledge was being accumulated from every source, and the arts wereall reflecting it. The influence of the newly discovered classic marbles upon paintingwas not so great as is usually supposed. The painters studied them, but did not imitate them. Occasionally in such men as Botticelli andMantegna we see a following of sculpturesque example--a taking ofdetails and even of whole figures--but the general effect of theantique marbles was to impress the painters with the idea that naturewas at the bottom of it all. They turned to the earth not only tostudy form and feature, but to learn perspective, light, shadow, color--in short, the technical features of art. True, religion was thechief subject, but nature and the antique were used to give itsetting. All the fifteenth-century painting shows nature study, force, character, sincerity; but it does not show elegance, grace, or thefull complement of color. The Early Renaissance was the promise ofgreat things; the High Renaissance was the fulfilment. FLORENTINE SCHOOL: The Florentines were draughtsmen more thancolorists. The chief medium was fresco on the walls of buildings, andarchitectural necessities often dictated the form of compositions. Distemper in easel pictures was likewise used, and oil-painting, though known, was not extensively employed until the last quarter ofthe century. In technical knowledge and intellectual grasp Florencewas at this time the leader and drew to her many artists fromneighboring schools. Masaccio (1401?-1428?) was the first great naturestudent of the Early Renaissance, though his master, Masolino(1383-1447), had given proof positive of severe nature study in bitsof modelling, in drapery, and in portrait heads. Masaccio, however, seems the first to have gone into it thoroughly and to have graspednature as a whole. His mastery of form, his plastic composition, hisfree, broad folds of drapery, and his knowledge of light andperspective, all placed him in the front rank of fifteenth-centurypainters. Though an exact student he was not a literalist. He had alarge artistic sense, a breadth of view, and a comprehension of natureas a mass that Michael Angelo and Raphael did not disdain to follow. He was not a pietist, and there was no great religious feeling in hiswork. Dignified truthful appearance was his creed, and in this he waspossibly influenced by Donatello the sculptor. [Illustration: FIG. 28. --GHIRLANDAJO. THE VISITATION. LOUVRE. ] He came early in the century and died early, but his contemporariesdid not continue the advance from where he carried it. There waswavering all along the line. Some from lack of genius could not equalhim, others took up nature with indecision, and others clung fondlyto the gold-embossed ornaments and gilded halos of the past. PaoloUccello (1397?-1475), Andrea Castagno (1390-1457), Benozzo Gozzoli(1420?-1497?), Baldovinetti (1427-1499), Antonio del Pollajuolo(1426-1498), Cosimo Rosselli (1439-1507), can hardly be looked upon asimprovements upon the young leader. The first real successor ofMasaccio was his contemporary, and possibly his pupil, the monk FraFilippo Lippi (1406-1469). He was a master of color andlight-and-shade for his time, though in composition and command ofline he did not reach up to Masaccio. He was among the first of thepainters to take the individual faces of those about him as models forhis sacred characters, and clothe them in contemporary costume. Pietyis not very pronounced in any of his works, though he is not withoutimagination and feeling, and there is in his women a charm ofsweetness. His tendency was to materialize the sacred characters. With Filippino (1457?-1504), Botticelli (1446-1510), and Ghirlandajo(1449-1494) we find a degree of imagination, culture, and independencenot surpassed by any of the Early Florentines. Filippino modelled hisart upon that of his father, Fra Filippo, and was influenced byBotticelli. He was the weakest of the trio, without being by any meansa weak man. On the contrary, he was an artist of fine ability, muchcharm and tenderness, and considerable style, but not a great deal oforiginal force, though occasionally doing forceful things. Purity inhis type and graceful sentiment in pose and feature seem morecharacteristic of his work. Botticelli, even, was not so remarkablefor his strength as for his culture, and an individual way of lookingat things. He was a pupil of Fra Filippo, a man imbued with thereligious feeling of Dante and Savonarola, a learned student of theantique and one of the first to take subjects from it, a severe naturestudent, and a painter of much technical skill. Religion, classicism, and nature all met in his work, but the mingling was not perfect. Religious feeling and melancholy warped it. His willowy figures, delicate and refined in drawing, are more passionate than powerful, more individual than comprehensive, but they are nevertheless veryattractive in their tenderness and grace. Without being so original or so attractive an artist as Botticelli, his contemporary, Ghirlandajo, was a stronger one. His strength camemore from assimilation than from invention. He combined in his workall the art learning of his time. He drew well, handled drapery simplyand beautifully, was a good composer, and, for Florence, a goodcolorist. In addition, his temperament was robust, his styledignified, even grand, and his execution wonderfully free. He was themost important of the fifteenth-century technicians, without havingany peculiar distinction or originality, and in spite of being ratherprosaic at times. [Illustration: FIG. 29. --FRANCESCA. DUKE OF URBINO. UFFIZI. ] Verrocchio (1435-1488) was more of a sculptor than a painter, but inhis studio were three celebrated pupils--Perugino, Leonardo da Vinci, and Lorenzo di Credi--who were half-way between the Early and the HighRenaissance. Only one of them, Leonardo, can be classed among theHigh Renaissance men. Perugino belongs to the Umbrian school, andLorenzo di Credi (1450-1537), though Florentine, never outgrew thefifteenth century. He was a pure painter, with much feeling, but weakat times. His drawing was good, but his painting lacked force, and hewas too pallid in flesh color. There is much detail, study, andconsiderable grace about his work, but little of strength. Piero diCosimo (1462-1521) was fond of mythological and classical studies, wassomewhat fantastic in composition, pleasant in color, and ratherdistinguished in landscape backgrounds. His work strikes one aseccentric, and eccentricity was the strong characteristic of the man. UMBRIAN AND PERUGIAN SCHOOLS: At the beginning of the fifteenthcentury the old Siennese school founded by Duccio and the Lorenzettiwas in a state of decline. It had been remarkable for intensesentiment, and just what effect this sentiment of the old Sienneseschool had upon the painters of the neighboring Umbrian school of theearly fifteenth century is a matter of speculation with historians. Itmust have had some, though the early painters, like Ottaviano Nelli, do not show it. That which afterward became known as the Umbriansentiment probably first appeared in the work of Niccolò da Foligno(1430?-1502), who was probably a pupil of Benozzo Gozzoli, who was, inturn, a pupil of Fra Angelico. That would indicate Florentineinfluence, but there were many influences at work in this upper-valleycountry. Sentiment had been prevalent enough all through CentralItalian painting during the Gothic age--more so at Sienna thanelsewhere. With the Renaissance Florence rather forsook sentiment forprecision of forms and equilibrium of groups; but the Umbrian townsbeing more provincial, held fast to their sentiment, their detail, andtheir gold ornamentation. Their influence upon Florence was slight, but the influence of Florence upon them was considerable. The largercity drew the provincials its way to learn the new methods. Theresult was a group of Umbro-Florentine painters, combining someup-country sentiment with Florentine technic. Gentile da Fabriano, Niccolo da Foligno, Bonfiglio (1425?-1496?), and Fiorenzo di Lorenzo(1444?-1520) were of this mixed character. [Illustration: FIG. 30. --SIGNORELLI. THE CURSE (DETAIL). ORVIETO. ] The most positive in methods among the early men was Piero dellaFrancesca (1420?-1492). Umbrian born, but Florentine trained, hebecame more scientific than sentimental, and excelled as a craftsman. He knew drawing, perspective, atmosphere, light-and-shade in a waythat rather foreshadowed Leonardo da Vinci. From working in theUmbrian country his influence upon his fellow-Umbrians was large. Itshowed directly in Signorelli (1441?-1523), whose master he was, andwhose style he probably formed. Signorelli was Umbrian born, likePiero, but there was not much of the Umbrian sentiment about him. Hewas a draughtsman and threw his strength in line, producing athletic, square-shouldered figures in violent action, with complicatedforeshortenings quite astonishing. The most daring man of his time, hewas a master in anatomy, composition, motion. There was nothing selectabout his type, and nothing charming about his painting. His color washot and coarse, his lights lurid, his shadows brick red. He was, however, a master-draughtsman, and a man of large conceptions andgreat strength. Melozzo da Forli (1438-1494), of whom little is known, was another pupil of Piero, and Giovanni Santi (1435?-1494), thefather of Raphael, was probably influenced by both of these lastnamed. The true descent of the Umbrian sentiment was through Foligno andBonfiglio to Perugino (1446-1524). Signorelli and Perugino seemopposed to each other in their art. The first was the forerunner ofMichael Angelo, the second was the master of Raphael; and thedifference between Michael Angelo and Raphael was, in a less varieddegree, the difference between Signorelli and Perugino. The one showedFlorentine line, the other Umbrian sentiment and color. It is inPerugino that we find the old religious feeling. Fervor, tenderness, and devotion, with soft eyes, delicate features, and pathetic lookscharacterized his art. The figure was slight, graceful, and in posesentimentally inclined to one side. The head was almost affectedlyplaced on the shoulders, and the round olive face was full of wistfultenderness. This Perugino type, used in all his paintings, is welldescribed by Taine as a "body belonging to the Renaissance containinga soul that belonged to the Middle Ages. " The sentiment was morepurely human, however, than in such a painter, for instance, as FraAngelico. Religion still held with Perugino and the Umbrians, buteven with them it was becoming materialized by the beauty of theworld about them. [Illustration: FIG. 31. --PERUGINO. MADONNA, SAINTS, AND ANGELS. LOUVRE. ] As a technician Perugino was excellent. There was no dramatic fire andfury about him. The composition was simple, with graceful figures inrepose. The coloring was rich, and there were many brilliant effectsobtained by the use of oils. He was among the first of his school touse that medium. His friend and fellow-worker, Pinturricchio(1454-1513), did not use oils, but was a superior man in fresco. Intype and sentiment he was rather like Perugino, in composition alittle extravagant and huddled, in landscape backgrounds quiteoriginal and inventive. He never was a serious rival of Perugino, though a more varied and interesting painter. Perugino's best pupil, after Raphael, was Lo Spagna (?-1530?), who followed his master'sstyle until the High Renaissance, when he became a follower ofRaphael. SCHOOLS OF FERRARA AND BOLOGNA: The painters of Ferrara, in thefifteenth century, seemed to have relied upon Padua for theirteaching. The best of the early men was Cosimo Tura (1430-1495), whoshowed the Paduan influence of Squarcione in anatomical insistences, coarse joints, infinite detail, and fantastic ornamentation. He wasprobably the founder of the school in which Francesco Cossa (fl. 1435-1480), a _naif_ and strong, if somewhat morbid painter, Ercole diGiulio Grandi (fl. 1465-1535), and Lorenzo Costa (1460?-1535) were theprincipal masters. Cossa and Grandi, it seems, afterward removed toBologna, and it was probably their move that induced Lorenzo Costa tofollow them. In that way the Ferrarese school became somewhatcomplicated with the Bolognese school, and is confused in its historyto this day. Costa was not unlikely the real founder, or, at theleast, the strongest influencer of the Bolognese school. He was apainter of a rugged, manly type, afterward tempered by Southerninfluences to softness and sentiment. This was the result of Paduanmethods meeting at Bologna with Umbrian sentiment. The Perugino type and influence had found its way to Bologna, andshowed in the work of Francia (1450-1518), a contemporary andfellow-worker with Costa. Though trained as a goldsmith, and learningpainting in a different school, Francia, as regards his sentiment, belongs in the same category with Perugino. Even his subjects, types, and treatment were, at times, more Umbrian than Bolognese. He was notso profound in feeling as Perugino, but at times he appeared loftierin conception. His color was usually rich, his drawing a little sharpat first, as showing the goldsmith's hand, the surfaces smooth, thedetail elaborate. Later on, his work had a Raphaelesque tinge, showing perhaps the influence of that rising master. It is probablethat Francia at first was influenced by Costa's methods, and it isquite certain that he in turn influenced Costa in the matter ofrefined drawing and sentiment, though Costa always adhered to acertain detail and ornament coming from the north, and a landscapebackground that is peculiar to himself, and yet reminds one ofPinturricchio's landscapes. These two men, Francia and Costa, were thePerugino and Pinturricchio of the Ferrara-Bolognese school, and themost important painters in that school. [Illustration: FIG. 32. --SCHOOL OF FRANCIA. MADONNA AND CHILD. LOUVRE. ] THE LOMBARD SCHOOL: The designation of the Lombard school is rather avague one in the history of painting, and is used by historians tocover a number of isolated schools or men in the Lombardy region. Inthe fifteenth century these schools counted for little either in menor in works. The principal activity was about Milan, which drewpainters from Brescia, Vincenza, and elsewhere to form what is knownas the Milanese school. Vincenzo Foppa (fl. 1455-1492), of Brescia, and afterward at Milan, was probably the founder of this Milaneseschool. His painting is of rather a harsh, exacting nature, and pointsto the influence of Padua, at which place he perhaps got his early arttraining. Borgognone (1450-1523) is set down as his pupil, a painterof much sentiment and spiritual feeling. The school was afterwardgreatly influenced by the example of Leonardo da Vinci, as will beshown further on. PRINCIPAL WORKS: FLORENTINES--Masaccio, frescos in Brancacci Chapel Carmine Florence (the series completed by Filippino); Masolino, frescos Church and Baptistery Castiglione d' Olona; Paolo Uccello, frescos S. M. Novella, equestrian portrait Duomo Florence, battle-pieces in Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Andrea Castagno, heroes and sibyls Uffizi, altar-piece Acad. Florence, equestrian portrait Duomo Florence; Benozzo Gozzoli, Francesco Montefalco, Magi Ricardi palace Florence, frescos Campo Santo Pisa; Baldovinetti, Portico of the Annunziata Florence, altar-pieces Uffizi; Antonio Pollajuolo, Hercules Uffizi, St. Sebastian Pitti and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Cosimo Rosselli, frescos S. Ambrogio Florence, Sistine Chapel Rome, Madonna Uffizi; Fra Filippo, frescos Cathedral Prato, altar-pieces Florence Acad. , Uffizi, Pitti and Berlin Gals. , Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Filippino, frescos Carmine Florence, Caraffa Chapel Minerva Rome, S. M. Novella and Acad. Florence, S. Domenico Bologna, easel pictures in Pitti, Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Berlin Mus. , Old Pinacothek Munich; Botticelli, frescos Sistine Chapel Rome, Spring and Coronation Florence Acad. , Venus, Calumny, Madonnas Uffizi, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, etc. ; Ghirlandajo, frescos Sistine Chapel Rome, S. Trinità Florence, S. M. Novella, Palazzo Vecchio, altar-pieces Uffizi and Acad. Florence, Visitation Louvre; Verrocchio, Baptism of Christ Acad. Florence; Lorenzo di Credi, Nativity Acad. Florence, Madonnas Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon. , Holy Family Borghese Gal. Rome; Piero di Cosimo, Perseus and Andromeda Uffizi, Procris Nat. Gal. Lon. , Venus and Mars Berlin Gal. UMBRIANS--Ottaviano Nelli, altar-piece S. M. Nuovo Gubbio, St. Augustine legends S. Agostino Gubbio; Niccolò da Foligno, altar-piece S. Niccolò Foligno; Bonfigli, frescos Palazzo Communale, altar-pieces Acad. Perugia; Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, many pictures Acad. Perugia, Madonna Berlin Gal. ; Piero della Francesca, frescos Communitá and Hospital Borgo San Sepolcro, San Francesco Arezzo, Chapel of the Relicts Rimini, portraits Uffizi, pictures Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Signorelli, frescos Cathedral Orvieto, Sistine Rome, Palazzo Petrucci Sienna, altar-pieces Arezzo, Cortona, Perugia, pictures Pitti, Uffizi, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Melozzo da Forli, angels St. Peter's Rome, frescos Vatican, pictures Berlin and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Giovanni Santi, Annunciation Milan, Pieta Urbino, Madonnas Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon. , S. Croce Fano; Perugino, frescos Sistine Rome, Crucifixion S. M. Maddalena Florence, Sala del Cambio Perugia, altar-pieces Pitti, Fano, Cremona, many pictures in European galleries; Pinturricchio, frescos S. M. Del Popolo, Appartamento Borgo Vatican, Bufolini Chapel Aracoeli Rome, Duomo Library Sienna, altar-pieces Perugia and Sienna Acads. , Pitti, Louvre; Lo Spagna, Madonna Lower Church Assisi, frescos at Spoleto, Turin, Perugia, Assisi. FERRARESE AND BOLOGNESE--Cosimo Tura, altar-pieces Berlin Mus. , Bergamo, Museo Correr Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Francesco Cossa, altar-pieces S. Petronio and Acad. Bologna, Dresden Gal. ; Grandi, St. George Corsini Pal. Rome, several canvases Constabili Collection Ferrara; Lorenzo Costa, frescos S. Giacomo Maggiore, altar-pieces S. Petronio, S. Giovanni in Monte and Acad. Bologna, also Louvre, Berlin, and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Francia, altar-pieces S. Giacomo Maggiore, S. Martino Maggiore, and many altar-pieces in Acad. Bologna, Annunciation Brera Milan, Rose Garden Munich, Pieta Nat. Gal. Lon. , Scappi Portrait Uffizi, Baptism Dresden. LOMBARDS--Foppa, altar-pieces S. Maria di Castello Savona, Borromeo Col. Milan, Carmine Brescia, panels Brera Milan; Borgognone, altar-pieces Certosa of Pavia, Church of Melegnano, S. Ambrogio, Ambrosian Lib. , Brera Milan, Nat. Gal. Lon. CHAPTER VII. ITALIAN PAINTING. EARLY RENAISSANCE--1400-1500--CONTINUED. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Those on Italian art before mentioned; also consult the General Bibliography (page xv. ) PADUAN SCHOOL: It was at Padua in the north that the influence of theclassic marbles made itself strongly apparent. Umbria remained true tothe religious sentiment, Florence engaged itself largely with naturestudy and technical problems, introducing here and there draperies andposes that showed knowledge of ancient sculpture, but at Padua much ofthe classic in drapery, figures, and architecture seems to have beentaken directly from the rediscovered antique or the modern bronze. The early men of the school were hardly great enough to call formention. During the fourteenth century there was some Giotto influencefelt--that painter having been at Padua working in the Arena Chapel. Later on there was a slight influence from Gentile da Fabriano and hisfellow-worker Vittore Pisano, of Verona. But these influences seem tohave died out and the real direction of the school in the earlyfifteenth century was given by Francesco Squarcione (1394-1474). Hewas an enlightened man, a student, a collector and an admirer ofancient sculpture, and though no great painter himself he taught ananatomical statuesque art, based on ancient marbles and nature, tomany pupils. Squarcione's work has perished, but his teaching was reflected in thework of his great pupil Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506). Yet Mantegnanever received the full complement of his knowledge from Squarcione. He was of an observing nature and probably studied Paolo Uccello andFra Filippo, some of whose works were then in Paduan edifices. Hegained color knowledge from the Venetian Bellinis, who lived at Paduaat one time and who were connected with Mantegna by marriage. But thesculpturesque side of his art came from Squarcione, from a study ofthe antique, and from a deeper study of Donatello, whose bronzes tothis day are to be seen within and without the Paduan Duomo of S. Antonio. [Illustration: FIG. 33. --MANTEGNA. GONZAGA FAMILY GROUP (DETAIL). MANTUA. ] The sculpturesque is characteristic of Mantegna's work. His people arehard, rigid at times, immovable human beings, not so much turned tostone as turned to bronze--the bronze of Donatello. There is littlesense of motion about them. The figure is sharp and harsh, thedrapery, evidently studied from sculpture, is "liney, " and thearchæology is often more scientific than artistic. Mantegna was not, however, entirely devoted to the sculpturesque. He was one of theseverest nature students of the Early Renaissance, knew about nature, and carried it out in more exacting detail than was perhaps well forhis art. In addition he was a master of light-and-shade, understoodcomposition, space, color, atmosphere, and was as scientific inperspective as Piero della Francesca. There is stiffness in hisfigures but nevertheless great truth and character. The forms arenoble, even grand, and for invention and imagination they were never, in his time, carried further or higher. He was little of asentimentalist or an emotionalist, not much of a brush man or acolorist, but as a draughtsman, a creator of noble forms, a man ofpower, he stood second to none in the century. Of Squarcione's other pupils Pizzolo (fl. 1470) was the mostpromising, but died early. Marco Zoppo (1440-1498) seems to havefollowed the Paduan formula of hardness, dryness, and exacting detail. He was possibly influenced by Cosimo Tura, and in turn influencedsomewhat the Ferrara-Bolognese school. Mantegna, however, was thegreatest of the school, and his influence was far-reaching. Itaffected the school of Venice in matters of drawing, besideinfluencing the Lombard and Veronese schools in their beginnings. SCHOOLS OF VERONA AND VICENZA: Artistically Verona belonged with theVenetian provinces, because it was largely an echo of Venice except atthe very start. Vittore Pisano (1380-1456), called Pisanello, was theearliest painter of note, but he was not distinctly Veronese in hisart. He was medallist and painter both, worked with Gentile daFabriano in the Ducal Palace at Venice and elsewhere, and his artseems to have an affinity with that of his companion. Liberale da Verona (1451-1536?) was at first a miniaturist, butafterward developed a larger style based on a following of Mantegna'swork, with some Venetian influences showing in the coloring andbackgrounds. Francesco Bonsignori (1455-1519) was of the Veronaschool, but established himself later at Mantua and was under theMantegna influence. His style at first was rather severe, but heafterward developed much ability in portraiture, historical work, animals, and architectural features. Francesco Caroto (1470-1546), apupil of Liberale, really belongs to the next century--the HighRenaissance--but his early works show his education in Veronese andPaduan methods. [Illustration: FIG. 34. --B. VIVARINI. MADONNA AND CHILD. TURIN. ] In the school of Vicenza the only master of much note in this EarlyRenaissance time was Bartolommeo Montagna (1450?-1523), a painter inboth oil and fresco of much severity and at times grandeur of style. In drawing he was influenced by Mantegna, in composition and coloringhe showed a study of Giovanni Bellini and Carpaccio. VENETIAN LIFE AND ART: The conditions of art production in Veniceduring the Early Renaissance were quite different from those inFlorence or Umbria. By the disposition of her people Venice was not alearned or devout city. Religion, though the chief subject, was notthe chief spirit of Venetian art. Christianity was accepted by theVenetians, but with no fevered enthusiasm. The Church was strongenough there to defy the Papacy at one time, and yet religion with thepeople was perhaps more of a civic function or a duty than a spiritualworship. It was sincere in its way, and the early painters painted itssubjects with honesty, but the Venetians were much too proud andworldly minded to take anything very seriously except their ownsplendor and their own power. Again, the Venetians were not humanists or students of the revivedclassic. They housed manuscripts, harbored exiled humanists, receivedthe influx of Greek scholars after the fall of Constantinople, andlater the celebrated Aldine press was established in Venice; but, forall that, classic learning was not the fancy of the Venetians. Theymade no quarrel over the relative merits of Plato and Aristotle, dugup no classic marbles, had no revival of learning in a Florentinesense. They were merchant princes, winning wealth by commerce andexpending it lavishly in beautifying their island home. Not to attaingreat learning, but to revel in great splendor, seems to have beentheir aim. Life in the sovereign city of the sea was a worthyexistence in itself. And her geographical and political position aidedher prosperity. Unlike Florence she was not torn by contending princeswithin and foreign foes without--at least not to her harm. She hadher wars, but they were generally on distant seas. Popery, Paganism, Despotism, all the convulsions of Renaissance life threatened butharmed her not. Free and independent, her kingdom was the sea, and herlivelihood commerce, not agriculture. The worldly spirit of the Venetian people brought about a worldly andluxurious art. Nothing in the disposition or education of theVenetians called for the severe or the intellectual. The demand wasfor rich decoration that would please the senses without stimulatingthe intellect or firing the imagination to any great extent. Line andform were not so well suited to them as color--the most sensuous ofall mediums. Color prevailed through Venetian art from the verybeginning, and was its distinctive characteristic. [Illustration: FIG. 35. --GIOVANNI BELLINI. MADONNA OF SS. GEORGE ANDPAUL. VENICE ACAD. ] Where this love of color came from is matter of speculation. Some sayout of Venetian skies and waters, and, doubtless, these had somethingto do with the Venetian color-sense; but Venice in its color was alsoan example of the effect of commerce on art. She was a trader with theEast from her infancy--not Constantinople and the Byzantine Eastalone, but back of these the old Mohammedan East, which for a thousandyears has cast its art in colors rather than in forms. It was Easternornament in mosaics, stuffs, porcelains, variegated marbles, broughtby ship to Venice and located in S. Marco, in Murano, and in Torcello, that first gave the color-impulse to the Venetians. If Florence wasthe heir of Rome and its austere classicism, Venice was the heir ofConstantinople and its color-charm. The two great color spots in Italyat this day are Venice and Ravenna, commercial footholds of theByzantines in Mediæval and Renaissance days. It may be concludedwithout error that Venice derived her color-sense and much of herluxurious and material view of life from the East. THE EARLY VENETIAN PAINTERS: Painting began at Venice with thefabrication of mosaics and ornamental altar-pieces of rich goldstucco-work. The "Greek manner"--that is, the Byzantine--was practisedearly in the fifteenth century by Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, but it did not last long. Instead of lingering for a hundred years, asat Florence, it died a natural death in the first half of thefifteenth century. Gentile da Fabriano, who was at Venice about 1420, painting in the Ducal Palace with Pisano as his assistant, may havebrought this about. He taught there in Venice, was the master ofJacopo Bellini, and if not the teacher then the influencer of theVivarinis of Murano. There were two of the Vivarinis in the earlytimes, so far as can be made out, Antonio Vivarini (?-1470) andBartolommeo Vivarini (fl. 1450-1499), who worked with JohannesAlemannus, a painter of supposed German birth and training. They allsigned themselves from Murano (an outlying Venetian island), wherethey were producing church altars and ornaments with some Paduaninfluence showing in their work. They made up the Muranese school, though this school was not strongly marked apart either incharacteristics or subjects from the Venetian school, of which it was, in fact, a part. [Illustration: FIG. 36. --CARPACCIO. PRESENTATION (DETAIL). VENICEACAD. ] Bartolommeo was the best of the group, and contended long time inrivalry with the Bellinis at Venice, but toward 1470 he fell away anddied comparatively forgotten. Luigi Vivarini (fl. 1461-1503) was thelatest of this family, and with his death the history of the Muranesemerges into the Venetian school proper, except as it continues toappear in some pupils and followers. Of these latter Carlo Crivelli(1430?1493?) was the only one of much mark. He apparently gatheredhis art from many sources--ornament and color from the Vivarini, alean and withered type from the early Paduans under Squarcione, architecture from Mantegna, and a rather repulsive sentiment from thesame school. His faces were contorted and sulky, his hands and feetstringy, his drawing rather bad; but he had a transparent color, beautiful ornamentation and not a little tragic power. Venetian art practically dates from the Bellinis. They did not beginwhere the Vivarini left off. The two families of painters seem to havestarted about the same time, worked along together from likeinspirations, and in somewhat of a similar manner as regards the earlymen. Jacopo Bellini (1400?-1464?) was the pupil of Gentile daFabriano, and a painter of considerable rank. His son, Gentile Bellini(1426?-1507), was likewise a painter of ability, and an extremelyinteresting one on account of his Venetian subjects painted with muchopen-air effect and knowledge of light and atmosphere. The youngerson, Giovanni Bellini (1428?-1516), was the greatest of the family andthe true founder of the Venetian school. About the middle of the fifteenth century the Bellini family lived atPadua and came in contact with the classic-realistic art of Mantegna. In fact, Mantegna married Giovanni Bellini's sister, and there was amingling of family as well as of art. There was an influence uponMantegna of Venetian color, and upon the Bellinis of Paduan line. Thelatter showed in Giovanni Bellini's early work, which was rather hard, angular in drapery, and anatomical in the joints, hands, and feet; butas the century drew to a close this melted away into the growingsplendor of Venetian color. Giovanni Bellini lived into the sixteenthcentury, but never quite attained the rank of a High Renaissancepainter. He had religious feeling, earnestness, honesty, simplicity, character, force, knowledge; but not the full complement ofbrilliancy and painter's power. He went beyond all his contemporariesin technical strength and color-harmony, and was in fact theepoch-making man of early Venice. Some of his pictures, like the S. Zaccaria Madonna, will compare favorably with any work of any age, andhis landscape backgrounds (see the St. Peter Martyr in the NationalGallery, London) were rather wonderful for the period in which theywere produced. Of Bellini's contemporaries and followers there were many, and as aschool there was a similarity of style, subject, and color-treatmentcarrying through them all, with individual peculiarities in eachpainter. After Giovanni Bellini comes Carpaccio (?-1522?), a youngercontemporary, about whose history little is known. He worked withGentile Bellini, and was undoubtedly influenced by Giovanni Bellini. In subject he was more romantic and chivalric than religious, thoughpainting a number of altar-pieces. The legend was his delight, and hisgreat success, as the St. Ursula and St. George pictures in Venicestill indicate. He was remarkable for his knowledge of architecture, costumes, and Oriental settings, put forth in a realistic way, withmuch invention and technical ability in the handling of landscape, perspective, light, and color. There is a truthfulness ofappearance--an out-of-doors feeling--about his work that is quitecaptivating. In addition, the spirit of his art was earnestness, honesty, and sincerity, and even the awkward bits of drawing whichoccasionally appeared in his work served to add to the general naiveeffect of the whole. [Illustration: FIG. 37. --ANTONELLO DA MESSINA. UNKNOWN MAN. LOUVRE. ] Cima da Conegliano (1460?-1517?) was probably a pupil of GiovanniBellini, with some Carpaccio influence about him. He was the best ofthe immediate followers, none of whom came up to the master. They weretrammelled somewhat by being educated in distemper work, and thenmidway in their careers changing to the oil medium, that mediumhaving been introduced into Venice by Antonello da Messina in 1473. Cima's subjects were largely half-length madonnas, given with strongqualities of light-and-shade and color. He was not a great originator, though a man of ability. Catena (?-1531) had a wide reputation in hisday, but it came more from a smooth finish and pretty accessories thanfrom creative power. He imitated Bellini's style so well that a numberof his pictures pass for works by the master even to this day. Laterhe followed Giorgione and Carpaccio. A man possessed of knowledge, heseemed to have no original propelling purpose behind him. That waslargely the make-up of the other men of the school, Basaiti(1490-1521?), Previtali (1470?-1525?), Bissolo (14641528), Rondinelli(1440?-1500?), Diana (?-1500?), Mansueti (fl. 1500). Antonello da Messina (1444?-1493), though Sicilian born, is properlyclassed with the Venetian school. He obtained a knowledge of Flemishmethods probably from Flemish painters or pictures in Italy (he neverwas a pupil of Jan van Eyck, as Vasari relates, and probably never sawFlanders), and introduced the use of oil as a medium in the Venetianschool. His early work was Flemish in character, and was very accurateand minute. His late work showed the influence of the Bellinis. Hiscounter-influence upon Venetian portraiture has never been quitejustly estimated. That fine, exact, yet powerful work, of which theDoge Loredano by Bellini, in the National Gallery, London, is a type, was perhaps brought about by an amalgamation of Flemish and Venetianmethods, and Antonello was perhaps the means of bringing it about. Hewas an excellent, if precise, portrait-painter. PRINCIPAL WORKS: PADUANS--Andrea Mantegna, Eremitani Padua, Madonna of S. Xeno Verona, St. Sebastian Vienna Mus. , St. George Venice Acad. , Camera di Sposi Castello di Corte Mantua, Madonna and Allegories Louvre, Scipio Summer Autumn Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Pizzoli (with Mantegna), Eremitani Padua; Marco Zoppo frescos Casa Colonna Bologna, Madonna Berlin Gal. VERONESE AND VICENTINE PAINTERS--Vittore Pisano, St. Anthony and George Nat. Gal. Lon. , St. George S. Anastasia Verona; Liberale da Verona, miniatures Duomo Sienna, St. Sebastian Brera Milan, Madonna Berlin Mus. , other works Duomo and Gal. Verona; Bonsignori, S. Bernardino and Gal. Verona, Mantua, and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Caroto, In S. Tommaso, S. Giorgio, S. Caterina and Gal. Verona, Dresden and Frankfort Gals. ; Montagna, Madonnas Brera, Venice Acad. , Bergamo, Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre. VENETIANS--Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, all attributions doubtful; Antonio Vivarini and Johannes Alemannus, together altar-pieces Venice Acad. , S. Zaccaria Venice; Antonio alone, Adoration of Kings Berlin Gal. ; Bartolommeo Vivarini, Madonna Bologna Gal. (with Antonio), altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Frari, Venice; Luigi Vivarini, Madonna Berlin Gal. , Frari and Acad. Venice; Carlo Crivelli, Madonnas and altar-pieces Brera, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Lateran, Berlin Gals. ; Jacopo Bellini, Crucifixion Verona Gal. , Sketch-book Brit. Mus. ; Gentile Bellini, Organ Doors S. Marco, Procession and Miracle of Cross Acad. Venice, St. Mark Brera; Giovanni Bellini, many pictures in European galleries, Acad. , Frari, S. Zaccaria SS. Giovanni e Paolo Venice; Carpaccio, Presentation and Ursula pictures Acad. , St. George and St. Jerome S. Giorgio da Schiavone Venice, St. Stephen Berlin Gal. ; Cima, altar-pieces S. Maria dell Orte, S. Giovanni in Bragora, Acad. Venice, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden, Munich, Vienna, and other galleries; Catena, Altar-pieces S. Simeone, S. M. Mater Domini, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Acad. Venice, Dresden, and in Nat. Gal. Lon. (the Warrior and Horse attributed to "School of Bellini"); Basaiti, Venice Acad. Nat. Gal. Lon. , Vienna, and Berlin Gals. ; Previtali, altar-pieces S. Spirito Bergamo, Brera, Berlin, and Dresden Gals. , Nat. Gal. Lon. , Venice Acad. ; Bissolo, Resurrection Berlin Gal. , S. Caterina Venice Acad. ; Rondinelli, two pictures Palazzo Doria Rome, Holy Family (No. 6) Louvre (attributed to Giovanni Bellini); Diana, Altar-pieces Venice Acad. ; Mansueti, large pictures Venice Acad. ; Antonella da Messina, Portraits Louvre, Berlin and Nat. Gal. Lon. , Crucifixion Antwerp Mus. CHAPTER VIII. ITALIAN PAINTING. THE HIGH RENAISSANCE--1500-1600. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Those on Italian art before mentioned, and also, Berenson, _Lorenzo Lotto_; Clement, _Michel Ange, L. Da Vinci, Raphael_; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _Titian_; same authors, _Raphael_; Grimm, _Michael Angelo_; Gronau, _Titian_; Holroyd, _Michael Angelo_; Meyer, _Correggio_; Moore, _Correggio_; Muntz, _Leonardo da Vinci_; Passavant, _Raphael_; Pater, _Studies in History of Renaissance_; Phillips, _Titian_; Reumont, _Andrea del Sarto_; Ricci, _Correggio_; Richter, _Leonardo di Vinci_; Ridolfi, _Vita di Paolo Cagliari Veronese_; Springer, _Rafael und Michel Angelo_; Symonds, _Michael Angelo_; Taine, _Italy--Florence and Venice_. THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT: The word "Renaissance" has a broader meaningthan its strict etymology would imply. It was a "new birth, " butsomething more than the revival of Greek learning and the study ofnature entered into it. It was the grand consummation of Italianintelligence in many departments--the arrival at maturity of theChristian trained mind tempered by the philosophy of Greece, and theknowledge of the actual world. Fully aroused at last, the Italianintellect became inquisitive, inventive, scientific, skeptical--yes, treacherous, immoral, polluted. It questioned all things, doubtedwhere it pleased, saturated itself with crime, corruption, andsensuality, yet bowed at the shrine of the beautiful and knelt at thealtar of Christianity. It is an illustration of the contradictionsthat may exist when the intellectual, the religious, and the moralare brought together, with the intellectual in predominance. [Illustration: FIG. 38. --FRA BARTOLOMMEO. DESCENT FROM CROSS. PITTI. ] And that keen Renaissance intellect made swift progress. It remodelledthe philosophy of Greece, and used its literature as a mould for itsown. It developed Roman law and introduced modern science. The worldwithout and the world within were rediscovered. Land and sea, starrysky and planetary system, were fixed upon the chart. Man himself, theanimals, the planets, organic and inorganic life, the small things ofthe earth gave up their secrets. Inventions utilized all classes ofproducts, commerce flourished, free cities were builded, universitiesarose, learning spread itself on the pages of newly invented books ofprint, and, perhaps, greatest of all, the arts arose on strong wingsof life to the very highest altitude. For the moral side of the Renaissance intellect it had its tastes andrefinements, as shown in its high quality of art; but it also had itspolluting and degrading features, as shown in its political and sociallife. Religion was visibly weakening though the ecclesiastical stillheld strong. People were forgetting the faith of the early days, andtaking up with the material things about them. They were glorifyingthe human and exalting the natural. The story of Greece was beingrepeated in Italy. And out of this new worship came jewels of rarityand beauty, but out of it also came faithlessness, corruption, vice. Strictly speaking, the Renaissance had been accomplished before theyear 1500, but so great was its impetus that, in the arts at least, itextended half-way through the sixteenth century. Then it began to failthrough exhaustion. MOTIVES AND METHODS: The religious subject still held with thepainters, but this subject in High-Renaissance days did not carry withit the religious feeling as in Gothic days. Art had grown to besomething else than a teacher of the Bible. In the painter's hands ithad come to mean beauty for its own sake--a picture beautiful for itsform and color, regardless of its theme. This was the teaching ofantique art, and the study of nature but increased the belief. A newlove had arisen in the outer and visible world, and when the Churchcalled for altar-pieces the painters painted their new love, christened it with a religious title, and handed it forth in the nameof the old. Thus art began to free itself from Church domination andto live as an independent beauty. The general motive, then, ofpainting during the High Renaissance, though apparently religious fromthe subject, and in many cases still religious in feeling, was largelyto show the beauty of form or color, in which religion, the antique, and the natural came in as modifying elements. In technical methods, though extensive work was still done in fresco, especially at Florence and Rome, yet the bulk of High-Renaissancepainting was in oils upon panel and canvas. At Venice even thedecorative wall paintings were upon canvas, afterward inserted in wallor ceiling. [Illustration: FIG. 39. --ANDREA DEL SARTO. MADONNA OF ST. FRANCIS. UFFIZI. ] THE FLORENTINES AND ROMANS: There was a severity and austerity aboutthe Florentine art, even at its climax. It was never too sensuous andluxurious, but rather exact and intellectual. The Florentines werefond of lustreless fresco, architectural composition, towering orsweeping lines, rather sharp color as compared with the Venetians, andtheological, classical, even literary and allegorical subjects. Probably this was largely due to the classic bias of the painters andthe intellectual and social influences of Florence and Rome. Line andcomposition were means of expressing abstract thought better thancolor, though some of the Florentines employed both line and colorknowingly. This was the case with Fra Bartolommeo (1475-1517), a monk of SanMarco, who was a transition painter from the fifteenth to thesixteenth century. He was a religionist, a follower of Savonarola, anda man of soul who thought to do work of a religious character andfeeling; but he was also a fine painter, excelling in composition, drawing, drapery, color. The painter's element in his work, itsmaterial and earthly beauty, rather detracted from its spiritualsignificance. He opposed the sensuous and the nude, and yet about theonly nude he ever painted--a St. Sebastian for San Marco--had so muchof the earthly about it that people forgot the suffering saint inadmiring the fine body, and the picture had to be removed from theconvent. In such ways religion in art was gradually undermined, notalone by naturalism and classicism but by art itself. Painting broughtinto life by religion no sooner reached maturity than it led peopleaway from religion by pointing out sensuous beauties in the typerather than religious beauties in the symbol. Fra Bartolommeo was among the last of the pietists in art. He had nogreat imagination, but some feeling and a fine color-sense forFlorence. Naturally he was influenced somewhat by the great ones abouthim, learning perspective from Raphael, grandeur from Michael Angelo, and contours from Leonardo da Vinci. He worked in collaboration withAlbertinelli (1474-1515), a skilled artist and a fellow-pupil withBartolommeo in the workshop of Cosimo Rosselli. Their work is so muchalike that it is often difficult to distinguish the painters apart. Albertinelli was not so devout as his companion, but he painted thereligious subject with feeling, as his Visitation in the Uffiziindicates. Among the followers of Bartolommeo and Albertinelli wereFra Paolino (14901547), Bugiardini (1475-1554), Granacci (1477-1543), who showed many influences, and Ridolfo Ghirlandajo (1483-1561). [Illustration: FIG. 40. --MICHAEL ANGELO. ATHLETE. SISTINE, ROME. ] Andrea del Sarto (1486-1531) was a Florentine pure and simple--apainter for the Church producing many madonnas and altar-pieces, andyet possessed of little religious feeling or depth. He was a paintermore than a pietist, and was called by his townsmen "the faultlesspainter. " So he was as regards the technical features of his art. Hewas the best brushman and colorist of the Florentine school. Dealinglargely with the material side his craftsmanship was excellent and hispictures exuberant with life and color, but his madonnas and saintswere decidedly of the earth--handsome Florentine models garbed assacred characters--well-drawn and easily painted, with littledevotional feeling about them. He was influenced by other painters tosome extent. Masaccio, Ghirlandajo, and Michael Angelo were his modelsin drawing; Leonardo and Bartolommeo in contours; while in warmth ofcolor, brush-work, atmospheric and landscape effects he was quite byhimself. He had a large number of pupils and followers, but most ofthem deserted him later on to follow Michael Angelo. Pontormo(1493-1558) and Franciabigio (1482-1525) were among the best of them. Michael Angelo (1474-1564) has been called the "Prophet of theRenaissance, " and perhaps deserves the title, since he was more of theOld Testament than the New--more of the austere and imperious than theloving or the forgiving. There was no sentimental feature about hisart. His conception was intellectual, highly imaginative, mysterious, at times disordered and turbulent in its strength. He came the nearestto the sublime of any painter in history through the sole attribute ofpower. He had no tenderness nor any winning charm. He did not win, butrather commanded. Everything he saw or felt was studied for thestrength that was in it. Religion, Old-Testament history, the antique, humanity, all turned in his hands into symbolic forms of power, putforth apparently in the white heat of passion, and at times indefiance of every rule and tradition of art. Personal feeling was veryapparent in his work, and in this he was as far removed as possiblefrom the Greeks, and nearer to what one would call to-day aromanticist. There was little of the objective about him. He was notan imitator of facts but a creator of forms and ideas. His art was areflection of himself--a self-sufficient man, positive, creative, standing alone, a law unto himself. Technically he was more of a sculptor than a painter. He said sohimself when Julius commanded him to paint the Sistine ceiling, and hetold the truth. He was a magnificent draughtsman, and drew magnificentsculpturesque figures on the Sistine vault. That was about all hisachievement with the brush. In color, light, air, perspective--in allthose features peculiar to the painter--he was behind hiscontemporaries. Composition he knew a great deal about, and in drawinghe had the most positive, far-reaching command of line of any painterof any time. It was in drawing that he showed his power. Even this issevere and harsh at times, and then again filled with a grace that ismajestic and in scope universal, as witness the Creation of Adam inthe Sistine. [Illustration: FIG. 41. --RAPHAEL. LA BELLE JARDINIÈRE. LOUVRE. ] He came out of Florence, a pupil of Ghirlandajo, with a school feelingfor line, stimulated by the frescos of Masaccio and Signorelli. At anearly age he declared himself, and hewed a path of his own throughart, sweeping along with him many of the slighter painters of his age. Long-lived he saw his contemporaries die about him and Humanism end inbloodshed with the coming of the Jesuits; but alone, gloomy, resolute, steadfast to his belief, he held his way, the last greatrepresentative of Florentine art, the first great representative ofindividualism in art. With him and after him came many followers whostrove to imitate his "terrible style, " but they did not succeed anytoo well. The most of these followers find classification under the Manneristsof the Decadence. Of those who were immediate pupils of MichaelAngelo, or carried out his designs, Daniele da Volterra (1509-1566)was one of the most satisfactory. His chief work, the Descent from theCross, was considered by Poussin as one of the three great pictures ofthe world. It is sometimes said to have been designed by MichaelAngelo, but that is only a conjecture. It has much action and life init, but is somewhat affected in pose and gesture, and Volterra's workgenerally was deficient in real energy of conception and execution. Marcello Venusti (1515-1585?) painted directly from Michael Angelo'sdesigns in a delicate and precise way, probably imbibed from hismaster, Perino del Vaga, and from association with Venetians likeSebastiano del Piombo (1485-1547). This last-named painter was born inVenice and trained under Bellini and Giorgione, inheriting the colorand light-and-shade qualities of the Venetians; but later on he wentto Rome and came under the influence of Michael Angelo and Raphael. Hetried, under Michael Angelo's inspiration it is said, to unite theFlorentine grandeur of line with the Venetian coloring, and thus outdoRaphael. It was not wholly successful, though resulting in anexcellent quality of art. As a portrait-painter he was above reproach. His early works were rather free in impasto, the late ones smooth andshiny, in imitation of Raphael. Raphael Sanzio (1483-1520) was more Greek in method than any of thegreat Renaissance painters. In subject he was not more classic thanothers of his time; he painted all subjects. In thought he was notparticularly classic; he was chiefly intellectual, with a leaningtoward the sensuous that was half-pagan. It was in method andexpression more than elsewhere that he showed the Greek spirit. Heaimed at the ideal and the universal, independent, so far as possible, of the individual, and sought by a union of all elements to produceperfect harmony. The Harmonist of the Renaissance is his title. Andthis harmony extended to a blending of thought, form, and expression, heightening or modifying every element until they ran together withsuch rhythm that it could not be seen where one left off and anotherbegan. He was the very opposite of Michael Angelo. The art of thelatter was an expression of individual power and was purelysubjective. Raphael's art was largely a unity of objective beauties, with the personal element as much in abeyance as was possible for histime. His education was a cultivation of every grace of mind and hand. Heassimilated freely whatever he found to be good in the art about him. A pupil of Perugino originally, he levied upon features of excellencein Masaccio, Fra Bartolommeo, Leonardo, Michael Angelo. From the firsthe got tenderness, from the second drawing, from the third color andcomposition, from the fourth charm, from the fifth force. Like aneclectic Greek he drew from all sources, and then blended and unitedthese features in a peculiar style of his own and stamped them withhis peculiar Raphaelesque stamp. In subject Raphael was religious and mythological, but he was imbuedwith neither of these so far as the initial spirit was concerned. Helooked at all subjects in a calm, intellectual, artistic way. Even thecelebrated Sistine Madonna is more intellectual than pietistic, aChristian Minerva ruling rather than helping to save the world. Thesame spirit ruled him in classic and theological themes. He did notfeel them keenly or execute them passionately--at least there is noindication of it in his work. The doing so would have destroyed unity, symmetry, repose. The theme was ever held in check by a regard forproportion and rhythm. To keep all artistic elements in perfectequilibrium, allowing no one to predominate, seemed the mainspring ofhis action, and in doing this he created that harmony which hisadmirers sometimes refer to as pure beauty. For his period and school he was rather remarkable technically. Heexcelled in everything except brush-work, which was never brought tomaturity in either Florence or Rome. Even in color he was fine forFlorence, though not equal to the Venetians. In composition, modelling, line, even in texture painting (see his portraits) he was aman of accomplishment; while in grace, purity, serenity, loftiness hewas the Florentine leader easily first. [Illustration: FIG. 42. --GIULIO ROMANO. APOLLO AND MUSES. PITTI. ] The influence of Raphael's example was largely felt throughout CentralItaly, and even at the north, resulting in many imitators andfollowers, who tried to produce Raphaelesque effects. Their effortswere usually successful in precipitating charm into sweetness andsentiment into sentimentality. Francesco Penni (1488?-1528) seems tohave been content to work under Raphael with some ability. GiulioRomano (1492-1546) was the strongest of the pupils, and became thefounder and leader of the Roman school, which had considerableinfluence upon the painters of the Decadence. He adopted the classicsubject and tried to adopt Raphael's style, but he was not completelysuccessful. Raphael's refinement in Giulio's hands became exaggeratedcoarseness. He was a good draughtsman, but rather hot as a colorist, and a composer of violent, restless, and, at times, contorted groups. He was a prolific painter, but his work tended toward the baroquestyle, and had a bad influence on the succeeding schools. Primaticcio (1504-1570) was one of his followers, and had much to dowith the founding of the school of Fontainebleau in France. Giovannida Udine (1487-1564), a Venetian trained painter, became a follower ofRaphael, his only originality showing in decorative designs. Perinodel Vaga (1500-1547) was of the same cast of mind. Andrea Sabbatini(1480?-1545) carried Raphael's types and methods to the south ofItaly, and some artists at Bologna, and in Umbria, like Innocenza daImola (1494-1550?), and Timoteo di Viti (1467-1523), adopted theRaphael type and method to the detriment of what native talent theymay have possessed, though about Timoteo there is some doubt whetherhe adopted Raphael's type, or Raphael his type. PRINCIPAL WORKS: FLORENTINES--Fra Bartolommeo, Descent from the Cross Salvator Mundi St. Mark Pitti, Madonnas and Prophets Uffizi, other pictures Florence Acad. , Louvre, Vienna Gal. ; Albertinelli, Visitation Uffizi, Christ Magdalene Madonna Louvre, Trinity Madonna Florence Acad. , Annunciation Munich Gal. ; Fra Paolino, works at San Spirito Sienna, S. Domenico and S. Paolo Pistoia, Madonna Florence Acad. ; Bugiardini, Madonna Uffizi, St. Catherine S. M. Novella Florence, Nativity Berlin, St. Catherine Bologna Gal. ; Granacci, altar-pieces Uffizi, Pitti, Acad. Florence, Berlin and Munich Gals. ; Ridolfo Ghirlandajo, S. Zenobio pictures Uffizi, also Louvre and Berlin Gal. ; Andrea del Sarto, many pictures in Uffizi and Pitti, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden, Madrid, Nat. Gal. Lon. , frescos S. Annunziata and the Scalzo Florence; Pontormo, frescos Annunziata Florence, Visitation and Madonna Louvre, portrait Berlin Gal. , Supper at Emmaus Florence Acad. , other works Uffizi; Franciabigio, frescos courts of the Servi and Scalzo Florence, Bathsheba Dresden Gal. , many portraits in Louvre, Pitti, Berlin Gal. ; Michael Angelo, frescos Sistine Rome, Holy Family Uffizi; Daniele da Volterra, frescos Hist. Of Cross Trinità de' Monti Rome, Innocents Uffizi; Venusti, frescos Castel San Angelo, S. Spirito Rome, Annunciation St. John Lateran Rome; Sebastiano del Piombo, Lazarus Nat. Gal. Lon. , Pietà Viterbo, Fornarina Uffizi (ascribed to Raphael) Fornarina and Christ Bearing Cross Berlin and Dresden Gals. , Agatha Pitti, Visitation Louvre, portrait Doria Gal. Rome; Raphael, Marriage of Virgin Brera, Madonna and Vision of Knight Nat. Gal. Lon. , Madonnas St. Michael and St. George Louvre, many Madonnas and portraits in Uffizi, Pitti, Munich, Vienna, St. Petersburgh, Madrid Gals. , Sistine Madonna Dresden, chief frescos Vatican Rome. ROMANS: Giulio Romano, frescos Sala di Constantino Vatican Rome (with Francesco Penni after Raphael), Palazzo del Tè Mantua, St. Stephen, S. Stefano Genoa, Holy Family Dresden Gal. , other works in Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Pitti, Uffizi; Primaticcio, works attributed to him doubtful--Scipio Louvre, Lady at Toilet and Venus Musée de Cluny; Giovanni da Udine, decorations, arabesques and grotesques in Vatican Loggia; Perino del Vaga, Hist. Of Joshua and David Vatican (with Raphael), frescos Trinità de' Monti and Castel S. Angelo Rome, Creation of Eve S. Marcello Rome; Sabbatini, Adoration Naples Mus. , altar-pieces in Naples and Salerno churches; Innocenza da Imola, works in Bologna, Berlin and Munich Gals. ; Timoteo di Viti, Church of the Pace Rome (after Raphael), madonnas and Magdalene Brera, Acad. Of St. Luke Rome, Bologna Gal. , S. Domenico Urbino, Gubbio Cathedral. CHAPTER IX. ITALIAN PAINTING. THE HIGH RENAISSANCE, 1500-1600. --CONTINUED. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: The works on Italian art before mentioned and consult also the General Bibliography (p. Xv. ) LEONARDO DA VINCI AND THE MILANESE: The third person in the greatFlorentine trinity of painters was Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), theother two being Michael Angelo and Raphael. He greatly influenced theschool of Milan, and has usually been classed with the Milanese, yethe was educated in Florence, in the workshop of Verrocchio, and was souniversal in thought and methods that he hardly belongs to any school. He has been named a realist, an idealist, a magician, a wizard, adreamer, and finally a scientist, by different writers, yet he wasnone of these things while being all of them--a full-rounded, universal man, learned in many departments and excelling in whateverhe undertook. He had the scientific and experimental way of looking atthings. That is perhaps to be regretted, since it resulted in hisexperimenting with everything and completing little of anything. Hisdifferent tastes and pursuits pulled him different ways, and hisknowledge made him sceptical of his own powers. He pondered andthought how to reach up higher, how to penetrate deeper, how torealize more comprehensively, and in the end he gave up in despair. Hecould not fulfil his ideal of the head of Christ nor the head of MonaLisa, and after years of labor he left them unfinished. The problemof human life, the spirit, the world engrossed him, and all hiscreations seem impregnated with the psychological, the mystical, theunattainable, the hidden. [Illustration: FIG. 43. --LEONARDO DA VINCI. MONA LISA. LOUVRE. ] He was no religionist, though painting the religious subject withfeeling; he was not in any sense a classicist, nor had he any care forthe antique marbles, which he considered a study of nature atsecond-hand. He was more in love with physical life without being anenthusiast over it. His regard for contours, rhythm of line, blend oflight with shade, study of atmosphere, perspective, trees, animals, humanity, show that though he examined nature scientifically, hepictured it æsthetically. In his types there is much sweetness ofsoul, charm of disposition, dignity of mien, even grandeur and majestyof presence. His people we would like to know better. They are full oflife, intelligence, sympathy; they have fascination of manner, winsomeness of mood, grace of bearing. We see this in his best-knownwork--the Mona Lisa of the Louvre. It has much allurement of personalpresence, with a depth and abundance of soul altogether charming. Technically, Leonardo was not a handler of the brush superior in anyway to his Florentine contemporaries. He knew all the methods andmediums of the time, and did much to establish oil-painting among theFlorentines, but he was never a painter like Titian, or even Correggioor Andrea del Sarto. A splendid draughtsman, a man of invention, imagination, grace, elegance, and power, he nevertheless carried moreby mental penetration and æsthetic sense than by his technical skill. He was one of the great men of the Renaissance, and deservedly holds aplace in the front rank. Though Leonardo's accomplishment seems slight because of the littlethat is left to us, yet he had a great following not only among theFlorentines but at Milan, where Vincenza Foppa had started a school inthe Early Renaissance time. Leonardo was there for fourteen years, andhis artistic personality influenced many painters to adopt his typeand methods. Bernardino Luini (1475?-1532?) was the most prominent ofthe disciples. He cultivated Leonardo's sentiment, style, subjects, and composition in his middle period, but later on developedindependence and originality. He came at a period of art when thatearnestness of characterization which marked the early men was givingway to gracefulness of recitation, and that was the chief feature ofhis art. For that matter gracefulness and pathetic sweetness of mood, with purity of line and warmth of color characterized all the Milanesepainters. [Illustration: FIG. 44. --LUINI. DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS WITH HEAD OF JOHNTHE BAPTIST. UFFIZI. ] The more prominent lights of the school were Salaino (fl. 1495-1518), of whose work nothing authentic exists, Boltraffio (1467-1516), apainter of limitations but of much refinement and purity, and Marco daOggiono (1470?-1530) a close follower of Leonardo. Solario(1458?-1515?) probably became acquainted early with the Flemish modeof working practised by Antonello da Messina, but he afterward cameunder Leonardo's spell at Milan. He was a careful, refined painter, possessed of feeling and tenderness, producing pictures with enamelledsurfaces and much detail. Gianpietrino (fl. 1520-1540) and Cesare daSesto (1477-1523?) were also of the Milanese school, the latterafterward falling under the Raphael influence. Gaudenzio Ferrara(1481?-1547?), an exceptionally brilliant colorist and a painter ofmuch distinction, was under Leonardo's influence at one time, andwith the teachings of that master he mingled a little of Raphael inthe type of face. He was an uneven painter, often excessive insentiment, but at his best one of the most charming of the northernpainters. SODOMA AND THE SIENNESE: Sienna, alive in the fourteenth century toall that was stirring in art, in the fifteenth century was in completeeclipse, no painters of consequence emanating from there or beingestablished there. In the sixteenth century there was a revival of artbecause of a northern painter settling there and building up a newschool. This painter was Sodoma (1477?-1549). He was one of the bestpupils of Leonardo da Vinci, a master of the human figure, handling itwith much grace and charm of expression, but not so successful withgroups or studied compositions, wherein he was inclined to huddle andover-crowd space. He was afterward led off by the brilliant success ofRaphael, and adopted something of that master's style. His best workwas done in fresco, though he did some easel pictures that havedarkened very much through time. He was a friend of Raphael, and hisportrait appears beside Raphael's in the latter painter's celebratedSchool of Athens. The pupils and followers of the Siennese School werenot men of great strength. Pacchiarotta (1474-1540?), Girolamo dellaPacchia (1477-1535), Peruzzi (1481-1536), a half-Lombard half-Umbrianpainter of ability, and Beccafumi (1486-1551) were the principallights. The influence of the school was slight. [Illustration: FIG. 45. --SODOMA. ECSTASY OF ST. CATHERINE. SIENNA. ] FERRARA AND BOLOGNESE SCHOOLS: The painters of these schools duringthe sixteenth century have usually been classed among the followersand imitators of Raphael, but not without some injustice. Theinfluence of Raphael was great throughout Central Italy, and theFerrarese and Bolognese felt it, but not to the extinction of theirnative thought and methods. Moreover, there was some influence incolor coming from the Venetian school, but again not to the entireextinction of Ferrarese individuality. Dosso Dossi (1479?-1541), atFerrara, a pupil of Lorenzo Costa, was the chief painter of the time, and he showed more of Giorgione in color and light-and-shade thananyone else, yet he never abandoned the yellows, greens, and redspeculiar to Ferrara, and both he and Garofolo were strikingly originalin their background landscapes. Garofolo (1481-1559) was a pupil ofPanetti and Costa, who made several visits to Rome and there fell inlove with Raphael's work, which showed in a fondness for the sweep andflow of line, in the type of face adopted, and in the calmness of hismany easel pictures. He was not so dramatic a painter as Dosso, and inaddition he had certain mannerisms or earmarks, such as sootiness inhis flesh tints and brightness in his yellows and greens, with dulnessin his reds. He was always Ferrarese in his landscapes and in the maincharacteristics of his technic. Mazzolino (1478?-1528?) was another ofthe school, probably a pupil of Panetti. He was an elaborate painter, fond of architectural backgrounds and glowing colors enlivened withgold in the high lights. Bagnacavallo (1484-1542) was a pupil ofFrancia at Bologna, but with much of Dosso and Ferrara about him. He, in common with Imola, already mentioned, was indebted to the art ofRaphael. CORREGGIO AT PARMA: In Correggio (1494?-1534) all the Boccaccio natureof the Renaissance came to the surface. It was indicated in Andrea delSarto--this nature-worship--but Correggio was the consummation. He wasthe Faun of the Renaissance, the painter with whom the beauty of thehuman as distinguished from the religious and the classic showed atits very strongest. Free animal spirits, laughing madonnas, ravingnymphs, excited children of the wood, and angels of the sky pass andrepass through his pictures in an atmosphere of pure sensuousness. They appeal to us not religiously, not historically, notintellectually, but sensuously and artistically through their rhythmiclines, their palpitating flesh, their beauty of color, and in thelight and atmosphere that surround them. He was less of a religionistthan Andrea del Sarto. Religion in art was losing ground in his day, and the liberality and worldliness of its teachers appeared clearlyenough in the decorations of the Convent of St. Paul at Parma, whereCorreggio was allowed to paint mythological Dianas and Cupids in theplace of saints and madonnas. True enough, he painted the religioussubject very often, but with the same spirit of life and joyousness asprofane subjects. [Illustration: FIG. 46--CORREGGIO. MARRIAGE OF ST. CATHERINE ANDCHRIST. LOUVRE. ] The classic subject seemed more appropriate to his spirit, and yet heknew and probably cared less about it than the religious subject. HisDianas and Ledas are only so in name. They have little of theHellenic spirit about them, and for the sterner, heroic phases ofclassicism--the lofty, the grand--Correggio never essayed them. Thethings of this earth and the sweetness thereof seemed ever his aim. Women and children were beautiful to him in the same way that flowersand trees and skies and sunsets were beautiful. They were revelationsof grace, charm, tenderness, light, shade, color. Simply to exist andbe glad in the sunlight was sweetness to Correggio. He would have noSibylesque mystery, no prophetic austerity, no solemnity, no greatintellectuality. He was no leader of a tragic chorus. The dramatic, the forceful, the powerful, were foreign to his mood. He was a singerof lyrics and pastorals, a lover of the material beauty about him, andit is because he passed by the pietistic, the classic, the literary, and showed the beauty of physical life as an art motive that he iscalled the Faun of the Renaissance. The appellation is notinappropriate. How or why he came to take this course would be hard to determine. Itwas reflective of the times; but Correggio, so far as history tellsus, had little to do with the movements and people of his age. He wasborn and lived and died near Parma, and is sometimes classed among theBologna-Ferrara painters, but the reasons for the classification arenot too strong. His education, masters, and influences are all shadowyand indefinite. He seems, from his drawing and composition, to haveknown something of Mantegna at Mantua; from his coloring something ofDosso and Garofolo, especially in his straw-yellows; from his earlytypes and faces something of Costa and Francia, and his contours andlight-and-shade indicate a knowledge of Leonardo's work. But there isno positive certainty that he saw the work of any of these men. His drawing was faulty at times, but not obtrusively so; his color andbrush-work rich, vivacious, spirited; his light brilliant, warm, penetrating; his contours melting, graceful; his atmosphereomnipresent, enveloping. In composition he rather pushed aside line infavor of light and color. It was his technical peculiarity that hecentralized his light and surrounded it by darks as a foil. And inthis very feature he was one of the first men in Renaissance Italy topaint a picture for the purpose of weaving a scheme of lights anddarks through a tapestry of rich colors. That is art for art's sake, and that, as will be seen further on, was the picture motive of thegreat Venetians. Correggio's immediate pupils and followers, like those of Raphael andAndrea del Sarto, did him small honor. As was usually the case inRenaissance art-history they caught at the method and lost the spiritof the master. His son, Pomponio Allegri (1521-1593?), was a painterof some mark without being in the front rank. Michelangelo Anselmi(1491-1554?), though not a pupil, was an indifferent imitator ofCorreggio. Parmigianino (1504-1540), a mannered painter of somebrilliancy, and of excellence in portraits, was perhaps the best ofthe immediate followers. It was not until after Correggio's death, andwith the painters of the Decadence, that his work was seriously takenup and followed. PRINCIPAL WORKS: MILANESE--Leonardo da Vinci, Last Supper S. M. Delle Grazie Milan (in ruins), Mona Lisa, Madonna with St. Anne (badly damaged) Louvre, Adoration (unfinished) Uffizi, Angel at left in Verrocchio's Baptism Florence Acad. ; Luini, frescos Monastero Maggiore, 71 fragments in Brera Milan, Church of the Pilgrims Sarrona, S. M. Degli Angeli Lugano, altar-pieces Duomo Como, Ambrosian Library Milan, Brera, Uffizi, Louvre, Madrid, St. Petersburgh, and other galleries; Beltraffio, Madonna Louvre, Barbara Berlin Gal. , Madonna Nat. Gal. Lon. , fresco Convent of S. Onofrio Rome (ascribed to Da Vinci); Marco da Oggiono, Archangels and other works Brera, Holy Family Madonna Louvre; Solario, Ecce Homo Repose Poldi-Pezzoli Gal. Milan, Holy Family Brera, Madonna Portrait Louvre, Portraits Nat. Gal. Lon. , Assumption Certosa of Pavia; Giampietrino, Magdalene Brera, Madonna S. Sepolcro Milan, Magdalene and Catherine Berlin Gal. ; Cesare da Sesto, Madonna Brera, Magi Naples Mus. ; Gaudenzio Ferrara, frescos Church of Pilgrims Saronna, other pictures in Brera, Turin Gal. , S. Gaudenzio Novara, S. Celso Milan. SIENNESE--Sodoma, frescos Convent of St. Anne near Pienza, Benedictine Convent of Mont' Oliveto Maggiore, Alexander and Roxana Villa Farnesina Rome, S. Bernardino Palazzo Pubblico, S. Domenico Sienna, pictures Uffizi, Brera, Munich, Vienna Gals. ; Pacchiarotto, Ascension Visitation Sienna Gal. ; Girolamo del Pacchia, frescos (3) S. Bernardino, altar-pieces S. Spirito and Sienna Acad. , Munich and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Peruzzi, fresco Fontegiuste Sienna, S. Onofrio, S. M. Della Pace Rome; Beccafumi, St. Catherine Saints Sienna Acad. , frescos S. Bernardino Hospital and S. Martino Sienna, Palazzo Doria Rome, Pitti, Berlin, Munich Gals. FERRARESE AND BOLOGNESE--Dosso Dossi, many works Ferrara Modena Gals. , Duomo S. Pietro Modena, Brera, Borghese, Doria, Berlin, Dresden, Vienna, Gals. ; Garofolo, many works Ferrara churches and Gal. , Borghese, Campigdoglio, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden, Munich, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Mazzolino, Ferrara, Berlin, Dresden, Louvre, Doria, Borghese, Pitti, Uffizi, and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Bagnacavallo, Misericordia and Gal. Bologna, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden Gals. PARMESE--Correggio, frescos Convent of S. Paolo, S. Giovanni Evangelista, Duomo Parma, altar-pieces Dresden (4), Parma Gals. , Louvre, mythological pictures Antiope Louvre, Danae Borghese, Leda Jupiter and Io Berlin, Venus Mercury and Cupid Nat. Gal. Lon. , Ganymede Vienna Gal. ; Pomponio Allegri, frescos Capella del Popolo Parma; Anselmi, frescos S. Giovanni Evangelista, altar-pieces Madonna della Steccata, Duomo, Gal. Parma, Louvre; Parmigianino, frescos Moses Steccata, S. Giovanni Parma, altar-pieces Santa Margherita, Bologna Gal. , Madonna Pitti, portraits Uffizi, Vienna, Naples Mus. , other works Dresden, Vienna, and Nat. Gal. Lon. CHAPTER X. ITALIAN PAINTING. THE HIGH RENAISSANCE. 1500-1600. (_Continued. _) BOOKS RECOMMENDED: The works on Italian art before mentioned and also consult General Bibliography, (page xv. ). THE VENETIAN SCHOOL: It was at Venice and with the Venetian paintersof the sixteenth century that a new art-motive was finally and fullyadopted. This art-motive was not religion. For though the religioussubject was still largely used, the religious or pietistic belief wasnot with the Venetians any more than with Correggio. It was not aclassic, antique, realistic, or naturalistic motive. The Venetianswere interested in all phases of nature, and they were students ofnature, but not students of truth for truth's sake. What they sought, primarily, was the light and shade on a nudeshoulder, the delicate contours of a form, the flow and fall of silkor brocade, the richness of a robe, a scheme of color or of light, thecharacter of a face, the majesty of a figure. They were seekingeffects of line, light, color--mere sensuous and pictorial effects, inwhich religion and classicism played secondary parts. They believed inart for art's sake; that painting was a creation, not an illustration;that it should exist by its pictorial beauties, not by its subject orstory. No matter what their subjects, they invariably painted them soas to show the beauties they prized the highest. The Venetianconception was less austere, grand, intellectual, than pictorial, sensuous, concerning the beautiful as it appealed to the eye. And thiswas not a slight or unworthy conception. True it dealt with thefulness of material life, but regarded as it was by the Venetians--athing full-rounded, complete, harmonious, splendid--it became a greatideal of existence. [Illustration: FIG. 47. --GIORGIONE(?). ORDEAL OF MOSES. UFFIZI. ] In technical expression color was the note of all the school, withhardly an exception. This in itself would seem to imply a lightness ofspirit, for color is somehow associated in the popular mind withdecorative gayety; but nothing could be further removed from theVenetian school than triviality. Color was taken up with the greatestseriousness, and handled in such masses and with such dignified powerthat while it pleased it also awed the spectator. Without having quitethe severity of line, some of the Venetian chromatic schemes rise insublimity almost to the Sistine modellings of Michael Angelo. We donot feel this so much in Giovanni Bellini, fine in color as he was. Hecame too early for the full splendor, but he left many pupils whocompleted what he had inaugurated. THE GREAT VENETIANS: The most positive in influence upon hiscontemporaries of all the great Venetians was Giorgione (1477?-1511). He died young, and what few pictures by him are left to us have beenso torn to pieces by historical criticism that at times one begins todoubt if there ever was such a painter. His different styles have beenconfused, and his pictures in consequence thereof attributed tofollowers instead of to the master. Painters change their styles, butseldom their original bent of mind. With Giorgione there was a lyricfeeling as shown in music. The voluptuous swell of line, the meltingtone of color, the sharp dash of light, the undercurrent ofatmosphere, all mingled for him into radiant melody. He sought purepictorial beauty and found it in everything of nature. He had littlegrasp of the purely intellectual, and the religious was something hedealt with in no strong devotional way. The fête, the concert, thefable, the legend, with a landscape setting, made a stronger appeal tohim. More of a recorder than a thinker he was not the less a leadershowing the way into that new Arcadian grove of pleasure whoseinhabitants thought not of creeds and faiths and histories andliteratures, but were content to lead the life that was sweet in itsglow and warmth of color, its light, its shadows, its bending trees, and arching skies. A strong full-blooded race, sober-minded, dignified, rationally happy with their lot, Giorgione portrayed themwith an art infinite in variety and consummate in skill. Their leastfeatures under his brush seemed to glow like jewels. The sheen ofarmor and rich robe, a bare forearm, a nude back, or loosenedhair--mere morsels of color and light--all took on a new beauty. Evenlandscape with him became more significant. His master, Bellini, hadbeen realistic enough in the details of trees and hills, but Giorgionegrasped the meaning of landscape as an entirety, and rendered it withpoetic breadth. Technically he adopted the oil medium brought to Venice by Antonelloda Messina, introducing scumbling and glazing to obtain brilliancy anddepth of color. Of light-and-shade he was a master, and in atmosphereexcellent. He, in common with all the Venetians, is sometimes said tobe lacking in drawing, but that is the result of a misunderstanding. The Venetians never cared to accent line, choosing rather to model inmasses of light and shadow and color. Giorgione was a superior manwith the brush, but not quite up to his contemporary Titian. [Illustration: FIG. 48. --TITIAN. VENUS EQUIPPING CUPID. BORGHESE PAL. , ROME. ] That is not surprising, for Titian (1477-1576) was the painter easilyfirst in the whole range of Italian art. He was the first man in thehistory of painting to handle a brush with freedom, vigor, and gusto. And Titian's brush-work was probably the least part of his genius. Calm in mood, dignified, and often majestic in conception, learnedbeyond all others in his craft, he mingled thought, feeling, color, brush-work into one grand and glowing whole. He emphasized nothing, yet elevated everything. In pure intellectual thought he was not sostrong as Raphael. He never sought to make painting a vehicle fortheological, literary, or classical ideas. His tale was largely ofhumanity under a religious or classical name, but a noble, majestichumanity. In his art dignified senators, stern doges, and solemnecclesiastics mingle with open-eyed madonnas, winning Ariadnes, andyouthful Bacchuses. Men and women they are truly, but the very noblestof the Italian race, the mountain race of the Cadore country--proud, active, glowing with life; the sea race of Venice--worldly wise, fullof character, luxurious in power. In himself he was an epitome of all the excellences of painting. Hewas everything, the sum of Venetian skill, the crowning genius ofRenaissance art. He had force, power, invention, imagination, point ofview; he had the infinite knowledge of nature and the infinite masteryof art. In addition, Fortune smiled upon him as upon a favorite child. Trained in mind and hand he lived for ninety-nine years and workedunceasingly up to a few months of his death. His genius was great andhis accomplishment equally so. He was celebrated and independent atthirty-five, though before that he showed something of the influenceof Giorgione. After the death of Giorgione and his master, Bellini, Titian was the leader in Venice to the end of his long life, andthough having few scholars of importance his influence was spreadthrough all North Italian painting. Taking him for all in all, perhaps it is not too much to say that hewas the greatest painter known to history. If it were possible todescribe that greatness in one word, that word would be"universality. " He saw and painted that which was universal in itstruth. The local and particular, the small and the accidental, werepassed over for those great truths which belong to all the world oflife. In this respect he was a veritable Shakespeare, with all thecalmness and repose of one who overlooked the world from a loftyheight. [Illustration: FIG. 49. --TINTORETTO. MERCURY AND GRACES. DUCAL PAL. , VENICE. ] The restfulness and easy strength of Titian were not characteristicsof his follower Tintoretto (1518-1592). He was violent, headlong, impulsive, more impetuous than Michael Angelo, and in some respects astrong reminder of him. He had not Michael Angelo's austerity, andthere was more clash and tumult and fire about him, but he had acommand of line like the Florentine, and a way of hurling things, asseen in the Fall of the Damned, that reminds one of the Last Judgmentof the Sistine. It was his aim to combine the line of Michael Angeloand the color of Titian; but without reaching up to either of hismodels he produced a powerful amalgam of his own. He was one of the very great artists of the world, and the most rapidworkman in the whole Renaissance period. There are to-day, aftercenturies of decay, fire, theft, and repainting, yards upon yards ofTintoretto's canvases rotting upon the walls of the Venetian churches. He produced an enormous amount of work, and, what is to be regretted, much of it was contract work or experimental sketching. This has givenhis art a rather bad name, but judged by his best works in the DucalPalace and the Academy at Venice, he will not be found lacking. Evenin his masterpiece (The Miracle of the Slave) he is "Il Furioso, " asthey used to call him; but his thunderbolt style is held in check bywonderful grace, strength of modelling, superb contrasts of light withshade, and a coloring of flesh and robes not unworthy of the verygreatest. He was a man who worked in the white heat of passion, withmuch imagination and invention. As a technician he sought difficultiesrather than avoided them. There is some antagonism between form andcolor, but Tintoretto tried to reconcile them. The result wassometimes clashing, but no one could have done better with them thanhe did. He was a fine draughtsman, a good colorist, and a master oflight. As a brushman he was a superior man, but not equal to Titian. Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), the fourth great Venetian, did not followthe line direction set by Tintoretto, but carried out the originalcolor-leaning of the school. He came a little later than Tintoretto, and his art was a reflection of the advancing Renaissance, whereinsimplicity was destined to lose itself in complexity, grandeur, anddisplay. Paolo came on the very crest of the Renaissance wave, whenart, risen to its greatest height, was gleaming in that transparentsplendor that precedes the fall. [Illustration: FIG. 50. --P. VERONESE. VENICE ENTHRONED. DUCAL PAL. , VENICE. ] The great bulk of his work had a large decorative motive behind it. Almost all of the late Venetian work was of that character. Hence itwas brilliant in color, elaborate in subject, and grand in scale. Splendid robes, hangings, furniture, architecture, jewels, armor, appeared everywhere, and not in flat, lustreless hues, but with thatbrilliancy which they possess in nature. Drapery gave way to clothing, and texture-painting was introduced even in the largest canvases. Scenes from Scripture and legend turned into grand pageants ofVenetian glory, and the facial expression of the characters ratherpassed out in favor of telling masses of color to be seen at adistance upon wall or ceiling. It was pomp and glory carried to thehighest pitch, but with all seriousness of mood and truthfulness inart. It was beyond Titian in variety, richness, ornament, facility;but it was perhaps below Titian in sentiment, sobriety, and depth ofinsight. Titian, with all his sensuous beauty, did appeal to thehigher intelligence, while Paolo and his companions appealed morepositively to the eye by luxurious color-setting and magnificence ofinvention. The decadence came after Paolo, but not with him. His artwas the most gorgeous of the Venetian school, and by many is rankedthe highest of all, but perhaps it is better to say it was the height. Those who came after brought about the decline by striving to imitatehis splendor, and thereby falling into extravagance. These are the four great Venetians--the men of first rank. Beside themand around them were many other painters, placed in the second rank, who in any other time or city would have held first place. Palma ilVecchio (1480?-1528) was so excellent in many ways that it seemsunjust to speak of him as a secondary painter. He was not, however, agreat original mind, though in many respects a perfect painter. He wasinfluenced by Bellini at first, and then by Giorgione. In subjectthere was nothing dramatic about him, and he carries chiefly by hisportrayal of quiet, dignified, and beautiful Venetians under the namesof saints and holy families. The St. Barbara is an example of this, and one of the most majestic figures in all painting. [Illustration: FIG. 51. --LOTTO. THREE AGES. PITTI. ] Palma's friend and fellow-worker, Lorenzo Lotto (1480?-1556?) camefrom the school of the Bellini, and at different times was under theinfluence of several Venetian painters--Palma, Giorgione, Titian--without obliterating a sensitive individuality of his own. Hewas a somewhat mannered but very charming painter, and in portraitscan hardly be classed below Titian. Rocco Marconi (fl. 1505-1520) wasanother Bellini-educated painter, showing the influence of Palma andeven of Paris Bordone. In color and landscape he was excellent. Pordenone (1483-1540) rather followed after Giorgione, andunsuccessfully competed with Titian. He was inclined to exaggerationin dramatic composition, but was a painter of undeniable power. Cariani (1480-1541) was another Giorgione follower. Bonifazio Pitatiprobably came from a Veronese family. He showed the influence ofPalma, and was rather deficient in drawing, though exceedinglybrilliant and rich in coloring. This latter may be said for ParisBordone (1495-1570), a painter of Titian's school, gorgeous in color, but often lacking in truth of form. His portraits are very fine. Another painter family, the Bassani--there were six of them, of whomJacopo Bassano (1510-1592) and his son Francesco Bassano (1550-1591), were the most noted--formed themselves after Venetian masters, andwere rather remarkable for violent contrasts of light and dark, _genre_ treatment of sacred subjects, and still-life and animalpainting. PAINTING IN VENETIAN TERRITORIES: Venetian painting was not confined toVenice, but extended through all the Venetian territories in Renaissancetimes, and those who lived away from the city were, in their art, decidedly Venetian, though possessing local characteristics. At Brescia Savoldo (1480?-1548), a rather superficial painter, fond ofweird lights and sheeny draperies, and Romanino (1485?-1566), afollower of Giorgione, good in composition but unequal and careless inexecution, were the earliest of the High Renaissance men. Moretto(1498?-1555) was the strongest and most original, a man ofindividuality and power, remarkable technically for his delicacy andunity of color under a veil of "silvery tone. " In composition he wasdignified and noble, and in brush-work simple and direct. One of thegreat painters of the time, he seemed to stand more apart fromVenetian influence than any other on Venetian territory. He left oneremarkable pupil, Moroni (fl. 1549-1578) whose portraits are to-daythe gems of several galleries, and greatly admired for their modernspirit and treatment. At Verona Caroto and Girolamo dai Libri (1474-1555), though livinginto the sixteenth century were more allied to the art of thefifteenth century. Torbido (1486?-1546?) was a vacillating painter, influenced by Liberale da Verona, Giorgione, Bonifazio Veronese, andlater, even by Giulio Romano. Cavazzola (1486-1522) was more original, and a man of talent. There were numbers of other painters scatteredall through the Venetian provinces at this time, but they were not ofthe first, or even the second rank, and hence call for no mentionhere. PRINCIPAL WORKS: Giorgione, Fête Rustique Louvre, Sleeping Venus Dresden, altar-piece Castelfranco, Ordeal of Moses Judgment of Solomon Knight of Malta Uffizi; Titian, Sacred and Profane Love Borghese, Tribute Money Dresden, Annunciation S. Rocco, Pesaro Madonna Frari Venice, Entombment Man with Glove Louvre, Bacchus Nat. Gal. Lon. , Charles V. Madrid, Danæ Naples, many other works in almost every European gallery; Tintoretto, many works in Venetian churches, Salute SS. Giovanni e Paolo S. Maria dell' Orto Scuola and Church of S. Rocco Ducal Palace Venice Acad. (best work Miracle of Slave); Paolo Veronese, many Pictures in S. Sebastiano Ducal Palace Academy Venice, Pitti, Uffizi, Brera, Capitoline and Borghese Galleries Rome, Turin, Dresden, Vienna, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Palma il Vecchio, Jacob and Rachel Three Sisters Dresden, Barbara S. M. Formosa Venice, other altar-pieces Venice Acad. , Colonna Palace Rome, Brera, Naples Mus. , Vienna, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Lotto, Three Ages Pitti, Portraits Brera, Nat. Gal. Lon. , altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Paolo Venice and churches at Bergamo, Treviso, Recanti, also Uffizi, Vienna, Madrid Gals. ; Marconi, Descent Venice Acad. , altar-pieces S. Giorgio Maggiore SS. Giovanni e Paolo Venice; Pordenone, S. Lorenzo Madonna Venice Acad. , Salome Doria St. George Quirinale Rome, other works Madrid, Dresden, St. Petersburg, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Bonifazio, St. John, St. Joseph, etc. Ambrosian Library Milan (attributed to Giorgione), Holy Family Colonna Pal. Rome, Ducal Pal. , Pitti, Dresden Gals. ; Supper at Emmaus Brera, other works Venice Acad. ; Paris Bordone, Fisherman and Doge, Venice Acad. , Madonna Casa Tadini Lovere, portraits in Uffizi, Pitti, Louvre, Munich, Vienna, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Brignola Pal. Genoa; Jacopo Bassano, altar-pieces in Bassano churches, also Ducal Pal. Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Uffizi, Naples Mus. ; Francesco Bassano, large pictures Ducal Pal. , St. Catherine Pitti, Sabines Turin, Adoration and Christ in Temple Dresden, Adoration and Last Supper Madrid; Savoldo, altar-pieces Brera, S. Niccolò Treviso, Uffizi, Turin Gal. , S. Giobbe Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Romanino, altar-pieces S. Francesco Brescia, Berlin Gal. , S. Giovanni Evangelista Brescia, Duomo Cremona, Padua, and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Moretto, altar-pieces Brera, Staedel Mus. , S. M. Della Pieta Venice, Vienna, Berlin, Louvre, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Moroni, portraits Bergamo Gal. , Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Berlin, Dresden, Madrid; Girolamo dai Libri, Madonna Berlin, Conception S. Paolo Verona, Virgin Verona Gal. , S. Giorgio Maggiore Verona, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Torbido, frescos Duomo, altar-pieces S. Zeno and S. Eufemia Verona; Cavazzola, altar-pieces, Verona Gal. And Nat. Gal. Lon. CHAPTER XI. ITALIAN PAINTING. THE DECADENCE AND MODERN WORK. 1600-1894. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, also General Bibliography, (page xv. ); Calvi, _Notizie della vita e delle opere di Gio. Francesco Barbiera_; Malvasia, _Felsina Pittrice_; Sir Joshua Reynolds, _Discourses_; Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy--The Catholic Reaction_; Willard, _Modern Italian Art_. THE DECLINE: An art movement in history seems like a wave that risesto a height, then breaks, falls, and parts of it are caught up frombeneath to help form the strength of a new advance. In ItalyChristianity was the propelling force of the wave. In the EarlyRenaissance, the antique, and the study of nature came in asadditions. At Venice in the High Renaissance the art-for-art's-sakemotive made the crest of light and color. The highest point wasreached then, and there was nothing that could follow but the breakingand the scattering of the wave. This took place in Central Italy after1540, in Venice after 1590. Art had typified in form, thought, and expression everything of whichthe Italian race was capable. It had perfected all the graces andelegancies of line and color, and adorned them with a superlativesplendor. There was nothing more to do. The idea was completed, themotive power had served its purpose, and that store of race-impulsewhich seems necessary to the making of every great art was exhausted. For the men that came after Michael Angelo and Tintoretto there wasnothing. All that they could do was to repeat what others had said, orto recombine the old thoughts and forms. This led inevitably toimitation, over-refinement of style, and conscious study of beauty, resulting in mannerism and affectation. Such qualities marked the artof those painters who came in the latter part of the sixteenth centuryand the first of the seventeenth. They were unfortunate men in thetime of their birth. No painter could have been great in theseventeenth century of Italy. Art lay prone upon its face under Jesuitrule, and the late men were left upon the barren sands by the recedingwave of the Renaissance. [Illustration: FIG. 52. --BRONZINO. CHRIST IN LIMBO. UFFIZI. ] ART MOTIVES AND SUBJECTS: As before, the chief subject of the art ofthe Decadence was religion, with many heads and busts of the Madonna, though nature and the classic still played their parts. After theReformation at the North the Church in Italy started theCounter-Reformation. One of the chief means employed by this Catholicreaction was the embellishment of church worship, and painting on alarge scale, on panel rather than in fresco, was demanded fordecorative purposes. But the religious motive had passed out, thoughits subject was retained, and the pictorial motive had reached itsclimax at Venice. The faith of the one and the taste and skill of theother were not attainable by the late men, and, while consciouslystriving to achieve them, they fell into exaggerated sentiment andtechnical weakness. It seems perfectly apparent in their works thatthey had nothing of their own to say, and that they were trying to sayover again what Michael Angelo, Correggio, and Titian had said beforethem much better. There were earnest men and good painters among them, but they could produce only the empty form of art. The spirit hadfled. THE MANNERISTS: Immediately after the High Renaissance leaders ofFlorence and Rome came the imitators and exaggerators of their styles. They produced large, crowded compositions, with a hasty facility ofthe brush and striking effects of light. Seeking the grand theyovershot the temperate. Their elegance was affected, their sentimentforced, their brilliancy superficial glitter. When they thought to beideal they lost themselves in incomprehensible allegories; when theythought to be real they grew prosaic in detail. These men are known inart history as the Mannerists, and the men whose works they imitatedwere chiefly Raphael, Michael Angelo, and Correggio. There were manyof them, and some of them have already been spoken of as the followersof Michael Angelo. Agnolo Bronzino (1502?-1572) was a pupil of Pontormo, and an imitatorof Michael Angelo, painting in rather heavy colors with a thin brush. His characters were large, but never quite free from weakness, exceptin portraiture, where he appeared at his best. Vasari (1511-1574)--thesame Vasari who wrote the lives of the painters--had versatility andfacility, but his superficial imitations of Michael Angelo were toograndiose in conception and too palpably false in modelling. Salviati(1510-1563) was a friend of Vasari, a painter of about the same castof mind and hand as Vasari, and Federigo Zucchero (1543-1609) belongswith him in producing things muscularly big but intellectually small. Baroccio (1528-1612), though classed among the Mannerists as animitator of Correggio and Raphael, was really one of the strong men ofthe late times. There was affectation and sentimentality about hiswork, a prettiness of face, rosy flesh tints, and a general lightnessof color, but he was a superior brushman, a good colorist, and, attimes, a man of earnestness and power. [Illustration: FIG. 53. --BAROCCIO. ANNUNCIATION. ] THE ECLECTICS: After the Mannerists came the Eclectics of Bologna, ledby the Caracci, who, about 1585, sought to "revive" art. They startedout to correct the faults of the Mannerists, and yet their own art wasbased more on the art of their great predecessors than on nature. Theythought to make a union of Renaissance excellences by combiningMichael Angelo's line, Titian's color, Correggio's light-and-shade andRaphael's symmetry and grace. The attempt was praiseworthy for thetime, but hardly successful. They caught the lines and lights andcolors of the great men, but they overlooked the fact that theexcellence of the imitated lay largely in their inimitableindividualities, which could not be combined. The Eclectic work wasdone with intelligence, but their system was against them and theirbaroque age was against them. Midway in their career the Caraccithemselves modified their eclecticism and placed more reliance uponnature. But their pupils paid little heed to the modification. There were five of the Caracci, but three of them--Ludovico(1555-1619), Agostino (1557-1602), and Annibale (1560-1609)--led theschool, and of these Annibale was the most distinguished. They hadmany pupils, and their influence was widely spread over Italy. In SirJoshua Reynolds's day they were ranked with Raphael, but at thepresent time criticism places them where they belong--painters of theDecadence with little originality or spontaneity in their art, thoughmuch technical skill. Domenichino (1581-1641) was the strongest of thepupils. His St. Jerome was rated by Poussin as one of the three greatpaintings of the world, but it never deserved such rank. It ispowerfully composed, but poor in coloring and handling. The painterhad great repute in his time, and was one of the best of theseventeenth century men. Guido Reni (1575-1642) was a painter of manygifts and accomplishments, combined with many weaknesses. His worksare well composed and painted, but excessive in sentiment and overdonein pathos. Albani (1578-1660) ran to elegance and a porcelain-likeprettiness. Guercino (1591-1666) was originally of the Eclectic Schoolat Bologna, but later took up with the methods of the Naturalists atNaples. He was a painter of far more than the average ability. Sassoferrato (1605-1685) and Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) were sosuper-saturated with sentimentality that often their skill as paintersis overlooked or forgotten. In spirit they were about the weakest ofthe century. There were other eclectic schools started throughoutItaly--at Milan, Cremona, Ferrara--but they produced little worthrecording. At Rome certain painters like Cristofano Allori(1577-1621), an exceptionally strong man for the time, Berrettini(1596-1669), and Maratta (1625-1713), manufactured a facile kind ofpainting from what was attractive in the various schools, but it wasnever other than meretricious work. [Illustration: FIG. 54. --ANNIBALE CARACCI. ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST. LOUVRE. ] THE NATURALISTS: Contemporary with the Eclectics sprang up theNeapolitan school of the Naturalists, led by Caravaggio (1569-1609)and his pupils. These schools opposed each other, and yet influencedeach other. Especially was this true with the later men, who took whatwas best in both schools. The Naturalists were, perhaps, more firmlybased upon nature than the Bolognese Eclectics. Their aim was to takenature as they found it, and yet, in conformity with the extravaganceof the age, they depicted extravagant nature. Caravaggio thought torepresent sacred scenes more truthfully by taking his models from theharsh street life about him and giving types of saints and apostlesfrom Neapolitan brawlers and bandits. It was a brutal, coarserepresentation, rather fierce in mood and impetuous in action, yet notwithout a good deal of tragic power. His subjects were rather dismalor morose, but there was knowledge in the drawing of them, some goodcolor and brush-work and a peculiar darkness of shadow masses(originally gained from Giorgione), that stood as an ear-mark of hiswhole school. From the continuous use of black shadows the school gotthe name of the "Darklings, " by which they are still known. Giordano(1632-1705), a painter of prodigious facility and invention, SalvatorRosa (1615-1673), best known as one of the early painters oflandscape, and Ribera, a Spanish painter, were the principal pupils. THE LATE VENETIANS: The Decadence at Venice, like the Renaissance, came later than at Florence, but after the death of Tintorettomannerisms and the imitation of the great men did away withoriginality. There was still much color left, and fine ceilingdecorations were done, but the nobility and calm splendor of Titian'sdays had passed. Palma il Giovine (1544-1628) with a hasty brushproduced imitations of Tintoretto with some grace and force, and inremarkable quantity. He and Tintoretto were the most rapid andproductive painters of the century; but Palma's was not good inspirit, though quite dashing in technic. Padovanino (1590-1650) wasmore of a Titian follower, but, like all the other painters of thetime, he was proficient with the brush and lacking in the strongermental elements. The last great Italian painter was Tiepolo(1696-1770), and he was really great beyond his age. With an artfounded on Paolo Veronese, he produced decorative ceilings and panelsof high quality, with wonderful invention, a limpid brush, and a lightflaky color peculiarly appropriate to the walls of churches andpalaces. He was, especially in easel pictures, a brilliant, vivaciousbrushman, full of dash and spirit, tempered by a large knowledge ofwhat was true and pictorial. Some of his best pictures are still inVenice, and modern painters are unstinted in their praise of them. Heleft a son, Domenico Tiepolo (1726-1795), who followed his methods. Inthe late days of Venetian painting, Canaletto (1697-1768) and Guardi(1712-1793) achieved reputation by painting Venetian canals andarchitecture with much color effect. [Illustration: FIG. 55. --CARAVAGGIO. THE CARD PLAYERS. DRESDEN. ] NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN ITALY: There is little in the art ofItaly during the present century that shows a positive nationalspirit. It has been leaning on the rest of Europe for many years, andthe best that the living painters show is largely an echo ofDusseldorf, Munich, or Paris. The revived classicism of David inFrance affected nineteenth-century painting in Italy somewhat. Then itwas swayed by Cornelius and Overbeck from Germany. Morelli (1826-[2])shows this latter influence, though one of the most important of theliving men. [3] In the 1860's Mariano Fortuny, a Spaniard at Rome, ledthe younger element in the glittering and the sparkling, and thisstyle mingled with much that is more strikingly Parisian than Italian, may be found in the works of painters like Michetti, De Nittis(1846-1884), Favretto, Tito, Nono, Simonetti, and others. [Footnote 2: Died, 1901. ] [Footnote 3: See _Scribner's Magazine_, Neapolitan Art, Dec. , 1890, Feb. , 1891. ] Of recent days the impressionistic view of light and color has had itsinfluence; but the Italian work at its best is below that of France. Segantini[4] was one of the most promising of the younger men insubjects that have an archaic air about them. Boldini, though Italianborn and originally following Fortuny's example, is really moreParisian than anything else. He is an artist of much power andtechnical strength in _genre_ subjects and portraits. The newer menare Fragiocomo, Fattori, Mancini, Marchetti. [Footnote 4: Died, 1899. ] PRINCIPAL WORKS: MANNERISTS--Agnolo Bronzino, Christ in Limbo and many portraits in Uffizi and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Vasari, many pictures in galleries at Arezzo, Bologna, Berlin, Munich, Louvre, Madrid; Salviati, Charity Christ Uffizi, Patience Pitti, St. Thomas Louvre, Love and Psyche Berlin; Federigo Zucchero, Duomo Florence, Ducal Palace Venice, Allegories Uffizi, Calumny Hampton Court; Baroccio, Pardon of St. Francis Urbino, Annunciation Loreto, several pictures in Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, Dresden Gal. ECLECTICS--Ludovico Caracci, Cathedral frescos Bologna, thirteen pictures Bologna Gal. ; Agostino Caracci, frescos (with Annibale) Farnese Pal. Rome, altar-pieces Bologna Gal. ; Annibale Carracci, frescos (with Agostino) Farnese Pal. Rome, other pictures Bologna Gal. , Uffizi, Naples Mus. , Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Domenichino, St. Jerome Vatican, S. Pietro in Vincoli, Diana Borghese, Bologna, Pitti, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Guido Reni, frescos Aurora Rospigliosi Pal. Rome, many pictures Bologna, Borghese Gal. , Pitti, Uffizi, Brera, Naples, Louvre, and other galleries of Europe; Albani, Guercino, Sassoferrato, and Carlo Dolci, works in almost every European gallery, especially Bologna; Cristofano Allori, Judith Pitti, also pictures in Uffizi; Berrettini and Maratta, many examples in Italian galleries, also Louvre. NATURALISTS--Caravaggio, Entombment Vatican, many other works in Pitti, Uffizi, Naples, Louvre, Dresden, St. Petersburg; Giordano, Judgment of Paris Berlin, many pictures in Dresden and Italian galleries; Salvator Rosa, best marine in Pitti, other works Uffizi, Brera, Naples, Madrid galleries and Colonna, Corsini, Doria, Chigi Palaces Rome. LATE VENETIANS--Palma il Giovine, Ducal Palace Venice, Cassel, Dresden, Munich, Madrid, Naples, Vienna galleries; Padovanino, Marriage in Cana Kneeling Angel and other works Venice Acad. , Carmina Venice, also galleries of Louvre, Uffizi, Borghese, Dresden, London; Tiepolo, large fresco Villa Pisani Stra, Palazzo Labia Scuola Carmina, Venice, Villa Valmarana, and at Wurtzburg, easel pictures Venice Acad. , Louvre, Berlin, Madrid; Canaletto and Guardi, many pictures in European galleries. MODERN ITALIANS[5]--Morelli, Madonna Royal chap. Castiglione, Assumption Royal chap. Naples; Michetti, The Vow Nat. Gal. Rome; De Nittis, Place du Carrousel Luxembourg Paris; Boldini, Gossips Met. Mus. New York. [Footnote 5: Only works in public places are given. Those in privatehands change too often for record here. For detailed list of works seeChamplin and Perkins, _Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings. _] CHAPTER XII. FRENCH PAINTING. SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Amorini, _Vita del celebre pittore Francesco Primaticcio_; Berger, _Histoire de l'École Française de Peinture au XVII^{me} Siècle_; Bland, _Les Peintres des fêtes galantes, Watteau, Boucher, et al. _; Curmer, _L'OEuvre de Jean Fouquet_; Delaborde, _Études sur les Beaux Arts en France et en Italie_; Didot, _Études sur Jean Cousin_; Dimier, _French Painting in XVI Century_; Dumont, _Antoine Watteau_; Dussieux, _Nouvelles Recherches sur la Vie de E. Lesueur_; Genevay, _Le Style Louis XIV. , Charles Le Brun_; Goncourt, _L'Art du XVIII^{me} Siècle_; Guibel, _Éloge de Nicolas Poussin_; Guiffrey, _La Famille de Jean Cousin_; Laborde, _La Renaissance des Arts à la Cour de France_; Lagrange, _J. Vernet et la Peinture au XVIII^{me} Siècle_; Lecoy de la Marche, _Le Roi René_; Mantz, _François Boucher_; Michiels, _Études sur l'Art Flamand dans l'est et le midi de la France_; Muntz, _La Renaissance en Italie et en France_; Palustre, _La Renaissance en France_; Pattison, _Renaissance of Art in France_; Pattison, _Claude Lorrain_; Poillon, _Nicolas Poussin_; Stranahan, _History of French Painting_. EARLY FRENCH ART: Painting in France did not, as in Italy, springdirectly from Christianity, though it dealt with the religioussubject. From the beginning a decorative motive--the strong feature ofFrench art--appears as the chief motive of painting. This showeditself largely in church ornament, garments, tapestries, miniatures, and illuminations. Mural paintings were produced during the fifthcentury, probably in imitation of Italian or Roman example. UnderCharlemagne, in the eighth century, Byzantine influences were at work. In the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries much stained-glasswork appeared, and also many missal paintings and furnituredecorations. [Illustration: Fig. 56. --POUSSIN. ET IN ARCADIA EGO. LOUVRE. ] In the fifteenth century René of Anjou (1408-1480), king and painter, gave an impetus to art which he perhaps originally received fromItaly. His work showed some Italian influence mingled with a greatdeal of Flemish precision, and corresponded for France to the earlyRenaissance work of Italy, though by no means so advanced. Contemporary with René was Jean Fouquet (1415?-1480?) an illuminatorand portrait-painter, one of the earliest in French history. He was anartist of some original characteristics and produced an art detailedand exact in its realism. Jean Péreal (?-1528?) and Jean Bourdichon(1457?-1521?) with Fouquet's pupils and sons, formed a school at Tourswhich afterward came to show some Italian influence. The nativeworkmen at Paris--they sprang up from illuminators to painters in allprobability--showed more of the Flemish influence. Neither of theschools of the fifteenth century reflected much life or thought, butwhat there was of it was native to the soil, though their methods wereinfluenced from without. SIXTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: During this century Francis I. , atFontainebleau, seems to have encouraged two schools of painting, onethe native French and the other an imported Italian, which afterwardtook to itself the name of the "School of Fontainebleau. " Of thenative artists the Clouets were the most conspicuous. They were ofFlemish origin, and followed Flemish methods both in technic andmediums. There were four of them, of whom Jean (1485?-1541?) andFrançois (1500?-1572?) were the most noteworthy. They painted manyportraits, and François' work, bearing some resemblance to that ofHolbein, it has been doubtfully said that he was a pupil of thatpainter. All of their work was remarkable for detail and closelyfollowed facts. The Italian importation came about largely through the travels ofFrancis I. In Italy. He invited to Fontainebleau Leonardo da Vinci, Andrea del Sarto, Il Rosso, Primaticcio, and Niccolò dell' Abbate. These painters rather superseded and greatly influenced the Frenchpainters. The result was an Italianized school of French art whichruled in France for many years. Primaticcio was probably the greatestof the influencers, remaining as he did for thirty years in France. The native painters, Jean Cousin (1500?-1589) and Toussaint du Breuil(1561-1602) followed his style, and in the next century the painterswere even more servile imitators of Italy--imitating not the bestmodels either, but the Mannerists, the Eclectics, and the Romanpainters of the Decadence. [Illustration: FIG. 57. --CLAUDE LORRAIN. FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. DRESDEN. ] SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: This was a century of great developmentand production in France, the time of the founding of the FrenchAcademy of Painting and Sculpture, and the formation of many picturecollections. In the first part of the century the Flemish and nativetendencies existed, but they were overawed, outnumbered by theItalian. Not even Rubens's painting for Marie de' Medici, in thepalace of the Luxembourg, could stem the tide of Italy. The Frenchpainters flocked to Rome to study the art of their great predecessorsand were led astray by the flashy elegance of the late Italians. Amongthe earliest of this century was Fréminet (1567-1619). He was firsttaught by his father and Jean Cousin, but afterward spent fifteenyears in Italy studying Parmigianino and Michael Angelo. His work hadsomething of the Mannerist style about it and was overwrought andexaggerated. In shadows he seemed to have borrowed from Caravaggio. Vouet (1590-1649) was a student in Italy of Veronese's painting andafterward of Guido Reni and Caravaggio. He was a mediocre artist, buthad a great vogue in France and left many celebrated pupils. By all odds the best painter of this time was Nicolas Poussin(1593-1665). He lived almost all of his life in Italy, and might beput down as an Italian of the Decadence. He was well versed inclassical archæology, and had much of the classic taste and feelingprevalent at that time in the Roman school of Giulio Romano. His workshowed great intelligence and had an elevated grandiloquent styleabout it that was impressive. It reflected nothing French, and hadlittle more root in present human sympathy than any of the otherpainting of the time, but it was better done. The drawing was correctif severe, the composition agreeable if formal, the coloringvariegated if violent. Many of his pictures have now changed for theworse in coloring owing to the dissipation of surface pigments. He wasthe founder of the classic and academic in French art, and ininfluence was the most important man of the century. He was especiallystrong in the heroic landscape, and in this branch helped form thestyle of his brother-in-law, Gaspard (Dughet) Poussin (1613-1675). The landscape painter of the period, however, was Claude Lorrain(1600-1682). He differed from Poussin in making his pictures dependmore strictly upon landscape than upon figures. With both painters, the trees, mountains, valleys, buildings, figures, were of the grandclassic variety. Hills and plains, sylvan groves, flowing streams, peopled harbors, Ionic and Corinthian temples, Roman aqueducts, mythological groups, were the materials used, and the object of theiruse was to show the ideal dwelling-place of man--the former Garden ofthe Gods. Panoramic and slightly theatrical at times, Claude's workwas not without its poetic side, shrewd knowledge, and skilfulexecution. He was a leader in landscape, the man who first paintedreal golden sunlight and shed its light upon earth. There is a softsummer's-day drowsiness, a golden haze of atmosphere, a feeling ofcomposure and restfulness about his pictures that are attractive. LikePoussin he depended much upon long sweeping lines in composition, andupon effects of linear perspective. [Illustration: FIG. 58--WATTEAU. GILLES. LOUVRE. ] COURT PAINTING: When Louis XIV. Came to the throne painting took on adecided character, but it was hardly national or race character. Thepopular idea, if the people had an idea, did not obtain. There was nomotive springing from the French except an inclination to followItaly; and in Italy all the great art-motives were dead. In methodthe French painters followed the late Italians, and imitated animitation; in matter they bowed to the dictates of the court andreflected the king's mock-heroic spirit. Echoing the fashion of theday, painting became pompous, theatrical, grandiloquent--a mass ofvapid vanity utterly lacking in sincerity and truth. Lebrun(1619-1690), painter in ordinary to the king, directed substantiallyall the painting of the reign. He aimed at pleasing royalty withflattering allusions to Cæsarism and extravagant personifications ofthe king as a classic conqueror. His art had neither truth, norgenius, nor great skill, and so sought to startle by subject or size. Enormous canvases of Alexander's triumphs, in allusion to those of thegreat Louis, were turned out to order, and Versailles to this day istapestried with battle-pieces in which Louis is always victor. Considering the amount of work done, Lebrun showed great fecundity andindustry, but none of it has much more than a mechanical ingenuityabout it. It was rather original in composition, but poor in drawing, lighting, and coloring; and its example upon the painters of the timewas pernicious. His contemporary, Le Sueur (1616-1655), was a more sympathetic andsincere painter, if not a much better technician. Both were pupils ofVouet, but Le Sueur's art was religious in subject, while Lebrun's wasmilitary and monarchical. Le Sueur had a feeling for his theme, butwas a weak painter, inclined to the sentimental, thin in coloring, andnot at all certain in his drawing. French allusions to him as "theFrench Raphael" show more national complacency than correctness. Sebastian Bourdon (1616-1671) was another painter of history, but alittle out of the Lebrun circle. He was not, however, free from theinfluence of Italy, where he spent three years studying color morethan drawing. This shows in his works, most of which are lacking inform. Contemporary with these men was a group of portrait-painters whogained celebrity perhaps as much by their subjects as by their ownpowers. They were facile flatterers given over to the pomps of thereign and mirroring all its absurdities of fashion. Their work has agraceful, smooth appearance, and, for its time, it was undoubtedlyexcellent portraiture. Even to this day it has qualities of drawingand coloring to commend it, and at times one meets with exceptionallygood work. The leaders among these portrait-painters were Philip deChampaigne (1602-1674), the best of his time; Pierre Mignard(1610?-1695), a pupil of Vouet, who studied in Rome and afterwardreturned to France to become the successful rival of Lebrun;Largillière (1656-1746) and Rigaud (1659-1743). EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: The painting of Louis XIV. 's time wascontinued into the eighteenth century for some fifteen years or morewith little change. With the advent of Louis XV. Art took upon itselfanother character, and one that reflected perfectly the moral, social, and political France of the eighteenth century. The first Louisclamored for glory, the second Louis revelled in gayety, frivolity, and sensuality. This was the difference between both monarchs and botharts. The gay and the coquettish in painting had already beenintroduced by the Regent, himself a dilettante in art, and when LouisXV. Came to the throne it passed from the gay to the insipid, theflippant, even the erotic. Shepherds and shepherdesses dressed incourt silks and satins with cottony sheep beside them posed instage-set Arcadias, pretty gods and goddesses reclined indolently upongossamer clouds, and court gallants lounged under artificial trees byartificial ponds making love to pretty soubrettes from the theatre. Yet, in spite of the lack of moral and intellectual elevation, inspite of frivolity and make-believe, this art was infinitely betterthan the pompous imitation of foreign example set up by Louis XIV. Itwas more spontaneous, more original, more French. The influence ofItaly began to fail, and the painters began to mirror French life. Itwas largely court life, lively, vivacious, licentious, but in thatvery respect characteristic of the time. Moreover, there was anotherquality about it that showed French taste at its best--the decorativequality. It can hardly be supposed that the fairy creations of the agewere intended to represent actual nature. They were designed toornament hall and boudoir, and in pure decorative delicacy of design, lightness of touch, color charm, they have never been excelled. Theserious spirit was lacking, but the gayety of line and color was wellgiven. [Illustration: FIG. 59. --BOUCHER. PASTORAL. LOUVRE. ] Watteau (1684-1721) was the one chiefly responsible for the coquetteand soubrette of French art, and Watteau was, practically speaking, the first French painter. His subjects were trifling bits offashionable love-making, scenes from the opera, fêtes, balls, and thelike. All his characters played at life in parks and groves that nevergrew, and most of his color was beautifully unreal; but for all thatthe work was original, decorative, and charming. Moreover, Watteau wasa brushman, and introduced not only a new spirit and new subject intoart, but a new method. The epic treatment of the Italians was laidaside in favor of a genre treatment, and instead of line and flatsurface Watteau introduced color and cleverly laid pigment. He was abrilliant painter; not a great man in thought or imagination, but oneof fancy, delicacy, and skill. Unfortunately he set a bad example byhis gay subjects, and those who came after him carried his gayety andlightness of spirit into exaggeration. Watteau's best pupils wereLancret (1690-1743) and Pater (1695-1736), who painted in his stylewith fair results. After these men came Van Loo (1705-1765) and Boucher (1703-1770), whoturned Watteau's charming fêtes, showing the costumes and manners ofthe Regency, into flippant extravagance. Not only was the moral toneand intellectual stamina of their art far below that of Watteau, buttheir workmanship grew defective. Both men possessed a remarkablefacility of the hand and a keen decorative color-sense; but after atime both became stereotyped and mannered. Drawing and modelling wereneglected, light was wholly conventional, and landscape turned into apiece of embroidered background with a Dresden china-tapestry effectabout it. As decoration the general effect was often excellent, as aserious expression of life it was very weak, as an intellectual ormoral force it was worse than worthless. Fragonard (1732-1806)followed in a similar style, but was a more knowing man, clever incolor, and a much freer and better brushman. A few painters in the time of Louis XV. Remained apparentlyunaffected by the court influence, and stand in conspicuous isolation. Claude Joseph Vernet (1712-1789) was a landscape and marine painter ofsome repute in his time. He had a sense of the pictorial, but not aremarkable sense of the truthful in nature. Chardin (1699-1779) andGreuze (1725-1805), clung to portrayals of humble life and sought topopularize the _genre_ subject. Chardin was not appreciated by themasses. His frank realism, his absolute sincerity of purpose, his playof light and its effect upon color, and his charming handling oftextures were comparatively unnoticed. Yet as a colorist he may beranked second to none in French art, and in freshness of handling hiswork is a model for present-day painters. Diderot early recognizedChardin's excellence, and many artists since his day have admired hispictures; but he is not now a well-known or popular painter. Thepopulace fancies Greuze and his sentimental heads of young girls. Theyhave a prettiness about them that is attractive, but as art they lackin force, and in workmanship they are too smooth, finical, and thin inhandling. PRINCIPAL WORKS: All of these French painters are best represented in the collections of the Louvre. Some of the other galleries, like the Dresden, Berlin, and National at London, have examples of their work; but the masterpieces are with the French people in the Louvre and in the other municipal galleries of France. CHAPTER XIII. FRENCH PAINTING. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Stranahan, _et al. _; also Ballière, _Henri Regnault_; Blanc, _Les Artistes de mon Temps_; Blanc, _Histoire des Peintres français au XIX^{me} Siècle_; Blanc, _Ingres et son OEuvre_; Bigot, _Peintres français contemporains_; Breton, _La Vie d'un Artiste_ (_English Translation_); Brownell, _French Art_; Burty, _Maîtres et Petit-Maîtres_; Chesneau, _Peinture française au XIX^{me} Siècle_; Clément, _Études sur les Beaux Arts en France_; Clément, _Prudhon_; Delaborde, _OEuvre de Paul Delaroche_; Delécluze, _Jacques Louis David, son École, et son Temps_; Duret, _Les Peintres français en 1867_; Gautier, _L'Art Moderne_; Gautier, _Romanticisme_; Gonse, _Eugène Fromentin_; Hamerton, _Contemporary French Painting_; Hamerton, _Painting in France after the Decline of Classicism_; Henley, _Memorial Catalogue of French and Dutch Loan Collection_ (1886); Henriet, _Charles Daubigny et son OEuvre_; Lenormant, _Les Artistes Contemporains_; Lenormant, _Ary Scheffer_; Merson, _Ingres, sa Vie et son OEuvre_; Moreau, _Decamps et son OEuvre_; Planche, _Études sur l'École française_; Robaut et Chesneau, _L' OEuvre complet d'Eugène Delacroix_; Sensier, _Théodore Rousseau_; Sensier, _Life and Works of J. F. Millet_; Silvestre, _Histoire des Artistes vivants et étrangers_; Strahan, _Modern French Art_; Thoré, _L'Art Contemporain_; Theuriet, _Jules Bastien-Lepage_; Van Dyke, _Modern French Masters_. THE REVOLUTIONARY TIME: In considering this century's art in Europe, it must be remembered that a great social and intellectual change hastaken place since the days of the Medici. The power so long pent up inItaly during the Renaissance finally broke and scattered itself uponthe western nations; societies and states were torn down andrebuilded, political, social, and religious ideas shifted into newgarbs; the old order passed away. [Illustration: FIG. 60. --DAVID. THE SABINES. LOUVRE. ] Religion as an art-motive, or even as an art-subject, ceased to obtainanywhere. The Church failed as an art-patron, and the walls ofcloister and cathedral furnished no new Bible readings to theunlettered. Painting, from being a necessity of life, passed into aluxury, and the king, the state, or the private collector became thepatron. Nature and actual life were about the only sources left fromwhich original art could draw its materials. These have been freelyused, but not so much in a national as in an individual manner. Thetendency to-day is not to put forth a universal conception but anindividual belief. Individualism--the same quality that appeared sostrongly in Michael Angelo's art--has become a keynote in modern work. It is not the only kind of art that has been shown in this century, nor is nature the only theme from which art has been derived. We mustremember and consider the influence of the past upon modern men, andthe attempts to restore the classic beauty of the Greek, Roman, andItalian, which practically ruled French painting in the first part ofthis century. FRENCH CLASSICISM OF DAVID: This was a revival of Greek form in art, founded on the belief expressed by Winckelmann, that beauty lay inform, and was best shown by the ancient Greeks. It was the objectiveview of art which saw beauty in the external and tolerated noindividuality in the artist except that which was shown in technicalskill. It was little more than an imitation of the Greek and Romanmarbles 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 naturalsurroundings. It was elevated, lofty, ideal in aspiration, but coldlyunsympathetic because lacking in contemporary interest; and, thoughcorrect enough in classic form, was lacking in the classic spirit. Like all reanimated art, it was derivative as regards its forms andlacking in spontaneity. The reason for the existence of Greek art diedwith its civilization, and those, like the French classicists, whosought 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 therevival of the classic in the French art of the late eighteenthcentury. It was a revolt, and at that time revolts were popular. Theart of Boucher and Van Loo had become quite unbearable. It wasflippant, careless, licentious. It had no seriousness or dignity aboutit. Moreover, it smacked of the Bourbon monarchy, which people hadcome to hate. Classicism was severe, elevated, respectable at least, and had the air of the heroic republic about it. It was a return to asterner view of life, with the martial spirit behind it as an impetus, and it had a great vogue. For many years during the Revolution, theConsulate, and the Empire, classicism was accepted by the sovereignsand the Institute of France, and to this day it lives in a modifiedform in that semi-classic work known as academic art. THE CLASSIC SCHOOL: Vien (1716-1809) was the first painter to protestagainst the art of Boucher and Van Loo by advocating more nobility ofform and a closer study of nature. He was, however, more devoted tothe antique forms he had studied in Rome than to nature. In subjectand line his tendency was classic, with a leaning toward the Italiansof the Decadence. He lacked the force to carry out a complete reformin painting, but his pupil David (1748-1825) accomplished what he hadbegun. It was David who established the reign of classicism, and bynative power became the leader. The time was appropriate, theRevolution called for pictures of Romulus, Brutus and Achilles, andNapoleon encouraged the military theme. David had studied the marblesat Rome, and he used them largely for models, reproducing scenes fromGreek and Roman life in an elevated and sculpturesque style, with mucharchæological knowledge and a great deal of skill. In color, relief, sentiment, individuality, his painting was lacking. He despised allthat. The rhythm of line, the sweep of composed groups, the heroicsubject and the heroic treatment, made up his art. It was thoroughlyobjective, and what contemporary interest it possessed lay largely inthe martial spirit then prevalent. Of course it was upheld by theInstitute, and it really set the pace for French painting for nearlyhalf a century. When David was called upon to paint Napoleonicpictures he painted them under protest, and yet these, with hisportraits, constitute his best work. In portraiture he was uncommonlystrong at times. [Illustration: FIG. 61. --INGRES. OEDIPUS AND SPHINX. LOUVRE. ] After the Restoration David, who had been a revolutionist, and then anadherent of Napoleon, was sent into exile; but the influence he hadleft and the school he had established were carried on by hiscontemporaries and pupils. Of the former Regnault (1754-1829), Vincent(1746-1816), and Prudhon (1758-1823) were the most conspicuous. Thelast one was considered as out of the classic circle, but so far asmaking his art depend upon drawing and composition, he was a genuineclassicist. His subjects, instead of being heroic, inclined to themythological and the allegorical. In Italy he had been a student ofthe Renaissance painters, and from them borrowed a method of shadowgradation that rendered his figures misty and phantom-like. Theypossessed an ease of movement sometimes called "Prudhonesque grace, "and in composition were well placed and effective. Of David's pupils there were many. Only a few of them, however, hadpronounced ability, and even these carried David's methods into thetheatrical. Girodet (1766-1824) was a draughtsman of considerablepower, but with poor taste in color and little repose in composition. Most of his work was exaggeration and strained effect. Lethière(1760-1832) and Guérin (1774-1833), pupils of Regnault, were paintersakin to Girodet, but inferior to him. Gérard (1770-1837) was a weakDavid follower, who gained some celebrity by painting portraits ofcelebrated men and women. The two pupils of David who brought him themost credit were Ingres (1780-1867) and Gros (1771-1835). Ingres was acold, persevering man, whose principles had been well settled by Davidearly in life, and were adhered to with conviction by the pupil to thelast. He modified the classic subject somewhat, studied Raphael andthe Italians, and reintroduced the single figure into art (the Source, and the Odalisque, for example). For color he had no fancy. "In natureall is form, " he used to say. Painting he thought not an independentart, but "a development of sculpture. " To consider emotion, color, orlight as the equal of form was monstrous, and to compare Rembrandtwith Raphael was blasphemy. To this belief he clung to the end, faithfully reproducing the human figure, and it is not to be wonderedat that eventually he became a learned draughtsman. His single figuresand his portraits show him to the best advantage. He had a stronggrasp of modelling and an artistic sense of the beauty and dignity ofline not excelled by any artist of this century. And to him more thanany other painter is due the cultured draughtsmanship which is to-daythe just pride of the French school. Gros was a more vacillating man, and by reason of forsaking theclassic subject for Napoleonic battle-pieces, he unconsciously led theway toward romanticism. He excelled as a draughtsman, but when he cameto paint the Field of Eylau and the Pest of Jaffa he mingled color, light, air, movement, action, sacrificing classic composition andrepose to reality. This was heresy from the Davidian point of view, and David eventually convinced him of it. Gros returned to the classictheme and treatment, but soon after was so reviled by the changingcriticism of the time that he committed suicide in the Seine. His art, however, was the beginning of romanticism. The landscape painting of this time was rather academic andunsympathetic. It was a continuation of the Claude-Poussin tradition, and in its insistence upon line, grandeur of space, and imposing treesand mountains, was a fit companion to the classic figure-piece. It hadlittle basis in nature, and little in color or feeling to commend it. Watelet (1780-1866), Bertin (1775-1842), Michallon (1796-1822), andAligny (1798-1871), were its exponents. A few painters seemed to stand apart from the contemporary influences. Madame Vigée-Lebrun (1755-1842), a successful portrait-painter ofnobility, and Horace Vernet (1789-1863), a popular battle-painter, many of whose works are to be seen at Versailles, were of this class. ROMANTICISM: The movement in French painting which began about 1822 andtook the name of Romanticism was but a part of the "storm-and-stress"feeling that swept Germany, England, and France at the beginning of thiscentury, appearing first in literature and afterward in art. It had itsorigin in a discontent with the present, a passionate yearning for theunattainable, an intensity of sentiment, gloomy melancholy imaginings, and a desire to express the inexpressible. It was emphaticallysubjective, self-conscious, a mood of mind or feeling. In this respectit was diametrically opposed to the academic and the classic. In Frenchpainting it came forward in opposition to the classicism of David. People had begun to weary of Greek and Roman heroes and their deeds, ofimpersonal line-bounded statuesque art. There was a demand for somethingmore representative, spontaneous, expressive of the intense feeling ofthe time. The very gist of romanticism was passion. Freedom to expressitself in what form it would was a condition of its existence. [Illustration: FIG. 62. --DELACROIX. MASSACRE OF SCIO. LOUVRE. ] The classic subject was abandoned by the romanticists for dramaticscenes of mediæval and modern times. The romantic hero and heroine inscenes of horror, perils by land and sea, flame and fury, love andanguish, came upon the boards. Much of this was illustration ofhistory, the novel, and poetry, especially the poetry of Goethe, Byron, and Scott. Line was slurred in favor of color, symmetricalcomposition gave way to wild disordered groups in headlong action, andatmospheres, skies, and lights were twisted and distorted to conveythe sentiment of the story. It was thus, more by suggestion thanrealization, that romanticism sought to give the poetic sentiment oflife. Its position toward classicism was antagonistic, a rebound, aflying to the other extreme. One virtually said that beauty was in theGreek form, the other that it was in the painter's emotional nature. The disagreement was violent, and out of it grew the so-calledromantic quarrel of the 1820's. LEADERS OF ROMANTICISM: Symptoms of the coming movement were apparentlong before any open revolt. Gros had made innovations on the classicin his battle-pieces, but the first positive dissent from classicteachings was made in the Salon of 1819 by Géricault (1791-1824) withhis Raft of the Medusa. It represented the starving, the dead, and thedying of the Medusa's crew on a raft in mid-ocean. The subject was notclassic. It was literary, romantic, dramatic, almost theatric in itsseizing of the critical moment. Its theme was restless, harrowing, horrible. It met with instant opposition from the old men and applausefrom the young men. It was the trumpet-note of the revolt, butGéricault did not live long enough to become the leader ofromanticism. That position fell to his contemporary and fellow-pupil, Delacroix (1799-1863). It was in 1822 that Delacroix's first Salonpicture (the Dante and Virgil) appeared. A strange, ghost-like scenefrom Dante's _Inferno_, the black atmosphere of the nether world, weird faces, weird colors, weird flames, and a modelling of thefigures by patches of color almost savage as compared to the tinteddrawing of classicism. Delacroix's youth saved the picture fromcondemnation, but it was different with his Massacre of Scio twoyears later. This was decried by the classicists, and even Gros calledit "the massacre of art. " The painter was accused of establishing theworship of the ugly, he was no draughtsman, had no selection, noseverity, nothing but brutality. But Delacroix was as obstinate asIngres, and declared that the whole world could not prevent him fromseeing and painting things in his own way. It was thus the quarrelstarted, the young men siding with Delacroix, the older men followingDavid and Ingres. In himself Delacroix embodied all that was best and strongest in theromantic movement. His painting was intended to convey a romantic moodof mind by combinations of color, light, air, and the like. In subjectit was tragic and passionate, like the poetry of Hugo, Byron, andScott. The figures were usually given with anguish-wrung brows, wildeyes, dishevelled hair, and impetuous, contorted action. The painternever cared for technical details, seeking always to gain the effectof the whole rather than the exactness of the part. He purposelyslurred drawing at times, and was opposed to formal composition. Incolor he was superior, though somewhat violent at times, and inbrush-work he was often labored and patchy. His strength lay inimagination displayed in color and in action. The quarrel between classicism and romanticism lasted some years, withneither side victorious. Delacroix won recognition for his view ofart, but did not crush the belief in form which was to come to thesurface again. He fought almost alone. Many painters rallied aroundhim, but they added little strength to the new movement. Devéria(1805-1865) and Champmartin (1797-1883) were highly thought of atfirst, but they rapidly degenerated. Sigalon (1788-1837), Cogniet(1794-1880), Robert-Fleury (1797-), and Boulanger (1806-1867), wereromanticists, but achieved more as teachers than as painters. Delaroche (1797-1856) was an eclectic--in fact, founded a school ofthat name--thinking to take what was best from both parties. Inventing nothing, he profited by all invented. He employed theromantic subject and color, but adhered to classic drawing. Hiscomposition was good, his costume careful in detail, his brush-worksmooth, and his story-telling capacity excellent. All these qualitiesmade him a popular painter, but not an original or powerful one. AryScheffer (1797-1858) was an illustrator of Goethe and Byron, frail inboth sentiment and color, a painter who started as a romanticist, butafterward developed line under Ingres. [Illustration: FIG. 63. --GÉRÔME. POLLICE VERSO. ] THE ORIENTALISTS: In both literature and painting one phase ofromanticism showed itself in a love for the life, the light, the colorof the Orient. From Paris Decamps (1803-1860) was the first painter tovisit the East and paint Eastern life. He was a _genre_ painter morethan a figure painter, giving naturalistic street scenes in Turkey andAsia Minor, courts, and interiors, with great feeling for air, warmthof color, and light. At about the same time Marilhat (1811-1847) wasin Egypt picturing the life of that country in a similar manner; andlater, Fromentin (1820-1876), painter and writer, following Delacroix, went to Algiers and portrayed there Arab life with fast-flying horses, the desert air, sky, light, and color. Théodore Frere and Ziem belongfurther on in the century, but were no less exponents of romanticismin the East. Fifteen years after the starting of romanticism the movement hadmaterially subsided. It had never been a school in the sense of havingrules and laws of art. Liberty of thought and perfect freedom forindividual expression were all it advocated. As a result there was nounity, for there was nothing to unite upon; and with every painterpainting as he pleased, regardless of law, extravagance wasinevitable. This was the case, and when the next generation came inromanticism began to be ridiculed for its excesses. A reaction startedin favor of more line and academic training. This was first shown bythe students of Delaroche, though there were a number of movements atthe time, all of them leading away from romanticism. A recoil from toomuch color in favor of more form was inevitable, but romanticism wasnot to perish entirely. Its influence was to go on, and to appear inthe work of later men. ECLECTICS AND TRANSITIONAL PAINTERS: After Ingres his followerFlandrin (1809-1864) was the most considerable draughtsman of thetime. He was not classic but religious in subject, and is sometimescalled "the religious painter of France. " He had a delicate beauty ofline and a fine feeling for form, but never was strong in color, brush-work, or sentiment. His best work appears in his very fineportraits. Gleyre (1806-1874) was a man of classic methods, butromantic tastes, who modified the heroic into the idyllic andmythologic. He was a sentimental day-dreamer, with a touch ofmelancholy about the vanished past, appearing in Arcadian fancies, pretty nymphs, and idealized memories of youth. In execution he wasnot at all romantic. His color was pale, his drawing delicate, and hislighting misty and uncertain. It was the etherealized classic method, and this method he transmitted to a little band of painters called the NEW-GREEKS, who, in point of time, belong much further along in thecentury, but in their art are with Gleyre. Their work never rose abovethe idyllic and the graceful, and calls for no special mention. Hamon(1821-1874) and Aubert (1824-) belonged to the band, and Gérôme(1824-[6]) was at one time its leader, but he afterward emerged fromit to a higher place in French art, where he will find mentionhereafter. [Footnote 6: Died, 1904. ] Couture (1815-1879) stood quite by himself, a mingling of severalinfluences. His chief picture, The Romans of the Decadence, is classicin subject, romantic in sentiment (and this very largely expressed bywarmth of color), and rather realistic in natural appearance. He wasan eclectic in a way, and yet seems to stand as the forerunner of alarge body of artists who find classification hereafter under thetitle of the Semi-Classicists. PRINCIPAL WORKS: All the painters mentioned in this chapter are best represented in the Louvre at Paris, at Versailles, and in the museums of the chief French cities. Some works of the late or living men may be found in the Luxembourg, where pictures bought by the state are kept for ten years after the painter's death, and then are either sent to the Louvre or to the other municipal galleries of France. Some pictures by these men are also to be seen in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, the Boston Museum, and the Chicago Art Institute. CHAPTER XIV. FRENCH PAINTING. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (_Continued_). BOOKS RECOMMENDED: The books before mentioned, consult also General Bibliography, (page xv. ) THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The influence of either the classic orromantic example may be traced in almost all of the French painting ofthis century. The opposed teachings find representatives in new men, and under different names the modified dispute goes on--the dispute ofthe academic _versus_ the individual, the art of form and line_versus_ the art of sentiment and color. With the classicism of David not only the figure but the landscapesetting of it, took on an ideal heroic character. Trees and hills andrivers became supernaturally grand and impressive. Everything waselevated by method to produce an imaginary Arcadia fit for the deitiesof the classic world. The result was that nature and the humanity ofthe painter passed out in favor of school formula and academictraditions. When romanticism came in this was changed, but naturefalsified in another direction. Landscape was given an interest inhuman affairs, and made to look gay or sad, peaceful or turbulent, asthe day went well or ill with the hero of the story portrayed. It was, however, truer to the actual than the classic, more studied in theparts, more united in the whole. About the year 1830 the influence ofromanticism began to show in a new landscape art. That is to say, theemotional impulse springing from romanticism combined with the studyof the old Dutch landscapists, and the English contemporary painters, Constable and Bonington, set a large number of painters to the closestudy of nature and ultimately developed what has been vaguely calledthe FONTAINEBLEAU-BARBIZON SCHOOL: This whole school was primarily devotedto showing the sentiment of color and light. It took nature just as itfound it in the forest of Fontainebleau, on the plain of Barbizon, andelsewhere, and treated it with a poetic feeling for light, shadow, atmosphere, color, that resulted in the best landscape painting yetknown to us. [Illustration: FIG. 64. --COROT. LANDSCAPE. ] Corot (1796-1875) though classically trained under Bertin, and thoughsomewhat apart from the other men in his life, belongs with thisgroup. He was a man whose artistic life was filled with the beauty oflight and air. These he painted with great singleness of aim and greatpoetic charm. Most of his work is in a light silvery key of color, usually slight in composition, simple in masses of light and dark, and very broadly but knowingly handled with the brush. He beganpainting by using the minute brush, but changed it later on for afreer style which recorded only the great omnipresent truths andsuppressed the small ones. He has never had a superior in producingthe permeating light of morning and evening. For this alone, if for noother excellence, he deservedly holds high rank. Rousseau (1812-1867) was one of the foremost of the recognizedleaders, and probably the most learned landscapist of this century. Aman of many moods and methods he produced in variety with rareversatility. Much of his work was experimental, but at his best he hada majestic conception of nature, a sense of its power and permanence, its volume and mass, that often resulted in the highest quality ofpictorial poetry. In color he was rich and usually warm, in technicfirm and individual, in sentiment at times quite sublime. At first hepainted broadly and won friends among the artists and sneers from thepublic; then in his middle style he painted in detail, and had aperiod of popular success; in his late style he went back to the broadmanner, and died amid quarrels and vexations of spirits. His long-timefriend and companion, Jules Dupré (1812-1889), hardly reached up tohim, though a strong painter in landscape and marine. He was a goodbut not great colorist, and, technically, his brush was broad enoughbut sometimes heavy. His late work is inferior in sentiment andlabored in handling. Diaz (1808-1876) was allied to Rousseau in aimand method, though not so sure nor so powerful a painter. He had fancyand variety in creation that sometimes ran to license, and in color hewas clear and brilliant. Never very well trained, his drawing is oftenindifferent and his light distorted, but these are more than atonedfor by delicacy and poetic charm. At times he painted with much power. Daubigny (1817-1878) seemed more like Corot in his charm of style andlove of atmosphere and light than any of the others. He was fond ofthe banks of the Seine and the Marne at twilight, with eveningatmospheres and dark trees standing in silent ranks against the warmsky. He was also fond of the gray day along the coast, and even thesea attracted him not a little. He was a painter of high abilities, and in treatment strongly individual, even distinguished, by hissimplicity and directness. Unity of the whole, grasp of the massentire, was his technical aim, and this he sought to get not so muchby line as by color-tones of varying value. In this respect he seemeda connecting link between Corot and the present-day impressionists. Michel (1763-1842), Huet (1804-1869), Chintreuil (1814-1873), andFrançais (1814-) were all allied in point of view with this group oflandscape painters, and among the late men who have carried out theirbeliefs are Cazin, [7] Yon, [8] Damoye, Pointelin, Harpignies andPelouse[9] seem a little more inclined to the realistic than thepoetic view, though producing work of much virility and intelligence. [Footnote 7: Died, 1901. ] [Footnote 8: Died, 1897. ] [Footnote 9: Died, 1890. ] Contemporary and associated with the Fontainebleau painters were anumber of men who won high distinction as PAINTERS OF ANIMALS: Troyon (1810-1865) was the most prominent amongthem. His work shows the same sentiment of light and color as theFontainebleau landscapists, and with it there is much keen insightinto animal life. As a technician he was rather hard at first, and henever was a correct draughtsman, but he had a way of giving thecharacter of the objects he portrayed which is the very essence oftruth. He did many landscapes with and without cattle. His best pupilwas Van Marcke (1827-1890), who followed his methods but neverpossessed the feeling of his master. Jacque (1813-[10]) is also of theFontainebleau-Barbizon group, and is justly celebrated for hispaintings and etchings of sheep. The poetry of the school is his, andtechnically he is fine in color at times, if often rather dark inillumination. Like Troyon he knows his subject well, and can show thenature of sheep with true feeling. Rosa Bonheur (1822-[11]) and herbrother, Auguste Bonheur (1824-1884), have both dealt with animallife, but never with that fine artistic feeling which would warranttheir popularity. Their work is correct enough, but prosaic andcommonplace in spirit. They do not belong in the same group withTroyon and Rousseau. [Footnote 10: Died, 1894. ] [Footnote 11: Died, 1899. ] [Illustration: FIG. 65. --ROUSSEAU, CHARCOAL BURNERS' HUT. FULLERCOLLECTION. ] THE PEASANT PAINTERS: Allied again in feeling and sentiment with theFontainebleau landscapists were some celebrated painters of peasantlife, chief among whom stood Millet (1814-1875), of Barbizon. Thepictorial inclination of Millet was early grounded by a study ofDelacroix, the master romanticist, and his work is an expression ofromanticism modified by an individual study of nature and applied topeasant life. He was peasant born, living and dying at Barbizon, sympathizing with his class, and painting them with great poetic forceand simplicity. His sentiment sometimes has a literary bias, as in hisfar-famed but indifferent Angelus, but usually it is strictlypictorial and has to do with the beauty of light, air, color, motion, life, as shown in The Sower or The Gleaners. Technically he was notstrong as a draughtsman or a brushman, but he had a large feeling forform, great simplicity in line, keen perception of the relations oflight and dark, and at times an excellent color-sense. He wasvirtually the discoverer of the peasant as an art subject, and forthis, as for his original point of view and artistic feeling, he isranked as one of the foremost artists of the century. Jules Breton (1827-), though painting little besides the peasantry, isno Millet follower, for he started painting peasant scenes at aboutthe same time as Millet. His affinities were with the New-Greeks earlyin life, and ever since he has inclined toward the academic in style, though handling the rustic subject. He is a good technician, except inhis late work; but as an original thinker, as a pictorial poet, hedoes not show the intensity or profundity of Millet. The followers ofthe Millet-Breton tradition are many. The blue-frocked and sabot-shodpeasantry have appeared in salon and gallery for twenty years andmore, but with not very good results. The imitators, as usual, havecaught at the subject and missed the spirit. Billet and Legros, contemporaries of Millet, still living, and Lerolle, a man ofpresent-day note, are perhaps the most considerable of the painters ofrural subjects to-day. THE SEMI-CLASSICISTS: It must not be inferred that the classicinfluence of David and Ingres disappeared from view with the coming ofthe romanticists, the Fontainebleau landscapists, and the Barbizonpainters. On the contrary, side by side with these men, and opposedto them, were the believers in line and academic formulas of thebeautiful. The whole tendency of academic art in France was againstDelacroix, Rousseau, and Millet. During their lives they were regardedas heretics in art and without the pale of the Academy. Their art, however, combined with nature study and the realism of Courbet, succeeded in modifying the severe classicism of Ingres into what hasbeen called semi-classicism. It consists in the elevated, heroic, orhistorical theme, academic form well drawn, some show of brightcolors, smoothness of brush-work, and precision and nicety of detail. In treatment it attempts the realistic, but in spirit it is usuallystilted, cold, unsympathetic. Cabanel (1823-1889) and Bouguereau (1825-1905) have both representedsemi-classic art well. They are justly ranked as famous draughtsmenand good portrait-painters, but their work always has about it thestamp of the academy machine, a something done to order, knowing andexact, but lacking in the personal element. It is a weakness of theacademic method that it virtually banishes the individuality of eyeand hand in favor of school formulas. Cabanel and Bouguereau havepainted many incidents of classic and historic story, but with never adash of enthusiasm or a suggestion of the great qualities of painting. Their drawing has been as thorough as could be asked for, but theircolorings have been harsh and their brushes cold and thin. Gérôme (1824-[12]) is a man of classic training and inclination, buthis versatility hardly allows him to be classified anywhere. He wasfirst a leader of the New-Greeks, painting delicate mythologicalsubjects; then a historical painter, showing deaths of Cæsar and thelike; then an Orientalist, giving scenes from Cairo andConstantinople; then a _genre_ painter, depicting contemporarysubjects in the many lands through which he has travelled. Whatever hehas done shows semi-classic drawing, ethnological and archæologicalknowledge, Parisian technic, and exact detail. His travels have notchanged his precise scientific point of view. He is a true academicianat bottom, but a more versatile and cultured painter than eitherCabanel or Bouguereau. He draws well, sometimes uses color well, andis an excellent painter of textures. A man of great learning in manydepartments he is no painter to be sneered at, and yet not a painterto make the pulse beat faster or to arouse the æsthetic emotions. Hiswork is impersonal, objective fact, showing a brilliant exterior butinwardly devoid of feeling. [Footnote 12: Died, 1904. ] [Illustration: FIG. 66. --MILLET. THE GLEANERS. LOUVRE. ] Paul Baudry (1828-1886), though a disciple of line, was not preciselya semi-classicist, and perhaps for that reason was superior to any ofthe academic painters of his time. He was a follower of the oldmasters in Rome more than the _École des Beaux Arts_. His subjects, aside from many splendid portraits, were almost all classical, allegorical, or mythological. He was a fine draughtsman, and, what ismore remarkable in conjunction therewith, a fine colorist. He washardly a great originator, and had not passion, dramatic force, ormuch sentiment, except such as may be found in his delicate coloringand rhythm of line. Nevertheless he was an artist to be admired forhis purity of purpose and breadth of accomplishment. His chief work isto be seen in the Opera at Paris. Puvis de Chavannes (1824-[13]) isquite a different style of painter, and is remarkable for finedelicate tones of color which hold their place well on wall orceiling, and for a certain grandeur of composition. In his desire torevive the monumental painting of the Renaissance he has met with muchpraise and much blame. He is an artist of sincerity and learning, andas a wall-painter has no superior in contemporary France. [Footnote 13: Died, 1898. ] Hébert (1817-1908), an early painter of academic tendencies, andHenner (1829-), fond of form and yet a brushman with an idyllicfeeling for light and color in dark surroundings, are painters who maycome under the semi-classic grouping. Lefebvre (1834-) is probably themost pronounced in academic methods among the present men, adraughtsman of ability. PORTRAIT AND FIGURE PAINTERS: Under this heading may be included thosepainters who stand by themselves, showing no positive preference foreither the classic or romantic followings. Bonnat (1833-) has paintedall kinds of subjects--_genre_, figure, and historical pieces--but isperhaps best known as a portrait-painter. He has done forcible work. Some of it indeed is astonishing in its realistic modelling--theaccentuation of light and shadow often causing the figures to advanceunnaturally. From this feature and from his detail he has been known foryears as a "realist. " His anatomical Christ on the Cross and muralpaintings in the Pantheon are examples. As a portrait-painter he isacceptable, if at times a little raw in color. Another portrait-painterof celebrity is Carolus-Duran (1837-). He is rather startling at timesin his portrayal of robes and draperies, has a facility of the brushthat is frequently deceptive, and in color is sometimes vivid. He hashad great success as a teacher, and is, all told, a painter of highrank. Delaunay (1828-1892) in late years painted little besidesportraits, and was one of the conservatives of French art. Laurens(1838-) has been more of a historical painter than the others, and hasdealt largely with death scenes. He is often spoken of as "the painterof the dead, " a man of sound training and excellent technical power. Regnault (1843-1871) was a figure and _genre_ painter with much feelingfor oriental light and color, who unfortunately was killed in battle attwenty-seven years of age. He was an artist of promise, and has leftseveral notable canvases. Among the younger men who portray thehistorical subject in an elevated style mention should be made of Cormon(1845-), Benjamin-Constant (1845-[14]), and Rochegrosse. As painters ofportraits Aman-Jean and Carrière[15] have long held rank, and eachsucceeding Salon brings new portraitists to the front. [Footnote 14: Died, 1902. ] [Footnote 15: Died, 1906. ] THE REALISTS: About the time of the appearance of Millet, say 1848, there also came to the front a man who scorned both classicism andromanticism, and maintained that the only model and subject of artshould be nature. This man, Courbet (1819-1878), really gave a thirdtendency to the art of this century in France, and his influenceundoubtedly had much to do with modifying both the classic andromantic tendencies. Courbet was a man of arrogant, dogmaticdisposition, and was quite heartily detested during his life, but thathe was a painter of great ability few will deny. His theory was theabolition of both sentiment and academic law, and the taking of naturejust as it was, with all its beauties and all its deformities. This, too, was his practice to a certain extent. His art is material, andyet at times lofty in conception even to the sublime. And while hebelieved in realism he did not believe in petty detail, but rather inthe great truths of nature. These he saw with a discerning eye andportrayed with a masterful brush. He believed in what he saw only, andhad more the observing than the reflective or emotional disposition. As a technician he was coarse but superbly strong, handling sky, earth, air, with the ease and power of one well trained in his craft. His subjects were many--the peasantry of France, landscape, and thesea holding prominent places--and his influence, though not directbecause he had no pupils of consequence, has been most potent with thelate men. [Illustration: FIG. 67. --CABANEL. PHÆDRA. ] The young painter of to-day who does things in a "realistic" way isfrequently met with in French art. L'hermitte (1844-), Julien Dupré(1851-), and others have handled the peasant subject with skill, afterthe Millet-Courbet initiative; and Bastien-Lepage (1848-1884) exciteda good deal of admiration in his lifetime for the truth and evidentsincerity of his art. Bastien's point of view was realistic enough, but somewhat material. He never handled the large composition withsuccess, but in small pieces and in portraits he was quite abovecriticism. His following among the young men was considerable, and theso-called impressionists have ranked him among their disciples orleaders. PAINTERS OF MILITARY SCENES, GENRE, ETC. : The art of Meissonier(1815-1891), while extremely realistic in modern detail, probablyoriginated from a study of the seventeenth-century Dutchmen likeTerburg and Metsu. It does not portray low life, but rather thehalf-aristocratic--the scholar, the cavalier, the gentleman ofleisure. This is done on a small scale with microscopic nicety, andreally more in the historical than the _genre_ spirit. Single figuresand interiors were his preference, but he also painted a cycle ofNapoleonic battle-pictures with much force. There is little or nosentiment about his work--little more than in that of Gérôme. Hissuccess lay in exact technical accomplishment. He drew well, paintedwell, and at times was a superior colorist. His art is more admired bythe public than by the painters; but even the latter do not fail topraise his skill of hand. He was a great craftsman in the infinitelylittle. As a great artist his rank is still open to question. The _genre_ painting of fashionable life has been carried out by manyfollowers of Meissonier, whose names need not be mentioned since theyhave not improved upon their forerunner. Toulmouche (1829-), Leloir(1843-1884), Vibert (1840-), Bargue (?-1883), and others, thoughsomewhat different from Meissonier, belong among those painters of_genre_ who love detail, costumes, stories, and pretty faces. Amongthe painters of military _genre_ mention should be made of De Neuville(1836-1885), Berne-Bellecour (1838-), Detaille (1848-), and Aimé-Morot(1850-), all of them painters of merit. Quite a different style of painting--half figure-piece half_genre_--is to be found in the work of Ribot (1823-), a strongpainter, remarkable for his apposition of high flesh lights with deepshadows, after the manner of Ribera, the Spanish painter. Roybet(1840-) is fond of rich stuffs and tapestries with velvet-cladcharacters in interiors, out of which he makes good color effects. Bonvin (1817-1887) and Mettling have painted the interior with smallfigures, copper-kettles, and other still-life that have givenbrilliancy to their pictures. As a still-life painter Vollon (1833-)has never had a superior. His fruits, flowers, armors, even his smallmarines and harbor pieces, are painted with one of the surest brushesof this century. He is called the "painter's painter, " and is a man ofgreat force in handling color, and in large realistic effect. Dantanand Friant have both produced canvases showing figures in interiors. A number of excellent _genre_ painters have been claimed by theimpressionists as belonging to their brotherhood. There is little towarrant the claim, except the adoption to some extent of the modernideas of illumination and flat painting. Dagnan-Bouveret (1852-) isone of these men, a good draughtsman, and a finished clean painter whoby his recent use of high color finds himself occasionally looked uponas an impressionist. As a matter of fact he is one of the mostconservative of the moderns--a man of feeling and imagination, and afine technician. Fantin-Latour (1836-1904) is half romantic, halfallegorical in subject, and in treatment oftentimes designedly vagueand shadowy, more suggestive than realistic. Duez (1843-) and Gervex(1848-) are perhaps nearer to impressionism in their works than theothers, but they are not at all advance advocates of this latest phaseof art. In addition there are Cottet and Henri Martin. [Illustration: FIG. 68. --MEISSONIER. NAPOLEON IN 1814. ] THE IMPRESSIONISTS: The name is a misnomer. Every painter is animpressionist in so far as he records his impressions, and all art isimpressionistic. What Manet (1833-1883), the leader of the originalmovement, meant to say was that nature should not be painted as itactually is, but as it "impresses" the painter. He and his fewfollowers tried to change the name to Independents, but the originalname has clung to them and been mistakenly fastened to a present bandof landscape painters who are seeking effects of light and air andshould be called luminists if it is necessary for them to be named atall. Manet was extravagant in method and disposed toward low life fora subject, which has always militated against his popularity; but hewas a very important man for his technical discoveries regarding therelations of light and shadow, the flat appearance of nature, theexact value of color tones. Some of his works, like The Boy with aSword and The Toreador Dead, are excellent pieces of painting. Thehigher imaginative qualities of art Manet made no great effort atattaining. Degas stands quite by himself, strong in effects of motion, especiallywith race-horses, fine in color, and a delightful brushman in suchsubjects as ballet-girls and scenes from the theatre. Besnard is oneof the best of the present men. He deals with the figure, and isusually concerned with the problem of harmonizing color underconflicting lights, such as twilight and lamplight. Béraud andRaffaelli are exceedingly clever in street scenes and characterpieces; Pissarro[16] handles the peasantry in high color; Brown(1829-1890), the race-horse, and Renoir, the middle class of sociallife. Caillebotte, Roll, Forain, and Miss Cassatt, an American, arealso classed with the impressionists. [Footnote 16: Died, 1903. ] IMPRESSIONIST LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: Of recent years there has been adisposition to change the key of light in landscape painting, to getnearer the truth of nature in the height of light and in the height ofshadows. In doing this Claude Monet, the present leader of themovement, has done away with the dark brown or black shadow andsubstituted the light-colored shadow, which is nearer the actual truthof nature. In trying to raise the pitch of light he has not been quiteso successful, though accomplishing something. His method is to usepure prismatic colors on the principle that color is light in adecomposed form, and that its proper juxtaposition on canvas willrecompose into pure light again. Hence the use of light shadows andbright colors. The aim of these modern men is chiefly to gain theeffect of light and air. They do not apparently care for subject, detail, or composition. At present their work is in the experimental stage, but from the wayin which it is being accepted and followed by the painters of to-daywe may be sure the movement is of considerable importance. There willprobably be a reaction in favor of more form and solidity than thepresent men give, but the high key of light will be retained. Thereare so many painters following these modern methods, not only inFrance but all over the world, that a list of their names would beimpossible. In France Sisley with Monet are the two importantlandscapists. In marines Boudin and Montenard should be mentioned. PRINCIPAL WORKS: The modern French painters are seen to advantage in the Louvre, Luxembourg, Pantheon, Sorbonne, and the municipal galleries of France. Also Metropolitan Museum New York, Chicago Art Institute, Boston Museum, and many private collections in France and America. Consult for works in public or private hands, Champlin and Perkins, _Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings_, under names of artists. CHAPTER XV. SPANISH PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Bermudez, _Diccionario de las Bellas Artes en España_; Davillier, _Mémoire de Velasquez_; Davillier, _Fortuny_; Eusebi, _Los Differentes Escuelas de Pintura_; Ford, _Handbook of Spain_; Head, _History of Spanish and French Schools of Painting_; Justi, _Velasquez and his Times_; Lefort, _Velasquez_; Lefort, _Francisco Goya_; Lefort, _Murillo et son École_; Lefort, _La Peinture Espagnole_; Palomino de Castro y Velasco, _Vidas de los Pintores y Estatuarios Eminentes Españoles_; Passavant, _Die Christliche Kunst in Spanien_; Plon, _Les Maîtres Italiens au Service de la Maison d'Autriche_; Stevenson, _Velasquez_; Stirling, _Annals of the Artists of Spain_; Stirling, _Velasquez and his Works_; Tubino, _El Arte y los Artistas contemporáneos en la Peninsula_; Tubino, _Murillo_; Viardot, _Notices sur les Principaux Peintres de l'Espagne_; Yriarte, _Goya, sa Biographie_, etc. SPANISH ART MOTIVES: What may have been the early art of Spain we areat a loss to conjecture. The reigns of the Moor, the Iconoclast, and, finally, the Inquisitor, have left little that dates before thefourteenth century. The miniatures and sacred relics treasured in thechurches and said to be of the apostolic period, show the traces of amuch later date and a foreign origin. Even when we come down to thefifteenth century and meet with art produced in Spain, we have afollowing of Italy or the Netherlands. In methods and technic it wasderivative more than original, though almost from the beginningpeculiarly Spanish in spirit. [Illustration: FIG. 69. --SANCHEZ COELLO. CLARA EUGENIA, DAUGHTER OFPHILIP II. MADRID. ] That spirit was a dark and savage one, a something that cringed underthe lash of the Church, bowed before the Inquisition, and played theexecutioner with the paint-brush. The bulk of Spanish art was Churchart, done under ecclesiastical domination, and done in form withoutquestion or protest. The religious subject ruled. True enough, therewas portraiture of nobility, and under Philip and Velasquez ahalf-monarchical art of military scenes and _genre_; but this was notthe bent of Spanish painting as a whole. Even in late days, whenVelasquez was reflecting the haughty court, Murillo was more widelyand nationally reflecting the believing provinces and the Churchfaith of the people. It is safe to say, in a general way, that theChurch was responsible for Spanish art, and that religion was itschief motive. There was no revived antique, little of the nude or the pagan, littleof consequence in landscape, little, until Velasquez's time, of thereal and the actual. An ascetic view of life, faith, and the hereafterprevailed. The pietistic, the fervent, and the devout were not soconspicuous as the morose, the ghastly, and the horrible. The saintsand martyrs, the crucifixions and violent deaths, were eloquent of thetorture-chamber. It was more ecclesiasticism by blood and violencethan Christianity by peace and love. And Spain welcomed this. For ofall the children of the Church she was the most faithful to rule, crushing out heresy with an iron hand, gaining strength from theCatholic reaction, and upholding the Jesuits and the Inquisition. METHODS OF PAINTING: Spanish art worthy of mention did not appearuntil the fifteenth century. At that time Spain was in close relationswith the Netherlands, and Flemish painting was somewhat followed. Howmuch the methods of the Van Eycks influenced Spain would be hard todetermine, especially as these Northern methods were mixed withinfluences coming from Italy. Finally, the Italian example prevailedby reason of Spanish students in Italy and Italian painters in Spain. Florentine line, Venetian color, and Neapolitan light-and-shade ruledalmost everywhere, and it was not until the time of Velasquez--theperiod just before the eighteenth-century decline--that distinctlySpanish methods, founded on nature, really came forcibly to the front. SPANISH SCHOOLS OF PAINTING: There is difficulty in classifying theseschools of painting because our present knowledge of them is limited. Isolated somewhat from the rest of Europe, the Spanish painters havenever been critically studied as the Italians have been, and what isat present known about the schools must be accepted subject tocritical revision hereafter. [Illustration: FIG. 70. --MURILLO. ST. ANTHONY OF PADUA. BERLIN. ] The earliest school seems to have been made up from a gathering ofartists at Toledo, who limned, carved, and gilded in the cathedral;but this school was not of long duration. It was merged into theCastilian school, which, after the building of Madrid, made its homein that capital and drew its forces from the towns of Toledo, Valladolid, and Badajoz. The Andalusian school, which rose about themiddle of the sixteenth century, was made up from the local schools ofSeville, Cordova, and Granada. The Valencian school, to thesoutheast, rose about the same time, and was finally merged into theAndalusian. The Aragonese school, to the east, was small and of nogreat consequence, though existing in a feeble way to the end of theseventeenth century. The painters of these schools are not verystrongly marked apart by methods or school traditions, and perhaps thedivisions would better be looked upon as more geographical thanotherwise. None of the schools really began before the sixteenthcentury, though there are names of artists and some extant picturesbefore that date, and with the seventeenth century all art in Spainseems to have centred about Madrid. Spanish painting started into life concurrently with the rise toprominence of Spain as a political kingdom. What, if any, directeffect the maritime discoveries, the conquests of Granada and Naples, the growth of literature, and the decline of Italy, may have had uponSpanish painting can only be conjectured; but certainly the suddenadvance of the nation politically and socially was paralleled by theadvance of its art. THE CASTILIAN SCHOOL: This school probably had no so-called founder. It was a growth from early art traditions at Toledo, and afterwardbecame the chief school of the kingdom owing to the patronage ofPhilip II. And Philip IV. At Madrid. The first painter of importancein the school seems to have been Antonio Rincon (1446?-1500?). He issometimes spoken of as the father of Spanish painting, and as havingstudied in Italy with Castagno and Ghirlandajo, but there is littlefoundation for either statement. He painted chiefly at Toledo, paintedportraits of Ferdinand and Isabella, and had some skill in harddrawing. Berruguete (1480?-1561) studied with Michael Angelo, and issupposed to have helped him in the Vatican. He afterward returned toSpain, painted many altar-pieces, and was patronized as painter, sculptor, and architect by Charles V. And Philip II. He was probablythe first to introduce pure Italian methods into Spain, with somecoldness and dryness of coloring and handling. Becerra (1520?-1570)was born in Andalusia, but worked in Castile, and was a man of Italiantraining similar to Berruguete. He was an exceptional man, perhaps, inhis use of mythological themes and nude figures. There is not a great deal known about Morales (1509?-1586), called"the Divine, " except that he was allied to the Castilian school, andpainted devotional heads of Christ with the crown of thorns, and manyafflicted and weeping madonnas. There was Florentine drawing in hiswork, great regard for finish, and something of Correggio's softnessin shadows pitched in a browner key. His sentiment was ratherexaggerated. Sanchez-Coello (1513?-1590) was painter and courtier toPhilip II. , and achieved reputation as a portrait-painter, though alsodoing some altar-pieces. It is doubtful whether he ever studied inItaly, but in Spain he was for a time with Antonio Moro, and probablylearned from him something of rich costumes, ermines, embroideries, and jewels, for which his portraits were remarkable. Navarette(1526?-1579), called "El Mudo" (the dumb one), certainly was in Italyfor something like twenty years, and was there a disciple of Titian, from whom he doubtless learned much of color and the free flow ofdraperies. He was one of the best of the middle-period painters. Theotocopuli (1548?-1625), called "El Greco" (the Greek), was anotherVenetian-influenced painter, with enough Spanish originality about himto make most of his pictures striking in color and drawing. Tristan(1586-1640) was his best follower. [Illustration: FIG. 71. --RIBERA. ST. AGNES. DRESDEN. ] Velasquez (1599-1660) is the greatest name in the history of Spanishpainting. With him Spanish art took upon itself a decidedlynaturalistic and national stamp. Before his time Italy had been freelyimitated; but though Velasquez himself was in Italy for quite a longtime, and intimately acquainted with great Italian art, he neverseemed to have been led away from his own individual way of seeing anddoing. He was a pupil of Herrera, afterward with Pacheco, and learnedmuch from Ribera and Tristan, but more from a direct study of naturethan from all the others. He was in a broad sense a realist--a man whorecorded the material and the actual without emendation ortransposition. He has never been surpassed in giving the solidity andsubstance of form and the placing of objects in atmosphere. And this, not in a small, finical way, but with a breadth of view and oftreatment which are to-day the despair of painters. There was nothingof the ethereal, the spiritual, the pietistic, or the pathetic abouthim. He never for a moment left the firm basis of reality. Standingupon earth he recorded the truths of the earth, but in their largest, fullest, most universal forms. Technically his was a master-hand, doing all things with ease, givingexact relations of colors and lights, and placing everything soperfectly that no addition or alteration is thought of. With the brushhe was light, easy, sure. The surface looks as though touched once, nomore. It is the perfection of handling through its simplicity andcertainty, and has not the slightest trace of affectation ormannerism. He was one of the few Spanish painters who were enabled toshake off the yoke of the Church. Few of his canvases are religious insubject. Under royal patronage he passed almost all of his life inpainting portraits of the royal family, ministers of state, and greatdignitaries. As a portrait-painter he is more widely known than as afigure-painter. Nevertheless he did many canvases like The TapestryWeavers and The Surrender at Breda, which attest his remarkable geniusin that field; and even in landscape, in _genre_, in animal painting, he was a very superior man. In fact Velasquez is one of the few greatpainters in European history for whom there is nothing but praise. Hewas the full-rounded complete painter, intensely individual andself-assertive, and yet in his art recording in a broad way theSpanish type and life. He was the climax of Spanish painting, andafter him there was a rather swift decline, as had been the case inthe Italian schools. Mazo (1610?-1667), pupil and son-in-law of Velasquez, was one of hismost facile imitators, and Carreño de Miranda (1614-1685) wasinfluenced by Velasquez, and for a time his assistant. The Castilianschool may be said to have closed with these late men and with ClaudioCoello (1635?-1693), a painter with a style founded on Titian andRubens, whose best work was of extraordinary power. Spanish paintingwent out with Spanish power, and only isolated men of small rankremained. ANDALUSIAN SCHOOL: This school came into existence about the middle ofthe sixteenth century. Its chief centre was at Seville, and its chiefpatron the Church rather than the king. Vargas (1502-1568) wasprobably the real founder of the school, though De Castro (fl. 1454)and others preceded him. Vargas was a man of much reputation andability in his time, and introduced Italian methods and elegance intothe Andalusian school after twenty odd years of residence in Italy. Heis said to have studied under Perino del Vaga, and there is somesweetness of face and grace of form about his work that point thatway, though his composition suggests Correggio. Most of his frescoshave perished; some of his canvases are still in existence. Cespedes (1538?-1608) is little known through extant works, but heachieved fame in many departments during his life, and is said to havebeen in Italy under Florentine influence. His coloring was rathercold, and his drawing large and flat. The best early painter of theschool was Roelas (1558?-1625), the inspirer of Murillo and the masterof Zurbaran. He is supposed to have studied at Venice, because of hisrich, glowing color. Most of his works are religious and are foundchiefly at Seville. He was greatly patronized by the Jesuits. Pacheco(1571-1654) was more of a pedant than a painter, a man of rule, whoto-day might be written down an academician. His drawing was hard, andperhaps the best reason for his being remembered is that he was one ofthe masters and the father-in-law of Velasquez. His rival, Herrera theElder (1576?-1656) was a stronger man--in fact, the most originalartist of his school. He struck off by himself and created a boldrealism with a broad brush that anticipated Velasquez--in fact, Velasquez was under him for a time. The pure Spanish school in Andalusia, as distinct from Italianimitation, may be said to have started with Herrera. It was furtheradvanced by another independent painter, Zurbaran (1598-1662), a pupilof Roelas. He was a painter of the emaciated monk in ecstasy, and manyother rather dismal religious subjects expressive of tortured rapture. From using a rather dark shadow he acquired the name of the SpanishCaravaggio. He had a good deal of Caravaggio's strength, together witha depth and breadth of color suggestive of the Venetians. Cano(1601-1667), though he never was in Italy, had the name of the SpanishMichael Angelo, probably because he was sculptor, painter, andarchitect. His painting was rather sharp in line and statuesque inpose, with a coloring somewhat like that of Van Dyck. It was eclecticrather than original work. [Illustration: FIG. 72. --FORTUNY. SPANISH MARRIAGE. ] Murillo (1618-1682) is generally placed at the head of the Andalusianschool, as Velasquez at the head of the Castilian. There is goodreason for it, for though Murillo was not the great painter he wassometime supposed, yet he was not the weak man his modern criticswould make him out. A religious painter largely, though doing some_genre_ subjects like his beggar-boy groups, he sought for religiousfervor and found, only too often, sentimentality. His madonnas areusually after the Carlo Dolci pattern, though never so excessive insentiment. This was not the case with his earlier works, mostly ofhumble life, which were painted in rather a hard, positive manner. Later on he became misty, veiled in light and effeminate in outline, though still holding grace. His color varied with his early and laterstyles. It was usually gay and a little thin. While basing his work onnature like Velasquez, he never had the supreme poise of that master, either mentally or technically; howbeit he was an excellent painter, who perhaps justly holds second place in Spanish art. SCHOOL OF VALENCIA: This school rose contemporary with the Andalusianschool, into which it was finally merged after the importance ofMadrid had been established. It was largely modelled upon Italianpainting, as indeed were all the schools of Spain at the start. Juande Joanes (1507?-1579) apparently was its founder, a man who painted agood portrait, but in other respects was only a fair imitator ofRaphael, whom he had studied at Rome. A stronger man was Francisco deRibalta (1550?-1628), who was for a time in Italy under the Caracci, and learned from them free draughtsmanship and elaborate composition. He was also fond of Sebastiano del Piombo, and in his best works (atValencia) reflected him. Ribalta gave an early training to Ribera(1588-1656), who was the most important man of this school. In realityRibera was more Italian than Valencian, for he spent the greater partof his life in Italy, where he was called Lo Spagnoletto, and wasgreatly influenced by Caravaggio. He was a Spaniard in the horriblesubjects that he chose, but in coarse strength of line, heaviness ofshadows, harsh handling of the brush, he was a true NeapolitanDarkling. A pronounced mannerist he was no less a man of strength, andeven in his shadow-saturated colors a painter with the color instinct. In Italy his influence in the time of the Decadence was wide-spread, and in Spain his Italian pupil, Giordano, introduced his methods forlate imitation. There were no other men of much rank in the Valencianschool, and, as has been said, the school was eventually merged inAndalusian painting. EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN SPAIN: Almost directlyafter the passing of Velasquez and Murillo Spanish art failed. Theeighteenth-century, as in Italy, was quite barren of any considerableart until near its close. Then Goya (1746-1828) seems to have made apartial restoration of painting. He was a man of peculiarly Spanishturn of mind, fond of the brutal and the bloody, picturing inquisitionscenes, bull-fights, battle pieces, and revelling in caricature, sarcasm, and ridicule. His imagination was grotesque and horrible, butas a painter his art was based on the natural, and was exceedinglystrong. In brush-work he followed Velasquez; in a peculiar forcing ofcontrasts in light and dark he was apparently quite himself, thoughpossibly influenced by Ribera's work. His best work shows in hisportraits and etchings. After Goya's death Spanish art, such as it was, rather followedFrance, with the extravagant classicism of David as a model. What wasproduced may be seen to this day in the Madrid Museum. It does notcall for mention here. About the beginning of the 1860's Spanishpainting made a new advance with Mariano Fortuny (1838-1874). In hisearly years he worked at historical painting, but later on he went toAlgiers and Rome, finding his true vent in a bright sparkling paintingof _genre_ subjects, oriental scenes, streets, interiors, singlefigures, and the like. He excelled in color, sunlight effects, andparticularly in a vivacious facile handling of the brush. His work isbrilliant, and in his late productions often spotty from excessiveuse of points of light in high color. He was a technician of muchbrilliancy and originality, his work exciting great admiration in hisday, and leading the younger painters of Spain into that ornatehandling visible in their works at the present time. Many of theselatter, from association with art and artists in Paris, have adoptedFrench methods, and hardly show such a thing as Spanish nationality. Fortuny's brother-in-law, Madrazo (1841-), is an example of a Spanishpainter turned French in his methods--a facile and brilliantportrait-painter. Zamacois (1842-1871) died early, but with areputation as a successful portrayer of seventeenth-century subjects alittle after the style of Meissonier and not unlike Gérôme. He was agood colorist and an excellent painter of textures. [Illustration: FIG. 73. --MADRAZO, UNMASKED. ] The historical scene of Mediæval or Renaissance times, pageants andfêtes with rich costume, fine architecture and vivid effects of color, are characteristic of a number of the modern Spaniards--Villegas, Pradilla, Alvarez. As a general thing their canvases are a littleflashy, likely to please at first sight but grow wearisome after atime. Palmaroli has a style that resembles a mixture of Fortuny andMeissonier; and some other painters, like Luis Jiminez Aranda, Sorolla, Zuloaga, Anglada, Garcia y Remos, Vierge, Roman Ribera, andDomingo, have done excellent work. In landscape and Venetian scenesRico leads among the Spaniards with a vivacity and brightness notalways seen to good advantage in his late canvases. PRINCIPAL WORKS: Generally speaking, Spanish art cannot be seen to advantage outside of Spain. Both its ancient and modern masterpieces are at Madrid, Seville, Toledo, and elsewhere. The Royal Gallery at Madrid has the most and the best examples. CASTILIAN SCHOOL--Rincon, altar-piece church of Robleda de Chavilla; Berruguete, altar-pieces Saragossa, Valladolid, Madrid, Toledo; Morales, Madrid and Louvre; Sanchez-Coello, Madrid and Brussels Mus. ; Navarette, Escorial, Madrid, St. Petersburg; Theotocopuli, Cathedral and S. Tomé Toledo, Madrid Mus. ; Velasquez, best works in Madrid Mus. , Escorial, Salamanca, Montpensier Gals. , Nat. Gal. Lon. , Infanta Marguerita Louvre, Borro portrait (?) Berlin, Innocent X. Doria Rome; Mazo, landscapes Madrid Mus. ; Carreño de Miranda, Madrid Mus. ; Claudio Coello, Escorial, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin, and Munich Mus. ANDALUSIAN SCHOOL--Vargas, Seville Cathedral; Cespedes, Cordova Cathedral; Roelas, S. Isidore Cathedral, Museum Seville; Pacheco, Madrid Mus. ; Herrera, Seville Cathedral and Mus. And Archbishop's Palace, Dresden Mus. ; Zurbaran, Seville Cathedral and Mus. Madrid, Dresden, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Cano, Madrid, Seville Mus. And Cathedral, Berlin, Dresden, Munich; Murillo, best pictures in Madrid Mus. And Acad. Of S. Fernando Madrid, Seville Mus. Hospital and Capuchin Church, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Dresden, Munich, Hermitage. VALENCIAN SCHOOL--Juan de Joanes, Madrid Mus. , Cathedral Valencia, Hermitage; Ribalta, Madrid and Valencian Mus. , Hermitage; Ribera, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Dresden, Naples, Hermitage, and other European museums, chief works at Madrid. MODERN MEN AND THEIR WORKS--Goya, Madrid Mus. , Acad. Of S. Fernando, Valencian Cathedral and Mus. , two portraits in Louvre. The works of the contemporary painters are largely in private hands where reference to them is of little use to the average student. Thirty Fortunys are in the collection of William H. Stewart in Paris. His best work, The Spanish Marriage, belongs to Madame de Cassin, in Paris. Examples of Villegas, Madrazo, Rico, Domingo, and others, in the Vanderbilt Gallery, Metropolitan Mus. , New York; Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia Mus. CHAPTER XVI. FLEMISH PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Busscher, _Recherches sur les Peintres Gantois_; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _Early Flemish Painters_; Cust, _Van Dyck_; Dehaisnes, _L'Art dans la Flandre_; Du Jardin, _L'art Flamand_; Eisenmann, _The Brothers Van Eyck_; Fétis, _Les Artistes Belges à l'Étranger_; Fromentin, _Old Masters of Belgium and Holland_; Gerrits, _Rubens zyn Tyd, etc. _; Guiffrey, _Van Dyck_; Hasselt, _Histoire de Rubens_; (Waagen's) Kügler, _Handbook of Painting--German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools_; Lemonnier, _Histoire des Arts en Belgique_; Mantz, _Adrien Brouwer_; Michel, _Rubens_; Michiels, _Rubens en l'École d'Anvers_; Michiels, _Histoire de la Peinture Flamande_; Stevenson, _Rubens_; Van den Branden, _Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Schilderschool_; Van Mander, _Le Livre des Peintres_; Waagen, _Uber Hubert und Jan Van Eyck_; Waagen, _Peter Paul Rubens_; Wauters, _Rogier van der Weyden_; Wauters, _La Peinture Flamande_; Weale, _Hans Memling_ (_Arundel Soc. _); Weale, _Notes sur Jean Van Eyck_. THE FLEMISH PEOPLE: Individually and nationally the Flemings werestrugglers against adverse circumstances from the beginning. Arealistic race with practical ideas, a people rather warm of impulseand free in habits, they combined some German sentiment with Frenchliveliness and gayety. The solidarity of the nation was notaccomplished until after 1385, when the Dukes of Burgundy began toextend their power over the Low Countries. Then the Flemish peoplebecame strong enough to defy both Germany and France, and wealthyenough, through their commerce with Spain, Italy, and France toencourage art not only at the Ducal court but in the churches, andamong the citizens of the various towns. [Illustration: FIG. 74. --VAN EYCKS. ST. BAVON ALTAR-PIECE (WING). BERLIN. ] FLEMISH SUBJECTS AND METHODS: As in all the countries of Europe, theearly Flemish painting pictured Christian subjects primarily. Thegreat bulk of it was church altar-pieces, though side by side withthis was an admirable portraiture, some knowledge of landscape, andsome exposition of allegorical subjects. In means and methods it wasquite original. The early history is lost, but if Flemish painting wasbeholden to the painting of any other nation, it was to the miniaturepainting of France. There is, however, no positive record of this. TheFlemings seem to have begun by themselves, and pictured the life aboutthem in their own way. They were apparently not influenced at first byItaly. There were no antique influences, no excavated marbles to copy, no Byzantine traditions left to follow. At first their art was exactand minute in detail, but not well grasped in the mass. Thecompositions were huddled, the landscapes pure but finical, thefigures inclined to slimness, awkwardness, and angularity in the linesof form or drapery, and uncertain in action. To offset this there wasa positive realism in textures, perspective, color, tone, light, andatmosphere. The effect of the whole was odd and strained, but theeffect of the part was to convince one that the Flemish painters wereexcellent craftsmen in detail, skilled with the brush, and shrewdobservers of nature in a purely picturesque way. To the Flemish painters of the fifteenth century belongs, not theinvention of oil-painting, for it was known before their time, but itsacceptable application in picture-making. They applied oil with colorto produce brilliancy and warmth of effect, to insure firmness andbody in the work, and to carry out textural effects in stuffs, marbles, metals, and the like. So far as we know there never was muchuse of distemper, or fresco-work upon the walls of buildings. The oilmedium came into vogue when the miniatures and illuminations of theearly days had expanded into panel pictures. The size of the miniaturewas increased, but the minute method of finishing was not laid aside. Some time afterward painting with oil upon canvas was adopted. SCHOOL OF BRUGES: Painting in Flanders starts abruptly with thefifteenth century. What there was before that time more thanminiatures and illuminations is not known. Time and the Iconoclastshave left no remains of consequence. Flemish art for us begins withHubert van Eyck (?-1426) and his younger brother Jan van Eyck(?-1440). The elder brother is supposed to have been the betterpainter, because the most celebrated work of the brothers--the St. Bavon altar-piece, parts of which are in Ghent, Brussels, andBerlin--bears the inscription that Hubert began it and Jan finishedit. Hubert was no doubt an excellent painter, but his pictures are fewand there is much discussion whether he or Jan painted them. Forhistorical purposes Flemish art was begun, and almost completed, byJan van Eyck. He had all the attributes of the early men, and was oneof the most perfect of Flemish painters. He painted real forms andreal life, gave them a setting in true perspective and light, and putin background landscapes with a truthful if minute regard for thefacts. His figures in action had some awkwardness, they were small ofhead, slim of body, and sometimes stumbled; but his modelling offaces, his rendering of textures in cloth, metal, stone, and the like, his delicate yet firm _facture_ were all rather remarkable for histime. None of this early Flemish art has the grandeur of Italiancomposition, but in realistic detail, in landscape, architecture, figure, and dress, in pathos, sincerity, and sentiment it isunsurpassed by any fifteenth-century art. [Illustration: FIG. 75. --MEMLING (?). ST. LAWRENCE (DETAIL). NAT. GAL. , LONDON. ] Little is known of the personal history of either of the Van Eycks. They left an influence and had many followers, but whether these weredirect pupils or not is an open question. Peter Cristus (1400?-1472)was perhaps a pupil of Jan, though more likely a follower of hismethods in color and general technic. Roger van der Weyden(1400?-1464), whether a pupil of the Van Eycks or a rival, produced asimilar style of art. His first master was an obscure Robert Campin. He was afterward at Bruges, and from there went to Brussels andfounded a school of his own called the SCHOOL OF BRABANT: He was more emotional and dramatic than Jan vanEyck, giving much excited action and pathetic expression to hisfigures in scenes from the passion of Christ. He had not Van Eyck'sskill, nor his detail, nor his color. More of a draughtsman than acolorist, he was angular in figure and drapery, but had honesty, pathos, and sincerity, and was very charming in bright backgroundlandscapes. Though spending some time in Italy, he was neverinfluenced by Italian art. He was always Flemish in type, subject, andmethod, a trifle repulsive at first through angularity and emotionalexaggeration, but a man to be studied. By Van der Goes (1430?-1482) there are but few good examples, thechief one being an altar-piece in the Uffizi at Florence. It isangular in drawing but full of character, and in beauty of detail andornamentation is a remarkable picture. He probably followed Van derWeyden, as did also Justus van Ghent (last half of fifteenth century). Contemporary with these men Dierick Bouts (1410-1475) established aschool at Haarlem. He was Dutch by birth, but after 1450 settled inLouvain, and in his art belongs to the Flemish school. He wasinfluenced by Van der Weyden, and shows it in his detail of hands andmelancholy face, though he differed from him in dramatic action and intype. His figure was awkward, his color warm and rich, and inlandscape backgrounds he greatly advanced the painting of the time. Memling (1425?-1495?), one of the greatest of the school, is anotherman about whose life little is known. He was probably associated withVan der Weyden in some way. His art is founded on the Van Eyck school, and is remarkable for sincerity, purity, and frankness of attitude. Asa religious painter, he was perhaps beyond all his contemporaries intenderness and pathos. In portraiture he was exceedingly strong incharacterization, and in his figures very graceful. His flesh paintingwas excellent, but in textures or landscape work he was notremarkable. His best followers were Van der Meire (1427?-1474?) andGheeraert David (1450?-1523). The latter was famous for the fine, broad landscapes in the backgrounds of his pictures, said, however, bycritics to have been painted by Joachim Patinir. He was realisticallyhorrible in many subjects, and though a close recorder of detail hewas much broader than any of his predecessors. FLEMISH SCHOOLS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY: In this century Flemishpainting became rather widely diffused. The schools of Bruges andGhent gave place to the schools in the large commercial cities likeAntwerp and Brussels, and the commercial relations between the LowCountries and Italy finally led to the dissipation of nationalcharacteristics in art and the imitation of the Italian Renaissancepainters. There is no sharp line of demarcation between those painterswho clung to Flemish methods and those who adopted Italian methods. The change was gradual. [Illustration: FIG. 76. --MASSYS. HEAD OF VIRGIN. ANTWERP. ] Quentin Massys (1460?-1530) and Mostert (1474-1556?), a Dutchman bybirth, but, like Bouts, Flemish by influence, were among the last ofthe Gothic painters in Flanders, and yet they began the introductionof Italian features in their painting. Massys led in architecturalbackgrounds, and from that the Italian example spread to subjects, figures, methods, until the indigenous Flemish art became a thing ofthe past. Massys was, at Antwerp, the most important painter of hisday, following the old Flemish methods with many improvements. Hiswork was detailed, and yet executed with a broader, freer brush thanformerly, and with more variety in color, modelling, expression ofcharacter. He increased figures to almost life-size, giving themgreater importance than landscape or architecture. The type was stilllean and angular, and often contorted with emotion. His Money-Changersand Misers (many of them painted by his son) were a _genre_ of hisown. With him closed the Gothic school, and with him began the ANTWERP SCHOOL, the pupils of which went to Italy, and eventuallybecame Italianized. Mabuse (1470?-1541) was the first to go. His earlywork shows the influence of Massys and David. He was good incomposition, color, and brush-work, but lacked in originality, as didall the imitators of Italy. Franz Floris (1518?-1570) was a man oftalent, much admired in his time, because he brought backreminiscences of Michael Angelo to Antwerp. His influence was fatalupon his followers, of whom there were many, like the Franckens and DeVos. Italy and Roman methods, models, architecture, subjects, began torule everywhere. From Brussels Barent van Orley (1491?-1542) left early for Italy, andbecame essentially Italian, though retaining some Flemish color. Hepainted in oil, tempera, and for glass, and is supposed to have gainedhis brilliant colors by using a gilt ground. His early works remindone of David. Cocxie (1499-1592), the Flemish Raphael, was but anindifferent imitator of the Italian Raphael. At Liége the Romanists, so called, began with Lambert Lombard (1505-1566), of whose worknothing authentic remains except drawings. At Bruges Peeter Pourbus(1510?-1584) was about the last one of the good portrait-painters ofthe time. Another excellent portrait-painter, a pupil of Scorel, wasAntonio Moro (1512?-1578?). He had much dignity, force, andelaborateness of costume, and stood quite by himself. There were otherpainters of the time who were born or trained in Flanders, and yetbecame so naturalized in other countries that in their work they donot belong to Flanders. Neuchatel (1527?-1590?), Geldorp (1553-1616?), Calvaert (1540?-1619), Spranger (1546-1627?), and others, were of thisgroup. Among all the strugglers in Italian imitation only a few landscapistsheld out for the Flemish view. Paul Bril (1554-1626) was the first ofthem. He went to Italy, but instead of following the methods taughtthere, he taught Italians his own view of landscape. His work was alittle dry and formal, but graceful in composition, and good in lightand color. The Brueghels--there were three of them--also stood out forFlemish landscape, introducing it nominally as a background for smallfigures, but in reality for the beauty of the landscape itself. [Illustration: FIG. 77. --RUBENS. PORTRAIT OF YOUNG WOMAN. HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURGH. ] SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: This was the great century of Flemishpainting, though the painting was not entirely Flemish in method orthought. The influence of Italy had done away with the early simplicity, purity, and religious pathos of the Van Eycks. During the sixteenthcentury everything had run to bald imitation of Renaissance methods. Then came a new master-genius, Rubens (1577-1640), who formed a new artfounded in method upon Italy, yet distinctly northern in character. Rubens chose all subjects for his brush, but the religious altar-pieceprobably occupied him as much as any. To this he gave little of Gothicsentiment, but everything of Renaissance splendor. His art was morematerial than spiritual, more brilliant and startling in sensuousqualities, such as line and color, than charming by facial expression ortender feeling. Something of the Paolo Veronese cast of mind, heconceived things largely, and painted them proportionately--largeTitanic types, broad schemes and masses of color, great sweeping linesof beauty. One value of this largeness was its ability to hold at adistance upon wall or altar. Hence, when seen to-day, close at hand, inmuseums, people are apt to think Rubens's art coarse and gross. There is no prettiness about his type. It is not effeminate orsentimental, but rather robust, full of life and animal spirits, fullof blood, bone, and muscle--of majestic dignity, grace, and power, andglowing with splendor of color. In imagination, in conception of artpurely as art, and not as a mere vehicle to convey religious ormythological ideas, in mental grasp of the pictorial world, Rubensstands with Titian and Velasquez in the very front rank of painters. As a technician, he was unexcelled. A master of composition, modelling, and drawing, a master of light, and a color-harmonist ofthe rarest ability, he, in addition, possessed the most certain, adroit, and facile hand that ever handled a paint-brush. Nothing couldbe more sure than the touch of Rubens, nothing more easy andmasterful. He was trained in both mind and eye, a genius by birth andby education, a painter who saw keenly, and was able to realize whathe saw with certainty. Well-born, ennobled by royalty, successful in both court and studio, Rubens lived brilliantly and his life was a series of triumphs. Hepainted enormous canvases, and the number of pictures, altar-pieces, mythological decorations, landscapes, portraits scattered throughoutthe galleries of Europe, and attributed to him, is simply amazing. Hewas undoubtedly helped in many of his canvases by his pupils, but theworks painted by his own hand make a world of art in themselves. Hewas the greatest painter of the North, a full-rounded, completegenius, comparable to Titian in his universality. His precursors andmasters, Van Noort (1562-1641) and Vaenius (1558-1629), gave no strongindication of the greatness of Ruben's art, and his many pupils, though echoing his methods, never rose to his height in mental orartistic grasp. [Illustration: FIG. 78. --VAN DYCK. PORTRAIT OF CORNELIUS VAN DERGEEST. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] Van Dyck (1599-1641) was his principal pupil. He followed Rubensclosely at first, though in a slighter manner technically, and with acooler coloring. After visiting Italy he took up with the warmth ofTitian. Later, in England, he became careless and less certain. Hisrank is given him not for his figure-pieces. They were not alwayssuccessful, lacking as they did in imagination and originality, thoughdone with force. His best work was his portraiture, for which hebecame famous, painting nobility in every country of Europe in whichhe visited. At his best he was a portrait-painter of great power, butnot to be placed in the same rank with Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, andVelasquez. His characters are gracefully posed, and appear to bearistocratic. There is a noble distinction about them, and yet eventhis has the feeling of being somewhat affected. The serenecomplacency of his lords and ladies finally became almost a mannerismwith him, though never a disagreeable one. He died early, a painter ofmark, but not the greatest portrait-painter of the world, as issometimes said of him. There were a number of Rubens's pupils, like Diepenbeeck (1596-1675), who learned from their master a certain brush facility, but were notsufficiently original to make deep impressions. When Rubens died thebest painter left in Belgium was Jordaens (1593-1678). He was a pupilof Van Noort, but submitted to the Rubens influence and followed inRubens's style, though more florid in coloring and grosser in types. He painted all sorts of subjects, but was seen at his best inmythological scenes with groups of drunken satyrs and bacchants, surrounded by a close-placed landscape. He was the most independentand original of the followers, of whom there was a host. Crayer(1582-1669), Janssens (1575-1632), Zegers (1591-1651), Rombouts(1597-1637), were the prominent ones. They all took an influence moreor less pronounced from Rubens. Cornelius de Vos (1585-1651) was amore independent man--a realistic portrait-painter of much ability. Snyders (1579-1657), and Fyt (1609?-1661), devoted their brushes tothe painting of still-life, game, fruits, flowers, landscape--Snydersoften in collaboration with Rubens himself. [Illustration: FIG. 79. --TENIERS THE YOUNGER. PRODIGAL SON. LOUVRE. ] Living at the same time with these half-Italianized painters, andcontinuing later in the century, there was another group of paintersin the Low Countries who were emphatically of the soil, believing inthemselves and their own country and picturing scenes from commonplacelife in a manner quite their own. These were the "Little Masters, " the_genre_ painters, of whom there was even a stronger representationappearing contemporaneously in Holland. In Belgium there were not somany nor such talented men, but some of them were very interesting intheir work as in their subjects. Teniers the Younger (1610-1690) wasamong the first of them to picture peasant, burgher, alewife, andnobleman in all scenes and places. Nothing escaped him as a subject, and yet his best work was shown in the handling of low life intaverns. There is coarse wit in his work, but it is atoned for bygood color and easy handling. He was influenced by Rubens, thoughdecidedly different from him in many respects. Brouwer (1606?-1638)has often been catalogued with the Holland school, but he reallybelongs with Teniers, in Belgium. He died early, but left a number ofpictures remarkable for their fine "fat" quality and their beautifulcolor. He was not a man of Italian imagination, but a painter of lowlife, with coarse humor and not too much good taste, yet a superbtechnician and vastly beyond many of his little Dutch contemporariesat the North. Teniers and Brouwer led a school and had many followers. In a slightly different vein was Gonzales Coques (1618-1684), who isgenerally seen to advantage in pictures of interiors with familygroups. In subject he was more refined than the other _genre_painters, and was influenced to some extent by Van Dyck. As a coloristhe held rank, and his portraiture (rarely seen) was excellent. At thistime there were also many painters of landscape, marine, battles, still-life--in fact Belgium was alive with painters--but none of themwas sufficiently great to call for individual mention. Most of themwere followers of either Holland or Italy, and the gist of their workwill be spoken of hereafter under Dutch painting. EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN BELGIUM: Decline had set in before theseventeenth century ended. Belgium was torn by wars, her commerceflagged, her art-spirit seemed burned out. A long line of pettypainters followed whose works call for silence. One man alone seemedto stand out like a star by comparison with his contemporaries, Verhagen (1728-1811), a portrait-painter of talent. NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN BELGIUM: During this century Belgiumhas been so closely related to France that the influence of the largercountry has been quite apparent upon the art of the smaller. In 1816David, the leader of the French classic school, sent into exile by theRestoration, settled at Brussels, and immediately drew around himmany pupils. His influence was felt at once, and Francois Navez(1787-1869) was the chief one among his pupils to establish therevived classic art in Belgium. In 1830, with Belgian independence andalmost concurrently with the romantic movement in France, there begana romantic movement in Belgium with Wappers (1803-1874). His art wasfounded substantially on Rubens; but, like the Paris romanticists, hechose the dramatic subject of the times and treated it more for colorthan for line. He drew a number of followers to himself, but themovement was not more lasting than in France. Wiertz (1806-1865), whose collection of works is to be seen inBrussels, was a partial exposition of romanticism mixed with awhat-not of eccentricity entirely his own. Later on came acomparatively new man, Louis Gallait (1810-?), who held in Brusselssubstantially the same position that Delaroche did in Paris. His artwas eclectic and never strong, though he had many pupils at Brussels, and started there a rivalry to Wappers at Antwerp. Leys (1815-1869)holds a rather unique position in Belgian art by reason of hisaffectation. He at first followed Pieter de Hooghe and other earlypainters. Then, after a study of the old German painters like Cranach, he developed an archaic style, producing a Gothic quaintness of lineand composition, mingled with old Flemish coloring. The result wassomething popular, but not original or far-reaching, thoughtechnically well done. His chief pupil was Alma Tadema (1836-), aliveto-day in London, and belonging to no school in particular. He is atechnician of ability, mannered in composition and subject, andsomewhat perfunctory in execution. His work is very popular with thosewho enjoy minute detail and smooth texture-painting. In 1851 the influence of the French realism of Courbet began to befelt at Brussels, and since then Belgian art has followed closely theart movements at Paris. Men like Alfred Stevens (1828-), a pupil ofNavez, are really more French than Belgian. Stevens is one of the bestof the moderns, a painter of power in fashionable or high-life_genre_, and a colorist of the first rank in modern art. Among therecent painters but a few can be mentioned. Willems (1823-), a weakpainter of fashionable _genre_; Verboeckhoven (1799-1881), a vastlyover-estimated animal painter; Clays (1819-), an excellent marinepainter; Boulanger, a landscapist; Wauters (1846-), a history, andportrait-painter; Jan van Beers and Robie. The new men are Claus, Buysse, Frederic, Khnopff, Lempoels. [Illustration: FIG. 80. --ALFRED STEVENS. ON THE BEACH. ] PRINCIPAL WORKS:--Hubert van Eyck, Adoration of the Lamb (with Jan van Eyck) St. Bavon Ghent (wings at Brussels and Berlin supposed to be by Jan, the rest by Hubert); Jan van Eyck, as above, also Arnolfini portraits Nat. Gal. Lon. , Virgin and Donor Louvre, Madonna Staedel Mus. , Man with Pinks Berlin, Triumph of Church Madrid; Van der Weyden, a number of pictures in Brussels and Antwerp Mus. , also at Staedel Mus. , Berlin, Munich, Vienna; Cristus, Berlin, Staedel Mus. , Hermitage, Madrid; Justus van Ghent, Last Supper Urbino Gal. ; Bouts, St. Peter Louvain, Munich, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna; Memling, Brussels Mus. And Bruges Acad. , and Hospital Antwerp, Turin, Uffizi, Munich, Vienna; Van der Meire, triptych St. Bavon Ghent; Ghaeraert David, Bruges, Berlin, Rouen, Munich. Massys, Brussels, Antwerp, Berlin, St. Petersburg; best works Deposition in Antwerp Gal. And Merchant and Wife Louvre; Mostert, altar-piece Notre Dame Bruges; Mabuse, Madonnas Palermo, Milan Cathedral, Prague, other works Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Antwerp; Floris, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Munich, Vienna; Barent van Orley, altar-pieces Church of the Saviour Antwerp, and Brussels Mus. ; Cocxie, Antwerp, Brussels, and Madrid Mus. ; Pourbus, Bruges, Brussels, Vienna Mus. ; Moro, portraits Madrid, Vienna, Hague, Brussels, Cassel, Louvre, St. Petersburg Mus. ; Bril, landscapes Madrid, Louvre, Dresden, Berlin Mus. ; the landscapes of the three Breughels are to be seen in most of the museums of Europe, especially at Munich, Dresden, and Madrid. Rubens, many works, 93 in Munich, 35 in Dresden, 15 at Cassel, 16 at Berlin, 14 in London, 90 in Vienna, 66 in Madrid, 54 in Paris, 63 at St. Petersburg (as given by Wauters), best works at Antwerp, Vienna, Munich, and Madrid; Van Noort, Antwerp, Brussels Mus. , Ghent and Antwerp Cathedrals; Van Dyck, Windsor Castle, Nat. Gal. Lon. , 41 in Munich, 19 in Dresden, 15 in Cassel, 13 in Berlin, 67 in Vienna, 21 in Madrid, 24 in Paris, and 38 in St. Petersburg (Wauters), best examples in Vienna, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; and Madrid, good example in Met. Mus. N. Y. ; Diepenbeeck, Antwerp Churches and Mus. , Berlin, Vienna, Munich, Frankfort; Jordaens, Brussels, Antwerp, Munich, Vienna, Cassel, Madrid, Paris; Crayer, Brussels, Munich, Vienna; Janssens, Antwerp Mus. , St. Bavon Ghent, Brussels and Cologne Mus. ; Zegers, Cathedral Ghent, Notre Dame Bruges, Antwerp Mus. ; Rombouts, Mus. And Cathedral Ghent, Antwerp Mus. , Beguin Convent Mechlin, Hospital of St. John Bruges; De Vos, Cathedral and Mus. Antwerp, Munich, Oldenburg, Berlin Mus. ; Snyders, Munich, Dresden, Vienna, Madrid, Paris, St. Petersburg; Fyt, Munich, Dresden, Cassel, Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, Paris; Teniers the Younger, 29 pictures in Munich, 24 in Dresden, 8 in Berlin, 19 in Nat. Gal. Lon. , 33 in Vienna, 52 in Madrid, 34 in Louvre, 40 in St. Petersburg (Wauters); Brauwer, 19 in Munich, 6 in Dresden, 4 in Berlin, 5 in Paris, 5 in St. Petersburgh (Wauters); Coques, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich Mus. Verhagen, Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and Vienna Mus. ; Navez, Ghent, Antwerp, and Amsterdam Mus. , Nat. Gal. Berlin; Wappers, Amsterdam, Brussels, Versailles Mus. ; Wiertz, in Wiertz Gal. Brussels; Gallait, Liége, Versailles, Tournay, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin; Leys, Amsterdam Mus. , New Pinacothek, Munich, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin, Antwerp Mus. And City Hall; Alfred Stevens, Marseilles, Brussels, frescos Royal Pal. Brussels; Willems, Brussels Mus. And Foder Mus. Amsterdam, Met. Mus. N. Y. ; Verboeckhoven, Amsterdam, Foder, Nat. Gal. Berlin, New Pinacothek, Brussels, Ghent, Met. Mus. N. Y. ; Clays, Ghent Mus. ; Wauters, Brussels, Liége Mus. ; Van Beers, Burial of Charles the Good Amsterdam Mus. CHAPTER XVII. DUTCH PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before Fromentin, (Waagen's) Kügler; Amand-Durand, _OEuvre de Rembrandt_; _Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunst-geschiedenis_; Blanc, _OEuvre de Rembrandt_; Bode, _Franz Hals und seine Schule_; Bode, _Studien zur Geschichte der Hollandischen Malerei_; Bode, _Adriaan van Ostade_; Brown, _Rembrandt_; Burger (Th. Thoré), _Les Musées de la Hollande_; Havard, _La Peinture Hollandaise_; Michel, _Rembrandt_; Michel, _Gerard Terburg et sa Famille_; Mantz, _Adrien Brouwer_; Rooses, _Dutch Painters of the Nineteenth Century_; Rooses, _Rubens_; Schmidt, _Das Leben des Malers Adriaen Brouwer_; Van der Willigen, _Les Artistes de Harlem_; Van Mander, _Leven der Nederlandsche en Hoogduitsche Schilders_; Vosmaer, _Rembrandt, sa Vie et ses OEuvres_; Westrheene, _Jan Steen, Étude sur l'Art en Hollande_; Van Dyke, _Old Dutch and Flemish Masters_. THE DUTCH PEOPLE AND THEIR ART: Though Holland produced a somewhatdifferent quality of art from Flanders and Belgium, yet in manyrespects the people at the north were not very different from those atthe south of the Netherlands. They were perhaps less versatile, lessvolatile, less like the French and more like the Germans. Fond ofhomely joys and the quiet peace of town and domestic life, the Dutchwere matter-of-fact in all things, sturdy, honest, coarse at times, sufficient unto themselves, and caring little for what other peopledid. Just so with their painters. They were realistic at times togrotesqueness. Little troubled with fine poetic frenzies they paintedtheir own lives in street, town-hall, tavern, and kitchen, consciousthat it was good because true to themselves. At first Dutch art was influenced, even confounded, with that ofFlanders. The Van Eycks led the way, and painters like Bouts andothers, though Dutch by birth, became Flemish by adoption in their artat least. When the Flemish painters fell to copying Italy some of theDutch followed them, but with no great enthusiasm. Suddenly, at thebeginning of the seventeenth century, when Holland had gainedpolitical independence, Dutch art struck off by itself, becameoriginal, became famous. It pictured native life with verve, skill, keenness of insight, and fine pictorial view. Limited it was; it neversoared like Italian art, never became universal or world-embracing. Itwas distinct, individual, national, something that spoke for Holland, but little beyond it. In subject there were few historical canvases such as the Italians andFrench produced. The nearest approach to them were the paintings ofshooting companies, or groups of burghers and syndics, and these weremerely elaborations and enlargements of the portrait which the Dutchloved best of all. As a whole their subjects were single figures orsmall groups in interiors, quiet scenes, family conferences, smokers, card-players, drinkers, landscapes, still-life, architectural pieces. When they undertook the large canvas with many figures, they wereoften unsatisfactory. Even Rembrandt was so. The chief medium was oil, used upon panel or canvas. Fresco was probably used in the early days, but the climate was too damp for it and it was abandoned. It wasperhaps the dampness of the northern climate that led to theadaptation of the oil medium, something the Van Eycks are creditedwith inaugurating. [Illustration: FIG. 81. --HALS. PORTRAIT OF A LADY. ] THE EARLY PAINTING: The early work has, for the great part, perishedthrough time and the fierceness with which the Iconoclastic warfarewas waged. That which remains to-day is closely allied in method andstyle to Flemish painting under the Van Eycks. Ouwater is one of theearliest names that appears, and perhaps for that reason he has beencalled the founder of the school. He was remarked in his time for theexcellent painting of background landscapes; but there is littleauthentic by him left to us from which we may form an opinion. [17]Geertjen van St. Jan (about 1475) was evidently a pupil of his, andfrom him there are two wings of an altar in the Vienna Gallery, supposed to be genuine. Bouts and Mostert have been spoken of underthe Flemish school. Bosch (1460?-1516) was a man of some individualitywho produced fantastic purgatories that were popular in their time andare known to-day through engravings. Engelbrechsten (1468-1533) wasDutch by birth and in his art, and yet probably got his inspirationfrom the Van Eyck school. The works attributed to him are doubtful, though two in the Leyden Gallery seem to be authentic. He was themaster of Lucas van Leyden (1494-1533), the leading artist of theearly period. Lucas van Leyden was a personal friend of AlbrechtDürer, the German painter, and in his art he was not unlike him. Aman with a singularly lean type, a little awkward in composition, brilliant in color, and warm in tone, he was, despite hisarchaic-looking work, an artist of much ability and originality. Atfirst he was inclined toward Flemish methods, with an exaggeratedrealism in facial expression. In his middle period he was distinctlyDutch, but in his later days he came under Italian influence, and witha weakening effect upon his art. Taking his work as a whole, it wasthe strongest of all the early Dutch painters. [Footnote 17: A Raising of Lazarus is in the Berlin Gallery. ] SIXTEENTH CENTURY: This century was a period of Italian imitation, probably superinduced by the action of the Flemings at Antwerp. Themovement was somewhat like the Flemish one, but not so extensive or soproductive. There was hardly a painter of rank in Holland during thewhole century. Scorel (1495-1562) was the leader, and he probably gothis first liking for Italian art through Mabuse at Antwerp. Heafterward went to Italy, studied Raphael and Michael Angelo, andreturned to Utrecht to open a school and introduce Italian art intoHolland. A large number of pupils followed him, but their work waslacking in true originality. Heemskerck (1498-1574) and Cornelis vanHaarlem (1562-1638), with Steenwyck (1550?-1604), were some of themore important men of the century, but none of them was above a commonaverage. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: Beginning with the first quarter of this centurycame the great art of the Dutch people, founded on themselves androoted in their native character. Italian methods were abandoned, andthe Dutch told the story of their own lives in their own manner, withtruth, vigor, and skill. There were so many painters in Holland duringthis period that it will be necessary to divide them into groups andmention only the prominent names. PORTRAIT AND FIGURE PAINTERS: The real inaugurators of Dutchportraiture were Mierevelt, Hals, Ravesteyn, and De Keyser. Mierevelt(1567-1641) was one of the earliest, a prolific painter, fond of thearistocratic sitter, and indulging in a great deal of elegance in hisaccessories of dress and the like. He had a slight, smooth brush, muchdetail, and a profusion of color. Quite the reverse of him was FranzHals (1584?-1666), one of the most remarkable painters of portraitswith which history acquaints us. In giving the sense of life andpersonal physical presence, he was unexcelled by any one. What he sawhe could portray with the most telling reality. In drawing andmodelling he was usually good; in coloring he was excellent, though inhis late work sombre; in brush-handling he was one of the greatmasters. Strong, virile, yet easy and facile, he seemed to producewithout effort. His brush was very broad in its sweep, very sure, verytrue. Occasionally in his late painting facility ran to theineffectual, but usually he was certainty itself. His best work was inportraiture, and the most important of this is to be seen at Haarlem, where he died after a rather careless life. As a painter, pure andsimple, he is almost to be ranked beside Velasquez; as a poet, athinker, a man of lofty imagination, his work gives us littleenlightenment except in so far as it shows a fine feeling for massesof color and problems of light. Though excellent portrait-painters, Ravesteyn (1572?-1657) and De Keyser (1596?-1679) do not provokeenthusiasm. They were quiet, conservative, dignified, painting civicguards and societies with a knowing brush and lively color, giving thetruth of physiognomy, but not with that verve of the artist soconspicuous in Hals, nor with that unity of the group so essential inthe making of a picture. [Illustration: FIG. 82. --REMBRANDT. HEAD OF WOMAN. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] The next man in chronological order is Rembrandt (1607?-1669), thegreatest painter in Dutch art. He was a pupil of Swanenburch andLastman, but his great knowledge of nature and his craft came largelyfrom the direct study of the model. Settled at Amsterdam, he quicklyrose to fame, had a large following of pupils, and his influence wasfelt through all Dutch painting. The portrait was emphatically hisstrongest work. The many-figured group he was not always successful incomposing or lighting. His method of work rather fitted him for theportrait and unfitted him for the large historical piece. He built upthe importance of certain features by dragging down all otherfeatures. This was largely shown in his handling of illumination. Strong in a few high lights on cheek, chin, or white linen, the restof the picture was submerged in shadow, under which color wasunmercifully sacrificed. This was not the best method for a large, many-figured piece, but was singularly well suited to the portrait. Itproduced strength by contrast. "Forced" it was undoubtedly, and notalways true to nature, yet nevertheless most potent in Rembrandt'shands. He was an arbitrary though perfect master of light-and-shade, and unusually effective in luminous and transparent shadows. In colorhe was again arbitrary but forcible and harmonious. In brush-work hewas at times labored, but almost always effective. Mentally he was a man keen to observe, assimilate, and express hisimpressions in a few simple truths. His conception was localized withhis own people and time (he never built up the imaginary or followedItaly), and yet into types taken from the streets and shops ofAmsterdam he infused the very largest humanity through his inherentsympathy with man. Dramatic, even tragic, he was; yet this was not soapparent in vehement action as in passionate expression. He had apowerful way of striking universal truths through the human face, theturned head, bent body, or outstretched hand. His people havecharacter, dignity, and a pervading feeling that they are the greattypes of the Dutch race--people of substantial physique, slow inthought and impulse, yet capable of feeling, comprehending, enjoying, suffering. His landscapes, again, were a synthesis of all landscapes, a groupingof the great truths of light, air, shadow, space. Whatever he turnedhis hand to was treated with that breadth of view that overlooked thelittle and grasped the great. He painted many subjects. His earliestwork dates from 1627, and is a little hard and sharp in detail andcold in coloring. After 1654 he grew broader in handling and warmer intone, running to golden browns, and, toward the end of his career, torather hot tones. His life was embittered by many misfortunes, butthese never seem to have affected his art except to deepen it. Hepainted on to the last, convinced that his own view was the true one, and producing works that rank second to none in the history ofpainting. Rembrandt's influence upon Dutch art was far-reaching, and appearedimmediately in the works of his many pupils. They all followed hismethods of handling light-and-shade, but no one of them ever equalledhim, though they produced work of much merit. Bol (1611-1680) waschiefly a portrait-painter, with a pervading yellow tone and somepallor of flesh-coloring--a man of ability who mistakenly followedRubens in the latter part of his life. Flinck (1615-1660) at one timefollowed Rembrandt so closely that his work has passed for that of themaster; but latterly he, too, came under Flemish influence. Next toEeckhout he was probably the nearest to Rembrandt in methods of allthe pupils. Eeckhout (1621-1674) was really a Rembrandt imitator, buthis hand was weak and his color hot. Maes (1632-1693) was the mostsuccessful manager of light after the school formula, and succeededvery well with warmth and richness of color, especially with his reds. The other Rembrandt pupils and followers were Poorter (fl. 1635-1643), Victoors (1620?-1672?), Koninck (1619-1688), Fabritius (1624-1654), and Backer (1608?-1651). Van der Helst (1612?-1670) stands apart from this school, and seems tohave followed more the portrait style of De Keyser. He was arealistic, precise painter, with much excellence of modelling in headand hands, and with fine carriage and dignity in the figure. Incomposition he hardly held his characters in group owing to asacrifice of values, and in color he was often "spotty, " and lackingin the unity of mass. THE GENRE PAINTERS: This heading embraces those who may be called the"Little Dutchmen, " because of the small scale of their pictures andtheir _genre_ subjects. Gerard Dou (1613-1675) is indicative of theclass without fully representing it. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, buthis work gave little report of this. It was smaller, more delicate indetail, more petty in conception. He was a man great in littlethings, one who wasted strength on the minutiæ of dress, ortable-cloth, or the texture of furniture without grasping the mass orcolor significance of the whole scene. There was infinite detail abouthis work, and that gave it popularity; but as art it held, and holdsto-day, little higher place than the work of Metsu (1630-1667), VanMieris (1635-1681), Netscher (1639-1684), or Schalcken (1643-1706), all of whom produced the interior piece with figures elaborate inaccidental effects. Van Ostade (1610-1685), though dealing with thesmall canvas, and portraying peasant life with perhaps unnecessarycoarseness, was a much stronger painter than the men just mentioned. He was the favorite pupil of Hals and the master of Jan Steen. Withlittle delicacy in choice of subject he had much delicacy in color, taste in arrangement, and skill in handling. His brush was precise butnot finical. [Illustration: FIG. 83. --J. VAN RUISDAEL. LANDSCAPE. ] By far the best painter among all the "Little Dutchmen" was Terburg(1617?-1681), a painter of interiors, small portraits, conversationpictures, and the like. Though of diminutive scale his work has thelargeness of view characteristic of genius, and the skilled technic ofa thorough craftsman. Terburg was a travelled man, visiting Italy, where he studied Titian, returning to Holland to study Rembrandt, finally at Madrid studying Velasquez. He was a painter of muchculture, and the keynote of his art is refinement. Quiet and dignifiedhe carried taste through all branches of his art. In subject he wasrather elevated, in color subdued with broken tones, in compositionsimple, in brush-work sure, vivacious, and yet unobtrusive. Selectionin his characters was followed by reserve in using them. Detail wasnot very apparent. A few people with some accessory objects were allthat he required to make a picture. Perhaps his best qualities appearin a number of small portraits remarkable for their distinction andaristocratic grace. Steen (1626?-1679) was almost the opposite of Terburg, a man ofsarcastic flings and coarse humor who satirized his own time withlittle reserve. He developed under Hals and Van Ostade, favoring thelatter in his interiors, family scenes, and drunken debauches. He wasa master of physiognomy, and depicted it with rare if ratherunpleasant truth. If he had little refinement in his themes hecertainly handled them as a painter with delicacy. At his best hismany figured groups were exceedingly well composed, his color was ofgood quality (with a fondness for yellows), and his brush was aslimpid and graceful as though painting angels instead of Dutch boors. He was really one of the fine brushmen of Holland, a man greatlyadmired by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and many an artist since; but not aman of high intellectual pitch as compared with Terburg, forinstance. Pieter de Hooghe (1632?-1681) was a painter of purely pictorialeffects, beginning and ending a picture in a scheme of color, atmosphere, clever composition, and above all the play oflight-and-shade. He was one of the early masters of full sunlight, painting it falling across a court-yard or streaming through a windowwith marvellous truth and poetry. His subjects were commonplaceenough. An interior with a figure or two in the middle distance, and apassage-way leading into a lighted background were sufficient for him. These formed a skeleton which he clothed in a half-tone shadow, pierced with warm yellow light, enriched with rare colors, usuallygarnet reds and deep yellows repeated in the different planes, andsurrounded with a subtle pervading atmosphere. As a brushman he waseasy but not distinguished, and often his drawing was not correct; butin the placing of color masses and in composing by color and light hewas a master of the first rank. Little is known about his life. Heprobably formed himself on Fabritius or Rembrandt at second-hand, butlittle trace of the latter is apparent in his work. He seems not tohave achieved much fame until late years, and then rather in Englandthan in his own country. Jan van der Meer of Delft (1632-1675), one of the most charming of allthe _genre_ painters, was allied to De Hooghe in his pictorial pointof view and interior subjects. Unfortunately there is little left tous of this master, but the few extant examples serve to show him apainter of rare qualities in light, in color, and in atmosphere. Hewas a remarkable man for his handling of blues, reds, and yellows; andin the tonic relations of a picture he was a master second to no one. Fabritius is supposed to have influenced him. THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The painters of the Netherlands were probablythe first, beginning with Bril, to paint landscape for its own sake, and as a picture motive in itself. Before them it had been used as abackground for the figure, and was so used by many of the Dutchmenthemselves. It has been said that these landscape-painters were alsothe first ones to paint landscape realistically, but that is true onlyin part. They studied natural forms, as did, indeed, Bellini in theVenetian school; they learned something of perspective, air, treeanatomy, and the appearance of water; but no Dutch painter oflandscape in the seventeenth century grasped the full color of Hollandor painted its many varied lights. They indulged in a meagreconventional palette of grays, greens, and browns, whereas Holland isfull of brilliant hues. [Illustration: FIG. 84. --HOBBEMA. THE WATER-WHEEL. AMSTERDAM MUS. ] Van Goyen (1596-1656) was one of the earliest of theseventeenth-century landscapists. In subject he was fond of the Dutchbays, harbors, rivers, and canals with shipping, windmills, andhouses. His sky line was generally given low, his water silvery, andhis sky misty and luminous with bursts of white light. In color hewas subdued, and in perspective quite cunning at times. Salomon vanRuisdael (1600?-1670) was his follower, if not his pupil. He had thesame sobriety of color as his master, and was a mannered and prosaicpainter in details, such as leaves and tree-branches. In compositionhe was good, but his art had only a slight basis upon reality, thoughit looks to be realistic at first sight. He had a formula for doinglandscape which he varied only in a slight way, and thisconventionality ran through all his work. Molyn (1600?-1661) was apainter who showed limited truth to nature in flat and hillylandscapes, transparent skies, and warm coloring. His extant works arefew in number. Wynants (1615?-1679?) was more of a realist in naturalappearance than any of the others, a man who evidently studieddirectly from nature in details of vegetation, plants, trees, roads, grasses, and the like. Most of the figures and animals in hislandscapes were painted by other hands. He himself was a purelandscape-painter, excelling in light and aërial perspective, but notremarkable in color. Van der Neer (1603-1677) and Everdingen(1621?-1675) were two other contemporary painters of merit. The best landscapist following the first men of the century was Jacobvan Ruisdael (1625?-1682), the nephew of Salomon van Ruisdael. He isput down, with perhaps unnecessary emphasis, as the greatestlandscape-painter of the Dutch school. He was undoubtedly the equal ofany of his time, though not so near to nature, perhaps, as Hobbema. Hewas a man of imagination, who at first pictured the Dutch countryabout Haarlem, and afterward took up with the romantic landscape ofVan Everdingen. This landscape bears a resemblance to the Norwegiancountry, abounding, as it does, in mountains, heavy dark woods, andrushing torrents. There is considerable poetry in its composition, itsgloomy skies, and darkened lights. It is mournful, suggestive, wild, usually unpeopled. There was much of the methodical in its puttingtogether, and in color it was cold, and limited to a few tones. Manyof Ruisdael's works have darkened through time. Little is known aboutthe painter's life except that he was not appreciated in his own timeand died in the almshouse. Hobbema (1638?-1709) was probably the pupil of Jacob van Ruisdael, andranks with him, if not above him, in seventeenth-century landscapepainting. Ruisdael hardly ever painted sunlight, whereas Hobbemarather affected it in quiet wood-scenes or roadways with little poolsof water and a mill. He was a freer man with the brush than Ruisdael, and knew more about the natural appearance of trees, skies, andlights; but, like his master, his view of nature found no favor in hisown land. Most of his work is in England, where it had not a little todo with influencing such painters as Constable and others at thebeginning of the nineteenth century. [Illustration: FIG. 85. --ISRAELS. ALONE IN THE WORLD. ] LANDSCAPE WITH CATTLE: Here we meet with Wouverman (1619-1668), apainter of horses, cavalry, battles, and riding parties placed inlandscape. His landscape is bright and his horses are spirited inaction. There is some mannerism apparent in his reiteratedconcentration of light on a white horse, and some repetition in hiscanvases, of which there are many; but on the whole he was aninteresting, if smooth and neat painter. Paul Potter (1625-1654)hardly merited his great repute. He was a harsh, exact recorder offacts, often tin-like or woodeny in his cattle, and not in any wayremarkable in his landscapes, least of all in their composition. TheYoung Bull at the Hague is an ambitious piece of drawing, but is notsuccessful in color, light, or _ensemble_. It is a brittle work allthrough, and not nearly so good as some smaller things in the NationalGallery London, and in the Louvre. Adrien van de Velde (1635?-1672)was short-lived, like Potter, but managed to do a prodigious amountof work, showing cattle and figures in landscape with much technicalability and good feeling. He was particularly good in composition andthe subtle gradation of neutral tints. A little of the Italianinfluence appeared in his work, and with the men who came with him andafter him the Italian imitation became very pronounced. Aelbert Cuyp(1620-1691) was a many-sided painter, adopting at various timesdifferent styles, but was enough of a genius to be himself always. Heis best known to us, perhaps, by his yellow sunlight effects alongrivers, with cattle in the foreground, though he painted still-life, and even portraits and marines. In composing a group he was knowing, recording natural effects with power; in light and atmosphere he wasone of the best of his time, and in texture and color refined, andfrequently brilliant. Both (1610-1650?), Berchem (1620-1683), DuJardin (1622?-1678), followed the Italian tradition of Claude Lorrain, producing semi-classic landscapes, never very convincing in theiroriginality. Van der Heyden (1637-1712), should be mentioned as anexcellent, if minute, painter of architecture with remarkableatmospheric effects. MARINE AND STILL-LIFE PAINTERS: There were two pre-eminent marinepainters in this seventeenth century, Willem van de Velde (1633-1707)and Backhuisen (1631-1708). The sea was not an unusual subject withthe Dutch landscapists. Van Goyen, Simon de Vlieger (1601?-1660?), Cuyp, Willem van de Velde the Elder (1611?-1693), all employed it; butit was Van de Velde the Younger who really stood at the head of themarine painters. He knew his subject thoroughly, having been wellgrounded in it by his father and De Vlieger, so that the painting ofthe Dutch fleets and harbors was a part of his nature. He preferredthe quiet haven to the open sea. Smooth water, calm skies, silverylight, and boats lying listlessly at anchor with drooping sails, madeup his usual subject. The color was almost always in a key of silverand gray, very charming in its harmony and serenity, but a littlethin. Both he and his father went to England and entered the serviceof the English king, and thereafter did English fleets rather thanDutch ones. Backhuisen was quite the reverse of Van de Velde inpreferring the tempest to the calm of the sea. He also used morebrilliant and varied colors, but he was not so happy in harmony as Vande Velde. There was often dryness in his handling, and something toomuch of the theatrical in his wrecks on rocky shores. The still-life painters of Holland were all of them rather petty intheir emphasis of details such as figures on table-covers, water-dropson flowers, and fur on rabbits. It was labored work with little of theart spirit about it, except as the composition showed good masses. Anumber of these painters gained celebrity in their day by theirmicroscopic labor over fruits, flowers, and the like, but they have nogreat rank at the present time. Jan van Heem (1600?1684?) was perhapsthe best painter of flowers among them. Van Huysum (1682-1749)succeeded with the same subject beyond his deserts. Hondecoeter(1636-1695) was a unique painter of poultry; Weenix (1640-1719) andVan Aelst (1620-1679), of dead game; Kalf (1630?-1693), of pots, pans, dishes, and vegetables. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: This was a period of decadence during which therewas no originality worth speaking about among the Dutch painters. Realism in minute features was carried to the extreme, and imitationof the early men took the place of invention. Everything wasprettified and elaborated until there was a porcelain smoothness and aphotographic exactness inconsistent with true art. Adriaan van derWerff (1659-1722), and Philip van Dyck (1683-1753) with their "ideal"inanities are typical of the century's art. There was nothing tocommend it. The lowest point of affectation had been reached. NINETEENTH CENTURY: The Dutch painters, unlike the Belgians, havealmost always been true to their own traditions and their own country. Even in decadence the most of them feebly followed their own paintersrather than those of Italy and France, and in the early nineteenthcentury they were not affected by the French classicism of David. Later on there came into vogue an art that had some affinity with thatof Millet and Courbet in France. It was the Dutch version of modernsentiment about the laboring classes, founded on the modern life ofHolland, yet in reality a continuation of the style or _genre_practised by the early Dutchmen. Israels (1824-) is a revival or asurvival of Rembrandtesque methods with a sentiment and feeling akinto the French Millet. He deals almost exclusively with peasant life, showing fisher-folk and the like in their cottage interiors, at thetable, or before the fire, with good effects of light, atmosphere, andmuch pathos. Technically he is rather labored and heavy in handling, but usually effective with sombre color in giving the unity of ascene. Artz (1837-1890) considered himself in measure a follower ofIsraels, though he never studied under him. His pictures in subjectare like those of Israels, but without the depth of the latter. Blommers (1845-) is another peasant painter who follows Israels at adistance, and Neuhuys (1844-) shows a similar style of work. Bosboom(1817-1891) excelled in representing interiors, showing, with muchpictorial effect, the light, color, shadow, and feeling of space andair in large cathedrals. [Illustration: FIG. 86. --MAUVE. SHEEP. ] The brothers Maris have made a distinct impression on modern Dutchart, and, strange enough, each in a different way from the others. James Maris (1837-) studied at Paris, and is remarkable for fine, vigorous views of canals, towns, and landscapes. He is broad inhandling, rather bleak in coloring, and excels in fine luminous skiesand voyaging clouds. Matthew Maris (1835-), Parisian trained like hisbrother, lives in London, where little is seen of his work. He paintsfor himself and his friends, and is rather melancholy and mystical inhis art. He is a recorder of visions and dreams rather than thesubstantial things of the earth, but always with richness of color anda fine decorative feeling. Willem Maris (1839-), sometimes called the"Silvery Maris, " is a portrayer of cattle and landscape in warmsunlight and haze with a charm of color and tone often suggestive ofCorot. Jongkind (1819-1891) stands by himself, Mesdag (1831-) is afine painter of marines and sea-shores, and Mauve (1838-1888), acattle and sheep painter, with nice sentiment and tonality, whoserenown is just now somewhat disproportionate to his artistic ability. In addition there are Kever, Poggenbeek, Bastert, Baur, Breitner, Witsen, Haverman, Weissenbruch. EXTANT WORKS: Generally speaking the best examples of the Dutch schools are still to be seen in the local museums of Holland, especially the Amsterdam and Hague Mus. ; Bosch, Madrid, Antwerp, Brussels Mus. ; Lucas van Leyden, Antwerp, Leyden, Munich Mus. ; Scorel, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Haarlem Mus. ; Heemskerck, Haarlem, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, Dresden; Steenwyck, Amsterdam, Hague, Brussels; Cornelis van Haarlem, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Brunswick. PORTRAIT AND FIGURE PAINTERS--Mierevelt, Hague, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brunswick, Dresden, Copenhagen; Hals, best works to be seen at Haarlem, others at Amsterdam, Brussels, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Met. Mus. New York, Art Institute Chicago; Rembrandt, Amsterdam, Hermitage, Louvre, Munich, Berlin, Dresden, Madrid, London; Bol, Amsterdam, Hague, Dresden, Louvre; Flinck, Amsterdam, Hague, Berlin; Eeckhout, Amsterdam, Brunswick, Berlin, Munich; Maes, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hague, Brussels; Poorter, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dresden; Victoors, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Brunswick, Dresden; Fabritius, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Berlin; Van der Helst, best works at Amsterdam Mus. GENRE PAINTERS--Examples of Dou, Metsu, Van Mieris, Netscher, Schalcken, Van Ostade, are to be seen in almost all the galleries of Europe, especially the Dutch, Belgian, German, and French galleries; Terburg, Amsterdam, Louvre, Dresden, Berlin (fine portraits); Steen, Amsterdam, Louvre, Rotterdam, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, Dresden, Vienna; De Hooghe, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, Amsterdam, Hermitage; Van der Meer of Delft, Louvre, Hague, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden, Met. Mus. New York. LANDSCAPE PAINTERS--Van Goyen, Amsterdam, Fitz-William Mus. Cambridge, Louvre, Brussels, Cassel, Dresden, Berlin; Salomon van Ruisdael, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Dresden, Munich; Van der Neer, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden; Everdingen, Amsterdam, Berlin, Louvre, Brunswick, Dresden, Munich, Frankfort; Jacob van Ruisdael, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden; Hobbema, best works in England, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Dresden; Wouvermans, many works, best at Amsterdam, Cassel, Louvre; Potter, Amsterdam, Hague, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Van de Velde, Amsterdam, Hague, Cassel, Dresden, Frankfort, Munich, Louvre; Cuyp, Amsterdam, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Louvre, Munich, Dresden; examples of Both, Berchem, Du Jardin, and Van der Heyden, in almost all of the Dutch and German galleries, besides the Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon. MARINE PAINTERS--Willem van de Velde Elder and Younger, Backhuisen, Vlieger, together with the flower and fruit painters like Huysum, Hondecoeter, Weenix, have all been prolific workers, and almost every European gallery, especially those at London, Amsterdam, and in Germany, have examples of their works; Van der Werff and Philip van Dyck are seen at their best at Dresden. The best works of the modern men are in private collections, many in the United States, some examples of them in the Amsterdam and Hague Museums. Also some examples of the old Dutch masters in New York Hist. Society Library, Yale School of Fine Arts, Met. Mus. New York, Boston Mus. , and Chicago Institute. CHAPTER XVIII. GERMAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Colvin, _A. Durer, his Teachers, his Rivals, and his Scholars_; Eye, _Leben und Werke Albrecht Durers_; Förster, _Peter von Cornelius_; Förster, _Geschichte der Deutschen Kunst_; Keane, _Early Teutonic, Italian, and French Painters_; Kügler, _Handbook to German and Netherland Schools, trans. By Crowe_; Merlo, _Die Meister der altkolnischer Malerschule_; Moore, _Albert Durer_; Pecht, _Deutsche Kunstler des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts_; Reber, _Geschichte der neueren Deutschen Kunst_; Riegel, _Deutsche Kunststudien_; Rosenberg, _Die Berliner Malerschule_; Rosenberg, _Sebald und Barthel Beham_; Rumohr, _Hans Holbein der Jungere_; Sandrart, _Teutsche Akademie der Edlen Bau, Bild-und Malerey-Kunste_; Schuchardt, _Lucas Cranach's Leben_; Thausig, _Albert Durer, His Life and Works_; Waagen, _Kunstwerke und Kunstler in Deutschland_; E. Aus'm Weerth, _Wandmalereien des Mittelalters in den Rheinlanden_; Wessely, _Adolph Menzel_; Woltmann, _Holbein and his Time_; Woltmann, _Geschichte der Deutschen Kunst im Elsass_; Wurtzbach, _Martin Schongauer_. EARLY GERMAN PAINTING: The Teutonic lands, like almost all of thecountries of Europe, received their first art impulse fromChristianity through Italy. The centre of the faith was at Rome, andfrom there the influence in art spread west and north, and in eachland it was modified by local peculiarities of type and temperament. In Germany, even in the early days, though Christianity was the themeof early illuminations, miniatures, and the like, and though there wasa traditional form reaching back to Italy and Byzantium, yet under itwas the Teutonic type--the material, awkward, rather coarse Germanicpoint of view. The wish to realize native surroundings was apparentfrom the beginning. It is probable that the earliest painting in Germany took the form ofilluminations. At what date it first appeared is unknown. Inwall-painting a poor quality of work was executed in the churches asearly as the ninth century, and probably earlier. The oldest nowextant are those at Oberzell, dating back to the last part of thetenth century. Better examples are seen in the Lower Church ofSchwarzrheindorf, of the twelfth century, and still better in thechoir and transept of the Brunswick cathedral, ascribed to the earlythirteenth century. [Illustration: FIG. 87. --LOCHNER. STS. JOHN, CATHERINE, AND MATTHEW. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] All of these works have an archaic appearance about them, but theyare better in composition and drawing than the productions of Italyand Byzantium at that time. It is likely that all the German churchesat this time were decorated, but most of the paintings have beendestroyed. The usual method was to cover the walls and wooden ceilingswith blue grounds, and upon these to place figures surrounded byarchitectural ornaments. Stained glass was also used extensively. Panel painting seems to have come into existence before the thirteenthcentury (whether developed from miniature or wall-painting isunknown), and was used for altar decorations. The panels were done intempera with figures in light colors upon gold grounds. Thespirituality of the age with a mingling of northern sentiment appearedin the figure. This figure was at times graceful, and again awkwardand archaic, according to the place of production and the influence ofeither France or Italy. The oldest panels extant are from theWiesenkirche at Soest, now in the Berlin Museum. They do not datebefore the thirteenth century. FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES: In the fourteenth century theinfluence of France began to show strongly in willowy figures, longflowing draperies, and sentimental poses. The artists along the Rhineshowed this more than those in the provinces to the east, where aruder if freer art appeared. The best panel-painting of the time wasdone at Cologne, where we meet with the name of the first painter, Meister Wilhelm, and where a school was established usually known asthe SCHOOL OF COLOGNE: This school probably got its sentimentalinclination, shown in slight forms and tender expression, from France, but derived much of its technic from the Netherlands. Stephen Lochner, or Meister Stephen, (fl. 1450) leaned toward the Flemish methods, andin his celebrated picture, the Madonna of the Rose Garden, in theCologne Museum, there is an indication of this; but there is also anindividuality showing the growth of German independence in painting. The figures of his Dombild have little manliness or power, butconsiderable grace, pathos, and religious feeling. They are notabstract types but the spiritualized people of the country in nativecostumes, with much gold, jewelry, and armor. Gold was used instead ofa landscape background, and the foreground was spattered with flowersand leaves. The outlines are rather hard, and none of the aërialperspective of the Flemings is given. After a time French sentimentwas still further encroached upon by Flemish realism, as shown in theworks of the Master of the Lyversberg Passion (fl. About 1463-1480), to be seen in the Cologne Museum. [Illustration: FIG. 88. --WOLGEMUT. CRUCIFIXION. MUNICH. ] BOHEMIAN SCHOOL: It was not on the Lower Rhine alone that Germanpainting was practised. The Bohemian school, located near Prague, flourished for a short time in the fourteenth century, under CharlesIV. , with Theodorich of Prague (fl. 1348-1378), Wurmser, and Kunz, asthe chief masters. Their art was quite the reverse of the Colognepainters. It was heavy, clumsy, bony, awkward. If more original it wasless graceful, not so pathetic, not so religious. Sentiment wasslurred through a harsh attempt at realism, and the religious subjectmet with something of a check in the romantic mediæval chivalrictheme, painted quite as often on the castle wall as the scripturaltheme on the church wall. After the close of the fourteenth centurywall-painting began to die out in favor of panel pictures. NUREMBERG SCHOOL: Half-way between the sentiment of Cologne and therealism of Prague stood the early school of Nuremberg, with no knownpainter at its head. Its chief work, the Imhof altar-piece, shows, however, that the Nuremberg masters of the early and middle fifteenthcentury were between eastern and western influences. They inclined tothe graceful swaying figure, following more the sculpture of the timethan the Cologne type. FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES: German art, if begun in thefourteenth century, hardly showed any depth or breadth until thefifteenth century, and no real individual strength until the sixteenthcentury. It lagged behind the other countries of Europe and producedthe cramped archaic altar-piece. Then when printing was invented thepainter-engraver came into existence. He was a man who painted panels, but found his largest audience through the circulation of engravings. The two kinds of arts being produced by the one man led to muchdetailed line work with the brush. Engraving is an influence to beborne in mind in examining the painting of this period. [Illustration: FIG. 89. --DÜRER. PRAYING VIRGIN. AUGSBURG. ] FRANCONIAN SCHOOL: Nuremberg was the centre of this school, and itsmost famous early master was Wolgemut (1434-1519), though Plydenwurffis the first-named painter. After the latter's death Wolgemut marriedhis widow and became the head of the school. His paintings werechiefly altar-pieces, in which the figures were rather lank andnarrow-shouldered, with sharp outlines, indicative perhaps of theinfluence of wood-engraving, in which he was much interested. Therewas, however, in his work an advance in characterization, nobility ofexpression, and quiet dignity, and it was his good fortune to be themaster of one of the most thoroughly original painters of all theGerman schools--Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528). With Dürer and Holbein German art reached its apogee in the first halfof the sixteenth century, yet their work was not different in spiritfrom that of their predecessors. Painting simply developed and becameforceful and expressive technically without abandoning its earlycharacter. There is in Dürer a naive awkwardness of figure, someangularity of line, strain of pose, and in composition oftentimeshuddling and overloading of the scene with details. There is not thatlargeness which seemed native to his Italian contemporaries. He washampered by that German exactness, which found its best expression inengraving, and which, though unsuited to painting, nevertheless creptinto it. Within these limitations Dürer produced the typical art ofGermany in the Renaissance time--an art more attractive for the charmand beauty of its parts than for its unity, or its general impression. Dürer was a travelled man, visited Italy and the Netherlands, and, though he always remained a German in art, yet he picked up someItalian methods from Bellini and Mantegna that are faintly apparent insome of his works. In subject he was almost exclusively religious, painting the altar-piece with infinite care upon wooden panel, canvas, or parchment. He never worked in fresco, preferring oil and tempera. In drawing he was often harsh and faulty, in draperies cramped attimes, and then, again, as in the Apostle panels at Munich, verybroad, and effective. Many of his pictures show a hard, dry brush, anda few, again, are so free and mellow that they look as though done byanother hand. He was usually minute in detail, especially in suchfeatures as hair, cloth, flesh. His portraits were uneven and not hisbest productions. He was too close a scrutinizer of the part and notenough of an observer of the whole for good portraiture. Indeed, thatis the criticism to be made upon all his work. He was an exquisiterealist of certain features, but not always of the _ensemble_. Nevertheless he holds first rank in the German art of the Renaissance, not only on account of his technical ability, but also because of hisimagination, sincerity, and striking originality. [Illustration: FIG. 90. --HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER. PORTRAIT. HAGUE MUS. ] Dürer's influence was wide-spread throughout Germany, especially inengraving, of which he was a master. In painting Schäufelin(1490?-1540?) was probably his apprentice, and in his work followedthe master so closely that many of his works have been attributed toDürer. This is true in measure of Hans Baldung (1476?-1552?). Hans vonKulmbach (?-1522) was a painter of more than ordinary importance, brilliant in coloring, a follower of Dürer, who was inclined towardItalian methods, an inclination that afterward developed all throughGerman art. Following Dürer's formulas came a large number ofso-called "Little Masters" (from the size of their engraved plates), who were more engravers than painters. Among the more important ofthose who were painters as well as engravers were Altdorfer(1480?-1538), a rival rather than an imitator of Dürer; Barthel Beham(1502-1540), Sebald Beham (1500-1550), Pencz (1500?-1550), Aldegrever(1502-1558), and Bink (1490?-1569?). SWABIAN SCHOOL: This school includes a number of painters who werelocated at different places, like Colmar and Ulm, and later on itincluded the Holbeins at Augsburg, who were really the consummation ofthe school. In the fifteenth century one of the early leaders wasMartin Schöngauer (1446?-1488), at Colmar. He is supposed to have beena pupil of Roger Van der Weyden, of the Flemish school, and is betterknown by his engravings than his paintings, none of the latter beingpositively authenticated. He was thoroughly German in his type andtreatment, though, perhaps, indebted to the Flemings for his coloring. There was some angularity in his figures and draperies, and a tendencyto get nearer nature and further away from the ecclesiastical andascetic conception in all that he did. At Ulm a local school came into existence with Zeitblom (fl. 1484-1517), who was probably a pupil of Schüchlin. He had neitherSchöngauer's force nor his fancy, but was a simple, straightforwardpainter of one rather strong type. His drawing was not good, except inthe draperies, but he was quite remarkable for the solidity andsubstance of his painting, considering the age he lived in was givento hard, thin brush-work. Schaffner (fl. 1500-1535) was another Ulmpainter, a junior to Zeitblom, of whom little is known, save from afew pictures graceful and free in composition. A recently discoveredman, Bernard Strigel (1461?-1528?) seems to have been excellent inportraiture. [Illustration: FIG. 91. --PILOTY. WISE AND FOOLISH VIRGINS. ] At Augsburg there was still another school, which came into prominencein the sixteenth century with Burkmair and the Holbeins. It was only apart of the Swabian school, a concentration of artistic force aboutAugsburg, which, toward the close of the fifteenth century, had comeinto competition with Nuremberg, and rather outranked it in splendor. It was at Augsburg that the Renaissance art in Germany showed in morerestful composition, less angularity, better modelling and painting, and more sense of the _ensemble_ of a picture. Hans Burkmair(1473-1531) was the founder of the school, a pupil of Schöngauer, later influenced by Dürer, and finally showing the influence ofItalian art. He was not, like Dürer, a religious painter, though doingreligious subjects. He was more concerned with worldly appearance, ofwhich he had a large knowledge, as may be seen from his illustrationsfor engraving. As a painter he was a rather fine colorist, indulgingin the fantastic of architecture but with good taste, crude indrawing but forceful, and at times giving excellent effects of motion. He was rounder, fuller, calmer in composition than Dürer, but never sostrong an artist. Next to Burkmair comes the celebrated Holbein family. There were fourof them all told, but only two of them, Hans the Elder and Hans theYounger, need be mentioned. Holbein the Elder (1460?-1524), afterBurkmair, was the best painter of his time and school without being inhimself a great artist. Schöngauer was at first his guide, though hesoon submitted to some Flemish and Cologne influence, and later onfollowed Italian form and method in composition to some extent. He wasa good draughtsman, and very clever at catching realistic points ofphysiognomy--a gift he left his son Hans. In addition he had somefeeling for architecture and ornament, and in handling was a bit hard, and oftentimes careless. The best half of his life fell in the latterpart of the fifteenth century, and he never achieved the freepainter's quality of his son. Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) holds, with Dürer, the high placein German art. He was a more mature painter than Dürer, coming as hedid a quarter of a century later. He was the Renaissance artist ofGermany, whereas Dürer always had a little of the Gothic clinging tohim. The two men were widely different in their points of view and intheir work. Dürer was an idealist seeking after a type, a religiouspainter, a painter of panels with the spirit of an engraver. Holbeinwas emphatically a realist finding material in the actual life abouthim, a designer of cartoons and large wall paintings in something ofthe Italian spirit, a man who painted religious themes but with littlespiritual significance. It is probable that he got his first instruction from his father andfrom Burkmair. He was an infant prodigy, developed early, saw muchforeign art, and showed a number of tendencies in his work. Incomposition and drawing he appeared at times to be following Mantegnaand the northern Italians; in brush-work he resembled the Flemings, especially Massys; yet he was never an imitator of either Italian orFlemish painting. Decidedly a self-sufficient and an observing man, hetravelled in Italy and the Netherlands, and spent much of his life inEngland, where he met with great success at court as a portrait-painter. From seeing much he assimilated much, yet always remained German, changing his style but little as he grew older. His wall paintings haveperished, but the drawings from them are preserved and show him as anartist of much invention. He is now known chiefly by his portraits, ofwhich there are many of great excellence. His facility in graspingphysiognomy and realizing character, the quiet dignity of hiscomposition, his firm modelling, clear outline, harmonious coloring, excellent detail, and easy solid painting, all place him in the frontrank of great painters. That he was not always bound down to literalfacts may be seen in his many designs for wood-engravings. His portraitof Hubert Morett, in the Dresden Gallery, shows his art to advantage, and there are many portraits by him of great spirit in England, in theLouvre, and elsewhere. SAXON SCHOOL: Lucas Cranach (1472-1553) was a Franconian master, whosettled in Saxony and was successively court-painter to three Electorsand the leader of a small local school there. He, perhaps, studiedunder Grünewald, but was so positive a character that he showed nostrong school influence. His work was fantastic, odd in conception andexecution, sometimes ludicrous, and always archaic-looking. His typewas rather strained in proportions, not always well drawn, butgraceful even when not truthful. This type was carried into all hisworks, and finally became a mannerism with him. In subject he wasreligious, mythological, romantic, pastoral, with a preference forthe nude figure. In coloring he was at first golden, then brown, andfinally cold and sombre. The lack of aërial perspective and shadowmasses gave his work a queer look, and he was never much of abrushman. His pictures were typical of the time and country, and forthat and for their strong individuality they are ranked among the mostinteresting paintings of the German school. Perhaps his mostsatisfactory works are his portraits. Lucas Cranach the Younger(1515-1586) was the best of the elder Cranach's pupils. Many of hispictures are attributed to his father. He followed the elder closely, but was a weaker man, with a smoother brush and a more rosy color. Though there were many pupils the school did not go beyond the Cranachfamily. It began with the father and died with the son. [Illustration: FIG. 92. --LEIBL. IN CHURCH. ] SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES: These were unrelieved centuriesof decline in German painting. After Dürer, Holbein, and Cranach hadpassed there came about a senseless imitation of Italy, combined withan equally senseless imitation of detail in nature that producednothing worthy of the name of original or genuine art. It is notprobable that the Reformation had any more to do with this than withthe decline in Italy. It was a period of barrenness in both countries. The Italian imitators in Germany were chiefly Rottenhammer(1564-1623), and Elzheimer (1574?-1620). After them came therepresentative of the other extreme in Denner (1685-1749), who thoughtto be great in portraiture by the minute imitation of hair, freckles, and three-days'-old beard--a petty and unworthy realism which excitedsome curiosity but never held rank as art. Mengs (1728-1779) soughtfor the sublime through eclecticism, but never reached it. His work, though academic and correct, is lacking in spirit and originality. Angelica Kauffman (1741-1807) succeeded in pleasing her inartistic agewith the simply pretty, while Carstens (1754-1798) was a conscientiousif mistaken student of the great Italians--a man of some severity inform and of academic inclinations. NINETEENTH CENTURY: In the first part of this century there started inGermany a so-called "revival of art" led by Overbeck (1789-1869), Cornelius (1783-1867), Veit (1793-1877), and Schadow (1789-1862), butlike many another revival of art it did not amount to much. Theattempt to "revive" the past is usually a failure. The forms arecaught, but the spirit is lost. The nineteenth-century attempt inGermany was brought about by the study of monumental painting inItaly, and the taking up of the religious spirit in a pre-Raphaelitemanner. Something also of German romanticism was its inspiration. Overbeck remained in Rome, but the others, after some time in Italy, returned to Germany, diffused their teaching, and really formed a newepoch in German painting. A modern art began with ambitions andsubjects entirely disproportionate to its skill. The monumental, theideal, the classic, the exalted, were spread over enormous spaces, butthere was no reason for such work in the contemporary German life, andnothing to warrant its appearance save that its better had appeared inItaly during the Renaissance. Cornelius after his return became thehead of the MUNICH SCHOOL and painted pictures of the heroes of the classic andthe Christian world upon a large scale. Nothing but their size andgood intention ever brought them into notice, for their form andcoloring were both commonplace. Schnorr (1794-1872) followed in thesame style with the Niebelungen Lied, Charlemagne, and Barbarossa forsubjects. Kaulbach (1805-1874) was a pupil of Cornelius, and had someability but little taste, and not enough originality to produce greatart. Piloty (1826-1886) was more realistic, more of a painter andranks as one of the best of the early Munich masters. After him Munichart became _genre_-like in subject, with greater attention given totruthful representation in light, color, texture. To-day there are alarge number of painters in the school who are remarkable forrealistic detail. DUSSELDORF SCHOOL: After 1826 this school came into prominence underthe guidance of Schadow. It did not fancy monumental painting so muchas the common easel picture, with the sentimental, the dramatic, orthe romantic subject. It was no better in either form or color thanthe Munich school, in fact not so good, though there were painters whoemanated from it who had ability. At Berlin the inclination was tofollow the methods and ideas held at Dusseldorf. The whole academic tendency of modern painting in Germany and Austriafor the past fifty years has not been favorable to the best kind ofpictorial art. There is a disposition on the part of artists to tellstories, to encroach upon the sentiment of literature, to paint with adry brush in harsh unsympathetic colors, to ignore relations oflight-and-shade, and to slur beauties of form. The subject seems tocount for more than the truth of representation, or the individualityof view. From time to time artists of much ability have appeared, butthese form an exception rather than a rule. The men to-day who are thegreat artists of Germany are less followers of the German traditionthan individuals each working in a style peculiar to himself. A fewonly of them call for mention. Menzel (1815-1905) is easily first, apainter of group pictures, a good colorist, and a powerful pen-and-inkdraughtsman; Lenbach (1836-1904), a forceful portraitist; Uhde(1848-), a portrayer of scriptural scenes in modern costumes with muchsincerity, good color, and light; Leibl (1844-1900), an artist withsomething of the Holbein touch and realism; Thoma, a Frankfort painterof decorative friezes and panels; Liebermann, Gotthardt Kuehl, FranzStuck, Max Klinger, Greiner, Trübner, Bartels, Keller. [Illustration: FIG. 93. --MENZEL. A READER. ] Aside from these men there are several notable painters with Germanaffinities, like Makart (1840-1884), an Austrian, who possessed goodtechnical qualities and indulged in a profusion of color; Munkacsy(1846-1900), a Hungarian, who is perhaps more Parisian than German intechnic, and Böcklin (1827-1901), a Swiss, who is quite by himself infantastic and grotesque subjects, a weird and uncanny imagination, anda brilliant prismatic coloring. PRINCIPAL WORKS: BOHEMIAN SCHOOL--Theoderich of Prague, Karlstein chap. And University Library Prague, Vienna Mus. ; Wurmser, same places. FRANCONIAN SCHOOL--Wolgemut, Aschaffenburg, Munich, Nuremberg, Cassel Mus. ; Dürer, Crucifixion Dresden, Trinity Vienna Mus. , other works Munich, Nuremberg, Madrid Mus. ; Schäufelin, Basle, Bamberg, Cassel, Munich, Nuremberg, Nordlingen Mus. , and Ulm Cathedral; Baldung, Aschaffenburg, Basle, Berlin, Kunsthalle Carlsruhe, Freiburg Cathedral; Kulmbach, Munich, Nuremberg, Oldenburg; Altdorfer and the "Little Masters" are seen in the Augsburg, Nuremberg, Berlin, Munich and Fürstenberg Mus. SWABIAN SCHOOL--Schöngauer, attributed pictures Colmar Mus. ; Zeitblom, Augsburg, Berlin, Carlsruhe, Munich, Nuremberg, Simaringen Mus. ; Schaffner, Munich, Schliessheim, Nuremberg, Ulm Cathedral; Strigel, Berlin, Carlsruhe, Munich, Nuremberg; Burkmair, Augsburg, Berlin, Munich, Maurice chap. Nuremberg; Holbein the Elder, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Basle, Städel Mus. , Frankfort; Holbein the Younger, Basle, Carlsruhe, Darmstadt, Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, Windsor Castle, Vienna Mus. SAXON SCHOOL--Cranach, Bamberg Cathedral and Gallery, Munich, Vienna, Dresden, Berlin, Stuttgart, Cassel; Cranach the Younger, Stadtkirche Wittenberg, Leipsic, Vienna, Nuremberg Mus. SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTERS: Rottenhammer, Louvre, Berlin, Munich, Schliessheim, Vienna, Kunsthalle Hamburg; Elzheimer, Stadel, Brunswick, Louvre, Munich, Berlin, Dresden; Denner, Kunsthalle Hamburg, Berlin, Brunswick, Dresden, Vienna, Munich; Mengs, Madrid, Vienna, Dresden, Munich, St. Petersburg; Angelica Kauffman, Vienna, Hermitage, Turin, Dresden, Nat. Gal. Lon. , Phila. Acad. NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTERS: Overbeck, frescos in S. Maria degli Angeli Assisi, Villa Massimo Rome, Carlsruhe, New Pinacothek, Munich, Städel Mus. , Dusseldorf; Cornelius, frescos Glyptothek and Ludwigkirche Munich, Casa Zuccaro Rome, Royal Cemetery Berlin; Veit, frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome, Städel, Nat. Gal. Berlin; Schadow, Nat. Gal. Berlin, Antwerp, Städel, Munich Mus. , frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome; Schnorr, Dresden, Cologne, Carlsruhe, New Pinacothek Munich, Städel Mus. ; Kaulbach, wall paintings Berlin Mus. , Raczynski Gal. Berlin, New Pinacothek Munich, Stuttgart, Phila. Acad. ; Piloty, best pictures in the New Pinacothek and Maximilianeum Munich, Nat. Gal. Berlin; Menzel, Nat. Gal. , Raczynski Mus. Berlin, Breslau Mus. ; Lenbach, Nat. Gal. Berlin, New Pinacothek Munich, Kunsthalle Hamburg, Zürich Gal. ; Uhde, Leipsic Mus. ; Leibl, Dresden Mus. The contemporary paintings have not as yet found their way, to any extent, into public museums, but may be seen in the expositions at Berlin and Munich from year to year. Makart has one work in the Metropolitan Mus. , N. Y. , as has also Munkacsy; other works by them and by Böcklin may be seen in the Nat. Gal. Berlin. CHAPTER XIX. BRITISH PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Armstrong, _Sir Henry Raeburn_; Armstrong, _Gainsborough_; Armstrong, _Sir Joshua Reynolds_; Burton, _Catalogue of Pictures in National Gallery_; Chesneau, _La Peinture Anglaise_; Cook, _Art in England_; Cunningham, _Lives of the most Eminent British Artists_; Dobson, _Life of Hogarth_; Gilchrist, _Life of Etty_; Gilchrist, _Life of Blake_; Hamerton, _Life of Turner_; Henderson, _Constable_; Hunt, _The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood_ (_Contemporary Review, Vol. 49_); Leslie, _Sir Joshua Reynolds_; Leslie, _Life of Constable_; Martin and Newbery, _Glasgow School of Painting_; McKay, _Scottish School of Painting_; Monkhouse, _British Contemporary Artists_; Redgrave, _Dictionary of Artists of the English School_; Romney, _Life of George Romney_; Rossetti, _Fine Art, chiefly Contemporary_; Ruskin, _Pre-Raphaelitism_; Ruskin, _Art of England_; Sandby, _History of Royal Academy of Arts_; William Bell Scott, _Autobiography_; Scott, _British Landscape Painters_; Stephens, _Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum_; Swinburne, _William Blake_; Temple, _Painting in the Queen's Reign_; Van Dyke, _Old English Masters_; Wedmore, _Studies in English Art_; Wilmot-Buxton, _English Painters_; Wright, _Life of Richard Wilson_. [Illustration: FIG. 94. --HOGARTH. SHORTLY AFTER MARRIAGE. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] BRITISH PAINTING: It may be premised in a general way, that theBritish painters have never possessed the pictorial cast of mind inthe sense that the Italians, the French, or the Dutch have possessedit. Painting, as a purely pictorial arrangement of line and color, hasbeen somewhat foreign to their conception. Whether this failure toappreciate painting as painting is the result of geographicalposition, isolation, race temperament, or mental disposition, would behard to determine. It is quite certain that from time immemorable theEnglish people have not been lacking in the appreciation of beauty;but beauty has appealed to them, not so much through the eye inpainting and sculpture, as through the ear in poetry and literature. They have been thinkers, reasoners, moralists, rather than observersand artists in color. Images have been brought to their minds by wordsrather than by forms. English poetry has existed since the days ofArthur and the Round Table, but English painting is of comparativelymodern origin, and it is not wonderful that the original leaning ofthe people toward literature and its sentiment should find its wayinto pictorial representation. As a result one may say in a verygeneral way that English painting is more illustrative than creative. It endeavors to record things that might be more pertinently andcompletely told in poetry, romance, or history. The conception oflarge art--creative work of the Rubens-Titian type--has not been givento the English painters, save in exceptional cases. Their success hasbeen in portraiture and landscape, and this largely by reason offollowing the model. EARLY PAINTING: The earliest decorative art appeared in Ireland. Itwas probably first planted there by missionaries from Italy, and itreached its height in the seventh century. In the ninth and tenthcenturies missal illumination of a Byzantine cast, with localmodifications, began to show. This lasted, in a feeble way, until thefifteenth century, when work of a Flemish and French nature took itsplace. In the Middle Ages there were wall paintings and churchdecorations in England, as elsewhere in Europe, but these have nowperished, except some fragments in Kempley Church, Gloucestershire, and Chaldon Church, Surrey. These are supposed to date back to thetwelfth century, and there are some remains of painting in WestminsterAbbey that are said to be of thirteenth and fourteenth-century origin. From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century the English peopledepended largely upon foreign painters who came and lived in England. Mabuse, Moro, Holbein, Rubens, Van Dyck, Lely, Kneller--all were thereat different times, in the service of royalty, and influencing suchlocal English painters as then lived. The outcome of missalillumination and Holbein's example produced in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries a local school of miniature-painters of muchinterest, but painting proper did not begin to rise in England untilthe beginning of the eighteenth century--that century so dead in artover all the rest of Europe. FIGURE AND PORTRAIT PAINTERS: Aside from a few inconsequentialprecursors the first English artist of note was Hogarth (1697-1764). He was an illustrator, a moralist, and a satirist as well as apainter. To point a moral upon canvas by depicting the vices of histime was his avowed aim, but in doing so he did not lose sight ofpictorial beauty. Charm of color, the painter's taste in arrangement, light, air, setting, were his in a remarkable degree. He was notsuccessful in large compositions, but in small pictures like those ofthe Rake's Progress he was excellent. An early man, a rigid sticklerfor the representation, a keen observer of physiognomy, a satiristwith a sense of the absurd, he was often warped in his art by thenecessities of his subject and was sometimes hard and dry in method, but in his best work he was quite a perfect painter. He was the firstof the English school, and perhaps the most original of that school. This is quite as true of his technic as of his point of view. Bothwere of his own creation. His subjects have been talked about a greatdeal in the past; but his painting is not to this day valued as itshould be. [Illustration: FIG. 95. --REYNOLDS. COUNTESS SPENCER AND LORD ALTHORP. ] The next man to be mentioned, one of the most considerable of all theEnglish school, is Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792). He was a pupil ofHudson, but owed his art to many sources. Besides the influence of VanDyck he was for some years in Italy, a diligent student of the greatItalians, especially the Venetians, Correggio, and the BologneseEclectics. Sir Joshua was inclined to be eclectic himself, and fromItaly he brought back a formula of art which, modified by his ownindividuality, answered him for the rest of his life. He was not a manof very lofty imagination or great invention. A few figure-pieces, after the Titian initiative, came from his studio, but his reputationrests upon his many portraits. In portraiture he was often beyondcriticism, giving the realistic representation with dignity, anelevated spirit, and a suave brush. Even here he was more impressiveby his broad truth of facts than by his artistic feeling. He was not apainter who could do things enthusiastically or excite enthusiasm inthe spectator. There was too much of rule and precedent, too muchregard for the traditions, for him to do anything strikingly original. His brush-work and composition were more learned than individual, andhis color, though usually good, was oftentimes conventional incontrasts. Taking him for all in all he was a very cultivated painter, a man to be respected and admired, but he had not quite the originalspirit that we meet with in Gainsborough. Reynolds was well-grounded in Venetian color, Bolognese composition, Parmese light-and-shade, and paid them the homage of assimilation; butif Gainsborough (1727-1788) had such school knowledge he positivelydisregarded it. He disliked all conventionalities and formulas. With anatural taste for form and color, and with a large decorative sense, he went directly to nature, and took from her the materials which hefashioned into art after his own peculiar manner. His celebrated BlueBoy was his protest against the conventional rule of Reynolds that acomposition should be warm in color and light. All through his work wemeet with departures from academic ways. By dint of native force andgrace he made rules unto himself. Some of them were not entirelysuccessful, and in drawing he might have profited by school training;but he was of a peculiar poetic temperament, with a dash of melancholyabout him, and preferred to work in his own way. In portraiture hiscolor was rather cold; in landscape much warmer. His brush-work was asodd as himself, but usually effective, and his accessories infigure-painting were little more than decorative after-thoughts. Bothin portraiture and landscape he was one of the most original and mostEnglish of all the English painters--a man not yet entirelyappreciated, though from the first ranked among the foremost inEnglish art. [Illustration: FIG. 96. --GAINSBOROUGH. BLUE BOY. ] Romney (1734-1802), a pupil of Steele, was often quite as masterful aportrait-painter as either Reynolds or Gainsborough. He was never anartist elaborate in composition, and his best works are bust-portraitswith a plain background. These he did with much dash and vivacity ofmanner. His women, particularly, are fine in life-like pose andwinsomeness of mood. He was a very cunning observer, and knew how toarrange for grace of line and charm of color. After Romney came Beechey (1753-1839), Raeburn (1756-1823), Opie(1761-1807), and John Hoppner (1759-1810). Then followed Lawrence(1769-1830), a mixture of vivacious style and rather meretriciousmethod. He was the most celebrated painter of his time, largelybecause he painted nobility to look more noble and grace to look moregracious. Fond of fine types, garments, draperies, colors, he wasalways seeking the sparkling rather than the true, and forcingartificial effects for the sake of startling one rather than statingfacts simply and frankly. He was facile with the brush, clever in lineand color, brilliant to the last degree, but lacking in thatsimplicity of view and method which marks the great mind. Hiscomposition was rather fine in its decorative effect, and, though hislights were often faulty when compared with nature, they were no lesstelling from the stand-point of picture-making. He is much admired byartists to-day, and, as a technician, he certainly had more thanaverage ability. He was hardly an artist like Reynolds orGainsborough, but among the mediocre painters of his day he shone likea star. It is not worth while to say much about his contemporaries. Etty (1787-1849) was one of the best of the figure men, but his Greektypes and classic aspirations grow wearisome on acquaintance; and SirCharles Eastlake (1793-1865), though a learned man in art and doinggreat service to painting as a writer, never was a painter ofimportance. William Blake (1757-1827) was hardly a painter at all, though he drewand colored the strange figures of his fancy and cannot be passed overin any history of English art. He was perhaps the most imaginativeartist of English birth, though that imagination was often disorderedand almost incoherent. He was not a correct draughtsman, a man with nogreat color-sense, and a workman without technical training; and yet, in spite of all this, he drew some figures that are almost sublime intheir sweep of power. His decorative sense in filling space with linesis well shown in his illustrations to the Book of Job. In grace ofform and feeling of motion he was excellent. Weird and uncanny inthought, delving into the unknown, he opened a world of mystery, peopled with a strange Apocalyptic race, whose writhing, flowingbodies are the epitome of graceful grandeur. [Illustration: FIG. 97. --CONSTABLE. CORN FIELD. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] GENRE-PAINTERS: From Blake to Morland (1763-1804) is a step acrossspace from heaven to earth. Morland was a realist of English countrylife, horses at tavern-doors, cattle, pigs. His life was not the mostcorrect, but his art in truthfulness of representation, simplicity ofpainting, richness of color and light, was often of a fine quality. Asa skilful technician he stood quite alone in his time, and seemed toshow more affinity with the Dutch _genre_-painters than his owncountrymen. His works are much prized to-day, and were so during thepainter's life. Sir David Wilkie (1785-1841) was also somewhat like the Dutch insubject, a _genre_-painter, fond of the village fête and depicting itwith careful detail, a limpid brush, and good textural effects. In1825 he travelled abroad, was gone some years, was impressed byVelasquez, Correggio, and Rembrandt, and completely changed his style. He then became a portrait and historical painter. He never outlivedthe nervous constraint that shows in all his pictures, and his brush, though facile within limits, was never free or bold as compared with aDutchman like Steen. In technical methods Landseer (1802-1873), thepainter of animals, was somewhat like him. That is to say, they bothhad a method of painting surfaces and rendering textures that was more"smart" than powerful. There is little solidity or depth to thebrush-work of either, though both are impressive to the spectator atfirst sight. Landseer knew the habits and the anatomy of animals verywell, but he never had an appreciation of the brute in the animal, such as we see in the pictures of Velasquez or the bronzes of Barye. The Landseer animal has too much sentiment about it. The dogs, forinstance, are generally given those emotions pertinent to humanity, and which are only exceptionally true of the canine race. This veryfeature--the tendency to humanize the brute and make it tell astory--accounts in large measure for the popularity of Landseer's art. The work is perhaps correct enough, but the aim of it is somewhatafield from pure painting. It illustrates the literary rather than thepictorial. Following Wilkie the most distinguished painter wasMulready (1786-1863), whose pictures of village boys are well knownthrough engravings. [Illustration: FIG. 98. --TURNER. FIGHTING TÉMÉRAIRE. NAT. GAL. LONDON. ] THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: In landscape the English have had something tosay peculiarly their own. It has not always been well said, thecoloring is often hot, the brush-work brittle, the attention todetail inconsistent with the large view of nature, yet such as it isit shows the English point of view and is valuable on that account. Richard Wilson (1713-1782) was the first landscapist of importance, though he was not so English in view as some others to follow. Infact, Wilson was nurtured on Claude Lorrain and Joseph Vernet andinstead of painting the realistic English landscape he painted thepseudo-Italian landscape. He began working in portraiture under thetutorship of Wright, and achieved some success in this department; butin 1749 he went to Italy and devoted himself wholly to landscapes. These were of the classic type and somewhat conventional. Thecomposition was usually a dark foreground with trees or buildings toright and left, an opening in the middle distance leading into thebackground, and a broad expanse of sunset sky. In the foreground heusually introduced a few figures for romantic or classic association. Considerable elevation of theme and spirit marks most of his pictures. There was good workmanship about the skies and the light, and anattentive study of nature was shown throughout. His canvases did notmeet with much success at the time they were painted. In more moderndays Wilson has been ranked as the true founder of landscape inEngland, and one of the most sincere of English painters. THE NORWICH SCHOOL: Old Crome (1769-1821), though influenced to someextent by Wilson and the Dutch painters, was an original talent, painting English scenery with much simplicity and considerable power. He was sometimes rasping with his brush, and had a small method ofrecording details combined with mannerisms of drawing and composition, and yet gave an out-of-doors feeling in light and air that wasastonishing. His large trees have truth of mass and accuracy ofdrawing, and his foregrounds are painted with solidity. He was a keenstudent of nature, and drew about him a number of landscape paintersat Norwich, who formed the Norwich School. Crome was its leader, andthe school made its influence felt upon English landscape painting. Cotman (1782-1842) was the best painter of the group after Crome, aman who depicted landscape and harbor scenes in a style that recallsGirtin and Turner. The most complete, full-rounded landscapist in England was JohnConstable (1776-1837). His foreign bias, such as it was, came from astudy of the Dutch masters. There were two sources from which theEnglish landscapists drew. Those who were inclined to the ideal, menlike Wilson, Calcott (1779-1844), and Turner, drew from the Italian ofPoussin and Claude; those who were content to do nature in her realdress, men like Gainsborough and Constable, drew from the Dutch ofHobbema and his contemporaries. A certain sombreness of color andmanner of composition show in Constable that may be attributed toHolland; but these were slight features as compared with theoriginality of the man. He was a close student of nature who paintedwhat he saw in English country life, especially about Hampstead, andpainted it with a knowledge and an artistic sensitiveness neversurpassed in England. The rural feeling was strong with him, and hisevident pleasure in simple scenes is readily communicated to thespectator. There is no attempt at the grand or the heroic. He nevercared much for mountains or water, but was fond of cultivated uplands, trees, bowling clouds, and torn skies. Bursts of sunlight, storms, atmospheres, all pleased him. With detail he was little concerned. Hesaw landscape in large patches of form and color, and so painted it. His handling was broad and solid, and at times a little heavy. Hislight was often forced by sharp contrast with shadows, and often hispictures appear spotty from isolated glitters of light strewn here andthere. In color he helped eliminate the brown landscape andsubstituted in its place the green and blue of nature. In atmospherehe was excellent. His influence upon English art was impressive, andin 1824 the exhibition at Paris of his Hay Wain, together with somework by Bonington and Fielding had a decided effect upon the thenrising landscape school of France. The French realized that nature layat the bottom of Constable's art, and they profited, not by imitatingConstable, but by studying his nature model. [Illustration: FIG. 99. --BURNE JONES. FLAMMA VESTALIS. ] Bonington (1801-1828) died young, and though of English parents histraining was essentially French, and he really belonged to the Frenchschool, an associate of Delacroix. His study of the Venetians turnedhis talent toward warm coloring, in which he excelled. In landscapehis broad handling was somewhat related to that of Constable, and fromthe fact of their works appearing together in the Salon of 1824 theyare often spoken of as influencers of the modern French landscapepainters. Turner (1775-1851) is the best known name in English art. Hiscelebrity is somewhat disproportionate to his real merits, though itis impossible to deny his great ability. He was a man learned in allthe forms of nature and schooled in all the formulas of art; yet hewas not a profound lover of nature nor a faithful recorder of whatthings he saw in nature, except in his early days. In the bulk of hiswork he shows the traditions of Claude, with additions of his own. Histaste was classic (he possessed all the knowledge and the belongingsof the historical landscape), and he delighted in great stretches ofcountry broken by sea-shores, rivers, high mountains, fine buildings, and illumined by blazing sunlight and gorgeous skies. His compositionwas at times grotesque in imagination; his light was usuallybewildering in intensity and often unrelieved by shadows of sufficientdepth; his tone was sometimes faulty; and in color he was not alwaysharmonious, but inclined to be capricious, uneven, showing fondnessfor arbitrary schemes of color. The object of his work seems to havebeen to dazzle, to impress with a wilderness of lines and hues, tooverawe by imposing scale and grandeur. His paintings are impressive, decoratively splendid, but they often smack of the stage, and are morefrequently grandiloquent than grand. His early works, especially inwater-colors, where he shows himself a follower of Girtin, are muchbetter than his later canvases in oil, many of which have changedcolor. The water-colors are carefully done, subdued in color, and truein light. From 1802, or thereabouts, to 1830 was his second period, in which Italian composition and much color were used. The last twentyyears of his life he inclined to the _bizarre_, and turned hiscanvases into almost incoherent color masses. He had an artisticfeeling for composition, linear perspective, and the sweep of horizonlines; skies and hills he knew and drew with power; color hecomprehended only as decoration; and light he distorted for effect. Yet with all his shortcomings Turner was an artist to be respected andadmired. He knew his craft, in fact, knew it so well that he reliedtoo much on artificial effects, drew away from the model of nature, and finally passed into the extravagant. THE WATER-COLORISTS: About the beginning of this century a school ofwater-colorists, founded originally by Cozens (1752-1799) and Girtin(1775-1802), came into prominence and developed English art in a newdirection. It began to show with a new force the transparency ofskies, the luminosity of shadows, the delicacy and grace of clouds, the brilliancy of light and color. Cozens and Blake were primitives inthe use of the medium, but Stothard (1755-1834) employed it with muchsentiment, charm, and _plein-air_ effect. Turner was quite a master ofit, and his most permanent work was done with it. Later on, when herather abandoned form to follow color, he also abandoned water-colorfor oils. Fielding (1787-1849) used water-color effectively in givinglarge feeling for space and air, and also for fogs and mists; Prout(1783-1852) employed it in architectural drawings of the principalcathedrals of Europe; and Cox (1783-1859), Dewint (1784-1849), Hunt(1790-1864), Cattermole (1800-1868), Lewis (1805-1876), men whosenames only can be mentioned, all won recognition with this medium. Water-color drawing is to-day said to be a department of art thatexpresses the English pictorial feeling better than any other, thoughthis is not an undisputed statement. [Illustration: FIG. 100. --LEIGHTON. HELEN OF TROY. ] Perhaps the most important movement in English painting of recenttimes was that which took the name of PRE-RAPHAELITISM: It was started about 1847, primarily by Rossetti(1828-1882), Holman Hunt (1827-), and Sir John Millais (1829-1896), associated with several sculptors and poets, seven in all. It was anemulation of the sincerity, the loving care, and the scrupulousexactness in truth that characterized the Italian painters beforeRaphael. Its advocates, including Mr. Ruskin the critic, maintainedthat after Raphael came that fatal facility in art which seeking graceof composition lost truth of fact, and that the proper course formodern painters was to return to the sincerity and veracity of theearly masters. Hence the name pre-Raphaelitism, and the signatures ontheir early pictures, P. R. B. , pre-Raphaelite Brother. To thisattempt to gain the true regardless of the sensuous, was added amorbidity of thought mingled with mysticism, a moral and religiouspose, and a studied simplicity. Some of the painters of theBrotherhood went even so far as following the habits of the earlyItalians, seeking retirement from the world and carrying with them aGothic earnestness of air. There is no doubt about the sincerity thatentered into this movement. It was an honest effort to gain the true, the good, and as a result, the beautiful; but it was no less astriven-after honesty and an imitated earnestness. The Brotherhood didnot last for long, the members drifted from each other and began topaint each after his own style, and pre-Raphaelitism passed away as ithad arisen, though not without leaving a powerful stamp on Englishart, especially in decoration. Rossetti, an Italian by birth though English by adoption, was the typeof the Brotherhood. He was more of a poet than a painter, took most ofhis subjects from Dante, and painted as he wrote, in a mysticalromantic spirit. He was always of a retiring disposition and neverexhibited publicly after he was twenty-eight years of age. As adraughtsman he was awkward in line and not always true in modelling. In color he was superior to his associates and had considerabledecorative feeling. The shortcoming of his art, as with that of theothers of the Brotherhood, was that in seeking truth of detail he losttruth of _ensemble_. This is perhaps better exemplified in the worksof Holman Hunt. He has spent infinite pains in getting the truth ofdetail in his pictures, has travelled in the East and painted types, costumes, and scenery in Palestine to gain the historic truths of hisScriptural scenes; but all that he has produced has been little morethan a survey, a report, a record of the facts. He has not made apicture. The insistence upon every detail has isolated all the factsand left them isolated in the picture. In seeking the minute truthshe has overlooked the great truths of light, air, and setting. Hiscolor has always been crude, his values or relations not wellpreserved, and his brush-work hard and tortured. Millais showed some of this disjointed effect in his early work whenhe was a member of the Brotherhood. He did not hold to his earlyconvictions however, and soon abandoned the pre-Raphaelite methods fora more conventional style. He has painted some remarkable portraitsand some excellent figure pieces, and to-day holds high rank inEnglish art; but he is an uneven painter, often doing weak, harshly-colored work. Moreover, the English tendency to tell storieswith the paint-brush finds in Millais a faithful upholder. At his besthe is a strong painter. Madox Brown (1821-1893) never joined the Brotherhood, though hisleaning was toward its principles. He had considerable dramatic power, with which he illustrated historic scenes, and among contemporaryartists stood well. The most decided influence of pre-Raphaelitismshows in Burne-Jones (1833-), a pupil of Rossetti, and perhaps themost original painter now living[18] of the English school. FromRossetti he got mysticism, sentiment, poetry, and from associationwith Swinburne and William Morris, the poets, something of theliterary in art, which he has put forth with artistic effect. He hasnot followed the Brotherhood in its pursuit of absolute truth of fact, but has used facts for decorative effect in line and color. Hisability to fill a given space gracefully, shows with fine results inhis pictures, as in his stained-glass designs. He is a gooddraughtsman and a rather rich colorist, but in brush-work somewhatlabored, stippled, and unique in dryness. He is a man of muchimagination, and his conceptions, though illustrative of literature, do not suffer thereby, because his treatment does not sacrifice theartistic. He has been the butt of considerable shallow laughter fromtime to time, like many another man of power. Albert Moore(1840-1893), a graceful painter of a decorative ideal type, ratherfollows the Rossetti-Burne-Jones example, and is an illustration ofthe influence of pre-Raphaelitism. [Footnote 18: Died 1898. ] OTHER FIGURE AND PORTRAIT PAINTERS: Among the contemporary paintersSir Frederick Leighton (1830-1896), President of the Royal Academy, isranked as a fine academic draughtsman, but not a man with thecolor-sense or the brushman's quality in his work. Watts (1818-1904)is perhaps an inferior technician, and in color is often sombre anddirty; but he is a man of much imagination, occasionally rises tograndeur in conception, and has painted some superb portraits, notablythe one of Walter Crane. Orchardson (1835-) is more of a painter, pureand simple, than any of his contemporaries, and is a knowing ifsomewhat mannered colorist. Erskine Nicol (1825-), Faed[19] (1826-), Calderon (1833-), Boughton (1834-1905), Frederick Walker (1840-1875), Stanhope Forbes, Stott of Oldham and in portraiture Holl (1845-1890)and Herkomer may be mentioned. [Footnote 19: Died 1900. ] [Illustration: FIG. 101. --WATTS. LOVE AND DEATH. ] LANDSCAPE AND MARINE PAINTERS: In the department of landscape thereare many painters in England of contemporary importance. Vicat Cole(1833-1893) had considerable exaggerated reputation as a depicter ofsunsets and twilights; Cecil Lawson (1851-1882) gave promise of greataccomplishment, and lived long enough to do some excellent work in thestyle of the French Rousseau, mingled with an influence fromGainsborough; Alfred Parsons is a little hard and precise in his work, but one of the best of the living men; and W. L. Wyllie is a painterof more than average merit. In marines Hook (1819-) belongs to theolder school, and is not entirely satisfactory. The most modern andthe best sea-painter in England is Henry Moore (1831-1895), a man whopaints well and gives the large feeling of the ocean with fine colorqualities. Some other men of mark are Clausen, Brangwyn, Ouless, Steer, Bell, Swan, McTaggart, Sir George Reid. MODERN SCOTCH SCHOOL: There is at the present time a school of art inScotland that seems to have little or no affinity with thecontemporary school of England. Its painters are more akin to theDutch and the French, and in their coloring resemble, in depth andquality, the work of Delacroix. Much of their art is far enoughremoved from the actual appearance of nature, but it is strong in thesentiment of color and in decorative effect. The school is representedby such men as James Guthrie, E. A. Walton, James Hamilton, GeorgeHenry, E. A. Hornel, Lavery, Melville, Crawhall, Roche, Lawson, McBride, Morton, Reid Murray, Spence, Paterson. PRINCIPAL WORKS: English art cannot be seen to advantage, outside of England. In the Metropolitan Museum, N. Y. , and in private collections like that of Mr. William H. Fuller in New York, [20] there are some good examples of the older men--Reynolds, Constable, Gainsborough, and their contemporaries. In the Louvre there are some indifferent Constables and some good Boningtons. In England the best collection is in the National Gallery. Next to this the South Kensington Museum for Constable sketches. Elsewhere the Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Windsor galleries, and the private collections of the late Sir Richard Wallace, the Duke of Westminster, and others. Turner is well represented in the National Gallery, though his oils have suffered through time and the use of fugitive pigments. For the living men, their work may be seen in the yearly exhibitions at the Royal Academy and elsewhere. There are comparatively few English pictures in America. [Footnote 20: Dispersed, 1898. ] CHAPTER XX. AMERICAN PAINTING. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: _American Art Review_; Amory, _Life of Copley_; _The Art Review_; Benjamin, _Contemporary Art in America_; _Century Magazine_; Caffin, _American Painters_; Clement and Hutton, _Artists of the Nineteenth Century_; Cummings, _Historic Annals of the National Academy of Design_; Downes, _Boston Painters_ (_in Atlantic Monthly Vol. 62_); Dunlap, _Arts of Design in United States_; Flagg, _Life and Letters of Washington Allston_; Galt, _Life of West_; Isham, _History of American Painting_; Knowlton, _W. M. Hunt_; Lester, _The Artists of America_; Mason, _Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart_; Perkins, _Copley_; _Scribner's Magazine_; Sheldon, _American Painters_; Tuckerman, _Book of the Artists_; Van Dyke, _Art for Art's Sake_; Van Rensselaer, _Six Portraits_; Ware, _Lectures on Allston_; White, _A Sketch of Chester A. Harding_. AMERICAN ART: It is hardly possible to predicate much about theenvironment as it affects art in America. The result of the climate, the temperament, and the mixture of nations in the production ornon-production of painting in America cannot be accurately computed atthis early stage of history. One thing only is certain, and that is, that the building of a new commonwealth out of primeval nature doesnot call for the production of art in the early periods ofdevelopment. The first centuries in the history of America weredevoted to securing the necessities of life, the energies of the timewere of a practical nature, and art as an indigenous product washardly known. After the Revolution, and indeed before it, a hybrid portraiture, largely borrowed from England, began to appear, and after 1825 therewas an attempt at landscape painting; but painting as an art worthyof very serious consideration, came in only with the sudden growth inwealth and taste following the War of the Rebellion and the CentennialExhibition of 1876. The best of American art dates from about 1878, though during the earlier years there were painters of note who cannotbe passed over unmentioned. [Illustration: FIG. 102. --WEST. PETER DENYING CHRIST. HAMPTON CT. ] THE EARLY PAINTERS: The "limner, " or the man who could draw and colora portrait, seems to have existed very early in American history. Smibert (1684-1751), a Scotch painter, who settled in Boston, andWatson (1685?-1768), another Scotchman, who settled in New Jersey, were of this class--men capable of giving a likeness, but little more. They were followed by English painters of even less consequence. Thencame Copley (1737-1815) and West (1738-1820), with whom painting inAmerica really began. They were good men for their time, but it mustbe borne in mind that the times for art were not at all favorable. West was a man about whom all the infant prodigy tales have been told, but he never grew to be a great artist. He was ambitious beyond hispower, indulged in theatrical composition, was hot in color, and neverwas at ease in handling the brush. Most of his life was passed inEngland, where he had a vogue, was elected President of the RoyalAcademy, and became practically a British painter. Copley was more ofan American than West, and more of a painter. Some of his portraitsare exceptionally fine, and his figure pieces, like Charles I. Demanding the Five Members of House of Commons are excellent in colorand composition. C. W. Peale (1741-1827), a pupil of both Copley andWest, was perhaps more fortunate in having celebrated characters likeWashington for sitters than in his art. Trumbull (1756-1843) preservedon canvas the Revolutionary history of America and, all told, did itvery well. Some of his compositions, portraits, and miniature heads inthe Yale Art School at New Haven are drawn and painted in a masterfulmanner and are as valuable for their art as for the incidents whichthey portray. [Illustration: FIG. 103. --GILBERT STUART. WASHINGTON (UNFINISHED). BOSTON MUS. ] Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828) was the best portrait-painter of all theearly men, and his work holds very high rank even in the schools ofto-day. He was one of the first in American art-history to showskilful accuracy of the brush, a good knowledge of color, and someartistic sense of dignity and carriage in the sitter. He was notalways a good draughtsman, and he had a manner of laying on purecolors without blending them that sometimes produced sharpness inmodelling; but as a general rule he painted a portrait with force andwith truth. He was a pupil of Alexander, a Scotchman, and afterward anassistant to West. He settled in Boston, and during his life paintedmost of the great men of his time, including Washington. [Illustration: FIG. 104. --W. M. HUNT. LUTE PLAYER. ] Vanderlyn (1776-1852) met with adversity all his life long, andperhaps never expressed himself fully. He was a pupil of Stuart, studied in Paris and Italy, and his associations with Aaron Burr madehim quite as famous as his pictures. Washington Allston (1779-1843)was a painter whom the Bostonians have ranked high in theirart-history, but he hardly deserved such position. Intellectually hewas a man of lofty and poetic aspirations, but as an artist he neverhad the painter's sense or the painter's skill. He was an aspirationrather than a consummation. He cherished notions about ideals, dealtin imaginative allegories, and failed to observe the pictorialcharacter of the world about him. As a result of this, and poorartistic training, his art had too little basis on nature, though itwas very often satisfactory as decoration. Rembrandt Peale(1787-1860), like his father, was a painter of Washington portraits ofmediocre quality. Jarvis (1780-1834) and Sully (1783-1872) were bothBritish born, but their work belongs here in America, where most oftheir days were spent. Sully could paint a very good portraitoccasionally, though he always inclined toward the weak and thesentimental, especially in his portraits of women. Leslie (1794-1859)and Newton (1795-1835) were Americans, but, like West and Copley, theybelong in their art more to England than to America. In all the earlyAmerican painting the British influence may be traced, with sometimesan inclination to follow Italy in large compositions. THE MIDDLE PERIOD in American art dates from 1825 to about 1878. Duringthat time, something distinctly American began to appear in thelandscape work of Doughty (1793-1856) and Thomas Cole (1801-1848). Bothmen were substantially self-taught, though Cole received someinstruction from a portrait-painter named Stein. Cole during his lifewas famous for his Hudson River landscapes, and for two series ofpictures called The Voyage of Life and The Course of Empire. The latterwere really epic poems upon canvas, done with much blare of color andliterary explanation in the title. His best work was in pure landscape, which he pictured with considerable accuracy in drawing, though it wasfaulty in lighting and gaudy in coloring. Brilliant autumn scenes werehis favorite subjects. His work had the merit of originality and, moreover, it must be remembered that Cole was one of the beginners inAmerican landscape art. Durand (1796-1886) was an engraver until 1835, when he began painting portraits, and afterward developed landscape withconsiderable power. He was usually simple in subject and realistic intreatment, with not so much insistence upon brilliant color as some ofhis contemporaries. Kensett (1818-1872) was a follower in landscape ofthe so-called Hudson River School of Cole and others, though he studiedseven years in Europe. His color was rather warm, his air hazy, and thegeneral effect of his landscape that of a dreamy autumn day with poeticsuggestions. F. E. Church (1826-[A]) was a pupil of Cole, and hasfollowed him in seeking the grand and the startling in mountain scenery. With Church should be mentioned a number of artists--Hubbard(1817-1888), Hill (1829-, ) Bierstadt (1830-), [21] Thomas Moran(1837-)--who have achieved reputation by canvases of the Rocky Mountainsand other expansive scenes. Some other painters of smaller canvasesbelong in point of time, and also in spirit, with the Hudson Riverlandscapists--painters, too, of considerable merit, as David Johnson(1827-), Bristol (1826-), Sandford Gifford (1823-1880), McEntee(1828-1891), and Whittredge (1820-), the last two very good portrayersof autumn scenes; A. H. Wyant (1836-1892), one of the best and strongestof the American landscapists; Bradford (1830-1892) and W. T. Richards(1833-), the marine-painters. [Footnote 21: Died, 1900. ] [Illustration: FIG. 105. --EASTMAN JOHNSON. CHURNING. ] PORTRAIT, HISTORY, AND GENRE-PAINTERS: Contemporary with the earlylandscapists were a number of figure-painters, most of themself-taught, or taught badly by foreign or native artists, and yet menwho produced creditable work. Chester Harding (1792-1866) was one ofthe early portrait-painters of this century who achieved enoughcelebrity in Boston to be the subject of what was called "the Hardingcraze. " Elliott (1812-1868) was a pupil of Trumbull, and a man ofconsiderable reputation, as was also Inman (1801-1846), a portraitand _genre_-painter with a smooth, detailed brush. Page (1811-1885), Baker (1821-1880), Huntington (1816-), the third President of theAcademy of Design; Healy (1808-[22]), a portrait-painter of more thanaverage excellence; Mount (1807-1868), one of the earliest of American_genre_-painters, were all men of note in this middle period. [Footnote 22: Died 1894. ] Leutze (1816-1868) was a German by birth but an American by adoption, who painted many large historical scenes of the American Revolution, such as Washington Crossing the Delaware, besides many scenes takenfrom European history. He was a pupil of Lessing at Dusseldorf, andhad something to do with introducing Dusseldorf methods into America. He was a painter of ability, if at times hot in color and dry inhandling. Occasionally he did a fine portrait, like the Seward in theUnion League Club, New York. During this period, in addition to the influence of Dusseldorf andRome upon American art, there came the influence of French art withHicks (1823-1890) and Hunt (1824-1879), both of them pupils of Coutureat Paris, and Hunt also of Millet at Barbizon. Hunt was the realintroducer of Millet and the Barbizon-Fontainebleau artists to theAmerican people. In 1855 he established himself at Boston, had a largenumber of pupils, and met with great success as a teacher. He was apainter of ability, but perhaps his greatest influence was as ateacher and an instructor in what was good art as distinguished fromwhat was false and meretricious. He certainly was the first painter inAmerica who taught catholicity of taste, truth and sincerity in art, and art in the artist rather than in the subject. Contemporary withHunt lived George Fuller (1822-1884), a unique man in American art forthe sentiment he conveyed in his pictures by means of color andatmosphere. Though never proficient in the grammar of art he managedby blendings of color to suggest certain sentiments regarding lightand air that have been rightly esteemed poetic. [Illustration: FIG. 106. --INNESS. LANDSCAPE. ] THE THIRD PERIOD in American art began immediately after theCentennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. Undoubtedly the displayof art, both foreign and domestic, at that time, together with thenational prosperity and great growth of the United States had much todo with stimulating activity in painting. Many young men at thebeginning of this period went to Europe to study in the studios atMunich, and later on at Paris. Before 1880 some of them had returnedto the United States, bringing with them knowledge of the technicalside of art, which they immediately began to give out to many pupils. Gradually the influence of the young men from Munich and Paris spread. The Art Students' League, founded in 1875, was incorporated in 1878, and the Society of American Artists was established in the same year. Societies and painters began to spring up all over the country, and asa result there is in the United States to-day an artist bodytechnically as well trained and in spirit as progressive as in almostany country of Europe. The late influence shown in painting has beenlargely a French influence, and the American artists have been accusedfrom time to time of echoing French methods. The accusation is true inpart. Paris is the centre of all art-teaching to-day, and theAmericans, in common with the European nations, accept French methods, not because they are French, but because they are the best extant. Insubjects and motives, however, the American school is as original asany school can be in this cosmopolitan age. PORTRAIT, FIGURE, AND GENRE PAINTERS (1878-1894): It must not beinferred that the painters now prominent in American art are all youngmen schooled since 1876. On the contrary, some of the best of them aremen past middle life who began painting long before 1876, and have bydint of observation and prolonged study continued with the modernspirit. For example, Winslow Homer (1836-) is one of the strongest andmost original of all the American artists, a man who never had theadvantage of the highest technical training, yet possesses a feelingfor color, a dash and verve in execution, an originality in subject, and an individuality of conception that are unsurpassed. EastmanJohnson (1824-) is one of the older portrait and figure-painters whostands among the younger generations without jostling, because he hasin measure kept himself informed with modern thought and method. He isa good, conservative painter, possessed of taste, judgment, andtechnical ability. Elihu Vedder (1836-) is more of a draughtsman thana brushman. His color-sense is not acute nor his handling free, but hehas an imagination which, if somewhat more literary than pictorial, isnevertheless very effective. John La Farge (1835-) and Albert Ryder(1847-) are both colorists, and La Farge in artistic feeling is a manof much power. Almost all of his pictures have fine decorative qualityin line and color and are thoroughly pictorial. [Illustration: FIG. 107. --WINSLOW HOMER. UNDERTOW. ] The "young men, " so-called, though some of them are now on towardmiddle life, are perhaps more facile in brush-work and better traineddraughtsmen than those we have just mentioned. They have cultivatedvivacity of style and cleverness in statement, frequently at theexpense of the larger qualities of art. Sargent (1856-) is, perhaps, the most considerable portrait-painter now living, a man of unboundedresources technically and fine natural abilities. He is draughtsman, colorist, brushman--in fact, almost everything in art that can becultivated. His taste is not yet mature, and he is just now given todashing effects that are more clever than permanent; but that he is amaster in portraiture has already been abundantly demonstrated. Chase(1849-) is also an exceptionally good portrait painter, and he handlesthe _genre_ subject with brilliant color and a swift, sure brush. Inbrush-work he is exceedingly clever, and is an excellent technicianin almost every respect. Not always profound in matter he generallymanages to be entertaining in method. Blum (1857-) is well known tomagazine readers through many black-and-white illustrations. He isalso a painter of _genre_ subjects taken from many lands, and handleshis brush with brilliancy and force. Dewing (1851-) is a painter witha refined sense not only in form but in color. His pictures areusually small, but exquisite in delicacy and decorative charm. Thayer(1849-) is fond of large canvases, a man of earnestness, sincerity, and imagination, but not a good draughtsman, not a good colorist, anda rather clumsy brushman. He has, however, something to say, and in alarge sense is an artist of uncommon ability. Kenyon Cox (1856-) is adraughtsman, with a strong command of line and taste in itsarrangement. He is not a strong colorist, though in recent work he hasshown a new departure in this feature that promises well. He rendersthe nude with power, and is fond of the allegorical subject. The number of good portrait-painters at present working in America isquite large, and mention can be made of but a few in addition to thosealready spoken of--Lockwood, McLure Hamilton, Tarbell, Beckwith, Benson, Vinton. In figure and _genre_-painting the list of really goodpainters could be drawn out indefinitely, and again mention must beconfined to a few only, like Simmons, Shirlaw, Smedley, Brush, Millet, Hassam, Reid, Wiles, Mowbray, Reinhart, Blashfield, Metcalf, Low, C. Y. Turner, Henri. [Illustration: FIG. 108. --WHISTLER. WHITE GIRL. ] Most of the men whose names are given above are resident in America;but, in addition, there is a large contingent of young men, Americanborn but resident abroad, who can hardly be claimed by the Americanschool, and yet belong to it as much as to any school. They arecosmopolitan in their art, and reside in Paris, Munich, London, orelsewhere, as the spirit moves them. Sargent, the portrait-painter, really belongs to this group, as does also Whistler (1834-[23]), oneof the most artistic of all the moderns. Whistler was long resident inLondon, but has now removed to Paris. He belongs to no school, andsuch art as he produces is peculiarly his own, save a leaven ofinfluences from Velasquez and the Japanese. His art is the perfectionof delicacy, both in color and in line. Apparently very sketchy, it isin reality the maximum of effect with the minimum of display. It hasthe pictorial charm of mystery and suggestiveness, and the technicaleffect of light, air, and space. There is nothing better produced inmodern painting than his present work, and in earlier years he paintedportraits like that of his mother, which are justly ranked as greatart. E. A. Abbey (1852-) is better known by his pen-and-ink work thanby his paintings, howbeit he has done good work in color. He isresident in England. [Footnote 23: Died, 1903. ] [Illustration: FIG. 109. --SARGENT. "CARNATION LILY, LILY ROSE. "] In Paris there are many American-born painters, who really belong morewith the French school than the American. Bridgman is an example, andDannat, Alexander Harrison, Hitchcock, McEwen, Melchers, Pearce, Julius Stewart, Weeks (1849-1903), J. W. Alexander, Walter Gay, Sergeant Kendall have nothing distinctly American about their art. Itis semi-cosmopolitan with a leaning toward French methods. There arealso some American-born painters at Munich, like C. F. Ulrich; Shannonis in London and Coleman in Italy. LANDSCAPE AND MARINE PAINTERS, 1878-1894: In the department oflandscape America has had since 1825 something distinctly national, and has at this day. In recent years the impressionist _plein-air_school of France has influenced many painters, and the prismaticlandscape is quite as frequently seen in American exhibitions as inthe Paris salons; but American landscape art rather dates ahead ofFrench impressionism. The strongest landscapist of our times, GeorgeInness (1825-[24]), is not a young man except in his artisticaspirations. His style has undergone many changes, yet still remainsdistinctly individual. He has always been an experimenter and anuneven painter, at times doing work of wonderful force, and then againfalling into weakness. The solidity of nature, the mass and bulk oflandscape, he has shown with a power second to none. He is fond of thesentiment of nature's light, air, and color, and has put it forth morein his later than in his earlier canvases. At his best, he is one ofthe first of the American landscapists. Among his contemporaries Wyant(already mentioned), Swain Gifford, [25] Colman, Gay, Shurtleff, haveall done excellent work uninfluenced by foreign schools of to-day. Homer Martin's[26] landscapes, from their breadth of treatment, arepopularly considered rather indifferent work, but in reality they areexcellent in color and poetic feeling. [Footnote 24: Died 1894. ] [Footnote 25: Died 1905. ] [Footnote 26: Died 1897. ] The "young men" again, in landscape as in the figure, are working inthe modern spirit, though in substance they are based on thetraditions of the older American landscape school. There has been muchachievement, and there is still greater promise in such landscapistsas Tryon, Platt, Murphy, Dearth, Crane, Dewey, Coffin, Horatio Walker, Jonas Lie. Among those who favor the so-called impressionistic vieware Weir, Twachtman, and Robinson, [27] three landscape-painters ofundeniable power. In marines Gedney Bunce has portrayed many Venetianscenes of charming color-tone, and De Haas[28] has long been known asa sea-painter of some power. Quartley, who died young, was brilliantin color and broadly realistic. The present marine-painters areMaynard, Snell, Rehn, Butler, Chapman. [Footnote 27: Died 1896. ] [Footnote 28: Died 1895. ] [Illustration: FIG. 110. --CHASE. ALICE. ] PRINCIPAL WORKS: The works of the early American painters are to be seen principally in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Athenæum, Boston Mus. , Mass. Hist. Soc. , Harvard College, Redwood Library, Newport, Metropolitan Mus. , Lenox and Hist. Soc. Libraries, the City Hall, Century Club, Chamber of Commerce, National Acad. Of Design, N. Y. In New Haven, at Yale School of Fine Arts, in Philadelphia at Penna. Acad. Of Fine Arts, in Rochester Powers's Art Gal. , in Washington Corcoran Gal. And the Capitol. The works of the younger men are seen in the exhibitions held from year to year at the Academy of Design, the Society of American Artists, N. Y. , in Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and elsewhere throughout the country. Some of their works belong to permanent institutions like the Metropolitan Mus. , the Pennsylvania Acad. , the Art Institute of Chicago, but there is no public collection of pictures that represents American art as a whole. Mr. T. B. Clarke, of New York, had perhaps as complete a collection of paintings by contemporary American artists as anyone. POSTSCRIPT. SCATTERING SCHOOLS AND INFLUENCES IN ART. In this brief history of painting it has been necessary to omit somecountries and some painters that have not seemed to be directlyconnected with the progress or development of painting in the westernworld. The arts of China and Japan, while well worthy of carefulchronicling, are somewhat removed from the arts of the other nationsand from our study. Moreover, they are so positively decorative thatthey should be treated under the head of Decoration, though it is notto be denied that they are also realistically expressive. Portugal hashad some history in the art of painting, but it is slight and so boundup with Spanish and Flemish influences that its men do not stand outas a distinct school. This is true in measure of Russian painting. Theearly influences with it were Byzantine through the Greek Church. Inlate years what has been produced favors the Parisian or Germanschools. In Denmark and Scandinavia there has recently come to the front aremarkable school of high-light painters, based on Parisian methods, that threatens to outrival Paris itself. The work of such men asKröyer, Zorn, Petersen, Liljefors, Thaulow, Björck, Thegerström, is asstartling in its realism as it is brilliant in its color. The picturesin the Scandinavian section of the Paris Exposition of 1889 were arevelation of new strength from the North, and this has been somewhatincreased by the Scandinavian pictures at the World's Fair in 1893. Itis impossible to predict what will be the outcome of this northernart, nor what will be the result of the recent movement here inAmerica. All that can be said is that the tide seems to be settingwestward and northward, though Paris has been the centre of art formany years, and will doubtless continue to be the centre for manyyears to come. INDEX. (_For additions to Index see page 289. _) Abbate, Niccolò dell', 134. Abbey, Edwin A. , 271. Aelst, Willem Van, 219. Aëtion, 30. Agatharchos, 27. Aimé-Morot, Nicolas, 167. Albani, Francesco, 126, 131. Albertinelli, Mariotto, 90, 97. Alemannus, Johannes (da Murano), 79, 84. Aldegrever, Heinrich, 231. Alexander, John, 262. Alexander, J. W. , 272. Aligny, Claude François, 149. Allegri, Pomponio, 108, 109. Allori, Cristofano, 127, 131. Allston, Washington, 263. Alma-Tadema, Laurenz, 199, 202. Altdorfer, Albrecht, 231, 239. Alvarez, Don Luis, 184. Aman-Jean, E. , 165. Andrea da Firenze, 52, 56. Angelico, Fra Giovanni, 54, 55, 56, 65, 67. Anselmi, Michelangelo, 108, 109. Antiochus Gabinius, 35. Antonio Veneziano, 52, 56. Apelles, 30. Apollodorus, 27, 28. Aranda, Luis Jiminez, 185. Aretino, Spinello, 53, 56. Aristides, 29. Artz, D. A. C. , 220. Aubert, Ernest Jean, 155. Backer, Jacob, 210. Backhuisen, Ludolf, 218, 222. Bagnacavallo, Bartolommeo Ramenghi, 105, 109. Baker, George A. , 266. Baldovinetti, Alessio, 63, 71. Baldung, Hans, 230, 239. Bargue, Charles, 167. Baroccio, Federigo, 125, 130. Bartolo, Taddeo di, 54, 56. Bartolommeo, Fra (Baccio della Porta), 90, 92, 95, 97. Basaiti, Marco, 83, 85. Bassano, Francesco, 119-121. Bassano, Jacopo, 119-121. Bastert, N. , 221. Bastien-Lepage, Jules, 166. Baudry, Paul, 163. Beccafumi, Domenico, 103, 108. Becerra, Gaspar, 177, 185. Beckwith, J. Carroll, 270. Beechey, Sir William, 246. Beham, Barthel, 231. Beham, Sebald, 231. Bellini, Gentile, 81, 85, 94. Bellini, Giovanni, 74, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85, 112-115, 214, 229. Bellini, Jacopo, 79, 81, 85. Boltraffio, Giovanni Antonio, 102. Benjamin-Constant, Jean Joseph, 165. Benson, Frank W. , 270. Béraud, Jean, 170. Berchem, Claas Pietersz, 217, 222. Berne-Bellecour, Étienne Prosper, 167. Berrettini, Pietro (il Cortona), 127, 131. Berruguete, Alonzo, 176, 185. Bertin, Jean Victor, 149, 157. Besnard, Paul Albert, 170. Bierstadt, Albert, 265. Billet, Pierre, 161. Bink, Jakob, 231. Bissolo, Pier Francesco, 83, 85. Björck, O. , 276. Blake, William, 247, 254. Blashfield, Edwin H. , 270. Blommers, B. J. , 220. Blum, Robert, 270. Böcklin, Arnold, 238, 240. Bol, Ferdinand, 210, 221. Boldini, Giuseppe, 130, 131. Bonfiglio, Benedetto, 66, 67, 72. Bonheur, Auguste, 160. Bonheur, Rosa, 160. Bonifazio Pitati, 119-121. Bonington, Richard Parkes, 157, 252. Bonnat, Léon, 164. Bonsignori, Francesco, 76, 84. Bonvin, François, 168. Bordone, Paris, 119, 121. Borgognone, Ambrogio, 71, 72. Bosboom, J. , 220. Bosch, Hieronymus, 205, 221. Both, Jan, 217, 222. Botticelli, Sandro, 61, 63, 71. Boucher, François, 141, 145, 146. Boudin, Eugène, 171. Boughton, George H. , 258. Bouguereau, W. Adolphe, 162, 163. Boulanger, Hippolyte, 200. Boulanger, Louis, 153. Bourdichon, Jean, 133. Bourdon, Sebastien, 138. Bouts, Dierich, 190, 191, 201, 205. Bradford, William, 265. Breton, Jules Adolphe, 161. Breughel, 193, 201. Bridgman, Frederick A. , 272. Bril, Paul, 193, 201, 214, 222. Bristol, John B. , 265. Bronzino (Agnolo di Cosimo), il, 124, 131. Brouwer, Adriaan, 198, 202. Brown, Ford Madox, 257. Brown, John Lewis, 170, Brush, George D. F. , 270. Bugiardini, Giuliano di Piero, 91, 97. Bunce, W. Gedney, 273. Burkmair, Hans, 232, 233, 239. Burne-Jones, Sir Edward, 257. Butler, Howard Russell, 274. Cabanel, Alexandre, 162, 163. Caillebotte, 170. Calderon, Philip Hermogenes, 258. Callcott, Sir Augustus Wall, 251. Calvaert, Denis, 192. Campin, Robert, 189. Canaletto (Antonio Canale), il, 129, 131. Cano, Alonzo, 181, 185. Caracci, Agostino, 125-127, 130. Caracci, Annibale, 125-127, 130, 182. Caracci, Ludovico, 125-127, 130. Caravaggio, Michelangelo Amerighi da, 127, 128, 131, 136, 181, 182. Carolus-Duran, Charles Auguste Emil, 164. Caroto, Giovanni Francisco, 76, 84, 120, 121. Carpaccio, Vittore, 77, 82, 83, 85. Carrière, E. , 165. Carstens, Asmus Jacob, 236. Cassatt, Mary, 170. Castagno, Andrea del, 63, 71, 176. Castro, Juan Sanchez de, 180, 185. Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio, 83, 85. Cattermole, George, 254. Cavazzola, Paolo (Moranda), 120, 121. Cazin, Jean Charles, 159. Cespedes, Pablo de, 180, 185. Champaigne, Philip de, 139. Champmartin, Callande de, 153. Chapman, Carlton T. , 274. Chardin, Jean Baptiste Simeon, 142. Chase, William M. , 269. Chintreuil, Antoine, 159. Church, Frederick E. , 264. Cima da Conegliano, Giov. Battista, 82, 85. Cimabue, Giovanni, 51, 54, 56. Clays, Paul Jean, 200, 202. Clouet, Francois, 134. Clouet, Jean, 134. Cocxie, Michiel van, 192, 201. Coello, Claudio, 179, 185. Coffin, William A. , 273. Cogniet, Leon, 153. Cole, Vicat, 258. Cole, Thomas, 264. Coleman, C. C. , 272. Colman, Samuel, 273. Constable, John, 157, 216, 251-253, 259. Copley, John Singleton, 261, 264. Coques, Gonzales, 198, 202. Cormon, Fernand, 165. Cornelis van Haarlem, 206, 221. Cornelius, Peter von, 130, 236, 237, 239. Corot, Jean Baptiste Camille, 157, 159, 221. Correggio (Antonio Allegri), il, 101, 105-109, 110, 124, 125, 177, 180, 245, 249. Cossa, Francesco, 69, 72. Costa, Lorenzo, 69, 72, 104, 107. Cotman, John Sell, 251. Cottet, 168. Courbet, G. , 162, 165, 166, 199, 219. Cousin, Jean, 134, 135. Couture, Thomas, 155, 266. Cozens, John Robert, 254. Cox, David, 254. Cox, Kenyon, 270. Cranach (the Elder), Lucas, 199, 234, 235, 239. Cranach (the Younger), Lucas, 235, 239. Crane, R. Bruce, 273. Crawhall, Joseph, 259. Crayer, Kasper de, 196, 201. Credi, Lorenzo di, 64, 65, 71. Cristus, Peter, 189, 201. Crivelli, Carlo, 80, 81, 84. Crome, John (Old Crome), 251. Cuyp, Aelbert, 217, 218, 222. Dagnan-Bouveret, Pascal A. J. , 168. Damoye, Pierre Emmanuel, 159. Damophilos, 35. Dannat, William T. , 272. Dantan, Joseph Édouard, 168. Daubigny, Charles François, 158. David, Gheeraert, 191, 192, 201. David, Jacques Louis, 130, 147-152, 153, 156, 162, 183, 198, 219. Dearth, Henry J. , 273. Decamps, A. G. , 153. Degas, 170. De Haas, M. F. H. , 273. Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor E. , 151, 152, 160, 162, 253, 259. Delaroche, Hippolyte (Paul), 153, 154, 199. Delaunay, Jules Elie, 165. De Neuville, Alphonse Maria, 167. De Nittis. See "Nittis. " Denner, Balthasar, 236, 239. Detaille, Jean Baptiste Édouard, 167. Devéria, Eugene, 153. Dewey, Charles Melville, 273. Dewing, Thomas W. , 270. Dewint, Peter, 254. Diana, Benedetto, 84, 85. Diaz de la Pena, Narciso Virgilio, 158. Diepenbeeck, Abraham van, 196, 201. Dionysius, 35. Dolci, Carlo, 126, 131, 182. Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 126, 130. Domingo, J. , 185. Dossi, Dosso (Giovanni di Lutero), 104, 107, 108. Dou, Gerard, 210, 221. Doughty, Thomas, 264. Du Breuil, Toussaint, 134. Duccio di Buoninsegna, 53, 56, 65. Duez, Ernest Ange, 168. Du Jardin, Karel, 217, 222. Dupré, Julien, 166. Dupré, Jules, 158. Durand, Asher Brown, 264. Dürer, Albrecht, 205, 229-235, 239. Eastlake, Sir Charles, 247. Eeckhout, Gerbrand van den, 210, 221. Elliott, Charles Loring, 265. Elzheimer, Adam, 235, 239. Engelbrechsten, Cornelis, 205. Etty, William, 247. Euphranor, 29. Eupompos, 28. Everdingen, Allart van, 215, 222. Eyck, Hubert van, 188, 201. Eyck, Jan van, 84, 174, 188-190, 193, 201, 204, 205. Fabius Pictor, 35. Fabriano, Gentile da, 54, 55, 56, 66, 74, 75, 79, 81. Fabritius, Karel, 210, 213, 221. Faed, Thomas, 258. Fantin-Latour, Henri, 168. Favretto, Giacomo, 130, 131. Ferrara, Gaudenzio, 102, 108. Fielding, Anthony V. D. Copley, 254. Filippino. See Lippi. Fiore, Jacobello del, 79, 84. Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, 66, 72. Flandrin, Jean Hippolyte, 154. Flinck, Govaert, 210, 221. Floris, Franz, 192, 201. Foppa, Vincenzo, 71, 72, 101. Forain, J. L. , 170. Forbes, Stanhope, 258. Fortuny, Mariano, 130, 183-185. Fouquet, Jean, 133. Fragonard, Jean Honoré, 141. Français, François Louis, 159. Francesca, Piero della, 66, 72, 75. Francia, Francesco (Raibolini), 69, 72, 105, 107. Franciabigio (Francesco di Cristofano Bigi), 92, 97. Francken, 192. Fredi, Bartolo di, 54, 56. Fréminet, Martin, 135. Frere, T. , 154. Friant, Emile, 168. Fromentin, E. , 154. Fuller, George, 266. Fyt, Jan, 196, 201. Gaddi, Agnolo, 52, 56. Gaddi, Taddeo, 52, 56. Gainsborough, T. , 245-247, 259. Gallait, Louis, 199. Garofolo (Benvenuto Tisi), il, 104, 107, 109. Gay, Edward, 273. Gay, Walter, 272. Geldorp, Gortzius, 192. Gérard, Baron François Pascal, 148. Géricault, Jean Louis, A. T. , 151. Gérôme, Jean Léon, 155, 162, 163, 167, 184. Gervex, Henri, 168. Ghirlandajo, Domenico, 63, 64, 71, 92, 176. Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo, 91, 97. Giampietrino (Giovanni Pedrini), 102, 108. Gifford, Sandford, 265. Gifford, R. Swain, 273. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli), il, 83, 94, 112-121, 128. Giordano, Luca, 128, 131, 183. Giotto di Bondone, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 73. Giottino (Tommaso di Stefano), 52, 56. Giovanni da Milano, 52, 56. Giovanni da Udine, 97, 98 Girodet de Roussy, Anne Louis, 148. Girtin, Thomas, 254. Giulio (Pippi), Romano, 96, 98, 120, 136. Gleyre, Marc Charles Gabriel, 154. Goes, Hugo van der, 190, 201. Gorgasos, 35. Goya y Lucientes, Francisco, 183, 185. Goyen, Jan van, 214, 218, 222. Gozzoli, Benozzo, 63, 65, 71. Granacci, Francesco, 91, 97. Grandi, Ercole di Giulio, 69, 72. Greuze, Jean Baptiste, 142. Gros, Baron Antoine Jean, 149, 151, 152. Grünewald, Matthias, 234 Guardi, Francesco, 129, 131. Guercino (Giov. Fran. Barbiera), il, 126, 131. Guérin, Pierre Narcisse, 148. Guido Reni, 126, 130, 136. Guido da Sienna, 53, 56. Guthrie, James, 259. Hals, Franz (the Younger), 207, 211, 212, 221. Hamilton, James, 259. Hamilton, McLure, 270. Hamon, Jean Louis, 155. Harding, Chester, 265. Harpignies, Henri, 159. Hassam, Childe, 270. Harrison, T. Alexander, 272. Healy, George P. A. , 266. Hébert, Antoine Auguste Ernest, 164. Heem, Jan van, 218. Heemskerck, Marten van, 206, 221. Helst, Bartholomeus van der, 210, 221. Henner, Jean Jacques, 164. Henry, George, 259. Herkomer, Hubert, 258. Herrera, Francisco de, 177, 180, 185. Heyden, Jan van der, 218, 222. Hicks, Thomas, 266. Hill, Thomas, 265. Hitchcock, George, 272. Hobbema, Meindert, 215, 216, 222, 251. Hogarth, William, 243, 244. Holbein (the Elder), Hans, 233, 239. Holbein (the Younger), Hans, 134. 229-234, 239, 243. Holl, Frank, 258. Homer, Winslow, 268. Hondecoeter, Melchior d', 219, 222. Hooghe, Pieter de, 199, 213, 221. Hook, James Clarke, 259. Hoppner, John, 246. Hornell, E. A. , 259. Hubbard, Richard W. , 265. Huet, Paul, 159. Hunt, Holman, 255, 256. Hunt, William Henry, 254. Hunt, William Morris, 266. Huntington, Daniel, 266. Huysum, Jan van, 219-222. Imola, Innocenza da (Francucci), 97, 98, 105. Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique, 148, 152-154, 161, 162. Inman, Henry, 265. Inness, George, 273. Israels, Jozef, 219, 220. Jacque, Charles, 159. Janssens van Nuyssen, Abraham, 196, 201. Jarvis, John Wesley, 263. Joannes, Juan de, 182, 185. Johnson, David, 265. Johnson, Eastman, 268. Jongkind, 221. Jordaens, Jacob, 196. Justus van Ghent, 190, 201. Kalf, Willem, 219. Kauffman, Angelica, 236, 239. Kaulbach, Wilhelm von, 237, 239. Kendall, Sergeant, 272. Kensett, John F. , 264. Kever, J. S. H. , 221. Keyser, Thomas de, 207, 221. Klinger, Max, 238. Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 243. Koninck, Philip de, 210, 221. Kröyer, Peter S. , 276. Kuehl, G. , 238. Kulmbach, Hans von, 230, 239. Kunz, 227, 239. La Farge, John, 268. Lancret, Nicolas, 141. Landseer, Sir Edwin Henry, 249. Largillière, Nicolas, 139. Lastman, Pieter, 207. Laurens, Jean Paul, 165. Lavery, John, 259. Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 247. Lawson, Cecil Gordon, 258. Lawson, John, 259. Lebrun, Charles, 138, 139. Lebrun, Marie Elizabeth Louise Vigée, 149. Lefebvre, Jules Joseph, 164. Legros, Alphonse, 161. Leibl, Wilhelm, 238, 240. Leighton, Sir Frederick, 258. Leloir, Alexandre Louis, 167. Lely, Sir Peter, 243. Lenbach, Franz, 238, 239. Leonardo da Vinci, 64, 66, 71, 90, 92, 95, 99-103, 107, 108, 134. Lerolle, Henri, 161. Leslie, Robert Charles, 264. Lessing, Karl Friedrich, 266. Le Sueur, Eustache, 138. Lethière, Guillaume Guillon, 148. Leutze, Emanuel, 266. Lewis, John Frederick, 254. Leyden, Lucas van, 205, 221. Leys, Baron Jean Auguste Henri, 199, 202. L'hermitte, Léon Augustin, 166. Liberale da Verona, 76, 84, 120. Libri, Girolamo dai, 120, 121. Liebermann, Max, 238. Liljefors, Bruno, 276. Lippi, Fra Filippo, 63, 71, 74. Lippi, Filippino, 63, 71. Lockwood, Wilton, 270. Lombard, Lambert, 192. Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56. Lorenzetti, Pietro, 54, 56, 65. Lorrain, Claude (Gellée), 136, 150, 217, 250, 251, 253. Lotto, Lorenzo, 118, 121. Low, Will H. , 270. Luini, Bernardino, 101, 108. Mabuse, Jan (Gossart) van, 192, 201, 206, 243. McBride, A. , 259. McEntee, Jervis, 265. McEwen, Walter, 272. Madrazo, Raimundo de, 184, 185. Maes, Nicolaas, 210, 221. Makart, Hans, 238, 240. Manet, Édouard, 168, 169, 170. Mansueti, Giovanni, 84, 85. Mantegna, Andrea, 61, 74, 76, 77, 81, 84, 107, 229, 234. Maratta, Carlo, 127, 131. Marconi, Rocco, 118, 119, 121. Marilhat, P. , 154. Maris, James, 220. Maris, Matthew, 220. Maris, Willem, 221. Martin, Henri, 168. Martin, Homer, 273. Martino, Simone di, 54, 56. Masaccio, Tommaso, 54, 61, 71, 92, 93, 95. Masolino, Tommaso Fini, 61, 71. Massys, Quentin, 191, 192, 201, 234. Master of the Lyversberg Passion, 227. Mauve, Anton, 221. Mazo, Juan Bautista Martinez del, 179, 185. Mazzolino, Ludovico, 105, 109. Maynard, George W. , 274. Meer of Delft, Jan van der, 213, 221. Meire, Gerard van der, 190, 201. Meissonier, Jean Louis Ernest, 167, 184. Meister, Stephen (Lochner), 225. Meister, Wilhelm, 222. Melchers, Gari, 272. Melozzo da Forli, 67, 72. Melville, Arthur, 259. Memling, Hans, 190, 201. Memmi, Lippo, 54, 56. Mengs, Raphael, 236, 239. Menzel, Adolf, 238, 239. Mesdag, Hendrik Willem, 221. Messina, Antonello da, 83, 84, 85, 102, 113. Metcalf, Willard L. , 270. Metrodorus, 35. Metsu, Gabriel, 167, 211, 221. Mettling, V. Louis, 168. Michael Angelo (Buonarroti), 62, 90, 92, 97, 99, 112, 116, 122, 123-126, 144, 176, 181, 192, 206. Michallon, Achille Etna, 149. Michel, Georges, 159. Michetti, Francesco Paolo, 130, 131. Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz, 206, 221. Mieris, Franz van, 211, 221. Mignard, Pierre, 139. Millais, Sir John, 255, 256, 257. Millet, Francis D. , 270. Millet, Jean Francois, 160-162, 165, 166, 219, 266. Miranda, Juan Carreño de, 179, 185. Molyn (the Elder), Pieter de, 215, 222. Monet, Claude, 170, 171. Montagna, Bartolommeo, 77, 84. Montenard, Frederic, 171. Moore, Albert, 258. Moore, Henry, 259. Morales, Luis de, 177, 185. Moran, Thomas, 265. Morelli, Domenico, 130, 131. Moretto (Alessandro Buonvicino) il, 120, 121. Morland, George, 248. Moro, Antonio, 177, 192, 201, 243. Moroni, Giovanni Battista, 120, 121. Morton, Thomas, 259. Mostert, Jan, 191, 201, 205. Mount, William S. , 266. Mowbray, H. Siddons, 270. Mulready, William, 249. Munkacsy, Mihaly, 238, 240. Murillo, Bartolomé Estéban, 173, 180-182, 185. Murphy, J. Francis, 273. Navarette, Juan Fernandez, 177, 185. Navez, Francois, 199, 200, 202. Neer, Aart van der, 215, 222. Nelli, Ottaviano, 65, 71. Netscher, Kasper, 211, 221. Neuchatel, Nicolaus, 192. Neuhuys, Albert, 220. Newton, Gilbert Stuart, 264. Niccolo (Alunno) da Foligno, 65, 66, 72. Nicol, Erskine, 258. Nikias, 29. Nikomachus, 29. Nittis, Giuseppe de, 130, 131. Nono, Luigi, 130. Noort, Adam van, 195, 196, 201. Oggiono, Marco da, 102, 108. Opie, John, 246. Orcagna (Andrea di Cione), 52, 56. Orchardson, William Quiller, 258. Orley, Barent van, 192. Ostade, Adriaan van, 211, 212, 221. Ouwater, Aalbert van, 204. Overbeck, Johann Friedrich, 130, 236, 239. Pacchia, Girolamo della, 103, 108. Pacchiarotta, Giacomo, 103, 108. Pacheco, Francisco, 178, 180, 185. Pacuvius, 35. Padovanino (Ales. Varotari), il, 128, 131. Page, William, 266. Palma (il Vecchio), Jacopo, 118, 119, 121. Palma (il Giovine), Jacopo, 128, 131. Palmaroli, Vincente, 184. Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola), il, 108, 109, 135. Pamphilos, 28. Panetti, Domenico, 104. Paolino (Fra) da Pistoja, 90, 97. Parrhasios, 28. Parsons, Alfred, 259. Pater, Jean Baptiste Joseph, 141. Paterson, James, 259. Patinir, Joachim, 191. Pausias, 28. Peale, Charles Wilson, 261. Peale, Rembrandt, 263. Pearce, Charles Sprague, 272. Pelouse, Léon Germaine, 159. Pencz, Georg, 231. Penni, Giovanni Francesco, 96, 98. Péreal, Jean, 133. Perino del Vaga, 94, 97, 98, 180. Perugino, Pietro (Vanucci), 64, 67, 69, 70, 72, 95. Peruzzi, Baldassare, 103, 108. Petersen, Eilif, 276. Piero di Cosimo, 65, 71. Piloty, Carl Theodor von, 237, 239. Pinturricchio, Bernardino, 68, 70, 72. Piombo, Sebastiano del, 94, 98, 182. Pisano, Vittore (Pisanello), 73, 75, 79, 84. Pissarro, Camille, 170. Pizzolo, Niccolo, 75, 84. Platt, Charles A. , 273. Plydenwurff, Wilhelm, 228. Poggenbeek, George, 221. Pointelin, 159. Pollajuolo, Antonio del, 63, 71. Polygnotus, 26. Pontormo, Jacopo (Carrucci), 92, 97, 124. Poorter, Willem de, 210, 221. Pordenone, Giovanni Ant. , 119, 121. Potter, Paul, 216, 222. Pourbus, Peeter, 192, 201. Poussin, Gaspard (Dughet), 136. Poussin, Nicolas, 126, 136, 137, 150, 251. Pradilla, Francisco, 184. Previtali, Andrea, 83, 85. Primaticcio, Francesco, 97, 98, 134. Protogenes, 30. Prout, Samuel, 254. Prudhon, Pierre Paul, 147. Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre, 164. QUARTLEY, Arthur, 274. RAEBURN, Sir Henry, 246. Raffaelli, Jean François, 170. Raphael Sanzio, 62, 67, 90, 94, 98, 99, 103, 124, 125, 149, 182, 192, 206, 255. Ravesteyn, Jan van, 207, 221. Regnault, Henri, 165. Regnault, Jean Baptiste, 147, 148. Rehn, F. K. M. , 274. Reid, Robert, 270. Reid-Murray, J. , 259. Reinhart, Charles S. , 270. Rembrandt van Ryn, 148, 196, 204, 207-213, 221, 249. René of Anjou, 133. Renoir, 170. Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 212, 244-247. Ribalta, Francisco de, 182, 185. Ribera, Roman, 185. Ribera (Lo Spagnoletto), José di, 128, 168, 178, 182, 183, 185. Ribot, Augustin Theodule, 168. Richards, William T. , 265. Rico, Martin, 185. Rigaud, Hyacinthe, 139. Rincon, Antonio, 176, 185. Robert-Fleury, Joseph Nicolas, 153. Robie, Jean, 200. Robinson, Theodore, 273. Roche, Alex. , 259. Rochegrosse, Georges, 165. Roelas, Juan de las, 180, 181, 185. Roll, Alfred Philippe, 170. Romanino, Girolamo Bresciano, 120, 121. Rombouts, Theodoor, 196, 201. Romney, George, 246. Rondinelli, Niccolo, 84, 85. Rosa, Salvator, 128, 131. Rosselli, Cosimo, 63, 71, 90. Rossetti, Gabriel Charles Dante, 255, 256, 257. Rosso, il, 134. Rottenhammer, Johann, 235, 239. Rousseau, Théodore, 158, 160, 162. Roybet, Ferdinand, 168. Rubens, Peter Paul, 135, 179, 193-201, 210, 243. Ruisdael, Jacob van, 215, 216, 222. Ruisdael, Solomon van, 215, 222. Ryder, Albert, 268. SABBATINI (Andrea da Salerno), 97, 98. St. Jan, Geertjen van, 205. Salaino (Andrea Sala), il, 101, 108. Salviati, Francesco Rossi, 124, 130. Sanchez-Coello, Alonzo, 177, 185. Santi, Giovanni, 67, 72. Sanzio. See "Raphael. " Sargent, John S. , 269, 270. Sarto, Andrea (Angeli) del, 91, 97, 101, 105, 134. Sassoferrato (Giov. Battista Salvi), il, 126, 131. Savoldo, Giovanni Girolamo, 120, 121. Schadow, Friedrich Wilhelm von, 236, 237, 239. Schaffner, Martin, 231, 239. Schalcken, Godfried, 211, 221. Schäufelin, Hans Leonhardt, 230, 239. Scheffer, Ary, 153. Schöngauer, Martin, 231, 232, 233, 239. Schnorr von Karolsfeld, J. , 237, 239. Schüchlin, Hans, 231. Scorel, Jan van, 192, 206, 221. Segantini, Giovanni, 130. Semitecolo, Niccolo, 79, 84. Serapion, 35. Sesto, Cesare da, 102, 108. Shannon, J. J. , 272. Shirlaw, Walter, 270. Shurtleff, Roswell M. , 273. Sigalon, Xavier, 153. Signorelli, Luca, 66, 67, 72, 93. Simmons, Edward E. , 270. Simonetti, 130. Sisley, Alfred, 171. Smedley, William T. , 270. Smibert, John, 261. Snell, Henry B. , 274. Snyders, Franz, 196, 201. Sodoma (Giov. Ant. Bazzi), il, 103, 108. Solario, Andrea (da Milano), 102, 108. Sopolis, 35. Sorolla, Joaquin, 185. Spagna, Lo (Giovanni di Pietro), 69, 72. Spence, Harry, 259. Spranger, Bartholomeus, 192. Squarcione, Francesco, 73, 74, 75, 81. Starnina, Gherardo, 54, 56. Steele, Edward, 246. Steen, Jan, 211, 212, 249. Steenwyck, Hendrik van, 206, 221. Stevens, Alfred, 200, 202. Stewart, Julius L. , 272. Strigel, Bernard, 232, 239. Stothard, Thomas, 254. Stott of Oldham, 258. Stuart, Gilbert, 262, 263. Stuck, Franz, 238. Sully, Thomas, 263, 264. Swanenburch, Jakob Isaaks van, 207. TARBELL, Edmund C. , 270. Teniers (the Younger), David, 197, 202. Terburg, Gerard, 167, 212, 221. Thaulow, Fritz, 276. Thayer, Abbott H. , 270. Thegerström, R. , 276. Theodorich of Prague, 227, 239. Theotocopuli, Domenico, 177, 185. Thoma, Hans, 238. Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, 128, 131. Tiepolo, Giovanni Domenico, 129, 131. Timanthes, 28. Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti), il, 115-117, 121, 123, 128. Titian (Tiziano Vecelli), 101, 113-121, 124, 125, 128, 177, 179, 194, 196, 212, 245. Tito, Ettore, 130. Torbido, Francisco (il Moro), 120, 121. Toulmouche, Auguste, 167. Tristan, Luis, 177, 178, 185. Troyon, Constant, 159, 160. Trumbull, John, 262, 265. Tryon, Dwight W. , 273. Tura, Cosimo, 69, 72, 75. Turner, C. Y. , 270. Turner, Joseph Mallord William, 251, 253, 254. Twachtman, John H. , 273. UCCELLO, Paolo, 63, 71, 74. Uhde, Fritz von, 238, 240. Ulrich, Charles F. , 272. VAENIUS, Otho, 195, 201. Van Beers, Jan, 200, 202. Vanderlyn, John, 263. Van Dyck, Sir Anthony, 181, 195, 198, 201, 243, 244. Van Dyck, Philip, 219, 222. Van Loo, Jean Baptiste, 141, 145, 146. Van Marcke, Émil, 159. Vargas, Luis de, 180, 185. Vasari, Giorgio, 124, 130 Vedder, Elihu, 268. Veit, Philipp, 236, 239. Velasquez, Diego Rodriguez de Silva y, 173, 174, 177-185, 194, 196, 207, 212, 249, 271. Velde, Adrien van de, 216, 222. Velde (the Elder), Willem van de, 218, 222. Velde (the Younger), Willem van de, 218, 222. Venusti, Marcello, 94, 98. Verboeckhoven, Eugène Joseph, 200, 202. Verhagen, Pierre Joseph, 198, 202. Vernet, Claude Joseph, 142, 250. Vernet, Émile Jean Horace, 149. Veronese, Paolo (Caliari), 116-121, 129, 136, 194. Verrocchio, Andrea del, 64, 71, 99. Vibert, Jehan Georges, 167. Victoors, Jan, 210, 221. Vien, Joseph Marie, 146. Villegas, José, 184, 185. Vincent, François André, 147. Vinci. See "Leonardo. " Vinton, F. P. , 270. Viti, Timoteo di, 97, 98. Vivarini, Antonio (da Murano), 79, 84. Vivarini, Bartolommeo (da Murano), 79, 84. Vivarini, Luigi or Alvise, 80, 85. Vlieger, Simon de, 218, 222. Vollon, Antoine, 168. Volterra, Daniele (Ricciarelli) da, 94, 97. Vos, Cornelis de, 196, 201. Vos, Marten de, 192. Vouet, Simon, 136, 139. WALKER, Frederick, 258. Walker, Horatio, 273. Walton, E. A. , 259. Wappers, Baron Gustavus, 199, 202. Watelet, Louis Étienne, 149. Watson, John, 261. Watteau, Antoine, 140, 141. Watts, George Frederick, 258. Wauters, Émile, 200. Weeks, Edwin L. , 272. Weenix, Jan, 219, 222. Weir, J. Alden, 270, 273. Werff, Adriaan van der, 219, 222. West, Benjamin, 261, 262, 264. Weyden, Roger van der, 189, 190, 201, 231. Whistler, James A. McNeill, 271. Whittredge, Worthington, 265. Wiertz, Antoine Joseph, 199, 202. Wiles, Irving R. , 270. Wilkie, Sir David, 249. Willems, Florent, 200, 202. Wilson, Richard, 250, 251. Wolgemut, Michael, 228, 239. Wouverman, Philips, 216, 222. Wright, Joseph, 250. Wurmser, Nicolaus, 227, 239. Wyant, Alexander H. , 265, 273. Wyllie, W. L. , 259 Wynants, Jan, 215, 222. Yon, Edmund Charles, 159. Zamacois, Eduardo, 184, 185. Zegers, Daniel, 196, 201. Ziem, 154. Zeitblom, Bartholomäus, 231, 239. Zeuxis, 27. Zoppo, Marco, 75, 84. Zorn, Anders, 276. Zucchero, Federigo, 125, 130. Zuloaga, Ignacio, 185. Zurbaran, Francisco de, 180, 181, 185. ADDITIONS TO INDEX. Anglada, 185. Bartels, 238. Baur, 221. Bell, 259. Brangwyn, 259. Breitner, 221. Buysse, 200. Cariani, 119. Claus, 200. Clausen, 259. Fattori, 130. Fragiacomo, 130. Frederic, 200. Garcia y Remos, 185. Greiner, 238. Haverman, 221. Henri, Robert, 270. Keller, 238. Khnopff, 200. Lempoels, 200. Lie, Jonas, 273. McTaggart, 259. Mancini, 130. Marchetti, 130. Ouless, 259. Reid, Sir George, 259. Steer, 259. Swan, 259. Trübner, 238. Vierge, 185. Weissenbruch, 221. Witsen, 221. * * * * * COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART EDITED BY JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L. H. D. PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF ART IN RUTGERS COLLEGE HISTORY OF PAINTING By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, the Editor of the Series. With Frontispiece and110 Illustrations, Bibliographies, and Index. Crown 8vo, $1. 50. HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE By ALFRED D. F. HAMLIN, A. M. , Adjunct Professor of Architecture, Columbia College, New York. With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrationsand Diagrams, Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and aGeneral Index. Crown 8vo, $2. 00. HISTORY OF SCULPTURE By ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph. D. , L. H. D. , and ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr. , Ph. D. , Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in PrincetonUniversity. With Frontispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1. 50. * * * * * A History of Architecture. By A. D. F. Hamlin, A. M. Adjunct Professor of Architecture in the School of Mines, ColumbiaCollege. With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams, Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a General Index. Crown 8vo, pp. Xx-453, $2. 00. "The text of this book is very valuable because of the singularlyintelligent view taken of each separate epoch.... The book isextremely well furnished with bibliographies, lists of monuments[which] are excellent.... If any reasonable part of the contents ofthis book can be got into the heads of those who study it, they willhave excellent ideas about architecture and the beginnings of a soundknowledge of it. "--THE NATION, NEW YORK. "A manual that will be invaluable to the student, while it will giveto the general reader a sufficiently full outline for the purposes ofthe development of the various schools of architecture. What makes itof special value is the large number of ground plans of typicalbuildings and the sketches of bits of detail of columns, arches, windows and doorways. Each chapter is prefaced by a list of booksrecommended, and each ends with a list of monuments. The illustrationsare numerous and well executed. "--SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. "Probably presents more comprehensively and at the same timeconcisely, the various periods and styles of architecture, with acharacterization of the most important works of each period and style, than any other published work.... The volume fills a gap inarchitectural literature which has long existed. "--ADVERTISER, BOSTON. "A neatly published work, adapted to the use either of student orgeneral reader. As a text-book it is a concise and orderly settingforth of the main principles of architecture followed by the differentschools. The life history of each period is brief yet thorough.... Thetreatment is broad and not over-critical. The chief facts are sogrouped that the student can easily grasp them. The plan-drawings areclear cut and serve their purpose admirably. The half-toneillustrations are modern in selection and treatment. The style isclear, easy and pleasing. The entire production shows a studious andorderly mind. A new and pleasing characteristic is the absence of alldiscussion on disputed points. In its unity, clearness and simplicitylie its charm and interest. "--NOTRE DAME SCHOLASTIC, NOTRE DAME, IND. "This is a very thorough and compendious history of the art ofarchitecture from the earliest times down to the present.... The workis elaborately illustrated with a great host of examples, pictures, diagrams, etc. It is intended to be used as a school text-book, and isvery conveniently arranged for this purpose, with suitable headings inbold-faced type, and a copious index. Teachers and students will findit a capital thing for the purpose. "--PICAYUNE, NEW ORLEANS. A History of Sculpture, BY ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph. D. , L. H. D. AND ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr. , Ph. D. Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in PrincetonUniversity. With Frontispiece and 113 Illustrations in half-tone in the text, Bibliographies, Addresses for Photographs and Casts, etc. Crown 8vo, 313 pages, $1. 50. * * * * * HENRY W. KENT, _Curator of the Seater Museum, Watkins, N. Y. _ "Like the other works in this series of yours, it is simplyinvaluable, filling a long-felt want. The bibliographies and listswill be keenly appreciated by all who work with a class of students. " CHARLES H. MOORE, _Harvard University_. "The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively blackbackground which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines of somany half-tone prints. " J. M. HOPPIN, _Yale University_. "These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the bookand its fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especiallyinterested in the chapter on _Renaissance Sculpture in Italy_. " CRITIC, _New York_. "This history is a model of condensation.... Each period is treated infull, with descriptions of its general characteristics and itsindividual developments under various conditions, physical, political, religious and the like.... A general history of sculpture has neverbefore been written in English--never in any language in convenienttext-book form. This publication, then, should meet with anenthusiastic reception among students and amateurs of art, not somuch, however, because it is the only book of its kind, as for itsintrinsic merit and attractive form. " OUTLOOK, _New York_. "A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something neededeverywhere.... A good feature of this book--and one which should beimitated--is the list indicating where casts and photographs may bestbe obtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed. " NOTRE DAME SCHOLASTIC, _Notre Dame, Ind. _ "The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations, numbering over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides ageneral bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period ofstyle a special list to which the student may refer, should he wish topursue more fully any particular school. " * * * * * LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. , Publishers, 91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.