Photograph by Braun < Co. 
 
 PIERO DELLA FRANCE3CA! MADONNA 
 The Louvre, Paris 
 
NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS 
 
 PARIS 
 
 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE LOUVRE 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN C. VAN DYKE 
 
 &,. 
 
 AUTHOR OF ART FOR ARTS SAKE, THE MEANING OF PICTURES, 
 
 "HISTORY OF PAINTING," "OLD DUTCH AND 
 
 FLEMISH MASTERS," ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
K3 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 Published April, 1914 
 
PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 THERE are numerous guide-books, catalogues, and 
 histories of the European galleries, but, unfortunately 
 for the gallery visitor, they are either wholly descrip- 
 tive of obvious facts or they are historical and ar- 
 chaeological about matters somewhat removed from art 
 itself. In them the gist of a picture its value or mean- 
 ing as art is usually passed over in silence. It seems 
 that there is some need of a guide that shall say less 
 about the well-worn saints and more about the man 
 behind the paint-brush; that shall deal with pictures 
 from the painter's point of view, rather than that of 
 the ecclesiastic, the archaeologist, or the literary ro- 
 mancer; that shall have some sense of proportion in 
 the selection and criticism of pictures; that shall have 
 a critical basis for discrimination between the good and 
 the bad; and that shall, for these reasons, be of ser- 
 vice to the travelling public as well as to the art student. 
 
 This series of guide-books attempts to meet these 
 requirements. They deal only with the so-called " old 
 masters." When the old masters came upon the 
 scene, flourished, and ceased to exist may be deter- 
 mined by their spirit as well as by their dates. In 
 Italy the tradition of the craft had been established 
 before Giotto and was carried on by Benozzo, Botti- 
 
 393597 
 
vi PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 celli, Raphael, Titian, Tintoretto, even down to Tie- 
 polo in the eighteenth century. But the late men, 
 the men of the Decadence, are not mentioned here 
 because of their exaggerated sentiment, their inferior 
 workmanship in short, the decay of the tradition of 
 the craft. In France the fifteenth-century primitives 
 are considered, and also the sixteenth-century men, 
 including Claude and Poussin; but the work of the 
 Rigauds, Mignards, Coypels, Watteaus, and Bouchers 
 seems of a distinctly modern spirit and does not be- 
 long here. This is equally true of all English painting 
 from Hogarth to the present time. In Spain we stop 
 with the School of Velasquez, in Germany and the 
 Low Countries with the seventeenth-century men. 
 The modern painters, down to the present day, so far 
 as they are found in the public galleries of Europe, 
 will perhaps form a separate guide-book, which by its 
 very limitation to modern painting can be better 
 treated by itself. 
 
 Only the best pictures among the old masters are 
 chosen for comment. This does not mean, however, 
 that only the great masterpieces have been considered. 
 There are, for instance, notes upon some three hun- 
 dred pictures in the Venice Academy, upon five hun- 
 dred in the Uffizi Gallery, and some six hundred in 
 the Louvre or the National Gallery, London. * Other 
 galleries are treated in the same proportion. But it 
 has not been thought worth while to delve deeply into 
 the paternity of pictures by third-rate primitives or 
 
PREFACE TO THE SERIES vii 
 
 to give space to mediocre or ruined examples by even 
 celebrated painters. The merits that now exist in a 
 canvas, and can be seen by any intelligent observer, 
 are the features insisted upon herein. 
 
 In giving the relative rank of pictures, a system of 
 starring has been followed. 
 
 Mention without a star indicates a picture of merit, 
 otherwise it would not have been selected from the 
 given collection at all. 
 
 One star (*) means a picture of more than average 
 importance, whether it be by a great or by a medi- 
 ocre painter. 
 
 Two stars (**} indicates a work of high rank as art, 
 quite regardless of its painter's name, and may be given 
 to a picture attributed to a school or by a painter un- 
 known. 
 
 Three stars (***) signifies a great masterpiece. 
 
 The length of each note and its general tenor will in 
 most cases suggest the relative importance of the picture. 
 
 Catalogues of the galleries should be used in con- 
 nection with these guide-books, for they contain much 
 information not repeated here. The gallery catalogues 
 are usually arranged alphabetically under the painters' 
 names, although there are some of them that make 
 reference by school, or room, or number, according to 
 the hanging of the pictures in the gallery. But the 
 place where the picture may be hung is constantly 
 shifting; its number, too, may be subject to alteration 
 with each new edition of the catalogue; but its painter's 
 
viii PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 name is perhaps less liable to change. An arrangement, 
 therefore, by the painters' names placed alphabetically 
 has been necessarily adopted in these guide-books. 
 Usually the prefixes "de," "di," "van," and "von" 
 have been disregarded in the arrangement of the names. 
 And usually, also, the more familiar name of the artist 
 is used that is, Botticelli, not Filipepi ; Correggio, not 
 Allegri; Tintoretto, not Robust!. In practical use the 
 student can ascertain from the picture-frame the name 
 of the painter and turn to it alphabetically in this guide- 
 book. In case the name has been recently changed, 
 he can take the number from the frame and, by turning 
 to the numerical index at the end of each volume, can 
 ascertain the former name and thus the alphabetical 
 place of the note about that particular picture. 
 
 The picture appears under the name or attribution 
 given in the catalogue. If there is no catalogue, then 
 the name on the frame is taken. But that does not 
 necessarily mean that the name or attribution is 
 accepted in the notes. Differences of view are given 
 very frequently. It is important that we should know 
 the painter of the picture before us. The question of 
 attribution is very much in the air to-day, and consider- 
 able space is devoted to it not only in the General In- 
 troduction but in the notes themselves. Occasionally, 
 however, the whole question of authorship is passed 
 over in favour of the beauty of the picture itself. It 
 is always the art of the picture we are seeking, more 
 than its name, or pedigree, or commercial value. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SERIES ix 
 
 Conciseness herein has been a necessity. These 
 notes are suggestions for study or thought rather than 
 complete statements about the pictures. Even the 
 matter of an attribution is often dismissed in a sentence 
 though it may have been thought over for weeks. 
 If the student would go to the bottom of things he 
 must read further and do some investigating on his 
 own account. The lives of the painters, the history of 
 the schools, the opinions of the connoisseurs may be 
 read elsewhere. A bibliography, in the London vol- 
 ume, will suggest the best among the available books 
 in both history and criticism. 
 
 The proper test of a guide-book is its use. These 
 notes were written in the galleries and before the pic- 
 tures. I have not trusted my memory about them, nor 
 shall I trust the memory of that man who, from his 
 easy chair, declares he knows the pictures by heart. 
 The opinions and conclusions herein have not been 
 lightly arrived at. Indeed, they are the result of more 
 than thirty years' study of the European galleries. 
 That they are often diametrically opposed to current 
 views and beliefs should not be cause for dismissing 
 them from consideration. Examine the pictures, guide- 
 book in hand. That is the test to which I submit and 
 which I exact. 
 
 Yet with this insistence made, one must still feel 
 apologetic or at least sceptical about results. However 
 accurate one would be as to fact, it is obviously impos- 
 sible to handle so many titles, names, and numbers 
 
x PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 without an occasional failure of the eye or a slip of the 
 pen; and however frankly fair in criticism one may 
 fancy himself, it is again impossible to formulate judg- 
 ments on, say, ten thousand pictures without here and 
 there committing blunders. These difficulties may be 
 obviated in future editions. If opinions herein are 
 found to be wrong, they will be edited out of the work 
 just as quickly as errors of fact. The reach is toward 
 a reliable guide though the grasp may fall short of full 
 attainment. 
 
 It remains to be said that I am indebted to Mr. and 
 Mrs. George B. McClellan for helpful suggestions re- 
 garding this series, and to Mr. Sydney Philip Noe not 
 only for good counsel but for practical assistance in 
 copying manuscript and reading proof. 
 
 JOHN C. VAN DYKE. 
 RUTGERS COLLEGE, 1914. 
 
THE LOUVRE 
 
NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 
 
 ALL told, the Louvre is the largest collection of pic- 
 tures in Europe and perhaps the most famous. It has 
 been in process of accumulation for several centuries, 
 and the process is going on to-day with no whit of en- 
 ergy abated. Francis I furnished the original im- 
 pulse, for his private collection of nearly two hundred 
 pictures most of them Italian formed the nucleus. 
 The royal collections were greatly enlarged by Louis 
 XIV, and he it was who first placed the pictures in the 
 old palace of the Louvre. They did not stay there 
 long, however, but were taken to Versailles, to Fon- 
 tainebleau, and later to the Palace of the Luxembourg. 
 The growth was continued by additions of such col- 
 lections as those of Cardinal Mazarin and Jabach the 
 banker. In 1710 there were over twenty-four hundred 
 pictures belonging to the crown. 
 
 When Napoleon came into power the pictures were 
 finally installed in the Louvre and enormous accumu- 
 lations of art taken as the plunder of war from Italy, 
 Germany, and the Netherlands were added. At one 
 time half the masterpieces of Europe were in Paris, 
 and though most of these works were afterward re- 
 stored to their owners, there were many that remained 
 
 3 
 
1 NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 
 
 behind, in the Louvre, and are there now. Since Na- 
 poleon's time pictures have continued to gravitate to 
 this collection, not only by purchase and donation of 
 single pictures, but by gifts of private collections in 
 bulk. Of recent years the collections of Campana, 
 Sauvageot, Thiers, La Caze, Thomy-Thiery, Chau- 
 chard, Moreau have made important additions. The 
 Louvre is now a great national museum, and every 
 Frenchman regards it patriotically and helps it as best 
 he can. To-day it contains over three thousand pic- 
 tures, a collection which both in quantity and quality 
 gives just cause for national pride. 
 
 The glory of the Louvre has been its great master- 
 pieces by famous artists. In order that the extent and 
 beauty of these might be seen, they were brought to- 
 gether in one large, well-lighted room, called the Salon 
 Carre. Some of them still remain there, but the 
 masterpieces of the gallery long ago outgrew the limits 
 of the Salon Carre*, and many of them are now to be 
 found scattered throughout the rooms in the schools 
 to which they belong. 
 
 With the exception of the Salon Carre and the special 
 collections, like the La Caze, the pictures are arranged 
 by schools as nearly as wall space and circumstance will 
 allow. The Italian takes up greater space than any 
 of the foreign schools. Its representation is excellent. 
 Even in the side room devoted to the Primitives there 
 are examples of the Early Florentines, Umbrians, 
 Sienese that every student must stop and consider 
 
NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 5 
 
 precious things in fresco and tempera with gilded haloes, 
 embossed backgrounds, and tooled borderings. Under 
 such names as Botticelli and Piero della Francesca 
 there are wonderful panels of the Madonna and Child ; 
 on one wall is a masterpiece by Fra Filippo, on the 
 opposite wall a matchless portrait by Pisanello, on the 
 staircase without is a large and fine fresco by Fra 
 Angelico, and near it two famous frescoes by Botticelli. 
 
 In the long gallery of the Louvre there appear scores 
 of pictures by the Early Renaissance men, including 
 famous Francias, Costas, Peruginos, Turas, Bianchis. 
 Here the student will find the two most brilliant Man- 
 tegnas in existence, besides his celebrated Madonna of 
 the Victory, and the newly acquired St. Sebastian his 
 most important work aside from his frescoes. Here, 
 too, is the famous Portrait of a Man by Antonello 
 da Messina, with works by Bellini, Carpaccio, Cima, 
 and others of the Venetian School, all of them excellent 
 in quality. 
 
 The great Italian masterpieces, however, belong to 
 the High Renaissance and are found either in the long 
 gallery or in the Salon Carre. The Raphaels on the 
 list may be cut down to five, but this still leaves us 
 the Belle Jardiniere, the Holy Family of Francis I, 
 and the Castiglione Portrait all in the Salon Carre. 
 The representation of Leonardo da Vinci is more 
 amazing, for it includes almost everything of his that 
 is finished or not in ruins the Mona Lisa, the Madonna 
 and St. Anne, the Madonna of the Rocks. These three 
 
6 NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 
 
 works are not only famous and priceless but indispen- 
 sably important to the student of art history. As pure 
 art they are not more wonderful than the famous Con- 
 cert by Giorgione, the rich Marriage of St. Catherine, 
 and the Antiope, by Correggio, the gorgeous Marriage 
 in Cana, by Paolo Veronese, the majestic Entombment, 
 by Titian, hanging near them. They are all artistic 
 gems of purest ray, and are texts for prolonged study. 
 They grow more wonderful each time one sees them. 
 
 When one has worked through the rows of Titians, 
 Palmas, Veroneses, Lottos, in the long gallery, he comes 
 to the Spanish School. Here the representation is less 
 complete. There are Murillos, Riberas, Herreras, II 
 Grecos, Goyas, and one most lovely Velasquez, the 
 Infanta Margarita (in the Salon Carre), but the Spanish 
 School is a little weak. So too the German, though 
 here, again, there are glorious portraits by Holbein of 
 Erasmus, More, and others, and one lovely picture of 
 a little girl by Cranach. The Flemish masters follow 
 with famous portraits of Richardot, Charles I, and 
 others by Van Dyck in many respects the Charles I 
 is his masterpiece a number of pictures by Jordaens, 
 and a wide range of superb canvases by Rubens, cul- 
 minating in a far room entirely devoted to his Medici 
 pictures. 
 
 The Dutch School starts with many portraits put 
 down to Hals and Rembrandt, upon which the notes 
 herein comment at some length. In the side cabinets 
 the lesser Dutchmen, Terborch, De Hooch, Metsu, 
 
NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 7 
 
 Steen, Dou, Brouwer are seen to advantage. Here, too, 
 are cabinets devoted to the Dutch and Flemish Primi- 
 tives the Van Eycks, Davids, Van der Weydens. The 
 unique collection of the gallery is that of the French 
 Primitives in two or three rooms by themselves. This 
 offers the student a rare opportunity to see the begin- 
 nings of French painting. There is no such collection 
 elsewhere. Here, in the Louvre, one can see all French 
 art better represented than in any other European 
 gallery. The modern men are not dealt with in these 
 notes, but the student will not, of course, pass them by. 
 
 The galleries and corridors are rather badly lighted 
 and on dark days it is impossible to see the pictures 
 properly. Moreover, there is some bad hanging some- 
 thing not always to be avoided. Many pictures in the 
 long gallery suffer from want of proper distance to see 
 them or are placed so high that they catch reflections 
 and lights from above, and are rendered meaningless. 
 Of course this does not apply to the large and more 
 spacious Salon Carre, nor to the famous Rubens 
 room which holds the series of Medici pictures. After 
 suffering distortion (and consequent abuse) in the 
 long narrow thoroughfare of the Louvre for many 
 years, these pictures are now shown adequately in a 
 room by themselves. The general look of that room 
 offers weighty argument for the decorative in art. 
 It is a magnificent effect that the Rubens-haters might 
 study with profit. 
 
 The direction of the Louvre has not published an 
 
8 NOTE ON THE LOUVRE 
 
 official catalogue in thirty years. The less said about 
 the semiofficial La Fenestre catalogue the better. It 
 is neither complete nor critical, it is badly printed 
 and illustrated, and is expensive into the bargain. Un- 
 fortunately it happens to be the only one offered the 
 visitor, and we are obliged to follow it. A much better 
 catalogue by Seymour de Ricci and Joseph Reinach 
 (again unofficial) is being issued. Recent acquisitions 
 are not usually numbered or catalogued for months 
 after their arrival. They are marked in these notes 
 n. n. (no number). Cheap photographic reproductions 
 of the Louvre pictures are to be had in the shops in the 
 Rue de Seine and elsewhere. 
 
 Other collections of old masters in Paris, aside from 
 private holding, are not very important. There are a 
 few pictures at the Musee de Cluny, the Musee Dutuit, 
 the Bibliotheque Nationale (miniatures and illumina- 
 tions), which the student with plenty of time should 
 see. Outside of Paris there is little at Versailles or 
 Fontainebleau, but at Chantilly there is the Musee 
 Conde, containing the pictures collected by the late 
 Due d'Aumale, that should be seen. 
 
THE LOUVRE 
 
 1114. Albertinelli, Mario tto. The Virgin and Child 
 with St. Jerome. A pyramidal composition after 
 the style of his colleague and fellow worker, Fra 
 Bartolommeo. The draperies are not so full and 
 free in their flow, however, as with Fra Bartolom- 
 meo, as note in the saint at left evidently the 
 work of another painter than either Bartolommeo 
 or Albertinelli. The landscape is interesting in its 
 trees with their spread lace-work foliage at the left. 
 The colour is only so-so. The whole picture is a 
 little puzzling, perhaps because it is a workshop af- 
 fair in which several painters have had a hand. 
 
 1115. Christ Appearing to the Magdalen. With a 
 
 beseeching look in the Magdalen quite pathetic. 
 The landscape is noticeable for its very light tone, 
 and that, with the very broad draperies, points 
 rather to Fra Bartolommeo than to Albertinelli as 
 the painter. See the Fra Bartolommeo in the Na- 
 tional Gallery, London (No. 1694), for a similar 
 effect of light and landscape. A handsome little 
 picture in its lines of drapery and its rich colour 
 things that again point to Fra Bartolommeo. 
 
 1290. Angelico, Fra. Coronation of the Virgin. Not- 
 withstanding the eulogies of this picture by Vasari 
 and Theophile Gautier, quoted in the catalogue, it is 
 by no means the best, or even a good, Fra Angelico. 
 The picture has suffered in its surface, and is now 
 9 
 
10 THE LOUVRE 
 
 either raw, as in the sky and steps, or dull, as in 
 the robes, or unconvincing, as in the flowers and 
 hats. The faces are also wanting in the painter's 
 usual charm of sentiment. The picture was prob- 
 ably worked upon by assistants. The scenes in 
 the predella at the bottom are more interesting 
 and better in colour, especially in the blues. Look 
 at the blue angels, or cherubim, with the Francis- 
 cans at the right, and the sky and tower in the last 
 panel at the left. This predella is in better con- 
 dition than the picture. 
 
 1293. Martyrdom, of St. Cosmo and St. Damian. 
 
 This is a part of a predella, and is a much better 
 piece of colour than the large Coronation (No. 1290), 
 but still not in Fra Angelico's best vein. The 
 landscape with the dotted white buildings is broadly 
 true and singularly beautiful. But the painter's 
 small works in the Florence Academy are better 
 than this. 
 
 N. N. Praying Angel. Possibly an angel of the An- 
 nunciation, with the rest of the panel lost. It is 
 lovely in its fine feeling of purity, both in the angel 
 and in the colour. The neck is long, the wings 
 blue, the robe red. It possibly belongs earlier 
 than Fra Angelico. 
 
 1294. Crucifixion. (A fresco on the landing of the 
 
 Daru staircase.) To those who have not seen the 
 frescoes of Fra Angelico in San Marco, Florence, 
 this will give some idea of his work in that medium. 
 It is impressive in its figures, that stand so well 
 and have some thickness as well as width and 
 height. The drawing leaves something to be de- 
 sired, as witness the figure of Christ or the hands of 
 those below. The colour has depth and is now 
 
BAILLY, DAVID 11 
 
 harmonious, whatever it was originally. Notice 
 the blue of the sky and the red robe at right for 
 their colour quality. 
 
 11281 Ansano di Pietro. Life of St. Jerome. A series 
 1132 J of panels showing scenes from the life of St. Jerome, 
 given with simplicity and charm, some knowledge 
 of movement, and good colour. In No. 1131, 
 note the little figure of St. Jerome in the sky and 
 the well-drawn black robes; in No. 1129 there is 
 a fine landscape, with hills and fruit-bearing trees; 
 in No. 1128 the angel's wings have been rubbed 
 off. All of the panels look a little modern in their 
 gildings. 
 
 1134. An tonello da Messina. Portrait of a Man. Here 
 * is Antonello at his best in his half-Flemish half- 
 Italian style. There is infinite detail, even to the 
 scar on the upper lip and the day's growth of beard 
 on the face ; but also great bulk and breadth in the 
 head and the face. It is the powerful face of some 
 swashbuckler, with a heavy jaw and a bulldog 
 chin a man of determination and power. What 
 an eye he has! What a fearless presence! It is 
 comparable in type to Verrocchio's Colleoni, at 
 Venice. 
 
 "The ' Portrait of a Man/ the record reads, 
 
 With Antonello's signature below. 
 The rest is blank. The man, his name, his deeds, 
 All died in Venice centuries ago." 
 
 Done with well-nigh perfect drawing and modelling. 
 And with wonderful simplicity. Even colour is 
 almost eliminated in favour of the portrait reality. 
 2303A. Bailly, David. Portrait of a Young Man. A 
 good head that emerges out of its black back- 
 ground effectively. The drawing rambles a bit. 
 
12 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1150. Baroccio, Federico. Madonna * Glory. This 
 painter belongs to the Decadence, but is by no 
 means a decadent in the matter of colour nor 
 in sure, swift handling. He formed himself upon 
 Correggio, and in turn helped form the style of 
 so great a man as Rubens. As noted elsewhere, 
 Rubens probably got something of his surface 
 brilliancy, his flesh notes, and his fluid handling 
 from Baroccio. The picture has been too much 
 cleaned and repainted. 
 
 1149. The Circumcision. A brighter Baroccio than 
 
 No. 1150. It shows his fed-on-roses flesh better. 
 Notice the colour and handling of the yellow and 
 red robes. It is not a bad picture and indicates that 
 the skill of the Italians endured after their taste 
 had fled. 
 
 1151. Bartolo di Fredi. Presentation in the Temple. 
 
 It has the rich, decorative effect that comes from 
 using gold patterns with colour. Notice the robes, 
 the borders, and the haloes. The drawing is, of 
 course, not that of the Renaissance, but it is com- 
 plete for its time. An attempt to show church 
 architecture as an envelope for the figures, but not 
 too successful. 
 
 1153. Bartolommeo, Fra. The Annunciation. A 
 
 * novel treatment of the Annunciation, with the 
 flying angel and dove at the top of the canvas and 
 saints below grouped on either side. It is rich in 
 greens, oranges, and reds, and is quite as effective 
 in its shadows and atmosphere as in its colour. 
 The robes are beautifully drawn and the kneeling 
 figures are not only fine as art but also fine in relig- 
 ious feeling. An excellent small example of the 
 painter. It is, unfortunately, somewhat injured. 
 
BELLINI, SCHOOL OF 13 
 
 1154. Madonna Enthroned. A large picture with a 
 
 * predominance of blue-green colouring which the 
 brighter reds and oranges fail to warm or temper. 
 The composition was a favourite one with thepainter 
 a pyramidal pattern with supporting saints on 
 either side and a crescent of angels at the top. The 
 drawing is excellent all through and the drapery 
 very well handled. Notice how the green dress of 
 the saint at the right falls from the waist across 
 the knees. And how beautiful are the folds in the 
 light dress of the woman kneeling at the left! 
 What robust characters in the men ! What graceful 
 lines in the rainbow-winged cherubs at the top! 
 A fine picture, but it has neither the fineness nor 
 the quality in colour, shadow, and atmosphere of 
 the smaller No. 1153 hanging next it. 
 
 N. N. Bellegambe, Jean. (Attributed.) St. Adrien. A 
 full-length figure of the saint standing, given with 
 much dignity and grace. Carefully drawn and very 
 effective, but without the minutiae of the early 
 Flemish painters. Notice the free drawing and 
 painting of the decorative pattern on the armour 
 as well as in the background figures and houses. 
 An excellent work with much beauty of style about 
 it. The attribution is merely a guess. 
 
 1156. Bellini, Gentile. Portrait of Two Men. It is 
 
 similar to the picture No. 12 in the Berlin Gallery, 
 there put down to Giovanni Bellini's School. This 
 work is not by Gentile, but by some one close to 
 the young Cariani, as Crowe and Cavalcaselle sur- 
 mised some years ago. Much cleaned. 
 
 1157. Bellini, Gentile (School of). Reception of a 
 Venetian Ambassador at Cairo. A repainted pic- 
 ture, but interesting still as showing what the early 
 
14 THE LOUVRE 
 
 Venetians knew about sunlight, sky, and air, as 
 also for costumes and architecture. It is rather 
 coarsely done. 
 
 1158. Bellini, Giovanni. Madonna with St. Peter and 
 St. Sebastian. A smooth and rather attractive 
 work, in the style of Bellini, but hardly by his hand. 
 The suggestion, made years ago by Morelli, that it 
 was by Bellini's Ravennese imitator Rondinelli, 
 is still pertinent, though a study of Rondinelli's 
 other work hardly lends confirmation. The Ma- 
 donna is a pleasing type as is also the girlish 
 St. Sebastian. The colour is harmonious and the 
 drawing not bad. 
 
 1158A. Portrait of a Man. A very noble portrait 
 
 * showing both strength and beauty. It is a little 
 sharp in the outlines, but exceedingly well drawn 
 in the face. It is also fine in colouring. The win- 
 ning feature of it is its strong characterisation, its 
 frankness of statement, its evident honesty. It is 
 quite different from the portrait of the Doge Lore- 
 dano, being more mature-looking, which excites 
 the suspicion that perhaps it is by a later man than 
 Bellini; but one cannot be certain about that. 
 
 N. N. The Saviour Blessing. This is the risen Sav- 
 
 ** iour, the Christ of the tomb, and for that reason, 
 probably, he is portrayed in white with pallid 
 flesh, the hands, brows, and side marked with 
 blood. It is a very pathetic figure, showing suffer- 
 ing, humiliation, attenuation. The hands are just 
 as frail as the body, and the face carries out the 
 same idea of a presence that is more spiritual than 
 corporeal. Even the landscape and the sky are 
 more or less ghostlike, unearthly, not sun-illumined. 
 The white robe that clings to the shrunken figure, 
 
BENOZZO GOZZOLI 15 
 
 the thin hand that clasps the book, the hand raised 
 in blessing, the sad eyes, the half -parted lips, are all 
 a part of the tragic tale told with great feeling, be- 
 lief, earnestness, truth. Before such a picture one 
 hardly wishes to think of technique or decoration. 
 And yet how inevitably the instinct of the painter 
 placed that fine white against the blue and edged it 
 with dull gold! How beautiful the picture is in 
 colour, and how appropriate that beauty of colour 
 is to the theme portrayed! How tenderly he has 
 drawn the eyes and mouth and painted the matted 
 hair! How beautifully he touched the head with 
 radiating lines of gold ! It is a beautiful Bellini 
 even a great one and comparable in its intensity 
 of feeling to the fine Pieta at the Brera, Milan 
 (No. 214), and the Blood of the Redeemer in the 
 London National Gallery (No. 1233). All three 
 pictures have the same tragic quality. A recent 
 acquisition by the Louvre. 
 
 Benozzo Gozzoli. Triumph of St. Thomas 
 Aquinas. A scattered composition that is more 
 of a map or diagram than a picture, but with some 
 strong heads and faces in it and some good draw- 
 ing and colouring. Notice the heads and robes in 
 the groups at bottom where the drapery is very 
 uneasy and the floor cloth waves in folds. Attrac- 
 tive evangelists are at the top. 
 
 . (Attributed.) Madonna, Child, and Saints. 
 
 It has much of Fra Angelico's influence about it 
 and is some sort of a school piece emanating from 
 him. It is prosaic and lacks spirit besides being 
 a little summary in drawing. The figures on the 
 frame and the predella are the most interesting 
 parts of the altar-piece, but even this work (as in the 
 
16 THE LOUVRE 
 
 central panel) is too poor in drawing for either Fra 
 Angelico or Benozzo. Look at the hands. 
 
 1167. Bianchi, Francesco. Madonna and Child with 
 Saints. A fine altar-piece, possibly by some Fer- 
 rarese painter whose name is unknown to history. 
 It is nearer to the altar-piece by Ercole Grandi 
 (No. 1119) in the National Gallery, London, than 
 to any other picture. It also shows the influence 
 of Francia. It is cold in the blues and the faces 
 have been cleaned until they look flat and wooden, 
 but there is still simple composition and good sen- 
 timent. The saints are fine characters, the archi- 
 tecture and landscape are excellent, and the little 
 angels playing on instruments at the foot are quite 
 charming. The white medallion on the base of the 
 throne is said to be a peculiar Ferrarese ear-mark, 
 but you will see it in the Albertinelli (No. 1114) 
 hanging near at hand. 
 
 2330. Bol, Ferdinand. Portrait of a Mathematician. 
 A good portrait with well-drawn forehead, eyes, 
 mouth, and cheeks. The surface has been cleaned 
 but the drawing still holds fairly well. 
 
 2328. Philosopher in Meditation. A picture not 
 
 showing Bol at his best, but curious because the 
 philosopher is the same model as in the Bol pic- 
 ture (No. 48) in the Brussels Gallery and identical 
 with the man called Rembrandt's brother in a 
 picture by Rembrandt at The Hague (No. 560). 
 It is odd that the alleged Rembrandt pictures 
 should need to borrow Bol's models. 
 
 1668. Bolognese School. Judgment of Paris. Rather 
 hard in drawing (notice the hands) but with a boy- 
 ish immaturity and sincerity that is amusing. The 
 landscape is as crude as the figures. 
 
BORGOGNONE 17 
 
 1169. Bol traffic, Giovanni Antonio. The Virgin of 
 the Casio Family. A large and rather crudely 
 drawn picture with excellent donors at right and 
 left and a poor angel in the sky that seems the 
 afterthought of some cleaning-room artist. The 
 Child, the Madonna, the saint are all somewhat 
 wooden that is, hard in surface. 
 
 1171. Bonifazio dei Pitati. Holy Family. With a 
 fine landscape and a rich colour effect. It is a 
 half-arch gathering of gaily dressed figures under 
 a tree and columns, with a bright sky on either 
 
 side. 
 
 1178. Bordone, Paris. Vertumnus and Pomona. It is 
 
 hard in drawing and dry in handling. Look at the 
 ropy hair and the poor, raspberry-coloured gown. 
 It is not Bordone at his best. 
 
 1179. Portrait of a Man. A dark but very accept- 
 able portrait, done with much elegance of materials 
 in costume, column, and curtain. How well the 
 mouth and eyes are drawn! And the hands, too, 
 are well done. The red patches of flesh colour, 
 peculiar to Bordone, are here. 
 
 1181. Borgognone, II (Ambrogio Fossano). Presenta- 
 tion in the Temple. In Borgognone's usual vein, 
 with draperies at right angles as regards their lines 
 (see the blue robe of the Madonna) and something 
 of the sentiment and the sootiness of shadow that 
 are associated with the Milanese School. Somewhat 
 hurt, but still decorative in the gilded architecture 
 and the fruit. 
 
 1182 \ St. Peter and St. Augustine with Donors. 
 
 1182A/Two wings of an altar-piece with saints and 
 donors. The portraits of the kneeling donors are 
 
18 THE LOUVRE 
 
 very good, though lead-hued in the flesh, as is usual 
 with Borgognone. 
 
 1295. Botticelli, Sandro. Madonna of the Magnificat. 
 
 Said to be a replica of the one in the Uffizi (No. 
 1267 bis). It is probably a copy, and not a very 
 good one at that. 
 
 1296. Madonna, Christ, and St. John. There are 
 
 various reasons for supposing it is not by Botti- 
 celli, but there is little question about its being a 
 picture of great charm and beauty. It can get 
 along without a name. In refined sensitiveness of 
 feeling it is wonderful. All three figures are a little 
 abnormal in their intensity. The drawing is hurt 
 by cleaning but is still excellent, and the colour is 
 perfect in serenity and charm. What beautiful 
 haloes and what lovely flowers! The drawing of 
 the tree trunks and foliage is worthy of note. 
 There is something in the grey trunks against 
 the sky that suggests Amico di Sandro, as also in the 
 flowers, the drawing of the noses, the eyes, the 
 mouths; but there are other parts of it that suggest 
 the style of Fra Filippo with Botticelli's colour. 
 A beautiful picture whoever did it. The same 
 painter did the picture No. 1303 in the Uffizi, 
 there ascribed to Botticelli. 
 
 liovanni Tornabuoni and the Graces. A 
 
 broken fragment of fresco (on the Daru staircase) 
 which has still great beauty about it. The lovely 
 types with wistful faces, the appealing, if mannered, 
 hands, and the fluttering draperies are all moving 
 forward to meet the chief figure at the right. The 
 action is rather well given notwithstanding the 
 sharp drawing. The colour is still beautiful al- 
 though much of it has gone especially in the gold- 
 
BOTTICELLI, SCHOOL OF 19 
 
 patterned and reddish robe in the centre. The 
 outlines are wonderful in their rhythmic flow, re- 
 peating and supplementing or contrasting with one 
 another. Look at the outlines of the chins; how 
 arbitrary, yet how beautiful as pure line they are! 
 
 Botticelli, School of. Lorenzo Tornabuoni and 
 the Liberal Arts. A companion piece to No. 1297 
 and from the same source (the Villa Lemmi, near 
 Florence), but the catalogue seems to intimate that 
 it is not entirely by Botticelli. There is no doubt 
 he inspired it, designed it, and himself did the 
 figure of Lorenzo at the left and the seated figure 
 at the right; but in some of the other figures the 
 faces seem prettier and the robes smoother than 
 is usual with Botticelli. The colour, too, seems 
 not so delicate as in No. 1297 though excellent in 
 itself. Perhaps the stronger notes of colour here 
 are due to less abrasion or fading of hues. In any 
 event, there is no certainty that Botticelli did not 
 do the whole work. The variation from No. 1297 
 is too slight to draw conclusions from with any 
 assurance. 
 
 Madonna and Child. The attribution is 
 questioned by many critics. Mr. Berenson thinks 
 it is a copy by Jacopo del Sellajo of a lost orig- 
 inal by Amico di Sandro. This, involving as it 
 does no less than five different hypotheses (1, a 
 copy; 2, by Jacopo; 3, of an original; 4, lost; 
 5, by Amico, who is a figment of Mr. Berenson's 
 imagination), may be thought rather far-fetched. 
 But the drawing is practically the same as in No. 
 1663, which Mr. Berenson also gives to Amico di 
 Sandro. So he is consistent in his imaginings. It 
 is a good picture as good in its sky, trees, flowers, 
 
20 THE LOUVRE 
 
 and the two fine heads in the background as some 
 Botticellis. The Child is the same type as in the 
 Magnificat here (No. 1295). By the same hand 
 is a Madonna at Chantilly put down to Filippo 
 Lippi. The picture has been overcleaned but still 
 has beauty of colour. 
 
 2336. Brekelenkam, Quieringh Gerritz. Monk Writ- 
 ing. To be compared (in connection with the work 
 of Gerard Dou, whom he followed) with the pic- 
 ture by Rembrandt of a Hermit Reading (No. 
 2541A), to ascertain, if possible, the painter of the 
 latter picture. Otherwise the picture is of no great 
 importance. 
 
 1911. Bril, Paul. Pan and Syrinx. Rather fine in the 
 sky and distance if minute and finical in the fore- 
 ground. The attribution is not too solidly based. 
 See also No. 1910 hanging near by. 
 
 1184. BronzhlO, Angelo. Portrait of a Sculptor. A 
 
 rather hard figure that unhappily stands out from 
 the air of the room at the back. The head and the 
 face are hard, too, and the statuette is not very 
 well held. The colour is sombre. Bronzino did 
 better things than this. 
 
 1916. Brouwer, Adriaen. The Smoker. A piece of 
 pure painter's work which shows how sure Brouwer 
 was in the handling of paint. See how he has 
 dragged it around the nose, and on the cheek, and 
 rubbed it in the smoke. The same smoker appears 
 in a picture attributed to Frans Hals the Younger 
 in the Dresden Gallery (No. 1406). See also the 
 good Brouwers here (Nos. 1915 and 1913). 
 
 1925. Brueghel, Jan the Elder (Velvet). The Bridge 
 of Talavera. A landscape with small figures in the 
 
CALCAR 21 
 
 foreground. Done with much feeling for the pic- 
 turesque and with good colour results. See also 
 No. 1926. 
 
 1919\ Paradise and The Air. With much good 
 
 1920 / painting but some spottiness in the small objects. 
 The composition is rather scattered. 
 
 1917. Brueghel, Peter the Elder (Peasant). The 
 t * Beggars. What a piece of fresh painting and de- 
 lightful colour! And what drawing! There are 
 few Netherland pictures in the Louvre that will 
 go beyond it. Never mind the disagreeable sub- 
 ject ; look at the workmanship the handling. The 
 same hand did the Peasant W 7 edding (No. 717) 
 at Vienna. The Brueghels are confused with one 
 another. See the Vienna notes upon them. 
 
 1917A. The Parable of the Blind. It is probably a 
 
 copy of Peasant Brueghel by his son, but it is a 
 decent piece of painting nevertheless. The figures 
 and the clothing are well handled. It is technical 
 skill with some distinction even in the copyist. 
 With a landscape that is not too well done in the 
 trees. 
 
 N. N. Bruyn, Barthel. Portraits of Donors. Two 
 panels of some excellence, recently acquired by 
 the Louvre. Good both as portraiture and as 
 decorative art, though a little raw in the interiors 
 and coats of arms. They are probably the wings 
 of an altar-piece. In Room XV. 
 
 1185. Calcar (Johann von Calcker). Portrait of a 
 Man. A well-executed picture that for some reason 
 fails to impress one as perhaps it should. Possibly 
 there is too much clever painting in costume and 
 not enough strength of impression in the sitter. 
 
22 THE LOUVRE 
 
 Notice how well the hands are done. The head also 
 is rightly drawn and there is atmospheric setting 
 to the picture. But we pass it by without any 
 awakened enthusiasm. Attributed to Calcar, an 
 imitator of Titian, but who knows much about 
 Calcar or his work? And where are the other pic- 
 tures he might have painted ? Are they masquerad- 
 ing as Titians and Pordenones in European col- 
 lections? 
 
 1203. Canaletto, Giovanni Antonio. The Salute at 
 Entrance of Grand Canal. A large and rather fine 
 Canaletto, with much truth and beauty in the build- 
 ings as well as in the sky, water, shipping, and 
 figures. This is the painter at his best, with artistic 
 feeling shown even in such small things as the black 
 gondolas in the middle distance, or the coloured 
 groups at the right. The sky lofty, with cumulus 
 clouds. 
 
 1211. Carpaccio, Vittore. St. Stephen Preaching in 
 Jerusalem. Not a remarkable Carpaccio, compared 
 with his pictures in Venice, but a picture with good 
 colour effects got from rich robes, from a naive, ill- 
 drawn group of figures in the foreground, and from 
 architecture at the back. Carpaccio always pleases 
 by his frank, almost boyish way of seeing and doing. 
 Notice the seated figures in front and the wander- 
 ing folk in pretty garments at the back. And at 
 the left the intent, listening quality of the large 
 figure with hands clasped behind him. The draw- 
 ing in the figures is rather bad and the landscape 
 is crude. Possibly Carpaccio was not entirely re- 
 sponsible for this. There is some school work in it. 
 
 1252A. Catena, Vincenzo. Portrait of a Man. A min- 
 utely drawn head (with a sharp nose and pursed 
 
CIMABUE 23 
 
 mouth) of some Venetian of rank. An early por- 
 trait, and rather good without being profound. 
 The attribution is not so certain as it seems. Ca- 
 tena was usually not so small in his drawing. 
 
 1259. Cima, Giovanno Batista. The Virgin and Child. 
 
 ** One of the best of all the Cimas in its complete- 
 ness, its oneness of effect, its good colour, and its 
 equally good landscape with its feeling for distance 
 and space. To the landscape and sky one returns 
 with delight. They are serene, peaceful, charming. 
 The figures are honest with no excess of sentiment, 
 they are accurately drawn and handsomely robed, 
 and they hold their place in the picture without 
 effort or strain. The drawing is sharp (notably 
 in the hands and edges of the drapery) but one 
 does not feel it uncomfortably. And what colour 
 in the green water, supplementing the green of the 
 robes, and varying the green of the uplands ! The 
 baldacchino well, the baldacchino is not the best 
 part of the picture. 
 
 1260. Cimabue, Giovanni. Madonna and Angels. 
 
 The attribution is disputed, but there is no doubt 
 about this picture being in the Cimabue style. 
 It shows the growth up and out of the Byzantine 
 manner, which, however, is still apparent in the 
 green shadows of the flesh, the long face and nose, 
 the thin, slit-like eyes, the long fingers, the sharply 
 lined and folded drapery. The whole group of the 
 figures with the chair does not recede but slips 
 down and almost out of the picture. The angels 
 are supposed to be surrounding and enclosing the 
 chair, but in reality they stand one upon another. 
 There is no perspective, no third dimension, no 
 air, no light. The angel heads, where they are 
 
24 THE LOUVRE 
 
 turned aside, show a very slight study of nature, 
 or rather a looking away for a moment from the 
 Byzantine manikin, which had been copied for 
 years. The colour is primitive but probably now 
 dulled somewhat. 
 
 315. Claude Lorraine. David and Samuel. A warm 
 Claude, almost Turneresque in tone, with some 
 good air and sky. A good landscape for all its aca- 
 demic, stilted quality. 
 
 312. - Village Holiday. A picture that Turner must 
 have admired, if he ever saw it. In the same vein 
 as No. 315 and of much beauty in its air, sky, and 
 distance. 
 
 311. Campo Vacdno, Rome. Full of light and air 
 
 with a fine colour harmony. Claude seems here 
 to get more fine effect out of buildings than he 
 does out of trees or hills. 
 
 316. Ulysses Restores Chryseis to Her Father. A 
 
 seaport with a yellow sky and beetling architec- 
 ture. Quite in the vein of work afterward fol- 
 lowed with greater artistic effect by Turner. See 
 also No. 314. 
 
 2738. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of the 
 Death of the Virgin). Deposition. A picture in 
 three compartments with a St. Francis above and 
 a Last Supper below. The Supper is perhaps the 
 best part of it, with its good drawing and warm 
 colour. The central panel is a little dull although 
 it has some good feeling. It was done by a differ- 
 ent hand from the one that did the top and bottom 
 panels. Possibly Cleve did it. The figure of the 
 Magdalen with outspread hands is the same type 
 that appears in the picture No. 537 in the Brussels 
 
CLOUET, FRANfOIS 25 
 
 Gallery, there ascribed to Claeszoon (Le Maitre 
 d'Oultremont). See note under Munich Gallery 
 picture by Cleve. 
 
 2738A. Cleve, School of. A Monk Offering His Heart 
 to Christ. The picture comes nearer to the School 
 of Gerard David or Patinir than Juste van Cleve. 
 The Madonna and Child here are brighter-hued 
 than a David or Patinir and more like the picture 
 at Brussels (No. 349) also put down as by Cleve. 
 But the landscape points directly to Patinir. 
 
 126. Clouet, Jean (called Jannet). Portrait of 
 Francis I. Of the same flattened character in face 
 and figure as No. 1007 but not by the same painter. 
 The hands here are fairly well drawn, the dress is 
 regal in its magnificence, the background is a rich 
 red pattern. The face and the neck have been too 
 much cleaned. Another Francis I (No. 127) here 
 shown may be the original, and this picture a repe- 
 tition of it on a larger scale by some one of the 
 school. 
 
 128. Clouet, Francois. Portrait of Charles IX. A 
 
 * small full-length with much beauty of detail, col- 
 our, and character. It is a marvel of exact drawing 
 and is almost certainly by the hand of the leader 
 in this Clouet portraiture, whoever he may be. 
 
 130. - Portrait of Elizabeth of Austria. Smooth in 
 
 * the surfaces, transparent in the glazes, fine in the 
 colour, and much ornamented in the costume. 
 What a wonderful costume! The hands are little 
 more than suggested as colour. It is a lovely 
 portrait of a proud and handsome woman. One of 
 the best portraits in this sixteenth-century French 
 room. Probably by the painter of No. 128. 
 
26 THE LOUVRE 
 
 129. Portrait of Henri II. It may not be by the 
 
 * painter of No. 128, but in any event it is a good 
 portrait. How well the figure stands! And how 
 fine the type, the costume, and the suggested en- 
 velope of air! 
 
 127A. Portrait of Pierre Outhe. A portrait of much 
 
 * force with a strong Clouet tang about it. It is 
 pretty certainly his work. Signed 1562, which 
 helps corroborate its internal evidence. An excel- 
 lent portrait though now a little stained and 
 cleaned. 
 
 133A \ Clouet Of Navarre. Portraits of Louis de Saint- 
 134 / Gelais and The Duchesse de Roannois. Smooth 
 in the surfaces and rather pretty portraits. Super- 
 ficially judged, they seem to be near the painter 
 of No. 128, but they are put down to Clouet of 
 Navarre, a supposed brother of Jean Clouet, who 
 was the father of Francois Clouet. The Clouets 
 and their works need illumination before any one 
 can pronounce on their pictures with certainty. 
 In the meantime we may admire the pictures with- 
 out fear, for they are very good. 
 
 2737. Cologne, School of. Deposition. A fine altar- 
 * piece (the centre of a triptych, the wings having 
 disappeared) now much hurt by the bright gilt 
 panels put in at the top. Here is religious feeling, 
 pathos, tragedy what you will of a very sincere 
 kind; and with it there is much beauty of detail 
 and splendour of colour. The drawing in the 
 hands is cramped, the drapery mannered in its 
 folds, the action constrained; but in spite of that 
 it is an excellent decorative altar-piece. Notice 
 the beauty of the reds and whites, the rich brocades, 
 the old-gold ground. Variously attributed to Lucas 
 
CORREGGIO 27 
 
 van Leyden, Metsys, and others, without preju- 
 dice to the picture. 
 
 \ Episodes in the Life of St. Ursula. How 
 
 / very decorative in robes, jewels, gilding, and 
 architectural framings! Nor are the figures with- 
 out dignity, standing erect as they do and showing 
 the repeated perpendicular line. They have not 
 the nobility of the Carpaccio figures and yet fall 
 but little short of them. Look at the young king in 
 No. 2738D or St. Ursula in the companion picture. 
 
 1117. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Mystic Mar- 
 riage of St. Catherine. One of the most beautiful 
 of all the Correggios. The spirit of it is not re- 
 ligious but simply natural. These people are 
 bothered with neither humanism nor ecclesiasticism, 
 with neither history nor philosophy, nor even the 
 humdrum of social existence. They are shepherds 
 in Arcadia, gathered together for a romp and a frolic. 
 Notice the shepherd at the back, with his smile, 
 that seems the key-note to the spirit of the group. 
 The Madonna and Child are just as earthly and 
 human as the shepherd. The St. Catherine seems 
 the only shy and quiet one. How charming she is! 
 The hands look at the gathering and grouping of 
 the hands as a focal point for the eye. They are 
 the centre of the composition, which is made up 
 of masses of light surrounded by dark. The colour 
 is very lovely, and the drawing very good in a 
 large, comprehensive sense that is to say, the 
 feeling of bulk and body in the figures is well given, 
 though certain outlines may lack in accuracy. The 
 handling is free for the painter and his time, as one 
 may see in the beautifully painted robes. And 
 what beautiful hair! A superb landscape at the 
 
28 THE LOUVRE 
 
 back. The faces have been too much cleaned and 
 the whole picture has been retouched in places, but 
 beauty is still in it. 
 
 1118. Antiope. The figure of Antiope as a central 
 
 ** spot of light (with repeated spots of lesser light in 
 the Satyr and the Cupid, and the whole group sur- 
 rounded by cool darks) is really wonderful. It 
 was the Correggio convention to compose in that 
 way, and the picture as a pattern of light upon 
 dark carries effectively at a distance. But as a 
 representation of reality the form of Antiope is 
 not very convincing. The lines seem awkward, 
 and for a figure supposed to be sleeping, almost 
 impossible. There is a feeling of make-believe 
 about it, as though the model were posing for effec- 
 tive lines. This is also apparent in the Cupid, 
 who is trying to sleep but is wide awake through 
 the discomfort of his position. The drawing of 
 the Cupid is curious, the foreshortening questiona- 
 ble, the body only to be surmised, the knees and 
 feet very good. So, too, with Antiope. The neck 
 and the right shoulder are odd, the nose and the 
 mouth protrusive, the feet and legs well given. The 
 lines of Antiope's figure are repeated in the Satyr 
 (Jupiter) and contrasted in the Cupid, with a re- 
 sultant strengthening of the Antiope. As colour 
 the picture is cool too much so, perhaps. The 
 handling cannot be judged because of much clean- 
 ing and repainting, from which the picture has 
 suffered. The landscape suggestion at the right is 
 excellent. It is a masterpiece, but the present gen- 
 eration does not rave over it as did Thomas Cou- 
 ture and his contemporaries. What is worse, it 
 does not even look at it which is something of a 
 pity. 
 
CRANACH THE ELDER 29 
 
 1261. Costa, Lorenzo. Court of Isabella d'Este. This 
 picture is less interesting in its figures than in its 
 landscape something that Francia and Costa de- 
 veloped to a remarkable degree at Bologna. Their 
 work there in the St. Cecilia Chapel is still bear- 
 ing witness to their extraordinary early success. 
 The landscape should be compared with the Bologna 
 frescoes. The light here is dull and somewhat cold ; 
 but what a radical departure in trees, mountains, 
 water, sky, air from the work of, say, Perugino! 
 The landscape is a lovely ground upon which the 
 small figures are little more than graceful, agreea- 
 ble spots of colour. The half-nude figure with the 
 bow, at the right, should be compared with the 
 Costa full-length nude at Budapest (No. 124). 
 This landscape was done for the same room in the 
 Mantuan palace of Isabella d'Este as No. 1567, by 
 Perugino, in this gallery. 
 
 N. N. Coter, Colin de. The Trinity. This picture is 
 related to what is now called the " School of Robert 
 Campin," or the Master of Flemalle. Compare it 
 with the Frankfort picture (No. 102-104) by the 
 Master of Flemalle, or two panels in the Hermitage 
 (Nos. 447 and 448) put down to the School of Van 
 der Weyden. They are all closely allied. This 
 Louvre picture, though stringy and angular, is 
 well done. 
 
 2703. Cranach the Elder, Lucas. Venus. One of the 
 familiar figures that Cranach drew a number of 
 times. As pure outline drawing it is attractive. 
 Notice the town under the brow of the mountain 
 with its reflection in the pretty little lake. 
 
 2703A. Portrait of a Man. In Cranach's style, and 
 
 a fairly good work. The hands are cramped, the 
 
30 THE LOUVRE 
 
 face a little hot in colour, the figure very flat. 
 There are suggestions of the younger Cranach about 
 it, especially in the ill-drawn hands and the pinched 
 face. 
 
 2705. Portrait of a Man. The miniature-like work 
 
 in the drawing of the hair, beard, and fur collar 
 would suggest an early example of Cranach. The 
 Germanic type is given with that truth which lacks 
 the third dimension. It has no depth nor thickness. 
 Notice the flatness of the hat and figure. The 
 colour is agreeable. Probably by the elder Cranach. 
 See also No. 2704. 
 
 N. N. Portrait of a Young Girl. A beautiful pic- 
 ture. It is really little more than black and white, 
 but it owes much of its beauty to the fine quality 
 of the blacks and their relation to the whites. A 
 naive type. This is Cranach at his best. Look 
 at the beautifully drawn little hands and the lovely 
 painting of the hair. 
 
 1263. Credi, Lorenzo di. Madonna and Child with 
 Saints. Quite in the style of Lorenzo, with his 
 sentiment and types both of them a little weak. 
 The robes are good and the architecture interesting, 
 but the colour is forbidding and the regularity of 
 the work is prosaic. Vasari says it was " the best 
 work Lorenzo ever made," but then Vasari was 
 given to the superlative. 
 
 1264. Christ and the Magdalen. A slight but rather 
 
 attractive picture with good draperies and pic- 
 turesque trees. Another picture like it is in the 
 Uifizi. This one has more colour in the flesh and 
 robes than usual and is not so artificial in feeling 
 as the average Lorenzo. 
 
DAVID, GERARD 31 
 
 2343. Cuyp, Aelbert. Riding Oat. A better picture 
 than No. 2342, with good horses and riders and a 
 fine landscape. The sky and clouds should be 
 noticed for their excellence. How well the men 
 sit their horses, and what fine types they are! 
 
 2342. - Starting for a Ride. With good figures, cos- 
 tumes, horses, and landscape. A modified diagonal 
 composition which Cuyp possibly got from some 
 one such as Van Goyen. There is some air in the 
 picture, though most of it has been rubbed out by 
 cleaning. 
 
 2341. Landscape. A fine sky with rising, cumulus 
 
 clouds and good atmosphere between the fore- 
 ground and the distant city. Notice the bulk and 
 weight of the cow lying down. There is a yellow 
 sunset, and at the back a Dutch city, picturesquely 
 given. 
 
 2344. - Portraits of Children. The painting is smooth 
 but effective, the colour yellowish but agreeable, 
 the drawing large and quite right. It is perhaps 
 prettified in its types and lacks in strong character- 
 isation. 
 
 1957. David, Gerard. Marriage in Cana. A picture 
 * that has been attributed to almost every painter 
 of the early Flemish School but is still looking for 
 its master. Mr. Weale thinks it was finished by 
 Isenbrandt, which may be true, but the picture 
 is too good for various hands to have painted upon 
 it. The draperies are large and full, the colour 
 clear, the architecture in the distance quite true. 
 Look at the figure in red at the table and the flowers 
 back of her; at the still-life, the robes. The pic- 
 ture is hardly a mixture. Besides, what does Mr. 
 
32 THE LOUVRE 
 
 Weale or any one else know about the work of 
 Isenbrandt ? He is only a name. This work 
 comes very close to David as we now know him. 
 
 2348. Dou, Gerard. The Dropsical Woman. A glassy, 
 enamelled Dou in his popular style, with much de- 
 tail. Poor in colour and cold in light. And it was 
 sold in the eighteenth century for 30,000 florins! 
 There are fashions in art shops as elsewhere. 
 
 1985. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Jean Grusset 
 Richardot. A portrait of commanding excellence 
 and superb aplomb. It is certainty itself in the 
 fine head of the man with its noble forehead 
 and beautifully drawn eyes, well-modelled nose, 
 and suggested mouth. How very serene and well 
 poised the man appears! The landscape back of 
 him is excellent almost beyond Van Dyck's best. 
 The boy may have been an afterthought. He does 
 not fit in the picture any too well. His forehead is 
 problematical, while the eyes are rather ill drawn. 
 Some discrepancy in dates leads the catalogue to 
 doubt whether Van Dyck did the picture, but the 
 dates are more likely to be wrong than the picture. 
 It is in Van Dyck's manner, particularly in the 
 man's forehead, eyes, nose, and cheeks. 
 
 1983. Portrait of the Artist. By no means his best 
 
 work. It is carelessly done (see the moustache and 
 mouth), and has been cleaned and somewhat re- 
 painted. There is a certain air of romance, bra- 
 vado, devil-may-care about it, but as art it is not a 
 great effort. 
 
 1972. Portrait of Francois de Moncade. With some 
 
 heat in the face and curious drawing in the left 
 eye, but nevertheless a considerable portrait. It 
 
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 33 
 
 is done in the painter's hasty manner. He exe- 
 cuted several portraits of this man. No. 1971 in 
 this gallery shows him on horseback a larger but 
 less effective picture. 
 
 1975. - Portrait of the Duke of Richmond. There is 
 little about it to indicate Van Dyck's brush. 
 Look at the clumsy drawing of the eyes and eye- 
 lids, the stuck-on nose, the tight little mouth, and 
 the thoroughly commonplace painting of the hair, 
 the shirt, and the breeches. 
 
 1974. Portrait of a Lady and Her Daughter. In the 
 
 painter's courtly style, done with care, and with 
 good effect. The face of the lady is beautifully 
 drawn, as are also the aristocratic hands. What an 
 attractive personality ! The little child, more com- 
 monplace in colouring, hardly belongs to so dig- 
 nified a composition, but is not obtrusive. The 
 child's face is more freely done than the lady's. 
 The picture is well held together. Notice the paint- 
 ing of the black dress near the knees, and the right 
 placing of the golden curtain back of the lady's 
 head. A fine Van Dyck, done with grace as well 
 as truth, nobility of mien and carriage as well as 
 life. 
 
 1976. - Portrait of a Man. A bit careless in the right 
 eye and the left wrist, but it has presence about it, 
 and some painter's enthusiasm in the doing of it. 
 Also there is some richness of colour. The handling 
 is still apparent. 
 
 1967. - Portrait of Charles I. The painter has ex- 
 
 ** celled this in simple portraiture, but as a portrait 
 
 and picture combined this group is perhaps his 
 
 masterpiece. It is fine in composition, and the 
 
34 THE LOUVRE 
 
 landscape at the back is beyond reproach as a 
 pattern. Charles himself is well drawn, and stands 
 well without much pose or pretence or consciousness. 
 He is very well painted. Notice how deftly the 
 textures are rendered in the silk coat, the red trou- 
 sers and the buff boots. The equerry (the Duke of 
 Hamilton?) is rightly subordinated and kept down 
 in light, but he, too, is well drawn. Even the horse 
 has come in for better portraiture than Van Dyck 
 usually bestowed on his chargers. The sky and 
 trees should also be noticed, as also the set-in of 
 the figures, and the atmospheric envelope. Aside 
 from its technique, what a noble presence he has 
 given to Charles. He is undersized, to be sure, 
 but every inch a king, standing there without any 
 of the trappings of a throne, dressed as a gentleman 
 merely, and yet dignified, restful, monarch-like. 
 Some there are who see in it a sadness premoni- 
 tory of the king's fate, and others there be who see 
 the king in a hunting scene, but the painter prob- 
 ably had neither thought in mind. There is told 
 a tale of the picture being cut in two by certain 
 heirs who could not agree that either should have 
 it in its entirety. The line of the cut is still appar- 
 ent. 
 
 1973. Portrait of a Man and a Child. It is a black- 
 ish affair with considerable pose and affectation 
 about both man and child. Look at the hands 
 with their little oratorical gesture, or the turn of the 
 heads. The child's head seems the better of the two. 
 But neither of them is comparable to the charac- 
 ters in No. 1974. 
 
 1977. Portrait of a Man. A picture of some dis- 
 tinction without being a masterpiece. It is appar- 
 
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 35 
 
 ently in fairly good condition. The head is well 
 drawn, the drapery a little full, the whites a bit 
 formal in their arrangement. But it is a good 
 portrait. 
 
 Portraits of the Duke of Bavaria and His 
 
 Brother. Not so impressive as it looks at first 
 glance. The cleaning-room processes must have 
 damaged it, and there must always have been too 
 much armour in evidence. The figures are not very 
 well placed on the canvas, but there is some haugh- 
 tiness about it, some aristocracy of face and hand, 
 superficial though it be. 
 
 Portrait of Frangois de Moncade. It has been 
 
 too badly repainted to judge of its merits as paint- 
 ing at the present time. There is grandiloquence 
 about it, and it is one of Van Dyck's best equestrian 
 portraits, but it falls a little short of the mark. In 
 his late style. 
 
 The Virgin and Donors. A good subject pic- 
 ture, done in Van Dyck's best manner, with a 
 beautiful type for the Madonna, and some charm 
 in the Child. The portraits of the Donors are 
 plain and without pretence, both heads being strong 
 and well done. The colour is, or would be, very 
 good, were it not darkened by the painter's per- 
 sistent habit of painting flesh over black under- 
 basing. The effect of this shows in the sooty hands 
 of the Madonna, Child, and Donors, and in the 
 discoloured blue robe. But it is a very good piece 
 of work. The influence of Titian is apparent in it. 
 Somewhat retouched and hurt by restorations. 
 
 St. Sebastian. Not so bad a Van Dyck in 
 
 either form or colour as some other works here 
 
36 THE LOUVRE 
 
 attributed to him. He was not a success in these 
 subjects, and evidently cared not too much about 
 them. No. 1961 is a poor affair, and the myth- 
 ological themes (Nos. 1965 and 1966) are too pretty, 
 though they are agreeable in colour. 
 
 2364. Eeckhout, Gerbrandt van den. Anne Conse- 
 crating Her Son. A Rembrandtesque picture with 
 dull light and some accent of small high lights in 
 the robes and gold of the chair. Notice the hands, 
 for they are not unlike Rembrandt's except that 
 they are a little finer and not very well drawn. 
 The colour is good and the figures of the woman 
 and child are well given. Notice also that the 
 golden robes are done not unlike those in the Rem- 
 brandt, Woman Bathing (No. 2549), opposite. 
 The standing figure of the Rabbi in a turban is, 
 perhaps, the same model as the turbaned figure 
 in the Good Samaritan by Rembrandt across the 
 gallery (No. 2357). This man's work should be 
 borne in mind when examining the pictures put 
 down to Rembrandt. 
 
 1986. Eyck, Jan van. Madonna with the Donor. In 
 
 spite of some bombardment from modern criticism, 
 this picture is still attributed to Jan van Eyck, and 
 not to his older brother Hubert. And for the very 
 good reason that no one knows anything posi- 
 tively about Hubert's style, but they do know some- 
 thing about Jan's style. Some might think the 
 picture in the style of Roger van der Weyden or 
 Christus, but it comes near enough to Jan van 
 Eyck. In any event, it is a famous work and has 
 always been considered a marvel in its goldsmith- 
 like workmanship. What superb characterisa- 
 tion in the kneeling donor, supposed to be Chan- 
 
FLEMISH SCHOOL 37 
 
 cellor Rollin ! It is a fine portrait. The Madonna 
 and Child are quite as fine in their way. The 
 colour is not so noticeable as the detail, in which 
 the eye can wander for a long time, finding new 
 beauties at every turn. Notice the crown, the 
 globe held by the Child, the edge of the Madonna's 
 robe, the architecture, the floor, the flowers. Ex- 
 amine them carefully. And do not overlook the 
 town (supposed to be Lyons), the river, and the 
 distant landscape so serenely beautiful. Perhaps 
 there is too much in the picture. It lacks the sim- 
 plicity of, say, the Arnolfini portraits in the National 
 Gallery, London (No. 1186). But it is no less a 
 marvel. 
 
 1677A j Ferrarese School. St. George and St. Apotti- 
 1677s / naris. Two small figures, beautiful in colour, 
 standing with much dignity of presence in archi- 
 tectural niches. In the present (1913) arrangement 
 on the wall they are difficult to see. They should 
 be on a screen where the beauty of the costumes 
 and the depth of the colour could be seen. 
 
 1285. Ferrari, Gaudenzio. St. Paul. The figure is 
 somewhat heavy and encumbered with too much 
 beard and drapery. The protruding hands and 
 feet are very well done, and the landscape is un- 
 usually good. 
 
 2203. Flemish School (15th Century). The Dead 
 Christ. Strong in its sentiment even tragic. 
 The figure is angular and stiff, the drawing cramped, 
 the colour excellent. The storm-clouds in the sky 
 are suggestive. The work shows the influence of 
 Van der Weyden in the figures, and yet reminds 
 one of Metsys. The landscape is also like a Metsys. 
 
38 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2204A. Portrait of an Old Man. A fine head that 
 
 speaks for itself in both drawing and character. 
 It was at one time thought more German than 
 Flemish, and attributed to Holbein. It is almost 
 good enough for Holbein, though not by him. It 
 is now thought by M. Durand-Greville to be by 
 Juste van Cleve. 
 
 2198. Pastoral Instruction. It has good colour about 
 
 it and some excellent architecture, with much detail 
 of drawing. Once thought to be a Memling, but it 
 has no Memling look. It is something of a puzzle. 
 
 2202. The Annunciation. The sentiment is pure, 
 
 the figures simple, the colours rich. It is well drawn 
 and painted. And with considerable certainty of 
 touch, as in the brasses, the jewels, the flowers. 
 Through the window a charming landscape is seen. 
 At one time attributed to Lucas van Leyden and 
 again to Memling. It is a difficult picture to place 
 with any positiveness, but it is probably nearer to 
 the Master of Flemalle than any one else. See the 
 Madrid picture, No. 1514. 
 
 2738B. Madonna and Child. This is a comparatively 
 
 new acquisition and unfortunately sheds less light 
 on the Flemish School than on modern picture 
 copying. It has every indication of being of very 
 recent origin. Study the gold dotting on the ground, 
 the drawing, the smearing of the face to create the 
 appearance of old grime, the canvas. They tell 
 their own story. It is a copy of some miracle- 
 working Madonna picture. There is another and 
 perhaps earlier version in Buckingham Palace. 
 
 2372. Flinck, Govaert. Annunciation to the Shepherds. 
 
 A picture which the student of Rembrandt and his 
 school would do well to study for certain types 
 
FLORENTINE SCHOOL 39 
 
 (and their manner of drawing and painting) that 
 have a Rembrandtesque look those of the shep- 
 herds, for instance, as well as the angels and 
 putti. Study also the colour and lighting and the 
 Rembrandtesque hands. This picture is more like 
 Bol or Eeckhout than Flinck. In the mix-up of 
 Rembrandt and his pupils, it is not merely that 
 Rembrandt is confused with Bol, but that Bol is 
 confused with Flinck, Eeckout, and Fabritius, and 
 that they are all confused with one another. The 
 artistic personality of each of these followers has 
 yet to be established. Therefore it is at present 
 necessary to say about many pictures merely that 
 they are doubtful Rembrandts or Bols or Flincks 
 without attempting to assign them arbitrarily or 
 finally to any one. 
 
 2373. - Portrait of a Young Girl. One of Flinck's 
 most graceful performances. It has charm of per- 
 sonality in the sitter and is painted with good light, 
 air, and colour. The handling is not very sure, 
 but the student may see in the chains and jewels 
 how Flinck could produce something that might pass 
 for Rembrandt's handling with the unobservant. 
 
 1656. Florentine School. Annunciation. A school pic- 
 ture of some interest in art history. The angel 
 and the Madonna may be related to the workshop 
 of Verrocchio or Cosimo Rosselli. The picture 
 shows many influences. The angel and the lilies 
 are fairly good. 
 
 1663. Portrait of a Young Man. The picture is 
 
 somewhat curious in drawing but it is not inferior 
 in spirit. It belongs somewhere near the work- 
 shop of Botticelli, which is what Mr. Berenson 
 means when he attributes it to Amico di Sandro. 
 
40 THE LOUVRE 
 
 The drawing of the nose indicates the work of the 
 man who is now known under that name. Com- 
 pare it with No. 1300A, near at hand. 
 
 1643A. Esther Crowned by Ahasuerus. It is not very 
 
 well drawn, but by the use of gold and colours it 
 has been made a panel of considerable decorative 
 beauty. The types, the colour, and the gilding sug- 
 gest Jacopo del Sellajo, who is just now the recipient 
 of some things that will not fit Botticelli. Yet 
 Jacopo is a painter of some originality and imag- 
 ination in spite of modern criticism. Somewhat 
 repainted. 
 
 1661A. - Madonna and Child. A little formal in the 
 oval sweep of the blue drapery and a little stiff in 
 the pose of the Madonna and Child; but it is an 
 interesting picture for the student of attributions. 
 It seems a common-enough school piece, but that 
 should only add to the interest and the glory of the 
 chase. 
 
 1662. History of Virginia. A picture of some spirited 
 
 action, with figures in bright costumes against grey 
 architecture and landscape. It has the look of a 
 Jacopo del Sellajo. Mr. Berenson thinks it by 
 Amico di Sandro. Probably it is part of a cassone 
 front. No note of it is to be found in the La 
 Fenestre catalogue. 
 
 1274. St. John. A flattened face which possesses 
 
 much of the spirit and beauty that made Desi- 
 derio's reliefs famous. What fine feeling it has! 
 Mr. Berenson thinks it by Piero di Cosimo, but the 
 quality of it, the sentiment of it seem too fine for 
 Piero. It looks as though done from a marble. 
 Notice the sharpness of the profile. 
 
FRANCESCA, PIERO BELLA 41 
 
 N. N. Madonna, Child, and Four Angels. A panel 
 
 in distemper on a gesso ground, the white of which 
 shows through in spots. Not too well drawn and 
 a little crude, but a lovely bit of sentiment, as 
 shown in all the faces the angels in particular. 
 How beautiful the gold work and the flowers I 
 Without a number on the frame, and not to be 
 found in the La Fenestre catalogue. 
 
 288. Fouquet, Jean. Portrait of Cuillaume Juvenal 
 des Ursins. A large figure in a red dress flattened 
 against a gilded architectural background of much 
 decorative beauty. The face is powerful and the 
 figure large in bulk, but both are weakened by the 
 prominence of the ornate background. The colour 
 is rich in the books, cushion, and costume. 
 
 289. Portrait of Charles VII. In the same vein and 
 
 probably by the same hand that painted No. 288. 
 This portrait is better sustained because of the less 
 obtrusive ground at the back, but it has probably 
 darkened in the flesh and robe like No. 288. Notice 
 here, as a contrast to No. 288, the marked severity 
 of the background. These two portraits are fairly 
 well authenticated as Fouquets. 
 
 1300B. Francesca, Piero della. Madonna and Child. 
 
 Of all the Madonnas in the room of the Italian 
 Primitives, this is the most remarkable, the most 
 inspiring, the most startling in its beauty. If art 
 is a point of view and genius a way of looking at 
 things, then here is certainly the unusual view and 
 the individual vision. The picture violates almost 
 all preconceived or ordinary conceptions of Ma- 
 donnas, ideal faces, and figures. The face is not 
 pretty, not even handsome; the figure is abnor- 
 mally tall, flat in the bust, heavy in the waist, some- 
 
42 THE LOUVRE 
 
 what out of proportion in the head and neck; and 
 the Child is perhaps too small. Yet here is art in 
 the very oddness of the angle of vision, in the ab- 
 normal quality of the characterisation, in the lack 
 of the obvious and the commonplace. In spite of 
 its oddity, how lovely the type, how delicate the 
 roundness of the contours, how charming the senti- 
 ment! Moreover, here is true artistic feeling 
 feeling for form and colour. How splendidly the 
 rather awkward figures hold their place in the pat- 
 tern! What a sky and distance and feeling for 
 space! What wonderful depth and unusual quality 
 of colour in the costume! Cast your eyes around 
 the room, and match if you can those reds and 
 blues. They are superb. The picture is like a 
 star upon the wall. How it draws attention away 
 from everything else near it! It was certainly 
 never painted by Piero della Francesca. It lacks 
 his firmness of drawing, his robustness of figure, 
 his strength of characterisation. It is almost as 
 certainly by Baldovinetti. Mr. Berenson has quite 
 conclusively summed up the evidence for it in his 
 " Study and Criticism of Italian Art," vol. II, p. 23. 
 On the frame it is No. 1300, and is sometimes cata- 
 logued under the School of Botticelli. 
 
 1435. Francia, Francesco. Nativity. A small but 
 lovely little picture with a landscape full of air 
 and space. What a very pretty valley with distant 
 mountains! The figures are as beautiful in colour 
 as in sentiment. The picture is cold in light and 
 rather hard in the drawing, but a little master- 
 piece notwithstanding. 
 
 1436. Christ on the Cross. Somewhat excessive in 
 
 its sentiment and perhaps overdone in its tragic 
 
FRENCH SCHOOL 43 
 
 quality, but with a simple arrangement of the 
 figures, a finely drawn nude on the ground, and a 
 broad landscape. Like many of Francia's pictures, 
 it is cold in the sky, where one sees not very 
 realistic clouds. The colour is rather effective. 
 
 1437. Madonna and Child. It is a school piece for 
 
 all its close likeness to Francia. The hands are 
 faulty in drawing and there is a glassy quality 
 to the surface. The landscape is Francia-like but 
 a little crude. Compare it with the Francia No. 
 1435, near at hand. In the drawing of the figures 
 compare it again with No. 1436 by Francia, espe- 
 cially in the drawing of the hands. 
 
 1004. French School (Burgundian, 15th Century). 
 Pierre II, Duke of Bourbon, with St. Peter. Part 
 of a triptych, the centre of which is lost. A work 
 of some interest in the history of art because rep- 
 resenting the early French School which is now 
 beginning to take shadowy form. The drawing 
 seems larger than in the contemporary Netherlands 
 work and the colour scheme is different. Of course 
 there is a marked difference in the types. The red 
 of the costume is rich but the green and purple 
 lack a little in depth. The landscape is somewhat 
 crude. Mr. Fry thinks this and its companion 
 piece (No. 1005) emanated from the atelier of the 
 Master of Moulins. This is possible. Compare 
 the donors in No. 1005 and No. 1005A. Notice 
 that the painting in No. 1005A is fatter, cleaner, 
 surer than in No. 1005. 
 
 1005. Portrait of Anne of France with the Christ. 
 
 A companion wing to No. 1004 with probably a 
 portion of it (at the right side, back of the donor) 
 cut away. Brighter in colour than No. 1004 and 
 
44 THE LOUVRE 
 
 with the same kind of landscape. The same hand 
 probably did both panels. The St. John suggests 
 the influence of Memling. Repainted a little in 
 the faces and hands. 
 
 1003. - Portrait of Philippe le Bon. A fine portrait, a 
 * perfect portrait of its kind. Other versions of it 
 are to be seen in the Antwerp Museum (No. 538) 
 and at Bruges (No. 1). It is primitive, clean-cut, 
 white-faced, very true and honest. The hands are 
 long in the fingers, with but little light and shade 
 and much outline drawing. A beautiful green 
 ground. What good spirit it has! 
 
 1002. Portrait of Jean sans Pear. An ill-drawn, 
 
 angular work with a sharp profile and mannered 
 hands, but of unique quality as portraiture. It is 
 not more sane than work done in a similar vein 
 by II Greco, but is just as interesting. Some 
 features about it look very modern. Another ver- 
 sion at Brussels is put down to a Van Eyck contem- 
 porary (No. 540), and the same type appears in 
 the Sforza altar-piece (No. 515), left wing, at 
 Brussels. 
 
 1000. Portrait of a Man with a Glass of Wine. The 
 
 drawing is large, if somewhat crude and lacking in 
 skill, as may be seen in the hands, eyes, nose, 
 mouth. The costume is simple in flat blacks. 
 Notice the very good glass of wine. A true and 
 honest piece of work with much character about it. 
 See an article regarding it in the Revue Arche"olo- 
 gique, September, 1910, p. 236. 
 
 998. Deposition. This picture is somewhat similar 
 
 in method to the Retable du Parlement de Paris, 
 mentioned hereinafter. It is not by the same mas- 
 
FRENCH SCHOOL 45 
 
 ter, but of the same school. It is a poorer picture 
 without being poor in itself. Notice the ill-drawn 
 heads, feet, and hands, the bright robes; but also 
 notice that the picture has sincerity. Once put down 
 to the School of Van Eyck. 
 
 N. N. St. Helena and the Miracle of the Holy Cross. 
 
 A picture possibly inspired by Bouts or some one 
 of his school, but given with French types in the 
 kneeling figures. The drawing is large though 
 minute in patterns and jewels. An excellent piece 
 of colour with much variety and yet unity. Notice 
 the head coverings. And the charming little figure 
 rising from the dead. The picture is not positively 
 of French extraction. 
 
 N. N. French School (15th Century). Portrait of a 
 Child in Prayer. Very simply done, like all this 
 early French work, but rather effective in its line- 
 drawing. Notice here the hands, the outline of 
 the head and face, the beauty of the whites. It is 
 not clever but it is honest. 
 
 N. N. French School (about 1475). Retable du Parle- 
 * mentde Paris: Calvary. The history of the early 
 French School is still vague. The painters and 
 their pictures are by no means accurately known 
 or attributed. Here is a picture of French extrac- 
 tion that might be used as a criterion of one style 
 at least. It is of marked technical excellence. 
 Notice the unusual types of heads and hands, the 
 peculiar break of the draperies at the arms and 
 shoulders instead of at the bottom, the odd type 
 of figure in the Christ, the singular landscape, the 
 unique colours. It is well done in the robes of 
 Charlemagne or St. Louis as in the grotesque types 
 back of St. Denis, who is holding his head in his 
 
46 THE LOUVRE 
 
 hands. How fine the work is in its feeling, its spirit! 
 Thought by some to be of Netherlandish origin. 
 The John the Baptist has a slight suggestion of 
 Memling, and John the Evangelist is a little in the 
 vein of Van der Weyden. 
 
 1012. French School (16th Century). Portrait of 
 * Baron Montmorency. The face and hands are 
 stained and injured, but the beauty of the drawing 
 is still apparent. The modelling of the eyes and 
 brows, the doing of the skull and cheek-bones are 
 noteworthy. A fine head with rich colour in the 
 robes. It has character, force, power. 
 
 1015. Portrait of the Dae de Guise. A portrait of 
 
 the Clouet School, or possibly an old copy. The 
 work is detailed but not niggled, as one may see in 
 the costume, the hat, and the painting of the beard. 
 These features are not, however, very well done. 
 Nos. 1017, 1025, 1028, 1030 are of a quality similar 
 to this picture. 
 
 683. Equestrian Portrait of Francis I. A repeti- 
 tion of a work in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence (No. 
 667), attributed there to Franois Clouet. Done 
 with much precision and beauty of colour. The 
 horse is excellent. As for the likeness of Francis, 
 it may prove interesting to compare it with No. 
 1007, hanging near at hand. 
 
 1028. Portrait of Chrestien de Savigny. Very much 
 
 in the style of No. 1015, and doubtless they both 
 came from the same studio. This seems to be the 
 better of the two. Both have dignity and char- 
 acter. 
 
 1017. - Portrait of Michel de I'Hopital. Very smooth 
 in its execution and with the look of a copy only 
 
FRENCH SCHOOL 47 
 
 one does not know the original. It is in the French 
 miniature style, but enlarged and elaborated. 
 
 N. N. Portrait of a Man. A knee-piece of a man 
 
 in red doublet and white coat, with hand on sword. 
 The hand is abnormally large, but how well his head 
 is drawn, especially the brow and hair! There is 
 much sturdiness about the figure. The picture 
 is stained. 
 
 1007. Portrait of Francis I. The figure is flat and 
 
 sacrificed to the ornamented coat from which the 
 hands seem to protrude with some violence. The 
 face is rather foolish in its look, but well drawn. 
 The neck has been cleaned too much, as has also 
 the coat. The costume is ornate in pearls and 
 gold thread. Once attributed to Holbein. 
 
 1024. Portrait of Diana of France. A smooth-faced, 
 
 porcelain-like portrait, very prim and precise in 
 its drawing of costume, but with a little broader 
 use of the brush in the forehead and hair. No. 
 1027 is probably by the same hand. 
 
 1011 A. Portrait of Marquise d'Elbozuf. It has a 
 
 look about it suggestive of the Flemish School of 
 Gossart, but this may be no more than a superficial 
 resemblance in colour. A smooth affair, but hand- 
 somely made. 
 
 1036. Henry III at the Foot of the Cross. A very 
 * beautiful little picture full of the true spirit of art. 
 The kneeling figure in his fine robes is excellent 
 and the dark landscape makes a proper background 
 for the cross. The figure on the cross is not that 
 of a Diirer, but it is sufficiently well drawn. The 
 same painter did portraits of the Due d'Ale^on 
 and Charles IX at Chantilly (Musee Conde). 
 
48 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1013. French School of Fontainebleau. Diana. A 
 
 full-length figure of the goddess with the bow. 
 Very graceful in outline and very effective as white 
 on a dark landscape background. It has been 
 much cleaned, which may account for some of the 
 figure's whiteness. It shows the Italian influence 
 of, say, Primaticcio? 
 
 1014A. - Venus at Her Toilet. Very graceful figures 
 in a pyramidal composition. Suggestive of the 
 School of Primaticcio. The surface has been too 
 much cleaned, yet the picture is still fine in colour. 
 
 304A. Froment d'Avignon. King Rene d'Anjou and 
 His Queen. These are strong, fine heads of almost 
 Holbein character in their sincerity and truth. 
 What a head and face that of King Rene! And 
 what hands ! As a statement of fact, it is excellent, 
 although the work is neither very learned nor very 
 subtle. The drawing is, in fact, rather crude, but 
 very sincere. 
 
 1301. Gaddi, Agnolo. Annunciation. In the style of 
 the Gaddi, with Giotto's figures somewhat refined 
 and perhaps prettified, but still with good senti- 
 ment. The work was carried as far as the painter 
 was competent to carry it at that time, and in that 
 sense it is complete art without being complete in 
 a modern sense. The gold work, the patterns, and 
 colour are all excellent. How graceful the two 
 angels for all their heavy figures two angels in- 
 stead of one! 
 
 1302. Gaddi, Taddeo. A Predella. Three panels of 
 good action and harmonious colour, with some 
 richness of effect in the gold work. Some of the 
 draperies are well handled. The figures are sack- 
 
GEERTGEN TOT SINT JANS 49 
 
 like and Giottesque, but well put together, and the 
 broken tones of colour are remarkable. Attribu- 
 tions of such panels as these are largely guesses. 
 
 Garbo, Raffaellino del. Coronation of the Vir- 
 gin. A pleasing type of the Madonna with music- 
 making angels about her in a circle. Four robust 
 saints in handsome robes below, making a square 
 that balances and offsets the upper circle. A more 
 restful picture than Raffaellino usually produced, 
 though it is not inspired. It looks as though two 
 hands had worked upon it originally, one below 
 and one above, to say nothing of the restorer's 
 hands that have tortured it since. Possibly Raf- 
 faellino's hand had nothing to do with it. It is 
 injured at the top. 
 
 Garofalo (Benvenuto Tisi). The Sleep of Jesus. 
 
 The Child is heavy and ill drawn in the head, and 
 the Madonna somewhat affected, as in the hands. 
 The colour is fair, but the picture is not a good 
 Garofalo. 
 
 Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Gerard of Haarlem). 
 
 Resurrection of Lazarus. A work of much strength 
 and beauty. The draperies are given with great 
 breadth for such early art, and even the figures are 
 not sharply accented in drawing not even in the 
 hands. The heads are fine, but they have none of 
 the Van Eyck minuteness about them, and the 
 jewels are not finical or overdone in any way. 
 The foreground is a wealth of colour and the back- 
 ground is a simple landscape of much truth in 
 tree forms, mountains, sky. The composition is a 
 simple, balanced grouping about the figure of Laz- 
 arus, and the colour scheme a series of repeated 
 notes of red, green, blue, white, black. It suggests 
 
50 THE LOUVRE 
 
 the influence of Ouwater. There is no great cer- 
 tainty about the attribution, for Geertgen is only 
 a spectre in art history, but the picture agrees with 
 other pictures attributed to him at Vienna, Ber- 
 lin, and Amsterdam. We may be reasonably cer- 
 tain that it is a fine picture, whoever painted it. 
 Somewhat restored. 
 
 1279. Gentile da Fabriano. Virgin and Child with 
 Donor. The picture is by some follower or pupil 
 of Gentile probably Jacopo Bellini and certainly 
 shows Gentile da Fabriano's influence. The Ma- 
 donna (Jacopo Bellini's type) is attractive in her 
 rich robe and odd halo. The kneeling donor has 
 a head that might go on a coin by Vittore Pisano 
 (who influenced Jacopo), and a robe fit for an angel. 
 But the most interesting part of the picture lies 
 in the background, with its cities, hills, .and sky 
 lighted from above. It is one of the earliest at- 
 tempts at light from the sky (as reflected from the 
 earth), and should be compared with the Flight 
 into Egypt in the predella of Gentile's great altar- 
 piece in the Florence Academy (No. 165). It 
 should be borne in mind that Gentile went in the 
 1420s to Venice and became there the master of 
 Jacopo Bellini, the father of Gentile Bellini, who 
 with Carpaccio painted such astonishing views of 
 Venice wherein the light came from the sky. The 
 influence of Gentile da Fabriano on Venetian land- 
 scape can be traced directly. It shows in this 
 picture at the starting-point. What beautiful col- 
 our in the robes, the landscape, the gold work! 
 
 1278. - Presentation in the Temple. This is interest- 
 ing because it is one of the predella panels belong- 
 ing to Gentile's altar-piece in the Florence Academy 
 
GHIRLANDAJO 51 
 
 (No. 165). It is now much repainted but still shows 
 good colour and composition. Notice the feeling for 
 light, shadow, and air. 
 
 2745. German School (16th Century). Judgment of 
 Paris. It is not a very early picture. The draw- 
 ing of the three nudes suggests some slight Italian 
 influence. A strong little picture, not only in the 
 types but in the drawing of the women. Notice 
 the sarcasm of the Mars asleep. Also his and his 
 companion's fine colour. 
 
 2745A. The Flagellation of Christ. A brutal theme 
 
 * given with perhaps unnecessary brutality. The 
 drawing and the proportions are grotesque, but they 
 are atoned for in a measure by the virile richness 
 and beauty of the colouring. What splendid blues, 
 reds, greens, yellows! They are almost up to those 
 of Thierri Bouts. The figures are repellent and 
 the facial expressions are almost grimace, but in 
 spite of all this there is large feeling for form. 
 The drawing, though abnormal, is powerful. 
 
 2740. The Emperor Maximilian. There are several 
 
 repetitions of this figure in the German and Aus- 
 trian galleries. It is positive in its drawing and 
 quite fine in colour. With a very picturesque little 
 landscape at the right. 
 
 1321. Ghirlandajo, Domenico. The Visitation. A 
 
 large, formally composed, and well-drawn Ghir- 
 landajo, but of rather prosaic spirit. The figure 
 at the left is statuesque and academic; the one at 
 the right has movement, earnestness, and some 
 feeling. The robes are hard, the colour crude and 
 wanting in depth, the architecture empty and quite 
 unbelievable. Perhaps the sky and distant city 
 
52 THE LOUVRE 
 
 are the most attractive features of the picture, 
 notwithstanding the excellent drawing of the fig- 
 ures. It is school work. 
 
 1322. Portrait of an Old Man and a Boy. Very 
 
 brilliant in its red, but noticeable more for its 
 uncompromising realism than anything else. The 
 painter has not glozed over the ugliness of the nose, 
 or prettified the huge head, nor has he failed to 
 give the comeliness of the boy. He has told the 
 truth with forceful drawing and rather harsh 
 painting. But he had a sense of beauty about 
 landscape as you may see in the view at the back 
 of the picture. For the rest, he believed that truth, 
 honestly told, is always beautiful. And so it is 
 that is, in the right hands. The picture is in- 
 jured in the forehead of the man and too much 
 cleaned in both faces. 
 
 2711A. Giltlinger, Gumpold. Adoration of Magi. 
 
 With strong heads, fine robes and jewels, odd archi- 
 tecture, and a deep blue sky. The horsemen at 
 the back, the castle, and the angels up above are 
 noteworthy. A picture that seems strange here 
 in the Louvre, but one that is to be admired 
 wherever seen. The painter to whom it is assigned 
 is comparatively unknown. He worked at Augs- 
 burg. 
 
 1136. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). A Rustic Con- 
 
 ** cert. A world-famous picture, much admired for 
 its colour, its round figures, its landscape, and its 
 idyllic spirit. It is put down to Giorgione with 
 great certainty by some and denied with equal 
 positiveness by others. It is apparently contra- 
 dictory of other accepted pictures by Giorgione. 
 If we accept the Dresden Sleeping Venus as his 
 
GIORGIONE 53 
 
 type of the nude, with its white skin, refined lines, 
 and delicate modelling, how are we to reconcile it 
 with these carelessly drawn, brown-skinned, sun- 
 tanned, fleshy figures that have little delicacy or 
 refinement about them? If the serene, well-bal- 
 anced landscape in the Castelfranco Madonna is 
 his type of landscape, how again shall we recon- 
 cile it with this rather scattered scene, which seems 
 more like a Palma or Catena background than any- 
 thing we know in Giorgione? The plume-like foli- 
 age drooping out at the left above the standing 
 figure is substantially the same as in the Catena 
 Warrior adoring the Infant Christ (No. 234), in 
 the National Gallery, London, and also in a loaned 
 Holy Family, hanging there in 1912, attributed to 
 Palma, but really by Catena. Catena followed 
 Palma in landscape, and there is a Palmesque look 
 about this Giorgione landscape. The triangle of 
 sunlit landscape let in at the right is Palmesque, 
 sheep and all, but it does not agree with the rest 
 of the landscape, which is more like Catena. It 
 looks as though Catena had appropriated that sun- 
 lit bit from some one like Palma and dovetailed 
 it into this picture. 
 
 That, however, which is the most puzzling in 
 this Rustic Concert is the fulness of the nude 
 figures and a certain thinness in the seated fig- 
 ures, the latter being hardly Giorgionesque at all. 
 The man seated at the right stirs memories of 
 Catena again, as do the nudes. Those full figures 
 of the women we think to have seen in Catena's 
 work, but here they are more brown-skinned and 
 perhaps stained with oil or varnish. Again we fancy 
 we have seen them in Palma's work. Which painter 
 did them? Is it Catena following Palma or Palma 
 
54 THE LOUVRE 
 
 himself? In other words, this picture does not 
 speak strongly for Giorgione, as we know him, and 
 is more like the work of his imitators. It may 
 be by Palma or the masterwork of some inferior 
 artist like Catena, in which he has done something 
 so very good that we fail to recognise it as by him. 
 It frequently happens in art history that a man's 
 best things are given to his superiors while he is 
 permitted to retain his worst. 
 
 It is a masterpiece, nevertheless, and in pastoral 
 charm is quite worthy of Giorgione. What a 
 superb back and turn of the head the seated nude 
 figure shows us! In colour the central red is the 
 key-note, and the blue landscape and sky moderate 
 it. The white draperies are kept down in light to 
 support the flesh notes. It is worth while going 
 to the Moreau Collection, in another wing of the 
 Louvre, to see how Manet took this theme for his 
 Dejeuner sur 1'herbe there shown. How he brutal- 
 ised it, squeezed all of the poetic and idyllic out of 
 it, is there apparent. However, he atoned in mea- 
 sure by some excellent painting. 
 
 The Rustic Concert is a work to be studied, not 
 as the work of a first-class master, but as the work 
 of a Palma or the masterpiece of some Catena 
 of the brush. It has been repainted in spots, no- 
 ticeably the hands, which were never too well 
 drawn. See the note on the Staedel Institute 
 Palma (No. 668). Morelli some years ago pub- 
 lished a drawing by Campagnola, in the Malcolm 
 Collection, which shows the seated nude figure in 
 this Concert. 
 
 1135. - The Holy Family with St. Sebastian. The 
 figures in the foreground are flattened and hardly 
 belong to the landscape. Nor is the proportion 
 
GOSSART, JAN 55 
 
 of the donor to the saints well maintained. The 
 types, colouring, shadows, and flesh are pseudo- 
 Giorgionesque or perhaps Palmesque. Crowe and 
 Cavalcaselle put it down to Pellegrino da San 
 Daniele and Berenson to Cariani. The sky and 
 hills have some strength of colour and handling. 
 Not a wonderful picture, whoever did it. 
 
 1312. Giotto di Bondone. St. Francis Receiving the 
 Stigmata. A large picture, but not distinctively 
 of Giotto's quality. It does not show the great 
 painter of the Arena Chapel frescoes. Possibly it 
 is much changed in the flesh notes as well as in the 
 landscape and the gold ground. The figures be- 
 low are even less like Giotto than the St. Francis. 
 The whole work probably belongs to Giotto's 
 school. See also Nos. 1314 to 1316, inclusive, for 
 work belonging somewhere near Giotto. 
 
 1318. Girolamo dai Libri. Madonna and Child. A 
 
 little insipid in the face of the Madonna, as also 
 in the cherubs. It is by some pupil or follower. 
 There is the heavy eyelid of Caroto, but otherwise 
 it is not like his work. The colour is not bad. 
 The picture has been overcleaned. 
 
 1999. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). Portrait of a Benedic- 
 tine. It has been too much cleaned, but still shows 
 good drawing in the face and hands. The attribu- 
 tion is probably correct. 
 
 1997 1 Madonna and Child with Donor. A diptych 
 
 1998 / quite in Gossart's style, but unfortunately almost 
 
 colourless from too much cleaning. The donor's 
 portrait is simple, true, and excellent, with strongly 
 modelled cheek-bones and well-articulated hands. 
 The Child's and the Madonna's hands are less well 
 drawn. 
 
56 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2377. Goyen, Jan van. River in Holland. A grey pic- 
 ture of some merit, but rather muddy in colour, 
 not only in the buildings, but in the sky a muddi- 
 ness often seen in Van Goyen's pupil, Salomon van 
 Ruisdael. No. 2375 is of the same opaque quality, 
 while No. 2378 is darker in key. 
 
 N. N. Greco, II (Domenico Theotocopuli). Christ 
 on the Cross. A somewhat colourless picture 
 with a little more II Greco eccentricity in the 
 background than usual. The clouds look like a 
 snowy mountain landscape. The portraits below 
 are very good. The figure of Christ is not wanting 
 in pathos, in intensity of feeling, in some grace of 
 form; but it is not convincing in its truth to reality. 
 The whites are silvery-grey, the blacks of the clouds 
 are smoky. The picture has an agreeable surface. 
 
 N. N. Portrait of King Ferdinand. A mannered 
 
 performance, of course, but with some style about 
 it. It shows the rather eccentric individuality of 
 the painter, but is attractive in spite of grotesque- 
 ness. The drawing is not justifiable, and the flesh 
 is blackish. The colour is attractive, but not so 
 variegated as is usually shown in his figure compo- 
 sitions. A strange personality in the king, whose 
 features recall those of the present king of Spain. 
 
 1328. Guardi, Francesco. The Doge Going Aboard 
 the Bucentaur. A spotty picture, but with a good 
 effect of colour and light. The drawing is careless. 
 
 1333. College Hall in the Ducal Palace. A fine in- 
 terior with good light, air, and splendour of effect. 
 Notice the sketchy painting of the pictures of Tin- 
 toretto and Veronese upon the wall and ceiling. 
 A very handsome Guardi for all the repetition of 
 the figures of senators at the back. 
 
HALS, FRANS 57 
 
 1332. Procession of the Doge to San Zaccaria. The 
 
 procession is extremely well given, not only in col- 
 our and light, but in movement from left to right. 
 How well the mass of the building cuts the sky, 
 especially in the campanile at the right! And 
 what a very good Venetian sky! See it repeated 
 in No. 1329, where the building of the Salute is 
 frail and not well done. 
 
 1334. Coronation of the Doge. Excellent for the 
 
 light and shade of it (though both of them are 
 dark in key), for the massing of the crowd, and for 
 the colour. The regularity of the lines of the palace 
 is a little trying. 
 
 2389. Hals, Dirck. Rustic Feast. There is much spot- 
 ting of the surface with small high lights and some 
 effort at facile handling of a staccato kind. The 
 colouring is better than the spirit the latter being 
 too conscious. All the characters seem posing for 
 their pictures. The two central figures, with varia- 
 tions, appear in a canvas in the Altman Collection, 
 New York, there ascribed to Frans Hals. The 
 ruffs here might be compared with those in the 
 Van Berensteyn portraits by Frans Hals, Nos. 
 2386 and 2387. 
 
 2384. Hals, Frans. The Gipsy. A picture of much 
 vivacity and spirit. The superabundant life and 
 animal spirits of it are fascinating. How firmly the 
 face is modelled, and what freedom in the handling! 
 It is little more than a sketch, but what a revela- 
 tion it is of the man behind the brush as well as 
 the model ! Notwithstanding its excellence it is not 
 too certainly by Hals. His son, Frans, did just as 
 good work as this. 
 
58 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2383. Portrait of Rene Descartes. A sober and seri- 
 
 ous portrait without bluster or bravura, giving the 
 truth in the large, broad way that the painter saw 
 it. There is nothing about it that startles, but a 
 great deal that commands respect. 
 
 2385. - Portrait of a Woman. It is not unlike No. 
 2383 in being quiet and dignified. There is no 
 display of handling in fact, the face and head look 
 a little mealy, as though done with difficulty. The 
 whites have probably been retouched. 
 
 2386 \ Portraits of Nicolas van Berensteyn and 
 
 2387 / Wife. The man's portrait is better than the 
 * woman's. The head and hands of the man are 
 
 excellent the hands quite in the style of Frans 
 Hals, and the head not only fine in modelling, but 
 marked by a noble seriousness, even sadness. But 
 the ruff, and cuff, and costume, the hair and the 
 flesh of the face point rather to some one like 
 Dirck Hals than to Frans Hals. They seem too 
 petty, too fussy for the bigger brother. This is 
 equally true of the woman's portrait, with its lace 
 work and good pattern in the dress. It is possible 
 that Hals was largely helped in this picture by 
 Dirck. The third picture of the series, No. 2388, 
 confirms such a theory, for it is even less typical of 
 Frans Hals than the two just considered. Both of 
 these portraits have been much restored, which 
 may account for their smoothness of costume. 
 
 2388. - The Van Berensteyn Family. This picture 
 has been badly restored, and the little girl at the 
 right was, of course, an afterthought something 
 added to the canvas by an alien hand. Aside from 
 its hands and faces, the canvas does not show 
 Frans Hals in any way. At no time in his career 
 
HEMESSEN, JAN VAN 59 
 
 did he do such small and finical work as is here 
 shown in the ruffs, laces, chains, jewellery, flowers, 
 leaves, grasses. It is useless to suggest that this 
 is the early style of Hals. The picture does not 
 show the early style of any one, but rather the 
 mature style of a small and careful painter such 
 as Dirck Hals. It is not a bad picture by any 
 means, but it must have been worked upon largely 
 by Hals's pupils or helpers, of whom Dirck was 
 one. The hands and hair are pretty, and even the 
 spirit of it seems much too "elegant" for Frans 
 Hals. If we accept the catalogue date of 1620, 
 Hals was thirty-six years of age when this picture 
 was painted, and four years before he had done 
 the picture No. 123 at Haarlem, which is much 
 broader and quite different from this in handling. 
 It is not in the style of Hals, and is probably a 
 workshop picture that is, he planned it, and Dirck 
 and others executed it. The same hand or hands 
 probably did the Laughing Cavalier in the Wallace 
 Collection, the Man with a Sword in the Lichten- 
 stein Gallery, Vienna, the Nurse and Child at 
 Berlin. 
 
 2397. Heist, Bartholomaeus van der. Portraits of a 
 Man and Woman. They are done in Van der 
 Heist's thinner, smoother manner, but not without 
 good drawing in the heads and hands. How well 
 the man's sash, the woman's satin dress are ren- 
 dered I A Dutch town is shown at the back. 
 
 2001. Hemessen, Jan van. Tobit and His Father. 
 
 With considerable force in the drawing and some 
 darkness in the colouring. The figure at the left 
 is Heemskerck's (not Hemessen's) model. The 
 same figure is seen in the Heemskerck at Haarlem 
 
60 THE LOUVRE 
 
 (No. 151) and again at Brussels (No. 211). One 
 may draw his own conclusions not only from the 
 model, but the workmanship. 
 
 1706. Herrera, Francisco de. St. Basil Dictating His 
 Doctrine. Without other examples of Herrera at 
 hand, this picture gives a distorted idea of the 
 painter. He was not quite such a black, brutal 
 painter as is here indicated. The picture is not 
 representative, nor is it pleasing. * 
 
 2401. Heyden, Jan van der. A Village in Holland. 
 An interesting townscape with good sky, water, 
 and air. The delightful little figures are said to 
 be painted by Adriaen van de Velde, and the boats 
 by his brother, Willem van de Velde. It is doubt- 
 ful, however, if three hands working on the picture 
 could have kept it together so well. 
 
 2402. - Landscape. Quite a charming bit of sky, 
 trees, and foreground, whoever did it. A good little 
 picture to live with. 
 
 2404A. Hobbema, Meindert. Landscape. A fine ex- 
 ample of Hobbema's conventional landscape, with 
 his grey sky, his ground lighted in spots, and his 
 trees with their formal foliage. It is his convention 
 at its best. 
 
 2404. - Water Mill. Less conventional than No. 
 2404A, but a truer and better picture because more 
 closely studied from the model. But the truth to 
 nature of these Dutchmen Hobbema, Ruisdael, 
 or Everdingen is not at all comparable to their 
 truth to a grey-toned art-formula, got somehow 
 from Italy. It is the Italian tradition adapted 
 with modifications to Holland. 
 
 2713. Holbein the Younger, Hans. Portrait of Nico- 
 las Kratzer. This is a portrait in which the 
 
HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER 61 
 
 painter lugs in a great many accessory objects to 
 indicate the man's profession, and spoils the picture 
 in doing so. It is much hurt by the light wall 
 and the instruments hung upon it, and also by the 
 instruments placed upon the table in the fore- 
 ground. It lacks in concentration as in colour. 
 One may fairly question if Holbein, who loved 
 simple, or at least rich-coloured, backgrounds was 
 entirely responsible for this picture. The picture 
 is repainted, as one may see by the hands; besides, 
 it has been rubbed until there is now a softness 
 a lack of firmness in the drawing. It belongs in 
 the same category with the Gisze portrait at Ber- 
 lin (No. 586). 
 
 2714. Portrait of Bishop Warham. There is an- 
 other portrait like this in Lambeth Palace. This 
 may be a repetition by Holbein himself, and then 
 again it may be an old copy. The hands and face 
 are wanting in firmness and sureness of drawing. 
 In either event the picture is not bad in colour, 
 but is hurt by the accessory objects in the composi- 
 tion. They are ornate, decorative, beautifully 
 done, but superfluous, unnecessary, in the way. 
 
 2715. Portrait of Erasmus. There are several of 
 
 ** these Erasmus portraits in existence, but this is a 
 complete profile view and different from any of 
 the others. It shows Erasmus the humanist, with 
 the close mouth, the tired eye, the keen nose, and 
 hollow cheek of the scholar. And with precise 
 fingers and hands, penning perhaps a "Praise of 
 Folly." What a psychological study it is! What 
 a facial outline! What perfect drawing! Look 
 at the mouth, cheek, and neck. Nor does it lack 
 in colour or decorative charm. Look at the beau- 
 
62 THE LOUVRE 
 
 tifully patterned background, the flesh notes, the 
 white spot of paper. The portrait is a wonder and 
 a delight. 
 
 2717. - Portrait of Sir Thomas More or Sir Henry 
 ** Wyatt. The identity of the sitter is uncertain, 
 
 but not that of the painter. This is Holbein at 
 his best. The face is a marvel of positive, yes, 
 superlative drawing, every scrap of which serves 
 to bring out the spirit and character of the man. 
 The eyes, the nose, the mouth particularly the 
 mouth distorted by the loss of teeth are not more 
 remarkable than the flabby cheeks and heavy chin. 
 This is the realism of truths that mean something, 
 that count in bringing the type and class and per- 
 sonality of the man before you. It is a wonderful 
 portrait, the like of which not even Holbein often 
 achieved. The hands are quite as much of a por- 
 trait as the face. 
 
 2718. - Portrait of Anne of Cleves. This is the por- 
 trait that Holbein is supposed to have painted for 
 Henry the Eighth when he was thinking of marry- 
 ing Anne of Cleves. It has not escaped restora- 
 tion in the face and hands, but is still lovely in its 
 quiet, restful pose, its clasped hands and rather 
 sad face, its beautiful head-dress, its rare red cos- 
 tume and blue background. It has charm about 
 it as well as truth. To be considered critically 
 in connection with Holbein's Duchess of Milan 
 (No. 2475) in the National Gallery, London, also 
 painted for Henry the Eighth, and for a sim- 
 ilar purpose. The London picture is much the finer 
 and firmer in execution. This Louvre work, fine 
 as it is, has the surface of a copy. The doing of the 
 pearls and the head-dress is weak and forceless. 
 
ITALIAN SCHOOL 63 
 
 2719. - Portrait of Richard Southwell. It is prob- 
 ably a copy of the Uffizi picture (No. 765), but a 
 fairly good one. The clearness of the outline is 
 well given, even in the copy. 
 
 2720. - Portrait of a Man. In the Holbein style and 
 of his school, but possibly not by him. He would 
 hardly have drawn that wooden hand, or painted 
 that fur collar, though old repainting might account 
 for both. The ground is so dark the figure can be 
 seen only with difficulty. The hair and cap are 
 almost lost in it. 
 
 2414. Hooch, Pieter de. Interior of a Dutch House. 
 
 A good De Hooch, but perhaps not his best effort. 
 The light on the wall at the back is very charming, 
 and the light gradation as shown in the tile floor 
 is subtle. The figures are in shadow and not too 
 well drawn, but effective as form and colour. One 
 of his simple, rather homely subjects, but one he 
 had probably seen of tener, known better, and loved 
 more truly than his later more aristocratic drawing- 
 rooms. 
 
 2415. - Dutch Interior. This is one of De Hooch's 
 high-life scenes, showing much ornate furniture 
 and costume. The chief figures at the left are very 
 rich in colour; the people at the back are less im- 
 portant. The light of the picture is fair, as also the 
 drawing of the room, the columns, and the floor. 
 Notice the painting of the light on the patterned 
 wall at the back and the atmospheric quality of 
 the room. The red dress is slightly reflected from 
 the marble. 
 
 1644. Italian School. Portrait of a Young Man. This 
 portrait has been attributed to Giorgione, Raphael, 
 
64 THE LOUVRE 
 
 Francia, Sebastiano del Piombo. Crowe and Caval- 
 caselle think it by Franciabigio and Mr. Berenson 
 gives it to Bugiardini. It is perhaps too early a 
 work for any one of them except Francia, w r hom it 
 doesn't fit in any way. The light and shade rather 
 point to Leonardo's influence, and the trees sug- 
 gest Franciabigio or Bugiardini. It is an acrid 
 type with pinched drawing and cramped hands, 
 but it is not wanting in good workmanship of a 
 constrained, almost Early Renaissance character. 
 The landscape is very good. Originally in a smaller 
 frame, but now enlarged (with restorations and 
 new materials) at the sides, notably in the trees at 
 left. 
 
 2721. Italian School (North). Annunciation. This is 
 a picture of decorative beauty in its gilded robes 
 and ornamental designs in stone and wood. Be- 
 sides that, it has the oddest Italian landscape ever 
 seen in north Italy. Notice the houses and sky of 
 the background, and also the beauty of the gold 
 vase with red flowers, the banked roses along the 
 stone screen in the foreground. The angel sliding 
 down from the sky on what looks like a golden 
 sled is a Germanic type, as is also the Madonna. 
 The picture is a puzzle as to its painter. Crowe 
 and Cavalcaselle thought it by Justus of Germany. 
 The frame is new, and the wings were not painted 
 by the same hand as the central panel. 
 
 1677. Four Persons Before a Portico. It is red in 
 
 colour, hot in the flesh, and not very well painted. 
 Possibly some follower of Melozzo da Forli did it. 
 Not an important work. 
 
 2013. Jordaens, Jacob. Infancy of Jupiter. The best 
 * Jordaens in the Louvre. There is quite an effect 
 
LEONARDO DA VINCI 65 
 
 of light in the central figure. The three flesh notes 
 are kept well in accord with slight predominance 
 given to the female figure. The colour is virile and 
 positive not only in the figures but in the red cloth 
 and blue sky. There has been too much rubbing 
 with that cleaning-room device the ball of cotton. 
 The surfaces are hurt a little. 
 
 2014. The King Drinks. A motive that Jordaens 
 
 repeated at Brussels and elsewhere. The group 
 is animated and the light true, though not suffi- 
 ciently concentrated for effect. The surface is 
 smoother than usual, and the colour cooler. Not 
 a bad picture, but not one of Jordaens's best. 
 
 2016. Portrait of Admiral de Ruyter. A fine por- 
 trait of the large and fleshy type. The head 
 and the face are flabby (probably peculiarities of 
 the model), and the shadows somewhat dusky. 
 One cannot be sure that because the face is red 
 Jordaens painted it, though he probably did. The 
 brush-work on the head indicates as much. The 
 hands are not too well drawn, even for fat hands. 
 The same brush perhaps painted the so-called 
 Velasquez of Admiral Borro at Berlin (No. 413A), 
 which see. 
 
 2438 bis. Keyser, Thomas de. Portrait of a Man. 
 Precisely and firmly drawn, with nothing slurred 
 or omitted and also nothing left to the imagination. 
 It is all there with a photographic exactness that 
 is a little wearisome. 
 
 1601. Leonardo da Vinci. Portrait of Mono Lisa. 
 
 *** The fact that this portrait was stolen from the 
 Louvre and that its disappearance led to much 
 newspaper comment among the nations may in- 
 crease present interest in the picture, but does not 
 
66 THE LOUVRE 
 
 improve its artistic merit in any way. On the 
 contrary, the trip to Italy and back has resulted 
 in just a trifle more rubbing of the surface, and 
 every one knows that it had enough before it left 
 the Louvre. Again, that " mysterious smile/' that 
 many talk about, has little to do with the portrait 
 as a work of art, except as Leonardo thereby sought 
 to give the lovable character, the sweetness of 
 mood of the sitter. There is no "mystery" about 
 it; she is not a riddle, nor a sphinx, nor world-weary, 
 nor representative of the ages. These are things 
 read into the picture by imaginative people, like 
 Walter Pater, but not put into it by Leonardo. 
 The painter was painting the portrait of Madonna 
 Elisabetta Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del 
 Giocondo, and he gave her a smile possibly because 
 she possessed it in reality, but probably because 
 he had got into the studio habit of painting smiling 
 people. Look about you in the Louvre at Leo- 
 nardo's St. Anne (No. 1598) or the Madonna of 
 the Rocks (No. 1599) or the Lucrezia Crivelli 
 (No. 1600), and you will see the same smile. All 
 the Leonardos, genuine and false alike, have it. 
 It was a mannerism of his taken up by his pupils, 
 and repeated parrot-like by them, with no attempt 
 at mystery or even a haunting quality. A smil- 
 ing face made a round face with beautifully turned 
 surfaces and contours, and the painters were seek- 
 ing the contours rather than the smile. 
 
 About the only things left in the Mona Lisa 
 are its drawing, its light and shade, and its contours. 
 Even these are badly injured, but there is still the 
 tang of great beauty about them just as there is 
 in the battered and broken Samothracian Victory 
 outside on the stair landing. The picture was 
 
LEONARDO DA VINCI 67 
 
 painted with the greatest skill by a great master, 
 and as long as an inch of it remains that skill will 
 be apparent and stand for art in its best sense. 
 The drawing and modelling are now flattened 
 somewhat by much cleaning and rubbing. This 
 is noticeable on the forehead, nose, breast, and 
 hands. The cleaning has also hardened or made 
 less subtle the contours of the nose, brows, lips, 
 cheeks, and chin. But how beautiful they are yet! 
 What wonderful rounding of flesh into graceful 
 lines and forms! You can see this now better in 
 the hands than in the face. What superb hands, 
 with their beautifully turned fingers and round 
 wrist! You will never again see such beautiful 
 hands in art, such refined, aristocratic, and yet 
 serviceable hands. They are perfect. 
 
 The light and shade (Leonardo's great technical 
 achievement) is now somewhat falsified. The high 
 lights have been rubbed grey, and the shadows 
 seem to have shrunk into the hollows of the eyes, 
 nostrils, lips, and throat. The contrast is now too 
 sharp and quite the reverse of that which Leonardo 
 first put out. He wrote: "As smoke loses itself in 
 the air so are your lights and shadows to pass 
 from one to the other without any apparent sepa- 
 ration." That effect is wanting now because the 
 picture has been flayed and rubbed. That plaint 
 is so frequent in these notes that perhaps it needs 
 substantiation occasionally. Therefore, hear what 
 Vasari said about this picture. He wrote : " The 
 eyes had that moisture and sparkle which we see 
 continually in nature, and cannot be rendered 
 without great difficulty. The lashes, showing 
 how the hairs grew in the skin, in one part thicker 
 and in another thinner, and following the curves 
 
68 THE LOUVRE 
 
 of the pores, could not be more natural. The 
 nose, with its nostrils pink and tender, seemed 
 to be alive. The mouth, with its line of separation 
 and its extremities united by the red of the lips with 
 the carnations of the face, seems not colour but 
 really flesh. In the dimple of the throat," etc. 
 There was probably some basis for Vasari's rhap- 
 sody, but now look at the portrait and see, if you 
 can, the lashes, the curves of the pores, the pink 
 and tender nostrils, the red of the lips, the carna- 
 tions of the face. They were rubbed off, cleaned 
 off by alcohol and other solvents many years ago. 
 The face is now grey, lead-hued; and so far as 
 colour goes the picture shows almost as well in 
 black-and-white reproduction. Go close and look 
 at the picture and you can easily see the worn- 
 down look of the surface. 
 
 But it is a famous masterpiece and famous not 
 without good reason. Originally, it must have 
 been perfect technically. You have not yet looked 
 at the structure of the head, throat, bust, and 
 figure. You have not noticed the roundness of the 
 head, the bulk of the body, the arms within 
 the sleeves, the beautiful drawing of the costume, 
 the dark halo of the hair about the face. And 
 mentally what serenity there is about it! What 
 calmness and repose ! She is not a sphinx, smiling 
 amid the chaos of the world back of her, but an 
 Italian beauty, seated on a balcony overlooking 
 an Italian-shore landscape a superb woman of 
 the Renaissance, with the proper aplomb belong- 
 ing to her rank. The portrait is the best authen- 
 ticated of Leonardo's works, though after the 
 Italian episode there will doubtless be those to 
 believe that the original never came back. 
 
LEONARDO DA VINCI 69 
 
 St. Anne, Madonna, and Child. In bad con- 
 dition, being much stained, cleaned, and restored; 
 but it still holds Leonardo's design and reveals 
 his famous light and shade in the faces and figures. 
 His graceful contours may be seen in the smooth 
 turn of the brows, cheeks, chins, necks, shoulders, 
 arms. Notice them particularly in the face, neck, 
 and shoulder of the Madonna. Notice also the 
 sweep of graceful lines in the Madonna's draperies 
 from the shoulder and hip and in the blue drapery 
 falling to the feet. The landscape at the back is 
 mountainous and fantastic. The blue background 
 does not marry or unite with the brown foreground 
 and middle distance. The mountain forms and the 
 foreground under the feet show rock cleavage and 
 stratification things that reveal Leonardo's scien- 
 tific information, though his master, Verrocchio, 
 knew about them before him. The tree is some- 
 what flat, conventional, and blackish. The colour 
 is nearly gone but still pleases. Notice the drawing 
 of the feet for comparison with other pictures put 
 down to Leonardo in this gallery. You may see 
 where Raphael appropriated them in La Belle 
 Jardiniere (No. 1496). 
 
 Annunciation. This little panel is attributed 
 to Leonardo for no particular reason except that, 
 as an Irishman might say, the Madonna looks as 
 though painted by Lorenzo di Credi. The drapery, 
 however, is Leonardesque and suggests the youthful 
 Leonardo. It probably never cut much of a figure 
 as art and does not now. It is a hesitating affair, 
 done for a predella, perhaps, with rather good light 
 and shade in the building at the right. A larger 
 variation with some contradictions in the Uffizi 
 which is also attributed to Leonardo (No. 1288). 
 
70 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1599. Madonna of the Rocks. This must be ac- 
 cepted as a Leonardo, coming as it did, almost 
 beyond a doubt, directly from the collection of 
 Francis I and bearing on its face evidences of its 
 genuineness. It is not a supreme example of 
 Leonardo, nor did he do all of it. A study of 
 Leonardo drapery among the drawings by old 
 masters in another part of the Louvre will suggest 
 that Leonardo did not formally arrange and spread 
 the drapery in pleats as in the blue dress of the 
 Madonna at the bottom, and that he did not 
 crinkle drapery with a papery quality to it as in 
 the yellow-coloured silk in the centre. Moreover, 
 the mountain landscape is more fantastic than 
 in the St. Anne or the Mona Lisa, though a similar 
 showing of rock stratification is made in the fore- 
 ground. The faces are a little sugary and have 
 been too much cleaned. They have not the round- 
 ness of contours that are shown in the larger St. 
 Anne picture, nor are the draperies here managed 
 with a regard for the sweep of line of the St. Anne. 
 The drawing is right enough, and the shadows are, 
 perhaps, over-emphasised in such depressions as 
 dimples, eyes, and mouths. The whole picture has 
 darkened but is still fine in colour. The composi- 
 tion is pyramidal, with the diagonal lines running 
 off to the little St. John on one side and the angel 
 on the other side. It is one of the few pictures 
 by Leonardo still extant, and must serve, in 
 measure, as a criterion for judging other works 
 attributed to him. See the note on the Leonardo 
 Madonna of the Rocks, No. 1093, in the National 
 Gallery, London. 
 
 1597. St. John Baptist. It should be compared 
 
 closely with the Madonna of the Rocks, first in 
 
LEONARDO DA VINCI 71 
 
 the matter of light and shade. It is excessive in 
 this respect, in its sooty shadows, for instance. 
 Leonardo was, perhaps, exaggerated in his "sfu- 
 mato," but his follower here intensifies the ex- 
 aggeration. Next, the forefinger and hand of the 
 St. John should be compared with those of the an- 
 gel. The latter have articulation in the joints and 
 knuckles; the former are round and smooth. The 
 shoulder again, so round, smooth, and boneless, is 
 quite different from those of the children in the 
 Madonna of the Rocks or that of the Madonna 
 in the St. Anne picture (No. 1598). The compari- 
 son may be carried into the drawing of the eyes, 
 nose, forehead, mouth, chin. The handling cannot 
 be compared because the pictures have been too 
 much cleaned and restored, but it may be noted 
 that the hair is much coarser in the St. John, both 
 in lighting and in painting. The Mona Lisa smile 
 is here and is overdone. It is too sweet. A close 
 study of the picture will lead to the conclusion 
 that if Leonardo did it his hand had lost its cun- 
 ning. It is probably the work of a follower some 
 one close to Salaino. 
 
 1602. Bacchus. A comparison may be instituted 
 
 between this picture and the Madonna of the Rocks 
 in the same way as with No. 1597. The comparison 
 should take up hand and forefinger with hand and 
 forefinger, face with face, contour with contour, 
 line with line. The conclusion may be reached 
 that it is a poorer picture than No. 1597 and is by 
 some follower of the school like Cesare da Sesto. 
 The landscape is not bad, but it is not Leonar- 
 desque in trees, sky, mountains, or foreground. 
 The figure has been much cleaned and flattened in 
 the modelling something in which it was, per- 
 
72 THE LOUVRE 
 
 haps, never very strong. Look at the shoulders 
 for this. 
 
 1600. Portrait of Lucre zia Crivelli. A comparison 
 
 ** of this head with the head of the Madonna of the 
 Rocks would not result in any great triumph for 
 the latter. For this portrait is extremely well done, 
 and if it is not given to Leonardo it is not because 
 it is unworthy of him. It is very accurately drawn, 
 a little hard in the hair, perhaps, but beautiful 
 in the contours of the nose, cheeks, and chin, 
 and well drawn in the mouth, the throat, and the 
 bust. There is a little flash of light under the jaw 
 apparently reflected from the dress. The dress is 
 rich and warm, beautiful in pattern and colour, 
 lovely in texture and surface. A fine portrait of a 
 charming type, and the only fault that one finds with 
 it is that it is a trifle smooth and pretty in its sur- 
 faces. It is not unworthy of Leonardo, only it is 
 not what we expect from him or imagine he might 
 have done. If we compare it closely with the 
 portrait, No. 1531, here attributed to Solario, we 
 may get a suggestion of its possible painter. The 
 same hand (not Solario's) possibly did them both. 
 There is not only a family likeness between them, 
 but the drawing, colour, shadows, surface, and 
 texture are similar. Notice the way the head is 
 posed and the shadows fall on the neck. Even 
 the little mannerism of the reflected light on the 
 jaw appears in No. 1531, though in less degree. 
 The painter of these portraits also did No. 433 in 
 the Castello Museum at Milan, there attributed to 
 Boltraffio. The Lucrezia Crivelli has been cleaned 
 but is still yellow with oil or varnish. 
 
 1603A. Madonna and Child. Put down in the cat- 
 alogue as a Flemish copy of Leonardo. It is by 
 
 
LIPPI, FRA FILIPPO 73 
 
 the same hand that did the so-called Leonardo 
 (No. 1493) at Munich and the attributed Lorenzo 
 di Credi (No. 13) at Dresden. It is practically a 
 replica of the Munich picture. 
 
 1343. Lippi, Fra Filippo. The Nativity. The attri- 
 bution is not believable. The landscape alone, 
 with its distance and light sky, would deny it. 
 The Madonna is as far a remove from the familiar 
 face and figure of the supposed Lucrezia Buti as 
 the Child from Filippo's usual type. But the 
 Madonna is lovely, the landscape is interesting, 
 and the angels in the clouds are charming even if 
 none of them is by Fra Filippo. The ruin is some- 
 what regular in its decay and the Joseph hard and 
 leathery. Compare it with No. 1344 a genuine 
 Filippo but now rather darkened. No. 1343 is by 
 some eclectic painter who shows various influences. 
 
 1344. Madonna Enthroned with Saints. A large 
 
 and important picture now become somewhat 
 darkened in the flesh notes. The drawing is a 
 little formal, the drapery angular, the colour sub- 
 dued, the angel types with their gilded wings very 
 pure and tender, the Madonna and Child a little 
 heavy. The light of the picture (as well as the 
 colour) is dull, as note the sky. Lighting from the 
 sky was just begun at this time, and at first it was 
 not well understood. Perhaps the handsomest 
 part of the picture is the kneeling saint at the left. 
 What a wonderful red robe he wears, how beauti- 
 fully it is disposed as regards its lines, and how 
 cleverly handled it is in its shadows ! The angel at 
 the right repeats the red note. 
 
 1345. Madonna and Child. A bright panel painted 
 
 in all probability by some painter of the Floren- 
 
74 THE LOUVRE 
 
 tine School of name unknown. The angels at the 
 back are most attractive and not unlike Filippo's. 
 The Madonna is angular in the jaw and not at- 
 tractive in the figure, but again suggests some one in 
 Filippo's School, or possibly a follower of Botticelli. 
 
 N. N. Lorenzo Monaco. Christ in the Garden and the 
 Women at the Tomb. Two panels of an altar- 
 piece joined together and now having much depth 
 of colour and richness of old gilding, especially in 
 the haloes. The work is not particularly well 
 done, but has feeling, with a decorative sense. 
 The robes are excellent in colour. How well the 
 space is filled ! The outside frame hurts the effect. 
 
 1349. Lotto, Lorenzo. Woman Taken in Adultery. 
 
 ** A fine picture in its massed group, its action, its 
 types, its characterisation. Notice as a rare thing 
 in Italian art that all these heads and faces are 
 distinctly and positively Jewish. And what heads 
 and faces they are, from the wailing culprit to her 
 brutal accusers on either side of her! What colour 
 is here! It has variety and harmony, depth and 
 yet beauty and splendour. Notice also the atmos- 
 pheric envelope, the feeling of dark recesses and 
 shadows, out of which come mysterious half-seen 
 heads and faces. How wonderful these faces are 
 in shadow, as, for instance, the second at the left! 
 The right side of the picture is less interesting. 
 Cleaned in the neck and head of the woman and 
 somewhat repainted in spots, but the drawing and 
 colour are still fine. A masterful picture, especially 
 in the feeling of the crowd. 
 
 1350. St. Jerome in the Desert. An early Lotto, 
 
 and valuable largely on account of filling out his 
 artistic biography. The landscape is the picture. 
 
LUINI, BERNARDINO 75 
 
 It is done minutely, but has depth and truth about 
 it. How fine it is in its shadows, its rock-drawing, 
 its trees ! St. Jerome is merely a note of colour a 
 note repeated in the sky at the back. 
 
 1351. Holy Family. The picture is cold in blues, 
 
 which are reflected even from the white cloth under 
 the Child and from the draperies and wings of the 
 angels. The reds and yellows of the saints at 
 either side fail to relieve the blue-grey tone of the 
 picture. Lotto's management of colour and light 
 here is quite the reverse of Correggio's method. 
 The centre of this picture is cold and surrounded 
 by warm notes. The scheme is not altogether 
 successful. But the picture is charming in the 
 sentiment and pathos of the Madonna, as also in 
 the beautiful angels back of her. Notice the heads 
 of the two angels as they show beneath the white 
 wings. They are very lovely. An odd picture in 
 the all-blue robing of the Madonna, and the all- 
 white of the angels. Odd again in the subject, 
 which is neither a Holy Family nor a Nativity but 
 in the nature of a Discovery. 
 
 1359 1 Luini, Bernardino. Adoration of Magi. (In 
 
 1360 J the Salle Duchatel, Hall V.) A number of frescoes 
 * by Luini and his school are here shown together. 
 In them Luini's smooth, graceful style and har- 
 monious colour show to great advantage. They 
 are not marvels of strength but certainly possess 
 grace of form and contour, with much charm of 
 colour. The gold work is effective and decorative. 
 These frescoes, with those at Milan, seem to go far 
 beyond any of his easel pictures. 
 
 1353. Holy Family. It has some agreeable colour 
 
 and is not badly drawn, but one wearies of the re- 
 
76 THE LOUVRE 
 
 peated note of sentiment the saccharine quality 
 of it. 
 
 1354. The Sleep of Jesus. A graceful Luini, with 
 
 warm colour and an atmosphere that is, perhaps, 
 too substantial. Luini, after Leonardo, was one 
 of the best of the Milanese School a very decora- 
 tive and pleasing painter, if not a commanding one. 
 See the frescoes in the Salle Duchatel, Nos. 1359 
 and 1360. This picture was formerly attributed to 
 Solario. It is even now an odd Luini, having less 
 of the cloying and insipid than usually goes with 
 his works. 
 
 1355. Salome with the Head of John the Baptist. 
 
 An excellent example of Luini in his softer and 
 prettier mood. It is agreeable recitation, if not 
 very realistic or forceful work. The drawing is 
 good, and the colour is pleasing. 
 
 996. Malouel, Jean (Attributed). The Dead Christ. 
 The painter is supposed to have been an uncle of Pol 
 de Limbourg. The drawing is still half Byzantine 
 in the hands and eyes, and the sentiment or feeling 
 of it has a Byzantine quality. The figures fill the 
 circle fairly well, and the colour is good. In the 
 La Fenestre catalogue it is under the French School 
 of the fourteenth century. 
 
 995. Malouel (Jean) and Bellechose (Henri). (At- 
 tributed.) Last Communion and Martyrdom of 
 St. Denis. A primitive work with much harsh real- 
 istic drawing in the figures and with simple, pure 
 colours that have depth and beauty. Look at the 
 quality of the blues and reds. The gold work is 
 decorative. See also No. 996. 
 
 1367. Mainardi, Bastiano. The Virgin and the Child. 
 It is a little ornate in costume, haloes, and lilies 
 
MANNI, GIANNICCOLO 77 
 
 and somewhat weak in sentiment and drawing. 
 The contours are round, the surfaces smooth, and 
 all the faces too full for their skins. It is porcelain- 
 like in texture. The landscape at the left is in- 
 teresting. There exist several versions or copies 
 of this work, which seems to have been popular at 
 one time. 
 
 1367A. Madonna and Child. A rather fine picture 
 
 in type and sentiment too fine in sentiment for 
 Mainardi, though it has peculiarities like the col- 
 umns and the hand that seem to point toward him. 
 These latter are, however, superficial. It is nearer 
 allied in spirit to the so-called Botticelli (No. 
 1300A), though it seems impossible that one painter 
 could have done both of them. They are not of 
 the same kind or quality. This picture has much 
 loftiness of pose and beauty of feeling. The 
 drawing is not bad, the colour quite rich, and 
 the atmospheric setting very good. The books at 
 the right suggest Mainardi again, but Mr. Berenson 
 intimates, with a query, that it was painted by 
 Piero Pollajuolo. Perhaps that is a better attri- 
 bution, though the picture seems too good for Piero. 
 
 1372. Manni, Gianniccolo. Holy Family. A picture 
 by a close follower of the Perugino formulas, 
 with gilding, architecture, robes, landscape all 
 the tools and trappings of Umbrian art and with 
 not bad decorative results. It is more mature in 
 small features than Perugino, but lacks in origi- 
 nality. Everything here is appropriated from 
 other painters. See the pictures put down to 
 Manni (Nos. 1369, 1370, 1371), all of them pleas- 
 ing in colour and all of them suggestive of the 
 Perugino-Pinturicchio tradition. 
 
78 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1374. Mantegna, Andrea. Madonna of Victory. 
 
 * Painted for the anniversary of the battle of For- 
 novo, where Gonzaga believed he had defeated 
 Charles VIII. Quite a famous picture, and bris- 
 tling with excellences, but hardly Mantegna's 
 masterwork. It has too much in it and is too 
 crowded for its space. The Gonzaga kneeling is 
 undersized and looks like a pygmy, the saint back 
 of him is a giant, while the Madonna is neither one 
 thing nor the other. Beautifully drawn, except 
 in spots here and there, and with that foreshort- 
 ened hand of the Madonna which we see in Leo- 
 nardo's Madonna of the Rocks and Correggio's 
 Madonna of St. Francis at Dresden. All the detail 
 is wrought with care and accuracy; the textures in 
 the stuffs, armour, and marbles of the throne are 
 given quite perfectly; the robes are as beautiful in 
 colour as in drawing. The arabesque of fruit and 
 leaves at the back, with coral and beads, is again 
 quite perfect, reminding one of the same effect in 
 the frescoes of Mantegna at Mantua, and the 
 Parma frescoes of Correggio. But the united im- 
 pression is not good. The picture lacks in sacri- 
 fice and subordination, and is hard, almost rigid, 
 in its figures, its throne, and its arabesque. That 
 is the Early Renaissance of it. But of course it 
 is a work of note, despite any flaws that one may 
 feel in it. 
 
 1373. Calvary. In the early hard style of Mantegna, 
 
 with much rigidity in the figures, as though they 
 had been modelled in bronze. The draperies also 
 show the influence of sculpture the sculpture of 
 Donatello. But the types are noble, lofty, majestic 
 in their dignity and presence; and some of the heads 
 are strong in their characterisation, as notice those 
 
MANTEGNA, ANDREA 79 
 
 of the soldiers. The figures on the crosses are con- 
 torted and stiffened. What precise but accurate 
 drawing appears everywhere! The landscape is a 
 bit crude in the sky and rather small in its detail 
 of cities and towns. The picture was part of a 
 predella of an altar-piece done for the Church of 
 San Zeno, at Verona, and may have been worked 
 upon by pupils. 
 
 Parnassus. It has always been difficult to 
 
 reconcile this picture and No. 1376 with Mantegna's 
 late work in other galleries. For Mantegna was 
 an Early Renaissance painter, with great power 
 and dignity in his figures and great knowledge of 
 both nature and art, but rigid, statuesque, posi- 
 tive, with uncompromising lines that were more 
 often angular than flowing. He seldom shows or 
 suggests the grace of the High Renaissance in his 
 figures. Yet here in these pictures is grace of a 
 very superior kind with hardly a trace of hard- 
 ness or rigidity. Look at the Venus and Mars at 
 the top of the picture how gracefully they lean 
 in opposite directions! Notice the dancing figures 
 below, so supreme in their rhythmic movement 
 and life. Where do you see the like elsewhere in 
 Mantegna's work? They come nearer to the 
 Apollo and the Muses by Giulio Romano in the 
 Pitti. These are statuesque figures, if you like, 
 but it is the statuesque of Sansovino, not Dona- 
 tello. The Early Renaissance was only a promise 
 of grace; the High Renaissance was its fulfilment. 
 And where again in Mantegna's work do you see 
 such bright, such brilliant, such cunning play of 
 colour as here? Certainly not in the Madonna of 
 Victory, done in 1496, when Mantegna was sixty- 
 five. The drawing and colouring are almost un- 
 
80 THE LOUVRE 
 
 believable because so far beyond Mantegna's 
 other work. This picture is freer than its com- 
 panion (No. 1376), has more action in the figures, 
 more colour in the robes, and is larger in the land- 
 scape and broader in the sky. It would seem a 
 later and more mature work, though both belong in 
 Mantegna's latest period. Finally, notice, through 
 the arch of rock, the landscape so unlike anything 
 we know in Mantegna's work. A superb picture. 
 
 1376. - Wisdom Victorious Over Vice. This and the 
 ** preceding number were done for Isabella d'Este 
 and are doubtless by the same hand. No. 1376 
 has not, however, the interest of No. 1375 in either 
 colour or form. It is grotesque in the Vices but 
 done with a larger feeling for bulk and roundness 
 of body than is usual with Mantegna. The half- 
 nude figure with the green drapery is very graceful, 
 as also the two figures coming up to the left of her, 
 and the pursuing Minerva in her helmet, breast- 
 plate, and gorgeous garments. The arabesque of 
 foliage, the water-plants in the foreground, the 
 trees at the back are painted with great care, the 
 leaves being smaller and the work finer than in 
 No. 1375. The landscape with the sky, the hill 
 at left, and also the figures in the clouds are per- 
 haps more familiarly Mantegnesque than any other 
 portion of the picture. The colour, as in the Mi- 
 nerva and the pursuing figures, is very charming. 
 The draperies are superb in their revelation of 
 form and their graceful line. It seems an earlier 
 work than No. 1375, though doubtless done at the 
 same time and for the same room at Mantua. 
 
 N. N. St. Sebastian. This picture is the Louvre's 
 
 *** new Mantegna, brought here in 1912 from Au- 
 
MANTEGNA, ANDREA 81 
 
 vergne. In 1481, Chiara Gonzaga, daughter of 
 Federigo Gonzaga, married Gilbert, Count of 
 Montpensier, and brought with her to the Mont- 
 pensier Chateau, in Auvergne, this picture of St. 
 Sebastian. Thence it went to the Church of 
 Aigueperse, and from there to the Louvre. It is 
 a work of commanding importance not only in 
 size but in quality. It represents Mantegna 
 the painter of the statuesque and sculpturesque 
 superbly. It is drawn to the last degree of truth 
 and fidelity. Nothing has escaped the eye or the 
 brush even the beard of the man at the bottom, 
 the leaves of the trees, the little figures at the 
 right, the marble reliefs of the arch, the stones of 
 the building are all minutely done. And the 
 large facts are just as truthfully, if largely, handled. 
 Notice the comprehensive drawing of the figure, its 
 truth of scale, of bulk, of weight. How positively 
 it stands, or is bound with ropes, or is pierced with 
 arrows! How true the column, capital, and arch 
 at the back with all the fluting, patterns, and re- 
 liefs! How absolute the broken marbles at the 
 bottom, or the fig-tree in leaf, or the distant 
 mountain with houses and ruined temples, or the 
 sky with those flaky-white clouds. And how beau- 
 tiful, as well as true, it all is as line and colour! 
 The white loin-cloth is kept down as grey as the 
 marbles, and the white clouds are greyed, too, so 
 that the figure shall have prominence. But the 
 figure is only slightly higher in key. The harmony 
 of the picture is perfect in its grey-silvery tone. It 
 may not have been so planned originally, and it 
 may have come to its present fineness of colour 
 through age, but the fact that it is in distemper 
 would suggest that some of it, at least, was designed. 
 
82 THE LOUVRE 
 
 At any rate, it is a perfect decorative harmony now. 
 Across the gallery it looms large in its form and 
 becomes like a pearl in its colour. What wonder- 
 ful dignity, not only in the work, but in the concep- 
 tion of the suffering yet enduring saint standing 
 against that beautiful broken fragment of archi- 
 tecture! Did Mantegna think to suggest here the 
 light of Christianity in the saint outshining, even 
 in death, the crumbling paganism of the ancient 
 world? It does no harm to believe it. The work 
 of art is no less wondrous for it. Go back through 
 the double doors of the French Room and from 
 there look at this Mantegna. How it holds at a 
 distance and how the figure becomes lighter and 
 stronger in flesh colour! 
 
 1379. Maratta, Carlo. Portrait of Maria Rospigliosi. 
 
 By one of the Decadents, but not a bad portrait. 
 It has too much of the simply pretty in the face, 
 hands, and dress, but for the seventeenth century 
 it is rather good work. Too much cleaned. 
 
 1381. Marches!, Girolamo. The Bearing of the Cross. 
 
 With some rather tragic action. The drawing 
 severe and not too accurate, the colour cool. 
 
 1384. Massone, Giovanni. Nativity. A decorative, 
 three-panelled altar-screen of much beauty in the 
 colour as in the strange landscape. The only 
 work in public galleries of this practically unknown 
 painter. He was not a master of the first or even 
 of the second rank, but, like all the church painters 
 of his time, he had a decorative sense. Repainted, 
 as may be seen in the head and hands of Joseph. 
 
 Master of the Death of the Virgin. See Cleve, 
 Juste van. 
 
MEMLING, HANS 83 
 
 N. N. Master of the Kinsfolk of the Virgin. The 
 Presentation in the Temple. An altar-piece with 
 much gold work in the ground and on the robes, 
 very brilliant colours, and groups of people and 
 angels composed in circles. It is not very well 
 drawn, but it is sumptuous in colour and shows 
 as a fine piece of decoration. Notice the robes of 
 the high priest, the little choir-boys, the three lit- 
 tle angels in the right-hand lower corner, the blue 
 cherubim at the top. 
 
 1005A. Master of Moulins. Magdalen and a Donor. 
 
 A graceful picture, whoever its painter. The draw- 
 ing is very clear in its outlines but well understood 
 and remarkable for giving the feeling of form. 
 Notice this in the hands as well as in the figures and 
 faces. The colour is excellent. What quality in the 
 greens, browns, reds, and yellows ! See the pearls be- 
 low and also the gold work. The types are French, 
 or at least Burgundian, with small suggestion of 
 Van der Goes about them, by whom the Master of 
 Moulins (Jean Perreal?) was supposed to have been 
 influenced. The pictures of at least two different 
 painters have been put down under this name in 
 the European galleries. See the notes upon Nos. 
 1004 and 1005, under "French School." 
 
 2026. Memling, Hans. The Madonna with Donors. 
 
 * Known also as the Madonna of Jacques Floreins. 
 A large Memling of considerable importance. The 
 simplicity of the grouping on either side of the 
 Madonna, the absence of much elaboration in the 
 throne, the subdued architecture, the subordinated 
 but very beautiful landscapes at the sides make 
 up a perhaps more imposing Memling than is 
 to be found elsewhere. The drawing of it is 
 
84 THE LOUVRE 
 
 quite beyond reproach, and as for the donors with 
 their magnificent heads, where and when has 
 Memling produced anything truer or stronger? 
 The sentiment of the Madonna is not excessive 
 and the colour of her robes is no more than enough 
 to dominate the picture. In other respects, in 
 tone and ensemble, the picture seems quite right, 
 except that it has no envelope and is rather hard 
 in the lines. That may be due to the fact that it 
 has suffered from restorations. The surface has 
 been repainted, and possibly the bloom-like flesh 
 notes, the hard carpet, and the airless space are 
 not Memling's. 
 
 N. N. Portrait of an Old Woman. The head is still 
 
 fine in characterisation though the picture has 
 been much cleaned. It is Memling in both head 
 and hands. It is the companion piece to No. 529c 
 in the Berlin Gallery. Early work and recently 
 acquired by the Louvre. See also the Head of a 
 Monk in the same room, without a number, but 
 attributed to Memling. 
 
 20241 St. John Baptist and St. Mary Magdalen. 
 
 2025 / Probably the wings of a triptych. Fine in senti- 
 ment and good in workmanship. The Magdalen 
 is in a beautiful brocade, and back of her are in- 
 teresting small figures. Good landscapes in both 
 panels with flowery patterns in the foreground. 
 Memlingesque, at any rate, and quite good enough 
 for the master. 
 
 2027. Marriage of St. Catherine and a Donor with 
 
 John Baptist. A diptych of considerable beauty 
 of colour, especially in the left panel. The land- 
 scapes are very charming and the figures well 
 
METSU, GABRIEL 85 
 
 drawn. The style suggests Memling but is not 
 quite positive enough for him. 
 
 2028. Memling, Hans, School of. Resurrection. A 
 
 triptych with a St. Sebastian in the left panel and 
 an Assumption of the Virgin in the right. A pic- 
 ture of some beauty and na'ive charm. The figure 
 of Christ is slight, but graceful, the angel in white 
 charming, the soldiers in armour well drawn and 
 painted, and at the back a broad, if crude, land- 
 scape. The architectural frame and the arabesque 
 of fruit are minutely done. The St. Sebastian, re- 
 peating the motive of the Brussels picture (No. 
 291), is a fine figure, and the archers are striking 
 in their colour as in their long, thin forms so sug- 
 gestive of Thierri Bouts. Notice in the right panel 
 the huddling of the crowd looking up and the 
 figure of the Madonna disappearing in the clouds. 
 The picture is of Memling inspiration and a fairly 
 good one at that. Some one of his followers 
 probably did it. But putting it down to the School 
 of Memling seems to give it less importance than 
 it deserves. 
 
 2457. MetSU, Gabriel. Woman Taken in Adultery. An 
 
 unusually large Metsu, not bad in characterisa- 
 tion nor in composition, and quite beautiful in col- 
 our, in light, and in atmosphere. The robes are 
 easily painted but the underlying drawing is a 
 little weak. 
 
 2460. The Music Lesson. A handsome little picture, 
 
 well set and well painted all through. In many 
 respects it is quite up to a Terborch. 
 
 2459. An Officer Receiving a Young Woman. One 
 
 * of Metsu's first-rate pictures, excellent in drawing 
 
86 THE LOUVRE 
 
 as in painting, and with much fine colour. The 
 upper-class life of Holland is here shown with dig- 
 nity and distinction. How easily the lady sits, the 
 officer stands! The background has darkened. 
 
 2462. A Dutch Woman. With fat painting in the 
 
 whites and much richness of colour. Metsu is 
 not to be scheduled with the Dous and Netschers. 
 He was a far better painter than they, and nearer 
 to Terborch or Steen. See also No. 2463. 
 
 2464. Portrait of Admiral Tromp. It is a command- 
 ing portrait in bright red. The face has suffered 
 from some retouching. Metsu may have done 
 this portrait, but there are no strong indications 
 of his brush to be seen in it. It is effective work, 
 nevertheless. 
 
 2030A. Metsys, Qiientin. Madonna and Child. It has 
 
 sentiment and feeling about it, though it looks like 
 a school piece. The figures a little injured, per- 
 haps. 
 
 2029. Banker and Wife. Sharp in the drawing but 
 
 true enough in the small details even to the re- 
 flection in the glass in the foreground. It fails, 
 however, to make an impressive picture. Most of 
 these money-changer pictures have been put upon 
 Quentin Metsys but do not belong to him. They 
 are nearer to Romerswael or to Jean Metsys. 
 
 24661 Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz. Portraits of a Man 
 
 2467 1 and Woman. True likenesses, no doubt, and done 
 with exactness. The drawing is sharp and close, 
 but the effect is fairly good. They are substantial 
 portraits and not to be passed by because not of 
 Rembrandtesque style and quality. 
 
MORO, ANTONIO 87 
 
 2055. Mol, Pieter van. Head of a Young Man. It is 
 
 more striking than intrinsically fine. The drawing 
 is loose and the painting rather rambling. It pos- 
 sibly belonged to a large picture from which it 
 has been cut away. 
 
 1393. Montagna, Bartolommeo. Ecce Homo. A pa- 
 thetic type of the Christ, done with some pre- 
 cision in the drawing, though it has been softened 
 by retouching. The figure was originally articu- 
 lated too much in the shoulders, for instance. 
 The brows and nose are harsh again, but there is 
 a sense of reality about the head, the hair, the 
 thorns, the shadows. 
 
 1394. Three Children Playing Instruments. The cat- 
 alogue title is misleading. The children are angels, 
 a part cut away from an altar-piece, and they are 
 playing for the glory of the Madonna that was once 
 above them. Naive and childlike in the types, 
 with the unconscious air so often seen in the figures 
 of Carpaccio, who possibly had some influence upon 
 Montagna. A fine bit of colour, if leaving some- 
 thing to be desired in the way of good drawing. 
 
 11751 Moretto of Brescia. St. Bonaventura, St. An- 
 1176J thony, and Others. Two panels and two saints in 
 each panel, with fine robes and rather strong faces. 
 They have Moretto's silvery tone, but they do not 
 represent him very well, being rather small and 
 slight work for a man who revelled in large altar- 
 pieces. The colour is his. 
 
 2480 1 Moro, Antonio. Portraits of Luis del Rio and 
 
 2481 / Wife. They were probably the wings of an altar- 
 
 * piece originally. As portraits, they are very fine 
 
 finer, perhaps, than can be explained by the 
 
88 THE LOUVRE 
 
 name of Moro. They are superb illustrations of 
 character in portraiture. The hands alone might 
 make a picture even were the strong heads omitted. 
 The coats of arms are a little spotty, and the back- 
 grounds of landscape are now darkened so that the 
 flowers about the woman hardly show at all, and 
 the hills are plunged in gloom. (In the Salle 
 Duchatel, Hall V.) 
 
 2479. - The Dwarf of Charles V. Interesting in the 
 theme. As for the painting, it is in an entirely dif- 
 ferent style from Nos. 2480 and 2481, though it is 
 not impossible that all three pictures emanated from 
 the same studio. The dwarf seems to be Moro's 
 work. 
 
 1710. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. The Birth of the 
 Virgin. This is perhaps as poor a work technically 
 as Murillo ever executed. It should be studied 
 for its bad drawing, false light, black shadows, and 
 weak colour. The analysis of error is always an 
 important factor in the establishment of truth. 
 It is proper to state, however, that some critics and 
 the public at large do not agree with this dictum 
 and insist upon it that the picture is "one of the 
 most charming in existence." 
 
 1717. Young Beggar. It is fairly well drawn and 
 
 painted and good in its effect of light. It does not 
 improve on acquaintance none of these beggar 
 pictures do but it is technically better than many 
 of his Madonna pictures, though hard, dry, and 
 rather colourless. Other examples of this genre 
 are at Munich. 
 
 1708. Immaculate Conception. Not SO famous as 
 
 No. 1709, but perhaps a trifle better done, though 
 the sentiment of it is of the same insipid quality. 
 
NICCOLO ALUNNO 89 
 
 1713. Holy Family. A soft, sweet-faced, pretty 
 
 Murillo that has little character, strength, colour, 
 or drawing about it. But its popularity knows no 
 bounds or limits. It is of the same stamp as the 
 Immaculate Conception, No. 1709. 
 
 1709. Immaculate Conception. This is the Soult 
 
 Murillo purchased in 1852 for the then enormous 
 sum of 615,000 francs. It was at that time thought 
 a marvellous creation, but has since fallen in critical 
 esteem, until to-day it holds a very modest place. 
 And rightly so. The sentiment is excessive, the 
 Guido Reni face of the Madonna is insipid, the 
 attitude affected (look at the hands), the colour 
 merely pretty, the drawing rambling, loose, un- 
 certain. The placing of the figure on the canvas 
 and surrounding it with clouds and light is not badly 
 done, but it is too weak for art, though it was prob- 
 ably effective at one time as religion. 
 
 1712. - Virgin with the Beads. A much better- 
 painted picture than Murillo's other Madonnas in 
 the Louvre. The colour has a tang to it, and the 
 Madonna does not look as though she were going 
 to die in an ecstasy of sentimentality. It is so 
 good a picture that one may be pardoned for en- 
 tertaining the queer feeling that perhaps Murillo 
 did not paint it, after all. 
 
 1716. Miracle of San Diego. A scattered proces- 
 sional composition of small merit. The central 
 angels are graceful and have some rather pretty 
 colour about them. The scenes at left and right 
 are almost as much "out" of the composition as 
 though on separate canvases. 
 
 1120. NiCCOl6 Alunno. Scenes from the Passion. The 
 predella of a picture painted in 1492. It is done 
 
90 THE LOUVRE 
 
 with spirit and "go," as notice the two little angels 
 in the extreme left-hand compartment. The cen- 
 tral panels again show action and life. The colour 
 is now golden-brown enlivened with red, but it 
 has doubtless become deepened by time. Appar- 
 ently in good condition, genuine, and a picture to 
 be studied by the student of early Umbrian art. 
 
 2498. Ostade, Adriaen van. Interior of a Cottage. 
 
 To be studied in connection with the so-called 
 Rembrandt, The Carpenter's Shop, No. 2542, 
 across the room, for similarity of theme, treatment, 
 and handling. Ostade possibly painted both pic- 
 tures. See also in one of the side cabinets his 
 charming interior, No. 2502, for further comparison. 
 The so-called Rembrandt is, of course, the best 
 of the three. That is why it was given to Rem- 
 brandt. 
 
 2497. - The Fish Market. An excellent piece of work 
 with a large feeling for form and broad, compre- 
 hensive drawing. Notice the face and hands of the 
 man. And the fish. What a crowd at the back! 
 Nos. 2500 and 2503 by the same hand are also very 
 well painted. 
 
 2513. Ostade, Isaac van. A Pig Sty. A companion 
 piece, and almost a replica so far as theme and 
 treatment go, is shown in the Brussels Gallery 
 (No. 357) under the name and signature of Paul 
 Potter. The Brussels picture is, like this one in 
 the Louvre, a very good example of the work of 
 Isaac van Ostade. See also No. 2510. 
 
 1399. Palma Vecchio. Adoration of Shepherds. The 
 
 * picture is said to have two false signatures of Titian 
 in the foreground. There is no question about its 
 being by Palma, and before it was flayed in the clean- 
 
PERREAL, JEHAN 91 
 
 ing room it must have been a picture of consider- 
 able beauty. Notice how the little figure of the 
 Christ Child and the Madonna's hands holding 
 him have been injured. The faces are just as badly 
 repainted, barring that of the kneeling shepherd, 
 who seems less injured than the others. What 
 large, full drawing of drapery and what richness 
 of colour still! And notice the breadth of treat- 
 ment in the landscape. A small, half-obliterated 
 picture is hanging on the brick wall at the back. 
 
 1400. Palmezzano, Marco. The Dead Christ. With 
 mourning angels holding the arms. A hard piece 
 of drawing and modelling, but rather good in col- 
 our, and with a nice suggestion of landscape. 
 Notice the flatness of the fingers, the folding of the 
 drapery, the flint-like rocks at the top. 
 
 1401. Panetti, Domenico. Nativity. A very simple 
 composition of large masses and few objects and 
 much the better for its simplicity. The drawing 
 of the drapery is mannered, the hands are too 
 large, the brick arch is very flat, the Child's bed 
 very hard. But there is richness of colour. And 
 what good sentiment without sentimentality I 
 
 1048. Perreal, Jehan (Jean de Paris). Madonna and 
 * Child with Donors. Here is a picture that ap- 
 proaches the Van Eyck School in the Madonna 
 with the large but crinkled drapery, the composi- 
 tion, and the minuteness of the details. But the 
 types, the robes in their cut and pattern, the ar- 
 chitecture are different. The picture comes from 
 northern France, in all probability, but whether 
 by Perreal is not so easily determined. We have 
 no authentic work by him to judge by, unless 
 we accept him as identical with the Master 
 
92 THE LOUVRE 
 
 of Moulins. A fine picture all through. The 
 Madonna is lovely and the donors quiet, digni- 
 fied, truthful, excellent in every way. Notice the 
 beautiful detail of the patterns, borders, flowers, 
 and the good colour. 
 
 1566. Perugino, Pietro. St. Paul. With some indi- 
 cations of its being merely a school piece, though 
 generally accepted as by the master's brush. The 
 hands, the outlines of the neck, the screen at the 
 back are not exactly Peruginesque. It is careless 
 work. 
 
 1565. Holy Family. A much scrubbed and stained 
 
 Perugino, but still showing his round faces, his 
 warm colouring, and his Umbrian sentiment. It 
 makes no attempt at cleverness in composition, 
 but gives the figures in a row and rather posing 
 for their pictures. It is not an early Perugino; 
 the Madonna is becoming a little heavy in the 
 jowl, and the colours are deeper and richer than 
 in his earlier work. 
 
 1564. Holy Family. It is a circular composition in 
 
 which the lines of the figures supplement and com- 
 plement the lines of the frame. There are " eyes " 
 in the drapery, and the hands are somewhat sharply 
 articulated in the joints. The types and also the 
 colour are very attractive. The beautiful angels 
 at the top are pure, if thin, in sentiment, and the 
 landscape possesses the same attenuated feeling. 
 An early work. 
 
 1566A. St. Sebastian. "A body belonging to the 
 
 Renaissance containing a soul belonging to the 
 Middle Ages" to quote Taine. And both of 
 them are beautiful. Here is Perugino's drawing 
 at its best save perhaps in the chin. The figure 
 
PESELLINO 93 
 
 is flat, abbreviated, a little hard; but expressive, 
 true, and withal graceful or approaching grace. 
 What a serene sky and still landscape ! And what 
 architecture for the framing of the figure! A fine 
 picture. The head and shoulders show in another 
 version at the Hermitage (No. 1938), possibly a 
 copy. 
 
 1567. Combat Between Love and Chastity. Like 
 
 No. 1261, this picture is to be regarded more as a 
 landscape with figures than as figures with a land- 
 scape. It is the ensemble of it that counts, and the 
 figures are merely graceful lines or spots of colour 
 in the scheme, though they undoubtedly influence 
 that scheme greatly. It is not so very certain that 
 Perugino did these figures. The landscape is 
 more like him, and very charming it is, too. With- 
 out being so clever or so elaborate as the Costa 
 (No. 1261), it is warmer in colour and more attrac- 
 tive in light and air. But even the landscape is 
 somewhat unusual for Perugino. An excellent 
 decorative piece that probably came out of the 
 Perugino workshop. 
 
 1573. Perugino, School of. Madonna and Child Sur- 
 rounded by Cherubim. A slight affair. Another 
 panel of the same kind and by the same hand, in 
 the Budapest Gallery (No. 83), there ascribed 
 to Pinturicchio a closer guess than Perugino. 
 It is probably by Antonio da Viterbo. 
 
 1414. Pesellino, Francesco. St. Francis Receiving the 
 Stigmata and Sts. Cosmo and Damian Curing a 
 Sick Man. Two small panels that possess much 
 depth and richness of colour. Notice the bright col- 
 our at the right, the landscape at the left. The 
 panels probably belonged originally to the predella 
 
94 THE LOUVRE 
 
 of an altar-piece by Fra Filippo in Santa Croce, 
 Florence. Other parts of the predella are in the 
 Academy at Florence. 
 
 1415. - The Dead Christ and Two Legendary Scenes. 
 
 The two nude figures hanging and the saint look- 
 ing on at the right have some feeling for form and 
 are realistic. The drawing is not accurate, but 
 the colour has some strength. The attribution 
 may be questioned. The work belongs somewhere 
 in the Umbrian School of Perugino. 
 
 1416AJ Piero di Cosimo. (Attributed to.) Marriage 
 1416B J of Thetis and Peleus and Triumph of Venus. Two 
 
 decorative panels done perhaps for some wedding 
 chest. And handsomely done. They are perhaps 
 too cunning in drawing for Piero, too graceful in 
 line, too delicate in colour. Botticelli's influence 
 is very apparent everywhere. In 141 GB the figure 
 in the shell was probably inspired by Botticelli's 
 Venus, as the figures at the extreme right by the 
 Graces in Botticelli's Spring. Notice that the nude 
 figures at the left are much rounder in contours 
 than is customary with Piero. Handsome panels 
 and of some interest in art history. Mr. Berenson 
 gives them to Alunno di Domenico. 
 
 1417. Pinturicchio, Bernardo. Madonna and Child. 
 
 It gives one but a small notion of Pinturicchio, 
 though perhaps genuine enough. It has some nice 
 sentiment with ornamental gold work, but Pintu- 
 ricchio should be studied at Siena. 
 
 1352. Piombo, Sebastiano del. The Visitation. This 
 picture is now in bad shape, due to its transference 
 to canvas and repainting, but it still suggests Se- 
 bastiano's types, figures, draperies, and colours. 
 
POTTER, PAULUS 95 
 
 The robes and figures are largely done and well 
 drawn. The warm sky reflects the reds and yellows 
 of the foreground. The flesh notes are greyed. 
 
 1422 bis. Pisanello (Vittore Pisano). Portrait of a 
 * Princess d'Este. This is probably a portrait of 
 Ginevra d'Este. The head and neck are flat, and 
 have possibly been flattened somewhat by clean- 
 ing, but the picture is still a masterpiece of char- 
 acterisation. There is nothing pretty or even 
 regular about the features, but one sees here 
 youth and innocence, with repose, dignity, even 
 nobility of presence. The hair has been plucked 
 from the forehead and eyebrows, as was the fash- 
 ion of the day. The robe is superb, and superb 
 also the flowery pattern at the back, every note of 
 which is in perfect harmony. This is art of a very 
 distinguished kind. Perhaps it requires an ac- 
 quired taste to appreciate it, but there is no doubt 
 about its high quality. Its decorative content in 
 such things as the beautiful outline of the face, 
 or the splendid dress hanging from the shoulder, 
 or the drawing and painting of the flowers is suf- 
 ficient in itself to indicate its rank as art. 
 
 2526. Potter, Paulus. Horses at the Door of a Cottage. 
 
 A very good picture by some second-rate Little 
 Dutchman, but not by Paul Potter. It is too 
 easily handled, especially in the man and the cot- 
 tage, for Potter. The signature on the chimney 
 speaks for itself, and speaks rather loudly at that. 
 The same signature is on a pig-sty picture at 
 Brussels, by Isaac van Ostade. After the supply 
 of Potters was exhausted it seems Van Ostade was 
 fair game for those who wanted Potters. See the 
 note on the Brussels picture (No. 357). 
 
96 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2527. The Meadow. A large Potter, similar in com- 
 position to the Young Bull at The Hague, and in 
 the same style of painting. It is hard in drawing, 
 dry in handling, with no colour, spirit, or life to 
 hold it up. The sky has been cleaned to death. 
 The cattle never were alive. 
 
 2528. Horse at Large. A picture with more air and 
 
 envelope than Potter usually obtained, but even 
 so, not a remarkable work in any way. 
 
 2529. - Woods at The Hague. This is Potter at his 
 best in this gallery, but the work is in every way 
 different from No. 2526. 
 
 741. PoilSSin, Nicolas. Diogenes Casting Away His 
 Bowl. The title is only an excuse for showing a 
 classic landscape of far reach and much strength. 
 Poussin never went beyond this in landscape, and 
 some of his latter-day compatriots in the Fontaine- 
 bleau-Barbizon School never equalled it. There 
 is no sentiment about it, and it lacks in spontaneity, 
 but it has style, proportion, unity. The scheme of 
 light is low in key, but it is well sustained through- 
 out. The picture is perfectly held together. It is a 
 depth and not a flat surface, and has air, distance, 
 and a real sky overhead. The trees are of classic 
 variety, but majestic, the hills solid and substan- 
 tial, the distant Athens quite true in light. Fore- 
 ground and distance are one and the same earth, 
 and the light comes from one source the sun. 
 The colour is dull, corresponding to the light. A 
 well-made picture. 
 
 N. N. Poetic Inspiration. A newly acquired Pous- 
 sin with figures of life size. It has much excellence 
 of drawing and far more light and colour than 
 
RAPHAEL SANZIO 97 
 
 usual with Poussin. It is now his most consider- 
 able figure picture in the Louvre his best, perhaps. 
 
 734. - Shepherds in Arcadia. A picture famous for 
 its story but not for its art. It is, however, a 
 fair example of Poussin's good drawing, hot flesh, 
 and crude blues and reds. His other figure pic- 
 tures, with the exception of the Poetic Inspiration, 
 are no better than this, and may be passed without 
 mention. 
 
 737. Ruth and Boaz. Almost all of the Poussins 
 
 are dull in their lighting. This picture is a good 
 example of his almost unbelievable light. No 
 grain-field at midday could show such darkness. 
 The landscape, otherwise than in light, is good, and 
 the costumes are not bad as colour spots. His 
 Garden of Eden (No. 736) and the Deluge (No. 
 709) are of the same lightless variety. 
 
 1504. Raphael Sanzio. St. Michael Overcoming Satan. 
 
 This picture was restored as early as 1530 by Pri- 
 maticcio, and has undergone many cleanings, res- 
 torations, and transferences since, so that one can 
 hardly say what is Raphael in it and what is 
 restoration. The design is probably Raphael's 
 but the execution that of pupils primarily, Giulio 
 Romano. It is not a satisfactory work and does 
 not represent Raphael at all well. The action is 
 excited, the drapery flutters out, obviously to fill 
 space, the wings are hardly sustaining, and the 
 spear is part of an academic model's pose. The 
 landscape is not Raphael's, and the colour is now 
 more the restorer's work than the master's or the 
 
 ?upil's. The light is dim and wants in warmth, 
 t is not worth while forming an idea of Raphael 
 from this picture. 
 
98 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1496. La Belle Jardiniere. The exaggerated repu- 
 tation of this picture is hardly justified by its qual- 
 ity. It is not Raphael at his best by any means. 
 It is early and (for him) rather immature work, 
 but it is not wanting in skill or charm. The com- 
 position is pyramidal and the drawing acceptable 
 but not wonderful. The placing of the group in 
 the landscape is very good, and the landscape 
 itself, with its feeling of space, is excellent. The 
 hands of the children are not well done, the feet 
 of the Virgin are copied after the feet in Leonardo's 
 picture (No. 1598), the flesh painting is somewhat 
 pasty, like Lorenzo di Credi's, the handling is 
 smooth and rather pretty as in the Madonna's 
 hair and robe. The colour is not remarkable and 
 the foliage in the foreground is rather overdone. 
 The best part of the picture is the composition 
 the placing of the figure in space and the land- 
 scape at the back, though there is, of course, con- 
 siderable grace in the turning of contours and the 
 drawing of the vestments. As for the sentiment, it 
 is not strong. Notice the apparent malformation 
 of the left shoulder, due to cleaning; also the 
 Child's left arm. 
 
 1498. - Holy Family of Francis I. The drawing is 
 graceful in the circling lines of the. Madonna, in the 
 swing of t the red-gowned figure through the oval 
 of the blue overdress, in the angel with the flowers, 
 in the St. Anne and St. Joseph. All the figures 
 are grouped about the Child, who is springing 
 eagerly toward his mother. There is movement 
 everywhere except in the St. Joseph with the fine 
 head, who represents the repose of the group in 
 contrast to the hurrying angel. The surface is 
 smooth; the colour is now yellow and hot. The 
 
RAPHAEL SANZIO 99 
 
 picture has been over-cleaned and repainted. It 
 has also been relined. It is signed on the edge of 
 the Virgin's cloak, which is suspicious. A real 
 Raphael never needs a signature, but a school 
 piece usually does. This is of the latter character. 
 It is more like Giulio Romano than Raphael, having 
 Giulio's drawing and mannered flesh colour. Carry 
 it in your eye into the long gallery, and compare 
 it with the Joanna of Aragon (No. 1507) for 
 the flesh colour and smooth surface as shown in 
 the head and neck of the Madonna. No doubt 
 Raphael designed the picture, though he is not to 
 be judged wholly by it. 
 
 Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione. If this 
 picture did not bear the magic name of Raphael, 
 should we spend much time looking at it or marvel- 
 ling over its workmanship? Is its workmanship 
 so very good? Beginning at the cap, is it so well 
 drawn or so well marked by light and shade? Is 
 the face, with its commonplace brow, its hard eye- 
 lids, and its matty, painty beard remarkable in 
 any way as a study of character, or as drawing, or 
 as painting? The disposition of the costume, is 
 that easy, restful, or is the coat badly drawn in the 
 sleeves and shoulders, flattened in patches, hard 
 in the edges, and wholly lacking in repose? Does 
 it give much idea of the figure beneath it, or is 
 there much of a figure there? The hands are 
 over-cleaned and are not exactly bad in drawing, 
 but were they ever very good ? Finally, what 
 about the colour of this picture and the atmos- 
 pheric envelope are they good or are they indif- 
 ferent? The picture has been repainted in the 
 face and much restored, but was probably never a 
 very fine portrait even though Raphael did it. 
 
100 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1497. - The Madonna of the Blue Diadem. This 
 comes perilously near to being a dinner-plate pic- 
 ture with its pretty faces, its porcelain surfaces, 
 and its harsh colouring. Look at the blues with 
 their positive falsity of value and want of tone. 
 And what awkwardness in the hand and arm with 
 the veil! What bad drawing in the figure of the 
 Madonna, especially in the shoulders and knees! 
 And is this Raphael's feeling for space? I* this 
 his landscape? Did he draw that Child on that 
 dreadful blue drapery? One may venture to doubt. 
 It is hardly conceivable that even Giulio Romano 
 could do this. And yet, probably he did. 
 
 1499. The Holy Family. It will not answer for 
 
 Raphael. It is some kind of school piece, cold in 
 colour though hot in flesh, with little to commend it 
 as art. The head of the St. Anne reappears in the 
 head No. 1509 bis, which see. 
 
 1509 bis. - Head of St. Elizabeth. This head appears 
 in the small picture, No. 1499 here shown and also 
 in a large canvas by Giulio Romano at the Madrid 
 Gallery (No. 300). Giulio and his school were 
 probably responsible for all three pictures. 
 
 1500. - St. John the Baptist in the Wilderness. There 
 is a repetition of this picture in the Uffizi at 
 Florence. Each is claimed as the original, but 
 Raphael probably w r as guiltless of them both. 
 The landscape, light and shade, and flesh colour 
 are not Raphaelesque. The picture is possibly, 
 but not certainly, by Sebastiano del Piombo. 
 
 1501. St. Margaret. This picture has been much 
 
 cleaned and restored, first by Primaticcio and after- 
 ward by cleaning-room celebrities. It is in bad 
 condition, and one can now only guess at its 
 
RAPHAEL , 3&NZK ) *01 
 
 painter. It is not likely that Raphael ever saw it. 
 A variant of it by Giulio Romano is at Vienna 
 (No. 31). 
 
 St. Michael. Probably not by Raphael, and 
 a good argument might be made to the effect that 
 it is not even an Italian picture. But the panel 
 is hardly worth enough as art to warrant discus- 
 sion. 
 
 St. George. This has little more value as art 
 than No. 1502 and is far removed from the as- 
 tonishing or the wonderful. Yet it is very likely 
 a genuine Raphael, done when he was a boy. 
 The little figure of St. Sabra at the back is better 
 than the saint on his wooden horse. The landscape 
 is very good. 
 
 Portrait of a Young Man. Long known, 
 
 copied, photographed, and engraved as Raphael's 
 own portrait by himself. The "own portrait" no- 
 tion has now been abandoned, but the attribu- 
 tion of the picture to Raphael still sticks. If 
 Raphael had one technical excellence above another, 
 it was that of good drawing. Such being the case, 
 how are we to understand the very badly drawn 
 hand and wrist so much in evidence in this picture? 
 And the queer cocked eyes, the nose, and the mouth, 
 the badly drawn figure and costume? Also the 
 want of atmosphere, with the overmodelled head 
 falling out of the picture-frame? Also the different- 
 from-Raphael handling of the hair and flesh, the 
 wholly alien-from-Raphael scheme of colour? The 
 picture was probably painted by Bacchiacca, as 
 Morelli pointed out years ago. Poor Raphael! 
 If he has such pictures as this hung about his neck, 
 he will hardly hold his place in the empyrean. 
 
102 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1507. Joanna of Aragon. A very good portrait, 
 
 but somewhat mannered in the hands and perhaps 
 too elaborate in the costume. The colour is rich, 
 the palace background ornate, the handling appar- 
 ently facile. The catalogue quotes Vasari to the 
 effect that Raphael made only the head from life 
 and Giulio Romano completed it; but recently 
 published correspondence intimates that the study 
 of the head was made by a pupil. In other words, 
 the portrait is what is nowadays called a workshop 
 portrait something executed by pupils. But that 
 goes to show that a workshop picture or a Giulio 
 Romano is not necessarily either a swindle or a 
 failure. This is neither the one nor the other. It 
 probably pleased those for whom it was executed, 
 as it pleases many people to-day. It has much 
 to commend it. Compare the head and shoulders 
 for flesh colour and contours with the Madonna in 
 the Holy Family of Francis I (No. 1498), also ex- 
 ecuted by Giulio Romano. 
 
 1508. Portraits of Two Men. There is no reason 
 
 whatever to think it by Raphael. It is doubtful 
 that it is either a Florentine or an Umbrian picture. 
 Critics have attributed it to Sebastiano, to Pon- 
 tormo, to Giulio Romano. It is not wonderful in 
 any way. On the contrary, it is rather heavy, both 
 mentally and technically. 
 
 1509. Raphael. (Attributed to.) Apollo and Marsyas. 
 A picture that almost any one of half a dozen 
 painters in the Umbrian country might have done. 
 It does not speak for Raphael so much as for his 
 teachers and elders say Perugino. And yet it 
 might be by Manni or even Aspertini. It is a 
 graceful enough composition with a good Umbrian 
 landscape. 
 
REMBRANDT 103 
 
 Rembrandt van Ryn. Angel Raphael Leaving 
 Tobias. What a beautiful envelope of air and 
 shadow in which the figures are happily placed! 
 How well done the old man kneeling, the frightened 
 figures at the door, the dog, the setting of the house ! 
 Also the flying angel, with his lovely hair and 
 wings! The picture is indeed charming and quite 
 worthy of Rembrandt for all the hard drawing of 
 the hands and legs. It has some look of Bol 
 about it, but it is probably a genuine enough Rem- 
 brandt, done in his grey-golden period. 
 
 The Good Samaritan. This picture was writ- 
 ten about by Fromentin, some years ago, at some 
 length and with much enthusiasm. The present 
 generation looks at it with perhaps less admiration. 
 This may be due to less certainty as to who did 
 the picture. It is likely a picture in which Eeck- 
 hout had a hand. Compare it with the Eeckhout 
 across the gallery (No. 2364). Begin with the 
 similarity of light, the central spot of white, the 
 likeness of the man with the turban in both pic- 
 tures, the repeated red cap, the drawing of the 
 hands, sleeves, coats. They are not identical, but 
 are they not so similar as to point to a possibility? 
 They were done in point of time some years apart, 
 for the No. 2364 is much smoother work. But all 
 that Fromentin said about this picture, its piteous 
 subject and the pathos of it is quite true. It is a 
 picture of merit. The distribution of shadow is dis- 
 turbing, and no one knows precisely whence comes 
 the light. The colour is Rembrandtesque and rich. 
 
 St. Matthew. It does not follow that every 
 loaded and thumbed canvas with foxy colouring 
 is a late Rembrandt. His pupils stumbled and 
 
104 THE LOUVRE 
 
 boggled with a loaded brush more than he. They 
 were imitating his failures as well as his successes. 
 The angel in this picture is the same as you may 
 see in Bol's picture in the Amsterdam Gallery 
 (No. 552) and also in the Rembrandt (which is by 
 Bol) in the Berlin Gallery (No. 828). This model 
 was continually used by Bol, but that does not 
 conclusively prove that he painted this picture. 
 It is probably a studio picture, like No. 2555, in 
 which Bol or Eeckhout may have had a hand. 
 Other painters Rubens, Raphael, Bellini were 
 helped by pupils and sent out composite works 
 under their names and often signed them in the 
 bargain. Why not Rembrandt? Yet how often in 
 the long lists of Rembrandts in public galleries do 
 you find one assigned to the school? 
 
 1539. Pilgrims at Emmaus. Of much emotional 
 
 feeling and great pathos. It is a poor, mean- 
 looking Amsterdam Jew who figures as the Christ. 
 The face is transfigured by suffering, has sad 
 eyes and blackened lips, and speaks the Christ of 
 the tomb. The phosphorescent halo of death is 
 about the head and a suggestion of the tomb is 
 given in the architecture at the back. The wonder 
 of the disciples as they recognise the One who is 
 breaking bread is well given in facial looks, up- 
 raised hands, and shrinking bodies. Even the boy 
 who is bringing in a dish has a frightened air. The 
 figures are very well set in their aerial envelope. 
 What an envelope it is, with the deep, mysterious 
 recess at the back! W T hat luminous shadows are 
 here! And how the table, chairs, and dishes are 
 drawn! More than that it is not technically re- 
 markable. It has little brilliancy of colour and 
 carries largely by its emotional significance. 
 
REMBRANDT 105 
 
 2540 1 Philosophers in Meditation. Small pictures 
 
 2541 J over which, in the past, there has been some spill- 
 ing of good printer's ink with no very marked re- 
 sults. The pictures are not wonderful. In fact, 
 one may be heretical enough to think that some one 
 like Salomon Koninck or Dou might have painted 
 them. It is not affirmed that either of them did, 
 but it may be reasserted that there is nothing 
 wonderful about the pictures, whoever did them; 
 and further that there is no strong indication of 
 Rembrandt having done them. He was not given 
 to the painting of such small material. 
 
 2542. - The Carpenter's Shop. And when, pray, did 
 Rembrandt come down to doing a pretty, Italian- 
 faced Madonna like this, seated in an interior that 
 has a window reminding one of the windows by 
 Adriaan van Ostade? It is a very good picture, 
 but why Rembrandt? See the Van Ostade across 
 the room (No. 2498), for a similar theme done in a 
 similar manner, though not so well done. Ostade 
 repeated the theme again and again. See another 
 example in one of the side cabinets (No 2507). 
 One can form his own conclusions. 
 
 2543. - Venus and Love. The learned director of the 
 Berlin Gallery is quoted in the catalogue as recog- 
 nising in this picture the likeness of Hendrickje 
 Stoffels and her daughter Cornelia, but one would 
 like to know when, where, and how the present 
 generation became acquainted with her features 
 or those of her daughter. In the Berlin Gallery 
 she is recognised as the model of No. 828B, quite a 
 different portrait from the person in No. 2547 here 
 in the Louvre, which is also asserted with equal posi- 
 tiveness to be a likeness of the unfortunate Hen- 
 
106 THE LOUVRE 
 
 drickje. Now here in No. 2543 we have still an- 
 other likeness of her. Once more we catch a glimpse 
 of how history is made, and begin to understand 
 why it requires rewriting every ten years to keep 
 it up to date. As for the picture itself (that is, No. 
 2543), it is good in colour and nice in the little 
 Cupid. With a great many things about it that 
 do not suggest Rembrandt, as, for example, the 
 subject, the types, the hands (especially those of 
 the Cupid), the dark shadows, and, above all, the 
 trail of the brush. Compare it with the handling 
 of the Flayed Ox (No. 2548). It seems a very good 
 picture that belongs perhaps nearer to Bernaert 
 Fabritius than any one else. See the notes on the 
 Rembrandts at Berlin and at The Hague. 
 
 2544. Portrait of an Old Man. A portrait of no 
 
 great power or charm, no spontaneity or verve. 
 Even the loaded forehead is done with great care 
 and timidity. It is rather tame all through, as 
 though the work of a copyist rather than the master. 
 It originally had a grey tone but is now yellow 
 with varnish. 
 
 2545. - Portrait of a Young Man. To be accepted 
 with a grain of salt. There is a weakness about 
 the face and a blackness of the shadows that are 
 not Rembrandt's. Besides, the surface is smooth 
 for Rembrandt's golden period. It is possibly a 
 school work. 
 
 2546. Portrait of a Man. Said by Michel (quoted 
 
 in the catalogue) to be a repetition or copy of the 
 portrait at Cassel. It is neither better nor worse 
 than the Cassel picture, and neither of them is a 
 thing of great pith or moment in art. But this is 
 not a copy. It is the original work of some Rem- 
 brandt follower. 
 
REMBRANDT 107 
 
 2547. Portrait of a Woman. Again we have the as- 
 sertion that this is the portrait of Hendrickje Stof- 
 fels. See the note to No. 2543. The picture has 
 much fine colour of a golden tone, transparent 
 shadows, and some very good modelling. It must 
 be taken for a Rembrandt of the late golden period, 
 though it does not in every way agree with his work 
 at that time. It is handsomely done, with good 
 drawing, especially in the eyes and the turn of the 
 cheeks and chin, and in good pervasive light. The 
 figure protrudes a bit and does not keep within its 
 envelope as it should. It is a late work, and a 
 little after the manner of the Young Woman with a 
 Pink, at Cassel (No. 238). It has been cleaned too 
 much. The cap at the top and the little red lines 
 at the side of it seem to have been painted in after- 
 ward. 
 
 2548. A Flayed Ox. This is a tour de force, done for 
 
 the pure love of manipulating pigment and getting 
 a colour effect. Several of the old Dutch painters 
 tried the same subject, but none arrived so success- 
 fully as Rembrandt. It is a marvellous piece of 
 painting in which the fatty quality of the pigment 
 seems to reproduce in modelling the fat of the beef 
 itself. It is largely painted with a palette-knife or 
 a thumb, and is not kneaded and amended but hit 
 the first time. This was in 1655, when we are given 
 to understand his handling was heavy, as account- 
 ing for works of a heavy nature put down to his 
 name. There is here not the slightest sign of failure 
 or heaviness in the work. It is certainty itself. 
 What a piece of colour! And what a luminous 
 shadowed background! It is a painter's picture 
 and superb. 
 
108 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2549. A Woman Bathing. Once more with this 
 
 picture we have the allegation that it is a likeness 
 of Hendrickje Stoffels (see the note to No. 2543), 
 with a eulogy on the loveliness of the drawing by 
 Doctor Bode. As for its being Hendrickje Stoffels, 
 it is much more likely to be a plain studio model 
 employed by Rembrandt and his pupils, or by 
 others. In fact, one might see the same model in 
 this room in the picture put down to Drost (No. 
 2559 A). It is the same type, varied in the paint- 
 ing by the different views of the two painters. 
 The type appears again in the Woman Bathing 
 (No. 54) in the National Gallery, London. As 
 for the drawing, the learned doctor is quite right. 
 It is quite a remarkable figure, if a little coarse. 
 One cannot feel so sure that Rembrandt did the 
 long-fingered hands and the rather black shadows. 
 Nor can one be so sure, as some others, that Rem- 
 brandt always did the whole of his pictures and 
 without the help of his pupils. This picture is not 
 difficult to reconcile with certain pictures attributed 
 to Rembrandt, such as the Woman Bathing, in the 
 National Gallery (No. 54), a picture in reality 
 painted by Eeckhout. It is easier to see Eeckhout 
 in the Louvre picture than it is to see Rembrandt. 
 Across the room is an Eeckhout (No. 2364), with 
 a robe about the seated figure that will match the 
 robe of this bathing woman very well. It is prac- 
 tically the same robe, and appears again in the 
 London picture. This picture also agrees very 
 well with the Good Samaritan (No. 2537), which 
 is probably an Eeckhout also. But Eeckhout or 
 Rembrandt, it is a fine piece of work. To be very 
 frank, it is almost too fine in drawing for Eeck- 
 hout, and not fine enough for Rembrandt, not 
 
REMBRANDT 109 
 
 luminous enough or powerful enough, and too hard 
 in the drawing and the surface. The small figure 
 (No. 2550) is probably by the same hand that did 
 this No. 2549. 
 
 2551. - Portrait of a Man. The face has no great 
 strength to it, though well enough done. The hair, 
 cap, and coat are somewhat mauled and tortured, 
 and the shadows are rather dark. It is probably 
 some pupil's performance or a shop piece done in 
 the Rembrandt shop. Possibly by the painter of 
 No. 2545. 
 
 2553. Portrait of the Painter. A straightforward 
 
 portrait, with nothing either very good or very bad 
 about it. The chain is overloaded with pigment. 
 The colour is turning to gold, though it has been 
 helped somewhat in this case by much oil and 
 varnish. The picture is of about the same quality 
 as Nos. 2552 and 2554. They are none of them 
 of pronounced Rembrandt origin. 
 
 2554. - Portrait of the Painter. Again there is noth- 
 ing remarkable about this portrait of the painter. 
 It is not even spirited, and if it could be seen close 
 at hand it might prove merely a pupil's work, or an 
 old copy. 
 
 2541A. A Hermit Reading. This picture is probably 
 
 not by Rembrandt, but possibly by Dou or some 
 one of his ilk. Not to go out of the Louvre for 
 illustration, examine Dou at second hand in the 
 work of his imitator, Brekelenkam, in his picture 
 (No. 2336), A Monk Reading. It is among the 
 Dutch pictures in one of the small side cabinets. 
 The subject is not only similar, but notice, if you 
 will, the same bend forward of the head, the same 
 drawing of the skull, the same drawing of the hands 
 
110 THE LOUVRE 
 
 with an emphasis upon the knuckles, the same 
 scheme of light. See also the Dous like Nos. 2354 
 and 2357 in the side cabinets, or No. 2356 across the 
 room. The Dou in the Wallace Collection, Lon- 
 don (No. 1771), A Hermit at Prayer, shows a 
 similar model and a similar drawing of the hands. 
 The same subject is seen again in the Amsterdam 
 Museum (No. 797), and in the Prado, Madrid, 
 (No. 2078). It was a favourite theme of Dou's. 
 This Hermit in the Louvre is a very good little pic- 
 ture, but not in Rembrandt's style. The modelling 
 and handling are quite different from his work. 
 
 2555. Rembrandt in Advanced Years. This is sup- 
 
 * posed to be Rembrandt as an old man. The por- 
 trait is signed and dated 1660, and therefore be- 
 longs to about the same year as the portrait of 
 Rembrandt in the National Gallery, London (No. 
 221). The question at once comes up, could or 
 did Rembrandt see himself in two different ways 
 in that year? There is small doubt that both 
 portraits were intended for the same character 
 (supposed to be Rembrandt), but how could a 
 man looking at himself in a mirror see himself 
 as two different men? In this Louvre portrait he 
 has an apish face, a badly spread nose, a right 
 eye out of drawing, a double chin badly drawn, 
 a mouth askew, a neck that is not believable, and 
 indicated hands under a blackish shadow. The 
 total result is quite different from the London pic- 
 ture so different that we question if Rembrandt 
 (or any one else) did both pictures. The shadows 
 in this Louvre picture are blackish all through, 
 the handling heavy, save in the white cap ; but the 
 figure has envelope and setting, and from across 
 the gallery it looks convincing in its tonal effect. 
 
RIBERA, JOSEF 111 
 
 One returns to it, however, with the feeling that 
 this is by some member of the school, using the 
 master or some person of this face as a model. 
 It is only by such a hypothesis that one can ac- 
 count for the twenty-odd portraits of Rembrandt, 
 each one looking so different from the others. No 
 painter could do himself twenty times, with twenty 
 points of view, in twenty ways. The tendency of 
 every painter is not to vary, but to repeat a for- 
 mula. That is the one thing that enables critics 
 and connoisseurs to attribute pictures with any 
 certainty. Moreover, repetition was peculiar to 
 Rembrandt. His power, though penetrating, was 
 of a limited range. He repeated himself again and 
 again, more frequently, perhaps, than did Rubens, 
 or Titian, or Raphael. 
 
 2555A. Supper at Emmaus. How is it possible to 
 
 put this Supper at Emmaus down to the same hand 
 that did the similar subject in No. 2539? This work 
 (No. 2555 A) belongs possibly to Bernaert Fabritius. 
 It agrees with his pictures at Darmstadt, and dis- 
 agrees with Rembrandt's pictures anywhere and 
 everywhere. 
 
 1448. Reni, Guide. Magdalen. One of Guide's pretty 
 Magdalens with a pulpy face, boneless hands, and 
 newly washed and perfumed hair. Look at the 
 weak drawing of the chin and neck. This is a 
 little sweeter than usual for Guido, and looks as 
 though it might be an old copy. 
 
 1725. Ribera, Josef. (Lo Spagnoletto). The Club- 
 * footed Man. Something in the category of Velas- 
 quez's dwarfs that, indeed, might pass for an 
 early Velasquez with many people. An excel- 
 lent piece of characterisation and a good piece of 
 
112 THE LOUVRE 
 
 painting. How well the head is drawn and the 
 brown clothes painted! And what excellence of 
 shadowed colour! The sky and landscape are fine. 
 It is a notable Ribera. (In the La Caze Collec- 
 tion.) 
 
 1722. The Entombment. A blackish picture with 
 
 some large grace in the arms and legs of the dead 
 figure. A rather good Ribera in its drawing. 
 
 1482. Rosselli, Cosimo. Madonna in Glory. The 
 
 picture is attributed to Rosselli, but the angels 
 indicate Botticini, and the St. Mary of Egypt at 
 the left, with the long, enveloping hair, is after 
 Lorenzo di Credi. It is a graceful oval composi- 
 tion, rather violent in colour, and not particularly 
 well done. The painter of it was some Floren- 
 tine eclectic, who helped himself to whatever 
 was good in the art of his contemporaries, and 
 yet made a poor combination of those qualities, as 
 usually happens to imitators and eclectics. 
 
 2075. Rubens, Peter Paul. The Flight of Lot. It is 
 
 little more than a finished study, but it has the 
 merit of being intact, and with no repainting of 
 any importance upon it. The composition is 
 processional, and gives the sense of movement, of 
 flight. The drawing is flawless, and the colour is 
 excellent. Done in 1625, it is a little different in 
 its brush-work from his earlier style. Notice the 
 beauty of the two angels, the depth of shadow 
 about the finely drawn architecture, the fine sug- 
 gestion of landscape. Carry the landscape in 
 your eye to No. 2118 and notice the difference. 
 
 2077. Adoration of Magi. Done for a Brussels 
 
 church about 1627 and a repetition of a theme 
 
RUBENS 113 
 
 Rubens did several times, notably in the large 
 panel in the Antwerp Gallery. This picture smacks 
 of the workshop, and was undoubtedly done in 
 large part by pupils. The flesh now lacks the 
 Rubens tang, and the robes do not show his colour 
 quality. Notice the coarse, cheap way in which 
 the hair and beards are done. 
 
 The Madonna. The Madonna is surrounded 
 
 by a throng of putti, gracefully arranged, and drawn 
 with much skill. It has good colour and still 
 shows the brush-work of Rubens. It is a fairly 
 good picture to appeal to if there is ever any doubt 
 about this painter's early handling. His later han- 
 dling is to be studied in the Medicis Series, specifi- 
 cally in No. 2099. 
 
 A Tourney. The landscape alone indicates 
 that it is not Rubens's work, even if the drawing 
 in the foreground figures did not confirm such an 
 impression. There is a fine golden tone to this 
 picture, and it is not a bad work, but some Rubens 
 follower did it and some restorer repainted it. It 
 is thought by writers on art to be entirely by 
 Rubens's hand. Compare it with the Flight of 
 Lot (No. 2075), to see how little they agree with 
 each other that is, the pictures, not the writers on 
 art. 
 
 Madonna Amidst Flowers. The flowers were 
 
 done apparently by Brueghel, and the Madonna 
 is said to be by Rubens, though it has only a super- 
 ficial resemblance to his work. It is well enough 
 done, but it is not done in a Rubens way. Look at 
 the hands, the hair, the colour. It is probably 
 some school piece, though documentary evidence 
 points to Rubens as the painter. 
 
114 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2082. Christ on the Cross. A large and simple 
 
 pyramidal composition, with some feeling and 
 good drawing. The figure of Christ is not, perhaps, 
 so refined or noble as the Christ on the Cross, at 
 Munich (No. 748), but there is a great deal of 
 realistic truth about it. The Magdalen in her 
 gold-hued silk is at once pitiful and beautiful and 
 the Madonna is majestic. Though too square 
 in form, the John is effective as colour the red 
 being dominant. The landscape is light except in 
 the sky, where Rubens repeats the note of blood- 
 red in the red of the moon as he repeats the blue 
 of the robe of the Madonna in the blue of the dis- 
 tant hills. Early work, done in 1615, with the 
 help of pupils. 
 
 2084. - Thomyris and Cyrus. A version, with varia- 
 tions, of a picture said to be in the Darnley Collec- 
 tion, England. The Louvre picture is later and 
 has been restored in the faces and hands of the 
 women. Originally it may have been a good 
 Rubens, but there are indications that the work was 
 helped out by pupils, if indeed they did not do 
 the greater part of it. Notice the frail heads and 
 necks, the bad hands. 
 
 2111. Portrait of Baron de Vicq. A substantial 
 
 * portrait done without much artistic feeling. It 
 
 was perfunctorily executed for Baron de Vicq in 
 recognition of his services in securing for the painter 
 the Marie de Medicis Series of paintings now in the 
 Louvre. It does not seem to have cost Rubens 
 anything, either in emotional feeling or technical 
 labour, but it is, nevertheless, a very good portrait. 
 
 2112. Portrait of Elizabeth of France. In reality a 
 
 portrait of Anne of Austria, wife of Louis XIII. 
 
RUBENS 115 
 
 It is a very delicately executed portrait and is 
 almost fragile in its thinness. Notice the small 
 hands. The painting is quite as thin, quite as 
 small. A decorative picture but not a strong 
 one. It has the appearance of a careful and rather 
 pretty copy. A varied version is in the Prado at 
 Madrid. 
 
 2108. - Portrait of Marie de Medicis as Bellona. This 
 was something done to please the Queen rather 
 than the painter. It is a bit bombastic in its pose, 
 its heaped-up armour, its angels. It is all very clev- 
 erly done, but it is not satisfying. It is splendour 
 for splendour's sake and not as an incident of an 
 event or a reign. The robes are a bit uneasy, but 
 how beautifully they are painted! And they were 
 probably done, too, not by Rubens, but by his 
 assistants. 
 
 2107 1 Portraits of Jeanne d'Autriche and Francois 
 
 2106 1 de Medicis. In any other gallery these portraits 
 might cut quite a figure, but with several other 
 Rubens portraits and the many brilliant pictures 
 of the Medicis Series near at hand they seem per- 
 functory and a little tame. The lady's portrait 
 seems the better. They were painted for the gal- 
 lery of the Luxembourg. 
 
 2113. Helene Fourment and Children. This is a 
 
 ** beautiful poetic canvas done with much feeling 
 and tenderness. In the design and colour it is 
 entirely right, though the work was never pushed 
 beyond the first inspiration and was never com- 
 pleted except in the faces. The background and 
 the garments are merely rubbed in with sepia. But 
 it was carried far enough. Just as it stands, it is 
 tender but spirited, romantic but true, indicative 
 
116 THE LOUVRE 
 
 of things not seen, but sure as regards what is 
 seen. A charming work that the student should 
 study closely in the hair, the hats, the dresses for 
 Rubens's handling in 1636 his late manner. His 
 hand never failed; it was always sure and right. 
 Notice the delicate shadow under the hat, the 
 plume, the boy's head and cap, the beautiful whites. 
 
 2114. Portrait of a Lady. It is probably a portrait 
 
 of Suzanne Fourment, sister of Helene, who ap- 
 pears as a model in No. 2093 of the Medicis Series, 
 and also in the Chapeau de Foil (No. 852), National 
 Gallery, London. This portrait looks very smooth 
 and a trifle sweet for Rubens in, say, 1624, but there 
 is little doubt that he did it. The handling is his. 
 
 2115. The Kermesse. This is a picture that has life, 
 
 bustle, and movement about it. It is not a bad 
 picture by any means, but is it by Rubens? There 
 is small indication in the types, the colour, the 
 drawing, the composition, the landscape of his 
 handiwork. Notice the way the high lights are 
 plastered on the foreheads and the hair; and notice 
 the loose drawing everywhere, particularly in the 
 hands. Was Rubens such a poor draughtsman as 
 that? Compare this work piece by piece, article by 
 article, with No. 2075, and you will find much 
 that cannot be reconciled except by putting down 
 this Kermesse picture as a Rubens school piece. 
 In spite of all the rhapsodies written about it, it 
 possibly belongs among the works of some follower 
 of the master. Again let it be said that it is by no 
 means a bad work. The landscape is really very 
 fine it has great depth, sweep, and a good sky. 
 But the work is probably that of some one follower 
 or assistant of Rubens, who later on became more 
 
RUBENS 117 
 
 careless than in this picture, and then did such 
 work as the Madonna with St. George (No. 67) 
 and the landscape (No. 66), in the National Gal- 
 lery, London, the Rainbow Landscape in the 
 Wallace Collection (No. 62), the large landscape 
 at Brussels (No. 391), and many other pictures, 
 chiefly landscapes, now in European galleries under 
 the name of Rubens. The true Rubens landscape, 
 as pointed out elsewhere, is to be seen in the Vienna 
 Gallery (No. 869). But compare this Kermesse 
 picture here in the Louvre with the Flight of Lot 
 (No. 2075) both as regards the figures and the 
 landscape. Are they both by the same hand? 
 The Kermesse is supposed to be ten years later than 
 the Flight of Lot, and Rubens's handling doubt- 
 less changed and loosened somewhat during that 
 time, but it did not fail or grow careless or blunder 
 at any time in his career. 
 
 2118. - Landscape. The figures and sheep are cer- 
 tainly not by Rubens, and it may be inferred from 
 the sky and the distance that his brush has not 
 touched either of them. This is the same hand that 
 did the large Kermesse picture (No. 2115), only now 
 grown very careless, blackish in shadows, and spotty 
 in lights. It is some follower of Rubens with 
 mannerisms of his own. He is seen again at the 
 National Gallery, London (No. 157). 
 
 2085 1 - The Medids Series. This series of pictures 
 2109] represents, allegorically and otherwise, the life of 
 Marie de Medicis or at least the chief features of 
 it. The pictures were painted by Rubens and his 
 pupils, during a period of four years (1622-1625), 
 for the Palace of the Luxembourg. When they 
 hung in the long, narrow gallery of the Louvre, 
 
118 THE LOUVRE 
 
 where they could not be seen adequately, it was 
 quite the fashion to abuse them and speak of 
 them as " those big, bad Rubenses, painted by his 
 pupils." A few years ago the pictures were given 
 their present setting, and immediately there was 
 a change of opinion about them. Placed in a room 
 where their united decorative splendour could be 
 seen, their gorgeous quality instantly became ap- 
 parent. The idea that the pictures were done 
 wholly by his pupils never was quite correct and 
 never had too much foundation in fact. Ru- 
 bens's sketches for these pictures are now in the 
 Munich Gallery and at the Hermitage, St. Peters- 
 burg. Some of the finished pictures speak for his 
 hand and brush, helped out, in portions, by pupils, 
 as was the case with Raphael and other painters. 
 These pictures show the middle-period style and 
 method of Rubens to great advantage. The pre- 
 vailing colour notes of the series are red and gold, 
 relieved by greens, greys, and blues. The light 
 is wide-spread and with no pronounced shadow 
 masses except in the Coronation picture and a night 
 scene. The whole series is somewhat restored. 
 
 2085. - The Destiny of Marie de Medicis. This picture 
 * shows in the Fates three commanding figures of 
 great grace and beauty. Notice how the figures, 
 placed on a narrow, upright canvas, are woven to- 
 gether in the lines the Jupiter above being sup- 
 plemented diagonally by the large Fate at his 
 feet and the other two Fates repeating this diagonal 
 line. The colour is very effective, especially in 
 the robes of Jupiter at the top. How wonderful 
 the drawing in all the figures! 
 
 2088. - Henry IV Receiving the Portrait of Marie de 
 * Medicis. With fine types of Jupiter and Juno up 
 
RUBENS 119 
 
 above, and Juno's peacocks for colour-splendour. 
 An excellent portrait of the King standing lost in 
 admiration before the portrait. The composition 
 is a diagonal from Jupiter and Juno down to the 
 King and his attendant. Notice the graceful angel 
 holding the frame, the lovely cupids below with 
 the helmet and shield, and the outstretched land- 
 scape at the back. Somewhat cleaned and re- 
 painted, it still remains one of the fine pictures of 
 the series. What beautiful colour! What armour! 
 What golden robes! 
 
 Landing of Marie de Medicis at Marseilles. 
 
 This picture is a scheme of colour rather than an 
 effectively drawn and planned composition. The 
 fine nude figures in the water rather detract from 
 Marie de Medicis above and the ethereal Victory 
 over her head. There is some glitter of silks and 
 brocades, but perhaps the best part of the picture 
 is the back of the naiad at the extreme right. 
 These naiads form one section of the picture which 
 stops with the red cloth of the landing plank. The 
 figures of the Queen and her attendants form the 
 second section, and the angel, canopy, and archi- 
 tecture the third section. But they are not well 
 held together not even by colour. 
 
 Birth of Louis XIII at Fontainebleau. This is 
 a superb composition, with the Queen in the centre 
 surrounded by deities and attendants a grandly 
 beautiful figure in her silken garments. Even the 
 tender look of the mother and her tired lean-back 
 in her chair are well done for a decorative com- 
 position, and there are realistic touches here and 
 there in the dress, the hands, the feet that are 
 effective. What splendid types surround her! No- 
 
120 THE LOUVRE 
 
 tice the Victory, with the beautifully painted hair, 
 holding the red curtain at the top; the nymph 
 with the golden dress at the left; the masculine 
 figure holding the child. What silks and stuffs 
 and glittering textures! There is a diagonal line 
 indicated in the red cloth and repeated in the Apollo 
 of the sky that gives snap and life to the group. 
 
 2094. Coronation of Marie de Medicis. A gorgeous 
 
 * processional piece that David liked so much that 
 he followed it in his Coronation of the Empress 
 Josephine, to be seen in another room in the 
 Louvre. Those who are downcast by the gross- 
 ness and coarseness of the Rubens type should here 
 study the heads of the Princess of Conti, the 
 Duchess of Montpensier, and the attendant next 
 her holding the Queen's train. What wonderful 
 heads! What splendid types! How the heads fit 
 on the necks and are in the centre of their ruffs! 
 Look at the row of women's heads all portraits, 
 no doubt at the left. They have the same won- 
 derful setting of the heads and necks, with ruffs 
 that travel around and back of the necks. The 
 red robes are a little disturbing, perhaps, as com- 
 pared with the garments of the gorgeous individual 
 in the centre with his back to us. The goddesses 
 of prosperity in the air are perhaps a little over- 
 done, and the King in his box in the background 
 is perhaps underdone. None of the background 
 is above criticism, but some of the figures in the 
 foreground are the best in the whole series. 
 
 2097. The Progress of Marie de Medicis to Pont- 
 
 de-Ce. The colour scheme of this picture seems a 
 little cool for the rest of the series. The Queen, 
 radiant and triumphant, is riding her horse with 
 
RUBENS 121 
 
 much dignity, the blue of her nodding plumes 
 being repeated in the flying figure and in the sky. 
 The picture apparently shows much school work 
 in the figure behind the horse, in the figures of 
 the sky, and in the landscape. The colour, though 
 fine in itself, is hardly in keeping with that of the 
 other pictures of the series. 
 
 2099. - The Prosperity of the Regency. With fine 
 figures of nymphs in gorgeous garments at the 
 right, but the canvas as a whole is too crowded 
 with figures and too up-and-down in its lines. The 
 picture was done in Paris by Rubens himself, and 
 much of it done with the Queen looking on as he 
 worked. Perhaps this embarrassed him, for the 
 work is not so satisfactory as some of the others, 
 though it contains beautiful morsels, such as the 
 nymphs, the charming cupids, the satyrs, and the 
 helmeted figure at the left. The Queen is gor- 
 geously gowned, too, but Rubens probably pretti- 
 fied her under pressure. Look closely at the han- 
 dling. It is Rubens's own brush, and should be 
 taken as a criterion of Rubens's handling and 
 applied to his other pictures in this room and 
 elsewhere. Look at the handling of the satyrs at 
 the right or the central figures, the flowers, the 
 cupids. There is here no question of bad drawing, 
 or spotty high lights, or ineffective brush-work 
 which shows in so many alleged Rubenses. Every 
 stroke is just right, quite perfect, absolute in its 
 effect. 
 
 2101. The Queen Leaving the Castle of Blots. A 
 
 good portrait of the Queen, no doubt. The night 
 scene, with the followers of the Queen about her, 
 is well given, but the picture is a little out of key 
 
122 THE LOUVRE 
 
 with the others of the series. It is too dark. 
 Rubens has again used a diagonal grouping here 
 to give life and movement. The Queen is in the 
 centre of the diagonal line, while the figures with the 
 torches help out the top. It is not the most effec- 
 tive of the pictures in the series, though Rubens's 
 own hand is apparent in the work here and there. 
 
 2103. Peace Concluded. The central figure with the 
 
 torch turned down is quite good, as also the Queen 
 and the attendant back of her. Rubens has again 
 used his diagonal arrangement of figures here to 
 give movement and push upward. The best group 
 of figures is at the left. Those at the right, in- 
 cluding the figure with the snake, are a bit heavy. 
 The architecture is not particularly well drawn and 
 the sky is rather dark. They probably indicate 
 school work. 
 
 2104. Interview between the Queen and Her Son. 
 
 The Queen as the centre of the picture is magnifi- 
 cent in white silk, as is Louis in his salmon-coloured 
 scarf. All of the upper half of the picture is gor- 
 geous in colour. At top and bottom darks are used 
 to centralise the light on the two chief characters. 
 These chief characters were done by Rubens's own 
 hand; those at the right and left, with the animals 
 below, were probably by pupils. 
 
 2102. The Queen Reconciled to Her Son. It is less 
 
 spirited than the earlier pictures of the series, as 
 though the hand and brain of the designer of the 
 series had become a little weary of harping on the 
 same note. The nude Mercury (a rather fine 
 figure) and the cardinals in red make up the colour 
 scheme. The work is almost entirely by pupils. 
 Compare the hair of the Queen and her attendant 
 
RUBENS 123 
 
 with that in No. 2099, and you will see the differ- 
 ence there as elsewhere. 
 
 2100. - The Majority of Louis XIII. As decoration, 
 it is not without fine colour quality and fine draw- 
 ing, though it is largely the work of pupils. Here 
 once more is the diagonal line showing in the row- 
 ers. The picture has movement but it is a little 
 flat in the types. 
 
 2098. The Exchange of the Two Princesses. This is 
 * quite a rainbow of colour. Every note of the pal- 
 ette is used, and without much breaking into 
 half-tints. What splendid creatures the figures in 
 helmets! And the two princesses in their wonder- 
 ful silks, how beautifully they are done! These 
 are portraits of Anne of Austria and Elizabeth of 
 France. They were probably painted by Rubens's 
 own hand, for it is not thinkable that he would 
 trust them to a pupil. Their dresses are mag- 
 nificent in sheen and texture. The rest of the 
 picture was no doubt executed by pupils. The 
 central figures are surrounded by other figures and 
 framed in by the arching curtain above and the 
 flat floor of the red dais below. 
 
 2095. Apotheosis of Henry IV. In trying to give 
 
 several incidents on the one canvas the painter 
 has somewhat scattered this composition. The 
 winged figure in the centre was relied upon to hold 
 the various parts together, but it hardly does so. 
 What a figure it is, with its wondrous breast and 
 torso worthy of Michelangelo! Notice also the 
 reclining figure at the left. These two figures are 
 the strong features of the picture, though the kneel- 
 ing figures at the right are splendid in their robes. 
 The action of the picture begins at the left with 
 
124 THE LOUVRE 
 
 the King and swings up and to the right in a 
 half arch. This is repeated in the winged figure, 
 the armour, and the figure in green. There is once 
 more a partial repetition of this springing arch in 
 the courtier in black and in the Queen. We feel 
 as though all these wheeling lines to the right 
 should be met and counterbalanced by something 
 from the right springing to the left. Perhaps 
 that is why the composition is not entirely satis- 
 factory. The picture has much pupils' work in it. 
 
 2093. Henry IV Commits the Government to Marie 
 
 de Medicis. W'here in the many pictures of the 
 Louvre can you find such a red as that in the small- 
 clothes of the Dauphin? And where such texture 
 painting as in the silk of the Queen's dress, or the 
 golden robe of the attendant at the right, or the 
 armour of the warriors at the left? Mere decorative 
 effects? Yes; but that was what Rubens was 
 striving for. The head of the attendant at the ex- 
 treme right is that of Suzanne Fourment, the model 
 for the Chapeau de Poil (No. 852) in the National 
 Gallery, London. Again there is indication of pu- 
 pils' work almost everywhere in this picture. 
 
 2091. The Marriage of Marie de Medicis and Henry 
 
 IV. The King as Jupiter and the Queen as Juno 
 are seated in the clouds, with the suggestion again 
 of the diagonal line repeated slightly in the car. 
 What wonderful drawing and what colour splendour 
 is here! No matter whether done by Rubens or by 
 his pupils, the work is excellent. Notice the cupids 
 riding the lions. They are very close to Rubens's 
 own workmanship, as also the figures above. The 
 car shows shop work, and also the little cupids at 
 the top. Both King and Queen are superbly done. 
 
RUBENS 125 
 
 2089. Marriage by Proxy of Marie de Medicis and 
 
 Henry IV. It is a more formal, balanced composi- 
 tion than the others of the series, though with 
 quite as much richness and splendour of effect. 
 The two chief figures show Rubens in part, but the 
 rest of the picture seems the work of pupils. The 
 Queen is truly queen-like. 
 
 2105. Triumph of Truth. An upright composition 
 
 designed to supplement No. 2085. The figures be- 
 low are beautifully drawn, but the composition is 
 not so happy as its companion piece on the oppo- 
 site side of the main entrance. The arrangement 
 is in the form of an inverted pyramid, or triangle, 
 the nude figure being the acute angle. This nude 
 was evidently touched in the head and hah* by 
 Rubens no more. 
 
 2096. The Government of the Queen. A huge, ob- 
 
 long canvas in the anteroom without. It is not 
 effectively held together or centralised in interest 
 by line, light, or colour. The eyes wander and 
 find beautiful parts to admire, as, for instances, the 
 gorgeous robe of the seated Jupiter, the backs of 
 the figures to the left of his staff, the divine Apollo 
 with the bow (taken from the Apollo Belvidere), 
 the lovely Venus above him holding back the fiery 
 Mars. There are parts of it of great beauty, but 
 it is not a happy composition. Rubens evidently 
 intended the composition to be that of an open V, 
 the bottom of the V being the Apollo, the right 
 arm of it springing up and away from the Venus, 
 the left arm of it toward the Jupiter. But this very 
 arrangement resulted in the scattering of the figures 
 rather than in the uniting of them. The spaces 
 under the arms of the V had to be filled in with 
 
126 THE LOUVRE 
 
 unrelated figures, as we see, and the angle of the 
 V had again to be filled in with another group. It 
 was a try at a new design, but not a very successful 
 one. The original sketch for this picture in the 
 Munich Gallery shows a large door cut through 
 at the left where are now shown dark clouds, and 
 this awkward necessity was probably responsible 
 for the oddity of the composition. 
 
 2086. - Birth of Marie de Medicis. It does not speak 
 so much for Rubens as for assistants in his work- 
 shop. It is not hung in the main room but in 
 the anteroom without. Once more there is the 
 use of diagonal composition to give life and motion. 
 The colour is not remarkable. 
 
 2087. - The Education of Marie de Medicis. The 
 
 flesh of the three Graces seems pallid for Rubens, 
 but there is a large flow and swing of the figures and 
 some charm in the little Marie de Medicis. The 
 picture has been much restored, and the catalogue 
 tells us that some of the drapery of the Graces was 
 added by later hands. It must be regarded as 
 studio work hurt by restoration. The nymph at 
 the left has the face of Suzanne Fourment. 
 
 2560. Ruisdael, Jacob van. The Sunburst. At last 
 we have here a Ruisdael of really fine quality, with 
 heaped cumulus clouds, a blue sky, and a com- 
 manding stretch of mountain landscape. The col- 
 our is grey but harmonious and the atmospheric 
 effect is excellent. The mountains are well drawn 
 and the whole picture is realistic that is, for Ruis- 
 dael. See also the small landscape, No. 2561. 
 
 2558. Storm on the Dikes of Holland. A fine ma- 
 
 * rine with a good deal of power in the water of the 
 
SARTO, ANDREA DEL 127 
 
 foreground and the feeling of a great wind. There 
 is a breath of reality about it, and the pity is that 
 Ruisdael did not oftener do this sort of thing, 
 which was before him, rather than his mountain 
 waterfalls which he saw only in his imagination. 
 
 2559. - The Thicket or Bush. This is the picture 
 that was so much studied at one time by Rousseau, 
 Dupre, and others of the Fontainebleau-Barbizon 
 School. These men got their first impetus and 
 influence from the pictures of the Dutch painters, 
 and not from Constable, as is persistently asserted 
 by historians of art who will not take the trouble 
 to compare dates of birth. This is an attempt 
 at realistic portrayal, and with considerable suc- 
 cess. It is a good Ruisdael. 
 
 2661D. Ruysdael, Salomon van. Landscape. A large 
 and mannered work in the style of Van Goyen, 
 whom Ruysdael followed. Notice the trees and 
 the muddy foliage, with the ill-drawn reflections 
 in the water. Everything in the picture is done 
 with the same coarse, heavy brush. See also Nos. 
 2561B and 2561c. 
 
 2564. Santvoort, Dirck Dircksz van. Pilgrims at 
 Emmaus. It suffers by comparison with the Rem- 
 brandt (No. 2539) of the same subject in this 
 gallery, but in itself it is not a bad picture though 
 a little too sleek and smooth in the surface. The 
 heads are overwrought. The old man is somewhat 
 in the vein of the attributed Rembrandt (No. 
 2541 A) across the room. 
 
 1515. Sarto, Andrea del. Holy Family. Rather too 
 smoothly done, but with robes quite as well drawn 
 as Fra Bartolommeo's and flesh colour far better. 
 
128 THE LOUVRE 
 
 An oval composition filling a square, with repeated 
 lines of much grace and force. What arms and 
 legs Andrea could draw! And what shadows he 
 could paint! The colour is a little rambling and 
 wanting in unity, while the surface has suffered 
 from much scrubbing and repainting. The Child's 
 knee, St. John's legs, and all the hands and arms 
 have lost their finer modelling. 
 
 1514. Charity. A monumental figure after the style 
 
 of Michelangelo's Madonnas in stone, and with 
 the same closely-knit pyramidal group. Fine in 
 the drawing but somewhat lacking in that austere 
 majesty which doubtless Andrea thought to con- 
 vey. The landscape is excellent and quite mature 
 for a Florentine to have done! The colour is un- 
 fortunate in its predominant blues with hardly 
 enough warm tones to balance them. Well placed 
 on the canvas, and a considerable work of art that 
 perhaps fails to impress as it should. The surface 
 has suffered greatly, and the whole face of it is 
 stained with bad varnishes and repaintings. 
 
 1516. Holy Family. It is too badly repaired and 
 
 mended to say much about it except that the colour, 
 the light and shade, with the oval of the composi- 
 tion, are still attractive. Perhaps the figures are 
 crowded into the oval mechanically and with some 
 effort. It is almost impossible to say now who 
 did the work. 
 
 1516A. Portrait of Andrea Fausti. It seems to be 
 
 tolerably well drawn in the hands and face bar- 
 ring the cleaning-room scrubbing but is it the 
 drawing of Andrea the Faultless or of some lesser 
 Florentine? Did Andrea do the hard eyelids, or 
 the wandering outline of the face, or the poor ear 
 
SIGNORELLI, LUCA 129 
 
 and the problematical neck and cheek? The cloak 
 is more like him, but the hands are a little square 
 in the joints and flat in the modelling. Again, 
 the grey colour suggests Andrea, but perhaps the 
 suggestion is superficial. Franciabigio did things 
 in the same scheme of grey. Not a bad portrait 
 nor yet a very good one. It is a little overposed. 
 
 1519. Savoldo, Girolamo. Portrait of a Man. It 
 looks as though carved out of wood and painted an 
 Indian red, but, even so, it has some strength to 
 it. The very harshness of the face lines give it 
 force, and the well-drawn eyes lend it intelligence. 
 The dress- is rather well done. Is it a Savoldo? 
 
 N. N. Scorel, Jan van. Portrait of Paracelsus. It 
 looks like a version of the Rubens at Brussels 
 (No. 388), which is said to be a copy after a picture 
 at Nancy. 
 
 1665. Sienese School. Calvary. One of several early 
 panels of the Sienese School grouped together, in- 
 cluding Nos. 1667, 1664, 1666. They are all at- 
 tractive in colour and in the tooling and stamping 
 of the gold haloes. The panels are very decora- 
 tive though now somewhat injured. 
 
 1525. Signorelli, Luca. Birth of the Virgin. It has 
 great spirit with astonishing colour. The light and 
 atmosphere of the room, the set-in of the figures, 
 with the movement from right to left, how won- 
 derful they are for that Early Renaissance time! 
 And for Signorelli, who was so much more of a 
 draughtsman than a painter! It is a fine early 
 work of the master and a masterpiece of draw- 
 ing, light, shadow, colour. 
 
 1527. Fragment of a Large Composition. A group 
 
 of figures cut away from a large composition. It 
 
130 THE LOUVRE 
 
 is spiritless, lifeless, though bright in colour. It 
 has not Signorelli's drawing in attractive presenta- 
 tion, but is a dull statement of a dull group of 
 facts. Notice No. 1525 for a sharp contrast to it. 
 
 1526. Adoration of Magi. A dark picture with a 
 
 huddle of people in the foreground and middle 
 distance. The landscape, on the other hand, shows 
 feeling for space though shut in at the sides. There 
 is crude drawing in the robes and figures, some 
 rather sentimental types, as, for example, the 
 standing figure at the left, and quite a display of 
 dark, shadowed, hot colour. The total effect does 
 not excite enthusiasm. Many features of it sug- 
 gest that it may be workshop work. It is rather 
 savage drawing for even Signorelli to have done. 
 
 N. N. St. Jerome. It is probably by Signorelli, but 
 
 it is not such a supreme piece of drawing as one 
 might imagine at first blush. It is hard in mod- 
 elling but has some brutal strength about it. 
 Some of his school cultivated just this same brutal- 
 ity with rather poor results. A good landscape at 
 the back and a rather lumpy, heavy figure on the 
 cross in the sky. 
 
 1383. Simone Martini. The Way to Calvary. A 
 
 small panel of dramatic power in the composition, 
 and with clear colour. Notice the Magdalen in 
 red. The picture has feeling as well as delicacy 
 of workmanship. Companion portions in Berlin 
 (No. 1070A, with a different background in the 
 sky) and in Antwerp (Nos. 257-260). 
 
 1531. Solario, Andrea. Portrait of Charles d'Amboise. 
 
 A beautiful portrait in its colour and in its land- 
 scape background. As characterisation it is per- 
 
SOLARIO 131 
 
 haps a little placid and smooth, but noble and digni- 
 fied. The drawing is much in the style of the 
 Lucrezia Crivelli (No. 1600), with which it should 
 be closely compared. Both pictures have been at- 
 tributed to Leonardo, and there are good grounds 
 for believing them done by the same hand; but it 
 is questionable if that hand was either Leonardo's 
 or Solario's. Certainly the pictures bear a family 
 resemblance to each other in look, sentiment, qual- 
 ity, drawing, and flesh colour. They are nearer 
 together than were Leonardo and Solario. No- 
 tice the trees at the right and the fine snow moun- 
 tains at the back. Did Solario ever reach up to 
 their maturity of conception or handling? He ap- 
 proached it (at the Brera, Milan), but fell short. 
 Notice how different from this are the Solario 
 landscapes in Nos. 1532 and 4530. Leonardo, on 
 the contrary, suggests these trees in his St. Anne 
 picture here in the Louvre. See also the note on 
 the Lucrezia Crivelli (No. 1600), under Leonardo. 
 The painter of this picture and the Lucrezia 
 Crivelli did also the portrait, No. 433, in the Cas- 
 tello Museum, Milan. 
 
 Calvary. An arrangement of brilliant colours 
 
 in a landscape, very different from that in No. 
 1531. The drawing of the Christ is rather bad, 
 and the figures below are not much better. The 
 panel is spattered with colours, but there is little 
 sense of colour manifested. The landscape is the 
 best part of a rather loosely arranged picture. 
 Hurt by retouching. 
 
 Madonna of the Green Cushion. In Solario's 
 
 early style. A pretty, oval arrangement of the 
 figures within a square, rather porcelain-like in 
 
132 THE LOUVRE 
 
 surface, hard in drawing, and a little sharp in col- 
 our. There is some naive play of the Child with 
 his foot and some tenderness in the Mother. The 
 landscape shows Venetian influence and is crude 
 and immature as compared with that in No. 1531. 
 Yet this landscape in No. 1530 is the true Solario 
 landscape. 
 
 1539. Spagna, Lo. The Nativity. It contains the true 
 Umbrian sentiment with the types, colour, and 
 landscape of the Umbrian School. In feeling it is 
 rather fine. The angels above and below, the 
 Madonna, Joseph, and the shepherds all belong to 
 the same family and are imbued with the same 
 emotion and tenderness. The picture is good in 
 colour and in feeling for space, though frail in 
 its drawing. A replica of it is in the Vatican 
 Gallery. 
 
 1540. Madonna and Child. A slight Madonna and 
 
 * Child that show some very positive indications of 
 being by Lo Spagna. The influence upon Lo 
 Spagna of Pinturicchio is here apparent. There 
 is another version hanging on a door-casing near 
 at hand, and put down to the School of Perugino. 
 
 2579. Steen, Jan. A Family Meal. A huddled com- 
 position and not by any means Steen at his best. 
 The drawing and brush-work are both careless. 
 For an excellent example of Steen, see his Bad 
 Company (No. 2580) in this gallery. 
 
 2580. Bad Company. A very beautiful Steen Steen, 
 
 * who always seemed at his best pictorially when 
 his characters were at their worst morally. This 
 is a painter's picture from start to finish, with per- 
 fect drawing and superb handling. Notice the arm 
 
 
TERBORCH 133 
 
 and dress of the young woman picking the young 
 man's pocket, the head of the old go-between, the 
 shoulders of the creature in blue who is so tipsy 
 she cannot see straight. As for the young man, 
 how heavily he leans and lurches, what a wonder- 
 ful coat he wears, how his shoes and stockings are 
 painted! And the ruffians at the back, how well 
 they keep their place in the picture! It is superb 
 painter's work much better than the large No. 
 2578 hanging near it. 
 
 Teniers the Younger, David. Works of Mercy. 
 
 A large and beautifully painted picture. The 
 landscape and the sky are excellent and the colour 
 is rich and harmonious. What still-life, what heads 
 and figures, what a sky and clouds! Reminiscent 
 of the elder Teniers. 
 
 Interior of an Inn. This picture, with Nos. 
 
 2156, 2158, 2166, are good examples of Teniers's 
 facile handling and good colour. There are a great 
 many of his pictures here in the Louvre, and some 
 of them are excellent. 
 
 Terborch, Gerard. The Reading Lesson. It 
 
 has not the precise Terborch quality about it. 
 The painting of the child's hair and the woman's 
 face, the brown coat and fur edging are not what 
 one expects from this painter, though the general 
 look of the picture gives a reason for thinking he 
 painted it. Compare it, however, with No. 2587 
 and see how inferior it is to that fine work. But 
 considered by itself it is a fair work in both colour 
 and breadth of treatment. 
 
 The Concert. An inferior Terborch, which has 
 
 had the additional misfortune to be much cleaned 
 
134 THE LOUVRE 
 
 and somewhat repainted, as notice the face and 
 hands of the figure with the lute. It comes peri- 
 lously near to being a picture by Verkolie. 
 
 2588. The Music Lesson. Perhaps at one time it 
 
 was a masterpiece, but to-day it is much hurt by 
 excessive cleaning, as, for instance, in the face, leg, 
 and wrist of the player and in the face, arms, and 
 dress of the lady. All of which may account for 
 the pallid look of it. There are still fine things in 
 it, such as the drawing of the furniture, for 
 instance. 
 
 2587. - The Military Gallant. A Terborch of much 
 * excellence in the figures, the table, the still-life, 
 but now a little injured in the red background 
 by old repainting that has covered everything 
 up to the mantel. Notice the good drawing of 
 the hands and the painting of the hair, the fur, 
 the satin, the leather boots, and then go at once 
 to Nos. 2589 and 2591 for purposes of comparison. 
 What a good table-cloth in this picture! What a 
 floor and what well-placed feet upon it! 
 
 1547. Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista. The Lord's Supper. 
 A little warm in colouring, but very good in its 
 types, and very fetching in its effective handling 
 of the brush. Tiepolo's brush-work was facility 
 itself. 
 
 1549. Madonna and Child with St. John. A banner 
 
 painted on both sides (St. Martin saying Mass on 
 the reverse), coarsely done, and with little of the 
 handling of Tiepolo now recognisable in it. It was 
 never more than a rough painting, done probably 
 for street decoration or processional purposes. 
 
 1464. Tintoretto, JaCOpO (Robusti). Susanna at the 
 Bath. It is not a satisfactory Tintoretto, inas- 
 
TITIAN 135 
 
 much as it shows little of his invention or imagina- 
 tive quality and still less of his grace, or power, 
 or impetuosity. The Susanna is true enough in 
 bulk, but lumpy, the Elders are only spots of col- 
 our, and the foolish-looking maid at the left again 
 figures only as colour. The picture is not inspired 
 not even in the tropical foliage. The figure of 
 Susanna has been flayed and the whole picture 
 restored. Look at the now dreadful ducks in the 
 pool for an idea of how much the picture has black- 
 ened. 
 
 1465. Paradise. A first sketch for the enormous 
 
 picture in the Ducal Palace, Venice. It is differ- 
 ent from the finished picture in many features of 
 composition and grouping, is brighter in light, 
 higher keyed in colour, and has not nearly so many 
 figures. 
 
 1464 bis. Christ Mourned by Angels. No matter 
 
 who did it, it is well done. It is only a sketch, but 
 what feeling it has! What colour and light and 
 shadows it suggests! 
 
 1467. Portrait of a Man. It might originally have 
 
 passed as a portrait of Aretino by Titian, but now 
 no one knows what it is. The picture is a wreck, 
 as may be seen by looking at the face and hands. 
 It should be in the storeroom. 
 
 1583. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio). The Crowning with 
 Thorns. A comparatively late picture, done per- 
 haps when Titian was in his seventies. There is 
 something of strain about the action of the fig- 
 ures, something of the theatrical about their stag- 
 ing, something academic and posed rather than 
 real or actual. But there is reality enough about 
 
136 THE LOUVRE 
 
 certain details of it, as, for instance, the physical 
 agony of Christ, the drawing of the legs, knees, 
 and feet. Look at them for a moment, for they 
 are supreme. Realistic also are the chain ar- 
 mour of the man at the right, the steps, the wall. 
 The picture is now yellowed by varnish and dark- 
 ened in the shadows, but there is still some good 
 colour and a feeling of air about it. The theme 
 was repeated later in a broader manner in the 
 Munich picture (No. 1114). 
 
 1584. The Entombment. A famous picture and, all 
 
 *** told, quite a perfect one. It is an arch compo- 
 sition, on an oblong canvas, with the figures well 
 balanced and beautifully knit together. The weird 
 light is centralised on the dead Christ and the white 
 sheet. The figure of Christ is not rigid, but re- 
 laxed, sagging down heavily. This sagging curve 
 of the figure is emphasised by repetition in the 
 curved backs of the supporting figures. You feel 
 the strain of the men holding the body the strain 
 of weight. Beautifully drawn is the collapsed fig- 
 ure. Look at the knees and feet, the arms and 
 hands, for their drawing particularly that limp 
 left arm and hand. The shadow on the face has 
 blackened through time and is now a little false in 
 value, but Titian intended that it should obscure 
 the face or, at least, make it mysterious. The 
 grief of St. John at the back, the Madonna and 
 Magdalen at the left, is intense, but it is a noble, 
 restrained grief. It is the human element in a 
 sacred scene an inarticulate cry in a gorgeous col- 
 our pattern. The colour of the picture is superb 
 in its fulness, richness, and resonance. Every one 
 praises its harmony. In the fine sky at the back, 
 lighted by a rising moon, notice how the painter 
 
TITIAN 137 
 
 has repeated the blue of the Madonna's robe. 
 The white of the sheet is again repeated in the 
 sleeve and fainter and farther away in the whitish 
 clouds. The man with the beard looks like Titian's 
 friend Aretino. Painted about 1525. Pieced out 
 in the sky and a little retouched, but in fair con- 
 dition. 
 
 1592. The Man with the Glove. A famous portrait 
 
 of Titian's, much talked about by young art stu- 
 dents in Paris, and generally considered by them as 
 the last word in portraiture. Beyond doubt, it 
 is a fine portrait, with much nobility and dignity 
 of presence and, withal, much simplicity and large 
 truth. The man is apparently without fear and 
 without reproach. The glove is easily and effect- 
 ively done; the right hand is perhaps a little posed, 
 a little academic. The picture is now rather black, 
 and, unhappily, it has been hurt by restorations. 
 Notice that the shadow on the neck is too dark, 
 as the result of repainting. Elsewhere throughout 
 the picture there have been retouching and re- 
 painting in the face, hands, glove, and in the 
 blacks and whites of the costume. The contours 
 of the head have almost disappeared in the dark 
 background. 
 
 1586. - The Council of Trent. This picture is not 
 by Titian, but it is a good picture nevertheless. 
 The light and atmosphere of the Church, its spa- 
 ciousness and lift, are well suggested. How well 
 the figures are massed and keep their place ! And 
 what good colour! The colour points to Titian's 
 School, from which the picture doubtless emanated. 
 
 1595. Portrait of a Man. It will not do for Titian, 
 
 though attributed to him in the catalogue. Moroni 
 
138 THE LOUVRE 
 
 might be a nearer guess, but there is no certainty 
 about that either. It is an ordinary portrait, and 
 the best part of it is in the hands. The head is 
 neither pleasing nor convincing. 
 
 1588. Portrait of Francis I. The catalogue suggests 
 
 that this portrait was not painted from life. It was, 
 perhaps, executed from a medal, as the sharp pro- 
 file indicates. Perhaps that is why the figure looks 
 as though it were guessed at, with its broad, flat 
 front and poor arms. The drawing of the neck 
 under the ear is rather bad. No doubt Titian did 
 it, but did it carelessly. 
 
 1590. Alphonso I and Laura Dianti. One of the 
 
 * series of Titian's beauty pictures, in which the 
 same model appears, whether Laura Dianti or the 
 Duchess of Urbino, or merely a studio model 
 the last the most likely solution. A lovely pic- 
 ture, or at least it must have been that before it 
 was repainted and had darkened. All the face, 
 bust, arms, and hands have been gone over, but 
 it still has some charm about it, as though, like a 
 battered Greek marble, its beauty could not be 
 wholly destroyed. Look at the lovely contours of 
 the cheeks and chin, the roundness of the shoulder, 
 the beauty of the arm. What form is there still! 
 And what beautiful passages of colour! 
 
 1589. An Allegory in Honour of Alphonse d'Avalos. 
 
 The figures of the two women at right and left are 
 variations of those used by Titian in the Venus 
 Equipping Cupid of the Borghese Gallery at Rome. 
 The man at the back is, or was supposed to be, 
 a portrait of Alphonse d'Avalos. The picture is 
 still a rich piece of old Cordova-leather colouring, 
 but the drawing and painting as well as the sur- 
 
TITIAN 139 
 
 face were hopelessly wrecked by repainting years 
 ago. It is now yellow with varnish. But notice the 
 grace of the composition the filling of the space 
 with a large oval formed by the heads, necks, and 
 arms. What a graceful swing of line in the figure 
 at the left! This is again a variation of the com- 
 position of the Venus Equipping Cupid. 
 
 1577. - Madonna and Child with Saints. An early 
 Titian, and perhaps never a very good one. It is 
 now in poor condition from staining, repainting, 
 and bad restoration, as notice in the sky, in the 
 figure in red, in the faces and hands of both 
 Madonna and Child. Still a bright bit of colour, 
 but wanting in depth and quality. Another ver- 
 sion is in the Vienna Gallery (No. 166). 
 
 1578. Madonna of the Rabbit. A smaller and 
 
 * therefore a less-injured picture than some other 
 Titians in the gallery. It has suffered little. A com- 
 paratively early work of Titian's, lofty in the types 
 and very fine in its colour. The Madonna, Child, 
 and St. Catherine make a charming group, with deli- 
 cate flesh notes surrounded by whites, blues, and 
 reds. The whites are repeated in the rabbit, the 
 blues in the hills, the red in the sky, the green scarf 
 of St. Catherine in the grass of the middle distance. 
 What lovely shadows on the Child and on the face 
 of St. Catherine ! In a landscape of much breadth 
 and sweep. The motive is one that Titian partly 
 repeated in the picture in the National Gallery at 
 London (No. 635). 
 
 1579. - Holy Family. Little more than the original 
 design is now apparent. Notice the bad condition 
 of the hands of the Madonna. The faces are just 
 as badly injured. There is still some sweep to 
 
140 THE LOUVRE 
 
 the landscape, some colour charm, and enough no- 
 bility and loftiness in the types to make one angry 
 over their mistreatment. The St. Agnes is the 
 same model as in the Palma Vecchio at the Ven- 
 ice Academy (No. 147). It is probably a school 
 piece. 
 
 1580. - Holy Family. The group of figures is done 
 with some constraint, some weakness of drawing, 
 especially noticeable in the Joseph. The trees are 
 prim and niggled in the foliage, as a copyist might 
 do them, and the sky is uncertainly smooth and 
 not drawn, but put in flatly in strips of paint. It 
 is probably a copy by some pupil or at best a 
 school work. 
 
 1581. Pilgrims at Emmaus. Still a fine picture, 
 
 ** and even now the figures, set back and in, are 
 
 surrounded by atmosphere, enveloped in the 
 shadows of the hall. Probably Titian amended it 
 and changed it several times before he let it go 
 from him. A half painted-out column still shows 
 in the sky at the right and something has been 
 changed back of the head of the Christ. The 
 Christ and the apostle at the right are large and 
 dignified types and the boy was once fine in col- 
 our, no doubt. The surface has been cleaned too 
 much. Yet how these injured pictures survive and 
 shine in spots of beauty ! Look at the table how 
 it is drawn! at the white of the cloth what a sur- 
 face! at the still-life of wine-glasses, bottle, and 
 bread how they are painted! Could the Little 
 Dutchmen, painting lemon skins and wine-glasses, 
 reach up to this? And look at the figures of the 
 group in that big landscape, with the distant Alps 
 at sunset. It is a maimed masterpiece but still a 
 great picture. 
 
TITIAN 141 
 
 1585. St. Jerome. A night effect, with moonlight 
 
 behind the trees, but the light is not very apparent 
 in the foreground. St. Jerome shines largely by 
 studio light. A blackened picture, but with a fine 
 landscape, and still possessed of the charm of mys- 
 tery in the shadows of the night, the dark trees, 
 the high rocks, and the suggestion of the sea in 
 the distance. 
 
 1587. - Jupiter and Antiope. It was injured a long 
 time ago by fire and bad restoration and after- 
 ward repainted by Coy pel. Since Coy pel's time it 
 has been relined and cleaned some more. Among 
 the manglers of the carcass, possibly some one 
 painted in the central tree and thus cut the com- 
 position into two pieces. Originally, no doubt, 
 it was a fine landscape. And originally the figure 
 of Antiope bore, perhaps, some resemblance to 
 the Dresden Giorgione. It has even yet some 
 grace of form. The picture was known formerly 
 as the Venus del Prado, and may have been done 
 by Schiavone. See Schiavone's Jupiter and lo at 
 St. Petersburg (No. 121) for similar work. 
 
 1591. Portrait of a Man. A noble portrait in the 
 
 style of the Man with the Glove (No. 1592) and 
 probably done at the same period. It is more 
 reserved and less startling than the Man with the 
 Glove, but is not the less a fine piece of character- 
 isation. Slightly repainted in the forehead, nose, 
 and eyes. Perhaps that accounts for the harsh 
 drawing and the red colouring of the eyelids. The 
 background has become very dark. Of a kind 
 and quality to match the portrait by Titian at 
 Munich (No. 1111) as fine a portrait as Titian 
 ever produced. 
 
142 THE LOUVRE 
 
 1556. Tura, Cosimo. Pieta. A lunette, or arch com- 
 * position, in which the lines of the figures follow 
 
 the lines of the arch. The drawing is in Tura's 
 usual harsh manner, with stringy, contorted figures, 
 twisted joints, and mannered drapery. The colour 
 is morbid but extremely decorative and very rich, 
 as in the purples and greens and reds. The senti- 
 ment is tragic and the expression of the faces 
 morose. The grey, dead figure is the centre of 
 light and interest, and to it the other figures are 
 subordinated. Tura is always a forceful master, 
 though not possessed of charm or grace in recita- 
 tion. At times, however, he is as classic, as Greek, 
 as Mantegna. As a draughtsman in line for line's 
 sake, there is something singularly fine about him. 
 
 1557. A Monk Standing. An excellent picture for 
 
 the study of Tura's drawing. The lines and the 
 light and shade of the grey robe are very beauti- 
 ful. The head, hands, and feet have the same fine 
 quality. On a panel which is broken below. 
 
 1273. Uccello, Paolo. Battle of San Romano. This is 
 a large picture, and very important in art history, 
 but it is now so blackened and discoloured that it 
 is difficult to make much out of it. There are three 
 pictures in this series by Paolo, the one in the 
 National Gallery, London, being superior to this 
 example and to the one in the Uffizi. Odd as these 
 men and horses appear, and archaic and wooden 
 as they undoubtedly are, the painter had the true 
 spirit of art in his work. The horses and men are 
 for painting what the Colleoni and Gattemalata 
 are in bronze though perhaps not so well set forth. 
 Donatello, Verrocchio, and Paolo Uccello were of 
 the same brotherhood in art though not of the 
 
VELASQUEZ 143 
 
 same power artistically. The composition is pro- 
 cessional. The figures and horses at the right with 
 the upright spears indicate repose the troops that 
 have not yet come into action. The movement is 
 to the left, and becomes more violent as the spears 
 descend from the upright to the horizontal. Look 
 at this cumulative action, too, in the legs under 
 the horse's belly at the left. The arrangement is 
 not so well given here as in the London picture. 
 The movement is not so good. Nor is the colour so 
 fine, though there is some display of reds, blues, 
 browns, whites, blacks with golds. The prance of 
 the black horse, the riders in steel, the background 
 are now rather lost and confused. As it now ap- 
 pears, the painting is a flat piece of decoration and, 
 as such, has quality and distinction. See the note 
 on the National Gallery picture (No. 583) as, in a 
 measure, explanatory of this. 
 Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portrait of the 
 Infanta Margarita. This is the only unquestioned 
 portrait by Velasquez in the Louvre. There is no 
 doubt about its being by Velasquez and in his very 
 best manner. It is, in both style and spirit, of a 
 piece with the bust portrait of Philip IV in the 
 National Gallery, London (No. 745), and the three 
 children's portraits at Vienna (Nos. 621, 611, and 
 615). It is broadly painted and yet done with the 
 utmost tenderness, with a delight in the subject, and 
 a painter's joy in the successful handling of materials. 
 For proof, look at the lovely quality of the child's 
 hair and the light upon it, the drawing of the child- 
 ish cheek and chin, the placing of those lustreless 
 but expressive eyes, the doing of the shadow about 
 the neck and ears. Notice again the handling of 
 the chains, the dress, the bows, the black borders. 
 
144 THE LOUVRE 
 
 They look roughly and carelessly done; but back 
 away from the picture and see how quickly they 
 begin to take exact and positive form, how the 
 eyes grow more expressive, the nose becomes 
 modelled, the light on the hair turns into sheen and 
 texture, the chair grows into an actual chair, re- 
 vealing not only its colour but its velvet-cover qual- 
 ity. Notice, further, the child's body under the stiff 
 court dress how well rounded it is. And notice 
 the air that surrounds the little figure. Can you not 
 feel the atmospheric envelope? And the charming 
 colour that makes the whole picture so supremely 
 decorative? When you have wearied of looking 
 at the picture in its details, stand back and look 
 at it as a whole, and consider what an admirable 
 characterisation of a royal child you have before 
 you. It is a masterpiece in every respect. And 
 a wonder the wonder that belongs to all phases of 
 great genius. See the note on the Velasquez Philip 
 IV in the National Gallery, London (No. 745). 
 The gold lettering at top (in French) was probably 
 added later. Pieced out at the bottom; the finger 
 ends of the right hand added. 
 
 1735. Portrait of Queen Mariana of Austria. (La 
 
 * Gaze Coll.) A consideration of this picture must 
 be referred back, at the start, to the Infanta Mar- 
 garita portrait (No. 1731) as the standard of Velas- 
 quez here in the Louvre. The Infanta portrait is 
 Velasquez at his height. Study that picture in 
 connection with the note upon it, and then come 
 back at once to this picture. There is a difference 
 between them that is not exactly the difference 
 between Velasquez at his best and Velasquez in 
 a tamer mood. The beautiful hair of the first 
 portrait is here replaced by a wig, but, even so, 
 
VELASQUEZ 145 
 
 when studied for the light and shade upon it 
 it will be found less effective, less subtle in the 
 uniform shadows of it, less accurate in drawing 
 and touch than in the first portrait. Look at 
 the wig where it meets the cartonage-like fore- 
 head; or at the eyes, which are so infinitely in- 
 ferior in drawing though bright in colour; at the 
 cheeks, which have not the fleshy quality, and 
 the shadows on the neck and chin, which have not 
 the luminosity of the Infanta portrait. Come 
 down to the neck, which is a little false in drawing 
 and lighting; the dress, which is easily done but 
 not with certainty in the bows and pearls and 
 collar; the arms, which are awkwardly placed; the 
 form, which is almost unbelievable; the envelope 
 of air, which is lacking; the colour, which wants in 
 quality. Did the same hand do both pictures with 
 such different results? Possibly, but not prob- 
 ably. We must take into consideration that this 
 picture has been partly repainted and the brush 
 underneath falsified or nullified in places by the 
 restorer's brush above it; but, even so, there is a 
 fundamental difference apparent. The picture is 
 very close to Velasquez, but perhaps not directly 
 by him. It is probably a school version of the half- 
 length of the same subject at Vienna (No. 617), 
 blocked out and painted by a pupil, perhaps touched 
 up by the master, and afterward spoiled by a 
 restorer. Beruete does not agree with this, but 
 thinks the picture a preliminary study for the 
 Vienna one. 
 
 Portrait of a Young Woman. (La Caze Coll.) 
 After a study of Nos. 1731 and 1735 this picture 
 seems an impossibility as a Velasquez. There is 
 not a stroke of Velasquez's brush in or about it. 
 
146 THE LOUVRE 
 
 You have merely to look at the plastered hair so 
 badly lighted and painted at the sides, at the paint- 
 ing of the forehead, the ill-drawn eyes, nose, and 
 mouth, the altogether impossible neck, the flat 
 chest and body, the armless sleeves, the fumbling 
 handling, the absence of colour, light, and air to 
 feel sure that Velasquez never did it. It is a poor 
 picture by Carreno or some one in or about his 
 studio. 
 
 1732. - Philip IV. Look at the trees, sky, and hills 
 at the right and you will get an idea of the picture's 
 quality. It is an old copy (with some changes) 
 of the picture at the Prado, Madrid (No. 1184) 
 the figure and dog much better done than the back- 
 ground. 
 
 1734. A Meeting of Thirteen Persons. There is 
 
 nothing of Velasquez about it. It is a later work 
 of his school the work of some pupil or follower. 
 The same hand probably did the large Boar Hunt 
 in the National Gallery, London. 
 
 2600. Velde the Younger, Willem van de. Marine. 
 
 The sea piece that we usually expect from Van 
 de Velde, but well done and attractive. 
 
 1673. Venetian School. Portrait of a Woman. No 
 
 doubt it was put down to the Venetian School be- 
 cause of its brown skin, flat falling hair, and red 
 dress. The face is hard in the brows and nose, the 
 eyes are ill drawn, the chin is sharp, the neck and 
 chest flat, the right hand excellent, the colour very 
 good. It shows a mixture of Venetian and northern 
 influences, and was probably done by Bartolommeo 
 Veneto as Mr. Berenson has affirmed though 
 there are features, such as the hands, the chain, 
 the neck-yoke, that point to the Florentine School. 
 
VERONESE, PAOLO 147 
 
 2456. Vermeer (or Van der Meet) of Delft, Jan. The 
 * Lace Worker. A small but very clever Vermeer, 
 apparently in its original state so far as the surfaces 
 are concerned. The subject is attractive and the 
 colour is charming. The small white dots a tech- 
 nical mannerism of the painter appear in the collar 
 and on the table-cloth. This is the true Vermeer, 
 not the pseudo-Vermeer. See the notes upon him 
 in The Hague Gallery. 
 
 1192. Veronese, Paolo Caliari. Marriage in Cana. This 
 *** picture is too large and too great as art to be ade- 
 quately treated in a short note. The student is 
 referred to an article by Kenyon Cox, in Scribner's 
 Magazine, for December, 1904, in which this pic- 
 ture with its intricate composition is well analysed. 
 Perhaps it will be sufficient to say here, in a gen- 
 eral way, that the composition is a series of inset 
 angles or squares, as indicated by the lines of the 
 table. The abruptness of these lines is rendered 
 less obvious by surrounding the table with figures. 
 The figures on both sides of the table, seated and 
 standing, serve also to repeat and emphasise the 
 inset lines of the table itself. Notice, further, that 
 back of the table and rising higher on the canvas 
 comes the stone balustrade, again repeating the 
 table inset and again manned by standing figures 
 along it to break the straight line somewhat and to 
 give it colour. Still further back you will see the 
 inset square once more indicated in the columns 
 of architecture which recede on either side, and 
 at the back make a feint at crossing and enclos- 
 ing the scene, like the stone balustrade, but stop 
 with a suggestion, leaving the eye to roam off to 
 the distant campanile and beyond that to the far 
 clouds against the blue sky. 
 
148 THE LOUVRE 
 
 Looked at more casually, and less structurally, 
 the picture is of a gathering of richly robed people 
 in a Renaissance architectural setting of huge 
 proportions under a blue sky, the depth of which 
 is suggested by the pigeons flying in the air. In the 
 middle foreground, as characters at the feast, ap- 
 pear Paolo himself (playing a viol), Titian (with 
 a cello), Bassano (with a flute). In the left fore- 
 ground are Francis I, Charles V, Eleanor of Aus- 
 tria, Mary of England, and many others. Won- 
 derful types appear everywhere. They all wear 
 splendid robes. What head-dresses, jewels, table 
 ornaments, still-life! What columns, balconies, 
 and distant towers! This is not a humble mar- 
 riage in Cana, but a grand Venetian pageant-feast. 
 The picture is splendidly spectacular, the height 
 of Venetian painting, the climax of the Renais- 
 sance, the last and most brilliant phase of Italian 
 decorative art. The many figures are well held 
 together in light and air; the composition binds 
 them again by lines and groups; the colour blends 
 them into unison and harmony. Every note in 
 the scale is divided and subdivided and yet all 
 ring into one magnificent harmony. The hold- 
 together of this enormous picture the skill with 
 which it is woven into a unity, a united impression 
 is the most wonderful part of it. It should be 
 looked at and studied every time one enters the 
 Louvre, for both technically and decoratively it is 
 perhaps the most marvellous of all the paintings 
 in this gallery. 
 
 1193. Feast in the House of Simon. A few minutes' 
 
 comparison of this supper piece with the large 
 Marriage in Cana opposite should convince one 
 that the figures are slighter and less majestic, the 
 
VERONESE, PAOLO 149 
 
 costumes more formal and less magnificent, the 
 architecture less fine in colour and less true in 
 drawing, the sky less real, the light less luminous, 
 the whole colour scheme less colourful and less 
 harmonious. The columns are not detached from 
 one another, the drawing of the figures is weak and 
 often faulty, the values are not precisely true. 
 All of which does not point to Paolo in a weaker or 
 more commonplace mood of mind and hand so 
 much as to some member of his school trying to do 
 a huge supper picture after Paolo's formula and 
 not succeeding very well. It is a school piece 
 and has been repainted somewhat. 
 
 Holy Family. Small, but rather good in col- 
 our and composition. The Madonna has a far- 
 away look in her eyes, the Child is graceful if ill 
 drawn, and the attendant saint at the right is a 
 fine patch of colour if nothing more. The donor 
 is not so badly done as the St. George at the left. 
 It is a sketchy little picture probably done by 
 some member of Paolo's family. Injured in part. 
 
 Christ Sinking Under the Cross. The type, 
 face, and red robe of Christ are well given, but for 
 the rest of the picture there is little to be said in 
 praise save that it shows rich colour. It is some 
 sort of a workshop picture. 
 
 Calvary. A rich piece of colour with fine 
 robes, tall types, and much grace of movement. 
 How graceful the oval of figures about the Madonna 
 or the Magdalen at the foot of the cross ! The fig- 
 ures on the cross are not strengthened by their 
 repeated lines (emphasised in the ladder and the 
 crosses), but they are strong as colour against the 
 lead-hued sky. The woman in a gold-coloured 
 
150 THE LOUVRE 
 
 robe with her face hidden is effective. It is a 
 diagonal composition in which the groups cut 
 across the wide sky and landscape. A similar pic- 
 ture in the Venice Academy is put down to Car- 
 letto Caliari. This Louvre picture is probably by 
 the son rather than by the father. It is too slight 
 for Paolo. 
 
 1197. - St. Mark Crowning the Theological Virtues. 
 
 This decoration was painted for the ceiling of a 
 hall in the Ducal Palace at Venice and not for the 
 Gallery of the Louvre, where it is seen at the wrong 
 angle and focus and is meaningless, almost ridicu- 
 lous. It is a school piece. No. 1198, in the Salon 
 Carre, is of the same quality and history. 
 
 1199. Portrait of a Young Woman. Look at the 
 
 drawing of the facial outline, the brows, the askew 
 nose, the wooden arms, the pulpy fingers, the flat- 
 headed child, and the crazy-looking dog. It may 
 originally have been a Paolo, but it is now almost 
 any one's picture. 
 
 1189. The Fainting of Esther. Taken from a Vene- 
 tian palace, shortened at the top, widened at the 
 sides, and restored innumerable times, what chance 
 is there now of this picture representing its original 
 painter? The figures are noble and commanding, 
 and the balanced composition with the archi- 
 tectural background are there; but that is about 
 all. Probably a workshop picture. 
 
 1191. Holy Family. A small picture with lofty 
 
 types, handsome robes, and much warmth of col- 
 our, which seems to have been sufficient catalogue 
 warrant for putting it down to Paolo Veronese. 
 It is possibly a school study. 
 
VICTOOR, JAN 151 
 
 The Disciples at Emmaus. A genuine enough 
 
 Paolo, but so repaired and repainted that it is prac- 
 tically ruined. Even the blue sky has gone brown 
 and the landscape has turned greenish-white. As 
 for the figures, their drawing and modelling are 
 now too distorted for any comment. You have 
 merely to look at the hands and arms. Originally, 
 no doubt, a fine picture. The two children in 
 brocades, with the dog in the foreground, are said 
 to be the painter's daughters. How lovely they 
 are still! 
 
 Susanna and the Elders. Look at the hard 
 back and arm of Susanna, with the manner in which 
 the head is set on the wooden neck and shoulders, 
 and ask yourself if it is worth while to hold a great 
 master responsible for such repainted and ruined 
 work as this. The picture has been enlarged in 
 height and width a French and Italian gallery 
 habit, suggesting that the old masters were too 
 feeble-minded to know the right-sized canvases for 
 their pictures. Probably school work. 
 
 Burning of Sodom. With good action and 
 some bad drawing in the flying figures. Also some 
 sketchy painting and agreeable colour, in the style 
 of Paolo Veronese, but with little to indicate di- 
 rectly that he was the painter of the picture. 
 Victoor, Jan. Isaac Blessing Jacob. Large, and 
 elaborately' painted. The surface is smooth, the 
 colour deep but factitious, the draperies pret- 
 tified and weak. It pretends but does not fulfil. 
 Notice the uneasy curtains and the prominence 
 of them. 
 
 Portrait of a Young Girl. Good in colour, but 
 
 weak in sentiment and rather pretty in its painting. 
 
152 THE LOUVRE 
 
 2196. Weyden, Roger van der. Deposition. A tragic 
 picture with much fine colour and some harsh lines. 
 It is possibly an old copy or perhaps a Van der 
 Weyden school piece. Though near him, it is 
 hardly by Van der Weyden himself. Marked on 
 the frame as a Bouts, which is nearer the mark 
 than Van der Weyden. 
 
 N. N. - Christ, Madonna, and St. John. A recently 
 * acquired triptych with Mary Magdalen and St. 
 John Baptist in the wings. The central panel is 
 wrought with great truth, feeling, and beauty. It 
 is minutely done and yet for the time and the kind 
 of work it is freely done. The drawing is excellent 
 in every way, in every detail, and not more so in 
 the figures than in the landscape. Notice the man- 
 ner of doing the trees, the distant city, the white 
 mountains, the sea, the rocks. The figures are a 
 little flat and, of course, the landscape is only 
 their background and not their envelope. How 
 beautifully they are drawn in the sharp, insistent 
 Flemish manner! What heads and hands! What 
 feeling and right sentiment! What a wonderful 
 halo about the head of Christ wonderful in a 
 decorative sense! The colour of the robes is deeper 
 and darker here than in the wings. 
 
 The left wing is done in a manner similar to the 
 central panel, and so too the right wing; but this 
 right wing is perhaps by another hand than Roger's. 
 It is not absolutely in tone with the other panels 
 but is lighter in colour, higher in key. The head- 
 dress, the white vase, the red sleeve are all a little 
 "jumpy." Moreover, the trees, rocks, and land- 
 scape here are done with more repetition of type, 
 more conventionality, more constraint. This is 
 also true of the drawing of the figure, the hair, the 
 
ZURBARAN 153 
 
 flesh. The difference is slight and the right panel 
 is well done; in fact, only a shade different from the 
 others. Perhaps it was done at a later time, but 
 it is more likely that it is pupils' or assistants' 
 work. The whole triptych is in good condition, a 
 true enough Roger, and a valuable addition to the 
 Louvre. 
 
 2638. Wynants, Jan. Landscape. A small picture, 
 but charming in the spread of the trees against 
 the sky, in the figures, in the light and air, in the 
 colour. 
 
 2637. Landscape. With a dull light and a dreary 
 
 colour, neither of them possible even in cloudy 
 weather, to say nothing of sunlight under a blue 
 sky. But, of course, the studio formula required 
 that the sun, the sky, and the whole landscape 
 should be sacrificed to that spot of white on the 
 cow in the foreground. 
 
 1740. Zurbaran, Francisco de. St. Apollonia. A 
 
 small and rather crudely drawn figure that means 
 more as life, as art, as decoration than the large 
 squares of canvas (Nos. 1738 and 1739), by the same 
 painter, which are shown near at hand. The cos- 
 tume and the colour scheme are unique. 
 
 1738 1 St. Peter Nolasque and St. Raymond. This 
 
 1739 / canvas and the Burial of a Bishop (No. 1739) are 
 
 companion pieces of pictures at Berlin and Dresden. 
 There is good work about them in drawing and 
 painting, and the robes are broadly and freely 
 painted, but the pictures seem prosaic and dull. 
 They stir no interest and rouse no one with a 
 trumpet blast of colour. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 126. Clouet, Jean. 
 
 127A] 
 
 128 I 
 
 129 
 
 130 
 
 133A 
 
 134 
 
 1048. 
 
 Clouet, Francois. 
 
 Clouet of Navarre. 
 
 Perreal. 
 Albertinelli. 
 
 304A 
 
 311 
 
 312 
 
 315 
 
 316 
 
 683. 
 
 Fouquet. 
 
 Froment d' Avignon. 
 
 Claude Lorraine. 
 
 Poussin. 
 
 Malouel. 
 
 French School, 
 15th Century. 
 
 French School, 
 15th Century. 
 
 734 1 
 
 737 
 
 741 
 
 995 
 
 996 
 
 998 
 1000 
 1002- 
 1005 
 
 1005A Master of Moulins. 
 1007 
 
 1011A 
 
 1012 
 
 1013 
 
 1014A French School, 
 
 1015 16th Century. 
 
 1017 
 
 1024 
 
 1028 
 
 1036 
 
 1117 
 
 1118 
 
 1120. 
 
 11281 
 
 1132 J 
 
 1134. 
 
 1135 
 
 1136 
 
 1149 
 
 1150 
 
 1151. 
 
 11531 
 
 1154 J 
 
 1156. 
 
 1157. 
 
 1158 
 
 1158A 
 
 1167. 
 
 1169. 
 
 1171. 
 
 1175 
 
 1176 
 
 1178 
 
 1179 
 
 1181 
 
 1182 
 
 1182A 
 
 1184. 
 
 1185. 
 
 Niccolo Alunno. 
 ^ nsano di Pietro. 
 Antonello da Messina. 
 
 Baroccio. 
 Bartolo di Fredi. 
 Bartolommeo, Fra. 
 
 Bellini, Gentile. 
 Bellini, Gentile, School 
 of. 
 
 > Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 Bianchi. 
 Boltraffio. 
 Bonifazio dei Pitati. 
 
 Moretto. 
 Bordone. 
 
 Borgognone. 
 
 Bronzino. 
 Calcar. 
 
 > Veronese, Paolo. 
 
 1203. Canaletto. 
 
 155 
 
156 
 
 INDEX 
 
 1211. Carpaccio. 
 1252A Catena. 
 
 1259. Cima. 
 
 1260. Cimabue. 
 
 1261. Costa. 
 
 1263 l n ,. 
 1264 |Credi. 
 
 1265. Leonardo da Vinci. 
 
 1273. Uccello. 
 
 1274. Florentine School. 
 1 278 1 
 
 1279 I Fabriano, Gentile da. 
 
 1285. Ferrari, Defendente. 
 1290] 
 
 1293 [ Angelico, Fra. 
 
 1294 J 
 1295] 
 
 1296 \ Botticelli. 
 
 1297 J 
 
 1298. Botticelli, School of. 
 
 1300A Botticelli. 
 
 1300s Francesca, P. della. 
 
 1301. Gaddi, Agnolo. 
 
 1302. Gaddi, Taddeo. 
 
 1303. Garbo. 
 1312. Giotto. 
 
 1318. Girolamo dai Libri. 
 
 1S20 I 
 
 1322 } Ghirlanda J Dom - 
 
 13281 
 
 Benozzo Gozzoli. 
 
 1334 
 1343] 
 
 1344 > Lippi, Fra Filippo. 
 
 1345 J 
 
 Luini. 
 
 13491 
 
 1350 Lotto. 
 
 1351 J 
 
 1352. Piombo, Sebastiano 
 
 del. 
 1353 
 1354 
 1355 
 1359 
 1360 
 1367 
 1367A 
 
 1372. Manni. 
 1373- 
 1376 
 
 1379. Maratta. 
 1381. Marchesi. 
 
 1383. Simone Martini. 
 
 1384. Massone. 
 
 J^^Montagna. 
 
 1399. Palma Vecchio. 
 
 1400. Palmezzano. 
 
 1401. Panetti. 
 
 _ 
 
 > Mantegna. 
 
 1416Al . 
 
 1416B I 
 
 1417. Pinturicchio. 
 
 1422 bis. Pisanello. 
 
 1435 1 
 
 1436 > Francia, Fr. 
 
 1437 J 
 
 1448. Reni, Guido. 
 1464 1 
 
 is Tintoretto. 
 
 1467 
 
INDEX 
 
 157 
 
 1482. Rosselli. 
 
 1496- ] 
 
 1509 } Raphael. 
 
 1509 bis J 
 
 1514- ] 
 
 1516 > Sarto, A. del. 
 
 1516A J 
 
 1519. Savaldo. 
 1525] 
 
 1526 \ SignoreUi. 
 
 1527 J 
 1530] 
 
 1531 } Solario. 
 
 1532 J 
 
 Tiepolo. 
 
 JTura. 
 
 1547 
 
 1549 
 
 1553. Garofalo. 
 
 1556 
 
 1557 
 
 1564 
 
 1565 
 
 1566 Perugino. 
 
 1566A 
 
 1567 
 
 1573. Perugino, School of. 
 
 1577- 
 
 1581 
 
 1583- 
 
 1592 
 
 1595 
 
 1597- 
 
 1600 
 
 1603A 
 
 Titian. 
 
 Leonardo da Vinci. 
 
 1643A Florentine School. 
 1644. Italian School. 
 1656 
 
 1662 A Florentine SchooL 
 
 1663 
 
 1665. Sienese School. 
 
 1668. Bolognese School. 
 
 1673. Venetian School. 
 
 1677. Italian School. 
 
 1677A 
 
 1677B 
 
 1706. Herrera. 
 
 1708 
 
 1709 
 
 1710 
 
 1712 
 
 1713 
 
 1716 
 
 1717 
 
 1722 
 
 1725 
 
 1731 
 
 1732 
 
 1734 
 
 1735 
 
 1736 
 
 1738] 
 
 1739 > Zurburan. 
 
 1740 J 
 1911. Bril. 
 1916. Brouwer. 
 
 1917 \ Brueghel, Peter the 
 1917A J Elder. 
 
 \ \ Brueghel, Jan the 
 1925 
 
 Ferrarese SchooL 
 
 Murillo. 
 
 Ribera. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 Elder. 
 
Dyck, Anthony van. 232g % 
 
 2203 
 2204A 
 2303A Bailly. 
 
 Flemish School. 
 
 2330 
 
 Bol. 
 
 2336. Brekelenkam. 
 
 158 INDEX 
 
 1957. David. 2198 
 
 1962 
 
 1964 
 
 1967 
 
 1969 
 
 1971- 
 
 1977 
 
 1983 
 
 1985 
 
 1986. Eyck, Jan van. 
 
 1997] 2348. Dou. 
 
 1998 } Gossart. 2364. Eeckhout. 
 
 1999 J 
 
 2001. Hemessen. 
 
 2013] 2372 1 F , 
 
 2014 Jordaens. 2373 J f 
 
 2016 J 2377. Goyen. 
 
 2383- I 
 2388 J -" a ^ S) Frans. 
 
 2389. Hals, Dirck. 
 2397. Heist, B. van der. 
 
 2055. Mol. 24Q1 
 
 2075 
 
 2077 
 
 2078 
 
 2079 
 
 2082 
 
 2084- 
 
 2109 
 
 2111 
 
 2112- 
 
 2115 
 
 2116 
 
 2118 
 
 2402 
 2404 
 
 2 } Heyden, Van der. 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 Rubens. 2438 bis. Keyser. 
 
 2456. Vermeer of Delft. 
 
 2457 
 2459 
 2460 
 2462 
 
 Metsu. 
 
 2157 \ T 2464 
 
 2162 I Teniers - 2466 1 
 
 2196. Weyden, R. van der. 2467 J Mierevelt ' 
 
INDEX 
 
 159 
 
 2479 
 2480 
 2481 
 2497 
 2498 
 2513. 
 
 2721. Italian School. 
 
 Moro. 
 
 Ostade, A. van. 
 Ostade, I. van. 
 
 2529 
 
 2536- 
 
 2549 
 
 2551- Rembrandt. 
 
 2555 
 
 2555A 
 
 2558 } ' 
 
 2559 > Ruisdael, Jac. van. 
 
 2560 J 
 
 2563 A Geertgen tot St. Jans. 
 2564. Santvoord. 
 
 2600. Velde, W. van de. 
 
 2661D Ruysdael, Sol. van. 
 
 2703 1 
 
 2703A > Cranach. 
 
 2705 J 
 
 271U Giltlinger. 
 
 2713 
 
 2714 
 
 2715 Holbein. 
 
 2717- 
 
 2720 
 
 Cologne, School of. 
 
 2738. Cleve, J. van. 
 2738A Cleve, School of. 
 2738s Flemish School. 
 
 2738D} Cologne, School of. 
 
 2740 1 
 
 2745 \ German School. 
 
 2745A J 
 
 N. N. Angelico, Fra. 
 
 N. N. Bellegambe. 
 
 N. N. Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 N. N. Bruyn. 
 
 N. N. Coter, Colin de. 
 
 N. N. Cranach. 
 
 N. N. Florentine School. 
 
 N. N. French School. 
 
 N. N. Greco, II. 
 
 N. N. Lorenzo Monaco. 
 
 N. N. Mantegna. 
 
 N. N. Master of Kinsfolk of 
 
 Virgin. 
 
 N. N. Memling. 
 N. N. Poussin. 
 N. N. Scorel. 
 N. N. Signorelli. 
 N. N. Weyden, R. van der. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 DEC1~'65-11AM ^ 
 
393597 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY