NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS 
 BY JOHN C. VAN DYKE 
 
 PRICB 
 
 I. London National Gallery, Wallace Collection. 
 With a General Introduction and Bibliog- 
 raphy for the Series net $1.00 
 
 II. Paris Louvre net .75 
 
 III. Amsterdam Rijks Museum } 
 
 The Hague Royal Gallery > bound together . net .75 
 Haarlem Hals Museum ) 
 
 V. Munich Old Pinacothek } 
 
 Frankfort Staedel Institute > bound together . net 1.00 
 Cassel Royal Gallery ) 
 
 VI. Berlin Kaiser-Friedrich } 
 
 Museum > bound together . net 1.00 
 
 Dresden Royal Gallery ) 
 VII. Vienna Imperial Gallery ^ 
 
 Budapest Museum of Fine > bound together . net 1.00 
 
 Arts ) 
 VIII. St. Petersburg Hermitage In Press 
 
 IX. Venter-Academy I bound together . In Press 
 
 Milan Brera, Poldi-Pezzoh ) 
 
 X. Florence Ufflzi, Pitti, Academy .... In Press 
 
 XI. Borne Vatican, Borghese Gallery .... In Press 
 
 XII. Madrid Prado In Press 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES 
 
 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
TITIAN: ARIOSTO 
 
 The National Gallery, London 
 
NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS 
 
 LONDON 
 
 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE NATIONAL 
 GALLERY AND THE WALLACE COLLEC- 
 TION, WITH A GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 AND BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE SERIES 
 
 BY 
 JOHN C. yAN DYKE 
 
 AUTHOB OF "AST FOB ABT*8 SAKE," "THE MEANING OF PICTURES,' 
 
 "HISTOBY OF PAINTING," "OLD DUTCH AND 
 
 FLEMISH MASTEBS," ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 1914 
 
HI030 
 
 Y3 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1914, BT 
 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- 
 
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 Robusti. 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. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE student in almost any public gallery quickly 
 discovers that there is vast importance attached to 
 names. The name of a great artist on a picture-frame 
 looks so well, it carries such conviction, it means so 
 much to the imagination. When the name of Raphael 
 is pronounced critics and connoisseurs grow eloquent, 
 directors and collectors become recklessly extravagant, 
 the general public falls down and worships. A Leonardo 
 or a Giorgione draws the crowd like a magnet where a 
 Solario or a Pordenone leaves it indifferent. What 
 wonder, then, that the famous names are used wherever 
 a superficial resemblance will lend plausibility? Direc- 
 tors and collectors are very human. The wish that 
 their picture may be a Raphael is father to the thought 
 that it is a Raphael. The wish for a Leonardo has re- 
 sulted in numerous school pieces, some works of pupils 
 and imitators, some old copies, and an occasional forgery 
 being laid at that master's door, and the temptation of 
 Giorgione has been so great that his name is still being 
 used to father the canvases of Cariani and Romanino, 
 who imitated his manner. These errors of directors 
 and historians, with the misrepresentations of collectors, 
 the name-forgeries of dealers, the eager substitution 
 of shop work, pupil's work, copyist's work for master's 
 
 xi 
 
xii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 work are sources of great confusion. The student 
 must reckon with them. Aside from the rank injus- 
 tice to the great masters of having spurious canvases 
 assigned to them one finds it impossible to build either 
 history or criticism on such false bases. 
 
 Thus it is that the student, at the very start, is called 
 upon to deal with the genuineness and authenticity of 
 gallery pictures. It is necessary that he should know 
 exactly what it is he is looking at if he would arrive at 
 a correct estimate of, say, Raphael, Rembrandt, or 
 Rubens. If the Raphael is a Giulio Romano with hot 
 flesh and cold drapery, if the Rembrandt is a softly 
 modelled head by Lievens, if the Rubens is a glassy 
 Seghers or a flashy Cossiers then the student in ac- 
 cepting them as genuine is gravely mistaken, is indeed 
 led astray. He gains a false conception of the masters 
 and their work, and it may take him years to change it. 
 He should be inoculated with honest doubt at the 
 start; he should understand that all is not Raphael 
 that glitters, and that Titians do not grow along every 
 gallery wall. The matter will admit of some further 
 elaboration. 
 
 WORKSHOP PICTURES 
 
 In the ancient days it was often the custom of mas- 
 ters to sign their names to every picture that went out 
 of their shop whether they painted it or not. The 
 name of Giovanni Bellini was put on pictures, not so 
 much to say that he did them, as to indicate that they 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 came from his bottega or shop, and were guaranteed as 
 good works of art. These pictures, painted largely 
 perhaps by pupils and assistants, came to be sold and 
 catalogued as Bellini's own work when he had merely 
 designed them, or possibly put the finishing touches 
 upon them. The name of Rubens was used in a sim- 
 ilar manner. His canvases are in almost every Euro- 
 pean gallery. They are so numerous and so large 
 that we know it was physically impossible for him to 
 have done them all. He never even pretended that 
 they were his own individual work. Frequently, in 
 sending out canvases that had been ordered, he declared 
 them "done by my best pupil" and "touched by my 
 own hand." He was the head of a great picture fac- 
 tory at Antwerp for many years, and in that factory 
 he did little more than design what his pupils and as- 
 sistants executed. These pictures are by no means 
 as good as the pictures done by Rubens himself, yet 
 they pass on the wall and in the catalogue as works 
 by the master's own hand. Almost every Rubens in 
 the Prado at Madrid is of this workshop variety, and 
 yet the Prado is famed for its fine examples of Rubens. 
 Now, this workshop picture is not merely a matter of 
 Bellini and Rubens. Every old master of the first or 
 even the second rank had his modicum of pupils and 
 assistants and maintained his workshop where pictures 
 of perhaps not the best quality were turned out for 
 churches and patrons not too learned or exacting. In 
 Italy, where the attribution of pictures has been more 
 
xiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 thoroughly studied than elsewhere, the shop work 
 of Botticelli, Perugino, Raphael, Leonardo, Titian 
 to mention only a few prominent examples is well 
 known and rightly listed by connoisseurs even though 
 the gallery directors and custodians do not always ac- 
 cept their conclusions. North of the Alps, however, 
 there is still a disposition to give everything to the 
 master without discrimination. How often, for in- 
 stance, does one see a Cranach, or a Holbein, or a 
 Diirer catalogued as a school piece? Is it supposable 
 that they never had assistants who helped them on 
 backgrounds and draperies though they may not have 
 painted eyes and noses? Think of the scores of Van 
 Dyck portraits in the European galleries, think of his 
 prodigious success, think of his many imitators and 
 followers; yet when and where do you meet with pic- 
 tures referred to Van Dyck's workshop? If we had 
 nothing but the pictures to go by we could be sure he 
 employed assistants and used the services of pupils 
 because the pictures themselves reveal the work of 
 different hands. This is true again of Rembrandt's 
 pictures. We know the names of a score of Rembrandt's 
 pupils who worked in his shop, and much of the appren- 
 tice work of the pupil in those days was helping the 
 master with his pictures. Rembrandt undoubtedly 
 availed himself of their industry, supervised their work, 
 perhaps finally signed it and sold it as his own. It was 
 the custom of the time a ways and means of main- 
 taining the shop. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xv 
 
 This shop work must be closely considered by the 
 student of art. It is inferior work and if accepted as 
 by the master's own hand it establishes a false criterion 
 of that master. Oftentimes painters are inferior or 
 careless in certain parts of their work, but the inferi- 
 ority of a Titian is vastly different from even the supe- 
 riority of an assistant. It is a different tale of the brush, 
 quite another story. In the case of Van Dyck it is not 
 believable that he personally did many of the portraits 
 and figure-pieces now under his name. Some of the 
 portraits are too ill-drawn, too feebly painted, too 
 lacking in verve, while many of the figure-pieces (some 
 of those in the Vienna Gallery, for instance), are men- 
 tally too weak for a painter of Van Dyck's rank. They 
 are shop works, replicas, copies, which the improvidence 
 of Van Dyck may have countenanced, though they did 
 violence to his artistic sense. As for Rubens, he had 
 the surest eye and handled the most certain brush of 
 any painter north of the Alps. There are numerous 
 pictures by him showing this absolute certainty, this 
 unerring skill with the brush. When, therefore, you see 
 pictures put down to him (as in the Medici Series in 
 the Louvre, for instance) containing passages of this 
 certainty in the principal figures, with other passages 
 in the subordinate parts that are very uncertain, what 
 are you to conclude? Ordinarily you might assign it 
 to the painter's want of interest, his carelessness in the 
 subordinate parts. But Rubens never was careless. 
 He is always correct, always quite right. The assis- 
 
xvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 tants in his shop, however, were less skilled, less learned; 
 and it is to them that you may attribute the inferior 
 portions of the canvases. Again (in that same Medici 
 Series) you will find pictures where no touch whatever 
 of the Rubens brush is apparent. The design, the 
 composition, the types may be the only things in the 
 picture that point to the master. All of the execution 
 may be by pupils and assistants. In such cases you 
 have the shop piece pure and simple. It is merely a 
 translation of Rubens and has lost most of its force in 
 process, yet it is under his name and passes current 
 with the general public as by his hand. The worst of 
 it is that such work is often accepted as the master's 
 work by critics and historians and gets into history. 
 There it often proves disconcerting and contradictory. 
 
 SCHOOL PIECES 
 
 After the shop piece comes the school piece some- 
 thing perhaps a little farther removed from the master, 
 but still resembling him superficially and capable of 
 making much trouble for the student. A master such 
 as Rembrandt, for example, had many pupils and fol- 
 lowers who painted in his general manner because they 
 were taught the manner in the shop, and after they 
 had left the shop found it profitable, perhaps, to con- 
 tinue in that manner. Almost every pupil follows in the 
 master's footsteps at first. If he has individuality 
 he eventually outgrows his master's point of view and 
 method, but if he has not individuality he continues 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xvii 
 
 to echo his master to the end of the chapter. These 
 echoes have often proved very deceptive. Bol, Backer, 
 Eeckhout, Flinck, Fabritius, Lievens did many works 
 in their early days that in the subsequent shuffle of art 
 became known as Rembrandts. They are still so known 
 and are the more willingly accepted because they have 
 Rembrandt's forged signature on them. Owners and 
 dealers had the signatures put on for purposes of sale 
 the name of Rembrandt, of course, selling for more 
 than that of Bol or Backer. In some cases the delusion 
 of their being Rembrandts still holds because the mis- 
 take is undetected; in other cases (with collectors and 
 gallery directors, for instance) because there is a wish 
 to boast of such and such a number of Rembrandts. 
 The pride of The Hermitage at St. Petersburg is forty 
 or more Rembrandts the finest collection of Rem- 
 brandts in existence, we are told. But thirty out of 
 the forty are school pieces or workshop performances, 
 and of the scant remainder there is only one Rembrandt 
 the so-called Sobieski of the highest quality. Some 
 of them are so certainly by pupils that the identity of 
 the pupils is suggested in these notes. 
 
 Rembrandt, Rubens, and Van Dyck are the names 
 the most flagrantly abused at the present time, but it 
 was only a few years ago that Botticelli was held re- 
 sponsible for the work of Botticini and the so-called 
 Amico di Sandro, that Leonardo received the credit or 
 discredit for the performances of Salaino and Gian- 
 pietrino, that Perugino was made sponsor for half the 
 
xviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 sweet-faced Madonnas coming out of Umbria. The 
 pupil following after was mistaken for the master. It 
 is astonishing, even now, how readily a superficial re- 
 semblance in art passes current for the real thing. 
 Any one can recognise a counterfeit when captured and 
 shown at the cashier's window, but how many hands 
 it passed through as good money before it was detected! 
 Lest the simile mislead let it be said that the great 
 majority of pupils' pictures were never painted to 
 deceive, and that they were never used to deceive until 
 they encountered the cupidity of dealers and the pride 
 of collectors and directors. The pupils of Raphael 
 painted in Raphael's manner simply because they were 
 so taught and never outgrew their teaching. 
 
 IMITATIONS AND FORGERIES 
 
 Even in the case of an imitator a pupil or follower 
 of the master who seeks to reproduce the master's 
 effects there is usually no attempt to deceive, no 
 wish to make any one believe that he is looking at the 
 master's work instead of the pupil's. Again, the de- 
 ception comes about after the imitator is dead and his 
 canvas has passed into the possession of some one with 
 a commercial instinct. It is the dealer or collector 
 who palms off a Mazo for a Velasquez, not Mazo him- 
 self. Tiepolo's son, Domenico, and II Greco's son, 
 Jorge, both followed their fathers quite frankly, imitat- 
 ing their methods because they had not originality 
 enough to do otherwise; but it was a later and a more 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 canny generation that sold the work of the sons for 
 that of the fathers until to-day Domenico and Jorge 
 have hardly a picture left to them. One often wonders 
 what becomes of the panels of pupils and followers. 
 Strange, is it not, that Rembrandt should have five 
 hundred or a thousand canvases still preserved to him 
 while his score of pupils have hardly a score of pictures 
 among them? And stranger still that Rubens should 
 have three thousand pictures and his forty or more in- 
 dividually known pupils not half a dozen apiece, and 
 some of them not a single picture. 
 
 The forgery is different from the imitation in that it 
 is usually an attempt to deceive on the part of the 
 painter. Dietrich was a latter-day imitator of Rem- 
 brandt but not a forger in any sense. The forger is 
 usually of more modern extraction a clever parasite 
 who preys on the collector. His methods are many. 
 Sometimes he paints a Sienese primitive on an old 
 chestnut or poplar panel, utilising, perhaps, the old 
 gilding of the ground and even the tooling and 
 stamping of the patterns. He glazes and bakes his 
 colours, scumbles and varnishes his surface, worms his 
 frame and batters it in a revolving hopper. At other 
 times he takes a fifty-year-old canvas and paints you 
 a glib Daubigny, an astonishing Corot that passes 
 muster under the noses of the experts at the Hotel 
 Drouot. The ingenuity of the forger is really entitled 
 to more consideration. If applied to honest work it 
 might achieve distinction. 
 
xx GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 The forgery is a simon-pure counterfeit, and directly 
 it comes under suspicion it usually begins to show lapses 
 and ring hollow. Some telltale circumstance of panel, 
 canvas, colour, gilding, or handling usually proves its 
 undoing. They still exist; they are still being manu- 
 factured. The Uffizi has one or two of recent acquisi- 
 tion that are still hanging in the gallery. Last year the 
 Louvre came into possession of a fifteenth-century 
 Flemish Madonna of a suspicious nature that holds a 
 place in one of the small cabinets, and at Dresden they 
 keep one on the wall, presumably as an awful example; 
 but usually the European galleries are not embarrassed 
 by them. The forged signature, however, can be found 
 almost everywhere. At the Brussels Gallery the pic- 
 ture No. 196 has two signatures (Van Goyen's and 
 Cuyp's) and three dates, which suggest the enterprise 
 of its various owners. Paul Potter's name on pictures 
 by Verbeecq and Isaac van Ostade is not infrequent, 
 Rembrandt's signature appears again and again on 
 pictures now frankly given to Bol, Maes, and others, 
 while Albrecht Diirer's monogram is still conveniently 
 used on pictures painted by his contemporaries and fol- 
 lowers. Indeed, the forged signature and date are so 
 common that all signatures and dates have come to 
 be looked upon with suspicion. They are usually dis- 
 regarded unless the picture itself by its internal evi- 
 dence confirms or corroborates them. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxi 
 
 REPLICAS AND COPIES 
 
 The replica in theory is a reproduction or copy by 
 the painter himself of one of his own successful pictures; 
 but in practice it is more often a reproduction or copy 
 made by one of his pupils or assistants. When Philip 
 IV wished to present his portrait to some distant 
 European monarch he did not give Velasquez a new 
 sitting but asked him to make a copy of an already 
 existing portrait which perhaps he liked. Velasquez 
 sometimes did this, producing a bona fide replica, but 
 more often, being engaged in other work, he would 
 order his son-in-law, Mazo, to make the copy. Mazo, 
 perhaps, would pass the order down the workshop to 
 some one like Pareja or even a less talented assistant, 
 and the result would be not a Velasquez replica but 
 a school copy of the portrait. Neither the king nor 
 Velasquez cared much about the picture so long as the 
 likeness was apparent and the picture satisfied the 
 foreign potentate for whom it was done. 
 
 But this ancient practice of the masters has been 
 quoted to uphold many questionable pictures of the 
 present day pictures that are flat copies and nothing 
 more. Every famous painter had his copyists. In the 
 days of Reynolds no small part of the pupil's appren- 
 ticeship was spent in copying his master's pictures. 
 That was the way he learned drawing and handling. 
 The master's Death of Dido, for instance, set up 
 as a model and copied several times by some bright 
 
xxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 pupil, perhaps, finally results in a picture that some 
 one buys for ten pounds and takes up-country to 
 hang in an ancestral hall. After three or four gen- 
 erations have passed away perhaps the history of the 
 picture is forgotten. Grimed with dust and dirt, it 
 may still hang upon the wall and tradition call it 
 Reynolds's Death of Dido. Presently there is a col- 
 lapse in the family fortunes, the pictures are sent up 
 to London to be sold, and we shortly hear from the 
 auction room that there is a Reynolds Death of 
 Dido in the collection "a replica of the picture in 
 the king's possession at Windsor." And the delusion 
 carries through to the end. Some American million- 
 aire buys the "Reynolds" at a fabulous sum and gets 
 the apprentice's ten-pound copy for his collection. 
 
 In the days of the old masters every famous work- 
 shop in Europe produced its copies, which were 
 afterward sold in the auction rooms as replicas. 
 Some of them are now hanging on the walls of the 
 European galleries and are called not replicas but orig- 
 inals. The student meets with them and is perhaps 
 led astray by them. An old copy that has been rubbed 
 and cleaned, repainted and varnished until the original 
 surface is hidden, becomes quite a puzzle even to the 
 expert. Some of them, perhaps, are done by painters 
 of ability and are well drawn and decently handled. 
 It used to be the custom for the graduate of a studio 
 and even established painters to spend a year or so in 
 foreign lands copying the great masters. It is so still. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxiii 
 
 These painters' copies, grown old and darkened by 
 time, are perhaps the most perplexing pictures of all 
 to place rightly. If they are very good they are gen- 
 erally told from the original by their individuality. A 
 copy of Titian by Rubens, for instance, shows Titian's 
 composition but Rubens's brush-work, palette, and feel- 
 ing. Even a modern copy of Titian by, say, Manet 
 will declare itself to be a Manet more positively than 
 a Titian. On the contrary, a poor copy of Titian, 
 whether old or new, will declare itself by its lack of 
 individuality, by its timidity in drawing and its weak- 
 ness in handling. The professional copyist, knowing 
 his own insufficiency, works with great care and pro- 
 duces timidity by his solicitude. His picture lacks 
 spirit and verve. It wants in force and, if it is a por- 
 trait, it wants in life. The student may see precisely 
 this kind of a copy in the National Gallery, London, in 
 the portrait assigned to Rembrandt, No. 672. Con- 
 noisseurs and experts regard it as a genuine Rembrandt; 
 but it is only a careful French copy. 
 
 In early pictures where the handling is less pro- 
 nounced the problem of originals and copies is a little 
 more difficult. This is peculiarly the case with such 
 primitives as the Van Eycks, Gerard David, Roger van 
 der Weyden. The brush-work is smooth and cannot 
 always be relied upon, but in its place one must be 
 guided by the drawing, the modelling, the contours, 
 the textures, and the general quality of the workman- 
 ship. The copy betrays itself quite readily in these 
 
xxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 features. There is timidity about the line, want of 
 knowledge about the modelling of the figures, niggling 
 and repetition in hills or trees or clouds, flatness in 
 colour, deadness in textures, disparity in tone, or some 
 other disturbing feature that betrays the copyist. 
 Copies after the Italian or French primitives may be 
 detected in the same way. Timidity and want of 
 verve are the great failing of the average copyist. A 
 Giotto, a Clouet, a Van der Weyden are not afraid of 
 slipping over a line or misplacing a light or shade, for 
 they know they can amend any error they commit; 
 but the copyist is limited to the pattern before him 
 and he dares not go beyond it. A forger copying a 
 signature on a check works with the same timidity 
 and is detected finally in the same way. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CONNOISSEURSHIP 
 
 Just here the inexperienced student of art may pro- 
 test that he has been pushed into the higher criticism 
 of pictures before being told of the lower strata, that 
 it is useless to refine upon the slight differences between 
 David, Isenbrandt, and Patinir or to puzzle over a 
 Procaccino imitation of Correggio, when he knows not 
 David from Rubens nor Correggio from Lucas van 
 Leyden. He wants, perhaps, the primary elements of 
 expertism to begin with. How does one recognise any 
 old master? 
 
 This is not the place for an elaborate treatise on the 
 principles of connoisseurship. The subject would re- 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxv 
 
 quire two volumes instead of two pages, such are its 
 ramifications and complications. Still the main guid- 
 ing principles may be suggested without elaboration. 
 
 You tell one old master from another old master 
 precisely as you recognise your different friends on the 
 street that is, by acquaintanceship, familiarity, knowl- 
 edge of each peculiar appearance. The longer and 
 better your acquaintance the more certain your recog- 
 nition. There is no key or clew or trick whereby you 
 can detect this or that painter at first sight. Short 
 cuts to knowledge in art as elsewhere are of small 
 worth. Long familiarity with pictures is necessary to 
 connoisseurship. 
 
 It requires no great skill or knowledge to establish 
 the main divisions of pictures. Almost any one stand- 
 ing in a gallery can decide the nationality of a picture 
 at a glance and say whether it is Italian, German, 
 French, Persian, or Chinese. You know the Italian 
 from the German in pictures precisely as you know 
 the nationalities in life on the street that is, by their 
 peculiar and individual appearances. 
 
 The subdivision into schools requires only a degree 
 more of knowledge. The Italian schools, for example, 
 are recognised by certain broad peculiarities that hold 
 true in a general way of all the works of the schools. 
 The Florentine School is generally known by its pro- 
 nounced drawing, its paucity of shadow, its rather thin 
 fields of colour; the Venetian School by its richness and 
 depth of colour, its florid quality, its suffusion of line 
 
xxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 with colour and shadow; the Milanese School by its 
 light and shade, its contours, its rather sooty colour. 
 So on with the other schools, each one of which has 
 many peculiarities easily seen and easily recognised. 
 
 When one comes to detect the individual in the school 
 a Titian, a Bonifazio, an Andrea del Sarto, an Am- 
 brogio da Predis the difficulty is enormously increased. 
 Yet the simile of friends and familiar acquaintance 
 still holds good. The longer and deeper your acquain- 
 tance with Titian the more sure will be your recognition 
 or non-recognition of him. An expert standing in a 
 strange gallery and glancing about the room can be 
 reasonably sure that this picture was painted by 
 Titian, that one by Tintoretto, the third one by Palma, 
 the fourth one by Lotto. Three times out of four, 
 perhaps, he will hit very near the bull's-eye. Why and 
 how does he do this? By familiarity with the work of 
 these painters. He has seen them do the same sort 
 of thing, in the same way, again and again, until he 
 knows what is Titianesque or Lottesque just as he 
 knows what is Shakesperian or Homerian. 
 
 The Italian School is peculiarly Italian, the Venetian 
 School within it is peculiarly Venetian, and within the 
 Venetian School each Bellini, Giorgione, or Lotto is 
 peculiarly himself. We recognise each one of the in- 
 dividual units by his individuality. The simile of one's 
 acquaintance continues to hold true. Every one of 
 your friends is different in mental, moral, and physical 
 make-up from every other friend. They see, think, 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxvii 
 
 act each in his own peculiar way. Just so with the 
 artist. You recognise the way he sees, thinks, feels, 
 acts in the picture before you. You recognise him 
 by his individual appearance. If you are acquainted 
 with Beethoven or Swinburne you will know each 
 one directly he is played or read. Why not Titian 
 or Rubens in the same way? 
 
 For the direct consequence of individuality in the 
 painter is that he not only thinks, feels, and sees in a 
 way peculiarly his own, but that he expresses his vision, 
 thought, or feeling with a paint-brush in a way peculiarly 
 his own. His way of drawing, of handling, of compos- 
 ing, of selecting lights, shades, colours, gradually be- 
 comes fixed and established with him. He does things 
 in one way because he thinks that the best way. Pres- 
 ently we have what is called his style. There are 
 variations in this style from first to last, and we then 
 have what is called an artist's first or "early" manner, 
 his "late" manner, his "florid" manner, his "broad" 
 manner, and so on, but there are no violent changes. 
 Generally speaking, he paints to the end in the one 
 recognisable style, subject to the fluctuations of differ- 
 ent periods and ages. 
 
 How does one recognise the style of each painter? 
 Precisely as you recognise the different handwritings 
 of your intimate friends. No two of the handwritings 
 are alike; they are individual and peculiar, they fluctu- 
 ate at different ages but still preserve their general 
 style. The writers could change their writing if they 
 
xxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 chose but they do not think it worth while. Just so 
 with the painters. Each one of them writes with a 
 pencil or a brush in his peculiar way. Every stroke 
 is more or less of a signature. If you are familiar with 
 the painter's style you will have little trouble in read- 
 ing it unless it has been rendered illegible by cleaners 
 and restorers. Of that something will be said further on. 
 
 By their style you shall know them. Rubens wrote 
 with a brush as a bookkeeper with a pen a long, 
 flowing, limpid, perfect piece of handling; Rembrandt 
 wrote as with a stub pen, blotted in masses of shade, 
 dragged in high lights, kneaded and thumbed for 
 modelling, saturated colours with shadow. Nothing 
 could be more opposed in style than these two men. 
 You cannot fail to recognise their differences. Raph- 
 ael wrote with a superb flowing undulating line, now 
 contracted, now swelling, expressive always, beautiful 
 everywhere. It was classic line. Holbein's line, on 
 the contrary, was often abrupt, forceful, full of realistic 
 meaning and exact statement of fact. It was realistic 
 or naturalistic line. Again you cannot fail to recognise 
 the difference. Every artist of importance reveals him- 
 self in his work. You shall know him by his style. 
 
 And sometimes by his manner or mannerisms. 
 Often the style of a painter drifts into a set expression 
 and becomes mannered. He gets into the habit of 
 repeating himself in matters of detail. Botticelli fell 
 into the habit of doing one jaw-line for all his women, 
 one crooked forefinger with a square, black-edged nail, 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxix 
 
 one second toe of abnormal length; Van Dyck grew 
 prosperous and at the same time mannered enough to 
 do practically only one kind of a hand; Mantegna did 
 one kind of an ear, Romanino one kind of eye, Titian 
 one kind of thumb. It was the theory of Morelli that 
 these mannerisms of painters (I have mentioned only 
 half a dozen out of hundreds) could be made the basis 
 of a science whereby the attribution of pictures would 
 not be a guess or questionable but an established fact. 
 Perhaps he claimed too much, but there is certainly 
 much aid in attribution to be derived from a study of 
 painters' mannerisms. It is quite necessary that the 
 student should take notice of them and get what aid 
 he can from them. 
 
 He should also get what aid he can from the psy- 
 chological and mental appeal of the artist. This has 
 been rather laid aside of recent years in determining 
 the paternity of a picture because experts think it 
 too vague and metaphysical, not capable of sufficient 
 proof. They have also virtually laid aside history, 
 tradition, and documentation as too liable to error. 
 In fact, the modern insistence is that the canvas be 
 studied for and in itself for what it discloses no more. 
 The insistence upon the material side is right enough, 
 but the student should not wholly abandon the mental 
 attitude of the painter. It is often a great help. Nor 
 should documentation and history be cast out. They 
 are often corroborative in the evidence they furnish. 
 The picture itself, however, is the last and final re- 
 
xxx GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 sort. We must believe its evidence whether it pleases 
 or not. 
 
 Again let it be said that there is no rule of thumb, 
 no short cut, whereby the old masters can be run to 
 earth. The only way they can be certainly known is 
 by long study and familiarity with them the same 
 familiarity which is necessary with people, with hand- 
 writings, with field flowers, with meadow grasses. 
 And no connoisseur gets to a point in his knowledge 
 where he is infallible. The best of them blunder often 
 and are not ashamed to acknowledge it. 
 
 CLEANING, RESTORING, REPAINTING 
 
 When the matter of who painted the picture is de- 
 cided upon positively or negatively, we have still to 
 reckon with how much or how little of the painter is 
 left in the picture. Its present condition must be in- 
 quired into. In cataloguing sculpture, it is customary 
 to state what parts are restored, as an arm here, a leg 
 there, a nose or piece of drapery elsewhere; but it is not 
 customary to state what restorations have been made 
 in pictures. The student will find very few of the gal- 
 lery catalogues mentioning the matter. They leave one 
 to infer that this picture by Titian, or that by Rubens 
 is just as the master left it, when in reality it may be 
 only a patched-up ruin with not the slightest brush- 
 stroke of the master left in it. One perhaps goes away 
 blaming the master as a bad painter, when he should 
 blame the cleaning room and the restorer. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxxi 
 
 Cleaning and restoration are, of course, more or less 
 necessary. A canvas after it has hung upon a wall for 
 a hundred years becomes grimed with dirt, or it 
 "blooms," or its surface darkens with varnish. It is 
 taken down and sent to the cleaning room where a 
 cleaner removes the varnish by rubbing. He may clean 
 and rub for weeks, with thumb or balls of cotton, until 
 perhaps he flattens down and rubs away the finer out- 
 side skin of the picture or destroys the more delicate 
 portions of the modelling. If he removes the varnish 
 with alcohol, the results may be more disastrous. 
 The alcohol, if not checked quickly, may eat into not 
 only the varnish but the paint of the canvas and 
 obliterate heads or legs or anything with which it 
 comes in contact. This careless method is not usually 
 followed to-day, but it was a hundred or more years 
 ago; and much injury was the result. For in the 
 cleaning room the obliterated heads and legs were 
 usually brought into existence again, repainted by a 
 "restorer." New paint cannot be made to match 
 old paint, nor bad drawing good drawing, and a per- 
 manently injured picture was usually the result of 
 such practices. Many of the pictures in the European 
 galleries have suffered badly from cleaning, rubbing, 
 scrubbing, flaying of the surfaces. Many of the love- 
 liest surfaces of Titian, of Rubens, of Terborch, and of 
 Vermeer of Delft have been polished bare and smooth 
 after many years of cleaning with the innocent-looking 
 ball of cotton; and many a noble Titian or Van Dyck 
 
xxxii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 has been absolutely ruined by coarse and clumsy re- 
 painting. 
 
 A worse fate befalls the canvas when, after hanging 
 upon the wall for many years, it begins to belly and 
 sag in the middle. Its threads break and tear apart, 
 and its pigments crack and fall off. Then it has to 
 be taken down and relined. The surface is protected 
 in measure by temporary pastings of fine cloth across 
 the face of it, and the canvas at the back is planed 
 away until the back part of the painting appears. 
 Then a new canvas is fitted down upon it and glued 
 fast, and the whole is placed upon a new stretcher. 
 The face of the picture has suffered in this process. 
 The paint where it has scaled away has to be re- 
 placed, and once more the new paint fails to match 
 the old paint. The "restored" canvas is the result, 
 and the work is injured more or less in proportion to 
 its scaling. The large pictures on canvas are the worst 
 sufferers by this process. The pictures on wood, if on 
 a large scale, also crack and split, but they suffer less 
 than those on canvas; and some of the pictures on 
 wood or copper, especially if they are very small, do 
 not suffer at all. Of Titian's works on canvas there are 
 not more than one or two in existence that are as he 
 left them. About the only thoroughly clean surface 
 of his is that of the Tribute Money at Dresden, which 
 is painted on wood, though the Paul III at Naples is 
 in good condition. This is equally true of Rubens or 
 Van Dyck. Their best-preserved works are on wood; 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxxiii 
 
 most of their canvases have been more or less in- 
 jured. 
 
 The picture is hopelessly damaged when through in- 
 ability properly to clean or to restore, or through lazi- 
 ness, or for the purpose of covering over injuries sus- 
 tained in the cleaning room, the whole surface of the 
 canvas is, not retouched, but solidly covered with pig- 
 ment. That puts an opaque veil, a false face over the 
 picture, and it is ruined save for the design, which may 
 still show the master's hand. Many pictures in the 
 European galleries have suffered this fate and are still 
 hanging upon the walls when they should be in the store- 
 room. They discredit the names to which they are at- 
 tached, they deny the qualities attributed to their makers 
 and, of course, they prove confusing to the art student. 
 
 It is proper to state the condition of a gallery pic- 
 ture when it is flagrantly bad, and frequently these 
 notes do not hesitate to point out the condition in such 
 a way that the student may see for himself just what 
 the injury has been. But it is also proper to state 
 that the present gallery directors are not responsible 
 for the bad condition of the pictures now in their care. 
 Most of the retouching and repainting was done years 
 ago when galleries were ill-kept and people were more 
 indifferent to art than at the present time. Cleaning 
 and necessary restoration still go on, else we should 
 have nothing at all left to us, but the work is now very 
 carefully done. Of course the damage of the past can 
 never be retrieved, can never be helped in any way. 
 
xxxiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 Perhaps it should be said that comment and criticism 
 in these notes are not primarily designed to exploit 
 expertism or connoisseurship, nor to point out defi- 
 ciencies and injuries to pictures; but to indicate what is 
 good in the art of the old masters. Again and again 
 pictures are passed by without inquiry into their at- 
 tribution because it, perhaps, can be only a matter of 
 guessing, and the gallery director's guess may be as near 
 the mark as any; or because, for other reasons, it is not 
 necessary or expedient to take up the matter. Just so 
 with much slight retouching or cleaning. If the picture 
 is not directly misleading in its attribution or positively 
 hurt by repainting, it is perhaps not worth while men- 
 tioning one's minor observations. 
 
 STANDARDS OF JUDGMENT 
 
 When we have measurably eliminated the school 
 piece, the copy, the forgery; when we have somehow 
 attributed each picture and ascertained its present 
 material condition, what then? Have we done more 
 than clear up history by banishing errors and false state- 
 ments? Are we not still confronted in the galleries 
 with an indiscriminate collection of pictures, each gen- 
 uine enough perhaps, but each of a different artistic 
 value? All the authentic pictures by Hals or Rubens 
 or Velasquez are far from being of uniform excellence 
 as art. The king nods among painters as among poets. 
 Even Titian occasionally scores low, and every painter 
 sometimes gives up a canvas with its problem unsolved. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxxv 
 
 These indifferent pictures, these painter's failures, are 
 often taken from the painter's studio after his death 
 and sold for what they will bring. Many of them are 
 now in public galleries, and they prove somewhat dis- 
 concerting. Even among pictures that are not failures 
 it is necessary to know just what is, or is not, repre- 
 sentative of the painter. There are, for instance, in 
 the Berlin Gallery, five Raphaels, most of them gen- 
 uine enough, in good condition enough, but they are 
 early works, showing his pretty-faced Madonnas only. 
 This is equally true of the Raphaels in the National 
 Gallery, London; and those in the Louvre are hardly 
 more representative. It is proper to point this out 
 and to insist that Raphael cannot be adequately seen 
 outside of Florence or Rome; that Velasquez must be 
 studied at Madrid, as Hals at Haarlem; and that 
 single examples anywhere may be representative in 
 kind and yet still give an inadequate idea of the 
 painter. One must see many examples of a master 
 before a proper idea of his style is acquired. 
 
 Again, in any standards of judgment, it is necessary 
 to have a sense of proportion, a relative scale of value. 
 It cannot be said that Botticelli and Botticini, or Cor- 
 reggio and Parmigianino, or Pieter de Hooch and 
 Janssens, however rightly attributed or representative 
 of each their various works may be, are of the same 
 artistic value. Far from it. They are widely different. 
 Wherein lies the difference? Chiefly in the quality of 
 the work. That word quality has so wide a meaning 
 
xxxvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 that the student must be referred to its discussion in 
 another work;* but it may be said here in a general way 
 that the difference between silk and gingham is a differ- 
 ence in texture, colour, light, and surface, a difference 
 in quality similar to that between the pictures of, say, 
 Rembrandt and William de Poorter. The word may 
 also be applied to the mental and moral as well as the 
 material product. The thought and the emotional 
 feeling of Rembrandt are of a higher and more universal 
 quality than the trifling or petty attitude of mind of 
 Poorter, just as his drawing, handling, and colouring 
 are of a broader and larger calibre. Quality is appar- 
 ent in the thinking, the feeling, and the technique, all 
 three, but we shall oftenest detect it in the technique 
 or workmanship of the picture. If that is of a poor 
 quality, if the drawing, handling, colouring, lighting, 
 are indifferent or bad, the picture, as a general rule, 
 will not survive. Occasionally its thought or theme 
 may save it, as we shall see hereafter, but usually bad 
 grammar in any art is fatal. 
 
 We shall not go far astray if in our standards we 
 adopt the painters' point of view, and look at every 
 canvas first for its workmanship. Is it well made? 
 Is it composed, drawn, lighted, painted in a workman- 
 like and artistic way? What is the total result the 
 final appearance? Is it a thing of beauty, a pattern of 
 fine form and colour, something charming to look at, 
 
 *Van Dyke, "What is Art?" chap. 4. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxxvii 
 
 something decorative, sensuously lovely, gorgeously 
 rich or perhaps commandingly magnificent ? If so, 
 it has fulfilled the primary aim of the painter, and pos- 
 sesses quality. There are other aims of painting 
 which we shall come to in a moment, but the first aim 
 is, or should be, good painting, good technique, good 
 decoration. This, as we have suggested, is the painter's 
 primary aim and should never be lost sight of for a 
 moment. Ninety canvases out of a hundred stand or 
 fall by it alone. The old masters never neglected it. 
 For be it remembered always that they were famous 
 not because they were "old" but because they were 
 " masters " masters of craftsmanship. 
 
 REPRESENTATION, TRUTH, REALISM 
 
 But perhaps very few among the gallery public think 
 of the workmanship or decorative quality of a picture. 
 They have a different point of view, and are looking 
 for pretty faces, interesting stories, or objects in the 
 picture that look so real one could pick them up. And 
 true enough those features have been dwelt upon by 
 some painters old masters as well as new and realism 
 has been an aim more or less of even the best of painters. 
 Art as a representation of reality cannot be ignored. 
 It has produced powerful and virile pictures at all times 
 and in all schools. 
 
 Truth to nature, realism, representation of reality, in 
 art is usually of two kinds. There are first the small 
 men of the brush like Gerard Dou or Netscher or Van 
 
xxxviii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 der Werff, who see and paint the petty truths of life 
 to be found on the surface, such as fur, hair, a three 
 days' old beard, wrinkles, shimmers, gleams, spots. In 
 doing so they usually lose the larger truths of body, 
 weight, space, light, air, unity, envelope. They pro- 
 duce a superficial picture of pretty surfaces and over- 
 look the bulk back of the surface, what it stands for as 
 substance, what it looks as line, light, and colour, what 
 it signifies or symbolises as thought. But it should 
 be pointed out that there are men quite different from 
 the Dous, who give the substance as well as the sur- 
 face of things men like the Van Eycks, Memling, 
 Bouts, Terborch, and others. They are exceptional 
 men, and just how they manage to combine a minia- 
 ture finish with a large sense of form and perfect 
 ensemble has always been a matter of wonder. The 
 Arnolfini portrait by Jan van Eyck or the Bouts 
 Deposition hanging near it in the National Gallery, 
 London, are illustrations of detail carried to its last 
 stage of finish, but without losing bulk, unity, and 
 ensemble. On the contrary, in the same room with 
 these, is the large recently acquired Adoration of the 
 Kings, by Gossart, which is a marvel of minute tech- 
 nique, of goldsmith-miniature work. It is precise 
 about every detail, the objects all look as though they 
 could be picked up, the illusion is quite perfect; but 
 if you stand back and look at the picture from a dis- 
 tance, you will see that it has little air, that its colours 
 fail to blend into colour, that its objects are wanting 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xxxix 
 
 in unity under one light, in one scene, with one atmos- 
 pheric envelope. 
 
 The work of these minute painters, however wonder- 
 ful it may appear, is hardly painting in a modern sense. 
 The small detail rather argues the small point of view. 
 Men of large comprehension like Titian, Rubens, Rem- 
 brandt, Hals, Velasquez, saw things in a more compre- 
 hensive way and painted them in a fuller, freer manner, 
 ignoring the incidental and the local for the broader and 
 more universal truths of life. Hals was not so much 
 concerned with the epidermis of the man he was paint- 
 ing as with his bulk and weight. Velasquez bothered 
 himself little with buttons and strings and cocked hats 
 so long as his figures had bone structure, stood well, 
 and were enveloped with air and light. Titian sim- 
 plified the whole surface of his canvas that he might 
 the better show the type, the character, the nobility 
 of the man whose portrait he was painting. And 
 Rembrandt, giving perhaps the most positive truths 
 of form imaginable in art, was nevertheless subordinat- 
 ing them always to those large truths of thought and 
 feeling common to all humanity. 
 
 ART AS AN EXPRESSION OF LIFE 
 
 Yes, art may be expressive of more than decoration 
 and workmanship, of more than truth of fact whether 
 great or small. It may be art and valuable by virtue 
 of the thought or idea set forth in symbolic form and 
 colour. Pisanello or Mantegna in their fine portrait 
 
xl GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 heads must have believed that form and colour were 
 merely a means of expressing the dignity and nobility 
 of their sitters, and Michelangelo, for all his majestic 
 command of line, was symbolising austerity, mystery, 
 power in his great figures of the Prophets and Sibyls 
 on the Sistine ceiling. Titian, Tintoretto, Paolo Vero- 
 nese, even Giorgione with his pastoral scenes, were 
 expressing their different conceptions of life. At the 
 North a refined soul like Vermeer of Delft and a coarse 
 spirit like Steen were thinkers as well as painters, people 
 who were, each after his kind, giving their views of 
 existence here below. Dttrer again had one view, and 
 Cranach another and Holbein still a third. Every one 
 of their pictures expresses the man's mind, as well as his 
 skilful fingers and his eye for form and colour. Art 
 may be and is valuable for its ideas for its criticism 
 of life. 
 
 ART AS SENTIMENT OR FEELING 
 
 Often in art a view of life is emphasised, exaggerated, 
 even warped, and becomes uniquely valuable because of 
 its personal element, its individuality. A state of mind 
 or of emotional feeling is apparent in the product. 
 This may become a mannerism with the painter and 
 sometimes make the picture abnormal or possibly dis- 
 agreeable; but with the great men it may prove at- 
 tractive. Botticelli, for instance, has a personality 
 that is mystical, sad, yearning, pathetic, but it helps 
 rather than hurts his pictures. Without it his pictures 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xli 
 
 would be well drawn and painted, and they would be 
 decorative as patterns of line and colour; but they 
 would lack poetry. This is equally true of the portraits 
 by Lotto. The poetic nature of the man gives a cer- 
 tain tang to the portraits that makes them intensely 
 human, refined, sensitive, distinguished, noble. And 
 what great value as art would Rembrandt's Supper at 
 Emmaus possess if its emotional element were ban- 
 ished? This emotional element in art is apparent in 
 all the religious painting of the Renaissance time. It 
 is called "feeling," and is merely the expression of the 
 painter's emotional attitude toward his subject. We 
 see it in Giotto, in Fra Angelico, in Filippino, in Peru- 
 gino, in Francia, in Bellini in all of the earlier men. 
 Far along in the Renaissance with Fra Bartolommeo, 
 Raphael, Leonardo, and even Titian and the late Vene- 
 tians, there is a continuance of it. The wonderful 
 pathos of Memling, the tragic quality of Van der 
 Weyden and Bouts, the grim horrors of Burgkmair, 
 the splendid agonies of Rubens are all, more or less, 
 expressions of the personal element in art. 
 
 CHURCH ART OF THE RENAISSANCE 
 
 And still again, art may be illustrative and measur- 
 ably valuable for what it teaches. All the church art 
 of the Renaissance was of this character, though it also 
 had its commanding decorative motive as well. It was 
 an engine of the church and taught Bible-truths to 
 those who could not read. We of an alien race and 
 
xlii GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 creed and of a modern time are not in sympathy with 
 this phase of art, and frequently we hear people decry- 
 ing the old masters for their numerous Madonnas, St. 
 Sebastians, and Crucifixions. We have not the proper 
 angle of vision; we are out of focus. If we knew the 
 purpose in worship and the place in the Church of San 
 Sisto at Piacenza for which Raphael's Sistine Madonna 
 was originally painted, we should not blindly wonder 
 over its great reputation as we see it to-day in the 
 Dresden Gallery. It was a masterful illustration of the 
 Christ Child as the Light and Hope of the World. It 
 was painted for those in the past who believed, not for 
 those of to-day who doubt. Just so with the frescoes 
 in the Arena Chapel at Padua, where Giotto told the 
 story of the life of Christ, or the Riccardi Chapel at 
 Florence, where Benozzo painted the gorgeous Proces- 
 sion of the Kings. They were done to illustrate the 
 truths of Christianity. That we are not able to enter 
 as fully into their meaning as those for whom they 
 were painted is our limitation. But we should not 
 overlook the fact that their religious motive was right 
 and true, and quite as proper for expression in art as 
 was their decorative form and colour, which we perhaps 
 understand better. 
 
 One might say as much for the art which illustrates 
 mythology or history were it imbued with the same in- 
 tensity of feeling as the religious art. Occasionally, 
 with men like Giorgione or Correggio, there is a fine 
 idyllic quality expressed in mythological scenes; but 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xliii 
 
 more often the mythological theme is but an excuse for 
 painting something beautiful in form and colour the 
 decorative motive again. With history for a theme, 
 the interest of the picture is often divided between the 
 incident or event portrayed and the manner of its por- 
 trayal. Such work is not purely creative, something 
 standing by itself and by its beauty appealing merely 
 to the sense of sight; it leans more or less on literature 
 or tradition. That is perhaps why it is regarded as 
 illustrative or dependent art. 
 
 To sum up, then, painting is to be considered for its 
 various motives in various ways, and our standards of 
 judgment are not to be arbitrary and inflexible. We 
 shall test the picture oftenest by its workmanship and 
 by its appearance as decorative form and colour, be- 
 cause decoration is, or should be, the primary and the 
 lasting motive of all art, but we are not to forget that 
 it may also be expressive of reality, of life, of thought, 
 of personal feeling, of mythological story, of history, 
 of religious faith, of common everyday life, and be 
 valuable for each and every one of them in proportion 
 to the truth and intensity with which the point of view 
 is maintained. 
 
 PICTURES ON GALLERY WALLS 
 
 Finally, a word of explanation may be offered about 
 the places in which most of the old masters now find 
 themselves. The greater number of the so-called gal- 
 leries and museums of Europe were not designed as 
 
xliv GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 places in which to preserve and exhibit pictures. They 
 are old palaces or obsolete public buildings that have 
 been turned into galleries because there were no other 
 buildings available. Of course, very few of the old 
 pictures were painted for the places in which they now 
 hang. The great majority of them were church pic- 
 tures ancone, altar-pieces, triptychs, tabernacles, lu- 
 nettes, wall frescoes. Each was painted for a certain 
 space, to be seen at a certain distance, and under a cer- 
 tain light. All the conditions, uses and purposes for 
 which they were painted have now been nullified by 
 taking them from their original setting and putting them 
 in galleries. A Crucifixion by Fra Angelico, painted in 
 and for San Marco, painted to be prayed before, ap- 
 pears somewhat ridiculous upon the landing of a stair- 
 case in the Louvre, where it is stared at by an irrev- 
 erent, unthinking party of tourists. Again, a Rubens 
 Assumption of the Virgin, painted for a Jesuit Church 
 in Antwerp, to be seen under a certain light, at a great 
 distance, and therefore painted with colossal figures, 
 looks absurd when placed in a small corridor under a 
 glaring light that exaggerates its colouring and banishes 
 all mystery from its figures and its shadows. How often 
 one hears criticism of the "gross and fleshly forms" of 
 Rubens coming from those who have not imagination 
 enough to know that the picture they are condemning 
 was not painted for exhibition at close range in a gal- 
 lery. It is just so with Titian or Raphael. The col- 
 ouring of the Sistine Madonna looks crude and raw 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xlv 
 
 under the fierce light that beats upon it in the Dresden 
 Gallery, but the copy of it in the Church of San Sisto, 
 for which the original was painted, looks quite right. 
 The huge canvases of Paolo Veronese that graced the 
 gilded ceilings of the Ducal Palace and were painted with 
 the greatest brilliancy of colour that they might live up 
 to their gorgeous setting, what do they look like when 
 hung on the flat wall of a gallery with their perspective 
 falsified and their colour distorted for want of proper 
 surroundings? 
 
 Of course the portraits and small genre pieces suffer 
 less than the large altar-pieces, but even they were 
 painted for a different age, different houses, different 
 environments from those that they at present know. 
 When there is an attempt made to reconstruct their en- 
 vironments, as in the rooms of the Kaiser-Friedrich 
 Museum at Berlin, or the new Hals Museum at Haar- 
 lem, we instantly see and feel the improvement. The 
 average gallery distorts them, hurts them, almost ruins 
 them. 
 
 Almost always, too, the original framing of the old 
 masterpiece is absent, and another and a very different 
 framing is substituted. The old pictures are frequently 
 seen in new settings that glitter with the brightest gold 
 of the gilder. This deadens the picture, puts it out of 
 key, or makes it look raw and inharmonious. Then, 
 too, for purposes of cleanliness, the picture is often 
 covered with a glass in which you are continually 
 seeing false reflections, strange lights, and misleading 
 shadows. And finally the pictures are all hung to- 
 
xlvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 gether on a line, like onions on a string, and hurt one 
 another by their different schemes of light and colour. 
 Every modern painter knows how his picture, that 
 looked so well in his studio, may "go to pieces" on an 
 exhibition wall because of its being brought into con- 
 tact with some brilliant neighbouring picture. The 
 huge Salon picture came into existence from the neces- 
 sity for something that by sheer size, bright colour, and 
 brutal handling should out-shriek its surroundings. 
 The old pictures suffer from contact with each other 
 in the same way. They jostle and elbow and berate 
 each other on the wall to their infinite harm. 
 
 OLD MASTERS MISUNDERSTOOD 
 
 In fact, many things combine to put the old masters 
 out of countenance and make them misunderstood by 
 the people of to-day. They are taken from their 
 homes and carried into strange lands; they are hung 
 in strange frames under false lights, in cramped quar- 
 ters, with strange company for neighbours, and un- 
 believing hosts for admirers. They speak a foreign 
 language about themes and thoughts that are past, 
 they whisper of a people long dead, and of a faith that 
 has waned to a shadow. How far removed from them 
 we are in our sympathies! Why do we bother about 
 them? Why do we look at them? What is there about 
 them that should send crowds in thousands through the 
 European galleries? Is the admiration ill-bestowed, 
 and are the old masters only a fad of the day? 
 
 Ah, no! The Titians and the Rembrandts have 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xlvii 
 
 gone and many of those they painted have not left 
 us their local habitation or name. In the gallery they 
 have a number, and a title such as "Portrait of an 
 Unknown Man," or "Portrait of an Unknown Lady" 
 no more. But the pictures still have in them and about 
 them the living style of Titian, the undying manner of 
 Rembrandt. Therein lies their primary value. Their 
 style, their manner, their workmanship is alive to-day, 
 and is as unequalled in modern times as the style of 
 Homer, of Dante, of Shakspeare. They, too, the old 
 writers, have subjects and ideas belonging to a for- 
 gotten age, moribund to us; but they, too, with the 
 Raphaels, the Titians, the Holbeins, have a manner 
 and a method that are criterions for all time and for 
 all people. 
 
 It is this method, this style in the old masters, that 
 keeps their pictures virile to this day, that makes them 
 worthy of study. Their great decorative quality is 
 but the natural sequence of their masterful style. And 
 that is why (to return to our original contention), we 
 shall herein talk much of decorative form and colour, 
 handling, method, manner, style things seen, and still 
 vital and little about saints or sitters or faiths or 
 histories things past and belonging to a vanished age. 
 We may harp on the decorative key until its note be- 
 comes wearisome, but it is about the only note in the 
 scale which sounds clear and true to-day, about the 
 only note that we can sympathetically understand. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 This is a limited list of the accessible books. The 
 titles are usually abbreviated but are sufficient for 
 recognition. Any librarian or bookseller can supply 
 full information about them on demand. It is de- 
 sirable that the last edition be always demanded. 
 For that reason and to avoid confusion the dates 
 herein are frequently omitted. 
 
 DICTIONARIES 
 
 BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers (Williamson 
 
 edition). London. 
 CHAMPLIN AND PERKINS, Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings. 
 
 New York, 1887. 
 
 Encyclopedia Britannica (llth edition). London, 1910. 
 LAROUSSE, Grand Dictionnaire Universel. Paris. 
 MEYER, Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon. Leipzig, 1872-1885. 
 MEYER, Konversations-Lexikon. Leipzig. 
 THIEME UNO BECKER, Allgemeines Lexikon der bUdenden 
 
 Kunstler. Leipzig, 1908. 
 WURZBACH, Niederlandisches Kunstler-Lexikon. Wien, 1910. 
 
 CATALOGUES 
 
 Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Gemdlde im Kaiser-Friedrich 
 
 Museum. Berlin, 1913. (Unabridged.) 
 Catalogue of National Gallery, London. (Unabridged, 1913.) 
 Catalogue of the Wallace Collection. London, 1913. 
 
 li 
 
iii BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 Catalogue historique et descriptif des Tableaux anciens du 
 
 Musee de Bruxelles, par A. J. Wauters. Brussels, 1906. 
 Catalogo delta R. Pinacoteca di Brera con cenno storico di 
 
 Corrado Ricci. Bergamo, 1908. 
 FRIZZONI, Le Gallerie dell' Accademia Carrara in Bergamo. 
 
 Bergamo, 1907. 
 Guida del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Catalogo di Aldo de 
 
 Rinaldis. Napoli, 1911. 
 
 All of these catalogues may be consulted for their bio- 
 graphical and critical notes regarding the different painters. 
 
 PERIODICALS 
 
 American Journal of Archceology. 
 
 Burlington Magazine. London. 
 
 Gazette des Beaux-Arts. Paris. 
 
 Jahrbuch der Konigl. Preuss. Kunstsammlungen. Berlin. 
 
 Rassegna d'Arte. Milan. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS IN BOOK FORM 
 
 Art Galleries of Europe (Newnes Publication). London. 
 
 Classics in Art, Brentano, 1914. 
 
 DIEDERICH, Die Kunst in Bildern. Jena, 1909. 
 
 GOWAN'S Art Books. London, 1909. 
 
 HANFSTAENGL, National Gallery, London; Old Pinacothek, 
 Munich; Hermitage, St. Petersburg; Berlin, Dresden, 
 Cassel, Amsterdam, Hague, Haarlem galleries. 
 
 KNACKFUSS, Kiinstler-Monographien. Bielefeld, 1900. 
 
 Masterpieces of Painting. Stokes, New York. 
 
 RICCI, Raccolte d'Arte; Collezione di Monografie illustrate. 
 Bergamo, 1908. 
 
 TECHNIQUE OF PAINTING 
 
 CENNINI, Treatise on Painting (last edition). 
 EASTLAKE, Materials for the History of OH Painting. London, 
 1869. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS liii 
 
 KIESLING, Wesen und Technik der Malerei. Leipzig, 1908. 
 LEONARDO DA VINCI, Treatise on Painting. London. 
 MOREAU-VAUTHIER, Technique of Painting. New York, 1912. 
 SCHULTZE-NAUMBURG, Die Technik der Malerei. Leipzig, 
 
 1908. 
 
 VAN DYKE, Art for Art's Sake. New York, 1904. 
 VIBERT, La Science de la Peinture. Paris. 
 
 GENERAL HISTORIES 
 
 BAYET, Precis d'Histoire de I' Art. Paris, 1908. 
 
 KUGLER, Handbook of Painting. Italian School. Ed. Layard, 
 
 New York. 
 KUGLER, Handbook of Painting. German, Flemish, Dutch 
 
 Schools. Ed. Crowe, New York. 
 LUBKE, History of Art (Russell Sturgis edition). New York, 
 
 1904. 
 
 MICHEL, Histoire de I' Art. Paris, 1895. 
 MOTHER, History of Painting. New York, 1907. 
 REINACH, Apollo. New York, 1907. 
 SPRINGER, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Leipzig, 1909. 
 VAN DYKE, History of Painting. New York, 1912. 
 WOERMANN, Geschichte der Kunst. Leipzig, 1904. 
 WOLTMANN AND WOERMANN, History of Painting. New York, 
 1885. 
 
 ITALIAN PAINTING 
 
 BERENSON, Lorenzo Lotto. London, 1905. 
 
 BERENSON, Venetian Painters of the Renaissance. New York. 
 
 (Last edition.) 
 BERENSON, Florentine Painters of the Renaissance. New York. 
 
 (Last edition.) 
 BERENSON, Central Italian Painters of the Renaissance. New 
 
 York. (Last edition.) 
 BERENSON, North Italian Painters of the Renaissance. New 
 
 York. (Last edition.) 
 
liv BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 BERENSON, Drawings of the Florentine Painters. London. 
 
 (Expensive.) 
 
 BERENSON, Study and Criticism of Italian Art. London, 1901. 
 BOSCHINI, Le ricche minere della pittura Veneziana. Venice, 
 
 1674. 
 
 BURCKHARDT, Der Cicerone (Bode's edition). Leipzig, 1901. 
 COOK, Giorgione. London, 1900. 
 Cox, Old Masters and New (Chapter on Veronese) . New York, 
 
 1905. 
 CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, History of Painting in North Italy 
 
 (edited by Borenius). London, 1912. 
 CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, History of Painting in Italy 
 
 (edited by Douglas). London, 1903-11. 
 CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Raphael. London, 1882-1885. 
 CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Titian. London, 1881. 
 CRUTTWELL, Antonio Pollaiuolo. London, 1907. 
 CRUTTWELL, Verrocchio. London, 1904. 
 CUST, Giovanni Antonio Bazzi. London, 1906. 
 DALTON, Byzantine Art and Archaeology. London, 1913. 
 DA VIES, Michelangelo. London, 1909. 
 DAVIES, Ghirlandajo. London, 1909. 
 DOUGLAS, Fra Angelico. London. 
 
 FFOULKES AND MAIOCCHI, Vincenzo Foppa of Brescia. Lon- 
 don, 1909. 
 
 FRIZZONI, Arte Italiana del Rinascimento. Milan, 1891. 
 FRY, Giovanni Bellini. London, 1899. 
 GARDNER, Ferrarese School of Painting. London, 1911. 
 GAUTHIEZ, Luini (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 GOFFIN, Pinturricchio (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 GRIMM, Michael Angelo. Boston, 1877. 
 GRONAU, Titian. London, 1904. 
 GRONAU, Correggio. Stuttgart, 1907. 
 GRONAU, I Bellini. Leipzig, 1909. 
 GRONAU, Die Quellen der Biographie des Antonello da Messina. 
 
 Berlin, 1897. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS Iv 
 
 GRONAU, Leonardo da Vinci. London, 1902. 
 
 HALSEY, Gaudenzio Ferrari. London, 1904. 
 
 HAMEL, Titian (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 HILL, Pisanello. London, 1905. 
 
 HOLROYD, Michael Angela. London, 1903. 
 
 HORNE, Botticelli (expensive). London, 1911. 
 
 HORNE AND CUST, Leonardo da Vinci. London, 1908. 
 
 JUSTI, Giorgione. Berlin, 1908. 
 
 LANZI, History of Painting in Italy. London, 1852. 
 
 LETHABY, Medieval Art. London, 1904. 
 
 LINDSAY, History of Christian Art. London, 1847. 
 
 MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice. Bologna, 1678. 
 
 MEYER, Correggio. Leipzig, 1871. 
 
 MOLMENTI, La Pittura Veneziana. Florence, 1903. 
 
 MOLMENTI, // Carpaccio e il Tiepolo. Turin, 1886. 
 
 MOLMENTI, G. B. Tiepolo. Milan, 1907. 
 
 MOORE, Correggio. London, 1906. 
 
 MORELLI, Italian Masters in German Galleries. London, 1883. 
 
 MORELLI, Italian Painters. London, 1892. 
 
 MUNDLER, Tableaux Italiens du Musee National du Louvre. 
 
 Paris, 1850. 
 
 MUNTZ, L'Art de la Renaissance. Paris, 1896. 
 MUNTZ, Raphael (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 MUNTZ, Leonardo da Vinci. London, 1899. 
 OPPE, Raphael. London, 1909. 
 PASSAVANT, Raphael of Urbino and His Father. New York, 
 
 1888. 
 
 PHILLIPS, Titian. New York, 1898. 
 PHILLIPPS, Tintoretto. London, 1911. 
 REYMOND, Michel- Ange (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 RICCI, Art in Northern Italy. (Ars Una Series). New York, 
 
 1911. 
 
 RICCI, Correggio. New York, 1896. 
 RICCI, Pintoricchio. London, 1904. 
 RICHTER, Leonardo da Vinci. London, 1880. 
 
Ivi BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 RICHTER, Italian Art in the National Gallery. London, 1883. 
 
 RICKETTS, Titian. London, 1910. 
 
 RIDOLFI, Le Maraviglie dell' Arte. Padova, 1835. 
 
 ROSENBERG, Leonardo da Vinci. Leipzig, 1898. 
 
 ROSINI, Storia della pittura Italiana. Pisa, 1841. 
 
 RUSHFORTH, Crivelli. London, 1904. 
 
 SCHUBRING, Altichiero und seine Schule. Leipzig, 1898. 
 
 SELINCOURT, Giotto. London, 1905. 
 
 SPRINGER, Rafael und Michelangelo. Leipzig, 1878. 
 
 SPRINGER-RICCI, Manuak di Storia dell' Arte. Bergamo, 
 1910-13. 
 
 STILLMAN, Old Italian Masters (Cole's Engravings). New 
 York, 1892. 
 
 SYMONDS, Michael Angela. London, 1893. 
 
 SYMONDS, The Renaissance, The Fine Arts. New York, 1879. 
 
 TESTI, La Storia della Pittura Veneziana. Bergamo, 1909. 
 
 VASARI, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, etc. (Forster's edi- 
 tion). London. 
 
 VENTURI, Storia dell' Arte Italiana. Milan, 1901-08. 
 
 VENTURI (L.), Giorgione e il Giorgionismo. Milan, 1913. 
 
 VENTURI (L.), Le Origine della Pittura Veneziana. Venice, 
 1907. 
 
 WILLIAMSON, Francesco Raibolini called Francia. London, 
 1901. 
 
 WILLIAMSON (Editor), The Anonimo. London, 1903. 
 
 WILLIAMSON, Luini. London, 1899. 
 
 WOLFFUN, Art of the Italian Renaissance. New York, 1903. 
 
 ZANOTTO, Pinacoteca dell' Accademia Veneta dette Belle Arti. 
 Venice, 1834. 
 
 DUTCH AND FLEMISH PAINTING 
 
 BERNARD, Pierre Brueghel. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 BODE, Frans Hals und seine Schule. 
 BODE, Adriaan van Ostade. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS Ivii 
 
 BODE, Great Masters of Dutch and Flemish Painting. Lon- 
 don, 1909. 
 
 BODE UND HOFSTEDE DE GROOT, Rembrandt. Paris, 1897-1906. 
 
 BOSSCHERE, Quentin Metsys. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 
 BREDIUS, Les Chefs-d'CEuvres du Musee Royal Amsterdam. 
 Paris, 1900. 
 
 BURGER, Musees de la Hollande. Paris, 1858. 
 
 BUSCHMANN, Jacques Jordaens. Bruxelles, 1905. 
 
 CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Early Flemish Painters. Lon- 
 don, 1872. 
 
 GUST, Van Dyck. London, 1906. 
 
 DILLON, Rubens (many illustrations). London, 1909. 
 
 DURAND-GREVILLE, Hubert et Jean van Eyck. Bruxelles. 
 
 FIERENS-GEVAERT, La Peinture au Musee Ancien de Bruxel- 
 les. Bruxelles, 1913. 
 
 FIERENS-GEVAERT, Jordaens (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 FIERENS-GEVAERT, Van Dyck (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 FIERENS-GEVAERT, Les Primitifs Flamands. Bruxelles, 1910- 
 1912. 
 
 FONTAINAS, Frans Hals (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 FROMENTIN, Old Masters of Belgium and Holland. Boston, 
 1882. 
 
 GEFFROY, Rubens (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 GERMAIN, Les Neerlandais en Bourgogne. Bruxelles, 1909, 
 
 GOFFIN, Thierry Bouts. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 
 GUIFFREY, Van Dyck. Paris, 1882. 
 
 HALE, Vermeer of Delft. Boston, 1913. 
 
 HAVARD, The Dutch School of Painting. London, 1885. 
 
 HELLENA, Gerard Terborck. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 
 HOFSTEDE DE GROOT, Jan Vermeer van Delft en Carel Fabritius. 
 Amsterdam, 1907. 
 
 HOUBRAKEN, Vie des Peintres hollandais. Amsterdam, 1719. 
 
 HYMANS, Lea Van Eyck (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 IMMERZEEL, De Leven en Werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche 
 Kunst Schilders. Amsterdam, 1856-63. 
 
Iviii BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 LAFOND, Roger van der Weyden. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 
 MANTZ, Adrien Brouwer. 
 
 MICHEL, Rubens. London, 1899. 
 
 MICHEL, Paul Potter (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 MICHEL, Rembrandt. New York, 1894. 
 
 MICHEL, Gerard Terburg et sa Famille. Paris, 1888. 
 
 MICHIELS, Histoire de la Peinture Flamande. Paris, 1865- 
 
 1876. 
 
 MOES, Frans Hals. Bruxelles, 1909. 
 PEYRE, Teniers (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 RIAT, Rysdael (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 ROOSES, Chefs d'CEuvres d'Antoine Van Dyck. Anvers, 1901. 
 ROOSES, Rubens. London, 1904. 
 
 ROOSES, Art in Flanders (Ars Una Series). New York, 1914. 
 SCHMIDT-DEGENER, Adrien Brouwer. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 STEVENSON, Rubens. New York, 1909. 
 VAN DYKE, Old Dutch and Flemish Masters (Cole's engravings). 
 
 New York, 1895. 
 VAN MANDER, Leven der Nederlandsche en Hoogduitsche 
 
 Schilders. Amsterdam, 1660. 
 VAN MANDER, Lime des Peintres (Hymans edition). Paris, 
 
 1884. 
 
 VAN ZYPE, Vermeer de Delft. Bruxelles, 1912. 
 VERHAEREN, Rembrandt (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 VOSMAER, Rembrandt. Paris, 1877. 
 WAUTERS, Hans Memling. Bruxelles, 1893. 
 WAUTERS, Flemish Painting. London, 1885. 
 WEALE, Hubert and John Van Eyck. London, 1907. 
 WESTRHEENE, Jan Steen. 
 
 GERMAN PAINTING 
 
 CONWAY, Literary Remains of Albrecht Diirer. London, 1889. 
 Cox, Painters and Sculptors (Chapter on Holbein). New York, 
 1907. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS lix 
 
 CUST, Diirer: A Study of His Life and Works. London, 1897. 
 
 DA VIES, Holbein. London, 1903. 
 
 DIJRER, Records of Journeys to Venice and Low Countries (Fry 
 
 edition). Boston, 1913. 
 EPHRUSSI, Diirer et ses dessins. Paris, 1882. 
 EYE, Leben und Wirken Albrecht Diirer's. Nordlingen, 1860. 
 GAUTHIEZ, Holbein (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 GIRODIE, Martin Schongauer. Paris, 1910. 
 HEATON, Life of Albrecht Diirer. London, 1870. 
 JANITSCHEK, Geschichte der deutschen Malerei. Berlin, 1890. 
 MERLO, Die Meister der altkolnischen Malerschule. 
 MOORE, Albert Diirer. London, 1905. 
 REAU, Les Primitifs allemands (Les Grands Artistes). Paris, 
 
 1910. 
 
 ROSENBERG, Sebald und Barthel Beham. 
 SCHIEBLER UND ALDENHOVEN, Geschwlite der Kolner Maler- 
 
 schule. Lubeck, 1902. 
 
 SCHUCHARDT, Lucas Cranoch's Leben und Werke, 1851-71. 
 SPRINGER, Albrecht Diirer. Berlin, 1892. 
 THODE, Die Malerschule von Niirnberg. Frankfurt, 1891. 
 WOLFF, Michael Packer. Berlin, 1910. 
 WOLFFLIN, Die Kunst A. Diirer s. Munich, 1905. 
 WOLTMANN, Holbein und seine Zeit. Leipzig, 1876. 
 WORNUM, Life and Work of Holbein. London, 1867. 
 WURZBACH, Martin Schongauer. 
 
 SPANISH PAINTING 
 
 ARMSTRONG, Velasquez. London, 1897. 
 
 BERUETE, Velasquez. London, 1897. 
 
 BERUETE Y MORET, School of Madrid. London, 1909. 
 
 CAFFIN, Old Spanish Masters (Cole's engravings). New York, 
 
 1907. 
 CEAN-BERMUDEZ, Diccionario Historico de los mas Ilustres 
 
 Profesores de las Bellas Aries en Espana. Madrid, 1800. 
 
Ix BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS 
 
 Cossio, El Greco. Madrid, 1908. 
 
 DIEULAFOY, Art in Spain and Portugal (Ars Una Series). 
 
 New York, 1914. 
 
 FAURE, Velasquez (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 JUSTI, Diego Velasquez und sein Jahrhundert. Bonn, 1903. 
 LAFOND, Murillo (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 LAFOND, Ribera et Zurburan (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 LEFORT, Murillo et son Ecole. 
 LEFORT, La Peinture espagnole. Paris, 1893. 
 LEFORT, Velasquez. Paris, 1888. 
 PALOMINO, Vidas de los Pintores y Estatuarios Eminentes 
 
 Espanoles. 
 
 RICKETTS, The Prado and Its Masterpieces. London, 1903. 
 SENTENACH, Painters of the School of Seville. London, 1904. 
 STEVENSON, Velasquez. London, 1899. 
 STIRLING, Annals of the Artists of Spain. London, 1891. 
 STIRLING, Velasquez and His Works. London, 1855. 
 TUBINO, Estudios sobre el Arte en Espana. Seville, 1886. 
 VIARDOT, Notices sur les principaux Peintres de I'Espagne. 
 WILLIAMSON, Velasquez. London. 
 
 FRENCH PAINTING 
 
 BOUCHOT, Les Clouets et CorneUle de Lyon. Paris, 1892. 
 
 BOUCHOT, Les Primitifs francais. Paris, 1904. 
 
 BOUYER, Claude Lorrain (Les Grands Artistes). Paris, 1904. 
 
 CHARVET, Jean Perreal. Paris. 
 
 CURMER, L'(Euvre de Jean Fouquet. Paris. 
 
 DESJARDINS, Poussin (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 DIMIER, Les Primitifs francais (Les Grand Artistes). Paris. 
 
 DIMIER, French Painting in the XVI Century. London, 1904. 
 
 GERMAIN, Les Neerlandais en Bourgogne. Bruxelles, 1909. 
 
 GERMAIN, Les Clouets (Les Grands Artistes). Paris. 
 
 GRUYER, Les Quarante Fouquets. Paris, 1900. 
 
 HOURTICQ, Art in France (Ars Una Series). New York, 1911. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OLD MASTERS Ixi 
 
 LABORDE, La Renaissance des Arts a la Cour de France. Paris, 
 
 1855. 
 
 Loo, L' Exposition des Primitifs francais. Bruxelles, 1904. 
 MANTZ, La Peinture franyaise du IX 9 au XV P Siede. Paris, 
 
 1898. 
 
 PATTISON, Claude Lorrain. Paris, 1884. 
 POILLON, Nicolas Poussin. Paris. 
 
 
THE NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
1 NOTE ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 one so comparatively unknown as Solario. But the 
 National Gallery people are quick enough to change 
 names when once satisfied that the change is a proper 
 one. The old (Burton?) catalogue contained excellent 
 biographical notices of the painters. In the present 
 catalogue the same kind of biographies appear, only 
 modernised, in keeping with recent research. 
 
 Another, a negative virtue of the National Gallery, 
 calls for mention. The attendants in cahrge do not 
 worry the visitor with attentions in the hope of a fee. 
 In some of the Italian galleries life is made miserable 
 by officious attendants who insist upon pointing out 
 obvious facts about the worst pictures, or giving you 
 misinformation about the best ones. In the London 
 Gallery the officials help people continually in locating 
 pictures, but they do so only on application and with- 
 out fee. Photographs of the pictures are sold in the 
 gallery, but usually they are expensive and not very 
 good. Reproductions in cheap book form are issued 
 by Hanfstaengl and should be used for reference and 
 memory-aid in other European galleries. 
 
 As for the pictures themselves in the London Gallery, 
 there are nearly three thousand of them, though, of 
 course all, of them are not hung at any one time. The 
 gallery started with the Angerstein Collection in 1824 
 and has been steadily augmented ever since by gifts 
 of various English collections those of Vernon, Wynn 
 Ellis, Vaughan, Salting, for instances. Additions by 
 purchase have been made from time to time either 
 
NOTE ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY 5 
 
 by public subscription or government grant. In that 
 way important pictures such as the Ansidei Madonna, 
 the Titian Ariosto, the Holbein Duchess of Milan, 
 and others, have come into the collection. The gal- 
 lery seems the natural heir of the great masterpieces 
 that England possessed and still possesses. England 
 came by these treasures of art in the early days, when 
 travel to Italy was a fashion of the rich, and bringing 
 back art-plunder through Belgium and Holland was a 
 more or less patriotic duty. The National Gallery year 
 by year keeps getting these pictures either by purchase 
 or bequest. No wonder it is a famous collection. 
 
 The Italian pictures in importance, as in numbers, 
 take the lead among the old masters. There are con- 
 spicuous examples of the Primitives and occasionally 
 a famous altar-piece such as the large one by Orcagna. 
 The fifteenth century is well represented with Fra 
 Filippo, Botticelli, Filippino, Lorenzo di Credi, Peru- 
 gino, Francia, Costa, Mantegna, Antonello da Messina, 
 Solario. There is a showing of Crivelli that cannot be 
 matched anywhere save possibly at Milan, two won- 
 derful pictures by Piero della Francesca, a masterpiece 
 by Paolo Uccello, the really great Doge Loredano por- 
 trait by Bellini, and many other exceptional examples 
 of the Early Renaissance men. The sixteenth-century 
 schools are even more brilliantly shown, especially 
 the Venetian School with its famous Titians, such as the 
 Ariadne and Bacchus, the superb St. George and the 
 Dragon by Tintoretto, the Family of Darius by Paolo 
 
6 NOTE ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 Veronese, the excellent Good Samaritan of Bassano. 
 No gallery in Europe has such a remarkable group of 
 Moronis in which the Tailor and the Lawyer stand out 
 pre-eminently fine. Italian art in the National Gallery 
 is a very important item. 
 
 The representation of the early Flemish School is 
 also very important. What could be finer than the 
 Arnolfini portraits by Van Eyck, the Deposition by 
 Bouts, or the two large panels by Gerard David! 
 They are superb. Many examples of the school sup- 
 port them, and the recently acquired Gossart of the 
 Nativity is a fine example, showing the decline of the 
 school. Of the Dutchmen, Hals is not well represented, 
 but there are several famous Rembrandts of both his 
 early and late period, and many pictures by his con- 
 temporaries and followers. There is a group of Cuyps 
 that cannot be matched elsewhere, and a notable gather- 
 ing of Ruisdaels, Hobbemas, and Wynants. The later 
 Flemings come in with a whole room almost entirely 
 devoted to Rubens and Van Dyck the latter showing 
 at his best in the matchless Van der Geest portrait, and 
 the former, also at his best, in the Drunken Silenus, the 
 Judgment of Paris, the Chapeau de Foil. 
 
 It cannot be said that the gallery is strong in Spanish 
 pictures, though there is the absolutely perfect bust por- 
 trait of Philip by Velasquez, besides the famous Rokeby 
 Venus and the Christ at the Column. That the attri- 
 butions of the last two may be questioned has nothing 
 whatever to do with their value as art. They are 
 
NOTE ON THE NATIONAL GALLERY 7 
 
 masterpieces. So, too, in a lesser sense the fine Ribalta 
 recently acquired. The French School has a good 
 showing of Claudes and Poussins, but otherwise is not 
 very strong. The English School is, of course, shown 
 in scores of good pictures by Reynolds, Gainsborough, 
 Hoppner, Lawrence, Turner, but they are not dealt 
 with in this series of guide-books. The student, how- 
 ever, should give them his attention. 
 
 The average tourist may " do " the National Gallery 
 in an hour, but the student can spend weeks or months 
 here. The pictures should be seen again and again. 
 Each visit will reveal something new perhaps some- 
 thing rich and rare. In addition to the old masters here 
 and in the Wallace Collection profitable trips may be 
 made to the South Kensington Museum and Hampton 
 Court, where there are a number of Italian, Dutch, and 
 Flemish pictures. The gallery at Dulwich is only an 
 hour from Trafalgar Square, and there are a few good 
 pictures in it worth seeing. 
 
THE NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 2604. Amberger, Chris top h. Portrait of a Man. Done 
 in an Albrecht-Diirer style, with minute strokes 
 of the brush in the hair and beard as though 
 making a pattern for some line-engraver to follow. 
 It is good in characterisation. 
 
 > 663. Angelico, Fra. Christ Surrounded by Angels. 
 The predella of an altar-piece from San Dome- 
 nico, Fiesole. The faces are interesting as express- 
 ing the spiritual quality of the painter, and the 
 haloes and colours are effective, but it is not an 
 important work of the master. In fact the draw- 
 ing suggests the help of assistants. No. 582, at- 
 tributed to his school, is a bright bit of colour. 
 
 I 673. Antonello da Messina. Salvator Mundi. A 
 
 picture that reveals (noticeably in the hair) some 
 of the more minute Flemish style of work which 
 Antonello is said by Vasari to have learned from 
 Jan van Eyck, but which in all probability he got 
 from Flemish artists in Italy. The colour is dark- 
 ened, perhaps by time. Very early work, and not 
 so positive in statement as No. 1141. The line of 
 the red coat at the neck was originally higher and 
 was painted out, leaving a line and a forefinger 
 still showing on the neck. 
 
 1141. Portrait of a Young Man. Possibly a like- 
 
 * ness of the painter himself. In the style of the 
 9 
 
10 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 portrait in the Louvre (No. 1134) and probably of 
 about the same time. A superb portrait of the 
 Doge Loredano type, only more precise and posi- 
 tive, done with infinite care even in the smallest 
 details. Notice the pains expended in drawing 
 such a thing as the eyeball the roundness of the 
 white in the left one. The colour is excellent. 
 
 1166. The Crucifixion. It is evidently a work done 
 
 in the 1470s, and has been hurt by restorations. 
 The types are Flemish, like those in the same sub- 
 ject by the same painter in the Antwerp Gallery 
 (No. 4). The colour is unusual as also the land- 
 scape. 
 
 1418. St. Jerome in His Study. The picture is al- 
 
 * most Flemish in the windows and the landscapes 
 seen through them, as also in the still-life and the 
 figure of the saint. It has good light and air and 
 is well held together. A very interesting panel, 
 but perhaps not improved by the framework of 
 stone about it. 
 
 1427. Baldung, Hans. The Dead Christ. It is angular 
 in the folding of the drapery, and the figure of 
 Christ is rather harsh in its lines, but the picture 
 is strong in colour and tragic in its sentiment. 
 What extraordinary reds ! Notice the donors in the 
 predella at the bottom kneeling in that odd little 
 landscape. 
 
 245. Portrait of a Senator. It has the forged 
 
 monogram of Albrecht Diirer at the right, and is 
 perhaps not now rightly attributed. Baldung was 
 a friend of Diirer, and influenced by him, but he 
 never drew with Diirer's accuracy. The mi- 
 nute workmanship in the hair and fur is sugges- 
 tive of Diirer, but much more fussy and trifling. 
 
BASAITI 11 
 
 1437. Barnaba da Modena. Descent of the Holy 
 Ghost. With Sienese influence showing, chiefly 
 in the heads. It is quite fine in colour and rich in 
 its golden haloes. 
 
 29. Baroccio, Federigo. Holy Family. It belongs 
 to the Decadence. Yes, but is it not joyous in 
 spirit and fine in colour? Moreover, it is well 
 drawn and has a good atmospheric setting with 
 proper light and shade. 
 
 1694. Bartolommeo, Fra. Virgin and Child with St. 
 John. A gracefully knit-together pyramidal group 
 such as Raphael, following Bartolommeo, after- 
 ward produced with improvements of his ow r n. 
 The background is very light in tone and the land- 
 scape almost Umbrian in its feeling of space and 
 distance. The Madonna's profile and hands are 
 flat, as are the figures of the children the result 
 of too much cleaning and restoration. The Christ 
 and Magdalen in the Louvre (No. 1115) has a 
 similar light landscape at the back and is by Bar- 
 tolommeo, though there put down to Albertinelli. 
 
 287. Bartolommeo Veneto (Veneziano). Portrait 
 of Ludovico Martinengo. A little pinched and 
 cramped in the drawing of the face. The colour is 
 rich and novel. The costume dictated the plac- 
 ing of the figure and is a bit uneasy. A picture 
 of much interest. 
 
 2507. - A Lady. Unfortunately it has been flattened 
 in the throat and chest by cleaning, but it still 
 has a unique charm of type and colour. Note the 
 fillet about the hair and the handsome dress. It 
 may not be by the painter to whom it is assigned. 
 
 599. Basaiti, Marco. Madonna of the Meadow. A 
 very good example of a man who did mannered 
 
12 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 work following Bellini, and possibly Mantegna, 
 and whose pictures have been handed around to 
 Bellini, Carpaccio, Marconi, and others of the 
 Venetian School. His peculiar ear-marks are his 
 tree, rock, and mountain drawing, his white build- 
 ings in the background, his wild Dalmatian-coast 
 landscape. His types are less distinctive, and may 
 often be confused with those of other early Vene- 
 tians. This picture is harsh in the blues, and 
 the flesh is wanting in solidity. The landscape 
 is effective. Notice the dead tree and also the 
 foliage on the small trees near by. They appear 
 again in the Bellini Resurrection at Berlin (No. 
 1177A), which is probably by Basaiti. 
 
 281. St. Jerome Reading. With a landscape quite 
 
 in Basaiti's manner. The picture is somewhat 
 hard and brittle. Even the sky is glassy. The 
 figure of St. Jerome merely repeats the note of 
 blue in the sky. Not a bad picture but hardly a 
 masterpiece. The Cima of the same subject hang- 
 ing near by should be studied for resemblances. 
 
 2498. A Young Venetian. A bust portrait, with 
 
 some curious drawing in the eyes, hair, neck, and 
 shoulders. It seems very odd that any painter 
 should place a figure on a panel in such an awk- 
 ward way. It is an interesting type for all its 
 oddity. Without the signature, who would have 
 thought of Basaiti as its painter? It would have 
 been given to some one like Solario. All of which 
 suggests the possibilities that lie hidden in certain 
 little-known painters. 
 
 173. Bassano, Jacopo. Portrait of a Gentleman. A 
 
 picture quite beautiful in its atmospheric setting, 
 r- in its light, and in the landscape seen through the 
 
BELLINI 13 
 
 window. The still-life on the table is also good. 
 The figure itself wants in accuracy. The hands 
 are badly drawn, and the mannerism of the pointed 
 fingers has somehow crept into the face. That 
 too is pointed and sharp in the nose and chin. 
 The eyes are narrow and ill-placed. The placing 
 of the figure on the panel is very good. The ruff 
 or collar seems too white and spotty. 
 
 277. The Good Samaritan. An excellent Bassano 
 
 * in colour and in drawing. The central figures are 
 very well modelled that is, realistically presented 
 and the action is quite believable. Moreover, 
 the figures keep within the picture frame and are a 
 part of the landscape. What a very good land- 
 scape it is with its North Italian hills and its fine 
 deep sky! Bassano seldom hit the mark so fairly 
 as in this picture. It has decided quality. 
 
 228. Christ Driving the Money Changers Out of 
 
 y^. the Temple. Not wanting in good action nor in 
 light, atmosphere, and colour. It is not perhaps so 
 satisfactory as the smaller Good Samaritan (No. 
 277), but is nevertheless a fine Bassano. 
 
 808. Bellini, Gentile. St. Peter Martyr. A clearly 
 outlined head that belongs somewhere between the 
 early sixteenth and the late fifteenth centuries of 
 Venetian art. The signature of Giovanni Bellini 
 upon it is declared to be false, but one is not much 
 surer of his elder brother having done the work, 
 though it looks like a Gentile in its drawing. 
 
 1440. St. Dominic. Somewhat hurt by restoration, 
 
 but still fine in its decorative quality. Once as- 
 signed to Giovanni Bellini, but the difference be- 
 tween it and the Doge Loredano portrait, for in- 
 stance, is very wide. It is now given to Gentile 
 
14 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 Bellini. What a fine background ! The signature 
 is no doubt false. 
 
 750. Bellini, Gentile, School of. The Madonna and 
 Child Enthroned with Saints and the Doge Mo- 
 cenigo. This is not the sort of thing that we look 
 to Gentile or Carpaccio to do. They seem more at 
 home in the historic or legendary theme. Here the 
 painter is rich and rare in his brocades, doing 
 them with much depth of colour and beauty of 
 pattern; but the Madonna is heavy, the Doge 
 fat, and St. John lean. St. Christopher is an un- 
 successful addition to the group. Look at the 
 sky, the hills, and the sea. They, at least, are 
 well knit together. Attributed also to Lazzaro 
 Sebastiani. 
 
 1 726. Bellini, Giovanni. Christ's Agony in the Car- 
 * den. A picture with a strangely beautiful land- 
 scape that seems to have been studied directly from 
 a nature model. Notice the mountain at the left 
 with the sand-slip at its base, and the background 
 where the houses are struck by light from the sky. 
 The figures are little more than patches of bright 
 colour. The sky and the landscape are really the 
 picture. The river, the bridge, the banks seem 
 more like Mantegna than Bellini. Notice also the 
 Mantegnesque draperies. The work has been in- 
 fluenced from Padua, although there is little more 
 certainty about this picture than about the same 
 subject by Mantegna (No. 1417) in this gallery. 
 It is probably by a follower of Mantegna, and that 
 follower may have been Bellini, but, as said, there 
 is little certainty about it. Some features of the 
 tree and rock drawing suggest Basaiti, but they 
 are possibly nothing more than Basaiti following 
 
BELLINI 15 
 
 Bellini. There are suggestions of Basaiti also in 
 the Mantegna (No. 1417) which are perhaps to 
 be accounted for in the same way. The student 
 will notice that in this gallery, as in other Euro- 
 pean collections, there are a number of widely vary- 
 ing canvases put down to Bellini. Much school 
 work and some of the work of pupils is still under 
 his name. Compare here, for instance, the fine 
 Redeemer (No. 1233) with the superficial Circum- 
 cision (No. 1455), or the landscape of the Agony in 
 the Garden (No. 726) with the landscape of No. 
 280 or No. 812. There is wide divergence. The 
 pictures of Bellini or his school are not yet an open 
 book that one who runs may read. 
 
 Madonna and Child. There were many and 
 
 very different Madonnas that came from the Bel- 
 lini workshop, all duly signed with the master's 
 name. This time it happens to be a pretty type 
 of Madonna with porcelain face and hands and 
 rather dusky shadows. There is some depth of 
 colour to it. Compare its line, colour, modelling, 
 surface, with No. 2901 for a contrast. 
 
 Landscape with the Death of St. Peter Martyr. 
 
 A remarkable woods for an early Venetian to have 
 produced. Note how the tree trunks are drawn 
 and how the leaves are hit by light. The woods 
 has depth as well as breadth and height. How 
 well the background and foreground are bound 
 together and what a fine sky with white clouds! 
 There is small reason to suppose it done by Bellini 
 though it may be from his workshop. 
 
 Madonna Adoring Child. The type of the 
 
 Madonna is almost heroic in size, dignity, and 
 poise. Her head seems to be almost in the beauti- 
 
16 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 ful clouds of the sky at the back. Even the child 
 is unusual in gravity and seriousness. The pres- 
 ence of both is noble. The drawing is a bit hard 
 and the red robe angular; but what fine colour! 
 What a decorative panel! It has been injured 
 somewhat by repainting in the faces, hands, haloes, 
 clouds. Compare it with Nos. 280, 1455, or 726 
 if you would get an idea of the different styles put 
 down to Bellini. 
 
 V 189. Portrait of the Doge Loredano. Here Bel- 
 
 ** lini goes beyond himself in a masterwork of his 
 later years. Perhaps he was fortunate in his 
 sitter. It was not always that a painter could get 
 such a character, with such a face, to sit to him. 
 It is a stern, decisive face, of great dignity, proud, 
 fearless, and yet serene, self-contained, calm with 
 a majestic calmness. But Bellini improved his 
 opportunity. How simply yet truly he drew him, 
 without any attempt at grandeur or elegance or 
 even thought of doing a masterpiece. He did 
 what was before him as cleanly and precisely as 
 he knew how, treating the ducal robe and cap with 
 the same degree of care as the face. All he added 
 was a flat blue ground and a brownish-red para- 
 pet in front. Perhaps he builded better than he 
 knew. At least he wrought a masterpiece that has 
 been admired for many years. 
 
 1233. The Blood of the Redeemer. It is almost 
 
 * surely by Bellini, painting under the influence of 
 Mantegna, although it is doubtful if there ever will 
 be a certainty about where this picture and the 
 one related to it (No. 726) really belong. Both 
 are good pictures. This one is beautiful in the 
 thin, angular white figure against the darker 
 
BENOZZO GOZZOLI 17 
 
 ground. And, too, it is very impressive in senti- 
 ment. It seems of a piece with the beautiful 
 Christ in the Act of Blessing in the Louvre and 
 the noble Pieta of the Brera. Notice the little 
 angel with the red slippers below. How pathetic 
 he is! 
 
 The Circumcision. The types are rather 
 
 pretty and devoid of character. The colouring is 
 somewhat of the same stamp. The surface is 
 smooth and the signature very prominent as 
 though some might have doubts about the attri- 
 bution (as indeed they have), and needed the 
 presence of a name to reassure them. It is hardly 
 convincing as a Bellini or as a great work under 
 any other name. 
 
 Madonna and Child. A fresco in an early 
 
 Bellinesque manner with harshly drawn faces, 
 necks, arms, hands and angular, sharply folded 
 drapery. There is some charm in the Madonna 
 type. [Now assigned to Montagna.] 
 
 Benozzo Gozzoli. Madonna and Child with 
 Angels. No picture of Benozzo's in the northern 
 galleries equals his splendid fresco in tne Riccardi 
 palace, Florence; but this picture is an excellent 
 tempera work of his early period. The colour is 
 high hi key and supported by much gold work, 
 the patterns of which are beautiful. Look at the 
 faces, wings, and golden garments of the angels, 
 the flowers in the foreground, and the suggestion 
 of trees and sky. The figures are grouped about 
 the throne making a symmetrically balanced com- 
 position. 
 
 BenoZZO Gozzoli, School of. Virgin, Child and 
 
 Angels. It is a little severe in the workmanship 
 
18 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 and has no great depth of feeling, but is it not 
 charming as colour? The brilliancy and resonance 
 of the colour are remarkable. Notice the two little 
 ill-drawn angels at the bottom, so sad of face, but 
 again lovely in colour. The composition is a 
 repetition of the central group in No. 283 with 
 the playing angels added at the bottom. The 
 stone screen at the back is a little frail and the 
 stone seat is something that the angels seem to be 
 standing in, as though it were water. Look at 
 their robes at the bottom. What lovely garments 
 with gold patterns on orange-red and green! 
 It seems almost too good for a school piece. 
 
 909. BenvenutO di Giovanni. Madonna Enthroned 
 with St. Peter and St. Nicholas. A triptych of 
 much decorative beauty. The costumes are or- 
 nate. The gold ground helps the richness of 
 effect. With naive little angels at the top. See 
 the little panel near it (No. 2482). 
 
 631. Bissolo, Francesco. (Ascribed to.) Portrait of 
 a Lady. The type is handsome and the picture 
 still has beauty of colour left in it. What a fine 
 dress! The largeness of the type is peculiar to 
 Bissolo, as also the blond colouring. 
 
 719. Bles, Herri Met de. (Ascribed to.) The Mag- 
 dalen. The figure and face are like Bles as we 
 know him in the Antwerp and Brussels galleries 
 and they also correspond with the Magdalen at the 
 foot of the cross in the Mount Calvary (No. 718) 
 in this gallery. But Bles and his pseudo are still 
 something of a problem. What good colour, and 
 how very decorative! 
 
 728. Boltraffio, Giovanni Antonio. Madonna and 
 * Child. A fair example of Boltraffio's large types 
 
BORDONE 19 
 
 with small detailed realism of hair and scarf and 
 pattern. The surface enameled, the colour rich, 
 the figures heavy. The child's head poorly 
 drawn and his right arm invisible. The sugges- 
 tion of sky is not bad. 
 
 2673. Narcissus. A pretty profile with decorative 
 
 bays and a charming little landscape at the back. 
 Another version in the Uffizi (No. 3417). Com- 
 pare the hair here with that in No. 2496 put down 
 to Boltraffio, also the drawing of the profile. 
 There is a difference. 
 
 L843. Bonfigli, Benedetto. Adoration of Magi. By 
 
 some early Umbrian master other than Bonfigli. 
 This picture shows what is sometimes called 
 "Umbrian sentiment." There is good work in 
 the gold and the colours. The drawing is crude, of 
 course. 
 
 736. Bonsignori, Francesco. Portrait of a Venetian 
 Senator. It is right enough in its outline drawing, 
 but is not so convincing in its modelling. The 
 head is huge but without much feeling of weight. 
 How bright the red of the coat! 
 
 674. Bordone, Paris. Portrait of a Lady. A pa- 
 
 * trician type (even to the pudgy fat hands), with a 
 haughtiness of air and a well-fed look. There is 
 a glimpse of an ancestral hall behind the figure. 
 The surface has had much care expended upon it, 
 with the result that the face and hair are too 
 brittle, too porcelain-like, and the dress too glit- 
 tering in its sheen. The figure is well indicated, 
 but it stands out of its envelope of air instead of 
 in it. However, it is an imposing-looking portrait 
 in Bordone's most marked style, with his rosy 
 flesh and ropy hair in evidence. 
 
20 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 637. Daphnis and Chloe. Graceful well-drawn 
 
 * figures with some of the fed-on-roses looking flesh 
 that Bordone affected so often. The figures are a 
 little over-modelled and protrusive, but the drap- 
 eries are quieter than usual. A good example of a 
 style and a theme that Bordone used a number of 
 times but seldom with as satisfactory results as 
 are here shown. 
 
 1077. Borgognone, Ambrogio Fossano. A Triptych. 
 
 With an Agony in the Garden at the left and a 
 Christ bearing the Cross at the right. It is 
 weaker than No. 298 and has less decorative 
 charm about it, but the same delicate sentiment 
 is present. Look at the odd little angels with lutes 
 in the central panel of the Madonna and Child. 
 There is more red in the flesh than is usual with 
 Borgognone and more brilliancy of colour in the 
 robes. The landscapes are clear with good skies. 
 See also No. 1410. 
 
 298. Marriage of the Two St. Catherines. In 
 
 Borgognone's best manner, with his usual lead- 
 coloured flesh, and some zigzagging in the robes; 
 but with delicate sentiment in all the types. 
 There is almost always good decorative effect pro- 
 ceeding from the pictures of this painter because 
 of the richness of robes, architecture, patterns, 
 flowers, gilding. What a handsome throne the 
 Virgin occupies! And what a crown and robe 
 St. Catherine (at the left) wears! A fine picture. 
 
 1917. Both, Jan. Italian Landscape. One of Both's 
 usual compositions with a good effect of warm 
 sunlight too warm for comfort. No. 71 is 
 cooler and in this respect better. 
 
BOTTICELLI 21 
 
 592. Botticelli, SandtO. Adoration of the Magi. A 
 
 fine panel of colour with some bad drawing and a 
 rather crude landscape. The Madonna is the so- 
 called Lucretia Buti type of Fra Filippo; the other 
 figures are suggestive of Botticelli in types but do 
 not show his usual style of work. It is possibly 
 (as Mr. Berenson contends) the very earliest ex- 
 ample of Botticelli, which may account for the 
 picture's shortcomings. However, the figures are 
 not wanting in largeness of robe and bulk of body 
 and there is good grouping and good movement 
 from left to right, which are not characteristics of 
 any one's early work. The picture looks like school 
 work. 
 
 .033. Adoration of Magi. It IS not SO fine in its 
 
 , drawing as the same subject by Botticelli in the 
 Uffizi at Florence (No. 1286). Some portions of 
 it are careless and bad in drawing, and the faces 
 and hands lack the characterisation shown in the 
 Florentine picture. The top and back of the com- 
 position are almost empty and devoid of interest, 
 which is not a Botticelli mannerism or ear-mark. 
 The landscape, rocks, church towers, gold-work, 
 and much of the drawing in robes and figures 
 would seem to point to the painter of Nos. 
 1124 and 1412, Amico di Sandro, but one might 
 hesitate about assigning it to him absolutely. 
 There are features in the landscape such as the 
 sky, the towers, the trees, and the hills that sug- 
 gest Jacopo del Sellajo; and there are other fea- 
 tures in both landscape and figures that suggest 
 Botticini. It is probably by some Botticelli fol- 
 lower, and the personalities of these followers are 
 not so distinct as to avoid confusion and un- 
 certainty in ascription. The same hand prob- 
 
22 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 ably did the Adoration in the Hermitage (No. 3) 
 there ascribed to Botticelli. There is a fine mass 
 of colour in the centre of the picture where the 
 figures form an irregular pyramid. Somewhat 
 hurt by cleaning-room processes. 
 
 626. Portrait of a Young Man. A face of much 
 
 ^ spirit and animation, done in a decided Botti- 
 celli manner, though once ascribed to Masaccio. 
 It has been rubbed and grimed by cleaning, but 
 the personal quality, both of the sitter and the 
 painter, is not yet rubbed out of it. Study the 
 drawing of the mouth, eyes, and hair. 
 
 275. Virgin and Child with St. John the Baptist. 
 
 A work of some morbid charm even though the 
 attribution be questionable. The Madonna is a 
 girlish type and the equally girlish St. John and 
 the angel, with the corners of their mouths turned 
 down, help out the strained feminine quality of 
 it. The Botticelli hands and nails are here, but 
 there is a lack of the Botticelli individuality in 
 the matter of general drawing. The filling of the 
 circle is well done and the head-dress and robe of 
 the Virgin are effectively given. But it is a little 
 crude for all that. 
 
 915. Mars and Venus. This is an early attempt 
 
 * at the Greek myth in Italian art, comparable to 
 the Piero di Cosimo (No. 698) hanging near it. 
 It has some of the naive awkwardness of the 
 Piero, but is more formal and less spirited though 
 better drawn. There is a certain cut-and-dried 
 quality about it difficult to explain. Mars sleeps 
 to order, Venus sits up to order, the little satyrs 
 play pranks to order. Piero rather believed in 
 
BOTTICELLI 23 
 
 his tale, but Botticelli seems rather to have be- 
 lieved in his models and his drawing. At least 
 so it appears here, though seldom elsewhere in 
 Botticelli. The robe of Venus is superb, the 
 helmet of Mars well painted, the linear drawing 
 everywhere excellent, and the landscape very 
 satisfactory. Hurt by some repainting. 
 
 2906. - Madonna and Child. It is a clean-looking 
 picture with an attractive if somewhat pretty 
 Madonna and an awkward Child. The colour is 
 bright, the drawing fairly good, the modelling 
 rather too well rounded for Botticelli, and the 
 surface a bit hard and glassy. The sentiment of 
 it is hardly intense enough nor the line hard enough 
 for Botticelli. The landscape seems nearer to 
 him. It is an attractive picture but whether by 
 Botticelli or not seems difficult to determine. It 
 has likenesses and analogies to No. 275, which is 
 some sort of school piece. The Botticellis in 
 this gallery do not agree with each other very 
 well, which in itself suggests the presence of sev- 
 eral hands. 
 
 1034. The Nativity. In excessive sentiment, this 
 
 quite outsoars even Botticelli himself. Every- 
 ^ thing is in agony of mind and soul, including the 
 ox, the ass, and the little devils in the lower 
 corners of the picture. Notice the angels below 
 and above with the graceful flutter and move- 
 ment of their robes. It is a good picture with 
 fine lines and harmonious colours, but the drawing 
 is somewhat careless. It is possibly by the Bot- 
 ticelli follower who did the Annunciation in the 
 Uffizi (No. 1316) and the Entombment at Munich 
 (No. 1010). 
 
24 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1412. Botticelli, Sandro, School of. Virgin, Child, 
 
 * and St. John. A picture of much excellence, 
 quite aside from the question of its painter. And 
 it is not bad in either drawing or colour. In fact, 
 Botticelli and Filippino sometimes did worse 
 things. What a fine type the little St. John and 
 his younger brother, the Child! They are all 
 three of a family and all have bulbous noses that 
 are attractive rather than otherwise. Note the 
 graceful oval sweeps of drapery in the centre of 
 one of which the Child is standing. Note also 
 the flowers in the vase. Mr. Berenson thinks 
 this picture is by some contemporary of Botti- 
 celli whose name is unknown to us. He gives 
 him the name of Amico di Sandro. There is no 
 doubt about the personality, though one may ob- 
 ject to giving him a local habitation and a name. 
 Too much history is constructed in that fashion. 
 
 1124. Adoration of Magi. This picture is prob- 
 ably by the painter of No. 1412, the so-called 
 Amico di Sandro, as one may measurably ascer- 
 tain by comparing in each the landscapes, trees, 
 skies, faces, hands, haloes, drawing of costumes 
 and figures, colours, etc. It is by no means so at- 
 tractive a picture as No. 1412, however. To be 
 compared also with No. 1033. 
 
 1126. Botticini, Francesco. Assumption of the Vir- 
 
 * gin. Long attributed to Botticelli, this picture 
 y^ is now given to Botticini, who at present is one 
 
 of the names to which inferior Botticellis and 
 school pieces are relegated. The figures grouped 
 about the tomb below are somewhat in Botti- 
 celli's manner, but the seated angels in the upper 
 circles are by a more formal and mannered hand. 
 
BOUTS, THIERRI 25 
 
 It is a fine picture in spite of some crudeness in 
 drawing, some sameness in the types and the 
 repeated robes of the angels. The sweep of the 
 zones of saints above is not only imaginative, but 
 decoratively effective; and the landscape below, 
 with its finely toned sky, has a good deal of breadth 
 to it. Though a double composition, the pic- 
 ture holds together very well. It has been injured 
 by restorations. 
 
 227. St. Jerome with Saints and Donors. An 
 
 altar-piece with a predella and in the centre a St. 
 Jerome framed up. It is in its original setting 
 and is a decorative work of some importance. 
 The sentiment is a little dull and the drawing 
 rather poor, but then Botticini seems to have come 
 into existence largely to father the badly-drawn 
 Florentine pictures of Botticelli's time. The 
 angels at the top are graceful, and the predella 
 has small but interesting landscapes with figures. 
 664. Bouts, Thierri (or Dirk). Deposition. A pic- 
 ** ture formerly put down to Roger van der 
 Weyden, but now given to Bouts. It has re- 
 ligious sentiment, great pathos, and the very 
 finest of artistic feeling. A wonderful work for 
 all its primitive quality. The drawing is exact 
 and yet superb, the modelling hard but excellent. 
 Notice the beautiful white robe of the figure in the 
 foreground beautiful even in its sharp breaks 
 of line. And what a group of heads at the top! 
 The trees and the landscape are just as full of 
 sentiment as the figures, and agree with them in 
 tenderness. It is a superb piece of colour. The 
 attribution may be questioned but not the art, 
 for of its kind it is quite perfect. Painted in 
 tempera on linen. 
 
26 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 943. Portrait of a Man. Exactly true and beau- 
 tifully told. The drawing of the head and the 
 high cheek-bones (with the cap and dress as well) 
 is excellent. It is broad, not finical. So also with 
 the hands. Quite a perfect little portrait. Re- 
 semblances to it appear in the two large Bouts 
 pictures at Brussels (Nos. 65 and 66). 
 
 774. Madonna and Child Enthroned. In the 
 
 Memling vein with types somewhat like his. 
 The colours not quite so rich as usual, nor the pat- 
 terns so elaborate; but a handsome picture. The 
 saint at the right is Bouts-like, but the draw- 
 ing of the figures, the hands, the faces, especially 
 in the Madonna and the Child, are only super- 
 ficially like him. 
 
 651. Bronzino, Angelo. Venus, Cupid, Folly, and 
 Time. This shows the ending of the classic myth 
 which Botticelli, Piero di Cosimo, and others 
 carried on in the Early Renaissance. It has now 
 in the Decadence turned into absurd allegory with 
 huddled figures, harsh light, and acrid colouring. 
 The actual drawing and painting seem much 
 better than in the early men, but the artistic 
 sense and spirit are weak. The picture has been 
 too much cleaned. 
 
 1323. Portrait of Piero de' Medici. Showing a 
 
 large head and hand, both of them well done, save 
 that they want force and character. The head, 
 the hand, the dress are in fact too well done too 
 pretty. Art with Bronzino became so refined 
 that it lacked grip and grit. Piero de' Medici had 
 other qualities than smoothness and needed some 
 stronger hand than Bronzino's to paint him. 
 
CAMPIN 27 
 
 649. Portrait of a Boy. A charming portrait in 
 
 pose and costume, in drawing and colour. The 
 boyish portrait did not call for great strength, 
 and this smooth drawing and painting fitted it 
 fairly well. It has no force and the background 
 is flat. Is it Bronzino's smooth art? Once attrib- 
 uted to Pontormo. [Now given to Rossi.] 
 
 2609. Campin, Robert. Virgin and Child in an 
 Apartment. There is no certainty about this 
 attribution. Robert Campin is an unknown 
 quantity, merely a name. It has been conjec- 
 tured that he is identical with the Master of 
 Flemalle and he has been written down as Van 
 der Weyden's master the latter suggestion be- 
 ing probably correct and the former not unlikely. 
 There are two portraits in the Brussels Gallery 
 ascribed to Campin, but they look like old copies 
 and hardly agree with this National Gallery pic- 
 ture. The history of the early painters of the 
 Flemish border is in course of making. Some 
 authentic work of Campin may turn up to give 
 a criterion by which one may judge; but none 
 has yet been discovered. 
 
 2608. Virgin and Child with Two Angels. It be- 
 longs in the same category with No. 2609. It 
 is an early or at least an immature work, but the 
 attribution to Robert Campin is again little more 
 than a guess. 
 
 654. Campin, Robert, School of. The Magdalen. 
 
 * This picture was formerly assigned to Van der 
 Weyden. The same type, attitude, and dress 
 appear in a triptych of the Crucifixion put down 
 to Van der Weyden in the Antwerp Museum (Nos. 
 393-395) the seated figure in the left wing; also in 
 
28 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 Madrid under the Master of Flemalle (No. 1514). 
 A beautiful Magdalen this London picture 
 with fine quality in the green robe for all its zig- 
 zags and sharp foldings. 
 127. Canaletto, Giovanni Antonio. View in Ven- 
 
 * ice. The view is looking across the Grand 
 Canal to where the Academy now stands. A 
 picture of much beauty in its masses of light and 
 shadow with a sense of mystery in the shadow, 
 as well as strength of contrast. An astonishing 
 piece of realism in the buildings, the stone yard, 
 the figures, the campanile, the sky. And what 
 wonderful truth of colour under both light and 
 shadow! A superb Canaletto! 
 
 163. View on Grand Canal. The view here is 
 
 across from the present railway station. The 
 building, the gondolas, the water, the sky are 
 done with some truth of fact and grace of colour, 
 but the picture is marred by the juvenile attempt 
 at wave drawing in the foreground. 
 
 937. Scuola di San Rocco. A fete day with a 
 
 procession and a crowd. There is much local 
 truth and beauty of colour, but it is more prosaic 
 than similar scenes by Guardi. The architec- 
 ture is beautiful in its drawing. Nos. 939 and 
 940 are more precise and less picturesque. They 
 look like school work. 
 
 965. Cappelle, Jan van de. River Scene with State 
 
 * Barge. A good example of Cappelle though 
 somewhat overdone in the smoky clouds. The 
 colour is mellow and attractive though that may 
 be due to old varnish. The ships and sails are 
 well given, especially in the distance where air 
 and light are apparent. There are two points of 
 
CARRACCI 29 
 
 sight, one on either side, but that does not seem 
 disturbing. 
 
 966. - River Scene. Perhaps the best of the Cap- 
 * pelles here. With a white-clouded sky the lower 
 
 clouds a little smoky and a good water effect. 
 The shadowed foreground is forced but effective 
 and the ships and sails are well painted. 
 
 967. - Shipping. With a high sky effective in both 
 height and depth. The ships and sails a little 
 blackish, the water dark, the reflections some- 
 what pronounced. The figures are not so much 
 figures in a boat as a boat with figures. For that 
 reason they hold their place well in the scene. 
 
 172. Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Supper at Em- 
 maus. The shadows are of course dark and the 
 
 v/ characters more or less brutal but the colour is 
 good. The drawing and painting again are 
 coarse, but they have power about them and are 
 at least forceful. 
 
 2495. Cariani, Giovanni Busi. Virgin and Child. 
 
 It is a little odd that Cariani, who has been gen- 
 vi erally considered only fit to have poor Giorgione 
 pictures ascribed to him, should have this really 
 good picture given to him. It passed for a Gior- 
 gione once and might to-day pass for an early 
 Palma (see the Palma in the Colonna Gallery, 
 Rome, No. 22). It is quite good enough for 
 Palma and very much in his style. In drawing, 
 colouring, flowers, and landscape it is excellent. 
 
 2923. Carracci, Annibale. Pieta. It is rather fine in 
 its drawing and colour, and the relief of the figures 
 : against the dark mass of shadow. The three fig- 
 ures in a line ending in the dead Christ are given 
 
30 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 with force and truth. The limp dead figure is 
 excellent. And the Magdalen is very good in 
 pose, in drawing, in colour. The sentiment of the 
 picture, the feature in which the Decadents sin 
 the most, is here quite sincere. The scene is 
 tragic and given with a dramatic effect that is 
 proper and right. A fine picture for Annibale 
 Carracci. 
 
 694. Catena, Vincenzo. St. Jerome in His Study. 
 
 The right-angle lines of the picture are drawn as 
 though with a ruler, and disturb any picturesque 
 quality there might be in the drawing. St. 
 Jerome himself is almost a right-angle, and the 
 blue and red of his robes are not only angular but 
 articulate. They almost scream. It is not a 
 good Catena because too matter-of-fact and la- 
 boured. 
 
 234. Warrior Adoring Infant Christ. An impor- 
 
 * tant Catena with large figures well drawn and 
 painted. The warrior's armour is accurate, the 
 gorgeously trapped horse is life-like, and the land- 
 scape is quite remarkable in the woods at the left 
 and in the sky. As for the spirit of the Madonna, 
 Child, and Joseph, it is somewhat dull and prosaic. 
 Even as colour spots the figures are not inspiring. 
 The picture shows the influence of Palma and 
 was once attributed to Giorgione. See the note 
 on the Louvre Giorgione, No. 1136. A picture 
 hanging near this Catena in the National Gallery 
 (1912), loaned by Mr. John P. Heseltine, and 
 ascribed to Palma Vecchio, is another very obvious 
 Catena with the same types, landscape, trees, 
 and colours as No. 234. 
 
CHRISTUS 31 
 
 1121. Portrait of a Young Man. It has a Bel- 
 
 linesque look about it, though smoother and 
 rounder in contours than Bellini usually gave. The 
 figure is flat, the outline sharp, the sky filled with 
 puff-ball clouds. There is little doubt of its being 
 by Catena. 
 
 Cavazzola. See Morando (Paolo). 
 
 2485. Cesare da Sesto. Salome. In the smooth 
 * style adopted by many of Leonardo's followers 
 and with Leonardo's and Raphael's sentiment 
 prettified and sweetened. It is good in both 
 colour and drawing, and even the light and 
 shade of Leonardo is handled with Raphaelesque 
 moderation. The Salome's hands and arms are 
 well drawn and the drapery is handsomely dis- 
 posed. 
 
 2593. Christus, Petrus. Portrait of a Man. The 
 
 head is the poorest part of it, being somewhat 
 wooden. The hands and the dress are better 
 and the architecture with the glimpse of land- 
 scape at the side is perhaps the best of all. The 
 illuminated sheet of vellum on the wall is a little 
 spotty. The attribution is questionable. There 
 is little known about Christus or his art, and what 
 is known rather conflicts with this portrait. He 
 is supposed to have been a pupil of Jan van Eyck, 
 and to have been influenced by Bouts, but that 
 is a mere conjecture. 
 
 696. Portrait of Marco Barbarigo. This por- 
 trait is more closely related to the Van Eycks 
 Nos. 290 and 222 than to the Christus No. 2593. 
 It is a strong little portrait of the School of Van 
 Eyck, which does not necessarily mean that it 
 
32 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 must have been done by Christus. It is quite 
 different from No. 2593 put down to him. Com- 
 pare closely the drawing of contours, eyes, noses, 
 mouths (not for likeness of type but of drawing) 
 in Nos. 696, 290, 222, and 186. They will be 
 found to agree in a general way; but when these 
 are contrasted with the Christus No. 2593, this 
 latter will be found to conflict with them. 
 
 300. Cima, Giovanni Battista. Infant Christ 
 Standing on the Knees of the Virgin. The fig- 
 ures are cold in colour and hard, almost glassy, in 
 texture. The landscape is better. Another ver- 
 sion of this is at Berlin, but neither of them is of 
 the best Cima quality. 
 
 816. Incredulity of St. Thomas. A large altar-piece 
 
 with a fine group of figures in the foreground and 
 a good landscape seen at the back. The upper 
 part of the picture seems empty, and that is prob- 
 ably due to something wanting where the grey- 
 brown wall now shows something that was never 
 put in or that was afterwards painted out. It 
 seems improbable that a painter in colourful Ven- 
 ice in Cima's time would have utilised any such 
 space with a mere filling-in of flat tint grey- 
 brown paint at that. The picture wants in com- 
 pleteness, and the want is a crying one that any 
 person can hear. Injured by restorations. 
 
 2505. David and Jonathan. Two figures perhaps too 
 
 mature in drawing, colouring, and painting for 
 Cima. But they are his types, and the landscape 
 is also his. The figures move well and are certainly 
 effective as colour. The picture has much charm. 
 
 1120. St. Jerome in the Desert. Compare it with 
 
 the Basaiti (No. 281) of the same subject, hanging 
 
CLAUDE LORRAINE 33 
 
 near at hand. The pictures are apparently not 
 far apart. Even the tree and bird which are more 
 characteristic of Basaiti than of Cima are in both 
 pictures. 
 
 565. Cimabue, Giovanni. Madonna and Child 
 
 Enthroned with Angels. A more advanced work 
 
 . technically than the work usually put down to 
 
 ^Cimabue. The drawing in the lower angels is 
 
 a little too learned for so early a man, and the 
 
 colour is also too refined. Restorations may have 
 
 modernised it somewhat. Note the large lines 
 
 of the Madonna's robe and the handsome colours 
 
 of the angels. 
 
 14. Claude Lorraine. Embarkation of Queen of 
 * Sheba. This is the Claude picture that Turner 
 
 v chose to put himself in competition with. Tur- 
 ner's example hangs near-by and is much more cun- 
 ning and fuller of artifice than the Claude; but 
 the latter holds its own in purity, simplicity, and 
 serenity. The Turner is more splendid, more 
 dramatic, more hectic where the Claude is restful 
 and self-restrained. A very fine picture with a 
 good sea and sky and finely proportioned archi- 
 tecture. 
 
 19. Narcissus and Echo. A serene and well- 
 poised picture with much of sunset charm about 
 it the same sunlight effect that Corot long after- 
 wards loved to paint. 
 
 30. Embarkation of St. Ursula. A seaport pic- 
 ture with well-drawn waves, lofty architecture, 
 and a remarkable tree at the right. In Claude's 
 best and freest manner, though a little hot in 
 colour. 
 
34 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1018. Classical Landscape. A grey-blue Claude 
 
 with good atmosphere. The architecture again 
 quite fine, but the composition hurt by the tree 
 in the centre. The shadows of the foreground 
 are luminous and the sky has depth and height. 
 
 2603. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of the 
 Death of the Virgin). Holy Family. An ac- 
 curate work with much beauty of detail in the 
 borders of robes, jewels, and still-life. The colour 
 also is very good. Notice the type of Joseph. The 
 attribution may be questioned but it is probably 
 correct. See Notes on Munich Gallery under 
 "Cleve." 
 
 11141 Coques, Gonzales. The Five Senses. A group 
 1118/ of pictures that shows easy painting and loose, 
 uncertain drawing. Look at the hands for the 
 careless drawing and the hair for the easy brush 
 work. No. 1116 is perhaps as good as any of 
 the group. 
 
 10. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Mercury In- 
 structing Cupid in the Presence of Venus. 
 
 It is a graceful group forming masses of light 
 flesh colour against a dark wood background a 
 method of relief much employed by Correggio. 
 The figures are fairly well drawn and the Venus 
 is graceful in outline. The Mercury is less satis- 
 factory. The colour is now dulled but is still 
 agreeable. The whole surface has been hurt by 
 cleaning and old repainting. The modelling in, 
 places is wrecked, as, for example, in the left hand 
 and wrist of the Venus a Venus that is here por- 
 trayed with wings. The originality of the picture 
 has been contested, but it has not the appearance 
 of a copy. 
 
COSSA 35 
 
 15. Ecce Homo. This is exactly the kind of 
 
 subject Correggio could not paint. He had no 
 sympathy with sorrow, suffering, or tragedy, but 
 was decidedly a painter of joyous life. This 
 
 ^ picture is mannered in the hands and common- 
 place in the type. The surface is porcelain-like 
 (which latter defect may perhaps be laid to the 
 restorers who have repainted it); the sentiment 
 is weak and not altogether sincere. There are 
 several versions of the picture. 
 
 23. Madonna of the Basket. It is sweet in both 
 
 type and sentiment and the colour is of corre- 
 sponding quality. Probably it was once freely 
 and easily painted but it is now too much cleaned 
 for this to appear. 
 
 >12. The Magdalen. Of the "Reading Mag- 
 dalen" type with the same prettiness about it. 
 The hands are abnormal in size. It has been 
 cleaned and tampered with in the hair and else- 
 where, but probably was at no time of importance 
 as art. Look at the badly done arabesque of leaves 
 about the book. One might question Correggio's 
 having done any part of it. 
 
 >97. Cossa, Francesco del. St. Hyacinth. Cossa 
 was a Ferrarese painter, influenced perhaps by 
 Mantegna and almost certainly by his contem- 
 porary, Cosima Tura. But the Ferrarese man- 
 nerisms are somewhat softened here. The com- 
 position is like Tura's in putting figures at the 
 top and bottom to help out the large central 
 figure. Notice the movement of the little figures 
 at the back and the angels at the top. They are 
 more graceful than Tura's work. What quality 
 in the black and white of the saint's robe! And 
 
36 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 what remarkable detail in such things as the 
 beads! 
 
 629. Costa, Lorenzo. Madonna Enthroned with 
 Angels. As a composition, it has too many 
 waste spaces in it to be altogether satisfactory, 
 but it has good colour and the landscape is 
 spacious. It should be an early work, for Costa's 
 landscapes at Bologna (St. Cecilia Chapel) go far 
 beyond this in maturity and resource. The senti- 
 ment is good, especially in the angels. Notice 
 the fat little legs and arms of the playing angels 
 below the pretty view of the sea. Somewhat 
 injured. 
 
 2083. Battista Fiera of Mantua. A sad, serious- 
 looking sitter with emphasised warts on the cheek. 
 It is well done, with some force of drawing and 
 much sobriety of colour; but it is hardly inspired. 
 
 1925. Cranach the Elder, Lucas. Portrait of a Man. 
 
 An excellent portrait of the Martin Luther type, 
 only more freely done than Cranach's Luther and 
 artistically a more mature work. How well the 
 bulk of the head is given! It is almost worthy of 
 Holbein. 
 
 291. Portrait of a Lady. An attractive and 
 
 graceful presentation of a rather pretty type. 
 ,j Notice how the painter has repeated the oval of 
 the face in the oval of the bust by using the dress 
 with its flowing lines as an arabesque. Very 
 handsome also in colour. 
 
 593. Credi, Lorenzo di. Madonna and Child. In 
 
 a cold, metallic, vein, with everything as hard as 
 tin (hair and flowers included), but with some 
 tender sentiment. The blues are repellent whereas 
 
CREDI 37 
 
 the architecture and background are distinctly 
 attractive. 
 
 -Madonna Adoring Child. A trifle warmer 
 
 in tone than No. 593 and perhaps not so brittle 
 in its surface qualities. The contours are agree- 
 able but hard in the landscape as well as in the 
 figures. 
 
 - Costanza de' Medici. What a beautiful 
 panel of colour lilac and blue-grey colour! It is 
 so interesting in hue that perhaps we lose sight 
 of its excellence as portraiture. What a vision 
 of the past it is, with that wonderful Florentine 
 face and that strange, interested look coming from 
 the oddest eyes ever put in a woman's head ! And 
 will you look for a moment at the beautiful ill- 
 drawn hands holding faded flowers, and near 
 them gems and baubles that long since went their 
 way into the melting pot. All has faded but the 
 art of it. What a gem, a bauble of art it remains 
 to this day! Notice that the flowers and jewels 
 have faded like the flesh and the gown; but 
 beautiful colour remains, and also the wonderful 
 modulations in the modelling of the face and 
 figure. In tempera on a gesso ground. The 
 attribution very questionable. Lorenzo di Credi 
 had no such penetration or subtle refinement as 
 is shown here. Mr. Berenson's attribution to 
 Ghirlandajo is hardly satisfactory either. When 
 and where did Ghirlandajo do such drawing as 
 this, or exhibit such a sensitive and poetic spirit? 
 The picture does not point directly to any well- 
 known master, but was possibly painted by the 
 painter of the portrait No. 80 in the Berlin Gallery, 
 there attributed to the workshop of Verrocchio. 
 
38 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 788. Crivelli, Carlo. Madonna and Child with 
 ** Saints. A large altar-piece of great decorative 
 beauty, in thirteen compartments. Those who 
 can see in Crivelli only a stringy and withered 
 type, with morose sentiment and an unpleasant 
 expression of face, are very apt to overlook the 
 significance of his pictures as decoration and 
 church ornament. This altar-piece shows what a 
 wonderful decorative artist he really was. Aside 
 from what any of the figures mean, how superbly 
 all of them look! What a noble altar-piece taken 
 as a whole! Each and every compartment taken 
 by itself is a wonder of skilful drawing, pattern- 
 ing, designing, painting. Look at the beauty of 
 the Madonna's robes or those of the St. Catherine 
 at her right or St. Peter in his church vestments 
 at her left. What ornate jewelling and gilded 
 stucco relief! What beautiful designs in the 
 gilded backgrounds ! At the top, notice the love- 
 liness of the two saints just over the baldacchino. 
 Raphael and Titian did things more significant, 
 more expressive than this, but never anything 
 more supremely decorative. Painted in tempera, 
 like all of Crivelli's pictures, which may account 
 for its wonderful brilliancy its well-preserved 
 colours. 
 
 739. Annunciation. As simple decoration, there 
 
 ** are few pictures finer than this. The architectural 
 friezes, the doors, arches, and balconies with their 
 perfect proportions and rich reliefs, will all bear 
 careful study. In colour, what could be finer than 
 the peacock, the rug, the splendid costume 
 the bedspread, the curtain, the ceiling ? Noti< 
 the quite perfect perspective, the garden at 
 back, the wonderful arch with its coloured 
 
CRIVELLI 39 
 
 bles and its balcony with figures, the beautiful 
 sky which is perhaps distorted to make good deco- 
 ration, the high walls in perfect light and shade 
 that reach up to the sky, the white pigeons. How 
 true and yet how rich and splendid it all is I The 
 truth is gilded, gemmed, brightened, ornamented 
 to the last degree, but with perfect taste, so that 
 nothing offends and everything attracts. And is 
 the picture not beautiful also as expression, as 
 shown in the Madonna, the kneeling angel, the 
 patron saint, even the little child on the steps? 
 It is a superb picture. 
 
 24. Madonna and Child Enthroned with St. 
 
 ** Jerome and St. Sebastian. A picture made 
 v/ up of marbles, rich stuffs, gold brocades, crowns, 
 jewels, fruits, brilliant flowers, gildings and carv- 
 ings all of them brought together in an arabesque 
 or pattern showing the Madonna with saints in 
 the centre. After all, that is the first and per- 
 haps best mission of art to show something beau- 
 tiful to sensitive eyes. And has not Crivelli done 
 that here? Never mind who the saints are or 
 what they are doing or whether they have angel 
 faces or not. The Madonna's robe, the stuffs 
 hanging from the wall, the variegated marbles, 
 the flowers and fruits are beautiful enough to 
 make a picture all by themselves. And you have 
 not yet seen all the beauty that lies in the pre- 
 della beneath. Note the colour of the St. Cath- 
 erine, the excellent linear drawing of the St. Se- 
 bastian, the fine landscapes, the lovely scheme 
 of light. Even the coat of arms at the bottom is 
 beautiful. 
 
 06. Madonna in Ecstasy. It lacks the colour 
 
 * and richness of No. 724, but is just as carefully 
 
40 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 done, just as minutely wrought and brought to 
 perfection, as you may see by studying the Vir- 
 gin's robe or the vase of flowers at the left, or the 
 marbles. 
 
 807. Madonna and Child with St. Francis and 
 
 St. Sebastian. This altar-piece and No. 668 
 
 s/ are by no means inferior Crivellis, though they 
 are paled somewhat by the altar-pieces of this 
 painter hanging on the opposite wall. But the 
 decorative quality is positive enough anywhere 
 in Crivelli. See the stuff at the back of the throne, 
 the red and green robe of the Madonna, the col- 
 oured marbles, the fruit and flowers. You dislike 
 Crivelli's types, perhaps, but what have you to 
 say about this charming little Madonna clasping 
 her Child so tenderly, or that superbly drawn St. 
 Sebastian? Are they not beautiful as types and 
 just as beautiful in their sincerity of spirit? You 
 will visit many galleries and churches and see 
 many miles of pictures before you meet again such 
 truly decorative art as is shown in the Crivellis 
 of this National Gallery. 
 
 960. Cuyp, Aelbert. The Wind Mills. Perhaps this 
 
 * is as good as any of the Cuyps here, in tone, light 
 and air. It has been much cleaned and possibly 
 the tone of it is the better therefor. The sky is a 
 little flat, but in perfect colour-accord with the 
 earth. 
 
 961. Cattle and Figures. The largest of the 
 
 * Cuyps here shown. It has an effective sunset, 
 N and the light and shade of the foreground in the 
 
 cattle and figures are striking. Notice the good 
 atmospheric effect. There are smaller repetitions 
 of the same light and air near at hand in Nos. 962, 
 
DAVID 41 
 
 822, and 53. The group of Cuyp pictures in this 
 gallery is unequalled anywhere. They are excel- 
 lent works and show Cuyp to great advantage. 
 
 Cattle with Herdsman. An excellent pic- 
 ture in colour and light. The group of cattle is 
 given with remarkable truth of values. They 
 are well bunched and thoroughly well drawn in 
 a large, naturalistic way. There is truth of life 
 about the group. A small Cuyp, but one of the 
 best in the gallery. 
 
 David, Gerard. A Canon and His Patron 
 Saints. The figures are of much excellence, with 
 robes of beautiful patterns, and faces of char- 
 acter and force. The patrons are wearing rich 
 velvets and brocades that fall, not in little broken 
 lines, but full and free. What a fine head that 
 of the kneeling figure! A remarkable forest at 
 the back. Mark the depth of it. Modern crit- 
 icism has constructed a hodge-podge of eclecti- 
 cism and called it David, but such pictures as 
 this bespeak a decided individuality. 
 
 32. - Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine. Here 
 * is great splendour of effect got from rich costumes, 
 brocade patterns, jewels, tiles, marbles, and the 
 like. What sumptuous garments for the bride! 
 And what a crown upon her head ! Note also the 
 head-dress of the saint at the right, the brocade 
 back of the chair, the flowers, the floor. And 
 what types! The strong face of the donor (with 
 his prayerful hands) is not more wonderful than 
 the lovely face of St. Catherine (with her open 
 palms). A brilliant picture, but unfortunately 
 a little hurt by cleaning. 
 
42 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1234. Dossi, Dosso (Giovanni Lutero). Muse In- 
 spiring a Court Poet. It may be questioned if 
 either the painter or the subject is rightly named; 
 but the picture has considerable merit in light 
 and shade, in colour, and in drawing. It has a 
 Ferrarese look in the shadows and the colour, but 
 that may be superficial. It is a very good picture. 
 
 1140. Duccio di Buoninsegna. Christ Healing the 
 Blind. A fair example of this early Sienese mas- 
 ter, showing the old Byzantine types changed 
 and enlivened. The drapery is free from gold 
 lines of high light, the figure is still sack-like, the 
 feet and hands are wanting in exact drawing, the 
 colour is largely local tones broken by light and 
 shade, the buildings are somewhat crude in draw- 
 ing, the sky gilded, the flesh shadows still greenish. 
 But there is light, perspective, some action, and 
 good grouping. 
 
 566. Madonna, Child, and Angels. Quite in the 
 
 Byzantine style, with the long nose, the slit eyes, 
 small mouth, greenish flesh, and gold ground; but 
 with some slight animation in the angels and in 
 the figures in the wings. It may be by some one 
 in Duccio's school. The drawing of the larger 
 heads from the apex to the forehead is quite dif- 
 ferent from Nos. 1140 and 1330. The draperies 
 also are slightly different. There is fine colour in 
 the saint at the right. 
 
 1330. The Transfiguration. In Duccio's style with 
 
 gilded high lights in the central figure. Notice 
 the face of this figure for the growth in animation. 
 See also No. 1139. Duccio's best works are to be 
 seen in the Opera del Duomo, Siena. 
 
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 43 
 
 1938. Diirer, Albrecht. Portrait of the Painter's 
 Father. With much small accuracy in the draw- 
 y^ ing. The lines waver in the outline of the coat 
 as in the face. There has been much dispute as 
 to whether this is an original work or not. See the 
 Burlington Magazine for August and September, 
 1904. It bears little resemblance in technique 
 to Diirer's other work, is done with some ti- 
 midity in the hair, face, and dress, and is bad in the 
 fingers. The shadow on the cheek is mere brown 
 paint; and the work is fumbled in the black lin- 
 ing of the coat. Notice also how the ground comes 
 forward and encloses the figure. It has the flat 
 look of a copy. 
 
 1652. Dutch School. Portrait of Madame van der 
 Goes. Not a bad portrait; with a something 
 about it that suggests Heemskerck as its possible 
 painter. 
 
 52. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Cornelius van 
 ** der Geest. In some respects there never was a finer 
 nobler portrait than this. It is about the last 
 YV word in pigment so far as truthful characteriza- 
 tion and technique go. The type is a gentleman, 
 a scholar, with tired eyes, and a face somewhat 
 worn by thought. The hair is scant, the fore- 
 head superb in the modelling of the skull, the 
 eyebrows faultless, and the eyes perhaps as per- 
 fect as any ever painted. The eyes are indeed 
 masterful in their drawing. And what a beau- 
 tifully drawn nose and mouth with the little 
 moustache and the pointed beard! Notice the 
 cheek bones and the foreshortening from ear to 
 chin. And finally the quite perfect ruff. Stand 
 back and look at the portrait from a distance. 
 
44 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 You will never look upon its like again in the 
 Flemish school. Van Dyck hardly reached up 
 to it a second time. It is a supreme head 
 that places him among the immortals. Titian 
 did nobler things, Velasquez did broader things, 
 Leonardo did subtler things, but none of them 
 ever did a surer and better piece of drawing and 
 painting than this. It has been doubted if Van 
 Dyck did it if he were able to do it. But it is 
 his workmanship, all except the dress. The head 
 and ruff are painted on wood. The black coat is 
 probably painted on canvas by a feebler and 
 smoother hand. A masterpiece the technical value 
 of which would be hard to exaggerate. 
 
 2127. Portrait of II Marchese Cattaneo. After 
 
 the wonderful Van der Geest portrait (No. 52), 
 this Cattaneo portrait seems a swift descent. It 
 is probably by Van Dyck, but some years ago the 
 whole picture was repainted, and since then it 
 has been cleaned and the painting rubbed and 
 flattened down. At least, that is its present ap- 
 pearance. There are few brush strokes of Van 
 Dyck now apparent in it, though doubtless he 
 is somewhere under its surface. 
 
 2144. Portrait of La Marchesa Cattaneo. This 
 
 is a companion picture to No. 2127, and has 
 suffered a similar but possibly not so severe a 
 *)\^ fate. The repainting, however, is very obvious 
 in the face, the now spotty ruff, the chain, and the 
 hand. Both portraits are supposed to have been 
 done during what is called Van Dyck's " Genoese 
 period," but at no period in his career did he con- 
 coct gritty, mortar-like pigments or plaster them 
 on the canvas as with a trowel. In Italy he fol- 
 
EYCK, JAN VAN 45 
 
 lowed such Venetian painters as Titian, but what 
 Venetian ever produced such a surface as this? 
 It is largely the surface of some restorer, flat- 
 tened by continual rubbing with that diabolical 
 ball of cotton. 
 
 172. - Equestrian Portrait of Charles I. It is large, 
 official, and possibly regal, but deadly dull, flat, 
 uninteresting. Van Dyck is spread out entirely 
 X too thin on this canvas. It lacks force, light, 
 colour, quality. The King rides fairly well, the 
 horse arches his neck and plays his part, the trees 
 droop majestically, and even the sky puts on an 
 heroic stare; but the picture carries no convic- 
 tion. We cannot believe it. There is too much 
 pretence about it. How very different from the 
 quiet Charles standing beside his horse in the 
 Louvre (No. 1967) the best portrait of the King 
 ever painted, and one of the best picture-portraits 
 in existence! 
 
 186. Eyck, Jan van. John Arnolfini of Lucca and 
 *** His Wife. A celebrated Van Eyck with mar- 
 w vellous portraits, not only of the man and his 
 wife, but of the entire contents of the room. 
 Everything is wrought with minute skill to a 
 perfection that cannot be criticised or questioned. 
 Even the mirror on the wall reflects the backs of 
 the standing figures, with the other figures in the 
 room. The detail is microscopic in the chan- 
 delier with its one lighted candle, the beads on 
 the wall, the window, the fruit, the fur of the 
 coats, the white linen. And what is so very sin- 
 gular, this microscopic rendering does not hurt 
 the breadth of the figures or make the work look 
 finical or fussy. It is all very simple, honest, and 
 
46 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 true. And what splendid depths of colour in the 
 stuffs! Hubert van Eyck is insistently supposed 
 to be a better painter than Jan, but how could he 
 have bettered this picture? . 
 
 222. A Man's Portrait. Excellent in every way, 
 
 * but perhaps rather dimmed by the nearness of the 
 
 V painter's more celebrated picture the Arnolfini 
 portraits. It is a strong face, skilfully and in- 
 telligently portrayed. 
 
 290. Man's Portrait. A forceful head with a 
 
 heavy nose, a red face, and a well-drawn hand. 
 How truly the green and red of the head-dress 
 harmonise and how their strength supplements 
 and adds to the face! It may not be by Jan 
 van Eyck, but no matter; it is excellent por- 
 traiture. 
 
 1465. Ferrari, Gaudenzio. Christ Rising from the 
 Tomb. The smoothness and prettiness of the 
 Lombard work, following Leonardo, is here ap- 
 parent once more. The figure of Christ is too 
 porcelain-like and the face too effeminate. Even 
 the tomb has no rugged quality about it and the 
 distant mountains seem as soft as sea waves. 
 The things that should be soft, such as the ban- 
 ner and the drapery, are really hard. And how 
 academic that swirl of white about the figure! 
 Gaudenzio did better work than this. 
 
 2483. Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. Virgin and Child. A 
 
 * charming little panel probably in its original 
 frame and making a very handsome colour pattern. 
 It is an Umbro-Florentine Madonna with no 
 excessive Umbrian sentiment about her. The 
 robes are rich and well-drawn. And what a 
 beautiful rope of flowers across the topi What 
 
FLEMISH SCHOOL 47 
 
 a red-and-gold parapet below! It is more Flor- 
 entine than Umbrian, though Pinturicchio's land- 
 scape seems foreshadowed in the background. 
 The attribution is not entirely satisfying. 
 
 103. Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, School of. Virgin and 
 Child with Angels. A triptych of more im- 
 portance perhaps than No. 2483, but less interest- 
 ing, less charming. Here, too, the attribution is 
 questionable. 
 
 264. Flemish School, 15th Century. A Count of 
 Henegau. What a beautiful piece of colour! 
 And what beautiful patterns of cloth and won- 
 derful jewels! The head at the top is superb. 
 Perhaps more French than Flemish, or at least 
 on the border line. 
 
 783. Exhumation of St. Hubert. A crowd a 
 
 * real crowd is gathered about the body of the 
 saint. The crowd has been kept back, kept out, 
 but you can see people in the rear pressing their 
 faces against the railing to get a glimpse of what 
 is going on. A picture well conceived as regards 
 space within the church and very well wrought 
 in architecture, figures, crowns, robes, brass work. 
 Notice the Byzantine gold shrine on the altar and 
 the brocades of the figures in the foreground. 
 The picture bears some resemblance in subject 
 and method to the Raising of Lazarus (No. 532A) 
 by Ouwater in the Berlin Gallery. 
 
 036. Flemish School. A Man's Portrait. With 
 one hand upon a skull and the other holding a 
 pansy. A very good portrait with well-drawn 
 face and hands. Attributed to Amberger and the 
 Master of Oultremont. Also given to the Master 
 of the Death of the Virgin. 
 
48 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1081. Portrait of a Man in Prayer. This is the 
 
 portrait of some donor and doubtless belonged 
 originally to an altar-piece. The work is very 
 well done and the landscape is most attractive. 
 
 947. A Man's Portrait. It is a smooth affair 
 
 with a half-French look about it. The left hand 
 is badly done but the face is interesting. Some- 
 what too much rubbed. 
 
 729. Foppa, Vincenzo. Adoration of Kings. A 
 
 * fine example of Foppa, with much splendour of 
 , effect in the gold and colour of the figures in the 
 foreground and a beautiful lake and landscape 
 at the back. Notice the magnificent robe of the 
 kneeling king, the head-dresses, the richly col- 
 oured architecture, the fine morning sky. The 
 colour, the shadows, the light, the depth, the air 
 make up a very rich panel. 
 
 665. Francesca, Piero della. Baptism of Christ. 
 
 For the peculiar whitish appearance of this pic- 
 X ture, several reasons may be offered. It may 
 not have been completed by the painter, which is 
 unlikely. It may have changed in colour. The 
 painting is in tempera, though why or how that 
 should change its colour is not apparent. Tem- 
 pera usually preserves colours better than oils. 
 It may be an early attempt to show an effect of 
 blinding white sunlight such as one sees to this 
 day in and about the hills of Borgo San Sepolcro. 
 The landscape and sky are finished and are won- 
 derful in every way. The colour of the picture, 
 just as it is, is perhaps the most striking feature 
 of all. The figures at the left are superb in reds, 
 blues, and whites, as are also the figures at the 
 back with their colourings reflected in the water. 
 
FRANCESCA 49 
 
 Note also that the mountain is seen in reflection. 
 And what luminous yet delicate colour in the aerial 
 envelope! The firm drawing of Piero shows in 
 the figures. They stand well, with their feet 
 solidly upon the ground, and they carry them- 
 selves with dignity. The drawing of the back 
 of the man pulling off his shirt shows study from 
 the nude model and recalls Masolino at Cas- 
 tiglione d'Olona. The figure of Christ again 
 shows this early study of the nude. The light 
 and colour apparent in the figures as well as in the 
 landscape are astonishing. It is a picture to be 
 studied. 
 
 908. Nativity. It is of the same general tech- 
 nical character as No. 665, with colours that may 
 have changed or faded and yet may be very much 
 as the painter left them. Like No. 665, it is 
 painted in tempera and may be one of the earli- 
 est Italian attempts at portraying white light. 
 The Madonna is beautifully drawn with the dress 
 in front dragged down and under the knees. 
 The angel choir is excellent in movement, and 
 they all stand well. What a beautiful harmony 
 of blues and whites a perfect harmony! The 
 colour extends into the blue shadows on the wall 
 of the stable in the middle distance and the 
 rocks in the background. Notice that it is lumi- 
 nous, pervasive colour and is in the air as well as 
 in the objects. And what very exalted senti- 
 ment and feeling! The picture is wonderfully 
 decorative and yet smacks strongly of modern 
 realism in its white light and pale-blue atmos- 
 phere. Injured a little about the shepherds at 
 the right. 
 
50 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 758. Portrait of a Lady. In the same general 
 
 * vein as No. 585, with a similar background; but 
 
 V with less rigid outline drawing. The plant pat- 
 tern in the dress is most interesting. The pic- 
 ture has been attributed to the Florentine School, 
 which perhaps is near enough to the truth. There 
 is no certainty in the attribution to Piero and more 
 probability in Mr. Berenson's queried attribution 
 to Paolo Uccello. What a finely lined profile! An 
 excellent portrait, somewhat damaged by cleaning. 
 
 769. St. Michael and the Dragon. A small and 
 
 , rather good figure, with some colour that may have 
 been helped or hindered by the cleaning and 
 staining which the picture has received. The 
 wings are a bit heavy, but they aid in the filling 
 of space fairly well. The attribution may be 
 questioned. 
 
 1791 Francia, Francesco. Madonna, Child, and 
 180 J Saints. A Francia with a flayed and repainted 
 surface which makes St. Sebastian and the Child 
 look wooden and the sky look like a cold blue 
 curtain. There is still colour in the robes. The 
 best part of the picture is the Pieta, a lunette at 
 the top with a half-arch composition. The draw- 
 ing (with Francia, always precise) is now too 
 hard, but there is beauty in the cold, rigid figure 
 and the two mourning angels. At one time this 
 lunette now in its proper place was in a separate 
 frame. 
 
 638. Madonna, Child, and Two Saints. It is 
 
 warmer in colour than is usual with Francia, but 
 not the worse for it. A simple group of figures 
 in a summarised landscape, with some good feel- 
 ing and the usual Francia sentiment. 
 
GADDI 51 
 
 1035. Franciabigio (Francesco Bigi). Portrait of a 
 Knight of Malta. With an Andrea del Sarto 
 look about it, especially in the landscape. A 
 good example of Franciabigio, but quite different 
 in many ways from the two examples put down 
 to him in the Berlin Gallery (Nos. 245 and 
 245A). 
 
 1419. French School. Legend of St. Giles. There 
 is some very good work in the figures. The 
 drawing is excellent as also the colour. The land- 
 scape is Flemish enough, though the figures have 
 a largeness of form and a fulness of robe that 
 point to the French border painters rather than 
 the painters of the Van Eyck School. 
 
 2615. Mary, Queen of France. A handsome por- 
 trait with an ornate dress and a green cut-velvet 
 ground. The lady holds a vase as Mary Magda- 
 len. The hands are frail. 
 
 2614. Lady as Mary Magdalen. A little coarse 
 
 in fibre, but rich in colour. The drawing is prim- 
 itive and rather wanting in subtlety. 
 
 1331. Fungai, Bernardino. Madonna and Child. 
 
 The golden robe of the Madonna is remarkable 
 for its texture and brilliancy. The cherubim and 
 the landscape are not remarkable. 
 
 568. Gaddi, Angelo di Taddeo. Coronation of Virgin. 
 
 The gold work in the haloes is tooled, not stamped. 
 The angels' wings were gilded, then painted, and 
 afterwards the lines of the feathers were cut 
 through with a sharp instrument to show the 
 gilding beneath. The gold work on the orange 
 floor is underbased but the gold patterns on the 
 Madonna's robe are overlaid. The picture is in- 
 
52 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 teresting also for its Giottesque sentiment, its 
 rather large drawing, its ample draperies, and its 
 rich colour. A fine work, but the bright frame 
 hurts it. 
 
 671. Garofalo (Benvenuto Tisi). Madonna and 
 Child with Saints. A large Garofalo with a 
 marked effect of shadowed background and good 
 pyramidal composition. The draperies are well 
 drawn but the saints are a little prosaic in type 
 and the Madonna merely pretty. It is a dull, 
 cold-coloured Garofalo. Somewhat injured by 
 cleaning. 
 
 1085. Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Gerard of Haarlem). 
 Virgin and Child. There is as little known 
 
 V about this man and his work as about Robert 
 Campin. He is practically a name only, and 
 attributions of works to him are more or less 
 arbitrary. Several pictures attributed to him in 
 European galleries (Amsterdam, Vienna, Berlin, 
 Paris), when brought together, show similarity 
 in style and method. They are very likely by 
 one man, but whether that one is Geertgen tot 
 Sint Jans is not easily determined. The types 
 and figures in this National Gallery picture agree 
 measurably with the others of the group (espe- 
 cially with the Vienna picture), but the landscape 
 differs from all of them. This landscape, though 
 a little formal, is really the most interesting por- 
 tion of the picture. Look at the trees, their group- 
 ing, and the blue sky seen between the trunks. 
 Look at the yellow lamplight in the church 
 windows and the white clouds in the sky that 
 seem to suggest a moonlight scene. Sir Claude 
 Phillips thinks it a sunset effect with golden light 
 
GHIRLANDAJO 53 
 
 reflected from the windows. See his interesting 
 article in the Burlington Magazine, October, 1904. 
 He further and rightly asserts that the picture 
 represents a mystic marriage of St. Catherine. 
 
 195. German School, 16th Century. Portrait of a 
 Medical Professor. The drawing is satisfactory, 
 but the picture is a little hard, dry, and dull. Mr. 
 Lippmann thinks it a " characteristic example of 
 the Master of the Death of the Virgin." 
 
 1049. German School, 15th Century. The Cruci- 
 fixion. A work of harsh realism that has much 
 power about it as well as grim tragedy. The 
 figures on the crosses, especially the writhing 
 thief at the right, are notable. The composition 
 is overcrowded but the picture is good in colour. 
 There is a wealth of figures, colour, and agony in 
 the panel. 
 
 1299. Ghirlandajo, School of. Portrait of a Youth. 
 
 A strong, frank face, with plain drawing and a 
 simple costume. Originally an excellent head, 
 but now injured by repainting, which has perhaps 
 reddened and coarsened the flesh notes. There 
 is fine outline drawing in the cap and the cloak. 
 
 1143. Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo. Procession to Calvary. 
 
 It is a burst of bright colours with small idea of 
 subordination and very little sense of refinement 
 or harmony. The colour is bleached or darkened, 
 but not kept in value under light and under 
 shadow. This and the smooth surface were con- 
 sidered virtues by the Raphael followers. Some 
 of the heads suggest Leonardo, as, for example, 
 that of the man on horseback. The landscape 
 far back is very good. 
 
54 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 2491. Girolamo Benevieni. A dark picture show- 
 ing a determined face with some preciseness of 
 drawing and just a hint of Franciabigio about it. 
 
 269. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). A Knight in 
 Armour. This little figure follows closely the St. 
 ^ Liberale in the Castelfranco Madonna by Gior- 
 gione, about the only difference in design being 
 that the head wears no helmet in this picture. 
 It is also warmer in colour all through, and the 
 silvered armour lighter in tone than in the Castel- 
 franco canvas. It is probably an old copy rather 
 than a study, but in either event a good bit of 
 work. 
 
 1160. Adoration of the Magi. It is Giorgionesque 
 
 in character, but, like a number of other pictures 
 in European galleries put down to this master, 
 there is no certainty about the attribution. The 
 picture is attractive in colour. 
 
 1123. Giorgione, School of. Venus and Adonis. It 
 
 perhaps comes nearer to the School of Titian than 
 to that of Giorgione. Compare it with Nos. 35, 635, 
 and 270 by Titian, especially in the landscapes, 
 the backgrounds, the trees, skies, lights. 
 
 1173. Unknown Subject or Golden Age. In its leg- 
 endary or allegorical subject as well as in its han- 
 dling and rather bad drawing this picture is closely 
 allied to the Ordeal of Moses and the Judg- 
 ment of Solomon in the Uffizi Gallery (Nos. 621 
 and 630). The landscapes differ as regards their 
 trees, but not their arrangement by planes or their 
 general treatment. The figures and their plac- 
 ing in the foreground with the general colour 
 scheme are also reminiscent of the Uffizi pictures. 
 
GIROLAMO DAI LIBRI 55 
 
 It is slighter work, a smaller picture, but by the 
 same hand. That hand, as suggested in the Uffizi 
 Notes, was not Giorgione's but probably Roma- 
 nino's. Aside from technical and structural anal- 
 ogies, all the pictures have the narrow, cross- 
 eyes of Romanino a mannerism found in almost 
 every Romanino extant. See Berlin, Nos. 155, 
 157; Cassel, Nos. 502A, 503; Budapest, No. 126; 
 Brera, No. 98. The so-called Giorgione copy at 
 Budapest of Paris and the Shepherds (No. 145), 
 the Horoscope at Dresden (No. 186) also have 
 these squinting cross-eyes with Romanino' s colour- 
 ing, handling, and loose drawing. 
 
 1295. Giovenone, Girolamo. Madonna, Child, and 
 Saints. The golden banner and the red canopy 
 make quite a blare of colour that is decorative 
 enough though high in key. The figures are 
 rather monotonous in the types. They are all of 
 a family, with a family nose and eyes that even 
 the Child and the angels inherit. A similar repe- 
 tition shows in the hands. 
 
 748. Girolamo dai Libri. The Madonna, Child, and 
 * St. Anne. The figures are a little stiff and the 
 group rather too plastic, perhaps. The figures 
 at first look as though making an effort to keep 
 from falling apart. There is dignity and truth 
 about them, however. The drawing is pro- 
 nounced in the contours, noses, brows, and hands, 
 but again it records truth and knowledge. The 
 colour is the better part of the picture with the 
 rose trellis at the back and the fine landscape 
 beyond it. Look at the unconscious quality of the 
 little angels with the green parrot wings below. 
 And the dead dragon under the Madonna's feet. 
 
56 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 632 \ Girolamo da Santa Croce. Saint Reading and 
 
 633 / A Saint with a Standard. Companion panels that 
 
 once probably belonged to some altar-piece. They 
 have richness of colour and some excellence in the 
 drawing of the faces and the robes. The skies 
 in both pictures are yellow streaked, an effect 
 frequently repeated by this painter. This is grace- 
 ful recitation after the Bellini formula, but not 
 very profound or original work. 
 
 946. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). A Man's Portrait. 
 
 With uneasy hands that are not too well drawn. 
 The figure and costume well given, as also the 
 bony face. It shows the pale-blue eyeballs pe- 
 culiar to Gossart. 
 
 2211. Portrait of Jacqueline de Bourgogne (?). 
 
 The flat figure is painted against a wall panel with 
 sleeves and head-dress that overlap the panelling. 
 This produces the uncomfortable, protrusive look 
 of the figure. Very minutely and carefully done 
 in the hair and costume, for instance. The 
 colour is charming, and the character quite attrac- 
 tive. The hands are injured. 
 
 2163. The Magdalen. A charming little figure in 
 
 every way, and here the miniature style of work- 
 
 \j^ ing is appropriate to the size of the picture. The 
 drawing is very accurate and exact, while the 
 colouring is lovely. 
 
 1689. Portrait of a Man and Wife. It is in the 
 
 same style that we know in the other works of 
 Gossart that is, minute, exact, painstaking, 
 sometimes irritating in its pettiness, but always 
 more or less to be marvelled over. There is a 
 little larger method in this picture than usual, 
 and considerable truth of characterisation. 
 
 
GOSSART 57 
 
 2790. Adoration of Kings. This is the most pop- 
 
 * ular Flemish picture in the National Gallery, 
 and usually has an audience before it. Perhaps 
 that is due to the fact that people can study it 
 through a microscope, and, if it were not for the 
 glass, could pick up the tiles and the red cap on 
 the floor. It is a remarkable example of minia- 
 ture goldsmith's work put into a large picture, 
 as one may see by looking closely at the patterns. 
 Look, for instance, at the edge of the black king's 
 robe, or his white scarf, or his crown, or the pres- 
 ent in his hands. Objects done with as great 
 care, and in as small a way, are to be seen on the 
 opposite side, on the floor, in the architecture. 
 It is a marvel of minute workmanship; but it is 
 quite different from, say, the Van Eyck por- 
 trait of Arnolfini. Gossart's minutiae detract 
 from the ensemble. The work as a whole does 
 not hold together for lack of subordination in 
 the part. It has little unity of masses or one- 
 ness of light, and, as for air and space, they are 
 somewhat wanting. Moreover, there is a reek 
 of variegated colours, but no colour as a whole. 
 To be sure, the drawing is accurate in a small 
 way, and there is marvellous texture painting in 
 the stuffs, the stones, the porphyry column at the 
 back. And there are grace and loveliness in the 
 angels at the left, especially the one in white and 
 the one next to the white one with the wonderful 
 green robe and white wings. 
 
 Of course, this is not painting in the Hals- Velas- 
 quez sense, for all that the picture may be mar- 
 velled over inch by inch. Nor is it painting in the 
 Titian sense. There is very little dignity of type 
 or nobility of presence here. Nor is it painting 
 
58 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 in the Tintoretto or Rubens sense, for there is no 
 life or movement. Everything is petrified by the 
 exactness of the drawing. The angels are sup- 
 posed to be winging in, following one another like 
 a flock of doves, coming from all parts of the 
 heavens; but they do not fly, they do not move. 
 All the movement is arrested movement. It is 
 an early work, in the Flemish style, done before 
 Gossart went to Italy. Such work as this doubt- 
 less had its influence on many of the lesser men, 
 and among them, possibly, that at-present enig- 
 matical character, Herri met de Bles. 
 
 1327. Goyen, Jan van. Winter Scene. A large but 
 not very good or characteristic Van Goyen. It 
 is dull and uninspired with snowy ice and chalky 
 sky. The drawing and colour deny the signature. 
 It is too poor a work for Van Goyen. No. 151 
 is better, but again not a good Van Goyen. 
 
 1119. Grandi, Ercole di Giulio Cesare. Madonna 
 * and Child with Saints. A large altar-piece 
 with a fine architectural setting in the throne, 
 the arch, the reliefs, and the golden mosaics. It 
 is a pyramidal composition in which the Madonna 
 is perhaps elevated too high, which gives the 
 impression of the arch pressing down upon her. 
 Both the Madonna and St. William show the in- 
 fluence of Costa. The latter, in his peculiar green 
 armour, is of sturdy stock, stands firmly, and looks 
 self-reliant. The colour is cool all through. A 
 handsome altar-piece and important as represent- 
 ing Ferrarese methods of painting. It should be 
 studied in connection with the large Bianchi in 
 the Louvre (No. 1167). 
 
HALS, FRANS 59 
 
 1457. Greco, Domenico Theotocopuli, called II. 
 
 Christ Driving Out the Money Changers. In 
 
 the attribution of pictures to II Greco, there 
 seems to be no reckoning with the fact that he 
 had a son and pupil, named Jorge Manuel, who 
 painted just such indifferent pictures as this, ex- 
 aggerating the exaggerations of his father. The 
 elder was a mannered-enough genius, but the 
 younger was not even a genius. 
 
 210. Guardi, Francesco. View of San Marco, Yen- 
 * ice. An excellent Guardi with much depth and 
 beauty of colour, a fine sky, and a strong, if forced, 
 effect of light and shade. Note how easily and 
 cleverly the figures are painted, yet how effective 
 they are, not only as colour spots, but as real fig- 
 ures moving in the Piazza. The Piazza is a little 
 cramped by the size of the figures in the fore- 
 ground. See also Nos. 2523 and 2525. 
 2524. - The Tower of Mestre. What a beautiful 
 * silvery note of colour! And what a suggestion 
 of sky, water, depth, space, air! A very charm- 
 ing little picture, though Guardi may never have 
 seen it. It is not entirely in his style. 
 
 1251. Hals, Frans. Portrait of a Man. It is a good 
 attempt at the Hals brush work, but it is not spon- 
 taneous. Rather is it planned and perfunctory 
 facility, as is shown in the regular high lights of 
 the sleeve, the black shoulder piece above them, 
 and the white ruff with its false shadow at the 
 right and its fumbled drawing at the left. The 
 face is modelled too smoothly and roundly for 
 Hals; the moustache and pointed beard are too 
 formal, and the hair too slick and well combed. 
 The nose is hard, and the forehead (at the left) 
 
60 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 is flat. It is probably a workshop or school piece. 
 We hear of such things in the case of a Bellini, 
 a Botticelli, or a Rubens; why not occasionally 
 in the case of Hals, who had plenty of pupils? 
 
 2285. A Family Group. This is a large, ambi- 
 tious attempt to do a Hals group with a Hals 
 palette and brush, which falls short of the mark 
 through insufficient brain to conceive and hand 
 to realise. The figures have not the largeness 
 and bulk of Hals's figures, the drawing is not his 
 drawing, and the handling, while dashy and flashy 
 in places, is not effective. Notice in the drawing 
 the sharpness and thinness of the heads of the 
 women at the right, or the hardness of the man's 
 face, or the mannered and rigid drawing of the 
 hands. Notice in the handling the ineffective 
 slashing-about in the dress of the child in arms, 
 or in the dress of the seated child, or in the stock- 
 ings of the man near her. Notice the blue-porce- 
 lain quality of the whole work with its cramped 
 and petty conception. And how posed is every 
 figure in it, smirking with a counterfeited mirth, 
 and doing its best at acting a part! What pic- 
 ture at Haarlem is like it or suggests it or confirms 
 it? The landscape is the best part of it, but when 
 and where in his other work did Hals ever sug- 
 gest such a landscape? The picture probably 
 belongs to the Hals workshop or school. 
 
 2528. A Man with a Glove in His Hand. A 
 
 * rather careless Hals with some "go" about its 
 
 N^ handling and drawing, and with a fine tone and 
 
 good atmospheric setting. The blacks are of 
 
 good quality. Compare them, and also the 
 
 whites with the blacks and whites of No. 2285. 
 
HOBBEMA 61 
 
 There is a serious and sober personality in the 
 sitter that is well expressed. In Hals's late style. 
 
 2529. Woman with a Fan. This is perhaps an 
 
 early Hals with no pronounced dash about the 
 brush work and no positive aerial envelope. It 
 is a good uninspired work, excellent as portrai- 
 ture, no doubt, for all the ill-drawn mouth, but 
 lacking in the gusto of Hals. The whites are a 
 little porcelain-like; the blacks are good, or at 
 least unobtrusive. 
 
 1248. Heist, Bartholomeus van der. Portrait of a 
 Young Lady. An effect in blue with much ac- 
 curacy of detail and some prettiness in the face. 
 Not a bad decorative piece, but not of so good 
 a quality as No. 1937. 
 
 1937. Portrait of a Lady. A deliberate portrait 
 
 with a smooth surface and texture painting car- 
 ried to the highest pitch. How well the dress is 
 done, the bow, the pearls, the collar, the head- 
 dress! Realism in a small way could not go fur- 
 ther. A fine type of womanhood and a very 
 good portrait. 
 
 830. Hobbema, Meindert. The Avenue, Middel- 
 * harnis. A well-known and much admired pic- 
 Sv ture that has gained its reputation by its obvious 
 foreshortening in the avenue of trees. But the 
 trees would seem to cut the picture into three sec- 
 tions, or strips, each of which has its own point of 
 sight, with the result of disturbing unity of effect. 
 You look into three different pockets one by one. 
 Aside from this, the picture is not remarkable 
 except as a Dutch attempt at realism and a draw- 
 ing-away from Ruisdael formulas of landscape, 
 to some extent. The sky is cold, slate-hued, but 
 
62 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 there is wind in it. The general colour scheme 
 lacks in warmth. Compare it with the Hobbema, 
 No. 995. It is a famous Hobbema, nevertheless 
 famous for its perspective. 
 
 831. Ruins of Brederode Castle. Quite a strik- 
 ing effect produced by the light of the castle in 
 the middle distance and its reflection in the fore- 
 ground pool. In other respects the picture is a 
 conventional Hobbema the sky and trees being 
 of his cut-and-dried variety. 
 
 995. Woody Landscape with Cottages. The mel- 
 
 * low light and hue of this picture are attractive, 
 but the subject and manner of its execution are 
 not so novel as in No. 830. Note the sky. Also 
 the very good drawing of the trees. Nos. 685 
 and 2571 are less interesting, less important. 
 
 2475. Holbein the Younger, Hans. Portrait of 
 *** Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan. This 
 is the celebrated Holbein Duchess of Milan, a 
 portrait than which nothing could be more per- 
 fect or more beautiful. It is a masterpiece, not 
 so much, perhaps, in characterization (for the 
 sitter has been Holbeinised), but in pure art 
 art as expressed by line-drawing. How simply 
 and beautifully she stands there looking at us 
 with a sad little attempt at a smile, with her 
 lovely hands held idly before her, in her widow's 
 cap and black pelisse! What a beautiful dress, 
 how wonderfully drawn it is, and what a wonder- 
 ful quality in the black! And about the only 
 note of colour that fine blue-black ground ! There 
 never was a more lovely portrait. Of its kind 
 and in its way it is about the last word in art, 
 that is, linear art, art expressed in perfect draw- 
 
HOOCH, PIETER DE 63 
 
 ing. There is naught to do but praise it and be 
 thankful for its existence. It was painted by 
 Holbein for Henry the Eighth, who, however, did 
 not succeed in marrying the beautiful duchess. 
 
 The Ambassadors. This is a violent and 
 
 unpleasant contrast to the Holbein Duchess (No. 
 2475). It is a scattered and rather stupid com- 
 position with two men formally posing for their 
 portraits, in a museum or antiquity shop, with 
 various specimens lying about on shelf and floor. 
 The astronomical objects distract attention from 
 the men, and what is left is divided by extrava- 
 gant costumes and a poison-green curtain at the 
 back. There is some good work in the picture, 
 but it is ineffective in the general result. The 
 faces and hands are much cleaned and somewhat 
 repainted. The attribution is doubtful. There 
 is no Holbein quality in it, nor even Holbein 
 ear-marks. 
 
 Hooch, Pieter de. Refusing the Glass. In 
 
 the painter's more ornate style, with much glitter 
 of brass and glass, and even the pink dress re- 
 flected from the tile floor. The figures are fairly 
 well drawn and the colour is good. We miss the 
 painter's usual concentration of light. The pic- 
 ture is easily painted. 
 
 Courtyard of a Dutch House. A little 
 
 confusing by reason of the many objects and the 
 right-angle lines of the buildings, but all the ob- 
 jects are well held together by light and air. The 
 tone of the picture is quite right, as also the colour. 
 The figures are the least satisfactory portion of 
 the picture, but they hold their places well enough 
 as spots of colour. They have been much re- 
 
64 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 touched. The sky, and the way the roof lines 
 break into it at the right, are very good. 
 
 834. Interior of a Dutch House. The drawing 
 
 is not good. Notice the left arm and hand of the 
 seated man, or his right hand, or his ill-placed 
 head, or his bad legs. Notice the flat head, hands, 
 and arms of the servant, or the poor painting of 
 her overskirt, or the unreal drawing and texture 
 of the table-cloth. Stand back and look for at- 
 mosphere in the room and you will not find it. 
 The light is not bad but the shadows on the floor 
 are muddy. The picture has been repainted, but 
 was an inferior work to start with. The attribu- 
 tion is questionable. 
 
 835. Court of a Dutch House. One of the best 
 
 of the De Hoochs here, though retouched in spots. 
 The buildings are good as also the figures of the 
 mother and child. The child is especially naive 
 and charming. Back of them is a feeling of air 
 and shadowed space. The passage way is less 
 attractive than the brick wall with the vine at 
 the top; but it has distance and some light to it. 
 
 1468. Jacopo di Clone. Crucifixion. A large and 
 rather crudely drawn altar-piece, but with bright 
 decorative colour. The medallions at the bottom 
 are very good. The painter was possibly under 
 the influence of Orcagna. 
 
 1895. Jordaens, Jakob. Portrait of Baron Waka de 
 Linter. The redness of the face is not the only 
 indication of its being a Jordaens. It is good 
 enough for a Rubens, but the handling that one 
 can now see, after much cleaning and rubbing, is 
 not that of Rubens but Jordaens. A fine por- 
 
LANDINI 65 
 
 trait with much bluff vigour and life in the work, 
 as in the type. 
 
 701. Justus of Padua. Coronation. A triptych 
 that has been retouched but still has good robes 
 and ornamental patterns. Notice the white angel 
 of the Annunciation at the top and also the Ma- 
 donna. It is not the best of workmanship, but the 
 general effect is pleasing. 
 
 212. Keyser, Thomas de. A Merchant and His 
 Clerk. Hard, but accurately drawn, except per- 
 haps in the legs, and well painted throughout. 
 The accessory objects are a bit overdone, over- 
 accented. 
 
 974. Koninck, Philips. View of the Scheldt. A 
 
 fine big landscape with much breadth and sweep 
 in both land and sky. It is excellent in its reach, 
 its light, its colour. This painter's work has been 
 given to Rembrandt more than once, so strong 
 is it in light and shade. 
 
 836. Landscape, View in Holland. Of the same 
 
 general character as No. 974, but not so broad 
 nor so free, nor so fine in colour. It is a little dis- 
 turbed by the many horizontal lines and the heavy 
 oppressive clouds. 
 
 580. Landini, Jacopo. St. John Evangelist Lifted 
 into Heaven. An altar-piece in its original frame 
 with all its panels and predella intact. As a whole, 
 a work of fine decorative quality. The Madonna 
 and the Angel of the Annunciation at the top are 
 beautiful, and the scenes of the predella are rich 
 in colour and gold. The central panel is naive 
 in its grouping and action. Attributed to Giovanni 
 da Ponte by Mr. Murray. Restored throughout. 
 
>6 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 700. Lanini, Bernardino. Holy Family. It shows 
 in the Madonna, Child, and Magdalen, not so 
 much the style of Gaudenzio Ferrari or Leonardo, 
 who influenced Lanini, as a following of Correggio. 
 It is not lacking in either the figures or the 
 landscape if they could only be induced to come 
 together and unite; but as they are at present, 
 the figures are flattened in a group and pushed 
 into the footlights. The colour is rather " fetching." 
 1093. Leonardo da Vinci. Virgin of the Rocks. 
 
 ** As all the world knows, there is another picture 
 similar to this in the Louvre (No. 1599). The 
 Louvre picture came almost certainly from the 
 collection of Francis I, at whose court Leonardo 
 died, and who would not be likely to be deceived 
 by a false Leonardo. Most authorities are agreed 
 that the Louvre picture is the original and that 
 this National Gallery picture is an old copy with 
 variations (notably in the turn of the angel's 
 head, and the absence of an outstretched fore- 
 finger), by some follower of Leonardo, presum- 
 ably Ambrogio da Predis. This National Gal- 
 lery picture is darker than the Louvre version, 
 more sooty in the flesh shadows, more grey in 
 the high lights, which would point more directly 
 to Ambrogio than to any other pupil or follower. 
 And the drawing, where it varies, is reminiscent 
 of Ambrogio. Possibly the question will never 
 be more positively decided than now, and this 
 picture will always have its admirers, as indeed 
 it should. In some respects (the drapery and its 
 handling), it is better than the Louvre picture. 
 See the note on the Paris picture. Either pic- 
 ture is entitled to consideration by the student of 
 Leonardo and his school. 
 
LIPPI, FILIPPINO 67 
 
 1134. Liberale da Verona. Virgin and Child with 
 Angels. The heads of the angels are attractive. 
 The lines of the picture appear hard, and the eyes 
 are glassy. Rubbed too much. 
 
 2864. Lievens, Jan. Portrait. There is little about 
 it that speaks for Lievens. He was a pupil and 
 follower of Rembrandt, painting softly modelled 
 heads with very pale luminous shadows. Here 
 is a painter with blackish shadows and rather 
 harsh modelling in the nose, forehead, and else- 
 where. Moreover, the whole feeling here is more 
 Flemish than Dutch a feeling of some one fol- 
 lowing Van Dyck rather than Rembrandt. It 
 is signed I. L., which may stand for Jan Lievens if 
 you are Scotch, but not if you are Dutch. And why 
 will it not stand for John Lely? The catalogue 
 of this gallery under Peter Lely states that he had 
 a grandson John who painted portraits. The 
 signature fits Ian Lely as well as Jan Lievens, and 
 the work fits him far better. Sir Peter Lely was 
 a Van Dyck follower, and almost any one can see 
 him at second hand in this portrait except that 
 it is a little stronger than Lely usually painted. 
 
 293. Lippi, Filippino. Virgin and Child with Saints 
 Jerome and Dominic. A picture of fine qual- 
 ity in almost every respect. It has feeling and 
 sentiment almost to tears in the Madonna and St. 
 Dominic; the drawing of it is quite true and 
 right; the colour, with the repeated notes of red 
 and gold, is attractive; the landscape, for early 
 Florentine art, is wonderfully fine. The figures 
 form the conventional pyramid, with the desired 
 effect of exalting both the Virgin and the Child. 
 It is an exceptionally good Filippino. Look at the 
 
68 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 small figures in the predella. They are charm- 
 ing both in sentiment and in colour. 
 
 927. Angel Adoring. This fragment shows very 
 
 well what is called the religious sentiment of Early 
 
 > ^ Renaissance Art. It is merely a scrap of a tem- 
 pera picture that happened to be saved from de- 
 struction, but it is very fine, not only in colour 
 but in feeling. 
 
 666. Lippi, Fra Filippo. Annunciation. A half-arch 
 * picture, beautiful in sentiment and very lovely 
 
 in colour. How prettily the peacock wings of 
 -J "the angel suggest the curve of the arch! How 
 well the Madonna with the golden-hued drapery 
 back of her balances the angel! The profiles are 
 sharp, the hands a little formal, the draperies 
 folded and pressed, but such things do not seem 
 to detract from the beauty of the picture. In 
 fact, they belong to it, and are a part of the age 
 of faith, in art as well as in religion. Flowers are 
 everywhere, rich marbles, fine stuffs, golden ha- 
 loes. The dove descends in golden spirals. 
 
 667. St. John Baptist and Six Saints. It has 
 
 much fervour and religious feeling about it, as the 
 last two figures at the left indicate. The drap- 
 vJ eries are well given and the colour is good. A 
 fine arabesque of surrounding trees and flowers 
 that emphasise the lunette form of the frame. 
 Somewhat injured. 
 
 705. Lochner, Stephen. (Ascribed to.) Three Saints. 
 
 A patterned gold background and naive youthful 
 figures in rich robes standing in relief against it. 
 Ascribed by Mr. Lippmann to the Master of the 
 Heisterbach Altar, but these saints are quite like 
 
 
LOTTO, LORENZO 69 
 
 those in the Lochners in the Old Pinacothek at 
 Munich. 
 
 1147. Lorenzetti, Ambrogio. Heads of Nuns. In- 
 teresting not only for the fresco work of the Sien- 
 ese School, but because the heads are excellent in 
 themselves. The outlines are drawn with certainty 
 and with an artistic feeling for line as line. 
 
 2151 Lorenzo, Don (II Monaco). Various Saints. 
 
 216 J A diptych with good colour and gold work the 
 latter very fine. Note the variety of patterns 
 in the haloes. The faces and hands should be 
 noticed for the changes in the Italian type that 
 are going on at this time. The robes are easily 
 and well done. 
 
 1897. Coronation of the Virgin. There is some 
 
 striving for grace apparent in the three angels 
 at the bottom, but the Madonna and Christ above 
 are done simply enough. The colours lack in 
 quality, though the robe of the Madonna is deli- 
 cate and the gilded borders attractive. 
 
 2862. St. Giovanni Gualbarto Instituting the Order 
 
 of Vallombrosa. What a superb bit of colour! 
 What a study in whites ! No doubt it has ripened 
 with time, but just now it seems the perfection 
 of refined colour and delicate shadow. 
 
 249. Lorenzo di San Severino. Marriage of St. 
 Catherine. The picture is not well drawn and 
 has no depth, but there is a handsome robe for 
 the Madonna and attractive little angels at the 
 top. 
 
 1047. Lotto, Lorenzo. A Family Group. A for- 
 
 * mally balanced composition with portrait heads 
 
 that Lotto has probably romanced by putting 
 
70 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 into the faces some of his own sensitive disposi- 
 tion. But with good results nevertheless. The 
 man and woman have souls and even the child 
 on the table has some morbid quality about it. 
 Notice the play of action around the dish of cher- 
 ries and the drawing of the hands that repeat 
 each other. The hands are a little stiff and the 
 figures not lithe or willowy. The costumes are 
 handsome in hue and texture and the warm colour 
 sharply broken by the cold blues is very good. 
 The landscape with that flat sea and sky reaching 
 back so endlessly is superb. Somewhat injured 
 by cleaning. 
 
 1105. Portrait of the Prothonotary Apostolic Ju- 
 
 * Uano. The picture is hurt by repainting, but 
 it is remarkable what force and character, with 
 refinement, the face still possesses. It is the Doge 
 Loredano type of face, thin, shrewd, resolute, 
 and yet withal gentle. What a sharp-pointed 
 nose, a thin little mouth, a hard chin and a leath- 
 ery throat! The power of the man seems ac- 
 cented by the large strong hands. He is more 
 than a mere churchman; he is a man of rule. A 
 fine bit of characterisation. The table-cloth is 
 disturbing and the landscape now looks crude. 
 
 699. Portraits of Agostino and Niccolo della Torre. 
 
 It is an official portrait, no doubt, but not done 
 in the perfunctory way usual with modern por- 
 traits of the kind. The insignia of office are a 
 little too prominent, but the heads and figures are 
 well placed and well summarised. There is much 
 intelligence in the faces. Some irregularities in the 
 features perhaps help out the individualities. The 
 drawing is quite right and the second figure is ex- 
 
MAES, NICOLAS 71 
 
 actly in value and properly related to the first 
 figure. There is air. And envelope. 
 
 184. Lucidel (Neufchatel), Nicolas. Portrait of a 
 Young German Lady. The surface is somewhat 
 scrubbed, but the picture still remains a fine piece 
 of colour old Venetian-red colour. The textures 
 are beautifully rendered. And what a timid girl- 
 ish type! Formerly attributed to Antonio Moro, 
 but beyond a doubt by Lucidel. 
 
 18. Luini, Bernardino. Christ Disputing with the 
 Doctors. Luini is not always so saccharine as 
 this picture would indicate. He should be seen 
 in his frescoes in the Brera, or at least in those in 
 the Louvre. This is a prettier and more of a 
 dinner-plate picture than usual, though fairly 
 good in colour. 
 
 1247. Maes, Nicolas. The Card Players. A very 
 * fine Maes with good colour and light. The draw- 
 V ing, handling, and light suggest the painter's 
 Rembrandtesque manner. Note the emphasis of 
 the joints of the hands, the nails, and the red 
 knuckles. Note also the dark shadows of the 
 eyes and the shadow on the white drapery of the 
 sleeve. These should be compared with those in 
 the portrait No. 1675 in this gallery put down to 
 Rembrandt but really by Maes. See also No. 757 
 hanging near at hand, which suggests that Maes 
 had something to do with it. 
 
 207. The Idle Servant. In the late smooth style 
 
 of Maes and of little value as art. The black 
 shadows and his spots of red are still apparent. 
 The brush is rather heavily loaded for a small 
 and smooth picture. 
 
72 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 2581. - Portrait of A. Van Leuwenhoek, F.R.S. 
 
 There is insistence upon wrinkles, curtains, and 
 prettily painted hair. It is in the popular por- 
 trait style of Maes, when he followed Plutus 
 rather than Rembrandt. 
 
 2502. Mainardi, Bastiano. Virgin, Child, and St. 
 John. It seems in the style of Mainardi, is smooth 
 and round in its drawing, and with a brilliant red 
 in the Madonna's under dress. Note the stately 
 city at the back. See also No. 2489 put down to 
 Ghirlandajo, but possibly nearer his brother-in- 
 law and follower, Mainardi. 
 
 1104. Manni, Giannicolo. The Annunciation. This 
 is a close following of Perugino and the Umbrian 
 traditions which he established. Even the mat- 
 ter of "eyes" in the drapery is copied. It has 
 pleasing sentiment. 
 
 1417. Mantegna, Andrea. Agony in the Garden. 
 
 * A fine landscape with a remarkable city in the 
 background with tiny figures pouring out from the 
 gate and growing larger in size as they come into 
 the middle distance. The drawing of the sleep- 
 ing figures and their robes is severe but accurate, 
 the colour is rich, the landscape Mantegnesque, the 
 sky darker than the earth. An early Mantegna 
 with a hint of where Basaiti may have got certain 
 features of his landscape. He seems to have taken 
 his bird, tree, and figures under the rock from this 
 Mantegna. The Basaiti Agony in the Garden at 
 Venice (No. 69), and the Rocco Marconi there (it 
 is probably by Basaiti), and the Resurrection put 
 down to Bellini (but really by Basaiti) at Berlin 
 (No. 1177A), all repeat certain features in this 
 Mantegna and in the Bellini in the next room 
 
MARCO D'OGGIONO 73 
 
 (No. 726); but they are widely apart in other 
 features. 
 
 274. The Virgin, Child, St. John Baptist, and 
 
 Magdalen. A very good Mantegna, both as 
 form and as colour. The drawing is sharp and the 
 drapery Hney, as though studied from sculpture 
 or wet linen thrown over a model. The figures 
 themselves are sculpturesque, but noble, full of 
 dignity, possessed of feeling. The bend of the 
 figures suggests grace, but the grace is not that 
 of the figures in the two Louvre pictures (Nos. 
 1375 and 1376). Nor is the colour so high in key 
 as in the Louvre pictures, but it is very harmo- 
 nious. The fruit and foliage make an arabesque 
 at the back. A fine sky. Painted in tempera. 
 
 902. The Triumph of Scipio. It shows Man- 
 
 tegna's sculpturesque leanings, better perhaps in 
 W monochrome than if in colours. The whole can- 
 vas looks like a drawing of a bas-relief. Notice 
 the draperies and the sculptural way in which 
 they reveal the figures. These are wonderful* 
 types the severest and yet the strongest kind 
 of art. In tempera upon a marbled ground. 
 
 1125. Vestal Virgin Lucia and Sophonisba. Two 
 
 figures of the same sculpturesque character as 
 those in No. 902. Notice how the draperies stop 
 at the ground without breaking. Also the sculp- 
 tural modelling of the busts. It is possibly a 
 school piece, but decidedly Mantegnesque never- 
 theless. In gold and brown monochrome on a 
 marbled ground. 
 
 1149. Marco d'Oggiono. Madonna and Child. It 
 
 will hardly do to judge this painter from this 
 
74 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 slight example, with its bad drawing, cold colour- 
 ing, and retouched surface. It is too much in- 
 jured now, and was never an important work at 
 any time. 
 
 564. Margaritone (d'Arezzo). Madonna and Child. 
 
 An interesting panel in tempera, belonging to the 
 thirteenth century, and showing the style of work 
 then prevalent in Tuscany. It is the traditional 
 Byzantine style, varied slightly in the patterns, 
 perhaps. The work is painted on cloth which is 
 glued to wood. See the note upon it in the 
 catalogue. 
 
 1302 1 Marmion, Simon. The Soul of St. Bertin and 
 
 1303 / a Choir of Angels. Two panels or shutters, the 
 
 wings of an altar-piece now in Berlin, attributed to 
 Marmion. Very pretty angels with a suggestion 
 of sky-space given by the church spire and the 
 roof below. 
 
 Martino da Udine. See Pellegrino da San 
 Daniele. 
 
 803. Marziale, Marco. The Circumcision. A large 
 and overcrowded composition with rigid drawing, 
 and colour that lacks in impressiveness. There is 
 an attempt at splendour of effect in the mosaic 
 arches as in the . variegated robes, but no great 
 unity of effect. The work is painted in tempera 
 on canvas. 
 
 804. Madonna and Child Enthroned with Saints. 
 
 This seems a more satisfactory example of Mar- 
 ziale than No. 803, perhaps because it is done in 
 oils, is better done, is not so oppressive in the 
 mosaics, has a more truthful inset of the figures, 
 and a better quality of light and shade in the 
 
MASTER OF LIFE OF VIRGIN 75 
 
 robes. The drawing is somewhat lacking, but 
 the colour is brilliant. 
 
 Massys, Quentin. See Metsys. 
 
 Master of the Death of the Virgin. See Cleve, 
 Juste van. 
 
 2922. Master of Delft. Crucifixion. A triptych with 
 scenes from the crucifixion in the side wings. It 
 is somewhat brutal in theme, in types, in action, 
 in sentiment. The drawing is coarse, crude, in- 
 adequate; the composition is scattered. But the 
 bright colour and the fine robes save it, give it 
 . decorative quality, make it interesting. 
 
 254 I Master of Liesborn. The Annunciation. These 
 257 / are panels of considerable merit. Notice how well 
 the interior in the Annunciation panel is done 
 with the red bed-curtains, the still-life, and the 
 bright cushions on the box. The figures are, of 
 course, somewhat angular. There is good sen- 
 timent shown in all the panels. See the catalogue 
 note for the painter. 
 
 707. Master of the St. Bartholomew Altar. Two 
 Saints. There is here some fine quality of colour 
 as well as of gold work. The robes are superb, 
 especially the brocade of the saint at the right. 
 There is very good drawing of an attenuated and 
 exact kind. Look at the hands and at the out- 
 lines of the heads. Other portions of this altar- 
 piece are in the Munich Gallery (Nos. 48-50). 
 
 706. Master of the Life of the Virgin. Presenta- 
 tion in the Temple. Quite in the style of cer- 
 ,j tain panels at Munich attributed to this painter 
 a supposed Johann von Duyren. The work is 
 very well done, with much beauty of colour, tex- 
 
76 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 tures, patterns, and gold work. The sentiment 
 of it also is very good. The background gilding 
 has suffered somewhat, and the Madonna's halo 
 has almost disappeared. Notice the fine blue of 
 the Madonna's robe and the brocade of the High 
 Priest. 
 
 250 1 Master of Werden. St. Hubert and Saints. 
 
 253 / These four panels came from the abbey church 
 of Werden in Germany, and the painter, who is 
 otherwise unknown, takes his name from them. 
 They evidently belong to the School of Cologne, 
 and have decorative value in their gold work and 
 patterned brocades. Notice the early landscapes 
 at the back. 
 
 1155. MattCO di Giovanni. Assumption of the Vir- 
 gin. A large and somewhat hard altar-piece, 
 with an oval of angels surrounding the Madonna 
 and swinging prettily from the sides towards the 
 centre. There is much colour, and some of it (no- 
 tably the blues) is too harsh. An interesting land- 
 scape beneath the figures. The picture is impor- 
 tant. In tempera on a gold ground. 
 
 2926. Mazo, Juan Bautista Martinez del. Ma- 
 riana of Austria. A large picture predominant in 
 blacks that were not characteristic of Mazo alone 
 but of Carrefio and others of the School of Velas- 
 quez. The blacks are not badly handled nor the 
 planes of the picture poorly given. The space at 
 the left (with small figures) is well suggested, with 
 a feeling for light and atmosphere. The drawing 
 is rambling almost everywhere in the figures at 
 the back, in the hands of the sitter, the body of 
 the dog, the wretched curtain at the right. It is 
 not a bad picture nor yet a very good one. See 
 
MEMLING 77 
 
 the notes on the Velasquez pictures here for fur- 
 ther suggestions about Mazo. 
 
 755 1 Melozzo da Forli. Music and Rhetoric. These 
 756 / are companion pieces to Nos. 54 and 54A in the 
 Berlin Gallery. They are well done, but per- 
 haps a little perfunctory in the manner of their 
 doing, wanting in spirit. The thrones and cos- 
 tumes are ornate, the colour a little dull. The 
 allegory part of them is questionable, as is also 
 the attribution. The trend of modern criticism 
 is to give these pictures to Justus of Ghent. 
 
 686. Memling, Hans. Madonna and Child En- 
 throned. The picture is not extraordinary in 
 composition, colour, or workmanship. The Ma- 
 donna is of the Memling type, naive, plaintive, 
 meagre of figure, but with some seriousness and 
 some nobility. The donor and St. George are 
 better. The patterns are interesting. Notice at 
 the back the drawing of the ships. The attribu- 
 tion to Memling is not too certain. It resembles 
 the Vienna picture (Nos. 635-636). The St. John 
 the Baptist (No. 747), which is merely "as- 
 cribed" to Memling, is perhaps more surely from 
 his hand. 
 
 709. Madonna and Infant Christ. It is perhaps 
 
 firmer in the drawing and surer in every way than 
 No. 686. The types are similar. Note the draw- 
 ing of the hands. And the jewels. The attribu- 
 tion is not positive, but again the work is very 
 Memlingesque. And excellent besides. 
 
 2594. The Duke of Cleves. An early and very fine 
 
 * portrait. It has not quite the intense seriousness 
 \/ that Memling usually puts into his portrait heads. 
 
78 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 And the hair is not exactly of the Memling kind. 
 It has probably been retouched. 
 
 839. Metsu, Gabriel. The Music Lesson. An at- 
 tractive Metsu in colour and textures, though a 
 bit glassy and wanting in air. Compare it with 
 the so-called Vermeers in the next room to deter- 
 mine how inferior the latter really are, even when 
 compared with a commonplace Metsu. 
 
 295. Metsys, Quenthl. Salvator Mundi and the 
 Virgin Mary. It may be questioned if these fig- 
 ures came directly from the hand of Quentin 
 Metsys. They look more like school work. An- 
 other version of the Salvator Mundi is in the 
 Antwerp Gallery (No. 241). 
 
 790. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Entombment of 
 * Our Lord. This picture, like No. 809, is of de- 
 cided excellence in the drawing, notwithstand- 
 ing some theatrical strain in the figures at the 
 right and left of Christ. It is perhaps too slight 
 in the forms for Michelangelo too tall and grace- 
 ful. It smacks of the Decadence, but has power 
 about it. The intimation of broken tones of colour 
 is not such as the Sistine ceiling reveals. The 
 tones are more subtle and less austere. The 
 picture is unfinished, but has nevertheless been 
 scrubbed flat in the faces, arms, legs, and hands. 
 The medium in which it was painted is a little 
 doubtful. 
 
 809. Madonna, Christ, St. John Baptist, and 
 
 Angels. This unfinished picture should be ac- 
 cepted as a fine piece of drawing, and an excellent, 
 balanced composition, regardless of its painter. 
 No doubt there was some strong Michelan- 
 
MORETTO DA BRESCIA 79 
 
 gelesque influence back of it, but who actually 
 did it is open to question. The Madonna is 
 a fine type and recalls the early Michelangelo 
 Madonnas in marble. The two angels at the 
 right have more of delicate grace and charm, and 
 also more colour than we are accustomed to asso- 
 ciate with the work of the great Florentine. 
 
 L098. Montagna, Bartolommeo. Madonna and 
 Child. It is a slight affair and does not ade- 
 quately represent the strength of Montagna. 
 The drawing of the Madonna suggests his power 
 without entirely revealing it. The drapery is 
 liney. Perhaps Montagna never saw the pic- 
 ture. Stained and somewhat injured. 
 
 735. Morando, Paolo (II Cavazzola). St. Roch and 
 the Angel. A little brittle in texture, but truth- 
 ful in drawing and easy in pose the figure stand- 
 ing well. The colour is satisfactory. At the back 
 there are leaves done with such adherence to fact 
 that they may be identified as oak leaves. Notice 
 also the exactness of drawing in the rose on the 
 ground. 
 
 777. Madonna, Child, and St. John. The senti- 
 ment is right enough (see the St. John), but the 
 surface is too smooth, hard, brittle, as in No. 735. 
 At the back are lemon leaves or bays. No doubt 
 the same truth of fact was originally apparent 
 everywhere in the figures, but they are now the 
 worse for cleaning and repainting. 
 
 025. Moretto da Brescia (Alessandro Bonvincino). 
 Portrait of an Italian Nobleman. It looks rather 
 imposing with that air of languid indolence sup- 
 posed to be peculiar to nobility, but the work- 
 manship is not so very good. The legs are rather 
 
80 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 bad, especially the right one; the figure does not 
 stand well; and the hands and arms are not too 
 exact in drawing. The head, with its touch of 
 colour in the cap, is the best part of it the col- 
 umns, sky, and landscape being a little crude. 
 It has been considerably restored. 
 
 625. St. Bernardino of Siena with Saints. One 
 
 * of Moretto's large altar-pieces of double compo- 
 sition, with the silvery-grey tone of colour which 
 he almost always employed. The upper and 
 lower parts of the picture are not united save by 
 the colour scheme, but they do not quarrel with 
 each other. The drawing and the draperies are 
 very good, and the saints at the top on either side 
 of the Virgin are beautiful. A fine altar-piece, 
 but somewhat the worse for its trips to the clean- 
 ing room. 
 
 2090 \ Angels. Possibly the wings of an altar- 
 
 2091 / piece. Given with tenderness of feeling and much 
 * beauty of drawing and colour. The action of the 
 
 figures would indicate angels of the Annunciation. 
 The lines of the drapery, strained back against 
 the figure, are in each case very effective. 
 
 299. Portrait of an Italian Nobleman. A pic- 
 ture quite as much as a portrait. The accesso- 
 ries all draw away from the head, which has no 
 marked prominence in the composition and 
 really has to be sought for. The fur collar and 
 the curtain are the first things to catch the eye. 
 The portrait is not of much interest. The attrac- 
 tion of the picture lies in its colour, its stuffs, 
 still-life, and decorative pattern. 
 
 1165. Virgin and Child with Saints. Stained, 
 
 blackened, and over-cleaned, but in spite of this 
 
MORONI 81 
 
 fine in its blues and greys with their silvery sheen. 
 St. Catherine is in a magnificent dress of change- 
 able silk with gold borderings. The feeling of 
 the picture is rather impressive. Look at the 
 Madonna in the clouds. 
 
 L094. Moro, Antonio. ( Ascribed to. ) Portrait of a Man. 
 
 Although too much rubbed, it has as much the 
 look of a Moro as No. 1231, in spite of being 
 merely "ascribed" to him. Neither of them is 
 a remarkable portrait. 
 
 285. Morone, Francesco. Madonna and Child. 
 
 Both the Madonna and Child are attractive in 
 type and sentiment. The drawing is decent and 
 the colour resonant in reds. At the back a Vero- 
 nese landscape with a mountain, a castle and 
 walls. 
 
 697. Moroni, Giovanni Battista. Th^Tailor. This 
 ** is the famous Tailor famous, perhaps, not be- 
 SL yond his deserts. How well he is shown standing 
 at his cutting board, shears in hand! Some one 
 has opened the door of his shop and entered, and 
 pausing a moment in his work, he looks up to see 
 who the visitor may be. What a truthful and 
 perfectly natural action! And how well pre- 
 sented! Notice the arch of the head, the turn of 
 the eyes, the action of the arms, the roundness 
 of the body, the beautifully drawn hands, and 
 the equally beautiful shears. What good paint- 
 ing of textures, good air, good setting! And what 
 serenity and nobility in the man! Did all the 
 Renaissance people tailors included have such 
 noble and refined faces, or did the painter put 
 nobility into them? A fine picture, admired by the 
 mob, popular as a Raphael, and yet thoroughly 
 
82 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 good work and worthy of admiration. It is not 
 subtle, morbid, or sensitive, but is substantial, 
 truthful, honest. It has a modern look and spirit 
 as though it might have been done yesterday 
 only what master of yesterday or to-day could 
 doit? 
 
 742. The Lawyer. Not so completely satisfac- 
 
 * tory as the Tailor (No. 697), but a very good 
 portrait. It has not the frank quality of the 
 other; in fact, it looks a little posed in its severity 
 of air, its superciliousness and hauteur. Nor has 
 it so much colour. The workmanship of it the 
 drawing of head, face, and hands is quite as true, 
 quite as masterful, though the hands are less 
 ample. Again the atmospheric setting is excel- 
 lent and the blacks and whites fairly well re- 
 lated though the whites are a little high in key. 
 In characterisation it is perhaps not so convinc- 
 ing as the Tailor, but it is by no means weak. A 
 fine portrait! 
 
 1022. Portrait of an Italian Nobleman. The com- 
 position here is disturbed by too many objects, 
 but the painting is very well done especially in 
 the textures, which are beyond reproach. The 
 portrait is not so effective, perhaps, as the painter's 
 half-lengths. See also the full-length No. 1316. 
 
 1023. Portrait of an Italian Lady. The lady suf- 
 fers from the splendour of her gown. One's eyes 
 are more attracted by the glittering sheen of the 
 silk or satin than by the rather heavy face. The 
 picture is well done the background alone being 
 somewhat unsatisfactory because of its monotony. 
 
 1024. Portrait of an Italian Ecclesiastic. Less in- 
 spired than the painter's Tailor or Lawyer, but 
 
NEER, AART VAN DER 83 
 
 still a good example of Moroni, with a sleepy, 
 dull man for a sitter. Fine in the blacks and well 
 done in the hands. 
 
 1316. Portrait of an Italian Nobleman. It is in size 
 
 and style like No. 1022, but executed with more 
 simplicity and directness, and apparently with 
 more truth to fact. The figure stands well, but is 
 flat, and the head and hands are a little small for 
 the height. Notice the sleeves and the painting 
 of the helmet. Notice also how true the black 
 legs are in their modelling and how the feet are 
 placed on the floor. The broken column is well 
 rounded and seems actual marble. 
 
 13. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. The Holy Fam- 
 . ily. A very popular Murillo, in his usual senti- 
 v - mental vein, with a sugary Madonna and Child 
 and a weak St. Joseph. The lower part of the 
 picture is fairly well drawn, and the colour is agree- 
 able if not distinguished. The upper part of the 
 picture is weak all through. A late picture in the 
 artist's vapoury style. 
 
 176. St. John and the Lamb. This IS Murillo at 
 
 his prettiest, with a sentimentality worthy of 
 Sassoferrato and a prettiness of surface akin to 
 Van der Werff. It is a picture that would show 
 to quite as good advantage in a coloured reproduc- 
 tion. 
 
 152. Neer, Aart van der. Landscape with Cattle 
 and Figures. A large and fine example of Van 
 der Neer, with an effect of sunset light. The 
 figures are said to be by Cuyp. See also the large 
 companion piece (No. 732) and the moonlight 
 effect (No. 2536). 
 
84 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1107. Niccolo da Foligno (Alunno). The Crucifix- 
 ion. A once important triptych but now much 
 injured by repainting. It shows dramatic force 
 and much emotional feeling. With interesting 
 early landscapes. 
 
 579. Niccolo di Pietro Gerini. Baptism of Christ. 
 
 By a Giottesque painter possessed of some knowl- 
 edge of nature in small details, and of considerable 
 colour sense. Notice the folds of the drapery and 
 the largeness of the forms, as also the semi-nude 
 of Christ, for such knowledge of anatomy as was 
 possessed at the time. The predella below is per- 
 haps better in colour because less retouched than 
 the larger triptych. 
 
 2143. Ochtervelt, Jacob. Lady Standing at a Spinet. 
 
 The rose-coloured gown is attractive and the figure 
 is well given. The background is dark and a 
 little flat. There is apparently an influence of 
 Pieter de Hooch shown in the picture. No. 2553 
 is in the same vein. 
 
 Oggiono. See Marco d'Oggiono. 
 
 569. Orcagna, Andrea. Coronation of Virgin. The 
 
 ** Christ and the Madonna are in the form of an 
 v/ oval surrounded by angels and supported in 
 the side panels by throngs of saints, all looking 
 up to the central panel. This triptych with the 
 nine other portions belonging to it makes up the 
 most important altar-piece by Orcagna north of 
 Italy. It is, for an early work, of great beauty 
 in its composition, and still of superb colour. The 
 tones are primitive, simple to the last degree, 
 but most harmonious. The robes and borders 
 with the haloes create a rich effect. The haloes 
 
ORCAGNA 85 
 
 are evidently tooled, not stamped as in later work. 
 The faces still show Byzantine influence, but the 
 chins are rounder and the figures are not rigid. 
 There is also some attempt at separate and dis- 
 tinct individualities. Some of the angels below 
 have suggestions of movement. The religious sen- 
 timent of the time is quite apparent. How very 
 pure this is in the figures of Christ and the Ma- 
 donna with their white robes patterned in gold ! A 
 magnificent altar-piece, but unfortunately changed 
 somewhat by restoration. 
 
 576. The Three Marys at the Sepulchre. The 
 
 * figures are lovely in their purity of feeling and in 
 v/ their colouring. The seated angel suggests what 
 
 Orcagna knew about the human form. The land- 
 scape is more mediaeval than Giotto, but in per- 
 fect accord with the sentiment of the figures. 
 The simplicity of the composition and colour here 
 is most refreshing. Note the drawing of the 
 flowers. 
 
 575. Resurrection. The beautiful white-robed 
 
 * figure of Christ at the top is striking in both form 
 ^ and colour. Other portions of the main altar- 
 piece (Nos. 570-578), at the sides and above, 
 should be studied. The smaller panels were 
 probably worked upon by Orcagna's brothers and 
 pupils, but that does not mean that they are 
 weak or worthless. They are quite in the style 
 and spirit of the central panels, and inferior to 
 them only by comparison. All of these panels 
 have been restored. 
 
 581. St. John Evangelist, St. John Baptist, and St. 
 
 James. Three dignified figures, each filling its 
 panel well. There is breadth in the draperies, 
 
86 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 some careful drawing in the hands and faces, and 
 some bulk to the bodies. Notice as a realistic 
 little touch the attempt at the veining in the arm 
 of the Baptist before the large structure of it 
 is well understood. The haloes are elaborate. 
 Formerly ascribed to Spinello and now to Orcagna. 
 The attribution is still questionable. 
 
 770. Oriolo, Giovanni. Portrait of Lionello d'Este. 
 
 A hard but very accurate profile of a man of 
 much dignity. It is an excellent portrait, in the 
 general style of Vittore Pisano, but cruder in the 
 drawing. Oriolo is an unknown quantity. 
 
 714. Orley, Bernard van. Mother and Child. A 
 
 * lovely and very naive little group, with a colouring 
 si of robes to match the blue-green mountains and 
 sky. What charm in the figures and what beauty 
 in the patterned trees against the deep sky! It 
 is a fine bit of colour. But did Van Orley do it? 
 It seems too fine for him. 
 
 1466. Orsi, Lelio. The Walk to Emmaus. This pic- 
 ture has a certain strength derived from forcing 
 the values of the white in contrast to the dark 
 ground. The figures are sturdy, with good move- 
 ment and large drawing. 
 
 669. Ortolano (Giovanni Battista Benvenuti). 
 St. Sebastian with St. Roch and St. Demetrius. 
 
 The figures stand well in a remarkable landscape, 
 and they are drawn well throughout. Notice how 
 the texture of the armour is given or the ground 
 is painted. The picture has been injured by its 
 transfer to canvas and by much retouching. The 
 painter to whom it is attributed is one about 
 whom little is known. 
 
PATINIR 87 
 
 636. Palma Vecchio. Portrait of a Poet. The rea- 
 * sons for assigning this portrait to Palma are not 
 
 y so very obvious. It bears some relation to 
 Titian (though probably not by him), as indicated 
 in the drawing of the eyes, the left hand, the 
 glove, the sleeve. Also the handling is like that 
 of the Tribute Money at Dresden (No. 169). It 
 is more exact and not so full, so large, so universal, 
 as the Titian Ariosto, but is in the same vein and 
 with the same dignity and nobility of spirit. 
 Palma following Titian may have painted it. At 
 least it is difficult to suggest a more probable 
 painter. It is a fine portrait. The colour of the 
 sleeves, the quality of the white, the light and 
 shade, the aerial envelope are all quite right. 
 
 596. Palmezzano, Marco. Deposition in the Tomb. 
 
 A hard piece of drawing with wooden figures and 
 sharply folded draperies. Note the tin-like qual- 
 ity of the flags. The colour is good though the 
 sentiment is a little far-fetched. 
 
 33. Parmigianino, Francesco Mazzola. Vision of 
 St. Jerome. It has considerable stateliness in the 
 Madonna, though the type is a little sweet. A 
 good decorative panel by a facile follower of Cor- 
 reggio. It is not devoid of either skill or intelli- 
 gence, but perhaps wants that spirit of sincerity 
 without which any art is more or less pretentious. 
 
 717. Patinir, Joachim. St. John in Patmos. At- 
 tractive in its landscape, to which the figure bears 
 the relation of a warm central spot. It is not too 
 certainly by Patinir. There were several paint- 
 ers doing landscapes of the Patinir type. Com- 
 pare this with the other Patinirs shown here. 
 
58 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 945. Madonna, Child, and Nun. This picture 
 
 seems to agree very well with the Rest in the 
 Flight into Egypt (No. 608) in the Berlin Gallery, 
 generally attributed to Patinir. This man and 
 his contemporaries are very much confused. 
 Gerard David and Isenbrandt are names quite 
 as often tacked on such pictures as this. The 
 figures here are said to be by another hand. [Now 
 ascribed to the Flemish School.] 
 
 1082. The Visitation. With a tall stately figure of 
 
 the Madonna wearing a blue robe, and in a land- 
 scape of much beauty. The red robe is only a 
 check upon the blue, and does not help it by con- 
 trast, but both are handsomely done. 
 
 1084. Flight into Egypt. An exceptionally large 
 
 picture for Patinir as regards the figures. And 
 very good in colour. The landscape and the fig- 
 ure of the Madonna have not the charm of several 
 pictures at Madrid attributed to Patinir (Nos. 
 1615, 1616), and lead one to think that this is 
 perhaps some sort of school piece. No. 716 in 
 this gallery seems a more characteristic work of 
 Patinir. 
 
 1298. Landscape River Scene. One may hesi- 
 
 * tate over the attribution, but the white landscape 
 is most decorative. Stand back in the room and 
 see what white light it has. And what beautiful 
 water! The picture was once put down to the 
 Venetian School. 
 
 778. Pellegrino da San Daniele (Martino da 
 
 Udine) . Virgin and Child with Sain ts and Donor. 
 
 A simple pyramidal composition with good types 
 and unusually good colour. It has been darkened 
 
PERUGINO 89 
 
 somewhat by time. The banner at the back with 
 the angels is a little thin, but the rest of it is very 
 good. 
 
 181. Pettlgino, Pietro. Madonna, Child, and St. 
 
 ^/ John. With Peruginesque sentiment, and a land- 
 scape that is just as sentimental as the characters 
 of the Madonna and St. John. The colour is at- 
 tractive and the drawing adequate. 
 
 288. Virgin Adoring Child. These are the three 
 
 * principal portions of an altar-piece originally 
 painted for the Certosa of Pavia. Here is the 
 X Umbrian sentiment at its height as shown in the 
 faces of the Madonna and angels. There is no 
 passion, fire, fury, or dramatic element, but merely 
 sweetness of mood. Notice the dreamy attitude 
 of St. Michael as he stands, listening perhaps to 
 the singing of angels in the upper sky. The colour 
 is a little sharp in the blues, the hands cramped 
 in the drawing, the figures very well indicated. 
 With a beautiful lake and hills off in the distance, 
 thin, arrowy trees, and a wide sky. An excep- 
 tionally good Perugino. 
 
 1075. The Virgin, Child, St. Jerome, and St. Fran- 
 cis. Perhaps the best piece of colour of any of the 
 TV Peruginos here, except No. 1441, notwithstand- 
 ing it is stained, somewhat repainted, and prob- 
 ably done by some one in Perugino's workshop. 
 The landscape is very summary and washed-out 
 in appearance but spacious. . 4 
 
 1441. Adoration of the Shepherds. This gives one 
 
 some idea of the way Perugino's work looked when 
 on the wall for which it was painted. It is a 
 fresco that has been transferred to canvas and 
 
90 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 hurt in the transfer. Very beautiful in decorative 
 colour. Of course it has the ever-present sentiment. 
 
 1431. (After). Baptism of Christ. It is probably 
 
 a copy, or at best a poor workshop piece emanat- 
 ing from Lo Spagna rather than Perugino. Com- 
 pare the crude drawing of the tree trunks with 
 those in No. 1032. 
 
 727. Pesellino, Francesco. A Trinita. This is the 
 * centre of an altar-piece of which there are other 
 
 V parts owned in England. The figure of Christ is 
 well drawn for the time, and the landscape gives 
 some hint of light from the sky, as note the light- 
 ing of the fields. Much of the work on this 
 picture was done by a hand other than Pesel- 
 lino's. It is in the style of Fra Filippo. 
 
 Piero di Cosimo. The Death of Procris. One 
 
 * of Piero's attempts at the classic and the idyllic, 
 with something to be desired in the form and in 
 the drawing, but with much naive charm in the 
 conception and its realisation on canvas. The 
 hands and arms of Procris are not the best, nor 
 the flowery mead the most perfect. Notice at the 
 back where the terrace breaks how the painter 
 has made an edging of plants. The birds and 
 animals are interesting even the sympathetic dog 
 at the right. Piero was interested in the theme 
 and believed in it but had not the skill to tell the 
 tale more cunningly. His picture is a bit crude, 
 but it is very frank and honest. See the note on 
 the Botticelli No. 915 in this gallery. 
 
 895. Portrait of a Warrior. With a view of the 
 
 Palazzo Vecchio and the Loggia at Florence at 
 the back. A good portrait of a sturdy-looking 
 
PIOMBO, SEBASTIANO DEL 91 
 
 man. It seems too well drawn, too mature, for 
 Piero, but possibly it is by him. 
 
 03. Pinturicchio, Bernardo. Madonna and Child. 
 
 A slight and rather pretty Pinturicchio with 
 bright colouring and an attractive landscape. The 
 sentiment is somewhat fragile. The picture has 
 been restored. 
 
 11. Return of Ulysses to Penelope. As reality 
 
 it is unbelievable in the types and the spirit of 
 N it; but as graceful story-telling in colour, it is 
 very acceptable. A fine ship and sea in the dis- 
 tance. Notice how the cutwater of the ship breaks 
 the waves. A fresco transferred to canvas. 
 
 50. Piombo, Sebastiano del. Holy Family. This 
 " gives perhaps a better idea of Sebastiano than 
 s/ the large No. 1 because though less important it 
 is less injured. The Madonna type is Michel- 
 angelesque, as also the sleeves, the head-dress, the 
 broken lines of the Child's figure. It is perhaps a 
 little too contorted, too twisted and tragic in 
 mood, but it has some power about it and is skil- 
 fully composed. The hands, arms, and heads 
 have been somewhat rubbed. 
 
 1. The Raising of Lazarus. The picture still 
 
 " shows good drawing though it has been much 
 
 '^ hurt by its transfer to canvas, cleaning, and re- 
 painting. It has become blackened in the trees, 
 the foreground shadows, the sky. The figures 
 are all a little academic and melodramatic in 
 action though quite fine as types and having beau- 
 tifully drawn robes. A composition inspired by 
 Michelangelo according to Vasari. There is lit- 
 tle charm or loveliness about it, but a great deal 
 
92 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 of that semi-scientific art that came to maturity 
 in Rome with Michelangelo and Raphael. The 
 work is important in the same sense as Raphael's 
 Transfiguration. It is forceful, powerful, clev- 
 erly knit together, quite rightly drawn, and really 
 above criticism technically. It lacks only one 
 thing and that soul. The colour is half Venetian, 
 with repeated notes of green, red, and white. The 
 background represents a Roman landscape along 
 the Tiber. Originally painted for Cardinal Giulio 
 de' Medici, who ordered Raphael's Transfiguration 
 also and was not certain which picture he liked 
 the better. 
 
 24. An Italian Lady as St. Agatha. The colour 
 
 is cold, the shadows sooty about the face and 
 hands, the surface too glassy. It is not a pleas- 
 ing picture. The arrangement of the head-dress 
 and the pose of the hand and arm are a bit stilted. 
 
 776. Pisanello (Vittore Pisano). St. Anthony and 
 St. George. A picture that has suffered greatly 
 by being entirely repainted and regilded. At 
 present it is in a new frame that asserts itself 
 violently. It must have been very beautiful at 
 one time, and has a very beautiful design even 
 now, but its surface is badly damaged. Compare 
 it with No. 1436 near by for the difference in colour 
 and tone. Its workmanship suggests the medal- 
 list in Pisanello. 
 
 1436. Vision of St. Eustace. It is full of interest, 
 
 * from the horse and his trappings and the dark, 
 rocky hillside to the saint, the figure hanging on 
 the crucifix, and the surrounding animals. But 
 it lacks unity. The animals are spotty, scattered 
 about, unrelated to each other. There is perhaps 
 
POLLAJUOLO 93 
 
 some German influence showing in the saint and 
 also in the animals. The work is almost too 
 minute and detailed for Italy uninfluenced by 
 northern art. Pisanello at Verona could not have 
 been unacquainted with Augsburg and Nurem- 
 berg work. What a pathetic little figure on the 
 cross! And what a horse and rider! The land- 
 scape rises up flat, and at the top is a lake with 
 water fowl. A remarkable early study of nature. 
 
 28. Pollajuolo, Antonio. Apollo and Daphne. A 
 
 beautiful bit of colour and realistic drawing. The 
 / spirit of it is quite idyllic, even romantic, for a 
 master who was devoted to drawing the nude in 
 motion. It is also painted with some gusto for 
 a Florentine painter if we may believe the present 
 surface. A thoroughly fine little panel. 
 
 )2. Martyrdom of St. Sebastian. The promi- 
 
 * nence of the figures in the foreground of the pic- 
 / ture is usually disturbing to the average student 
 v at first sight. The figures are patterned on 
 the landscape instead of in it, which creates 
 the disturbing impression. Look at the figures 
 individually as superb pieces of drawing and 
 for the sake of their outlines and modellings, 
 especially the two bending archers in front. This 
 was the realism of the nude at that time, and it 
 is given with knowledge and truth especially the 
 truth of muscular strain, action, motion. What 
 legs and feet, what arms, what torsos, and what 
 heads! The figure of the saint is superb in the 
 modelling of the torso; the four standing archers 
 are less fine. And again, what colour in the cos- 
 tumes and the ruddy flesh ! When you have wearied 
 of the figures, look beyond them to the prancing 
 
94 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 horse at the left, at the high colour in the banner, 
 and beyond, at the fine bit of Roman ruin and the 
 wonderful Arno valley landscape with the flowing 
 river. The picture will bear long study. Antonio 
 probably designed it and Piero possibly worked 
 upon the feebler parts of it. 
 
 585. Pollajuolo, School of. Portrait of a Lady. 
 
 * This was probably always a sharp, thin profile 
 
 more of a silhouette than a modelled surface but 
 
 ^ it has not been improved by the drastic scrubbing 
 and rubbing it has undergone during the cen- 
 turies. Fine in outline drawing, in forcefulness of 
 character, in the beauty of the costume, and the 
 colour of the background. What a wonderful head- 
 dress of pearls I The painter was not far removed 
 from the painter of No. 758 in this gallery. Once 
 attributed to Piero della Francesca. 
 
 1009. Potter, Paulus. The Old Grey Hunter. A very 
 good Potter in fact, entirely too good for his 
 brush. The chances are that it was done by 
 Pieter Verbeecq. Compare it with No. 611 by 
 Verbeecq in The Hague Museum. The manner 
 and method are identical. [Since this note was 
 written, but before its publication, Dr. Bredius 
 has arrived at a similar conclusion in the Burling- 
 ton Magazine for June, 1913.] 
 
 2583. Cattle in a Stormy Landscape. This is ap- 
 parently a genuine enough Potter, but it is dif- 
 ferent painting and a different palette from No. 
 1009. As a picture it is not remarkable excej 
 for its hardness and general dryness of handling. 
 
 1008. Potter, Pieter. Stag Hunt. In this landscaj 
 the distances and the sky are much better thj 
 the trees and the niggled foliage of the for 
 
PREDIS, AMBROGIO DA 95 
 
 ground. Of the two deer, note the truth of draw- 
 ing and movement in the doe. Ascribed to the 
 father (and master) of Paul Potter as formerly to 
 Paul Potter himself. 
 
 31. Poussin, Caspar. Landscape with Figures. 
 
 This picture is in Gaspar's mannered style with 
 heavy formal foliage, a dark foreground, a dark 
 upper sky, and a light background. It is the 
 Poussin convention, but not devoid of style and 
 some power. The pattern of light and shade with 
 colour is handsome. See the variation of the con- 
 vention in No. 1159. 
 
 62. Poussin, Nicolas. Bacchanalian Dance. None 
 of the Poussins in this gallery are completely repre- 
 sentative of the man. They are hot in flesh 
 colour though well enough drawn and grouped. 
 The academic quality of his work (the nymph in 
 blue at the left) is always a bit wearisome. His 
 best pictures are in the Louvre at Paris. 
 
 1661 \ Predis, Ambrogio da. Two Angels. These are 
 
 1662 / the wings of the altar-piece of the Madonna of 
 
 the Rocks the wings done by Ambrogio and 
 the altar-piece itself supposed to be his copy after 
 Leonardo. The angel No. 1661 may be used for 
 comparison with the Madonna in the matter of 
 light and shade, sootiness of flesh, and depth of 
 colour. The drapery in both angels is uneasy, 
 the hands and feet are ill-drawn, the figures not 
 very convincing under their swirling robes. 
 
 2251. Portrait of Bona of Savoy. The canvas is 
 
 now nearly done for so far as form is concerned, 
 but there is enough pigment remaining to sug- 
 gest a picture of one-time beauty. What colour 
 it still has! And what a Renaissance type of 
 
96 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 woman! The look of the canvas suggests a pic- 
 ture painted with wax as a medium. 
 
 695. Previtali, Andrea. Madonna and Child Seated. 
 Much in the style of No. 2500, and not materially 
 different from the supposed imitation (No. 1409), 
 at one time assigned to Cordelle Agii, with which 
 it may be compared. All of them are indifferent 
 works of a second-rate painter, showing weak sen- 
 timent and porcelain-like surfaces. 
 
 2500. Virgin and Child. A comparison with No. 
 
 1409, once assigned to Cordelle Agii, will perhaps 
 establish this picture as the firmer in drawing 
 and a trifle more decisive in colouring of the two. 
 As for the types, there is no variation of impor- 
 tance. It was thought by Crowe and Cavalca- 
 selle that Previtali and Cordelle Agii were one 
 and the same person, and that opinion has been 
 generally accepted. 
 
 713. Prevost, Jan. Virgin and Child in a Garden. 
 
 * Very lovely in sentiment and very tender in its 
 
 ^/ painting of the hair, the flowers, the robes, the 
 
 landscape. A charming picture also in colour, 
 
 light, and air. Notice how beautifully the pot with 
 
 its flowers is drawn and the houses at the back are 
 
 put in. 
 
 213. Raphael Sanzio. Vision of a Knight. A boy- 
 ish Raphael, more interesting as history than as 
 art, though done with considerable knowledge 
 and skill. And in it Raphael already has repose 
 of manner. The sketch for it is shown below. 
 1171. Madonna degli Ansidei. A famous early 
 
 ** Raphael with some fine drawing in the St. John 
 Baptist and some well-handled drapery in the 
 St. Nicholas. The Madonna is rather porcelain- 
 
 
RAPHAEL SANZIO 97 
 
 faced and the Child is just a little heavy. It is a 
 balanced pyramidal composition with space-filling 
 carried out by the aid of the upright baldacchino 
 (a frail, thin structure) and the white arch. The 
 white arch is entirely out of tone with the figures 
 and the baldacchino and separates them from 
 the landscape to which they should be related. 
 In other words, it cuts off the foreground from 
 the background and hurts the unity of the pic- 
 ture. The colour in the St. John is very good. 
 Somewhat injured by retouching, but never 
 more than a youthful Raphael and not indicative 
 of his great power as draughtsman or composer. 
 
 168. St. Catherine of Alexandria. A graceful fig- 
 ure, academically draped, with a pretty repeti- 
 y tion of the bent right arm in the drapery below. 
 The wheel is also repeated in the body and leg 
 draperies. The hands and neck are ill-drawn and 
 the landscape is not sketchy but careless, or by 
 another hand. The landscape is the same in 
 handling as in the Colonna Madonna (No. 248) 
 at Berlin. 
 
 744. - Madonna, Child, and St. John. (The Gar- 
 / vagh Raphael). A Raphaelesque group of pyram- 
 idal form, well knit together, and graceful. The 
 colour is a little sweet in the blue and the surface 
 has been prettified by retouching. The picture is 
 almost certainly by Giulio Romano, not Raphael. 
 
 5069. Madonna of the Tower. This is the latest 
 
 * of the Raphael Madonnas in this gallery, but by 
 
 Y. no means the least good. The group is finely 
 
 composed, well held together, with a landscape 
 
 that is open, full of air and light, quite believable. 
 
 The action of the Child, pressing against the 
 
)8 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 mother, the holding of the Child by the Madonna, 
 the drapery, are all very good. As for colour, it 
 is now mellow, foxy, and pleasing, probably as 
 a result of the drastic scrubbing, repainting, 
 and varnishing the surface has undergone. The 
 picture is much injured, and no one can now say 
 who painted it, but the design is Raphaelesque 
 and the general effect is very good. 
 
 27. Pope Julius II. There are three versions of 
 
 this portrait, of which the ones in the Uffizi and 
 \jf Pitti are perhaps the more satisfactory. See the 
 comment under the Uffizi and Pitti Gallery notes. 
 That will answer for this version. A fine portrait 
 and worthy of careful study, be it original, replica, 
 or copy. The word "copy " should not discourage 
 one. 
 
 2919. Procession to Calvary. It is part of the pre- 
 
 della of the St. Anthony of Padua Madonna in 
 the Morgan Collection. If done by Raphael in 
 1505 or at any other time it was carelessly done. 
 Look at the drawing of the first horse, the first 
 man pulling on the rope, the figure of Christ. All 
 the hands are poorly done. The colour is not at 
 all remarkable. The only part of the panel that 
 seems possible for Raphael is the group of women 
 at the left. 
 
 1423. Ravesteyn, Jan Anthonisz. Portrait of a 
 Lady. Somewhat too smooth in the surfaces but 
 done with accurate drawing and simple com- 
 position. Some of the hardness of the flesh and 
 the white collar is possibly due to cleaning. [Now 
 (1913) given to Jan de Bray]. 
 
 672. Rembrandt van Ryn. Portrait of Himself. A 
 
 ^ portrait of Rembrandt, done with a brush that 
 
REMBRANDT 99 
 
 we do not recognise, but with a good enough 
 effect in the drawing and modelling. The eyes, 
 the bulbous nose, the mouth with the slight 
 moustache above it, the chin, the neck, the hand, 
 the figure are perhaps right enough. The hat 
 and the shadow of it upon the brow, the hair and 
 the ears are again fairly well done except for an 
 apparent timidity in the doing of them. The 
 costume is smoothly painted and deep in its 
 tones of colour, in its shadow, in its local hue. 
 The shadows under the chin are luminous and the 
 envelope of the figure quite apparent. The whole 
 body stands in and has air about it. But all this 
 might be true of a Rembrandt copy. We miss 
 the dash and verve of the Rembrandt handling 
 as shown in even earlier works like Nos. 775 and 
 850. And we miss the life. Compare this pic- 
 ture with No. 850 and No. 775 and see how 
 flat and wanting in life it is, as though it had 
 been done from a photograph after death. The 
 handling and the hand of Rembrandt are they 
 here? Or are we looking at a mere copy? Go 
 over the picture carefully, inch by inch, and the 
 timid handling, the smooth and lifeless surface, 
 will bespeak the copy. You will notice this pains- 
 taking timidity in the drawing of the eyelids, the 
 nose, the cheeks, the ear, the outline of the hat 
 and cloak, the edging of the white undershirt at 
 the throat. You will notice it further in the paint- 
 ing of the wrinkles around the eyes, the smooth 
 chin, the uncertain ear, the small brush-work in 
 the moustache and hair, the fur, the coat collar. 
 Compare these features one by one with No. 
 850 hanging near by and you cannot fail to see 
 the difference between them. Who painted the 
 
100 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 picture may never be known, but it may be 
 affirmed with considerable certainty that the sur- 
 face now shows not one touch of Rembrandt's 
 brush. 
 
 The signature of this picture, "Rembrandt F. 
 1640," is also a copy of the Rembrandt signature, 
 and is fairer, smoother, more careful than an 
 original. Below this signature, in the same copyist 
 hand, is the word " Conterfeyct." There has been 
 an attempt at rubbing it out but it still shows. 
 This word is neither Latin nor English, but corrupt 
 old French, otherwise spelled "contrefaict" and 
 "contrefait." It is the past participle of "con- 
 tre-faire," which means to counterfeit, to imitate, 
 to copy, to reproduce. Presumably it has been 
 heretofore interpreted on this picture in the 
 Shakespearian sense to mean a counterfeit pre- 
 sentment or likeness of Rembrandt's personality, 
 whereas the word should be interpreted as mean- 
 ing a counterfeit or copy of a Rembrandt picture. 
 The copyist put it there as a frank statement that 
 his picture was a copy and not the original. In 
 connection with this old French word and a cer- 
 tain French look about the workmanship of the 
 picture, it is interesting to know from the cat- 
 alogue that the picture came from the collection 
 of General Dupont in Paris and was purchased 
 from his heirs, the Richemonts, in 1861. If we 
 choose to click these links together, we may make 
 out a prima-facie case to the effect that this por- 
 trait of Rembrandt is what its internal evidence 
 indicates an old French copy of some now lost 
 original. 
 
 850. Man's Portrait. This portrait is done with 
 
 * much firmness and force, not only in the modelling 
 
REMBRANDT 101 
 
 of the face, but in the hair, the moustache, the 
 collar, the chain. What beautiful eyes what 
 piercing eyes! And what a forehead in its fleshy 
 quality! It is like the forehead of the Coppenol 
 at Cassel. The picture is the most pronounced 
 early Rembrandt in the gallery and should be 
 used as a criterion of Rembrandt's style during 
 his grey period. See the notes on The Hague Gal- 
 lery under "Rembrandt" for the different Rem- 
 brandt styles; also the notes on the Hermitage 
 and Berlin galleries under the same name. This 
 portrait is cleaned a bit too much, but still has 
 great life about it. 
 
 775. Portrait of an Old Lady. A famous Rem- 
 
 ** brandt famous for its characterisation of an old 
 ^ lady who has lived long, suffered much, and shows 
 both age and suffering in her face. It is the face 
 of the very old, with wrinkled brow, flabby cheeks, 
 trembling mouth and chin, and eyes which, if one 
 looks at them long enough, will seem filled with 
 tears. A pitiful and yet a noble face, showing the 
 great humanity of Rembrandt perhaps better than 
 any other portrait he ever painted. It has some- 
 thing in common with all the world, and every one 
 can feel sympathy with it. That alone indicates 
 Rembrandt's grasp of the large universal truths of 
 life, and suggests why he is placed among geniuses 
 of the Shakespeare-Goethe type. The picture is 
 technically quite perfect save for the unusually 
 dark shadow under the ruff, which has probably be- 
 come dark through an underbasing working to the 
 surface. The black is not on the ruff, but shows 
 through it, and it also shows through on the left side, 
 which is in full light and has no shadow. Other- 
 wise it is a very perfect ruff. And notice the 
 
102 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 superb quality of the linen in the cap its trans- 
 parency in the side "wings" of it, its whiteness 
 at the top. The whole face is strongly modelled. 
 The outline of the cheek how it wavers, but 
 how absolutely it wavers as the painter wished 
 it to! Do you think a painter drawing like that 
 could at any time have drawn so timidly as the face 
 in No. 672 indicates? In the painter's grey period. 
 
 190. A Jewish Rabbi. A portrait probably done 
 
 * in Rembrandt's golden period done with a 
 
 V strong suggestion of the meagre face, the timor- 
 ous spirit, and the mild manner of the persecuted 
 Jew. It is full of pathos and feeling and has a 
 world of sadness about it. The face is well 
 modelled with the hose and cheeks just emerging 
 from the shadow the shadow of the hat so 
 luminously thrown across the forehead and the 
 brows. What a perfect velvet hat! What blacks 
 and what quality they have! The figure is a 
 little lost in the mystery of the ground. Some 
 things about it suggest another hand than that of 
 Rembrandt, but the spirit and quality of it are 
 decidedly Rembrandtesque. 
 
 1674. A Burgomaster. This is a very different pic- 
 
 * ture from No. 190, and while done with some free- 
 dom in the face, is blackish, uncertain, and sketchy 
 in the hands. The forehead is well modelled as 
 are also the eyes, nose, and mouth. The face is 
 in full light, with delicate shadows below the 
 brows and on the left cheek. Rather rich in colour 
 of a golden-brown tinge, but not Rembrandt's 
 golden-brown. It is that of Nicolas Maes fol- 
 lowing Rembrandt. The portrait agrees fairly 
 well with that of the architect at Cassel (No. 
 
REMBRANDT 103 
 
 246), put down to Rembrandt, but again by 
 Maes. The Maes portrait at The Hague (No. 
 90) seems to point to the London and the Cassel 
 pictures being both by him. Even the small 
 detail of the swollen vein on the back of the hand 
 is repeated in all three of the portraits. Besides, if 
 you have good eyes and patience, you can make 
 out a slight family resemblance between this por- 
 trait and the old woman across the room, No. 
 1675, put down to Rembrandt, but which is surely 
 another Maes Maes in his early imitation of 
 Rembrandt, as No. 1674 is his later imitation of 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 243. Portrait of an Old Man. Here is a decidedly 
 
 * strong face, drawn with some show of power as 
 y^ well as keen perception. The modelling is fairly 
 good, though the head above the temple sinks in, 
 and the lower jaw is to be guessed at. The gen- 
 eral result, however, is effective. The man is alive 
 as regards the head. The joining of the head to 
 the body is not too realistic, and the body itself 
 is lost in shadow. The hands are not convincing, 
 nor are they Rembrandtesque. Nor is the colour 
 like Rembrandt's colour, nor the shadows like 
 Rembrandt's shadows. The surface is tortured, 
 rasped with a wire-edged brush, kneaded, thumbed, 
 amended. This, we are given to understand, is 
 Rembrandtesque, because Rembrandt's hand is 
 said to have failed in his later years. But how 
 are we to distinguish between Rembrandt's inef- 
 fective handling as an old man and the ineffec- 
 tive handling of his pupils? What prevents any 
 thumbed and gummed canvas of the school being 
 assigned to Rembrandt himself? And did Rem- 
 brandt's hand fail in the large essential of form, 
 
104 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 light, air, envelope? We have the Syndics and 
 the Jewish Bride at Amsterdam, the Homer at 
 The Hague, to deny it. And yet it is impossible 
 to say with certainty that Rembrandt did not do 
 this picture. It is unlike him in many ways. It 
 is very likely by the hand that did No. 221 in 
 this gallery. 
 221. Portrait of Himself. This shows Rem- 
 
 * brandt as an old man older than fifty-three, the 
 age indicated by the date of the picture. The 
 face is hot in colour, flabby in the flesh, dull in the 
 eyes, and not very firm in the chin. It is apparent 
 that the painter is not too sure of his touch. His 
 brush is staggering a bit and returns again and 
 again to better what it failed to do at the first 
 stroke. The result is the kneaded and thumbed, 
 the mealy quality of the surface, the hot colouring, 
 the foxy-hued dress. But there is luminosity in 
 the shadows, and the painter surrounds his figure 
 with air. And what humanity there is in this 
 picture! What a lifetime is written in the face! 
 It is a fine portrait. Did Rembrandt do it? Who 
 can say? It is quite good enough for him, but 
 the colour and the hands seem hardly his. Then, 
 too, there is the portrait in the Louvre (No. 2555), 
 done at about the same time, but showing an 
 entirely different point of view and different han- 
 dling. Could or did Rembrandt see himself so 
 differently in the mirror? Or is the different point 
 of view that of two Rembrandt pupils, painting 
 either Rembrandt himself or the studio model 
 whose face appears so often in Rembrandtesque 
 pictures? 
 
 51. Portrait of a Jew Merchant. After study- 
 
 * ing the other portraits by Rembrandt in this gal- 
 
REMBRANDT 105 
 
 lery, and thinking that perhaps we understand the 
 style of Rembrandt, we come up to this picture 
 and receive something of a shock. It is a good 
 picture, even a strong one, but . Is that Rem- 
 brandt's light and shade? Is that leathery flesh 
 of the same quality (not kind) as we have been 
 looking at in the other pictures? Did he do that 
 vague cap with that fur or feather in it, that 
 prettily picked-out black sleeve, those large square 
 hands? Is that pit of blackness back of the 
 figure Rembrandt's wonderful atmospheric en- 
 velope? And is that hot, foxy colouring consonant 
 with the Rembrandt period that might have pro- 
 duced the sleeve? The Rembrandt authorities 
 answer "Yes" to these queries. What use to 
 contradict them? 
 
 575. Portrait of an Old Lady. This is a strong 
 
 portrait a rather distinguished portrait done 
 in the Rembrandt manner, pose, and costume, 
 and with his background, though here somewhat 
 darkened. And rather positively done, too; done 
 with some spirit. The only trouble with it is 
 that this spirit and the drawing and handling 
 are not those of Rembrandt. There is a certain 
 pinched look in the face and figure that comes not 
 from the age of the sitter, but from the pinched 
 and tight drawing of a man like Nicolas Maes. 
 This is not only apparent in the cheeks, mouth, 
 and chin, but is seen in the tell-tale hands the 
 right one larger than the left with their ac- 
 cented red knuckles and joints. Compare them 
 with the hands in the Maes here, No. 1247, espe- 
 cially the hand in that picture resting on the table, 
 and you will see the same effect of drawing. Also 
 compare the eyes, not only for the blackish shad- 
 
106 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 ows about them, but for the low line of the lower 
 lids quite different from the lower lids of any 
 Rembrandt in the gallery an earmark of Maes. 
 Note also the darkness of the shadow across the 
 ruffs. This darkness is not, as in No. 775, some 
 blackness that has worked through from below, 
 but a brown-black painted on top of the white. 
 And above all, note the handling in the hair, the 
 face, the hands, and the dress. Compare this 
 again with No. 1247 not the best Maes for com- 
 parison, but the best we have at hand. This 
 handling is found only in pictures by Maes. You 
 may see it in the portrait No. 368 in the Brussels 
 Gallery, there put down to Rembrandt, but really 
 by Maes, and still again, but smoother in finish, 
 at the Budapest Gallery (No. 369). This Na- 
 tional Gallery portrait is a good one and much 
 more interesting as a Maes following Rembrandt 
 than as a Rembrandt in decline. 
 
 237. Portrait of a Woman. Rembrandt at least 
 
 had skill enough to draw a mouth correctly and 
 place it properly under the nose, which the painter 
 of this picture had not. And he knew how to 
 place a figure on the canvas rightly, which this 
 painter did not. The chances are that Rem- 
 brandt never saw the work. It simply confounds 
 confusion to attribute such work to him. The 
 hands alone do not admit of its being by Rem- 
 brandt. Strangely enough this picture is signed 
 and dated 1666, and is one of the latest of the 
 painter's works, yet how does it happen that it 
 does not show the fumbled and kneaded surface 
 that we see in No. 221 painted about the same 
 time? Did Rembrandt fumble when it pleased 
 him, and paint easily and smoothly when it 
 
REMBRANDT 107 
 
 pleased him, or do his critics shift their premises 
 when it is necessary to "identify" another Rem- 
 brandt? This picture was probably painted by 
 Bernaert Fabritius a Rembrandt follower. It 
 agrees with his work at Frankfort and Darmstadt, 
 and disagrees with Rembrandt's work anywhere 
 and everywhere. 
 
 Portrait of a Capuchin Friar. There IS no 
 
 internal evidence that is, from the picture itself 
 that this portrait came from Rembrandt's 
 easel. The colour, drawing, handling, background 
 are all foreign to him. It is possibly by some 
 one of his followers, but even that may be doubted. 
 The picture illustrates the prevalent tendency 
 to accept anything dark in shadow, heavy in 
 facture, sombre in type, or generally speaking 
 Rembrandtesque in character, to Rembrandt him- 
 self. Fifty years ago half the Aspertinis, Mannis, 
 and Pinturicchios were Raphaels, all the Bot- 
 ticinis, Sellajos, and Amico di Sandros were 
 Botticellis, almost all the Carianis and Romani- 
 nos were Giorgiones, and many Solarios, Boltraf- 
 fios, and Luinis were accepted as Leonardos. 
 Happily the close study of Italian art since then 
 has led to more discrimination and differentiation. 
 But painting north of the Alps as regards Rem- 
 brandt, Rubens, Van Dyck, Holbein, Diirer to 
 mention only the prominent names is in a con- 
 dition similar to that of Italy half a century ago. 
 Any and all work with even a superficial resem- 
 blance to Van Dyck or Rubens is put down 
 under the name of the master. As for Rem- 
 brandt, the work of a dozen pupils is given to 
 him, to say nothing about his followers and imi- 
 tators. All the important Eeckhout and Fabri- 
 
108 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 tius pictures are under his name. Some poor 
 wretched work of theirs is still left to them, and 
 we are confronted with this as the measure of 
 their ability. We are asked: "Where did you 
 ever see an Eeckhout as fine as the Woman 
 Bathing (No. 54) in this gallery ?" Obviously 
 no such pictures exist under Eeckhout's name. 
 They have all been taken from him and put 
 under Rembrandt. But luckily some decent work 
 of other pupils is still under their own names, 
 such as the Backers at Berlin (No. 1640), Darm- 
 stadt (No. 369), and the Wallace Collection 
 (No. 89), the Bols at Munich (No. 338) and 
 Frankfort (No. 184), the Flincks at Berlin (No. 
 813s), Amsterdam (No. 926A), and the Wallace 
 Collection (No. 78). One may assert with some 
 positiveness that these cited examples are better 
 than half the so-called Rembrandts in Europe. 
 They are so strong that it is very easy to un- 
 derstand how unscrupulous dealers could palm 
 them off for Rembrandts and how unthinking 
 collectors could accept them as such. 
 
 2539. Man with a Cap. A rather strong portrait 
 
 in its forced effect of light and dark, but loose in 
 the drawing and somewhat uncertain in the han- 
 dling. The hat has been redrawn several times, 
 as also the head. It is not by Rembrandt, but 
 of his school. The same hand probably did No. 
 820 at the Hermitage, St. Petersburg. 
 
 45. The Woman Taken in Adultery. A pretty 
 
 picture with nice textures and rather sweet colours 
 
 ">- by a Rembrandt follower not far removed (in 
 style at least) from Willem de Poorter or Solomon 
 Koninck. See the Rembrandt notes on the 
 
REMBRANDT 109 
 
 Proserpine (No. 823) in the Berlin Gallery and 
 the Simeon in the Temple (No. 145) in The Hague 
 Gallery for the reasons why this small work is not 
 by Rembrandt. The principal reason is that Rem- 
 brandt had not the small mind to conceive things 
 such as this nor the small hand to do them. Think 
 of the man who did the Lesson in Anatomy, the 
 Night Watch, and the Five Syndics doing this lit- 
 tle art that is about up to the level of a Dou or a 
 Poorter! 
 
 47. Adoration of the Shepherds. There is noth- 
 
 Y ing about it to indicate Rembrandt except the 
 general scheme of lighting; but with everything 
 about it indicative of Rembrandt's pupil and fol- 
 lower, Eeckhout. It is like in drawing and han- 
 dling to the same subject in the Passion Series at 
 Munich (No. 331), there ascribed to Rem- 
 brandt, but largely done by pupils chiefly Eeck- 
 hout. Compare it with No. 45 here, said to have 
 been done by Rembrandt two years earlier. No- 
 tice the difference in style, handling, drawing, 
 colour, conception. 
 
 54. A Woman Bathing. In the style of the va- 
 rious nudes in European galleries given to Rem- 
 
 Y^ brandt, especially the Woman Bathing in the 
 Louvre (No. 2549). This is the same model, the 
 same light and shade, the same water, the same 
 golden cloak at the back. The modelling is striking 
 and the white shirt really superb in quality. The 
 shadows, though dark, are luminous, the colour 
 very good, and the handling free. The light and 
 shade and the white shirt are like the work of 
 Eeckhout, but the modelling and drawing seem 
 almost too good for him. Yet the drawing is too 
 
110 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 hard, the shadows too dark, the whites too high- 
 keyed for Rembrandt. It is nearer Eeckhout than 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 757. Rembrandt, School of. Christ Blessing Little 
 Children. A picture upon which many critics 
 have laid guesses as to its authorship, but with 
 no satisfactory results. The head at the extreme 
 left might be compared with the head of the man 
 in the Card Players by Nicolas Maes (No. 1247). 
 The red colours and the black shadows are also 
 like Maes's. He had several styles facile per- 
 son that he was and this is not unlikely one of 
 them, though such a conclusion is not to be ar- 
 rived at merely by comparing two heads or colours. 
 The picture is perhaps nearer to Fabritius than 
 any one else, but the catalogue attribution is as 
 near the mark as can be safely reached. 
 
 2930. Ribalta, Francisco de. Christ Bearing the 
 * Cross. It is fine in its largeness of feeling, its 
 breadth and simplicity of colour, its atmospheric 
 setting, its excellent buildings at the back. Notice 
 the huge weight and bulk of the cross, the large 
 drapery, the bent figure. It seems that there 
 were painters in Spain before Velasquez, as 
 warriors in Greece before Agamemnon's days, but 
 the fact has heretofore been persistently ignored. 
 Some of the early Ribaltas have been given to 
 Velasquez and Ribera, and the pictures of his late 
 period are rare enough. An excellent picture and 
 a notable addition to the gallery. 
 
 235. Ribera, Jusefe (Lo Spagnoletto). The Dead 
 Christ. The figure of Christ is thin, spare, 
 stiffened in death, quite cold. It is a slight figure, 
 attenuated, somewhat distorted, but well drawn. 
 
ROMANINO 111 
 
 The whole scene is given with good emotional 
 feeling. The picture has been over-cleaned, as 
 in the hands of the Madonna, or the face of the 
 Magdalen. The colour of it is rather dark, deep, 
 rich. 
 
 S486. Roberti, Ercole di. The Concert. The action 
 is perhaps unhappy because the singers will never 
 close their mouths and have done with the song. 
 The hands are mannered, the faces accented in 
 outlines, everything a little sharp and tight in draw- 
 ing, but the colour is fairly good. Mr. Berenson 
 thinks it an early Costa. 
 
 [127. The Last Supper. A small picture, yet a gem 
 
 in its architecture, its figures, and its variegated 
 but beautiful colours. The drawing is severe. One 
 might question the attribution without being able 
 to supply a more fitting name. 
 
 1411. Adoration of the Shepherds. What a lovely 
 
 type that of the Madonna! The shepherd back 
 of her is excellent in action. The panel at the 
 right, the Dead Christ, has the pathos of an early 
 Bellini, and is beautiful in its colour. The drawing 
 in both panels is very good if minute. See also 
 No. 1217. 
 
 297. Romanino, Girolamo Romani, II. Nativity. 
 
 An altar-piece in five compartments and all told 
 x quite a fine piece. It is done in Romanino' s 
 Giorgionesque manner. The central figures are 
 rather large of head and small of hand, but they 
 are given with good sentiment, good colour, and 
 very good light and shade. The surfaces are 
 perhaps too china-like, and Romanino's draw- 
 ing is always shaky; but his general decorative 
 effect in a large altar-piece like this is very good 
 
112 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 good, not great. Notice the landscape and the 
 fine blues in the hills and skies. Romanino's crossed 
 eyes show in some of the cherubs at the top. 
 
 624. Romano, Giulio. Infancy of Jupiter. The 
 
 nymphs at the head and foot of the cradle, which- 
 ever way they may care to look, cannot allow 
 their looking to interfere with the display of their 
 finely-drawn backs. It is quite evident that the 
 painter thought the doing of the backs the better 
 part of this picture. This is the academic view 
 that came into Roman art after Raphael. Affec- 
 tation is seen in all of these figures, including the 
 young Jupiter, but it should not be overlooked that 
 they really are graceful and well drawn. The 
 landscape, too, is affected, conventional, done by 
 rule and rote, but nevertheless well done, hand- 
 some, to be admired. 
 
 38. Rubens, Peter Paul. Abduction of the Sabine 
 * Women. A picture done in a free, sketchy man- 
 ner, with considerable skill in the drawing and 
 handling, and great action in the struggling groups. 
 It is a rich piece of colour, a good piece of paint- 
 ing, and, being upon wood, is fairly well preserved. 
 Notice the group of women high up on the left, and 
 the central group in the foreground for the best 
 of the drawing and handling. Some of the side 
 figures were done by pupils of Rubens or at best 
 received no more than a lick and a rub from the 
 master's brush. The occasional ill-drawn hands, 
 the pasty high lights on hair and flesh speak for 
 the pupils or the restorer. But, in spite of such 
 things, the picture is pretty close to the master. 
 He designed it and painted the better part of it. 
 Rubens's hand never failed at any time he died 
 
RUBENS 113 
 
 too early for that. But in most of his work he 
 was helped by pupils. The background seems a 
 little out of tone a slight matter. The picture 
 as a whole is very good. 
 
 853. The Triumph of Silenus. An excellent ex- 
 
 ** ample of Rubens's fluid style of painting, and in 
 X a fairly good state of preservation. The flesh 
 colour is his, as is also the drawing all the figures 
 having been done by his own hand with no indica- 
 tion of help from pupils. The drawing is almost 
 flawless, or would be but for some cleaning and 
 retouching. The tremendous bulk and twist of 
 the fat body of Silenus and the flush of the 
 bestial face are notable. The figures and faces 
 everywhere are excellent. Go close to the can- 
 vas and note the way in which the hair is painted 
 on the heads at the left and also the hair of the 
 children at the bottom. The face of the nymph 
 at the top has been too much cleaned and the 
 brush strokes in the hair marred, but neverthe- 
 less make a mental note of what remains of it. 
 Note also the doing of the group of trees at 
 the right, and the little scrap of landscape at the 
 left. Critics may tell you that Thulden or others 
 did them and that Snyders did the grapes; but 
 Rubens could do them readily enough if it so 
 pleased him. All of these features should be re- 
 membered, for they are to be compared with 
 other pictures in this gallery, put down to Rubens, 
 but which are no more than school pieces. Fi- 
 nally, note in this picture the quality of the flesh 
 colour, the shadows, and the light. Compare them 
 with those in Nos. 853, 46, 67, or 59 and ask 
 yourself which is the finer and truer. A superb 
 picture in luminosity of flesh and glow of colour. 
 
114 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 852. Chapeau de Foil. It is possibly a portrait 
 
 * of Suzanne Fourment (sister to Helene), whose 
 
 ^ portrait appears again in the Louvre (No. 2114 
 and in the Marie de' Medici Series, No. 2093). 
 It was done about 1620, and has been too much 
 cleaned; but still remains in fair condition, with 
 the brush strokes apparent in the hat, hair, nose, 
 eyes, and in the red shadows of the nostrils and 
 fingers. Notice the ease with which the high 
 lights on the dress are done, and then move 
 back to observe their realistic effect. A frail, 
 but very fine portrait. Rubens usually chose 
 coarser material and more resounding colour. 
 But this is excellent in character as in colour. 
 The modelling of the neck slightly hurt. Re- 
 touched elsewhere. 
 
 194. The Judgment of Paris. This is a good 
 
 ** example of Rubens's late work, done with only 
 , some slight help from pupils, but somewhat dis- 
 
 \ torted by cleaning and retouching. The types 
 are graceful, but not fragile. They are heroic 
 figures, not pretty versions of the Medici Venus 
 type. How beautifully Rubens has drawn them 
 and placed them in the picture! And with what 
 a glow of colour, wrung from flesh notes more than 
 from robes! Notice the handling of the hair in 
 the two figures at the extreme right and in the 
 Grace at the extreme left. It is necessary that 
 one should get Rubens's certainty of handling 
 well in mind if he would be sure about the pic- 
 tures attributed to the master. Every touch of 
 Rubens's brush meant something as drawing, as 
 relief, as colour-splendour, as texture; whereas with 
 his pupils and imitators every stroke was designed 
 for similar results, but often fell short of the mark 
 
RUBENS 115 
 
 through lack of skill through lack of certainty 
 in their hands. Certain features in this picture, 
 such as the sketchy figure in the sky, are not 
 effectively drawn and may be referred to Rubens's 
 pupils, as also such things as the dog, the sheep, 
 and some of the landscape. The faulty modelling 
 in the legs, arms, shoulders, and hands of Mer- 
 cury or Paris may be referred to the cleaning 
 room. When originally painted, they must have 
 been quite right. The landscape may be pupils' 
 work, but even as such notice what quality it has 
 as compared with No. 66, a celebrated landscape 
 assigned to Rubens. Notice the breadth of its 
 colour, the absence of spotty high lights, the depth 
 and richness of the sky. It is far away and 
 beyond No. 66 and nearer to No. 2924. 
 
 66. Landscape with Chateau de Steen. If ap- 
 peal is made to the picture No. 194 for the manner 
 
 V in which Rubens, or his pupils working under 
 him, painted a landscape, it will be found that this 
 Chateau de Steen picture does not agree and 
 cannot be sustained as his work. The light here 
 is different; the trees are cruder and rawer in 
 drawing, light, colour, and textures; the sky is 
 glassy and wants depth and quality; the dis- 
 tance lacks in breadth and is spotty; the fore- 
 ground lacks in solidity and is spongy. As for 
 the chateau, it is a house of cards, a frosted-cake 
 affair that Rubens never could have painted. 
 The figures (and Rubens was a figure painter of 
 the very highest rank) are quite as bad. They 
 are not his types, or his drawing, or his handling. 
 Notice the faces and hands, especially those of the 
 people in the wagon, and the pot-hunter in the 
 foreground. Go close and examine them. Almost 
 
116 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 the whole of the foreground is made up of inac- 
 curate detail with impossible tree trunks, branches, 
 leaves, banks, ditches, cows. The picture is by 
 some assistant, follower, or imitator. The Rain- 
 bow Landscape (No. 62) in the Wallace Collection 
 is by the same hand, and possibly No. 67 in this 
 gallery came from a similar source. There are 
 many examples of this Rubens follower or assis- 
 tant in European galleries. The landscape (No. 
 654) in the Vienna Academy (assigned to Van Uden) 
 and the landscape at Brussels (No. 391) show him 
 as here. It is impossible to name him. Nor is 
 that necessary. The main thing to be established 
 is that he is not Rubens. The Rubens landscape, 
 as elsewhere stated, is well illustrated by the 
 landscape (No. 869) at Vienna or here in this gal- 
 lery (No. 2924). Yet this picture (No. 66) is not 
 so bad, taken as a whole. In fact, it makes quite 
 a show on the wall, and has been much and favour- 
 ably written about by well-known writers on art. 
 Said to have been painted about 1636, the same 
 time as No. 194, with which it should be com- 
 pared. 
 
 67. A Holy Family with St. George and Other 
 
 Saints. The figures, the putti, the architecture, 
 the landscape, are all somewhat removed from 
 Rubens's manner of working. He never, not 
 even in his roughest sketches, showed such bad 
 drawing and painting as here. Notice the wooden 
 face, and false light on the jaw of the Madonna, 
 the monstrous Child of dreadful drawing in her 
 arms, the white plastered hair and shoulders of 
 the saint in black back of her, the abnormal putto 
 above her, the muddy face of St. George behind 
 her, the woolly dragon at his feet, the ill-drawn 
 
RUBENS 117 
 
 putti with the badly mangled sheep at the right, 
 the hopeless Joseph at the back. It is not neces- 
 sary to go further. The picture is some sort of 
 replica of the picture in the Prado, Madrid (No. 
 1640). It has fairly good colour and has some 
 snap in its shadows, but it is not by Rubens, but 
 by some assistant or follower. The landscape and 
 spotty handling of the high lights, the badly 
 drawn figures and sheep, suggest that its painter 
 may be the painter of No. 66 in this gallery. 
 
 157. Landscape, Sunset. This is a better land- 
 scape than No. 66 that is to say, it holds to- 
 V^ gether better, is less formal in composition, less 
 repeated in the rows of trees, less spotty in the 
 high lights, less glassy in the sky. Yet every 
 one should know that Rubens never drew such a 
 figure as that seated upon the bench, never drew 
 such sheep, never drew such buildings or trees, 
 never was guilty of even the momentary aberra- 
 tion of placing the sun between the spectator and 
 the distant hills. The drawing of the sky here 
 points directly to the painter of No. 2118 in the 
 Louvre. See the note upon that picture. 
 
 2924. Landscape. The drawing of the trees, the 
 
 placing of the high lights on the tree trunks, the 
 general distribution of light, the mass of shadow 
 at the right are all simpler, better, and different 
 from No. 66. Moreover, there are here no badly 
 drawn sheep, as in No. 157, nor badly drawn fig- 
 ures and trees with high lights rubbed down the 
 trunks in a line, as in No. 66. The landscape is, 
 in fact, well enough done for Rubens and agrees 
 fairly well with what we see in the background 
 of such Rubens figure-pieces as Nos. 194 and 853, 
 
118 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 in this gallery. Compare the drawing in the rocks 
 of the foreground here or the tree trunks at the 
 right with the same features in No. 66 or 157, and 
 you will see the difference. The same difference 
 runs through the drawing everywhere in the 
 picture. This is the best of all the so-called 
 Rubens's landscapes here and must be accepted 
 as in measure a Rubens criterion. 
 
 278. Triumph of Julius Ccesar. A sketch from 
 
 portions of the series of tempera paintings by 
 Mantegna at Hampton Court, but there is small 
 reason to think Rubens made the sketch, not- 
 withstanding it appears in his little-known Inven- 
 tory. This is not the drawing and handling of 
 Rubens. Study the faces, the beards, and the 
 hair, anywhere in the picture, and compare them 
 with those in No. 853 or 194. Note the clumsi- 
 ness and uncertainty of the drawing in the small 
 figures at the back, the buildings, and the trees 
 the wretched trees. It is the work of some 
 pupil or assistant, done possibly at Rubens's be- 
 hest, for his own use, but certainly not done by 
 Rubens himself. 
 
 57. Conversion of St. Bavon. Neither the draw- 
 ing nor the handling speak strongly for Rubens, 
 and the colour is only mildly suggestive of him. 
 Compare the figures, heads, faces, hands with 
 those in No. 853, and the difference will be ap- 
 parent. The types even are not those of Rubens, 
 as witness those of the three women at the far 
 left below the curiously foreshortened architec- 
 ture. It is not possible for a painter to vary so 
 widely in his methods and manners at least not 
 for an artist of Rubens's technical accomplish- 
 
RUBENS 119 
 
 ments. The picture is more likely a sketch after 
 Rubens than a sketch by him for the altar-piece 
 at Ghent. 
 
 46. Peace and War. This looks very much like 
 
 a Rubens school piece that is, something done 
 X in his studio, probably designed by him, but 
 executed largely by pupils. Compare the satyr 
 with the satyrs in No. 853 for flesh colour, drawing, 
 handling of the hair and beard. Compare also 
 the handling of the hair, the high lights on the 
 flesh, the modelling of the backs, the arms, the 
 faces, and the textures with those in No. 194. 
 It is a fine decorative piece of colour, somewhat 
 darkened, perhaps, but with some good painting 
 in it. It is probably not touched by the mas- 
 ter's hand, except in a few places the central 
 figures, perhaps, though even that is doubtful, 
 owing to much cleaning and restoration. 
 
 59. The Brazen Serpent. It is probably a 
 
 * genuine enough Rubens, painted in the acces- 
 , sory portions by pupils. The Moses and Aaron 
 IS- at the left speak strongly for Van Dyck. The 
 picture has suffered from cleaning and repainting 
 in spots, as, for instance, the ill-drawn hands of 
 the Moses. The picture has life and movement 
 about it with some positive drawing in the fore- 
 ground figures and in the head, neck, and shoulders 
 of the kneeling woman above them. Somewhat 
 blackened, though still fine in colour. A version 
 of this by Van Dyck is in Madrid (No. 1637). 
 
 990. Ruisdael, Jacob van. A Flat, Wooded Coun- 
 try. This is the most considerable of the many 
 
 Y^ Ruisdaels in the gallery. It is the Ruisdael con- 
 vention used with some realistic touches here 
 
120 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 and there. The foreground is unusual with the 
 ruin at the right making a fine spot of mellow 
 light. The dark church and the sunburst of the 
 middle distance are well contrasted, and the sky 
 shows finely with its storm cloud against the blue. 
 An excellent Ruisdael. 
 
 854. Forest Scene. It has a more tortured and 
 
 niggled surface than No. 990 and is infinitely 
 more prosaic. The light is dull, the colour slate- 
 hued, the sky rather muddy. 
 
 987. Rocky Landscape with Torrent. This pic- 
 ture and Nos. 737, 986, 627, 628 are familiar in 
 theme to all gallery habitues. They are grey, 
 glassy, studio conventions that Ruisdael and his 
 workshop repeated again and again. They have 
 good decorative quality, but lack in spirit, spon- 
 taneity, truth, and good feeling. No. 990 is 
 worth a score of them. 
 
 Watermills. One of the smaller Ruisdaels 
 
 showing good sky and colour. The unusual little 
 hill with trees, at the left, is most welcome. The 
 foreground is very dark in its shadows. See also 
 No. 44 as a slight departure from the Ruisdael 
 convention. 
 
 690. Sarto, Andrea del. Portrait of a Sculptor. 
 
 ~J Andrea " senza errori," but you should not hold him 
 responsible for the faulty hands of this portrait, 
 for they are restorer's work, not his. The whole 
 picture has been injured, but still preserves some 
 dignity and presence, and has some atmospheric 
 envelope. 
 
 17. Holy Family. It seems a rather slight affair 
 
 fv for Andrea, though the square of the picture is 
 
SELLAJO 121 
 
 nicely filled with form and colour, both of them 
 having considerable merit. The picture is a 
 little dull in its lighting. As usual, it has suffered 
 in the cleaning room, and is now soft and pret- 
 tified. 
 
 1031. Savoldo, Girolamo. Mary Magdalen at the 
 Sepulchre. A picture that catches the eye by the 
 superficial texture and glitter of the dress, which 
 resembles a modern water-proof cloak more than 
 a silk garment. The face is hard in the drawing 
 and the sky raw in the painting. 
 
 720. Scorel, Jan van. Holy Family at a Fountain. 
 
 It is weak for a man like Scorel, whom we know 
 as a draughtsman of great vigour and force. [Now 
 (1913) given to Master of the Half-Lengths.] 
 
 567. Segna di Buenaventura. Christ on the Cross. 
 
 A crucifix of handsome decorative quality, espe- 
 cially in the halo of the Christ, the background, 
 and in the figures at the sides. The drawing 
 shows limited knowledge, but is sufficient to 
 reveal the tragic feeling of the Crucifixion. 
 
 916. Sellajo, Jacopo del. Venus Reclining with 
 Cupids. It should be studied in connection with 
 the Botticelli Venus and Mars (No. 915) to ascer- 
 tain the difference between the master and a fol- 
 lower. The flowers and landscape should be com- 
 pared with a Botticelli in Berlin (No. 102 A). 
 This picture in the National Gallery was formerly 
 attributed to Botticelli, but the drawing is too 
 vague for him, the figure too rounded, the out- 
 line too soft. That Jacopo del Sellajo did the 
 picture is not too certainly established. 
 
122 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 1317. Sienese School. Marriage of the Virgin. The 
 
 gilding, the colour, and the drawing of the church 
 interior are all interesting. The figures are 
 slighter than Duccio's and the sentiment is per- 
 haps more attenuated. It approaches the Loren- 
 zetti. 
 
 1847. Signorelli, Luca. Virgin Crowned by Angels. 
 
 A somewhat laboured work with weary-looking 
 saints simulating an interest in what they are 
 doing. A square, balanced composition, rounded 
 at the top by angels. The drawing hard, the 
 eyes small and crossed, the colour somewhat vio- 
 lent, the landscape attractive. Hardly by Signo- 
 relli. It has a superficial look of the master, but is 
 a school piece. 
 
 910. Triumph of Chastity. A fine piece of colour 
 
 with good action in the group and drawing in the 
 figures. A fresco transferred to canvas. The 
 catalogue suggestion of Genga as the painter, 
 rather than Signorelli, is nearer the mark, but not 
 wholly satisfactory. 
 
 2488. Holy Family. It is very hot in the colour of 
 
 the flesh, dark in the shadows, and not very pleas- 
 ing, though the Madonna is a fine large type and 
 has dignity and spirit. The attribution is not 
 so very apparent. 
 
 1133. The Nativity. One wonders if Van der 
 
 Goes, or Ghirlandajo after Van der Goes, had any 
 influence here in the drawing of the shepherd's 
 hands, with their knotty joints. The ill-pro- 
 portions of the Child are noticeable and the com- 
 position is spotty in groups that have little rela- 
 tionship to each other. They are held together 
 
SOLARIO 123 
 
 by colour, but rather loosely so. With some Um- 
 brian sentiment in the angels and a fantastic 
 landscape. The attribution is not satisfying. The 
 picture is probably a school piece. 
 
 18. - The Circumcision. The painter has used 
 all the colours on his palette to produce a rich 
 effect, and after all has not attained it. The 
 figure of the woman in dark red, at the extreme 
 right, is the best part of the picture. Note the 
 variety of colour in the floor or in the wall at back. 
 There is some atmosphere and good shadow, but 
 the figures are huddled, angular, hot in colour, 
 though the draperies are good. Much repainted. 
 
 1252. Snyders, Frans. Fruit Piece. What an excel- 
 lent piece of still-life painting! And what beau- 
 tiful colour! It seems almost impossible that 
 Snyders could do such work and yet it is un- 
 doubtedly by him. 
 
 734. Solario, Andrea da. Portrait of Giovanni Chris- 
 toforo Longono. It has not the force of No. 
 923, though it is larger in bulk. A fine portrait, 
 nevertheless, with a huge figure and good hands. 
 The landscape is attractive, but a little crude. 
 The face is similar in drawing and modelling to 
 the Charles d'Amboise in the Louvre. 
 
 923. - Portrait of a Venetian Senator. A head and 
 face of character and determination, drawn with 
 exactness and truth. Notice the forceful doing 
 of the mouth, cheeks, chin. The hands have been 
 too much cleaned, but still show good modelling. 
 These North Italian types appear quite wonder- 
 ful in the hands of Mantegna, Pisano, and occa- 
 sionally Solario. An early work with a good 
 
124 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 landscape background which is different, however, 
 from the so-called Solario of Charles d'Amboise 
 in the Louvre as different as the modellings and 
 drawings of the faces. 
 
 2503. Solario, Antonio da. Holy Family. A small, 
 graceful picture. The Madonna is a little sugary, 
 as is also the Child. The landscape at the back 
 is very good. This painter is not to be con- 
 founded with Andrea da Solario. See the cat- 
 alogue note. 
 
 1032. Spagna, Lo. Agony in the Garden. The sen- 
 timent, in which the sleeping, as well as the wak- 
 ing, figures partake is Peruginesque, but not 
 overwrought. The drawing is frail in the figures, 
 the landscape Umbrian and spacious, the hard 
 flowers quite beautiful. The picture is little more 
 than a free copy or variation of Perugino's pic- 
 ture of the same subject in the Florence Academy 
 (No. 53). Lo Spagna was an imitator of Peru- 
 gino, Pinturicchio, and Raphael. 
 
 1812. Agony in the Garden. This is a copy of 
 
 part of No. 1032. Even the poor drawing of the 
 eyes and the folds of the drapery are followed 
 literally. The weakness of the copy shows in 
 the drawing of the tree trunk and its branches 
 (where they crop out from the trunk) perhaps 
 better than elsewhere. 
 
 276. Spinello, Aretino. Two Apostles. These heads 
 give an accurate idea of the types, draperies, 
 haloes, and religious sentiment of the early Tus- 
 cans following Giotto. The sentiment is per- 
 haps excessive, but it belongs to the time. Ap- 
 parently done in dry fresco. 
 
TACCONI 125 
 
 Fall of the Rebel Angels. A fragment of 
 
 a fresco transferred to canvas. There is a good 
 deal of strength in it, and at one time, no doubt, 
 much beauty of colour. The archangel is power- 
 ful in bulk of body. 
 
 Steen, Jan. The Music Master. The blue 
 skirt screams at one, and the whole picture is a 
 little too pretty for Steen. The surfaces are 
 smooth, the tapestry at the back injured, the pas- 
 sage way well done. 
 
 Woman Asleep. A small picture, but per- 
 haps the most satisfactory of those here attributed 
 to Steen. The woman is well drawn and easily 
 painted, and the colour is attractive. 
 
 Grace Before Meat. The group is nicely 
 
 placed in the room, and it is an attractive group 
 in itself. The woman and child, too, are nice 
 in sentiment and colour. Unfortunately, they have 
 been retouched in parts, notably in the child's 
 hands and face. Not a bad Steen, though in his 
 smoother and prettier vein. 
 
 Terrace Scene with Figures. The largest 
 
 picture by Steen in the gallery, but not any better 
 than the rather poor average. The lower part of 
 the woman's figure is not very convincing and 
 the side figures are somewhat perfunctory. The 
 background and sky are too elegant for Steen. 
 He is not well represented in this gallery. 
 
 Tacconi, Francesco. Madonna and Child. It 
 
 has the signature of Tacconi, but the look of a 
 prettified Bellini or Vivarini. The colour is agree- 
 able and the sentiment is not bad, but it is a 
 slight affair. 
 
126 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 949. Teniers the Elder, David. Rocky Landscape. 
 
 * A large landscape with a good deal of solidity 
 ^ and strength to it. A fine, lofty sky. Nos. 950 
 
 and 951 are other good examples of this painter 
 the father of Teniers the Younger. 
 
 2600. Teniers the Younger, David. Card Players. 
 
 One of many Teniers in this gallery, all of 
 them showing his usual facility in drawing and 
 handling. He was too facile, painted too easily, 
 and too much. Had his quantity been less, his 
 quality might perhaps have been better. See 
 also Nos. 817 or 2599, 242, 863, 155. 
 
 864. Terborch, Gerard. The Guitar Lesson. The 
 
 * figure of the guitar player in white and yellow 
 satin is very attractive in every way. The well- 
 drawn hands, the table-cloth, the chair, the still- 
 life, the texture of the stuffs are notable. The 
 wall at the back is not so well done as usual with 
 Terborch, and the bed is only to be guessed at. 
 
 1399. Portrait of a Gentleman. A fine portrait of 
 
 a dignified Dutchman clad in black garments and 
 square-toed boots. The figure by itself is excel- 
 lent, quite above criticism, worthy of high praise. 
 The surroundings, however, though simple in form 
 and beautifully drawn, are too lively in colour. 
 They disturb and distract the interest from the 
 portrait. The background fails to recede. There 
 is an absence of envelope something usually well 
 marked in Terborch. It is not the best example 
 of his small portraiture, though, to repeat, the 
 figure itself is excellent. 
 
 1192 \ Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista. Sketches for Altar- 
 
 1193 / pieces. Beautiful bits of colour with figures laid 
 
 in hastily, but quite surely. They have the spirit 
 
TINTORETTO 127 
 
 and force that the finished products sometimes 
 fail to realise. 
 
 16. Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti). St. George and 
 ** the Dragon. Done with much spirit and gusto 
 /^s in a realistic and yet romantic fashion. Look at 
 the charge of St. George at a real dragon, the 
 movement of his horse, his own lean forward in 
 the saddle. The movement is helped by the 
 swinging oval of the horse and rider, repeated in 
 the aureole in the sky, and again in the swirled 
 drapery of the princess. Look at the hurrying 
 princess, the absolutely dead body, the real sea, 
 and the real shore and wood. At the back are 
 the walls of an enormous castle, and above it a 
 high sky. What a splendid colour spot the beau- 
 tiful princess makes with her fluttering drapery! 
 The handling of the blues and pale reds here and 
 their^quality as colour may be fairly compared with 
 the splendid Titian (No. 35) near at hand, and 
 to the advantage of the Tintoretto. A fine pic- 
 ture. 
 
 313. Origin of the Milky Way. A picture much 
 
 admired by the late Mr. Whistler, though for 
 , what particular reason or quality he never inti- 
 mated. What good drawing the figures once 
 possessed has been much injured by cleaning, 
 but cleaning is not responsible for the odd arrange- 
 ment and the rather haphazard heaping together 
 of objects on the canvas. It is crowded with too 
 many things, and is lacking in good composition. 
 The colour is still fine, and some of the stuffs 
 excellent in texture. It is certainly decorative. 
 Those who are symbolically inclined can read 
 what other things they please into it or out of it 
 at leisure. 
 
128 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 4. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio). Holy Family. This 
 is probably the poorest Titian in the gallery, and 
 "%. to say that it is an early work does not help mat- 
 ters in the least. That it has been flayed and 
 repainted explains some things, but does not 
 improve them. The St. Joseph is a manikin 
 with wooden legs and a flat head that will not 
 stay on his body, the Madonna is a huddle of 
 drapery, the shepherd is not so bad. As for 
 colour, the blue of the Madonna's robe screams 
 with the glassy sky, and the whites have no 
 quality about them. It is a poor affair, and 
 some hand other than Titian's may originally 
 have produced it. It has a Palmesque tang 
 about it. 
 
 270. Noli Me Tangere. A beautiful picture. It is 
 
 ** thought out in a poetic, idyllic way, and even the 
 sentiment of it is more romantic than religious. 
 The figures are perfectly given, and with grace in 
 the actions of both. How quiet and dignified the 
 movement of drawing away from the Magdalen ! 
 What a figure, and how superbly drawn and mod- 
 elled, is that of the Christ! The Magdalen is 
 the same type as the nude in the Sacred and Pro- 
 fane Love, but here the figure is not proudly 
 conscious of its beauty, but muffled under drapery, 
 eager, and yet frightened. The colour is not ex- 
 travagant; on the contrary, it is meagre, but 
 sufficient in depth and richness. The drawing, 
 painting, touch, are all distinctly Titianesque in 
 the sense of being inimitable, though early work. 
 The landscape is quite right in breadth and truth 
 of light. The buildings at the right are shown 
 also in the Sacred and Profane Love in the Bor- 
 ghese Gallery, in the Giorgione Sleeping Venus at 
 
TITIAN 129 
 
 Dresden, in the Amor in the Vienna Academy 
 (No. 466). 
 
 35. Bacchus and Ariadne. A famous picture 
 
 *** that has a perhaps exaggerated reputation, though 
 
 y^ there is no denying its great beauty. The col- 
 our is a little cold by reason of its blue tone. 
 The blue note of Ariadne's dress is repeated in 
 the nymph near the car, and loudly echoed in 
 the sea, hills, and sky until it becomes almost too 
 predominant. The reds and golds and browns 
 fail to balance it to warm it and accent it by 
 contrast. However, this is cavilling about some- 
 thing almost too fine for criticism. The quality 
 of its colour is really above criticism. The figures 
 are superbly drawn, especially the nymph with 
 the cymbals and the Bacchus; though the action 
 of the latter is unhappy and will surely lead to a 
 bad fall. One does not jump from a car in that 
 way without endangering his bones. But this is 
 cavilling again about a convention that is not the 
 less beautiful though aside from the true or the 
 probable. The little faun is excellent in action, 
 the cheetahs quite real, the throng following the 
 car boisterous, noisy, quite true to life. The trees, 
 the sea, the sky are magnificent. As a painted 
 surface, this is Titian at his best. It was prob- 
 ably gone over, amended, changed, glazed many 
 times by the painter, but the final result leaves 
 little to be desired. It is another Titian master- 
 piece. 
 
 635. Madonna and Child with St. John and St. 
 
 * Catherine. A Titian done with much precision 
 of drawing and clarity of colour blue being the 
 predominant note. It is a pyramidal composi- 
 
130 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 tion, exalted in the type of the Madonna, eager 
 in the look of St. Catherine, fine in the St. John 
 with boyish bare legs and arms so beautifully 
 rounded. Note the drawing of the robes and the 
 veils. And in the distance a superb Titian land- 
 scape. It is not unlike the Madonna of the Rab- 
 bit in the Louvre. Somewhat repainted. It is 
 seldom that one finds a Titian in perfect con- 
 dition. The very renown of his pictures resulted 
 in extra cleaning, rubbing, retouching. Many a 
 neglected second-rate master is to-day found in a 
 better state of preservation. 
 
 34. Venus and Adonis. Probably a school copy. 
 
 The back of the Venus and the figure of the 
 
 >/ Adonis are flat and wanting in modelling, because 
 of much cleaning and repainting. Look at the 
 sky with its muddy paint and the trees where 
 they have blistered. Some fine suggestions of 
 colour in the stuffs. The original is probably not 
 the Madrid picture (No. 422). That, too, appears 
 to be a copy, and a poorer one than this, though 
 restorations preclude any certainty about it. 
 
 1944. Portrait of Ariosto. Now generally accepted 
 
 ** as an early Titian, though some there are who 
 would give it to Giorgione. In either or any case 
 it is a mature and perfect portrait of a noble- 
 looking man who may or may not have resembled 
 Ariosto. The man is supreme in poise and quite 
 frank and honest in look. As for the workman- 
 ship, it is infallibly right. The head, the forehead 
 and hair, the oval of the face, the beard, are Gior- 
 gionesque; but the eyes and what is left of the 
 handling are Titian's, and the beautifully painted 
 sleeve of quilted silk with its feeling of thickness 
 
TURA, COSIMO 131 
 
 and weight as well as texture might be by either 
 of them. But the portrait was probably done by 
 one hand, and that hand possibly did much earlier 
 the Berlin and Budapest portraits attributed to 
 Giorgione. It bears a further relation to these 
 pictures in the foreground ledges and the letterings 
 upon them, in the quilted sleeves, the eyes, brows, 
 and hair; but the Berlin picture is much the earlier 
 and less mature in its drawing and painting than 
 this National Gallery picture the latest one. Re- 
 painted in parts, it is still superb a masterpiece. 
 How commonplace even so good a picture as 
 Moroni's Tailor seems beside it! What a sense of 
 depth thickness through in the figure, and what 
 an atmospheric setting it has! Above all, what 
 superb repose and what intellectual grip! It is a 
 great portrait, but hard to reconcile with precon- 
 ceived notions of Titian and Giorgione. 
 
 5907. Titian, School of. Madonna and Child. A 
 
 blue note runs through the Madonna's dress, the 
 distant hills, the water, the sky. As an arrange- 
 ment in blue it is rather fine, even distinguished. 
 The landscape is little like Titian, nor are the 
 types quite his types. The Madonna is attractive, 
 and though the Child is heavy he is not badly 
 drawn. It is a puzzle as regards its painter, but 
 an interesting picture with some individuality 
 about it. Acquired in 1913. 
 
 772. Tura, Gosimo. Madonna and Child En- 
 throned. This is one of Tura's diagrams of form 
 and colour rather than a pictorial composition, 
 though he tried for the latter by elevating and 
 centralising the Madonna giving the figures a 
 pyramid form. The drawing is harsh, angular, 
 
132 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 almost square-edged, the feet and hands are lumpy, 
 emphasised in the joints, wooden; the draperies 
 are as hard as bronze, flow in metallic lines, 
 and have pools or sinks of shadow in them. But 
 what a feeling of strength bronze-like strength 
 there is in this drawing! The colour again is 
 cold with blues and greens, but what a depth and 
 resonance it has! Tura is a painter of power 
 with only a faint suggestion here and there in a 
 head or chin of anything like grace. His types 
 are not select nor their moods pleasant. Facial 
 expression with him too often turns into grimace, 
 and in this picture the very music of the angels 
 is an agony of soul with the players. The painter 
 seems to seek these graceless, charmless qualities, 
 but he is so sincere in his tragic feeling, so accu- 
 rate with his harsh truths, so honest even in his 
 mannerisms that we cannot choose but like him. 
 
 905. The Virgin Mary. It shows a sentiment that 
 
 is tragic with a colour that is morbid, yet what 
 strength in the agonised feeling! What beauty 
 in the robes and the mannered landscape! The 
 art that succeeded it the sweet smile of Francia, 
 Costa, and even Correggio how cloying that 
 seems compared with this! Never mind the 
 homely face and the over-knuckled hands. The 
 feeling of it, the faith of it, the colour of it make 
 it art. 
 
 773. St. Jerome in the Desert. The body is as 
 
 hard as the rock held in the hand, and the wrinkled 
 drapery is of the same relative weight and texture 
 as the distant mountain; but again there is here 
 the undeniable power of the man behind his man- 
 nerisms. A fantastic landscape with an owl 
 
UCCELLO 133 
 
 seated on a fantastic limb of a tree, and at the 
 back, kneeling figures rich in colour. What power 
 in both line and colour this painter possessed! 
 Painted in tempera. 
 
 1196. Tuscan School. Combat between Amor and 
 
 * Castitas. This picture is apparently near to No. 
 928 as regards its painter, but in reality it is only 
 so in the style of the legs of the Amor. The draw- 
 ing is different. What a delightful figure that of 
 Amor! The landscape is a right setting for the 
 figures. There are charming little spring flowers 
 dotting the foreground like stars and a fine sugges- 
 tion of a wooded country at the back. Mr. Berenson 
 thinks the picture by Cosimo Rosselli. 
 
 583. Uccello, Paolo. Battle of San Romano, 1432. 
 
 ** A picture that may at first provoke mirth because 
 f of its archaic look, its wooden hobby-horses with 
 their square legs, the battling host with spears, 
 and the strange unlighted landscape at the back; 
 but this is one of the notable pictures in the Na- 
 tional Gallery, and contains more of the true spirit 
 of art than the supposed Michelangelo Entomb- 
 ment hanging opposite it. This is realistic art as 
 early Florence understood realism, and is done with 
 great sincerity and truth to the point of view. As 
 composition, the picture is as odd as Velasquez's 
 Surrender at Breda and quite as forceful. The 
 spears do not hurt, but help the composition. They 
 are massed at the left, suggesting in their upright 
 lines and numbers the force of men and horse 
 coming up. Then as they come forward into ac- 
 tion, the spears are gradually lowered to the diag- 
 onal line, following the suggestion of the horizontal 
 trumpets and the baton of the commander. Finally 
 
134 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 they fall to the flat horizontal line at the right, 
 where the horsemen are contending with one an- 
 other. The force of the charge is cumulative, well 
 sustained from behind, impressive in its impetuous 
 push. And how the group of mailed warriors at 
 the right really do fight! Paolo knew not too 
 much about figure drawing, but how surprisingly 
 well these warriors ride, seated deep in the saddle, 
 with their feet pushing hard in the stirrups! 
 What real armour they wear! And what real 
 figures under the armour! The white horse of 
 Carlo Malatesta holds the centre of the picture and 
 catches the eye, and the white horse at the right, 
 the white banner over head, are repetitions of the 
 note. That white banner with its pattern is art, 
 and would have the art spirit with everything else 
 in the picture omitted. But you need omit noth- 
 ing. Look again at the beauty of the trappings, 
 the splendour of the costumes. As for the heads, 
 there are only two without visors, Carlo Mala- 
 testa and back of him the gallant little nephew 
 with the golden hair. What heads they are, how 
 fearless and noble! And how the men ride at the 
 foe! At the back of the figures, how beautiful 
 the rose hedge with the note of the oranges right 
 and left, and the note repeated in the figures 
 in the distance! Paolo's perspective is not per- 
 fect, but see how he has given the sloping fields 
 and the small running figures upon them. Though 
 somewhat injured, it is a superb example of early 
 Florentine art. Sit down and study it. It is, 
 perhaps, all told, the best decorative picture in 
 the gallery. Think of it as a piece of tapestry. 
 1188. Ugolino da Siena. Betrayal of Christ. What 
 good grouping and what excellent colour! The 
 
VALDES LEAL 135 
 
 panel has been retouched in both the figures and 
 the gold-work, but is still a fine piece of decoration. 
 And it also expressed the sentiment and feeling 
 of the time in a simple, direct way. See the com- 
 panion piece, No. 1189. 
 
 702. Umbrian School. Madonna and Child. It is 
 
 suggested in the catalogue that Pinturicchio may 
 have done this picture in his early time; but the 
 workmanship is not "early" for any one as may 
 be seen by the hair and the head-dress. There 
 is work akin to this, in fact the same composition, 
 in the Louvre put down to Perugino's School (No. 
 1573), and also in the Budapest Gallery (No. 83) 
 put down to Pinturicchio, to whom they all prob- 
 ably belong. It is attractive in sentiment and 
 colour. 
 
 912 1 Story of Criselda. In three acts and a great 
 
 913 ) many scenes. It is not bad story telling nor bad 
 
 914 J decoration for a wedding chest or wall panel, but 
 
 it is not the high-water mark of technical excel- 
 lence. Probably done by some weak follower of 
 Signorelli. 
 
 646 \ St. Catherine and St. Ursula. Two panels 
 
 647 / of rich colour and minute workmanship in jewels 
 
 and robe-borders. They are a bit glassy in the 
 surfaces. The painter is probably some Peru- 
 gino follower. [Now (1913) given to School of 
 Marches.] 
 
 1291. Valdes Leal, Juan de. Assumption of Virgin. 
 The Madonna is merely pretty, with affected 
 hands; and the angels are of the same character. 
 The donors at the bottom are much better. The 
 colour is rather good, but not wonderful. 
 
136 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 745 \ Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portraits of 
 1129 / Philip IV. An estimate or judgment of the gen- 
 
 ** uineness or style of a given painter's pictures must 
 be based upon his best pictures as a criterion, 
 and not on his worst or mediocre work. This is 
 quite necessary in the cases of painters like 
 Raphael, Rubens, and Rembrandt, who had large 
 folio wings of pupils and imitators. These fol- 
 lowers did school and workshop pieces (often- 
 times under the eye of the master), which have 
 been erroneously used as standards by which the 
 master's work has been judged. Hence some of 
 the confusion in attributions found in the Euro- 
 pean galleries at the present day. As for Velas- 
 quez, he had a picture factory at Madrid for 
 supplying portraits of the reigning family; and 
 Mazo, Pareja, and half a dozen others worked in 
 it. Their pictures are today often found pass- 
 ing current as the works of Velasquez. We 
 should try to discriminate between the work of 
 the master and the work of the school not by 
 cock-sure assertion, but by close examination of 
 the works themselves. Here in the National Gal- 
 lery, for instance, there is one picture by Velas- 
 quez that by its quality and technique asserts 
 itself positively as by Velasquez, and in his best 
 vein. It is universally accepted as his work. 
 This picture is the small bust portrait of Philip 
 (No. 745). It should be used as a criterion of 
 Velasquez's method and manner in this gallery, 
 not because it is the most convincing portrait 
 he ever painted, but because it is the only one 
 at hand in the gallery. Stand in the middle of 
 the room and examine it closely, beginning at the 
 hair on the brow and on the side of the head down 
 
VELASQUEZ 137 
 
 to the collar. Note its fluffy quality and the 
 exact yet delicate truth of its high lights. Then 
 examine the forehead for its bone structure, its 
 roundness, with the beautiful modelling of the 
 eyebrows. Then the eyes with their dull, care- 
 worn look, the fine drawing of the lids, the nose 
 and mouth with the full lips, and the moustache. 
 Study also the heavy but rather weak chin and 
 the somewhat flabby cheeks with the slightly 
 wrinkled neck. Philip is growing old here, and 
 looks a bit tired. How absolutely Velasquez in- 
 dicates this in line, texture, hue! Every touch is 
 certainty itself. It could not be improved upon. 
 Now in the standing portrait of Philip (No. 
 1129), the King is a younger man. Velasquez, 
 too, had he painted the portrait, would have been 
 younger and would have had a less mature method 
 than in the bust portrait (No. 745). It would 
 not have been a different, but an earlier method. 
 But is that what we find in the standing portrait? 
 Is it an earlier brush, an earlier handling, or 
 another hand and style? Is it not some one try- 
 ing to follow Velasquez but not possessed of the 
 master's skill, ease, and certainty? Compare the 
 pictures inch by inch by hair and skulls, by 
 brows, eyes, noses, moustaches, mouths, chins, 
 cheeks, flesh colour and you cannot fail to see 
 there is some difference. The standing figure is 
 more crude in the hair and in its light, more flat 
 in the modelling of the forehead, brighter in the 
 eyes, much more wiry in the moustache, harder 
 in the lips, chin and jaw-line, less true in the 
 neck, more pallid in the flesh notes. Unfor- 
 tunately the costume of the bust portrait is in- 
 sufficient to carry out a further comparison save 
 
138 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 in the ruff, which is softer and of a different qual- 
 ity from that in the standing portrait, and in the 
 gold chain and buttons which should be compared 
 with those in the standing portrait to ascertain 
 which is the truer and more realistic in appearance. 
 There can be but one result of such a comparison. 
 The work in the standing portrait is inferior to 
 that of the bust portrait. In the former you can 
 hardly distinguish the buttons from the white 
 pattern on the cloth. And notice, if you please, 
 that the white pattern is not so much in the 
 brown cloth but on it that it is not so much 
 woven texture but white paint on the brown 
 cloth. This is a marked peculiarity of Mazo, 
 son-in-law and pupil of Velasquez. Go on with 
 the scrutiny of the white pattern crossing the 
 bust. Can you make out the pattern? The 
 white pattern at the back of the chair what is 
 it and where does it belong? Take up the sleeves 
 and their slashings and look at them for a few 
 minutes. Are you looking at stuff silk, lace, 
 wool, cotton, what you will or at criss-crossed 
 slashes of paint in the style of Mazo again? And 
 what about the hat? What is it trimmed with 
 feathers, silk, cloth? Or is it again only dabs 
 of paint? Note the breeches with rosettes of cloth 
 at the knees. Do the rosettes look like rosettes or 
 are they once more, owing to ineffective drawing 
 and handling, mere slashes of paint? As for the 
 white stockings, are they white stockings stretched 
 over real legs, or merely legs of wood painted 
 white? In each instance the brush is broad 
 enough, free enough, but not true enough. Had 
 it been done by Velasquez, each stroke would 
 have counted as drawing, light, colour, texture, 
 
VELASQUEZ 139 
 
 where now it counts so largely as paint. The 
 red curtain at the back might be dissected in the 
 same way to show that it is unlike Velasquez's 
 work, that it is not too accurately drawn, and is 
 not quite true in tone, but enough has been ana- 
 lysed to form a tentative opinion at least. The 
 standing portrait of Philip is possibly not an early 
 Velasquez in which he shows a hard and immature 
 style. It is not at all like the even earlier Philip 
 (No. 1182) and the Infante Don Carlos (No. 
 1188) in the Prado. It is possibly the work of a 
 pupil or what is called a school piece, done by 
 Velasquez's orders and under his eyes for some 
 monarch of Europe. Mazo was probably the 
 pupil that did it. 
 
 Portrait of the Spanish Admiral Pulido- 
 
 Pareja. This is a more imposing-looking pic- 
 ture than the full-length of Philip (No. 1129), but 
 it is quite as lax in its drawing and handling. The 
 hair is done freely in its high lights, but not cer- 
 tainly, the forehead projects, but is done coarsely 
 as are also the eyebrows. The eyes themselves 
 are curious in drawing, especially the left one, 
 the nose is sharp and ill-shaped, the mouth is 
 fumbled, the moustache flat, the neck uncertain 
 in shadow and in drawing. When it comes to 
 the collar, it is apparent that there is slashing 
 about with a free brush but no convincing results 
 following it. Just so with the right sleeve a re- 
 minder of the right sleeve of the standing Philip 
 while the left sleeve presents a badly drawn arm. 
 The gloves are done like those in the Philip, as 
 are also the legs, the coarse feet, and the general 
 poise of the figure. Notice the bows or rosettes 
 at the knees, which are false in value and look 
 
140 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 not like bows but like dabs of paint, as in the 
 Philip. The blacks are not badly done, and the 
 black hat is certainly effective enough. The con- 
 clusion reached can be none other than that the 
 work is probably by the same hand that did No. 
 1129. Stand back and compare the general ap- 
 pearances of the two at a distance and perhaps 
 such a conclusion will be strengthened. Beruete 
 gives the Philip to Velasquez and the Admiral to 
 Mazo; but Maze's brush is apparent in them both. 
 
 1148. Christ at the Column. A picture of much 
 
 ** pathos, beauty, and even power. The figure of 
 X Christ is roundly modelled, with a feeling of drag 
 and weight about it, and perhaps an attempt to 
 give a swollen effect to the otherwise over-large 
 hands. The pathos of the figure is extraordinary. 
 And what could be more tender or beautiful in 
 sentiment than the angel and the little child in 
 blue-white with praying hands! The figures of 
 these latter are fairly well drawn and simply 
 painted with a fine feeling for colour in the strange 
 dark reds and orange back of the bluish white. 
 It is an excellent picture. Is it Velasquez? When 
 and where, in what other picture, did Velasquez 
 ever show such sentiment and pathos ever show 
 any sentiment of any kind? Even his Christ on 
 the Cross was painted with the face partly hidden, 
 in order to get rid of the emotional play of it. 
 He was a man who painted things as they are 
 without sentiment or emotion. Again when and 
 where did he use such a colour scheme such col- 
 ours? When and where did he ever do such draw- 
 ing and painting of the nude figure as is here shown? 
 The texture of the flesh, its lead colour, the loosely 
 articulated figure itself, are all different from the 
 
VELASQUEZ 141 
 
 Mars, the Vulcan, the Bacchus, the Christ on the 
 Cross at Madrid. It is excellent work, but it 
 does not agree with the excellent work of Velas- 
 quez. No one knows who painted it, but the 
 same hand that painted this also did the por- 
 trait in the Budapest Gallery (No. 311), there 
 strangely ascribed to Murillo. Somewhat too 
 much cleaned. The halo back of the head of 
 Christ is now not golden but greenish. 
 
 1057. Venus and Cupid. This is the well-known 
 
 ** Rokeby Venus over which there has been more 
 y or less discussion as to whether it was done by 
 Velasquez or by his son-in-law Mazo. To one 
 quite outside the controversy, it is apparently by 
 neither; but nevertheless a fine picture. The 
 attitude of prayer before it if a Velasquez, and of 
 scoffing at it if a Mazo is, of course, somewhat 
 ridiculous. Judged on its merits, it is a superb 
 piece of drawing, and, before it was flayed by 
 cleaning, it must have been quite a wonderful 
 figure. Even now it has great beauty of line in 
 the back, neck, hip, and leg. What a swing that 
 long line has ! The cut-in at the waist finds some 
 who object; the rest of the body, sustained by the 
 arm, is almost perfect, and the poise of the head 
 is charming. The left shoulder has been too 
 much cleaned and the ruddy quality of the flesh 
 may be exaggerated now because the white high 
 lights have been rubbed off or neutralised. But 
 it is a superb figure just as it is. The leg is espe- 
 cially beautiful in its drawing. The drapery under 
 the figure strengthens the main line by repeating 
 it. The Cupid and the curtain, the latter not at 
 all like Velasquez, are acceptable, while the mir- 
 ror and the face within it are true in value, excel- 
 
142 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 lent in every way, and more like Velasquez than 
 any other portion of the picture. It is a command- 
 ing picture of much excellence. Who did it? 
 Who knows? Judged merely by the drawing 
 and handling of the hair, flesh, and draperies, it 
 appears to have been done by some one very 
 close to the painter of the Christ at the Column 
 (No. 1148). Compare them for the long, rather 
 fluid stroke of the brush as shown in the ribbons 
 and draperies, and also to a less extent in the hair, 
 arms, and legs. But this is by no means conclu- 
 sive. 
 
 1375. Christ in the House of Martha. It is in the 
 
 ^j style of the young Velasquez, but aside from the 
 good still-life on the table, it is not of much im- 
 portance, no matter who may have done it. The 
 composition, oddly enough, reminds one of the 
 still-life pictures with figures by Pieter Aertsen. 
 
 1434. The Betrothal. A fine piece of colour, with 
 
 some good drawing and free handling. A pic- 
 ture of considerable distinction and done by a 
 painter of more than usual skill. There is noth- 
 ing about its drawing, handling, or colouring, how- 
 ever, that points to Velasquez. In the Velasquez 
 room at the Prado it would look like an odd num- 
 ber. There are worse pictures there than this, 
 but the point is that this is of a different make 
 and kind. Note how free the handling in the 
 red dress, the table-cloth, the flowers. It was pos- 
 sibly done by a late Italian rather than by a 
 Spaniard. 
 
 197. Philip IV Hunting the Wild Boar. A good 
 
 decorative landscape with much truth of obser- 
 vation in the hills and woods of the background. 
 
VERMEER OF DELFT 143 
 
 The figures are effective as colour. They do not 
 indicate Velasquez so much as some pupil close 
 to him. This is even more apparent in the horses 
 and dogs. The picture was possibly done by the 
 painter of the little group of thirteen figures in 
 the Louvre (No. 1734), but he was not Velasquez. 
 Much repainted. 
 
 978. Velde the Younger, Willem van de. River 
 
 * Scene. Similar in subject to the two large Van 
 
 ,/ de Cappelles and perhaps finer in quality. The 
 
 p sky is superb and the light just about right 
 
 for a perfect tone effect. How well the boats 
 
 are drawn and how flat the water! The surface 
 
 has been too much rubbed. 
 
 595. Venetian School. Portrait of a Lady. An at- 
 tractive type and not a bad portrait. It is well 
 drawn and has some sense of colour. There is in 
 the shoulders and in the ample folds of drapery 
 a superficial suggestion of Palma Vecchio. The 
 catalogue rather favours an ascription to Antonio 
 Badile. 
 
 383. Vermeer (or Vati der Meet) of Delft, Jan. 
 
 Young Lady at the Virginals. This picture was 
 painted by the painter of No. 2528 in the Rijks 
 Museum, No. 625 at The Hague, and No. 2568 
 in this gallery. They are all of them perplexing 
 pictures, and must have been done by Vermeer 
 in degeneracy, or, more likely, by a facile imitator, 
 a pseudo-Vermeer perhaps some Hoogstraaten 
 or Ochtervelt of the brush. The pictures men- 
 tioned do not agree with Vermeer's work at 
 Dresden (No. 1336), or at Berlin (No. 912s), or 
 with the Delft landscape at The Hague (No. 92), 
 or the figure-piece (No. 406) at The Hague, or 
 
144 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 the portraits at Budapest (No. 456) and Brus- 
 sels (No. 665). The imitator, if he be that, is 
 clever. This picture, for instance, has good 
 light, and good if sharp drawing in the furniture, 
 the room, and the figure. In fact, this is the best 
 example of the imitator. That it is an imitator 
 and not Vermeer in decline is suggested by the 
 sharpness of the drawing and the badness of it 
 in the arms, hands, and head, the ineffectual 
 white dotting on the borders of the sleeve or on 
 the hair, the spotty high lights on the necklace, 
 the picture frame, the chair-nails, and, most of 
 all, by the hard porcelain quality of everything 
 in the picture and the absence of air or envelope. 
 The picture has some good qualities of texture 
 and light, but it is utterly different from Ver- 
 meer's work as different as Netscher is from 
 Terborch. 
 
 2568. Lady Seated at the Virginals. This is by 
 
 the painter of No. 1383 the decadent Vermeer 
 or his facile imitator. It has the same vices. 
 Note the hard quality of the curtain, the cello, 
 the marbled side of the spinet, the chair back, 
 the lady's white sleeve and her blue dress. They 
 are all as hard as tin. There is spotty dotting 
 on the curtain, the sleeve, the necklace, and in the 
 hair around the forehead. What bad arms and 
 hands! And again the absence of atmospheric 
 setting! The signature is too prominent. It doth 
 protest too much. 
 
 1041. Veronese, Paolo Caliari. St. Helena. Time 
 * was when this picture was thought to be of the 
 School of Paolo Veronese, but it is now as- 
 signed to Paolo himself. It hardly deserves its 
 
VERONESE, PAOLO 145 
 
 promotion. Some follower of Paolo's was prob- 
 ably responsible for it. It is a rather good 
 picture, nevertheless. The colour of it is its 
 main beauty. The figure is well indicated though 
 the drapery is a little curious in its high lights and 
 the drawing is lacking. There has been too much 
 scrubbing and rubbing of the canvas. The face 
 and the jaw-line indicate it. The sky is gone 
 and now looks painty. 
 
 931. The Magdalen Laying Aside Her Jewels. It is 
 
 attractive in colour as in light and shade with 
 ^/ stately if slight figures well grouped about the 
 kneeling Magdalen. In the spirit of Paolo, but 
 more likely by some one in his workshop or of his 
 school. It is a little effeminate in the figure and 
 wanting in colour quality for the master. 
 
 268. Adoration of the Magi. A fine piece of 
 
 * colour with an old-tapestry quality about it that 
 "* is excellent as decoration. A well-composed pic- 
 ture with much grandeur of effect in the archi- 
 tecture, the Madonna, the Magi, and their follow- 
 ing. The figures and the robes they wear are 
 quite regal. There is life and movement in the 
 group, even in the camel driver with his upraised 
 whip at the back. All the lines lead up to the 
 Madonna and Child, the eye first grasping at the 
 kneeling king in red and following from left to 
 right up by the first king to the Child. The shep- 
 herds at the right lead up again, the group at the 
 back come forward, the flight of little cherubim 
 comes down on the shaft of light. The drawing 
 in hands and arms is not very good, the people 
 and horses are slight for Paolo, the textures, 
 colouring, and handling are hardly his, although 
 
146 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 by no means inferior or bad. Compare the pic- 
 ture with The Family of Darius (No. 294) near 
 at hand. It is probably a school piece, but that 
 does not mean something next door to a copy. 
 On the contrary, there are many pictures that 
 can be located no nearer than the school and 
 yet are works of marked excellence this one, 
 for instance. 
 
 294. The Family of Darius at the Feet of Alex- 
 
 ** ander. A well-known picture in Paolo's ornate 
 style a style that is splendid, even gorgeous, 
 without being theatrical or overdone. It is beau- 
 tifully painted throughout, from the kneeling fig- 
 ures in brocades and jewels to the magnificent 
 Alexander in magenta costume with trappings of 
 gold. The group surrounding Alexander is won- 
 derfully well realised, and the attendants of the 
 family at the left looking in have a pathetic as 
 well as a truthful interest. They are looking in 
 and wondering what is to be the fate of their 
 mistresses. They have even brought the family 
 spaniels in their arms to share their misery. The 
 background of the picture is less well given, and 
 may have been done by another hand. For the 
 architecture with the figures on the balcony is 
 not quite true in tone not in nor of the picture. 
 Somewhat restored. 
 
 26. Consecration of St. Nicholas. A dark pic- 
 
 * ture with large figures of commanding dignity 
 and considerable splendour of costume and robes. 
 It has not the flat, decorative effect of No. 268 
 hanging near it, but on the contrary is more of an 
 effort at light, air, and distance with depth of 
 colour and shadow. Note the white robe, the 
 
VERROCCHIO 147 
 
 head-dresses, the fine kneeling figure, the descend- 
 ing angel, the sky, the column. This is the true 
 Paolo, whereas the No. 268 is of the family or 
 School of Paolo. 
 
 1318 \ Unfaithfulness, Scorn, Respect, Happy Union. 
 
 1326 / Four allegorical pictures that are not altogether 
 happy in their doing nor in the best condition at 
 the present time. The back of the woman in the 
 Unfaithfulness has been flayed and the Happy 
 Union has suffered in every part. The pictures 
 contain admirable scraps and bits of drawing 
 and modelling, the Cupid in the Respect, for 
 instance; but in the same picture the attitude of 
 the man and the nude figure with one leg leave 
 something to be desired, even though the theme be 
 allegory and not realism. The colour of all four 
 pictures is decorative. They were probably ex- 
 ecuted in Paolo's workshop by his pupils. 
 
 296. Verrocchio, Andrea. Virgin Adoring Child. 
 
 The angel at the right is the same angel type that 
 > appears in Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ (No. 
 71) in the Florence Academy, while the Child is 
 a reminder of Lorenzo di Credi. It is probably 
 a Verrocchio workshop picture, but one of much 
 charm and beauty. The angel with the lilies 
 and the beautifully drawn face and hands is 
 notably fine. The Madonna is of Pollajuolo 
 height. The draperies and brocades are well 
 done and the colour excellent. Notice the accu- 
 racy of the gold work in the borders of the robes 
 and the minute drawing of the hair, which does 
 not produce a wiry effect but rather the lightness 
 and fluffiness of hair. The Tobias and Angel in 
 this gallery (No. 781), formerly attributed to Bot- 
 
148 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 ticini but now to the School of Verrocchio, shows 
 workmanship similar to this picture (No. 296), 
 and both are related to the attributed Verrocchios 
 at Berlin (Nos. 104A and 108). 
 
 2509. Vivarini, Alvise. Portrait of a Youth. A 
 
 * strong head done with great precision and truth 
 to fact as also with some beauty of colour in the 
 dress and hair. In nobility of mien and calm 
 serenity such portraiture as this belongs with the 
 work of Bellini and Antonello da Messina. 
 
 2095. The Man in Black. The blackness has 
 
 spread to the face, which is now somewhat sooty, 
 possibly from underlying blacks. A powerful 
 head of the same general character as No. 2509, 
 though it may not be by the same hand. The 
 outline a little severe. 
 
 2672. A Venetian Gentleman. The blue coat is 
 
 decidedly disturbing and the face has been re- 
 touched, but there is small doubt about its being 
 a genuine if dull Alvise. 
 
 768. Vivarini, Antonio. St. Peter and St. Jerome. 
 
 Where will you find greater purity and depth of 
 colour than here? The tempera painting of the 
 Muranese and the Venetians has never been sur- 
 passed for the preservation of colours in their 
 purity. Crivelli, following the Vivarini, is an 
 illustration. Note the gold work, the borders of 
 the robes, the flowers. 
 
 1248. St. Francis and St. Mark. A companion 
 
 piece to No. 768, and of the same quality. They 
 were doubtless parts of an altar-piece. Note the 
 beauty of the roses hard as they are and again 
 the gold work and the robe borders. 
 
ZURBARAN 149 
 
 284. Vivarini, Bartolommeo. Virgin and Child with 
 St. Paul and St. Jerome. The hands are man- 
 nered and the faces hard, as though carved from 
 wood, but there is very honest feeling in the work 
 and much rich decorative effect in the gold and 
 colours. The head-dress of the Madonna is at- 
 tractive. 
 
 1433. Weyden, Roger van der. Portrait of a Lady. 
 
 A beautiful portrait with a half -French look about 
 % it. Cleaned too much, but very lovely still in 
 its outline, its fine type, its quaint head-dress, 
 and its colour. It is not representative of Van 
 der Weyden nor are Nos. 711 and 712, attributed 
 to him. [Now (1913) given to Flemish School.] 
 
 973. Wouwerman, Philips. Sandbank with Bath- 
 ers. Attractive in its light and air as also in its 
 unusual subject. What a very good sandbank 
 and water! 
 
 883. Wynants, Jan. Landscape. A Wynants rather 
 brittle in the sky and somewhat niggled in the 
 foreground, but perhaps of better quality in light 
 and air than is usual with this painter. He was 
 a mediocre soul or at least, in common with Ever- 
 dingen, Hobbema, and the Ruisdaels, he turned 
 out a great quantity of mediocre pictures. 
 
 230. Zurbaran, Francisco de. Franciscan Monk. 
 
 One of Zurbaran's ecstatic monks of which he did 
 enough and to spare. The spirit of it is dark and 
 gloomy, like that of Ribera, but the drawing 
 and painting are not bad. The colour is sombre 
 and not very decorative or pleasing. 
 
 232. Nativity. A later work than 'No. 1930 and 
 
 with a more realistic effect in such features as 
 
150 NATIONAL GALLERY 
 
 the heads, the hands of the peasants, the bread 
 basket, the chicken. The shadows are dark and 
 the colour is of corresponding quality. The face 
 of the Madonna is hurt by cleaning. 
 
 1930. Portrait of a Lady as St. Margaret. It is a 
 
 hard piece of drawing, as one may see by the face 
 and hat, but it has great simplicity, honesty, and 
 truth about it. The colour is excellent, but the 
 spirit of it is better. Cleaned too much, espe- 
 cially in the left hand where the modelling is de- 
 stroyed. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 1. Piombo. 
 
 4. Titian. 
 
 10. Correggio. 
 
 13. Murillo. 
 
 14. Claude Lorraine. 
 
 15. Correggio. 
 
 16. Tintoretto. 
 
 17. Sarto, A. del. 
 
 18. Luini. 
 
 19. Claude Lorraine. 
 
 23. Correggio. 
 
 24. Piombo. 
 
 26. Veronese. 
 
 27. Raphael. 
 
 29. Baroccio. 
 
 30. Claude Lorraine. 
 
 31. Poussin, G. 
 33. Parmigianino. 
 34 
 
 35. 
 
 38. Rubens. 
 
 45. Rembrandt. 
 
 46. Rubens. 
 
 Titian. 
 
 471 
 51 / 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 52. Dyck, Anthony van. 
 
 54. Rembrandt. 
 
 57 
 
 59 
 
 62. Poussin, N. 
 
 > Rubens. 
 
 66 
 67 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 Francia. 
 
 127. Canaletto. 
 
 152. Neer, A. van der. 
 
 157. Rubens. 
 
 163. Canaletto. 
 
 166. Rembrandt. 
 
 168. Raphael. 
 
 172. Caravaggio. 
 
 173. Bassano. 
 176. Murillo. 
 179 
 
 180 
 
 181. Perugino. 
 
 184. Lucidel. 
 
 186. Eyck, J. van. 
 
 189. Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 190. Rembrandt. 
 
 194. Rubens. 
 
 195. German School. 
 197. Velasquez. 
 207. Maes. 
 
 210. Guardi. 
 
 212. Keyser. 
 
 213. Raphael. 
 215 
 
 216 
 
 221. Rembrandt. 
 
 222. Eyck, J. van. 
 
 227. Botticini. 
 
 228. Bassano, J. 
 2301 
 
 232 J 
 
 234. Catena. 
 
 > Lorenzo Monaco. 
 
 Zurbaran. 
 
 151 
 
152 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 Master of Werden. 
 
 235. Ribera. 
 
 237 
 
 243 
 
 245. Baldung. 
 
 249. Lorenzo di S. Severino. 
 
 2501 
 
 253 J 
 
 254 1 
 
 __ f Master of Liesborn. 
 
 264. Flemish School. 
 
 268. Veronese. 
 
 269. Giorgione. 
 
 270. Titian. 
 
 274. Mantegna. 
 
 275. Botticelli. 
 
 276. Spinello. 
 
 277. Bassano, J. 
 
 278. Rubens. 
 
 280. Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 281. Basaiti. 
 
 283. Benozzo Gozzoli. 
 
 284. Vivarini, B. 
 
 285. Morone. 
 
 286. Tacconi. 
 
 287. Bartolommeo Veneto. 
 
 288. Perugino. 
 
 290. Eyck, J. van. 
 
 291. Cranach. 
 
 292. Pollajuolo, A. 
 
 293. Lippi, Filippino. 
 
 294. Veronese. 
 
 295. Metsys. 
 
 296. Verrocchio. 
 
 297. Romanino. 
 
 298. Borgognone. 
 
 299. Moretto. 
 
 300. Cima. 
 
 564. Margaritone. 
 
 565. Cimabue. 
 
 566. 
 
 567. 
 
 568. 
 
 569 
 
 575 
 
 576 
 
 579. 
 
 580. 
 
 581. 
 
 583. 
 
 585. 
 
 592. 
 
 593. 
 
 595. 
 
 596. 
 
 597. 
 
 599. 
 
 624. 
 
 625. 
 
 626. 
 
 629. 
 
 631. 
 
 6321 
 
 633 J 
 
 635. 
 
 636. 
 
 637. 
 
 638. 
 
 6461 
 
 647 / 
 
 648. 
 
 649 \ 
 
 651 / 
 
 654. 
 
 663. 
 
 664. 
 
 665. 
 
 666 \ 
 
 667 / 
 
 Duccio. 
 
 Segna di Buenaventura. 
 
 Gaddi, T. 
 
 Orcagna. 
 
 Niccold di Pietro Gerini. 
 
 Landini. 
 
 Orcagna. 
 
 Uccello, P. 
 
 Pollajuolo, School of. 
 
 Botticelli. 
 
 Credi. 
 
 Venetian School. 
 
 Palmezzano. 
 
 Cossa. 
 
 Basaiti. 
 
 Romano, G. 
 
 Moretto. 
 
 Botticelli. 
 
 Costa. 
 
 Bissolo. 
 
 Girolamo da Santa Croce. 
 
 Titian. 
 Palma. 
 Bordone. 
 Francia. 
 
 Umbrian School. 
 Credi. 
 Bronzino, A. 
 
 Campin, School of. 
 Angelico, Fra. 
 Bouts. 
 Francesca, P. della. 
 
 Lippi, Fra Filippo. 
 
INDEX 
 
 153 
 
 669. 
 
 Ortolano. 
 
 748. 
 
 Girolamo dai Libri. 
 
 671. 
 
 Garofalo. 
 
 750. 
 
 Bellini, School of Gentile. 
 
 672. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 757. 
 
 Rembrandt School. 
 
 673. 
 
 Antonello da Messina. 
 
 758. 
 
 Francesca, P. della. 
 
 674. 
 
 Bordone. 
 
 768. 
 
 Vivarini, Ant. 
 
 686. 
 
 Memling. 
 
 769. 
 
 Francesca, P. della. 
 
 690. 
 
 Sarto, A. del. 
 
 770. 
 
 Oriolo. 
 
 694. 
 695. 
 
 Catena. 
 Previtali. 
 
 772] 
 773 J 
 
 Tura. 
 
 696. 
 
 Christus. 
 
 774. 
 
 Bouts. 
 
 697. 
 
 Moroni. 
 
 775. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 698. 
 
 Piero di Cosimo. 
 
 776. 
 
 Pisanello. 
 
 699. 
 
 Lotto. 
 
 777. 
 
 Morando. 
 
 700. 
 
 Lannini. 
 
 778. 
 
 Pellegrino da S. Daniele. 
 
 701. 
 
 Justus of Padua. 
 
 783. 
 
 Flemish School. 
 
 702. 
 
 Umbrian School. 
 
 788. 
 
 Crivelli. 
 
 703. 
 
 Pinturicchio. 
 
 790. 
 
 Michelangelo. 
 
 705. 
 
 Lochner. 
 
 794. 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 706. 
 707. 
 
 Master of Life of Virgin. 
 Master of St. Bartholo- 
 
 8031 
 804J 
 
 1 Marziale. 
 
 
 mew Altar. 
 
 807. 
 
 Crivelli. 
 
 709. 
 
 Memling. 
 
 808. 
 
 Bellini, Gentile. 
 
 713. 
 
 Prevost. 
 
 809. 
 
 Michelangelo. 
 
 714. 
 
 Orley. 
 
 812. 
 
 Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 717. 
 
 Patinir. 
 
 816. 
 
 Cima. 
 
 719. 
 720. 
 
 Bles. 
 Scorel. 
 
 830 
 831 
 
 Hobbema. 
 
 724. 
 726. 
 
 Crivelli. 
 Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 834 
 835 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 727. 
 
 Pesellino. 
 
 836. 
 
 Koninck, P 
 
 728. 
 
 Boltraffio. 
 
 839. 
 
 Metsu. 
 
 729. 
 
 Foppa. 
 
 850. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 734. 
 735. 
 
 Solario. 
 Morando. 
 
 8521 
 853 J 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 736. 
 
 Bonsignori. 
 
 854. 
 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 
 739. 
 
 Crivelli. 
 
 856. 
 
 Steen. 
 
 742. 
 
 Moroni. 
 
 864. 
 
 Terborch. 
 
 744. 
 
 Raphael. 
 
 883. 
 
 Wynants. 
 
 745. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 895. 
 
 Piero di Cosimo. 
 
154 
 
 INDEX 
 
 902. Mantegna. 
 
 905. Tura. 
 
 906. Crivelli. 
 
 908. Francesca, P. della. 
 
 909. Benvenuto di Giovanni. 
 
 910. Signorelli. 
 
 911. Pinturicchio. 
 912] 
 
 913 \ Umbrian School. 
 
 914 J 
 
 915. Botticelli. 
 
 916. Sellajo. 
 923. Solario. 
 
 927. Lippi, Filippino. 
 
 928. Pollajuolo, A. 
 931. Veronese. 
 937. Canaletto. 
 943. Bouts. 
 
 945. Patinir. 
 
 946. Gossart. 
 
 947. Flemish School. 
 949. Teniers. 
 
 965] 
 
 966 
 
 967 J 
 
 973. 
 
 974. 
 
 978. 
 
 987 
 
 989 
 
 990 
 
 995. 
 
 1008. 
 
 1009. 
 
 1018. 
 
 1022 
 
 1023 
 
 1024 
 
 Cappelle. 
 
 Wouwerman. 
 Koninck, P. 
 Velde, W. van de. 
 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 
 Hobbema. 
 Potter, Pieter. 
 Potter, Paul. 
 Claude Lorraine. 
 
 Moroni. 
 
 Botticelli. 
 
 Patinir. 
 
 1025. Moretto. 
 
 1031. Savoldo. 
 
 1032. Spagna, Lo. 
 10331 
 
 1034 J 
 
 1035. Franciabigio. 
 
 1036. Flemish School. 
 1041. Veronese. 
 1045. David. 
 
 1047. Lotto. 
 
 1049. German School. 
 
 1075. Perugino. 
 
 1077. Borgognone. 
 
 1081. Flemish School. 
 
 10821 
 
 1084 J 
 
 1085. Geertgen tot St. Jans. 
 
 1093. Leonardo da Vinci. 
 
 1094. Moro. 
 1098. Mantegna. 
 
 1103. Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. 
 
 1104. Manni. 
 
 1105. Lotto. 
 
 1107. Niccold da Foligno. 
 
 1114 
 
 1118 
 
 1119. Grandi. 
 
 1120. Cima. 
 
 1121. Catena. 
 
 1123. Giorgione, School of. 
 
 1124. Botticelli, School of. 
 
 1125. Mantegna. 
 
 1126. Botticini. 
 
 1127. Roberti. 
 
 1128. Signorelli. 
 
 1129. Velasquez. 
 
 1133. Signorelli. 
 
 1134. Liberale da Verona. 
 
 1140. Duccio. 
 
 1141. Antonello da Messina. 
 
 > Coques. 
 
INDEX 
 
 155 
 
 1143. Ghirlandajo, R. 
 
 1147. Lorenzetti, A. 
 
 1148. Velasquez. 
 
 1149. Marco d'Oggiono. 
 1155. Matteo di Giovanni. 
 1160. Giorgione. 
 
 1165. Moretto. 
 
 1166. Antonello da Messina. 
 
 1171. Raphael. 
 
 1172. Dyck, Anthony van. 
 
 1173. Giorgione, School of. 
 1188. Ugolino da Siena. 
 
 1196. 
 1216. 
 1233. 
 1234. 
 1247. 
 1248. 
 1251. 
 1252. 
 1284. 
 1291. 
 1295. 
 1298. 
 1299. 
 13021 
 1303 j 
 1313. 
 1314. 
 1315. 
 1316. 
 1317. 
 1318. 
 1323. 
 1324] 
 1325 \ 
 326 J 
 
 Tuscan School. 
 
 Spinello. 
 
 Bellini. 
 
 Dossi. 
 
 Maes. 
 
 Heist. 
 
 Hals. 
 
 Snyders. 
 
 Vivarini, Ant. 
 
 Valdes Leal. 
 
 Giovenone. 
 
 Patinir. 
 
 Ghirlandajo, D. 
 
 Marmion. 
 
 Tintoretto. 
 
 Holbein. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 Moroni. 
 
 Sienese School. 
 
 Veronese. 
 
 Bronzino. 
 
 Veronese. 
 
 1327. Goyen. 
 
 1330. Duccio. 
 
 1331. Fungai. 
 1375. Velasquez. 
 1383. Vermeer. 
 1399. Terborch. 
 
 1411. Roberti. 
 
 1412. Botticelli, School of. 
 
 1417. Mantegna. 
 
 1418. Antonello da Messina. 
 
 1419. French School. 
 1421. Steen. 
 
 1423. Ravesteyn. 
 
 1427. Baldung. 
 
 1431. Perugino. 
 
 1432. David. 
 
 1433. Weyden. 
 
 1434. Velasquez. 
 
 1436. Pisanello. 
 
 1437. Barnaba da Modena. 
 
 1440. Bellini, Gentile. 
 
 1441. Perugino. 
 1450. Piombo. 
 
 1455. Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 1457. Greco, II. 
 
 1465. Ferrari, Defendente. 
 
 1466. Orsi. 
 
 1468. Jacopo di Cione. 
 
 1652. Dutch School. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 1689. Gossart. 
 
 1694. Bartolommeo, Fra. 
 
 1696. Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 1812. Spagna, Lo. 
 
 1843. Bonfigli. 
 
 1847. Signorelli. 
 
156 
 
 INDEX 
 
 1895. Jordaens. 
 
 2512. 
 
 Correggio. 
 
 1897. Lorenzo Monaco. 
 
 2524. 
 
 Guardi. 
 
 1917. Both. 
 1925. Cranach. 
 
 25281 
 2529 J 
 
 Hals. 
 
 1930. Zurbaran. 
 
 2539. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 1937. Heist. 
 
 2547. 
 
 Cuyp. 
 
 1938. Diire'r. 
 
 2552. 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 1944. Titian. 
 
 25551 
 
 
 2057. Velasquez. 
 
 2558 J 
 
 bteen. 
 
 2069. Raphael. 
 
 2568. 
 
 Vermeer of Delft. 
 
 2083. Costa. 
 
 2581. 
 
 Maes. 
 
 agOJMcretto. 
 
 2583. 
 2593. 
 
 Potter, Paul. 
 Christus. 
 
 2095. Vivarini, Alvise. 
 
 2594. 
 
 Memling. 
 
 2127. Dyck, Anthony van. 
 
 2600. 
 
 Teniers. 
 
 2143. Ochtervelt. 
 
 2603. 
 
 Cleve, J. van. 
 
 2144. Dyck, Anthony van. 
 
 2604. 
 
 Amberger. 
 
 2163 1 
 22U j Gossart. 
 
 2609} 
 
 Campin. 
 
 2251. Predis, A. da. 
 2285. Hals. 
 
 His} 
 
 French School. 
 
 2475. Holbein the Younger. 
 
 2672. 
 
 Vivarini, Alvise. 
 
 2483. Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. 
 
 2673. 
 
 Boltraffio. 
 
 2485. Cesare da Sesto. 
 
 2790. 
 
 Gossart. 
 
 2486. Roberti. 
 
 2862. 
 
 Lorenzo Monaco. 
 
 2488. Signorelli. 
 
 2863. 
 
 Benozzo, School of. 
 
 2490. Credi. 
 
 2864. 
 
 Lievens. 
 
 2491. Ghirlandajo, R. 
 
 2901. 
 
 Bellini, Giovanni. 
 
 2495. Cariani. 
 
 2906. 
 
 Botticelli. 
 
 2498. Basaiti. 
 
 2907. 
 
 Titian, School of. 
 
 2500. Previtali. 
 
 2919. 
 
 Raphael. 
 
 2502. Mainardi. 
 
 2922. 
 
 Master of Delft. 
 
 2503. Solario. 
 
 2923. 
 
 Carracci, A. 
 
 2505. Cima. 
 
 2924. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 2507. Bartolommeo Veneto. 
 
 2926. 
 
 Mazo. 
 
 2509. Vivarini, Alvise. 
 
 2930. 
 
 Ribalta. 
 
THE WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
NOTE ON THE WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 THE Wallace Collection is housed in the former 
 residence of Sir Richard Wallace, Hertford House, 
 Manchester Square. The collection shows the indi- 
 vidual taste of a keen collector who knew the meaning 
 of good painting painting from the painter's point of 
 view. There is hardly a picture in the collection that 
 has not some merit as form or colour, some decorative 
 value as art. Preference is shown for the work of the 
 French School and there are famous examples of 
 Watteau, Boucher, Fragonard, and their contemporaries 
 and a long gallery devoted to the moderns of the nine- 
 teenth century, Delacroix, Couture, Ingres, Scheffer, 
 Prudhon, Corot, Rousseau, Dupre, Diaz, Daubigny. 
 These are pictures well worth the student's time and 
 attention. They are not treated in these notes but 
 are reserved for separate treatment (with other modern 
 pictures) hereafter. 
 
 The old masters of Italy, Holland, or Flanders in the 
 Wallace Collection appear somewhat sporadically and 
 unexpectedly. Apparently there never was an attempt 
 to fill out schools or make a representation of art history. 
 A fine picture was picked up as opportunity offered, 
 solely because it was fine, and not because it would fill 
 a historic gap. In that way excellent if somewhat unre- 
 159 
 
160 NOTE ON THE WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 lated pictures came into the collection. Among the 
 Italian pictures one might cite the fine Cima, the 
 Andrea del Sartos, the Luinis, a Bianchi, a Titian, a 
 North Italian portrait, a whole roomful of Canalettos 
 and Guardis. 
 
 There is perhaps a larger certainly a more notable 
 group of Dutch pictures, led by the excellent Laugh- 
 ing Cavalier, attributed to Hals, and supported by 
 some famous Rembrandts, among them the large Cen- 
 turion Cornelius picture. The school of Rembrandt, 
 Bol, Flinck, Drost, and others, with many examples 
 of the little Dutchmen, Terborch, Metsu, Netscher, 
 Brouwer, Teniers, all showing good craftsmanship, 
 are to be found, with portraits by Van der Heist, in- 
 teriors by Pieter de Hooch, landscapes by Camphuij- 
 sen, Ruisdael, Hobbema. Rubens, Van Dyck, and Jor- 
 daens are about the only painters represented among 
 the late Flemings but they are seen in some excellent 
 examples, especially Jordaens. 
 
 The Portrait of a Spanish Lady by Velasquez is the 
 best work of the Spanish school, though there are good 
 portraits by Mazo, a figure-piece by Cano, and a num- 
 ber of large and important Murillos. The English 
 school is again shown in some celebrated portraits by 
 Reynolds, Gainsborough, and others. The German 
 school is hardly represented at all. Yet with all its 
 blank pages the Wallace Collection makes a famous 
 showing, and the long room of the gallery is a place 
 where one needs to stop and study. 
 
NOTE ON THE WALLACE COLLECTION 161 
 
 The catalogue (with illustrations) is excellent in 
 every way, with an absence of modern cock-sureness, 
 and a disposition to treat many questions as still in 
 process of solution. Its notes should be accepted. 
 The building in which the pictures are shown is the 
 town house of an English gentleman and not very well 
 adapted to exhibition purposes in spite of alterations. 
 The light is not always good, and on dark days elec- 
 tricity has to be used in some of the rooms. The 
 proper hanging of the pictures is hampered by want of 
 space. There are too many pictures for the rooms, 
 and the result is that some of them are " skied." How- 
 ever, there is little use in quarrelling over such matters. 
 They were conditions accepted with the bequest. 
 
THE 
 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 89. Backer, Jacob Adriaenz. Portrait of an Old 
 * Woman. In Backer's best style with a super- 
 ficial resemblance to Hals in the flesh colour and 
 Rembrandt in the drawing especially of the 
 hands. It is a fine portrait. Both Hals and 
 Rembrandt occasionally did poorer work. It was 
 signed as a Rembrandt and passed for such at 
 one time, but if you would note the decided dif- 
 ference between them, carry in your visual mem- 
 ory this cap with its side wings to the National 
 Gallery and compare it in texture and quality 
 with the Rembrandt (No. 775). That one fea- 
 ture will give a clew to many others. 
 
 248. Bakhuysen, Ludolf . Ships in a Storm. Not a 
 
 great picture, but there is a good wind blowing and 
 a chop sea running. It has movement and some 
 spirit. In Bakhuysen's usual grey key of colour 
 and light. 
 
 525. Beccafumi, Domenico. Judith with the Head 
 
 of Holof ernes. A handsome piece of colour, but 
 the type is not very select and the drawing is 
 rather mannered. Evidently influenced by So- 
 doma. 
 
 543. Benvenuto di Giovanni. St. Jerome Chastising 
 
 Himself. Probably a part of a predella, as the 
 163 
 
164 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 catalogue suggests. The figure is more interest- 
 ing than the head. 
 
 2. Bianchi, Francesco. Allegorical Subject. 
 
 * What beautiful slender figures and ideal faces! 
 The drawing is not so frail as it looks, and the 
 lines of the composition are very graceful in their 
 repetition of each other. With an idyllic land- 
 scape to correspond. W 7 hat charm the whole 
 picture has! The attribution is questionable. 
 The picture seems more Florentine than Fer- 
 rarese, though just who did it is not very appar- 
 ent. 
 
 74. Bol, Ferdinand. The Toper. In Bol's smoother 
 and more popular manner with reminiscences of 
 Rembrandt in the hands, the light, and the colour. 
 But Bol at times painted more vigorous work 
 than this, and he also did work that was much 
 weaker. The personality of Bol is better estab- 
 lished than some others of the Rembrandt School, 
 but there are still gaps in his artistic biography. 
 Others of the school did work of this kind and 
 quality. 
 
 24 } Both, Jan. Italian Landscapes. These are the 
 
 28 / kind of landscapes that Both turned out with 
 
 less variety than, say, Corot. But like the 
 
 Corots, they are usually pleasing in their effects 
 
 of light. 
 
 166. Boursse, L. Interior: Woman Cooking. The 
 
 painter is still in doubt, but the picture speaks for 
 itself as something truthful and beautiful, done 
 in a broad way as regards both drawing and paint- 
 ing. It has a suggestion of Brekelenkam about 
 it, but the signature is probably genuine. There 
 
CANO, ALONZO 165 
 
 would be no object in forging the signature of so 
 unknown a person as Boursse. 
 
 211. Brouwer, Adriaen. A Boor Asleep. For the 
 
 deft manipulation of paint and the pure skill of 
 painting there is nothing among the little Dutch- 
 men in this gallery that will go beyond it. The 
 handling is simple and direct. Even Hals, his 
 master, was sometimes more laboured and often 
 less effective. 
 
 132. Camphuijsen, Covert. Dutch Farm, at Sun- 
 
 * set. A coarse-grained but forceful landscape. 
 It would be hard to find its equal among the 
 examples of Ruysdael, Hobbema, Cuyp, and 
 Both, here or elsewhere. The buildings at the 
 left are not more beautiful in colour, light, and air 
 than the trees at the right in their Corotesque 
 massing, grouping, and blending into the sky. 
 And what a fine sky! What colour and what 
 foreground shadows! Of its kind, a masterpiece. 
 Worth a dozen Berchems or Paul Potters. 
 
 498. Canaletto, Giovanni Antonio. The Grand 
 Canal. There are a number of large Canalettos 
 in this collection, hanging with Guardis in one 
 room. Perhaps Nos. 497, 499, and 498 are as 
 good examples as any. They are large and rather 
 impressive pictures. 
 
 15. Cano, Alonzo. Vision of St. John the Evangel- 
 
 * 1st. It is a beautiful picture. The face of the 
 St. John is exceedingly strong. The drawing 
 is excellent in every way and the colour more than 
 merely good. But for all that, one may question 
 the attribution. It is too strong for Cano. A 
 similar subject in the Madrid Gallery (No. 629) 
 
166 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 is infinitely weaker in every way. When and 
 where, in what picture, did Cano ever do such 
 good work as this such colour and handling, such 
 drawing and such a fine, broad landscape? Do- 
 menico Feti did angel wings like those in this 
 picture, but there he ends as a possible painter 
 of it. 
 
 1. Cima, Giovanni Battista. St. Catherine of 
 Alexandria. A very beautiful Cima, fine not 
 only in the figure with its lofty poise and dignified 
 character, but superb in colour, in the landscape, 
 the sky, the architecture. The robe is rather 
 papery, the type statuesque, and the nose and 
 brows a little hard; but all told, a fine picture. 
 Notice the near hill with its towers and wall and 
 the feeling of a valley between it and the distant 
 mountains. Notice again the high, clear sky. 
 
 114. Claude Lorraine. Italian Landscape. Cool, 
 with a blue distance that hardly belongs to the 
 dark foreground. This is the beginning of the 
 landscape convention afterwards adopted some- 
 how by Ruisdael, Everdingen, and Hobbema. See 
 the Everdingen and Ruisdael on either side of it. 
 
 125. Coast Scene with Classic Buildings. A hard 
 
 little picture, but it has vigour and life about it, 
 with wind in the sky, and a fretting sea. 
 
 92. Coques, Gonzales. A Family Croup. A 
 
 fine decorative .picture of figures in landscape, 
 evidently portraits, and yet kept well in the land- 
 scape and forming a part of it. This is quite re- 
 markable if the conjecture of the catalogue 
 that Artois did the landscape and Coques the 
 figures is true. 
 
DIETRICH 167 
 
 532. Gomeille de Lyon. Portrait of a French Noble- 
 man. This painter has been confused with his 
 contemporaries, the Clouets, and is only recently 
 developing an individuality. A picture similar 
 to this is in the Louvre. A good portrait, now a 
 little flattened by rubbing. 
 
 527. Crivelli, Carlo. St. Roch. The drawing here is 
 a little more angular than usual, but the colour is 
 very fine in its depth. The type is the lean and 
 withered kind with which every student of Crivelli 
 is familiar. 
 
 49. Cuyp, Aelbert. River Scene with Shipping. A 
 
 hard Cuyp hard in the waves, masts, sails, and 
 sky but with some rude force and suggestion 
 of wind. The colour is good. 
 
 138. River Scene with View of Dort. As an ex- 
 ample of Cuyp, it is fairly good. The sky has 
 been rubbed too much, but there is a good 
 effect of light. The ships below are bulky if the 
 houses are rather thin. No. 54 is again only a 
 fair Cuyp. 
 
 180. Cattle. Paul Potter has been and still is 
 
 greatly admired for his cattle; but when and 
 where did he do anything comparable to this 
 picture by Cuyp? And these are not the best 
 cattle that Cuyp painted by any means. Look 
 at the Potter near it (No. 189). 
 
 153. Dietrich, Christian Wilhelm Ernst. The Cir- 
 cumcision. This is by a facile imitator of Rem- 
 brandt whose works should be borne in mind when 
 studying the smaller pictures in the European 
 galleries attributed to Rembrandt. 
 
168 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 177. Dou, Gerard. Hermit at Prayer. In the paint- 
 er's smooth, glassy style and with much detail. 
 The model is the same and the drawing of the 
 hands the same as in the Rembrandt (attributed) 
 in the Louvre (No. 2541A) A Hermit Reading. 
 
 61. Drost, Cornells. Portrait of a Young Woman. 
 
 By a follower and pupil of Rembrandt whose works 
 have almost disappeared from the face of the 
 earth. What has become of them? Have they 
 really been lost or destroyed, or have they been 
 given to Rembrandt and others? It is astonish- 
 ing the number of pictures now given to the great 
 and how few are given to the humble. An excel- 
 lent picture in colour, if a little smooth in its sur- 
 faces. Another picture of the same model is in 
 the Louvre (No. 2559A). 
 
 94. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Philippe le 
 Roy. A fine portrait in Van Dyck's "second 
 Flemish manner," and apparently in fair con- 
 dition. The head is excellent in its modelling 
 with well-drawn eyes, cheeks, and mouth. The 
 hands, too, are forceful, and not merely aristo- 
 cratic. The pose is perhaps a little too magnif- 
 icent, but it is rather attractive than otherwise. 
 The man is a decided personality and has some 
 force about him other than that indicated in the 
 hands. How beautifully the dog is painted ! And 
 notice how much better the whites are here than 
 in No. 79. The handling all through is superior 
 to that of the companion portrait. The flowers 
 at the left are somewhat rubbishy. 
 
 79. Portrait of the Wife of Philippe le Roy. 
 
 The companion piece to No. 94 and probably 
 done at the same time, but it is a weaker per- 
 
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 169 
 
 formance. It savours of the pretty in the type, 
 the face, the hands, the smooth surface. It is 
 a notable picture, nevertheless, because of its 
 size, pose, and general pretentiousness. The 
 white feather and the high lights on the hair 
 appear a little false in value, as though some 
 restorer had been touching them up. The collar 
 is porcelain-like and the whites at the wrists 
 want in quality. The difference between this 
 picture and No. 94 is so marked that one cannot 
 help thinking that Van Dyck's assistants worked 
 upon it and prettified it. How seldom in the 
 history and criticism of art do we hear reference 
 made to Van Dyck's assistants! But is it believ- 
 able that he or Rembrandt did all the works 
 attributed to them without assistance? Rubens, 
 Bellini, Raphael, all leaned heavily upon their 
 workshop. Why not Van Dyck and Rembrandt? 
 
 85. - Portrait of the Artist as the Shepherd Paris. 
 
 * It is rather fine in the head. The figure is well 
 modelled, but reminiscent of other painters, espe- 
 cially in the arms and hands. The ball of the 
 thumb and the shoulder suggest the influence of 
 Titian. The blue gives it a cold tone. 
 
 16. Portrait of a Flemish Lady. A beautiful 
 
 type, but prettified in the painting. The head 
 is well drawn and set and the figure is convincing, 
 but the surface is somewhat too smooth, like 
 most of the Van Dyck portraits of the second 
 Flemish period. Look at the ruff and cuffs and 
 the red chair for their merely pretty painting. 
 
 53. Portrait of an Italian Nobleman. A slight 
 
 type, rather effeminate in the hands and face. The 
 painting is smooth and effeminate to correspond. 
 
170 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 Without much strength, it has considerable 
 elegance and style. The curtain is a little lively 
 in colour. An imposing picture, but not in Van 
 Dyck's best vein, and possibly not by him at 
 all. It is said to be in his "Genoese manner." 
 So too are the Cattaneo portraits in the National 
 Gallery. But what widely different surfaces they 
 present! 
 
 113. Everdingen, Allart van. Waterfall. It is a 
 shade different from Ruisdael or Hobbema, but 
 all three painters employed the same landscape 
 convention and worked it hard. The grey sky, 
 the trees, rocks, water are all here in place, and 
 sprucely done. But with what result? Look 
 steadily at the breaking water for a few moments 
 and you will see that it is only grey-white paint. 
 Look at the clouds and you will see the same 
 grey paint again. All the picture is of that 
 quality or lack of quality. 
 
 536. Ferrarese School. The Annunciation. Two 
 
 small panels rather harsh in their drawing but 
 now very decorative in colour. The architecture 
 is quite as rich as the costumes. 
 
 539. Portrait of an Italian Gentleman. A hard 
 
 profile, with some force of characterisation about 
 it. For suggestions regarding the possible painter 
 of it, see the note in the catalogue. It has dark- 
 ened much with time. 
 
 548. Flemish School (Second Half of the 15th 
 Century). The Virgin and Child. An attrac- 
 tive little picture, but puzzling to place. It is 
 not very well done, and is a school piece of some 
 sort. But what school? Dr. Friedlander as- 
 cribes it to the Master of the Magdalen Legend. 
 
HALS, FRANS 171 
 
 78. Flinck, Covert. Portrait of a Young Woman. 
 
 * A good example of Flinck (as we at present under- 
 stand him) with agreeable colour. The nose is 
 misshapen and the drawing a little weak, but 
 there is a certain dexterity in handling and 
 cleverness in rendering textures. If one will 
 carry this colour, the whites, the light, and the 
 handling over to the so-called Rembrandt (No. 
 86), he may see slight (but inconclusive) resem- 
 blances. See the note on No. 86. 
 
 556. Florentine School (Late 15th Century). 
 Triumph of Venus. It is perhaps too formal in 
 the foreground and too rounded in the figures 
 for Piero di Cosimo, to whom it was once attrib- 
 uted. A somewhat crude work by an inferior 
 and possibly later man than Piero. It is not 
 wanting in attractiveness and interest. 
 
 )38. Foppa, Vicenzo. Gian Galeazzo Sforza Read- 
 ing. In Foppa's style, but rather lacking his 
 variety of detail and his colour. A naive boy 
 seated on a bench, reading, with a landscape at the 
 back. Somewhat damaged, but still an inter- 
 esting picture. It is a fresco. 
 
 517. Guardi, Francesco. Church of San Giorgio 
 * Maggiore. There is a room filled with Guardis 
 and Canalettos for one to admire in this collec- 
 tion. Of the Guardis, Nos. 517 and 518 with the 
 two small oval panels Nos. 502 and 504 give a 
 good idea of this charming painter. At his best, 
 he is quite above criticism in his colour, light, and 
 air. 
 
 84. Hals, Frans. The Laughing Cavalier. A por- 
 
 * trait of exact drawing and careful workmanship 
 
172 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 all through. In fact, the work is so exact that 
 it causes surprise. Hals was usually more free 
 and often more careless than this. Yet at this 
 time (if we accept the signature as correct), Hals 
 was forty-four years old and had just done the 
 Officers of St. George and St. Adriaen at Haarlem 
 (Nos. 124 and 125), which are decidedly in a dif- 
 ferent vein. The head and shoulders here would 
 not fit into any of the Haarlem groups. Could 
 this smooth face and this elaborated linen and 
 embroidered coat have been done by Dirck Hals 
 or any one of the Hals School? The work seems 
 too well done for Dirck or any other Hals pupil, 
 and is too literally done for Frans Hals himself. 
 And except for the face, the sharp outline of that 
 black hat, and the rim of the figure, it does not 
 look like a copy. The coat is too freely handled 
 for an ordinary copyist, but how cramped and 
 hesitating it appears when you think of it as 
 being painted by Hals at the height of his power! 
 The idea of its being done in the Hals studio and 
 being worked upon by different pupils is tenable, 
 but no more. It is an excellent picture, but 
 something of a puzzle as to its origin. The same 
 hand that did this probably did the Van Bere- 
 steyn portraits in the Louvre and the Man with 
 a Sword in the Lichtenstein Gallery, Vienna. 
 What a fine characterisation, and, as opposed to 
 the idea of a copy, how lifelike it is ! What good 
 colour! The background has little depth and the 
 shadow on the wall is disturbing, perhaps not 
 exactly true in value. 
 
 110. Heist, Bartholomeus van der. Family Group. 
 A smooth picture with somewhat sweet colours 
 in the dresses. Not the best Van der Heist 
 
HOOCH, PIETER DE 173 
 
 extant. Like many another Dutch painter, he 
 adjusted his hat to the golden shower and painted 
 pot-boilers enough and to spare. There is too 
 much glitter and shine. And the dead hare just 
 here seems grotesque. 
 
 95. Hobbema, Meindert. Wooded Landscape. A 
 
 conventional Hobbema with painty foliage and 
 a merely pretty sky. No. 99 is of the same 
 character, with perhaps more of slate-grey in it. 
 It is not at all certain that Hobbema was respon- 
 sible for these commonplace landscapes. 
 
 75. A Stormy Landscape. A Hobbema of some 
 
 force, but in his slate-grey key of colour and with 
 his mannered trees and foliage. It has more or 
 less of a tapestry look, which speaks for its deco- 
 rative value but not for its sense of reality. 
 
 23. Hooch, Pieter de. Interior with a Woman Peel- 
 
 * ing Apples. A very good picture, with good 
 painting in the figures, warm light, and excep- 
 tionally fine colour. The window and the light 
 on the wall are quite right in value. Note the 
 child-like quality of the little girl, and the action 
 of holding the apple-peeling. How well the bas- 
 ket is held in the lap, and what a good basket 
 of apples it is! 
 
 27. Interior with Woman and Boy. The paint- 
 
 * ing of it is simpler than No. 23. The woman is 
 broadly seen and painted in the head and hands, 
 the black coat, and the red skirt. The child is 
 just as simply, just as truly, done in the face, 
 hair, and clothing. The room and the passage 
 through the court-yard are beautiful in light 
 full, broken, and shadowed light, all three, and 
 
174 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 all of them quite true. What beautiful colour the 
 painter has got out of the windows; what drawing 
 out of the chair, the door, the floor I 
 
 541. Italian School, North. Portrait of a Gentle- 
 man. A strong portrait, perhaps by reason of 
 its forced contrasts of black and white. Rather 
 pinched in the drawing of the face, a little rigid 
 in the hands, tense and nervous, but very honest 
 and sincere work. Mr. Berenson thinks it by 
 Giulio Campi. No. 542, put down to the North 
 Italian School, is less interesting. 
 
 120. Jordaens, Jakob. Riches of Autumn. A 
 
 bouquet of wonderful colours and a decorative 
 picture of much strength and beauty. Notice the 
 strong blue of the sky supplemented by the blue of 
 the central robe, and faintly repeated in the bunch- 
 es of grapes. The reds are repeated in the same 
 way. The flesh notes are superb and the draw- 
 ing truthful as well as graceful. Look at the 
 figure lying down, the children's heads just 
 above, the splendid figure in red, and the superb 
 satyr at the right. What drawing in the crouch- 
 ing woman and the figure under the fruit! And 
 what wonderful light and shade! Of its kind it 
 is quite perfect. It is a variation of the allegoi 
 of Fecundity (No. 235) in the Brussels Gallery, 
 differing in the central figure with the blue robe. 
 
 8. Luini, Bernardino. Virgin and Child. An 
 
 early work of Luini's with not much depth of 
 colour or shadow, and some uneasiness in the 
 draperies. The mood is sweet as with almost all 
 of Luini's pictures. 
 
 10. Virgin and Child. Given with the Luii 
 
 type and sentiment, smooth surfaces, and pl( 
 
MAZO, JUAN DEL 175 
 
 ant colour. Graceful, but not forceful. Luini 
 never is forceful, and for that reason, perhaps, 
 never rises to anything like greatness. 
 
 537. - Head of a Girl. The profile of the head is 
 graceful and the colour decorative. It belongs 
 perhaps to the Luini School. The suggestion 
 of foliage at the left is somewhat crudely given. 
 A fresco transferred to canvas. See also the 
 foliage in No. 526. 
 
 201 Maes, Nicolas. Boys with Hawks. These por- 
 96 / traits, as also the genre piece (No. 239), seem to be 
 in the smoother style of Maes, done when he 
 was departing from the Rembrandt tradition to 
 do popular rather than artistic work; but in 
 reality they may be performances by some one 
 to us quite unknown. They are attractive. 
 [Since this note was written the pictures have 
 been declared to be by Johannes van Noordt.] 
 
 224. The Listening Housewife. This picture and 
 
 No. 239 are suggestive of Pieter de Hooch in their 
 themes, but they are much duller in light, less 
 brilliant in colour, and more glassy in surfaces and 
 textures. Similar subjects by Maes are in several 
 of the European galleries. 
 
 4. Mazo, Juan Bautista del. Don Balthasar 
 Carlos. The light of this picture is dull and the 
 table at the back pushes the figure out of the 
 frame quite as much as the dark ground; but it 
 is not a bad presentation of a model that Velasquez 
 painted several times. His view of the Infante 
 was perhaps more sturdy and positive than 
 Maze's. The latter has rather weakened the 
 face by making it girlish. A good picture, how- 
 
176 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 ever. Mazo is not to be despised in the name of 
 Velasquez. He was a very good painter. See 
 the portrait No. 6 under Velasquez. [Now (1913) 
 catalogued "after Velasquez."] 
 
 240. MetSU, Gabriel. The Letter Writer Surprised. 
 
 A fairly good Metsu. The colour and handling 
 are in his style, but the drawing is a little 
 rambling. Note the flat white of the woman's 
 cap and her poorly drawn hands. 
 
 242. - Old Woman Asleep. It is better than No. 
 240 much better. It is simpler, broader, truer 
 in drawing and handling, finer in colour and light. 
 Note the excellent still-life. 
 
 66. Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz. Portrait of a Dutch 
 Lady. A handsome girlish type with a rich dress 
 and a ruff most astounding in its thickness, its 
 many layers of linen. An attractive picture, and, 
 as the catalogue says, with much of " the ingenious 
 charm" of Paulus Moreelse. 
 
 97. Murillo, BartolomS EstSban. The Charity of 
 St. Thomas of Villanueva. A much better pic- 
 ture, though sooty and blackish, than one gen- 
 erally finds under Murillo's name. There is an 
 attempt at good drawing and a welcome absence 
 of sweet colour and cloying sentiment. The 
 woman and child at right and the half-nude beg- 
 gar at the left are well done. 
 
 13. Virgin and Child. It has a smooth surface, 
 
 and colour with some richness and depth to it. 
 The sentiment is a little weak, but not mawkish, 
 as often happens with Murillo's Madonnas. See 
 also Nos. 136 and 133. 
 
 14. Marriage of the Virgin. The colour, espe- 
 cially the blue, is a little acrid, but the picture is 
 
NETSCHER 177 
 
 painted with some enthusiasm. It is not bad 
 in either drawing or grouping and yet fails to 
 make a good united impression. Possibly that 
 is due to the falsity of the lighting. 
 
 34. Adoration of the Shepherds. A picture with 
 
 good air, good atmospheric setting, good group- 
 ing, and good drawing. The Madonna is a little 
 pretty, but not insipid. The colour is satisfactory, 
 though Murillo never had the sense of a colourist 
 at any time. His light and shade here is good, 
 but shadow is another pictorial feature for which 
 he never had any fine feeling. 
 
 46. Joseph and His Brethren. A companion 
 
 piece to No. 34, though in a higher key of 
 light. It is a very good Murillo with some "go" 
 about it. It belongs to his best period. Note 
 the suggestion of desert landscape with the really 
 strong sky. The right hand of Joseph is of the 
 theatrical type; but, generally speaking, the pic- 
 ture is a very good one for Murillo. 
 
 68. The Annunciation. A cloying picture with 
 
 frail drawing and types; but good enough in 
 colour, and with some free painting in the draperies 
 of the Madonna and angel. It is overdone in 
 sentiment, however. 
 
 217. Neer, Aart van der. Skating Scene. A fine 
 sky, very truthfully reflected in the clear ice. 
 With good small figures that keep their place 
 and are true in value. 
 
 237. Netscher, Caspar. The Lace Maker. A beau- 
 
 * tiful picture so beautiful and so much better 
 
 than Netscher usually painted that it might 
 
 almost be questioned if a stronger hand than 
 
178 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 his did not do it. The colour and simplicity 
 of it are excellent. Note the beauty of the red 
 sleeve, the head and head-dress, the hands. And 
 how very well it is painted ! Netscher never went 
 beyond it and very seldom reached up to it. 
 
 202. Ostade, Adraien van. Buying Fish. What 
 * large drawing of the essentials with the petty 1 
 little details (the accidentals) left out! Look at 
 the head of the boy in the red cap, or the hands of 
 the fish-seller, or the fish, for truth to large facts 
 given easily and yet completely and fully. 
 
 17. Ostade, Isack van. A Market Place. A very 
 good example of this painter, whose exaggerated 
 and painty high lights have caused a number of 
 his pictures in European galleries to be catalogued 
 under the name of Paul Potter, as, for instance, 
 No. 357 at the Brussels Museum. A companion 
 piece in this Wallace Collection (No. 21), is of 
 the same quality as this No. 17, though warmer 
 in colour, with the spotty high lights not strongly 
 in evidence. 
 
 189. Potter, Paulus. Herdsmen with Their Cattle. 
 
 Contrast it with the Cuyp, No. 180, near at hand, 
 and see how much cruder in every way is the 
 Potter. He never had Cuyp's knowledge or 
 skill, but he somehow, through his early death 
 and that huge canvas of the Young Bull at The 
 Hague, got a greater reputation. 
 
 219. The Milkmaid. It is too good to be a gen- 
 uine Potter, especially in the drawing and the paint- 
 ing of the milkmaid. But the cow and the tree 
 at left are like Potter's work. Compare the fig- 
 ure and its painting with the figures in the 
 
REMBRANDT 179 
 
 Potter No. 189, as also the cattle and the high 
 lights on the leaves. They are very different 
 stories of the brush. No. 189 is genuine enough, 
 perhaps. 
 
 26. PourbllS, FratlS. Portrait of a Gentleman. A 
 
 fine Antonio-Moro-looking portrait with some 
 vigour of pose and a decent quality of blacks, but 
 also with excessive smoothness of drawing and 
 softness of modelling. 
 
 531. Pourbus, Pieter. Allegorical Love Feast. A 
 
 * fine group arranged in the form of a half-arch, 
 well drawn and with much excellence of colour. 
 The costumes are rich, the types individual, the 
 still-life well done. With a landscape showing 
 distant mountains and the sea. A Pourbus with- 
 out a precedent. There is nothing like it else- 
 where. At the right, in the landscape at the 
 back, there is a hint of the Brueghels, but it is 
 very slight. 
 
 82. Rembrandt van Ryn. Portrait of Jan Pelli- 
 
 * come and Son. An early Rembrandt of 1633, 
 but with little indication of his "grey period" 
 about it. The faces are carefully and surely 
 drawn, with no great freedom of the brush, 
 though the surfaces have probably been changed 
 by cleaning. The eyes of the man are Rem- 
 brandt's, and also the head of the boy, but the 
 boy's dress with its sleeve and little shoe-string 
 pendants are possibly by some pupil or follower. 
 It is a curious Rembrandt, with much about the 
 costume, lighting, and background that give no 
 hint of Rembrandt at all, and yet, if one calls 
 to mind the early Lesson in Anatomy at The 
 Hague, this portrait will be found very like it. 
 
180 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 The man's head might even fit into the Anatomy 
 picture without much discord. Notice the depth 
 of the setting, the air, and the shadows here. 
 Notice also the absence of any small or spotty 
 lights. 
 
 90. Portrait of Suzanna van Gotten, Wife of Jan 
 
 * Pellicorne, with Her Daughter. This is the com- 
 panion piece to No. 82 and is just as curious in 
 its workmanship as is that portrait. Possibly 
 the colour and expression of the faces have been 
 changed by some cleaning and retouching. The 
 face of the woman now looks a little too pretty 
 for Rembrandt. Yet the ruff and hands are 
 his and also the child's head. In the child's 
 dress there is the appearance of another brush at 
 work a smoother, prettier, weaker brush. Of 
 the same date as No. 82, with nothing "grey" in 
 the tone of it. They are peculiar Rembrandts 
 because they do not tally closely with other 
 works of his at that period. Yet here is a head 
 that quite agrees with the Van Beresteyn por- 
 traits by Rembrandt in the Havermeyer Collec- 
 tion, New York. 
 
 86. The Centurion Cornelius. A fine picture 
 
 * in colour as in lighting, with a good deal of char- 
 acter and dignity about it. It is put down to 
 Rembrandt when he was about fifty, but there 
 are reasons for thinking he did not do it at any 
 age. It is his lighting in a superficial way, but 
 apparently not his types, not his characters, not 
 his drawing, colouring, or handling. The faces 
 lack his emotional or forceful quality. The 
 types are those of Flinck and Fabritius. The 
 third figure at the back is the model that has 
 
REMBRANDT 181 
 
 appeared in more than one of BoFs pictures, and 
 has passed as Rembrandt's brother in pictures 
 at The Hague and elsewhere. The Centurion 
 with the turban is probably the same model as 
 the Saul in No. 621, Saul and David in The 
 Hague Museum, put down to Rembrandt, but 
 possibly by Flinck. The same model appears 
 again in the Christ Before Pilate, Budapest 
 Gallery (No. 368). The turban should be no- 
 ticed for its smooth quality and its colours, which 
 resemble Rembrandt's very little. The outer 
 dress and the sleeve should again be noticed for 
 that same smooth, slippery rendering of tex- 
 tures so foreign to Rembrandt. Again the sharp 
 way in which the high lights are ridged on the 
 helmet, the noses, the foreheads, and lips, does 
 not point to Rembrandt. The drawing of the 
 wrists and fingers and knuckles have a certain 
 square and wooden quality once more foreign to 
 him. And finally, in a general way, the thin or 
 sweet quality of the colour should be noticed, the 
 absence of light aside from that reflected from 
 the figures, the blackish quality of the ground, 
 and the apparent envelope of air which is all on 
 this side of the figures and not in the background. 
 The picture comes nearer to a masterpiece by 
 Flinck or Bernaert Fabritius than a work by 
 Rembrandt. One's general impression is that it 
 is like Fabritius at Darmstadt but in specific 
 resemblances it recalls Flinck. In the confusion 
 resulting from the indiscriminate assignment of 
 all the dark-looking Dutch pictures to Rembrandt, 
 which took place many years ago, and is still in 
 progress, the Rembrandt pupils have been as 
 badly mixed up as the master. Flinck, Eeck- 
 
182 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 hout, Bol, Fabritius are all confused and con- 
 founded. See the note on the Saul and David, 
 No. 621, in The Hague Gallery, and also on the 
 Lesson in Anatomy there. The notes on the 
 Rembrandts in the National Gallery, the Berlin 
 Gallery, and the Hermitage should be consulted. 
 
 29. Portrait of the Artist's Son, Titus. This is 
 
 * an undeniably fine work, a portrait of some force, 
 both in its sad conception and its vigorous paint- 
 ing. The eyes, nose, and mouth are Rembrandt- 
 esque, as is also the shadow, but not the flat 
 figure with the hard edge. One wonders about 
 the small high lights on the hair, the shadows of 
 the coat, the chain; about the red cap and its 
 outline; about the background. The handling, 
 if Rembrandt 's, is not so late as 1657. Rem- 
 brandts of that date contradict the handling of 
 this picture. It is possible that in a burst of in- 
 spiration Eeckhout did the work, rather than 
 Rembrandt himself. It has something of Eeck- 
 hout about the type, the hair, the coat, and the 
 shadow across it; but it is difficult to account for 
 his doing anything so really fine as this portrait. 
 Yet it is almost certainly not by Rembrandt. 
 As for its being Rembrandt's son Titus, that is 
 only conjecture, and the date of 1657 was no 
 doubt made to fit the conjecture. A picture put 
 down to Rembrandt's School in the Dulwich Gal- 
 lery gives the same type of face, only a little 
 older. 
 
 52. Portrait of the Artist. The sitter is in a 
 
 velvet cap and a fur cloak, with a somewhat pasty 
 face, a piercing eye, and a slightly parted mouth. 
 Said to have been done about 1634, but there is 
 
REMBRANDT 183 
 
 considerable doubt about Rembrandt's having done 
 it. The grey of the ground and the shadow on 
 the right are lacking in quality. The grey is flat 
 and not of Rembrandt depth or luminosity. The 
 face is soft in line, a little flaccid in modelling, not 
 strong or emphatic in touch, and not given with 
 Rembrandt's flesh colour. It is pallid and grey. 
 The outlines of the cap and cloak are hard and 
 there seems little or no inset to the figure, no 
 atmospheric depth. Now these are all peculi- 
 arities of Jan Lievens that almost any one should 
 be able to recognise, but to cap their evidence 
 the hair is plowed and scratched with the wooden 
 end of the brush a mannerism that shows in 
 almost every portrait that Lievens painted. On 
 wood and once framed with an arch-and-column 
 effect at the top. See the note on No. 55. 
 
 55. Portrait of the Artist. This portrait is said 
 
 to be the likeness of the painter and to have been 
 painted in 1635 one year later than No. 52; 
 but what a change in the man in one year's time! 
 Compare the two portraits for the likeness of the 
 sitter. Did Rembrandt do them both? Did he 
 see himself so differently and change his method 
 of painting so radically in the same year, in the 
 same mirror? Did he paint the twenty or more 
 portraits of himself in the European galleries, 
 all of them so different the one from the other, 
 or did his twenty or more pupils do them? One 
 can understand the variations of likeness in the 
 different pupils better than the variation in Rem- 
 brandt or his mirror. And was it, after all, Rem- 
 brandt who sat or only some model? This por- 
 trait is not well drawn in the eyes, the nose, the 
 cheeks, the mouth; and the hat, beard, mous- 
 
184 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 tache, hair are not too well painted. It is a 
 school piece. 
 
 201. Portrait of a Boy. It is too pretty for Rem- 
 brandt pretty not only in the face, but in the 
 cap, the pearls, the spots of light on the cloak. 
 Compare it with the face in the Amsterdam Gal- 
 lery picture (No. 1634), there put down to Moe- 
 yaert and formerly attributed to Hoogstraaten. 
 The same hand did this Wallace Collection por- 
 trait and also the portrait (No. 843) at the Her- 
 mitage, there ascribed to Rembrandt. 
 
 203. The Good Samaritan. A very good little 
 
 picture that any one of half a dozen Rembrandt 
 followers might have painted. It is perhaps good 
 enough for Rembrandt, but he was not accus- 
 tomed to doing this small art, whereas, with quite 
 a number of his pupils, it was a genre of their own. 
 The same hand that did this picture did also the 
 Diana Bathing in the National Gallery (No. 
 2538). 
 
 173. Portrait of the Artist. It is a fairly good 
 
 copy, or possibly a variant of a questionable 
 Rembrandt at the Vienna Gallery, but not a 
 picture of importance, whoever did it. It is on 
 copper, which was not often used until after Rem- 
 brandt's time. 
 
 229. Ideal Landscape. This coincides with what 
 
 people have supposed were Rembrandt's land- 
 scapes, but how are we to account for the dread- 
 ful little figure at the right with its bad painting, 
 or the dogs back of it, or the sheaves below it? 
 In the sky is the thunder cloud that belongs to 
 Hercules Seghers. The middle distance has a 
 forced lighting that is strong. Perhaps Rem- 
 
ROSA, SALVATORE 185 
 
 brandt did it. But if so, why didn't he draw it 
 better he who was such a master of naturalistic 
 drawing? The same hand did the small land- 
 scape in the Amsterdam Gallery (No. 2020), 
 assigned to Rembrandt. 
 
 238. - Young Negro Archer. It is possible that the 
 unusual subject of a black man caused Rem- 
 brandt to paint thinly though one might have 
 supposed that black flesh would have bothered 
 him and caused some mealiness and emendation 
 of the surface. But here is a face quite smooth 
 save for a dab of light on the nose and another 
 on the lip. The loading of paint on the strap, 
 the quiver, and bow look very like Rembrandt, 
 but other painters aped this work quite closely, 
 as also the grey ground. The figure is slightly 
 indicated. And the sleeves were they, too, af- 
 fected by the black face and done with timorous 
 smoothness? And when did Rembrandt begin 
 doing that thin, transparent white at the throat, 
 or dab his sleeves with white paint, or fumble 
 his pearls in their high lights? Notice also 
 the thinness of the painting in the shadows of 
 the sleeve and the blackness or brownness of the 
 shadow where it falls across the white collar and 
 on the shoulder. The picture was probably 
 painted by the same hand that did No. 825 at 
 Berlin not Rembrandt, but Hendrick Heer- 
 schop. [Since this note was written, but before 
 its publication, the new catalogue of the Wallace 
 Collection has been issued. It suggests Heer- 
 schop as the possible painter of this picture.] 
 
 116. Rosa, Salvatore. River Scene with Apollo and 
 * the Sibyl. A fine classical landscape of much 
 
186 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 dignity. The tree branches formal and the sky 
 a little hard; but there is good distance and good 
 colour. A decorative canvas of much beauty and 
 truth. Claude never even approached such a 
 view as this, and Poussin ignored it for a more 
 academic formula. 
 
 81. Rubens, Peter Paul. The Holy Family with 
 * Elizabeth and St. John. It is hung too high 
 to be seen well, but it looks a Rubens, save 
 for the faces and types of the women. These 
 are not typically Rubens. Note the beautiful 
 luminous flesh colour of the children, with its red 
 shadows. This is something that certain fol- 
 lowers like Seghers exaggerated. See his Holy 
 Family in the Vienna Gallery (No. 878A) put 
 down to the School of Rubens. 
 
 93. Christ's Charge to Peter. So far as it can 
 
 be seen in its present hanging, it looks like a 
 Rubens, in good condition, done carefully and 
 cleanly, with no great display of colour, but with a 
 rather smooth and slippery brush. Not an in- 
 spired performance nor possessed of great force. 
 The type of Christ is not one peculiar to Rubens. 
 It may be a school piece as the exaggerated hands 
 suggest. 
 
 30. Portrait of Isabella Brandt. It might prove 
 
 on close inspection to be only a copy (not a 
 "repetition") of the portrait at The Hague (No. 
 250). It is a little smooth for Rubens, though 
 we are not to forget his portraits, like the Anne 
 of Austria, that are almost frail in their porce- 
 lain-like surfaces. The hair, cheeks, and eyes 
 here look suspicious and the ruffs at the wrist 
 
RUBENS 187 
 
 are curious. No doubt the picture has been 
 much rubbed and scrubbed. 
 
 71. The Crucified Saviour. This follows closely 
 
 the larger picture of the same subject (No. 313) 
 in the Antwerp Gallery, but lacks the verve of 
 the latter, though supposed to be a sketch. The 
 handling is smooth and (in the white cloth) not 
 very spirited or certain. The flesh is blackish, 
 the arms a bit stringy, and the drawing of the 
 left side below the shoulder somewhat ques- 
 tionable in spite of the strain of the muscling. 
 The flesh shadows are brownish red, the sky very 
 dark. It is possibly an old school copy. 
 
 63. The Rainbow Landscape. In its total effect, 
 
 this landscape is impressive, but it does not stand 
 analysis of the parts very well. It is a common 
 belief that Rubens was a famous draughtsman, a 
 perfect craftsman, a man who could do things 
 in a believable way at least. Therefore one won- 
 ders with some misgivings if he committed all 
 the small atrocities of bad drawing apparent in 
 this picture. The most obvious pieces of defec- 
 tive drawing are shown in the cattle. Did Rubens 
 do those heads and horns and bodies and legs, 
 with those high lights following the backbone or 
 plastered on the nose or between the eyes, and 
 those dreadful reflections in the water? Did he 
 do those crazy ducks, or the queer horses, or the 
 peasants with their dislocated heads, bodies, and 
 hands? Did he paint that solid wooden field of 
 grain, those unbelievable grain stacks, that impos- 
 sible water, those trees with their mannered 
 foliage, arbitrary lighting, and black shadows, 
 that smoky sky and that hard, lightless rainbow? 
 
188 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 The shadows at the right are too dark for the 
 light at the left. This throws the picture out of 
 tone. Again the high lights on the trees are 
 false as compared with the shadows of the same 
 trees, but this is the very thing that gives the 
 picture a certain snap and makes it deceptive. 
 It is by the painter of the Chateau de Steen 
 landscape (No. 66) in the National Gallery (see 
 the note upon it). The same Rubens follower 
 did the landscape at Brussels (No. 391) and the 
 landscape (No. 654) in the Vienna Academy. 
 The true Rubens landscape is at the Vienna Im- 
 perial Gallery (No. 869) and perhaps in the Na- 
 tional Gallery, London (No. 2924), and the true 
 Rubens doing of horses, landscape, and accessory 
 objects is at Antwerp (No. 781). Yet, to tell the 
 truth, with all its faults, this landscape in the Wal- 
 lace Collection is far from being a bad landscape. 
 It is impressive in its distance and colour. But Ru- 
 bens never touched brush to it. He was one of the 
 most perfect of craftsmen. Neither his hand nor 
 his eyes are seen here. 
 
 50. Ruisdael, Jacob van. Rocky Landscape. The 
 
 usual Ruisdael with the white birch, the foaming 
 water, the mannered trees, and the slate-coloured 
 sky. 
 
 56. Landscape with Water Fall. This time the 
 
 * painter's convention is varied, in the sky, the 
 hut, the distance, and with very good results. 
 Quite a noble landscape. 
 
 247. Sunset in a Wood. An unusual effect of 
 
 sunlight or is it moonlight? for Ruisdael. Of 
 course it is much too low in key of light and colour. 
 Nature is no such drab affair as this. All the 
 
STEEN, JAN 189 
 
 Dutch landscapes were pitched too low in the 
 key of light. 
 
 9. Sarto, Andrea del. Madonna and Child with 
 * St. John and Two Angels. A smooth, much 
 rubbed Andrea, with fine types and excellent 
 drawing. No religious sentiment, but there is 
 a nice feeling about colour and the mystery of 
 shadows deepening it and darkening it. The 
 Madonna is a rather lofty type a version of his 
 Lucretia. Her hand is injured and the whole 
 picture has been too much cleaned. 
 
 111. Steen, Jan. The Christening Feast. Perhaps 
 originally a very good picture, but now rubbed 
 so much that the canvas shows disagreeably. 
 Notice this in the figure in grey at the left. The 
 picture is also somewhat repainted in the hands 
 and faces. The red cloak on the child is now 
 false in value from repainting, and the child it- 
 self is only a manikin. And notice the hand upon 
 the red cloth. The still-life on the floor is good. 
 The picture is well painted in spots the woman 
 with her back to us, for instance. 
 
 150. The Lute Player. There is some free paint- 
 ing in the costume of the figure at the right and 
 some good drawing in the other figures. But it 
 is not a remarkable picture. 
 
 154. The Harpsichord Lesson. Painted with much 
 
 directness, simplicity, and truth. Look at the 
 charming head and beautifully painted hair of 
 the young lady at the harpsichord. Note also the 
 dress of both characters for easy handling. It 
 is much better than the larger, many-figured piece, 
 No. 158. 
 
190 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 209. Village Alchemist. The chief figure is beau- 
 tifully drawn and painted. It is not such broad 
 and free work as Brouwer's, but it is very effec- 
 tive. 
 
 210. Teniers the Younger, David. Deliverance of 
 St. Peter. The title is taken from the figures 
 at the back. A bright piece of colour with clever 
 painting. 
 
 231. Gambling Scene at an Inn. A handsome 
 
 Teniers, with much brilliant colour in the cen- 
 tralised red coat, and some very dexterous manip- 
 ulation of the brush. Note the bulk of the 
 figure at the extreme left. 
 
 227. Boors Carousing. All the Teniers pictures 
 
 here seem of excellent quality. The connoisseur 
 who brought them together in this collection 
 evidently knew the meaning of good painting 
 that is, painting from the painter's point of view. 
 These pictures show strongly the influence of 
 Brouwer. 
 
 236. Terborch, Gerard. Lady Reading a Letter. 
 
 * A much stronger and better picture than No. 
 235 in this collection. It is beautifully done, 
 especially in the head and face, with the shadow 
 of the curling hair thrown across the face. Study 
 the face a moment for the expression of it the 
 interest in the letter. The costume and table- 
 cloth are effective as colour. And what good 
 drawing in the screen, the table, the chair! 
 A strange background above the screen prob- 
 ably the top of a bed canopy showing with a 
 good many things about it that do not suggest 
 Terborch. 
 
VELASQUEZ 191 
 
 11. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio). Perseus and An- 
 dromeda. The figure of Andromeda looks re- 
 painted, though it may be merely overcleaned. 
 The figure is slight, rather attenuated, somewhat 
 affected in the arms and left leg, with none of 
 that large, voluptuous quality that Titian usually 
 gave in his nudes. The action of the Perseus is 
 awkward. The sea is good and the dragon mon- 
 strous enough. For all the tradition and doc- 
 umentation about it, it is still unbelievable as a 
 Titian. 
 
 88. Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portrait of a 
 * Spanish Lady. A portrait of much truth, charm, 
 and beauty. It is quite true in drawing, with the 
 possible exception of the right arm, and is just 
 as accurate in the handling. The head is the 
 best part of it. It is not a late work by Velas- 
 quez. Some there are who think it not by Velas- 
 quez at all. There is nothing at Madrid or else- 
 where that absolutely confirms it, but it is a fine 
 portrait for all that. It seems too fine, too sen- 
 sitive, too psychological for Velasquez. He was 
 not a subtle prober into the mental attitudes of 
 his sitters so much as a truthful painter of their 
 external appearances. 
 
 100. Infante Margarita Maria. It is a fairly good 
 
 portrait, but if placed beside the little Infanta 
 in the Salon Carre of the Louvre, or near the two 
 children's portraits at Vienna, it will demonstrate 
 its own weakness in short order. Look at the 
 handling of the hair, the sleeves, the bows, and 
 you need go no further to know that the brush of 
 Velasquez is not here. It is a school piece. 
 
192 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 12. Don Balthasar Carlos in Infancy. Probably 
 
 a workshop picture, done under Velasquez's eye, 
 but not by his hand. The catalogue points out 
 (with candor) that the tassel, cushion, and cur- 
 tain are painted by another hand than that of 
 Velasquez; but is not the same hand apparent in 
 the dress, the sash, the collar, the hair? The bead- 
 like eyes how different they are from those usu- 
 ally painted by Velasquez ! It is a very good por- 
 trait, but has not the distinct touch of Velasquez 
 in it. Mr. MacColl thinks with Northcote that 
 Sir Joshua repainted it. 
 
 6. Don Balthasar Carlos in the Riding-School. 
 
 The face and hair of the rider are quite in the 
 Velasquez vein as though the master himself had 
 touched them; but the rest of the picture is un- 
 certain in its drawing and handling. The dis- 
 tant figures and the buildings against the sky 
 are well given. The landscape, the dark light- 
 ing, the colour, the handling of the blacks and 
 whites indicate Mazo's hand. A more elaborated 
 version is at Grosvenor House. 
 
 80. Velde, Adriaen van de. Departure of Jacob 
 into Egypt. With a glassy sky and smoothly 
 painted figures, but a considerable picture in size 
 and mountain forms for Adriaen van de Velde. 
 The light is, of course, impossible under that 
 blue sky. It was sacrificed in order to make the 
 figures and animals pop out of the darkness. And 
 they do "pop." 
 
 137. Velde, Willem van de. Shipping in a Calm. 
 It is large and not too fine in quality not as fine 
 as some of the painter's smaller pictures. No. 77 
 is the same kind of a picture. 
 
WYNANTS 193 
 
 19. Venetian School. Venus Disarming Cupid. 
 
 The chances are that it is by some assistant or im- 
 itator of Titian not far removed from that mas- 
 ter himself. The bad drawing in the hands, arms, 
 and knees of the Venus, or the crudeness of the 
 trees and hills, as of the bow and quiver, are not 
 wholly to be accounted for by repainting. The 
 forehead, brows, and nose are now hard through 
 restoration, but perhaps they were never very 
 melting in their contours. It is a Titianesque 
 canvas that was once listed as a Giorgione and 
 still has some affinity with the Giorgionesque 
 Rustic Concert of the Louvre. 
 
 18. VOS, Cornells de. Portrait of a Flemish Gentle- 
 man. It is a smooth and shiny portrait with 
 a china ruff about the gentleman's neck. It is, 
 however, very accurately drawn and has con- 
 siderable dignity about it. 
 
 22. - Portrait of a Flemish Lady. This is a bet- 
 ter portrait than No. 18, though of the same gen- 
 eral character. It is quite elaborate in the back- 
 ground with a suggestion of Pieter de Hooch's 
 rich interiors. Both pictures, perhaps, suffer as 
 portraits because of their elaborate accessory 
 objects. Also by the framing under glass. 
 
 .87. Wouwerman, Philips. Coast Scene with Fig- 
 ures. A delightful little picture. Note the ex- 
 cellent painting of the figures and their pictur- 
 esque colourings against that grey sea. When 
 Wouwerman forgets his mannerisms he commands 
 instant admiration. See also the grey decorative 
 landscape No. 218. 
 
 160. WynantS, Jan. Landscape with Cattle. A good 
 example of the Dutch landscape formula in the 
 
194 WALLACE COLLECTION 
 
 hands of Wynants. He employed the same dull 
 grey colour and light as Ruisdael, Hobbema, and 
 Van Goyen. They all of them concocted land- 
 scapes in the studio, following tradition, and ap- 
 parently with little love or care for nature itself. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 i. 
 
 2. 
 
 4. 
 
 6. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
 131 
 14 J 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 22. 
 23. 
 24. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 30. 
 34] 
 46 J 
 49. 
 50. 
 52. 
 53. 
 
 Cima. 
 
 Bianchi. 
 
 Mazo. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 Luini. 
 
 Sarto, A. del. 
 
 Luini. 
 
 Titian. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 Murillo. 
 
 Cano. 
 
 Dyck, A. van. 
 
 Ostade, I. van. 
 
 Vos, C. de. 
 
 Venetian School. 
 
 Maes. 
 
 Vos, C. de. 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 Both. 
 
 Pourbus, Frans. 
 
 Hooch, P. de. 
 
 Both. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 Murillo. 
 
 Cuyp. 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 Rembrandt. 
 Dyck, A. van. 
 
 55. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 56. 
 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 
 61. 
 
 Drost. 
 
 63. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 66. 
 
 Mierevelt. 
 
 68. 
 
 Murillo. 
 
 71. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 74. 
 
 Bol. 
 
 75. 
 
 Hobbema. 
 
 78. 
 
 Flinck. 
 
 79. 
 
 Dyck, A. van. 
 
 80. 
 
 Velde, A. van de. 
 
 81. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 82. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 84. 
 
 Hals. 
 
 85. 
 
 Dyck, A. van. 
 
 86. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 88. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 89. 
 
 Backer. 
 
 90. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 92. 
 
 Coques. 
 
 93. 
 
 Rubens. 
 
 94. 
 
 Dyck, A. van. 
 
 95. 
 
 Hobbema. 
 
 96. 
 
 Maes. 
 
 97. 
 
 Murillo. 
 
 100. 
 
 Velasquez. 
 
 110. 
 
 Heist, Van de. 
 
 111. 
 
 Steen. 
 
 113. 
 
 Everdingen. 
 
 114. 
 
 Claude Lorraine. 
 
 195 
 
 
196 
 
 INDEX 
 
 116. Rosa, Salvatore. 
 120. Jordaens. 
 125. Claude Lorraine. 
 132. Camphuijsen. 
 
 137. Velde, W. van de. 
 
 138. Cuyp. 
 150. Steen. 
 
 153. Dietrich. 
 
 154. Steen. 
 160. Wynants. 
 166. Boursse. 
 173. Rembrandt. 
 177. Dou. 
 
 180. Cuyp. 
 
 187. Wouwerman. 
 
 189. Potter. 
 
 201. Rembrandt. 
 
 202. Ostade, A. van. 
 
 203. Rembrandt. 
 
 209. Steen. 
 
 210. Teniers. 
 
 211. Brouwer. 
 
 217. Neer, A. van der. 
 219. Potter. 
 224. Maes. 
 
 Metsu. 
 
 227. Teniers. 
 229. Rembrandt. 
 231. Teniers. 
 
 236. Terborch. 
 
 237. Netscher. 
 
 238. Rembrandt. 
 240 \ 
 
 242 / 
 248. Bakhuysen. 
 247. Ruisdael, J. 
 498. Canaletto. 
 517. Guardi. 
 525. Beccafumi. 
 527. Crivelli. 
 
 531. Pourbus, P. 
 
 532. Corneille de Lyon. 
 
 536. Ferrarese School. 
 
 537. Luini. 
 
 538. Foppa. 
 
 539. Ferrarese School. 
 541. Italian School. 
 
 543. Benvenuto di Giovanni. 
 548. Flemish School. 
 556. Florentine School. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 FEB 80 
 
 ;Y USE 
 1 1956 
 
 9Aug'56LT 
 
 7 /956 
 
 50m-7.'16 
 
393595 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY