V / NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS BY JOHN O. VAN DYKE PRICE 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 ) ^ }*****..* -75 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 "J Budapest Museum of Fine > bound together . net 1.00 Arts ) VIII. St. Petersburg Hermitage ...... net .75 X. Florence Ufflzi, Pitti, Academy .... In Press XI. Rome Vatican, Borghese Gallery .... In Press XII. Madrid Prado . net .75 IMPERIAL GALLERY BUDAPEST MUSEUM Photograph by Hanfstaengl, Munich VERMEER OF DELFT: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN The Budapest Museum NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS VIENNA, BUDAPEST CRITICAL NOTES ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY AND BUDAPEST MUSEUM BY JOHN C. VAN DYKE !/ AUTHOB OF "ABT FOB AST'S SAE," "THE MEANING OF PICTURES," "HISTOBY OF PAINTING," "OLD DUTCH AND FLEMISH MASTERS," ETC. NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1914 * ;: yv COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Published June, 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- v 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, IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY THE Imperial Gallery at Vienna has not the great reputation of some other European galleries. It has no such popular pictures as Raphael's Sistine Madonna, or Titian's Assunta, or Rembrandt's Night-Watch, or Paul Potter's Young Bull. But it is by no means in- ferior to the best of the North-European galleries in works of true art, in historic and representative exam- ples of great painters, in school representation. There are excellent pictures here of all the schools German, Flemish, Dutch, Italian, Spanish. And occasionally rare and startling examples of the minor masters. Be- lotto, among the Italians, is generally regarded as a feeble echo of Canaletto, but here at Vienna he appears in a long series of most astounding pictures. They are supremely fine, and yet very few people look at them. The more apparent beauty of Titian's Madonna of the Cherries or his Gipsy Madonna is preferred. The Titians are, of course, very fine, and fine, too, are three pictures that may be fairly ascribed to Giorgione. There are Tintorettos and Paolo Veroneses in number, several rather good Lottos, a superb Moretto, in fact, his great masterpiece, many Palmas, two Bellinis, two Correggios, and one very good early Raphael. 3 4 NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY Nowhere can Rubens be better studied than here in the great St. Ildefonso altar-piece, in his large school pieces, in his wonderful portraits of himself and his wife. Here, too, his pupil, Van Dyck, is represented by a large number of figure pieces that show his weak- ness, and several portraits that suggest his strength. Some earlier Flemings in this gallery give one a great surprise Peasant Brueghel, for instance. The large landscape and figure pieces ascribed to him are simply amazing in their point of view and their flat painting. The landscapes by Bles and Patinir, the fantasies of Bosch, the still-life of Beuckelaer are also shown in both quantity and quality. Diirer in the German School stands out pre-eminent by virtue of his large Trinity and several excellent portraits; Cranach, Altdorfer, Strigel, Baldung appear in many examples, and Holbein is seen in several fa- mous portraits the John Chambers being of special ex- cellence. Rembrandt does not appear to advantage in fact, he is misrepresented by pictures done in his school; but Velasquez, though he has a number of school pieces attributed to him, is supreme and almost sublime in three children's portraits, than which Madrid holds nothing finer or more perfect. These should be studied carefully. The Infante Philip Prosper as a child's portrait has never been excelled, and it is doubt- ful if it has ever been equalled. The Imperial Gallery is the result of a bringing to- gether of several collections in the eighteenth century. NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 5 The gathering included the Prague collection of the Emperor Rudolph II, rich in Italian works; the collec- tion of the Archduke Leopold William, containing many Dutch and Venetian pictures; and the gallery of the Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, from which came the Raphael, Madonna of the Meadow, and the Moretto, St. Justina. Since then there have been many addi- tions, and to-day Vienna can boast of nearly eighteen hundred old masters a representation that places the gallery among the first in Europe. The building in which the pictures are housed is one of the most imposing in Vienna. It is large, airy, well lighted, and, generally speaking, well fitted for a gallery. The pictures are arranged by schools and are usually well seen. For several years the gallery has been in process of rehanging, and is now (1913) beginning to emerge much the better for the rearrange- ment. The catalogue of 1907 (in German and with illustrations) has critical value and explains the pic- tures concisely. A small English translation of the Italian, Spanish, and French Schools is obtainable in the gallery. Good photographs of the pictures are sold just inside the entrance. In addition to this Imperial Gallery, the student should look at the collection of the Imperial Academy of Art, where there are a few fine pictures among many copies and works of mediocre quality. Private collec- tions do not find mention in these notes for obvious reasons, but the student in Vienna should see the prac- 6 NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY tically public galleries of Prince Liechtenstein, Count Harrach, and Count Czernin. Finally, there is for ref- erence the celebrated Albertina, with its thousands of drawings after the old masters and its hundreds of thousands of engravings. Vienna is a place where the student can learn the history of art quite as readily as at Berlin, Paris, or London. THE IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA 705. Aertsen, Pieter. Market Scene. The colour seems dull and spiritless, but there is strong, realistic modelling in the figures, and fine, broad painting in the baskets and birds. Aertsen is not seen here so well as in the Brussels Gallery, where he fairly shines. 704. Peasant Feast. There is more tang about the colour here than in No. 705. Look at the still-life on the tables. And also at the red peasant faces. 1421. Altdorfer, Albrecht. Nativity. It appears some- what fantastic in the background and lighting, but is, at least, not commonplace in conception. The group of the Madonna, Child and two little angels is very naive, and the Joseph is given with dignity. Notice the snow on the landscape, the sunrise at the back, and high up the angels singing. L422. Holy Family. There is little that looks " holy " about the group, but what a piece of decoration from the robes and their straight lines to the ara- besque of fruit in its rounded lines! It is an excel- lent colour pattern and done with both skill and spirit. 5. Amberger Ghristoph. Portrait of Ulrich Sul- czer. The panel has been hurt, stained, retouched so much so that the drawing is now muffled in the 7 8 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY face, hand, and fur. Originally, no doubt, a por- trait of some distinction. 5. Antonello da Saliba. Dead Christ. The senti- ment of it seems intense, almost tragic. The angels with variegated wings upholding the arms of Christ are not only lovely but pathetic. The drawing is hard, the landscape at the left is crude in the hills and trees, and the clouds in the sky are of similar quality. These defects may be due to the repaint- ing from which the picture has suffered. So badly is the surface retouched that one cannot now say with any certainty who did the picture. In 1912 the direction of the gallery said it was an Antonello da Messina. They now (1913) think of it more modestly as an Antonello da Saliba. 395. Badile, Antonio. Portrait of a Lady. The por- trait is somewhat ponderous in the figure heavy in the arms from the shoulders down. The shadow on the head at the right side is now so violent that we lose some of the modelling. The dress is decora- tively beautiful and the ensemble good. The type is commanding and the presence excellent. It was formerly thought a portrait of Caterina Cornaro, the Queen of Cyprus, and supposed to be by Paolo Veronese. The canvas is injured. 397. Portrait of a Lady. The face line is a little hard, the nose is turned up, the hair is coarse, and at the back the head cuts away to nothing. The background has darkened. Good hands are shown, and a splendid dress. The colour is golden-brown. A fine portrait given with much dignity. For- merly attributed to Paolo Veronese. 1424. Baldung, Hans. Portrait of a Man. A strange type for a sitter a timid personality, a shrinking, BASAITI, MARCO 9 piteous soul. The colour is not very rich or deep in hue. 423. Death and the Maiden. The white figure of the young girl is placed in strong contrast to the brown Death. Notice also the beauty of flowing outline in the girl, again in contrast with the ragged broken lines of Death. The little Love below is odd. The landscape is suggestive of Burgkmair. Formerly ascribed to Altdorfer. 34. Bartolommeo, Fra. Madonna and Child. It looks like the work of some inferior painter trying to do a picture after the style of Andrea del Sarto. It is hardly a Bartolommeo, nor a picture by any artist of the first rank, though it possibly came out of Bartolommeo's shop. 41. Presentation in the Temple. It is a heavy picture all through. The figures are short and stout, the robes broad and flat, the group oblong and angular. In addition, the colour is hot, the flesh flushed, and the blue of the Madonna's robe seems out of key. It is not a satisfactory example of this master, and is possibly only a school piece. 1. Basaiti, MarCO. Calling of Sons of Zebedee. It is a variation of the larger picture of the same sub- ject in the Venice Academy (No. 39) but apparently thinner and poorer than the Venetian example. The action here is from left to right, whereas in the larger picture it is from right to left. The archi- tectural framework is well done, but possibly something of a mistake as the picture now stands. The blackish space around the frame is not attrac- tive. The sky and distance with the colour are very good. The faces are repainted as well as portions of the landscape. 10 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 1431. Beck, Leonhard. St. George. The surface detail of it seems better wrought out than the underlying structure. The St. George and his gaily capari- soned steed are very fine and the rescued princess with the lamb at the right naive. At the back the princess is seen walking away and leading by a string the dragon or a green sheep, no one knows exactly which. The landscape is a little formal. Attribu- tion questioned by the catalogue. 1432. Beham, Barthel. Ferdinand I. This is the same sitter as shown in No. 1427, by Maler zu Schwaz, according to the catalogue, but the hair, eyes, and flesh are quite different. A good portrait but not necessarily by Beham. 4. Bellini, Giovanni. Baptism of Christ. The landscape is rather fine but the figures are not well done. At least they are not well enough done for Bellini's hand to have done them. The picture is evidently a repetition of the Vicenza picture (as the catalogue suggests) by some member of the Bellini School. 13. Young Woman at Toilet. The figure is white, * a little ivory-like, somewhat hard in outline, and flattened by cleaning. The type is handsome, the head-dress odd, the landscape very good. It was formerly attributed to Bellini, then given to Bissolo, and now given back to Bellini. But it does not belong to either painter. It is nearer to Catena. It has been hurt across the legs, in the draperies, in the sky, but is still a handsome piece of form and colour. Notice the reflecting mirror. 89. Bellini, School of. Madonna and Child. It is not great. The work is duller than the Boccaccino at Venice (No. 600) and both the Madonna and BELOTTO, BERNARDO 11 Child are rather heavy though well modelled. The robe is rich in pattern and colour but is hard and airless. And the Madonna's hand with the cherries, outstretched as though asking alms, seems odd. Formerly given to the School of Bellini, then to Boccaccino, now again to the Bellini School, but no one knows just where it belongs. Dr. Borenius thinks it shows the influence of Antonello da Mes- sina. Its connection with Bellini seems slight. 455. Belotto, Bernardo. Ruins of Thebes. A fine, * large landscape with sunlight at the right and dark shadow at the left. Such pictures as these by Belotto have never been half appreciated. They are far and away ahead of the Venetian things of his uncle, Canaletto. The largeness of view as well as of canvas, the breadth and truth of both construction and handling, the hold-together and ensemble are really superb. Of course, they are dark in colour and light, but the relationship of the light to the shade is properly maintained. No- tice the fine, green hillside with ruined buildings, the lake and distance, the sky and clouds. 458. Schbnbrunn Castle. It is not SO good as No. 455 but is impressive, nevertheless. It is a little more formal in the pattern of the grounds, and the painter probably followed the actual model with literal truth. The topography counted with the patron rather than the art, and the painter had to make a map as well as a picture. 463. Imperial Castle. It is wonderfully fine in the * sky, clouds, and distance. The colour is a little monotonous but the ensemble, the air, the tone are superb. The key of light is low but its rela- tion to the shadow is again perfectly maintained 12 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY throughout. Look at the figures how beautifully they are done, how charming they are as colour, how wonderfully they hold their place in the picture! Even the railings of the fountains and the build- ings at the back are to be admired for their pictur- esque drawing. 465. Imperial Castle. Another great landscape * with a fine sky, distance, and architectural draw- ing. The light is dark but again true in relation to the shadows. 466. Imperial Castle. It is really magnificent in * distance, light, sky, mountains, and sea. All these Belottos here at Vienna are wonderful landscapes. It is astonishing that no one seems to look at them or writes or talks about them. Modern landscape, with all its coloured light, air, and shadows, seems just a bit foolish beside these majestic creations of Belotto. 26. Benozzo, Gozzoli. Madonna and Child. A pic- * ture rich in colour and quite splendid in its gold work. This gold work, in the haloes and elsewhere, is tooled, not stamped. The robes are as angular as the drawing of the hands and faces, but even the folds and wrinkles are decoratively arranged. The picture is well put together in a balanced composi- tion and well planned for richness of colour effect by placing the Madonna against the white ermine, giving her fine garments, and surrounding her with beautiful gildings, colours, flowers, angels. What fine feeling and good sentiment there are about the Madonna and the kneeling saints! Look at the forest of trees on either side. 707A. Beuckelaer, Joachim. The Cook. A strong * piece of drawing, with excellent painting of still- BLES, HERRI MET DE 13 life, but it hardly reaches up to the same subject by this painter's master, Aertsen, in the Brussels Gallery (No. 2). However, the technical grip of it is compelling and the colour is excellent. Look at the meat in the basket. 706. Poultry Seller. Of the same kind and quality as No. 707A. It is strong still-life painting but not very good in colour. It is blackish. 707. Market Woman. More brutal in type and colour than No. 707A but not better. His mas- ter, Aertsen, is more virile and more original but Beuckelaer is strong enough at times. 670. Bles, Herri met de. The Road to Emmaus. This picture and Nos. 671, 672, 664, and 669 are all more or less of similar origin. They are to be ranged about Patinir rather than Bles. The owl signature is misleading. See the notes on the Bles pictures here, Nos. 673 and 657. The little picture, No. 664, by Patinir is very interesting in its clear drawing of rocks. 673. St. Jerome. There is nothing in this picture, either in figures or landscape, that points to Bles as he appears in the pictures attributed to him at Brussels, Antwerp, Madrid, and elsewhere. The owl sign of Bles is by no means a thing to rely upon. Other painters used it frequently. The three pic- tures by Bosch in the next room (Nos. 651, 652, 653) all have it. In the Bosch No. 653 it appears on the leg of the fainting man as though put there purposely as a signature, yet at the bottom we have the signed name of Bosch and the picture is un- doubtedly by Bosch. If every Netherland pic- ture with an owl in it were given to Bles and every Italian picture with a bone in it to Dossi, we should 14 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY have more of a mix-up in art history than at pres- ent which is saying much. This picture (No. 673) belongs with the Patinir pictures. Even the catalogue queries it. 657. Temptation of St. Anthony. In this picture, and also in Nos. 654, 655, and 656, Bles seems con- fused with the style of Bosch. There is not a Bles in the Vienna Gallery that closely corresponds with the pictures attributed to him elsewhere. The Adoration (No. 662) comes nearer to agreement than any other but is not satisfactory or convinc- ingly in Bles's style. It is by a Bles follower. M. Hulin de Loo, in the Burlington Magazine for October, 1912, insists that the real Bles was ex- clusively a landscape painter, that his name was Kerry Patinier, and that all the figure pictures at- tributed to Bles are pseudo-Bleses. This not only eliminates owl signs and nicknames but puts Bles himself out of existence. And, after all, that may be the right conclusion. 145. Bonifazio dei Pitati. Daughter of Herodias. The same model is seen again in the Supper in the Rich Man's House in the Venice Academy (No. 291). The drawing seems somewhat distorted. The features are set to the right of the face, the distance to the ear is too great, the arm is badly done. It is hardly worth disputing about who painted it and yet the picture has good colour and a general air of some distinction. 157. Portrait of Lady. It is a smooth portrait, slightly drawn in the face and hands, but of agree- able personality. The lady is dressed handsomely. The attribution is questionable. BORDONE, PARIS. 15 226. Bonifazio Veneziano. Vision of Priest. A dec- orative affair and that is about all. The figures are not well drawn. The distance is Venetian with a view of the Ducal Palace. Another view of the Piazza S. Marco in No. 171 A. The very existence of the painter is doubted. The picture is probably from the shop of Bonifazio dei Pitati. 170 } Madonna and Annunciation Angel. Two pic- 171 / tures that originally belonged closer together than at present, perhaps that is, belonged to one pic- ture. They are brilliant in colour if a little coarse in spirit. 172 1 Four Saints. Two pictures of some decorative 188 J merit but not wonderful in any way. They are probably shop work from the studio of Bonifazio dei Pitati. Bonifazio Veneziano was brought into existence by Morelli's imagination. 248. Bordone, Paris. Portrait of a Young Woman. The flesh is pallid, the face flushed, the hair hemp- like, the high lights on the robe glittering. The picture is rather coarsely done and has probably been retouched. 231. A Young Woman. It seems better in the flesh-notes than either No. 248 or No. 233 or No. 246 but in itself is not remarkable. The figure is well suggested and the hands and arms are rightly done, but the same coarse hair appears here as elsewhere. 23lA. Portrait of a Courtesan. This is, perhaps, the best of the Bordones here though still glitter- ing in the high lights of hair and dress. The left hand is badly drawn and the colour contrast of the red and blue is not particularly happy. 16 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 651. Bosch, Jerome. Temptation of St. Anthony. The picture has some fine colour about it but has been injured somewhat. The left wing has, per- haps, blackened and is not now in tone with the rest of the triptych. 653. Martyrdom of St. Julia. It is not only a beau- * tiful triptych in colour but is interesting for its flat painting. What fine costumes! There is a swing about the lines of Bosch's costumes, especially the trains of them, that reminds one of Bles and per- haps leads to some of Bosch's pictures being put down to Bles, as in the next cabinet (Nos. 655-657) or at Amsterdam (No. 522). The left panel here is dark as in No. 651. The landscape very good. Notice the water in the panel at the left. See also No. 652. 1245. Bramer, Leonard. Allegory of Vanity. This picture and No. 1246 are both of them excellent in shadow and air with some good painting in the still-life. It is free but not very certain brush- work that is, it is not very accurate in drawing. The No. 1246 shows the same kind of facile han- dling. 1135. Brouwer, Adriaen. Peasant Drinking. A fine piece of painting in which the drawing, colour, and texture are all given with skill and effect. It is absolute work. Look at the barrel or the jug and then look at the depth and breadth of the figure, its attitude and weight. 914. Brueghel the Elder, Jan (Velvet). Storm at Sea. It has something of the colour quality of No. 904, and is possibly by the same hand that did Nos. 709, 711, 713, 984 in this gallery that is, not BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 17 Velvet Brueghel but a Brueghel we shall call Seasons Brueghel. See note on No. 709. There is a great heave of the waters and a feeling of in- undation about it. Very well done. For Velvet Brueghel, see Nos. 908 and 911. 708. Brueghel the Elder, Peter (Peasant). Playing * Children. The nine large canvases put down to Peasant Brueghel and shown in this gallery are as astonishing as any art ever turned out of the Neth- erlands. They are so wonderful in their landscapes, so remarkable in colour, so modern in their flat painting that one is quite upset at the thought that no one seems to love them or appreciate them or even mention them. We lose ourselves, perhaps in studying single figures in such a picture as the first one of the nine (No. 708) ; but go back across the gallery, where the spottiness of the figures is less apparent, and see what a setting of buildings, a street, a sea, and a landscape are shown here. What light-and-shade! Go close again and exam- ine the little figures and what motion and life they have, how easily they are painted! And what quality in such colours as the reds and blues! By the same hand that did Nos. 710 and 712 that is, Peasant Brueghel, in all probability, but not by the painter we have called Seasons Brueghel. 709. Autumn Landscape. Some of the trees in ** this picture are bare; others in the distance have brown foliage; several peasants are driving cattle up into the hills. This is the most astonishing landscape of a series of three representing the Sea- sons the Summer having been lost. Any modern impressionist (if he could be induced to enter a gallery) might rave over it. The drawing is sum- 18 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY mary, large, wonderful in outline, almost like that of Daumier. The painting is thin, not loaded in the high lights, very flat, almost meagre in its econ- omy of pigment. But what a result! What an effect! The men, cattle, horses, trees, mountains, sky are almost startling in their truth of represen- tation their large truth not their petty details. What water, river banks, and hills in the foreground ! What a herd of cattle, what bare trees, what depth and distance through to the blue mountains at the back! It is more modern in spirit and in method than a Courbet, a Millet, or even a Manet. The light, air, colour, perspective are all excellent. When the oddity of it wears off the student will find this landscape one of much power and beauty. The. painter of it did Nos. 711, 713, 914, 984 in this gallery, but not the other pictures ascribed to Peasant Brueghel. He is the strongest of all the Brueghels and quite distinct from those heretofore known to us. To identify him he may be called Seasons Brueghel. 711. Spring Landscape. Apparently this landscape ** is a representation of early spring before life has started. The light is dim and a storm is gathering. Barring the difference in light, the picture is similar in treatment to No. 709. It shows the same meagre use of pigment, large outline drawing, and flat painting. And it has the same grasp and strength about it. The painter knows exactly what he wants to do and does it easily, serenely, truly, surely. The warm foreground with houses and figures leads away to the stormy water, the dark sky, and the distant mountains with snow still lingering on their heights. How beautifully the bare trees cut against the sky! How they seem to emphasise the atmos- BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 19 phere, the temperature, the season ! All nature with- out is cold and forbidding, and by way of contrast you have the suggestion of warmth and security as shown in the peasants and their well-sheltered houses in the foreground. What wonderful water! Difficult to see because of the glass. An excellent landscape. By Seasons Brueghel, painter of Nos. 709, 711, 914, 984. 713. Winter Landscape. Another landscape of the Seasons series and a companion to Nos. 709 and 711. The snow with the dark figures and tree trunks against it make the picture almost an effect in black and white, but there is warmth of colour rubbed into the houses, the dogs, and the fire. With little actual demonstration of colour, the picture still impresses one as possessing it. It is handled in just the same manner as the others of the Seasons series, being thinly and flatly painted and such things as the figures count largely as patches of dark on the light ground. But the figures are in perfect keeping; their values are always maintained. Compare those in the foreground, as regards their value as black, with the figures standing about the fire, or study a moment the values in the reced- ing tree trunks. Their truth is astonishing. The whites are treated with the same discrimination as regards their values. The birds and the little figures on the ice hold their own as blacks no better than the housetops or the hills or distant mountains as whites. As a result, what aerial perspective! What distance, atmosphere, and ensemble! An- other great landscape by Seasons Brueghel. See note on No. 709. 710. Massacre of the Innocents. After studying * Nos. 709, 711, and 713, one is loath to believe that 20 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY this snow scene is by the same hand. It is not so well done. It is handled in a somewhat similar way, but is not so largely or so surely done. The figures are smaller but have more colour and seem to count for more in the picture than the build- ings, trees, or distance. This is different from No. 713, where everything is regarded as merely a block in the mosaic. But the values and the col- ours here are well maintained and are effective. It is a fine picture and only a little less interesting than 713. Probably by Peasant Brueghel. 712. The Way to Calvary. There is no prominence ** given here to the central group of the Christ bear- ing the Cross, no pyramidal composition to exalt, no concentration of light or colour to illumine or attract. It is the genre treatment of the scene wherein every object holds the place it would in reality if seen from a distant slope. The figures of people are related to the landscape largely as spots of colour. The Madonna, Magdalen, and St. John are larger than the others only because they hap- pen to be in the foreground and truthful perspec- tive required their enlargement. It is a crowd, a real scattered crowd, making its way to Golgotha from many directions without a blessed thought of coming together in a picturesque group for the painter to paint them. There has been an evident desire to tell the exact truth of appearance as seen by a Brueghel's northern eyes. It is truly a won- derful, animated gathering, pictured in just as wonderful a landscape. Notice the central height of rock, or back of it the shadowed dale, or in the distance the circling city walls. Notice also the receding clouds in the sky as well as the figures on the earth. What distance, depth, and air are here! BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 21 Colour is everywhere laid on in flat tones, patch- painted, with little shadow, and no impasto of importance (see, for instance, the painting of the women's robes in the foreground) ; yet relief, mod- elling, depth, are given. The figures have thickness as well as height and breadth. This again is an astonishing picture. One could make a book out of it, using it to illustrate almost every correct principle of modern painting. Probably by Peasant Brueghel. 714. The Conversion of Paul. What an extraor- dinary flight of the imagination! What other painter ever conceived the conversion of Paul (or Saul) in such a way as this! The scene is high up in the mountains, with great canons breaking down to the sea and lofty peaks reaching up to the sky. It is so high up that the pines and hemlocks are seen in clumps and the peaks are mere bare rock above the timber-line. Files of soldiers are coming up the canon, only their heads showing above the rocky slash. Far up the slope they are filing on, with only a few of them turning back to see the fall of Paul. What a crowd and huddle of figures! What a push and drive of forces upward! What a blaze of martial colour here and there under the abnormally disturbed light and sky! The picture is painted flatly and thinly, with true values, good air, and perfect perspective. Probably by Peasant Brueghel. 715. The Tower of Babel. It is just as wonderful * in treatment as the other pictures of the series by Peasant Brueghel but is, perhaps, less interest- ing in theme and in colour. There are too many small objects in it, and it becomes more or less 22 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY panoramic. But there are fine bits here and there, such as the ships and sea down at the right or the masons working at the left or the distant town. The landscape and sky are a little cold. Probably by Peasant BruegheL 716. A Netherland Masquerade. Perhaps the least * interesting in subject and treatment of any of the large Brueghels here. The colours are pronounced and at times spotty, though there are excellent light-and-shade, good air, and hold-together about the picture. It has the same kind of painting as the other canvases, though it may have been done by one of the Brueghels other than Peasant Brue- ghel. 719. Kermess. Looked at decoratively, merely as ** a coloured pattern, what could be finer than this? As flat painting it has never been surpassed and seldom equalled. The man who could do such work was a great craftsman. No matter about his lack of the sense of beauty in faces and figures or his grossness of types or subject. He was not try- ing to paint Greek goddesses but Flemish peasants. Judge him by what he tried to do, not by what he never thought of doing. What figures, faces, houses, trees are here! They are not only real but picturesque and artistic to the last degree. Prob- ably by Peasant Brueghel, though it seems differ- ent work from that of No. 712. 717. Peasant Wedding. It would be impossible to ** conjure up a truer characterisation of peasant life than this. Study the types, from the silly bride against the wall to the dumb, staring musician in the centre, or the stupid little boy in the foreground, or the cattle-like huddle of coarse figures at the BURGKMAIR, HANS 23 back. It is everywhere the exact, brutal truth without attempt at disguise in any form. And yet see what colour the painter has wrung out of the walls, the smoked rafters, the hats and coats, the dishes of food, the jugs ! It is a marvel of truthful colour, light, air, handling. What could be better, for instance, than the waiters carrying plates of food on a great cellar door, seen at the right? It is really perfect painting. The moderns have never gone beyond it. By the painter of No. 719 that is, probably, Peasant Brueghel. 720. The Shepherd. It might be thought more ex- * traordinary if we had not such a splendid showing in the larger Brueghels near at hand the best in the world. Still, here is a fine piece of realistic work red eyelids and all. And with good col- our. This, too, in spite of the rather strong sus- picion that neither Seasons Brueghel nor Peasant Brueghel painted the picture but that it is, per- haps, by one of the lesser following. 984. Sea Piece. What a fine thing in colour! Never mind the fantastic in it. Judged by its sesthetic and decorative quality as colour, it will stand up well. It is by the painter of Nos. 709, 711, 713, 914 Seasons Brueghel. It is of no great importance that we cannot give his name more positively. Art is not a matter of name or pedi- gree. Look at the work and let the connoisseurs quarrel about the worker. Bueckelaer. See Beuckelaer. 1405. Burgkmair, Hans. Portrait of the Painter and Wife. These portraits show the influence of Diirer though looser in drawing and freer in handling. They have not Diirer's accuracy but they are well 24 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY drawn, nevertheless. There is also much serious- ness in the painter's point of view. Slightly re- painted. 223. Galisto Piazza da Lodi. Daughter of Herodias. It is not very good work. There are too many figures in it though they are fairly well drawn. The colouring is warm all through and the flesh is reddish. Somewhat brutal in theme. 1338. Cappelle, Jan van de. Smooth Sea. Perhaps the best of the numerous sea pieces by the Dutch painters in this gallery. It is neither very learned nor very cunning but is a good piece of colour and light. The Vlieger (No. 1339), and the Backhuisen (No. 1341) are no improvement upon it. 205. Cariani, Giovanni Busi. The Apostle John. It was formerly thought to be a Dossi, then a Palma, and now it is assigned to Cariani. It is not an im- portant work no matter who its painter. 7. Carpaccio, Vittore. Christ Adored by Angels. The landscape seems odd for Carpaccio. The trees are small, bunched, and hard where they cut into the sky-line. The sky itself seems crude. The an- gels are the best part of the picture, but they, too, are hard in their robes though very charming in sen- timent. The figure of the Christ is thin and mea- gre. The composition is pyramidal the angels supporting the cross and the figure. There is some fine colour in the cloth back of the Christ in spite of the fact that everything in the picture has been more or less repainted. It is a questionable Car- paccio in spite of its well-preserved signature. 606. Carreiio de Miranda, Juan. Charles II. An- other version, perhaps, of the portraits seen at CLEVE, JUSTE VAN DER BEKE VAN 25 Madrid (No. 642) and Berlin (No. 407), the sitter being here a little older in years. This portrait is more substantial than those at Madrid and Berlin. The hair, chain, dress, and curtain are well painted. 20. Catena, Vincenzo. Portrait. The colour is crude blue with green and mauve. The face is well enough done but a little flat and now repainted. The hands are hard and they also are repainted. The figure is flattened against a grey ground. 91. Gesare da Sesto. Daughter of Herodias. The figure is graceful and a little sentimental. The sur- face of the picture is smooth, rather glassy; the robes are washed out in the high lights for relief, as over the knee, for example; the colour is a little weak. Thought at one time to have been painted by Leonardo. 19. Cima, Giovanni Battista. Madonna under an Orange-Tree. It is a fair Cima. The figures seem disturbed by the trees which are, in turn, rather cheap, space-filling devices. The Madonna and Child are not very good in colour though the blue robe at the right is attractive. Notice the blue mountains at the back with Cima's road winding out and up to a hill city. The sky is high and rather fine. 682. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of Death of Virgin). Madonna and Child. With fine feeling and some minute painting in the head-dress, hair, and still-life. The dark ground back of the Madonna seems to have been painted in later and the aureole added about the head. 643A. Queen Eleanor of France. A small portrait that has about it a suggestion of Gossart. It is 26 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY elaborately done in the costume and jewels but is hard in the surface and uneasy in the spots of white. The attribution is only a guess. 684. Madonna and Child. This is similar to No. 682 and is of the same quality. Notice the still- life and the landscape. The Diirer monogram and date on the ledge are forgeries. 683. Altar-Piece. A triptych with rich architec- * ture, fine robes, and excellent donors in the wings. The work is very well wrought especially in the donors and their patrons. Look at the charming St. Catherine at the right in her gorgeous costume or the fine St. George in his armour at the left. The central panel is rich in colour and shows much feeling in the Madonna and angel. Something in the figures, robes, and architecture suggests Gos- sart; and not the least interesting part of the pic- ture is the landscape which suggests Patinir and his following. The same glassy surface quality as in No. 643A. 602. Coello, Alonzo Sanchez. Queen Anna of Spain. A fair enough sample of the rather hard drawing of Sanchez Coello with his insistence on ornamental truth rather than structural truth. The figure is practically an embroidered robe flattened on a grey ground. The lady herself is somewhat rigid in the head and hand as though held in some beauti- ful iron casing. No. 597 is another illustration of this insistent detail. It is good work of its kind but puts too much stress on features of the portrait that should be subordinated. 646. Cornelisz van Oostsanen, Jacob. St. Jerome. * These altar wings have been so much repainted that COSTA, LORENZO 27 it is difficult to get an idea of their quality or their painter. The embroidered robes are the best-pre- served portions of the wings and they are very handsome. The ground at the top is raw from re- painting as is the frame from regilding. There are four wings of the altar-piece and there are figures of saints on the reverse of them. Ask an attendant to open the doors. The figures on the inside are most brilliant in colours, with wonderful embroi- deries. St. Jerome with donors on the central panel. Fine landscapes with small figures show at the back. 59. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Ganymede. It has the volatile and airy quality of Correggio that one sees in his Parma frescoes. There is also his spirit of gaiety and life his faun-like quality. The drawing is not too good nor the colour pro- nounced, but there is motion, distance, air. It is badly repainted in the landscape and elsewhere. Notice the shadow on the Ganymede's leg for wholesale repainting. 64. 7o. Here is an illustration of Correggio's * strength as distinguished from the mere prettiness that characterises so many of his easel pictures. The figure of lo has been much injured by abrasion, but it must be apparent to the most unobservant that there is still superb mastery of form in the arms, shoulders, back, thighs, and leg of this figure. What a splendid creature she is! You do not feel that she is doll-like but rather massive and sibyl- line. The figure is almost white and for a foil the cloud is grey and the landscape brown. 85. Costa, Lorenzo. Portrait of a Woman. It wants in modelling and has perhaps been over- cleaned. The face, neck, and chest are now rather 28 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY chalky. There is a frail Francia landscape with it. The portrait was probably never very good and yet it was thought of such merit that at one time it was put down to Raphael! It is probably by some Costa follower. The catalogue queries it. 770lCoxie, Michiel van. Paradise and the Fall. 771 j The wings of an altar-piece which in their original setting and before their repainting might have been of considerable excellence. There is good drawing about them and the landscapes are effective. Pos- sibly the grey look of the panels is due to repainting. 1452. Cranach the Elder, Lucas. The Stag Hunt. The work does not speak so loudly for Cranach himself as for his workshop. The landscape is too crude and the trees too perfunctory in their doing. No. 1468 is in the same category. Compare them with the trees and deer in No. 1462 or even in the copy, No. 1463. 1453. St. Jerome and St. Leopold. Two small panels done with much skill and with fine results of colour. The Cranachs here at Vienna are many but not very good. These two panels are, perhaps, the best of them. 1460. Portraits of Three Girls. Neither the drawing nor the colour seems to have the quality that be- longs to the Elder Cranach as shown here in Nos. 1453 and 1454. This has something the appear- ance of a school piece though it may be a genuine enough Cranach. 1455. Portrait of a Man. Very simply drawn and painted without splurge or pretence or display. The painter did his work carefully and for the sake of a likeness rather than to show how clever he DAVID, GERARD 29 could be with pencil or brush. There is no osten- tation about it. 1459. Adam and Eve. This is very beautiful out- line drawing resulting in grace, strength, and purity. The background is formal but very good, and quite different from that in the hunting pictures hanging near it. 1458. Judith. It is good work, but one has seen other things by Cranach more engaging as form and colour. The hair is prettily done. 1462. Paradise. Compare this landscape with that * in the hunting pictures (Nos. 1452, 1468), especially in the trees and the rocks high up at the left, and two different hands will be recognised. This Para- dise is the work of the elder Cranach. The figures are his and even the deer are a different tale from those in the hunting pictures. The figures are scat- tered and the composition is not well held together, but the landscape holds and, after all, the figures are little more than colour spots upon it or in it. 626. David, Gerard. Altar-Piece. It is in three parts with figures on the reverse of the wings. The cen- tral panel shows the archangel St. Michael over- coming Satan and his cohorts. The archangel is calm, the demons much agitated. The garments of St. Michael are rather fine in colour, but other- wise there is little remarkable about the panel though Mr. Weale seems to think it a rather im- portant work. For ourselves we think it a poor copy. The figures of St. Jerome and St. Anthony of Padua at the sides are much better done, have more quality, as also the figures on the reverse of the wings. 30 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 627A. Nativity. This picture commands attention at first because of the unusual night scene, with light emanating from the Child and the angels de- scending toward the light, but it does not improve on close acquaintance. The work is not particu- larly well done save in the general composition, light, and colour. The drawing and handling have the timidity and uncertainty of a copy. Notice this in the doing of the angel wings, the Madonna's face and hair, the architectural reliefs, the robes. It is a striking picture but possibly an old copy of some sort. Originally the centre of a triptych and with a pointed top. Other versions elsewhere. 68. Dossi, Dosso. 5*. Jerome. The landscape seems the best part of the picture. It is lighted in Dossi's peculiar fashion and the work is doubtless by him. The figure is red and over-modelled in the muscles. 68A. Conversion of Saul. A new (1913) picture in the gallery that looks much repainted, though it may be only flayed and may have its high lights over-exposed. The horse and figure are both theatrical. 1442. Diirer, Albrecht. Madonna and Child. What * a remarkable characterisation in its exaltation of the German peasant type! It is pathetic in its earnestness and its homeliness. How beautifully it is drawn ! And what charm as well as skill in the doing of the head-dress and the hair even the short hair of the Child. As a piece of colour it is almost perfect. Compare it, for the delicacy and distinction of its colour, with the brawling colour of the Trinity (No. 1545) near at hand. Did Diirer paint it? It is good enough for any one but it is not precisely in Diirer's style. DURER, ALBRECHT 31 1443. The Emperor Maximilian I. The head and * shoulders with the coat of arms and inscription at the top are well placed on the panel, filling the space rightly and making a decorative pattern. The drawing is careful, sure, literal, as though each stroke of the hair, for instance, were a model for the engraver coming after. Yet with all its scrupulous detail the portrait holds at a distance. The robe is excellent in colour as is the fur in texture. It is by all odds the best portrait of Maximilian in the gallery, giving much more of the emperor and ruler than the Strigel portraits. The superior air of the monarch is here. 1444. Portrait of a Man. A common enough type. The panel is now hurt by cracking and repainting. On the reverse of it is a semi-nude figure. 1445. Adoration of the Trinity. If this picture were * not marked by its dreadfully bright frame and made prominent by its pedestal, one might pass it in the gallery without notice because of its rather garish colouring. Almost every one insists that it is Diirer's masterpiece. But why? For what rea- son? Is it on account of its colour? There is here a spotting of bright hues but no great sense of col- our. The blues are far from pleasant and give a cold look to the picture that the reds do not tem- per. Is it because it is good in tone? The light of it comes from no one point and is arbitrary with each figure. One by one these people in their bright garments were completed and put into the picture, with apparently small regard for their mutual relations. Light and shade do not hold them together. There is ensemble only by virtue of the composition and not too much even of that. 32 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY Is it beautiful in its atmosphere? The picture might have been painted in a vacuum for all the air it possesses. There is a decided lack of good colour, light, air, and setting. With this said it is proper to add that each robed figure is quite per- fect in itself perfect in drawing, painting, and characterisation. There are fine types, splendid robes, brilliant spots of colour here. The work in the part or even in the separate group is excellent. What a robe, that of the pope with his back to us ! What wonderful types are the kings and warriors at the right or the saints and martyrs up at the left! What beautiful angels at the top! The fig- ure of Christ is substantially the same as in the small Christ on the Cross at Dresden (No. 1870) and is remarkable in its pathos. The more one studies the picture close at hand the better and the more wonderful it becomes, but when you stand back from it and try to see it as a single, united effect it falls down. The charm- ing cubes of the mosaic are not well put together. Diirer relied on the circle of figures about the Christ to hold the groups, but that was not suf- ficient. Moreover, the circle is not flat on the panel but recedes in linear perspective at the top, which lessens the value of the top and makes the lower foreground figures protrusive. As composi- tion and colour the picture is not a success. Look at the Diirer school piece (No. 1440), and you will notice that even that is better in colour, has more oneness of effect. As realistic and beautiful detail the picture certainly is a success. And that de- scribes Diirer accurately enough. He was a realist of beautiful facts. One of the most interesting features of the picture is the landscape seen at the DURER, ALBRECHT 33 bottom. The painter himself is seen standing at the right, beside the signature. Cleaned and re- painted. 1446. Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand Christians. The landscape of this picture lends an envelope in which the figures are placed with moderate suc- cess. In this respect the problem was easier than in the Trinity (No. 1445), where the figures are placed in a circle against a sky that fails to re- cede. However, there is still a feeling in this martyr picture that the figures set in by virtue of linear perspective and not by aerial perspective. There is little atmosphere in the picture and very little ensemble or singleness of effect. The work is scattered and gathers interest only from an ex- amination of the individual figures. These are, of course, extremely well done. Notice the fore- ground characters, especially those at the right with the turbans. What a coat the man on horse- back is wearing! What drawing in the backs of those above the horse's head ! What a figure, that at the left, sagging down from the cross, with the ropes cutting into his flesh where the strain comes I All the figures are well drawn. The colour is no better than in the Trinity. The blues are cold, and unity of colour is not felt. How very different from the small Diirer, No. 1442! The trees and rocks are well done; the sky is hurt. Durer in black is seen in the centre of the picture. Done by the order of the Elector Frederick the Wise, who probably dictated the subject. 1448. Portrait of Johann Klebergers. It is a little bizarre for all its attempt at elegance of design. Moreover, it is weak in drawing, the face outline being feeble and the mouth and eyes askew. 34 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 1447. ' Madonna and Child. How could Diirer ever have put in that outrageous blue? It is acrid, screaming, false in tone. Compare with that the loveliness of the white head-dress. What a tone of colour it has ! How it is drawn and painted ! What a face below it, and what lovely hair! The Child is a little enamel-like in the face but well drawn. 1048. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Mont fort. A portrait with some of the swagger air for which Van Dyck's portraits are more or less noted, but it is not very good in workmanship. The hands have become blackened from dark underbasing. The chain is carelessly done. As for the body, it is well suggested, and the head is well modelled. The work seems hurried and hasty. 1046. Portrait of Francesco da Moncada. Other versions of this portrait are in the Louvre. They are all of about the same quality. There is noth- ing remarkable about this one. It is repainted. 1043. Samson and Delilah. With a forceful, rather pretty Delilah and a well-drawn Samson. The sur- face and the texture painting are both too smooth, and the colours are too sweet. The blue at the back is entirely out of key. The sweetness of the picture extends even to the doing of the armour at the right as well as the drapery or the dog at the left. It is not strong and suggests that Van Dyck turned over the painting of it to pupils or assistants. 1039. The Blessed Hermann Joseph. It is of about the same character and quality as Nos. 1043 and 1035 all of them too merely pretty to be forceful. This is not a bad composition, nor is it badly drawn, but the sentiment of it is a little over-done. DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 35 1035. Venus and Vulcan. There is good colour in this picture, but the types and the painting are far too saccharine for the cultivated taste. One always wonders about this kind of Van Dyck pic- ture (seen also in No. 1039), wonders if Van Dyck really did such work or if he merely countenanced it in his workshop and among his helpers to the extent of allowing it to go out under his name. It is so much weaker than his portraiture or such works as the Betrayal of Christ at Madrid and the St. Jerome at Dresden that one can with difficulty believe in it. 1040. Madonna, Child, and St. Rosalie. It may be passed by with no great loss to the passer-by. It has the look of a much-repainted copy. 1036. St. Francis. Another version of this picture, probably the original, is in the Madrid Gallery (No. 1478). This Vienna picture is perhaps a copy. 1033. Christ on the Cross. Other versions of this picture are at Munich and Antwerp. The figure is slight but effectively drawn and not so blackened as the Munich example (No. 825). In common with Nos. 1035, 1039, and 1043, it is perverted by being put under glass, which softens and prettifies the surface. 1034. Portrait of a Young Field-Marshal. The ar- mour seems fairly well done, but the head and face lack in modelling. Other versions at Windsor and Madrid but, as the catalogue states, with varia- tions. It looks much repainted in the face. 1032. Portrait of Prince Rodokanakis. A good piece of colour and an interesting personality in the sitter, whoever he may be. The portrait is well 36 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY painted and one of the best of the Van Dycks here, without being his masterpiece, however. 1038. Prince Karl Ludwig. A fine portrait of a * young prince, done with that nobility of pose and look that Van Dyck knew so well how to give his sitters. The figure stands easily before a green curtain with a sky at the back. Perhaps the por- trait has more of an official air than an intimate or actual look about it. The painter does not forget that he has a young prince for a sitter and royalty back of him that must be pleased. The picture is extremely well drawn and painted. The canvas is pieced out at the top. 1042. Portrait of Prince Ruprecht. A companion * piece to No. 1038, done in the same style and with the same elegance of pose. The personality is here, perhaps, a little sadder and more poetic, hence more fetching with the average visitor than No. 1038. Exceedingly well drawn and painted, with a good landscape .and a bad dog. In common with No. 1038 it has been added to at the top and somewhat repainted. But distinction of manner is still with them manner, perhaps, more than style. 1028. Portrait of the Countess Amelia Sohns. A portrait with much of the serene aristocratic air peculiar to Van Dyek's art rather than to his sit- ters. It is now, unhappily, much repainted. The hands and face are hurt by it, and the fine touches of the brush are lost under it. The figure is well placed upon the canvas, with a noble head and a rich costume. The hair, the flowers, the ruff still speak for its original beauty. Other Van Dyck portraits of this same Princess of Orange at the Brera and the Prado. EYCK, JAN VAN 37 1051. Pieta. It has more life and spirit about it than such works as No. 1035 though it is by no means a marvel and a show. It has been pretti- fied by retouching and the figure of Christ against the white sheet has now lost in forcefulness by the changed value of the white. The Magdalen is graceful and so, too, the angel. 1050 \ Portrait of a Man and Woman. These Van 1052 J Dyck portraits have a Rubens look about them, especially in the man the better of the two. The head of the man is masterful in its drawing of the hair, forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and foreshortened jaw. The hands are Rubensesque. The figure is well indicated, well set in the frame, and has atmos- phere about it. Compare it with Rubens's own portrait in the next room. The portrait of the woman is more of a picture with its fine landscape and perhaps as good as No. 1050 in the character of the sitter. The drawing of head and hands (with the curtain and costume) is excellent. Unfortu- nately, it is more repainted than the portrait of the man and has a little of that pink-and-white look that one associates with the cleaning room. What very handsome hands! 1053. Portrait of Wildens. An excellent portrait with a finely drawn head. The character is attrac- tive. Said to be a likeness of Wildens, who is sup- posed to have painted so many of the landscapes in Rubens's figure pictures. How beautifully certain parts of it (the moustache, for example) are brushed in! A good background. Another version of this portrait at Cassel (No. 118). 624. Eyck, Jan van. Portrait of Nicolas Albergati. It has every appearance of Van Eyck's work save 38 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY in the surface. It has been much injured by re- painting. Originally, no doubt, it was a fine head. You can still see the large modelling of it, the fine structure of the skull, and the frame of the face. 625. Portrait of Jan van Leeuwe. The Van Eyck look is here as in No. 624, but again it is so hurt by repainting that one can form no accurate judgment about it. 409. Farinato, Paolo. Ascension of Christ. The at- titude of the Christ is weak and the gesture of the right arm feeble. Notice the feeling of flight up- ward. The reddish-yellow colour is rich though the whole picture is a little coarse in fibre. For- merly attributed to Paolo Veronese and now, doubt- fully, to Farinato. 385. St. Sebastian. The modelling is exaggerated and the right hand is bad, but in other respects the picture is very good. With a dark sky. For- merly given to Paolo Veronese. 390. Lucretia. It is a little weak and pretty too weak for Paolo Veronese, to whom it was formerly ascribed, so it has been passed on to Farinato the present catch-all for inferior Paolos. 92A. Florentine School. Stoning of St. Stephen. The picture is fine in colour. Formerly ascribed to Gentile da Fabriano. It is now given to the Florentine School but with a query. No one knows where it belongs. 47. Francia, Francesco. Madonna, Child, and Saints. * A fine, large altar-piece. The Madonna seems pushed up high and looks a little posed on her throne. Apparently she is thinking very little about the GEERTGEN TOT SINT JANS 39 Child, as she turns away her head. Still the senti- ment is right enough. St. Catherine at the side is excellent in every way. The trees, spread in pat- terns against the sky, are frail, but decorative, and the landscape is simple. The colour is cool in pre- dominant blues and greens. 46. Franciabigio (Francesco Bigi). Holy Family. A square composition with the figures pushed to the left. It is poor in colour but rather nice in sen- timent. The faces are porcelain-like and a little sweet. The landscape looks as though painted upon glass, the trees are thin, and the ground frail. The Madonna's robe, legs, and foot suggest Raph- ael. The picture has been ascribed to Andrea del Sarto, to Bugiardini, to Pontormo, but it seems rightly placed under Franciabigio. It is of the same spirit with the Madonna of the Well, in the Tribune of the Uffizi (No. 1125), there ascribed to Franciabigio. 644. Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Gerard of Haarlem). * Burning the Bones of John the Baptist. This and No. 645 are parts of an altar-piece done for a Haarlem church, probably by Geertgen. The figures and landscapes correspond to other works put down to him. The figures are not small enough to be subordinate to the landscape and not large enough to make a figure composition by themselves. Hence, in spite of the groups and their disposition, there is a feeling of emptiness in the composition as a whole. Taken separately, both figures and landscape are excellent. Notice the group at the right with the strong though grotesque faces, the fine velvets and brocades, the rich gold work. The group in black caps and dresses is equally forceful. 40 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY The heads are strong. A little injured by the split- ting of the wood. 645. Deposition. This is a better composition than * No. 644 because the figures are larger and dominate the landscape. The stiff figure of Christ on the white sheet is impressive and the women kneeling at the head are tragic in their grief. The outlines are firm and sharp, the drapery angular in its folds, the colour excellent. Colour does not mean bril- liant colour, necessarily. What a fine landscape at the back! A little injured. 16. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). The Three ** Wise Men. This picture gives one a somewhat better idea of Giorgione than most of the pictures attributed to him, notwithstanding it was finished by Sebastiano del Piombo, according to the Ano- nimo, and has, indeed, some of the smooth look peculiar to Sebastiano. The figures are large, graceful, well posed, well drawn, with good feet and hands. Again, the robes are large in their folds, the light-and-shade is broad and true, and the colour is excellent. Moreover, the landscape is what we might expect from Giorgione. It is not at all like the landscape in the Rustic Concert of the Louvre. The foreground is slashed with shadow, the back- ground is lighted. The left foreground is, perhaps, too dark in its brown shadow but the figures at the right are brought out well by contrast. Again there is a contrast in the foliage which at the right is broadly handled but at the left thinly traced against the sky. Notice the beautiful harmony of the red, green, and yellow robes hues that are faintly repeated in the landscape and sky. The picture is injured by repainting in the hands and GIORGIONE (GIORGIO BARBARELLI) 41 faces and has darkened with time and much var- nish. A similar work in the Fitz- William Museum at Cambridge, England, is put down to the Vene- tian School (No. 138). 63. 5*. Sebastian. The possibilities are that this ** picture represents neither an Apollo nor a St. Sebas- tian but just a plain "head of a boy holding an arrow in his hand/' as the Anonimo saw and de- scribed it in the house of Messer Giovanni Ram, at Venice, in 1531. The possibilities again are that the picture is neither by Correggio (so attrib- uted in 1912) nor Cariani, though the latter is cer- tainly a closer guess than the former. The Anonimo said that the picture he described was by " Giorgio di Castelfranco." Is not this the same picture? The attribution to Correggio needs no discussion since it has been abandoned. It was always un- believable. Mr. Berenson thinks the picture by Cariani, in his finer mood, following Giorgione. But did Cariani ever possess the tenderness, the refinement of feeling, the delicacy of touch, the skill of hand to do such work as this? Was he not usually coarse-grained, of the earth earthy, an imi- tator of Giorgione's types but without Giorgione' s mind or feeling? Where does he reach such emo- tional heights and depths as in this so-called St. Sebastian? On the contrary, think of this refined St. Sebastian in connection with works of Giorgione, such as the head of the Sleeping Venus at Dresden, the portrait at Berlin (No. 12A), the melancholy portrait at Budapest (No. 94), the head of the Castelfranco Madonna, and how well it agrees with them in feeling and in spirit! The Giorgione at Hampton Court of the Shepherd with the Flute (referred to by the Anonimo as a Giorgione 42 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY in the same breath with this St. Sebastian) is less delicate, more robust, more faun-like, and per- haps nearer to the soil; but in other respects it is in agreement again with this St. Sebastian. Compare the two (by photographs, if not other- wise) and notice how closely they seem to meet the Anonimo's attributions compare them for their similar placing upon the given panel, for light-and-shade, for colour, for type, for similarities of cranium, hair, brows, for the same heavy eyelids, dilated nose, and cupid's-bow mouth. And do not forget to compare the hands for the similarity in the loose index-finger. But this allowance should be made. The Hampton Court picture has been repainted; the Vienna picture has been skinned. The result is that the former looks muffled in the contours where the latter is a little sharp. The St. Sebastian is now hard in the drawing of the nose, brows, eyelids. The hair has also darkened into the background. The Hampton Court picture has been repeated, so far as the type goes, in a pic- ture here in the Vienna Gallery the David (No. 21) hanging near at hand. It is probably a re- painted original by Giorgione, and not a copy, as the catalogue suggests; but in any event it may be used for comparison in a general way with the St. Sebastian. It is of coarser fibre mentally and emotionally, but there are close resemblances in such features as the eyes, nose, mouth, hair, and the like. Again, comparison may be made with the Giorgione here, the Wise Men (No. 16). But the true test is to carry this St. Sebastian, visually or in photograph, before all the Giorgiones of all the galleries. Especially should it be compared with the two supreme Giorgiones the Venus at GIORGIONE (AFTER) 43 Dresden and the Castelfranco Madonna. It will be found to agree with them in mind, in spirit, in style, in method. Whether the picture be by Cariani or Giorgione is, perhaps, less important than the recognition that it is an excellent picture possessed of real intrinsic poetry and beauty. It may be just a shade over-refined in sentiment, carried a bit too far in sensitiveness of spirit. How soulful it is, even plaintive! With such a type Correggio is raving, excited, purely human; Gariani is coarse and at times brutal; Giorgione is idyllic, pastoral, romantic. But in this picture we have something from Giorgione that is more profound, something emotional and suggestive of the Christian martyr. The recognition of this feeling possibly led to the title of St. Sebastian, which otherwise seems in- appropriate. [When this note was written (1912) the picture was attributed to Correggio. It is now given to Giorgione on the frame.] 21. Giorgione (after). David. It has the appear- * ance of an original Giorgione that has suffered from coarse and heavy repainting. The hair has been over-painted and the shadows wrecked. Its re- semblance to the Shepherd with the Flute at Hamp- ton Court has been noted many times, but the Hampton Court picture is worse off for repainting than this. If the repaintings were removed from both pictures an identical subject might be dis- closed. There is still a largeness of handling and drawing apparent in this Vienna David that seems to exempt it from the group of Giorgione copies. It is too free for a copy, too large in the feeling for form. As a Giorgione (original or copy), it might be compared with the St. Sebastian (No. 63), put 44 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY down to Giorgione, hanging near it. They are not far apart as regards their painter, though the first has been repainted and the second has been skinned. Notice the resemblances still in the heavy eyelids, the brows, the flat forehead coming down to the brows, the poise of the head, the placing of the hair on the forehead, the straight nose, the bowed mouth, the rather sharp chin. They are both in- teresting pictures and possibly Giorgione was re- sponsible for both. 629. Goes, Hugo van der. Deposition. There are various guesses at its authorship recorded in the catalogue. It seems to be by a follower of Roger van der Weyden, having some of his tragic quality, his colour, and, in measure, his types. A little crude in the blues and whites. Another version in the Palffy Collection in the Budapest Gallery. 631. Adam and Eve. Part of a diptych with No. 629, and probably by the same hand as No. 629, though a better and more interesting picture, es- pecially in the landscape. How well the apple-tree is given! On the reverse was formerly the figure of St. Genevieve in grisaille, now separately framed beside it (No. 630). 754. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). St. Lake Painting the Virgin. It is the fashion of the moment to grow enthusiastic over the small work and fine finish of Gossart, but the fashion is hardly well founded. The painter is too small mentally, too mechanical and wanting in feeling or emotion, too mannered in his exact technique, too finical in his small details. There is, of course, good work in this picture fine heads, hands, robes, architecture but the picture lacks in breadth, serenity, poise. The sentiment HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER, HANS 45 put into the Madonna is true enough. Another version of this picture at Prague. 755. Madonna and Child. The motive of a Ma- donna seated in an architectural niche was repeated several times by Gossart, and with considerable effect, notably at Munich (No. 155). This exam- ple, however, is rather too pretty in colour and sur- face, too mannered in drawing, too trifling in feeling. 1313. Goyen, Jan van. Landscape. An excellent land- scape especially in light and colour. It is easily painted and represents Van Goyen at his best. The sky is a little injured. 272. Greco, II (Domenico Theotocopuli). Adora- tion of Kings. This picture was formerly ascribed to Bassano but it seems to be neither a Bassano nor a Greco. It is too white in the light and has no quality in the colour despite the apple-green robe. Nor is it well drawn. Whoever did it left something to be desired. II Greco was certainly influenced by Leandro Bassano, but this seems a poor illustration of it. 1297. Hals, Frans. Portrait of a Man. This portrait is so inferior in the drawing of the eyes, the over- drawing of the mouth, the painting of the hair and hat, the quality of the colour that one may be par- doned for thinking it merely some poor school piece. 696. Hemessen, Jan van. St. Jerome. With some large drawing and strength of type that belong to Hemessen. He does not show to the best advan- tage in this picture nor in Nos. 699 and 701. 1479. Holbein the Younger, Hans. Portrait of a * Man. It is smooth in the flesh, the plum-coloured 46 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY silk, the black hat, the blue ground. The surfaces are a little porcelain-like; the drawing of the face and hands is very clean-cut and precise; the folds of the cloth, the lines of the collar, strings, and all that have great accuracy. The colour is attrac- tive, even rich, and as for the character it is abso- lute in its sense of reality its realisation of truth. A fine portrait. 1480. Portrait of John Chambers. A superb piece ** of characterisation the drawing of the face be- ing really astonishing in giving the flabby, sunken cheeks and drawn lines of an old man. Notice the doing of the eyes and mouth, the drag-down of the hat on the head, the shadow of the neck. The coat and fur collar, with the well-drawn hands, fill up the rest of the pattern. With a dark blue-green ground. A fine portrait, placed on the panel al- most in profile and similar in pose to the Sir Thomas More in the Louvre (No. 2717). 1481. Portrait of Jane Seymour. It is almost stencil- * like in its precision and smoothness. The painter has, perhaps, put too much effort into the details of costume. In this respect the portrait is not unlike the Anne of Cleves in the Louvre (No. 2718). Indeed, the two portraits are of a kind in their con- ception and workmanship. They are not so strong as the Holbein portraits of men and perhaps for that reason were made more ornamental in costume. But the Jane Seymour is a notable portrait. What simplicity in the pose and dignity in the carriage! A fine, frank type. The background wants in col- our. 1482. Portrait of a Man. Evidently some sort of companion piece to No. 1484 but with less charm HOLBEIN, SCHOOL OF 47 about it. The colour scheme is not subtle. It is very accurately done. 1484. Portrait of a Lady. A charming portrait of a bottle-nosed lady with sad eyes. Beautiful in the whites as related to the flesh colour. On a blue ground. 1483. Portrait of a Lady. A perfect little portrait * in almost every way. It is exact and truthful to the last degree. Done in a manner similar to No. 1479. Look at the head-dress and the sleeves for accuracy and the hands and face for truthful rep- resentation. It would be hard to change it with- out harming it. It is miniature work but quite right for its kind. Some of these small portraits may not be by Holbein, but they are excellent, nevertheless. A blue-green ground. 1485. Portrait of Dirck Tybis. Just as accurate in its drawing as, say, No. 1479 or 1480, though less sharp in outline. It is a little smoother, more rounded, and softer than the other examples. Also it is more fussy in the papers and still-life on the table, to its disadvantage. These articles seem spotty, and the hands add nothing to the picture. Notice the texture of the fur collar. A dark-blue ground. 1489. Holbein the Younger, School of. Portrait of * a Woman. Let not the attribution to the " School of Holbein" mislead here nor the roundness of the type discourage. This is a very good portrait. It is beautifully drawn and painted throughout. Notice the hair, head-gear, chain, and dress. There is a saint's halo about the head and a plaintive sentiment about the face. The mouth is a little misplaced but that is a slight matter. 48 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 1299A. Hooch, Pieter de. The Mother. Averycharm- * ing piece of colour all through. The mother, in her white head-dress and variegated costume, is very attractive, though her arm is a little hard from too much cleaning. Notice the fire, the pot, the mantel. The maid and the little child tugging at her hand to go out of doors are subordinated in light and colour but happily given. See the light through the door, how exactly true in value it is! The lower half of the door is again in perfect keep- ing with the shadow of it upon the floor. How flat and smooth the flooT! 1087. Jordaens, Jacob. Feast of the Bean King. The same theme is shown elsewhere, at the Antwerp Gallery, for instance. This example seems less satisfactory than usual, being without any great sparkle of light or snap of colour. It is dull. In execution it is timid, as though done by some pupil copying the master. 1438. Kulmbach, Hans von. Coronation of the Ma- * donna. A panel that has been stained and other- wise hurt but is still a remarkable performance. The Madonna is in the centre and above her an arch of figures representing the Father, the Christ, and angels. At the bottom are donors with angels. The colour of it is excellent, but the spirit of it is even better. It is full of fine feeling. Even the little angels have it. The drawing is wanting at times in the hands and heads (notice the arms of the Christ), but the spirit is so right and true that one passes over the minor defects. 1438A } The Annunciation. Probably two panels 1438s / from an altar-piece. They have not only deep feeling but considerable decorative quality. The LOTTO, LORENZO 49 Madonna is only a peasant girl and is almost piti- ful in her ignorance and dulness. The angel is, perhaps, more sophisticated. 221. Licinio, Bernardino. Portrait of Ottaviano Grim am. The face is small and pinched, and the red dress is crude in the pattern. The whole work is hard and unyielding. See also No. 22lA, a new portrait, and fairly good. 214. Lotto, Lorenzo. Madonna, Child, and Saints. * A beautiful Lotto in its refined sentiment and in the loveliness of the types. The Madonna (under half shadow as regards her face) and the angel back of her are very attractive in their sensitiveness, their grace, their personal beauty. The robes are a little uneasy, and the lower part of the Madonna is confused and twisted. The figures at the right are simpler and truer in drawing. St. Catherine kneels well, and the green note of her dress is force- ful. The dress of the Madonna seems too blue, as also the landscape. The brown foreground does not fit into the blue background very smoothly, yet the colour scheme as a whole is harmonious. There is the usual tale of the picture being injured by cleaning. But look again at the beautiful angel. 215. Portrait of a Man with an Animal's Paw in His Hand. The picture is marred by the line of fringe at the top of the canvas but in other re- spects is excellent in both characterisation and col- our. The character is girlish, almost like the angel in No. 214 not forceful or positive, but sensitive to the last degree. The hands, too, are delicate and have a cramped look peculiar to Lotto. The black dress and the green and red of the accessories make a pleasant colour scheme. It has been re- 60 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY painted in the hands and face the nails of the hands have disappeared under the overlaid paint. Formerly ascribed to Correggio. 220. Portrait of a Man in Three Views. Something that was done perhaps for the use of a sculptor as an aid in modelling. It is rather heavy in more ways than one. The personality is not engaging, and the face is more remarkable for dull animal wonder than anything else. The portrait shows few characteristics of Lotto's technique, and one misses his spirit completely. The Joseph in No. 214 is of a similar type and workmanship. 22. Portrait of a Young Man. The face is care- fully drawn, the eyes well set in the head, the mouth slightly ajar after the Diirer manner. The white at the back of the figure has little quality, and the black hat and dress are flatly outlined upon it. This is hardly characteristic of Lotto or the Vene- tians but is more like the Germans. The picture looks Venetian, but its painter was influenced from the north. Formerly attributed to Jacopo de' Barbari, which is a better attribution than Lotto, who never painted or drew in the manner of this portrait. Compare it with Nos. 215 and 214. 22A. Portrait. A fine type and, all told, a beau- * tiful portrait. There is much colour charm in the flesh-notes, the yellow hair, the red dress, and the green curtain. The dress is rather flat, the cur- tain well done. The face is hurt by repainting. It is hardly by Lotto. 86. Luini, Bernardino. The Daughter of Herodias. A tale of grace, sentiment, and weakness that is often told by Luini. Here it is somewhat exagger- MANTEGNA, ANDREA 51 ated in its sentiment. The green is unhappy in quality, being too acrid, too rasping. Nos. 82 and 87 are no better and are much hurt. 82. Christ Bearing the Cross. The picture shows the sentiment peculiar to Luini and the Leonardo followers in general. It was formerly ascribed to Leonardo, then to Solario; but it is weak enough for Luini. 1427. Maler zu Schwaz, Hans. Ferdinand I. The portrait has changed names in both sitter and painter. A good portrait, perhaps a little coarse in its doing but giving the character of the man with force. The painter is sometimes catalogued as "Hans Maler von Ulm." 1473. Portrait of a Man. Apparently done by the same hand that did No. 1427. The hair, white neck-cloth, and outline drawing are similar in work- manship. It is coarse but effective work. 81. Mantegna, Andrea. St. Sebastian. Perhaps the * figure is a little over-modelled in the shoulders and chest and a little slender in the legs, but it is a fine figure, nevertheless, well realised in its quiver- ing agony and effective in its sentiment. The column at the back with the pilasters and broken arches, the figure in relief in the angle, the broken reliefs on the ground at the left, the marble pave- ment are all excellent. The landscape at the back is in no way inferior to the figure and architecture. Notice the road and the distant city. The same subject on a larger and grander scale appears in the newly acquired Mantegna at the Louvre, Paris. This Vienna picture does not live up to the Paris picture, but it is, by itself considered, a notable work. 52 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY Master of the Death of the Virgin. See Cleve, Juste van. 764. Master of the Half-Figure. Portrait of a Woman. It has what has been called a Clouet look but is perhaps of Netherland extraction. There is a feeling about it of refinement and ten- derness something of the "eternal womanly." The face is pallid, perhaps from cleaning, and the contours of the shoulders are hard. The colour is unusual. Professor Wickhoff thinks the painter identical with Jean Clouet. 676. Master of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin. Flight into Egypt. There seems an unhappy mix- up of expert ideas regarding the painter of certain pictures of the Flight into Egypt, showing the Ma- donna in blue, seated on a bank, with a basket near her. Here one finds an attribution to the Master of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin; elsewhere, at Munich, Berlin, Brussels, pictures with the same types and style of work are given to David, Patinir, and Isenbrant. This Vienna picture is probably of Patinir origin, in company with a number of brown-blue landscapes which are here once more confused by putting them under the name of Herri met de Bles. The Master of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin is thought by M. Hulin de Loo to be identical with Isenbrant which is to say that he belongs somewhere in the School of Gerard David. 603. Mazo, Juan Bautista del. The Artist's Family. A picture that was long thought to be by Velasquez but is now assigned to his pupil, Mazo. It is not a good picture for Velasquez, but as a Mazo it be- comes of some importance though hardly rising to any great distinction. The room is fairly well METSYS, JAN 53 done if brownish in its shadows. The figures are too conscious, too much posed, a little black, and ill drawn in the eyes, brows, hands, legs, and feet. The small figures at the back hold their place but are awkwardly arranged. In colour there is little to admire. The table at the rear with the bust and the flowers is as good as any part of the picture. Injured by repainting. 635. Memling, Hans. Madonna and Child. This * picture and its companion panels, Nos. 636, 637, 638, make up an important Memling triptych the most important of several Madonna triptychs, the other versions being in London, Florence, and Worlitz, as the catalogue indicates. It has Mem- ling's fine feeling and tenderness and is wonderful in its careful workmanship and its decorative de- tail. Notice the architectural patterns, the arab- esque of fruit, the pretty little landscapes. They are all beautifully done. The two Johns of the wings are now put together in one frame. They are a bit coarsely done in heads, hands, and feet. Adam and Eve are on the reverse of these wings and are now separately framed. It is not possible to say with certainty which of the several versions of this triptych is the original. Weale thinks them all done by Louis Boels. 1370A. Metsu, Gabriel. Noll Me Tangere. It has dig- nity and good drawing in the figures, but the colour is a bit sharp, the light dull, and the surfaces are much too pretty, too much worked over. The varnish makes the surface additionally glassy. No. 1370 is hardly by Metsu. 693. Metsys, Jan. Lot and His Daughters. The work- manship here conforms to that in pictures ascribed 54 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY to Jan Metsys at Brussels (Nos. 297, 298), but there is nothing remarkable about this picture except its superficial elegance. 218. Moretto of Brescia. St. Justina. The figure of ** St. Justina is dignified, lofty, majestic of a kind and in a class with the St. Barbara of Palma Vec- chio at Venice. What a beautiful dress she wears and how superbly she wears it! The whole pic- ture is of corresponding excellence. It is a pyram- idal composition, the saint being supported on either side by the donor and the unicorn. The figures are well set on the canvas and thoroughly well drawn. Notice the landscape, the mountain village, the mountains themselves. The sky, light, and silver tone are exactly right in every way. This is a Moretto masterpiece than which he never did a better. There is nothing finer elsewhere. It was given at one time to Titian and then to Por- denone, but it belongs where it is now placed. 786A. Moro, Antonio. Queen Anna of Spain. Impos- ing in size and costume but a bit frail in physique and presence. The costume, cap, jewellery, chair, are all so much better done than the figure, face, and hands. The personality is sacrificed, as sometimes happens with the Moros, Pourbuses, and Coellos. Much repainted. 789. Portrait of a Young Man. Perhaps the best of the Moros here. The head is well drawn but badly joined to the body; the hands, again, seem to protrude prominently from the sleeves. There is slight conviction about it. The portrait of the Cardinal Granvella (No. 786) should be compared with it for differences. Notice how high up on the canvas the head of the Granvella is. placed. ORLEY, BERNARD VAN 55 216. Moroni, Giovanni Battista. Portrait of a Sculptor. It seems finer in the hands and wrists than No. 217 but is not so good in the head. The eyes are close together perhaps too close. The arm is powerfully drawn and the statuette (too high in light) held in the sculptor's hands is cleverly modelled and painted. The background is brown and does not now recede but pushes up and clings to the figure. Ascribed formerly to Titian and to Pordenone. 217. Portrait of a Man. It is better than the aver- age Moroni but not a masterpiece. The neck is a little pinched and the figure is spare the clothes fitting tightly and giving the impression that the head is too big for the body. The hands are cramped. At the back a plaster wall and stone. 614. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. Infant John the Baptist. It is something of a pity that this Murillo is placed near the children's portraits by Velasquez, for it is weak enough by itself and needed not the inevitable comparison. It is too sweet in sentiment but is fairly good in drawing and in the painting of the sheep. But the colour of it be- comes a mere brown smudge compared with the two Velasquezes (Nos. 611 and 615). And what a chalky, rather tawdry landscape and sky! 1261. Neer, Aart van der. Moonlight. A very good effect of clouds and distance, all of the landscape being good in tone that is, justly and rightly seen under one light. 765. Orley, Bernard van. Legend of St. Thomas. The picture is separated by the ornate architectural shaft in the centre though there is some attempt to unite the two parts by the sky and landscape of 56 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY the background. The scene of the death of St. Thomas at the left is very elaborate in architecture and costume, to the harm of the figures, perhaps. There is, however, some dramatic action in the main group of figures, some sentiment, some feel- ing. The colour is cool in blues. The right side is of the same general character, only colder in the blues and better in some of the background archi- tecture. The wings of this altar-piece are in the Brussels Gallery (No. 337). 766. Flight into Egypt. The figures are animated and real enough in their pathos. The landscape is interesting. Originally the panel was pointed at the top and was, perhaps, the wing of a triptych. It is probably school work. 1305A. Palamedes, Anthonie. Company Listening to Music. It has the effect of yellow light, produced probably by yellow varnish, but now very accept- able. The colour is good and so, too, the painting, even if the drawing does ramble a bit. Not cata- logued, 1912. 134. Palma Vecchio. John the Baptist. The figure stands well and is fairly well drawn despite the womanish hips and waist. The legs and the light- and-shade upon them are Palmesque but the rest of the figure seems hardly characteristic. There is difference of opinion about its being a Palma. Morelli says yes, Crowe and Cavalcaselle, no. The landscape is very good and the sky excellent. 133. Portrait of Young Woman. It is now chalky- white from much cleaning. The colours are raw and look as though laid in yesterday. The figure, hands, neck, face are flattened by rubbing. A handsome type for a sitter. PALMA VECCHIO 57 136. Lucretia. The figure is somewhat confused by the white drapery and the sentiment somewhat marred by the theatrical pose and attitude. How very close it is to the Decadence! How much it has in common as regards its attitude and make- believe spirit with pictures by Guido or Carlo Maratta! But it is better done than their work and has much charm of colour. It is a fine pic- ture according to Crowe and Cavalcaselle, whereas Wickhoff regards it as merely a Flemish copy of the Borghese picture. 137. Portrait of a Young Girl. This is the so- * called Violante (from the violet showing at her bosom), and a beautiful type, dignified, refined, yet full of youth and exuberant spirits. It is a notable Palma, large in form, small and delicate in facial features, right in feeling and sentiment. It seems to have suffered from cleaning. The model- ling and even the light and air have been hurt by it. Notice the comparative flatness of the neck, chest, sleeve, hand. The hair has been flattened, too, and apparently repainted, and the eyes have been spoiled. Yet it is still one of the noted Pal- mas of this gallery. 141. Portrait of a Young Woman. The sitter here is not so attractive in type as No. 137 but the pic- ture is, perhaps, in a little better condition. It was never very fine portraiture and there are those who doubt Palma's having done it. The background has been repainted and the figure somewhat rubbed. 142. Portrait of a Young Woman. It is a blonde type in a black dress with white chemise. Being ample in form as well as having yellow hair, it is given to Palma, but the attribution is not at all 58 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY certain. The portrait is, however, a very good one in fact, better than some in this gallery that are unquestionably by Palma. 143. Portrait of a Lady. It is rather agreeable in colour but is smooth, even glassy in its surface. It has probably been much greyed by scumbling and repainting. Crowe and Cavalcaselle seem to think it by Pordenone. 139. Visitation. Aside from the two central fig- ures (they are graceful and attractive) the picture seems badly composed, restless, rambling, and empty. The figures do not fill the space; they are not large enough for it. They run against one an- other from opposite directions in a rather hopeless way, and, of course, there is no repose about them. The buildings at the right are jumbled and even wrong in perspective and drawing (look at the steps!) and the left side of the picture does not agree with the right side as regards the back- ground. The whole picture with its eager figures is a little forced. Palma or his assistants had difficulty in making it hold together and his colour did not help him materially. It is spotted in the robes and repainted. 140. Madonna, Child, and Saints. This is an arch * composition which Palma used a number of times in his conversation pieces. The types are select, fairly well developed, with b'road draperies. The repose and unity of this group are a strong con- trast to the Visitation (No. 139). It is a contrast also in colour, for here there is much beauty in the brilliantly lighted robes and much depth in their shadows. The picture has been skinned and is now raw, but still the colours are not inharmonious PARMIGIANINO (FRANCESCO MAZZOLA) 59 or the drawing wholly wrecked. Notice the fine modelling of the St. John, or the well-drawn Child, or the well-placed draperies. The group of trees and the far-reaching landscape are both good. It is an excellent Palma for all its injuries. In an- other room Teniers gives this picture in one of his gallery interiors and the colours show there much darker than here. 207. The Bravo. It was originally put down in the catalogue as a Giorgione; in 1912 it was a Cariani; in 1913 it was given to Palma. What will it be next year? It is to-day almost good enough for a Giorgione. There is, however, a coarse quality about it peculiar to Cariani. The light-and-shade is good, as are also the colour and the drawing. For Palma it is a strange perform- ance. Possibly by the same hand that did No. 89 at St. Petersburg, there put down to Caprioli. 599. Pantoja de la Cruz, Juan. Portrait of the In- fante Philip. The sliding floor, the hard table- cloth, the poor curtain at the back, the white- stocking legs and white face give the quality of this portrait fairly well. The picked-out pattern of the armour only serves to weaken and cheapen the little man within it. No. 598 is of the same quality and kind. 61. Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola). Portrait. It is rather loosely drawn in the eyes, nose, hand, but the general effect produced is fairly good. 67. Portrait of Malatesta Baglione. The archi- tecture makes the man look gigantic in size and the portrait is rendered more or less grotesque thereby. The width across the elbows is too great and the pattern on the canvas is diamond-shaped. 60 THt IMPERIAL GALLERY The beard is bushy, the nose square, the eyes badly drawn. It is not satisfactory. 62. The Bow Maker. Cupid making a bow a * picture unusual in subject as in colour and at one time ascribed to Correggio. The figure is grace- fully posed and very well drawn and the wings are easily painted, showing how well the Decadents could handle the pencil and brush even after taste had left them. The flesh of the cupids at the bottom is a little hot in colour. 665. Patinir, Joachim. Martyrdom of St. Catherine. The picture is in the style or manner of Patinir. Mr. W. Schmidt thinks it by Bles, which is not probable unless all the present conceptions of Bles are at fault. See the fine landscape and rock drawing in No. 664 by Patinir. 666. Baptism of Christ. It is a signed work by Patinir and there is no reason to doubt the genu- ineness of the signature. It should be tentatively accepted as a criterion of PatimYs style and method and mental notes made of its water, mountains, light, sky, trees, etc. The Flight into Egypt (No. 676), put down in this gallery to the Master of the Seven Sorrows, is possibly by the same hand, cer- tainly in the same school. Compare the two pic- tures closely. 667. Flight into Egypt. A picture by some one close to Patinir but probably not Bles. The owl sign at the right lower corner means little. Neither the figures nor the landscape seem related to Bles. Compare this picture with No. 666. 1439. Pencz, Georg. Portrait of a Man. It never had the penetration, the analysis, the synthesis, the PERUGINO, PIETRO 61 high quality of the portraits hanging near it nota- bly the Diirer Maximilian. It is, however, a dig- nified type given with sobriety and some skill. Injured by retouching. 27. Perugino, Pietro. Madonna, Child, and Four Saints. The poses of the heads repeat each other rather monotonously. There are six heads, all of them turned to the right, all of similar type, and all oppressed by the same sentiment. And why did the painter think it necessary to enclose the group in that box or high railing, thereby cutting out landscape and space the two things in which he so notably excelled? The boxed-in effect seems unfortunate. Above the square one feels the depth of the sky, and the colour is rather rich in the robes, but one is conscious of the crowding of the figures and the perfunctory nature of their grouping. 25. St. Jerome. The white robe of the Saint shows mannered catches in the drapery. It is not an important work. The serene landscape is much the best part of it. 24. Baptism of Christ. The figures are tall and slightly suggestive of the young Raphael, though not round enough and much too flat in the hands, wrists, and arms. The colour is very cold in blues that run through the water, landscape, and sky. It is possibly not a Perugino but a copy after him, as Crowe and Cavalcaselle insisted. 32. Madonna, Child, and Two Saints. The straight cross-lines of the neck-pieces are decidedly disturbing. It gives the impression of the three heads protruding above a given line. The types are as usual with Perugino and also the sentiment. 62 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY The colour of the blue is especially crude. The haloes have been injured. It is probably a work- shop repetition of the Louvre picture (No. 1565) with the exception of the figure at the left. 17. Piombo, Sebastiano del. Portrait of Cardinal Pucci. It is a large portrait and hard in the draw- ing of the nose, brows, eyes. As a Sebastiano it will hardly meet with universal acceptance though it is in his style. 69. Predis, Ambrogio da. Emperor Maximilian. It provokes a contrast with the Diirer portrait of the Emperor and to the advantage of the Diirer. The Predis is flat in profile and looks somewhat like a relief upon a coin or medal. Notice the failure of the Golden Fleece collar to travel about the neck. Nor is the character well grasped or the painting well done. It was ascribed to Borgognone until Morelli gave it its present parentage. 14. Previtali, Andrea. Holy Family. The^Madonna is sweet in white head-dress and blue robe; she has no depth and the colours have no quality. The landscape (as usual with Previtali) is the better part of the picture. 29. Raphael (Sanzio). Madonna in the Meadow. * It has the defects and the qualities of Raphael's early works, such as the Madonna of the Goldfinch and the Belle Jardiniere, without being the equal of either of those Madonnas. The pyramidal com- position, the heavy eyelids, the light-and-shade, the contours of St. John point to influences received from Leonardo and Fra Bartolommeo. The serenity and poise of the figures are Raphael's own contribution. The figures are well drawn save for the lower part REMBRANDT VAN RYN 63 of the Madonna, and they are well held together in the group, though the group is not well related to the landscape. It is like a flat silhouette in the foreground and has no third dimension. The fore- ground and background are too sharp in their con- trasts of blue and brown and the straight line of the distance cutting across the Madonna shoulders is rather disturbing. In the figures, again, the col- our of the red dress is in keeping with the blue overdress but not with the colour of the landscape. The outline of the Madonna seems hard not only in the shoulders and neck but in her blue robe. This is due to the use of heavy impasto in the fig- ure and thin painting in the background. But all this is small criticism of a really good picture. The foreground and the distance, separately considered, are excellent something that may be said with equal truth regarding the figures. 1271 \ Rembrandt van Ryn. Portraits of a Man and 1272 j Woman. There is little about either portrait to suggest Rembrandt save in a general way. They are too prettily done, too smooth, too clear in il- lumination for Rembrandt. He hardly did that white linen or those rosy faces or patterned sleeves or pallid backgrounds. Moreover, he was never so flabby mentally, so agreeably complacent as these portraits indicate. To be sure, they have been repainted and have, perhaps, been changed thereby, but even so, there is small indication of Rembrandt in them now. The handling is not his and the hands are his only superficially. 1273. Rembrandt's Mother. We may dismiss the little fiction of this being Rembrandt's mother as in other galleries the misstatements of the cata- 64 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY logues about Rembrandt's various relations, wives, and affinities. We know little about the look of any of them. As for this picture, if it is of Rem- brandt origin it should of itself refute the attribu- tions of Nos. 1271 and 1272 hanging on either side of it. Any one can see that the pictures are by different painters. But the alleged Rembrandt's Mother is little more characteristic of Rembrandt than the others. It is small and much pinched in the drawing. The old woman of it is well rep- resented, though exaggerated in the matter of wrinkles, sore eyes, and bent figure. The greyed linen is rather good, the head-dress with its cast shadow and the brooch equally so. The fur of the coat, the hands, and the background have been wrecked evidently by attempts at cleaning with alcohol. The head-dress is retouched and the whole picture has been injured in its surface, which may ac- count for a mouldy, brownish colouring that is now omnipresent. It is a puzzling picture, but it looks like a varied copy or possibly a school piece of some sort. Another alleged Rembrandt of his mother is here, in Vienna, in the Czernin Collection. 1268. Portrait of Rembrandt. A possible portrait of the master probably made by one of his pupils and not at all well made. It is inconceivable that Rembrandt should paint himself so many times and each time so differently, with a different point of view and handling. The variance in the por- traits is explicable if we regard them as attempts to do the master (or some model that we now call Rembrandt) by his various pupils. Here, for in- stance, we have him with narrow, misfit eyes, an ill-drawn nose, an over-modelled upper lip, an uncer- tain second chin, a sharp cheek line at the right, a REMBRANDT VAN RYN 65 corrugated forehead, and a slash of brown paint at the top of it for a shadow. To go no further, who can believe Rembrandt guilty of such work? The hot, foxy colouring and the loaded but ineffective pigments are only superficially like those of Rem- brandt. What more natural than that the pupil should ape the master's effects even his defects? 1269. Young Reader. Said in the catalogue to be Rembrandt's son Titus, following the suggestion of Dr. Bode, who has done so much to build up likenesses of the Rembrandt family out of his fer- tile imagination. The sitter was only a model and was used by Bol for his angel in the Berlin Gallery (No. 828) and the Amsterdam Gallery (No. 552). He painted the young man's likeness also at Berlin (No. 809 A). The likeness is here slightly varied but it is the same model. This picture is possibly by Bol not because of the model, but because of the handling, colour, light. Compare the portrait with Nos. 1268, 1272, and 1273, and here in this gallery you have the work of four different hands under Rembrandt's name. If you consider No. 1276 as a Rembrandt you have five different styles. Was there ever such a gallery mix-up! Notice the bad hand, the sharp chin, the muddy hair and coat in this No. 1269. 1270. The Apostle Paul. It is in Rembrandt's man- ner and the model is one that Rembrandt used, but the picture is possibly by the painter of No. 1279 across the way put down to Flinck, but by some other imitator of Rembrandt. Compare the pictures by beginning with the beards, the eyes, the foreheads. The No. 1279 is apparently in Rem- brandt's grey manner and the No. 1270 in his more 66 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY golden manner the imitator following the master in each style. 1274. Portrait of the Painter. Compare this por- trait with No. 1268 both said to be likenesses of the master for the drawing, placing, and width apart of the eyes. In this feature alone is it pos- sible that the painter could see and paint himself so differently? This is a better picture than No. 1268, but it has the brown smudge for a shadow and the uncertain, dragged surface of a pupil rather than of the master. For a resume of Rembrandt's styles, see the notes on the Rembrandts at Berlin, The Hague, and the Hermitage, St. Petersburg. 1276. Head of a Man. It is probably an unfinished head by some one like Flinck. It belongs with the David before Saul at The Hague and is not unlike it in the fumbled handling. 219. Romanino, II (Girolamo Roman!) . Portrait of a Lady. A very good little portrait, well drawn, and like a Giorgione in the forehead, nose, brows, mouth, flesh colour, but it lacks Giorgione's spirit. There is a fine colour quality about it and it is excellent portraiture without being by Giorgione or Romanino. The catalogue queries the attribu- tion. It belongs apparently in the Veronese School. 834. Rubens, Peter Paul. Votive Picture of the *** Brotherhood of St. Ildefonso. The large Rubens pictures in this gallery are much confused by being given in the lump to Rubens, with little discrimina- tion between school works and those done by the master's own hand. A single glance at the St. Ildefonso picture and then a glance across the gal- lery at the large Xavier and Loyola pictures (Nos. 860 and 865) must suggest that the first picture is RUBENS, PETER PAUL 67 by a different hand from the last two. In the matter of colour alone, how much more brilliant, glowing, ringing is the St. Ildefonsol The rich reds and golds are in themselves a measurable proof of Rubens's brush, for none of his pupils could quite reach up to such colours even with the master's palette in their hands. Take the matter of the composition and again you have something that only Rubens was capable of producing. The cen- tral panel is arranged as a ring of figures about the Madonna the round, shell-like arch at the back completing the ring and leading the eye up to the three soaring cherubs. There you discover a larger ring, of which the cherubs are the top, circling the whole panel and making a round pattern upon an upright, the throne steps being the flat base upon which it rests. In the side panels you will notice that the Archduke and the Archduchess with the saints back of them are looking up at the Ma- donna and that the diagonal lines of their kneeling figures and their robes are repeated in the curtains. These figures and curtains with their diagonal lines not only support the central panel but give it life and movement by suggesting an even larger circle, or rather half circle, of which they are the outside edge. They apparently help the movement of the cherubs above, seem to push them from left to right, and in that way again suggest action in the central group from left to right about the Madonna. Now, this is all done in a masterful way, without strain or exertion, and results in a feeling not only of sup- port by the wings but movement, life, and, above all, unity in the whole altar-piece. No one in Rubens's school could do such work or, at least, never did. It took his master mind to think it 68 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY out. Take up now the drawing and painting of single figures. Notice the young girl in white on the steps in front of the Madonna. She is the first object to catch the eye and lead up to the Madonna. How beautifully she stands! How well the figure is done, with the exception of the neck and shoulder which have been injured I How well the white is painted and kept down in light I How true the hair and the flowers! The beautiful figures at the back are just as perfect in their painting, only their fine heads and hands and rich garments are now somewhat hurt by retouching. The Madonna is, perhaps, less beautiful than her attendants and the kneeling saint is only a foil to the rest of the figures. The cherubs at the top are somewhat hurt but still keep their place and serve their purpose very well. The whole central panel has been injured by clean- ing and repainting. The side panels with the strips of wood running up and down instead of across seem to be in better shape as regards the figures at least. Notice the head of the Archduke; how beautifully it is done ! What an ermine robe, collar, and crown I What splendid armour in its light and texture! Finally, notice the well-drawn hands, the bulk of the figure, and its placing on the panel as a kneeling figure. The saints at the back and the curtains are subordinated in both of the side panels. The Arch- duchess is just as noble in figure as the Archduke. She is a superb type in magnificent robes. How majestic they both are how truly regal! The triptych is most impressive in its splendour. It is the best large example of Rubens in the gallery or, for that matter, in existence anywhere. We must judge the other large Rubenses here by this exam- ple. It is a masterpiece of pictorial rhetoric. RUBENS, PETER PAUL 69 841. Charles the Bold. In sheer brilliancy of col- * our there is nothing in the gallery comparable to this save its pendant picture (No. 832). It quite agrees with the large altar-piece (No. 834) next it though now more sparkling. Perhaps this latter is due to its better condition, it being smaller, on wood, and not scumbled over or greyed by repaint- ing. Look closely at the brush-work and the easy but sure manner of its doing will be immediately apparent. There never was a surer brush than that of Rubens. And what a superb piece of drawing! What a perfect welter of colour! No- tice the robes, the armour, the curtain. Even the sky serves to help on the colour scheme. Nor is it all merely decorative splendour. The personality of the sitter is prodigious. What a powerful hand, arm, figure! What brute force in the face! It is not only a glorious piece of colour but a fine por- trait, for all that it was done out of the painter's head. Let those who think it theatrical bombast or mere pictorial rhetoric scoff as they may, they cannot deny its fitness for its purpose. Both por- traits were painted for a royal pageant and were consequently laid in with brilliant colours. But with the Antwerp parade dead and gone, the por- traits are still marvels here on gallery walls beside subtler portraits done carefully for close inspection. 832. Emperor Maximilian. Parts of this portrait * are quite as brilliant as No. 841. The colour from the waist down is very high in key and laid on with the flat of the brush. Look at it closely. There is brilliancy in the glitter of the wonderfully painted armour, in the helmet with its twisted cloth of red, white, and blue, in the red curtain. The sky and landscape are put in in cool colours to temper the 7 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY reds, but it is, perhaps, not so satisfactory as the sky in No. 841. The painting and the drawing are free and true in almost every respect. The face and nose are not very satisfactory because the Emperor had something of a nose to reckon with; but how well the right side of the face is handled under shadow! Notice also the contrast between the right and the left sleeve of armour under shadow and light. The character of the man is not so im- posing as that of Charles the Bold but is still impres- sive considering that Rubens did it out of his head. The picture is very glittering and perhaps too bril- liant for sober portraiture, but, like the Charles the Bold, it was not designed for that. It was painted for a pageant, a triumphal procession, not a gallery wall. But, even so, why should portraiture seem to require only drabs and sombre greys? Rubens was a picture-maker first and foremost and believed in a full palette of colour. 865. St. Ignatius Loyola Healing the Possessed. A huge canvas painted for a Jesuit church at Ant- werp and largely executed by Rubens's pupils. It is school work which he designed and they carried out. It lacks his brilliancy of touch and colour though fairly well done. It is a pyramidal compo- sition with a circle indicated in the lower figures. The upper part of the picture at the left gives space but leaves a feeling of emptiness also. Some of the figures the Magdalen type at the centre, for instance are well drawn. The sketch for the picture is on the wall beside it (No. 862). The sketch is much paler in colour, as was the habit of Rubens, but the difference in the quality of col- our between the sketch and the picture is very apparent. RUBENS, PETER PAUL 71 860. St. Francis Xavier Preaching. This picture is similar to No. 865 in being designed by Rubens and largely executed by pupils. The drawing of it has been carried out better than the painting. The colour is duller than usual with Rubens. The com- position is balanced by groups on either side but again suggests the circle upon the upright. Notice the huge figure with the foreshortened arm and hand at the right and the kneeling woman in blue in the centre. The sketch for the picture is on the wall beside it (No. 863). The pallor of the sketch and the difference in its colour quality are again noticeable. 861. Assumption of the Virgin. This picture, done * for a Jesuit church at Antwerp, is on wood and has still some bright colour about it. It is probably school work, with the master's brush apparent in some finishing touches, perhaps. The upper half is a circle of the Madonna and cherubs, which is sup- ported by the group of apostles at the bottom. This group circles upward at the sides and comple- ments as well as supports the upper circle. The two parts do not agree very well, the upper being too light in key for the lower something, perhaps, brought about by restoration. There is, however, good motion, good drawing, and some splendour of robe. The putti or cherubs are a trifle pretty as also the three women below. The picture is badly injured above the head of the apostle in red and across the centre injured, perhaps, in the fire in the Antwerp church in 1718. It was also sawn into three sections when taken to Paris in 1809. 866. Ferdinand of Hungary and the Infante Ferdi- nand at Nordlingen. It is a decorative piece done 72 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY sketchily and hastily for that Antwerp street pag- eant in 1635 by Rubens's pupils. Rubens may have given it a lick and a rub, but even that is not now indicated. 871. Holy Family under the Apple-Tree. The picture is by Rubens and his pupils but it is now injured by restoration. The Madonna and Child are less interesting than St. Anne and the little St. John, and perhaps the apples and the apple-tree are the best pieces of painting left in the picture. The head of St. Anne is excellent. The sheep will not do. Compare it with the lamb in No. 840. The landscape is superior to the average Wildens landscape usually foisted upon Rubens in European galleries. The whole picture is the reverse of the wings of the St. Ildefonso altar-piece (No. 834) now joined together in one panel. 858. Hunt of the Caledonian Boar. It will not pass muster as a Rubens in either thinking or paint- ing unless we believe Rubens capable of such stu- pidities as the dog clinging to the tree trunk, the man at back riding the hobby-horse, the com- panion horseman riding the air, the crude sky, and the cruder landscape. It is by some pupil or fol- lower possibly Wildens. 857. The Four Rivers. A decorative piece with some good colour wrung from the treatment of the flesh, the shadows of which are red and make for warmth. There is also some good modelling in the backs, arms, and legs, and some fairly good paint- ing in the heads of the two nymphs at the right. It is of Rubens origin but not entirely by his hand. It shows traces of the workshop. Wildens is made responsible for the landscape by the catalogue. RUBENS, PETER PAUL 73 849 1 Ferdinand of Hungary and the Cardinal In- 851 J fante Ferdinand. Two decorative portraits done merely for Antwerp street decoration in 1635, in the Rubens workshop. There is little indication of Rubens in or about them. See the note on No. 866. 850. St. Ambrosias and the Emperor Theodosius. There is a look of Van Dyck's brush and drawing in the head between that of the Bishop and the Emperor, as in the heads at the right; also in the Bishop's hands. Probably Van Dyck as a pupil or assistant worked upon the picture, but the de- sign of it and the final touch of it are from Rubens's own hand. Van Dyck did hotter and darker flesh, duller colour, poorer robes. The boy's white dress at the right may be his, but not the boy's head and hair, not the red robe and armour of the Emperor. There has been some underwork by the pupil and some overwork by the master to make up a not very interesting picture. The reduced copy in the National Gallery, London (No. 50), is ascribed to Van Dyck. 833. Repentant Magdalen. Study for a moment the anatomy of the Magdalen's lower limbs, her shoulder and arms, the hands and wrists of the evilly disposed creature at the back, or the dread- ful red curtain. It is only some cheap work by an indifferent follower of Rubens. It is not by the master. 842. Annunciation. This picture is usually set down as the earliest of all the Rubenses and is said to have been done before 1600 before Rubens went to Italy. This is not probable because the composition here is taken from Baroccio's Annun- ciation in the Uffizi at Florence a painter from 74 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY whose pictures Rubens learned much in colour and handling. The work was probably done during Rubens's first year in Italy. It is as superficial in its colour as in its facility of handling. The angel is the better part of it. Not a remarkable work in any way. 843. Cytnon and Iphigenia. It is an indifferent school piece. The work is timid and uncertain all through the picture as you may see by close ex- amination. Begin with the crude landscape and cheaply painted trees of the background. Compare the tree and the fruit upon it with the apple-tree in No. 871. Then study that dreadfully drawn peas- ant or the bizarre fountain. The three sleeping figures are not so bad, but the flesh lacks colour quality just as much as the red and blue robes under the figures. It makes no difference about the picture coming from the Duke of Buckingham's collection. That is no proof or guarantee of genu- ineness. Wildens and Snyders are credited with the accessories, and they might as well have the whole picture, for all the Rubens one can see in it. 840. Infant Christ with St. John and Two Children. It is probably by Rubens but is cleaned and re- painted in the faces, arms, and hands. The hair is now a little coarse and wiry. It is well drawn and still a fine bit of colour. The grapes and apples are said to be by Snyders. Another version at Berlin. 830. The Cult of Venus. Rubens no doubt designed this picture, and the work of his brush may be somewhere hidden under the present surface, but there is little of the surface that now speaks for him or his technique. The sky and landscape have RUBENS, PETER PAUL 75 a greyish scumble, the flesh colour is chalky, the foliage is woolly, the hair is matted and tangled with paint, the fruit has little purity left to it. The glass over the picture gives it a certain tone and richness that are deceptive. It is by no means badly planned or drawn. In fact, the design, the landscape, the whirl of figures are excellent. The group at the left, for instance, is really superb and the ring of cupids on the ground is effective in life, motion, grace, charm, but for all that we see Rubens only through a glass darkly. 868. The Hermit and the Sleeping Angelica. There is nothing but the lumpy figure its drawing to suggest Rubens. The brush-work is not his. It looks like a rubbed school copy. Not even the name of being in the Duke of Buckingham's collec- tion can make it a Rubens. Look at the crude handling of the whites. The drawing is loose but effective enough. 869. Stormy Landscape. Here is a landscape * worthy of Rubens in its conception and in its painting. It should be carried in memory to London and compared with the large landscapes in the National Gallery (No. 66) and the Wallace Collection (No. 62). They are rather far removed from this landscape in style and method. This picture is slightly panoramic, but please observe that it is in tone, under one light, with no spotty high lights, or crude sky, or raw distance, or ill- drawn figures. It is held together, easily painted, truly drawn in the trees, rocks, clouds. Notice how well the rocky height with the castle in the middle distance is done. Notice also the doing of the rainbow and the waterfall at the left. The 76 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY picture, in connection with a recently acquired landscape by Rubens in the National Gallery, London (No. 2924), should be used as a criterion of Rubens's landscapes. It is a very different affair from the landscapes of Wildens or Van Uden origin that pass for Rubenses elsewhere. 864. Dead Christ with Madonna and St. John. * The work is entirely by Rubens's hand but is now glaring and rather raw owing to the flaying of the surface by injudicious cleaning. Look closely at it and you will see that the final delicate touches that count for so much in modelling, light, colour, texture have been swept away. The jaw lines of both the Madonna and St. John are now hard, the neck shadows are grey, the red robe is crude, the blue robe is spotted, the finely modelled figure of Christ is flattened. What a pity! Here is a pic- ture not only of masterful skill but of great feeling hopelessly damaged by careless cleaning-room methods. 839. Pieta. There are other versions of this pic- ture at Antwerp (No. 319) and in the Liechtenstein Gallery. This example seems a little pretty in its doing of the women's heads, as though some late and weak follower had been copying Rubens. Yet it has none of the weakness of Van Balen, none of the glassy slipperiness of Seghers. Signed and dated in 1614, but for all that it is somewhat ques- tionable. 837. The Castle Park. It is a nice bit of colour and not a bad landscape, but with little about it to in- dicate Rubens. The trees show too much igno- rance of structure, the figures too much ignorance of anatomy, for Rubens. The fact that the figure RUBENS, PETER PAUL 77 at the left with the stick is supposed to be Rubens's self might suggest a pupil's work rather than the master's. 835. Hero Crowned by Victory. Rubens varied this theme several times, and this may be a sketch for something never carried out, but it does not now show the handling of Rubens. Besides, the flesh is too hot for him. A very good sketch who- ever did it, and it may be by Rubens in spite of contradictory features. 829. Helene Fourment in a Fur Pelisse. This is a *** portrait of the painter's second wife, Helene Four- ment, done when Rubens was about fifty-five years old, and beyond a doubt entirely by his own hand. We should judge as much from the nudity of the sitter even if there were not documentary as well as internal evidence of its being by Rubens's own hand. The picture has been hurt a little by clean- ing, and has been retouched about the hands, arms, and face and injured under the arm, but it is still in its surface handling a complete denial of any notion that Rubens in later life ever did any clumsy or bungling work. He died at sixty-three and you can see his own portrait in the next room (No. 859), done at about sixty-one, which is just as sure and true in touch as this portrait of Helene. Never mind now about conjuring up Greek types or thinking about sleeping Venuses by Titian or Giorgione, but look at this picture as an exact, un- idealised rendering of a Flemish beauty of the Ru- bens time. Stand back and study a moment the luminous flesh, the fine, girlish face, the splendid dark setting of the black pelisse. If you have theo- ries of art founded on tactile values, what prevents 78 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY your applying them here as well as to the figures of Michelangelo or Raphael? Is not this figure just as touchable, just as actual, just as real in the third dimension, or in the first or second, as any figure by any Renaissance Italian? What perfect flesh it is I The figure is a little fat, a little flabby and wanting in muscle. The arms are soft, the hands equally so, the knees a little bruised and red from kneeling, the feet and toes a little distorted from wearing shoes. There is no attempt to disguise these fea- tures. The painter is telling the absolute truth, un- abashed and unashamed. As a result, what convic- tion the figure brings with it ! The very stiffness and awkwardness of the legs the strain upon them makes the figure stand well; the bulk of the shoul- der, the push out of the stomach gives weight. You can't get away from the positive truth of it. Nor from the beauty of it. It is the result of a trained eye and an unerring hand working upon an object that the painter loved. It could not be otherwise than beautiful. Some portions of the fur were merely indicated and some (along the hip) have been retouched by a later hand. There is, too, some appearance of repainting in the hair, but these are minor matters. Notice the embroidered bor- ders of the pelisse, or the tassel on the red cushion if you imagine that at fifty-five Rubens's hand had lost its cunning. This picture, in connection with the painter's own portrait (No. 859), is the criterion for all Rubens's later portrait work wherever seen. 859. Portrait of the Painter. Done when Rubens ** was evidently about sixty-one years of age and a little later than the Helene Fourment (No. 829). His hand had not failed in the least but at sixty- one he did not bother much with small details. In RUBENS, PETER PAUL 79 this picture, for instance, he indicated the gloved hand and was not too particular about the un- gloved one. But in the face nothing is skimped or neglected. The old man in him is now becoming apparent. He has shrunk a little from his earlier portrait with Isabella Brandt in the Munich Gal- lery (No. 782). The face is somewhat weazened and drawn, grown flabby in the cheeks, a little baggy under the eyes, a little small and dull in the eyes themselves, with some wrinkles about the neck and chin and a flushed colour on the face. From his hand and face in this portrait a physician might diagnose a case of gout the disease from which Rubens afterward died. How remorselessly he sets down all of these features, just as he painted the pulpy knees and distorted feet of his wife, Helene Fourment! He will not tell a falsehood about things so intimate and personal to themselves. There they are, and that is the way they looked, whether you like the look or not. But you cannot help liking both of them. This portrait of Rubens shows a man of great intelligence with an aristo- cratic bearing and a sense of poise or aplomb. How quietly and dignified he stands there, dressed like a gentleman, with a wonderful white ruff, a black hat and cloak, his hand resting on his sword! How the hat and its shadow, the hair and its curl, the beard and moustache, the flesh-notes, the dark robe are given! There is no better portraiture than this. The face and figure are just as perfect after their kind as anything done by Titian or Velasquez. And do you notice that here Rubens abandons the bright colours of his Charles the Bold, and even the more sober tints of less decora- tive work, and now drifts into greys, whites, and blacks like old Frans Hals at Haarlem? 80 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 855. Man with Grey Hair and Beard. A sketchy * portrait but excellent in every way. It is almost perfect in its modelling of the forehead, nose, eyes, and mouth. Evidently a late portrait and done in the style of No. 859, the ruff and the fur collar giving a little more colour. What a ruff it is and how well the head settles into it! The handling is free but not careless or ineffective. Every stroke counts and means something in the general effect. 874. Portrait of a Woman. This portrait was cleaned until the necklace and linen had almost disappeared and then clumsily repainted. It is doubtful if Rubens ever had anything to do with it. 836 1 Portraits of Men. Two excellent portraits 838 / sketchily done in the manner of No. 855 but very * effective, truthful, and decorative as colour. They have the truth of a master mind and the quality of a master brush. They are virile, living, per- sonal, positive. Stand back in the middle of the room and see how splendidly they are modelled, lighted, painted. 844. Titian's Daughter Lavinia. This is a sup- posed copy by Rubens of the Titian in the Dresden Gallery (No. 170). The copy is much better pre- served than the original and contains small details now lost in the Dresden picture. It is also said to be a copy of what is catalogued as a Paolo Vero- nese in the Bosch Collection, Madrid. 845. Isabella d'Este. To be compared with the supposed Titian original (No. 163) in the Italian section of this gallery for the variation of the copy- ist. The conclusion must be that the variation is too great. The Rubens copy is surely from an- SARTO, ANDREA DEL 81 other portrait of Isabella. Whether it is a good or bad copy as regards faithfulness to the original no one can say. It is now more remarkable for its wonderful reds than its characterisation though it is not lacking in individuality. 873. Isabella of Spain. There is nothing about it to point to Rubens. It is doubtful if he ever saw the picture. 878A. Rubens, School of. Holy Family. It is too pretty in the surfaces, the flesh, the robes for Ru- bens, but is very likely a picture after Rubens by some such person as Gerard Seghers who worked in this style. 1337. Ruisdael, Jacob van. Landscape. A huge, rather dark, and somewhat prosaic Ruisdael that breaks down both as convention and as decoration. It is wearisome. 39. Sarto, Andrea del. Pieta. The composition is an oval on a square the placing of three upright figures in contrast and yet in accord with a re- cumbent figure. The whole group is well placed on the panel but there the virtues of the picture seem to end. All of the figures push out of the picture because there is no atmospheric setting. The dead Christ is rather well done, but, generally speaking, the drawing is angular knotty in the knuckles of the hands, cramped in the feet. Again, all the right eyes seem to be "off " in drawing and the background seems to be "off" in tone and in hue. The colour is crude in blues, greens, yellows, orange. The picture has been hurt and is now an inferior Andrea. The workshop picture (No. 42) seems better than this genuine example. 82 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 208. Savoldo, Girolamo. Entombment. It is fairly well drawn but too smooth in surface. The figure of Christ is rather good though distorted in the ribs and badly wrenched in the hips. The attendant figures are mediocre. The distance in hill and sky is excellent. 213. Aristotle ? As a single figure it is not bad nor yet very good. It is one of those many figures in Italian art about which one does not say anything in either praise or blame. The dress is dark green, the flesh red. Formerly known as a Palma. 1435 \ Schauffelein, Hans Leonhard. Portraits of a 1437 J Man and a Woman. A pair of portraits very easily and surely done by a man who understood the craft of portrait-painting very well. The personality of the woman is the more attractive. Notice the outline of the face and the doing of the hair. The colour is a little monotonous. 261. Schiavone, Andrea. Adoration of Shepherds. It is excellent in colour and with a fine setting of suggested landscape. It has been badly treated, which has not hurt the general colour effect, though it has rather wrecked the drawing. Now little more than decorative colour with a hint at the sub- ject of the Adoration. 1490. Schongauer, Martin. Holy Family. What a * very charming bit of colour! The drawing is a little sharp and the drapery perhaps angular wanting in simplicity and largeness after the man- ner of German painters of the period but as a whole the work is excellent. 51. Sodoma, II (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi). Holy Family. It seems a poor, decadent affair not only STRIGEL, BERNHARD 83 in sentiment but in workmanship. The drawing and colour are weak. It is disagreeable in its blue and red robes, its whitewashed flesh. The harsh- ness of the light and colour swamp any attempt at good drawing. 82A. Solario, Andrea. Head of John Baptist. A new picture in the gallery. It is sharply drawn and smoothly painted, with the result of a hard, tin-like surface. It is not a good Solario. 620. Spanish School. Portrait of a Boy. This por- trait probably came out of the Sanchez Coello workshop but is a good deal better than the usual products of that shop. It has life about it, is well drawn, and is good in colour. Look at the table- cloth and the fruit upon it. How well they are done! 1304. Steen, Jan. Peasant Wedding-Feast. The boy with the warming-pan, the bride, the mother are well enough done, but the picture is not a first-rate Steen. It is one of his pot-boilers containing clever spots here and there. 1305. Gay Life. It is a large picture but not well painted. The room is poorly rendered and the figures in it carelessly done. Look closely at the painting of the young woman's dress. Moreover, the picture is deficient in both light and colour. Somewhat hurt by repainting. 1425. Strigel, Bernhard. Emperor Maximilian and Family. The picture is, perhaps, more important historically for the people painted than the work of the painter, howbeit it is well done and doubt- less with much fidelity to the originals. The blue landscape makes a decorative ground for the fig- ures. 84 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 1426. Emperor Maximilian I. It is much more of a picture than No. 1425 and more of a portrait. It is beautifully painted in the hair, cap, chain, robe, and has a fine landscape. 1428. King Ludwig II as a Child. The best of all these small portraits of royalty. It is not only excellent as portraiture but very lovely as colour. The fine blue ground, the hair, the fillet of flowers, the dress, the jewels are all noteworthy. As a colour scheme the picture is captivating. And for delicate line drawing nothing could be more per- fect. Look at the outline of the cheek and chin or the drawing of the eyes and nose. 1429. Emperor Maximilian I. A handsome por- trait in colour, character, drawing, but it has not the quality or delicacy of No. 1428. 1155. Teniers the Younger, David. Abraham's Offer- ing. An important Teniers and extremely well done for so large a picture. The sentiment of it is very good. The drawing in the Abraham is not the best but this is atoned for by colour. Isaac in white is the central spot in the picture. The sky is unusual for Teniers. The realism of the bundle of sticks is worth noting. Several features of this picture seem to point to the influence of Steen a younger painter. 1366. Terborch, Gerard. Apple-Peeling. What a charming home-life scene out of Holland, with the mother (a widow?) peeling apples and the inter- ested child looking up at her askance! And what fine apples in that perfect china dish! The fig- ures are well done and the whole picture is most attractive in colour, light, and air. Perhaps the TINTORETTO, JACOPO 85 blue table-cloth is a bit jarring. The picture has the quality and some of the look of a Vermeer of Delft. 243A. Tintoretto, Domenico. The Doge Nicolb da Ponte. It is possibly the same sitter as shown in No. 256. The ducal robes are voluminous and enfolding, with great, wave-like loops. The cap glitters like a ruby. The head is well drawn. Evi- dently much repainted. 256. Portrait of a Procurator of St. Mark. The drawing is not very sure and the portrait has been harmed by repainting, and yet it is still very much in the Tintoretto style though not by Jacopo Tin- toretto. A good portrait. 257, Portrait of Young Man with Red Beard. The type is a fine one, but the work seems rather care- lessly done. The hands, face, and beard are oddly painted, which means that they have probably been repainted. 254. Tintoretto, Jacopo (Robusti). Hercules and Omphale. The composition is somewhat scattered over the canvas, and the centre is empty of lead- ing figure or strong light. The result is a distri- bution rather than a centralisation of interest. The nude figures at right and left are graceful, but they are too small in type for Tintoretto. The work is probably by some pupil. 417. St. Jerome. If this is by the younger Palma * (so given in 1912) it must be accounted one of his masterpieces. The difficulty in accepting such an attribution is that it outdoes any other perform- ance of his. It is nearer to Tintoretto. The head is the weak feature of it, and the modelling of the 86 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY figure wants in that vigour and accent such as Tin- toretto gave; but it may have been prettified by restorations. The flesh in its clearness and lumi- nosity is excellent, the setting and the colour are both good, and the landscape is fine. [Since this note was written but before its publication the attribution has been changed and the picture as- signed to Tintoretto.] 236. Portrait of Sebastiano Veniero. This is a picture portrait and the necessity of telling about the battle of Lepanto at the back (Veniero was the admiral in command there) probably led to the portrait being somewhat sacrificed to the story of the fight. It suffers from a lack of simplicity. Moreover, the head is now flat and cheaply painted, while the armour is also coarsely done, protrusive, and glittering. The colour is a little raw, and the sea and sky are raw, too. It looks like a copy. 244. Man in Armour. The armour is very brilliant in the high lights and glitters somewhat like that in the Veniero portrait (No. 236). It is somewhat weak and over-smooth in handling for Tintoretto, though it is in his style. Notice the poor handling of the beard, or, for that matter, the armour. 239. Susanna and the Elders. The drawing of the * figure is large and comprehensive, but not so lumpy as the Susanna of the Louvre (No. 1464). The light-and-shade of the figure is also excellent, and the flesh is remarkable for its whiteness, its lumi- nosity. It is a fine figure and almost startling in its brilliancy of light. There, however, the interest in the picture ends. The composition is cut in two by the trellis of vines, around which one of the elders is looking, and the landscape on either side TINTORETTO, JACOPO 87 of the trellis is unbelievable because unrelated to the other side. There are too many disturbing objects in the picture. Moreover, the surface has been much cleaned, which may account for some of the present whiteness of the figure of Susanna. Notice the glitter of the silver vase. 239A. The Philosopher. A tall figure with a small head and a large, freely handled robe. It is an odd Tintoretto the head being curious in its placing on the body and the figure filling the niche with some strain at originality of pose. The color is very good, the hand and the feet well drawn, and the robe handsomely disposed. A new picture in the gallery. The same hand did the Tintoretto in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (No. T49-2). 224. Portrait of Marc Antonio Barbara. It is a strong head, and there is a back to the head a third dimension. The hands are also well drawn. The fur-lined robe is excellent in colour, though the red sleeves are, perhaps, unduly striped with high lights and made uneasy thereby. Formerly ascribed to Paolo Veronese and it is not now exactly at home under the name of Tintoretto. But it is a good portrait. 241. Apollo and the Muses. Graceful but a trifle thin for Tintoretto. The same subject was re- peated a number of times by members of Tinto- retto's School, and this is probably some school variation. 235. Portrait of Old Man and Boy. The old man is heavy and lumpy, with a listless or preoccu- pied look and limp hands. He is not aware of the boy or the boy of him. In fact, the boy seems 88 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY a thing apart, lugged into the picture by the ears. The picture is now hurt, and perhaps it was never very good. The man and his chair both keep pushing forward out of the frame. It is hardly by Tintoretto. 250. Portrait of a Man. This is the same story that we meet with frequently in Tintoretto's por- traits. It was fine originally but is now blackened and damaged. And then, again, perhaps Tinto- retto never saw it. There are a bewildering num- ber of senatorial portraits put down to Tintoretto, but no one believes that he did all of them. 245. Portrait of a Man. It is not a good portrait but still comes nearer to Tintoretto than most of the portraits here assigned to him. 249. Portrait of a Lady. The type and the pres- ence are excellent. Excellent, too, the colour of the reddish hair and the dark, wine-red dress. The hands suggest a Titian follower, but there is no certainty about his identity. Crowe and Caval- caselle thought the portrait was by Schiavone. 234. Lucretia. A suggestion of Tintoretto shows in the sleeve at the right and also in the high lights of the robe; a suspicion of Titian appears in the white dress and the hand. But neither painter did the picture. It is a composite affair by some Venetian eclectic and is not too good or true in either senti- ment or technique. Formerly ascribed to Titian. 255. Portrait of a Man. The head is big and heavy, the eyes glittering, the cheek-bones prominent, the high light on the hair sharp and disturbing, the hand rather monstrous. It is coarse, ungracious portraiture and not characteristic of Tintoretto. TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 89 150. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio). Portrait of Fabrizio Salvaresio. It is a poor, wooden affair as regards the portrait, and the accessories, such as the negro page, do not help it out to any extent. Look at the sad drawing of the nose. The background is little more than so much brown paint. It has been in- jured. 154. Portrait of Filippo Strozzi. This portrait has the look of a Paolo Veronese, though the hand sug- gests Titian and some of the drawing of the head. It is a bit weak for Titian and not quite represen- tative of Paolo Veronese. Attribution very ques- tionable. 161. Woman Taken in Adultery. The picture was probably never finished and is now still further distorted by cleaning and repainting. It was never a good piece of drawing and is certainly not now a work of much importance. The colour is dull, and a feeling of brown paint is omnipresent. Crowe and Cavalcaselle thought it an original by Padovanino. It is hardly an original by Titian. 163. Portrait of Isabella d'Este. An interesting portrait historically. Artistically it is one of Titian's studies in blues and not too attractive. It has a crude, staring look from much repainting, and perhaps the look of the young girl is somewhat distorted by the restorer. The hands and dress have been repainted as well as the face. It should be compared with the supposed copy of it by Rubens in another room of this gallery (No. 845). The Rubens is probably a copy of a different portrait of Isabella. 166. Madonna and Saints. In common with almost all the early Titians, this picture is lofty in the 90 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY conception of the types and refined in its feeling. Again, it is excellent in colour. In some other re- spects, especially in drawing, it is weak and a little thin. It should be examined for Titian's early work and his manner of composition. There is another version in the Louvre (No. 1577). This Vienna picture seems the better of the two though it is now much repainted. Morelli thought it shop work or a copy and the Louvre example the orig- inal. 167. Portrait of Parma. A tremendous figure with * much bulk and presence and great repose. What aplomb in the figure with its breadth and huge robe! There are truth and force in the fine head, together with good drawing and painting. Titian may not have done it, and yet it is good enough for him. A fine portrait but now somewhat hurt. See the catalogue note for attributions. 169. Diana and Calisto. There are several versions of this picture, the most notable being that belong- ing to the Earl of Ellesmere, in London. The fig- ures here are slight and a bit too pretty for Titian. It is probably a school piece. Somewhat repainted. 174. Dande. This figure is well known through various copies and also in photographic reproduc- tions. There are several versions or variations notably at Madrid and Naples the Naples picture perhaps, being the best preserved. See the note on the Madrid example. This Vienna picture is prob- ably a school version. It is not well done. 176. Madonna and Child (Gipsy Madonna). The * type, the colour, the background banner, the land- scape and clouds are very Giorgionesque so much TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 91 so that the picture might be placed nearer to Gior- gione than was the early Titian. The attribution is at least questionable. The Madonna and St. Roch picture at Madrid, at one time called a Gior- gione but now put down to Pordenone, shows us the identical Madonna model of this picture. The eyes, brows, nose, chin, hair, forehead should be compared with the Castelfranco Madonna. The Child, too, will bear comparison. The picture is coarsely drawn and is probably by the painter of the Madrid picture. Both of them are too lax, technically, for Giorgione, but they are near him by some follower of his other than Titian. The picture has much charm though now badly re- painted in the faces, figures, hands, and sky. The colour is rich in reds and greens. 177. Portrait of Benedetto Varchi. The portrait is Titianesque in pose and in the hands, but the sitter is heavy in personality and the picture all through is as dull as ditch water. It is late work and has been repainted. 178. Ecce Homo. This is a strange and confusing Titian. The purely human Christ is frail and tottering through physical weakness, the Pontius Pilate (probably an Aretino portrait) is brutal in impersonation and rather dreadful in blue colour- ing, the white figure of the girl in the centre seems diminutive and out of scale, and the boy on the steps with the dog is probably as good as any part of the canvas. The conception is of a casual crowd, a rabble scattered here and there. The composi- tion rambles, lacks in centralisation, is not held to- gether. The colour is brilliant in spots but again seems to lack in unity. The whole picture was 92 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY more or less of an experiment and not an altogether successful one. It looks like poor shop work. Hurt by repainting. 180. Holy Family (Madonna of the Cherries). An ** early Titian painted on wood and in fairly good condition. The colours are clear and bright, have resonance, and, taken in part or in whole, are stim- ulating, appealing, altogether charming. The red and blue of the Madonna's dress, the red and gold of the brocade at the back, the cherries on the parapet and held in hand by the Madonna and the Child are all jewel spots of brilliant colour. The green and dark orange of the side figures are parts of the well-planned colour scheme. The types and the sentiment are both characteristic of Titian's early work lofty, noble, sincere, most attractive. A very charming picture. 181. Tambourine Player. Perhaps this is a part of some larger picture. The patching of the canvas seems to suggest it. Yet Teniers painted it in one of his picture-gallery canvases in its present shape. The little figure is bright, childlike, playful, en- gaging, perhaps not so attractive as the cupids in the Worship of Venus at Madrid (No. 419) though possibly done at about the same time. The back- ground is poor in trees and sky except at the left. Stained (notably in the parapet and tambourine) and injured by repainting. A cupid of similar setting in the Vienna Academy (No. 466), assigned to Titian. 182. Portrait of Jacopo di Strada. Rather good in its greys and blacks but not a great Titian. There are too many objects in the picture. The statuette, the books, the column, to say nothing TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 93 of the ornate costume, are distracting. The por- trait has features that suggest Paolo Veronese as its painter. The sleeves and their colour, the fur, the turn and bend of the head seem more like Paolo than Titian. Much injured, as notice the surface of the statuette. 186. Nymph and Shepherd. The picture is a late one and perhaps was never finished. To-day it seems heavy in the modelling, especially in the nymph. The weight is ponderous but not precisely clumsy. There is rhythm of line in the figure and unity in the group. The colour is of no marked importance and the landscape is painty. Perhaps this condition was brought about by repainting. The picture is in bad condition and much injured. 191. Portrait of John Frederick, Elector of Han- * over. The type is coarse enough but the head is very well drawn. The sitter looks somewhat like a marmot but is not devoid of keen intelligence. The modelling of the fat neck and ear is noticeably good as also the fat hands. The body is a little flat. The handling is peculiar and reminds one of the Aretino portrait in the Pitti Gallery. The brush dips much into dark greys or blackish pig- ments. A grey ground. Somewhat hurt by re- painting. 197. Girl in Fur Coat. A portrait that recalls the * so-called Duchess of Urbino in the Pitti (No. 18) and brings up comparison with Helene Fourment in her fur pelisse in another room of this gallery. This is, perhaps, more refined in spirit and feeling than the Rubens, but it has not now the drawing or the modelling of the latter. The picture is much injured, and the fine face with its inquiring 94 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY look is now hard in the brows and fumbled in the hair, while the chest and arms are rubbed flat. There is a brown ground to match the fur and cloth. 198. Portrait of Titian's Daughter Lavinia. This portrait is large and heavy with much-rubbed hands and neck. There is also some repainting apparent. The feathers are now a little out of value, the right hand is injured, the shoulder stained or repainted, the background darkened. It is some sort of workshop piece or perhaps a copy. 90. Tura, Cosimo. The Dead Christ. No one who knows anything about Cosimo Tura's colour in his untouched panels can believe in the surface of this picture for a moment. It is raw, skinned, white- washed what you please but nowhere near the original surface. All the colours now cry out and the high lights are a mockery. 738. Valckenborch, Lucas van. Mountain Land- * scape. We might think such a landscape as this very wonderful if we had not seen the works of the Brueghels, who influenced Valckenborch. The Brueghels' best pictures are here in this same room with the Valckenborchs, and by contrast they hurt the latter. They are stronger in colour, less formal in arrangement, more original in thought, firmer and better in execution. Yet no one can pass by this mountain landscape by Valckenborch without an exclamation. It is beautiful in colour, broad in its sweep, large in its feeling. It is not cunningly or cleverly done, however. The handling is crude. See the doing of the trees. 732. Valley Landscape. This and No. 738 are, per- haps, the best of the Valckenborchs here. The VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 95 snow scene (No. 736) has some attempt at origi- nality in the falling snow but is too obvious in the snowflakes. The other large pictures are formal and regular but not much more than topographical. They lack quality and originality. 621. Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portrait of the ** Infanta Margarita Teresa. This picture is prac- tically a replica of the picture in the Madrid Gal- lery (No. 1192). In some respects it is better than the Madrid picture notably in the beautiful, silvery tone of the dress, in the hair, perhaps in the round- ing and modelling of the childish face, and in the delightful scheme of colour. The figure is a bit large for the canvas, as with the Madrid picture, and while some parts of it, such as the handker- chief, the flowers, the sleeves, the Tuffs, and the bow, are beautifully done, other portions seem less happy, as though, perhaps, another hand than that of Velasquez had been at work. The alien hand seems apparent in the red bow at the left of the head, the dark streaks of shadow in the dress (a peculiarity of Mazo), the high lights on the staff at the left, and the spotting with white paint on the huge skirt for brilliancy of effect. Possibly a pupil finished the picture after the death of Velasquez, and yet there is little about it that might not have been done by Velasquez and is not good enough for him. As a piece of colour it is (like its Madrid prototype) the most beautiful thing in painting imaginable. Notice here, as there, the Velasquez reds, the mauves in the sleeves, the dull reds and golds in the curtain, the predominant silver note. The Infanta herself is, perhaps, a little staring in the eyes and not so fine in characterisation as Nos. 611 and 615. The picture is fine in ensemble, in 96 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY aerial setting, in oneness of effect. In fact, one has to drive the contention rather hard to find fault with it at all. Apparently it is a little in- jured by retouching. Mr. Ricketts calls it "a radiant variant " and " a fortunate sketch/' while Beruete declares it a copy of the Madrid picture. It is an excellent picture whatever it be called. 615. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa. ** The sitter is the same as in No. 621. This is an earlier picture as the earlier age of the Infanta suggests. As a whole it has not the fine colour quality of No. 621. In some respects it is better done while in other features it is not so well done. The blue curtain and table with the blue flowers seem not quite perfect in their tone, in their value. They are a trifle too dominant. They were put in as the cool note of the picture, but it is a ques- tion if they are not too cool for the geranium- pink dress and the warm rug. However, no one can feel that they are much out of place, out of harmony. Light and air hold them together hold everything in the picture together. The fig- ure sets in and has its envelope. This envelope with Velasquez always keeps local colour in abey- ance. Varying hues are subordinated to the en- semble. If he departed here unconsciously from his practice and favoured the cool blues, the devia- tion was slight and probably for a purpose which we do not discern. What a perfect little figure it is! What a por- trait of a child! What a characterisation! The little lady already knows herself to be of a superior strain and has the repose of those born to rule. Yet she is a child, standing there quietly, innocently, quite unconscious, or at least not affected. The VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 97 head and face are not up to the supreme height of treatment shown in the Louvre picture (No. 1731). The hair is a little chalky in the lights, the neck shadow a little dark, the oval of the face not so perfect again as in the Louvre picture. The dress, however, is above any cavilling. It is not only a marvel of colour but also of handling. The pinks, the silvers, the greys, the mauves, the golds and blacks are wonderfully blended, beautifully wrought into drawing, light, shadow, harmony. The rug falls down a bit in front but is, nevertheless, ex- cellent. And with what simple, true, and perfect brushing that vase of flowers is put in! A little stained in the blue curtain. 611. Portrait of the Infante Philip Prosper. The *** reason for giving this portrait three stars and only two each for Nos. 615 and 621 is that this portrait, all told, seems a little more perfect in the workman- ship, a little more sympathetic in its characterisa- tion of the child, a little more complete as a picture than the others. It is, perhaps, the best child's portrait now in existence and, at the same time, a picture of the very highest and finest quality. Consider the head for a moment, with its thin, childish hair and the little skull so close under- neath it, the protruding childish forehead, the snub nose, the wondering eyes, the half -parted lips. The chin is a little pointed, the shadow along the throat and jaw not so infallibly right as in the Infanta of the Louvre (No. 1731), possibly owing to some re- touching in the face, but still giving the thin cheek and set-out ear of a rather sickly child. It is all just as it should be and very wonderful in what the painter saw as well as in his manner of telling it. The dress is just as right, just as true. How could THE IMPERIAL GALLERY the linen be given better in drawing or texture! Notice how the little bell and the other charms sink into it and vary its value in shadow. How one feels the red of the under-dress through the white! How rounded it is and what depth and body it has! Notice, again, the fine notes in the slashings of the sleeves or the doing of the ruffs at the wrists. Notice also the silver bands in the red underskirt. The rug here seems better done than hi No. 615 and more in harmony with the reds and whites of the figure. The cushion and curtain, too, are almost perfect, and as for the drawing of the chair it is the very best kind of pictorial eloquence. You have never seen and probably never will see again so much speaking beauty in a simple chair as here. It is a picture in itself. And the live, animated, absolutely perfect dog! This is all the big work of a great technician, done simply and easily but with the telling effect that usually follows the efforts of genius. Stand back now and look finally at the room and its atmospheric setting. The ensemble of it, the unity of it is once more absolute. All the colour is only so much aid to this unity and not a sepa- rate thing in itself. It is a means, not an end as with a picture by a Bonifazio or a Veronese. The whole scene child and all is given as it came into the painter's vision, as he saw it. We pick it to pieces to admire its parts, but it should finally be seen as a whole, in its entirety, as the painter conceived it. Merely a portrait of a poor, sickly little child but a picture with majesty and greatness about it. "Art is a point of view and genius a way of looking at things." Here is the illustration of it. VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 99 617. Portrait of the Infanta Maria Teresa. A very * good portrait but it has not the quality of the three other children's portraits here (Nos. 611, 615, 621). It is an earlier picture, coarser, not less free in the handling, but perhaps less happy in colour and air, less delicate in the modelling of the face. Compare the quality of the handkerchiefs here and in No. 621, or the white of the dress with the whites in No. 611, and the distinction will be apparent. It is not merely a difference of stuffs but a differ- ence of touch, of feeling, of sensitiveness. The face may be compared in the same way with that in No. 611. Some parts of it like the wig, the neck- piece, the bow, are tellingly done, and all parts of it are effective enough. It is a splendid study in whites and a fine picture, but is not a supreme finality such as, say, No. 611. The head in the Louvre (No. 1735) may be the preliminary study for this picture or it may be a replica of the head and bust here. 618. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa. It is probably a school work in which the hand of Velasquez is not so very apparent though his touches may be under the restorations that now mar it. You have perfect portraits by Velasquez here for comparison, so compare the coarsely painted hair here with that in No. 621 or No. 611. Compare also the coarse slashing of paint on the sleeves and skirt, the bow on the hair or breast, the red curtain so devoid of fine colour sense, the flat, airless ground at the back with these features in Nos. 611 and 615 or even in No. 617. Another version is in the Frankfort Gallery. Beruete thinks both portraits are by Velasquez. 100 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 622. Isabella of Spain. It is a school picture in which Velasquez's hand does not appear. Notice that the white pattern of the dress is on the dress and not in it a failing of Mazo's as pointed out in the standing portrait of Philip in the National Gal- lery, London. The ruff about the neck is woolly, the wig heavy and painty, the head badly set on the shoulders, the curtain and background colourless and (in spite of scumbling) quite airless. Notice how badly the lower part of the bodice forming a V is given. Pieced out in the upper corners. 616. Portrait of the Infante Don Baltasar Carlos. * Probably another school piece with the pattern of the dress painted in white slashes on the cloth in- stead of in it. The room is airless and the figure stands out from the canvas instead of in. Compare the chair with that in No. 611 if you would get the difference between the master and his best pupil Mazo. The grey stockings are of wood and the bows at the knees are made of what? The same hand that did this painted the standing portrait of Philip IV and the Admiral Pulido-Pareja in the National Gallery, London. It is not a poor portrait in fact the head is excellent but it does not show us the peculiar Velasquez way of seeing and doing things, though, of course, it is possible he may have had a say about it and touched it here and there. It is near him as near him as his son-in-law, Mazo. 612. Philip IV. This is a school piece or a copy after Velasquez with little or no quality about it. Look at the curtain, the distance, the glove, the hair, the drawing of the face, the blacks of the dress. It is no such work as you see in Nos. 611 and 615 VERONESE, ;PAOLC 101 hanging near it. Difference in the time or cir- cumstance of painting will not account for such wide difference in work. 607. Philip IV. It is a copy of the bust portrait of Philip in the National Gallery, London, and not a good copy, either. Consider the crude doing of the hair and the bad drawing of the chin and neck. It has been scrub'bed and over-painted hi parts. 605. Portrait of Queen Maria Anna. An ill-drawn, raw portrait that comes nowhere near Velasquez and must have been done by the least-talented pupil in his school. 609. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa. This has the look of a portrait perhaps laid in by Velasquez but never quite completed. It has largeness in the vision as well as in the drawing. Notice this in the skirt, the sleeves, the hair, the bows. They are well hit off. The ground was left unfinished and also the brown object in the left hand. The colour scheme and the relation- ship of the greens to the whites is fine just as it is. The whole work is a little too sure and free for school work though possibly Carreno may have painted it. 60. Venetian School. Christ Bearing the Cross. The catalogue formerly (1912) gave it to Correggio though there is apparently little of Correggio about it. The light-and-shade does not suggest him, nor the colour, nor the dark hair touched up in the high lights. It is by some Giorgione follower Mr. Berenson says Cariani. 389. Veronese, Paolo (Galiari). Adoration of Magi. This picture was once divided in the middle and 102 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY formed the outside of organ shutters in S. An- tonio at Torcello. Now on canvas. It has not the lift or bigness of Paolo but is probably a school piece or family work. Notice the affected hands, the poor heads up at the right, the crude sky, and the oddly drawn heads of horses. In- jured. 382fi. Esther before Ahasuerus. It is a new pic- ture put down to Paolo and hung high. It prob- ably will not last long as a Paolo for it is a work- shop affair in the same class with Nos. 380, 381. 391. Judith. A handsome piece of colour with richness in the greens and reds. The drawing is very good and the whole picture is attractive. It has been recently attributed to Veronese, but it does not belong to him though it suggests him. It is, perhaps, nearer Paris Bordone. These odd pictures that smack of many painters are impossible to place with certainty. 404. Annunciation. Of the same origin as No. 389. This picture formed the inner side of the organ shutters in S. Antonio. The V in the canvas at the top with the indicated arches suggests the orig- inal form. The Madonna is a little affected, the an- gel is too white in high lights upon robe and hair, the cherubs are not good, and the robes, while ornate, are decidedly decadent. The sky and golden light have gone salmon-coloured. Injured and much repainted. 399. Madonna and Child with Saints. The white robe at the right and the yellow one at the left are lovely in colour, while the figures are graceful, even majestic. The women in black are excellent. VIVARINI, BARTOLOMMEO 103 With banners and columns at the back and a blue ground. The picture is small and possibly only a school piece, but it has some quality about it. 402. Adoration of Kings. The child is a little ab- surd in pose, the horse is badly foreshortened, the black king is not well drawn, the kneeling king with a questionable head that has been repainted is un- believable. It is a school piece. [Now (1913) so attributed on the frame.] 396. Christ before the House of Jairus. The diag- onal grouping of the figures is interesting and there is some ease in their placing, some freedom in their drawing; but in their present condition they are not wonderful. The picture has been much re- painted. Look at the heads and hands or the col- umns and the sky. The picture has the look of a Carletto Caliari but is possibly of Paolo's designing. 12. Vivarini, Alvise. Madonna and Child. Surely a fine Madonna. Notice the little angels below play- ing on musical instruments. The picture is hurt, unfortunately, by some regilding and repainting. Another work similar in style in the Redentore at Venice. 10. Vivarini, Bartolommeo. St. Ambrose with Saints. The forms are rather wooden but very honest and true. The draperies wriggle and twist a good deal. The central figure is the most uneasy in drapery, the most zigzagged, of them all. The small donors at the bottom of the central panel are noteworthy. Taken as a whole, it is fairly good in colour though now much injured. All the panels (and the frame) are brightened by regilding and restoration. 104 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 634. Weyden, Roger van der. Crucifixion. It has the look of a school piece or copy in the carefulness and timidity of its doing and in the brightness of the colours. It has Roger's types, colours, and tragic passion but it lacks Roger's quality in draw- ing and colour. The hair is too carefully done while the foliage of the trees is too carelessly done. Roger had many copyists and assistants and one of them may have done this panel. Its clarity and cleanliness are suspicious. Formerly attributed to Schongauer and then to the Master of Flemalle. 632 1 Madonna and St. Catherine. Two small pan- 633 / els done in the style of No. 634 but apparently of a better quality in colour and with firmer draw- ing in the backgrounds. No. 633 has a charm- ing little distance of landscape and No. 632 is quite lovely in the types of the Madonna and Child and in the carefully drawn hands and feet. These panels may be school work but are very good, nevertheless. No. 632 was formerly thought to be by Hubert van Eyck. 393. Zelotti, Battista. Anointing of David. The colour is decorative and that is about all there is to the picture. The brownish curtain at the back helps little and the sky at the right and left is crude in itself and by contrast with the brown. The figures are fairly drawn no more. Appar- ently there is here a following of Paolo Veronese. Formerly attributed to Paolo Farinato. INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 1. 4. 5. 7. 10. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. 26. 27. 29. 32. 34. 39. 41. 46. 47. 51. 59. 60. Basaiti. Bellini, Giovanni. Antonello da Saliba. Carpaccio. Vivarini, Bartolommeo. Vivarini, Alvise. Bellini, Giovanni. Previtali. Giorgione. Sebastiano del Piombo. Cima. Catena. Giorgione. Perugino. Benozzo Gozzoli. Perugino. Raphael. Perugino. Bartolommeo, Fra. Sarto, Andrea del. Bartolommeo, Fra. Franciabigio. Francia. Sodoma. Correggio. Venetian School. 611 62] 63. 64. 67. 68 68A 69. 81. 82. 82A. 85. 86. 89. 90. 133 134 136 137 139 140 141 142 143 145. 150 \ 154 J Parmigianino. Giorgione. Correggio. Parmigianino. Dossi. Predis, Ambrogio da. Mantegna. Luini. Solario. Costa. Luini. Bellini, School of. Tura. Cesare da Sesto. Florentine School. Palma Vecchio. Bonifazio dei Pitati. Titian. 105 106 INDEX 157. Bonifazio dei Pitati. 161 163 166 Titian. 167 169 170 171 Bonifazio Veneziano. 172 174 176 177 180 Titian. 181 182 186 j 188. Bonifazio Veneziano. 191] 197 \ Titian. 198 j 205. Cariani. 207. Palma Vecchio. 213 Savoldo. 215 Lotto. 216 ' > Moroni. 218. Moretto of Brescia. 219. Romanino. 220. Lotto. 221. Licinio, Bernardino. 223. Calisto Piazza da Lodi. 224. Tintoretto, Jacopo. 226. Bonifazio Veneziano. 231 \-_j_ 23U / 234 235 236 239 239A 241 243A. 244) 245 j 248. 249 250 254 255 256 257 261. 272. 382B. 385. 389. 390. 391. 393. 395. 396. 397. 399] 402 404] 409. 417. 455 458 463 465 466 Tintoretto, Jacopo. Tintoretto, Domenico. Tintoretto, Jacopo. Bordone. Tintoretto, Jacopo. Schiavone. Greco, II. Veronese, Paolo. Farinato. Veronese, Paolo. Farinato. Veronese, Paolo. Zelotti. Badile. Veronese, Paolo. Badile. Veronese, Paolo. Farinato. Tintoretto, Jacopo. Belotto. INDEX 107 599. Panto j a de la Cruz. 665] 602. Coello, Sanchez. 666 > Patinir. 603. Mazo. 667 j 605. Velasquez. g 1 Bles. 606. Carreno de Miranda. 676. Master of Seven Sor- 607 rows. 609 TT , fil 1 Velasquez. 682] 683 > Cleve, Juste van. 612 684 J 614. Murillo. 693. Metsys, Jan. 615 696. Hemessen. ~ 17 Velasquez. ^jAertsen. 618 706 ] 620. Spanish School. 707 > Beuckelaer. 621 ) 707AJ 622 1 Velasquez. 708 624 1 709 fi2 c f Eyck, Jan van. 710 \J6O J 711 627A } David ' Gerard ' 712 713 1 Brueghel the Elder, r,^ \ Goes, Van der. 714 [ Peter. 715 632] 716 633 \ Weyden, Van der. 717 634 J 719 635. Memling. 720 642 A. Cleve, Juste van. 738 1 V a l c k en D rc n- fi44 1 jff: > Geertgen tot St. Jans. 754 1 -, tjgg'i Gossart. 646. Cornelisz van Oostsa- 764. Master of Half Figure. nen. 765 si*-? 766 rle y> Van - 657. Bles. 771 Coxie - 108 INDEX > Moro. > Rubens. 914. Brueghel the Elder, Jan. 984. Brueghel the Elder, Peter. 1028 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1038 1039 1040 1042 1043 1046 1048 1050 1051 1052 1053 1087. 1135. 1155. 1245. 1261. 1268' 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1276 , 1297. 1299A. 13041 1305 / 1305A. 1313. 1337. Dyck, Anthony van. Jordaens. Brouwer. Teniers the Younger. Bramer. Neer, Van der. Rembrandt. Hals, Frans. Hooch, Pieter de. Steen. Palamedes. Goyen, Jan van. Ruisdael. INDEX 109 1338. Cappelle. 1366. Terborch. 1370A.Metsu. 1405. Burgkmair. 1406. Amberger. DQrer. 1423 1424 \ Baldung. Cranach the Elder. 1427. Maler zu Schwaz. 14281 1429 J 1431. Beck. 1432. Beham. 1 1 Strigel. ! \ Schauffelein. 1438 } 1438A \ Kulmbach. 1438B j 1439. Pencz. 1442 ' 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1452' 1453 1455 1458 1459 1460 1462 1473. Maler zu Schwaz. 1479 1 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1489. Holbein, School of. 1490. Schongauer. Holbein the Younger. MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BUDAPEST NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM BUDAPEST is one of the most progressive and en- lightened cities of Europe, and in perfect keeping with its enlightened spirit it has established a notable and growing collection of pictures, both ancient and modern. The pictures have been brought together in recent years, and the famous examples inherited by such older galleries as the Louvre and the National Gallery, London, are not to be expected; yet among the old masters there are some remarkable pictures in this gallery. The superb portrait by Vermeer of Delft is almost sufficient in itself to make a collection of pictures famous. Besides this there is a very good Hals portrait and an excellent bust portrait put down to Murillo but by a very much stronger painter than he by the painter of the Christ Bound to the Col- umn in the National Gallery, London. There is an unusual representation of Spanish pictures here and a large number of Flemish, Dutch, and German mas- ters, even some examples of old Hungarian art. But the showing of Italian art is the most conspicuous, the most important, perhaps. There are two rooms filled with Primitives, some of them exquisite in their gilded grounds and mellow colours. There are good pictures by Costa, Boltraffio, Previtali, Verrocchio's 113 114 NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM School, Gentile Bellini. The Correggio is a little senti- mental, and the Raphael is not one of his best, but there is a superb portrait put down to Giorgione, another fine one given to Lotto, and still a third by Romanino that is not to be despised. Nearly a thousand pictures by the old masters are listed in the catalogue. They should be studied. The new building is large, well lighted, and well adapted to museum purposes. Again, the pictures are well hung and one is allowed to enjoy them in peace. The officious attendant who bores you with his talk and his insistence upon your seeing what he consid- ers wonderful is absent. Courtesy and propriety reign throughout the building. The catalogue (in French, with illustrations) is concise, correct, careful without being pedantic. The different views of experts about the various pictures are given without comment. They are allowed to confirm or confute each other the di- rector of the gallery retaining the privilege of his own opinion and his own attribution. This is quite as it should be. During the year 1913 an important collection of pic- tures known as the Palffy Collection (left to the mu- seum by Count Palffy) was hung in a separate part of the building, with a special catalogue and numbering. Presumably it will eventually be rearranged, recata- logued, and incorporated in the main museum collec- tions. Until that time it seems unwise to publish any notes about it. Reference to its pictures by numbers NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM 115 would merely lead to confusion with the main-gallery numbers, and reference by place or name would again be unsatisfactory since both are liable to speedy change. The student, however, should not miss the opportunity to see these pictures. There are some excellent can- vases among them of which mention will be made hereafter. THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM, BUDAPEST 673. Aertsen, Pieter. Market Scene. Done with truth and force, and probably by Aertsen, as at- tributed. Not, perhaps, his most commanding per- formance, but, even so, one must here respect his large realism, his true if coarse drawing, his strong, somewhat brutal colour. What a head that of the kneeling woman! 678. Aldegrever, Heinrich (?). Lot and His Daugh- ters. It is good in colour whoever may have painted it. It was possibly worked up from an Aldegrever engraving by a later man, as the cata- logue suggests. 29. Avanzi, Jacopo. Madonna and Child. It is dec- orative in its gold and colour. The folds of drap- ery put in with gilded high lights, the red angel wings at the sides, the crown and golden halo are all effective. The attribution may be questioned. Repainted but still handsome. 70. Bacchiacca, Francesco Ubertini. Preaching of St. John Baptist. With bunches of figures rather than groups and with bad drawing in the hands and feet. But it has a good landscape and a bright colour effect. One can expect little more from Bacchiacca. 117 118 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 729A. Baldung, Hans. Madonna. The wing of a triptych the other parts of which are now lost or at least unknown. There is a good deal of sup- pressed emotion in the figure and some rather effec- tive though sharp drawing. Bleached in the whites. 715 \ Adam and Eve. Two panels that show ex- 716 / pressive outline drawing but are exaggerated in size, sentiment, pose, and colour. The simpler work of Cranach seeins more satisfying than this, though Baldung is a draughtsman of force. 435. Balen, Jan van. Rest in Egypt. The picture is Rubensesque in every way in fact, a clever though coarse following of Rubens. It falls short in sure- ness of touch, the surfaces are prettier, and of course there is no originality about it, for the Rubens types, colours, poses, themes are taken almost verbatim. But the work by itself consid- ered is fairly well done. It was, perhaps, done by Jan van Balen's father, Hendrik the Elder, who was a more pronounced Rubens follower than his son. 128* Bartolommeo Veneto. Portrait of a Man. A dusky and rather hard portrait that has suffered considerably. There are still some firmness in the drawing and richness in the colour. Notice the fine head-gear. 109. Basaiti, Marco. St. Jerome. The landscape, especially in the sky, distant mountains, and water, is crude. The trees at right are bungled or re- painted and the saint is hardly happy in drawing. It is a poor workshop piece. Notice how much better is No. 104, put down to the same painter. But the same hand did not do them. The land- scapes by themselves considered contradict each other. BEUCKELAER, JOACHIM 119 104. St. Catherine of Alexander. A very fine figure in its richness of colour and depth of shadow. The robe is especially attractive. The face is somewhat prettified, the hand with the book is awkward, and the figure stands badly. The landscape is dark but makes a perfect setting for the figure. There is no reason to doubt the attribution though the picture seems different from No. 109. Compare them. 147. Bassano, Jacopo. St. Jerome. The head is rather better than the beard. With some fair mod- elling in the eyes, brows, nose, and cheek-bones. The colour is very good. 117. Bellini, Gentile. Portrait of Catherine Cornaro. * An excellent portrait and done in the same vein or spirit as Gentile's portrait of the same sitter in the Miracle of the Cross (No. 568) in the Venice Academy. The drawing is positive in the outline, the figure well suggested, the colour excellent, the dress and jewels ornate in effect. The character- isation is, however, the best part of it. Somewhat rubbed but still magnificent. 111. Bellini, School of Giovanni. Portrait of the Doge Barberigo. It is a mediocre portrait, possi- bly painted by Basaiti as suggested in both the sitter and the landscape seen through the window. 255 1 BelottO, Bernardo. The Piazza and the Arno, 256 J Florence. Two views of Florence extremely well done and fine in colour. They are of much in- terest historically for the look of the old Piazza and the Arno in Belotto's day. N. N. Beuckelaer, Joachim. Peasant with Vegetables. It is not the best of Beuckelaers. The drawing is not very secure nor the handling too certain. Notice the drawing of the man's head. 120 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 63. Bicci di Lorenzo, Neri di. Madonna and Child. In the style of this painter, with his type of the Madonna, his drawing and colouring. The gold work is rich. What beautiful haloes! The flesh has been hurt by retouching. 180A. Bissolo, Pier Francesco. St. George (?). A smooth-faced, very clean, and boneless St. George that might have been done by Bissolo or even Catena, but possibly it is by neither. It has some sweetness but very little strength. It is the kind of art that people should pass by in discreet silence, though the landscape at the right might be worth pausing over. 684. Bles, Herri met de. Landscape. It has the Patinir defect of being out of key the brown fore- ground not belonging to the blue background. The mountains are fantastic. The owl sign is on the tree limb at left, but that proves nothing. See the notes on Bles and Bosch in the Vienna Gallery. 74. Boccato da Camerino, Giovanni. Madonna and Saints. A large altar-piece with a squared group of figures, making no pretence to subtlety of composition but very frank and honest in senti- ment and agreeable in colour. The drapery of the Madonna is somewhat uneasy. Notice the lovely angels at the back and the pathetic, music-making putti at the foot of the throne. The drawing of the drapery of the putti is amusing. With rich robes. Attribution questionable. 549. Bol, Ferdinand. Portrait of a Man. A pulpy picture with no bone or muscle about the sitter. One feels the bigness of the head and also its soft- ness. Yellowed perhaps by varnish. BOSCH, JEROME 121 115. Bol traffic, Giovanni Antonio. Madonna and * Child. The figures fill the panel very well, are quite right in light-and-shade and effective as col- our. They seem too well drawn for Boltraffio and not well enough drawn (especially in the hands) for Leonardo. The fingers of the Child and their joining to the hand are not rightly done and the arms have undue length. The drapery is well handled and there is grace in the composition as in the contours, but it is not exactly Leonardo's grace. A handsome group and not far removed from Leonardo, as Dr. Bode suggests, but far enough to put it down as the work of some Leonardo imi- tator. The same hand did the Madonna Litta at St. Petersburg (No. 13A). The hand was probably that of Bernardino de' Conti. A handsome work. Notice the fine bowl on the table. 112. Borgognone, Ambrogio Fossano. Deposition. The Borgognone types are here somewhat loosely given and his gold work in the hair and crowns seems carelessly put in. The picture has the look of a Borgognone workshop piece. The colour is rich. The landscape with its sunlight effect on the houses is, perhaps, the best part of the picture, though the figure of John at the left is very good. N. N. Bosch, Jerome. Adoration of Magi. On an * easel and evidently a new acquisition. A subject that Bosch did a number of times, notably at Madrid (No. 2048). The black king here in a white robe is similar to the one at Madrid but otherwise the picture is varied. There is excellent colour in the robes and brocades with much rich- ness in the gold work. The handling is easy but not so certain as usual with Bosch. Both the 122 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM handling and the drawing are a little careless. An odd composition, its very oddity, perhaps, helping out its picturesqueness. Notice the rich note in the robe of the kneeling king. 593. Brouwer, Adriaen. The Smokers. It is a poor panel with little of Brouwer's certainty of touch in it. 651. Brueghel the Elder, Peter (Peasant). An Old Couple. With some good drawing but an unnec- essary emphasis of wrinkles. It has little sugges- tion of any of the Brueghels about it. 653. Brueghel the Younger, Peter (Hell). Cruci- fixion. There are some good grouping, some free painting, and some fine colour in the picture. 230. Canaletto, Giovanni Antonio. Piazza of the * Clock-Tower (Venice). A large Canaletto sur- rounded by a framework of small Guardis. It is fine in colour, light, and air. Notice how charm- ingly the little figures are put in or how well the balconies, curtains, and windows at the right are painted. It is Canaletto at his best in fact, it is so good that one wonders if it can be a Canaletto. 320. Cano, AlonZO. Christ and the Magdalen. It is rather good in colour but lacks in dignity and re- serve. The attitudes are by no means easy or pleasing. The Magdalen's robe is well done but her hands are awkward and her face is ill drawn. The Christ turns badly and steps out stiffly. 321. Christ at Gethsemane. The picture is easily painted and may be genuine enough, but every dark, Spanish-looking picture containing a blue or pink winged angel is not necessarily by Cano. COQUES, GONZALES ' 123 283. Carducho, Vincenzo. Vision of St. Francis. An odd picture in its composition and its colour, but well drawn and effective in sentiment. The St. Francis is very well done, especially in the handling of the robe. The Madonna, however, is a little heavy of figure. The colour is a scheme of blues and greens and out of the ordinary, at least. 328B. Carreno de Miranda, Juan. Portrait of a Young Man. It is an inky portrait, probably of Charles II the same type as No. 642 at Madrid and No. 407 at Berlin, both by Carreno. This one is rightly painted but is black enough to have been done by Ribera or some one of his school. 97. Catena, Vincenzo. Holy Family. A crude work with some indications of its being a poor school piece or even a copy. Look at the head and hair of the saint at the right, the wooden Child, the raw landscape, the sharp blue of the sky and robe. It is cheap execution that we see here, but, then, Ca- tena frequently painted in just this cheap manner. 102. Madonna, Saints, and Donor. It is a better picture than No. 97 but by no means a work that any one can regard as masterful. The donor is the best piece of drawing in it. 697A. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of the Death of the Virgin). Portrait of a Woman. There is some good drawing about it of .a hard, linear kind. Notice the squareness of the chin. The white head-dress is effective. Attribution questionable. 642. Coques, Gonzales. Family of Jacques van Eyck. A group of smooth, well-dressed people belonging, possibly, to what are called " the better classes" 124 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM but not furnishing nearly as good material for pic- torial art as Brouwer's boors or Rembrandt's Jews. But that may be because Coques was not Brouwer or Rembrandt. The picture is cleverly done, how- ever, with some good portraiture in the heads. 121. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Madonna and Child. A Madonna of the pretty type, with more or less of sweet sentiment about her. Such pictures as this give one small idea of Correggio as he ap- pears at Parma. However, there is mastery in the grouping here and some charm in the diagonal flow of line as suggested in the Child and empha- sised in the drapery. The hands of the Madonna are just as pretty as her face. The children are better, more childlike and less affected. The col- our and the light are good. Other versions of the same picture in the Hermitage and elsewhere. 99 1 Cossa, Francesco del. Playing Angels. Two 100 J attractive figures by some one close to the author of the single figure in the Berlin Gallery (No. 115A), there ascribed to Cossa. They are fine in colour, in light-and-shade, and in relation to their back- grounds. They have the foreshortening effect from the feet backward and downward peculiar to the Berlin picture and also to be noted in the Man- tegna fresco of St. James on the Way to Prison in the Eremitani at Padua. What wonderful skies and landscapes! The figures are tall and rather ungainly in their attitudes. Besides, the one with the harp has been injured in the hands and face. But they are lovely pieces of colour. Notice the dull, golden robe of the angel at the right. 124. Costa, Lorenzo. Venus. A graceful figure in * spite of its thin arms, awkward legs, and wooden CREMONA, SCHOOL OF 125 torso. It should be studied in connection with the early Venus of Lorenzo di Credi in the Uffizi. They are epitomes and embodiments not only of the spirit but the technique of the early Renais- sance. Costa is less harsh in his characterisation than Credi, but he is hotter in colour, less charming in hue and surface, less cunning with his handling of the white cloth. The white is here a little high in key. The outline of the left leg was changed probably by the painter himself. The hands have been hurt as well as other portions of the figure. 728. Granach the Elder, Lucas. Marriage of St. * Catherine. The faces are porcelain-like and the robes not very different, but there is good senti- ment apparent, delicate workmanship everywhere, and a fine scheme of high colour. What colour it is! The black curtain (?) at the back does not help the picture any, for it merely shuts out some of the altogether delightful landscape. What colour in the sky, the pine, the mountain profile I 719. The Old Lover. It is well drawn and rather good in colour but is not a remarkable Cranach. In fact, one may doubt the Elder Cranach's hand in it at all. As usual the founder of the school has all the output of the school attributed to him. One might think Cranach never had sons and pupils who did just this kind of picture. 158. Cremona, School of. A Saint. It is part of a picture cut away and framed up. It might have been painted by the painter of No. 180A or 102 (the centre figure) that is, Catena. It has some colour and is much better work than the two other pictures just cited. 126 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 98. Crivelli, Carlo. Madonna and Child. Not a * very brilliant Crivelli, but lovely in tone and rich in robe and architecture. The gold work is im- pressive and the little Child very naive in type. It lacks Crivelli's splendour of effect, his floridity of colour, but is highly decorative none the less. What a fine robe, crown, fruit, background! It is all excellent work and in excellent condition. 587. Cuyp, Albert. Cattle in Water. The cattle are good, but the sky and clouds are ill drawn and ineffective. 696. David, Gerard. Nativity. With every indica- tion of being by David that is, David as we now know him in European galleries. The painter is still an uncertainty, but the Joseph and Madonna here are repeated in other pictures and tend to identify the personality and the brush of some one man whom we now call David. A very fine group with naive charm of sentiment and excellent col- our. The Madonna is lovely. Notice the little angels in white, also the shed, the shepherds on the hill, the fine town, and the landscape effect. The central spot of red in the robe of Joseph keeps drawing the eye by its rich hue. In a good frame. 485. Decker, Cornells Gerritz. The Goose Inn. It is almost as good as the Ruisdaels and Hobbemas that outcry it. The light and colour are excellent. 180D. Dossi, DOSSO. Madonna, Child, and Saints. A rich piece of colour of a kind suggestive of Dossi without having, perhaps, his colour depth. What an odd Madonna with her Oriental head-dress! Notice also the angel with red wings. A fine bit. 161. - Portrait of Giorgione (?). A dark, painter- like face, with some good drawing in the eyes, nose, DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 127 and brows. The hair has been tampered with. Whether the portrait is by Giorgione, or of him, will not be settled by anything that could be said here or is likely to be said elsewhere. As to its being a Dosso, one may file an exception. It has good quality. 43. Duccio di Buoninsegna. Preaching of John the Baptist. The picture is by some one in Duccio's School and standing close to the master. There are good grouping of figures, drawing of drapery, and richness of colour. The type of Christ is Duccio's only a little coarsened. Also the feet and hands are his. 502. Duck, Jacob. The Guard. The figures are well set in the space, with light and air correctly ren- dered and a very good effect of tone. 699. Diirer, Albrecht, Portrait of a Man. A good * piece of drawing in the head and face, with a very marked personality given to the sitter. The face has been rubbed and stained until some of the mod- elling is now distorted, but it is still a fine head. Notice the minute work in the fur and cap. Diirer was a realist of small things, he was also a great artist; but the cause of his greatness was not his realism of the little. Possibly a likeness of Durer's brother, as the catalogue suggests. 419. Dyck, Anthony van. The Trinity. A picture that is to be accepted with something more than a grain of salt. It may be by Van Dyck or of his school, for he had a score of pupils, helpers, and imitators whose works are now lumped under his name; but the picture has a Spanish look about it. The types of Christ, of the Father, of the cherubs below are more than half Spanish. The 128 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM sky and the dove bear out the Spanish feeling. The slight Van Dyck look of it may be a Spanish following of him. The figure of Christ is well drawn. 416. Portrait of a Couple. It is evidently an early Van Dyck that has been cleaned to death so that the under-basing now shows through in the hands and faces, and the high lights appear in unrelieved gouts of paint the finer surface touches with their subtle modellings having disappeared. As a result we have harsh if forceful modelling, rather savage colour, and an unpleasant surface. Originally, it must have been a strong work, but now one need only look at the hands the left hand of the man particularly for evidence of bad treatment. 365. Elias (Pickenoy) Nicolaes. Portrait of a Man. The portrait is posed in an attitude that rather suggests the so-called Admiral Borro at the Berlin Gallery, questionably ascribed to Velasquez. It suggests again how essentially Netherlandish the Borro portrait is and how far removed it is from Spanish origin. See the comment on the Borro in the Berlin notes. 372. Portrait of a Woman. A sturdy, strong type, with firmly drawn face and hands. It is a little hard and smooth but truthful and honest. 682. Engelbrechtsen, Cornells. Portrait of a Couple. The work is very well done and the colour is excel- lent. The handling is easy and effective that is certain. Notice the blue falcon for fine colour. 331. Fabritius, Bernaert. Portrait of a Man. There is a suggestion of the painter's master, Rembrandt, in this portrait, though it is smoother and weaker FRANCIA, FRANCESCO 129 than Rembrandt. But it is a fairly good portrait. The artistic personality of Fabritius needs rehabili- tation. His pictures have been for many years listed as Rembrandts and are still doing yeoman service as such in many of the galleries of Europe. 204. Feti, Domenico. Sleeping Girl. The handling of the brush is decidedly dexterous, and the col- our scheme is engaging. The painters in the period of the Decadence were sometimes remarkable for their retention of the tradition of good craftsman- ship even though good thought and feeling had left them. 410A. Flinck, Covert. Manoah's Sacrifice. A Rem- * brandtesque canvas that lies between Eeckhout and Flinck. These pictures of angels on grey or dark grounds are so confused in their assignments in European galleries that it seems impossible to straighten them out. The painter of this picture helped Rembrandt in his series of the Passion (Nos. 326-331) at Munich. It is a very good picture, with the figures well set in the scene and with air and light. The drawing is clumsy and less sure than with Rembrandt or even Flinck. It is more like the drawing of Eeckhout. 72. Francia, Francesco. Madonna, Child, and Two Angels. It is glassy in the surface, cool in colour, sweet in sentiment, and not very good in drawing. Notice how badly the Madonna's head is placed upon her shoulders. The picture belongs to the school or workshop of Francia. 75. Madonna, Child, and St. John. A fine picture, with good colour and a clear landscape. The Ma- donna is bright and wistful-looking. There are sug- 130 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM gestions of Costa in both the Madonna and Child, but it is probably by Francia. A very handsome little panel. 729G. French School. Two Ecclesiastics. Very good colour in the robes with some good gold work. 407. Gelder, Aert de. Esther and Mordecai. An ex- cellent Gelder, better drawn and composed than usual, and with fine colour. The handling is facile and rather more sure than in other examples of this painter though of the same general character. One of the best Gelders in gallery possession. The colour is a little hot. What richness in the woman's costume! This is the hand that did the Prodigal Son, assigned to Rembrandt at the Hermitage. 58. Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo. Nativity. The colour is brilliant but not too well held together, nor is the grouping in any way remarkable. It is a formal and perfunctory affair even in the sentiment of it. Ridolfo did better work than this though he was never a great painter. The landscape is good, and the angels in the sky make a pretty trio. 108. Gianpietrino (Giovanni Pietro Ricci). Ma- donna and Saints. A Leonardesque panel with brownish shadows and grey faces. The sentiment is a little sweeter than a Luini and the drawing somewhat more questionable. It is too frail for love or admiration. Cleaned and repainted with harmful results. 140. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). Portrait of a ** Man. A picture about which there is much differ- ence of opinion. It has a Giorgionesque look, as almost every one will admit, but it rather refuses to be reconciled with some other supposed Giorgiones in the European galleries, for instance, the early por- GIORGIONE 131 trait at Berlin (No. 12A). The Budapest picture is more mature in every way in light, shadow, colour, the hand, the face, the quilted coat. In feeling they are not far removed from one another, but neither of them agrees closely with the Knight of Malta in the Uffizi. Yet the Budapest picture is, perhaps, more Giorgionesque than the others mentioned. It is a fine, sad face, a poetic type, with a great deal of feeling and sentiment about it that agrees with a probable Giorgione at Vienna (No. 63), and it also measurably agrees with the Castelfranco Madonna, the Sleeping Venus at Dresden, the Boy with the Flute at Hampton Court, though not at all with the Fete Rustique at the Louvre another supposed Giorgione. The brows are arched and the mouth Cupid-bowed as in the St. Sebastian, the David, and the Three Wise Men, all at Vienna. The hand on the bosom has no likeness in any Giorgione, real or otherwise. On either side of the head there is a fall of reddish hair that seems to have been painted in later. If these falls of hair, which do not agree with the black hair at all, were removed, the head might prove to be that of a woman, al- though the face seems too strong for that. The picture has been much tinkered with. The nose, mouth, brows, and outline of face, as also the jaw line, are rather hard from cleaning and retouching. The neck is hurt also. 145. Giorgione (Copy after). The Young Paris and Shepherds. The literature about this fragment seems to argue its being by Giorgione or a copy after him. But how shall we account for its atro- cious drawing, even if it be a copy and repainted into the bargain? Look at the straight line of the arm with the red sleeve, the bad hand, and dreadful 132 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM forefinger. Look at the wooden legs the left one crippled of the same figure, or the left hand on the shoulder of the second figure. This second fig- ure has also a short leg and needs his shepherd's crook in walking; his hands are badly drawn and his hips are impossible. Both men have the narrow gimlet eyes of Romanino. The landscape is just as bad as the figures. Almost any one could have painted it. The colour and light are after the Giorgionesque formula, but neither is cunningly or subtly handled. The general look of the picture is not so bad, but it will not bear analysis even as a copy of Giorgione. It has no look of a copy, being too loosely and carelessly done for that. It is more like a bad original by Romanino. See the Roma- nino in the Dresden Gallery, called the Horoscope (under the name of Giorgione, No. 186). That also is said to be a copy of Giorgione, but is by the same hand as this Budapest picture (No. 145). See also the two Giorgiones in the Uffizi (Nos. 621, 630). They are said to be early Giorgiones, but they have the same cocked eyes and poor drawing as this Budapest picture and are by the same man Romanino. Even the fine portrait head here by Romanino (No. 126) has a feeling in the eyes that connects it with this alleged Giorgione. 23. Giotto. Head of a Woman. It seems to be nearer to the Lorenzetti than to Giotto. A good head of the early time, done on plaster and now at- tractive in both line and colour. What very fine colour in the whites! The head (No. 32) is not so good. 19. Crucifix. This is a very handsome bit of gold and colour, with small figures carefully and mi- GOSSART, JAN 133 nutely done for the Giottesque time. The figure of John (shown on both sides) is excellent. The gold work and colours are in excellent condition. It is probably not by Giotto. 35. Giovanni da Ponte. Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine. A large altar-piece much restored in robes, faces, and hands but still showing beauty of colour and intensity of feeling. The background is handsome in pattern and the predella is as inter- esting as the large panel. There are also single figures of saints in the frame. Notice that Christ appears as a grown-up young man and without a beard. The Virgin, too, is youthful. This is a reversal of the usual treatment of this subject. Attribution questionable. We know little or noth- ing of the works of this painter. 177. Girolamo da Santa Croce. St. John Evan- gelist. The figure is a little frail but is striking in its green robe. The colour is a remarkable har- mony of blue and green. It is an early Venetian picture but is too personal and individual for Giro- lamo. Even the catalogue queries its own attri- bution. Notice the depth of the blue distance and the atmospheric effect. 697. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). Portrait of Charles V. The portrait is more than life-sized and not the better for its exaggerated proportions. The elab- orate work upon the jewels looks a little out of place in so large a portrait. Besides, the lines of the gold chain, the white shirt, the black ribbon are all disturbing. The modelling in head and neck is weak. It has decorative colour. Attribu- tion doubtful. 134 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 341. Goyen, Jan van. Peasants. The trees, fore- ground, and distance with the sky speak for Van Goyen's School. Possibly the figures were added later and by another hand. They do not seem to be closely related to the landscape but, nevertheless, are largely modelled and drawn, have some bulk and body about them and also fair colour. A good picture by contrast with its neighbours and good by itself considered. 54. Granacci, Francesco. St. John Evangelist. The figure is harshly drawn but with firmness and truth. The circle is not too well filled, and the landscape is rather crude. The work seems a little rugged and coarse-grained for Granacci. Nos. 71 and 78 are more in his smooth style and hot colour No. 78 probably being genuine. 69. Grandi, Ercole di Giulio Cesare. St. John * Evangelist. A fine figure, superb in type, rich in colour, and very true in sentiment. How well it is drawn in the face and what handsome folds of drapery! The hair also is beautifully painted. There is a suggestion of a large landscape. 487. Grebber, Pieter de. Consolation. It has a Ru- bens facility of touch in the hair and costume, and might pass for a Rubens elsewhere than in this rather carefully arranged and well-attributed gal- lery. 328A. Greco, II (Domenico Theotocopuli). An- nunciation. This has some of II Greco's queer col- our and is facile in the painting of wings and robes, but form is slightly indicated and as a whole the work is inferior. II Greco did this subject several times, notably at Madrid, No. 827. HALS, FRANS 135 223. Guardi, Francesco. Court of Ducal Palace. Rather forced in its effect of light and dark, a little stiff in its figures, and bunched in its groups. The clouds are hot. The painting does not show Guardi's fatty quality, nor is the colour exactly his. Still, it makes an impression and is fairly good. 230- \ Nineteen Scenes. A number of panels by 240 / Guardi or members of his school, of much histori- cal and topographical interest. Some of them are also very lovely in colour and light. They are de- cidedly picturesque. 507A. Hals, Dirck. Good Company. There is some brilliant colouring and free painting about it, and the ensemble is rather good, but it is not well drawn. N. N. Hals, Frans. Portrait of a Man. Evidently a ** new acquisition (1913) for it is without number and stands on an easel. It is excellent in its quali- ties of tone and texture and superb in its lights of the linen in contrast with the darks of the dress. And how it is drawn ! Look at the head, the queer eyes, the mouth partly ajar, the chin, the rather hard nose. It is a strange character and mentally seems almost foolish, but how superb it is physically ! The collar is about as perfect in its fluffiness as one could ask for, and the rich black dress with its pat- terns is just right. The easy pose of it is again excellent. The left hand is slung in the cloak and the figure is a little muffled by the same cloak, but effectively and suggestively so. Go close and look at the brush-work, for here Hals is sure of himself. Look again at the perfect grey background with its feeling of space and depth. It is a superb por- trait. Hals was not always so happy in spirit nor 136 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM so really great technically as is here shown. And, thank Heaven! the frame is right. 501. Portrait of a Man. A fair example of Hals but not extraordinary in any sense. There is life about it and some clever painting in the eyes with their dark shadows, in the cheeks, the hair, the hat. The sleeve shows some ineffective slashing with the brush. The shadows are dark. Not nearly so good an example as the recently acquired portrait on an easel. 401. Heist, Bartholomeus van der. Portrait of Man and Woman. An important picture, perhaps, but unfortunate in its surface. It is too glassy, slip- pery, porcelain-like. The colour is cold grey. The characters are a bit weak. Attribution doubtful. 178. Italian School (16th Century). Portrait of a Man. It has rich colour though it has suffered much too much for positive recognition of its painter. Notice the attributions in the catalogue, how widely they differ. Why add to the confusion by suggesting another name? Once a fine portrait. 420. Jordaens, Jakob. Peasant and Satyr. The same theme has been treated by Jordaens elsewhere, no- tably No. 238 in the Brussels Gallery. In this gal- lery the colour and the painting look refreshing in their largeness, breadth, and body. The colour is hot, as is frequently the case with Jordaens. The handling is easy and effectively done. The spirit, of course, is brutal, and the physical types are of the same nature, but at least the presentation has some stamina about it. 438. Portrait of a Man. It is a little over life-size, and the scale of it seems too large as judged by the LIPPI, WORKSHOP OF FRA FILIPPO 137 rather pulpy hand. A picture of some merit though the surface is smooth, which gives it a frail effect for all its size and bulk. See the note on the Borro portrait at Berlin (No. 413A). Jordaens, not Velas- quez, probably painted it. 393. Keyset, Thomas de. Portrait of a Woman. A strong characterisation of a Dutch woman, heavy of face and figure, full of health and strength. It is admirably drawn in head and hands, and painted with the skill that almost every Dutch painter had at his command. Look at the black of the dress and the fat hands. 96. Liberate da Verona. Madonna and Child. The picture is ruined by repainting. Very likely Lib- erale did it, for the suggestion of him is still in the drawing, but that is about all of him that remains. 52. Lippi, Filippino. Madonna, Child, and St. An- thony of Padua. It has much of Filippino's senti- ment but is certainly not by him. It is just as certainly by the painter that Mr. Berenson calls Amico di Sandro. Compare it with No. 1412 in the National Gallery, London, for the noses of the Madonna and Child, and that one feature alone will point the way to a dozen resemblances in type, disposition of drapery, colour, trees, and also buildings in the background. It is not the best example of this Florentine follower of Filippino and Botticelli but is nevertheless fine in the saints, the flowers, the landscape, the sentiment. 60. Lippi, Workshop of Fra Filippo. Madonna, Child, and Saints. The ascription seems right enough. It is evidently a shop piece of Fra Filip- po's, a little later and perhaps more advanced than 138 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM the master in some respects though possessed of less fine feeling. The colour is rich, as notice the saint at the left, or the sky, or the architecture. It is somewhat hurt. 42. Lippo Memmi. Madonna and Child. There is a beautiful background of gold and colour. Noth- ing could be finer or richer. The faces are hurt and the attribution is questionable. 44. Lorenzetti, Pietro. Madonna and Child. The picture is rightly given to the Lorenzetti, but whether it is by Pietro or Ambrogio may be left to the differing connoisseurs quoted in the catalogue. The background, the ornamental haloes and bor- ders make up most of its present attraction. The Madonna and the Child are both a little heavy even for a Lorenzetti. The hands are not good and the figure of the Madonna is sack-like, but such crudities were to have been expected. Notice the old brocade at the back. 136. Lotto, Lorenzo. Portrait of a Man. A fine, strong portrait, with much of the emotional feel- ing that appears in Lotto but with very little of Lotto's technical characteristics. The romantic look of it seems not affected in any way but it neverthelesss becomes a little wearisome on pro- longed acquaintance. The light and shade are in sharp contrast and bring the attention straight upon the face. The colour is excellent. One can merely guess at its painter. The eyes, nose, brows, forehead, cheek-bones, with the turn of the head and neck and the general air, remind one of the so-called Young Monk in the Giorgione Concert in the Pitti (No. 185). The same hand possibly did both heads, but that hand was possibly neither MAES, NICOLAS 139 Lotto's nor Giorgione's. The nose and face are hurt, the hair retouched. See the catalogue note for attributions. 142. Madonna, Child, and St. Francis. It has been too much worked over by restorers, and no one knows who else, for any certain recognition of its author. Look at the faces of the saint and the Madonna or the hands of the Child the Child that is reminiscent of Lotto. The catalogue que- ries its attribution. On the frame it is given to Moretto. 106. Luini, Bernardino. Madonna, Child, St. Eliza- beth, and St. John. A typical Luini in sentiment, colour, and drawing. Notice the rock formation at the bottom of the picture (suggestive of Leo- nardo) and the woods at the back. The figures are rubbed and hurt by repainting. Compare it with No. 108 near by. 110. Madonna with Saints. A bright-coloured * Luini with pretty faces and his usual sentiment so attractive to the average gallery visitor. It has good colour and drawing. Probably as much of a masterpiece as Luini was capable of doing. He never rose above a graceful way of saying things. 369. Maes, Nicolas. Portrait of a Woman. It has the cramped look and drawing of Maes, but it is done a little later than the woman's portrait at London (No. 1675) and the woman's portrait at Brussels (No. 368), both of them attributed to Rembrandt but done by the painter of this Buda- pest portrait Maes. He is here becoming a little sweet and pretty in his surfaces, and he is also weakening and softening in his drawing. His 140 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM prettiness came with his prosperity and his popu- larity. 366. Portrait of a Man. Done in the same vein as No. 369 ; if anything, a little smoother and weaker. There is a larger version at The Hague Museum. Both versions should be compared with the Por- trait of an Architect, put down to Rembrandt (No. 246), in the Cassel Gallery. 464. Man, Cornells de. Chess-Play ers. It pretends to more than it fulfils. The work is not very good in either drawing or colouring and its surface is disagreeably glassy. 73. Marches!, Girolamo. Pieta. The work has some of the serious quality of Bartolommeo Mon- tagna about it and is not unlike him in the draw- ing. A very good picture, harsh in its truthful- ness, perhaps, but commanding in its sincerity and its strength. Notice the excellent if hard drawing of the heads and the colour of the beautiful Mag- dalen. Other versions elsewhere. 680. Memling, Hans. Calvary. It is a hard and glassy-looking Memling. How cold and forbid- ding the colouring! The sky is like ice, and the clouds are badly drawn and white-edged. The figures are stiff, the robes rather good in colour, the high lights over-prominent. It is school work. 692. Metsys, Quentin. Lucretia. There is a thin look and a timid surface here, and yet it is possi- bly not a copy but a weak original. The catalogue note suggests a number of possible painters for it, but some doubt holds about any one of them. It is eclectic work and difficult to trace home to its actual author. MORONI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA 141 339. Molenaar, Jan Miense. Hotel of the Half Moon, Haarlem. A well-grouped assembly in front of a tavern, with a good landscape at the back. The colour, light, and air of it are very acceptable with- out being distinguished. Molenaar was a weak disciple in the Hals School and had hard work painting up to his wife, Judith Leyster. 582. Moreelse, Paulus. Portrait of a Lady. The painter relied so completely on the comely looks of his sitter that he thought he might fumble or neg- lect the hair, the lace collar, and get on by merely suggesting the figure. The head and the body are not too closely related. Both are a little flat. But a handsome portrait that once passed as a Rem- brandt and might even have been mistaken for an early Van Dyck. 131. Moretto da Brescia (Alessandro Bonvicino). A Saint. The colour is good and the landscape is interesting. As for the saint, he now has a flattened head and a pulpy hand, thanks to renewals in the restoring room. The green curtain and sky are well given as regards colour. 164. Morone, Domenico. St. Francis of Assist. There is a good set-in of the figures and the archi- tecture and a fine tone to the picture. The figures all kneel well. St. Francis is, perhaps, a little con- strained in pose. 1131 Moroni, Giovanni Battista. St. Catherine and 114J St. Dorothy. There is a sharp snap of reality about the figures characteristic of Moroni's art, inclined as it was toward portraiture and the reali- sation of the model. These small panels should be compared with another Moroni (No. 179) in this gallery. 142 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 179. Madonna, Child, and St. John. This is a group unique in arrangement, architectural niche, drawing, and colour. It shows more of a person- ality than we usually associate with Moroni. The Madonna is charming in type with long fingers and a long neck; the children have square heads with rings of flesh about their necks. The blue is a little harsh. The background good in shadow and air. 311. Murillo, Bartholome Esteban. Portrait of a * Man. An excellent portrait entirely too good, too strong, too positive for Murillo. He never drew with such strength, painted with such sure- ness, or had such mental grip as this portrait evi- dences. It was painted by the painter of the Christ Bound to the Column in the National Gallery, London (No. 1148), there ascribed to Velasquez but not by him. Not only is there similarity in colour, tone, flesh, drawing, brush-work, but there is here the same sentiment something that Ve- lasquez never knew and Murillo turned into sen- timentality. The portrait is worthy of study. There is no portrait in this gallery that goes beyond it in interest. Compare it with the Murillo por- trait No. 328 so much weaker in every way. 304. Infant Christ Distributing Bread. The usual sweet performance of Murillo with neither good sentiment nor good technique about it. The draw- ing and colour are both negligible and the whole picture forgetable. 328. Portrait of the Painter. Compare it with the portrait No. 311 in this gallery, and notice the ab- solutely different drawing, handling, treatment of blacks, and, above all, the essentially different atti- NETSCHER, CASPAR 143 tude of mind as shown in the pictures. This por- trait is by Murillo, whereas No. 311 is by another hand. This is a poor enough piece of drawing in the forehead, brows, nose, and mouth. There is no distinction about it nor any great skill. 533. Neer, Aart van der. Moonlight. It is some- what hard and sharp in outlines but with the effect of light the painter was seeking. See also No. 537 for a fire scene by the same painter. 676c. Netherland School. Adoration of Magi. This is possibly by some one in the Herri met de Bles School, working with exaggerated high lights and much richness of colouring. The landscape is like the Bles-Patinir affair that is attributed first to one and then to the other of these painters, depending upon the gallery where you happen to be. (Not in the catalogue of 1910.) 693 1 St. Catherine and St. Barbara. The wings of 694 / a triptych by some unknown Netherland painter of ability. They are good in both sentiment and colour. A positive attribution of them to any Netherland painter would almost surely be uncon- vincing. The man who did them probably left no name to us. 477. Netscher, Caspar. The Medallion. The stu- dent should notice that in this picture by Netscher there is some of the dot-and-spot work supposed to be peculiar to Jan Vermeer of Delft and appear- ing in the pseudo-Vermeers at London, Amsterdam, and The Hague. The spotty high lights, the hard- ness of the dress across the knees are similar to that in The Hague picture put down to Vermeer (No. 625). 144 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 82. Niccold (Alunno) da Foligno. St. Bernard. Notice the Umbrian landscape peculiar to Niccol6. The figure is not characteristic. A fresco trans- ferred to canvas. The colour lacks life but is dec- orative. 548. Oils, Jan. Family Croup. It is well done and there is a sense of ensemble about it that attracts. Notice the atmosphere of the landscape. 50. Orcagna, Andrea. Madonna, Child, and Six An- * gels. A work of decided charm in colour and with much fine sentiment. The Madonna has not yet entirely lost the Byzantine face and the angels around the throne do not yet exemplify the laws of perspective; but how lovely all of them are in feeling, tenderness, purity! With tooled haloes and patterns. Notice the beauty of the brocade back of the Madonna and the colour beauty in the Child with his white under-vest and the gold- embroidered robe across the knees. Decorative effect is apparent everywhere. Notice even the rug far down at the bottom for richness. 514. Ostade, Adriaen van. Fish Seller. The picture has some broad brush-work and some large draw- ing about it. The colour is not remarkable. 531. A Man in His Library. Here is not only good drawing but excellent painting, both of them done in a large way with no petty details or niggling of stuffs, or pots, or pans. What fine colour 1 527. Ostade, Isaac Van. Interior of Peasant's Hut. Given with excellent light, shade, and colour. It is not entirely in the style of Isaac van Ostade but is a very good piece of painting, nevertheless. 116. Pacchia, Girolamo da. Madonna and Saints. The frame is better than the picture. The com- PIER FRANCESCO FIORENTINO 145 bination shows how well even an inferior old master will look if left in its original framing and regarded merely as decoration. 301. Pacheco, Francisco. Joachim and St. Anne. A fairly good picture but possibly not by Pacheco. The catalogue queries the attribution. It has the suggestion of an early Velasquez but is not by him either. The drawing is good in the robes, heads, and hands. The sky and distance are Ve- lasquez-like in colour and very decorative at that. 105. Padua, School of. Pieta. The hands seem those of Bartolommeo Vivarini and the foreshortened head of Christ and also that of the Madonna seem the work of some Mantegna follower. It is a hard piece of drawing, grimaced in the faces and dark- ened in the colour, but it has some grip and force about it. See the various attributions listed in the catalogue note. 101. Pannonio, Michele. Ceres. A queer type and with rather queer colour. The drawing of the face, hands, and lower part of the figure is by no means accurate. The left knee and leg are especially faulty. There is a bizarre richness of jewelling in the chair, vases, and ornaments of the figure. It is ornate to the last degree, and rather fine in its ornateness. In superficial appearance the picture is not unlike the pictures attributed to Melozzo da Forli in London and Berlin and in measure fore- shadows Cosimo Tura. The painter is supposed to be a Michele Ongaro who worked in Ferrara about 1450. 55. Pier Francesco Fiorentino. Madonna, Child, * and St. John. The drawing of the Child and the 146 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM type of St. John are practically the same as those in the Madonna by Fra Filippo at Berlin (No. 69). The angel also is a composite of the Lippi School. The sentiment of the picture is right and the col- our is charming though the drawing is a little hard. The flowers in relief and the gold work are excellent. Notice the tooled halo, the different blues, the lovely reds. The painter was an eclectic working at Florence in the last quarter of the fif- teenth century. 118. Pietro da Messina. Christ Bound to the Column. Another copy of this picture is in the Venice Acad- emy (No. 589). Both this and that are supposed to be after the original in the Cook Collection, London. Neither of them is a remarkable picture though at one time both were thought originals by Antonello da Messina. 83. Pinturicchio, Bernardo. Madonna and Child. With cherubim surrounding the Madonna in the form of an aureole. Similar works at Venice, in the Darmstadt Gallery (No. 513), and also in the Louvre (No. 1417) ascribed to the School of Peru- gino. The sentiment is most agreeable and the colouring warm. It seems the best of several ver- sions in different galleries. Probably by Antonio da Viterbo. 138. Piombo, Sebastiano del. Portrait of a Man. Thought by some critics to be a likeness of Raphael. In the next room is another likeness of Raphael (No. 86) with which this might be compared for resemblances in the sitter. Of course, the face and hands and dress have been gone over by the re- storer, which may account for the white being now too high. The surface is weakened and softened RAPHAEL (SANZIO) 147 by repainting and the figure flattened. It is a somewhat pretentious work. The landscape is interesting. 77. Previtali, Andrea. Madonna, Child, St. John, * and Donor. The trees are the only things that indicate Previtali, and they are crudely done. The sky, mountains, and the Madonna point to an early Palma. The Madonna is very lovely in her shadowed face and the rich colour of her robes. The donor has a sharp profile and well-drawn hands, and the group of children is happily done. See the catalogue for the various attributions. 93. Madonna and Child. The Child is, in type, like the St. John in the so-called Previtali (No. 77) in this gallery, but that is about the only resem- blance between the pictures. The Madonna here is prettier, softer in sentiment, less effective as light, shade, and colour, more brittle in texture, sweeter in the painting of the yellow silk. The landscape is very good. 53. Raphael (Sanzio). The Esterhazy Madonna. * A graceful, pyramidal composition, cunningly va- ried in its putting together, serene in its doing, without much tenderness or sentiment. It is aca- demic in poses and graceful attitudes that show knowledge of the figure. It is more demonstrative of skill than of feeling and marked by artifices that show the young Raphael is arriving at maturity of method. The drawing is very good, the drap- ery handsomely disposed, the St. John charmingly sketched in. The whole group is a little sculptur- esque. The surface is now smooth though the picture was never finished, the colour is cool, the landscape pure and clear. It belongs to Raphael's 148 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM early time and seems to show influences emanating from Leonardo and Fra Bartolommeo. What a good frame! 86. Portrait of a Young Man. It is certainly in the style of Raphael though possibly a less sure hand than his drew the eyes, nose, mouth, hands. And a cruder brush than his did the hair, the white edging at the neck and wrist, and painted the land- scape. To be sure, the surface is much repainted and the outline of the face and neck is injured, but apparently the drawing was never very cun- ning or very sure. Moreover, its mental grasp is as weak and insipid as its technical workmanship. Raphael had a sober, dignified mind, and we find here a rather flippant or vacillating mood not at all pleasant or Raphael-like. The Raphael look is about it but not the Raphael quality. An inter- esting picture, possibly by some Raphael follower or imitator and probably a portrait of Raphael himself. Much repainted in the face, hands, and elsewhere. 540. Rembrandt van Ryn. An Old Rabbi. It is a pinched and cramped work not worthy of Rem- brandt either in its mental conception or its tech- nical handling. It is evidently a sketch carried as far as possible by a painter who was not too sure of either his drawing or his painting. Notice the face, especially the eyes, nose, mouth, beard how ineffectively they have been struck by the brush! The hands are done in a similar manner and the hat, cloak, and candlestick are no better. It is the work of a Rembrandt follower but not the master himself. 542. The Holy Family. This picture is by some minor painter of the Rembrandt following in which REMBRANDT, SCHOOL OF 149 some of the Rembrandt studio materials (the Jo- seph, for instance) have been used or copied. It is a work of small importance and gives little or no hint of Rembrandt's strength. 544 Joseph's Dream. The picture has charm in * its colour. Moreover, it is rather fine in its diagonal composition or arrangement of the figures, its light, and its atmospheric setting. It is drawn and painted in a rather coarse way and there is little about it to suggest Rembrandt more than the general school look, but it is an attractive work, nevertheless. It might have been done by Eeckhout, one of the most versatile and persistent of the Rembrandt followers. The knuckles, the dabs of high light, the grey light, the angel suggest him. 368. Rembrandt, School of. Christ before Pilate. A large picture with some pretension in its size, its subject, its colour. Done in the Rembrandt vein but with weaker drawing, softer textures, and less colour quality than Rembrandt usually gave. It is somewhat similar in style to the large Centurion Cornelius of the Wallace Collection (No. 86). In both pictures we have similar high lights on the noses, similar hands, head-dress, types, colours. This picture is probably by some follower like Flinck, who was by no means a poor painter save by comparison with Rembrandt. The Christ here (No. 368) is exaggerated in the whiteness of the flesh but is well drawn and rightly painted. The same brush probably did the Saul before David at The Hague (No. 621) and the Parable of the Work- ers in the Vineyard at Frankfort (No. 181). The Wallace Collection picture was, perhaps, by Ber- naert Fabritius. 150 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 404. The Treasure Hunter. A Rembrandtesque effect given with considerable strength in the figure, the head, arm, white shirt, but it is not Rem- brandt's strength. The still-life at the bottom in its painting seems much prettier and more finical than the figure. The landscape was probably done by the same hand. None of it is wonderful. There is a composite character about the work that is curious. The Rembrandt look of the digger may mean merely that he was used as a model by many of the school pupils as well as the master. 287. Ribera, Jusefe (Lo Spagnoletto). Martyrdom of St. Andrew. Done in the usual realistic manner of Ribera with strong modelling brought into high relief by the use of dark shadows. The colour is rather sacrificed to the shadow and subordinated to the flesh-notes in the high light. It is good work of a harsh nature with little or no charm or any- thing winning about it. It commands respect by its seriousness and its strength but fails to attract by its subject, sentiment, types, or decorative plan. 125. Romano, Giulio. Diana and Endymion. It is excellent in the colour, the swing of the drapery, the action of the figure. The effect of light-and- shade is forced but forceful. 126. Romanino, II (Girolamo Romani). Portrait of * a Man. The costume and curtain produce a very ornate effect but with some uneasiness in the lines of the golden pattern and some feeling of closeness in the curtain. The characterisation of the sitter is excellent in spite of the lax drawing in the eyes, nose, and ear perhaps by virtue of this very laxity. The man is before us, at any rate, and with some positiveness into the bargain. The picture is hurt RUBENS, PETER PAUL 151 in the neck, beard, and elsewhere. It is a fine Romanino. 122. Rosselli, School of Cosimo. Nativity. The angel and the colouring suggest Albertinelli but the work is not important enough to repay much study. The space is not badly filled nor the fig- ures badly drawn, but the picture is wanting in inspiration, feeling, profound technical knowledge. It is well framed. 418. Rubens, Peter Paul. Mucius Sccevola. A pic- ture that adds nothing to our knowledge of Ru- bens or of his school. It was probably designed by Rubens but there is no evidence of the brush that points to him. It may be a school piece but it has not the surface of even school work. 646A. Study Head. This head is put down as a study for one of the heads of the three Magi at the church of St. John at Malines, but it is more likely a copy by the hand that did the series of apostles' heads in Madrid (Nos. 1646-1656), there assigned to Rubens but probably by some pupil or follower. 610. Portrait of a Man. A strong, fine portrait * with excellent modelling in the skull, the forehead, the brows, the cheeks. How well the eyes are set in the head! And how positively the head sets in the ruff and joins the shoulders! The figure is merely suggested but it is enough. The type is not an intellectual one and yet not wanting in intelligence. The physical presence, however, is the main feature demonstrated. But for its flesh colour and its brush-work one might think it an early Van Dyck so like to him is it in pose and turn of head and eyes. Cleaned a little too much. 152 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 492A. Ruisdacl, Jacob van. Landscape. A sketchy picture, easier, freer, looser than usual with Ruis- dael, and the better for it. It is more enjoyable than his finished work. The sky and trees are good. 515. Ruysdael, Salomon van. Landscape after Rain. In the style of Van Goyen but weaker in drawing and poorer in colour. The light is not good. 524. The Tavern. It is thin, poor work, better, perhaps, than that of No. 515 but not markedly so. 85. Santi, Giovanni. Madonna and Saints. A crude work of very little skill or quality, and there is no reason to suppose that even Giovanni Santi, poor workman and uninspired painter that he was, could or would do anything so commonplace. Even the flowers seem dull and the sky dead. 76. Sarto, Andrea del. Madonna, Child, and St. John. It is a poor, repainted panel that probably never emanated from Andrea or even his work- shop. Look at the crude landscape, the badly drawn eyes, the wretched colour. 25. Sassetta (Stefano di Giovanni). St. Thomas Aquinas. Very fine in colour and beautiful in its architectural drawing. There is a delicacy of fin- ish that speaks for Sassetta. It corresponds with his pictures at Berlin, the Vatican Gallery (No. 176), and elsewhere. Notice the gold work and the re- mains of the altar-piece at the left. The chapel at right, the courtyard at back are equally inter- esting. There is individuality here which enables connoisseurship to be more positive in its conclu- sions. SIGNORELLI, WORKSHOP OF LUCA 153 31. Segna di Bonaventura. St. Lucy. Rich in the red robe. Byzantine influence is still apparent in the nose, eyes, and hands. Is it a part of the old frame that still shows at the top? The hand is dreadfully repainted and the head has not escaped. See the catalogue note for attributions. 56. SellajO, JaCOpO del. Esther and Ahasuerus. The architecture is askew and the gold work a little careless in the tracing, as was the habit of Jacopo in his minor work. The figures are well grouped and quite splendid in their rich costumes. Other pictures of this series in the Louvre and the Uffizi (Nos. 66, 67, 68). They all show good senti- ment with charm of colour. Notice the grace and loveliness of the kneeling Esther. 39. Sienese School. Holy Family. The background is interesting for its early study of landscape with an attempt at light from the sky. The Joseph is awkward but the Madonna graceful. 46. Coronation of Virgin. Excellent in colour and with charming patterns in the central fabric. Notice the incised halo and crown and the lovely white head-dress. A beautiful piece of colour! Part of a panel cut off from a larger picture and added to at the left and the bottom. No. 45 is much poorer work and No. 34 is practically ruined. 67. Signorelli, Workshop of Luca. Tiberius Grac- chus. The type is slight and the landscape too crude for Signorelli, and yet the picture is certainly in his manner. The colour and sentiment are both a little weak. Notice this not only in the chief figure but in the scroll at the base held by the stiff little cupids. 154 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 51. Simone Martini. Annunciation. The angel is like the Simone angel of the Annunciation in the Uffizi. The gold work is just a little coarse, the Madonna a little heavy. The picture shows Si- mone's influence but is not by him. 79. Sodoma, II (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi). Ma- donna, Child, and Saints. A composite picture suggesting half a dozen different painters but with no certainty about any one of them. The only certainty about it seems to be that it is in no way wonderful whoever painted it. The sentiment is over-done as well as its ornamental features. It is decadent. Notice the affectation of the women's heads with their pretty leanings to the side. 90. Flagellation of Christ. An interesting panel by the Sienese master, the figure and pose of the Christ being typical of him. The figures are a little short, the shadows dark, the colour bleached in the high lights, the landscape blue. A good panel. N. N. Spanish School. Crucifixion. An altar-piece in five compartments put down to the Spanish School. It is very interesting in its unusual scheme of colour in which green apparently predominates. Not well drawn at all nor accurately painted but very dec- orative. It is a following of the Flemish primitive style. Other panels of the early Spanish School hanging near by are equally lacking in accurate knowledge and skill but are decoratively attractive. 95. Speranza, Giovanni. Madonna and Child. The hardness of the drawing in the nose, brows, and hands should not cause us to overlook the rather fine spirit of this picture. It has feeling, simplicity, TIEPOLO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA 155 and dignity. There is also a rich gamut of colour. The panel has been injured. 21. Spinello Aretino. Two Saints. Two panels with a predella, all of them interesting in art his- tory. They are still fine in their gold grounds and borders and in their richness of colour though very much injured. Notice especially the predella. 347. Steen, Jan. Family of Cats. It is either very careless work or else it has been repainted from end to end. There is nothing about it now to indi- cate Steen's quality as a painter. It has neither pure colour nor sure handling nor fatty surfaces. Mere clumsiness of the brush is about all that one can see in it to-day. The signature does not help matters in the least. 48. StefanodaZevio(P). Madonna and Child. Sack- like in form but still fine in haloes and borders. The space within the handsome frame is well filled. See the catalogue for the various attributions and denials heaped upon this picture. But it is a lovely picture in spite of differing opinions as to its painter. 227. Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista. St. James of Com- postela. A large though rather soft and weak Tie- polo. The horse has been prettified and the man slightly exaggerated in sentiment and pose. The whites do not appear to be well managed, the sky has been hurt, and the negro has blackened. It is not now a successful Tiepolo whatever it may have been when originally painted. Tiepolo had more strength than is here shown more tang to his char- acterisation. Yet the picture is by no means negligible. It is handsome colour and decoration. 266. Madonna, St. Joseph, and Five Saints. A bright scrap of colour, easily painted, with the 156 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM facility that Tiepolo had at the end of his fingers and displayed early and often. He was a composer of ceiling groups of great energy and life and a colourist of brilliancy and charm the last and one of the most attractive of the great Venetian decorators. 154. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) . Portrait of a Woman. An attractive head but a little weak for Titian. Add to it the weakening processes of restoration and it becomes unimportant work that is, at the present time unimportant. 81. Umbrian School. Madonna and Child. It be- longs somewhere near Pinturicchio though prob- ably not by him. It is a little weak for Pintu- ricchio and the landscape does not suggest that master. The colour is pleasing. 88. Madonna and Child. This is too much hurt to determine its origin. The bird is very good and perhaps the landscape is its best feature it having been done with care and some feeling. 328F. Velasco de Coimbra. Nativity. Whoever did this panel put good feeling, good colour, and some strength into it. It shows apparently Flemish in- fluence. 328E. Velasquez (Diego de Silva y). Shepherds at Table. The still-life on the table and the figure at the right suggest an early Velasquez, but it is not impossible that the picture may have come from Ribalta or Pacheco who often worked in this same vein. It is hard in drawing and not very good as colour. But it has strength and is just as good as some of the genuine early Velasquez pictures at the Prado. Not everything of Velasquez origin is unalloyed gold. VERMEER OF DELFT, JAN 157 499A. Velde, Jan Jansz van de. Still-Life. It is excellent in colour and extremely well painted. See also No. 499. 385. Velde, Willem van de. Calm Sea. A character- istic Van de Velde with a silvery tone and a high sky. Notice the delicate drawing of the ships and sails. 133. Venetian School. Madonna and Child. The colour is a bit crude and the landscape is airless. No one knows who did it. 134. Christ Bearing Cross. What a good piece of colour thanks, perhaps, to its being little harmed by restorers and cleaners or at least not repainted beyond recognition. The landscape seems excel- lent. 456. Vermeer (Van der Meet) of Delft, Jan. Por- ** trait of a Woman. Vermeer mu'st have been almost as versatile a person as Giorgione or Rembrandt to have done all the things put down to him. In the National Gallery, London, he is hard, glassy, petty in detail; in The Hague landscape he is wonderful in colour, light, and air; in the figure piece of the Graces in that gallery he is idyllic, Giorgionesque, a colourist; here at Budapest he is intensely indi- vidual, psychological, penetrating, flat in modelling and handling,, almost evanescent in delicacy of col- ouring, profoundly realistic in a large way. Pre- sumably the attribution here was arrived at by a process of elimination. If not by Vermeer, who, then, did it? is the question asked. And to this there is no reply. It is no doubt by Vermeer but agrees with only a few of his accepted works in other galleries. It is like the portraits at Brussels (No. 665) and The Hague (No. 670), like the fine land- 158 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM scape at The Hague (No. 92), like some of his inte- riors with small figures at Dresden, Berlin, and Am- sterdam; but when all that is said the picture still remains almost in a class by itself. The modelling of the forehead, the cheeks, and brows is most effec- tive. The eyes are a wonder of observation and workmanship. As for the figure, it is very well sug- gested, the gloves beautifully painted, the relation of whites excellent even now when there is every reason to believe them somewhat changed by clean- ing. The chair and table are merely suggested, the background is slight, the handling broad and free, with slight traces of dotting, as in some of his smaller works. Presumably a late work, which makes it impossible to believe that Vermeer hard- ened or grew glassy in his surfaces as he aged. It is a masterpiece. See the notes on his Hague and Amsterdam pictures under those galleries. 139. Veronese, Paolo (Caliari). Allegory of Venice. It is a poor variation of the Ducal Palace picture at Venice by some weak follower of Paolo. There is no reason to think it a study for the Venice pic- ture. It is too weak for a Veronese sketch but right enough for a copy by some follower. 92. Verona, School of. Volto Santo. With a fine landscape and considerable richness of effect in the jewel work of the robe border. A picture difficult to assign to either a master or a school. See the attributions in the catalogue. 59. Verrocchio, Workshop of. Madonna with * Saints. This is one of the pictures that every con- noisseur takes pleasure in guessing at. Of course no one's guess satisfies more than himself. The picture is a composite affair put together by some VOS, CORNELIS DE 159 eclectic painter of the time who helped himself to features of Verrocchio, Rosselli, and others. The types, especially the angels at the back, point to Verrocchio. Also the drawing of the hands and feet favour Verrocchio. But the colour, the com- position, the garden at the back suggest Rosselli. The drawing, colour, sentiment are all good. The kneeling saint and the Madonna are fine and the architecture is rich. It is a very good picture whoever did it. The panel is split in several places and the surface is somewhat injured. 395. VictOOFS, Jan. Jacob Blessing the Children of Joseph. There is a weak suggestion of Rembrandt about it, some brilliancy of colour, and some pretti- ness of handling. The picture has evidently been injured by repainting. 103. Vivarini, Antonio. Madonna and Child. It be- longs in the Vivarini workshop, with none of the marked characteristics of either Antonio or Barto- lommeo Vivarini about it. It is elaborate in de- tail and rather hot in colour, with patterned gold work at the back. The flowers are not too well done nor the blue of the robe too pleasant in quality. 1191 Magdalen and St. Lucy. Two panels that 120 / make pleasant spots of colour on the wall and are decorative but not otherwise remarkable. 442 \ Vos, Cornells de. Portraits. Smooth and rather 446 J pretty portraits that belong together at least in the matter of their uneasy curtain backgrounds and their porcelain-like costumes. 601. Portrait of a Lady. It has a Van Dyck look in the eyes but is too weak for him. Some painter 160 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM influenced by Rubens probably did it, and not un- likely Cornells de Vos was the man. 399. Wet, Jacob de. Circumcision of Christ. This is the kind of picture that is usually declared "an early Rembrandt" in French and German galleries. One has merely to examine it closely to see that it is the shadow not the substance of Rembrandt. The work is fairly well done, the setting is good, the colour is attractive. It is the average good work of a Rembrandt follower. INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 19. Giotto. 76. Sarto, A. del. 21. Spinello Aretino. 77. Previtali. 23. Giotto. 79. Sodoma. 25. Sassetta. 81. Umbrian School. 29. Avanzi. 82. Niccold da Foligno. 35. Giovanni da Ponte. 83. Pinturicchio. 39. Sienese School. 85. Santi, Giovanni. 42. Lippo Memmi. 86. Raphael. 43. Duccio. 88. Umbrian School. 44. Lorenzetti, P. 90. Sodoma. 46. Sienese School. 92. Verona, School of. 48. Stefano da Zevio. 93. Previtali. 50. Orcagna. 95. Speranza. 51. Simone Martini. 96. Liberale da Verona. 52. Lippi, Filippino. 97. Catena. 53. Raphael. 98. Crivelli, Carlo. 54. Granacci. 99 \ 55. Pier Francesco Fioren- 100 J Cossa. tino. 101. Pannonio. 56. Sellajo. 102. Catena. 58. Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo. 103. Vivarini, Antonio. 59. Verrocchio, Workshop 104. Basaiti. of. 105. Padua, School of. 60. Lippi, Fra Filippo. 106. Luini. 63. Bicci di Lorenzo. 108. Gianpietrino. 67. Signorelli. 109. Basaiti. 69. Grandi, Ercole. 110. Luini. 70. Bacchiacca. 111. Bellini, School of 72. Francia. Giovanni. 73. Marchesi, Girolamo. 112. Borgognone. 74. 75. Boccato da Camerino. Francia. 113 \ 114 J Moroni. 161 162 INDEX > Venetian School. 115. Boltraffio. 116. Pacchia. 117. Bellini, Gentile. 118. Pietro da Messina. 119 } 120 I ^* varm *> Antonio. 121. Correggio. 122. Rosselli, School of. 124. Costa. 125. Romano, Giulio. 126. Romanino. 128. Bartolommeo Veneto. 131. Moretto da Brescia. 1331 134 J 136. Lotto. 138. Piombo, Sebastiano del. 139. Veronese, P. 140. Giorgione. 145. Giorgione, copy after. 147. Bassano, Jacopo. 154. Titian. 158. Cremona, School of. 161. Dossi. 164. Morone, Domenico. 177. Girolamo da Santa Croce. 178. Italian School. 179. Moroni. 180A. Bissolo. 180D. Dossi. 204. Feti. 223. Guardi. 227. Tiepolo. 230. Canaletto. 23 Hi 240 / 2551 256 j > Guardi. > Belotto. 266. Tiepolo. 283. Carducho. Ribera. Pacheco. Murillo. Cano. 287. 301. 304 311 320 321 328/ Murillo. 328A. Greco, II. 328s. Carrefio de Miranda. 328E. Velasquez. 328r. Velasco de Coimbra. 331. Fabritius, B. 339. Molenaar. 341. Goyen, Van. 347. Steen. 365. Elias. 366. Maes. 368. Rembrandt, School of. 369. Maes. 372. Elias. 385. Velde, W. van de, 393. Keyser. 395. Victoors. 399. Wet, Jacob de. 401. Heist, B. van der. 404. Rembrandt, School of. 407. Gelder. 410A. Flinck. 416. Dyck, Anthony van. 418. Rubens. 419. Dyck, Anthony van. 420. Jordaens. 435. Balen. 438. Jordaens. 456. Vermeer of Delft. INDEX 163 464. Man, C. de. 477. Netscher. 485. Decker. 487. Grebber. 492A. Ruisdael, J. van. 499A. Velde, J. J. van de. 501. Hals, Frans. 502. Duck. 507A. Hals, Dirck. 514. Ostade, A. van. 527. Ostade, I. van. 531. Ostade, A. van. 533. Neer, A. van der. 540] 542 > Rembrandt. 544 J 548. Oils. 549. Bol. 582. Moreelse. 587. Cuyp, Albert. 593. Brouwer. 601. Vos, C. de. 610. Rubens. 642. Coques. 646A. Rubens. 651. Brueghel the Elder, Peter. 653. Brueghel the Younger, Peter. 673. Aertsen. 676c. Netherland School. 678. Aldegrever. 680. Memling. 682. Engelbrechtsen. 684. Bles. 692. Metsys, Q. ^ | Netherland School. 696. David. 697. Gossart. 697A. Cleve, Juste van. 699. Diirer. Cranach the Elder. 716 : 7191 728 J 729A. Baldung. 729a. French School. N.N. Beuckelaer. N.N.Bosch. N.N.Hals, Frans. N.N. Spanish School. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY BERKELEY Return to desk from which borrowed. This book is DUE on the last date stamped beloi 5Mar'52SA REC'D LD APR 20 1960 LIBRARY USE APR. -9 197 HEC APR 9197Q LD 21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 YA 01132 393598 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY