Skip to main content

Full text of "A text-book of the history of painting"

See other formats



JItliaca. S^rui ^atk 


R-of- WA- HafmcnOuJ 

' Cornell University Library 

/.f>/i J/* NO 50.V28 1904 

3 1924 015 249 968 

Date Due 


~-r^ - •" 


HF'^ T 

; V'Wni- 




-^'=**— -. 


U. S. A, 


NO. 23233 










Professor of the History of Art in Rl'Tgers 

By John C. Van Dyke, the Editor of the Series. With 
Frontispiece and no Illustrations, Bibliog^raphies, and 
Index. Crown 8vo, $1-50. 

By Alfred D. F. Hamlin, A.M., Adjunct Professor of 
Architecture, Columbia Colleg-e, New York. With 
Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams, Bibli- 
ographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a Genera? 
Index. Crown 8vo, $^2.00, 

By Allan Marquand, Ph.D., L.H.D., and Arthur L. 
Frothingham, Jr., Ph.D., Professors of Archaeology 
and the History of Art in Princeton University. With 
FroBtispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1.50. 

Velasquez. Head of JEsop. Madrid. 

A riLX r-BooK 




"art for art's sake," "IME MEANING OF PICTURES," ETC. 


N I-: W Y O R K 


1 ". r II 

iii:i\' I 1;:. i I V 

I L l;AKY 



CorVRIGHT, 1894, BV 


Ai^ rights reserved. 

First Edition, October, 1894. 

Reprinted, March, 1895, and November, 1896, revised. 

November, 1897, and November, 1S9S, 

November, i8qg, and October, 1901. 

December, 1902, and April, 1904. 

Press of J. J. Eittle & Co. 
Aster Place, New York 

,1.1 1 1^1 ii 11 :) 


The object of this series of text-books is to provide 
concise teachable histories of art for class-room use in 
schools and colleges. The limited time given to the study 
of art in the average educational institution has not only 
dictated the condensed style of the volumes, but has lim- 
ited their scope of matter to the general features of art 
history. Arch3eological discussions on special subjects and 
aesthetic theories have been avoided. The main facts of 
history as settled by the best authorities are given. If the 
reader choose to enter into particulars the bibliography 
cited at the head of each chapter will be found helpful. 
Illustrations have been introduced as sight-help to the text, 
and, to avoid repetition, abbreviations have been used 
wherever practicable. The enumeration of the principal 
extant works of an artist, school, or period, and where they 
may be found, which follows each chapter, may be service- 
able not only as a summary of individual or school achieve- 
ment, but for reference by travelling students in Europe. 

This volume on painting, the first of the series, omits 
mention of such work in Arabic, Indian, Chinese, and Per- 
sian art as may come properly under the head of Ornament 


— a subject proposed for separate treatment hereafter. In 
treating of individual painters it has been thought best to 
give a short critical estimate of the man and his rank 
among the painters of his time rather than the detailed 
facts of his life. Students who wish accounts of the lives 
of the painters should use Vasari, Larousse, and the Eiicy- 
clopcedia Britaimica in connection with this text-book. 

Acknowledgments are made to the respective publishers 
of Woltmann and Woermann's History of Painting, and 
the fine series of art histories by Perrot and Chipiez, for 
permission to reproduce some few illustrations from these 

John C. Van Dyke. 

RuTGEKS College, 1894. 


I.isr oi- I iirsiK A iiKxs ...,..., xi 

llFXFKAl r.lin I'lCK AI'IIY ........ XV 

iNTRHIU'ri iiiN xvii 


ECYPTIAN PAINIIN'r, ......... I 

CiiAi.ii.Eii-A=isYRiAN, Persian, Piia;NiciAN, Cyi'Riote, and Asia 

Ml.NUR P.VINTI.NG ......... 10 

Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Painting ..... 21 


TiALiAN Painting — Early' Christian and Medi.^val Period, 

200-1250 .......... 36 

Italian Painting — Gothic Period, 1250-1400 .... 47 

Italian Painting — Early Renaissance, 1400-1500 ... 57 

Italian Painting — Early Renaissance, 1400-1500, Continued. 73 

Italian Painting — High Renaissance, 1500-1600 . . .86 



Italian Painting — High Renaissance, i 500-1600, ContinucJ . 99 

Italian Painting — High Renaissance, 1500-1600, Continued . no 

Italian Painting — The Decadence and Modern Work, 1600- 

1S94 122 


French Painting — Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth 

Centuries 132 

French Painting — Nineteenth Century . . . -143 

French Painting — Nineteenth Century, Confimicd . . 156 

Spanish Painting ... ..... 172 

Flemish Painting 186 

Dutch Painting 203 

German Painting ......... 223 

British Painting 241 


American Painting ......... 260 

Postscript 276 

Index 279 

T.IST Ol' ll.l.US'l'RATIONS. 

\\'l.i>Miuc/, Head of .l''.sop, Madrid 


lluiUini;- ill tlie Marslu'S, 'I'omb of 'l"i, Saccarali 
Tortrail of < Hiceii Taia .... 
(."ilTcriiii^s to tlic Head. Wall painting; 
\'i;.^nctte oK\ l'ap\'rus .... 

Knamellctl r.rick, Niniroiul 

Khorsabad . 
Wild ,\ss. .... 
Lions Frieze. Susa ..... 
raintcd Head from Edessa 
Cypriote \'ase Decoration 
-Vttic Grave I'aintinj^ .... 

Muse of Cortona ..... 
Odyssey Landscape ..... 
.\niphore, Lower Italy .... 
Ritual Scene, I'alatine Wall paintinjj 
J'<irtrait, I''a\'ouni, ( iraf Collection 
Chamber in Catacornlts, with wall decorations 
(_'ataconili Fresco, S. (.'ecilia 
Christ as (jooii Shepherd, lva\'enna mosaic 
Christ and Saints, fresco, S. ( lenerosa 
Ezekiel before the Lortl. MS. illumination 
Giotto, l'"light into Egypt, Arena Chap. 
Orcagna, Paradise (detail), S. M. Novella 
Lorenzetti, Peace (detail), Sienna 





1 1 




25 Kra Angelico, Angel, Uflizi . 

26 Fra Filippo, Madonna, Ulfizi . 

27 Botticelli, Coronation of Madonna, Uflizi 

28 Ghirlandajo, Visitation, Louvre 
2g Francesca, Duke of Urbino, Uftizi . 

30 Signorelli, The Curse (detail), Orvieto 

31 Perugino, Madonna, Saints, and Angels, Louvre 

32 School of Francia, Madonna, Louvre 

33 Mantegna, Gonzaga Family Group, Mantua 

34 B. Vivarini, Madonna and Child, Turin . 

35 Giovanni Bellini, Madonna, Venice Acad. 

36 Carpaccio, Presentation (detail), Venice Acad 

37 iVntonello da Messina, Unknown Man, Louvre 
3S Fra Bartolommeo, Descent from Cross, Pitti 

39 Andrea del Sarto, Madonna of St. Francis, Uflizi 

40 Michael Angelo, Athlete, Sistine Chap., Rome 

41 Raphael, La Belle Jardiniere, Louvre 

42 Giulio Romano, Apollo and Muses, Pitti . 

43 Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, Louvre . 

44 I^uini, Daughter of Herodias, Ufifizi 

45 Sodoma, Ecstasy of St. Catherine, Sienna 

46 Correggio, Marriage of St. Catherine, Louvre 

47 Giorgione, Ordeal of Moses, Uffizi . 

48 Titian, Venus Equipping Cupid, Borghesc, Rome 

49 Tintoretto, Mercury and Graces, Ducal Pal., Venice 

50 Veronese, Venice Enthroned, Ducal Pal., Venice 

51 Lotto, Three Ages, Pitti .... 

52 Eronzino, Christ in Limbo, Uffizi 

53 Baroccio, Annunciation ..... 

54 Annibale Caracci, Entombment of Christ, Louvre 

55 Caravaggio, The Card Players, Dresden . 

56 Poussin, Et in Arcadia Ego, Louvre 

57 Claude Lorrain, Flight into Egypt, Dresden 

58 Watteau, Gilles, Louvre . . . 









1 06 




5g Boucher, Pastoral, l.ouvrc .... 

()0 l)a\'id. The Sabines, Lountc .... 
()I Irii^Tcs, Oulipus antl Sphinx, l.ouvrc 

02 Delacroix. Massacre ol' Scio, Louvre 

03 Oerome, Tollice \'erso ..... 
(14 Corot, Liuulscape ...... 

05 Rousseau, Charcoal Burner's Hut, Fuller Collection 

06 Millet, The Gleaners, Louvre .... 

07 Cabanel, I'ha-dra ...... 

63 Meissonier, Napoleon in 1814 .... 

69 Sanchez-Coello, Daughter of Philip IL, Madrid 

70 .Murillo, St. Anthony of Padua, Dresden . 

71 Ribera, St. Agnes, Dresden .... 

72 Fortuny, Spanish Marriage .... 

73 Madrazo, Unmasked ..... 

74 Van Eycks, St. Bavon Altar-piece, Berlin 

75 Memling (?), St. Lawrence, Nat. Gal.. Lon. 

76 Massys, Head of \"irgin, Antwerp . 

77 Rubens, Portrait of Young Woman . 

7S Van Dyck, Portrait of Cornelius van der t'.eest . 

79 Teniers the Younger, Prodigal Son, Louvre 

So Alfred Stevens, On the Beacli .... 

Si Hals, P^ortrait of a Lady .... 

82 Rembrandt, Head of a Woman, Nat. Gal., Lon. 

S3 Ruisdael, Landscape ..... 

84 Hobbema, The Water Wheel, Amsterdam Mus. 

85 Israels, Alone in the World .... 

86 Mauve, Sheep ...... 

87 Lochner, Sts. John, Catharine, Matthew, London 

88 Wolgemut, Crucifixion, Munich 

89 Diirer, Praying Virgin, Augsburg 

90 Holbein, Portrait, Hague Mus. 

91 Piloty, Wise and Foolish Virgins 

92 Leibl, In Church ...... 




1 66 




93 Menzel, A Reader ...... 

94 Hogarth, Shortly after Marriage, Nat. Gal., Lon. 

95 Reynolds, Countess Spencer and Lord Althorp 

96 Gainsborough, Blue Boy 

97 Constable, Corn Field, Nat. Gal., Lon. 
9S Turner, Fighting Temeraire, Nat. CJal. , Lon. 
99 Burne- Jones, Flamma Vestalis . 

100 Leighton, Helen of Troy . 

loi Watts, Love and Death .... 

102 West, Peter Denying Christ, Hampton Court 

103 Gilbert Stuart. Washington, Boston Mus. 

104 Hunt, Lute Player ..... 

105 Eastman Johnson, Churning 

106 Inness, Landscape .... 

107 Winslow Homer, Undertow 
loS Whistler, The White Girl 
109 Sargent, " Carnation Lily, Lily Rose " 
no Chase, Alice, Art Institute, Chicago 






(This iiichules the leatling accessible works that treat 
of iKuntiiig in general. For works on special periods or 
schools, see the bibhographical references at the head of 
each chai)ter. For bibliography of iiulividual painters con- 
sult, under proper names, Champlin and Perkins's Cvcio- 
pc\/ia, as given below.) 

Champlin and Perkins, Cyclopedia of I'lii/iters and Paint- 
ings, New York. 

Adeline, Lcxique des TeDues d' Art. 

Gazette des Beaux Arts, Paris. 

Larousse, Grand Dietionnaire Univcrsel, Paris. 

Li Art, Rei'ue liebdoniadaire illiistree, Paris. 

Bryan, Dictionary of Painters. Ne-(i> edition. 

Brockhaus, Conve rsat ions- Lex i/ion. 

-Mever, Allgenieiiies Kiinstier-Lexiicon, fierlin. 

Muther, History of Modern Painting. 

Agincourt, Llistorv of Art />v its Monnnients. 

Bayet, Precis d'Histoire de i'Art. 

Blanc, Llistoire des Peintres de toutes les Eeoles. 

Eastlake, Materials for a LListory of Oil Painting. 

Liibke, History of Art, trans, ly Clarence Cook. 

Reber, History of Ancient Art. 

Reber, History of Mediaeval Art. 

Schnasse, Geschiclite der Bildenden Kimste. 

Girard, La Peinture Antique. 

Viardot, History of the Painters of all Schools. 

WiUiamson (Ed.), Handbooks of Great Masters. 

Woltmann and Woermann, History of Painting. 



The origin of painting is unknown. The first important 
records of this art are met witli in Egypt ; but before the 
Egyptian civilization the men of the early ages probably 
used color in ornamentation and decoration, and they cer- 
tainly scratched the outlines of men and animals upon bone 
antl slate. Traces of this rude primitive work stiii remain 
to us on the pottery, weapons, and stone implements of the 
cave-dwellers. But while indicating the awakening of in- 
telligence in early man, they can be reckoned with as art 
oniv in a slight archaeological way. They show inclination 
rather than accomplishment — a wish to ornament or to 
represent, with only a crude knowledge of how to go 
about it. 

I'he first aim of this primitive painting was undoubtedly 
decoration — the using of colored forms for color and form 
only, as shown in the pottery designs or cross-hatchings on 
stone knives or spear-heads. The second, and perhaps 
later aim, was by imitating the shapes and colors of men, 
animals, and the like, to convey an idea of the proportions 
and characters of such things. An outline of a cave-bear 
or a mammoth was perhaps the cave-dweller's way of telling 
his fellows what monsters he had slain. We may assume 
that it was pictorial record, primitive picture-written his- 
tory. This early method of conveying an idea is, in intent, 


substantially the same as the later hieroglyphic writing and 
historical painting of the Egyptians. The difference be- 
tween them is merely one of development. Thus there is 
an indication in the art of Primitive Man of the two great 
departments of painting e.xistent to-day. 

1. Decorative Painting. 

2. Expressive Painting. 

Pure Decorative Painting is not usually expressive of ideas 
other than those of rhythmical line and harmonious color. 
It is not our subject. This volume treats of Expressive 
Painting ; but in dealing with that it should be borne in 
mind that Expressive Painting has always a more or less 
decorative effect accompanying it, and that must be spoken 
of incidentally. We shall presently see the intermingling 
of both kinds of painting in the art of ancient Egypt — our 
first inquiry. 



Books Recommeniikd : Brugsch, History of Egypt under 
tlu- Pharaohs ; Budge, Dwellers on the Ni/e; Duncker, His- 
tory of Antiquity ; Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs j El)-, 
Manual of Archieology ; Jxpsius, Denkmiiler aus Aegypten 
und Aethiopen ; Maspero, Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria ; 
iMaspero, Guide du Visiteur au Mus'ee de Boulaij ; Maspero, 
Egyptian Archeeology ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in 
Ancient Egypt; ^^'ilkinson, Manners and Customs of the An- 
cient Egyptians. 

LAND AND PEOPLE: Egypt, as Herodotus has said, is "the 
gift of the Nile," one uf the latest of the earth's geo- 
logical formations, and yet one of the earliest countries to 
be settled and dominated by man. It consists now, as in 
the ancient days, of the valley of the Nile, bounded on 
the cast by the Arabian mountains and on the west by the 
Libyan desert. Well-watered and fertile, it was doubtless 
at llrst a pastoral and agricultural country ; then, by its 
riverine traffic, a commercial country, and finally, by con- 
(juest, a land enriched with the spoils of warfare. 

Its earliest records show a strongly established monarchy. 
Dynasties of kings called Pharaohs succeeded one another 
by birth or conquest. The king made the laws, judged the 
people, declared war, and was monarch supreme. Next to 
him in rank came the priests, who were not only in the 
service of religion but in that of the state, as counsellors, 
secretaries, and the like. The common people, with true 


Oriental lack of individuality, depending blindly on leaders, 
were little more than the servants of the upper classes. 

The Egyptian religion existing in the earliest days was 
a worship of the personified elements of nature. Each 

(from I'ERROi' AND CHir'IEZ.) 

element had its particular controlling god, worshipped as 
such. Later on in Egyptian history the number of gods 
was increased, and each city had its trinity of godlike pro- 
tectors symbolized by the propylsa of the temples. Future 
life was a certainty, provided that the Ka, or spirit, did not 
fall a prey to Typhon, the God of Evil, during the long wait 


ill the toiiih f<i|- thr iuilj^iiK'iU-ilay. 'I'lu' hclicf that Ihc 
spirit rested in the h(>il\- until Ihialiy traiis|)()i'te(l t(i the aaln 
fields (the Islands of the I'.lest, afterward adojUed by the 
Creeks) was one reason for the earefti! preservation of the 
liod\' bv nuininiifying processes. I,ife itself was not nujre 
important than death. Hence the iniposiiiii; ceremonies of 
the funeral and burial, the elaborate richness of the tomb 
and its wall paintings. I'erhaps the first Egyptian art arose 
through religu)us observance, and certainly the first known 
to us was sepidchral. 

AKT MOTIVES: 'The centre of the Egyptian system was 
the numareh ami his supposed relatives, the gods. 'I'hey 
arrogated to themselves the chief thought of life, and tlie 
aim of the great bulk of the art was to glorify monarchy or 
licit V. The massive l)uildings, still standing to-day in ruins, 
were built as the dwelling-places of kings or the sanctuaries 
of gods. The towers symbolized deity, the sculptures and 
paintings recited the functional duties of presiding spirits, 
or tiie Pliarao|T£ looks and acts. Almost everything about 
the public buildings in painting and sculpture was symbolic 
illustration, picture-written history — written with a chisel 
and brush, written large that all might read. There was 
no other safe way of preserving record. There were no 
books ; the papyrus sheet, used extensively, was frail, and 
the Egyptians evidently wished their btiildings, carvings, 
and paintings to last intt) eternity. So they wrought in 
and upon stone. The same hieroglyphic character of their 
papvrus writings appeared cut and colored on the palace 
walls, and above them and beside them the pictures ran as 
vignettes explanatory of the text. In a less ostentatious way 
the tombs perpetuated history in a similar manner, reciting 
the domestic scenes from the life of the individual, as the 
temples and palaces the religious and monarchical scenes. 

In one form or another it was all record of Egyptian life, 
but this was not the only motive of their painting. The 


temples and palaces, designed to shut out light and heat, 
were long squares of heavy stone, gloomy as the cave 

from which their plan may 

have originated. Carving 
and color were used to 
brighten and enliven the 
interior. The battles, the 
judgment scenes, the Pha- 
raoh playing at draughts 
with his wives, the religious 
rites and ceremonies, were 
all given with brilliant ar- 
bitrary color, surrounded 
. -, J,-,,,, , ^^ oftentimes by bordering 

ll P\" ^^ '^'/'/'^P^ bands of green, yellow, and 

jl j pB'^v^^BV..^,^^ " blue. Color showed every- 
where from floor to ceil- 
ing. Even the explanatory 
hieroglyphic texts ran in 
colors, lining the walls and 
winding around the cylin- 
ders of stone. The lotus 
capitals, the frieze and architrave, all glowed with bright 
hues, and often the roof ceiling was painted in blue and 
studded with golden stars. 

All this shows a decorative motive in Egyptian painting, 
and how constantly this was kept in view may be seen at 
times in the arrangement of the different scenes, the large 
ones being placed in the middle of the wall and the smaller 
ones going at the top and bottom, to act as a frieze and 
dado. There were, then, two leading motives for Egyptian 
painting ; (i) History, monarchical, religious, or domestic ; 
and (2) Decoration. 

TECHNICAL METHODS: Man in the early stages of civ- 
ilization comprehends objects more by line than by color 

FIG. 2. — fOKTRAlT OF IjLEFN "lAlA. 


or light. The figun.' is not stiuiiril in itscll, hut in its 
sun-shadow or silliouettc. The Kgyptian hiuroglvjih repre- 
sented objects by outlines or arbitrary marks anil conveyed 
a simple meaning without circumlocution. The Kgyjitian 
painting was substantially an enlargement of the hierogUph. 
There was no attempt to jilace objects in the setting which 
thev hold in nature. Terspective anil light-and-shade were 
disregarded. Objects, of whatever nature, were shown in flat 
profile. In the human figure the shouklers were sipiare, the 
hips slight, the legs and arms long, the feet and hands flat. 
The head, legs, and arm.-; were shown in profile, while the 
chest and eye were twistecl to show the flat front view. 
There are only one or two full-faced figures among the re- 
mains of Kgvptian painting, .\fter the outline was drawn 
tlie enclosed space was filled in with plain color. In the 
absence of high light, or composed groups, prominence was 
given to an important figure, like that of the king, by mak- 
ing it much larger than the other figures. This may be 
seen in any of the battle-pieces of Rameses II., in which 
the monarch in his chariot is a giant where his followers 
are mere pygmies. In the absence of perspective, receding 
figures of men or of horses were given by multipHed outlines 
of legs, or heads, placed before, or after, or raised above 
one another. Flat water was represented by zigzag lines, 
placed as it were upon a map, one tree symbolized a forest, 
and one fortification a town. 

These outline drawings were not realistic in any exact 
sense. The face was generally expressionless, the figure, 
evidently done from memory or pattern, did not reveal ana- 
tomical structure, but was nevertheless graceful, and in the 
representation of animals the sense of motion was often 
given with much truth. The color was usually an attempt 
at nature, though at times arbitrary or symbolic, as in the 
case of certain gods rendered with blue, yellow, or green 
skins. The backgrounds were alwavs of flat color, arbitrary 


in hue, and decorative only. The only composition was a 
balance by numbers, and the processional scenes rose tier 
upon tier above one another in long panels. 

Such work would seem almost ludicrous did we not keep 
in mind its reason for existence. It was, first, symbolic 
story-telling art, and secondly, architectural decoration. As 
a story-teller it was effective because of its simplicity and 
directness. As decoration, the repeated expressionless face 
and figure, the arbitrary color, the absence of perspective 

'\''B M\ ~M./MLMM' /*■ V M "]?lx. '/Ais^A-.' 


were not inappropriate tlien nor are they now. Egyptian 
painting never was free from the decorative motive. Wall 


p.iiiUiiij;' was litllr more ihaii an adjunct of architcrUirc, and 
probal)ly ,>;vc\v out of sculpture. TIk- early statues were 
colored, and on the wall the chisel, like the Hint of Primitive 
Man, cut the outline of the figure. At first only this cut was 
lllled with color, producing what has been called the koil- 
anaglvphic. In the fmal stage the line was made by draw- 
ing with chalk or coal on prepared stucco, and the color, 
nu\ed with gum-water (a kintl of ilistemper), was applied to 
tlie whole enclosed space. Substantially the same method 
of painting was used upon other materials, such as wood, 
numimy cartonuage, papyrus ; and in all its thousands of i 
vears of existence Egyptian painting never advanced upon i 
or varied to anv extent this one method of work. 

HISTORIC PERIODS; Egyptian art may be tracetl back 
as far as the Third or Fourth Memphitic dynastv of kings. 
The date is uncertain, but it is somewhere near 3,500 u.c. 
The seat of empire, at that time, was located at Memphis 
in Eower Egypt, and it is among the remains of this 

Memphitic Period that the earliest and best painting is 
found. In fact, all Egyptian art, literature, language, civil- 
ization, seem at their highest point of perfection in the 
period farthest removed from us. In that earliest age the 
finest portrait busts were cut, and the painting, found chiefly 
in the tombs and on the mummv-cases, was the attempted 
realistic with not a little of spirited individuality. The 
figure was rather short and sci.uat, the face a little squarer 
than the conventional type afterward adopted, the action 
better, and the positions, attitudes, and gestures more 
truthful to local characteristics. The domestic scenes — 
hunting, fishing, tilling, grazing — were all shown in the one 
flat, planeless, shadowless method of representation, but 
with better drawing and color and more variety than 
appeared later on. Still, more or less conventional types 
were used, even in this early time, and continued to be used 
all through Egyptian history. 


The Memphitic Period comes down to the eleventh dy- 
nast)'. In the fifteenth dynasty comes the invasion of the 
so-called Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings. Little is known of 
the Hyksos, and, in painting, the next stage is the 

Theban Period, which culminated in Thebes, in Upper 
Egypt, with Rameses II., of the nineteenth dynasty. Paint- 
ing had then changecT somewhat both in subject and char- 
acter. The time was one of great temple- and palace-build- 
ing, and, though the painting of genre subjects in tombs 
and sepulchres continued, the general body of art became 
more monumental and subservient to architecture. Paint- 
ing was put to work on temple- and palace-walls, depicting 
processional scenes, either religious or monarchical, and vast 
m extent. The figure, too, changed slightly. It became 


longer, slighter, with a pronounced nose, thick lips, and 
long eye. From constant repetition, rather than any set 
rule or canon, this figure grew conventional, and was re- 


priHliKi'd as a type in a mci haiiical ami imvarj'inj; manner 
lor huiulrcds of years. It was, in fact, only a variation 
from the original l'^j;yptian type seen in tine tombs of the 
earliest ilynasties. There was a great (piantity of art pro- 
di\ceil during the 'I'lieban I'eriotl, and of a graceful, decora- 
tive character, but it was rather monotonous by repetition 
and I'llled with established mannerisms. The ]'>gyptiaii 
really never was a free worker, never an artist expressing 
hniiselt ; but, tor his day, a skilled mechanic following time- 
honored examj^le. In the 

Saitic Period the seat of empire was once more in 
Lower Kg\pt, and art had visibly declined with the waning 
power of the country. All spontaneity seemed to have 
passetl out of it, it was repetition of repetition by poor 
workmen, and the simplicity and purity of the technic were 
corrupted by foreign influences. AVith the Alexandrian 
epoch E^gyptian art came in contact with Greek methods, 
and grew imitative of the new art, to the detriment of its 
own native character. Eventually it was entirely lost in 
the art of the Greco-Roman world. It was never other 
than conventional, produced by a method almost as unvary- 
ing as that of the hieroglyphic writing, and in this very 
respect characteristic and reflective of the unchanging 
Orientals. Technically it had its shortcomings, but it con- 
veyed the proper information to its beholders and was ser- 
viceable and graceful decoration for Egyptian days. 

EXTANT PAINTINGS : The temples, palaces, and tombs of Egypt still 
reveal Eg)'ptian painting in almost as perfect a state as wlien originally 
executed ; the Ghizeh Museum has many fine examples ; and there are 
numerous examples in the museums at Turin, Paris, Berlin, London, New 
^'ork, and Boston. An interesting collection l)eIongs to the New York 
Historical Society, and some of the latest "finds" of the Egypt Explora- 
tion Fund are in the Boston Museum. 



Books Ri:c(LM,mf,nuei) : Babelon, Manual of Oriental An- 
tiquities: Botta, Monument tie Ninive : Budge, Babylonian 
Life and History ; Duncker, History of Antiquity; Layard, 
N'inevch and its Remains ; l,a3'ard, Discoveries Anions; Ruins 
of Nineveh and Babvlon ; Lenormant, Manual of the Aneient 
History of the East; Lof tus, Travels in Chahhea and Susiana ; 
Maspero, Rife in Aneient Ri^ypt and Assyria; Perrot and 
Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldiea and Assyria ; Place, 
Ninive et l' Assyrie ; Sayce, Assyria: Its Ralaees, Rriests, and 

civilization along the Tigris - Euphrates was like that 
along the Nile. Both valleys were settled by primitive 
peoples, who grew rapidly by virtue of favorable climate 
and soil, and eventually developed into great nations headed 
by kings absolute in power. The king was the state in 
Egypt, and in Assyria the monarch was even more domi- 
nant and absolute. For the Pharaohs shared architecture, 
painting, and sculpture with the gods ; but the Sargonids 
seem to have arrogated the most of these things to them- 
selves alone. 

Religion was perhaps as real in Assyria as in Egypt, but 
it was less apparent in art. Certain genii, called gods or 
demons, appear in the bas-reliefs, but it is not yet settled 
whether they represent gods or merely legendary heroes or 
monsters of fable. 'Pliere was no great demonstration of 
religion by form and color, as in Egypt. The Assyrians 



were Semites, and religion with them was more a matter 
of the spirit thau the senses — an iniaye in the mind ratiier 
than an image in metal or stont'. 'I'lie temple was not elo- 
quent with the aetions and deeds of the ,L;ods, and even tiie 
tomb, that fruitful souree of art in l\i;ypt, was in ChaUhea 
unileeorated and in Assyria unknown. No oiu' knows what 
the Assyrians diil with their ilead, unless they I'arried them 
baek to the fatherlaiul of the raee, the I'ersian (Uilf region, 
as the native tribes of Mesopotamia tlo to this day. 

AKT MOTIVES: As in Egypt, there were two motives for 
art — illustration and deeoration. Religion, as we have seen, 
hanlly obtaineil at all. The king attracted the greatest 
attention. The countless bas-reliefs, cut on soft stone slabs, 
were pages from the history of the monarch in peace and 
war, in council, in the chase, or in processional rites. Be- 
side him and around him his officers came in for a share of 
the backgrounil glory. Occasionally the common people 
had representations of their lives and their pursuits, but 
the main subject of all the val- 
ley art was the king and his 
doings. Sculpture and paint- 
ing were largely illustrations 
accompanying a history writ- 
ten in the ever-present cunei- 
form characters. 

But, while serving as history, 
like the picture-writings of the 
Egyptians, this illustration was 
likewise decoration, and was 
designed with that end in 
view. Rows upon rows of 
partly colored bas-reliefs were arranged like a dado along 
the palace-wall, and above them wall-paintings, or glazed 
tiles in patterns, carried out the color scheme. Almost all 
of the color has now disappeared, but it must have been 

(from )'ERF^0T and CHU'IE/.) 



brilliant at one time, and was doubtless in harmony with the 
architecture. Both painting and sculpture were subordi- 
nate to and dependent upon architecture. Palace-building 


was the chief pursuit, and the other arts were called in 
mainly as adjuncts — ornamental records of the king who 

THE TYPE, FORM, COLOR: There were only two distinct 
faces in Assyrian art — one with and one without a beard. 
Neither of them was a portrait except as attributes or 
inscriptions designated. The type was unendingly repeated. 
Women appeared in only one or two isolated cases, and 
even these are doubtful. 'I'he warrior, a strong, coarse- 
membered, heavily muscled creation, with a heavy, expres- 
sionless, Semitic face, appeared everywhere. The figure 
was placed in profile, with eye and bust twisted to show 
the front view, and the long feet projected one beyond the 
other, as in the Nile pictures. This was the Assyrian ideal 
of strength, dignity, and majesty, established probably in 
the early ages, and repeated for centuries with few char- 
acteristic variations. The figure was usually given in mo- 
tion, walking, or riding, and had little of that grace seen in 
Egyptian painting, but in its place a great deal of rude 


strength. In nuHlt'lling, the human Idrni was not so know- 
ingly rendered as the anlniah 'I'he long Eastern clothing 
probably preventetl the close study of the figure. Tiiis fail- 
ure in anat(Uiiical exactness was balancetl in part l)y min- 
ute details in the tlress and accessories, productive of a ricli 
ornamental effect. 

Hard stone was not found in the Mesopotamian regions. 
Temples were built of burnt brick, bas-reliefs were made 
upon alabaster slabs and heightened by coloring, and paint- 
ing was largely upon tiles, with mineral paints, afterward 
glazed by hre. These glazed brick or tiles, with figured 
designs, were fi.xed upon the walls, arches, and archivolts 
by bitumen mortar, and made up the first mosaics of which 
we have record. There was a further painting upon plaster 
in distemper, of which some few traces remain. It ditl 
not differ in design from the bas-reliefs or the tile mo- 

The subjects used were the Assyrian type, shown some- 
what slighter in painting than in sculpture, animals, birds, 
and other objects ; but they were obviously not attempts 
at nature. The color was arbitrary, not natural, and there 
was little perspective, light-and-shade, or relief. Heavy 
outline bands of color appeared about the object, and the 
prevailing hues were yellow and blue. There was perhaps 
less symbolism and more direct representation in Assyria 
than in Egypt. 'I'here was also more feeling for perspec- 
tive and space, as shown in such objects as water and in 
the mountain landscapes of the late bas-reliefs ; but, in the 
main, there was no advance upon Egypt. There was a 
difference which was not necessarily a development. Paint- 
ing, as we know the art to-day, was not practised in Chaldeea- 
Assyria. It was never free from a servitude to architecture 
and sculpture ; it was hampered by conventionalities ; and 
the painter vi'as more artisan than artist, having little free- 
dom or individuality. 



HISTORIC PERIODS: Chaldsea, of unknown antiquit}', with 
Babylon its capital, is accounted the oldest nation in the 
Tigris-Euphrates valley, and, so far as is known, it was an 
original nation producing an original art. Its sculpture 
(especially in the Tello heads), and presumably its painting, 
were more realistic and individual than any other in the 
valley. Assyria coming later, and the heir of Chaldaa, 
was the 

Second Empire : There are two distinct periods of this 
Second Empire, the first lasting from 1,400 B.C., down to 
about 900 B.C., and in art showing a great profusion of 
bas-reliefs. The second closed about 6^25 b. c, and in art 


produced much glazed -tile work and a more elaborate 
sculpture and painting. After this the Chaldsan provinces 
gained the ascendency again, and Babylon, under Nebuchad- 
nezzar, became the first city of Asia. But the new Babylon 
did not last long. It fell before Cyrus and the Persians 
536 B.C. Again, as in Egypt, the earliest art appears the 


purest aiul the sinipl. st, and the years of ChaUheo-Assyriali 
history known to us earry a rceoril of ehanye rather than 
of progress in art. 

ART REMAINS: The most vnUiahle collections of CliaUlao-Assyi iali 
art arc to lie louiul in the I^ouvre ami llie lirilisli Museum. Tlic other 
large museums of hairope liavc collections in this deiiartment, hut all of 
them eoniliiueil are little com|iarei-l with tlie treasures that still lie hurieil 
in the mounds ot the 'rigris-Kuphrales \'alley. Excavations have been 
mai-le at Muglieir, W'arka, Khorsabail, Koiiyuujik, ami elsewhere, but 
man)' tlithculties have thus far rendered systematic work impossible. The 
complete history of Chaldieo-Assyria and its art has yet to be written. 


Books Recommended : As before cited, Babelon, Duncker, 
Lenormant, Ely ; Dieulafoy. L' Art Antique de la Perse ; 
Flandin et Coste, lavage eii Perse ; Justi, Geschichte des alien 
Persiens j Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia. 

HISTORY AND ART MOTIVES: The Medes and Persians were 
the natural inheritors of Assyrian civilization, but they did 
not improve their birthright. The Medes soon lost their 
power. Cyrus conquered them, and established the powerful 
Persian monarchy upheld for two hundred years by Cam- 
byses, Darius, and Xer.ves. Substantially the same condi- 
tions surrounded the Persians as the Assyrians — that is, so 
far as art production was concerned. Their conceptions of 
life were similar, and their use of art was for historic illus- 
tration of kingly doings and ornamental embellishment of 
kingly palaces. Pioth sculpture and painting were acces- 
sories of architecture. 

Of Median art nothing remains. The Persians left the 
record, but it was not wholly of their own invention, nor 
was it very extensive or brilliant. It had little originality 
about it, and was really only an echo of Assyria. The 



sculptors and painters copied their Assyrian predecessors, 
repeating at Persepolis what had been better told at Nin- 

TYPES AND TECHNIC: The same subjects, types, and tech- 
nical methods in bas-relief, tile, and painting on plaster were 
followed under Darius as under Shalmanezer. But the imi- 
tation was not so good as the original. The warrior, the 

-lions' frieze, SUSA. (from PERROT and ClIIPIEZ.) 

winged monsters, the animals all lost something of their air 
of brutal defiance and their strength of modelling. Heroes 
still walked in procession along the bas-reliefs and glazed 
tiles, but the figure was smaller, more effeminate, the hair 
and beard were not so long, the drapery fell in slightly 
indicated folds at times, and there was a profusion of orna- 
mental detail. Some of this detail and some modifications 
in the figure showed the influence of foreign nations other 
than the Greek ; but, in the main, Persian art followed in the 
footsteps of Assyrian art. It was the last reflection of 


Mesopotami.ui spU'iidor. l'\)r with tlu- c()iH|uest nf Persia 
bv Alcxaiulcr the hook of cxprcssivx' art in that vallry was 
closed, aiul, iiatler Islam, it remains rioseil tn lliis day. 

ART REMAINS: Persian p.iinling is sometliing aliout which little is 
t^n.'wn liec.ui>,c lillle icmains. The Loiivie contains some leconstiucted 
friezes made in mosaics of stamped brick and square tile, showing figures 
of lions and a number of archers. The coloring is particularly rich, and 
may give some idea of Persian pigments. Aside from the chief museums 
of Europe the luilk of Persian art is still seen half-buried in the ruins of 
Persepolis aiul elsewhere. 


Books Recommended : As before cited, Babelon, Duncker, 
Ely, Girard, Lenormant ; Cesnola, Cyprus ; Cesnola, Cypriote 
Antiquities i)i Aletropolitan Museum of Art ; Kenrick, Pliomi- 
tiii ; Movers, Die I'lionizier : Perrot and Chipiez, History of 
Art in Fluenieia ami Cyprus ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of 
Art ill SarJiuid, JuJea, Syria ami Asia Minor ; Perrot anil 
Chi]5iez, History of Art in F/irygia, I.yJia, etc.; Renan, j]/is- 
sion Je P/ieniiie. 

THE TRADING NATIONS: The coast-lying nations of the 
P'astern Mediterranean were hardly original or creative 
nations in a large sense. They were at different times the 
conquered dependencies of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, 
and their lands were but bridges over which armies passed 
from east to west or from west to east. Eocated on the 
Mediterranean between the great civilizations of antiquity 
they naturally adapted themselves to circumstances, and 
became the middlemen, the brokers, traders, and carriers of 
the ancient world. Their lands were not favorable to agri- 
culture, but their sea-coasts rendered commerce easy and 
lucrative. They made a kingdom of the sea, and their means 
of livelihood were gathered from it. There is no record 
that the Egyptians ever traversed the Mediterranean, the 



Assyrians were not sailors, tlie Greeks had not yet arisen, 
and so probably Phoenicia and her neighbors had matters 

their own way. Colonies and 
trading stations were estab- 
lished at Cyprus, Carthage, 
Sardinia, the Greek islands, 
and the Greek mainland, and 
not only Eastern goods but 
Eastern ideas were thus car- 
ried to the West. 

Politically, socially, and re- 
ligiously these small middle 
nations were inconsequential. 
They simply adapted their 
politics or faith to the nation 
that for the time had them 
under its heel. What semi- 
original religion they pos- 
sessed was an amalgamation 
of the religions of other na- 
tions, and their gods of bronze, 
terra-cotta, and enamel were 
irreverently sold in the mar- 
ket like any other produce. 
AET MOTIVES AND METHODS: Building, carving, and paint- 
ing were practised among the coastwise nations, but upon 
no such extensive scale as in either Egypt or Assyria. The 
mere fact that they were people of the sea rather than of 
the land precluded extensive or concentrated development. 
Politically Phoenicia was divided among five cities, and 
her artistic strength was distributed in a similar manner. 
Such art as was produced showed the religious and deco- 
rative motives, and in its spiritless materialistic make-up, the 
commercial motive. It was at the best a hybrid, mongrel 
art, borrowed from many sources and distributed to many 

fig. 9. — painted head from edessa. 
(f-rom perrot and chu'Irp:.) 



points of the oonipass. At oiu-tiiiK' it iiaci .1 stroii)^ Assyi'ian 
cast, at another an l^j;yiitian cast, and alter Greece arose it 
accepted a retroactive influence from there. 

It is impossible to ciiaracterize tlie Phrenician type, and 
even the Cypriote type, tliough more pronounced, varies so 
witli tlie different influences that it has no very striking 
individuahty. Technically both the Phoenician and Cypriote 
were fair workmen in bronze and stone, and doubtless 
taught many technical methods to the early Greeks, besides 
making known to them those deities afterward adopted 
under the names of Aphrodite, Adonis, and Heracles, and 
familiarizing them with the art forms of Egypt and Assyria. 

As for painting, there was undoubtedly figured decora- 
tion upon walls of stone and plaster, but there is not enough 
left to us from all the small nations like Phoenicia, Judea, 
Cyprus, and the kingdoms of Asia Minor, put together, to 
patch up a disjointed history. The first lands to meet the 
spoiler, their very ruins have perished. All that there is of 

10. — C\'I'K[MrK \ASE [lECOI.AIlON. 

painting comes to us in broken potteries and color traces 
on statuary. The remains of sculpture and architecture 
are of course better preserved. None of this intermediate 
art holds much rank by virtue of its inherent worth, It is 


its influence upon the ^Vest — the ideas, subjects, and meth- 
ods it imparted to the Greeks — that gives it importance in 
art history. 

ART REMAINS: In painting chiefly Ihe vases in the Metropolitan 
Museimi, New Vorl;, the Louvre, British and Berlin Museums. These 
give a poor and incomplete idea of the painting in Asia Minor, Phoenicia 
and her colonies. The terra-cottas, figurines in bronze, and sculptures can 
be studied to more advantage. The best collection of Cypriote antiquities 
is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. A new collection of Judaic 
art has been recently opened in the Louvre. 



Books Recommended : Baumeister, Denkmdler des klas- 
sischcii Altertums — article '' Malcrei ;" Birch, History of An- 
cient Pottery; Brunn, Geseliichte der griecJiisclien Kiinsiler ; 
Collignon, Mxthologie figuree de la Grece ; Collignon, Manuel 
d'Ari/taeologie Grccque ; Cros et Henry, L Encaustique et les 
autres procedes de Peintnre cliez les Ancicns ; Girard, La Pein- 
ture Antique ; Murray, Handbook of Greek Archa:ology ; 
Overbeck, Antiken Sc'hriftquellen zur geschichte der bildenen 
Kiinste bie den Griechcn ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of 
Art in Greece ; W'oerman, Die Landschaft in der Kunst der 
antiken Volker ; see also books on Etruscan and Roman 

GREECE AND THE GEEEKS: The origin of the Greek race IS 
not positively known. It is reasonably supposed that the 
early settlers in Greece came from the region of Asia 
jMinor, either across the Hellespont or the sea, and popu- 
lated the Greek islands and the mainland. When this was 
done has been matter of much conjecture. The early his- 
tory is lost, but art remains show that in the period before 
Homer the Greeks were an established race with habits 
and customs distinctly individual. Egyptian and Asiatic 
influences are apparent in their art at this early time, but 
there is, nevertheless, the mark of a race peculiarly apart 
from all the races of the older world. 

The development of the Greek people was probably 
helped by favorable climate and soil, by commerce and con- 
quest, by republican institutions and political faith, by 


freedom of mind and of body ; but all these together are not 
sufficient to account for the keenness of intellect, the purity 
of taste, and the skill in accomplishment which showed in 
every branch of Greek life. The cause lies deeper in the 
fundamental make-up of the Greek mind, and its eternal 
aspiration toward mental, moral, and physical ideals. Per- 
fect mind, perfect body, perfect conduct in this world were 
sought-for ideals. The Greeks aspired to completeness. 
The course of education and race development trained 
them physically as athletes and warriors, mentally as phi- 
losophers, law-makers, poets, artists, morally as heroes 
whose lives and actions emulated those of the gods, and 
were almost perfect for this world. 

AKT MOTIVES: Neither the monarchy nor the priesthood 
commanded the services of the artist in Greece, as in As- 
syria and Egypt. There was no monarch in an oriental 
sense, and the chosen leaders of the Greeks never, until the 
late days, arrogated art to themselves. It was something 
for all the people. 

In religion there was a pantheon of gods established and 
worshipped from the earliest ages, but these gods were more 
like epitomes of Greek ideals than spiritual beings. They 
were the personified virtues of the Greeks, exemplars of 
perfect living ; and in worshipping them the Greek was really 
worshipping order, conduct, repose, dignity, perfect life. 
The gods and heroes, as types of moral and physical qual- 
ities, were continually represented in an allegorical or 
legendary manner. Athene represented noble warfare, 
Zeus was majestic dignity and power. Aphrodite love, 
Phoebus song, Nike triumph, and all the lesser gods, 
nymphs, and fauns stood for beauties of nature or of life. 
The great bulk of Greek architecture, sculpture, and paint- 
ing was put forth to honor these gods or heroes, and by so 
doing the artist repeated the national ideals and honored 
himself. The first motive of Greek art, then, was to praise 


Hellas ami the Mellcnic view of life. In part it was a re- 
ligious motive, but with little of that spiritual significance 
and belief which ruled in Egypt, and later on in Italy. 

.\ second and ever-present motive in Clreek painting was 
decoration. This appears in the tomb pottery of the earli- 


est ages, and was carried on down to the latest times. Vase 
painting, wall painting, tablet and sculpture painting were 
all done with a decorative motive in view. Even the easel 
or panel pictures had some decorative effect about them, 
though they were primarily intended to convey ideas other 
than those of form and color. 

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The gods and heroes, their lives 
and adventures, formed the early subjects of Greek painting. 


Certain themes taken from the "IHad " and the "Odyssey" 
were as frequently shown as, afterward, the Annunciations 
in Italian painting. The traditional subjects, the Centaurs 
and Lapiths, the Amazon war, Theseus and Ariadne, Perseus 
and Andromeda, were frequently depicted. Humanity and 
actual Greek life came in for its share. Single figures, still- 
life, ^w//r, caricature, all were shown, and as painting neared 
the Alexandrian age a semi-realistic portraiture came into 

The materials employed by the Greeks and their methods 
of work are somewhat difficult to ascertain, because there 
are few Greek pictures, except those on the vases, left to 
us. From the confusing accounts of the ancient writers, 
the vases, some Greek slabs in Italy, and the Roman paint- 
ings imitative of the Greek, we may gain a general idea. 
The early Greek work was largely devoted to pottery and 
tomb decoration, in which much in manner and method was 
borrowed from Asia, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Later on, paint- 
ing appeared in flat outline on stone or terra-cotta slabs, 
sometimes representing processional scenes, as in Egypt, 
and doubtless done in a hybrid fresco-work similar to the 
Egyptian method. Wall paintings were done in fresco and 
distemper, probably upon the walls themselves, and also 
upon panels afterward let into the wall. Encaustic paint- 
ing (color mixed with wax upon the panel and fused with a 
hot spatula) came in with the Sikyonian school. It is pos- 
sible that the oil medium and canvas were known, but not 
probable that either was ever used extensively. 

There is no doubt about the Greeks being expert draughts- 
men, though this does not appear until late in history. They 
knew the outlines well, and drew them with force and grace. 
That they modelled in strong relief is more questionable. 
Light-and-shade was certainly employed in the figure, but 
not in any modern way. Perspective in both figures and land- 
scape was used ; but the landscape was at first symbolic and 

CKF.EK rAlN'I'lNC. 25 

r.ii'ciygot bcyoiul a ilccuralivc back;;ri)Uiul fur the lij^urc. 
(ircck composition \vr know little about, but may infer that 
it was largely a series of balances, a symmetrical adjustment 
of objects to I'll! a given space with not very much freedom 
allowed to the artist. In atmosphere, sunlight, color, anil 
those peculiarly sensuous charms that belong to painting, 
there is no reason to believe that the Greeks approached 
the moderns. Their interest was chiefly centred in the 
human figure. Landscape, with its many beauties, was 
reserved for modern hands to disclose. Color was used 
in abundance, without doubt, but it was probably limited to 
the leading hues, with little of that refinement or delicacy 
known in painting to-day. 

AET HISTORY: For the history of Greek painting we have 
to rely upon the words of Aristotle, Plutarch, Pliny, Quin- 
tilian, Lucian, Cicero, Pausanias. Their accounts appear to 
be partly substantiated by the vase paintings, and such few 
slabs and Roman frescos as remain to us. There is no 
consecutive narrative. The story of painting originating 
from a girl seeing the wall-silhouette of her lover and fill- 
ing it in with color, and the conjecture of painting having 
developed from embroidery work, have neither of them a 
foundation in fact. The earliest settlers of Greece probably 
learned painting from the Phoenicians, and employed it, 
after the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Phoenician manner, on 
pottery, terra-cotta slabs, and rude sculpture. It developed 
slower than sculpture perhaps ; but were there anything (jf 
importance left to judge from, we should probably find that 
it developed in much the same manner as sculpture. Down 
to 500 B.C. there was little more than outline filled in with 
flat monochromatic paint and with a decorative effect sim- 
ilar, perhaps, to that of the vase paintings. After that date 
come the more important names of artists mentioned by 
the ancient writers. It is difificult to assign these artists 
to certain periods or schools, owing to the insufficient 



knowledge we have about them. The following classifica- 
tions and assignments may, therefore, in some instances, be 

OLDEE ATTIC SCHOOL: The first painter of rank was Pol- 
ygnotus (fl. 475-455 b.c), sometimes called the founder of 

■iri. 12. — ML'SE OF CORTitNA, COKTON.V 1MLSEI.M. 

Cireek painting, because perhaps he was one of the first im- 
portant painters in (Ireece proper. He seems to have been 
a good outline draughtsman, producing figures in profile, 
with little attempt at relief, perspective, or light-and-shade. 
His colors were local tones, but probably' more like nature 
and more varied than anything in Egyptian painting. Land- 
scapes, buildings, and the like, were given in a symbolic man- 
ner. Portraiture was a generalization, and in figure com- 


positions liie names of the principal characlcrs were written 
near tiieni for purposes of idenlilieation. The most important 
works of roiyjiiiotus were the wall paintings for the Assem- 
bly Room of the Knitlians at Delphi. 'I'he subjects related 
to the I'rojan War and the adventures of LHysses. 

Opposed to this tlat, unrelievetl style was the work of a 
follower, Agatharchos of Samos (fl. end of fifth century 
I'.A .). He was a scene-painter, and by the necessities of his 
cralt was letl toward nature. Stage effect reipiired a study 
of perspective, variation of light, and a knowledge of the 
laws of optics. The slight outline drawing of his predecessor 
was probably superseded by effective masses to create illu- 
sion. 'I'his was a distinct advance toward nature. Apollo- 
dorus (fl. end of fifth century li.c.) applied the principles of 
Agatharchos to figures. According to Plutarch, he was the 
first to discover variation in the shade of colors, and, ac- 
cording to Pliny, the first master to paint objects as they 
appeared in nature. He had the title of skiagraplios (shadow- 
painter), and possibly gave a semi-natural background with 
perspective. This was an improvement, but not a perfec- 
tion. It is not likely that the backgrounds were other than 
conventional settings for the figure. Even these were not 
at once accepted by the painters of the period, but were 
turned to profit in the hands of the follow'ers. 

After the Peloponnesian Wars the art of painting seems 
to have flourished elsewdiere than in Athens, owing to the 
Athenian loss of supremacy. Other schools sprang up in 
various districts, and one to call for considerable mention 
by the ancient writers was the 

IONIAN SCHOOL, which in reality had existed from the 
sixth century. The painters of this school advanced upon 
the work of Apollodorus as regards realistic effect. Zeuxis, 
whose fame was at its height during the Peloponnesian 
Wars, seems to have regarded art as a matter of illu- 
sion, if one may judge by the stories told of his work. 


The tale of his painting a bunch of grapes so like reality 
that the birds came to peck at them proves either that the 
painter's motive was deception, or that the narrator of the 
tale picked out the deceptive part of his picture for admi- 
ration. He painted many subjects, like Helen, Penelope, 
and many genre pieces on panel. Quintilian says he orig- 
inated light-and-shade, an achievement credited by Plu- 
tarch to Apollodorus. It is probable that he advanced 

In illusion he seems to have been outdone by a rival, 
Parrhasios of Ephesus. Zeuxis deceived the birds with 
painted grapes, but Parrhasios deceived Zeuxis wMth a 
painted curtain. There must have been knowledge of color, 
modelling, and relief to have produced such an illusion, but 
the aim was petty and unworthy of the skill. There was 
evidently an advance technically, but some decline in the 
true spirit of art. Parrhasios finally suffered defeat at the 
hands of Timanthes of Kythnos, by a Contest between Ajax 
and Ulysses for the Arms of Achilles. Timanthes's famous 
work was the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, of which there is a 
supposed Pompeian copy. 

SIKYONIAN SCHOOL: This school seems to have sprung up 
after the Peloponnesian Wars, and was perhaps founded 
by Eupompos, a contemporary of Parrhasios. His pupil 
Pamphilos brought the school to maturity. He apparently 
reacted from the deception motive of Zeuxis and Par- 
rhasios, and taught academic methods of drawing, com- 
posing, and painting. He was also credited with bringing 
into use the encaustic method of painting, though it was 
probably known before his time. His pupil, Pausias, pos- 
sessed some freedom of creation in genre and still-life sub- 
jects. Pliny says he had great technical skill, as shown in 
the foreshortening of a black ox by variations of the black 
tones, and he obtained some fame by a figure of Methe 
(Intoxication) drinking from a glass, the face being seen 



throuoh llu- j;lass. Aj^aiii the iiKilivrs scciii Irillinj;, but 
again advaiu'iiig tciiiniral |i()\vcr is shown. 

THEBAN-ATTIC SCHOOL: This was the fourth school (if 
Greek paniting. Nikomachus (II. about ;,()0 n.t .), a facile 
]iainter, was at its heai.1. His |ui|)il, Aristides, paintetl pa- 
thetic scenes, ani.1 was perha|)s as remarkable for teaching 
art to the celebrated Euphranor (II. 360 ii.c.) as for his own 


productions. pAiphranor had great versatility in the arts, 
and in painting was renowned for his pictures of the Olym- 
pian gods at Athens. His successor, Nikias (fl. 340-300 n.c), 
was a contemporary of Praxiteles, the sculptor, and was 
possibly influenced by him in the painting of female fio-ures. 
He was a technician of ability in composition, light-and- 
shade, and relief, and was praised for the roundness of his 
figures. He also did some tinting of sculpture, and is said 
to have tinted some of the works of Praxiteles. 


LATE PAINTEKS: Contemporary with and following these 
last-named artists were some celebrated painters who really 
belong to the beginning of the Hellenistic Period (323 b.c). 
At their head was Apelles, the painter of Philip and Alex- 
ander, and the climax of Greek painting. He painted many 
gods, heroes, and allegories, with much "gracefulness," as 
Pliny puts it. The Italian Botticelli, seventeen hundred 
years after him, tried to reproduce his celebrated Calumny, 
from Lucian's description of it. His chief works were his 
Aphrodite Anadyomene, carried to Rome by Augustus, and 
the portrait of Alexander with the Thunder-bolt. He was 
undoubtedly a superior man technically. Protogenes rivalled 
him, if we are to believe Petronius, by the foam on a dog's 
mouth and the wonder in the eye of a startled pheasant. 
A'e'tion, the painter of Alexander's Marriage to Roxana, was 
not able to turn the aim of painting from this deceptive 
illusion. After Alexander, painting passed still further into 
the imitative and the theatrical, and when not grandiloquent 
was infinitely little over cobbler-shops and huckster-stalls. 
I^andscape for purposes of decorative composition, and 
floor painting, done in mosaic, came in during the time 
of the Diadochi. There were no great names in the latter 
days, and such painters as still flourished passed on to 
Rome, there to produce copies of the works of their pre- 

It is hard to reconcile the unworthy motive attributed 
to Greek painting by the ancient writers with the high 
aim of Greek sculpture. It is easier to think (and it is 
more probable) that the writers knew very little about 
art, and that they missed the spirit of Greek painting 
in admiring its insignificant details. That painting tech- 
nically was at a high point of perfection as regards the fig- 
ure, even the imitative Roman works indicate, and it can 
hardly be doubted that in spirit it was at one time equally 



EXTANT REMAINS : Tlicrc me few wall or panel pictures of Greek 

limes in exisienee. l'"our slabs of stone in the Naples Museum, willi red 
oulline drawings uf Theseus, Silenos, and some ligures \vit!i masks, are 
]irohal'ly llveek wMrk from wliieli Llie ei-dor lias scaled. A number of 
Roman copies ol (.neek frescos and n\osaics are in the Vatican, Ca|nto- 
line, and Naples Museums. All these pieces show an imitation of late 
Hellenistic art — not the best period of Greek development. 

THE VASES: The history of Greek painting in its remains is traced 
with some accuracy in the decorative figures upon the vases. The first 
ware — dating befiire the seventh century l-s.c. — seems free from oriental 
iut^uencos in its designs. The vase is reddish, the 
decoratii-'u is in tiers, bands, or zig-zags, usually in 
black or brown, without the human hgure. The 
second kind of ware dates from about the middle 
of the seventh century. It shows meander, wave, 
anel other designs, and is called the "geometrical " 
style. Later on animals, rosettes, and vegetation 
appear that show Assyrian influence. The decora- 
tion is profuse and the rude human figure subor- 
dinate to it. The design is in black or dark-brown, 
on a cream-colored slip. The third kind of ware 
is the archaic or "strong" style. It dates from 
500 B.C. to the Peloponnesian Wars, and is marked 
by black figures upon a yell -w or red ground. 
White and purple are also used to define flesh, hair, 

and white objects. The figure is stiff, the action awkward, the composi- 
tion is freer than before, but still conventional. The subjects are the 
gods, demi-gods, and heroes in scenes from their lives and adventures. 
The fourth kind of ware dates down into the Hellenistic age and shows 
red figures surrounded by a black ground. The figure, the drawing, the 
composition are better than at any other period and suggest a high excel- 
lence in other forms of Greek painting, After Alexander, vase painting 
seems to have shared the fate of wall and panel painting. There was a 
striving for effect, with ornateness and extravagance, and finally the art 
passed out entirely. 

There was an establishment founded in Southern Italy which imitated 
the Greek and produced the Apulian ware, but the Romans gave little en- 
couragement to vase painting, and about 65 B.C. it disappeared. Almost 
all the museums of the world have collections of Greek vases. The 
British, Berlin, and Paris collections are perhaps as complete as any. 

Fro. 14. — AMPHORE, 




Books Recommended : See Bibliography of Greek Paint- 
ing and also Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruiia ; Graul, 
Die Portrdtgeiiuilde aus den Grabstdtten des Faiyiim ; Hel- 
big, Die Wandgemalde Campaniens ; Helbig, Untersuchungen 
iilier die Campanische Wandmalerei ; Mau, Geschichte der Dec- 
oiativen Wandmalerei in Pompeii ; Martha, L' Areheologie 
Ptrusqiie et Romaine. 

ETKUSCAN PAINTING : Painting in Etruria has not a great 
deal of interest for us just here. It was largely decorative 
and sepulchral in motive, and was employed in the painting 
of tombs, and upon vases and other objects placed in the 
tombs. It had a native way of expressing itself, which at 
first was neither Clreek nor Oriental, and yet a reminder of 
both. Technically it was not well done. Before 500 B.C. it 
was almost childish in the drawing. After that date the 
figures were better, though short and squat. Those on 
the vases usually show outline drawing filled in with dull 
browns and yellows. Finally there was a mingling of 
Etruscan with Greek elements, and an imitation of Greek 
methods. It was at best a hybrid art, but of some impor- 
tance from an archaeological point of view. 

ROMAN PAINTING : Roman art is an appendix to the art 
history of Greece. It originated little in painting, and was 
content to perpetuate the traditions of Greece in an imita- 
tive way. What was worse, it copied the degeneracy of 
Greece by following the degenerate Hellenistic paintings. 
In motive and method it was substantially the same work as 
that of the Greeks under the Diadochi. The subjects, again, 
were often taken from Greek story, though there were 
Roman historical scenes, genre pieces, and many portraits. 

In the beginning of the Empire tablet or panel painting 
was rather abandoned in favor of mural decoration. That 



is t(i say, fimiri's or oroups were paiiUeil in fi'cs( n on 
the wall and then surrounded by ^geometrical, lloral, or 
architectural designs to yi\e the elTect of a panel let into 

fk;. IS- — Kiri'Ai, 




the wall. Thus painting assumed a more decorative nature. 
Vitruvius says in effect that in the early days nature was 
followed in these wall paintings, t)ut later on they became 
ornate and overdone, showing many unsupported architect- 
ural fafades and impossible decorative framings. This can 
be traced in the Roman and Pompeian frescos. There 
were four kinds of these wall paintings, (i.) Those that 
covered all the walls of a room and did away with dado, 
frieze, and the like, such as figures with large landscape 



backgrounds showing villas and trees. (2.) Small paintings 
separated or framed by pilasters. (3.) Panel pictures let 
into the wall or painted with that effect. (4.) Single figures 

FIG. 16. — l*l)RTK..^IT-HEAD. (FROM FAVOl':\l, GRAF COI.,) 

with architectural backgrounds. The single figures were 
usually the best. They had grace of line and motion and 
all the truth to nature that decoration required. Some of 
the backgrounds were flat tints of red or black against 
which the figure was placed. In the larger pieces the com- 


position was rather rainliliii.L; and disjointcil, anil the rolor 
liarsli. Ill liylu-aiul-shade and i-clicf they proljably followed 
the Creek example. 

ROMAN PAINTERS: IHirino;- the first five centuries Rome 
was between the inlluenees of Ktruria and dreeee. The 
first painting's in Ixome of which there is record were d(jne 
i\i the Temple of Ceres by the Creek artists of Lower Italy, 
Gorgasos and Damophilos (ll. 493 b.c). 'I'hey were doubtless 
somewhat like the vase painti.igs — profile work, without 
light, shade, or perspective. At the time and after yVlex- 
ander Creek influence held sway. Fabius Pictor (fl. about 
^00 li.c.) is one of the celebrated names in historical paint- 
ing, and later on Pacuvius, Metrodorus, and Serapion are 
mentioned. In the last century of the Republic, Sopolis, 
Dionysius, and Antiochus Gabinius excelled in portraiture. 
Ancient painting really ends for us with the destruction of 
Pompeii (79 A.D.), though after that there were interesting 
portraits produced, especially those found in the Fayoum 

EXTANT REMAINS: The frescos that are left to us to-day are largely 
the work of mechanical decoraturs rather than creative artists. They are 
to be seen in Rome, in the Baths of Titus, the Vatican, Livia's Villa, 
Farnesina, Rospigliusi, and Barl>erini Palaces, Baths of Caracalla, Capito- 
line and Lateran Museums, in the houses of excavated Pompeii, and the 
Naples Museum. Besides these there are examples of Roman fresco and 
distemper in the Louvre and other European Museums. Examples of 
Etruscan painting are to be seen in the Vatican, Cortona, the Louvre, the 
British Museum and elsewhere. 

* See Scribner's Magazine, vol. v., p. 219, New Series. 




Books Recommended: lia.y(tt, L' Art Byza/itiii ; Bennett, 
Christian Arckceoio^vj Bosio, La Roma Sottcrranca ; Burck- 
liardt, TJic Cicerone, an Art Guide to Paintin;^ in Ital\\ cd. I'v 
Crowe ; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, New History of Painting in 
Italy ; Ue Rossi, La Roma Sottcrranca Cristiana ; Ue Rossi, 
Bullcttino di Archeologia Cristiana; Didron, Christian Icono- 
graphv ; Eastlake (Kiigler's), LLajidhook of Painting — The 
Italian Schools; Garrucci, Storia dell' Arte Cristiana ; 
("lerspach. La Alosa'iquc ; Lafenestre, La L-'cinture Italiennc ; 
Lanzi, Historv of Painting in Italy ; Lecoy de la Marciie, 
Les JManiiserits et la Miniature ; Lindsay, Sketches of the 
History of Christian Art ; Martigny, Dictionnairc des An- 
tiques Chreticnncs ; Perate, L Archeologie Chretiemie ; Reber, 
History of Alediceval Art ; Rio, Poetry of Christian Art ; 
Smitli and Cheetiiam, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. 

RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: Out of the decaying civilization 
of Rome sprang into life that remarkable growth known as 
Christianity. It was not welcomed by the Romans. It was 
scoffed at, scourged, persecuted, and, at one time, nearly 
exterminated. But its vitality was stronger than that of its 
persecutor, and when Rome declined, Christianity utilized 
the things that were Roman, while striving to live for ideas 
that were Christian. 

There was no revolt, no sudden change. The Christian 
idea made haste slowly, and at the start it was weighed 
down with many paganisms. The Christians themselves, in 



all save ri'lii^ious faith, uiTf Romans, ami iiihrnUd i\i)iiian 
tastes, maniurs, aiul nictluuis. I'.ut tlie Kuiiiaii wiirlil, with 
all its ilassuisiii ami k'arnin;;', was ilyiiij,'. Tin; ilcrliin; 
suciall)' aiul iiilcllcitualU' was with tlu' ( 'hristiaiis as well 
as the Ronians. There was "ood leasiin for it. 'i'lit; times 


were out of joint, and almost everything was disorganized, 
worn out, decadent. The military life of the Empire had 
begun to give way to the monastic and feudal life of the 
Church. Quarrels and wars between the powers kept life 
at fever heat. In the fifth century came the inpouring of 
the Goths and Huns, and with them the sacking and plunder 


of the land. Misery and squalor, with intellectual black- 
ness, succeeded. x\rt, science, literature, and learning 
degenerated to mere shadows of their former selves, and 
a semi-barbarism reigned for five centuries. During all 
this dark period Christian painting struggled on in a feeble 
way, seeking to express itself. It started Roman in form, 
method, and even, at times, in subject ; it ended Christian, 
but not without a long period of gradual transition, during 
which it was influenced from many sources and underwent 
many changes. 

AET MOTIVES: As in the ancient world, there were two 
principal motives for painting in early Christian times — 
religion and decoration. Religion was the chief motive, 
but Christianity was a very different religion from that of 
the Greeks and Romans. The Hellenistic faith was a wor- 
ship of nature, a glorification of humanity, an exaltation of 
physical and moral perfections. It dealt with the material 
and the tangible, and Greek art appealed directly to the 
sensuous and earthly nature of mankind. The Hebraic 
faith or Christianity was just the opposite of this. It decried 
the human, the flesh, and the worldly. It would have noth- 
ing to do with the beauty of this earth. Its hopes were 
centred upon the life hereafter. The teaching of Christ 
was the humility and the abasement of the human in favor 
of the spiritual and the divine. Where Hellenism appealed 
to the senses, Hebraism appealed to the spirit. In art the 
fine athletic figure, or, for that matter, any figure, was an 
abomination. The early Church fathers opposed it. It 
was forbidden by the Mosaic decalogue and savored of 

But what should take its place in art ? How could the 
new Christian ideas be expressed without form ? Symbol- 
ism came in, but it was insufficient. A party in the Church 
rose up in favor of more direct representation. Art should 
be used as an engine of the Church to teach the Bible to 



lliDSv who i.oul(l mil read. This ar^umciil iuld Jiond, anil 
luitwithstandiiii;' the opposition of the Iconoclastic ])arty 
painting orew in favor, it lent itself to teaching and came 
inuler ecclesiastical domination. As it left the nature of 
the classic world anil loosened its grasp on things tangible 
it became feeble and decrepit in its form. While it grew in 
sentiment and religious fervor it lost in bodily vigor and 
technical ability. 

l''or many centuries the religious motive held strong, and 
art was the servant of the Church. It taught the Bible 
truths, but it also embellished and adorned the interiors of 


.^'^'■^ -.^^ M ^1 


i l^Mf ■■ ll 1 4 X:4MAi\ 


the churches. All the frescos, mosaics, and altar-pieces 
had a decorative motive in their coloring and setting. The 
church building was a house of refuge for the oppressed, and 
it was made attractive not only in its lines and proportions 
but in its ornamentation. Hence the two motives of the 
early work — religious teachin.g and decoration. 

Judaic or Christian type used in the very early art. The 
painters took their models directly from the Roman frescos 
and marbles. It was the classic figure and the classic cos- 


tume, and those who produced the painting of tiie early 
period were the degenerate painters of the classic world. 
The figure was rather short and squat, coarse in the joints, 
hands, and feet, and almost expressionless in the face. 
Christian life at that time was passion-strung, but the faces 
in art do not show it, for the reason that the Roman frescos 
were the painter's model, not the people of the Christian 
community about him. There was nothing like a realistic 
presentation at this time. The type alone was given. 

In the drawing it was not so good as that shown in the 
Roman and I'ompeian frescos. There was a mechanism 
abt)Ut its production, a copying by unskilled hands, a negli- 
gence or an ignorance of form that showed everywhere. 
The coloring, again, was a conventional scheme of flat tints 
in reddish-browns and bluish-greens, with heavy outline 
bands of brown, 'lliere was little perspective or back- 
ground, and the figures in panels were separated by vines, 
leaves, or other ornamental division lines. Some relief was 
given to the figure by the brown outlines. Light-and-shade 
was not well rendered, and composition was formal. The 
great part of this early work was done in fresco after the 
Roman formula, and was executed on the walls of the 
Catacombs. Other forms of art showed in the gilded 
glasses, in manuscript illumination, and, later, in the mosaics. 

Technically the work begins to decline from the begin- 
ning in proportion as painting was removed from the knowl- 
edge of the ancient world. About the fifth century the 
figure grew heavy and stiff. A new type began to show 
itself. The Roman toga was exchanged for the long litur- 
gical garment which hid the proportions of the body, the 
lines grew hard and dark, a golden nimbus appeared about 
the head, and the patriarchal in appearance came into art. 
The youthful Orphic face of Christ changed to a solemn 
visage, with large, round eyes, saint-like beard, and melan- 
choly air. 'I'he classic qualities were fast disappearing. 



Kastcrn types ami rlcnu'iits were lieini; introduced throujjh 
liy/.intiuni. Orient.d uinamenlatii)n, .uokl eiiiliossinjj^, rieh 
eoliir were dniiii; awav with f(irm, perspective, lijrht-and- 
sliade, aiul baekgrouiul. 

'I'lie color was rich and the iiiechanical workmanship fair 
for the time, but the ligure luul become paralytic. It 
shrouilcd itself in a sack-like brocaded gown, had no feet 
at times, and instead of standing on the grountl hung in the 
air. Facial expression ran to contorted features, holiness 
became nioroseness, and sadness sulkiness. The flesh was 
brown, the shadows green-tinted, giving an unhealthy look 


to the faces. Adil to this the gold ground (a Persian in- 
heritance), the gilded high lights, the absence of perspec- 
tive, and the composing of groups so that the figures 
looked piled one upon another instead of receding, and we 
have the style of painting that prevailed in Byzantium and 
Italy from about the ninth to the thirteenth century. Noth- 
ing of a technical nature was in its favor except the rich 
coloring and the mechanical adroitness of the fitting. 


EAKLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING; The earliest Christian paint- 
ing appeared on the walls of the Catacombs in Rome. 
These were decorated with panels and within the panels 
were representations of trailing vines, leaves, fruits, flowers, 
with birds and little genii or cupids. It was painting simi- 
lar to the Roman work, and had no Christian significance 
though in a Christian place. Not long after, however, the 
desire to express something of the faith began to show it- 
self in a symbolic way. The cups and the vases became 
marked with the fish, because the Greek spelling of the word 
" icthus "gave the initials of the Christian confession of faith. 
The paintings of the shepherd bearing a sheep symbolized 
Christ and his flock ; the anchor meant the Christian hope ; 
the phosnix immortality ; the ship the Church ; the cock 
watchfulness, and so on. And at this time the decorations 
began to have a double meaning. The vine came to 
represent the " I am the vine " and the birds grew longer 
wings and became doves, symbolizing pure Christian souls. 

It has been said this form of art came about through 
fear of persecution, that the Christians hid their ideas in 
symbols because open representation would be followed by 
violence and desecration. Such was hardly the case. The 
emperors persecuted the living, but the dead and their 
sepulchres were exempt from sacrilege by Roman law. 
They probably used the symbol because they feared the 
Roman figure and knew no other form to take its place. 
But symbolism did not supply the popular need ; it was im- 
possible to originate an entirely new figure ; so the painters 
went back and borrowed the old Roman form. Christ ap- 
peared as a beardless youth in Phrygian costume, the Virgin 
Mary was a Roman matron, and the Apostles looked like 
Roman senators wearing the toga. 

Classic story was also borrowed to illustrate Bible truth. 
Hermes carrying the sheep was the Good Shepherd, Psyche 
discovering Cupid was the curiosity of Eve, Ulysses clos- 



ing his ears to the Sirens was tlie Christian resisting the 
tempter. Tlie pagan Orplieiis ehanning the animals cif tlie 
wood was linally adopted as a symljol, or perliaps an ideal 


likeness of Christ. Then followed more direct representa- 
tion in classic form and manner, the Old Testament pre- 
figuring and emphasizing the New. Jonah appearetl cast 
into the sea and cast by the whale on dry land again as a 
symbol of the New Testament resurrection, and also as a 
representation of the actual occurrence. JNIoses striking 
the rock symbolized life eternal, and David slaying Goliath 
was Christ victorious. 

The chronology of the Catacombs painting is very much 
mixed, but it is quite certain there was degeneracy from the 
start. The cause was neglect of form, neglect of art as art, 
mechanical copying instead of nature study, and finally, the 
predominance of the religious idea over the forms of nature. 
With Constantine Christianity was recognized as the na- 
tional religion. Christian art came out of the Catacombs 
and began to show itself in illuminations, mosaics, and 
church decorations. Notwithstanding it was now free from 
restraint it did not improve. Church traditions prevailed, 


sentiment bordered upon sentimentality, and the technic of 
painting passed from bad to worse. 

The decHne continued during the sixth and seventh cen- 
turies, owing somewhat perhaps to the influence of Byzan- 
tium and the introduction into Italy of Eastern types and 
elements. In the eighth century the Iconoclastic contro- 
versy broke out again in fury with the edict of Leo the 
Isaurian. This controversy was a renewal of the old quarrel 
in the Church about the use of pictures and images. Some 
wished them for instruction in the Word ; others decried 
them as leading to idolatry. It was a long quarrel of over 
a hundred years' duration, and a deadly one for art. When 
it ended, the artists were ordered to follow the traditions, 
not to make any new creations, and not to model any figure 
in the round. The nature element in art was quite dead at 
that time, and the order resulted only in diverting the course 
of painting toward the unrestricted miniatures and manu- 
scripts. The native Italian art was crushed for a time by 
this new ecclesiastical burden. It did not entirely disap- 
pear, but it gave way to the stronger, though ecjually re- 
stricted art that had been encroaching upon it for a long 
time — the art of Byzantium. 

BYZANTINE PAINTING: Constantinople was rebuilt and 
rechristened by Constantine, a Christian emperor, in the 
year 328 .a.d. It became a stronghold of Christian tradi- 
tions, manners, customs, art. But it was not quite the same 
civilization as that of Rome and the West. It was bordered 
on the south and east by oriental influences, and much of 
Eastern thought, method, and glamour found its way into 
the Christian community. The artists fought this influence, 
stickling a long time for the severer classicism of ancient 
Greece. For when Rome fell the traditions of the Old World 
centred around Constantinople. But classic form was ever 
being encroached upon by oriental richness of material and 
color. The struggle was a long but hopeless one. As in 



Italy, form faileil century b\- criUury. When, in the eighth 
eenturv, the leiuioehistie eDiitrdversy cut away the little 
t'jreek existins; in it, the oriental (irnanient was about all 
that remained. 

There was no ehanee for paintin^' to rise iiiuler the pre- 
vailing eiinditions. l''ree artistic creation was denied the 
artist. All ailvocate of pauitingat the Second Niceiie Cotm- 
eil declared that : " It is not tlie invention of the [)aiater 
that creates the picture, but an inviolable law of the Cath- 
olic Church. It is not 
the painter but the holy 
fathers w ho have to invent 
and dictate. To them 
manifestly bch^ngs the 
composition, to the paint- 
er onlv the execution." 
Painting was in a strait- 
jacket. It hail to follow 
precedent and copy what 
had gone before in old 
Byzantine patterns. ISoth 
in Italy and in Byzantium 
the creative artist had 
passea away in favor of 
the skilled artisan — the 
repeater of time-honored 
forms <jr colors. The 
workmanship was good for 
the time, and the coloring 
and ornamental borders 
made a rich setting, but 
the real life of art had 

gone. A long period of heavy, morose, almost formless 
art, eloquent of mediKval darkness and ignorance, followed. 

It is strange that such an art should be adopted by 



foreign nations, and yet it was. Its bloody crucifixions and 
morbid madonnas were well fitted to the dark view of life held 
during the Middle Ages, and its influence was wide-spread 
and of long duration. It affected French and German art, 
it ruled at the North, and in the East it lives even to this 
day. That it strongly affected Italy is a very apparent fact. 
Just when it first began to show its influence there is mat- 
ter of dispute. It probably gained a foothold at Ravenna 
in the sixth century, when that province became a part 
of the empire of Justinian. Later it permeated Rome, 
Sicily, and Naples at the south, and Venice at the north. 
With the decline of the early Christian art of Italy this 
richer, and in many ways more acceptable, Byzantine art 
came in, and, with Italian modifications, usurped the field. 
It did not literally crush out the native Italian art, but 
practically it superseded it, or held it in check, from the 
ninth to the twelfth century. After that the corrupted 
Italian art once more came to the front. 

of Early Christian painting are still to be seen in the Catacombs at Rome. 
Mosaics in the early chvirches of Rome, Ravenna, Naples, Venice, Con- 
stantinople. Sculptures, ivories, and glasses in the Lateran, Ravenna, 
and Vatican museums. Illuminations in Vatican and Paris libraries. Al- 
most all the museums of Europe, those of the Vatican and Naples particu- 
larly, have some examples of Byzantine work. The older altar-pieces of 
the early Italian churches date back to the mediseval period and show 
Byzantine influence. The altar-pieces of the Greek and Russian churches 
siiow the same influence even in modern work. 



OdTHlC PERK ID. 1250-1400. 

Books Rfx-ommendku : As before, Burckhardt, Crowe 
and Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafenestre, Lanzi, Lindsa)', 
Rcber ; also Burton, Cata/oi^in- of Pictures in the Ahttional 
Galler\\ Loiutoii (jiitalv'iJgt'd edition); Cartier, ]'ie dc Fia 
Angi'liio ; Forster, Lii>cn und W'erkc dcs Fra Ani^clico ; 
Habich, J^ade Mcaiin pour la Pcinturc Italicnnc dcs Ancicns 
Maitrcs; Lacroix, Les Arts an A/ovcn-Agc ct H F Epoquc dc la 
Jienaissancc ; Mantz, Les Chefs-d\vuvrc dc la Pcinturc Ital- 
icnnc ; '^lortWi, Italian Masters i/i German Galleries; Morelli, 
Italian Masters, Critical Studies in their Works; Rumohr, 
Italicnischc Forschungen ; Stillman, Old Italian Masters; 
Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters ; consult also 
General Bibliography (p. xv). 

SIGNS OF THE AWAKENING : It would seem at first as though 
nothing but self-destruction could come to that struggling, 
praying, throat-cutting population that terrorized Italy dur- 
ing the Mediasval Period. The people were ignorant, the 
rulers treacherous, the passions strong, and yet out of the 
Dark Ages came light. In the thirteenth century the light 
grew brighter, but the internal dissensions did not cease. 
The Hohenstaufen power was broken, the imperial rule in 
Italy was crushed. Pope and emperor no longer warred 
each other, but the cries of " Guelf " and " Ghibelline " had 
not died out. 

Throughout the entire Romanesque and Gothic periods 
(1000-1400) Italy was torn by political wars, though the 


free cities, througli their leagues of protection and their 
commerce, were prosperous. A commercial rivalry sprang 
up among the cities. Trade with the East, manufactures, 
banking, all flourished ; and even the philosophies, with law, 
science, and literature, began to be studied. The spirit of 
learning showed itself in the founding of schools and uni- 
versities. Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, reflecting respec- 
tively religion, classic learning, and the inclination toward 
nature, lived and gave indication of the trend of thought. 
Finally the arts, architecture, sculpture, painting, began to 
stir and take upon themselves new appearances. 

SUBJECTS AND METHODS : In painting, though there were 
some portraits and allegorical scenes produced during the 
Gothic period, the chief theme was Bible story. The 
Church was the patron, and art was only the servant, as it 
had been from the beginning. It was the instructor and 
consoler of the faithful, a means whereby the Church made 
converts, and an adornment of wall and altar. It had not 
entirely escaped from symbolism. It was still the portrayal 
of things for what they meant, rather than for what they 
looked. There was no such thing then as art for art's sake. 
It was art for religion's sake. 

The demand for painting increased, and its subjects mul- 
tiplied with the establishment at this time of the two power- 
ful orders of Dominican and Franciscan monks. The first 
exacted from the painters more learned and instructive 
work ; the second wished for the crucifixions, the martyr- 
doms, the dramatic deaths, wherewith to move people by 
emotional appeal. To offset this the ultra-religious char- 
acter of painting was encroached upon somewhat by the 
growth of the painters' guilds, and art production largely 
passing into the hands of laymen. In consequence paint- 
ing produced many themes, but, as yet, only after the 
Byzantine style. The painter was more of a workman than 
an artist. The Church had more use for his fingers than for 



his creative aliilitv. It was his husiiiess to transci'il)e wliat 
had gone before. This he did, hut not witliout signs liere 
and tliere of inu'asiness and disroiitent with tile pattern. 




wpNiv' nll^kr F ' % 


:- mE 

^KyiBH^^- '"' ' 

^^' :j' 




iii^B^^fldC^fi*^li^^& 'f / ^^■-''^H^l 





i^ ji^ 

-'i<iSh.A.-itt„.v...,.., . ;_ — 

'GIOTTO ri.i 


There was an inclination toward something truer to nature, 
but, as yet, no great reahzation of it. The study of nature 
came in very slowly, and painting was not positive in state- 
ment until the time of Giotto and Lorenzetti. 

The best paintings during the Gothic period were exe- 
cuted upon the walls of the churches in fresco. The pre- 
pared color was laid on wet plaster, and allowed to soak in. 
The small altar and panel pictures were painted in dis- 
temper, the gold ground and many Byzantine features being 
retained by most of the painters, though discarded by some 



CHANGES IN THE TYPE, ETC.: The advance of Italian art 
in the Gothic age was an advance through the development 
of the imposed Byzantine pattern. It was not a revolt or a 
starting out anew on a wholly original path. When people 
began to stir intellectually the artists found that the old 
Ijyzantine model did not look like nature. They began, 
not by rejecting it, but by improving it, giving it slight 
movements here and there, turning the head, throwing out 
a hand, or shifting the folds of drapery. 'I"he Eastern type 
was still seen in the long pathetic face, oblique eyes, green 
flesh tints, stiff robes, thin fingers, and absence of feet ; 
but the painters now began to modify and enliven it. More 
realistic Italian faces were introduced, architectural and 
landscape backgrounds encroached upon the Byzantine 
gold grounds, even portraiture was taken up. 

This looks very much like realism, but we must not lay 
too much stress upon it. The painters were taking notes 
of natural appearances. It showed in features like the 
hands, feet, and drapery ; but the anatomy of the body had 
not yet been studied, and there is no reason to believe 
their study of the face was more than casual, nor their 
portraits more than records from memory. 

No one painter began this movement. 'I'he whole artis- 
tic region of Italy was at that time ready for the advance. 
That all the painters uKjved at about the same pace, and 
continued to move at that pace down to the fifteenth 
century, that they all based themselves upon Byzanthie 
teaching, and that they all had a similar style of working is 
proved by the great difficulty in attributing their existing 
pictures to certain masters, or even certain schools. There 
are plenty of pictures in Italy to-day that might be at- 
tributed to either Florence or .Sienna, Giotto or Lorenzetti, 
or some other master ; because though each master and each 
school had slight peculiarities, yet they all had a common 
origin in the art traditions of the time. 



FLORENTINE SCHOOL: Cimabue (iJ40?-i,p2?) seems the 
must notable instaiiee in eai'U' times nf a lly/.antiiie-eiliieated 
painter who improved upon the traditions. lie lias l)eeil 
ealled the lather ol Itahan painting, hut Italian painliuj^ 
had no lather. Cinuihue was simply a man of more origi- 
nality and al'ihly than his eontemporaries, and departed 

r-'-^irgy .-''if" 

.\K.\nisR (iih; I -^ 

further from the art teaehin,u;s of the time without decidedly 
opp(.)sinir them. He retained the liyzantiiie pattern, but 
loosened the lines of drapery somewhat, turned the head to 
one side, infused the fi.u^ure with a little appearance of life. 
His contemporaries elsewhere in Italy were doing the same 
thing, and none of them was any more than a link in the 
progressive chain. 



Cimabuc's pupil, Giotto (i266?-i337), was a great im- 
prover on all his predecessors because he was a man of ex- 
traordinary genius. He would have been great in any 
time, and yet he was not great enough to throw off wholly the 
Byzantine traditions. He tried to do it. He studied nat- 
ure in a general way, changed the type of face somewhat 
by making the jaw squarer, and gave it e.xpression and no- 
bility. To the figure he gave more motion, dramatic gest- 
ure, life. The drapery was cast in broader, simpler masses, 
with some regard for line, and the form and movement of 
the body were somewhat emphasized through it. In meth- 
ods Giotto was more knowing, but not essentially different 
from his contemporaries ; his subjects were from the com- 
mon stock of religious story; but his imaginative force and 
invention were his own. Bound by the conventionalities of 
his time he could still create a work of nobility and power. 
He came too early for the highest achievement. He had 
genius, feeling, fancy, almost everything e.xcept accurate 
knowledge of the laws of nature and art. His art was the 
best of its time, but it still lacked, nor did that of his im- 
mediate followers go much beyond it technically. 

Taddeo Gaddi (1300 ?-i366 ?) was Giotto's chief pupil, a 
painter of much feeling, but lacking in the large elements 
of construction and in the dramatic force of his master. 
Agnolo Gaddi (1333 ?-i 396 ?), Antonio Veneziano (131 2 ?- 
138S?), Giovanni da Milano (fl. 1366), Andrea da Firenze 
(fl- 1377), were all followers of the Criotto methods, and 
were so similar in their styles that their works are often 
confused and erroneously attributed. Giottino (1324?- 
1357 ?) was a supposed imitator of Giotto, of whom little 
is known. Orcagua (1329 ?-i376 ?) still further advanced 
the Giottesque type and method. He gathered up and 
united in himself all the art teachings of his time. In 
working out problems of form and in delicacy and charm 
of e.xpression he went beyond his predecessors. He was 



a iiiaiiv-sidcd genius, knowing iml mily in a iiialkT of 
natural apiK-aranci.', but in (.oloi' piobliins, in piTspc'ctivc, 
shailmvs, and light. Ills an turllui- alnni^- toward the 
Renaissance than that of an\' other ( '■iottes(|ae. lie aliiKist 
ehangeil the character of painting", and yet did not live near 
enough to the fifteenth century to accomplish it completely. 
Spinello Aretino (133:: ?-i4io ?) was the last of the great 
('iiotlo followers. He carrieil out the teachings of the 
sciuioi in technical features, such as composition, drawing, 
and relief by color rather than by light, but he lacked the 
creative power of Giotto. In fact, none of the Giottesr^ue 
can be said to have improved upon the master, taking him 
as a whole. Toward the beginning of the fifteenth century 
the school rather declined. 

SIENNESE SCHOOL: The art teachings and traditions of the 
| seemed tleeper rooted at Sienna than at Florence. 
Nor was there so much attempt t<i shake them off as at 
Florence. Giotto broke the immo- 
bilitv of the PJyzantine model by 
showing the draped figure in action. 
So also did the Siennese to some 
e.xtent, but they cared more for the 
expression of the spiritual than the 
beauty of the natural. The Floren- 
tines were robust, resolute, even a 
little coarse at times ; the Siennese 
were more refined and sentimental. 
Their fancy ran to sweetness of face 
rather than to bodily vigor. Again, 
their art was more ornate, richer in costume, color, and de- 
tail than Florentine art ; but it was also more finical and 
narrow in scope. 

There was little advance up(jn Byzantinism in the work 
of Guido da Sienna (fl. 1275). F^ven Duccio (7260 ? — ?), the 
real founder of the Siennese school, retained Byzantine 


methods and adopted the school subjects, but he perfected 
details of form, such as the hands and feet, and while re- 
taining th.^ long Byzantine face, gave it a melancholy ten- 
derness of expression. He possessed no dramatic force, 
but had a refined workmanship for his time — a workmanship 
perhaps better, all told, than that of his Florentine contem- 
porary, Cimabue. Simone di Martino (1283 ?-i344 ?) changed 
the type somewhat by rounding the form. His drawing was 
not always correct, but in color he was good and in detail 
exact and minute. He probably profited somewhat by the 
example of Giotto. 

The Siennese who came the nearest to Giotto's excellence 
were the brothers Ambrogio (fi. 1342) and Pietro (fl. 1350) 
Lorenzetti. There is little known about them except that 
they worked together in a similar manner. The most of 
their work has perished, but what remains shows an 
intellectual grasp equal to any of the age. The Sienna 
frescos by Ambrogio Lorenzetti are strong in facial charac- 
ter, and some of the figures, like that of the white-robed 
Peace, are beautiful in their flow of line. Lippo Memmi 
(?-i356), Bartolo di Fredi (1330-1410), and Taddeo di Bartolo 
(1362-1422), were other painters of the school. The late 
men rather carried detail to excess, and the school grew 
conventional instead of advancing. 

TRANSITION PAINTERS: Several painters. Stamina (1354- 
1413), Gentile da Fabriano (1360 ?-i44o ?), Fra Angelico 
(1387-1455), have been put down in art history as the 
makers of the transition from Gothic to Renaissance paint- 
ing. They hardly deserve the title. There was no transi- 
tion. The development went on, and these painters, coming 
late in the fourteenth century and living into the fifteenth, 
simply showed the changing style, the advance in the study 
of nature and the technic of art. Stamina's work gave 
strong evidence of the study of form, but it was no such 
work as Masaccio's. There is always a little of the past in 



tlu' prcsfiU, .111(1 IIk'Sc painters sliowt'd traces of liy/.aiitiii- 
ism in details ol the laee and l'ii;iire, in eolorin;;', and in j;(ild 

Cientile had all that nieet\' ol hnish and richness of detail 
and color chai'acteristn' ol the Sien- 
nesc. i'lcnii; closer to the Renaissance 
than his predecessors he was more of a 
nature student, lie was the first man 
to show the effect of sunlight in land- 
scape, the first one to put a gold sun 
in the skv. He never, however, out- 
grew Gothic methods and really be- 
longs in the fourteenth century. 'I'liis 
is true of Fra Angelico. Though he 
lived far into the Early Renaissance 
he did not change his style 'and man- 
ner of work in conformity with the 
work of others about him. He was the 
last inheritor of the Giottesque tradi- 
tions. Religious sentiment was the 
strong feature of his art. He was be- 
hind Giotto and Lorenzetti in power 
and in imagination, and behind Or- 
cagna as a painter. He knew little of 
light, shade, perspective, and color, 
and in characterization was feeble, e.x- 
cept in some late work. One face or type answered him for 
all classes of people — a sweet, fair face, full of divine tender- 
ness. His art had enough nature in it to express his mean- 
ings, but little more. He was pre-eminently a devout 
painter, and really the last of the great religionists in 

The other regions of Italy had not at this time devel- 
oped schools of painting of sufficient consequence to men- 

V"^. . *i-T.-j^.A 



PRINCIPAL WORKS : Florentines— Cimabue, Madonnas S. M. 
Novella and Acad. Florence, frescos Upper Churcli of Assisi (?) ; Gi- 
otto, frescos Upper and Lower churches Assisi, best work Arena cha[iel 
Padua, Bardi and Peruzzi chapels S. Croce, injured frescos Pargellu F'lor- 
ence ; Taddeo Gaddi, frescos entrance wall Baroncelli chapel S. Croce, 
Spanish chapel S. M. Novella (designed by Gaddi (?)); Agnolo Gaddi 
frescos in choir S. Croce, S. Jacopo tra F'ossi F'lorence, panel pictures 
Florence Acad.; Giovanni da Milano, Bewailing of Christ F^lorence 
Acad., Virgin enthroned Prato Gal., altar-piece Uffizi Gal., frescos S. 
Croce Florence ; Antonio Veneziano, frescos in ceiling of Spanish 
chapel, S. M. Novella, Campo Santo Pisa ; Orcagna, altar-piece Last 
Judgment and Paradise Strozzi chapel S. M. Novella, S. Zeiiobio Duomo, 
Saints Medici chapel S. Croce, Descent of Holy Spirit Badia Florence, 
altar-piece Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Spinello Aretino, Life of St. Benedict S. 
Miniato al Monte near Florence, Annunciation Convent degl' Innocenti 
Arezzo, frescos Campo Santo Pisa, Coronation Florence Acad., Barbarossa 
frescos Palazzo Publico Sienna ; Andrea da Firenze, Church Militant, 
Calvary, Crucifixion Spanish chapel, Upper series of Life of S. Raniera 
Campo Santo Pisa. 

SiENNESE — Guido da Sienna, Madonna S. Domcnico Sienna ; Duc- 
cio, panels Duomo and Acad. Sienna, Madonna Nat. Gal. Lon.; Simone 
di Martino, frescos Palazzo Pul;l)lico, Sienna, altar-piece and panels Semi- 
nario Vescovile, Pisa Gal., altar-piece and Madonna Opera del Duomo 
Orvieto ; Lippo Memmi, frescos Palazzo del Podesta S. Gemignano, 
Annunciation Uffizi Florence ; Bartolo di Fredi, altar-pieces Acad. 
Sienna, S. Francesco Montalcino ; Taddeo di Bartolo, Palazzo Pubblico 
Sienna, Duomo, S. Gemignano, S. Francesco I'isa ; Ambrogio Loren- 
zetti, frescos Palazzo Pubblico Sienna, Triumph of Death (with Pietro 
Lorenzetti) Campo Santo Pisa, St. Francis frescos Lower Church Assisi, 
S. Francesco and S. Agostino Sienna, Annunciation Sienna Acad., Pres- 
entation Florence Acad.; Pietro Lorenzetti, Virgin S. Ansano, altar- 
pieces Duomo Sienna, Parish Church of Arezzo (worked with his broljier 

TRANSITION PAINTERS; Stamina, frescos Duomo Prato (com- 
pleted by pupil); Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration Florence Acad., 
Coronation Brera Milan, Madonna Duomo Orvieto ; Fra Angelico, Cor- 
onalioTi and many small panels Uffizi, many pieces Life of Christ Florence 
Acad., other pieces S. Marco Florence, Last Judgment Duomo, Orvieto. 

CnAl'TRI>i v\. 



Rooks Ri'Xommendkd : Asbcl\)re, Burckhardt, Crowe and 
Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafencstre, Lanzi, Habich, Lacroix, 
Mantz, Morelli, Burtim, Rumohr, Stillman, Vasari ; also 
Crowe ami Cavalcaselle, History of Paintiiit; in North Italy; 
Berenson, Florentine Painters of Renaissance ; Berenson, I'cnc- 
tian Painters of Renaissance ; Berenson, Central Italian Painters 
oj Renaissance : Bosch in i. La Carta del Navegar ; Calvi, Me- 
mo ric (lella Vita Cil ope re di Francesco Raibolini ; Cibo, Nicciilo 
Aliinno e la scnola Umbra ; Citadella, Notizie relative a Ferrara ; 
Morelli, Anoniiw), Xotizie : Mezzanotte, Coninientario delta Vita 
di Pictro J'anncci ; JNIundler, Essai d'line Analvsi critique de la 
Kotice des tableaux Italiens an Louvre; Muntz, Les Precurseurs 
de la Renaissance ; Muntz, La Renaissance en Ltalie eten France ; 
Patch, Life of Masaccio : Publications of the Arundel Society; 
Richter, Italian Art in National Gallcrv, London; Ridolfi, Le 
Meraviglie delf Arte; Rosini, Storia delta Pittura Italiana; 
Schnaase, Gesehichte der bildendoi Kiinste ; Symonds, Renais- 
sance in Italy — the Fine Arts; Vischer, Lucas Signorclli und 
die Italienische Renaissance ; Waagen, Art Preasures; Waagen, 
Andrea Mantegna und Luca Signorclli (in Raunicr's Taschen- 
buch,{\Z'^o)\ Zanetti, Delia Pittura Veneziana. 

THE ITALIAN MIND: There is no way of explaining the 
Italian fondness for form and color other than by consider- 
ing the necessities of the people and the artistic character 
of the Italian mind. Art in all its phases was not only an 
adornment but a necessity of Christian civilization. The 
Church taught people by sculpture, mosaic, miniature, and 
fresco. It was an object-teaching, a grasping of ideas by 



forms seen in the mind, not a presenting of abstract ideas 
as in literature. Printing was not known. There were few 
manuscripts, and the majority of people could not read. 

Ideas came to them 
for centuries through 
form and color, until 
at last the Italian 
mind took on a plastic 
and pictorial charac- 
ter. It saw things in 
symbolic figures, and 
when the Renaissance 
came and art took the 
lead as one of its 
strongest expressions, 
painting was but the 
col or - thought and 
form - language of the 

And these people, 
by reason of their pe- 
culiar education, were 
an exacting people, 
knowing what was 
good anel demanding 
it from the artists. Every Italian was, in a way, an art 
critic, because every church in Italy was an art school. 
The artists may have led the people, but the people spurred 
on the artists, and so the Italian mind went on developing 
and unfolding until at last it produced the great art of the 

THE AWAKENING: The Italian civilization of the fourteenth 
century was made up of many impulses and inclinations, 
none of them very strongly defined. There was a feeling 
about in the dark, a groping toward the light, but the lead- 


TTAI.tAN l'.AIN'l'IN(".. 59 

ers stunilik'il dftoii on tlu' ruad. 'I'Iutc was '^oihI rcasiiiilor 
it. TIk' knowlcilsj,!' (if the aiuit'iit world lay buried under 
tile rL'.ins of Rdiiii'. 'I'lie Italians had to leai-ii it ail o\'er 
ai;'aiii, almost without a preeedent, almost witliont a pre- 
eeptor. W'ltli tlie llfteeiith eentm-y the horizon l)e_L;an lo 
lirii^liten. The Ivirlv Renaissance was l)ei;ini. it was not 
a revolt, a reaction, or a starting' out on a new path. It was 
a development of the (iotliic period ; and tlie three inclina- 
tions of the Gothic period — reili<;"ion, the desire for classic 
knowledge, and the stiuly of nature — were carried into the 
art of the time with greater realization. 

'Idle inference imist not be made that because nature and 
the antique came to be studied in Early Renaissance times 
that therefore religion was neglected. It was not. It still 
held strong, and though with the Renaissance there came 
about a strange mingling of crime and corruption, xstheti- 
cism and immorality, yet the Church was never abandoned 
for an hcuir. \\'hen enlightenment came, people began to 
doubt the spiritual power of the Papacy. They did not 
cringe to it so servilely as before. Religion was not violently 
embraced as in the Middle Ages, but there was no revolt. 
The Church held the power and was still the patron of art. 
The painter's subjects extended over nature, the antique, the 
fable, allegory, history, portraiture ; but the religious sub- 
ject was not neglected. P'ully three-quarters of all the fif- 
teenth-century painting was d(jne for the Church, at her 
command, and for her purposes. 

But art was not so wdKjlly pietistic as in the Cothic age. 
The study of nature and the antitjue materialized painting 
somewhat. The outside world drew the painter's eyes, and 
the beauty of the religious subject and its sentiment were 
somewhat slurred for the beauty of natural appearances. 
There was some hjss of religious power, but religion had 
much to lose. In the fifteenth century it was still domi- 



of antique learning came about in real earnest during this 
period. The scholars set themselves the task of restoring 
the polite learning of ancient Greece, studying coins and 
marbles, collecting manuscripts, founding libraries and 
schools of philosophy. The wealthy nobles, Palla Strozzi, 


the Albizzi, the Medici, and the Dukes of Urbino, encouraged 
it. In 1440 the Greek was taught in five cities. Immedi- 
ately afterward, with Constantinople falling into the hands 
of the Turks, came an influx of Greek scholars into Italy. 
Then followed the invention of printing and the age of dis- 
covery on land and sea. Not the antique alone but the nat- 
ural were being pried into by the spirit of inquiry. Botany, 
geology, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, anatomy, law, lit- 


cralurc — nothini;' sctnicii to csrapr the kmi vyc of the lime. 
Knowledge was being accuniiilateil froni every soiiree, and 
the arts were all rellecting it. 

The influence of the newly discovered classic marbles 
upon painting was not so great as is usually supposed. The 
painters stmlied them, but ilid not imitate them. Occasion- 
ally in such men as ISotticelli and Mantegna we see a follow- 
ing of sculpturesque example — a taking of details and even 
of whole figures — but the general effect of the antique mar- 
bles was to impress the painters with the idea that nature 
was at the bottom of it all They turned to the earth not 
only to study form and feature, but to learn perspective, 
light, shadow, color — in short, the technical features of art. 
True, religion was the chief subject, but nature and the an- 
tique were used to give it setting. All the fifteenth-century 
painting shows nature study, force, character, sincerity ; but 
it does not show elegance, grace, or the full complement of 
color. The Early Renaissance was the promise of great 
things ; the High Renaissance was the fulfilment. 

FLORENTINE SCHOOL: The Florentines were draughtsmen 
more than colorists. The chief medium was fresco on the 
walls of buildings, and architectural necessities often dic- 
tated the form of compositions. Distemper in easel pict- 
ures was likewise used, and oil-painting, though known, 
was not extensively employed until the last quarter of the 
century. In technical knowledge and intellectual grasp 
Florence was at this time the leader and drew to her many 
artists from neighboring schools. Masaccio (1401 ?-i428 ?) 
was the first great nature student of the Early Renaissance, 
though his master, Masolino (1383-1447), had given proof 
positive of severe nature study in bits of modelling, in 
drapery, and in portrait heads. Masaccio, however, seems 
the first to have gone into it thoroughly and to have 
grasped nature as a whole. His mastery of form, his 
plastic compositi(jn, his free, broad folds of drapery, and his 



knowledge of light and perspective, all placed him in the 
front rank of fifteenth-century painters. Though an exact 
student he was not a literalist. He had a large artistic 

Fir,. 28. — GUlRLANLlAjO. Tf-IE \'l SIT.VTION. I.OU\'RE. 

sense, a breadth of view, and a comprehensi(jn of nature as 
a mass that Michael Angelo and Raphael did not disdain 
to follow. He was not a pietist, and there was no great 
religious feeling m his work. Dignified truthful appear- 
ance was his creed, and in this he was possibly influenced 
by Uonatello the sculptor. 

He came early in the century and died early, but his con- 
temporaries did not continue the advance from where 
he carried it. There was wavering all along the line. 
Some from lack of genius could not equal him, others took 


up nature with iiulfcisit)n, and others chmj^ fondly to the 
,i;oUl-fnibossi.'d ornaments and nililrd halos of the past. 
Paolo Uccello (1,^07 ?-i475), Andrea Castagno (1590-1457), 
Benozzo Gozzoli (14J0 ?-i4()7 ?), Baldovinetti (1427-1499), 
Antonio del Pollajuolo (1420-1498), Cosimo Rosselli (7439- 
1507), can hardly Ik- kiokcd upon as improvements upon 
the \'ounn- leader. 'The hrst real successor of Masaceio 
was his contemporary, and possihiy his pupil, the monk Fra 
Filippo Lippi (i4o()-i469). He was a master of color and 
li,L;ht-ani_l-shaele tor his time, though in composition and 
commanil of hue he did not reach up to Masaceio. He was 
among the first of the painters to take the individual faces 
of those about him as models for his sacred characters, and 
clothe them in contemporary costume. Piety is not very 
pronounced in any of his works, though he is not without 
imagination and feeling, and there is in his women a charm 
of sweetness. His tendency was to materialize the sacred 

With Filippino (1457 ?-iso4), Botticelli (1446-1510), and 
Ghirlandajo (1449-1494) we find a degree of imagination, 
culture, and independence not surpassed by any of the 
Early Florentines. Filippino modelled his art upon that of 
his father, Fra Filippo, and was influenced by Botticelli. 
He was the weakest of the trio, without being by any 
means a weak man. On the contrary, he was an artist of 
fine ability, much charm and tenderness, and considerable 
style, but not a great deal of original force, though occasion- 
ally doing forceful things. Purity in his type and graceful 
sentiment in pose and feature seem more characteristic of 
his work. Botticelli, even, was not so remarkable for his 
strength as for his culture, and an individual way of looking 
at things. He was a pupil of Fra Filippo, a man imbued with 
the religious feeling of Dante and Savonarola, a learned 
student of the antique and one of the first to take subjects 
from it, a severe nature student, and a painter of much 




technical skill. Religion, classicism, and nature all met 
in his work, but the mingling was not perfect. Religious 
feeling and melancholy warped it. His willow}' figures, deli- 
cate and refined in drawing, are more passionate than pow- 
erful, more individual than comprehensive, but the)' are 
nevertheless very attractive in their tenderness and grace. 
Without being so original or so attractive an artist as 
Botticelli, his contemporary, Ghirlandajo, was a stronger 
one. His strength came more from assimilation than from 
invention. He combined in his work all the art learning 
of his time. He drew well, handled drapery simply and 

beautifully, was a good 
composer, and, for 
Florence, a good col- 
orist. In addition, his 
temperament was ro- 
bust, his style digni- 
fied, even grand, and 
his execution wonder- 
fully free. He was the 
most important of the 
fifteenth-century tech- 
nicians, without hav- 
ing an}' peculiar dis- 
tinction or originalit}', 
and in sjMte of being 
rather prosaic at times. 
Verrocchio (1435- 
1488) was more of a 
sculptor than a painter, 
but in his studio were 
three celebrated pupils 
— Perugino, I>eonardo da Vinci, and Lorenzo di Credi — who 
were half-way between the Early and the High Renaissance. 
Only one of them, Leonardo, can be classed among the 




Higli RenaissaiKT nu'ii. rcruniiio lH-l(in.i;s to the Uni- 
hriaii school, and Lorenzo di Credi (i.i5o-i5;,7), tlioii^li 
KlorciUim.-, never oiit.urew llu- lil'teeiitli eenUiry. He was 
a pure painter, with nnieh feeliiiij;, Inil weak at times. I lis 
ilrawin;;" was .u'ood, but Ilis paintinj;' lacked force, and lie was 
too pallid in llesh color. There is nuich detail, stnd)', and 
considt'rahle ijracc about his work, l)nt little of strength. 
Piero di Cosimo (1462-1 52 1) was fond of ni)'th(jl()>;-ical and 
classical stuilies, was soniewdiat fantastic in conipositioii, 
pleasant in color, and rather distinguished in landscape 
backgrounds. His work strikes one as eccentric, and eccen- 
tricity was the strong characteristic of the man. 

UMBRIAN AND PEKUGIAN SCHOOLS: At the beginning of the 
lifteenth centur\- the oki Siennese school founded by Duccio 
and the Lorenzetti was in a state of decline. It had been 
remarkable for intense sentiment, and just what effect this 
sentiment of the old Siennese school hatl upon the painters 
of the neighboring Umbrian sch(j(jl of the early fifteenth 
centurv is matter of speculation with historians. It must 
have had some, though the early painters, like Ottaviano 
Nelli, do not show it. That which afterward became known 
as the Umbrian sentiment probably first appeared in the 
work of Niccolo da Folig'no (1430 ?-i5o2), who was probably 
a pupil of Benozzo Gozzoli, who was, in turn, a pupil of Fra 
Angelico. That would indicate Florentine influence, but 
there were many influences at work in this upper-valley 
country. Sentinient had been prevalent enough all through 
Central Italian painting during the Gothic age — more so at 
Sienna than elsewhere. With the Renaissance Florence 
rather forsook sentiment for precision of forms and equi- 
librium of groups ; but the Umbrian towns being more pro- 
vincial, held fast to their sentiment, their detail, and their 
gold ornamentation. Their influence upon Florence was 
slight, but the influence of Florence upon them was con- 
siderable. The larger city drew the provincials its way to 



learn the new methods. The result was a group of Umbro- 
Florentine painters, combining some up-country sentiment 
wifh Florentine technic. Gentile da Fabriano, Niccolo da 
F'oligno, Bonfiglio (1425 ?-i496 ?), and Fiorenzo di Lorenzo 
(1444 ?-i52o) were of this mixed character. 

The most positive in methods among the early men was 


Piero della Francesca (1420 ?-i492). Umbrian born, but 
Florentine trained, he became more scientific than senti- 
mental, and excelled as a craftsman. He knew drawing, 
perspective, atmosphere, light-and-shade in a way that 
rather foreshadowed Leonardo da Vinci. From working 
in the Umbrian country his influence upon his fellow- 
Umbrians was large. It showed directly in Signorelli 
(1441 ?-iS23), whose master he was, and whose style he 


prohably furnu'd, Siniiorclli was Unibriaii liorn, like I'ici'ii, 
Inil there was not imuh of the I'liibriaii seiitiineiit about 
liini. He was a (b-aunhtsman ami threw his streiiirtli in 
line, pnnlucin;;- atliletic, s(|uare-sh()ul(lereil lij^urcs in violent 
aetion, with eomplicated foreshorteninjjjs ([uite astonishing^. 
The most darinsi; man of his time, he was a master in anat- 
onu', eoniiH)sition, n\otion. There was nothing select about 
his t\'pe, and nothini;' eharmins;' about his painting'. His 
color was hot and coarse, his lights hn"id, his shallows brick 
reil. He was, however, a master-draughtsman, and a man 
of large conceptions and great strength. Melozzo da Forli 
( i4,;8-i494), of whom little is known, was another pupil of 
Tiero, ami Giovanni Santi (1435 ?- 1494), t'^^; father of 
Raphael, was probably intlucnced by both of these last 

■|'he true descent of the Umbrian sentiment was through 
Foligno and Bonfiglio to Perugino (1446-15 24). Signorelli' 
and Perugino seem opposed to each other in their art. The 
tirst was the forerunner of Michael Angelo, the second was 
the master of Raphael ; and the difference betw^een Michael 
Angelo and Raphael was, in a less varied degree, the differ- 
ence between Signorelli and Perugino. The one showed 
Florentine line, the other Uml)rian sentiment and color. It 
is in Perugino that we find the old religious feeling. Fer- 
vor, tenderness, and devotion, with soft eyes, delicate feat- 
ures, and pathetic looks characterized his art. The figure 
was slight, graceful, and in pose sentimentally inclined to 
one side. The head was almost affectedly placed on the 
shoulders, and the round olive face was full of wistful ten- 
derness. This Perugino type, used in all his paintings, is 
well described by 'Paine as a " body Ijelonging to the Re- 
naissance containing a soul that belonged to the Middle 
Ages." The sentiment was more purely human, however, 
than in such a painter, for instance, as Fi^a Angelico. Re- 
ligion still held with Perugincj and the Umbrians, but even 


with them it was becoiniug materialized by the beauty of 
the world about them. 

As a technician Perugino was excellent. There was no 


dramatic fire and fury about him. The composition was 
simple, with graceful figures in repose. The coloring was 
rich, and there were many brilliant effects obtained by the 
use of oils. He was among the first of his school to use 
that medium. His friend and fellow-worker, Pinturricchio 
{1454-1513), did not use oils, but was a superior man in 
fresco. In type and sentiment he was rather like Perugino, 
in composition a little e-\travagant and huddled, in land- 
scape backgrounds quite original and inventive. He never 
was a serious rival of Perugino, though a more varied and 
interesting painter. Perugino's best pupil, after Raphael, 


was Lo Spagna (? is/iO?), ulio IoIIomtiI his iiuisUt's st)'lc 
until llic High Rt'iiaissaiuc, when he bnanic a lolhiwcr 
(if Raphael. 

rara, in the fifteenth eentur)-, seemed to have relied upon 
Padua for their teaehing'. 'I'he best of the early men was 
Cosimo Tura (1425 ?-i49S ?), \\ho slujwed the Patkian inllu- 
enee of Stpiareione in anatomical insistences, coarse joints 
inl'inite detail, and fantastic ornamentation. He was prob- 
ably the foinnler of the school in wdiich Francesco Cossa 
(ll. 1450-1470), a //(i/'f and strong, if somewhat morbid 
painter, Ercole di Giulio Grandi ('-1531), and Lorenzo Costa 
(1460 ?-i5j6) were the princi|xd masters. Cossa and Cirandi, 
It seems, afterward removed to IJologna, and it was prob- 
ably their move that induced Lorenzo Costa t(.i follow them. 
In that way the Ferrarese school became somewhat compli- 
cated with the Bolognese school, and is confused in its his- 
tijry to this day. Costa was not unlikely the real founder, 
or, at the least, the strongest influencer of the Bolognese 
school. He was a painter of a rugged, manly type, afterward 
tempered by Southern influences to softness and sentiment. 
This \vas the result of Paduan methods meeting at Bologna 
with Umbrian sentiment. 

The Perugino type and influence had found its way to 
Bologna, and shoAved in the work of Francia (1450-151S), 
a contemporary and fellow-worker with Costa. Though 
trained as a goldsmith, and learning painting in a different 
school, Francia, as regards his sentiment, belongs in the 
same category with Perugino. Even his subjects, types, 
and treatment were, at times, more Umbrian than Bolog- 
nese. He was not so profound in feeling as Perugino, but 
at times he appeared loftier in conception. His color was 
usually rich, his drawing a bttle sharp at first, as showing 
the goldsmith's hand, the surfaces smooth, the detail elabo- 
rate. Later on, his work had a Raphaelestiue tinge, show- 



ing perhaps the influence of that rising master. It is prob- 
able that Francia at first was influenced by Costa's methods, 
and it is quite certain that he in turn influenced Costa in 
the matter of refined drawing and sentiment, though Costa 
always adhered to a certain detail and ornament coming 
from the north, and a landscape background that is peculiar 
to himself, and yet reminds one of Pinturricchio's land- 
scapes. These tw(j men, Francia and Costa, were the Peru- 
gino and Pinturriccliio of the Ferrara-Bolognese school, and 
the most important painters in that school. 

FIG. 32. — SCHOr.l. OF FRANCI. 


THE LOMBARD SCHOOL : The designation of the Lombard 

school is rather a vague one in the history of painting, and 
is used by historians to cover a number of isolated schools 


or moil in the l.diniiardy ri'nioii. In the fil'tccnth lentuiy 
these sehools counted for hltle either in men or in works. 
The principal aetivit\- was aliout Milan, which drew painters 
from Hrescia, \'incen/.a, and elsewdiere to form wliat is Icnown 
as tile .Mihmese school. Vincenzo Foppa (II. 1455-1492), of 
Hrescia, ani.1 afterward at Milan, was probably the foinider 
of this Milanese school. Mis paintinjj; is of rather a harsh, 
exactin;;' nature, and points to the influence of I'adua, at 
which place he perhaps yot liis early art training. Borg'O- 
gnone ('-1523) is set down as his pupil, a painter of much 
sentiment and spiritual feeling. The school was afterward 
greatly inffueneed by the example of Leonardo da Vinci, as 
will be shown further on. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: Fi.OKENTINES — Masaccio, frescns in ISran- 
c.icci Chapel Cai'iiiitie Flnrence (the series conipleLcil l->y Filijipiin') ; 
Masolino, frescos Cliurch and Baptistery Casligiione d' Olona ; Paolo 
Uccello, frescos S. M. Novella, equestrian portrait Duonio Fhncnce, 
battle-pieces in Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Andrea Castagno, heroes 
and siiivls Utiizi, aUar-piece Acad. Florence, equestrian portrait Du(.)nio 
Florence ; Benozzo Gozzoli, Francesco Montefalco, Magi Ricardi palace 
Florence, frescos Canipo Santo Pisa j Baldovinetti, Portico of the An- 
nunziata Florence, altar-pieces Ufiizi ; Antonio PoUajuolo, Hercules 
Uffizi, St. Sebastian Pitti and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Cosimo Rosselli, frescos 
S. Ambrogio Florence, Sistine Chapel Rome, Madonna Uthzi ; Fra 
Filippo, frescos Cathedral Prato, altar-pieces Florence Acad., Uffizi, Pitti 
and Berlin Gals., Nat. Gal. Lon.; Filippino, frescos Carmine Florence, 
Caraffa Chapel Minerva Rome, S. ^L Novella and Acad. Florence, S. 
Domenico Bologna, easel pictures in Pitti, Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon. Berlin 
Mus., Old Pinacothek Munich ; Botticelli, frescos Sistine Chapel Rome, 
Spring and Coronation Florence Acad., Venus, Calumu)', Madonnas 
Uffizi, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, etc. ; Ghirlandajo, frescos Sistine 
Chapel Rome, S. Trinita F'lorence, S. M. Novella, Palazzo Vecchio, altar- 
pieces Uffizi and .'Vcad. Florence, Visitation Louvre ; Verrocchio, Bap- 
tism of Clirist Acad. Florence ; Lorenzo di Credi, Nativity Acad. Flor- 
ence, Madonnas Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon., Ilcdy Family Borghese Gal. 
Rome; Piero di Cosimo, Perseus and Andromeda Uffizi, Procris Nat. 
Gal. Lon., Venus and Mars Berlin Gal. 

TJ.MBRIANS — Ottaviano Nelli, altar-piece S. M. Nuovo Gubbio, St. 


Augustine legends S. Agostino Gubbio ; Niccol6 da Foligno, altar-piece 
S. Niccoli Foligno ; Bonfigli, frescos Palazzo Comniunale, altar-pieces 
Acad. Perugia ; Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, many pictures Acad. Perugia, Ma- 
donna Berlin Gal.; Piero della Francesca, frescos Comniunila and Hos- 
pital Borgo San Sepolcro, San Francesco Arezzo, Cliapel of tire Relicts Ri- 
mini, portraits Uffizi, pictures Nat. Gal. Lon.; Signorelli, frescos Cathedral 
Orvieto, Sistine Rome, Palazzo Petrucci Sienna, altar-pieces Arezzo, Cor- 
tona, Perugia, pictures Pitti, Uffizi, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Me- 
lozzo da Forli, angels St. Peter's Rome, frescos Vatican, pictures Berlin 
and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Giovanni Santi, Annunciation Milan, Pieta Urbino, 
Madonnas Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon., S. Croce Fano ; Perugino, frescos 
Sistine Rome, Crucifixion S. ]M. Maddalena Florence, Sala del Canibio 
Perugia, altar-pieces Pitti, Fano, Cremona, many pictures in European 
galleries ; Pinturricchio, frescos S. M. del Popolo, Appartamento Borgo 
Vatican, Bufolini Chapel Aracoeli Rome, Duomo Library Sienna, altar- 
pieces Perugia and Sienna Acads., Pitti, Louvre ; Lo Spagna, Madonna 
Lower Church Assisi, frescos at Spoleto, Turin, Perugia, Assisi. 

Ferr.irese and Boi.ognese — Cosimo Tura, allar-i)icces Berlin Mus, 
Bergamo, Museo Correr Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Francesco Cossa 
altar-pieces S. Petronio and Acad. Bologna, Dresden Gal.; Grandi, St 
George Corsini Pal. Rome, several canvases Constabili Collection Ferrara 
Lorenzo Costa, frescos S. Giacomo Maggiore. altar-pieces S. Petronio 
S. Giovanni in Monte and Acad. Bologna, also Louvre, Berlin, and Nat 
Gal. Lon.; Francia, altar-pieces S. Giacomo Maggiore, S. Martino Mag 
giore, and many altar-pieces in Acad. Bologna, Annunciation Brera Milan 
Rose Garden Munich, Pieta Nat. Gal. Lon., Scappi Portrait Uffizi, Bap' 
tism Dresden. 

Lombards — Foppa, altar-pieces S. Maria di Castcllo Savona, Bor- 
romeo Col. Milan. Carmine Brescia, panels Brera Milan; Borgognone, 
altar-pieces Certosa of Pavia, Churcli of Melegnaiio, S. Ambrogio, Am- 
brosian Lib., Brera Milan, Nat. Gal. Lon. 




Rooks Rfoommexdi'D : Those on Italian art Ix'forc nicn- 
tii_infd ; also consult the General Bibliography (page w.) 

PADUAN SCHOOL: It was at I'adua in the north that the in- 
fluence of the classic marbles made itself strongly apparent. 
Umbria remained true to the religious sentiment, Florence 
engageil itself largely with nature study and technical prob- 
lems, introducing here and there draperies and poses that 
showed knowledge of ancient sculpture, but at Padua much 
of the classic in drapery, figures, and architecture seems 
to have been taken directly from the rediscovered antique 
or the modern bronze. 

The early men of the school were hardly great enough to 
call for mention. During the fourteenth century there was 
some Ciiotto influence felt — that painter having been at 
Padua working in the Arena Chapel. Later on there was 
a slight influence from Gentile da Fabriano and his fellow- 
worker Vittore Pisano, of Verona. But these influences 
seem to have died out and the real direction of the school 
in the early fifteenth century was given by Francesco 
Squarcione (1394-1474). He was an enlightened man, a 
student, a collector and an admirer of ancient sculpture, 
and though no great painter himself he taught an anatomi- 
cal statuesque art, based on ancient marbles and nature, 
to many pupils. 



Squarcione's work has perished, but his teaching was re- 
flected in the work of his great pupil Andrea Mantegna 

(1431-1506). Yet Mantegna never received the full com- 

I 1'-.. 33. — :i \ o iiM ( I I (1 1 I 11 J [ \ii\ 

plement of his knowledge from Squarcione. He was of an 
observing nature and probably studied Paolo Uccello and 
Fra Filippo, some of whose works were then in Paduan 
edifices. He gained color knowledge from the Venetian 
P>ellinis, who lived at Padua at one time and who were 
connected with Mantegna by marriage. But the sculpt- 
urescjue side of his art came from Scpiarcione, from a study 
of the antique, and fr(.)ni a deeper study of Donatello, whose 
bronzes to this day are to be seen within and without the 
Paduan Duomo of S. Antonio. 

The sculpturesque is characteristic of Mantegna's work. 
His people are hard, rigid at times, immovable human 
beings, not so nnicli turnetl to stone as turned to bronze — 
the bronze of Donatello, There is little sense of motion 


about them. The Hnure is sIkli|) and harsh, the thapery, 
evidently stiulieil Iroin srul|)liire, is "line)'," and the ar- 
chiiioloyy isiilten more seit'iililic than arlistie. Manlej^na 
was not, lio\ve\'er, entirely dex'oted to the senlptiiresiine. 
He was one o( the se\erest nattn'e students uf the Jiarly 
Renaissanee, knew about nature, and carried it out in 
meire e\actin>; detail than was perhaps well for his art. 
In addition he was a master of liy;ht-and-shade, understood 
eompt)sition, spaee, color, atmosphere, and was as scientific 
in perspective as I'iero della l''rancesea. There is stillness 
in his ligures but nevertheless great truth and character. 
The t\)rms are noble, even grand, and for invention and 
imagination thev were never, in his tiiiie, carried further 
or higher. He was little of a sentimentalist or an emo- 
tionalist, not much of a brush man or a colorist, but as 
a draughtsman, a creator of noble forms, a man <jf power, 
he stooti second to none in the century. 

Of Stpiarcione's other pupils Pizzolo (II. 1470) was the 
most promising, but died early. Marco Zoppo (1445-1498) 
seems to have followed the Paduan formula of hardness, dry- 
ness, and exacting detail. He was possibly influenced by 
Cosimo Tura, and in turn influenced somewhat the Ferrara- 
Bolognese school. Mantegna, however, was the greatest 
of the scho(jl, and his influence was far-reaching. It af- 
fected the school of Venice in matters of drawing, beside 
influencing the Lombard and ^'eronese schools in their 

SCHOOLS OF VERONA AND VICENZA : Artistically Verona be- 
longed with the Venetian provinces, because it was largely 
an echo of Venice except at the very start. Vittore Pisano 
(1380-1456), called Pisanello, was the earliest painter of 
note, but he was not distinctly Veronese in his art. He 
was medallist and painter both, worked with Clentile da 
Fabriano in the Ducal Palace at Venice and elsewhere, and 
his art seems to have an affinity with that of his companion. 



Liberals da Verona (1451-1536?) was at first a miniaturist, 
but afterward developed a larger style based on a following 
of Mantegna's work, with some Venetian influences showing 
in the coloring and backgrounds. Francesco Bonsignori 
(1455-15 19) was of the Verona school, but established 
himself later at Mantua and was under the Mantegna in- 
fluence. His style at first was rather severe, but he after- 
ward developed much ability in portraiture, historical 
work, animals, and architectural features. Francesco 
Caroto (1470-1546), a pupil of Liberale, really belongs to the 


next century — the High Renaissance — but his early works 
show his education in Veronese and Paduan methods. 
In the school of Vicenza the only master of much note 


ill this Karly Renaissaiuc time was Bartolommeo Montagna 

(1450 ?-i5 J3), a painter in both oil and li'esi'd nl imicli 
severity aiul at times yraiuleur cil style. In drawing; lie 
was inlliieneed by JSIantegna, in eomposition aiul colciring 
he showeil a study of (liovanni ISellini and Cirpaccio. 

VENETIAN LIFE AND ART: The conditions of art produc- 
tion in X'enice during the Early Renaissance were cjuite dif- 
ferent from those in Florence or Umbria. By the disposi- 
tion of her people ^'enice was not a learned or devout city. 
Religion, though the chief subject, was not the chief spirit 
of Venetian art. Christianity was accepted by the Venetians, 
but with no feveretl enthusiasm. The Church was strong 
enough there to defy the Papacy at one time, and yet relig- 
ion with the people was perhaps more of a civic function 
or a duty than a spiritual worship. It was sincere in its 
way, and the early painters painted its subjects with honesty, 
but the \'enetians were much too proud and worldly mind- 
ed to take anything very seriously except their own splen- 
dor and their own power. 

Again, the Venetians were not humanists or students of 
the revived classic. They housed manuscripts, harbored 
exiled humanists, received the influx of Greek scholars after 
the fall of Constantinople, and later the celebrated Aldine 
press was established in Venice ; but, for all that, classic 
learning was not the fancy of the Venetians. They made 
no quarrel over the relative merits of Plato and Aristotle, 
dug up no classic marbles, had no revival of learning in a 
Florentine sense. They were merchant princes, winning 
wealth by commerce and expending it lavishly in beautifying 
their island home. Not to attain great learning, but to revel 
in great splendor, seems to have been their aim. Life in the 
sovereign city of the sea was a worthy existence in itself. 
And her geographical and political position aided her pros- 
perity. Unlike Florence she was not torn by contending 
princes within and foreign foes without — at least not to her 



harm. She had her wars, but they were generall}' on distant 
seas. Popery, Paganism, Despotism, all the convulsions of 
Renaissance life threatened but harmed her not. Free and 
independent, her kingdom was the sea, and her livelihood 
commerce, not agriculture. 

The worldly spirit of the Venetian people brought about 
a worldly and lu.xurious art. Nothing in the disposition or 


education of the Venetians called for the severe or the 
intellectual. The demand was for rich decoration that 
would please the senses without stimulating the intellect 
or firing the imagination to any great extent. Line and 
form were not so well suited to them as color — the most 
sensuous of all mediums. Color prevailed through Vene- 
tian art from the very beginning, and was its distinctive 

Where this love of color came from is matter of specula- 


tion. Some sav out nf W'iR'tian skies and waters, ami, 
doubtless, these liad soiiietliinL;' to tin with the N'eiietian 
eolor-sense ; but ^'eniee in its eolor was also an example ot 
the effeet of eommerei' on art. She was a trader with the 
blast from her infane\' — not Constantinople and the li\'/,aii- 
tnie 1-last alone, but baek of tliese tlie old ^biluuumedan l-last, 
whieh for a thousand vears has east its art in edhirs rather 
than in fiu-ms. It was b'astern ornament in mosaics, stuffs, 
porcelains, variegated marbles, brought by ship to \'en ice and 
located in S. Marco, in Murano, and in 'borcelhi, that hrst 
gave the color-impulse to the \'enetians. If b'lorence was 
the heir of Rome and its austere classicism, Venice was the 
heir of Constantinople and its color-charm. The two great 
color spots in Italy at this day are A'enice and Ravenna, 
commercial footholds of the Byzantines in Mediajval and 
Renaissance days. It may be concluded without error tliat 
Venice derived her color-sense and much of her lu.xurious 
and material view of life from the East, 

THE EARLY VENETIAN PAINTERS; Painting began at Venice 
with the fabrication of mosaics and ornamental altar-pieces 
of rich gold stucco-work. The " Creek manner " — that is, 
the Bvzantine — was practised early in the fifteenth centui"y 
by Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, but it did not last 
long. Instead of lingering for a hundred years, as at 
Florence, it died a natural death in the first half of the fif- 
teenth century. Gentile da Fabriano, who was at Venice 
about 1420, painting in the Ducal Palace with I'isano as his 
assistant, may have brought this about. He taught there in 
Venice, was the master of Jacopo Bellini, and if not the 
teacher then the infiuencer of the \'ivarinis of INIurani). 
There were two of the Vivarinis in the early times, so far as 
can be made out, Antonio Vivarini (?-i47o) and Barto- 
lommeo Vivarini (fl. 1450-1499), who worked with Johannes 
Alemannus, a painter of supposed German birth and training. 
They all signed themselves from Murano (an outlying \'e- 



netian island), where they were producing church altars and 
ornaments with some Paduan influence showing in their 
work. They made up the Muranese school, though this 
school was not strongly marked apart either in characteris- 
tics or subjects from the Venetian school, of which it was, in 
fact, a part. 

Bartolommeo was the best of the group, and contended 
long time in rivalry with the Bellinis at Venice, but toward 
1470 he fell away and died comparatively forgotten. Luigi 
Vivarini(fl. 1461-1503) was the latest of this family, and with 

FIG. 36.- 

■\7^■|■ACC10. I'RESRNTA'irO.N (UETAil,). \'ENICR ACAD. 

his death the history of the Muranese merges into the Vene- 
tian school proper, except as it continues to appear in some 
pupils and followers. Of these latter Carlo Crivelli (1430 ?- 


1493?) was tlic only one of nuicli mark. He apparently 
gathered his art from many sourees — ornament and color 
from the Vivarini, a lean and withered type from the early 
I'aduans under Sipiarcione, architecture from Mantegna, 
and a rather repulsive sentiment from the same school. His 
faces were contorted and sulk)', his hands and feet stringy, 
his drawing rather bad ; but he had a transparent color, beau- 
tiful ornamentation and not a little tragic power. 

\enetian art practically dates from the Bellinis. They 
did not begin where the Vivarini left off. The two families 
of painters seem to have started about the same time, worked 
along together from like inspirations, and in somewhat of a 
similar manner as regards the early men. Jacopo Bellini 
(1400 ? -1464 ?) was the pupil of Gentile da Fabriano, and a 
painter of considerable rank. His son. Gentile Bellini (1426 ?- 
1507), was likewise a painter of ability, and an extremely in- 
teresting one on account of his \^enetian subjects painted 
with much open-air effect and knowledge of light and atmos- 
phere. The younger son, Giovanni Bellini (1428 ?-i5i6), was 
the greatest of the family and the true founder of the Vene- 
tian school. 

About the middle of the fifteenth century the Bellini 
family lived at Padua and came in contact with the classic- 
realistic art of Mantegna. In fact, Mantegna married Gio-. 
vanni Bellini's sister, and there was a mingling of family as 
well as of art. There was an influence upon Mantegna of 
Venetian color, and upon the Bellinis of Paduan line. The 
latter showed in Giovanni Bellini's early work, which was 
rather hard, angular in drapery, and anatomical in the 
joints, hands, and feet ; but as the century drew to a close 
this melted away into the growing splendor of Venetian 
color. Giovanni Bellini lived into the sixteenth century, 
but never quite attained the rank of a High Renaissance 
painter. He had religious feeHng, earnestness, honesty, 
simplicity, character, force, knowledge ; but not the full 


complement of brilliancy and painter's power. He went 
beyond all his contemporaries in technical strength and 
color-harmony, and was in fact the epoch-making man of 
eariy Venice. Some of his pictures, like the S. Zaccaria Ma- 
donna, will compare favorably with any work of any age, and his 
landscape backgrounds (see the St. Peter Martyr in the 
National Gallery, London) were rather wonderful for the 
period in which they were produced. 

Of Bellini's contemporaries and followers there were 
many, and as a school there was a similarity of style, sub- 
ject, and color-treatment carrying through them all, with 
individual peculiarities in each painter. After Giovanni 
Bellini comes Carpaccio (?-i522 ?), a younger contemporary, 
about whose history little is known. He worked with Gen- 
tile Bellini, and was undoubtedly influenced by Giovanni 
Bellini. In subject he was more romantic and chivalric 
than religious, though painting a number of altar-pieces. 
The legend was his delight, and his great success, as the 
St. Ursula and St. George pictures in Venice still indicate. 
He was remarkable for his knowledge of architecture, cos- 
tumes, and Oriental settings, put forth in a realistic way, 
with much invention and technical ability in the handling 
of landscape, perspective, light, and color. There is a truth- 
fulness of ap|)earance — an out-of-doors feeling — about his 
work that is quite captivating. In addition, the spirit of 
his art was earnestness, honesty, and sincerity, and even 
the awkward bits of drawing which occasionally appeared 
in his work served to add to the general naive effect of 
the whole. 

Cima da Conegliano (1460 ?-i5i7 ?) was probably a pupil 
of Giovanni Bellini, with some Garpaccio influence about 
him. He was the best of the immediate followers, none 
of whom came up to the master. They were trammelled 
somewhat by being educated in distemper work, and then 
midway in their careers changing to the oil medium, that 



mcHliuni liavin;^- been iLitroiUiced into A'ciiicc by Antonclli) 
da Messina in i 47;,. C'inia's sulijeets were largely half-lenj^rlli 
madonnas, >;iven with slroiii; <|ualiUes of light-aud-shade 


and color. He was not a threat originator, though a man of 
ability. Catena (?-r53r) had a wide reputation in his dav, 
but it came more from a smooth finish and pretty acces- 
sories than from creative power. He imitated Bellini's 
style so well that a number of his pictures pass for works by 
the master even to this day. Later he followed Giorgione 
and Carpaccio. A man possessed of knowledge, he seemed 
to have no original propelling purpose behind him. That 
was largely the make-up of the other men of the school, 
Basaiti (1490-1521 ?), Previtali (i47o?-i525 ?), Bissolo (1464- 


1528), Rondinelli (1440 ?-i5oo?), Diana (?-i5oo ?), Mansueti 
(fl. 1500). 

Antonello da Messina (1444 ?-i493), though Sicilian born, 
is properly classed with the Venetian school. He obtained 
a knowledge of Flemish methods probably from Flemish 
painters or pictures in Italy (he never was a pupil of Jan 
van Eyck, as Vasari relates, and probably never saw Flan- 
ders), and introduced the use of oil as a medium in the 
Venetian school. His early work was Flemish in character, 
and was very accurate and minute. His late work showed 
the influence of the Bellinis. His counter-influence upon 
Venetian portraiture has never been quite justly estimated. 
That fine, e.xact, yet powerful work, of which the Doge 
Loredano by Bellini, in the National Gallery, London, is a 
type, was perhaps brought about by an amalgamation of 
Flemish and Venetian methods, and Antonello was perhaps 
the means of bringing it about. He was an excellent, if 
precise, portrait-painter. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: Paduans— Andrea Mantegna, Eremitani Pa- 
dua, Madonna uf S. -Xeno Verona, St. Sebastian Vienna Mus.. St. 
George Venice Acad., Camera di Sposi Castello di Corte Mantua, Ma- 
donna and Allegories Louvre, Scipio Summer Autumn Nat. Gal. Lon.; 
Pizzoli (with Mantegna), Eremitani Padua ; Marco Zoppo frescos Casa 
Colonna Bologna, Madonna Berlin Gal. 

Veronese and Vicemtine Painters — Vittore Pisano, St. Anthony 
and George Nat. Gal. Lon., St. George S. Anastasia Verona; Liberale 
da Verona, miniatures Duomo Sienna, St. Sebastian Brera Milan. Ma- 
donna Berlin ^{us., other works Duomo and Gal. Vercjna ; Bonsignori, 
S. Bernardino and Gal. Verona, Mantua, and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Caroto, In 
S. Tommaso, S. f^iorgio, S. Caterina and Gal. Verona, Dresden and 
Frankfort Gals.; Montagna, Madonnas Brera, Venice Acad., Bergamo. 
Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre. 

Venetians— Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, all attributions 
doubtful ; Antonio Vivarini and Johannes Alemannus, together altar- 
pieces Venice Acad., S. Zaccaria Venice ; Antonio alone, Adoration of 
Kings Berlin Gal.; Bartolommeo Vivarini, Madonna Bologna Gal. 
(with Antonio), altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Frari, Venice ; Luigi 


Vivarini, Mndoniui llcilin (lal.. iMaii ami Acail. \'cnicc ; Carlo Crivelli, 
Madonnas and allai-iiiocos liicra, Nat. (lal. l,nn., Lalcian, iV-rlin <ials,; 
Jacopo Bellini, Cnicitixiuii Voiuna (lal., SkcU li-houk lirit. Miis. ; Gentile 
Bellini, Cl!|;an Uoors S, Marc<>, I'mccssioii ami Miracle uf Cross Acad. 
\'cnicc. Si. Maik Ihoia ; Giovanni Bellini, many [licUircs in Kurojtean 
L^allcries, .Vcad.. I''raii. S. Zaccaiia SS. (imvaniii c Faolu Venice; Car- 
paccio. I'lOicnlalion and L^sida incUiics Acad,, St. George and St. Je- 
rome S. (iiL'ryioda Schiavone Venice. St. Stc[>lien Berlin (jal.; Cima, 
altar-pieces S. Maria dell Orte, S, Giovanni in Ilragora, Acad. \'enice, 
Louvre, Uerlin, Dresden, Munich, \'ieinia, and ullier galleries ; Catena, 
Altar-pieces S. Sinieone, S. M. Mater Domini, SS. Giovanni e Paolo, 
Acad. Venice, Dresden, and in Nat. Clal. Lon. (tlie Warrior and Horse 
attributed to "'School of ISellini"); Basaiti, Venice Acad. Nat. Gal. 
Lon., \*icnna, and Berlin (ials. ; Previtali, altar-pieces S. Spirito Ber- 
gamo, Brera, Berlin, and Dresden Gals., Nat. Gal. Lon., Venice Acad.; 
BissolOj Resurrection Berlin Gal., S. Caterina Venice Acad. ; Rondinelli, 
two pictures Palazzo Doria Rome, Lloly Family (No. 6) Louvre (attrihuted 
to Giovanni Bellini) ; Diana, Altar-pieces Venice Acad. ; Mansueti, large 
pictures Venice Acad.; Antonella da Messina, Portraits Louvre, Berlin 
and Nat. Gal. Lon., Crucilixion Antwerp Mus. 




Books Recommended : Those on Italian art before men- 
tioned, and also, Berenson, Lorenzo Lofto ; Clement, Michel 
Aih^e, L. da Vinci, RapJiael : Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Titian ; 
same authors, A'<?/>/irtc/; Qnxam.^ Micliael Angela ; Meyer, Cor- 
rei^X'fl '' Muvilz, Leonanlo tla rinci; FassuvAni, /?aj>liael ; Pater, 
Stiiilics in Hislory of Renaissance ; Phillips, Titian: Reumont, 
Andrea del Sarto ; Ricci, Corrci^i^io ; Richter, Leonardo di 
I'inci: Ridolfi, Vita di Paolo Cagliari Veronese; Springer, 
Rafael i/nd Michel Angela ; Symonds, Michael Angela ; Taine, 
Ilalv — Florence and J^enice. 

THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT: The word "Renaissance" 
has a broader meaning than its strict etymology would 
imply. It was a " new birth," but something more than 
the revival of Greek learning and the study of nature en- 
tered into it. It was the grand consummation of Italian 
intellige"ce in many departments — the arrival at maturity 
of the Christian trained mind tempered by the philoso- 
phy of Greece, and the knowledge of the actual world. 
Fully aroused at last, the Italian intellect became incjuisi- 
tivc, inventive, scientific, skeptical — yes, treacherous, immor- 
al, polluted. It questioned all things, doubted where it 
pleased, saturated itself with crime, corruption, and sensual- 
ity, yet bowed at the shrine of the beautiful and knelt at the 
altar of Christianity.' It is an illustration of the contra- 
dictions that may exist when the intellectual, the religious, 



aiul tlu- mummI aiT l)niu^lil tom-lluT, willi tlu' intcllccUKil in 

And that kern Rcnai^sanrc intellect made swift pro)^- 
ress. It renuiilelled the |ilnliiso|ili\' iif (Ireece, and 
ust'il its literatmx- as a mould fnr its nwn. It developed 
Roman law and introduced modern science. The world 

Fir,. 38,- 

\rrror OMMRi"). iir'^crni' from cro?^. iitti. 

without ami the workl within were rediscovered. Land 
and sea, starry sky and planetary system, were fixed upon 
the chart, ^[an himself, the animals, the planets, organic 
and inorganic life, the small things of the earth gave np 
their secrets. Inventions utilized all classes of products, 
commerce flourished, free cities were builded, universities 
arose, learning spread itself on the pages of newdy invented 
books of print, and, perhaps, greatest of all, the arts arose 
on strong wings of life to the very highest altitude. 


For the moral side of the Renaissance intellect it had its 
tastes and refinements, as shown in its high quality of art ; 
but it also had its polluting and degrading features, as shown 
in its political and social life. Religion was visibly weakening 
though the ecclesiastical still held strong. People were 
forgetting the faith of the early days, and taking up with 
the material things about them. They were glorifying the 
human and e.xalting the natural. The story of Clreece was 
being repeated in Italy. And out of this new worship 
came jewels of rarity and beauty, but out of it also came 
faithlessness, corruption, vice. 

Strictly speaking, the Renaissance had been accomplished 
before the year 1500, but so great was its impetus that, in 
the arts at least, it extended half-way through the sixteenth 
century. Then it began to fail through exhaustion. 

MOTIVES AND METHODS: The religious subject still held 
with the painters, but this subject in High-Renaissance 
days did not carry with it the religious feeling as in Gothic 
days. Art had grown to be something else than a teacher 
of the Bible. In the painter's hands it had come to mean 
beauty for its own sake — a picture beautiful for its form 
and color, regardless of its theme. This was the teaching 
of antique art, and the study of nature but increased the 
belief. A new love had arisen in the outer and visible 
world, and when the Church called for altar-pieces the pain- 
ters painted their new love, christened it with a religious 
title, and handed it forth in the name of the old. Thus art 
began to free itself from Church domination and to live 
as an independent beauty. The general motive, then, of 
painting during the High Renaissance, though apparently 
religious from the subject, and in many cases still religious 
in feeling, was largely to show the beauty of form or color, 
in which religion, the antique, and the natural came in as 
modifying elements. 

In technical methods, though extensive work was still 



tldiie in Ircsio, cspt'ciall)' al I'lort'iicr ami Roiiic, yet the 
bulk of Hiijii- Rcnaissaiuc paintinj;' was in oils upon panel 
and canwis. At Waiirc even the deeorative wall paintings 
were upon ean\as, afterward inserted in wall or eeiliii^;'. 

THE FLOKENTINES AND ROMANS: There was a severity 
and austeritN' about the Idorentine art, even at its eliuiax. 
It was never too sensuous and luxurious, but rather exact 
and intellectual. The Florentines were fond of lustreless 
fresco, architectural composition, towering or sweeping 
lines, rather sharp color as compared with the Venetians, 
and theological, classical, even literary and allegorical sub- 


r^^K^ # ^^^^^^^H 


^E^W''* "'^B 


'^' mI 


^^B fit" ., vV 





■ ** 






. '■''Fa *■« 

W jjVik 




jects. Probably this was largely due to the classic bias of 
the painters and the intellectual and social influences of 
Florence and Rome. Line and composition were means of 


expressing abstract thought better than color, though some 
of the Florentines employed both line and color know- 

This was the case with Fra Bartolommeo (1475-1517), a 
monk of San Marco, who was a transition painter from the 
fifteenth to the sixteenth century. He was a religionist, a 
follower of Savonarola, and a man of soul who thought to 
do work of a religious character and feeling ; but he was 
also a fine painter, excelling in composition, drawing, drap- 
ery, color. The painter's element in his work, its material 
and earthly beauty, rather detracted from its spiritual 
significance. He opposed the sensuous and the nude, and 
yet about the only nude he ever painted — a St. Sebastian 
for San Marco — had so much of the earthly about it that 
people forgot the suffering saint in admiring the fine body, 
anil the picture had to be removed from the convent. In 
sucli ways religion in art was gradually undermined, 
not alone by naturalism and classicism but by art itself. 
Fainting brought into life by religion no sooner reached 
maturity than it led people away from religion by pointing 
out sensuous beauties in the type rather than religious 
beauties in the symbol. 

P'ra Bartolommeo was among the last of the pietists in 
art. He had no great imagination, but some feeling and a 
fine color-sense for Florence. Naturally he was influenced 
somewhat by the great ones about him, learning perspective 
from Raphael, grandeur from Michael Angelo, and contours 
from Leonardo da Vinci. He worked in collaboration with 
Albertinelli (1474-1515), a skilled artist and a fellow-pupil 
with Bartolommeo in the workshop of Cosimo Rosselli. Their 
work is so much alike that it is often difficult to distinguish 
the painters apart. Albertinelli was not so devout as his 
companion, but he painted the religious subject with feeling, 
as his Visitation in the Uffizi indicates. Among the follow- 
ers of Bartolommeo and Albertinelli were Fra Paolino (1490- 



1547), Bugiardini (1475-1554), Granacci (1477-154,;), "I"' 

sho\\ci.l iiKun inlliKiKt's.aiul RidolfoGhirlandajo (1 4S ;- 1 561). 

Andrea del Sarto (i4X()-i53i) was a I'loreiUinL- pure and 



simple — a painter for tlie Cliurch, producing many madonnas 
and altar-pieces, and yet possessed of little religious feeling 
or depth. He was a painter more than a pietist, and was 
called by his townsmen " the faultless painter." So he was 
as regards the technical features of his art. He was the 
best brushman and colorist of the Florentine school. Deal- 
ing largely with the material side his craftsmanship was ex- 
cellent and his pictures exuberant with life and color, but 
his madonnas and saints were decidedly of the earth — hand- 
some P"lorentine models garbed as sacred characters — well- 


drawn and easily painted, with little devotional feeling 
about them. He was influenced by other painters to some 
extent. Masaccio, Ghirlandajo, and Michael Angelo were 
his models in drawing ; Leonardo and Bartolommeo in con- 
tours ; while in warmth of color, brush-work, atmospheric and 
landscape effects he was quite by himself. He had a large 
number of pupils and followers, but most of them deserted 
him later on to follow Michael Angelo. Pontormo(i493-i558) 
and Franciabigio (14S2-1525) were among the best of them. 

Michael Angelo^i474-is64) has been called the " Prophet 
of the Renaissance," and perhaps deserves the title, since 
he was more of the Old Testament than the New — more of 
the austere and imperious than the loving or the forgiving. 
There was nosentimental feature about his art. His con- 
ception was intellectual, highly imaginative, mysterious, at 
times disordered and turbulent in its strength. He came 
the nearest to the sublime of any painter in history through 
the sole attribute of power. He had no tenderness nor any 
winning charm. He did not win, but rather commanded. 
Everything he saw or felt was studied for the strength that 
was in it. Religion, Old-Testament history, the antique, 
humanity, all turned in his hands into symbolic forms of 
power, put forth apparently in the white heat of passion, and 
at times in defiance of every rule and tradition of art. Per- 
sonal feeling was very apparent in his work, and in this 
he was as far removed as possible from the Greeks, and 
nearer to what one would call to-day a romanticist. There 
was little of the objective about him. He was not an imi- 
tator of facts but a creator of forms and ideas. His art was 
a reflection of himself — a self-sufficient man, positive, crea- 
tive, standing alone, a law unto himself. 

Technically he was more of a sculptor than a painter. He 
said so himself when Julius commanded him to paint the 
Sistine ceiling, and he told the truth. He was a magnificent 
draughtsman, and drew magnificent sculpturesque figures on 



the Sistinc vault. TlKit was almiit all his achicvcincnt 
with the brush. In coUir, liyht, air, perspective — in all those 
features peculiar to the painter — he was hehinil liis contem- 
poraries. Composition he knew a ,L;reat deal about, and in 
drawing he had the most positive, far-reaching command of 
line of any painter of any time. It was in drawing; that he 
showed his ]H>wer. Even this is severe and harsh at times, 
and then agani hlled with a grace that is majestic and in 
scope universal, as wit- 
ness the Creation of 
Adam in the Sistine. 

lie came out of Flor- 
ence, a pupil of Cihirlan- 
dajo, with a school feel- 
ing for line, stimulated 
by the frescos of Masac- 
cio and Signorelli. At 
an earlv age he declared 
himself, and hewed a 
path of his own through 
art, sn^eeping along with 
him many of the slighter 
painters of his age. 
Long-lived he saw his 
contemporaries die 
about him and Human- 
ism end in bloodshed 
with the coming of the 
Jesuits; but alone, 
gloomy, resolute, stead- 
fast to his belief, he held his way, the last great representa- 
tive of Florentine art, the first great representative of in- 
dividuaUsm in art. With him and after him came many fol- 
lowers who strove to imitate his "terrible style," but they 
did not succeed any too well. 

HG. 41. — 1; \I'H \E1- 



The most of these followers find classification under the 
Mannerists of the Decadence. Of those who were im- 
mediate pupils of Michael Angelo, or carried out his de- 
signs, Daniele da Volterra (1509-1566) was one of the most 
satisfactory. His chief work, the Descent from the Cross, 
was considered by Poussin as one of the three great pict- 
ures of the world. It is sometimes said to have been de- 
signed by Michael Angelo, but that is only a conjecture. It 
has much action and life in it, but is somewhat affected in 
pose and gesture, and Volterra's work generally was de- 
ficient in real energy of conception and execution. Mar- 
cello Venusti (1515-1585?) painted directly from Michael 
Angelo's designs in a delicate and precise way, probably im- 
bibed from his master, Perino del Vaga, and from associa- 
tion with Venetians like Sebastiano del Piombo (1485-1547). 
This last-named painter was born in Venice and trained 
under Bellini and Giorgione, inheriting the color and light- 
and-shade qualities of the Venetians ; but later on he went 
to Rome and came under the influence of Michael Angelo 
and Raphael. He tried, under Michael Angelo's inspira- 
tion it is said, to unite the Florentine grandeur of line 
with the Venetian coloring, and thus outd(j Raphael. It 
was not wholly successful, though resulting in an excellent 
(]uality of art. As a portrait-painter he was above re- 
proach. His early works were rather free in impasto, the 
late ones smooth and shin)', in imitation (jf Raphael. 

Raphael Sanzio (1483-1520) was more (}reek in method 
tlian any of the great Renaissance painters. In subject he 
was not more classic than others of liis time ; he painted 
all subjects. In thought he was not particularly classic ; he 
was chiefly intellectual, with a leaning toward the sensuous 
that was half-pagan. It was in method and expression 
more than elsewhere that he showed the Greek spirit. He 
aimed at the ideal and the universal, independent, so far as 
possible, of the individual, and sought by a union of all 


flements to pro(.luce [KTl'cct harmony. TIk- Harmonist <if 
the Renaissance is iiis title. And tills harmony extended 
io a l)lendiiig of tlioiight, form, and e.vpression, heigiitening 
or modifying every element until they ran together with 
such rhythm that it could not be seen where one left off 
and another began. He was the very opposite of Michael 
Angelo. 'The art of the latter was an expression (jf in- 
dividual power and was purely subjective. Raphael's art 
was largely a unity of objective beauties, with the personal 
element as much in abeyance as was possible for his time. 

His education was a cultivation of every grace of mind 
and hand. He assimilated freely whatever he found to be 
good in the art about him. A pupil of Perugino origi- 
nally, he levied upon features of excellence in Masaccio, Fra 
Bartolommeo, Leonardo, Michael Angelo. From the first 
he got tenderness, from the second drawing, from the third 
color and composition, from the fourth charm, from the 
fifth force. Like an eclectic Greek he drew from all 
sources, and then blended and united these features in a 
peculiar style of his own and stamped them with his pecul- 
iar Raphaelesque stamp. 

hi subject Raphael was religious and mythological, but 
he was imbued with neither of these so far as the initial 
spirit was concerned. He looked at all subjects in a calm, 
intellectual, artistic way. Even the celebrated Sistine 
Madonna is more intellectual than pietistic, a Christian 
ALnerva ruling rather than helping to save the world. 
The same spirit ruled him in classic and theological 
themes. He did not feel them keenly or execute them 
passionately — at least there is no indication of it in his 
work. The doing so would have destroyed unity, sym- 
metry, repose. The theme was ever held in check by a 
regard for proportion and rhythm. To keep all artistic 
elements in perfect equilibrium, allowing no one to pre- 
dominate, seemed the mainspring of his action, and in 



doing this he created that harmony which his admirers 
sometimes refer to as pure beauty. 

For his period and school he was rather remarkable tech- 
nically. He excelled in everything except brush-work, 
which was never brought to maturity in either Florence or 
Rome. Even in color he was fine for Florence, though n(.)t 
equal to the Venetians. In composition, modelling, line, 
even in texture painting (see his portraits) he was a man of 
accomplishment; while in grace, purity, serenity, loftiness 
he was the Florentine leader easily first. 



The influence of Raphael's example was largely felt 
throughout Central Italy, and even at the north, result- 
ing in many imitators and followers, who tried to produce 
Raphaelesque effects. Their efforts were usually success- 
ful in precipitating charm into sweetness and sentiment 
into sentimentality. Francesco Penni (i488?-i528) seems 
to have been content to work under Raphael with some 
ability. Giulio Romano (1492-1546) was the strongest of 
the pupils, and became the founder and leader of the Roman 
school, which had considerable influence upon the painters 
of the Decadence. He adopted the classic subject and 
tried to adopt Raphael's style, but he was not completely 

ITALIAN I'ArN'I'lNf;. 97 

successful. Raphad's rcfiiuiiiciil in Ciiuliu's hamis became 
exaggerated cuarseuess. He was a good draughtsman, Init 
rather liot as a colorist, and a composer of violent, restless, 
and, at times, contortcil groups. He was a prolific painter, 
but his work tended toward the barotpie style, aiul had a 
bad influence on the succeeding schools. 

Primaticcio (1504-1570) was one of his followers, and had 
much to do with the founding of the scIkxjI of l-'ontaine- 
bleau in France. Giovanni da Udine (1487-1564), a ^'enetian 
trained painter, became a follower of Raphael, his only 
originality showing in decorative designs. Perino del Vaga 
(1500-1547) was of the same cast of mind. Andrea Sabbatini 
(i4So?-i545) carried Raphael's types and methods to the 
south of Italy, and some artists at Bologna, and in Umljria, 
like Innocenza da Imola (1494-1550 ?), and Timoteo di Viti 
(1469-1523), adopted the Raphael type and method to the 
detriment of what native talent they may have possessed, 
though about Timoteo there is some tloubt whether he 
adopted Raphael's type, or Raphael his type. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS; Florentines — Fra Bartolommeo, Descent 
from the Cross Salvalor Muiidi St. Mark Pilli, Madonnas and Propliels 
Uftizi, otlier pictures Florence Acad., Louvre, Vienna Gal.; Albertinelli, 
Visitation L^ffizi, Clirist Magdalene Madonna Louvre, Trinity I^Lrdonna 
Florence Acad., Annunciation Munich Gal.; Fra Paolino, works at San 
Spirito Sienna, S. Domenico and S. Paolo Pistoia, >Lrdonna Florence 
Acad.; Bugiardini, Madonna Ufl'izi, St. Catlierine S. M. Novella Flor- 
ence, Nativity Berlin, St. Catiierine Bologna Gal.; Granacci, allar-]iieccs 
Uftizi, Pitti, Acad. Florence, Berlin and Munich Gals.; Ridolfo Ghirlan- 
dajo, S. Zenohio pictures Uffizi, also Louvre and Berlin Gal.; Andrea 
del Sarto, many jiictures in Uffizi and Pitti, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden, 
Madrid, Nat. Gal, Lon., frescos S. Annunziata and the Scalzo F'loience ; 
Pontormo, frescos .Xnnunziata Flr>rence, Visitation and Madonna I^ouvre, 
portrait Berlin Gal.; Supper at Emmaus Florence Acad., other works Uffizi ; 
Franciabigio, fresco.s courts of the Scrvi and Scalzo Florence, Bathsheba 
Dresden Gal., many portraits in Louvre, T^iui, Berlin Gal.; Michael 
Angelo, frescos Sistine Koine, Holy F~aniily Uffizi ; Daniele da Volterra, 



frescos Hist, of Cross Trinita de' Monti Rome, Innocents Ufiizi ; Venusti, 
fruscos Castel San Angelo, S. Spirito Rome, Annuncialion St. John Lat- 
eraii Rome ; Sebastiano del Piombo, Lazarus Nat. Gal. Lon., I'ieta 
\'iterl)0, Fornarina Ulfizi (ascribed to Raphael) Fornarina and Clirist Bear- 
ing Cross Berlin and Dresden Gals., Agatha Pitti, \'isitation Louvre, jior- 
trait Diiria Gal. Rome; Raphael, Marriage of Virgin Brera, Madonna 
and Vision of Knight Nat. Gal. Lon., Madonnas St. Michael and St. 
George Lou\'re, many Madonnas and }")ortraits in Uffizi, Pitti, Munich, 
Vienna, St. Petershurgh, Madrid Gals., Sistine Madonna Dresden, chief 
frescos Vatican Rome. 

RoM.\NS : Giulio Romano, frescos Sala di Constantino \'atican Rome 
(with Francesco Penni after Ra[iliael), Palazzo del Te Mantua, St. Stephen, 
S Slefano Genoa, Holy Family Dresden Gal., other works in Louvre, 
Nat. C;al. Lon., Pitti, Ultizi ; Primaticcio, works attributed to him doubt- 
ful — Scipio Louvre, Lady at Toilet and Venus Musee de Cluny ; Giovanni 
da Udine, decorations, aral.)esques aiul grotesques in Vatican Loggia; 
Perino del Vaga, Hist, of Josliua and David Vatican (with Raphael). 
Irescos TrinitA de' Monli and Caslcl S. Angelo Rome, Creation of Eve 
S. Marcello Rome ; Sabbatini, Adoration Naples Mus., altar-pieces in 
Naples and Salerno churches ; Innocenza da Imola, works in Bologna, 
Berlin and Munich Gals.; Timoteo di Viti, Church of ihe I'ace Rome 
(after Raphael), niad.iinias and Magdalene lirera, .Acad, of St. Luke 
Rome, Boli.gna Gal., S. Donienico Urbino, Gubbio Cathedial. 



Till". !lir,H AN'l'l''., 150O-160O. — ( ilN'll X U I'.l). 

Fmhiks Rl',^■(lM^[F.^•|)F.l> : 'Vhc works on Italian art hcfoix 
nicntiiincil and consult alsu the Ocncral liililiograpliy (p. xv.) 

son ni tlie great Florentine trinity of painters \\"as Leonardo 
da Vinci (1452-1519), the other two being Michael Angelo 
and Raphael. He greatly innueneed the school of Milan, 
and has usually been classed with the Milanese, vet he 
was educated in Florence, in the workshop of Verroechio, 
and was so universal in thought and methods that he hardly 
belongs to any school. 

He has been named a realist, an idealist, a magician, a 
wizard, a dreamer, and finally a scientist, by different writers, 
yet he was none of these things wdiile feeing all of them — a 
full-r(junded, universal man, learned in many departments 
and excelling in whatever he unilertook. He had the scien- 
tific and experimental way <jf hjoking at things. That is 
|)erhaps to be regretted, since it resulted in his experiment- 
ing with everything and completing little of anything. His 
different tastes and pursuits pulled him different ways, and 
his knowledge made him sceptical of his own powers. He 
pondered and thought h(jw to reach up higher, how to jiene- 
trate deeper, how to realize more comprehensively, and in 
the end he .gave up in des|)air. He could not fulfil his ideal 
of the head of Christ nor the head of Mona Lisa, and after 



years of labor he left them unfinished. The problem of 
human life, the spirit, the world engrossed him, and all his 
creations seem impregnated with the psychological, the 
mystical, the unattainable, the hidden. 

He was no religionist, though painting the religious sub- 
ject with feeling ; he was not in any sense a classicist, 
nor had he any care for the antique marbles, which he con- 
sidered a study of nature at second-hand. He was more in 
love with physical life withcjut being an enthusiast over it. 
His regard for contours, rhythm of line, blend of light with 
shade, study of atmosphere, perspective, trees, animals, hu- 
manity, show that though he examined nature scientifically, 
he pictured it lesthetically. In his types there is much 


swct'tness of soul, rliarni nl disposilion, (lii;iiily dI mien, even 
>;"raiulcur and majcst\' ol inisciu r. His people \\i- woulil 
like to know better. 'I'Iua' are lull of life, iiitellii;eiiee, syni- 
patliv ; tliev lia\'e faseinallon of manner, wnisonieness of 
mood, ^I'aee of l>earin^. \\'e see this in Ins hesl-known 
work — the Mona Lisa of the Louvre. It has mueh allure- 
ment of personal presence, with a depth and abmidanee of 
soul altogether charmnij;;. 

Technically, Leonardo was not a handler of the brush 
superior m any way to his Florentine contemporaries. He 
knew all the methods ami mediums of the time, and did 
much to establish oil-painting among' the I'doreiitines, but he 
was neyer a painter like 'Litian, or even Correggio or .\iidrea 
del Sarto. A splendid draughtsman, a man of invention, 
imagination, .grace, elegance, and power, he nevertheless 
carried more by mental penetration and aasthetic sense than 
by his technical skill. He was one of the great men of the 
Renaissance, and deservedly holds a place in the front rank. 

'J'hough Leonardo's accomplishment seems slight because 
of the little that is left to us, yet he had a great following 
not only among the Florentines but at Milan, where ^'in- 
cenza F'oppa had started a school in the Early Renaissance 
time. Leonardo was there for fourteen years, and his artistic 
personality influenced many painters to adopt his type and 
methods. Bernardino Luini ( 1475 ?-i5,?3 ?) "'is the most 
prominent of the disciples. He cultivated Leonardo's sen- 
timent, style, subjects, and composition in his middle period, 
but later on developed independence and originality. He 
came at a period of art when that earnestness of characteri- 
zation which marked the early men was giving way to grace- 
fulness of recitation, and that was the chief feature of his art. 
For that matter gracefulness and pathetic sweetness of 
mood, with purity of line and warmth of color characterized 
all the Milanese painters. 

The more ])r<jminent lights of the school were Salaino 



(tl. 1495-151S), of whose work nothing authentic exists, 
Beltraffio (1467-1516), a painter of limitations but of much 
refinement and purity, and Marco da Oggiono (i47o?-iS3o) a 
close follower of Leonardo. Solario (1458 ?-i5i5 ?) probably 
became acquainted early with the Flemish mode of working 


practised by Antonello da Messina, but he afterward came 
under Leonardo's spell at Milan. He was a careful, refined 
painter, possessed of feeling and tenderness, producing pict- 
ures with enamelled surfaces and much detail. Giampietrino 
(fl. 1520-1540) and Cesare da Sesto (1485 ?-i523 ?) were also 
of the Milanese school, the latter afterward falling under the 
Raphael influence. Gaudenzio Ferrara (r48i ?-i547 ?), an 
exceptionally brilliant colorist and a painter of much dis- 


tiiictiiHi, w. IS under 1 .(.■miardo's iiilliK'HCc at oiu' tiuic, anil 
with the teachings of that master he nniij;'le(l a little of 
Raphael in tlie t\|H' of face. lie was an uneven painter, 
olten e\eessi\'e ni sentiment, but at his best one oi the most 
charniiuL;- of the nortlu'rn painters. 

SODOMA AND THE SIENNESE : Sienna, alive in the four- 
teenth eenlur\- to all that was stirring in art, in the fifteenth 
century was in complete eclipse, no jiainters of consequence 
emanating from there or being established there. In the 
sixteenth centur\- there was a revival of art l)ecause of a 
northern painter settling there and building up a new school. 
Idiis painter was Sodoma (1477 ?-l549). He was one of the 
best pupils of I,eonartlo da \'inci, a master (ji the human 
figure, handling it with much grace and charm (jf expression, 
but not so successful with groups or studied compositions, 
wherein he was inclined to huddle and over-crowd space. 
He was afterward led off l)y the brilliant success of Raphael, 
and ath")pted something of that master's style. His best work 
was done in fresco, though he did some easel pictures that 
have darkened very much through time. He was a friend 
of Raphael, and his portrait appears beside Raphael's in the 
latter painter's celebrated School of Athens. The pupils 
and followers of the Siennese School were not men of great 
strength. Pacchiarotta (1474-1540 ?), Girolamo della Pacchia 
(1477-1535), Peruzzi (1481-1536), a half-Lombard half- 
Umbrian painter of ahjility, and Beccafumi ( i 4S6-1 55 i) were 
the principal lights. The influence of the school was slight. 

schools during the sixteenth century have usually l^een 
classed among the followers and imitators of Raphael, but 
not without some injustice. The influence of Raphael was 
great throughout Central Italy, and the Ferrarese and 
Bolognese felt it, but not to the extinction of their native 
thought and methods. Moreover, there was some influence 
in color coming from the Venetian school, but again not to 



the entire extinction of Ferrarese individuality. Dosso Dossi 
(1479 ?-i542), at Ferrara, a pupil of Lorenzo Costa, was the 
chief painter of the time, and he showed more of Giorgione 
in color and light-and-shade than anyone else, yet he never 
abandoned the yellows, greens, and reds peculiar to Ferrara, 
and both he and Garofolo were strikingly original in their 
background landscapes. Garofolo (1481-1559) was a pupil 
of Panetti and Costa, who made several visits to Rome and 
there fell in love with Raphael's work, which showed in a 
fondness for the sweep and flow of line, in the type of face 


adopted, and in the calmness of his many easel pictures. He 
was not so dramatic a painter as Dosso, and in addition he 
had certain mannerisms oi' earmarks such as sootiness in 


his llesh tints and hri^litnoss in his yrllows and i;ricns, w itli 
duhiess in his reds. He was always l-'rrrarrsc in liis land- 
scapes and in the main eharaetenstii'S ol his teehnie. Maz- 
zolino (1480 ?-i 52S ?) was another of the sehoiil, |)|-()i)ably 
a |ni|iil of Tanetti. He was an elaborate painter, tond of 
arehiteettiral baekyronndsand ylowin;^- colors enlivenetl with 
,L;-old in the high lights. Bagnacavallo ( 14S4-1 542) was a 
|")upil of l'"rancia at liologna, but with much of Dossoand 
Ferrara about him. He, in common with Imola, already 
ineiitioneel, was indebted to the art of Raphael. 

COKREGGIO AT PAEMA : In Correggio (i494?-i534) all the 
Hoceaceio nature of the Renaissance came to the surlace. 
It was indicated in Ainlrea tlel Sarto — this nature-worship- - 
btit Correggio was the consummation. He was the Kaun of 
the Renaissance, the painter with whom the beauty of the 
human as distinguished from the religious and the classic 
showed at its very strongest. Free annual spirits, laughing 
madonnas, raving nymphs, e.xciteel children of the wood, 
and angels of the sky pass and repass through his pictures 
in an atmosi)here of pure sensuousness. They appeal to us 
ncit religiouslv, not historicallv, not intellectually, but sen- 
suouslv and artistically through their rhythmic lines, their 
palpitating flesh, their beauty of color, and in the light and 
atmosphere that surround them. He was less of a religion- 
ist than Andrea del Sarto. Religion in art was losing 
ground in his day, and the liberality and worldliness of 
its teachers appeared clearly enough in the decorations of 
the Convent of St. Paul at Parma, where Correggio was 
allowed to paint mythological Dianas and Cupids in the 
place of saints and inadonnas. True enough, he painted 
the religious subject very often, but with the same spirit 
of life and joyousness as profane subjects. 

The classic subject seemed more appropriate to his 
spirit, and yet he knew and probably cared less about it 
than the religious subject. His Dianas and Fedas are only 



so in name. They have little of the Hellenic spirit about 
them, and for the sterner, heroic phases of classicism — the 
lofty, the grand — Correggio never essayed them. The things 


of this earth and the sweetness thereof seemed ever his 
aim. Women and children were beautiful to him in the 
same way that flowers and trees and skies and sunsets were 
beautiful. 'I'hey were revelations of grace, charsn, tender- 
ness, light, shade, color. Simply to e.xist and be .glad in the 
sunlight was sweetness to Correggio. He would have no 
Sibylesque mystery, no prophetic austerity, no solemnity, 
no great intellectuality. He was no leader of a tragic 
chorus. The dramatic, the forceful, the powerful, were 
foreign to his mood. He was a singer of lyrics and 


pastorals, a lover of the iiuilcrial l)rauty ahiiiil liiiii, and it 
is because he passed by the pietistie, the classic, the bt- 
erarv, ami showed the beauty of ph\-sical life as an art 
uiotive that he is called the h'aun of the Renaissance. The 
appellation is not inappi'opriate. 

How or why he came to take this course would be hard 
to determine. It was rellective of the times ; but Corregj^no, 
so far as history tells us, had little to do with the move- 
ments and people of his age. He was born and lived and 
died near Parma, and is sometimes classed among- the 
ISologna-Ferrara painters, but the reasons for the classi- 
t'lcation are not too strong. His education, masters, and 
intluenccs are all shadowy and indefinite. He seems, from 
his drawing and composition, to have known something of 
Mantegna at Mantua ; from his coloring something of Dosso 
and Garofolo, especially in his straw-yellows ; from his early 
tvpes and faces something of Costa and Francia, and his 
contours and light-and-shade indicate a knowledge of Leon- 
ardo's work. But there is no positive certainty that he saw 
the work of any of these men. 

His drawing was faulty at times, but not obtrusively so ; 
his color and brush-work rich, vivacious, spirited ; his light 
brilliant, warm, penetrating ; his contours melting, grace- 
ful ; his atmosphere omnipresent, enveloping. In composi- 
tion he rather pushed aside line in favor of light and color. 
It was his technical peculiarity that he centralized his light 
and surrounded it by darks as a foil. And in this very feat- 
ure he was (jne of the first men in Renaissance Italy to paint 
a picture for the purpose of weaving a scheme of lights and 
darks through a tapestry of rich colors. That is art for 
art's sake, and that, as will be seen further on, was the 
picture motive of the great Venetians. 

Correggio's immediate pupils and followers, like those of 
Raphael and Andrea del Sarto, did him small honor. As 
was usually the case in Renaissance art-history they 


caught at the method and lost the spirit of the master. 
His son, Pomponio Allegpri (1521-1593 ?), was a painter of 
some mark without being in the front rank. Michelangelo 
Anselmi (i 491-15 54 ?), thougli not a pupil, was an indifferent 
imitator of Correggio. Parmig'ianino (1504-1540), a man- 
nered painter of some brilliancy, and of excellence in 
portraits, was perhaps the best of the immediate followers, 
ft was not until after Correggio's death, and with the 
painters of the Decadence, that his work was seriously taken 
up and followed. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS : Milanese — Leonardo da Vinci, Last Suppev S. 
M. (lelle Gvazie Rlil.ui (in ruins), Mona Lisa, Madonna with St. Anne 
(liadly damaged) Louvre, Adoralion (unfinished) Ufiizi, Angel at left in 
\'erruecliio's Baptism Florence Acad.; Luini, frescos Monastero Maggiore, 
y I fiagments in Brera Milan, Cluncli of the Pilgrims Sariona, S. AL degli 
Angeli Lugano, altar-pieces Duonio Como, Ambrosian Lilirary Milan, 
Brera, Ufiizi, Louvre, i\Iadrid, St. Petersburg)!, and other galleries ; 
Beltraffio, Madonna Li>uvre, Barljara Berlin Gab, INIadonna Nat. Gal. 
I.on., fresco C<)nvent of S. Onofrio Rome {ascribed to Da Vinci) ; Marco 
da Oggiono, Arclmngels and otlicr works Brera, Holy Family Madonna 
Louvre; Solario, Fcce Iloino Repose Poldi-Pezzoli Gal. Milan, Holy 
Family Brera, Madonna Portrait Louvre, Portraits Nat. Gal. L(.in., 
Assumption Certosa of Pavia ; Giampietrino, Magdalene Brera, Ma- 
donna S. Sepolcro Milan, Magdalene and Catherine Berlin Gab ; Cesare 
da Sesto, Madonna Brera, Magi Naples Mus. ; Gaudenzio Ferrara, 
frescijs Clitirch of Pilgrims Saronna, other jucturcs in Brera, Turin Gab, 
S. Cbrudeuzio Novara, S. Celso Milan. 

SiENNESE — Sodoma, frescris Convent of St. Anne near Pienza, 
Benedictine Convent of Mont' Oli\'cto Maggiore, Alexander and Roxana 
\^il]a Farnesina Rome, S. Bernardino Palazzo Pubblico, S. Doinenico 
Sienna, pictures Uffizi, Brera, ^Munich, Vienna Gals, ; Pacchiarotto, 
Ascension Visitation Sienna Gal. ; Girolamo del Pacchia, frescos (3) S. 
Bernardino, altar-pieces S. Spirito and Sienna Acad., Munich and Nat. Gal. 
Lon. ; Peruzzi, fresco Fontegiuste Sienna, S. Onofrio, S. M. della Pace 
Rome; Beccafumi, St. Catherine Saints Sienna Acad., frescos S. 
Bernardino Hospital and S. Martino Sienna, Palazzo Doria Rome, Pitti, 
Berlin, Munich Gals. 

Ferrarese and Bolognese — Dosso Dossi, many works Ferrara, 


Moilena (kiIs., nuoino S. I'iclin MndL-iui, llieia, lioi^liese, 1 )nria, iScilin, 
UtesJen, Vicnn:i. r.nls. ; Garofolo, m:\ny wmks I iiiai a clmicln-S ami, llnri^hoso, Cain])i<^ilon!i,>, Lcuimc, ML'tlin, Uics.lcn, Munich, Nat. 
tial. I. on. ; Mazzolino, I'cnaia, IJcrlin, Dresden, Louvre, 1 )uria, 
li.'ighese, Pitti, UlVizi, anii Nat. (lai. Lon. ; Bagnacavallo, Miseiienidia 
and Gal. lx>L>i^iKi, Luuvio, ISeilin, I )iesden Clals. 

Larmesk — Correggio, frescos Convent of S, I'aolo, S. (iinvanni 
Evangelista, Ituonio Parma, altar-pieces Diesden (4), Parma (lals., 
Louvre, niyilioloi^ical jucUues Antio]ie Lmivre, Danae Borghese, Lcda 
Jupiter and L' Perlin, \'cnus Mercury and Ciipitl Nat, Gal. Lun., <;any- 
meile \'ienna Gal. ; Pomponio AUegri, frescos Ca])elia del Pupulu 
I'.irma ; Anselmi, frcsc'S S. Giovanni I'',vangelista, altar-ineces 
Madonna della Steccata, Duonio, Gal. Parma, Louvre ; Parmigianino, 
frescos Moses Steccata, S. Giovanni Parma, altar-pieces Santa Mar- 
glierita, Bologna Gal., Madonna Pitti, portraits UtVizi, Vienna, Naples 
Mus., other works Dresden, Vienna, and Nat. Gal. Lon. 


THE HIGH RENAISSANCE. 1500-1600. {Continued^ 

Books Recojimended : The works on Italian art before 
mentioned and also consult General Bibliography, (page xv.) 

THE VENETIAN SCHOOL ; It was at Venice and with the 
Venetian painters of the sixteenth century that a new art- 
motive was finally and fully adopted. This art-motive was 
not religion. For though the religious subject was still 
largely used, the religious or pietistic belief was not with 
the Venetians any more than with Correggio. It was not 
a classic, antique, realistic, or naturalistic motive. The 
Venetians were interested in all phases of nature, and 
they were students of nature, but not students of truth for 
truth's sake. 

What they sought, primaril)', was the light and shade on 
a nude shoulder, the delicate contours of a form, the flow 
and fall of silk or brocade, the richness of a robe, a scheme 
of color or of light, the character of a face, the majesty of 
a figure. They were seeking effects of line, light, color — 
mere sensuous and pictorial effects, in which religion and 
classicism played secondary parts. They believed in art 
for art's sake ; that painting was a creation, not an illustra- 
tion ; that it should exist by its pictorial beauties, not by its 
subject or story. No matter what their subjects, they 
invariably painted them so as to show the beauties they 
prized the highest. The Venetian conception was less 


I I I 

austere, i^raiul, intellei liial, tliaii pictorial, sensiunis, toii- 
ceriiin;^- the beautiful as it apjiealetl to the eye. And tins 
was not a sliyiit or uiiwortliy eoneeption. True it dealt 


with the fuhiess of material life, but regarded as it was by 
the Venetians — a thing full-rounded, complete, harmonious, 
splendid — it became a great ideal of e.xistence. 

In technical expression color was the note of all the 
school, with hardly an exception. This in itself would 
seem to imply a lightness of spirit, for color is somehow 
associated in the popular mind with decorative gayety; but 
nothing could be further removed from the Venetian school 
than triviality. Color was taken up with the greatest 
seriousness, and handled in such masses and with such 


dignified power that while it pleased it also awed the spec- 
tator. Without having quite the severity of line, some of 
the Venetian chromatic schemes rise in sublimity almost to 
the Sistine modellings of Michael Angelo. We do not feel 
this so much in Giovanni Bellini, fine in color as he was. 
He came too early for the full splendor, but he left many 
pupils who completed what he had inaugurated. 

THE GKEAT VENETIANS ; The most positive in influence 
upon his contemporaries of all the great Venetians was 
Giorgione (1477 ?-i5ii). He died young, and what few 
pictures by him are left to us have been so torn to pieces 
by historical criticism that at times one begins to doubt if 
there ever was such a painter. His different styles have 
been confused, and his pictures in consequence thereof 
attributed to followers instead of to the master. Painters 
change their styles, but seldom their original bent of mind. 
With Giorgione there was a lyric feeling as shown in 
music. The voluptuous swell of line, the melting tone of 
color, the sharp dash of light, the undercurrent of atmos- 
phere, all mingled for him into radiant melody. He 
sought pure pictorial beauty and found it in everything 
of nature. He had little grasp of the purely intellectual, 
and the religious was something he dealt with in no strong 
devotional way. The fete, the concert, the fable, the 
legend, with a landscape setting, made a stronger appeal to 
him. More of a recorder than a thinker he was not the less 
a leader showing the way into that new Arcadian grove 
of pleasure whose inhabitants thought not of creeds and 
faiths and histories and literatures, but were content to 
lead the life that was sweet in its glow and warmth of color, 
its light, its shadows, its bending trees, and arching skies. 
A strong full-blooded race, sober-minded, dignified, ration- 
ally happy with their lot, Giorgione portrayed them with an 
art infinite in variety and consummate in skill. Their least 
features under his brush seemed to glow like jewels. The 


I r 

sheen of armor and rich rohc, a bare forearm, a nude 
back, or loosened hair — mere morsels of color and lij.;iit — 
all took on a new beaiit)'. Even iantlseape with him became 
more signilieanl. His master, liellini, hail been realistic 
eiuiu^h in the details of trees and hills, but (".ior^none 
t;rasped the meaning of landscape as an entirety, and ren- 
dered it with poetic breadth. 

Technically he adopted the oil medium brought to \'enice 


by Antonello da jNfessina, introducing scumbling and glaz- 
ing t(j obtain brilliancy and depth of color. Of light-and- 
shade he was a master, and in atmosphere excellent. He, 
in common with all the Venetians, is sometimes said to be 
lacking in drawing, but that is the result of a misunder- 
standing. The Venetians never cared to accent line, choos- 
ing rather to model in masses of light and shadow and 
color. Giorgione was a superior man with the brush, but 
not quite up to his contemporary Titian. 

That is not surprising, for Titian (1477-1576) was the 


painter easily first in the wliole range of Italian art. He 
was the first man in the history of painting to handle a brush 
with freedom, vigor, and gusto. And Titian's brush-work 
was probably the least part of his genius. Calm in mood, 
dignified, and often majestic in conception, learned beyond 
all others in his craft, he mingled thought, feeling, color, 
brush-work into one grand and glowing whole. He em- 
phasized nothing, yet elevated everything. In pure intel- 
lectual thought he was not so strong as Raphael. He never 
sought to make painting a vehicle for theological, literary, 
or classical ideas. His tale was largely of humanity under 
a religious or classical name, but a noble, majestic humanity. 
In his art dignified senators, stern doges, and solemn eccle- 
siastics mingle with open-eyed madonnas, winning Ariadnes, 
and youthful Bacchuses. Men and women they are truly, 
but the very noblest of the Italian race, the mountain race 
of the Cadore country — proud, active, glowing with life ; the 
sea race of Venice — worldly wise, full of character, luxurious 
in power. 

In himself he was an epitome of all the excellences of 
painting. He was everything, the sum of Venetian skill, 
the crowning genius of Renaissance art. He had force, 
power, invention, imagination, point of view ; he had the 
infinite knowledge of nature and the infinite mastery of art. 
In addition, Fortune smiled upon him as upon a favorite 
child. Trained in mind and hand he lived for ninety-nine 
years and worked unceasingly up to a few months of his 
death. His genius was great and his accomplishment 
equally so. He was celebrated and independent at thirty- 
five, though before that he showed something of the influ- 
ence of Giorgione. After the death of Giorgione and his 
master, Bellini, Titian was the leader in Venice to the end 
of his long life, and though having few scholars of impor- 
tance his influence was spread through all North Italian 



Takin;^ him for all in all, perhaps it is not t(jo nuK'.ii to say 
that he was the greatest painter known to history. If it 
were |H)ssil)le to deseribe that greatness in one word, that 
word woLikl be " universality." lie saw and painted that 
whieh imiversal in its trtith. The loeal and particular, 
the small and the accidental, were passed over for those 
threat truths which belonj;' to all the world of life. In this 
respect he was a veritable Shakespeare, with all the calmness 


and repose of one who overlooked the world from a lofty 

The restfulness and easy strength of Titian were not 
characteristics of his follower Tintoretto (1518-1592). He 


was violent, headlong, impulsive, more impetuous than 
Michael Angelo, and in some respects a strong reminder of 
him. He had not Michael Angelo's austerity, and there 
was more clash and tumult and fire about him, but he had 
a command of line like the Florentine, and a way of hurling 
things, as seen in the Fall of the Damned, that reminds 
one of the Last Judgment of the Sistine. It was his aim to 
combine the line of Michael Angelo and the color of Titian ; 
but without reaching up to either of his models he pro- 
duced a powerful amalgam of his own. 

He was one of the very great artists of the world, and 
the most rapid workman in the whole Renaissance period. 
There are to-day, after centuries of decay, fire, theft, and 
repainting, yards upon yards of Tintoretto's canvases rot- 
ting upon the walls of the Venetian churches. He pro- 
duced an enormous amount of work, and, what is to be 
regretted, much of it was contract work or experimental 
sketching. This has given his art a rather bad name, but 
judged by his best works in the Ducal Palace and the 
Academy at Venice, he will not be found lacking. Even 
in his masterpiece (The Miracle of the Slave) he is " II 
Furioso," as they used to call him ; but his thunderbolt 
style is held in check by wonderful grace, strength of 
modelling, superb contrasts of light with shade, and a 
coloring of flesh and robes not unworthy of the very 
greatest. He was a man who worked in the white heat of 
passion, with much imagination and invention. As a tech- 
nician he sought difficulties rather than avoided them. 
There is some antagonism between form and color, but 
'I'intoretto tried to reconcile them. The result was some- 
times clashing, but no one could have done better with 
them than he did. He was a fine draughtsman, a good 
colorist, and a master of light. As a brushman he was a 
superior man, but not equal to Titian. 

Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), the fourth great Venetian, 



did nol fiillow llic line dircclion set by 'I'iiitorcttHj but ear- 
ned out the original color-leaniny of tlie school. He came 
a little later than Tintoretto, and his art was a reflection of 
the advancing Ixe- 
naissance, wherein 
>iniplicitv was des- 
tined t(.) lose itself 
i n c o ni p 1 e X i t )' , 
grandeur, and dis- 
play. Paolo came 
on the very crest 
of the Renaissance 
wave, when art, 
risen to its great- 
est height, was 
gleaming in that 
transparent splen- 
dor that precedes 
the fall. 

The great bulk 
of his work had a 
large decorative 
motive behind it. 
Almost all of the 
late Venetian work 

was of that character. Hence it was brilliant in color, elab- 
orate in subject, and grand in scale. Splendid robes, hang- 
ings, furniture, architecture, jewels, armor, appeared every- 
where, and not in flat, lustreless hues, but with that brill- 
iancy which they possess in nature. Drapery gave way to 
clothing, and texture-painting was introduced even in the 
largest canvases. Scenes from Scripture and legend turned 
into grand pageants of Venetian glory, and the facial ex- 
pression of the characters rather passed out in favor of 
telling masses of color to be seen at a distance upon wall 



or ceiling. It was pomp and glory carried to the highest 
pitch, but with all seriousness of mood and truthfulness in 
art. It was beyond Titian in variety, richness, ornament, 
facility ; but it was perhaps below Titian in sentiment, 
sobriety, and depth of insight. Titian, with all his sen- 
suous beauty, did appeal to the higher intelligence, while 
Paolo and his companions appealed more positively to the 
eye by luxurious color-setting and magnificence of inven- 
tion. The decadence came after Paolo, but not with him. 
His art was the most gorgeous of the Venetian school, and 
by many is ranked the highest of all, but perhaps it is 
better to say it was the height. Those who came after 
brought about the decline by striving to imitate his splen- 
dor, and thereby falling into extravagance. 

These are the four great Venetians — the men of first rank. 
Beside them and around them were many other painters, 
placed in the second rank, who in any other time or city 
would have held first place. Palma il Vecchio (1480 ?-i528) 
was so excellent in many ways that it seems unjust to speak 
of him as a secondary painter. He was not, however, a great 
original mind, though in many respects a perfect painter. 
He was influenced by Bellini at first, and then by Giorgione. 
In subject there was nothing dramatic about him, and he 
carries chiefly by his portrayal of quiet, dignified, and beau- 
tiful Venetians under the names of saints and holy families. 
The St. Barbara is an example of this, and one of the most 
majestic figures in all painting. 

Palma's friend and fellow-worker, Lorenzo Lotto (1480?- 
1556?) came from the school of the Bellini, and at different 
times was under the influence of several Venetian painters — 
Palma, Giorgione, Titian — without obliterating a sensitive 
individuality of his own. He was a somewhat mannered 
but very charming painter, and in portraits can hardly be 
classed below Titian. Rocco Marconi (fl. 1505-1520) was 
another Bellini-educated painter, showing the influence of 



Paliiia ami cvi_-n of Paris llordoiic. In colur and laiul- 
scapc hr was cxialKiit. Pordenone (14^^-1540) rallicr I'ol- 
liiwcd alter ( '.iui-^iiiiu-, and inisucccssfully cuinpctcd willi 
I'lliaii. lie Imlincil In I'xaj^^xTalioii in dramatic ccini- 
pusition, bnl \\'as a painter of imdcnialilc power. Bonifazio 
Veronese ('-1540), Bonifazio II. (?-i55,?). ^'I'd Bonifazio III. 
(.'-!5 7o), came Irum a \'eronesc family and were ilostlv re- 

FIG. 51. — 1,0T rO. THREE AGEb. I'llTl. 

lated. Their styles are difficult to distinguish apart. 'I'he 
elder showed the influence of Palma, and all of them were 
rather deficient in drawing, though exceedingly brilliant 
and rich in coloring. This latter may be said for Paris 
Bordone (1405-1570), a painter of Titian's school, gorgeous 
in color, but often lacking in truth of form. His portraits 
are very fine. yXnother painter family, the Bassani — there 
were six of them, of whoin Jacopo Bassano (15 10-1592) 


and his son Francesco Bassano (1550-1591), were the most 
noted — formed themselves after Venetian masters, and were 
rather remarkable for violent contrasts of light and dark, 
genre treatment of sacred subjects, and still-life and animal 

not confined to Venice, but extended through all the Vene- 
tian territories in Renaissance times, and those who lived 
away from the city were, in their art, decidedly Venetian, 
though possessing local characteristics. 

At Brescia Savoldo (1480 ?-i548), a rather superficial 
painter, fond of weird lights and sheeny draperies, and Ro- 
manino (1485 ?-i566), a follower of Giorgione, good in com- 
position but unequal and careless in execution, were the 
earliest of the High Renaissance men. Moretto (1498 ?- 
1555) was the strongest and most original, a man of individ- 
uality and power, remarkable technically for his delicacy 
and unity of color under a veil of "silvery tone." In com- 
position he was dignified and noble, and in brush-work sim- 
ple and direct. One of the great painters of the time, 
he seemed to stand more apart from Venetian influence 
than any other on Venetian territory. He left one remark- 
able pupil, Moroni (fl. 1549-1578) whose portraits are to-day 
the gems of several galleries, and greatly admired for their 
modern spirit and treatment. 

, At Verona Caroto and Girolamo dai Libri (1474-1555), 
though living into the sixteenth century were more allied 
to the art of the fifteenth century. Torbido (i486?-i546 ?) 
was a vacillating painter, influenced by Liberale da Verona, 
Giorgione, Bonifazio Veronese, and later, even by Giulio 
Romano. Cavazzola (1486-1522) was more original, and a 
man of talent. There were numbers of other painters 
scattered all through the Venetian provinces at this time, 
but they were not of the first, or even the second rank, and 
hence call for no mention here. 


PRINCIPAL WORKS: Giorgione, Fete ]-;iislii|uc Louvre, Sleeping 
\'enus Dresden, altar-piece Caslelfranco, Ordeal of Moses jridj^nienl 
of Solomon Knight of Malta Ultizi ; Titian, Saered and I'rofane Love 
Bt->rghese, Triluile Jloncy Dresden, Annunciation S. Kocco, Pesaro Ma- 
donna !■ rari Wniee, Entombment Man witli Glove Louvre, Bacclius 
Nat. Gal. Loll., Charles \". Madrid, Dan.e Naples, many other works 
in almost e\ery lunopean gallery ; Tintoretto, many works in Venetian 
churches, Salute SS. Lliovanni e Paolo S. Maria dell' Orto Scuola and 
C'hurch of S. l\occo Ducal Palace \'enice Acad. (I)est work Miracle 
of Slave) ; Paola Veronese, many Pictures in S. Sebastiano Ducal Pal- 
ace Acai-lemy \ euice, Pitti, Ultizi, Brera, Capitoline and Borghese Gal- 
leries Kmne, Turin, Dresden, Vienna, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Palma 
il Vecchio, Jacob and Rachel Three Sisters Dresden, Barbara S. M. 
Formosa \cnice, other altar-pieces Venice Acad., Colonna Palace 
K^inie, Biera, Naples Mus. , \aenna, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Lotto, Three Ages 
Pitti. Portraits Brera, Nat. Gal. Lon., altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Pa- 
olo \'etiice and churches at Bergamo, Treviso, Recanti, also UfBzi, 
\'ienua, Madrid Gals.; Marconi, Descent Venice Acad., altar-pieces 
S. Giorgio Maggiore SS. Giovanni e Paolo Venice ; Pordenone, S. 
Lorenzo Madonna \'enice Acad., Salome Doria St. George Quirinale 
Rome, other works Madrid, Dresden, St. Petersburg, Nat, Gal. Lon.; 
Bonifazio Veronese, St. John St. Joseph etc. Ambrosian Library 
Milan (attributed to Giorgione), Holy Family Colonna Pal. Rome, Ducal 
Pal., Pitti, Dresden Gals.; Bonifazio IL, Supper at Emmaus Biera, other 
works Venice Acad., Pitti, Borghese, Dresden; Bonifazio III., altar- 
pieces Venice Acad. (Follow Morelli for attributions in case of the Boni- 
fazios) ; Paris Bordone, F'isherman and Doge, Venice Acad., Madonna 
Casa Tadini Lovere, portraits in LTttlzi, Pitti, Louvre, Munich, Vienna, 
Nat. Gal. Lon., Brignola Pal. Genoa ; Jacopo Bassano, altar-pieces in 
Bassano churches, also Ducal Pal. Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon., Uftizi, Naples 
Mus.; Francesco Bassano, large pictures Ducal Pal., St. Catherine 
Pitti, Sabines Turin, Adoration and Christ in Temple Dresden, Adora- 
tion and Last Supper Madrid ; Savoldo, altar-pieces Brera, S. Nic- 
colo Treviso, Uflizi, Turin Gal., S. Giobbe Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon.; 
Romanino, altar-pieces S. Francesco Brescia, Berlin Gal., S. Giovanni 
Evangelista Brescia, Duomo Cremona, Padua, and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Mo- 
retto, altar-pieces Brera, Staedel Mus., S. M. della Pieta Venice, 
Vienna, Berlin, Louvre, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Moroni, portraits Bergamo 
Gal., Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon., Berlin, Dresden, Madrid ; Girolamo dai 
Libri, Madonna Berlin, Conception S. Paolo Verona, Virgin \'ercuia 
Gal., S. Giorgio Maggiore Verona, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Torbido, frescos 
Duomo, altar-pieces S. Zeno and S. Eufemia Verona; Cavazzola, 
altar-pieces, Verona Gal. and Nat. Gal. Lon. 




Books Recommended: As before, also General Bibliog- 
raphy, (page XV.) ; Calvi, Notizie dcUa vita e delle opere di Gio. 
Fraiici'sio Barhifra ; Malvasia, Felsina Fittrice ; Sir Joshua 
Reynolds, Discourses ; Symonds, Renaissance in Italy — Tlie 
Cdtliolic Reaction J W'illard, Modern Italian Art. 

THE DECLINE: An art movement in history seems like a 
wave that rises to a height, then breaks, falls, and parts of 
it are caught up from beneath to help form the strength of 
a new advance. In Italy Christianity was the propelling 
force of the wave. In the Early Renaissance, the antique, 
and the study of nature came in as additions. At Venice 
in the High Renaissance the art - for - art's - sake motive 
made the crest of light and color. The highest point was 
reached then, and there was nothing that could follow but 
the breaking and the scattering of the wave. This took 
place in Central Italy after 1540, in Venice after 1590. 

Art had typified in form, thought, and expression every- 
tliing of which the Italian race was capable. It had per- 
fected all the graces and elegancies of line and color, and 
adorned them with a superlative splendor. There was noth- 
ing more to do. The idea was completed, the motive power 
had served its purpose, and that store of race-impulse which 
seems necessary to the making of every great art was ex- 
hausted. For the men that came after Michael Angelo and 


Tintoretto there was iiothiny;. All that they eoulil do was 
to repeat what others had said, or to reeoinbiiie the old 
t h o u i;' h t s and forms. 
This led iiievitablv to 
i 111 i t a t i on, over-refnie- 
nieiit of style, and eoii- 
sei(.)us study of beaiit\', 
resulting in mannerism 
and affectation. Such 
qualities marketl the art 
of those painters who 
came in the latter part 
of the sixteenth century 
and the first of the sev- 
enteenth. They were 
unfortunate men in the 
time of their birth. No 
painter could have been 
great in the seventeenth 
century of Italy. Art 
lav prone upon its face 
under Jesuit rule, and 
the late men were left 
upon the barren sands by the receding wave of the Re- 

AST MOTIVES AND SUBJECTS : As before, the chief subject 
of the art of the Decadence was religion, with many heads 
and busts of the Madonna, though nature and the classic 
still played their parts. After the Reformation at the 
North the Church in Italy started the Counter-Reforma- 
tion. One of the chief means employed by this Catholic 
reaction was the embellishment of church worship, and 
painting on a large scale, on panel rather than in fresco, was 
demanded for decorative purposes. But the religious mo- 
tive had passed out, though its subject was retained, and 



the pictorial motive had reached its climax at Venice. The 
faith of the one and the taste and skill of the other were not 
attainable by the late men, and, while consciously striving 
to achieve them, they fell into exaggerated sentiment and 
technical weakness. It seems perfectly apparent in their 
works that they had nothing of their own to say, and that 
they were trying to say over again what Michael Angelo, 
Correggio, and Titian had said before them much better. 
There were earnest men and good painters among them, 
but they could produce only the empty form of art. The 
spirit had fled. 

THE MANNERISTS : Immediately after the High Renais- 
sance leaders of Florence and Rome came the imitators and 
exaggerators of their styles. They produced large, crowded 
compositions, with a hasty facility of the brush and striking 
effects of light. Seeking the grand they overshot the tem- 
perate. Their elegance was affected, their sentiment forced, 
their brilliancy superficial glitter. When they thought to be 
ideal they lost themselves in incomprehensible allegories ; 
when they thought to be real they grew prosaic in detail. 
These men are known in art history as the Mannerists, and 
the men whose works they imitated were chiefly Raphael, 
Michael Angelo, and Correggio. There were many of them, 
and some of them have already been spoken of as the fol- 
lowers of Michael Angelo. 

Agnolo Bronzino (1502 ?-i572) was a pupil of Pontormo, 
and an imitator of Michael x\ngelo, painting in rather heavy 
colors with a thin brush. His characters were large, but 
never quite free from weakness, except in portraiture, where 
he appeared at his best. Vasari (1511-1574) — the same 
Vasari who wrote the lives of the painters — had versatility 
and facility, but his superficial imitations of Michael 
Angelo were too grandiose in conception and too palpably 
false in modelling. Salviati (1510-1563) was a friend of 
Vasari, a painter of about the same cast of mind and 



hand as ^'asa^i, and Federigo Zucchero (1543-1609) helun^^s 
with him in producing; tilings nuiscuhirly biy but intellectu- 
ally small. Baroccio (1528- 1 6 1 2), though classed arnonu;- 
the ^[allnerists as an imitator of C"on'e,t;)i;io and Raphael, was 
really one of the strong' men o( the late times. There was 
allectation antl sentimentality alxjut his work, a prettiness 
ot face, rosy llesh tints, and a general lightness of color, 
but he was a superior brushmaii, a good culorist, and, at 
tniics, a man of earnestness and power. 

THE ECLECTICS: After tile Mannerists came the Eclectics 
of Bologna, led by 
the Caracci, who, 
about 15S5, sought to 
" revive " art. They 
started out to correct 
the faults of the Man- 
nerists, and yet their 
own art was based 
more on the art of 
their great predeces- 
sors than on nature. 
'I'hey thought to 
make a union of Re- 
naissance excellences 
by combining JNIi- 
chael Angelo's line, 
'I'itian's color, Cor- 
reggio's light - and - 
shade and Raphael's 
symmetry and grace. 
The attempt was 
praiseworthy for the 

time, but hardly successful. They caught the lines and 
lights and colors of the great men, but they overlooked 
the fact that the excellence of the imitated lay largely in 



their inimitable individualities, which could not be com- 
bined. The Eclectic worlc was done with intelligence, but 
their system was against them and their baroque age was 
against them. Midway in their career the Caracci them- 
selves modified their eclecticism and placed more reliance 
upon nature. But their pupils paid little heed to the modi- 

There were five of the Caracci, but three of them — ■ 
Ludovico (1555-1619), Agostino (1557-1602), and Annibale 
(1560- 1 609) — led the school, and of these Annibale was the 
most distinguished. They had many pupils, and their 
influence was widely spread over Italy. In Sir Joshua 
Reynolds's day they were ranked with Raphael, but at the 
present time criticism places them where they belong — 
painters of the Decadence with little originality or spon- 
taneity in their art, though much technical skill. Domeni- 
chino (1581-1641) was the strongest of the pupils. His 
St. Jerome was rated by Poussin as one of the three great 
paintings of the world, but it never deserved such rank. 
It is powerfully composed, but poor in coloring and hand- 
ling. The painter had great repute in his time, and was one 
of the best of the seventeenth century men. Guido Reni 
(1575-1642) was a painter of many gifts and accomplish- 
ments, combined with many weaknesses. His works are 
well composed and painted, but excessive in sentiment and 
overdone in pathos. Albani (i 578-1 660) ran to elegance 
and a porcelain-like prettiness. Guercino (1 59 i -i 666) was 
originally of the Eclectic School at Bologna, but later took 
up with the methods of the Naturalists at Naples. He was 
a painter of far more than the average ability. Sassoferrato 
(i 605-1 685) and Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) were so super- 
saturated with sentimentality that often their skill as 
painters is overlooked or forgotten. In spirit they were 
about the weakest of the century. There were other eclec- 
tic schools started throughout Italy — at Milan, Cremona, 



I'cnara — but thev prinhKi'il little worth recording;. At 
Rome certain painters like Cristofano Allori (1577-1621), an 
exceptionally strong man for tlu' time, Berrettini (1596- 
1669), and Maratta (1 1)25-1 7 1 ,;), manufactured a facile kind 

;)f paintin;^- from what was attractive in the various schools, 
l)ut it was never other than mereti'icious work. 



THE NATURALISTS: Contemporary with the Eclectics 
sprang up the Neapolitan school of the Naturalists, led liy 
Caravag'gio (1569-1609) and his pupils. These schools 
opposed each other, and yet influenced each other. Espe- 
cially was this true with the later men, who took what was 
best in both schools. The Naturalists were, perhaps, more 
firmly based upon nature than the iJolognese Eclectics. 


Their aim was to take nature as they found it, and yet, 
in conformity with the extravagance of the age, they 
depicted extravagant nature. Caravaggio thought to 
represent sacred scenes more truthfully by taking his 
models from the harsh street life about him and giving 
types of saints and apostles from Neapolitan brawlers and 
bandits. It was a brutal, coarse representation, rather 
fierce in mood and impetuous in action, yet not without 
a good deal of tragic power. His subjects were rather 
dismal or morose, but there was knowledge in the drawing 
of them, some good color and brush-work and a peculiar 
darkness of shadow masses (originally gained from 
Giorgione), that stood as an ear-mark of his whole school. 
From the continuous use of black shadows the school got 
the name of the " Darklings," by which they are still known. 
Giordano (i 632-1 705), a painter of prodigious facility and 
invention, Salvator Rosa (i 615-1673), best known as one of 
the early painters of landscape, and Ribera, a Spanish 
painter, were the principal pupils. 

THE LATE VENETIANS: The Decadence at Venice, like 
the Renaissance, came later than at Florence, but after 
the death of Tintoretto mannerisms and the imitation 
of the great men did away with originality. There 
was still much color left, and fine ceiling decorations 
were done, but the nobility and calm splendor of Titian's 
days had passed. Palma il Giovine (1544-1628) with a 
hasty brush produced imitations of Tintoretto with some 
grace and force, and in remarkable quantity. He and 
Tintoretto were the most rapid and productive painters of 
the century ; but Palma's was not good in spirit, though 
quite dashing in technic. Padovanino (1590-1650) was 
more of a Titian follower, but, like all the other painters of 
the time, he was proficient with the brush and lacking in 
the stronger mental elements. The last great Italian 
painter was Tiepolo (1696-1770), and he was really great 



beyond liis age. With an art fduiuled on Paolo Veronese, 
he prodiieed decorative ceihnj^s and panels of liigh ([uahty, 
w ith wonderful invention, a limpid brush, and a liglit flaky 

FIG, 55. C-\RA\'Ar.GtO. THK CARD PI.AVKR';. DREfinEN. 

color peculiarly appropriate to the walls of churches and 
palaces. He was, especially in easel pictures, a brilliant, 
vivacious brushman, full of dash and spirit, tempered by 
a large knowledge of what was true and pictorial. Some of 
his best pictures are still in Venice, and modern painters are 
unstinted in their praise of them. He left a son, Domenico 
Tiepolo ( I 726-1 795), who followed his methods. In the late 
days of Venetian painting, Canaletto (1697-1768) and Guardi 
(1712-1793) achieved reputation by painting Venetian 
canals and architecture with much color effect. 

in the art of Italy during the present century that shows 
a positive national spirit. It has been leaning on the rest 
of Europe for many years, and the best that the living 


painters show is largely an echo of Dusseldorf, Munich, or 
Paris. The revived classicism of David in France affected 
nineteenth-century painting in Italy somewhat. Then it 
was swayed by Cornelius and Overbeck from Germany. 
Morelli (1826-*) shows this latter influence, though one of the 
most important of the living men.f In the i86o's Mariano 
Fortuny, a Spaniard at Rome, led the younger element in 
the glittering and the sparkling, and this style mingled with 
much that is more strikingl}' Parisian than Italian, may be 
found in the works of painters like Michetti, De Nittis 
( 1 846-1 884), Favretto, Tito, Nono, Simonetti, and others. 

Of recent days the impressionistic view of light and color 
has had its influence ; but the Italian work at its best is below 
that of France. Segantini I was one of the most promising of 
the younger men in subjects that have an archaic air about 
them. Boldini, though Italian born and originally following 
Fortuny's example, is really more Parisian than anything 
else. He is an artist of much power and technical strength 
in ge/ire- subjects and portraits. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: Mannerists — Agnolo Bronzino, Christ in / 

Limbo and many piirtrails in Uffizi and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Vasari, many 
pictures in galleries at Arezzo, Bologna, Berlin, Munich, Louvre, Madrid ; 
Salviati. Charity Christ Uffizi, Patience Pitti, St. Thomas Louvre, 
Love and Psyche Berlin ; Federigo Zucchero, Duomo Florence, Ducal 
P.alace Venice, Allegories Uffizi, Calumny Hampton Court; Baroccio, 
Pardon of St. Francis Urbino, Annunciation Loreto, several pictures in 
Uffizi, Xat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Dresden Gal. 

Eclectics — Ludovico Caracci, Cathedral frescos Bologna, thirteen 
pictures Bologna Gal. ; Agostino Caracci, frescos (with Annibale) Far- 
nese Pal. Rome, .altar-pieces Bologna Gal. ; Annibale Carracci, frescos 
(with Agostino) Farnese Pal. Rome, other pictures Bologna Gal., Uffizi, 
Naples Mus., Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Domenichino, 
St. Jerome Vatican, S. Pietro in Vincoli, Diana Borghese, Bologna, Pitti, 
Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Guido Reni, frescos Aurora Rospigliosi Pal. 
Rome, many pictures Bologna, Borghese Gal., Pitti, Uffizi, Brera, Naples, 

* Died, 1901. t See Scribner^s ISIagazine, Xeapolitan .\rt, Dec, 1890, Feb., 1891. 
} Died, 1899. 


Louvri', ami oiIut L;,illciics uf ICiiiDpe ; Albani, Gucrcino, Sassoferrato, 

and Carlo Dolci, wniks in alnicst cvury lMiiit|ican L;alli.Ty, cs[iccinl!y 
ItoU'i^na ; Cristofano Allori, Judilli I'llli, also |iiciuiijs in Ulli/.i ; Ber- 
rettini and Maratta, many examples in [lalian t^allciics, alsu Lnnvic. 

N.VTLJRAI.ISI'S — Caravaggio, l^nltmiUnu'iU Vatican, many olliur wnks 
in riili, ITii/i, Na|ilcs, Lnuvrc, I ticsdcii, Si. I'clcriliuig ; Giordano, 
JndL^nicnl n( I'aiis UL-rlin, many |iicliircs in 1 )il-siIcu and Italian gallciics ; 
Salvator Rosa, Ir-sI niaiinc in I'llli, oilier works UHizi, Brura, Naples, 
Madrid L:;allorics and C<ilunna, Corsiiu, Doria, Cliij^i Palaces Komu. 

Lai'E \'b:NEriANS — Palma il Giovine, Ducal Palace Venice, Cassil, 
Ihcsden, ^[unicl^ Madrid. Naples, Vienna galleries ; Padovanino, Mar- 
riage in Cana Kneeling Angel and oilier wt.nks Venice Acad., Carniina 
\"enice. al^o galleries oi Louvre, Ullizi, Borgliese, Dresden, London ; 
Tiepolo, large fresco Villa Pisani Stra, Palazzo Labia Scnola Carmina, 
Venice, \'illa Valmarana, and at Wiirlzlmrg, easel pictures Venice Acad., 
Louvre. P>erlin, ^ladrid ; Canaletto and Guardi, many [>ictures in Euro- 
pean galleries. 

Modern Italians* — Morelli, Madonna Royal chap. Castiglione, 
Assumption Royal chap. Naples ; Michetti, The Vow Nat. f'.al. Rome ; 
De Nittis, Place du Carrousel Luxembourg Paris ; Boldini, Gossi|)S 
Mel. Mus. New V()rk. 

* Only works in public places are given. Those in private hands 
cliange too often for record here. For detailed list of works see Champlin 
and Perkins, Cyilo/>LJia of Painters and PaiiUin^^s. 




Books Recommended: Ainorini, Vita del /elchrc pittore 
Francesco Primaiiccio; Berger, Hisioire dc l' Ecolc Fiancaisc 
de Peiiiture au XVII"" Siecle; PJland, Lcs Peintrcs dcs fetes 
galantes, JVatteaii, Boucher, et al.;, L' (Etivre de J^ean 
Fouquet; Delaborde, Etudes stir les Beaitx Arts en France et 
en Italic; Didot, Etudes siir J^can Cousin; Dumont, Antoine 
Watteau; Dussieux, Nouvelles Reeherchcs sur la Vie dc F!. 
Lesueur; Genevay, Le Style Louis XIV., Charles Le Brun; 
(loncourt, L Art du XVIII"" Siecle; Guibel, Flo^^e de Nicolas 
Poussin; Guiffrey, La Faniille de yean Cousin; Laborde, La 
Renaissance des Arts a la Cour de France; Lagrange, J. Vcrnet 
ct la Pcinturc au XVILI"" Siecle; I>ecoy de la Marche, Le 
Roi Rene; Mantz, Francois Boucher; Michiels, Etudes sur 
r Art Flamand dans I'esf et le niidi de la France; Muntz, La 
Renaissance en Ltalie ct en France; Palustre, La Renaissance en 
France; Pattison, Renaissance of Art in France; Pattison, 
Claude Lorrain; Poillon, Nicolas Poussin; Stranahan, Llis- 
tory of French Painting. 

EARLY FKENCH ART : Painting in France did not, as in 
Italy, spring directly from Christianity, though it dealt with 
the religious subject. From the beginning a decorative 
motive — the strong feature of French art — appears as the 
chief motive of painting. This showed itself largely in 
church ornament, garments, tapestries, miniatures, and illu- 
minations. Mural paintings were produced during the fifth 
centurj', probably in imitation of Italian or Roman example. 



ITiulcr Chnrlcmagne, in the ciylUli century, Ryzantiiic in- 
tlucncL's were at work. In the eleventh, twelfth, and thir- 
teenth eentmies nuieh stainetl-giass woriv appeared, and als(j 
many missal painlini;s and fmaiitiire decuratiiins. 

In the lifteenlh century Rene of Anjou ( 1 408-1 4S0), kinj; 
and painter, i;ave an impetus to art which he perhaps orij,n- 
nally received from Italy. }Iis work siiowed some Italian inllu- 

IIG. jl). — I'UL^SIN. ET IN AKLAUIA tii^U 

ence mingled with a great deal of Flemish precision, and cor- 
responded for France to the early Renaissance work of I tidy, 
though by no means so advanced. Contemporary with Rene 
was Jean Fouquet (1415 ?-i48o ?) an illuminator and por- 
trait-painter, one of the earliest in French history. He was 
an artist of some original characteristics and produced an 
art detailed and exact in its realism. Jean P6real(?- 1 52S?) 
and Jean Bourdichon (1457 ?-i52i ?) with Fouquet's pupils 
and sons, formed a school at Tours which afterward came to 


show some Italian' influence. The native workmen at 
Paris — they sprang up from illuminators to painters in 
all probability — showed more of the Flemish influence. 
Neither of the schools of the fifteenth century reflected 
nmch life or thought, but what there was of it was native to 
the soil, though their methods were influenced from without. 

Francis I., at Fontainebleau, seems to have encouraged two 
schools of painting, one the native French and the other an 
imported Italian, which afterward took to itself the name of 
the "School of Fontainebleau." Of the native artists the 
Clouets were the most conspicuous. They were of Flemish 
origin, and followed Flemish methods both in technic and 
mediums. There were four of them, of whom Jean (1485?- 
1541?) and Francois (i5oo?-i572?) were the most noteworthy. 
They painted many portraits, and Francois' work, bearing 
some resemblance to that of Holbein, it has been doubtfully 
said that he was a pupil of that painter. All of their work 
was remarkable for detail and closely followed facts. 

The Italian importation came about largely through the 
travels of Francis I. in Italy. He invited to Fontainebleau 
Leonardo da Vinci, Andrea del Sarto, II Rosso, Frimaticcio, 
and Niccolo dell' Abbate. These painters rather superseded 
and greatly influenced the French painters. The result was 
an Italianized school of French art which ruled in France 
for many years. Frimaticcio was probably the greatest of 
the influencers, remaining as he did for thirty years in 
France. The native painters, Jean Cousin ( 1 500 ?-i 589) and 
Toussaint du Breuil ( 1 56 i - 1 602) followed his style, and in the 
next century the painters were even more servile imitators 
of Italy — imitating not the best models either, but the Man- 
nerists, the Eclectics, and the Roman painters of the De- 

great development and production in France, the time of 



tlu' fiunulini;" nf the l''rciKli Acaikiiiy of I'aintini; and 
SculpUirc, anil llic tdrnialion of many pitturc collcclioiis. 
In the first part of the eentury the l''leniisli and native ten- 
dencies existed, hut tliev were o\'era\\'ed, ontiunnheretl by 
the Itahan. Not even Kubens's paintin;;" for Marie de' 
Medlei, in tile palaee of the Iai\end)our)j;, coukl stem tlie 
tide ot Italy. The l'"reneh painters llucked to Rome to 
study the art of their j^reat predecessors and were led astray 
by the llashy eley;ance of the late Italians. Among the 
earliest of this century was Fr^minet (1567-1619). He was 
first taught f)y his father and Jean Cousin, but afterward 


spent fifteen years in Italy studying Parmigianino and 
]Michael Angelo. His work had something of the Mannerist 
style about it and was overwrought and exaggerated. In 


shadows he seemed to have borrowed from Caravaggio. 
Vouet (i 590-1649) was a student in Italy of Veronese's 
painting and afterward of Guido Reni and Caravaggio. He 
was a mediocre artist, but had a great vogue in France and 
left many celebrated pupils. 

By all odds the best painter of this time was Nicolas 
Poussin (1593-1665). He lived almost all of his life in 
Italy, and might be put down as an Italian of the Decadence. 
He was well versed in classical archaeology, and had much 
of the classic taste and feeling prevalent at that time in the 
Roman school of Giulio Romano. His work showed great 
intelligence and had an elevated grandiloquent style about 
it that was impressive. It reflected nothing P"rench, and 
had little more root in present human sympathy than any 
I if the other painting of the time, but it was better done. 
The drawing was correct if severe, the composition agree- 
able if formal, the coloring variegated if violent. Many of 
his pictures have now changed for the worse in coloring 
owing to the dissipation of surface pigments. He was the 
founder of the classic and academic in French art, and in 
influence was the most important man of the century. He 
was especially strong in the heroic landscape, and in this 
branch helped form the style of his brother-in-law, Gaspard 
(Dughet) Poussin (1613-1675). 

The landscape painter of the period, however, was Claude 
Lorrain (1600-1682). He differed from Poussin in making 
his pictures depend more strictly upon landscape than upon 
figures. With both painters, the trees, mountains, valleys, 
buildings, figures, were of the grand classic variety. Hills 
and plains, sylvan groves, flowing streams, peopled harbors, 
Ionic and Corinthian temples, Roman aqueducts, mytholog- 
ical groups, were the materials used, and the object of 
their use was to show the ideal dwelling-place of man — the 
former Garden of the Gods. Panoramic and slightly theat- 
rical at times, Claude's work was not without its poetic side, 



shrewd kiiowleilge, anil skilful execution. He was a leader 
in landsca|>e, the man who first painted real golden sun- 
light and shed its light ujion earth. There is a soft 

summer's-day drowsiness, a golden haze of atmosphere, a 
feeling of composure and restfulness about his pictures 
that are attractive. Like Poussin he depended much upon 
long sweeping lines in composition, and upon effects of 
linear perspective. 

COURT PAINTING; When Louis XIV. came to the throne 
painting took on a decided character, but it was hardly 
national or race character. The popular idea, if the people 
had an idea, did not obtain. There was no motive spring- 
ing from the French except an inclination to follow Italy; 


and in Italy all the great art -motives were dead. In 
method the French painters followed the late Italians, and 
imitated an imitation ; in matter they bowed to the dictates 
of the court and reflected the king's mock-heroic spirit. 
Echoing the fashion of the day, painting became pompous, 
theatrical, grandiloquent — a mass of vapid vanity utterly 
lacking in sincerity and truth. Lebrun (1619-1690), painter 
in ordinary to the king, directed substantially all the paint- 
ing of the reign. He aimed at pleasing royalty with flatter- 
ing allusions to Cffisarism and extravagant personifications 
of the king as a classic conqueror. His art had neither 
truth, nor genius, nor great skill, and so sought to startle 
by subject or size. Enormous canvases of .Vlexander's 
triumphs, in allusion to those of the great Louis, were 
turned out to order, and Versailles to this day is tapestried 
with battle - pieces in which Louis is always victor. Con- 
sidering the amount of work done, Lebrun showed great 
fecundity and industry, but none of it has much more than 
a mechanical ingenuity about it. It was rather original in 
composition, but poor in drawing, lighting, and coloring; and 
its example upon the painters of the time was pernicious. 

His contemporary, Le Sueur (1616-1655), was a more 
sympathetic and smcere painter, if not a much better tech- 
nician. Both were pupils of Vouet, but Le Sueur's art 
was religious in subject, while Lebrun's was military and 
monarchical. Le Sueur had a feeling for his theme, but 
was a weak painter, inclined to the sentimental, thin in 
coloring, and not at all certain in his drawing. French al- 
lusions to him as " the French Raphael " show more na- 
tional complacency than correctness. Sebastian Bourdon 
(1616-1671) was another painter of history, but a little out 
of the Lebrun circle. He was not, however, free from the 
influence of Italy, where he spent three years studying 
color more than drawing. This shows in his works, most 
of which are lacking in form. 


Conteniporarv with tlusc min was a turnup of portrail- 
paiiUers who yaincil ci-lcbrily prrhaps as imuli b}' their 
stibjccts as by thi-ir i)\vn powers. 'I lu'y were lacilc llat- 
tcrcrs given t)vcr te) tlic pomps of the rcis^ii ami mirroring 
all its absurelitics of fashion. Their work has a grareful, 
smooth appearance, anil, for its time, it was undonbtcdly 
e-\cellent pe)rtraitin'e. Even to this day it has cpialities of 
drawing- and eeiloring to commend it, and at times one 
meets with exceptionally good work. The leaders among 
these j-iortrait-painters were Philip de Champaigfne (1602- 
1674), the best of his time ; Pierre Mignard (1610 ?-i695), a 
pupil of Nonet, who studied in Rome and afterward re- 
turned to France to become the successful rival of Lebrun ; 
Largillifere (1656-1746) and Rigaud (1659-1743). 

XIN'.'s time was continued into the eighteenth century for 
some fifteen years or more with little change. N\'ith the 
advent of Louis XV. art took upon itself another character, 
and one that reflected perfectly the moral, social, and polit- 
ical France of the eighteenth century. The first Louis 
clamored for glory, the second Louis revelled in gayety, 
frivolity, and sensuality. This was the difference between 
both monarchs and both arts. The gay and the coquettish 
in painting had already been introduced by the Regent, 
himself a dilettante in art, and when Louis XV. came to the 
throne it passed from the gay to the insipid, the flippant, 
even the erotic. Shepherds and shepherdesses dressed in 
court silks and satins with cottony sheep beside them posed 
in stage- set Arcadias, pretty gods and goddesses reclined 
indolently upon gossamer clouds, and court gallants lounged 
under artificial trees by artificial ponds making love to 
pretty soubrettes from the theatre. 

Yet, in spite of the lack of moral and intellectual eleva- 
tion, in spite of frivolity and make-believe, this art was in- 
finitely better than the pompous imitation of foreign ex- 



ample set up by Louis XIV. It was more spontaneous, 
more original, more French. The influence of Italy began 
to fail, and the painters began to mirror French life. It 
was largely court life, lively, vivacious, licentious, but in 
that very respect characteristic of the time. Moreover, 
there was another qualit)' about it that showed French taste 
at its best — the decorative quality. It can hardly be sup- 


posed that the fairy creations of the age were intended to 
represent actual nature. They were designed to ornament 
hall and boudoir, and in pure decorative delicacy of design, 
lightness of touch, color charm, they have never been ex- 
celled. The serious spirit was lacking, but the gayety of line 
and color was well given. 

Watteau (1684-1721) was the one chiefly responsible for 
the coquette and soubrette of French art, and ^^'atteau was, 
practically speaking, the first French painter. His subjects 


were trifling bits of fashionable love-making, scenes from 
the oiK-ra, fetes, balls, and the like. All his characters 
played at life in parks and yruves that never grew, and 
most of his color was beautifully unreal ; but for all that the 
work was original, decorative, and charming. Moreover, 
W'atteau was a brushman, and introtluced not only a new 
spirit and new subject into art, but a new method. The 
epic treatment of the Italians was laid aside in favor of a 
gc'/i'i- treatment, and instead of line and flat surface A\'attcau 
introduced color and cleverly laid pigment. He was a 
brilliant painter ; not a great man in thought or imagina- 
tion, but one of fancy, delicacy, and skill. Unfortunately 
he set a bad example by his gay subjects, and those who 
came after him carried his gayety and lightness of spirit 
into exaggeration. Watteau's best pupils were Lancret 
(1690-1743) and Pater (1695-1736), who painted in his style 
with fair results. 

After these men came Van Loo (1705-1765) and Boucher 
(1703-17 70), who turned Watteau's charming fetes, showing 
the costumes and manners of the Regency, into flippant ex- 
travagance. Not only was the moral tone and intellectual 
stamina of their art far below that of Watteau, but their 
workmanship grew defective. Both men possessed a re- 
markable facility of the hand and a keen decorative color- 
sense ; but after a time both became stereotyped and man- 
nered. Drawing and modelling were neglected, light was 
wholly conventional, and landscape turned into a piece of 
embroidered background with a Dresden china-tapestry 
effect about it. As decoration the general effect was often 
excellent, as a serious expression of life it was very weak, 
as an intellectual or moral force it was worse than worth- 
less. Fragonard (1732-1806) followed in a similar style, but 
was a more knowing man, clever in color, and a much freer 
and better brushman. 

A few painters in the time of Louis XV. remained appar- 


ently unaffected b}' the court influence, and stand in con- 
spicuous isolation. Claude Joseph Vernet (1712-1789) was a 
landscape and marine painter of some repute in his time. 
He had a sense of the pictorial, but not a remarkable sense 
of the truthful in nature. Chardin (1699-1779) and Greuze 
(1725-1S05), clung to portrayals of humble life and sought to 
popularize the genre subject. Chardin was not appreciated 
by the masses. His frank realism, his absolute sincerity of 
purpose, his play of light and its effect upon color, and his 
charming handling of textures were comparatively unnoticed. 
Yet as a colorist he may be ranked second to none in French 
art, and in freshness of handling his work is a model for 
present-day painters. Diderot early recognized Chardin's 
excellence, and many artists since his day have admired 
his pictures ; but he is not now a well-known or popular 
painter. The populace fancies CJreuze and his sentimental 
heads of young girls. I'hey have a prettiness about them 
that is attractive, but as art they lack in force, and in 
workmanship they are too smooth, finical, and thin in 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: All of these French painters are best represented 
in the collections of the Louvre. Some of the other galleries, like the 
Dresden, Berlin, and National at London, have examples of their work ; 
but the masterpieces are with the French people in the Louvre and m the 
other municipal galleries of France. 




Books Recommended : As before, Stranahan, et al.; also 
Ralliere, Hiiii-i Rt;^iiatilt; Blanc, Lcs Artistes de nwn Temps; 
Hlanc, Histoire Jes I'ciiitres /raii(ais lUi XIX"" Siecle; Blanc, 
Ingres et son (.Eiivre : ISigot, Peintres fraii(ais co)ite)nporaiiis ; 
Breton, La lie el'iiii Artiste (^English Translation): Brownell, 
Freneli Art; Burty, Maitres et Fetit-Maitres;_ Chesneau, 
Peinture fra)i(aise au XIX"" Steele; Clement, Etudes sur les 
Beaux Arts en France; Clement, Prudhon; Delaborde, 
(Euvre de Paul Delaroche ; Delecluze, Jacques Louis David, 
son Eeole, et son Temps; Duret, Les Peintres franfais en i86j ; 
Gautier, EArt Aloderne; Gautier, Romantieisine ; Gonse, 
Eugene Fronientin ; Hamerton, Contemporary French Fainting ; 
Hamerton, Painting in France after the Decline of Classicism ; 
Henley, Memorial Catalogue of French and Dutch Loan Col- 
lection (1886); Henriet, Charles Daubigny et son CEuvre ; 
Lenormant, Les Artistes Contemporains ; Lenormant, Ary 
Scheffer ; Merson, Ingres, sa Vie et^ son CEuvre ;^ Moreau, 
Decamps et son (Euvre ; Blanche, Etudes sur I'Fcole fran- 
caise ; Robaut et Chesneau, L' CEuvre complet d' Eugene Dela- 
croix ; Sensier, Theodore Rousseau ; Sensier, Life and JJ'^orhs 
of J. F. Alillet ; Silvestre, Histoire des Artistes vivants et 
etrangers ; Strahan, Modern French Art; There, L'Art Con- 
temporain ; Theuriet, Jules Bastien-Lepage ; Van Dyke, Mod- 
ern French Masters. 

THE EEVOLUTIONAEY TIME : In considering this century's 
art in Europe, it must be remembered that a great social 
and intellectual change has taken place since the days of 
the Medici. The power so long pent up in Italy during the 
Renaissance finally broke and scattered itself upon the 



western nations ; societies and states were torn down and 
rebuilded, political, social, and religious ideas shifted into 
new garbs ; the old order passed away. 

Religion as an art -motive, or even as an art -subject, 
ceased to obtain anywhere. The Church failed as an art- 
patron, and the walls of cloister and cathedral furnis'hed no 
new Bible readings to the unlettered. Painting, from being 


a necessity of life, passed into a luxury, and the king, the 
state, or the private collector became the patron. Nature 
and actual life were about the only sources left from which 
original art could draw its materials. These have been 
freely used, but not so much in a national as in an indi- 
vidual manner. The tendency to-day is not to put forth a 
universal conception but an individual belief. Individualism 
— the same quality that appeared so strongly in Michael 
Angelo's art — has become a keynote in modern work. It 


is not the only kind of art that has liecn shown in this cen- 
turv, nor is nature the only theme from wiiich art lias been 
derived. We must remember and consider the influence of 
the past upon modern men, and the attempts to restore the 
classic beauty of the Greek, Roman, and Italian, which prac- 
tically ruled French painting in the first part of this century. 

FRENCH CLASSICISM OF DAVID: This was a revival of Creek 
form in art, founded on the belief expressed by W'inckel- 
mann, that beauty lay in form, and was best shown by the 
ancient dreeks. It was the objective view of art which saw 
beauty in the external and tolerated no individuality in the 
artist except that which was shown in technical skill. It 
was little more than an imitation of the Greek and Roman 
marbles as types, with insistence upon perfect form, correct 
drawing, and balanced composition. In theme and spirit it 
was pseudo-heroic, the incidents of Greek and Roman his- 
tory forming the chief subjects, and in method it rather 
despised color, light-and-shade, and natural surroundings. 
It was elevated, lofty, ideal in aspiration, but coldly unsym- 
pathetic because lacking in contemporary interest ; and, 
though correct enough in classic form, was lacking in the 
classic spirit. Like all reanimated art, it was derivative as 
regards its forms and lacking in spontaneity. The reason 
for the existence of Greek art died with its civilization, and 
those, like the French classicists, who sought to revive it, 
brought a copy of the past into the present, expecting the 
world to accept it. 

There was some social, and perhaps artistic, reason, how- 
ever, for the revival of the classic in the French art of the 
late eighteenth century. It was a revolt, and at that time 
revolts were popular. The art of Boucher and Van Loo 
had become quite unbearable. It was flippant, careless, 
licentious. It had no seriousness or dignity about it. 
Moreover, it smacked of the Bourbon monarchy, which 
people had come to hate. Classicism was severe, elevated, 



respectable at least, and had the air of the heroic republic 
about it. It was a return to a sterner view of life, with 
the martial spirit behind it as an impetus, and it had a 
great vogue. For many years during the Revolution, the 
Consulate, and the Empire, classicism was accepted by the 
sovereigns and the Institute of France, and to this day it 
lives in a modified form in that semi-classic work known as 
academic art. 

THE CLASSIC SCHOOL: Vien (17 1 6-1 809) was the first painter 
to protest against the art of Boucher and Van Loo by advo- 
cating more nobility of form and a closer study of nature. 
He was, however, more devoted to the antique forms he 
had studied in Rome than to nature. In subject and lin^ 
his tendency was classic, with a leaning toward the Italians 
of the Decadence. He lacked the force to carry out a 
complete reform in painting, but his pupil David (i 748-1 825) 
accomplished what he had begun. It was David who 
established the reign of classicism, and by native power 
became the leader. The time was appropriate, the Revolu- 
tion called for pictures of Romulus, Brutus and Achilles, 
and Napoleon encouraged the military theme. David had 
studied the marbles at Rome, and he used them largely for 
models, reproducing scenes from Greek and Roman life in 
an elevated and sculpturesque style, with much archaeo- 
logical knowledge and a great deal of skill. In color, 
relief, sentiment, individuality, his painting was lacking. 
He despised all that. The rhythm of line, the sweep of 
composed groups, the heroic subject and the heroic treat- 
ment, made up his art. It was thoroughly objective, and 
what contemporary interest it possessed lay largely in the 
martial spirit then prevalent. Of course it was upheld by 
the Institute, and it really set the pace for French paint- 
ing for nearly half a century. When David was called 
upon to paint Napoleonic pictures he painted them under 
protest, and yet these, with his portraits, constitute his 



best work. In puitraiUire lie was iinconunoiily strong at 

Alter the Restoration Itavid, who luul been a revolution- 
ist, and then an adherent of Napoleon, was sent into exile ; 
but the inlluenee he had left and the sehool he had estab- 
lished were earried on b_v his contemporaries and pupils. 
Of the former Regnault (1754-1829), Vincent (1746-1 8 16), 
and Prudhon (1 758-1 S23) w'ere the most conspicuous. The 
last one was considered as out of the classic circle, but so 
far as making his art depend upon drawing and composition. 


he was a genuine classicist. His subjects, instead of being 
heroic, inclined to the mythological and the allegorical. In 
Italy he had been a student of the Renaissance painters, 
^ndfrom them borrowed a method of shadow gradation that 


rendered his figures misty and pliantom-like. They possessed 
an ease of movement sometimes called " Prudhonesque 
grace," and in composition were well placed and effective. 

Of David's pupils there were many. Only a few of 
them, however, had pronounced ability, and even these 
carried David's methods into the theatrical. Girodet 
(i 766-1 824) was a draughtsman of considerable power, 
but with poor taste in color and little repose in composi- 
tion. Most of his work was exaggeration and strained 
effect. LetM6re (1760-1832) and Gu^rin (1774-1833), pupils 
of Regnault, were painters akin to Girodet, but inferior to 
him. Gerard (i 770-1837) was a weak David follower, who 
gained some celebrity by painting portraits of celebrated 
men and women. The two pupils of David who brought 
him the most credit were Ingres (1780-1867) and Gros 
(1771-1835). Ingres was a cold, persevering man, whose 
principles had been well settled by David early in life, and 
were adhered to with conviction by the pupil to the last. 
He modified the classic subject somewhat, studied Raphael 
and the Italians, and reintroduced the single figure into 
art (the Source, and the Odalisque, for example). For 
color he had no fancy. "In nature all is form," he used to 
say. Painting he thought not an independent art, but " a 
development of sculpture." To consider emotion, color, 
or light as the equal of form was monstrous, and to compare 
Rembrandt with Raphael was blasphemy. To this belief 
he clung to the end, faithfully reproducing the human 
figure, and it is not to be wondered at that eventually he 
became a learned draughtsman. His single figures and his 
portraits show him to the best advantage. He had a 
strong grasp of modelling and an artistic sense of the beauty 
and dignity of line not excelled by any artist of this century. 
And to him more than any other painter is due the cult- 
ured draughtsmanship which is to-day the just pride of the 
French school. 


("ii-os was a more vacillatiiii; nian, and by rrason f)f forsak- 
ing;- the classic subjccl for Nai)(>li'onicl)atlle-piL-C(.'S, lie uncoii- 
scioLisly led tlie \\a\' toward roinaiitieisin. He exeelled as 
a drauglusman, hut wlieii he came to paint tlie l''ield of 
Kylau anil the I'est of Jaffa he niin.nled color, lij,dit, ^lir, 
movement, action, sacrillcint;' classic composition and repose 
tt) realitv. 'I'his was heresy from the Davidian point of 
view, and l)a\id eventually convinced him of it. (Iros 
returned to the classic theme and treatment, but soon after 
was so reviled by the chan<,nng criticism of the time that 
he committed suicide in the Seine. His art, however, was 
the beginning of romanticism. 

The landscape painting of this time was rather academic 
and unsympathetic. It was a continuation of the Ciaude- 
Poussin tradition, and in its insistence upon line, grandeur 
of space, and imp(_>sing trees and mountains, was a fit com- 
panion to the classic figure-piece. It had little basis in 
nature, and little in color or feeling to commend it. Watelet 
(1780-1866), Bertin (1 775-1842), Michallon (i 796-1 S22), and 
Aliguy (i 798-1871), were its exponents. 

A few painters seemed to stand apart from the contempo- 
rary influences. Madame Vigee-Lebrun (i 755-1842), a suc- 
cessful portrait-painter of nobility, and Horace Vernet (i 789- 
1S63), a popular battle-painter, many of whose works are to 
be seen at Versailles, were of this class. 

ROMANTICISM: The movement in French painting which 
began about 1822 and took the name of Romanticism was 
but a part of the " storm-and-stress " feeling that swept 
Germany, England, and France at the beginning of thiscen- 
turv, appearing first in literature and afterward in art. It 
had its origin in a discontent with the present, a passionate 
yearning for the unattainable, an intensity of sentiment, 
gloomy melancholy imaginings, and a desire to express the 
ine.x-pressible. It was emphatically subjective, self-con- 
scious, a mood of mind or feeling. In this respect it was 



diametrically opposed to the academic and the classic. In 
French painting it came forward in opposition to the clas- 




sicism of David. People had begun to weary of Greek and 
Roman heroes and their deeds, of impersonal line-bounded 
statuesque art. There was a demand for something more 
representative, spontaneous, expressive of the intense feel- 
ing of the time. The very gist of romanticism was pas- 
sion. Freedom to express itself in what form it would was 
a condition of its existence. 

The classic subject was abandoned by the romanticists 
for dramatic scenes of medieval and modern times. The 
romantic hero and heroine in scenes of horror, perils by land 
and sea, flame and fury, love and anguish, came upon the 


boards. IMucli of this was ilUislratioii i)f liislory, the novel, 
aiul poctr\', cs[K'ciaily tlir poclr\' of (loctlic, Ijyi'on, and 
Scott, l.incwas skirrcil in favor oC color, symmetrical com- 
position gave \va\' to uikl disordered j^roiips in headlong 
action, and atmospheres, skies, and lights were twisted and 
distorted to convey the sentiment of the story. It was 
tluis, more liv suggestion than realization, that rf)nianticism 
sought to give the poetic sentiment of life. Its position 
toward classicism was antagonistic, a rebound, a flying to 
the other extreme. One virtually said that beauty was in 
the r.reek form, the other that it was in the painter's emo- 
tional nature. The disagreement was violent, and out of it 
grew the so-calletl romantic quarrel of the iS2o's. 

LEADERS OF KOMANTICISM : Symptoms of the coming move- 
ment were apparent long before any open revolt, (iros had 
made innovations on the classic in his battle-pieces, but the 
first positive dissent from classic teachings was made in the 
Salon of 1S19 by Gericatilt (1791-1824) with his Raft of the 
Medusa. It represented the starving, the dead, and the dy- 
ing of the Medusa's crew on a raft in mid-ocean. The sub- 
ject was not classic. It was literary, romantic, dramatic, 
almost theatric in its seizing of the critical moment. Its 
theme was restless, harrowing, horrible. It met with in- 
stant opposition from the old men and applause from the 
voung men. It was the trumpet-note of the revolt, but 
(iericault did not live long enough to become the leader of 
romanticism. That position fell to his contemporary and 
fellow-pupil, Delacroix (1799-1863). It was in 1822 that 
Delacroix's first Salon picture (the Dante and Virgil) ap- 
peared. A strange, ghost-like scene from Dante's Inferno, 
the black atmosphere of the nether world, weird faces, 
weird colors, weird flames, and a modelling of the figures by 
patches of color almost savage as compared to the tinted 
drawing of classicism. Delacroix's youth saved the picture 
from condemnation, but it was different with his Massacre of 


Scio two years later. This was decried by the classicists, and 
even Gros called it " the massacre of art." The painter was 
accused of establishing the worship of the ugly, he was no 
draughtsman, had no selection, no severity, nothing but bru- 
tality. But Delacroix was as obstinate as Ingres, and declared 
that the whole world could not prevent him from seeing and 
painting things in his own way. It was thus the quarrel 
started, the young men siding with Delacroi.x, the older men 
following David and Ingres. 

In himself Delacroix embodied all that was best and 
strongest in the romantic movement. His painting was in- 
tended to convey a romantic mood of mind by combinations 
of color, light, air, and the like. In subject it was tragic 
and passionate, like the poetry of Hugo, Byron, and Scott. 
The figures were usually given with anguish-wrung brows, 
wild eyes, dishevelled hair, and impetuous, contorted action. 
The painter never cared for technical details, seeking al- 
ways to gain the effect of the whole rather than the exact- 
ness of the part. He purposely slurred drawing at times, 
and was opposed to formal composition. In color he was 
superior, though somewhat violent at times, and in brush- 
work he was often labored and patchy. His strength lay in 
imagination displayed in color and in action. 

The quarrel between classicism and romanticism lasted 
some years, with neither side victorious. Delacroix won rec- 
ognition for his view of art, but did not crush the belief in 
form which was to come to the surface again. He fought 
almost alone. Many painters rallied around him, but 
they added little strength to the new movement. Dev^ria 
(1S05-1865) and Champmartin (i 797-1883) were highly 
thought of at first, but they rapidly degenerated. Sig-alon 
(1788-1837), Cogniet (1794-1SS0), Robert - Fleury (1797-), 
and Boulanger (i 806-1 867), were romanticists, but achieved 
more as teachers than as painters. Delaroche (1797- 1856) 
was an eclectic — in fact, founded a school of that name — 



thinking t(i take what was best Uom both parties. Iiiveiit- 
ini; iiotliiiit;, he prolUed by all iiiveiitetl. lie employed the 
ronuuitic subjeet anil eolor, but adhered to elassie drawing. 
Mis coni]iosition Wds good, his eostunie careful in detail, 
his lirush-work sniootli, and his story-telling capacity ex- 
ceUent. .Ml these iiualities made him a popular ]iainter, 
but not an original or powerful one. Ary Scheffer (1797- 


1S5S) was an illustrator of Goethe and Byron, frail in both 
sentiment and color, a painter who started as a romanticist, 
but afterward developed line under Ingres. 

THE OEIENTALISTS : In both literature and painting one 
phase of romanticism showed itself in a love for the life, 
the light, the color of the Orient. From Paris Decamps 
(1S03-1860) was the first painter to visit the East and paint 
Eastern life. He was a genre painter more than a figure 
painter, giving naturalistic street scenes in Turkey and Asia 
Minor, courts, and interiors, with great feeling for air, 


warmth of color, and light. At about the same time Maril- 
hat (1811-1847) was in Egypt picturing the life of that 
country in a similar manner ; and later, Fromentin (1820- 
1876), painter and writer, following Delacroix, went to Al- 
giers and portrayed there Arab life with fast-flying horses, 
the desert air, sky, light, and color. Theodore Frere and 
Ziem belong further on in the century, but were no less ex- 
ponents of romanticism in the East. 

Fifteen years after the starting of romanticism the move- 
ment had materially subsided. It had never been a school 
in the sense of having rules and laws of art. Liberty of 
thought and perfect freedom for individual expression were 
all it advocated. As a result there was no unity, for there 
was nothing to unite upon ; and with every painter paint- 
ing as he pleased, regardless of law, extravagance was 
inevitable. This was the case, and when the next gen- 
eration came in romanticism began to be ridiculed for 
its excesses. A reaction started in favor of more line 
and academic training. This was first shown by the stu- 
dents of Delaroche, though there were a number of move- 
ments at the time, all of them leading away from roman- 
ticism. A recoil from too much color in favor of more 
form was inevitable, but romanticism was not to perish 
entirely. Its influence was to go on, and to appear in the 
work of later men. 

follower Flandrin (i 809-1 864) was the most considerable 
draughtsman of the time. He was not classic but religious 
in subject, and is sometimes called " the religious painter 
of France." He had a delicate beauty of line and a fine 
feeling for form, but never was strong in color, brushwork, 
or sentiment. His best work appears in his very fine por- 
traits. Gleyre (i 806-1 874) was a man of classic methods, 
but romantic tastes, who modified the heroic into the 
idyllic and mythologic. He was a sentimental day-dreamer, 


with a touch of melanclioly about the vanished past, ap- 
pearing" in Arcadian fancies, pretty nymphs, and ideahzed 
memories ot \outh. hi execution lie was not at all ro- 
mantic. His color was pale, his drawing delicate, and his 
lighting- misty and uncertain. It was the etherealized 
classic niethoil, and this method he transmitted to a little 
band of painters called the 

NEW-GREEKS, who, in point of time, belong much further 
along in the century, but in their art are with (ileyre. 
'I'heir work never rose above the idyllic and the graceful, and 
calls for no special mention. Hamon (1821-1874) and Aubert 
(1S24-) belonged to the band, and G6r6me (1824-*) was at one 
time its leader, but he afterward emerged from it to a higher 
place in French art, where he will find mention hereafter. 

Couture (1815-1879) stood quite by himself, a mingling of 
several influences. His chief picture. The Romans of the 
Decadence, is classic in subject, romantic in sentiment 
(and this very largely expressed by warmth of color), and 
rather realistic in natural appearance. He was an eclectic 
in a wav, and yet seems to stand as the forerunner of a 
large body of artists who find classification hereafter under 
the title of the Semi-Classicists. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: All the painters mentioned in this chapter are 
best represented in the Louvre at Paris, at Versailles, and in the museums 
of the chief French cities. Some works of the late or living men may be 
found in the Luxembourg, where pictures bought by the state are kept 
for ten years after the painter's death, and then are either sent to the 
Louvre or to the other municipal galleries of France. Some pictures by 
these men are also to be seen in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. 
the Boston Museum, and the Chicago Art Institute. 
* Died, 1904. 




Books Recommended : The books before mentioned, con- 
sult also General Bibliography, (page xv.) 

THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The influence of either the 
classic or romantic example may be traced in almost all of 
the French painting of this century. The opposed teach- 
ings find representatives in new men, and under different 
names the modified dispute goes on — the dispute of the aca- 
demic versus the individual, the art of form and line versus 
the art of sentiment and color. . . ■ 

With the classicism of David not only the figure but the 
landscape setting of it, took on an ideal heroic character. 
Trees and hills and rivers became supernaturally grand and 
impressive. Everything was elevated by method to produce 
an imaginary Arcadia fit for the deities of the classic world. 
'I'he result was that nature and the humanity of the painter 
passed out in favor of school formula and academic tradi- 
tions. When romanticism came in this was changed, but 
nature falsified in another direction. Landscape was given an 
interest in human affairs, and made to look gay or sad, peace- 
ful or turbulent, as the day went well or ill with the hero of 
the story portrayed. It was, however, truer to the actual 
than the classic, more studied in the parts, more united in 
the whole. About the year 1830 the influence of roman- 
ticism began to show in a new landscape art. That is to 



saV, the emotional impulse springing from romanticism com- 
bined with the stinl\- of the old Dutch landscapists, and the 
English contemporary painters, Constable and ISonington, 

FIG. 04. — COROT. TANn=;CAPK. 

set a large number of painters to the close study of nature 
and ultimatelv developed what has been vaguely called the 

primarily devoted to showing the sentiment of color and 
light. It took nature just as it found it in the forest of 
Fontainebleau, on the plain of Barbizon, and elsewdiere, and 
treated it with a poetic feeling for light, shadow, atmos- 
phere, color, that resulted in the best landscape painting 
yet known to us. 

Corot (i 796-1 S75) though classically trained under Bertin, 
and though somewhat apart from the other men in his life, 
belongs with this group. He was a man wdiose artistic life 
was filled with the beauty of light and air. These he painted 
with great singleness of aim and great poetic charm. Most 
of his work is in a light silvery key of color, usually slight 


in composition, simple in masses of light and dark, and very 
broadly but knowingly handled with the brush. He began 
painting by using the minute brush, but changed it later on 
for a freer style which recorded only the great omnipresent 
truths and suppressed the small ones. He has never had 
a superior in producing the permeating light of morning 
and evening. For this alone, if for no other excellence, he 
deservedly holds high rank. 

Rousseau (i8i 2-1867) was one of the foremost of the rec- 
ognized leaders, and probably the most learned landscap- 
ist of this century. A man of many moods and methods he 
produced in variety with rare versatility. Much of his work 
was experimental, but at his best he had a majestic concep- 
tion of nature, a sense of its power and permanence, its 
volume and mass, that often resulted in the highest quality 
of pictorial poetry. In color he was rich and usually warm, 
in technic firm and individual, in sentiment at times quite 
sublime. At first he painted broadly and won friends 
among the artists and sneers from the public ; then in his 
middle style he painted in detail, and had a period of popu- 
lar success ; in his late style he went back to the broad 
manner, and died amid quarrels and vexations of spirits. 
His long-time friend and companion, Jules Dupre (1812- 
1S89), hardly reached up to him, though a strong painter 
in landscape and marine. He was a good but not great 
colorist, and, technically, his brush was broad enough but 
sometimes heavy. His late work is inferior in sentiment 
and labored in handling. Diaz (1808-1876) was allied to 
Rousseau in aim and method, though not so sure nor so pow- 
erful a painter. He had fancy and variety in creation that 
sometimes ran to license, and in color he was clear and brill- 
iant. Never very well trained, his drawing is often indif- 
ferent and his light distorted, but these are more than 
atoned for by delicacy and poetic charm. At times he 
painted with much power. Daubigny (1817-1878) seemed 


mure like Corcit in his charm of slylc and love of atmos- 
phere and liglu tliaii any of the otiiers. He was fond of 
tile banks of tlie Seine and tlie Marne at twilight, witli even- 
ins;' atmospheres and dark trees standing in silent ranks 
against the warm sky. He was also foiiil of the gray (.lay 
along the coast, anil even the sea attracted hini not a little. 
He was a painter of high abilities, and in treatment strongly 
individual, even distinguished, by his simplicity and direct- 
ness. Unity of the whole, grasp of the mass entire, was his 
teclmical aim, and this he sought to get not so much by 
line as b\' color-tones of varying value. In this respect he 
seemed a connecting link between Corot and the present- 
day impressionists. Michel (1763-1842), Huet (1804-1869), 
Chintreuil (1814-1873), and Francais (1S14-) were all allied 
in point of view with this group of landscape painters, and 
among the late men who have carried out their beliefs are 
Cazin, Yon, Damoye, Pointelin. Harpignies and Pelouse * 
seem a little more inclined to the realistic than the poetic 
view, though producing work of much virility and intelli- 

Contemporary and associated with the Fontainebleau 
painters were a number of men who won high distinction as 

PAINTERS OF ANIMALS : Troyon (1810-1865) ^^'^s the most 
prominent among them. His work shows the same senti- 
ment of light and color as the Fontainebleau landscapists, 
and with it there is much keen insight into animal life. As 
a technician he was rather hard at first, and he never was a 
correct draughtsman, but he had a way of giving the char- 
acter of the objects he portrayed which is the very essence 
of truth. He did many landscapes with and without cattle. 
His best pupil was Van Marcke (1827-1890), who followed 
his methods but never possessed the feeling of his master. 
Jacque (1S13-*) is also of the Fontainebleau-Barbizon group, 
and is justly celebrated for his paintings and etchings of 
sheep. The poetry of the school is his, and techni-caUy he 
* Died 1890. 



is fine in color at times, if often rather dark in illumination. 
Like Troyon he knows his subject well, and can show the 
nature of sheep with true feeling. Rosa Bonheur (1822-*) 
and her brother, Aug^uste Bonheur (1824- 1884), have both 
dealt with animal life, but never with that fine artistic 
feeling which would warrant their popularity. Their work 
is correct enough, but prosaic and commonplace in spirit. 
They do not belong in the same group with Troyon and 

THE PEASANT PAINTERS: Allied again in feeling and senti- 
ment with the Fontainebleau landscapists were some cele- 
brated painters of peasant life, chief among whom stood 


Millet (i 814-1875), of Barbizon. The pictoral inclination of 
Millet was early grounded by a study of Delacroix, the 
master romanticist, and his work is an expression of roman- 

* Died, iSgg. 


ticism modified by an individual study of nature and applied 
to peasant life. He was peasant born, livinj^ and dyiny at 
Barbi/on, synipathizin;^ with his class, and painting them 
with great [loelie force aiul siniplicit)'. His sentiment 
sometimes has a literary bias, as in his far-famed but indif- 
ferent .Vngelus, but usually it is strictly pictorial and has to 
i\o witli the beauty of light, air, color, motion, life, as shown 
in 'I'he Sower or 'I'he Cileaners. 'reehnically he was not 
strong as a draughtsman or a brushman, but he had a large 
feeling for form, great simplicity in line, keen perception of 
tlie relations of light and (.lark, and at times an excellent 
color-sense. He was virtually the discoverer of the peas- 
ant as an art subject, and for this, as for his original point 
of view and artistic feeling, he is ranked as one of the fore- 
most artists of the century. 

Jtiles Breton (1827-), though painting little besides the 
peasantry, is no Millet follower, for he started painting 
peasant scenes at about the same time as Millet. His af- 
finities were with the New-Greeks early in life, and ever 
since he has inclined toward the academic in style, though 
handling the rustic subject. He is a good technician, ex- 
cept in his late work ; but as an original thinker, as a pic- 
torial poet, he does not show the intensity or profundity of 
]\fillet. The followers of the Millet-Breton tradition are 
many. The blue-frocked and sabot-shod peasantry have 
appeared in salon and gallery for twenty years and more, 
but with not very good results. The imitators, as usual, 
have caught at the subject and missed the spirit. Billet 
and Legros, contemporaries of Millet, still living, and Lerolle, 
a man of present-day note, are perhaps the most consider- 
able of the painters of rural subjects to-day. 

THE SEMI-CLASSICISTS : It must not be inferred that the 

classic influence of David and Ingres disappeared from view 

with the coming of the romanticists, the Fontainebleau 

landscapists, and the Barbizon painters. On the contrary, 



side by side with these men, and opposed to them, were the 
believers in line and academic formulas of the beautiful. 
The whole tendency of academic art in France was against 
Delacroix, Rousseau, and Millet. During their lives they 
were regarded as heretics in art and without the pale of the 
Academy. Their art, however, combined with nature study 
and the realism of Courbet, succeeded in modifying the 
severe classicism of Ingres into what has been called semi- 
classicism. It consists in the elevated, heroic, or historical 
theme, academic form well drawn, some show of bright 
colors, smoothness of brush-work, and precision and nicety 
of detail. In treatment it attempts the realistic, but in 
spirit it is usually stilted, cold, unsympathetic. 

Cabanel (1823-1889) and Bouguereau (1825-) have both 
represented semi-classic art well. They are justly ranked as 
famous draughtsmen and good portrait-painters, but their 
work always has about it the stamp of the academy machine, 
a something done to order, knowing and exact, but lacking 
in the personal element. It is a weakness of the academic 
method that it virtually banishes the individuality of eye 
and hand in favor of school formulas. Cabanel and Bougue- 
reau have painted many incidents of classic and historic 
story, but with never a dash of enthusiasm or a suggestion 
of the great qualities of painting. Their drawing has been 
as thorough as could be asked for, but their colorings have 
been harsh and their brushes cold and thin. 

G6r6me (1824-*) is a man of classic training and inclina- 
tion, but his versatility hardly allows him to be classified 
anywhere. He was first a leader of the New-Greeks, paint- 
ing delicate mythological subjects ; then a historical painter, 
showing deaths of Caesar and the like ; then an Orientalist, 
giving scenes from Cairo and Constantinople ; then a genre 
painter, depicting contemporary subjects in the many lands 
through which he has travelled. Whatever he has done 
shows semi-classic drawing, ethnological and archseological 

♦ Died, 1904. 



knowledge, Parisian teciiiiic, and exact detail. His travels 
have not changed iiis precise scientific point of view, lie 
is a true academician at bottom, but a more versatile and 
cultured [Xiinter than either Cabanel or iSoLijjjuereau, lie 
ilraws well, sometimes uses cohjr well, and is an excellent 
painter of textures. .\ man of ^real learning in many de- 
partments he is no painter to be sneered at, and yet not a 

nLEANEK'-^. I.niiVRR. 

painter to make the pulse beat faster or to arouse the 
resthetic etnotions. His work is impersonal, olijective fact, 
showing a brilliant exterior but inwardly devoid of feeling. 
Paul Baudry (1828-1886), though a disciple of line, was 
not precisely a semi-classicist, and perhaps for that reason 
was superior to any of the academic painters of his time. 
He was a follower of the old masters in Rome more than 
the Rcole J(s Beaux Arts. His subjects, aside from many 
splendid portraits, were almost all classical, allegorical, or 
mythological. He was a fine draughtsman, and, what is more 


remarkable in conjunction therewith, a fine colorist. He was 
hardly a great originator, and had not passion, dramatic 
force, or much sentiment, except such as may be found in 
his delicate coloring and rhythm of line. Nevertheless he was 
an artist to be admired for his purity of purpose and breadth 
of accomplishment. His chief work is to be seen in the 
Opera at Paris. Puvis de Chavannes (1824-*) is quite a dif- 
ferent style of painter, and is remarkable for fine delicate 
tones of color which hold their place well on wall or ceiling, 
and for a certain grandeur of composition. In his desire to 
revive the monumental painting of the Renaissance he has 
met with much praise and much blame. He is an artist of 
sincerity and learning, and as a wall-painter has no superior 
in contemporary France. 

Hubert (1817-), an early painter of academic tendencies, 
and Henner (1829-), fond of form and yet a brushman with 
an idyllic feeling for light and color in dark surroundings, 
are painters who may come under the semi-classic group- 
ing, lefebvre (1834-) is probably the most pronounced in 
academic methods among the present men, a draughtsman 
of ability. 

PORTEAIT AND FIGURE PAINTEKS: Under this heading may 
be included those painters who stand by themselves, showing 
no positive preference for either the classic or romantic fol- 
lowings. Bonnat (1S33-) has painted all kinds of subjects — 
^cnrc^ figure, and historical pieces — but is perhaps best known 
as a portrait-painter. He has done forcible work. Some 
of it indeed is astonishing in its realistic modelling — the ac- 
centuation of light and shadow often causing the figures to 
advance unnaturally. From this feature and from his de- 
tail he has been known for years as a " realist." His ana- 
tomical Christ on the Cross and mural paintings in the 
Pantheon are examples. As a portrait-painter he is accept- 
able, if at times a little raw in color. Another portrait- 
painter of celebrity is Carolus-Duran (1837-). He is rather 

* Died, i3.j8. 


startling at times in his portrayal of rohrs and ilrapcriis, 
has a facility of the brusli that is fre(|uenlly deeeptive, and 
in color is sonietinies \i\id. He has liatl great sm cess as a 
teacher, and is, all told, a painter of high rank. Delaunay 
(1828-189:) in late years painted little liesides portraits, and 
was one of the conseryatiyes of French art. Laurens (1S3S-) 
has been more of a historical painter than the others, and has 
dealt largely with ileath scenes. He is often spoken of as 
" the painter of the deatl," a man of sound training and ex- 
cellent technical po\\'er. Regnault (1843-1871) was a figure 
and ,;,■'■"'"'■ painter with much feeling for oriental light and 
color, who unfortunately «as killed in battle at twenty-seven 
years of age. He was an artist of promise, and has left 
several notable canvases. Among the younger men who 
portray the historical subject in an elevated style mention 
should be made of Cormon (1845-), Benjamin-Constant 
(1845-), and Rochegrosse. As ])ainters of portraits Aman- 
Jean and Carrifere have long held rank, and each succeed- 
ing Salon brings new portraitists to the front. 

THE REALISTS: About the time of the appearance of Mil- 
let, sav 1S48, there also came to the front a man who 
scorned both classicism and romanticism, and maintained 
that the only model and subject of art should be nature. 
This man, Courbet (1S19-1878), really gave a third tendency 
to the art of this century in France, and his influence un- 
doubtedly had much to do with modifying both the classic 
and romantic tendencies. Courbet \vas a man of arrogant, 
dogmatic disposition, and was quite heartily detested during 
his life, but that he was a painter of great ability few will 
deny. His theory was the abolition of both sentiment and 
academic law, and the taking of nature just as it was, with all 
its beauties and all its deformities. This, too, was his practice 
to a certain extent. His art is material, and yet at times lofty 
in conception even to the sublime. And while he believed in 
realism he did not believe in petty detail, but rather in the 

* Died, 1902. 

1 66 


great truths of nature. These he saw with a discerning eye 
and portrayed with a masterful brush. He believed in what 
he saw only, and had more the observing than the reflect- 


ive or emotional disposition. As a technician he was coarse 
but superbly strong, handling sky, earth, air, with the ease 
and power of one well trained in his craft. His subjects 
were many — the peasantry of France, landscape, and the 
sea holding prominent places — and his influence, though 
not direct because he had no pupils of consequence, has 
been most potent with the late men. 

The young painter of to-day who does things in a " realis- 
tic " way is frequently met with in French art. L'hermitte 
(1844-), Julien Dupre (1851-), and others have handled the 
the peasant subject with skill, after the Millet-Courbet 
initiative; and Bastien-Lepage (1S48-1 884) excited a good 
deal of admiration in his lifetime for the truth and evident 
sincerity of his art. Bastien's point of view was realistic 


enouy;h, but somewhat material. He never handled the 
larye eomposition with suceess, but in small pieces and in 
portraits he was i[uite above criticism. His followiu)^ 
among the young men was considerable, and the so-called 
im]-)ressionists have ranked him among their disciples or 

Meissonier (1S15-1S91), while extremely realistic in modern 
detail, probably originated from a study of the seven- 
teenth-century Dutchmen like Terburg and Metsu. It 
does not portray low life, but rather the half - aristocratic 
— the scholar, the cavalier, the gentleman oi leisure. This 
IS done on a small scale with microscopic nicety, and really 
more in the historical than the (^e/in- spirit. Single figures 
and interiors were his preference, but he also painted a cycle 
of Napoleonic battle-pictures with much force. There is 
little or no sentiment about his work — little more than in that 
ofderome. His success lay in exact technical accomplish- 
ment. He drew well, painted well, and at times was a su- 
perior colorist. His art is more admired by the public than 
by the painters ; but even the latter do not fail to praise his 
skill of hand. He was a great craftsman in the infinitely 
little. As a great artist his rank is still open to question. 

'l"he .i,v//rt' painting of fashi(jnable life has been carried out 
by many followers of INIeissonier, whose names need not be 
mentioned since they have not improved upon their fore- 
runner. Toulmouclie (1829-), Leloir (1843-1884), Vibert 
(1S40-), Bargue (?-i8S3), and others, though somewhat 
different from Meissonier, belong among those painters of 
;^ciire who love detail, costumes, stories, and pretty faces. 
Among the painters of military gt'iire mention should be 
made of De Neuville (1836-18S5), Berne-Bellecour (183S-), 
Detaille (1848-), and Aim^-Morot (1850-), all of them 
painters of merit. 

Quite a different style of painting — half figure-piece half 


genre — is to be found in the work of Ribot (1823-), a strong 
painter, remarkable for his apposition of high flesh lights 
with deep shadows, after the manner of Ribera, the Spanish 
painter. Roybet ( i 840-) is fond of rich stuffs and tapestries 
with velvet-clad characters in interiors, out of which he 
makes good color effects. Bonvin (181 7-1 8S7) and Mettling 
have painted the interior with small figures, copper-kettles, 
and other still-life that have given brilliancy to their pict- 
ures. As a still-life painter Vollon ( 1 833-) has never had 
a superior. His fruits, flowers, armors, even his small ma- 
rines and harbor pieces, are painted with one of the surest 
brushes of this century. He is called the " painter's 
painter," and is a man of great force in handling color, 
and in large realistic effect. Dantan and Friant have both 
produced canvases showing figures in interiors. 

A number of excellent genre painters have been claimed 
by the impressionists as belonging to their brotherhood. 
There is little to warrant the claim, except the adoption to 
some extent of the modern ideas of illumination and flat 
painting. Dagnan-Bouveret (1S52-) is one of these men, a 
good draughtsman, and a finished clean painter who by his re- 
cent use of high color finds himself occasionally looked upon 
as an impressionist. As a matter of fact he is one of the 
most conservative of the moderns — a man of feeling and 
imagination, and a fine technician. Fantin-Latour (1836-) is 
half romantic, half allegorical in subject, and in treatment 
oftentimes designedly vague and shadowy, more suggestive 
than realistic. Duez (1S43-) and Gervex (i 848-) are perhaps 
nearer to impressionism in their works than the others, but 
they are not at all advance advocates of this latest phase of 
art. In addition there are Cottet and Henri Martin. 

THE IMPEESSIONISTS : The name is a misnomer. Every 
painter is an impressionist in so far as he records his im- 
pressions, and all art is impressionistic. What Manet (1833- 
1883), the leader of the original movement, meant to say was 



that naturi.' sliouUl not be paiiitrti as it actually is, hut as it 
"impresses" the painter. He anil his few loilowers tried 
to ehanj^e the name to Independenls, Inil the orij^inal 
name lias ihni:.^ to them and been mistakenly fastened to a 
present band of huulseape painters who are seckinj; eHeets 
o( light and air aiul slioukl be ealled luminists if it is 
neeessar\- for them to be named at all. Manet was 
extravagant in method and disposed toward low life for a 
subjeet, wliieli has always militiited against his popularity ; 

l-tG. 63. — MtilSSONIER. X.Vf'OIKi'N I\ I0I4 

but he was a very important man for his technical dis- 
coveries regarding the relations of light and shadow, the flat 
appearance of nature, the exact value of color tones. Some 
of his works, like The Boy with a Sword and The Toreador 


Dead, are excellent pieces of painting. The higher imag- 
inative qualities of art Manet made no great effort at 

Degas stands quite by himself, strong in effects of mo- 
lion, especially with race-horses, fine in color, and a delight- 
ful brushman in such subjects as ballet-girls and scenes 
from the theatre. Besnard is one of the best of the present 
men. He deals with the figure, and is usually concerned 
with the problem of harmonizing color under conflicting 
lights, such as twilight and lamplight. E6raud and Raifaelli 
are exceedingly clever in street scenes and character pieces ; 
Pissarro* handles the peasantry in high color; Brown (1829- 
1890), the race-horse, and Renoir, the middle class of social 
life. Caillebotte, Roll, Forain, and Miss Cassatt, an Ameri- 
can, are also classed with the impressionists. 

there has been a disposition to change the key of light in 
landscape painting, to get nearer the truth of nature in the 
height of light and in the height of shadows. In doing this 
Claude Monet, the present leader of the movement, has done 
away with the dark brown or black shadow and substituted 
the light-colored shadow, which is nearer the actual truth 
of nature. In trying to raise the pitch of light he has not 
been quite so successful, though accomplishing something. 
His method is to use pure prismatic colors on the principle 
that color is light in a decomposed form, and that its proper 
juxtaposition on canvas will recompose into pure light again. 
Hence the use of light shadows and bright colors. The aim 
of these modern men is chiefly to gain the effect of light 
and air. They do not apparently care for subject, detail, or 

At present their work is in the experimental stage, but 
from the way in which it is being accepted and followed by 
the painters of to-day we may be sure the movement is of 
considerable importance. There will probably be a reac- 

* Died, 1Q03. 


tiiiii in f,i\()r of inoix rdini ;uiil solidity than the present 
men ,L;i\"e, but the hiijh ke\' n( hj^Hit will he retained. There 
are so many painters followiiii;' these modern methods, not 
oid\- in l''ranie but all over the world, that a list of their 
names would be impossible. In I'Vance Sisley with Monet 
are the two important landseapists. In marbles Boudin 
and Montenard shoidd be mentioned. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS: The modern French painters are seen to ad- 
\.inUii^c in tlie L'Hivic, Luxembourg, I'antheon, St-nhonne, and tlie munic- 
ipal galleries of France. Also Metropolitan Museum New \'ork, Chicago 
.\n Institute, Boston Museum, and many private collections in France and 
America. Cr)nsu]l for works in pulilic <»r private hands, Chaniplin and 
I'crkins. (Vi /(•/ii/;i; oj Vainten and J'ainiin^s, under names of artists. 



Books Recommended : Bermudez, Diicionaiio de las 
Bellas Aries en Espafia ; Davillier, Aleinoire de Velasquez ; 
Davillier, Fortuny ; Eusebi, Los Dijfereiites Eseuelas de 
Piutura ; Ford, Handbook of Spain ; Head, History of 
Spanisli and French Schools of Fainting ; Justi, Velasgiiez and 
his Times ; Lefort, Velasquez ; Lefort, Francisco Goya ; 
Lefort, Murillo et son Fcole ; Lefort, La Feinti/re Fspagnole ; 
Palomino de Castro y Velasco, J^idas de los Pintores y Esta- 
tiiarios Eniinentes Espaiioles ; Passavant, Die CJiristlicIie Kiinst 
in Spanien ; Plon, Les Maitres Ltaliens an Service de la Maison 
d^ Antriche ; Stevenson, Velasqne-z; Stirling, Annals of the 
Artists of Spain ; Stirling, I'elasqiicz and his Works; Tubino, 
El Arte y los Artistas coiiteinpordneos en la Peninsula ; 
Tubino, Murillo ; Viardot, Notices sur les Frincipaux Feintres 
de r Espagne ; Yriarte, Goya, sa Biographic, etc. 

SPANISH ART MOTIVES: \\'hat ma)' have been the early 
art of Spain we are at a loss to conjecture. The reigns of 
the Moor, the Iconoclast, and, finally, the Inquisitor, have 
left little that dates before the fourteenth century. The 
miniatures and sacred relics treasured in the churches and 
said to be of the apostolic period, show the traces of a much 
later date and a foreign origin. Even when we come down 
to the fifteenth century and meet with art produced in 
Spain, we have a following of Italy or the Netherlands. In 
methods and technic it was derivative more than original, 
though almost from the beginning peculiarly Spanish in 

That spirit was a dark and savage one, a something that 



n'iii,m.'ir uiuU'i' tlu' lasli of llu' (.'liui'c h, lidWfil hcfmi- the 
liU|UisUnin, ,uui pl.iwd tlu' t'\ci'iili(inri- with llic ii.iiiit- 
l>rusli. 'I'hc liulk ol Spanish >ii"l was C'luirrli aii, doui.' uiulcr 

, \K \ Kl r.F-M A. 

ecclesiastical ilomination, aiul done m tonii without ques- 
tion or protest. 'I'lie reliiiious subject nileil. True enough, 
there was portraiture of nobility, antl under Philip and 
Velasque/ a half-monarchical art of military scenes and 
i;iyir<- : but this was not the bent of Spanish painting' as a 
whole. Even in late davs, when N'elasquez was rellecting 
the haughty court, Munllo was more widel)' and nationally 


reflecting the believing provinces and the Church faith of 
the people. It is safe to say, in a general way, that the 
Church was responsible for Spanish art, and that religion 
was its chief motive. 

There was no revived antique, little of the nude or the 
pagan, little of consequence in landscape, little, until Velas- 
quez's time, of the real and the actual. An ascetic view 
of life, faith, and the hereafter prevailed. The pietistic, 
the fervent, and the devout were not so conspicuous as the 
morose, the ghastly, and the horrible. The saints and 
martyrs, the crucifixions and violent deaths, were eloquent 
of the torture-chamber. It was more ecclesiasticism by 
blood and violence than Christianity by peace and love. 
And Spain welcomed this. For of all the children of the 
Church she was the most faithful to rule, crushing out 
heresy with an iron hand, gaining strength from the 
Catholic reaction, and upholding the Jesuits and the 

METHODS OF PAINTING : Spanish art worthy of mention 
did not appear until the fifteenth century. At that time 
Spain was in close relations with the Netherlands, and 
Flemish painting was somewhat followed. How much the 
methods of the Van Eycks influenced Spain would be hard 
to determine, especially as these Northern methods were 
mixed with influences coming from Italy. Finally, the 
Italian example prevailed by reason of Spanish students in 
Italy and Italian painters in Spain. Florentine line, ^'ene- 
tian color, and Neapolitan light-and-shade ruled almost 
everywhere, and it was not until the time of Velasquez — 
the period just before the eighteenth-century decline — that 
distinctly Spanish methods, founded on nature, really came 
forcibly to the front. 

SPANISH SCHOOLS OF PAINTING: There is difficulty in clas- 
sifying these schools of painting because our present knowl- 
edge of them is limited. Isolated somewhat from the rest 



of Europe, the Spanish painters liave never been critically 
studied as the Italians have been, and what is at present 
knt)\vii about the schools must be accepteil sui)ject to criti- 
cal revision hereafter. 

The earliest school seems to have been made up from a 
gathering- of artists at Toledo, who limned, carved, and 
gilded ni the cathedral ; but this school was not of long 
duration. It was merged into the Castilian school, which, 
after the building of Madriil, made its home in that capital 
and drew its forces from the towns of 'J'oledo, Vallad(jlid, 

FIG. 70. — ML'RILLO. ST. ANTHONY' OF f.\DU.\. r.ERLlN. 

and Badajoz. The Andalusian school, which rose about 
the middle of the sixteenth century, was made up from 
the local schools of Seville, Cordova, and Granada. The 


V^alencian school, to the southeast, rose about the same 
time, and was finally merged into the Andalusian. '1 he 
Aragonese school, to the east, was small and of no great 
consequence, though existing in a feeble way to the end of 
the seventeenth century. The painters of these schools 
are not very strongly marked apart by methods or school 
traditions, and perhaps the divisions would better be looked 
upon as more geographical than otherwise. None of the 
schools really began before the sixteenth century, though 
there are names of artists and some extant pictures before 
that date, and with the seventeenth century all art in Spain 
seems to have centred about Madrid. 

Spanish painting started into life concurrently with the 
rise to prominence of Spain as a political kingdom. What, 
if any, direct effect the maritime discoveries, the conquests 
of Granada and Naples, the growth of literature, and the 
decline of Italy, may have had upon Spanish painting can 
only be conjectured ; but certainly the sudden advance of 
the nation politically and socially was paralleled by the 
advance of its art. 

THE CASTILIAN SCHOOL: This school probably had no so- 
calleil founder. It was a growth from early art traditions 
at Toledo, and afterward became the chief school of the 
kingdom owing to the patronage of Philip 11. and Philip 
IV. at Madrid. The first painter of importance in the 
school seems to have been Antonio Rincon (1446 ?-i5oo ?). 
He is sometimes spoken of as the father of Spanish paint- 
ing, and as having studied in Italy with Castagno and 
Ghirlandajo, but there is little foundation for either state- 
ment. He painted chiefly at Toledo, painted portraits of 
Ferdinand and Isabella, and had some skill in hard draw- 
ing. Berruguete (i48o?-i56i) studied with Michael An- 
gelo, and is supposed to have helped him in the Vatican. 
He afterward returned to Spain, painted many altar-pieces, 
and was patronized as painter, sculptor, and architect by 


Charles V. and Philip II. He was probably the first to 
introduce pure Italian methods into Spain, with some cold- 
ness and dryness of coloring and handling. Becerra 
( I 5 JO ^- I 570) was horn in Antlalusia, but worked in Castile, 
and was a man of Italian training similar to Berruguete. 
He was an excc[ilional man, perhaps, in his use of mytho- 
logical themes and nude figures. 

I'here is not a great deal known about Morales (1509?- 
15S6), called " the Divine," except that he was allied to the 
Castilian school, and painted devotional heads of Christ 
with the crown of thorns, and many afflicted and weeping 
madonnas. There was Florentine drawing in his work, 
great regard for finish, and something of Correggio's soft- 
ness in shadows pitched in a browner key. His sentiment 
was rather exaggerated. Sanchez-Coello (1513?-! 590) was 
painter and courtier to Philip II., and achieved reputation 
as a portrait-painter, though also doing some altar-pieces. 
It is doubtful whether he ever studied in Italy, but in 
Spain he was for a time with Antonio Moro, and probably 
learned from him something of rich costumes, ermines, em- 
broideries, and jewels, for which his portraits were remark- 
able. Navarette (1526 ?-i579), called "El Mudo " (the 
dumb one), certainly was in Italy for something like twenty 
years, and was there a disciple of Titian, from whom he 
doubtless learned much of color and the free flow of dra- 
peries. He was one of the best of the middle-period paint- 
ers. Theotocopuli (1548 ?-i625), called "El Greco" (the 
Greek), was another Venetian - influenced painter, with 
enough Spanish originality about him to make most of his 
pictures striking in color and drawing. Tristan (1586-1640) 
was his best follower. 

Velasquez (1599-1660) is the greatest name in the history 

of Spanish painting. With him Spanish art took upon itself 

a decidedly naturalistic and national stamp. Before his 

time Italy had been freely imitated ; but though Velasquez 




himself was in Italy for quite a long time, and intimately 
acquainted with great Italian art, he never seemed to have 
been led away from his own individual way of seeing and 
doing. He was a pupil of Herrera, afterward with Pacheco, 
and learned much from Ribera and Tristan, but more from 
a direct study of nature than from all the others. He was in 


a broad sense a realist — a man who recorded the material 
and the actual without emendation or transposition. He 
has never been surpassed in giving the solidity and sub- 
stance of form and the placing of objects in atmosphere. 
And this, not in a small, finical way, but with a breadth 
and a nobility of treatment which are to-day the despair of 
painters. There was nothing of the ethereal, the spiritual, 


the pietistic, or the patlietic aln)ut liiiii. He never for a 
moment left the hrni basis of reality. Standing upon earth 
he recorilcd the truths of the earth, l)Lit in their largest, 
fullest, most unix'ersal forms. 

'rechnieally his was a master-hand, doing all things with 
ease, giving exaet relations of eolors and lights, and plaeing 
everything so [lerfeetly that no addition or alteration is 
thought of. With the brush he was liglit, easy, sure. The 
surfaee looks as though touehed onee, no more. It is 
the perfeetion of handling through its simplicity and cer- 
tainty, and has not the slightest trace of affectation or 
mannerism. He was one of the few Spanish painters who 
were enabled to shake off the yoke of the Church. Yew of 
his canvases are religious in subject. Under royal patron- 
age he passed almost all of his life in painting portraits of 
the royal family, ministers of state, and great dignitaries. 
.\s a portrait-painter he is more widely known than as a 
figure-painter. Nevertheless he did many canvases like The 
Tapestry \Veavers and The Surrender at Breda, which attest 
his remarkable genius in that field ; and even in landscape, 
in xv/uY, in animal painting, he was a very superior man. 
In fact Velasquez is one of the few great painters in Euro- 
pean history for whom there is nothing but praise. He was 
the full-rounded complete painter, intensely individual and 
self-assertive, and yet in his art recording in a broad way 
the Spanish type and life. He was the climax of Spanish 
painting, and after him there was a rather swift decline, as 
had been the case in the Italian schools. 

Mazo (i 6 10?- 1 667), pupil and son-in-law of Velasquez, was 
one of his most facile imitators, and Carreno de Miranda 
(16 I 4-1 685) was influenced by Velasquez, and for a time 
his assistant. The Castilian school may be said to have 
closed with these late men and with Claudio Coello (1635 ?- 
1693), a painter with a style founded on Titian and Rubens, 
whose best work v/as of extraordinary power. Spanish 


painting went out with Spanish power, and only isolated 
men of small rank remained. 

ANDALUSIAN SCHOOL: This school came into existence 
about the middle of the sixteenth century. Its chief centre 
was at Seville, and its chief patron the Church rather than 
the king. Vargas (1502-156S) was probably the real 
founder of the school, though De Castro (fl. 1454) and others 
preceded him. Vargas was a man of much reputation and 
ability in his time, and introduced Italian methods and ele- 
gance into the Andalusian school after twenty odd years of 
residence in Italy. He is said to have studied under Perino 
del Vaga, and there is some sweetness of face and grace of 
form about his work that point that way, though his com- 
position suggests Correggio. Most of his frescos have 
perished ; some of his canvases are still in existence. 

Cespedes (1538 ?-i6o8) is little known through extant works, 
but he achieved fame in many departments during his life, 
and is said to have been in Italy under Florentine influ- 
ence. His coloring was rather cold, and his drawing large 
and flat. The best early painter of the school was Roelas 
(1558 ?-i625), the inspirer of Murillo and the master of 
Zurbaran. He is supposed to have studied at Venice, be- 
cause of his rich, glowing color. Most of his works are 
religious and are found chiefly at Seville. He was greatly 
patronized by the Jesuits. Pacheco (1571-1654) was more 
of a pedant than a painter, a man of rule, who to-day might 
be written down an academician. His work was dry, and 
perhaps the best reason for his being remembered is that 
he was one of the masters and the father-in-law of Velas- 
quez. His rival, Herrera the Elder (i576?-i656) was a 
stronger man — in fact, the most original artist of his school. 
He struck off by himself and created a bold realism with a 
broad brush that anticipated Velasquez — in fact, Velasquez 
was under him fot a time. 

The pure Spanish school in Andalusia, as distinct from 



Italian imitation, may he said U> have slarleil with Ucrrcra. 
It was furtluT ailvaiucil by anotlicr independent painter, 
Ziirbaran ( isyS-idOj), a pupil of Roelas, He was a painter 


of the emaciated monk in ecstasy, and many other rather 
dismal religious subjects expressive of tortured rapture. 
From using a rather dark shadow he acquired the name of 
the Spanish Caravaggio. He had a good deal of Caravag- 
gio's strength, together with a depth and breadth of color 
suggestive of the Venetians. Cano (1601-1667), though he 
never was in Italy, had the name of the Spanish Michael 
,\ngelo, probably because he was sculptor, painter, and ar- 
chitect. His painting was rather sharp in line and statu- 
esque in pose, with a coloring somewhat like that of Van 
Dyck. It was eclectic rather than original work. 

Murillo (1618-1682) is generally placed at the head of the 
Andalusian school, as Velasquez at the head of the Castilian. 
There is good reason for it, for though Murillo was not 
the great painter he was sometime supposed, yet he was 


not the weak man his modern critics would make him out. 
A religious painter largely, though doing some genre sub- 
jects like his beggar-boy groups, he sought for religious 
fervor and found, only too often, sentimentality. His 
madonnas are usually after the Carlo Dolci pattern, though 
never so excessive in sentiment. This was not the case 
with his earlier works, mostly of humble life, which were 
painted in rather a hard, positive manner. Later on he 
became misty, veiled in light and effeminate in outline, 
though still holding grace. His color varied with his early 
and later styles. It was usually gay and a little thin. While 
basing his work on nature like Velasquez, he never had the 
supreme poise of that master, either mentally or technically ; 
howbeit he was an excellent painter, who perhaps justly 
holds second place in Spanish art. 

SCHOOL or VALENCIA: This school rose contemporary with 
tiie Andalusian school, into which it was finally merged 
after the importance of Madrid had been established. It 
was largely modelled upon Italian painting, as indeed were 
all the schools of Spain at the start. Juan de Joanes 
(1523 P-I579) apparently was its founder, a man who painted 
a good portrait, but in other respects was only a fair imita- 
tor of Raphael, whom he had studied at Rome. A stronger 
man was Francisco de Ribalta (1550 ?-i628), who was for a 
tiuie in Italy under the Caracci, and learned from them 
free draughtsmanship and elaborate composition. He was 
also fond of Sebastiano del Piombo, and in his best works 
(at Valencia) reflected him. Ribalta gave an earlv training 
to Ribera (1588-1656), who was the most important man of 
this school. In reality Ribera was more Italian than Va- 
lencian, for he spent the greater part of his life in Italy, 
where he was called Lo Spagnoletto, and was greatly influ- 
enced by Caravaggio. He was a Spaniard in the horrible 
subjects that he chose, but in coarse strength of line, heavi- 
ness of shadows, harsh handling of the brush, he was a true 


Ncapdlilaii I)arkliii;4". A [iruiiomicecl maniU'i'ist he was im 
li'ss a mail of strcnt;'lh, and even in his shaiUivv-salui'ated 
culors a painler with the eohir instiiu:l. In lUily iiis inllu- 
eiue in ihe lime of the Deeailenee was wide-spreail, and in 
:5pam his llahaii pnpil, (iiordano, introdueed his methods for 
kite imitation. There were no other men of mueh rani< in 
the ^'aleneian sehool, ami, as has been saiti, the sehool was 
eventnallv merged in Andahisian paintin<;. 

SPAIN : Ahiiost direetly after the passing of Veiastiuez and 
.Murillo Spanish art failed. The eighteenth-century, as in 
Italy, was quite barren of any considerable art until near its 
close. Then Goya (1746-iSjS) seems to have made a partial 
restoration of painting. He was a man of peculiarly Spanish 
turn of mind, fond of the brutal and the bloody, picturing 
inquisition scenes, bull-fights, battle pieces, and revelling in 
caricature, sarcasm, and ridicule. His imagination was gro- 
tesciue and horrible, but as a painter his art was based on 
the natural, and was exceedingly strong. In brush-work he 
followed A'elasquez ; in a peculiar forcing of contrasts in 
light and dark he was apparently quite himself, though pos- 
sibly influenced by Ribera's work. His best work shows in 
his portraits and etchings. 

After Ctoya's death Spanish art, such as it was, rather 
followed France, with the extravagant classicism of David as 
a model. What was produced may be seen to this day in 
the Madrid Museum. It does not call for mention here. 
About the beginning of the i86o's Spanish painting made 
a new advance with Mariano Fortuny (1S38-1874). In his 
early years he worked at historical painting, but later on he 
went to Algiers and Rome, finding his true vent in a bright 
sparkling painting of ^<';/;r subjects, oriental scenes, streets, 
interiors, single figures, and the like. He excelled in color, 
sunlight effects, and particularly in a vivacious facile hand- 
ling of the brush. His work is brilliant, and in his late pro- 

1 84 


ductions often spotty from excessive use of points of light 
in higli color. He was a technician of much brilliancy and 
originality, his work exciting great admiration in his day, 
and leading the younger painters of Spain into that ornate 
handling visible in their works at the present time. Many 
of these latter, from association with art and artists in Paris, 
have adopted French methods, and hardly show such a 
thing as Spanish nationality. Fortuny's brother-in-law, 

Madrazo (1841-), is an 
example of a Spanish 
painter turned F'rench 
in his methods — a facile 
and brilliant portrait - 
painter. Zamacois 
(i S42-1 87 I) died early, 
but with a reputation as 
a successful portrayer 
of seventeenth-century 
subjects a little after 
the style of Meissonier 
and not unlike Gerome. 
He was a good colorist 
and an excellent painter 
of textures. 

The historical scene 
of Mediseval or Renais- 
sance times, pageants 
and fetes with rich cos- 
tume, fine architecture 
and vivid effects of col- 
or, are characteristic of 
a number of the modern 
Spaniards — Villegas, Pradilla, Alvarez. As a general thing 
their canvases are a little flashy, likely to please at first 
sight but grow wearisome after a time. PalmaroU has a 

FIG. 73. — MADI^AZn 



sl\lc Ihnt rcsrmlilcs a inixturr of l'"orluny and Meissonicr ; 
aiul some otluT p.iinUTs, like Luis Jiminez Aranda, SoroUa, 
Zuloaga, Roman Ribera, ami Domingo, have done creditable 
work. In landsi ajie and Venetian scenes Rico leads among the 
Spaniards \\ilh a vivacity and hrij;htncss not always seen 
to oood advantai;c ni his late canvases. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS ; C.LiuTally s|icakinj;, Spanish art cannot be seen 
C' ailvaiuai;c outside of Spain, liolli ils ancient anil modern maslerpieccs 
aie at Mailiiil, Seville, Toleilo, and elsewhere. The Koyal Gallery at 
Madrid lias llie most and llie liest c.vamples. 

C.vsiii.l \N SctiooL — Rincon, altar-piece cluireh of Roljleda de 
(.'liaviUa ; Berruguete, altar-pieces Sarayossa, Valladolid, Madrid, Toledo ; 
Morales, Madiiil and I.ouvre ; Sanchez-Coello, Madrid and Brussels 
Mus. ; Navarette, Escmial, Madrid, St. Petersburg; Theotocopuli, 
Cathedral and S. Tome Toledo, Madrid Mus.; Velasquez, liest works in 
Madrid Mus. , Kscorial, Salamanca, Montpensier Gals., Nat. Gal. Ton., 
Infanta Marguerita Louvre, liorro portrait (?) Berlin, Innocent X. Doria 
Rome ; Mazo, landscapes Madrid Mus. ; Carreno de Miranda, Madrid 
Mus.; Claudio Coello, I'scorial, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin, and Munich Mus. 

Andai.hsian Scnooi, — Vargas, Seville Cathedral ; Cespedes, Cordo- 
va Cathedral ; Roelas, S. Isidoro Cathedral, Museum Seville ; Pacheco, 
M.adrid Mus.; Herrera, Seville Cathedral and Mus. .and Archbishop's 
I'al.ree, Dresden Mus.; Zurbaran, Seville Cathedral and Mus. Madrid, 
Dresden, I.ouvre, Nat. Gal. Lou.; Cano, Madrid, Seville Mus. and Ca- 
thedral, Berlin, Dresden, Munich ; Murillo, best pictures in Madrid Mus. 
and .\ead. of S. I'ernando Mailrid, Se\'ille Mus. Hospital and Caiaichin 
Chuieh, Lou\i"e, Nat. Gal. Lou., Dresden, Munich, Hermitage. 

X'alencian Sciioi>i. — Juan de Joanes, Madrid Mus., Cathedral Va- 
lencia, Hermitage ; Ribalta, Madrid and Valencian Mus., Heriuitage ; 
Ribera, I.ouvre, Nat. Gal. Loii., Dresden, Naples, Hermitage, and other 
Kuiopeau museums, chief works at Madiid. 

MiiDEKN Men and Tiieiu Works — Goya, Madrid Mus., Acad, of S. 
Fernando, Valencian Cathedral ami Mus., two portraits in Louvre. The 
works of the contemporary painters are largely in private hands where 
leferenee to them is of little use to the average student. Thirty Fortunys 
are in the collection of William H. Stewart in Paris. His best work. The 
Spanish Marriage, belongs to Madame de Cassin, in Paris. Examples of 
Villegas, Madrazo, Rico, Domingo, and others, in the Vanderbilt Gallery, 
Metropolitan Mus., New ^^ork; Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia Mus. 



Books Recommended : Busscher, RcchcrcJus sur Ics Pcin- 
trcs Gantois ; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Early Flemish Paint- 
ers ; Cust, Van Dyek ; Dehaisnes, L'Art dans la Flandre ; 
Du Jardiii, L'art Flamand ; Eisenmann,^ The Brothers Van 
Fvck ; Fetis, Les Artistes Beiges a P Stranger ; Fromentin, 
Old Masters of Belgium and Holland ; Gerrits, Rubens zyn 
Tyd, ete. ; Guiffrey, Van Dyek; Hasselt, Histoi7-e de Rubens ; 
(Waagen's) Kiigler, Handbook of Painting — German, Flemish, 
and Duteh Schools ; Lemonnier, Histoire des Arts en Bel- 
gique : Mantz,^ Adrien Broiiwer ; Michel, Rubens ; Michiels, 
Rubens en I' Ecole d' Ativers ; Michiels, Histoire de la Peinture 
Flamande ; Stevenson, Rubens ; Van den Branden, Geschiedenis 
der Antwerpsche Schilderschool ; Van Mander, Le Livre des 
Peintres ; VfsLd^gtn, Uber Hubert und Jan Van E\ck ; Waagen, 
Peter Paul Rubens ; Wauters, Rogier van der IVevden ; Wau- 
ters. La Peinture Flamande ; Weale, Hans Memling (^Arundel 
Soci) ; Weale, Notes sur Jean 'Van Eyck. 

THE FLEMISH PEOPLE: Individually and nationally the 
Flemings were strugglers against adverse circumstances 
from the beginning. A realistic race with practical ideas, 
a people rather warm of impulse and free in habits, they 
combined some German sentiment with French liveliness 
and gayety. The solidarity of the nation was not accom- 
plished until after i 385, when the Dukes of Burgundy began 
to extend their power over the Low Countries. Then the 
Flemish people became strong enough to defy both Ger- 
many and France, and wealthy enough, through their com- 



nierce witli Spain, Italy, and France to encourage art not 
only at the IHical court but in the churches, and among tlie 
citizens of the various 

METHODS: As in all the 
countries of ]^uro|ie, the 
early Flemish painting- 
pictured Christian sub- 
jects primarily. The 
great bulk of it was 
church altar-pieces, 
though side by side with 
this was an admirable 
portraiture, some knowl- 
edge of landscape, and 
some exposition of alle- 
gorical subjects. In 
means and methods it 
was quite original. The 
early history is lost, but 
if Flemish painting was 
beholden to the painting 
of any other nation, it was 
to the miniature paint- 
ing of France. There is, 
however, no positive rec- 
ord of this. The Flem- 
ings seem to have begun 
by themselves, and pict- 
ured the life about them 
in their own way. They 
were apparently not in- 
fluenced at first by Italy. There were no antique influences, 
no excavated marbles to copy, no Byzantine traditions left 

AN E^'CK^. ST. ll.WON A I.T,\ R-i'l ECE 
(wing). L'.ERLIN. 


to follow. At first their art was exact and minute in detail, 
but not well grasped in the mass. The compositions were 
huddled, the landscapes pure but finical, the figures inclined 
to slimness, awkwardness, and angularity in the lines of form 
or drapery, and uncertain in action. To offset this there was 
a positive realism in textures, perspective, color, tone, light, 
and atmosphere. The effect of the whole was odd and 
strained, but the effect of the part was to convince one that 
the Flemish painters were excellent craftsmen in detail, 
skilled with the brush, and shrewd observers of nature in 
a purely picturesque way. 

To the Flemish painters of the fifteenth century belongs, 
not the invention of oil-painting, for it was known before 
their time, but its acceptable application in picture-making. 
They applied oil with color to produce brilliancy and 
warmth of effect, to insure firmness and body in the work, 
and to carry out textural effects in stuffs, marbles, metals, 
and the like. So far as we know there never was much use 
of distemper, or fresco-work upon the walls of buildings. 
The oil medium came into vogue when the miniatures and 
illuminations of the early days had expanded into panel 
pictures. The size of the miniature was increased, but the 
minute method of finishing was not laid aside. Some time 
afterward painting with oil upon canvas was adopted. 

SCHOOL OF BRUGES ; Painting in Flanders starts abruptly 
with the fifteenth century. What there was before that 
time more than miniatures and illuminations is not known. 
Time and the Iconoclasts have left no remains of conse- 
quence. Flemish art for us begins with Hubert van Eyck 
('-1426) and his younger brother Jan van Eyck (?-i44o). 
The elder brother is supposed to have been the better 
painter, because the most celebrated work of the brothers^ 
the St. Bavon altar-piece, parts of which are in Ghent, Brus- 
sels, and Berlin — bears the inscription that Hubert began it 
and Jan finished it. Hubert was no doubt an excellent 



painter, but his pictures are few and tiiere is much discussion 
whether he or Jan painted them. For historical purposes 
Flemisli art was hc^uii, anil almost ci)ni[)lctcd, by |an van 
Eyck. He IkuI all the attributes (jf the carlv men, and was 
one ol the most perfect of I'leniish painters. Me painted real 
forms and real Hie, j^ave them a settin;;" in true perspective 
and light, and jiut in backj^roLuul landscapes with a truthful 
it minute regard for the facts. His figures in action had 
some awkwardness, they were small of head, slim of body, 
and sometimes stumbled ; but his modelling of faces, his 
rendering of te.xtures in cloth, metal, 
stone, and the like, his delicate yet firm 
fditiiri were all rather remarkable for his 
time. None of this early Flemish art has 
the grandeur of Italian composition, but 
in realistic detail, in landscape, architect- 
ure, figure, and dress, in pathos, sincer- 
ity, and sentiment it is unsurpassed Ijy 
any fifteenth-century art. 

Little is known of the personal history 
of either of the ^'an l^'.ycks. 'f'hey left an 
influence and had many followers, but 
whether these were direct pupils or not 
is an open cjuestion. Peter Cristus (1400 ?- 
1472) was perhaps a pupil of Jan, though 
more likely a follower of his methods in 
color and general technic. Roger van der 
Weyden (i4oo?-i464), whether a pupil of 
the Van Eycks or a rival, produced a simi- 
lar style of art. His first master was an ob- 
scure Robert Campin. He was afterward 
at Bruges, and from there went to Brussels 
and founded a school of his own called the 

SCHOOL OF BEABANT : He was more emotional and dra- 
matic than Jan van Eyck, giving much excited action and 

MG. 75. — MEMLING (?). 
T.^IL). NAT. gal. LON- 


pathetic expression to his figures in scenes from the passion 
of Christ. He had not Van Eyck's skill, nor his detail, nor 
his color. More of a draughtsman than a colorist, he was 
angular in figure and drapery, but had honesty, pathos, and 
sincerity, and was very charming in bright background 
landscapes. Though spending some time in Italy, he was 
never influenced by Italian art. He was always Flemish in 
type, subject, and method, a trifle repulsive at first through 
angularity and emotional exaggeration, but a man to be 

By Van der Goes (i430?-i482) there are but few good ex- 
amples, the chief one being an altarpiece in the Uffizi at 
Florence. It is angular in drawing but full of character, and 
in beauty of detail and ornamentation is a remarkable picture. 
He probably followed Van der Weyden, as did also Justus van 
Ghent (last half of fifteenth century). Contemporary with 
these men Dierick Bouts (1410-1475) established a school at 
Haarlem. He was Dutch by birth, but after 1450 settled in 
Louvain, and in his art belongs to the Flemish school. He 
was influenced by Van der Weyden, and shows it in his detail 
of hands and melancholy face, though he differed from him in 
dramatic action and in type. His figure was awkward, his 
color warm and rich, and in landscape backgrounds he greatly 
advanced the painting of the time. 

Memling' (1425 ?-i495?), one of the greatest of the school, 
is another man about whose life little is known. He was 
probably associated with Van der Weyden in some way. 
His art is founded on the Van Eyck school, and is remark- 
able for sincerity, purity, and frankness of attitude. As a 
religious painter, he was perhaps beyond all his contempo- 
raries in tenderness and pathos. In portraiture he was ex- 
ceedingly strong in characterization, and in his figures very 
graceful. His flesh painting was excellent, but in textures 
or landscape work he was not remarkable. His best fol- 
lowers were Van der Meire (1427 ?-i 474 ?) and Gheeraert 



FlC. 76.- 

David ( 1450 ?- 1 5 J ,;). 'I'hc l;ilUr was fainoiis for the nnc, 
bnuul lainlsoa|)cs in tlic hackj^rnuiuls nt' his pictures, said, 
hnwcvrr, li\' critirs to liavc jiccii paiiiled 1)\' Idachiiii I'ati- 
nir. He was rcalistiialU' luiri'ihlr in 
nuuw snhjocls, anil tli(iu,L;"li a close 
recorder of detail he was nuich broad- 
er than an\' of his predecessors. 

CENTURY: In this century Flemish 
painting- became rather widely dif- 
fused. The schools of Hrug'cs and 
(Ihent gave place to the schools in 
the large coniniercial cities like Ant- 
werp and Brussels, and the commer- 
cial relations Ijetween the Low Coun- 
tries and Italy iinally led to the dis- 

sipatiiur of national characteristics in art and the imitation 
of the Italian Renaissance painters. There is no sharp 
hue of demarcation between those painters who clung to 
Flemish methods and those who adopted Italian methods. 
The change was gradual. 

Quentin Massys (1460 ?-iS3o) and Mostert (1474-1556 ?), a 
Dutchman by birth, but, like Bouts, Flemish by influence, 
Were among the last of the Gothic painters in Flanders, and 
yet they began the introduction of Italian features in their 
painting. Massys led in architectural backgrounds, and 
from that the Italian example spread to subjects, figures, 
methods, until the indigenous Flemish art became a thing of 
the past. Massys was, at Antwerp, the most important 
painter of his day, following the (.)ld Flemish methods with 
many improvements. His work was detailed, and yet ex- 
ecuted with a broader, freer brush than formerly, and with 
more variety in color, modelling, expression of character. 
He increased figures to almost life-size, giving them greater 
importance than landscape or architecture. The type was 


Still lean and angular, and often contorted with emotion. 
His Money-Changers and Misers (many of them painted by 
his son) were a genre of his own. A\'ith him closed the 
Gothic school, and with him began the 

ANTWERP SCHOOL, the pupils of which went to Italy, and 
eventually became Italianized. Mabuse (1470 ?-i54i) was 
the first to go. His early work shows the influence of 
Massys and David. He was good in composition, color, 
and brush-work, but lacked in originality, as did all the 
imitators of Italy. Franz Floris (i5i8?-i57o) was a man 
of talent, much admired in his time, because he brought 
back reminiscences of Michael Angelo to Antwerp. His 
influence was fatal upon his followers, of whom there were 
many, like the Franckens and De Vos. Italy and Roman 
methods, models, architecture, subjects, began to rule 

From Brussels Barent van Orley (1491 ?-i542) left early 
for Italy, and became essentially Italian, though retaining 
some Flemish color. He painted in oil, tempera, and for 
glass, and is supposed to have gained his brilliant colors by 
using a gilt ground. His early works remind one of David. 
Cocxie (1499-1592), the Flemish Raphael, was but an indif- 
ferent imitator of the Italian Raphael. At Liege the Ro- 
manists, so called, began with Lambert Lombard (1505-1566), 
of whose work nothing authentic remains except drawings. 
At Bruges Peeter Pourbus (1510 ?-is84) was about the last 
one of the good portrait-painters of the time. Another ex- 
cellent portrait-painter, a pupil of Scorel, was Antonio Moro 
(1512 ?-i578 ?). He had much dignity, force, and elaborate- 
ness of costume, and stood quite by himself. There were 
other painters of the time who were born or trained in 
Flanders, and yet became so naturalized in other countries 
that in their work they do not belong to Flanders. Neu- 
chatel(i527 ?-i59o?), GeIdorp(i553-i6i6?), Calvaert (1540?- 
1619), Spranger (1546-1627 ?), and others, were of this group. 



Anionj; all the struiii;lcrs in Italian iniilation only a few 
landscapisls lickl out for the Klcniish view. Paul Bril 
(1554-1626) was the best of them. Me went to Italy, but 
instead o( following' the methods taught there, he taught 
Italians his own view of landscape. I lis work was a little 
dr\' and fi.irmal, but graceful in composition, and good in 
light and color. 'Ihe Brueghels — there were three of them 
— also stood out for Flemish landscape, introducing it 
nominally as a background for small figures, but in reality 
for the beauty of the landscape itself. 

ceiUur\' of I'demish 
painting, though the 
painting was not 
entirely Flemish in 
method or thought. 
The influence of It- 
aly had done away 
with the early sim- 
plicity, purity, and 
religious pathos of 
the Van Eycks. 
During the six- 
teenth century ev- 
erything had run to 
liald imitation of 
Renaissance meth- 
ods. Then came a 
new master-genius, 
Rubens (157 7-1 640), 
who formed a new 
art founded in 
method upon Italy, 
yet distinctly northern in character. Rubens chose all sub- 
jects for his brush, but the religious altar-piece probably 



occupied him as much as any. To this he gave little of 
tiothic sentiment, but everything of Renaissance splendor. 
His art was more material than spiritual, more brilliant and 
startling in sensuous qualities, such as line and color, than 
charming by facial expression or tender feeling. Some- 
thing of the Paolo Veronese cast of mind, he conceived 
things largely, and painted them proportionately — large 
Titanic types, broad schemes and masses of color, great 
sweeping lines of beauty. One value of this largeness was 
its ability to hold at a distance upon wall or altar. Hence, 
when seen to-day, close at hand, in museums, people are 
apt to think Rubens's art coarse and gross. 

There is no prettiness about his type. It is not effemi- 
nate or sentimental, but rather robust, full of life and animal 
spirits, full of blood, bone, and muscle — of majestic dig- 
nity, grace, and power, and glowing with splendor of color. 
In imagination, in conception of art purely as art, and 
not as a mere vehicle to convey religious or mythological 
ideas, in mental grasp of the pictorial world, Rubens 
stands with Titian and Velasquez in the very front rank of 
painters. As a technician, he was unexcelled. A master of 
composition, modelling, and drawing, a master of light, and 
a color-harmonist of the rarest ability, he, in addition, pos- 
sessed the most certain, adroit, and facile hand that ever 
handled a paint-brush. Nothing could be more sure than 
the touch of Rubens, nothing more easy and masterful. He 
was trained in both mind and eye, a genius by birth and by 
education, a painter who saw keenly, and was able to realize 
what he saw with certainty. 

Well-born, ennobled by royalty, successful in both court 
and studio, Rubens lived brilliantly and his life was a series 
of triumphs. He painted enormous canvases, and the num- 
ber of pictures, altar-pieces, mythological decorations, land- 
scapes, portraits scattered throughout the galleries of Eu- 
rope, and attributed to him, is simply amazing. He was 



undoubtedly hrlpcd in many of his canvases by his [)upils, 
but the WDi'ks painted li\' Ins own hand make a world of art 
in themselves. He was the greatest painter of the North, 
a tull-roundeil, (cunplete t;enins, eoniparable to Titian in his 
nni\'ersalil\-. 1 li> pri-em-sors and masters, Van Noort (156^- 
1O41) and Vaenius (i558-i62(;), gave no strong indication 


of the greatness of Ruben's art, and his many pupils, 
though echoing his methods, never rose to his height in 
mental or artistic grasp. 

, Van Dyck (1599-1641) was his principal pupil. He fol- 
lowed Rubens closely at first, though in a slighter manner 
technically, and with a cooler coloring. After visiting Italy 
he took up with the warmth of Titian. Later, in England, 


he became careless and less certain. His rank is given him 
not for his figure-pieces. They were not always successful, 
lacking as they did in imagination and originality, though 
done with force. His best work was his portraiture, for 
which he became famous, painting nobility in every country 
of Europe in which he visited. At his best he was a por- 
trait-painter of great power, but not to be placed in the 
same rank with Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, and Velasquez. 
His characters are gracefully posed, and appear to be aris- 
tocratic. There is a noble distinction about them, and yet 
even this has the feeling of being somewhat affected. The 
serene complacency of his lords and ladies finally became 
almost a mannerism with him, though never a disagreeable 
one. He died early, a painter of mark, but not the greatest 
portrait-painter of the world, as is sometimes said of him. 

'I'here were a number of Rubens's pupils, like Diepenbeeck 
(1 596-1675), who learned from their master a certain brush 
facility, but were not sufficiently original to make deep im- 
pressions. When Rubens died the best painter left in Bel- 
gium was Jordaens (1593-1678). He was a pupil of Van 
Noort, but submitted to the Rubens influence and followed 
in Rubens's style, though more florid in coloring and grosser 
in types. He painted all sorts of subjects, but was seen at 
his best in mythological scenes with groups of drunken 
satyrs and bacchants, surrounded by a close-placed land- 
scape. He was the most independent and original of the 
followers, of whom there was a host. Grayer (1582-1669), 
Janssens (1575-1632), Zegers (i 59 i-i 65 1 ), Rombouts (i 597- 
1637), were the prominent ones. They all took an influ- 
ence more or less pronounced from Rubens. Cornelius 
de Vos ( I 585-1 65 1) was a more independent man — a real- 
istic portrait-painter of much ability. Snyders (1579- 
1657), and Fyt ( 1 609?-! 66 1 ), devoted their brushes to the 
painting of still-life, game, fruits, flowers, landscape — Sny- 
ders often in collaboration with Rubens himself. 



T.iviiii; at the saiiu' time with these half-Itahani/.ed paiiit- 
;rs, ami emuinuiiij; later in the eenlnry, there was another 
^ruiip ni panUers in the Low Countries who were eiiiphat- 


ically of the soil, believing in themselves and their own 
countrv and picturuig seenes from commonplace life in a 
manner quite their own. These were the " Little Masters," 
the genre painters, of whom there was even a stronger rep- 
resentation appearing contemporaneously in Holland. In 
Belgium there were not so many nor such talented men, but 
some of them were very interesting in their work as in 
their subjects. Teniers the Younger (1610-1690) was among 
the first of them to picture peasant, burgher, alewife, and 
nobleman in all scenes and places. Nothing escaped him as 
a subject, and yet his best work was shown in the handling 
of low life in taverns. There is coarse wit in his work, but 


it is atoned for by good color and easy handling. He was 
influenced by Rubens, though decidedly different from him 
in many respects. Brouwer (i6o6?-i638) has often been 
catalogued with the Holland school, but he really belongs 
withTeniers, in Belgium. He died early, but left a number 
(^f pictures remarkable for their fine "fat" quality and their 
beautiful color. He was not a man of Italian imagina- 
tion, but a painter of low life, with coarse humor and not 
too much good taste, yet a superb technician and vastly be- 
yond many of his little Dutch contemporaries at the North. 
Teniers and ISrouwer led a school and had many followers. 

In a si ightly different vein was Gonzales Coques (i 6 1 S-i 6S4), 
who is generally seen to advantage in pictures of interiors 
with family groups. In subject he was more refined than 
the othtr gc'>7n: painters, and was influenced to some extent 
by Van Dyck. As a colorist he held rank, and his portraiture 
(rarely seen) was excellent. At this time there were also 
many painters of landscape, marine, battles, still-life — in 
fact Belgium was alive with painters — but none of them was 
sufficiently great to call for individual mention. Most of 
them were followers of either Holland or Italy, and the gist 
of their work will be spoken of hereafter under Dutch paint- 

set in before the seventeenth century ended. Belgium was 
torn by wars, her commerce flagged, her art-spirit seemed 
burned out. A long line of petty painters followed whose 
works call for silence. One man alone seemed to stand 
out like a star by comparison with his contemporaries, Ver- 
hagen (1728-1811), a portrait-painter of talent. 

century Belgium has been so closely related to France that 
the influence of the larger country has been quite apparent 
upon the art of the smaller. In 1S16 David, the leader of 
the French classic school, sent into exile by the Restoration, 


settled at llrusscls, anil ininietliatcly di'cw ai'dund him main' 
|Hipils, His inllncncc was felt at once, and Francois Navez 
(17S7-1S69) was the chief one among his pupils to establish 
the revived classic art in ISelgium. In 1S30, with lielgian 
independence and ahuost concurrently with the roniantit: 
movcinou in I'rance, there began a romantic movement in 
Helgiuni with Wappers (1803-1874). His art was founded 
substanliallv on Rubens ; but, like the I'aris romanticists, 
he chose the ilramatic subject of the times and treated it 
more for color tlian for line. He drew a number of follow- 
ers to himself, but the movement was not more lasting than 
in l-'rance. 

Wiertz (1806-1S65), whose collection of works is to be 
seen in Brussels, was a partial exposition of romanticism 
mixed with a what-not of eccentricity entirely his own. 
Later on came a comparatively new man, Louis Gallait 
(i Sio-?"), who held in fjrussels substantially the same posi- 
tion that Delaroche did in Paris. His art was eclectic and 
never strong, though he had many pupils at Brussels, and 
started there a rivalry to A\'appers at Antwerp. Leys (1815 
-1869) holds a rather unique position in Belgian art by 
reason of his affectation. He at first followed Pieter de 
Hdoghe and other early painters. 'Phen, after a study of 
the old German painters like Cranach, he developed an 
archaic style, producing a Gothic quaintness of line and 
composition, mingled with old Flemish coloring. The result 
was something popular, but not original or far-reaching, 
though technically well done. His chief pupil was Alma 
Tadema (1836-), alive to-day in London, and belonging to 
no school in particular. He is a technician of ability, man- 
nered in composition and subject, and somewhat perfunc- 
torv in execution. His work is very popular with those who 
enjov minute detail and smooth texture-painting. 

In 1 85 1 the influence of the French realism of Courbet 
began to be felt at Brussels, and since then Belgian art has 



followed closel}' the art movements at Paris. Men like 
Alfred Stevens (1828-), a pupil of Navez, are really more 
French than Belgian. Stevens is one of the best of the 
moderns, a painter of power in fashionable or high-life 
genre, and a colorist of the first rank in modern art. Among 
the recent painters but a few can be mentioned. Willems 

1.1 :^Ei) ste\i-:n,s. o.n jhe iiiiAcii 

(1S23-), a weak painter of fashionable ,i^f«;r; Verboeckho- 
ven (1799-1881), a vastly over-estimated animal painter; 
Clays (1819-), an excellent marine painter; Boulanger, a 
landscapist ; Wauters (1846-), a history, and portrait- 
painter ; Jan van Beers, a clever genre painter ; and Robie, 
a painter of llowers. 


PRINCIPAL WORKS: -Hubert van Eyck, Acloialimi of llic Laml. 
(Willi J.iii vail I'lyck) St. liavon tUiciil (\vini;s nt liiusstls and Ilcrlin bii|i- 
ppsod to be liy, the icsl hy Ihiliort) ; Jan van Eyck, as abuvc, also 
Arnolt'iiu poilraits Nat. (ial. L^ii., X'irgiu ami Donor Louvre, Madonna 
Staedel Miis.. Man with I'inks Hciiiii, of Cluircli Madrid; Van 
der Weyden, a number of pietures in Brussels and Y\ntwerp Mus., also 
al Slacdcl Mus., Berlin, Munich, Vienna; Cristus, Berlin, Staedel Mus., 
1 lei iiiitai;e, Madrid; Justus van Ghent, Last Sujuier Urbiiio Gal; 
Bouts, St. Peter Louvain, Munich, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna ; Memling, 
lliu^sels Mus. and Bruges Acad., and Hospital ^Vntwerp, Turin, Uffizi, 
Munich, ^'ienna ; Van der Meire, triptych St. Bavon Ghent ; Ghaeraert 
David, Bruises, Berlin, K^uien, Munich. 

Massys, Brussels, .ViUwerp, Berlin, St. Betersburg ; best works Deposi- 
tion in Antwerp Gal. and Merchant and Wife Louvre ; Mostert, altar- 
j'leee Notre Dame Bruges ; Mabuse, Matlonnas Palermo, Milan Cathe- 
dral, Prague, other works Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Antwerji; Floris, 
.\nt\verp, .Vnisterdani, Brussels, Berlin, Munich, Vienna ; Barent van 
Orley, ahar-pieees Church of the Saviour Antwerp, and Brussels Mus.; 
Cocxie, Antwerp, Brussels, and Madrid Mus.; Pourbus, Bruges, Brus- 
sels, Vienna Mus,; More, portraits Madrid, Vienna, Hague, Jhussels, 
Cassel. Lou\-ie, St. Petersburg Mus.; Bril, landscapes Madrid, Louvre, 
Dresden, Berlin Mus.; the landscapes of the three Breughels are to be 
seen in nitist of the museums of Europe, especially at Munich, Dresden, 
and Madrid. 

Rubens, nranv works, 93 in Munich, 3^ in Dresden, 15 at Cassel, 16 
at Berlin, 14 in London, 90 in Vienna, 66 in Madrid, 54 in Paris, 63 at 
St. Petersburg (as given by Wauters), liest works at Antwerp, Vienna, 
Munich, and Madrid ; Van Noort, Antwerp, Brussels Mus., (dienl and 
.\ntwerpi Cathedrals ; Van Dyck, Windsor Castle, Nat. Gal. Lon., 41 in 
Munich, 19 in I.)resden, 15 in Cassel, 13 in Berlin, 67 in Vienna, 21 in 
Madrid, 24 in Paris, and 38 in St. Petersburg (Wauters), best examples in 
\ ienna, I^ouvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; and iVfadiid, good example in Met. 
Mus. N v.; Diepenbeeck, Antwerp Churches and Mus. , Berlin, Vi- 
enna, >funich, Frankfurt ; Jordaens, Brussels, Antwerp, Munich, Vi- 
enna, Cassel, Madrid, Paris; Grayer, Brussels, Munich, Vienna; Jans- 
sens, Antwerp Mus., St. Bavon Ghent, Brussels and Cologne Mus.; 
Zegers, Cathedral Ghent, Notre Dame Bruges, Antwerp Mus.; Rom- 
bouts, Mus. and Cathedral Ghent, Antwerp Mus., Beguin Convent 
Mechlin, Hospital of St. John Bruges ; De Vos, Cathedral and Mus. 
Antwerp, Munich, Oldenburg, Berlin Mus.; Snyders, Munich, Dresden, 
Vienna, ^^adrid, Paris, St. Petersburg; Fyt, Munich, Dresden, Cassel, 


Beilin, Vienna, Madrid, Paris; Teniers the Younger, 29 pictures in 
Munich, 24 in Dresden, 8 in Berlin, 19 in Nat. Gal. Lon., 33 in Vienna, 
52 in Madrid, 34 in Louvre, 40 in St. Petersburg (Wauters); Brauwer, 
19 in Munich, 6 in Dresden, 4 in Berlin, 5 in Paris, 5 in St. Petersburgh 
(Wauters); Coques, Nat. Gal. Lon., Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich Mus. 

Verhagen, Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and Vienna Mus.; Navez, 
Ghent, Antwerp, and Amsterdam Mus., Nat. Gal. Berlin ; Wappers, 
Amsterdam, Brussels, Versailles Mus.; Wiertz, in Wiertz Gal. Brussels; 
Gallait, Liege, Versailles, Tournay, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin ; Leys, 
.\msterdam Mus., New Pinacothek Munich, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin, 
.Vntwerp Mus. and City Hall ; Alfred Stevens, Marseilles, Brussels, 
frescos Royal Pal. Brussels ; Willems, Brussels Mus. and Foder Mus. 
Amsterdam, Met. Mus. N. V.; Verboeckhoven, Amsterdam, Foder, Nat. 
Gal. Berlin, New Pinacothek, Brussels, Ghent, Met. Mus. N. Y.; Clays, 
Ghent Mus.; Wauters, Brussels, Liege Mus.; Van Beers, Burial of 
Charles the Good Amsterdam Mus. 



Books Recommended : As before Fromentin, (Waagen's) 
Kiigler ; Amand-Durand, (Eiivre de Rembrandt ; Arcliief voor 
N'cdcrlaiidsche Kunst -geschiedenis ; Blanc, (Eiivre de Rem- 
brandt : Bode, Franz Hals and seine Seluite ; Piode, Studieii 
ziir Geschiilite der Hollandisclien Malerei; Bode, Adriaan van 
Ostade ; Burger (Th. There), Les Miisees de la Hollande ; 
Havard, La Peinture Holla ndaise ; Michel, Rembrandt ; 
Michel, Gerard Terbitrg et sa Famille ; Mantz, Adrien Brou- 
7ver ; Rooses, Dutch Painters of the Nineteenth Century; 
Schmidt, Das Leben des Malers Adriaen Brouwer ; Van der 
W'illigen, Les Artistes de Harlem ; Van Mander, Leven der 
Xederlandsche en Hoogdiiitsehe Schilders : Vosmaer, Rembrandt, 
sa Vie et ses CEui'res ; Westrheene, Jan Steen, Etude sur 
r Art en Hollande ; Van Dyke, Old Dutch and Flemish Masters. 

duced a somewhat different quality of art from Flanders 
and Belgium, yet in many respects the people at the north 
were not very different from those at the south of the 
Netherlands. They were perhaps less versatile, less vola- 
tile, less like the French and more like the Germans. Fond 
of homely joys and the quiet peace of town and domestic life, 
the Dutch were matter-of-fact in all things, sturdy, honest, 
coarse at times, sufificient unto themselves, and caring 
little for what other people did. Just so with their paint- 
ers. They were realistic at times to grotesqueness. Little 
troubled with fine poetic frenzies they painted their own 
lives in street, town-hall, tavern, and kitchen, conscious that 
it was good because true to themselves. 


At first Dutch art was influenced, even confounded, with 
that of Flanders. The Van Eycks led the way, and paint- 
ers like Bouts and others, though Dutch by birth, became 
Flemish by adoption in their art at least. When the Flem- 
ish painters fell to copying Italy some of the Dutch fol- 
lowed them, but with no great enthusiasm. Suddenly, at 
the beginning of the seventeenth century, when Holland 
had gained political independence, Dutch art struck off by 
itself, became original, became famous. It pictured native 
life with verve, skill, keeness of insight, and fine pictorial 
view. Limited it was ; it never soared like Italian art, 
never became universal or world-embracing. It was dis- 
tinct, individual, national, something that spoke for Hol- 
land, but little beyond it. 

In subject there were few historical canvases such as the 
Italians and French produced. The nearest approach to 
them were the paintings of shooting companies, or groups 
of burghers and syndics, and these were merely elaborations 
and enlargements of the portrait which the Dutch loved 
best of all. As a whole their subjects were single figures 
or small groups in interiors, quiet scenes, family confer- 
ences, smokers, card-players, drinkers, landscapes, still-life, 
architectural pieces. When they undertook the large can- 
vas with manj- figures, they were often unsatisfactory. 
Even Rembrandt was so. The chief medium was oil, used 
up(jn panel or canvas. Fresco was probably used in the 
early days, but the climate was too damp for it and it was 
abandoned. It was perhaps the dampness of the northern 
climate that led to the adaptation of the oil medium, some- 
thing the Van Eycks are credited with inaugurating. 

THE EAKLY PAINTING: The early work has, for the great 
part, perished through time and the fierceness with which 
the Iconoclastic warfare was waged. That which remains 
to-day is closely allied in method and style to Flemish 
painting under the Van Eycks. Ouwater is one of the 

ninvil I'AINTIKC 


earliest names Uiat appears, and perhaps for thai reas(^ii he 
has l)een ealleil the foLiiulei" of the sehooL lie was re- 
marked in his lime fur the excellent paiiitiiii;' of lia'J;),',r(.)Vind 
landscapes ; but 
there is little au- 
thentic by him 
left to us from 
w h i c h w e m a y 
form an opinion.* 
Geertjen van St. 
Jan (about 1475) 
was e\'itlentlv a 
pupil of his, and 
from hmi there 
are two wings of 
an altar in the 
\' i e n n a (iallery, 
supposed t (] be 
genuine. 1) (j u t s 
and Mostert have 
been spoken of 
under the Flemish 
s ch o o 1. Bosch 
(1460 '-T5 16) was 
a man of some 

individuality wIkj produced fantastic purgatories that were 
popular in their time and are known to-day through 
engravings. Engelbrechsten (1468- 1533) was Dutch by 
birth and in his art, and yet probably got his inspiration 
from the Van Eyck school. The works attributed to him 
are doubtful, though two in the Leyden (Sallery seem to 
be authentic. He was the master of Lucas van Leyden 
(1494-1533), the leading artist of the early period. Lu- 
cas van Leyden w-as a personal friend of Albrecht Diirer, 
the German painter, and in his art he was not unlike 

* A Raising of Lazarus is in tlie Berlin Gallery. 


>F A I. ADV. 


him. A man with a singularly lean type, a little awkward in 
composition, brilliant in color, and warm in tone, he was, de- 
spite his archaic-looking work, an artist of much ability and 
originality. At first he was inclined toward Flemish methods, 
with an exaggerated realism in facial expression. In his mid- 
dle period he was distinctly Dutch, but in his later days 
he came under Italian influence, and with a weakening effect 
upon his art. Taking his work as a whole, it was the 
strongest of all the early Dutch painters. 

SIXTEENTH CENTURY: This century was a period of Italian 
imitation, probably superinduced by the action of the Flem- 
ings at Antwerp. The movement was somewhat like the 
Flemish one, but not so extensive or so productive. There 
was hardly a painter of rank in Holland during the whole 
century. Scorel (1495-1562) was the leader, and he prob- 
ably got his first liking for Italian art through Mabuse at 
Antwerp. He afterward went to Italy, studied Raphael and 
Michael Angelo, and returned to Utrecht to open a school 
and introduce Italian art into Holland. A large number of 
pupils followed him, but their work was lacking in true 
originality. Heemskerck (1498-1574) and Cornells van 
Haarlem (1562-1638), with Steenwyck (i 550 ?-i 604), were 
some of the more important men of the century, but none 
of them was above a common average. 

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY : Beginning with the first quarter 
of this century came the great art of the Dutch people, 
founded on themselves and rooted in their native character. 
Italian methods were abandoned, and the Dutch told the 
story of their own lives in their own manner, with truth, 
vigor, and skill. There were so many painters in Holland 
during this period that it will be necessary to divide them 
into groups and mention only the prominent names. 

PORTRAIT AND FIGURE PAINTERS : The real inaugurators 
of Dutch portraiture were iNIierevelt, Hals, Ravesteyn, and 
De Keyser. Mierevelt (i 567-1641) was one of the earliest, 


a prolific painU'i", fniul of the arislorralic sitter, and iii- 
ilulgiiiL; in a i;reat ileal of elej;ance in his accessories of 
dress anil the liki'. lie had a slij^ht, snKjoth brush, much 
detail, and a prcifusioa of eolnr. (^uite the reverse of him 
was Franz Hals (1 584 ?-i 666), ime of the most remarkable 
painters of portraits with whicli history ac(|uaints us. In 
^'ivini; the sense of life aiul personal physical presence, he 
was unexcelled bv any one. \\'hat he saw he could portray 
with the most tellint; reality. In drawing and modelling he 
was usually good ; in coloring he was e.Kcellent, though in 
his late work sombre ; in brush-handling he was one of the 
great masters. Strong, virile, yet easy and facile, he seemed 
to produce without effort. His brush was very broad in its 
sweep, very sure, very true. Occasionally in his late paint- 
ing facility ran to the ineffectual, but usually he was cer- 
tainty itself. His best work was in portraiture, and the 
most important of this is to be seen at Haarlem, wdiere he 
died after a rather careless life, x^s a painter, pure and 
simple, he is almost to be ranked beside Velasquez; as a 
poet, a thinker, a man of lofty imagination, his work gives 
us little enlightenment except in so far as it shows a fine 
feeling for masses of color and problems of light. Though 
excellent portrait-painters, Ravesteyn (1572?-! 657) and 
De Keyser (t 596 ?-i 679) do not provoke enthusiasm. They 
were cjuiet, cijnservative, dignified, painting civic guards 
and societies with a knowing brush and lively color, giving 
the truth of physiognomy, but not with that verve of the 
artist so conspicuous in Hals, nor with that unity of the 
group so essential in the making of a picture. 

The next man in chronological order is Rembrandt ( i 607?- 
I 669), the greatest painter in Dutch art. He was a pupil of 
Swanenburch and Lastman, but his great knowledge of nat- 
ure and his craft came largely from the direct study of the 
model. Settled at Amsterdam, he quickly rose to fame, had 
a large following of pupils, and his influence was felt 



through all Dutch painting. The portrait was emphatically 
his strongest work. The many-figured group he was not 
always successful in composing or lighting. His method of 
work rather fitted him for the portrait and unfitted him for 
the large historical piece. He built up the importance of 
certain features by dragging down all other features. This 


was largely shown in his handling of illumination. Strong 
in a few high lights on cheek, chin, or white linen, the rest 
of the picture was submerged in shadow, under which color 
was unmercifully sacrificed. This was not the best method 
for a large, many-figured piece, but was singularly well 
suited to the portrait. It produced strength by contrast. 
"Forced" it was undoubtedly, and not always true to nat- 

DUTCH I'AiNTiNr.. ■ 209 

lire, vet nevertheless most potent in Rembrandt's liands. 
lie was an arbitrary tli(ui,t;h perfet t master of light-and- 
shade, and nnnsually elteetive in luminons anil transparent 
shadows. In eolor he was a^ain arbitrary but forcible and 
harmonious. In [)rush-\vork he was at times labored, but 
almost always effective. 

Mentally he was a man keen to observe, assimilate, and 
express his impressions in a few simple truths. His con- 
ception was localized with his own people and time (he 
never built up the imaginary or followed Italy), and yet 
into tvpes taken from the streets and shops of Amsterdam 
he infused the very largest humanity through his inherent 
svmpathv with man. Dramatic, even tragic, he was ; yet 
this was not so apparent in vehement action as in passion- 
ate e.xpression. He had a powerful way of striking uni- 
versal truths through the human face, the turned head, 
bent body, or outstretched hand. His people have char- 
acter, dignity, and a pervading feeling that they are the 
great types of the Dutch race — people of substantial phy- 
sique, slow in thought and impulse, yet capable of feeling, 
comprehending, enjoying, suffering. 

His landscapes, again, were a synthesis of all landscapes, 
a grouping of the great truths of light, air, shadow, space. 
^\'hateyer he turned his hand to was treated with that 
breadth of view that overlooked the little and grasped the 
great. He painted many subjects. His earliest work dates 
from 1627, and is a little hard and sharp in detail and cold 
in coloring. After 1654 he .grew broader in handling and 
warmer in tone, running to golden browns, and, toward the 
end of his career, to rather hot tones. His life was em- 
bittered by many misfortunes, but these never seem to 
have affected his art except to deepen it. He painted on 
to the last, convinced that his own view was the true one, 
and producing works that rank second to none in the his- 
tory of painting. 


Rembrandt's influence upon Dutch art was far-reaching, 
and appeared immediately in the works of his many pupils. 
They all followed his methods of handling light-and-shade, 
but no one of them ever equalled him, though they pro- 
duced work of much merit. Bol (1611-1680) was chiefly a 
portrait-painter, with a pervading yellow tone and some 
pallor of flesh-coloring — a man of ability who mistakenly 
followed Rubens in the latter part of his life. Flinck 
(1615-1660) at one time followed Rembrandt so closely that 
his work has passed for that of the master ; but latterly he, 
too, came under Flemish influence. Next to Eeckhout he 
was probably the nearest to Rembrandt in methods of all 
the pupils. Eeckhout (1621-1674) was really a Rembrandt 
imitator, but his hand was weak and his color hot. Maes 
(1632-1693) was the most successful manager of light after 
the school formula, and succeeded very well with warmth 
and richness of color, especially with his reds. The other 
Rembrandt pupils and followers were Poorter (fl. 1635- 
1643), Victoors(i62o?-i672?),Koniiick (1619-168S), Fabri- 
tius (1624-1654), and Backer (i6o8?-i65i). 

Van der Heist (1612 ?-i67o) stands apart from this 
school, and seems to have followed more the portrait style 
of De Keyser. He was a realistic, precise painter, with 
much excellence of modelling in head and hands, and with 
fine carriage and dignity in the figure. In composition he 
hardly held his characters in group owing to a sacrifice of 
values, and in color he was often " spotty," and lacking in 
the unitv of mass. 

THE GENRE PAINTERS: This heading embraces those who 
may be called the "Little Dutchmen," because of the small 
scale of their pictures and their ,i,v//;v subjects, Gerard Dou 
(1613-1675) is indicative of the class without fully repre- 
senting it. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, but his work 
gave little report of this. It was smaller, more delicate in 
detail, more petty in conception. He was a man great in 



little things, (iiie who wasted sti'ciii^lli mi the niiiiutia; of 
dress, or table-eloth, or the texture of riiniiture without 
graspiu>;' the mass or color sinnifieanee of the whole scene. 
There was iulhiite detail .djout his work, and that jj;ave 
it popularil\' ; but as art it held, and hokls to-day, little 
hij^her place than the work of Metsu ( 1 6;,o-i 667), Van 
Mieris (lO^s-idSi), Netscher (lO 59-1684), or Schalcken 
(104^5-1700), all of whom produceil the interior piece with 
hs^ures elaborate in accidental effects. Van Ostade (1610- 
10.S5), though dealing with the small canvas, and portraying 
peasant life with perhaps unnecessary coarseness, was a 
much stronger |)ainter than the men just mentioned. He 
was the favorite pupil of Hals and the master of Jan Steen. 

"^'I'SSjabp:^^ "— ^.^^^ww^-"'""''*'^" 


With little delicacy in choice of subject he had much deli- 
cacy in color, taste in arrangement, and skill in handling. 
His brush was precise but not finical. 


By far the best painter among all the " Little Dutchmen " 
was Terburg (1617 ?- 1 68i), a painter of interiors, small 
portraits, conversation pictures, and the like. Though of 
diminutive scale his work has the largeness of view charac- 
teristic of genius, and the skilled technic of a thorough 
craftsman. Terburg was a travelled man, visiting Italy, 
where he studied Titian, returning to Holland to study 
Rembrandt, finally at Madrid studying Velasquez. He was 
a painter of much culture, and the key-note of his art is re- 
finement. Quiet and dignified he carried taste through all 
branches of his art. In subject he was rather elevated, in 
color subdued with broken tones, in composition simple, in 
brush-work sure, vivacious, and yet unobtrusive. Selection 
in his characters was followed by reserve in using them. 
Detail was not very apparent A few people with some 
accessory objects were all that he required to make a pict- 
ure. Perhaps his best qualities appear in a number of 
small portraits remarkable for their distinction and aristo- 
cratic grace. 

Steen (1626 ?-i6jg) was almost the opposite of Terburg, 
a man of sarcastic flings and coarse humor who satirized 
his own time with little reserve. He developed under Hals 
and Van Ostade, favoring the latter in his interiors, family 
scenes, and drunken debauches. He was a master of phys- 
iognomy, and depicted it with rare if rather unpleasant 
truth. If he had little refinement in his themes he certainly 
handled them as a painter with delicacy. At his best his 
many figured groups were exceedingly well composed, his 
color was of good quality (with a fondness for yellows), and 
his brush was as limpid and graceful as though painting 
angels instead of Dutch boors. He was really one of the 
fine brushmen of Holland, a man greatly admired by Sir 
Joshua Reynolds, and many an artist since ; but not a man 
of high intellectual pitch as compared with Terburg, for in- 


Pieter de Hooghe ( 1 6 ;^ ?- 1 6S 1 ) was a painter of ])urcly 
pictiirial elicits, l)t\t;inninn' anil ciulini;' a picture in a scheme 
(if coliH', atiUDsphere, clever loniposition, and above all the 
play of li^lU-anil-shaile. lie \vas one of the early masters 
of full sunli!;iit, painUnn" it fallinir across a cotirl-yard or 
streamnii;' through a window with marvellous truth and 
poetr\-. His subjects were commonplace enough. An in- 
terior with a ligiu-e or two in the middle distance, and a 
passage-way leading into a lighted background were suffi- 
cient for limi. These formed a skeleton which he clothed 
in a half-tone shadow, pierced with warm yellow light, en- 
riched with rare colors, usually garnet reds and deep yel- 
lows repeated in the different planes, and surrounded with 
a subtle pervading atmosphere. As a brushman he was 
easy but not distinguished, and often his drawing was not 
correct ; but in the placing of color masses and in com- 
posing by color and light he was a master of the first rank. 
I,ittle is known about his life. He probably formed him- 
self on Fabritius or Rembrandt at secondhand, but little 
trace of the latter is apparent in his work. He seeins not 
to have achieved much fame until late years, and then 
rather in England than in his own country. 

Jan van der Meer of Delft (1632-1675), one of the most 
charming of all the ;^eiirc painters, was allied to De Hooghe 
in his pictorial point of view and interior subjects. Unfort- 
unately there is little left to us of this master, but the few 
e.xtant e.xamples serve to show him a painter of rare qualities 
in light, in color, and in atmosphere. He was a remarkable 
man for his handling of blues, reds, and yellows ; and in 
the tonic relations of a picture he was a inaster second to no 
one. Fabritius is supposed to have influenced him. 

THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The painters of the Nether- 
lands were probably the first, beginning with Bril, to paint 
landscape for its own sake, and as a picture motive in 
itself. Before them it had been used as a background for 



the figure, and was so used by many of the Dutchmen 
themselves. It has been said that these landscape-painters 
were also the first ones to paint landscape realistically, but 




that is true only in part. They studied natural forms, as 
did, indeed, Bellini in the Venetian school ; they learned 
something of perspective, air, tree anatomy, and the appear- 
ance of water ; but no Dutch painter of landscape in the 
seventeenth century grasped the full color of Holland or 
painted its many varied lights. They indulged in a meagre 
conventional palette of grays, greens, and browns, whereas 
Holland is full of brilliant hues. 

Van Goyen (1596-1656) was one of the earliest of the 
seventeenth-century landscapists. In subject he was fond 
of the Dutch bays, harbors, rivers, and canals with ship- 
ping, windmills, and houses. His sky line was generally 
given low, his water silvery, and his sky misty and lumi- 


nous with liursls iif wliilr li.ulit. In roliir Ir' was siiliilucd, 
anil in [icrspci live quitr runninij; at tinirs. Salomon van 
Ruisdael (i<>oo?-i(f]o) was Ins follower, it not his pupil, 
lie IkuI till' same solirielv of color as his niasfer, and was a 
mannered and prosaie painter in details, siieh as leaves and 
Iree-liranelu's. In eoniposition he was ,U"ood, but his art 
Inul onl\" a slight liasis upon rt'alit\', thoui;h it looks to be 
realislie at lirst sii;ht. He had a formula for (loin);' land- 
scape which he varied only in a slight way, and this con- 
ventionality ran throuyh all hiswork. Molyn (1600 ?-i 66 i) 
was, I painter who showed hniited truth to nature in Hat and 
hilly landscapes, transparent skies, and warm coloring. 
His extant works are few in number. Wynants (1615?- 
1679?) was more of a realist in natural appearance than 
anv of the others, a man who evidently studied directly 
from nature in details of vegetation, plants, trees, roads, 
grasses, and the like. Most of the figures and animals in 
his landscapes were painted by other hands. He himself 
was a pure landscape-painter, excelling in light and aerial 
perspective, but not remarkable in color. Van der Neer 
( I 603-1 677) and Everdingen (i 62 i ?- 1 675) were two other 
contemporary painters of merit. 

The best landscapist following the first men of the cen- 
tury was Jacob van Ruisdael ( 1 625 ?-i682), the nephew of 
Salomon van Ruisdael. He is put down, with perhaps un- 
necessary emphasis, as the greatest landscape-painter of 
the Dutch school. He was undoubtedly the e(|ual of any 
of his time, though not so near tf) nature, perhaps, as Hob- 
benia. He was a man of imagination, wdio at first pictured 
the Dutch country about Haarlem, and afterward took up 
with the romantic landscape of Van Everdingen. This 
landscape bears a resemblance to the Norwegian country, 
abounding, as it does, in mountains, heavy dark woods, 
and lushing torrents. There is considerable poetry in its 
composition, its gloomy skies, and darkened lights. It is 


mournful, suggestive, wild, usually unpeopled. There was 
much of the methodical in its putting together, and in 
color it was cold, and limited to a few tones. Many of 
Ruisdael's works have darkened through time. Little is 
known about the painter's life except that he was not ap- 
preciated in his own time and died in the almshouse. 

Hobbema (1638 .'-1709) was probably the pupil of Jacob 
van Ruisdael, and ranks with him, if not above him, in 
seventeenth-century landscape painting. Ruisdael hardly 
ever painted sunlight, whereas Hobbema rather affected it in 
tiuiet wood-scenes or roadways with little pools of water and 
a mill. He was a freer man with the brush than Ruisdael, 
and knew more about the natural appearance of trees, skies, 
and lights ; but, like his master, his view of nature found 
n(j favor in his own land. Most of his work is in England, 
where it had mA a little to do with influencing such painters 
as Constable and others at the beginning of the nineteenth 

LANDSCAPE WITH CATTLE: Here we meet with Wouverman 
(i6T9-r668), a painter of horses, cavalry, battles, and riding 
parties placed in landscape. His landscape is bright and 
his horses are spirited in action. There is some mannerism 
apparent in his reiterated concentration of light on a white 
horse, and some repetition in his canvases, of which there 
are many ; but on the whole he was an interesting, if 
smooth and neat painter. Paul Potter (1625-1654) hardly 
merited his great repute. He was a harsh, exact recorder 
of facts, often tin-like or woodeny in his cattle, and not in 
any way remarkable in his landscapes, least of all in their 
composition. The Young Bull at the Hague is an ambi- 
tious piece of drawing, but is not successful in color, light, 
or cinniiblc. It is a brittle work all through, and not 
nearly so good as some smaller things in the National 
Gallery London, and in the Louvre. Adrien van de Velde 
(1635 ?-i 672) was short-lived, like Potter, but managed to do 

PUTcir I'AiN'rrNc. 


a iircxliyioiis anuuml of work, sliowinj;' caUlc and li,i;urcs in 

landscapr with inucli trrliniral aliilil)' ami i; I fi;cliii,i;-. 

Ill' wa^ parlK'iilarU' l;oo(1 in i,dni|)osition and tin; siibllc 
gradation of ncntral tnils. A liUlc of the Italian inllncnic 
appeared In Ins work, and willi the nuai who canK- willi Inin 
and after hnn the llahan Imitation l)eeanie \'er_\- pronomired. 
Aelbert Ciiyp (i(ijo-i()9i) was a man_\'-siiled |)ainter, adopt- 
ing;" at various limes eUfferciit styles, bLit was enoii.i^h of a 


genius to be himself always. He is best known to us, 
perhaps, by his yellow sunlight effects along rivers, with 
cattle in the fcjreground, though he painted still-life, and 
even portraits and marines. In composing a group he was 
knowing, recording natural effects with power ; in light 
and atmosphere he was one of the best of his time, and in 
texture and cohjr refined, and frequently brilliant. Both 
(i 6 10-1650 ?), Berchem (1 620-1683), Du Jardin (1622 ?-i 678), 
followed the Italian tradition of Claude Lorrain, producing 
semi-classic landscapes, never very convincing in their 


originality. Van der Heyden (i 637-1 7 12), should be men- 
tioned as an excellent, if minute, painter of architecture 
with remarkable atmospheric effects. 

eminent marine painters in this seventeenth century, 
Willem van de Velde (i 633-1 707) and Backhuisen (1631- 
I 708). The sea was not an unusual subject with the Dutch 
landscapists. Van Goyen, Simon de Vlieger (1601 ?-i 660 ?), 
Cuyp, Willem van de Velde the Elder (1 6 1 1 ?-i 693), all 
employed it ; but it was Van de Velde the Younger who 
really stood at the head of the marine painters. He knew 
his subject thoroughly, having been well grounded in it by 
his father and De Vlieger, so that the painting of the Dutch 
fleets and harbors was a part of his nature. He preferred 
the ciuiet haven to the open sea. Smooth water, calm skies, 
silvery light, and boats lying listlessly at anchor with 
drooping sails, made up his usual subject. The color was 
almost always in a key of silver and gray, very charming in 
its harmony and serenity, but a little thin. Both he and his 
father went to England and entered the service of the 
English king, and thereafter did English fleets rather than 
Dutch ones. Backhuisen was quite the reverse of Van de 
Velde in preferring the tempest to the calm of the sea. He 
also used more brilliant and varied colors, but he was not 
so happy in harmony as Van de Velde. There was often 
dryness in his handling, and something too much of the 
theatrical in his wrecks on rocky shores. 

'l"he still-life painters of Holland were all of them rather 
petty in their emphasis of details such as figures on table- 
covers, water-drops on flowers, and fur on rabbits. It was 
labored work with little of the art spirit about it, except as 
the composition showed good masses. A number of these 
painters gained celebrity in their day by their microscopic 
labor over fruits, flowers, and the like, but they have no 
great rank at the present time. Jan van Heem (1600?- 


1 (>S4 ') Wcis perhaps tlu- ht'St painter of flowers aniDii)^ llicin. 
Van Huysum ( l dS^-i 74()) sueeeeded with the same sul)jerl 
beyoiul liis deserts. Hondecoeter ( i ();()- i 6()5) was a imicpie 
painter of poultry; Weenix ( i 640- 1 7 i 9) and Van Aelst 
( I ():;o- 1 ();()), of dead ,<;anie ; Kalf ( 1 (^'.lO ?- 1 693), of pots, 
pans, dishes, and ve.<;'etahles. 

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: 'I'his was a period of decadence 
during" wliieli there was no ori,L;-inalit)' worth spealcinj; about 
anionu the Dutch painters. Reahsm in minute features 
Wcis carried to tlie extreme, and imitation of the early men 
took the place of invention. J'^verythintj was prettified and 
elaborated until there was a porcelain smoothness and a 
photographic exactness inconsistent with true art, Adriaan 
van der Werif (1659-1722), and Philip van Dyck (1O85- 
1 75 j) with their " ideal " inanities are typical of the cen- 
tury's art. There was nothing to commend it. The lowest 
point of affectation liad been reached, 

NINETEENTH CENTURY: The Dutch painters, unlike the 
Belgians, have almost always been true to their own tra- 
ditions and their own country. Even in decadence the 
most of them feebly followed their own painters rather than 
those of Italv and France, and in the early nineteenth cen- 
tur)' they were not affected by the French classicism of 
David, Later on there came into vogue an art that had 
some affinity with that of Millet and Courbet in France. It 
was the Dutch version of modern sentiment about the labor- 
ing classes, fountled on the modern life of Holland, yet in 
reality a continuation of the style or ,i,'-(7//r practised by the 
early Dutchmen, Israels (1824-) is a revival or a survival 
of Rembrandtesque methods with a sentiment and feeling 
akin to the French Millet. He deals almost exclusively 
with peasant life, showing fisher-folk and the like in their 
cottage interiors, at the table, or before the fire, with good 
effects of light, atmosphere, and much pathos. Technically 
he is rather labored and heavy in handling, but usually 

2 20 


effective with sombre color in giving the unity of a scene. 
Artz (1837- 1 890) considered himself in measure a follower 
of Israels, though he never studied under him. His pict- 
ures in subject are like those of Israels, but without the 
depth of the latter. Blommers (1845-) is another peasant 
painter who follows Israels at a distance, and Neuhuys 
(1844-) shows a similar style of work. Bosboom (181 7- 
1 89 I ) e.xcelled in representing interiors, showing, with much 
pictorial effect, the light, color, shadow, and feeling of space 
and air in large cathedrals. 

The brothers Maris have made a distinct impression on 
modern Dutch art, and, strange enough, each in a different 
way from the others. James Maris ( i 837-) studied at Paris, 
and is remarkable for fine, vigorous views of canals, towns, 
and landscapes. He is broad in handling, rather bleak in 
coloring, and e.vcels in fine luminous skies and voyaging 
clouds. Matthew Maris (1835-), Parisian trained like his 


brother, lives in London, where little is seen of his work. 
He paints for himself and his friends, and is rather melan- 
choly and mystical in his art. He is a recorder of visions 

nuTcii rAiNi'iN<;. 221 

aiul tircams rather than the siibstaiUial ihiiij^s of the earth, 
but alwavs witli fielincss nl" mhir aiul a line Llccorativc feel- 
ing. Willem Maris (I S ^()-), Sdnutinies called the " SiU-ery 
Maris," is a portra\'er of eattle and landseape in warm suii- 
liglU and haze with a ehann (if lolor and tone often stig'- 
gestive of t'orot. Jongkind ( 1X19-189 i ) stands liy himself, 
Mesdag (iS^^i-) is a line painter of marines and sea-shores, 
and Mauve (^iS^S-iSSS), a eattle and shee|) painter, with ni( e 
sentiment and tonalit\', whose renown is just now somewhat 
disjiroportionate to his artistie ability. In addition there are 
some other artists of promise, sueh as Kever, Poggenbeek, 

EXTANT WORKS; tJenerally speaking tlie Lest examples of tlie Dutch 
schools are siill to he seen hi the Irjcal nutscums uf Holland, especially the 
.-Vmstcrdani and Hague Mils. ; Bosch, Madrid, Antwer[>, Brussels Mus. ; 
Lucas van Leyden, .Vntwerp, I^eyden, Munich IMiis. ; Scorel, Amster- 
dam, Rotterdam, Haarlem Mus.; Heemslcerck, Haarlem, Hague, Berlin, 
Cassel, Dresden; Steenwyck, Amsterdam, Hague, Brussels; Cornelis 
van Haarlem, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Brunswick, 

PoRTR.\iT AND Figure Painters — Mierevelt, Hague, Amsterdam, 
Ki'tterdam, Brunswick, Dresden, Copenhagen; Hals, iiest works to lie 
seen at Haarlem, others at Amsterdam, l-Jrussels, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, 
Louvre, Xat. Ga\. Loii., Met. Mus. New York, Art Institute Chicago ; 
Rembrandt, Amsterdam, Hermitage, Louvre, Munich, Berlin, Dresden, 
Madrid, London; Bol, Amsterdam, Hague, Itresden, Louvre ; Flinck, 
Amsterdam, Hague, IJerliu ; Eeckhout, .Vmsterdam, Itrunswick, Ber- 
lin, Munich; Maes, Nat. Gal. Lon., Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hague, 
Jtrussels ; Poorter, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dresden ; Victoors, Am- 
sterdam, Copenhagen, Brunswick, Dresden ; Fabritius, Rotterdam, 
.Amsteraam, Berlin ; Van der Heist, best works at Amsterdam iMus. 

Genre Painters — Examples of Dou, Metsu, Van Mieris, Netscher, 
Schalcken, Van Ostade, are to be seen in almost all the galleides of 
Europe, especially the Dutch, Belgian, German, and French galleries; 
Terburg, Amsterdam, Louvre, Dresden, Berlin (fine portraits) ; Steen, 
Amsterdam, Louvre, Rotterdam, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, Dresden, Vienna; 
De Hooghe.Nat. Gal, Lon., Louvre, Amsterdam, Hermitage ; Van der 
Meer of Delft, Louvre, Hague, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden, Met. Mus. 
New York. 


Landscape Painters — Van Goyen, Amsterdam, Fitz-William Mus 
Cambridge, Luuvre, Brussels, Cassel, Dresden, Berlin ; Salomon van 
Ruisdael, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Dresden, Munich ; Van der 
Neer, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden; 
Everdingen, Amsterdam, Berlin, Louvre, Brunswick, Dresden, Munich, 
Frankfort; Jacob van Ruisdael, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Amsterdam, 
Berlin, Dresden ; Hobbema, best works in England, Nat. Gal. Lon., 
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Dresden ; Wouvermans, many works, best at 
Amsterdam, Cassel, Louvre ; Potter, Amsterdam, Hague, Louvre, Nat. 
Gal. Lon.; Van de Velde, Amsterdam, Hague, Cassel, Dresden, Frank- 
fort, Munich, Louvre ; Cuyp, Amsterdam, Nal. Gal. Lon., Louvre, 
Munich, Dresden ; examples of Both, Berchem, Du Jardin, and Van 
der Heyden, in almost all of the Dutch and German galleries, besides the 
Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon. 

Marine Painters — Willem van de Velde Elder and Younger, 
Backhuisen, Vlieger, together with the flower and fruit painters like 
Huysum, Hondecoeter, Weenix, have all been prolific workers, and 
almost every European gallery, especially those at London, Amsterdam, 
and in Germany, have examples of their works ; Van der Werff and 
Philip van Dyck are seen at their best at Dresden. 

The best works of the modern men are in private collections, many in the 
United States, some examples of them in the Amsterdam and Hague Mu- 
seums. Also some examples of the old Dutch masters in New York 
Hist. Society Library, Yale School of Fine Arts, Met. Mus. New York, 
Boston Mus., and Chicago Institute. 



Books Recommf.ndkd : (Zo\\\vi, A. Diiri-i\his Teachers, his 
Hii'iils, and his Scholars; Eye, Lebcn uiid ll'erhe Albreciit 
Diirers ; Forster, Peter von Cornelius; Forster, Geschichfe der 
Deutschen Kunst; Keane, Early Teutonic, Italian, and French 
Painters : Kiigler, Handbook to German and A^etherland 
Schools, trans, by Crowe ; Merk), Die Meister der altkolnischer 
Malcrschule ; Pecht, Deutsche Kiinstler des Neunzehnten 
yahrhunderts ; Reber, Geschichte der neueren Deutschen 
Kunst; Riegel, Deutsche Kiinststudien ; Rosenberg, Die Per- 
lincr Jfalerschule ; Rosenberg, Sebald und Parthel Pehani ; 
Ruiiiohr, llaus Holbein der JUiii^ere ; Sandrart, Teutsche 
Akadeniie der Jullen Pan,- Pild- und Malerey-Kiinste ; Schu- 
chardt, Lucas Cranach's Lebcn ; Thausig, Albert DUrer, 
His Life and Works ; ^\'aagen, Kiinsticcrke und Kiinstler in 
Dcutschland ; E. aus'iii Weerth, M'andnuilereien des ALittelal- 
ters in den Lilvinlanden : Wessely, Adolph Menzel ; Woltmann, 
Holbein and his Time : \\'oltniann, Geschichte der Deutschen 
Kunst im Plsass : W'urtzbach, ALartin Schonf^auer. 

EAELY GERMAN PAINTING; The Teutonic lands, like almost 
all of the countries of Europe, received their first art im- 
pulse from Christianity through Italy. The centre of the 
faith was at Rome, and from there the influence in art spread 
west and north, and in each land it was modified by local 
peculiarities of type and temperament. In Germany, even 
in the early days, though Christianity was the theme of early 
illuminations, miniatures, and the like, and though there 
was a traditional form reaching back to Italy and Byzan- 
tium, yet under it was the Teutonic type — the material, 
awkward, rather coarse Germanic point of view. The wish 



to realize native surroundings was apparent from tlie begin- 

It is probable tliat the earliest painting in Germany took 
the form of illuminations. At what date it first appeared is 




unknown. In wall-painting a poor quality of work was ex- 
ecuted in the churches as early as the ninth century, and 
probably earlier. The oldest now extant are those at Ober- 
zeli, dating back to the last part of the tenth century. Bet- 
ter examples are seen in the Lower Church of Schwarzrhein- 
dorf, of the twelfth century, and still better in the choir 
and transept of the Brunswick cathedral, ascribed to the 
early thirteenth century. 

All of these works have an archaic appearance about 


tlu-ni, but they are better in composition and drawing than 
the productions of Italy and liyzantiuni at tliat time. It is 
lil<elv tliat all the (lerman churches at this time were tlec- 
orated, but most of the paintings have been destroyed. 
The usual mellioil was to cover the walls and wooden eeil- 
nigs with blue ^rouiuls, and upon these to place figures sur- 
rounded by architectural ornaments. Stained glass was also 
used extensively. I'anel painting seems to have come into 
existence before the thirteenth century (whether developed 
trom miniature or wall-painting is unknown), and was used 
tor altar decorations. 'I'he panels were done in tempera 
with figures in light colors upon gold grounds. The spirit- 
ualitv of the age with a mingling of northern sentiment ap- 
peared in the figure. This figure was at times graceful, and 
again awkward and archaic, according to the place of pro- 
duction and the influence of either France or Italy. The 
oldest panels extant are from the Wiesenkirche at Soest, 
now in the Berlin Museum. They do not date before the 
thirteenth centurv. 

teenth century the infiuence of France began to show 
strongly in willowy figures, long flowing draperies, and 
sentimental poses. The artists along the Rhine showed 
this more than those in the provinces to the east, where a 
ruder if freer art appeared. The best panel-painting of 
the time was done at Cologne, where we meet with the name 
of the first painter, Meister Wilhelm, and where a school 
was established usually known as the 

SCHOOL OF COLOGNE: This school probably got its senti- 
mental inclination, shown in slight forms and tender ex- 
pression, from France, but derived much of its technic from 
the Netherlands. Stephen Lochner, or Meister Stephen, 
(fl. 1450) leaned toward the Flemish methods, and in his 
celebrated picture, the Madonna of the Rose Garden, in the 
Cologne Museum, there is an indication of this ; but there 



is also an individuality showing the growth of German in- 
dependence in painting. The figures of his Dombild have 


little manliness or power, but considerable grace, pathos 
and religious feeling. They are not abstract types but the 

GERMAN rAINTINr.. " 227 

spii'itiKilizcil people of Ihe roimtry in native costumes, with 
niueh ,uoUl, lewilrw ami aniioi-. Cold was used instead ol 
a landscape background, and the forej^i-ound was spattered 
with (lowers and lea\es. I'he outlines are ratlier hard, antl 
none of the aerial perspective of tile l''leniini;s is yiven. 
After a lime l''reuch sentiineut was still further encroached 
upon bv Meniish realism, as shown in the works of the 
Master of the Lyversberg Passion (ll. about 1463-1480), to 
be seen in the C'olooiie Museum. 

BOHEMIAN SCHOOL: It was not On the Lower Rliine alone 
that ('.crnian paintini;' was practised. The lioheniian 
>chool, located near I'rague, flourished for a short time in 
the foLU-teenth Century, under Charles IV., with Theodorich 
of Prague (ll. 1 348-1 37S), Wurmser, and Kunz, as the chief 
masters, d'lieir art was ipute the reverse of the Cologne 
panitcrs. It was heavy, clumsy, bony, awdvward. If more 
orijjinal it was less graceful, not so pathetic, not so relig- 
ious. Sentiment was slurred through a harsh attempt at 
realism, and the religious subject met with something of a 
ciieck in the romantic mediaeval chivalric theme, painted 
(juite as often on the castle wall as the scriptural theme 
im the church wall. After the close of the fourteenth cen- 
tury wall-painting began to die out in favor of panel pict- 

NTJKEMBERG SCHOOL: Half-way between the sentiment of 
(.'ologne and the realism of Prague stood the early school 
of Nuremberg, with no known painter at its head. Its 
chief work, the Imhof altar-piece, shows, however, that 
the Nuremberg masters of the early and middle fif- 
teenth century were between eastern and western influ- 
ences. They inclined to the graceful swaying figure, fol- 
lowing more the sculpture of the time than the Cologne 

begun in the fourteenth century, hardly showed any depth 



or breadth until the fifteenth century, and no real individ- 
ual strength until the sixteenth century. It lagged behind 
the other countries of FAirope and produced the cramped 

archaic altar-piece. 
Then when printing 
was invented the 
painter- e ngraver 
came into existence. 
He was a man who 
painted panels, but 
found his largest 
audience through 
the circulation of 
engravings. T h e 
two kinds of arts 
being produced by 
the one man led to 
much detailed line 
work with the 
brush. Engraving 
is an influence to be 
borne in mind in ex- 
amining the paint- 
ing of this period. 
FRANCONIAN SCHOOL: Nuremberg was the centre of this 
school, and its most famous early master was Wolgemut 
(1434-1519), though Plydenwurff is the first-named painter. 
After the latter's death Wolgemut married his widow and 
became the head of the school. His paintings were chiefly 
altar-pieces, in which the figures were rather lank and nar- 
row-shouldered, with sharp outlines, indicative perhaps of 
the influence of wood-engraving, in which he was much in- 
terested. There was, however, in his work an advance in 
characterization, nobility of expression, and quiet dignity, 
and it was his good fortune to be the master of one of the 

n. 89. — DURER. 


(;i;KiMan I'AIntini;, 229 

inusl Ihonniolily original painkTS of all the C'lCrnian s(liiiiils 
— Albrecht Diirer ( 147 i-is-'S). 

\\"[t.U \H\vcv ami Udlhein Cicriiian arl reached its apo- 
gee in the lust half of the sixteenth century, }'et their work 
\\>is not ilillerent in spirit from that of their predeeessoi's. 
Tamtmy simply developed and l)eeanie foreeful and ex- 
pressive teehnieally without cd)andoning- its early cliaraeter. 
There is in Hiirer a naive awkwardness of figure, some 
anguhirity of line, strain of pose, and in composition often- 
times huddling anil overloading of the scene with details. 
'I'herc IS not that largeness which seemed native to his Ital- 
ian contemporaries. He was hamjiered by that (lerman ex- 
actness, which found its best expression in engraving, and 
which, though unsuited to jiainting, nevertheless crept into 
it. 'Within these limitations Diirer produced the typical art 
ol Cicrmany m the Renaissance time — an art more attractive 
lor the charm and beauty of its parts than for its unity, or 
its general impression. Diirer was a travelled man, visited 
Italy and the Netherlands, and, though he always remained 
a German in art, yet he picked up some Italian methods 
from Bellini and Mantegna that are faintly apparent in 
some of his works. In subject he was almost exclusively 
religious, painting the altar-piece with infinite care upon 
wooden panel, canvas, or parchment. He never worked in 
fresco, preferring oil and tempera. In drawing he was often 
harsh and faulty, in draperies cramped at times, and then, 
again, as in the Apostle panels at Munich, very broad, and 
effective. Many of his pictures show a hard, dry brush, 
and a few, again, are so free and mellow that they look as 
though done by another hand. He was usually minute in 
detail, especially in such features as hair, cloth, flesh. His 
portraits were uneven and not his best productions. He 
was too close a scrutinizer of the part and not enough of an 
observer of the whole for good |iortraiture. Indeed, that is 
the criticism to be made upon all his work. He was an ex- 



(juisite realist of certain features, but not always of the en- 
semble. Nevertheless he holds first rank in the German art 
of the Renaissance, not only on account of his technical 
ability, but also because of his imagination, sincerity, and 
striking originality. 

Diirer's influence was wide-spread throughout Germany, 
especially in engraving, of which he was a master. In paint- 
ing Schaufelin (i49o?~i54o?) was probably his apprentice, 
and in his work followed the master so closely that many of 
his works have been attributed to Uiirer. This is true in 

-HOLIiRIN -IHE \Ori\Glilv-. 

HAGl E iMtlS. 

measure of Hans Baldung (1476 ?-i552 ?). Hans von Kulm- 

bach (?-iS22) was a painter of more than ordinary impor- 
tance, brilliant in coloring, a follower of Durer, who was in- 


cliiicil toward Italian iiK'tliiitls, an inclination that aftcrwanl 
ilcN-clopod all thi-oii;;li (Ici'man art. l-ollowin;;" DUixt's for- 
iiuilas oanic a lai\L;r niniihrr of so-called " I ,ittlc Masters" 
(Irom the si/e of their engraved plates), who were more en- 
L;ravers than painters. .\nionLJ the more important of those 
who were p.nnters as well as engravers were Altdorfer 
( I 4S0 ?-i5 :;S), a rival rather than an nuitatorof l)iirer; Bar- 
thel Beham (150^-1540), Sebald Beham (1500-1550), Pencz 
(1500^-1550), Aldegrever (i5o;-i558), and Bink (1490?- 

SWABIAN SCHOOL: 'Idiis school includes a luimher of 
painters who were located at different places, like Colniar 
and L'lni, and later on it included the Holbeins at Aiii^rs- 
buru", who were really the consummation of the school. In 
the fifteenth century one of the early leaders was Martin 
Schongauer (1446 ?-i4SS), at Colmar. He is supposed to 
have been a pupd (jf RoLjer Van der W'eyden, of the Flemish 
school, and is Ijetter kiKjwn by his engravings than his 
paintings, none of the latter being p(jsitively authenticated. 
He was thoroughlv German in his type and treatment, 
though, perhaps, indebted to the Flemings for his coloring. 
There was some angularity in his figures and draperies, 
and a tendeiicv to get nearer nature and further away 
from the ecclesiastical and ascetic conception in all that 
he did. 

.\t Ulm a local school came into existence with Zeitblom 
(t]. 1484-15 17), who was probably a pupil of Schiichlin. 
He had neither .Schongauer's force nor his fancy, but was a 
simple, straightforward painter of one rather strong type. 
His drawing was not good, except in the draperies, Ijut he 
was quite remarkable for the solidity and substance of his 
painting, considering the age he lived in was given to hard, 
thin brush-work. Schaffner (11. 1500-1535) was another 
Ulm |xdnter, a junior to Zeitblom, of whom little is known, 
save from a few pictures graceful and free in composition. 



A recently discovered man, Bernard Strigel (1461 ?-i52S?) 
sccnis to have been excellent in portraiture. 

At Augsburg there was still another school, which came 
into prominence in the sixteenth century with Burkmair 
and the Holbeins. It was only a part of the Swabian school, 
a concentration of artistic force about Augsburg, which, 
toward the close of the fifteenth century, had come into 
competition with Nuremberg, and rather outranked it in 


splendor. It was at Augsburg that the Renaissance art in 
Clermany showed in more restful composition, less angu- 
larit)', better modelling and painting, and more sense of the 
euscmhk of a picture. Hans Burkmair ( 1 473- 1531) was the 
founder of the school, a pupil of .Schongauer, later in- 
fluenced by Diirer, and finally showing the influence of 
Italian art. He was not, like Diirer, a religious painter, 
though doing religious subjects. He was more concerned 
with wordly appearance, of which he had a large knowl- 
edge, as may be seen from his illustrations for engraving. 
As a painter he was a rather fine colorist, indulging in the 


faiUaslic of arrhiU'ctiiii' but with ^dud taslr, cnHlc In ilr.iw- 
iiig hut liii'icl III, ami al linirs i;i\in,:; cxirlliiit i'll\'(ls of 
motinii. \\v was ri)UiuU'r, Inllci', I'alnicr in r(im|)i)sitiiiii 
than Uiirrr, hut lU'vcr so sti-miu;- an artist. 

Next til riiitkinair (.-iiinrs the (■ciehratcd llolhcm family. 
There were four of them all told, but only two of them, 
ILms the l''dder ,ind llaiis the N'oimtjer, need be mentioned. 
Holbein the Elder ( i 4O0 ?-i 5 -4), after Uurkmair, was tlie 
best [lainter of his lime ami sehool without beiiij^ in him- 
self a great artist. Seh()ni,rauer was at first his ,<;uide, 
though he soon submitted to some I'leniish and Colotjne 
inlluenee, and later on followed Italian form and method 
in eomposilion to some e.\tent. 1 le was a ,t;ood drauglits- 
nian. and verv elever at catchinsj; reahstie points of ph)'s- 
ii.igaiomy — a g\U he left his son Hans. In a(lditir)n he harl 
some feeling for arehiteeture and ornament, and in hand- 
ling was a bit hard, and oftentimes careless. The best halt 
of his life fell in the latter part of the fifteenth century, 
and he never achieved the free painter's qualitv of his son. 

Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-154,^) holds, with Diirer, 
the high place in German art. He was a more mature 
painter than Diirer, coming as he did a tjuarter (jf a cen- 
tury later. He was the Renaissance artist of (lermany, 
whereas Diirer alwavs had a little of the Gothic clinging to 
him. The two men were widely different in their points 
of view and in their work. Diirer was an idealist seeking 
after a type, a reli.gious painter, a painter of panels with 
the spirit of an engraver. Holbein was emphatically a real- 
ist finding material in the actual life about him, a designer 
of cartoons and large wall paintings in something of the 
Italian spirit, a man who painted reli.gious themes but with 
little spiritual significance. 

It is probable that he got his first instruction from his 
father and from Ijurkmair. He was an infant prodigv, de- 
veloped early, saw much foreign art, and showed a number 


of tendencies in his work. In composition and drawing he 
appeared at times to be following Mantegna and the north- 
ern Italians ; in brush-work he resembled the Flemings, es- 
pecially Massys ; yet he was never an imitator of either 
Italian or Flemish painting. Decidedly a self-sufficient and 
an observing man, he travelled in Italy and the Netherlands, 
and spent much of his life in England, where he met with 
great success at court as a portrait-painter. P'rom seeing 
much he assimilated much, yet always remained German, 
changing his style but little as he grew older. His w'all 
paintings have perished, but the drawings from them are 
preserved and show him as an artist of much invention. He 
is now known chiefly by his portraits, of which there are 
many of great excellence. His facility in grasping physiog- 
nomy and realizing character, the cjuiet dignity of his com- 
position, his firm modelling, clear outline, harmonious color- 
ing, excellent detail, and easy solid painting, all place him 
in the front rank of great painters. That he was not always 
bound down to literal facts maybe seen in his many designs 
for wood-engravings. His portrait of Hubert Morett, in 
the Dresden Gallery, shows his art to advantage, and there 
are many portraits by him of great spirit in England, in the 
Louvre, and elsewhere. 

SAXON SCHOOL: Lucas Cranach (1472-1553) was a Fran- 
conian master, who settled in Saxony and was successively 
court-painter to three Electors and the leader of a small 
local school there. He, perhaps, studied under Griinewald, 
but was so positive a character that he showed no strong 
school influence. His work was fantastic, odd in concep- 
tion and execution, sometimes ludicrous, and always archaic- 
looking. His type was rather strained in proportions, 
not always well drawn, but graceful even when not truth- 
ful. This type was carried into all his works, and finally 
became a mannerism u ith him. In subject he was religious, 
mythological, romantic, pastoral, with a preference for the 


luulr ligure. In loldrinn lir \\as at first i^oldcii, then brown, 
ami Inially cold and s()nd)rc. 'I'lir laik of aerial perspective 
and sIkhIow masses ,L;"a\e his work a (pieer look, and he was 
never much ot a brushman. llis pietnres were t\'pical of 
the time and conntr\', and for that and for their strong- in- 
divitluality they are ranked amons;- the most interesting 
pamtmgs of the (lerman school, I'erhaps his most satis- 
factory works are his portraits. Lucas Cranach the Young'er 
(1515-15S6) was the best of the elder Cranach's pupils. 
Many of his jiictures are attributed to his father. He foi- 
lowetl the elder closely, but was a weaker man, with a 

smoother brush and a more 

rosy color. Though there 
were manv pupils the schot)l 
did not go beyond the Cra- 
nach family. It began with 
the father and died with the 

were unrelieved centuries of 
decline in Cierman painting. 
After I)iirer, Holbein, and 
Cranach had passed there 
came about a senseless imi- 
tation of Italv, combined 
with an equally senseless 
imitation of detail in nature 
that produced nothing wor- 
thy of the name of original 
or genuine art. It is not 

probable that the Reformation had any more to do Avith 
this than with the decline in Italy. It was a period of 
barrenness in both countries. The Italian imitators in Ger- 
many were chiefly Rottenhammer (1564-1623), and Elzheimer 



(1574 ?-i62o). After them came the representative of the 
other extreme in Denner (1685-1749), who thought to be 
great in portraiture by the minute imitation of hair, freckles, 
and three-days'-old beard — a petty and unworthy realism 
which excited some curiosity but never held rank as art. 
Mengs (172S-1779) sought for the sublime through eclec- 
ticism, but never reached it. His work, though academic 
and correct, is lacking in spirit and originality. Angelica 
KaufFman (i 741-1807) succeeded in pleasing her inartistic 
age with the simply pretty, while Carstens (i 754-1 798) 
was a conscientious if mistaken student of the great Ital- 
ians — a man of some severity in form and of academic incli- 

NINETEENTH CENTURY: In the first part of this century 
there started in Germany a so-called " revival of art " led 
by Overbeck (i 789-1 869), Cornelius (17S3-1S67), Veit (1793- 
1S77), and Schadow (1789-1862), but like many another revi- 
val of art it did not amount to much. The attempt to 
"revive" the past is usually a failure. The forms are 
caught, but the spirit is lost. The nineteenth-century at- 
tempt in Germany was brought about by the study of 
monumental painting in Italy, and the taking up of the re- 
ligious spirit in a pre-Raphaelite manner. Something also 
of German romanticism was its inspiration. Overbeck re- 
mained in Rome, but the others, after some time in Italy, 
returned to Germany, diffused their teaching, and really 
formed a new epoch in German painting. A modern art 
began with ambitions and subjects entirely disproportionate 
to its skill. The monumental, the ideal, the classic, the 
exalted, were spread over enormous spaces, but there was 
no reason for such work in the contemporary German life, 
and nothing to warrant its appearance save that its better 
had appeared in Italy during the Renaissance. Cornelius 
after his return became the head of the 

MUNICH SCHOOL and painted pictures of the heroes of the 


classic ami the C'livistian worlil u|)()ii a lar^x- scale. NolliiiiLC 
but their si/.c ami Ljddd intcnticn ever lir(iUi;IU llieiiiinlo no- 
tice, I'cr tlu'ir lunu ami coloniii; were bolli comnionplace. 
Schnorr (i7()4-iS7j) lullowetl in the same style with the 
Xiebeluny'cn Lieil, Cliarlemagne, ami llaiiiarossa for subjects. 
Kaiilbach ( i 805- 1 S74) was a pupil of Cornelius, and had some 
abihtv but little taste, and not enough originality to produce 
great art. Piloty ( i 82O- I SS6) was more realistic, more of a 
pamter and ranks as one of the best of the early Munich 
masters. After linn iMimich art liecame .^'vv/rrdike in subject, 
with greater attention given to truthful representation in 
light, color, texture. 'I'o-ilay there are a large number of 
painters in the school who are remarkable for realistic detail. 

DUSSELDORF SCHOOL: After 1S26 this school came into 
|irominence under the guidance of Schadow. ft did not 
faiic)- monumental painting so much as the common easel 
picture, with the sentimental, the dramatic, or the romantic 
suliject. It was no better in either form or color than the 
Munich school, in fact not so good, though there were 
painters who emanated from it who had al)ility. At Berlin 
the inclination was to follow the methods and ideas held at 

The whole academic tendency of modern painting in Ger- 
many and Austria for the past fifty years has not been favor- 
able to the best kind of pictorial art. There is a disposition 
on the part of artists to tell stories, to encroach upon the sen- 
timent of literature, to paint with a dry brush in harsh un- 
svmpathetic colors, to ignore relations of light-and-shade, 
and to slur beauties of form. The subject seems to count 
for more tlian the truth of representation, or the individu- 
ality of view. From time to time artists of much ability 
have appeared, but these form an exception rather than a 
rule. The men to-day who are the great artists of Germany 
are less followers of the German tradition than individuals 
each working in a style peculiar to himself. A few only of 



them call for mention. Menzel (1815-) is easily first, a 
painter of group pictures, a good colorist, and a powerful 
pen-and-ink draughtsman ; Lenbach (i 836-), a forceful por- 


traitist ; Uhde (1 848-), a portrayer of scriptural scenes in 
modern costumes with much sincerity, good color, and 
light ; Leibl (i 844-1900), an artist with something of the 
Holbein touch and realism ; Thoma, a Frankfort painter of 
decorative friezes and panels ; Liebermann, Gottbardt Kuebl, 
Franz Stuck, Max Klinger. 

Aside from these men there are several notable painters 
with frerman affinities, like Makart (1840-1884), an Austrian, 
who possessed good technical qualities and indulged in a pro- 
fusion of color ; Munkacsy (1846-1900), a Hungarian , who is 
perhaps more Parisian than German in technic, and Bocklin 
(1827-1901), a Swiss, who is quite by himself in fantastic and 
grotesque subjects, a weird and uncanny imagination, and a 
brilliant prismatic coloring. 


PRINCIPAL WORKS; r.i>iiKMiAN Sciiooi.— Theoderich of Prague, 

K.uislcin cli.ip. ail. I L'liivci si(y I, ihniry rraguc, Vicuna Mns. ; Wurmser, 
same places. 

Fkanchnian Schooi. — Wolgemut, AscliaKcnlmrg, Munich, Nnicni- 
berg, Cassel Mas. ; Diirer, C'lucilixiun Dresden, Triiiily Vienna Mus., 
olher works Munieli, Nureniliery, Mailriil Mus. ; Schaufelin, l;aslc, 
ISanilieri;, Cassel, Munieli, Nuienilieit;, Niinllingen Mus., ami Ulln 
Catlicilral ; Baldung, .Vseli.iffenluiri;, liasle, lleiiin, Kunsllialle Carlsrulie, 
Freiluiri; Callieilral ; Kulmbach, Munich, Nurcinlieig, Ohlcnluir!; ; 
Altdorfer aiul ihe " I.illlc Maslers " are seen in the .'Vugsluirg, Nuremberg, 
Uerlin, Munich and I- ilrslcnberg Mus. 

Su'AiUAN School — Schongauer, aUrilmted picUircs Culmar Mus. ; 
Zeitblom, .\ugslnirg, licrlin, Carlsrulie, Munich, Nuremberg, Simaringen 
Mu^. ; Schaffner, Munich, Schliessheim, Nuremberg, Uhii Cathedral; 
Strigel, IJerlui, Carlsruhe, Munich, Nuremberg ; Burkmair, Augsburg, 
lieilin, Munich, Maurice chap. Nuremberg; Holbein the Elder, 
Augsburg, Nuremberg, Basle, Stiidel Mus., Frankfort ; Holbein the 
Younger, liasle, Carlsruhe, Darmstadt, Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, 
Windsor Castle, Vienna Mus. 

S.VXON School — Cranach, Bamberg Cathedral and Gallery, Munich, 
Vienna, Dresden, Berlin, Stuttgart, Cassel ; Cranach the Younger, 
Stadtkirche Wittenberg, Leipsie, Vienna, Nuremberg Mus. 

tenhammer, Li.mvre, Berlin, Munich, Schliessheim, Vienna, Kunsllialle 
Hamburg; Elzheimer, Stadel, Brunswick, Louvre, Munich, Berlin, 
L'res.lcn ; Denner, Kunsthalle Hamburg, Berlin, Brunswick, Dresden, 
A'ienna, Munich ; Mengs, Madrid, Vienna, Dresden, Munich, St. 
Petersburg; Angelica Kauffman, Vienna, Hermitage, Turin, Dresden, 
Nat. Gal. Lon., Phila. ,\cail. 

NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTERS : Overbeck, frescos in S. 
Maria degli Angeli Assisi, Villa Massimo Rome, Carlsruhe, New Pina- 
cotliek, Munich, Stadel Mus., Dusseldorf ; Cornelius, frescos Cily])- 
tothek and Ludwigkirche Munich, Casa Zuccaro Rome, Royal Cem- 
etery Berlin ; Veil, frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome, Stadel, Nat. Gal. 
Berlin ; Schadow, Nat. Gal. Berlin, Antwerp, Stadel, Munich Mus., 
frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome ; Schnorr, Dresden, Cologne, Carls- 
ruhe, New Pinacothek Munich, Stadel Mus. ; Kaulbach, wall paint- 
ings Berlin Mus., Racrynski Oral. Berlin, New Pinacothek Munich, Stutt- 
gart, Phila. Acad. ; Piloty, best pictures in the New Pinacothek and 
Maximilianeum Munich, Nat. Gal. Berlin; Menzel, Nat. Ciah, Rac- 
zynski Mus. Berlin, Breslau Mus. ; Lenbach, Nat. Gal. Berlin, New 


Pinacothek Munich, Kunsthalle Ilamhurg, Zurich Gal.; Uhde, Leipsic 
Mus. ; Leibl, Dresden Mus. The contemporary paintings have not as 
yet found their way, to any extent, into public museums, but may be seen 
in the expositions at Berlin and Munich from year to year. Makart has 
one work in the Metropolitan Mus., N. Y., as has also Munkacsy ; other 
works Ijy them and by Bocklin may be seen in the Nat. Gal. Berlin. 



BiXiK> Recommendf.ii ; Armstrong, Sir Henry Raeburn ; 
.Armstrong, Gainsborough ; Armstrong, Sir Josliiia Reynolds ; 
llurton. Catalogue of Pictures in National Gallery ; Ches- 
neau, La Peintuir Anglaise ; Cook, Art in England ; Cun- 
ningham, Lives of the most Eminent British Artists ; Dobson, 
Life of Hogarth; Gilchrist, Life of Etty ; (jilchrist. Life of 
Blake ; Hamerton, Life of Turner ; Hunt, The Pre-Raphaelite 
Brotherhood i^Contemporarx Lieview, Vol. 4g) ; Leslie, Sir 
Joshua Reynolds; Leslie, Life of Constable; Martin and 
Xewberv, Glasgoio School of Painting ; Monkhouse, British 
Contcinpora?y Artists ; Redgrave, Dictionary of Artists of 
the English School ; Romney, Life of George Romney; Ros- 
setti, Fine Art, chiefly Contemporary ; Ruskin, Pre-Raphacl- 
itism : Ruskin, Art of England ; Sandby, History of Royal 
Academy of Arts ; William Bell Scott, Autobiography ; Scott, 
British Landscape Painters ; Ste])hens, Catalogue of Prints and 
Draii'ings in the British Muscu/n ; Swinburne, William Blake; 
Temple, Painting in the Queen's Reign ; Van Dyke, Old Eng- 
lish Masters ; ^\'edmore. Studies in English Art ; \\'ilmot- 
Buxton, English Painters ; Wright, LJfe of Richard IVilson. 

BRITISH PAINTING: It may be premised in a general 
way, that the British painters have never possessed the 
pictorial cast of mind in the sense that the Italians, the 
French, or the Dutch have possessed it. Painting, as a 
purely pictorial arrangement of line and color, has been 
somewhat foreign to their conception. Whether this fail- 
ure to appreciate painting as painting is the result of geo- 
graphical position, isolation, race temperament, or mental 
disposition, would be hard to determine. It is quite cer- 



tain that from time immemorable the English people have 
not been lacking in the appreciation of beauty ; but beauty 
has appealed to them, not so much through the eye in 
painting and sculpture, as through the ear in poetry and 
literature. They have been thinkers, reasoners, moralists, 
rather than observers and artists in color. Images have 


been brought to their minds by words rather than by 
forms. English poetry has existed since the days of Ar- 
thur and the Round 'fable, but English painting is of com- 
paratively modern origin, and it is not wonderful that the 
original leaning of the people toward literature and its sen- 
timent should find its way into pictorial representation. As 
a result one may say in a very general way that English 
painting is more illustrative than creative. It endeavors 
to record things that might be more pertinently and com- 


pletcly tokl in poetry, romance, or history. 'I'hc coiucp- 
tion of iaryc art — creative work of the Rnbcns-'I'itian type — 
has not been given to the iMighsh painters, save in excep- 
tional eases. lluir success has l)een in portraiture and 
lanilseape, and this lartjely liy reason of followiuj^ the model. 

EARLY PAINTING; I'he earhest decorative art appeared 
in Ireland. It was probably lirsl planted there i)y mis- 
sionaries from Italv, and it readied its heii;'ht in the seventh 
eenturv. In the ninth and tenth centuries missal illumina- 
tion of a Hvzantine cast, with local modifications, beu;an to 
show. This lasted, in a feeble way, until the fifteenth cen- 
tury, when work of a Flemish and French nature took its 
place. In the .Mitldle .\g"es there were \vall paintings and 
church decorations in England, as elsewhere in iMirope, but 
these have now perished, except some fragments in Kemp- 
lev Church, (iloucestershire, and Chaldon Church, .Surrey. 
Fhese are supposed to date back to the twelfth century, 
and there are some remains of painting in Westminster 
-\bbey that are said to be of thirteenth- and fourteenth-cen- 
tury origin. From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century 
the English people depended largely upon foreign painters 
who came and lived in England. Mabuse, Moro, Hol- 
bein, Rubens, Van Dyck, Lely, I-Cneller — all were there at 
difl'erent times, in the service of royalty, and influencing 
such local English painters as then lived. The outcome of 
missal illumination and Holbein's example produced in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a local school of minia- 
ture-painters of much interest, but painting proper did not 
begin to rise in England until the beginning of the eigh- 
teenth century — that century so dead in art over all the rest 
of Europe. 

FIGURE AND POKTEAIT PAINTEES : Aside from a few in- 
c(jnsequential precursors the first English artist of note 
was Hogarth (1697-1764). He wasan illustrator, a moralist, 
and a satirist as well as a painter. To point a moral upon 



canvas by depicting the vices of his time was his avowed 
aim, but in doing so he did not lose sight of pictorial 
beauty. Charm of color, the painter's taste in arrangement, 
light, air, setting, were his in a remarkable degree. He was 
not successful in large compositions, but in small pictures 
like those of the Rake's Progress he was excellent. An 
early man, a rigid stickler for the representation, a keen 
observer of physiognomy, a satirist with a sense of the ab- 
surd, he was often warped in his art by the necessities of 
his subject and was sometimes hard and dry in method , 

but in his best work 
he was quite a per- 
fect painter. He 
was the first of the 
English school, and 
perhaps the most 
original of that 
school. This is 
quite as true of his 
technic as of his 
point of view. Both 
w ere of his own 
creation. His sub- 
jects have been 
talked about a great 
deal in the past ; but 
his painting is not 
to this day valued 
as it should be. 

'J'he next man to 
be mentioned, one 
of the most consid- 
erable of all the English school, is Sir Joshua Reynolds 
(1723-1792). He was a pupil of Hudson, but owed his art 
to many sources. Besides the influence of Van Dyck he 


lilUTISU I'AlNTlNt;. 245 

was for some years in Italy, a diligent student of llie great 
Italians, espeeially the Venetians, Correggio, and the l!o- 
lognese Kcleetics. Sn- Joshua was inclined to be eeleclic 
hinisell, and Ironi Italy he hroughl bai k a formula of art 
which, modihed by his own individuality, answered him for 
the rest of his life, lie was not a man of very hjfty 
imagination or great invention. A few figure-pieces, after 
the Titian initiative, came from his studio, but his repu- 
tatit>n rests upon his many portraits. In portraiture he 
was often beyond criticism, giving the realistic represen- 
tation with dignity, an elevated spirit, and a suave brush. 
Even here he was more impressive by his broad truth of 
facts than by his artistic feeling. He was not a painter who 
could do things enthusiastically or excite enthusiasm in the 
spectator. There was too much of rule and precedent, too 
much regard for the traditions, for him to do anything 
strikingly original. His brush work and composition were 
more learned than individual, and his color, though usually 
good, was oftentimes conventional in contrasts. Taking 
him for all in all he was a very cultivated painter, a man to 
be respected and admired, but he had not quite the original 
spirit that we meet with in Gainsborough. 

Reynolds was well-grounded in Venetian color, Bolognese 
composition, Parmese light-and-shade, and paid them the 
homage of assimilation; but if Gainsborough (1727-1788) 
had such school knowledge he positively disregarded it. 
He disliked all conventionalities and formulas. With a 
natural taste for form and color, and with a large decora- 
tive sense, he went directly to nature, and took from her 
the materials which he fashioned into art after his own 
peculiar manner. His celebrated Blue Boy was his protest 
against the conventional rule of Reynolds that a composi- 
tion should be warm in color and light. All through his 
work we meet with departures from academic ways. By 
dint of native force and grace he made rules unto himself, 



Some of them were not entirely successful, and in drawing 
he might have profited by school training ; but he was of 
a peculiar poetic temperament, with a dash of melancholy 

about him, and preferred 
to work in his own way. 
Ill portraiture his color 
was rather cold ; inland- 
scape much warmer. 
His brush-work was as 
odd as himself, but usu- 
ally effective, and his 
accessories in figure- 
painting were little more 
than decorative after- 
thoughts. Both in por- 
traiture and landscape 
he was one of the most 
original and most Eng- 
lish of all the English 
painters — a man not yet 
entirely appreciated, 
though from the first 
ranked among the fore- 
most in English art. 
Romney (i 734-1S02), a pupil of Steele, was often quite 
as masterful a portrait-painter as either Reynolds or Gains- 
borough. He was never an artist elaborate in composi- 
tion, and his best works are bust-portraits with a plain 
background. These he did with much dash and vivacity 
of manner. His women, particularly, are fine in life-like 
pose and winsomeness of mood. He was a very cunning 
observer, and knew how to arrange for grace of line and 
charm of color. 

After Romney came Beechey (1753-1839), Raeburn (1756- 
1S23), Opie (1761-1.S07), and John Hoppner (1759-1810). 



'I'licn followcnl Lawrence (i 769-iSjo), a mixture of vi\a- 
cuuis style and rather inerelrieiuus inetlnnl. lie was the 
most celebrated painter of his lime, lars^ely because he 
|KiiiUeil not)ilitv to look more noble ami i;i"aee to look more 
i;raeious. I'oiul of line tNpes, t^armeiits, draperies, colors, lie 
\\\is alua\'S seekinj;" the sparkling' rather than the true, and 
forcing artil'icial ellects tor the sake of startling one rather 
than stating facts sim|ily and frankly. He was facile with 
the lirnsh, clever in line and color, brilliant to the last de- 
gree, but lacking in that simplicity of view and method which 
marks the great mind. His composition was rather fine 
in its decorative effect, and, though his lights were often 
faulty when compared with nature, they were no less telling 
from the stand-point of picture-making. He is much ad- 
nured by artists to-day, and, as a technician, he certainly 
had more than average ability. He was hardly an artist 
like Kevnolds or Ciainsborough, but among the mediocre 
[ximters of his day he shone like a star. It is not worth 
while to say much about his contemporaries. Etty (1787- 
1S49) was one of the best of the figure men, but his Greek 
types and classic aspirations grow wearisome on accjuaint- 
ance ; and Sir Charles Eastlake (i 793-1865), though a 
learned man in art and doing great service to painting as a 
writer, never was a painter of importance. 

"William Blake (1757-1827) was hardly a painter at all, 
though he drew and colored the strange figures of his 
fancy and cannot be passed over in any history of English 
art. He was perhaps the most imaginative artist of Eng- 
lish birth, though that imagination was often disordered 
and almost incoherent. He was not a correct draughts- 
man, a man with no great color-sense, and a workman 
without technical training ; and yet, in spite of all this, he 
drew some figures that are almost sublime in their sweep of 
power. His decorative sense in filling space with lines is 
well shown in his illustrations to the Book of Job. In grace 


of form and feeling of motion he was excellent. Weird and 
uncanny in thought, delving into the unknown, he opened 
a world of mystery, peopled with a strange Apocalyptic race, 
whose writhing, flowing bodies are the epitome of graceful 

GENRE-PAINTEES; From Blake to Morland (1763-1S04) is 


a step across space from heaven to earth. Morland was a 
realist of English country life, horses at tavern-doors, 
cattle, pigs. His life was not the most correct, but his art 
in truthfulness of representation, simplicity of painting, 
richness of color and light, was often of a fine quality. As 
a skilful technician he stood ciuite alone in his time, and 
seemed to show more affinity with the Dutch _i^!?«/-(?-painters 


than his cnvii ciuinlrvmcn. II is winks .-u'c much prized 
ln-ihi\', aiul were sii during' the [laiuter's life. 

Sir David Wilkie (17S5-1S41) was alsd somewhat like the 
Ituteh in suhjeet, .i,!,'(V//-(-painter, fond (jf the village fete and 
de[iieting it with careful iletail, a limpid brush, and good te\t- 
nral ellects. In 1S25 he tra\elletl abroad, was gone some 
years, was inipresseil by ^'elasclut■z, Correggio, and Rem- 
brandt, and completely changed his style. He then became 
a portrait and historical painter. He never outlived the ner- 
vous constraint that shows in all his pictures, and his brush, 
though facile within limits, was never free or bold as com- 
pared with a Dutchman like Steen. In technical methods 
Landseer (i 802-1 873), the painter of animals, was somewhat 
like him. That is to say, they both had a method of painting 
surfaces and rendering textures that was more " smart " than 
powerful. There is little solidity or depth to the brush- 
work of either, though both are impressive to the spectator 
at first sight. Landseer knew the habits and the anatomy 
of animals very well, but he never had an appreciation of the 
brute in the animal, such as we see in the pictures of Velas- 
quez or the bronzes of Barye. The Landseer animal has too 
much sentiment about it. The dogs, for instance, are gener- 
ally given those emotions pertinent to humanity, and which 
are only e.xceptionally true of the canine race. This very 
feature — the tendency to humanize the brute and make it 
lcU a story — accounts in large measure for the popularity of 
Landseer's art. The work is perhaps correct enough, but the 
aim of it is somewhat afield from pure painting. It illus- 
trates the literary rather than the pictorial. Following Wil- 
kie the most distinguished painter was Mulready (17S6-1863), 
whose pictures of village boys are well known through en- 

THE LANDSCAPE PAINTEES: In landscape the English 
have had something to say peculiarly their own. It has 
not always been well said, the coloring is often hot, the 

2 50 


brush-work brittle, the attention to detail inconsistent with 
the large view of nature, yet such as it is it shows the Eng- 
lish point of view and is valuable on that account. Richard 
Wilson (i 7 I 3-1 782) was the first landscapist of importance, 
though he was not so English in view as some others to fol- 
low. In fact, Wilson was nurtured on Claude Lorrain and 
Joseph Vernet and instead of painting the realistic English 
landscape he painted the pseudo-Italian landscape. He be- 
gan working in portraiture under the tutorship of Wright, 
and achieved some success in this department ; but in i 749 
he went to Italy and devoted himself wholly to landscapes. 
These were of the classic type and somewhat conventional. 
The composition was usually a dark foreground with trees 


or buildings to right and left, an opening in the middle 
distance leading into the background, and a broad expanse 
of sunset sky. In the foreground he usually introduced a 

r.Ki'i'isii I'AiN'i'iNi;. 251 

few figures for ronianlir or classic association. Consider- 
able elevation of theme aiul spirit marks most of his pictures. 
There was g'ootl workmanship about the skies and the Ii;,dit, 
and an attentixe study of nature was shown throughout. 
His ean\'ases dul not nu'el with nuieh success at the time 
thev were painted. In more modern da\s Wilson has been 
rankeil as the true founder of huidscape in l-aigland. and one 
of the most sincere of Kngiish iiainters. 

THE NORWICH SCHOOL: Old Crome (1769-1821), though in- 
fluenced to some extent by Wilson and the Dutch painters, 
was an original talent, i)ainting English scenery with much 
simplicity and considerable power. He was sometimes rasp- 
ing with his brush, and had a small method of recording de- 
tails combined with mannerisms of drawing and composition, 
and yet gave an out-of-doors feeling in light and air that was 
astonishing. His large trees have truth of mass and accuracy 
of drawing, and his foregrounds are painted with solidity. 
He was a keen student of nature, and drew about him a num- 
ber of landscape painters at Norwich, who formed the Nor- 
wich School. Crome was its leader, and the school made its 
influence felt upon English landscape painting. Cotman 
( I 782-1842) was the best painter of the group after Crome, 
a man who depicted landscape and harbor scenes in a style 
that recalls Girtin and Turner. 

The most complete, full-rounded landscaj^ist in England 
was John Constable (1776-1837). His foreign bias, such as 
it was, came from a study of the Dutch masters. There 
were two sources from which the F-nglish landscapists drew. 
Those who were inclined to the ideal, men like Wilson, 
Calcott (1779-1844), and Turner, drew from the Italian of 
Poussin and Claude ; those who were content to do nature 
in her real dress, men like Cainsborough and Constable, 
drew from the Dutch of Hobbema and his contemporaries. 
A certain sombreness of color and manner of composition 
show in Constable that may be attributed to Holland ; but 



these were slight features as compared with the originality 
of the man. He was a close student of nature who painted 
what he saw in English country life, 
especially about Hampstead, and paint- 
ed it with a knowledge and an artistic 
sensitiveness never surpassed in Eng- 
land. The rural feeling was strong 
with him, and his evident pleasure in 
simple scenes is readily communica- 
ted to the spectator. There is no at- 
tempt at the grand or the heroic. He 
never cared much for mountains or 
water, but was fond of cultivated up- 
lands, trees, bowling clouds, and torn 
skies. Bursts of sunlight, storms, at- 
mospheres, all pleased him. \Vith de- 
tail he was little concerned. He saw 
landscape in large patches of form and 
color, and so painted it. His handling 
was broad and solid, and at times a lit- 
tle heavy. His light was often forced 
by sharp contrast with shadows, and 
often his pictures appear spotty from 
isolated glitters of light strewn here 
and there. In color he helped eliminate the brown land- 
scape and substituted in its place the green and blue of 
nature. In atmosphere he was excellent. His influence 
upon English art was impressive, and in 1824 the ex- 
hibition at Paris of his Hay Wain, together with some 
work by Bonington and Fielding had a decided effect upon 
the then rising landscape school of France. The F'rench 
realized that nature lay at the bottom of Constable's art, and 
they profited, not by imitating Constable, but by studying 
his nature model. 
Bonington (1S01-1S2S) died young, and though of English 

I lU. 95. — P.I RNE-JOM 
II.AMMA \"E;srAi,[s 


parents his traiiiiiij^r was essentially Ireni li, and he really 
belonged tn the hreiuh seluKil, an assoi iatt' iil 1 )elaeroix. 
His study of the X'enelians turned his talent toward wami 
eoloring, in whieh he exeelled. In landsra|)e liis broad 
handhni^ was somewhat related to that (jf Constable, and 
from the faet of their works appearing' together in the Salon 
of i.S:;4 they are often spoken of as influeneers of the mod- 
ern I'reneh landseape painters. 

Turner (i775-i!^5i) is the best known name in English 
art. His celebrity is somewhat disproportionate to his real 
merits, though it is impossible to deny his great abilit)'. He 
was a man learned in all the forms of nature and sciiO(jled in 
all the formulas of art ; yet he was not a profound lover of 
nature nor a faithful recorder of what things he saw in nat- 
ure, except in his early days. In the bulk of his work he 
shows the traditions of Claude, with additions of his own. 
His taste was classic (he possessed all the knowledge and 
the belongings of the historical landscape), and he delighted 
in great stretches of country broken by sea-shores, rivers, 
high mountains, fine buildings, and illumined by blazing 
sunlight and gorgeous skies. His composition was at times 
grotesque in imagination ; his light was usually bewildering 
in intensity and often unrelieved by shadows of sufficient 
depth ; his tone was sometimes faulty ; and in color he was 
not always harmonious, but inclined to be capricious, un- 
even, showing fondness for arbitrary schemes of color. The 
object of his work seems to have been to dazzle, to impress 
with a wilderness of lines and hues, to overawe by imposing 
scale and grandeur. His paintings are impressive, decora- 
tively splendid, but they often smack of the stage, and are 
more frequently grandiloquent than grand. His early works, 
especially in water-colors, where he shows himself a follower 
of Girtin, are much better than his later canvases in oil, 
many of which have changed color. The water-colors are 
carefully done, subdued in color, and true in light. From 


1802, or thereabouts, to 1830 was his second period, in 
which Italian composition and much color were used. The 
last twenty years of his life he inclined to the bizarre, and 
turned his canvases into almost incoherent color masses. 
He had an artistic feeling for composition, linear perspec- 
tive, and the sweep of horizon lines ; skies and hills he knew 
and'drew with power ; color he comprehended only as deco- 
ration ; and light he distorted for effect. Yet with all his 
shortcomings Turner was an artist to be respected and ad- 
mired. He knew his craft, in fact, knew it so well that he 
relied too much on artificial effects, drew away from the 
model of nature, and finally passed into the extravagant. 

THE WATER-COLOKISTS : About the beginning of this cen- 
tury a school of water-colorists, founded originally by Cozens 
(i 752-1799) and Girtin (i 775-1 802), came into prominence 
and developed English art in a new direction. It began 
to show with a new force the transparency of skies, the 
luminosity of shadows, the delicacy and grace of clouds, 
the brilliancy of light and color. Cozens and Blake were 
primitives in the use of the medium, but Stothard (1755- 
1834) employed it with much sentiment, charm, and /A7V/-(r2V 
effect. Turner was quite a master of it, and his most per- 
manent work was done with it. Later on, when he rather 
abandoned form to follow color, he also abandoned water- 
color for oils. Fielding (1787-1849) used water-color 
effectively in giving large feeling for space and air, and also 
for fogs and mists ; Prout ( i 783-1 852) employed it in ar- 
chitectural drawings of the principal cathedrals of Europe ; 
and Cox (1783-1859), Dewint (i 784-1 849), Hunt (1790- 
1864), Cattermole ( 1 800-1 868), Lewis (1805-1876), men 
whose names only can be mentioned, all won recognition 
with this medium. Water-color drawing is to-day said to 
be a department of art that expresses the English pictorial 
feeling better than any other, though this is not an undis- 
puted statement. 

likiriSH I'AINTINC. 


Perliaps the most iiii|iort.iiit ni()\'rnKMit in I'ju^lisli paint- 
ing of recent tinirs was tliat wliieli toolv tlie name ni 

PRK-RAPHAELITISM : It was starleil al)()Ut [S47, prnnariiy 
by Rossetti (1S2S-1882), Holman Hunt (i.'^-^y j, and Sir John 
Millais ([Sj9-i8()0), assoeialetl witli sexeral sciilploi's and 
poets, seven in all. It was an enudalion of tlic siiieeriiy, 


the loving care, and the scru|oulous exactness in truth that 
characterized the Italian painters before Raphael. Its advo- 
cates, including Mr. Ruskin the critic, maintained that 
after Raphael came that fatal facility m art which seeking- 
grace of composition lost truth of fact, and that the proper 
course for modern painters was to return to the sincerity 
and veracity of the early masters. Hence the name pre-Ra- 


phaelitism, and the signatures on their early pictures, P. R. 
B., pre-Raphaelite Brother. To this attempt to gain the 
true regardless of the sensuous, was added a morbidity of 
thought mingled with mysticism, a moral and religious pose, 
and a studied simplicity. Some of the painters of the 
Brotherhood went even so far as following the habits of the 
early Italians, seeking retirement from the world and carry- 
ing wiih them a Gothic earnestness of air. There is no 
doubt about the sincerity that entered into this movement. 
It was an honest effort to gain the true, the good, and as a 
result, the beautiful ; but it was no less a striven-after hon- 
esty and an imitated earnestness. The Brotherhood did 
not last for long, the members drifted from each other and 
began to paint each after his own style, and pre-Raphaelitism 
passed away as it had arisen, though not without leaving 
a powerful stamp on English art, especially in decoration. 

Rossetti, an Italian by birth though English by adop- 
tion, was the type of the Brotherhood. He was more of a 
poet than a painter, took most of his subjects from Dante, 
and painted as he wrote, in a mystical romantic spirit. He 
was always of a retiring disposition and never exhibited 
publicly after he was twenty-eight years of age. As a 
draughtsman he was awkward in line and not always true in 
modelling. In color he was superior to his associates and 
had considerable decorative feeling. The shortcoming of 
his art, as with that of the others of the Brotherhood, was 
that in seeking truth of detail he lost truth of ensemble. This 
is perhaps better exemplified in the works of Holman Hunt. 
He has spent infinite pains in getting the truth of detail in 
his pictures, has travelled in the East and painted types, cos- 
tumes, and scenery in Palestine to gain the historic truths 
of his Scriptural scenes ; but all that he has produced has 
been little more than a survey, a report, a record of the facts. 
He has not made a picture. The insistence upon every de- 
tail has isolated all the facts and left them isolated in the 


picture. In seeking the minute truths he has overhjoked 
the great truths of light, air, anil setting. His cijlor has 
always been crude, his values or relations not well pre- 
served, and his brush-work hard and tortureil. 

Millais slioweil some of this disjointed effect in his early 
work when lie was a member of tile ISrotherhood. ffe did 
not hold to his early convictions however, and soon aban- 
doned the pre-Rapliaelite methods for a more conventional 
stvle. He has painted some remarkable portraits and some 
excellent figure [lieces, and to-day holds high rank in English 
art ; but he is an uneven painter, often doing weak, harshly- 
colorei! work. Moreover, the English tendency to tell stories 
with the paint-brush finds in Millais a faithful upholder. At 
his best he is a strong painter. 

Madox Brown (1821-1893) never joined the Brotherhood, 
though his leaning was toward its principles. He had con- 
siik-rable dramatic power, with which he illustrated historic 
scenes, and ann)ng contemporary artists stood well. 'I'he 
most decided influence of pre-Raphaelitism shows in Burne- 
Jones (1S33 — ), a pupil of Rossetti, and perhaps the most 
original painter now living* of the English school. From 
Rossetti he got mysticism, sentiment, poetry, and from 
association with Swinburne and William Morris, the poets, 
something of the literary in art, which he has put forth with 
artistic effect. He has not followed the Brotherhood in its 
pursuit of absolute truth of fact, but has used facts for deco- 
rative effect in line and color. His ability to fill a given 
space gracefully, shows with fine results in his pictures, as 
in his stained-glass designs. He is a good draughtsman and 
a rather rich colorist, but in brush-work somewhat labored, 
stippled, and unique in dryness. He is a man of much imag- 
ination, and his conceptions, though illustrative of litera- 
ture, do not suffer thereby, because his treatment does not 
sacrifice the artistic. He has been the butt of consider- 
able shallow laughter from time to time, like many another 

* Died 1893. 




man of power. Albert Moore (1840-1893), a graceful painter 
of a decorative ideal type, ratlier follows the Rossetti-Burne- 
Jones example, and is an illustration of the influence of 

temporary painters Sir Frederick Leighton (1830-1S96), 
President of the Royal Academy, is ranked as a fine aca- 
demic draughtsman, but not a man with the color-sense or 
the brushman's quality in his work. Watts (1818-) is per- 
haps an inferior technician, and in color is often sombre and 

dirty ; but he is a man of much 
imagination, occasionally rises to 
grandeur in conception, and has 
painted some superb portraits, 
notably the one of Walter Crane. 
Orchardson (1835-) is more of a 
painter, pure and simple, than any 
of his contemporaries, and is a 
knowing if somewhat mannered 
colorist. Erskine Nicol (1825-), 
Faed* (1S26-), Calderon (1S33-), 
Boughton (1834-), Frederick 
Walker (i 840-1 875), Stanhope 
Forbes, Stott of Oldham and in 
portraiture Holl (1S45-1890) and 
Herkomer may be mentioned. 
ERS: In the department of land- 
scape there are many painters in 
England of contemporary impor- 
tance. Vicat Cole (1833-1893) had 
considerable exaggerated reputa- 
tion as a depicter of sunsets and twilights ; Cecil Lawson 
(1S51-1882) gave promise of great accomplishment, and 
lived long enough to do some excellent work in the style 

* Died I goo. 

FIG. lOI.- 

I.O\'R ANn 


of the Frencli Roussrau, niiiiylcd with an iiifliuncf fioiii 
C'lainsboriHiyh ; Alfred Parsons is a httle hard and precise 
in lus work, hut one of the l)est of the living men ; and 
W. L. Wyllie is a painter of more than average merit. In 
marines Hook (1S19-) belongs to the older school, and is 
not entirely satisfactory. 'I'he most modern anti the best 
sea-painter in England is Henry Moore (1S31-1S95), a man 
who paints well and gives the large feeling of the ocean 
with tine color qualities. 

MODERN SCOTCH SCHOOL: There is at the present time a 
School of art in Scotland that seems to have little or no 
aftinilv with the contemporary school of England. Its 
painters are more akin to the Dutch and the ]''rench, and in 
their coloring resemble, in depth and quality, the work of 
Delacroix. Much of their art is far enough removed from 
the actual appearance of nature, but it is strong in the sen- 
timent of color and in decorative effect. The school is 
represented by such men as James Guthrie, E. A. Walton, 
James Hamilton, George Henry, E. A. Hornell, Lavery, Mel- 
ville, Crawhall, Roche, Lawson, McBride, Morton, Reid-Mur- 
ray, Spence, Paterson. 

PKINCIPAL WORKS: Knglish art cannot be seen to advantage, out- 
side of England. In the Metropolitan Museum, N. Y., and in private 
collections like that of Mr. William H. Fuller in New York,* there are 
some good examples of the older men — Reynolds, Constable, Gains- 
borough, and their contemporaries. In the Louvre there aie sonie indif- 
ferent Constables and some goorl Boningtons. In England the liesl collec- 
tion is in the Naticjnal Gallery. Ne.xt to this the Soulh Kensington 
Museum for Constable sketches. Elsewhere the Glasgow, Edinburgh, 
Liverpool, Windsor galleries, and llie jirivate collccii<ins of the late Sir 
Richard Wallace, the Duke of Westminster, and others. Turner is well 
represented in the National Gallery, though his oils have suffered througli 
time and the use of fugitive pigments. For the living men, their work 
may be seen in the yearly exhibitions at the Royal Academy and elsewhere. 
There are comparatively few English pictures in America. 
* Dispersed, iSy/6. 



Books Recommended: Amerkan Art RcvicKi ; The Art 
Review ; Benjamin, Contemporary Art in America ; Ce/itiiry 
Magazine ; Clement and Hutton, Artists of the Nineteenth 
Century ; Cummings, Historic Annals of the National Academy 
of Design; Downes, Boston Painters (in Atlantic Monthly Vol. 
62) ; Dunlap, Arts of Design in United States ; Flagg, Life and 
Letters of Washington Alls to n ; Gait, Life of 1 1 'est.- Knowl- 
ton, IV. Af. Hunt; Lester, The Artists of America ; Mason, 
Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart : Perkins, Copley ; Scribncr's 
Magazine ; ^h(t\don, American Painters ; Tuckerman, Book of 
the Artists ; Van Dyke, Art for Art's Sake ; Van Rens- 
selaer, Six Portraits ; Ware, Lectures on Allston ; White, A 
Sketch of Chester A. Liar ding. 

AMERICAN ART: It is hardly possible to predicate much 
about the environment as it affects art in America. The 
result of the climate, the teinperament, and the mixture of 
nations in the production or non-production of painting in 
America cannot be accurately computed at this early stage 
of history. One thing only is certain, and that is, that the 
building of a new commonwealth out of primeval nature does 
not call for the production of art in the early periods of de- 
velopment. The first centuries in the history of America 
were devoted to securing the necessities of life, the ener- 
gies of the time were of a practical nature, and art as an 
indigenous product was hardly known. 

After the Revolution, and indeed before it, a hybrid 
portraiture, largely borrowed from England, began to appear, 
and after 1825 there was an attempt at landscape painting; 



but paiiititig as an art worlliy of very serious considera- 
tion, came in only witli the siuUlen i;rowlli in vvealtli and 
taste following the War of the Reliellion aiul the Centennial 
Exhibition of 1S76. 'I'he best of American art dates from 
about 187S, though during the earlier years there were 
painters of note who cannot be passed over unmentioned. 

THE EAKLY PAINTERS: The "limner," or the man who 
could draw and color a portrait, seems to have existed very 
early in American history. Smibert (1684-1757), a Scotch 
painter, who settled in lloston, and Watson (1685 ?-i768), 
another Scotchman, wiio settled in New Jersey, were of this 
class — men capable of giving a likeness, but little more. 
They were followed by English painters of even less conse- 
quence. Then came Copley (1737-1815) and West (173S- 
1820), with whom painting in America really began. They 
were good men for their time, but it inust be borne in mind 
that the times for art were not at all favorable. AVest was 
a man about whom all the infant prodigy tales have been 
told, but he never grew to be a 
great artist. He was ambitious 
beyond his power, indulged in 
theatrical composition, was hot 
in color, and never was at ease 
in handling the brush. Most of 
his life was passed in England, 
where he had a vogue, was elect- 
ed President of the Royal Acad- 
emy, and became practically a 
British painter. Copley was 
more of an American than West, 
and more of a painter. Some 
of his portraits are exceptionally fine, and his figure pieces, 
like Charles I. demanding the Five Members of House of Com- 
mons are excellent in color and composition. C. W. Peale 
(i 741-1827), a pupU of both Copley and West, was perhaps 

102. — WEb'I. F'fiTKF^ 1>KN\1.NU 


more fortunate in having celebrated characters hke Wash- 
ington for sitters than in his art, Trumbull (1756-1843) 
preserved on canvas the Revolutionary history of America 

and, all told, did it 
very well. Some of 
his compositions, 
portraits, and min- 
iature heads in the 
Yale .-Vrt School at 
New Haven are 
drawn and painted 
in a masterful man- 
ner and are as valu- 
able for their art as 
for the incidents 
which they portray. 
Gilbert Stuart 
(1755-1828) was 
the best portrait- 
painter of all the 
early men, and his 
work holds very 
high rank even in 
the schools of to- 
day. He was one 
of the first in American art-history to show skilful accuracy of 
the brush, a good knowledge of color, and some artistic sense 
of dignity and carriage in the sitter. He was not always a 
good draughtsman, and he had a manner of laying on pure 
colors without blending them that sometimes produced 
sharpness in modelling; but as a general rule he painted a 
portrait with force and with truth. He was a pupil of Alex- 
ander, a Scotchman, and afterward an assistant to West. 
He settled in Boston, and during his life painted most of the 
great men of his time, including Washington. 

FIG, 103, — CII.BF.KI 




Vailderlyn (1 776-1 85 2) met wllli adversity all liis I iff Imii;, 
aiul perhaps never cxpi"cssci.l himself lully. lie a piipil 
of Stuart, studied in Paris and Italy, and his assoi i.itions 
with Aaron Btirr made him ciuite as famous as his pictures. 
Washington AUston (I 779-1 84 ;) was a p<iinter whom the 
llostonians ha\'e r.mkecl higii in their art-history, but he 
harilU' deserved such |)osition. I ntellecttially he was a man 
of loftv and poetic aspirations, but as an artist he never had 
tlie painter's sense or the |)ainter's skill. 1 le was an aspira- 
tuui rather tlian a consmnmation. Me chei'ished notions 
alinnt ideals, dealt in 
iniai^mative allego- 
ries, and failed to ob- 
serve the pictorial 
c h a r a c t e r of the 
World about him. As 
a result of this, and 
poor artistic triiining, 
his art had too little 
basis on nature, 
though it was very 
often satisfactory as 
decoration. Rem- 
brandt Peak (1787- 
1860), like his father, 
was a painter of Wash- 
ington portraits of me- 
diocre quality. Jarvis 
(i 780-1834) and Sul- 
ly (' 7 ■''.3- 1 87 2) were 
both British born, but 
their work belongs 

here in .\merica, where most of their days were spent. Sully 
could paint a very good portrait occasionally, though he al- 
ways inclined toward the weak and the sentimental, especially 

-W. I\t. HUNT. LUTE rL.A\t' 


in his portraits of women. Leslie (i 794-1 S59) and Newton 
(' 795- ' S35) were Americans, but, hkii West and Copley, tliey 
belong in their art more to England than to America. In all 
the early American painting the British influence may be 
traced, with sometimes an inclination to follow Italy in large 

THE MIDDLE PERIOD in American art dates from 1825 
to about 1878. During that time, something distinctly 
American began to appear in the landscape work of Doughty 
(1793-1S56) and Thomas Cole (1801-1848). Both men were 
substantially self-taught, though Cole received some instruc- 
tion from a portrait-painter named Stein. Cole during his 
life was famous for his Hudson River landscapes, and for 
two series of pictures called The Voyage of Life and The 
Course of Empire. The latter were really epic jiocms upon 
canvas, done with much blare of color and literary explana- 
tion in the title. His best work was in pure landscape, 
which he pictured with considerable accuracy in drawing, 
though it was faulty in lighting and gaudy in coloring. Brill- 
iant autumn scenes were his favorite subjects. His work 
had the merit of originality and, moreover, it must be re- 
membered that Cole was one of the beginners in American 
landscape art. Durand (1796- 1886) was an engraver until 
1835, when he began painting portraits, and afterward de- 
veloped landscape with considerable power. He was usu- 
ally simple in subject anil realistic in treatment, with 
not so much insistence upon brilliant color as some of his 
contemporaries. Kensett (1 818-1872) was a follower in 
landscape of the so-called Hudson River School of Cole 
and others, though he studied seven years in Europe. His 
color was rather warm, his air hazy, and the general effect 
of his landscape that of a dreamy autumn day with poetic 
suggestions. F. E. Church (1826-*) was a pupil of Cole, 
and has followed him in seeking the grand and the startling 
in mountain scenery. With Church should be mentioned a 
* Died, ijc^. 

ARrKKrcAN r.MN'TiNr;. 


number of .11 lists— Hubbard ( i.Si 7-1 S,S,S), Hill (1S29-,) Bier- 
stadt (i8;,o-),* Thomas Moran ( i.S,;7 -)— who liavc ik hieved 
reputation liy eaiivases of the Roeky Mountains anil otiier 
e\[iansive s c e 11 e s . 
Si.)nie otiier painters 
of sniailer eanvases 
belong" in point of 
time, a n d a I s o in 
spn'it, witli the Hud- 
son River lanclseap- 
ists — painters, too, of 
eonsiderabie ni e r 1 1 , 
as David Johnson 
(iSj;-), Bristol 
(1S26-), SandfordGif- 
ford (i S - 3- I SSo), 
and Whittredge 
(1S20-), the last two 
very good portrayers 
of autumn scenes ; A. 
H. Wyant (i S36- 
1S92), one of the best 
and strongest of the 
American landscapists ; Bradford (i 830-1 S92) and W. T. 
Richards (1833-), the marine-painters. 

with the early landscapists were a number of figure-paint- 
ers, most of them self-taught, or taught badly by foreign 
or native artists, and yet men who produced creditable 
work. Chester Harding (1792-1866) was one of the early 
portrait-painters of this century who achieved enough celeb- 
rity in Boston to be the subject of what was called "the 
Harding craze." Elliott ( i 8 1 2- 1 868) was a pupil of Trum- 
bull, and a man of considerable reputation, as was also In- 

♦ Died, 1902. 













m^T-' M 




H " '^^'1^1 




■ '^fl 










- - J 

FK;. 105. — E,-\S"IM.\N jOI-INSON. ciiurn'im: 


man (1S01-1S46), a portrait and _i,w/;r-painter with a 
smooth, detailed brush. Page (1811-1885), Baker (1821- 
1880), Huntington (1S16-), the third President of the Acad- 
emy of Design ; Healy (1808-*), a portrait-painter of more 
than average excellence; Mount ( 1 807-1868), one of the 
earliest of American ^w/r-painters, were all men of note in 
this middle period. 

Leutze (1816-1S6S) was a German by birth but an Ameri- 
can by adoption, who painted many large historical scenes 
of the American Revolution, such as Washington Crossing 
the Delaware, besides many scenes taken from European 
history. He was a pupil of I.essing at Dusseldorf, and had 
something to do with introducing Dusseldorf methods into 
America. He was a ])ainter of ability, if at times hot in 
color and dry in handling. Occasionally he did a fine por- 
trait, like the Seward in the Union League Club, New York. 

During this period, in addition to the influence of Dus- 
seldorf and Rome upon American art, there came the in- 
fluence of French art with Hicks (1823-1890) and Hunt 
(1824-1879), both of them pupils of Couture at Paris, and 
Hunt also of Millet at Barbizon. Hunt was the real intro- 
ducer of Millet and the IJarbizon-Fontainebleau artists 
to the American people. In 1855 he established himself at 
jjoston, had a large number of pupils, and met with great 
success as a teacher. He was a painter of ability, but 
perhaps his greatest influence was as a teacher and an in- 
structor in what was good art as distinguished from what 
was false and meretricious. He certainly was the first 
painter in America who taught catholicity of taste, truth 
and sincerity in art, and art in the artist rather than in the 
subject. Contemporary with Hunt lived George Fuller 
(1822-1884), a unique man in American art for the senti- 
ment he conveyed in his pictures by means of color and at- 
mosphere. Though never proficient in the grammar of art 
he managed by blendings of color to suggest certain senti- 
* Died 1894. 



ments rei;'arcliiig' li^nlit ami aii" thai lia\'c l)i'cu ri^lill)' csUciiicd 

THE THIRD PERIOD ill AnH'i'iraii art l)c,uaii ininicdiatrl)- 
aftcr ihe (.Aailtaiiiial l'',\liil)il imi at I'liiladcliihia in I1S76. 
L' luKuibUaliy tlir ilispla\ of art, Ixilii forcii;!! and domestic, 
at that time, toL;i.'tlicr witli llic national pros|)ciat)' and ,i;i-cat 
growth ol the I nilcd Stales had nnich to tlo with stiiiudat- 
ing- activity in painting. Man)' )'onng men at the begin- 


ning of this period went to Knrope to study in the studios 
at Munich, and later on at Paris, llefore 18S0 some of them 
had returned to the llnited States, bringing with them 
knowledge of the technical siile of art, which they immedi- 
ately began to give out to many pupils. (Gradually the in- 
fluence of the young men from Munich and Paris spread. 
l"he Art Students' League, founded in 1875, was incorporated 
in 1878, and the Society of American Artists was established 
in the same year. Societies and painters began to spring 
up all over the country^ and as a result there is in the United 
States to-day an artist body technically as well trained and 


in spirit as progressive as in almost any country of Europe. 
The late influence shown in painting has been largely a 
French influence, and the American artists have been accused 
from time to time of echoing French methods. The accu- 
sation is true in part. Paris is the centre of all art-teach- 
ing to-day, and the Americans, in common with the European 
nations, accept French methods, not because they are 
French, but because they are the best extant. In subjects 
and motives, however, the American school is as original as 
any school can be in this cosmopolitan age. 

must not be inferred that the painters now prominent in 
American art are all young men schooled since 1876. On 
the contrary, some of the best of them are men past middle 
life who began painting long before 1876, and have by dint 
of observation and prolonged study continued with the 
modern spirit. For e.\ample, Winslow Homer (1836-) is 
one of the strongest and most original of all the American 
artists, a man who never had the advantage of the high- 
est technical training, yet possesses a feeling for color, a 
dash and verve in execution, an originality in subject, and 
an individuality of conception that are unsurpassed. East- 
man Johnson (1824-) is one of the older portrait and figure- 
painters who stands among the younger generations with- 
out jostling, because he has in measure kept himself informed 
with modern thought and method. He is a good, conserva- 
tive painter, possessed of taste, judgment, and technical 
ability. Elihu Vedder (1836-) is more of a draughtsman 
than a brushman. His color-sense is not acute nor his 
handling free, but he has an imagination which, if somewhat 
more literary than pictorial, is nevertheless very effective. 
John La Farge (1835-) and Albert Ryder (1847-) are both col- 
orists, and La Farge in artistic feeling is a man of much 
power. Almost all of his pictures have fine decorative 
quality in line and color and are thoroughly pictorial. 



'I'he "young men," so-called, tliotigh some (jf them arc 
now on toward miiltllc life, are perhaps m(;re facile in 
brush-work and better trained draughlsinen than th(jse we 
have just mentioned. 'I'liey have cultivated vi\'acity of 
style and cleverness in statement, freipiently at the ex- 
pense (.>f the larger qualities of art. Sargent (1856-) is, ])er- 
haps, the most considerable portrait-painter now living, a 
man of unboumled resources technically and fme natural 
abilities. He is draughtsman, colorist, brushman — in fact, 
almost everything in art that can be cultivated. His taste 
is not vet mature, and he is just now given to dashing 
effects that are more clever than permanent ; but that he is 
a master in portraiture has already been abundantly demon- 


strated. Chase (1849-) is also an exceptionally good por- 
trait painter, and he handles the genre subject with brilliant 
color and a swift, sure brush. In brush-work he is exceed- 


ingly clever, and is an excellent technician in almost every 
respect. Not always profound in matter he generally man- 
ages to be entertaining in method. Blum (185 7-) is well 
known to magazine readers through many black-and-white 
illustrations. He is also a painter of genre subjects taken 
from many lands, and handles his brush with brilliancy and 
force. Dewing ( 1 85 i -) is a painter with a refined sense not 
only in form but in color. His pictures are usually small, 
but exquisite in delicacy and decorative charm. Thayer 
(i 849-) is fond of large canvases, a man of earnestness, sin- 
cerity, and imagination, but not a good draughtsman, not 
a good colorist, and a rather clumsy brushman. He has, 
however, something to say, and in a large sense is an ar- 
tist of uncommon ability. KenyoiiCox(i 856-) is a draughts- 
man, with a strong command of line and taste in its arrange- 
ment. He is not a strong colorist, though in recent work 
he has shown a new departure in this feature that prom- 
ises well. He renders the nude with power, and is fond of 
the allegorical subject. 

The number of good portrait-painters at present work- 
ing in America is ciuite large, and mention can be made of 
but a few in addition to those already spoken of — Lockwood, 
McLure Hamilton, Tarbell, Beckwith, Benson, Vinton. In 
figure and ^w/rc-painting the list of really good painters could 
be drawn out indefinitely, and again mention must be con- 
fined to -c few only, like Simmons, Shirlaw, Smedley, Brush, 
Millet, Hassam, Reid, Wiles, Mowbray, Reinhart, Blashfield, 
Metcalf, Low, C. Y. Turner. 

Most of the men whose names are given above are resi- 
dent in America; but, in addition, there is a large con- 
tingent of young men, American born but resident abroad, 
who can hardly be claimed by the American school, and 
yet belong to it as much as to any school. They are cos- 
mopolitan in their art, and reside in Paris, Munich, Lon- 
don, or elsewhere, as the spirit moves them. Sargent, the 



liortrait-paiiiter, reallv belongs to this group, as does 
also Whistler (1834-*), one of the most artistic of all the 
moderns. Whistler 
was long' resident in 
London, but has now 
reniovei.1 to Paris. 
He belongs to no 
school, and such art 
as he produces is pe- 
culiarly his own, save 
a leaven of intluences 
from A'clasejuez and 
the Japanese. His 
art is the perfection 
of delicacy, both in 
color and in line. 
Apparently very 
sketchy, it is in real- 
ity the maximum of 
etfect with the mini- 
mum of display. It 
has the pictorial 
charm of mystery and 
suggestiveness, and 
the technical effect of 
light, air, and space. 
There is nothing bet- 
ter produced in mod- 
ern painting than his 
present work, and in 
earlier years he 
painted portraits like 
that of his mother, 

which are justly ranked as great art. E, A. Abbey (185 2-) 
is better known by his pen-and-ink work than by his paint- 

* Died, 190 ;, 


"^ 72 


ings, howbeit he has done good work in color. He is resi- 
dent in England. 

In Paris there are many American-born painters, who 
really belong more with the French school than the Amer- 
ican. Bridgman is an example, and Dannat, Alexander Har- 


rison, Hitchcock, McEwen, Melchers, Pearce, Julius Stewart, 
Weeks (i 849-1 903), J. W. Alexander, "Walter Gay, Ser- 
geant Kendall have nothing distinctly American about their 
art. It is semi-cosmopolitan with a leaning toward French 
methods. There are also some American-born painters at 
Munich, like C. F. Ulrich ; Shannon is in London and Coleman 
in Italy. 


LANDSCAPE AND MARINE PAINTERS, 1878 1894: 111 the ilc- 
partiufiU o( laiulscapc Aiiicru a has had since 1.^25 somcthiiij^ 
distinctly national, and has at this day. In recent years the 
impressionist //(7//-i7/> scliool of France has influencetl many 
painters, and the prismatic lanilscape is tpiite as freqnenlly 
seen in American exhibitions as in the Paris sahjns ; bnt 
American landscape art rather dates ahead of French im- 
pressionism. The strongest landscapist of our times, George 
Inness (1825-*), is not a young man except in his artistic as- 
pirations. His style has undergone many changes, yet still 
remains distinctly individual. He has always been an experi- 
menter and an uneven painter, at times doing work of wonder- 
ful force, and then again falling into weakness. The solidity 
of nature, the mass and bulk of landscape, he has shown with 
a power second to none. He is fond of the sentiment of 
nature's light, air, and color, and has put it forth more in his 
later than in his earlier canvases. At his best, he is one of 
the first of the American landscapists. Among his con- 
temporaries Wyant (already mentioned), Swain Gifford, 
Colman, Gay, Shurtleff, have all done excellent work un- 
influenced by foreign schools of to-day. Homer Martin's f 
landscapes, from their breadth of treatment, are popularly 
considered rather indifferent work, but in reality the}' are 
excellent in color and poetic feeling. 

The "young men " again, in landscape as in the figure, are 
working in the modern spirit, though in substance they are 
based on the traditions of the older American landscape 
sclioo.l. There has been much achievement, and there is still 
greater promise in such landscapists as Tryon, Piatt, Murphy, 
Dearth, Crane, Dewey, Coffin, Horatio Walker, and others. 
Among those w'ho favor the so-called impressionistic view 
are Weir, Twachtman, and Eobinson, J three landscape- 
painters of undeniable power. In marines Gedney Bunce 
has portrayed many Venetian scenes of charming color-tone, 
and De Haas g has long been known as a sea-painter of some 

* Died 1894. t Died 1S97. ,' Died i39C. ^> Died 1895. 




power, ftuartley, who . died young, was brilliant in color 
and broadly realistic. The present marine-painters are 
Maynard, Snell, Rehn, Butler, Chapman. 

Fin. no. — CliASE. 

PRINCIPAL WORKS : The works of the early American painters are to 
be seen principally in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Athenceum, 
Boston Mus., Mass. Hist. Soc, Harvard College, Redwood Library, New- 
port, Metropolitan Mus., Lenox and Hist. Soc. Libraries, the City Hall, 
Century Club, Chamber of Commerce, National Acad, of Design, N. Y. 
In New Haven, at Yale School of Fine Arts, in Philadelphia at Penna. 
Acad, of Fine Arts, in Rochester Powers's Art Gal., in Washington Cor- 
coran Gal. and the Capitol. 


The works of ihc younger men are seen in tlu- cx!iil)ilions held from ycnr 
lo year at the Academy of Design, the Society of American Arlisls, N. \ ., 
in I'hiladelphia, Cliicago, lioston, and elsewhere tlirougbouL tlie country. 
Some of their works belong to jiermanent institutions like the Metropoli- 
tan Mus., the Pennsylvania Acad., the Art Institute of Chicago, Imi there 
is no public collection of pictures that represents American art as a wlmlc. 
Mr. T. B. Clarke, of New York, had perhaps p.l- comi'lete a collection of 
paintings by contemporary American artists as anyone. 



In this brief history of painting it has been necessary to 
omit some countries and some painters that have not 
seemed to be directly connected with the progress or de- 
velopment of painting in the western world. The arts of 
China and Japan, while well worthy of careful chronicling, 
are somewhat removed from the arts of the other nations 
and from our study. Moreover, they are so positively dec- 
orative that they should be treated under the head of Dec- 
oration, though it is not to be denied that they are also real- 
istically expressive. Portugal has had some history in the 
art of painting, but it is slight and so bound up with Spanish 
and Flemish influences that its men do not stand out as a 
distinct school. This is true in measure of Russian paint- 
ing. The early influences with it were Byzantine through the 
Greek Church. In late years what has been produced 
favors the Parisian or German schools. 

In Denmark and Scandinavia there has recently come to 
the front a remarkable school of high-light painters, based 
on Parisian methods, that threatens to outrival Paris itself, 
1 he work of such men as Kroyer, Zorn, Petersen, Liljefors, 
Thaulow, Bjdrck, Thegerstrbm, is as startling in its realism 
as it is brilliant in its color. The pictures in the Scandina- 
vian section of the Paris E.xposition of i 889 were a revela- 
tion of new strength from the North, and this has been 
somewhat increased by the Scandinavian pictures at the 
World's Fair in 1893. It is impossible to predict what will 

rosTSCKii'T. 277 

1)0 the outcome of this norlliLTii art, nor what will iic the 
result of the recent movement here in America, All that 
can be said is that the tide seems to be settin;; westward 
and northward, though Paris has been the centre of art for 
many years, and will doubtless continue to be the centre 
for many years to come 


Abbatf, Niccold dell', 134. 
Abbey, l\lwin A.. 271. 
Aclst, Willcni \'.in, 219. 
Aetion, 30. 
Agatharchos. 27. 
Ainie-Morot, Nicolas, 167. 
Albani, Francesco, 126, 131. 
Albertinelli, Mariollo. 90, 97. 
Alcmannus, Johannes (da Miirano), 

79. S4. 
Aldegrever, Heinricb, 231. 
Alexander. Jobn, 262. 
Alexander, J. W. , 272. 
Aligny, Claude Franrois, 149. 
Allegri, Pomponio, 108, 109. 
Allori, Cristofano, 127, 131. 
AUston, Washington, 263. 
Alma-Tadema, Laurenz, 199, 202. 
Altdorfer, Albrecht, 231, 239. 
Alvarez, Don Luis, 184. 
Aman-Jean, E., 165. 
Andrea da Firen/.e, 52, 56. 
Angelico, Fra Giovanni, 54, 55, 56, 

65, 67. 

Anselmi, Michelangelo, 108, 109. 
Antiochus Gabinius, 35. 
Antonio Veneziano, 52, 56. 
Apelles, 30. 
Apollodorus, 27, 28. 
Aranda, Luis Jiminez, 185. 
Aretino, Spinello, 53, 56. 
Aristides, 29. 
Artz, D. A. C. , 220. 
Aubert, Ernest Jean, 155. 

Backkr, Jacob, 210. 
Backhuisen, Ludolf, 218, 222. 

Bagnacavallo, Bartolomnieo Kanicn- 
ghi, 105, 109. 

Baker, George A. , 266, 

Baldovinetti, Alessiu, 63, 71. 

Baldung, Hans, 230, 239. 

Bargue, Charles, 167. 

Baroccio, Federigo, 125, 130. 

Bartolo, Taddco di. 54, 56. 

Bartolommeo, Fra (Baccio dcila Por- 
ta), 90, 92, 95, 97. 

Basaiti, Marco, 83, 85. 

Bassano, Francesco, 119-121. 

Bassano, Jacopo, 119-121. 

Bastert, N. , 221. 

Bastien-Lepage, Jules, 166. 
I Baudry, Paul, 163. 
I Bcccafumi, Domenico, 103, 108. 

Bccerra, Caspar, 177, 1S5. 

Beekwith, J. Carroll, 270. 
; Bccehey, Sir Wilh'am, 246. 
I Beham, Barthel, 231. 

Reham, Sebald, 231. 

Bellini, Gentile, 81, 85, 94. 

Bellini, Giovanni, 74, 77, Si, 82, 83, 
85, 112-115, 214, 229 

Bellini, Jacopo, 79, 81, 85. 

Beltraffio, Giovanni Antonio, 102. 

Benjamin- Constant, Jean Joseph, 

Benson, Frank W. , 270. 

Beraud, Jean, 170. 

Berchem, Claas Pietersz, 217, 222. 



Berne-Bellecour, Etienne Prosper, 

Berrettini, Pietro (il Cortona), 127, 

Berruguete, Alonzo, 176, 185. 
Bertin, Jean Victor, 149, 157. 
Besnard, Paul Albert, 170. 
Bierstadt, Albert, 265. 
Billet, Pierre, 161. 
Bink, Jakob, 231. 
Bissolo, Pier Francesco, 83, 85. 
Bjorck, U , 276. 
Blake, William, 247, 254. 
Blashfield, Edwin H. , 270. 
Blommers, B. J., 220. 
Blum, Robert, 270. 
Bocklin, Arnold, 238, 240. 
Bol, Ferdinand, 210, 221. 
Boldini, Giuseppe, 130, 131. 
Bonfiglio, Benedetto, 66, 67, 72. 
Bonheur, Auguste, 160. 
Bonheur, Rosa, 160. 
Bonifazio I. (Veronese), 119-121. 
Bonifazio II., 119-121. 
Bonifazio III. (il Veneziano), 119-121. 
Bonington, Richard Parkes, 157, 252. 
Bonnat, Leon, 164. 
Bonsignori, Francesco. 76, 84. 
Bonvin, Frant^ois, 168. 
Bordone, Paris, 119, 121. 
Borgognone, Ambrogio, 71, 72. 
Bosboom, J., 220. 
Bosch, Hieronymus, 205. 221. 
Both, Jan, 217, 222. 
Botticelli, Sandro, 61, 63, 71. 
Boucher, Frani;ois, 141, 145. 146- 
Boudin, Eugene. 171. 
Boughton, George H., 258. 
Bouguereau, W. Adolphe, 162, 163. 
Boulanger, Hippolytc, 200. 
Boulangcr, Louis, 153. 
Bourdichon, Jean, 133. 
Bourdon, Sebastien, 138. 
Bouts, Dierich, 190, 191, 201, 205. 
Bradford, William, 265. 
Breton, Jules Adolphe, 161. 

Breughel, 193, 201. 

Bridgman, Frederick A., 272. 

Bril, Paul, 193, 201, 214, 222. 

Bristol, John B. , 26$. 

Bronzino (Agnolodi Cosimo), il, 124, 

Brouwer, Adriaan, 198, 202. 
Brown, Ford Madox, 257. 
Brown, John Lewis, 170 
Brush, George D. F. , 270. 
Bugiardini, Giuliano di Piero,9i, 97. 
Bunce, W. Gedncy, 273. 
Burkmair, Hans, 232, 233, 239, 
Burne-Jones, Sir Edward, 257. 
Butler, Howard Russell, 274. 

Cabanel, Alexandre, 162, 163. 
Caillebotte, 170. 

Calderon, Philip Hermogenes, 258. 
Callcott, Sir Augustus Wall, 251. 
Calvaert, Denis, 192. 
Campin, Robert, 189. [131- 

Canaletto (Antonio Canale), il, 129, 
Cano, Alonzo, 181, 185. 
Caracci, Agostino, 125-127, 130. 
I Caracci, Annibale, 125-127, 130, 182, 
Caracci, Ludovico, 125-127, 130. 
Caravaggio, Michelangelo Amerighi 

da, 127, 128, 131, 136, 181, 182. 
Carolus - Duran, Charles Auguste 

Emii, 164. 
Caroto, Giovanni Francisco, 76, 84, 

120, 121. 
Carpaccio, Vittorc, yj, 82, 83, 85. 
Carriere, E. , 165. 
Carstens, Asmus Jacob, 236. 
Cassatt, Mary, 170. 
Castagno, Andrea del, 63, 71, 176. 
Castro. Juan Sanchez de, 180, 185. 
Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio, 83, 85. 
Cattermole, George, 254. 
Cavazzola, Paolo (Moranda), 120, 

Cazin, Jean Charles, 159. 
Cespedes, Pablo de, 180, 185. 
Champaigne, Philip de, 139. 



('!i;inipiiinrtin, Callande dc. 153. 

t'hapman, Carlton l', , 274. 

L'hardin, Jean Haptistc ^?inifon, 142. 

Cliase, William M., 269. 

C'hintrouil, Antoinc, 159. 

CliurL-h. Kicdt-nck Iv , 264. 

(.'mia da L'oiu'gliaiio. (.Jiuv. Hattis- 

ta. S2, S5. 
(, ■iinaluio. tSiovaiini, 51, 54, 5(5. 
i,la\s, Taul Jean. 200, 202. 
Clouet, Fraiivois, 134. 
Clouet, Jean, 134. 
Cocxie, Michiel van, 192, 201. 
CucUo, Claudio, 179, 185. 
Coffin, William A., 273. 
Cognict, Li,on, 153. 
Cole, Vicat, 258. 
Cole, Thomas, 264. 
<,oleman, C. C, 272. 
Colman, Samuel, 273. 
Constable, John, 157, 216, 251-253, 

Copley, John Singleton, 261, 264. 
Coques, Gonzales, 19S, 202. 
Cormon, Fernand, 165. 
Cornelis \'an Haarlem, 206, 221. 
Cornelius, Peter von, 130,236, 237,239. 
Corot, Jean Baptiste Camilla, 157, 

159, 221. 
Correggio (Antonio Allegri). il, loi, 

105-109, no, 124, 125, 177, 180, 

245, 249. 
Cossa, Francesco, 69, 72. 
Costa. Lorenzo, 69. 72, 104, 107. 
Cotman, John Sell, 251. 
Cottet, 168. 

Courbet, G., 162, 165, 166, 199, 219. 
Cousin, Jean, 134, 135. 
Couture, Thomas, 155, 266. 
Cozens, John Robert, 254. 
Cox, David, 254. 
Cox, Kenyon, 270. 
Cranach (the Elder), Lucas, 199, 234, 

235. 239- 
Cranach (the Younger), Lucas, 235, 


130, 147-152 
:, 219. 

Crane, K. Hruce, 273. 
Crawhall, Joseph, 259. 
Crayer, Kaspcr dc, 196, 201. 
C'redi, Lorenzo tlj, 64, 65, 71. 
Cristus, IVter, 189, 201. 
Crivclli, Carlo, 80, 81, 84. 
Crutn.-, John (Old Cronic), 251. 
Cnjp, Aelbcrt, 217, 218, 222. 
DAGNAN-BouvBKiiT^ Pascal A. J 

Damoye, Pierre JCmmanuel, 159. 
Damophilos, 35. 
Dannat, William T. , 272. 
Dantan, Joseph Kdouard, 168. 
Daubigny, Charles Franc^ois, 138. 
David, Gheeraert, 191, 192, 201. 
David, Jacques Louis 

153, 156, 162, 183, 15 
Dearth, Henry J., 273. 
Decamps, A. G., 153. 
Degas, 170. 

De Haas, M. F. II., 273. 
Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor K., 151, 

152, 160, 162, 253, 259. 
Delaroche, Hippolyte (Paul), 153. 

154, 199- 

Delaunay, Jules Elie, 165. 
De Neuville, Alphonse Maria, 167. 
De Nittis. See " Nittis." 
Dcnncr, Balthasar, 236, 239. 
Detaille, Jean Baptiste Edouard, 

Dev6ria, Eugene, 153. 
Dewey, Charles Melville, 273. 
Dewing, Thomas W. , 270. 
Dewint, Peter, 254. 
Diana, Benedetto, 84, 85. 
Diaz de la r*ena, Narcisu Virgilio, 

Diepenbccck, Abraham van, 196, 

Dionysius, 35. 
Dolci, Carlo, 126, 131, 182. 
Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 

126, 130. 
Domingo, J., 185. 



Dossi, Dosso (Giovanni di I.utcro), 

104, 107, 108. 
Dou, Gerard, 210, 221. 
Doughty, Thomas, 264. 
iJu Breuil, Toussaint, 134. 
iJuccio di Buoninsegna, 53, 56, 65. 
iJuez, Ernest Ange, 168. 
I)u Jardin, Karcl, 217, 222. 
Dupre, Juhen, 166. 
Dupre, Jules, 158. 
Durand, Asher Brown, 264. 
Diirer, Albrecht, 205, 229-235, 239. 

Eastlake, Sir Charles, 247. 
I'eckhout, Gerbrand van den, 210, 

IClliott, Charles Loring, 265. 
Elzheimer, Adani, 235, 239. 
Engelbrechsten, Cornclis, 205. 
Etty, William, 247. 
Euphranor, 29. 
Eupompos, 28. 

Everdingen, Allart van, 215, 222. 
Eyck, Hubert van, 188, 201. 
Eyck, jan van, 84, 174, 188-190, 193, 
201, 204, 205. 

Fabius Pictor, 35. 

Fabriano, Gentile da, 54, 55, 56, 66, 

74. 7S' 19' 8i- 
Fabritius, Karel, 210, 213, 221. 
Faed, Thomas, 258. 
Fantin-Latour, Henri, i63. 
P^avretto, Giacomo, 730, 131. 
Ferrara, Gaudenzio, 102, 108. 
I'ielding, Anthony V. I). Copley, 254. 
l*"ilippino. See Lippi. 
l-"iore, Jacobello del, 79, 84. 
Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, 66, 72. 
Flandrin, Jean Hippolyte, 154. 
Flinck, Govaert, 210, 221. 
Floris, Franz, 192, 201. 
Foppa, Vincenzo, 71, 72, 101. 
Forain, J. L., 170. 
Forbes, Stanhope, 258. 

Furtuny, Mariano, 130, 183-185. 
Fouquet, Jean, 133. 
Fragonard, Jean Honore, 141. 
I'>ani;ais, P'ranc^ois Louis, 159. 
]-'rancesca, Piero della, 66, 72, 75. 
Francia, Francesco {Raibolinij, 69, 

72, 105, 107. 
Franciabigio (Francesco di Cristo- 

fano Bigi), 92, 97. 
Francken, 192. 
Fredi, Bartolo di, 54, 56, 
Fr^minet, Martin, 135. 
Frere, T., 154. 
Friant, Emile, 168. 
Fromentin, E., 154. 
Fuller, George, 266. 
Fyt, Jan, 196, 201. 

G ADDi, Agnolo, 52, 56. 

Gaddi, Taddeo, 52, 56. 

Gainsborough, T., 245-247, 259. 

Gallait, Louis, 199. 

Garofolo (Bcnvenuto Tisi), il, 104, 

107, 109. 
Gay, Edward, 273. 
Gay, Walter, 272. 
Geldorp, Gortzius, 192. 
Gfi:rard, Baron Fran(;ois Pascal, 148. 
Giricault, Jean Louis, A. T. , 151. 
G^^rome, Jean Leon, 155, 162, 163, 

167, 184. 
Gervex, Henri, 168. 
Ghirlandajo, Domcnico, 6^,, 64, 71, 

92, 176. 
Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo, 91, 97. 
Giampictrino (Giovanni Pcdrini), 

102, 108. 
Gifford, Sandford, 265. 
Gifford, R. Swain, 273. 
Giorgione (Giorgio BarbarcUi), il, 

83, 94, 112-121, 128. 
Giordano, Luca, 128, 131, 183. 
Giotto di Bondone, 49, 50. 52, 54, 55, 

56. 73- 
Giottino (Tommaso di Stefano), 52. 




Giovanni da Milano, 52, <,6. 

Giovanni da Uilinr, 1)7. ijS 

Ciiroilot dc Koussy, :\nni' I.ouis. 148. 

Girtin, Thomas, 2~,4. 

Giulio (Pippi), Romano, 90, 08, 120, 

1 30. 
(iK'vrc. Marc Cliark's (.iahrirl, 154. 
Gof^, liuL;n van dcr, 190, 201. 
tiorgasos, 35. 
Goya y lauicnlos, Francisco. 1S3, 

Go\fn. Jan win, 214, 21S, 222, 
Go/-/oli, Ik'nozzo, 03, 03, 71. 
Gianacci, Francesco, 91, 97. 
Grandi, Frcolc di Giulio, 09, 72. 
Greuzo. Joan Haptislc, 142. 
Gros. Haron Antome Jean, 149, 151, 

Griinewakl. Mattliias, 234. 
Guardi, Francesco, 129, 131. 
Guercino ((mov. Fran. Barliicra), il, 

126, 131. 
Guerin. Pierre Nareisse, 14S. 
Gaido Reni, 126, 130, 136. 
Guide da Sienna, 53, 56. 
Guthrie, James, 259. 

Hals, Franz (ihe Younger), 207, 

21 I, 212, 221. 

Hamilton, James. 259. 
Hamilton, McLure, 270. 
Hamon, Jean Louis, 155. 
Harding, Chester, 265. 
Harpignies, Henri, 159. 
Hassam, Childe, 270. 
Harrison, T. Alexander, 272. 
Healy. George P. A., 266. [164. 

Hubert, Antoine Auguste Ernest, 
Heem, Jan van, 218. 
Heemskerck, Marten van, 206, 221. 
Heist, Bartholomeus van der, 210, 
Henner, Jean Jacques, 164. [221. 

Henry, George, 259. 
Herkomer, Hubert, 258. 
Herrera, Francisco de, 177, 180, 185. 
Heyden, Jan van der, 218, 222. 

Hicks, ThninMs, 266. 

Hill, 'llunnas. 265. 

Hitchcock, Georj^^e, 272. [251. 

Hobhcina, Mcnnlrrt, 215, 216, 222, 

Hogarth, William, 243, 244. 

Holbein (the Fhler), Hans, 233, 239. 

Flolbcin (the N't)unger), Hans, 134, 

229-234, 239, 2^3. 
Holl, Frank. 258. 
Homer, Winslow, 26S. 
Hondccoeter, Melchior d', 219, 222. 
Hooglie, Picter de, kx, 213, 221. 
Hook, James Clarke, 259. 
Hoppner, John, 246. 
HorneU, E. A., 259. 
Hubbard, Richard W., 265. 
Huct, Paul, 159. 
Hunt. Holnian, 255, 256. 
Hunt, William Henry, 254. 
Hunt, Wilham Morris, 266. 
Huntington, Daniel, 266. 
Huysum, Jan van, 219-222. 

Imola, Innocenza da (Francucci), 

97. 98- 105, 
Ingres, Jean Augusta Dominique, 

148, 152-154, i6t, 162. 
Inman, Henry, 265. 
Inness, George, 273. 
Israels, Jozel, 2ig, 220. 

jACtjUK, Charles, 159. [196, 201, 

Janssens van Nuyssen, Abraham, 
Jarvis, John Wesley, 263. 
Joannes, Juan de, 182, 1S5. 
Johnson, David, 265. 
Johnson, Eastman, 268. 
Jongkind, 221. 
Jordaens. Jacob, 196. 
Justus van Ghent, 190, 201. 
Kalf, Willem, 219. 
Kauffman, Angelica, 236, 239. 
Kaulbach. Wilhehn von, 237, 239. 
Kendall, Sergeant, 272. 
Kensett, John F., 264. 
Kever, J. S. H., 221. 
Keyser, Tliomas de, 207, 221. 



Klinger, Max, 23S. 
Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 243. 
Koninck, Philip de, 210, 22 
Kroyer, Peter S., 276. 
Kuehl, G., 238. 
Kulmbach, Hans von, 230, 
Kunz, 227, 239. 


La Farge, John, 268. 
Lancret, Nicolas, 141. 
Landseer, Sir Edwin Henry, 249. 
Larg;illiere, Nicolas, 139. 
Lastman, Pieter, 207. 
Laurens, Jean Paul, 165. 
Lavery, John, 259. 
Lawrence, Sir Thon:ias, 247. 
Lawson, Cecil Gordon, 258. 
Lawson, John, 259. 
Lebrun, Charles, 138, 139. [^^e-, 149. 
Lebrun, Marie Elizabeth Louise Vi- 
Lefebvre, Jules Joseph, 164. 
Legros, Alphonse, 161. 
Leibl, Wilhelm, 238, 240. 
Leighton, Sir Frederick, 258. 
Leloir, Alexandre Louis, 167. 
Lely, Sir Peter, 243 
Lenbach, Franz, 238, 239. 
Leonardo da Vinci, 64, 66, 71, 90, 

92. 95p 99-103. 107. 108, 134. 
LeroIIe, Henri, 161. 
Leslie, Robert Charles, 264. 
Lessing, Karl Friedrich, 266. 
Le Sueur, Eustache, 138. 
Lethierc, Guillnume Guillon, 148. 
Leutze, Emanuel, 266. 
Lewis, John Frederick, 254. 
Leyden, Lucas van, 205, 221. [202. 
Leys, Baron Jean Auguste Henri, 199, 
L'hermitte, Leon Augustin, 166. 
Liberale da Verona, 76, 84, 120. 
Libri, Girolamo dai, 120, 121. 
Liebermann, Max, 238. 
Liljefors, Bruno, 276. 
Lippi, Era Filippo, 63, 71, 74. 
Lippi, Filippino, 63, 71. 
Lockwood, Wilton, 270. 
Lombard, Lan:ibert, 192. 

Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 49, 50, 54, 55, 

Lorenzetti, Pietro, 54, 56, 65. 
Lorrain, Claude (Gellee), 136, i<^n, 

217, 250, 251, 253 
Lotto, Lorenzo, 118, 121. 
Low, Will H., 270. 
Luini. Bernardino, loi, 108. 
Mabuse, Jan (Gossart) van, 192 

201, 206, 243. 
McBride, A., 259. 
McEntee, Jervis, 265. 
McEwen, Walter, 272. 
Madrazo, Raimundo de, 184, 185. 
Maes, Nicolaas, 210, 221. 
Makart, Hans, 238, 240. 
Manet, Edouard, 168, 169, 170. 
Mansueti, Giovanni, 84, 85. 
Mantegna, Andrea, 6r, 74, 76, 77, 

81, 84, 107, 229, 234. 
Maratta, Carlo, 127, 131. 
Marconi, Rocco, 118, 119, 121. 
Marilhat, P., 154. 
Maris, James, 220. 
Maris, Matthew, 220. 
Maris, Willem, 221. 
Martin, Henri, 168. 
Martin, Homer, 273. 
Martino, Simone di, 54, 56. [93, 95, 
Masaccio, Tommaso, 54, 61, 71, 92 
Masolino, Tommaso Fini, 61, 71. 
Massys, Quentin, 191, 192, 201, 234 
Master of the Lyversberg Passion 

Mauve, Anton, 221. [i79i 185, 

Mazo, Juan Bautista Martinez del, 
Mazzolino, Ludovico, 105, 109. 
Maynard, George W,, 274. 
Meer of Delft, Jan van der, 213, 221. 
Meire, Gerard van der, 190, 201. [184, 
Meissonier, Jean Louis Ernest, 167, 
Meister, Stephen (Lochner) , 225. 
Meister, Wilhelm, 222. 
Melchers, Gari, 272. 
Melozzo da Forli, 67, 72. 
Melville, Arthur, 259. 
Memling, Hans, 190, 201. 



Mcninii, Lippo, 54, 56. 
Menps, Riiphael, 236, 239. 
Mouzel, Ailolt", 238, 239. 
Mesdag, Hendrik Willem, 221, 
Messina, Antonello d;\, 83, 84, 85. 

102, 113, 
Metcair, WiUard l... 270. 
Metrotiorus, ^^. 
Melsu, (labriel, 167, 2u, 221. 
Mettliiii^. V. Louis, lOS. 
Michael Angoio (Buonarroti), 62, 

go, 92, 97, 99, 112, 116, 122, 123- 

126, 144, 176, iSi. 192, 206. 
Michallon, Achille Etna, 149. 
Miclu'I. Georges, 159. 
Mielietti, Francesco Paolo, 130, 131, 
Mierevc'it, Michiel Jansz, 206, 221. 
Mieris. Franz \'an, 211, 221. 
Mignard, Pierre, 139, 
Millais, Sir John. 255, 256, 257. 
Millet, Francis D., 270. 
Millet, Jean P>an(;ols, 160-162, 165, 

166, 219, 266. 
Miranda, Juan Carrefio de, 179, 

Molyn (tlie Elder). Pieter de, 215, 

Monet. Claude, 170, 171. 
Montagna. Bartolonimeo. 77, 84. 
NTontenard, Frederic, 171. 
Moore, Albert, 258. 
Moore, Henry, 259. 
Morales, Luis de, 177, 185. 
Moran, Thomas. 265. 
Nforelli, Domenico, 130, 131. 
Moretto (Alessandro Buonvicino) il, 

120, 121, 
.^[orland, George, 248. 
Moro, Antonio, 177, 192, 201, 243. 
Moroni, Giovanni Battista, 120, 121. 
Morton, Thomas, 259. 
Mostert, Jan, 191, 201, 205. 
Mount, William S., 266. 
MouV>ray, H. Siddons, 270. 
Mulready, William, 249. 
Munkacsy, Mihaly, 23S, 240. 

Murillo, Bartt)Iom6 Ivstchan, 173, 

180-182, 185. 
Murphy, J. I'Vancis, 273. 

NavAKKTIK, Ju;iii l\T[iandez, 177, 

Navez, Fran(,-ois, 199, 200, 202. 
Neer, Aart van der, 215, 222. 
Nelli, Ottaviano, 6s, 71. 
Nctscher, Kasper, 211, 221. 
Neuchatel, Nicolaus, 192. 
Neuhuys, Albert, 220. 
Newton, Gilbert Stuart, 264. 
Niccold (Alunno) da Foligno, 65, 

66, 72 
Nicol, Erskine, 258. 
Nikias, 29. 
Nikomachus, 29. 
Nittis. Giuseppe de, 130, 131. 
Nono, Luigi, 130. 
Noort. Adam van, 195, 196, 201. 

Oggiono, Marco da, 102, 108. 
Opie, John, 246. 

Orcagna (Andrea di Clone), 52, $6. 
Orchardson, William Quillcr, 258. 
Orley, Barent van, 192. 
Ostadc. Adriaan \-an, 2TT, 212, 22T. 
Ouwater, Aalbcrt van, 204. 
Overbeck, Johann FricdrJch, 130, 
236, 239. 

PACCHIA, Girolnmo della, 103, toS. 
Pacchiarotta, Giacomo, 103. 108, 
Pacheco, Francisco, 178, 180, 185. 
Pacuvius, 35. 
Padovanino (Ales. Varotari), il, 128, 

Page, William, 266. 
Palma (il Vecchio). Jacopo, 118, 119, 

Palma (il Giovine). jacopo, 128, 131. 
Palmaroli, Vincente. 184. 
Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola), 

11. 108, 109, 135. 
Pamphilos, 28. 



Panetti, Domenico, 104. 

Paolino (Fra) da Pistoja, 90, 97. 

Parrhasios, 28. 

Parsons, Alfred, 259. 

Pater, Jean Baptiste Joseph, 141. 

Paterson, James, 259. 

Patinir, Joachim, 191. 

Pausias, 28. 

Peale, Charles Wilson, 261. 

Peale, Rembrandt, 263. 

Pearce, Charles Sprague. 272. 

Pelouse, Leon Germaine, 159. 

Pencz, Georg, 231. 

Penni, Giovanni Francesco, 96, 98. 

Pereal, Jean, 133. 

Perino del Vaga, 94, 97, 98, 180. 

Perugino, Pietro (Vanucci), 64, 67, 

69, 70, 72, 95. 
Peruzzi, Baldassare, 103, 108. 
Petersen, Eilif, 276. 
Piero di Cosimo, 65, 71. 
Piloty, CarlTheodor von, 237, 239. 
Pinturricchio, Bernardino, 68, 70, 72. 
Piombo, Sebastiano del, 94, 98, 182. 
Pisano, Vittore (Pisanello), 73, 75, 

79. 84. 
Pissarro, Camille, 170. 
Pizzolo, Niccolo, 75, 84. 
Piatt, Charles A., 273. 
Plydenwurff, Wilhelm, 22S. 
Poggenbeek, George, 221. 
Pointelin, 159. 

PoUajuolo, Antonio del, 63, 71. 
Polygnotus. 26. [124. 

Pontormo, Jacopo(Carrucci), 92, 97, 
Poorter, Willem de, 210, 221. 
Pordenone, Giovanni Ant., 119, 121. 
Potter, Paul, 216, 222. 
Pourbus, Peeter, 192, 201. 
Poussin. Gaspard (Dughet), 136. 
Poussin, Nicolas, 126, 136, 137, 150, 

Pradilla, Francisco, 184. 
Previtali, Andrea, 83, 85. 
Primaticcio, Francesco, 97, 98, 134. 
Protogenes, 30. 

Prout, Samuel, 254. 
Prudhon, Pierre Paul, 147. 
Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre, 164. 

QuARTLEY, Arthur, 274. 

Raeeurn, Sir Henry, 246. 
Raffaelli, Jean Franc^ois, 170. 
Raphael Sanzio, 62, 67, 90, 94, 98, 
99, 103, 124, 125, 149, 182, 192,206, 

Ravesteyn, Jan van, 207, 221. 
Regnault, Henri, 165. 
Regnault, Jean Baptiste, 147, 148. 
Rehn, F. K. M., 274. 
Reid, Robert, 270. 
Reid-Murray, J., 259. 
Reinhart, Charles S., 270. 
Rembrandt van Ryn, 148, ig6, 204, 

207-213, 221, 249. 
Rene of Anjou, 133. 
Renoir, 170. 

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 212, 244-247. 
Ribalta, Francisco de, 182, 185. 
Ribera, Roman, 185. 
Ribera (Lo Spagnoletto), Jose di, 

128, 168, 178, 182, 183, 185. 
Ribot, Augustin Theodule, 168. 
Richards, William T., 265, 
Rico, Martin, 185. 
Rigaud, Hyacinthe, 139, 
Rincon, Antonio, 176, 185. 
Robert-Fleury, Joseph Nicolas, 153. 
Robie, Jean, 200. 
Robinson, Theodore, 273. 
Roche, Alex., 259. 
Rochegrosse, Georges, 165. 
Roelas, Juan de las, 180, 181, 185. 
Roll, Alfred Philippe, 170. 
Romanino, Girolamo Bresciano, 120, 

Rombouts, Theodoor, 196, 201. 
Romney, George, 246. 
Rondinelli, Niccolo, 84, 85. 
Rosa, Salvator, 128, 131. 
Kosselli, Cosimo, 63, 71, 90. 



I^ossetti, Gabriel Cbavlos Danti.', 255. 

^5f>. 257. 
Rosso, il, 134. 

Koltfiihammcr, Johnnn, 235, 2>i. 
Rousseau, Theotlori', 15S, 100, 162. 
Ro\ lu'l, l-'ordinaiui, lOS. 
RuluMis, V'rlvv I'aiil, 135. 171), 193- 

201, J 10, 243. 
RuisdaL-l, JaL\ih \an, 215, 216, 222. 
RmsiLu-1, Si,>lomou \an, 215, 222. 
R\der. Albert, 20S. 

Sapbatini {Andrea da Salerno), 97, 

St. Jan, Geertjen van, 205. 
Salaino (Andrea Sala), il, loi, loS. 
Salviati, Francesco Rossi, 124, 130, 
Sanchez-Coello, Alonzo, 177, 185. 
Santi, Gio\"anni, 67, 72. 
Sanzio. See " Raphael." 
Sargent, John S., 269, 270. 
Sarto, Andrea (Angeli) del, 91, 97, 

loi, 105, 134. 
Sassoferrato (Giov. Battista Salvi), 

il, 126. 131. 
Savoldo, Giovanni Girolamo, 120, 

Scliadow, Friedn'ch Wilhelm von, 

236, 237, 239. 
Schaffner, Martin, 231, 239. 
Schalcken, Godfried, 211, 221. 
Schanfelin, Hans Lconhardt. 230, 


Scheffer, Ary, 153. 

Schiingauer, Martin, 231, 232, 233, 

Schnorr von Karolsfeld, J., 237, 239^ 
Schuchlin, Hans, 231. 
Score!, Jan van, 192, 206, 221. 
Segantini, Giovanni, 130. 
Semitecolo, Niccolo, 79, 84. 
Serapion, 35. 

Sesto, Cesare da, 102, 108. 
Shannon, J. J., 272. 
Shirlaw, Walter, 270. 
Shurtleff, Roswell M., 273, 

Sigaluii, Xavier, 153. 

Signurclli, l.uca, 66, 67, 72, 93. 

Simmons, l''.d\\ar(l I'".., 270. 

SimoiU'tti, 130. 

Sisley, Alfred, 171. 

Smedlcy. William '1'., 270. 

Sniibert, Julin, 261. 

Snell, Henry 11, 274. 

Snyders, l'"raiiz, 196, 201. 

Sodonia (Giov. Ant. iiazzi), il, 103 

Solario, Andrea (da Milano), 102, 

Sopolis, 35. 
SoroUa, Joaquin, 185. 
Spagna, Lo (Giovanni di Pietro), 69, 

Spence, Harry, 259. 
Spranger, Bartholomeus, 192. 
Squarcione, Francesco, 73, 74, 75, 81. 
Stamina, Gherardo, 54, 56. 
Steele, Edward, 246. 
Steen, Jan, 211, 212, 249. 
Steenwyck, Hendrik van, 206, 221, 
Stevens, Alfred, 200, 202. 
Stewart, Julius L. , 272. 
Strigel, Bernartl, 232, 239. 
Stothard, Thomas, 254. 
Stott of Oldham, 258. 
Stuart, Gilbert, 262, 263. 
Stuck, Franz, 238. 
Sully, Thomas, 263, 264. 
Swanenburch, Jakob Isaaks van, 207. 

Tarbkll, Edmund C., 270. 
Teniers (the Younger), David, 197, 

Terburg, Gerard, 167, 212, 221. 
Thaulow, Fritz, 276. 
Thayer, Abbott H., 270, 
Thegerstrom, R. , 276. 
Theodorich of Prague, 227, 239. 
Theotocopuli, Domenico, 177, 185. 
Thoma, Hans, 238. 
Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, 128, 131. 
Tiepolo, Giovanni Domenico, 129, 



Timanthes, 28. 

Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti), il, 115- 

117, 121, 123, 128. 
Titian (Tiziano Vecelli), loi, 113- 

121, 124, 125, 128, 177, 179, 194, 

196, 212, 245. 
Tito, Ettore, 130. 
Torbido, Francisco (il Moro), 120, 

Toulmouche, Auguste, 167. 
Tristan, Luis, 177, 17B, 185. 
Troyon, Constant, 159, 160. 
Trumbull, John, 262, 265. 
Tryon, Dwight \V. , 273. 
Tura, Cosimo, 69, 72, 75. 
Turner, C. Y., 270. 
Turner, Joseph Mallord William, 

251, 253, 254. 
Twachtman, John H., 273. 

UccELLO, Paolo, 63, 71, 74. 
Uhde, Fritz von, 238, 240. 
(Jlrich, Charles F., 272. 

VaENIUS, Otho, 19s, 2QI. 

Van Beers, Jan, 200, 202. 

Vanderlyn, John, 263. 

Van Dyck, Sir Anthony, 181, 195, 

198, 201, 243, 244. 
Van Dyck, Philip, 219, 222. 
Van Loo, Jean Baptiste, 141, 145, 

Van Marcke, Emil, 159. 
Vargas, Luis de, 180, 185. 
Vasari, Giorgio, 124, 130 
Vedder. Elihu, 268. 
Veit, Philipp, 236, 239. 
Velasquez, Diego Rodriguez de 

Silva y, 173, 174. 177-185, 194, 

196, 207, 212, 249, 271. 
Velde, Adrien van de, 216, 222. 
Velde (the Elder), Willem van de, 

218, 222. 
Velde (the Younger), Willem van 

de, 218, 222. 
Venusti. Marcello, 94, 98. 

Verboeckhoven, Eugene Joseph, 

200, 202. 
Verhagen, Pierre Joseph, 198, 202. 
Vernet. Claude Joseph, 142, 250. 
Vernet, Emile Jean Horace, 149. 
Veronese, Paolo (Caliari), 116-121, 

129, 136, 194. 
Verrocchio, Andrea del, 64, 71, 99. 
Vibert, Jehan Georges, 167. 
Victoors, Jan, 210, 221. 
Vien, Joseph Marie, 146. 
Villegas, Jose, 184, 185. 
Vincent, Francois Andre, 147. 
Vinci. See " Leonardo." 
Vinton, F. P., 270. 
Viti, Tinioteo di, 97, gS. 
Vivarini, Antonio (da Murano), 79, 


Vivarini, Bartolommeo (da Murano) 

79, 84. 

Vivarini, Luigi or Alvise, So, 85. 
Vlieger, Simon de, 218, 222. 
Vollon, Antoine, 168. 
Volterra, Daniele (Ricciarelli) da, 94, 

Vos, Cornells de, 196, 201. 
Vos, Marten de, 192. 
Vouet, Simon, 136, 139. 

Walker, Frederick, 258. 

Walker, Horatio, 273. 

Walton, E. A., 259, 

Wappers, Baron Gustavus, 199, 202. 

Watelet, Louis Etienne, 149. 

Watson, John, 261. 

Watteau, Antoine, 140, 141. 

Watts, George Frederick, 258. 

Wauters, Emile, 200. 

Weeks, Edwin L., 272. 

Weenix, Jan, 219, 222. 

Weir, J. Alden, 270, 273. 

Werff, Adriaan van der, 219, 222. 

West, Benjamin, 261, 262, 264. 

Weyden, Roger van der, 189, 190, 

201, 231. 
Whistler, James A. McNeill, 371. 



\Vhittredg:e, Worthinf^ton, 265. 
Wiertz, Antoiiie Joseph, 199, 202. 
\\'iles, Irvinji R., 270. 
Wilkie, Sir David, 249. 
Willems, Ftorent, 2ch., 202. 
Wilson, Richard, 250, 251. 
\\'oIg^emut, Michael. 22S. 239. 
W'ouverman, Philips, 216, 222. 
WVi^ht, Joseph, 250. 
W'urraser, Nicolaus, 227, 239. 
W'yant, Alexander H., 265, 273, 
Wyllie. W. L., 259. 
Wynants, Jan, 215, 222. 

Yon, Edmumi Charles, 159. 

Zamacois, I'AkianIo, 1H4, 1H5. 

Zegeis, Daniel, 196, 21. r. 

Ziem, 154. 

Zeitblom, Hattholoniaus, 2^1, 239. 

Zeuxis, 27. 

Zoppo, Maico, 75, 84. 

Zurn, Anders, 276. 

Zucchero, Kederigo, 125, 130. 

Zuloaf^a, I^nacio, 185. 

Zurbaran, Francisc<^ de, 180, iSi, 


A History of Architecture. 


A. D. F. HAMLIN, A.M. 

Aiijuni-t I'rol'e-^sdi- (^f Airliitoctiiir in llir Sclii.i.l nf Min(-s, Cnliiniliia ( 'ollej^^e. 

With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams, 
Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a General 
Index. Crown 8vo, pp. xxviii-442, $2.00. 

" Tlie le\t of this book is very valiuil)le because of the sirijj^ularly intelligent 
\'ie\v taken of eacli separate epoch. . . . The book is extremely well fur- 
nishei:! w ilh bibli^jj^^raphies, lists of monuments [which] are excellent. 
If any reasonable part of the contents of this book can be pot into the heatis 
of tlmse \\ ht) stuci\ it, tliey will have excellent ideas about architecture and the 
be^innin^s of a sound knowledge of it." — TiiE Nation, New York. 

" A manual that will be invaluable to the student, while it will give to the 
{general reader a sufficiently full outline for his purposes of the development of 
tlie various schools of architecture. What niakes it of special value is the 
large number of ground plans of typical buildings and the sketches of bits of 
detail of cc^lumns, arches, windows and doorways. Each ciiapter is prefaced 
by a list of books recommended, and each ends with a list of monuments. 
The illustrations are numerous and well executed." 

— San Francisco Chronicle. 

" Probably presents more comprehensively and at the same time concisely, 
tlie various periods and st)Ies of architecture, with a characterization of the 
most important works of each period and style, than any other published 
work. . . . The volume fills a gap in architectural hterature \\'hich has 
long existed." — Advertiser, Boston. 

" A neatly published work, adapted to the use either of student or general 
reader. As a text-book it is a concise and orderly setting forth of the main 
principles of architecture followed by the different schools. The life history 
of each period is brief yet thorough. . . . The treatment is broad and not 
over-critical. The chief facts are so grouped that the student can easily grasp 
them. The plan-drawings are clear-cut and serve their purpose admirably. 
The half-tone illustrations are modern in selection and treatment. The style 
is clear, easy and pleasing. The entire production shows a studious and orderly 
mind. A new and pleasing characteristic is the absence of all discussion on 
disputed points. In its unity, clearness and simplicity lie its charm and 
interest." — Notre Dame Schoiastic, Notre Dame, Ind. 

''This is a ver>' thorough and compendious historj' of the art of archi- 
tecture from the earliest times down to the present. . . . The work is 
elaborately illustrated with a great host of examples, pictures, diagrams, etc. 
It is intended to be used as a school text-book, and is very conveniently 
arranged for this purpose, with suitable headings in bold-faced type, and a 
copious index. Teachers and students will find it a capital thing for the 
purpose." — Picayune, New Orleans. 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers, 

91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK. 

A History of Sculpture. 





Professors of Archseology and the History of Art in Princeton University. 

With Frontispiece and 113 Illustrations in half-tone in the 
text. Bibliographies, Addresses for Photographs and Casts, etc. 
Crown 8vo, 313 pages, $1.50. 

Henry W. Kent, Curator of the Seater Museum, IVtitkins, A''. V. 

" Like the other works in this series of yours, it is simply invaluable, 
filling a long-felt want. The bibliographies and lists will be keenly 
appreciated by all who work with a class of students." 

Charles H. Moore, Harvard University. 

"The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively 
black background which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines 
of so many half-tone prints." 

J. M. HOPPIN, Yale University. 

" These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the 
book and its fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especially 
interested in the chapter on Revaissanee Sculpture in Italy." 

Critic, N'ew York. 

"This history is a model of condensation. . . . Each period is 
treated in full, with descriptions of its general characteristics and its 
individual developments under various conditions, physical, political, 
religious and the like. ... A general history of sculpture has never 
before been written in English — never in any language in convenient text- 
book form. This publication, then, should meet with an enthusiastic recep- 
tion among students and amateurs of art, not so much, however, because it 
is the only book of its kind, as for its intrinsic merit and attractive form." 

Outlook, New York. 

" A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something needed 
everywhere. ... A good feature of this book — and one which 
should be imitated — is the list indicating where casts and photographs 
may best be obtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed." 

Notre Dame Scholastic, Notre Dame, Ind. 

"The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations, 
numbering over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides a 
general bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period of style a 
special list to which the student may refer, should he wish to pursue 
more fully any particular school." 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers, 

91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK. 

Longmans, Green, & Co.'s Publications. 


By JosKLMl G\vil.[', F.S.A. Illustrated with aliout 1,700 Engrav- 
ings on Wood. Revised with Alterations and Considerable 
Additions, by WvAir Pai'Wokjii. Svo, 1,459 P^ges, $17.50. 
Tliis work, first pulilished in 1842, has now passed through eight im- 
pressions, those of 1867 and 1876 liaving received extensive revision and 
many important additions at the hands of Mr. Wyatt Papworth. In this, 
the ninth impression, liesides many requisite amendments and additions 
throughout the pages, the chapters entitled "Materials Used in Buildings" 
and ''Use ot Materials,'' which constitute a main portion of the work, have 
been largely revised, parts rewritten and added to in important particulars, 
especially in regard to the details of Fire-proof and Sanitary Construction, 
in order to record the results of later theories and the numerous inventions 
introeluced since the previous revision. The Lives of Eminent Architects 
have been brought down to date ; .as are also the Publications, which have 
lieen partly rearranged in additional classes ; while the Glossary of Terms 
his been amended where desirable. The Inde.x has been carefully revised 
to mclude all new matter. 


Explaining in simple language the Principles and Progress of 
Architecture from the earliest times. By Thomas Mitchell. 
Illustrated by 49 Figures and 22 Plates. i8mo, 83 pages, socents. 


A Manual for Students. By the Author of " Notes on Building 
Construction." With nearly 400 Illustrations and Index. 
Crown Svo, Si. 50. 


Embracing Plane Geometry and its Applications, the Use of 
Scales, and the Plans and Elevations of Solids. With nearly 
Guo Figures. By I. Ha.m.monu Mokkis. Crown Svo, iy2 pages, 
60 cents. 


By I. H. Morris, Art Master. With 675 Illustrations. Crown 
Svo, 267 pages, $1.50. 

The book contains about 700 illustrations, which have been specially 
drawn for the purpose. The Freehand examples . . . may be 
divided into three sections, viz.: Conventional Ornament, Plant Forms, 
and Common Objects They are selected to illustrate definite principles 
which the teacher may apply to other figures. Considerable space is 
devoted to Scale Drawing, Model Drawing, and Solid Geometry, as these 
parts of the subject require the most skillful and intelligent teaching. 

Especial attention is directed to the large number of specimen lessons. 
These are given chiefly with a view of affording assistance to young teachers 
and those who may not have had much practical acquaintance with the 


By W. J. Henderson. Fourth Edition. i2mo, cloth, orna- 
mental, li.oo. 

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 91 and 93 Fifth Ave., New York.