V
/
NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS
BY JOHN O. VAN DYKE
PRICE
I. London — National Gallery, Wallace Collection.
With a General Introduction and Bibliog-
raphy for the Series ....... net $1.00
II. Paris — Louvre ......... net .75
III. Amsterdam — Rijks Museum }
The Hague — Royal Gallery > bound together . net .75
Haarlem — Hals Museum )
^ }*****»..* -75
V. Munich— Old Pinacothek }
Frankfort — Staedel Institute > bound together . net 1.00
Cassel — Royal Gallery )
VI. Berlin— Kaiser-Friedrich }
Museum > bound together . net 1.00
Dresden — Royal Gallery )
VII. Vienna — Imperial Gallery "J
Budapest — Museum of Fine > bound together . net 1.00
Arts )
VIII. St. Petersburg— Hermitage ...... net .75
X. Florence — Ufflzi, Pitti, Academy .... In Press
XI. Rome — Vatican, Borghese Gallery .... In Press
XII. Madrid— Prado . net .75
IMPERIAL GALLERY
BUDAPEST MUSEUM
Photograph by Hanfstaengl, Munich
VERMEER OF DELFT: PORTRAIT OF WOMAN
The Budapest Museum
NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS
VIENNA, BUDAPEST
CRITICAL NOTES ON THE IMPERIAL
GALLERY AND BUDAPEST MUSEUM
BY
JOHN C. VAN DYKE
!/
AUTHOB OF "ABT FOB AST'S SA£E," "THE MEANING OF PICTURES,"
"HISTOBY OF PAINTING," "OLD DUTCH AND
FLEMISH MASTERS," ETC.
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1914 *«;:
yv
COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
Published June, 1914
PREFACE TO THE SERIES
THERE are numerous guide-books, catalogues, and
histories of the European galleries, but, unfortunately
for the gallery visitor, they are either wholly descrip-
tive of obvious facts or they are historical and ar-
chaeological about matters somewhat removed from art
itself. In them the gist of a picture — its value or mean-
ing as art — is usually passed over in silence. It seems
that there is some need of a guide that shall say less
about the well-worn saints and more about the man
behind the paint-brush; that shall deal with pictures
from the painter's point of view, rather than that of
the ecclesiastic, the archaeologist, or the literary ro-
mancer; that shall have some sense of proportion in
the selection and criticism of pictures; that shall have
a critical basis for discrimination between the good and
the bad; and that shall, for these reasons, be of ser-
vice to the travelling public as well as to the art student.
This series of guide-books attempts to meet these
requirements. They deal only with the so-called " old
masters." When the old masters came upon the
scene, flourished, and ceased to exist may be deter-
mined by their spirit as well as by their dates. In
Italy the tradition of the craft had been established
before Giotto and was carried on by Benozzo, Botti-
v
vi PREFACE TO THE SERIES
celli, Raphael, Titian, Tintoretto, even down to Tie-
polo in the eighteenth century. But the late men,
the men of the Decadence, are not mentioned here
because of their exaggerated sentiment, their inferior
workmanship — in short, the decay of the tradition of
the craft. In France the fifteenth-century primitives
are considered, and also the sixteenth-century men,
including Claude and Poussin; but the work of the
Rigauds, Mignards, Coypels, Watteaus, and Bouchers
seems of a distinctly modern spirit and does not be-
long here. This is equally true of all English painting
from Hogarth to the present time. In Spain we stop
with the School of Velasquez, in Germany and the
Low Countries with the seventeenth-century men.
The modern painters, down to the present day, so far
as they are found in the public galleries of Europe,
will perhaps form a separate guide-book, which by its
very limitation to modern painting can be better
treated by itself.
Only the best pictures among the old masters are
chosen for comment. This does not mean, however,
that only the great masterpieces have been considered.
There are, for instance, notes upon some three hun-
dred pictures in the Venice Academy, upon five hun-
dred in the Uffizi Gallery, and some six hundred in
the Louvre or the National Gallery, London. Other
galleries are treated in the same proportion. But it
has not been thought worth while to delve deeply into
the paternity of pictures by third-rate primitives or
PREFACE TO THE SERIES vii
to give space to mediocre or ruined examples by even
celebrated painters. The merits that now exist in a
canvas, and can be seen by any intelligent observer,
are the features insisted upon herein.
In giving the relative rank of pictures, a system of
starring has been followed.
Mention without a star indicates a picture of merit,
otherwise it would not have been selected from the
given collection at all.
One star (*) means a picture of more than average
importance, whether it be by a great or by a medi-
ocre painter.
Two stars (**) indicates a work of high rank as art,
quite regardless of its painter's name, and may be given
to a picture attributed to a school or by a painter un-
known.
Three stars (***) signifies a great masterpiece.
The length of each note and its general tenor will in
most cases suggest the relative importance of the picture.
Catalogues of the galleries should be used in con-
nection with these guide-books, for they contain much
information not repeated here. The gallery catalogues
are usually arranged alphabetically under the painters'
names, although there are some of them that make
reference by school, or room, or number, according to
the hanging of the pictures in the gallery. But the
place where the picture may be hung is constantly
shifting; its number, too, may be subject to alteration
with each new edition of the catalogue; but its painter's
viii PREFACE TO THE SERIES
name is perhaps less liable to change. An arrangement,
therefore, by the painters' names placed alphabetically
has been necessarily adopted in these guide-books.
Usually the prefixes "de," "di," "van," and "von"
have been disregarded in the arrangement of the names.
And usually, also, the more familiar name of the artist
is used — that is, Botticelli, not Filipepi; Correggio, not
Allegri; Tintoretto, not Robusti. In practical use the
student can ascertain from the picture-frame the name
of the painter and turn to it alphabetically in this guide-
book. In case the name has been recently changed,
he can take the number from the frame and, by turning
to the numerical index at the end of each volume, can
ascertain the former name and thus the alphabetical
place of the note about that particular picture.
The picture appears under the name or attribution
given in the catalogue. If there is no catalogue, then
the name on the frame is taken. But that does not
necessarily mean that the name or attribution is
accepted in the notes. Differences of view are given
very frequently. It is important that we should know
the painter of the picture before us. The question of
attribution is very much in the air to-day, and consider-
able space is devoted to it not only in the General In-
troduction but in the notes themselves. Occasionally,
however, the whole question of authorship is passed
over in favour of the beauty of the picture itself. It
is always the art of the picture we are seeking, more
than its name, or pedigree, or commercial value.
PREFACE TO THE SERIES ix
Conciseness herein has been a necessity. These
notes are suggestions for study or thought rather than
complete statements about the pictures. Even the
matter of an attribution is often dismissed in a sentence
though it may have been thought over for weeks.
If the student would go to the bottom of things he
must read further and do some investigating on his
own account. The lives of the painters, the history of
the schools, the opinions of the connoisseurs may be
read elsewhere. A bibliography, in the London vol-
ume, will suggest the best among the available books
in both history and criticism.
The proper test of a guide-book is its use. These
notes were written in the galleries and before the pic-
tures. I have not trusted my memory about them, nor
shall I trust the memory of that man who, from his
easy chair, declares he knows the pictures by heart.
The opinions and conclusions herein have not been
lightly arrived at. Indeed, they are the result of more
than thirty years' study of the European galleries.
That they are often diametrically opposed to current
views and beliefs should not be cause for dismissing
them from consideration. Examine the pictures, guide-
book in hand. That is the test to which I submit and
which I exact.
Yet with this insistence made, one must still feel
apologetic or at least sceptical about results. However
accurate one would be as to fact, it is obviously impos-
sible to handle so many titles, names, and numbers
x PREFACE TO THE SERIES
without an occasional failure of the eye or a slip of the
pen; and however frankly fair in criticism one may
fancy himself, it is again impossible to formulate judg-
ments on, say, ten thousand pictures without here and
there committing blunders. These difficulties may be
obviated in future editions. If opinions herein are
found to be wrong, they will be edited out of the work
just as quickly as errors of fact. The reach is toward
a reliable guide though the grasp may fall short of full
attainment.
It remains to be said that I am indebted to Mr. and
Mrs. George B. McClellan for helpful suggestions re-
garding this series, and to Mr. Sydney Philip Noe not
only for good counsel but for practical assistance in
copying manuscript and reading proof.
JOHN C, VAN DYKE.
RUTGERS COLLEGE, 1914,
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
THE Imperial Gallery at Vienna has not the great
reputation of some other European galleries. It has
no such popular pictures as Raphael's Sistine Madonna,
or Titian's Assunta, or Rembrandt's Night-Watch, or
Paul Potter's Young Bull. But it is by no means in-
ferior to the best of the North-European galleries in
works of true art, in historic and representative exam-
ples of great painters, in school representation. There
are excellent pictures here of all the schools — German,
Flemish, Dutch, Italian, Spanish. And occasionally
rare and startling examples of the minor masters. Be-
lotto, among the Italians, is generally regarded as a
feeble echo of Canaletto, but here at Vienna he appears
in a long series of most astounding pictures. They are
supremely fine, and yet very few people look at them.
The more apparent beauty of Titian's Madonna of the
Cherries or his Gipsy Madonna is preferred. The
Titians are, of course, very fine, and fine, too, are three
pictures that may be fairly ascribed to Giorgione.
There are Tintorettos and Paolo Veroneses in number,
several rather good Lottos, a superb Moretto, in fact,
his great masterpiece, many Palmas, two Bellinis, two
Correggios, and one very good early Raphael.
3
4 NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
Nowhere can Rubens be better studied than here
in the great St. Ildefonso altar-piece, in his large school
pieces, in his wonderful portraits of himself and his
wife. Here, too, his pupil, Van Dyck, is represented
by a large number of figure pieces that show his weak-
ness, and several portraits that suggest his strength.
Some earlier Flemings in this gallery give one a great
surprise — Peasant Brueghel, for instance. The large
landscape and figure pieces ascribed to him are simply
amazing in their point of view and their flat painting.
The landscapes by Bles and Patinir, the fantasies of
Bosch, the still-life of Beuckelaer are also shown in both
quantity and quality.
Diirer in the German School stands out pre-eminent
by virtue of his large Trinity and several excellent
portraits; Cranach, Altdorfer, Strigel, Baldung appear
in many examples, and Holbein is seen in several fa-
mous portraits — the John Chambers being of special ex-
cellence. Rembrandt does not appear to advantage —
in fact, he is misrepresented by pictures done in his
school; but Velasquez, though he has a number of
school pieces attributed to him, is supreme and almost
sublime in three children's portraits, than which Madrid
holds nothing finer or more perfect. These should be
studied carefully. The Infante Philip Prosper as a
child's portrait has never been excelled, and it is doubt-
ful if it has ever been equalled.
The Imperial Gallery is the result of a bringing to-
gether of several collections in the eighteenth century.
NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY 5
The gathering included the Prague collection of the
Emperor Rudolph II, rich in Italian works; the collec-
tion of the Archduke Leopold William, containing many
Dutch and Venetian pictures; and the gallery of the
Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, from which came the
Raphael, Madonna of the Meadow, and the Moretto,
St. Justina. Since then there have been many addi-
tions, and to-day Vienna can boast of nearly eighteen
hundred old masters — a representation that places the
gallery among the first in Europe.
The building in which the pictures are housed is
one of the most imposing in Vienna. It is large, airy,
well lighted, and, generally speaking, well fitted for a
gallery. The pictures are arranged by schools and
are usually well seen. For several years the gallery
has been in process of rehanging, and is now (1913)
beginning to emerge much the better for the rearrange-
ment. The catalogue of 1907 (in German and with
illustrations) has critical value and explains the pic-
tures concisely. A small English translation of the
Italian, Spanish, and French Schools is obtainable in
the gallery. Good photographs of the pictures are
sold just inside the entrance.
In addition to this Imperial Gallery, the student
should look at the collection of the Imperial Academy
of Art, where there are a few fine pictures among many
copies and works of mediocre quality. Private collec-
tions do not find mention in these notes for obvious
reasons, but the student in Vienna should see the prac-
6 NOTE ON THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
tically public galleries of Prince Liechtenstein, Count
Harrach, and Count Czernin. Finally, there is for ref-
erence the celebrated Albertina, with its thousands of
drawings after the old masters and its hundreds of
thousands of engravings. Vienna is a place where the
student can learn the history of art quite as readily as
at Berlin, Paris, or London.
THE IMPERIAL GALLERY,
VIENNA
705. Aertsen, Pieter. Market Scene. The colour
seems dull and spiritless, but there is strong,
realistic modelling in the figures, and fine, broad
painting in the baskets and birds. Aertsen is not
seen here so well as in the Brussels Gallery, where
he fairly shines.
704. Peasant Feast. There is more tang about the
colour here than in No. 705. Look at the still-life
on the tables. And also at the red peasant faces.
1421. Altdorfer, Albrecht. Nativity. It appears some-
what fantastic in the background and lighting, but
is, at least, not commonplace in conception. The
group of the Madonna, Child and two little angels
is very naive, and the Joseph is given with dignity.
Notice the snow on the landscape, the sunrise at
the back, and high up the angels singing.
L422. Holy Family. There is little that looks " holy "
about the group, but what a piece of decoration
from the robes and their straight lines to the ara-
besque of fruit in its rounded lines! It is an excel-
lent colour pattern and done with both skill and
spirit.
5. Amberger Ghristoph. Portrait of Ulrich Sul-
czer. The panel has been hurt, stained, retouched
— so much so that the drawing is now muffled in the
7
8 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
face, hand, and fur. Originally, no doubt, a por-
trait of some distinction.
5. Antonello da Saliba. Dead Christ. The senti-
ment of it seems intense, almost tragic. The angels
with variegated wings upholding the arms of Christ
are not only lovely but pathetic. The drawing is
hard, the landscape at the left is crude in the hills
and trees, and the clouds in the sky are of similar
quality. These defects may be due to the repaint-
ing from which the picture has suffered. So badly
is the surface retouched that one cannot now say
with any certainty who did the picture. In 1912
the direction of the gallery said it was an Antonello
da Messina. They now (1913) think of it more
modestly as an Antonello da Saliba.
395. Badile, Antonio. Portrait of a Lady. The por-
trait is somewhat ponderous in the figure — heavy
in the arms from the shoulders down. The shadow
on the head at the right side is now so violent that
we lose some of the modelling. The dress is decora-
tively beautiful and the ensemble good. The type
is commanding and the presence excellent. It was
formerly thought a portrait of Caterina Cornaro,
the Queen of Cyprus, and supposed to be by Paolo
Veronese. The canvas is injured.
397. Portrait of a Lady. The face line is a little
hard, the nose is turned up, the hair is coarse, and
at the back the head cuts away to nothing. The
background has darkened. Good hands are shown,
and a splendid dress. The colour is golden-brown.
A fine portrait given with much dignity. For-
merly attributed to Paolo Veronese.
1424. Baldung, Hans. Portrait of a Man. A strange
type for a sitter — a timid personality, a shrinking,
BASAITI, MARCO 9
piteous soul. The colour is not very rich or deep
in hue.
423. Death and the Maiden. The white figure of
the young girl is placed in strong contrast to the
brown Death. Notice also the beauty of flowing
outline in the girl, again in contrast with the ragged
broken lines of Death. The little Love below is
odd. The landscape is suggestive of Burgkmair.
Formerly ascribed to Altdorfer.
34. Bartolommeo, Fra. Madonna and Child. It
looks like the work of some inferior painter trying
to do a picture after the style of Andrea del Sarto.
It is hardly a Bartolommeo, nor a picture by any
artist of the first rank, though it possibly came out
of Bartolommeo's shop.
41. Presentation in the Temple. It is a heavy
picture all through. The figures are short and
stout, the robes broad and flat, the group oblong
and angular. In addition, the colour is hot, the
flesh flushed, and the blue of the Madonna's robe
seems out of key. It is not a satisfactory example
of this master, and is possibly only a school piece.
1. Basaiti, MarCO. Calling of Sons of Zebedee. It
is a variation of the larger picture of the same sub-
ject in the Venice Academy (No. 39) but apparently
thinner and poorer than the Venetian example.
The action here is from left to right, whereas in the
larger picture it is from right to left. The archi-
tectural framework is well done, but possibly
something of a mistake as the picture now stands.
The blackish space around the frame is not attrac-
tive. The sky and distance with the colour are
very good. The faces are repainted as well as
portions of the landscape.
10 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
1431. Beck, Leonhard. St. George. The surface detail
of it seems better wrought out than the underlying
structure. The St. George and his gaily capari-
soned steed are very fine and the rescued princess
with the lamb at the right naive. At the back the
princess is seen walking away and leading by a string
the dragon or a green sheep, no one knows exactly
which. The landscape is a little formal. Attribu-
tion questioned by the catalogue.
1432. Beham, Barthel. Ferdinand I. This is the same
sitter as shown in No. 1427, by Maler zu Schwaz,
according to the catalogue, but the hair, eyes, and
flesh are quite different. A good portrait but not
necessarily by Beham.
4. Bellini, Giovanni. Baptism of Christ. The
landscape is rather fine but the figures are not well
done. At least they are not well enough done for
Bellini's hand to have done them. The picture is
evidently a repetition of the Vicenza picture (as the
catalogue suggests) by some member of the Bellini
School.
13. Young Woman at Toilet. The figure is white,
* a little ivory-like, somewhat hard in outline, and
flattened by cleaning. The type is handsome, the
head-dress odd, the landscape very good. It was
formerly attributed to Bellini, then given to Bissolo,
and now given back to Bellini. But it does not
belong to either painter. It is nearer to Catena.
It has been hurt across the legs, in the draperies, in
the sky, but is still a handsome piece of form and
colour. Notice the reflecting mirror.
89. Bellini, School of. Madonna and Child. It is
not great. The work is duller than the Boccaccino
at Venice (No. 600) and both the Madonna and
BELOTTO, BERNARDO 11
Child are rather heavy though well modelled. The
robe is rich in pattern and colour but is hard and
airless. And the Madonna's hand with the cherries,
outstretched as though asking alms, seems odd.
Formerly given to the School of Bellini, then to
Boccaccino, now again to the Bellini School, but no
one knows just where it belongs. Dr. Borenius
thinks it shows the influence of Antonello da Mes-
sina. Its connection with Bellini seems slight.
455. Belotto, Bernardo. Ruins of Thebes. A fine,
* large landscape with sunlight at the right and dark
shadow at the left. Such pictures as these by
Belotto have never been half appreciated. They
are far and away ahead of the Venetian things of
his uncle, Canaletto. The largeness of view as
well as of canvas, the breadth and truth of both
construction and handling, the hold-together and
ensemble are really superb. Of course, they are
dark in colour and light, but the relationship of
the light to the shade is properly maintained. No-
tice the fine, green hillside with ruined buildings,
the lake and distance, the sky and clouds.
458. Schbnbrunn Castle. It is not SO good as No.
455 but is impressive, nevertheless. It is a little
more formal in the pattern of the grounds, and the
painter probably followed the actual model with
literal truth. The topography counted with the
patron rather than the art, and the painter had to
make a map as well as a picture.
463. Imperial Castle. It is wonderfully fine in the
* sky, clouds, and distance. The colour is a little
monotonous but the ensemble, the air, the tone
are superb. The key of light is low but its rela-
tion to the shadow is again perfectly maintained
12 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
throughout. Look at the figures — how beautifully
they are done, how charming they are as colour,
how wonderfully they hold their place in the picture!
Even the railings of the fountains and the build-
ings at the back are to be admired for their pictur-
esque drawing.
465. Imperial Castle. Another great landscape
* with a fine sky, distance, and architectural draw-
ing. The light is dark but again true in relation
to the shadows.
466. Imperial Castle. It is really magnificent in
* distance, light, sky, mountains, and sea. All these
Belottos here at Vienna are wonderful landscapes.
It is astonishing that no one seems to look at them
or writes or talks about them. Modern landscape,
with all its coloured light, air, and shadows, seems
just a bit foolish beside these majestic creations of
Belotto.
26. Benozzo, Gozzoli. Madonna and Child. A pic-
* ture rich in colour and quite splendid in its gold
work. This gold work, in the haloes and elsewhere,
is tooled, not stamped. The robes are as angular
as the drawing of the hands and faces, but even the
folds and wrinkles are decoratively arranged. The
picture is well put together in a balanced composi-
tion and well planned for richness of colour effect
by placing the Madonna against the white ermine,
giving her fine garments, and surrounding her with
beautiful gildings, colours, flowers, angels. What
fine feeling and good sentiment there are about the
Madonna and the kneeling saints! Look at the
forest of trees on either side.
707A. Beuckelaer, Joachim. The Cook. A strong
* piece of drawing, with excellent painting of still-
BLES, HERRI MET DE 13
life, but it hardly reaches up to the same subject
by this painter's master, Aertsen, in the Brussels
Gallery (No. 2). However, the technical grip of
it is compelling and the colour is excellent. Look
at the meat in the basket.
706. Poultry Seller. Of the same kind and quality
as No. 707A. It is strong still-life painting but
not very good in colour. It is blackish.
707. Market Woman. More brutal in type and
colour than No. 707A but not better. His mas-
ter, Aertsen, is more virile and more original but
Beuckelaer is strong enough at times.
670. Bles, Herri met de. The Road to Emmaus.
This picture and Nos. 671, 672, 664, and 669 are
all more or less of similar origin. They are to be
ranged about Patinir rather than Bles. The owl
signature is misleading. See the notes on the
Bles pictures here, Nos. 673 and 657. The little
picture, No. 664, by Patinir is very interesting in
its clear drawing of rocks.
673. St. Jerome. There is nothing in this picture,
either in figures or landscape, that points to Bles
as he appears in the pictures attributed to him at
Brussels, Antwerp, Madrid, and elsewhere. The
owl sign of Bles is by no means a thing to rely upon.
Other painters used it frequently. The three pic-
tures by Bosch in the next room (Nos. 651, 652,
653) all have it. In the Bosch No. 653 it appears
on the leg of the fainting man as though put there
purposely as a signature, yet at the bottom we have
the signed name of Bosch and the picture is un-
doubtedly by Bosch. If every Netherland pic-
ture with an owl in it were given to Bles and every
Italian picture with a bone in it to Dossi, we should
14 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
have more of a mix-up in art history than at pres-
ent— which is saying much. This picture (No.
673) belongs with the Patinir pictures. Even the
catalogue queries it.
657. Temptation of St. Anthony. In this picture,
and also in Nos. 654, 655, and 656, Bles seems con-
fused with the style of Bosch. There is not a Bles
in the Vienna Gallery that closely corresponds with
the pictures attributed to him elsewhere. The
Adoration (No. 662) comes nearer to agreement
than any other but is not satisfactory or convinc-
ingly in Bles's style. It is by a Bles follower. M.
Hulin de Loo, in the Burlington Magazine for
October, 1912, insists that the real Bles was ex-
clusively a landscape painter, that his name was
Kerry Patinier, and that all the figure pictures at-
tributed to Bles are pseudo-Bleses. This not only
eliminates owl signs and nicknames but puts Bles
himself out of existence. And, after all, that may
be the right conclusion.
145. Bonifazio dei Pitati. Daughter of Herodias.
The same model is seen again in the Supper in
the Rich Man's House in the Venice Academy
(No. 291). The drawing seems somewhat distorted.
The features are set to the right of the face, the
distance to the ear is too great, the arm is badly
done. It is hardly worth disputing about who
painted it and yet the picture has good colour and
a general air of some distinction.
157. Portrait of Lady. It is a smooth portrait,
slightly drawn in the face and hands, but of agree-
able personality. The lady is dressed handsomely.
The attribution is questionable.
BORDONE, PARIS. 15
226. Bonifazio Veneziano. Vision of Priest. A dec-
orative affair and that is about all. The figures are
not well drawn. The distance is Venetian with a
view of the Ducal Palace. Another view of the
Piazza S. Marco in No. 171 A. The very existence
of the painter is doubted. The picture is probably
from the shop of Bonifazio dei Pitati.
170 } Madonna and Annunciation Angel. Two pic-
171 / tures that originally belonged closer together than
at present, perhaps — that is, belonged to one pic-
ture. They are brilliant in colour if a little coarse
in spirit.
172 1 Four Saints. Two pictures of some decorative
188 J merit but not wonderful in any way. They are
probably shop work from the studio of Bonifazio
dei Pitati. Bonifazio Veneziano was brought into
existence by Morelli's imagination.
248. Bordone, Paris. Portrait of a Young Woman.
The flesh is pallid, the face flushed, the hair hemp-
like, the high lights on the robe glittering. The
picture is rather coarsely done and has probably
been retouched.
231. A Young Woman. It seems better in the
flesh-notes than either No. 248 or No. 233 or No.
246 but in itself is not remarkable. The figure is
well suggested and the hands and arms are rightly
done, but the same coarse hair appears here as
elsewhere.
23lA. Portrait of a Courtesan. This is, perhaps,
the best of the Bordones here though still glitter-
ing in the high lights of hair and dress. The left
hand is badly drawn and the colour contrast of the
red and blue is not particularly happy.
16 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
651. Bosch, Jerome. Temptation of St. Anthony.
The picture has some fine colour about it but has
been injured somewhat. The left wing has, per-
haps, blackened and is not now in tone with the
rest of the triptych.
653. Martyrdom of St. Julia. It is not only a beau-
* tiful triptych in colour but is interesting for its flat
painting. What fine costumes! There is a swing
about the lines of Bosch's costumes, especially the
trains of them, that reminds one of Bles and per-
haps leads to some of Bosch's pictures being put
down to Bles, as in the next cabinet (Nos. 655-657)
or at Amsterdam (No. 522). The left panel here
is dark as in No. 651. The landscape very good.
Notice the water in the panel at the left. See also
No. 652.
1245. Bramer, Leonard. Allegory of Vanity. This
picture and No. 1246 are both of them excellent in
shadow and air with some good painting in the
still-life. It is free but not very certain brush-
work — that is, it is not very accurate in drawing.
The No. 1246 shows the same kind of facile han-
dling.
1135. Brouwer, Adriaen. Peasant Drinking. A fine
piece of painting in which the drawing, colour, and
texture are all given with skill and effect. It is
absolute work. Look at the barrel or the jug and
then look at the depth and breadth of the figure,
its attitude and weight.
914. Brueghel the Elder, Jan (Velvet). Storm at
Sea. It has something of the colour quality of No.
904, and is possibly by the same hand that did
Nos. 709, 711, 713, 984 in this gallery— that is, not
BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 17
Velvet Brueghel but a Brueghel we shall call
Seasons Brueghel. See note on No. 709. There
is a great heave of the waters and a feeling of in-
undation about it. Very well done. For Velvet
Brueghel, see Nos. 908 and 911.
708. Brueghel the Elder, Peter (Peasant). Playing
* Children. The nine large canvases put down to
Peasant Brueghel and shown in this gallery are as
astonishing as any art ever turned out of the Neth-
erlands. They are so wonderful in their landscapes,
so remarkable in colour, so modern in their flat
painting that one is quite upset at the thought that
no one seems to love them or appreciate them or
even mention them. We lose ourselves, perhaps
in studying single figures in such a picture as the
first one of the nine (No. 708) ; but go back across
the gallery, where the spottiness of the figures is
less apparent, and see what a setting of buildings,
a street, a sea, and a landscape are shown here.
What light-and-shade! Go close again and exam-
ine the little figures and what motion and life they
have, how easily they are painted! And what
quality in such colours as the reds and blues! By
the same hand that did Nos. 710 and 712 — that is,
Peasant Brueghel, in all probability, but not by
the painter we have called Seasons Brueghel.
709. Autumn Landscape. Some of the trees in
** this picture are bare; others in the distance have
brown foliage; several peasants are driving cattle
up into the hills. This is the most astonishing
landscape of a series of three representing the Sea-
sons— the Summer having been lost. Any modern
impressionist (if he could be induced to enter a
gallery) might rave over it. The drawing is sum-
18 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
mary, large, wonderful in outline, almost like that
of Daumier. The painting is thin, not loaded in
the high lights, very flat, almost meagre in its econ-
omy of pigment. But what a result! What an
effect! The men, cattle, horses, trees, mountains,
sky are almost startling in their truth of represen-
tation— their large truth not their petty details.
What water, river banks, and hills in the foreground !
What a herd of cattle, what bare trees, what depth
and distance through to the blue mountains at the
back! It is more modern in spirit and in method
than a Courbet, a Millet, or even a Manet. The
light, air, colour, perspective are all excellent.
When the oddity of it wears off the student will
find this landscape one of much power and beauty.
The. painter of it did Nos. 711, 713, 914, 984 in this
gallery, but not the other pictures ascribed to
Peasant Brueghel. He is the strongest of all the
Brueghels and quite distinct from those heretofore
known to us. To identify him he may be called
Seasons Brueghel.
711. Spring Landscape. Apparently this landscape
** is a representation of early spring before life has
started. The light is dim and a storm is gathering.
Barring the difference in light, the picture is similar
in treatment to No. 709. It shows the same meagre
use of pigment, large outline drawing, and flat
painting. And it has the same grasp and strength
about it. The painter knows exactly what he
wants to do and does it easily, serenely, truly, surely.
The warm foreground with houses and figures leads
away to the stormy water, the dark sky, and the
distant mountains with snow still lingering on their
heights. How beautifully the bare trees cut against
the sky! How they seem to emphasise the atmos-
BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 19
phere, the temperature, the season ! All nature with-
out is cold and forbidding, and by way of contrast
you have the suggestion of warmth and security
as shown in the peasants and their well-sheltered
houses in the foreground. What wonderful water!
Difficult to see because of the glass. An excellent
landscape. By Seasons Brueghel, painter of Nos.
709, 711, 914, 984.
713. Winter Landscape. Another landscape of the
Seasons series and a companion to Nos. 709 and
711. The snow with the dark figures and tree
trunks against it make the picture almost an effect
in black and white, but there is warmth of colour
rubbed into the houses, the dogs, and the fire. With
little actual demonstration of colour, the picture
still impresses one as possessing it. It is handled
in just the same manner as the others of the Seasons
series, being thinly and flatly painted and such
things as the figures count largely as patches of
dark on the light ground. But the figures are in
perfect keeping; their values are always maintained.
Compare those in the foreground, as regards their
value as black, with the figures standing about the
fire, or study a moment the values in the reced-
ing tree trunks. Their truth is astonishing. The
whites are treated with the same discrimination as
regards their values. The birds and the little figures
on the ice hold their own as blacks no better than
the housetops or the hills or distant mountains as
whites. As a result, what aerial perspective!
What distance, atmosphere, and ensemble! An-
other great landscape by Seasons Brueghel. See
note on No. 709.
710. Massacre of the Innocents. After studying
* Nos. 709, 711, and 713, one is loath to believe that
20 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
this snow scene is by the same hand. It is not so
well done. It is handled in a somewhat similar
way, but is not so largely or so surely done. The
figures are smaller but have more colour and seem
to count for more in the picture than the build-
ings, trees, or distance. This is different from No.
713, where everything is regarded as merely a
block in the mosaic. But the values and the col-
ours here are well maintained and are effective.
It is a fine picture and only a little less interesting
than 713. Probably by Peasant Brueghel.
712. The Way to Calvary. There is no prominence
** given here to the central group of the Christ bear-
ing the Cross, no pyramidal composition to exalt,
no concentration of light or colour to illumine or
attract. It is the genre treatment of the scene
wherein every object holds the place it would in
reality if seen from a distant slope. The figures of
people are related to the landscape largely as spots
of colour. The Madonna, Magdalen, and St. John
are larger than the others only because they hap-
pen to be in the foreground and truthful perspec-
tive required their enlargement. It is a crowd, a
real scattered crowd, making its way to Golgotha
from many directions without a blessed thought of
coming together in a picturesque group for the
painter to paint them. There has been an evident
desire to tell the exact truth of appearance as seen
by a Brueghel's northern eyes. It is truly a won-
derful, animated gathering, pictured in just as
wonderful a landscape. Notice the central height
of rock, or back of it the shadowed dale, or in the
distance the circling city walls. Notice also the
receding clouds in the sky as well as the figures on
the earth. What distance, depth, and air are here!
BRUEGHEL THE ELDER, PETER 21
Colour is everywhere laid on in flat tones, patch-
painted, with little shadow, and no impasto of
importance (see, for instance, the painting of the
women's robes in the foreground) ; yet relief, mod-
elling, depth, are given. The figures have thickness
as well as height and breadth. This again is an
astonishing picture. One could make a book out
of it, using it to illustrate almost every correct
principle of modern painting. Probably by Peasant
Brueghel.
714. The Conversion of Paul. What an extraor-
dinary flight of the imagination! What other
painter ever conceived the conversion of Paul (or
Saul) in such a way as this! The scene is high up
in the mountains, with great canons breaking down
to the sea and lofty peaks reaching up to the sky.
It is so high up that the pines and hemlocks are seen
in clumps and the peaks are mere bare rock above
the timber-line. Files of soldiers are coming up
the canon, only their heads showing above the
rocky slash. Far up the slope they are filing on,
with only a few of them turning back to see the
fall of Paul. What a crowd and huddle of figures!
What a push and drive of forces upward! What a
blaze of martial colour here and there under the
abnormally disturbed light and sky! The picture
is painted flatly and thinly, with true values, good
air, and perfect perspective. Probably by Peasant
Brueghel.
715. The Tower of Babel. It is just as wonderful
* in treatment as the other pictures of the series by
Peasant Brueghel but is, perhaps, less interest-
ing in theme and in colour. There are too many
small objects in it, and it becomes more or less
22 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
panoramic. But there are fine bits here and there,
such as the ships and sea down at the right or the
masons working at the left or the distant town.
The landscape and sky are a little cold. Probably
by Peasant BruegheL
716. A Netherland Masquerade. Perhaps the least
* interesting in subject and treatment of any of the
large Brueghels here. The colours are pronounced
and at times spotty, though there are excellent
light-and-shade, good air, and hold-together about
the picture. It has the same kind of painting as
the other canvases, though it may have been done
by one of the Brueghels other than Peasant Brue-
ghel.
719. Kermess. Looked at decoratively, merely as
** a coloured pattern, what could be finer than this?
As flat painting it has never been surpassed and
seldom equalled. The man who could do such
work was a great craftsman. No matter about his
lack of the sense of beauty in faces and figures or
his grossness of types or subject. He was not try-
ing to paint Greek goddesses but Flemish peasants.
Judge him by what he tried to do, not by what
he never thought of doing. What figures, faces,
houses, trees are here! They are not only real but
picturesque and artistic to the last degree. Prob-
ably by Peasant Brueghel, though it seems differ-
ent work from that of No. 712.
717. Peasant Wedding. It would be impossible to
** conjure up a truer characterisation of peasant life
than this. Study the types, from the silly bride
against the wall to the dumb, staring musician in
the centre, or the stupid little boy in the foreground,
or the cattle-like huddle of coarse figures at the
BURGKMAIR, HANS 23
back. It is everywhere the exact, brutal truth
without attempt at disguise in any form. And yet
see what colour the painter has wrung out of the
walls, the smoked rafters, the hats and coats, the
dishes of food, the jugs ! It is a marvel of truthful
colour, light, air, handling. What could be better,
for instance, than the waiters carrying plates of
food on a great cellar door, seen at the right? It
is really perfect painting. The moderns have never
gone beyond it. By the painter of No. 719 — that is,
probably, Peasant Brueghel.
720. The Shepherd. It might be thought more ex-
* traordinary if we had not such a splendid showing
in the larger Brueghels near at hand — the best in
the world. Still, here is a fine piece of realistic
work — red eyelids and all. And with good col-
our. This, too, in spite of the rather strong sus-
picion that neither Seasons Brueghel nor Peasant
Brueghel painted the picture but that it is, per-
haps, by one of the lesser following.
984. Sea Piece. What a fine thing in colour!
Never mind the fantastic in it. Judged by its
sesthetic and decorative quality as colour, it will
stand up well. It is by the painter of Nos. 709,
711, 713, 914 — Seasons Brueghel. It is of no great
importance that we cannot give his name more
positively. Art is not a matter of name or pedi-
gree. Look at the work and let the connoisseurs
quarrel about the worker.
Bueckelaer. See Beuckelaer.
1405. Burgkmair, Hans. Portrait of the Painter and
Wife. These portraits show the influence of Diirer
though looser in drawing and freer in handling.
They have not Diirer's accuracy but they are well
24 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
drawn, nevertheless. There is also much serious-
ness in the painter's point of view. Slightly re-
painted.
223. Galisto Piazza da Lodi. Daughter of Herodias.
It is not very good work. There are too many
figures in it though they are fairly well drawn.
The colouring is warm all through and the flesh
is reddish. Somewhat brutal in theme.
1338. Cappelle, Jan van de. Smooth Sea. Perhaps the
best of the numerous sea pieces by the Dutch
painters in this gallery. It is neither very learned
nor very cunning but is a good piece of colour and
light. The Vlieger (No. 1339), and the Backhuisen
(No. 1341) are no improvement upon it.
205. Cariani, Giovanni Busi. The Apostle John. It
was formerly thought to be a Dossi, then a Palma,
and now it is assigned to Cariani. It is not an im-
portant work no matter who its painter.
7. Carpaccio, Vittore. Christ Adored by Angels.
The landscape seems odd for Carpaccio. The trees
are small, bunched, and hard where they cut into
the sky-line. The sky itself seems crude. The an-
gels are the best part of the picture, but they, too,
are hard in their robes though very charming in sen-
timent. The figure of the Christ is thin and mea-
gre. The composition is pyramidal — the angels
supporting the cross and the figure. There is some
fine colour in the cloth back of the Christ in spite
of the fact that everything in the picture has been
more or less repainted. It is a questionable Car-
paccio in spite of its well-preserved signature.
606. Carreiio de Miranda, Juan. Charles II. An-
other version, perhaps, of the portraits seen at
CLEVE, JUSTE VAN DER BEKE VAN 25
Madrid (No. 642) and Berlin (No. 407), the sitter
being here a little older in years. This portrait
is more substantial than those at Madrid and
Berlin. The hair, chain, dress, and curtain are
well painted.
20. Catena, Vincenzo. Portrait. The colour is
crude blue with green and mauve. The face is
well enough done but a little flat and now repainted.
The hands are hard and they also are repainted.
The figure is flattened against a grey ground.
91. Gesare da Sesto. Daughter of Herodias. The
figure is graceful and a little sentimental. The sur-
face of the picture is smooth, rather glassy; the
robes are washed out in the high lights for relief,
as over the knee, for example; the colour is a little
weak. Thought at one time to have been painted
by Leonardo.
19. Cima, Giovanni Battista. Madonna under an
Orange-Tree. It is a fair Cima. The figures seem
disturbed by the trees which are, in turn, rather
cheap, space-filling devices. The Madonna and
Child are not very good in colour though the blue
robe at the right is attractive. Notice the blue
mountains at the back with Cima's road winding
out and up to a hill city. The sky is high and
rather fine.
682. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of
Death of Virgin). Madonna and Child. With
fine feeling and some minute painting in the
head-dress, hair, and still-life. The dark ground
back of the Madonna seems to have been painted
in later and the aureole added about the head.
643A. Queen Eleanor of France. A small portrait
that has about it a suggestion of Gossart. It is
26 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
elaborately done in the costume and jewels but is
hard in the surface and uneasy in the spots of white.
The attribution is only a guess.
684. Madonna and Child. This is similar to No.
682 and is of the same quality. Notice the still-
life and the landscape. The Diirer monogram and
date on the ledge are forgeries.
683. Altar-Piece. A triptych with rich architec-
* ture, fine robes, and excellent donors in the wings.
The work is very well wrought especially in the
donors and their patrons. Look at the charming
St. Catherine at the right in her gorgeous costume
or the fine St. George in his armour at the left.
The central panel is rich in colour and shows much
feeling in the Madonna and angel. Something in
the figures, robes, and architecture suggests Gos-
sart; and not the least interesting part of the pic-
ture is the landscape which suggests Patinir and
his following. The same glassy surface quality as
in No. 643A.
602. Coello, Alonzo Sanchez. Queen Anna of Spain.
A fair enough sample of the rather hard drawing
of Sanchez Coello with his insistence on ornamental
truth rather than structural truth. The figure is
practically an embroidered robe flattened on a grey
ground. The lady herself is somewhat rigid in
the head and hand as though held in some beauti-
ful iron casing. No. 597 is another illustration of
this insistent detail. It is good work of its kind
but puts too much stress on features of the portrait
that should be subordinated.
646. Cornelisz van Oostsanen, Jacob. St. Jerome.
* These altar wings have been so much repainted that
COSTA, LORENZO 27
it is difficult to get an idea of their quality or their
painter. The embroidered robes are the best-pre-
served portions of the wings and they are very
handsome. The ground at the top is raw from re-
painting as is the frame from regilding. There are
four wings of the altar-piece and there are figures
of saints on the reverse of them. Ask an attendant
to open the doors. The figures on the inside are
most brilliant in colours, with wonderful embroi-
deries. St. Jerome with donors on the central panel.
Fine landscapes with small figures show at the back.
59. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Ganymede. It
has the volatile and airy quality of Correggio that
one sees in his Parma frescoes. There is also his
spirit of gaiety and life — his faun-like quality.
The drawing is not too good nor the colour pro-
nounced, but there is motion, distance, air. It is
badly repainted in the landscape and elsewhere.
Notice the shadow on the Ganymede's leg for
wholesale repainting.
64. 7o. Here is an illustration of Correggio's
* strength as distinguished from the mere prettiness
that characterises so many of his easel pictures.
The figure of lo has been much injured by abrasion,
but it must be apparent to the most unobservant
that there is still superb mastery of form in the
arms, shoulders, back, thighs, and leg of this figure.
What a splendid creature she is! You do not feel
that she is doll-like but rather massive and sibyl-
line. The figure is almost white and for a foil the
cloud is grey and the landscape brown.
85. Costa, Lorenzo. Portrait of a Woman. It
wants in modelling and has perhaps been over-
cleaned. The face, neck, and chest are now rather
28 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
chalky. There is a frail Francia landscape with
it. The portrait was probably never very good
and yet it was thought of such merit that at one
time it was put down to Raphael! It is probably
by some Costa follower. The catalogue queries it.
770lCoxie, Michiel van. Paradise and the Fall.
771 j The wings of an altar-piece which in their original
setting and before their repainting might have been
of considerable excellence. There is good drawing
about them and the landscapes are effective. Pos-
sibly the grey look of the panels is due to repainting.
1452. Cranach the Elder, Lucas. The Stag Hunt.
The work does not speak so loudly for Cranach
himself as for his workshop. The landscape is too
crude and the trees too perfunctory in their doing.
No. 1468 is in the same category. Compare them
with the trees and deer in No. 1462 or even in the
copy, No. 1463.
1453. St. Jerome and St. Leopold. Two small panels
done with much skill and with fine results of colour.
The Cranachs here at Vienna are many but not
very good. These two panels are, perhaps, the
best of them.
1460. Portraits of Three Girls. Neither the drawing
nor the colour seems to have the quality that be-
longs to the Elder Cranach as shown here in Nos.
1453 and 1454. This has something the appear-
ance of a school piece though it may be a genuine
enough Cranach.
1455. Portrait of a Man. Very simply drawn and
painted without splurge or pretence or display.
The painter did his work carefully and for the sake
of a likeness rather than to show how clever he
DAVID, GERARD 29
could be with pencil or brush. There is no osten-
tation about it.
1459. Adam and Eve. This is very beautiful out-
line drawing resulting in grace, strength, and purity.
The background is formal but very good, and quite
different from that in the hunting pictures hanging
near it.
1458. Judith. It is good work, but one has seen
other things by Cranach more engaging as form and
colour. The hair is prettily done.
1462. Paradise. Compare this landscape with that
* in the hunting pictures (Nos. 1452, 1468), especially
in the trees and the rocks high up at the left, and
two different hands will be recognised. This Para-
dise is the work of the elder Cranach. The figures
are his and even the deer are a different tale from
those in the hunting pictures. The figures are scat-
tered and the composition is not well held together,
but the landscape holds and, after all, the figures
are little more than colour spots upon it or in it.
626. David, Gerard. Altar-Piece. It is in three parts
with figures on the reverse of the wings. The cen-
tral panel shows the archangel St. Michael over-
coming Satan and his cohorts. The archangel is
calm, the demons much agitated. The garments
of St. Michael are rather fine in colour, but other-
wise there is little remarkable about the panel
though Mr. Weale seems to think it a rather im-
portant work. For ourselves we think it a poor
copy. The figures of St. Jerome and St. Anthony
of Padua at the sides are much better done, have
more quality, as also the figures on the reverse of
the wings.
30 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
627A. Nativity. This picture commands attention
at first because of the unusual night scene, with
light emanating from the Child and the angels de-
scending toward the light, but it does not improve
on close acquaintance. The work is not particu-
larly well done save in the general composition,
light, and colour. The drawing and handling have
the timidity and uncertainty of a copy. Notice
this in the doing of the angel wings, the Madonna's
face and hair, the architectural reliefs, the robes.
It is a striking picture but possibly an old copy of
some sort. Originally the centre of a triptych and
with a pointed top. Other versions elsewhere.
68. Dossi, Dosso. 5*. Jerome. The landscape seems
the best part of the picture. It is lighted in Dossi's
peculiar fashion and the work is doubtless by him.
The figure is red and over-modelled in the muscles.
68A. Conversion of Saul. A new (1913) picture
in the gallery that looks much repainted, though
it may be only flayed and may have its high lights
over-exposed. The horse and figure are both
theatrical.
1442. Diirer, Albrecht. Madonna and Child. What
* a remarkable characterisation in its exaltation of
the German peasant type! It is pathetic in its
earnestness and its homeliness. How beautifully
it is drawn ! And what charm as well as skill in the
doing of the head-dress and the hair — even the
short hair of the Child. As a piece of colour it is
almost perfect. Compare it, for the delicacy and
distinction of its colour, with the brawling colour
of the Trinity (No. 1545) near at hand. Did
Diirer paint it? It is good enough for any one
but it is not precisely in Diirer's style.
DURER, ALBRECHT 31
1443. The Emperor Maximilian I. The head and
* shoulders with the coat of arms and inscription at
the top are well placed on the panel, filling the space
rightly and making a decorative pattern. The
drawing is careful, sure, literal, as though each
stroke of the hair, for instance, were a model for the
engraver coming after. Yet with all its scrupulous
detail the portrait holds at a distance. The robe
is excellent in colour as is the fur in texture. It is
by all odds the best portrait of Maximilian in the
gallery, giving much more of the emperor and ruler
than the Strigel portraits. The superior air of the
monarch is here.
1444. Portrait of a Man. A common enough type.
The panel is now hurt by cracking and repainting.
On the reverse of it is a semi-nude figure.
1445. Adoration of the Trinity. If this picture were
* not marked by its dreadfully bright frame and
made prominent by its pedestal, one might pass it
in the gallery without notice because of its rather
garish colouring. Almost every one insists that it
is Diirer's masterpiece. But why? For what rea-
son? Is it on account of its colour? There is here
a spotting of bright hues but no great sense of col-
our. The blues are far from pleasant and give a
cold look to the picture that the reds do not tem-
per. Is it because it is good in tone? The light
of it comes from no one point and is arbitrary with
each figure. One by one these people in their
bright garments were completed and put into the
picture, with apparently small regard for their
mutual relations. Light and shade do not hold
them together. There is ensemble only by virtue
of the composition and not too much even of that.
32 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
Is it beautiful in its atmosphere? The picture
might have been painted in a vacuum for all the
air it possesses. There is a decided lack of good
colour, light, air, and setting. With this said it is
proper to add that each robed figure is quite per-
fect in itself — perfect in drawing, painting, and
characterisation. There are fine types, splendid
robes, brilliant spots of colour here. The work in
the part or even in the separate group is excellent.
What a robe, that of the pope with his back to us !
What wonderful types are the kings and warriors
at the right or the saints and martyrs up at the
left! What beautiful angels at the top! The fig-
ure of Christ is substantially the same as in the
small Christ on the Cross at Dresden (No. 1870)
and is remarkable in its pathos.
The more one studies the picture close at hand
the better and the more wonderful it becomes,
but when you stand back from it and try to see it
as a single, united effect it falls down. The charm-
ing cubes of the mosaic are not well put together.
Diirer relied on the circle of figures about the
Christ to hold the groups, but that was not suf-
ficient. Moreover, the circle is not flat on the
panel but recedes in linear perspective at the top,
which lessens the value of the top and makes the
lower foreground figures protrusive. As composi-
tion and colour the picture is not a success. Look
at the Diirer school piece (No. 1440), and you will
notice that even that is better in colour, has more
oneness of effect. As realistic and beautiful detail
the picture certainly is a success. And that de-
scribes Diirer accurately enough. He was a realist
of beautiful facts. One of the most interesting
features of the picture is the landscape seen at the
DURER, ALBRECHT 33
bottom. The painter himself is seen standing at
the right, beside the signature. Cleaned and re-
painted.
1446. Martyrdom of the Ten Thousand Christians.
The landscape of this picture lends an envelope
in which the figures are placed with moderate suc-
cess. In this respect the problem was easier than
in the Trinity (No. 1445), where the figures are
placed in a circle against a sky that fails to re-
cede. However, there is still a feeling in this
martyr picture that the figures set in by virtue of
linear perspective and not by aerial perspective.
There is little atmosphere in the picture and very
little ensemble or singleness of effect. The work
is scattered and gathers interest only from an ex-
amination of the individual figures. These are,
of course, extremely well done. Notice the fore-
ground characters, especially those at the right
with the turbans. What a coat the man on horse-
back is wearing! What drawing in the backs of
those above the horse's head ! What a figure, that
at the left, sagging down from the cross, with the
ropes cutting into his flesh where the strain comes I
All the figures are well drawn. The colour is no
better than in the Trinity. The blues are cold,
and unity of colour is not felt. How very different
from the small Diirer, No. 1442! The trees and
rocks are well done; the sky is hurt. Durer in
black is seen in the centre of the picture. Done by
the order of the Elector Frederick the Wise, who
probably dictated the subject.
1448. Portrait of Johann Klebergers. It is a little
bizarre for all its attempt at elegance of design.
Moreover, it is weak in drawing, the face outline
being feeble and the mouth and eyes askew.
34 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
1447. — ' — Madonna and Child. How could Diirer ever
have put in that outrageous blue? It is acrid,
screaming, false in tone. Compare with that the
loveliness of the white head-dress. What a tone of
colour it has ! How it is drawn and painted ! What
a face below it, and what lovely hair! The Child
is a little enamel-like in the face but well drawn.
1048. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Mont fort. A
portrait with some of the swagger air for which Van
Dyck's portraits are more or less noted, but it is
not very good in workmanship. The hands have
become blackened from dark underbasing. The
chain is carelessly done. As for the body, it is well
suggested, and the head is well modelled. The
work seems hurried and hasty.
1046. Portrait of Francesco da Moncada. Other
versions of this portrait are in the Louvre. They
are all of about the same quality. There is noth-
ing remarkable about this one. It is repainted.
1043. Samson and Delilah. With a forceful, rather
pretty Delilah and a well-drawn Samson. The sur-
face and the texture painting are both too smooth,
and the colours are too sweet. The blue at the
back is entirely out of key. The sweetness of the
picture extends even to the doing of the armour
at the right as well as the drapery or the dog at
the left. It is not strong and suggests that Van
Dyck turned over the painting of it to pupils or
assistants.
1039. The Blessed Hermann Joseph. It is of about
the same character and quality as Nos. 1043 and
1035 — all of them too merely pretty to be forceful.
This is not a bad composition, nor is it badly drawn,
but the sentiment of it is a little over-done.
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 35
1035. Venus and Vulcan. There is good colour in
this picture, but the types and the painting are
far too saccharine for the cultivated taste. One
always wonders about this kind of Van Dyck pic-
ture (seen also in No. 1039), wonders if Van Dyck
really did such work or if he merely countenanced
it in his workshop and among his helpers to the
extent of allowing it to go out under his name. It
is so much weaker than his portraiture or such
works as the Betrayal of Christ at Madrid and the
St. Jerome at Dresden that one can with difficulty
believe in it.
1040. Madonna, Child, and St. Rosalie. It may be
passed by with no great loss to the passer-by. It
has the look of a much-repainted copy.
1036. St. Francis. Another version of this picture,
probably the original, is in the Madrid Gallery (No.
1478). This Vienna picture is perhaps a copy.
1033. Christ on the Cross. Other versions of this
picture are at Munich and Antwerp. The figure is
slight but effectively drawn and not so blackened
as the Munich example (No. 825). In common
with Nos. 1035, 1039, and 1043, it is perverted by
being put under glass, which softens and prettifies
the surface.
1034. Portrait of a Young Field-Marshal. The ar-
mour seems fairly well done, but the head and
face lack in modelling. Other versions at Windsor
and Madrid but, as the catalogue states, with varia-
tions. It looks much repainted in the face.
1032. Portrait of Prince Rodokanakis. A good piece
of colour and an interesting personality in the
sitter, whoever he may be. The portrait is well
36 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
painted and one of the best of the Van Dycks here,
without being his masterpiece, however.
1038. Prince Karl Ludwig. A fine portrait of a
* young prince, done with that nobility of pose and
look that Van Dyck knew so well how to give his
sitters. The figure stands easily before a green
curtain with a sky at the back. Perhaps the por-
trait has more of an official air than an intimate
or actual look about it. The painter does not
forget that he has a young prince for a sitter and
royalty back of him that must be pleased. The
picture is extremely well drawn and painted. The
canvas is pieced out at the top.
1042. Portrait of Prince Ruprecht. A companion
* piece to No. 1038, done in the same style and with
the same elegance of pose. The personality is here,
perhaps, a little sadder and more poetic, hence more
fetching with the average visitor than No. 1038.
Exceedingly well drawn and painted, with a good
landscape .and a bad dog. In common with No.
1038 it has been added to at the top and somewhat
repainted. But distinction of manner is still with
them — manner, perhaps, more than style.
1028. Portrait of the Countess Amelia Sohns. A
portrait with much of the serene aristocratic air
peculiar to Van Dyek's art rather than to his sit-
ters. It is now, unhappily, much repainted. The
hands and face are hurt by it, and the fine touches
of the brush are lost under it. The figure is well
placed upon the canvas, with a noble head and a
rich costume. The hair, the flowers, the ruff still
speak for its original beauty. Other Van Dyck
portraits of this same Princess of Orange at the
Brera and the Prado.
EYCK, JAN VAN 37
1051. Pieta. It has more life and spirit about it
than such works as No. 1035 though it is by no
means a marvel and a show. It has been pretti-
fied by retouching and the figure of Christ against
the white sheet has now lost in forcefulness by
the changed value of the white. The Magdalen is
graceful and so, too, the angel.
1050 \ Portrait of a Man and Woman. These Van
1052 J Dyck portraits have a Rubens look about them,
especially in the man — the better of the two. The
head of the man is masterful in its drawing of the
hair, forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and foreshortened
jaw. The hands are Rubensesque. The figure is
well indicated, well set in the frame, and has atmos-
phere about it. Compare it with Rubens's own
portrait in the next room. The portrait of the
woman is more of a picture with its fine landscape
and perhaps as good as No. 1050 in the character
of the sitter. The drawing of head and hands (with
the curtain and costume) is excellent. Unfortu-
nately, it is more repainted than the portrait of the
man and has a little of that pink-and-white look
that one associates with the cleaning room. What
very handsome hands!
1053. Portrait of Wildens. An excellent portrait
with a finely drawn head. The character is attrac-
tive. Said to be a likeness of Wildens, who is sup-
posed to have painted so many of the landscapes in
Rubens's figure pictures. How beautifully certain
parts of it (the moustache, for example) are brushed
in! A good background. Another version of this
portrait at Cassel (No. 118).
624. Eyck, Jan van. Portrait of Nicolas Albergati.
It has every appearance of Van Eyck's work save
38 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
in the surface. It has been much injured by re-
painting. Originally, no doubt, it was a fine head.
You can still see the large modelling of it, the fine
structure of the skull, and the frame of the face.
625. Portrait of Jan van Leeuwe. The Van Eyck
look is here as in No. 624, but again it is so hurt by
repainting that one can form no accurate judgment
about it.
409. Farinato, Paolo. Ascension of Christ. The at-
titude of the Christ is weak and the gesture of the
right arm feeble. Notice the feeling of flight up-
ward. The reddish-yellow colour is rich though
the whole picture is a little coarse in fibre. For-
merly attributed to Paolo Veronese and now, doubt-
fully, to Farinato.
385. St. Sebastian. The modelling is exaggerated
and the right hand is bad, but in other respects
the picture is very good. With a dark sky. For-
merly given to Paolo Veronese.
390. Lucretia. It is a little weak and pretty — too
weak for Paolo Veronese, to whom it was formerly
ascribed, so it has been passed on to Farinato — the
present catch-all for inferior Paolos.
92A. Florentine School. Stoning of St. Stephen.
The picture is fine in colour. Formerly ascribed
to Gentile da Fabriano. It is now given to the
Florentine School but with a query. No one knows
where it belongs.
47. Francia, Francesco. Madonna, Child, and Saints.
* A fine, large altar-piece. The Madonna seems
pushed up high and looks a little posed on her throne.
Apparently she is thinking very little about the
GEERTGEN TOT SINT JANS 39
Child, as she turns away her head. Still the senti-
ment is right enough. St. Catherine at the side is
excellent in every way. The trees, spread in pat-
terns against the sky, are frail, but decorative, and
the landscape is simple. The colour is cool in pre-
dominant blues and greens.
46. Franciabigio (Francesco Bigi). Holy Family.
A square composition with the figures pushed to
the left. It is poor in colour but rather nice in sen-
timent. The faces are porcelain-like and a little
sweet. The landscape looks as though painted
upon glass, the trees are thin, and the ground frail.
The Madonna's robe, legs, and foot suggest Raph-
ael. The picture has been ascribed to Andrea del
Sarto, to Bugiardini, to Pontormo, but it seems
rightly placed under Franciabigio. It is of the
same spirit with the Madonna of the Well, in the
Tribune of the Uffizi (No. 1125), there ascribed to
Franciabigio.
644. Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Gerard of Haarlem).
* Burning the Bones of John the Baptist. This
and No. 645 are parts of an altar-piece done for
a Haarlem church, probably by Geertgen. The
figures and landscapes correspond to other works
put down to him. The figures are not small enough
to be subordinate to the landscape and not large
enough to make a figure composition by themselves.
Hence, in spite of the groups and their disposition,
there is a feeling of emptiness in the composition
as a whole. Taken separately, both figures and
landscape are excellent. Notice the group at the
right with the strong though grotesque faces, the
fine velvets and brocades, the rich gold work. The
group in black caps and dresses is equally forceful.
40 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
The heads are strong. A little injured by the split-
ting of the wood.
645. Deposition. This is a better composition than
* No. 644 because the figures are larger and dominate
the landscape. The stiff figure of Christ on the
white sheet is impressive and the women kneeling
at the head are tragic in their grief. The outlines
are firm and sharp, the drapery angular in its folds,
the colour excellent. Colour does not mean bril-
liant colour, necessarily. What a fine landscape
at the back! A little injured.
16. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). The Three
** Wise Men. This picture gives one a somewhat
better idea of Giorgione than most of the pictures
attributed to him, notwithstanding it was finished
by Sebastiano del Piombo, according to the Ano-
nimo, and has, indeed, some of the smooth look
peculiar to Sebastiano. The figures are large,
graceful, well posed, well drawn, with good feet and
hands. Again, the robes are large in their folds,
the light-and-shade is broad and true, and the colour
is excellent. Moreover, the landscape is what we
might expect from Giorgione. It is not at all like
the landscape in the Rustic Concert of the Louvre.
The foreground is slashed with shadow, the back-
ground is lighted. The left foreground is, perhaps,
too dark in its brown shadow but the figures at
the right are brought out well by contrast. Again
there is a contrast in the foliage which at the right
is broadly handled but at the left thinly traced
against the sky. Notice the beautiful harmony of
the red, green, and yellow robes — hues that are
faintly repeated in the landscape and sky. The
picture is injured by repainting in the hands and
GIORGIONE (GIORGIO BARBARELLI) 41
faces and has darkened with time and much var-
nish. A similar work in the Fitz- William Museum
at Cambridge, England, is put down to the Vene-
tian School (No. 138).
63. 5*. Sebastian. The possibilities are that this
** picture represents neither an Apollo nor a St. Sebas-
tian but just a plain "head of a boy holding an
arrow in his hand/' as the Anonimo saw and de-
scribed it in the house of Messer Giovanni Ram,
at Venice, in 1531. The possibilities again are
that the picture is neither by Correggio (so attrib-
uted in 1912) nor Cariani, though the latter is cer-
tainly a closer guess than the former. The Anonimo
said that the picture he described was by " Giorgio
di Castelfranco." Is not this the same picture?
The attribution to Correggio needs no discussion
since it has been abandoned. It was always un-
believable. Mr. Berenson thinks the picture by
Cariani, in his finer mood, following Giorgione.
But did Cariani ever possess the tenderness, the
refinement of feeling, the delicacy of touch, the
skill of hand to do such work as this? Was he not
usually coarse-grained, of the earth earthy, an imi-
tator of Giorgione's types but without Giorgione' s
mind or feeling? Where does he reach such emo-
tional heights and depths as in this so-called St.
Sebastian? On the contrary, think of this refined
St. Sebastian in connection with works of Giorgione,
such as the head of the Sleeping Venus at Dresden,
the portrait at Berlin (No. 12A), the melancholy
portrait at Budapest (No. 94), the head of the
Castelfranco Madonna, and how well it agrees
with them in feeling and in spirit! The Giorgione
at Hampton Court of the Shepherd with the
Flute (referred to by the Anonimo as a Giorgione
42 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
in the same breath with this St. Sebastian) is less
delicate, more robust, more faun-like, and per-
haps nearer to the soil; but in other respects it
is in agreement again with this St. Sebastian.
Compare the two (by photographs, if not other-
wise) and notice how closely they seem to meet
the Anonimo's attributions — compare them for
their similar placing upon the given panel, for
light-and-shade, for colour, for type, for similarities
of cranium, hair, brows, for the same heavy eyelids,
dilated nose, and cupid's-bow mouth. And do not
forget to compare the hands for the similarity in
the loose index-finger. But this allowance should
be made. The Hampton Court picture has been
repainted; the Vienna picture has been skinned.
The result is that the former looks muffled in the
contours where the latter is a little sharp. The
St. Sebastian is now hard in the drawing of the
nose, brows, eyelids. The hair has also darkened
into the background. The Hampton Court picture
has been repeated, so far as the type goes, in a pic-
ture here in the Vienna Gallery — the David (No.
21) hanging near at hand. It is probably a re-
painted original by Giorgione, and not a copy, as
the catalogue suggests; but in any event it may
be used for comparison in a general way with the
St. Sebastian. It is of coarser fibre mentally and
emotionally, but there are close resemblances in
such features as the eyes, nose, mouth, hair, and
the like. Again, comparison may be made with
the Giorgione here, the Wise Men (No. 16). But
the true test is to carry this St. Sebastian, visually
or in photograph, before all the Giorgiones of all
the galleries. Especially should it be compared
with the two supreme Giorgiones — the Venus at
GIORGIONE (AFTER) 43
Dresden and the Castelfranco Madonna. It will
be found to agree with them in mind, in spirit, in
style, in method.
Whether the picture be by Cariani or Giorgione
is, perhaps, less important than the recognition
that it is an excellent picture possessed of real
intrinsic poetry and beauty. It may be just a
shade over-refined in sentiment, carried a bit too
far in sensitiveness of spirit. How soulful it is,
even plaintive! With such a type Correggio is
raving, excited, purely human; Gariani is coarse
and at times brutal; Giorgione is idyllic, pastoral,
romantic. But in this picture we have something
from Giorgione that is more profound, something
emotional and suggestive of the Christian martyr.
The recognition of this feeling possibly led to the
title of St. Sebastian, which otherwise seems in-
appropriate. [When this note was written (1912)
the picture was attributed to Correggio. It is now
given to Giorgione on the frame.]
21. Giorgione (after). David. It has the appear-
* ance of an original Giorgione that has suffered from
coarse and heavy repainting. The hair has been
over-painted and the shadows wrecked. Its re-
semblance to the Shepherd with the Flute at Hamp-
ton Court has been noted many times, but the
Hampton Court picture is worse off for repainting
than this. If the repaintings were removed from
both pictures an identical subject might be dis-
closed. There is still a largeness of handling and
drawing apparent in this Vienna David that seems
to exempt it from the group of Giorgione copies.
It is too free for a copy, too large in the feeling for
form. As a Giorgione (original or copy), it might
be compared with the St. Sebastian (No. 63), put
44 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
down to Giorgione, hanging near it. They are not
far apart as regards their painter, though the first
has been repainted and the second has been skinned.
Notice the resemblances still in the heavy eyelids,
the brows, the flat forehead coming down to the
brows, the poise of the head, the placing of the
hair on the forehead, the straight nose, the bowed
mouth, the rather sharp chin. They are both in-
teresting pictures and possibly Giorgione was re-
sponsible for both.
629. Goes, Hugo van der. Deposition. There are
various guesses at its authorship recorded in the
catalogue. It seems to be by a follower of Roger
van der Weyden, having some of his tragic quality,
his colour, and, in measure, his types. A little
crude in the blues and whites. Another version in
the Palffy Collection in the Budapest Gallery.
631. Adam and Eve. Part of a diptych with No.
629, and probably by the same hand as No. 629,
though a better and more interesting picture, es-
pecially in the landscape. How well the apple-tree
is given! On the reverse was formerly the figure
of St. Genevieve in grisaille, now separately framed
beside it (No. 630).
754. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). St. Lake Painting the
Virgin. It is the fashion of the moment to grow
enthusiastic over the small work and fine finish of
Gossart, but the fashion is hardly well founded.
The painter is too small mentally, too mechanical
and wanting in feeling or emotion, too mannered in
his exact technique, too finical in his small details.
There is, of course, good work in this picture — fine
heads, hands, robes, architecture — but the picture
lacks in breadth, serenity, poise. The sentiment
HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER, HANS 45
put into the Madonna is true enough. Another
version of this picture at Prague.
755. Madonna and Child. The motive of a Ma-
donna seated in an architectural niche was repeated
several times by Gossart, and with considerable
effect, notably at Munich (No. 155). This exam-
ple, however, is rather too pretty in colour and sur-
face, too mannered in drawing, too trifling in feeling.
1313. Goyen, Jan van. Landscape. An excellent land-
scape especially in light and colour. It is easily
painted and represents Van Goyen at his best.
The sky is a little injured.
272. Greco, II (Domenico Theotocopuli). Adora-
tion of Kings. This picture was formerly ascribed
to Bassano but it seems to be neither a Bassano
nor a Greco. It is too white in the light and has
no quality in the colour despite the apple-green
robe. Nor is it well drawn. Whoever did it left
something to be desired. II Greco was certainly
influenced by Leandro Bassano, but this seems a
poor illustration of it.
1297. Hals, Frans. Portrait of a Man. This portrait
is so inferior in the drawing of the eyes, the over-
drawing of the mouth, the painting of the hair and
hat, the quality of the colour that one may be par-
doned for thinking it merely some poor school
piece.
696. Hemessen, Jan van. St. Jerome. With some
large drawing and strength of type that belong to
Hemessen. He does not show to the best advan-
tage in this picture nor in Nos. 699 and 701.
1479. Holbein the Younger, Hans. Portrait of a
* Man. It is smooth in the flesh, the plum-coloured
46 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
silk, the black hat, the blue ground. The surfaces
are a little porcelain-like; the drawing of the face
and hands is very clean-cut and precise; the folds
of the cloth, the lines of the collar, strings, and all
that have great accuracy. The colour is attrac-
tive, even rich, and as for the character it is abso-
lute in its sense of reality — its realisation of truth.
A fine portrait.
1480. Portrait of John Chambers. A superb piece
** of characterisation — the drawing of the face be-
ing really astonishing in giving the flabby, sunken
cheeks and drawn lines of an old man. Notice the
doing of the eyes and mouth, the drag-down of the
hat on the head, the shadow of the neck. The coat
and fur collar, with the well-drawn hands, fill up
the rest of the pattern. With a dark blue-green
ground. A fine portrait, placed on the panel al-
most in profile and similar in pose to the Sir
Thomas More in the Louvre (No. 2717).
1481. — Portrait of Jane Seymour. It is almost stencil-
* like in its precision and smoothness. The painter
has, perhaps, put too much effort into the details
of costume. In this respect the portrait is not
unlike the Anne of Cleves in the Louvre (No. 2718).
Indeed, the two portraits are of a kind in their con-
ception and workmanship. They are not so strong
as the Holbein portraits of men and perhaps for
that reason were made more ornamental in costume.
But the Jane Seymour is a notable portrait. What
simplicity in the pose and dignity in the carriage!
A fine, frank type. The background wants in col-
our.
1482. Portrait of a Man. Evidently some sort of
companion piece to No. 1484 but with less charm
HOLBEIN, SCHOOL OF 47
about it. The colour scheme is not subtle. It is
very accurately done.
1484. Portrait of a Lady. A charming portrait of
a bottle-nosed lady with sad eyes. Beautiful in
the whites as related to the flesh colour. On a blue
ground.
1483. Portrait of a Lady. A perfect little portrait
* in almost every way. It is exact and truthful to
the last degree. Done in a manner similar to No.
1479. Look at the head-dress and the sleeves for
accuracy and the hands and face for truthful rep-
resentation. It would be hard to change it with-
out harming it. It is miniature work but quite
right for its kind. Some of these small portraits
may not be by Holbein, but they are excellent,
nevertheless. A blue-green ground.
1485. Portrait of Dirck Tybis. Just as accurate in
its drawing as, say, No. 1479 or 1480, though less
sharp in outline. It is a little smoother, more
rounded, and softer than the other examples. Also
it is more fussy in the papers and still-life on the
table, to its disadvantage. These articles seem
spotty, and the hands add nothing to the picture.
Notice the texture of the fur collar. A dark-blue
ground.
1489. Holbein the Younger, School of. Portrait of
* a Woman. Let not the attribution to the " School
of Holbein" mislead here nor the roundness of the
type discourage. This is a very good portrait.
It is beautifully drawn and painted throughout.
Notice the hair, head-gear, chain, and dress. There
is a saint's halo about the head and a plaintive
sentiment about the face. The mouth is a little
misplaced but that is a slight matter.
48 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
1299A. Hooch, Pieter de. The Mother. Averycharm-
* ing piece of colour all through. The mother, in
her white head-dress and variegated costume, is
very attractive, though her arm is a little hard from
too much cleaning. Notice the fire, the pot, the
mantel. The maid and the little child tugging at
her hand to go out of doors are subordinated in
light and colour but happily given. See the light
through the door, how exactly true in value it is!
The lower half of the door is again in perfect keep-
ing with the shadow of it upon the floor. How flat
and smooth the flooT!
1087. Jordaens, Jacob. Feast of the Bean King. The
same theme is shown elsewhere, at the Antwerp
Gallery, for instance. This example seems less
satisfactory than usual, being without any great
sparkle of light or snap of colour. It is dull. In
execution it is timid, as though done by some pupil
copying the master.
1438. Kulmbach, Hans von. Coronation of the Ma-
* donna. A panel that has been stained and other-
wise hurt but is still a remarkable performance.
The Madonna is in the centre and above her an
arch of figures representing the Father, the Christ,
and angels. At the bottom are donors with angels.
The colour of it is excellent, but the spirit of it is
even better. It is full of fine feeling. Even the
little angels have it. The drawing is wanting at
times in the hands and heads (notice the arms of the
Christ), but the spirit is so right and true that one
passes over the minor defects.
1438A } The Annunciation. Probably two panels
1438s / from an altar-piece. They have not only deep
feeling but considerable decorative quality. The
LOTTO, LORENZO 49
Madonna is only a peasant girl and is almost piti-
ful in her ignorance and dulness. The angel is,
perhaps, more sophisticated.
221. Licinio, Bernardino. Portrait of Ottaviano
Grim am. The face is small and pinched, and the
red dress is crude in the pattern. The whole work
is hard and unyielding. See also No. 22lA, a new
portrait, and fairly good.
214. Lotto, Lorenzo. Madonna, Child, and Saints.
* A beautiful Lotto in its refined sentiment and in
the loveliness of the types. The Madonna (under
half shadow as regards her face) and the angel back
of her are very attractive in their sensitiveness,
their grace, their personal beauty. The robes are
a little uneasy, and the lower part of the Madonna
is confused and twisted. The figures at the right
are simpler and truer in drawing. St. Catherine
kneels well, and the green note of her dress is force-
ful. The dress of the Madonna seems too blue,
as also the landscape. The brown foreground does
not fit into the blue background very smoothly,
yet the colour scheme as a whole is harmonious.
There is the usual tale of the picture being injured
by cleaning. But look again at the beautiful angel.
215. Portrait of a Man with an Animal's Paw in
His Hand. The picture is marred by the line of
fringe at the top of the canvas but in other re-
spects is excellent in both characterisation and col-
our. The character is girlish, almost like the angel
in No. 214 — not forceful or positive, but sensitive
to the last degree. The hands, too, are delicate
and have a cramped look peculiar to Lotto. The
black dress and the green and red of the accessories
make a pleasant colour scheme. It has been re-
60 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
painted in the hands and face — the nails of the
hands have disappeared under the overlaid paint.
Formerly ascribed to Correggio.
220. Portrait of a Man in Three Views. Something
that was done perhaps for the use of a sculptor as
an aid in modelling. It is rather heavy in more
ways than one. The personality is not engaging,
and the face is more remarkable for dull animal
wonder than anything else. The portrait shows
few characteristics of Lotto's technique, and one
misses his spirit completely. The Joseph in No.
214 is of a similar type and workmanship.
22. Portrait of a Young Man. The face is care-
fully drawn, the eyes well set in the head, the mouth
slightly ajar after the Diirer manner. The white
at the back of the figure has little quality, and the
black hat and dress are flatly outlined upon it.
This is hardly characteristic of Lotto or the Vene-
tians but is more like the Germans. The picture
looks Venetian, but its painter was influenced from
the north. Formerly attributed to Jacopo de'
Barbari, which is a better attribution than Lotto,
who never painted or drew in the manner of this
portrait. Compare it with Nos. 215 and 214.
22A. Portrait. A fine type and, all told, a beau-
* tiful portrait. There is much colour charm in the
flesh-notes, the yellow hair, the red dress, and the
green curtain. The dress is rather flat, the cur-
tain well done. The face is hurt by repainting.
It is hardly by Lotto.
86. Luini, Bernardino. The Daughter of Herodias.
A tale of grace, sentiment, and weakness that is
often told by Luini. Here it is somewhat exagger-
MANTEGNA, ANDREA 51
ated in its sentiment. The green is unhappy in
quality, being too acrid, too rasping. Nos. 82 and
87 are no better and are much hurt.
82. Christ Bearing the Cross. The picture shows
the sentiment peculiar to Luini and the Leonardo
followers in general. It was formerly ascribed to
Leonardo, then to Solario; but it is weak enough
for Luini.
1427. Maler zu Schwaz, Hans. Ferdinand I. The
portrait has changed names in both sitter and
painter. A good portrait, perhaps a little coarse in
its doing but giving the character of the man with
force. The painter is sometimes catalogued as
"Hans Maler von Ulm."
1473. Portrait of a Man. Apparently done by the
same hand that did No. 1427. The hair, white
neck-cloth, and outline drawing are similar in work-
manship. It is coarse but effective work.
81. Mantegna, Andrea. St. Sebastian. Perhaps the
* figure is a little over-modelled in the shoulders
and chest and a little slender in the legs, but it is a
fine figure, nevertheless, well realised in its quiver-
ing agony and effective in its sentiment. The
column at the back with the pilasters and broken
arches, the figure in relief in the angle, the broken
reliefs on the ground at the left, the marble pave-
ment are all excellent. The landscape at the back
is in no way inferior to the figure and architecture.
Notice the road and the distant city. The same
subject on a larger and grander scale appears in
the newly acquired Mantegna at the Louvre,
Paris. This Vienna picture does not live up to
the Paris picture, but it is, by itself considered, a
notable work.
52 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
Master of the Death of the Virgin. See Cleve,
Juste van.
764. Master of the Half-Figure. Portrait of a
Woman. It has what has been called a Clouet
look but is perhaps of Netherland extraction.
There is a feeling about it of refinement and ten-
derness— something of the "eternal womanly."
The face is pallid, perhaps from cleaning, and the
contours of the shoulders are hard. The colour is
unusual. Professor Wickhoff thinks the painter
identical with Jean Clouet.
676. Master of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin.
Flight into Egypt. There seems an unhappy mix-
up of expert ideas regarding the painter of certain
pictures of the Flight into Egypt, showing the Ma-
donna in blue, seated on a bank, with a basket near
her. Here one finds an attribution to the Master
of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin; elsewhere, at
Munich, Berlin, Brussels, pictures with the same
types and style of work are given to David, Patinir,
and Isenbrant. This Vienna picture is probably
of Patinir origin, in company with a number of
brown-blue landscapes which are here once more
confused by putting them under the name of Herri
met de Bles. The Master of the Seven Sorrows of
the Virgin is thought by M. Hulin de Loo to be
identical with Isenbrant — which is to say that he
belongs somewhere in the School of Gerard David.
603. Mazo, Juan Bautista del. The Artist's Family.
A picture that was long thought to be by Velasquez
but is now assigned to his pupil, Mazo. It is not
a good picture for Velasquez, but as a Mazo it be-
comes of some importance though hardly rising
to any great distinction. The room is fairly well
METSYS, JAN 53
done if brownish in its shadows. The figures are
too conscious, too much posed, a little black, and
ill drawn in the eyes, brows, hands, legs, and feet.
The small figures at the back hold their place but
are awkwardly arranged. In colour there is little
to admire. The table at the rear with the bust and
the flowers is as good as any part of the picture.
Injured by repainting.
635. Memling, Hans. Madonna and Child. This
* picture and its companion panels, Nos. 636, 637,
638, make up an important Memling triptych —
the most important of several Madonna triptychs,
the other versions being in London, Florence, and
Worlitz, as the catalogue indicates. It has Mem-
ling's fine feeling and tenderness and is wonderful
in its careful workmanship and its decorative de-
tail. Notice the architectural patterns, the arab-
esque of fruit, the pretty little landscapes. They
are all beautifully done. The two Johns of the
wings are now put together in one frame. They are
a bit coarsely done in heads, hands, and feet.
Adam and Eve are on the reverse of these wings
and are now separately framed. It is not possible
to say with certainty which of the several versions
of this triptych is the original. Weale thinks
them all done by Louis Boels.
1370A. Metsu, Gabriel. Noll Me Tangere. It has dig-
nity and good drawing in the figures, but the colour
is a bit sharp, the light dull, and the surfaces are
much too pretty, too much worked over. The
varnish makes the surface additionally glassy. No.
1370 is hardly by Metsu.
693. Metsys, Jan. Lot and His Daughters. The work-
manship here conforms to that in pictures ascribed
54 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
to Jan Metsys at Brussels (Nos. 297, 298), but there
is nothing remarkable about this picture except its
superficial elegance.
218. Moretto of Brescia. St. Justina. The figure of
** St. Justina is dignified, lofty, majestic — of a kind
and in a class with the St. Barbara of Palma Vec-
chio at Venice. What a beautiful dress she wears
and how superbly she wears it! The whole pic-
ture is of corresponding excellence. It is a pyram-
idal composition, the saint being supported on
either side by the donor and the unicorn. The
figures are well set on the canvas and thoroughly
well drawn. Notice the landscape, the mountain
village, the mountains themselves. The sky, light,
and silver tone are exactly right in every way.
This is a Moretto masterpiece than which he never
did a better. There is nothing finer elsewhere. It
was given at one time to Titian and then to Por-
denone, but it belongs where it is now placed.
786A. Moro, Antonio. Queen Anna of Spain. Impos-
ing in size and costume but a bit frail in physique
and presence. The costume, cap, jewellery, chair,
are all so much better done than the figure, face, and
hands. The personality is sacrificed, as sometimes
happens with the Moros, Pourbuses, and Coellos.
Much repainted.
789. Portrait of a Young Man. Perhaps the best
of the Moros here. The head is well drawn but
badly joined to the body; the hands, again, seem to
protrude prominently from the sleeves. There is
slight conviction about it. The portrait of the
Cardinal Granvella (No. 786) should be compared
with it for differences. Notice how high up on
the canvas the head of the Granvella is. placed.
ORLEY, BERNARD VAN 55
216. Moroni, Giovanni Battista. Portrait of a
Sculptor. It seems finer in the hands and wrists
than No. 217 but is not so good in the head. The
eyes are close together — perhaps too close. The
arm is powerfully drawn and the statuette (too
high in light) held in the sculptor's hands is cleverly
modelled and painted. The background is brown
and does not now recede but pushes up and clings
to the figure. Ascribed formerly to Titian and to
Pordenone.
217. Portrait of a Man. It is better than the aver-
age Moroni but not a masterpiece. The neck is
a little pinched and the figure is spare — the clothes
fitting tightly and giving the impression that the
head is too big for the body. The hands are
cramped. At the back a plaster wall and stone.
614. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. Infant John
the Baptist. It is something of a pity that this
Murillo is placed near the children's portraits by
Velasquez, for it is weak enough by itself and needed
not the inevitable comparison. It is too sweet in
sentiment but is fairly good in drawing and in the
painting of the sheep. But the colour of it be-
comes a mere brown smudge compared with the
two Velasquezes (Nos. 611 and 615). And what a
chalky, rather tawdry landscape and sky!
1261. Neer, Aart van der. Moonlight. A very good
effect of clouds and distance, all of the landscape
being good in tone — that is, justly and rightly seen
under one light.
765. Orley, Bernard van. Legend of St. Thomas.
The picture is separated by the ornate architectural
shaft in the centre though there is some attempt to
unite the two parts by the sky and landscape of
56 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
the background. The scene of the death of St.
Thomas at the left is very elaborate in architecture
and costume, to the harm of the figures, perhaps.
There is, however, some dramatic action in the
main group of figures, some sentiment, some feel-
ing. The colour is cool in blues. The right side
is of the same general character, only colder in the
blues and better in some of the background archi-
tecture. The wings of this altar-piece are in the
Brussels Gallery (No. 337).
766. Flight into Egypt. The figures are animated
and real enough in their pathos. The landscape is
interesting. Originally the panel was pointed at
the top and was, perhaps, the wing of a triptych.
It is probably school work.
1305A. Palamedes, Anthonie. Company Listening to
Music. It has the effect of yellow light, produced
probably by yellow varnish, but now very accept-
able. The colour is good and so, too, the painting,
even if the drawing does ramble a bit. Not cata-
logued, 1912.
134. Palma Vecchio. John the Baptist. The figure
stands well and is fairly well drawn despite the
womanish hips and waist. The legs and the light-
and-shade upon them are Palmesque but the rest
of the figure seems hardly characteristic. There is
difference of opinion about its being a Palma.
Morelli says yes, Crowe and Cavalcaselle, no. The
landscape is very good and the sky excellent.
133. Portrait of Young Woman. It is now chalky-
white from much cleaning. The colours are raw
and look as though laid in yesterday. The figure,
hands, neck, face are flattened by rubbing. A
handsome type for a sitter.
PALMA VECCHIO 57
136. Lucretia. The figure is somewhat confused
by the white drapery and the sentiment somewhat
marred by the theatrical pose and attitude. How
very close it is to the Decadence! How much it
has in common as regards its attitude and make-
believe spirit with pictures by Guido or Carlo
Maratta! But it is better done than their work
and has much charm of colour. It is a fine pic-
ture according to Crowe and Cavalcaselle, whereas
Wickhoff regards it as merely a Flemish copy of
the Borghese picture.
137. Portrait of a Young Girl. This is the so-
* called Violante (from the violet showing at her
bosom), and a beautiful type, dignified, refined,
yet full of youth and exuberant spirits. It is a
notable Palma, large in form, small and delicate in
facial features, right in feeling and sentiment. It
seems to have suffered from cleaning. The model-
ling and even the light and air have been hurt by
it. Notice the comparative flatness of the neck,
chest, sleeve, hand. The hair has been flattened,
too, and apparently repainted, and the eyes have
been spoiled. Yet it is still one of the noted Pal-
mas of this gallery.
141. Portrait of a Young Woman. The sitter here
is not so attractive in type as No. 137 but the pic-
ture is, perhaps, in a little better condition. It was
never very fine portraiture and there are those who
doubt Palma's having done it. The background
has been repainted and the figure somewhat rubbed.
142. Portrait of a Young Woman. It is a blonde
type in a black dress with white chemise. Being
ample in form as well as having yellow hair, it is
given to Palma, but the attribution is not at all
58 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
certain. The portrait is, however, a very good one
— in fact, better than some in this gallery that are
unquestionably by Palma.
143. Portrait of a Lady. It is rather agreeable in
colour but is smooth, even glassy in its surface. It
has probably been much greyed by scumbling and
repainting. Crowe and Cavalcaselle seem to think
it by Pordenone.
139. Visitation. Aside from the two central fig-
ures (they are graceful and attractive) the picture
seems badly composed, restless, rambling, and
empty. The figures do not fill the space; they are
not large enough for it. They run against one an-
other from opposite directions in a rather hopeless
way, and, of course, there is no repose about them.
The buildings at the right are jumbled and even
wrong in perspective and drawing (look at the
steps!) and the left side of the picture does not
agree with the right side as regards the back-
ground. The whole picture with its eager figures
is a little forced. Palma or his assistants had
difficulty in making it hold together and his colour
did not help him materially. It is spotted in the
robes and repainted.
140. Madonna, Child, and Saints. This is an arch
* composition which Palma used a number of times
in his conversation pieces. The types are select,
fairly well developed, with b'road draperies. The
repose and unity of this group are a strong con-
trast to the Visitation (No. 139). It is a contrast
also in colour, for here there is much beauty in the
brilliantly lighted robes and much depth in their
shadows. The picture has been skinned and is
now raw, but still the colours are not inharmonious
PARMIGIANINO (FRANCESCO MAZZOLA) 59
or the drawing wholly wrecked. Notice the fine
modelling of the St. John, or the well-drawn Child,
or the well-placed draperies. The group of trees
and the far-reaching landscape are both good. It
is an excellent Palma for all its injuries. In an-
other room Teniers gives this picture in one of his
gallery interiors and the colours show there much
darker than here.
207. The Bravo. It was originally put down in
the catalogue as a Giorgione; in 1912 it was a
Cariani; in 1913 it was given to Palma. What
will it be next year? It is to-day almost good
enough for a Giorgione. There is, however, a
coarse quality about it peculiar to Cariani. The
light-and-shade is good, as are also the colour and
the drawing. For Palma it is a strange perform-
ance. Possibly by the same hand that did No. 89
at St. Petersburg, there put down to Caprioli.
599. Pantoja de la Cruz, Juan. Portrait of the In-
fante Philip. The sliding floor, the hard table-
cloth, the poor curtain at the back, the white-
stocking legs and white face give the quality of
this portrait fairly well. The picked-out pattern
of the armour only serves to weaken and cheapen
the little man within it. No. 598 is of the same
quality and kind.
61. Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola). Portrait.
It is rather loosely drawn in the eyes, nose, hand,
but the general effect produced is fairly good.
67. Portrait of Malatesta Baglione. The archi-
tecture makes the man look gigantic in size and
the portrait is rendered more or less grotesque
thereby. The width across the elbows is too great
and the pattern on the canvas is diamond-shaped.
60 THt IMPERIAL GALLERY
The beard is bushy, the nose square, the eyes badly
drawn. It is not satisfactory.
62. The Bow Maker. Cupid making a bow — a
* picture unusual in subject as in colour and at one
time ascribed to Correggio. The figure is grace-
fully posed and very well drawn and the wings are
easily painted, showing how well the Decadents
could handle the pencil and brush even after taste
had left them. The flesh of the cupids at the
bottom is a little hot in colour.
665. Patinir, Joachim. Martyrdom of St. Catherine.
The picture is in the style or manner of Patinir.
Mr. W. Schmidt thinks it by Bles, which is not
probable unless all the present conceptions of
Bles are at fault. See the fine landscape and rock
drawing in No. 664 by Patinir.
666. Baptism of Christ. It is a signed work by
Patinir and there is no reason to doubt the genu-
ineness of the signature. It should be tentatively
accepted as a criterion of PatimYs style and method
and mental notes made of its water, mountains,
light, sky, trees, etc. The Flight into Egypt (No.
676), put down in this gallery to the Master of the
Seven Sorrows, is possibly by the same hand, cer-
tainly in the same school. Compare the two pic-
tures closely.
667. Flight into Egypt. A picture by some one
close to Patinir but probably not Bles. The owl
sign at the right lower corner means little. Neither
the figures nor the landscape seem related to Bles.
Compare this picture with No. 666.
1439. Pencz, Georg. Portrait of a Man. It never had
the penetration, the analysis, the synthesis, the
PERUGINO, PIETRO 61
high quality of the portraits hanging near it — nota-
bly the Diirer Maximilian. It is, however, a dig-
nified type given with sobriety and some skill.
Injured by retouching.
27. Perugino, Pietro. Madonna, Child, and Four
Saints. The poses of the heads repeat each other
rather monotonously. There are six heads, all of
them turned to the right, all of similar type, and
all oppressed by the same sentiment. And why
did the painter think it necessary to enclose the
group in that box or high railing, thereby cutting
out landscape and space — the two things in which
he so notably excelled? The boxed-in effect seems
unfortunate. Above the square one feels the depth
of the sky, and the colour is rather rich in the robes,
but one is conscious of the crowding of the figures
and the perfunctory nature of their grouping.
25. St. Jerome. The white robe of the Saint
shows mannered catches in the drapery. It is not
an important work. The serene landscape is much
the best part of it.
24. Baptism of Christ. The figures are tall and
slightly suggestive of the young Raphael, though
not round enough and much too flat in the hands,
wrists, and arms. The colour is very cold in blues
that run through the water, landscape, and sky. It
is possibly not a Perugino but a copy after him, as
Crowe and Cavalcaselle insisted.
32. Madonna, Child, and Two Saints. The
straight cross-lines of the neck-pieces are decidedly
disturbing. It gives the impression of the three
heads protruding above a given line. The types
are as usual with Perugino and also the sentiment.
62 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
The colour of the blue is especially crude. The
haloes have been injured. It is probably a work-
shop repetition of the Louvre picture (No. 1565)
with the exception of the figure at the left.
17. Piombo, Sebastiano del. Portrait of Cardinal
Pucci. It is a large portrait and hard in the draw-
ing of the nose, brows, eyes. As a Sebastiano it
will hardly meet with universal acceptance though
it is in his style.
69. Predis, Ambrogio da. Emperor Maximilian.
It provokes a contrast with the Diirer portrait of
the Emperor and to the advantage of the Diirer.
The Predis is flat in profile and looks somewhat like
a relief upon a coin or medal. Notice the failure
of the Golden Fleece collar to travel about the neck.
Nor is the character well grasped or the painting
well done. It was ascribed to Borgognone until
Morelli gave it its present parentage.
14. Previtali, Andrea. Holy Family. The^Madonna
is sweet in white head-dress and blue robe; she has
no depth and the colours have no quality. The
landscape (as usual with Previtali) is the better part
of the picture.
29. Raphael (Sanzio). Madonna in the Meadow.
* It has the defects and the qualities of Raphael's
early works, such as the Madonna of the Goldfinch
and the Belle Jardiniere, without being the equal
of either of those Madonnas. The pyramidal com-
position, the heavy eyelids, the light-and-shade, the
contours of St. John point to influences received from
Leonardo and Fra Bartolommeo. The serenity and
poise of the figures are Raphael's own contribution.
The figures are well drawn save for the lower part
REMBRANDT VAN RYN 63
of the Madonna, and they are well held together
in the group, though the group is not well related
to the landscape. It is like a flat silhouette in the
foreground and has no third dimension. The fore-
ground and background are too sharp in their con-
trasts of blue and brown and the straight line of the
distance cutting across the Madonna shoulders is
rather disturbing. In the figures, again, the col-
our of the red dress is in keeping with the blue
overdress but not with the colour of the landscape.
The outline of the Madonna seems hard not only
in the shoulders and neck but in her blue robe.
This is due to the use of heavy impasto in the fig-
ure and thin painting in the background. But all
this is small criticism of a really good picture. The
foreground and the distance, separately considered,
are excellent — something that may be said with
equal truth regarding the figures.
1271 \ Rembrandt van Ryn. Portraits of a Man and
1272 j Woman. There is little about either portrait to
suggest Rembrandt save in a general way. They
are too prettily done, too smooth, too clear in il-
lumination for Rembrandt. He hardly did that
white linen or those rosy faces or patterned sleeves
or pallid backgrounds. Moreover, he was never
so flabby mentally, so agreeably complacent as
these portraits indicate. To be sure, they have
been repainted and have, perhaps, been changed
thereby, but even so, there is small indication of
Rembrandt in them now. The handling is not his
and the hands are his only superficially.
1273. Rembrandt's Mother. We may dismiss the
little fiction of this being Rembrandt's mother as
in other galleries the misstatements of the cata-
64 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
logues about Rembrandt's various relations, wives,
and affinities. We know little about the look of
any of them. As for this picture, if it is of Rem-
brandt origin it should of itself refute the attribu-
tions of Nos. 1271 and 1272 hanging on either side
of it. Any one can see that the pictures are by
different painters. But the alleged Rembrandt's
Mother is little more characteristic of Rembrandt
than the others. It is small and much pinched
in the drawing. The old woman of it is well rep-
resented, though exaggerated in the matter of
wrinkles, sore eyes, and bent figure. The greyed
linen is rather good, the head-dress with its cast
shadow and the brooch equally so. The fur of the
coat, the hands, and the background have been
wrecked evidently by attempts at cleaning with
alcohol. The head-dress is retouched and the whole
picture has been injured in its surface, which may ac-
count for a mouldy, brownish colouring that is now
omnipresent. It is a puzzling picture, but it looks
like a varied copy or possibly a school piece of some
sort. Another alleged Rembrandt of his mother
is here, in Vienna, in the Czernin Collection.
1268. Portrait of Rembrandt. A possible portrait
of the master probably made by one of his pupils
and not at all well made. It is inconceivable that
Rembrandt should paint himself so many times
and each time so differently, with a different point
of view and handling. The variance in the por-
traits is explicable if we regard them as attempts
to do the master (or some model that we now call
Rembrandt) by his various pupils. Here, for in-
stance, we have him with narrow, misfit eyes, an
ill-drawn nose, an over-modelled upper lip, an uncer-
tain second chin, a sharp cheek line at the right, a
REMBRANDT VAN RYN 65
corrugated forehead, and a slash of brown paint at
the top of it for a shadow. To go no further, who
can believe Rembrandt guilty of such work? The
hot, foxy colouring and the loaded but ineffective
pigments are only superficially like those of Rem-
brandt. What more natural than that the pupil
should ape the master's effects — even his defects?
1269. Young Reader. Said in the catalogue to be
Rembrandt's son Titus, following the suggestion
of Dr. Bode, who has done so much to build up
likenesses of the Rembrandt family out of his fer-
tile imagination. The sitter was only a model and
was used by Bol for his angel in the Berlin Gallery
(No. 828) and the Amsterdam Gallery (No. 552).
He painted the young man's likeness also at Berlin
(No. 809 A). The likeness is here slightly varied
but it is the same model. This picture is possibly
by Bol not because of the model, but because of
the handling, colour, light. Compare the portrait
with Nos. 1268, 1272, and 1273, and here in this
gallery you have the work of four different hands
under Rembrandt's name. If you consider No.
1276 as a Rembrandt you have five different styles.
Was there ever such a gallery mix-up! Notice the
bad hand, the sharp chin, the muddy hair and coat
in this No. 1269.
1270. The Apostle Paul. It is in Rembrandt's man-
ner and the model is one that Rembrandt used,
but the picture is possibly by the painter of No.
1279 across the way put down to Flinck, but by
some other imitator of Rembrandt. Compare the
pictures by beginning with the beards, the eyes,
the foreheads. The No. 1279 is apparently in Rem-
brandt's grey manner and the No. 1270 in his more
66 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
golden manner — the imitator following the master
in each style.
1274. Portrait of the Painter. Compare this por-
trait with No. 1268 — both said to be likenesses of
the master — for the drawing, placing, and width
apart of the eyes. In this feature alone is it pos-
sible that the painter could see and paint himself
so differently? This is a better picture than No.
1268, but it has the brown smudge for a shadow
and the uncertain, dragged surface of a pupil rather
than of the master. For a resume of Rembrandt's
styles, see the notes on the Rembrandts at Berlin,
The Hague, and the Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
1276. Head of a Man. It is probably an unfinished
head by some one like Flinck. It belongs with the
David before Saul at The Hague and is not unlike
it in the fumbled handling.
219. Romanino, II (Girolamo Roman!) . Portrait of
a Lady. A very good little portrait, well drawn,
and like a Giorgione in the forehead, nose, brows,
mouth, flesh colour, but it lacks Giorgione's spirit.
There is a fine colour quality about it and it is
excellent portraiture without being by Giorgione
or Romanino. The catalogue queries the attribu-
tion. It belongs apparently in the Veronese School.
834. Rubens, Peter Paul. Votive Picture of the
*** Brotherhood of St. Ildefonso. The large Rubens
pictures in this gallery are much confused by being
given in the lump to Rubens, with little discrimina-
tion between school works and those done by the
master's own hand. A single glance at the St.
Ildefonso picture and then a glance across the gal-
lery at the large Xavier and Loyola pictures (Nos.
860 and 865) must suggest that the first picture is
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 67
by a different hand from the last two. In the
matter of colour alone, how much more brilliant,
glowing, ringing is the St. Ildefonsol The rich reds
and golds are in themselves a measurable proof of
Rubens's brush, for none of his pupils could quite
reach up to such colours even with the master's
palette in their hands. Take the matter of the
composition and again you have something that
only Rubens was capable of producing. The cen-
tral panel is arranged as a ring of figures about the
Madonna — the round, shell-like arch at the back
completing the ring and leading the eye up to the
three soaring cherubs. There you discover a larger
ring, of which the cherubs are the top, circling the
whole panel and making a round pattern upon an
upright, the throne steps being the flat base upon
which it rests. In the side panels you will notice
that the Archduke and the Archduchess with the
saints back of them are looking up at the Ma-
donna and that the diagonal lines of their kneeling
figures and their robes are repeated in the curtains.
These figures and curtains with their diagonal lines
not only support the central panel but give it life
and movement by suggesting an even larger circle,
or rather half circle, of which they are the outside
edge. They apparently help the movement of the
cherubs above, seem to push them from left to right,
and in that way again suggest action in the central
group from left to right about the Madonna. Now,
this is all done in a masterful way, without strain
or exertion, and results in a feeling not only of sup-
port by the wings but movement, life, and, above
all, unity in the whole altar-piece. No one in
Rubens's school could do such work — or, at least,
never did. It took his master mind to think it
68 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
out. Take up now the drawing and painting of
single figures. Notice the young girl in white on
the steps in front of the Madonna. She is the first
object to catch the eye and lead up to the Madonna.
How beautifully she stands! How well the figure
is done, with the exception of the neck and shoulder
which have been injured I How well the white is
painted and kept down in light I How true the
hair and the flowers! The beautiful figures at the
back are just as perfect in their painting, only their
fine heads and hands and rich garments are now
somewhat hurt by retouching. The Madonna is,
perhaps, less beautiful than her attendants and the
kneeling saint is only a foil to the rest of the figures.
The cherubs at the top are somewhat hurt but still
keep their place and serve their purpose very well.
The whole central panel has been injured by clean-
ing and repainting. The side panels with the strips
of wood running up and down instead of across seem
to be in better shape as regards the figures at least.
Notice the head of the Archduke; how beautifully
it is done ! What an ermine robe, collar, and crown I
What splendid armour in its light and texture!
Finally, notice the well-drawn hands, the bulk of
the figure, and its placing on the panel as a kneeling
figure. The saints at the back and the curtains are
subordinated in both of the side panels. The Arch-
duchess is just as noble in figure as the Archduke.
She is a superb type in magnificent robes. How
majestic they both are — how truly regal! The
triptych is most impressive in its splendour. It is
the best large example of Rubens in the gallery or,
for that matter, in existence anywhere. We must
judge the other large Rubenses here by this exam-
ple. It is a masterpiece of pictorial rhetoric.
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 69
841. Charles the Bold. In sheer brilliancy of col-
* our there is nothing in the gallery comparable to
this save its pendant picture (No. 832). It quite
agrees with the large altar-piece (No. 834) next it
though now more sparkling. Perhaps this latter
is due to its better condition, it being smaller, on
wood, and not scumbled over or greyed by repaint-
ing. Look closely at the brush-work and the easy
but sure manner of its doing will be immediately
apparent. There never was a surer brush than
that of Rubens. And what a superb piece of
drawing! What a perfect welter of colour! No-
tice the robes, the armour, the curtain. Even the
sky serves to help on the colour scheme. Nor is it
all merely decorative splendour. The personality
of the sitter is prodigious. What a powerful hand,
arm, figure! What brute force in the face! It is
not only a glorious piece of colour but a fine por-
trait, for all that it was done out of the painter's
head. Let those who think it theatrical bombast
or mere pictorial rhetoric scoff as they may, they
cannot deny its fitness for its purpose. Both por-
traits were painted for a royal pageant and were
consequently laid in with brilliant colours. But
with the Antwerp parade dead and gone, the por-
traits are still marvels here on gallery walls beside
subtler portraits done carefully for close inspection.
832. Emperor Maximilian. Parts of this portrait
* are quite as brilliant as No. 841. The colour from
the waist down is very high in key and laid on with
the flat of the brush. Look at it closely. There is
brilliancy in the glitter of the wonderfully painted
armour, in the helmet with its twisted cloth of red,
white, and blue, in the red curtain. The sky and
landscape are put in in cool colours to temper the
7© THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
reds, but it is, perhaps, not so satisfactory as the
sky in No. 841. The painting and the drawing are
free and true in almost every respect. The face
and nose are not very satisfactory because the
Emperor had something of a nose to reckon with;
but how well the right side of the face is handled
under shadow! Notice also the contrast between
the right and the left sleeve of armour under shadow
and light. The character of the man is not so im-
posing as that of Charles the Bold but is still impres-
sive considering that Rubens did it out of his head.
The picture is very glittering and perhaps too bril-
liant for sober portraiture, but, like the Charles the
Bold, it was not designed for that. It was painted
for a pageant, a triumphal procession, not a gallery
wall. But, even so, why should portraiture seem
to require only drabs and sombre greys? Rubens
was a picture-maker first and foremost and believed
in a full palette of colour.
865. St. Ignatius Loyola Healing the Possessed.
A huge canvas painted for a Jesuit church at Ant-
werp and largely executed by Rubens's pupils. It
is school work which he designed and they carried
out. It lacks his brilliancy of touch and colour
though fairly well done. It is a pyramidal compo-
sition with a circle indicated in the lower figures.
The upper part of the picture at the left gives
space but leaves a feeling of emptiness also. Some
of the figures — the Magdalen type at the centre,
for instance — are well drawn. The sketch for the
picture is on the wall beside it (No. 862). The
sketch is much paler in colour, as was the habit of
Rubens, but the difference in the quality of col-
our between the sketch and the picture is very
apparent.
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 71
860. St. Francis Xavier Preaching. This picture is
similar to No. 865 in being designed by Rubens and
largely executed by pupils. The drawing of it has
been carried out better than the painting. The
colour is duller than usual with Rubens. The com-
position is balanced by groups on either side but
again suggests the circle upon the upright. Notice
the huge figure with the foreshortened arm and
hand at the right and the kneeling woman in blue
in the centre. The sketch for the picture is on the
wall beside it (No. 863). The pallor of the sketch
and the difference in its colour quality are again
noticeable.
861. Assumption of the Virgin. This picture, done
* for a Jesuit church at Antwerp, is on wood and
has still some bright colour about it. It is probably
school work, with the master's brush apparent in
some finishing touches, perhaps. The upper half is
a circle of the Madonna and cherubs, which is sup-
ported by the group of apostles at the bottom.
This group circles upward at the sides and comple-
ments as well as supports the upper circle. The two
parts do not agree very well, the upper being too
light in key for the lower — something, perhaps,
brought about by restoration. There is, however,
good motion, good drawing, and some splendour of
robe. The putti or cherubs are a trifle pretty as
also the three women below. The picture is badly
injured above the head of the apostle in red and
across the centre — injured, perhaps, in the fire in
the Antwerp church in 1718. It was also sawn
into three sections when taken to Paris in 1809.
866. Ferdinand of Hungary and the Infante Ferdi-
nand at Nordlingen. It is a decorative piece done
72 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
sketchily and hastily for that Antwerp street pag-
eant in 1635 by Rubens's pupils. Rubens may
have given it a lick and a rub, but even that is
not now indicated.
871. Holy Family under the Apple-Tree. The
picture is by Rubens and his pupils but it is now
injured by restoration. The Madonna and Child
are less interesting than St. Anne and the little St.
John, and perhaps the apples and the apple-tree
are the best pieces of painting left in the picture.
The head of St. Anne is excellent. The sheep will
not do. Compare it with the lamb in No. 840.
The landscape is superior to the average Wildens
landscape usually foisted upon Rubens in European
galleries. The whole picture is the reverse of the
wings of the St. Ildefonso altar-piece (No. 834)
now joined together in one panel.
858. Hunt of the Caledonian Boar. It will not
pass muster as a Rubens in either thinking or paint-
ing unless we believe Rubens capable of such stu-
pidities as the dog clinging to the tree trunk, the
man at back riding the hobby-horse, the com-
panion horseman riding the air, the crude sky, and
the cruder landscape. It is by some pupil or fol-
lower— possibly Wildens.
857. The Four Rivers. A decorative piece with
some good colour wrung from the treatment of the
flesh, the shadows of which are red and make for
warmth. There is also some good modelling in the
backs, arms, and legs, and some fairly good paint-
ing in the heads of the two nymphs at the right.
It is of Rubens origin but not entirely by his hand.
It shows traces of the workshop. Wildens is made
responsible for the landscape by the catalogue.
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 73
849 1 Ferdinand of Hungary and the Cardinal In-
851 J fante Ferdinand. Two decorative portraits done
merely for Antwerp street decoration in 1635, in
the Rubens workshop. There is little indication of
Rubens in or about them. See the note on No. 866.
850. St. Ambrosias and the Emperor Theodosius.
There is a look of Van Dyck's brush and drawing
in the head between that of the Bishop and the
Emperor, as in the heads at the right; also in the
Bishop's hands. Probably Van Dyck as a pupil
or assistant worked upon the picture, but the de-
sign of it and the final touch of it are from Rubens's
own hand. Van Dyck did hotter and darker flesh,
duller colour, poorer robes. The boy's white dress
at the right may be his, but not the boy's head and
hair, not the red robe and armour of the Emperor.
There has been some underwork by the pupil and
some overwork by the master to make up a not
very interesting picture. The reduced copy in the
National Gallery, London (No. 50), is ascribed to
Van Dyck.
833. Repentant Magdalen. Study for a moment
the anatomy of the Magdalen's lower limbs, her
shoulder and arms, the hands and wrists of the
evilly disposed creature at the back, or the dread-
ful red curtain. It is only some cheap work by
an indifferent follower of Rubens. It is not by
the master.
842. Annunciation. This picture is usually set
down as the earliest of all the Rubenses and is
said to have been done before 1600 — before Rubens
went to Italy. This is not probable because the
composition here is taken from Baroccio's Annun-
ciation in the Uffizi at Florence — a painter from
74 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
whose pictures Rubens learned much in colour and
handling. The work was probably done during
Rubens's first year in Italy. It is as superficial in
its colour as in its facility of handling. The angel
is the better part of it. Not a remarkable work in
any way.
843. Cytnon and Iphigenia. It is an indifferent
school piece. The work is timid and uncertain all
through the picture as you may see by close ex-
amination. Begin with the crude landscape and
cheaply painted trees of the background. Compare
the tree and the fruit upon it with the apple-tree in
No. 871. Then study that dreadfully drawn peas-
ant or the bizarre fountain. The three sleeping
figures are not so bad, but the flesh lacks colour
quality just as much as the red and blue robes
under the figures. It makes no difference about the
picture coming from the Duke of Buckingham's
collection. That is no proof or guarantee of genu-
ineness. Wildens and Snyders are credited with
the accessories, and they might as well have the
whole picture, for all the Rubens one can see in it.
840. Infant Christ with St. John and Two Children.
It is probably by Rubens but is cleaned and re-
painted in the faces, arms, and hands. The hair
is now a little coarse and wiry. It is well drawn
and still a fine bit of colour. The grapes and apples
are said to be by Snyders. Another version at
Berlin.
830. The Cult of Venus. Rubens no doubt designed
this picture, and the work of his brush may be
somewhere hidden under the present surface, but
there is little of the surface that now speaks for
him or his technique. The sky and landscape have
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 75
a greyish scumble, the flesh colour is chalky, the
foliage is woolly, the hair is matted and tangled
with paint, the fruit has little purity left to it.
The glass over the picture gives it a certain tone and
richness that are deceptive. It is by no means
badly planned or drawn. In fact, the design, the
landscape, the whirl of figures are excellent. The
group at the left, for instance, is really superb and
the ring of cupids on the ground is effective in life,
motion, grace, charm, but for all that we see Rubens
only through a glass darkly.
868. The Hermit and the Sleeping Angelica.
There is nothing but the lumpy figure — its drawing
— to suggest Rubens. The brush-work is not his.
It looks like a rubbed school copy. Not even the
name of being in the Duke of Buckingham's collec-
tion can make it a Rubens. Look at the crude
handling of the whites. The drawing is loose but
effective enough.
869. Stormy Landscape. Here is a landscape
* worthy of Rubens in its conception and in its
painting. It should be carried in memory to
London and compared with the large landscapes
in the National Gallery (No. 66) and the Wallace
Collection (No. 62). They are rather far removed
from this landscape in style and method. This
picture is slightly panoramic, but please observe
that it is in tone, under one light, with no spotty
high lights, or crude sky, or raw distance, or ill-
drawn figures. It is held together, easily painted,
truly drawn in the trees, rocks, clouds. Notice
how well the rocky height with the castle in the
middle distance is done. Notice also the doing of
the rainbow and the waterfall at the left. The
76 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
picture, in connection with a recently acquired
landscape by Rubens in the National Gallery,
London (No. 2924), should be used as a criterion of
Rubens's landscapes. It is a very different affair
from the landscapes of Wildens or Van Uden origin
that pass for Rubenses elsewhere.
864. Dead Christ with Madonna and St. John.
* The work is entirely by Rubens's hand but is now
glaring and rather raw owing to the flaying of the
surface by injudicious cleaning. Look closely at
it and you will see that the final delicate touches
that count for so much in modelling, light, colour,
texture have been swept away. The jaw lines of
both the Madonna and St. John are now hard, the
neck shadows are grey, the red robe is crude, the
blue robe is spotted, the finely modelled figure of
Christ is flattened. What a pity! Here is a pic-
ture not only of masterful skill but of great feeling
hopelessly damaged by careless cleaning-room
methods.
839. Pieta. There are other versions of this pic-
ture at Antwerp (No. 319) and in the Liechtenstein
Gallery. This example seems a little pretty in its
doing of the women's heads, as though some late
and weak follower had been copying Rubens. Yet
it has none of the weakness of Van Balen, none
of the glassy slipperiness of Seghers. Signed and
dated in 1614, but for all that it is somewhat ques-
tionable.
837. The Castle Park. It is a nice bit of colour and
not a bad landscape, but with little about it to in-
dicate Rubens. The trees show too much igno-
rance of structure, the figures too much ignorance
of anatomy, for Rubens. The fact that the figure
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 77
at the left with the stick is supposed to be Rubens's
self might suggest a pupil's work rather than the
master's.
835. Hero Crowned by Victory. Rubens varied
this theme several times, and this may be a sketch
for something never carried out, but it does not
now show the handling of Rubens. Besides, the
flesh is too hot for him. A very good sketch who-
ever did it, and it may be by Rubens in spite of
contradictory features.
829. Helene Fourment in a Fur Pelisse. This is a
*** portrait of the painter's second wife, Helene Four-
ment, done when Rubens was about fifty-five years
old, and beyond a doubt entirely by his own hand.
We should judge as much from the nudity of the
sitter even if there were not documentary as well
as internal evidence of its being by Rubens's own
hand. The picture has been hurt a little by clean-
ing, and has been retouched about the hands, arms,
and face and injured under the arm, but it is still
in its surface handling a complete denial of any
notion that Rubens in later life ever did any clumsy
or bungling work. He died at sixty-three and you
can see his own portrait in the next room (No. 859),
done at about sixty-one, which is just as sure and
true in touch as this portrait of Helene.
Never mind now about conjuring up Greek types
or thinking about sleeping Venuses by Titian or
Giorgione, but look at this picture as an exact, un-
idealised rendering of a Flemish beauty of the Ru-
bens time. Stand back and study a moment the
luminous flesh, the fine, girlish face, the splendid
dark setting of the black pelisse. If you have theo-
ries of art founded on tactile values, what prevents
78 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
your applying them here as well as to the figures of
Michelangelo or Raphael? Is not this figure just
as touchable, just as actual, just as real in the third
dimension, or in the first or second, as any figure by
any Renaissance Italian? What perfect flesh it is I
The figure is a little fat, a little flabby and wanting
in muscle. The arms are soft, the hands equally
so, the knees a little bruised and red from kneeling,
the feet and toes a little distorted from wearing
shoes. There is no attempt to disguise these fea-
tures. The painter is telling the absolute truth, un-
abashed and unashamed. As a result, what convic-
tion the figure brings with it ! The very stiffness and
awkwardness of the legs — the strain upon them —
makes the figure stand well; the bulk of the shoul-
der, the push out of the stomach gives weight. You
can't get away from the positive truth of it. Nor
from the beauty of it. It is the result of a trained
eye and an unerring hand working upon an object
that the painter loved. It could not be otherwise
than beautiful. Some portions of the fur were
merely indicated and some (along the hip) have
been retouched by a later hand. There is, too,
some appearance of repainting in the hair, but these
are minor matters. Notice the embroidered bor-
ders of the pelisse, or the tassel on the red cushion
if you imagine that at fifty-five Rubens's hand had
lost its cunning. This picture, in connection with
the painter's own portrait (No. 859), is the criterion
for all Rubens's later portrait work wherever seen.
859. Portrait of the Painter. Done when Rubens
** was evidently about sixty-one years of age and a
little later than the Helene Fourment (No. 829).
His hand had not failed in the least but at sixty-
one he did not bother much with small details. In
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 79
this picture, for instance, he indicated the gloved
hand and was not too particular about the un-
gloved one. But in the face nothing is skimped or
neglected. The old man in him is now becoming
apparent. He has shrunk a little from his earlier
portrait with Isabella Brandt in the Munich Gal-
lery (No. 782). The face is somewhat weazened
and drawn, grown flabby in the cheeks, a little
baggy under the eyes, a little small and dull in the
eyes themselves, with some wrinkles about the
neck and chin and a flushed colour on the face.
From his hand and face in this portrait a physician
might diagnose a case of gout — the disease from
which Rubens afterward died. How remorselessly
he sets down all of these features, just as he painted
the pulpy knees and distorted feet of his wife,
Helene Fourment! He will not tell a falsehood
about things so intimate and personal to themselves.
There they are, and that is the way they looked,
whether you like the look or not. But you cannot
help liking both of them. This portrait of Rubens
shows a man of great intelligence with an aristo-
cratic bearing and a sense of poise or aplomb.
How quietly and dignified he stands there, dressed
like a gentleman, with a wonderful white ruff, a
black hat and cloak, his hand resting on his sword!
How the hat and its shadow, the hair and its curl,
the beard and moustache, the flesh-notes, the dark
robe are given! There is no better portraiture
than this. The face and figure are just as perfect
after their kind as anything done by Titian or
Velasquez. And do you notice that here Rubens
abandons the bright colours of his Charles the
Bold, and even the more sober tints of less decora-
tive work, and now drifts into greys, whites, and
blacks like old Frans Hals at Haarlem?
80 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
855. Man with Grey Hair and Beard. A sketchy
* portrait but excellent in every way. It is almost
perfect in its modelling of the forehead, nose,
eyes, and mouth. Evidently a late portrait and
done in the style of No. 859, the ruff and the fur
collar giving a little more colour. What a ruff it
is and how well the head settles into it! The
handling is free but not careless or ineffective.
Every stroke counts and means something in the
general effect.
874. Portrait of a Woman. This portrait was
cleaned until the necklace and linen had almost
disappeared and then clumsily repainted. It is
doubtful if Rubens ever had anything to do with it.
836 1 Portraits of Men. Two excellent portraits
838 / sketchily done in the manner of No. 855 but very
* effective, truthful, and decorative as colour. They
have the truth of a master mind and the quality
of a master brush. They are virile, living, per-
sonal, positive. Stand back in the middle of the
room and see how splendidly they are modelled,
lighted, painted.
844. Titian's Daughter Lavinia. This is a sup-
posed copy by Rubens of the Titian in the Dresden
Gallery (No. 170). The copy is much better pre-
served than the original and contains small details
now lost in the Dresden picture. It is also said
to be a copy of what is catalogued as a Paolo Vero-
nese in the Bosch Collection, Madrid.
845. Isabella d'Este. To be compared with the
supposed Titian original (No. 163) in the Italian
section of this gallery for the variation of the copy-
ist. The conclusion must be that the variation is
too great. The Rubens copy is surely from an-
SARTO, ANDREA DEL 81
other portrait of Isabella. Whether it is a good
or bad copy as regards faithfulness to the original
no one can say. It is now more remarkable for
its wonderful reds than its characterisation though
it is not lacking in individuality.
873. Isabella of Spain. There is nothing about it
to point to Rubens. It is doubtful if he ever saw
the picture.
878A. Rubens, School of. Holy Family. It is too
pretty in the surfaces, the flesh, the robes for Ru-
bens, but is very likely a picture after Rubens by
some such person as Gerard Seghers who worked
in this style.
1337. Ruisdael, Jacob van. Landscape. A huge,
rather dark, and somewhat prosaic Ruisdael that
breaks down both as convention and as decoration.
It is wearisome.
39. Sarto, Andrea del. Pieta. The composition is
an oval on a square — the placing of three upright
figures in contrast and yet in accord with a re-
cumbent figure. The whole group is well placed
on the panel but there the virtues of the picture
seem to end. All of the figures push out of the
picture because there is no atmospheric setting.
The dead Christ is rather well done, but, generally
speaking, the drawing is angular — knotty in the
knuckles of the hands, cramped in the feet. Again,
all the right eyes seem to be "off " in drawing and
the background seems to be "off" in tone and in
hue. The colour is crude in blues, greens, yellows,
orange. The picture has been hurt and is now an
inferior Andrea. The workshop picture (No. 42)
seems better than this genuine example.
82 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
208. Savoldo, Girolamo. Entombment. It is fairly
well drawn but too smooth in surface. The figure
of Christ is rather good though distorted in the ribs
and badly wrenched in the hips. The attendant
figures are mediocre. The distance in hill and sky
is excellent.
213. Aristotle ? As a single figure it is not bad nor
yet very good. It is one of those many figures in
Italian art about which one does not say anything
in either praise or blame. The dress is dark green,
the flesh red. Formerly known as a Palma.
1435 \ Schauffelein, Hans Leonhard. Portraits of a
1437 J Man and a Woman. A pair of portraits very easily
and surely done by a man who understood the craft
of portrait-painting very well. The personality of
the woman is the more attractive. Notice the
outline of the face and the doing of the hair. The
colour is a little monotonous.
261. Schiavone, Andrea. Adoration of Shepherds.
It is excellent in colour and with a fine setting of
suggested landscape. It has been badly treated,
which has not hurt the general colour effect, though
it has rather wrecked the drawing. Now little
more than decorative colour with a hint at the sub-
ject of the Adoration.
1490. Schongauer, Martin. Holy Family. What a
* very charming bit of colour! The drawing is a
little sharp and the drapery perhaps angular —
wanting in simplicity and largeness after the man-
ner of German painters of the period — but as a
whole the work is excellent.
51. Sodoma, II (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi). Holy
Family. It seems a poor, decadent affair not only
STRIGEL, BERNHARD 83
in sentiment but in workmanship. The drawing
and colour are weak. It is disagreeable in its blue
and red robes, its whitewashed flesh. The harsh-
ness of the light and colour swamp any attempt
at good drawing.
82A. Solario, Andrea. Head of John Baptist. A
new picture in the gallery. It is sharply drawn
and smoothly painted, with the result of a hard,
tin-like surface. It is not a good Solario.
620. Spanish School. Portrait of a Boy. This por-
trait probably came out of the Sanchez Coello
workshop but is a good deal better than the usual
products of that shop. It has life about it, is well
drawn, and is good in colour. Look at the table-
cloth and the fruit upon it. How well they are
done!
1304. Steen, Jan. Peasant Wedding-Feast. The boy
with the warming-pan, the bride, the mother are
well enough done, but the picture is not a first-rate
Steen. It is one of his pot-boilers containing clever
spots here and there.
1305. Gay Life. It is a large picture but not well
painted. The room is poorly rendered and the
figures in it carelessly done. Look closely at the
painting of the young woman's dress. Moreover,
the picture is deficient in both light and colour.
Somewhat hurt by repainting.
1425. Strigel, Bernhard. Emperor Maximilian and
Family. The picture is, perhaps, more important
historically for the people painted than the work
of the painter, howbeit it is well done and doubt-
less with much fidelity to the originals. The blue
landscape makes a decorative ground for the fig-
ures.
84 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
1426. Emperor Maximilian I. It is much more of
a picture than No. 1425 and more of a portrait.
It is beautifully painted in the hair, cap, chain,
robe, and has a fine landscape.
1428. King Ludwig II as a Child. The best of all
these small portraits of royalty. It is not only
excellent as portraiture but very lovely as colour.
The fine blue ground, the hair, the fillet of flowers,
the dress, the jewels are all noteworthy. As a
colour scheme the picture is captivating. And for
delicate line drawing nothing could be more per-
fect. Look at the outline of the cheek and chin
or the drawing of the eyes and nose.
1429. Emperor Maximilian I. A handsome por-
trait in colour, character, drawing, but it has not
the quality or delicacy of No. 1428.
1155. Teniers the Younger, David. Abraham's Offer-
ing. An important Teniers and extremely well
done for so large a picture. The sentiment of it
is very good. The drawing in the Abraham is not
the best but this is atoned for by colour. Isaac
in white is the central spot in the picture. The
sky is unusual for Teniers. The realism of the
bundle of sticks is worth noting. Several features
of this picture seem to point to the influence of
Steen — a younger painter.
1366. Terborch, Gerard. Apple-Peeling. What a
charming home-life scene out of Holland, with the
mother (a widow?) peeling apples and the inter-
ested child looking up at her askance! And what
fine apples in that perfect china dish! The fig-
ures are well done and the whole picture is most
attractive in colour, light, and air. Perhaps the
TINTORETTO, JACOPO 85
blue table-cloth is a bit jarring. The picture has
the quality and some of the look of a Vermeer of
Delft.
243A. Tintoretto, Domenico. The Doge Nicolb da
Ponte. It is possibly the same sitter as shown in
No. 256. The ducal robes are voluminous and
enfolding, with great, wave-like loops. The cap
glitters like a ruby. The head is well drawn. Evi-
dently much repainted.
256. Portrait of a Procurator of St. Mark. The
drawing is not very sure and the portrait has been
harmed by repainting, and yet it is still very much
in the Tintoretto style though not by Jacopo Tin-
toretto. A good portrait.
257, Portrait of Young Man with Red Beard. The
type is a fine one, but the work seems rather care-
lessly done. The hands, face, and beard are oddly
painted, which means that they have probably been
repainted.
254. Tintoretto, Jacopo (Robusti). Hercules and
Omphale. The composition is somewhat scattered
over the canvas, and the centre is empty of lead-
ing figure or strong light. The result is a distri-
bution rather than a centralisation of interest.
The nude figures at right and left are graceful, but
they are too small in type for Tintoretto. The
work is probably by some pupil.
417. St. Jerome. If this is by the younger Palma
* (so given in 1912) it must be accounted one of his
masterpieces. The difficulty in accepting such an
attribution is that it outdoes any other perform-
ance of his. It is nearer to Tintoretto. The head
is the weak feature of it, and the modelling of the
86 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
figure wants in that vigour and accent such as Tin-
toretto gave; but it may have been prettified by
restorations. The flesh in its clearness and lumi-
nosity is excellent, the setting and the colour are
both good, and the landscape is fine. [Since this
note was written — but before its publication — the
attribution has been changed and the picture as-
signed to Tintoretto.]
236. Portrait of Sebastiano Veniero. This is a
picture portrait and the necessity of telling about
the battle of Lepanto at the back (Veniero was the
admiral in command there) probably led to the
portrait being somewhat sacrificed to the story of
the fight. It suffers from a lack of simplicity.
Moreover, the head is now flat and cheaply painted,
while the armour is also coarsely done, protrusive,
and glittering. The colour is a little raw, and the
sea and sky are raw, too. It looks like a copy.
244. Man in Armour. The armour is very brilliant
in the high lights and glitters somewhat like that
in the Veniero portrait (No. 236). It is somewhat
weak and over-smooth in handling for Tintoretto,
though it is in his style. Notice the poor handling
of the beard, or, for that matter, the armour.
239. Susanna and the Elders. The drawing of the
* figure is large and comprehensive, but not so lumpy
as the Susanna of the Louvre (No. 1464). The
light-and-shade of the figure is also excellent, and
the flesh is remarkable for its whiteness, its lumi-
nosity. It is a fine figure and almost startling in its
brilliancy of light. There, however, the interest
in the picture ends. The composition is cut in two
by the trellis of vines, around which one of the
elders is looking, and the landscape on either side
TINTORETTO, JACOPO 87
of the trellis is unbelievable because unrelated to
the other side. There are too many disturbing
objects in the picture. Moreover, the surface has
been much cleaned, which may account for some
of the present whiteness of the figure of Susanna.
Notice the glitter of the silver vase.
239A. The Philosopher. A tall figure with a small
head and a large, freely handled robe. It is an
odd Tintoretto — the head being curious in its
placing on the body and the figure filling the niche
with some strain at originality of pose. The color
is very good, the hand and the feet well drawn,
and the robe handsomely disposed. A new picture
in the gallery. The same hand did the Tintoretto in
the Metropolitan Museum, New York (No. T49-2).
224. Portrait of Marc Antonio Barbara. It is a
strong head, and there is a back to the head — a
third dimension. The hands are also well drawn.
The fur-lined robe is excellent in colour, though
the red sleeves are, perhaps, unduly striped with
high lights and made uneasy thereby. Formerly
ascribed to Paolo Veronese and it is not now exactly
at home under the name of Tintoretto. But it is
a good portrait.
241. Apollo and the Muses. Graceful but a trifle
thin for Tintoretto. The same subject was re-
peated a number of times by members of Tinto-
retto's School, and this is probably some school
variation.
235. Portrait of Old Man and Boy. The old man
is heavy and lumpy, with a listless or preoccu-
pied look and limp hands. He is not aware of
the boy or the boy of him. In fact, the boy seems
88 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
a thing apart, lugged into the picture by the ears.
The picture is now hurt, and perhaps it was never
very good. The man and his chair both keep
pushing forward out of the frame. It is hardly
by Tintoretto.
250. Portrait of a Man. This is the same story
that we meet with frequently in Tintoretto's por-
traits. It was fine originally but is now blackened
and damaged. And then, again, perhaps Tinto-
retto never saw it. There are a bewildering num-
ber of senatorial portraits put down to Tintoretto,
but no one believes that he did all of them.
245. Portrait of a Man. It is not a good portrait
but still comes nearer to Tintoretto than most of
the portraits here assigned to him.
249. Portrait of a Lady. The type and the pres-
ence are excellent. Excellent, too, the colour of the
reddish hair and the dark, wine-red dress. The
hands suggest a Titian follower, but there is no
certainty about his identity. Crowe and Caval-
caselle thought the portrait was by Schiavone.
234. Lucretia. A suggestion of Tintoretto shows in
the sleeve at the right and also in the high lights of
the robe; a suspicion of Titian appears in the white
dress and the hand. But neither painter did the
picture. It is a composite affair by some Venetian
eclectic and is not too good or true in either senti-
ment or technique. Formerly ascribed to Titian.
255. Portrait of a Man. The head is big and heavy,
the eyes glittering, the cheek-bones prominent, the
high light on the hair sharp and disturbing, the
hand rather monstrous. It is coarse, ungracious
portraiture and not characteristic of Tintoretto.
TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 89
150. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio). Portrait of Fabrizio
Salvaresio. It is a poor, wooden affair as regards
the portrait, and the accessories, such as the negro
page, do not help it out to any extent. Look at the
sad drawing of the nose. The background is little
more than so much brown paint. It has been in-
jured.
154. Portrait of Filippo Strozzi. This portrait has
the look of a Paolo Veronese, though the hand sug-
gests Titian and some of the drawing of the head.
It is a bit weak for Titian and not quite represen-
tative of Paolo Veronese. Attribution very ques-
tionable.
161. Woman Taken in Adultery. The picture was
probably never finished and is now still further
distorted by cleaning and repainting. It was never
a good piece of drawing and is certainly not now
a work of much importance. The colour is dull,
and a feeling of brown paint is omnipresent.
Crowe and Cavalcaselle thought it an original by
Padovanino. It is hardly an original by Titian.
163. Portrait of Isabella d'Este. An interesting
portrait historically. Artistically it is one of
Titian's studies in blues and not too attractive.
It has a crude, staring look from much repainting,
and perhaps the look of the young girl is somewhat
distorted by the restorer. The hands and dress
have been repainted as well as the face. It should
be compared with the supposed copy of it by Rubens
in another room of this gallery (No. 845). The
Rubens is probably a copy of a different portrait of
Isabella.
166. Madonna and Saints. In common with almost
all the early Titians, this picture is lofty in the
90 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
conception of the types and refined in its feeling.
Again, it is excellent in colour. In some other re-
spects, especially in drawing, it is weak and a
little thin. It should be examined for Titian's
early work and his manner of composition. There
is another version in the Louvre (No. 1577). This
Vienna picture seems the better of the two though
it is now much repainted. Morelli thought it shop
work or a copy and the Louvre example the orig-
inal.
167. Portrait of Parma. A tremendous figure with
* much bulk and presence and great repose. What
aplomb in the figure with its breadth and huge
robe! There are truth and force in the fine head,
together with good drawing and painting. Titian
may not have done it, and yet it is good enough
for him. A fine portrait but now somewhat hurt.
See the catalogue note for attributions.
169. Diana and Calisto. There are several versions
of this picture, the most notable being that belong-
ing to the Earl of Ellesmere, in London. The fig-
ures here are slight and a bit too pretty for Titian.
It is probably a school piece. Somewhat repainted.
174. Dande. This figure is well known through
various copies and also in photographic reproduc-
tions. There are several versions or variations —
notably at Madrid and Naples — the Naples picture
perhaps, being the best preserved. See the note on
the Madrid example. This Vienna picture is prob-
ably a school version. It is not well done.
176. Madonna and Child (Gipsy Madonna). The
* type, the colour, the background banner, the land-
scape and clouds are very Giorgionesque — so much
TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 91
so that the picture might be placed nearer to Gior-
gione than was the early Titian. The attribution
is at least questionable. The Madonna and St.
Roch picture at Madrid, at one time called a Gior-
gione but now put down to Pordenone, shows us
the identical Madonna model of this picture. The
eyes, brows, nose, chin, hair, forehead should be
compared with the Castelfranco Madonna. The
Child, too, will bear comparison. The picture is
coarsely drawn and is probably by the painter of
the Madrid picture. Both of them are too lax,
technically, for Giorgione, but they are near him
— by some follower of his other than Titian. The
picture has much charm though now badly re-
painted in the faces, figures, hands, and sky. The
colour is rich in reds and greens.
177. Portrait of Benedetto Varchi. The portrait
is Titianesque in pose and in the hands, but the
sitter is heavy in personality and the picture all
through is as dull as ditch water. It is late work
and has been repainted.
178. Ecce Homo. This is a strange and confusing
Titian. The purely human Christ is frail and
tottering through physical weakness, the Pontius
Pilate (probably an Aretino portrait) is brutal in
impersonation and rather dreadful in blue colour-
ing, the white figure of the girl in the centre seems
diminutive and out of scale, and the boy on the
steps with the dog is probably as good as any part
of the canvas. The conception is of a casual crowd,
a rabble scattered here and there. The composi-
tion rambles, lacks in centralisation, is not held to-
gether. The colour is brilliant in spots but again
seems to lack in unity. The whole picture was
92 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
more or less of an experiment and not an altogether
successful one. It looks like poor shop work. Hurt
by repainting.
180. Holy Family (Madonna of the Cherries). An
** early Titian painted on wood and in fairly good
condition. The colours are clear and bright, have
resonance, and, taken in part or in whole, are stim-
ulating, appealing, altogether charming. The red
and blue of the Madonna's dress, the red and gold
of the brocade at the back, the cherries on the
parapet and held in hand by the Madonna and the
Child are all jewel spots of brilliant colour. The
green and dark orange of the side figures are parts
of the well-planned colour scheme. The types and
the sentiment are both characteristic of Titian's
early work — lofty, noble, sincere, most attractive.
A very charming picture.
181. Tambourine Player. Perhaps this is a part
of some larger picture. The patching of the canvas
seems to suggest it. Yet Teniers painted it in one
of his picture-gallery canvases in its present shape.
The little figure is bright, childlike, playful, en-
gaging, perhaps not so attractive as the cupids in
the Worship of Venus at Madrid (No. 419) though
possibly done at about the same time. The back-
ground is poor in trees and sky except at the left.
Stained (notably in the parapet and tambourine)
and injured by repainting. A cupid of similar
setting in the Vienna Academy (No. 466), assigned
to Titian.
182. Portrait of Jacopo di Strada. Rather good
in its greys and blacks but not a great Titian.
There are too many objects in the picture. The
statuette, the books, the column, to say nothing
TITIAN (TIZIANO VECELLIO) 93
of the ornate costume, are distracting. The por-
trait has features that suggest Paolo Veronese as
its painter. The sleeves and their colour, the fur,
the turn and bend of the head seem more like Paolo
than Titian. Much injured, as notice the surface
of the statuette.
186. Nymph and Shepherd. The picture is a late
one and perhaps was never finished. To-day it
seems heavy in the modelling, especially in the
nymph. The weight is ponderous but not precisely
clumsy. There is rhythm of line in the figure and
unity in the group. The colour is of no marked
importance and the landscape is painty. Perhaps
this condition was brought about by repainting.
The picture is in bad condition and much injured.
191. Portrait of John Frederick, Elector of Han-
* over. The type is coarse enough but the head is
very well drawn. The sitter looks somewhat like
a marmot but is not devoid of keen intelligence.
The modelling of the fat neck and ear is noticeably
good as also the fat hands. The body is a little
flat. The handling is peculiar and reminds one
of the Aretino portrait in the Pitti Gallery. The
brush dips much into dark greys or blackish pig-
ments. A grey ground. Somewhat hurt by re-
painting.
197. Girl in Fur Coat. A portrait that recalls the
* so-called Duchess of Urbino in the Pitti (No. 18)
and brings up comparison with Helene Fourment
in her fur pelisse in another room of this gallery.
This is, perhaps, more refined in spirit and feeling
than the Rubens, but it has not now the drawing
or the modelling of the latter. The picture is
much injured, and the fine face with its inquiring
94 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
look is now hard in the brows and fumbled in the
hair, while the chest and arms are rubbed flat.
There is a brown ground to match the fur and cloth.
198. Portrait of Titian's Daughter Lavinia. This
portrait is large and heavy with much-rubbed
hands and neck. There is also some repainting
apparent. The feathers are now a little out of
value, the right hand is injured, the shoulder stained
or repainted, the background darkened. It is some
sort of workshop piece or perhaps a copy.
90. Tura, Cosimo. The Dead Christ. No one who
knows anything about Cosimo Tura's colour in his
untouched panels can believe in the surface of this
picture for a moment. It is raw, skinned, white-
washed— what you please — but nowhere near the
original surface. All the colours now cry out and
the high lights are a mockery.
738. Valckenborch, Lucas van. Mountain Land-
* scape. We might think such a landscape as this
very wonderful if we had not seen the works of
the Brueghels, who influenced Valckenborch. The
Brueghels' best pictures are here in this same room
with the Valckenborchs, and by contrast they hurt
the latter. They are stronger in colour, less formal
in arrangement, more original in thought, firmer
and better in execution. Yet no one can pass by
this mountain landscape by Valckenborch without
an exclamation. It is beautiful in colour, broad
in its sweep, large in its feeling. It is not cunningly
or cleverly done, however. The handling is crude.
See the doing of the trees.
732. Valley Landscape. This and No. 738 are, per-
haps, the best of the Valckenborchs here. The
VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 95
snow scene (No. 736) has some attempt at origi-
nality in the falling snow but is too obvious in the
snowflakes. The other large pictures are formal
and regular but not much more than topographical.
They lack quality and originality.
621. Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portrait of the
** Infanta Margarita Teresa. This picture is prac-
tically a replica of the picture in the Madrid Gal-
lery (No. 1192). In some respects it is better than
the Madrid picture — notably in the beautiful, silvery
tone of the dress, in the hair, perhaps in the round-
ing and modelling of the childish face, and in the
delightful scheme of colour. The figure is a bit
large for the canvas, as with the Madrid picture,
and while some parts of it, such as the handker-
chief, the flowers, the sleeves, the Tuffs, and the
bow, are beautifully done, other portions seem less
happy, as though, perhaps, another hand than that
of Velasquez had been at work. The alien hand
seems apparent in the red bow at the left of the
head, the dark streaks of shadow in the dress (a
peculiarity of Mazo), the high lights on the staff at
the left, and the spotting with white paint on the
huge skirt for brilliancy of effect. Possibly a pupil
finished the picture after the death of Velasquez,
and yet there is little about it that might not have
been done by Velasquez and is not good enough for
him. As a piece of colour it is (like its Madrid
prototype) the most beautiful thing in painting
imaginable. Notice here, as there, the Velasquez
reds, the mauves in the sleeves, the dull reds and
golds in the curtain, the predominant silver note.
The Infanta herself is, perhaps, a little staring in
the eyes and not so fine in characterisation as Nos.
611 and 615. The picture is fine in ensemble, in
96 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
aerial setting, in oneness of effect. In fact, one
has to drive the contention rather hard to find
fault with it at all. Apparently it is a little in-
jured by retouching. Mr. Ricketts calls it "a
radiant variant " and " a fortunate sketch/' while
Beruete declares it a copy of the Madrid picture.
It is an excellent picture whatever it be called.
615. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa.
** The sitter is the same as in No. 621. This is an
earlier picture as the earlier age of the Infanta
suggests. As a whole it has not the fine colour
quality of No. 621. In some respects it is better
done while in other features it is not so well done.
The blue curtain and table with the blue flowers
seem not quite perfect in their tone, in their value.
They are a trifle too dominant. They were put
in as the cool note of the picture, but it is a ques-
tion if they are not too cool for the geranium-
pink dress and the warm rug. However, no one
can feel that they are much out of place, out of
harmony. Light and air hold them together —
hold everything in the picture together. The fig-
ure sets in and has its envelope. This envelope
with Velasquez always keeps local colour in abey-
ance. Varying hues are subordinated to the en-
semble. If he departed here unconsciously from
his practice and favoured the cool blues, the devia-
tion was slight and probably for a purpose which
we do not discern.
What a perfect little figure it is! What a por-
trait of a child! What a characterisation! The
little lady already knows herself to be of a superior
strain and has the repose of those born to rule.
Yet she is a child, standing there quietly, innocently,
quite unconscious, or at least not affected. The
VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 97
head and face are not up to the supreme height of
treatment shown in the Louvre picture (No. 1731).
The hair is a little chalky in the lights, the neck
shadow a little dark, the oval of the face not so
perfect again as in the Louvre picture. The dress,
however, is above any cavilling. It is not only a
marvel of colour but also of handling. The pinks,
the silvers, the greys, the mauves, the golds and
blacks are wonderfully blended, beautifully wrought
into drawing, light, shadow, harmony. The rug
falls down a bit in front but is, nevertheless, ex-
cellent. And with what simple, true, and perfect
brushing that vase of flowers is put in! A little
stained in the blue curtain.
611. Portrait of the Infante Philip Prosper. The
*** reason for giving this portrait three stars and only
two each for Nos. 615 and 621 is that this portrait,
all told, seems a little more perfect in the workman-
ship, a little more sympathetic in its characterisa-
tion of the child, a little more complete as a picture
than the others. It is, perhaps, the best child's
portrait now in existence and, at the same time,
a picture of the very highest and finest quality.
Consider the head for a moment, with its thin,
childish hair and the little skull so close under-
neath it, the protruding childish forehead, the snub
nose, the wondering eyes, the half -parted lips. The
chin is a little pointed, the shadow along the throat
and jaw not so infallibly right as in the Infanta of
the Louvre (No. 1731), possibly owing to some re-
touching in the face, but still giving the thin cheek
and set-out ear of a rather sickly child. It is all
just as it should be and very wonderful in what
the painter saw as well as in his manner of telling it.
The dress is just as right, just as true. How could
THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
the linen be given better in drawing or texture!
Notice how the little bell and the other charms
sink into it and vary its value in shadow. How
one feels the red of the under-dress through the
white! How rounded it is and what depth and
body it has! Notice, again, the fine notes in the
slashings of the sleeves or the doing of the ruffs at
the wrists. Notice also the silver bands in the
red underskirt. The rug here seems better done
than hi No. 615 and more in harmony with the
reds and whites of the figure. The cushion and
curtain, too, are almost perfect, and as for the
drawing of the chair it is the very best kind of
pictorial eloquence. You have never seen and
probably never will see again so much speaking
beauty in a simple chair as here. It is a picture in
itself. And the live, animated, absolutely perfect
dog! This is all the big work of a great technician,
done simply and easily but with the telling effect
that usually follows the efforts of genius.
Stand back now and look finally at the room and
its atmospheric setting. The ensemble of it, the
unity of it is once more absolute. All the colour
is only so much aid to this unity and not a sepa-
rate thing in itself. It is a means, not an end
as with a picture by a Bonifazio or a Veronese.
The whole scene — child and all — is given as it
came into the painter's vision, as he saw it. We
pick it to pieces to admire its parts, but it should
finally be seen as a whole, in its entirety, as the
painter conceived it. Merely a portrait of a poor,
sickly little child but a picture with majesty and
greatness about it. "Art is a point of view and
genius a way of looking at things." Here is the
illustration of it.
VELASQUEZ, DIEGO DE SILVA Y 99
617. Portrait of the Infanta Maria Teresa. A very
* good portrait but it has not the quality of the three
other children's portraits here (Nos. 611, 615, 621).
It is an earlier picture, coarser, not less free in the
handling, but perhaps less happy in colour and air,
less delicate in the modelling of the face. Compare
the quality of the handkerchiefs here and in No.
621, or the white of the dress with the whites in
No. 611, and the distinction will be apparent. It
is not merely a difference of stuffs but a differ-
ence of touch, of feeling, of sensitiveness. The face
may be compared in the same way with that in
No. 611. Some parts of it like the wig, the neck-
piece, the bow, are tellingly done, and all parts of
it are effective enough. It is a splendid study in
whites and a fine picture, but is not a supreme
finality such as, say, No. 611. The head in the
Louvre (No. 1735) may be the preliminary study
for this picture or it may be a replica of the head
and bust here.
618. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa. It
is probably a school work in which the hand of
Velasquez is not so very apparent though his
touches may be under the restorations that now
mar it. You have perfect portraits by Velasquez
here for comparison, so compare the coarsely
painted hair here with that in No. 621 or No. 611.
Compare also the coarse slashing of paint on the
sleeves and skirt, the bow on the hair or breast,
the red curtain so devoid of fine colour sense, the
flat, airless ground at the back with these features
in Nos. 611 and 615 or even in No. 617. Another
version is in the Frankfort Gallery. Beruete thinks
both portraits are by Velasquez.
100 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
622. Isabella of Spain. It is a school picture in
which Velasquez's hand does not appear. Notice
that the white pattern of the dress is on the dress
and not in it — a failing of Mazo's as pointed out in
the standing portrait of Philip in the National Gal-
lery, London. The ruff about the neck is woolly,
the wig heavy and painty, the head badly set on the
shoulders, the curtain and background colourless
and (in spite of scumbling) quite airless. Notice
how badly the lower part of the bodice forming a
V is given. Pieced out in the upper corners.
616. Portrait of the Infante Don Baltasar Carlos.
* Probably another school piece with the pattern of
the dress painted in white slashes on the cloth in-
stead of in it. The room is airless and the figure
stands out from the canvas instead of in. Compare
the chair with that in No. 611 if you would get the
difference between the master and his best pupil —
Mazo. The grey stockings are of wood and the
bows at the knees are made of what? The same
hand that did this painted the standing portrait
of Philip IV and the Admiral Pulido-Pareja in
the National Gallery, London. It is not a poor
portrait — in fact the head is excellent — but it does
not show us the peculiar Velasquez way of seeing
and doing things, though, of course, it is possible
he may have had a say about it and touched it
here and there. It is near him — as near him as his
son-in-law, Mazo.
612. Philip IV. This is a school piece or a copy
after Velasquez with little or no quality about it.
Look at the curtain, the distance, the glove, the
hair, the drawing of the face, the blacks of the dress.
It is no such work as you see in Nos. 611 and 615
VERONESE, ;PAOLC 101
hanging near it. Difference in the time or cir-
cumstance of painting will not account for such
wide difference in work.
607. Philip IV. It is a copy of the bust portrait
of Philip in the National Gallery, London, and not
a good copy, either. Consider the crude doing of
the hair and the bad drawing of the chin and neck.
It has been scrub'bed and over-painted hi parts.
605. Portrait of Queen Maria Anna. An ill-drawn,
raw portrait that comes nowhere near Velasquez
and must have been done by the least-talented
pupil in his school.
609. Portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa.
This has the look of a portrait perhaps laid in by
Velasquez but never quite completed. It has
largeness in the vision as well as in the drawing.
Notice this in the skirt, the sleeves, the hair, the
bows. They are well hit off. The ground was
left unfinished and also the brown object in the
left hand. The colour scheme and the relation-
ship of the greens to the whites is fine just as it is.
The whole work is a little too sure and free for
school work though possibly Carreno may have
painted it.
60. Venetian School. Christ Bearing the Cross.
The catalogue formerly (1912) gave it to Correggio
though there is apparently little of Correggio about
it. The light-and-shade does not suggest him,
nor the colour, nor the dark hair touched up in
the high lights. It is by some Giorgione follower
— Mr. Berenson says Cariani.
389. Veronese, Paolo (Galiari). Adoration of Magi.
This picture was once divided in the middle and
102 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
formed the outside of organ shutters in S. An-
tonio at Torcello. Now on canvas. It has not
the lift or bigness of Paolo but is probably a
school piece or family work. Notice the affected
hands, the poor heads up at the right, the crude
sky, and the oddly drawn heads of horses. In-
jured.
382fi. Esther before Ahasuerus. It is a new pic-
ture put down to Paolo and hung high. It prob-
ably will not last long as a Paolo for it is a work-
shop affair in the same class with Nos. 380, 381.
391. Judith. A handsome piece of colour with
richness in the greens and reds. The drawing is
very good and the whole picture is attractive. It
has been recently attributed to Veronese, but it
does not belong to him though it suggests him.
It is, perhaps, nearer Paris Bordone. These odd
pictures that smack of many painters are impossible
to place with certainty.
404. Annunciation. Of the same origin as No. 389.
This picture formed the inner side of the organ
shutters in S. Antonio. The V in the canvas at
the top with the indicated arches suggests the orig-
inal form. The Madonna is a little affected, the an-
gel is too white in high lights upon robe and hair,
the cherubs are not good, and the robes, while
ornate, are decidedly decadent. The sky and golden
light have gone salmon-coloured. Injured and
much repainted.
399. Madonna and Child with Saints. The white
robe at the right and the yellow one at the left
are lovely in colour, while the figures are graceful,
even majestic. The women in black are excellent.
VIVARINI, BARTOLOMMEO 103
With banners and columns at the back and a blue
ground. The picture is small and possibly only a
school piece, but it has some quality about it.
402. Adoration of Kings. The child is a little ab-
surd in pose, the horse is badly foreshortened, the
black king is not well drawn, the kneeling king with
a questionable head that has been repainted is un-
believable. It is a school piece. [Now (1913) so
attributed on the frame.]
396. Christ before the House of Jairus. The diag-
onal grouping of the figures is interesting and there
is some ease in their placing, some freedom in their
drawing; but in their present condition they are
not wonderful. The picture has been much re-
painted. Look at the heads and hands or the col-
umns and the sky. The picture has the look of a
Carletto Caliari but is possibly of Paolo's designing.
12. Vivarini, Alvise. Madonna and Child. Surely a
fine Madonna. Notice the little angels below play-
ing on musical instruments. The picture is hurt,
unfortunately, by some regilding and repainting.
Another work similar in style in the Redentore at
Venice.
10. Vivarini, Bartolommeo. St. Ambrose with
Saints. The forms are rather wooden but very
honest and true. The draperies wriggle and twist
a good deal. The central figure is the most uneasy
in drapery, the most zigzagged, of them all. The
small donors at the bottom of the central panel are
noteworthy. Taken as a whole, it is fairly good in
colour though now much injured. All the panels
(and the frame) are brightened by regilding and
restoration.
104 THE IMPERIAL GALLERY
634. Weyden, Roger van der. Crucifixion. It has
the look of a school piece or copy in the carefulness
and timidity of its doing and in the brightness of
the colours. It has Roger's types, colours, and
tragic passion but it lacks Roger's quality in draw-
ing and colour. The hair is too carefully done
while the foliage of the trees is too carelessly done.
Roger had many copyists and assistants and one
of them may have done this panel. Its clarity and
cleanliness are suspicious. Formerly attributed to
Schongauer and then to the Master of Flemalle.
632 1 Madonna and St. Catherine. Two small pan-
633 / els done in the style of No. 634 but apparently of
a better quality in colour and with firmer draw-
ing in the backgrounds. No. 633 has a charm-
ing little distance of landscape and No. 632 is
quite lovely in the types of the Madonna and Child
and in the carefully drawn hands and feet. These
panels may be school work but are very good,
nevertheless. No. 632 was formerly thought to be
by Hubert van Eyck.
393. Zelotti, Battista. Anointing of David. The
colour is decorative and that is about all there is
to the picture. The brownish curtain at the back
helps little and the sky at the right and left is
crude in itself and by contrast with the brown.
The figures are fairly drawn — no more. Appar-
ently there is here a following of Paolo Veronese.
Formerly attributed to Paolo Farinato.
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS
1.
4.
5.
7.
10.
12.
13.
14.
16.
17.
19.
20.
21.
26.
27.
29.
32.
34.
39.
41.
46.
47.
51.
59.
60.
Basaiti.
Bellini, Giovanni.
Antonello da Saliba.
Carpaccio.
Vivarini, Bartolommeo.
Vivarini, Alvise.
Bellini, Giovanni.
Previtali.
Giorgione.
Sebastiano del Piombo.
Cima.
Catena.
Giorgione.
Perugino.
Benozzo Gozzoli.
Perugino.
Raphael.
Perugino.
Bartolommeo, Fra.
Sarto, Andrea del.
Bartolommeo, Fra.
Franciabigio.
Francia.
Sodoma.
Correggio.
Venetian School.
611
62]
63.
64.
67.
68
68A
69.
81.
82.
82A.
85.
86.
89.
90.
133
134
136
137
139
140
141
142
143
145.
150 \
154 J
Parmigianino.
Giorgione.
Correggio.
Parmigianino.
Dossi.
Predis, Ambrogio da.
Mantegna.
Luini.
Solario.
Costa.
Luini.
Bellini, School of.
Tura.
Cesare da Sesto.
Florentine School.
Palma Vecchio.
Bonifazio dei Pitati.
Titian.
105
106
INDEX
157. Bonifazio dei Pitati.
161
163
166
Titian.
167
169
170
171
Bonifazio Veneziano.
172
174
176
177
180
Titian.
181
182
186 j
188. Bonifazio Veneziano.
191]
197 \ Titian.
198 j
205. Cariani.
207. Palma Vecchio.
213
Savoldo.
215
Lotto.
216 '
> Moroni.
218. Moretto of Brescia.
219. Romanino.
220. Lotto.
221. Licinio, Bernardino.
223. Calisto Piazza da Lodi.
224. Tintoretto, Jacopo.
226. Bonifazio Veneziano.
231 \-_j_
23U /
234
235
236
239
239A
241
243A.
244)
245 j
248.
249
250
254
255
256
257
261.
272.
382B.
385.
389.
390.
391.
393.
395.
396.
397.
399]
402
404]
409.
417.
455
458
463
465
466
Tintoretto, Jacopo.
Tintoretto, Domenico.
Tintoretto, Jacopo.
Bordone.
Tintoretto, Jacopo.
Schiavone.
Greco, II.
Veronese, Paolo.
Farinato.
Veronese, Paolo.
Farinato.
Veronese, Paolo.
Zelotti.
Badile.
Veronese, Paolo.
Badile.
Veronese, Paolo.
Farinato.
Tintoretto, Jacopo.
Belotto.
INDEX
107
599. Panto j a de la Cruz.
665]
602. Coello, Sanchez.
666 > Patinir.
603. Mazo.
667 j
605. Velasquez.
g™ 1 Bles.
606. Carreno de Miranda.
676. Master of Seven Sor-
607
rows.
609 TT ,
fil 1 Velasquez.
682]
683 > Cleve, Juste van.
612
684 J
614. Murillo.
693. Metsys, Jan.
615
696. Hemessen.
~17 Velasquez.
^jAertsen.
618
706 ]
620. Spanish School.
707 > Beuckelaer.
621 )
707AJ
622 1 Velasquez.
708
624 1
709
fi2c f Eyck, Jan van.
710
\J6O J
711
627A } David' Gerard'
712
713 1 Brueghel the
Elder,
r,^ \ Goes, Van der.
714 [ Peter.
715
632]
716
633 \ Weyden, Van der.
717
634 J
719
635. Memling.
720
642 A. Cleve, Juste van.
738 1 ValckenD°rcn-
fi44 1
jff: > Geertgen tot St. Jans.
754 1 -,
tjgg'i Gossart.
646. Cornelisz van Oostsa-
764. Master of Half
Figure.
nen.
765
si*-?
766 °rley>Van-
657. Bles.
771 Coxie-
108
INDEX
> Moro.
> Rubens.
914. Brueghel the Elder,
Jan.
984. Brueghel the Elder,
Peter.
1028
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1038
1039
1040
1042
1043
1046
1048
1050
1051
1052
1053
1087.
1135.
1155.
1245.
1261.
1268'
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1276 ,
1297.
1299A.
13041
1305 /
1305A.
1313.
1337.
Dyck, Anthony van.
Jordaens.
Brouwer.
Teniers the Younger.
Bramer.
Neer, Van der.
Rembrandt.
Hals, Frans.
Hooch, Pieter de.
Steen.
Palamedes.
Goyen, Jan van.
Ruisdael.
INDEX
109
1338. Cappelle.
1366. Terborch.
1370A.Metsu.
1405. Burgkmair.
1406. Amberger.
DQrer.
1423
1424
\ Baldung.
Cranach the Elder.
1427. Maler zu Schwaz.
14281
1429 J
1431. Beck.
1432. Beham.
1 1 Strigel.
! \ Schauffelein.
1438 }
1438A \ Kulmbach.
1438B j
1439. Pencz.
1442 '
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1452'
1453
1455
1458
1459
1460
1462
1473. Maler zu Schwaz.
1479 1
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1489. Holbein, School of.
1490. Schongauer.
Holbein the Younger.
MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS,
BUDAPEST
NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM
BUDAPEST is one of the most progressive and en-
lightened cities of Europe, and in perfect keeping with
its enlightened spirit it has established a notable and
growing collection of pictures, both ancient and modern.
The pictures have been brought together in recent
years, and the famous examples inherited by such
older galleries as the Louvre and the National Gallery,
London, are not to be expected; yet among the old
masters there are some remarkable pictures in this
gallery. The superb portrait by Vermeer of Delft
is almost sufficient in itself to make a collection of
pictures famous. Besides this there is a very good
Hals portrait and an excellent bust portrait put down
to Murillo but by a very much stronger painter than
he — by the painter of the Christ Bound to the Col-
umn in the National Gallery, London. There is an
unusual representation of Spanish pictures here and
a large number of Flemish, Dutch, and German mas-
ters, even some examples of old Hungarian art. But
the showing of Italian art is the most conspicuous,
the most important, perhaps. There are two rooms
filled with Primitives, some of them exquisite in their
gilded grounds and mellow colours. There are good
pictures by Costa, Boltraffio, Previtali, Verrocchio's
113
114 NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM
School, Gentile Bellini. The Correggio is a little senti-
mental, and the Raphael is not one of his best, but there
is a superb portrait put down to Giorgione, another fine
one given to Lotto, and still a third by Romanino that
is not to be despised. Nearly a thousand pictures by
the old masters are listed in the catalogue. They
should be studied.
The new building is large, well lighted, and well
adapted to museum purposes. Again, the pictures are
well hung and one is allowed to enjoy them in peace.
The officious attendant who bores you with his talk
and his insistence upon your seeing what he consid-
ers wonderful is absent. Courtesy and propriety reign
throughout the building. The catalogue (in French,
with illustrations) is concise, correct, careful without
being pedantic. The different views of experts about
the various pictures are given without comment. They
are allowed to confirm or confute each other — the di-
rector of the gallery retaining the privilege of his own
opinion and his own attribution. This is quite as it
should be.
During the year 1913 an important collection of pic-
tures known as the Palffy Collection (left to the mu-
seum by Count Palffy) was hung in a separate part of
the building, with a special catalogue and numbering.
Presumably it will eventually be rearranged, recata-
logued, and incorporated in the main museum collec-
tions. Until that time it seems unwise to publish any
notes about it. Reference to its pictures by numbers
NOTE ON THE BUDAPEST MUSEUM 115
would merely lead to confusion with the main-gallery
numbers, and reference by place or name would again
be unsatisfactory since both are liable to speedy change.
The student, however, should not miss the opportunity
to see these pictures. There are some excellent can-
vases among them of which mention will be made
hereafter.
THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM,
BUDAPEST
673. Aertsen, Pieter. Market Scene. Done with
truth and force, and probably by Aertsen, as at-
tributed. Not, perhaps, his most commanding per-
formance, but, even so, one must here respect his
large realism, his true if coarse drawing, his strong,
somewhat brutal colour. What a head that of the
kneeling woman!
678. Aldegrever, Heinrich (?). Lot and His Daugh-
ters. It is good in colour whoever may have
painted it. It was possibly worked up from an
Aldegrever engraving by a later man, as the cata-
logue suggests.
29. Avanzi, Jacopo. Madonna and Child. It is dec-
orative in its gold and colour. The folds of drap-
ery put in with gilded high lights, the red angel
wings at the sides, the crown and golden halo are
all effective. The attribution may be questioned.
Repainted but still handsome.
70. Bacchiacca, Francesco Ubertini. Preaching of
St. John Baptist. With bunches of figures rather
than groups and with bad drawing in the hands
and feet. But it has a good landscape and a bright
colour effect. One can expect little more from
Bacchiacca.
117
118 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
729A. Baldung, Hans. Madonna. The wing of a
triptych the other parts of which are now lost or
at least unknown. There is a good deal of sup-
pressed emotion in the figure and some rather effec-
tive though sharp drawing. Bleached in the whites.
715 \ Adam and Eve. Two panels that show ex-
716 / pressive outline drawing but are exaggerated in
size, sentiment, pose, and colour. The simpler
work of Cranach seeins more satisfying than this,
though Baldung is a draughtsman of force.
435. Balen, Jan van. Rest in Egypt. The picture is
Rubensesque in every way — in fact, a clever though
coarse following of Rubens. It falls short in sure-
ness of touch, the surfaces are prettier, and of
course there is no originality about it, for the
Rubens types, colours, poses, themes are taken
almost verbatim. But the work by itself consid-
ered is fairly well done. It was, perhaps, done by
Jan van Balen's father, Hendrik the Elder, who was
a more pronounced Rubens follower than his son.
128* Bartolommeo Veneto. Portrait of a Man. A
dusky and rather hard portrait that has suffered
considerably. There are still some firmness in the
drawing and richness in the colour. Notice the
fine head-gear.
109. Basaiti, Marco. St. Jerome. The landscape,
especially in the sky, distant mountains, and water,
is crude. The trees at right are bungled or re-
painted and the saint is hardly happy in drawing.
It is a poor workshop piece. Notice how much
better is No. 104, put down to the same painter.
But the same hand did not do them. The land-
scapes by themselves considered contradict each
other.
BEUCKELAER, JOACHIM 119
104. St. Catherine of Alexander. A very fine figure
in its richness of colour and depth of shadow. The
robe is especially attractive. The face is somewhat
prettified, the hand with the book is awkward, and
the figure stands badly. The landscape is dark but
makes a perfect setting for the figure. There is no
reason to doubt the attribution though the picture
seems different from No. 109. Compare them.
147. Bassano, Jacopo. St. Jerome. The head is
rather better than the beard. With some fair mod-
elling in the eyes, brows, nose, and cheek-bones.
The colour is very good.
117. Bellini, Gentile. Portrait of Catherine Cornaro.
* An excellent portrait and done in the same vein or
spirit as Gentile's portrait of the same sitter in the
Miracle of the Cross (No. 568) in the Venice
Academy. The drawing is positive in the outline,
the figure well suggested, the colour excellent, the
dress and jewels ornate in effect. The character-
isation is, however, the best part of it. Somewhat
rubbed but still magnificent.
111. Bellini, School of Giovanni. Portrait of the
Doge Barberigo. It is a mediocre portrait, possi-
bly painted by Basaiti as suggested in both the
sitter and the landscape seen through the window.
255 1 BelottO, Bernardo. The Piazza and the Arno,
256 J Florence. Two views of Florence extremely well
done and fine in colour. They are of much in-
terest historically for the look of the old Piazza
and the Arno in Belotto's day.
N. N. Beuckelaer, Joachim. Peasant with Vegetables.
It is not the best of Beuckelaers. The drawing
is not very secure nor the handling too certain.
Notice the drawing of the man's head.
120 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
63. Bicci di Lorenzo, Neri di. Madonna and
Child. In the style of this painter, with his type
of the Madonna, his drawing and colouring. The
gold work is rich. What beautiful haloes! The
flesh has been hurt by retouching.
180A. Bissolo, Pier Francesco. St. George (?). A
smooth-faced, very clean, and boneless St. George
that might have been done by Bissolo or even
Catena, but possibly it is by neither. It has some
sweetness but very little strength. It is the kind
of art that people should pass by in discreet silence,
though the landscape at the right might be worth
pausing over.
684. Bles, Herri met de. Landscape. It has the
Patinir defect of being out of key — the brown fore-
ground not belonging to the blue background. The
mountains are fantastic. The owl sign is on the
tree limb at left, but that proves nothing. See the
notes on Bles and Bosch in the Vienna Gallery.
74. Boccato da Camerino, Giovanni. Madonna
and Saints. A large altar-piece with a squared
group of figures, making no pretence to subtlety of
composition but very frank and honest in senti-
ment and agreeable in colour. The drapery of the
Madonna is somewhat uneasy. Notice the lovely
angels at the back and the pathetic, music-making
putti at the foot of the throne. The drawing of the
drapery of the putti is amusing. With rich robes.
Attribution questionable.
549. Bol, Ferdinand. Portrait of a Man. A pulpy
picture with no bone or muscle about the sitter.
One feels the bigness of the head and also its soft-
ness. Yellowed perhaps by varnish.
BOSCH, JEROME 121
115. Bol traffic, Giovanni Antonio. Madonna and
* Child. The figures fill the panel very well, are
quite right in light-and-shade and effective as col-
our. They seem too well drawn for Boltraffio and
not well enough drawn (especially in the hands)
for Leonardo. The fingers of the Child and their
joining to the hand are not rightly done and the
arms have undue length. The drapery is well
handled and there is grace in the composition as
in the contours, but it is not exactly Leonardo's
grace. A handsome group and not far removed
from Leonardo, as Dr. Bode suggests, but far enough
to put it down as the work of some Leonardo imi-
tator. The same hand did the Madonna Litta at
St. Petersburg (No. 13A). The hand was probably
that of Bernardino de' Conti. A handsome work.
Notice the fine bowl on the table.
112. Borgognone, Ambrogio Fossano. Deposition.
The Borgognone types are here somewhat loosely
given and his gold work in the hair and crowns
seems carelessly put in. The picture has the look
of a Borgognone workshop piece. The colour is
rich. The landscape with its sunlight effect on
the houses is, perhaps, the best part of the picture,
though the figure of John at the left is very good.
N. N. Bosch, Jerome. Adoration of Magi. On an
* easel and evidently a new acquisition. A subject
that Bosch did a number of times, notably at
Madrid (No. 2048). The black king here in a
white robe is similar to the one at Madrid but
otherwise the picture is varied. There is excellent
colour in the robes and brocades with much rich-
ness in the gold work. The handling is easy but
not so certain as usual with Bosch. Both the
122 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
handling and the drawing are a little careless. An
odd composition, its very oddity, perhaps, helping
out its picturesqueness. Notice the rich note in
the robe of the kneeling king.
593. Brouwer, Adriaen. The Smokers. It is a poor
panel with little of Brouwer's certainty of touch
in it.
651. Brueghel the Elder, Peter (Peasant). An Old
Couple. With some good drawing but an unnec-
essary emphasis of wrinkles. It has little sugges-
tion of any of the Brueghels about it.
653. Brueghel the Younger, Peter (Hell). Cruci-
fixion. There are some good grouping, some free
painting, and some fine colour in the picture.
230. Canaletto, Giovanni Antonio. Piazza of the
* Clock-Tower (Venice). A large Canaletto sur-
rounded by a framework of small Guardis. It is
fine in colour, light, and air. Notice how charm-
ingly the little figures are put in or how well the
balconies, curtains, and windows at the right are
painted. It is Canaletto at his best — in fact, it is
so good that one wonders if it can be a Canaletto.
320. Cano, AlonZO. Christ and the Magdalen. It is
rather good in colour but lacks in dignity and re-
serve. The attitudes are by no means easy or
pleasing. The Magdalen's robe is well done but her
hands are awkward and her face is ill drawn. The
Christ turns badly and steps out stiffly.
321. Christ at Gethsemane. The picture is easily
painted and may be genuine enough, but every
dark, Spanish-looking picture containing a blue or
pink winged angel is not necessarily by Cano.
COQUES, GONZALES ' 123
283. Carducho, Vincenzo. Vision of St. Francis. An
odd picture in its composition and its colour, but
well drawn and effective in sentiment. The St.
Francis is very well done, especially in the handling
of the robe. The Madonna, however, is a little
heavy of figure. The colour is a scheme of blues
and greens and out of the ordinary, at least.
328B. Carreno de Miranda, Juan. Portrait of a
Young Man. It is an inky portrait, probably of
Charles II — the same type as No. 642 at Madrid
and No. 407 at Berlin, both by Carreno. This
one is rightly painted but is black enough to have
been done by Ribera or some one of his school.
97. Catena, Vincenzo. Holy Family. A crude work
with some indications of its being a poor school
piece or even a copy. Look at the head and hair
of the saint at the right, the wooden Child, the raw
landscape, the sharp blue of the sky and robe. It
is cheap execution that we see here, but, then, Ca-
tena frequently painted in just this cheap manner.
102. Madonna, Saints, and Donor. It is a better
picture than No. 97 but by no means a work that
any one can regard as masterful. The donor is the
best piece of drawing in it.
697A. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of the
Death of the Virgin). Portrait of a Woman.
There is some good drawing about it of .a hard,
linear kind. Notice the squareness of the chin.
The white head-dress is effective. Attribution
questionable.
642. Coques, Gonzales. Family of Jacques van Eyck.
A group of smooth, well-dressed people belonging,
possibly, to what are called " the better classes"
124 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
but not furnishing nearly as good material for pic-
torial art as Brouwer's boors or Rembrandt's Jews.
But that may be because Coques was not Brouwer
or Rembrandt. The picture is cleverly done, how-
ever, with some good portraiture in the heads.
121. Correggio, Antonio Allegri da. Madonna and
Child. A Madonna of the pretty type, with more
or less of sweet sentiment about her. Such pictures
as this give one small idea of Correggio as he ap-
pears at Parma. However, there is mastery in the
grouping here and some charm in the diagonal
flow of line as suggested in the Child and empha-
sised in the drapery. The hands of the Madonna
are just as pretty as her face. The children are
better, more childlike and less affected. The col-
our and the light are good. Other versions of the
same picture in the Hermitage and elsewhere.
99 1 Cossa, Francesco del. Playing Angels. Two
100 J attractive figures by some one close to the author
of the single figure in the Berlin Gallery (No. 115A),
there ascribed to Cossa. They are fine in colour,
in light-and-shade, and in relation to their back-
grounds. They have the foreshortening effect from
the feet backward and downward peculiar to the
Berlin picture and also to be noted in the Man-
tegna fresco of St. James on the Way to Prison in
the Eremitani at Padua. What wonderful skies
and landscapes! The figures are tall and rather
ungainly in their attitudes. Besides, the one with
the harp has been injured in the hands and face.
But they are lovely pieces of colour. Notice the
dull, golden robe of the angel at the right.
124. Costa, Lorenzo. Venus. A graceful figure in
* spite of its thin arms, awkward legs, and wooden
CREMONA, SCHOOL OF 125
torso. It should be studied in connection with the
early Venus of Lorenzo di Credi in the Uffizi.
They are epitomes and embodiments not only of
the spirit but the technique of the early Renais-
sance. Costa is less harsh in his characterisation
than Credi, but he is hotter in colour, less charming
in hue and surface, less cunning with his handling
of the white cloth. The white is here a little high
in key. The outline of the left leg was changed
probably by the painter himself. The hands have
been hurt as well as other portions of the figure.
728. Granach the Elder, Lucas. Marriage of St.
* Catherine. The faces are porcelain-like and the
robes not very different, but there is good senti-
ment apparent, delicate workmanship everywhere,
and a fine scheme of high colour. What colour it
is! The black curtain (?) at the back does not help
the picture any, for it merely shuts out some of the
altogether delightful landscape. What colour in
the sky, the pine, the mountain profile I
719. The Old Lover. It is well drawn and rather
good in colour but is not a remarkable Cranach.
In fact, one may doubt the Elder Cranach's hand
in it at all. As usual the founder of the school
has all the output of the school attributed to him.
One might think Cranach never had sons and pupils
who did just this kind of picture.
158. Cremona, School of. A Saint. It is part of a
picture cut away and framed up. It might have
been painted by the painter of No. 180A or 102
(the centre figure) — that is, Catena. It has some
colour and is much better work than the two other
pictures just cited.
126 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
98. Crivelli, Carlo. Madonna and Child. Not a
* very brilliant Crivelli, but lovely in tone and rich
in robe and architecture. The gold work is im-
pressive and the little Child very naive in type. It
lacks Crivelli's splendour of effect, his floridity of
colour, but is highly decorative none the less.
What a fine robe, crown, fruit, background! It is
all excellent work and in excellent condition.
587. Cuyp, Albert. Cattle in Water. The cattle are
good, but the sky and clouds are ill drawn and
ineffective.
696. David, Gerard. Nativity. With every indica-
tion of being by David — that is, David as we now
know him in European galleries. The painter is
still an uncertainty, but the Joseph and Madonna
here are repeated in other pictures and tend to
identify the personality and the brush of some one
man whom we now call David. A very fine group
with naive charm of sentiment and excellent col-
our. The Madonna is lovely. Notice the little
angels in white, also the shed, the shepherds on
the hill, the fine town, and the landscape effect.
The central spot of red in the robe of Joseph keeps
drawing the eye by its rich hue. In a good frame.
485. Decker, Cornells Gerritz. The Goose Inn. It
is almost as good as the Ruisdaels and Hobbemas
that outcry it. The light and colour are excellent.
180D. Dossi, DOSSO. Madonna, Child, and Saints. A
rich piece of colour of a kind suggestive of Dossi
without having, perhaps, his colour depth. What
an odd Madonna with her Oriental head-dress!
Notice also the angel with red wings. A fine bit.
161. - Portrait of Giorgione (?). A dark, painter-
like face, with some good drawing in the eyes, nose,
DYCK, ANTHONY VAN 127
and brows. The hair has been tampered with.
Whether the portrait is by Giorgione, or of him,
will not be settled by anything that could be said
here or is likely to be said elsewhere. As to its
being a Dosso, one may file an exception. It has
good quality.
43. Duccio di Buoninsegna. Preaching of John the
Baptist. The picture is by some one in Duccio's
School and standing close to the master. There
are good grouping of figures, drawing of drapery,
and richness of colour. The type of Christ is
Duccio's only a little coarsened. Also the feet and
hands are his.
502. Duck, Jacob. The Guard. The figures are well
set in the space, with light and air correctly ren-
dered and a very good effect of tone.
699. Diirer, Albrecht, Portrait of a Man. A good
* piece of drawing in the head and face, with a very
marked personality given to the sitter. The face
has been rubbed and stained until some of the mod-
elling is now distorted, but it is still a fine head.
Notice the minute work in the fur and cap. Diirer
was a realist of small things, he was also a great
artist; but the cause of his greatness was not his
realism of the little. Possibly a likeness of Durer's
brother, as the catalogue suggests.
419. Dyck, Anthony van. The Trinity. A picture
that is to be accepted with something more than a
grain of salt. It may be by Van Dyck or of his
school, for he had a score of pupils, helpers, and
imitators whose works are now lumped under his
name; but the picture has a Spanish look about
it. The types of Christ, of the Father, of the
cherubs below are more than half Spanish. The
128 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
sky and the dove bear out the Spanish feeling.
The slight Van Dyck look of it may be a Spanish
following of him. The figure of Christ is well
drawn.
416. Portrait of a Couple. It is evidently an early
Van Dyck that has been cleaned to death so that
the under-basing now shows through in the hands
and faces, and the high lights appear in unrelieved
gouts of paint — the finer surface touches with their
subtle modellings having disappeared. As a result
we have harsh if forceful modelling, rather savage
colour, and an unpleasant surface. Originally, it
must have been a strong work, but now one need
only look at the hands — the left hand of the man
particularly — for evidence of bad treatment.
365. Elias (Pickenoy) Nicolaes. Portrait of a Man.
The portrait is posed in an attitude that rather
suggests the so-called Admiral Borro at the Berlin
Gallery, questionably ascribed to Velasquez. It
suggests again how essentially Netherlandish the
Borro portrait is and how far removed it is from
Spanish origin. See the comment on the Borro in
the Berlin notes.
372. Portrait of a Woman. A sturdy, strong type,
with firmly drawn face and hands. It is a little
hard and smooth but truthful and honest.
682. Engelbrechtsen, Cornells. Portrait of a Couple.
The work is very well done and the colour is excel-
lent. The handling is easy and effective — that is
certain. Notice the blue falcon for fine colour.
331. Fabritius, Bernaert. Portrait of a Man. There
is a suggestion of the painter's master, Rembrandt,
in this portrait, though it is smoother and weaker
FRANCIA, FRANCESCO 129
than Rembrandt. But it is a fairly good portrait.
The artistic personality of Fabritius needs rehabili-
tation. His pictures have been for many years
listed as Rembrandts and are still doing yeoman
service as such in many of the galleries of Europe.
204. Feti, Domenico. Sleeping Girl. The handling
of the brush is decidedly dexterous, and the col-
our scheme is engaging. The painters in the period
of the Decadence were sometimes remarkable for
their retention of the tradition of good craftsman-
ship even though good thought and feeling had left
them.
410A. Flinck, Covert. Manoah's Sacrifice. A Rem-
* brandtesque canvas that lies between Eeckhout
and Flinck. These pictures of angels on grey or
dark grounds are so confused in their assignments
in European galleries that it seems impossible to
straighten them out. The painter of this picture
helped Rembrandt in his series of the Passion (Nos.
326-331) at Munich. It is a very good picture,
with the figures well set in the scene and with air
and light. The drawing is clumsy and less sure
than with Rembrandt or even Flinck. It is more
like the drawing of Eeckhout.
72. Francia, Francesco. Madonna, Child, and Two
Angels. It is glassy in the surface, cool in colour,
sweet in sentiment, and not very good in drawing.
Notice how badly the Madonna's head is placed
upon her shoulders. The picture belongs to the
school or workshop of Francia.
75. Madonna, Child, and St. John. A fine picture,
with good colour and a clear landscape. The Ma-
donna is bright and wistful-looking. There are sug-
130 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
gestions of Costa in both the Madonna and Child,
but it is probably by Francia. A very handsome
little panel.
729G. French School. Two Ecclesiastics. Very good
colour in the robes with some good gold work.
407. Gelder, Aert de. Esther and Mordecai. An ex-
cellent Gelder, better drawn and composed than
usual, and with fine colour. The handling is facile
and rather more sure than in other examples of
this painter though of the same general character.
One of the best Gelders in gallery possession. The
colour is a little hot. What richness in the woman's
costume! This is the hand that did the Prodigal
Son, assigned to Rembrandt at the Hermitage.
58. Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo. Nativity. The colour is
brilliant but not too well held together, nor is the
grouping in any way remarkable. It is a formal
and perfunctory affair even in the sentiment of it.
Ridolfo did better work than this though he was
never a great painter. The landscape is good, and
the angels in the sky make a pretty trio.
108. Gianpietrino (Giovanni Pietro Ricci). Ma-
donna and Saints. A Leonardesque panel with
brownish shadows and grey faces. The sentiment
is a little sweeter than a Luini and the drawing
somewhat more questionable. It is too frail for
love or admiration. Cleaned and repainted with
harmful results.
140. Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli). Portrait of a
** Man. A picture about which there is much differ-
ence of opinion. It has a Giorgionesque look, as
almost every one will admit, but it rather refuses to
be reconciled with some other supposed Giorgiones
in the European galleries, for instance, the early por-
GIORGIONE 131
trait at Berlin (No. 12A). The Budapest picture is
more mature in every way — in light, shadow, colour,
the hand, the face, the quilted coat. In feeling they
are not far removed from one another, but neither
of them agrees closely with the Knight of Malta
in the Uffizi. Yet the Budapest picture is, perhaps,
more Giorgionesque than the others mentioned. It
is a fine, sad face, a poetic type, with a great deal of
feeling and sentiment about it that agrees with a
probable Giorgione at Vienna (No. 63), and it also
measurably agrees with the Castelfranco Madonna,
the Sleeping Venus at Dresden, the Boy with the
Flute at Hampton Court, though not at all with the
Fete Rustique at the Louvre — another supposed
Giorgione. The brows are arched and the mouth
Cupid-bowed as in the St. Sebastian, the David,
and the Three Wise Men, all at Vienna. The hand
on the bosom has no likeness in any Giorgione, real
or otherwise. On either side of the head there is
a fall of reddish hair that seems to have been
painted in later. If these falls of hair, which do
not agree with the black hair at all, were removed,
the head might prove to be that of a woman, al-
though the face seems too strong for that. The
picture has been much tinkered with. The nose,
mouth, brows, and outline of face, as also the jaw
line, are rather hard from cleaning and retouching.
The neck is hurt also.
145. Giorgione (Copy after). The Young Paris and
Shepherds. The literature about this fragment
seems to argue its being by Giorgione or a copy
after him. But how shall we account for its atro-
cious drawing, even if it be a copy and repainted
into the bargain? Look at the straight line of the
arm with the red sleeve, the bad hand, and dreadful
132 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
forefinger. Look at the wooden legs — the left one
crippled — of the same figure, or the left hand on
the shoulder of the second figure. This second fig-
ure has also a short leg and needs his shepherd's
crook in walking; his hands are badly drawn and
his hips are impossible. Both men have the narrow
gimlet eyes of Romanino. The landscape is just
as bad as the figures. Almost any one could have
painted it. The colour and light are after the
Giorgionesque formula, but neither is cunningly or
subtly handled. The general look of the picture is
not so bad, but it will not bear analysis even as a
copy of Giorgione. It has no look of a copy, being
too loosely and carelessly done for that. It is more
like a bad original by Romanino. See the Roma-
nino in the Dresden Gallery, called the Horoscope
(under the name of Giorgione, No. 186). That also
is said to be a copy of Giorgione, but is by the same
hand as this Budapest picture (No. 145). See also
the two Giorgiones in the Uffizi (Nos. 621, 630).
They are said to be early Giorgiones, but they have
the same cocked eyes and poor drawing as this
Budapest picture and are by the same man —
Romanino. Even the fine portrait head here by
Romanino (No. 126) has a feeling in the eyes that
connects it with this alleged Giorgione.
23. Giotto. Head of a Woman. It seems to be
nearer to the Lorenzetti than to Giotto. A good
head of the early time, done on plaster and now at-
tractive in both line and colour. What very fine
colour in the whites! The head (No. 32) is not so
good.
19. Crucifix. This is a very handsome bit of gold
and colour, with small figures carefully and mi-
GOSSART, JAN 133
nutely done for the Giottesque time. The figure
of John (shown on both sides) is excellent. The
gold work and colours are in excellent condition.
It is probably not by Giotto.
35. Giovanni da Ponte. Mystic Marriage of St.
Catherine. A large altar-piece much restored in
robes, faces, and hands but still showing beauty of
colour and intensity of feeling. The background
is handsome in pattern and the predella is as inter-
esting as the large panel. There are also single
figures of saints in the frame. Notice that Christ
appears as a grown-up young man and without a
beard. The Virgin, too, is youthful. This is a
reversal of the usual treatment of this subject.
Attribution questionable. We know little or noth-
ing of the works of this painter.
177. Girolamo da Santa Croce. St. John Evan-
gelist. The figure is a little frail but is striking in
its green robe. The colour is a remarkable har-
mony of blue and green. It is an early Venetian
picture but is too personal and individual for Giro-
lamo. Even the catalogue queries its own attri-
bution. Notice the depth of the blue distance and
the atmospheric effect.
697. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). Portrait of Charles V.
The portrait is more than life-sized and not the
better for its exaggerated proportions. The elab-
orate work upon the jewels looks a little out of
place in so large a portrait. Besides, the lines of
the gold chain, the white shirt, the black ribbon
are all disturbing. The modelling in head and
neck is weak. It has decorative colour. Attribu-
tion doubtful.
134 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
341. Goyen, Jan van. Peasants. The trees, fore-
ground, and distance with the sky speak for Van
Goyen's School. Possibly the figures were added
later and by another hand. They do not seem to
be closely related to the landscape but, nevertheless,
are largely modelled and drawn, have some bulk
and body about them and also fair colour. A
good picture by contrast with its neighbours and
good by itself considered.
54. Granacci, Francesco. St. John Evangelist. The
figure is harshly drawn but with firmness and truth.
The circle is not too well filled, and the landscape
is rather crude. The work seems a little rugged
and coarse-grained for Granacci. Nos. 71 and 78
are more in his smooth style and hot colour — No.
78 probably being genuine.
69. Grandi, Ercole di Giulio Cesare. St. John
* Evangelist. A fine figure, superb in type, rich in
colour, and very true in sentiment. How well
it is drawn in the face and what handsome folds
of drapery! The hair also is beautifully painted.
There is a suggestion of a large landscape.
487. Grebber, Pieter de. Consolation. It has a Ru-
bens facility of touch in the hair and costume, and
might pass for a Rubens elsewhere than in this
rather carefully arranged and well-attributed gal-
lery.
328A. Greco, II (Domenico Theotocopuli). An-
nunciation. This has some of II Greco's queer col-
our and is facile in the painting of wings and robes,
but form is slightly indicated and as a whole the
work is inferior. II Greco did this subject several
times, notably at Madrid, No. 827.
HALS, FRANS 135
223. Guardi, Francesco. Court of Ducal Palace.
Rather forced in its effect of light and dark, a little
stiff in its figures, and bunched in its groups. The
clouds are hot. The painting does not show Guardi's
fatty quality, nor is the colour exactly his. Still, it
makes an impression and is fairly good.
230- \ Nineteen Scenes. A number of panels by
240 / Guardi or members of his school, of much histori-
cal and topographical interest. Some of them are
also very lovely in colour and light. They are de-
cidedly picturesque.
507A. Hals, Dirck. Good Company. There is some
brilliant colouring and free painting about it, and
the ensemble is rather good, but it is not well
drawn.
N. N. Hals, Frans. Portrait of a Man. Evidently a
** new acquisition (1913) for it is without number
and stands on an easel. It is excellent in its quali-
ties of tone and texture and superb in its lights of
the linen in contrast with the darks of the dress.
And how it is drawn ! Look at the head, the queer
eyes, the mouth partly ajar, the chin, the rather
hard nose. It is a strange character and mentally
seems almost foolish, but how superb it is physically !
The collar is about as perfect in its fluffiness as one
could ask for, and the rich black dress with its pat-
terns is just right. The easy pose of it is again
excellent. The left hand is slung in the cloak and
the figure is a little muffled by the same cloak, but
effectively and suggestively so. Go close and look
at the brush-work, for here Hals is sure of himself.
Look again at the perfect grey background with
its feeling of space and depth. It is a superb por-
trait. Hals was not always so happy in spirit nor
136 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
so really great technically as is here shown. And,
thank Heaven! the frame is right.
501. Portrait of a Man. A fair example of Hals
but not extraordinary in any sense. There is life
about it and some clever painting in the eyes with
their dark shadows, in the cheeks, the hair, the hat.
The sleeve shows some ineffective slashing with the
brush. The shadows are dark. Not nearly so good
an example as the recently acquired portrait on
an easel.
401. Heist, Bartholomeus van der. Portrait of Man
and Woman. An important picture, perhaps, but
unfortunate in its surface. It is too glassy, slip-
pery, porcelain-like. The colour is cold grey. The
characters are a bit weak. Attribution doubtful.
178. Italian School (16th Century). Portrait of a
Man. It has rich colour though it has suffered
much — too much for positive recognition of its
painter. Notice the attributions in the catalogue,
how widely they differ. Why add to the confusion
by suggesting another name? Once a fine portrait.
420. Jordaens, Jakob. Peasant and Satyr. The same
theme has been treated by Jordaens elsewhere, no-
tably No. 238 in the Brussels Gallery. In this gal-
lery the colour and the painting look refreshing in
their largeness, breadth, and body. The colour is
hot, as is frequently the case with Jordaens. The
handling is easy and effectively done. The spirit,
of course, is brutal, and the physical types are of
the same nature, but at least the presentation has
some stamina about it.
438. Portrait of a Man. It is a little over life-size,
and the scale of it seems too large as judged by the
LIPPI, WORKSHOP OF FRA FILIPPO 137
rather pulpy hand. A picture of some merit though
the surface is smooth, which gives it a frail effect
for all its size and bulk. See the note on the Borro
portrait at Berlin (No. 413A). Jordaens, not Velas-
quez, probably painted it.
393. Keyset, Thomas de. Portrait of a Woman. A
strong characterisation of a Dutch woman, heavy
of face and figure, full of health and strength. It is
admirably drawn in head and hands, and painted
with the skill that almost every Dutch painter had
at his command. Look at the black of the dress
and the fat hands.
96. Liberate da Verona. Madonna and Child. The
picture is ruined by repainting. Very likely Lib-
erale did it, for the suggestion of him is still in the
drawing, but that is about all of him that remains.
52. Lippi, Filippino. Madonna, Child, and St. An-
thony of Padua. It has much of Filippino's senti-
ment but is certainly not by him. It is just as
certainly by the painter that Mr. Berenson calls
Amico di Sandro. Compare it with No. 1412 in
the National Gallery, London, for the noses of the
Madonna and Child, and that one feature alone
will point the way to a dozen resemblances in type,
disposition of drapery, colour, trees, and also
buildings in the background. It is not the best
example of this Florentine follower of Filippino and
Botticelli but is nevertheless fine in the saints, the
flowers, the landscape, the sentiment.
60. Lippi, Workshop of Fra Filippo. Madonna,
Child, and Saints. The ascription seems right
enough. It is evidently a shop piece of Fra Filip-
po's, a little later and perhaps more advanced than
138 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
the master in some respects though possessed of
less fine feeling. The colour is rich, as notice the
saint at the left, or the sky, or the architecture.
It is somewhat hurt.
42. Lippo Memmi. Madonna and Child. There is
a beautiful background of gold and colour. Noth-
ing could be finer or richer. The faces are hurt
and the attribution is questionable.
44. Lorenzetti, Pietro. Madonna and Child. The
picture is rightly given to the Lorenzetti, but
whether it is by Pietro or Ambrogio may be left to
the differing connoisseurs quoted in the catalogue.
The background, the ornamental haloes and bor-
ders make up most of its present attraction. The
Madonna and the Child are both a little heavy
even for a Lorenzetti. The hands are not good and
the figure of the Madonna is sack-like, but such
crudities were to have been expected. Notice the
old brocade at the back.
136. Lotto, Lorenzo. Portrait of a Man. A fine,
strong portrait, with much of the emotional feel-
ing that appears in Lotto but with very little
of Lotto's technical characteristics. The romantic
look of it seems not affected in any way but it
neverthelesss becomes a little wearisome on pro-
longed acquaintance. The light and shade are in
sharp contrast and bring the attention straight
upon the face. The colour is excellent. One can
merely guess at its painter. The eyes, nose, brows,
forehead, cheek-bones, with the turn of the head
and neck and the general air, remind one of the
so-called Young Monk in the Giorgione Concert
in the Pitti (No. 185). The same hand possibly
did both heads, but that hand was possibly neither
MAES, NICOLAS 139
Lotto's nor Giorgione's. The nose and face are
hurt, the hair retouched. See the catalogue note
for attributions.
142. Madonna, Child, and St. Francis. It has been
too much worked over by restorers, and no one
knows who else, for any certain recognition of its
author. Look at the faces of the saint and the
Madonna or the hands of the Child — the Child
that is reminiscent of Lotto. The catalogue que-
ries its attribution. On the frame it is given to
Moretto.
106. Luini, Bernardino. Madonna, Child, St. Eliza-
beth, and St. John. A typical Luini in sentiment,
colour, and drawing. Notice the rock formation
at the bottom of the picture (suggestive of Leo-
nardo) and the woods at the back. The figures are
rubbed and hurt by repainting. Compare it with
No. 108 near by.
110. Madonna with Saints. A bright-coloured
* Luini with pretty faces and his usual sentiment so
attractive to the average gallery visitor. It has
good colour and drawing. Probably as much of a
masterpiece as Luini was capable of doing. He
never rose above a graceful way of saying things.
369. Maes, Nicolas. Portrait of a Woman. It has
the cramped look and drawing of Maes, but it is
done a little later than the woman's portrait at
London (No. 1675) and the woman's portrait at
Brussels (No. 368), both of them attributed to
Rembrandt but done by the painter of this Buda-
pest portrait — Maes. He is here becoming a little
sweet and pretty in his surfaces, and he is also
weakening and softening in his drawing. His
140 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
prettiness came with his prosperity and his popu-
larity.
366. Portrait of a Man. Done in the same vein as
No. 369 ; if anything, a little smoother and weaker.
There is a larger version at The Hague Museum.
Both versions should be compared with the Por-
trait of an Architect, put down to Rembrandt (No.
246), in the Cassel Gallery.
464. Man, Cornells de. Chess-Play ers. It pretends
to more than it fulfils. The work is not very good
in either drawing or colouring and its surface is
disagreeably glassy.
73. Marches!, Girolamo. Pieta. The work has
some of the serious quality of Bartolommeo Mon-
tagna about it and is not unlike him in the draw-
ing. A very good picture, harsh in its truthful-
ness, perhaps, but commanding in its sincerity and
its strength. Notice the excellent if hard drawing
of the heads and the colour of the beautiful Mag-
dalen. Other versions elsewhere.
680. Memling, Hans. Calvary. It is a hard and
glassy-looking Memling. How cold and forbid-
ding the colouring! The sky is like ice, and the
clouds are badly drawn and white-edged. The
figures are stiff, the robes rather good in colour,
the high lights over-prominent. It is school work.
692. Metsys, Quentin. Lucretia. There is a thin
look and a timid surface here, and yet it is possi-
bly not a copy but a weak original. The catalogue
note suggests a number of possible painters for it,
but some doubt holds about any one of them. It
is eclectic work and difficult to trace home to its
actual author.
MORONI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA 141
339. Molenaar, Jan Miense. Hotel of the Half Moon,
Haarlem. A well-grouped assembly in front of a
tavern, with a good landscape at the back. The
colour, light, and air of it are very acceptable with-
out being distinguished. Molenaar was a weak
disciple in the Hals School and had hard work
painting up to his wife, Judith Leyster.
582. Moreelse, Paulus. Portrait of a Lady. The
painter relied so completely on the comely looks of
his sitter that he thought he might fumble or neg-
lect the hair, the lace collar, and get on by merely
suggesting the figure. The head and the body are
not too closely related. Both are a little flat. But
a handsome portrait that once passed as a Rem-
brandt and might even have been mistaken for an
early Van Dyck.
131. Moretto da Brescia (Alessandro Bonvicino).
A Saint. The colour is good and the landscape is
interesting. As for the saint, he now has a flattened
head and a pulpy hand, thanks to renewals in the
restoring room. The green curtain and sky are
well given as regards colour.
164. Morone, Domenico. St. Francis of Assist.
There is a good set-in of the figures and the archi-
tecture and a fine tone to the picture. The figures
all kneel well. St. Francis is, perhaps, a little con-
strained in pose.
1131 Moroni, Giovanni Battista. St. Catherine and
114J St. Dorothy. There is a sharp snap of reality
about the figures characteristic of Moroni's art,
inclined as it was toward portraiture and the reali-
sation of the model. These small panels should be
compared with another Moroni (No. 179) in this
gallery.
142 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
179. Madonna, Child, and St. John. This is a
group unique in arrangement, architectural niche,
drawing, and colour. It shows more of a person-
ality than we usually associate with Moroni. The
Madonna is charming in type with long fingers
and a long neck; the children have square heads
with rings of flesh about their necks. The blue is
a little harsh. The background good in shadow
and air.
311. Murillo, Bartholome Esteban. Portrait of a
* Man. An excellent portrait — entirely too good,
too strong, too positive for Murillo. He never
drew with such strength, painted with such sure-
ness, or had such mental grip as this portrait evi-
dences. It was painted by the painter of the Christ
Bound to the Column in the National Gallery,
London (No. 1148), there ascribed to Velasquez
but not by him. Not only is there similarity in
colour, tone, flesh, drawing, brush-work, but there
is here the same sentiment — something that Ve-
lasquez never knew and Murillo turned into sen-
timentality. The portrait is worthy of study.
There is no portrait in this gallery that goes beyond
it in interest. Compare it with the Murillo por-
trait No. 328 — so much weaker in every way.
304. Infant Christ Distributing Bread. The usual
sweet performance of Murillo with neither good
sentiment nor good technique about it. The draw-
ing and colour are both negligible and the whole
picture forgetable.
328. Portrait of the Painter. Compare it with the
portrait No. 311 in this gallery, and notice the ab-
solutely different drawing, handling, treatment of
blacks, and, above all, the essentially different atti-
NETSCHER, CASPAR 143
tude of mind as shown in the pictures. This por-
trait is by Murillo, whereas No. 311 is by another
hand. This is a poor enough piece of drawing in
the forehead, brows, nose, and mouth. There is
no distinction about it nor any great skill.
533. Neer, Aart van der. Moonlight. It is some-
what hard and sharp in outlines but with the effect
of light the painter was seeking. See also No. 537
for a fire scene by the same painter.
676c. Netherland School. Adoration of Magi. This
is possibly by some one in the Herri met de Bles
School, working with exaggerated high lights and
much richness of colouring. The landscape is like
the Bles-Patinir affair that is attributed first to one
and then to the other of these painters, depending
upon the gallery where you happen to be. (Not in
the catalogue of 1910.)
693 1 St. Catherine and St. Barbara. The wings of
694 / a triptych by some unknown Netherland painter of
ability. They are good in both sentiment and
colour. A positive attribution of them to any
Netherland painter would almost surely be uncon-
vincing. The man who did them probably left no
name to us.
477. Netscher, Caspar. The Medallion. The stu-
dent should notice that in this picture by Netscher
there is some of the dot-and-spot work supposed
to be peculiar to Jan Vermeer of Delft and appear-
ing in the pseudo-Vermeers at London, Amsterdam,
and The Hague. The spotty high lights, the hard-
ness of the dress across the knees are similar to that
in The Hague picture put down to Vermeer (No.
625).
144 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
82. Niccold (Alunno) da Foligno. St. Bernard.
Notice the Umbrian landscape peculiar to Niccol6.
The figure is not characteristic. A fresco trans-
ferred to canvas. The colour lacks life but is dec-
orative.
548. Oils, Jan. Family Croup. It is well done and
there is a sense of ensemble about it that attracts.
Notice the atmosphere of the landscape.
50. Orcagna, Andrea. Madonna, Child, and Six An-
* gels. A work of decided charm in colour and with
much fine sentiment. The Madonna has not yet
entirely lost the Byzantine face and the angels
around the throne do not yet exemplify the laws
of perspective; but how lovely all of them are
in feeling, tenderness, purity! With tooled haloes
and patterns. Notice the beauty of the brocade
back of the Madonna and the colour beauty in
the Child with his white under-vest and the gold-
embroidered robe across the knees. Decorative
effect is apparent everywhere. Notice even the
rug far down at the bottom for richness.
514. Ostade, Adriaen van. Fish Seller. The picture
has some broad brush-work and some large draw-
ing about it. The colour is not remarkable.
531. A Man in His Library. Here is not only good
drawing but excellent painting, both of them done
in a large way with no petty details or niggling of
stuffs, or pots, or pans. What fine colour 1
527. Ostade, Isaac Van. Interior of Peasant's Hut.
Given with excellent light, shade, and colour. It
is not entirely in the style of Isaac van Ostade but
is a very good piece of painting, nevertheless.
116. Pacchia, Girolamo da. Madonna and Saints.
The frame is better than the picture. The com-
PIER FRANCESCO FIORENTINO 145
bination shows how well even an inferior old master
will look if left in its original framing and regarded
merely as decoration.
301. Pacheco, Francisco. Joachim and St. Anne.
A fairly good picture but possibly not by Pacheco.
The catalogue queries the attribution. It has the
suggestion of an early Velasquez but is not by
him either. The drawing is good in the robes,
heads, and hands. The sky and distance are Ve-
lasquez-like in colour and very decorative at that.
105. Padua, School of. Pieta. The hands seem those
of Bartolommeo Vivarini and the foreshortened
head of Christ and also that of the Madonna seem
the work of some Mantegna follower. It is a hard
piece of drawing, grimaced in the faces and dark-
ened in the colour, but it has some grip and force
about it. See the various attributions listed in the
catalogue note.
101. Pannonio, Michele. Ceres. A queer type and
with rather queer colour. The drawing of the face,
hands, and lower part of the figure is by no means
accurate. The left knee and leg are especially
faulty. There is a bizarre richness of jewelling in
the chair, vases, and ornaments of the figure. It
is ornate to the last degree, and rather fine in its
ornateness. In superficial appearance the picture
is not unlike the pictures attributed to Melozzo da
Forli in London and Berlin and in measure fore-
shadows Cosimo Tura. The painter is supposed
to be a Michele Ongaro who worked in Ferrara
about 1450.
55. Pier Francesco Fiorentino. Madonna, Child,
* and St. John. The drawing of the Child and the
146 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
type of St. John are practically the same as those
in the Madonna by Fra Filippo at Berlin (No. 69).
The angel also is a composite of the Lippi School.
The sentiment of the picture is right and the col-
our is charming though the drawing is a little
hard. The flowers in relief and the gold work are
excellent. Notice the tooled halo, the different
blues, the lovely reds. The painter was an eclectic
working at Florence in the last quarter of the fif-
teenth century.
118. Pietro da Messina. Christ Bound to the Column.
Another copy of this picture is in the Venice Acad-
emy (No. 589). Both this and that are supposed
to be after the original in the Cook Collection,
London. Neither of them is a remarkable picture
though at one time both were thought originals by
Antonello da Messina.
83. Pinturicchio, Bernardo. Madonna and Child.
With cherubim surrounding the Madonna in the
form of an aureole. Similar works at Venice, in
the Darmstadt Gallery (No. 513), and also in the
Louvre (No. 1417) ascribed to the School of Peru-
gino. The sentiment is most agreeable and the
colouring warm. It seems the best of several ver-
sions in different galleries. Probably by Antonio
da Viterbo.
138. Piombo, Sebastiano del. Portrait of a Man.
Thought by some critics to be a likeness of Raphael.
In the next room is another likeness of Raphael
(No. 86) with which this might be compared for
resemblances in the sitter. Of course, the face and
hands and dress have been gone over by the re-
storer, which may account for the white being now
too high. The surface is weakened and softened
RAPHAEL (SANZIO) 147
by repainting and the figure flattened. It is a
somewhat pretentious work. The landscape is
interesting.
77. Previtali, Andrea. Madonna, Child, St. John,
* and Donor. The trees are the only things that
indicate Previtali, and they are crudely done. The
sky, mountains, and the Madonna point to an
early Palma. The Madonna is very lovely in her
shadowed face and the rich colour of her robes.
The donor has a sharp profile and well-drawn hands,
and the group of children is happily done. See the
catalogue for the various attributions.
93. Madonna and Child. The Child is, in type,
like the St. John in the so-called Previtali (No. 77)
in this gallery, but that is about the only resem-
blance between the pictures. The Madonna here
is prettier, softer in sentiment, less effective as
light, shade, and colour, more brittle in texture,
sweeter in the painting of the yellow silk. The
landscape is very good.
53. Raphael (Sanzio). The Esterhazy Madonna.
* A graceful, pyramidal composition, cunningly va-
ried in its putting together, serene in its doing,
without much tenderness or sentiment. It is aca-
demic in poses and graceful attitudes that show
knowledge of the figure. It is more demonstrative
of skill than of feeling and marked by artifices that
show the young Raphael is arriving at maturity
of method. The drawing is very good, the drap-
ery handsomely disposed, the St. John charmingly
sketched in. The whole group is a little sculptur-
esque. The surface is now smooth though the
picture was never finished, the colour is cool, the
landscape pure and clear. It belongs to Raphael's
148 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
early time and seems to show influences emanating
from Leonardo and Fra Bartolommeo. What a
good frame!
86. Portrait of a Young Man. It is certainly in
the style of Raphael though possibly a less sure
hand than his drew the eyes, nose, mouth, hands.
And a cruder brush than his did the hair, the white
edging at the neck and wrist, and painted the land-
scape. To be sure, the surface is much repainted
and the outline of the face and neck is injured,
but apparently the drawing was never very cun-
ning or very sure. Moreover, its mental grasp is
as weak and insipid as its technical workmanship.
Raphael had a sober, dignified mind, and we find
here a rather flippant or vacillating mood not at
all pleasant or Raphael-like. The Raphael look is
about it but not the Raphael quality. An inter-
esting picture, possibly by some Raphael follower
or imitator and probably a portrait of Raphael
himself. Much repainted in the face, hands, and
elsewhere.
540. Rembrandt van Ryn. An Old Rabbi. It is
a pinched and cramped work not worthy of Rem-
brandt either in its mental conception or its tech-
nical handling. It is evidently a sketch carried as
far as possible by a painter who was not too sure
of either his drawing or his painting. Notice the
face, especially the eyes, nose, mouth, beard — how
ineffectively they have been struck by the brush!
The hands are done in a similar manner and the
hat, cloak, and candlestick are no better. It is the
work of a Rembrandt follower but not the master
himself.
542. The Holy Family. This picture is by some
minor painter of the Rembrandt following in which
REMBRANDT, SCHOOL OF 149
some of the Rembrandt studio materials (the Jo-
seph, for instance) have been used or copied. It
is a work of small importance and gives little or
no hint of Rembrandt's strength.
544 Joseph's Dream. The picture has charm in
* its colour. Moreover, it is rather fine in its diagonal
composition or arrangement of the figures, its light,
and its atmospheric setting. It is drawn and painted
in a rather coarse way and there is little about it
to suggest Rembrandt more than the general school
look, but it is an attractive work, nevertheless. It
might have been done by Eeckhout, one of the
most versatile and persistent of the Rembrandt
followers. The knuckles, the dabs of high light, the
grey light, the angel suggest him.
368. Rembrandt, School of. Christ before Pilate. A
large picture with some pretension in its size, its
subject, its colour. Done in the Rembrandt vein
but with weaker drawing, softer textures, and less
colour quality than Rembrandt usually gave. It is
somewhat similar in style to the large Centurion
Cornelius of the Wallace Collection (No. 86). In
both pictures we have similar high lights on the
noses, similar hands, head-dress, types, colours.
This picture is probably by some follower like
Flinck, who was by no means a poor painter save
by comparison with Rembrandt. The Christ here
(No. 368) is exaggerated in the whiteness of the
flesh but is well drawn and rightly painted. The
same brush probably did the Saul before David at
The Hague (No. 621) and the Parable of the Work-
ers in the Vineyard at Frankfort (No. 181). The
Wallace Collection picture was, perhaps, by Ber-
naert Fabritius.
150 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
404. The Treasure Hunter. A Rembrandtesque
effect given with considerable strength in the figure,
the head, arm, white shirt, but it is not Rem-
brandt's strength. The still-life at the bottom in
its painting seems much prettier and more finical
than the figure. The landscape was probably done
by the same hand. None of it is wonderful. There
is a composite character about the work that is
curious. The Rembrandt look of the digger may
mean merely that he was used as a model by many
of the school — pupils as well as the master.
287. Ribera, Jusefe (Lo Spagnoletto). Martyrdom
of St. Andrew. Done in the usual realistic manner
of Ribera with strong modelling brought into high
relief by the use of dark shadows. The colour is
rather sacrificed to the shadow and subordinated
to the flesh-notes in the high light. It is good work
of a harsh nature with little or no charm or any-
thing winning about it. It commands respect by
its seriousness and its strength but fails to attract
by its subject, sentiment, types, or decorative plan.
125. Romano, Giulio. Diana and Endymion. It is
excellent in the colour, the swing of the drapery,
the action of the figure. The effect of light-and-
shade is forced but forceful.
126. Romanino, II (Girolamo Romani). Portrait of
* a Man. The costume and curtain produce a very
ornate effect but with some uneasiness in the lines
of the golden pattern and some feeling of closeness
in the curtain. The characterisation of the sitter
is excellent in spite of the lax drawing in the eyes,
nose, and ear — perhaps by virtue of this very laxity.
The man is before us, at any rate, and with some
positiveness into the bargain. The picture is hurt
RUBENS, PETER PAUL 151
in the neck, beard, and elsewhere. It is a fine
Romanino.
122. Rosselli, School of Cosimo. Nativity. The
angel and the colouring suggest Albertinelli but
the work is not important enough to repay much
study. The space is not badly filled nor the fig-
ures badly drawn, but the picture is wanting in
inspiration, feeling, profound technical knowledge.
It is well framed.
418. Rubens, Peter Paul. Mucius Sccevola. A pic-
ture that adds nothing to our knowledge of Ru-
bens or of his school. It was probably designed by
Rubens but there is no evidence of the brush that
points to him. It may be a school piece but it has
not the surface of even school work.
646A. Study Head. This head is put down as a
study for one of the heads of the three Magi at the
church of St. John at Malines, but it is more likely
a copy by the hand that did the series of apostles'
heads in Madrid (Nos. 1646-1656), there assigned
to Rubens but probably by some pupil or follower.
610. Portrait of a Man. A strong, fine portrait
* with excellent modelling in the skull, the forehead,
the brows, the cheeks. How well the eyes are set
in the head! And how positively the head sets
in the ruff and joins the shoulders! The figure is
merely suggested but it is enough. The type is
not an intellectual one and yet not wanting in
intelligence. The physical presence, however, is
the main feature demonstrated. But for its flesh
colour and its brush-work one might think it an
early Van Dyck so like to him is it in pose and
turn of head and eyes. Cleaned a little too much.
152 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
492A. Ruisdacl, Jacob van. Landscape. A sketchy
picture, easier, freer, looser than usual with Ruis-
dael, and the better for it. It is more enjoyable
than his finished work. The sky and trees are
good.
515. Ruysdael, Salomon van. Landscape after Rain.
In the style of Van Goyen but weaker in drawing
and poorer in colour. The light is not good.
524. The Tavern. It is thin, poor work, better,
perhaps, than that of No. 515 but not markedly so.
85. Santi, Giovanni. Madonna and Saints. A
crude work of very little skill or quality, and there
is no reason to suppose that even Giovanni Santi,
poor workman and uninspired painter that he
was, could or would do anything so commonplace.
Even the flowers seem dull and the sky dead.
76. Sarto, Andrea del. Madonna, Child, and St.
John. It is a poor, repainted panel that probably
never emanated from Andrea or even his work-
shop. Look at the crude landscape, the badly
drawn eyes, the wretched colour.
25. Sassetta (Stefano di Giovanni). St. Thomas
Aquinas. Very fine in colour and beautiful in its
architectural drawing. There is a delicacy of fin-
ish that speaks for Sassetta. It corresponds with
his pictures at Berlin, the Vatican Gallery (No. 176),
and elsewhere. Notice the gold work and the re-
mains of the altar-piece at the left. The chapel
at right, the courtyard at back are equally inter-
esting. There is individuality here which enables
connoisseurship to be more positive in its conclu-
sions.
SIGNORELLI, WORKSHOP OF LUCA 153
31. Segna di Bonaventura. St. Lucy. Rich in the
red robe. Byzantine influence is still apparent in
the nose, eyes, and hands. Is it a part of the old
frame that still shows at the top? The hand is
dreadfully repainted and the head has not escaped.
See the catalogue note for attributions.
56. SellajO, JaCOpO del. Esther and Ahasuerus.
The architecture is askew and the gold work a
little careless in the tracing, as was the habit of
Jacopo in his minor work. The figures are well
grouped and quite splendid in their rich costumes.
Other pictures of this series in the Louvre and the
Uffizi (Nos. 66, 67, 68). They all show good senti-
ment with charm of colour. Notice the grace and
loveliness of the kneeling Esther.
39. Sienese School. Holy Family. The background
is interesting for its early study of landscape with
an attempt at light from the sky. The Joseph is
awkward but the Madonna graceful.
46. Coronation of Virgin. Excellent in colour
and with charming patterns in the central fabric.
Notice the incised halo and crown and the lovely
white head-dress. A beautiful piece of colour!
Part of a panel cut off from a larger picture and
added to at the left and the bottom. No. 45 is
much poorer work and No. 34 is practically ruined.
67. Signorelli, Workshop of Luca. Tiberius Grac-
chus. The type is slight and the landscape too
crude for Signorelli, and yet the picture is certainly
in his manner. The colour and sentiment are both
a little weak. Notice this not only in the chief
figure but in the scroll at the base held by the
stiff little cupids.
154 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
51. Simone Martini. Annunciation. The angel is
like the Simone angel of the Annunciation in the
Uffizi. The gold work is just a little coarse, the
Madonna a little heavy. The picture shows Si-
mone's influence but is not by him.
79. Sodoma, II (Giovanni Antonio Bazzi). Ma-
donna, Child, and Saints. A composite picture
suggesting half a dozen different painters but with
no certainty about any one of them. The only
certainty about it seems to be that it is in no way
wonderful whoever painted it. The sentiment is
over-done as well as its ornamental features. It is
decadent. Notice the affectation of the women's
heads with their pretty leanings to the side.
90. Flagellation of Christ. An interesting panel
by the Sienese master, the figure and pose of the
Christ being typical of him. The figures are a
little short, the shadows dark, the colour bleached
in the high lights, the landscape blue. A good
panel.
N. N. Spanish School. Crucifixion. An altar-piece in
five compartments put down to the Spanish School.
It is very interesting in its unusual scheme of colour
in which green apparently predominates. Not well
drawn at all nor accurately painted but very dec-
orative. It is a following of the Flemish primitive
style. Other panels of the early Spanish School
hanging near by are equally lacking in accurate
knowledge and skill but are decoratively attractive.
95. Speranza, Giovanni. Madonna and Child. The
hardness of the drawing in the nose, brows, and
hands should not cause us to overlook the rather
fine spirit of this picture. It has feeling, simplicity,
TIEPOLO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA 155
and dignity. There is also a rich gamut of colour.
The panel has been injured.
21. Spinello Aretino. Two Saints. Two panels
with a predella, all of them interesting in art his-
tory. They are still fine in their gold grounds and
borders and in their richness of colour though very
much injured. Notice especially the predella.
347. Steen, Jan. Family of Cats. It is either very
careless work or else it has been repainted from
end to end. There is nothing about it now to indi-
cate Steen's quality as a painter. It has neither
pure colour nor sure handling nor fatty surfaces.
Mere clumsiness of the brush is about all that one
can see in it to-day. The signature does not help
matters in the least.
48. StefanodaZevio(P). Madonna and Child. Sack-
like in form but still fine in haloes and borders.
The space within the handsome frame is well filled.
See the catalogue for the various attributions and
denials heaped upon this picture. But it is a lovely
picture in spite of differing opinions as to its painter.
227. Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista. St. James of Com-
postela. A large though rather soft and weak Tie-
polo. The horse has been prettified and the man
slightly exaggerated in sentiment and pose. The
whites do not appear to be well managed, the sky
has been hurt, and the negro has blackened. It is
not now a successful Tiepolo whatever it may have
been when originally painted. Tiepolo had more
strength than is here shown — more tang to his char-
acterisation. Yet the picture is by no means
negligible. It is handsome colour and decoration.
266. Madonna, St. Joseph, and Five Saints. A
bright scrap of colour, easily painted, with the
156 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
facility that Tiepolo had at the end of his fingers
and displayed early and often. He was a composer
of ceiling groups of great energy and life and a
colourist of brilliancy and charm — the last and
one of the most attractive of the great Venetian
decorators.
154. Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) . Portrait of a Woman.
An attractive head but a little weak for Titian.
Add to it the weakening processes of restoration
and it becomes unimportant work — that is, at the
present time unimportant.
81. Umbrian School. Madonna and Child. It be-
longs somewhere near Pinturicchio though prob-
ably not by him. It is a little weak for Pintu-
ricchio and the landscape does not suggest that
master. The colour is pleasing.
88. Madonna and Child. This is too much hurt
to determine its origin. The bird is very good
and perhaps the landscape is its best feature — it
having been done with care and some feeling.
328F. Velasco de Coimbra. Nativity. Whoever did
this panel put good feeling, good colour, and some
strength into it. It shows apparently Flemish in-
fluence.
328E. Velasquez (Diego de Silva y). Shepherds at
Table. The still-life on the table and the figure at
the right suggest an early Velasquez, but it is not
impossible that the picture may have come from
Ribalta or Pacheco who often worked in this same
vein. It is hard in drawing and not very good as
colour. But it has strength and is just as good
as some of the genuine early Velasquez pictures at
the Prado. Not everything of Velasquez origin is
unalloyed gold.
VERMEER OF DELFT, JAN 157
499A. Velde, Jan Jansz van de. Still-Life. It is
excellent in colour and extremely well painted.
See also No. 499.
385. Velde, Willem van de. Calm Sea. A character-
istic Van de Velde with a silvery tone and a high
sky. Notice the delicate drawing of the ships and
sails.
133. Venetian School. Madonna and Child. The
colour is a bit crude and the landscape is airless.
No one knows who did it.
134. Christ Bearing Cross. What a good piece of
colour — thanks, perhaps, to its being little harmed
by restorers and cleaners or at least not repainted
beyond recognition. The landscape seems excel-
lent.
456. Vermeer (Van der Meet) of Delft, Jan. Por-
** trait of a Woman. Vermeer mu'st have been almost
as versatile a person as Giorgione or Rembrandt to
have done all the things put down to him. In the
National Gallery, London, he is hard, glassy, petty
in detail; in The Hague landscape he is wonderful
in colour, light, and air; in the figure piece of the
Graces in that gallery he is idyllic, Giorgionesque,
a colourist; here at Budapest he is intensely indi-
vidual, psychological, penetrating, flat in modelling
and handling,, almost evanescent in delicacy of col-
ouring, profoundly realistic in a large way. Pre-
sumably the attribution here was arrived at by a
process of elimination. If not by Vermeer, who,
then, did it? is the question asked. And to this
there is no reply. It is no doubt by Vermeer but
agrees with only a few of his accepted works in other
galleries. It is like the portraits at Brussels (No.
665) and The Hague (No. 670), like the fine land-
158 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
scape at The Hague (No. 92), like some of his inte-
riors with small figures at Dresden, Berlin, and Am-
sterdam; but when all that is said the picture still
remains almost in a class by itself. The modelling
of the forehead, the cheeks, and brows is most effec-
tive. The eyes are a wonder of observation and
workmanship. As for the figure, it is very well sug-
gested, the gloves beautifully painted, the relation
of whites excellent even now when there is every
reason to believe them somewhat changed by clean-
ing. The chair and table are merely suggested,
the background is slight, the handling broad and
free, with slight traces of dotting, as in some of his
smaller works. Presumably a late work, which
makes it impossible to believe that Vermeer hard-
ened or grew glassy in his surfaces as he aged. It
is a masterpiece. See the notes on his Hague and
Amsterdam pictures under those galleries.
139. Veronese, Paolo (Caliari). Allegory of Venice.
It is a poor variation of the Ducal Palace picture
at Venice by some weak follower of Paolo. There
is no reason to think it a study for the Venice pic-
ture. It is too weak for a Veronese sketch but
right enough for a copy by some follower.
92. Verona, School of. Volto Santo. With a fine
landscape and considerable richness of effect in the
jewel work of the robe border. A picture difficult
to assign to either a master or a school. See the
attributions in the catalogue.
59. Verrocchio, Workshop of. Madonna with
* Saints. This is one of the pictures that every con-
noisseur takes pleasure in guessing at. Of course
no one's guess satisfies more than himself. The
picture is a composite affair put together by some
VOS, CORNELIS DE 159
eclectic painter of the time who helped himself to
features of Verrocchio, Rosselli, and others. The
types, especially the angels at the back, point to
Verrocchio. Also the drawing of the hands and
feet favour Verrocchio. But the colour, the com-
position, the garden at the back suggest Rosselli.
The drawing, colour, sentiment are all good. The
kneeling saint and the Madonna are fine and the
architecture is rich. It is a very good picture
whoever did it. The panel is split in several places
and the surface is somewhat injured.
395. VictOOFS, Jan. Jacob Blessing the Children of
Joseph. There is a weak suggestion of Rembrandt
about it, some brilliancy of colour, and some pretti-
ness of handling. The picture has evidently been
injured by repainting.
103. Vivarini, Antonio. Madonna and Child. It be-
longs in the Vivarini workshop, with none of the
marked characteristics of either Antonio or Barto-
lommeo Vivarini about it. It is elaborate in de-
tail and rather hot in colour, with patterned gold
work at the back. The flowers are not too well
done nor the blue of the robe too pleasant in
quality.
1191 Magdalen and St. Lucy. Two panels that
120 / make pleasant spots of colour on the wall and
are decorative but not otherwise remarkable.
442 \ Vos, Cornells de. Portraits. Smooth and rather
446 J pretty portraits that belong together — at least in
the matter of their uneasy curtain backgrounds
and their porcelain-like costumes.
601. Portrait of a Lady. It has a Van Dyck look
in the eyes but is too weak for him. Some painter
160 THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM
influenced by Rubens probably did it, and not un-
likely Cornells de Vos was the man.
399. Wet, Jacob de. Circumcision of Christ. This
is the kind of picture that is usually declared "an
early Rembrandt" in French and German galleries.
One has merely to examine it closely to see that it
is the shadow not the substance of Rembrandt.
The work is fairly well done, the setting is good,
the colour is attractive. It is the average good
work of a Rembrandt follower.
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS
19.
Giotto.
76.
Sarto, A. del.
21.
Spinello Aretino.
77.
Previtali.
23.
Giotto.
79.
Sodoma.
25.
Sassetta.
81.
Umbrian School.
29.
Avanzi.
82.
Niccold da Foligno.
35.
Giovanni da Ponte.
83.
Pinturicchio.
39.
Sienese School.
85.
Santi, Giovanni.
42.
Lippo Memmi.
86.
Raphael.
43.
Duccio.
88.
Umbrian School.
44.
Lorenzetti, P.
90.
Sodoma.
46.
Sienese School.
92.
Verona, School of.
48.
Stefano da Zevio.
93.
Previtali.
50.
Orcagna.
95.
Speranza.
51.
Simone Martini.
96.
Liberale da Verona.
52.
Lippi, Filippino.
97.
Catena.
53.
Raphael.
98.
Crivelli, Carlo.
54.
Granacci.
99 \
55.
Pier Francesco Fioren-
100 J
Cossa.
tino.
101.
Pannonio.
56.
Sellajo.
102.
Catena.
58.
Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo.
103.
Vivarini, Antonio.
59.
Verrocchio, Workshop
104.
Basaiti.
of.
105.
Padua, School of.
60.
Lippi, Fra Filippo.
106.
Luini.
63.
Bicci di Lorenzo.
108.
Gianpietrino.
67.
Signorelli.
109.
Basaiti.
69.
Grandi, Ercole.
110.
Luini.
70.
Bacchiacca.
111.
Bellini, School of
72.
Francia.
Giovanni.
73.
Marchesi, Girolamo.
112.
Borgognone.
74.
75.
Boccato da Camerino.
Francia.
113 \
114 J
Moroni.
161
162
INDEX
> Venetian School.
115. Boltraffio.
116. Pacchia.
117. Bellini, Gentile.
118. Pietro da Messina.
119 }
120 I ^*varm*> Antonio.
121. Correggio.
122. Rosselli, School of.
124. Costa.
125. Romano, Giulio.
126. Romanino.
128. Bartolommeo Veneto.
131. Moretto da Brescia.
1331
134 J
136. Lotto.
138. Piombo, Sebastiano del.
139. Veronese, P.
140. Giorgione.
145. Giorgione, copy after.
147. Bassano, Jacopo.
154. Titian.
158. Cremona, School of.
161. Dossi.
164. Morone, Domenico.
177. Girolamo da Santa
Croce.
178. Italian School.
179. Moroni.
180A. Bissolo.
180D. Dossi.
204. Feti.
223. Guardi.
227. Tiepolo.
230. Canaletto.
23Hi
240 /
2551
256 j
> Guardi.
> Belotto.
266. Tiepolo.
283. Carducho.
Ribera.
Pacheco.
Murillo.
Cano.
287.
301.
304
311
320
321
328/ Murillo.
328A. Greco, II.
328s. Carrefio de Miranda.
328E. Velasquez.
328r. Velasco de Coimbra.
331. Fabritius, B.
339. Molenaar.
341. Goyen, Van.
347. Steen.
365. Elias.
366. Maes.
368. Rembrandt, School of.
369. Maes.
372. Elias.
385. Velde, W. van de,
393. Keyser.
395. Victoors.
399. Wet, Jacob de.
401. Heist, B. van der.
404. Rembrandt, School of.
407. Gelder.
410A. Flinck.
416. Dyck, Anthony van.
418. Rubens.
419. Dyck, Anthony van.
420. Jordaens.
435. Balen.
438. Jordaens.
456. Vermeer of Delft.
INDEX
163
464. Man, C. de.
477. Netscher.
485. Decker.
487. Grebber.
492A. Ruisdael, J. van.
499A. Velde, J. J. van de.
501. Hals, Frans.
502. Duck.
507A. Hals, Dirck.
514. Ostade, A. van.
527. Ostade, I. van.
531. Ostade, A. van.
533. Neer, A. van der.
540]
542 > Rembrandt.
544 J
548. Oils.
549. Bol.
582. Moreelse.
587. Cuyp, Albert.
593. Brouwer.
601. Vos, C. de.
610. Rubens.
642. Coques.
646A. Rubens.
651. Brueghel the Elder,
Peter.
653. Brueghel the Younger,
Peter.
673. Aertsen.
676c. Netherland School.
678. Aldegrever.
680. Memling.
682. Engelbrechtsen.
684. Bles.
692. Metsys, Q.
^ | Netherland School.
696. David.
697. Gossart.
697A. Cleve, Juste van.
699. Diirer.
Cranach the Elder.
716 :
7191
728 J
729A. Baldung.
729a. French School.
N.N. Beuckelaer.
N.N.Bosch.
N.N.Hals, Frans.
N.N. Spanish School.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
BERKELEY
Return to desk from which borrowed.
This book is DUE on the last date stamped beloi
5Mar'52SA
REC'D LD
APR 20 1960
LIBRARY USE
APR. -9 197 0
HEC
APR 9197Q
LD 21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476
YA 01132
393598
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11