The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Burlington magazine, by Various
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
using this eBook.
Title: The Burlington magazine
for connoisseurs. vol. II--June to August
Contributor: Various
Release Date: March 25, 2023 [eBook #70374]
Language: English
Produced by: Jane Robins and Reiner Ruf (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet Archive.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE ***
THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE
FOR CONNOISSEURS
VOL. II
The
Burlington Magazine
for Connoisseurs
_Illustrated & Published Monthly_
Volume II--June to August
LONDON
THE SAVILE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED
14 NEW BURLINGTON STREET, W.
PARIS: LIBRAIRIE H. FLOURY, 1 BOULEVARD DES CAPUCINES
BRUSSELS: SPINEUX & CIE., 62 MONTAGNE DE LA COUR
LEIPZIG: KARL W. HIERSEMANN, 3 KÖNIGSSTRASSE
VIENNA: ARTARIA & CO., I., KOHLMARKT 9
AMSTERDAM: J. G. ROBBERS, N. Z. VOORBURGWAL 64
FLORENCE: B. SEEBER, 20 VIA TORNABUONI
NEW YORK: SAMUEL BUCKLEY & CO., 100 WILLIAM STREET
1903
[Illustration]
CONTENTS
PAGE
Editorial Articles:
I.--Clifford’s Inn and the Protection of Ancient Buildings 3
II.--The Publication of Works of Art belonging to Dealers 5
The Finest Hunting Manuscript extant. Written by W. A.
Baillie-Grohman 8
A newly-discovered ‘Libro di Ricordi’ of Alesso Baldovinetti.
Written by Herbert P. Horne:
Part I. 22
Part II (_conclusion_) 167
Appendix--Documents referred to in Articles 377
The Early Painters of the Netherlands as Illustrated by the
Bruges Exhibition of 1902. Written by W. H. James Weale:
Article IV 35
Article V 326
On Oriental Carpets:
Article III.--The Svastika 43
Article IV.--The Lotus and the Tree of Life 349
The Dutch Exhibition at the Guildhall:
Article I.--The Old Masters 51
Article II.--The Modern Painters 177
Early Staffordshire Wares Illustrated by Pieces in the
British Museum. Article I. Written by R. L. Hobson 64
Notes on Various Works of Art:
Two alleged ‘Giorgiones’ 78
Two Italian Bas-reliefs in the Louvre 84
Two Pictures in the Possession of Messrs. Dowdeswell 89
A Marble Statue by Germain Pilon 90
Lace in the Collection of Mrs. Alfred Morrison at Fonthill 95
The Sorö Chalice 357
The Oaken Chest at Ypres 357
A Burgundian Chest 358
A New Fount of Greek Type 358
Portrait of a Lady by Rembrandt 360
Pictures in the Collection of Sir Hubert Parry, at Highnam
Court, near Gloucester. Article I.--Italian Pictures of
the Fourteenth Century. Written by Roger Fry 117
Mussulman Manuscripts and Miniatures as Illustrated in the
Recent Exhibition at Paris. Part I. Written by E. Blochet 132
The Plate of Winchester College. Written by Percy Macquoid, R.I. 149
The Seals of the Brussels Gilds. Written by R. Petrucci 190
Note on the Life of Bernard van Orley 205
The Collection of Pictures of the Earl of Normanton, at
Somerley, Hampshire. Article I.--Pictures by Sir Joshua
Reynolds. Written by Max Roldit 206
French Furniture of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
Article II.--The Louis XIV Style (_cont._)--The Gobelins.
Written by Emile Molinier 229
The Exhibition of Greek Art at the Burlington Fine Arts Club.
Written by Cecil Smith 236
The Lowestoft Porcelain Factory, and the Chinese Porcelain made
for the European Market during the Eighteenth Century.
Written by L. Solon 271
Titian’s Portrait of the Empress Isabella. Written by
Georg Gronau 281
A newly-discovered Portrait Drawing by Dürer. Written by
Campbell Dodgson 286
Later Nineteenth-Century Book Illustrations. Article I.
Written by Joseph Pennell 293
Andrea Vanni. By L. Mason Perkins 309
The Geographical Distribution of the First Folio Shakespeare.
Written by Frank Rinder 335
Recent Acquisitions at the Louvre 338
New Acquisitions at the National Museums 70, 194
Bibliography 104, 256, 367
Correspondence 113, 267, 376
Foreign Correspondence 373
LIST OF PLATES
PAGE
Frontispiece--The Judgement of Cambyses--Gerard David 2
The Finest Hunting Manuscript Extant:--
Stripping the Boar 9
Hunting the Fallow Buck 13
Pages from Gaston Phoebus MS. 17
Page from Gaston Phoebus MS. 19
Painted-glass Window in the Cloister of Santa Croce,
Florence--Alesso Baldovinetti 25
Altar-piece, in the Florentine Academy--Alesso Baldovinetti 29
The Blessed Virgin and Child, with Angels, surrounded by
Virgin Saints--Gerard David 34
The Blessed Virgin and Child, St. Catherine, and St.
Barbara--Cornelia Cnoop 37
Portraits of Thomas Portunari and his Wife--Attributed to
Hans Memlinc 41
Section of Oriental Carpet, showing the Svastika 45
The Cook Asleep--Jan Vermeer of Delft 50
Portrait of Himself--Jan Steen 53
Portrait of the Wife of Thomas Wijck--Jan Verspronck 53
Off Scheveningen--Jan van de Capelle 57
Le Commencement d’Orage 61
A Scandinavian Chalice, with details 71
Madonna and Child--Cariani 79
The Sempstress Madonna--Cariani 81
Adoration of the Shepherds--Venetian School (Two Pictures) 85
Bas-relief--School of Leonardo da Vinci 88
Bas-relief--Agostino di Duccio 88
Adoration of the Magi, and Dormition of the Blessed
Virgin--French fourteenth century 91
La Charité--Germain Pilon 94
Specimens of Lace:--
Plate I 97
Plate II 99
Plate III 101
Lady Betty Hamilton--Sir J. Reynolds 116
Nativity and Adoration--School of Cimabue 119
Altar-piece--Bernardo Daddi 121
Coronation of our Lady (Two Subjects: 1, by Agnolo Gaddi;
2, by Taddeo Gaddi) 123
Adoration of the Magi--Lorenzo Monaco 127
The Visitation--Lorenzo Monaco 127
Madonna and Child, with Angels--Florentine of the early
fifteenth century 129
Triptych, by the same painter 129
Mussulman Miniatures:--
Plate I--From the Makamat of Hariri--From MS. of the
Astronomical Treatise of Abd-er-Rahman-el-Sufi 133
Plate II--From the Book of Kings 137
Plate III--From the Book of Kings 141
Plate IV--A Hunting Scene 145
Plate of Winchester College:--
The Election Cup 148
Parcel Gilt Rose-water Dish and Ewer 151
Sweetmeat Dish and Gilt Standing-Salt 154
Gilt Cup with Cover 154
Rose-water Dish and Ewer, and small Gilt Standing Cup
and Cover 157
Two Tankards and Standing Salt 160
Steeple-cup and Hanap 163
Ecclesiastical Plate 165
Paintings on a vaulted roof at S. Trinita, Florence--Alesso
Baldovinetti 171
A Group of Three--Jan Miense Molenaer 176
The Archives at Veere--Jan Bosboom 179
A Jewish Wedding--Joseph Israels 179
A Fantasy--Matthew Maris 181
The New Flower--Joseph Israels 181
Watering Horses--Anton Mauve 183
The Canal Bridge--Jacob Maris 183
A Windmill, Moonlight--Jacob Maris 185
The Butterflies--Matthew Maris 187
Engravings at S. Kensington:--
Queen Elizabeth--William Rogers 195
Roman Edifices in Ruins--Thomas Hearne and William Woollett 197
The Water Mill--C. Turner 201
The Hôtel de Ville at Louvain--J. C. Stadler 203
Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright--Sir J. Reynolds 207
Charity, Faith, Hope--Sir J. Reynolds 210
Temperance and Prudence--Sir J. Reynolds 213
Justice and Fortitude--Sir J. Reynolds 216
The Little Gardener--Sir J. Reynolds 219
George, third Duke of Marlborough--Sir J. Reynolds 222
Study of a Little Girl--Sir J. Reynolds 225
The Misses Horneck--Sir J. Reynolds 225
High Warp Tapestry, Louis XIV--After Charles Le Brun 228
Gobelin Tapestry 231
A Marquetry Bureau--André Charles Boule 234
A Bookcase--André Charles Boule 234
Fragment of the Frieze of the Parthenon 237
Bust of Aphrodite--Probably by Praxiteles 239
Head of a Mourning Woman 241
Head of a Youth 241
Group of Bronzes 245
Repoussé Mirror-Cover 247
Terracottas 251
Krater, belonging to Harrow School 253
Kylix, and plate 253
The Great Executioner 270
Lowestoft Porcelain Teapot of Soft Paste 273
Small Plate painted in Underglaze Blue, with a View of
Lowestoft Church 273
Hard Porcelain Teapot, marked ‘Allen, Lowestoft’ 276
Portrait of the Empress Isabella--Titian 280
Copy of the Portrait of the Empress Isabella from which
Titian painted the above Portrait 283
Portrait of a Lady--Albrecht Dürer 287
Portrait of a Lady--Albrecht Dürer 291
Later Nineteenth-Century Book Illustrations:--
Plate I 295
Plate II 298
Plate III 301
Plate IV 304
Plate V 307
Polyptych in the Church of S. Stefano, Siena--Andrea
Vanni 311
Annunciation, in S. Pietro Ovile, Siena--Andrea Vanni 314
Virgin and Child, from the Altar-piece in S. Francesco,
Siena--Andrea Vanni 314
Madonna and Child--Andrea Vanni 317
Details of the Annunciation in S. Pietro Ovile,
Siena--Andrea Vanni 320
Annunciation, in the Collection of Count Fabio Chigi,
Siena--Andrea Vanni 323
Annunciation, in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence--Simone
Martini 323
St. Luke--Adrian Isenbrant 327
Triptych: The Blessed Virgin and Child with Two
Angels--Adrian Isenbrant 327
The Vision of Saint Ildephonsus--Adrian Isenbrant 330
Portrait of Roger de Jonghe, Austin Friar 333
Episodes in the Life of St. Bernard--John van Eecke 333
Three Italian Albarelli of the fourteenth century 339
Landscapes--Solomon Ruysdael 342
Portrait of Dame Danger--Louis Tocqué 345
Lid of an Arabic Koursi of the fourteenth century 347
Tabriz Carpet 351
The Sorö Chalice 356
Polychrome Chest belonging to the Office of Archives at Ypres 361
A Burgundian Chest of the fifteenth century belonging to the
Hospices Civiles at Aalst 361
Portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn 363
On the Seine--Charles François Daubigny 365
Le Pêcheur--Léon Lhermitte 365
[Illustration:
Walker & Cockerell, Ph.Sc.
The Judgement of Cambyses
from the picture by Gerard David in the Bruges Museum.]
❧ EDITORIAL ARTICLES ❧
I.-CLIFFORD’S INN AND THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS
We must confess that when we published Mr. Philip Norman’s appeal
to the Government to save Clifford’s Inn, we had little hope that
the appeal would be listened to; it is too much to expect an English
Government to take any interest in a question of an artistic nature; in
agreeing to ignore such questions the unanimity of political parties is
wonderful. Nor does the English public really care about such matters.
The appeal received considerable support in the press, but it was a
support given by men who, whatever they themselves think, know well
enough that an agitation for the preservation of an ancient building
would only bore most of their readers. ¶ So Clifford’s Inn has been
sold, and sold at a ridiculously low price. It is some satisfaction
to know that legal education, which condemned it to destruction, will
profit little if at all by its sale, for the income derived from the
purchase money can be no larger than could have been derived from the
rents of the Inn under proper management. The end, however, is not
yet, for the gentleman who now owns Clifford’s Inn is happily not
without appreciation of its artistic and historical interest; for
the present, at any rate, he will leave matters in _statu quo_,
and all the tenants have been informed that they need not fear early
ejection. Moreover we have every reason to believe that, if there
were any movement to preserve the Inn, the present owner would be
willing to part with his property at a very moderate premium on the
sum of £100,000 that he paid for it. ¶ The London County Council--the
only public authority in London that cares about such matters--has
had its eye on Clifford’s Inn, and a committee of the Council only
refrained from recommending its purchase from fear of the ratepayers.
We would, however, appeal to the County Council to cast aside fear
of the Philistines and reconsider the matter. Expert opinion in such
matters holds that Clifford’s Inn could be made, as it stands, to
return £3,000 a year; its purchase, therefore, at a little more than
£100,000 would involve little or no loss to the ratepayers. The County
Council has done and is doing admirable work for the preservation
of ancient buildings; it might well add to its laurels by acquiring
Clifford’s Inn for the citizens of London. ¶ The case of Clifford’s Inn
raises the larger question of the preservation of ancient buildings
generally. We in England pretend to be an artistic nation; we talk and
write very much about art, and we all collect more or less works of
art or imitations thereof; most of us try to paint pictures, and the
world will soon be unable to contain the pictures that are painted.
But there is one fact that brands us as hypocrites, the fact that
Great Britain shares with Russia and Turkey the odious peculiarity of
being without legislation of any kind for the protection of ancient
buildings and other works of art such as is possessed to some degree
by every other country in Europe, and by almost every State of the
American Union. We have calmly looked on while amiable clergymen,
restoring architects, and legal peers with a mania for bricks and
mortar and more money than taste, have hacked, hewn, scraped and
pulled to pieces the greatest architectural works of our forefathers;
too many modern architects, when they are not engaged in copying the
work of their predecessors, are engaged in destroying it. Though the
legend of ‘Cromwell’s soldiers’ still on the lips of the intelligent
pew-opener accounts for the havoc wrought in many an ancient church,
the historian and the antiquary know that to the sixteenth and not the
seventeenth century must that havoc be in the first place attributed,
and the observer of recent history knows that the mischief worked by
the iconoclast of the sixteenth century has been far exceeded by that
worked by the restorer and the Gothic revivalist of the nineteenth.
And if this has been done by persons who imagined themselves to be
artistic and were actuated by the best possible motives, what has been
the destruction wrought by those who made no profession of any motive
but that of commercial advantage? Within the memory of the youngest
among us, buildings of great artistic and historical interest have been
ruthlessly swept away in London and in every other town in the kingdom,
and the few that have been left are rapidly disappearing. ¶ There is
no way of saving the remnant of our heritage but that of legislation;
but we cannot honestly recommend the advocacy of such legislation to
a minister or a party in need of an electioneering cry, and we are
not sanguine as to the prospects of anything being done. Still, it
may be interesting to some to learn what the despised foreigner has
done in this respect; we take the information from a Parliamentary
paper presented to the House of Commons on July 30, 1897.[1] ¶ We will
briefly summarize the facts given in this paper, referring those of
our readers who wish for further information to the paper itself. In
Austria there has existed for many years a permanent ‘Imperial and
Royal Commission for the investigation and preservation of artistic and
historical monuments.’ This Commission had, in 1897, direct rights only
over monuments belonging to the State (in which churches are included);
but it acted in concert with municipalities and learned societies, and
promoted the formation of local societies to carry out its objects. No
ancient monument coming within its scope can be touched without the
sanction of the Commission. Since 1897 its powers have, we believe,
been extended. Not only buildings, but objects of art and handicraft
of every kind as well as manuscripts and archives, of any date up to
the end of the eighteenth century, come within the scope of activity of
the Commission, which is a consultative body advising the Minister of
Public Worship and Education, who is the executive authority for these
purposes. ¶ In Bavaria, alterations to all monuments or buildings of
historical or artistic importance (including churches) belonging to
the State, municipality, or any endowed institution, have, since 1872,
required the sanction of the Sovereign, who is advised by the Royal
Commissioners of Public Buildings. The ecclesiastical authorities and
even religious communities are prohibited from altering a church or
dealing with its furniture without the consent of the Commissioners.
¶ In Denmark there has been a Royal Commission with similar objects
since 1807; ancient monuments are scheduled, and since 1873 the Royal
Commission has had power to acquire them compulsorily if their owners
will not take proper measures for their preservation. ¶ In France
the Minister of Public Instruction and Fine Arts, who is advised by
a Commission of Historical Monuments, has as drastic powers as the
Danish Royal Commission; some 1,700 churches, castles, and other
buildings (including buildings in private ownership) have been
scheduled and classified, and cannot be destroyed, restored, repaired,
or altered except with the approval of the Minister, who has power to
expropriate private owners under certain circumstances. ¶ Belgium has
statutory provisions of a similar character; there a Royal Commission
on Monuments was constituted so long ago as 1835, so that Belgium is
second only to Denmark in this matter. The Commission may schedule
any building or ancient monument, and the scheduled building cannot be
touched without the consent of the Commission, even if it is in private
ownership. In Belgium, as in France and Denmark, grants of public money
are given for the purchase and preservation of ancient monuments, and
the Belgian municipalities are very zealous in the same direction. In
Bruges, we understand, the façades of all the houses belong to the
municipality, so that their preservation is secured, and also congruity
in the case of new buildings. No object of art may legally be alienated
or removed from a Belgian church; this law, however, is unfortunately
still evaded to some extent. ¶ In Italy several laws have been passed,
beginning with an edict of Cardinal Pacca for the old Papal States in
1820. The Minister of Public Instruction may, by a decree, declare
any building a national monument, and the municipalities have large
powers; works of art, as is well known, cannot legally be taken out of
Italy, but this law is often evaded. ¶ In Greece the powers of the
State are perhaps more drastic than anywhere else. Even antique works
of art in private collections are considered as national property in a
sense and their owner can be punished for injuring them; if the owner
of an ancient building attempts to demolish it or refuses to keep it
in repair, the State may expropriate him. ¶ Holland, Prussia, Saxony,
Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and many American States have
provisions of a more or less stringent character with the same purpose.
But we need not now go further into details; the whole of the facts
will be found in the Parliamentary paper, and we have given enough of
them to show how far behind every other civilized country England is in
this matter. The protection of monuments of the past which Denmark has
had for nearly a century and Belgium for nearly seventy years we have
not yet thought of. Surely the time has come to wipe out this reproach;
until it is wiped out let us have done with the hypocritical claim that
we are an artistic people.
II.--THE PUBLICATION OF WORKS OF ART BELONGING TO DEALERS
In the April number of ~The Burlington Magazine~ we stated that it
was our intention not to exclude from the Magazine works of art
likely to be of interest to the student and collector because they
happened to be in the hands of dealers. The policy of including objects
belonging to dealers has been adversely criticized by friends who have
the interests of the Magazine at heart; we therefore think it well
to refer again to the matter, although the purpose of our decision
was, as it seems to us, clearly enough stated in the April number.
Suggestions have, it seems, been made in certain quarters that some
corrupt or at least commercial arrangement with the dealers concerned
is accountable for the publication in the Magazine of objects belonging
to them. Such suggestions we may pass over, for they are not and
will not be credited by anyone whose opinion need concern us. But we
owe it to the friendly critics who are concerned for the welfare of
the Magazine, and anxious that it should not be affected even by a
breath of suspicion, to state our position quite frankly. ¶ In the
first place we may say that we entirely sympathize with their point
of view, and we recognize as fully as they do the harm that has been
done to artistic enterprises--literary and otherwise--by commercial
entanglements, and, in the case of periodicals, by a too intimate
relation between the advertisement and editorial pages. So much
has this been the case that we are not surprised at the alarm which
is felt by some of our friends lest even a suspicion of a similar
tendency should attach to a periodical in the success of which they
are, we are glad to know, keenly interested. But we would point out
that in such cases as those to which we have referred far more subtle
methods are resorted to than that of frankly publishing a work of
art that may happen to be for the time in the hands of a dealer; a
little reflection will convince anyone that an Editor of a periodical
ostensibly devoted to art, if he wishes--to put it quite plainly--to
puff the goods of this or that individual, does not set about it in
so palpable a way as that of publishing without subterfuge objects
which are frankly stated to be in the possession of the individual or
individuals whom it is desired to advertise. It is the very purity
of our motives that has enabled us to take a course the boldness
of which we do not for a moment deny. Nor must it be supposed that
the publication of works of art in their possession is necessarily
desired by the dealers themselves; on the contrary, as is well known
to every one with experience in these matters, the idiosyncrasies of
collectors are such that in many cases a dealer who has a fine work
of art in his possession does not wish it to be generally known. We
have in some cases had considerable difficulty in inducing dealers to
allow their property to be reproduced, and we will go so far as to
say that, strange as it may seem to the purist in these matters, we
believe that some of them are really actuated by a desire to assist
the study of art. It would be false modesty on our part to affect to
believe that publication of a work of art in ~The Burlington Magazine~
is injurious to the owner, whether dealer or collector; we are willing
to admit that such publication may, on the contrary, be advantageous
to the owner of the work of art published. But, surely, that is not
the question to be considered; the only question, it seems to us, is
whether the work of art is likely to be of interest to readers of
~The Burlington Magazine~ and of value to students. This is, at any
rate, the only question that we have taken into consideration; and
we have felt that if any particular work of art is of interest to
our readers, and particularly to those who make a special study of
the branch of art concerned, we ought not to hesitate to publish it
merely because it happens to be in the hands of a dealer. ¶ Is there
not after all just a suspicion of cant in this squeamishness about the
publication of pictures or other objects belonging to dealers? Even
private collectors have, we believe, been known to sell objects out
of their collections, and, so far as our information goes, they do
not invariably sell them at a loss; indeed, when one comes to define
the boundary between collecting and dealing one finds a considerable
difficulty in doing so with exactitude; the border country between the
two is very wide in extent and very hazy. We have heard of cases in
which private collectors, who would not for the world be considered to
be dealers, have written anonymously in a periodical about objects in
their own possession and then put them up to auction with a quotation
from their own article in the catalogue. Any such practice as that we
shall certainly discourage or rather repress; these are difficulties
which beset the path of an editor of an art periodical. But if we are
to be deterred by such difficulties it will end in our being afraid to
publish any work of art in case we haply enhance its value, and thus
indirectly do a service to its owner. ¶ Let us restate more fully the
case which we have already stated shortly in the April number of this
Magazine. At any given time there are in the hands of London dealers
not a few pictures which are of profound interest to all students of
art, and which may indeed throw light on vexed problems and assist
in their solution. Are we to deprive the readers of ~The Burlington
Magazine~ of the opportunities which the publication of such pictures
may give them? Doubtless in a normal state of things such pictures
would ultimately find their way either into the National Gallery or
at least into the possession of some English collector. But as things
are they are far more likely to find a home either, let us say, in the
Berlin, Amsterdam, or Munich Museum, or in a private collection on the
other side of the Atlantic; and it may be very difficult to trace them
if the opportunity is lost of publishing them while they are in London.
Were the National Gallery still a buyer of pictures, it might not be
necessary for a periodical to take such a course as we have taken.
But it is notorious that the National Gallery is no longer a buyer of
pictures; not merely is the money allotted by the Government absurdly
inadequate, but it is also the case that, inadequate as it is, it is
not made the best use of. Only last month Mr. Weale pointed out in
this Magazine that the Berlin Gallery had recently bought for £1,000 a
charming picture by a rare Flemish master, which was sold at Christie’s
eight years ago for £3 10s., and this is merely one example of the
almost innumerable opportunities that escape those who at present
direct the National Gallery. Although we are told that present prices
in England are prohibitive so far as public collections are concerned,
it is nevertheless the fact that museums such as those of Berlin,
Boston, Munich, and Amsterdam find it worth while to buy largely in
London, and we do not suppose that they always pay exorbitant prices,
although of course a large and wealthy country like Bavaria can afford
to spend more on art than a country like England. In former years a
London dealer who had a particularly fine picture in his possession
would have offered it to the National Gallery; now that is the last
thing that he thinks of doing; he knows too well that the authorities
of the National Gallery would probably not take the trouble even to
look at it, and that some of those who would have a voice in deciding
whether it should be purchased have not the necessary qualifications
for making such a decision. The evil has been increased by the insane
rule now in force, that the trustees of the National Gallery must be
unanimous before any picture is purchased--a rule which, as anyone with
sense would have foreseen, has led to an absolute deadlock. Within the
last few weeks, for instance, the chance of purchasing a superb work of
Frans Hals at a very moderate price has been lost to the nation, simply
because one of the trustees of the National Gallery refuses to agree
to any purchase that does not suit his own preference for art of what
may be called the glorified chocolate-box type. ¶ But we need not now
enlarge upon this subject, with which we hope to deal at some future
time; we have said enough perhaps to support our contention that it is
hopeless to expect that fine pictures which have passed into the hands
of London dealers will find their way into that collection which has
been made by former directors one of the most representative in the
world of the best European art. This being so, we feel very strongly
that we ought to risk something in order to give the readers of ~The
Burlington Magazine~ the opportunity of seeing, at least, reproductions
of works of art which they may otherwise never have the opportunity
of seeing. At the same time we cannot lightly reject the objections
which have been raised by those who, as we know, have only the best
interests of ~The Burlington Magazine~ at heart; and, while we do not
at present feel disposed to alter our policy in this respect, we are
nevertheless open to argument, and if the considerations which we have
put forward can be shown to be unsound or inadequate we are prepared to
be convinced. We invite from our readers expressions of opinion on the
subject.
THE FINEST HUNTING MANUSCRIPT EXTANT
❧ WRITTEN BY W. A. BAILLIE-GROHMAN ❧
When the burly Landsknechte stormed the walls of the deer park and
therewith won the hard-fought battle of Pavia, one of the treasures
they captured in Francis’s sumptuous gold-laden tents was a vellum
Codex of folio size, almost every leaf of which bore beautifully
illuminated pictures of hunting scenes. We know from other evidence
that this precious volume was one of the favourite books of the
luxury-loving French king, and the fact that he took it with him to
the Italian wars in preference to a printed copy, infinitely more
portable, such as had been turned out in three different editions by
the hand-presses of Antoine Verard, Trepperel, and Philippe le Noir, is
a further proof that Francis’s love for finely illuminated manuscript
was a ruling passion with him. It is this very MS. which forms the
subject of these lines, and the facsimile reproductions, which the
writer obtained permission to have executed by competent hands, show
the rare skill of the fifteenth-century miniaturist of whose identity
we unfortunately know but little. ¶The history of this Codex is an
extremely interesting one and well worth the research expended upon
it by Gaucheraud, Joseph Lavallée, Werth, and others. The eighty-five
chapters are written in a wonderfully regular and perfect hand, and
the ink is today as black and clean of outline as it was four and a
half centuries ago. The author of what is unquestionably the most
beautiful hunting manuscript extant was Count Gaston de Foix, the
oft-cited patron of Froissart. This great noble and hunter began the
book on May Day 1387, and we know that it was completed when a fit
of apoplexy, after a bear hunt, cut short his remarkable career four
years later, when he was in his sixty-first year. Of the forty, or
possibly forty-one, ancient copies of this hunting book that have come
down to us, one or two were written it is almost certain during the
author’s lifetime, though the original itself, which was dedicated by
Gaston to ‘Phelippes de France, duc de Bourgoigne,’ disappeared in a
mysterious manner from the Escurial during the eventful year of 1809,
and has not turned up since. None of the other contemporary copies
have illuminations at all comparable to those in our MS., for the
simple reason that it was not until some decades later that art had
reached, even in France, the brilliancy that our illuminations show.
For although Argote de Molina--who in his ‘Libro de la Monteria,’
published in Seville in 1582, describes the lost original--says ‘el
qual se vee illuminado de excelente mano,’ it is safe to say that,
could we place the original side by side with the MS. of which we are
speaking, its illuminations would be found to be far inferior to those
in the MS. owned by Francis I. ¶ Very likely the lost original MS. was
written by one or the other of the four secretaries Froissart tells
us were constantly employed by Count de Foix. These he did not call
John, or Gautier, or William, but nicknamed them ‘Bad-me-serve,’ or
‘Good-for-nothings.’ The illuminations were probably the work of some
wandering master-illuminator attracted to the splendid court at Orthéz
by the Count’s well-known prodigal liberality. ¶ Gaston de Foix, to
interrupt for a brief spell our tale, was the lord of Foix and Béarn;
buffer countships at the foot of the Pyrenees--the castle of Pau was
one of Foix’s strongholds. He succeeded, as Gaston III, at the age of
twelve to his principalities. Two years later he was serving against
the English, and shortly afterwards was made ‘Lieutenant de Roi’ in
Languedoc and Gascony, and at the age of eighteen he married Agnes
daughter of Philip III King of Navarre. His person was so handsome,
his bodily strength so great, his hair of such sunny golden hue, that
he acquired the name of _Le Roi Phoebus_ or _Gaston Phoebus_, by which
latter both he and his hunting book have gone down to posterity.
[Illustration: STRIPPING THE BOAR
FROM THE GASTON PHOEBUS MS.]
The oldest copy that is extant is preserved in the same treasure-house
that contains our MS. and some fourteen other copies of it, namely
the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. It bears the number 619 (anc.
7,098), while our MS. is numbered f.fr. 616 (anc. 7,097), and if P.
Paris MSS. Franc. V 217 is right, it was Gaston’s working copy. The
pictures in this MS. are shaded black-and-white drawings, and are not
illuminations. That its origin was the south of France is proved, as
M. Joseph Lavallée says, by the spelling of certain words: _car_ being
spelt _guar_, _baigner_ as _bainher_, _montagne_ as _montainhe_, a
manner peculiar in the fourteenth century to the langue d’Oc. The fact
that in the MS. 616 these words are spelt in the more modern fashion
supports the theory, according to the last-mentioned authority, that it
was written at a later date, _i.e._ in the first half of the fifteenth
century, thus confirming the impression already produced by the far
superior illuminations in MS. 616. These latter, as we see by a glance
at the two full-page reproductions, somewhat reduced in size though
they necessarily had to be to find space in this place, evince the
unmistakable signs of having been created during a period of transition
in the miniaturist’s art. For while the one has the characteristic
diapered background, the other has a more realistic horizon, which
betokens a later origin than the beginning of the fifteenth century. Of
the eighty-seven illuminations in our MS. 616, only four have a natural
horizon as background, the rest are diapered in the conventional older
manner, in the invention of which the miniaturists of the fourteenth
century developed a perfectly wonderful ingenuity, and of which this
exquisite Codex is one of the most remarkable examples. ¶ In the
opinion of some experts the illuminations in MS. 616 are by the hand
of the famous Jean Foucquet, born about 1415, who was made painter and
valet-de-chambre to Charles VII. Amongst the choicest works of this
artist rank, it is perhaps hardly necessary to mention, the Book of
Hours that he executed for Estienne Chevalier, Charles VII’s Treasurer,
another Hours which he made for the Duchess Marie of Cleves, and most
famous of all the ninety miniatures of the _Boccaccio_ of Estienne
Chevalier which is one of the principal treasures of the Royal Library
in Munich. Those who are acquainted with Count Bastard’s monumental
work will probably discover a distinct resemblance between one of his
reproductions, especially in the foliage and scroll work, and the
two full-page pictures now before the reader. On the other hand, the
opinion of such a painstaking critic as is Levallée deserves attention.
According to him--and nobody expended more time and trouble in _Gaston
Phoebus_ researches--the illuminations are not by Foucquet’s hand,
but possibly by an artist of his school. If they are Foucquet’s,
they cannot have been executed before 1440, or at the earliest 1435.
¶ And now to return to the romantic history of our Codex. On one of
the front leaves is painted a large coat-of-arms. It is that of the
Saint-Vallier family, and two events connected with the then possessors
of this precious manuscript throw a telling sidelight upon French
social conditions at the period to which the opening scene on Pavia’s
bloody field has introduced us. A generation before that event,
namely in 1477, Jacques de Brézé, a rich noble of well-known sporting
proclivities, returning suddenly home found his wife in a compromising
position with a young noble. Swords flashed on slighter provocation
than this one in those days, and the angry husband killed both the
lover and his wife without further ado. Unhappily for him, the latter
was no less a personage than Charlotte of France, natural daughter of
Charles VII, and it cost the stern husband a fine of 100,000 ducats,
a huge sum in those days, and a couple of years’ confinement in a
castle to save his life. The eldest of the six children who were made
motherless by this event subsequently married Diane of Poitiers, who
not long afterwards became the all-powerful mistress of Francis I, and
later on of Henry II, his son. Now Diane de Poitiers was the daughter
of Jean de Poitiers, Sieur of Saint-Vallier, on whom his King (Louis
IX) had bestowed the hand of his natural daughter Marie. The Codex
whose reproductions we have before us had been given, probably as part
of the King’s dower, to Jean de Poitiers’s wife, hence the armorial
bearings. If we want to become acquainted with the circumstances that
probably were the cause of its presence in King Francis’s tents on
the eventful day of Pavia, we have to turn to another tragic event
which occurred two years before Pavia. In 1523 Jean de Poitiers
involved himself in the Connétable de Bourbon’s conspiracy, and the
discovery by the King’s minions, among Jean’s secret papers, of the
code treacherously used by the Connétable in his correspondence with
Charles V of Germany, sent Jean speedily to the scaffold. He was in the
act of kneeling down to receive the deathblow when the pardon obtained
by his daughter from her royal lover, the King, saved his life. But
all his goods and chattels were confiscated by Francis I, and amongst
them was most probably our Codex, and thus it came to form part of the
vast booty captured by Emperor Charles’s rough-handed Landsknechte. ¶
These formidable soldiers, who, under their giant leader, Georg von
Frundsberg, had performed in the Italian campaigns deeds of great
prowess--they were really the first trained infantry--were recruited
almost exclusively in Tyrol, and for this reason it is not surprising
that the next authentic news we have of our Codex is from that country.
Bishop Bernard of Trent purchased it evidently from some returning
booty-laden Landsknecht, and, recognising its great value, he presented
it about the year 1530 to Archduke Ferdinand, Duke of Tyrol, one of
the greatest collectors of his time, whose museum and library at his
castle Ambras, near Innsbruck, was the wonder of the day. ¶ It remained
in the possession of the Hapsburgs for about 130 years, when victory
returned it once more to the country from whence defeat had removed
it. During Turenne’s campaign in the Netherlands, General the Marquis
of Vigneau became possessed of the volume--how remains unfortunately a
mystery--and on his return to Paris presented it, July 22, 1661, to his
King, Louis XIV. Bishop Bernard’s and General Vigneau’s dedications to
the respective royalties are inscribed on the fly leaves, the former,
in the shape of a long-winded Latin ‘humblest offering,’ taking up
a good deal of space, though, unlike the Frenchman’s dedication, it
fails to indicate the year when the presentation was made. ¶ Louis XIV
deposited it in the Royal Library, where it received its librarian’s
birthmark, the number 7,097, which it retained down to recent days,
when it was rechristened, to be known henceforth, as already stated,
as MS. 616. It never should have left those sacred halls, but Louis
XIV was no venerator of his own law when it suited him to break it.
Regretting his gift to the Library, a few years afterwards he demanded
the volume back, and back again he got it, his son, the Count of
Toulouse, becoming the next owner of it. From him it passed to Orleans
princes until, in the fateful year 1848, it formed part of the private
library of Louis Philippe at Neuilly, when that royal residence was
plundered and fired by the populace.
[Illustration: HUNTING THE FALLOW BUCK
FROM THE GASTON PHOEBUS MS.]
By a wonder it escaped complete destruction on that occasion, and
though the covers were badly damaged and blood-bespattered, the inside
of the book was left intact. Although a new cover of somewhat gaudy
modernity has been supplied to it in consequence of the fiery ordeal
through which it had passed, the student visiting the great Paris
library, where this unique Codex is exhibited in what is known as the
_Reserve_, will find its vellum leaves in very much the same perfect
condition as they were when Diane de Poitiers and Francis I turned them
over with the care that is bestowed upon a work one loves. ¶ Another
fine copy of _Gaston Phoebus_ is preserved in the late Duc d’Aumale’s
magnificent library at Chantilly, now the property of the French
nation. When recently making some researches there the writer came
across a pathetic little note in the late Duke’s catalogue respecting
our Codex, which, as we have heard, belonged to the House of Orleans
for upwards of a century. It occurs where the Duc d’Aumale speaks of
the MS. 616, and it runs: ‘Saved from the conflagration of 1848, it
was taken to the Bibliothèque Nationale, but our appeals for a return
of the volume addressed to the Conservateurs of the Library were
rejected, however well founded we considered our claim!’ The miniatures
in the Chantilly copy are finely drawn, but evince in some instances
a grotesqueness which is absent from those adorning MS. 616. Thus the
much suffering reindeer comes in for some exceedingly quaint limning,
with antlers of perfectly ludicrous proportions and a coat like an
Angora goat’s. ¶ One curious fact obtrudes itself upon our notice as
we examine the illumination in almost all the _Gaston Phoebus_ copies
that are adorned with illuminations (the majority of the existing forty
MSS. are not illuminated, or at best only with very inferior pictures).
It is the bright colours of the huntsmen’s dress in the fifteenth
century. With the exception of the wild-boar hunters, who are generally
garbed in grey costumes, mounted and unmounted hunters engaged in the
pursuit of the stag, buck, bear, otter, fox, wild cat, wolf, hare,
and badger, wear with curious promiscuousness blue, scarlet, mauve,
white, and yellow costume quite as often as they appear in the more
orthodox green-coloured dress. It may possibly have been merely an
instance of artistic licence on the part of the miniaturists, for
according to the text grey and green were the only colours of venery
known to the good _veneur_. ¶ To come to the contents of our MS. we can
introduce it by the broad statement that _Gaston Phoebus_ is the first
mediaeval hunting-book in prose that does not deal with the subject
in the catechism-like form of question and answer. The few previous
prose works that have come down to us take the form of questions
asked by the keen young apprentice and answered by his instructor, an
experienced _veneur_, explaining to him the A B C of venery. Some bits
in Gaston’s _Livre de Chasse_ are borrowed from _Roy Modus_, written
about sixty years earlier, some from Gace de la Buigne (or Vigne), King
John’s first chaplain, written less than thirty years earlier, and a
few from _La Chace dou Serf_, a poetic effusion of the second half of
the thirteenth century. But taking it as a whole _Gaston Phoebus_ is
unquestionably as original as could be any work upon such a popular
subject as hunting then was. ¶ To those who know their Froissart, Count
Gaston de Foix’s personality will be very familiar; but, considering
that the chronicler’s visit occurred in 1388, the year after the
commencement of the _Livre de Chasse_, it is somewhat strange, in view
of his long stay and intimate intercourse at the Count’s court, that
he does not mention the _opus_ upon which his host was then engaged. ¶
The prologue mirrors in a characteristic manner the spirit of the age,
as does also the last miniature in MS. 616, which represents the noble
sportsman in an attitude of beatitude kneeling in a chapel. That Gaston
was a pious lord we can see by the score or so of Latin prayers said
to have been composed by him in the dire hour of mortal distress after
the tragic death of his only son by his--the father’s--hand. ‘By the
Grace of God’ Count Gaston speaks wisely and well of the good qualities
that a hunter should have, and how hunting causeth a man to eschew the
seven deadly sins, concluding his homily with a sentiment that appeals
to the sportsman of the twentieth century as much as it did to him
of the fourteenth. ‘And also, say I, that there is no man who loves
hunting that has not many good qualities in him, for they come from the
nobleness and gentleness of his heart of whatsoever estate he be, great
lord or little, poor or rich.’ ¶ The prologue once finished, Gaston
starts with zest on his task, beginning with the stag, or, to be quite
correct, with the ‘nature’ of what was considered in all Continental
hunting the most important beast of venery. The next thirteen chapters
deal respectively in a similar way with the natural history of the
reindeer, the fallow deer, the ‘bouc,’ under which the ibex and the
chamois were included, the roe-deer, the hare, the rabbit, the bear,
the wild boar, the wolf, the fox, the badger, the wild cat, and the
otter. ¶ Following these fourteen chapters, we get ten very interesting
ones on the various kinds of sporting hounds, their training, treatment
when ill, the construction and management of the kennel, and other
details relating to the subject. In Gaston’s time there were five
kinds; the first is the Alaunt, which he subdivides into the _Alaunt
gentle_ and the _Alaunt veautres_; the second is the _levrier_ or
greyhound; the third the _chien courant_ or running hound; the fourth
the bird dog or _espainholz_, from which the modern spaniel has sprung;
and the fifth the _mastin_ or mastiff. Then come two chapters on how to
make nets, and how to blow and trumpet, followed by eighteen chapters
on how to track the stag and the wild boar, and how to judge of their
presence, size, age, etc., by the various signs known to the _veneur_,
who made a very exact science of what we would call woodcraft. The next
fifteen chapters relate to the chase proper of the fourteen beasts
named at first, with a double chapter on the chase of the wild boar.
The concluding twenty-six chapters deal with the various manners of
netting, snaring, trapping, and poisoning of wild beasts of prey and
other less noxious animals. They are mostly short chapters, and in
more than one place the author displays his unwillingness to deal with
matter that a good sportsman need have no ken of, except in so far as
was necessary to keep down vermin and destroy ‘marauders of the woods’
for the benefit of his legitimate quarry. ¶ Certain historians have
called _Gaston Phoebus_ a ‘cruel voluptuary,’ and no doubt some of his
repressive measures sound unnecessarily harsh, not to say merciless,
in these soft times; but the spirit in which he wrote his famous book
is unquestionably that of a really good sportsman who abhors all
underhand advantages that curtail the hunted beast’s chances, and
who takes his bear or wild boar single-handed, and pursues his stag
to a finish, be the forest a trackless maze, and the river to which
the hunted deer finally takes a swift flowing stream, into which to
plunge is but a minor incident of an exciting sport. ¶ Of the forty
or forty-one ancient MS. copies of _Gaston Phoebus_ that are known to
exist in Europe to-day, twenty-one are in France, fifteen keeping our
MS. 616 company on the shelves of the Bibliothèque Nationale. Five form
part of the Vatican Library, and six adorn the principal libraries of
Continental capitals. Of the eight copies that are or were in England
one is in the British Museum, and two form part of the well-known
collection formed in the first half of the last century by the late Sir
Thomas Phillipps, Bt., a bibliophile as wealthy as he was discerning.
Of these two MSS., No. 11,592 is an incomplete late copy of little
value; but the other MS., 10,298, is on the other hand a treasure
of great value. Of all the Continental and English copies that the
writer has examined this one contains, next to those in MS. 616, the
finest miniatures. It is less carefully written, and there are some
variations, but nothing of importance so far as is known, though it has
never been carefully collated with the best French copies.
[Illustration: FROM THE GASTON PHOEBUS MS.]
[Illustration: FROM THE GASTON PHOEBUS MS.]
[Illustration: FROM THE GASTON PHOEBUS MS.]
The British Museum copy of _Gaston Phoebus_, catalogued as Addit.
MS. 27,699, is on vellum, quarto, written in the first half of the
fifteenth century. The miniatures are by an indifferent hand, and have
been left in an unfinished state, the miniaturist having apparently
expended most of his time, and nearly all his bright colours and
shining gold, upon the diapering of the backgrounds. It was bought
at the Yemeniz Sale in Paris, in May 1867, for something less than
£400. The Ashburnham Library contained two copies, both early ones,
and of these MS. App. 179 is interesting on account of an hitherto
unknown treatise on hawking and birds being added at the end of the
hunting book, which is incomplete, and the spaces at the head of each
chapter for the usual miniatures are left blank. It was bought at the
fourth Ashburnham Sale in May 1899 by the writer. ¶ Of the copy which
Werth and Lavallée quote as being in the possession of a Cambridge
Library, it is regrettable that no information could be obtained by
them or by myself. As a rule the lot of the student making researches
of this sort in English libraries, always excepting, of course, the
British Museum and the Bodleian, is not a happy one. Not only is
study in the libraries discouraged, and letters of inquiry are left
unanswered, but valuable MSS. seem to get mislaid, lost, or stolen,
rather more frequently than should be. The two remaining copies of
_Gaston Phoebus_ in this country, one being in a public museum, the
other in a well-known ducal library, have shared this fate, and
their whereabouts are unknown. The latter copy must have been a very
beautiful MS., for it is described in Dibdin’s _Decameron_, Vol. III,
p. 478, and was bought in 1815 for £161, then a large sum, by Loché;
and according to Werth (_Altfranzösische Jagdlehrbücher_, 1889, p.
70) it was, when he wrote, in the Duke of Devonshire’s library, from
which, however, it seems to have disappeared, for no trace of it can be
found. Curiously enough, this fate is shared by yet another valuable
hunting MS., which for the English student has even greater interest,
namely, one of the few existing copies (nineteen all told) of the Duke
of York’s translation of _Gaston Phoebus_, which has disappeared from
a well-known nobleman’s library. ¶ In conclusion, it is necessary
to say a few words respecting the subject matter of the MS. just
mentioned, for many erroneous impressions regarding it are abroad.
_Gaston Phoebus_ deals with some animals that were not found in England
in Plantagenet times, _e.g._ the reindeer, the ibex and chamois, and
the bear. Hence when Edward, second Duke of York, who filled the
position of Master of Game at the court of his cousin, Henry IV, made
a translation of his famous contemporary’s hunting book, he took only
those parts of it which related to game and dogs found in England, and
added five original chapters, calling the whole ‘The Master of Game.’
This book is the oldest hunting book in English, but has never been
published. The writer’s reproduction of it, illustrated by photogravure
copies of the illuminations in the Paris Codex MS. 616, some of
which are reproduced in the present article, is now going through
the press.[2] It will, it is hoped, fill a gap in English hunting
literature, and remove numerous misconceptions concerning this subject.
A NEWLY DISCOVERED ‘LIBRO DI RICORDI’ OF ALESSO BALDOVINETTI
❧ WRITTEN BY HERBERT P. HORNE ❧
PART I
Among the books of the Spedale di San Paolo, at Florence, is a volume
marked on the cover ‘Testimenti,’ and lettered ‘B.’ It contains a
record of all wills between the years 1399 and 1526 under which the
hospital in any way benefited; and on fol. 16 _recto_ is the following
entry: ‘Alexo di Baldovinecto Baldovinetti has this day, the 23rd of
March, 1499, made a donation to our hospital of all his goods, personal
and real, after his death, with obligation that the hospital support
Mea, his servant, so long as she live: [the deed was] engrossed by Ser
Piero di Leonardo da Vinci, notary of Florence, on the day aforesaid.’
‘Alexo died on the last day of August, 1499; and was buried in his
tomb in San Lorenzo; and the hospital remained the heirs of his goods.
May God pardon him his sins!’[3] ¶ Milanese, who quotes this ‘ricordo’
textually, though not without some slight errors, in his notes to
Vasari, states that the volume in which it occurs is preserved in the
Archivio di Stato at Florence; whereas the archives of the hospital
are now in the ‘Archivio’ of Santa Maria Nuova, San Paolo having been
united to the latter hospital by the Grand Duke Pietro Leopoldo, c.
1783.[4] ¶ At first sight, this ‘ricordo’ would not seem to bear out
the story which Vasari tells of Alesso and his dealings with the
authorities of San Paolo. It states only that Alesso made a donation
to the hospital of all his worldly goods after his death, upon the
condition that his faithful servant, Mea, was to be lodged, clad, and
fed, during her life; whereas Vasari, on the contrary, states that
the painter himself became an inmate of San Paolo. ‘Alesso,’ he says,
‘lived eighty years; and when he began to grow old, desirous of being
able to attend to the studies of his profession with a quiet mind, he,
as many men often do, entered the Hospital of San Paolo: and in order,
perhaps, that he might be received the more willingly, and be better
treated (though it might, indeed, have happened by chance), he caused
a great chest to be brought into his rooms, in the hospital; acting as
if a goodly sum of money were therein: whereupon the master and the
other ministrants of the hospital, believing that this was so, bestowed
on him the greatest kindness in the world; since they knew that he
had made a donation to the hospital, of whatever was found in his
possession at his death. But when Alesso died, only drawings, cartoons,
and a little book which set forth how to make the tesserae for mosaic,
together with the stucco and the method of working them, were found
therein.’[5] ¶ The apparent discrepancy between the ‘ricordo’ in the
books of San Paolo and Vasari’s account led me to search, and not
without success, for the deed by which Alesso’s property passed to the
hospital. I found that both the name of the notary and the date of the
execution of the instrument were incorrectly given in the ‘ricordo’
cited above. The instrument was engrossed by Ser Piero di Antonio di
Ser Piero da Vinci, the father of Leonardo da Vinci, and executed on
March 16, 1497-8. By this deed Alesso, _ex titulo et causa donationis_,
‘irrevocably gave and bequeathed during his life-time, to the Hospital
of the Pinzocheri of the third order of St. Francis, otherwise called
the Hospital of San Pagholo, and to the poor of Christ living in the
said hospital for the time being,’ etc., ‘all his goods, real and
personal, present and future, wherever situate or existent,’ etc.,
reserving to himself ‘the use and usufruct of the said goods,’ etc.,
‘for the term of his natural life.’ The ‘rogiti’ of Ser Piero da Vinci
for the year 1498 have not been preserved among the ‘protocols’ of
that notary now in the Archivio di Stato at Florence; and so it is no
longer possible to say under what conditions, if any, the donation was
made: but it is to be presumed upon the evidence of the ‘ricordo’ cited
above, that it entailed the obligation on the part of the hospital,
to maintain Mea, his servant, during her life. ¶ On October 17, 1498,
Alesso executed what was technically known as a ‘renuntiatio,’ which
was likewise engrossed by Ser Piero da Vinci. This second instrument,
which begins by reciting the former deed of donation in the terms
quoted above, sets forth how, on that day, Alesso, ‘by reason of lawful
and reasonable causes of motion influencing, as they assert, his mind,
and by his mere, free, and proper will,’ etc., ‘renounced the said use
and usufruct, expressly reserved to himself in the aforesaid donation,
and freely remitted and released the said use and usufruct to the said
hospital, and to the poor of Christ dwelling in the said hospital,’
etc. The text of this document, which is preserved in the Archivio di
Stato at Florence, is printed at length at the end of this article.[6]
It allows us to draw but one conclusion; namely, that when the painter
executed the deed of donation on March 16, 1497-8, he had been left
without wife or children; and that he anticipated but two contingencies
against which he would provide after his death--the health of his soul
and the maintenance of his faithful servant, Mea. ¶ Alesso had married
late in life. It appears from the ‘Portata al Catasto,’ returned by
him in 1470, that he was still unmarried at that time, and that he
was possessed of no real property, but rented a house in the ‘popolo’
of San Lorenzo, in Florence, described in his later ‘Denunzie,’ as
being in the Via dell’ Ariento, at the Canto de’ Gori.[7] In another
‘Denunzia’ returned in 1480, Alesso thus describes his family:--‘Alesso
Baldovinetti, aforesaid, aged 60, painter; Monna Daria, his wife, aged
45; Mea, his maid-servant, aged 13.’ As a matter of fact, Alesso was
63 years of age, having been born on October 14, 1427, Milanesi, by
the way, in his notes to Vasari, gives the name of his, Alesso’s wife,
as Diana, in error for Daria.[8] According to the same ‘Denunzia,’
the painter was at that time possessed of a parcel of land of twelve
staiora, situate in the ‘popolo’ of Santa Maria a Quinto, and another
parcel of seven staiora, in the same ‘popolo,’ the latter having been
bought in 1479, with a part of his wife’s dowry. It is, therefore,
probable that he had not long been married at that time.[9] It appears
from a yet later ‘Denunzia’ on which the ‘Decima’ of 1498 was assessed,
though the return itself was probably drawn up in 1495, that he
possessed, in addition to the two parcels of land in the ‘popolo’ of
Santa Maria a Quinto, a third parcel of over eleven staiora, in the
adjoining ‘popolo’ of San Martino a Sesto, on the road to Prato. He
was still living at that time in the same house at the Canto de’ Gori;
and he also enjoyed the rents of two shops, with dwellinghouses above,
which had been made over to him for the term of his natural life,
by the Consuls of the Arte dei Mercanti, on February 26, 1483-4, in
payment of his ‘magistero e esercitio et trafficho,’ in having restored
the mosaics of the Baptistery of San Giovanni.[10] ¶ The Spedale di
San Paolo, of which the beautiful loggia, with its ornaments by Andrea
della Robbia, still remains on the Piazza of Santa Maria Novella, was
originally a hospital for the care of the sick; and as such it is
mentioned in a document of 1208.[11] From the time that St. Francis
himself is said to have lodged at San Paolo, the hospital appears to
have been administered by Franciscans, called in the records ‘Fratres
tertii Ordinis de Penitentia S. Pauli.’ During the fourteenth century,
the house underwent certain reforms; and in 1398 it was decreed by the
Signoria, ‘that the place was to be no longer a hospital, but a house
of Frati Pinzocheri of the third order.’[12] Notwithstanding, the
members of the community continued to devote themselves to the care
of the sick; and a papal brief of 1452 directs that the revenues of
the house were to be set apart for the infirm.[13] At an early period
in the history of San Paolo, mention occurs of Pinzochere, that is to
say, women attached to the community, no doubt for the service of the
hospital; but unlike the men of the house, who are invariably called
Frati Pinzocheri, they were not dignified by the title of ‘Monache’:
from this Stefano Rosselli infers that they originally had no share
in its government.[14] Owing, however, to some cause which is not
very clear, the Frati Pinzocheri appear to have died out towards the
latter part of the fifteenth century, leaving the women in possession
of the hospital. From evidence that Rosselli and Richa adduce, it
seems that in 1497 San Paolo was controlled and administered entirely
by Pinzochere; and in the document of 1499, cited below, it is called
‘lo spedale di pizichora del terzo ordjne dj san franchesco.’[15]
From this we must conclude that, when Alesso renounced the use and
enjoyment of his property on October 17, 1498, he entered the hospital
of San Paolo, not as a member of the community, but as a sick man who
sought nothing more on earth than to be tended during the brief span
of life that was left to him. He died ten months later, on August 29,
1499, and was buried in his own tomb in San Lorenzo.[16] The hospital
of San Paolo probably inherited, along with Alesso’s other property,
all his cartoons and drawings, as Vasari asserts: they, certainly,
came into the possession of his books and papers, as we know. The
little treatise on the art of Mosaic has long been lost; but Milanesi
has stated in a well-known passage in his Vasari, that the autograph
manuscript of certain ‘Ricordi’ of Alesso Baldovinetti still existed
in his time, in the Archivio of Santa Maria Nuova, among the books of
the hospital of San Paolo. He adds that these ‘_Ricordi_ were published
at Lucca in 1868, by Dr. Giovanni Pierotti, _per le nozze Bongi e
Ranalli_.’[17] Few of those innumerable, little pamphlets with which
Italians, learned and unlearned, delight to celebrate the marriages
of their patrons, friends, or relatives, are more difficult to find
than the little brochure of ten leaves, in a green paper wrapper, to
which Milanesi alludes. The title page runs thus: ‘Ricordi di Alesso
Baldovinetti, pittore fiorentino del secolo xv. Lucca. Tipografia
Landi. 1868.’ Unfortunately only a portion of Baldovinetti’s manuscript
is given in this pamphlet. The extracts, which fill less than a half
of its twenty pages, are partly given in the text, and partly in an
abstract, of the original. The rest of the pamphlet is filled with the
introductory preface and notes of Dr. Pierotti. ¶ It is now some years
ago since I first made an attempt to find the original manuscript of
these ‘Ricordi,’ in the Archivio of Santa Maria Nuova, only to discover
that I was not the first student of Florentine painting to search in
vain for the volume. Whether it had been borrowed by Pierotti, or
merely mislaid, or in what way it had disappeared, no one could tell
me. Not long after this attempt, however, I chanced upon what proved to
be a clue to its history. While searching among the ‘Carte Milanesi,’
the voluminous manuscript collections which the famous commentator of
Vasari left to the Communal Library of Siena, I came across a series
of extracts from the ‘Ricordi’ of Baldovinetti, in the handwriting of
Milanesi, with the title: ‘Estratto del libro dei Ricordi di Alesso
Baldovinetti autografo essitente nell’ Archivio dello Spedale di
Santa Maria Nuova di Firenze.--Libri dello Spedale di San Paolo, 12
Febb^o. 1850.’ On comparing these extracts with Pierotti’s pamphlet, I
found that the two copies agreed word for word with one another. It was
evident that Pierotti had made use of Milanesi’s manuscript (indeed,
he owns as much in his concluding note), and that he may never have
seen the original manuscript. ¶ Last autumn, having occasion to make
some researches in the Archivio of Santa Maria Nuova, with my friend
Sir Domenic Colnaghi, for his ‘Dictionary of Florentine Painters,’ I
took the opportunity of renewing my search for the missing volume. On
the top shelf of one of the presses which contain the books and papers
of the hospital of San Paolo, I came across a ‘filza’ labelled ‘Libri
Diversi,’ and filled with miscellaneous account-books of the hospital,
chiefly of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Among these was a
small, upright book of forty-seven leaves, bound in a parchment cover
which was inscribed:--
RICHORDI[18]
·Ḅ̇·
[Illustration: PAINTED-GLASS WINDOW DECORATED WITH FIGURES OF GOD THE
FATHER AND ST. ANDREW, FROM CARTOONS BY ALESSO BALDOVINETTI; OVER THE
ALTAR OF THE PAZZI CHAPEL IN THE CLOISTER OF SANTA CROCE, FLORENCE]
On the recto of the first leaf was written: ‘1470. In this book I will
keep a record of all the expenses that I shall incur in the chapel of
the High Altar of Santa Trinita, namely of gold, blue, green, lake,
with all other colours and expenses that shall be incurred on behalf
of the said chapel; and so we may remain in agreement [I and] Messer
Bongiani Gianfigliazi, the commissioner of the work, and the patron
of the said chapel, as appears by a writing which I hold, subscribed
by his own hand.’ ¶ Fol. 2 _tergo_, and fol. 3 _recto_, were filled
with entries relating to the purchase of colours and other materials
for the work of the chapel, and fol. 3 _tergo_ contained two further
entries in the same hand; after which was written, in a different
hand: ‘Here follow the records of the hospital of the Pinzochere of
the third order of St. Francis, written by Giovanni di Ser Antonio
Vianizzi.’ The remainder of the book was filled with entries relating
to the hospital of San Paolo, the first of which recorded a payment of
twenty-three lire, made by the hospital on October 19, 1499, to Luca
d’Alesso Baldovinetti. On comparing the ‘Ricordi’ relating to Santa
Trinita, with the ‘Portata al Catasto,’ returned by Alesso in 1471,
it was clearly evident that both documents were in the handwriting of
the painter. Of the ‘Portata al Catasto,’ returned by Alesso in 1480,
two copies exist in the same hand; but they do not appear to have
been written by the painter himself, although Milanesi has reproduced
a portion of one of them, in his ‘Scrittura di Artisti Italiani,’
Florence, 1876, Vol. 1, No. 74, as a specimen of his handwriting. ¶
What is more, this manuscript, which I may call ‘Libro B,’ throws a
light upon the nature of the missing volume, ‘Libro A.’ In the case of
‘Libro B,’ what undoubtedly happened was, that the good Pinzochere, on
looking over Alesso’s property after his death, found an account-book
of which only the first three leaves had been used. With a proper
spirit of economy, they determined to make use of the rest of the book
for the accounts of their hospital: but instead of tearing out the
leaves containing Alesso’s ‘Ricordi,’ they fortunately allowed them to
stand; their procurator adding the note I have cited above. The same
thing probably happened in the case of ‘Libro A.’ From the extracts
that Milanesi made, it appears that Alesso’s ‘Ricordi’ only filled some
sixteen pages of a volume, that cannot well have contained fewer leaves
than ‘Libro B.’ With this clue to its discovery, I leave my friends
and rivals in Florence to continue the search for a volume, whose loss
every genuine student of Italian painting must regret. ¶ The history
of the Cappella Maggiore of Santa Trinita affords a curious instance
of the tardy process by which many of the Florentine churches and
their chapels were brought to completion. The present church of Santa
Trinita was begun _c._ 1250, but many of the lateral chapels remained
unfinished until the fifteenth century, and among them the Cappella
Maggiore. On November 1, 1371, the abbot of Santa Trinita, _inter
missarum solepnia_, made an appeal to many of the chief parishioners,
who had assembled for mass, to contribute to the expenses necessary for
the erection of the Cappella Maggiore.[19] The work appears to have
proceeded very slowly, since it is on record that the chapel was but
half built in the year 1463. In order to bring it to completion, the
abbot, having assembled the parishioners in the church, gave notice
that since money was wanting to finish the work, licence to do so would
be granted to the family that was able and willing to undertake the
expense; and accordingly on February 4 of the same year, the patronage
of the chapel was granted by acclamation of the parishioners, to Messer
Bongianni Gianfigliazzi and his descendants.[20] ¶ The Gianfigliazzi
were an ancient Florentine family, of no little repute in the conduct
of affairs and arms during the last two centuries of the republic.
Ugolino Verino celebrates them in his Latin poem, ‘De Illustratione
Urbis Florentiae’:--
Non genus externum est: agro venere paterno,
Janfiliazze, tui, si vera est fama, priores.
Protulit illustres equites generosa propago.[21]
According to Piero Monaldi, the Gianfigliazzi were descended and took
their name from one ‘Ioannes filius Acci,’ who is named in a treaty
concluded between the Sienese and Florentines in the year 1201.[22]
Besides knights of Malta and Santo Spirito, this family boasted of ten
gonfaloniers of the republic, and thirty priors; the first of whom held
office in 1345. Gherardo Gianfigliazzi was gonfalonier in 1462; and
Messer Bongianni, his brother, in 1467, and again in 1470. The latter,
‘magnificus miles’ as he is styled in documents, was a ‘cavalier spron
d’oro,’ and famous in his day as a leader of the Florentine forces.
He was several times created ambassador of the Florentine republic,
and one of the Dieci di Balia. In 1471 he was one of the six ‘orators’
sent to felicitate Sixtus IV on his election to the papacy; and in 1483
he was appointed ‘commessario’ in the war against the Genoese, which
ended in the capture of Sarzana. Alesso was not the only famous artist
which this family patronized. Their shield of arms, carved with a lion
rampant, by Desiderio da Settignano, is still to be seen on the front
of their palace on the Lung’ arno Corsini, at Florence.[23] ¶ Giuseppe
Richa states that the deed granting the patronage of the Cappella
Maggiore of Santa Trinita to the Gianfigliazzi, was engrossed by Ser
Pierozzo Cerbini on February 13, 1463-4, which we may well believe;[24]
but he adds that the ‘ius patronale’ was vested in the persons of
Messer Bongianni and Messer Gherardo.[25] The latter statement,
however, would seem to be incorrect, for Gherardo was already dead at
that time, as we learn from the inscription on the sepulchral slab
(one of the most beautiful of its kind in Florence), which is still
to be seen on the floor of the chapel, but now partly covered by a
choir-organ:
GHERARDO . IANFILIATIO . DE . SE .
FAMILIA . ET . PATRIA . BE[? NE-
MERITO BONIOANNES] . FRATRI .
PIENTISSIMO . SIBI ..... IDVS . SEP .
AN . SAL . MCCCCLXIII
[Illustration: Photo, Alinari
THE ALTAR-PIECE PAINTED BY ALESSO BALDOVINETTI FOR THE CAPPELLA
MAGGIORE OF SANTA TRINITÀ, AT FLORENCE, AND NOW PRESERVED IN THE
FLORENTINE ACADEMY]
Messer Bongianni appears to have proceeded at once with the work of
finishing the chapel. His share of the work may yet be made out: the
vaulting, with its heavy roll ribs, too large for the corbels on
which they rest, was clearly erected by him. The corbels themselves
probably date from the thirteenth century. Furthermore, he constructed
the large window of two round-headed lights, and an a ‘occhio,’ or
circular light, above, which is still to be seen in the head of
the chapel. The structure being completed, he next turned to the
decoration, which he began by filling the lights of the window with
painted glass. Alesso Baldovinetti enters, in his ‘Ricordi,’ Libro
A, that ‘Lionardo di Bartolommeo, surnamed Lastra, and Giovanni di
Andrea, glazier, owe me this 14th day of February, 1465[-6], lire 120;
which moneys are for the painting of a window placed in the Cappella
Maggiore of Santa Trinita; and Bongianni di Bongianni Gianfigliazzi has
ordered this window to be executed by the said Lastra and Giovanni,
master-glaziers; and I, Alesso, have designed and painted it for them,
at the rate of forty soldi the square braccio: the ‘occhio’ above
being estimated with the said window, in the said sum, and according
to the said measure.‘[26] It appears from the ‘Trattato’ of Cennino
Cennini that it was the common practice of the ‘maestri di finestre’
in Florence in the fifteenth century not only to employ painters to
design cartoons for their windows, but also to paint the design upon
the glass. The ‘maestro di finistre,’ says Cennini, ‘will come to you
with the measure of his window, both breadth and length. You will take
as many sheets of paper glued together as will be necessary for your
window; and you will draw your figure first in charcoal, afterwards
you will outline it in ink, having shaded your figure as completely
as if you were drawing it on panel. Then the master-glazier takes
this design and spreads it out on a desk or board, large and even,
and according as he wishes to colour the draperies of the figure, so,
piece by piece, he cuts the glasses, and gives you a colour made of
copper filings, well ground; and with this colour, piece by piece,
you proceed with a little pencil of minever, having a good point, to
contrive your shadows, making the joins of the folds and other parts
of your figure agree, one piece of glass with another, just as the
master-glazier has cut and put them together; and with this colour you
are able, without exception, to shade on every sort of glass.’[27] ¶
In 1616, the glass designed and painted by Alesso, ‘being all spoiled,
broken, and patched, in such a manner that it yielded no light, except
where there was no wire-screen,’ the whole of the lights were reglazed
anew, at the joint expense of the monastery and the patrons of the
chapel.[28] The beautiful stonework of the window, however, designed
in the classic taste of the time, with finely-wrought pilasters at the
jambs and mullion, was restored and filled with modern stained-glass
during the recent restoration of the church, in 1890-7. ¶ It appears
from the ‘Ricordi,’ Libro A, of Alesso Baldovinetti, that the painter
gave designs for several windows to the ‘maestri di finestre.’ In
1472, he designed an Annunciation to be executed in glass for the
cathedral church of San Martino, at Lucca; and in 1481, he designed a
window for the church of Sant’ Agostino, at Arezzo.[29] These windows
have perished, but there still remains in Florence a painted window
which was undoubtedly executed from a cartoon by Alesso. This window,
which, so far as I am aware, has never been ascribed to him, is above
the altar of the Pazzi chapel, in the first cloister of Santa Croce.
[Plate I.] It consists of two lights, a lower circular-headed light
containing a full-length figure of St. Andrew, the patron saint of the
chapel, with the arms of the Pazzi below; and an upper round window,
or ‘occhio,’ containing a half-length figure of God the Father. This
window affords a good example of the use of the pure and brilliant
colours which the Florentine ‘maestri di finestre’ employed in the
fifteenth century, and which to our northern eyes are apt to appear
crude and too little wrought upon. But seen, as such windows were
doubtless intended to be seen, with the full power of the Italian
sun upon them, their colours become fused, and take that jewel-like
quality which is essentially distinctive of the finest painted-glass.
The figure of St. Andrew is draped in a golden leaf-green robe, lined
with a smalt blue, and worn over an underrobe of a warm and brilliant
purple. The frieze of the niche behind the figure is of a colder
purple; the capitals of a madder tint; the cupola of a smalt blue; and
the sky in the background of a full ultramarine. The figure of God
the Father in the ‘occhio’ above, wears a golden purple vest, and a
mantle of smalt blue; and the curtains of a madder purple, lined with
green, which are drawn apart, reveal a skyey background of ultramarine
behind the figure. During the recent restoration of the Pazzi chapel,
this window was repaired, and several missing pieces of the glass made
good. These repairs are especially noticeable in the ultramarine glass.
¶ The high altar of Santa Trinita was originally placed immediately
below the window, in the head of the Cappella Maggiore. Its beautiful
marble frontal, carved with the symbol of the Trinity in relief, was
found during the recent restoration of the church, in the Cappella
della Pura, in Santa Maria Novella, and has once more been put to
its original use. For this altar Alesso, as he records in Libro A,
received the commission from Messer Bongianni, on April 11, 1470, to
paint an altar-piece, in which was to be a Trinity with two saints,
namely, St. Benedict and St. John Gualbert, and angels. He finished it
on February 8, 1471, and received eighty-nine gold florins in payment
for the work.[30] In 1569, the high altar was brought forward, and
placed below the arch of the Cappella Maggiore; and the choir which
anciently lay before the high altar, in the body of the church, was
reconstructed in the chapel, behind the altar. In 1671, the crucifix of
St. John Gualbert was brought from San Miniato, and placed upon the new
high altar; and Alesso’s altar-piece was left hanging in its original
position, below the window of the choir, where it was to be seen when
Don Averardo Niccolini collected his notices of Santa Trinita, towards
the middle of the seventeenth century.[31] At a later time the picture
was removed into the sacristy; and finally, upon the suppression of
the monastery in 1808, it was taken to the Florentine Academy, where
it is still preserved, No. 159. [Plate II.] It is painted on a panel
measuring 7 ft. 8½ ins. in height, and 9 ft. 1¾ ins. in length. God
the Father is seated in the centre of the composition, in the midst
of a glory of seraphim, supporting the cross on which the figure or
Christ is hanging. The Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, hovers above
the crucifix; and at the foot of the cross, which rests upon the
earth, is the skull of Adam. In the lower left-hand corner kneels St.
Benedict, in the habit of his order; and on the opposite side of the
picture kneels St. John Gualbert. In the upper corners, two angels
draw back a curtain embroidered with pearls; while other angels hover
around, against the skyey background. Dry, almost unpleasing as a
whole, and with little or nothing of that delicate feeling for sensuous
beauty which distinguishes Alesso’s early works, this altar-piece
is, nevertheless, one of the most remarkable productions extant of
Florentine painting in the fifteenth century. In execution, it shows a
mastery of technique to which few of Alesso’s contemporaries attained.
The draperies, for instance, are wrought with a richness of colour and
texture which recalls the work of some great Fleming. In conception too
severely understood, in presentation too precisely wrought out, and
with too exacting a definition, this altar-piece seems to forestall
something of that profoundly intellectual rendering of constructed
form, which Michael Angelo afterwards carried to its height in the
fresco of the Last Judgement. Certainly, there are few more striking
instances of the manner to which the Florentine painters of the
fifteenth century developed the technique and science of painting.
[_To be continued._]
[Illustration: THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND CHILD, WITH ANGELS, SURROUNDED BY
VIRGIN SAINTS (DEXTER: SS. FAUSTA, AN UNKNOWN SAINT, AGNES, CATHERINE,
AND DOROTHEA; SINISTER: SS. APOLLINA, GODELIVA, CECILIA, BARBARA, AND
LUCY); IN THE BACKGROUND, THE PAINTER AND HIS WIFE ON EITHER SIDE; BY
GERARD DAVID; IN THE ROUEN MUSEUM]
THE EARLY PAINTERS OF THE NETHERLANDS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE BRUGES
EXHIBITION OF 1902
❧ WRITTEN BY W. H. JAMES WEALE ❧
ARTICLE IV
The Exhibition included a number of other works attributed to Memlinc.
Three of these are supposed to have been executed in his early years:
the Passion of Saint Sebastian (69), belonging to the Brussels
Museum; the triptych with the Deposition of Christ in the centre, and
Saints James and Christopher (92), formerly at Liphook in the Heath
collection, now the property of M. R. von Kaufmann; and the Blessed
Virgin and Child with a donor protected by Saint Anthony. The first
of these was probably painted by a follower of Dirk Bouts; the second
by an imitator of Bouts and Memlinc; the third only has any claim to
be considered the work of Memlinc; the date 1472, inscribed in the
background, is certainly modern, but probably copied from the frame
when this was discarded. The Blessed Virgin and Child (78), lent by
Mr. A. Thiem, is a school picture in not very good condition; another
(83) belonging to Baron P. Bethune, having long served as the lid of
a miller’s flour box, has very little of the original work left. A
Madonna enthroned with two angels (82) entirely overpainted, lent by
Mrs. Stephenson Clarke, and another belonging to the Museum of Woerlitz
(29), are like similar pictures in the Museum at Vienna and in the
possession of the Duke of Westminster, works probably painted after
Memlinc’s death from his patterns by Louis Boels. The three large
panels from the monastery of Najera (84), belonging to the Antwerp
Museum, are fine decorative works painted about 1490 by an imitator of
Memlinc and Van Eyck. As to the Annunciation lent by Prince Radziwill
(85), said by Dr. Waagen to have been painted in 1482, I should,
looking at the colour and execution, think it at least twenty years
later, and am convinced that Memlinc never had anything whatever to do
with it. Mr. Hulin calls it Memlinc’s most perfect composition; Dr.
Friedländer, ‘an extremely original composition of remarkable delicacy
of sentiment and execution’ (_von höchst eigenartiger Komposition und
besonderer Feinheit in Empfindung und Durchführung_); while a writer
in the _Athenaeum_ of September 20 says: ‘In conception it belongs
entirely to the master, and the composition is as fine and original
as anything to be found in his work,’ and thinks that ‘it was _a
beautiful and new conceit_ thus to represent the Virgin as sinking down
tremblingly at the angel’s word, but held by the supporting arms of two
other attendant angels who look up to her with reassuring smiles.’ Now
it is certain that Memlinc, far from being an innovator and an inventor
of what the writer properly calls new conceits, was a faithful follower
of ecclesiastical tradition, and would never have dreamt of introducing
into the representation of this mystery these two sentimental and
affected angels. No doubt the Gospel says that Mary was troubled at the
words of the angel, but there is nothing to warrant this impertinent
addition. The fact is that the beautiful long waving line of the
Virgin’s robe with its sudden returning lines has made these critics
shut their eyes to these points, which I think are by themselves
sufficient evidence that the picture is the work of a sixteenth-century
innovator. As to the six panels (176) lent by the Strassburg Museum,
it is an outrage to suggest that Memlinc was their author. ¶ After
Memlinc, the greatest master who worked at Bruges was another
foreigner, Gerard son of John, son of David, a native of Oudewater
in South Holland, who in all probability learnt his art either at
Haarlem or under Dirk Bouts at Louvain. He came to Bruges at the end
of 1483, and was admitted into the Guild of Saint Luke as free master
on January 14, 1484. Although we have no written evidence as to his
history previous to that date, yet certain details in his works make
it almost certain that he had travelled in Italy after the termination
of his apprenticeship. Bruges still possesses the earliest works by
him of which the authenticity is established; these with a number of
others by his followers not only afforded an excellent opportunity for
studying the variations in his manner, but showed the great influence
he exercised over his contemporaries and followers. In 1488 Gerard
David was commissioned to paint two pictures by the magistrates elected
by the three members of Flanders to succeed those who had been deposed
after the imprisonment of Maximilian; they were intended by them to
commemorate the execution of the judge Peter Lanchals and other members
of the late administration who, having been found guilty of corruption
and malversation, had been condemned to death and executed. Gerard,
however, instead of painting the history of Lanchals, took for his
theme an analogous subject originally recorded by Herodotus, which
he probably drew from the then much better known works of Valerius
Maximus. By so doing he avoided the resentment of the friends of the
deposed magistrates, while the subject chosen was equally well adapted
to recall to the sitting magistrates that they must be honest and
impartial. In the first of the two panels (121), which we reproduce
(as the frontispiece of this number), Cambyses, accompanied by his
court, is represented entering the hall of justice and ordering the
arrest of the unjust judge Sisamnes. In the background Sisamnes is
seen at the porch of his house receiving a bag of money from a suitor.
The groups of nude children and the garlands of fruit and flowers, the
earliest instance of the occurrence of such details in a Netherlandish
picture, must have been copied from Venetian or Florentine pictures,
and the two Medicean cameos are almost proofs of a visit to Florence;
one of these, the Judgement of Marsyas by Apollo, is represented as
a breast ornament worn by Lucretia Tornabuoni (?) in the portrait
of that lady by Botticelli in the Städel Institute at Frankfort. It
is interesting to note that the square seen in the background is an
almost exact representation of the Square of St. John at Bruges. The
flaying of Sisamnes (122) is an extremely realistic picture vigorously
painted with wonderful finish. The composition and pose of the figures
in both scenes remind one of Carpaccio, the heads have a great deal
of character, and the hands are admirably modelled. For the two
pictures, which were not completed until 1498, Gerard received in three
instalments the sum of £14 10s. ¶ The National Gallery contains two
pictures painted between 1500 and 1510, both formerly in the Cathedral
of Saint Donatian at Bruges, the one an altar-piece executed for
Richard De Visch Van der Capelle, who held the office of cantor in that
church; the other, the dexter wing of a triptych painted for Bernardine
Salviati, a canon of the same cathedral. These of course were not at
Bruges, but I mention them here because they form a connecting link
with the triptych representing the Baptism of Christ (123), of which
the centre and the inner face of the shutters were painted before
1502, and the outer in 1508. The next work in order of date, and in my
opinion David’s masterpiece, is the picture (124) presented by him in
1509 to the convent of the Carmelite nuns of Sion at Bruges, and now in
the Rouen Museum; it represents the Blessed Virgin and Child surrounded
by virgin saints and two angels, the one playing a mandoline, the
other a viola, whilst at the extreme ends in the background the painter
has represented himself and his young wife. The composition is not
quite original; Memlinc had already painted for John Du Celier a small
Sacra Conversazione now in the Louvre, and another artist who has not
as yet been identified had executed in 1489, for the Guild of Saints
Mary Magdalene, Katherine, and Barbara, an altar-piece (114) which
doubtless suggested not only the composition of this picture but the
mode of characterizing the saints. The author of this earlier work,
if one may judge by its colouring, was probably accustomed to design
tapestries; most of the figures are exceedingly plain and wanting in
expression, whereas in Gerard’s picture the colouring is harmonious
and the figures remarkable for beauty of expression, the angels being
amongst the most charming conceptions realized by the school.
[Illustration: TRIPTYCH: THE BELESSED VIRGIN AND CHILD, ST. CATHERINE, AND
ST. BARBARA; BY CORNELIA CNOOP, WIFE OF GERARD DAVID; IN THE POSSESSION
OF MESSRS. P. AND D. COLNARGHI]
The large triptych (125) lent by M. de Somzée, with life-size figures
of Saint Anne with the Blessed Virgin and Child in the centre, and
Saints Nicholas and Anthony of Padua on the shutters, painted for
some Spanish church, is a late work inferior in execution to those
already mentioned. Six other panels with scenes from the lives of
the two saints, said to have been the predella of this altar-piece,
not exhibited, are on the contrary charming works; they are now in
the possession of Lady Wantage. Two shutters of a triptych (138)
with full-length figures of four saints, lent by Mr. James Simon, of
Berlin, appear to me to be authentic works; the Saints Christopher and
Anthony are especially good. ¶ Of the other eleven works attributed
to Gerard by their owners or by those who have written on the
exhibition, I can only say _caveat lector_. We know no picture painted
by Gerard before 1488 or after 1512, and the variation of style in
the works executed between those dates of which the authenticity is
established makes it difficult to say with certainty that any picture
painted at Bruges between 1512 and 1527 is or is not by him, and it
is certainly mere guesswork to attribute to him any pictures of an
earlier date than 1488; it is indeed probable that, being a stranger,
he would during his first four years at Bruges have confined himself
to the execution of small pictures of religious subjects which would
meet with a ready sale. The Adoration of the Magi (135) lent by the
Brussels Museum, formerly supposed to be by John van Eyck, was first
attributed to Gerard by Dr. Scheibler. Dr. Friedländer believes it to
be an original work of about 1500, often copied. It was originally in
the Premonstratensian abbey of Saint Michael at Antwerp, and I doubt
its being a Bruges picture or an original composition. The original
painting was certainly executed shortly after 1490 and was copied by
the miniaturist who adorned a Dominican Breviary which was in the
possession of Francis de Roias in Spain before 1497. ¶ The style of the
figures and the colouring of the Annunciation (128) lent by the Museum
of Sigmaringen are very much in Gerard’s manner, and it may possibly
be by him; the Städel Museum at Frankfort contains a copy of these two
panels apparently painted by a Netherlandish artist in the Peninsula
or by a Portuguese artist in the Low Countries, the inscription on
the border of the angel’s vestments being in Portuguese: _Modar de
Senor_. A triptych representing the Deposition of Christ (126), which
though thrice restored, in 1675, 1773, and 1827, is still in fairly
good condition, was first included by me in 1863 among the works by
Gerard on the authority of a document of the year 1675, preserved in
the archives of the Confraternity of the Holy Blood, to which the
picture has always belonged. It certainly differs considerably from
the pictures painted by him between 1488 and 1510, and shows a strong
influence of Quentin Metsys, and I do not think that the opinion of
two or three modern critics warrants the rejection of the evidence in
its favour. The picture was certainly painted _c._ 1520 in Bruges,
where several old copies of it were preserved until the middle of the
last century. ¶ A Holy Family (343) lent by M. Martin Le Roi is an
excellent work painted about the same time, showing even more strongly
the influence of Quentin Metsys, and I have little doubt painted by an
Antwerp master. Yet this is classed by Dr. Friedländer as an excellent
work of David’s later time (_Vortreffliches Werk aus der Spätzeit
Davids_), although there is neither tradition nor documentary evidence
in favour of this attribution. The Transfiguration (117) belonging to
the church of Our Lady, another work of about the same date, is of
interest as representing an event rarely treated by the early masters
of the Netherlands. The composition shows an Italian influence; the
figures, especially those in the group on the left, that of Gerard;
the colouring is light and cool; the picture has suffered very much
from neglect. The shutters of this altar-piece, not exhibited, were
painted by Peter Pourbus. The lunette (149) lent by Baron de Schickler
is a fine piece, but the types of the figures are unlike any in
Gerard’s authentic works. ¶ Gerard was not only a painter but also a
miniaturist, and as such a member of the Guild of Saint John and the
head of a school of miniaturists. Two specimens of his own work--(129)
Saint John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness and the Baptism of
Christ--and three by his wife, Cornelia Cnoop, were formerly in the
Cistercian abbey of Saint Mary in the Dunes; the three last (130), lent
by Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi, are here reproduced; they have been
framed as a triptych.
[_The previous articles of this series were published in Nos. 1, 2, and
3 of_ ~The Burlington Magazine~ _for March, April, and May, 1903._]
EDITORIAL NOTE
We give reproductions of the portraits of Thomas Portunari and his
wife, referred to by Mr. Weale in his third article (~Burlington
Magazine~, No. 3, May 1903, p. 336), as they may be of interest to
students of Flemish art, since their authorship is a disputed question.
These portraits have hitherto been attributed to Memlinc, but, when
they were exhibited at Bruges last year, this attribution was doubted
by many critics. Mr. Weale, as our readers know, has suggested that
the portraits may be early works of Hugh van der Goes. The question is
one on which further opinion will be welcome. Amateurs of mediaeval
jewellery, by the way, should notice the very beautiful necklace
worn by Portunari’s wife, which is a remarkably fine example of
fifteenth-century work.
[Illustration: PORTRAITS OF THOMAS PORTUNARI AND HIS WIFE; ATTRIBUTED
TO HANS MEMLINC; IN THE COLLECTION OF MONSIEUR LÉOPOLD GOLDSCHMIDT]
ON ORIENTAL CARPETS
❧ ARTICLE III.--THE SVASTIKA ❧
Until a comparatively few years ago, the literature of science was
almost wholly silent on the subject of the Svastika. Professor Wilson,
of the Smithsonian Institute, writing in the early nineties, sets
forth that in most of the best-known encyclopedias, both European
and American, the word Svastika is not so much as mentioned. It was
indeed, he says, this to him incomprehensible omission, and consequent
admittedly general ignorance, that prompted him to make an exhaustive
study of the subject, and to embody the results of his researches
in what is undoubtedly the standard work on Svastika at the present
time. Yet even Professor Wilson, while giving to his readers the great
mass of evidence he has collated, is chary of expressing any definite
opinion as to the origin and significance of this universal symbol. In
this reserve he is doubtless prudent, at least in so far that he has
avoided entering upon a controversy which must probably be endless.
The theories, indeed, that have been presented concerning the origin
and the symbolism of the Svastika are as numerous as they are diverse.
Every kind of suggestion has been made as to its relation to the
most ancient Deities, and as to its typifying of certain qualities.
Various writers have regarded it as being the emblem, respectively,
of Zeus and of Baal, of the Sun God, of the Sun itself as a God, and
of the Sun chariot. Of Agni (the Ignis of the Romans) the fire God,
and of Indra the rain God. In the estimation of others, again, it is
typical of the sky and of the sky God; and finally of the Deity of all
Deities, the great God, the maker and ruler of the universe. Again,
it has been held to symbolize light and the God of light, and the
forked lightning, as a manifestation of that Deity; and yet again,
according to some, from its intimate association with the Lotus, it
has been regarded as the emblem of the God of water. That it is the
oldest known Aryan symbol is hardly in dispute. There are writers who
have announced their conviction that it represents Brahma, Vishnu,
and Siva, the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer. Certainly it
appears in the footprints of Buddha, engraved upon the living rock of
Indian mountains; equally certainly it stood for the Jupiter Tonans
and Pluvius of the Latins, and for the Thor of the Scandinavians,
though that it represented a variety of the ‘Thor hammer’ is now
considered to be disproved. Many have attributed a Phallic meaning to
it, or, regarding it as the symbol of the female, have claimed that it
represents the generative principles of mankind, while its appearance
on the person of certain Goddesses, Artemis, Hera, Demeter, Astarte,
and the Chaldean ‘Nana,’ the leaden Goddess from Hissarlik, has caused
it to be claimed as a sign of fecundity. But, as Professor Wilson
points out, and as every other writer has allowed, whatever else the
Svastika may have stood for, and however many meanings it may have
had, it was always, if not primarily, ornamental. It may have been
used with any or all and other than the above significations, but it
was always ornamental as well. ¶ But in whatever other connexion it
may have been employed, it was invariably, and still is to-day, an
auspicious sign. It is still used by the common people of India, of
China, and of Japan, as a sign of ‘long life, good wishes, and good
fortune.’ Among many North American Indian tribes it is called ‘the
luck,’ and the men wear it embroidered on their garters, and the women
on the borders of their skirts; and in ancient times it was wont to be
embroidered in quills on the bags in which they carried their medicinal
herbs. In Thibet it is a not uncommon mode of tattooing; and in this
connexion it is interesting to note that Higgins in his ‘Anacalypsis’
says, concerning the origin of the cross, that the official name for
the Governor of Thibet comes from the ancient Thibetan name for cross,
the original spelling of which is “Lamh.” Davenport corroborates this
view in his “Aphrodisiaco.” There is, according to Balfour, despite
Mr. Gandhi’s contradictions of Colonel Cunningham, a sect in Thibet
who receive their name from this symbol. They are the ‘Tao-sse’ of
the Chinese. The founder of this doctrine is said to have flourished
~B.C.~ 604 to 523. They were rationalists who held that peace of mind
and contentment were the only objects worthy of attainment in this
life. They assumed the name of Tirthakar, or pure-doers. Professor
Max Müller, discussing the question why the sign [Illustration]
should have had an auspicious meaning, mentions that Mr. Thomas, the
distinguished oriental numismatist, has called attention to the fact,
that in the long list of the recognized devices of the twenty-four
Jain Tirthankara[32] the sun is absent, but that while the eighth
Tirthankara has the sign of the half moon, the seventh is marked with
a Svastika, _i.e._ the sun. Here, then, is clear indication that the
Svastika with the ends pointing in the right direction was originally a
symbol of the sun, perhaps of the vernal sun as opposed to the autumnal
sun, the ‘Suavastika,’ and therefore a natural symbol of light, life,
health, and wealth. This ‘Suavastika,’ Max Müller believes, was applied
to the Svastika sign [Illustration] with the ends bent to the left,
but with the exception of Burnouf (‘Des Sciences et Religions’) no
one agrees with him. Burnouf supports his theory (which is, that the
word Suavastika is a derivation of the Svastika, and ought to signify
‘he, who, or that which bears or carries the Svastika or a species of
Svastika’) by the story of Agni (Ignis), the god of Sacred Fire, as
told in the ‘Veda’ (the four sacred books of the Hindus). ‘The young
Queen, the Mother of Fire, carried the Royal infant mysteriously
concealed in her bosom. She was a woman of the people, whose common
name was Arani--that is, the instrument of wood (the Svastika) from
which fire was produced by rubbing.’ Burnouf says that the origin of
the sign is now easy to recognize. It represents the two pieces of wood
which compose the Arani, of which the extremities were to be retained
by the four nails. At the junction of the two pieces was a fossette or
cup-like hole, and there was placed a wooden upright in the form of a
lance (the pramantha), the violent rotation of which (by whipping after
the fashion of the whipping-top) brought forth fire.
[Illustration: Form of Svastika at the end of Kolpâpur Inscription.]
[Illustration: Svastika at end of Kûdâ.]
[Illustration: Croix Svasticale (Zmigrodski).]
[Illustration: SECTION OF ORIENTAL CARPET IN THE POSSESSION OF MR.
HAROLD HARTLEY, SHOWING THE SVASTIKA]
Zmigrodski agrees with this view; but, as with every other theory
connected with Svastika, it has many opponents. ¶ Professor Dumontier
holds that Svastika is nothing else than a development of the ancient
Chinese characters C. h. e, which carries the idea, according to Count
Goblet D’Alviella (in ‘La Migration des Symboles’), of perfection or
excellence, and signifies the renewal and perpetuity of life. Max
Müller, Waring, and D’Alviella are agreed that neither in Babylonia
nor in Assyria are any traces of Svastika to be found. Ludwig Müller,
however, finds ample evidence of it on Persian coins of the Arsacides
and Sassanides dynasties. ¶ Arsacides was the name of the Parthian
kings whose family name was Arseus. The Arsacidean kings of Armenia,
according to Moses of Chorene, began to reign ~B.C.~ 130, and ruled
until ~A.D.~ 45, when the Armenian kingdom was extinguished. The
Sassanian kings of Persia ruled from ~A.D.~ 226 to 641, when the last
monarch, Yez-de-jird the Third, was overthrown by the Mahomedans.
This monarchy took its origin when Artaxerxes (the Greek and Roman
way of pronouncing Ardeshir) overthrew the Parthian dynasty. This
prince, Ardeshir Babekan, son of Sassan, was an officer of King Arsaces
Artabanus the Fifth, whom he murdered, assuming the Persian throne as
the first of the Sassanian dynasty. ¶ Ohnefalsch Richter holds the
view that although no trace of Svastika had been found in Phoenicia,
yet that travellers to that country had brought it from the Far East,
and had introduced it into Cyprus, and into Carthage and the north of
Africa generally. As against the denial of it in Assyria, however, is
Wilson’s assertion that the three-rayed design is found on Assyrian
coins, as also as a countermark on those of Alexander, ~B.C.~ 333 to
323. Professor Sayce, on the other hand, is of opinion that Svastika
was a Hittite symbol which passed by communication to the Aryans, or
to some of their important branches before their final dispersion took
place. The Professor regards it as being fairly established that the
symbol was in more or less common use among the peoples of the bronze
age anterior to either the Chaldeans, Hittites, or Aryans.
[Illustration: Egyptian Intrusive Seals.]
[Illustration: Ogee Svastika.
With circle. Plain.]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
As against all these theories, Major-General Gordon, writing to Dr.
Schliemann in 1896 from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, of which he was
then Controller, points out that the Svastika is obviously Chinese,
and that on the breech of a large gun captured in the Taku Fort in
’61, and at the time of writing lying outside his office at Woolwich,
the same symbol is displayed. Dr. Lockyer, who was for many years a
medical missionary in China, also says that the sign is thoroughly
Chinese. Colonel Sykes, another authority on matters Chinese, concludes
that according to the Chinese authorities, Fa-hiau, Soung-Young, and
Hiuantusang, the ‘doctors of reason,’ Taosee or followers of the
mystic cross were diffused in China and India before the advent of
Sakya in the sixth century ~B.C.~ (according to other authorities in
the eleventh century ~B.C.~), continuing to Fa-hiau’s time, and that
they were professors of qualified Buddhism, which it is stated was
the universal religion of Thibet before Sakya’s advent, and continued
until orthodox Buddhism was introduced in the ninth century ~A. D.~
As to this Colonel Tod holds the opinion that the first Buddha of
the four flourished circa ~B.C.~ 2250. This was Budh the parent of
the lunar race. ¶ The Greeks undoubtedly connected the symbol with
the cult of Apollo, but it seems probable that the sign came to them
from Egypt, where the Tau which was a cross was anciently a symbol of
the generative power, and afterwards was introduced into the Bacchic
mysteries. Such a cross has been found at Pompeii in a house, in
juxtaposition with the Phallus and with other symbols embodying the
same idea. This mystic Tau, or Standard of the Cross as it has been
called, formed just half of the Labarum,[33] or idolatrous war standard
of the Pagans. The Labarum bore at once the crescent and the cross,
the crescent as the emblem of Astarte the Queen of Heaven, and the
cross as that of Bacchus. ¶ The controversy, if so it can be called,
will doubtless rage for all time, but the one essential point remains
salient: namely, that the symbol is admittedly universal, and equally
admittedly it is the basis and the mainstay in one form or another of
all conventional decorative design. It is to be found everywhere in our
modern life. In our household appointments, in our mural decorations,
in the shapes and adornment of articles of our furniture. Even does it
come down to us in the shape of those old irons on houses with which
we are all familiar, and which, though a few persons fondly believe
them to be so placed for the purpose of remedying cracking walls,
are regarded by every right-thinking country person as a protection
against lightning and fire. Unconsciously Svastika permeates our whole
existence. We cannot even sit down to dinner without finding it set
before us in some of our table appointments; and nowhere is the symbol
more constantly and more permanently evident than in oriental rugs and
carpets. In every specimen of these, of whatsoever provenance, and no
matter how much the flowing line of curves may have encroached on the
rectilineal design of convention, the Svastika is traceable. It may
not be at once discovered in the main body of the pattern, though it is
always present, but it is invariably and inevitably to be found in the
border, which it may at once be said is as much an historical asset as
is the central design itself.
[Illustration: Irons on Old Houses.]
[Illustration: Sunsnakes.
Double. Single.]
Of course throughout the natural working of Time’s processes, the
merging of myths and the blending of conceptions, certain bold
and salient developments, if projected with sufficient force and
persistency, must ever remain paramount. This is the case with the
Svastika and with that other symbol, that of the lotus, with which it
is almost invariably found in conjunction. There are many indeed who
claim that the two symbols are indivisible. Professor Goodyear, no mean
authority, is specially insistent on this point. He holds that it is
the lotus that is the keynote of decoration. The lotus, he contends,
is the Tree of Life, or rather the accepted Tree of Life is really the
lotus in one or another of its many aspects. The spiral scroll, he
urges, comes from the bent sepals of the lotus much exaggerated, which
being squared becomes the Greek fret or meander or key pattern, and
this doubled forms the Svastika. ¶ The Lotus and the Tree of Life will
form the subject of the next article.
[_Previous articles of this series were published in Nos 1 and 3, for
March and May, 1903._]
[Illustration: THE COOK ASLEEP, BY JAN VERMEER OF DELFT, IN THE
COLLECIION OF MONSIEUR RUDOLPHE KANN]
THE DUTCH EXHIBITION AT THE GUILDHALL
❧ ARTICLE I.--THE OLD MASTERS ❧
There is every probability that the current exhibition of early and
modern pictures by Dutch artists will prove to be one of the most
popular which has yet been held at the Guildhall; not, indeed, because
it is of finer quality than its predecessors, but from the fact that
the pictures are well within the grasp of the average man. There is
nothing incomprehensible to those least acquainted with Dutch art,
and there is something that will appeal to all. It must have occurred
to many with regard to pictures of Holland by artists of varying
nationality that only the Dutchman really grasps the subtleties of the
country. All the rest look upon it with alien eyes, and give us but
the external form. They never get behind the veil and infect us with
that indefinable exquisiteness and charm so characteristic of Holland
with its pastoral flats, pollard willows, canals, picturesque craft
and windmills and, most wonderful of all, that delicate atmosphere
softening the harshest lines into a melodious ensemble, and overhead
the immensity of sky, vast in its expanse and with its delicacies
of blues and greys. The finest Dutch landscape painters have always
painted in a minor key; whenever they seek to modulate into the major
they lose themselves and become commonplace. This applies equally to
Rüysdael and to Jacob Maris; doubtless it is an expression of the
national temperament of the Dutchman. Generally upon emerging from
a contemplation of the old men into a modern artistic environment a
feeling of repulsion creeps over one, but this is not the case here.
Rüysdael and Rembrandt seem strangely in harmony with Maris and Mauve,
and in this fact may be found a plea for the endurance of the latter.
A very different impression is given, for instance, when one leaves
an eighteenth-century French picture and comes to a modern French
landscape. The modern Dutch school have maintained the traditions of
their predecessors, and one of them at least--Jacob Maris--is worthy
to be put on the same plane as Rüysdael and Hobbema. ¶ In the small
gallery upstairs the student of seventeenth-century Dutch art will find
much to admire, still more to interest him, and not a few examples
which will tax his ingenuity as to attribution. Among these last are
some of the six pictures ascribed to Rembrandt. The most important,
and perhaps the one which should attract the most attention, is the
large landscape Le Commencement d’Orage, which is surpassed by little
in the landscape work of Rembrandt for poetical intensity and incisive
truth. This picture is by most modern critics denied to Rembrandt; as
the question is one which must be fully dealt with, its discussion may
conveniently be postponed to the end of this paper. ¶ When we leave
this and come to the portraits we find but one, the Portrait of the
Painter’s Son Titus, which has any serious pretensions to be considered
as coming from his brush. Against this, however, nothing can be urged
in point of quality. Of the Dutch master’s last and finest manner--it
is dated 1655--it has all the pathetic realism of his unsubdued genius.
It is interesting to compare this canvas, which is undoubtedly a
portrait of Titus, with that of the same boy in the Wallace collection.
As this is dated authentically 1655, the Hertford House picture should
be painted within the next year, or at the latest in 1657, whereas
it is approximately dated in the catalogue 1658-60. On the score of
quality there is little to choose, but perhaps the English picture is
in a better state of preservation. The Head of a Man, a careful work,
and with many good qualities to recommend it, is in all probability a
work of Solomon de Koninck, who was one of those pupils of Rembrandt
who assimilated most of his technicalities. The extreme timidity of
many of those points in which the bolder qualities of Rembrandt would
be brought into play, such as the handling of the nose, mouth and hair,
go far to convince us of the correctness of this attribution. Coming to
The Portrait of the Artist, it appears quite incomprehensible that a
picture of such inferior artistic qualities should have been seriously
considered for so long a period as a work of the master. Coming from
the collections of M. de Calonne, the Marquis Gerini and Mr. Agar,
engraved by Seuter and Townley, quoted in Smith, it serves to show the
hazy idea of even the best connoisseurs in the early days of the last
century. Such a work would be difficult to affiliate upon any of the
best known of Rembrandt’s pupils. The weakness of the drawing and lack
of power and roundness are clearly the work of but a second-rate man
of the period. The signature, moreover, presents no claim to serious
consideration. In Ruth and Naomi is possibly to be found the work of a
very interesting painter of the school of Rembrandt--Karel Fabritius,
who is little known yet in this country. It is painted with remarkable
strength and solidity, and although not a great achievement, is worthy
of comparison with some of those pictures which are ascribed to the
greater light upon very slender foundation. The picture, however, is
in such bad condition and has suffered so much that no one can tell
what it may have been when fresh. ¶ More interesting upon the whole
than the representation of Rembrandt and his School is that of Frans
Hals. His so-called Admiral de Ruyter (which is not a portrait of
that admiral) for decision and fearless handling has not an equal in
the gallery. It is not Hals as we see him at Hertford House, careful
and conscientious, though successful, but the spontaneous, daring
master whom we find at Haarlem and in the Louvre, at Cassel and St.
Petersburg. It is the Hals that we not only admire but also love, the
wonder of the cultured art-loving public, and--may we add it?--the
despair of the modern portrait painter. Such brushwork has only been
equalled, we shall not say surpassed, by a few masters, of whom
Velasquez stands out prominently. When, however, we turn to Van Goyen
and his Wife and Child, we have another instance of more than doubtful
attribution. The landscape is probably by Van Goyen, for it has many
of his characteristics of tree draughtsmanship and sober colour. The
figures, however, betray nothing of Hals beyond his influence, and even
the latter is only just allowable. They are well and strongly painted
in parts; but Hals would never be guilty of such loose handling as is
observable in the child in the foreground or such weak drawing as the
foot of Van Goyen betrays. There is but little from which to deduce
an attribution with any degree of certainty. The present ascription
is part of that system which insists on fathering upon Hals all the
portraits in this manner and of this period, in much the same way as
in the past all portraits which betrayed any of the technicalities of
Rembrandt were attributed to that master.
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF, BY JAN STEEN, IN THE COLLECTION OF
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE WIFE OF THOMAS WIJCK, BY JAN VERSPRONCK,
IN THE COLLECTION OF MRS. STEPHENSON CLARKE]
Turning from this to a Group of Three we have a splendid example by a
master whose history is enshrouded still in much mystery, but who was,
if one can judge from his art, a pupil of Hals--we are referring to
Jan Miense Molenaer. It was evidently painted in the earlier portion
of his career and has much in common with The Spinet-players in the
Rycks Museum at Amsterdam. A scene which Hals would have revelled
in depicting, full of uproarious good humour, the picture presents
attractions quite apart from its superb technical qualities and
masterly composition. Curiously enough, upon the same wall we have
two examples, Jovial Companions and The Health of the Troop, by
Molenaer’s wife, Judith Leyster, a painter of the school of Haarlem
of the period when Hals was at the height of his fame. They are both
catalogued as being collaborations by Hals and Judith Leyster, but
beyond the potent influence of the former they have nothing to do
with him. As pictures they are interesting to the student, but not
for any striking qualities which they present. The brushwork is of a
character which one expects from a painter who from self-assurance
endeavours to emulate a bold and dashing manner without possessing
the ability of the prototype, with the inevitable result of a coarse
disjointedness irritating to the last degree. The colour scheme of
each is unpleasing too, blues and reds being foiled against one
another with a rashness which is born of over confidence. Of quite
another character is the little Portrait of a Gentleman by Thomas de
Keyser. The strong and firm modelling of the face has not a weakness
apparent anywhere, whilst, as is usual with this master, he has placed
a restraint upon himself which sustains him through the most arduous
task without loss of dignity or ease of presentment. This grasp of his
material leaves him when he attempts anything on a large scale: he
loses concentration and becomes straggling. The picture is, however,
overcleaned. ¶ But to revert to the school of Hals again, there are
few more instructive pictures in the exhibition than The Portrait of a
Dutch Lady by Jan Verspronck, who was in many respects his cleverest
pupil. This is a remarkably characteristic example, the authenticity
of which is convincingly attested by the presence of the signature
with the date 1643. It must have occurred to many students that the
scarcity of Verspronck’s pictures is accounted for by their being not
infrequently converted into examples of the better-known master. They
lend themselves very readily to this from the strong affinities of
technique. The great point of difference is to be found in the lack
of brilliancy and freedom, qualities eminently characteristic of Hals,
both in his early and late period. But the delicate silveriness and
luminosity of Hals find an echo in the finest portraits of Verspronck.
I remember seeing a portrait of a man some years ago in London which
was ascribed with all confidence to Hals, until a close examination
revealed the traces of an obliterated signature of Verspronck on the
background. Further, I have always held the opinion that the superb
Portrait of a Lady at Antwerp is by this master, and a contemplation
of the present picture strengthens this view. ¶ One other portrait is
well worthy of mention, although it may be observed that it hardly
comes within the scope of an exhibition of Dutch Art, but we should
have been considerably the losers without it--the Portrait of Ambrogio,
Marchese di Spinola, by Cornelis de Vos. It is a superb piece of
direct portraiture, full of dignity and precision, and the ruff and
breastplate are handled with remarkable accuracy and vigour. ¶ Of
the genre paintings the most attention will be attracted by The Cook
Asleep, a picture ascribed to that very rare master Jan Vermeer of
Delft. There is little of his characteristic technique displayed in
the treatment of the accessories--the fruit and the bottle. Still,
the girl, particularly in the head and bosom, and the handling of
the table-cloth, point to the work of the great Delft master, to
say nothing of the signature, which has every appearance of being
authentic. Nevertheless, to extol it as a masterpiece--it is set forth
as such in the catalogue--by Vermeer, is quite unjustifiable when one
remembers the picture in Mrs. Joseph’s possession, the two in the Six
Collection at Amsterdam, or those in the Rycks Museum, the Louvre,
and at Dresden and Berlin. There are weaknesses, as witness the flat
painting of the arms, and the diffusion of light is not grasped with
his wonted skill. It lacks just that which delights one most in the
master’s work. It is unfortunate that a better picture to represent
Vermeer’s contemporary Gabriel Metzu could not be obtained than A Woman
Dressing Fish. I cannot agree with Smith in describing it as ‘this
excellent little picture’; indeed I have grave doubts as to its being
a genuine picture at all. Neither does a Portrait of a Lady worthily
display the magic and refined art of Terborch, for the painting is
careful even to timidity. Better by far is the Portrait of a Young
Woman, which, in spite of an unequal tussle with the restorer, still
presents some of his most charming qualities. Both the head and hands
are in his best manner, and the black dress with its semi-transparent
frills is full of such delicate painting as characterizes The Portrait
of a Gentleman in the National Gallery. ¶ A most interesting panel, A
Lady at a Harpsichord, is ascribed to Palamedes. Great confusion has
existed with regard to his works in the past, arising from the fact
that several painters have an almost identical technique and painted
similar subjects. Foremost among these are Willem Cornelisz Duyster,
Pieter Codde, Dirk Hals, and that controversial and mysterious master,
Hendrik Pot. The fine picture at Hampton Court, described in the
Commonwealth Inventory as ‘A Souldier making a Strange Posture to a
Dutch Lady, by Bott,’ which has been in turn assigned to Pieter Codde,
Poelenburgh, Palamedes, Mytens, and Hendrik Pot, is now permanently
and rightly ascribed to the last, an attribution arrived at by careful
comparison with other works, and further confirmed by the presence of
Pot’s initials on the chimneypiece--all in addition to the suggestive
entry in the Commonwealth Inventory. Now the panel in the exhibition
is almost identical in treatment, and also with that of the Convivial
Party in the National Gallery, and I think that Pot is much more likely
to be its creator than Palamedes. ¶ The life work of Jan Steen, so
badly illustrated at present in our public galleries, is well summed
up by the humorous and most masterly Portrait of Himself. Seated
on a chair, he bawls without restraint a ditty, no doubt culled
from his own cabaret, accompanying himself with a mandoline, which
he plays with evidently greater gusto than expression. Steen was no
idealistic dreamer: he believed in earthly enjoyment, and from this
fact arose the tales of dissipation of which modern investigation has
proved the falsity. Still, he seems to have largely been in sympathy
with the views of Omar Khayyam, and making ‘the most of what we yet
may spend.’ ¶ The ascription to Adriaen Brouwer of An Interior with
Figures is perhaps another misnomer. There is none of his exquisite
transparency, the colouring is opaque and lacks the brilliancy of his
palette, and the draughtsmanship has not nearly his precision. Again,
the figures in the foreground, although having much in common with
Brouwer, betray the influence of David Teniers, an influence still
more marked in those talking through the window. Consequently there
is a strange mixture of Dutch and Flemish art, which points to a
master conversant with both. Two men suggest themselves as its author,
Hendrik Sorgh and Joost van Craesbeeck, and the weight of evidence
is in favour of the latter, largely because of the Flemish sentiment
which pervades the whole composition and the presence of mannerisms
which are peculiar to Brouwer, which leads one to give the preference
to Craesbeeck rather than to Sorgh. Some particularly fine examples of
the still-life painters of Holland are shown, Jan van Huysum and Jan
van Os especially; whilst one of the three canvases by Willem van Aelst
(No. 167) is quite a new revelation of his powers.
[Illustration: OFF SCHEVENINGEN, BY JAN VAN DE CAPELLE, IN THE
COLLECTION OF MR. CHARLES T. D. CREWS]
Coming to the landscape men, in some respects a pleasurable surprise
awaits us, and in others something akin to disappointment. The latter
was furnished by the representation of Jacob van Rüysdael, by whom
no less than three examples are shown. Good as they all will be
considered, not one shows to the full the intensely poetical side of
his genius, a side which, exemplified by the magnificent View of
Haarlem in the Mauritshuis at the Hague or the View over an extensive
flat wooded Country in our own National Gallery, places him far ahead
of any painter of the Dutch school for the rendering of dreamy poetry
of nature. He must yield the palm to Hobbema in tree painting and to
Cüyp in landscape full of delicate shimmer and sunny glow, and if
Philips de Koninck is his equal in the presentment of immensity of
distance, he is left far behind by Rüysdael’s atmospheric achievements.
One point may be conceded to Hobbema, namely, that he is more equal:
he never painted a bad picture, whereas Rüysdael frequently did
so; but when the two are seen at their best, the latter surpasses
him by reason of his superiority in catching that essentiality of
landscape--_stimmung_. For want of these qualities A Forest Scene,
fine as it is from a technical standpoint, and in a perfect state
of preservation, does not show the better side of Rüysdael. The
Seapiece is better, but fails by reason of its obviously forced sky.
Its redeeming feature is the masculine painting of the sea and its
finely-felt distance. Perhaps the best is the so-called View on the
Brill, which is impressive whilst remaining unsatisfactory. It is
particularly unfortunate that a picture of Rüysdael in his best and
most soulful mood could not be found, for then he would more than hold
his own against any of the _plein air_ men in the remaining galleries.
By Hobbema there are two superb panels, A Woody Landscape with a
gentleman on a grey horse, and A Landscape, between which, although
painted at different periods of his career, there is little to choose
in point of quality. However, the latter suffers from over cleaning,
particularly in some of those parts--notably the middle distance--where
Hobbema shines most, and this gives it a rawness quite foreign to the
picture in its pristine state. Still, they are both profound in their
grasp of nature and magnificence of achievement. Cüyp, too, is equally
well represented by A Herdsman and a Woman tending Cattle, with its
suffusion of golden sunlight over the placid river. A delicately soft
and delicious haze, so essential a feature on a summer afternoon in
the vicinity of a river, envelops the whole composition from the
finely-grouped cattle and figures in the immediate foreground to the
distant tower, and the portrayal of the relation of the exquisitely
truthful sky to the landscape was vouchsafed to no Dutchman to a
greater degree than to Cüyp. This is the only example here of the
Dordrecht master, for few will consider seriously the pretensions of
the Head of a Cow to be from his hand. It is signed (but it is to
be questioned if it is a contemporary signature) Berchem, and it is
possible that it is by that master, but there are other men equally
likely. ¶ A capital little landscape with cattle represents the art of
Adriaen van de Velde at its best. It is well that such a picture has
been chosen, for it is in its original condition, unlike all too many
which have become dark in parts owing to the employment of unstable
pigments. Another noteworthy example is that by Jan van der Heyden;
whether or not one is allowed to altogether admire such finish, one
cannot but wonder at the minute and painstaking rendering of detail
and at the masterly way with which, in spite of his _finesse_, he
preserves the unity of his composition. ¶ When we come to the Aart
van der Neer, a Moonlight River Scene, we are confronted with a
clever picture, but one which almost presents doubts as to its being
really from the hand of the master. In the first place it is painted
with a much fuller brush and broader handling than is usual with
Van der Neer. The trees, instead of being delicately, even minutely
wrought, are treated in broad masses, and the buildings have not his
directness; and one’s doubts are strengthened by the figures. Now Van
der Neer was never loose--if anything, his failing is in the opposite
direction--but here we have men in the foreground who are even clumsy,
whilst the whole work has a lack or transparence which raises grave
doubts whether it is a Dutch picture at all. Here and there is just a
trace of a copyist, although a man of no mean talent and one who was
copying to arrive at the spirit of the Dutchmen. We have at least one
man of the English school who, if this hypothesis has foundation, is
capable of this, and many little mannerisms are very like him; but some
good authorities regard the picture as an early work of Van der Neer,
much over-cleaned and repainted. ¶ The two Jan van de Cappelles are of
unsurpassable beauty. In the little Seapiece, with its placid water, an
awful stillness pervading the whole scene before the approaching storm,
the last glimpses of lurid light which catch the distant town before a
complete envelopment in inky blackness of the scene is accomplished,
and the depth of the picture, are quite wonderful. But it is rather
to Off Scheveningen we look for a thoroughly characteristic Van de
Cappelle. The wonderful sky and the amount of atmosphere infused into
the whole theme raises it quite on a level with the River Scene of the
Wynn Ellis bequest in the National Gallery, an equal of which for pure
aerial painting we have yet to see in a European Gallery. The present
example is one which surpasses Willem van de Velde at his best in all
the higher qualities of art. Another curious picture is the Rising in
a Dutch Town, ascribed to Gerrit Berkheyde. ¶ We will now return to
Le Commencement d’Orage; and in this connexion it may be convenient
to quote the passage referring to this picture which occurred in the
notice of the Guildhall Exhibition published in _The Times_, since it
expresses a view now widely held. The passage is as follows:--‘Another
picture, of great beauty and greater importance, has for more than a
century borne Rembrandt’s name--ever since de Marcenay engraved it with
that attribution. Yet it is absolutely certain that Lady Wantage’s
great picture, The Beginning of the Storm (174), is not by Rembrandt
at all, but is the masterpiece of Philip de Koning, who has two or
three similar but smaller works in the National Gallery, and whose
signed pictures since the days when Dr. Waagen wrote, have become
perfectly well known. Such a picture places de Koning in the very first
rank of landscape painters, and it is unjust to deprive him of it. It
would take us too long to give reasons for the change of name, but
there can be no doubt whatever about it. The picture, of course, shows
the influence of the mighty teacher throughout, but it is in point of
fact a better, truer, less fantastic landscape than he himself ever
painted. It makes the Cassel and other landscapes seem what they really
are--dreams, not transcripts from nature in any sense of the term.’ ¶
That the opinion thus dogmatically expressed is that of the majority
of critics cannot be denied, but I venture still to acquiesce in the
attribution to Rembrandt and I will give my grounds for so doing. In
the first place the view is just of such a character as de Koninck
painted--an extensive landscape seen from a height with river and
distant sandhills, the intervening space studded here and there with
hamlets. When, however, we come to compare the technique here with that
in accepted pictures by de Koninck, such as the landscape No. 836 in
the National Gallery, the only similarity which can be traced to him is
in the handling of the bank of the river at the right and the bushes
above it. But this is much too powerfully realized for de Koninck, it
has a force and breadth which the pupil never put forward. This point
can be observed by comparison with the National Gallery picture, which
has a very similar foreground only much more restrainedly achieved.
Again, the qualities to be found in the roofs by the windmill on the
left of the picture and the trees over them are such as are found in
all Rembrandt’s work, whether he is working in oil or with the etching
needle. Further, none of the finest works of Philips de Koninck have
such an impressive and powerful opposition of sunlight and gloom as we
have here. He may be wonderfully fascinating in rendering the delicate
silveriness of certain phases of atmospherical freshness but he is
never soul-stirring, which is a quality I claim for Lady Wantage’s
picture. In the sky painting there is much affinity between this and
the Peel picture as regards the cloud cumuli, but a reference to the
Landscape with Tobias and the Angel (No. 72) in the National Gallery
will disclose an identity which demonstrates that the other similarity
is only of such a character as would be found in the work of a very
clever pupil assimilating his master’s technique.
[Illustration: LE COMMENCEMENT D’ORAGE, VARIOUSLY ATTRIBUTED TO
REMBRANDT VAN RIJN AND PHILIPS DE KONINCK; IN THE COLLECTION OF LADY
WANTAGE]
Before leaving this picture it would be useful to draw attention to
the parallel rendering of several details--the trees and the sunlight
hill in the background. Now in the second period of Rembrandt, which
is tentatively placed by students as lying between 1640 and 1649, much
attention to landscape is a prominent characteristic. Particularly was
this the case with regard to his work with the needle. This culminated
in the production of that most impressive of all his landscape
etchings, The Three Trees. If that etching is compared with the present
picture, many points of similarity will be observed, not only with
regard to the extensive view on the left of that etching, but with
regard to its realization and general feeling, beside which the art of
de Koninck appears but a triviality. The Three Trees is dated 1643,
and I am inclined to place this picture at about the same period, or
at any rate between 1640 and 1643. With this date the technique is in
strict consonance. Philips de Koninck we know was born in 1619, so
that at this period he would be twenty-one, a very impressionable age,
and I would hazard the suggestion, although the evidence is purely
presumptive, that not only was this landscape the forerunner of The
Three Trees, but that its production at the period when de Koninck was
probably a pupil of Rembrandt, or at any rate had but just emerged from
his studio, influenced the former to such an extent that it actually
inspired his future landscapes, the similar character of which is so
well known. Hence the importance of Le Commencement d’Orage for us. ¶
Yet another plea may be urged for the acceptance of the work as being
by Rembrandt. It is an accepted fact, that the etchings of Hercules
Seghers had great influence on Rembrandt. The inventory of his effects
made in 1656 shows that he had in his possession six landscapes by
Seghers in addition to the copper of Tobias and the Angel, which
latter he reworked and it appears in Rembrandt’s work as the Flight
into Egypt. Seghers, as is well known, was a lover of these vast Dutch
plains seen from a height, as witness his flat Dutch landscape seen
from a height with water in the foreground, and a flat Dutch landscape
with a winding river. Now Seghers was born about 1590 and died
somewhere about 1640, and it is fair to presume that at this latter
date Rembrandt came into possession of the plate of Tobias and the
Angel. This is the very period to which I attribute the production of
Le Commencement d’Orage, and it is a noteworthy fact that prior to this
date we have nothing akin to this and subsequent landscapes, so that it
is fair to presume that the art of Seghers created the landscape art of
Rembrandt as exemplified by The Three Trees and subsequent etchings,
and through him the art of Philips de Koninck. ¶ Moreover the picture
of Tobias and the Angel in the National Gallery is directly executed
under the influence of Seghers, and I have already drawn attention to
the similarity between the building of the sky in this picture and that
of Lady Wantage’s. In view of these considerations it would seem that
the champions of Philips de Koninck must show more adequate reasons
before robbing Rembrandt of the authorship of this superb landscape.
EARLY STAFFORDSHIRE WARES
ILLUSTRATED BY PIECES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM
❧ WRITTEN BY R. L. HOBSON ❧
ARTICLE I
In beginning a series of articles on Staffordshire wares, which are
intended to sketch the history of those fascinating old pieces now so
eagerly sought by the collector of pottery, our first duty is to select
a convenient starting point. It is improbable that in a county so
rich in materials as Staffordshire the making of pottery has suffered
any serious intermission since prehistoric times; but I think we may
safely assume that the collector, as distinct from the antiquary,
will feel little interest in any of the productions of this district
prior to the seventeenth century. If we except Gothic paving tiles, a
few of the better costrels or pilgrim’s bottles, and the mysterious
‘poteries gracieuses de la reine Elizabeth’ (which, whatever they are,
no one thinks of claiming for Staffordshire), it may be said that
for five centuries after the Norman conquest the ceramic art of this
country boasted nothing better than coarse pitchers, gotches, gourds,
and gorges of clumsy shape and uncouth ornament, which appeal to few
but the sternest antiquarians. With the seventeenth century, however,
begins a new period of development, very gradual at first, but full
of interest. ¶ To anyone who has recently visited the Potteries, and
seen the great conglomerate of towns intersected by railways and
tramlines, with its forest of chimneys and the constantly burning
kilns of numberless factories that supply the markets of the world,
it is difficult to picture the same district 300 years ago, wooded,
wild and picturesque. The great towns were then represented by a few
moorland hamlets, the teeming factories by occasional ‘hovels’ and
‘sun-kilns,’ and the armies of workmen by the solitary potter, who,
helped by one or two labourers or by his own household alone, threw,
glazed and fired his weekly ovenload of crocks, which his wife took to
town on a donkey to exchange for the necessaries of life. It is not a
very promising picture from a collector’s point of view; and yet in the
first few years of the seventeenth century and in circumstances little
less primitive than those we have just described, a number of pieces
were made that are now eagerly sought after by persons of taste. I need
hardly say that it is not the common crocks made for the market or fair
that have achieved this apotheosis. The vessels with which we are at
present concerned were, we may be sure, of the kind ‘made for honour,’
_tours de force_ to celebrate special occasions, and to be cherished
among the heirlooms of the poor.
[Illustration: ~Fig. I.~--Slipware Dish. Depth, 16 ins.
The Pelican in her Piety.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. II.~--Tyg with Incised Ornament, dated 1640.
Height, 5½ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. III.~--Tyg with Seven Handles. Height, 8 ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. IV.~--Puzzle Tyg with the Sign of the Mermaid.
Height, 7½ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. V.~--Tyg with Streaked Glaze. Height, 10 ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. VI.~--Posset Pot with Stamped Ornament. Height,
10¼ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. VII.~--Cradle of Slipware, dated 1691. Length, 7½
ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. VIII.~--Fuddling Cup. Length. 7¼ ins.]
For the right understanding of our subject, it will be necessary to go
into a few technical details gathered from the earliest notice (in
Dr. Plot’s ‘Natural History of Staffordshire,’ 1689) of the industry,
and from the silent evidence of the pots themselves. At Burslem, which
even in Plot’s time was the ‘greatest pottery’ of the district, only
four kinds of clay were in use for the body of the wares: bottle clay,
hard fireclay which was mixed with red blending clay to make black
wares, and a white clay, so called because it produced a yellow ware,
which was the nearest approach to white then obtainable. Besides these
there were three finer clays reserved for decorative purposes, known
as orange slip, white slip, and a red slip which burnt black. Slip, it
must be explained, was a creamy fluid made of clay softened by water.
The glaze was produced by powdered lead ore dusted on to the ware.
For special pieces the ore was first calcined. Used in its simple
form, this powder, when fired, covered the ware with a transparent
glass of a warm yellow tone, which gave a rich reddish brown surface
to a red body, a yellow colour to white slip ornament, and a similar
augmentation to clays of other tints. Only two colouring oxides
appear to have been used--manganese, from which a colour was obtained
varying according to its intensity from purplish brown to black, and
commonly used to streak or mottle the glaze, and oxide of copper, which
produced a bright green effect. The unsophisticated potter called the
lead ore _smithum_ and the manganese _magnus_. A little Latin went a
long way in the district. ¶ Such were the simple materials that the
seventeenth-century potter had at his disposal, differing scarcely at
all from those used by his mediaeval forerunners. Let us see what use
he made of them, when working at his best. Fig. I shows an ornamental
dish for a cottage dresser. Fig. II is a type of drinking cup used on
special occasions. Other not inelegant drinking vessels of the period
are beaker-shaped, or in the form of an elongated dice-box with two
handles close together; these are always in black ware. Another shape
is seen in Fig. III. The principal feature of most of these quaint
tygs, or loving-cups, is their astonishing number of handles, which
range from two to as many as twelve. It is supposed that the purpose
of this equipment was that the cup might pass from hand to hand, and
each guest have a fresh portion of the rim to himself, no doubt an
excellent arrangement for the first time round! Not content with half
a dozen or so of full-grown handles, the potter frequently inserted
between each of them a sort of rudimentary handle consisting of a
looped strip of clay. Another variety of the tyg was called a posset
pot, and was usually distinguished by a spout. The posset pot would
seem to have been a family possession preserved with great respect,
and used only on special occasions, such as Christmas time. It also
suffered from a plethora of handles. Of any exact recipe for a posset
I must plead ignorance, but I fancy it as a compound of mulled ale
with an indefinite something floating on the surface, succulent, and
exceedingly popular. There were other and still more fanciful drinking
vessels besides these. A fuddling cup is shown in Fig. VIII. When it
is realized that the six cups communicate with each other internally,
so that to empty one you must empty all, the force of the name will
be apparent. Any doubt as to the use of these formidable vessels is
dispelled by the inscription on a similar piece, _Fill me ful of
sidar, drink of me_. The puzzle jug is another playful variety. Fig.
IX is an elaborate example from which it will be seen that the liquor
must be extracted in some unusual way if the drinker wants to get his
full measure, and has any respect for his clothes. The rim and handle
are tubes, communicating with the body of the jug, through which the
contents must be sucked from a spout in front of the rim, in this case
the bird’s beak. To complicate matters there are usually one or more
concealed holes in the tubes which must be stopped by the fingers,
in addition to a false spout or two, such as is seen on the side of
the rim. The puzzle jug is a joke of long standing. Specimens have
been found which go back to the fourteenth century, and the trick is
not quite unknown at the present day. No doubt their existence was
prolonged by the far-seeing publican who appreciated the possibilities
implied in the following doggerel that appears on one of them:--
Gentlemen, now try your skill.
I’ll hold you sixpence, if you will,
That you don’t drink unless you spill.
[Illustration: ~Fig. IX.~--Puzzle Jug. Height, 9½ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. X.~--Horn Lantern of Slipware.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. XI.~--Owl Jug with Combed Feathers. Height,
8½ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. XII.~--Posset Cup of Slipware. Height, 7¼
ins.]
Another pleasant surprise was furnished by the toad mug, in which
the drinker as he neared the bottom discovered a well-modelled toad,
usually of red clay with white slip eyes. Fig. XI is an example of a
rarer class. The owl jug was made with a removable head which could
be used as a cup. It is, however, a disputed question whether these
jugs are of Staffordshire origin, and it is hinted that they have a
suspiciously close parallel in German pottery. Other special forms of
a less bibulous kind are shown in Fig. VII, a model of a cradle which
tells its own tale; and Fig. X, a horn lantern. Candlesticks, handovens
and condiment trays also occur. ¶ We must now return for a moment to
technicalities in order to understand the remaining feature of our
wares, their ornament. The tyg, jug, cradle or piece of whatever form,
was sometimes left to depend for its popularity on its streaky purplish
brown or glossy black glaze alone, neither of them a recommendation
to be despised; or it was embellished with a scratched design, a
pattern impressed by wooden stamps, or applied pads of clay moulded
or stamped with rosettes, formal ornament, and occasionally with the
human form. I have seen a tyg with busts of King Charles I disposed
round its perimeter, an unusually ambitious design for a potter of
the period. The handles were made a still more conspicuous feature by
the addition of twists of coloured clay, knobs and bosses. ¶ Another
and a larger group were ornamented with the slips we spoke of above.
These were applied in various ways. First as simple washes to give a
light surface to a dark body or _vice versa_ (see Figs. IX and XII). Or
again they were dropped or trailed on from a spouted vessel in quaint
tracery, dotted patterns, or outlined designs. As might be expected at
this period, the tulip more or less conventionalized was a favourite
motive. The process is best understood by taking an example. Fig.
XII is of light buff ware: the ornament on the upper part, and the
inscription and date, WILLIAM CHATERLY, 1696, were traced in black
slip dotted with white; the lower half was immersed in black slip, and
the pattern added in white; the whole was then leaded and fired. ¶ A
third method consisted in dropping slip of one or more colours on the
surface and working it about with a wire brush or leather comb until an
effect similar to our graining or paper marbling was obtained. Wares
so treated are called combed or marbled wares (see Figs. XI and XIII).
This process, seen on the tall bottle-shaped costrels attributed to
the sixteenth century, continued in its primitive form to the middle
of the eighteenth century, when it developed into the agate ware of
Whieldon and Wedgwood and their contemporaries. ¶ Lastly, there was
_graffiato_ ware, in which a thick coating of slip was laid over a
body of contrasting colour and the pattern scratched through so as to
discover the body beneath (see Fig. VIII). This kind of ornament has
been in use in all countries and from the earliest times. It is seen
at its best on Italian pottery from the quattrocento onwards, and the
continuance of its Italian name is a compliment to the masterpieces of
that country.
[Illustration: ~Fig. XIII.~--Tyg with Trailed and Combed Slip.
Inscribed Ralph Tumor, 168–. Height, 4¾ ins.]
[Illustration: ~Fig. XIV.~--Puzzle Jug of Slipware. Inscribed
I.B.]
It remains to speak of dates and localities. Those of our wares that
have no slip decoration can be traced back to the first years of the
seventeenth century, if not to Elizabethan times. They continued to the
early part of the eighteenth century, when they either disappeared or
were improved out of recognition. Like all primitive wares, they were
manufactured all over the country, and though it is certain that a
large number of them were made in Staffordshire, it would be difficult
to claim any particular piece for that district. Slip decoration,
which dates back to mediaeval times, was equally universal. Indeed we
know that a well-defined class of slip ware with stamped ornaments and
patterns of dots and dashes was made at Wrotham in Kent from 1612-1717.
Another group with a distinctive kind of scroll and fern ornament in
thin white slip, and inscriptions usually of Puritanical tone, was
made in or near London from the middle of the sixteenth century. A
third kind is attributed with much probability to Cockpit Hill, Derby.
It is characterized by moulded patterns with raised outlines which
contained the coloured slips much as the _cloisons_ contain the enamels
on _cloisonnée_ work. ¶ But the best slipware of Staffordshire, as
exemplified by Figs. I, XII, and XIV, is unmistakable in style, and
yields to none in picturesque effect. Our earliest clue to its history
was given by the simple legend scratched on the back of a dish similar
to Fig. I, THOMAS TOFT. TINKERS CLOUGH. I MADE IT., 166–. Tinker’s
Clough is a lane between Shelton and Wedgwood’s Etruria. On the
strength of this modest confession the name Toft ware has been applied
by many writers to all slipwares of this class, and even to slipware
generally. A number of other names, sometimes with dates, are found on
these wares (_e.g._ Ralph Toft 1676, Charles Toft, Ralph Turnor 1681,
Robart (_sic_) Shaw 1692), many of them no doubt the names of potters,
others of those for whom the pots were made. Slipware, though naturally
superseded by the finer earthenwares of the eighteenth century, is
not yet extinct, and may be seen occasionally at country fairs of the
present day. ¶ The question of Staffordshire delft ware is too long to
consider here. It is a moot point if any such thing existed before the
eighteenth century, and it is certain that delft was never made there
to any extent worth considering. But this article would be incomplete
if one omitted to give a few of the quaint inscriptions that are a
feature of the various kinds of pots we have discussed. They tell
their own story and need no comment:--
The gift is small, Good will is all.
Mary Oumfaris your cup. 1678. [Can this spell Humphreys!]
This for W. F. 1691.
The best is not to good for you. 1697. I.B. R.F.
Anne Draper this cup I made for you and so no more. I.W. 1707.
Come good wemen drink of the best Ion my lady and all the rest.
Brisk be to the med you desier as her love yow ma requare.
Robert Pool mad this cup With gud posset fil and
The aposiopesis in the last is pregnant with meaning. ¶ Naturally
after all these years good examples of old Staffordshire wares are
scarce, and when they appear in the market they can only be bought at
proportionately good prices, owing to the eagerness with which they
are sought by the collector. And _me judice_ they deserve all the
attention they get. There is something genuinely fascinating in their
naïve simplicity and their entire lack of all that is artificial or
extraneous. We do not, of course, pretend that for instance the use
of slip originated in this country, but the particular application of
it that is so characteristic of the Staffordshire wares is of purely
native development. These early pots are like the potters who made them
and their friends who used them, English to the backbone.
[~Fig. XV.~--Cup of Slipware, dated 1719.]
NEW ACQUISITIONS AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS
~Victoria and Albert Museum~
~A Mediaeval Silver Chalice from Iceland~
The national collection of silversmiths’ work at South Kensington
has lately been enriched by the acquisition of a silver chalice of
exceptional beauty and interest, which has reached this country, by
way of Denmark, with the history of having belonged formerly to the
church of Grundt, a village in the north of Iceland. ¶ As will be seen
from the illustration, the chalice is of the early type in which the
round contour prevails, in hemispherical bowl, bulb-shaped knop, and
circular foot. The bowl is of fine workmanship, fashioned with the
hammer with admirable uniformity, and finished with a high polish on
the outside. Round its margin runs the leonine hexameter (with some
allowances) + SVMMITVR HINC NVNDA DIVINI SANGVINIS VNDA (no doubt for
‘sumitur hinc munda divini sanguinis unda ’).[34] The lettering of the
inscription, of which a rubbing is shown, is interesting, apart from
the beauty and freedom of its forms, in helping to fix an approximate
date for the object it adorns. ¶ The knop, separated from the bowl by
a narrow indented necking with beaded edges, is cast hollow, pierced
and chiselled with four compartments of foliage. The leafage in each
compartment is of a different design, and in each springs from the
turned-up ends of a circumscribing band stamped with a row of annulets
(see illustration). The upper spandrels so formed are filled each
with a small leaf; the lower are blank. ¶ The trumpet-shaped foot is
finished round the margin with a bevel, engraved with a rudimentary
fret and turned out at the edge in a narrow rim. At its junction with
the knop it is enriched with a border of vertical leaves rising from a
kind of nebuly band. The workmanship of the foot is notably inferior
to that of the bowl; the hammermarks are plainly visible inside, and
outside no careful polishing has smoothed away the concentric markings
of the turning tool which was used, after the hammer, on both bowl and
foot. It may perhaps be suggested that the inferior finish of the foot
is evidence of its not having originally belonged to the bowl; but the
suggestion is discredited by the excellent proportion existing between
the two, and by the similarity of both to the corresponding parts of
other examples about to be noticed. It is more probable that a higher
finish was imparted to the bowl in deference to its function as the
receptacle of the consecrated wine. ¶ To conclude the description, the
enriched portions, that is to say, the band of inscription round the
bowl, the knop with the parts adjacent, and the bevel of the foot,
and these only, are gilt, by the old mercury process, with a pale
gold. The measurements are: height 4-13/16 in. (12˙2 cm.), diameter of
bowl 3¾ in. (9˙5 cm.), diameter of foot 3-9/16 in. (9 cm.). With the
chalice is a paten of plain silver, a slightly concave disc 5-1/16 in.
(12˙9 cm.) in diameter, with a roughly-formed circular depression. As
this is of very rough make, and has no appearance of being that which
originally accompanied the chalice, it need not be referred to further.
[Illustration: A SCANDINAVIAN CHALICE OF THE EARLY THIRTEENTH CENTURY,
WITH DETAILS (ACTUAL SIZE) OF INSCRIPTION AND DECORATION; IN THE
VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.]
The shape of the chalice is sufficient, by comparison with other
examples, to determine its date approximately. It may be compared, in
respect of its hemispherical bowl, its flattened globular knop, and
its trumpet-shaped foot with bevelled margin, with a much larger and
more ornate example in the church of the Holy Apostles at Cologne,
shown by the character of its ornament to be of the early part of the
thirteenth century.[35] While in the latter example, however, the bowl
and knop are separated by a stem equal in length to at least half
of the height of the knop, in our chalice they are separated only
by the narrow indented band with beaded edges already noticed.[36]
¶ A closer parallel, though again on a larger scale, is furnished
by an example dated 1222, formerly in the Heckscher collection, and
now in the possession of Sir Samuel Montagu, where all the main
features referred to are reproduced, and a much closer similarity in
the spacing of bowl and knop is observable.[37] ¶ Still more to the
point, however, is a silver chalice found at Sorö, in Denmark, in the
year 1827, with an episcopal ring, in the grave of Absalon, bishop of
Lund (died 1201).[38] We have here an example from the latter part of
the twelfth or the first year of the thirteenth century, reproducing
almost exactly the outlines of our chalice already described, and in
almost the same dimensions. In the bishop’s chalice the knop is plain,
and set off by a band of shallow fluting above and below; but these
differences of detail, and even a somewhat wider separation of bowl and
knop, cannot veil the striking resemblance of type between the two.
¶ The inscription with its combination of uncial and capital letters
furnishes further evidence of date. In general style, as well as in its
peculiarities of the use of both varieties of D, the freely curved G,
and the A with bent cross-stroke, it shows considerable affinity to the
inscription on the ivory cross of Gunhilda (died 1076), grand-niece
of Canute, in the Copenhagen Museum.[39] The same peculiarities, as
well as the V with a circle on its sinister stroke, are to be observed
in the inscriptions on the altar frontal of Lisbjerg, in Denmark,
assigned to the twelfth century. The tendency towards curved forms,
however, shown in the rounding of the interior of the capital D’s and
in the curving-in of the tails of these letters and of the R may be
more closely matched, in default of a Scandinavian example, in the
inscriptions on the bronze font at Hildesheim, assigned to the second
quarter of the thirteenth century.[40] At this date, however, the
fully-developed Lombardic character has so far prevailed over the roman
capital that it is only by picking out letters here and there, existing
as survivals among their curved supplanters, that such pure capital
or transitional characters as form the staple of our inscription can
be matched. ¶ The foliage on the knop is in two of the groups of that
conventional type which, apparently in reality a debasement of the
classical acanthus, is employed in the decoration of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries as the leafage of the symbolical vine; and the
bud-shaped objects springing among the leaves in one compartment are
clearly intended for such bunches of grapes as are similarly rendered
in ironwork of the thirteenth century. Foliage of similar character,
rising in the same way from the curved ends of the circumscribing
band, may be observed on certain of the carved church doors of the
twelfth century in Norway,[41] where such groups, employed in rows side
by side, distinctly recall an enrichment of classical architecture.
It is less easy to speak confidently of another of the bunches of
leaves, which suggests the growth either of a trumpet-shaped lichen or
possibly of an arum lily. The single flat leaf with curled edges seems
clearly the leaf of a water-plant. Perhaps it is not too fanciful to
see in this and the vine foliage already noticed a reference to the
two constituents of the sacramental element. ¶ Turning to the question
of nationality, it is to be remarked that the inscription and the
lines enclosing it, one above and two below, are entirely engraved
in that zigzag line, reminding one of the mark of an assayer’s tool,
which is an almost constant characteristic, even till recent times, of
Scandinavian silversmiths’ work; and the fret round the foot shows the
same peculiarity. It has already been said that the chalice comes to us
with a tale of a distant but active centre of Scandinavian art. If it
be doubted whether such highly developed work could have been produced
in Iceland at the date indicated it may be recalled that this remote
island, whose inhabitants anticipated by five centuries the discovery
of Columbus, was at this time the home of a culture such as could
hardly be boasted by continental Scandinavia--a land, indeed, ‘where,
long before the “literary eras” of England or Germany, a brilliant
period of intellectual life produced and elaborated in its own distinct
form of expression a literature superior to any north of the Alps.’[42]
¶ Gathering the conclusions to which all indications point, there
seems every reason to regard this beautiful little chalice as an
example of Scandinavian work, of a date not later than the early part
of the thirteenth century, produced, it may well be, in that farthest
outpost of European culture whence already in the dark ages a hand was
stretched out from the old world to the new.
~H. P. Mitchell.~
~The Reid Gift.--II~
One of the most interesting of the Italian manuscripts is a Book of
Hours--_Officium Beatae Virginis Marine secundum consuetudinem Romanae
Curiae_--belonging to the early part of the sixteenth century, and
evidently made for a member of the famous Bentivoglio family: perhaps
Giovanni, born in 1505. The Bentivoglio arms appear on the first page;
on folio 41 in two cartouches within the border are the words IOANNES,
BEN; and on folio 109, in one cartouche similarly placed, IO·BEN.
The writing of this volume is very good; the more important initials
are well drawn, and pleasantly placed in architectural compartments
decorated above and below with the characteristic ornament of the
period. Indeed one would say that the composition and arrangement
of the less ornate pages of the book are its best features. There
are twenty-two full-page illuminations, each containing an elaborate
initial, within a rich border of brightly-coloured arabesque
ornament, generally in compartments. The decoration is well drawn and
distributed, though the drawing of the figures in the initials, and
of the half-human grotesques in the borders, leaves something to be
desired. An interesting and useful feature--though one by no means
uncommon--is the use of jewellery to give relief to the arabesques.
¶ From the calligraphic point of view only, a tall folio of the four
Gospels, with commentary (Italian, twelfth century), is possibly
the most important of the gift, and should be especially useful
to students. The text is written in a large minuscule character,
beautifully spaced and proportioned, occupying the centre of each page.
In either margin occur the notes in much smaller writing. Practically
the whole decoration consists of initials in blue and red, with here
and there a rare display of bold but simple pen-drawn ornament and a
few chapter headings of tall, cramped lettering, of which the initial
has never been supplied. A ‘Thesaurus’ of St. Cyril of Alexandria is
another valuable example of fine Italian writing; in this instance,
of the end of the fifteenth century in date. A border and a few fine
initials in gold, blue, pale red and green of cunningly contrived
interlacements--in the case of the border further embellished with
_amorini_, birds, etc.--are the only decorations of note. This volume
also includes a work by St. John Chrysostom, and formerly belonged
to the Minutoli Tegrimi family of Lucca, whose stamp defaces some of
the pages. A small Book of Hours is to be referred to the same period
and locality as the latter; it has, however, much more elaborate
decoration; the superposition of numerous beasts, birds, and insects
on the interlacing scroll-work of the borders, is, though interesting,
by no means an improvement. These animals are, it must be admitted,
rendered with curious care; while the two full-page miniatures adorning
the volume, as it stands, are of quite a high order of merit. They
represent The Annunciation and David killing Goliath--a particularly
spirited drawing, with a beautiful little miniature of the Man of
Sorrows in a cartouche on the page facing it; four storied initials
within borders also serve to mark the commencements of various offices.
The capitals, in gold, on these pages are very finely written. The
kalendar is complete, and contains references to several local saints,
indicating Umbria as the district for use in which it was made. ¶ A
Missal belonging in date to the beginning of the fifteenth century, is
a good example of Italian writing adorned with fine pen-drawn scrolls
and storied initials treated in a broad, simple style of colouring and
foliage. The pen-work, interesting for its restraint and formality,
differs greatly in this respect from that of the more northern schools.
There are sixteen large storiated initials, of which attention may be
drawn to those on folios 283, a Monstrance displayed on an altar; 292,
the Celebration of Mass; and a representation of the absolutions at the
side of a dead man, clothed and hooded in red and lying on a couch;
the prayer is read by a monk in a white habit, attended by another
similarly dressed who supports a tall cross which has lighted candles
on either arm. The kalendar is very full, and has been corrected in a
later handwriting in several places. Immediately following it, in two
pages of small script, is the _Ordo ad faciendum aquā bn̄dictam_. ¶ A
small Italian Book of Hours is archaeologically interesting because
it is signed in a colophon on folio 266. ‘Frater paulus de mediolano
ordīs scī B’tholomei de hermineis sc’psit’ (late fifteenth century).
The name of this writer is believed to be unrecorded hitherto;
the script is thoroughly Italian in character, but the decoration
has decided Netherlandish tendencies. Several northern saints are
inserted in the kalendar--by another hand--including St. Brandan. ¶
In conclusion mention may be made of a small Book of Devotions with
borders and miniatures of considerable merit and interest, placed
within architectural frames. On the first page is a coat of arms, which
however has evidently been superimposed on an earlier design. The
writing is good and the initials well placed and coloured. At the end
on a tablet are the initials S.H., but these have not been identified.
The work is French, probably southern, and in date belongs to the first
half of the sixteenth century. ¶ The works mentioned in these notes are
only a few of the large collection given by Mr. Reid. They are all now
exhibited near the entrance to the National Art Library.
E. F. S.
~The Print Room of the British Museum~
The most interesting among recent additions to the Print Room are
woodcuts, both old and new. A chiaroscuro by Andreani, after Alessandro
Casolani of Siena, representing the Pietà, or Lamentation for Christ,
is remarkable both for its great size--it measures nearly six feet
by four--and for its rarity. Other impressions exist at Bassano and
Berlin. The figures, St. John supporting the dead Saviour, and a
second group of three holy women in attendance on the Virgin, are
nearly of the size of life, and the wood-engraver evidently set
himself the task of producing the closest possible facsimile of a
large cartoon, outlined in charcoal and washed with neutral tints. He
has succeeded very well, and he was fortunate, considering the date,
1592, in obtaining so fine a composition on which to exert his skill.
The design has been cut throughout on three sets of blocks, one for
the black outline and two for tone. The impression, on many sheets of
paper joined together, is in good preservation, but the lowest portion
has perhaps been cut away, for there is no trace of the inscription,
recorded by Kolloff in his catalogue of Andreani’s works (No. 15),
that contains the dedication of the print to Vincenzo Gonzaga, duke
of Mantua, with the names of the artists and the date and place of
publication. Andreani had worked hitherto at Rome, Florence, and Siena.
It was to this dedication, apparently, and to his success in such an
important print, that he owed a summons to Mantua, his native city,
and a commission from the duke to reproduce in chiaroscuro Mantegna’s
Triumph of Caesar. ¶ Another woodcut of smaller but still considerable
dimensions (39¾ by 28¼ inches) bears the address ‘Gedruckt zu Nürmberg
Bey hans Wolff Glaser,’ cut upon the block in a tablet at the left
lower corner. Glaser was a ‘Briefmaler’ or petty publisher, printer,
and wood-engraver, who was at work at Nuremberg in the middle, or
third quarter, of the sixteenth century. His name is most familiar as
the publisher of one of the late editions of the portrait of Dürer at
the end of his life. The present work represents the Trinity, with
angels in adoration. These angels are copied, for the most part, from
Dürer’ fine woodcut of 1511 (B. 122), but they have been sadly spoilt
in the process of enlargement. Glaser’s work is coarse throughout, and
remarkable only for the rarity which it shares with most early woodcuts
of exceptional size. ¶ A fine impression of the portrait of Luther as
an Augustinian friar, after Cranach, dated 1520 (P. 194), has been
well coloured by a contemporary hand. A tablet at the bottom contains
the undescribed Latin inscription, EFFIGIES DOCTORIS MARTINI LVTHERI
| AVGVSTINIANI WITTENBERGĒSIS | 1520. The Holy Dove is added at the
top on a separate block, which also completes the arch. The portrait,
rare in the early, original impressions, hardly deserves to rank with
the woodcuts drawn by Cranach himself on the block; it seems, rather,
to be a good adaptation of an engraving on copper of the same year (P.
8, Sch. 7), in which Luther stands in front of a niche. Dr. Flechsig
finds much fault with the engraving itself, and will not allow it to
be more than a copy of the other engraved portrait of Luther (B. 5,
Sch. 6), with a plain background. With this woodcut were purchased
three interesting and undescribed etchings of knights arrayed for the
tournament, by the monogrammist C. S., a German artist of about 1550.
¶ A dainty little book, without text, but with the address, A LION |
PAR IAN DE TOVRNES. | M.D. LVI, within a graceful arabesque border, on
the first page, contains proofs of sixty blocks by wood-engravers of
the Lyons school, printed throughout on the recto of the leaf. ‘Das
gebet Salomonis’ (S. Grimm, Augsburg, 1523; 8vo.) has a pretty border
to the title, and a woodcut, Moses receiving the Tables of the Law,
both by the fascinating illustrator known provisionally as ‘The Master
of the Trostspiegel.’ A more important illustrated book is ‘Die Legend
des heyligen vatters Francisci,’ printed by Hölzel at Nuremberg in
1512, and profusely illustrated with woodcuts by Wolf Traut. The fine
copy recently purchased for the Print Room was formerly in the library
of William Morris. ¶ Another volume, still more intimately associated
with the author of ‘The Earthly Paradise,’ is the gift of Mr. George
Young Wardle, a friend and associate of Morris. It contains a complete
set, one of a very small number in existence, of proofs rubbed by
hand from unpublished blocks, designed by Burne-Jones, to illustrate
the tale of ‘Cupid and Psyche.’ The illustrations, forty-four in
number, were drawn upon the block by Mr. Wardle himself from the rough
sketches of Burne-Jones, which are now at Oxford. Morris, in revolt
against the methods of professional wood-engravers, had a few blocks
cut by amateurs, chosen among his own friends, and then took up the
task himself and cut by far the larger number with his own hands. To
these illustrations are added some initials and decorative borders,
both designed and cut by Morris. The story of the projected edition has
been told in ‘A Note on the Kelmscott Press.’ The scheme was abandoned
about 1870. The woodcuts, accordingly, belong to the period of English
illustrations generally described as ‘the sixties,’ and are separated
by a long interval from the later Burne-Jones woodcuts, including the
Chaucer series, which were printed in the ‘nineties,’ at the Kelmscott
Press. They are as full of romance as anything that Burne-Jones ever
drew, and the cutting, inexperienced and occasionally faulty as it
is, often preserves the freshness of the original sketch as no mere
hack engraver’s work would have done. It must not be forgotten,
however, that the defects of the cutting, in the opinion of Morris and
Burne-Jones themselves, were so serious as to make the publication of
the blocks undesirable. In addition to such rubbed proofs as those
lately in Mr. Wardle’s possession, a small number of proofs exist which
were pulled at a later date in the printing-press, and do more justice
to the blocks.
C. D.
NOTES ON VARIOUS WORKS OF ART
TWO ALLEGED ‘GIORGIONES’
The Leuchtenberg Gallery at St. Petersburg has lately yielded up some
of those treasures which it has long and jealously guarded. In 1852
Passavant published a _catalogue raisonné_ of the pictures, with
illustrations in outline, and to many this large volume has been
the sole medium of introduction to the collection. Several of the
originals have now found their way to London, among them two which
bear the great name of Giorgione--an Adoration of the Shepherds, and a
Madonna and Child. Both appear in outline in Passavant’s book, under
the name of Barbarelli, the supposed cognomen of Giorgione, to which,
however, as modern research has shown, he is not entitled.[43] ¶ The
Madonna and Child picture has now passed into the rich collection of
Mr. George Salting, of which assuredly it will not be one of the least
ornaments; here moreover it will hang in company with another picture
from the same hand, each admirably illustrating two different phases
of Cariani’s art. For to Cariani, the Bergamesque painter, must be
ascribed the authorship of this Madonna and Child, which reveals him
in a mood no less characteristic than does the fine Portrait of one of
the Albani Family, which Mr. Salting has generously placed on loan at
the National Gallery. It would be a fitting complement to see the new
Cariani hung near the other, if only to prove how charming an artist
he can be at times, and how far superior these examples are to the two
which the nation actually possesses at Trafalgar Square. ¶ Like all
artists not absolutely in the first rank, Cariani varies considerably
in quality of workmanship; indeed, owing to the peculiar local
characteristics of Bergamesque art Cariani is exceptionally protean
in form, appearing now in Venetian guise, now in Brescian, now in his
own native awkwardness. For by nature he was not gifted with great
refinement, or with a strong individuality, and when the temporary
influence of Lotto, or of Palma Vecchio, or even of Previtali, was
withdrawn, he easily lapsed into a slovenliness which repels, or into a
tastelessness which betrays his provincial origin. Fortunately this is
not the mood we feel in Mr. Salting’s Madonna. There is a homely strain
indeed, which makes the subject simply Mother and Child; a conception
which we find exactly paralleled in another charming work of his known
as La Vergine Cucitrice, or The Sempstress Madonna, in the Corsini
Gallery in Rome (see illustration). But the homeliness of conception
is in each case relieved by the exquisite setting; the landscape
background and especially the decorative foliage being treated with a
rare feeling for beautiful effects. Girolamo dai Libri’s lemon trees
and the leafy arbours of Lotto and Previtali do not make more charming
bowers than do Cariani’s rose hedge and his hanging limes. Add,
moreover, a certain fullness of form, a softness of expression, and a
harmony of colour, which can be traced to the direct influence of Palma
Vecchio in Venice, and you have in Mr. Salting’s picture probably the
most attractive Madonna and Child which Cariani ever painted. Can there
be better evidence of appreciation on the part of some bygone owner
than that he considered it worthy of the great Giorgione himself, and
that up to now it has borne this courtesy title?
[Illustration: Walker & Cockerell, Ph.Sc.
Madonna and Child by Giovanni Busi (Cariani) in the
collection of Mr. George Salting.]
[Illustration: Photography by Anderson
THE SEMPSTRESS MADONNA (LA VERGINE CUCITRICE) BY CARIANI; IN THE
CORSINI GALLERY, ROME]
The second ‘Giorgione’ which comes from the Leuchtenberg Gallery is
an Adoration of the Shepherds, now in the possession of Mr. Asher
Wertheimer, by whose kind permission it is reproduced here. No
excuse need be offered for its publication in ~The Burlington
Magazine~, inasmuch as it bears directly on one of the lesser problems
in our National Gallery, where, in the Venetian Room, has hung for some
years a similar painting ascribed to Savoldo. That this ascription
is erroneous is admitted in the large illustrated edition of the
catalogue, published a year or two ago by Sir Edward Poynter, the
director, and it seems a pity to keep the old label with Savoldo’s name
still attached to the frame. The National Gallery is a place of public
resort, and the public believes in the labels it reads; for what does
the public know of Savoldo? Those, however, who have studied his work
at Venice, Milan, Verona, and elsewhere know that our National Gallery
picture is only in a remote degree akin to him in style, and anyone who
will take the trouble to make a comparison with the Magdalen in the
same room (which is a genuine example), and also with the two pictures
by him at Hampton Court, will be able to convince himself that Sir
Edward Poynter is right in removing the Brescian master’s name from the
catalogue, and more wisely substituting ‘Venetian School.’ Now comes
the Leuchtenberg picture, a comparison with which proves that such
likenesses exist as to exclude all theory of chance resemblance, yet
such differences also exist as to dispel any suspicion that the one may
be a copy of the other. In such cases a common original can usually be
inferred, a deduction which modern archaeologists habitually make in
similar circumstances; and rightly, for a common idea, or conception,
underlies the outward divergencies of detail, so that when the highest
common factor can be found we can reconstruct in idea what such an
original must have been like. Now it is curious that Giorgione’s name
is attached to the Leuchtenberg picture, for anyone at all familiar
with Venetian painting must see at a glance that the style proclaims
a period at least a decade after his death in 1510. It is more than
probable that both this picture and that in the National Gallery date
from about 1530 or so. Giorgione cannot possibly have produced either
the one or the other: but is it altogether beyond possibility that
some idea of his may have served as basis for later artists to work
up? Strictly speaking, neither picture is Giorgionesque, except by
reflection, for the dazzling personality of the young Castelfrancan
shed lustre even on the succeeding generation in Venice. In neither
does the painting show much trace of that mysterious glamour which the
master, above all Venetian painters, knew how to impart. Yet in the
romantic rendering of the subject, and in the picturesque treatment
of landscape, we may trace an ultimate connexion with the art of
Giorgione. In neither is the handling so unmistakably individual as to
warrant a positive opinion as to authorship. It is true that several
competent judges profess to recognize the hand of Calisto da Lodi
in the National Gallery picture,[44] but further research is needed
before certainty of judgement is reached; and as to the Leuchtenberg
example--well, it matters little whether Beccaruzzi or some other
imitator of better things be the author. Two separate painters have
taken a common theme, they have treated the group of St. Joseph and
the two Shepherds practically alike, and have laid down the outlines
of landscape and architecture in the same way. Each has shown his
independence in the treatment of the Madonna and Child and in the minor
accessories. One of these details in the Leuchtenberg picture shows
the sort of man the painter was, for he has calmly appropriated the
idea of the boy angel playing at the trough, a motive which Titian
first introduced in the world-famous Sacred and Profane Love. He seems
also prone to introduce non-significant detail, such as the dog (very
wooden, by the way) and the elaborate accessories of the ruined stable,
the architecture of which baffles analysis. The Magi also appear in
procession, thus distracting attention from the simple theme of the
Adoration of the Shepherds. Yet as a colourist this painter is worthy
of praise, though not such a master of chiaroscuro as his fellow-artist
of the National Gallery. We may say then that the Leuchtenberg
picture adds to the interest attaching to the other, and raises the
question whether some Giorgionesque motive is not at the bottom of the
composition.
~Herbert Cook.~
TWO ITALIAN BAS-RELIEFS IN THE LOUVRE
The two bas-reliefs reproduced were not only known but also
celebrated before they came to the Louvre. The first, a bust and
profile, represents a juvenile figure, almost feminine, clothed in
shining armour, wearing a helmet decorated with a surprising dash and
fantasy, round which may be read this unexpected and rather unusual
inscription: ‘P. Scipioni.’ It is not known under what circumstances
this was acquired by M. Paul Rattier, an amateur of Paris. On his death
he bequeathed it to the Louvre with reserve of usufruct on behalf of
his brother. The latter has just died, and the museum thus enters
into absolute possession of the legacy. In the various exhibitions
where this bas-relief has been displayed it has not failed, as may
be imagined, to attract the attention and excite the curiosity of
students and critics. As it recalls by the expression of the face a
great number of Leonardo’s figures and, in the decoration of the armour
and the helmet, motives frequent in the work of the master, notably
the celebrated warrior in the Malcolm collection, we think firstly
and very naturally of Leonardo da Vinci. We know, too, that he was
a sculptor as well as a painter; he himself says expressly in his
treatise on painting that, having practised the two arts with equal
care, he has a good foundation for pronouncing on the difficulties of
both. But we know of no authentic sculpture from his hand which could
serve as a starting-point or as a means of comparison for the purpose
of making a decisive attribution. Is the St. John the Baptist in the
South Kensington Museum, which came from the Gigli Campana collection,
really from his hand? No one can prove it. And of the busts of children
and women which, according to Vasari, he executed in clay (‘Facendo
nella sua giovanezza di terra alcune teste di femine che ridono, che
vanno formate per l’ arte di gesso, e parimente teste di putti che
parevano usciti di mano d’ un maestro’), none have come down to us. ¶
Bode, who was the first to pronounce the name of Leonardo in connexion
with the Scipio of the Rattier collection, proposed, afterwards, that
of his master Verrochio. The reasons which prompted him are as follows:
Vasari has told us that Verrochio had made ‘due teste di metallo; una
d’Alessandro Magno _in profilo_; l’ altro d’ un Dario, a suo capriccio,
pur di mezzo rilievo, e ciascuno da per se, variando l’ un dall’ altro
ne cimieri, nell armadura od in ogni cosa; le quali amendue furono
mandate dal magnifico Lorenzo vecchio de’ Medici al re Mattia Corvino
in Ungharia, con molte altre cose....’ Why should not the Scipio belong
to the same series? The ornamentation of the helmet, the design of the
streamers which decorate it, especially the modelling of the mouth, do
they not recall other works of Verrochio, and notably the execution of
the mouth of his David? These arguments, no matter on what authority
we have them, are not decisive. Courajod, Muntz, Muller-Walde, and the
latest historian of Verrochio, M. Mackowsky, incline rather towards
maintaining the name of Leonardo da Vinci or of his school. All that
can be said with certainty is, that the sculptor who turned out
this brilliant piece of work must have been a very skilful decorative
artist, and that he was evidently inspired by the achievements and the
spirit of the master. But it would be very rash to assert that the hand
of Leonardo himself worked this marble.
[Illustration: ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS; VENETIAN SCHOOL; FROM THE
LEUCHTENBERG COLLECTION]
[Illustration: ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, VENETIAN SCHOOL; IN THE
NATIONAL GALLERY]
[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF; SCHOOL OF LEONARDO DA VINCI; RECENTLY ADDED
TO THE LOUVRE]
[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF BY AGOSTINO DI DUCCIO; RECENTLY ADDED TO THE
LOUVRE]
If There does not seem any possibility for doubt or difference of
opinion with regard to the attribution of the other bas-relief which,
only a few days after the arrival of the Scipio, was acquired by the
museum. To him who has seen the interior decoration of the temple
of Rimini, the front of San Bernardino at Perugia, and the Madonna
of the Opera di Duomo at Florence, the name of Agostino di Duccio
invincibly presents itself. This bas-relief was found framed, over an
altar, in the wall of a little church in the department of the Oise, a
dependent of the commune of Neuilly-sous-Clermont. This rural church
was originally the chapel belonging to the chateau of Auvillers, which
belongs to the family of Bonnières-de-Wierre. One of the general
officers of Bonaparte’s army was a member of this family, and brought
this precious bas-relief home with him (the archives of the family
might possibly reveal to us the place and the circumstances under which
he found it), and he placed it in the chapel belonging to the chateau.
It was thence that the Louvre, with the consent of the members of the
family of Bonnières and of the commune, acquired it. A former lamented
head of the department of Mediaeval and Renaissance Sculpture, Louis
Courajod, published, in 1892, in the _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, an
account of this charming piece of sculpture, and, to put it out of the
reach of any attempts that might be made by collectors or merchants, he
had it placed on the list of historical monuments. Events have proved
that this was not an unnecessary precaution; however, the admission of
this bas-relief into the Louvre puts a stop to all competition.
~André Michel.~
TWO PICTURES IN THE POSSESSION OF MESSRS. DOWDESWELL
These two remarkable and curious pictures appear to us likely to
interest students of mediaeval painting. They are painted on thin
panels measuring 12⅛ ins. by 7⅞ ins. The wood has first been covered
with a rather coarse canvas, over which the usual gesso ground has been
laid; directly on this, and without the usual preparation of bole,
gold leaf was laid over the whole surface. The gold is elaborately
tooled in the halos and crowns. The pictures are painted in tempera
over the gold ground. The handiwork is of exceptional fineness, the
hatchings being extremely minute, and the whole is wrought to an
enamelled surface of extreme beauty. I can recall only one other work
in which quite the same minuteness and perfection of surface quality
are attained, and that is the Richard II diptych at Wilton House, which
indeed surpasses the present examples. Unfortunately the tempera has
not adhered perfectly to the gold, and in many places only a trace
of colour is left; the faces are, however, for the most part intact.
¶ This somewhat lengthy description of the methods employed in these
pictures may not be without value in view of the attempt to determine
the origin of these curious and unusual works. Many characteristics of
the pictures seem to point to a Siennese origin, such, for instance, as
the tooling of the halos, which may be almost be matched in the works
of Ceccharelli and Vanni; the Madonna’s face seems like a vulgarized
version of Simone Martini’s type, while the treatment of the hair by
separate, rather thick, continuous, and parallel lines of light is
such as we find frequently in Siennese art. The seated figures in
the Dormition of the Virgin, again, if not distinctly Siennese are
decidedly Italian, and are among the common properties of Giotto’s
heirs. Italian, again, is the appearance of the inlaid woodwork of the
bed-stand. The use of a canvas basis for the gesso ground is, too, in
Italy, a peculiarly Siennese tradition, though it is there only a late
survival of what was probably a universal practice. On the other hand
the absence of a bole foundation for the gilding is quite unlike the
practice of any Italian painters. Again, the types with their heavily
modelled features, their full round staring eyes and protruding noses,
seem to suggest a northern origin for these works. No less distinctive
is the colour. The chief characteristic of this is the extraordinary
brilliance and purity of the local tints, combined with an absence
of any feeling for a distinct colour scheme as opposed to the mere
putting together of agreeable tints. The main notes are an ultramarine
of quite astounding intensity and saturation, a pure deep rose, and
a bright green midway between apple and myrtle green. The flesh is
florid and full coloured without traces of a terra verte foundation
being apparent. These qualities of colour are such as we might expect
from a miniaturist, and other things point to the same conclusion;
first, the extreme minuteness and the marvellous perfection of the
workmanship, then the crowding of the composition, and the elegant but
singularly unstructural disposition of the draperies. Finally, one may
surmise that no artist who was accustomed to work on a large scale
would have made so elementary a blunder in space construction as our
unknown master has in the Adoration of the Magi. The Madonna is clearly
intended to be seated beneath the thatched roof, yet the foremost
support, instead of coming down in front of her knees, is placed behind
her. Such a mistake would be possible, however, to an artist who was
accustomed to the almost hieroglyphic symbolism of miniature painting.
¶ Taking all these points into consideration I think it most probable
that we have here two of the rare and singularly beautiful works of
the French school of painting of the fourteenth century. This is made
probable most of all by the colouring. This intense ultramarine never
occurs in Italian work, but is to be found in the paintings attributed
to Jean Malouel in the Louvre. It indeed remained endemic in French
art, for we find it in many miniaturists, and something not unlike
it turns up again in the work of Ingres. There is, moreover, in the
Louvre a small picture, No. 997, representing the Entombment, in which
not only does the same blue appear, but united with the same deep
rose and vivid myrtle green. It has also the same rare perfection of
surface quality, the same even, hard smalto. This picture is no doubt
rightly attributed to the French school of the end of the fourteenth
century. But neither this nor any other French picture in the Louvre
shows so strong an Italian influence as our panels do, and it is partly
for their interest as yet another proof of the constant interchange
of ideas between Italy and the North about this period that we give
them publicity. Of such intercourse there are, of course, already
many proofs in the work of painters like Enguerrand de Charenton, of
Fouquet, and most remarkable of all in a miniature by Pol de Limbourg,
which is a free copy of a fresco by Taddeo Gaddi in Santa Croce at
Florence.
R. E. F.
A MARBLE STATUE BY GERMAIN PILON
Born towards 1515, either at Paris or Loué, and dying only in 1590,
Germain Pilon lived through a momentous century in the history of
France. The native art, so prolific during the two preceding centuries,
which commands our admiration to-day by its originality and simplicity,
was essentially French in feeling and execution, but towards the close
of the fifteenth century the all-powerful influence of the great
Italians manifested itself, partly by the general spread of knowledge
which noised abroad the fame of achievements in Italy to which the
civilized world was then paying homage, and again by the migration
of Italian artists to adjacent countries, which, in the majority
of cases, received them with acclamation.
[Illustration: ADORATION OF THE MAGI, AND DORMITION OF THE BLESSED
VIRGIN; PROBABLY FRENCH OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY]
[Illustration: LA CHARITÉ, SCULPTURE IN MARBLE, BY GERMAIN PILON]
In one way this had a beneficial effect upon the productions of the
northern countries, for it incited a spirit of emulation laudable
in the extreme, but it was also the cause of a decline in native
resourcefulness and originality due to an unduly thorough assimilation
of Italian methods and aims. The result of this was a strange
co-mingling of Italian and native ideas and technique producing an
eclecticism which robbed art somewhat of the virility apparent in the
creations of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Still, side by
side with this we have a growing tendency to tenderness and sympathetic
treatment quite in keeping with the lofty aims of the sixteenth
century, which compensates to some extent for the loss of robustness
and impetuous energy. ¶ In such a condition did Pilon find art in
France, when, leaving his father, also a sculptor, with whom he had
hitherto collaborated, he came to Paris about 1550, and here we find
him, in conjunction with Pierre Bontemps and Ambrose Perret, at work
upon the tomb of François I, which had been designed by Philibert
Delorme. After the designs of the latter Pilon was employed from
1560 to 1565 upon the well-known tomb at Saint-Denis of Henri II and
Catherine de Médicis, which must be counted amongst his most important
achievements. For the King and Queen he executed about this time
the fine group of Les Trois Grâces in the Louvre, which represents,
perhaps, the culminating point of his genius, and is manifestly
superior both in elegance of contour and in technical qualities to
Les Trois Parques ascribed to him which has found a permanent resting
place in the Hôtel de Cluny. In Les Trois Grâces he presents to us
the culmination of the French Renaissance in sculpture; the rhythm
and balance of the composition is aided by the superb technique
displayed in the modelling of the well-chosen figures, and a further
beauty is added by the grace with which they support the urn. ¶ But
quite equal to any single figure is the fine example of Pilon’s art
which we illustrate this month by permission of Mr. E. Lowengard, its
present owner. It represents as an emblematical figure of Charity a
tall and dignified woman holding a child to her breast with the right
hand, whilst the left, with protecting care, sustains another, which
is clinging to her mantle; a third stands at her feet with a look of
trustful assurance upon its upturned face. The head of Charity is
crowned with laurel. The drapery is entirely characteristic of Pilon at
his best; while not unduly severe, it does not err in being too florid,
a failing of Pilon on many occasions. Moreover, it fully illustrates
the French master’s profound knowledge of anatomy, a study in which he
easily outstripped most of his contemporaries. It is open to question
whether such an important and characteristic example of Pilon’s
work has been seen in London before, and its presence at the moment
furnishes an admirable opportunity of studying the style of this master.
LACE IN THE COLLECTION OF MRS. ALFRED MORRISON AT FONTHILL
The lace of Mrs. Alfred Morrison at Fonthill House is of special
interest among private collections. Mrs. Morrison has long interested
herself in the exertions of M. M. Lefébure, the Honiton revival by the
late Mrs. Treadwin of Exeter, and even the crochet work of Ireland, and
has in many cases supplied designs, or suggestions for design, to these
centres; hence, with her well-known collection of antique lace she has
included the best of its modern derivatives and modern design. Among
the specimens illustrated are:--
Plate I: (1) A curious example of a rare type of _lace made in Russia_,
consisting of a scarf with arms worked upon either end. This lace was
made in the early part of the nineteenth century (when needle-point
was first introduced into Moscow) at a private lace school. The
design, which is upon net, and very unlike the characteristic Russian
vermiculate patterns with their oriental character and occasional
colouring, consists of a chain of _jours_ enclosing coarse, simple,
and prominent fillings similar to those of provincial pillow-laces
of England and France, and a _semé_ of small sprigs. Although the
workmanship is even throughout, the drawing is so _naïve_ as to suggest
that the lace-worker was unused to that type of lace. There is a border
of similar _jours_ alternating with small leaves and sprays.
(2) _Gros point de Venise._--In the central strip of this lace very
few brides have been introduced, and only so far as is necessary for
strength, and those used are plain. The _bride_ work forms no essential
part of the design, the parts of the pattern being chiefly held
together by being worked in contact with one another. In the joined
border, which is of later date, the work, and especially the raised
scallops, is of a superior evenness and regularity. Short _brides_,
both plain and _picotées_, connect the design, which is closer and more
florid, and remarkable for the compact, firm character which careful
and precise workmanship has given to the piece, as it were _scolpito in
rilievo_.
(3) _Point de Venise._--Two long strips (3½ inches wide) of excellent
and open scroll and floral design. The _brides_ which connect the
design are decorated with small stars and whirls. Upon some of the
raised borders are set small scallops, or picots. Seventeenth century.
(4) _Alençon lappet_, a design of interlacing ribbons, filled in with
light modes, enclosing a small ornament. Eighteenth century. Period,
Louis XV.
(5) _Modern Irish Needle-point lace, à brides picotées_, specially made
and designed for Mrs. Alfred Morrison [very much reduced]. Nineteenth
century.
Plate II: (1) _Brussels veil_ (three sides of which are ornamented,
the fourth being plain), containing floral devices made in pillow,
and applied to pillow-made mesh grounds. The softness of the grounds,
the workmanship of the flowers, of which the cordonnets have little
or no relief, the lightness of the fillings of the modes, place these
Brussels points in a category quite distinct from any other lace. The
design is of light leafy festoons of roses and forget-me-nots. In the
corner is an urn-shaped ornament with lateral festoons. The border has
a scalloped edge. Throughout the veil are pillow renderings of various
_modes_, the _réseau rosacé_, star devices, etc. Eighteenth century.
(2) _Honiton lace_, made by the late Mrs. Treadwin of Exeter, from an
old design. The pattern is connected by small brides covered with a
number of small picots.
(3) _Rose point à brides_ (_Venetian_), of close workmanship, in silk
(natural-coloured). The free use of ornate picots clustering upon
flying loops edging the scallops, as well as upon the brides, is
noticeable. The _brides_ are thickly ornamented with stars and whirls.
[This sort of lace is sometimes called _point de neige_, probably on
account of its snowy appearance.] The stems of the pattern are of
light work, and not strengthened on the edge by an outer cordonnet or
button-hole stitched work. Seventeenth century.
A very similar specimen of Venetian needle-point lace in silk is to be
seen at the Victoria and Albert Museum [835–’68]. It is also square
and of similar size and date, and is also remarkable for the series of
scallops and picots upon the raised portions of the design. The design
of this specimen ‘consists of a symmetrical distribution of floral
forms grouped about an ornamental arrangement in the centre.’ It was
probably a ‘pall’ or covering for a chalice or sacramental cup. Though
Mrs. Morrison’s specimen is said to be of Jewish work, and used
in the synagogue to cover the law, it is more probable that it is a
‘pall,’ like the above-mentioned example.
[Illustration: ~Plate I~
No. 1 No. 2]
[Illustration: No. 3 No. 4 No. 5]
[Illustration: ~PLATE II~
No. 1 No. 2
No. 3 No. 4]
[Illustration: No. 5 No. 6 No. 7]
[Illustration: ~Plate III~
No. 3 No. 4
No. 2
No. 5]
[Illustration: No. 1]
(4) _Drawn thread-work_ [_Turkish?_].
(5) _Point de Venise, period Louis XIII._--A conventional design
somewhat resembling Italian Renaissance ironwork. The pattern and some
of the short brides which connect it are ornamented with picots, giving
lightness and variety to the work.
(6) _Irish crochet lace_, specially made for Mrs. Alfred Morrison,
adapted from the above design, which it well reproduces. An experiment
in improving the spiritless and confused effect of Irish crochet, where
conventional _motifs_ are fitted together without any pre-arranged
design. In natural-coloured silk.
(7) _Imitation point d‘Alençon._--The ground or _réseau_ of this
piece is a very wide-meshed knotted net of coarse thread. A stiff and
simple flower issuing from a horn or vase is set in the centre of a
waved diamond-shaped compartment. The flowers are filled in with small
pieces of coarse linen, and are _appliqué_ to the net by stitches which
hold the twisted thread outlines--the substitute for the cordonnet of
button-hole stitches in the Alençon it imitates--to the little bits of
linen.
Plate III: (1) Embroidered _Turkish drawn thread work_.--An
eight-pointed star within the centre of which is a circle of
drawn-work, of which the threads are overcast with fine button-hole
stitches.
(2) The old conventional cut-work of Italy; _Reticella_, with _punto
in aria_ vandykes attached. _Reticella_ differs from cutwork in
that, though it also is worked on a linen foundation, the linen has
almost entirely disappeared. The threads left as the framework of the
design, dividing it into square compartments, are closely covered
with stitches. Into these squares are introduced geometrical forms
(star-forms) set in circles and enriched with patterns in solid
needlework. This lace is frequently called _Greek lace_, principally
owing to the fact that a great deal was found during the occupation of
the Ionian islands by the English. It is, however, undoubtedly Italian
in origin. The lace is shown upon the linen on which it is made; most
specimens have been cut off for sale from the original linen ground.
The _punto in aria_ vandykes developed from the _reticella_, and are
made with the same geometrical designs. The pointed edge was worked
on threads laid down in the required shape, and the spaces filled in
various designs. _Brides picotées_ were sparingly added to connect the
various portions of the pattern.
(3) _Venetian-made Alençon_ (Burano).--A design of small sprays
upon mixed grounds. Along the lower portion of the design runs a
twisting ribbon enclosing various _à jours_ and diapered grounds. The
scalloped border shows blossom _modes_ set upon a large hexagonal mesh
_picoté_, alternating with a scalloped ribbon, enclosing varieties of
diaper-patterned grounds, similar to those to be seen in the _modes_ of
Venetian heavy point laces.
(4) _Venetian-made Alençon_, design of palm leaves, with straight-edged
border of flowerets and leaves.
(5) _Alençon bordering lace_, eighteenth century. Period, Louis
XVI.--Under Louis XVI it became the fashion to multiply the number
of flounces to dresses and to gather them into pleats, or, as it was
termed, to _badiner_ them, so that ornamental _motifs_, more or less
broken up or partially concealed by the pleats, lost their significance
and _flow_. The spaces between the _motifs_, therefore, widened more
and more, until the design deteriorated into _semés_ of small devices,
detached flowers, _pots_, _larmes_, or, as in the present design, a dot
set within a rosette. Instead, also, of wreaths, ribands, or festoons
undulating from one side of the border to another, we have a stiff
rectilinear border of purely conventional design. Naturalistic patterns
are not met with in lace of that period. ~M. Jourdain.~
❧ BIBLIOGRAPHY ❧
~French Engravers and Draughtsmen of the Eighteenth Century.~ By
Lady Dilke. George Bell and Sons.
The book published by Lady Dilke, at the end of last year, is one of
the most complete and definite works on an important section of our
artistic history that we French possess. For we are marked by this rare
characteristic, that the qualities of our own distinguished men are
most often revealed to us by foreigners. While we have in our midst a
number of specialist writers to instruct us in minute detail concerning
the most trifling acts and deeds of a Fleming or Italian, we lack
historians who will take a general view of our national art. It would
seem that the Frenchman who shall have written a book on the eighteenth
century as full and thorough as Lady Dilke’s is yet to be born. From
time to time men of great attainments have produced a monograph, have
described the work of a Watteau or a Lancret, but this has always
wanted the necessary general commentary, the linking with general
history, the grouping of facts, which lend so great an attraction to
the works of Lady Dilke. It affords me a two-fold pleasure to say
this, first because I profess a deep and very respectful sympathy for
the author’s person, and secondly because I have always been greatly
touched by the French side of her character. Lady Dilke and I know the
faults of our respective countrymen; we speak of them when necessary;
but we also know our reciprocal good qualities and speak of these too.
Lady Dilke has written in praise of the school of the French Minor
Masters of the eighteenth century with a conviction and an ardour of
which we are very proud, and I feel charged to express to her in this
review our deep-felt gratitude. ¶The difference between England and
ourselves is made manifest from the very first. Whereas with us a more
or less florid, amusing, or, let us say, sensational narrative is in
most cases sufficient to satisfy the French reader, Lady Dilke’s book,
although intended to be read by everybody, does not fear to display
an integral erudition. This handsome and well-illustrated book, while
it gladdens the eyes of a person indifferent to these questions, will
interest profoundly the specialist and the scholar. It contains not
a line unsupported by at least one reference and often by many. All
that the contemporaries of our eighteenth-century artists have left
concerning them, all records of inventories and even judicial notes,
have been read and employed in their season by their kindly historian.
It is easy to read into the impartial, nicely-turned, but apparently
impassive text a genuine woman’s admiration for these feminine, evasive
and exquisite artists; but the passion is restrained and displays
itself only at the last. When the author is occasionally obliged to
lament certain rather gross errors, she does so with filial moderation,
with that which a child might show towards its grandfather; and we have
learnt all, we are able to deplore all, while not one serious word of
blame shall have fallen from the historian’s pen. ¶ Lady Dilke divides
her work into eleven chapters, each bearing the name of an art-lover or
artist. The first of these chapters is devoted to the Comte de Caylus
and the great amateurs. For, though the collectors date very far back,
the ‘amateur,’ in the French and modern sense of the word, came into
being together with the speculations of Law. There is a singular and
never-changing agreement between the rabid collector and the stock
jobbing financier; it is as though the man who had grown suddenly
rich wished to find no less suddenly in his new palace the ancestral
elegance of the man of quality. ¶ Lady Dilke has selected the Comte de
Caylus because he exercised an enormous influence upon the whole of the
eighteenth century. Himself an engraver--though of no great merit--he
was the cause that men and women of the world amused themselves with
the pastime, that Madame de Pompadour tried her hand at engraving,
and that, trying her hand, but with only slight success, she favoured
to an extreme degree the artist-engravers of her time. ¶ The second
chapter is devoted to those lovers of engravings, the print-collectors
Mariette and Basan, who, for the rest, had no great affection for the
artists of their time, but who favoured the iconographic movement.
¶ The typical French engraver of the eighteenth century is Charles
Nicolas Cochin, who was known as the Chevalier Cochin. Cochin, through
his family, his connexions and his works, touches every section of
society. He belongs to the Court, to the nobility, to the middle
class. His mother was a Horthemels; his sisters were Mesdames Tardieu
and Belle. Cochin was trained in the school of different masters; he
shows traces of Watteau, Gillot, Chardin and Detroy. But he is above
all himself; his mind is composed of a thousand amiable, witty, and
refined things; his art is the very spirit of a nation; and it is not
too much to say that in him French art is summed up. ¶ The men whom
Lady Dilke studies in Chapter IV of her book, the engravers Drevet and
Daullé, are different people. They descend from the great century; they
go back by easy degrees to Louis XIV and those famous artists, Audran,
Nanteuil and Edelinck. But, though they have style and even majesty,
they have neither the charm nor the grace of their contemporaries. This
is also, to a certain extent, the case with Wille, who came to France
to learn and who borrowed from us only the solemn and majestic side
of the great masters. ¶ Lady Dilke studies in succession the Laurent
Cars, the Le Bas, and, lastly, Gravelot. Gravelot the author regards
almost in the light of a fellow-countryman. The greater part of his
career was spent in London. We know that, in so far as this part is
concerned, the author is in possession of even still more varied and
personal notes. From Gravelot to Eisen, from the “Opera de Flora” to
the “Contes de Lafontaine,” is an imperceptible transition. And thus we
come to the masters of the end of the century, to Moreau the younger
in particular, who presents its definite synthesis, linked as he is to
Cochin by the brothers Saint-Aubin, the “exquisite poets of the most
charming decadence.” ¶ Finally, Lady Dilke speaks of the engravers in
colours, of those men, such as Demarteau, Debucourt, and others, who,
without eclipsing their English colleagues, keep step with them. And
then we come to the relations of the engravers with the Academy. Here,
what severity is shown! On one occasion, the engraver Balechou, who is
a member of the Academy, engraves a full-length portrait of the King of
Poland, Augustus III. He had promised not to pull a separate proof of
it. Having done so in one single case--this proof is still preserved
in the Paris Print-room--he was struck off the list of Academicians.
¶ It is impossible, in a short review, to set forth in detail the
importance of a book of this kind. We need this book in France, and it
is to be hoped that one of our publishers will issue a translation,
because it is a revelation to us. The English publisher has undoubtedly
produced a practical and easily-handled book, but his reproductions are
a little inferior in quality, given the value of the work. It would
have been desirable that all the illustrations should have taken the
form of heliogravures. Nevertheless, and putting this little criticism
on one side, Lady Dilke’s book is, sincerely speaking, the newest and
most “encyclopaedic” work that we at present possess on the French
draughtsmen and engravers of the eighteenth century.
~Henri Bouchot.~
~The National Portrait Gallery.~ Edited by Lionel Cust, M.V.O., F.S.A.
Cassell.
It was a happy thought of Messrs. Cassell to issue an illustrated
catalogue of the National Portrait Gallery similar to that of the
National Gallery. The Portrait Gallery, in spite of great difficulties
in the matter of space and funds, has become a place of which the
nation may well be proud. It already contains a series of British
portraits which if not absolutely complete, is at least representative,
sensibly arranged, and catalogued with much more fullness and accuracy
than some better endowed collections. One or two possible improvements
may suggest themselves to the outsider--the addition, for instance, of
photographs (we hear that some arrangement of this kind is actually
contemplated) or careful copies of unique portraits of famous men
which can never leave their present owners. The colleges of Oxford
and Cambridge contain several pictures which would fill gaps in the
Gallery, and other works in private hands are equally desirable.
Nevertheless, the National Portrait Gallery, like the British Museum,
has hitherto been so fortunate in its directors that there is no
reason for regarding its future with serious anxiety. ¶ Nor can we be
surprised that Mr. Cust, who has had so much to do with the well-being
of the Portrait Gallery, has edited its illustrated catalogue on
thoroughly sound lines. To precisians a chronological arrangement may
seem to have disadvantages. These disadvantages, in our opinion, are
minimized by the addition of an index of portraits and an index of
artists, while the grouping together of men of the same generation,
family, or profession, has the enormous advantage of making the book
a thing attractive both to the casual reader and to the student of
history, instead of a dry alphabetical list. ¶ We have only one fault
to find with the abbreviated biographies which Mr. Cust supplies. They
are laudably impartial, but the impartiality is sometimes carried
to an extreme which places a second-rate man on the same level as a
first-rate one. ¶ As a rule, a very wise discretion has been exercised
in reproducing the pictures on a scale proportionate to their actual
size and importance, so that the defects which marred the kindred
volumes on the National Gallery have generally been avoided. One or two
exceptions may perhaps be noted. We do not, for instance, think that
justice is done to Kneller’s vivid portrait of the poet Gay (No. 622)
by a cut less than two inches in height and less than one and a half
inches in breadth, especially when Mr. Sargent’s portrait of Coventry
Patmore is honoured by a full-page engraving. The juxtaposition of the
two portraits of Sir William Hamilton also is not a success. The figure
by David Allan looks a giant compared with that painted by Reynolds.
¶ The photographing, engraving, and printing of the pictures have on
the whole been so admirably done that we have no more fault to find
with them than with the letterpress or the arrangement of the book. We
notice, indeed, that Kneller is again unfortunate. His portrait of John
Smith, the mezzotint engraver (No. 699), is one of his most masterly
works, showing a grip of character, an artistic taste, and a technical
perfection for which in his Court portraits we seek in vain. In the
reproduction the portrait loses all its spirit and all its quality.
On the other hand, almost all the slight sketches and pencil drawings
in the gallery come out excellently, so that any occasional failure
cannot be attributed to want of care or want of science. ¶ Perhaps,
considering its price, the publishers might have bound the book more
strongly, even if they retained the limp cover which allows the book to
open comfortably. The present paper binding is too flimsy for a book
that has to be used for reference, and to send a work of reference to
the binder often results in deprivation just when one needs the book
most. ¶ These, after all, are minor details. As a whole, the catalogue
is a thoroughly sound piece of work, and does credit to its editor,
publishers, and printers (if not to its binder), and we have no doubt
it will take its place by the Dictionary of National Biography on the
shelves of all who are interested in the past history of the British
race.
C. J. H.
~Isabella D’Este, Marchioness of Mantua~, 1474-1539. A Study of the
Renaissance. By Julia Cartwright (Mrs. Ady). John Murray. 1903.
There are three ways of writing history which rejoice all serious
readers and students. The first and best is, alas, rare, for it
requires constructive imagination based on sound scholarship. It
is the history which bestows upon the characters portrayed that
quality which makes them live on in the reader’s mind like great
myths. Gibbon’s ‘Julian,’ Mommsen’s ‘Hannibal,’ Carlyle’s ‘Voltaire,’
Creighton’s ‘Pius II’--to take a very few instances chosen at
random--live on in our imaginations like the heroes of romance, like
Don Quixote, or Julien Sorel, or the ‘Egoist.’ ¶ On the other hand,
there is the work of the mere archivist, the conscientious finder and
transcriber of documents, who leaves the imaginative reconstruction of
character entirely to the reader. For this, too, the student cannot be
too grateful. And then there is the _via media_ of the gifted compiler,
whose efforts are also welcome, provided they are honest and careful,
and free from the taint of journalism. ¶ It is this middle path that
Mrs. Ady is accustomed to take, and always with peculiar success in
her biographies of women. Those who have already enjoyed her ‘Beatrice
d’Este’ will be prepared for finding interest and pleasure in reading
her account of that noble lady’s even more accomplished and more famous
sister, Isabella, marchioness of Mantua, the leader for more than forty
years of the most continuously brilliant and intellectual court in
Italy. Mrs. Ady does not claim originality of research, but her task of
weaving the documentary researches of others into a readable, accurate,
and interesting account is extremely well done. It is true that she
has no great or genial gifts for the presentment of character, but
she knows at least how to describe it with the appropriate background
of historical events and of court and family life. She has better
taste than to make of it a lurid tale, as some popular writers would
have done. Isabella is painted as the faithful and devoted wife and
daughter and sister, the careful and affectionate mother--nay, even
the doting grandmother--as well as the ‘prima donna del mondo,’ the
Muse of poets and humanists, the patroness and friend of great artists,
the confidante of popes and emperors, and the victim, too, of family
and political tragedies. ¶ For us in this place, her interest lies
chiefly in one aspect of her many activities--in her relations with the
artists of her day. Her portrait was drawn by Leonardo, and painted
by Mantegna, Titian, Francia, Costa, as well as by various artists of
less importance, such as Maineri and Buonsignori, and her medal was
cast in bronze by the sculptor Cristoforo Romano. She was a passionate
collector of beautiful things, decorating her private apartment with
pictures by Mantegna, Costa, and Perugino, and sending her emissaries
over nearly the whole of Italy to extort from dilatory or overworked
painters the fulfilment of commissions she had given them, getting
now a Nativity from Giovanni Bellini, a Magdalen and a St. Jerome
from Titian, Allegories from Correggio, portraits from Francia, and
even from Raphael himself. She employed Timoteo Viti to make designs
for her majolica dinner-service, and most of the northern sculptors
of note were at one time or another set to work for her. Lorenzo da
Pavia made her priceless viols and lutes of inlaid ivory and ebony, and
Caradosso carved her a wonderful inkstand in ebony and silver, while
the most famous glass-blowers and jewellers of her time contributed
their best efforts to her matchless collection. But even dearer to
her than contemporary art was the antique, and she spared no pains or
expense, no wiles or selfishness, to get into her possession every
available antique statue or fragment that she heard of. The collector’s
passion was on her, and even her fine taste and that of her cultivated
advisers did not always protect her from the collector’s misfortunes.
In the light of recent revelations, it is amusing to hear how she
was taken in by the forgeries of a certain Roman dealer who bore the
splendid name of Raphael of Urbino, and how this shifty precursor of
many an Italian ‘antiquario’ of to-day managed to get out of giving
her back her money! ¶ Curiously enough, Isabella, although a fast
friend of the Medicean popes and their relatives, seems to have taken
no interest at all in the art of Florence, except in Michelangelo, and
in Leonardo, who came to her, not from Florence, but from Milan. She
sent to Florence, it is true, for a picture, but it was to Perugino
she wrote, and not to any of the great Florentine masters. ¶ Mrs. Ady
has tried to trace carefully the present whereabouts of Isabella’s
portraits and possessions, but we miss in the index any assembling of
her scattered remarks on this interesting subject. The Leonardo pastel
sketch (reproduced as frontispiece to Vol. I, but wrongly described
as red chalk) is well known in the Louvre; one of the Titians (the
one copied by Rubens) she identifies in the collection of M. Leopold
Goldschmid at Paris, while the other, in Vienna, is reproduced as the
frontispiece to the second volume. As to the latter, she says it was
painted by Titian after a portrait by Francia, itself not done from
the life, but from sketches and descriptions. If this be indeed the
one referred to, Titian has managed to give no hint of his obligation
to the Bolognese master. The portrait by Maineri, a painter of
Parma, the author suggests as being the same as that in Mrs. Alfred
Morrison’s collection, exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in
1894; but she admits, on the other hand, that this portrait may be
from the hand of Beltraffio, which indeed it clearly is. Although it
has apparently not occurred to Mrs. Ady, is it not possible that the
untraced portrait of Isabella painted by Costa, was, like so many of
her treasures, bought for Charles I, and that it is the Portrait of a
Lady which now hangs in Hampton Court (No. 295)? The face resembles
the one he painted as Isabella’s in the Louvre Allegory, but, on the
other hand, they are both so thoroughly Costa in every detail that
neither can be called real _portraits_ in the modern sense of the
word. The objective photographic style of portraiture in vogue to-day
was quite foreign to the habits of most Renaissance painters, who
were satisfied, once they had found a type that suited them, to stick
to it for everything--Madonnas, portraits of ladies, and allegorical
figures, indifferently. ¶ Perhaps the most vivid part of Mrs. Ady’s
book is her description of Isabella’s experiences in that fatal sack
of Rome, which, as Erasmus wrote to her friend Sadoleto, was ‘not the
ruin of one city, but of the whole world.’ Barricaded in the Palazzo
Colonna with three thousand distressed souls under her care, Isabella,
safe in the protection of her son, Ferrante, one of the leaders of
the imperial forces, looked down from her windows with anguish upon
the scenes of horror and vandalism enacted in the streets below. Her
house was the only one in Rome that escaped, except the Cancelleria,
which was occupied by Cardinal Colonna. But except for the irreparable
destruction of so many of the world’s masterpieces of beauty, this and
many another interesting incident in Isabella’s career belong rather to
history than to art.
M. L.
~Frans Hals.~ By Gerald S. Davies, M.A. George Bell and Sons.
On comparing the number of monographs that have appeared on other
than Dutch artists with that of books in our possession treating of
Dutch painters, we see that the latter have been allotted but a scanty
measure in literature; indeed, one may go further and say that during
the past twenty years, excepting Rembrandt and a few other great
masters, no extensive and comprehensive work has been written on the
old Dutch painters. For this neglect a very well-founded reason exists:
the native art historians of the Netherlands are still collecting
materials, and cannot as yet think of writing exhaustive books
concerning their great masters; for they are much too well aware of the
vast gaps that are still to be found in their knowledge. This is so in
the case, among others, of Frans Hals, and it will remain so for many
years to come; we must needs wait until all the records are accessible
before being able to arrive at a definite knowledge of Hals’s
personality. ¶ Mr. Davies has been deterred by no such considerations;
he not only, with a ready pen, describes Hals’s life and works, but,
thanks to the spacious manner in which he conceives his subject, finds
occasion to indulge in digressions on old Dutch conditions, art and so
forth, which might undoubtedly possess an interest for English readers
if they were correct, but that, unfortunately, is far from being
always the case. ¶ After treating in his first two chapters of the
‘Rise of a National Art’ and ‘Holland and its Art in the Seventeenth
Century’ the author collects the few known facts concerning Hals’s
life in Chapter III, and endeavours to draw a conclusion touching his
personality. We quite admit that legend may have represented Hals
as being a more dissolute man than he actually was. Nevertheless,
one who ill-treated his wife as he did can really not have had any
particularly aristocratic manners. It would be better for us to say
that we do not know enough about his life to be able to white-wash it
of the few disagreeable facts that have been handed down to us. There
can be no doubt, however, that he was a Bohemian, as Mr. Davies rightly
characterizes him. ¶ The following chapters are devoted entirely to
Hals’s artistic career and works; those preserved at Haarlem of course
occupying a great place. The description of these is a lively one,
and is evidently based upon a repeated examination. There are a good
index, bibliography, useful indications such as the approximate dates
of Hals’s life and of his principal paintings, etc. In a word, the
writer has industriously brought together all that he has been able
to ascertain touching his subject from books and pictures. But there
is one matter in which Mr. Davies has not succeeded, and that is the
producing of a critical work. It is true that he himself expressly
says this as regards the catalogue,[45] but he constantly makes the
same mistakes in the text itself. This is an exceedingly dangerous
standpoint; for, thanks to it, so soon as one sets to work on a
scientific basis, one finds him, for instance, describing two pictures
(Illustrations Nos. 1 and 54) as Portraits of the Painter which do not
represent Hals at all, while, again, the Portrait of Admiral de Ruyter
(Illustration No. 55) is not a picture of that admiral. ¶ In the same
way, the catalogue--which, from the very nature of the standpoint of
the writer, is incomplete--contains childish mistakes, which are due to
a lack of adequate critical knowledge. For to say of the Hille Bobbe
with a young man smoking behind her, merely that it is ‘generally
recognized as the work of F. Hals the son’ surely denotes an excess of
caution, considering that it is established beyond all doubt that this
picture was, in fact, painted by the son, and therefore it ought not to
have been included in the catalogue. Some of the paintings in English
collections which we missed in the catalogue we were fortunate enough
to find mentioned in the ‘List of Pictures which have appeared ... in
the Winter Exhibitions ... at Burlington House,’ which is inserted
after the ‘List of Works.’ But these data are also, we regret to say,
uncritical. We also searched the catalogue in vain for the oldest
dated portrait by Frans Hals, namely, that of Scriverius, dated 1613,
which forms part of the Warneck Collection in Paris, although it is
mentioned by the author on pp. 27, 29, 84, and 96 of the text. Again,
we find no mention of the delightful Portrait of a Man[46] in the Van
Lynden collection, at present lent to the Mauritshuis at the Hague,
nor of various other pieces.[47] As regards the drawings, there is no
doubt whatever that the drawing in the British Museum is an original
Hals. There are more of this sort, and we are sorry not to find them
mentioned in Mr. Davies’s book. ¶ We must deliver ourselves of one or
two further remarks, not from any love of fault-finding, but to remove
mistaken ideas. The picture mentioned on p. 22, which is traditionally,
and by Mr. Davies, supposed to represent Hals’s workshop, was painted
by Michiel Sweerts, and has nothing to do with Hals’s workshop. Nor is
what the author observes touching Hals’s manner of painting (p. 124)
quite correct. Hals slowly perfected his technique, proceeding along
a road which is quite easily traced. It is true that he underpainted
a considerable number of his pictures, but there are also many, very
many indeed, which he finished at once, in the wet paint, without
the least underpainting. One of the best examples of the latter is
the Portrait of a Man, in Lord Spencer’s collection, which is at
present in the Guildhall Exhibition. ¶ Mr. Davies’s book has been very
handsomely printed and produced, and is filled with mostly satisfactory
illustrations. It is to be regretted that the contents of the book are
not more worthy of its format; as a critical guide to the art of Frans
Hals it is wholly untrustworthy.
W. M.
PERIODICALS
~Gazette Des Beaux Arts.~--The April number opens with an article
by M. Salomon Reinach, in which he brings to light a great unknown
miniaturist whom he identifies with the painter Simon Marmion, known
as the author of the altarpiece of St. Bertin, now in the castle of
Wied. Of this magnificent and little-known work the National Gallery
possesses two fragments representing a chorus of angels rejoicing
at the birth of the saint and two angels carrying his soul up to
heaven, a strange and imaginative composition, in which the ridge of
a roof cutting into the base of the composition gives an effect of
supernatural strangeness. The manuscript in which the miniatures in
question occur is in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, and has
remained till now unnoticed. It is in the main the French compilation
entitled the ‘Grandes Chroniques de Saint-Denys,’ but the history is
continued with extracts from various historians to the beginning of the
reign of Charles V. It contains fifteen full-page miniatures which are
of quite extraordinary merit, and which may be by Simon Marmion. The
smaller miniatures are by another hand, and are distinctly inferior.
The most interesting of the miniatures is the title-page representing
Fillastre, Abbot of St. Bertin, offering the Grandes Chroniques to
Philippe le Bon of Burgundy, by whose side stands the aged Chancellor
Rollin; behind stand three figures, among which M. Reinach recognizes
the youthful Charles the Bold and the Grand Bâtard. The heads are
admirably rendered, and show that Marmion, if it be indeed he, must be
reckoned as one of the great masters of portraiture of a school in
which portraiture attained to the utmost perfection. The landscapes
are, however, scarcely less remarkable. They do not, of course, rise
quite to the height of imaginative realism shown in the Hubert van Eyck
miniatures published by M. Durrieu, but they are conceived in a similar
vein and executed with absolute mastery. If M. Reinach’s conjecture
is correct, and it rests on a number of subsidiary proofs besides the
likeness of style to the Wied altarpiece, he has done a great service
in bringing to light the work of a great artist whose reputation as a
miniaturist was such that his name was coupled with that of Fouquet
in the eulogies of contemporary poets. Marmion was born at Amiens
about 1420. In 1454 he was at Lille employed by the Duke of Burgundy,
but he seems to have worked chiefly at Valenciennes. His style shows
the influence of the Van Eycks, and still more of Van der Weyden. But
there is, we think, in his manner of composition, and in the freedom
of his fancy, something which distinguishes him from the pure Flemish
painters, something which is due to his French origin and early
training. ¶ The next article by M. Casimir Stryienski is concerned with
French art of a very different kind. There exist a number of catalogues
of the early exhibitions of the Salon, illustrated throughout with
minute sketches by Gabriel de St. Aubin. The author has had the idea
of reconstructing by the aid of one of these catalogues the Salon of
1761, and discussing the subsequent history of the various works. Many
of these are quite lost, and survive only in St. Aubin’s marvellous
sketches. Delicate as St. Aubin’s more serious work is, as a _tour de
force_ nothing could equal the dexterity of these minute notes. Between
two lines of the catalogue he will insert a whole row of sketches, in
which not only the composition but some suggestion of the chiaroscuro
of the originals is given. Many of the works of Vien, J. B. M. Pierre,
Vanloo, and Hallé make a more pleasing impression when interpreted thus
than the originals can have done. ¶ M. André Michel, who carries on
the work inaugurated by the genius of Courajod, commences a series of
articles on the acquisitions made by his department of the Louvre. The
finest of these came from Courajod’s collection, and include a wooden
crucifix of the twelfth century, in which we can trace the first germs
of the new sentiment for life and dramatic expressiveness working
in the old hieratic formula. The exquisite statue of a man of the
thirteenth century, also in wood, shows the new art arrived already
at perfect command of the means of expression, but still restrained
by a reminiscence of earlier schematic treatment. This and the stone
statue of St. Geneviève show French sculpture at a point which it has
never surpassed. The fifteenth and sixteenth century sculptures which
have been added to the national collection, though of great beauty,
have nothing of the supreme sense of design of the earlier work. ¶ M.
F. de Mely publishes two sarcophagi with figures in relief discovered
at Carthage. In spite of Greek and Egyptian influences the author
considers that at least one of the figures, that of the priestess,
bears the impress of a special racial type, and he considers that this
and the Elche head taken together give us an idea of a distinctively
Punic ideal type. M. Pierre Gusman describes, without adding anything
very new, the Villa Madama, and M. André Pascal begins an account of
the eighteenth century sculptor Pierre Julien.
In the May number Monsieur Gaston Migeon, who has done much towards the
classification of Mahommedan copper work, writes on the Exhibition of
Mahommedan Art recently held at the Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs
in the Pavillon de Marson. Several remarkable specimens of copper work
are reproduced, perhaps the most interesting being that lent by M.
Sarre which is supposed to date from the first years of the Hegira,
and to be of Sassanian workmanship. Some fourteenth-century Persian
velvets and tissues of singularly fine and naturalistic design are
also figured, as well as two splendid Indo-Persian miniatures from the
collection of M. Bing. ¶ In his second and concluding article on the
acquisition of the department of sculpture in the Louvre, M. André
Michel describes a remarkable polychrome wooden statue of the beginning
of the sixteenth century belonging to the Franconian school. In this
the author finds the influence of Albert Dürer. It is certainly a more
deliberate and scientific work of art than the majority of Franconian
sculptures of the period. Several works by Houdon, Deseine and Clodion
are also described and reproduced. The prints of the Dutuit Collection
are described in a brilliant and humorous article by M. Henri Bouchot,
in which he concerns himself more with the collector than the
collection, which is in fact rather remarkable for the number of prints
of ascertained pedigree than for its artistic character. M. Pascal
completes in this number his study of Pierre Julien.
~Jahrbuch Der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses.~ Band XXIII, Heft 5.--The present fascicule is devoted
entirely to researches by Herr Julius von Schlosser on ‘Artistic
Tradition in the late Middle Ages.’ Under this title the author
brings together several separate researches; the connexion between
them lies in their illustration of the contrast between mediaeval art
with its direct visual symbolizing of ideas and the Renaissance and
modern habits of actual imitation of natural forms. ¶ The first of his
researches is concerned with a large illuminated parchment, too large
to have formed part of a book and probably meant to be framed and hung
on a wall. It depicts in the centre the Nativity, around which, in a
large number of medallions enclosed in late Gothic scrollwork, are
represented the various analogies by which the immaculate conception
was rendered credible. It is an early example of the ‘Defensorium
inviolatae virginitatis beatae Mariae,’ in which the miracle is
rendered plausible by a record of all the miraculous things in nature.
The origin and propagation of this popular form of doctrinal exegesis
is discussed. The author of the ‘Defensorium,’ Franciscus of Retz, was
a Dominican, and professed theology in the University of Vienna from
1385 to 1411. The earliest illustrated version is the manuscript of
Frater Antonius of Tegernsee of 1459, and the work was published as a
block-book as early as 1470. The best-known is Eysenhut’s block-book
of 1471, of which the British Museum possesses a copy. In the early
sixteenth century it was published also in a French translation at
Rouen, but it was most popular in Bavaria and Austria. The parchment
picture of the Vienna Hofmuseum, which forms the subject of these
researches, is, the author considers, by an Austrian artist of the
latter half of the fifteenth century. ¶ Of greater artistic merit
are the small folding tablets of the Vienna Hofmuseum, in which are
depicted a series of men and animals which served as patterns for
artists. There are, for instance, the heads of Christ, the Virgin, and
St. John, in poses which show that they would serve for a Crucifixion;
there is the Veronica, and a number of varied types which experience
and tradition showed were likely to be useful to an artist. It is
certainly a striking example of the essentially practical methods of
artistic production at a time when painting was an actual necessity,
and when, therefore, the picture was of more importance than the
artist’s personality. This work belongs to about the year 1400. ¶
Another artist’s pattern-book discussed by Herr von Schlosser,
though this has already been published in part, is that used by the
miniaturists of a Rhenish monastery, now in the Hofbibliothek at
Vienna. This contains, besides initials and borders, the traditional
receipts for various animals both real and fabulous. This the author
compares with Villars de Honnecourt’s famous sketch-book and the
similar pattern-book of Stephen of Urach in Munich. Villars de
Honnecourt, however earlier in date, had indeed much more than a merely
practical aim in view. He had already begun those researches into the
laws of proportion and harmony in natural form which later on absorbed
Leonardo da Vinci and Dürer. ¶ Herr von Schlosser aptly concludes this
part of his researches by a reproduction of an Attic vase in Berlin,
on which is represented the workshop of a vase maker with the pattern
receipts for gods and animals hanging on the wall. ¶ Finally, in an
appendix, Herr von Schlosser discusses Giusto of Padua’s frescoes
of the virtues in the Eremitani at Padua, which have recently been
relieved in part of their covering of whitewash. He reproduces the two
best preserved figures. Here again the question is of the rôle played
by a traditional pattern-book, for there exist similar representations
of the virtues in manuscripts at Florence and Vienna, while recently
Signor Venturi has acquired for the national collection at Rome another
version, which he considers is Giusto of Padua’s own sketch-book
and the model for the frescoes. Herr von Schlosser shows, we think
conclusively, that this is of later origin by a belated Giottesque of
the early fifteenth century, while he brings forward as the original
of the whole series a MS. at Chantilly by Bartolommeo de’ Bartoli,
executed in all probability between 1353 and 1356 in Bologna.
~Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft.~ 1903. Part II.--Constantin
Winterberg continues his minute analysis of Albert Dürer’s theory
of the proportions of the figure. In this article he deals with the
second book, and shows how Dürer freed himself increasingly from the
traditional mediaeval canon and sought to establish his theory on
inductive lines. ¶ Mr. Campbell Dodgson publishes a transcript of David
de Necker’s preface to the Landsknechts, from which it appears that
the original drawings were by Hans Burkmair, Christopher Amberger,
and Jörg Breu, and were engraved by Jost de Necker, David’s father.
This settles a much-disputed point, and shows that Beham, to whom a
number of the originals were ascribed, must be excluded altogether.
¶ Count Luigi Manzoni writes on the stained glass in Perugia in the
quattrocento, and in particular on the great window in S. Domenico,
which he ascribes in part to Fra Bartolommeo di Pietro Accomandati,
who appears to have worked in stained glass already in the fourteenth
century at a time when most Italian towns were forced to employ
foreigners for such work. The greater part of the window was executed,
according to the author, in the second half of the fifteenth century,
and by the painter Benedetto Bonfigli. ¶ In this number Dr. Friedländer
concludes his notices of the Bruges Exhibition. He deals with Albert
Cornelis, an artist who was first recognized by Mr. James Weale,
and with Jan Provost, with regard to whom he follows M. G. Hulin.
He agrees therefore in giving to the artist, Mr. Sutton-Nelthorpe’s
Legend of St. Francis. More surprising is his suggestion that the
Madonna, lent by Madame André under the name of Van Eyck, which was
reproduced in the April number of ~The Burlington Magazine~, is a
youthful work of Jan Provost. With regard to Jan van Eeckele, the
author maintains a sceptical attitude. He supposes the signature J.V.E.
attached to certain works to be forgeries intended for Jan Van Eyck.
After discussing the works of the later Flemish and Dutch artists, Dr.
Friedländer discourses on the works which are not of purely Flemish
origin. Among them the most interesting was the so-called Antonello
da Messina, lent by Baron d’Albenas, representing the Pietà. This,
following M. Hulin, Dr. Friedländer gives to a French artist, and dates
about 1470. The mixture of Italian and Flemish influence in this work
is, we think, of quite a different kind from that found in French works
of the period.
~Rassegna d’Arte.~ -- To the April number M. George le Brun contributes
an enthusiastic, though by no means exaggerated, appreciation of the
elder Breughel, ‘the only artist of his time who knew how to withstand
the enchantments of the Italian masters,’ though he too travelled in
Italy. Signor Enrico Cavilia calls attention to the imposing ruins of
the basilica at Squillace which he ascribes to about the year 600. If
this is accurate it becomes, after St. Abbondio at Como, the earliest
example of a basilica in the form of a Latin cross. This important
example of early Christian architecture has been little noticed
hitherto. Signor Rivoira, for example, makes no mention of it. ¶ A
small piece of stuff with a woven pattern of figures, rabbits, birds,
and ornamental _intreccie_, which was found at Modena in 1900, forms
the subject of an article by Isabella Errera. This has hitherto been
supposed to be of Byzantine workmanship, but the author by comparison
with other pieces of similar design and workmanship ascribes it to Arab
workmen under Byzantine influence.
In the May number Signor Paoletti publishes an ancona (insufficiently
reproduced) by Jacobello Bonomo. This ancona in its original carved
frame is dated 1385, and is important as showing how early the
traditional form of the ancona as it appears in the works of the
Muranese school was fixed. This indeed differs but slightly from the
altarpieces of Antonio da Murano in Sta. Zaccharia at Venice, which
are dated nearly half a century later. ¶ Signor Ricci continues to
elucidate the little-known Giovanni Francesco da Rimini, an artist
of the Romagna influenced by Benedetto Bonfigli, and through him
deriving many motives which recall the work of Filippo Lippi. These are
specially noticeable in the Baptism belonging to Signor Blumenstihl
at Rome. The other picture, which he attributes to this mediocre but
agreeable painter, is a Madonna adoring the Infant Saviour which is No.
255 of the Bologna Gallery. ¶ Signor Augusto Bellini Pietri discourses
on the frescoes of S. Piero a Grado which were brought to light in
1885 at Cavalcaselle’s instigation. Cavalcaselle himself judged of
them as feeble productions of the early Pisan school which might be
connected with the name of Giunta Pisano. He failed to see traces of
true Byzantine influence. Signor Pietri’s view practically coincides
with this, except that he considers them of much greater artistic
significance and as indicating the dawn of the new Italian spirit, the
beginnings of a dramatic and expressive art as opposed to the hieratic
and purely architectonic character of the Byzantine. ¶ Signor Ricci
calls attention to an interesting portrait of Luca Pacioli acquired
by the Naples Gallery with a Cartellino bearing the inscription JACO.
BAR. VIGENNIS. 1495. If vigennis is a corruption of _ventenne_, and
if Jaco. Bar. stands for Jacopo de Barbari, it brings that artist’s
birth down to a much later period than has hitherto been assumed.
Unfortunately Signor Ricci does not indicate how far the painting in
question conforms to the manner of Jacopo de Barbari’s known works.
¶ Signor Ferrari announces the installation of the new museum at
Piacenza, and describes its two chief treasures, the Christ at the
Column by Antonello da Messina and the tondo (poorly reproduced), which
is ascribed, somewhat rashly we think, to Botticelli himself.
~Onze Kunst~ contains two articles by Max Rooses; in one he describes
the Pacully collection in Paris, which has recently come into the
market, and, _à propos_ of the picture of a young woman writing, by
the Master of the half-figures, which was exhibited at Bruges, makes
a suggestion that possibly the half-figure pictures were executed by
Jan Matsys when he was absent from the Netherlands, and may have come
into connexion with Clouet’s school in France. The colour scheme and
scale of modelling of Jan Matsys’s signed Lucretia is, we should have
thought, quite distinct from that of the half-figure pictures. ¶ In
the second article the author makes known a Rubens belonging to the
Countess Constantin de Bousies. The picture is of a satyr pressing
grapes into a cup held by a young satyr; in the foreground a tigress is
suckling her young. M. Rooses declares this to be the original of the
similar picture at Dresden.
~Ateneum. Helsingfors.~-No. 1 contains an article on mediaeval art
in Finland with illustrations of sculptures of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, which shows how closely the types of early French
and German Gothic sculptures were followed. The St. Margaret from Vemo
has almost the grace and ease of movement and the large disposition of
draperies of the best French work of the end of the thirteenth century.
The later work indicates more clearly German influence. Osvald Siren
publishes two Florentine Madonna reliefs, at present in Sweden. One is
a stucco copy of a relief by Desiderio, lately in the possession of
Mrs. Pepys Cockerell.
~The Revue de l’Art~ contains some illustrations from the Pacully
collection, and the record by M. Paul Vitry of an interesting
discovery, an almost contemporary copy of a lost portrait of the Comte
de Dunois, the original probably being by Jean Fouquet.
~L’Art~, for April, contains a number of reproductions of mediaeval
works by royal and titled amateurs, an article on the Museum of
Tapestry at the Gobelins factory, one on Horace Vernet as a
caricaturist, and one on the exhibition of the Société National des
Beaux-Arts, remarkable for its violent and ill-judged attack on Rodin,
_à propos_ of the fact that he is not exhibiting this year.
~The Architectural Review~, May, is mostly devoted to contemporary
architecture, but contains the second part of Mr. Lethaby’s article on
‘How Exeter Cathedral was Built,’ with many illuminating remarks on
mediaeval methods of work; not the least interesting is the suggestion
that when columns of Purbeck marble were ordered from Corfe, the
designs of mouldings and sections were left to the Corfe masons.
R. E. F.
~Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde~, April, 1903.--The first number of
the seventh annual volume of this periodical opens with a detailed
account by H. A. L. Degener of the John Rylands Library at Manchester.
The building is described and the history of its foundation related.
The biography of John Rylands himself is followed by an interesting
account of the founders of the Althorp collection, now incorporated,
through the munificence of Mrs. Rylands, with the other contents of
the palatial building at Manchester. The purchase of the Crawford
collection of MSS. by Mrs. Rylands is duly recorded, and a good summary
is given of the most important treasures of the library in the way
of block-books and incunabula, with special attention to the books
from early English presses. The article is illustrated with sketches
of the building and facsimiles of rare specimens of printing. An
article follows on the contemporary book-decorator, Hugo Hoppener,
whose pseudonym is Fidus. His work is unknown in this country, and
such specimens as are given do not inspire us with any desire for a
closer acquaintance with it. Modern printing in Russia is described
by P. Ettinger, and there is a review of two important facsimiles of
block-books recently published by Heitz, and edited by Professor W.
L. Schreiber, the ‘Twelve Sibyls,’ at St. Gallen, and the edition of
the ‘Biblia Pauperum,’ in fifty leaves, at Paris. A specimen of each
facsimile accompanies the review.
C. D.
❧ CORRESPONDENCE ❧
PROFESSOR LANGTON DOUGLAS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
~Sir~,
Professor Douglas’s long and elaborate reply to my note is no doubt
interesting; but it seems as if he considers the subject of more vital
importance than I do; and I fancy most readers of ~The Burlington
Magazine~ will agree with me so far. It is scarcely necessary to
point out the personal turn to which his arguments veer; but I am
unregenerate enough to draw attention to the fact that, in spite of
much circumlocution, he brings out _none_ that really _prove_ me
wrong in my contentions. I do not deny the talents of either Signor
Centofanti or Signor Donati (of the works of the former and the
friendship of the latter I have reason to speak most highly); but
their names alone scarcely carry conviction to the ordinary English
reader. I must repeat that I do _not_ consider that Professor Douglas’s
_assertions_ with regard to Sodoma will bear close examination. The
explanation of this in detail would take too long here; but I hope
some day to have an opportunity of going fully into the subject of
that artist’s name and family. That Beccafumi was _very frequently_
designated as ‘Mecharino,’ or ‘Mecarino,’ is beyond dispute, and the
statements here brought forward are certainly not sufficient to
account for the _entire_ omission of this important fact from Professor
Douglas’s work. With regard to Matteo’s Massacre of the Innocents, I
can only suggest to anyone interested in the subject to go and look at
the picture, signature, and original document, and then form his own
opinion.
On both these points the reader cannot do better than compare the
statements here set forth with those in the ‘History of Siena.’ I need
say no more; but, in conclusion, I cannot resist remarking how great
was my astonishment to find that until last April Professor Douglas,
in spite of all his studies at Siena, was not aware that the Archivio
dei Contratti of that city (_Archivio Notarile Provinciale_)--referred
to continually by Milanesi and others, and containing many important
documents (including two wills of Francesco Tolomei, in the second of
which Matteo’s picture is not mentioned)--is an _absolutely different_
institution from its younger, and admittedly more imposing and
interesting, rival--the Archivio di Stato, is under different control,
and is even a cause of jealousy. Surely, when preparing to overthrow
the consensus of opinion of a number of competent predecessors, it
is scarcely safe to trust implicitly to _copies_, and a search for
this original will would have saved that situation anyhow. Had I not
received this information from the writer’s own lips, I could not have
believed it possible. For _the_ historian of Siena to admit ignorance
of the separate existence and constitution of this important storehouse
seems to me to be more damaging to his reputation for accuracy than any
points of detail upon which differences of opinion can arise.
~Robert H. Hobart Cust.~
THE AUTHORSHIP OF A MADONNA BY SOLARIO
~Sir~,
The Madonna by Solario which you reproduce in your number for May is
a picture by no means unknown in art literature. It is reproduced on
Plate XXXVII of Rosini’s ‘Storia della Pittura Italiana,’ and as No.
29bis, IIS. in Muxell’s ‘Catalogue of the Leuchtenberg Collection,’
and such well-known critics as Waagen, Rumohr, Hettner, and Crowe and
Cavalcaselle have spoken of it. The last-named writers unhesitatingly
ascribe the picture in question to Andrea Solario of Milan, declaring
the signature a coarse forgery. Rosini, who seems to have known all
about the picture, says:--‘Could we trust this signature--Antonius da
Solario Venetus f--there would be no doubt regarding the home of this
artist. But are we bound to have a blind faith in a signature, when we
happen to know the history of the picture, and how it passed through
the hands of restorers and dealers before it was sold to the collection
where it now hangs? Experience has taught me to entertain very serious
doubts.’[48]
I share these doubts, for I cannot hesitate a moment in ascribing this
very charming Madonna to Andrea Solario. Mr. Roger Fry in his admirable
note on this picture mentions the points of likeness which it has with
the Brera Madonna and Saints, dated 1495. There happens to be another
work even closer to this one, and in my opinion certainly by Solario,
although not attributed to him.[49] It belongs to Dr. J. P. Richter,
and represents the Madonna adoring the Holy Child. So Venetian are its
colour, tone, and feeling, that more than one good critic has attempted
to find its author in Venice; but so singularly like are the ovals, so
identical the eyes and mouths of the Virgins in Dr. Richter’s and in
Mr. Wertheimer’s pictures, that they could not have been painted by
different hands. A Madonna belonging to Signor Crespi of Milan, never,
that I am aware, ascribed to another than Solario, although of later
date, again betrays identity of hand, in the landscape at least, with
Mr. Wertheimer’s painting.
But Mr. Fry, who, if any one, has a right to an opinion, admits
the possibility that the signature is genuine; in which case Mr.
Wertheimer’s picture would be by a painter famous in Neapolitan
art-mythology, who is supposed to have executed the frescoes in the
cloister of Sanseverino at Naples. Mr. Fry, with a candour by no
means common among recent writers on art, tells us that he is not
acquainted with these frescoes. I happen to know them well, and I can
assure Mr. Fry that these paintings and Mr. Wertheimer’s Madonna have
nothing in common. The latter, like all of Solario’s works, even the
most Venetian, displays many characteristics of an art substantially
Milanese, while the frescoes contain no element of the kind. The
principal author of the series (he freely employed assistants) seems
to have been a Sicilian educated under Antonello, Gentile Bellini,
and Carpaccio. In his wanderings up and down the peninsula his fancy
seems to have been taken by Pintoricchio’s landscape--a taste for which
Carpaccio’s romantic scenery had doubtless prepared him. No other
influences are visible in his work, neither Lombard, nor Ferrarese, nor
Florentine. I am amazed that paintings so obviously Venetian should
have remained so long unrecognized for what they are.
I would gladly say more of the author of these frescoes (there is not
a little to be said), but I must now hasten to answer the question
that may be asked: But what if the inscription is ancient? Even then
Mr. Wertheimer’s picture does not cease to be Andrea Solario. The
inscription may in fact never have been intended for a signature,
but for a label. Soon after it was painted this picture may have
fallen into the hands of a person who, like so many of us to-day when
addressing a letter, confused the Christian name of the painter with
one resembling it, and, wishing to make sure that he did not forget it
altogether, had it inscribed according to his inaccurate recollection
upon the panel, with the addition of the fact that the picture was
painted in Venice--for that is all that the word _Venetus_ need mean
here. Or if it does mean more, this more would tend to establish the
value of connoisseurship. It was on internal evidence alone that I came
to the conclusion, published in my ‘Lorenzo Lotto’ some nine years ago,
that Solario must have made a long enough sojourn at Venice to have
become deeply imbued with the ideas of Alvise Vivarini: and now Mr.
Wertheimer’s picture, if the inscription be ancient, would confirm this
hypothesis to the extent of proving that Solario remained long enough
in Venice to be considered a Venetian, just as Lotto, for instance,
owing to a residence of two or three years at Treviso, was called a
Trevisan.
~Bernhard Berenson.~
[Illustration: Walker & Cockerell Ph. Sc.
Lady Betty Hamilton
by Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the collection of the Earl of Normanton.]
PICTURES IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY, AT HIGHNAM COURT, NEAR
GLOUCESTER
❧ WRITTEN BY ROGER FRY ❧
ARTICLE I.--ITALIAN PICTURES OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
Last summer, by the courtesy of Sir Hubert Parry, I was enabled to
visit Highnam Court in company with Mr. Berenson. It was intended that
we should collaborate in the work of bringing to the notice of students
some of the very remarkable Italian paintings in this collection. Owing
to ill health and the pressure of other work Mr. Berenson has not
been able to do what he had hoped. Under these circumstances I shall
confine myself to a brief account of these pictures in the hope that
at some future date Mr. Berenson will again take the subject in hand
and draw from these examples those more definite conclusions which his
far wider knowledge of Italian art would justify. In justice to him I
must add that, except where expressly stated, he is not responsible
for the ideas here put forward. ¶ A few words on the collection in
general may be appropriate; for, no less than the house, the garden,
and all its surroundings, the collection at Highnam bears the impress
of a very remarkable personality, that of Thomas Gambier Parry, the
father of the present owner. On leaving the university, in 1838, Parry
bought the Highnam estate, near Gloucester, which became thenceforward
his home. But the duties of a country squire, though undertaken with
unusual energy and benevolence, did not absorb his entire activities.
His enthusiastic love of Italian art led him to travel frequently, and
to devote himself to the hope of acclimatizing in England the art of
fresco wall-decoration. Realizing the unsuitability to our climate of
the true Italian method of fresco painting, he made many researches
in technique, which led to the discovery of the method of spirit
fresco, which is best known in England from Sir Frederick Leighton’s
two examples in the Victoria and Albert Museum. But Parry was not only
an inventor; he himself practised the art with considerable success.
The church which he built in his park for the village of Highnam is
decorated internally by him; the paintings of St. Andrew’s chapel in
Gloucester cathedral, and of the roof of Tewkesbury abbey, are also due
to him. But perhaps the best known is his decoration of the wooden roof
of the nave in Ely cathedral, which must certainly be counted as one
of the few really successful modern attempts to recapture the spirit
of mediaeval decorative design. All these works were executed by him
without payment, and largely at his own expense. ¶ We are, however,
not concerned here with Parry as an artist, but as a connoisseur, and
the collection at Highnam shows that in this he was as original, as
independent of the fashions of his day, and of as fine a taste as in
his other capacities. For, at the time when the Highnam collection was
made it was not yet a title to social distinction to have one’s walls
decorated with Italian primitives. The works of the trecento are not
even now estimated at their real value, and it is in the specimens of
trecento and early quattrocento painting that the Highnam collection
is most remarkable. ¶ Hence, if we take the works in chronological
order, we begin at once with a picture which is in its way unique, the
Nativity and Adoration (Plate I). The singularity of this is that we
have here a panel painted in tempera, belonging at the latest to the
early years of the fourteenth century, which is not only untouched,
but in complete preservation, and which for brilliance and intensity
of colour and the perfection of its enamel-like smalto can scarcely
be surpassed by works of the succeeding century. It is a small panel
in which the figures are drawn with miniature-like precision. The
prevailing tone is the pale brown in which the rocky landscape is
rendered. It is almost of the colour and surface quality of boxwood or
tarnished ivory. Upon this the plants and trees, still treated with
the elementary symbolism of Byzantine art, are relieved in vivid black
green; while the chief notes in the draperies--which are hatched with
gold, according to the Byzantine tradition--are an intense blue green
and a very positive transparent pink, with rarer touches of scarlet
and celadon green. The effect of this colour scheme is very unusual,
and recalls at once the well-known altarpiece of St. Cecilia in the
corridor of the Uffizi. Two other altarpieces, by the same master, who
is best known from his frescoes in the upper church at Assisi, have
been recently discovered by Mr. Herbert Horne in the neighbourhood of
Florence, and in these also a similar colour scheme is observable.[50]
That the Highnam panel is a contemporary work, and, like those, marks
the first germs of a distinctively Italian tradition, is apparent,
but the tempting conclusion that it is by the same remarkable painter
is not altogether borne out by the forms. For the master of the St.
Cecilia altarpiece, though he was Giotto’s contemporary, shows an
independent development out of the older tradition. Only in the Assisi
frescoes is he influenced, and that in a secondary and superficial
way, by Giotto; whereas this panel, which from its composition and
the use of gold hatchings on the draperies we may assign to an early
period of the movement, bears already decided traces of the style of
Giotto. ¶ Whereas in the master of the St. Cecilia altarpiece we note
the peculiarity of small heads, elongated figures, fine-drawn features,
and spider-like extremities; above all a sense of elegance, almost of
affectation, which connects his work more with the decadent classic
tradition than with the new ideas of Giovanni Pisano and Giotto; here
we have already, more rounded forms, and more solid relief, while
the poses are of a kind which allow of re-entering lines, gathering
the form together in a self-centred mass. Particularly noteworthy in
this respect is the group at the bottom of the composition, where
the influence of forms discovered by Giovanni Pisano in bas-relief
is clearly apparent. ¶ There are comparatively few extant works of
art which exemplify this precise movement in the development of the
Italian from the early Christian style, but among them the closest
analogy to our picture may be found in the panels at Munich, Nos. 979
and 980, in which a number of scenes are united in a single panel,
though not as here in a single composition. We have in them a similar
mixture of Byzantine tradition as seen in the gold hatchings on the
draperies, similar large and rather heavy masks, similar deep shadows
in the eye orbits, while the corners of the mouth are marked by similar
round dots. Indeed the angel to Christ’s left in the Last judgement
of the Munich panels is almost the exact counterpart of the angel
immediately above the Christ in the Highnam Adoration. These Munich
panels are considered by Mr. Berenson to be early works by Giotto. Is
it possible that we have in the Highnam picture yet another early work
by the same hand, and in incomparably better preservation? Besides the
general likeness of style to the Munich pictures, there are certain
characteristics which would point to such a conclusion; perhaps the
most striking is the drawing of the hands. Thus the pose of the
Madonna’s hand with the two first fingers outstretched, the others
clenched, is a peculiarity constant in Giotto. Another characteristic
trait is the tendency to bring the fingers of the opened hand to a
point, as in the right hand of the third king.
[Illustration: NATIVITY AND ADORATION: SCHOOL OF CIMABUE
IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: ALTAR-PIECE IN FIVE PARTS, BY BERNARDO DADDI
IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: CORONATION OF OUR LADY, BY AGNOLO GADDI; IN THE
COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: Photo Alinari
CORONATION OF OUR LADY, By TADDEO GADDI; PART OF AN ALTAR-PIECE IN
SANTA CROCE, FLORENCE]
On the other hand we must point out that the Munich pictures, in spite
of the roughness of their execution, indicate a richer imagination, a
greater energy of dramatic presentment, than can be claimed for the
Highnam piece. There is nothing in the latter which can compare, for
instance, with the inexpressible tenderness with which the Virgin
contemplates the Child in the Munich picture. In our picture, the
attempt to infuse life into the older formula is evident, but the
persons of the drama still remain somewhat coldly self-absorbed and
aloof; that flash of mutual interaction and sympathy which both
Giovanni Pisano and Giotto realized so intensely is still lacking.
¶ In the present state of our knowledge, which leaves open so many
unsuspected possibilities, it is, perhaps, unsafe to go further; but
at least this can be said, that we have here no Giottesque work in
the ordinary sense of the word, which might be more appropriately
termed Gaddesque, but a work executed either by Giotto himself, or
more probably by some contemporaneous artist who was elaborating at
the same time with him the new idea; or if by a pupil, one who came
under his influence at a very early date, before Giotto’s own style was
fully matured. Certainly this work has none of the academic qualities
of the followers who, like Taddeo Gaddi, accepted the formulæ of
Giotto’s later style; it has in it, like Giotto’s own work, the spring
and vitality which come with the germination of a new and fruitful
conception. And among the works of this fascinating period of Italian
painting, we know of none which surpass this in the polished perfection
of the technique nor in the marvellous preservation of its surface. ¶
The next important picture (Plate II), keeping to the chronological
order, is one of the most magnificent of the many noble altarpieces
which have come down to us from the fourteenth century. Even in
Florence itself it would be hard to find an altarpiece in which the
religious sentiment of the time is expressed in more imposing forms,
or in which the decoration is more sumptuous and the execution more
refined. It is, moreover, in wonderful preservation, and the pale flat
tints of pure heliotrope, dull scarlet and blue, and white flushed with
pink, relieved upon a background of elaborately stamped gold, produce
an effect of brilliance and variety toned to a perfect harmony which
the artists of Florence rarely surpassed. Indeed, in the pallor and
brilliance of the colour scheme, as also in the atmospheric tonality
and the absence of vigorous relief in the figures, we are reminded
of Sienese art. The forms, however, are essentially Florentine. The
inscription at the base leaves us in no doubt about the author of this
masterpiece; it runs: ~ANNO DNI MCCCXLVIII BERNARDVS PINXIT ME QUEM
FLORENTIE~ (_sic_) ~FINSIT~. The original notion that this Bernardo
was the same as Nardo the elder brother of Orcagna has been exposed
by Milanesi, to whose researches we owe all that is known of Bernardo
da Firenze or Bernardo Daddi, whose _chef d’œuvre_ is the Highnam
altarpiece. Bernardo Daddi was almost overlooked by Vasari, who makes
him, by an anachronism of more than half a century, a pupil of Spinello
Aretino; nor did Crowe and Cavalcaselle realize his importance in
their ‘History of Painting.’ Milanesi has, however, discovered many
facts about Daddi, who, though inferior in the vitality and freshness
of his imagination to Giottino, was perhaps a finer artist than any
other of the immediate successors of Giotto. Certainly Taddeo Gaddi,
who somehow came to be regarded as the _capo scuola_, has left nothing
comparable to this as regards the variety and self-consistency of the
types, the nobility of the design and spacing of the figures, or the
research for beauty in the execution. Even in the Crucifixion, though
it is only a variation of Giotto’s inventions, there survives, in spite
of a tendency to a more sentimental treatment, something of the great
master’s dramatic feeling. There is much here, moreover, that seems
already to suggest Orcagna, and Daddi may perhaps be regarded as the
connecting link between him and Giotto. ¶ What is known of the life of
Daddi may be found at length in Milanesi’s commentary to Vasari’s life
of Stefano Fiorentino and Ugolino Sanese. Milanesi champions eloquently
the cause of this great but curiously neglected artist--that his
pleading has not been altogether successful may be due in part to the
fact that he endeavours to establish Daddi’s authorship of the frescoes
of the Triumph of Death, in the _camposanto_ at Pisa. The improbability
of such a view will be apparent to anyone who compares them with the
Highnam altarpiece. Daddi, who was born at the close of the thirteenth
century, died either in 1348 according to Crowe and Cavalcaselle, or
in 1350 according to Milanesi. This picture must therefore be one of
his latest, as it is also one of his finest works. It came originally
from the church of St. George at Ruballa, whence it passed into the
Bromley collection. It is referred to as being in that collection
by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and is mentioned as being in England by
Milanesi. ¶ To a considerably later period of the fourteenth century
belongs the Coronation of the Virgin (Plate III), which is ascribed
in the catalogue to Giotto. It is, however, clearly a fine work by
the last great Giottesque master of Florence, Agnolo Gaddi, whose
characteristic qualities and defects are here admirably displayed. The
weak lines of the boneless fingers with their rounded ends, the long
thin noses imperfectly articulated with the mask, and the want of life
and character in the figures, betray the facile exponent of a stock
formula which made but small demands upon the artist’s observation or
his feeling for reality. It was, indeed, due to the cleverness and,
if we are to believe Vasari, the commercial astuteness of the Gaddi
family that Giotto’s style was crystallized into so lifeless a system
of design. But Agnolo, though he inherited too much from his father,
was more of an artist. Where, as at Sta. Croce, he depicts a stirring
narrative, his line, at other times mechanical and slow, becomes alert
and expressive of at least the more obvious dramatic effects, while at
all times he shows a refined taste and originality as a decorator in
the more limited sense of the word. Judged as an imaginative rendering
of a supreme event, this picture is certainly cold and inadequate,
but as a piece of elaborate decoration it is charmingly designed
and brilliantly executed. The brocade hanging, which reminds one of
Orcagna’s school, is painted with the utmost skill; on a ground of
brilliant orange red, the symmetrical pattern of birds and flowers is
relieved in intensest blue and gold. The draperies and flesh are for
the most part in that beautiful pale key which Agnolo affected; the
opposition of pale grey, blue, and saffron yellow, with stronger notes
of mauve and pink, forms one of those complex and sumptuous harmonies
of colour which were unfortunately abandoned by the artists of the
succeeding century. The general likeness of this to Taddeo Gaddi’s
version of the same subject in the sacristy of Sta. Croce (Plate III)
(there attributed to Giotto) is apparent. Agnolo has even repeated,
though in a modified form, the peculiar double sleeve which is not
unfrequent in Taddeo’s pictures. The influence of Orcagna is, however,
to be seen in the more rectilinear folds and the attempt at structural
design in the draperies.
[Illustration: ADORATION OF THE MAGI, BY LORENZO MONACO; IN THE
COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: THE VISITATION, BY LORENZO MONACO; IN THE COLLECTION OF
SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: MADONNA AND CHILD, WITH ANGELS, BY A FLORENTINE PAINTER
OF THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY IN THE COLLECTION OF SIR HUBERT PARRY]
[Illustration: TRIPTYCH, BY THE SAME PAINTER; IN THE UFFIZI, FLORENCE]
We come next to an artist who was probably at one time Agnolo Gaddi’s
pupil. The two little predella pieces representing the Visitation
and the Adoration of the Magi (Plate IV) are not only among the
most charming pieces of the collection, but they are among the best
works of an artist whose sense of beauty was almost of the highest
order--Lorenzo Monaco. The melodious rhythm of his long-drawn
interlacing lines, the sweetness and lucidity of his design, are here
beautifully apparent. His peculiar treatment of drapery would
seem to indicate that the miniature paintings of northern Europe,
particularly of French workmanship, were not without their influence
on him. But here, though the main ideas of design are essentially
gothic, there is much that already foreshadows the art of the fifteenth
century. How much of Fra Angelico there already is in the tenderly
expressive gesture of the Virgin’s hands as she raises St. Elizabeth
from her knees, while the movement of the right leg and the peculiar
disposition of the drapery which it causes are favourite motives with
the pupil. Angelico, indeed, had but little to add to this exquisite
interpretation of the subject. How much, too, of Fra Filippo Lippi’s
genre feeling is already hinted at in the figure leaning against
the doorpost--how much of his romance in the woodland background!
Lorenzo Monaco’s importance as the inspirer of the new ideas of
the quattrocento perhaps deserves more recognition. The Adoration
is a variation upon the theme of a predella piece by Lorenzo in
the Raczynski gallery at Berlin; but the differences between this,
which we must assume to be a late work, and the Berlin picture are
remarkable. The head of the second king in particular is so different
from Lorenzo’s usual type, so near to what Masolino or the young
Masaccio might have done, that one wonders whether some pupil, already
advancing beyond his master in the new direction, may not have had a
hand in it. ¶ If these works by Lorenzo Monaco show the emergence from
the gothic formula of a new spirit, our next picture (Plate V) is on
the contrary a curious case of retardation. ¶ The general effect of
this picture is decidedly Giottesque; the colour scheme is still of
the gay and variegated kind that occurs in works of the trecento.
The crimson robes with yellow high lights, the indigo blues and apple
greens, all belong to the Giottesque tradition; but, none the less,
this picture was probably executed at a period when the more original
artists had already established the new ideas of fifteenth-century art.
The master who executed this was clearly a reactionary who clung to the
old, convenient receipts for the fabrication of handsomely decorated
altarpieces. His works are not uncommon in and around Florence, and
may be easily recognized by the peculiar alert expression of the eyes
and the gaiety and piquancy of his faces. One of his pictures in the
corridor of the Uffizi is reproduced here (Plate V); another is in
Fiesole cathedral. The artist shows some evidence of the influence
of Lorenzo Monaco, though this is more apparent in the draperies of
the Uffizi picture than in the Highnam Madonna. The latter seems
in essentials to be rather a continuation of the purely Florentine
Giottesque tradition of the end of the fourteenth century, and is
probably a somewhat earlier work. ¶ Whoever our artist may be, his
work scarcely rises above the level of tasteful and accomplished
craftsmanship, and his chief interest is as an example of one phase of
the work of the period of transition to the style of the quattrocento.
One is apt to forget that long after Masaccio and Castagno had
realized in paint the new plastic ideas of Donatello, the older firms
of ecclesiastical furnishers went on contentedly in the earlier
manner, which was, in fact, better adapted to the requirements of the
altarpiece. Even in the next generation Neri di Bicci only made a
sufficient pretence to structural draughtsmanship and modelling to pass
muster among his contemporaries.
MUSSULMAN MANUSCRIPTS AND MINIATURES AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE RECENT
EXHIBITION AT PARIS
❧ WRITTEN BY E. BLOCHET ❧
PART I
The exhibition of Mussulman art held during the months of May and June
in the Pavillon de Marsan at Paris afforded an opportunity such as is
rarely given of studying the art of the Mussulman nations. The objects
brought together included some fine examples of their various classes,
and most of them, coming as they did from private collections, had not
before been seen by the public. ¶ The art of miniature-painting is one
of those in which the Mussulmans have excelled, especially the Persians
and the Turks, who, since the appearance upon the world’s scene of the
hordes of Jenghis Khan, have lived by Iranian culture and civilization.
Also it is one of the least known, for we have to go in search of
specimens of this art to the manuscripts in which they are scattered
without order and, at least at first sight, without logic. Moreover, as
will presently be seen, only a very restricted few of these paintings
are signed and dated, so that it is only by external considerations
that we can succeed in identifying a period and a country of origin. ¶
The Mussulman religion has always been shy of encouraging the art of
painting; in fact, the tradition of Islam formally forbids it. This
absolute prohibition was borrowed by Mohammed from the Jews, and he
also reckoned upon establishing a distinction between his Faithful,
of whom he wished to make a nation of iconoclasts, and the Byzantine
Christians and Mazdean Persians, who decorated their palaces with
carvings and their books with paintings. He who draws a human figure,
or even a representation of any kind of animal, says the Sunna, shall
give it his soul at the Day of Judgement, and thus perish amid the
torments of hell. Fortunately for the history of art, the Mussulmans
did not observe this prohibition more strictly than did Solomon that
of the Bible, when he introduced figures of animals into the Temple;
but it did not fail to weigh heavily upon the artistic development of
a whole world, and it forced the latter to confine itself vaguely to
geometrical decoration, while systematically renouncing statuary and
figured representations, which enabled Greek art to attain its full
splendour. ¶ Passing through the galleries of the Pavillon de Marsan,
one was struck by the smallness of the space occupied by figured
representations among the number of objects there brought together.
Here and there, at very rare intervals, one found a few bronzes
representing animals; while as for the carpets, the accoutrements,
the copper vessels, the glass lamps, it was only exceptionally that
they bore anything but inscriptions in large _neskhi_ letters,
taken from verses of the Koran or from the traditions attributed to
the prophet Mohammed. Nor did any but a certain number of Persian
manuscripts contain other than those commonplace decorations which we
find throughout the Islam world, from the Hispano-Arab monuments of
Seville and Granada to the mosques raised by the descendants of Timur
Bey in the countries that form the frontier of Chinese Turkestan. ¶
The impression of a person seeing once, and a little quickly, an
exhibition, however limited, of Mussulman paintings, is that all these
miniatures are so many isolated artistic fancies, scarcely connected
one with the other, and that the painters who have executed them have
confined themselves to following the whims of their imagination,
without troubling to know what had been done before them, or to
inquire into the workmanship of artists contemporary with themselves.
[Illustration: MINIATURE FROM THE MAKAMAT OF HARIRI; ARAB MS. BELONGING
TO M. CHARLES SCHEFER]
[Illustration: MINIATURE FROM MS. OF THE ASTRONOMICAL TREATISE OF
ABD-ER-RAHMAN EL-SUFI; IN THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE]
This is an inevitable impression, but a radically false one, as a
careful and prolonged examination of the documents easily enables us
to see. ¶ On the contrary, the world of Islam produced schools of
which each had its own methods and types. By comparing manuscripts
of the same date and origin, one perceives that, without exception,
they present the same pictures, and that, moreover, those pictures are
very nearly identical. They offer hardly the smallest variations in
detail, while in workmanship and in the general plan of the composition
they are strictly alike. It is thus that, in all the ‘Books of the
Kings’ illustrated in Persia during the time of the Sefevæan kings,
we find the same scenes treated in identical fashion, with more or
less finish, according to the price of the book; in the same way,
all the manuscripts of the life of the famous Sufis of Sultan Husein
Mirza contain identical paintings, which are hardly differentiated
one from the other and which are evidently replicas of a common
original, drawn and painted by an artist of talent, the head of a
school. ¶ No illuminated Arab manuscript is known of an earlier date
than the thirteenth century, and the reason of this is simple. So
long as the caliphate of Bagdad was sufficiently powerful, or, at
least, preserved sufficient moral authority, to cause the Mussulman
law to be respected in its integrity, none dared to violate one of the
strictest injunctions of the Sunna. The artists, both in the Persian
world and among the Mussulmans of Syria and Egypt, waited for the
day of the final decadence of the spiritual power before venturing
to transgress the formal prohibition against the reproduction, by
any process whatever, of the human figure, or even of animal forms.
¶ Arab books adorned with pictures (of indifferent merit) appeared
first in the empire of the Aiyubite sultans descended from Saladin.
This innovation raised a storm among the ulemas and men of law, who
looked upon it as an abomination; but the Aiyubite sovereigns, although
loudly proclaiming themselves the stoutest defenders of the Caliph of
Bagdad, were but little interested to know whether a thing was orthodox
or not. Had not Saladin built in the very heart of Cairo a college for
the Bathenians, whose doctrines, a hundred times anathematized by the
Abbasside caliphs, tended to prove that there existed neither Allah nor
Mohammed, and that the only possible divinity was the prime mover, the
first hypostasis, the absolute One of the Neoplatonists? The Aiyubites
troubled themselves so little about the prohibition against reproducing
the human figure that they had coins struck in Syria bearing on the
obverse the head of the Byzantine Christ and on the reverse the usual
inscriptions in the Arab tongue. Saladin even went so far--and this
is the acme of heterodoxy--as to plan a marriage between his brother
Melik Adel and the sister of Richard Cœur-de-Lion, King of England.
The Mussulman artists would have been very wrong not to have taken it
at their ease under the reign of such liberal princes; and therefore,
beginning with the extreme end of the twelfth century, we behold
the first appearance of illuminated Arab manuscripts. ¶ These Arab
manuscripts adorned with paintings are of the greatest rarity, and
are not generally distinguished for their execution. They are curious
documents, worthy of preservation because of their rarity, rather than
real works of art, and the painters who illuminated them were never
very careful with their work. They betrayed an almost complete lack
of imagination and invention, and confined themselves to copying as
best they could the illuminated pictures in the manuscripts at their
disposal, that is to say the Byzantine manuscripts, in Egypt and Syria:
as for the Mussulmans of the Maghreb and the Yemen, it never occurred
to their minds that it was possible to adorn a book with pictures.
The greater number of the pictures in Arab manuscripts are copied
from Byzantine manuscripts of the eighth to the eleventh century, and
the limners, not knowing what they were copying, often surrounded the
heads of their figures with the golden haloes of the saints of the
Greek Church. ¶ There are only very few Arab manuscripts the pictures
of which rise above the conventional commonplace level, although
they always display very evident traces of Byzantine influence.
The most important of these manuscripts is a copy of the _Makāmāt_
(‘assemblies,’ or _séances_) of Harīrī, which belongs to M. Charles
Schefer. A very curious painting from this manuscript, which was copied
in Mesopotamia in the year 1237, is reproduced in the present article.
It shows a troop of horsemen in the army of the Abbasside caliph,
carrying the black silk standard of the Abbas family and sounding
enormous trumpets. This picture, which is far from possessing the merit
of the miniatures that adorn the Persian manuscripts, presents to us,
in a life-like manner, a scene which must have been frequent in the
streets of Bagdad and Damascus; the costumes and the harness of the
horses are absolutely correct and correspond in every respect with the
descriptions of apparel to be found at random in the Arab historians.
One fact which goes to show that Arab art, at least in Syria, assumed
a considerable development at that time is that we possess two other
manuscripts of these _séances_ of Harīrī less fine than the one in
question, but illuminated by artists who evidently belong to the
same school. ¶ These painters of the Aiyubite period considered that
Byzantine art, itself very limited and restricted almost exclusively
to religious painting, did not offer a large enough variety of models,
and they looked around them for others. These were so rare that our
artists were sometimes content to reproduce Egyptian stelæ, or to draw
their inspiration from the statues of Pharaohs or divinities which
they encountered at every step on Egyptian soil, copying to the best
of their ability the hieroglyphic characters which they found on those
monuments and of which they understood not a word. In short, painting
never existed on Arab manuscripts save by way of exception and in a
sporadic state; and yet the Arab artists suffered from no lack of
subjects for illustration. What an inexhaustible mine the ‘Thousand
Nights and a Night’ would have supplied, and the heroic romances of
‘Antarah, of Sultan Zahir Bibars, or the ‘History of the Heroes of
Islamism’ (_Siret el-mujāhidin_)! A few Arab manuscripts copied in
Persia are adorned with paintings, generally of indifferent merit, but
it is very evident that these do not belong to Arab art properly so
called, and that they must be included among the productions of Iranian
art. ¶ The only ornamentation of the Arab manuscripts consists of the
illumination of the titles and the first pages of the text. They are
not so fine as those done in Persia, although we find copies of the
Koran, written on parchment, richly illuminated with gilded designs.
But this ornamentation, reduced to a very small number of colours and
with broken lines, is heavy and overladen with gildings: the Persians
were more sober and showed that they had less taste for tinsel.
[Illustration: MINIATURE FROM ‘THE BOOK OF KINGS,’ A PERSIAN MS. OF
1566; IN THE COLLECTION OF BARON EDOUARD DE ROTHSCHILD]
The artistic history of Persia begins with the Achæmenian kings, that
is to say in the fifth century before Christ, a very recent date
compared with the antiquity of the ancient Assyrian and Chaldean
empires. Like all the countries of Hither Asia, the Persia of the
Achæmenians was tributary to the Babylonian Empire, and the monuments
of Persepolis and Murghab are obviously copied from those of the valley
of the Euphrates, while showing signs of a strong Hellenic influence.
In fact, the influence of Greece in Persia began long before the
conquest by Alexander, and the subjects of the Great Kings had happily
lightened the heavy architecture and ponderous sculpture of Babylon by
taking their inspiration from the methods of the artists of Hellas.
It is thus that the Apadana of Persepolis, the Apadana of Esther and
Xerxes, is a compromise between the oldest works of Assyrian art
and the most grandiose specimens of Greek architecture, between the
Palace of Sargon, which it suggests by the elevation of its immense
walls and its heavy friezes, and the Parthenon, in which we find
the colonnade of the Persian edifice, which the architecture of the
Euphrates valley always ignored. The casings in many-coloured bricks
which adorn the Apadana were borrowed by the Persians from Chaldean, or
rather Assyrian art; and the frieze of the Archers has its prototype
in the glazed-brick low-reliefs of the Dur-Sarkayan. The workmanship
of those polychromatic casings has changed very little in the course
of the ages, and the methods employed by the brick-makers who, in
the sixteenth century, adorned the splendid mosques of the Sefevæan
kings at Ardabil and Veramin with sky-blue and pale-green mosaics were
almost identical with those of the artists of the time of Sargon and
Nebuchadnezzar. ¶ The Greek influence attained its height in Iran after
the conquest by Alexander, under the reign of the Arsacidan princes
who assumed the title of Philhellenes on their coinage. The Sāsānians,
while endeavouring to bring about a reaction against that influence
which had several times threatened to deprive Iran of all its autonomy,
were unable, at least at the commencement of their dynasty, to dispense
with the aid of the Greek artists, and the inscriptions of the early
kings of that dynasty are accompanied by a Greek translation. ¶ The
art and methods of construction of the period of the Sāsānian kings
were perpetuated long after the Mussulman conquest; and the ogival
doorways of the Timurid mosques of Samarcand or of the mosques of the
Sefevæan shahs recall, although with a much less imposing aspect, the
gigantic ogive, the _Ivān_, to-day half-ruined, of the Palace of the
Sāsānians at Ctesiphon, which, according to the Islam tradition, was
rent in two during the night in which Mohammed came into the world. The
Mussulman architects who built the powerful citadels which stayed the
onrush of the crusaders in Syria also derived their inspiration from
the Sāsānian tradition, and it was thus that the gothic style made its
way into the art of the east and ended by supplanting the Roman style.
¶ If the influence of Greek art was considerable in Ancient Persia, it
was null in Persian art according to Islam; for there was scarcely any
point of contact between the Byzantine world in its decline and Persia
subjugated by the arms of the caliphs and separated from the west by
Syria and the provinces that formed the Seljukian empire of Asia Minor.
Nevertheless there exist a few rare specimens of Persian painting of
the end of the thirteenth century which recall in a positive fashion
the methods of Hellenic art; but there is no doubt that the works which
they serve to illustrate are merely translations of Arab originals
written in Syria and containing miniatures imitated from Byzantine
types. The Persian limners confined themselves to reproducing those
paintings at the same time that the Arab works were being translated
into the Persian language, and we must beware of seeing in this the
trace of any post-Islamic influence of Byzantine art. ¶ The three great
schools of painting in Persia succeed one another without interruption
and, encroaching one on the other from the beginning of the thirteenth
century to the early years of the eighteenth century, correspond
with the three great dominations which held sway over Iran during
this period of nearly five centuries: the Mongolians, the Timurids
and the Sefevæans. Books adorned with paintings, in fact, make their
first appearance with the dynasty of the Mongolian sovereigns, whose
ancestor, Hulagu, was sent to conquer Persia by the Emperor of China,
Manchu. Although the dynasties which had made themselves independent
in Persia, up to the Seljukians, had taken matters easily with the
Abbasside caliphate, it is no less true that they were deeply attached
to Islamism and that men hesitated under their dominion openly to
transgress the prescription of the religious law. The Mongolian
sovereigns, at least the first, did not profess Islamism and even
greatly preferred Christianity to the Mussulman religion, although not
themselves Christians. Some of them, such as Hulagu, had Christian
wives, and they often protected the Christians to the detriment of the
votaries of Mohammed. We know from the narrative of the missionaries
who were sent on embassy to the court of the Grand Khan of Cathay--Jean
du Plan de Carpin, Guillaume de Ruysbroeck and others--that the Mongols
made very coarse representations of their divinity Itoga and of other
spirits of an inferior order. Like all the primitives, they greatly
loved to see themselves pictured in paintings, and the manuscripts
which date from the time of the Mongolian sovereigns of Persia are
filled with portraits of the Khans, different nobles accompanied by
their wives and engaged in drinking fermented mare’s milk in cups of
Chinese porcelain. The Mongols, when they issued from their steppes
bent upon the conquest of the world, were certainly the most ignorant
people conceivable, for which reason they were surrounded by Chinese
secretaries, interpreters, engineers and bureaucrats, without whom they
would have been helpless. All this yellow flood swept down upon Persia
and there settled as in a conquered country, introducing numbers of
Turkish words into the language and, into art, not the formulas of the
Turks and Mongols, because these had none, but those of the Celestial
empire. It is certain that the Chinese artists whom the Mongols
had brought with them to Persia understood the technicalities of
painting infinitely better than did the Iranians, even as the Chinese
accountants could easily have given lessons to all the financial clerks
of the Sāmānids or Seljukians. And so the Persian painters sat at the
feet of the Chinese and eventually came to create an art which was very
different from that of the Celestial empire, but which nevertheless
displays many characteristics of Chinese painting. In any case, it is
certain that the miniatures which adorn the Persian manuscripts from
the time of the Mongols have no connexion whatever with what is known
to us of the art of the Sāsānidans, or with the descriptions given by
Mas‘ūdī of pictures which he had seen at Persepolis in a book and by
the unknown author of a chronicle entitled the ‘Sum of Histories.’ ¶
The manuscripts illuminated in Persia and in the regions that depended
upon her during the Mongolian period (1258-1335) are very numerous and
all present the same characteristics: the artists who illuminated them
drew, above all, battle-scenes, sieges of fortresses, bloody contests,
or else banquets, for the Mongols were, according to the account of
travellers, great quaffers of strong liquors. These pictures, however,
are rarely so well executed as those which belong to the school of the
Timurids and the Sefevæans: the Mongols were people who were not hard
to please; they wished before all things to be served quickly; and with
them quantity easily took the place of quality. It may be remarked
that the manuscripts executed at that time contain a very considerable
number of paintings; but, though these paintings possess a great
documentary interest, they have but a feeble interest from the artistic
point of view. Some of them are merely wash-drawings in uniform tints
rather than paintings in the proper sense of the word.
[Illustration: MINIATURE FROM ‘THE BOOK OF KINGS,’ A PERSIAN MS, OF
1566; IN THE COLLECTION OF BARON EDOUARD DE ROTHSCHILD]
The schools of painting of the Mongolian period did not last long
in Persia, and it would seem as though, from the moment when the
descendants of Hulagu became converted to Islamism, people in Persia
began to look with an evil eye upon picture-books and those who painted
them. Moreover, the Mongolian dynasty gave way amid so great a chaos
and such infinite disorder that the Persians had too many other
things to occupy their minds to allow them to think of illustrating
their ‘Books of the Kings’ or the _Gulistān_ of the Sheikh Sa‘dī.
We still find in the great European libraries a few manuscripts
illuminated for the Djelairids or the Mozafferids; but the political
instability of Iran was at that time so great that two copies of the
same work are sometimes dedicated to two successive sovereigns. ¶
The accession of Timur Bey put an end to this anarchy, which, for
that matter, was to begin again a century later, and the reign of his
successor, Shah-Rokh, was a period of peace such as Persia had not
known since long. Under the reign of this pacific prince, who waged
no war until driven to extremes by his kinsmen, there was executed,
at Herat, one of the most splendid specimens of Iranian painting,
the manuscript of the ‘Ascension of Mohammed to Heaven.’ Illuminated
books belonging to the Timurid school of Persia and Turkestan are not
excessively rare, and we must look among them to find the master-pieces
of Persian painting. A certain number of these volumes come from the
libraries of the Timurids, principally from that of Herat, where
Sultan Husain Mirza had collected a magnificent library, which has
now completely disappeared. ¶ These Timurid sovereigns, including
those who reigned in the east of Persia and in Transoxiana after the
death of Tamerlane (Timur Bey) as well as those who went to seek their
fortune in Hindustan, were great lovers of works of art and of fine
literature. At Samarcand, they raised the splendid mosques, now ruined,
which were the ornament of the Righistan--the Tilla-kari, Bibi-khanum
and Guri-Mir--whose gutted cupolas, all enamelled with many-coloured
bricks, still excite the admiration of archæologists. Timur Bey, whom
the pamphlet of Ibn-Arabshah did not a little to represent as a vulgar
toper, delighted in reading the _Ghazels_ of Hāfiz and the ‘Romance
of Alexander’ of Nizāmī. Some of his writings are master-pieces of
Turco-Oriental literature, and the unauthenticity of his Memoirs has
never been absolutely proved. His grandson, Ulugh Beg, was the Alfonso
X of the east, and the astronomical tables which he drew up with the
aid of the most celebrated cosmographers form one of the most important
works of Oriental mathematics. Sultan Husain ibn Baïkara lived in
his capital of Herat surrounded by the most famous writers of his
time--‘Alī Shīr his Vizir, the illustrious Sūfī Jāmī, Khwānd-Amīr the
historian--and his collection of biographies of Mussulman saints is one
of the master-pieces of elegant prose produced by Persian literature. ¶
The Emperor Babar, who, when the Timurid empire was definitely ruined
in Persia, went away to conquer Hindustan, has left a sober and severe
history of his long campaigns which recalls Caesar’s ‘Commentaries.’
In the midst of their intrigues and of the crimes which they did not
hesitate to commit to obtain possession of the throne, his descendants,
the Grand Moguls of Delhi, never lost their passion for works of art.
The Emperor Shah-Jahan, who, in order to assume the crown, had revolted
against his father and killed off all his brothers, found time, on the
very day of his accession, to inscribe his _ex-libris_ on a magnificent
copy of one of the six poems of Jāmī; it is true that this volume was
a family record, and that it had been copied for his ancestor, the
sovereign of Herat, Sultan Husain Mirza. The Timurids of Hindustan
retained this passion for fine books until the worst days of their
history. Copies bearing the seal of Mohammed Shah or of Ferrukh Siyyar
are not at all rare, and Shah Alem II enriched the library of the Grand
Moguls even at the time when he was being torn between the English,
the Mahrattas and the French, and when his empire was on the point of
passing under a foreign dominion. ¶ The influence of Chinese art is
even more marked in the paintings of the Timurid school of Khorassan
than in those of the Mongols of Persia, and it is open to us to ask
ourselves whether they were executed by Persians trained in the school
of the Chinese, or by Chinese striving to produce something in the
Persian taste. If a doubt be permissible in the case of the manuscript
of the ‘Ascension of Mohammed,’ none such can be entertained concerning
a manuscript which was copied at Samarcand for Sultan Mirza Ulugh Beg
and which contains the Arab text of an astronomical treatise famous in
the East, that of ‘Abd ur-Rahmān el-Sūfī. One of the pictures adorning
this magnificent manuscript is reproduced in the present article, and
it is easy to see, even in the absence of colour, that the drawing
shows an evident Chinese influence. The lightness of the outlines and
of the painting, reduced to a few tints of Chinese ink in the shadows
and a few threads of colour, reminds one in an extraordinary manner of
the methods of the Japanese artists. This same characteristic occurs
also, although in a less pronounced degree, in the miniatures on
the manuscript of the ‘Ascension of Mohammed’; but the heads of the
chimera on which the Prophet is mounted and of the angels recall the
chubby faces on certain paintings or certain ivories of the Far East.
¶ We know from an undoubted source that the Timurids of Turkestan and
Eastern Persia were pleased to make calls upon the artists of the
Celestial empire, and that one of those sultans had set up at the gates
of Samarcand a Trianon in Chinese porcelain which had been brought in
sections, with every piece numbered, to the Athens of Turkestan. It is
therefore no matter for surprise that we should find in the paintings
of many manuscripts which formed the libraries of Herat and Samarcand
traces of so deep and so protracted an influence. These miniatures
are always infinitely better executed than are those of the Mongolian
school, and we feel that they appeal to men of a different and more
refined form of culture than the cavalry leaders who organized the
bold raids across the Asiatic continent. They represent fewer scenes
of carnage and, above all, fewer horsemen barbed and iron-clad to
their eyes than fill the paintings of the Mongolian manuscripts. The
sultans of Turkestan made war upon one another in order to steal the
others’ crowns, but they did not do so as brutes greedy of slaughter
and scenes of bloodshed: often warfare was their only means of living
and of defending themselves against the incessant attacks of their
rapacious kinsmen. ¶ The transition from the school of Turkestan at the
time of the princes of the House of Timur to the third great school of
painting in Persia, that of the Sefevæans, was not so clearly defined
as that which separates the Mongolian from the Timurid school. There
was, towards the end of the fifteenth century, a certain period during
which the Persian artists endeavoured to produce something new, while
retaining, in a great measure, the method of the miniature-painters
of Turkestan. To this transition period belongs the manuscript of the
‘Book of the Kings,’ the property of M. de Rothschild, of which two
reproductions will be found in these pages, and also the miniature
representing a hunting-scene which is taken from a splendid manuscript,
dated 1527, from the divan of Mīr ‘Alī Shīr Navā’ī, Vizir to the
Timurid Sultan Husain Mirza. ¶ Obviously the master-pieces of Mussulman
painting are to be sought among the miniatures executed at Herat and
Samarcand in the fifteenth century; but this does not prevent the
miniatures painted in Western Persia under the reign of the Sefevis
(fifteenth to seventeenth century) from being splendid works of art.
The number of illuminated manuscripts dating from this period is
relatively large. This does not imply that there were many more painted
in Persia under Shah Abbas than during the time of the Timurids, but
simply that, being more modern, there were fewer of them lost.
(_To Be continued._)
[Illustration: HUNTING SCENE; MINIATURE FROM A PERSIAN MS. DATED 1527;
IN THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE]
[Illustration: Plate I
Walker & Cockerell Ph. Sc.
The Election Cup belonging to Winchester College.]
THE PLATE OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE
❧ WRITTEN BY PERCY MACQUOID, R.I. ❧
There is an undefinable feeling of romance and sentiment that forcibly
strikes even the most callous who visit Winchester College. Founded by
William of Wykeham in 1393 for the purpose of providing free education
for the sons of those who could not otherwise have afforded it, as well
as a means of supplying the country with an enlightened priesthood,
it remains to-day the oldest and one of the greatest of England’s
public schools. The royal licence to found the college, granted by
Richard II, empowers Wykeham to ‘acquire the site and build a hall or
college to the honour and glory of God and our Lady, and to settle
in it a warden and seventy scholars who should study grammar within
its halls and to grant them a charter.’ This first building took six
years to complete, and the sum of £1.014 8s. 3d. was spent upon its
construction, a sum that would represent about £20,000 according
to the present value of money. ¶ As Winchester was at one time the
capital of England, many kings made it their chief seat of residence,
and many important parliaments were held there, and it was no doubt
from this traditional importance that reigning sovereigns, and the
highest dignitaries of Church and State, continually paid visits to the
college. It would be otherwise difficult to account for the very large
amount of ecclesiastical plate and precious vestments, in addition
to the great quantity of secular plate, that was at different times
in the possession of the college. The number of rose-water basins
with ewers and spoons enumerated in one inventory alone proves that
the entertainments must have been of a highly important nature. ¶
The earliest record of a royal gift in plate is of 1449, when Henry
VI gave a tabernacle of gold, Margaret of Anjou about the same time
presenting a pair of silver-gilt basins, weighing 114 oz., with the
enamelled arms of England on one and those of France on the other.
Before this date King Henry had paid many visits to the college, being
desirous of gaining information on the subject of its working rules and
statutes, in order to apply the same to the two similar institutions he
was about to found. Another visit was on the occasion of his marriage,
when it is stated in one of the records that the wine and beer for the
entertainment of the royal suite cost two shillings and fourpence, a
sum that does not appear excessive for court refreshments. Doubtless
it was in return for the information and hospitality received that he
produced the tabernacle and basins. The only recorded visit of Henry’s
successor, Edward IV, was in 1469, when he was sufficiently impressed
by the school to lend a live lion for the edification of the boys,
but he does not appear to have made any presentation of plate; nor
is there record of any particular interest taken in the college by
either Richard III or Henry VII. During the next reign--which might
with justice be called the reign of terror so far as gothic plate
was concerned--Thomas Cromwell, representing the king as vicegerent
and vicar-general, paid a formal visit to the college. Perhaps the
authorities, scenting the coming storm, thought that the presentation
to him of a standing salt from the college plate chest might prove a
politic precaution; for in the records this entry occurs: ‘Sol. pro
reparacione unius salsarii dat. Mro Cromwell secretario Dn̄i Regis pro
favore suo habendo in causis Collegii v_s_. x_d_.’ A few weeks later,
when the king was at Wolvesey Castle, two oxen, ten sheep, and twelve
capons were sent to him and graciously accepted. Whether on account
of the gift of the salt to Cromwell, or of the offering of sheep and
chickens, Henry VIII spared the college plate; his indulgence in this
respect is proved when it is seen, from the following inventory taken
in 1525 of the secular college plate, how great the temptation must
have been:--
Oz.
Six silver goblets, one silver-gilt cover, the gift of
Dr. Young 82
Three silver-gilt cups, with one silver-gilt cover, the
gift of Mr. Ashborne 84
A silver standing cup with gilt lid, the gift of Roger
Mapull 29
Do., the gift of Dr. Lavender 26½
Do., the gift of Dr. Mayhew 21½
Do., the gift of Clyff, Fromond’s chaplain 18¼
Two silver-gilt cups and covers, called the Rose pieces 36¼
A great silver cup with gilt cover, the gift of Andrew
Hulse 66
Two silver standing cups, with gilt covers, the gift of
Mr. Ashborne 46½
A silver standing cup with cover, three hounds at its foot 21½
A silver standing cup with cover and an eagle on it 26½
A silver-gilt cup called ‘le spice dyssh,’ enamelled 12
Three silver cups with one cover, the gift of Warden
Cleve 118
A silver cup and cover 16½
Three silver cups and one cover, marked ‘T’ and ‘A’
on the bottom 23½
A silver basin with the founder’s arms 52
A silver ewer with a hare on its top 16
A silver basin and ewer with the founder’s arms, the
gift of Warden Cleve 115½
A silver basin and ewer with the founder’s arms, the
gift of Warden Cleve 113
A silver basin, the gift of Hugh Sugar 43
A silver basin and ewer 53
Two silver pots 44½
Two silver salts and one silver cover 36
Four silver salts and one silver cover 64½
Three silver-gilt spoons 5¼
Twelve silver spoons with ‘pinnacles’ 14
Twelve silver spoons, six marked ‘Margarett,’ six marked
‘Batt’ 16
Twelve silver spoons with a mayden’s hedde 15
Eleven silver spoons marked with a lion 11
Fourteen silver spoons with a diamond 8
Twenty-four silver spoons, eighteen with an acorn and
six with pinnacles 25
Three silver spoons with a diamond 2½
Twelve silver spoons with round 18¼
Twelve silver spoons with a diamond 9
Fifteen silver spoons 13½
A nutt with a blue knoppe and cover.
A nutt and cover with three stags at its foot.
A nutt and cover with silver knoppe.
A nutt with a cover and a round knoppe.
A nutt and cover marked ‘B.’
Six nutts and five covers.
¶ There is also an inventory of what was given to the college chapel
by Wykeham and other benefactors, consisting of silver plate and gilt
3,892 oz., gold plate and articles in gold 91⅞ oz., which Henry VIII
must have found even more difficult to resist. Out of the amount of
gothic plate mentioned in these two inventories but one piece remains;
this is the so-called ‘Election Cup’ illustrated on Plate I. ¶ The
death of Henry VIII in 1547 relieved the college from the threatened
danger of dissolution, but not from the sequestration of its plate;
the blow fell in the sixth and seventh year of Edward VI, when the
plate was seized, together with all the plate and other ornaments
belonging to the ‘cathedrall churche and other parishes and chapells
within the said cytie of Winchester.’ The different ‘parcells’ are
minutely described in the indenture that forms a receipt, and beautiful
‘parcells’ they must have been. ¶ The college was honoured by a visit
from Queen Mary on the occasion of her marriage with Philip, which took
place in Winchester cathedral in 1554, and it received small gifts of
alms from the royal couple; but neither Mary nor Elizabeth attempted
to make good the confiscation of plate that had taken place during
their brother’s reign. However, in 1565 the college began once more
to accumulate plate, and amongst other things bought a ‘pousshe-pot
for wine.’ Some few of these purchases and presentations are still in
existence, and are given in the illustrations, but the greater
part disappeared in various ways during the seventeenth century. As an
instalment towards replacing this, Dr. Nicolas, a warden, presented
in 1861 a large silver-gilt bowl and two silver-gilt salvers, and
that others were prompted to follow his example is proved by the fine
specimens of Charles II silver still in possession of the college.
At the beginning of the next century Dr. Burton became head-master,
and consolidated the branch of the school known as commoners. As many
of these pupils were of noble birth, a special and well-appointed
table was kept for their use, and much of the older plate was in
1740 condemned to the melting-pot in order to provide the necessary
silver forks, spoons, etc., for the use of these fashionable young
gentlemen. It was Dr. Burton’s practice to accept gifts of portraits
and plate from his pupils in place of what was termed ‘leaving money’;
on his death he bequeathed the portraits to the college, but not the
presentation plate, some of which still exists as the property of his
descendants, and was exhibited at the Fine Arts Society last winter.
[Illustration: Plate II
PARCEL GILT ROSE-WATER DISH AND EWER, WITH TOP OF THE COVER OF THE
EWER, BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
[Illustration: PLATE III
SWEETMEAT DISH AND GILT STANDING-SALT BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
[Illustration: GILT CUP WITH COVER BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
From the slight records from which it is possible to gain information,
and for which I am much indebted to Mr. T. F. Kirby (the bursar) and
Mr. M. J. Rendall, it is very evident that at one time Winchester
College was unusually rich in plate, and it is most interesting to have
brought to light the few beautiful specimens that still remain, for
not only were silver lovers unaware of its existence, but the college
authorities had little notion of the rarity and value of their pieces.
They are all in an extraordinarily fine state of preservation, and have
not suffered in any way from repairing or regilding. It is a source of
comfort that, belonging to such an institution as Winchester College,
they are beyond the reach of the American millionaire, and will receive
all proper care from the authorities. As the plate is so little known,
I have thought it best to describe each important piece in catalogue
form.
_Plate I._--Silver-gilt cup with cover, called ‘The Election Cup’;
height, 17½ ins.; diameter, 6½ ins.; weight, 69 oz. 9 dwt. The bowl,
which resembles in shape the Anathema and Leigh cups, is moveable, and
attaches to the stem by a double socket and flange; it is embossed
with decorated and graduated escallops on a matted ground. The stem
is of channelled and truncated form, finishing in palm-like points
where it meets the bowl and foot, which is similar in decoration to
the rest of the cup. The base is edged by an open scrolled moulding
formed of leaves surmounted by a ladder moulding, finishing in a very
bold and unusually tall cresting. The cover to this remarkable cup is
of cupola shape, rising to a slender shaft fashioned like the stem and
necked by a cinque-foil; this supports a Tudor crown, the cap showing
a surface once filled in with enamel; the finials and bands belonging
to the crown are missing. The cover is embossed in the same manner as
the bowl, and bordered with the same moulding and tall cresting as the
base, pierced in both cases to hold precious stones, which are now
replaced by coloured glass. The cup is in remarkable preservation, and
has its original gilding. It has no hall-marks, but is, without doubt,
English, circa 1520; the boldness of the cresting and workmanship,
together with the shape of the bowl, exactly coincides with the few
contemporary English pieces in existence. It was presented by Warden
More in 1523, and is the sole remaining piece from the wonderful store
of gothic plate once possessed by the college.
_Plate II._--A rose-water dish, parcel gilt, 16 ins. in diameter;
weight, 48 oz. II dwt.; hall-mark, London 1562; maker’s mark, a
unicorn’s head in a shield. The border of the dish, which is gilt, and
2 ins. in width, is engraved with panels of strapwork and arabesques,
enclosing the words, in Lombardic lettering, RADOLPHUS HENSLOWE
A^o DNI 1563 CUI DEUS RETRIBUAT IN ILL DIE HANC PELVIM CUM SUO
GUTTURNIO DE NOVO FECIT. The centre is composed of one boss raised
on another enclosing a print bearing the Wykeham arms enamelled in
their tinctures; argent two chevronels sable, between three roses
gules, barbed and seeded proper within a garb. Round the lower base
runs the legend, also in Lombardic lettering, MANERS MAKET MAN QUOTHE
WYLLYAM WYKEHAM. The face of this boss is decorated with baskets of
fruit and trophies of arms in repoussé, gilt on a matted ground; the
bason of the dish is of plain silver. ¶ The companion ewer, with cover
(height, 8½ ins.; weight, 47 oz. 11 dwt., and with marks the same as
dish), is of unusually beautiful proportions. The cover, of depressed
form, is surmounted by a rosace finial containing the Wykeham arms
in enamel; the rest of the cover is embossed with baskets of fruit
and trophies of arms. The body of the ewer is cylindrical, and this,
as well as the narrow spout, is decorated at the top and centre with
gilt bands of scrolled arabesques, enclosing engraved medallions of
heads in the foreign taste. The stem is fluted, and the foot covered
with a repoussé of a lion’s mask and human heads in cartouches between
bunches of fruit, and is edged with reeded and ovolo mouldings. The
billet is formed of two masks in profile enclosing a bunch of leaves,
and the graceful bow handle is engraved down the back with panels of
arabesques. This beautiful dish and ewer much resemble those belonging
to Lord Newton, of Lyme, exhibited in 1902 at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club, and possess all the characteristics of the finest Elizabethan
work. Both dish and ewer are in perfect preservation, and have the
original parcel gilding.
_Plate IIIa._--Sweetmeat dish of tazza shape; diameter, 7 ins.; height,
5 ins.; weight, 15 oz. 9 dwt.; hall-mark, London 1594. The bowl is
engraved on the inside, with two bands of strapwork enclosing panels of
arabesque design; the centre is of similar decoration surrounded by a
double strap. The stem is plain save for an embossed ring indented with
dotted lines, the same decoration being repeated on the foot between a
double strap, and connected to the stem by a ladder moulding. The piece
is singularly simple in its ornamentation, and it should be observed
how much of its beauty is dependent on the perfection of the plain line
engraving. These dishes were used for sweetmeats and handed to the
guests; the tazza form was taken from the Italian and French dishes
that were so much in vogue in those countries during the sixteenth
century.
_Plate IIIb._--Small standing salt, gilt; height, 4½ ins.; weight, 15
oz. 9 dwt.; hallmark, London 1596. It is in the form of a hexagonal
plinth; the panels forming the sides are filled with an upright design
of foliated arabesques in low relief on a matted ground, divided at the
angles by a plain ribbed moulding, connected at the top and base by a
fine ladder moulding between two fillets; the top and base coincide in
design, and are composed of a slight ogee embossed with a lea moulding
of Persian origin. The simple repetition of design throughout this
little standing salt constitutes its charm, each space being most
admirably filled. The cover to this salt is, unfortunately, missing;
it would probably have been of cupola shape, bearing a vase finial
surmounted by a little figure.
_Plate IIIc._--Cup with cover, gilt; height, 11¼ ins.; diameter of
bowl, 9½ ins.; both hall-marked London 1682; maker’s mark, ‘R. L.’ in
a shield over a fleur-de-luce; weight, 118 oz. 15 dwt. The cup, which
stands on a base ¾ in. in height, is of porringer shape, decorated with
a surbase of upright and repoussé acanthus, alternating with plain
leaves in lower relief; above this in fine line engraving are the
Poulett arms within a mantling of acanthus, and the inscription, ‘Ex
dono prænobilis Caroli Dm̄i Marchionis Winton,’ etc. The scroll handles
are cast solid, and terminate in animals’ heads.
[Illustration: ~Plate IV~
_a_ _b_
ROSE WATER DISH AND EWER, AND SMALL GILT STANDING CUP AND COVER
BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
[Illustration: ~Plate V~
_c_ _b_ _a_
TWO TANKARDS AND STANDING SALT BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
The cover is of flattened form and plain except for a central
enrichment of acanthus in a spiral design, and finishes in an
open-worked knop of the same leaves. The condition of this unusually
large porringer cup is surprising. It has the original gilding, and
the sharp yet round modelling of the ornament shows to what perfection
this form of decoration was carried. The rapid deterioration of this
acanthus design in William III’s reign goes far towards explaining
the reason for its lasting such a short period. The acanthus scrolled
handles are a little small for the otherwise perfect proportions of
this very remarkable cup.
_Plate IVa._--Rose-water dish; diameter, 17¼ ins.; weight, 63 oz.; no
hall mark; maker’s mark, monogram C. R. in a shield; date, circa 1613.
The dish is quite plain, with an engraved line on the edge. The arms
per pale of Winchester College and the donor are engraved on the centre
boss, round which runs the inscription, ‘Ex dono Georgii Rives Sacræ
Theologiæ Doct. huius Collegii socii deinde Novi Coll. custodis in usum
quotidianum Vicecustodis istius Coll. prope Winton Anno Domini 1613.’
The companion ewer of same date, with same maker’s mark; height, 7⅛
ins.; diameter, 4½ ins.; weight, 23 oz. 10 dwt. This is also perfectly
plain, with wide bow handle and long curved spout; the foot is of
trumpet shape spreading to a plain stepped base. Both dish and ewer are
good examples of the plain plate that was slowly coming into fashion in
this country during the early part of the seventeenth century.
_Plate IVb._--Small standing cup and cover, gilt; height, 14. ins.;
hall-mark, London 1632; maker’s mark, P. C. over a rose in a shield.
The bowl of the cup is matted with a broad plain border at the lip,
round which runs the inscription, ‘Ex dono Hugonis Barker legū Doctoris
olim huius Collegii Scholaris ac Consanguinei fundatoris eiusdem
Collegii ac eo nomine in numerū Scholariū eiusdem admissi.’ Below
this in a circle are engraved the arms of the donor. The stem is of
baluster shape usual to the cups of this period, and plain save for a
matting on the knop, and where it joins the foot there is a repoussé
ornament of small leaves; the base is composed of simple mouldings. The
cover is of cupola shape with a wide brim; the surface is decorated
with a matted ground, and the whole is surmounted by a plain finial of
vase-shaped form. This plain plate with a granulated or matted surface
was much made in the north of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, and was
probably introduced into this country through the influence of Anne of
Denmark, the queen of James I.
_Plate Va._--Tankard and cover; height, 7 ins.; weight, 34 oz. 11 dwt.;
marks, London 1614; maker’s mark, O. S., with pellets in a shield. This
early Jacobean tankard is plain throughout and of globular or tankard
form. Round the neck runs a band on which is engraved ‘Facile contemnit
omnia qui semper cogitat se esse moriturum.’ As an additional emphasis
of this sad but true remark, the billet of the cover is formed of a
human skull holding a scroll between its teeth, and on the body of the
tankard is engraved the arms of the donor with the inscription, ‘Ex
dono Johanis Bolney quondā de sanguine fundatoris Jstius Collegii St.
Marie Winton Aō dm̄ni 1614.’ The handle is depressed in the bow and
finishes in a square whistle end. Tankards or flagons of this shape are
extremely rare, and owe the origin of their form to the stoneware jug
of Tudor days.
_Plate Vb._--Standing salt; height, 6½ ins.; diameter, 9 ins. at top,
q¼ ins. at base; weight, 47 oz. 5 dwt.; marks, London 1664; maker’s
mark undecipherable. The salt is plain, cylindrical, and of X form;
the three short curved arms that spring from the slightly convex top
were intended to hold a napkin to protect the salt, or, as is to be
seen in pictures of the time, for the support of a small dish for
olives or caviare. On the fine trumpet sweep of the base are engraved
the arms of Wykeham and of the donor within feather mantling, and the
inscription, ‘Legatum M^{r̄i} Michaelis Bold M. Art Collegij Btae
Mariae Winton.’ The edge is finished in a simple half-round and step
moulding.
_Plate Vc._--Tankard with lid, parcel gilt; height, 6 ins.; weight,
25 oz. 9 dwt.; marks, London 1649. The tankard is cylindrical and
straight-sided, hooped and staved in imitation of a barrel; the lid
is quite flat, and engraved with the arms of the see within a garter;
the billet is of half skull type, and the curious short handle is of
rectangular and irregular form. The barrel decoration at this date
(the first year of the Commonwealth) is unusual to find, although the
fashion was much adopted towards the end of the same century. The
parcel gilding is original.
_Plate VIa._--Steeple cup and cover, gilt; total height, 19 ins.;
height of cup, 12 ins.; weight, 38 oz. 5 dwt.; marks, London 1615;
maker’s mark, T. F. in monogram in a shield. The cover is surmounted by
a perforated spire of graceful proportions, supported on three brackets
of female form. The cover and cup are decorated with scrolled acanthus
and fruit in low relief and fine line engraving; the stem is of the
composite character usual to these cups, and bears the last traces of
Renaissance influence. The cup, although in excellent preservation, has
been regilt. There are many steeple cups of this type in existence, but
few are so happy in their proportions as this specimen.
_Plate VIb._--Tall standing cup or hanap with cover. Total height, 24
ins.; cup without cover, 17¼ ins.; diameter, 8⅛ ins.; weight, 124 oz.
17 dwt.; marks, London 1680; maker’s mark, T. C. with a fish and a
_fleur de luce_ in a shield. The bowl of this very tall standing cup is
plain in shape, ornamented with a surbase of upright acanthus, above
which runs an embossed laurelled band; above and below this band are
the following inscriptions in Greek and Latin:--
κρᾶσις ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος
Sivè
Poculum Charitatis
In Usum
Collegij B^{tae} Mariae Winton
propè Winton
The stem is of ordinary baluster shape, engraved and chased with
laurelling and acanthus. The base and cover resemble each other in
their decoration, and the latter ends in a mushroom-shaped finial,
from which spring two arms supporting a heart. This form of standing
cup was universal from 1640 to 1690, and, though deficient in artistic
construction, possesses interest as being the last recognized design of
loving cup mounted on to a tall stem.
_Plate VII._--Ecclesiastical plate belonging to the college chapel. Two
chalices with covers, gilt; marks, London 1611; maker’s mark, R. P. in
a shield over a _fleur de luce_. These are perfectly plain and of the
type that was usual during the first years of the seventeenth century.
The two tall flagons are of tankard shape, gilt; marks, London 1627;
maker’s mark, R. S. over a heart. These tankards are of a shape that
was common to both ecclesiastical and secular use, the entasis of the
drum, on which are engraved the arms of the donor per pale with those
of the college, gives great elegance to its tall and plain columnar
form, and the mouldings to the petticoat base are unusually sharp
and well proportioned. The large alms dish is gilt; width, 17¼ ins.;
marks, London 1681; maker’s mark illegible. The dish is plain, but
edged with a reeded moulding; on the border is engraved an inscription
set in feather mantling between the arms of Wykeham and those of the
donor. There are many other pieces of ecclesiastical and secular plate
belonging to the college for which there is not space here. These
consist of chalices, patens, salvers, porringers and tankards, which,
although of great merit, are not of corresponding interest to the
pieces represented in the illustrations.
[Illustration: ~PLATE VI~
_a_ _b_
STEEPLE-CUP AND HANAP BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
[Illustration: ~PLATE VII~
ECCLESIASTICAL PLATE BELONGING TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE]
A NEWLY DISCOVERED ‘LIBRO DI RICORDI’ OF ALESSO BALDOVINETTI
❧ WRITTEN BY HERBERT P. HORNE ❧
PART II
By a strange coincidence those paintings in the ‘Cappella Maggiore’
of Santa Trinita to which the entries in Alesso’s ‘Ricordi, Libro
B,’ refer, have alone been preserved of all the frescoes once in the
chapel, with the exception of some fragments of the lunettes on the
lateral walls. The last but one of these entries records the purchase
of cinnabar for the wings of the seraphim on the soffit of the arch
opening into the ‘Crociera.’[51] The first entry in ‘Libro B’ is dated
March 9, 1470-1; but according to an abstract of an entry in ‘Libro
A,’ Alesso ‘received the commission to paint the “Cappella Maggiore”
of Santa Trinita from Bongianni Gianfigliazzi, for 200 gold ducats, on
July 1, 1471, and undertook to finish the work within the period of
five to seven years.’[52] The latter date, no doubt, was that of the
execution of the ‘writing,’ subscribed by the hand of Misser Bongianni,
which Alesso held, and to which he refers in the ‘ricordo’ on the
first page of ‘Libro B.’ In the interval between these two dates the
painter began the cartoons for the figures of the prophets and the
other ornaments of the vault. On April 28, 1471, he bought ‘16 quires
of coarse paper (_carta da straccia_) in royal folio, at 5 soldi the
quire, for making the “spolverizzi” of the prophets and the other
“spolverizzi” that occur in the said vault.’ The ‘spolverizzi’ properly
were the outlines pounced upon the plaster, by means of the pricked
cartoon; but here, by a figure of speech, Alesso clearly intends the
cartoons themselves. The more usual method of transferring a cartoon
was to trace the outlines, by means of a metal style, on to the fresh
plaster, as Vasari recommends.[53] Pricked cartoons seem to have been
more commonly employed in the case of embroideries and ‘drappi.’[54] ¶
Having in the meantime purchased certain colours for the work, Alesso,
at length, on August 29, 1471, paid various sums for moving the boxes
containing his colours, etc., into chapel, and for the purchase of
brushes and pipkins in preparation for the actual painting of the
vault. There are two entries of that date: the first records that he
bought ‘from Bernardino di Ventura, the pencil-maker, 58 pencils of
minever, between coarse and fine, one with another, great and small,’
costing, lire 1 soldi 12; the second, that he spent, ‘between new
pipkins and small pots, and hogs’-hair and pack thread for making
pencils of hogs’-hair, and for the carriage of chests and trestles
for the work of painting the said chapel, lire 3 soldi 5.’ Alesso,
however, does not appear to have proceeded very far with the actual
painting of the vault until the following spring; for on April 12,
1472, he records that he bought ‘five pounds of azzurro della Magnia
(namely, biadetto) for making the bed under the fine blue, and this
I bought from Lorenzo di Piero, the painter, in Borgo Sant’Apostoli,
at the price of 5 soldi the ounce.’[55] This ‘biadetto’ was probably
identical with the ‘sbiadato’ mentioned by Cennini, in a passage in
which he says, that ‘a blue like sbiadato, and very similar to azzurro
della Magnia,’ may be made with indigo and white, ‘biacca’ or ‘bianco
sangiovanni.’[56] Alesso would seem to have painted _a fresco_ the blue
backgrounds behind the figures of the prophets on the vault with this
‘biadetto,’ using it as a ‘bed’ for the fine azzurro della Magnia,
which he afterward applied _a secco_.[57] It cost one-fifth, or even
less, of the genuine azzurro della Magnia, and, no doubt, resembled
it in colour. The genuine azzurro della Magnia seems to have been not
easily obtainable in Florence; and Alesso is generally careful to
record how he came by his purchases. On March 7, 1470-1, according to
the first entry in ‘Libro B,’ he bought ‘2 pounds 9 ounces of azzurro
di Magnia from Cardinale del Bulletta, at the price of 26 soldi the
ounce’; and on the 12th of the same month, 4 pounds 2½ ounces, at 33
soldi the ounce. On April 31, 1471, he bought 1 pound 7 ounces, ‘from a
German, in a bladder,’ at 31 soldi the ounce. ‘On 25 day of September,
1472,’ records Alesso, ‘I bought 2 pounds of azzurro di Magnia from
Giovanni d’Andrea, glazier, at the price of 25 soldi the ounce; he
said it belonged to a gossip of his, a courier, who brought it from
Venice: the said Giovanni wanted 4 soldi to go drinking with.’ This
Giovanni d’Andrea was the glazier who, in partnership with Il Lastra,
had executed the window of the ‘Cappella Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita,
from Alesso’s design. Finally, on January 13, 1472-3, Alesso bought
2 pounds 10 ounces, ‘from a Pole,’ at 20 soldi the ounce; ‘a clear,
beautiful, finely-ground blue,’ he adds with satisfaction. At that time
the painter was about to begin the lunettes on the lateral walls of the
chapel. ¶ Cennini calls azzurro della Magnia ‘a natural colour that is
found in and around silver lodes.’ ‘Much,’ he adds, ‘is obtained in
Germany [La Magnia, whence its name], and also in the country about
Siena.’[58] Milanesi, in the notes to his edition of Cennini, says
that this blue was an oxide of cobalt; but Mrs. Herringham, with more
probability, identifies the colour with blue carbonate of copper,
commonly called blue verditer: in the same way, she identifies ‘verde
azzurro,’ which Cennini says was made artificially from ‘azzurro della
Magnia,’ with green verditer, which is also a carbonate of copper.[59]
Alesso records in ‘Libro B,’ that, on March 20, 1470-1, he bought 6
pounds of ‘verde azzurro,’ at 14 soldi the ounce. ¶ It is worthy of
remark that in a work of the importance of these frescoes, executed for
so wealthy a patron as Messer Bongianni Gianfigliazzi, Alesso should
not have used ultramarine, but a blue which cost but a twentieth part
of that ‘noble, beautiful, and most perfect beyond all colours.’[60]
According to the entries cited above, Alesso bought his azzurro della
Magnia at prices varying from 20 soldi to 33 soldi the ounce.
Few other colours are specified by name in these ‘Ricordi.’ On May 24,
1471, Alesso purchased 4 pounds 5 ounces of yellow, namely, ‘arzicha,’
at 13 soldi the ounce. Cennini calls ‘arzica’ a colour chemically
produced and little used, but more at Florence than elsewhere. He adds
that it perishes on exposure to the air, and is not good for walls,
but mixed with a little azzurro della Magnia and giallorino it makes
a beautiful green.[61] Mrs. Herringham suggests that ‘arzica’ may be
massicot, called azarcon in Spain.[62] ¶ On September 1, 1471, Alesso
bought 5 ounces of fine lake at 14 soldi the ounce. The colour was
probably used for the purple robe of the David. Lastly, on September
14, 1472, he bought ‘8 ounces of fine cinnabar to make the cherubim of
the arch before the said chapel,’ at 2 soldi 8 danari the ounce. This
was the vermilion for the wings of the seraphim, which still remain on
the soffit on the arch. ¶ By June 1472 the painting of the vault had so
far advanced that Alesso began to buy the gold for the ornaments. On
June 13 he bought from Domenico, the gold-beater, 1,700 pieces of fine
gold ‘laid upon tin-foil,’ for lire 61; on June 15, from Giovanni, the
gold-beater, called Il Rosso, 500 pieces, also on foil, for lire 18;
on June 23, 4,000 pieces of fine gold, at 3 lire 4 soldi the hundred,
from a Genoese; and on June 28, 86 sheets of yellow foil, on which
to lay the gold, for lire 8. Lastly, on July 9, 1472, he bought ‘8
pounds of liquid varnish, to apply them upon the vault, namely, the
ornaments of fine gold.’ In all this Alesso appears to have followed
the method set forth by Cennini, in cap. 99 of his ‘Trattato.’[63] ¶
But one other entry in these ‘Ricordi’ calls for any remark: on July
24, 1471, Alesso ‘bought four pounds of linseed oil at the price of 4
soldi the pound.’ What purpose was this oil intended to serve? Was it
for some oil ‘tempera’? Vasari, speaking of these paintings of Santa
Trinita, says that ‘Alesso laid them in _a fresco_, and afterwards
finished them _a secco_, tempering the colours with yolk of egg, mixed
with liquid varnish made over the fire’; he adds that Alesso ‘thought
that this tempera would protect the paintings against damp; but it
was of so strong a nature that where it has been applied freely the
work has in many places flaked away, and so, whereas he thought to
have found a rare and most beautiful secret, he remained deceived by
his opinion.’[64] Without attempting to discuss the nature of the
‘tempera’ which is here described, I may recall the fact that Domenico
Veneziano, who was undoubtedly Alesso’s master, is celebrated by Vasari
on account of ‘the new method which he employed of colouring in oil’;
and the books of the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova record payments for
very considerable quantities of linseed oil which that master used for
the lost paintings in the ‘Cappella Maggiore’ of Sant’ Egidio.[65]
Domenico, no doubt, possessed the secret of some improvement upon the
old method of painting in oil on walls, which Cennino Cennini, who
describes it at length in the ‘Libro dell’ Arte,’ cap. lxxxix.–cap.
xciv., says ‘was much in use among the Germans.’ ¶ Alesso, as I have
said, originally undertook, on July 1, 1471, to paint the ‘Cappella
Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita for 200 gold florins, and to finish the
work within a period of five to seven years. It was not, however,
until January 19, 1496-97, after an interval of more than twenty-five
years, that the total amount to be paid him for finished work was
estimated by Cosimo Rosselli, Benozzo Gozzoli, Pietro Perugino and
Filippino Lippi at 1,000 gold florins.[66] In other words, Alesso had
spent upon the work five times the minimum period originally stipulated
for its completion, and he was awarded five times the original sum
for which he had undertaken to complete the chapel. Two causes appear
to have contributed to this delay. The one was that Alesso’s method
of laying-in his paintings _a fresco_, and finishing them _a secco_,
admitted of endless elaboration, and a consequent expenditure of time,
which pure fresco painting did not admit of. The other was, that
shortly after receiving the commission for the chapel Alesso appears
to have turned his attention to reviving the art of mosaic, which
had almost died out in Florence. We first hear of Alesso working in
mosaic in 1481, in which year he restored the figures on the façade
of San Miniato a Monte.[67] In 1483 he was appointed by the consuls
of the Arte de’ Mercanti to restore the mosaics in the tribune of the
baptistery of San Giovanni, ‘there being no one, in all the dominion
and jurisdiction of Florence, but he, who then understood that art’: in
consideration of which the consuls resolved to convey to him, ‘for the
term of his natural life, such real property as would yield 30 florins
yearly, upon the condition that he bound himself, so long as he lived,
to repair and restore the mosaics of San Giovanni.’[68] In accordance
with this resolution two houses in the Piazza di San Giovanni,
belonging to the Arte de’ Mercanti, were assigned to Alesso on February
26, 1483-4,[69] and by two instruments of the same date, engrossed by
the notary, Ser Giovanni di Jacopo de’ Migliorelli, Alesso re-leased
the two houses to the persons who were already in possession of them
at the date of the assignment. These instruments are printed, for the
first time, in the appendix to this article.[70] ¶ The decoration of
the ‘Cappella Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita, and the restoration of the
mosaics in the baptistery of San Giovanni and San Miniato a Monte,
appear to have almost entirely engrossed the last thirty years of
Alesso’s life. During that time we hear of no work of importance
undertaken by him, with the exception of the lost altar-piece of Sant’
Ambrogio, which he began in 1470. Messer Bongianni Gianfigliazzi died
on November 7, 1484, and was buried in his chapel at Santa Trinita,
long before Alesso had brought its frescoes to a conclusion.[71]
The work, however, was continued at the instance of his son, Jacopo
Gianfigliazzi; and Stefano Rosselli records in his ‘Sepoltuario
Fiorentino,’ that at the time he was writing, c. 1657, the basement of
Alesso’s altar-piece in the ‘Cappella Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita bore
the inscription: ‘Jacobus Gianfigliazzius Bongiannis Equitis Fil_ius_,
sua erga De_um_ Pietate.’[72] ¶ Of the paintings that once decorated
the walls of this chapel we possess but some partial and imperfect
accounts. Vasari, to whom we chiefly owe the meagre notices which are
extant, says that they consisted of ‘stories from the Old Testament.’
Alesso, he says, ‘drew many portraits from the life; and in the story
of the aforesaid chapel [of Santa Trinita], in which he represented
the Queen of Sheba going to hear the wisdom of Solomon, he drew
Lorenzo de’ Medici, the Magnificent, who was father of Pope Leo X, and
Lorenzo dalla Volpaia, a most excellent master of dials, and a great
astrologer.’ ‘In another story which is opposite to this, Alesso drew
Luigi Guicciardini the elder, Luca Pitti, Diotisalvi Neroni, Giuliano
de’ Medici, father of Pope Clement VII; and next to the stone pilaster
[of the arch opening into the church] Gherardo Gianfigliazzi the elder,
and Messer Bongianni, knight, wearing a blue habit and a collar round
his neck, together with Jacopo and Giovanni of the same family. Near to
these last are Filippo Strozzi and Messer Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli,
astrologer.’[73] What the subject of this latter story may have been,
we do not now know. According to Giovanni Cinelli, in his edition
of the ‘Bellezze di Firenze,’ published in 1677, the other story of
the Queen of Sheba was on the left wall of the chapel, ‘dal Corno
del Vangelo.’ Cinelli, after quoting this passage from Vasari, adds
that ‘in the angle of the choir, on the left side, there is painted a
Cain in the act of striking his brother Abel, a figure which is very
admirable in its attitude, and which expresses in its countenance the
malice and hatred which Cain bore in his heart towards his brother:
and it is greatly esteemed by the connoisseurs; so much so, that when
the cardinal of the serene house of Este came to Florence and visited
this church, he desired to see and consider with attention so fine a
painting.’[74]
[Illustration: _Photograph by Alinari_
THE PAINTINGS OF ABRAHAM, NOAH, MOSES, AND DAVID BY ALESSO BALDOVINETTI
ON THE VAULT OF THE CAPPELLA MAGGIORE OF SANTA TRINITA AT FLORENCE]
Already, when Vasari wrote in 1568, the frescoes in the ‘Cappella
Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita ‘had begun to flake away in many
places.’[75] The last writer to allude to their indifferent condition
is Giuseppe Richa, who speaks of them as ‘not a little consumed and
spoiled by time.’[76] That was in 1755; five years later, in 1760,
Alesso’s ‘stories’ were ruthlessly destroyed or covered with whitewash,
and the walls of the chapel decorated with ‘stucchi’ in the taste of
the time.[77] During the recent restoration of the church, in 1890-7,
the paintings of the four patriarchs on the vault of the chapel, the
seraphim on the soffit of the vault, and the fragments of the lunettes
on the lateral walls of the chapel, were found under the whitewash,
and restored by Signor Dario Chini. [Plate III.] ¶ The vault itself
is divided into four triangular compartments by the intersecting
ribs of the vault, which spring from the four corbels at the angles
of the chapel. In the compartment above the window of the chapel is
a seated figure of Noah, in an ample cloak of dark green, worn over
an under-dress of a reddish colour. He holds some object which is
now undecipherable in his right hand; and beside him, on the left,
is placed the ark. ¶ In the compartment above the left wall of the
chapel is a seated figure of Abraham clad in a yellow robe lined with
green, over an under-dress of vermilion. In his right hand he holds the
sacrificial knife, and at his feet kneels his son Isaac, bound and clad
in white. In the compartment above the right wall is a seated figure of
Moses, holding the two tables of the Law in his hands. The robe, which
falls over the knees of the figure, is vermilion in colour, and the
underdress appears to have been a dark leaf-green. In the compartment
above the arch is a seated figure of David playing upon a psaltery with
three sound-holes. He is attired in a purple mantle lined with green,
which almost entirely envelops his figure. The purple of this robe is
now much perished. All these four figures are relieved against blue
backgrounds, broken by rays of gold which appear to proceed from the
figures; and all the four compartments are surrounded by borders of
fruit and flowers upon a vermilion ground. The ribs of the vault are
painted with green foliage intertwined with a running ribbon, and the
keystone of the vault is blazoned with the arms of the Gianfigliazzi:
or, a lion rampant azure. On the soffit of the arch opening into the
chapel is painted, on a blue ground, the series of seraphim with
vermilion wings, to which allusion has already been made. ¶ In the
lunette on the left wall, immediately below the figure of Abraham, in
the vault, are the remains of a ‘story’ of the ‘sacrifice of Isaac.’
In the upper part of the picture, on some rising and rocky ground,
Abraham is seen turned towards the right, and kneeling before an altar.
This figure is in large part almost obliterated, and the figure of
the angel who appears to him in the sky, and that of Isaac upon the
altar, can now scarcely be made out. On the right of the painting,
however, there may still be seen a tree boldly designed against the
sky, recalling certain passages in Alesso’s painting of the Nativity
in the atrium of the Annunziata at Florence. The lower part of this
lunette has entirely perished. ¶ In the lunette on the opposite wall,
below the figure of the patriarch, in the vault, is a ‘story’ of ‘Moses
receiving the tables of the Law on Mount Sinai.’ The upper portion of
this painting alone remains in a ruined condition. On the top of the
mount Moses kneels, turned to the left. The figure is much damaged;
and that of God the Father, who appears to him out of the heavens, has
almost entirely disappeared. The bare mountain-top is broken by patches
of herbage, and around it may still be seen some cypresses, with other
foliage. ¶ Below each of these lunettes, on the lateral walls of the
chapel, appear to have been two other stories; but the subject of only
one of them has been recorded (as I have said) by Vasari, namely, the
visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon, which appears to have been
on the left wall of the chapel. The story of Cain killing his brother
Abel, recorded by Cinelli, was probably on the altar-wall beside the
window, in the left-hand corner. ¶ In the figures on the vault, Alesso
attains to a nobility of design, and a largeness of manner, which he
does not again reach in any extant work of his. That extreme research
for form, which so largely spoils our enjoyment of the altar-piece
which he painted for this chapel, does not detract, at all in the same
degree, from the severe beauty of these figures; for they possess a
charm both of conception and design which is little distinctive of
Alesso’s later manner, though akin to a certain grace and sweetness
in some of his earliest works. The attitudes of these ‘prophets old’
are very grandly imagined, especially that of the David, who looks up
as he touches his psaltery with a gesture that expresses a spiritual
ecstasy, with an admirable fineness and reticence. Indeed, these
figures are represented with a truth of character, and a refinement of
feeling, for which we vainly look in similar works by his more famous,
and more obviously gifted, pupil, Domenico Ghirlandaio; such as the
vaults of the ‘Cappella Maggiore’ of Santa Maria Novella, and of the
Sassetti chapel in Santa Trinita. To judge from these figures of the
four patriarchs, the destruction of the ‘stories’ which were below
them cannot sufficiently be deplored; the reputation of few Florentine
masters depended so largely on a single work as Alesso’s did upon this
chapel of the Gianfigliazzi. ¶ One other fragment of the ‘stories’
which once decorated the walls of this chapel has come down to us.
Giuseppe Richa, in his ‘Notizie Istoriche delle Chiese Fiorentine,’
after mentioning the various portraits to be found in these paintings,
adds: ‘all these figures are named by the writers of the life of
Alesso; but they do not allude to [the portrait of] a young man in the
angle of the choir, on the epistle side, who is represented in a red
habit, with a green cap on his head, and a white handkerchief in his
hands; and this is Alesso Baldovinetti, who portrayed himself as he
was, when a young man; and he, also, drew there the portrait of Guido
Baldovinetti, who was the man most gifted and renowned at that time in
his illustrious family.’[78] ¶ Domenico Maria Manni, in the notes to
his edition of ‘Baldinucci,’ published a few years after Richa’s work
had appeared, cites a certain ‘Memoriale’ of Francesco di Giovanni
di Guido Baldovinetti, written in the year 1513. According to this
‘Memoriale’ (from which, no doubt, Richa derived his notice of the
portrait in question) Alesso portrayed on the walls of the ‘Cappella
Maggiore’ of Santa Trinita, among many other noble citizens, ‘Guido
Baldovinetti, and, last of all, himself, wearing a _cioppone_ of faded
rose, and a handkerchief in his hand.’[79] Among the pictures which
Morelli bequeathed to the Accademia Carrara, at Bergamo, is a fragment
of a fresco, No. 23, containing the head of a man. It has been cut to
a round measuring 0.23 centm. in diameter. According to an inscription
on the back of the painting it is a portrait of Alesso Baldovinetti,
painted by himself and taken from an angle of the choir of Santa
Trinita in Florence.[80] There can be little doubt that this is the
head to which Francesco Baldovinetti referred in his ‘Memoriale,’ and
that it was cut from the walls of Santa Trinita when Alesso’s paintings
were destroyed in 1760; but whether it is a portrait of the painter is
a question which I must not here attempt to discuss.
[Illustration: A GROUP OF THREE, BY JAN MIENSE MOLENAER; IN THE
COLLECTION OF MR. EDGAR SPEYER (_See_ ~The Burlington Magazine~ for
June 1903, page 52)]
THE DUTCH EXHIBITION AT THE GUILDHALL
❧ ARTICLE II.--THE MODERN PAINTERS ❧
The collection of works of modern Dutch painters at the Guildhall is
much more representative than that of the old masters, and is likely
to be a revelation to those visitors who know only the few, and in
many cases inadequate, examples of modern Dutch works which have been
seen from time to time in London. In only one previous instance, that
of the Glasgow exhibition, has such a representative collection of
modern Dutch painters been brought together in this country. ¶ The
chief interest of the collection is to be found in the works of the
three brothers Maris and of Israels, for these painters are the leaders
of the school, and the rest, though not without individualities of
their own in technique and treatment, are followers. ¶ Joseph Israels
is represented at the Guildhall chiefly by works of his later period,
which are far better known in England than are the pictures in his
earlier manner, which can be studied best at Amsterdam; these latter
are distinguished by precision and detail rather than by the subtler
and more sympathetic treatment of his mature work. ¶ The largest
canvas of Israels shown is The Shipwrecked Fisherman (11), which,
though impressive and well balanced, has a certain stagey effect.
There are several tricks of technique, such as the parallel clouds
and sky, which, however, add not a little strength to the general
effect. Far superior to this picture is The Cottage Madonna (14), a
vigorous painting of a woman with a child in a characteristically Dutch
cottage interior. This fine work can hardly be considered a typical
example of Israels, not indeed because it falls short of his other
achievements, but rather for the opposite reason. It is a wonderful
piece of sympathetic painting, full of feeling and pathos, and without
those eccentricities which are apparent in such of his pictures as
A Jewish Wedding (95), interesting as being the last picture which
he has painted, and therefore reproduced here for this reason, but
lacking in the opinion of the present writer the surpassing merits
which many claim for it. It has become so much the mode to praise
equally all the work of a particular painter or a particular school,
that the sense of proportion and the power of discrimination have
almost become extinct and criticism has been undermined. No painter of
the modern Dutch school is more unequal than Israels, except perhaps
Mauve; and one feels that if he has almost risen to the level of a
great master in The Cottage Madonna, and perhaps in A Ray of Sunshine
(7) and The New Flower (82), there is a particular group of works
at the Guildhall which are sustained in estimation by the repute of
greater achievements. ¶ The case of Jacob Maris is quite otherwise. The
whole of his work is upon essentially legitimate lines, and inspires
a feeling that he never produced a picture from a less than worthy
motive. His pictures are full of the softness and delicacy of the Dutch
atmosphere, and most people would consider it incredible that none of
them were painted out-of-doors. Yet the present writer has been assured
by one of Maris’s intimate friends that this was the case; when a
particular view or picture struck him he was accustomed to stand with
his hands in his pockets, and the picture was painted entirely from
memory in his studio. Yet his works miss no essential truth. This stage
was not reached without much experimentalizing and profound study.
Jacob Maris began with a scrupulous striving after finish, which would
do credit to any of the little masters of Holland of the seventeenth
century. Take for example The Weary Watchers (90), painted in 1869,
in which the child is painted with the finish of a Metzu, and the cat
approaching the cradle with the minuteness of a Mieris. It is a long
jump from this picture to A Windmill, Moonlight (125), the last work
which he finished; but under the surface of the latter, in spite of
the apparent dash, we perceive not one whit less regard for essential
truth. ¶ There are three or four canvases at the Guildhall which
display Maris in his very finest mood. Many will, perhaps, consider
that the finest of all, at least as regards brush work, is Gathering
Seaweed (44). The sky with its immense grey white clouds, through
breaks in which glimpses of blue beyond are discernible, is the chief
factor in the picture. This is in every respect one of Maris’s finest
works, and he has never exceeded the delicious silveriness of sea and
sky and the sense of moisture in the breeze which he here gives us; his
rendering of the wet flat sand on which stand the horse and cart of the
seaweed gatherers has been equalled only by Bonington. ¶ Of somewhat
similar character is the beautiful little Storm Cloud (80), into which
he has infused much the same feeling; but another phase of Maris is
shown in the wonderful Bridge (92), which deservedly occupies a place
of honour on the walls of the Guildhall gallery. Across a typical
Dutch canal is thrown a wooden bridge, under which, away along the
placid canal, can be seen a distant quay abutted with houses; little
red-tiled houses fill the extreme left and right of the picture. It is
a simple motive which in strict accordance with the principles of the
painters of Holland demonstrates the innate beauty of the commonplace.
Quite equal to this, both for intensity of feeling and realization, is
the River and Windmill (101) on the side wall; the sense of stillness
and calm which pervades this work is typical of the tranquillity of a
mind whose sole delight was in nature and its portrayal. The artist is
equally successful in a very different way in the bold and powerful
Dutch Town (43), which seems to be a freely adapted view of Amsterdam.
This is one of his latest works, and was painted in 1898. There is a
delicate shimmer on the water with its lazy craft, and the ill-defined
buildings are developed in an atmosphere shrouded by haze and darkened
by smoke. These two works should be compared with The Ferry Boat
(81), painted in 1870, which owes something to Van Goyen and Soloman
Ruysdael; to his appreciation of the qualities of his predecessors, and
his study of their art, Maris’s own achievements must in great measure
be attributed. It is always unsafe to prophesy, but it is almost safe
to say that Jacob Maris’s reputation will last. ¶ The representation at
the Guildhall of Willem Maris is much less worthy, and a better series
of his works could surely have been obtained; but in one small panel,
Springtime (37), we have the best qualities of his art, and it may be
doubted whether in the representation of the delicate and poetical
charm of spring Willem Maris is surpassed even by Daubigny, except in
a very few pictures. The trees awaken from their winter slumber and
put forth in velvety green the leaves which hardly more than tinge the
brownness of trunk and branch. The stream swollen with the recent rain
affords refreshing drink to the cattle which have just emerged from
the copse on the right. The meadow, with its carpet of tender green
bordered by a row of pollard willows, recedes until it meets the sky
line. Light clouds float over the blue sky and betoken weather fair
but fickle. ¶ When one turns from these two kindred spirits to their
brother Matthew Maris one is struck by the contrast. For Matthew lifts
us at once from things earthly into a spiritual atmosphere; everything
that he touches he envelops in mysticism and poetry. Yet perhaps his
work is more difficult of appreciation; he appeals to a more exclusive
circle. Yet what magic contour of line, what exquisite rhythm, what
consummate balance of composition, we find in it. The Outskirts of a
Town (39), for instance, enveloped in a bewitching gloom,
commends itself to the artist and student, though not to the lover of
pyrotechnics. That fine canvas entitled Montmartre (40) is another
example of the same idealistic treatment. Among examples of his work
which particularly puzzle the public are such efforts as A Study (58)
and A Lady and Goats (59), the latter an idyl inadequately described
by its prosy title. But perhaps the essence of his art is to be found
in The Butterflies (62) and L’Enfant Couchée (70), which for typical
presentment and delicacy of colour are among his finest achievements.
[Illustration: THE ARCHIVES AT VEERE, BY JAN BOSBOOM; IN THE COLLECTION
OF MR. J. C. J. DRUCKER]
[Illustration: A JEWISH WEDDING, BY JOSEPH ISRAELS; IN THE COLLECTION
OF MR. J. C. J. DRUCKER]
[Illustration: A FANTASY, BY MATTHEW MARIS; IN THE COLLECTION OF MADAME
VAN WISSELINGH]
[Illustration: THE NEW FLOWER, BY JOSEPH ISRAELS; IN THE COLLECTION OF
MR. J. STAATS FORBES]
[Illustration: WATERING HORSES, BY ANTON MAUVE; IN THE COLLECTION OF
MR. J. C. J. DRUCKER]
[Illustration: THE CANAL BRIDGE, BY JACOB MARIS; IN THE POSSESSION OF
MESSRS. THOMAS AGNEW AND SONS]
[Illustration: A WINDMILL, MOONLIGHT, BY JACOB MARIS; IN THE COLLECTION
OF MR. J. C. J. DRUCKER]
[Illustration: THE BUTTERFLIES, BY MATTHEW MARIS; IN THE COLLECTION OF
MR. WILLIAM BURRELL]
We are back once more upon the earth when we come to Anton Mauve, of
whose works there are no less than twenty-one examples in the Guildhall
exhibition. With the exception of Joseph Israels, he is the most
unequal painter of modern Holland; there are occasions when he comes
near to equalling Jacob Maris at least in atmospherical effect, and yet
at other times he sinks into a mere technical repetition of his better
self. Of his best phase we could not have better illustrations than The
Hay Cart (2) and Driving in the Dunes (4). In both there is the same
feeling for truth, the same adaptation of technique to the necessities
of the occasion. Watering Horses (97) is another fine work, resplendent
with harmonies of green and grey, and showing the same feeling for
natural phenomena. ¶ After such work as that of the brothers Maris,
and Mauve, and occasionally Israels, one is inevitably disappointed
with Mesdag. Mesdag misses the mark not because of any deficiencies
in technique, but because his works lack that essential quality of
landscape painting--atmosphere. The consequence is that we never lose
sight of the paint; it is paint everywhere. This is all the more to be
regretted since he is a good draughtsman, and his scheme of colour is
often satisfactory and truthful; moreover he has a profound knowledge
of composition. Yet with all these qualities he generally fails. We do
not want a sunset sky full of prismatic glow, nor a sea shimmering
with opalescent tints, if we cannot feel that it is a real sky and a
real sea, and that something other than paint fills up the intervening
space. Mesdag’s deficiency is emphasized in the two pictures shown in
the present exhibition, A Stormy Sunset (28) and A Threatening Sky
(54), which give us nothing but the mere physical features of the
scene, and leave us with an undefinable yearning for something for
which we look in vain. ¶ The other men whose work is represented for
the most part owe what is best in their art to the greater lights
of their school. Of such is the work of Théophile de Bock, of which
Evening (17) is an example of a plagiarism on the school of 1830,
intermingled with a Dutch sentiment which renders it difficult to say
with certainty whether it should be classified as French or Dutch in
sentiment. That Bock has originality when it is brought into play is
amply demonstrated in An Avenue in Holland (94). The sunlit road with
its strongly painted trees conveys an admirable idea of summer heat
and foliage, in which the artist boldly achieves his aim without any
aid but his own sheer force. Such a work shows powers which are never
brought into full play when he attempts to see with other eyes. Apart
from landscape there is but little of interest in the exhibition.
An exception, however, must be made in favour of the fine canvas
by Christopher Bisschop, Prayer Disturbed (29), which is a strong
and powerful piece of painting, and also intensely sympathetic in
realization. Two other canvases are worthy of mention, that by Albert
Neuhuys, Near the Cradle (96), a fine representation of a cottage
interior painted with incisive truth and directness, and Bosboom’s
Archives at Veere (128), an excellent example of the interiors to which
he devoted himself; it has the spaciousness and grace characteristic
of the work of a painter than whom no modern artist has shown a keener
appreciation of the artistic possibilities of ancient buildings.
THE SEALS OF THE BRUSSELS GILDS[81]
❧ WRITTEN BY R. PETRUCCI ❧
MONSIEUR G. DES MAREZ, professor at the university and keeper of the
records of the city of Brussels, has drawn attention lately to three
seals which appeared to him to be worthy of special study. These
consist, first, of the matrix of the seal of the Gild of Barbers
in the fifteenth century, which forms part of the sigillographical
collection of the Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire; secondly, of the
silver matrix of the seal of the Gild of Butchers in the sixteenth
century, preserved in the archives of the city of Brussels; thirdly
and lastly, of the matrix of the seal of the Gild of Bakers, in the
private collection of M. Charles Lefébure: this last belongs, like the
first, to the fifteenth century. Now the Brussels gilds were never
called upon to seal deeds, a fact of which M. Des Marez was the better
aware as he had just obtained a gold medal from the Royal Academy of
Belgium for an important study, which is at this moment in the press,
on the organization of labour in Brussels during the fifteenth century.
Were the three existing matrices therefore false? And, if they did
in reality date from the period to which everything contributed to
ascribe them, how was their presence to be explained? Those were the
questions which M. Des Marez set himself to adjudge and upon which he
has succeeded in throwing a brilliant light. ¶ Thanks to M. Des Marez’
kindness, I have been able to take cognizance of his work and of the
seals upon which it bears. M. Des Marez’ study will not be published
until the end of August or September next, when it will appear in the
annals of the Archaeological Society. My readers will therefore be the
first to find here set forth the solution of an important historical
and archaeological question. ¶ The juridical incompetence of the
Brussels trading corporations is indisputable. In the second half of
the thirteenth century, the artisans began to lay down the outlines
of a corporate movement. This led to a privilege obtained from Duke
John by the patricians invested with power, by which the craftsmen
were subjected to their authority. The gilds were dependent upon the
town council for all that concerned the making of their rules and
regulations; at most, they enjoyed the right of presenting drafts
for the approval and sanction of the aldermen; they were not able to
sell, pledge or mortgage; and, although their wardens were invested
with certain police functions, their jurisdiction was nevertheless
extremely limited. Difficult cases were submitted to the judgement of
the aldermen, and in no case could the wardens of their own initiative
proceed to a forced execution upon the persons or goods of delinquents.
¶ The gild was unable to issue any act directly, and therefore the
use of a seal, the attributive mark of jurisdiction, is inexplicable.
Even the Drapers’ Gild was without it, although this gild constituted
a powerful administrative and jurisdictive machinery by the side of
the aldermen, of whom, at the time of its splendour, it was even
independent. It issued acts, which the trading corporations were not
able to do, and made regulations, far and near, for all those having
to do with the woollen manufactures or cloth-making. The absence of a
collective seal is to be explained, in this case, by the use made by
the deacons of their personal seals, a use proved by documents in which
it is explicitly mentioned. It was not until 1698 that the Drapers’
Gild ordered a collective seal to be made. The matrix of this seal is
lost, but there remains an impression of it affixed to one side of the
very sheet containing the text of the resolution relating to it, which
document is preserved in the archives of the kingdom, where I have
been able to consult it. ¶ The engraving of this seal is very poor. In
a circular field is St. Michael, clad in a Roman breast-plate, his legs
cased in buskins. His forehead is surmounted by a cross, and his wings
are unfolded. He brandishes a sword in his right hand. Lucifer lies
felled at his feet. St. Michael is seizing one of the demon’s horns
with his hand. Lucifer raises his right hand with a defending gesture;
his left arm is brought back against his body. He wears short wings,
one of which covers a part of the saint’s arm. His lower limbs end in
claws; a long tail is twined between his legs. The impression is made
on a paper pulp which was previously moistened. Above this was laid a
cut-out leaf of thin paper, on which the matrix of the seal was pressed
with force. The paper shows stains of mould; the reliefs are weak and
difficult to distinguish; to reproduce them by photography is almost
impossible. These circumstances, added to the fact that this piece has
absolutely no artistic value, account for the absence of a reproduction
in these pages. Between the two circular fillets that run around the
above figures is this inscription: SIGIL · DECANOR · ET OCTOJUDICUM
· GILDÆ · BRUXELLENSIS. (_Sigillum decanorum et octojudicium gildæ
bruxellensis._) The text of the resolution says that the seal shall
be inscribed with the words: _Sigillum collegii decanorum_, etc. The
engraver could not find room for the word _collegii_, and was obliged
to omit it. This is why a note added to the text of the resolution of
December 4, ordering the execution of the seal, declares that a true
impression of the seal is affixed on the other side and corrects the
text by suppressing the word _collegii_. I may also mention that,
whereas the seal shows the spelling GILDÆ, the text preserves the
old mediaeval spelling GILDE. ¶ We find, therefore, that one alone
of the corporations, the Drapers’ Gild, which was the most powerful,
did unquestionably possess a seal, but at a late date, at the end of
the seventeenth century. This innovation is due, on the one hand, to
modifications introduced into the expedition of the acts, involving
the abolition of the single or double parchment label separate from
the sheet itself and bearing the seal; on the other, to the fact that
the deacons abandoned the use of their personal seals, which served
as a signature in the middle ages, for the customary employment of a
manuscript signature. The personal seals of the deacons having been
abandoned, it became necessary to have recourse to a collective seal. ¶
It is certain, therefore, that the juridical conditions under which the
trading corporations were constituted give rise to very grave doubts
as to the authenticity of the seals of the gilds. If we add the fact
that the records contain no sealed document proceeding from any of the
Brussels gilds, we shall feel greatly tempted to lend to these doubts
the force of certainty. However, an examination of the three matrices
of seals which are here for the first time reproduced scarcely permits
us to believe in their falseness. Let me briefly analyse each of these
three pieces.
[Illustration: SEAL OF THE GILD OF BARBERS]
The matrix of the seal of the Barbers’ Gild is in the sigillographical
collection of the Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire. Two figures are
standing on a circular ground; they represent St. Cosmas and St.
Damian, the patrons of barber-surgeons. They are dressed in the costume
of the fifteenth century. The right figure, clad in a tunic that comes
down to mid-leg, carries in its left hand a mortar exactly similar to
the mortars that were still in use in Flanders in the last century. In
its right hand, it holds an instrument that might be either a pestle
or a lancet; it is a long, thin instrument, spreading slightly at one
end. Its right arm is bent, and from the wrist hangs a sort of case
shaped like a purse, with an open clasp. This figure symbolizes the
barber. By its side is a shield bearing a pair of open scissors, with
an instrument in pale that appears identical with that which the figure
holds in its right hand. The figure on the left is clad in a long
robe adorned with a wide collar, which seems to point to a profession
superior to that of the mere barber: this is a surgeon. In his right
hand, he holds a round phial with a long, bell-mouthed neck. His left
hand is folded over his breast; the extended fore-finger points to
the phial. From his wrist hangs a bag or purse-shaped case, with open
clasp. By his side is the escutcheon of the city of Brussels, which,
in the fifteenth century, was a plain red shield. The two figures are
standing on a grassy mound. In the upper half of the circumference
of the seal we see a device that reads: _S. barbitonsorū in brūx_.
This seal is the only one of the three that bears a Latin device, a
fact quite in keeping with the learned profession of the surgeons and
barbers.
[Illustration: SEAL OF THE GILD OF BAKERS]
The matrix of the seal of the Bakers’ Gild is now in the private
collection of M. Charles Lefébure. On the ground of the seal we see
St. Aubert, Bishop of Cambrai, the patron of the Brussels bakers, clad
in his pontifical vestments, with the mitre on his head. With his
right hand he is giving the benediction; in his left he holds a peel,
the shovel used for thrusting bread into the oven. The figure rises
at half-length from behind a wide shield on which are represented,
saltierwise, a peel, with two round loaves laid upon the blade, and a
bar for raking the cinders. The circular inscription is in Flemish,
it reads: _S. d’s ambachts · der · beckers · in brussel ·_ (‘Seal
of the Gild of the Bakers in Brussels’). The seal displays all the
characteristics of the fifteenth century.
[Illustration: SEAL OF THE GILD OF BUTCHERS.]
The matrix of the seal of the Butchers’ Gild is in silver. It is kept
in the archives of the city of Brussels. Its date must be carried
back to the early sixteenth century; it is very beautifully engraved.
St. Michael fells the dragon, represented as a shaggy monster with a
bull’s head, which seizes the saint’s left leg in one of its claws;
in the other, it clutches the escutcheon, which it bites in the lower
corner. The saint is clad in armour. In his right hand, he brandishes
his sword; with his left, he holds the escutcheon, which he uses as
a buckler. On the shield figure the heads of three animals: an ox,
a calf and a sheep. The exergue bears the device in Flemish: ~S.
TSVLEESHOUWERS · A͡BACHT · IN BRUESSEL ·~ (‘Seal of the Butchers’
Gild in Brussels’). ¶ M. Des Marez connects the making of these seals
with the great impulse towards emancipation that stirred the trading
corporations in the fifteenth century. In the second half of that
century, the protests of the magistrates are constantly multiplying,
and the trades seem to be progressing towards complete independence. On
the accession of Mary of Burgundy, a violent popular agitation wrested
from the young princess the privilege of June 4, 1477, which hallowed
the triumph of democracy. But this victory lasted only a little while;
and, in 1480, Maximilian of Austria restored the old constitution of
1421. The execution of the seals must, therefore, be ascribed to this
emancipatory movement and, doubtless, to that short period of three
years during which the gilds, as sovereign masters, were called upon to
seal their acts. It is to be presumed that, if any acts were sealed,
these were very rare and were probably destroyed; and it is also very
possible that, after the matrices had been engraved, the reaction set
in almost immediately and that they were never used. ¶ This concerns
the seals of the Barbers’ and Bakers’ Gilds. That of the butchers must
be attributed to the beginning of the sixteenth century. The gild had,
since 1450, claimed a privileged situation consecrating the hereditary
principle: none could be a butcher who was not sprung from butchers.
This privilege, granted by Philip the Good, kindled a quarrel between
the butchers and the town which sometimes led to bloodshed and which
lasted for seventy years. In or about 1516, Charles V put an end to
this state of things by perpetuating the privilege. The date of the
execution of the seal corresponds with this victory for the gild.
But the butchers were stopped in their too independent courses and
were made to continue to recognize the authority of the town council
in all that concerned the making of their rules and regulations and
the management of their interests. ¶ I have shown how constitutional
history and sigillography have together enabled M. Des Marez to solve
a question debated to this day by proving the genuineness of the seals
of the Brussels gilds. The question involved a two-fold problem,
historical and archaeological. The interest attaching to it will be
understood when I add that seals of gilds are exceedingly rare in
Belgium. Hardly any are known to exist except for Bruges, Saint-Trond,
Hasselt, Maastricht, Liége and Ardenbourg. Almost all the tradesmen
were subject to the authority of the town magistrates. The seals of the
Brussels gilds survive as eloquent witnesses of a temporary triumph in
their struggle for independence.
NEW ACQUISITIONS AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS
~British Engraving at the Victoria and Albert Museum~
The exhibition of British engraving which has been arranged at the
Victoria and Albert Museum is of considerable interest and importance.
Moreover, it is timely; for the trend of fashion in engravings has of
late been in a direction so limited, that the need was very apparent of
a corrective to a popular point of view by no means entirely warranted
by the facts. The cult of the colour-print and mezzotint has been
pursued beyond all reasonable bounds. In the hands of able merchants
and indiscriminating patrons it has reached a mere absurdity--expressed
in market values. The whole matter has got out of scale; and the
most serious criticism that could be launched against the present
exhibition--that it tried to cover a field too wide--is fully met by
the absolute desirability of reminding the British public that there
were line engravings of some importance; that aquatint had been used
with results of no little value; that etching was not a lost art, and
that mezzotints of subjects other than those devoted to portraits of
pretty women were by no means ignoble. ¶ The art of line engraving
was but tardily settled in this country, for some doubtful reason,
not until well-nigh a century after it had reached a pitch of high
perfection on the continent. Its tangible beginnings are represented
at South Kensington by the superb title-page of the ‘Anatomy’ of
Thomas Gemini (1545). But the work of William Rogers is the first
of importance by a native-born artist. By him, we have the superb
portrait of Queen Elizabeth, lent by his Majesty the King from the
collection at Windsor; and three plates from Segar’s ‘Honor Military
and Ciuill,’ Sir Thomas Docwra, Godfreydus Adelmar, and Alphonsus
Rex Castiliensis. These very fairly represent the strongly individual
talent of Rogers, who used a most expressive line with care and
economy; and in his employment of the dot for the modelling of faces,
foreshadowed the invention of stipple by more than a hundred years.
¶ The method of Thomas Coxon is not represented in the exhibition;
but that of Elstracke, a Flemish contemporary has full justice done
to it by the fine Prince Charles, as well as other prints from the
King’s collection. His Majesty has also contributed most of the best
examples of the severe and dry manner of the De Passe family, who had
an influence so great on British line engraving; but whose technique,
however able, seems to lack something, and to have destroyed the
decorative qualities which were already apparent in the earlier group.
An interesting comparison may be made between the Queen Elizabeth of
Crispin de Passe and that of Rogers mentioned before. Of the engravers
of the later part of the seventeenth century, mention need only be
made of the fact that Faithorne the elder, David Loggan, Sherwin, and
White, all receive ample justice in the exhibition; and this means that
under their names will be found some of the finest prints exhibited in
any branch of engraving. The line engraving of the eighteenth century
developed for the best in subjects other than portraiture. Thus we have
the strong work of that turbulent spirit, Sir Robert Strange, devoted
mainly to the translation of paintings by the great masters; and that
of William Woollett and his school to landscape, especially after
Claude. Woollett is well represented by four plates attributed entirely
to him, and by two in which Ellis and Vivares avowedly collaborated.
But of the first it must be said that a note in Dance’s ‘Portraits’
expressly states that Thomas Hearne, the water-colour artist, who was
apprenticed to Woollett, ‘etched’ the Roman Edifices in Ruins. The
working proof exhibited at Kensington (No. 146) is, if this is true, in
great part the work of Hearne. We have little space on this occasion
for more than the merest summary of the contents of the gallery; an
adequate notice of which would indeed require at least a whole number
of this magazine. It is only possible therefore, in passing from the
subject of line engraving, to draw special attention to Mr. Rawlinson’s
splendid loan of specimens of the fine school fostered especially by J.
M. W. Turner; to the numerous proofs of the delicate work produced by
the book illustrators of about the same period; and to the interesting
and unique examples of working and finished proofs of the Landseer
school--portions of a collection which came to the National Art Library
by the generosity of Mr. Sheepshanks--in its way, probably unrivalled.
[Illustration: QUEEN ELIZABETH; LINE ENGRAVING BY WILLIAM ROGERS; IN
THE COLLECTION OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING]
[Illustration: ROMAN EDIFICES IN RUINS; LINE ENGRAVING BY THOMAS HEARNE
AND WILLIAM WOOLLETT, AFTER CLAUDE; WORKING PROOF; IN THE VICTORIA AND
ALBERT MUSEUM]
There is little to say, in this place, on the subject of the
mezzotints. His Majesty has lent a magnificent impression of The Great
Executioner, by Prince Rupert, after Spagnoletto; a print which strikes
one as perhaps in its vigour and splendid painter-like qualities
the finest in the gallery. The rest of the mezzotints are generally
well known, though to the credit of the exhibition it must be said
that the preponderance of the fashionable, if insipid class, is not
overwhelming. The Wards are hardly as good as they might be; especially
in view of the large amount of space given to Charles Turner. But The
Water Mill by the latter, after Sir A. W. Callcott, makes one very
charitable towards him. It is certainly one of the finest examples
of the value of mezzotint as a method of rendering landscape. Mr.
Rawlinson, again, lends some valuable examples of the ‘Liber Studiorum’
which are carefully and instructively catalogued. Among the modern
work, that of Mr. Frank Short holds, of course, the first place, for he
is one of the very few living mezzotinters who can be said to take rank
with the best of the old men in technique. The pretty art of stipple
receives due attention; and so do the colour-prints, of which the
best are, it is good to find, the property of the museum. The art of
etching is well shown from Hollar, the group of imitators of Rembrandt
in the eighteenth century, the Norwich school, and Wilkie and Geddes
in the nineteenth, down to the etching clubs and our own times. Most
of this work is well known, for etching has been better served in the
matter of literature than any of its sister arts: and it is the only
one which has real life at the present day. A most important complement
to the exhibited prints is furnished by a series of technical cases,
containing complete sets of all tools and materials used in each of
the various methods of engraving and etching; as well as examples of
all the intermediate stages of working them. These were arranged by
Mr. Frank Short and Miss C. M. Pott, and their descriptive notes in
the catalogue make it a really useful little manual of technique for
the amateur. It only remains to add that the illustration of Rogers’s
Queen Elizabeth is reproduced by the gracious permission of his Majesty
the King, who has also allowed a photogravure to be made of The Great
Executioner, by Prince Rupert, which will appear as a supplement to the
next number of ~The Burlington Magazine~. The other illustrations are
from the collection of prints in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
~Edward F. Strange.~
~British Museum~
~Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities~
Among the additions to the department of British and mediaeval
antiquities during the past half year are several objects of
exceptional interest. In the ceramic section, a large two-handled
vase of Florentine maiolica of the fifteenth century, with heraldic
lions upon the sides, forms a worthy pendant to the magnificent vase
of the same fabric acquired last year; while the series of oriental
wares has been enriched by a writing-stand, or stand for flowers, of
the twelfth or thirteenth century, ornamented with animals of archaic
style in relief, and attributed to a factory in the neighbourhood
of Aleppo. The acquisitions to the collection of glass exhibited in
the same room include an enamelled German drinking-glass of the late
sixteenth century, a very good example of its kind. ¶ In the mediaeval
room the most notable additions will be found in the series of ivory
carvings. Here the place of honour belongs to the beautiful head of a
tau cross in morse ivory, dating from the eleventh century, recently
discovered in the vicarage garden of Alcester, Warwickshire, which
will be fully described next month in these pages. Secondly, there
is a small but important group of ivories formerly in the possession
of the Rev. Walter Sneyd, of Keele Hall, and exhibited in the art
treasures exhibition at Manchester in 1857, and at South Kensington
in 1862. Although few of the pieces composing this group are of high
artistic merit, they are valuable as illustrations of the development
of ivory carving during the early middle ages, a period which needed
fuller representation in the museum collections. The most remarkable
is an oval pyx of the form favoured between the fourth and seventh
centuries, especially in Egypt and Syria. Its interest lies in the fact
that it appears to be a Carlovingian imitation of a Syrian original
dating from perhaps two centuries earlier. It differs essentially in
style from the other examples which have been preserved, and the heavy,
large-headed figures, with their long, retorted fingers, find their
nearest parallels in the miniatures of Carlovingian MSS. Then there is
a Byzantine panel, apparently by the same hand as a plaque acquired by
the museum at the Ashburnham sale in 1901. This plaque was let into
the cover of a thirteenth-century MS. of the romance of ‘Parceval le
Galois,’ but originally belonged to a casket ornamented with scenes
from the history of Joseph, two large panels from which have been for
many years in the Berlin museum. It is satisfactory now to record the
acquisition from the Sneyd collection of yet another example marked by
the same individuality of style, and perhaps once forming a part of the
same composition. Another small piece of Byzantine work not without
charm is a panel from the lid of a casket of the ninth century, with
figures probably from one of the classical scenes so popular during
the iconoclastic period. Finally there are two long panels with seated
apostles, Rhenish work of the twelfth century, and a smaller panel
with the Flagellation, of similar attribution and date. An interesting
accession in the sphere of prehistoric industrial art is a remarkably
large bronze spear-head, inlaid at the base of the blade with gold
studs, a fine example of the skill and taste of the metal-workers of
Britain towards the close of the bronze age.
O. M. D.
[Illustration: THE WATER MILL, MEZZOTINT BY C. TURNER AFTER SIR A. W.
E. CALCOTT, R.A.; IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]
[Illustration: THE HÔTEL DE VILLE AT LOUVAIN; COLOURED AQUATINT BY J.
C. STADLER, AFTER S. PROUT; IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]
~The Print Room of the British Museum~
The Department has acquired by purchase an extremely interesting and
important addition to the collection of Chinese paintings. This is a
long roll, containing scenes of court life and amusements in the first
century ~A.D.~ Pan Chao, a female historian of that era, is among the
figures represented. It is painted in colours on brown silk; green,
purple, and a tawny yellow have been used, but have more or less sunk,
so that the general impression is that of a painting in vermilion and
black, the two pigments which have stood best. The actual workmanship,
especially the modulation of the brush-line, is of extraordinary
beauty and power, and can only be that of a great master. There seems
no reason to doubt that we have in this roll an authentic work by Ku
K‘ai-chih (‘Ko-gai-shi’ in Japanese pronunciation), a very famous
artist of the fourth and fifth centuries ~A.D.~, to whom it has always
been attributed, though the signature and inscriptions are probably
of later date. Annexed to the roll is a eulogy of the painter in the
handwriting of Ch‘ien Lung, the emperor who received Lord Macartney’s
embassy in 1793; and following this is an admirable and delicate
ink-landscape by an eighteenth-century painter. The importance of a
picture by Ku K‘ai-chih will be realized when we consider that of the
art of the T‘ang dynasty (600 to 900 ~A.D.~) hardly a vestige remains,
while relics of the later Sung period are extremely rare. Nothing so
ancient exists in Japan, the country where for a thousand years the
early paintings of China have been collected with ardour and preserved
with veneration. ¶ A full account of this and some other important
examples of Chinese painting will shortly be given in this magazine.
L. B.
NOTE ON THE LIFE OF BERNARD VAN ORLEY
Bernard van Orley is generally said to have been the second son--third
child--of Valentine van Orley by his first wife, Margaret van
Pynbroeck, whom he married May 13, 1490. He is further stated to have
left Brussels in 1509 for Rome, and to have studied in the school
of Raphael, becoming a great favourite with his master. ¶ It seems
impossible to reconcile these statements with certain facts which are
established beyond doubt by authentic documents. In 1514 Bernard was
settled as a master-painter at Brussels, and had already gained a
certain reputation, for the confraternity of the Holy Cross at Furnes
in 1515 sent a delegate to Brussels to ask him to furnish a design for
the altar-piece of their chapel. Bernard must therefore have at that
time attained the age of 30,[82] which would put back the date of his
birth to 1484-5. And unless there is some error in the date--May 4,
1504--of the procuration published by A. Wauters (‘Bernard van Orley,’
Bruxelles, 1881, p. 70), his birth must have taken place before May
1479, as no minor could give a procuration or power of attorney to
another to dispose of property. Children at that time only attained
their majority at the age of 25. ¶ If born in 1479 Bernard may well
have become a free master or gone to Rome in 1509. I suspect that he
was not the son of Valentine and Margaret van Pynbroeck, but of some
other Valentine, perhaps the uncle. I know of no document giving the
name of his mother.
~W. H. James Weale.~
THE COLLECTION OF PICTURES OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON, AT SOMERLEY,
HAMPSHIRE
❧ WRITTEN BY MAX ROLDIT ❧
ARTICLE I.--PICTURES BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS
In almost every corner of these islands there is to be found hidden
away amongst the trees or proudly standing on the summit of a hill one
of those imposing ancestral homesteads which the British aristocracy
have erected at various times ever since the Norman conquest. From the
feudal castle of gothic architecture to the modern mansion replete
with every comfort and household invention of the nineteenth century
every style is represented. These buildings are geographical landmarks
in the country, and nearly all are also landmarks in the artistic
topography of Great Britain. Succeeding generations of owners have
accumulated treasures which, severely guarded by family settlements,
can only be dislodged under special conditions. In not a few instances
the ancient furniture thus preserved, the objects of art and especially
the pictures, the latter usually grouped round a nucleus of family
portraits of successive periods, would rival many a public collection
for the perfection of the examples, their artistic and monetary worth,
and even their actual number. The more therefore is it to be regretted
that they are so rarely accessible to the artist, the student, the
public at large. A small percentage is, it is true, to be seen at the
admirable loan exhibitions organized yearly at Burlington House and the
Guildhall, and also from time to time in galleries governed by private
enterprise; but these artistic feasts are all too rare, and even were
the owners of fine works of art always willing to lend their property,
which is not invariably the case, it would be impossible for all the
objects worthy of being shown to pass in this way before the gaze of
a single generation. Many are the masterpieces in this country which
have not moved from their resting place for scores of years and which
are, except to a privileged few, as completely unknown and invisible
as the immensely distant stars which astronomers contemplate through
their most powerful lens. ¶The collection of pictures at Somerley,
the Earl of Normanton’s beautiful seat near Ringwood in Hampshire, is
one of those of whose very existence only a small minority is aware.
The mansion, of late Georgian style, stands on the banks of the Avon
in the midst of a park and estate extending over 9,000 acres, and
is visited by only a small number of persons annually besides Lord
Normanton’s immediate entourage. ¶ With a very few exceptions, the
entire collection was formed between the years 1820 and 1868 by Welbore
Ellis, second Earl of Normanton, and grandfather of the present peer.
Born in 1778, he succeeded to the title in 1809, married Diana, eldest
daughter of the eleventh Earl of Pembroke, in 1816, and died in his
ninetieth year in 1868, leaving as a record of his taste and artistic
knowledge the wonderful gallery of paintings which is the subject
of this study. ¶ The collection is composed chiefly of pictures of
the eighteenth-century English school, including works by Reynolds,
Gainsborough, Hogarth, Hoppner, Romney, Lawrence, Morland, Bonington,
Nasmyth and Crome; it contains also pictures by some Flemish and Dutch
masters of the seventeenth century, Rubens, Van Dyck and Teniers,
Paul Potter, Van de Capelle, Aart van der Neer, Wouwerman and Willem
van de Velde; Guardi and Canaletto represent the Italian; Murillo
represents the Spanish school; whilst Greuze is the only French artist
who has found a place at Somerley. The most striking feature of the
collection is to be found in the predominance of works by Sir
Joshua Reynolds, evidently the favourite painter of the second Lord
Normanton, who acquired no fewer than twenty-six examples from his
brush. ¶ For the sake of clearness and convenience, a description of
the Normanton collection may be divided into three sections, namely:--
I. The works by Sir Joshua Reynolds.
II. The works by British painters other than Sir Joshua Reynolds.
III. The works by painters of the foreign schools.
[Illustration: MISS MURRAY, OF KIRKCUDBRIGHT, BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS;
IN THE COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON.]
[Illustration: CHARITY FAITH HOPE
THE THREE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES; FROM THE PAINTINGS BY SIR JOSHUA
REYNOLDS FOR THE WINDOW AT NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD; IN THE COLLECTION OF
THE EARL OF NORMANTON]
¶ The group of paintings by Sir Joshua Reynolds is unparalleled in any
other collection public or private all the world over; both by the
number and the excellence of the examples, it is absolutely unique,
and it would be well-nigh impossible at the present day for even a
multi-millionaire to bring together a rival gathering of this one
painter’s productions. ¶ All through his career as a collector, Lord
Normanton continued to acquire examples of Sir Joshua’s work, but his
most important single purchase was made as early as 1821 at the sale
of the pictures of the Marchioness of Thomond, held at Christie’s on
May 18 and 19 of that year. The Marchioness of Thomond was no other
than Mary Palmer, daughter of Sir Joshua’s elder sister, and sister to
pretty ‘Offy’ Palmer, afterwards Mrs. Gwatkin, whom her uncle so often
used as a model for his fancy pictures, notably for the Strawberry
Girl. When Sir Joshua died in 1792, he left the bulk of his property to
his niece, Mary Palmer; she inherited nearly £100,000 besides a number
of pictures and other works of art; the same year she married the fifth
Earl of Inchiquin, subsequently created Marquess of Thomond. After her
death in 1821, her pictures were sold at Christie’s, and that occasion
may be said to mark the foundation of the Normanton collection. Lady
Thomond’s sale included, besides many works by old masters, a large
number of pictures and sketches by her illustrious uncle; and here
Lord Normanton secured for less than £3,000 the wonderful series of
seven decorative panels which have ever remained the chief ornament of
his collection, and for which in recent years fabulous sums have been
offered and refused. They represent the three theological virtues,
Faith, Hope, and Charity, and the four cardinal virtues, Temperance,
Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude. They are the original designs
executed by Sir Joshua Reynolds for the window at New College, Oxford,
and afterwards copied on glass by Jarvis. Ever since his school days
at Westminster, Lord Normanton had known and admired these pictures at
Lady Thomond’s. On the day of the sale, in answer to a suggestion of
the auctioneer that the entire set should be sold together, the company
present, which included the Dukes of Devonshire and Northumberland,
Lords Egremont, Grosvenor, Bridgewater, Fitzwilliam, Dudley and
Ward, and Harewood, Sir Charles Long on behalf of the king, and many
other well-known picture buyers, decided that the Virtues should be
offered separately. The Charity was put up first, and its purchase at
1,100 guineas by Lord Normanton, then a young man, created no small
sensation. Lord Dudley and Ward eagerly competed for the Fortitude, for
which his mother had sat to Sir Joshua, but that as well as the other
six succumbed to Lord Normanton’s bidding. Seven years later an offer
of twice the purchase price was made for them on behalf of the king,
and again some few years afterwards the National Gallery tried in vain
to tempt Lord Normanton with three times the original sum. ¶ As to the
designs themselves, it had been the painter’s original intention to
make them drawings or cartoons; but he soon found it would be easier
for him to paint them in oils, so long had he been used to the brush
and the palette. ‘Jarvis, the painter on glass,’ he said, ‘will have a
better original to copy, and I suppose persons hereafter may be found
to purchase my paintings.’ In this he was, however, disappointed,
since the Virtues were still in his possession at his death. ¶In a
letter written about 1778, Sir Joshua details the general plan for
the Oxford window. ‘Supposing this scheme to take place, my idea is
to paint, in the great space in the centre, Christ in the Manger, on
the principle that Correggio has done it, in the famous picture called
the Notte; making all the light proceed from Christ. These tricks of
the art, as they may be called, seem to be more properly adapted to
glass-painting than any other kind. This middle space will be filled
with the Virgin, Christ, Joseph and angels; the two smaller spaces
on each side I shall fill with the shepherds coming to worship; and
the seven divisions below with the figures of Faith, Hope, Charity
and the four cardinal virtues; which will make a proper rustic base
or _foundation_ for the support of the Christian Religion....’ ¶
The large central picture of the Nativity, measuring ten feet by
eighteen, was sold by the artist to the Duke of Rutland for the then
unprecedented price of 1,200 guineas. It was unfortunately destroyed
in the fire at Belvoir in 1816. A powerful sketch of this subject on a
small scale is, however, to be found at Somerley. ¶ The seven Virtues,
which now hang side by side in the magnificent gallery built by the
second Earl of Normanton, each measure 6 ft. 11 in. in height by 2
ft. 9 in. in width, except the central panel, Faith, which is taller
and narrower than the others, namely, 8 ft. by 2 ft. 5 in. Charity
is represented by a group of a woman clasping three children in her
protecting arms, whilst all the rest contain but a single allegorical
figure, with the special attributes consecrated by tradition. The most
noteworthy feature of the entire series, and that which first strikes
the onlooker, is its thoroughly and unmistakably English character. No
straining after classicism, no copying or imitation of the Italians
are to be found in this the most successful work of decoration ever
painted by a British artist. In the Nativity, Reynolds was accused of
a too servile imitation of Correggio, but certainly no such reproach
can apply to the seven Virtues. In the conception or the execution,
in the drawing or the colour, in the types of his models or the
arrangement of the draperies, nowhere is a trace discernible of any
foreign element. Reynolds represented the Virtues under the features of
the lovely and refined English ladies whom he was accustomed to paint;
the draperies in which they are clothed are dresses of the eighteenth
century, simplified no doubt, and chastened, but sometimes scarcely
altered, as in the case of Temperance and Prudence. He thus avoided
the cold conventionality usually so apparent in allegorical paintings,
whilst losing nothing in dignity or impressiveness; if one misses the
spiritual elevation of the Italians, there is a corresponding gain in
humanity, and that indefinable quality, charm.
[Illustration: TEMPERANCE PRUDENCE
TWO OF THE CARDINAL VIRTUES FROM SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS’S PAINTINGS FOR
THE WINDOW AT NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD, IN THE COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF
NORMANTON]
[Illustration: FORTITUDE JUSTICE
TWO OF THE CARDINAL VIRTUES; FROM THE PAINTINGS BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS
FOR THE WINDOW AT NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD; IN THE COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF
NORMANTON]
Faith is represented by the figure of a girl with a face of exquisite
innocence and sweetness, expressive also of deep suffering and infinite
resignation. Her plain white pilgrim’s robe is partly covered by a
loose brown drapery falling around her in simple heavy folds; with
her left hand she holds a tall wooden cross, the upper part of which
is strongly outlined against the divine illumination which brightens
the clouds above her; her right hand is uplifted towards heaven in
an attitude of invocation. Hope is the least successful panel of the
series. Clad in dull green draperies with a brown scarf flowing from
her shoulders, she stands in a somewhat awkward position, her hands
uplifted and her face averted towards the light which pours upon her
through the clouds. Charity can, on the contrary, rank with the finest
of Sir Joshua’s pictures; his model in this instance was Mrs. Sheridan,
the lovely wife of the author of ‘School for Scandal,’ who had also
sat to him for the figure of the Virgin in the Nativity. On her breast
nestles a half-naked infant whom she lovingly supports with her left
hand, whilst with the other she clasps in a close embrace two more
children, a young girl and a curly-headed boy, who have run to her
for protection; with an expression of rare tenderness and pity
she gazes down upon her little charges. This picture is painted with
exceptional power; the contrasts of light and shade are rendered with
a perfection almost reminiscent of Rembrandt, whilst the composition
is both strong and graceful. The two beautiful young women in whom
Reynolds has impersonated Temperance and Prudence are clothed in white
dresses of eighteenth-century design, bordered in the case of the
second with a narrow gold braid. Mrs. Elizabeth Palmer, wife of the
artist’s nephew, the Dean of Cashel, was the model for Prudence; she
gazes thoughtfully into a mirror which she holds in her right hand; in
the left she has an arrow round which an adder is entwined. Temperance
is pouring water from a golden jug into a golden cup. In the two last
panels, the figures stand full face to the spectator; the features of
Justice are shaded by the balance which she raises to the level of her
head; her loose robe, held by a girdle at the waist, is rose-coloured,
and her right hand rests on the hilt of a naked sword. Fortitude (Lady
Dudley and Ward) is the traditional figure of Britannia, a plumed
helmet upon her noble head, a small golden breast-plate decorating
her white robe, around which a dark red mantle is draped; the head of
the watchful lion crouching at her feet is shown in the right-hand
corner. ¶ Several other works by Sir Joshua were acquired by Lord
Normanton besides the seven Virtues at Lady Thomond’s sale, including
the expressive half-length portrait of himself, painted in 1769, in
his robes of president of the Royal Academy, his right hand resting
on a book. The delightful portrait of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir
Joshua’s friend Topham Beauclerk and his beautiful wife Lady Diana,
represented as Spenser’s Una with the lion crouching at her side, came
from the same source and cost only thirty-seven guineas. Elizabeth
Beauclerk married in 1787 the Earl of Pembroke and was the mother of
Diana, Lady Normanton, wife of the collector. Sir Joshua painted
her about the year 1778 and showed her in a perfectly simple white
frock, childishly sitting on her heels upon the ground. Her hair falls
loosely over her shoulders and her expression is one of thoughtful
innocence. The foliage and landscape behind her are treated with great
breadth and power; the more delicate parts of the picture, such as
the face and hands, are on the contrary very smoothly painted; the
marked difference in texture is explained by the fact that at this
period Sir Joshua used a mixture of wax and Venice turpentine as a
vehicle for the heads, and wax alone for other portions of his pictures
where he wished to produce thicker impastos. The picture described
in Lady Thomond’s catalogue as A Girl seated on her heels embracing
a favourite Kitten, for which Lord Normanton gave 295 guineas, is
one of several of the same delightful subject done by Sir Joshua and
usually known as Felina. It was painted in 1787, and although Offy
Palmer was by that time a grown-up young woman, it is her features
when a child which her uncle has once more used. Witty and graceful,
this picture bears witness to Sir Joshua’s supremacy as a limner of
children. No one more than he succeeded in reproducing their quaint and
charmingly awkward attitudes, and it would be difficult to find even
in his works anything more delicious than this little dark-eyed damsel
fondling her unhappy pet almost to the point of suffocation. The face
is painted with great delicacy and a clearness of complexion unusual
in Sir Joshua’s pictures; the background of foliage is unfortunately
severely cracked, owing to an excessive use of treacherous bitumen.
Miss Falconer (afterwards the Hon. Mrs. Stanhope) as Contemplation
was also included in the Marchioness of Thomond’s collection, but was
not bought at her sale by Lord Normanton. It was knocked down on that
occasion for 100 guineas to a dealer, from whom it passed into the
possession of Mr. John Allnutt, of Clapham Common, and it was only many
years later that it was transferred into the Somerley collection of
which it now forms part. The beautiful lady whom the painter has here
represented, in a moonlit landscape, seated on a bank in a pensive
attitude, was a well-known figure in the society of her day, where her
high spirits and light-hearted gaiety made her a general favourite;
the appearance of this portrait, so contrary to her character, excited
no little comment at the time. In charm of expression and unaffected
grace of pose this portrait is a truly delightful production. An
interesting fact concerning it is that it is one of the few portraits
by Reynolds painted on a panel; the artist, who, as is well known,
was for ever making new experiments in the mediums he employed,
selected on this occasion an old Japanese panel, and the reverse
of the picture is to this day decorated with a still-life in bold
relief, brilliant in colouring and of no mean artistic merit. ¶ In
three life-size full-length portraits of young girls which hang in
Lord Normanton’s gallery, it is instructive to compare the artist’s
method of treatment of a similar subject at different periods of his
career. These pictures are those of Lady Betty Hamilton, painted in
1758, of Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright, 1765, and that, some twenty
years later in date, known for lack of a better title as The Little
Gardener. In the first there is a richness of colour and a wealth of
detail not to be found in either of the two others; the influence
of Reynolds’s master, Hudson, is still clearly discernible, and the
warmth and brilliance of the colouring must be traced to the immediate
effects of the artist’s recent travels in Italy, where the gorgeous
tones of the Venetians had filled him with a boundless admiration. In
the two earlier portraits there is a simple artlessness of pose in
striking contrast with the affected and self-conscious attitude of The
Little Gardener, whilst the latter is far broader and more spontaneous
in technique. ¶ The portrait of Lady Betty Hamilton, afterwards
Countess of Derby, is unsurpassed by any work of Sir Joshua at this
early period, and it may also be counted among the best of his child
portraits. In a low-cut dress of plum-coloured embroidered silk, her
wide skirt reaching to the ground, she sits on a bank in a garden; she
has a white muslin pinafore bordered with lace, and her hands rest on
her lap holding a bunch of vari-coloured flowers. The flesh-tints are
somewhat faded, but the dreamy blue eyes and rosebud mouth expressive
of happy childhood’s ignorance of evil and suffering, are a delight
to look upon. She was a daughter of the Duke of Hamilton, and became
the first wife of the twelfth Earl of Derby, who, after divorcing her,
married Miss Farren the celebrated actress. In 1777 Reynolds painted
another portrait of her as Countess of Derby, a whole-length which was
engraved by William Dickinson; this picture has, however, disappeared,
probably destroyed by her husband after his divorce. ¶ Little Miss
Murray of Kirkcudbright in a plain white dress with a black silk scarf
thrown over her head and shoulders and funny blue shoes, stands in a
landscape, her hands loosely crossed in front of her. By her side sits
a curious woolly white dog with black spots on its face, which has no
appearance of life, and shows how inferior in this respect Sir Joshua
was to Gainsborough, who stands with Velasquez among the greatest
dog painters of the world. The landscape in this picture is of quite
unusual excellence, and with the fine breezy sky forms an effective and
pleasing background to the figure of the blue-eyed little Scotch girl.
¶ Who was the sitter for the portrait called The Little Gardener, it
seems at the present time impossible to discover; it shows a pretty
young girl sitting dreamily on a bank at the edge of a wood; she
wears a white dress with a crimson sash, and with her right hand she
loosely holds a straw bonnet decorated with pink ribbons.
[Illustration: THE LITTLE GARDENER, BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS; IN THE
COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF GEORGE, THIRD DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, BY SIR
JOSHUA REYNOLDS; IN THE COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON]
There is at Somerley only one male portrait of great importance by Sir
Joshua Reynolds. This represents George, third Duke of Marlborough,
and is a magnificent three-quarter length portrait. The duke wears
a rich coat of brown embroidered silk and a mantle of crimson velvet
bordered with white fur thrown over his right shoulder; his left arm
rests upon a column, and the upper portion of the body is outlined
against a beautiful sky background. The pose is evidently inspired
by Van Dyck, and the portrait lacks none of the dignity and elegance
of the older master. An almost exactly similar painting is in the
possession of the Earl of Pembroke, in which however the duke’s dark
dress is replaced by one of white embroidered satin. ¶ Some dozen
portraits of the usual half-length format (about 30 in. by 25 in.)
are contained in the Normanton collection, and not a few of them are
of superlative quality. Among the most pleasing is that of the Misses
Horneck, as original as it is graceful in composition; many failures
have resulted from the attempt thus to group two life-size heads in
so small a space, but Sir Joshua has here admirably succeeded in
avoiding stiffness and crowding while preserving perfect pictorial
unity. Painted in a light key about the year 1775, this picture is in
a wonderful state of preservation, having retained all its freshness
of tone and delicacy of modelling. An unfinished sketch of the same
subject, slightly larger in size, belongs to Sir Henry Bunbury, a
descendant of the elder sister’s husband, the caricaturist, Henry
William Bunbury. Mrs. Bunbury (Catharine Horneck), who is seen on
the right of the group, was Goldsmith’s ‘Little Comedy,’ whilst her
sister Mary, afterwards Mrs. Gwyn, is celebrated by him as ‘The Jessamy
Bride.’ The excellent though slightly faded portrait of Miss Anne
Liddell was bought by the second Lord Normanton at Christie’s in May,
1867, at the sale of Mr. H. A. J. Munro, of Novar, for 225 guineas.
Miss Liddell, who is represented in a black low-cut dress and black
cloak trimmed with white fur, holding some flowers in her right hand,
was a daughter of Lord Ravensworth; she became Duchess of Grafton, and
after divorcing in 1769 married the Earl of Upper Ossory. The pair of
heads of the Earl and Countess of Pembroke, painted within the last
years of the artist’s life, cost Lord Normanton only 30 guineas in
1827. Lord and Lady Pembroke were the parents of Diana, Lady Normanton,
and the countess is the same lady whom Sir Joshua represented some
years previously as Una with the lion; she wears her peeress’s robes
of crimson and ermine over a white low-necked dress, and the earl is
in uniform of red and gold. It is interesting to find side by side
with these examples of the end of the painter’s career the picture of
A Boy Reading, which is inscribed ‘1747, J^a Reynolds pinxit Nov.’
and which is one of the earliest known works of the artist, when he
was only twenty-three years of age. It is said to be a portrait of
himself, but this is by no means certain, although the boy’s features
bear a certain resemblance to those of Sir Joshua. With hair falling
over his shoulders, and arms leaning on a table, he reads from a large
book which he holds open with both hands; four more books lie on the
table beside him. It is related that on seeing this picture after
an interval of many years Sir Joshua remarked that he had made but
little progress since he painted it. Although this observation must
not be taken too literally, there is no doubt that even at this early
period he exhibited uncommon mastery of his art. To an early period
also, probably between 1755 and 1760, the portrait of Lady Charlotte
Johnstone, daughter of the first Earl of Halifax, and that of Mrs.
Russell, daughter of Mr. Flountia Vassall, are shown to belong by the
marked attention paid to detail, by a certain tightness of drawing, and
also by the faded flesh-tints due to Reynolds’s excessive use at this
time of brilliant but unstable carmine. Both are painted in profile,
wearing rich dresses of similar pattern, with pearls in their ears
and round their throat. Probably a little later in date is the very
decorative and somewhat French-looking portrait of Miss Meux (engraved
as Miss Muse); she wears a Louis XV costume, the bodice all tucks and
frills, and a flat gipsy straw hat trimmed with pink ribbons; she has
two rows of pearls round her throat, and the muslin gimp which covers
her breast is spotted with little pink rosettes. This is no doubt the
picture which Lord Normanton bought for 135 gns. at the Novar sale
in 1867, and which was then said to be a portrait of Fanny Reynolds
(Sir Joshua’s sister). Another beautiful half-length picture is that
of the actress Mrs. Quarrington, as St. Agnes, in a brown dress over
which hangs a dark green mantle. She holds a lamb in her arms and a
palm branch in her left hand; the pathetic face, surrounded by her
loose locks of hair, is upturned in an attitude of prayer. Nor must
mention be omitted of a pretty and powerful octagonal study of a
little girl’s head with pearls in her hair, the shoulders covered
with a light white drapery. ¶ The oval portrait of Mrs. Inchbald is
catalogued in more than one volume of recent date as a work by Sir
Joshua; it is, however, hard and unconvincing, and the flesh and
black dress are too weakly painted not to leave a doubt in one’s mind
whether it is not rather the production of one of Reynolds’s pupils,
most probably Northcote. It is difficult also to admit the portrait of
Admiral Barrington to be entirely from the master’s hand; there is a
similar portrait by him in Greenwich Hospital, and it is known that six
replicas were made at the time in Sir Joshua’s studio; this is one of
them, and, although painted under his supervision, it is probable that
his own brush took but little part in the work. Possibly a replica
of the famous picture in the Chamberlayne collection, but also more
probably the work of a contemporary copyist, is the Lady Hamilton as a
Bacchante, a subject rendered familiar by numerous engravings, notably
Bartolozzi’s beautiful colour-print. No doubt whatever is possible in
the case of The Little Archer, the figure of a boy lying full length
in a landscape; here the methods of Sir Joshua are palpably imitated,
but the poor drawing and the ugly obtrusiveness of the boy’s white
stockings preclude any possibility of the master having in any way
contributed to its painting. ¶ A number of acknowledged copies of
pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds are also to be found at Somerley, and
some are not devoid of merit. Among the best may be mentioned Mrs.
Siddons as the Tragic Muse, painted by the Duchess of Buckingham, from
the original now at Grosvenor House, of which a genuine replica hangs
at Dulwich; also Mrs. Gwyn in Persian costume, a good contemporary
reproduction of the picture which belongs to Mr. W. W. Astor. ¶ It
would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this group of
pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds; the genius of the Royal Academy’s
first president is displayed at Somerley in its every phase, and
each period of his career is represented by one or more works of the
highest artistic value; there, he can be studied as it is impossible
to study him elsewhere, at the same time that a comparison can be made
with masterpieces of other great English painters which hang in Lord
Normanton’s magnificent gallery.
[Illustration: STUDY OF A LITTLE GIRL, BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS; IN THE
COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON]
[Illustration: THE MISSES HORNECK, BY SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS; IN THE
COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORMANTON]
[Illustration: HIGH WARP TAPESTRY, LOUIS XIV VISITING THE ROYAL
FURNITURE MANUFACTORY AT THE GOBELINS, AFTER CHARLES LE BRUN. LOUVRE]
FRENCH FURNITURE OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES[83]
❧ WRITTEN BY ÉMILE MOLINIER ❧
ARTICLE II.--THE LOUIS XIV STYLE--(_continued_)
THE GOBELINS
It would certainly be unfair to consider Louis XIV and espeacially
Colbert, from the point of view of the part played of the royal
manufactory of crown furniture at the Gobelins, as being merely
unconscious instruments. There is no doubt that a formal act of will
on their part entered into this creation. But, once having done this
justice, especially to Colbert, we are bound to remark, if we would
wish to take a sane view of events, that an institution of this kind
was, at the moment when it was established in France, the result of a
series of previous efforts, all turned in the same direction; was the
result also of a general movement of centralization which was to be
one of the sources of weakness, of the system of government adopted in
France. ¶ The founding of the academy of painting and sculpture had
completed the organization of art in the great sense; the founding
of the manufactory of the Gobelins was destined to bring about the
centralization of the minor arts and to strike a blow at the old
edifice of the rules of the corporations. We must make no mistake: from
the artistic point of view, the monarchy largely began the salutary
work of emancipation which the French Revolution was to complete, and
we may well be surprised that right-minded persons should discover a
source of weakness and decadence in the modifications introduced into
the life of the workshops. To be logical we should have to blame
the monarchy itself, which, nearly 150 years before the Revolution,
began, by a devious course it is true, to take away all force from
restrictive laws, from rules and regulations which already seemed out
of date at the end of the middle ages. It will be seen that, though the
complete abolition of the rules of the corporations did, in certain
cases, become a cause of confusion, we should do wrong to look upon it
as the sole cause of the degeneration in artistic feeling in the minor
arts at the commencement of the nineteenth century. The suppression of
the corporations under the Revolution was as inevitable an event as
was under Louis XIV the establishment of official artistic workshops.
The whole lay in the manner of setting to work to decree those two
measures. ¶ To second his views, Colbert was fortunate enough to have
at hand an exceptional man, one who was at the same time an organizer
and an artist, two qualities rarely united in one and the same brain;
and he also had the good sense to select him in spite of appearances.
He did more, for after selecting him he left him the most complete
liberty. And yet Charles Le Brun might have passed as suspect in the
minds of both the king and Colbert. ¶ Born in Paris on February 24,
1619, Charles Le Brun was the son of Nicholas Le Brun, a sculptor. His
first masters were Perrier, a Burgundian painter, and Simon Vouet;
and it was doubtless through Vouet’s intermediary that he became
acquainted with the Chancellor Séguier, in whom he was later to find
a firm friend and a constant protector. Some works executed for the
Cardinal de Richelieu earned for him the title of painter to the
king in 1638. In 1642, he accompanied Nicolas Poussin to Rome and was
admitted as a master-painter into the corporation. He returned to Paris
in 1646, received the title of _valet de chambre_ to the king, and
married Suzanne Butay, a painter’s daughter. ¶ A law-suit between the
wardens of the Gild of Painters and the king’s painters, the so-called
‘patent painters,’ suddenly made Le Brun conspicuous, and, after the
favourable decision pronounced by the parliament, with the support of
Séguier he contributed not a little towards the definite foundation of
the academy of painting (1648). But, while fighting strenuously for the
principles of his art, Le Brun neglected no opportunity of practising
it, and executed for a number of Paris mansions a series of large
decorative compositions, for which he had acquired the taste in Italy.
The houses of Bertrand de la Bazinière, treasurer of the _Épargne_; of
Marshal d’Aumont; of the Chevalier de Jars; of Inselin, treasurer of
the _Chambre aux Deniers_; of Lambert de Thorigny, president of the
_Chambre des Comptes_, were decorated by him in turns. In the last of
these mansions he painted the Galerie d’Hercule, which still exists,
and the sight of which eventually determined the Superintendent Fouquet
to send for Le Brun to Vaux (1657). Here, in the sumptuous residence of
Vaux, of which Fouquet was to have the enjoyment for so short a while,
Le Brun displayed his full powers. He not only painted or designed such
compositions as the Apothéose d’Hercule, the Triomphe de la Fidélité,
L’Aurore, Le Sommeil, the Palais du Soleil, but he also directed the
sculptors, ornament workers and silversmiths, the tapestry workers
and embroiderers, and managed the manufactory of high-warp tapestry
established by Fouquet at Maincy. He supplied so large a number of
models and cartoons for tapestry, that many of his compositions could
be executed only much later at the manufactory of the Gobelins; the
Chasses de Méléagre, Mars et Venus, Jupiter allaité par la chèvre
Amalthée, five pieces representing the history of Constantine, the
Muses, all bear witness to the prodigious fertility of an artist who,
like the great Italians of the Renaissance, was lavish in production
while developing his admirable administrative qualities. ¶ If these
gigantic works at the Château de Vaux had not succeeded in earning for
him the esteem of Mazarin and of the queen-mother, Anne of Austria,
and also in drawing the attention of the king (for Le Brun was the
organizer of the great _fêtes_ given by the Superintendent in 1659),
it might have happened that our artist would have incurred the same
disgrace as his patron. Very fortunately this was not so; for once
talent was able to silence envy, and Le Brun was admirably served
by circumstances. In 1660, the king ordered a large picture of him,
Alexandre pénétrant dans la tente de Darius, and the city of Paris
instructed him to erect a triumphal arch on the Place Dauphine for
the entry into Paris of Louis XIV and his queen, Maria Theresa. In
1661 he entered into relations with Colbert; in 1662 he received the
much-coveted title of ‘first painter to the king.’ We see, therefore,
that his connexion with Fouquet--and it does not seem that Le Brun was
ever placed in the painful situation of having to deny the man who had
enabled him to make his mark--so far from harming him, had, on the
contrary, done him good service. Perhaps the king, at the same time
that Colbert began to suspect his exceptional powers as an organizer
and administrator, recognized in Le Brun one of those men who were to
be so useful to his thirst for stately glory and royal pomp.
[Illustration: GOBELIN TAPESTRY, PSYCHE’S BATH, BY LE LORRAIN; END OF
LOUIS XIV; IN THE LOUVRE]
[Illustration: SECTION OF THE BORDER OF THE SAME TAPESTRY]
[Illustration: A MARQUETRY BUREAU BY ANDRÉ CHARLES BOULE IN THE PALACE
OF FONTAINEBLEAU]
[Illustration: A BOOK CASE BY ANDRÉ CHARLES BOULE]
One last circumstance enabled Le Brun to make himself absolutely
indispensable to the king’s glory. On February 6, 1661, the first
floor of the small gallery of the Louvre was almost totally destroyed
by fire. Our artist was commissioned to renew its decoration; he
made of this a monument to the glory of Apollo, the god of the
sun, a delicate attention which enabled him to indulge in more or
less delicate allusions with his brush to the king himself. All the
works--which, for that matter, were never finished under Louis XIV: the
works at the other royal residences, and particularly at Versailles,
thrust the Galerie d’Apollon into the background--were directed solely
by Le Brun: he got together a little army of sculptors and decorators,
among whom we recall the names of Gaspard and Balthazar de Marsy,
François Girardon, Thomas Regnauldin, Monnoyer, the brothers Lemoyne
and Ballin, whose fortunes were thenceforth closely linked with those
of the first painter to the king. ¶ The letters patent of Louis XIV
instituting the ‘royal manufactory of crown furniture’ are dated
November 1667, but they sanction a state of things that existed as
far back as 1663. I shall analyse briefly this deed of foundation,
most of whose dispositions it is very important for us to know,
showing as they do how the machinery of administration was capable of
being simplified in the seventeenth century. Let me here remind my
readers that the name of ‘Gobelins,’ which to-day serves to designate
the tapestries issuing from the famous manufactory, dates back to
the fifteenth century. At that time a dyer called Jean Gobelin, a
native of Rheims, settled on the banks of the little river Bièvre.
His trade prospered so well that his name was given to his house and
workshop, near to which came to live Marc de Comano and François de la
Planche, the Flemish upholsterers installed in Paris by Henry IV. In
1662 Colbert joined the old house of the Gobelins to the workshops of
the descendants of Comano and La Planche; and on these premises was
installed the new manufactory which was destined to perpetuate the
memory of the name of the humble dyer of the fifteenth century.
(_To be continued._)
THE EXHIBITION OF GREEK ART AT THE BURLINGTON FINE ARTS CLUB
❧ WRITTEN BY CECIL SMITH ❧
‘Every man of taste will congratulate himself that England is the
seat and the refuge of the arts; and that so many genuine remains
of ancient sculpture are present in our cabinets.’ So wrote James
Dallaway at the beginning of last century, and, although some may
think that the arts have now somewhat altered their habits, there is
no doubt that this country still remains pre-eminent in the wealth of
its private collections of Greek antiquities. If proof were needed,
this admirable little collection would afford it. When the scheme was
first mooted of a Greek exhibition at the Burlington Club, a moderate
scepticism was not altogether unnatural. The former attempt in 1888
had not been exactly an enthusiastic success, and somehow the club
itself appeared to be a somewhat stern soil for so tender a plant. A
society of dilettanti, with grave and reverend opinions upon every
conceivable form of bigotry and virtue, might be expected either to
adopt an attitude of cold aloofness or to overlay its offspring with
excessive and even (may one whisper it?) injudicious appreciation. But
we never know where a blessing may light, and, if one may judge from
the assiduous attention the exhibition has received, not only from the
sternest critics of the club, but from the smart ladies of at least
two capitals, a new era has dawned for Greek art; if it only lasts
long enough, intrepid explorers will be found invading Bloomsbury, and
the British Museum will cease to offer cool solitudes for the peaceful
reflection of the philosopher and student. ¶ For the general public who
have little time or inclination for long museum galleries, this sort
of exhibition has much to recommend it; the intelligent public likes
to have its culture prescribed for it in tabloid form--a small dose,
unmistakably potent, which can be easily digested between meals. To
this form of requirement the Burlington Club is admirably adapted: a
single room, with just enough space for arranging a few good things.
Mrs. Strong and her committee are so much to be congratulated that it
seems ungracious to grumble; but personally I should have preferred
to turn out about half of the less fine objects. It was difficult, no
doubt; the susceptibilities of lenders are not lightly to be trifled
with; but Greek art, more than most things, needs plenty of breathing
space, and the exhibition would have gained by a judicious depletion.
¶ I think it was M. Piot who used to carry always in his waistcoat
pocket a few of the choicest Greek coins (those being the most portable
forms of the best art), as he said, ‘to correct his eye’; that was
undoubtedly a true instinct. When all is said and done, Greek art will
always serve as an admirable corrective--within its limits of course,
for painting is obviously excluded--and that is at least some comfort
in these impressionist days, when new creeds lie about like leaves in
Vallombrosa. ¶ I overheard one day a visitor to this exhibition angrily
resenting the suggestion that Greek art at its best could be compared
for a moment with the master works of the middle ages. It is a large
question, which there is no space here to argue, only I do not think it
is so easily dismissed as the hasty critic supposed. I should even be
prepared to stand by some of the objects here exhibited. After all, it
is in many cases the same plant growing up under differing conditions
of time and circumstance. Some day perhaps the club may be persuaded to
try the experiment of showing side by side some of the finest parallel
achievements of antiquity and the three centuries of mediaeval Europe.
[Illustration: PLATE I
FRAGMENT OF THE FRIEZE OF THE PARTHENON, BELONGING TO MR T. D.
BOTTERELL]
[Illustration: PLATE II
BUST OF APHRODITE, PROBABLY BY PRAXITELES; IN THE COLLECTION OF THE
LORD LECONFIELD]
[Illustration: PLATE III
HEAD OF A MOURNING WOMAN, BELONGING TO MR. CLAUDE PONSONBY
HEAD OF A YOUTH, BELONGING TO SIR EDGAR VINCENT, K.C.M.G., M.P.]
And I am not sure that the plan might not be adopted with
advantage in museums, of having a small room, like the _tribuna_ at
Florence for instance, with a florilegium of the best things of all
dates; it would be both physically and mentally a boon to many a weary
wayfarer. ¶ The most obvious point of comparison with the classical
is the work of the classicists of north-east Italy, who, already at
the end of the trecento, were beginning a formal but intelligent study
of the antique. It would be instructive to see works of Donatello
and John of Bologna side by side with their Greek counterparts; a
Syracusan decadrachm of Kimon or Euainetos beside a medal of Pisanello
or Sperandio. ¶ One bronze in the Burlington Club especially seems to
challenge this comparison--the big mounted warrior (No. 53), which
at first sight suggests a kind of glorified gothic aquamanile. A
reviewer in the _Athenaeum_ points out the ‘research for elegance
which already characterizes this figure,’ and which he considers to
mark the essential difference between the Greeks and their successors.
‘Whereas the Greek,’ he says, ‘feels most keenly the planes, to the
northern and Italian artists it is the ridges that count.’ This seems
to me to be a plausible generalization from imperfectly perceived
facts. The world-old contrast of the ideal and the real naturally
went on in Greek art as it has gone on in every other art; but less
among the Greeks, because for most of their history they steadily
withstood realism; they believed and acted upon Shakespeare’s ‘Nature
is made better by no mean, but nature makes that mean.’ At a late
period realism became too strong for them, and the Pergamene school
was the beginning of the end. Surely the broad contrasting of planes
is not the characteristic of a race, but of a stage of development.
Obviously the sculptor in marble or wood is bound to set out by
blocking out his figure in broad planes: relative development shows
itself in the amount of skill which the artist exhibits in graduating
and refining these planes into each other. Early Greek art shows this
particularly, because it derived largely from Egyptian traditions,
and was long in breaking loose from set canons. But it is none the
less true of all sculpture in which an historical development can be
traced. The history of Italian sculpture down to Michael Angelo is so
much under classical influence that its evolution may almost be said
to be an index of its information regarding Greek art. Michael Angelo
unfortunately corresponds to the Pergamene stage. Already, before his
day, the great Italian medallists had shown in their medal work what
is probably, outside of classical times, the nearest approach to the
best Greek relief, and they worked largely on Greek lines. It is not
by coincidence alone that the helmeted knight on the well-known medal
of Ludovico Gonzaga naturally suggests an analogy to the bronze now
exhibited. In both cases the simple effect is attained by a judicious
elimination, by contrasted planes, and by a skilful co-ordination
into an harmonious whole. ¶ This bronze is said to have been found at
Grumentum, in Lucania, a city which, as its name and its geographical
position show, was never a Greek colony, though latterly a town of some
importance. Probably it found its way there in the course of Corinthian
traffic: the long-bodied horse, the unusual subject of a helmeted
horseman, the treatment of mane and tail, are all characteristic rather
of the Corinthian art of the sixth century ~B.C.~; and we know how
active the Corinthian colonists were at that period in south Italy.
¶ The same characteristic treatment is seen in the splendid bronze
head from Chatsworth (No. 8). It is an Apollo rather over life size,
belonging to that interesting transitional stage which immediately
precedes the Parthenon. In this case, however, the archaism is partly
conscious; the artist realizes the maxim _peu de moyens, beaucoup
d’effet_, and uses it to advantage. The type chosen is that of a strong
virile athlete, with hair still long, but just budding into manhood,
the Βούπαις (‘bully boy’), as Furtwängler points out, of an epigram
on a contemporary statue of him by Onatas. What a contrast this to
the soft and dreamy Sauroktonos of the succeeding century: with its
almost architectural symmetry, its vigorous subordination of all search
for detail to general effect, and its mathematical balance of large
lines and large planes, it seems to stand as a visible protest against
weakness and effeminacy. As Emerson puts it, this one head might be the
indemnification for populations of pygmies or weaklings. The step from
this to the Parthenon is short in point of years, but is artistically
an interval which is strongly defined, for within its limit Greek
sculpture has entered into its birthright. This stage is nobly
represented in the exhibition by the fragment from a slab of the north
frieze of the Parthenon, reproduced in Plate I. Broken away probably at
the time of the Venetian bombardment, it seems to have been acquired in
Athens by Stuart, who sent it to Smyrna; a few years ago it was dug up
beside a rockery in a garden in Essex; what its movements were between
Smyrna and Essex is matter for conjecture. A former owner of the Essex
property was a Mr. Astle, who was a trustee of the British Museum, and
may be supposed to have had an interest in antiquities: _habent sua
fata_, these flotsam relics of antiquity: this is not the only marble
in the exhibition which has been excavated on English soil. The head
(No. 24), which early in the seventeenth century belonged to the famous
Arundel collection, was recently dug up by a navvy in London close to
the Temple, on the site that was once part of the Arundel house garden.
¶ The surface of the Parthenon fragment has suffered, of course, but
not so grievously as might be expected. It gives the head of one of the
mounted knights of the north frieze, and the horse’s head of the figure
immediately following him. The youth is from northern Greece, probably
from one of the Thracian colonies of Athens, as his Thracian headdress
of foxskin (the _alopeke_) shows. That his horse is in movement even
the fragment makes clear by the light tresses of hair blown backward
beneath his cap, of which the heavy tail is itself curved outward by
the motion; but his eyes are intently set on his forward path, and the
firm and straight yet supple poise of neck and torso bespeak his ‘magic
horsemanship.’ The figure behind him (preserved in the British Museum),
a squadron commander or marshal, turns partly round in his seat,
checking his horse, apparently to give an order to his section; with
the suddenness of the action the horse’s mouth is wrenched open and his
head thrown back, the plaited forelock swings upward, and every muscle
is tense; the motive is a subtle variation on the theme represented by
the splendid horse’s head of Selene or Night in the eastern pediment,
but with this principal difference, that while this horse is answering
to its rider’s curb, the Selene horse is probably starting back of
its own accord, in alarm at taking the downward plunge. Now that this
beautiful fragment has found its way to London, is it too much to hope
that it may make one more journey--and that its last--to Bloomsbury,
and rejoin the slab to which it fits?
[Illustration: PLATE IV--BRONZES
SMALL BRONZES: HANDLE OF AMPHORA BELONGING TO MR. WYNDHAM COOK; MASK OF
SEA DEITY BELONGING TO MR. GEORGE SALTING; PLAQUE BELONGING TO MR. H
WALLIS
APHRODITE WITH TORCH, BELONGING TO MR. J. E. TAYLOR
SICK MAN, BELONGING TO MR. WYNDHAM COOK
SEILENOS CROUCHING, BELONGING TO MR. J. E. TAYLOR
NUDE APHRODITE, BELONGING TO MR. CHARLES LOESER]
[Illustration: PLATE V
REPOUSSÉ MIRROR-COVER; IN THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. E. TAYLOR]
From Pheidias it is natural to turn to that other sculptor who
shared with him the glory of the latter part of the fifth century.
Polykleitos, the leader of the Argive school, did for the physical
ideal what Pheidias had done for the religious. His earliest recorded
work, the statue of a boy-boxer crowning himself with a wreath, set
up at Olympia about 440 ~B.C.~, has been identified in four different
replicas, of which one is the head belonging to Sir Edgar Vincent (No.
45), shown on Plate III. The statue-base itself was found at Olympia
in 1877, still bearing its dedicatory inscription, and with marks
showing that the figure was of bronze. From a marble copy to a bronze
original, and that of an artist whose bronze technique was by many
considered pre-eminent in antiquity, is a far cry, but even in this
head we may see some faint reflection of the genius of Polykleitos. The
curved surfaces definitely meet and intersect instead of merging almost
insensibly into one another, as happens in marble work. In this respect
an admirable contrast is offered by the famous head of Aphrodite,
belonging to Lord Leconfield, on Plate II. This head, which is in the
catalogue (No. 22) boldly described as ‘an original by Praxiteles,’
in acceptation of a suggestion originally due to Payne Knight, and
later adopted by Furtwängler, is undoubtedly the most beautiful
Aphrodite head in this artist’s style which has come down to us. A
comparison of it with that of the Olympian Hermes and with the copies
of the Knidian Aphrodite makes this identification at least highly
probable. The hair is apparently roughly finished and almost sketchy,
but offers an admirable contrast to the highly polished surface of the
flesh, and even without the colour which certainly once covered it is
magically successful in its rendering of texture. The high triangular
forehead-space, which gives distinction to the type and value to the
setting of the eyes, is almost identical with the forehead of the
Knidian Aphrodite, and also that of the Knidian Demeter, a statue
certainly under strong Praxitelean influence: the slight projection
over the brows, the so-called ‘bar of Michael Angelo,’ which is so
marked a feature in the Hermes, is introduced here with extraordinary
delicacy of effect. It is no wonder that Lucian singled out for praise
in the Aphrodite of Praxiteles ‘the beautiful line of her forehead
and brow, and her melting eye, full of joy and of pleasure.’ The
eyes indeed are especially characteristic; their narrow opening in
proportion to the length (_yeux bridés_), the slight projection of the
lower lid, which gives an indescribable softness to the shadow beneath
it, the almost imperceptible transition at the outer corner both of
eye and mouth, are all traits which belong to Praxiteles alone. The
oval contour is skilfully redeemed from formality by the dimple in the
chin, just as the columnar neck is softened by the soft fold midway.
For beneath all the refinement, which might easily become voluptuous,
there is withal a physical dignity of form which bespeaks the goddess,
‘che muove il sole e l’ altre stelle.’ The artist ‘keeps the two
vases, one of aether and one of pigment, at his side, and invariably
uses both.’ ¶ In the presence of this masterpiece it is difficult to
share the admiration which the catalogue bestows on the Head of a Girl
from Chios (No. 44). The intention of the sculptor was obviously to
reproduce a Praxitelean type; but whatever this head may once have
been, the entire surface has been so rubbed down that it now looks
like a model in partly melted loaf sugar. Under these circumstances
any close study of the details is fruitless, but the characteristic
features, especially the mouth, are so weakly conceived that it
probably looks as pretty now, half hidden under a ‘baldacchino,’ as
ever it did; its prettiness indeed seems to be its highest claim to
notice.[84] ¶ The head belonging to Mr. Claude Ponsonby on Plate
III has lately been claimed as Lysippean by M. Salomon Reinach.
Unfortunately we know very little of the characteristic treatment of
the features by Lysippos; we know that he was essentially a worker in
bronze, that he introduced a more natural treatment of the hair and
an animation of facial expression, and that this last qualification
naturally led him into portraiture. The general outline of the
eye cavities, and the form and modelling of the forehead, closely
resemble those of the Alexander portrait in the British Museum; and
the rendering of the hair has a certain naturalism which is also
found in the Alexander: moreover there is a tragic intensity in the
almost haggard eyes and parted lips which, together with the loosened
tresses and the drapery covering the back of the head, certainly
mark the head as the portrait of a mourning woman. Further than this
perhaps we cannot go; but it is worth noting that Tatian mentions the
portrait of a woman (the Praxilla) by Lysippos, which we may presume
to have been something like this. Michaelis suggests that it may have
belonged to ‘the statue of a mourning woman which may have served as
the decoration of some sepulchral monument.’ This is probably not far
from the truth; at any rate the head seems to stand midway between
the conventionalized portraits of the Athenian stelae and the more
realistic portraiture of the Hellenistic age, well represented in the
exhibition by the busts of Menander (No. 26) and the presumed Hipponax
(No. 27). ¶ The _genre_ side of Hellenistic art is well represented
in the exhibition by the large bronze statuette of Eros, a dexterous
figure of a winged laughing boy rushing forward through space with
outspread wings and right foot just touching the ground; Mrs. Strong
justly points to the motive as an ultimate evolution from that of
the Nike of Samothrace, wherein the weight of the body seems partly
supported by the foot and partly by the spread wings, which serve
as a counterpoise to the structure. It is quite in consonance with
Hellenistic sentiment that the love-god should be shown as the victor
in the sacred torch race, the Lampadephoria --Eros the unconquerable,
the ἀνίκατος μάχαν, invades the palaestra and beats the athlete at
his own game. ¶ When I first saw this charming figure (it was in a
room at the Charing Cross Hotel, on his first arrival here) the then
owner told me the circumstances of his discovery. Not far south of
Vesuvius the river Sirmio finds its way to the sea; at a spot on the
Pompeii side which probably in antiquity marked a ferry or ford, this
statuette with other things was excavated. The presumption is that the
hapless owner, fleeing from the eruption with his treasure under his
arm, was overtaken here, possibly while waiting for the ferry-boat. It
is a tragic little history, all the more touching somehow on account
of the subject which the figure represents. ¶ In its collection of
smaller bronzes the exhibition is particularly rich. A small selection
is here given in Plate IV. The archaic period is represented by the
little crouching or, more probably, dancing Seilenos (No. 34), the wild
animalistic sprite of the woods, half bearded man and half horse, as
Ionic art depicted him; by the amphora handle (No. 92) in the form of
a youth bent backwards below two panthers which rested on the lip of
the vase; and by the charming little Aphrodite (No. 20) whose formal
drapery and pose, combined with a refinement of delicate modelling, are
together characteristic of the springtime of Greek art. With her may be
contrasted the tiny nude Aphrodite (No. 11) to which an ancient admirer
has presented a necklace, bracelet, and anklet in gold, probably, as
Mrs. Strong suggest, an adaptation of a famous statue by Praxiteles. ¶
On Plate V is a fine example of the repoussé mirror-covers which seem
to have belonged exclusively to the fourth and third centuries ~B.C.~
The nearly full-grown Eros with long wings is characteristic rather
of the earlier stage; otherwise the subject, in which he assists a
lady or his mother at her toilet, is a favourite one for this class
of representation. An unusual form of mirror support is Mr. Wallis’s
plaque (No. 62), which has the design cut out _à jour_, as beautiful
in its pale blue patina as it is in the dexterous adaptation of the
composition to the space which it has to fill. The owner suggests
that the reclining winged boy is Hypnos rather than Eros; if so, it
is an unusual rendering of the god of sleep.
[Illustration: PLATE VI
(_a_) (_b_) (_c_) (_d_) (_e_)
(_a_) CARYATID FIGURE; (_b_) WOMAN LEANING ON PEDESTAL, BELONGING TO
MR. J. E. TAYLOR; (_c_) DOLL, BELONGING TO MRS. MITCHELL; (_d_) WOMAN
WITH A FAN, BELONGING TO MR. JAMES KNOWLES; (_e_) THE YOUNG DIONYSOS,
BELONGING TO MR. J. E. TAYLOR
TERRACOTTAS]
[Illustration: PLATE VII
KRATER BELONGING TO HARROW SCHOOL
(_a_) (_b_)
(_a_) KYLIX SIGNED BY TLESON, AND (_b_) PLATE SIGNED BY EPIKTETOS; IN
THE COLLECTION OF THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON]
The Alexandrine period is represented on Plate IV by Mr. Salting’s
fine mask of a sea deity (No. 113) with inlaid eyes and marine emblems
skilfully worked in, suggestive of the grotesque masks of Pompeian
and cinquecento Italian art; and by Mr. Wyndham Cook’s puzzling
seated statuette of an emaciated man (No. 50). This figure has usually
been described as a pathological study, a votive offering to Asklepios
from a sick person. The careful workmanship, however, and the fact
that it is inscribed with the name of the personage represented seem
to militate against this view; moreover the figure does not seem
to represent actual suffering so much as austerity. The excessive
emaciation, the pose, and the fixed abstracted expression appear to me
to indicate rather ecstasy, the ἔκστασις of the mystic, the Pythagorean
anchorite who, like the Brahmin, has learnt by mortification of the
flesh to project his soul into the unseen. We know the interest that
Alexander took in the Indian _yogins_, and that he had intended
to bring one of them, Kalanos, back with him to Greece. It is not
improbable that other Greeks may have taken up the idea: and it is
significant that this bronze was found at Alexander’s own city of Pella
and bears a Macedonian name. If this be so, it adds an extraordinary
and unique interest to the little bronze. ¶ The group of terracotta
statuettes on Plate VI are chosen as characteristic types of different
forms of this charming art. The little doll (No. 24) made, perhaps,
in imitation of a Persephone figure, but intended to have movable
limbs, and the Caryatid figure (No. 26) belong to the fifth century;
the latter is remarkable for its strongly Pheidian character of type
and drapery, and is certainly of Attic work nearly contemporary with
the Parthenon. The young Dionysos (No. 7) and the two girls (Nos. 3
and 10) are good instances of the peculiarly modern sentiment which
pervaded the art as well as the literature of the Hellenistic age.
These figures are the bric-à-brac of antiquity; the far-away ancestors
of Dresden, and Saxe, and Watteau, with some of their coquetry and
none of their artificiality. ¶ Before leaving the terracottas it is
necessary to mention the large head of Zeus (No. 46) which has been
added since the exhibition opened; Professor Furtwängler and Mrs.
Strong consider this head to be ‘a Greek work of the great period of
Pheidias.’ It is particularly unpleasant to me to find myself differing
entirely from their view; after close and repeated examination I am
bound to say that it seems to me to belong to a well-known class of
terracottas which are now generally agreed to be of modern origin. ¶
Of the collection of vases there is only space here to include three
typical specimens (Plate VII); these are the kylix signed by the artist
Tleson (No. 16), with a charming drawing of two goats rearing up and
butting one another above a floral ornament; a good example of the
skill with which the Greek artist pressed into his service as pure
decoration a common scene of daily life; the plate (No. 79), signed by
Epiktetos, with its humorous ride-a-cock-horse subject, the precursor
of the Parthenon horseman riding on his own fighting-cock; and the
krater from Harrow School (No. 44), with its masterly composition
of the hero Kaineus overwhelmed by the Centaurs. In its strong firm
line, and spirited composition, which is yet kept in subordination to
the decorative effect of the vase as a whole, this work stands out
instinct with the combination of strength and self-control which are
the leading characteristics of the best works of Hellenic art. ¶ I
have already occupied so much space that the very important series of
engraved gems and coins must remain almost unnoticed, and this is a
pity because outside the great museums we are not likely ever to see
such a series again assembled. The beautiful drawings of Greece by
Cockerell, the wandering artist-scholar, one of the great builders of
English artistic repute in the Levant, these too must be left with a
bare mention. But this fact in itself speaks for the high standard
attained by the exhibition, on which Mrs. Strong and the club are much
to be congratulated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
~Pintoricchio: His Life, Work, and Time.~ By Corrado Ricci.
Translated by Florence Simmons. William Heinemann, 1902.
The publication by Mr. Heinemann of a large, costly, and elaborately
illustrated book upon Pintoricchio is evidence that this long-neglected
Umbrian painter is growing in popularity. Effaced for more than two and
a half centuries by the dazzling radiance of his younger contemporary’s
fame, Pintoricchio’s individuality, first appreciated by Rumohr, began
clearly to stand out again only when Morelli demonstrated that he was
the author of two frescoes in the Sixtine chapel. Even then he borrowed
his lustre from working where Michelangelo left his masterpieces,
and from having, as Morelli pointed out, influenced Raphael. It
remained for the anarchical taste of recent years to exalt him into an
important ‘Master’ on his own account. ¶ The occasion was offered by
the reopening in 1897 of the Borgia apartments, which he decorated;
for although the popes may have lost their power to immortalize
themselves by feats of statesmanship, the ambition to signalize their
pontificates by the patronage of art appears not wholly to have died
out. Leo XIII in restoring and opening to the public the magnificent
suite of rooms where, in the service of Alexander VI, Pintoricchio
toiled to make a monument to his patron, was no less the maker of
an artistic reputation than his Renaissance predecessors--with the
significant difference, however, that he conferred a posthumous fame,
a _succès d’archéologie_, instead of the renown that came from the
commission to rebuild and decorate that city of cities which has now
passed from under the papal sway. ¶ But, unless the lay world had been
independently attuned to Pintoricchio’s art, papal patronage would not
have carried his renown far. But modern art is just at a point where
Pintoricchio is really more sympathetic than the masters of the great
style, for in the break-up of artistic tradition and the decline of
classical taste the decorator of to-day is thrown back upon parading
the mere materials of his art, upon bright colour and relief, upon
sumptuousness, and the startling and attractive. He has, in fact,
dedicated himself to ornamentation--for we must not debase the word
decoration! And of ornamentation, of the sumptuous, the attractive,
the gay and the ingenious, Pintoricchio was a master. The gorgeousness
of the Borgia apartments delude even critics who ought to distinguish
more subtly, into praising them as art. It is so difficult to be stern
with the attractive! ¶ And so Pintoricchio, becoming popular, needed a
handsome book to reveal him further to his English admirers; and for
them, being English, a volume of mere illustrations, like the French
tome of M. Boyer d’Agen, did not suffice. There must be the flavour of
pedantry, of Morellianism, of research into origins, without omitting
the necessary historical setting. And so the publisher commissioned
the valiant Dr. Ricci, head of the great gallery of the Brera, to
prepare such a work, knowing well that he could not entrust it to
more skilful and conscientious hands. But, contrary to the Biblical
story, instead of blessing Israel the emissary of Balak was unable to
keep his tongue from curses! Dr. Ricci’s taste was too cultivated,
his experience of great art too profound, to permit him to raise the
chosen painter to the altar prepared for him, and the publisher was
thus constrained to write a short ‘Note’ explaining that, in spite
of what the author says, Pintoricchio really _is_ a great artist,
standing only just below ‘the three or four supreme masters’--close,
that is to say, to Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Giorgione!
Turning, however, to Dr. Ricci’s estimate, we find it absolutely
sane and just:--‘Pintoricchio ... was more attracted by the external
splendours of art than by its sentiment ... is wholly destitute of
passion ... and shows but little research in the matter of expression.’
And instead of joining in the unreserved praise accorded to him in the
publisher’s ‘Note’ as a ‘master of decoration,’ he, on the contrary,
criticizes his artist’s gaudiness and his lack of composition, and
utters a protest, particularly welcome at the present moment, against
the use of raised ornament in decorative painting. Indeed, while
Morelli’s account of Pintoricchio leaves the reader with a general
sense that he was to be preferred to his master Perugino, Dr. Ricci
nowhere loses his sense of proportion, nowhere unduly exalts the
subject of his work, and the resulting impression of his long book is
to place Pintoricchio in a just relation to the artists of his time:
attractive, sweet, agreeable, ‘exuberant and instinctively elegant,’
but almost never entering into rivalry with any master who possessed,
in however small a degree, any of the specifically artistic qualities.
His treatment, indeed, of Pintoricchio’s greatest work, the frescoes
of the cathedral library of Siena, scarcely does justice to the real
artistic merits of the decorative scheme. As these works so far surpass
the frescoes of the Borgia apartments, the impression they give of
‘gaiety and well-being,’ which Dr. Ricci barely touches on, might
well have been amplified. But one is grateful to him for pronouncing
himself so clearly against the current notion that the young Raphael
assisted Pintoricchio in these frescoes, instead of mystifying us
with the usual non-committal generalities on this subject; and also
for ranging himself so openly with Morelli and against Signor Venturi
in refusing the absurd ascription of Gentile Bellini’s drawings
to Pintoricchio. He calls attention to a phrase in Gentile’s will
which speaks of drawings of his in Rome, thus amply accounting for
the introduction of figures similar to those in Gentile’s sketches
into the Roman frescoes of the Umbrian painter so notoriously given
to pilfering. ¶ Singularly full and complete is Dr. Ricci’s list of
Pintoricchio’s works; indeed, the fault lies just in this! While we
thank him for sparing no pains to look up every possible work of his
painter, we must reproach him with being too liberal in questions of
authenticity. It is particularly among what Dr. Ricci considers the
early works that we find him too generous. It is in my opinion quite
impossible that Pintoricchio should have executed the Presentation at
Torre d’ Andrea, which shows so many of the characteristics of that
(deservedly) little known painter, Antonio da Viterbo[85], while the
copy at Siena of the central figures in the great ancona of 1498 at
Perugia cannot of course be, as he supposes, an _early_ work, and seems
to me too crude and flaccid to be by him at any period of his career.
The early Madonna in the Bufalini collection at Città di Castello I
cannot clearly remember, but the ruined Madonna with the infant John
in the _duomo_ of that town could certainly never have been touched
by Pintoricchio’s own hand, and Lord Crawford’s Madonna and Angels at
Wigan is too cold and hard for him, and indeed seems to be the work of
some Romagnol imitator of Pintoricchio, whose youthful hand was trained
under the benumbing influence of Palmezzano. ¶ I regret that I cannot
quite follow our author in his chronology of Pintoricchio’s works, for
the clear arrangement of which at the end of his book he nevertheless
earns our gratitude. The assumption that the Ara Coeli frescoes were
painted after those in the Sixtine chapel seems to me to confuse Dr.
Ricci’s view of the chronology from the start. To my eyes they are
clearly earlier works, although I know that Morelli here for once
agreed with Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and dated them as late as 1496. But
the whole question is by no means clear, and I confess to being unable
to discover in Dr. Ricci’s book the exact criteria he uses to determine
the date of a particular work. The Sienese _tondo_ which he calls early
seems to me definitely to belong to the period after 1500, and the two
Madonnas at Spello do not convince me that they are early, or even
that they are of the same date. Dr. Ricci professes himself not quite
convinced of the adequacy of internal evidence; nevertheless, like all
unbelievers, he constantly takes refuge in it, but not consistently,
and it is this uncertainty of method which, perhaps more than anything
else, prevents our following his conclusions with intelligent sympathy.
And this one regrets the more, because with the broad lines of his
book, and, above all, with his estimate of Pintoricchio, one has such
hearty sympathy. ¶ A word of protest must be added about the strange
translation and about certain carelessness apparent in the book-making.
‘Coetanean’ is an odd word to meet on the first page, and surely Dr.
Ricci never spoke of the ‘coast of Subasio’! ‘S. Bernardine,’ or, worse
still, ‘San Bernardine,’ is not a happy way of anglicizing the name of
the Sienese saint, nor is ‘Cybo’ an improvement upon the usual form.
‘Enea’ recurs in an irritating manner, where every cultivated English
person expects Aeneas; for, since Bishop Creighton’s sympathetic
account, ‘Aeneas Silvius,’ whether as humanist or pope, has become a
familiar name. Just here, by the way, I may express my surprise that
among Dr. Ricci’s historical references for Pope Alexander VI (p. 87)
he did not place Creighton’s account, the best in English, or perhaps
in any language. ¶ The subject of the first coloured plate is misnamed
‘S. Bernardino,’ although in the text correctly described as St.
Louis of Toulouse. And this leads me to protest against cheap colour
reproductions of this kind. The feeblest, young-lady water-colour
sketch after Pintoricchio could not resemble him less than these
coarse, smeared, falsely-tinted reproductions. They are worse than
useless; they are hideously misleading. The other illustrations of the
book, however, are copious and accurate, and we cannot be too grateful
for the reproduction of so many of the pictures in private collections,
photographs of which it is often almost impossible for the student to
procure.
M. L.
~Ancient Coffers and Cupboards.~ By Fred Roe. Methuen & Co.
Mr. Fred Roe’s book of ancient coffers and cupboards must surely be
the first of many such monographs. To-day the process block has made
it possible to illustrate with ease the most elaborate details of the
work of the ancient craftsmen, and within the covers of a book we may
bear home our museum to be pored over at leisure. And here we have the
chosen pieces of many museums, many churches, and many collectors’
hoards, in a form which makes them as useful to the new craftsmen as
to the antiquary. It is true that Mr. Roe has not given us process
work alone. Although such illustrations as those of the famous chest
of the twelve knights at the Cluny and the St. George chest at South
Kensington leave nothing to be desired, Mr. Roe does not allow it to be
forgotten that he can use a pencil with effect. His drawings, although
they have nothing of the tight and \T\-squared manner familiar in
architects’ drawings of old pieces, yet give a pleasant impression of
truth and trustworthiness, and err not on the side of that dangerous
cleverness which so often persuaded that great man M. Viollet le Duc
to translate ornament and detail from every scratch and stain of his
model. With a volume of the _Mobilier Français_ at hand Mr. Roe may
be at issue with the Frenchman on a definite point. Here we have the
great _armoire_ of Noyon as presented spick and span in the coloured
drawing of M. Viollet le Duc, and here we have it also from the pencil
of Mr. Roe. To our mind Mr. Roe seems the more trustworthy interpreter,
but one or other is at fault. On the first of the eight doors of the
_armoire_ Mr. Roe gives us a figure of the Virgin in a sweeping robe,
holding the Child in her arms. M. Viollet le Duc, with abundant detail,
gives us the same door with a bare-legged St. John Baptist in his
camel’s hair, supporting in his arms a lamb. ¶ It is no disparagement
to Mr. Roe’s written commentary to say that the early history of the
chest is told clearly enough by his well-arranged series of drawings
and photographs. We owe him thanks that he has avoided the temptation
which would persuade the writer upon any side of English archaeology
to gallop through his subject from Stonehenge to the great exhibition
within the covers of a single book. Here we have the history of the
mediaeval chest, from the thirteenth-century examples with which we
must perforce begin, to the end of the Gothic work in the fifteen
hundreds. There Mr. Roe stays, and for the story of the Elizabeth and
seventeenth-century chests, which are still in such plenty amongst us,
we may wait in good content for Mr. Roe’s future work. ¶ To those who
are familiar with inventories, and wills, and such-like documents of
the intimate life of our ancestors, the picture of the ancient English
home rises up furnished with a bed, a brass pot, and a chest; for
these good things came ever foremost amongst the few household goods
of folk of the middling sort. It would be difficult to say where the
collector might lay his hand nowadays upon the woodwork of a mediaeval
bed; the brass pots have for the most part served their day and gone
back to the foundry furnace; but the oaken chest remains here and there
in the countryside for a most curious and venerable relic. ¶ We can
hardly doubt that the familiar chest was from the beginning cunningly
decorated; but accurate knowledge begins with the thirteenth century,
with vast fronts of one or more broad beams set longways between two
broad uprights. For ornament we have suggestions of arch-work simply
indicated with chiselled lines and roundels of tracery. The ends are
solidly framed with massive timbers. Of painted chests a notable
example remains at Newport in Essex, and this Mr. Roe shows us in its
colours. The inside of the lid when upreared shows like a painted
reredos with a rood, the Virgin and St. John, and St. Peter and St.
Paul, each within a painted archway of reds and greens. Twelve shields
appear upon the chest, but on these remains no trace of the painted
bearings which would have told us the story of the piece. Below the
twelve shields, fessewise across the front of the chest runs a most
singular ornament, a broad band of open tracery cast in pewter. ¶ The
thirteenth century closes with the richly ornamented chest-fronts
which endure for the rest of the medieval period. The long chest in
Saltwood church is assigned by Mr. Roe to the century-end. The front
is covered with tracery work with deep mullions, the broad uprights
at the ends being filled with winged dragons in square panels. To
this century-end belongs also that most famous and glorious chest
which is the pride of the Musée Cluny, along whose mullioned front
stand twelve knights with shields and ailettes of their arms; and here
again we feel that, although the lighting of Mr. Roe’s photograph was
unfortunate, our modern illustrations must take the place of Viollet
le Duc’s too highly wrought drawings. ¶ Throughout the fourteenth
century we find in England the traditional window tracery along the
chest front, and the dragons or beasts in squared compartments of
the broad uprights. From Hultoft, in Lincolnshire, we have in a late
fourteenth-century chest an early example of a panelled and buttressed
piece, in which pierced and cut-out tracery has been applied to a flush
front. A lid painted inside with shields of arms belongs to a chest
formerly in the Chancery court of Durham, and, apart from its beauty,
claims our interest by the fact that the first shield is that of the
Aungerviles, of whom came Richard of Bury, bishop of Durham, and author
of the ‘Philobiblon,’ one of those few mediaeval books which yet find
readers. Concerning this shield, we may remark that Mr. Roe’s ‘Gules,
a cinquefoil _or_ (or argent) ermine pierced (of the field?)’ is not a
very lucid piece of blazonry. Between the shields a dragon meets with
a centaur-like figure in yellow hood and red kilt ‘running a tilt,’ as
Mr. Roe somewhat loosely phrases it, but really playing with the sword
and buckler. Forty-five years ago this chest was still in the Chancery
court; if we ask why it is now in the hands of an ‘eminent antiquary,’
we should have for answer a familiar story of the ignorance and wanton
folly of our half-civilized English official classes. A sad side of Mr.
Roe’s narrative is the recurrent exclamation at the fact that a church
chest, perfect in the days of Parker, Cotman, or Shaw, is now staved
in, or clumsily restored. This in such cases where the chest has been
suffered to remain. The Wittersham chest does not seem to have stayed
at Wittersham long after its beauties had been published to the world
in a ‘Dictionary of Architecture,’ and the fact that the nameless
connoisseur who removed it took with him the ancient parish stocks as
well leaves Wittersham without the means of dealing with the offence
of those who should have been its custodians. Parker engraves a famous
chest at Guestling, of which but one panel remained when the present
rector came to Guestling, and even this poor relic has gone the way
of the rest. It would be well if the thief were the one enemy of such
treasures--in that case the nation might come to its own some day; but
the church stove, even in our own time, has crackled with fuel for the
loss of which our descendants will curse their pig-hearted ancestry.
¶ Of the most interesting type, which Mr. Roe, who shuns the English
word chest, is pleased to call a ‘tilting coffer,’ we are afforded a
valuable set of pictures. It is good to see that perhaps the finest
panel of St. George and his dragon and Dame Cleodolinde is in our own
national collection at South Kensington. The barbarously fine chest at
Ypres will stand to all who know it for a familiar example. Mr. Roe,
being possessed with the idea that these figured chests are English in
design and working, is persuaded that the Ypres chest may have been
abandoned by the English army which sieged Ypres in 1383; but we may
confess that we find no notably English feeling in this chest or its
fellows. ¶ To follow the story of the gothic chest to its running to
seed in the sixteenth century were to encroach upon the office of Mr.
Roe’s excellent monograph. Mr. Roe’s work is clear and to the point.
We feel that he has not only drawn and photographed, but handled and
rummaged the chests of which he tells us. He is cunning in hinges
and locks, and forgeries of respectable standing and the mis-datings
of long tradition do not entangle him. It may perhaps be said of his
terminology that he attaches too definite and settled a meaning to
the words which he chooses to apply to various forms of the objects
of his study. The definition of a coffer as ‘a box of great strength
for the keeping and transport of weighty articles, having its front
formed by a single panel,’ as distinct from a hutch, ‘a household
coffer of a rough description,’ strikes us as too assured and exact. A
more serious blemish arises from Mr. Roe’s apparent belief that from
the character of the work upon a chest one may easily guess whether
its first home were in church or hall. The familiar window tracery
of many chest-fronts spells for him plainly church or monastery. By
the same token Mr. Roe would have us set down for a churchman every
fourteenth-century man who wore ‘Poules windowes’ cut in his shoe
leather, and the knights and dragons of many miserere-seats would show
him that the first place of their setting-up was in the castle hall.
Another odd fancy of Mr. Roe’s persuades him that the ‘civil wars,’
apparently those of the king and commonwealth, account for the loss of
many pieces of English gothic furniture. Such a fancy does not argue an
intimate knowledge of the history of the seventeenth-century struggles,
than which no wars have been waged with less sacking and burning; and
Mr. Roe, as his last words show, knows full well that the fellest
enemies of our mediaeval relics flourished in the nineteenth century
in the close and the rectory, sat at high tables of old foundations,
and even came to good credit as scholars and antiquaries. There are
honoured names amongst us to-day whose bearers have done deeds of
destruction to which Merciful Strickalthrow or Corporal Humgudgeon
would not have set their hands.
O. B.
~A Guide to Siena: History and Art.~ By William Heywood and Lucy
Olcott. Enrico Torrini, Siena, 1903.
Certainly it never rains but it pours. Siena, so long without any
adequate guide to her intensely interesting history and art, has
suddenly broken out into quite a literature to herself. Scarcely
has the controversy over the respective merits, or the reverse, of
Professor Langton Douglas’s ‘History’ and Mr. Gardner’s ‘Story’ ceased
to rouse our interest before a third guide appears in the field, which
to our mind is infinitely the best of the three. Less pretentious and
less costly, it contains in its smaller compass a mass of information
in a readable form that is within the comprehension of the dullest,
and yet worthy of the careful perusal of the most critical. Both Mr.
Heywood and Miss Olcott live in and love Siena, so that their several
parts are not only written _con amore_, but on carefully studied
data. The history is written with a swing that carries one along, and
yet leaves one at the end with a clear idea of what Siena was at her
best. Mr. Heywood’s charm of style--as might be expected from his
former work--is very great. It is easier, more lucid, and, without
being any the less expressive or forcible, is wholly free from the
few blemishes that might be objected to in his previous essays. No
one understands better than he the complications and kaleidoscopic
changes that occurred with so much abruptness in the government of
the republic. Therefore we have the more occasion to be grateful to
him for having set the main facts of her story before us, unhampered
by superfluous digressions and comments. Once only he pauses to give
eloquent expression to his admiration for that much-misunderstood and
much-abused body, the _Nove_, whose rule (1292-1355) was the longest
and most prosperous of all the various combinations that held sway in
Siena. They are usually represented as ruthless tyrants, and generally
detested and hateful; whereas there can be no question that their
firm, autocratic rule, if severe and sometimes cruel, held in check
alike arrogant noble and turbulent demagogue, and that under their
guidance Siena reached the highest point of her prosperity, internal
and external. At home flourished the arts of peace as they never did
again, and abroad her fame was European, her merchants were respected,
and her produce in demand throughout the civilized world. With the
fall of the _Nove_ fell Siena. Their hold over the reins of government
lasted sixty-three years;--no other body again held them so long until
she finally sank into the position of a subject city. Mr. Heywood’s
notices as to the saints and writers of Siena are all too brief, and
we would like to hear more from him about them, but space clearly
forbids: and, as he points out, readers may turn to his other works
for much that is perforce left unrelated here. We can only regret one
note (on p. 68), which we feel must have been inadvertent on his part,
and certain expressions in the bibliographical notice, to which we
refer presently. ¶ Miss Olcott’s section, being, we believe, her first
literary work, deserves an unusually high meed of praise. One may not
always agree with her attributions, and her judgement on painters that
she does not like is severe and not always quite just;--for example,
her attitude towards Sodoma and Beccafumi, respectively, will not be
endorsed by all her readers;--still, she has so evidently studied her
subject with thoroughness and care, working under the best direction,
and weighing her facts with so much patience and real insight, that one
can scarcely praise this first essay of hers too highly. Her attitude
towards the native Sienese artists of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries is so truly devotional that, even if it blinds her to the
beauties and merits of later workers, it disarms severe criticism. She
points out very truly--and in this respect she follows the same line
as Mr. Heywood in his history--that the art of Siena never rose again
after the middle of the fourteenth century (_i.e._, contemporarily
with the fall of the _Nove_) to the point that it then attained.
The various foreign influences that eventually came into the state
wrought fine achievements, but native talent was never again what it
had been in the days of Duccio, Simone Martini, and their immediate
successors. It is, however, true that in the following century very
great artists did arise, in whose praise the authoress is specially
eloquent. That she has great reason, the lovely works of such men as
Matteo di Giovanni, Neroccio di Landi, Lorenzo di Pietro (Vecchietta),
and Giovanni di Stefano (Sassetta) amply testify to those who have
eyes to see. To Neroccio and Vecchietta, moreover, she draws further
notice, since, like so many artists of their day, they were both
sculptors and painters, and obtained more than ordinary success in
either of the greater arts. Thus panel, bronze, and marble, when
touched by them, produce effects of exquisite charm in gracious line
and lovely expression that are unsurpassed and unsurpassable. We feel
no doubt that to walk through the city in Miss Olcott’s company will
be a pleasure, which student and traveller cannot fail to appreciate.
That small mistakes as to fact have occasionally crept in was of course
unavoidable; but for practical purposes they are unimportant. She has
managed to avoid the dullness of a mere record of facts, though her
notes are full of practically useful side-information; while, on the
other hand, she has not fallen into that temptation to dogmatize, so
difficult to escape from when dealing with a specialized school of
painting like that of Siena. ¶ Student and traveller alike have much
reason to be grateful for the work; mainly on account of its directness
and simplicity; though also for the valuable footnotes supplied by both
authors. The bibliographical lists are of great interest, but we cannot
refrain from remarking that the notice as to books to be avoided is, to
say the least of it, in doubtful taste. We understand the irritation
caused by such books as those specified to writers who have studied the
subject carefully, and we recognize fully the incalculable mischief
done by the inaccuracies of the modern catchpenny magazine contributor;
but we cannot but think so long and virulent an attack, however justly
deserved, quite unsuitable within the pages of a guide book. We suggest
that in a future edition these pages might be omitted, as being the
only serious blemish to a book on which authors and publisher may be
very heartily congratulated.
R. H. H. C.
~Yacoub Artin Pasha: Contribution à l’Étude du Blason en Orient.~
Londres (B. Quaritch), 1902.
The prospectus issued by the publisher of this work contained the
extraordinary statement that ‘E. T. Rogers Bey, in his contributions to
the subject, established beyond doubt that coats of arms and armorial
bearings were introduced into Europe by the crusaders in imitation of
the practice of the eastern princes whom they had encountered in the
field of battle.’ It would surprise no one acquainted with the vexed
question of heraldic ‘origins’ to know that he did nothing of the
kind. What he did advance was that ‘... les avis sont partagés sur la
question de savoir si les Croisés ont pulsé en Orient les notions
de cet art [blazon] ou s’il est exclusivement d’origine européenne.
Les arguments en faveur de son origine orientale me paraissent les
mieux fondés, car ils sont soutenus par des données historiques. Un
esprit militaire et même chevaleresque existait parmi les Musulmans
de l’Arabie, de la Syrie et de l’Égypte, longtemps avant la formation
de nos ordres de templiers et de chevaliers; et il est fort probable
que cet esprit guerrier s’est communiqué par l’entremise des Venitiens
et des Génois et repandu peu à peu en Europe même avant la première
croisade.’ We do not hesitate to say that beyond this string of theory
there is nothing in the forty-nine pages of Rogers Bey’s ‘Le Blason
chez les Princes Musulmans de l’Égypte et de la Syrie’ (Bulletin de
l’Institut Égyptien, 1880) offering proof of the derivation of European
armory from the east. All this we quote _in extenso_ because Artin
Pasha’s work is, he states, to be regarded as the sequel to Rogers
Bey’s memoir, and because, where he touches the origin of western
heraldry, his remarks are likewise mere unfounded assertion. Neither
does his knowledge of European arms appear to be of the most accurate
order; he states that Louis IX of France was the first to adopt the
fleur de lys, when in fact the seal of that monarch’s father, Louis
VIII, bears a shield semé de lys, bearings which may be traced back to
the mantle and shoes worn by Philip Augustus at his ‘sacre’ in 1179,
similarly sown with fleurs de lys. Needless to say, the correctness of
no theory concerning the origin of European blazon is demonstrable,
and it is to be regretted that the author did not steer clear of it
altogether. As an account of Moslem blazon and of the emblems found
upon Arabic glass, pottery, sculpture, coins, metal-work and arms,
Artin Pasha’s work, in spite of such blemishes, will be of great
value to archaeologists and collectors. The author has been at pains
to obtain as complete a series as possible of the strange insignia
frequently figuring upon these works of art. His plan is to discuss the
bearings such as the fleur de lys, lion, fish, eagle, cup, dice, horns,
the so-called hieroglyphic signs, the sword and sabre, crescent, cross,
dagger, separately, each with its history, and a catalogue of extant
examples. Of these over three hundred are reproduced, many in colour,
from Egypt and the continental and London museums. Unfortunately many
are unidentified, and it seems to us that it would have increased
the value of the book if approximate dates had been assigned to the
objects decorated with such insignia as remain for the present in this
category. The constitution of mameluke society, to which the majority
of mediaeval armigerous Egyptians belonged, is the great obstacle to
a systematic identification or study of their heraldry, if heraldry
it can be called. The cases in which insignia are known to have been
inherited are so few, says the author, that one cannot affirm that
hereditary blazon generally existed in Egypt, though in the case of
the emirs he concludes for the existence of transmission from father
to son; admittance to the mameluke body was closed, apparently, to
their legal offspring, and in the majority of cases their insignia
denoted official or court rank and changed with it. ¶ Artin Pasha gives
also a great deal of information concerning the emblems used by other
oriental nations, though his arguments seem occasionally to bring
within the net heraldic purely conventionalized animal or vegetable
forms, attributing to much merely symbolical or ornamental material a
character unwarranted by the strict significance of the term blazon.
A. V. ~de~ P.
~Jules Helbig. La Peinture au pays de Liége et sur les bords de la
Meuse.~ xiv and 510 pp., 30 phototypes, and numerous cuts. Liége,
1903. 12 by 8½ inches. 15s.
This, the second and much enlarged edition of a volume published thirty
years ago and long out of print, contains the fruits of the author’s
researches, not only at Liége and in the Mosan towns, but also in many
museums and private collections. ¶ In the first fifty pages he has
brought together all the documentary evidence as to the introduction
and progress of art in the principality, illustrating the same by
reproductions of the paintings on the mutilated shrine of Saint Odilia
at Kerniel, of miniatures from manuscripts in the British Museum,
the Royal Library at Brussels, etc., and of the exquisite storied
embroideries on the antependium from the church of Saint Martin at
Liége, now in the Industrial Art Museum at Brussels. In the next three
chapters the author treats of the Benedictine artists of Liége, of the
Mosan contemporaries of the Van Eycks, and of the paintings executed
in the fifteenth century, of which so little has escaped destruction.
As to the painters who flourished in the sixteenth century there is
fuller information, though there yet remains much to be done before
the history of Joachim Patenir and Henry Bles can be cleared up and
their works classified. Of Lambert Lombard and his pupils and followers
the author gives us a full account, and from their time onwards to
the end of the eighteenth century this volume contains a thoroughly
complete history of the painters who flourished in the district and
of the paintings they executed. We congratulate the author on the
termination of this work, which, with the volume on sculpture and the
plastic arts published by him in 1890, constitutes a very satisfactory
and well-illustrated history of art in the principality of Liége.
W. H. J. W.
PERIODICALS
~Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen~, 1903, 2.~
Heft~.--The article of most general interest in the current number
is that by Drs. Ludwig and Bode on the picture of the Resurrection
recently acquired by the Berlin gallery from Count Roncalli of Bergamo.
The assumption that this is by Giovanni Bellini himself rests on the
following evidence: The church of St. Michael, on the cemetery island
of Venice, was so ruined in 1469 that the abbot of the Camaldulensian
house to which it belonged began to rebuild it. In the year 1475 the
patrician Marco Zorzi, of the Bertucci family, obtained permission
to build and furnish a family chapel in the church. The chapel was
dedicated to the Virgin, but in his mother’s will, dated 1479, it is
already referred to as the chapel of the Resurrection. Then follows the
testimony of later writers. Sansovino, 1581, describing the church,
says, ‘La risurrezzione a olio fu del medisimo Gian Bellino.’ Ridolfi,
1648, describes the picture fully, and attributes it to Bellini.
Boschini, 1664, calls it a Cima, an attribution which clung to the
picture in St. Michael’s till 1810, when it disappeared. It will be
noted that there is hitherto no proof that the Roncalli picture stood
once in the chapel in question. That a composition of this kind by
Bellini existed was already to be guessed from various motives copied
in other pictures. The question remains whether this is the identical
picture, and not, as has been hitherto thought, a late version by
Basaiti, Previtali or Bartolommeo Veneto. On the other hand it is noted
that Ridolfi’s account of the picture is so minute that one may assume
that the Roncalli picture is either the actual one that stood in
Zorzi’s chapel or an exact copy. The problem therefore resolves itself
into the question of whether the existing picture is a copy or not.
Drs. Ludwig and Bode are agreed that it is an original, and in spite
of some curious points which do not precisely agree with any other
existing Bellini we think they are right. The picture with which it has
most affinity is the Transfiguration at Naples, to which for various
reasons we may assign a date just a year or two previous to 1478, the
date of this work. If this is correct the likeness to Basaiti, Cima
and Bartolommeo Veneto is to be explained by the fact that this work
exercised a profound influence on the rising generation of Venetian
painters. It is to be noted also that we have here already the peculiar
honeycombed rock formation which the Vicentine painters, Montagna in
particular, afterwards employed. Whatever be the final verdict as to
the authorship of the work, the authorities of the Berlin gallery are
to be congratulated upon having secured one of the most imaginative
compositions in the whole range of Venetian art.--R. E. F.
Dr. Bode writes on the work of Hercules Segers, whose pictures, long
forgotten or ascribed to other masters, Rembrandt, Van Goyen, or
Vermeer of Haarlem, have recently been rediscovered, mainly through
the insight of Dr. Bode himself. The Berlin gallery has possessed
since 1874 the only signed picture hitherto known; another signed
work is now in the possession of Dr. Hofstede de Groot. These two, a
second landscape lately acquired by the Berlin gallery, and a picture
exhibited in London in 1901 under the name of Vermeer, but now the
property of Herr Simon, are reproduced. Other pictures discussed in the
text are a landscape ascribed to Rembrandt in the Uffizi and another,
also under Rembrandt’s name, in the National Gallery of Scotland.
A great part of the article is devoted to the etchings, the true
starting-point of all our knowledge of Segers. About sixty of these
are known, of which the Amsterdam cabinet has fifty, while very few
other collections possess any considerable number. Several admirable
facsimiles in colour accompany the article, and the interesting
announcement is made that a publication of the entire work of Segers is
contemplated, under the editorship of Prof. Jaro Springer. Almost all
the etchings are landscapes, generally printed in colour on a prepared
ground, and often finished by the artist with the brush. Dr. Bode
discusses the question whether the wild mountain scenery depicted in
most of them was invented by the artist or true to nature, and decides
for the latter alternative. A great curiosity is the etching in colours
of the Lamentation for Christ, copied by Segers from a wood-cut by Hans
Baldung. An excellent reproduction is given of the impression recently
acquired by the Berlin cabinet. Dr. Bode does not mention the fact that
an impression was already known in the collection of King Frederick
Augustus II at Dresden, where it passed for a drawing by Baldung till
its true character was discerned some years ago by Prof. Lehrs.
C. D.
~L’Arte.~ Parts I-IV. 1903.--The publication of _L’Arte_, suspended
owing to a strike at Rome, has been resumed, and we have received the
first four parts for the current year. Signor Venturi appears to have
finally discovered the authorship of the small bronze doors which close
the reliquary containing St. Peter’s keys in S. Pietro in Vincoli.
These, which have been variously praised as Pollajuolo’s and disparaged
as Filarete’s, are really not Florentine at all, but by the Milanese
Caradosso, working doubtless under Florentine influence. There are
two replicas of the two bas reliefs on the doors in question. Both,
though alike in the general composition, are curiously modified in
some essential particulars which render the subjects unintelligible.
One of these replicas is in the Louvre, where it is attributed to the
Florentine school; the other, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is
more rashly ascribed to Lorenzo Ghiberti, to whose style it does not
conform at all. ¶ M. Marcel Reymond solves satisfactorily a puzzling
question connected with the tomb of Onofrio Strozzi in the church
of Sta. Trinità in Florence. This has been ascribed on documentary
evidence to Piero di Niccolò, who was supposed to have executed it
in 1418. In 1423 Piero di Niccolò executed at Venice the essentially
gothic monument of Doge Mocenigo, while Donatello himself only arrived
at a conception like that of the Strozzi tomb in his monument of
Giovanni de’ Medici in 1429. On stylistic grounds there can be no
doubt that the Strozzi tomb is nearly a decade later than the Medici
tomb, and yet the documentary evidence has been hitherto allowed as
authoritative. On closer examination, however, this appears to be
quite inconclusive; it is a warning of the necessity for re-examining
documents in the light of the evidence afforded by style. The Strozzi
tomb may be safely considered to be no earlier than the close of the
fourth decade of the century. It is either, M. Reymond thinks, by
Donatello himself, or by some sculptor who carried out a design by
him. ¶ The remains of Pisan domination in Sardinia are the subject of
researches by Signor Dionigi Scano, who has had the good fortune to
discover at Oristano a signed statue by Nino Pisano, together with a
number of bas reliefs in which he traces Pisan influence. The very
crude architectural settings of most of these, however, betray a strain
of northern influence. Far finer than these are the thirteenth-century
lion-head door handles in bronze which he reproduces. ¶ Dr. Seidlitz
returns to the question of Zenale and Buttinone _à propos_ of Signor
Malaguzzi Valeri’s interesting book on Lombard painters. He points
out the impossibility of supposing, as Signor Valeri does, that the
Castelbarco altarpiece in the Brera belongs to the fifties. The
supposed 5 of the date must be a mutilated 8. In the main, however,
he appears to have come independently to similar conclusions about
the respective shares of Buttinone and Zenale in the great Treviglio
altarpiece. He calls attention to the important picture by Zenale (the
Circumcision) in the Louvre overlooked by the Italian writer, but by
far the most interesting suggestion that he makes is that the strangely
imaginative composition of the Adoration in the Ambrosian Library which
Morelli described as an early Bramantino is by Buttinone himself.
It must be admitted that in no other work does that artist display
a freedom and originality of invention comparable to this, but the
likenesses to his peculiarly uncouth style are certainly striking. We
should like to call attention to the fact that most of these ideas were
suggested some years ago by Mr. Herbert Cook in his catalogue to the
Lombard exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club. Both Dr. Seidlitz
and Signor Valeri are acquainted with this work, but neither has had
the courtesy to make full acknowledgement of Mr. Cook’s priority. ¶
Signor Francesco La Grassa-Patti writes on the works of the Della
Robbia in Sicily. The full-length Madonna at Trapani he attributes to
Andrea, though the coarse vigorous forms suggest Giovanni while still
working in his father’s style as more likely. The work is described as
Giovanni’s by Miss Cruttwell. The second is a tondo at Messina (Sta.
Maria della Scala) which Miss Cruttwell describes as a school piece.
This also is attributed by Signor Grassa-Patti to Andrea, while the
one work for which Andrea’s authorship might be claimed, the Madonna
del Cuscino at Palermo, is called a school piece. A fourth work is
the Adoration in the church of S. Niccolò lo Gurgo at Palermo. This
M. Reymond considers to be one of many replicas of the motive. The
author makes no mention of Miss Cruttwell’s exhaustive researches,
although, with the exception of the last, all these works have been
fully and critically treated by her. ¶ Signor Gino Fogolari describes
some wooden sculptures of the twelfth century at Carsoli and Alatri.
Those at the latter place comprise a magnificent Madonna and Child,
one of the finest specimens of the type which was usual in Italian
sculpture of this period, and twelve has reliefs of the doors which
originally closed the Madonna’s shrine. These are of interest as still
possessing some of the original colouring and for their similarity in
technique to the ivory work of the period. ¶ Dr. Romualdi describes an
admirable plan which has been formed for making a complete _catalogue
raisonné_ of all publications on the history of Italian art. The
scheme is to treat the subject by means of regional committees, whose
work will be united and revised by central committees at Florence and
Rome. The importance of such a catalogue in a subject of which the
literature has become so unwieldy cannot be overrated: the scheme
deserves every encouragement. ¶ Signor Venturi replies at length to
Dr. Julius von Schlosser’s views concerning the sketch-book attributed
to Giusto of Padua in the National Gallery of Engravings at Rome,
maintaining the correctness of his original attribution. ¶ Among the
‘miscellanea’ there are descriptions of a fourteenth-century pastoral
staff in the cathedral at Treviso, which Signor Biscaro attributes to a
Venetian goldsmith. He seems scarcely to explain the peculiarly French
character of most of the forms. ¶ Signor Venturi gives a description
with a collotype reproduction of the newly-discovered Jacopo di
Barbari at Naples. It is evidently a striking picture in which the
influence of Antonello da Messina strongly predominates. The two men
represented in it are Luca Pacioli, the celebrated mathematician, and
the artist himself, whose apparent age agrees with that indicated by
the inscription, namely, twenty years. This, since the picture bears
the date 1495, throws a new light on Barbari’s position in Venetian
art. Signor Venturi also reproduces a drawing in the Piancastelli
collection at Rome, which appears to be the original work by Timoteo
Viti of which the head in the Taylorian at Oxford, hitherto thought to
be an original, is a replica. If the reproductions are to be trusted,
there can be no doubt about the superiority of the Roman drawing.
Signor Toesca attributes the coarse picture of the Coronation of the
Virgin in the Naples gallery (there ascribed to Matteo di Giovanni)
to Christoforo Scacco. He also reproduces an Antoniazzo Romano in
the depôt of the Uffizi. Signor Venturi maintains in a vehement but
unconvincing argument his former opinion that the Resurrection which
the Berlin gallery acquired recently from Count Roncalli at Bergamo
is not by Giovanni Bellini, but by Bartolommeo Veneto. ¶ Signor P.
D’Achiardi publishes a picture which is in the house of the cathedral
chaplains at Pisa which has hitherto been supposed to be merely
a school piece of Benozzi Gozzoli’s atelier, but which a recent
restoration has shown to be worthy of the master. It is dated 1470, and
is therefore one of the earliest of his Pisan works. Signor Manceri
adduces a document which shows that Pietro di Bontate, who was supposed
to have assisted Laurana in his works at Palermo, was not an artist but
a stonemason.
~Gazette des Beaux Arts~, June.--M. Henri Cochin begins, in ‘Some
reflections on the Salons,’ a delightful article which is none the
worse for containing very little about the pictures and a good deal
of general speculation about the aims which modern art has proposed
to itself. He regrets that the present moment is one in which the
public has to some extent lost confidence in its own omniscience,
and that the artists are without any clearly formulated ideals to
arouse their devotion or hatred. ¶ Owing to the activity of M. Paul
Meurice, Paris is going to have yet another museum, that of Victor
Hugo. In what was once the poet’s house in the Place Royale, there
have been collected and arranged all kinds of records and mementos of
the poet-politician’s career. Not the least important of these are the
pen-and-ink drawings in which he often made the first record of scenes,
elaborated afterwards in prose or verse. It is to these slight but by
no means insignificant performances that M. Emile Berteaux devotes
a serious study. There was, in fact, a time when Victor Hugo nearly
turned artist; he got so far as to master the processes of etching
and to produce one successful plate. But he realized the danger of
this parergon interfering with his real work and never repeated the
experiment. Nevertheless, to the end of his life he noted ideas or
striking effects in pen-drawings of astonishing force and brilliance,
on which he smudged a melodramatic chiaroscuro with a finger dipped in
ink or coffee. The results cannot be treated as great works of art, but
none the less every one of them proclaims the man of genius; nor are
they unimportant for the understanding of Victor Hugo’s development,
since the sombre mood of his later poems was already foreshadowed in
these hasty improvisations. ¶ M. Moreau-Nélaton describes the genesis
of one of Corot’s late works, the view of Sin-le-noble, now forming
part of the Thomy-Thiéry bequest to the Louvre. M. Denis Roche begins
an account of Dmitri Grigorévitch Lévitski, a little-known Russian
portraitist of the eighteenth century, whose works have decided merit.
A certain influence of contemporary Venetian art is apparent in his
composition, but for the most part he was formed under the influence
of French artists like Tocqué, whom the Empress Elizabeth invited
to Russia in the middle of the century. The portrait of Diderot
by Lévitski, which is reproduced here, shows that his feeling for
character was keener than the average run of West European painters of
his time. It is comparable to a Chardin rather than any of the more
mannered masters of the day.
~Rassegna d’Arte~, June.--Signor Carlo Gamba describes two works of
art in the royal villa of Castello; one, a Florentine picture (a
Nativity) of about 1460, in which the influence of Baldovinetti is
most apparent; the other a polychrome stucco attributed to Agostino
di Duccio. The composition is undoubtedly his, but the type of face
is longer and more accented than is usual with that master. ¶ Signor
Antonio Gobbo points out the great differences between the ancient
methods of mosaic work and those which obtain in the modern factories
at Venice and elsewhere. He insists rightly on the necessity of
doing the mosaic _in situ_, instead of reversed on a cartoon, on the
desirability of a restricted colour-scheme and of a less mechanically
even fabrication of the tesserae. It is interesting to have explained
thus the extreme discomfort one experiences in front of most modern
mosaics. ¶ Signor Annoni describes some remains of fifteenth-century
work in the northern suburb of Milan, the most interesting being
a fresco which he attributes to Borgognone at Garignano. ¶ Signor
Antonio della Rovere endeavours to prove by Morellian methods that a
feeble and late sixteenth-century Venetian picture, representing St.
Jerome, is by none other than Giorgione. As he relies for his proof
on the attribution to Giorgione of the Three Ages in the Pitti, and a
well-known Torbido in the Venice academy, his extraordinary result is
not entirely the fault of the method he employs. ¶ The Antonello da
Messina of Christ at the Column in the museum at Piacenza is reproduced
in this number. It is evidently a work of the highest importance for
our knowledge of this great and still scarcely understood master. In
conception and execution alike it surpasses all the numerous works by
Solario and others that it inspired.
~The Architectural Review~, June, contains an account of Orvieto
cathedral by Mr. Langton Douglas. He effectively disparages
Commendatore Fumi’s theory that the original design for the church
which follows the plan of a Roman basilica was by Arnolfo di Cambio,
and attributes it to ‘some mediocre master of the conservative Roman
school.’ With regard to the façade and the importance of Lorenzo
Maitano’s work at Orvieto he is in accordance with Burckhardt and Bode.
He has done a real service to students in reproducing the two beautiful
designs of the façade by the great Sienese master. In discussing the
sculptures of the façade he shows excellent reasons for assuming, as
was already done by Burckhardt and Bode, that Maitano was the master
sculptor. We are rather surprised to find him however admitting M.
Marcel Reymond’s contention that Andrea da Pontedera also had a hand in
the work, though at a much earlier date than that writer supposed. The
work, we think, is throughout thinner, slighter, and of a more facile
elegance than the known works of Andrea Pisano. Mr. Langton Douglas
tends to exaggerate the indifference of previous writers to Sienese
sculpture: the list of works which he gives, with the remark that they
have ‘entirely escaped the notice of M. Reymond and other writers upon
Tuscan sculpture,’ is more completely given in Bode’s ‘Italienische
Plastik’. ¶ For the rest the _Architectural Review_ is devoted to
contemporary works, among which we may call attention to Mr. Gilbert
Scott’s remarkable designs for the Liverpool Cathedral competition. We
may hope that even now it is not too late for the committee to revise
their verdict and give us the chance of seeing the execution of a
really vital and original gothic design.
The May number of the ~Emporium~ (~Bergamo~) which did not reach us
in time for our last issue contains an interesting account by Signor
Frizzoni of the Tadini gallery at Lovere. The gallery which, with the
immense modern palace that contains it, was left to the remote little
town of Lovere by Count Tadini, has, it must be admitted, a very small
proportion of notable works, but since Signor Frizzoni has rearranged
it, its value for the lover of art is considerably enhanced. It is no
longer necessary to wander through innumerable seventeenth-century
copies in order to pick out the few works that demand serious
attention. And these few are indeed of such excellence that no one
need regret the time spent in coasting up the winding shores of the
Lake of Iseo in order to visit it. By far the most remarkable of these
is the incomparable Jacopo Bellini of the Madonna and Child, perhaps
the finest existing work of this rare master. Besides this there is
Bordone’s greatest masterpiece, a Madonna and Child enthroned with SS.
Christopher and George below--a work of almost Giorgionesque splendour,
though it is needless to say more florid in taste and more agitated
in line. The curtain suspended behind by flying putti reminds one for
a moment of Lotto’s S. Bernardino altarpiece. Another fine picture is
the portrait of a knight by Parmigiano, while in a picture which the
catalogue describes as ‘un bellissimo quadro di Pietro Perugino,’ it is
possible to recognize the forms of an early Veronese master, probably
Domenico Morone himself. We can only hope that the trustees of the
Tadini bequest will carry out Signor Frizzoni’s suggestion and have
this picture, which has suffered from clumsy repainting, restored so
far as possible to its original condition. An early Venetian picture,
falsely signed Cornelio Fiore, and attributed, quite rightly we think,
to Lorenzo Veneziano by the author, and a crudely-painted Pietà, signed
by Girolamo da Treviso, are other original works.
R. E. F.
BOOKS RECEIVED
~Aubrey Beardsley.~ By A. E. Gallatin. Godfrey A. S. Wieners, New
York; Elkin Mathews, London. 20s. net.
~The Arts in Early England.~ By G. Baldwin Brown. Murray. Two
Volumes. 16s. each net.
~Chinese Porcelain (Vol. II.).~ By W. G. Gulland. Chapman and Hall.
10s. 6d.
~The History of Johnny Quae Genus.~ By Thomas Rowlandson. (Reprint.)
Methuen. 3s. 6d
~The Tour of Dr. Syntax.~ By Thomas Rowlandson. (Reprint.) Methuen.
3s. 6d.
~Illustrations of the Book of Job.~ By William Blake. (Reprint.)
Methuen. 3s. 6d.
~Memoirs of the Life of John Mytton.~ By Nimrod. (Reprint.) Methuen.
3s. 6d.
~Stradanus te Florence.~ By J. A. Orbaan. Nijgh and Van Ditman,
Rotterdam, 3s. 6d.
~L’Étude du Blason en Orient.~ By Jacoub Artin Pacha. Quaritch. £3 3s.
~The Vision of Dante~ (Cary’s translation). Newnes. 3s. 6d.
~Tintoretto.~ By J. B. S. Holborn. Bell & Son. 5s. (Great Masters
Series).
~History of the Pewterers’ Company.~ Two Vols. By C. Welch. Blades,
East, and Blades.
~The Norfolk Broads.~ By W. A. Dutt. Methuen. 21s.
~Catalogue of Engraved Portraits.~ Myers and Rogers.
~Il Duomo di San Giovanni.~ By Mospignotti. Alinari (Florence.) 5
lire.
~Fra Filippo Lippi.~ By J. B. Supino. Alinari. 10 lire.
~La Pittura Veneziana.~ By P. Molmenti. Alinari. 10 lire.
~The World’s Children.~ By Mortimer Menpes. A. and C. Black. 20s.
~L’Epopée Flamande.~ By Eugène Baie. J. Lebègue et Cie (Brussels).
3.50 f.
~The Works of Ruskin, Vol. III.~ (Library Edition.) G. Allen. 21s.
~Dante’s Divine Comedy.~ By Leigh Hunt. Newnes. 2s. 6d.
~The Shakespeare Country Illustrated.~ Newnes. 3s.
~Peintres de Jadis et d’Aujourd’hui.~ Perrin et Cie (Paris). 6 francs.
~Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft.~ Berlin.
~Academy Notes.~ Wells Gardner & Co. 1s.
~Royal Academy Pictures.~ Cassel. 7s. 6d.
~Über Otto Oseiner.~ By Johannes Guthman. Hiersemann (Leipzig).
~Catalogue of Japanese Wood Carvings, etc., in the Boston Museum of
Fine Arts.~
MAGAZINES.
~Gazette des Beaux Arts.~ Durendal (Brussels). Onze Kunst (Amsterdam
and Antwerp). L’Art (Paris). La Presse Universelle (Antwerp). L’Arte
(Rome). Rassegna d’Arte. The Architectural Review
A NEW MEZZOTINT
We have received from Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi & Co. an impression
of a mezzotint by Mr. H. Scott Bridgwater after Raeburn’s portrait of
Mrs. Home Drummond of Blair Drummond, which they have just published.
Raeburn loses nothing in Mr. Bridgwater’s translation, indeed the
mezzotint has greater merit as a work of art than the original picture;
we have seen no modern engraving in mezzotint which we can regard as
its equal. Mr. Bridgwater has produced a work worthy to rank with the
best mezzotint engraving of the eighteenth century--with the work
even of such a master of the art as J. R. Smith; and this portrait of
Mrs. Drummond is very much superior to some of the eighteenth-century
mezzotints for which absurd prices are being paid by people who regard
everything that comes from the eighteenth century with indiscriminating
admiration. We do not believe that anyone of taste and judgement, who
was not blinded by the eighteenth-century glamour, could seriously
maintain that any mezzotint of Valentine Green’s is to be compared as
a work of art with Mr. Bridgwater’s latest work. We have little enough
to boast of in modern artistic production; let us at least recognize
good work when we meet with it; the best work of modern artists has
been done in black and white, and most of the modern works of art that
are really worth collecting are drawings or etchings; to these we can
now add some mezzotints, among which Mr. Bridgwater’s Mrs. Drummond is
perhaps the most notable. The issue is restricted to 350 impressions,
all artist’s proofs.
❧ CORRESPONDENCE ❧
MR. JULIUS WERNHER’S TITIAN
~Sir~,
One of your subscribers in Venice has drawn my attention to an article
in your magazine (April number, p. 185), written by Mr. Herbert Cook,
and illustrating a magnificent portrait by Titian, in the possession
of Mr. Julius Wernher. Your subscriber tells me that similarly
insufficiently described Italian portraits are not uncommon in English
private collections, though, of course, not through the fault of the
collectors, as it is impossible to obtain sufficient information from
printed books only. We here in Venice are naturally better off, and
the public and private archives and the manuscripts in the libraries
offer much material to one who is experienced to handle it, and yield
in most cases sufficient information. So your subscriber has asked me
to show in the case of this Giacomo Doria what we can achieve here.
¶ To the student of palaeography it is not a matter of opinion, but
of certainty, that the inscription reads: Giacomo Doria _quondam_
Agostini, that means Giacomo Doria, son of the late Agostino. The
dress is not the habit of an Augustinian friar. In the famous concert
by Giorgione, in the Palazzo Pitti, the ecclesiastic playing the
clavi-cembalo is an Augustinian; he is clean shaven, has the large
tonsure, and wears a mozetta. It is impossible to decide by looking at
the reproduction alone whether Giacomo wears Venetian or Genoese dress,
everything being entirely black. According to Crollalanza’s ‘Dizionario
storico-blasonico,’ there were two families of the name of Doria--one
in Genoa, and one in the Veneto. Mr. Cook has not been able to decide
to which branch Giacomo belonged. ¶ Now Signor Comm. Carlo dei Conti
Bullo, at Venice, has a private archive containing many important
documents concerning the history of the town of Chioggia. These
documents show that the war between Venice and Genoa, called the war of
Chioggia, led to the settlement of several important Genoese families
in Chioggia. Amongst these are mentioned the Bonivento, the Cibo, the
Gandolfo and the Doria. ¶ The Chioggia branch of the Doria family
still exists; its present head is Signor Giovanni Battista Doria, a
draughtsman in the Genio Civile in Venice. This gentleman has in his
possession a genealogical tree, compiled and signed by two canons of
the cathedral of Chioggia, which proves his descent from Victor, son of
Giovanni, born in the year 1480, and founder of the Chioggia branch.
But in this tree no Giacomo di Agostino occurs. Now Signor Doria has
another tree, although not a signed one, which shows how Victor di
Giovanni is attached to the main trunk of the family in Genoa. In this
tree the looked-for Giacomo di Agostino occurs; he is therefore a
Genoese and not a Venetian. ¶ We give here the interesting part of this
tree:
Opicino Doria.
|
Bartolomeo, 1378.
|
Giovanni, 1398.
|
Domenico Bartolomeo, 1442.
|
+---------------------+--------------------+
| | |
Giovanni. Agostino, 1466. Giacomo
| | (_linea estinta_).
| |
+--------+----------+ +----------------------+
| | | | |
Bartolo. Vettor, Nicolò, ~Giacomo~. Giov. Battista.
1480, Chioggia. | Doge, 1528.
Chioggia. |
+------------------------+
| |
Agostino, Nicolò,
Doge, 1579 Doge, 1579.
We see from this tree that Giacomo was a man of eminence, a brother
of a doge, and the father of two doges of the republic of Genoa. His
personality is of particular interest to the Germans, as his nearest
relations play an important part in Schiller’s great tragedy, ‘The
Conspiracy of Fiesco.’ His cousins Vettor and Nicolò settled in
Chioggia, and, probably on the occasion of a visit to his relatives,
Titian painted his portrait. Signor Doria is not certain as to the
signification of the dates occurring in this tree, probably they mean
the year of birth. Mr. Cook puts the portrait about the year 1523, but
I am afraid it will have to be put to a considerably later date. ¶
This is all we can do in Venice; for further information about Giacomo
one would have to search the documents in the archives of Genoa.
¶ Curiously enough, Mr. Cook has not a word to say about the arms
which one can faintly recognize in the upper left-hand corner of the
reproduction. I give below the arms of the Genoese Dorias, and those
of the Dorias of Chioggia. ¶ From what I am able to make out, the arms
represented on the picture are the Genoese arms. I shall be happy to
search for arms occurring on Italian portraits in English collections,
and collect information about the persons represented, if printed books
fail to give the necessary help.
Yours truly,
~Giovanni De Pellegrini~.
Studio Araldico, Campo San Maurizio,
Venice.
[Illustration:
1 2
3 4
No. 1 is the shield of the Dorias of Genoa, taken from ‘Il Annuario
della Nobiltà Italiana.’
Nos. 2, 3, 4 are shields of the Dorias of Chioggia; No. 2 is carved on
a house in the _calle di S. Nicolò_ at Chioggia; No. 3 is carved
in the town hall of Chioggia and on a house on the Canal Lombardo;
No. 4 is carved in marble on a chimney of the _casa Doria_ at S.
Andrea. All three shields are given in the Ravagnan MS. belonging to
the municipality of Chioggia.]
[Illustration: Walker & Cockerell Ph. Sc.
The Great Executioner, from the mezzotint by Prince Rupert after
Spagnoletto, in the collection of His Majesty the King.]
THE LOWESTOFT PORCELAIN FACTORY, AND THE CHINESE PORCELAIN MADE FOR THE
EUROPEAN MARKET DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY[86]
❧ WRITTEN BY L. SOLON ❧
Mr. W. Chaffers is responsible for the spread of a theory regarding
the Lowestoft factory and its productions, which, after it had been
provisionally endorsed by the majority of collectors, turned out to
be one of the worst mystifications recorded in ceramic history. It
must be conceded, in mitigation of the offence, that seldom had such
a crop of apparently admissible evidence turned up to substantiate
an ill-grounded belief. ¶ On a visit that the author of ‘Marks and
Monograms,’ in quest of information, paid to the town of Lowestoft,
he came across numerous pieces of porcelain of very distinctive
character, bearing the crest or initials of the old families in which
they had long been preserved, and all of which were said by their
possessors to have been made in the local factory that existed at
one time. He concluded, naturally enough, that he was on the way
to the discovery of a most important and so far unsuspected centre
of production--a too-hasty conclusion that a prejudiced course of
investigation, unfortunately, came to strengthen. ¶ The ware that he
soon felt himself warranted to call ‘Lowestoft porcelain’ bore, it
is true, decorations of European design, but was no other than the
inferior oriental china that the East India companies threw wholesale
upon the market during the eighteenth century. In building up his lame
theory Chaffers had neglected to take into consideration a few points
of primary importance. ¶ All the ancient inhabitants of the town who
could remember anything of the extinct factory agreed in saying that
it was a small place, with only one biscuit oven and one enamelling
kiln, and that at the best of times the number of persons it employed
did not exceed seventy. Now, if the inquirer had not willingly lost
sight of the fact that the very same kind of porcelain as that of
which he was endeavouring to localize the origin was commonly found in
every country which had had commercial intercourse with the east, not
only in Europe, but also in America--where Boston and Salem were the
centres of a large importation trade--and that many ancient families
inhabiting the sea-port towns of those countries boast the possession
of tea or dinner services of similar china, emblazoned with the arms
or inscribed with the initials of an ancestor who had obtained them
from the East Indies; if he had not conveniently forgotten that odd
specimens of the ware are found in every collection and curiosity shop
at home and abroad, then he might have suspected that such a colossal
supply could only have come from a manufacturing centre of amazing
magnitude, and not from a small factory at work for a few years on the
coast of England. He also failed to observe that the paste of the china
was manifestly of oriental character, and that there is no record of
hard porcelain having ever been made at Lowestoft. ¶ On the other hand,
a coarse kind of soft china, usually painted in underglaze blue, has
been traced as the undeniable product of the Lowestoft factory, and
a sufficient number of examples of that class can now be produced to
dispel any doubt as to the precise description of the ware that was
made there, and to put an end to all controversy. ¶ To the facility
that the situation of Lowestoft offered for trading with Holland by
way of Yarmouth must be attributed the existence of a petty company
of merchants who joined to the importation of Delft-faïence the
manufacture, on a small scale, of a pottery of the same description.
White and blue faïence pieces, inscribed with local names and dated
as early as 1755, seem to indicate that the pottery-works were in
operation about that time. The making of soft china was added shortly
afterwards. A heap of discarded plaster moulds was unearthed from
the site of the old works in 1902; it included moulds for embossed
sauce-boats and plain globular teapots; upon one of these latter, the
date 1762 was incised in the plaster. The globular tea-pot made in
that mould is reproduced on the accompanying plate. In the same year a
queer, nine-sided ink-pot was manufactured; it bears a pseudo-Chinese
ornamentation in underglaze blue, with the monogram ‘R.B. 1762.’ Robert
Browne, for whom the piece was painted and inscribed, was the head of
the firm till 1771. This unimpeachable testimony of the true style
of the Lowestoft fabrication is now in the possession of Mr. Arthur
Crisps, in whose collection are preserved six other ink-pots of the
same shape, together with many other genuine pieces, decorated in the
same manner, and bearing dates ranging from 1762 to 1782. Among these
may be mentioned a tea service which has the name ‘Eliza^{th} Buckle,’
and the date 1768, painted in blue. It was executed by Robert Allen, a
nephew of the worthy dame, who was still serving his apprenticeship,
but in after times became the manager of the works. Also a number of
small articles bearing the words ‘A trifle from Lowestoft’ or ‘A trifle
from Yarmouth.’ None of these specimens have anything in common with
the so-called Lowestoft china. ¶ A family tradition discloses the way
in which porcelain making was introduced at Lowestoft. It is reported
that Robert Browne, anxious to master a process unknown to him and
from which he expected great results, repaired to London disguised as
a workman, and in that capacity took employment in one of the china
factories, either Bow or Chelsea. The discipline of former years had
somewhat relaxed in these establishments, and he had no difficulty
in worming out from one of the foremen, in exchange for adequate
remuneration, the secret of the mixture, with instructions about
practical manipulations. The object he had in view appears to have been
most easily attained; scarcely three weeks had elapsed when he returned
to his own works, provided with sufficient information to start
china-making at once, without calling any outsider to his assistance.
It is needless to observe that what he learned in this manner did not
put him in the position of producing hard porcelain, and that he could
not have made any on this basis. ¶ As it stands now the history of
the Lowestoft works is a short one to tell. A better knowledge of the
exact nature of the owners’ business might have been obtained from an
examination of the papers and account books of the old firm; they may
or may not be still in existence; at any rate, their contents have
never been investigated. We know very little besides the fact that
fritt porcelain was made for the first time in 1762, and that the
factory was closed in 1803. This article will, however, have fulfilled
its purpose if it establishes, once for all, not so much what was the
true Lowestoft ware, but what it was not. One may well wonder how it
came to pass that the name of the obscure Lowestoft factory could ever
have been mentioned in connection with a particular ware which, in
every country where the unmistakable specimens of it are met with in
large quantities, is recognized as being of oriental provenance. As
no conjecture has so far been advanced in answer to that query I will
venture to present a not improbable solution of the problem.
[Illustration: LOWESTOFT PORCELAIN TEAPOT OF SOFT PASTE
IN THE COLLECTION OF MR. GEORGE HARDING]
[Illustration: SMALL PLATE PAINTED IN UNDERGLAZE BLUE, WITH A VIEW OF
LOWESTOFT CHURCH
FRANKS COLL. B.M.]
[Illustration: HARD PORCELAIN TEAPOT, MADE AND DECORATED IN CHINA, BUT
MARKED ‘ALLEN, LOWESTOFT’; IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]
That they never manufactured such a porcelain at Lowestoft has no
longer to be demonstrated; it remains to be proved that they sold
it, and that the misconception as to its origin arose from no other
cause. We must remember, in the first instance, that the proprietors of
the works were also ship-owners, conducting a small trade with Holland.
They exported English clays and raw materials for the use of the Delft
potters, and brought back, in return, articles of Dutch faïence,
often painted with names and inscriptions, for which they accepted
commissions from private customers. We know, next, that Rotterdam
was the centre of the mighty commerce carried on between Holland and
China. It may, then, be fairly assumed that while engaged in the
trade of common Delft ware, they conceived the idea of entering into
communication with the wholesale importers of Chinese porcelain from
whom they could purchase large supplies, and establishing in England a
highly-remunerative branch of business by underselling the East India
company. ¶ It was customary with the Dutch firms to send over to their
foreign settlements shapes and designs obtained from European sources,
to be reproduced by native hands. Models from Dresden, Sèvres, and even
from Leeds or the Staffordshire potteries, were constantly copied in
oriental porcelain. The Lowestoft people did what all other merchants
had done before them, and through the same channel forwarded to China
the designs of coats-of-arms, English mottoes, and initials that were
to be painted on the porcelain they had undertaken to supply. In the
Henry Willett collection is an armorial plate decorated in the usual
Indo-European style, and inscribed, at the back, with its certificate
of origin: CANTON ~IN~ CHINA 24th Jan. 1791. Commissions of that kind
were received from the leading families of the neighbourhood and duly
executed; hence the number of local patronymics that Chaffers noticed
on the porcelain in the possession of many inhabitants of the town,
who honestly believed that it had been made by the very men from whom
it had been purchased. ¶ In 1770 the business had taken sufficient
extension to induce the partners to open a warehouse in Queen Street,
Cheapside. Their agent, Clark Dunford, inserted in the London papers
an announcement in which he advertised ‘a large selection of Lowestoft
china.’ We possess no information as to what may have been the exact
description of the goods advertised under that name, but we may safely
surmise that it was something superior to ‘A trifle from Lowestoft’
or any of the articles we know to have been the staple production of
the works. It seems that a more attractive exhibition might have been
formed in the show-room by a stock of Chinese porcelain imported by
the Lowestoft company. ¶ I feel convinced that conclusive proofs of
this elucidation of the Lowestoft puzzle will one day come to light;
in the meantime, it cannot be denied that it is strongly supported
by the following facts: It is recorded, on good authority, that the
ruin of the company was caused by the wreck of one of their vessels
carrying a cargo of porcelain, and the burning, by the French army,
of the warehouse they had established at Rotterdam. The idea that
the enormous amount of ware required to load a vessel and to fill
a large warehouse in Rotterdam, not to speak of the one in London,
could have been supplied by a one-oven factory, is too ludicrous to be
entertained for one moment, and it may be dismissed without further
comment. ¶ It has been suggested that the Lowestoft painters may have
decorated ware imported from China in the white. By reason of the
ubiquity of the porcelain decorated in the accredited style, and the
small number of hands employed at the factory, such a suggestion is
equally untenable. A hard porcelain teapot, unmistakably painted by a
Chinese hand, which is marked ‘Allen, Lowestoft,’ is reproduced on the
opposite page. Robert Allen was manager of the works up to the last.
When they closed he set up a small china shop in the town, decorating
himself part of the articles he sold. His supply was drawn from various
sources, including oriental. Far from being deceived by such misleading
testimonies, we may only infer from this tea-pot that the dealer was
wont to affix his name to all that passed through his hands, even upon
such pieces as had been decorated abroad. This curious specimen is now
in the Victoria and Albert museum. ¶ The so-called Lowestoft style is
characterized by sprays and garlands of flowers, in which two peculiar
pink and purple colours play a conspicuous part, and by scalloped
borders of the scale or trellis patterns. Similar designs appear on
the early china and earthenware of Staffordshire. The last partisans
of the Chaffers theory--for all the offshoots of the mystification
have not yet been fully eradicated--believe that such pieces afford
irrefutable examples of the Lowestoft original production. This is
an error that must be discarded with the others. To imitate Chinese
decoration has always been the golden rule of the English potter; just
as he had reproduced the fine Nankin porcelain, he also copied the
quasi-European ware manufactured for exportation by the East India
company, and this all the more readily that it could be easily and
cheaply produced. The well-known scale borders and the sprays of pink
and purple roses occur frequently on the early china of Minton, Spode
and other makers. These designs were obviously taken from the Chinese
importations, and did not originate in the Potteries any more than
they originated at Lowestoft. ¶ From the few authenticated specimens
that have come under the collector’s notice we gather that the paste
of the genuine Lowestoft porcelain is coarse, semi-opaque, and of a
dingy white; the glaze is speckled with bubbles and minute black spots,
which denote a rather imperfect manufacture. It is poorly decorated,
and under these conditions we understand that it was not preciously
preserved in the households; at all events, it has now become very
rare. No mark was ever used at the factory, and the specific character
of the ware is not sufficiently pronounced to allow us to use such
undoubted examples as we possess as a means of identifying those which
may have escaped destruction.
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS ISABELLA BY TIZIANO VECELLIO; IN
THE PRADO MUSEUM, MADRID.]
TITIAN’S PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS ISABELLA
❧ WRITTEN BY GEORG GRONAU[87] ❧
About the middle of the year 1543, somewhere between June 20 and 25, a
meeting of Paul III and Charles V was arranged at Busseto between Parma
and Cremona with a view to the settlement of the political differences
outstanding at that date. In the train of the pope came Titian, who
on every occasion when the emperor set foot on Italian soil took the
opportunity of paying his addresses to the monarch. On this occasion,
too, the emperor had a commission for him; Titian was instructed to
paint a portrait of the dead empress. From Aretino’s letters--which,
apart from their personal fascination which no reader of them is
able to resist, are second to none as a source of information on the
life of the great painter--a few further details of the incident are
to be gleaned, for some days later Aretino, in the company of Duke
Guidobaldo of Urbino and of the Venetian ambassadors, met the emperor
near Peschiera in the course of his journey to Germany. It was one
of the red letter days in Messer Pietro’s life, and, fulfilled with
vain-glory, he was never tired of talking of the marked consideration
wherewith, if his chronicle is to be trusted, the emperor received him.
On this occasion, when portraiture became the topic of conversation,
Charles referred to the portrait of his wife that he had given to
Titian at Busseto, and told Aretino to tell his godfather that it was
a very good likeness, though the work of a painter of small merit.[88]
From Aretino’s letters we glean further particulars. In October 1544
he addresses a letter to the emperor wherein he extols the completed
picture in such high-flown phrases as to baffle translation.[89] ‘In
defiance of Death, he has called her back to life by the inspiration
of his colours, so that God possesses her for the first, Charles for
the second time.’ Although his words sound as if he were speaking of a
finished picture, Titian, it would appear, did not dispatch the picture
to the emperor until about a year later. In October 1545 he informed
the monarch that he had handed the two portraits at which he had been
working with all the diligence of which he was capable, over to Mendoza
to be forwarded.[90] A few months later he was writing again from Rome,
whither he had gone at the bidding of the Farnesi, to say that he had
delivered his own portrait of the empress, ‘together with the other
which had been given to me to copy,’ to Don Diego.[91] And he adds: ‘If
I hear that it finds favour I shall feel the greatest satisfaction; but
in the contrary event, I should prefer to improve it in such a manner
as to content your majesty if our Lord God vouchsafes me to be able to
come to bring a picture of Venus by me,’ etc. ¶ A little more than two
years later Titian arrived at Augsburg at the summons of the emperor,
who on this occasion wished once again to see himself portrayed by
his favourite painter, this time as the conqueror of the Protestant
princes, uplifted and on horseback. It involved a long sojourn.
Towards the end of it, on September 1, 1548, Titian wrote to Granvella
to explain his prospects to him, and in this letter enumerates the
pictures he had done for the emperor, among them ‘The empress alone
and the one of the emperor and empress.’ Here a little difficulty
arises. Has Titian then painted a single portrait of the empress on two
occasions, one between 1543 and 1545, the other in 1548? Or, on the
other hand, is the work referred to in this letter one and the same
with the earlier portrait, and did Titian, as a matter of fact, work
it up again? It is impossible to speak with any degree of certainty,
but as the Spanish inventories always speak of one portrait only we may
assume that the latter hypothesis is the more likely to be correct. ¶
While the double portrait has been lost, the picture of the empress
has found a place in that incomparable collection of Titian’s works
which the Prado gallery in Madrid comprises. It is one of Titian’s
most important works; perhaps, indeed, it takes the first place among
his portraits of women. Never is his taste more exquisite than here.
Its courtly splendour strikes one as a matter of course. In the midst
of glorious colour--red and white--the pale, somewhat colourless
face stands out framed by its fair reddish hair; the hand clasps a
breviary. A window to the right opens on a landscape scene, one of
those glimpses of Nature such as Titian had the secret of conjuring
up with his brush with such incomparable art. No one looking at the
picture would ever be able to suspect how it was painted; that its
painter had never seen his model with his own eyes. It was no uncommon
thing, by the way, for Titian to paint the portraits of people whom he
did not even know by sight. He was proud of his skill of being able to
recognize the characteristic traits of a man or woman even from another
artist’s work.[92] ¶We can, however, only realize the work of genius
for which this portrait of Isabella stands when we compare it with the
picture with which the emperor had furnished him, that portrait by
‘a painter of small merit.’ The picture itself has, it is true, been
wholly lost, but a copy of it has recently come to light in Florence,
and is reproduced in these pages for the first time. That we are not
mistaken in assuming it to be a replica of the original from which
Titian worked will be proved by the complete coincidence of all the
principal characteristics of the picture in Madrid with the one before
us. In the Florentine picture the empress is wearing a black robe with
white puffed sleeves, a great deal of jewelry, and is holding a spray
of foliage in her hand. The picture is, for the most part, sombre in
tone, and the face stands out most effectively in its pallor. It has
that diaphanous whiteness noticeable in anæmic people. The dull reddish
hair frames it heavily. The background is a grey green; in a niche,
over which a dull red curtain is draped, the symbol of the exalted
rank of the sitter, the imperial crown, is represented. To judge from
its style this picture dates back to a Flemish master, though, with
the somewhat scanty inherent evidence available, it is impossible to
suggest the name of any particular artist. ¶ The picture originates
from Bologna, where it was in the possession of the Pepoli family. That
in itself is interesting, for we know that Isabella’s sister, Beatrice,
duchess of Savoy, had taken up her quarters in the Pepoli palace during
the rejoicings in 1530 in celebration of Charles V’s coronation, and
that it was the scene of a brilliant ball which the emperor honoured
with his presence. It would be well within the bounds of possibility,
therefore, that the portrait of the empress, who had been prevented
(she had been confined a short time previously) from coming to Bologna,
had passed into possession of the Pepoli as a present at first hand,
either from the emperor or from the duchess. A replica, with a few
trivial distinctions, of the picture is entered in the inventory of
the house of Farnese (about 1680). In this the left hand is resting on
the back of the chair.[93]
[Illustration: COPY OF THE PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS ISABELLA FROM WHICH
TITIAN PAINTED THE PORTRAIT NOW IN THE PRADO GALLERY, MADRID; IN A
PRIVATE COLLECTION AT FLORENCE]
The Florentine picture has undoubtedly a conspicuous iconographic
importance as the most authentic portrait of the woman who shared the
throne of Charles V. At the same time, its value from the standpoint
of the history of art is immeasurably greater, inasmuch as it affords
us a most interesting insight into Titian’s methods. This picture
should be compared with the painting in Madrid, their points of
variance carefully considered with the question why the master omitted
this or added that. It is as though in this picture we were watching
him at work with our very eyes. Especially noteworthy is the fact
that the imperial crown is not repeated. An artist whose work lacks
character needs a symbol as an outward and visible sign-post. One,
on the contrary, who knows how to express dignity in the bearing of
his sitter, can dispense with these commonplaces. Titian was, of
course, compelled to adopt the outline of the features, the colouring
of the complexion and of the hair. He even adopted the pose in its
main outlines. On the other hand he changed the colour of the dress
and the pose of the hands; the pose of the Florentine picture is
conventional and meaningless. By adding the book of hours he gains a
signal detail of characterization, for the empress was very devout.
If in the Flemish picture there is a certain note of contrast brought
out by the sombre dress and the costly jewels, in Titian’s picture
these ornaments blend with the costly draperies, glowing in the
richest colours which robe the empress here. More important still is
the fact that the antithesis is toned down thereby, and something
of life comes into the pale face by reason of the warm red robe,
while in the other it has a cold and lifeless tone, intensified by
the dead black garment. And here the little glimpse of landscape
which Titian introduces in the right-hand half of the picture gains
a special significance of its own. It deflects the eye a little,
well-nigh without arousing one’s consciousness that it is so doing;
it adds a nuance of restfulness and colour that has as subtle and
pleasing an effect as that of a Gobelin, although the landscape is
convincingly realistic, instinct with that realism that comprises in
its quintessence all the elements of colour and of form, and yet is
the abstraction of the characteristics of a definite locality. This,
comparatively speaking, small patch (considered as a patch of colour
within the picture as a whole) prevents the figure from standing out
in too hard relief from the dim-lit background and adds that very
essential element of atmosphere to give life to the picture. ¶ It is
worth noting that not until a, comparatively speaking, later period did
Titian make use of a landscape background. All his earlier portraits
show a neutral tone for the background. One finds it for the first
time, in so far as the number of Titian’s paintings known to us at
present justifies an expression of opinion, in the portrait of the
duchess of Urbino of 1537. Thenceforward Titian made very frequent use
of this subtle and life-giving device of his art. The portrait of Count
Porcia in the Brera gallery in Milan, the little Strozzi in Berlin, the
picture of Charles V in Munich are examples of it. Here the element
which henceforward is inseparable from courtly portraiture is created.
Rubens and Vandyke, above all, follow in the footsteps of the Venetian,
whose influence might be traced down to modern times. ¶ Put the Flemish
portrait by the side of Titian’s; it is, we see, the self-same picture
in its main outlines, and yet with what fundamental distinctions. On
the one hand the work of a ‘trifling brush’ (the emperor’s own words,
according to Aretino) and on the other the conscious feat of a prince
of painters. ¶ Nothing within the scope of artistic consideration can
afford so much incitement and pleasure as to force one’s way into the
work of the really great. For what they did is not merely a delight to
the beholder; it remains an enduring exemplar for the worker. From this
sole instance it becomes manifest how a thing insignificant in itself
may suffice to force the fruits of genius. Thus an Italian novel gives
birth to one of Shakespeare’s dramas, thus the puppet play of Doctor
Faust to Goethe’s sublimest work.
A NEWLY DISCOVERED PORTRAIT DRAWING BY DÜRER
❧ WRITTEN BY CAMPBELL DODGSON ❧
The British museum, thanks to a timely hint from a friend, has recently
acquired a portrait drawing of considerable interest and unknown to
students of the present generation. It represents a middle-aged woman,
plain-featured and of a short, thick-set figure, seated, with clasped
hands, drawn in three-quarter face and looking to the left. The sitter
is plainly dressed, without a trace of ornament on the materials of
her clothing; she wears a ring on the first finger of her left hand,
and the artist has sketched very slightly a double or triple chain
with pendants hanging from her neck and reaching across her bodice
nearly to the waist. ¶ The portrait, which measures 16½ by 12⅜ ins.
(42 by 31·5 centimetres), is lightly drawn in black chalk on a green
prepared ground. The watermark of the paper is the large high crown
surmounted by a cross (Hausmann, No. 4). A border line, which can be
traced round three sides of the drawing, near the edge, is clearly a
modern addition, being drawn with lead pencil. The portrait itself
has entirely escaped retouching, and the whole sheet is in good
preservation, except in a few places where the surface has been rubbed
or stained; a severe crease across the lower right-hand corner of the
paper has caused the prepared surface to crack. ¶ In the left-hand
lower corner is the collector’s mark of Sir Thomas Lawrence, Fagan,
507 (1), stamped blind, and in the corresponding corner to the right
is the initial C, also stamped blind, which belonged, according to
Fagan (No. 72), to Captain William Coningham. The Lawrence stamp, in
this form, was affixed to the drawings by Samuel Woodburn after he had
purchased them in 1835. Coningham, too, had dealings with Woodburn;
it may be conjectured that he purchased the present drawing from
that dealer, and that it was included in the collection of drawings
by old masters which Coningham sold to Messrs. Colnaghi in 1846. That
would account for the absence of any mention of this drawing in the
catalogue of the Woodburn sale in June 1860, when the bulk of the
Lawrence drawings were finally dispersed. The drawing had been for a
long period in private hands prior to its purchase by the trustees of
the British museum in July of the present year, and had not appeared
in the sale-room. ¶ After so much has been said about externals, it
is time to look more closely at the drawing itself, which can only be
reproduced, at present, on a greatly reduced scale, though it is hoped
that an opportunity may present itself later on of issuing a full-sized
reproduction in facsimile.
[Illustration: LONDON STEREO CO.
PORTRAIT OF A LADY, BY ALBRECHT DÜRER; IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM]
I have said nothing, so far, about the authorship of the drawing.
The name of Holbein had been mentioned, but from the moment in which
I first set eyes on it I had scarcely a doubt that the draughtsman
was Dürer. No other artist of that date, so far as I remember, drew
portraits in chalk on a green ground. No suspicion of forgery or fraud
could be seriously entertained, and any momentary hesitation suggested
by the formation of the eyes, the weak drawing of the left hand (an
undeniable blemish), or the lack of energy in the shading of the
costume, was soon dispelled by comparison with other drawings by Dürer
on a similar scale and also on green paper, the authenticity of which
has never been questioned. The impression suggested by the technique of
the drawing itself was confirmed by an examination of the inscription
and date, which are written in indian ink, and are indisputably
genuine. Every letter is characteristic of Dürer’s handwriting; the
inscription may be compared especially with the long note of the same
date on a drawing in the Vienna Hofmuseum (Lippmann, 423), in which
Dürer has recorded a curious dream that he had in the early summer of
1525. The figures of the date agree closely with those on the Vienna
drawing, and still more strikingly with those on a drawing in Mr.
Heseltine’s collection (Lippmann, 172), the portrait of a young lady
in a hat, with a dog on her lap, not signed, but dated 1525, also in
indian ink. Mr. Heseltine’s portrait is that of a much more attractive
person; it is also more carefully finished than the drawing which has
recently come to light: but the two have much in common, even to the
weak drawing of the left hand and the curious break in the outline of
the upper eyelid of the left eye. The pose of the two figures is the
same; the treatment of the clothes, both in outline and in shading,
is curiously similar. The new portrait may also be compared with two
large drawings on green paper already in the British museum: the
portrait of Dürer’s wife, seriously damaged, of 1522 (Lippmann, 291),
and the much more finished and masterly likeness of Henry Parker,
Lord Morley (Lippmann, 87), drawn on the occasion of his visit to
Nuremberg in 1523[94] as a special envoy sent to confer the order of
the Garter on the Archduke Ferdinand. The ground of the latter drawing
is of a bluer tint, but the green of Mr. Heseltine’s drawing and of
the portrait of Agnes Dürer is almost identical with that of the new
drawing in the British museum. ¶ The next question which arose when
the authorship of the drawing was established to my own, and, I may
add, to Mr. Colvin’s satisfaction, was the interpretation of the line
of Dürer’s handwriting, ‘1525 Casmirs schwest^r fraw margret.’ No
Casimir was known to me among the circle of Dürer’s friends or patrons,
but I was not long in finding a solution which seems to meet all the
requirements of the case. The name Casimir at once suggested the royal
house of Poland; a reference to the first work on Polish history that
lay at hand provided me with the name of a connexion of that family
whose residence was not far away from Nuremberg. This was Casimir,
margrave of Culmbach (1481-1527), eldest son of the Margrave Frederick
of Brandenburg-Ansbach and Bayreuth (1460-1536) by his marriage with
Sophia, daughter of Casimir III of Poland. Frederick, being of feeble
intellect, was deposed in 1515 by his sons and confined in the castle
of Plassenburg; Casimir thereupon ruled over the greater part of the
Franconian possessions of the house of Hohenzollern. He was a soldier
with mediaeval ideas, and a steadfast Catholic, in opposition to
his brother George of Bayreuth, who favoured the reformers; he died
on September 21, 1527, at Ofen, while holding a high command under
Ferdinand in the Hungarian war, and was buried, like most of his
family, in the abbey church at Heilsbronn. The name of his eldest
sister was Margaret; she was born in January 1483, and died, unmarried,
in 1532. I suggest, then, that this prince and princess, both living
in 1525, are the Casimir and Margaret of Dürer’s note. The portrait
may well be that of a woman of forty-two, though we might guess her
to be older. There is nothing unusual in the title ‘Frau Margret’
being applied to a lady of princely rank; we may compare the titles
‘the Lady Mary,’ ‘the Lady Elizabeth,’ by which the princesses of
our own royal house of Tudor were known at the same period. I can
discover no other portrait of Margaret of Brandenburg-Ansbach, except
as one of a group of the daughters of the Margravine Sophia on a
wing of an altarpiece at Heilsbronn[95]; here, however, the kneeling
princesses are all painted to one pattern, and at so early an age that
no comparison of the features is possible. Dürer’s note is thus the
only ground for believing that the newly acquired portrait is that of
a Hohenzollern princess. ¶ I was not previously aware that Dürer had
enjoyed the patronage of any member of that illustrious family, but
I ascertained in the course of the present investigation that there
is reason to think that he had had direct relations with the Margrave
Casimir himself. Dr. Julius Meyer[96] describes a lost votive picture
by Dürer, which represented the body of our Saviour being anointed
for burial, with Susanna, wife of Casimir, kneeling in adoration, and
Casimir himself standing at her right hand. The picture is only known
by a full description in a MS. inventory written in 1768 by its then
owner, Hofrath Christian Friedrich von Knebel (1728-1805), at Ansbach.
It was signed and dated 1518 in gold. It was painted, therefore, in
the year of Casimir’s marriage with Susanna (1502-1543), daughter of
Duke Albert III of Bavaria by his marriage with Kunigunda of Austria,
sister of the Emperor Maximilian I. Susanna is described by Knebel
as ‘Dürer’s great protectress’; it is reasonable to suppose, at any
rate, that the close relations in which he stood at this time with
the emperor, her uncle, may have led to his appointment to paint the
portrait of the niece. ¶ I cannot resist the conjecture--it is hardly
more--that the portrait in Mr. Heseltine’s collection was done at the
same time, and represents another member of the Margrave Casimir’s
family, in all probability his wife, Susanna of Bavaria. The lady
cannot be another of his sisters, the youngest of whom, Barbara, was
at this time thirty, while the only other survivors, Sophia and Anna,
were forty and thirty-eight respectively, and already married.[97]
Susanna, on the other hand, was twenty-three, and the portrait may
well stand for a lady of that age. She appears to have been fond of
dogs, for a large dog lay before her in Knebel’s picture. Medals of
the years 1522, 1525 and 1527 respectively, containing portraits of
this princess, are reproduced in ‘Schaumünzen des Hauses Hohenzollern,’
Berlin, 1901 (Nos. 522-524). No. 524, in which she is represented in a
wide hat, in three-quarter face to the right, agrees best with Dürer’s
drawing, but the features are far less pleasing, and Dürer was not wont
to flatter his sitters. In 1528, a year after Casimir’s death, his
widow married Otto Heinrich, of Neuburg, count (afterwards elector)
palatine. Two medals of the year 1529, by Peter Flötner and Hans
Daucher, representing Susanna in profile, are preserved in the Munich
and Vienna cabinets respectively.[98] Both are superior as works of art
to the earlier portraits reproduced among the Hohenzollern medals, and
they tend, I think, to confirm, if not to prove, my hypothesis. ¶ Mr.
Heseltine’s drawing formerly had an inscription which doubtless gave
the name of the person represented. Unfortunately some vandal has cut
the paper down, and his scissors have only left the extreme ends of
two letters, which may be seen above the date, 1525, written, exactly
as on the British museum drawing, with indian ink. Dr. Lippmann, in
his note on No. 172, suggests that the lady was an Englishwoman and
the drawing a counterpart to the portrait of Morley. This entirely
gratuitous assumption compels him to suppose that the date was added by
a later hand, and that the drawing was really made a few years earlier
than 1525. The authentic inscription and date on the portrait of ‘Fraw
Margret’ dispose, I think, of that suggestion. ¶ The new portrait,
though not one of the finest class of Dürer drawings, is a welcome
addition to the London collection, which is already unusually rich in
large portrait-heads of the master’s later years.
[Illustration: LONDON STEREO CO.
PORTRAIT OF A LADY, BY ALBRECHT DÜRER; IN THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. P.
HESELTINE]
LATER NINETEENTH-CENTURY BOOK ILLUSTRATIONS
❧ WRITTEN BY JOSEPH PENNELL ❧
ARTICLE I
Throughout the history of art, or rather the history of collecting,
there has always been, in conjunction with the desire to collect, a
hesitancy in collecting just those things which are ever with us and
about which we know the most. Though tremendously characteristic of our
age, this hesitancy is by no means confined to it. The Japanese print
was ever despised in Japan, and still is, except from its pecuniary
point of view, by that grossly over-rated, so-called clever people,
who only learned to appreciate their own prints when taught to by
the despised western barbarian; the etching of Rembrandt, until the
dealer discovered its value, could mostly be obtained for a song; the
mezzotint, when it was published, filled the place of the photograph,
brought only a guinea, or so, though the near-as-possible counterfeit
now is announced to be sold as a rarity in limited editions at the
price of the original; the etching of Meryon, valued to-day as much
for the paper it is printed on as for what is printed on the paper,
was sold by the artist for a few francs, in several cases quite
its full value--all these things and endless more are the sport of
the collector. ¶ And yet it has always seemed to me extraordinary
that the collector, who prizes works of the graphic arts mainly for
their rarity, has never collected those which really are rare. It is
inconceivable, it is astonishing and unbelievable, that the art of the
nineteenth century, the art of illustration, has been so neglected
that the original drawings, though they have been always with us, have
never yet been properly prized, appreciated, catalogued and collected.
I know that old drawings are collected, but the collector’s interest
in them to a great extent dates only from yesterday, and even now their
price does not equal that of prints from them, of which there may be
dozens, or, in fact, nobody knows how many examples in existence.
But I also know that, within the last hundred years, drawings,
illustrations, have been made in England and America that will rank
with any, ever made anywhere, in any age, and that these works of art
are absolutely ignored. And they are ignored simply because they have
not been collected, because in this country the British museum cannot
purchase the work of living British artists, and often it is during
the lifetime of the artist only that they can be secured, because in
France there is no place to exhibit drawings save in a corner of the
Luxembourg; the rest the French government possesses are buried in the
Cabinet des estampes. Theoretically, the rule of the British museum
may be a good one; it may be thought a safeguard against as terrible a
hodge-podge as that presented on the walls of the art gallery at South
Kensington. To some of us, however, a remedy suggests itself--change or
modify the rule, and, under intelligent direction, there is no reason
why collections as fine as those in Dresden and Berlin should not be
easily obtained even in England. ¶ The consequence of this neglect,
both deliberate and enforced on the part of the British government,
has been that here dealers and collectors, connoisseurs and amateurs,
have avoided original drawings almost altogether. Artists alone have
cared for them, have collected them, and still own almost all that
are best worth having.[99] But now that the best examples have been
collected, or have become impossible to collect, I see signs vaguely
of an appreciation. I do not for a moment think this is due to any
artistic awakening or any sudden recognition of a genuine form of
art--the art, as I have always described it, and as it will be known
in the future, of the nineteenth century. The real cause is to be
found rather in the desire for some new thing. Personally, I care very
little what is bringing the change about; I am merely delighted to
know that it is coming,[100] for I have been preaching the beauty of
this work for many years, though, I admit, in a wilderness of paint,
prints, pots and postage stamps. When it does come, the possessors of
these drawings will find that they own, not only things of beauty, but
wonderful examples of an individual form of expression which owes its
existence altogether to the last century. I do not mean to suggest
that illustration is a modern form of art; it is as old as the world.
I do not mean to say that, in their way, the works of the artists of
the Renaissance are not glorious; I do not mean to say that the works
of the eighteenth century are not superb, after their fashion; what
I do mean is, that not until the nineteenth century in England, with
Blake and with Bewick, did illustration become a separate, independent
and individual branch of the fine arts. The reasons are simple--the
appearance of artists who loved and respected their profession, and the
improvement and development of technical and mechanical processes. ¶
Blake wished to show his art in his own publications. There was nothing
new in this; Dürer had done it centuries before. But Blake confined
himself virtually to illustration; with Dürer, it was only one of
his many means of expression. Bewick may or may not have learned to
adapt the technique of steel engraving to wood from Papillon; that
is a detail for the historian. What he did do, and what Papillon did
not, was to impose the new method successfully on the world. Not only
did Bewick produce his series of nature books, the forerunners of the
present fad for that sort of thing, but he invented a school and a
scientific manner of work which conquered the world. ¶ I have traced
already the development of English book-illustration, showing how it
spread from England to France and to Germany, and how, as it progressed
through these countries, artists appeared to work for it--great artists
in illustration but in nothing else, Meissonier and Menzel. I have
elsewhere shown how, though these artists were ready to draw upon
the wood block, they had to send to England for engravers to engrave
their designs; I have shown how the pupils and the methods of Bewick
were spread all over Europe: but while this was happening the art was
languishing in England. Lithography and cheapness had commenced to
stifle it. Education and the personal benefactor, the curses of this
country, were sitting on it. The equivalent in that day to the county
council, I doubt not, had it by the throat. It is true that William
Harvey, Linnell, and a few others carried on, as best they could, the
traditions of Bewick. But through the mid-century, Turner and his steel
engravers struggled with the lithographers, Harding, Prout and Lewis,
only that all alike might be undermined by Knight’s penny something
or other, and that horror, as it then was, _The Illustrated London
News_, always catering for the people, and the people damn any form
of art.
[Illustration: PLATE I
FROM ‘GIL BLAS’ 1836, DRAWN BY I. GIGOUX,
ENGRAVER UNKNOWN]
[Illustration: THE ROUND TABLE, FROM ‘GESCHICHTE FRIEDRICHS DES
GROSSEN,’ 1840
A. MENZEL, DEL. E. KNUTCHMAR, SC.]
[Illustration: PLATE II
ORIGINAL DRAWING BY W. WESTALL]
[Illustration: FROM ‘NORTHCOTE’S FABLES,’ 1828, DRAWN BY HARVEY,
ENGRAVED BY JACKSON]
[Illustration: ORIGINAL DRAWING BY BARTOLOZZI]
[Illustration: ORIGINAL DRAWING BY COURBOULD]
But, with the appearance in Germany, in 1840, of Menzel’s ‘Geschichte
Friedrichs des Grossen,’ and its appropriation in 1845, by the
ingenious Mr. Bohn--I wonder what he paid for the blocks--a new era
dawned in England. And just one word about this book. It contains
500 illustrations by Adolf Menzel, and, says the advertisement, ‘in
the execution of the cuts both French and British artists (engravers)
have been engaged.’ But it so happened that they were all discarded
by the artist for German engravers whom he himself trained. The 500
illustrations were drawn by Adolf Menzel on the wood, and his trials
and tribulations are well known to all who have studied the history of
illustration. Five hundred drawings in one book, all done on little
wood blocks. Why, even this is enough to ruin anybody in our day, when
it is an honour to be devoid of technical ability and physical capacity
for work. But then we live in a time when incompetence, laziness and
anæmic imbecility are, in this country indispensible credentials to
fame. ¶ This book of Menzel’s, which has never been surpassed as an
example of reproductive wood engraving, was seen by the Dalziels and
shown to, at any rate, Keene, Rossetti, Sir John Gilbert and, most
likely, Millais. If some of the lesser but more precious illustrators
then at work refused to look at it--well, the loss was their own, and
it is probably one of the reasons why so little afterwards was ever
heard of them. ¶ Some ten years later, in France, where ever since
the thirties the romanticists had been illustrating, notably Curmer’s
edition of ‘Paul et Virginie’ (1838), while Jean Gigoux in his ‘Gil
Blas’ (1836) had made an everlasting reputation, there appeared
Meissonier’s edition of the ‘Contes Rémois’ (1858), by which, and
not by his sensational dealings in paint with millionaires, his name
will be remembered. And then England woke up again. The first English
book which shows any evidence of a revival in art, an attempt to
escape from the be-Knighted, be-illustrated traditions, was William
Allinham’s ‘Music Master,’ which contains nine illustrations: seven
by Arthur Hughes, one by Rossetti--The Maids of Elfen Mere, which
appears really to have made a sensation--and one by Millais. It was
published in 1855. The English edition of Menzel’s ‘Fredrick’ came
out in 1845. ¶ It should not be forgotten that there had been a
strong saving remnant all along from the time of Bewick. Northcote’s
‘Fables’ appeared in 1828, ‘embellished’ by 280 drawings, ascribed by
Northcote, but really by Harvey, ‘most excellently drawn on the wood
and prepared for the engraver by Mr. William Harvey, and improved by
his skill’--even Northcote himself admitted this in one edition. The
‘Voyage of Columbus,’ undated and unsigned, illustrated by Stothard,
was possibly still earlier. Then there was the ‘Solace of Song’ (1837);
there was Lane’s memorable edition of the ‘Arabian Nights,’ illustrated
also by Harvey (1839); and there were certain other volumes; but one is
not now making a bibliography. However, it was with the ‘Music Master’
(1855) that the great change came. ¶ In 1857 Moxon issued his edition
of Tennyson, the only book which is well known. It is extraordionary
how little good work there is in it, but this little is of the utmost
importance, for it includes the monumental Rossettis and Holman Hunts,
and a few beautiful Millais. Even more extraordinary is the proof given
not long ago of the public’s indifference to great illustration, for
when, recently, just these few fine illustrations, together with the
poems to which they refer, were reprinted, accompanied not only by the
artists’ original studies for them, but by a most interesting essay
by Mr. Holman Hunt, one of the illustrators, this new edition fell
perfectly flat. This is not very creditable to the intelligence of the
British collector, but it is a fact.[101] ¶ By 1859, the movement, with
the starting of _Once a Week_, got into full swing, and we are in the
golden age of illustration, the most striking, the most original phase
of British art. From this time onward, for ten years, the publishers
of this country issued a series of books and magazines that have
never been approached, and when the present tendencies in art are
considered, it is fairly safe to add will never again be approached
in England. Then, artists sought to put the best of themselves into
illustration on the wood block. Then, engravers endeavoured to engrave
these illustrations as well as they possibly could, and though all
of us have been forced regretfully to admit that the methods were
abominable, the drawing being cut all to pieces before it could be
printed, and the artist having no redress, the published results were
often astonishingly good. Then the printer took a pride in doing his
work as well as he knew how. And though it might be, and often was,
bad, it was the best of which he was capable, and it was frequently
much better than what is done to-day. Then, the publisher regarded
himself as a shopkeeper, whose business was merely to put his name on
the books and to sell them, and he was content to do this and nothing
more. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed. Now, not only does
he sit at the receipt of custom, but he dominates the whole. He tells
you what the public wants according to his ideas, and the length of his
purse, and his travellers’ opinions. And as in nine cases out of ten,
despite these authorities, he is supremely ignorant of the work which
he farms out, and as cheapness and vulgarity are his only gods, and
as paper has come down and process has come in, it is not surprising
that English book-illustration should be just where it is to-day. There
are, of course, exceptions to this rule among the publishers. They are
few, indeed. But they know their position, and it would be discouraging
to the rest to name them. ¶ But, the collector may ask, what in all
this defence of book-illustration is there for me? As I have pointed
out, the illustrations, at any rate up to 1865, were all drawn on the
wood block, and were all cut to pieces in the engraving. There remain,
therefore, only a very few and rare originals that for some reason or
other were not engraved. There also remain in many cases studies for
these illustrations. For example, the British museum has been lately
showing an illustration, so-called, by Sir J. E. Millais, for his
‘Parables,’ published first in _Good Words_, and then in a separate
volume by the Dalziels (1864). This is not the illustration really,
but a study for it. It may safely be assumed that no original drawings
for book-illustration prior to 1865 exist, unless they are simply
drawings made on the wood for a book and never engraved, when they are
not book-illustrations at all--that is, illustrations which have been
used in a book--or unless they are drawings of some sort made for the
steel-engraver or the lithographer, which were copied or translated by
the engraver. For example, Turner’s illustrations to Rogers’ ‘Poems’
exist as most commonplace water-colours in the cellars of the National
gallery. Turner and Goodall between them made a great work of art
out of the ‘Datur Hora Quieti,’ but there is no original of this at
all save the trifling water-colour suggestion. Some of the artists,
however, were in the habit of making studies in pen-and-ink, or wash,
or pencil, on paper, of the exact size of the future engraving, and
containing all the details of the design, which was afterwards redrawn
on the wood block. Mr. Sandys did this in very many cases, and in some
he even made large versions of the drawings, especially for the ‘Amor
Mundi,’ which is owned by Lord Battersea. In his case, too, one or
two of his drawings, I know, never were engraved. One which I owned,
and which is now in the Adelaide museum, Australia, The Spirit of the
Storm, was unfinished, and a second, done for _Good Words_ or _Once a
Week_, for years kicked round in a drawer in the office of Swain, the
engraver, until I found it, when it was engraved and published in _The
Hobby Horse_; the reason for this long neglect being that it had been
considered too strong by the prurient-minded publisher of that time.
[Illustration: PLATE III
ORIGINAL DRAWING BY STOTHARD]
[Illustration: ORIGINAL UNENGRAVED ILLUSTRATION BY AN UNKNOWN ARTIST]
[Illustration: ORIGINAL DRAWING BY GEORGE BARRETT]
[Illustration: PLATE IV
ROSSETTI, DEL. DALZIELS, SC. THE MAIDS OF ELFIN MERE,
FROM ALLINGHAM’S MUSIC MASTER, 1855]
[Illustration: DRAWN BY S. PALMER, ENGRAVED BY W. T. GREEN, FROM
‘SACRED ALLEGORIES,’ 1856]
After about 1865, or rather before, for the books were published
in that year, some of the drawings for the illustrated editions of
Dalziel’s ‘Arabian Nights, 1865,’ and ‘Goldsmith, 1865,’ were regarded
by the engravers as so remarkable that they had photographs made from
these drawings on the wood, and then, by the newly-discovered art of
photographing on to wood, the photographs were transferred on to other
wood blocks, and the originals on the wood preserved. Several are to
be seen in the art gallery at South Kensington. The British museum
possesses a few, and so do the Adelaide and Melbourne museums in
Australia. Mr. Harold Hartley, Mr. Fairfax Murray, Mrs. C. E. Davis,
Boyd Houghton’s sister, and, I believe, Mr. Heseltine, are among
other owners of these rare drawings, either on wood or paper. But the
number is really very small. ¶ There is also a series of drawings for
Dalziel’s ‘Bible Gallery,’ commissioned by the Dalziels as early as
1863, as far as I can gather from Messrs. Dalziel’s own records, which
are not too satisfactory. Most of the drawings in this series, however,
were made on paper, though some by Mr. Watts and Sir Edward Poynter
were on the wood, and uncut, and may be seen at South Kensington.
Messrs. Dalziel, finding what a marvellous collection of illustrations
they had obtained, wisely did nothing but commission artists to make
more, and the work was not brought out until 1880, when the drawings
were all photographed on to the wood before engraving, and thus
preserved. Where most of them are to-day I do not know. As separate
illustrations and great works of art, I was the first to call attention
to them as far back as 1889. Those by Lord Leighton are now regarded
as his masterpieces, and there are very fine examples of Ford Madox
Brown, and Watts, and Sir Edward Poynter, who has never done better
work. From all but the artistic standpoint the book was a failure. ¶
These, then, with rare unengraved examples which are bound to turn up,
constitute all the original drawings for book-illustration reproduced
by wood engraving which will ever be found, and they are mostly owned
by museums. I must point out, however, that forgeries, both in the
way of shameless copies of the originals, or prints worked over with
pen-and-ink, and wash, and even colour--the artists themselves did this
sometimes; Pinwell certainly did--and palpable imitations, have all,
within a short time, been submitted to me. But, I should imagine, of
all these finished drawings done upon the wood for reproduction before
1865, there are not a hundred, probably not fifty, that will ever come
into the sale room. Of course, a great find may some day be made in a
publisher’s office, or an artist’s portfolio. But I doubt it.
~Note on the Illustrations.~--These are mostly included merely to
show the sort of drawings the artists made for the engraver and
lithographer, who either translated them on to the plate or stone or
had an intermediary to do this for them. The first, by Stothard, is
in sepia, and a design, I know not for what book, but evidently a
headpiece or initial which would have been cleaned up by the engraver.
The second, by Bartolozzi, a _cul de lampe_ in washes of indian ink,
is very pretty, and the engraver probably would follow it exactly,
though he would lose some of the freedom. The others on the same page,
by Westall and Courbould, are very typical, and represent the British
style of illustration for novels and stories at the beginning of the
last century, and very perfectly they represent it, and that is the
best I can say for them. The Westall, in wash and pen (indian ink),
is slightly touched with colour on the woman’s dress, and may have
been engraved on metal and printed in two or more tints. The other is
in simple black-and-white. The landscapes are very characteristic;
the upper, of the stolid, solid, British water-colourist, who was
determined at all costs to be British, and usually forgot he was an
artist. And the other, by Barrett, is typical of the later work
when Turner had made himself felt with the ‘Liber,’ or did Turner
steal from Barrett? Any way, Barrett is seen at his best in this very
charming sepia drawing, evidently for an illustration, while the
‘Liber’ drawings at the National gallery show Turner as an illustrator
at his worst and his best. The methods of the two artists are
absolutely identical; washes, little work with pen, and much scraping
and scratching with the knife. As for the engravings, one is from
Northcote’s ‘Fables,’ 1828, and shows the perfection of the minute work
of Harvey and Jackson. Yet there is the feeling, somehow, of a big
landscape in the print, and the engraving is extraordinary, putting
to shame much of the modern so-called bold, but really blundering and
ignorant, work on wood. The printing also is excellent in Northcote’s
volumes. They were printed by J. Johnson, and the excellent blacks
the printer of to-day would, even with all his improved appliances,
have difficulty in equalling. The printing is much better than that
in the French book, ‘Gil Blas,’ by Everat (Paulin, 1836), in which
the ink is dull and grey, but in every other way the Gigoux shows
the wide difference in aims there was between the leading English
and French artists of that day: Harvey, all refinement; Gigoux, all
force, directness and go. Both these engravers seem to have rendered
the originals well. What the artists thought is another story. The
Gigoux also proves that Daniel Vierge worked out rather than invented
his style. The next two illustrations are from Curmer’s ‘Paul et
Virginie,’ 1838, which is usually regarded, as Curmer wished it, a
‘monument typographic’ to the glory of the artists who illustrated
it, is admitted to be the most important French illustrated book of
the period, and to it all the better remembered Frenchmen of the
time contributed something. Among the artists are Isabey, Paul Huet,
Jacque, Johannot, Français, Meissonier, Steinhell; the engravers were
Poiret, Lavoignat, Best, Brévière, Frenchmen; Bentworth, the German;
but Orin Smith, Branston, Mary Ann Williams and her brothers, English,
did the greater part of the work: a magnificent, artistic union, more
practical in many ways than visits of kings and the patter of papers.
The book was printed, and extraordinarily well printed, by Everat. ¶
The appearance of Turner as an illustrator changed things much. The
‘Solace of Song,’ published by Seeley, 1837, illustrated by Harvey,
and engraved by W. T. Green and others, is simply metal engraving on
wood, and is astonishing as an example of what can be done. The final
outcome is seen in the print from ‘Sacred Allegories,’ by the Rev. W.
Adams (Rimingtons, 1856), one chapter of which, ‘The Distant Hills,’
is illustrated by Samuel Palmer and also engraved by Green. This
is, of its sort, probably the most perfect example of English book
illustration. ¶ But in Germany the greatest progress had been made
under Menzel, and his ‘Frederick,’ from which the print, The Round
Table, is taken, is simply magnificent. It was engraved by Krutchmar,
1840, and from it sprang modern illustration, as I have said, in
England. The first evidence is to be found in Rossetti’s Maids of Elfen
Mere in Allingham’s ‘Music Master,’ 1855. In 1858 came the ‘Contes
Rémois,’ Levy, illustrated by Meissonier, the perfection of French
work, and the beginning and end of his reputation, as well as the most
amazing proof of the genius of Lavoignat as a wood-engraver. After this
the art of illustration began to flourish in England, and in a year or
two the most superb work was being done.
[Illustration: PLATE V
MEISSONNIER, DEL. LAGORNAL, SC. FROM ‘LES CONTES REMOIS,’ 1858]
[Illustration: JACQUE, FROM CURMER’S ‘PAUL ET VIRGINIE,’ ENGRAVED BY
MARY ANN WILLIAMS, 1838]
[Illustration: E. ISABEY, DEL. BAGG, SC. FROM ‘PAUL ET VIRGINIE’]
ANDREA VANNI
❧ WRITTEN BY F. MASON PERKINS ❧
Although the name of Andrea Vanni is by no means unfamiliar to the
student of Sienese painting, it is doubtful whether its mention
ever calls up to any but a few the image of a definite artistic
personality. What fame Andrea now has rests more upon tradition than
upon acquaintance with his art. He was born in 1333, or thereabouts. An
active participant in the popular uprising of 1368, which resulted in
the expulsion of the nobles and the foundation of the new government of
the _reformatori_, he played, during the twenty years that followed, a
busy and not unimportant part in the affairs of the Sienese republic,
leaving behind him a lengthy and honourable record of the various
offices which he held. In later years a friend and warm admirer of his
great townswoman Caterina Benincasa, he was the recipient of much good
counsel from that gentle saint, in the shape of certain letters which
have perhaps done more than all his political achievements to keep
alive the memory of his name. ¶ But it is not with Andrea the diplomat,
or Andrea the devotee, that we are here concerned. Those who would know
him better in these characters need only examine the pages of Milanesi,
of Banchi and Borghesi, and of St. Catherine’s letters. Andrea has left
behind him documents of a very different nature, and of a far deeper
interest, than any of mere lettered parchment, and documents by no
means so rare as has generally been supposed. With all his diplomatic
and official celebrity, he was primarily an artist--perhaps not a great
one in the superlative usage of the word, but sufficiently interesting
to warrant an attempt to revive his memory as a painter by giving back
to him a number of works which, in his native town and elsewhere, pass
to-day under other, and sometimes greater, names. ¶ The works upon
which Vanni’s reputation as a painter has hitherto rested are only
three in number, and are all in his native town:--a well-known portrait
of St. Catherine, in the church of S. Domenico; a very little known
polyptych, in the church of S. Stefano; and a fragmentary Crucifixion,
once in the church of the Alborino, now in the Istituto delle Belle
Arti. Of these three works, whose common authorship is evident, the
altarpiece in S. Stefano and the Crucifixion in the Belle Arti are
given to Andrea on sufficiently reliable documentary grounds; the
likeness of St. Catherine, on the strength of a tradition of several
centuries. Despite its historical interest, and its great decorative
design, this portrait-fresco, in its present state, can help us to but
a slight idea of its author’s general style, and for this purpose the
unimportant and somewhat coarsely-painted fragment in the Belle Arti
can help us but little more. But the great polyptych of S. Stefano
is happily a very different and vastly more important work, and of
a nature to give us a satisfactory conception of Andrea’s manner at
the time in which it was executed. A glance at this huge painting, or
the accompanying reproduction, reveals at once that Vanni belonged to
that same group of late trecento painters of which Bartolo di Fredi
is the best known representative. Like the work of that master, it
shows the influence both of Simone Martini and of the Lorenzetti. But
it displays the qualities of a strongly-marked individuality as well.
¶ Let us examine it in detail, commencing with the central and most
important panel of the Virgin and the Child. That which, apart from
the colour, strikes us immediately and most forcibly, is the peculiar
silhouette-like character of the design. The great figure of the
Madonna is thrown out like a dark, clear-cut pattern against the golden
background of her throne. Except for the face and hands, there is
little, if any, attempt at modelling or chiaroscuro. The whole effect
is flat to a degree, reminding us somewhat of the coloured prints of
Japan, with their sharply-defined outlines and broad fields of colour.
In this feeling for flat design, Andrea gives witness to his being a
follower--if an extreme one--of Simone’s methods. But he has little
or none of Simone’s subtle contours and undulating flow of line. The
drapery of Andrea’s Virgin is severely simple--there is a remarkable
economy of line and fold, reminding us in this rather of Ambrogio
Lorenzetti than of Simone. Her stiff, upright pose, again, has none of
the tender grace of Simone’s Madonnas and saints, and is more akin to
that of Ambrogio’s statelier figures. In facial type Andrea’s Virgin
is, however, distinctly his own. The large rounded cranium, the narrow
eyes and small half-covered iris, the delicately drawn mouth, the firm
but not obtrusive chin, go to make up a set of features not easily
forgotten. The Christ-Child, again, reveals decidedly the influence
of Simone’s models, and finds its prototype in the Child of Simone’s
great fresco of the Majestas in the Palazzo della Signoria, as well as
in other works by him, by his close follower Lippo Memmi, and by their
school. ¶ Turning now to the other figures, we note in the Baptist a
striking similarity, even in the smallest details, to Simone’s figures
of that saint at Pisa and at Altenburg, of which it is evidently a
free copy. The St. Bartholomew shows like influences in a less degree.
The figures of SS. James and Stephen are more Vanni’s own--the head of
the latter being a free repetition of the Virgin’s. The Annunciation
is severely vigorous and individual, the dark figure of the Virgin
again showing, very clearly, Andrea’s love of the silhouette. The
side figures of saints, and the evangelists in the pinnacles, reveal
a slightly stronger sense of modelling and characterization, and
remind us of Bartolo di Fredi and Luca di Tommé. The colour throughout
is bright and clear, laid out in broad and simple masses, with a
parsimonious use of shading and a lavish use of gold. ¶ If Tizio’s
notices of this altarpiece be correct--and there is no reason to doubt
that they are so, especially as the style of the work itself supports
rather than contradicts them--it was painted in or about 1400. It is,
therefore, the production of a man already verging on his seventieth
year, and must represent the later, if not the last, development of
Vanni’s style. As we have already noted, it has a family likeness to
the work of Bartolo di Fredi and others of his school. Still, despite
all superficial or general resemblances, these two painters are widely
different in style and spirit. In pure grace and charm, Bartolo leaves
Vanni far behind him. Andrea’s work again, at least as we here see it,
has none of the softly-graded colour, the delicate modelling, the freer
line, the careful technical finish of detail--none of the _bibelot_
quality in fact--of Bartolo’s at its best. But, for all that, it
convinces us that his was the deeper, grander soul. For mere prettiness
or elaborate technical refinement he displays little sympathy or care.
Directness and simplicity of expression, staid dignity and great
seriousness of purpose--these seem the salient characteristics of
his nature, as we read it in his art; nor do they disagree with the
conception which the written records convey to us of the man.
[Illustration: POLYPTYCH BY ANDREA VANNI IN THE CHURCH OF SAN STEFANO,
SIENA]
[Illustration: ANNUNCIATION, BY ANDREA VANNI, IN S. PIETRO OVILE, SIENA]
[Illustration: VIRGIN AND CHILD, FROM THE ALTAR-PIECE BY ANDREA VANNI
IN S. FRANCESCO, SIENA]
Taking this altarpiece, then, as a fairly characteristic example
of Vanni’s mature style, I shall bring before the reader’s notice a
series of works, at present under other names, one and all of which
share with it, in a greater or a less degree, all the peculiarities
which I have already pointed out, as well as others to which I have not
yet drawn attention. Not the least among these works, in size and in
importance, is a picture of the Enthroned Virgin and Child, popularly
known as the Madonna degli Infermi, in the church of S. Francesco
at Siena. Those who have once seen this strangely impressive painting
will not be likely to forget it. The colossal Virgin is seated upright
on her throne, majestic and solemnly hieratic, the grave-visaged
Child supported on her arm. There is something enigmatic, mysterious,
superhuman, in the commanding grandeur of the figures, which the
photographic reproduction[102] can but partially convey. They remind
us of some of the works of early Byzantine art, in their strange
impassiveness and impersonality, far rather than of those of late
fourteenth-century Siena. The panel has been cut down, and evidently
once formed but part of an even more imposing whole. The flesh parts
have darkened as if by smoke, and now have the colour of mahogany;
the glazings and the surface coatings have entirely disappeared. The
picture is traditionally attributed to Pietro Lorenzetti, but there
can be no question as to its real author. Let us compare it with
the central panel of the S. Stefano polyptych. Even in its present
damaged state, the analogies which it offers to that painting are so
apparent that it is more than surprising some passing critic, or even
some local art-historian, has not long ago given it back to its true
painter, striking and important picture as it is. The similarities
between the two Madonnas seem hardly to require comment. The same
clearly-outlined figure, the same sedate pose, the same dark mantle
with its golden border and broad and simple folds, the same head,
eyes, nose, and mouth, the same hands--to dwell longer on these points
would be merely to waste words. Here we have, beyond a doubt, another
work of Andrea Vanni, belonging to the same period as, and sharing all
the characteristics of, the S. Stefano polyptych--only in a severer
and grander vein. As if in support of our conclusions, Tizio tells us
that at about the same time Andrea painted his great picture for S.
Stefano he executed still another similar work for the friars minor
of S. Francesco. Doubtless this present panel once formed part of
the work to which he refers, nor would it be stretching a point too
far to say that its present half-ruined condition is probably due to
damage suffered during the disastrous conflagration which, in 1655,
wrecked the great building wherein it stood and destroyed so many of
its treasures. ¶ But this, to my mind, is not the only work by Vanni
still to be seen in this same restored church of S. Francesco. In the
last chapel of the north transept is an imposing fresco of the Virgin
seated with the Child in an elaborate architectural throne. It is
generally attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti, and has been published
with his name. As it now stands, this fresco has been almost entirely
renewed, but enough of its original spirit still remains to afford the
practised eye some slight idea of its primitive state. The incised
outlines are still virtually unchanged, and the forms of the figure and
the broad folds of the drapery have preserved, to a great extent, their
original character. As is usually the case, the faces have undergone
the greatest transformation, yet even here the original features have
not been entirely lost. Quite enough remains, in fact, to convince
me that in this case also we are in the presence of what was once an
important work of Andrea Vanni. The entire figure of the Virgin, the
peculiarly marked outline, the dignified position, the oval head, the
narrow eyes, and the straight nose, the characteristic and tell-tale
folds of the voluminous mantle, their peculiar arrangement about the
feet, the long wrist and hand, still pierce through the modern covering
of repaint, clearly revealing the touch of Vanni’s brush. ¶ In far
better condition, and far easier of identification, is the half-length
panel of the Virgin and Child--evidently once part of a larger work,
but now cut down to fit an oval frame--in the chapel of the SS. Chiodi
in Siena. This picture, usually given to Barna, was surmised, but only
surmised, by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, to be a possible work of Vanni.
The reasons for their hesitation are rather difficult to find, and
they were certainly correct in their conjecture, for the work is as
evidently by Vanni as is the great Madonna of S. Francesco. But here
we have our painter in a very different, far gentler, almost playful,
strain. As usual, the Virgin is seated sedately upright on her throne,
clad in the conventional dark mantle, fastened, as in the fresco of
S. Francesco, by a splendid golden clasp. The head and face are the
same in shape and features as in the other panels; the expression
less serious and solemn. The Child is pleasing in type and action.
With one hand to His mouth, He presses with the other His Mother’s
bared breast as He looks half shyly towards the spectator. Here again
there is none of the hieratic solemnity of the S. Francesco panel. The
colour--apart from the repainted mantle--is warmer, and the modelling
of the flesh parts softer, than in the picture of S. Stefano, but the
forms and details are the same. ¶ Somewhat similar in spirit to this
last-named work are two other panels, one in the church of S. Spirito,
the other in S. Giovanni in Pantaneto, better known as S. Giovannino
della Staffa. The first of these is a full-length figure of the Virgin
holding in her arms the Christ-Child, who plays with a bird. At the
foot of the throne kneels a diminutive figure of the donor, cap in
hand. The Virgin sits in the upright position common to all the
pictures we have so far examined; she has the same bend of the head,
the same stereotyped set of features. The architecture and perspective
of the throne are the same as in the picture of the SS. Chiodi and
the fresco in S. Francesco. The Child is not unpleasing in action
and expression. The figure of the Virgin has suffered considerably
from repaint, the mantle being in great part quite new. The original
colour is bright and gay, but the execution is less careful than in
most of Vanni’s works, and would lead us to place this panel in
the last years of his activity, when his brush had lost some of the
freshness of its touch, were it not for the energetically, and at the
same time carefully, executed little figure of the kneeling donor,
damaged and darkened but still intact--a remarkable piece of early
portraiture, finely characterized. Judging from the shape of this
panel, it also once formed part of a triptych or polyptych. The Madonna
of S. Giovanni has suffered far more from restoration, the figure
of the Christ-Child being here almost entirely repainted. The still
pleasing Virgin displays Vanni’s usual type, and differs but slightly
from the Madonna in S. Spirito, although originally it may have been
a more carefully executed figure. Still another picture, a charming
little Annunciation, in the possession of Count Fabio Chigi at Siena,
also clearly shows Andrea’s hand: it is very careful in execution and
graceful in movement--far more free in this respect than the similar
but severer treatment of the subject in the polyptych at S. Stefano.
The types are Vanni’s usual ones, the colour is quiet and subdued.[103]
¶ But finer in quality and in a better state of preservation than
any of these works, is a little picture of the Virgin and Child
belonging to Mr. Bernhard Berenson, at Florence. That it is by Vanni
needs no urging on my part--a moment’s comparison of the accompanying
reproduction with any of the paintings which we have already examined
is sufficient to prove this very obvious fact. It would be hard to
imagine a more characteristic and at the same time a more charming
example of his work. Yet in some ways it differs considerably from the
paintings we have so far studied, especially in its more painstaking
and finished execution, and in its light golden tone of colour, so very
unlike that of such works as the Madonnas of S. Spirito and the SS.
Chiodi. Although not without the dignity which Vanni never fails
to give her, the Virgin in Mr. Berenson’s picture is less sedately
grave than in the panels at S. Francesco and S. Stefano--the Child
less grown-up and solemn. Both, again, are in Vanni’s softer, more
gentle mood. Belonging to Mr. Berenson also, we have another panel by
Andrea, painted in a very different style and spirit. It represents
the Deposition from the Cross, and must have been part of a predella
to an altarpiece. Derived from Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s treatment of this
sublime theme, it yet is more restrained, more intellectual, and more
clearly arranged.
[Illustration: LONDON STEREO CO.
MADONNA AND CHILD BY ANDREA VANNI IN THE COLLECTION OF MR. BERNHARD
BERENSON]
[Illustration: DETAILS OF THE ANNUNCIATION BY ANDREA VANNI IN S. PIETRO
OVILE, SIENA]
The famous portrait of St. Catherine which I have already mentioned,
and which is too well known to require description, and the Crucifixion
in the Belle Arti--a fragment of a larger work painted in 1396--would
bring this particular list of Vanni’s works to a temporary close,[104]
were it not for still another painting, perhaps even more interesting
than any of these, which to my mind must also be classed with them. In
the church of S. Pietro Ovile, at Siena, we find a beautiful free copy
of Simone Martini’s famous Annunciation, now in the Uffizi gallery.
This picture has aroused the admiration of numberless tourists and
the curiosity of more than one writer on Siena’s art. Apart from its
traditional attribution to Simone and Lippo Memmi themselves, it has
undergone a series of widely different baptisms at a variety of hands;
from a trecento it has become a quattrocento painting, and so back
again. It has long been my conviction, as it has been that of no less
an authority on Sienese painting than Mr. Berenson before me, that
this picture is a work of Andrea Vanni. I am quite well aware of the
surprise which this sudden attribution will cause to many, as I am
also of the difficulties in proving my point with the limited and
unsatisfactory aid which photographs afford. In an article supported
only by photographic reproductions, that most important of all
arguments, quality, and, as in this case, the hardly less convincing
one of colour, must in great part be laid aside. Nevertheless, there
remains, in this particular instance, so much that can be demonstrated
by photographic evidence in support of Vanni’s claims, that I shall
make the attempt. ¶ Of the history of the Annunciation now in S.
Pietro, nothing appears to be known. As it now exists it stands no
longer above an altar, but is let into the wall of the church. In shape
and size it was evidently once quite similar to Simone’s original,
but it has since been cut down and shortened at the sides and bottom.
The three panels which now surmount it have nothing to do with the
picture itself, and are the work of two different painters of the
quattrocento--the Crucifixion is probably by Giovanni di Paolo; the
two figures of St. Peter and St. Paul by Matteo di Giovanni, as we
see him in the remains of the altarpiece at Borgo S. Sepolcro, which
once contained, as its central panel, Piero dei Francesci’s Baptism
of Christ, now in London. They were probably placed in their present
position at a relatively recent date. As to its condition, the picture
has evidently not always enjoyed the care that is now given it, for it
is considerably damaged and darkened. The hand of the restorer has not
been absent, alas! and there are, unfortunately, visible traces of his
brush in the heads and hands, and in the Virgin’s draperies. ¶ That
we have here a copy, and in some ways a fairly close one, of Simone’s
famous picture, is obvious; that it was painted directly from Simone’s
original, which was at that time in the cathedral of Siena, is no less
certain; that it was painted by an artist who was throughout seeking
to overcome the peculiarities of his own somewhat strongly marked
style, and that he was but partially successful in so doing, is also
apparent. ¶ Let us examine the work more closely, and in its separate
parts, commencing with the figure of the Virgin. It shows but little
of the ease of movement and grace of line to be found in Simone’s
original. The high-waisted figure; the stiff, upright, almost rigid,
position; the line of the shoulders and the knees; the peculiar poise
of the head; the straight-falling folds of the drapery and the line of
the mantle as it catches the arm in its downward flow: all are points
which find their counterpart in the works of Vanni, and in those of no
other painter. Here, also, we have the same simple, strongly-marked
outlines, the same dark field of colour relieved, pattern-like and
comparatively flat, against the lighter background. Although the blue
of the Virgin’s mantle has darkened considerably, it is still apparent
that her figure was always fairly innocent of modelling--far more so
in fact than that of Simone’s Virgin. For Simone, with all his love of
outlined pattern, does not stop at this--his contour, however clear
and distinct, is far more flowing, far more subtle--his mass is far
less flat and unrelieved. Although the painter of the S. Pietro copy
has tried more or less faithfully to copy the arrangement of Simone’s
drapery, he has done it, perhaps despite himself, in his own way. The
folds in the copy have an entirely different character from that which
they possess in the original; they are precisely what we might imagine
Vanni doing in an attempt to be particularly graceful. But if all these
points in the drapery and figure remind us so unmistakably of Vanni’s
style, we discover in the Virgin’s head even closer affinities with
that master’s other works. The same well-rounded cranium and oval face;
the same narrow eyes, with the small half-covered iris and high-arched
brows; the same long straight nose (still clearly recognizable as
Vanni’s, despite scaling and later retouching); the identical mouth;
the same inclination of the head and its peculiar setting on the neck;
the same chin; the same long, slender hands: all are to be found in
one or other of the works we have already mentioned, and especially
in Mr. Berenson’s Madonna. Here we have, also, Vanni’s love of gold
brocade in the Virgin’s under garment and in the hangings of the
throne. The figure of the angel is no less characteristic. The drapery
is here incontestably Vannesque in its peculiar, not over-graceful,
folds. Here, again, is the clear outline, the slight modelling, and
the sparing use of chiaroscuro, the same treatment of the draperies,
the long hands and thin arms, as in all Vanni’s other works. The
outline of the face, chin, and neck has been damaged and gone over,
and the peculiar, straggling, dark-brown curls are a later addition,
and contrast strongly with the lighter golden hair behind them. Apart
from these slight changes, the head, although a would-be copy of
Simone‘s, shares Vanni’s characteristic features. The cherubs about
the Holy Spirit already point to the end of the trecento. The roman
lettering of the inscriptions we find used likewise on the scroll held
by the Christ-Child in Mr. Berenson’s picture. ¶ So much for material
resemblances, of which the reader may gather some idea by means of the
accompanying illustrations. And now a word as to the colour of the
work. Its striking resemblance, in this respect, to the Madonna of Mr.
Berenson’s collection, will not fail to carry conviction where there
may before have existed only persuasion. In the general quality of
technique, and more especially in the remarkable golden tone of colour
and the peculiar treatment of the flesh, the two works are strangely
alike, and cannot help but do away with any final doubts as to their
community of authorship.
[Illustration: ANNUNCIATION, BY ANDREA VANNI, IN THE COLLECTION OF
COUNT FABIO CHIGI, SIENA]
[Illustration: ANNUNCIATION, BY SIMONE MARTINI, IN THE UFFIZI GALLERY,
FLORENCE]
In the preceding pages I have tried to prove--the reader can best
judge with what success--Vanni’s claims to the authorship of a certain
group of pictures, so closely related in style, quality, and spirit,
as clearly to belong to the same period of his activity as that
which produced the polyptych of S. Stefano. As we know, this period
was one of a comparatively old age. Yet it would seem as if Andrea had
turned, during the later years of his life, with a renewed activity,
to the practice of his art, after the busy public career of his prime.
Judging from the scarcity of documents of an official nature connected
with his name after 1384, it would seem that, somewhere about that
year, he retired from active participation in political affairs and
devoted himself wholly to his painting. That he was inactive as an
artist, however, during all his earlier years, is not to be believed.
We have, in fact, a line of documents to prove that this was not the
case. Still, these written records help us very little in the tracing
of his earlier artistic development. Evidently in origin a pupil of the
school of Lippo Memmi, I should place in the period of his ascendance a
somewhat hard and gaudy, but not uninteresting, triptych, representing
St. Michael between St. Anthony the abbot and the Baptist, No. 67
of the Siena gallery. This work, which is in a remarkable state of
preservation, is attributed to Lippo Memmi himself, and clearly shows
the characteristics of his school. There is much in the figures which
bears a close similarity to Andrea’s later types. Another panel--a
Virgin and Child in the priest’s house, next to S. Pietro Ovile--having
close affinity to Simone and Lippo Memmi in technical treatment, in
colour, and even in style, seems to presage in a far more definite
manner the works of Vanni which we now know, and already shares many
of his peculiar characteristics in detail. But, apart from these two
paintings, I can call to mind no works of these early years which I
can with any confidence give to him. The first notice of Andrea as a
painter is one of 1353, in which year he was associated with Bartolo
di Fredi, whether as partner or assistant is not quite clear. The last
records of his activity are dated 1400. Milanesi, upon some unnamed
authority, gives the probable date of his death as 1414. ¶ It would
prolong this article unduly if the questions of Vanni’s influence upon
Sienese art, and of his possible pupils and apparent successors, were
entered into with the fullness which the subject demands. We must limit
ourselves here to a brief mention of the closest of the followers of
Vanni in those later years in which chiefly we have been studying him,
a painter less known even than himself, Paolo di Giovanni Fei. An
apparently early work by him, the Madonna del Rosario of S. Domenico,
suggests that he was actually the pupil of Vanni. By him, also, are
three pictures in the Siena gallery, one in the chapel of S. Bernardino
just outside the Porta Camollia, another in the Saraceni collection,
and yet another in the Minutolo chapel of Naples cathedral.
EARLY PAINTERS OF THE NETHERLANDS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE BRUGES
EXHIBITION OF 1902
❧ WRITTEN BY W. H. JAMES WEALE ❧
ARTICLE V
Gerard David worked in Bruges from the commencement of 1484 until his
death, August 13, 1523, yet he does not appear to have taken a single
apprentice during all that period, at least the register of the gild
of St. Luke contains no entry of any such. It is, however, certain
that he had several assistants; one of these, Adrian Isenbrant, I was
able to rescue from oblivion in 1865. He came to Bruges in 1510, was
admitted as free master into the gild on November 29, and continued
working there for more than forty years, until his death in July
1551. He acquired a reputation for skill in painting the nude and
the human countenance, and executed many pictures for Spain, which
as a rule he sent by Antwerp to Bilbao. Although no document has as
yet been discovered connecting his name with any particular picture,
yet there is hardly any doubt that he is the author of a number of
works certainly painted in Bruges between 1510 and 1551, the figures
in which are remarkable for their careful execution and sweetness of
expression, characteristics attributed to the works of Isenbrant by
old writers. Several of these works are still in Spain, others have
been brought from the Peninsula within the last fifty years. Of these
I purpose to treat later on; at present I shall confine my remarks to
the works included in the exhibition. The most important of these is
a large diptych given to the church of Our Lady at Bruges by Barbara
Le Maire, widow of George Van de Velde, a wealthy cloth merchant, who
had held many offices in the communal council. The dexter panel (178)
represents the Blessed Virgin seated with clasped hands, overwhelmed
with grief, in a niche of Renascence architecture. Around her, set
in architectural framework, are seven little pictures representing
the seven dolours; in some of these are motives borrowed from the
engravings of Martin Schongauer and Albert Dürer. The sinister panel
(179), which disappeared from the church about 1832, came into the
possession of the duke of Arenberg, who in 1874 sold it to the Brussels
museum. On the face are pictured George Van de Velde in the costume
of a brother of the confraternity of the holy Blood, and his wife,
protected by their baptismal patrons, and accompanied by their nine
sons and eight daughters, all kneeling in prayer. The subject on the
dexter panel is repeated on the reverse of this in grisaille but with
differences, so that whether the diptych was shut or open, on festivals
or ferias, the figure of the sorrowful Mother, to whom the widow Van de
Velde was very devoted--_multum affectata_--was always exposed to the
veneration of the faithful. George Van de Velde died on April 28, 1528;
his second son, John, who in the picture wears a surplice, was ordained
priest and said his first mass in the church of Our Lady in 1530-31,
about which date his mother presented the picture. ¶ The Blessed Virgin
and Child seated in a landscape with SS. Katherine, Barbara, Dorothy,
Margaret and Agnes (145), lent by Count Arco-Valley, is a charming
early composition, of which there is a weak repetition in the academy
of St. Luke at Rome. The prototype of this picture is doubtless the
dexter panel of the diptych painted by Memlinc for John Du Celier, now
in the Louvre at Paris, whilst variations are in the gallery at Munich,
at Geneva, and at Buckingham Palace. A triptych lent by M. Lotman, of
Berne (177), represents the Blessed Virgin and Child and two angels
playing a mandoline and a harp; and on the exterior, St. Jerome
praying before a crucifix. The carpet here is from the same model as
that under the Virgin’s feet in 145.
[Illustration: ST. LUKE, BY ADRIAN ISENBRANT; IN THE POSSESSION OF
MESSRS. P. AND D. COLNAGHI]
[Illustration: TRIPTYCH: THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH TWO ANGELS,
BY ADRIAN ISENBRANT; IN THE COLLECTION OF MONSIEUR LOTMAN]
[Illustration: THE VISION OF SAINT ILDEPHONSUS, BY ADRIAN ISENBRANT IN
THE COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK]
A panel (183) belonging to the earl of Northbrook represents the
Blessed Virgin and Child enthroned, in a garden, beneath a canopy,
to which is attached a cloth of honour; the donor and his wife and
family kneel at the sides; the background is formed by a stone wall,
on which two peacocks and a pea-hen are sunning themselves. The head
of our Lady has been restored. ¶ Two shutters of a triptych (180),
lent by Mr. R. von Kaufmann, represent a donor and his wife with their
children protected by St. John the Evangelist and St. Barbara(?). The
donors on these shutters are, though a few years older, strikingly like
those in 183. But in the earlier picture the man, aged thirty-four, is
represented with one son and one daughter, both dead when the picture
was painted, while behind his wife, aged thirty-three, kneel a boy
of nine and a girl of five. The man in 180 is represented with one
son dead, and his wife with three daughters, one of whom was dead.
¶ The vision of St. Ildephonsus, bishop of Toledo (151), belonging
to Lord Northbrook, is in every respect a very remarkable work; the
composition unusually good, the colouring rich and harmonious. The
saint, kneeling on the foot-pace of an altar on the north side of a
large church of picturesque architecture, looks up with outstretched
arms at the Blessed Virgin, who, attended by three lovely angels, is
about to vest him with a chasuble. Behind him kneel three monks, two
looking up at the heavenly apparition, the third absorbed in prayer.
In the background a procession of chanting monks, followed by a pious
crowd of lay folk, winds its way round the choir. The figures of all
are most carefully executed, and are remarkable for the delicacy of
their modelling and sweetness of expression.[105] ¶ Another brightly
coloured picture (152), also belonging to Lord Northbrook, represents
the Blessed Virgin seated on a stone throne adorned with rams’ heads,
holding the divine Child, who has his left arm round her neck and
is caressing her chin. The Virgin’s face has little character, but
the Child’s expression is very pleasing. ¶ St. Mary Magdalene in the
desert, kneeling before a large crucifix held by an angel (182), from
the De Somzée collection, is a remarkable work, with a landscape
background with peculiar rocks. A panel with a half-length figure of
St. Luke holding a portrait of the Blessed Virgin and Child (187),
lent by Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi, is a fine work, the evangelist
being probably the master’s own portrait. A triptych belonging to the
cathedral of Bruges (184) represents in the centre the Presentation in
the Temple with the kneeling figure of an Augustinian nun of the Le
Gros family, probably the granddaughter of Philip Wielant and Joan van
Halewyn, whose portraits on the shutters, as remarked by M. G. Hulin,
are evidently not painted from life. The triptych, which probably
came from one of the Augustinian convents suppressed at the end of
the eighteenth century, was, with many others now preserved in the
cathedral, presented to it by M. van Huerne. ¶ A panel (185) lent by
M. Sedelmeyer, with full-length figures of St. Andrew, St. Michael,
and St. Francis in the foreground, with a representation of Calvary in
the upper portion, is a late work, the Calvary closely resembling that
in the diptych of our Lady of seven dolours. The exhibition included
several other works either copies or painted under the influence of
Isenbrant. ¶ Two other masters who flourished in Bruges about this
time, and who were restored to history by me, one in 1860 and the other
in 1863, were each represented by one authentic work. John Prevost, a
native of Mons in Hainault, was born c. 1462. It is not known where
he learned his art or to whom he was apprenticed. He visited Antwerp
in 1493 and was admitted as free-master into the gild of St. Luke,
but shortly after removed to Bruges, where he bought the right of
citizenship and settled definitely. He also purchased the freedom of
the town of Valenciennes in 1498, in which year, if not previously,
he married Joan de Quaroube, a well-to-do elderly lady, who, after
twenty-five years of wedded life, had in 1489 been left a widow by
the celebrated painter and miniaturist Simon Marmion. She died in
1506. Prevost, who married again three times, died in January 1529.
The only picture proved by documentary evidence to be by him is the
Last Judgement (167), painted in 1525 for the town hall, lent by the
museum where it is now kept. An earlier representation of the same
subject, said to have been painted by him for the Dominicans of Bruges
(169), was lent by Viscount de Ruffo Bonneval. A third, lent by Mr.
E. F. Weber (168), attributed to him by M. Hulin,[106] appears to me
to be the work of an imitator. It is not only inferior in drawing and
execution, but the treatment of the subject--the risen are bringing
account books which the angels are verifying--is childish. M. Hulin
enumerates eleven other pictures as being certainly, and three more as
possibly, by Prevost. Four of these were in the exhibition (109, 157,
189, and 342); a fifth, the Blessed Virgin and Child in an aureole
surrounded by angels, with the prophets and sibyls, at St. Petersburg,
which he believes to be the picture painted in 1524 for the altar of
St. Daniel in the church of St. Donatian at Bruges. The other six
are SS. Antony of Padua and Bonaventure, in the Brussels gallery; an
Adoration of the Magi, at Berlin; the Blessed Virgin and Child, in the
National gallery (No. 713, attributed to Mostaert); another with SS.
Benedict and Bernard, at Windsor castle; another with a carthusian,
exhibited as by Isenbrant at the Burlington club in 1892; and a
Virgin and Child, at Carlsruhe, where it is attributed to Gossart.
The three which he thinks may be attributed to him are the heads of
Christ and the Blessed Virgin (193 and 194), and the charming picture
of St. Francis renouncing the world (150), belonging to Mr. Sutton
Nelthorpe. Few indeed are those who write on the early masters who can
resist the temptation of attributing to them a goodly list of works.
Much may be learnt when, as in the present case, serious arguments are
started which can be discussed, and no harm can result so long as the
attributions are not accepted as certainties by museum authorities.
¶ The other master, Albert Cornelis, who died in 1532, is still only
known by one remarkable picture (170), the Coronation of the B. Virgin.
¶ A painting of the Mater dolorosa (105), formerly in the church of
the Austin friars, lent by the cathedral, is said to be a copy of a
miraculous picture in the church of Ara caeli at Rome, of which other
copies were formerly at Abbenbroek and Romerswale in Zealand, and a
third, if not one of these two, is now in the gallery at Munich. The
copy exhibited was traditionally attributed to John van Eyck, and the
cipher in the corner, supposed to be his, was adduced as a proof.
This cipher, retouched by the restorer who re-gilt the background, is
certainly that used as a signature by John van Eecke or van Eeckele,
a painter who settled in Bruges and was admitted as free-master into
the gild of St. Luke in September 1534, and worked there until his
death in November 1561. A panel lent by the museum of Tournay (106),
representing the vision of St. Bernard with other episodes in the life
of that saint in the landscape background, is an original work of
the master signed with his cipher. ¶ A panel (250) lent by the Black
Sisters represents St. Nicolas of Tolentino, and on the exterior an
Austin friar, Roger De Jonghe (born 1482, died 1579), kneeling at a
prayer desk on which is an open book.
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF ROGER DE JONGHE, AUSTIN FRIAR, REVERSE OF
A PANEL OF A TRIPTYCH, BY AN UNKNOWN PAINTER; BELONGING TO THE SŒURS
NOIRES AT BRUGES]
[Illustration: EPISODES IN THE LIFE OF ST. BERNARD, BY JOHN VAN EECKE;
IN THE TOURNAI MUSEUM]
THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE FIRST FOLIO SHAKESPEARE
❧ WRITTEN BY FRANK RINDER ❧
On November 8, 1623, Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard obtained the
licence of the Stationers’ company for the publication, in the first
folio edition of Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies, of sixteen
plays, not before printed. Some 265 years later the late Mr. Bernard
Quaritch, in cataloguing a good copy of the completed work, directed
attention to the fact that, based on the then value of the quartos,
the twenty Shakespearian plays actually printed for the first time
in the folio of 1623--for as many were included--would, as first
editions, have a money-worth of from £3,500 to £4,000. All question
of the quartos apart, however, a fine copy of the book, originally
procurable for £1, might now realize from £2,000 to £3,000; indeed,
the mean between these two sums is said to have been privately offered
for a particularly well-known example. No printed book, apart from
about a dozen monuments of typography from fifteenth-century presses,
has fetched so much at auction as the £1,720 realized at Christie’s in
1901 for the Dormer-Hunter first folio, now in the possession of Mr.
Charles Scribner of New York, albeit a few weeks previously £1,475 was
the amount paid on behalf of a transatlantic collector for the scarcer
Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ in first edition, said to have been
issued at 1s. 6d. ¶ That there was ample warrant for the publication of
a new facsimile is acknowledged on all hands; and the folio recently
produced by the Clarendon press has failed in few respects only to
satisfy the most exigent of connoisseurs. The hypercritical observe
that the plate-mark measures no more than 12-11/16 in. by 7½ in.,
as against 13⅛, in. by 8⅛ in., the actual size of the pages of the
duke of Devonshire’s copy at Chatsworth, on which the facsimile is
based. On the whole, however, the volume has been cordially welcomed,
and that welcome is merited. ¶ Interest and value are enhanced, of
course, by the scholarly introduction and the census of known extant
copies from the pen of Mr. Sidney Lee. Under his guidance we are
enabled to take a bird’s-eye view of all relevant facts pertaining to
the volume ‘which constitutes the greatest contribution yet made to
English literature.’ Oversights and inaccuracies must of necessity
have crept into the census, for Mr. Lee has been compelled to rely to
a considerable extent, of course, on information supplied to him by
owners and others. But who would have been prepared to undertake a
like task, who would have been able to carry it to a more successful
issue? ¶ Mr. Lee conjectures that the edition of the first folio
consisted of 600 copies, of which not far short of one-third, in
varying states, probably still exist. In 1616 and 1647 respectively
there appeared the collected works of Ben Jonson and of Beaumont and
Fletcher, each issued, he thinks, in about the same number of copies
and at the same price of £1. At the sale of Sir Kenelm Digby’s library
in April 1680 the Beaumont and Fletcher volume fetched 13s. 6d.; the
Ben Jonson, with the folio of 1640 added, 17s. 6d. As most collectors
are aware, the earliest record of the sale by auction of a first folio
Shakespeare is of that in the library of Sir William and the Hon. Henry
Coventry, dispersed in the Haymarket by W. Cooper on May 19, 1687; but,
unfortunately, there is no mention of the sum realized. Mr. Lee states
that the first priced record belongs to 1756, when the Martin Folkes
example, now in the Rylands library, was sold to George Steevens for 3
guineas. On the other hand, it has been affirmed that in an anonymous
collection of books dispersed in 1687-8 a first folio fetched no more
than 14s. ¶ It is felt that in one direction Mr. Sidney Lee might with
advantage have taken a further step. He has gathered together the
material necessary for making, not only a geographical analysis of the
copies traced, but an analysis which shall show, too, the approximate
condition of those to be found here or there. Of the 600 copies
conjectured to have been printed in 1623, Mr. Lee mentions the present
owners of 144, leaving the possessors of 14., whose particulars do not
agree with those of any others, untraced. The total of 160, including
the two copies named in the postscript, is made up by mention of an
example stated to have been lost in the S.S. _Arctic_, 1854, and of
that said to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. In order
to understand the table that follows, it is necessary in the first
place to transcribe details of the four main classifications into which
Mr. Lee divides the copies he has traced:--
CLASS I.-(PERFECT COPIES).
Division.
A. ~I.-XIV.~ Good, un-restored condition 14
B. ~XV.-XLI.~ Good condition, but with occasional leaves
either supplied from another copy of the
first folio or repaired, i.e., mended,
mounted, or inlaid 27
C. ~XLII., XLIII.~ Good condition, with leaves occasionally
supplied from later folios 2
--
43
CLASS II.-(IMPERFECT).
Division.
A. ~XLIV.-LIV.~ Good condition, but with a few pages
missing, and occasionally other slight
defects 11
B. ~LV.-CV.~ and Fair condition, but with fly-leaf and
~LXXVII~a. occasionally other leaves missing, or
supplied either from later folios or
in facsimile 52
C. ~CVI.-CXXII.~ Moderate condition, with most of
preliminary and other missing leaves in
facsimile or from later folios 17
--
80
CLASS III.--(STILL MORE IMPERFECT).
Division.
A. ~CXXIII.-CXL.~ Defective, numerous leaves in various
and ~CXXXIV~a. sections missing, or made up in facsimile
or from later folios 19
B. ~CXLI.-CXLVI.~ Fragmentary 6
--
25
CLASS IV.
~CXLVII.-CLVI.~ Copies otherwise unclassed owing to
lack of full description 10
Copies alleged to have been destroyed 2
--
12
---
Total 160
===
The accompanying table is an attempt to show at a glance the
geographical distribution of the copies named by Mr. Lee. His estimate
of condition has been scrupulously followed, even with regard to the
first folio in the royal library at Berlin. In the _Vossische Zeitung_
of February 10, and in _The Times_ of the following day, there appeared
a statement to the effect that a careless or malicious reader had
mutilated this Berlin copy, which was bought of Joseph Lilly in 1858
and presented by the then prince-regent, afterwards Emperor William I.,
to the royal library, and that the whole of the ‘Comedy of Errors’ had
been cut out. I communicated with the director of the library on this
subject, and he courteously informs me that the statement, happily,
is based on a misapprehension. The folio of 1623 is in the same
condition as when presented forty-five years ago; on the other hand,
the facsimile of 1806 has been robbed of eight leaves, including those
on which the ‘Comedy of Errors’ is printed. As to distribution, I have
assumed that the five copies sold in the United States during the past
few years have there remained; of the three examples which occurred
at Sotheby’s in 1902 I chance to know that one has gone to America,
another is still in London; while since January copies LXXVIII_a_,
LXXX, and LXXXVI have been sold at auction and are entered under
‘London, private owners.’ It is worthy of remark that the three first
folios in British colonies are presentations from public-spirited men:
those at Capetown and Auckland are the gift of Sir George Grey; that at
Sydney of Sir Richard Tangye.
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| CLASS I. |
| |
| DIVISION |
| |
| A B C |
|Public |Private|Public |Private|Public |Private|
|Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |tutions| |tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |
England:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
London | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Universities:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Oxford | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridge | 2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Northumberland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Durham | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Lancashire | -- | 1 | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Yorkshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Nottinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Derbyshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cheshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Shropshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Staffordshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Leicestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Norfolk | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridgeshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northamptonshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Warwickshire | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Worcestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Gloucestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Buckinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Berkshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sussex | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Hampshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Wiltshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Devonshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cornwall | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Newport) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Abernethy) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CONTINENT:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Germany (Berlin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Italy (Padua) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sydney | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Auckland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Capetown | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
UNITED STATES | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Untraced | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6 | 8 | 7 | 20 | 2 | -- |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| CLASS II. |
| |
| DIVISION |
| |
| A B C |
|Public |Private|Public |Private|Public |Private|
|Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |tutions| |tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |
England:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
London | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Universities:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Oxford | 1 | -- | 2 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridge | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Northumberland | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Durham | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Lancashire | 2 | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Yorkshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Nottinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Derbyshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cheshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Shropshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Staffordshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Leicestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Norfolk | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Cambridgeshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Northamptonshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Warwickshire | -- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Worcestershire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Gloucestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Buckinghamshire | -- | -- | 1 | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Berkshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sussex | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Hampshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Wiltshire | -- | 1 | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Devonshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cornwall | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
Newport) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
Abernethy) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CONTINENT:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Germany (Berlin) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Italy (Padua) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sydney | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Auckland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Capetown | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
UNITED STATES | -- | 1 | -- | 11 | 2 | 5 |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Untraced | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6 | 5 | 14 | 38 | 4 | 13 |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
----------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| CLASS III. | CLASS IV. |
| | |
| DIVISION | |
| | |
| A B | |
|Public |Private|Public |Private|Public |Private|
|Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |tutions| |tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |
England:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
London | -- | 4 | 2 | -- | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Universities:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Oxford | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridge | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Northumberland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Durham | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Lancashire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Yorkshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Nottinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Derbyshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cheshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Shropshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Staffordshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Leicestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Norfolk | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridgeshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northamptonshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Warwickshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Worcestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Gloucestershire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Buckinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Berkshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sussex | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Hampshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Wiltshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Devonshire | 1 | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cornwall | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Newport) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Abernethy) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CONTINENT:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Germany (Berlin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Italy (Padua) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sydney | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Auckland | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Capetown | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
UNITED STATES | -- | 4 | 1 | 1 | -- | 2 |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Untraced | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | 4 |
| | | | | | |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
----------------------+-------------------------------+---------------
|
| TOTAL.
|
+-------------------------------+---------------
| |
|Public |Private| Distribution of Copies.
|Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+------+
| | | |
England:-- | | | |
| | | |
London | 12 | 21 | London | 33
| | | |
Universities:-- | | | |
| | | |
Oxford | 4 | -- | } |
| | | } Universities | 7
Cambridge | 3 | -- | } |
| | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | |
| | | |
Northumberland | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Durham | 1 | -- | } |
| | | } Northern Counties | 12
Lancashire | 3 | 4 | } |
| | | } |
Yorkshire | -- | 3 | } |
| | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | |
| | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Nottinghamshire | -- | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Derbyshire | -- | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Cheshire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Shropshire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Staffordshire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Leicestershire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Norfolk | -- | 2 | } Midland Counties | 34
| | | } |
Cambridgeshire | -- | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Northamptonshire | -- | 4 | } |
| | | } |
Warwickshire | 4 | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Worcestershire | -- | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Gloucestershire | -- | 4 | } |
| | | } |
Buckinghamshire | 1 | 2 | } |
| | | } |
Berkshire | -- | 2 | } |
| | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | |
| | | |
Sussex | -- | 3 | } |
| | | } |
Hampshire | -- | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Wiltshire | -- | 1 | } Southern Counties | 9
| | | } |
Devonshire | 1 | 1 | } |
| | | } |
Cornwall | -- | 1 | } |
| | | +-----
| | | ENGLAND | 95
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | 2 | Wales | 2
Newport) | | | |
| | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | 1 | 2 | Scotland | 3
Abernethy) | | | |
| | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | 1 | -- | Ireland | 1
| | | +-----
| | | BRITISH ISLES | 101
CONTINENT:-- | | | |
| | | |
Germany (Berlin) | 1 | -- | } |
| | | } Continent | 2
Italy (Padua) | 1 | -- | } +-----
| | | EUROPE | 103
| | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | |
| | | |
Sydney | 1 | -- | } |
| | | } |
Auckland | 1 | -- | } BRITISH COLONIES| 3
| | | } |
Capetown | 1 | -- | } |
| | | |
| | | |
UNITED STATES | 10 | 36 | UNITED STATES | 46
| | | |
| | | |
Untraced | -- | 6 | Untraced | 6
| | | |
+-------+-------+ +-----
| 1 | 18 | | 158
----------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+-----
❧ RECENT ACQUISITIONS AT THE LOUVRE ❧
~Three Italian Albarelli~
For some time past Italian fifteenth-century maiolica has been much
sought after, and very justly; it would appear, however, that, so
far, it is more admired than understood. Without doubt several works
have been devoted to this subject. But if we attempt to divide it up
into several groups, the various classifications seem neither very
clear nor very definitive. ¶ The three druggists’ jars which have just
been acquired by the Louvre will help in a certain degree to fix the
date and to determine the centre of activity of one of the factories
which we are trying to reconstitute at the present moment--a factory
which Mr. Fraschetti has made his special study (in _L’ Arte_, 1898),
as also Mr. Stettiner has done.[107] Articles from this factory are
characterized by a decoration of long, large leaves, curving back at
the end, half white and half painted, the veining only being indicated
on the back side; these leaves are intermingled with a peculiar style
of decoration, in which the eyes of peacocks’ feathers are presented
together with large, round, blue and yellow flowers, standing out from
a background of slender blue scroll-pattern. The principal pieces of
this ware have been found at Rome. They are notably the druggists’ jars
of the hospital of St. John Lateran, those of the apothecary Bruti,
near the bridge of S. Angelo, the paving tiles in one of the chapels of
the church of S. Maria del Popolo, and those in the church of S. Maria
della Verità at Viterbo.[108] From this fact it has been concluded that
this factory, which sprang more or less directly from Faenza, and which
produced a great deal, must have been situated in Rome; and it has been
proposed to call it, at least provisionally, the Roman factory. ¶
The three albarelli in the Louvre belong, as the accompanying figures
will show, to this class, for they are all decorated on one side with
the large peculiar leaves. The most important of these jars, from an
artistic point of view, bears on the front side the bust of a beardless
man, which will at once recall similar figures on the Viterbo pavement.
Before the face waves a streamer,[109] upon which the maker (who was
evidently very illiterate) has traced an inscription, which does not
seem to convey any meaning whatever:--AR ·IERIN ·RI · N · E · I · R · E.
The two other jars are, truth to tell, but very mediocre specimens,
but they are of great interest to the archaeologist, for they are
decorated with armorial shields which furnish us with some very useful
information. On one of these shields are quartered the arms of Aragon
and Jerusalem; on the other are the same arms parti per pale with those
of Milan. These armorial bearings[110] (very distinct though slightly
simplified by the maker, as is generally the case) tell us for whom
these jars were manufactured; they belonged, in fact, to Alfonzo II
of Aragon, king of Naples and Sicily, who reigned one year (from 1494
to 1495) and died in the latter year at the age of forty-seven. He
married in 1465 Hippolyta Maria Sforza (daughter of Francesco Sforza
I, duke of Milan, and Bianca-Maria Visconti), who died at Naples in
1484.[111] These albarelli, which bear the coats-of-arms of the king
and queen, must have been made between 1465 and 1484, or at the latest
before 1495.
[Illustration: THREE ITALIAN ALBARELLI OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY,
RECENTLY ADDED TO THE LOUVRE]
[Illustration: LANDSCAPES BY SOLOMON RUYSDAEL, RECENTLY ADDED TO THE
LOUVRE]
Therefore they were made for a Neapolitan prince, and, furthermore,
they come from Palermo.[112] This would agree very well with the
hypothesis of Messrs. Fraschetti and Stettiner, according to whom
all the pieces in this style would be of Roman origin. It would seem
natural indeed that Neapolitan sovereigns should address themselves
to a factory in Rome which was much nearer than those in Faenza or
Florence. But, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that, even
before the end of the fifteenth century, fanciers sent their orders to
very distant factories, and also that the centres of ceramic industry
were much more numerous in those days than is generally supposed.
~J. J. Marquet de Vasselot.~
~Pictures~
The latest acquisitions consist, in the first place, of two large
landscapes by Salomon van Ruysdael. The photographs reproduced avoid
the necessity of a detailed description. One of them is from a
collection at Montpellier, the other from an Austrian collection. They
both present large views of nature, very peaceful and very simple,
banks of wide and sluggish rivers such as the first generation of the
Dutch seventeenth-century landscape men loved to depict. The museum
at Rotterdam possesses a picture by this same van Ruysdael; and we
know that his contemporary, Jan van Goyen, who was his rival rather
than his master, also took a special delight in painting the environs
of that city on the banks of the Maas, with its great sheet of water
spread calmly and majestically under the sky laden with grey or
copper-coloured clouds. Do we find ourselves here in the same environs
of Dordrecht? Probably; although it is impossible to assert this
absolutely. ¶ One thing is certain, which is that the workmanship of
these two pictures very closely approaches that of the other paintings
attributed by modern critics to the uncle of the great Jacob van
Ruysdael, as it does that of many other landscapes of that period.
Although they do not descend to the almost monochrome appearance of
certain van Goyens, brown and yellowish tones predominate, and a
certain and rather monotonous uniformity stands revealed, notably
in the clump of trees that forms the centre of one of the two
compositions. But the moist and cloudy skies are filled with light:
one, in the landscape with the two towers, has gaps through which
appears a pale blue, with rosy streaks in the direction of the horizon;
the other is a little greyer and sadder. A whole crowd of figures, all
standing out clearly against the background, fills the bank and the
river itself, on which barges are carrying herds and shepherds from
one side of the river to the other. A group of horsemen of quality, in
the landscape with the church, reminds us very closely of those which
we see in the Halt at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. This last picture
is dated 1660. But it is much more complicated in composition and more
compact in execution than are our two landscapes at the Louvre. The
latter seem to belong to a less advanced period of the artist’s career,
and are doubtless nearer the Pesth landscape (1631), the first that is
known to us after the artist’s registry on the roll of the gild of St.
Luke at Haarlem. In any case, these are two very fine museum-pieces,
and most worthily represent the earlier of the two Ruysdaels at the
Louvre, where as yet he was hardly represented at all, beside those
unquestionable master-pieces of his nephew, the Dykes, the Thicket,
and the landscape known as the Coup de soleil. ¶ As for the French
picture which is also newly hung, this is the portrait of a woman,
signed ‘L. Tocqué, 1793.’ It was exhibited at the Salon of the same
year, and represents a certain Dame Danger, a perfectly unknown lady.
It was, therefore, no iconographic interest that drew the attention of
the keepers of the Louvre to this portrait, but rather the intrinsic
charm of this very intimate and searching picture of a woman of the
fashionable middle-class of the eighteenth century and the merit of its
very simple and harmonious execution. Jean Louis Tocqué was already
abundantly represented at the Louvre, but chiefly by those official
portraits of artist-academicians, of princes and princesses, which
made his fortune, which sent him as far abroad as Sweden, Russia and
Denmark, but which perhaps charm us less to-day than do those simple
and discreet figures which make the society of the eighteenth century
itself live once more before our eyes. This picture has been hung
not far from the supposed portrait of Madame de Graffigny and from
that of a man unknown, by the same artist, and these three figures
of unknown persons, to whom we cannot help ascribing a wealth of wit
and intelligence, form a charming trio together. ¶ The new-comer is
engaged in _parfilage_ or ‘unravelling.’ This occupation was greatly
in fashion at the time; it formed an easy work which kept the fingers
busy without interfering with conversation. The gold threads were
separated from the silks of some piece of lace-work or embroidery and
rolled on a special shuttle (we have preserved some that are marvels
of delicate carving). Neither the eyes nor the mind needed to be kept
fixed on this light labour, as we see in the present case, where the
lady, who is no longer in her first youth under her powdered hair, but
who still wears a seductively young appearance, looks up at her visitor
or interlocutor with a calm and gentle gaze. She wears a grey fur cloak
over a _vieux-rose_ skirt; and the whole forms with the blues of the
sofa on which she is seated a rare and delicate harmony which is one of
the principal qualities of this picture.
~Paul Vitry.~
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF DAME DANGER, BY LOUIS TOCQUÉ; RECENTLY ADDED
TO THE LOUVRE]
~The Cover of a Koursi~
In 1902, the Louvre acquired from a French collector residing in Cairo
a piece of Arabic copper incrusted with gold and silver, the beauty and
rarity of which deserve every attention. This piece is the lid or cover
of a _koursi_, used sometimes as a stool on which the candlesticks
are placed in a mosque, sometimes as a box to contain the Koran. To
prove the rarity of this object I need only mention that no more than
two such stools and one box of metal incrusted with gold and silver
are known. These two famous objects bear the names of the Sultans
Kalaoun and Mohammed el Nasser, and are preserved at the museum of
Arabic art in Cairo. ¶ The _koursi_ cover acquired by the Louvre is
hexagonal in shape, but must originally have been circular, and formed
a plate engraved and incrusted with silver about the middle of the
thirteenth century. This hypothesis is confirmed by an examination of
the reverse side, which allows of an engraved decoration that would not
have been necessary in a real _koursi_ top fixed to the body of the
article itself. The centre, consisting of a rose with various designs,
and the surrounding frieze, containing an interrupted inscription,
give a name--_Al Ganâb_--and the following indication: ‘Belonging to
Malik al Nasir.’ This title was common to several sultans in Egypt
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and does not convey an
exact indication of the period. ¶ The inscription is interrupted by
six medallions. Their shape and the pointed arabesques in which they
terminate seem characteristic of the thirteenth century. ¶ Later, in
the fourteenth century, the plate must have been turned and cut out
into a hexagon intended to serve as a _koursi_ cover. The engraved
decoration then added to it is executed with the greatest vigour
and clearness, and is rich in incrustations in gold and silver. In
the centre is a long inscription with radiating letters giving the
customary titles of the contemporary sultan, the sacred names of God,
the great, the sole, the glorious. This fine radiating inscription
is peculiar, through its character and the decorative importance of
the letters, to the art of the Egyptian engravers on copper of the
fourteenth century.
~Gaston Migeon.~
[Illustration: LID OF AN ARABIC KOURSI OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY;
RECENTLY ADDED TO THE LOUVRE]
ON ORIENTAL CARPETS
ARTICLE IV
❧ THE LOTUS AND THE TREE OF LIFE ❧
That the art of weaving textile fabrics was known and practised among
the earliest civilized nations of the world appears to be beyond
dispute. Primarily no doubt the need for some form of clothing (slight
probably in a hot country) and for floor coverings which should afford
a protection against scorpions and other venomous creatures and for
sleeping mats called forth the production of cloths woven from reeds
and grasses and from the fibres of large-leaved plants. Soon, however,
the possibility of using the wool of goats and sheep and camels must
have impressed itself on the minds of primitive weavers, and from this
to the production of textiles proper was but a short and easy step
in natural development. It is probable that a considerable time may
have elapsed between the first production of woven fabrics and the
time when the artistic need became felt for enhancing their appearance
by the employment of colouring matters. The mind of the primitive
manufacturer became no doubt gradually attuned to this necessity by
the slow development of a natural desire to brighten the gloomy aspect
of his darkened homes. (In this regard it will be borne in mind that
an essential feature of all oriental interiors has ever been the
exclusion, so far as may be, of the scorching glare of the sun’s rays.)
The primitive houses of the earliest settled peoples were doubtless
built of mud, as are those of their descendants to-day, and it would
be difficult to imagine anything less attractive than the interior of
an Upper Egypt, or Nubian or Mesopotamian house (which is to-day the
exact counterpart of those we find on the paintings and bas-reliefs
which have come down to us from the oldest times), with mud walls, mud
floor, mud roof, all of a uniform dingy brown, and without furniture
of any kind to relieve the eye. It is probable that the early weaver
was in the habit of dyeing his woven products in some uniform colour
for a considerable time before it occurred to him that richer effects
might be produced by colouring his yarns in different tints previous to
their employment on the loom. Having got so far it did not take very
long before his manual dexterity had so far attained the level of his
artistic aspirations as to impel him to seek models for the complicated
designs he sought to introduce into his work. For these models, as
for their colouring, he naturally turned to those forms which were
constantly before his eyes in everyday life. [Illustration] And among
these most prominent no doubt was the lotus, which in one form or the
other is invariably found to hold a prominent place in the centre or
border of an oriental carpet. Probably the artistic weaver copied the
numerous forms of the lotus long before he attached any symbolism to
the plant itself, and merely because the flowing lines and sweeping
curves of the plant appealed to his eye. Other tree and plant forms
there were no doubt that commended themselves to him, and these, too,
he sought to introduce into his designs; but the predominance of the
lotus over all other forms early asserted itself and has maintained its
position ever since. At what period the profound and mystic symbolism
of the lotus became generally recognized among the peoples to whom it
was a familiar object must ever remain a matter of controversy and
of speculation. Professor Goodyear, who has written an elaborate
treatise on ‘The Grammar of the Lotus,’ regards this form of classic
and ancient ornamentation as a development of sun worship. His theory
briefly deals with the development of the sun symbols from the lotus by
a series of complicated and ingenious evolutions. The lotus, according
to him, was a fetish of immemorial antiquity, which has been worshipped
in many countries from Japan to Gibraltar. He claims that it is the
symbol of life, immortality, renaissance, resurrection and fecundity.
He describes the three forms of lotus: the blue and the white, which
differ but little save in colour, and the rose lotus, which is really
not a lotus at all botanically speaking, and is not a native of Egypt
but of India. [Illustration] This lotus (the rose) is still cultivated
in China as a food plant, and it is believed that it was brought to
Egypt from India by Alexander the Great for that purpose; but that
it was regarded by the Egyptians as a national symbol there is, in
the opinion of Professor Goodyear, no sufficient evidence to show.
¶That the lotus was early regarded as a religious symbol in India and
China is generally held. It is, of course, the sacred flower of the
Buddhists. ‘When Buddha was born,’ says Moor in his ‘Hindu Pantheon,’
‘a lotus bloomed where he first touched the ground; he stepped seven
steps northward, and a lotus marked each foot-fall.’ The Buddhist
prayer often quoted begins: ‘O God, the jewel of the lotus,’ or ‘O
holy jewel in the lotus, be it so.’ In the Hindu theogony the lotus
floating on the water is an emblem of the world, and the whole plant
of the earth and its two principles of fecundation. Edwin Arnold, in
‘The Light of Asia,’ says: ‘Aum Mani pâdme hûm,’ of which the literal
translation is, ‘All hail to the jewel in the flower of the lotus.’
He continues: ‘The sunrise comes,’ ‘The dew-drop slips,’ ‘Into the
shining sea.’ ¶ Brahmans consider the sun to be the emblem or image of
their great deities, jointly or individually, _i.e._ Brahma the supreme
one, who alone exists really and absolutely. The legend goes that
Brahma, according to a generally received system founded on a doctrine
of the Vaishnavas, sprang on a lotus from the navel of Vishnu, who is
the personification of the sun, to bid all worlds exist. ¶ Professor
Goodyear maintains that the symbolism of the lotus, which is referred
most frequently by modern writers to its phallic and generative or to
its funereal and mortuary bearings, is based upon well-proved but not
generally recognized solar significance. The easiest way to demonstrate
this is by an appeal to the acknowledged fact that the Egyptian idea of
the resurrection and of a future life was connected with the worship of
the creative and reproductive forces of nature, which were conceived
and worshipped as solar in character and origin. It is the supposed
passage of the sun at night through a lower world during its return
to the dawn of a following day which makes Osiris (the sun at night)
the god of the lower world and of the dead, for which reason he is
represented as a mummy. As the god of resurrection, the special and
emphatic character of Osiris, he represents the creative power of the
sun god; and thus the lotus, as the attribute of Osiris, is at once a
symbol of the sun of resurrection, and of creative force and power.
[Illustration: A TABRIZ CARPET, WITH A DEEP RED FIELD AND BLUE BORDER,
THE MEDALLION ILLUSTRATING THE TREE OF LIFE AND LOTUS FLOWER
FROM THE COLLECTION OF MESSRS. GILLOW]
Professor Goodyear further contends that the lotus, which he holds,
as has been said, to be the keynote of decoration, is identical with
the tree of life, or rather that the accepted tree of life is really a
variant of the lotus in one form or the other of its many aspects. He
objects to the theory that the date palm, the palmetta, or the papyrus
is invariably the tree of life, as is held by several writers. The
weakness of the theory regarding the soma tree or hom (date-palm) as
the tree of life is not only the weakness of the palm theory, which
is that no transitional forms between the palmetta and palm can be
shown in Assyrian art and that they are not known to have grown there,
because it is not to be denied that the sacred tree of Assyria[113]
was the palm, but it is a pure hypothesis to suppose that all were
soma trees. [Illustration] The Assyrian tree of life, he holds, was
really an artificial form of the lotus, which plant was as well known
in Assyria as in India. Sir George Birdwood, who gives a lengthy list
of trees held sacred in one part or another of the east, is more or
less emphatic as to the hom or soma, which he says is the date-palm,
being the tree of life. He allows, however, that on Yarkand rugs the
tree of life is represented by a pomegranate tree. As against this,
Sayce, in one of the Hibbert lectures, as quoted by Goodyear, says
that, ‘the cedar tree is identified with the tree of life,’ and ‘the
palm is possibly later.’ The palm, he adds, is undoubtedly a symbol on
Assyrian and Chaldean cylinders, as illustrated in Layard’s ‘Culte du
Methra,’ but Goodyear does not think that Layard’s text would give
much support to the theory of ornamental palm symbolism in Assyria.
Count Goblet d’Alviella, in his work on ‘La Migration des Symboles,’
bears out Goodyear and Sayce, and, to some extent, even Birdwood, as
to the locality where the tree of life had its origin; but albeit
he describes what he holds to be its early representation, he does
not attempt to establish a theory as to what was the tree originally
typified. The sacred tree, he says, is one of the earliest historic
symbols (note he does not call it the tree of life) and had its origin
in Mesopotamia; it passed thence to India, where it was used by
Buddhists and Brahmans, and thence again to the Phoenicians, and from
Asia Minor to Greece. From Persia it was introduced to the Byzantines,
and found its way in early Christian times into Christian symbolism in
Sicily, Italy, and even in the west of France. ¶ The earliest type, he
claims, was a tree of complex and ornate pattern, having on either side
of it a monster who faced each the other. These had the forms of winged
bulls or of griffins. [Illustration] Another type, which was that of
the semi-human or human priests and kings, followed the same route
into China and India and eastern Asia, and being found in the ancient
Mexican and Maga codices, is held by Goblet d’Alviella as a part of the
evidence which he cites in support of his theory of a pre-Columbian
communication between the old world and the new. ¶ As opposed to Sir
George Birdwood’s theory that the soma or hom is a date-palm, it may be
pointed out that other authorities who are not less entitled to speak
on the subject declare the soma of the Vedas[114] and the hom of the
Zendavesta[115] to be the _Sarcostemma viminale_, a leafless asclepiad
with white flowers in terminal umbels which appear during the rains in
the Dekhan. The flower obtains its name apparently from the fact that
it is gathered by moonlight (presumably the full moon), the sanskrit
word for the moon being _soma_. Its conveyance home in carts drawn by
rams is accompanied by ceremonials. A fermented liquor is obtained from
the flower by mixing its juice, which has been strained through a sieve
of goats’ hair, with a preparation of barley and clarified butter or
ghee. This beer or wine is used at religious festivals; it may be said
that according to Hindu superstition the gods of their system can do
nothing without having been previously stimulated with soma. In the
second hymn of the Rigveda occurs this passage: ‘Approach, O Wayu; be
visible; this Soma juice has been prepared for thee; approach, drink,
hear our invocation.’ Many indeed are the allusions made in religious
ceremonials to the invigorating power and even intoxicating qualities
of the soma, as to which Windischmann suggests that the plant was
identical with the gogard tree, which has the quality of ‘enlightening
the eyes’ and which he compares with Ampelus, the vine of Bacchus.
This same beverage is used at their meals by the Muhammedan Rishis in
Kashmir, who abstain from animal food and from marriage. It may be
said that Soma, as well as being the name of a tree, to which it may
afterwards well have been given, is in the Hindo mythology the name of
the son of Rishi Atri by his wife Anasuga (he is also said to be the
son of Dharma and Prabhakara). He married the twenty-seven daughters
of Daksha (which are the twenty-seven lunar asterisms). He also
carried off Tara the wife of Brihaspati, who bore him a son and named
him Buddha. This Buddha is regarded as being the parent of the lunar
race. Thus are we inevitably brought back to Buddha and Buddhistic
emblems and to the long-vanished origins from which those emblems were
derived. The lotus, none have disputed, is the oldest known attribute
of Buddhist symbolism, but is it not equally certain that the lotus
existed in remote ages long antecedent to the dawn of Buddhism? Here
then is matter which makes for the support of Professor Goodyear’s
ingenious theory. He takes the sepals of the lotus in their natural
form, he shows how they have been twisted and exaggerated into spirals
and volutes, which, being squared on their passage through the Ionic
style of architecture, formed at length what is known as the meander,
Greek fret or key pattern, which being doubled produces the svastika.
The svastika therefore, which every authority has acknowledged to be
the most ancient expression of symbolism, as it is also the earliest
form of ornamentation known to the world, should in accordance with
this be regarded as identical with the lotus symbol in one of its many
phases.
[_The previous articles of this series appeared in_ ~The Burlington
Magazine~ _for March, May, and June._]
[Illustration: THE SORÖ CHALICE]
NOTES ON VARIOUS WORKS OF ART
THE SORÖ CHALICE
In the notice of a mediaeval chalice from Iceland in the June number of
this ~Magazine~ (p. 70), mention was made, by way of comparison, of the
silver chalice found in 1827 at Sorö, Denmark, in the grave of Absalon,
bishop of Lund, who died in the year 1201. A view of this exceptionally
interesting specimen of early Scandinavian work, still preserved in
the church of Sorö, is shown in the accompanying illustration.[116]
The character of the chalice, as revealed by the photograph, confirms
the close relationship existing between it and the example which was
the subject of the notice alluded to. The bowl nearly hemispherical in
shape, the flattened globular knop, and the trumpet-shaped foot with
bevelled margin finishing in a narrow turned-out edge, are the salient
features of each alike. A point of distinction not quite so apparent
in the engraving which was referred to[117] is the somewhat greater
width in proportion to height of the Sorö chalice, giving a rather more
spreading shape of bowl and foot. The bowl, too, is seen to have less
of the tendency towards a straightening of the contour at its upper
part, which, in the example from Iceland, seems to give a hint of the
coming change of shape, an indication which suggests the lapse of a
certain interval between their dates. The necking between the knop and
bowl, on the other hand, is now shown to be of very similar proportions
in both. This necking (called by Theophilus the ‘ring’) and the band
below the knop are enriched with shallow fluting, somewhat hidden by
the shadow in the photograph; the foot appears to have suffered injury
from crushing. ¶ Certain features, such as the fully-expanded knop
with enrichment above and below, and the fairly substantial character
of the work apparent in the thickness at the edge of the foot, support
the belief that the subject of the present illustration is an actual
mass-chalice.[118] Whether made for service at the altar or merely for
mortuary use the chalice is equally valuable as an example of the shape
arrived at in Scandinavia in or before the year 1201.
~H. P. Mitchell.~
THE OAKEN CHEST OF YPRES
This chest of massive oak belongs to the office of archives at Ypres.
It is perhaps the most curious and characteristic example of a kind
familiar to antiquaries. In the middle panel, cut deep into the oak,
St. George charges stoutly at the dragon, whose throat is stricken
through with the lance. St. George’s head has a basnet, whose point
ends in a socket with a feather stuck in it. This basnet has the camail
and roundels over the ears. Over his hawberk the saint wears a short
coat with long sleeves, wide and slittered at the edges. The saddle,
with its great rolled guards for the legs, is noteworthy. The dragon
is no writhing worm under the horse-hoofs, but a fearsome thing like
to a mad bull-calf, a thing begotten of bull and serpent. Behind the
monster stands Dame Cleodolinde, daintily lifting her skirt and no
whit uneasy for the hurtling of horse and dragon. Behind her are the
town walls, with towers and halls above them. Out of frilled clouds
over St. George’s head a divine arm is thrust, in a loose sleeve,
with two fingers blessing the lance-thrust. In the broad uprights
at the chest-end a gentleman and a lady in full round sleeves stand
between pillars. Above them are battlements, and above the battlements
mullioned windows. ¶ The broad lock of this chest remains, a lock of
most interesting form. The whole chest was once painted in colours,
traces of which remain here and there. When the fashion of the dresses
and arms have been reckoned over, and something allowed for craft
tradition, the chest would seem to be of the early years of the
fifteenth century, although it came to the famous exhibition of 1902 at
Bruges most absurdly labelled and catalogued as of the thirteenth.
A BURGUNDIAN CHEST
This great chest, which was shown at Bruges in 1902, is a noble example
of the Burgundian school of wood-carving, its ornament offering sharp
contrast with the English manner. ¶ The four panels of the front and
three of the uprights are filled with rich carving of traceries and
arabesques, but the chisel has stayed at the framework, and the chest,
for all the richness of its ornament, loses nothing of its massive
and sturdy appearance. The end panels are plain, and the plain cover
is slightly arched in remembrance of the waggon tops of the earlier
coffers. The first panel has a little shield of St. Peter’s keys,
with the pope’s triple crown very large above it. The second has the
emperor’s shield of the eagle with two necks surmounted by an open
crown. Another crowned shield bears the famous badge of Burgundy, the
steel, or strike-a-light, with its flint and sparks. The fourth panel
has neither crown nor shield, but the tracery shapes itself into three
fleurs-de-lys, which, although they be not upon a shield, may stand for
the king of France. Thus the four panels show pope, emperor, duke and
king. On the broad upright in the middle is a crown above a tiny shield
charged with a single fleur-de-lys. It will be seen that the armorial
decoration is poorly-conceived stuff to be set upon these rich panels.
Especially is this feebleness manifest in the starveling fowl of the
emperor’s shield. ¶ The chest is of the latter half of the fifteenth
century. It is the property of the ‘hospices civils’ of Aalst.
O. B.
A NEW FOUNT OF GREEK TYPE
The Greek type of which a specimen is shown on page 359 is based on
the celebrated Alcalà fount of 1514. This was cut by order of Cardinal
Ximenes for use in the New Testament of the great Complutensian
polyglot Bible, and is usually supposed, though there is no direct
evidence, to owe its form to an ancient manuscript which was sent to
Spain by Leo X from the Vatican library to serve as the basis for the
text of the New Testament in that work. The printer, Arnaldo Guillen
de Brocar, asserts in his preface that the type was designed to do
special honour to the original language of the Gospels. The present
type is adapted from this Alcalà fount with little alteration, as far
as the lower case is concerned, the chief change beyond an increase
in size being as follows. The New Testament of 1514 was printed with
no accents except the acute, and the body of the type was adjusted
to this condition. But when Guillen came to print other books (the
‘Chrysoloras’ of the same year, the undated ‘Hero and Leander,’ and
one or two others), he found it necessary to provide a complete set of
accents, and as the body of the type was not high enough to give room
for the tallest of these, he was compelled, in order to avoid recasting
the whole fount, to hang these over the line above by means of what are
called kerns. The result of this is that while the page produces a very
fine solid effect, the lines are too close to each other for comfort in
reading. This has been avoided in the new type by taking the tallest
combination as the standard of height, and thus increasing the whites
between the lines, with a corresponding increase of readableness. But
the Alcalà type had only one capital letter, a ~Π~, and it has been
necessary to design the whole of the capitals for the new type, as no
good models were available. The capitals have in fact always been the
weakest point in Greek types. The points and other minor features are
also new. ¶ The punches have been cut for Mr. Robert Proctor by Mr.
E. P. Prince, who cut the punches for the Kelmscott, Doves, and other
special founts, from drawings prepared by Messrs. Walker and Cockerell,
and the type has been cast on a double-pica body by Messrs. Miller and
Richard, of Edinburgh, the vowels and accents being made separately,
and contrived by means of overhangs to combine into a single sort. It
is proposed to use this, which will be called the Otter type, for the
production of books representative of Greek literature of all periods,
ancient, mediaeval, and modern. They will be printed by a hand-press
on special hand-made paper in red and black, and no effort will be
spared to give, in most cases for the first time since the invention
of printing, a form worthy of them to the masterpieces of the greatest
classical literature of the world. The first volume, which will
probably appear in the autumn of this year, is to be the ‘Oresteia’ of
Aeschylus, a quarto of some 250 pages.
Τηλέμαχ᾽, οὔ σ᾽ ὁ ξεῖνος ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἐλέγχει ἥμενος, οὐδέ τι τοῦ
σκοποῦ ἤμβροτον οὐδέ τι τόξον δὴν ἔκαμον τανύων· ἔτι μοι μένος ἔμπεδόν
ἐστιν, οὐχ ὥς με μνηστῆρες ἀτιμάζοντες ὄνονται. νῦν δ᾽ ὥρη καὶ δόρπον
Ἀχαιοῖσιν τετυκέσθαι ἐν φάει, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα καὶ ἄλλως ἑψιάασθαι μολπῇ
καὶ φόρμιγγι· τὰ γάρ τ᾽ ἀναθήματα δαιτός. ἦ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ὀφρύσι νεῦσεν·
ὁ δ᾽ ἀμφέθετο ξίφος ὀξὺ Τηλέμαχος, φίλος υἱὸς Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο, ἀμφὶ
δὲ χεῖρα φίλην βάλεν ἔγχεϊ, ἄγχι δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ αὐτοῦ πὰρ θρόνον ἑστήκει
κεκορυθμένος αἴθοπι χαλκῷ. ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΣ ΕΙΚΟΣΤΟΣ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΣ ❆ αὐτὰρ ὁ
γυμνώθη ῥακέων πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς ἆλτο δ᾽ ἐπὶ μέγαν οὐδὸν ἔχων βιὸν ἠδὲ
φαρέτρην ἰῶν ἐμπλείην, ταχέας δ᾽ ἐκχεύατ᾽ ὀιστοὺς αὐτοῦ πρόσθε ποδῶν,
μετὰ δὲ μνηστῆρσιν ἔειπεν. οὗτος μὲν δὴ ἄεθλος ἀάατος ἐκτετέλεσται·
νῦν αὖτε σκοπὸν ἄλλον, ὃν οὔ πώ τις βάλεν ἀνήρ εἴσομαι, αἴ κε τύχωμι,
πόρῃ δέ μοι εὖχος Ἀπόλλων. ἦ καὶ ἐπ᾽ Ἀντινόῳ ἰθύνετο πικρὸν ὀϊστόν. ἦ
τοι ὁ καλὸν ἄλεισον ἀναιρήσεσθαι ἔμελλεν χρύσεον ἄμφωτον, καὶ δὴ μετὰ
χερσὶν ἐνώμα ὄφρα πίοι οἴνοιο· φόνος δέ οἱ οὐκ ἐνὶ θυμῷ μέμβλετο. τίς
κ᾽ οἴοιτο μετ᾽ ἀνδράσι δαιτυμόνεσσιν μοῦνον ἐνὶ πλεόνεσσι, καὶ εἰ μάλα
καρτερὸς εἴη, οἷ τεύξειν θάνατόν τε κακὸν καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν· τὸν δ᾽
Ὀδυσεὺς κατὰ λαιμὸν ἐπισχόμενος βάλεν ἰῷ ἀντικρὺ δ᾽ ἁπαλοῖο δι᾽ αὐχένος
ἤλυθ᾽ ἀκωκή, ἐκλίνθη δ᾽ ἑτέρωσε, δέπας δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρὸς βλημένου,
αὐτίκα δ᾽ αὐλὸς ἀνὰ ῥῖνας παχὺς ἦλθεν αἵματος ἀνδρομέοιο, θοῶς δ᾽ ἀπὸ
εἷο τράπεζαν ὦσε ποδὶ πλήξας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ εἴδατα χεῦεν ἔραζε.
[Illustration: MR. ROBERT PROCTOR’S ‘OTTER’ TYPE]
PORTRAIT OF A LADY BY REMBRANDT
The important and interesting portrait by Rembrandt which is here
reproduced has justly been given a place of honour among the works
of that master now being shown in the exhibition of portraits by old
masters at the Hague; indeed, in the opinion of many good critics it
is one of the greatest attractions at the Kunstkring. Since permission
was given to us by Messrs. Dowdeswell to reproduce the picture, it has
passed out of their hands into those of Mr. Hage, a Dutch collector, by
whom it has been lent to the Hague exhibition; it was formerly in the
collection of Sir Matthew Wilson. The panel, which is 30 by 23¼ inches,
was painted in the same year as The Anatomy Lesson, when Rembrandt was
only twenty-six years old, and belongs, therefore, to his earliest
period; that this is the case is proved by the signature on the right
of the picture, ‘R. H. L. van Rijn 1632.’ The identity of the lady who
is the subject of the portrait has not yet been established, and beyond
the fact stated on the picture itself that she was thirty-nine at the
time it was painted we know nothing about her. It is unnecessary to
expatiate on the merits of the picture, which speaks for itself even in
the reproduction.
The oil painting by Daubigny and the pastel by Lhermitte, of which we
publish reproductions by kind permission of Mr. John Balli, are good
examples of the work of the two French artists. They are among the
pictures which have recently been exhibited at Mr. McLean’s gallery for
the benefit of that excellent institution, the artists’ benevolent fund.
[Illustration: POLYCHROME CHEST BELONGING TO THE OFFICE OF ARCHIVE AT
YPRES]
[Illustration: A BURGUNDIAN CHEST OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY BELONGING TO
THE HOSPICES CIVILES AT AALST]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT BY REMBRANDT VAN RIJN; IN THE COLLECTION OF MR.
J. HAGE]
[Illustration: ON THE SEINE, BY CHARLES-FRANÇOIS DAUBIGNY; IN THE
COLLECTION OF MR. JOHN BALLI]
[Illustration: LE PÊCHEUR, BY LÉON LHERMITTE; IN THE COLLECTION OF MR.
JOHN BALLI]
❧ BIBLIOGRAPHY ❧
~The Ambassadors Unriddled.~ By W. F. Dickes. London: Cassells.
~Mr. Dickes~ has been ill-advised to repeat and amplify, as he has
done in this volume, a theory concerning Holbein’s picture of The
Ambassadors of which all competent students recognized the futility
when it was first broached in _The Magazine of Art_ a dozen years ago.
Since then the subject and history of the picture have been completely
elucidated by Miss Mary Hervey in a book published in 1895. Her work
is a model of patient, sagacious and fortunate industry. No links of
any consequence are wanting in the chain of evidence, internal and
external, by which she has made it certain that the portraits in the
picture are those of two leading French diplomatists of the time,
the one a man of the sword and the other of the robe, viz.: Jean de
Dinteville, bailly of Troyes, and his friend, George de Selve, bishop
of Lavaur; that the picture was painted by Holbein in London when the
two friends were here together in the spring of 1533; and that it is
the identical work described in three perfectly authentic documents
of the mid-seventeenth century as having been preserved down to that
date at Polisy, the seat of the Dinteville family in Champagne.
The traditional name of the picture in the eighteenth century, The
Ambassadors, is thus completely justified. Of one ambassador, M. de
Selve, tradition had also quite rightly preserved the name; while of
the other, Jean de Dinteville, the name had been lost; and the name
D’Avaux, which belonged to a diplomatic family of a later generation,
had been substituted mistakenly. It is the pleasure of Mr. Dickes to
ignore these proofs, and to assert a rival theory for which there is
not a shadow either of antecedent likelihood or of genuine evidence,
while it is flatly at variance with tradition. His work, the result of
no small industry and application of a blundering kind, is a pathetic
example of the fate which awaits an untrained inquirer who has become
possessed by an _idée fixe_ and insists on burrowing with obstinate
blindness in a hopelessly wrong direction. Kindness would suggest
that such a performance should be ignored; but as its illusory air of
candour and research has actually misled some unwary critics, let it be
dealt with here as briefly and gently as the case admits. ¶ The theory
of Mr. Dickes is that the picture represents the two German brothers,
Otto Henry and Philip, counts palatine of the Rhine, who had their
residence at Neuburg and were known as dukes of Neuburg, and that it
was painted in celebration of a treaty of Nuremberg concluded between
the Catholic and Protestant princes of Germany in 1532. The road by
which the author has arrived at this conclusion is somewhat as follows:
A conspicuous feature in the picture is a lute with a broken string.
In Alciati’s famous book of Emblems, of which the first extant edition
was published at Augsburg in 1531 (though some of the emblems had
previously been in circulation, most probably in manuscript), a lute
is the symbol of a treaty. Or rather it is the symbol of a particular
group of treaties, _Foedera Italorum_; in all probability the league
of Cognac, which in 1626 united the princes of Italy with France and
England against the emperor. A set of Latin verses accompanies the
emblem, and declares, among other things, that if a single string
should be ill-stretched or broken, all power of pleasing will depart
out of the instrument and its excellent music will become jangled.
Obviously, therefore, if the lute with the broken string in Holbein’s
picture has anything to do with Alciati and his emblems at all, it
must signify a treaty broken and not a treaty made and confirmed. Mr.
Dickes shuts his eyes to this root fact of the case, and builds all
his argument on the patently false supposition that it is the emblem
of a treaty signed and valid. Having further, on no reasonable grounds
whatever, satisfied himself that the picture represents two brothers
of whom one is Catholic and the other Protestant, he hunts up his
history of the Reformation, and learns about the treaty of Nuremberg
and the concern in it of the two brothers, Counts Otto Henry and
Philip. From that moment it becomes a fixed dogma with him that these
are the persons represented, and all facts and evidences have to be
pulled about like putty in order to prove it. Thus the inscriptions
on the picture, which are perfectly genuine, declare that Holbein
painted it in 1533, and that at that date the age of the lay personage
in short cloak, sword and dagger was twenty-nine, and of the clerical
or legal personage in square cap and velvet gown, twenty-five. These
indications absolutely fit alike the date of Dinteville’s mission,
that of Selve’s visit, and those of Dinteville’s birth and Selve’s
birth. But they are hopelessly out for Counts Otto Henry and Philip.
So it costs Mr. Dickes nothing to declare the inscription with the
artist’s name and the date a forgery; when in fact it has been proved
unquestionably genuine by the test of the same caretul processes which
cleared away the dirt and accretions of time from other details in the
work. Agreeing that the picture was painted in 1533 (for which there
is no evidence at all except this same impeached inscription), Mr.
Dickes then assumes the arbitrary date 1532 (that of the signature of
his Nuremberg treaty) from which to calculate the ages of the sitters.
Even so he cannot get them right, Otto Henry having been born in 1502
and Philip in 1503. The former thus still remains one year and the
latter five years too old; so that in the case of Philip the figure 25
has to be declared, again without a shadow of foundation, to have been
altered. ¶ Once more, the lay ambassador in the ordinary court dress of
the time, short cloak, sword and dagger and tasselled belt, wears the
badge of the French order of St. Michael, thus confirming the tradition
and the probability that he was a Frenchman. This would be fatal to
Mr. Dickes’s theory, so it has to be made out that the badge is not
that of the famous order at all. For this Mr. Dickes has no better
proof than that it is not identical with the same order as figured
about a century later in Favyn’s ‘Théâtre d’Honneur et de Chevalerie.’
But there was no mechanical uniformity in the badge of the order as
worn by its members, and still less in its representation by artists
supplying their portraits. All students of French sixteenth-century
portraiture, whether painted or engraved, can easily recall a dozen or
a score of variations in the badge; while no such student could have
a moment’s doubt that Holbein’s sitter, whatever else he was or was
not, is declared by this badge to be a knight of the order. This is
again one of the cardinal facts by which an inquirer must be guided,
and to contradict it as Mr. Dickes does is merely idle. ¶ Again, Miss
Hervey discovered in a Paris curiosity shop in 1895, and presented
to the National gallery, a docketed seventeenth-century document on
parchment fully describing the picture and its contents. Mr. Dickes
at the time attacked the authenticity of this document in detail, on
grounds which to any trained paleographer are ridiculous. In his book
he does not reprint his arguments, but in an innocently impertinent
dedication to the trustees of the National gallery coolly puts it aside
as ‘supposititious.’ In point of fact it has no flaw whatever except
that it is destructive of his theory. But worse: Miss Hervey, whose
methods are as sound and scrupulous as those of Mr. Dickes are the
reverse, also found in the library of the French Institute two other
documents of the seventeenth century minutely confirming the contents
of the first: these are papers of the Godefroy family relating to a
correspondence between themselves and Nicholas Camusat, the well-known
antiquary of Troyes, who had made it his business to collect historical
and archaeological traditions concerning his native town and its
distinguished families, including that of Dinteville. These documents
are too irrefutable to be contested: Mr. Dickes therefore placidly
ignores them. In like manner, in trying to show, what his theory
requires, that the picture was painted not in London but in Germany,
he ignores Miss Hervey’s proof that the pavement is copied strictly
from one still extant in Westminster abbey. As a point on his side, he
quotes as having been painted by Holbein at Basle in 1533 a picture
of a Wheel of Fortune ‘in the collection of the duke of Westminster.’
The picture he means belongs in fact to the duke of Devonshire, and
was painted by Hans Schäufelein; whose monogram and mark of a shovel
have been tampered with but are still clearly discernible, and whose
style is quite unlike that of Holbein. One more instance may suffice
for the illustration of this gentleman’s incredible method of dealing
with the evidences which substantiate the real meaning and contents
of the picture. Among the instruments on the table symbolical of the
arts to which these two cultivated and liberal young diplomatists
were devoted, is a small hand globe, which has been identified as
copied, with the addition of a certain number of place-names, from
that published by Schöner at Nuremberg in 1523. On this globe the name
of Nuremberg appears conspicuously, as of course is natural, since
that was its place of publication. Mr. Dickes at once reads this as
an evidence for his theory that the picture is meant to celebrate
the peace of Nuremberg. Among the place-names added by the painter
to those which were inserted by the cartographer are three of German
provinces, four of Spanish provinces, five of French provinces, and
three of French towns, Paris, Lyons and Bayonne, besides one which is
that of Dinteville’s own village and fief in Champagne, Polisy (the s
a little broken by a crack in the panel). These additions are exactly
what might have been expected to be dictated by a French diplomatist
engaged in the combinations of his country at the time with Spain and
Italy, while the insertion of Polisy is of course a final link in
the proof that the lay ambassador is no other than Dinteville. This
insertion is promptly and without a shadow of reason declared by Mr.
Dickes an eighteenth-century forgery. ¶ Now for an instance of the kind
of evidence with which this critic tries to support his own theory.
Dinteville in the picture wears a girdle with a rich tassel hanging
at the front. So do a number of great gentlemen in portraits of this
time; as for instance the well-known Earl of Surrey at Hampton Court,
and the sitter in the famous portrait of Morett in the gallery at
Dresden. But Mr. Dickes thinks it a great point for his argument that
a tassel (though one, as he does not mention, of other colours) was
among the quarterings in the arms of his counts palatine. So he not
only ignores its habitual use in the fashions of the day; he maintains
that the Dresden picture, in which the sitter also wears the tassel,
is another and later portrait of the same Count Otto Henry, and that
it was painted not by Holbein but long after Holbein’s death by
Christoph Amberger. The suggestion is merely preposterous: the Dresden
picture is not only by Holbein, but one of the very finest and the
most central of his works, of far finer artistic quality, indeed, than
our National gallery picture; and the features have no resemblance
to those of Dinteville (Mr. Dickes’s Otto Henry) in the London
picture except in the mere fashion of the hair and beard. Moreover,
the identity of the sitter in the Dresden picture as another French
ambassador to England, Charles de Soliers, sieur de Morette, has lately
been put out of the possibility of doubt by the discovery of a fine
contemporary medallion portrait of the same sitter, in boxwood, with
his name and titles in full and on the back his device of a seaport, a
horse, and a dolphin. ¶ But why pursue the ungrateful subject farther?
Mr. Dickes’s book bristles on every page with similar absurdities
of statement and of inference. Fortunately, for any qualified and
careful reader, he sometimes provides an antidote against his own
theories by himself furnishing the obvious means of their refutation.
Nothing, for instance, could be more grotesque than the collection
of different and totally unlike portraits which he has picked out of
various galleries in Europe, and would persuade us to accept as all
representing the valiant Count Philip, the defender of Vienna. The
mere possibility of his taking all these, together with the French
cleric in The Ambassadors, for one and the same person, would seem to
argue him form-blind in the same degree as the whole tenour of his book
unfortunately argues him fact-blind and evidence-proof.
S. C.
~Un des Peintres peu connus de L’École Flamande de transition.~ Jean
Gossart de Maubeuge, sa vie et son œuvre, d’après les dernières
recherches et des documents inédits. Par Maurice Gossart. 147 pp., 2
engravings, and 12 phototypes. Lille, 1903.
Being at Veere some years ago, and finding that I had a few hours at
my disposal before the members of the gild of St. Thomas and St. Luke
could arrive, I bethought me of the local archives, which I fancied
would probably contain documents throwing light on the history and
works of Gossart. I found the archives in confusion, and was not
so fortunate as to discover anything. I had hoped on taking up the
present volume to find that the author had been more fortunate, but,
alas, it contains no mention of these archives, which probably still
await the visit of someone with leisure and patience to devote to
their examination. It is a pity that M. Gossart has not been able to
undertake this; still we must be thankful for what he has done. Any
attempt to clear up the history of an artist of note, especially of
one to whom many works are attributed, is deserving of praise and
encouragement. The settling of the date of Gossart’s visit to Italy
with Philip of Burgundy and of his death are two important additions
to our knowledge. ¶ John Gossart, son of Simon, a bookbinder, was
born at Maubeuge about 1472. It is not known when or to whom he was
apprenticed, or where he worked prior to 1503, in which year he was
admitted as free master into the gild of St. Luke at Antwerp. In
1508 he went to Rome with his patron, Philip of Burgundy, admiral of
Flanders, who was sent by the Archduchess Margaret on an embassy to
Pope Julius II. Starting from Mechlin on October 26, 1508, they visited
Verona and Florence on their way to the Eternal City, where, after the
return of Philip, Gossart remained copying antique works of art for
him until July 1509, when he set out for the Netherlands, arriving at
Middleburg in November. ¶ He remained in the service of Philip until
the death of that prince in 1524, and then entered that of Adolphus of
Burgundy, marquis of Veere, with whom he remained until his death in
1533. So far good, and had the author stopped here we should have had
no fault to find with him, but he has endeavoured to draw up a list of
Gossart’s paintings, a task for which he is evidently little fitted.
Not only has he omitted several important works, such as the early
picture in the Prado gallery, but he has included others which bear no
resemblance to those painted by Gossart, or which never pretended to
be other than copies, being honestly signed by the copyist ‘Malbodius
inventor’; he has enumerated pictures as being now in private
collections which were dispersed more than fifty years ago, and has
described the same picture twice over (pp. 66 and 68) under different
titles, having apparently copied out or translated any notices he has
come across, and this with very little care, as his pages not only
swarm with errors of spelling but also of fact, such as the monstrous
absurdity that Gossart (p. 63) painted the portrait of ‘Van den _Rust_,
_Carmélite_, qui recueillit Memlinc à la bataille de Nancy.’
W. H. J. W.
~Old English Masters.~ Engraved by Timothy Cole. Macmillan.
This hook contains some of Mr. Timothy Cole’s most accomplished work.
The preface certainly does not exaggerate his merits when it says
that no other engraver of the day could transpose into the medium of
wood engraving so much of the spirit and even of the actual quality
of the original pictures. Whether, as is also claimed, his engravings
are of more value as records and reminiscences of the paintings than
good photogravures we doubt. For any purposes of study photographic
processes with all their drawbacks are essential. But there is much to
be said for interpretative engraving when it reaches so high a point
of excellence as Mr. Cole’s. For when we look at a photograph or a
photogravure, however good, we enjoy, not the thing before our eyes,
but the vision of the original, which, even if we have never seen it,
we imaginatively construct. Our enjoyment is at one remove from our
actual sensations, but when we look at one of Mr. Cole’s finer pieces
we get an immediate pleasure from the discriminating and appreciative
tact of the translator, from the rare mastery of a difficult medium
which he shows, and this pleasure is superadded to a very vivid sense
of the beauty of the original. Moreover, in certain instances, his
power of suggesting luminous and transparent depth of colour or of
hinting at subtle gradations of tone goes almost beyond the reach of
photographic reproduction. It is not a little surprising that in
a medium so precise as wood engraving Mr. Cole’s most distinctive
excellence lies not in his rendering of design of definite form so much
as in his power of giving atmospheric suffusion and infinitely subtle
gradations of tone and of suggesting colour. There are, indeed, not
a few cases where the form is too much lost, where the searched-out
design of the original disappears in a vague penumbra; many cases,
too, where the contour is unduly wavering and shapeless: on the other
hand, where the chiaroscuro is most subtle, where the gradations would
seem to defy any analysis into lines and dots, Mr. Cole surpasses
himself. The face of Gainsborough’s Mrs. Graham is quite marvellous
in this respect, while for atmospheric quality it would be impossible
to surpass the Wilsons. With Reynolds he is less successful. Romney’s
Parson’s Daughter is another excellent engraving; and here again it
is the evasive liquid brush stroke which he understands so perfectly.
Raeburn’s Lord Newton, in which similar qualities predominate, is
again admirably rendered. We doubt whether this method of reproducing
works of art will be continued in the future, nor do we particularly
desire it. The finest qualities of wood engraving as an independent
art are really contradictory to such methods as are necessary for the
faithful transcription of oil painting, but the American school of wood
engraving will nevertheless be remembered for the perfect attainment of
its best aims in Mr. Cole’s work.
R. E. F.
PERIODICALS.
~Gazette des Beaux Arts~, July.--_La Sculpture beige et les influences
françaises. By M. Raymond Kœchlin._--The author endeavours to show that
the realistic tendencies hitherto supposed to be indigenous in Flemish
art from its commencement did not in reality declare themselves till
the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries.
In the twelfth century German influence predominated at all events in
Mosan art, but was succeeded in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
by the decisive influence of French figure sculpture. Belgian art
was at this period informed by the same idealistic and generalizing
tendencies as the French school from which it derived. M. Kœchlin makes
his point good by a number of interesting examples, but in his anxiety
to proclaim French influence he minimizes the distinctions between the
two schools, the shorter proportions, the blunter and more angular
modelling of the Belgian sculptors. If the effigy of Blanche of Castile
which came from Tournai to St. Denys is really--as M. Pit supposes--a
work of the thirteenth century, it shows that already the Flemings were
beginning that angular and cutting treatment of the folds of drapery
which is associated with the realistic art of the late fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, and which the French did not accept till
a much later date. _Quelques réflexions sur les Salons._ (_Second,
concluding article._) _By M. Henry Cochin._--This is as brilliantly and
fascinatingly written as the first article, and is, like it, pleasantly
discursive. M. Cochin discusses with stimulating suggestiveness the
theory that every work of art is a symbol, a sign in a universal
language, a token corresponding with spiritual and mental values. He
proceeds to elaborate the very tenable thesis that all portraiture is
caricature, and justly praises in this connection M. Weber’s satiric
comedies. His remarks on the ‘modern style,’ as the French call it, or
‘l’art nouveau’ as we, with a laudable desire to assign to the disease
a foreign origin, term it, deserve to be quoted: ‘Le temps est venu,
je pense, de prononcer le _De profundis_ et les dernières prières sur
le soi-disant _modern style_, être abortif et adultérin, qui porte un
nom Anglais, mail est né vraiment en Allemagne, qui n’est pas _moderne_
puisqu’il paraît déjà suranné et court la province--qui de plus n’est
pas un _style_, comme it serait aisée de le démontrer.’ _Un Manuscrit
de Philippe le Bon._ (_Second Article._) _By M. S. Reinach._--The
author continues his description of these remarkable miniatures and
gives still further proof, drawn from the types and gestures of the
horses, for supposing that its author is none other than Simon Marmion,
of whose picture at Wied he gives three illustrations. It is certain
that the likenesses to the early Dutch school, particularly to Dirk
Bouts, are common both to Simon Marmion and the miniaturist. While he
is discussing Simon Marmion, we hope M. Reinach will take account of
the picture of St. Michael attributed to the Flemish school at Hertford
House (No. 528), which bears, we think, the impress of his style. The
idea had already occurred independently to Mr. Claude Phillips. We hope
that M. Reinach will be able to secure rather better reproductions of
the succeeding miniatures in his forthcoming article. _Le Salon de
1761._ (_Second article._) _By M. Casimir Stryienski._--By the aid of
the minute and brilliant sketches with which Gabriel de Saint-Aubin
annotated his catalogues, the author continues to trace the history
of the pictures which figured in this salon. The most interesting
of those here discussed is Chardin’s _Benedicite_, a second replica
of one of those in the Louvre. In this version the artist extended
his canvas laterally to take in another figure which he succeeded
in relating admirably with the original group. The purpose of this
change was to make his picture a companion piece to a Teniers. The
central composition was frequently repeated by contemporary copyists
and imitators. _Tradition française et musées d’art antique. By M.
Georges Toudouze._ --An eloquent appeal for the vulgarization of
art, in the proper sense of the word, by making the arrangement of
specimens more intelligible and interesting to the unlearned and by
adding to fragmentary figures explanatory models of the whole figure or
composition.
~Rassegna d’Arte.~--_Le feste artistiche da Milano._--An account of
the inauguration of the gallery of art in the castle at Milan, and
of the new rooms at the Brera. The history of what the public spirit
and intelligence of the Milanese has accomplished, both in the castle
and the Brera, may well make us envy the energy of the decadent Latin
races. To take the Brera: in the last four years, under the able
direction of Signor Ricci, the Brera has been entirely remodelled;
the sixteen galleries have been increased to thirty-five, in which
the pictures are displayed according to their affinities of time and
place; the frescoes by Luini from the chapel of S. Giuseppe in the
della Pace have been placed on a vault expressly adapted to them;
while among the new acquisitions, mentioning only the more important
ones, we find eight frescoes by Bramante, four panels by Gentile du
Fabriano, one by Benozzo Gozzoli, several pieces by Lazzaro Bastiani,
Butinone, Beltraffio, Solario, Cosimo Tura, and a magnificent Cima.
In addition to this, that most desirable adjunct to all places
intended for the study of art, a large and representative collection
of photographs, has been installed. We fear that in spite of our
greater wealth the last four years’ acquisitions by the National
gallery would show poorly compared with the work accomplished in
this provincial town in Italy. _Butinone and Zenale_: a reply by
Malaguzzi Valeri to the criticisms of Herr Seidlitz, of which we gave
an abstract last month. In this he maintains the validity of the date
145-- for the altarpiece in the Brera, and brings in as evidence for
its possibility Foppa’s Crucifixion at Bergamo of 1456, which he
describes as showing a similar squarcionesque influence. We should
have said that the influence was rather that of Jacopo Bellini, and
that the squarcionesque element found its way later into Lombard art
and lingered on even when Leonardo was in the city. _Della Robbia at
Marseilles_: two school pieces, one of which is catalogued by Miss
Cruttwell, are figured and described by Signor Rossi. _La Rocella di
Squillace_: Dr. Groeschel replies to the article by Signor Caviglia
in the April number, in which this was referred to the sixth century.
The author says that the naves were covered with ogival vaults, and
that the church cannot antedate the end of the eleventh century.
_Miscellaneous Articles_: Don Guido Cagnola, who is well known for
his efforts in the preservation of works of art, writes to protest
against the disfigurement and obliteration of pictures and frescoes
by ecclesiastical authorities. An article signed Piceller describes
vividly the battle of San Egidio and the capture of Malatesta; the
description is fitted to the picture by Ucello in the National gallery.
This is evidence of how little attention is paid abroad to the work of
English historians of art, for Mr. Horne, in the _Monthly Review_ for
October 1901, once and for all disposed of the theory that Ucello’s
picture represents this battle. With admirable patience and minute
research, he proved point by point that it represents the rout of
San Romano in which Niccolo da Tolentino defeated the Sienese under
Bernardino della Carda in 1432. His article leaves the matter no longer
open to such vague guesses. Among various items of news we learn that
a school piece of the Della Robbia which stood in the oratory of the
Annunziata at Legri has been stolen, or rather broken to pieces and the
greater part taken away.
~La Revue de l’Art Ancien et Moderne.~--The July number is devoted
almost exclusively to modern art. An article on the discoveries at
Antinoe by Mons. Gayet describes some very remarkable Byzantine
textiles, on which are symbols of a mixed Greco-Roman and Egyptian
character, such as the Venus-Isis. The form, however, appears to be
decadent Alexandrine Greek.
~Architectural Review.~--Contains an article by Mr. A. C. Champneys
on Iona, with many excellent reproductions. The author’s careful
analysis of the building and the historical evidence seems only to
show the hopeless uncertainty of any theories which would connect the
existing buildings with the sites of St. Columba’s original monastic
foundations. Nor is the architectural history of the cathedral itself
much clearer. The curious habit of the later builders of imitating
older forms makes the determination of dates exceedingly difficult.
The appeal made by ~The Burlington Magazine~ for the preservation of
Clifford’s Inn is taken up in an editorial article, and Mr. Lethaby
protests, we fear in vain, against the proposed destruction of the
beautiful eighteenth-century bridge over the Exe, at Exeter.
~Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft.~--_Die Gotteshäuser von Meran,
der Alten Hauptstadt des Landes Tirol. By Franz Jacop Schmitt._ An
analysis of the architectural features of the churches of Meran and
the neighbourhood, with the result, which the author describes as
_hocherfreulich_, of finding that German gothic forms crossed the
border line between the ecclesiastical provinces of Mayence and
Aquileja, and arc found in parts of Tyrol where Italian was the spoken
language. The result is interesting; the patriotic fervour with which
the author hails it is to be deprecated in writing the history of art.
¶ _Due Strambotti inediti per Antonio Vinciguerra e un ignoto ritratto
di Vettor Carpaccio. By Arduino Colasanti._ The author publishes two
octaves by an unknown poetaster of the end of the quattrocento. In one
written about 1502 he describes a portrait of Antonio Vinciguerra,
called il Cronico, by Carpaccio. The portrait, like others by the
same hand of which we have records, has disappeared. ¶ _Ueber die
Proportionsgesetze, etc. By Constantin Winterburg._ A third instalment
of this minute analysis of the types of proportion established by
Dürer, and of the changes in his point of view between the first and
second book. ¶ _Die Allegorie des Leben und Todes in der Gemäldegalerie
des Germanischen Museums. By Ludwig Lorenz._ An account of the picture
in two parts of the above subject, No. 135 in the Nuremberg museum. The
author finds in this remarkable work, which was originally ascribed to
the mysterious Gerard van der Meire, the characteristics of the Meister
des Hausbuches, an artist of the middle Rhenish school, known hitherto
only by his engravings. ¶ _Zur Geschichte der Plastik Schlesiens
von 1550-1720. By Berthold Haendcke._ The author praises highly the
renaissance sculpture of Silesia, and finds in the best work the
influence of Italian, and, to some extent, Flemish models, but rejects
with some fervour the idea of foreign workmanship.
R. E. F.
FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE
NOTES FROM FRANCE[119]
~Exhibition of French Primitives~
The splendid exhibition at Bruges, of which Mr. W. H. James Weale is
writing for the readers of ~The Burlington Magazine~ with that eminent
proficiency for which he is so widely known, has had an unexpected
effect and has become the decisive cause of the realization of a
plan dear to numbers of French art-lovers. I refer to an exhibition
of French primitives. ¶ The origin of the talent of the van Eycks
has long preoccupied the minds of art-historians. M. P. Durrieu said
lately, in the _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_: ‘The prodigious talent of
the van Eycks seems to be revealed suddenly, like a sort of brilliant
meteor, which bursts forth and dazzles men’s eyes. It presents a
peculiarly attractive problem.’ ¶ The Bruges exhibition has given a
fresh impulse to the study of the question. On the other hand, it has
brought home to us the injustice of the profound neglect into which we
had allowed our old French masters to fall, while the renown of the
primitives of Flanders and Italy was increasing year by year. Lastly,
certain works attributed to the Flemish artists, some of which even
figured in this way in the Bruges exhibition, had called for a more
careful examination, which led eventually to French attributions. The
question was really pertinent. ¶ I have spoken of ‘profound neglect.’
The expression is not strictly accurate. M. Paul Vitry, of the Louvre,
published lately a remarkable pamphlet in which he resuscitated a whole
collection of French works on our old fifteenth-century painters. He
quoted the studies of Vallet de Viriville, of the Marquis de Laborde,
of Messrs. de Grandmaison, Bouchot, Leprieur, Durrieu, Salmon, Benoît,
Salomon Reinach, etc. It is nevertheless true that an undeserved
ostracism and an unjustifiable ignorance still weigh down upon the
French primitives. ¶ Every art-lover will applaud the happy initiative
of M. Henri Bouchot, the distinguished keeper of prints at the national
library, who has undertaken to restore to our painters of the middle
ages and the Renaissance the glorious place which they have the right
to occupy in the history of art. Without seeking in the least to
detract from the value of the Flemish primitives, it is nevertheless
well to recall the close connexion that exists between their work and
that of our limners of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, whose
reputation at that time was worldwide. Is it not likely that the latter
were the masters and leaders of the former? The artistic centre of
the world in the fourteenth century was the court of the Valois. We
owe the prodigious output of works of art that forms the pride of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to those Maecenases who are known
as Philip VI, John II, Charles V, to the dukes of Berry, Anjou and
Burgundy. ¶ M. Bouchot has thought that it would be interesting to show
_de visu_ how great was the influence upon the destinies of art of all
those master-pieces conceived and executed for princes so French in
their taste and language. Would it not be interesting to prove that
the van Eycks were the heirs of the Limbourg-Malouels, who worked in
France for the duke of Berry, and that such Flemings as Broderlam were
inspired by Jacquemart de Hesdin and André Beauneveu, themselves the
successors of our old Parisian miniature painter, Pucelle? ¶ Thanks
to M. Henri Bouchot, who knows this period of our national art better
than any of his contemporaries, the exhibition of French primitives has
issued from the conception stage and entered into the domain of active
life. It will be held in 1904. The French government has given its best
support. The exhibition is organized under the honorary presidency of
the minister of public instruction and the honorary vice-presidency of
the director of fine arts and the director of higher education, and it
will have for its acting president M. Aynard, member of the Institute,
and for its vice-presidents M. Georges Berger, president of the Union
centrale des Arts décoratifs, and M. Robert de Lasteyrie, member
of the Institute, professor at the École des Chartes. The members
of the managing committee are M. Léopold Delisle of the Institute,
administrator of the national library; M. Kaempfen, director of the
national museums; M. Pascal, of the Institute, in- spector-general of
civil buildings. The members of the council of organization are, for
painting, M. Georges Lafenestre, of the Institute; for miniatures, M.
Henri Omont, of the Institute; for tapestries, M. Maurice Fenaille;
for enamels, M. E. Saglio, of the Institute. The general secretary
is M. Henri Bouchot, keeper of the print-room and a member of the
consultative committee of ~The Burlington Magazine~, assisted by M. P.
A. Lemoisne. The treasurer is M. T. Mortreuil, treasurer-general of the
national library, assisted by M. P. Lacombe. ¶ There will doubtless be
three exhibitions: one at the Louvre, which will include the primitives
of that museum and those of Cluny; the second at the national library,
consisting of the rich collection of miniatures in the print-room.
The third exhibition, the place of which is not yet definitely fixed,
will comprise the works lent by the provincial museums and by private
collectors. These will be very numerous and very fine, to judge by the
many kind offers which M. Henri Bouchot has already received. I can
only repeat the words of M. Paul Vitry and hope with him that all those
who set store by the glory of French art and of art pure and simple
will make a point of supporting ‘the Bouchot plan’ and giving it, at
the exhibition of French primitives, ‘the benefit of their knowledge
and of their good will.’
~G. de Rorthays.~
~Rouen.~
To those who know the grand portal of the cathedral of Rouen,
resplendent with sculptural wealth, a master-piece of the sixteenth
century in all its magnificence, the work of its complete restoration,
which is now being pursued, will appear enormous. Thanks to the support
of the state, of the city of Rouen and of the diocesan administration,
this work will be entirely finished within a few years. ¶ It is
already, in fact, well forward. During the last three well-filled
years, they have restored, on either side of the central portion, a
whole row of little gables and fourteenth-century niches, in which
old statues, kept in reserve in the Tour de Beurre and the Cour
d’Albane, have been replaced. They have also completely reconstructed
and re-erected two large stone pyramids, 16 m. in height, which had
not been rebuilt since the terrible hurricane which in 1632, in a few
hours, overthrew most of the steeples and spires of the Rouen churches.
¶ These works were followed by the complete restoration of the large
central gable, against which the extremity of the roofing of the nave
rests, and by the entire repair of the great open gallery, dating to
the end of the fifteenth century. At the same time one of the great
buttresses flanking the main front was removed. They were erected in
our own time, when, after the fire of 1822, the new metal spire was
constructed by the architect Alavoine. This buttress, the carving of
which had never been executed, and which had remained corroded, has
been replaced by a large fourteenth-century buttress. There remains
another, which will also be entirely replaced. ¶ These different works
completing the restoration of the upper portions of the portal have
allowed an important part of the tall scaffolding that concealed it to
be removed. There still remains to be restored the whole of the lower
portion of the portal, notably the great gable, very much fretted
and sunk, which at present supports the clock; the great arch of the
rose-window and the rose itself; and, lastly, the covings, embellished
with innumerable small statues, sheltered under canopies, that form
the chief portal itself. It is to be hoped that they will be able to
put back all those delicious little figures of which a large number
were broken down by the Protestants: they will probably succeed in
doing so, for the credit placed at the disposal of the restoring
architect, M. Sauvageot, is about to be increased by a sum of 600,000
fr., bequeathed to the archbishop for the express object of being
employed exclusively on this work of restitution in the cathedral,
by M. Gosselin, an architect who had long collaborated in the work
of the cathedral church. ¶ Several works have been carried out in
the archbishop’s palace itself. For instance, they have been engaged
on the restoration of a gallery, on the east side overlooking the
garden, which was built during the Renaissance by one of the Cardinals
d’Amboise, at the same time as a pretty fountain in marble, the memory
of which has been preserved by Jacques Le Lieur, who drew it for his
‘Livre des fontaines.’ This gallery, supported by columns, is to be
restored to its original form. ¶ During the excavations necessitated
by the construction of an important building in the rue Grand Pont the
eminent archaeologist M. Léon de Vesly, corresponding member of the
ministry of public instruction, brought to light, at a depth of 5 m.,
numerous fragments of red earthen Samos bowls, handsomely decorated. ¶
I will mention the following among the objects discovered: the bottom
of a basin, in red earth, ·120 m. in diameter, with the inscription,
SCOTNS: _Scotnus_ (See ‘Corpus inscriptionum latinarum,’ Vol. XII, p.
758. _Scotnus_, Vase found at Nîmes and in the Saint-Germain museum). ¶
Another bottom of a dish, ·151 m., with the inscription
ONESM
: _Onesimus Caï Annus_.
CANNI
This is a mark of Arezzo read by M. Seymour de Ricci (See the ‘Corpus
inscript.,’ Vol. XIII, part 3, p. 95). ¶ The bottom of a _lecythus_,
·40 m., with, on a rectangular seal, the mark CACASIM. ¶ Fragments of
a large amphora. On the rim, near the _sinus_, from right to left, SEX
VALECT: _Sextus Valenus fecit_, with a cartouche with a rectangular
border and circles.¶ Other discoveries included an antefix of a
somewhat rare character, seeing that the Saint-Germain museum does not
contain a similar one. It is decorated with the figure of a child,
full-face, with puffed cheeks, and forms the stem of a palm-leaf.
This is evidently the copy of a type of antefix that came from Italy
or Greece. Among the remains found in the excavation were also found
many bones of cattle, of the _Sus scrofa_, or wild-sow, and vestiges
of stakes, of which an array had already been discovered previously,
which might suggest the existence of a lacustrine settlement in the
neighbourhood of the Seine. ¶ In the course of the excavations executed
on the site of the Haute Vieille Tour, where stood the original palace
of the dukes of Normandy, there were found, beside important vestiges
of military fortifications, a little bottle, in black earth, of
Roman origin; various bones, including numerous horns of the _cervus
elephas_; and two fifteenth-century tokens. One of these is ·026 m.
in diameter, and bears on the obverse a caravel, on the reverse a
lozenged shield charged with four fleurs-de-lys. It is said to resemble
the English noble. The other measures ·032 m. This is a French token,
imitated from the coinage of Dauphiné, a dolphin quartered with
fleurs-de-lys. A silver half-crown of Louis XV, dated 1741, was also
found, as was a token of German make of the eighteenth century, bearing
on the obverse a quartered shield and on the reverse the legend CVIQUE
SVVM, and the date 1701.
~Georges Dubosc.~
FROM BELGIUM[120]
~Ghent~
The staircase which at present gives access to the crypt in the
cathedral of St. Bavo at Ghent is to disappear in consequence of the
installation of the _Heilig Graf_ in the place at which it starts. In
view of the artistic and archaeological importance of this vast crypt,
it will now be approached, as, for that matter, the greater number
of crypts were approached, by two staircases. With this object, the
two primitive staircases will simply be reinstated in their original
positions. The restoration of these primitive entrances is desirable
from another point of view: it will allow of the immediate rebuilding
of the lower portions of the columns, which were rashly cut away, in
the eighteenth century, for the installation of large marble slabs. All
the columns in the choir have undergone the same dangerous mutilation;
their bases have been slashed into, to a great depth, right and left.
So long ago as 1900, the royal commission on monuments declared that
it was necessary to take thought of this position of affairs, which
was capable, at a given moment, of compromising the very existence of
the building. ¶ In the crypt, two large funeral monuments have been
discovered. They are in marble, and belong to the Renaissance period;
they were originally in one of the chapels in the circumference of
the choir, whence they were removed to make room for some works of
restoration. These funeral monuments will be placed against the walls
of the south-east entrance of the church. ¶ Lastly, the commission has
requested the governor of the province to instruct the committee of
correspondents to draw up an inventory of the objects of art housed
in the cathedral crypt and to state, as far as possible, the origin
of these works, several of which appear to present a real artistic
importance.
~Nieuport~
The work of restoration of the fine church of Nieuport is being
actively carried out. In consequence of certain demolitions effected
since an earlier inspection, it has been ascertained that the
cross-vaulting of the transept was originally in wood, as were all the
other vaults of the building. A portion of the wooden ribs is still in
position, as is also the case with the remains of the shingle roofing.
All doubt being now resolved, this vault will be reinstated in wood. In
the wall of the south transept, a primitive window has been laid bare.
It was built up at the time of a general alteration of the edifice and
replaced by a larger bay. The window will be restored to its first
state. The removal of the covering of the south transept has shown that
the ridge of that portion of the monument is higher by about 50 cm.
than that of the adjacent roofings. As no alteration has taken place
in this part, the actual height of the roofing and of the south gable
will be maintained. Pains have been taken to restore the primitive
buttresses of the south nave, beside the choir, of which the old sites
have been found.
~R. Petrucci.~
FROM BERLIN[121]
Within the last few months the picture gallery of Berlin has had the
opportunity of making some very fortunate purchases which supplement
the collection of pictures of the northern schools in a way that
is particularly desirable. The acquisition of the large picture by
Hugo van der Goes was an event for the Berlin gallery, one of those
purchases which may suffice to reconcile an acquisitive curator with
the chances of a restless profession for another year or two. ¶ Of the
pictures of older German masters the gallery had the opportunity of
buying two striking works. The Rest on the Flight of the year 1504,
always acknowledged as Lucas Cranach’s best picture, passed from the
hands of Frau Fiedler of Munich, the widow of its last owner, into the
possession of the Berlin gallery. The picture, enamel-like in painting
and in excellent preservation, was formerly in the Schiarra gallery in
Rome. Further, they succeeded in acquiring one of the few authentic
panels of Martin Schongauer, a painting of moderate dimensions, very
near akin to the Münich, and still more to the Vienna Madonna pictures.
Of particular charm is the sunny bright landscape in the background.
¶ The gallery hitherto lacked a great religious painting by Rubens;
this default is now very happily atoned by the acquisition of the
Conversion of Paul. The picture, that dates from about the time of the
great religious pictures of Antwerp, reveals stress of emotion and
very penetrating harsh illumination. Of the recently acquired Italian
pictures only one deserves comment here; but this is a master work--the
Resurrection of Christ, by Giovanni Bellini, of the earlier period of
the master.
I. S.
FROM VIENNA[121]
To-day Vienna has its modern gallery. The old possessions of the
municipal art gallery and of the academy of the graphic arts furnished
the foundations for this new institution, and the works acquired
of late years in behalf of the state and of the province of Lower
Austria supplement this nucleus in such a way as to give us to-day
a fairly comprehensive review of the evolution of art in Austria
since the year 1848. Some 200 well-chosen paintings adorn the old and
venerable apartments of the Lower Belvedere--in the palace, that is
to say, which Prince Eugene of Savoy commissioned Lucas von Hildebrand
(1668-1745) to build for him. ¶ Some few masters, such as Rudolf von
Alt, Hans Makart, Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, who have carried their
names and the fame of their art far beyond the boundaries of their
native land, are represented by a considerable number of their works.
Other ornaments of the Vienna school, such as Moriz Schwind, Joseph
Danhauser, Joseph Führich, E. Jacob Schindler, are unfortunately by no
means represented in proportion to the claims of their art or fame.
Whether in these cases mistakes in selection--for the storehouse still
contains great treasures--or actual dearth of the works of the one or
the other was the cause we are not in a position to decide. In any case
the authorities of the new museum of the town of Vienna, whither on its
completion the modern gallery is to migrate, have their work cut out
here to make good all the mistakes that have been committed in their
time, and to restore the monuments of eminent men which have slipped
somewhat into the background of the temple of fame to their proper
places. The right wing of the palace is devoted to foreign artists.
Germany is represented by Klinger, Böcklin, Stuck, Uhde, Achenbach;
Italy by Segantini; France by Monet, Rolt and Dagnan-Bouveret; England
and the Netherlands by Alma Tadema; and Spain by Zuloaga.
J. M.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
_To the Editor of_ ~The Burlington Magazine~.
~Dear Sir~,
In your July number, Mr. Cecil Smith states that the head of a girl,
from Chios, recently exhibited in the Burlington Fine Arts club,
is rubbed down ruinously over the entire surface. A microscopic
examination of the piece in various lights will convince him, or anyone
open to conviction, that his statement is plainly contrary to fact.
Seldom is seen a marble with greater freshness of surface. ¶ That
the original modelling is evanescent--or, as he may care to call it,
‘rubbed down’--is obvious, even to me; but the whole effect, good or
bad, depends on that evanescence, which is found repeatedly in works
which aim at Praxitelean effects. ¶ Mr. Smith having given you his
estimate of the head as a work of art, allow me to quote the judgement
of another man, Auguste Rodin, almost equally eminent. When questioned
by an interviewer concerning his impressions of London during his
recent visit, he is reported to have answered: ‘This time I have been
most fortunate, for I have seen at the Burlington Fine Arts club
an antique head of great beauty. It is life itself. It embodies all
that is beautiful, life itself, beauty itself. It is admirable! Those
parted lips! I am not a man of letters, hence I am unable to describe
this truly great work of art. I feel, but I cannot find the words to
express what I feel. It is a Venus. I cannot tell you how interesting
that Venus is to me. It is a flower, a perfect gem. Perfect to such
a degree that it is “aussi déroutante que la nature elle-même!” It
defies description.’ ¶ The interviewer thought M. Rodin was speaking of
the Petworth Aphrodite, but a few inquiries will enable Mr. Smith to
find out the truth of the matter, if it is worth his while. ¶ Thus it
appears that about a model in partly-melted loaf-sugar there may be as
diverse opinions as concerning the tone of a cracked bell.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
~John Marshall~.
July 28, 1903.
APPENDIX
~Documents Referred to in Mr. Herbert Horne’s Articles on A newly
discovered ‘Libro Di Ricordi’ of Alesso Baldovinetti, pp. 22 and 167~
DOC. I.
Firenze: Archivio di Santa Maria Nuova; Libri di San Paolo.
‘Testimentj’ dal 1399, al 1526. Segnato B. Inscribed on the
original fly-leaf, after the index which has been added to the
volume:--‘Questo libro edello spedale de efratj pinzocherj del terzo
ordine di s_an_c_t_o francescho echiamasj q_u_aderno dj testamentj.’
fol. 16 recto.
Alexo di baldouinecto baldouinettj a facto ogi questo dj 23 dima^rço
1499 donatione allospedale nostro djtuttj esua beni mobili &
i_m_mobilj dopo lasua uita co_n_ i_n_charico ch_e_ lospedale habia
alime_n_tare lamea sua s_er_ua ime_n_tre ch_e_ uiuera rogato S_er_
piero djleonardo daui_n_ci notaio fiore_n_tino sotto dj decto djsopra.
✠ Mori Alexo adjultimo dagosto 1499 & sote=r=ossi i_n_ s_an_cto
lorenço nella sua sepultura & lospedale rimase hereda desua benj
ch_e_ iddjo gliabia p_er_donato esua pecatj.
[Printed by Milanesi in his notes to Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p.
597; and again more correctly by Dr. Pierotti in his preface to the
‘Ricordi di Alesso Baldovinetti,’ Lucca, 1868, p. 6. The document is
here given textually from the original.]
DOC. II.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Rogiti di Ser Piero di Antonio di Ser
Piero da Vinci. Protocollo dal 28 Marzo 1495, al 23 Marzo 1498-9.
Segnato P 356.
fol. 553 recto. 1498
Item postea dictis anno indict_ion_e et die xvij mensis ottobris
predictis act_um_ florent_ie_ inp_o_p_o_lo sanctj stephanj abbatie
florent_ine_ presentib_us_ testib_us_ etc. s_er_ antonio niccholaj
deemporio et s_er_ lionardo bartholomej tuccj not_ariis_ publicis
flor_entinis_.
[Sidenote: Renuntiatio.]
Cum sit q_uod_ Alexus filius olim baldouinj alexij debaldouinetis ciuis
flor_entinus_ et de p_o_p_o_lo sanctj laure_n_tij de flor_entia_ ex
titulo et causa donat_ionis_ int_er_uiuos et i_n_reuocabilit_er_ /
dederit et donauerit hospitalj pinzocheror_um_ tertij ord_inis_ sanctj
franciscj / al_ias_ vocato lospedale disampagholo / et pauperibus xp̃i
jndicto hospitalj p_ro_ tempore existentib_us_ l_icet_ absentib_us_
et venerabilj viro d_omi_no antonio s_er_ niccholaj guidj priorj
hospitalario et gubernatorj dict_j_ hospitalis ibidem p_re_sentj et
p_ro_ dicto hospitalj recip_ientj_ / _omn_ia sua bona mobilia et
i_m_mobilia presentia et futura / et ubicu_m_q_ue_ posita et existentia
et sub quibuscu_m_q_ue_ eor_um_ vocabulis et _con_finib_us_ et o_mn_ia
et quecu_m_q_ue_ eius jura no_m_i_n_a et actiones et tam p_re_sentia
q_uam_ futura / et eidem donatorj quomodolib_et_ p_er_tinentia et
expectantia et seu compatitura etc. / res_er_uato sibj donatorj
o_mn_iu_m_ supra_scrip_tor_um_ bonor_um_ et juriu_m_ ut supra
donat_orum_ vsis et vsufructis toto t_em_pore eius vite naturalis / ut
de ipsa donat_io ne_ _con_stat man_u_ mej notarij jnfra_scrip_tj sub
die xvj mensis martij annj p_ro_ximj p_re_t_e_ritj Mcccclxxxxvij seu
alio veriorj te_m_p_o_re / Vnde hodie hac present_e_ supra_scrip_ta
die dictus alexus / ex aliquib_us_ iustis et rationabilib_us_ causis
motus / animu_m_ suu_m_ ut asserint moue_n_tib_us_ et ex eius mera
libera et spo_n_tanea voluntat_e_ / et non p_er_ alique_m_ juris u_e_l
factj errorem etc. et omnj mo_do_ etc. / dicto vsuj et vsufructuj sibj
in supra_scrip_ta donat_ione_ res_er_uat_o_ expresse renu_n_tiauit
etc. et dictu_m_ vsum et vsufructu_m_ libere remisit et relapsauit
dicto hospitalj et pauperib_us_ xp̃i degentibus jn dicto hospitalj /
l_icet_ absentib_us_ et mihj notario jnfrascripto vt publice p_er_sone
recipientj et acceptantj p_ro_ dicto hospitalj et hospitalario et
pauperibus xp̃i etc. q_ue_ omnia et singula etc. p_ro_misit etc.
attendere et obs_er_uare etc. et contra non facere etc. sub pena duplj
eius quod p_ro_ te_m_p_o_re poteret_ur_ et lixesset i_n_ que pena etc.
obligans etc. renuntia[n]s etc. cuj p_ro_ guaranti_gia_ etc. rogantes
etc.
DOC. III.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Arch. del Arte di Medici e Speziali.
No. 247. Libro dei Morti, Segnato D, dal 10 Gennaio 1489-90, al 31
Luglio 1505.
fol. 133 tergo.
Agosto 1499
Alesso baldouinettj Adj 29 R^o in s^o lor^o.
DOC. IV.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Quartiere, Santa Maria Novella;
Gonfalone, Vipera; Portate 1470, No. verde 196.
fol. 9 recto.
q_uartier^e_ S maria novella G^e vipera
Alesso di baldouinetto dalesso baldouinettj delpopolo disannto
Apostolo djfirenze
Sustannza
Nonna nulla djsutannza
Incharichj
* .... al 69 Tenncho una chaxa apigione dachosimo dj
G^e L^o d^o in .... † lennzzi istouigliaio fuori della
co_n_to [di] porta afaennz[a]nelpopolo djsalorenzo e
chosimo dipiero pacho djetta chaxa djpicione fiorinj 5
lenzi p_er_detto lanno f_iorinj_ 114 --
pigone
Alesso sopra detto deta dannj ---- 40
Soma lap_rim_^a facca f_iorinj_ --
Chonposto p_er_delib_er_azione degluficalj
in s_oldj_ iiij Roghato s_er_ nicholo
ferrini not_aro_ f_iorinj_ --
s_oldj_ iiij
[* The first part of this marginal note is no longer legible.
† Lacuna in original.
Printed in part by J. Gaye in his “Carteggio d’Artisti,” Firenze, 1839
Vol. I, p. 224, N^o xci.]
DOC. V.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Quartiere, Santa Maria Novella;
Gonfalone, Vipera; Portate 1480, N^o verde 1008, fol. 41 recto.
Q_uartiere_ di S^a M^a novella g^e della Vipera.
Alesso dibaldouinetto dalesso baldouinettj
dipintore del p_o_p_o_lo di San
appostolo difirenze ebbe dicatasto 1470 s_oldj_ 4
Ebbe disesto l_ire_ j p_icciolj_
Sustantia
Vn pezzo diterra Lauoratia distaiora 12 Al 95 jndetto nome &
acorda o circha posta nel p_o_p_o_lo G^e an^o 21 p_er_
diS_an_c_t_a maria aquinto comune Rendita difiorinj
disesto luogho detto via mozza Confinj 2 16 6
ap^o ebenj diS_an_c_t_a maria
maggiore difirenze as_econ_do Giovannj
di giorgio aldobrandinj at_er_tio ebenj
delle monache dela munistero di San
giovannj vangiolista vuolgharemente detto
fauenza a ¼ Pagholo dinannj dacholannata f_iorinj_ 40
s_oldj_ 7 . 2
Vno pezzo diterra Lauoratia distaiora 7 o Al 95 jndetto nome &
circha acorda post_a_ in detto G^e an^o 21 p_er_
p_o_p_o_lo diS_an_c_t_a maria aq_ui valuta difiorinj
_nto jndetto Comune disesto Luogho detto 27 -- --
amorucj Confinj ap^o leredj di Sanctj
di simone ambrogi as_econ_do et _ter_tio
Leredj didomenicho dimichele pescionj a ¼
Le Rede di bancho Righattiere Lequalj dettj
dua pezzj diterra sono p_er_ parte difondo
dotale dim^a daria donna didetto Alesso
Carte p_er_ mano dis_er_ piero daVincj
Sotto gliannj 1479 & vna Ladetta terra
aficto Lucha della Vacchio danne p_er_
detto ficto Lanno istaia
Grano ist_aia_ 22 f_iorinj_ 27 s_oldj_ --
67 7 2
Bocche
Alesso baldouinettj detto dannj 60 dipintore
M^a daria sua donn_a_ dannj 45
Mea sua fanticella dannj 13
Incharichj
Vna chasa post_a_ nel p_o_p_o_lo diS_an_cto
Lorenzo difirenze nella via dello ariento
al chanto deghorj co_n_finj dap^o via as_econ
_do et t_er_tio Leonardo dimeo disalj a ¼
Mess_er_ domenicho marteglj Laquale one
apigione dachosimo Lenzj bocteghaio fuorj
della porta afaenza pagho Lanno fiorinj viij
di suggiello chome apparisce scripta dimano
didetto chosimo
fol. 41 tergo.
Somma lesustanze f_iorinj_ 67 7 2
Abattj per 5 perc^o f_iorinj_ 3 7 4
✠ Auanzaglj f_iorinj_ 64 a 7 pe_rc_^o fan_n_o it
R^a f_iorinj_ iiij^o so_ldj_ 9 d_anarj_ 6 aor^o
Abattj p_er_pigione di chasa l_ire_ 46 lan_n_o
✠ Manchaglj p_er_ teste s_oldj_ diecj di
f_iorinj_ lar_ghj_ s_oldj_ 10
Tochaglj f_iorinj_ -- l_ire_ 2 0 0
[Another copy of this Denunzia, written in the same hand, occurs in the
Campione del Monte; Quartiere, Santa Maria Novella; Gonfalone, Vipera;
1480; No. 54, fol. 59.
A portion of this second copy is facsimiled in G. Milanesi’s ‘Scrittura
di Artisti Italiani’ (Sec. XIV-XVII), Florence, 1876, Vol. I, No. 74.
In the text which accompanies this plate, it is erroneously stated that
the facsimile was taken from the foregoing copy.
In the copy printed above, the official marginalia on the left margin
of the document are no longer legible. In the second copy, in the
Campione del Monte, they run thus. Against the first parcel of land,
under the heading ‘Sustantia’:--‘Dal 69 nichio c. 668 dachont^o dj
Rede di charlo Ridolfi per R_endit_^a dj f_iorinj_ 2.16.6 dasoma
dj f_iorinj_ 44 _soldj_ 5 diR_endit_^a [sic].’ Against the second
parcel of land, under the same heading:--‘Dal 69 G^o L^o c^o c. 930
da chont^o d_i_santj d_i_simone anbruogj p_er_ valut^a dj f_iorinj_
27.’ It appears from the docket of this second copy, on fol. 72 tergo,
‘R_ech_^o alesso al 28 diG^o,’ that the return in question was lodged
with the officials by Alesso himself on June 28, 1480.
J. Gaye, in his ‘Carteggio d’Artisti,’ Firenze, 1839, Vol. I, p. 224,
cites this ‘Denunzia’; and erroneously alludes to Mea, as the daughter
of Alesso.]
DOC. VI.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Quartiere, Santa Maria Novella;
Gonfalone, Unicorno; Portate 1498, N^o verde 66, N^o 21, fol. 59
recto.
Q_uartiere_ dj s_an_c_t_a m^a n^a G^o vipera
Alesso dibaldouinetto dalesso baldouinettj disse
lagrauezza sua in d_i_ct_o_ alesso Inchamerata
dellan_n_o 1481 i_n_detto Alesso Schala habito
nelp_o_p_o_lo disanlorenzo djfirenze
Sustanze
danseglj p_er_ Vmpezzo diterra lauoratia posta nelp_o_p_o_lo
laueduta dis_an_cta m^a aquinto djst_aiora_ 12 daprimo cho
degliuficalj _n_fina ebeni dis_an_cta m^a magiore dj firenze a
pezzi ditera ij^o Giouanni digiorgio aldobrandinj a iij^o
p_er_ piu p_er_ Lemonache di faenza a iiij^o Pagolo dinan_n_i
R_endit_^a, dacholonnato Vmpezzo diterra lauoratia dist_aiora_ 7
dif_iorinj_ posta nelp_o_p_o_lo dis_an_cta m^a aq^o co_n_fini the
quattro s_oldj_ dap^o lerede dj santi disimone ambrogi ij^o & terzo le
nove d_anarj_ rede didomenicho dimatteo dimichele pescionj a iiij^o
iij disug^o. lerede dibancho rigattiere edetti pezzi diterra lauora
lucha dj domenicho di biagio dalauacchio etielle
afitto dame edammi lan_n_o difitto st_aj_ xxij digrano
edetti dua pezzi diterra sono p_er_ parte difondo
dotale di m^a daria mia don_n_a Rogato s_er_ piero
dauinci not_aro_ alpalagio delpodestad ifire_n_ze
sotto lanno . . . . .*
Grano st_aj_ xxij f_iorinj_ 4 9 3
danseglj p_er_ Vmpezzo diterra vigniata dist_aiora_ al 32 _in_
laueduta chome xj epanora tre chomperai danoferi benedetto di
di sopra p_er_ dipierozzo dinofri chalzaiuolo posta pa gholo
piu pezzi ditera nelp_o_p_o_lo dis_an_cto martino grassj g^e
p_er_ R_endit_^a asesto logho detto acqua ritrosa chiaue No. 63
dif_iorinj_ otto Confini dap^o via ij^o rede dizanobi p_er_
s_oldj_ djcotto pasquinj iij^o batista uernacci iiij^o f_iorinj_
d_anarj_ iij saluestro digiouanni schiattesi lauora 8 18 3
disug ladetta uig^a lucha didomenicho
dalauacchio epagolo dogni chose cioe
folla amia mano la detta uignia
euignia vecchia rende lanno da 16 a
18 barili diuino chosto lost_aioro_
lire xxiij dipicciolj Comp_er_ala
perterra danofri dipierozzo
sop_ra_d_e_cto Rogato s_er_ piero
dant^o da uinci not_aro_ alpalagio
delpodista difirenze
Vino B_ari_lj 18 f_iorinj_ 8 18 3
Incharichi
Vna chasa chonsua uochaboli cchonfini posta alchanto dighori
p_o_p_o_lo dis_anct_o lorenzo difircnze laqual chasa sie dichosimo
dipiero lenzi bottegaio allaporta afaenza Confini che dap^o via ij^o
terzo rede dilionardo djmeo disali iiij^o Jac^o maringho tiratoiaio
Edella detta chasa nepago lanno djpigione lire 46 dj picciolj a
d_ect_o chosimo Ed_e_ldetto chosimo pagha pesoborghe nelq_uartier_^o
d_i_sant^a m^a n^a p_o_p_o_lo di san L^o dentro dafaenza.
fol. 59 tergo.
dasegli per Adi 26 dj febraio 1483 michonsigniorono
laueduta echonsolj dellarte deme^rchatantj
degluificallj lapigione di dua botteghe Rogato s_er_
R_end_it^a dj gioua_n_nj migliorellj lo_ro_ not_aro_
f_iorinj_ poste i_n_sulle piazza disangioua_n_nj
uentidua Laprima bottega sie cholla chasa
disug^o djsop_r_a nella quale chasa abita m^a
piera do_n_na ch_e_ fu dj rinierj
chaualchantj Epaga lanno djpigione
l_ire_ 45 lan_n_o di picciolj Enella
bottega djsotto ad_e_c_t_a chasa habita
filippo djrinierj banditore epagliaiuolo
p_re_statore dichauaglj epaga lan_n_o
djpigione l_ire_ 65 djpicciolj Co_n_fini
dap^o via ij^o gherardo djgherardo
chasinj iij^o larte demerchata_n_tj
iiij^o pagolo dipina doro speziale f_iorinj_ 22 -- --
daseglj p_er_ Vna bottegha laquale e nelnumero delle
laueduta chome due botteghe sop_ra_dette laquale habita
disopra p_er_ filippo dj saluestro sellaio Epaga lanno
R_endit_^a, djpigione l_ire_ 44 dipicciolj
dif_iorinj_ co_n_f_ini_ dap^o via ij^o laporta
otto s_oldj_ dellop_er_a disangioua_n_nj iij^o larte
sediccj deme^rchata_n_tj iiij^o larte detta
disug^o lequal botteghe epigione ma_n_no
cho_n_signiato p_er_ mio mestero &
pagam_en_to del musaicho dj
sangioua_n_nj ch_e_ jo o racchoncio
& rifatto erischiarato Eanchora o
affare ilfregio dj fuora Eanchora
qua_n_do accadessi djraccho_n_ciare
d_e_c_t_o musaicho sono ubrigato aogni
loro richiesta Queste botteghe e
ilpagam_en_to delmio magistero
eess_er_citio et trafficho lapigione
diq_u_este botteghe sie ilmio ghuadagnio
delmio trafficho chede stuccho euetrj
esmaltj eferrj chonchio lauoro f_iorinj_ 8 16 --
fol. 60 recto.
Sonma lentrata dela p_ri_ma faccja di
q_uest_^a schritta f_iorinj_ tredicj
s_oldj_ sette d_anarj_ vj^o disug^o
chefanno f_iorinj_ la_rghj_ dig_rossj_
f_iorinj_ undjccj s_oldj_ dua d_anarj_
xj Tochaglj didecima f_iorinj_ uno
s_oldj_ dua d_anarj_ iiij^o la_rghj_
Sonmma lasechonda faccja diq_uest_^a
schritta f_iorinj_ trenta s_oldj_
sedjccj disug^o chefanno f_iorinj_
la_rghj_ dig_rossj_ f_iorinj_
uenticinq_u_e s_oldj_ xiij d_anarj_
iiij Tochaglj didecima f_iorinj_ dua
s_oldj_ undjccj d_anarj_ iiij la_rghj_
chefanno intuto didecima colle partite
disopra int^o f_iorinj_ tre s_oldj_
tredjccj d_anarj_ viij^o la_rghj_ f_iorinj_ 3 13 8
Adj 28 djgennaio 1504 abattesi
s_oldj_ 2 d_anarj_ 9 la_rghj_ p_er_
tantj itj inco_n_to djgiouannj ambruogi
unicorno c. 430 f_iorinj_ 3 10 11
la_rghj_
Adj detto abattesi s_oldj_ 14 d_anarj_
10 la_rghj_ posti aconto dis_er_
pagolo damerigo trianj c. 208 f_iorinj_ 2 16 j^o
la_rghj_
Addj 17 didic_en_bre 1556 f_iorinj_
4 . 9 posti a s^a Colonba monacha
G^e detto p_er_s^{tta} n^o 303 f_iorinj_ 4 9 --
[* Lacuna in original.
It appears from the dockets on a great number of the ‘Portate’ of 1498,
that they were actually returned between March and May, 1495.]
DOC. VII.
Libro di Ricordi d’Alesso Baldovinetti, segnato A.
fol. 1 recto.
‘Al nome di Dio, e della sua Madre vergine Maria, e di tutta la corte
del paradiso, che mi dieno gratie di fare qui in questo libro el buono
principio e la buona fine. Ammen.’
‘In questo libro scriverrò tutti mie ricordi, e debitori e creditori;
el quale libro è d’Alesso di Baldovinetto d’Alesso Baldovinetti,
cominciato a dì 10 di Diciembre 1449; segnato A.’
fol. 4 tergo.
‘1465. Lionardo di Bartolommeo, detto Lastra, e con Giovanni di Andrea
vetraio deono dare a dì 14 di Febbraio lire cento venti, e qua’ denari
sono per dipintura d’una finestra posta nella cappella maggiore di
S. Trinita, la quale finestra ha fatta fare Bongianni di Bongianni
Gianfigliazzi a detto Lastra, e con Giovanni maestri di finestre di
vetro: ed io Alesso l’ho disegnata e dipinta loro per soldi quaranta al
braccio quadro; intendendosi l’occhio di sopra in detta somma e misura
con detta finestra. L. 120.’
fol. 7 recto.
1470, 11 Aprile. Toglie a dipingere la tavola della cappella maggiore
di S. Trinita da Bongiovanni di Bongiovanni Gianfigliazzi, nella
quale ha a essere una Trinità con due santi da lato, con angioli, S.
Benedetto e S. Giovanni Gualberto. La dette finita il dì 8 Febbraio
1471; e n’ebbe dal Gianfigliazzi in pagamento fiorini 89 larghi d’oro.
fol. 7 recto.
1471, 1 Luglio. Toglie a dipingere la cappella maggiore di S. Trinita
da Bongiovanni Gianfigliazzi per ducati 200 d’oro larghi, da finirsi in
tempo di cinque anni a 7.
[Printed by G. Pierotti, in the ‘Ricordi di Alesso Baldovinetti,
Pittore Fiorentino del secolo xv, Lucca, Tipografia Landi, 1868,’ pp.
9, 12, and 14.]
DOC. VIII.
Firenze: Archivio di Santa Maria Nuova; Libri di San Paolo. Filza
labelled ‘Libri Diversi,’ containing a number of miscellaneous account
books relating to the hospital. A small upright book of 47 leaves of
paper, bound in a parchment cover, inscribed:
RICHORDI ·Ḅ̇·
fol. 1 recto.
1470
In questo quaderno faro richordo ditutte lespese faro nellachappella
maggiore dj Sa_n_ta trinita cioe / oro / azurro uerde lacha congnj
altrj cholorj espese cheachadranno indetta chappella echosi siano
rimasi dachordo [? io e] meserbongiannj gianfigliazi aloghatore
epadrone didetta chappella chome appare p_er_ una scritta soscritta dj
sua mano laquale io tengho.
fol. 2 recto.
1470
chonp_er_aj addj 9 di marzo anno detto libre 2
eoncie 9 dazurro dimangnia da chardinale
delbulletta p_er_ pregio dj soldj 26 loncia fu
azurro sottile l_ire_ 42 s_oldj_ 18
E addj 12 dimarzo anno detto chonp_er_aj libre 4
eoncie due emmezo dazzurro dimangnia p_er_ pregio
dj soldj . 33 . loncia l_ire_ 83 s_oldj_ 6
E addj uentj dimarzo chonp_er_aj libre . 6 . dj
uerdazzuro p_er_ pregio dj soldj 14 loncia l_ire_ 50 s_oldj_ 8
E addj .25. dimarzo chonp_er_aj libre . 26 . dj
pju cholorj chostorno tuttj insieme lire . 28 .
cioe lire ventotto l_ire_ 28 s_oldj_ --
d_anarj_ --
E adj 28 dap_r_ile anno detto chonp_er_aj
sedicj quadernj djfoglj realj dastraccio p_er_
soldj . 5 . elquaderno p_er_ fare glispoluerezj
de p_r_ofetj e altrj spoluerezi achaggiono in
detta volta l_ire_ 4 s_oldj_ --
d_anarj_ --
E adj . 31 . dap_r_ile anno detto chonp_er_aj
libra vna eoncie 7 dazurro djmangna dauno
tedescho in una vescicha p_er_ pregio dj
s_oldj_ 31 loncia l_ire_ 29 s_oldj_ 9
d_anarj_ --
fol. 2 tergo.
1471
E addj 24 dimaggio anno detto chonp_er_aj
libre 4 eoncie 5 dj digiallo [_sic_] cioe
arzicha p_er_ detta chappella p_er_ pregio dj
dj [_sic_] soldj . 13 . loncia l_ire_ 34 s_oldj_ 9
E addj. 24. diluglio chonp_er_aj libre quatro
dolio djseme dilio p_er_ p_r_egio dj soldj 4
lalibra l_ire_ -- s_oldj_ 16
E addj. 29. daghosto chonp_er_aj dabernardjno
djuentura chefa epenneglj penneglj . 58 . divaio
tra grossj esottilj luno p_er_laltro grandj
eppicholj l_ire_ j s_oldj_ 12
E adj 29 daghosto spesi tra uaseglj nuouj
epentolinj esetole espagho p_er_ farpenneglj dj
setole epportatura dj chassette echap_r_e
p_er_asercitio dj detta chappella l_ire_ 3 s_oldj_ 5
E addj p_r_imo dj settenbre anno detto
chonp_er_aj oncie cinque dj lacha fine p_er_
pregio dj soldj 14 loncia intutto l_ire_ 3 s_oldj_ 1^o
E addj 25 disettenbre detto anno detto
chonp_er_aj libre due dazzurro djmangnia
dagionannj dandrea uetraio p_er_ pregio di
soldj . 25 . loncia disse era dunsuo chonpare
chorriere Lauea rechato da uinegia voile detto
giouan_n_j soldj 4 p_er_andare abbere l_ire_ 30 s_oldj_ 4
fol. 3 recto.
1472
E addj 12 dap_r_ile anno detto cho_n_p_er_aj
libre / cinque / dazurro dj mangnia cioe
biadetto p_er_ fare elletto sotto lazurra fine
el quale chonp_er_aj da lorenzo dipiero
djpintore inborghosantappostolo p_er_ p_r_egio
dj soldj 5 loncia l_ire_ 15 s_oldj_ --
E addj 13 digiungnio anno detto chonp_er_aj
dadomenicho battjloro pezi mille setteciento
doro fine indue uolte lap_r_ima fu cinqueciento
lasechonda melle dugiento messo insollo stangnio
p_er_ p_r_egio di lire sesantuna l_ire_ 61 s_oldj_ --
E addj 15 digiungnio chonp_er_aj dagiouannj
battiloro detto rosso pezzi cinqueciento doro
fine messo insullo stangnio p_er_ p_r_egio di
lire djciotto l_ire_ 18 s_oldj_ --
E addj 23 dj giungnio anno detto chonp_er_aj
pezzj / quatro / mila doro fine p_er_ p_r_egio
dj lire tre e soldj quatro el cie_n_tinaio
dauno gienouese cioe oro battuto aggienoua l_ire_ 128 s_oldj_ --
E addj 28 di giungnio anno detto chonp_er_aj
fogli ottantasej di stangnio giallo p_er_
metteruj suso loro intutto chosto l_ire_ 8 s_oldj_ --
E addj 9 di lulglio chonp_er_aj libre otto
diuernicie liquida p_er_ appichare loro
insulla uolta cioe gliornamentj doro fine l_ire_ 3 s_oldj_ 4
fol. 3 tergo.
1472
E addj 14 di settenbre an_no_ detto chonp_er_aj
oncie otto dj cinabro fine p_er_ fare echerubinj
dellarcho dinanzi didetta chappella p_er_ pregio
dj soldj 2 e danarj otto loncia l_ire_ 1 s_oldj_ 1
d_anarj_ 4
E addj 13 dj giennaio anno detto chonp_er_aj
libre 2 eoncie diecj dazzurro dimangnia dauno
polacco p_er_ pregio dj soldj uentj loncia azurro
chiaro bello sottile l_ire_ 34 s_oldj_ --
[In a later hand:]
Seghuitasj p_er_ fare Richordj p_er_ lospedale
di pizichora d_e_l terzo ordjne dj san
fra_nchesco_ iscritto p_er_ giouanj d_i_s_er_
antonio vianizzj.
[The remainder of the book is filled with accounts relating to the
hospital of S. Paolo.
Since I discovered this ‘Libro di Ricordi’ last autumn, in the
‘archivio’ of S. Maria Nuova, its contents, so far as they relate to
Alesso, have been printed, no doubt, inadvertently, though not without
some errors, in the third number of the _Miscellanea d’ Arte_, Firenze,
Marzo, 1903, p. 50, by Signor Piero Bagnesi-Bellincini, the keeper of
the ‘archivio,’ to whom I happened to mention my find.]
DOC. IX.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Conventi soppressi, No. grosso 89, Santa
Trinita, No. 135.
Libro cartaceo scritto circa la metà del secolo xvii, da D. Averardo
Niccolini, Abate di Santa Trinita; contenente notizie della Chiesa e
Monasterio di Ripoli, e della Chiesa e Convento di Santa Trinita.
[Without pagination.]
Annotazioni e ricordi p_er_ la Chiesa di S. Trinita.
Capp^a Maggiore della SS^{ma} Trinita de Gianfigliazzi
1371. Nella fabrica et edifizio della Capp^a Maggiore si legge in
una carta pecora[122] che l’anno 1371. l’Ab. di quel
tempo....[123] al pop^o di S. Trinita che fabricasse la
Cappella Maggiore di d^a Chiesa e q_ues_to intermine di tre
mesi, e passati q^{ti}....[123] dato principio atal fabrica la
concederebbe a chi la uolesi fabricare.
1463. Si cominciò d^a fabrica ma molto adagio, poiche l’anno 1463 si
legge che era mezza fabricata, si come erano anco molte altre
Cappelle, e tutto auueniva p_er_ mancamento di danaro; la doue
p_er_ darli fine l’Abb. congregò in Chiesa tutt’ il popolo,
ouero la maggior parte, p_er_ dare questa Capp^a p_er_che
essendo mancati i danari per tirarla innanzi, la famiglia che
l’aueua lipotesse dar l’ultima mano, cosi it di 4 di Febbraio
dello stesso anno a uiva uoce del pop^o fù concessa a meser
Bongianni di Bongianni Gianfigliazzi, e aquelli che fossero
dell sua linea.
Questa famiglia aueua già la Capp^a di S. Donato[124] posta in
detta Chiesa la p^a à canto alla ....[123] uerso it coro,
a q_ue_sta aueuano gl’ Oblighi come di sotto si dirà; Onde
ottenuta cheebbe Bongianni tal Capp^a la finì, e la fece
Alesso dipignere da Alesso Baldouinetti, di cui mano è ....[123],
Baldo- come anco ....[123] doue è effigiata la SS^{ma} Trinita, e
uninetti l’Altare ....[123] situata sotto la finestra inuetriata del
Pittore. Coro, e in q_ue_stra Capp^a fatto la sepolt^a cui portorno
l’ossa dei loro antenati.
[Sidenote:]
Inuetriate della Chiesa
....
Ricordo ancora come l’inuetriata della Cappella maggiore della Chiesa
di S^a Trinita di Firenze essendo tutta guasta, rotta e rattoppata,
in maniera che non rendeua lume alcuno, se non doue non era rete: it
mede_si_mo R^{mo} P_ad_re D. Damiano G_enera_le [della Congregazione
di Vallombrosa] molte uolte uedendo il bisogno, ne haueua trattato
e pregato il Sig^r Orazio, et il Sig^r Luca Gianfigliazzi, che la
uolessino rifare tutta di nuovo, et accio si pregassino à uolere fare
d^a spesa promesse, che la Fabbrica di S^a Trinita di Firenze hauerebbe
in parte concorso p_er_ la somma di scudi 30 ò 35. Alla fine al tempo
del P.D. [Florio][D] Sili Ab^e di S^a Trinita, e soprastante alla d^a
fabbrica l’anno 1616, si deliberorno metterui mano, e p_er_ dare loro
aiuto ci obligò à fare l’inuetriata dell’ occhio di sopra con quelle
due ali, rassettarli ferramenti, che vibisognauano, e fare li Ponti che
u’andauono, e così al nome del Sig^{re} Iddio si dette fine alla d^a
Inuetriata del mese di Giugno 1616.
e p_er_ la n_ost_ra parte si spese in tutto ....[D] come it tutto
apparisce all’ Libro della Fabbrica di S^a Trinita Seg^t C. a ....[125]
Libro Ricordi Seg^t [AF]. àc. 167.
DOC. X.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Sezione della Deputazione della Nobilità
e Cittadinanza. Miscellanea. La copia è di mano di G. B. Dei.
Nel nome di Dio--A dì 19 di Gennajo 1496 (st. c., 1497).
Noi _Benozo di Lese_ dipintore, e _Piero di Cristofano da Chastel della
Pieve_ dipintore, e _Filippo di fra Filippo_ dipintore, e _Choximo
di Lorenzo Rosselli_ dipintore, eletti da _Alesso di Baldovinetto
Baldovinetti_ dipintore a vedere e giudichare e por pregio, per
vighore d’una scritta, la quale detto _Alesso_ à con M. Bongianni de’
Gianfigliazzi e sua eredi, a una chappella fatta di pittura in Santa
Trinita di Firenze, cioè la Cappella Maggiore di detta chiesa. La quale
veduta, tutt’ insieme d’accordo, isaminato tutte le spese di calcina,
azzurro, oro e tutti altri colori, ponti e ogni altra cosa, con sua
faticha, giudichiamo che di tutto el sopradetto _Alesso_ debbi avere
fiorini mille larghi d’oro in oro, cioè fior. 1000l. d’o. in o. E per
chiarezza di detto giudicio e della verità, Io _Choxinto di Lorenzo_
sopradetto ò fatto questa scritta di mia propria mano questo sopradetto
dì, e tanto giudicho; e qui da piè si soscriveranno da piè di loro
propria mano essere contenti a quanto di sopra è scritto, e tanto tanto
[_sic_] giudichare.
Io _Benozzo di Lese_ dipintore sono stato a giudichare la sopradetta
chappella; e a quanto di sopra si contiene sono stato contento, e per
fede di questa verita ò fatto questi versi di mia propria mano, anno e
mese e dì detto di sopra.
Io _Piero Perugino_ penctore sono istacto a giudichare la sopradicta
chappella; et a quanto de sopra se conctiene, e sono istacto conctecto,
e per fede de questa virictà one facta questa de mia propia mano queste
dine sopradicto.
Io Filippo di Filippo dipintore sopradetto fui presente cogl’
infrascritti maestri a giudichare la detta chappella, e chosì confermo
e giudicho, e per fede della verità offatto questi versi di mia propia
mano, ogi questo dì sopradetto.
Printed in ‘Alcuni Documenti Artistici non mai stampati. [1454-1565.]’
Firenze, Le Monnier, 1855,[per cura di Zanobi Bicchierai, per le nozze
Farinola--Vaj.]
DOC. XI.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato. Rogiti di Ser Giovanni di Jacopo di
Piero dei Migliorelli. Protocollo dal 1481, al 1484-5. Seg^{to} M. 565.
fol. 186 recto.
In dei no_m_i_n_e amen. An_n_o do_m_inj n_os_trj yħu xp̃j abeius
salutifera i_n_carnatione milles_im_o quadringen_tesimo_ ottuagesimo
t_er_tio Jnd_ictione_ s_ecunda_ & die vigesima sexta me_n_sis februarij
Actum flor_enti_^e in p_o_p_u_lo sa_n_cte marie delfiore p_rese_ntibus
francesco andree ncrij de vetteris et Stefano compagnj sellario
p_o_p_u_lj s_ancte_ marie delfiore testib_u_s &c.
Allessus olim baldouinettj de baldouinettis locauit ad pe_n_sione_m_
Allesandro andree delfede sellario p_o_p_u_lj s_anctj_ laurentij
deflor_enti_^a ibidem p_rese_ntj et _con_duce_n_tj p_er_ se & suis
h_e_r_e_dibus Vnam apothecam ad vsum sellarij et in qu^a p_er_
plures an_n_os fecit dictam artem sellarij ut m_agiste_r dict_us_
allesander cum domo sup_er_ dicta_m_ apotecam posit_am_ flor_enti_^e
in dicto p_o_p_u_lo s_an_cte m_ari_^e delfiore cuj ap^o via aij bona
op_er_e s_ancti_ Johan_n_is batiste deflore_n_tia aiij^o gherardj
casinj aiiij^o dectj gherardj casinj i_nfra_ p_re_dictos c_on_fines
&c. p_ro_tempore et t_er_mine q_ui_nq_ue_ an_n_or_um_ Jnitiator_um_
die quarta me_n_sis Januarij p_ro_x_ime_ p_re_teritj 1483 et vt
seq_ui_t_u_^r finiendor_um_ &c. p_ro_mittens no_n_ fac_ere_ alique_m_
c_ontra_ct_u_m inp_re_judiciu_m_ p_re_s_e_ntis locationis &c. Ex
aduerso dictus allexander p_ro_mix_it_ dicto allesso dictam apothecam
& domu_m_ ten_er_e p_ro_dicto allesso et p_ro_alio no_n_ confiteri &c.
et dictis bonis vtj ar^o bonj virj & pe_n_sionarij &c. et in fine dictj
t_em_p_o_ris dicto allesso libere dicta bona vacua & expedita relapsare
&c. Et solu_er_e qual_ibet_ an_n_o dictor_um_ q_ui_nq_ue_ annorum
libras centum uigintj otto s_olidos_ 3 d_anarios_ 8 f_lorenorum_
p_arvorum_ soluendo desexme_n_sib_us_ i_n_sexme_n_ses p_ro_ut tangit
p_ro_ rata &c. Cum pacto exp_re_sso &c. q_uod_ si dura_n_te dicto
te_m_p_o_r_e_ dictus allessus decesserit dep_rese_ntj seculo q_uod_
tu_n_c & eo casu secuta morte dictj allessj i_m_mediate sit finita
p_rese_ns locatio &c. Que o_mn_ia dicte p_ar_tes p_ro_mix_erunt_
obs_er_uare &c. subpena florenor_um_ centum aurj larg_orum_ &c.
q_ue_ &c. qu^a &c. nihillominus &c. p_ro_quibus obl_igaverunt_ &c.
R_enumptiantes_ &c. quibus p_ro_ guara_ntigia_ &c. Rogantes &c.
Item postea dictis an_n_o Jnd_ictione_ die et loco p_rese_ntibus
Johan_n_e xp̃oferj v_oca_^{to} chattagnini barbito_n_sore p_o_p_u_li
s_ancti_ laure_n_tij de flor_entia_ et Michaele d_ome_nici filippi
sellario p_o_p_uli_ s_ancti_ felicis i_n_ piaza deflor_enti_^a
testib_us_.
Suprascriptus allessus de baldovinettus locauit ad pe_n_sion_em_
filippo siluestrj sellario ibidem p_rese_ntj et c_on_duce_n_tj
cum lic_enti_^a & c_on_sensu dictj dictj [_sic_] siluestrj ibidem
_prese_ntis & eodem filippo lic_enti_^{am} et c_on_sensum dantes et
p_re_stant_es_ &c. et p_ro_ se & suis h_e_r_e_dibus Vnam apothecam
ad vsum sellarij posit_am_ flor_enti_^e in p_o_p_u_lo sa_n_cte
m_ari_^e delfiore cuj ap^o via aij^o iij^o & iiij^o bona op_er_e
s_anct_e [_sic_] Johan_n_is batiste deflor_enti_^a i_nfra_ p_re_dictos
_con_fines p_ro_ te_m_p_or_e et t_er_mine q_ui_nq_ue_ an_n_or_um_
p_ro_x_ime_ fut_urorum_ Jnitiator_um_ die quarta me_n_sis Januarij
p_ro_x_ime_ p_re_teritj & ut sequit_u_^r finiendor_um_ &c. p_ro_mittens
&c. Ex aduerso dictus filippus cum dicta lic_enti_^a & _con_sensu
p_ro_mix_it_ dicto allesso ten_er_e p_ro_ dicto allesso dictam
apothecam et p_ro_ alio no_n_ _con_fiterj &c. & ipsa apotheca vtj
ar^o bonj viri &c. et _in_fine dictj t_em_p_o_r_is_ ipsam relapsare
&c. Et dare & solu_er_e q_u_^al_ibet_ an_n_o dictor_um_ q_ui_nq_ue_
an_n_or_um_ libras quadragenta q_u_^atuor f_lorenorum_ p_arvorum_
solue_n_do desexme_n_sib_us_ insexme_n_ses p_ro_ut tangit p_ro_ rata
&c. Cum pacto q_uod_ sidictus allessus durante dicto t_em_p_o_r_e_
decesserit dep_rese_ntj seculo q_uod_ tu_nc_ & eo casu im_m_ediate
secuta morte dictj allessj p_rese_ns locatio sit finita &c. Que
omnia s_uprascrit_ta dicte p_ar_tes p_ro_mix_erunt_ obs_er_uare &c.
subpena flor_enorum_ centum aurj lar_gorum_ &c. q_ue_ &c. q_u_^a &c.
Nihillominus &c. p_ro_ quibus ob_ligaverunt_ &c. R_enumptiantes_ &c.
quib_us_ p_ro_guar_antigia_ &c. Rogantes &c.
DOC. XII.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato; Arch. della Grascia, No. 5, Libro Primo
Nero de’ Mortj, dal 1,9 Dicembre 1457, al 11 Ottobre 1506.
fol. 1 tergo.
Mcccc^o lxxxiiij^o.
Mess_er_ Bon_gi_an_n_j djbongian_n_j Gianfilgliazzj Riposto i_n_santa
Trinita era dediecj djbalia adj 7 dinove_m_b_re_.
DOC. XIII.
Firenze: Biblioteca Nazionale; Codice Magliabechiano, XXVI, 22, 23, 24.
(II, ~IV~, 534, 535, 536.)
‘Sepoltuario Fiorentino ouuero Descrizione delle Chiese, Cappelle e
Sepolture, Loro Armi et ‘Inscrizioni, della Città di Fir^e e suoi
Contorni, fatta da Stefano Rosselli, L’ Anno 1657.’’
Vol. II, fol. 860 recto.
La Cappella Maggiore di q_ue_sta Chiesa, insieme con it Coro, ed altare
di essa, è d_e_lla nobil Famiglia de’ Gianfigliazzi, e fù conceduta
dagli Operai, dal Popolo, e dall’ Abbate, a m_esser_ Bongianni di
Bongianni Gianfigliazzi, a 14 di Febbraio 1463; come p_er_ rogo di
S_er_ Pierozzo Cerbini notaio Fiorentino appare; si uede l’Arme loro in
piu luoghi. [Leone azzuro, campo d’oro.]
Questa Cappella è dipinta à fresco di mano d’Alesso Baldouinetti, e uì
sono ritratti al naturale molte Persone Illustri de’ suoi Tempi ... La
Tauola di questa Cappella anticam_en_^{te} era di mano di Gio_uanni_
Cimabue Famoso Pittore ne’ suoi Tempi, e ne fù leuata p_er_ dar luogo à
quella d’ Alesso Baldouinetti, the ancora si uede affissa al muro del
Coro sotto le finestre uetriate à dirittura dell’ Altar’ grande. Nell’
imbasamento della qual Tauola dicono essere Scritte queste parole:
Jacobus Gianfigliazzius Bongiannis Equitis Fil_ius_, sua erga Deu_m_
Pietate.
DOC. XIV.
Firenze: R. Archivio di Stato; Rogiti di Ser Piero di Antonio di Ser
Piero da Vinci, Protocollo di Testamenti, dal 1454, al 1503. Segnato P.
357.
Inserto 3^o, No. 172, fol. 360 recto.
First Will of ‘Jacobus filius olim Magnificj militis dominj
buongiova_n_nj bong_i_annis de g_i_anfiglazis.’ Dated July 24, 1497.
A will of 6¼ pages, directing among other things ‘sepulturam u_er_o
suj corporis q_ua_n_do_ de hac p_re_sent_e_ vita migrarj _con_tigerit
elegit et deputauit jn eccl_esi_o sanct_is_ trinitatis deflorent_ia_
insepulcro patris sit_am_ J_n_cappella maiorj dicte eccl_esi_e.’
¶ The notices of Alesso collected shortly after his death by a member
of his family, Francesco Baldovinetti, though cited by Domenico Maria
Manni, in the footnotes to his edition of Baldinucci,[126] and more
recently, by the various commentators of Vasari, have never been
printed at length. I cannot more fitly bring these notices of Alesso to
a conclusion than by giving them textually for the first time from the
original manuscript.
DOC. XV.
Firenze: Biblioteca Nazionale; Codice Baldovinetti, N^o 244,
‘Memoriale’ di Francesco Baldovinetti.
fol. 1 recto.
[1][127] [_Begins_] Qvesto elmemoriale per me fatto echonposto
francjescho d_i_gouannj djghujdo difranc^o dim_esser_ niccholo dalesso
[di] borghino delbiecho dim_esser_ baldovinetto diborghongnone
baldovinettj g_i_a deg_i_udj djciesj degliabati efig_i_ouannj [&c.].
fol. 2 recto.
[Introductory note, in which the writer states that he has compiled
the contents of the volume ‘insu molte ischr_i_ptture antiche in chasa
nostra e fuorj diquella,’ adding, ‘edochomincjato djtto ljbro addj
ventj cinq_ue_ dj febrajo 1513, i_n_ firenze i_n_ inchasa mia in borgho
santto appostolo ... e finillo quasi tutto inmesj qvattro, c_i_oe
dechasi della chasa nostra’: _i.e._, the notices in the earlier part
of the book, relating to the family of the Baldovinetti. The latter
portion contains a chronicle of events in Florence, continued in a
later hand, to the end of the sixteenth century.]
fol. 37 recto.
[Sidenote: Pittore.]
[2] Alesso dj baldovinetto dalesso diborghino delbiecho dim_e_ss_er_
Baldovinetto dj Borghongnone Baldovinettj morj nel 1496 velcircha deta
dannj 80 ellascjo sua reds lospedale dj san pagholo djfirenze edjredo
lachasa sua debaldovinettj esotterrato sotto levolte disanlorenzo
elluj fe djtto avello benche daque djchasa era tenuto bastardo nientte
djmancho assuo tenpo fu debuonj djpintorj djtalia. [[A] _In margin_:
La sepoltura è posta a mano destra à canto q_ue_lla di Cosimo Pat_er_
Pat_riae_ e di Piero medici suo figlio, et è Chiusino di Pietra
l’Arme del Leone à basso rilieuo nel marmo bianco assai ben fatto
e ni si legge la seg_uen_te Inscrizione ̷S Baldouinettj Alesij de
Baldouinettis, et suor: Descend: 1480.]
[3] Ristjaro tutto it musaicho delcjelo djsangouannj lanno 1490
i_n_circha chennebe granpremjo dachonsolj demerchatantj eprovisione
mentre chevisse
[4] djpinse am_esser_ bongiannj g_i_anfigl_i_azzi lachappella mag_i_ore
dj santa trinita che ghrande edjfitjo ove eritrasse moltj nobilj
cjpttadjnj eritrassevj ghuido baldovinettj esse medesimo a drieto
atuttj chonuncjoppone rose secche i_n_dosso evno fazoletto i_n_mano
ebbene gran premio [[A] Adi 15 Set_ten_bre 1760. Lunedi Queste Pitture
furono leuate affatto, p_er_ esser quasi consumate dal tempo. _In
margin_: Il Ritratto d’Alesso Pittore lo feci copiare sopra una Tela
grande al na_tura_le e si tiene in casa nostra.]
[5] djpinse laltare maggiore disanta maria nuova elacappella dove
esiritrasse chonuno saeppolo overo vno dardo i_n_mano evna gornnea
indosso
[6] djpinse echjostrj djsanbenedetto fuorj djfirenze [[A] era Monast.
de Frati Camald; che fù rouinato l’ anno 1529.]
djpinse quella nunzjata enella chortte deservj cioe nativita che drieto
alaltare della nunzjata acchorda euna vergine Maria insulchantto
decharnnesecchj [Interpolated]
djpinse vna tavoletta daltare alentrate i_n_ santa maria novella
amanritta de tre magj chedjchono essj bella chosa. [[A] In margin: La
d_et_ta Tavoletta fu colorita da Sandro Botticello che uisse nel tempo
dj Alesso e fu miglior maestro dj luj.] edipinse una uergine Maria
i_n_sulchantto decharnneseccho. [Interpolated a second time by error.]
[7] djpinse latavola delaltare disanpiero i_n_chalicharza nostro. [[A]
Questa non uè piu, ne si sa comj fosse leuata.]
djpinse nechjostrj djsanta chrocje vnchristo chebatuto alla cholonna.
djpinse mestato djtto ciertte natjvita choncjpttadjnj qvando siscjende
leschale delpalagio della singnoria che sono dua tavole sopro alla
chateratta e j^a piu su.
djpinse indjmoltj altrj luoghj ealsuo tenpo no_n_ cjera ilmegl_i_o
maestro edjmusaicho no_n_ cjera aluj chelluj chello sapessj fare efecje
assaj djscjepolj eq_u_ello delghrillandaja peruno cheffu siperfetto
maestro fusuo discjepolo.
[[128] Alesso Fece il mosaico che si uede nel mezzo della Facciata di
fuori con diuerse Figure della Chiesa di S. Miniato almonte, si come li
mosaicj de Corettj sopra le Porte laterali nella Chiesa di S. Giouanni
del Battesimo
1744. Queste Pitture oggi apena più si distinguono, per essere logore
dal tempo, et altre sono state tolte uia.]
¶ [Since writing the first part of this article, my friend Dr. A.
Warburg, whose name is known to all students of Florentine art, has
kindly communicated to me a copy of a series of additional notices to,
and annotations upon, the foregoing passages from the ‘Memoriale’ of
Francesco Baldovinetti. The copy in question is in a modern Italian
hand, written apparently some thirty years ago; and it is bound up with
a copy of Dr. Pierrotti’s ‘Ricordi di Alesso Baldovinetti,’ which came
from the library of the late Eugene Müntz. There is no indication in
this copy of the source whence these additional notices were derived,
but it is clear from internal evidence that they were collected by a
member of the Baldovinetti family, c. 1750; and I suspect that they
were copied from the voluminous genealogical collections of Giovanni
Baldovinetti, which, with other manuscripts once belonging to that
family, are now preserved in the national library at Florence.
After citing, with some omissions, the foregoing passages from the
‘Memoriale’ of Francesco Baldovinetti, the writer of these additional
notices proceeds as follows:--]
Da Libri di partiti, provisioni, e deliberazioni de Consoli dell’ Arte
de Mercatanti si ricavano le seguenti notizie.
[8] 1481. Alesso di Baldovinetto piglia a racconciare it mosaico guasto
nella Facciata della Chiesa di S. Miniato al monte sopra la porta per
f_iorini_ 23 a tutte sue spese.
[9] 1481. Il Mosaico della Cappella di S. Gio. Batista si rasseti, e si
spenda f_iorini_ 100.
Alesso Baldovinetti lo rassetta in detto anno per f_iorini_ 80.
Domenico cel Grillandaio rivede et approva la suddetta rassettatura.
Il mosaico fatto sopra la porta di S. Gio. che è incontro a S. Maria
del Fiore si paga ad Alesso di Baldovinetto Baldovinetti f_iorini_ 39.
[10] Alesso Baldovinetti piglia a rifare it mosaico guasto della
Tribuna grande di S. Gio. Batista, essendo solo in tutto l’Imperio,
e Giurisdizione Fiorentina che allora sapesse tale arte, fu eletto
per questo da Consoli de Mercanti, e fù deliberato da essi di darli a
godere durante sua vita tanti beni che rendino f_iorini_ 30 l’ anno,
con che egli sia tenuto fino che vive rassettare, rischiarare, e fare
quanto bisogna, e mantenere it detto mosaico.
[11] S’avverta, che non trovandosi dal nostro scrittore fatta
menzione del Ritratto di Alesso Baldovinetti pittore, suo Congiunto e
Contemporaneo, che dal Vasari, dal Borghini, dal Baldinucci, e dagli
altri scrittori delle di Lui opere si vuole essere stato dipinto da
Domenico del Grillandaio, et a canto a se stesso nel Coro di S. Maria
Novella; ne facendosi altresì menzione da questi scrittori de i due
ritratti d’Alesso annoverati nel nostro memoriale, e dipinti da se
stesso nelle Cappelle maggiori di S. Trinita, e di S. Maria Nuova, si
dà luogo ad un’ altra opinione, forse la piu sicura, cioè che quel
ritratto destinato da citati Autori per quello di Alesso Baldovinetti
sia di Tomaso, di Currado, di Goro, padre di Domenico del Grillandaio,
e da esso ritratto a canto a se stesso, et in mezzo ad altro suo
Fratello, che fu pure pittore, che l’ aiutò, e compi le di lui opere
rimaste imperfette doppo la morte di esso Domenico; et in prova di ciò
si adduce una copia delle Figure dipinte nel coro suddetto di S. Maria
Novella fatta in Acquerello sopra la Carta d’ordine di Vincenzio di
Piero Tornaquinci uno de Compad_ro_ni d’esso Coro e Cappella mag^{re}
con la dichiarazione di ciascuna figura fattavi nell’ anno 1561 da
Benedetto di Luca Landucci Speziale Uomo d’ età grave d’ 89 anni, che
asserì aver conosciuti vivi tutti coloro ritratti al nat_ura_le nelle
predette Istorie; e parlando di quella Figura, che li accennati Autori
dicono rappresentare Alesso Baldovinetti pittore, segn^{ta} in d_et_ta
Copia di N^o 2 vi si legge il ...[A] nome de padre di Domenico del
Grillandaio.
Descendenza d’ Alesso Baldovinetto Pittore.
-- M_esser_ Baldovinetto, di Bogognone, di Ugo, di Giuda, fù Console
del Comune di Firenze l’ anno 1209, e da esso fù preso it Casato de’
Baldovinetti.
-- Bieco.
-- Borghino fù de’ Priori dell’ Arti nell’ 1298. 1304. Maria di Cecco
d’Alesso Mannelli sua moglie.
-- Francesco fù Gonf. di Giustizia l’ anno l’ an 1330, de’ Priori 1323.
27. 31. 34. 38. 41. 47 Lisa di ...[A], [e] Nanna, di Guglielmo, di
Bardo Altoviti, furono sue moglie.
-- Alesso, ebbe ...[129] Capponi. Simona di Niccolò da Soli, Filippa di
Vannuccio Arrighi furono sue mogli--Questi Arrighi d’Empoli.
-- Baldovinetto prese nel 1426 Agnola, d’ Antonio, di Gio. da Gagliano
degli Ubaldini.
[12] -- Alesso nato 1425 fù celebre Pittore et Artefice di mosaico.
[12] -- Giovacchino suo fratello mori a Sermoneta nel Regno di Napoli.
[13] 1465. 15 Xbre. Alesso di Baldovinetto di Alesso (ch’ è il n_ost_ro
pittore) rifiutò eredità del detto Baldovinetto suo padre morto ab
intestato S_er_ Bartolommeo di S_er_ Guido Guidi not_ar_o Flor_entino_
rogò.
Annotazioni in margine.
[1][130] L’ Originale con altri libri m^os^i del med^o Autore si
conserva appresso di noi suoi discendenti l’ anno 1750 nelle nostre
antiche Case di Borgo SS. Apostoli in Firenze nelle quali scrisse li
detti Libri.
[2] Alesso nacque anno 1425, ✠ [morto] l’ anno 1499. in età di anni 74.
Alesso Pittore ✠ [morto] 29 Agosto 1499 fù sepolto in S. Lorenzo. Lib.
de’ morti nell’ Ufizio dell’ Arte de med. e speziali.
La Sepoltura d’ Alesso Pittore torna apunto vicino la Cappella de’
Lotteringhi della Stufa che è la prima in Cornu Epistole dell’ Altar
mag^{re} v’ è it Chiusino ovato di pietra, et un quadretto di marmo
bianco alto e largo circa ¾ di braccio con la suddetta arme a basso
rilievo assai ben fatta e la seg^{te} Inscrizione:
S. BALDOVINETTI ALESII DE BALDOVINETTI[S] ET SVOR_VM_ MCCCCLXXX.
A di 16 Settembre 1739. La lecca di questa sepolt. fu chiusa da noi.
[3] Questa ristiaraz^e fu fatta l’ anno 1483. come si vede da seg^{ti}
partiti.
[4] II suddetto Ritratto d’ Alesso nella Cappella de’ Gianfigliazzi
fù da me scrittore fatto copiare in un Quadro a Olio l’ anno 1730, e
messo nelle n_ost_re antiche Case de’ Baldovinetti poste in Borgo SS.
Apostoli, insieme con gli altri Ritratti degli Uomini illustri della
n_ost_ra Famiglia.
[5] Questa Pittura non si vede più per essere stata rifatta di nuovo la
Chiesa.
[6] Questo Monastero di Monaci Camald. che era posto circa un miglio
fuori della Porta a Pinti di Firenze fù gettato a terra l’ anno 1529
con altri simili per l’ imminente Assedio di Firenze fatto dall’ Armi
di Clemente 7^o Pont. de’ Medici, e di Carlo V Imperat.
[7] Questa Chiesa che torna di là da Pratolino è d’ antico Jus
Pad_rona_to della Famiglia de’ Baldovinetti, e la sud^a Tavola più non
si vede.
[8] Delib. dal 1477 al 81 ac. 192. Specchio dal 1429 al 93. Ricordi dal
1481 al 95. Delib. dal 1482 al 89 al 95.
Queste Provisioni etc. sono registrate nel Codice ~B.C.~ 1455 in
Arch^{io} Strozzi, e di li ricopiate in una filza di spogli attenti
alla Chiesa di S. Gio. Batt^a ap_pre_sso il Dot. Fran_ce_sco Gori
Cappellano di essa c. 199. 219. 221. et oggi Proposto.
L’ anno 1739. Fù rifatto di nuovo it pavimento del Cimitero sotto la
Chiesa di S. Lorenzo, et il di 16 Settb^e di detto anno lo scrittore
fece riturare con i mattoni la Bocca di detta sepoltura, come che
atteneva ad un Ramo spento di n_ost_ra Famiglia, et a noi non
abbisogna, ma lo feci perchè non fusse venduta ad altri, vi è però
rimasta l’ antica arme nostra con l’ inscrizione incisa in marmo, che
qui dietro si legge.
[10] 1483. Delib. dall’ 1482 al 84.
[11] La detta copia originale fatta sopra la Carta in acquerello, si
trova app_re_sso di me scrittore comprata p_er_ [? soldi] 36 sopra d’
un muricciolo l’ anno 1735, et un altra simile si trova app_re_sso Gio.
Antonio, e frat_el_li del Senator Caio Gaetano Tornaquinci nello loro
moderne case in Borgo degli Albizzi, et ambidue le dette Copie sono
tirate sopra due Tavole, vedendosi in piedi d’ esse copie un’ alberino
d’ alcuni rami de’ Tornaquinci con le notizie appartenenti a medesimi,
scrittesi di mano del predetto Vincenzio, che ne dovette fare più copie
con distribuirle a quei Capi di sua Famiglia, che allora vegliava
divisa in più Consorterie, e Rami.
Nel sepolt: antico m.s. in Cartapec: del anno 1463 nel Capitolo di S.
Lorenzo c. 4. t, si legge la seguente memoria.
Alesso di Baldovinetto, d’ Alesso Baldovinetti, et sua Descendenti
la 23 sepultura, come segue l’ ordine nel primo filare della Croce
con Arme d’ un Lione rampante d’ oro in Campo rosso con fregio d’ oro
intorno allo scudo segnata al Bastardello della muraglia c. 548, N^{ro}
90.
[12] Ambidue morti senza figli.
[13] Da un Libro di Ricordanze nello Spedale de Convalescenti in S.
Paolo.
¶ [It is significant that two of the three errors which we are now
able to detect in the foregoing passages from the ‘Memoriale’ of
Francesco Baldovinetti, should consist in the attribution to Alesso
of the paintings by Domenico Veneziano, once in the tabernacle at the
Canto de’ Carnesecchi, and the fresco of ‘Christ at the Column’ by
Andrea da Castagno,” formerly in the cloister of S. Croce: for Alesso
was undoubtedly the pupil of Domenico, as his early works prove; and
the assistant of Andrea, as he himself states in his ‘Ricordi.’ Of the
paintings which Alesso is here stated to have executed in the cloister
of the monastery of S. Benedetto al Mugnone, beyond the Porta a Pinti,
near to where is now the Barriera della Querce, at Florence, no other
notices have come down to us. Here, again, it is significant that
Vasari records that at S. Benedetto were works by the hand of Andrea
da Castagno, both ‘in a cloister, and in the church’[131]; but it
must be remembered that the monastery had long been destroyed at the
time Vasari wrote; and that he himself had never seen the cloister in
question.]
¶ [The patronage of the church of S. Piero in Calicarza was already,
at the beginning of the fourteenth century, in the possession of the
Baldovinetti, who also owned the ‘torre,’ or fortified villa, called
La Rocca Perduta, which stood near the church. It is probable that the
Baldovinetti had possessed this property from very early times. It
lies but a few miles from Fiesole, on the hills above the further side
of the valley of the Mugnone, beyond the Medicean villa of Pratolino.
According to Ugolino Verino’s Latin poem, ‘De Illustratione Urbis
Florentiae,’[132] the Baldovinetti had their origin in Fiesole, during
Roman times:
‘Baldovinetti Domus antiquissima, primus
Incola Romanus Fesulani montis habetur.’
Of the church of S. Piero in Calicarza, I find the following notices in
another manuscript which came from their house in Borgo Sant’ Apostoli.]
Firenze: Biblioteca Nazionale; Codici Baldovinetti, N^o 37, ‘Memoriale
di Messer Niccolò d’ Alesso di Borghino Baldovinetti, dal 1354 at 1391.’
fol. 31 tergo. [The pagination does not run in order.]
[To left, a rough drawing, in pen and ink, of a castellated house and
tower, inscribed ‘torre dacalicarza detta larocha p_er_dvta.’ To right,
a similar drawing of a church and campanile, inscribed ‘Sc̃o Piero,’
and below the date, ‘Mccclxxxiiij^o.’]
[Below this drawing is written, in the hand of Giovanni di Niccolò
Baldovinetti, as appears from a signed note in the same volume:]
L’ anno 1755. Fù gettata a terra la Chiesa, già da qualche tempo
interdetta dal Curato di S. Iacopo in Pratolino a cuj è unita senza che
da noj Patroni si sia data alcuna p_er_missione.
La Rocca da lungo tempo fù disfatta, et in oggi resta solo in piedj la
Torre che da noj non si possiede.
[Below on a slip of paper attached to the same folio is written:]
1734. Ricordo fatto da me Gio. di Poggio di Niccolò di m_esser_ Gio.
d’ Iacopo Baldovinetti, come essendorni passato q_ue_st’ anno sud. di
maggio à uedere nostra antica Chiesa di S. Piero à Calicarza trouai
esser q_ue_sta posta in cima d’ un piccolo Colle, e non esserui più
Campanile, et in distanza di pochi passi esserui in piedi la torre
fortissima, goduta di p_rese_nte (non sò p_er_che) dal G. D. de Medici
con li suoj Beni di Pratolino, ma non già il recinto delle muraglie
attorno d’ essa torre, che qui delineate si uedono, le quali si
osseruano rasate, uedendosi p_er_ò li fondamen^{ti} al pari del terreno.
mem_oriale_ L’ Altar mag^{re} di d^{ta} Chiesa, che in oggi è l’ unico
di franc^o d’ essa hà una tauola dipinta in tela assai moderna, ne
Baldo- potei sapere, che cosa sia stata di quella ui dipinse
uinetti. Alesso Baldouinetti n_ost_ro Pittore antico, se pure non
la dipinse à fresco sul muro, che p_er_ l’antichità, sia
andata male, e p_er_li resarcim_en_^{ti} della Chiesa sia
stata guasta.
In oltre trouai che la mensa dell’ med^o Altare è fatta di Sassi murati
à seccho, ne u’ apparisce alcuno Contraregno, che ui siano murate
le 2 reliquie di S. Bartolomeo, e di S. Alesso, che nel mem_oria_le
di fran^{co} Baldouinetti a c....[133] si fà menzione, si come in
questo med^o Libro di m_esser_ Niccolò Baldovinetti, che le’ donò alla
pred^{ta} Chiesa.
1734. Lasciai di q_ue_ste Reliquie ricordo al Rettore della med^a
Chiesa, acciò ne fecesse mag^{re} diligenza, se pure si potessero
ritrouare che molto lo desidererej à Gloria di Dio, et onore de 2
santi, alle q_ua_li Reliquie sifarebbe fare una decorosa Custodia p_er_
esporle al culto publico.
L’ anno 1752. la n_ost_ra Chiesa di S. Piero a Caligarza per esser
ridotto in cattiuo stato, fù demolita fino a fondamenti dal Rettore di
S. Jacopo in Pratolino, à cuj è unità, tutto segui senza saputa dj noj
Compadroni.
¶ [One passage in the ‘Memoriale’ of Francesco Baldovinetti has been
passed over in silence by all the writers who have cited that document,
from Domenico Maria Manni onwards. It is that in which it is stated
that Alesso made the tomb for himself at S. Lorenzo, in which he was
buried, ‘because those of his own house held him to be a bastard.’
This would explain why Alesso, as the writer of the additional notices
records, renounced on December 15, 1465, his right of inheritance to
the estate of his father who had died intestate, and why he afterwards
disinherited his family, and left his property to the hospital of S.
Paolo. The ‘rogiti’ for the year 1465, of the notary, Ser Bartolommeo
di Ser Guido Guidi, who engrossed the instrument by which Alesso
renounced his right of inheritance in that year, have not been
preserved among the notarial archives, in the Archivio di Stato, of
Florence.]
❧ GENERAL INDEX TO VOLUME II ❧
~Aalst~, Hospices civiles of, Burgundian Chest owned by, 358
Abbasside caliphs, effect on art of their orthodoxy, 135, 140
Abd ur-Rahmān el Sūfi, famous astronomical treatise of, fine MS.
containing, Chinese influence shown in illuminations of, 144
Absalon, bishop of Lund, Silver Chalice found in his grave at Sorö,
Denmark, 357
Academy of St. Luke, Rome, replica of painting by Isenbrant in, 326
Academy of Painting, France, 229
Le Brun’s share in the foundation of, 230
Acanthus design on plate, 161, 162
Accademia Carrara, Bergamo, part of a fresco in, said to be the
portrait of A. Baldovinetti, 174
Achæmenian Kings of Persia, commencement of art history of Persia in
their period, 136
Adelaide Museum, drawings on wood for illustrations to Dalziel’s
‘Arabian Nights,’ owned by, 305 others, 293 _note_
Agate ware, evolution of, from Staffordshire marbled ware, 68
Agni, the Fire God, and the Svastika, 43
story of, as told in the ‘Veda,’ 44
Aiyubite sultans, effect on Arab art of their lax orthodoxy, 135
Albarelli, Three Italian, recently acquired by the Louvre, use,
decoration, armorial bearings on, owner of, provenance, 338
Alcalà fount of type, made in 1514., its uses, origin, and modern
type based on, 358
Alexander the Great, coins of, Wilson’s discovery of the Svastika on,
47
conquest of Persia by, not the first introduction of Greek art
influence, 136
interest of, in Indian yogins, 255
supposed introduction by, of the Rose Lotus into Egypt, 350
Alfonzo II. of Aragon, King of Naples and Sicily, his reign, wives,
etc., albarelli once owned by, now in the Louvre, 338
‘Al Ganâb,’ name inscribed on the Koursi Cover in the Louvre, 344
Allen, Robert, manager of the Lowestoft Porcelain factory, hard
porcelain teapot, Chinese, marked with his name, 277
maker of the ‘Buckle’ tea service of genuine Lowestoft ware, 1768.,
(Crisps), 272
Allnutt, J., second private owner of painting by Sir J. Reynolds,
_Portrait of Miss Falconer as Contemplation_, 257
=Altarpieces:=--
by Alesso Baldovinetti, _Trinity with two Saints_, for S. Trinità,
Florence (illustrated), 32.
conventional methods of decoration for, early xv. cent., 131
by G. David, painted for R. De Visch Van der Capelle, now in the
National Gallery, 36
by unknown artist, Flemish school, painted for the Gild of SS. Mary
Magdalene, Katherine and Barbara, compared with one by
G. David, 39
Ambras Castle, Archduke Ferdinand’s famous Museum and Library at, 12
America, U.S., Oriental china, crested and initialed in, ~XVIII~.
cent , 271
Ampelus, the vine of Bacchus, compared with Soma, and the gogard
plant, 354
Amsterdam, earlier work of Josef Israels to be seen at, 176;
paintings by Jan Vermeer in Six collection at, 55
Anasuga, wife of Rishi Atri, 354
Ancient Buildings, Protection of, Clifford’s Inn and the, 3
Andrea Vanni, F. Mason Perkins, 309
Angelico, Fra, influence of, on Lorenzo Monaco, 131
Anna, sister of Casimir, Margrave of Culmbach, 290
Anne of Austria, Queen of France, patron of Le Brun, 230
Anne of Denmark, Queen of England, 161
Ansbach, _see_ von Knebel of
Antwerp, visit of J. Prevost to, 1493., 331
Apadana, the, of Persepolis, composite character of its art, 137
Apollo, statue of, by Onatas, Furtwängler _cited_ on, 244
=Arabia=, Arabic, Arabian Art and Artists of:--
Koursi Cover, copper, gold and silver encrusted, acquired by the
Louvre, G. Migeon, 344
MSS., copies of the Koran, inferiority of the ornamentation of, 136
date of the first illuminated, character of the decoration,
Byzantine and other influence evident in, 135-6
limit of the ornamentation in, 136
the most important, Mākamāt of Harīrī, (C. Schefer), and other
copies, 136
Aragon, (_see_ Alfonzo II. of), arms of, with those of Jerusalem and
of Milan, on Italian Albarelli, (Louvre), 338
Arani and the Svastika, Vedic story concerning, 44
Archives of the city of Brussels, matrix of the Seal of the Gild of
Butchers in, 190, 192
of the Confraternity of the Holy Blood _cited_ on the authenticity
of a painting attributed to G. David, owned by that body, shown at
Bruges, 1902., 39, 40
Archivio di Stato, Florence, documents relating to Baldovinetti, now
and formerly in, 22, 23
of S. Maria Nuova, the Baldovinetti ‘ricordo’ once in, 22, 27
_Arctic_, ss., first folio Shakespeare said to have been lost in,
1854., 336
Ardabil and Veramin, mosques of the Sefevæan kings at, mosaics on, 139
Ardeshir Babekan, (_see_ Artaxerxes), history of, 47
Aretino, Pietro, _cited_ on the _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_ by
Titian, 281
Spinello, 125
Arezzo, painted glass window designed by A. Baldovinetti for the
church of S. Agostino at, non-extant, 31
Armenia, the Arsacidan Kings of, date of their reign, 47
Armorial Bearings of the city of Brussels, ~XV~. cent., 192
on Italian Albarelli now on the Louvre, 338
of the Saint-Vallier family as shown in MS. 616 of _Gaston
Phoebus_, 11
Arnold, Sir Edwin, _cited_ on the Lotus, 350
Arsaces Artabanus the Fifth, of Armenia, fate of, 47
Arsacidan, Parthian Kings of Armenia, history of, 44, 47
successors of Alexander the Great, Greek influence on Persian art
during rule of, 139
Art, _see_ Greek Art, etc., Notes on Works of
Notes on Various Works of, 78
Works of, belonging to Dealers, The Publication of, 5
Artaxerxes, (synonymous with Ardeshir), overthrow of Parthian dynasty
by, 47
Arte de’ Mercanti, Florence, employers of Baldovinetti to restore
mosaics in S. Giovanni, their mode of payment, 23, 170
Artemis, meaning of Svastika sign on, 43
Aryans, Svastika probably communicated from Hittites to, 47
Aryan symbol, Svastika the oldest known, 43
Ashburnham Library, two copies of _Gaston Phoebus_ formerly in, one
(MS. App. 179 ), interesting owing to addition of a hitherto unknown
Treatise on hawking and birds, bought by W. A. Baillie-Grohman at
the fourth Ashburnham Sale, 1899., 21
Assisi, upper church of, Frescoes in, by unknown artist, school of
Cimabue, 118
Assyria, sacred tree of, 353 and _note_
the Svastika in, 44, 47
Astarte, meaning of the Svastika sign on, 43, 47
Auckland, N.Z., first folio Shakespeare at, and its donor, 336
Augsburg, Titian’s stay at, to paint the Emperor Charles V., 281
Austria, _see_ Anne of, Maximilian, Vienna
regulations for the protection of ancient buildings in, 4
Auvilliers, France, Bas-relief from church of, _Virgin_, _Child_,
_Saint_, and _Angels_, now in the Louvre, probably by A. di
Duccio, 89
Azzurro della Magnia, a blue, used by A. Baldovinetti, various writers
_cited_ on, 167-8
~Baal~, the Svastika supposed emblem of, 43
Babar, Emperor, invader of India, his history of his own
campaigns, 143
Babylon, influence of Greek art on its sculpture, etc., 136-7
Babylonia, the Svastika in, 44, 47
Bacchus represented on the Labarum by the Cross, 47-8
Backgrounds; of illuminations of MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_ chiefly
diapered in conventional way, 11
of paintings by Cariani, 78
by G. David, the Square of St. John at Bruges shown in _Judgement
of Cambyses_, 36
in portraits by Titian, landscapes, 282,
sign of comparatively late date, 285
Bakers, Barbers, Butchers and Drapers, _see_ Gilds of
Baldovinetti, Alesso, (Luca d’ Alesso), A Newly-Discovered ‘Libro di
Ricordi’ of, H. P. Horne, 22
Appendix giving Documents referred to, 377
commission from Bongianni Gianfigliazzi to paint the Cappella
Maggiore of S. Trinità, 167
colours used by, 27, 167-9
his famous pupil, Ghirlandajo, 174
his methods of fresco-painting, 169
Altarpiece for S. Trinità, Florence, _Trinity with two Saints_,
now in the Florentine Academy, 32
Painted glass Windows designed by, existing and otherwise, 31
work of, in Mosaic, 24
date of his death, 22, 24
paintings by, frescoes on walls of Cappella Maggiore, of S. Trinità,
Florence, subjects of, and portraits in, Vasari cited on, 170
his own portrait in his frescoes, Richa _cited_ on, 174
early decay of these frescoes, ruthless destruction and recent
restoration of, 173
description of, 173-4
portrait of Francesco di Giovanni di Guido in, 174
Balfour, views of, regarding origin of name of Tirthakar sect in
Thibet, 44
Ballin, employed by Le Brun, 235
Banchi and Borghesi, authorities on Vanni as diplomat, etc., 309
Barbara, sister of Casimir, Margrave of Culmbach, 290
Barbarelli, once the supposed cognomen of Giorgione, 78
Barker, Dr. Hugh, Standing Cup and Cover presented by, to Winchester
College, 161
Barna, painting attributed to, (ascribed by Perkins to Vanni), Panel,
_Virgin and Child_, half-length, (Chapel of SS. Chiodi, Siena),
315-6
Barrett, G., drawing by, for illustration, apparent influence of
Turner shown by, 305-6
Bartolozzi, F., engraver of _Portrait of Lady Hamilton_ as a
Bacchante, (Normanton), ascribed to Sir J. Reynolds, 224
wash-drawing in indian ink by, for an illustration, 305
=Bas-reliefs:=--
by (probably) Duccio, Agostino di, _Virgin and Child with Saint and
Angels_, from a rural French church, (Louvre), 89
Greek, slab from frieze of Parthenon, _Head of a Knight and of a
Horse_, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 244
Two Italian, in the Louvre, A. Michel, 84
_A Warrior_, by Leonardo da Vinci (Malcolm collection), its
analogies, 84
Bastard, Count, resemblance between foliage and scroll reproductions
in his work and Foucquet’s illuminations in MS. 616 of _Gaston
Phoebus_, 11
Bathenians, the, heterodox Mussulmans, their tenets as affecting art,
135
Battersea and Overstrand, Lord, drawing by Sandys owned by, large
version of _Amor Mundi_, 300
Bavaria (_see_ Prince Rupert, _and_ Susanna of), Duke Albert III.
of, his wife and daughter, 290 regulations for protection of ancient
buildings in, 4
Bayreuth, George of, reforming tendencies of, 289
Beauclerk, Elizabeth, afterwards Countess of Pembroke, mother of the
second Countess of Normanton, _Portrait_ of, by Sir J. Reynolds, as
_Una with the Lion_, (Normanton), 217,
later portrait, head only, 223
Topham, his wife and daughter, portraits of the latter by Sir J.
Reynolds, 217, 223
Beaumont and Fletcher, collected works of, published 1647 , size of
edition and cost per copy then and in 1680., Lee _cited_ on, 335
=Belgium=, (see Ypres Chest)
Notes from:--Ghent and Nieuport, architectural works in progress at,
R. Petrucci, 375
rarity of seals of Gilds in, reasons for this, 193
regulations for the protection of ancient monuments in, 4, 5
Benincasa, Caterina, _see_ S. Catherine of Siena
Berchem, painting signed by, but attributed to Cüyp, (_q. v._),
Guildhall 1903., _Head of a Cow_, 59
Berenson, B., The Authorship of a _Madonna_ by Solario, _letter_, 114
paintings by Andrea Vanni owned by, _Deposition from the Cross_, 321
_Virgin and Child_, 316
paintings by Vanni pointed out by, 321 _note_
paintings at Munich, panels, _Last Judgement_, etc., attributed by,
to Giotto, 118
Bergamo, _see_ Accademia Carrara
Berkheyde, Gerrit, painting attributed to, Guildhall, 1903., _Rising
in a Dutch Town_, 60
=Berlin=, (_see_ Raczynski gallery), fine collection of drawings in,
293
first folio Shakespeare at, provenance of, and alleged mutilation
of, 336
paintings by Jan Vermeer in gallery at, 35
_Portrait of Strozzi_ by Titian in gallery at, (small), 285
Notes from, Pictures acquired by the gallery, 375
Bewick, T., one of the initiators of illustration as an art in
England, 294
Biadetto, or sbiadata, _see_ Azzurro della Magnia
=Bibliography and Reviews:=--
‘The Ambassadors Unriddled,’ Dickes, 367
‘Ancient Coffers and Cupboards,’ Roe, 258
Books and Magazines Received, 266-7
‘Contribution a l’Étude du Blason en Orient,’ Artin Pasha, 261
‘Frans Hals,’ Davies, 107
‘French Engravers and Draughtsmen of the 18th Century,’ Lady Dilke,
reviewed by H. Bouchot, 104
‘Guide to Siena: History and Art,’ W. Heywood and Lucy Olcott, 260
‘Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua,’ Julia Cartwright, (Mrs.
Ady), 106
‘The National Portrait Gallery,’ Cust, 105
‘La Peinture an Pays de Liége et sur les bords de la Meuse,’
Helbig, 262
‘Pintoricchio: His Life, Work, and Time,’ Ricci, (trs. Florence
Simmons), 256
‘Un des Peintres peu connus de l’Ecole Flamande de Transition, Jean
Gossart, sa vie et son œuvre,’ Maurice Gossart, 369
Periodicals:--
_Architectural Review_, 113, 266, 372
_Ateneum_, (Helsingfors), 112
_Emporium_, (Bergamo), 266
_Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, 109, 265, 370
_Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen_, 1903., 2.
Heft, 262
_Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhausen_, 110
_L’Art_, 112
_L’ Arte_, Parts I-IV, 263
_Onze Kunst_, 112
_Rassegna d’Arte_, 111, 265, 370
_Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft_, 111, 372
_Revue de l’Art Ancien et Moderne_, 112, 372
_Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde_, 113
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, several copies of _Gaston Phoebus_ and
MS. 616 in, 11, 16
Bici, Neri di, his mediocre acquirements, 131
Bièvre river, site of the Gobelins on, 235
Bilbao, paintings by Isenbrant exported to, 326
Biographies of Mussulman saints by Sultan Husain ibn Bäikara, a
masterpiece of Persian literature, 143
Birdwood, Sir G., _cited_ on the Tree conventionalized as the Tree of
Life, 353
Birmingham Museum, drawings owned by, how chosen, 293 _note_
Bisschop, Christopher, painting by, shown at Guildhall, 1903.,
_Prayer Disturbed_, 189
Black Sisters, Bruges, paintings owned by, artist unknown, panel, _S.
Nicolas of Tolentino_, and _Roger de Jonghe_, Austin friar, (Bruges,
1902.), 332
Blake, W., one of the initiators of illustration as an art in
England, 294
Blochet, E., Mussulman Manuscripts and Miniatures as illustrated in
the recent Exhibition at Paris, I., 132
Blount, E. and J. Jaggard, publishers of the 1623. edition of the
first folio Shakespeare, 335
Blue (_see_ Azzurro) ultramarine, intensity of, in painting by Jean
Malouel, not found in Italian work, 90
‘Boccaccio,’ illuminated by Foucquet for E. Chevalier, 11
Boels, L., paintings by, ascribed to Memlinc, various owners, 35
Bold, Michael, Standing Salt bequeathed by, to Winchester College,
161-2
Bolney, John, Tankard and cover of rare shape presented by, to
Winchester College, 161
Bologna, associations of, with the Empress Isabella, 282
Bonington, R. P., as a painter of wet sand, 178
Bontemps, Pierre, French sculptor, work of, on the Tomb of François
I., 95
Book Illustrations, Later Nineteenth Century, J. Pennell, I., 293
Books of Hours, illuminated by Foucquet for E. Chevalier, and for the
Duchess of Cleves, 11
‘Books of the Kings,’ Persian MSS., Sefevæan dynasty, repetitive
decorations of, 135
of the subsequent transition period (de Rothschild), 144
Borgo di S. Sepolcro, _Altarpiece_ at, artists of, and fate of central
panel, 321
Bosboom, Jan, painting by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Archives at
Veere_, 189
Boston and Salem, U.S.A., crested and initialed porcelain imported to,
from the East in the ~XVIII~. cent., 271
Botticelli, S., Medicean cameo in painting by, at Frankfort,
(_Portrait of Lucretia Tornabuoni_), also occurring in painting by
G. David, 36
Bouchot, H., French Engravers and Draughtsmen of the Eighteenth
Century, (Lady Dilke), _review_, 104
Bourbon, Connétable de, conspiracy of, with Charles V. of Germany, 12
Bouts, Dirk, 35,
Gerard David possibly a pupil of, at Louvain, 36
Bow or Chelsea china factories, source of Browne’s skill in
porcelain-making at Lowestoft, 272
Brabant, John, Duke of, privileges accorded to, by the patricians of
Brussels, 190
Brahma, the Svastika supposed emblem of, 43
Brahmin views and use of the Lotus, 350, 353
Brandenburg-Ansbach and Bayreuth, Frederick, Margrave of, his
daughter Margaret the Lady of the portrait by Dürer, recently
acquired by the British Museum, 289
Brera Gallery, Milan, _Portrait of Count Porcia_ by Titian in, 285
Brézé, Jacques de, and his wife, indirect connexion of, with _Gaston
Phoebus_, 11
Brick-casings, many-coloured, at Apadana, prototypes of, 139,
the same at Samarcand, 143
Brihaspati, his wife Tara and her son, 354
British Engraving, Exhibition of, at the V. and A. Museum, 194
=British Museum:=--
British and Mediaeval Antiquities Department, new acquisitions, 199
drawings on wood for illustrations to Dalziel’s ‘Arabian Nights,’
etc., owned by, 305
Early Staffordshire Pottery Ware in, 64 _et seq._
Print Room, new acquisitions, 200;
Portrait Drawing of a Lady, by Dürer, 286
woodcuts, 75
rule of, against purchasing work of living artists, some effects
of, 293
Bromley Collection, _Altarpiece_ in five parts by B. Daddi, formerly
in, (Parry), 126
Bronze age, the Svastika in use among peoples of, 47
=Bronzes, Greek= (shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition):--
Amphora Handle, Aphrodite, (2), various owners, archaic character
of, 250
Head of Apollo, (Devonshire), 243
Mask of Sea-deity, (Salting), 250
Mounted Warrior, the ‘Athenæum’ _cited_ on, its probable
provenance, 243
Plaque or pierced mirror-support, with Reclining winged boy,
(Wallis), 250
Repoussé mirror-cover, Eros at a lady’s toilet, 250
Statuettes, Eros, history of, 250
seated and emaciated man, (Wyndham Cook)
source of, 255
Seilenos, 250
Brouwer, Adriaen, painting ascribed to, Guildhall, 1903., _Interior
with Figures_, possible painter of, 56
Brown, Ford Madox, drawing by for illustrations to Dalziel’s ‘Bible
Gallery,’ 305
Browne, Robert, head of the Lowestoft porcelain factory till 1771.,
nine-sided ink-pot bearing his monogram, (Crisps), 272
how he gained his knowledge of the trade, _ib._
Bruges (_see_ Early Painters of the Netherlands), association of John
Prevost, painter, with, 332
Cathedral of St. Donatian at, paintings by G. David formerly in, now
in the National Gallery, 36
Exhibition of 1902., The Early Painters of the Netherlands as
illustrated by, W. H. J. Weale, 35, 326
façades of houses in, owned by the Municipality, 5
Gild of St. John at, a gild of miniaturists, connexion of Gerard
David with, 40
great foreign artists of, 35-6
Museum, paintings by Gerard David, _Judgement of Cambyses_, two
pictures, (one illustrated), 36
by J. Prevost, _Last Judgement_, (Bruges, 1902.), 332
and other Belgian towns in which seals of gilds exist, 193
Brushwork of Frans Hals, unsurpassed excellence of, 52
Brussels, association with, of Bernard van Orley, painter, 205
city of, armorial bearings of, ~XV~. cent., 192
Gilds of, sketch of their history, lack of juridical powers,
question of authenticity of their seals, lack of documents sealed
by, probable reasons for existence of seal matrices, 190 _et seq._
Museum, paintings in, shown at Bruges, 1902., one attributed to
Memlinc, _Passion of St. Sebastian_, 35
one now attributed to G. David, formerly ascribed to J. van
Eyck, 39
one by A. Isenbrant, Diptych, _Our Lady of Sorrows_, 326
Buckingham, Duchess of, painting by, copy of _Portrait of Mrs. Siddons
as the Tragic Muse_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Westminster), in the
Normanton collection, 224
‘Buckle’ tea service of genuine Lowestoft porcelain, made by R. Allen,
1768., (Crisps), 272
Buddha, birth of, the Lotus as associated with, 350
the Svastika in footprints of, on Indian mountains, 43
Buddhist sacred flower, the Lotus, 350, 353
Buigne (or Vigne), Gace de la, parts of _Gaston Phoebus_ borrowed
from, 15
Building(s), _see_ Ancient Buildings
Bulletta, Cardinale del, colours bought from, by Baldovinetti, 168
Bunbury, Henry William, caricaturist, _Portrait of his Wife when Miss
Horneck_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), and sketch, (Bunbury),
223
Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ high price paid for scarce edition of,
in 1901., 335
Buonarroti, Michael Angelo, _see_ Michael Angelo
Burgoigne, Phelippes de France, Duc de, original _Gaston Phoebus_
dedicated to, 8
Burgundian Chest, shown at Bruges, 1902., (Hospices civiles, Aalst),
358
Burgundy, Mary of, and the trades of Brussels, 192
=Burlington Fine Arts Club:=--
The Exhibition of Greek Art at the, C. Smith, 236
Bas-reliefs, _Fragment of the Frieze of the Parthenon_, (T. D.
Botterell), 236
Bronzes, _Amphora Handle_, (Wyndham Cook), _Mask of Sea-deity_,
(G. Salting), _Plaque_, (H. Wallis), 245
Bronzes, statuettes, _Aphrodite, Nude_, (C. Loeser), _Aphrodite
with Torch_, (J. E. Taylor), 250
_Sick Man_, (Wyndham Cook), 245
_Seilenos Crouching_, (J. E. Taylor), 250
Ceramics, _Krater_, (Harrow School), _Kylix_ signed Tleson, and
_Plate_ signed Epiktetos, (Marquess of Northampton), 253
Metal work, _Mirror-cover, Repoussé_, (J. E. Taylor), 247
Sculpture, _Bust of Aphrodite_, probably by Praxiteles (Lord
Leconfield), 239
_Head of a Mourning Woman_, (C. Ponsonby), _Head of a Youth_
(Sir E. Vincent), 241
Terra-cottas, _Caryatid Figure_, (J. E. Taylor), _Doll_, (Mrs.
Mitchell), _Woman Leaning on Pedestal_, (J. E. Taylor), _Woman
with Fan_, (J. Knowles), _The Young Dionysos_, (J. E. Taylor),
251
Plate of Dr. Burton, headmaster of Winchester College, circ. 1740.,
shown at, 1902., 155
other plate exhibited, 156
Burnouf on the derivation of the Suavastika, 44
Burslem pottery processes, ~XVII~. cent., Plot _cited_ on, 66
Burton, Dr., headmaster, plate accrued and re-cast by, Winchester
College, 155
Butay, Suzanne, wife of C. Le Brun, 230
Byzantine art, traces of, in _Nativity and Adoration_, (Parry), 118
Christians, art of, 132,
influence of, on Mussulman art, 135, 139
~Cagnolo~, Don Guido, _cited_ on a fresco by Vanni at Orvieto, 321
_note_
Cairo, College of the Bathenians at, built by Saladin, 135
Cairo Museum, famous Koursis at, 343
Canto de’ Gori, Florence, Baldovinetti’s hired house at, 23
Cape Town, first folio Shakespeare at, and its donor, 336
Cariani, paintings by, formerly attributed to Barbarelli (or
Giorgione), _ex_ Leuchtenberg collection: _Adoration of the
Shepherds_, and _Madonna and Child_, 78 _et seq._
_La Vergine Cucitrice_, (Corsini Gallery, Rome), illustrated, 78
Carpaccio, resemblance to, of some of Gerard David’s work, 36
Carpets, _see_ Oriental Carpets
Carthage, the Svastika introduced into, by travellers to Phoenicia, 47
Cartoons for frescoes, methods of transferring to the plaster, 167
Cashel, Dr. Palmer, Dean of, nephew of Sir J. Reynolds, his wife the
model for Reynolds’s painting of _Prudence_, 217
Casimir III., King of Poland, 289
Castagno, influence of Donatello on, 131
Cathay, Grand Khan of, reports of missionaries to, on Mongol sacred
drawings, 140
Catherine de’ Medici, Queen of France, her tomb and its sculptor, 95
Ceccharelli, features of work by, 89
Cedar, the, as the Tree of Life, 353
Cennini, Cennino, _cited_ on ~XV~. cent. methods of the ‘maestri di
finestre’ in Florence, 31
_cited_ on various artists’ colours, 168-9
=Ceramics:=--
and glass recently acquired by the British Museum, 199-200
Early Staffordshire Ware, illustrated by Pieces in the British
Museum, R. L. Hobson, 64
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Club: Vases, and Plate, Krater (Harrow
School), Kylix by Tleson, plate by Epiktetos, 255
Lowestoft Porcelain Factory, The, and the Chinese Porcelain made for
the European Market in the Seventeenth Century, L. Solon, 271
Samian bowls found during excavations at Rouen, 374
Three Italian Albarelli, recently acquired by the Louvre, J. J.
Marquet de Vasselot, 338
Cerbini, Ser Pierozzo, engrosser of the patronage deed of the
Cappella Maggiore di S. Trinità, Florence, 28
Chaffers, W., author of ‘Marks and Monograms,’ his erroneous theory
regarding Lowestoft porcelain, 271, 277, 278
Chaldeans, the Svastika in use among the, 47
Chalices, Mediaeval Silver from Iceland in the Victoria and Albert
Museum, H. P. Mitchell, 70
The Sorö Chalice, (from Denmark), H. P. Mitchell, 357
Chamberlayne Collection, painting by Sir J. Reynolds in, _Lady
Hamilton as a Bacchante_, copy, Normanton collection, 224
Chantilly, library of the Duc d’Aumale at, copy. of _Gaston
Phoebus_ in, 15
Charles II., silver plate of his reign owned by Winchester College,
155
Charles V., Emperor of Germany, and the butchers of Brussels, 193
coronation festivities of, at Bologna, possible connection of
Titian’s portrait of the Empress Isabella with, 282
landsknechte of, at the battle of Pavia, 8, 12
portraits of, by Titian referred to, 281
one at Munich with landscape background, 285
_Portrait of the Empress Isabella_, by Titian, commisioned by, 281
Charles VII. of France and his daughter Charlotte, 11, 12
=Chests:=--
Burgundian, shown at Bruges, 1902., (Hospices civiles, Aalst), 368
Oaken, of Ypres, 357
Chevalier, Estienne, Treasurer of Charles VII. of France,
‘Book of Hours’ and ‘Boccaccio’ illuminated for, by J. Foucquet, 11
Chicago, first folio Shakespeare said to have been destroyed at, in
the fire of 1871., 336
Ch’ien Lung, Emperor of China, handwriting of, on roll acquired by
the Print Room, British Museum, 205
Chigi, Count Fabio, Siena, painting by Andrea Vanni, owned by,
_Annunciation_, 316
China, (_see_ Manchu, Emperor of), the rose-lotus used for food in,
350
use of the Svastika in, 43
Chinese characters C. h. e., renewal and perpetuity of life signified
by, 44
influence on Persian art, 140, 143-4
paintings recently acquired by the Print Room, British Museum, 200
Porcelain made for the European Market during the Eighteenth
Century, The Lowestoft Porcelain Factory and, L. Solon, 271
Chini, Dario, restorer of Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 173
Christian symbolism, the Tree of Life in, 353
Christie’s, notable persons present at, during the Thomond sale,
1821., 211
‘Chrysoloras,’ printed by Guillen, result of use of accents in, 358-60
‘Cicerone,’ the, _cited_ on a painting by A. Vanni at Siena, 316
_note_
Cinelli, Giovanni, _cited_ on the subjects of Baldovinetti’s frescoes
and their excellence, 170
Clarendon Press, _facsimile_ of the first folio Shakespeare, and its
original, 335
Cleves, Duchess Marie of, ‘Book of Hours’ made for, by J. Foucquet, 11
Clifford’s Inn, and the Protection of Ancient Buildings, _editorial_,
3
Cluny, Hôtel de, Paris, Group of _Les Trois Parques_ in, by G. Pilon,
95
Cnoop, Cornelia, wife of Gerard David, paintings by, Triptych (of
miniatures), (Colnaghi), 40
Cockerell, drawings by, of Greece, shown at Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, 255
Cockpit Hill, Derby, slipware of, 68
Codde, Pieter, and other painters, greatly resembling Palamedes in
style and subject, 56,
work by Pot, at Hampton Court, formerly attributed to, _ib._
Coins of the Aiyubite (heterodox) Sultans, mixed devices on, 135
of the Arsacidae, Greek influence manifest in, 139
Colbert, minister of Louis XIV. of France, and the Gobelins
manufactory, 229-35
his choice of Le Brun as organiser, 229, 230
Collection, The, of Pictures of the Earl of Normanton, at Somerley,
Hampshire, M. Roldit; I. Pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 206
Collection, The, of Pictures of Sir Hubert Parry, at Highnam Court,
near Gloucester, R. Fry; I. Italian Pictures of the Fourteenth
Century, 117
Colnaghi, Sir D., author of ‘Dictionary of Florentine painters,’ 27
Colour, intensity of, in ~XV~. cent. Florentine painted windows, 31
in two pictures, probably French, ~XIV~. cent., (Dowdeswell), 90
Colouring matter used in Burslem pottery-making, ~XVII~. cent., 66
Colours employed by Alesso di Baldovinetti, 167-9
Comparative Exhibition of Greek and Mediaeval art, suggested by C.
Smith, 236, 243
Complutensian Polyglot Bible, type cut for, (the Alcalà fount), 358
Confraternity of the Holy Cross, Furnes, Altarpiece commissioned by,
from Bernard van Orley, 205
Coningham, Capt. W., his collection of drawings by old masters sold to
Colnaghi, 1846., possible inclusion in, of the Dürer portrait,
recently acquired by British Museum, 286
Cook, H., Two Alleged ‘Giorgiones,’ 78
Copper Koursi Cover, Arabic, gold- and silver-encrusted, acquired by
the Louvre, G. Migeon, 344
Corinthian Art, ~VI~. cent. ~B.C.~, characteristics of, 243
Cornelis, Albert, painting by, the only known work of, _Coronation of
the Virgin_, (Bruges, 1902.), 332
Correspondence, (_see_ also Foreign _do._), 113, 267, 376
Corsini Gallery, Rome, painting by Cariani in _La Vergine Cucitrice_,
78
Courajod, Louis. (the late), security assured by, to the Bas-relief
probably by Duccio, (Louvre), 89
and others, views of, on the artist of the _P. Scipioni_ Bas-relief,
84
Courbould, black-and-white drawing by, for an illustration, 305
Coventry, Sir W., and the Hon. Henry, first sale by auction of a
first folio Shakespeare, at sale of the library of, 1687., price
unknown, 335
Coxon, Thomas, engraver, no work by, shown at V. and A. Museum
Exhibition, 194
Crisps, A., specimens of genuine Lowestoft-made ‘Lowestoft china’
owned by, 272
Cromwell, Thomas, visit of, to Winchester College, 149
Cross, the, origin and symbolism of, 47
Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _cited_ on Bernardo Daddi, 125, 126
on Titian’s paintings, 281, 282 _notes_
on a painting by A. Vanni, usually attributed to Barna, 316
Ctesiphon, Ivān of, the Palace of, gigantic oval of, tradition
concerning, 139
Culmbach, Casimir, Margrave of, his family, and the _Portrait of a
Lady_, by Dürer, recently acquired by the British Museum, 289
lost portrait of his wife by the same, 290
conjectured identity of _Portrait of a (Young) Lady_, (Heseltine),
with this lady, _ib._
Cunningham, views of, regarding origin of name of Tirthakar sect in
Thibet, 44
Cups, _see_ Silver Plate
Curmer’s edition of ‘Paul et Virginie,’ and its illustrators, 299, 306
Cust, R. H. H., Professor Langton Douglas and Documentary Evidence,
_letter_, 113
Cüyp, A., characteristics of his work, 59
painting attributed to, Guildhall, 1903., signed Berchem, _Head of a
Cow_, 59
painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Herdsman and Woman tending Cattle_,
59
Cyprus, the Svastika introduced into, by travellers to Phoenicia, 47
~Daddi~, Bernardo, birth and death dates of, 126
painting by, _Altarpiece_ in five parts (Parry), 125
provenance of, 126
Daksha, the twenty-seven daughters of, their symbolism, 354
Dallaway, James, _cited_ on England as ‘the seat and refuge of the
arts,’ 236
d’Alviella, Count Goblet, _see_ Goblet d’Alviella
Dalziel’s ‘Arabian Nights’ and ‘Goldsmith,’ 1865., preservation and
present ownership of original drawings on the wood for, 305
‘Bible Gallery,’ drawings on wood for, by Watts, Poynter, etc. (V.
and A. M.), 305
d’Andrea, Giovanni, glazier of Florence, 168
Daria, wife of Baldovinetti, 23
Date-palm, hom, or Soma-tree, sometimes supposed to be the Tree of
Life, 350, 353
Daubigny, C.-F., as a painter of the Spring, 177
painting by, _On the Seine_ (Balli), 360
Daucher, Hans, Medal by, with portrait of Susanna of Bavaria (Vienna
Gallery), 290
d’Aumont, Marshal, house of, decorated by Le Brun, 230
Davenport in ‘Aphrodisiaco’ supporting Higgins’ view on origin of
official name for Governor of Thibet, 44
David, Gerard, painter of Bruges, notes on his history and works, 36
paintings by, _Adoration of the Magi_, formerly attributed to J. van
Eyck, owned by Brussels Museum, shown at Bruges, 1902., 39;
_Altarpiece_ in the National Gallery, and (part of a) _Triptych_,
36;
Triptych, _Baptism of Christ_, shown at Bruges, 1902., 36;
_B.V.M. with Child, Virgin Saints, and Angels_, Rouen Museum,
shown at Bruges, 1902., (illustrated), 36, 39;
Judgement of Cambyses, two pictures, in Bruges Museum (one
illustrated), 36;
miniatures, and by his wife C. Cnoop, where preserved (some
illustrated), 40;
parts of a Triptych, (J. Simon of Berlin), shown at Bruges, 1902.,
39
panels, part of an _Altarpiece_, (Lady Wantage), 39
Triptych, _St. Anne, the B. V. M . and Child with Saints_, (M. de
Somzée), shown at Bruges, 1902., 39
_Transfiguration_, (Church of Our Lady, Bruges), shown at Bruges,
1902., 40
paintings possibly attributable to, variously owned, some shown at
Bruges, 1902., 39-40
period of his painting in Bruges, 326
dates, limiting known period of production of, 39
Davis, Mrs. C. E., drawings on wood owned by, 305
Dealers, The Publication of Works of Art belonging to, _editorial_, 5
de Bock, Théophile, characteristics of his work, 189
painting by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _An Avenue in Holland_, 189
de Brézé, Jacques, _see_ Brézé, Jacques de
de Brocar, Arnaldo Guillen, printer of the Complutensian Bible and
other books, 358
de Calonne, M., former owner of a painting attributed (erroneously)
to Rembrandt, _Portrait of the Artist_ (Guildhall, 1903.), 52
de Carpin, Jean du Plan, missionary to the Grand Khan, _cited_ on
Mongol sacred pictures, 140
de Charenton, Enguerrand, painter, influence of Italian ideas on, 90
de Comano, Marc, and François de la Planche, Flemish upholsterers,
brought to Paris by Henri IV., 235
de Foix, _see_ Foix
de Iode, plate by, of the picture from which Titian painted his
_Portrait of the Empress Isabella_, 282 _note_
de Keyser, Thomas, painting by, _Portrait of a Gentleman_ (Guildhall,
1903.), and characteristics of his art, 55
de Koninck, Philips, characteristics of his painting, 59
painting, now ascribed to, (Guildhall, 1903.), his masterpiece,
attributed to Rembrandt, _Commencement d’Orage_, (Lady Wantage),
60 _et seq._
de Koninck, S., painting probably by, _Head of a Man_, usually
attributed to Rembrandt, (Guildhall, 1903.), 52
de la Bazinière, Bertrand, house of, decorated by Le Brun, 230
de la Planche, F., _see_ de Comano and
Delft, _see_ Van der Neer
Delft-faïence, trade of Holland in English clays for, 277
and in the manufactured article, with Lowestoft, 272
Delhi, the Grand Moguls of, their love for art, 143
de Limbourg, Pol, miniature by, a copy of a fresco by T. Gaddi at
Florence, 90
della Robbia, Andrea, ornaments of the loggia of the Spedale di S.
Paolo, Florence, by, 23
de Marsy, Gaspard and Balthazar, employed under Le Brun, 235
de’ Medici, Giuliano, in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
Lorenzo, the Magnificent, in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
Demeter, meaning of the Svastika sign on, 43
de’ Migliorelli, Giovanni di Jacopo, notary of Florence, 170
Denmark (_see_ Anne of), regulations for the protection of ancient
buildings in, 4, 5
Sorö Chalice (found in grave of Bishop Absalon), H. P. Mitchell, 357
‘Denunzie’ of Baldovinetti, details of his affairs given by, 23
De Passe, Crispin, engraver, portrait of _Queen Elizabeth_ by, V. and
A. Museum Exhibition (H.M. the King), 194
family, prints by, V. and A. Museum Exhibition (H.M. the King), 194
de Pellegrini, G., Mr. Julius Wernher’s Titian (_Portrait of Giacomo
Doria_), (letter), 267
De Poitiers, _see_ Poitiers, Diane, Jean, and Marie de
de Quaroube, Joan, widow of Simon Marmion, first wife of John
Prevost, painter, 332
Derby, Countess of, _see_ Hamilton, Lady Betty
twelfth Earl of, his two wives, 218
de Richelieu, Cardinal, works done for, by Le Brun, his resultant
appointment, 229-30
de Roias, Francis, Dominican Breviary owned by,--its artist, 39
de Rorthays, Vicomte G., Notes from France, Exhibition of French
Primitives, to be held 1904., 373
de Rothschild, Baron Edouard, Persian MS. late ~XV.~ cent. owned by,
144
de Ruffo Bonneval, Viscount, painting by J. Prevost owned by, _Last
Judgement_ (Bruges, 1902.), 332
de Ruysbroeck, Guillaume, missionary to the Grand Khan, _cited_ on
Mongol sacred pictures, 140
Des Marez, G., keeper of the records of Brussels, and the Gilds’
Seals discovered by him, 190 et _seq._
de Somzée Collection, painting by Gerard David in, Triptych, _St.
Anne, the B.V.M. and Child with Saints_, (Bruges, 1902.), 39
painting by Isenbrant _ex, S. Mary Magdalene in the Desert_
(Bruges, 1902.), 331
de Thorigny, Lambert, decorations in house of, by Le Brun, results to
the painter, 230
de Vasselot, J. J. Marquet, Three Italian Albarelli, recently acquired
by the Louvre, 338
Devonshire, Duke of, disappearance of copy of _Gaston Phoebus_ from
his library, 21
owner of a first folio Shakespeare, original of the Clarendon Press
facsimile, 335
de Vos, Cornelis, painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of
Ambrogio Marchese di Spinola_, 55
Dharma and Prabhakara, parents of Rishi Atri according to some
legends, 354
Dibdin’s _Decameron_, description of lost copy of _Gaston Phoebus_
in, 21
Dickinson, W., engraver of lost _Portrait of the Countess of Derby_
by Sir J. Reynolds, 218
Digby, Sir Kenelm, prices realized for the works of Ben Jonson and
Beaumont and Fletcher at the sale of his library, 1680., 335
Dodgson, Campbell, A Newly Discovered Portrait-drawing by Dürer, 286
Dogs, excellence of Gainsborough and Velasquez as painters of, 218
Domenico, gold-beater of Florence, 169
Donatello and his followers, 131
Dordrecht, associations of, with Cüyp, 59
Dormer-Hunter first folio Shakespeare, price paid for, 1901., (C.
Scribner, New York), 335
Douglas, Professor Langton, and Documentary Evidence, _letter_, R. H.
H. Cust, 113
=Drawings:=--
by Cockerell, _Greek Landscapes_, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club Exhibition, 255
by Dürer, A., on green paper, Portraits, _of a Lady_, _of his Wife_,
of _Lord Morley_ (B.M.), of a _Young Lady_ (Heseltine), 287
one in the Vienna Hof Museum, deductions from as to authenticity
of _Portrait_ recently acquired by the British Museum, 289
Drawing, A Newly Discovered Portrait--, by Dürer, C. Dodson, 286
for illustrations. _see_ Later Nineteenth-century Illustrations _and
under artists’ names_
Dresden Gallery, tine collection of drawings at, 293
paintings by Jan Vermeer in, 55
Druggists’ jars, or Albarelli and similar ware, principal pieces of,
and their source, 338
Dubosc, Georges, Notes from Rouen, 374
Duccio, Agostino di, sculptor, Bas-relief (probably) by _Virgin and
Child with Saint and Angels_, (Louvre), 89
other works of, _ib._
Du Celier, John, Diptych painted for, by Memlinc, (Louvre), prototype
of one by Isenbrant, 326
picture painted for, by Memlinc, _Sacra Conversazione_, now in the
Louvre, 39
Dudley and Ward, Lady, portrait of, by Sir J. Reynolds, as
_Fortitude, clad as Britannia_ (Normanton), 211, 217
Dulwich College gallery, painting by Sir J. Reynolds in, replica of
_Portrait of Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse_, 224
Dumontier, views of, on the Svastika as development of Chinese
characters C. h. e., 44
Dunford, Clark, London agent of the Lowestoft Porcelain Factory,
1770., 277
Dürer, Agnes, wife of Albrecht, _Portrait of_, by her husband (B.M.),
289
Dürer, Albrecht. A Newly Discovered Portrait-Drawing by, C. Dodgson,
286
drawings by, on green paper, _Portrait of a Lady_, _Portrait of his
Wife_, and _Portrait of Lord Morley_ (B.M.), 286-9
_Portrait of a Young Lady_ (Heseltine), 287
provenance and authenticity of the first drawing, 286-9
one, with notes on a dream (Vienna Hof Museum), deductions from,
as to authenticity of _Portrait_ recently acquired by the
British Museum, 289
painting by, _lost votive picture_, with portraits of the Margrave
of Culmbach and his wife, 290
Dur-Sarkayan, glazed-brick Bas-reliefs of, 139
Dutch Exhibition, The, at the Guildhall; I. The Old Masters, 51
II. The Modern Painters, 177
painters, modern, representative collection of, at Glasgow
Exhibition, 177
painters to whom the picture by Hendrik Pot, at Hampton Court, has
been successively attributed, 56
Duyster, Willem Cornelisz, and other painters greatly resembling
Palamedes in method and subject, 56
~Early~ French Printers of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8
Early Painters, The, of the Netherlands, as illustrated by the Bruges
Exhibition of 1902., W. H. J. Weale, 35, 326
Early Staffordshire Ware, illustrated by pieces in the British
Museum, R. L. Hobson, 64
=Editorial Articles:=--
Clifford’s Inn and the Protection of Ancient Buildings, 3
The Publication of Works of Art belonging to Dealers, 5
Edward IV., visit of and loan of live lion by, to Winchester College,
149
Edward VI., sequestration of Winchester College plate in the reign
of, 150
Egypt, (_see_ Cairo), and the Lotus, 350
Egyptian influence on Arab Illuminations, 136
and Nubian houses, dreariness of, 349
Elstracke, Renold, Flemish engraver, prints by, shown at V. and A.
Museum Exhibition; _Prince Charles_, etc. (H.M. the King), 194
Ely cathedral, paintings on roof of nave of, by T. G. Parry, 117
Empress Isabella, the, Titian’s Portrait of, G. Gronau, 281
England (_see_ British), pre-eminence of, in private collections of
Greek antiquities, 236
English engravers employed on Curmer’s ‘Paul et Virginie,’ 306
potters, copyists of Chinese decoration, 278
Engraving, _see_ British Engraving
=Engraving(s)=, shown at the V. and A. Museum Exhibition, by de Passe,
Crispin, _Portrait of Queen Elizabeth_ (H.M. the King), 194
others by members of the same family, _ib._
by Elstracke, R., _Prince Charles_, etc. (H.M. the King), 194
by Gemini, Thomas, 194
Landseer, school of, (Sheepshanks collection), 199
by Rogers, William, the first important British engraver, Portraits,
_Alphonso, King of Castile_, _Godfrey Aldelmar_, _Queen
Elizabeth_, (H.M. the King), and _Sir T. Docwra_, 194
by Woollett, W., and his school of Engravers, plate by and by his
pupil, _Roman Edifices in Ruins_, after Claude, and other plates,
194-9
Epiktetos, plate signed by, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, 255
Escurial, Spain, loss of the original of _Gaston Phoebus_ from,
1809., 8
Esther, Queen, the Apadana of, and its art, 139
=Etching(s):=--
by Rembrandt, _The Three Trees_, compared with the painting, _Le
Commencement d’Orage_, 63
at the V. and A. Museum Exhibition of British Engraving, 199
Europe, (_see_ Northern Europe), the Tree of Life in the Symbolism of,
353
Everat, printer of Curmer’s edition of ‘Paul et Virginie,’ etc., 306
Exhibition(s), _see_ British Engraving, Bruges, Glasgow, Guildhall,
Hague, Mussulman Art, _etc._
of French Primitives, to be held 1904., G. de Rorthays, 373
The, of Greek Art, at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, C. Smith, 236
~Fabritius~, Karel, possibly the painter of _Ruth and Naomi_,
attributed to Rembrandt, Guildhall, 1903., 52
Faenza, Ceramic ware of, 338, 343
Fa-hiau, (a doctor of reason), _cited_ on the Tao-sse of China, 47
Faithorne and other Engravers, latter ~XVII.~ cent., fine work by,
shown at the V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 194
Falconer, Miss, (Hon. Mrs. Stanhope), Portrait of, by Sir J. Reynolds,
as _Contemplation_, (Normanton), 217
Family names of painters, importance of writing them correctly, 332
_note_
Farnese family, patrons of Titian, 281
once owners of the painting from which he painted his _Portrait of
the Empress Isabella_, 282
Farren, Miss, actress, afterwards Countess of Derby, 218
Fei, Paolo di Giovanni, a pupil of Andrea Vanni, painting by,
_Madonna del Rosario_, (S. Domenico), other paintings and their
locations, 325
Ferdinand, Archduke, Duke of Tyrol, Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_
presented to, by Bishop Bernard of Trent, 12
Lord Morley’s visit to, with the order of the Garter, 1523., and
Dürer’s portrait of the latter, 289
Ferrukh Siyyar, books owned by, 143
Fiesole Cathedral, painting by unknown artist, Florentine school,
early ~XV.~ cent., in, 131
Finest Hunting MS. Extant, the, W. A. Baillie-Grohman, 8
First Folio Shakespeare, the, The Geographical Distribution of, F.
Rinder, 335
Flanders, _see_ Early Flemish Painters, _and_ Elstracke
Flemish School, artist unknown, painting by, shown at Bruges, 1902.,
Panel, _S. Nicolas of Tolentino_, and _Roger do Jonghe_, Austin
Friar, (Black Sisters, Bruges), 332
Flemish upholsterers brought to Paris by Henri IV., 235
Florence, _see_ Baldovinetti, Opera di Duomo, S. Croce, S. Trinità,
Spedale di S. Paolo, _etc._
Ceramic wares of, 343
Florentine Academy, painting by A. Baldovinetti in, Altarpiece,
(formerly in S. Trinita), _Trinity with two Saints_, 32
Florentine painters, works of, in the Parry collection, 117 _et seq._
Flötner, P., Medal by, with portrait of Susanna of Bavaria, (Munich),
290
Foix, Agnes de, daughter of Philip III. of Navarre, wife of Gaston de
Foix, 11
Gaston de, (Gaston III. of Béarn and Foix, surnamed Phoebus), patron
of Froissart, author of the ‘Livre de Chasse’ known as _Gaston
Phoebus_, 8
characteristics of,
as shown by his book, 16
made Lieutenant de Roi in Languedoc and Saxony, 8
marriage of, with Agnes daughter of Philip III of Navarre, 11
his nicknames for his secretaries, 8
his remorse for the murder of his son, 15
Fonthill, Mrs. Alfred Morrison’s collection of Lace at, 95
=Foreign Correspondence=, 373
Notes from Belgium, Ghent and Nieuport, architectural works in
progress at, R. Petrucci, 375
from Berlin, Pictures acquired by the Gallery, 375
from France, Exhibition of French Primitives, (to be held 1904.), G.
de Rorthays, 373
repairs to the cathedral etc., and Samian bowls, coins, etc.,
found during excavations at Rouen, G. Dubose, 374
from Vienna, Pictures in the new Modern Gallery, 375
Foucquet, Jean, valet-painter to Charles VII. of France, 11
_Boccaccio_ and _Book of Hours_ executed by, for E. Chevalier, and
_Book of Hours_ for the Duchess of Cleves, _ib._
illuminations in MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_ attributed to and other
illuminated MSS. executed by, _ib._
influence of Italian ideas on, 90
Fouquet, Superintendent to Louis XIV., patron of Le Brun, 230
his fêtes of 1659., organized by Le Brun, _ib._
=France=, (_see_ Louvre, St. Denis, Paris, _etc._)
Drawings in, storage and exhibition of, 293
French and English illustrators of the early ~XIX.~ cent., different
aims of, 306
German and English engravers employed on Curmer’s ‘Paul et
Virginie,’ 306
illustrators working in, 1836. _et seq._, 299
Notes from:--
Exhibition of French Primitives (to be held 1904)., G. de
Rorthays, 373
Rouen, repairs to the Cathedral, etc., and Samian bowls, coins,
etc., found during other excavations at, G. Dubosc, 374
regulations for the protection of ancient buildings in, 4, 5
tendency to centralization in, _temp._ Louis XIV., 229
Francesci, Piero dei, painting by, central panel of Altarpiece, Borgo
S. Sepolcro, _Baptism of Christ_, (London), 321
Francis I. of France and Diane de Poitiers, 12
Tomb of, designed by P. Delorme, executed by Bontemps, Perret, and
Pilon, 95
Franciscan administration of the Spedale di S. Paolo, Florence, 23-4
Frankfort, Städel Institute at, painting by Botticelli in, details
identical with those in a painting by G. David, in Bruges Museum, 36
Fraschetti, and Stettiner, studies of, on Albarelli, _see_ Albarelli
Fredi, Bartolo di, a pupil or partner of Vanni, 321
influence shown in paintings by, 309
French Art of the ~XIV.~ cent., Italian influence discernible in, 90
Furniture of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries; E. Molinier;
II. The Louis XIV. style: The Gobelins, 229
paintings probably ~XIV.~ cent., artists unknown, _Adoration of the
Magi_ and _Dormition of the B.V.M._ (Dowdeswell), 89
Primitive painters, Exhibition of, to be held 1904., G. de Rorthays,
373
Revolution, suppression of the trade corporations under, 229
Frescoes by A. Baldovinetti in the Cappella Maggiore, S. Trinità,
Florence, subjects of, and portraits amongst, Vasari _cited_ on, 170
early decay, ruthless destruction and recent restoration of, 173
methods of transferring cartoons for, to plaster, 167
at Pisa, attributed by Milanesi to Daddi, _Triumph of Death_, 126
Fresco-painting(s) by Sir F. Leighton, (V. and A. M.), 117
Parry’s researches into and practice of the art of, 117
Friedländer, Dr., _cited_ on the _Annunciation_ attributed to Memlinc,
(Prince Radziwill), Bruges, 1902., 35
views of, on the _Adoration of the Magi_ attributed to G. David,
shown at Bruges, 1902., 39
and on a Holy Family so attributed, 40
Fry, R., Pictures in the Collection of Sir Hubert Parry, at Highnam
Court, near Gloucester; I. Italian Pictures of the Fourteenth
Century, 117
Furniture, French, of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, E.
Molinier; II. The Louis XIV. Style: The Gobelins, 229
Furtwängler, Professor, _cited_ on Apollo as the Βούπαις, 244
_cited_ on the sculptor of the Leconfield _Head of Aphrodite_, 249
and Mrs. Strong, views of, on the modeller of the _Head of Zeus_,
shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 249
~Gaddi~, Agnolo, painting by, _Coronation of the Virgin_, (Parry), 126
Taddeo, follower of Giotto, 125
painting by, _Coronation of the Virgin_, (S. Croce), 126
fresco by, in S. Croce, Florence, copied in miniature by Pol de
Limbourg, 90
Gainsborough, T., excellence of, as a painter of dogs, 218
Galerie d’Apollon, Louvre, work of Le Brun, 230, 235
d’Hercule, painted by Le Brun in the de Thorigny mansion, his
consequent call to Vaux, 230
Gambart sale, drawings by Millais for illustrations to _Dream of Fair
Women_ purchased at, by V. and A. Museum, 294 _note_
Gandhi’s views on the origin of the name of the Tirthakar sect of
Thibet, 44
Gaston Phoebus, _see_ Foix, Gaston de
_Gaston Phoebus_, familiar title of the _Livre de Chasse_, written by
Gaston III. of Béarn and Foix, 11
Codex MS. 616 of, now with others in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris,
15
contents summarized, 16
difference between it and other mediaeval hunting-books, 15
illuminations in, 15;
locale and losses of existing copies of, 16, 21
portions of, borrowed from other writers, 15
prologue of, a reflection of the spirit of the age, 15-16
Gaucheraud, researches of, on Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8
Gemini, Thomas, title-page to ‘Anatomy’ of, early instance of British
engraving, (V. and A M.), 194
Genoese war with Florence, B. Gianfigliazzi the ‘Commessario’ of
Florence in, 28
Geographical Distribution, The, of the First Folio Shakespeare, F.
Rinder, 335
its publishers, a facsimile of, and its original, Lee’s notes on,
first authentic sale of a copy by auction, 335
first priced records, classification of copies extant, 336
table showing present ownership of said copies, 337
Germany (_see_ Bavaria, Berlin, Charles V., Dresden, Dürer, Munich,
_etc._), (La Magnia), source of ‘Azzurro della Magnia,’ 168
’Ghazels,’ the, of Hāfiz. 143
Ghent, Crypt staircase, etc., at S. Bavo’s, 375
Ghirlandajo, Domenico, pupil of Baldovinetti, works of, in Florence,
174
Gianfigliazzi, Bongiani, patron of the Capella Maggiore of S. Trinità,
Florence, his agreement with Baldovinetti, 27, 167
his family history, high official rank, and connexion with the
Chapel, 28 _et seq._
death of, 170
portrait of, with Jacopo and Giovanni in Baldovinetti’s frescoes,
170
Gherardo, high rank attained by, 28
sepulchral slab of, _ib._
Jacopo, son of Bongiani, and continuer of his work, 170
Gigoux, Jean, as an engraver, 306
illustration by, to ‘Gil Blas,’ 299
Gild of Bakers, Brussels, matrix of seal of, (Lefébure), 190
described, 192
privileges owned by, 193
Gild of Barbers, Brussels, matrix of seal of, (Museées Royaux du
Cinquantenaire), 190
described, 191-2
Gild of Butchers, Brussels, matrix of seal of, (City archives), 190
described, 192
their privileges, etc, 193
Gild of Drapers, Brussels, its lack of judicial powers, 190
its seal, 190
described, reason for existence of the seal, 191
Gild of Painters, dispute of, with the king’s painters, France,
result of, to Le Brun, 230
Gild of St. John, (miniaturists), Gerard David a member of, 40
Gild of St. Luke, 326, 332
some members of, 36, 343
‘Giorgione,’ Two Alleged Paintings by, H. Cook, 78
once called Barbarelli, two paintings attributed to, but by Cariani,
_Adoration of the Shepherds_, _ex_ Leuchtenberg Gallery, 78
Madonna and Child, (Salting), _ib._
Giotto, characteristic of his styles, 125
influence of, on painter of _Nativity and Adoration_, (Parry), 118
paintings attributed to, by Berenson, Panels, _Last Judgement_,
etc., (Munich Gallery), 118
Giovanni d’Andrea, glazier, Florence, work of, in the Cappella
Maggiore, 31, 168
Giovanni di Jacopo de’ Migliorelli, notary of Florence, 170
Giovanni di Paolo, _see_ Paolo, G. di
Giovanni, Il Rosso, gold-beater of Florence, 169
Giovanni, Matteo di, paintings by, part of _Altarpiece_, (Borgo S.
Sepolcro), 321
probably by, Panels, _SS. Peter and Paul_, (S. Pietro Ovile,
Siena), 321
Girardon, François, employed by Le Brun, 235
Girolamo dai Libri, _see_ Libri
Glasgow Exhibition, representative collection of modern Dutch
painters at, 177
Glass, _see_ Ceramics _and_ Glass
Glaze, as used at Burslem, ~XVII.~ cent., 66
Gobelin, Jean, dyer, from Rheims, his house annexed by Colbert,
whence the name of ‘Gobelins,’ 235
Gobelins Manufactory, The, E. Molinier, 229
foundation of, preliminary to the suppression of corporations under
the Revolution, 229
letters patent of Louis XIV. instituting, 235
origin of the name, _ib._
Goblet d’Alviella, Count, _cited_ on absence of Svastika in Babylonia
and Assyria, 44
on meaning of Chinese characters C. h. e., _ib._
on the Tree of Life, its origin and diffusion, 353
Goldsmith (Oliver), his names for the Misses Horneck, 223
Gonzaga, Ludovico, Mecal of, with helmeted knight, Greek character
of, 243
‘Good Words,’ some illustrators of, 300
Goodall, _see_ Turner and Goodall
Goodyear, Professor, _cited_ on the Lotus as a keynote of decoration
rather than the Svastika, 48
on the same as associated with Sun-worship, etc., 350 _et seq._
and with the Svastika, 354
Gordon, Major-General, _cited_ on a Svastika on breech of gun captured
in Taku Fort in 1861., and on its thoroughly Chinese character, 47
Gossart, J., painting attributed to, _Virgin and Child_ ascribed by
Hulin to Prevost, (Carlsruhe), 332
Gothic style, intrusion of, into Eastern art, 139
Graffiato ware, Staffordshire, 68
Grafton, Duchess of, _see_ Liddell, Miss Anne
Grand Moguls of Delhi, their love for art, 143
Granvella, Titian’s letter to, on his portraits of Charles V. and his
wife, (_see note_), 281
Great Britain, lack of legislation in, for protection of ancient
buildings, 3
Greece, drawings of, by Cockerell, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club Exhibition, 255
regulations in, for the protection of ancient buildings, 5
=Greek Art=, evolution of, from idealism to realism, 243
value and limitations of, 236
Exhibition of, The, at the Burlington Fine Arts Club; C. Smith, 236
fret, the, and the Svastika, 48
influence on Persia and Persian art, early prevalence of, 136-9
Type, A New Fount of, (Proctor’s Otter), 358
Green, W. T., remarkable engravings by, illustrations to ‘Solace of
Song,’ etc., 306
Grey, Sir George, donor of a first folio Shakespeare to Auckland, New
Zealand, and Cape Town, 336
Grohman, W. A. Baillie-, The Finest Hunting Manuscript Extant, 8
Gronau, Georg, Titian’s Portrait of the Empress Isabella, 281
Grumentum, probable source of the Greek bronze, _A Mounted Warrior_,
shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 243
Guicciardini, Luigi, the elder, portrait of, in Baldovinetti’s
frescoes, 170
Guildhall, the, The Dutch Exhibition (of paintings) at, 1903.
I. The Old Masters, 51
II. The Modern Painters, 177
Guillen, _see_ de Brocar
‘Gulistan,’ Persian MS., non-illuminated, 143
Gwatkin, Mrs., _see_ Palmer, ‘Offy’
Gwyn, Mrs., (Mary Horneck), Goldsmith’s ‘Jessamy Bride,’ portrait of,
_see_ Horneck, the Misses
_Portrait_ of, by Sir J. Reynolds, in _Persian dress_, original
owned by W. W. Astor, copy in Normanton collection, 224
~Haarlem~, 36
Hāfiz, delight of Timur Bey in his writings, 143
Halifax, first Earl of, portrait of his daughter, Lady Charlotte
Johnstone, by Sir J. Reynolds (Normanton), 223
Hals, Dirk, and other painters greatly resembling Palamedes in style
and subject, 56
Hals, F., paintings attributed to, conjointly with Judith Lyster,
_see_ Lyster, Guildhall, 1903., probably by Molenaer, _Group of
Three_, 52
part probably by Van Goyen, _Van Goyen and his wife_, 52
painting by, same exhibition, so-called _Admiral de Ruyter_, high
excellence of, 52
Hamilton, Lady Betty, afterwards Countess of Derby, _Portrait of, as a
child_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), her history, 218
later Portrait of by Reynolds, lost, _ib._
Hanap, _see_ Silver Plate
Handles a feature of Staffordshire ware, 66, 68
Hapsburg family, Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_ possessed by, for
130 years, 12
Harrow School, Greek Krater owned by, decoration, _Kaineus overcome
by Centaurs_, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 255
Harvey, William, as an illustrator and wood-engraver, 294, 306
illustrations by, to Lane’s ‘Arabian Nights,’ 299
to ‘Northcote’s Fables,’ 299
to the ‘Solace of Song,’ features of, 306
and Jackson, designers and engravers, illustration by, 306
Hearne, Thomas, water-colour artist, pupil of W. Woollett, engraver,
engraving said to be by him, 194-9
Heath Collection, Liphook, painting attributed to Memlinc once in,
Triptych, _Deposition with Saints_, shown at Bruges, 1902., 35
Heilsbronn, burial-place of the Margraves of Culmbach, Altarpiece
at, with group of the daughters of the Margravine Sophia of
Brandenburg-Ansbach, 289
Henri II. of France and Catherine de’ Medici, Tomb of, at St. Denis,
executed by G. Pilon, 95
and Diane de Poitiers, 12
Henri IV. of France, Flemish upholsterers brought to Paris by, 235
Henry IV. (of England), 21
Henry VI., gift of plate by, to Winchester College, 149
visits of to the school, _ib._
Henry VIII., gift of Winchester College to, 149
Henslowe, Radolphus, Parcel-gilt Rose-water dish presented by, to
Winchester College, 155
Hera, meaning of Svastika sign on, 43
Herat, celebrated Persian writers of, 143
fine library of Sultan Husain Mirza at, _ib._
Persian illuminated MS. executed at, ‘Ascension of Mohammed to
Heaven,’ beauty of, 143
question of Chinese influence on, 144
‘Hero and Leander’ printed by Guillen, effect of use of accents in,
358-60
Herringham, Mrs., _cited_ on various artists’ colours, 168
Higgins, _cited_ on the origin of official name for Governor of
Thibet, 44
Highnam Church, frescoes in, by T. G. Parry, 117
Court, Sir H. Parry’s collection of pictures at, R. Fry, 117
Hindu gods, the Svastika supposed emblem of, 43
use of the Lotus as an emblem, 350
Hipponax, bust of, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition,
250
Hissarlik, the leaden goddess from, meaning of Svastika sign on, 43
Hittite origin of the Svastika suggested by Sayce, 47
Hiuantusang, (a Doctor of Reason), _cited_ on the Tao-sse of China, 47
Hobbema, characteristics of his work, its singular evenness of
quality, 59
paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape_ and _Woody Landscape_,
39
‘Hobby Horse, The,’ a drawing by Sandys produced in, 300
Hobson, R. L., Early Staffordshire Ware, illustrated by pieces in the
British Museum, 64
Holland and China, Rotterdam the centre of the ~XVIII.~ cent. commerce
between, 277
trade of, with Lowestoft in Delft-faïence, 272
and in English clays for its manufacture, 277
Hom, _see_ Date-palm _and_ Soma tree
Honiton lace, revival of, by the late Mrs. Treadwin, 95
Horne, H. P., A Newly-discovered ‘Libro di Ricordi’ of Alesso
Baldovinetti, 22
Appendix giving documents referred to, 377
frescoes by unknown artist, school of Cimabue, discovered by, near
Florence, 118
Horneck, the Misses, afterwards Mrs. Bunbury and Mrs. Gwyn, _Portraits
of_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), 223
sketch of, (Bunbury), _ib._
sobriquets given to them by Goldsmith, _ib._
House-Irons, Svastika on, 48
Hulagu, the Mongolian, sent to conquer Persia by Manchu, Emperor of
China, 139
his Christian wife, 140
Hulin, G., _cited_ on the _Annunciation_ attributed to Memlinc,
(Prince Radziwill), shown at Bruges, 1902., 35
_cited_ on the portraits of Philip Wielant and Joan van Halewyn on a
Triptych by Isenbrant, 331
paintings attributed to J. Prevost by, and their locations, 332 and
_note_
Hungary, King Matthias Corvinus of, works executed for, by Verrochio,
84
Hunt, W. Holman, illustrations by, to Moxon’s edition of Tennyson, 299
Hunting Manuscript, The Finest Extant, W. A. Baillie-Grohman, 8
Husain ibn Bäikara, Sultan, ruler of Persia, famous writings of and
famous writers of his day, 143
Husain Mirza, Sultan, Timurid ruler of Persia, fine library collected
by, at Herat, 143, 144
‘Life of the Sufis of,’ repetitive decorations in MSS. of, 135
~Ibn Arabshah~, misrepresentation of Timur Bey by, 143
Iceland, Mediaeval Silver Chalice from, in the Victoria and Albert
Museum, H. P. Mitchell, 70
Illuminated MSS., The Reid Gift of, Victoria and Albert Museum, II.,
74
Inchbald, Mrs., _Portrait of_, ascribed to Sir J. Reynolds,
(Normanton), 224
India, (_see_ Buddha and _other divinities_, Hindu, _etc._), home of
the rose lotus, 350
symbolism of the Svastika in, 43
Indra, the rain god, the Svastika supposed to be an emblem of, 43
Innsbruck, Castle Ambras near, 12
Inselin, house of, decorated by Le Brun, 230
Isabella, Empress, Titian’s Portrait of, G. Gronau, 281
Isabey, G., and other French artists, illustrations by, in Curmer’s
‘Paul et Virginie,’ 306
Isenbrant, Adrian, assistant to Gerard David, notes on his work at
Bruges, and its characteristics, etc., 326
paintings by, shown at Bruges, 1902., Diptych, _Our Lady of the
Seven Dolours_, (part in church of Our Lady at Bruges, part in
Brussels Museum), 326
_B. V. M. in landscape with female saints,_ (Count Arco-Valley),
326
its prototype, replica and variants, _ib._
_B. V. M. and Child on throne with rams’ heads_, (Northbrook), 331
Panels, _B.V. M. and Child enthroned in garden with donor,
peacocks, etc._, (Northbrook), _ib._
_St. Luke with portrait of B. V. M. and Child_, (Colnaghi), _ib_
_SS. Andrew, Michael and Francis_, with _Crucifixion_ in upper
part. (Sedelmeyer), _ib._
_St. Mary Magdalene in the Desert_, (De Somzée), _ib._
Triptychs, _B. V. M. and Child with angels with musical
instruments_ (Lotman), 326
_Presentation in the Temple_, with portraits, probable source of,
(Bruges Cathedral), 331
part of, _Donor and family protected by St. John and a female
saint_, (von Kaufmann), _ib._
_Vision of S. Ildephonsus_, (Northbrook), _ib._
paintings attributed to, _B. V. M. and Child with a Carthusian_,
ascribed by Hulin to Prevost, 332
_B. V. M. and Child_, (Carlsruhe), ascribed to Gossart, _ib._
Israels, Josef, a leader of modern Dutch painting, characteristics and
inequality of his work, 177
paintings by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _The Cottage Madonna_,
special excellence of, 177
_A Jewish Wedding_, last picture painted by, _ib._
_The New Flower_, _A Ray of Sunshine_, _The Shipwrecked Fisherman_,
_ib._
Italian Albarelli, Three, (Louvre), 338
art, evolution of, from the early Christian style, works of art
illustrating, 118
influence of, evident in paintings by Gerard David, 36
Bas-reliefs, Two, in the Louvre, A. Michel, 84
Painters, _see_ Baldovinetti, Cariani, Giorgione, Titian, Vanni
Pictures of the Fourteenth Century, at Highnam Court, in the
Collection of Sir Hubert Parry, R. Fry, 117
Italy and the North, (specially France), ~XIV.~ cent., interchange of
artistic ideas between, instances of, 90
regulations in, for the preservation of ancient buildings, 5
Itoga, chief divinity of the Mongols, 140
Ivory carvings recently acquired by the British Museum, 200
~Jackson~, _see_ Harvey, W., and Jackson
Jains, _see_ Tirthankara
Jāmī, illustrious Sūfi poet of Herat, 143
Japan, symbolism of the Svastika in, 43
Jarvis, glass-painter, executor of the Reynolds designs for New
College window, 211
Jenghis Khan, 132
Jerusalem, arms of, with others, on Italian Albarelli, (Louvre), 338
Johnson, J., printer of ‘Northcote’s Fables,’ excellent work of, 306
Johnstone, Lady Charlotte, daughter of first Earl of Halifax,
_Portrait of_, (Normanton), by Sir J. Reynolds, 223
Jonson, Ben, collected works of, published 1616. and 1640., size of
edition and cost per copy then and in 1680., Lee on, 335
Joseph, Mrs., painting by Jan Vermeer, owned by, 55
Jourdain, M., Lace in the Collection of Mrs. Alfred Morrison at
Fonthill, 95
Jupiter Pluvius and Jupiter Tonans, Svastika supposed to be an emblem
of, 43
~Kalaoun~, Sultan, Koursi inscribed with his name, (Cairo Museum), 344
Kaufmann, R. von, owner of painting attributed to Memlinc, Triptych,
_Deposition with Saints_, (Bruges, 1902.), 35
Khorassan, Chinese influence on the Timurid art of, 143
Khwand-Amir, historian, of Herat, 143
Knight, Payne, _cited_ on the sculptor of the Leconfield _Head of
Aphrodite_, 249
Knutchmar, German engraver of Menzel’s illustrations, 306
‘Koran,’ Arab illuminated MSS. of, inferiority of, 136
Koursi cover, Arabic, copper, gold and silver encrusted, acquired by
the Louvre, G. Migeon, 344 names inscribed on, _ib._
Ku K’ai-chih, Chinese artist of the T’ang dynasty, roll believed to
be his work acquired by the Print Room, British Museum, 200-5
Kunigunda of Austria, sister of the Emperor Maximilian, her husband
and daughter, 290
~Labarum~ standard and the Tau Cross, 47, _see note_
Lace in the Collection of Mrs. Alfred Morrison at Fonthill, M.
Jourdain, 95
‘La Chace dou Serf,’ poetical work of ~XIII.~ cent., parts of _Gaston
Phoebus_ borrowed from, 15
Lanchals, Peter, picture by Gerard David commemorating the execution
of, 36
Landscape backgrounds in Titian‚s portraits, 282
a sign of comparatively late date, instances of, 285
Landseer school of engraving, (Sheepshanks collection), shown at the
V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 199
Landsknechte of Charles V. of Germany, 8
the first trained infantry, 52
Langue d’Oc, spelling peculiar to, ~XIV.~ cent., found in MS. 616 of
_Gaston Phoebus_, 11
Lastra, Il, (Bartolommeo di Giovanni), glazier, work of, from designs
by Baldovinetti, in the Cappella Maggiore of S. Trinità, Florence,
31
other work there, 168
Later Nineteenth-Century Book Illustrations, J. Pennell, I., 293
artists and collections of drawings, 293, _and see note_
collectors, hesitancy of, and its causes, 293
fate of early originals till 1865., 300
intervention of photography to save, 305
methods of workers, 300, 305
Notes on the illustrations, 305
publisher and illustrator, past and present relations between, 300
Latin gods represented by the Svastika, 43
Lavallée, Joseph, researches of, on Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston
Phoebus_, 8, 11, 21
Lawrence, Sir T., mark of, on the Dürer Portrait-Drawing newly
acquired by the British Museum, 286
Layard _cited_ on the Palm as an Assyrian symbol, 353
Le Brun, Charles, ‘first painter to the King’ (Louis XIV.), sketch of
his life and association with the Gobelins, 229-35
designs for Tapestry by, _Chasses de Méléagre_, _History of
Constantinople_, _Jupiter allaité par le chèvre Amalthée_, _Mars
et Venus_, _Les Muses_, 230
painting by, _Alexandre pénétrant dans le tente de Darius_, ordered
by Louis XIV., 230
paintings by or designed by, executed at Vaux, _L’Apothéose
d’Hercule_, _L’Aurore_, _Le Palais du Soleil_, _Le Sommeil_, Le
Triomphe de la Fidélité, 230
sculptors and decorators employed by, 235
Nicholas, sculptor, father of Charles Le Brun, 229
Leconfield, Lord, _Head of Aphrodite_ ascribed to Praxiteles, owned
by, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 249
Lee, Sidney, introduction by, etc., to Clarendon Press facsimile
first folio Shakespeare, 335 _et seq._
Lefébure, C., matrix of the seal of the Gild of Bakers of Brussels,
owned by, 190, 192
M., exertions of, in reviving lace-making, 95
Le Gros family, Augustinian nun of, portrait of, on triptych by
Isenbrant, 331
Leighton, Lord, drawings by, for Dalziel’s ‘Bible Gallery,’ 305
fresco paintings by, (V. and A. M.), 117
Le Maire, Barbara, wife of George Van de Velde, donor of painting by
Isenbrant to church of Our Lady, Bruges, 326
Lemoyne, employed by Le Brun, 235
Le Noir, Philippe, _Gaston Phoebus_ hand-printed by, 8
Leonardo da Vinci, his father the notary of Florence who engrossed the
‘ricordo’ referring to Baldovinetti, 22
is the Bust in Bas-relief inscribed ‘_P. Scipioni_’ his work? 84 _et
seq._
Le Roi, Martin, painting by unknown Flemish artist attributed to G.
David, owned by, _Holy Family_, 40
Leuchtenberg Gallery, St. Petersburg, painting by Cariani, attributed
to Giorgione, from, _Adoration of the Shepherds_, illustrated, 78
Lévy, MM., et ses Fils, Paris, 315 _note_
Lhermitte, Leon, painting by, Pastel, _Le Pêcheur_, (Balli), 360
‘Liber Studiorum.’ mezzotints of, (Rawlinson), shown at the V. and A.
Museum Exhibition, 199
Libri, Girolamo dai, backgrounds of his paintings, 78
‘Libro de la Monteria,’ by Argote de Molina, containing description
of lost original of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8
Liddell, Miss Anne, afterwards Duchess of Grafton and Countess of
Upper Ossory, _Portrait of_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), 223
Light, god of, and of Lightning, Svastika supposed to be the emblem
of, 43
Lilly, Joseph, vendor of the Berlin first folio Shakespeare, 336
Line engraving, late development of, in Great Britain, 194
Linnell, John, as a wood-engraver and illustrator, 294
Lippi, Filippo, influence of, on Lorenzo Monaco, 131
Lippmann, Dr., suggestion of, as to the identity of the person in the
newly acquired Portrait-Drawing by Dürer, (B. M.), 290
Lockyer, Dr., _cited_ on the Svastika as a Chinese symbol, 47
London, _see_ Clifford’s Inn _and_ Guildhall
County Council, and its work in preserving ancient buildings, 3
and district. slipware of, ~XVII.~ cent. _et seq._, 68
Lorenzo the Magnificent (de’ Medici), in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
Lorenzotti, the brothers, influence of, shown in paintings by Fredi
and Vanni, 309, 310
Ambrogio, 310
painting attributed to (ascribed by Perkins to Vanni), Fresco,
_Seated Virgin, and Child_, (S. Francesco, Siena), 315
Pietro, painting attributed to, (ascribed by Perkins to Vanni),
_Madonna degli Infermi_, (S. Francesco, Siena), 310-15
Lotto, Lorenzo, influence of, on Cariani, 78
Lotus, the accepted Tree of Life, Goodyear on, 48
connexion of the Svastika with, 43
evolution of, from ornament to symbol, 349
as a development of sun-worship, etc., Goodyear _cited_ on the
three forms of, and identity with the Tree of Life, 350
evolution of the Svastika from, according to Goodyear, 354
and Tree of Life, The, in Oriental Carpets, 349
Louis XIV. Style, The, in French Furniture, _see_ Molinier
Louvain, visit of Dirk Bouts, painter, to, 36
=Louvre, the:=--
commission of Le Brun to restore the gallery destroyed by fire in
1661., 230
afterwards called the Galerie d’Apollon, 235
paintings by Jean Malouel in, intense ultramarine in and in some
other pictures there, 90
by Memlinc in, _Sacra Conversazione,_ done for John Du Celier, 39
by Jacob Ruysdael in, 343
by Jan Vermeer in, 55
Recent Acquisitions by:--Italian Albarelli, Three, J. J. Marquet de
Vasselot, 338
Koursi Cover, Arabic, G. Migeon, 344
Pictures, _Landscapes_ (2) by S. Ruysdael, _Portrait of Dame
Danger_, by L. Tocqué, P. Vitry, 343
sculpture in, group, _Les Trois Grâces_, by G. Pilon, 95
Two Italian Bas-reliefs in, artists unknown, _Bust in Profile
wearing helmet and armour inscribed ‘P. Scipioni,’_ 84
_Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels_, from a country church,
(probably) by A. di Duccio, 89
Two Italian Bas-reliefs in, artists unknown, A. Michel, 84
Lowestoft Porcelain Factory, The, and the Chinese Porcelain made for
the European market during the ~XVIII.~ cent., L. Solon, 271
Allen, Robert, manager of, maker of the ‘Buckle’ teaservice,
(Crisps), 272
hard porcelain teapot, Chinese, marked with his name, 277
Browne, Robert, head of factory, how he gained his knowledge of the
trade, 272
crested or initialed porcelain found at Lowestoft, Chaffers’
erroneous theory _re_, its true provenance, 271, 277, 278
Crisps, A., genuine ‘Lowestoft’ Porcelain owned by, 272
dates of some of the pieces extant, 272
distinctive features of genuine Lowestoft ware, 271, 272
absence of any mark, 278
distinctive features of so-called Lowestoft ware, 278
hard porcelain never made at, but imported and sold from, 271, 272-7
history of the works, 272-8
London warehouse of, its manager and methods, 277
ruin of, how caused, _ib._
specimens of, ‘Buckle’ tea-service, by R. Allen, inkpots (one marked
‘Allen’), teapot, etc., (Crisps), 272
teapot in hard porcelain, Chinese in decoration, marked ‘Allen,
Lowestoft,’ (V. and A. M.), 277
Lucca, painted glass window in the Cathedral at, designed by A.
Baldovinetti, _Annunciation_, non-extant, 31
Lund, Bishop Absalon of, _see_ Sorö
Lung’ arno Corsini, Florence, palace of the Gianfigliazzi on, 28
Lysippus, _Head of Mourning Woman_, (Ponsonby), attributed to by
Reinach, shown at Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 249
Michaelis cited on, 250
Lyster, Judith, wife of J. M. Molenaer, paintings by, attributed to
her and F. Hals, Guildhall, 1903., _The Jovial Companions_, and _The
Health of the Troop_, 55
~Macartney~, Lord, embassy of, to China, 205
Mackowsky, historian of Verrochio, views of, on the artist of the _P.
Scipioni_ Bas-relief, 84
Macquoid, P., The Plate of Winchester College, 149
Maghreb and Yemen, no illuminated MSS. from, 135
Maincy, manufactory of high-warp tapestry at, established by Fouquet,
230
Malcolm Collection, Bas-relief in, _Warrior_, by Leonardo da Vinci,
analogies of, 84
Malik al Nasir, name on Koursi cover, (Louvre), 344
Malouel, Jean, painter, intense ultramarine employed by, 90
Manchu, Emperor of China, Hulagu the Mongol sent by, to conquer
Persia, 139
Manni, Domenico Maria, _cited_ on Baldovinetti’s portraits of himself
and Guido Baldovinetti in his frescoes, 174
=Manuscripts=, see Mussulman MSS.
illuminated, (_see_ Reid Gift), The Finest Hunting MS. Extant, W. A.
Baillie-Grohman, 8
Marble Statue, A, by Germain Pilon, _Charité_, 90
Marbled Staffordshire Slipware, 68
Margaret of Anjou, Queen, gift of plate made by, to Winchester
College, 149
daughter of Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Anspach, probably the
subject of the newly-acquired Portrait-Drawing by Dürer, (B. M.),
289
Maria Theresa, wife of Louis XIV., 230
Maris, the brothers, J., M., and W., leaders of modern Dutch painting,
177-8
Jacob, characteristics of his work, 51, 177-8
his methods and their evolution, 177-8
paintings by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _The Bridge_, 178
_A Dutch Town_, _ib._
_The Ferry Boat_, influences traceable in, _ib._
_Gathering Seaweed_, notable brushwork of, _ib._
_River and Windmill_, _The Storm Cloud_; _The Weary Watchers_,
in his early highly finished style; _A Windmill_, _Moonlight_,
his last work, _ib._
Matthew, characteristics of his work, 178, 189
paintings by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _The Butterflies_, 189
_L’Enfant Couchée_, _ib._
_Lady and Goats_, _ib._
_Montmartre_, _ib._
_Outskirts of a Town_, 178
_A Study_, 189
Willem, characteristics of his work, 178
painting by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Springtime_, 178
‘Marks and Monograms,’ by W. Chaffers, erroneous theories in, as to
Lowestoft China, 271, 277, 278
Marlborough, George, third Duke of, _Portrait of_, by Sir J. Reynolds,
(Normanton), 218
and replica, (Pembroke), 223
Marmion, Simon, miniaturist of Valenciennes, 332
Marquet de Vasselot, J. J., _see_ de Vasselot
Marshall, John, State of a Sculptured Head of a Girl, from Chios,
shown at Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition, Smith’s views traversed by
those of Rodin, _letter_, 376
Martin Folkes copy, first folio Shakespeare, price paid for, by
Steevens, 1756., (Rylands Library), 336
Martini, Simone, influence of, shown in paintings by Fredi and Vanni,
309, 310
paintings by, _Annunciation_, (Uffizi), free copy by Vanni, (S.
Pietro Ovile), 321
fresco of the _Majestas_ (Palazzo della Signoria), 310
_St. John Baptist_, (2), (Pisa and Altenburg), 310
type of Madonna painted by, 89
Mary I., Queen of England, visit and gifts of, to Winchester College,
on her marriage, 150
Masaccio, influence of Donatello on, 131
the young, type of head painted by, 131
Masolino, type of head painted by, 131
‘Master of Game, The,’ by Edward, Duke of York, oldest English
hunting-book, its indebtedness to _Gaston Phoebus_, 21
Mas’ūdī, _cited_ on ‘The Sum of Histories,’ Persian MS., 140
Matteo di Giovanni, see Giovanni, Matteo di
Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, works executed for, by Verrochio,
84
Mauritshuis, Hague, painting by J. Ruysdael in, _View of Haarlem_,
its excellence, 59
Mauve, Anton, characteristics and inequality of his work, 177, 189
paintings by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Driving in the Dunes_, 189
_The Hay Cart_, _ib._
_Watering Horses_, _ib._
Maximilian I., Emperor of Austria, 36
his sister and niece and patronage of Dürer, 290
and the trades of Brussels, 192
Mazarin, Cardinal, patron of Le Brun, 230
Mazdean Persians, art of, 132
Mea, servant of Baldovinetti, his provision for, 22, 23
Medals by Flötner and Daucher, with portraits of Susanna of Bavaria,
290
Medici, Lorenzo de’ (vecchio), works of Verrochio executed for, 84
Medicean cameos, in painting by G. David, deductions from, 36
Meissonier, J. L. E., as an illustrator, 294, 299
illustrations by, to the ‘Contes Rémois,’ 299, 306
Melbourne Museum, drawings on wood for illustrations to Dalziel’s
Arabian Nights, etc., owned by, 305
Melik Adel, brother of Saladin, marriage projected between him and
Cœur de Lion’s sister, 135
Memlinc, Hans, paintings attributed to, shown at Bruges, 1903.,
various owners, 35
paintings by, Diptych (Louvre), prototype of one by Isenbrant, 326
_Sacra Conversazione_, done for John Du Celier, now in the Louvre,
39
Memmi, Lippo, a follower of Simone Martini, 310
painting attributed to, copy of Simone Martini’s _Annunciation_, (S.
Pietro Ovile, Siena), ascribed by Perkins and Berenson to Vanni,
321
Triptych, _St. Michael between St. Anthony the abbot and the
Baptist_, (Siena Gallery), ascribed by Perkins to Vanni, 325
Vanni a pupil of the school of, 325
‘Memoirs’ of Timur Bey, his undisputed authorship of, 143
Menander, busts of, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, 250
Mendoza, Don Diego, and Titian’s _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_,
281
Menzel, A., as an illustrator, 294
his work the source of modern illustration in England, 306
illustrations by, to ‘Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen,’ 294
excellence of, 299, 306
Mesdag, characteristics of his work, its defects, 189
paintings by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _A Stormy Sunset_, 189
_A Threatening Sky_, _ib._
Mesopotamia and the Tree of Life, 353
Metals and Metal Work, _see_ Copper _and_ Silver
Metsys, Quentin, influence of, on paintings attributed to G. David,
39, 40
Metzu, Gabriel, painting by, or attributed to, Guildhall, 1903.,
_Woman Dressing Fish_, 56
Meux, Miss, _Portrait of_, by Sir J. Reynolds, 223
earlier erroneous identification of, (Normanton) 224
Mexican and Maga codices, the Tree of Life in, 353
Meyer, Dr. Julius, cited on a lost votive picture by Dürer, with
portraits of the Margrave of Culmbach and his wife, 290
=Mezzotint(s):=--A New, _Portrait of Mrs. Home Drummond_, after
Raeburn, executed by H. Scott Bridgwater for P. and D. Colnaghi, 267
shown at V. and A. Museum Exhibition, Prince Rupert’s _Great
Executioner_, after Spagnoletto, (H.M. the King), and others, 199
C. Turner’s _Watermill_, after Callcott, fine qualities of, 199
Michael Angelo (di Buonarroti), the ‘bar’ of, 249
his intellectual rendering of constructed form, as in _The Last
Judgement_, foreshadowed by Baldovinetti’s Altarpiece, 32
position of, in Italian sculpture, 243
Michaelis, _cited_ on the _Head of a Mourning Woman_, (Ponsonby),
shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 250
Michel, A., Two Italian Bas-reliefs in the Louvre, 84
Migeon, Gaston, Koursi Cover, Arabic, copper, encrusted with gold and
silver, recently acquired by the Louvre, 344
Milan, arms of, with others, on the Italian Albarelli now in the
Louvre, 338
Duke of, _see_ Sforza, Francesco I.
Milanesi, commentator of Vasari, his bequest to the Communal Library,
Siena, and extracts from the ‘Ricordi’ of Baldovinetti amongst, 24,
27
error of, as to locale of the Baldovinetti ‘ricordo,’ 22
and as to name of Baldovinetti’s wife, 23
source of all information on Bernardo Daddi, 125-6
_cited_ on Vanni as diplomat, and on his death, 309, 325
Millais, Sir J. E., illustrations by, to Moxon’s edition of Tennyson,
299
study by, for illustrations to ‘The Parables,’ (B.M.), 300
Miniatures, _see_ Mussulman Miniatures
Miniaturists, _see_ Gerard David, _and_ Marmion
Mir Alī Shir Navā’ī, Vizir of the Timurid Sultan Husain ibn Bäikara, a
famous writer, 143
splendid MS. dated 1527. from divān of, 144
Mr Julius Wernher’s Titian, (letter), G. de Pellegrini, 267
Mitchell, H. P., The Sorö Chalice, (from Bishop Absalon’s grave,
Denmark), 357
Modern Dutch Painters, The; works of, Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, 177
Mohammed, effect on art of his prohibition of the art of painting, 132
Persian tradition connected with his birth, 139
Mohammed el Nasser, Koursi inscribed with his name, (Cairo Museum),
344
Mohammed Shah, books owned by, 143
Mohammedan Art, distribution of and commonplace character of, 132
various schools of, 135
foreign influences on, 139 _et seq._
Molenaer, Jan Miense, painting probably by, attributed to Frans Hals,
Guildhall, 1903., _Group of Three_, 52
painting by, The _Spinet-players_, (Rycks Museum, Amsterdam),
compared with above, _ib._
Molina, Argote de, his ‘Libro de la Monteria’ containing description
of lost original of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8
Molinier, E., French Furniture of the ~XVII.~ and ~XVIII.~ Centuries;
II. The Louis XIV. Style: The Gobelins, 229
Monaco, Lorenzo, features of his work and influence traceable in, 126,
131
paintings by, Predella pieces, _Adoration of the Magi_ and
_Visitation_, (Parry), 126
_Adoration_, (Raczynski Gallery, Berlin) compared with the
foregoing, 131
Monaldi, Piero, _cited_ on the Gianfigliazzi family of Florence, 28
Mongolian dynasty in Persia, 139
attitude of, towards Christianity, 140
Persian Art during this period, _ib._
Mons, Hainault, birthplace of John Prevost, painter, 331, 332 _note_
Moon, the connexion of, with Soma, 354
Moor, Major, cited on the Lotus, 350
More, Warden, ‘Election Cup’ presented by, to Winchester College, 155
Morelli, painting bequeathed by, to the Accademia Carrara, Bergamo,
part of a fresco said to be the portrait of A. Baldovinetti, 174
Morley, Lord, (Henry Parker), _Portrait drawing of_, by Dürer,
(B.M.), 289, 290
Morrison, Mrs. Alfred, Lace in her Collection at Fonthill, M.
Jourdain, 95
=Mosaic(s)= on the mosques of the Sefevæan kings of Persia, 139
Treatise on, by A. Baldovinetti, lost, 22, 24
his work in, 169-70
Moses of Chorene _cited_ on the Arsacidean Kings of Armenia, 47
Mostaert, painting attributed to, _B. V. M. and Child_, ascribed by
Hulin to Prevost (N.G.), 332
Moxon’s edition of Tennyson, and its illustrators, 299
Müller, Ludwig, his discovery of Svastikas on Persian coins of the
Arsacide and Sassanide dynasties, 44
Müller, Professor Max, _cited_ on alleged absence of Svastika in
Babylonia and Assyria, 44
on the Suavastika, 44
Muller-Walde, and others, views of, on the artist of the _P.
Scipioni_ bas-relief, 84
Munich Gallery, _Portrait of Charles V._ by Titian in, 285
Royal Library ‘Boccaccio’ illuminated by J. Fouquet for Chevalier,
now in, 11
Munro, H. A. J., of Novar, first owner of the _Portrait of Miss Anne
Liddell_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), 223
and of the _Portrait of Miss Meux_, wrongly called _Portrait of
Fanny Reynolds_, (Normanton), 224
Murghab, monuments of, influence shown by, 136
Murray, Fairfax, drawings on wood owned by, 305
Miss, of Kirkcudbright, _Portrait of, when a child_, by Sir J.
Reynolds, (Normanton), 218
Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire. Brussels, Matrix of seal of Gild of
Barbers, Brussels, in, 190, 191
Museums, _see_ British Museum, Louvre, V. and A., _and others_,
_under their names_
Mussulman Art, Exhibition of, in Paris, May to June, 1903., 132
Manuscripts and Miniatures as illustrated in the recent Exhibition
at Paris, E. Blochet, I., 132
painting, ~XV.~ cent., locale of its masterpieces, 143
Mytens, painting by H. Pot, at Hampton Court, _Souldier making a
Strange Posture to a Dutch Lady_, formerly attributed to, 56
~Nana~ of Chaldea, meaning of Svastika sign on, 43
Naples and Sicily. Alfonzo II. of Aragon, King of, 338
Nardo, elder brother of Orcagna, not identical with Bernardo Daddi,
125
=National Gallery=, attitude of, towards picture-buying, 7
paintings in, by Cariani, _Madonna and Child_, _ex_ Leuchtenberg
collection, lent to, by G. Salting, 78
by G. David, from the Cathedral at Bruges, _Altarpiece_, and (part
of) a _Triptych_, 36
by P. de Koninck, compared with Commencement d’Orage, 60
by J. Ruysdael, _View over an extensive flat wooded Country_, an
excellent example, 59
National Museums, _see_ New Acquisitions at, _and under names of
museums_
Nature gods, Svastika supposed to be the emblem of, 43
Navarre, Philip III. of, father of Agnes, wife of Gaston Phoebus de
Foix, 11
Nelthorpe, Sutton, painting attributed to J. Prevost, owned by, _S.
Francis renouncing the world_, 332
Neroni, Diotisalvi, portrait of, in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
Netherlands, the, The Early Painters of, as illustrated by the Bruges
Exhibition of 1902., W. H. J. Weale, 35, 326
Netherlands, Turenne’s Campaign in, 12
Neuburg, Otto Heinrich Count Palatine of, second husband of Susanna
of Bavaria, Margravine of Culmbach, medal portraits of, 290
Neuhuys, Albert, painting by, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Near the
Cradle_, 189
New Acquisitions at the National Museums:--
British Museum, Department of Mediaeval Antiquities, 199
Print Room, 75
rare Chinese roll, 199
Victoria and Albert Museum, Mediaeval Silver Chalice from Iceland,
H. P. Mitchell, 70
The Reid Gift, (MSS.), 74
New College, Oxford, window at, original designs for, by Sir J.
Reynolds, subjects of, and models for, 211 _et seq._
his intentions stated by himself, 212
English character of painting, _ib._
Newton, Lord, of Lyme, Rose-water dish and ewer owned by, compared
with those of Winchester College, 136
Niccolini, Don Averardo, collector of notices of S. Trinità,
Florence, ~XVII.~ cent., 32
Nicolas, Dr., Warden, gift of plate by, to Winchester College, 155
Nieuport, Belgium, restoration of the church of, 375
Nineteenth-Century Book Illustrations, Later, J. Pennell, I., 293
Nizāmī, delight of Timur Beg in his writings, 143
Normanton, Diana, second Countess of, 206
_Portrait of Her Mother_, by Sir J. Reynolds, 217
the present Earl of, The Collection of Pictures of, at Somerley,
Hampshire, M. Roldit I. Pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 206
Welbore Ellis, second Earl of, Normanton picture gallery formed by,
chief works in, 206
predominance of Sir J. Reynolds’ paintings in, 206, 211, 224
prices paid by this Earl, _passim_, the pictures described, 212_
et seq._
North Africa, Svastika introduced into, by travellers to Phoenicia, 47
North American Indians, use of and name for the Svastika, 43-4
Northbrook, Earl of, paintings by A. Isenbrant owned by, shown at
Bruges, 1902., panel, _B. V. M. and Child, enthroned in garden,
donor, peacocks, etc._, 335
_B. V. M. and Child, on stone throne with rams’ heads_, _ib._
_Vision of S. Ildephonsus_, _ib._
Northern Europe, plain plate with granulated or matted surface made
in, 161
Nuremberg, visit of Lord Morley to, 1523., its object, and the
portrait made by Dürer, 289
~Oaken~ Chest, The, of Ypres, 357
Old Dutch Masters, at the Guildhall Exhibition, 1903., 51
Onatas, statue of Apollo by, and epigram on, 244
‘Once a Week,’ and its illustrators, 299
On Oriental Carpets:--
III. The Svastika, 43
IV. The Lotus and the Tree of Life in, 349
Opera di Duomo, Florence, _Madonna_ of, by A. di Duccio, 89
Orcagna, (Italian painter), 125, 126
‘Oresteia’ of Aeschylus, the first book to be printed from ‘Otter
type,’ 360
Oriental Carpets:--
III. The Svastika, 43
IV. The Lotus and the Tree of Life, 349
Oriental China in Europe and America, ~XVIII.~ cent., Chaffers’
erroneous theory regarding, 271, 277, 278
Orthéz, splendour of Gaston de Foix’s court at, 8
Osiris, the Lotus as an attribute of, 350
‘Otter’ Type, Proctor’s, 358
Oudenarde, birthplace of Gerard David, painter, of Bruges, 36
~Painted~ glass windows, designed by A. Baldovinetti, 31
methods of executing, Florence, ~XV.~ cent., 31
Painters, Dutch, Exhibition of the works of, Guildhall, 1903., 51, 177
Early, of the Netherlands, as illustrated by the Bruges Exhibition
of 1902., W. H. J. Weale, 35, 326
having marked similarity in style and subject to Palamedes, 56
=Painting(s) in Oils, Frescoes=,_ etc._, _see also_ Pictures:--
by Baldovinetti, A., Altarpiece for S. Trinità, Florence, _Trinity
with two Saints_, now in the Florentine Academy, 32
Frescoes, in the Cappella Maggiore, S. Trinità, Florence, the only
ones preserved, 167
found in 1890-7., and described, 173-4
attributed to Barna, panel, _Virgin and Child_, half-length, (Chapel
of SS. Chiodi, Siena), ascribed by Perkins to Vanni, 315-6
attributed to Berkheyde, Gerrit, Guildhall, 1903., _Rising in a
Dutch Town_, 60
by Bisschop, Christopher, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Prayer
Disturbed_, 189
by Bosboom, Jan, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Archives at Veere_,
189
by Botticelli, S. _Portrait of Lucretia Tornabuoni_, (Städel
Institute, Frankfort), Medicean medallion in, also painted by G.
David, 36
attributed to Brouwer, Adriaen, Guildhall, 1903., _Interior with
Figures_, possible painters of, 56
by Cariani, ascribed to Giorgione, _ex_ Leuchtenberg collection,
_Adoration of the Shepherds_, (Wertheimer), and _Madonna and
Child_, (Salting), 78
_La Vergine Cucitrice_, (Corsini Gallery, Rome), 78
by Cornelis, Albert, the only known work of, _Coronation of the B.
Virgin_, (Bruges, 1902.), 332
attributed to Cüyp, Adrian, Guildhall, 1903., signed Berchem, _Head
of a Cow_, 59
by Daddi, Bernardo, _Altarpiece_ in five parts, (Parry), 125
attributed to David, G., Triptych, _Deposition of Christ_, views of
Mr. Weale on its authenticity, 39, 40
_Holy Family_, (M. Le Roi), shown at Bruges, 1902., 40
_Annunciation_, shown at Bruges, 1902., 39, 40
paintings by him: dates limiting period of production of, 39
_Adoration of the Magi_, formerly attributed to J. van Eyck,
(Brussels Museum), shown at Bruges, 1902., 39
_Altarpiece_, and (part of a) _Triptych_, (N. G.), 36
Triptych, _Baptism of Christ_, shown at Bruges, 1902., 36
_B. V. M. with Child, Virgin Saints, and Angels_, (Rouen
Museum), 36, 39
_Judgement of Cambyses_, two pictures in Bruges Museum, (one
illustrated), 36;
panels, part of an Altarpiece, (Lady Wantage), 39
parts of a Triptych, (J. Simon, of Berlin), shown at Bruges,
1902., 39
Triptych, _St. Anne and the B. V. M. and Child, SS Nicholas and
Anthony of Padua_, (de Somzee), shown at Bruges, 1902., 39
_Transfiguration_, (Church of Our Lady, Bruges), shown at
Bruges, 1902., 40
by de Bock, Théophile, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _An Avenue in
Holland_, 189
by de Keyser, T., Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of a Gentleman_, 55
by or ascribed to de Koninck, P., (his masterpiece), attributed to
Rembrandt, _Commencement d’Orage_, (Wantage), Guildhall, 1903., 60
_et seq._
probably by de Koninck, S., _Head of a Man_, usually ascribed to
Rembrandt, Guildhall, 1903., 52
by de Limbourg, P.. a (miniature) copy of a Florentine fresco by T.
Gaddi, 90
by de Vos, Cornelis, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of Ambrogio,
Marchese di Spinola_, 55
Flemish School, artist unknown, _Altarpiece_ by, for the Gild of SS.
Mary Magdalene, Katherine, and Barbara, compared with one by
Gerard David, 39
by unknown artist, shown at Bruges, 1902., panel, _S. Nicolas of
Tolentino_, and _Roger de Jonghe, Austin friar_, (Black Sisters,
Bruges), 332
by unknown artist, _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_ from which
Titian painted his Portrait, 281, 282, 285
Florentine School, early ~XV.~ cent., artist unknown, _Madonna and
Child with Angels_, (Parry), and Triptych, _Madonna and Child with
Angels and Saints_, (Uffizi), 131
Francesco, Piero dei, central panel, Altarpiece, Borgo S. Sepolcro,
_Baptism of Christ_, (in London), 321
probably French, ~XIV.~ cent., artists unknown, _Adoration of the
Magi_, and _Dormition of the B. V. M._, (Dowdeswell), 89
by Gaddi, Agnolo, _Coronation of the Virgin_, (Parry), 126
by Gaddi, Taddeo, _Coronation of the Virgin_, (S. Croce), 126
Fresco copied as a miniature by Pol de Limbourg, 90
probably by Giovanni di Paola, panel, _Crucifixion_, (S. Pietro
Ovile, Siena), 321
probably by Giovanni, Matteo di, panels, _SS. Peter and Paul_, (S.
Pietro Ovile, Siena), 321
attributed to Gossart, Jean, ascribed by Hulin to Prevost, _Virgin
and Child_, (Carlsruhe), 332
by Hals, Frans, Guildhall, 1903., so-called _Admiral de Ruyter_,
excellence of, 52
paintings attributed to, probably by Jan Miense Molenaer, _Group
of Three_, 52
part probably by Van Goyen, _Van Goyen and his Wife_, 52
conjointly with Judith Lyster, _see_ Lyster
by Hobbema, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape_, and _Woody Landscape_, 59
by Isenbrant, Adrian, shown at Bruges, 1902., Diptych, _Our Lady of
the Seven Dolours_, (part in church of Our Lady at Bruges, part in
Brussels Museum), 326
_B. V. M. and Child, in landscape with female Saints_, (Count
Arco-Valley), 326
its prototype, replica, and variants, _ib._
_B. V. M. and Child on throne with rams’ heads_, (Northbrook), 331
panel, _B. V. M. and Child enthroned in a garden, donor, peacocks,
etc._, (Northbrook), _ib._
_S. Luke with portrait of B. V. 111 and Child_, (Colnaghi), _ib._
_SS. Andrew, Michael, and Francis_, with _Crucifixion_ in upper
part, (Sedelmeyer), 331
_St. Mary Magdalene in the desert_, (De Somzée), 331
Triptych, _B. V. M., Child, and angels with harp and mandoline_,
(Lotman), 326
_Presentation in the Temple_, with portraits, probable source of,
(Bruges Cathedral), 331
Triptych, part of, _Donor and family protected by St. John and a
female Saint_, (von Kaufmann), 331
Vision of S. Ildephonsus, (Northbrook), 330
attributed to, ascribed by Hulin to Prevost, _B. V. M. and Child
with a Carthusian,_ 332
by Israels, Josef, Guildhall, 1903., _The Cottage Madonna_, 177
_A Jewish Wedding_, _ib._
_ The New Flower_, _ib._
_A Ray of Sunshine_, _ib._
_The Shipwrecked Fisherman_, _ib._
by Le Brun, C., _Alexandre pénétrant dans le tente de Darius_,
ordered by Louis XIV., 230
paintings or designs by, at Vaux, _L’Apothéose d’Hercule_,
_L’Aurore_, _Le Palais du Soleil_, _Le Sommeil_, _Le Triomphe de
la Fidélité_, 230
attributed to Lorenzotto, Ambrogio, fresco, _Seated Virgin and
Child_, (S. Francesco, Siena), ascribed by Perkins to Vanni, 315
attributed to Lorenzotto, Pietro, _Madonna degli Infermi_, (S.
Francesco, Siena), ascribed by Perkins to Vanni, 310-15
by Lyster, Judith, wife of J. M. Molenaer, (attributed to her and
Hals), Guildhall, 1903., _The Jovial Companions_, and _The Health
of the Troop_, 55
by Maris, Jacob, Guildhall, 1903., _The Bridge_, 178
_A Dutch Town_, _ib._
The Ferry Boat, _ib._
Gathering Seaweed, _ib._
River and Windmill, _ib._
The Storm Cloud _ib._
The Weary Watchers, _ib._
A Windmill, Moonlight, (his last work), _ib._
Matthew, Guildhall, 1903., The Butterflies, 189
_L’Enfant Couchée_, ib; Lady and Goats, _ib._
_Montmartre_, _ib._
_Outskirts of a Town_, 178
_A Study_, 189
Willem, Guildhall, 1903., Springtime, 178
by Martini, Simone, _Annunciation_, (Uffizi), 321
copy of the same, variously attributed, _ib._
fresco of the _Majestas_, (Signoria), 310
_St. John Baptist_, (2), (Pisa and Altenburg), 310
by Mauve, Anton, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Driving in the Dunes_,
189
The Hay Cart, _ib._
Watering Horses, _ib._
by Memlinc, Hans, _Sacra Conversazione_, done for John Du Celier,
now in the Louvre, 39
attributed to him, Bruges, 1903., (various owners), amongst
others, _Passion of St. Sebastian_, (Brussels Museum),
_Triptych, Deposition of Christ. SS. James and Christopher_,
(von Kaufmann), _Blessed Virgin and Child, donor, and St.
Anthony_, (Thiem), _Annunciation_ (Prince Radziwill); views of
Waagen, Huten, and Friedländer controverted, 35
attributed to Memmi, Lippo, copy of Simone Martini’s _Annunciation_,
(S. Pietro Ovile, Siena), ascribed by Perkins and Berenson to
Vanni, 321
Triptych, _St. Michael between St. Anthony the abbot and the
Baptist_, (Siena Gallery), ascribed by Perkins to Vanni, 325
by Mesdag, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _A Stormy Sunset_, 189
_A Threatening Sky_, _ib._
attributed to Metzu, G., Guildhall, 1903., Woman Dressing Fish, 56
by Molenaer, Jan Miense, _The Spinet-players_, (Rycks Museum,
Amsterdam), compared with the _Group of Three_, attributed to
Hals, Guildhall, 1903., 52
by Monaco, Lorenzo, Predella pieces, _Adoration of the Magi_, and
_Visitation_, (Parry), 126
_Adoration_, (Raczynski Gallery, Berlin), compared with the
foregoing, 131
attributed to Mostaert, _B. V. M. and Child_, ascribed by Hulin to
Prevost, (N. G.), 332
by Neuhuys, Albert, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Near the Cradle_,
189
attributed to Palamedes, Guildhall, 1903., _Lady at Harpsichord_,
probably by Pot, 56
by Pourbus, P., shutters of _Altarpiece_ by Gerard David, 40
by Prevost, J., shown at Bruges, 1902., _Last Judgement_, only
authentic work of, (Bruges Museum), earlier version, (Viscount de
Ruffo Bonneval), and another, (Weber), 332
paintings attributed to, by Hulin, and their locations, 332 _and
note_
by Rembrandt, _Portrait of a Lady_, (Hage), 359
paintings by or attributed to, Guildhall, 1903., _Commencement
d’Orage_, (Lady Wantage), 51
now ascribed to P. de Koninck (pros and cons), 60 _et seq._
_Portrait of the Artist_, previous owners of, unauthentic, 52
_Portrait of the Painter’s Son Titus_, compared with a similar
picture in the Wallace collection, 51
_Ruth and Naomi_, possibly by K. Fabritius, 52
by Reynolds, Sir J., _Nativity_, original design for centre of New
College window, Oxford, and its fate, 212
in the Normanton collection, _Boy Reading_, (said to be his own
portrait), 223
_Faith, Hope, Charity, Temperance, Prudence, Justice, and
Fortitude_, original designs for New College window, 211
_Felina_, 217
_The Little Gardener_, a child’s portrait, 218
Portraits: _Elizabeth Beauclerk_, (afterwards Countess of
Pembroke), as Una and the Lion, 257
_George, third Duke of Marlborough_, 218, 223
_Himself as President of the Royal Academy_, 217
_Lady Betty Hamilton_, 218
_Lady Charlotte Johnstone_, 223
_Study of a Little Girl_, octagonal in shape, 224
of _Miss Anne Liddell_, 223
(on panel),_ Miss Falconer as Contemplation_, 217
_Miss Meux_, 224
_Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright_, as a child, 218
_The two Misses Horneck_, 223
_Mrs. Quarrington_, (actress), as _St. Agnes_, 224
_Mrs. Russell_, 223
in the same collection, _The Little Archer_, 224
paintings ascribed to, in the same collection: Portraits; _Admiral
Barrington_, 224
_Lady Hamilton as a Bacchante_, _ib._
_Mrs. Inchbald_, _ib._
copies of, in the same collection, Portraits, _Mrs. Gwyn in
Persian dress_, 224
_Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse_, painted by the Duchess of
Buckingham, 224
by Ruysdael, Jacob, Guildhall, 1903.,_ Forest Scene_, _Sea-piece_,
and _View on the Brill_, 59
_ View of Haarlem_, (Mauritshuis, Hague), 59
_View over an extensive flat wooded country_, (N. G.), 59
by Solario, _Madonna_, 114
by Steen, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of Himself_,
(Northbrook), 56
by Terborch, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of a Lady_, and _Portrait
of a Young Woman_, 56
by Titian, Portraits: _Empress Isabella_, 281
_Giacomo Doria_, 267
by Tocqué, J. L., at the Louvre, chiefly official portraits, 344
_Portrait of Dame Danger_, recently acquired, 343-4
by Unknown Artists, _Richard II._, Diptych, (Wilton), perfection of,
89
School of Cimabue: _Nativity and Adoration_, (Parry), 117-8
Altarpiece of St. Cecilia, (Uffizi), other Altarpieces by,
recently found near Florence by Horne, 118
frescoes by same hand, (Upper Church, Assisi), 118
by van Aelst, Willem, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life Subject_, 56
by van de Capelle, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., both masterpieces, _Off
Scheveningen_, and _Sea-piece_, 60
River Scene, (N. G.), 60
by van de Velde, Adriaen, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape with Cattle_,
small and excellent, 59
by van der Heyden, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape_, small, very
highly finished, 59
attributed to van der Neer, Aart, _Moonlight River Scene_, 59
by van Eecke or van Eeckele, John, shown at Bruges, 1902., _Mater
Dolorosa_, (Bruges Cathedral), formerly ascribed to John van Eyck,
locale of copies of the same, 332
_Vision of S. Bernard_, (Tournay Museum), 332
by van Huysum, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life Subjects_, 56
by Vanni, Andrea; _Annunciation_, (Count Fabio Chigi, Siena), 316
_Annunciation_ after Simone Martini, (S. Pietro Ovile, Siena),
various attributions of, 321
_Crucifixion_, (fragmentary), formerly in the church of the
Alborino, (Istituto delle Belle Arte, Siena), 309, 321
_Deposition from the Cross_, (Berenson), 321
Frescoes, one in bad condition, (S. Giovenale, Orvieto), 321
_note_
_Seated Virgin and Child_ (S. Francesco, Siena), usually
attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzotti, 315
_Madonna_ (church on Monte Nero, near Leghorn), 321 note
_Madonna degli Infermi_, (S. Francesco, Siena), attributed to
Pietro Lorenzotti, 310-15
panels, _Madonna and Child_, (S. Giovannino della Staffa, Siena),
316
_Virgin and Child_, full length, (S. Spirito, Siena), 316
_Virgin and Child_, half-length, (Chapel of SS. Chiodi, Siena),
usually attributed to Barna, 315-6
_Virgin and Child_, (priest’s house next S. Pietro Ovile, Siena),
325
Polyptych, _Altarpiece_, (S. Stefano, Siena), 309
_Portrait of St. Catherine of Siena_, (S. Domenico, Siena), 309,
321
Triptych, _St. Michael between St. Anthony the Abbot and the
Baptist_, (Siena Gallery), attributed to Memmi, 325
_Virgin and Child_, (Berenson), 316
by van Os, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life Subjects_, 56
by van Ruysdael, Saloman, recently acquired by the Louvre,
Landscapes, (2), 343
by Veneziano, Domenico, frescoes, now lost, once in Cappella
Maggiore of S. Egidio, 168
by Vermeer, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., _The Cook Asleep_, 55
by and probably by Verspronck, Jan, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of
a Dutch Lady_, (Mrs. Stephenson Clarke), 55
_Portrait of a Lady_, (at Antwerp), 55
Paintings in Water-colour, _see_ Drawings
Palamedes, painting ascribed to, Guildhall, 1903., _Lady at a
Harpsichord_, probably by Pot, 56
painting formerly ascribed to, at Hampton Court, _Souldier making a
Strange Posture to a Dutch Lady_, now attributed to H. Pot, 56
Palma Vecchio, influence of, on Cariani, 78
Palmer, Mary, _see_ Thomond, Marchioness of
Mrs. Elizabeth, model of Sir J. Reynolds for painting of _Prudence_,
(Normanton), 217
‘Offy,’ (Mrs. Gwatkin), niece and frequent model of Sir J. Reynolds,
211
as _Felina_, 217
Samuel, illustration by, to Adams’s ‘Distant Hills,’ perfection of,
306
Palmetta, the, as the Tree of Life, 350, 353
Paolo, Giovanni di, painting probably by; panel, _Crucifixion_, (S.
Pietro Ovile, Siena), 321
Papillon, Bewick’s possible indebtedness to, 294
Papyrus, the, as the Tree of Life, 350
Parfilage, fashionable work in the ~XVIII.~ cent., 344
=Paris=, see Bibliothèque Nationale, Louvre, _and_ Cluny
decorative paintings by Le Brun in mansions of, 230, 235
recent Exhibition (of Mussulman Art) at, Mussulman Manuscripts and
Miniatures, E. Blochet, I., 132
Parker, Henry, _see_ Morley, Lord
Parry, Sir Hubert, Pictures in the collection of, at Highnam Court,
near Gloucester, R. Fry; I. Italian Pictures of the Fourteenth
Century, 117
_Altarpiece_, in five parts, by Bernardo Daddi, 125
_ Madonna and Child with Angels_, Florentine School of the early
~XV.~ cent., 129
_Coronation of the Virgin_, by Agnolo Gaddi, 126
Predella pieces, _Adoration of the Magi and Visitation_, by
Lorenzo Monaco, 126
_Nativity and Adoration_, by unknown artist, School of Cimabue,
117-8
Thomas Gambier, of Highnam, father of Sir Hubert Parry, his
researches into fresco-painting and paintings in fresco by, his
collection of pictures at Highnam, 117 _et seq._
Parthenon, the, Persepolitan building recalling, 139
slab from north frieze of, bas-relief, _Head of a Knight and of a
horse_, various owners and homes of, shown at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club Exhibition, 244
Passavant, his use of ‘Barbarelli’ as cognomen of Giorgione, 78
Pau, castle of, a stronghold of Gaston de Foix, 8
Paul III., Pope, patron of Titian, meeting of, with Charles V. at
Busseto, 1543., 281
Pavia, battle of, ‘Gaston Phoebus’ MS. 616 part of the loot after, 8,
11, 12
Pavillon de Marsan, Paris, Exhibition of Mussulman Art at, 1903., 132
Pazzi Chapel, S. Croce, Florence, painted window in, designed by A.
Baldovinetti, 31
Pella, birthplace of Alexander the Great, bronze statuette of
emaciated man, possibly a Yogi, found at, 255
Pembroke, Countess of, _see_ Beauclerk, Elizabeth
Earl of, _Portrait of George, third Duke of Marlborough_, owned by,
replica of that by Sir J. Reynolds in the Normanton collection,
222
Earl and Countess of, _Heads of_, by Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton),
223
earlier portrait of the Countess by him as Una, 217
Pennell, Joseph, Later Nineteenth-Century Book Illustrations, I., 293
Pepoli family of Bologna, original owners of the painting from which
Titian painted his _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_, 282
Pergamene stage, the, of Greek art, 243
Perkins, F. Mason, Andrea Vanni, 309
Persepolis, illustrated book seen at, by Mas’ūdī, ‘Sum of Histories,’
140
monuments of, influences shown by, 136
=Persia=, beginning of the art-history of, early and continuous Greek
influence in, 136-7
Sassanian kings of, 47
Sassanid art in, 140
the three great schools of painting in, 139
the Mongolian, 140
the Timurid, 143
the Sefevæan, 140, 144
Persian coins of the Arsacide and Sassanide dynasties, the Svastika
on, 44
Persian skill in miniature painting, 132
monotonous character of the work, 135
Greek influences on, 139
Perrett, Ambrose, French sculptor, work of, on the Tomb of François
I., 95
Perrier, first master of Charles Le Brun, 229
Perugia, front of S. Bernardino at, by A. di Duccio, 89
Peschiera, meeting of Aretino with Charles V. at, 281
Petrucci, R., Notes from Ghent and Nieuport, 375
Seals of the Brussels Gilds, 190
Phallus associated with the Svastika in Egypt, 43, 47
Pheidias, fragments of his work shown at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club Exhibition, 244
Phelippes de France, Duc de Bourgoigne, original of _Gaston Phoebus_
dedicated to, 8
Philip the Good, privilege granted by, to the butchers of Brussels,
193
Philip II. of Spain, marriage of, to Queen Mary of England, at
Winchester, 150
Philip III. of Navarre, father of Agnes wife of Gaston Phoebus de
Foix, 11
Phoebus, Gaston, or Le Roi Phoebus, sobriquet of Gaston de Foix, and
familiar title of his book, 11
Phoenicia, no trace of Svastika found in, 47
Piazza di San Giovanni, Florence, houses in, assigned to Baldovinetti
in payment for his mosaic work, 170
=Pictures=, _see_ Collection of the Earl of Normanton, Dutch, _etc._
exhibitions of, _see_ Bruges, _and_ Guildhall in the Collection of
Sir Hubert Parry, at Highnam Court, near Gloucester, R. Fry; I.
Italian Pictures of the Fourteenth Century, 117
recently acquired by the Louvre, _Landscapes_, (2.), by S. Ruysdael,
_Portrait of Dame Danger_, by L. Tocqué, P. Vitry, 343
Piero, Lorenzo di, painter and colour seller, 167, _and note_
Pierrotti, Dr., preface of, and notes by, to the ‘Ricordi di Alesso
Baldovinetti,’ 24
sources of his information, 27
Pilon, Germain, French Sculptor ~XVI.~ cent., marble statue by, _La
Charité_, (Lowengard), 90
other works by, groups, _Les Trois Grâces_, (Louvre), _Les Trois
Parques_, (Hôtel de Cluny), 95
_Tomb of François I._, (with other sculptors), _Tomb of Henri II.
and Catherine de Médicis_, 95
Pinwell, G., forgeries of his own drawings by, 305
Pinzocheri, the Frati, of the Spedale di S. Pedro, Florence, 22, 24
records of, 27
women attached to the Hospital, 24
Piot, M., his use of Greek coins ‘to correct the eye,’ 236
Pisa, frescoes, the, in campo-santo at, attributed by Milanesi to
Daddi, _Triumph of Death_, 126
Pisano, Giovanni, influence of, on the painter of the _Nativity_ and
_Adoration_, (Parry), 118
leading features of his work, 125
Pitti, Lucca, portrait of, in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
Place Dauphine, Paris, triumphal arch to welcome Louis XIV. and his
queen, erected on, by Le Brun, 230
Plassenburg Castle, prison of Frederick Margrave of
Brandenburg-Anspach, 289
Plate, (_see_ Silver Plate) The, of Winchester College; P. Macquoid,
149
Plot’s ‘Natural History of Staffordshire’ _cited_ on Burslem pottery
and processes, ~XVII.~ cent., 66
Poelenburg, painting by H. Pot at Hampton Court, _Souldier making a
Strange Posture to a Dutch Lady_, formerly ascribed to, 50
Poitiers, Diane de, daughter of the Sieur de Saint-Vallier and of
Marie of France, her probable connexion with Codex MS. 616 of
_Gaston Phoebus_, 12
Jean de, Sieur de Saint-Vallier, probable owner of Codex MS. 616 of
_Gaston Phoebus_ till 1523., 12
his pardon obtained by his daughter from Francis I., 12
Poland, _see_ Casimir III., King of
Polykleitos, sculptor, leader, of Argive School, earliest recorded
work of, and variants thereof, statue; _Boy-boxer crowning himself_,
_Head_ (Vincent), shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition,
244
Pomegranate, as the Tree of Life, on Yarkand rugs, 353
Ponsonby, Claude, _Head of a Mourning Woman_, owned by, shown at the
Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 249
Porcelain, _see_ Ceramics
Porcia, Count, _Portrait of_, by Titian, with landscape background,
(Brera Gallery, Milan), 285
Portata al Catasto, Florence, 1470., details given in, as to
Baldovinetti, 23
evidence of, as to his handwriting, 27
=Portrait(s)=, (_see also_ Paintings _and_ Pictures), of the Empress
Isabella, Titian’s, G. Gronau, 281
_Portrait of a Lady,_ by Rembrandt, on view at the Hague, (Hage),
359
by Titian, of _Giacomo Doria_, (J. Wernher), letter on, from G. de
Pellegrini, 267
Portrait-Drawing, A Newly-Discovered, by Dürer, C. Dodgson, 286
Pot, Hendrik, and other painters greatly resembling Palamedes in style
and subject, 56
painting by, at Hampton Court, _Souldier making a Strange Posture to
a Dutch Lady_, various attributions of, 56
Pott, Miss C. M., joint-author, _see_ Short
Pottery Ware, Early Staffordshire, illustrated by pieces in the
British Museum, 64
Pourbus, Peter, shutters of _Altarpiece_, by G. David, painted by, 40
Poussin, Nicolas, companion of C. Le Brun in his journey to Rome, 230
Poynter, Sir E., drawings by, on wood for illustrations to Dalziel’s
‘Bible Gallery,’ V. and A. Museum, 305
Praxiteles, _Head of Aphrodite_ ascribed to, (Leconfield), shown at
the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 249
other statues by, compared with the foregoing, _ib._
Previtali, influence of, on Cariani, 78
Prevost, John, notes on his history, 331-2
paintings by and attributed to, shown at Bruges, 1902., _Last
Judgement_, the only authentic work by him, (Bruges Museum), 332
also an earlier version, (Viscount de Ruffo-Bonneval), and another,
(Weber), _ib._
paintings attributed to, by Hulin, and their location, 332 _and
note_
Print Room, British Museum, new acquisitions, 75, 200
Printers, early French, of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8
Proctor’s new fount of Greek Type, (the ‘Otter’ type), 358
Protection of Ancient Buildings, Clifford’s Inn and the, _editorial_,
3
Puzzle cups, jugs, etc , _see_ Early Staffordshire Ware
~Quaritch~, the _late_ Bernard, _cited_ on the value of early
editions of Shakespeare, 335
Quarrington, Mrs., actress, _Portrait of_, by Sir J. Reynolds,
(Normanton), 224
Queen Street, Cheapside, workhouse of the Lowestoft Porcelain Factory
in 1770., 277
~Raczynski~ Gallery, Berlin, painting by Lorenzo Monaco in,
_Adoration_, compared with that in the Parry collection, 131
Raphael, Bernard van Orley said to have been a pupil of, 205
Rattier, P., of Paris, Bas-relief bequeathed by, to the Louvre, _Bust
in Profile, wearing armour_, artist unknown, suggestive of Leonardo.
84
Ravensworth, Lord, father of Miss Anne Liddell, painted by Sir J.
Reynolds, 223
Rawlinson, Mr., British engravings and mezzotints owned by, shown at
the V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 199
Recent Acquisitions at the Louvre, Koursi cover, Arabic, G. Migeon,
344
Pictures, _Landscapes_, (2), by S. Ruysdael, _Portrait of Dame
Danger_, by L. Tocqué, Paul Vitry, 343
Three Italian Albarelli, J. J. Marquet de Vasselot, 338
Regnauldin, Thomas, employed by Le Brun, 235
Reid Gift, The, to the V. and A. Museum, II., 74
Reinach, S., _cited_ on the sculpture of the _Head of a Mourning
Woman_, (Ponsonby), 249
Rembrandt, (van Rijn), etching by, The Three Trees, compared with
_Le Commencement d’Orage_, 63
paintings by and attributed to, Guildhall, 1903., _Commencement
d’Orage_, (Lady Wantage), 51
now attributed to P. de Koninck, 60 _et seq._
_Head of a Man_, probably by Solomon de Koninck, 52
_Painter’s Son Titus_, 55
_Portrait of the Artist_, unauthentic, its previous owners, 52
_Ruth and Naomi_, possibly by K. Fabritius, 52
shown at the Hague, 1903., _Portrait of a Lady_, (Hage), 360
_Landscape with Tobias and the Angel_, (N.G.), 63
Wallace collection, _His Son Titus_, compared with similar portrait,
Guildhall, 1903., 51
Rendall, M. J., 155
‘Restoration’ too often synonymous with destruction, 3
Resurrection and creation, the Lotus as emblem of, 350
Reynolds, Fanny, sister of Sir Joshua, _Portrait of Miss Meux_ by
him, formerly supposed to represent, (Normanton), 224
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, Pictures by, in the Collection of the Earl of
Normanton, M. Roldit, 206
methods of, in portrait painting, 217
_Nativity_, original design for central space, New College window,
and its fate, 212
paintings by, in the Normanton collection, their sources, prices,
and other comments upon them, 211 _et seq._
_Boy Reading_, said to be a portrait of himself, his own
satisfaction with the picture, 223
_Faith_, _Hope_, and _Charity_, _Temperance_, _Prudence_,
_Justice_, and _Fortitude_, the original designs for New College
window, Oxford, executed on glass by Jarvis, 211
_Girl embracing Kitten_, known as _Felina_, 217
Portraits: child, _The Little Gardener_, 218
_Elizabeth Beauclerk_, afterwards Countess of Pembroke, _as Una
with the Lion_, 217
_George, third Duke of Marlborough_, 218, 223
replica of (Pembroke), _ib._
_Himself as President of the Royal Academy_, 217
_Lady Betty Hamilton_, afterwards Countess of Derby, 218
_Lady Charlotte Johnstone_, daughter of first Earl of Halifax,
223
_Study of A Little Girl_, octagonal, 224
_Miss Anne Liddell_, 223
(on panel), _Miss Falconer_, afterwards Hon. Mrs. Stanhope, as
_Contemplation_, earlier owners of, 217
_Miss Meux_, 223
earlier erroneous identification of, 224
_Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright_ as a child, 258
the _Misses Horneck_, 223
_Mrs. Quarrington_, actress, as _St. Agnes_, 224
_Mrs. Russell_, daughter of F. Vassall, 223
paintings ascribed to, same collection, _The Little Archer_, 224
Portraits: _Admiral Barrington_. 224
_Lady Hamilton as a Bacchante_, engraved by Bartolozzi, 224
(probably by his pupils) at Normanton, _Mrs. Inchbald_, 224
copies of paintings by, in Normanton collection, _Portrait of
Mrs. Gwyn in Persian dress_, original owned by W. W. Astor,
224
_Portrait of Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse_, from that at
Grosvenor House, painted by the Duchess of Buckingham, 224
Rheims, birthplace of Jean Gobelin, 235
Richa, Giuseppe, _cited_ on Baldovinetti’s portrait of himself in his
frescoes. 174
_cited_ on the condition of Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 1755., 173
_cited_ on the Gianfigliazzi family, of Florence, 28
Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), marriage projected between his sister and
Saladin’s brother, Melik Adel, 135
Richard II., licence granted by, for the founding of Winchester
College, 149
Richter on the absence of the Svastika in Phoenicia, and its westward
transmission, 47
Rimini, interior decoration of the temple of, by A. di Duccio, 89
Rinder, Frank, The Geographical Distribution of the First Folio
Shakespeare, 335
Rishi Atri and his son, Soma, 354
Rishis of Kashmir, use of Soma by, 354
Rives, Dr. George, Rose-water dish presented by, to Winchester
College, 161
Rogers’ ‘Poems,’ Turner’s illustrations to, (N. G.), 300
Rogers, William, first British engraver of importance, plates by,
shown at V. and A. Museum Exhibition; Portraits: _Alphonso, King of
Castile_, _Godfrey Adelmar_, _Queen Elizabeth_ (H.M. the King), and
_Sir T. Docwra_, 194
Roldit, M., The Collection of Pictures of the Earl of Normanton, at
Somerley, Hampshire; I. Pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 206
‘Romance of Alexander,’ by Nizāmī, 143
=Rome=, _see_ Academy of St. Luke, Corsini Gallery, _and_ Vatican
Library
alleged visit to, of Bernard van Orley, 205
chief source of Albarelli or druggists’ jars and similar wares,
338-43
visit of C. Le Brun to, 230
Rose Lotus, the, Indian origin of, Chinese use of, etc. 350
Rose-water Dishes, _see_ Silver Plate
Rosselli, Cosimo, and other painters, estimate by, of the cost
Baldovinetti’s paintings in the Cappella Maggiore of S. Trinità,
Florence, 169
Stefano, _cited_ on the Altarpiece by A. Baldovinetti, and its
inscription, 170
and Richa, _cited_ on the Pinzochere of S. Paolo, Florence, 24
Rossetti, D. G., illustration by, to Allingham’s ‘Music Master,’ _The
Maids of Elfen Mere_, 299
influence of Menzel on, 306
other illustrations by, to Moxon’s edition of Tennyson, 299
Rotterdam, centre of the trade between Holland and China, 277
Rouen Museum, painting by G. David in, _B. V. M. with Child, Virgin
Saints, and Angels_, 36, 39
Archaeological discoveries during excavations at, 374
_Roy Modus_, parts of _Gaston Phoebus_ borrowed from, 15
Rubens, Peter Paul, influence of Titian on, 285
Rupert, Prince, (of Bavaria), Mezzotint by, _The Great Executioner_,
after Spagnoletto, (H.M. the King), shown at the V. and A. Museum
Exhibition, 199
Russell, Mrs. (_née_ Vassall), Portrait of, by Sir J. Reynolds,
(Normanton), 223
Russia, lack of legislative protection for ancient buildings in, 3
Rutland, Duke of, painting by Sir J. Reynolds once owned by,
_Nativity_, original design for centre of New College window,
Oxford, burnt in 1816., 212
Ruysdael, Jacob, characteristics of his best work, 56, 59
paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Forest Scene, Sea-piece_, and _View
on the Brill_, 59
_View of Haarlem_, (Mauritshuis, Hague), 59
_View over an extensive flat wooded Country_, (N. G.), 59
Solomon, paintings by, landscapes, (2), (Louvre), 343
traces of his influence in painting by Jacob Maris, 178
Rylands Library, first folio Shakespeare in, price paid for, by
Steevens, 1756., 336
_Saccostemma viminale_, said by some to be the Soma of the Vedas,
etc., 353-4
S. Andrew’s Chapel, Gloucester Cathedral, paintings in, by T. G.
Parry, 117
S. Aubert, Bishop of Cambrai, patron of Brussels Bakers, 192
S. Catherine of Siena, a friend of Andrea Vanni, 309
her portrait by him, 309, 321
S. Cosmas and S. Damian, patrons of Barber Surgeons, 191
S. Croce, Florence, painted window in the Pazzi chapel of, designed
by A. Baldovinetti, 31
painting in, Fresco by T. Gaddi, copied as a miniature by Pol de
Limbourg, 90
S. Denis, Abbey of, Tomb of Henri II. and Catherine de’ Medici at,
executed by G. Pilon, 95
S. Francesco, church of, Siena, fire at, 1655., 315
painting by Vanni, _Madonna degli Infermi_, in, usually ascribed to
P. Lorenzotti, _ib._
other work by Vanni in, usually ascribed to other hands, _ib._
S. Francis. traditional residence of, at the Spedale di S. Paolo,
Florence, 23
S. George, church of, at Ruballa, first home of the _Altarpiece_ in
five parts by B. Daddi, (Parry), 126
S. George, the Dragon and Cleodolinde, on the Ypres chest, 357
S. Giovanni, Florence, baptistery of, Baldovinetti employed to
restore, 23
his emoluments, 170
S. Lorenzo, Florence, tomb of Baldovinetti in, 22, 24
district of, Florence, hired dwelling of Baldovinetti in, 23
S. Luke. (_see_ Academy of), Gild of, 326, 332
S. Maria a Quinto, Florence, land in, owned by Baldovinetti, 23
S. Maria Novella, marble frontal of the High Altar of S. Trinità found
in, 32
Piazza of, remains of the Spedale di S. Paolo on, 23
work of D. Ghirlandajo in, 174
S. Maria Nuova, Florence, Archivio di, ‘Ricordi’ of Baldovinetti once
in, 24
S. Martino a Sesto, Florence, land in, owned by Baldovinetti, 23
S. Michael (Archangel), patron of the Brussels gild of Butchers, 191
and of Drapers, 190
S. Miniato a Monte, Florence, mosaic façade of, restored by
Baldovinetti, 169
S. John Gualbert’s Crucfix removed from, to S. Trinità, 32
S. Trinità, Florence, Altarpiece for, painted by A. Baldovinetti,
_Trinity, with two Saints_, now in the Florentine Academy, 32
decoration of, by Baldovinetti, notes of accounts kept by him, 27
work of D. Ghirlandajo in, 174
Saint-Vallier family, arms of, as shown in MS. 616 of _Gaston
Phoebus_, 11, 12
Saladin, heterodoxy of, evidences of, 135
Salting, G., present owner of painting attributed to Giorgione now
ascribed to Cariani, _ex_ Leuchtenberg collection, _Madonna and
Child_, 78
Salviati, Bernardine, Canon of Bruges Cathedral, Triptych painted
for, by G. David, (N. G.), 36
Samarcand, edifice of Chinese porcelain set up at, by a Timurid
Sultan, 144
MS. from, containing astronomical treatise of ‘Abd ur-Rahmān el
Sufi, strong Chino-Japanese style of, _ib._
Timurid mosques of, ogival doorways of, 139, 143
Samian bowls found during excavations at Rouen, 374
Sandys, drawings by, for illustrations, never engraved, _Spirit of the
Storm_, and another, vicissitudes of, 300
his method of preparing illustrations, and large version of his
drawing, _Amor Mundi_, (Battersea), 300
Sargon, Palace of, Persepolitan building recalling, 139
Sarzana, capture of, by Florence, 28
Sassanides, Kings of Persia, history of, 44, 47
influence of, on Mussulman architects, art and methods of their
period, 139, 140
Savoy, Beatrice, Duchess of, sister of the Empress Isabella, at
Bologna, possibilities of the visit as to the portrait of the
latter, 282
Sayce, Professor A. H., _cited_ on the cedar and the palm as the Tree
of Life, 353
_cited_ on Hittite origin of the Svastika, 47
Scandinavia, Art and Artists of, (_see_ Denmark _and_ Iceland),
Svastika said to represent Thor of, 43
Schefer, C., Arab illuminated MS. owned by, the ‘Makāmāt of Harīrī,’
136
Scheibler, Dr., attribution by, to G. David of the _Adoration of the
Magi_ previously ascribed to J. van Eyck, 39
Schliemann, Dr., letter to, from Major-General Gordon on Svastika as
Chinese symbol, 47
=Sculpture=, _see_ Bas-reliefs
Bust of _St. John Baptist_ _ex_ Gigli Campana collection (S. K.), is
it the work of Leonardo da Vinci? 84
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition:--
Busts:_ Hipponax and Menander_, 250
Heads: _Aphrodite_, ascribed to Praxiteles, (Leconfield), 249
_Girl from Chios_, 249 _and note_
letter on, by J. Marshall, 376
_Mourning Woman_, (Ponsonby), ascribed to Lysippos, 249
of Statue by Polykleitos, (Vincent), 244
of a Youth, (Vincent), 241
by Pilon, G., Groups: _Les Trois Grâces_. (Louvre), 95
_Les Trois Parques_, (Hôtel de Cluny), _ib._
Statue, Marble, _La Charité_, (Lowengard), 95
_Tomb of François I._ (with other sculptors), and _Tomb of Henri
II._ and _Catherine de’ Medici_, 95
by Verrochio, _David_, Statue, resemblance of its mouth to that of
the _P. Scipioni_ Bas-relief, 84
Seals of the Brussels Gilds, R. Petrucci, 190
Sefevæan Kings of Persia, MSS. of their period, 135, 144
mosaics adorning Mosques of, 139
Segher, Hercules, etcher, influence of, on Rembrandt, 63
Séguier, Chancellor, patron of Charles Le Brun, 229, 230
Settignano, Desiderio da, carver of the Gianfigliazzi arms, on their
Florentine palace, 28
Seuter and Townley, engravers, 52
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century British Engravers, and their work,
V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 194
Sforza, Francesco, first Duke of Milan, his daughter and her husband,
338
Shah Abbas, Persian art during period of, large survival of MSS. of,
144
Shah-Alem II., and his library, 143
Shah-Jehan, Emperor of Hindustan, and his love for literature, 143
Shah-Rokh, son of Timur Bey, art in Persia during his reign, 143
Shakespeare, the First Folio, The Geographical Distribution of, F.
Rinder, 335
Sheepshanks Collection of proofs of the Landseer school of engraving,
(N. Art Library), shown at the V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 199
Sheridan, Mrs., model of Sir J. Reynolds for painting of _Charity_ and
the Virgin in the _Nativity_, (Normanton), 212
Short, Frank, fine work of, in mezzotint, shown at the V. and A.
Museum Exhibition, 199
and Miss C. M. Pott, catalogue and exhibition of Engraving and
Etching processes, arranged by, V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 199
Siddons, Mrs., portrait of, as _Tragic Muse_, by Sir J. Reynolds,
(Westminster), copy, by the Duchess of Buckingham, (Normanton),
replica by Reynolds, (Dulwich), 224
Siena, Communal Library of, extracts from the ‘Ricordi’ of
Baldovinetti found in, 24
paintings by A. Vanni still extant in, _see_ Vanni, _passim_
=Silver:=--
Chalice, Mediaeval, from Iceland, in the V. and A. Museum, H. P.
Mitchell, 70
from Sorö, Denmark, H. P. Mitchell, 357
The Plate of Winchester College, P. Macquoid, 149
Cup with cover, gilt, presented by a Marquis of Winchester, 156
Ecclesiastical; Two Chalices and an Alms Dish, etc., 162
‘Election Cup’ presented by Warden More, 150, 155
Hanap, or Tall Standing Cup, 162
Rose-water Dish and Ewer, parcel-gilt, presented by Radolphus
Henslowe 155
parallels owned by Lord Newton of Lyme, 156
Rose-water Dish, presented by Dr. George Rives, 161
Standing Cup and cover, presented by Hugh Barker, 16,
Standing Salt, bequeathed by Michael Bold, 161-2
Standing Salt, gilt, 156
Steeple Cup and cover, gilt, 162
Sweetmeat Dish of tazza form, 156
Tankard and cover, presented by John Bolney, rare shape of, 161
Tankard with lid, parcel-gilt, Commonwealth period, 162
Simon, J., of Berlin, paintings by Gerard David owned by, parts of a
Triptych, 39
Simone, _see_ Martini, Simone
Sisamnes, the unjust judge, in painting by Gerard David, _Judgement
of Cambyses_, 36
Siva, Svastika the supposed emblem of, 43
Six Collection, Amsterdam, paintings by Jan Vermeer in, 55
Sixtus IV., Pope, Bongianni Gianfigliazzi one of the Florentine
orators sent to, on his election, 28
Sky and Sky God, Svastika the supposed emblem of, 43
Slip ornament, Staffordshire pottery, 68, 69
‘Slip’ in pottery making, a definition of, 66
Smith, _Portrait of the Artist_, ascribed (erroneously) to Rembrandt,
52
Smith, C., The Exhibition of Greek Art at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club, 236
‘Solace of Song,’ remarkable illustrations to, by Harvey, engraved by
W. T. Green and others, 299, 306
Solario, The Authorship of a _Madonna_ by, _letter_, B. Berenson, 114
Solon, L., The Lowestoft Porcelain Factory, and the Chinese Porcelain
made for the European Market in the Eighteenth Century, 271
Soma, son of Rishi Atri, legend of, and connexion of with a Buddha,
354
Soma tree (date palm or hom,) as the Tree of Life, 350, 353
other theories concerning identity of, 353
juice of, how prepared, its uses, and allusions to it in the
Rigveda, 354
Somerley, Hampshire, The Collection of Pictures of the Earl of
Normanton at, M. Roldit; I. Pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 206
Soorgh, Hendrik, possibly the painter of the picture attributed to
Adriaen Brouwer, Guildhall, 1903., _Interior with Figures_, 56
Sophia, daughter of Casimir III. King of Poland, her daughter’s
portrait by Dürer, 289
sister of Casimir, Margrave of Culmbach, 290
Sorö Chalice, The, (from Denmark), H. P. Mitchell, 357
Soung-Young, (a Doctor of reason), _cited_ on the Tao-sse of China, 47
Spain, paintings by Adrian Isenbrant sent to, 326
Spedale di S. Paolo, Florence, ‘ricordo’ in, relating to Baldovinetti,
22
locale, ornaments, and original use of, 23
the Pinzochere of, 24
Spedale di S. Maria Nuova, that of S. Paolo united with, 22
Spiral Scroll, The, and the Svastika, 48
Städel Institute, Frankfort, painting by Botticelli in, resemblance
of details in, to those in painting by G. David, (Bruges Museum), 36
Staffordshire Pottery Ware, Early, illustrated by pieces in the
British Museum, R. L. Hobson, 64
Stanhope, Hon. Mrs., _see_ Falconer, Miss
State, the, of a sculptured _Head of a Girl_ from Chios, recently
shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, Rodin _cited_ on, _letter_,
J. Marshall, 376
Statue, Marble, by Pilon, _La Charité_, 90
Steen, Jan, painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of Himself_,
(Northbrook), 56
Steevens, George, price paid by, for first folio Shakespeare, Martin
Folkes copy, 1756., (Rylands Library), 336
Stothard, T., illustrations by, to the ‘Voyage of Columbus,’ 299
sepia drawing by. for an illustration, 305
Strange, E. F., British Engraving (Exhibition of), at the V. and A.
Museum, 194
Sir Robert, engraver, work by, in V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 194
Strassburg Museum, paintings attributed to Memlinc owned by, shown at
Bruges, 1903., ascription controverted, 35
Strong, Mrs., Exhibition of Greek Art organized by, 236-55
comment on the exhibits by, _ib._
Strozzi, Filippo, portrait of, in Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 170
portrait by Titian with landscape background, (Berlin Gallery), 285
Suavastika supposed symbol of the Autumnal Sun, 44
Sufis of Sultan Husein Mirza, MSS. of the Life of, repetitive
decorations of, 135
Sultan Husein Mirza, the Sufis of, MSS. of the Life of, repetitive
decorations of, 135
Sultan Mirza Ulugh Beg, _see_ Ulugh Beg
Sun, Autumnal, the Suavastika supposed emblem of, 44
Sun God, Sun and Sun Chariot, the Svastika supposed emblem of, 43
Sun-worship, association of the Lotus with, Goodyear cited on, 350
Sung period of Chinese art, rarity of relics of, 205
Sunnà of Mohammed, laws of, as to art, 132, 135
Susanna of Bavaria, wife of Casimir, Margrave of Culmbach, patroness
of Dürer, in a lost picture by him, 290
possibly the Lady of Portrait by him owned by Mr. Heseltine, _ib._
other (medal) portraits of and of her second husband, _ib._
=Svastika, The=, 43
absence of, from Phoenicia, 47
absence of, alleged, in Babylonia and Assyria, 47
as an auspicious sign, and always ornamental, 43
on breach of gun taken at Taku Fort, 47
in the Bronze Age, 47
as the emblem of Agni, 43
fecundity, 43
the female, 43
Hindu gods, 43
Jupiter Tonans and Jupiter Pluvius, 43
Thor of the Scandinavians, 43
evolution of, from the Lotus, according to Goodyear, 354
in footprints of Buddha on Indian mountains, 43
Hittite origin or, Sayce on, 47
introduction of, into Cyprus, Carthage and North Africa, Richter’s
views as to, 47
in relation to the Lotus, 43, 48
in relation to the Nature gods. 43
oldest known Aryan symbol. 43
origin and symbolism of, theories concerning, 43
on Persian coins of Arsacide and Sassanide dynasties, 44
Phallic meaning attributed to, 43
probably a development of the Chinese characters C. h. e, 44
in Thibet. 44
traceable in household appointments, house-irons, etc., 48
universality of, the basis of all decorative design, 43
use and name of, among North American Indians, 43-4
Wilson on, 43
his discovery of, on Assyrian coins and those of Alexander the
Great, 47
Sydney, N.S.W., first folio Shakespeare at, and its donor, 336
Sykes, Colonel, on Tao-sse of China, 47
~Taku~ Fort, the Svastika, obviously Chinese, found on breech of gun
taken at, 47
Tamerlane, _see_ Timur Bey
T’ang dynasty of Chinese rulers, rarity of art relics of, 205
Tangye, Sir R., donor of first folio Shakespeare to Sydney, N.S.W.,
336
Tankards, etc., _see_ Silver Plate
Tao-sse sect of China, (_see_ also Tirthakar), 47
Tapestry, designs for, by C. Le Brun, _Chasses de Méléagre_, _History
of Constantinople_, _Jupiter allaité par le chèvre Amalthée_, _Mars
et Venus_, _Les Muses_, 230
high warp, manufactory of, established by Fouquet at Maincy, 230
Tara, wife of Brihaspati, mother of a Buddha, by Soma, 354
Tattooing, the Swastika used in, in Thibet, 44
Tau Cross, ivory, found at Alcester, (B.M.,) 200
Teapot, hard porcelain, Chinese in decoration, marked ‘Allen,
Lowestoft,’ (V. and A. M.), 277
Temperament in native Dutch art, 51
Terborch, G., paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of a Lady_
and _Portrait of a Young Woman_, 56
Terra-cottas, _see_ Ceramics
Tewkesbury Abbey, frescoes on roof of, by T G. Parry, 117
Textile Arts, _see_ Lace, Oriental Carpets, Tapestry, Weaving, _etc._
Thibet, connection of the Svastika with, 44
Tirthakar sect in, derivation of name, 44
Thiem, A., owner of painting attributed to Memlinc, _B. V. M. and
Child_, (Bruges, 1902.), 35
Thomas, Mr., on the Svastika and the Jain Tirthankara, 44
Thomond, Marchioness of, niece of Sir J. Reynolds, sale of her
pictures, 1821., the foundation of the Normanton collection, 211
Thor of Scandinavia, the Svastika supposed emblem of, 43
Thunder-gods, the Svastika probably emblem of, 43
_Times, The_, view of, as to correct attribution of _Le Commencement
d’Orage_, Guildhall, 1903., (Lady Wantage), 60
Timur Bey, (Tamerlane), 132
as art patron and author, 143
and his successors, art in Persia during reigns of, 143
Timurid art in Persia, 143
of Khorassan, Chinese influence on, 143
Mosques of Samarcand, ogival doorways of, and art associations of,
139
Tirthakar sect of Thibet synonymous with Tao-sse of China, 44
Tirthankara, the Jain, the Svastika one of their devices, Max Müller
and Thomas on, 44, _see note_
Titian, (Tiziano Vecellio), _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_ by, G.
Gronau, 281
his commission from Charles V. at Busseto, Aretino _cited_ on, 281
his inferior model, 281-5
his success, _ib._
visit of, to, Augsburg, confusion caused by his references to his
work there, 281
his adoption of landscape backgrounds, 285
his influence on subsequent portrait painters, _ib._
portrait by, of _Giacomo Doria_, owned by J. Wernher, letter on,
from G. de Pellegrini, 267
Tizio, _cited_ on the _Altarpiece_ by Vanni in S Stefano, Siena, 310
and on his work for the friars minor of S. Francesco, 315
Tleson, Kylix signed by, shown at the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, 255
Tocqué, Jean-Louis, paintings by at the Louvre, chiefly official
portraits, 344
_Portrait of Dame Danger_, recently acquired, 343-4
Tod, Colonel, on the date of introduction of Buddhism into Thibet, 47
Toft ware, a name for slipware, its origin, 69
Tomb of Francis I. of France, designed by Delorme, work of Pilon and
other sculptors on, 95
Henri II. of France and Catherine de’ Medici, executed by G. Pilon,
95
Tommé, Lucca di, painter, 310
Tone in Dutch painters ancient and modern, 51
Toscanelli, Paolo da Pozzo, astrologer, portrait of, in
Baldovinetti’s frescoes, 169
Tournay Museum, painting by John van Eecke owned by, _Vision of S.
Bernard_, (Bruges, 1902.), 332
Treadwin, Mrs., _the late_, Honiton lace revival by, 95
Tree of Life identified with the Lotus by Goodyear, 350
types and distribution of, 353
and Lotus, in Oriental Carpets, 349
Trees and Plants identified with the Tree of Life, 350, 353
Trepperel, _Gaston Phoebus_ hand-printed by, 8
Turenne, Marshal, campaign of, in the Netherlands, 12
Turkestan, Timurid MSS. in, better executed than similar MSS. in
Persia, 144
Turkey, lack of legislative protection for ancient buildings in, 3
Turkish skill in miniature painting, 132
Turner, Charles, Mezzotint by, shown at the V. and A. Museum
Exhibition, _The Water Mill_, after Callcott, 199
Turner, J. M. W., as an illustrator, 306
illustrations by, to Rogers’ ‘Poems,’ (N. G.), 300
struggles of, with his steel-engravings, 294
and Barrett, resemblances of their work as illustrators, 306
and Goodall, illustrations by, to ‘Datur Hora Quieti,’ 300
Tuscany, Pietro Leopoldo, Grand Duke of, union of the Spedale of S.
Maria Nuova and S. Paolo effected by, 22
Two Alleged Giorgiones, H. Cook, 78
Italian Bas-reliefs in the Louvre, A. Michel, 84
Pictures in the possession of Messrs. Dowdeswell, _Adoration of the
Magi_ and _Dormition of the B. V. M._, probably French ~XIV.~
cent., 89
Type, Greek, A New Fount of, (Proctor’s ‘Otter’), 358
Types of the Tree of Life, 353
Typography, _see_ Greek Type
Tyrol, Archduke Ferdinand, Duke of, Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_
presented to, by Bishop Bernard of Trent, 12
Landsknechte of Charles V. of Germany recruited from, 12
~Uffizi Gallery~, painting by unknown artist, Florentine School, early
~XV.~ cent. in, Triptych, _Madonna and Child, with Angels and
Saints_, 131
painting by unknown artist, School of Cimabue, in Altarpiece of _St.
Cecilia_, 118
Ulugh Beg, grandson of Timur Bey, astronomical tables drawn up by, 143
astronomical MS. copied for, at Samarcand, strongly marked Chinese
influence in, 144
United States of America, general provision of legislative protection
for ancient buildings in, 3
Upper Ossory, Earl of, his second wife, Miss Anne Liddell, painted by
Sir J. Reynolds, (Normanton), 223
Urbino, Duchess of, _Portrait of_, by Titian, believed to be the first
in which he employed landscape background, 285
Guidobaldo, Duke of, meeting of, with Charles V. at Peschiera, 281
~Van Aelst~, Willem, painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life
Subject_, 56
van Craesbeeck, Joost, possibly the painter of the picture attributed
to Adriaen Brouwer, Guildhall, 1903., _Interior with Figures_, 56
Van de Capelle, Jan, beauties and characteristics of his work, 60
paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Off Scheveningen_ and _Sea Piece_,
both masterpieces, 60
painting by, _River Scene_, (N.G.), beauties of, 60
Van der Heyden, Jan, painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape_,
(very highly finished), 59
Van der Neer, Aart, painting attributed to, Guildhall, 1903.,
_Moonlight River Scene_, doubtful authenticity of, 59
Van de Velde, Adriaen, painting by, Guildhall, 1903., _Landscape with
Cattle_, small and excellent, 59
George and his son John, portraits of, on Diptych, by Isenbrant, 326
Willem, paintings of, surpassed by some of van de Capelle’s shown at
Guildhall, 1903., 60
van Dyck, Sir A., (or Vandyke), influence of, traceable in painting by
Sir J. Reynolds, 223
influence of Titian on, 285
van Eecke or van Eeckele, John, paintings by, shown at Bruges, 1902.,
formerly ascribed to John van Eyck, _Mater Dolorosa_, (Bruges
Cathedral), locale of copies of the same, 332
Vision of S. Bernard, (Tournay Museum), 332
van Eyck, John, paintings formerly attributed to, one now ascribed to
Gerard David, _Adoration of the Magi_, (Brussels Museum), Bruges,
1902., 39
another, now ascribed to van Eecke or van Eeckele, Bruges, 1902.,
_Mater Dolorosa_, (Bruges Cathedral), locale of copies of the
same, 332
van Goyen, Jan, favourite subjects in paintings of, 343
part of painting attributed to Frans Hals, possibly by, _Van Goyen
and his Wife_, Guildhall, 1903., 52
traces of his influence in paintings by Jacob Maris, 178
van Halewyn, Joan, and her husband, portraits of, on triptych, by
Isenbrant, 331
van Huerne, M., paintings by Isenbrant and others, presented by, to
Bruges Cathedral, 331
van Huysum, Jan, paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life
Subjects_, 56
Vanni, Andrea, F. Mason Perkins, 309
of Siena, painter, diplomat, and devotee, friend of S. Catherine of
Siena, date of his birth, share in revolution of 1368, etc., 309
characteristics of his style, 89, 309, 322
date of his death, 325
paintings by; _Annunciation_, (Count F. Chigi, Siena), 316;
_Annunciation_, after Simone Martini, (S. Pietro Ovile, Siena),
various attributions of, 321
_Crucifixion_, (fragmentary), formerly in the church of the
Alborino, (Istituto delle Belle Arte, Siena), 309, 321
_Deposition from the Cross_, (Berenson), 321
Frescoes, in bad condition, (S. Giovenale, Orvieto), 321, _note_
_Seated Virgin and Child_, (S. Francesco, Siena), usually
attributed to A. Lorenzotti, 315
_Madonna_, (church on Monte Nero, near Leghorn), 321, _note_
_Madonna degli Infermi_, (S. Francesco, Siena), attributed to
Pietro Lorenzotti, 310-15
_Panels, Madonna and Child_, (S. Giovanni della Staffa, Siena),
316
_Virgin and Child_, full-length, (S. Spirito, Siena), 316
_Virgin and Child_, half-length, (Chapel of SS. Chiodi, Siena),
usually attributed to Barna, 315-6
_Virgin and Child_, (priest’s house, next S. Pietro Ovile), 325
Polyptych, _Altarpiece_, (S. Stefano, Siena), 309
Portrait of St. Catherine of Siena, (S. Domenico, Siena), 309,
321
Triptych, _St. Michael between St. Anthony the Abbot and the
Baptist_, (Siena Gallery), usually ascribed to Lippo Memmi,
325
_Virgin and Child_, (Berenson), 316
presumptions as to his later and earlier artistic life, 325
one of his pupils referred to, _ib._
van Orley, Bernard, Notes on the Life of, W. H. J. Weale, 205
Valentine, reputed father of Bernard, 205
van Os, Jan, paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Still-life Subjects_, 56
van Pynbroek, Margaret, alleged mother of Bernard van Orley, 205
van Rijn, Rembrandt, _see_ Rembrandt
van Ruysdael, _see_ Ruysdael
Vasari _cited_ on Baldovinetti, 22, 24
his methods of fresco painting, 169
his frescoes in the Cappella Maggiore of S. Trinita, Florence, and
their subjects, 170
on their early decay, 173
_cited_ on the metal heads made by Verrochio, 84
_cited_ on the preparation of frescoes, 167
‘Life of Stefano Fiorentino and Ugolino Sanese,’ by, 126
and others, error of, as to Bernardo Daddi, 125
Vassall, F., portrait of his daughter, Mrs. Russell, by Sir J.
Reynolds, (Normanton), 223
Vaux, Château de, works of C. Le Brun at, 230
Vecellio, Tiziano, _see_ Titian
Vedas, the, story of Agni the fire God, and the origin of the Svastika
in, 44
note concerning these books, 353
Velasquez, as a painter of dogs, 218
one of the few painters whose brushwork equals that of Frans Hals,
52
Veneziano, Domenico, use of oil by, in his frescoes, 169
Ventura, Bernardino di, pencil-maker, of Florence, 167
Veramin, _see_ Ardabil and Veramin
Verard, Antoine, _Gaston Phoebus_ hand-printed by, 8
Verino, Ugolino, reference to the Gianfigliazzi family in a poem by,
28
Vermeer, Jan, of Delft, a rare master, painting by, Guildhall,
1903., _The Cook Asleep_, 55
other and finer works by elsewhere, _ib._
Verrochio, possibly the artist of the _P. Scipioni_ Bas-relief, views
of Bode and others _cited_, 84
statue by, _David_, resemblance between its mouth and that of the
above, 84
Versailles, works at, directed by C. Le Brun, 235
Verspronck, J., paintings by, Guildhall, 1903., _Portrait of a Dutch
Lady_, (Mrs. Stephenson Clarke), resemblance of his technique to
that of Hals, 55
painting probably by, _Portrait of a Lady_, (at Antwerp), _ib._
Via dell’ Ariento, Florence, Baldovinetti’s hired house in, 23
Vianizzi, Giovanni di Ser Antonio, writer of the records of the
Pinzochere of S. Paolo, Florence, 27
=Victoria and Albert Museum:=--
drawings on the wood for illustration to Dalziel’s ‘Arabian Nights,’
etc., in, 305
Exhibition of British Engraving at, E. F. Strange, 194
frescoes in, by Sir F. Leighton, 117
New Acquisitions at:--
Mediaeval Silver Chalice from Iceland, H. P. Mitchell, 70
The Reid Gift, (MSS.), 74
Vienna Museum, paintings by Boels in, ascribed to Memlinc, 35
Modern Gallery, Pictures in the new, 375
Vierge, Daniel, and his style, 306
Vigne, Gace de la, _see_ Buigne
Vincent, Sir E., _Head of a statue_ by Polykleitos owned by, shown at
the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 244
Vinci, Leonardo da, _see_ Leonardo da Vinci
Ser Piero di Leonardo da, notary of Florence, engrosser of the
‘ricordo’ concerning Baldovinetti, 22, 23
Visconti, Bianca-Maria, second wife of Alfonzo II. of Aragon, 338
Vishnu, the Svastika probably an emblem of, 43
Vitry, Paul, Pictures recently acquired by the Louvre, _Landscapes_,
(2), by S. Ruysdael; _Portrait of Dame Danger_, by L. Tocqué, 343
Volpaia, Lorenzo dalla, astrologer, portrait of, in Baldovinetti’s
frescoes, 170
von Kaufmann, R , painting by A. Isenbrant owned by, _A Donor and his
Family, with Protecting Saints_, (Bruges, 1902.), 331
von Knebel, Hofrath Christian Friedrich, of Ansbach, lost votive
picture by Dürer once owned by, with portraits of the Margrave of
Culmbach and his Wife, 290
Vouet, Simon, early master of Charles Le Brun, 229
~Waagen, Dr.~, 60
_cited_ as to the _Annunciation_ attributed to Memlinc, (Prince
Radziwill), (Bruges, 1902.), 35
Walde, Muller-, _see_ Muller-Walde
Wantage, Lady, painting formerly attributed to Rembrandt, owned by,
_Le Commencement d’Orage_, Guildhall, 1903., 60
panels by Gerard David owned by, 39
Waring _cited_ on alleged absence of the Svastika in Babylonia and
Assyria, 44
Water-gods, Greek, and Hindu, Svastika the supposed emblem of, 43
Water-colour Paintings, _see_ Drawings
Watts, G. W., drawings on wood by, for illustrations to Dalziel’s
‘Bible Gallery,’ (V. and A. M.), 305
Wauters, A., _cited_ on Bernard van Orley, 205
Weale, W. H. J., The Early Painters of the Netherlands as illustrated
by the Bruges Exhibition of 1902., 35, 326
Note on the Life of Bernard van Orley, 205
Weaving, evolution of the art of, 349
Weber, E., painting by J. Prevost owned by, _Last Judgement_, (Bruges,
1902.), 332
Werth, researches of, on Codex MS. 616 of _Gaston Phoebus_, 8, 12
Wertheimer, A., painting attributed to Giorgione, but to be ascribed
to Cariani, acquired by, _ex_ Leuchtenberg collection, _Adoration of
the Shepherds_, 78
Westall, W., wash-and-pen drawing by, for illustration, 305
Westminister, Duke of, owner of painting by Sir J. Reynolds, _Mrs.
Siddons as the Tragic Muse_, 224
paintings attributed to Memlinc owned by, probably by L. Boels, 35
Wielant, Philip, and his wife, portrait of, on Triptych by Isenbrant,
331
Willett, Henry, armorial plate in Indo-European style, marked
‘Canton, 1791.,’ owned by, 277
William I., German Emperor, Berlin copy of first folio Shakespeare
bought by, 1858., 336
William III., deterioration of the acanthus design on plate in the
reign of, 161
William of Wykeham, founder of Winchester College, his arms and
outlay. 149
Wilson, Professor, _cited_ on the Svastika as primarily an ornament,
43
on the Svastika on Assyrian coins and those of Alexander the Great,
47
Sir Matthew, former owner of painting by Rembrandt, _Portrait eta
Lady_, (Hage), 360
Winchester Cathedral, marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain in,
150
City, importance of, as one time capital of England, 149
College, The Plate of; P. Macquoid. 149
its founder, 149
visitors to, and their gifts of plate, 149-50;
inventory of plate of, _temp._ Henry VIII., 150
sequestration of the plate, _temp._ Edward VI., _ib._
subsequent gifts of new plate to, 155
description of principal existing pieces, 155 _et seq._
Marquis of. _circ._ 1682., Silver-gilt cup with cover presented by,
to Winchester College, 156
Windows, _see_ Glass, Painted Windows, _etc._
Woertz Museum, painting attributed to Memlinc owned by, (Bruges,
1903.), condition of, 35
Wolvesey Castle, visit to, of Henry VIII., 149
Woodburn, Samuel, marks affixed by, to Lawrence drawings, 286
Wood-carving, Burgundian Chest, (Bruges, 1902.), (Hospices civiles,
Aalst), 358
Oaken Chest of Ypres, 357
Woodcuts, newly acquired by the Print Room of the British Museum, 75
Woollett, William, and his school of engravers, work by, shown at the
V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 194
plate by, and by his pupils, _Roman Edifices in Ruins_, after
Claude, 194-9
Works of Art belonging to Dealers, The Publication of, _editorial_, 5
Wrotham, Kent, slipware of, ~XVII.~ and ~XVIII.~ cent., 68
Wykeham, _see_ William of Wykeham
~Xerxes~, the Apadana of, and its art, 139
Ximenes, Cardinal, type cut by order of, the Alcalà fount, 358
~Yarkand~ Rugs, the pomegranate as the Tree of Life on, 353
Yez-de-jird the Third, last of the Sassanian kings overthrown by the
Mahomedans, 47
Ypres, The Oaken Chest of, 357
~Zendavesta~, _note_ concerning, 354
Zeus, the Svastika supposed to be an emblem of, 43
Zmigrodski on the derivation of the Suavastika, 44
❧ INDEX OF ARTISTS AND WORKS OF ART ❧
~Albarelli~, Italian, _see_ Ceramics
Altarpiece, by A. Baldovinetti, painted for the Cappella Maggiore, S.
Trinità, now in the Florentine Academy, _Trinity, with Saints_, 29
Aquatint, coloured, by Stadler, _The Hôtel de Ville, Louvain_, after
S. Prout; (V. and A. M.), 203
Armorial Bearings, (Shields), of the Doria family, (in text), 268
~Bagg~, engraving by, after E. Isabey,_ Ship During Storm_,
illustration to Curmer’s ‘Paul et Virginie,’ 307 (3)
Baldovinetti, Alesso, painted glass window, designed by, in S. Croce,
Florence, with figures of God the Father and St. Andrew, 25
paintings by, Altarpiece, _Trinity, with Saints_, formerly in S.
Trinità, now in the Florentine Academy, 29
_Patriarchs_, _Abraham_, _Noah_, _Moses_ and _David_ on the Vault
of the Cappella Maggiore of S. Trinità, Florence, 171
Barret, G., drawing by, for an illustration, _Landscape_, 301 (3)
Bartolozzi, F., drawing by, for an illustration, _Cupid with a Tragic
Mask_, 298 (3)
=Bas-reliefs:=--
by Agostino di Duccio, _Virgin and Child, with Saints and Cherubs_,
in the Louvre, 88
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition, _Fragment of the Frieze of
the Parthenon_, (T. D. Botterell), 236
School of Leonardo da Vinci, _Bust and profile in helmet and armour,
inscribed ‘P. Scipioni,’_ in the Louvre, 88
Book-illustrations of the Later Nineteenth Century, five plates, 295,
298, 301, 304, 307
Bosboom, Jan, painting by, _The Archives at Veere_, (J. C. J.
Drucker), Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, 179
Boule, André Charles, Furniture by, Marquetry Bureau, and Bookcase,
234
=Bronzes:=--
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition, _Amphora Handle_, (Wyndham
Cook), _Mask of Sea Deity_, (Salting), _Mirror-cover_, (Taylor),
247
_Plaque_, (Wallis), 245
Statuettes, _Aphrodite_, _Nude_, (Loeser), _Aphrodite with Torch_,
_Seilenos Crouching_, (Taylor),_ Sick Man_, (Wyndham Cook), 245
Bruges Museum, painting by Gerard David in, _The Judgement of
Cambyses_, 2
Brussels, Seals of the Gilds of Bakers, Barbers, and Butchers of, (in
text), 190, 191
Burgundian Wooden Chest, ~XV.~ cent., richly carved, (Hospices
civiles, Aalst), 361
Burlington Fine Arts Club, Exhibition held by, _see_ Greek Art
Busi, Giovanni, _see_ Cariani
~Cariani~, (Giovanni Busi), paintings by, _Madonna and Child_, (G.
Salting), 79
_The Sempstress Madonna_, (Corsini Gallery, Rome), 81
Carpets, _see_ Textiles
=Ceramics= (_see_ Terra-cottas):--
Early Staffordshire Ware, (slip-ware, etc.), Dish, Tygs, Cups,
Cradle, Jug, Lantern, etc., illustrated in text, ~XV.~ figs., 64-9
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition, _Krater_, (Harrow School),
253
_Kylix_ signed Tleson, and _Plate_ signed Epiktetos, (Marquess of
Northampton), 253
Lowestoft China, Teapot, (Harding), and Small Plate, (Franks), 273
Teapot, hard porcelain, made and decorated in China, but marked
‘Allen, Lowestoft’; (V. and A. M.), 276
Three Italian Albarelli, ~XIV.~ cent., (Louvre), 339
=Chalices:=--
Early Scandinavian, (~XIII.~ cent.), Silver, from Iceland, with
details of inscription and decoration, V. and A. Museum, 71
The Sorö, Silver, from Denmark, 356
Winchester College, 165
=Chests:=--
Burgundian, ~XV.~ cent., richly carved, (Hospices civiles, Aalst),
361
Polychrome Wooden Chest (The Ypres Chest), 361
Cimabue, School of, paintings by, artist unknown, _Nativity_, and
_Adoration_, (Parry), 118
Cnoop, Cornelia, wife of Gerard David, painting by, Triptych, _B. V.
M. and Child, SS. Catherine and Barbara_, (P. and D. Colnaghi), 37
Corsini Gallery, Rome, painting by Cariani, _The Sempstress Madonna_,
in, 81
Courbould, drawing by, for an illustration, _Duel Scene_, 298 (4)
~Daddi~, Bernardo, painting by, _Altarpiece in Five Parts_, (Parry),
121
Dalziels, engraving by, after D. G. Rossetti, _The Maids of Elfen
Mere_, illustration to Allingham’s ‘Music Master,’ 304 (1)
Daubigny, Charles-François, painting by, _On the Seine_, (Balli), 365
David, Gerard, (_see_ Cnoop, Cornelia, his wife, and her painting),
paintings by, _B. V. M. and Child, with Angels_, _Virgin Saints, the
painter and his wife_, (Rouen Museum), 34
_The Judgement of Cambyses_, (Bruges Museum), 2
De Koninck, Philips, painting variously attributed to, and to
Rembrandt, shown at Guildhall, 1903., _Le Commencement d’Orage_,
(Lady Wantage), 61
Denmark, The Sorö Chalice from, 356
Doria family, armorial bearings of the, (in text), 268
=Drawings:=--
by artist unknown, for an illustration, _River Scene_, 301 (2)
by Barret, G., for an illustration, Landscape, 305 (3)
by Bartolozzi, G., for an illustration, _Cupid with is Tragic Mask_,
298 (3)
by Corbould, for an illustration, _Duel Scene_, 298 (4)
by Dürer, A., _Portrait of a Lady_, (B. M.), 287
_Portrait of a Lady with a Lap-dog_, (Heseltine), 291
by Gigoux, J., _Man’s Head_, illustration to ‘Gil Blas,’ 295 (1)
by Harvey, _Butterfly and Ant_, illustration to ‘Northcote’s
Fables,’ 298 (2)
by Isabey, E.,_ Ship during Storm_, illustration to Curmer’s ‘Paul
et Virginie,’ 307 (3)
by Meissonier, J. L. E., _Shoeing a Horse_, illustration to ‘Les
Contes Rémois,’ 307 (1)
by Menzel, A., _The Round Table_, illustration to ‘Geschichte
Friedrichs des Grossen,’ 295 (2)
by Palmer, S., illustration to ‘Sacred Allegories,’ 304 (2)
by Rossetti, D. G., for an illustration to Allingham’s ‘Music
Master,’ _The Maids of Elfen Mere_, 304 (1)
by Stothard, T., for an illustration, _Cupid’s Shooting-lesson_,
301 (1)
by Westall, W., for an illustration, _Barefooted Woman under Tree,
Man and Dog to left_, 293 (1)
Duccio, Agostino di, Bas-relief by, _Virgin and Child with Saints and
Cherubs_, (Louvre), 88
Dürer, Albrecht, drawings by, _Portrait of a Lady_, (B. M.), 287
_Portrait of a Lady with a Lap-dog_, (Heseltine), 291
Dutch Exhibition at the Guildhall, 1903., Painters whose work
was shown at, _see_ Bosboom, De Koninck, Israels,
Maris, J., and M., Mauve, Molenaer, Rembrandt,
Steen, Van de Capelle, Vermeer, Verspronck
~Early~ Painters of the Netherlands whose work was shown at Bruges,
1902., _see_ Cnoop, David, Isenbrant, Memlinc, van Eecke
=Engravings=, see also Mezzotints:--
artist unknown, after J. Gigoux, _Man’s Head_, illustration to ‘Gil
Blas,’ 295 (1)
by Bagg, after E. Isabey, _Ship during Storm_, illustration to
Curmer’s ‘Paul et Virginie,’ 307 (3)
by Green, W. T., after S. Palmer, illustration to ‘Sacred
Allegories,’ 304 (2)
by Jackson, after Harvey, _Butterfly and Ant_, illustration to
‘Northcote’s Fables,’ 298 (2)
by Knutchmar, E., after A. Menzel, _The Round Table_, illustration
to ‘Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen,’ 295 (2)
by Lagornal, after Meissonier, _Shoeing a Horse_, illustration to
‘Les Contes Rémois,’ 307 (1)
by Williams, Mary Ann, _Jacque_, illustration to Curmer’s ‘Paul et
Virginie,’ 307 (2)
Line, British, _Portrait of Queen Elizabeth_, by W. Rogers, (H.M.
the King), 195
_Roman Edifice in Ruins_, after Claude, by T. Hearne and W.
Woollett, working proof, (V. and A. M.), 197
~Flemish~ School, paintings of. by unknown artists, _Portrait of the
Empress Isabella_, from which Titian painted his portrait, 283
_Portrait of Roger de Jonghe_, _Austin Friar_, (Sœurs Noires,
Bruges), 333
Florentine Academy; Altarpiece by A. Baldovinetti in, _Trinity with
Saints_, 29
School, paintings by artist unknown; _Madonna and Child with
Angels_, (Parry), 129
Triptych by same hand, (Uffizi), _ib._
=France, Art and Artists of:=--
Statue, Marble, by G. Pilon, ~XVI.~ cent., _La Charité_, (E.
Lowengard), (two aspects of), 94
French painters illustrated, _see_ Daubigny, Isabey, Lhermitte,
Meissonier, Tocqué
paintings, (probable), artists unknown, ~XIV.~ cent., _Adoration of
the Magi_, and _Dormition of the B. V. M._, (Messrs. Dowdeswell).
91
French Book-illustrations of the Later Nineteenth Century, 295 (1),
300 (1 and 3)
Furniture, Marquetry Bureau, and Bookcase by A. C. Boule, 234
Tapestry, Gobelin,_ Psyche’s Bath_, and section of border of the
same, (Louvre), 231
High Warp, _Louis XIV. visiting the Gobelins_, after C. Le Brun,
228
Furniture, French, by A. C. Boule, Marquetry Bureau, and Bookcase, 234
~Gaddi~, Agnolo, painting by, _Coronation of Our Lady_, (Parry), 123
Taddeo, painting by, _Part of an Altarpiece_ in S. Croce, Florence,
123
‘Gaston Phoebus’ MS., Facsimiles from, 9, 13, 17, 19
Gigoux, J., drawing by, _Man’s Head_, illustration to ‘Gil Blas,’
295 (1)
Gilds in Brussels, Seals of those of the Bakers, Barbers, and
Butchers, 191, 192
Glass, _see_ Painted Glass
Greek Art, _see under_ Bas-reliefs, Bronzes, Ceramics, Metal Work,
Sculpture, Terra-cottas
Green, W. T., engraving by, after S. Palmer, illustration to ‘Sacred
Allegories,’ 304 (2)
~Harvey~, drawing by, _Butterfly and Ant_, illustration to
‘Northcote’s Fables.’ 298 (2)
Hearne, T., and W. Woollett, line engraving by, _Roman Edifice in
Ruins_, working proof, (V. and A. M.), 197
~Iceland~, Scandinavian Silver Chalice, early ~XIII.~ cent., from,
with details of inscription and decoration (V. and A. M.), 71
Illuminated MS., ‘Gaston Phoebus,’ Facsimiles from, 9. 13, 17, 19
=Illustrations= (_see also_ Book-illustrations) =in the Text=:--
Early Staffordshire Pottery-ware, (slipware, etc.). Dish, Tygs,
Cups, Cradle, Jug, Lantern, etc., ~XV.~ figs., 64-9
Heraldic Shields of the Doria Family, 268
Lotus flower, natural forms of, 349, 350, 353
Seals of the Gild of Bakers, Barbers, and Butchers, Brussels, 191,
192
Svastika, various forms of, 43, 44, 47, 48
Isabey, E., drawing by, _Ship during storm_, illustration to Curmer’s
‘Paul et Virginie.’ 307 (3)
Isenbrant, Adrian, paintings by, shown at Bruges, 1902., _St. Luke_,
(Colnaghi), 327
_Virgin and Child, with two Angels_, (Lotman), _ib._
_Vision of St. Ildephonsus_, (Northbrook), 330
Israels, Josef, paintings by,_ A Jewish Wedding_, (J. C. F. Drucker),
179
_The New Flower_, (J. S. Forbes), Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall,
1903., 181
Italian Painters, _see_ Baldovinetti, Cariani, Florentine School,
Leonardo da Vinci, Titian, Vanni, Venetian School, _etc._
Italy, Maiolica of, Three Albarelli, ~XIV.~ cent. (Louvre), 339
~Jackson~, engraving by, after Harvey, _Butterfly and Ant_,
illustration to ‘Northcote’s Fables,’ 298 (2)
~Knutchmar~, E., engraving by, after A. Menzel, _The Round Table,_
illustration to ‘Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen,’ 295. (2)
Koursi, Arabic, Lid of, ~XIV.~ cent., copper encrusted with gold and
silver (Louvre), 347
~Lace~, Brussels, Honiton, Rose-point, Drawn-thread-work, Venetian,
Irish crochet, Imitation Alençon, 99
Russian, Venetian, Alençon, Modern Irish Needle-point, 97
Turkish Drawn-thread-work, Reticella, Venetian-made Alençon, Alençon
bordering, (Mrs. Alfred Morrison), 101
Lagornal, engraving by, after Meissonier, _Shoeing a Horse_,
illustration to ‘Les Contes Rémois,’ 307 (1)
Le Brun, C., Tapestry after, (High Warp), _Louis XIV. visiting the
Gobelins_, 228
Lhermitte, Leon, painting by, _Le Pêcheur_, (Balli), 365
Leonardo da Vinci, school of, Bas-relief, by artist unknown,
_Bust and profile in helmet and armour, inscribed ‘P. Scipioni’_
(Louvre), 88
Leuchtenberg Collection, St. Petersburg, painting of the Venetian
School from, _Adoration of the Shepherds_, artist unknown, 85
Lotus plant, the, natural forms of, _in text_, 349, 350, 353
Louvre, The, Bas-reliefs in, by Agostino di Duccio, _Virgin and Child
with Saint and Cherubs_, 88
by unknown artist, school of Leonardo da Vinci, _Bust and profile in
helmet and armour, inscribed ‘P. Scipioni,’_ 88
Lowestoft China, _see_ Ceramics
~Maiolica~, _see_ Albarelli _under_ Ceramics
Manuscripts, _see_ Illuminated MS.
Maris, Jacob, paintings by, _The Canal Bridge_, (Agnew), 183
_A Windmill_, _Moonlight_, (J. C. J. Drucker), Dutch Exhibition,
Guildhall, 185
Maris, Matthew, paintings by, _The Butterflies_, (W. Burrell), 187
_A Fantasy_, (Mme. E. J. van Wisselingh), Dutch Exhibition,
Guildhall, 181
Martini, Simone, paintings by, _Annunciation_, (Uffizi), 323
Mauve, Anton, painting by, _Watering Horses_, (J. C. J. Drucker),
Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, 183
Meissonier, drawing by, _Shoeing a Horse_, illustration to ‘Les
Contes Rémois,’ 307 (1)
Memlinc, Hans, paintings attributed to, _Portraits of Thomas
Portunari and his Wife_, (probably by Van der Goes), (L.
Goldschmidt), 41
Menzel, A., drawing by, for illustration to ‘Geschichte Friedrichs
des Grossen,’ _The Round Table_, 295 (2)
=Metal Work=, _see_ Copper and Silver:--
Arabic, Lid of a Koursi, copper encrusted with gold and silver,
~XIV.~ cent., (Louvre), 347
Greek, Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition, _Mirror-cover_, Repoussé (J.
E. Taylor), 247
Mezzotints, by Prince Rupert, after Spagnoletto, _The Great
Executioner_, (H.M. King Edward), 270
by C. Turner, _The Water Mill_, after Sir A. W. Callcott, (V. and A.
M.), 201
=Miniatures:=--
from the Arab MS., Makamat of Hariri; (C. Schefer), 133
from MS. of the Astronomical Treatise of Abd-er-Rahman El-Sufi,
(Nat. Lib. of France), 133
from a Persian MS., of 1527., Hunting Scene, (Nat. Lib. of France),
145
(two) from a Persian MS., of 1566., ‘The Book of Kings,’ (Baron E.
de Rothschild), 137, 141
Molenaer, Jan Miense, painting by, _A Group of Three_, (E. Speyer),
Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, 176
Monaco, Lorenzo, paintings by, _Adoration of the Magi_, 127
_The Visitation_, (Parry), _ib._
Museums and Galleries, _see_ Bruges Museum, Corsini Gallery, Rome,
Florentine Academy, Leuchtenberg Collection National Gallery, Nat.
Lib. of France, Rouen Museum, V. and A. Museum, _etc._
Mussulman Miniatures, Arabic and Persian (various owners), 133, 137,
141, 145
~National~ Gallery, painting, Venetian School, artist unknown, in,
_Adoration of the Shepherds_, 85
New College, Oxford, paintings by Sir J. Reynolds as designs for the
Window at, _Cardinal Virtues_, _Temperance and Prudence_, 213
_Fortitude and Justice_, 216
_Theological Virtues_, _Faith_, _Hope_, and _Charity_, 210
Normanton Collection, paintings by Sir J. Reynolds in, _The Cardinal
Virtues_, _Temperance and Prudence_, 213
_Fortitude and Justice_, all designs for the window at New College,
Oxford, 216
_The Three Theological Virtues_ for the same, 210
_The Little Gardener_, 219
Portraits: _George, third Duke of Marlborough_, 222
_Lady Betty Hamilton_, 116
_Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright_, 207
The Misses Horneck, _225_
_Study of a Little Girl_, _ib._
~Oxford~, see New College
~Painted~ Glass Window, with figures of God the Father and St.
Andrew, from cartoons of A. Baldovinetti, S. Croce, Florence, 25
=Paintings:=--
attributed to Memlinc, Hans, _Portraits of Thomas Portunari and his
Wife_, (probably by Van der Goes), (Goldschmidt), 41
attributed to Rembrandt and to De Koninck, Le Commencement d’Orage.
(Lady Wantage), shown at Guildhall, 1903., 61
by Baldovinetti, A., Altarpiece, _Trinity_, formerly in S. Trinità,
now in the Florentine Academy, 29
on the Vault of the Cappella Maggiore of S. Trinità, Florence,
_Abraham_, _Noah_, _Moses_, and _David_, 166
by Bosboom, Jan, _The Archives at Veere_, (J. C. J. Drucker), Dutch
Exhibition, Guildhall, 179
by Cariani (Giovanni Busi), _Madonna and Child_, (Salting), 79
_The Sempstress Madonna_, (Corsini Gallery, Rome), 81
by Cnoop, Cornelia, wife of Gerard David, Triptych, _B. V. M. and
Child, SS. Catherine and Barbara_, (Colnaghi), 37
by Daddi, Bernardo, _Altarpiece in Five Parts_, (Parry), 121
by Daubigny. C.-F., _On the Seine_, (Balli), 365
by David, Gerard, _B. V. M. and Child, with Angels, Virgin Saints,
the painter and his wife_, (Rouen Museum), 34
_The Judgement of Cambyses_, (Bruges Museum), 2
Flemish school, artists unknown, _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_
from which Titian painted the portrait now in the Prado Museum,
Madrid, (in private collection, Florence), 283
shown at Bruges, 1902., _Portrait of Roger de Jonghe_, _Austin
Friar_, (Sœurs Noires, Bruges), 333
Florentine School, artist unknown, _Madonna and Child with Angels_,
(Parry), 129
_Triptych_ by the same artist (Uffizi), _ib._
probably French, ~XIV.~ cent., artists unknown, _Adoration of the
Magi_, and _Dormition of the B. V. M._, (Dowdeswell), 91
by Gaddi, Agnolo, _Coronation of Our Lady_, (Parry), 123
by Gaddi, Taddeo, _Part of an Altarpiece_ in S. Croce, Florence, 123
by Isenbrant, Adrian, shown at Bruges, 1902., _St. Luke_,
(Colnaghi), 327
_Virgin and Child with two Angels_, (Lotman),_ ib._
_Vision of St. Ildephonsus_, (Northbrook). 330
by Israels, Josef, shown at the Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, _A
Jewish Wedding_, (J. C. J. Drucker) 179
_The New Flower_, (J. S. Forbes), 181
by Lhermitte, Leon, _Le Pêcheur_, (Balli), 365
by Maris, Jacob, shown at Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, _The Canal
Bridge_, (Agnew), 183
_A Windmill_, _Moonlight_, (Drucker), 185
by Maris, Matthew, shown at Dutch Exhibition, Guildhall, _The
Butterflies_, (W. Burrell), 187
_A Fantasy_, (Mme. E. J. van Wisselingh), 181
by Martini, Simone, _Annunciation_, (Uffizi), 323
by Mauve, Anton, _Watering Horses_, (J. C. J. Drucker), Dutch
Exhibition, Guildhall, 183
by Molenaer, Jan Miense, _A Group of Three_, (E. Speyer), Dutch
Exhibition, Guildhall, 176
by Monaco, Lorenzo, _Adoration of the Magi_, 127
_The Visitation_ (Parry), 127
by Rembrandt, _Portrait of a Lady_, (Hage), 363
School of Cimabue, artist unknown, _Nativity and Adoration_,
(Parry), 118
by Reynolds, Sir Joshua, (Normanton), _The Cardinal Virtues_,
_Temperance_ and _Prudence_, _Fortitude_ and _Justice_, _The Three
Theological Virtues_, _Faith_, _Hope_, and _Charity_, all for the
Window at New College, Oxford, 210, 213, 216
_The Little Gardener_, 219
Portraits: _George, third Duke of Marlborough_, 222
_Lady Betty Hamilton_, 116
_Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright_, 207
_The Misses Horneck_, 225
_Study of a Little Girl_, _ib._
by Ruysdael, Solomon, _Landscapes_, (2), (Louvre), 342
by Steen, Jan, _Portrait of Himself_, (Northbrook), shown at
Guildhall, 1903., 53
by Titian, (Tiziano Vecellio), _Portrait of the Empress Isabella_,
(Prado Museum, Madrid), 280
by Tocqué, Louis, _Portrait of Dame Danger_, (Louvre), 345
by Van de Capelle, J., _Off Scheveningen_, (Crews), shown at
Guildhall, 1903., 57
by Van Eecke, John, shown at Bruges, 1902., _Episodes in the Life
of St. Bernard_, (Tournai Museum), 333
by Vanni, Andrea, Altarpiece, Polyptych, _Madonna and Saints_, S.
Stefano, Siena, 311
_Annunciation_, (Chigi collection, Siena), 323
_Annunciation_, in S. Pietro Ovile, Siena, 314
details of the foregoing, 320
_Madonna and Child_, (Berenson), 317
_Virgin and Child_, from the Altarpiece in S. Francesco, Siena,
314
Venetian School, artists unknown, _Adoration of the Shepherds_, one
in the National Gallery, one from the Leuchtenberg collection, 85
by Vermeer, Jan, of Delft, _The Cook Asleep_, (Kann), shown at
Guildhall, 1903., 50
by Verspronck, Jan, Portrait of the Wife of Thomas Wijck, (Mrs.
Stephenson Clarke), shown at Guildhall, 1903., 53
Palmer, Samuel, drawing by, illustration to ‘Sacred Allegories,’
304 (2)
Parry Collection, paintings in, by Bernardo Daddi, _Altarpiece in Five
Parts_, 121
Florentine School, artist unknown, _Madonna and Child with Angels_,
129
_Triptych_ by the same artist (Uffizi), _ib._
by Agnolo Gaddi, _Coronation of Our Lady_, 123
by Lorenzo Monaco, _Adoration of the Magi_, 127
_The Visitation_, 127
School of Cimabue, artist unknown, _Nativity and Adoration_, 118
Pilon, Germain, French Sculptor, (~XVI.~ cent ), Marble Statue by _La
Charité_, (Löwengard), (two aspects of), 94
Plate belonging to Winchester College:--
Ecclesiastical, 165
Election Cup, 148
Gilt Cup with Cover, 154
Parcel Gilt Rose-water Dish and Ewer with top of Cover of Ewer, 151
Rose-water Dish and Ewer, and Small Gilt Standing Cup and Cover, 157
Steeple Cup and Hanap, 163
Sweetmeat Dish and Gilt Standing Salt, 154
Two Tankards and Standing Salt, 160
Polychrome Wooden Chest, (The Ypres Chest), 361
Pottery, _see_ Ceramics
Prince Rupert, _see_ Rupert, Prince
~Rembrandt~, (Van Rijn), painting by, _Portrait of a Lady_, (Hage),
363
variously ascribed to, and to De Koninck, shown at Guildhall, 1903.,
_Le Commencement d’Orage_, (Lady Wantage), 61
Reynolds, Sir J., paintings by, Normanton collection: _The Cardinal
Virtues_, _Temperance_ and _Prudence_, 213
_Fortitude_ and _Justice_, all designs for the Window at New
College, Oxford, 216
_The Three Theological Virtues_, _Faith_, _Hope_, and _Charity_, for
the same, 210
_The Little Gardener_, 219
Portraits: _George, third Duke of Marlborough_, 222
_Lady Betty Hamilton_, 116
_Miss Murray of Kirkcudbright,_ 207
_The Misses Horneck_, 225
_Study of a Little Girl_, _ib._
Rogers, W., engraver, line engraving by, _Portrait of Queen
Elizabeth_, (H.M. the King), V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 195
Rose-water Dish and Ewer, Parcel Gilt, with top of cover of Ewer,
(Winchester College), 155
and Small Gilt Standing Cup and Cover, (Winchester College), 157
Rossetti, D. G., drawing by, _The Maids of Elfen Mere_, to illustrate
Allingham’s ‘Music Master,’ 304 (1)
Rouen Museum, painting by Gerard David in, _B. V. M. and Child, with
Angels, Virgin Saints, the painter and his wife_, 34
Rupert, Prince, Mezzotint by, _The Great Executioner_, after
Spagnoletto, (H.M. King Edward), 270
Russia, _see_ Russian Lace _under_ Lace, _and_ Leuchtenberg Collection
Ruysdael, Solomon, paintings by, _Landscapes_, (2), (Louvre), 342
~Scandinavia~, Art of, _see_ Denmark _and_ Iceland
=Sculpture=, _see_ Bas-reliefs, Bronzes, Statues and Terra-cottas:--
Greek, Burlington Fine Art Exhibition, _Bust of Aphrodite_, probably
by Praxiteles, (Leconfield), 239
_Head of a Mourning Woman_, (Ponsonby), 241
_Head of a Youth_, (Vincent), 241
Seals of the Gilds of Bakers, Barbers and Butchers, Brussels, (in
text), 191, 192
Silver and Silver Plate, _see_ Plate
Chalices, Scandinavian, early ~XIII.~ cent., from Iceland, with
details of inscription and decoration, (V. and A. M.), 71
The Sorö, from Denmark, 356
Sorö, Chalice, The, from Denmark, 356
Stadler, J. C., Coloured Aquatint by, _The Hôtel de Ville, Louvain_,
after Prout; V. and A. Museum Exhibition, 203
Standing Salt (Winchester College), 154, 160
Statue, Marble, by G. Pilon, ~XVI.~ cent., _La Charité_, (Lowengard),
(two aspects), 94
Steen, Jan, painting by, _Portrait of Himself_, (Northbrook), shown
at Guildhall, 1903., 53
Stothard, T., drawing by, for an illustration, _Cupid’s Shooting
Lesson_, 301 (1)
Svastika, The, occurring in an Oriental Carpet owned by H. Hartley, 45
Various forms of, to illustrations in text, 43, 44, 47, 48
Sweetmeat Dish (Winchester College), 154
~Tankards~, silver, (Winchester College), 160
=Tapestry:=--
Gobelin, _Psyche’s Bath_, and section of border of the same,
(Louvre), 231
High Warp, _Louis XIV. visiting the Royal Furniture Manufactory at
the Gobelins_, after C. Le Brun, 228
Terra-cottas, Greek, Burlington Fine Art Exhibition, Doll, (Mrs.
Mitchell), 251
_Female Caryatid Figure_, _Woman Leaning on Pedestal_, _The Young
Dionysos_, (Taylor), 251
_Woman with Fan_, (Knowles), 251
=Textiles,= (_see_ Lace, _and_ Tapestry), Carpets, Tabriz, centre
medallion illustrating the Tree of Life and Lotus Flower, (Gillow),
350
Titian, (Tiziano Vecellio), painting by, _Portrait of the Empress
Isabella_, (Prado Museum, Madrid), 280
Tocqué, Louis, painting by, _Portrait of Dame Danger_, (Louvre), 345
Turner, C., Mezzotint by, after Calcott, _The Water Mill_, (V. and A.
M.), 201
Type, Mr. Robert Proctor’s new Greek ‘Otter’ type, _facsimile_, 359
~Van de Capelle~, Jan, painting by, _Off Scheveningen_, (Crews),
shown at Guildhall, 1903., 57
Van Eecke, John, painting by, shewn at Bruges, 1902., _Episodes in
the Life of St. Bernard_, (Tournai Museum), 333
Vanni, Andrea, paintings by, Altarpiece, Polyptych, _Madonna and
Saints_, S. Stefano, Siena, 311
_Annunciation_, (Chigi collection, Siena), 323
_Annunciation_, in S. Pietro Ovile, Siena, 314
details of the foregoing, 320;
_Madonna and Child_, (Berenson), 317
_Virgin and Child_, from the Altarpiece in S. Francesco, Siena, 314
Venetian School, paintings of, artists unknown, _Adoration of the
Shepherds_, one in the National Gallery, one from the Leuchtenberg
collection, 85
Vermeer, Jan, of Delft, painting by, _The Cook Asleep_, (Kann), shown
at Guildhall, 1903., 50
Verspronck, Jan, painting by, _Portrait of the Wife of Thomas Wijck_,
(Mrs. Stephenson Clarke), shown at Guildhall, 1903., 53
=Victoria and Albert Museum:=--
Exhibition of British Engraving at:--
coloured Aquatint in, by Stadler, after Prout, _The Hôtel de
Ville, Louvain_, 203
engravings (line) in, by T. Hearne and W. Woollett, _Roman Edifice
in Ruins_, working proof, 197
by W. Rogers, _Portrait of Queen Elizabeth_, (H. M. the King),
195
mezzotint in, by C. Turner after Callcott, _The Water Mill_, 201
Scandinavian Silver Chalice, early ~XIII.~ cent., from Iceland, in,
(with details of inscription and decoration), 71
~Westall, W.~, drawing by, for an illustration, _Barefooted Woman
under Tree, Man and Dog to left_, 298 (1)
Williams, Mary Ann, engraving by, _Jacque_, illustration to Curmer’s
‘Paul et Virginie,’ 307 (2)
Winchester College, Plate of, 148, 151, 154, 157, 160, 163, 165
=Wood-carvings:=--
Burgundian Chest, ~XV.~ cent. (Hospices civiles, Aalst), 361
Polychrome Chest, (The Ypres Chest), 361
Woollett, W., engraver, _see_ Hearne, T.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] ‘Reports from Her Majesty’s representatives abroad as to the
statutory provisions existing in foreign countries for the preservation
of historical buildings.’-- Miscellaneous, No. 2 (1897).
[2] Messrs. Ballantyne, Hanson and Co.
[3] Appendix, Doc. I.
[4] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p. 597, note 3.
[5] Vasari, ed. 1568, Vol. I, p. 381.
[6] Appendix, Doc. II.
[7] Appendix, Doc. IV.
[8] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p. 601.
[9] Appendix, Doc. V.
[10] Appendix, Doc. VI.
[11] G. Richa, _Chiese Fior._ Vol. III, p. 122.
[12] l. c., p. 124.
[13] l. c., p. 125.
[14] Cod. Magliabechiano; XXVI, 23; fol. Sio _recto_ to 811 _recto_.
[15] Appendix, Doc. VIII.
[16] Appendix, Doc. III.
[17] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p. 595, note.
[18] Appendix, Doc. VIII.
[19] A. Cocchi, _Le Chiese di Firenze_, Firenze, 1903, Vol. I, p. 180.
[20] Appendix, Doc. IX.
[21] l. c., Lib. III, ed. 1790, p. 122.
[22] Firenze: _Biblioteca Nazionale_, Codice II, I, 129; _Storia della
Nobilita di Firenze: Scritta da Piero di Gio. Monaldi_. [_c._ 1626.]
[23] Vasari, ed. 1568, Vol. I, p. 417.
[24] I have searched in vain for it, in the protocols of that notary,
preserved in the Archivio di Stato at Florence.
[25] G. Richa, _Chiese Fior._ Vol. III, p.
[26] Appendix, Doc. VII
[27] C. Cennini, _Il Libro del Arte_, Firenze, 1859, cap. clxxi, p. 122.
[28] Appendix, Doc. IX.
[29] _Ricordi di Alesso Baldovinetti_, Lucca, 1868, pp. 14 and 16.
[30] Appendix, Doc. VII.
[31] Appendix, Doc. IX.
[32] ‘Tirthankara.’ from Tirt’ ha (Sanskrit--any Hindu shrine or holy
place to which Hindus make pilgrimages). ‘Tirthankara’ is the generic
title of the twenty-four deceased saints held sacred by the Jains. They
are deified mortals.
[33] ‘Labarum’ was the name given before the time of Constantine, and
apparently as far back as that of Hadrian, in the Roman army to the
standard of the cavalry. Gradually this became the standard of the
whole army, and in its later developments the banner became surmounted
by the Eagle of Victory, but always with the cross beneath. Constantine
replaced the eagle by the sacred monogram (the Greek letter P traversed
by X); he further embroidered the Christian emblems on the purple of
the banner in gold and jewels, and beneath these he placed medallions
representing in portraiture himself and his children.
[34] Compare the inscription on a paten from Haraldsborg, Denmark, in
the Copenhagen Museum:--HINC PANEM VITE MVNDATI SVMITE QVIQ[ue]. (J. J.
A. Worsaae, ‘Nordiske Oldsager i det Kongelige Museum i Kjöbenhavn,’
1859, p. 144.)
[35] F. Bock, ‘Les Trésors Sacrés de Cologne,’ 1862, pl. 28. H. Otte,
‘Handbuch der Kirchlichen Kunst-Archäologie.’ 5th ed. 1883, I. p. 223.
[36] It is distinctive of chalices of the twelfth century and earlier
that the bowl either is separated from the knop by only a narrow
interval or springs directly from it. Compare the examples of the
eighth to twelfth century figured in Otte’s Handbuch, and the French
examples of the Church of St. Gauzelin and of St. Rémy. (Exposition
rétrospective, Paris, 1900. Catalogue illustré, pp. 65, 73.) It may
be remarked that only one of these examples exhibits the slightly
turned-out lip which characterizes English chalices of early date.
(See Hope and Fallow, ‘English Medieval Chalices and Patens,’
_Archaeological Journal_, xliii, 142.)
[37] Burlington Fine Arts Club. Exhibition of Silversmiths’ Work, 1901.
Illustrated Catalogue, Pl. II.
[38] C. Nyrop, ‘Meddelelser om Dansk Guldsmedekunst,’ 1885, fig. 3, p.
6. Gams, Series Episcoporum, p. 330.
[39] J. J. A. Worsaae, ‘Nordiske Oldsager,’ p. 134. J. O. Westwood,
Catalogue of Fictile Ivories in the South Kensington Museum, p. 152.
[40] A. Bertram. ‘Das eherne Taufbecken im Dome zu Hildesheim.’ In
_Zeitschrift fur Christliche Kunst_, xiii, 129.
[41] See the casts of the doors of the churches of Sauland and
Hallingdal in the South Kensington Museum.
[42] F. York Powell on Icelandic literature.
[43] See ‘Zorzon da Castelfranco. La sua origine, la sua morte e
tomba.’ By Dr. Georg Gronau. Venice, 1894.
[44] Cf. Jacobsen. Rep. fur Kunstwiss. xxiv, 5, p. 368.
[45] P. 134: ‘No responsibility is accepted by the author for the
attributions of pictures on this list,’ etc.
[46] Described and reproduced in Havard’s ‘Merveilles de l’Art
Hollandais, exposées à Amsterdam en 1872.’
[47] _Inter alia_, those in the R. Kann, M. Kann, and Schloss
collections (Paris); the Teixeira de Mattos collection (Holland), etc.,
etc.
[48] Rosini ‘Storia,’ III, p. 28. In 1828 it was owned by an Abate
L. Celotti of Venice. Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle suspect that it
may be the panel described in 1742 in the catalogue of the collection
of the Prince du Carignan as ‘Vierge et un petit S. Jean par André
Solario, dans le gout de Léonard de Vincy’ (sold for 240 livres). See
also Mündler, ‘Essai d’une Analyse Critique,’ etc., Paris, Firmin
Didot, 1850.
[49] Published as Solario’s in my ‘Lorenzo Lotto,’ p. 95, note.
[50] Mr. Horne hopes before long to publish these works in ~The
Burlington Magazine~.
[51] Appendix, Doc. VIII,
[52] Appendix, Doc. VII.
[53] l. c., ed. 1568, Vol. I, p. 47.
[54] C. Cennini, ‘Il Libro dell’ Arte,’ Firenze, 1859, cap. 141, p. 94.
[55] The painter from whom Baldovinetti purchased this ‘biadetto’
was ‘Lorenzo dipiero randeglj dipintore in borgho s^o apostolo’;
so named in an entry of the year 1472 in the ‘Libro Rosso’ of the
Compagnia di San Luca, fol. 90 tergo. This Lorenzo was, no doubt, the
‘Lorenzo dipiero dip[a]pa, dipintore,’ of the popolo of ‘Santa Maria
di Verzaia drento alle mura,’ who in 1498 returned his ‘Portata della
Decima,’ in Gonfalone Drago, Quartiere di Santo Spirito. He was then
living in a house which he had bought in 1483, situated in the Via
San Gallo; and he still rented ‘vna botegha aduso didipintore, posta
in firenze in borgho sant^o appostolo enelpopolo di sant^o stefano a
ponte.’--Firenze: Archivio di Stato; l. c. Campione 2^{do}, N^o verde
28, fol. 909.
[56] Cennini, ed. 1859, cap. 61, p. 37.
[57] This would appear to have been a very unusual method. The
Giottesque painters commonly employed a ‘bed’ of a reddish colour.
[58] Cennini, ed. 1859, cap. 60, p. 36.
[59] Cennini, ed. 2859, cap. 52, p. 33. C. J. Herringham: ‘The Book of
the Art of Cennino Cennini,’ London, 1899, p. 256.
[60] In an early manuscript cited by Mrs. Herringham, in her edition
of Cennini, ‘azzurro della Magnia’ is said to have cost from 1 to 3
ducats the pound, whereas ultramarine cost 5 ducats the ounce. Cennini,
English ed., 1899, p. 257.
[61] Cennini, ed. 1859, cap. 50, p. 32.
[62] Cennini, English ed., 1899, p. 255.
[63] ‘Cennini,’ ed. 1859, p. 66.
[64] Vasari, ed. 1568, Vol. I, p. 380. The passage in the original runs
thus: ‘Le quali Alesso abozzò à fresco, e poi fini a secco, temperando
i colori con rosso d’ uouo mescolato con vernice liquida fatta à fuoco.’
[65] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, pp. 673 and 685.
[66] Appendix, Doc. IX.
[67] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p. 599, note.
[68] G. Richa, ‘Chiese Fior.’, Vol. V, p. xxxv.
[69] Appendix, Doc. VI.
[70] Appendix, Doc. XI.
[71] Appendix, Doc. XII.
[72] Appendix, Doc. XIII. Compare, also, Doc. XIV.
[73] Vasari, ed. 1568, Vol. I. p. 380.
[74] l. c., p. 189.
[75] Vasari, ed. 1568, Vol. I, p. 380.
[76] G. Richa, ‘Chiese Fior.,’ Vol. III, p. 178.
[77] Vasari, ed. Sansoni, Vol. II, p. 592, note.
[78] G. Richa, ‘Chiese Fior.,’ Firenze, 1754, Vol. III, p. 177.
[79] F. Baldinucci, ‘Notizie de’ Professori del Disegno, da Cimabue in
Qua,’ Firenze, 1767, Vol. III, p. 187, note.
[80] G. Frizzoni, ‘La Galleria Morelli in Bergamo,’ Bergamo, 1891, pp.
15-16.
[81] Translated by A. Teixeira de Mattos.
[82] The freedom of the gild was not granted to any one under the age
of 30.
[83] Translated by A. Teixeira de Mattos.
[84] While, in accordance with the principles adopted from the first
in this magazine, we give Mr. Cecil Smith perfect liberty to express
his opinion on this piece--the opinion of one of the most accomplished
experts--it is right to say that the opposite view of the matter will
be stated in an early number of this magazine by another expert writer,
Mr. John Marshall.--~Ed.~
[85] It would appear that neither Dr. Ricci, who ascribes this
altar-piece to Pintoricchio, nor Dr. Steinmann, who gives it, correctly
as we think, to Antonio da Viterbo, has noticed a Crucifixion and
Saints clearly by the same painter and in the same phase, in the chapel
of St. Anthony in the lower church of Assisi.
[86] A chapter extracted from Mr. Solon’s forthcoming book. ‘A Brief
History of Old English Porcelain,’ by kind permission of Messrs.
Bemrose & Sons, Limited, London and Derby.
[87] Translated from the original German by P. H. Oakley Williams.
[88] Cf. Aretino, ‘Letter’ (Paris, 1609), Vol. III, p. 36 verso.
[89] l. c., p. 76 verso.
[90] Crowe and Cavalcaselle, ‘Titian,’ Vol. II, Doc. LXVII.
[91] This letter, which is little known, is to be found in Charavay,
‘Inventaire des Autographes de B. Fillon’ (Paris, 1879), Vol. II, p.
300.
[92] Cf. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Vol. I, Doc. XVII.
[93] Cf. Campori, ‘Raccolta di Cataloghi,’ p. 275. A plate of de Iode,
mentioned by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, has also, it appears, been done
from this picture.
[94] Not 1522, as has often been stated.
[95] Reproduced in Julius Meyer’s ‘Die Burggrafen von Nürnberg im
Hohenzollern-Mausoleum zu Heilsbronn in Wort and Bild,’ Ansbach, 1897,
p. 92.
[96] ‘Erinnerungen an die Hohenzollernherrschaft in Franken,’ Ansbach,
1890, p. 118.
[97] Behr’s ‘Genealogie der in Europa regierenden Fürstenhäuser,’ Tafel
cxxviii.
[98] Plate 3, previously reproduced in Helbing’s ‘Monatsberichte über
Kunst,’ Munich, 1903 pp. 68, 74.
[99] The collections of drawings recently secured by Birmingham and
Adelaide were both made by artists.
[100] Only the other day I had the pleasure of seeing South Kensington
purchase, for twenty-six guineas, two drawings by Millais, studies for
or after his Dream of Fair Women in Moxon’s Tennyson. But with the
exception of the bidding by South Kensington and myself, there was
no competition for the drawings, though every dealer in London was
struggling at the sale--the Gambart--for cheap and rubbishy, though
popular, French and Spanish water-colours that brought far higher
prices owing to some fad of the moment.
[101] See the previous note as to South Kensington. The edition was
issued by Messrs. Freemantle.
[102] I have to thank MM. Lévy et ses Fils, of Paris, for their
courteous permission to reproduce the photograph of this picture,
specially taken by them for a forthcoming publication on Sienese
painting.
[103] I find that this work has been attributed in the last edition of
the ‘Cicerone,’ with somewhat unusual insight, to its right author.
[104] I must here add two other works, also quite evidently by Vanni,
to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. Berenson, to whom I owe
much for having first called my attention, some years ago, to the
possibilities of Andrea as an artist. The first of these is the sacred
picture of the Madonna in the great pilgrimage church on Monte Nero,
near Leghorn. The second, a damaged, almost ruined fresco in the church
of S. Giovenale at Orvieto, has been published with a notice by Don
Guido Cagnola, in the _Rassegna d’ Arte_ for February-March, 1903.
[105] The composition of this picture is remarkably fine, so fine
indeed that I doubt its being Isenbrant’s, and yet the picture does not
look like a copy.
[106] Quelques Peintres Brugeois de la première moitié du XVI^e
siècle--I. Jan Prevost. Gand, 1902, 38 pp. and 4 phototypes. This
master was a Walloon, born at Mons. It is not only more correct to
write his family name as he himself and his forbears wrote it, but it
is important to do so as the forms De la Pasture, Gossart, Prevost
etc., remind the reader that the Walloons had a considerable share
in the development of the Netherlandish school, far greater than the
Flemings.
[107] ‘Ausstellung von Kunstwerken des Mittelalters und der Renaissance
aus Berliner Privatbesitz,’ Berlin, 1899, 4to, pp. 170-173.
[108] Wallis: ‘Italian Ceramic Art -- the Maiolica Pavement Tiles of
the Fifteenth Century,’ London, 1902, 12mo, figs. 10-24.
[109] Owing to a mistake of the photographer, the figure of this jar is
reversed.
[110] They are found again, slightly more elaborated, upon an albarello
of the same series in the British museum. Another one belongs to an
amateur in Berlin.
[111] According to Litta; Moreri gives different dates.
[112] They bear the stamp of a convent in that town.
[113] Pliny, Herodotus, and Strabo include as within the bounds of
Assyria those countries over which its sway had at times ascendency;
the whole of Babylonia, all Mesopotamia, a portion of Mount Zagroo,
modern Kurdistan, all Syria as far as Cilicia, Judea, and Phoenicia,
and during the seventh century ~B.C.~, Lydia, Cyprus, and Egypt on the
west, and part of Media on the east, with Babylonia and part of Arabia
on the south.
[114] Of the Vedas, the four religious books of the Hindus, three were
composed about 1700 _B.C._ and the fourth much later. None of them were
collected and written until between 1000 and 800 _B.C._
[115] Zendavesta:--‘Zend’ is old Persian or Achæmenian, meaning
commentary or explanation, and was the ‘Zend’ which accompanied the
‘Avesta,’ = the law or the word. The original text of the Avesta
was not written by a Persian, as it was not couched in a language
used in Persia, nor indeed were any existing Persian customs or
practices sanctioned by its tenets. It was written in Media and in the
language of Media by the priests of Ragha and Atropatine. It has been
practically decided that the greater part of it was written before the
third century ~B.C~, while no part of it was written after the fourth
century ~A.D.~
[116] Reproduced from a photograph provided by the kindness of Dr. A.
W. Mollerup, director of the national museum, Copenhagen.
[117] C. Nyrop. Meddelelser om Dansk Guldsmedekunst, 1885, fig. 3, p. 6.
[118] It is, however, described by Nyrop (_op. cit._ p. 7) as ‘hammered
out thin.’ Compare the description of the characteristics of mortuary
or coffin chalices given by Hope and Fallow, ‘English Medieval Chalices
and Patens,’ in _Archaeological Journal_, xliii, p. 140.
[119] Translated by A. Teixeira de Mattos.
[120] Translated by A. Teixeira de Mattos.
[121] Translated by P. H. Oakley Williams.
[122] Firenze, Archivio di Stato, Diplomatico, Santa Trinita, 1371, 1^o
novembre: cited by Arnaldo Cocchi, ‘Le Chiese di Firenze,’ Firenze,
1903, Vol. I, p. 180.
[123] Lacuna in original.
[124] An error for San Benedetto. This chapel, the patronage of which
now belongs to the Marchesi Lotteringhi della Stufa, is the first
chapel of the right aisle, on entering the church.
[125] Lacuna in original.
[126] ed. Firenze, 1767, Vol. III, pp. 186-7, notes.
[127] These numbers refer to the annotations which follow this document.
[128] These interpolations are in the hand of Giovanni di Niccolò di
Messer Giovanni Baldovinetti, as appears from his signature, to one of
the notes in this volume, on a slip inserted between fol. 10, and fol.
11.
[129] Lacuna in original.
[130] These numbers refer to the corresponding numbers prefixed to the
foregoing paragraphs.
[131] Vasari, ed. 1550, Vol. I, p. 410.
[132] ed. 1790, Lib. III, p. 96.
[133] Lacuna in original.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
