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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

~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.

¶ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.~

~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.~

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.

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._]

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.

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.

❧ 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.