Mother, is this the darkness of the end,The Shadow of Death? and is that outer seaInfinite imminent Eternity?[212]And does the death-pang by man's seed sustain'dIn Time's each instant cause thy face to bendIts silent prayer upon the Son, while HeBlesses the dead with His hand silentlyTo His long day which hours no more offend?Mother of grace, the pass is difficult,Keen as these rocks, and the bewildered soulsThrong it like echoes, blindly shuddering through.Thy name, O Lord, each spirit's voice extols,Whose peace abides in the dark avenueAmid the bitterness of things occult.
Mother, is this the darkness of the end,The Shadow of Death? and is that outer seaInfinite imminent Eternity?[212]And does the death-pang by man's seed sustain'dIn Time's each instant cause thy face to bendIts silent prayer upon the Son, while HeBlesses the dead with His hand silentlyTo His long day which hours no more offend?Mother of grace, the pass is difficult,Keen as these rocks, and the bewildered soulsThrong it like echoes, blindly shuddering through.Thy name, O Lord, each spirit's voice extols,Whose peace abides in the dark avenueAmid the bitterness of things occult.
D. G. Rossetti:Sonnets and Ballads.
The landscape from which the picture takes its title is remarkable. Leonardo, a pioneer in so many other things, was a pioneer also in Alpine exploration, and has even been credited with a first ascent in the Monte Rosa range. However this may be, it is clear from his pictures and drawings that his mineralogical and geological studies attracted him to the curious rocks and peaks which he had observed among themountains of North Italy.[213]"In him," says Mr. Pater, "first appears the taste for what isbizarreorrecherchéin landscape; hollow places full of the green shadow of bituminous rocks, ridged reefs of trap-rock which cut the water into quaint sheets of light; all solemn effects of moving water; you may follow it springing from its distant source among the rocks on the heath of the 'Madonna of the Balances,' passing as a little fall into the treacherous calm of the 'Madonna of the Lake,' next, as a goodly river below the cliffs of the 'Madonna of the Rocks,' stealing out in a network of divided streams in 'La Gioconda' to the sea-shore of the 'St. Anne.' It is the landscape not of dreams or of fancy, but of places far withdrawn." Notice also the flowers of the foreground. "Leonardo paints flowers with such curious felicity that different writers have attributed to him a fondness for particular flowers, as Clement the cyclamen, and Rio the jasmine; while at Venice there is a stray leaf from his portfolio dotted all over with studies of violets and the white rose." "This work," says Ford Madox Brown, "seems to have been laid in entirely with ivory black, which, as its wont is, has come through the upper painting to the extent of leaving only to look at a picture in black, heightened, in the lights, with a little faint yellow. So much is true, and also that the rocks, from which the picture takes its name, are of the most singular formations, such as no modern geologist would care to lecture on, the herbage being much the same as to its botanical value. But in spite of these and otherobjections, such is the intrinsic power of the work in style of drawing and beauty of expression, that nothing known, not by the greatest masters, can do more than hold their own against it. Just stand a little way off, study the heads, and see what they tell you—most supreme master of the human face divine" (Magazine of Art, 1890, p. 135).
There is, as everyone knows, a very similar picture to this in the Louvre; and during the last few years an Anglo-French dispute has raged furiously in artistic circles with regard to the authenticity, priority, and relative merits of the two pictures. The pedigree of our picture is singularly complete, and there can be no doubt that it is a veritable work by the hand of Leonardo. It agrees minutely with the description given by Lomazzo (in 1584) of a painting by Leonardo, which in his time was in the chapel of the Conception in the church of S. Francesco at Milan. The picture in the Louvre differs from Lomazzo's description in the one essential difference between the two pictures. In the Louvre picture the angel looks towards us and points to St. John, thus connecting the spectator with what is taking place. In our picture, on the other hand, there is no such connecting link. The action is complete within itself. The spectator is not invited to participate in what is to him a divine vision. It is clear therefore that our picture is the one which, in 1584, was in S. Francesco at Milan, and which passed for a work by Leonardo. External evidence has come to light during the last few years proving what had hitherto only been taken for granted, namely, that Leonardo did execute the central composition of the altar-piece for that church. This is a memorial from Ambrogio di Predis and Leonardo da Vinci to the Duke of Milan, praying him to intervene in a dispute which had arisen between the petitioners and the brotherhood "della Concezione" with regard to the price to be paid for certain works of art furnished by them for the chapel of the brotherhood in S. Francesco. The brotherhood had priced the oil-painting of Our Lady executed by Leonardo at only 25 ducats, whereas it was worth 100 ducats, as shown by the account and proved by the fact that certain persons were found willing to purchase it at that price. No evidence is forthcoming as to the settlement of the dispute. We have then these facts: that Leonardo painted a picture of Our Lady for S. Francesco, that such a picture was in the church in 1584, and that our picture precisely agrees with Lomazzo's description of it. The picture remained in the chapel until some time between 1751 and 1787. In the latter year Bianconi, in a guide-book to Milan, states that the two side panels (1661, 1662) were still there, but that the picture "by the hand of Leonardo" had been removed. In 1777 our picture was brought to England by Gavin Hamilton, and sold by him to the Marquis of Lansdowne, from whom it afterwards passed by exchange into the collection of the Earl of Suffolk at Charlton Park. From Lord Suffolk it was bought in 1880 for the National Gallery, the price being £9000.It will thus be seen that the external evidence in favour of this picture being a veritable work by Leonardo is unusually strong. Internal evidence is more difficult to bring to the test, resting as it does on æsthetic considerations, the force of which depends on the authority of the witness and the competence of the court to which he appeals. Several critics, it may be explained, had convinced themselves long ago that the Louvre picture was the original and ours a copy. The discovery of the new document above referred to seemed at first to strengthen the authenticity of our picture. But the point was ingeniously turned by the following gratuitous and entirely unsupported theory. Leonardo, says Dr. Richter,must havesold the original to the French king, and let the church have a copy at the low price agreed upon. Supporting this theory in turn by internal evidence, the enemies of our picture declare it to be "an entirely wretched performance" (Richter); "superficial," "insipid," "heavy," "woolly," "lacking in elevation," "feeble," in short, "a work in which we do not feel the real presence of the master" (Müntz). Those who thus disparage our picture suppose it to be a copy by Ambrogio di Predis. To this theory, an effective retort has been given by the purchase for the Gallery of the two wings that used to flank the central picture. It is impossible to suppose that the painter of No. 1662 was capable of producing our picture, of which the skilful delineation and mysterious beauty delight all spectators who have no preconceived theory in the matter. It should be stated that some of the faults found with our picture are admitted by the authorities of the Gallery. "The ill-drawn giltnimbiover the heads of the three principal figures, as well as the clumsy reed cross which rests on St. John's shoulder, are additions of a comparatively late period, probably of the 17th century." Again, "the hand of the Virgin resting on St. John's shoulder is obviously the mere daub of a picture restorer."Those who support the authenticity of our picture do not feel called upon to carry the war into the enemy's camp, though both Sir Frederick Burton and Sir Edward Poynter notice various defects and repaintings in the Louvre picture, and the former points out that its pedigree does not extend back beyond 1642. The fact seems to be that neither picture can properly be called a copy of the other. The most striking difference—that in the attitude of the angel—is fundamental, and not such as a copyist would venture to make. There are many other differences; indeed no single part of the groups is really alike; and those differences (as Sir Edward Poynter shows) are such as an artist would make in working from different studies. Studies for portions of both pictures exist. A further question in dispute is which of the two versions is the earlier. To Sir Edward Poynter "it seems that our picture shows traces of Leonardo's training in the school of Verrocchio, and that it is the Louvre picture which has more of the idealised refinement of type on which Luini formed his style." To Mr. Claude Phillips, on the other hand, the angel of the Louvre looking straight out of the picture seems to be essentially Florentine, and to belong specifically to the school of Verrocchio (see 296 in our Gallery). Thevariation in the angel's attitude, as given in our version, is in conception a distinct improvement: it makes the picture more self-contained. "One can imagine," says Mr. MacColl, "Leonardo, on second thoughts, judging that the Louvre angel drew too much attention to himself by his pointing hand, and was better within the picture with downcast eyes than when inviting the attention of the spectator by his regard." (The very interesting discussion summarised above is contained in the following English publications: Dr. Richter, in theArt Journalfor June 1894; replied to by Sir Edward Poynter in the same magazine for August, and by Sir F. Burton in theNineteenth Centuryfor July 1894. See also Eugene Müntz'sLeonardo da Vinci, vol. i. ch. vi.; theCatalogue of Milanese Picturesat the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1898, pp. li.-lvi.; Mr. Claude Phillips in theNational Review, Dec. 1894; and "D. S. M." in theSaturday Review, May 28, 1898, and Feb. 18, 1899. The English articles contain references to the articles on Dr. Richter's side by Motta, Frizzoni, and others.)
There is, as everyone knows, a very similar picture to this in the Louvre; and during the last few years an Anglo-French dispute has raged furiously in artistic circles with regard to the authenticity, priority, and relative merits of the two pictures. The pedigree of our picture is singularly complete, and there can be no doubt that it is a veritable work by the hand of Leonardo. It agrees minutely with the description given by Lomazzo (in 1584) of a painting by Leonardo, which in his time was in the chapel of the Conception in the church of S. Francesco at Milan. The picture in the Louvre differs from Lomazzo's description in the one essential difference between the two pictures. In the Louvre picture the angel looks towards us and points to St. John, thus connecting the spectator with what is taking place. In our picture, on the other hand, there is no such connecting link. The action is complete within itself. The spectator is not invited to participate in what is to him a divine vision. It is clear therefore that our picture is the one which, in 1584, was in S. Francesco at Milan, and which passed for a work by Leonardo. External evidence has come to light during the last few years proving what had hitherto only been taken for granted, namely, that Leonardo did execute the central composition of the altar-piece for that church. This is a memorial from Ambrogio di Predis and Leonardo da Vinci to the Duke of Milan, praying him to intervene in a dispute which had arisen between the petitioners and the brotherhood "della Concezione" with regard to the price to be paid for certain works of art furnished by them for the chapel of the brotherhood in S. Francesco. The brotherhood had priced the oil-painting of Our Lady executed by Leonardo at only 25 ducats, whereas it was worth 100 ducats, as shown by the account and proved by the fact that certain persons were found willing to purchase it at that price. No evidence is forthcoming as to the settlement of the dispute. We have then these facts: that Leonardo painted a picture of Our Lady for S. Francesco, that such a picture was in the church in 1584, and that our picture precisely agrees with Lomazzo's description of it. The picture remained in the chapel until some time between 1751 and 1787. In the latter year Bianconi, in a guide-book to Milan, states that the two side panels (1661, 1662) were still there, but that the picture "by the hand of Leonardo" had been removed. In 1777 our picture was brought to England by Gavin Hamilton, and sold by him to the Marquis of Lansdowne, from whom it afterwards passed by exchange into the collection of the Earl of Suffolk at Charlton Park. From Lord Suffolk it was bought in 1880 for the National Gallery, the price being £9000.
It will thus be seen that the external evidence in favour of this picture being a veritable work by Leonardo is unusually strong. Internal evidence is more difficult to bring to the test, resting as it does on æsthetic considerations, the force of which depends on the authority of the witness and the competence of the court to which he appeals. Several critics, it may be explained, had convinced themselves long ago that the Louvre picture was the original and ours a copy. The discovery of the new document above referred to seemed at first to strengthen the authenticity of our picture. But the point was ingeniously turned by the following gratuitous and entirely unsupported theory. Leonardo, says Dr. Richter,must havesold the original to the French king, and let the church have a copy at the low price agreed upon. Supporting this theory in turn by internal evidence, the enemies of our picture declare it to be "an entirely wretched performance" (Richter); "superficial," "insipid," "heavy," "woolly," "lacking in elevation," "feeble," in short, "a work in which we do not feel the real presence of the master" (Müntz). Those who thus disparage our picture suppose it to be a copy by Ambrogio di Predis. To this theory, an effective retort has been given by the purchase for the Gallery of the two wings that used to flank the central picture. It is impossible to suppose that the painter of No. 1662 was capable of producing our picture, of which the skilful delineation and mysterious beauty delight all spectators who have no preconceived theory in the matter. It should be stated that some of the faults found with our picture are admitted by the authorities of the Gallery. "The ill-drawn giltnimbiover the heads of the three principal figures, as well as the clumsy reed cross which rests on St. John's shoulder, are additions of a comparatively late period, probably of the 17th century." Again, "the hand of the Virgin resting on St. John's shoulder is obviously the mere daub of a picture restorer."
Those who support the authenticity of our picture do not feel called upon to carry the war into the enemy's camp, though both Sir Frederick Burton and Sir Edward Poynter notice various defects and repaintings in the Louvre picture, and the former points out that its pedigree does not extend back beyond 1642. The fact seems to be that neither picture can properly be called a copy of the other. The most striking difference—that in the attitude of the angel—is fundamental, and not such as a copyist would venture to make. There are many other differences; indeed no single part of the groups is really alike; and those differences (as Sir Edward Poynter shows) are such as an artist would make in working from different studies. Studies for portions of both pictures exist. A further question in dispute is which of the two versions is the earlier. To Sir Edward Poynter "it seems that our picture shows traces of Leonardo's training in the school of Verrocchio, and that it is the Louvre picture which has more of the idealised refinement of type on which Luini formed his style." To Mr. Claude Phillips, on the other hand, the angel of the Louvre looking straight out of the picture seems to be essentially Florentine, and to belong specifically to the school of Verrocchio (see 296 in our Gallery). Thevariation in the angel's attitude, as given in our version, is in conception a distinct improvement: it makes the picture more self-contained. "One can imagine," says Mr. MacColl, "Leonardo, on second thoughts, judging that the Louvre angel drew too much attention to himself by his pointing hand, and was better within the picture with downcast eyes than when inviting the attention of the spectator by his regard." (The very interesting discussion summarised above is contained in the following English publications: Dr. Richter, in theArt Journalfor June 1894; replied to by Sir Edward Poynter in the same magazine for August, and by Sir F. Burton in theNineteenth Centuryfor July 1894. See also Eugene Müntz'sLeonardo da Vinci, vol. i. ch. vi.; theCatalogue of Milanese Picturesat the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1898, pp. li.-lvi.; Mr. Claude Phillips in theNational Review, Dec. 1894; and "D. S. M." in theSaturday Review, May 28, 1898, and Feb. 18, 1899. The English articles contain references to the articles on Dr. Richter's side by Motta, Frizzoni, and others.)
Ascribed to Sir Antonio More(Flemish: 1512-1578).
Antonij Mor (commonly known in this country as Sir Antonio More, though when and by whom he was knighted does not appear) succeeded Holbein as the principal portrait-painter settled in England. "Mor's style," it has been said, "so much resembles that of Holbein as to frequently create a doubt to which of them a portrait is to be attributed; but he is not so clear and delicate in his colouring, perhaps from having painted so much in Spain, as that master." He was born at Antwerp and studied under Schorel (see 720). An example of his earlier manner, dated 1544, is in the Berlin Museum. Mor afterwards travelled in Italy, and quickly emancipated himself from the dry manner of Schorel, as his portrait of Cardinal Granvelle at Vienna, done in 1549, shows. His portraits from this time forward are remarkable for their "unpretentious dignity." Cardinal Granvelle introduced him to the service of Charles V., by whom he was sent to Portugal to paint some of the royal family. He was in the service of Queen Mary from 1554 to 1558. She presented him with a hundred pounds and a gold chain, and allowed him a hundred pounds a quarter. He was also largely employed by the Howards and the Russells and others, grandees of the court. One of his portraits of the Queen is in the Duke of Wellington's Collection at Apsley House. When Philip went to Spain to take possession of the throne, Mor accompanied him, and for some time basked in the full sunshine of royal favour. Suddenly he withdrew to Brussels, for some cause which has never been satisfactorily explained. According to one story, the king, visiting Mor's studio, laid his hand upon his shoulder as he stood at the easel—a familiarity which the artist returned by rudely rapping the royal knuckles with his maulstick, or daubing them with carmine. Theofficers of the Inquisition took advantage of this incident, it is said, to vent their jealous wrath against the painter. He finally established himself at Antwerp, his declining years being spent in ease and opulence—the fruits of successful industry at the courts of England, Portugal, and Spain. He is described to us as "very much the courtier, and a gentleman of grave and majestic manners"—a description borne out by the fine portrait of himself at Althorp.
Antonij Mor (commonly known in this country as Sir Antonio More, though when and by whom he was knighted does not appear) succeeded Holbein as the principal portrait-painter settled in England. "Mor's style," it has been said, "so much resembles that of Holbein as to frequently create a doubt to which of them a portrait is to be attributed; but he is not so clear and delicate in his colouring, perhaps from having painted so much in Spain, as that master." He was born at Antwerp and studied under Schorel (see 720). An example of his earlier manner, dated 1544, is in the Berlin Museum. Mor afterwards travelled in Italy, and quickly emancipated himself from the dry manner of Schorel, as his portrait of Cardinal Granvelle at Vienna, done in 1549, shows. His portraits from this time forward are remarkable for their "unpretentious dignity." Cardinal Granvelle introduced him to the service of Charles V., by whom he was sent to Portugal to paint some of the royal family. He was in the service of Queen Mary from 1554 to 1558. She presented him with a hundred pounds and a gold chain, and allowed him a hundred pounds a quarter. He was also largely employed by the Howards and the Russells and others, grandees of the court. One of his portraits of the Queen is in the Duke of Wellington's Collection at Apsley House. When Philip went to Spain to take possession of the throne, Mor accompanied him, and for some time basked in the full sunshine of royal favour. Suddenly he withdrew to Brussels, for some cause which has never been satisfactorily explained. According to one story, the king, visiting Mor's studio, laid his hand upon his shoulder as he stood at the easel—a familiarity which the artist returned by rudely rapping the royal knuckles with his maulstick, or daubing them with carmine. Theofficers of the Inquisition took advantage of this incident, it is said, to vent their jealous wrath against the painter. He finally established himself at Antwerp, his declining years being spent in ease and opulence—the fruits of successful industry at the courts of England, Portugal, and Spain. He is described to us as "very much the courtier, and a gentleman of grave and majestic manners"—a description borne out by the fine portrait of himself at Althorp.
Jan Lievens(Dutch: 1607-1674).
Lievens, painter and engraver, "was a comrade of Rembrandt, but conceived a strong admiration for Van Dyck, traces of which are to be found in his portraits" (Havard:The Dutch School, p. 115). From 1631 to 1635 he was in England, where he painted the portraits of Charles I. and his Queen, and of several of the nobility. He afterwards worked at Antwerp, Leyden, and Amsterdam.
Lievens, painter and engraver, "was a comrade of Rembrandt, but conceived a strong admiration for Van Dyck, traces of which are to be found in his portraits" (Havard:The Dutch School, p. 115). From 1631 to 1635 he was in England, where he painted the portraits of Charles I. and his Queen, and of several of the nobility. He afterwards worked at Antwerp, Leyden, and Amsterdam.
This lady (born at Cologne in 1607) was one of the most remarkable personages of her time. So great was the renown of her learning that Queen Christina of Sweden went to visit her. She was familiar with German, Dutch, French, Italian, and English; and was a good scholar in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. She corresponded with some of the most erudite men of the day, and excelled in many of the fine arts. Late in life she fell under the influence of the noted Pietist leader, Jean de la Badie, whose cause she persuaded the Princess Palatine Elizabeth to espouse. After his death (in 1674) she collected his disciples at Wierwerd, where she herself died four years later in complete destitution.
Jan Baptist Weenix(Dutch: 1621-1660).
Weenix, born at Amsterdam, was the son of an architect. His master in painting was Abraham Bloemaert. Early in life he married the daughter of Gilles de Hondecoeter; his nephew Melchior Hondecoeter (No. 202) was afterwards his pupil. In 1642 his desire to see Italy caused him to leave his young wife and to carry his palette and brushes beyond the Alps. He promised to be absent only four months. He remained in Italy four years. While there he studied the coast-scenes, the people, and the architecture; "the result of his observations being the stately scenes, half real, half conventional, of which good examples are to be found in the Wallace Collection." On his return to Holland, Weenix was largely employed, first at Amsterdam,and afterwards at Utrecht. In this country his name is chiefly associated with pictures of dead game, but subjects of this class—in which his son (238) also excelled—were only the predilection of his later years.
Weenix, born at Amsterdam, was the son of an architect. His master in painting was Abraham Bloemaert. Early in life he married the daughter of Gilles de Hondecoeter; his nephew Melchior Hondecoeter (No. 202) was afterwards his pupil. In 1642 his desire to see Italy caused him to leave his young wife and to carry his palette and brushes beyond the Alps. He promised to be absent only four months. He remained in Italy four years. While there he studied the coast-scenes, the people, and the architecture; "the result of his observations being the stately scenes, half real, half conventional, of which good examples are to be found in the Wallace Collection." On his return to Holland, Weenix was largely employed, first at Amsterdam,and afterwards at Utrecht. In this country his name is chiefly associated with pictures of dead game, but subjects of this class—in which his son (238) also excelled—were only the predilection of his later years.
Montagna(Venetian: about 1450-1523).See802.
The Child lies asleep on a window-sill. The Mother stands in an attitude of devotion. A picture of fine feeling, and characteristic of the artist's "exalted naturalism."
Pietro Longhi(Venetian: 1702-1762).
Pietro Longhi, who studied in Bologna, but afterwards settled in his native Venice, was one of the four masters who made a partial revival of Venetian painting in the eighteenth century—the other three being Tiepolo (1692-1769, see 1192), Canaletto (1697-1768, see 127), and Guardi (1712-1793, see 210). Longhi represented the Vanity Fair of Venice at his epoch with fidelity and kindly feeling. He has been called "the Italian Hogarth," but he is greatly inferior in every respect to that painter. Moreover he was not a satirist like Hogarth, and there is more truth in the description of him as "the Goldoni of painters"—Goldoni, the popular playwright, with whom Longhi was nearly contemporary, and who, like him, just reflects "the shade and shine of common life, nor renders as it rolls grandeur and gloom." "Longhi used to tell Goldoni that they were brethren in art. Longhi surveyed human life with the same kindly glance and the same absence of gravity or depth of intuition as Goldoni. They both studied nature, but nature only in her genial moods. They both sincerely aimed at truth, but avoided truths which were sinister or painful" (J. A. Symonds, in theCentury Guild Hobby Horse, April 1889). Longhi was the son of a goldsmith, and as a lad showed unusual skill in designs for ornamental plate: hence the affectionate partiality in his pictures for the minutest details of decorative furniture, dress, and articles of luxury.
Pietro Longhi, who studied in Bologna, but afterwards settled in his native Venice, was one of the four masters who made a partial revival of Venetian painting in the eighteenth century—the other three being Tiepolo (1692-1769, see 1192), Canaletto (1697-1768, see 127), and Guardi (1712-1793, see 210). Longhi represented the Vanity Fair of Venice at his epoch with fidelity and kindly feeling. He has been called "the Italian Hogarth," but he is greatly inferior in every respect to that painter. Moreover he was not a satirist like Hogarth, and there is more truth in the description of him as "the Goldoni of painters"—Goldoni, the popular playwright, with whom Longhi was nearly contemporary, and who, like him, just reflects "the shade and shine of common life, nor renders as it rolls grandeur and gloom." "Longhi used to tell Goldoni that they were brethren in art. Longhi surveyed human life with the same kindly glance and the same absence of gravity or depth of intuition as Goldoni. They both studied nature, but nature only in her genial moods. They both sincerely aimed at truth, but avoided truths which were sinister or painful" (J. A. Symonds, in theCentury Guild Hobby Horse, April 1889). Longhi was the son of a goldsmith, and as a lad showed unusual skill in designs for ornamental plate: hence the affectionate partiality in his pictures for the minutest details of decorative furniture, dress, and articles of luxury.
The engraved portrait on the wall is inscribed "Gerardo Sagredo di Morei," and perhaps the picture is a group of the Sagredo family, for whose palace in Venice Longhi painted some frescoes in 1734. The family preferred, perhaps, to be taken in the characters of a scene in a play of Goldoni's or some other popular writer—just as in the "Vicar of Wakefield" they resolved to be drawn together, in one large historicalpiece. "This would be cheaper, since one frame would serve for all, and it would be infinitely more genteel; for all families of any taste were now drawn in the same manner."
Pietro Longhi(Venetian: 1702-1762).See 1100.
A characteristic glimpse of Venetian life a hundred years ago. "At that time," it has been said, "perhaps people did not amuse themselves more at Venice than elsewhere, but they amused themselves differently. It is this seizing on peculiarities, on local and characteristic details, that makes Longhi's little canvases so curious." Here he shows us two ladies in dominoes, escorted by a cavalier, at a menagerie. The trainer exhibits a rhinoceros to them.
Pietro Longhi(Venetian: 1702-1762).See 1100.
The portrait of "a procurator of St. Mark's," a dignity in the Venetian State second only to that of Doge. The procurators were charged with the legal administration of all the affairs of St. Mark's, and their official palaces (the Procuratie) adjoined the church. They were further charged with the care of orphans, and with the administration of others who cared to put themselves "in chancery." The office was thus not unlike that of an English Lord Chancellor, and there is a "grandmotherliness" about this procurator that makes one think he must have discharged some of his duties well. The broad golden stole over his shoulder shows him to have been also a knight of the order of theStola d'Oro, as the Procurator's stole was of crimson velvet. The picture is in its original frame, surmounted by the armorial bearings of the Tron family.
Fiorenzo di Lorenzo(Umbrian: 1472-1521).
These are the dates not of his birth and death (which are unknown), but of the earliest and latest events recorded of him. In 1472 he was commissioned to paint an altar-piece, the principal parts of which may now be seen in the Pinacoteca of Perugia, and he was elected a member of the Town Council of Perugia. In 1521 he was commissioned tovalue some works by another painter. The resemblance of his style to that of Benozzo Gozzoli may be seen by comparing No. 283. Fiorenzo's work is best seen in Perugia, where he reveals himself as an artist of great feeling and ability. Especially remarkable is the series of scenes from the life of Bernardino (some reproduced by the Arundel Society). (See for notices of this painter Morelli'sGerman Galleries, p. 263, and S. Brinton'sRenaissance in Italian Art, pt. iii. pp. 108, 141).
These are the dates not of his birth and death (which are unknown), but of the earliest and latest events recorded of him. In 1472 he was commissioned to paint an altar-piece, the principal parts of which may now be seen in the Pinacoteca of Perugia, and he was elected a member of the Town Council of Perugia. In 1521 he was commissioned tovalue some works by another painter. The resemblance of his style to that of Benozzo Gozzoli may be seen by comparing No. 283. Fiorenzo's work is best seen in Perugia, where he reveals himself as an artist of great feeling and ability. Especially remarkable is the series of scenes from the life of Bernardino (some reproduced by the Arundel Society). (See for notices of this painter Morelli'sGerman Galleries, p. 263, and S. Brinton'sRenaissance in Italian Art, pt. iii. pp. 108, 141).
The accompanying figures are—in front of the throne, St. Francis (on the right of the Child), St Bernardino, a saint of Siena (on the left), and in smaller size the donor of the altar-piece. This is one of the earliest examples in the Gallery of the introduction of portraits in this way. In the left-hand compartment St. John the Baptist; and in the right-hand one St. Bartholomew, carrying his familiar attribute—a blood-stained knife, the instrument of his martyrdom. The compartments containing the figures of St. John the Baptist and St. Bartholomew were originally at one side of the central panel, but have been placed on each side for symmetry, the corresponding twin panels being lost. Notice the beautiful pattern engraved on the gold background.
Giannicola Manni(Umbrian: 1475-1544).
Born at Città della Pieve, the native town of Perugino, whose pupil and assistant he became. Several of his works may be seen in the Pinacoteca at Perugia, of which town he was a magistrate. He also executed the frescoes in the chapel attached to the Sala del Cambio.
Born at Città della Pieve, the native town of Perugino, whose pupil and assistant he became. Several of his works may be seen in the Pinacoteca at Perugia, of which town he was a magistrate. He also executed the frescoes in the chapel attached to the Sala del Cambio.
Notice the quaint "arabesques" on the Virgin's prie-dieu, or praying-stool; they are characteristic of this painter.
Lorenzo Lotto(Venetian: 1480-1555).See 699.
See for the subject under 1024. "A smooth-shaven old man with a face that one would not be in the least surprised to see to-day anywhere, and least of all in England. As a portrait, it is the quietest of all those by Lotto known to me, and—if I may be allowed the word—the most 'gentlemanly'" (Berenson:Lorenzo Lotto, p. 189).
Francesco Mantegna(Paduan: about 1470-1517).See 639.
Notice the classical sarcophagus of marble. The resurrection banner is affixed to a tall rod surmounted by a cross composed of golden balls.
Niccolò da Foligno(Umbrian: 1430-1492).
The pietism, characteristic of the Umbrian School generally, is conspicuous in Niccolò, of whom Vasari remarks that "the expression of grief in his angels, and the tears they shed, are so natural that I do not believe any artist, however excellent he might be, could have done it much better." But he often overstrained this expression into grimace. He shows, says Morelli, the "tendency to exaggeration which marks the inhabitant of a small provincial town." He was capable, however, of giving grace and beauty to his female heads and heads of angels. Examples may be seen in the Brera at Milan, and in the Vatican Gallery. It is probable that Niccolò owed a good deal to Benozzo Gozzoli, who from 1452 to 1457 was working not far from Foligno (see Morelli'sGerman Galleries, p. 258). Niccolò is often called NiccolòAlunno. The origin of this mistake, made first by Vasari, is that on one of his pictures he is described as "NicholausalumnusFlogging" (Niccolò, a native, or alumnus, of Foligno).
The pietism, characteristic of the Umbrian School generally, is conspicuous in Niccolò, of whom Vasari remarks that "the expression of grief in his angels, and the tears they shed, are so natural that I do not believe any artist, however excellent he might be, could have done it much better." But he often overstrained this expression into grimace. He shows, says Morelli, the "tendency to exaggeration which marks the inhabitant of a small provincial town." He was capable, however, of giving grace and beauty to his female heads and heads of angels. Examples may be seen in the Brera at Milan, and in the Vatican Gallery. It is probable that Niccolò owed a good deal to Benozzo Gozzoli, who from 1452 to 1457 was working not far from Foligno (see Morelli'sGerman Galleries, p. 258). Niccolò is often called NiccolòAlunno. The origin of this mistake, made first by Vasari, is that on one of his pictures he is described as "NicholausalumnusFlogging" (Niccolò, a native, or alumnus, of Foligno).
In this picture the artist seems to revel in the depiction of emotion, and (as it were) in "piling up the agony." There is the same pleasure here in the use of a new gift—that of expressing emotion—as in 583, in that of expressing perspective. The central scene of the Crucifixion is surrounded by the Agony in the Garden, Christ bearing his Cross, the Descent from the Cross, and the Resurrection. Note as characteristic of thegenius lociin the Umbrian School that St. Francis of Assisi is kneeling at the foot of the cross.
The acquisition of this picture by the National Gallery (in 1881) had a curious history. It was formerly in the convent of Santa Chiara at Aquila, and on the suppression of the convent became the property of the State. But by the Archbishop's orders it was successfully secreted. On his death, some years later, it was conveyed to the house of one of the canons of the cathedral, by whom it was sold to a dealer in Rome. The dealer made a good thing out of it; he bought itfor £260, and sold it (with another small picture) to our National Gallery for £1200. The Italian Government instituted a prosecution for theft, which, however, was subsequently dropped for civil proceedings for damages against all the persons concerned, "except the Englishman who, it is believed, bought the picture in good faith."
Unknown(Sienese School: late 15th century).
Niccolò di Buonaccorso(Sienese: died 1388).
Of this painter, who worked and held several offices at Siena, none of the works is traceable except this signed picture and some fragments (also signed, and dated 1387) in a little village church near Siena.
Of this painter, who worked and held several offices at Siena, none of the works is traceable except this signed picture and some fragments (also signed, and dated 1387) in a little village church near Siena.
"Remarkable, amongst other things, for the wonderful elaboration of the gold ornaments on the dresses, and the attempt to give an Oriental character to the scene by the introduction of the palm-tree, the carpet, and the dark-faced player on the kettledrums. It is interesting also for its notes from real life in the figure of the child, the faces of some of the spectators in the background, the window-openings with their poles, the figures on the right under the blind, and the flower-pot on the sill on the left" (Monkhouse:The Italian Pre-Raphaelites, p. 17). For some remarks on the subject, see under 1317.
A. R. Mengs(German: 1728-1779).
See also(p. xx)
Anton Raphael Mengs, the son of a court painter at Dresden—a post to which the boy afterwards succeeded—was taken when a boy to Rome and set to study the works of the great masters. He became the most celebrated representative of the Eclectic School of painting in the eighteenth century, and played a great part in the early days of the classic revival of that period. In his writings, in Spanish, Italian, and German, he elaborated his eclectic theory—the attainment of perfection by the combination of diverse excellences, Greek designs with the expression of Raphael, the chiaroscuro of Correggio, and the colour of Titian. He was an intimate friend ofWinckelmann, who constantly wrote at his dictation. His work was eagerly sought after, both at Rome and at the courts of Dresden and Madrid, and his books enjoyed a very wide circulation.
Anton Raphael Mengs, the son of a court painter at Dresden—a post to which the boy afterwards succeeded—was taken when a boy to Rome and set to study the works of the great masters. He became the most celebrated representative of the Eclectic School of painting in the eighteenth century, and played a great part in the early days of the classic revival of that period. In his writings, in Spanish, Italian, and German, he elaborated his eclectic theory—the attainment of perfection by the combination of diverse excellences, Greek designs with the expression of Raphael, the chiaroscuro of Correggio, and the colour of Titian. He was an intimate friend ofWinckelmann, who constantly wrote at his dictation. His work was eagerly sought after, both at Rome and at the courts of Dresden and Madrid, and his books enjoyed a very wide circulation.
A cartoon, executed in black chalk.
Pietro Lorenzetti(Sienese: died 1348).
This painter was the elder brother of Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1147), and first appears as an artist in 1305. Many of his works, or fragments of them, may still be seen in and around Siena. Among the best is a triptych in the sacristy of the Cathedral representing the birth of the Virgin. "A long series of frescoes, representing different incidents in the Passion, have recently been rescued from whitewash in the church of S. Francesco. They are remarkable for their vigour and harmony, and show Pietro to have possessed great talents both as a colourist and as a draughtsman" (Bryan'sDictionary).
This painter was the elder brother of Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1147), and first appears as an artist in 1305. Many of his works, or fragments of them, may still be seen in and around Siena. Among the best is a triptych in the sacristy of the Cathedral representing the birth of the Virgin. "A long series of frescoes, representing different incidents in the Passion, have recently been rescued from whitewash in the church of S. Francesco. They are remarkable for their vigour and harmony, and show Pietro to have possessed great talents both as a colourist and as a draughtsman" (Bryan'sDictionary).
Probably illustrative of some incident in the life of a saint—of Bishop Sansovino, perhaps, the patron saint of Siena—in which the forces of the Christian and pagan religions were opposed. On one side is a pagan priest bearing a statue, supposed, from the apple in its hand, to be that of Venus. On the other is a Christian bishop engaged in some ecclesiastical function.
Coques(Flemish: 1618-1684).See 821.
Coques pays a pretty compliment to one of his fellow-artists Robert van Hoecke (who, like a greater man, Leonardo, was an authority on fortifications as well as a painter), in painting his portrait as typical of "Sight." The figures in the rest of the series, if portraits, have not been identified.
Ercole di Giulio Grandi(Ferrarese: died 1531).
Of this painter, one of the best of the Ferrarese school, very little is known, beyond the fact that he was in the service of the ducal house at Este. The identification of his works is also very uncertain, for Vasari, unaware that two painters of the Grandi family had borne the name of Ercole (see 1127), classed the works of both under the same head. The present picture is not signed, and was first identified asthe younger Ercole's by Morelli. This Ercole, son of Giulio Cesare de' Grandi, studied under Francia and Lorenzo Costa, to the latter of whom, indeed, this picture was attributed in the foundling hospital of Ferrara, from which it comes. Like Francia, Ercole combined the practice of other arts with that of painting—being a gold-beater and modeller, as well as a painter—a conjunction which is seen in this picture, with its wealth of decorative accessories. He disputes with Garofalo the title of "the Raphael of Ferrara," a description which this splendid picture goes some way to justify.
Of this painter, one of the best of the Ferrarese school, very little is known, beyond the fact that he was in the service of the ducal house at Este. The identification of his works is also very uncertain, for Vasari, unaware that two painters of the Grandi family had borne the name of Ercole (see 1127), classed the works of both under the same head. The present picture is not signed, and was first identified asthe younger Ercole's by Morelli. This Ercole, son of Giulio Cesare de' Grandi, studied under Francia and Lorenzo Costa, to the latter of whom, indeed, this picture was attributed in the foundling hospital of Ferrara, from which it comes. Like Francia, Ercole combined the practice of other arts with that of painting—being a gold-beater and modeller, as well as a painter—a conjunction which is seen in this picture, with its wealth of decorative accessories. He disputes with Garofalo the title of "the Raphael of Ferrara," a description which this splendid picture goes some way to justify.
A picture notable alike for its central idea and for its wealth of decorative detail. In the group of the infant Saviour (a very finely drawn figure) standing on the Virgin's knees in the act of benediction, with St. William on the right of the throne and on the left St. John the Baptist, is an imaginative representation of Christianity—the soldier of Christ, with his armour on him, but bareheaded, and with his hand on the sword, on one side; the saint, with the Cross and the Book, on the other. The accessories are full of decorative inventiveness, but every detail is full of thought; they are an epitome, as it were, of all the decorative arts of the time. Note first, in the walnut wood pedestal of the throne, that the frieze at the top is a graceful arrangement of dolphins, emblems of love and affection, and the base, of stags and swans ("As pants the hart for cooling streams, so pants my soul for thee, O God"). In its central panel is an alto-relievo in ivory, with Adam and Eve on either side of the Tree of Knowledge. On each of the receding panels is a white marble medallion of the turbaned head of a prophet. On thepredellabelow there are, (1) beginning on the spectator's right, the Nativity, (2) the Presentation in the Temple, (3) the Massacre of the Innocents, (4) the Flight into Egypt, and (5) Christ disputing with the Doctors. The ornamental details of the marblebaldacchino(or canopy), like those of the throne, are all symbolic; thus the archivolt is composed of choiring cherubim separated by pots of lilies, and the spandrils of the arch are occupied by medallions of the angel Gabriel and the Virgin (G. T. Robinson inArt Journal, May 1886, p. 150).
Cima da Conegliano(Venetian: 1460-1518).See 300.
Another of the numerous St. Jerome pictures: see under694 and 227. The saint has his usual company of animals. His lion is frowning, somewhat with the same expression as in 227—as if to deprecate the penance which his master is about to inflict on himself. On the branch of the tree above is a hawk, looking on with the expression of a superior person—one quite too sagacious to countenance such madness. Notice also the serpent which crawls from beneath the rock on which the Cross is placed. The picture, says Mr. Gilbert, "is rich, even brilliant, in colouring, and if there is a touch of oddity in the house perched upon a crag, there is loveliness in the mountain range, and in the amber and lemon tints that streak the evening sky" (Landscape in Art, p. 340).
Unknown(Venetian: time of Bellini).
See also(p. xx)
This portrait, when it hung in Hamilton Palace, used to be called a Leonardo. Sir W. Armstrong (Notes on the National Gallery, p. 24) gives it unhesitatingly to Basaiti (see 599).
Domenico Theotocopuli(Spanish: 1548-1625).
This artist, called "Il Greco," was of Greek descent and is supposed to have studied in Venice. He was said to have been a pupil of Titian, but his impetuous style seems rather to have been modelled on that of Tintoretto. He settled at Toledo in 1575, and there acquired a great reputation. His picture of "The Parting of Our Lord's Raiment," which still adorns the sacristy of the cathedral at Toledo, is, says Stirling-Maxwell, "truly admirable in drawing and composition; and the colouring is on the whole rich and effective, although it is here and there laid on in that spotted, streaky manner which afterwards became the great and prominent defect of El Greco's style." The picture in our Gallery No. 1457 in its energetic action but faulty drawing is characteristic of him. The exaggerated elongation of his figures is one of his common weaknesses. The "St. Maurice with his Theban Legion," which he painted for Philip II. in the Escorial is "little less extravagant and atrocious than the massacre which it recorded"; this was painted in 1580. A year or two later he executed the "Burial of the Count of Orgaz" in the church of St. Tomé at Toledo. This is usually esteemed his masterpiece. "The artist or lover of art who has once beheld it will never, as he rambles among the winding streets of the ancient city, pass the pretty brick belfry of that church without turning aside to gaze upon its superb picture once more." Theotocopuli has been described as "an artist who alternated between reason anddelirium, and displayed his great genius only at lucid intervals." His portraits, of which there are several in the Royal Gallery at Madrid, are often mannered; but occasionally very fine. Into the portrait of his daughter (now at Keir) he put all his skill; her face, with markedly Greek features, is "one of the most beautiful that death ever dimmed and that the pencil ever rescued from the grave." Il Greco was much employed both as sculptor and architect. He was a man of wit and learning, and is said to have written on the three arts which he professed (Annals of the Artists of Spain, ch. v.).
This artist, called "Il Greco," was of Greek descent and is supposed to have studied in Venice. He was said to have been a pupil of Titian, but his impetuous style seems rather to have been modelled on that of Tintoretto. He settled at Toledo in 1575, and there acquired a great reputation. His picture of "The Parting of Our Lord's Raiment," which still adorns the sacristy of the cathedral at Toledo, is, says Stirling-Maxwell, "truly admirable in drawing and composition; and the colouring is on the whole rich and effective, although it is here and there laid on in that spotted, streaky manner which afterwards became the great and prominent defect of El Greco's style." The picture in our Gallery No. 1457 in its energetic action but faulty drawing is characteristic of him. The exaggerated elongation of his figures is one of his common weaknesses. The "St. Maurice with his Theban Legion," which he painted for Philip II. in the Escorial is "little less extravagant and atrocious than the massacre which it recorded"; this was painted in 1580. A year or two later he executed the "Burial of the Count of Orgaz" in the church of St. Tomé at Toledo. This is usually esteemed his masterpiece. "The artist or lover of art who has once beheld it will never, as he rambles among the winding streets of the ancient city, pass the pretty brick belfry of that church without turning aside to gaze upon its superb picture once more." Theotocopuli has been described as "an artist who alternated between reason anddelirium, and displayed his great genius only at lucid intervals." His portraits, of which there are several in the Royal Gallery at Madrid, are often mannered; but occasionally very fine. Into the portrait of his daughter (now at Keir) he put all his skill; her face, with markedly Greek features, is "one of the most beautiful that death ever dimmed and that the pencil ever rescued from the grave." Il Greco was much employed both as sculptor and architect. He was a man of wit and learning, and is said to have written on the three arts which he professed (Annals of the Artists of Spain, ch. v.).
This picture passed when in the Hamilton Collection for the work of Titian. The inscription on the book, "Cornaro aet suae 100-1566," is interpolated. The picture appears to be one of those realistic representations of St. Jerome of which there are other examples by Theotocopuli.
School of Giorgione(Venetian: 16th century).See 269.
A picture of the golden age, entirely in the Giorgionesque spirit, and often attributed to Giorgione himself[214]—a vision of aland bathed in perpetual light and sparkling with golden sunshine. The legendary subject which forms the theme of this characteristic pastoral is the story of Myrrha, which may be read in Dryden's translations from Ovid'sMetamorphoses. The principal group is Venus and her favourite Adonis (see under 34). He was the son of Myrrha, whose legend is the subject of several small groups. On the right is a woman fleeing from a man who pursues her, sword in hand; these represent Myrrha and her father Cinyras. Farther on the woman is on her knees; here Myrrha is praying to the gods to transform her—
... Since my life the living will profaneAnd since my death the happy dead will stain,Some other form to wretched Myrrha give,Nor let her wholly die, nor wholly live.
... Since my life the living will profaneAnd since my death the happy dead will stain,Some other form to wretched Myrrha give,Nor let her wholly die, nor wholly live.
A third group shows the answer to her prayer: she is transferred into the myrrh tree, whose "precious drops her name retain," while the wood-nymphs receive her new-born babe, Adonis. In the background on the left is represented the death of Adonis; Venus is lamenting over his body and changing his blood into the anemone. The group in the clouds may represent Cupid accidentally wounding his mother.
Filippino Lippi(Florentine: 1457-1504).See 293.
See also(p. xx)
By some ascribed to Botticelli.[215]"There is an unmistakable drawing for it in the Uffizi Collection (No. 210), which is there ascribed to Botticelli, and which I, for one, am not at all inclined to take away from him. My own opinion is that there was no painter of the time who could have given so poetically conceived a background as we have in No. 1124; the drawing of some of the figures also speaks of itself" (Mr. Maurice Hewlett in theAcademy, January 9, 1892).
By some ascribed to Botticelli.[215]"There is an unmistakable drawing for it in the Uffizi Collection (No. 210), which is there ascribed to Botticelli, and which I, for one, am not at all inclined to take away from him. My own opinion is that there was no painter of the time who could have given so poetically conceived a background as we have in No. 1124; the drawing of some of the figures also speaks of itself" (Mr. Maurice Hewlett in theAcademy, January 9, 1892).
For two other more highly-finished pictures of the same subject also ascribed to this master see 592 and 1033. This picture, with others from the Hamilton Collection, was in the "Old Masters" Exhibition of 1873. "The 'Adoration of the Magi,'" wrote Ruskin to Mr. Fairfax Murray, "had prettiness in it, but was poor stuff."
Andrea Mantegna[216](Paduan: 1431-1506).See 274.
Summer holds a sieve for sifting the corn which she ripens. Autumn raises a goblet of wine to her lips.
Botticelli(Florentine: 1447-1510).See 1034.
See also(p. xx)
A picture with an interesting history. It was painted by Botticelli[217]when he was a young man, for Matteo Palmieri (a prominent Florentine citizen). This Matteo and his wife are here represented on either side of the tomb in the foreground. The patron assisted Botticelli in working out the design; and between them they made some modifications in theology, which brought them into trouble—so early did Sandro's reforming work begin. The story is thus told, and the picture described, by Vasari:—
"In the church of San Pietro (Florence) the master painted a picture for Matteo Palmieri with a very large number of figures. The subjectof this work, which is near the side-door, is the Assumption of Our Lady, and the zones or circles of heaven are there painted in their order. The Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Doctors, the Virgins, and the Hierarchies; all which was executed by Sandro according to the design furnished to him by Matteo, who was a very learned and able man. The whole work was conducted and finished with the most admirable skill and care; at the foot of it was the portrait of Matteo kneeling, with that of his wife. But although the picture is exceedingly beautiful and ought to have put envy to shame, yet there were found certain malevolent and censorious persons who, not being able to affix any other blame to the work, declared that Matteo and Sandro had erred gravely in that matter, and had fallen into grievous heresy. Now, whether this be true or not, let none expect the judgment of that question from me; it shall suffice me to note that the figures executed by Sandro in that work are entirely worthy of praise, and that the pains he took in depicting those circles of the heavens must have been very great, to say nothing of the angels mingled with the other figures, or of the various foreshortenings, all which are designed in a very good manner" (ii. 233).
"In the church of San Pietro (Florence) the master painted a picture for Matteo Palmieri with a very large number of figures. The subjectof this work, which is near the side-door, is the Assumption of Our Lady, and the zones or circles of heaven are there painted in their order. The Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Doctors, the Virgins, and the Hierarchies; all which was executed by Sandro according to the design furnished to him by Matteo, who was a very learned and able man. The whole work was conducted and finished with the most admirable skill and care; at the foot of it was the portrait of Matteo kneeling, with that of his wife. But although the picture is exceedingly beautiful and ought to have put envy to shame, yet there were found certain malevolent and censorious persons who, not being able to affix any other blame to the work, declared that Matteo and Sandro had erred gravely in that matter, and had fallen into grievous heresy. Now, whether this be true or not, let none expect the judgment of that question from me; it shall suffice me to note that the figures executed by Sandro in that work are entirely worthy of praise, and that the pains he took in depicting those circles of the heavens must have been very great, to say nothing of the angels mingled with the other figures, or of the various foreshortenings, all which are designed in a very good manner" (ii. 233).
Matteo Palmieri was the author of a poem called "The City of Life,"[218]in which he adopted Origen's thesis that the human race was an incarnation of those angels who in the revolt of Lucifer were neither for God nor for his enemies, and explained how the soul of man could work its way back through the spheres to the very seat of deity. This "heresy" interprets (says Mr. Pater) much of the peculiar sentiment with which Botticelli infuses his profane and sacred persons,—neither all human, nor all divine (see above under 275). It was ingeniously suggested, as we shall see, in this picture, and was entirely in accord with those "Neo-Platonic" ideas in which Botticelli, as a member of the Medici circle, was well versed. Matteo seems to have been afraid that his poem might bring him into trouble owing to its heretical views on the nature of angels, for he presented his MS. to the Art of the Notaries in Florence, sealed and under the express condition that it should not be opened, "so long as he lived imprisoned in this body." He died in 1478, and his poem fell under the expected censure. Botticelli's picture, as Vasari says, shared this fate. The painting bears evidence of intentional injury, the faces of the donor and his wife having been scored through; nor did some of the apostles escape the wrath of these iconoclasts. Attempts at restoration were made at some subsequent period. As the portrait of a heretic might not be exhibited in a Roman Catholic church, the picture was covered up, and the chapel in which it stood was closed to public worship. Ultimately the book was declared innocuous, and the chapel was re-opened. The picture, however, had already been, or was afterwards, removed from the family chapel of the Palmieri to their villa. On the death of the last heir, it passed into the hands of a Florentine dealer who sold it to the 11th Duke of Hamilton. At the disposal of the Hamilton Collection in 1882 it was bought for the National Gallery.
The picture was doubtless designed as an illustration of the closing canto of "The City of Life," in which Matteo supposes himself conducted by the Cumæan Sibyl through the Elysian Fields to Heaven. The ostensible subject is the Assumption into Heaven of the Virgin. On earth the apostles are represented gathered around the Virgin's tomb, from which "annunciation lilies" are growing; while she is in heaven kneeling in adoration before the Saviour, who has an open book inscribed with the mystic letters Α and Ω: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." Around the Virgin and Christ are all the hierarchies of heaven, arranged, according to the scheme of the theologians, in three separate tiers. Nearest to Christ are the seraphs (red), cherubs (blue), and thrones (gold); these are conceived as absorbed in perpetual love and adoration round the throne of God, and are represented therefore as with heads only (the attribute of spirit) and wings ("swift as thought"). In relation with mankind come the remaining orders—the dominations, virtues, powers (these last with sceptres in their hands), and in the lowest of the three, tiers, archangels, princedoms, and angels (with their wands). "The black vases with golden borders in the hands of some of the angels are probably meant for the 'golden vials full of the wrath of God' (Revelations xv. 7). Near them there are other angels, who in the attitude of expectation point upward with their sticks; while those in the lowest circle point down, and at the same time seem to invite those who hold vials to pour them out upon the city of Florence" (Richter'sItalian Art in the National Gallery, p. 28). Everywhere amongst the angelic host are the blessed dead, and it is here that the views of Matteo's poem found expression. We have seen in Botticelli's "Nativity" (1034) the same intercourse of men and angels, with reference there to the reconciling power of the "Logos." Among the cherubs, we may decipher St. James with the pilgrim staff, St. Andrew with his cross, St. Peter with the key, and St. Mary Magdalen with the casket. It is interesting to note Botticelli's estimate of degrees in the scale of spiritual excellence. For instance, St. Catherine of Siena is in the lowest ring among the Angels, but St. Bernard is in the third with Principalities; Moses is among Powers, so are St. Lawrence, St. Stephen, and St. Catherine of Alexandria; Virtues hold St. Bonaventura, St. Dominic, and St. Paul; St. Francis with the Evangelists is higher, in Dominations; in the highestTriplicitie, as Spenser puts it, there are men—including the Baptist—mingled with the Cherubim. The angels are represented throughout as ministering spirits; and nothing in the picture is prettier than the way in which the angels are calling upon the saints to "enter into the joy of their Lord"; note, for instance, the white angel on the right in the lowest tier, and the saint in black and red. She will teach to him