781. RAPHAEL AND TOBIAS.

Borgognone(Lombard: about 1455-1523).See 298.

See also(p. xx)

On the left (779) a group of nine men, above them ahand, probably of some patron saint; on the right (780) a group of thirteen women, kneeling (apparently) by the side of a tomb—studies of character drawing. These pictures are painted on silk (now attached to wood), and were originally part of a standard. Mr. Pater says of Borgognone that "a northern temper is a marked element of his genius—something of thepatience, especially, of the masters of Dijon or Bruges, nowhere more clearly [seen] than in the two groups of male and female heads in the National Gallery, family groups, painted in the attitude of worship, with a lowly religious sincerity which may remind us of the contemporary work of M. Legros. Like those northern masters, he accepts piously, but can refine, what 'has no comeliness'" ("Art Notes in North Italy," in theNew Review, November 1890).

Florentine School(15th century).

See also(p. xx)

The Hebrew legend of Tobit and his son Tobias (told in the Book of Tobit in the Apocrypha) was a favourite one with the Mediæval Church, and became therefore a traditional subject for painting; seee.g.in the National Gallery, 288, 72, and 48. Tobit, a Jewish exile, having fallen also into poverty, and afterwards becoming blind, prays for death rather than life in noble despair. "To him the angel of all beautiful life (Raphael) is sent, hidden in simplicity of human duty, taking a servant's place for hire, to lead his son in all right and happy ways of life" (Fors Clavigera, 1877, p. 31). Here we see Raphael leading the young Tobias into Media, where he was to marry Sara, his rich kinswoman, the daughter of Raguel. But she was haunted by an evil spirit, who had slain her seven husbands, each on their wedding-day, and the angel bade Tobias take the gall of a certain fish, wherewith afterwards to heal his father's blindness, and its heart and liver wherewith to drive away the evil spirit from his bride. Tobias is carrying the fish, Raphael has a small box for the gall. The "rising step" and the "springy motion in his gait" are characteristic of him who was the messenger of heaven, the kindly companion of humanity—

Raphael, the sociable spirit, that deignedTo travel with Tobias, and securedHis marriage with the seven times wedded maid.

Milton:Paradise Lost, v. 221.

For the authorship of this picture, see under 296. "This picture," says a critic who gives both to Verrocchio, "may possibly be not entirely from his hand, but there is no doubt that it is essentially his, and that to his fancy for painting boyhood and opening youth we owe that curious misreading of the story of Tobias, representing him as a young lad instead of a grown man, which is to be found through all the numerous Florentine picture of him by the school of Botticelli, by Piero di Cosimo and the rest" (Times, October 26, 1888).

Botticelli(Florentine: 1447-1510).See under 1034.

See also(p. xx)

Probably only a "school picture." Most of the old masters kept schools, or shops, in which several pupils served as apprentices and worked at pictures under the master's directions. The sale of such pictures under the master's name was (and is) a very common occurrence, and even in those days forged signatures were not unusual.

Unknown(Early Flemish: 15th century).

This beautiful work was formerly in the collection of Mr. Beckford at Fonthill, where it was described as the Burial of a Bishop by Jan Van Eyck. It has also been ascribed to Gerard Van der Meire (see 1078) and to Thierri Bouts (about 1420-1475). This latter painter—called by early authors Thierry, or Dierik of Haarlem, from the name of his native town, and by modern writers Thierri Stuerbout,—was town's painter of Louvain, and a pupil probably of Roger van der Weyden. His principal works are now in the Brussels Museum. Other pictures in the Gallery attributed to him by some critics are 664, 774, and 943. Van der Meire, Justus of Ghent, and Albert Van Ouwater have also been suggested as the painters of this picture; it closely resembles the "Raising of Lazarus" ascribed to the last-named painter in the Berlin Gallery.

St. Hubert was originally a nobleman of Aquitaine, much addicted to all worldly pleasures, and especially to that of the chase. But one day in Holy Week, when all good Christians were at their devotions, as he was hunting in the forest of Ardennes, he encountered a milk-white stag bearing the crucifix between his horns. Filled with awe and astonishment, he renounced the pomps and vanities of the world, turned hermitin that very forest of Ardennes, was ordained, and became Bishop of Liège. So the legend runs, embalming, we may suppose, the conversion of some reckless lover of the chase, like the wild huntsman of the German legend. And at Liège he was buried, but thirteen years afterwards his body was disinterred, and lo! it was found entire; even the episcopal robes in which he had been interred were without spot or stain. A century later the body was removed from Liège and reinterred in the abbey church of the Benedictine monks of Ardennes. The Emperor Louis le Débonnaire assisted at the translation of the relics, and the day was long kept as a festival throughout this part of Flanders. This is the subject of the present picture, of which the scene is laid in the choir of a beautiful Gothic church. On the altar behind the principal group stands a shrine, on which is a little figure of St. Hubert with his hunting-horn. The royal personage assisting represents Louis le Débonnaire. The picture is of wonderful beauty, finished in every part (abridged from Mrs. Jameson:Sacred and Legendary Art, pp. 431, 432). Though it is thus an historical picture, the artist takes the figures from his own time, and the heads, like miniatures in character and delicacy of expression, are doubtless portraits—the whole scene being a picture of a Flemish Cathedral on some festival day. Notice, as a particularly interesting little piece of life, the man flattening his nose against the screen on the left, with a jeering expression, as if he "didn't half believe it all." It is a piece of living grotesque, exactly such as meets one in the sculptured stones of a mediæval cathedral itself—"peeping round the corner at you and lurking in secret places, like a monk's joke whispered in church" (Conway'sEarly Flemish Artists, p. 17).

Carlo Crivelli(Venetian: painted 1468-1493).See602.

This important picture is one of Crivelli's masterpieces and is very characteristic of his genius and its limitations. The work, it will be seen, is not so much a picture as a collection of panel pictures built up into a gorgeous piece of decoration. The panels in the two lower tiers were painted for the old church of San Domenico, at Ascoli; the central panel of the Madonna and Child is inscribed with the painter's name andthe date 1476. The church was rebuilt in 1776, and some years afterwards the picture came into the possession of Cardinal Zelada at Rome, who added the four upper pictures by the same painter. In 1852 the picture passed to Prince Anatole de Demidoff, at Florence, where it was put into its present magnificent frame. Crivelli's artistic aim, it has been said, was the development and perfection of isolated figures for elaborate altar-pieces of this kind, and those before us are among the best he ever did: "in them calm dignity, strength of character, gentleness, and grace, can all be treated by him with perfect success apart from the disturbing elements of emotion and action." The type of the Virgin here is very characteristic, with her high-arched eyebrows, small mouth, and hair tightly drawn back from the forehead. So too are the hands, with very long fingers, in which affectation borders on dislocation. Very natural, on the contrary, is the figure of the infant Christ, "fast asleep with one hand under his head while with the other he grasps his mother's middle finger—a picture drawn from the life." The decorative details are characteristic. Note the dolphins on the base of the throne. The festoons are meant to represent real offerings of fruit, tied with string and fastened with nails. On one side of the Virgin is St. Peter, an impressive figure: his costume shows the use of raised ornaments and imitation gems, which is common in Crivelli's earlier works, but which he gradually dropped. Beyond St. Peter is St. John the Baptist in the wilderness: the hard and severe style of the figure is remarkable. "The landscape in which he stands should not be passed over, with the stream flowing at his feet and the tree-stems broken off so as not to interfere with the gold background which sets off the upper half of the figure." On the other side of the Virgin is St. Catherine of Alexandria, and beyond her St. Dominic—a figure "admirable in its expression of piety and humility and in the personality with which Crivelli has invested it." The half-length figures in the second tier are St. Francis, with the stigmata; St. Andrew, with cross and book—a very grand head; St. Stephen, with the stones of his martyrdom; and St. Thomas Aquinas, with book and the model of a church. In the top tier are St. Jerome, also carrying the model of a church; the Archangel Michael, trampling on the dragon and weighing in a pair of scales a man and a woman who are of light weight; St. PeterMartyr, with the sword of his martyrdom, and St. Lucy, carrying a plate with eyes upon it. The reference is to the legend which relates that in order to discourage the suit of a youth who loved her for the beauty of her eyes, she plucked them out with her own hands and sent them to him in a dish. The youth, struck with remorse, became a Christian, and Lucy's sight was miraculously restored to her.

Michael Angelo(Florentine: 1475-1564).

Michelangelo (commonly anglicised as above) Buonarroti (which surname, however, is commonly dropped) is the Titan of Italian art. He was the rival of Raphael; and amongst the artists who were present at the unveiling of his great statue of David were Perugino, Botticelli, Lorenzo di Credi, Leonardo da Vinci, and Filippino Lippi. He lived through the fall of Rome and Florence, and survived into the decadence of Italian art. In the many-sidedness of his genius he may be compared to Leonardo da Vinci. He was at once painter, sculptor, architect, and man of action. The greatness of his work was reflected in that of his character. He passed most of his life at Rome, amidst the petty intrigues of a debased Court; but he never placed his self-respect in jeopardy. Filial duty, too, was one of the mainsprings of his life. He lived most sparingly, and sent all the money he could save to support his father's family at Florence. "Whence they must pray God," he says in one of his letters, "that all his works may have good success." He was proud, and would brook no insult; and when Pope Julius left him with unpaid marbles and workmen on his hands, he mounted his horse and rode off to Florence. There are many stories, too, of the quiet sarcasm with which he would "reproach men for sin." "What does the raised hand denote?" Julius asked of a statue of himself. "You are advising the people of Bologna to be wise," was Michelangelo's reply. With all this, however, he was for the most part above the jealousy of other artists. When commissioned to paint the Sixtine Chapel, he urged that Raphael would be a more fit person to execute so great a work; and when he was appointed architect of St. Peter's he refused to permit any material alteration of Bramante's design, though Bramante had perpetually intrigued against him. Michelangelo was a poet also (his sonnets have been translated by J. A. Symonds), his poetry being partly inspired by Vittoria Colonna, widow of the Marquis of Pescara, to whom late in life he became attached, and whose friendship, until her death in 1547, was the solace of his lonely labours.It is only in Florence and in Rome that the work of Michelangelo can be studied. Our Gallery is fortunate, however, in having two easel pictures, which, whether entirely from his own hand or not,are eminently characteristic of his style. The South Kensington Museum and the Royal Academy each possess one example of his sculpture. His drawings are to be seen in several English collections, especially in that of the University of Oxford. A concise chronological summary may here be useful to recall to the reader's recollection the chief works of the master. At the age of thirteen he was apprenticed for three years to Domenico Ghirlandaio to whom our picture, No. 809, was formerly ascribed. He made rapid advance in the art of painting, and showed also aptitude for sculpture; so that in 1489, before his apprenticeship was out, Domenico recommended him to Lorenzo de' Medici, who had founded a school of sculpture in the garden of his villa. Here, in the society and service of Lorenzo, Michelangelo remained for four years. Lorenzo's unworthy successor Piero employed the young artist only on unworthy commissions, setting him on one occasion, it is said, to make a statue of snow; a tradition which inspires a noble passage in Ruskin'sPolitical Economy of Art, as also in Mrs. Browning'sCasa Guidi Windows. In 1493 Michelangelo removed to Bologna, returning in the next year to Florence, where he produced a "Sleeping Cupid," which was sold in Rome as a veritable antique. This induced him, in 1496, to try his fortune in the Papal capital. To this period belong his statue of "Cupid," now at South Kensington, the "Bacchus" in the Bargello at Florence, and the noble "Pietà" in St. Peter's at Rome. By these works he attained the position of the greatest sculptor in Italy, and on his return to Florence in 1501 he executed the colossal statue of "David," now in the Accademia. Works of about the same time are the round marble relief in the possession of the Royal Academy, and our picture No. 809. The circular "Madonna and Child," now in the Uffizi, belongs to 1504. In the same year he received a commission to paint one wall of the Palazzo Vecchio. The painting was never executed; but Michelangelo's cartoon for it,—known as the "Cartoon of Pisa"—excited great admiration for its treatment of the human figure. In 1505 began Michelangelo's stormy relations with the imperious Pope, Julius II. For two years he was employed on a great bronze statue of the Pontiff, which was afterwards cast as a cannon and used against the Pope by the Bolognese. In 1508, being then thirty-three, Michelangelo was commissioned by Julius to paint the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel. In this great work, which was finished on November 1, 1512, the artist set forth, in the vehicle of the human form, his conception of the creation, and the early history of the world, with reference to man's final redemption and salvation. The frescoes have in our time been admirably photographed, and the figures of the Prophets and Sibyls, who sit enthroned in niches round the vault, are very widely known. The paintings caused Michelangelo to suspend his labour on the mausoleum of Julius—a work which gave him an infinity of labour and vexation, and which was never finished. The great figure of "Moses," now in S. Pietro in Vincoli, and the "Captives," in the Louvre, were designed for this monument. During thenine years' pontificate of Leo X. (1513-22), Michelangelo was mostly employed in the unworthy occupation of procuring marble from the quarries of Pietra Santa for the façade of the church of San Lorenzo at Florence. The short reign of Adrian VI. succeeded, and Michelangelo went on working for a time at the monument to Julius. He was also employed on the works of the Medici Chapel at Florence. In 1523 when Clement VII. succeeded, the artist was put to various architectural works. Stormy years followed, and Michelangelo quitted the Medici statues to defend his native city. He was appointed director of fortifications, and was entrusted also with diplomatic missions. When in 1530 Florence was treacherously yielded to the Medici, Michelangelo lay for some time in concealment. Clement, however, gave him his pardon, and ordered him to resume work on the Medici chapel in San Lorenzo. He worked, as he says, with "morbid haste" but saddened heart, and thus were completed his most impressive productions in sculpture—the four great recumbent figures for the tombs of Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici. In 1534 Clement died. Michelangelo flung down his mallet, and set foot in Florence no more. But "a new Eurystheus arose for our Hercules." The artist hoped to complete the mausoleum of Julius. But the new Pope, Paul III., set him to work upon the fresco of the Last Judgment, on the altar wall of the Sixtine Chapel. In this mighty work, containing 314 figures, which occupied him from 1534 to 1542, the painter "devoted his terrible genius to a subject worthy of the times in which he lived." Since he had first listened, while a youth, to the prophecies of Savonarola, the woes announced in that apocalypse had all come true. To Michelangelo, Christ came as an avenger, vindictive and implacable, and the lost souls fall before his wrath in every contortion of nudity. After the painting of the "Last Judgment," one more great labour was reserved for Michelangelo. He was called upon to succeed Antonio da San Gallo as architect of St. Peter's, a post which he continued to hold under succeeding Popes until his death. "The dome of St. Peter's, as seen from Tivoli or the Alban hills, like a cloud upon the Campagna, is his; but he has no share in the façade which screens it from the Piazza." His last poem declared the vanity of the art which was his glory, and his dying words to his household were these; "In your passage through this life remember the sufferings of Jesus Christ." His body was taken, as he had desired, to Florence, and he lies in Santa Croce.To the artistic genius of Michelangelo, a few out of innumerable tributes may here be mentioned. Raphael "thanked God that he was born in the days of Michelangelo," and Sir Joshua Reynolds says, in hisDiscourses, that "to kiss the hem of his garment, to catch the slightest of his perfections, would be glory and distinction enough for an ambitious man." His knowledge of the human body and his power of representing it were supreme. "If a combination of the most exquisite finish in drawing and modelling which allows the work to bear the closest inspection in its details, with the utmost simplicity,breadth, and clearness of effect in a distant view, constitute, as I believe they do, the elements of perfect work, I must assert positively," says Sir Edward Poynter, "that Michelangelo is the most perfect of workmen." This workmanship was employed with consummate dramatic effect. "He considered figures the highest means of telling a story; he concentrated his powers on the single important point of expression, so that he had no need of accessories to help him out with his story" (Lectures on Art). But above all the work of Michelangelo was the expression of "a vast imaginative gift, the stormy poetry of his mind." His works, says Ruskin, "have borne and in themselves retain and exercise the same inexplicable power—inexplicable because proceeding from an imaginative perception almost superhuman, which goes whither we cannot follow, and is where we cannot come; throwing naked the final, deepest root of the being of man, whereby he grows out of the invisible, and holds on his God home" (Modern Painters, vol. ii. "Of Imagination Penetrative"). "About the qualities of his genius," says Symonds, "opinions may and will, and ought to differ. It is so pronounced, so peculiar, so repulsive to one man, so attractive to another, that, like his own dread statue of Lorenzo de' Medici, 'it fascinates and is intolerable.' There are few, I take it, who can feel at home with him in all the length and breadth and dark depths of the regions that he traversed. The world of thought and forms in which he lived habitually is too arid, like an extinct planet, tenanted by mighty elemental beings with little human left to them, but visionary Titan-shapes, too vast and void for common minds to dwell in pleasurably. The sweetness that emerges from his strength, the beauty which blooms rarely, strangely, in unhomely wise, upon the awful crowd of his conceptions, are only to be apprehended by some innate sympathy or by long incubation of the brooding intellect. It is probable, therefore, that the deathless artist through long centuries of glory will abide as solitary as the simple old man did in his poor house at Rome" (Life of Michelangelo, ii. 373). On his successors the influence of Michelangelo was not happy. They could imitate his mannerisms, but not his manner. They had not his imagination, but they could copy the violent attitudes in which he clothed his Titanic thoughts. The anatomical studies which with him were the groundwork for his imagination to build upon became in their hands the final object of their art. (Among those who have been alternately fascinated and repelled by Michelangelo was Ruskin. His case against Michelangelo is contained in the pamphlet entitledThe Relation between Michael Angelo and Tintoret. But some of Ruskin's critics forget that the pamphlet was meant to be read in conjunction with his own earlier praise inModern Painters, and with Mr. Tyrwhitt's appreciation inChristian Art and Symbolism. "These lectures," said Ruskin, in his preface to that book, "show throughout the most beautiful and just reverence for Michael Angelo, and are of especial value in their account of him; while the last lecture on sculpture, which I gave at Oxford, is entirely devoted to examining the modes inwhich his genius itself failed, and perverted that of other men. But Michael Angelo is great enough to make praise and blame alike necessary, and alike inadequate").

It is only in Florence and in Rome that the work of Michelangelo can be studied. Our Gallery is fortunate, however, in having two easel pictures, which, whether entirely from his own hand or not,are eminently characteristic of his style. The South Kensington Museum and the Royal Academy each possess one example of his sculpture. His drawings are to be seen in several English collections, especially in that of the University of Oxford. A concise chronological summary may here be useful to recall to the reader's recollection the chief works of the master. At the age of thirteen he was apprenticed for three years to Domenico Ghirlandaio to whom our picture, No. 809, was formerly ascribed. He made rapid advance in the art of painting, and showed also aptitude for sculpture; so that in 1489, before his apprenticeship was out, Domenico recommended him to Lorenzo de' Medici, who had founded a school of sculpture in the garden of his villa. Here, in the society and service of Lorenzo, Michelangelo remained for four years. Lorenzo's unworthy successor Piero employed the young artist only on unworthy commissions, setting him on one occasion, it is said, to make a statue of snow; a tradition which inspires a noble passage in Ruskin'sPolitical Economy of Art, as also in Mrs. Browning'sCasa Guidi Windows. In 1493 Michelangelo removed to Bologna, returning in the next year to Florence, where he produced a "Sleeping Cupid," which was sold in Rome as a veritable antique. This induced him, in 1496, to try his fortune in the Papal capital. To this period belong his statue of "Cupid," now at South Kensington, the "Bacchus" in the Bargello at Florence, and the noble "Pietà" in St. Peter's at Rome. By these works he attained the position of the greatest sculptor in Italy, and on his return to Florence in 1501 he executed the colossal statue of "David," now in the Accademia. Works of about the same time are the round marble relief in the possession of the Royal Academy, and our picture No. 809. The circular "Madonna and Child," now in the Uffizi, belongs to 1504. In the same year he received a commission to paint one wall of the Palazzo Vecchio. The painting was never executed; but Michelangelo's cartoon for it,—known as the "Cartoon of Pisa"—excited great admiration for its treatment of the human figure. In 1505 began Michelangelo's stormy relations with the imperious Pope, Julius II. For two years he was employed on a great bronze statue of the Pontiff, which was afterwards cast as a cannon and used against the Pope by the Bolognese. In 1508, being then thirty-three, Michelangelo was commissioned by Julius to paint the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel. In this great work, which was finished on November 1, 1512, the artist set forth, in the vehicle of the human form, his conception of the creation, and the early history of the world, with reference to man's final redemption and salvation. The frescoes have in our time been admirably photographed, and the figures of the Prophets and Sibyls, who sit enthroned in niches round the vault, are very widely known. The paintings caused Michelangelo to suspend his labour on the mausoleum of Julius—a work which gave him an infinity of labour and vexation, and which was never finished. The great figure of "Moses," now in S. Pietro in Vincoli, and the "Captives," in the Louvre, were designed for this monument. During thenine years' pontificate of Leo X. (1513-22), Michelangelo was mostly employed in the unworthy occupation of procuring marble from the quarries of Pietra Santa for the façade of the church of San Lorenzo at Florence. The short reign of Adrian VI. succeeded, and Michelangelo went on working for a time at the monument to Julius. He was also employed on the works of the Medici Chapel at Florence. In 1523 when Clement VII. succeeded, the artist was put to various architectural works. Stormy years followed, and Michelangelo quitted the Medici statues to defend his native city. He was appointed director of fortifications, and was entrusted also with diplomatic missions. When in 1530 Florence was treacherously yielded to the Medici, Michelangelo lay for some time in concealment. Clement, however, gave him his pardon, and ordered him to resume work on the Medici chapel in San Lorenzo. He worked, as he says, with "morbid haste" but saddened heart, and thus were completed his most impressive productions in sculpture—the four great recumbent figures for the tombs of Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici. In 1534 Clement died. Michelangelo flung down his mallet, and set foot in Florence no more. But "a new Eurystheus arose for our Hercules." The artist hoped to complete the mausoleum of Julius. But the new Pope, Paul III., set him to work upon the fresco of the Last Judgment, on the altar wall of the Sixtine Chapel. In this mighty work, containing 314 figures, which occupied him from 1534 to 1542, the painter "devoted his terrible genius to a subject worthy of the times in which he lived." Since he had first listened, while a youth, to the prophecies of Savonarola, the woes announced in that apocalypse had all come true. To Michelangelo, Christ came as an avenger, vindictive and implacable, and the lost souls fall before his wrath in every contortion of nudity. After the painting of the "Last Judgment," one more great labour was reserved for Michelangelo. He was called upon to succeed Antonio da San Gallo as architect of St. Peter's, a post which he continued to hold under succeeding Popes until his death. "The dome of St. Peter's, as seen from Tivoli or the Alban hills, like a cloud upon the Campagna, is his; but he has no share in the façade which screens it from the Piazza." His last poem declared the vanity of the art which was his glory, and his dying words to his household were these; "In your passage through this life remember the sufferings of Jesus Christ." His body was taken, as he had desired, to Florence, and he lies in Santa Croce.

To the artistic genius of Michelangelo, a few out of innumerable tributes may here be mentioned. Raphael "thanked God that he was born in the days of Michelangelo," and Sir Joshua Reynolds says, in hisDiscourses, that "to kiss the hem of his garment, to catch the slightest of his perfections, would be glory and distinction enough for an ambitious man." His knowledge of the human body and his power of representing it were supreme. "If a combination of the most exquisite finish in drawing and modelling which allows the work to bear the closest inspection in its details, with the utmost simplicity,breadth, and clearness of effect in a distant view, constitute, as I believe they do, the elements of perfect work, I must assert positively," says Sir Edward Poynter, "that Michelangelo is the most perfect of workmen." This workmanship was employed with consummate dramatic effect. "He considered figures the highest means of telling a story; he concentrated his powers on the single important point of expression, so that he had no need of accessories to help him out with his story" (Lectures on Art). But above all the work of Michelangelo was the expression of "a vast imaginative gift, the stormy poetry of his mind." His works, says Ruskin, "have borne and in themselves retain and exercise the same inexplicable power—inexplicable because proceeding from an imaginative perception almost superhuman, which goes whither we cannot follow, and is where we cannot come; throwing naked the final, deepest root of the being of man, whereby he grows out of the invisible, and holds on his God home" (Modern Painters, vol. ii. "Of Imagination Penetrative"). "About the qualities of his genius," says Symonds, "opinions may and will, and ought to differ. It is so pronounced, so peculiar, so repulsive to one man, so attractive to another, that, like his own dread statue of Lorenzo de' Medici, 'it fascinates and is intolerable.' There are few, I take it, who can feel at home with him in all the length and breadth and dark depths of the regions that he traversed. The world of thought and forms in which he lived habitually is too arid, like an extinct planet, tenanted by mighty elemental beings with little human left to them, but visionary Titan-shapes, too vast and void for common minds to dwell in pleasurably. The sweetness that emerges from his strength, the beauty which blooms rarely, strangely, in unhomely wise, upon the awful crowd of his conceptions, are only to be apprehended by some innate sympathy or by long incubation of the brooding intellect. It is probable, therefore, that the deathless artist through long centuries of glory will abide as solitary as the simple old man did in his poor house at Rome" (Life of Michelangelo, ii. 373). On his successors the influence of Michelangelo was not happy. They could imitate his mannerisms, but not his manner. They had not his imagination, but they could copy the violent attitudes in which he clothed his Titanic thoughts. The anatomical studies which with him were the groundwork for his imagination to build upon became in their hands the final object of their art. (Among those who have been alternately fascinated and repelled by Michelangelo was Ruskin. His case against Michelangelo is contained in the pamphlet entitledThe Relation between Michael Angelo and Tintoret. But some of Ruskin's critics forget that the pamphlet was meant to be read in conjunction with his own earlier praise inModern Painters, and with Mr. Tyrwhitt's appreciation inChristian Art and Symbolism. "These lectures," said Ruskin, in his preface to that book, "show throughout the most beautiful and just reverence for Michael Angelo, and are of especial value in their account of him; while the last lecture on sculpture, which I gave at Oxford, is entirely devoted to examining the modes inwhich his genius itself failed, and perverted that of other men. But Michael Angelo is great enough to make praise and blame alike necessary, and alike inadequate").

One of the many unfinished works, which, as Vasari tells us, Michelangelo left behind him in painting as in sculpture. Its history is interesting. It was formerly in the gallery of Cardinal Fesch, which was sold and dispersed after his death. From its unfinished state and neglected condition it attracted little attention, and was bought literally "dirt cheap" by Mr. Macpherson, an English gentleman established as a photographer in Rome. After the dirt upon its face had been removed, it was submitted to competent judges, who unhesitatingly pronounced it to be the work of Michelangelo. The discovery caused a great sensation. A law-suit was instituted against Mr. Macpherson for the recovery of the picture, which was sequestrated pending the decision of the Roman courts. After some years he obtained a judgment in his favour, removed the picture to England, and sold it to the National Gallery for £2000. Peter von Cornelius, the eminent German painter, in evidence in the law-suit declared it to be "una cosa preziosa—un vero originale di Michelangelo."[183]

However this may be, the picture is entirely characteristic of the school of Michelangelo. What we notice in it most is not the features of the Maries, but the rendering of the corpse, in all its flaccid limbs and muscles:—

"Take the heads from a painting of Angelico,—very little but drapery will be left;—drapery made redundant in quantity and rigid in fold, that it may conceal the forms, and give a proud or ascetic reserve to the actions of the bodily frame. Bellini and his school, indeed, rejected at once the false theory and the easy mannerism of such religious design, and painted the body without fear or reserve, as, in its subordination, honourable and lovely. But the inner heart and fire of it are by them always first thought of, and no action is given to it merely to show its beauty. Whereas the great culminating masters, and chiefly of these, Tintoret, Correggio, and Michael Angelo, delight in the body for its own sake, and cast it into every conceivable attitude, often in violation of all natural probability, that they may exhibit the action of its skeleton and the contours of its flesh. Correggio and Tintoret learn the body from the living body, and delight in its breath, colour, and motion. Michael Angelo learned it essentially from the corpse, and had great pride in showing that he knew all its mechanism. The simplicity of the old religious art was rejected not because it was false, but because it was easy; and the dead Christ was thought of only as an available subject for the display of anatomy" (Modern Painters, vol. iii. pt. iv. ch. iv.;Relation between Michael Angelo and Tintoret, passim).

The ideal of the painter has in fact changed. The picture is in its essence not a devotional work: it is a study in the dead nude.

Pieter de Hooch(Dutch: 1630-about 1677).

Hooch (or Hooghe)—"the indoor Cuyp," as he has been called, and "one of the glories of the Dutch School—is also one of the glories of England," for it was here that his great merits were first discovered, and that three-fourths of his pictures are now preserved. "There are," says Ruskin (Modern Painters, vol. v. pt. ix. ch. viii. § 11), whilst tracing the general insensitiveness of the Dutch School, "deeper elements in De Hooghe, sometimes expressed with superb quiet painting." He chose the simplest subjects and used apparently the simplest means. But his figures are always placed with the utmost skill, and the details, so carefully wrought, are all made contributory to the general idea of the picture. In producing an effect of serenity, Hooch is unsurpassed. Of his life nothing is known except that he was at Delft 1653-56, and that afterwards he resided at Amsterdam. In his own country, a fine picture by him so late as 1765 brought only 450 florins. In 1817 it fetched 4000 florins, whilst in 1876 the Berlin Gallery paid £6000 for one of his pictures. At the Secrétan Sale in 1889 an "interior" by De Hooch fetched £11,040. The present picture was bought in Paris in 1869 for £1722. No. 834 fetched in 1804, £220; No. 835, in 1810, £187.

The whole picture, in its cheerful colour and dainty neatness, seems to reflect the light of a peaceful and happy home, in which everything is done decently and in order. They are no rolling stones, these Dutch burghers, but stay-at-home folk, whose pride is in the trimness of their surroundings. Every day, one thinks, the good housewife will thus look to see that the dinner is duly prepared; every day the husband will thus walk along the garden, sure of her happy greeting. The picture is signed, and dated 1665.

Jan van Huysum(Dutch: 1682-1749).

Jan was the son and pupil of Justus van Huysum, a painter of Amsterdam. By close study Jan attained great fame as a flower-painter. The principal florists of Holland supplied him with their choicest productions as subjects, and his reputation soon spread throughout Europe. "Whilst still young he became rich and honoured, and reached the summit of fortune. The prices noted in the sale catalogues of the eighteenth century, which are altogether out of proportion to those realised by other works, reveal to us with what infatuation this finished master, so delicate, erudite, and careful, wasregarded" (Havard:The Dutch School, p. 264). He usually arranged his flowers in elegant vases, of which he finished the ornaments in the most careful manner. He was fond also of introducing a bird's nest with eggs. Both of these characteristics may be seen in the picture before us. The care with which he rendered every detail is remarkable. "As to you, dear old Jan Van Huysum," writes an artist of our own day, "you have edified me beyond expression. You teach me that a man can't be too careful as to his work, be it what it may. Your pearly dewdrops on the fresh gathered green things of the earth refresh me. Your tiny ants on the petals of the pink teach me in their minute contemplation to be like the star,Ohne Hast, Ohne Rast. How cool, and calm, and cheerful, and confident you are, Jan!" (Letters of James Smetham, p. 173). "The world is so old," says Ruskin, "that there is no dearth of things first-rate; and life so short that there is no excuse for looking at things second-rate. Let us then go to Rubens for blending, and to Titian for quality, of colour; to Veronese for daylight, and Rembrandt for lamplight; to Buonarroti for awfulness, and to Van Huysum for precision. Any man is worthy of respect, in his own rank, who has pursued any truth or attainment with all his heart and strength" (Letter to Liddell in theMemoirof the Dean, by H. L. Thompson, p. 224). Other pictures by Jan Van Huysum may be seen in the Wallace Collection and the Dulwich Gallery.

Signed, and dated 1736-1737. Notice the bird's nest, with the greenfinch's eggs.

Cuyp(Dutch: 1620-1691).See 53.

This excellent portrait serves to remind us that, unlike most of his fellow landscape painters, Cuyp could paint his own figures. Indeed we have seen that he sometimes painted them in other landscapes, see No. 152. The picture is signed "Aetatis suae 56, 1649. A. Cuyp fecit." Cuyp is one of the most various of all the Dutch masters. "What universality in the hand that could paint skies more glowing than those of Both, clouds as vaporous as those of Van de Cappelle, water more luminous than Van de Velde's, cattle as true to nature as Paul Potter's, horses better than Wouverman's, horsemen more distinguished than Vandyck's! Sometimes, too—and there is a noble example in our National Gallery—we find Aelbert Cuyp painting portraits, not in the stiff precise way that the father painted them, but with a freedom of touch and a brilliancy of colour that place him between Van der Helstand Rembrandt" (Quarterly Review, October 1891, and Fromentin's'Les Maitres d'autrefois, "Hollande," ch. viii.).

Philippe de Champaigne(French: 1602-1674).

A painter of historical subjects and portraits, he was born at Brussels, but went to Paris at the age of 19. He was employed by Du Chesne, the painter royal, to work at the Luxembourg in concert with Nicolas Poussin. Du Chesne was of mediocre talent and jealous disposition, and Champaigne and Poussin soon left him. The two men were mutually attached, and in after years Champaigne discoursed at a session of the Academy on the merits of his friend Poussin. Champaigne returned to Brussels, but was recalled in 1627 to succeed Du Chesne. He executed many works for the churches and royal residences and also for Cardinal Richelieu's palace. He became an original member of the French Academy in 1648, of which he was also Professor and Rector. Towards the end of his life, his fame began to pale before that of Le Brun. His religious and historical works, of which there are several in the Louvre, are apt to leave the modern spectator cold; but his portraits are excellent.

This picture was painted for the Roman sculptor Mocchi to make a bust from, hence the two profiles as well as the full face. Over the profile on the right are the words (in French), "of the two profiles this is the better." In this profile the compressed lips, the merciless eyes, the iron-gray hair and prominent nose, bespeak the great Cardinal Minister of Louis XIII., and the maker of France, who summed up his policy and his character in the words, "I venture on nothing without first thinking it out; but once decided, I go straight to my point, overthrow or cut down whatever stands in my way, and finally cover it all up with my cardinal's red robes." In the full face one sees rather the man who was also a princely patron of the arts and artists (of De Champaigne amongst their number), and the founder of the French Academy.[184]The central head here was clearly used as a study for the full-length portrait, No. 1449.

Bartolommeo Montagna(Venetian: about 1450-1523).

Montagna was born near Brescia, and worked at Vicenza, but must have studied at Venice.[185]"He is entitled," says Kugler, "to a much higher place among the painters of the last part of the fifteenth century than that hitherto accorded to him. His art is distinct in character, with a firm outline and a bold, sure hand; his colour is low but rich, bright, and gem-like. He gives a grand, dignified expression and pose to his figures; his draperies are generally arranged in broad folds, and his landscape backgrounds, although minute, frequently denote an original and poetical fancy." His best work is the great altar-piece now in the Brera at Milan, a picture worthy to rank with those of the same kind by Bellini and Carpaccio. Other important works by Montagna are in the Public Gallery of Bergamo, in the Museo Civico at Vicenza, and in the Pilgrimage Church on Monte Berico, near Vicenza.

This picture is ascribed by some critics to Giovanni Speranza, a painter of Vicenza contemporary with Montagna.

Marco Marziale(Venetian: painted 1499-1507).

Marco was one of the assistants engaged to work under Giovanni Bellini in the decoration of the Ducal Palace. Whilst Bellini received sixty ducats a year, Marco received only twenty-four. Nothing else is known about his career. Of his works, which are very rare, the best are in our Gallery.

An example which shows what wealth of interest there is in the National Collection. It is only by a second-rate painter of the Venetian school; but no picture in the Gallery is richer than this in decorative design. Note first the varied and beautifully-designed patterns in the mosaics of the church—recalling one of the domes of St. Mark's. Then the lectern, covered with a cloth, and the delicately-embroidered border, wrought in sampler stitch, deserve close examination. The cushion abovethis, and the tassels, formed of three pendent tufts of silk hung on to a gold embroidered ball, offer good decorative suggestions to the trimming manufacturer. Attached to the front of the lectern is a label or "cartellino," setting forth that "Marco Marziale the Venetian, by command of that magnificent knight and jurisconsult, the learned Thomaseo R., made this picture in the year 1500." As it is probable that this was the first important commission Marco ever obtained on his own account, there is little wonder that he wrought the record so elaborately. This "Thomaseo R." was Raimondi, a knight of the order of Jerusalem—a man of considerable note in Cremona as a lawyer and poet. His portrait occupies the forefront of the right-hand corner of the picture, his set features recalling the lawyer rather than the poet. It is his mantle, however, which best repays notice—a sumptuous robe of raised red velvet, such a fabric as Venice was then winning industrial renown by weaving. The very pretty pattern is of the so-called "pomegranate form," and occurs also on the mantle of the donor's wife, who occupies a corresponding position on the left-hand side of the picture. In the South Kensington Museum there is a remnant of Italian silk brocade of this pattern (in the Bock collection). The robe of the High Priest is also evidently taken by the painter from a silk robe, and is very rich. The design, in which the wild pink is largely introduced, is unique. Ruskin had a wall-paper made for him in 1872 copied from this robe: it has ever since been used for the walls of the drawing-room and study at Brantwood. "It will thus be seen that this one picture brings before us a great number of suggestions in design for various technic arts; at least half a dozen patterns exist in the ornaments of the mosaic work of the vaults; five or six patterns of embroidered or woven borders will be found in it, as many designs for diapered or other surface decoration, examples of beaten metal-work and of bookbinding, besides the carved wood lectern." For notice of other points, see further the interesting article by G. T. Robinson in theArt Journal, June 1886, and cp. Vacher'sItalian Ornament, No. 24.

Marco Marziale(Venetian: painted 1499-1507).See 803.

This picture was painted seven years later (1507) than 803, which it resembles in the bright mosaics of the vault and theinteresting design on the robe of the bishop on the left. Notice the little angel playing the mandoline on the steps of the throne, characteristic of the earlier Venetian painters.

Teniers(Flemish: 1600-1694).See 154.

Boccaccio Boccaccino(Cremonese: about 1460-1525).

Boccaccino was a native of Cremona, where many of his works are still preserved. "All that is best in his art," says Morelli, "he derived from the school of the Bellini." In the Venetian Academy is a beautiful "mystic marriage of St. Catherine" which is signed by him. He is a painter, says Kugler, "of very distinct individuality, and may be easily recognised by the peculiar type and expression of his figures, and especially by his women, who generally have much grace and beauty. One of his characteristics is a light-grey eye with a dark rim." This picture is "not characteristic of Boccaccino's manner, and is probably by another hand" (ii. 389).

For some remarks on the subject of this picture see under 1143.

Carlo Crivelli(Venetian: painted 1468-1493).See 602.

This picture (like 724) is signed by "SirCharles": it is dated 1491. It bears the painter's sign-manual also in the fruits and the vase of flowers. The giver of the picture (which was dedicated to the Virgin, and which, as recorded in a Latin inscription below, cost no inconsiderable sum) is kneeling, in the habit of a Dominican nun, at the foot of the throne. On the Madonna's left is St. Sebastian, pierced with arrows and tied to a pillar, but with the happy look of "sorrow ended" on his face. On her right is St. Francis. Near his feet are some flowers and a snail—typical of the kindness and humbleness of the saint, of whom it is recorded that "he spoke never to bird nor to cicala, nor even to wolf and beast of prey, but as his brother," and who thus taught the lesson "Never to blend our pleasure, or our pride, With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels" (Wordsworth).

Giovanni Bellini[186](Venetian: 1426-1516).See 189.

See also(p. xx)

A fancy portrait of a jolly comfortable-looking Dominican monk—a faithful portrait doubtless. His face is painted as it really was, "wart and all," but it has pleased him to be represented in the character of Peter, a famous member of his order (see under 812).

Michael Angelo(Florentine: 1475-1564).See 790.

The Virgin mother is seen withholding from the child Saviour the prophetic writings in which His sufferings are foretold. Angelic figures beside them examine a scroll—

Turn not the prophet's page, O Son! He knewAll that Thou hast to suffer and hath writ.Not yet Thine hour of knowledge. InfiniteThe sorrows that thy manhood's lot must rueAnd dire acquaintance of Thy grief. That clueThe spirits of Thy mournful ministerings,Seek through yon scroll in silence. For these thingsThe angels have desired to look into.Still before Eden waves the fiery sword,—Her Tree of Life unransomed: whose sad treeOf Knowledge yet to growth of CalvaryMust yield its Tempter,—Hell the earliest deadOf Earth resign,—and yet, O Son and Lord,The Seed o' the woman bruise the serpent's head.

Still before Eden waves the fiery sword,—Her Tree of Life unransomed: whose sad treeOf Knowledge yet to growth of CalvaryMust yield its Tempter,—Hell the earliest deadOf Earth resign,—and yet, O Son and Lord,The Seed o' the woman bruise the serpent's head.

D. G. Rossetti:Sonnets and Ballads.[187]

This picture was at one time attributed to Domenico Ghirlandajo; and Signor Frizzoni now attributes it toGranacci. But, says Sir Edward Poynter, "the beauty of the figures, the nobility of the heads, and the fine qualities of drawing and modelling stamp it as the work of the great master himself." "In my judgment," says Symonds (Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti, i. 65), "this is the most beautiful of the easel pictures attributed to Michelangelo.... Florentine painters had been wont to place attendant angels at both sides of their enthroned Madonnas. But their angels were winged and clothed like acolytes; the Madonna was seated on a rich throne or under a canopy, with altar-candles, wreaths of roses, flowering lilies. It is characteristic of Michelangelo to adopt a conventional motive, and to treat it with brusque originality. In this picture there are no accessories to the figures, and the attendant angels are Tuscan lads half draped in succinct tunics. The types have not been chosen with regard to ideal loveliness or dignity, but accurately studied from living models. This is very obvious in the heads of Christ and St. John. The two adolescent genii on the right hand possess a high degree of natural grace. Yet even here what strikes one most is the charm of their attitude, the lovely interlacing of their arms and breasts, the lithe alertness of the one lad contrasted with the thoughtful leaning languor of his comrade. Only perhaps in some drawings of combined male figures made by Ingres, for his picture of the 'Golden Age,' have lines of equal dignity and simple beauty been developed."

Charles Poussin(French: born 1819).

M. Pierre Charles Poussin, a pupil of L. Cogniet, was an exhibitor at the FrenchSalonfrom 1842 to 1882. Many of his pictures were, like this one, of scenes in Brittany.

The scene is that of a fête held in honour ofNotre Dame de Bon Secoursof Guingamp in Brittany, on the 2nd of July in every year. Pope Paul V. in 1619 granted a plenary indulgence to all persons "who truly confessed and communicated, who shall visit the said church of Notre Dame de Guingamp on the day and fête of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which it is the custom every year to celebrate on the 2nd day of July; who shall devotionally pray for the preservation of concord and peace among all Christian princes;who shall render hospitality to the poor pilgrims; who shall make peace with their enemies, and shall promote it amongst others—shall, in short, sweetly bring into the way of salvation some unfortunate and erring soul." An English visitor published a long account of the fête in theStandardof July 5 and following days in 1870, describing "the frank but sedate festivity and merry-making under the trees." That was twenty years after this picture was painted.

Back to Index Next