PICTURES AT THE HAGUE

There are two new Rembrandts in the galleries of the Mauritshuis, lent by Prof.  A. Bredius, director of the Royal Picture Gallery at The Hague.  Neither is an “important” picture in the professional sense of that word, but they are Rembrandts at least one is indubitable and that suffices.  The more credible of the pair is a small canvas depicting Andromeda manacled to the rocks.  Her figure is draped to the waist; it is a solid Dutch figure, ugly as the one of Potiphar’s wife (in an etching by Rembrandt), and no deliverer is in sight.  The flesh tones are rather cold, a cadaverous white, but it is a Rembrandt white.  The picture as a whole is sketchy and without charm or mystery.  Nevertheless, the lion’s paws are there.  The other shows us a woman reading at a table.  The colouring is warm and the still-life accessories are richly and minutely painted.  Not a likely Rembrandt, either in theme or notably so in treatment.  We must bow, however, to the judgment of the learned Bredius who made the ascription.  These two works are not as yet in the catalogue.  It is a pity the catalogue to this gallery is not as complete as those of the Rijks Museum.  To visitors they offer an abridged one, dated 1904.  There are since then many new pictures, notably a sterling Chardin, marvellously painted, and an excellent landscape by Van Cuyp, both loans of Dr. Bredius.

Otherwise this little collection is as choice and as entertaining as ever.  The usual tourist makes at once for the overrated Young Bull by Paul Potter and never looks at the magnificent Weenix across the room, the Dead Swan, with its velvety tones.  The head of a young girl by Vermeer, with its blue turban and buff coat, its pearl earrings, is charming.  And the View of Delft seems as fresh as the day it was painted.  The long façade of the houses and warehouses and the churches and towers facing the river are rendered with a vivacity of colour, a solidity in drawing, and an absence of too marked literalism which prove that this gifted artist had more than one style.  The envelope is rich; there is air, though it be stagnant.  Down-stairs is an allegorical subject, The New Testament, which is not very convincing as a composition, but warm in tint.  The Diana and Her Companions must have inspired Diaz and many other painters.  But the real Vermeer, the Vermeer of the enamelled surfaces and soft pervasive lighting, is at Amsterdam.

No place is better than The Hague for the study of the earlier Rembrandt.  Dr. Tulp’s Anatomical Lecture is, after the Potter bull, the most gazed-at canvas in the Mauritshuis.  It is not in a good condition.  There are evidences of over-varnishing and cobbling; nor is it a very inspiring canvas.  The head of Dr. Tulp is superb in characterisation, and there is one other head, that of a man with inquiring eyes, aquiline profile, the head strained forward (his name is given in the critical works on Rembrandt), which arrests the attention.  An early composition, we are far from the perfection of The Syndics.  The self-portrait of the painter (1629) is a favourite, though the much-vaunted feather in the head-gear is stiff; perhaps feathers in Holland were stiff in those days.  But the painters flock to this portrait and never tire of copying its noble silhouette.  The two little studies of the painter’s father and mother are characteristic.  One, of the man, is lent by Dr. Bredius.  Rembrandt’s brother (study of an old man’s head) shows a large old chap with a nose of richest vintage.  The portrait is brown in tone and without charm.  The Susanna Bathing is famous, but it is not as attractive as Simeon in the Temple, with its masterly lighting, old gold in the gloom.  The Homer never fails to warm the cockles of the imagination.  What bulk!  What a wealth of smothered fire in the apparel!  The big Saul listening to the playing of David is still mystifying.  Is Saul smiling or crying behind the uplifted cloak?  Is he contemplating in his neurasthenia an attempt on David’s life with a whizzing lance?  His sunken cheeks, vague yet sinister eye, his turban marvellous in its iridescence, form an ensemble not to be forgotten.  David is not so striking.  From afar the large canvas glows.  And the chiaroscuro is miraculous.

The portrait of Rembrandt’s sister, the Flight Into Egypt, the small, laughing man, the negroes, and the study of an old woman, the latter wearing a white head-dress, are a mine of joy for the student.  The sister’s head is lent by Dr. C. Hofstede de Groot, the art expert.

There are only thirty-odd Rembrandts in Holland out of the five hundred and fifty he painted.  Of this number eighteen are in the Mauritshuis.  Holland was not very solicitous formerly of her masters.  Nowadays sentiment has changed and there is a gratifying outcry whenever a stranger secures a genuine old master.  As for the copies, they, like the poor, are always with us.  America is flooded every year with forged pictures, especially of the minor Dutch masters, and excellent are these imitations, it must be confessed.

There are only four specimens of Frans Hals here; portraits of Jacob Pieterez, Aletta Hanemans, his wife; of William Croes, and the head of a man, a small picture in The Jolly Toper style.  The lace collar is genuine Hals.

Let us close our catalogue and wander about the galleries.  German and English are the tongues one hears, Dutch seldom, French occasionally.  The Potter bull with the wooden legs is stared at by hundreds.  As a picture painted by a very young man it is noteworthy.  The head of the beast is nobly depicted.  But what of the remainder of this insignificant composition with its toad and cows, its meaningless landscape?  The Weenix swan is richer in paint texture.  The Holbeins are two anyhow of splendid quality.  Of the Rubenses it is better to defer mention until Antwerp is reached.  They are of unequal value.  The same may be said of the Van Dycks.  Look at that baby girl standing by a chair.  A Govert Flinck.  How truthful!  The De Heems are excellent fruit and flower pieces.  Excellent, too, the Huysums, Hondecoeters, and Weenixes.  There is a dead baby of the Dutch school (1661) which is as realistic as a Courbet.  We admired the small Memlic, or Memling, and, naturally, the Metsus, Mierevelts, and Mierises.  The Holy Virgin and Infant Christ, by Murillo, is tender and sleek in colour.  It hangs near the solitary Velasquez of the museum, a portrait of Charles-Baltasar, son of King Philip IV of Spain.  It is not a remarkable Velasquez.

The Piéter Lastman, a Resurrection of Lazarus, is of interest because this painter was a preceptor of Rembrandt.  William Kalf’s still-life is admirable, and the Aert Van den Neer moonlight scene (purchased 1903) is a lovely example of this artist.  Indeed, all the minor Dutchmen are well represented.  Potter’s much-praised Cow in the Water is faded, and the style is of the sort we smile over at our own Academy exhibitions.  The Van Goyen waterscapes are not all of prime quality, but there are two that are masterpieces.  Amsterdam excels in both Van Goyens and Jacob Ruisdaels.  The Distant View of Haarlem of the latter proved a disappointment.  The colour is vanished quite, the general effect flat.  The Bol portrait of Admiral de Ruyter is a sterling specimen.  The Van de Veldes and Wouvermans are excellent.  The Good Housekeeper of Dou, a much-prized picture, with its tricky light and dark.  The Teniers and Ostades no longer interest us as they did.  Perhaps one tires soon of genre pictures.  The inevitable toper, the perambulating musician, the old woman standing in a doorway, the gossips, the children, and the dog not house-broken may stand for the eternal Ostade, while the merry-makings of David Teniers are too much alike.  However, this touch of spleen is the outcome of seeing so many bituminous canvases.

Probably in no other painter’s name have so many sins been committed as in Rembrandt’s.  His chiaroscuro is to blame for thousands of pictures executed in the tone of tobacco juice.  All the muddy browns of the studio, with the yellow smear that passes for Rembrandtish light, are but the monkey tricks of lesser men.  His pupils often made a mess of it, and they were renowned.  Terburg’s Despatch is an interesting anecdote; so too Metsu’s Amateur Musicians.  There are the average number of Dutch Italianate painters, Jan Both and the rest, men who employed southern backgrounds and improvised bastard Italian figures.  Schalcken’s candlelight scenes are not missing, though Dou leads in this rather artificial genre.  And every tourist led by a guide hears that Wouvermans always introduced a white horse somewhere in his picture.  You leave Holland obsessed by that white animal.

Naturally the above notes hardly scratch the surface of the artistic attractions in this Hague gallery.  Not the least of them is to look out on the Vyver lake and watch the swans placidly swimming around the emerald islet in the middle.  The Mauritshuis is a cabinet of gems, and months could not stale its variety.  There are important omissions, and some of the names in the catalogue are not represented at top-notch.  But the Rembrandts are there, and there are the Potters, the Rubenses, the Van Dycks, the Jan Steens his Oyster Feast is here the landscape and marine painters, not to mention the portraiture, the Murillo, Palma Vecchio, and the Titian.  The single Roger van der Weyden, an attribution, is a Crucifixion, and hangs near the Memlig.  It is an interesting picture.  Of the sculpture there is not much to write.  Houdon, Hendrick de Keyser, Verhulst, Falconet, Blommendael, and Xavery make up a meagre list.

At Baron Steengracht’s house admission by personal card on the Vyverberg there is a wonderful Rembrandt, Bathsheba After Her Bath, a golden-toned canvas, not unlike the Susanna over at the Mauritshuis.  It was painted in 1643, about a year after he had finished The Night Watch, a jewel of a Rembrandt and the clou of this collection.  There are some weak modern pictures and examples by Terburg, Metsu, Flinck, Jordaens, Cuyp, Potter, Brouwer the smoker, a fine work; a Hobbema mill and others.  In the Municipal Museum, full of curiosities in furniture, armour, and costumes, there is a gallery of modern paintings Israel, David Blés, Mesdag, Neuhuys, Bisschop, J. Maris, Weissenbruch, Bosboom, Blommers, and Mauve.  There are also Mierevelts, Jan Ravensteyns, Honthorst, Van Goyen, Van Ceulen, and a lot of shooting-gallery (Doelen) and guild panoramas; there are miles of them in Holland, and unless painted by Hals, Van der Heist, Elias, and a few others are shining things of horror, full of staring eyes, and a jumble of hands, weapons, and dry colours.  But they are viewed with religious awe by the Dutch, whose master passion is patriotic sentiment.

There is the Huis ten Bosch (The House in the Wood), the royal villa, a little over a mile from The Hague, in which De Wit’s grisailles may be seen.  The Japanese and orange rooms are charming; the portraits by Everdingen, Honthorst, Jordaens, and others are of historic interest.

THE MESDAG MUSEUM

When we were last at The Hague the Mesdag Museum had just opened (1903).  There was no catalogue, and while the nature of this great gift to the city was felt it was not until a second visit (in 1909) that its extraordinary value was realised.  The catalogue numbers three hundred and forty-four pictures by modern artists, and there is also a valuable collection of objects of art, bronzes, pottery, furniture, and tapestries.  Philip Zilcken (a well-known Dutch etcher) in his introduction calls attention to the rare quality of the Mesdag Museum and tells us that Mr. and Mrs. Mesdag van Houten bought for their own pleasure without any thought of forming a gallery for the Dutch nation.  That came later.  W.H.  Mesdag is the well-known marine painter whose paintings may be seen in almost every gallery on the Continent.  A native of Groningen (1831), he studied under Roelofs and while in Brussels lived with his relative, Alma-Tadema; the latter is a Frieslander.  Mesdag excels in marines, painting great sweep of waters with breadth and simplicity.  His palette is cool and restrained, his rhythmic sense well developed, and his feeling for outdoors truly Dutch.  He belongs to the line of the classic Dutch marinists, to Van der Velde, Backhuizen, and Van Goyen.  His wife, a woman of charm and culture, died in the spring of last year.  She signed her work S. Mesdag van Houten.  Her gift lies in the delineation of forest views, interiors, portraits, and still-life.  Her colour is deep and rich.

A cursory walk around the various rooms on the Laan van Meerdervoort impresses one with this idea:  with what envy must any curator of any museum in the world study this collection.  Mesdag began gathering his treasures at a time when the Barbizon school was hardly known; when a hundred other painters had not been tempted by the dealers into overproduction; when, in a word, fancy prices were not dreamed of.  The Alma-Tademas are among his best, little as we admire his vital marbles and lifeless humans.  An early portrait of his wife is here.  Bastien-Lepage has a preparatory sketch for Les Foins.  Indeed, the Mesdag Museum is rich in frottis, painted-in pictures, by such men as Rousseau, Daubigny, Diaz, Vollon, Millet, Dupre.  As we admire the etchings of Mari Bauer, it was a new pleasure to see half a dozen of his paintings, chiefly scenes in the Orient.  The same misty, fantastic quality is present; he manipulates his colour, thinly laid on, as if it were some sort of plastic smoke.  Impressionistic as are these canvases, there is a subdued splendor in them all.  Bauer feels the East.  His etchings recall Rembrandt’s line; but his paintings are miles away in sentiment and handling.  Bisschop (1828-1904) is represented by a fine still-life, and among the various Blommers is one with children playing in the water and on the sands; vividly seized, this example.

The late Théophile de Bock was an interpreter of nature and his brush-work was fat and rich.  His work is well known in America and gains in value every day (he died in 1904).  There are fourteen specimens here of his best period.  The Emile Bretons are early and therefore different from his commercial productions.  Of the Corots, twelve in number, we did not see an insignificant one, not a weak one.  The famous Early Morning and View at Villeneuve-les-Avignon are hung.  The first depicts a group of trees; to the right a narrow stream in which is reflected a cloudless sky.  In the centre two women in white caps.  The second is more elaborate in composition.  The middle distance is occupied by picturesque buildings dating probably from the Middle Ages.  In the foreground four persons are under the shadow of some trees.  An unusual scheme for Corot.  His well-known characteristics are present in the dozen; the tremulous leafage, the bright, pure light, the Italian softness.  And what do you say to a half-dozen Courbets, all of his strong period, landscapes, still-life, a nude study, a dead roe, a sunlit path, and a lake scene!  Good Courbets are not numerous, and these are good.  The nude is a woman recumbent upon draperies.  The pate is heavy but vital, the flesh tones glowing, and the silhouette firm, yet delicate.  The portrait of the artist by himself is massive.  It was probably painted in Ste. Pélagie.

Coutures two, twenty-five Daubignys, and one of his son Karl.  Daubigny the elder is here in all his manners, dark pictures with big foregrounds, intimate bits of wooded interiors, sand-hills, streamlets, moonlights, coast scenes, evening effects, sunsets at sea, twilights, sheep, broken rocks, and a study in crayon.

Decamps and Delacroix come next in order.  There are three of the former, among the rest his Poacher, and three of Delacroix, one a portrait of himself.  Seven of Diaz, painted when his colour was most sonorous and brilliant, are here, with a study of an undraped female figure.  La Mare is a sunlight effect in the forest of Fontainebnleau.  Dupre has seven to his account, several of great tonal beauty.  The one Fortuny is an elaborate etching of his Anchorite.  The Josef Israels are strong.  Jacque pigs and sheep; Klinkenberg’s view of the Binnenhof; Mancini’s bewildering chromatic blurs and sensuously rich gamut, and seventeen in number.  This painter is seldom encountered in America.  He should be better known; while his ideas are not particularly significant he is colourist for colour’s sake, as was Monticelli.  The three brothers Maris, Jakob, Willem, and Matthys (the latter living in London), are to be seen here in unexampled states.  Mauve, too, with fourteen pictures.  Both the Mesdags, Taco Mesdag, a brother and his wife are present.  Also Ter Meulen, a gifted Dutch artist.  We have seldom seen better George Michels.  The Monticelli up-stairs is an unusual subject.  It is a mountain path in the south of France.  The sun is disappearing behind a cluster of trees.  Rocks in the foreground.  The scheme of colour is low for Monticelli, the forms sharply accented.  He could see line when he wished.  The smaller example is an interior, as rich as Monticelli knew how to lay the colours on.

Seven Millets, one the large exhibition picture Hagar and Ishmael, another the wonderful Resting Vintager.  Alone these Millets would cause a sensation if exhibited elsewhere.  The Hagar seems a trifle too rhetorical for the simple-minded painter.  Brown predominates in the colour scale, the composition is rather conventional, an echo, perhaps, of the artist’s Delaroche apprenticeship, but the Vintager is a masterpiece.  Seated among the vines in the blaze of the sun, he is resting and has removed his heavy sabots.  The relaxed attitude after arduous labour is wonderfully expressed.  The atmosphere indicates stifling sultriness.

Ricard, Roelofs, Theodore Rousseau halt!  There are twelve of this French master, dramatic and rich.  Descente des Vaches dans lé Jura is the celebrated canvas refused at the Salon, 1834.  But it is too bituminous in parts.  A greater composition, though only a drawing, is Les grands chênes du vieux Bas-Breau.  Four large trees illumined by sun-rays.  Two Segantinis, a drawing in chalk and pastel; Storm Van’s Gravesande; seven Troyons, one, Le retour du Marche, a masterpiece; Vollon, still-life, fish, ivory goblets, violets; Weissenbruchs; Zilcken etchings and two De Zwarts.  There is old Rozenburg pottery, designed by Colenbrander, scarce to-day; Dutch and Gothic brass, Oriental portieres and brass, old Delft, Japanese armour, various weapons and lanterns, Gobelin tapestry, carved furniture, Dutch and Scandinavian, and a magnificent assortment of Satsuma pottery, Cmail cloisonne, Japanese bronzes, Persian pottery, Spanish brasses, majolica and bronzes and sculptures by Mattos, Constantin, Meunier, and Van Wijk the list fills a pamphlet.  Next door is the studio of the aged Mesdag, a hale old Dutchman who paints daily and looks forward to seeing his ninety years.  In Holland octogenarians are not few.  The climate is propitious; above all, the absence of hurry and worry.  To see The Hague without visiting this collection would be a regrettable omission.

HALS OF HAARLEM

In writing of Holland more is said of its windmills than its flowers.  It is a land of flowers.  Consider the roll-call of its painters who their life long produced naught but fruit and flower pieces.  Both the De Heems, the cunning Huysums, whose work still lives in the mezzotints of Earlom like David de Heem, he was fond of introducing insects, flies, bees, spiders, crawling over his velvety peaches and roses Seghers, Van Aelst and his talented pupil Rachel Ruysch, Cuyp, Breughel (Abraham), Mignon, Van Beyeren, Van den Broeck, Margaretha Rosenboom, Maria Vos, Weenix, A. Van der Velde, Kalf, and many others who excelled in this pleasing genre.  Their canvases are faded, the colours oxidised, but on the highways and by-ways the miracle is daily renewed flowers bloom at every corner, fill the window-boxes of residences, crowd the hotel balconies, and are bunched in the hands of the peddlers.  A cart goes by, a gorgeous symphony of hues.  Roses, chrysanthemums, dahlias, daisies, tufts of unfamiliar species, leaves that are as transparent lace, blushing wild roses, and what not.  Ivy is used for practical purposes.  On the steam-yacht Carsjens at Leyden a wind screen is composed of ivy; you feel enclosed in a floating garden.  Along the Vivjer berg, fronting the house of Baron Steengracht, is a huge boat-shaped enclosure of stone.  It is full of ivy growing low.  Dutch landscape gardeners are fertile in invention.  They break the flat lines of the landscape with all sorts of ingenious surprises; bosky barriers, hedges abloom, elm-trees pared away to imitate the processional poplars of Belgium and France, sudden little leafy lanes what quips and quirks we have come across a few miles away from the town!  To see Haarlem and its environs in June when the bulb farms are alight with tulips must be a delightful spectacle.  In the fall of the year you are perforce content to read the names of the various farms as the train passes.  The many-coloured vegetable carts remind you that Snyders and Van Steen painted here.

The Groote Kerke, St. Bavo, at Haarlem, is a noble pile with a tall tower.  One of its attractions is the organ (built in 1735-38) by Christian Mueller; it was until a few years ago the largest in the world.  Its three manuals, time-stained, sixty stops and five thousand pipes (thirty-two feet the longest) when manipulated by a skilful organist produce adequate musical results.  We had the pleasure of hearing the town organist play Bach for an hour.  He began with a few Bach chorales, then came A Mighty Fortress is Our God; followed by the A minor prelude and fugue, and the Wedge fugue.  The general diapasonic quality is noble, the wood stops soft, the mixtures without brassy squealing, and the full organ sends a thrill down your spine, so mellow is its thunder.  Modern organs do not thus sound.  Is the secret of the organ tone lost like the varnishing of Cremona fiddles and the blue of the old Delft china?  There are no fancy “barnyard stops,” as John Runciman has named the combinations often to be found in latter-day instruments.  You understood after hearing the Haarlem organ why Bach wrote his organ preludes and fugues.  Modern music, with its orchestral registration, its swiftness and staccato, would be a sacrilege on this key-board.

The bronze statue of Coster did not unduly excite us.  The Dutch claim him as the inventor of printing, but the Germans hang on to Gutenberg.  At Leyden there is a steam train to Katwyk-aan-See; at Haarlem you may ride out to Zandvoort, and six miles farther is the North Sea Canal.  But as the Katwyk and Zandvoort schools flourish mightily in the United States we did not feel curious enough to make the effort at either town.  Regrettable as was the burning of the old church at Katwyk, perhaps its disappearance will keep it out of numerous pictures painted in that picturesque region.  Of course it will be, or has been, rebuilt.  We walked in the forest of Haarlem and did not once think of 125th Street; the old town is slightly unlike its modern namesake.  What a charm there is in this venerable forest.  The Dutch of Amsterdam, less than half an hour away, come down here on Sunday afternoons for the tranquillity and the shade.  You must know that the sun-rays can be very disturbing in July.  The canals intersecting the town are pretty.  They may be sinks of iniquity, but they don’t look so.  Naturally, they exhale mephitic odours, though the people won’t acknowledge it.  It is the case in Venice, which on hot August afternoons is not at all romantic in a nasal sense.  But you forget it all in Haarlem as you watch a hay barge float by, steered by a blond youngster of ten and poled by his brothers.  From the chimney comes a light smoke.  Soup is cooking.  You remember the old sunlit towpath of your boyhood; a tightening at your heart warns you of homesickness, or hay fever.  Oh, to be on the Erie Canal, you exclaim, as you sneeze.

But the Town Hall Museum is hard by.  It is the glory of Haarlem as the Rijks Museum is the glory of Amsterdam and Holland.  A pull at the bell and the door is opened, a small fee is paid, and you are free to the room where are hung ten large paintings by the inimitable Frans Hals.  Here are the world-renowned Regent pictures set forth in chronological order.  Drop the catalogue and use your own eyes.  The first impression is profound; not that Hals was profound in the sense of Rembrandt’s profundity, but because of the almost terrifying vitality of these portraits.  Prosaic men and women, great trenchermen, devourers of huge pasties, mowers down of wine-bottles and beer-tankards, they live with such vitality on the canvases of Hals that you instinctively lower your voice.  The paint-imprisoned ghosts of these jolly officers, sharpshooters, regents, and shrewd-looking old women regents are not so disquieting as Rembrandt’s misty evocations.  They touch hands with you across the centuries, and finally you wonder why they don’t step out the frame and greet you.  Withal, no trace of literalism, of obvious contours or tricky effects.  Honest, solid paint, but handled by the greatest master of the brush that ever lived save Velasquez.  How thin and unsubstantial modern painting is if compared to this magician, how even his greatest followers, Manet and Sargent, seem incomplete.  Manet, with his abridgments, his suppressions, his elliptical handling, never had the smiling confidence of Hals in facing a problem.  The Frenchman is more subtle, also more evasive; and there is no hint in him of the trite statement of a fact that we encounter in Bartholomew Van der Heist himself a great painter.  Hals had not the poetic vision of Rembrandt, but he possessed a more dexterous hand, a keener eye.  Judged according to the rubric of sheer paint, sheer brush-work, not Rubens, not Van Dyck, was such a virtuoso.  Despite his almost incredible swiftness of execution, Hals got closer to the surfaces of what is called “actual” life than any of the masters with the exception of the supreme Spaniard.

At Haarlem you may follow his development; his first big picture painted in 1616; his last in 1664.  He died at eighty-four.  But at eighty odd he painted two important canvases, the portraits of the regents and of the lady regents.  More summary as regards the execution, with a manifest tendency toward simplifications, these two pictures are very noble.  The group of ladies, each a portrait of character, pleases some more than the male group.  They are not so firmly modelled, and into them all has crept a certain weariness as of old age; but what justness of expression, what adjustment of puzzling relations!  One lady follows you over the gallery with her stern gaze.  It recalls to us the last judgment look which a maiden aunt was wont to bestow upon us years ago.  The men regents will live into eternity if the canvas endures.  The shiny varnish is not pleasing, yet it cannot destroy the illusion of atmosphere that circulates about the vigorously modelled figures at the table.  What a colourist!  What nuances he produces on a restrained key-board!  The tones modulate, their juxtaposition causes no harsh discords.  The velvet black, silvery grays, whites that are mellow without pastiness, and the reds and yellows do not flare out like scarlet trumpets; an aristrocratic palette.  Really you begin to realise that what you formerly considered grandfather tales are the truth.  The great painters have been and are not with us to-day.  It is not a consoling pill to swallow for apostles of “modernity.”  Hals is more modern than Sargent.

These corporation and regent pieces are chronologically arranged.  N is considered the masterpiece.  It shows the officers of the Arquebusiers of St. Andrew, fourteen life-sized figures.  Again each man is a portrait.  This was painted in 1633.  The Regents of the Elizabeth Hospital (1641) has been likened to Rembrandt’s style; nevertheless, it is very Halsian.  Why, that chamber is alone worth the journey across the Atlantic.  Hals shows us not the magic of life but the normal life of daylight in which move with dignity men and women undismayed by the mysteries that hem them about.  He has a daylight soul, a sane if not poetic soul, and few painters before him so celebrated the bravery of appearances, the beauty of the real.

PICTURES IN AMSTERDAM

I

The wonderful Rijks Museum is the representative home of old Dutch art.  The Louvre, the Prado, the National Gallery excel it in variety, but the great Rembrandts are in it, and The Syndics and The Night Watch are worth a wilderness of other painters’ work.  The Night Watch has been removed from the old room, where it used to hang, facing the large Van der Heist, Captain Roelof Bicker’s Company.  But it is only in temporary quarters; the gallery destined for it is being completed.  We were permitted to peep into it.  The Night Watch will hang in one gallery, and facing it will be The Syndics, De Stallmeesters.  Better lighted than in its old quarters, The Night Watch now shows more clearly the tooth of time.  It is muddy and dark in the background, and the cracks of the canvas are ill-concealed by the heavy coating of varnish.  If all the faults of this magnificent work are more plainly revealed its excellences are magnified.  How there could have been any dispute as to the lighting is incredible.  The new catalogue, the appendices of which are brought down to 1908, frankly describes the picture thus: 

“The Night Watch, or the Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq and of Lieutenant van Ruytenburg.  The corps is represented in broad daylight, leaving the Doele of the Arquebusiers.  At their head, standing in the foreground about the centre, are the Captain and his Lieutenant conversing.  The former wears a dark dress, the latter a yellow costume with a white sash, causing a brilliant effect of light.  Near the Captain, also standing out in full light, is a little girl, a dead white cock hanging from her waistband.”

Then follow the names of the other personages in this strange scene.

A commonplace happening is transfigured by the magic of a seer into a significant moment arrested in eternity.  Rembrandt is a window looking out upon eternity.  It was quite like the logical minded Frenchman, Eugene Fromentin, himself an admirable painter, to pick this canvas full of flaws.  The composition is, true enough, troubled and confused.  The draughtsmanship leaves much to be desired; hands are carelessly painted, the grouping haphazard, without symmetry, the general rhythm full of syncopations, cross accents, and perverse pauses empty spaces, transitions not accounted for.  And yet this painting without personal charm it is almost impersonal grips your soul.  It is not alone the emotional quality of the paint.  There are greater colourists than Rembrandt, who, strictly speaking, worked in monochrome, modelling with light.  No, not the paint alone, not the mystery of the envelope, not the magnetic gaze of the many eyes, but all combined makes an assault upon nerves and imagination.  You feel that Captain Cocq is a prosaic personage and is much too tall in proportion to the spry little dandy Lieutenant at his side.  Invested with some strange attribute by the genius of the painter, this Dutchman becomes the protagonist in a soundless symphony of light and shadow.  The waves that emanate from the canvas suffuse your senses but do not soothe or satisfy.  The modern nervous intensity, missing absolutely in Hals and his substantial humans, is present in Rembrandt.  We say “modern” as a sop to our vanity, but we are the “ancients,” and there is no mode of thought, no mood that has not been experienced and expressed by our ancestors.  Rembrandt is unlike any other Dutch painter Hals, Vermeer, Teniers, Van der Heist what have these in common with the miller’s son?  But he is as Dutch as any of them.  A genius is only attached to his age through his faults, said a wise man.  Rembrandt is as universal as Beethoven, a Dutchman by descent, as Bach, a Hungarian by descent, as Michael Angelo and Shakespeare.  But we must go to Leonardo da Vinci if we wish to find a brother soul to Rembrandt’s.

There is a second child back of that iridescent and enigmatic girl with the dead fowl.  And the dog that barks as Jan Van Koort ruffles his drum, what a spectre dog!  No, the mystery of The Night Watch is insoluble, because it is the dream of a poet.  Its light is morning light, yet it is the mystic light of Rembrandt, never seen on sea or land.  In The Syndics, that group of six linen-drapers, Rembrandt shows with what supreme ease he can beat Hals at the game of make-believe actuality.  Now, according to the accustomed order of development, The Night Watch should have followed The Syndics.  But it preceded it by two decades, and the later work contains far better painting and a sharper presentment of the real.  The Night Watch is Rembrandt’s Ninth symphony; but composed before his Fifth, The Syndics.  One figure in this latter picture has always fascinated us.  It is of the man, Volkert Janz, according to Professor J. Six, who stoops over, his hand poised on a book.  Rembrandt has seldom painted with more sensitiveness eyes, subtle corners of the mouth, and intimate expression.  This syndic is evidently superior to his fellows, solid, sensible Dutch men of affairs.

There is a landscape, purchased in 1900, a stone bridge, lighted by rays darting through heavy storm clouds.  It is the Rembrandt of the etchings.  Lovely is the portrait of a young lady of rank, though the Elizabeth Bas, in another gallery, will always be the masterpiece in portraiture if for nothing else but the hands.  The Jewish Bride is bulky in its enchantments, the phosphorescent gleams of the apparel the chief attraction.  The Toilet is heavy Rembrandt; while the anatomical lecture is repulsive.  But the disembowelled corpse is more corpse-like than the queerly foreshortened dead body in the picture on anatomy at The Hague.  The warrior’s head, supposed to be a portrait of his father, is an ancient copy and a capital one.  Old dame Elizabeth Bas, with her coif, ruff, and folded hands, holding a handkerchief, is a picture you return to each day of your stay.

Hals at Amsterdam is interesting.  There is the so-called portrait of the painter and his wife, two full-length figures; the Jolly Toper, half-length figure, large black hat, in the left hand a glass; and the insolent lute-player, a copy, said to be by Dirck Hals, the original in the possession of Baron Gustave Rothschild at Paris.  And a fine copy it is.

The three Vermeers are of his later enamelled period.  One is a young woman reading a letter; she is seen in profile, standing near a table, and is dressed in a white skirt and blue loose jacket.  The Letter shows us in the centre of a paved room a seated lady, lute in hand.  She has been interrupted in her playing by a servant bringing a letter.  To the right a tapestry curtain has been looped up to give a view of the scene.  The new Vermeer purchased from the Six gallery in 1908 is now called The Cook; it was formerly known as The Milkmaid.  A stoutly built servant is standing behind a table covered with a green cloth, on which are displayed a basket of bread, a jug of Nassau earthenware, and a stone pot into which she is pouring milk from a can.  The figure, painted almost full length, stands out against the white wall and is dressed in a lemon-coloured jacket, a red-brown petticoat, a dark-blue apron turned back, and a white cap on the head.  The light falls on the scene through a window to the left, above the table.

This masterpiece is in one of the cabinet galleries.  It displays more breadth than the Lady Reading a Letter, and its colouring is absolutely magical.  The De Hoochs are of prime quality.  Greater art is the windmill and moonlit scene of Hobbema, as great a favourite as his Mill, though both must give the precedence to the Alley of Middleharnais in the Royal Academy, London.  But where to begin, where to end in this high carnival of over three thousand pictures!  The ticketed favourites, starred Baedeker fashion, sometimes lag behind their reputation.  The great Van der Helst and a prime portraitist he is, as may be seen over and over again is The Company of Captain Bicker, a vast canvas.  When you forget Hals and Rembrandt it is not difficult to conjure up admiration for this work.  The N. Maes Spinner is very characteristic.  Cuyp and Van Goyen are here; the latter’s view of Dordrecht is celebrated.  So is the Floating Feather of Hondecoester, a finely depicted pelican.  The feather is the least part of the picture.  Asselijn’s angry swan is an excellent companion piece.  We wish that we could describe the Jan Steens, the Dous, the Mierises, and other sterling Dutch painters.  There is the gallery of Dutch and Flemish primitives about which a volume might be written; their emaciated music appeals.  In expressiveness the later men did not excel them.  The newest acquisition, not mentioned in the catalogue supplements, is the work of an unknown seventeenth-century master, possibly Spanish, though the figures, background, and accessories are Dutch.  Two old men, their heads bowed, sit at table.  Across their knees are napkins.  The white is from a Spanish palette.  A youth attired in dark habiliments, his back turned to the spectators, is pouring out wine or water.  The canvas is large, the execution flowing; perhaps it portrays the disciples at Emmaus.

The portraits of Nicholas Hasselaer and his wife Geertruyt van Erp, by Hals, in one of the cabinets, are painted with such consummate artistry that you gasp.  The thin paint, every stroke of which sings out, sets you to thinking of John Sargent and how he has caught the trick of brush-work at a slower tempo.  But not even Sargent could have produced the collar and cuffs.  A Whistler, a full-length, in another gallery, looks like an unsubstantial wraith by comparison.  Two weeks’ daily attendance at this excellently planned collection did no more than fix the position of the exhibits in the mind.  There is a goodly gathering of such names as Israels, Mesdag, Blommers, and others at the Rijks, but the display of modern Dutch pictures at the Municipal Museum is more representative.  The greatest Josef Israels we ever saw in the style is his Jew sitting in the doorway of a house, a most eloquent testimony to Israels’ powers of seizing the “race” and the individual.  Old David Blés is here, and Blommers, De Bock, Bosboom, Valkenburg, Alma-Tadema, Ary Scheffer of Dutch descent Roelofs, Mesdag, Mauve, Jakob Maris, Jongkind, and some of the Frenchmen, Rousseau, Millet, Dupre, and others.  The Six gallery is not so accessible as it was some years ago.  No doubt its Rembrandts and Vermeers will eventually find their way into the Rijks Museum.

II

Who was Herri met de Blés?  Nearly all the large European galleries contain specimens of his work and in the majority of cases the pictures are queried.  That fatal (?) which, since curators are more erudite and conscientious, is appearing more frequently than in former years, sets one to musing over the mutability of pictorial fortunes.  Also, it awakens suspicions as to the genuineness of paint.  Restorations, another fatal word, is usually a euphemism for overpainting.  Between varnish and retouching it is difficult to tell where the old master leaves off and the “restorer” begins.  Blés, for example, as seen in the Rijks Museum, is a fascinating subject to the student; but are we really looking at his work?  The solitary picture of his here, Paradise, is so well preserved that it might have been painted a year ago. (It is an attribution.) Yet this painter is supposed to have been born at Bouvignes, 1480, and to have died at Liege, 1521.  He was nicknamed Herri, for Hendrick, met de Blés, because he had a tuft of white in his hair (a forerunner of Whistler).  The French called him Henri a la Houppe; the Italians “Civetta” because of the tiny owl he always introduced into his work.  He was a landscapist, and produced religious and popular scenes.  Blés has had many works saddled upon him by unknown imitators of Metsu, Joost van Kleef, Lucas, and Duerer who worked at Antwerp between 1520 and 1550.  Thierry Vellert was also an imitator.  In the old Pinakothek, Munich, there is a Henricus Blesius, which is said to be a counterfeit, and others are in Karlsruhe, Milan, Brussels, and at the Prado.

The circular picture in the Rijks shows us in various episodes Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden from the Creation until the Fall.  Around the edge are signs of the zodiac.  The colour is rich, the figures delicate.  The story is clearly told and is not unlike a “continuous performance.”  You see Adam asleep and over him stoops the Almighty; then Eve is shown.  The apple scandal and the angel with the flaming sword are portrayed with a vivid line that recalls the miniaturist.  A rare painter.

Roeland Savery is an artist whose name, we confess, was not known to us until we saw his work in the Rijks.  The rich pate and bouquet-like quality of his colour recall Monticelli.  His compositions are composed, like Monticelli’s, but much more spirited than the latter.  A stag hunt, a poet crowned at the feast of animals, Elijah fed by the ravens, and the fable of the stag among the cows prove the man’s versatility.  He was born about 1576 and died at Utrecht, 1639.  A pupil of his father, he first worked in Courtrai.  The Bronzino Judith holding the head of Holophernes is a copy, the original hanging in the Pitti Palace.  At Vienna there is a replica.  Among the Bols (Cornelis, 1613-66) the portraits of Roelof Meulenaer and his wife, Maria Rey, attract because of their vitality and liberalism.  Then we come across the oft-engraved Paternal Advice, by Gerard ter Borch (1617-81).  Who doesn’t remember that young lady dressed in white satin and standing with her back to you?  The man in officer’s uniform, admonishing her, is seated next to a woman drinking from a wine-glass.  The texture of the dress and the artfully depicted glass are the delight of amateurs.  As a composition it is not remarkable.  The man is much too young to be the father of the blond-haired lady, and if the other one is her mother, both parents must have retained their youth.  The portrait of Helena van der Schalcke is that of a quaint Dutch child standing; a serious little body carrying a basket on her right arm like a good housewife.  It is a capital Ter Borch.  Two beautiful Albert Cuyps are painted on the two sides of a copper panel.  On one side two merchants stand at a wharf; on the other two men sit sampling wine in a cellar.  The colour is singularly luminous.

Let us pass quickly the Schalckens and Gerard Dous.  Dou’s self-portrait is familiar.  He leans out of a window and smokes a clay pipe.  The candle-light pictures always attract an audience.  Govert Flinck (1615-60, pupil of Rembrandt) is a painter who, if he lived to-day, would be a popular portraitist.  Wherever you go you see his handiwork, not in the least inspired, but honest, skilful, and genial.  Look at the head of the tax-collector Johannes Wittenbogaert, covered with a black cap.  So excellent is it that it has been attributed to Rembrandt.  Boland, we believe, engraved it as genuine Rembrandt.  Gerard van Honthorst’s Happy Musician is another picture of prime quality, and a subject dear to Hals.  Hoogstratten’s Sick Lady is an anecdote.  The young woman does not seem very ill, but the doctor gravely holds up a bottle of medicine and you feel the dread moment is at hand.  How to persuade the patient to swallow the dose?  She is stubborn-looking.  The Piéter de Hoochs are now in the same gallery with Rembrandt’s Jewish Bride.  These interiors, painted with a minute, hard finish, lack the charm and the colour quality of Vermeer.  With sunlight Hooch is successful, but his figures do not move freely in an atmospheric envelope, as is the case with Vermeer’s.  The Small Country House is the favourite.  In front of a house a well-dressed man and woman are seated at a table.  She is squeezing lemon juice into a glass.  Behind her a servant is carrying a glass of beer, and farther away a girl cleans pots and pans.  The composition is the apotheosis of domestic comfort, conjugal peace, and gluttony.  We like much more The Pantry, wherein a woman hands a jug to her little girl.  The adjoining room, flooded with light, is real.

There is one Van der Helst we could not pass.  It looks like the portrait of a corpulent woman, but is that of Gerard Bicker, bailiff of Muiden.  A half-length figure turned to the left, the bailiff a well-fed pig, holds a pair of gloves in his right hand which he presses against his Gargantuan chest.  His hair is long and curly.  The fabrics are finely wrought.  Holbein the younger is represented by the portrait of a young man.  It is excellent, but doubtless a copy or an imitation.  To view five Lucas van Leydens in one gallery is not an everyday event.  His engravings are rare enough that is, in good states; “ghosts” are aplenty and his paintings rarer.  Here they are chiefly portraits.  Rachel Ruysch, the flower painter, has a superior in Judith Lyster, a pupil of Frans Hals.  She was born at Haarlem, or Zaandam, about 1600, and died 1660.  She married the painter Jan Molener.  Her Jolly Toper faces the Hals of the same theme, in a cabinet, and reveals its artistic ancestry.  Judith had the gift of reproducing surfaces.  We need not return to the various Maeses; indeed, this is only a haphazard ramble among the less well-known pictures.  Consider the heads of Van Mierevelt; those of Henrick Hooft, burgomaster of Amsterdam, of Jacob Cats, and of his wife Aegje Hasselaer (1618-64).  Her hair and lace collar are wonderfully set forth.  Must we stop before Mabuse, or before the cattle piece of the Dutch school, seventeenth century?  A Monticelli seems out of key here, and the subject is an unusual one for him, Christ With the Little Children.  The Little Princess, by P. Moreelse, has the honour, after Rembrandt, of being the most frequently copied picture in the Rijks.  The theme is the magnet.  A little girl, elaborately dressed, is seated.  She strokes the head of a spaniel whose jewelled collar gives the impression of a dog with four eyes.  In Vermeer’s Young Woman Reading a Letter is a like confused passage of painting, for the uninstructed spectator.  She wears her hair over her ear, an ornament clasping the hair.  At first view this is not clear, principally because this fashion of wearing the hair is unusual in the eyes of a stranger.

Jan van Scorel was born at Schoorl, near Alkmaar, 1495.  He studied under Jacob Cornelis at Amsterdam and with Jean de Maubeuge at Utrecht.  He died at Utrecht, 1562.  When travelling in Germany he visited Duerer at Nuremberg; resided for a time in Italy.  The Italian influence is strong, particularly in his Mary Magdalen, which formerly hung in the town-hall of Haarlem.  A replica is in the residence of the head-master of Eton College, England.  Mary is shown seated, richly attired.  She holds in her right hand a box of perfume, her left hand, beautifully painted, rests on her knee.  Behind is a mountainous landscape, distinctly Italian, beside her a tree.  The head is north Lombardian in character and colouring, the glance of the eyes enigmatic.  A curiously winning composition, not without morbidezza.  Scorel has five other works in the Rijks.  The Bathsheba is not a masterpiece.  Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is conventional, but the Harpsichord Player was sold at Paris as late as 1823 as a Bronzino.  Perhaps it is only attributed to Scorel.  It is unlike his brush-work.  The Painting of a Vault, divided into nine sections, five of which represent the Last Judgment, is a curiosity.  The portrait of Emperor Charles V. as Pharaoh is pointed out by the gallery attendant, who then retires and diplomatically coughs in the middle distance.

The Mancini (pupil of Morelli and W.H.  Mesdag) is entitled Poor Thing.  A little girl stands in a miserable room; mice run over the floor.  The colouring is rich.  There are admirable Jakob Marises; but we wish to follow in the track of the old fellows.  Adrian van Ostade’s Baker is so popular that it is used for advertising purposes in Holland.  The baker leans out of his door, the lower half closed, and blows a horn.  Palamedes evidently repainted the same picture many times.  An interior with figures, seated and standing; same faces, poses, accessories.  Same valet pouring out wine; variants of this figure.  A Merry Party is the usual title.  At The Hague in the Mauritshuis there is another such subject; also in Antwerp and Brussels.  But a jolly painter.  Steen and Teniers we may sidestep.  Also the artificial though graceful Tischbein.  There is a Winterhalter here, a mannered fashionable portrait painter (he painted the Empress Eugenie), and let us leave the Titians to the experts.  When you are in Holland look at the Dutch pictures.  A De Vos painted topers and fishermen with gusto, and there is Vinckboons, who doted on scenes of violence.  Fancy Vollon flowers in the midst of these old Dutchmen.  The Frenchman had an extraordinary feeling for still-life, though more in the decorative Venetian manner than in Chardin’s serene palette, or the literalism of Kalf.  Whistler’s Effie Deans, presented by the Dowager Baroness R. van Lynden in 1900, is not one of that master’s most successful efforts.  It is a whole-length figure painted in misty semi-tones, the feeling sentimental, un-Whistlerian, and, as we before remarked, wraith-like and lacking in substance when compared to Hals.

There is actually a Wouverman in which no white horse is to be discovered.  On Van der Werff and the romantic landscapist Wynants we need not dwell.  The miniatures, pastels, and framed drawings are of goodly array.  Of the former, Samuel Cooper (portrait of Charles II.), John Hoskins, Peter Oliver, Isaac Oliver, Laurence Crosse, and others.  English, Dutch, and French may be found.  The Liotard and Tischbein pastels are charming.  In the supplements of the catalogue we find underscored a Descent from the Cross, an anonymous work of the Flemish school (fifteenth century, second half).  The dead Christ is being lowered into the arms of his mother.  It is evidently a copy from a lost original in the style of Rogier van der Weyden.  There are such copies in Bruges and elsewhere.  Another composition is labelled as an anonymous work of undetermined school.  The Christ hangs on the cross, on His right are the Virgin Mary, the holy women and St. John; on His left jeering soldiers and scribes.  On either side of the composition is the figure of a saint much larger in size than the other figures; St. Cosmus on the left, St. Damian on the right.  The background is a hilly landscape.  An authority ascribes the work to the Catalonian school, date about 1440.  There were giants in those days.  Antonello da Messina has the portrait of a young man.  It is an attribution, yet not without some claim to authenticity.  The Jan Provosts are mostly of close study, especially The Virgin Enthroned.  A certain Piéter Dubordieu, who was living in Amsterdam in 1676 (born in Touraine), painted the portraits of a man and a woman, dated 1638.  Vivid portraits.  We must pass over the striking head of Hanneman, the Lucas Cranach (the elder), and the thousand other attractive pictures in this gallery.  The Rijks Museum could be lived with for years and still remain an inexhaustible source of joy.

ART IN ANTWERP

After passing Dordrecht on the way down to Antwerp the canals and windmills begin to disappear.  The country is as flat as Holland, but has lost its characteristic charm.  It has become less symmetrical; there is disorder in the sky-line, more trees, the architecture is different.  Dutch precision has vanished.  The railway carriages are not clean, punctuality is avoided, the people seem less prosperous, few speak English, and as you near Antwerp the villas and roads tell you that you are in the dominion of the King of Belgium.  But Antwerp is so distinctly Flemish that you forget that bustling modern Brussels is only thirty-six minutes away by the express a fast train for once in this land of snail expresses.  No doubt the best manner of approaching Antwerp is by the Scheldt on one of the big steamers that dock so comfortably along the river.  However, a trip to the vast promenoir that overlooks the river gives an excellent idea of this thriving port.  The city very much modernised during the past ten years may easily be seen in a few days, setting aside the museums and churches.  The quay promenade brings you to the old Steen Castle, and the Town Hall with its salle des marriages, its mural paintings by the industrious Baron Leys frigid in style and execution will repay you for the trouble.  The vestibules and galleries are noteworthy.  We enjoyed the façades of the ancient guild houses on the market-place and watching the light play upon the old-time scarred front of the cathedral that stands in the Place Verte.  Then there are the Zoological Garden, the Plantin Museum, the Theatre Flamand, the various monuments, and the spectacle of the busy, lively city for those who do not go to Antwerp for its art.  You may even go to Hoboken, a little town in the suburbs not at all like the well-known Sunday resort in Jersey.

The Royal Museum is displayed in a large square.  It is a handsome structure and the arrangement of the various galleries is simple.  The Rubenses, thirty-odd in all, are the piece de resistance, and the Flemish and Dutch Primitives of rare beauty.  Bruges is better for Memling, Brussels for Van der Weyden, Ghent for the Van Eycks, yet Antwerp can boast a goodly number of them all.  She exceeds Brussels in her Rubenses for the larger altar pieces are here, just as at Amsterdam the Rembrandts, while not numerous, take precedence because of The Syndics and The Night Watch.  The tumultuous, overwhelming Peter Paul is in his glory at Antwerp.  You think of some cataclysm when facing these turbulent, thrilling canvases.  If Raphael woos, Rubens stuns.  In the company of Michel Angelo and Balzac or Richard Wagner he would be their equal for torrential energy and vibrating humanity.  Not so profound as Buonarroti, not so versatile as Balzac, he is their peer in sheer savagery of execution.  Setting aside the miles of pictures signed by him though painted by his pupils, he must have covered multitudes of canvas.  Like men of his sort of genius, he ends by making your head buzz and your eyes burn; and then, the sameness of his style, the repetition of his wives and children’s portraits, the apotheosis of the Rubens family!  He portrayed Helena Fourment and Isabella Brandt in all stages of disarray and gowns.  He put them together on the same canvas.  He did not hesitate to show them to the world in all their opulent nudity.  Their white skins, large eyes with wide gaze, their lovely children appear in religious and mythologic pictures at every turn you make in this museum.  You become too familiar with them.  You learn to know that one wife was slenderer than the other; you also realise that other days had other ways.  Titian painted the portrait of a noble dame quite naked and placed her husband, soberly attired, near by.  No one criticised the taste of this performance.  Manet, who was no Titian, did the same trick and was voted wicked.  He actually dared to show us Nana dressing in the presence of a gentleman who sat in the same room with his hat on.

The heavy-flanked Percheron horses are of the same order as the Rubens women.  The Flemings are mighty feeders, mighty breeders, good-tempered, pleasure-loving folk.  They don’t work as hard as the Dutch, and they indulge in more feasting and holidays.  The North seems austere and Protestant when compared with this Roman Catholic land.  Its sons of genius, such as Rubens and Van Dyck, painted pictures that do not reveal the deeper faith of the Primitives.  No Christ or Mary of either Van Dyck or Rubens sounds the poignant note of the Netherlandish unknown mystic masters.

But what a banquet of beauty Rubens spreads for the eye!  With him painting reached its apogee, and in him were the seeds of its decadence.  He shattered the Florentine line; he, a tremendous space-composer when he so wished, wielded his brush at times like a scene-painter on a debauch.  The most shocking, the loveliest things happen on his canvases.  Set the beautiful Education of the Virgin, in this gallery, beside such a work as Venus and Vulcan at Brussels, and you will see the scale in which he sported.  Or the Virgin and Parrot, with a child Christ who might have posed as a youthful Adonis, and the Venus Frigida both in Antwerp.  A pagan was Rubens, for all his religion.  We prefer the Christ Crucified between Two Thieves or the Christ on the Cross, the single figure, to the more famous Descent at the Cathedral.  But what can be said that is new about Rubens or Van Dyck?  In the latter may be noted the beginnings of deliquescence.  He is a softened Rubens, a Rubens aristocratic.  The portraits here are prime, those of the Bishop of Antwerp, Jean Malderus, and of the young girl with the two dogs.  His various Christs are more piteous to behold than those of his master, Rubens.  The feminine note is present, and without any of the realism which so shocks in the conceptions of the Primitives.  Nevertheless we turn to his portraits or to the little boy standing at a table.  There is the true key of Van Dyck.  He met Rubens as a portraitist and took no odds of him.

Lucas Cranach’s Adam and Eve is a variation of the picture in the Brussels gallery.  A Gossaert portrait catches the eye, the head and bust of a man; then you find yourself staring in wonderment at the Peter Breughels and Jerome Bosches with their malodorous fantastic versions of temptations of innumerable St. Anthonys.  The air is thick with monsters, fish-headed and splay of foot.  St. Anthony must have had the stomach of an ostrich and the nerves of a politician to endure such sights and sounds and witches.  Such females!  But Peter and his two sons are both painters of interest.  There are better Teniers in Brussels, though Le Chanteur is admirable.  Ostade’s Smoker is a masterpiece.  Only four Rembrandts, the portrait of a woman, according to Vosmaer and W. Burger that of his wife Saskia; a fisherman’s boy, the Burgomaster, and the Old Jew.  Dr. Bode thinks that the last two are by Nikolas Maes.  The portrait of Eleazer Swalmius the so-called Burgomaster Six is finely painted as to head and beard.  The Antwerp Museum paid two hundred thousand francs for the work.  We must not forget mention of a David Teniers, a loan of Dr. Bredius, a still-life, a white dead goose superb in tone.

Of the two Frans Halses, the portrait of a Dutch gentleman is the better; the other was formerly known as the Strandlooper van Haarlem and shows the vigorous brush-work of the master.  It is the head of a saucy fisher-boy, the colour scheme unusual for Hals.  The Quentin Matsys pictures are strong; among others the portrait of Peter Gillis with his shrewd, strongly marked physiognomy.  This is a Matsys town.  Every one looks at his old iron well beside the Cathedral and recalls the legend of the blacksmith, as every boy remembers here Hendrik Conscience and the Lion of Flanders.  Van Reymerswael’s The Tax Gatherers, sometimes called The Bankers or The Misers, hangs in the museum; that realistic picture with the so highly individualised heads, a favourite of the engravers, holds its own.  Both the Boutses, Albrecht and Dirck, are shown in their Holy Families, and both are painters of ineffable grace and devotion.

Four Memlings of seductive beauty light the walls.  One is a portrait of Nicolo Spinelli.  Christ and His Angels, the angels playing in praise of the Eternal and other angels playing various instruments.  The two Van Eycks, Huibrecht (Hubert) and Jan, are well represented.  The St. Barbara, by Jan, is repeated in the Bruges Museum The Donateur or Donor is a repetition of the original at Bruges.  The Adoration of the Lamb is a copy of the original at Ghent.  There is tender beauty in Jan’s St. Barbara, and infinite motherly love expressed in his Holy Virgin.  Hugo van der Goes’s portrait of Thomas Portunari is a marvel of characterisation.  Terburg has a mandolin player and Hobbema a mill scene.  The Van Orleys are interesting, and also the Van Veens.  Gerard David, a painter of exquisite touch and feeling, shows a Repose in Egypt.  Lucas Cranach’s L’Amour is one of his Virgins transposed to the mythological key.  We have barely indicated the richness of this collection, in which, of course, Rubens plays first fiddle rather the full orchestra.  And with what sonority and luminosity!

At the Cathedral his three masterpieces draw their accustomed audiences with the usual guide lecturing in three languages, pointing out the whiteness of the cloth in the Descent and the anatomy in the Ascent.  This latter work is always slighted by sightseers because Baedeker, or some one else, had pronounced its composition “inferior” to the Descent, but there are many more difficult problems involved in the Ascent.  Its pattern is not so pleasing as the Descent, the subject is less appealing, and more sternly treated.  There are more virile accents in the Ascent, though it would be idle to deny that in paint quality there is a falling off.  Both pictures show the tooth of time and the ravages of the restorers.  At St. Jacques, with its wonderfully carved pulpit, the St. George of Rubens hangs in a chapel.  It has darkened much during the last twenty years.  Also there is another Rubens family group with wives and other relatives.  They thought well of themselves, the Rubens family, and little wonder.

The modern pictures at the museum are of varying interest Braekeleer, Stobbaerts, Verlat, Scheffer, Cabanel, David (J.L.), Wiertz, Wauters, Wappers, some elegant Alfred Stevenses, De Bock the landscapist, Clays, Van Beers, Meunier, Breton, Bouguereau, and a lot of nondescript lumber.  In the spacious approach there is one of Constantin Meunier’s famous figures.  You rejoice that he followed Rodin’s advice and gave up the brush for the chisel.  As a painter he was not more than mediocre.

The four Van der Weydens in the gallery of Primitives are not all of equal merit.  The Annunciation is the most striking.  The early master of Memling is distinguished by a sweetness in composition and softness in colouring.  Mention must be made of the De Vos pictures by the Cornelis, Martin, and Simon.  A portrait of Abraham Grapheus by the first-named is one of the most striking in the museum, and the self-portrait of the latter, smiling, is brilliant.  Rombouts is a sort of Adrian Brouwer; his Cavaliers Playing at Cards recalls Caravaggio.  Daniel Mytens’s portrait of a lady is Rubenesque.

And all that choir of elevated souls unknown to us by name, merely called after the city they inhabited, such as the Master of Bray, or by some odd device or monogram what cannot be written of this small army which praised the Lord, His mother and the saints in form and colour, on missals, illuminated manuscripts, or on panels!  The Antwerp Museum has its share of Anonymous, that master of whom it has been said that “he” was probably the master of the masters.  Antwerp is a city of many charms, with its St. Jacques, St. Andres (and its carved pulpit), St. Paul and the Cathedral, and its preservation of the Flemish spirit and Flemish customs; but for us its museum was all in all.

MUSEUMS OF BRUSSELS

Considering its size and significance, Brussels has more than its share of museums.  At the beginning of the Rue de la Régence, near the Place Royale, stands the imposing Royal Museum of old paintings and sculpture.  The Museum of Modern Art is around the corner and adjoins the National Library, which is said to harbour over six hundred thousand volumes.  In the gallery of old art the effect of the sculptors’ hall, which is in the centre and utilises the entire height of the building, is noble.  The best sculpture therein is by Rodin and Meunier; the remainder is generally academic or simply bad.  Rodin’s Thinker, in bronze, is a repetition of the original.  After the wreathed prettiness of the conventional school neither Greek nor Gothic and the writhing diablerie of Rodin imitators the simplicity and directness of Constantin Meunier is refreshing.  He was a man whose imagination became inflamed at the sight of suffering and injustice.  He is closer to Millet than to his friend Rodin, but he lacks the sweetness and strength of Millet.  Selecting the Belgian workman the miner, the hewer of wood and drawer of water, the proletarian, in a word for his theme, Meunier observed closely and reproduced his vision in terms of rugged beauty.  The sentiment is evidently socialistic.  Like Prince Kropotkin and the brothers Reclus, the Belgian sculptor revolts against the cruelty of man to man.  He shows us the miner crouched in a pitiful manner finding a pocket of coal; men naked to the waist, their torsos bulging with muscles, their small heads on bull necks, are puddlers; other groups patiently haul heavy carts labour not in its heroic aspect, but as it is in reality, is the core of Meunier’s art.  That he is “literary” at times may not be denied, but power he has.

The early Flemish school of the fifteenth century is strongly represented in several of the galleries up-stairs.  And Rogier de la Pasture, otherwise known as Rogier van der Weyden, is shown in five pictures, and at his best.  The Chevalier with the Arrow, a bust portrait, will be familiar to those who have visited the Rijks Museum, where a copy hangs.  The robe is black, the hat, conical, is brown, the background blue-green.  The silhouette is vigorously modelled, the expression one of dignity, the glance penetrating, severe.  What characterisation!  The Christ is a small panel surpassingly rich in colour and charged with profound pity.  The body lies in the arms of the Mother, Magdalen and John on either side.  The sun is setting.  The subject was a favourite of Weyden; there is a triptych in Berlin and a panel at The Hague.  This Brussels picture has evidently been shorn of its wings.  There are replicas of the Virgin and Child (N in the catalogue) at Berlin, Cassel, and Frankfort, also in the recently dispersed collection of Rudolph Kann.  Another striking tableau is the head of a woman who weeps.  The minutest tear is not missing.

Hubert and Jan Van Eyck’s Adam and Eve are the wings (volets) from the grand composition in the Cathedral of St. Bavo, Ghent.  They are gigantic figures, nude, neither graceful nor attractive, but magnificently painted.  These portraits (they don’t look as if they had been finished in paradise) of our first parents rather favour the evolutionary theory of development.  Eve is unlovely, her limbs lanky, her bust mediaeval, her flanks Flemish.  In her right hand she holds the fatal apple.  Adam’s head is full of character; it is Christ-like; his torso ugly, his legs wooden.  Yet how superior to the copies which are now attached to the original picture at Ghent.  There the figures are clothed, clumsy, and meaningless.

Dierick Bouts’s Justice of Emperor Otho III is a striking picture.  The subject has that touch of repulsive cruelty which was a sign of the times.  Hans Memling’s Martyrdom of St. Sebastian is another treasure; with his portraits of a man, of Guillaume Morel and of Barbara de Vlandenberg making an immortal quartet.  The head of the man is the favourite in reproduction.  Morel is portrayed as in prayer, his hands clasped, his expression rapt.  A landscape is seen at the back.  The Virgin Surrounded by Virgins, by an unknown master of the fifteenth century (school of Bruges), is one of the most amazing pictures in the collection.  It has a nuance of the Byzantine and of the hieratic, but the portraits are enchanting in their crystalline quality.  Quentin Matsys’ Legend of St. Anne is much admired, though for sincerity we prefer The Passion of the Master of Oultremont.  Gerard David’s Adoration of the Magi is no longer attributed to him.  It was always in doubt:  now the name has been removed, though the picture has much of his mellowness.  Dr. Scheuring, the old man with the shaved upper lip, beard, and hair over his forehead, by Lucas Cranach, and Jean Gossaert’s Chevalier of the Golden Fleece, are masterly portraits.  Van Cleve, Van Orlay, Key perhaps a portrait of the bloody Duke of Alva also one of himself, Coello’s Maria of Austria, are among the sterling specimens in this gallery.

We need not expect to find duplicated here the Rubens of Antwerp.  The most imposing example is the Adoration of the Magi, while his portraits of the Archduke Albert and his Archduchess, Isabella, are perhaps the best extant.  The Calvary is a splendid canvas, full of movement and containing several members of the well-known Rubens family.  Such devotion is touching.  You find yourself looking for Isabella Brandt and Helena Fourment among the angels that hover in the sky above the martyred St. Lieven.  The four negro heads, the Woman Taken in Adultery, a Susanna (less concerned about her predicament than any we have encountered), a curious and powerful portrait of Theophrastus Paracelsus (Browning’s hero), with a dozen others, make a goodly showing for the Antwerp master.  Otho Vaenius (Octave Van Veen), one of the teachers of Rubens, is hung here.  There are nearly a dozen Van Dycks, of prime quality all.  The Crucifixion, the portrait of an unknown gentleman wearing a huge ruff and the winning portrait of a Flemish sculptor, Francesco Duquesnoy, (on a stand), give you an excellent notion of his range, though better Van Dycks are in France and England.

The portrait of an old man, by Rembrandt, is beginning to fade, but that of an old woman is a superior Rembrandt.  Of Frans Hals there are two fine specimens; one, a portrait of Willem van Heythusen, is a small picture, the figure sitting, the legs crossed (booted and spurred) and the figure leaning lazily back.  On his head a black felt hat with a broad upturned brim.  The expression of the bearded man is serious.  The only Jan Vermeer is one of the best portraits by that singularly gifted painter we recall.  It is called The Man with the Hat.  Dr. Bredius in 1905 considered the picture by Jean Victor, but it has been pronounced Vermeer by equal authorities.  It was once a part of the collection of Humphry Ward.  The man sits, his hand holding a glove resting negligently over the back of a chair.  He faces the spectator, on his head a long, pointed black hat with a wide brim.  His collar is white.  A shadow covers the face above the eyes.  These are rather melancholy, inexpressive; the flesh tints are anæmic, almost morbid.  We are far away from the Vermeer of the Milkmaid and the Letter.  There is something disquieting in this portrait, but it is a masterpiece of paint and character.

The Old Lady Dreaming, by N. Maes, and the Jan Steen (The Operator) are good though not remarkable examples.  Jacob Jordaenses flood the various galleries; Rubens run to seed as far as quality, yet exhibiting enormous muscularity, is the trait of this gross painter.  The King Drinks his kings are always drinking or blind drunk his nudes, which look like the contents of the butcher shops in Brussels, attract throngs, for the anecdote is writ large across the wall, and you don’t have to run to read.  Panoramas would be a better title for these robust compositions.  David Teniers’s La Kermesse is the most important work he ever finished.  It is in good preservation.  Amsterdam has not its superior.  There is an ordinary El Greco, a poor Goya, and a Ribera downstairs.  The French art is not enlivening.

Philip Champaigne’s self-portrait is familiar:  it has been reproduced frequently.  Jean Baptiste Huysmans, a landscape with animals; he is said to be an ancestor of the late Joris Karel Huysmans.  The Mors (Antonio Moro) is of value.  But the lodestone of the collection is the Primitives.

The pictures in the modern gallery are largely Belgian, some French, and a few Dutch and English.  It is not a collection of artistic significance.  In the black-and-white room may be seen a few original drawings of Rops.

The Musee Wiertz is worth visiting only as a chamber of horrors.  When Wiertz is not morbid and repulsive he is of the vasty inane, a man of genius gone daft, obsessed by the mighty shades of Rubens and Michael Angelo.  Wiertz was born in 1806 and died in 1865.  The Belgian Government, in order to make some sort of reparation for its neglect of the painter during his troubled and unhappy lifetime, acquired his country residence and made it a repository of his art.  The pictures are of a scale truly heroic.  The painter pitted himself against Rubens and Michael Angelo.  He said:  “I, too, am a great painter!” And there is no denying his power.  His tones recall the pate of Rubens without its warmth and splendour.  When Wiertz was content to keep within bounds his portraits and feminine nudes are not without beauty.  He was fanciful rather than poetic, and the picture of Napoleon in hell enduring the reproaches of his victims (why should they be there?) is startling.  Startling, too, are the tricks played on your nerves by the peepholes.  You see a woman crazed by hunger about to cook one of her murdered children; beheaded men, men crushed by superior power, the harnessed body of Patroclus, Polyphemus devouring the companions of Ulysses, and other monstrous conceptions, are all painted with reference to the ills of the poor.  Anton Joseph was a socialist in sentiment.  If his executive ability had been on a par with his ideas, and if those ideas had been less extravagant, the world would have had one more great painter; but his nervous system was flawed and he died a melancholic, a victim to misplaced ideals.  He wished to revive the heroic age at a time of easel pictures.  He, the half genius, saw himself outwitted by the sleek paint of Alfred Stevens.  Born out of his due time, a dreamer of dreams, Wiertz is a sad example of the futility of looking backward in art.

BRUGES THE BEAUTIFUL

On the way up from Brussels to Bruges it is well to alight at Ghent for a few hours.  There are attractions enough to keep one for several days, but as our objective was St. Bavon (St. Bavo, or Sint Baafs) we did not stay more than the allotted time.  And an adventurous time it was.  The Ostend express landed its passengers at the St. Pierre station and that meant the loss of half an hour.  The Cathedral is reached by the tramway, and there we found that as an office was about to be sung no one would be allowed in the ambulatory until after its completion.  It was pouring live Belgian rain without; already the choristers in surplices were filing into the choir.  Not a moment to be spared!  The sacristan was a practical man.  He hustled us into a side chapel, locked the heavy doors, and left us in company with the great picture of the brothers Hubert and Jan Van Eyck.  A monk knelt in prayer outside, the rain clouds made the lighting obscure.  We were hemmed in, but by angels and ministers of grace.  The chanting began.  Atmosphere was not needed in this large and gloomy edifice, only more light.  Gradually the picture began to burn through the artificial dusk, gradually its glories became more perceptible.  Begun by Hubert in 1420 and finished by Jan in 1432, its pristine splendour has vanished; and the loss of the wings the Adam and Eve are in Brussels, the remaining volets in the Berlin Museum is irreparable despite the copies.  But this Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, with its jewelled figures of the Christ, of St. John the Baptist, St. Cecilia, and the central panel with its mystical symbolism, painted in sumptuous tones, the lamb on the altar, the prophets and ecclesiastics in worship, the singing angels, is truly an angelic composition.

The rain had ceased.  A shaft of sunshine pierced the rosy glass windows and fell upon the hieratic figure of the bearded Christ, which glowed supernally.  In the chancel the Psalms had died away and the only sound was that of sandals shuffling over marble floors.  The man turned the lock.  It was a return to the world as if one had participated in a sacred ceremony.

Bruges is invariably called Bruges-la-Morte, but it is far from being dead, or even desperately melancholy.  Delft, in Holland, after nine o’clock at night, is quieter than Bruges.  Bruges the Dead?  No, Bruges the Beautiful is nearer the truth.  After reading Rodenbach’s morbid romance of Bruges-la-Morte we felt sure that a stay in Bruges would be like a holiday in a cemetery.  Our experience dispelled this unpleasant illusion.  Bruges is in daylight a bustling and in certain spots a noisy place.  Its inhabitants are not lugubrious of visage, but wideawake, practical people, close at a bargain, curious like all Belgians, and on fête days given to much feasting.  Bruges is infinitely more interesting than Brussels.  It is real, while modern Brussels is only mock-turtle.  And Bruges is more picturesque, the food is as well flavoured, there are several resorts where ripe old Burgundy may be had at not an extravagant price, and the townsfolk are less grasping, more hearty than in Brussels.

The city is nicknamed a Northern Venice, but of Venice there is naught, except the scum on the canal waters.  The secular odour of Bruges was not unpleasant in October; in August it may have been.  We know that the glory of the city hath departed, but there remain the Memlings, the Gerard Davids, at least one Van Eyck, not to mention several magnificent old churches.

Let us stroll to the Béguinage.  Reproductions of Memling and Van Eyck are in almost every window.  The cafes on the square, where stands the Belfry of Longfellow’s poem, are overflowing with people at table.  It is Friday, and to-morrow will be market day; with perhaps a fair or a procession thrown in.  You reach the Cathedral of St. Sauveur (Sint Salvator), erected in the tenth century, though the foundations date back to the seventh.  The narrow lane-like street winds around the rear of the church.  Presently another church is discerned with a tower that must be nearly four hundred feet high, built, you learn, some time between the tenth and fourteenth centuries.  Notre Dame contains the tombs of Charles the Bold and Mary of Burgundy, a lovely white marble statue of the Virgin and Child ascribed with justice to Michael Angelo, and a fine bow-window.  We pass the Hospital of St. Jean, turn up an alley full of cobblestones and children, and finally see the canal that passes the houses of the Béguinage.  The view is of exceeding charm.  The spire of Notre Dame and the apsis may be seen up (or is it down?) stream.  A bridge cuts the river precisely where it should; weeping willows to the left lend an elegiac note to the ensemble, and there is a gabled house to the right which seems to have entered the scene so as to give an artist the exact balance for his composition.  Nature and the handicraft of man paint pictures all over Bruges.

We enter the enclosure with the little houses of the beguines, or lay sisterhood.  There is nothing particular to see, except a man under a tree admiring his daubed canvas, near by a dog sleeps.  The sense of peace is profound.  Even Antwerp seems a creation of yesterday compared with the brooding calm of Bruges, while Brussels is as noisy as a boiler shop.  The Minnewater (Lac d’Amour) is another pretty stretch, and so we spent the entire day through shy alleys, down crooked streets, twisting every few feet and forming deceptive vistas innumerable, leading tired legs into churches, out of museums, up tower steps.

That first hard stroll told us how little we could know of Bruges in a day, a week or a month.  Bag and baggage we moved up from Brussels and wished that the clock and the calendar could be set back several centuries.  At twilight the unusual happened:  the Sandman appeared with his hour-glass and beckoned to bed.  There is no night in Bruges for the visitor within the gates; there is only slumber.  Perhaps that is why the cockneys call it Bruges the Dead.  The old horse that drags the hotel bus was stamping its hoofs in the court-yard; the wall of St. Jacques, eaten away by the years, faced us.  The sun, somewhere, was trying to rub its sleepy eyes, the odour of omelet was in the air, and all was well.  This is the home-like side of its life.  It may still harbour artists who lead a mystic, ecstatic existence, but we met none of them.  Poetic images are aroused at dusk along the banks of canals, bathed in spectral light.  Here Georges Rodenbach, that poet of delicate images, placed his hero, a man who had lost a beloved wife.  He saw her wraith-like form in the mist and at the end went mad.

The Memlings hang in a chamber at the Hospital St. Jean; the Chasse of St. Ursula is a reliquary, Gothic in design.  They consist of a dozen tiny panels painted in exquisite fashion, with all the bright clarity and precision of a miniaturist, coupled with a solidity of form and lyric elegance of expression.  They represent the side of Memling’s art which might be compared to the illuminators of manuscripts or to the artificers in gold and precious stones.  There is a jewelled quality in this illustration of the pious life and martyrdom of St. Ursula at Cologne.  But it is not the greatest Memling, to our thinking.  A portrait of Martin van Nieuwenhoven, the donator of the diptych, La Vierge aux Pommes, is as superb a Memling as one could wish for.  The little hairs are a sign of clever, minute brush.  It is the modelling, the rich manipulation of tones (yes, values were known in those barbarous times), the graceful fall of the hair treated quite as much en masse as with microscopic finish; the almost miraculous painting of the folded hands, and the general expression of pious reverie, that count most.  The ductile, glowing colours make this a portrait to be compared to any of the master’s we have studied at London, Berlin, Dresden, Luebeck, Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels.  But Bruges is the natural frame for his exalted genius.

If the Van Eycks were really the first to use oil-colour a fable, it is said Memling, who followed them, taught many great Italian painters the quality and expressiveness of beautiful paint.  There is the portrait of Sybilla Sambetha, the serious girl with the lace veil.  Did any of the later Dutch conjurers in paint attain such transparency?  The Mystic Marriage of St. Catharine, a triptych with its wings representing the beheading of St. John the Baptist the Salome is quite melancholy and St. John at Patmos, is one of the world pictures.  The Adoration of the Magi, with its wings, The Nativity, and Presentation in the Temple, is equally touching.  For me Memling’s Descent from the Cross sounds deeper music than Rubens which is operatic in comparison.  The Virgin type of Van Eyck is less insipid than the Italian; there is no pagan dissonance, as in the conception of Botticelli.  Faith blazed more fiercely in the breasts of these Primitive artists.  They felt Christ’s Passion and the sorrow of the Holy Mother more poignantly than did the Italians of the golden renaissance.  We have always held a brief for the Art for Art theory.  The artist must think first of his material and its technical manipulation; but after that, if his pulse beat to spiritual rhythms then his work may attain the heights.  It is not painting that is the lost art, but faith.  Men like the Van Eycks, Rogier van der Weyden, Memling, and Gerard David were princes of their craft and saw their religion with eyes undimmed by doubt.

James Weak has destroyed the legend that Hans Memling painted his St. Ursula for the benefit of St. Jean’s Hospital as a recompense for treatment while sick there.  He was a burgher living comfortably at Bruges.  The museum is a short distance from the hospital.  Its Van Eyck (Jan), La Vierge et l’Enfant known as the Donator because of the portrait of George van der Paele is its chief treasure, though there is the portrait of Jan’s wife; Gerard David’s Judgment of King Cambyses, and the savage execution companion picture; Memling’s triptych, St. Christopher bearing the Christ Child, and David’s masterpiece, The Baptism of Christ.  Holbein never painted a head with greater verisimilitude than Van Eyck’s rendering of the Donator.  What an eye!  What handling, missing not a wrinkle, a fold of the aged skin, the veins in the senile temples, or the thin soft hair above the ears!  What synthesis!  There are no niggling details, breadth is not lost in this multitude of closely observed and recorded facts.  The large eyes gaze devoutly at the vision of the Child, and if neither Virgin nor Son is comely there is character delineated.  The accessories must fill the latter-day painter avid of surface loveliness with consuming envy.

But it is time for sleep.  The Brugeois cocks have crowed, the sun is setting, and eyelids are lowering.  Lucky you are if your dreams evoke the brilliant colours, the magical shapes of the Primitives of Bruges the Beautiful.

THE MOREAU MUSEUM

Out of the beaten track of sight-seers, and not noticed with particular favour by the guide-books, the museum founded by Gustave Moreau at 14 Rue de la Rochefoucauld in Paris, is known only to a comparatively few artists and amateurs.  You seldom hear Americans speak of this rare collection, it is never written about in the magazines.  In September, 1897, Moreau made a will leaving his house and its contents to the State.  He died in 1898 (not in 1902, as Bryan’s dictionary has it), and in 1902 President Loubet authorised the Minister of Public Instruction to accept this rich legacy in the name of the republic.  The artist was not known to stranger countries; indeed he was little known to his fellow-countrymen.  Huysmans had cried him up in a revolutionary article; but to be praised by Huysmans was not always a certificate of fame.  That critic was more successful in attracting public attention to Degas and Rops; and Moreau, a born eclectic, though without any intention of carrying water on both shoulders, was regarded suspiciously by his associates at the Beaux-Arts, while the new men he praised, Courbet, Manet, Whistler, Monet, would hold no commerce with him.  To this day opinion is divided as to his merits, he being called a pasticheur or else a great painter-poet.  Huysmans saw straight into the heart of the enigma Gustave Moreau is poet and painter, a highly endowed man who had the pictorial vision in an unusual degree; whose brush responded to the ardent brain that directed it, the skilled hand that manipulated it; always responded, we say, except in the creation of life.  His paintings are, strictly speaking, magnificent still-life.  No vital current animates their airless, gorgeous, and sometimes cadaverous surfaces.

Like his friend Gustave Flaubert, with whom he had so much in common (at least on the Salammbo side of that writer), Moreau was born to affluence.  His father was a government architect; he went early to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, and also studied under Picot.  In 1852 he had a Pieta in the Salon (he was born April 6,1826), and followed it the next season with a Darius and a large canvas depicting an episode from the Song of Songs.  The latter was purchased for the Dijon Museum.  At the Universal Exhibition of 1855 he showed a monster work, The Athenians and the Minotaur.  He withdrew from the public until 1864, when his Oedipus and the Sphinx set Paris talking.  He exhibited until 1880 various canvases illustrative of his studies in classic literatures and received sundry medals.  He was elected a member of the Academie des Beaux-Arts in 1888, replacing Boulanger.  He was decorated in 1875 with the Legion of Honour and made officier in 1883.  When a member of the Institute he had few friends, and as professor at the Beaux-Arts he disturbed the authorities by his warm praise of the Primitives.  Altogether a career meagre in exciting incident, though singularly rich and significant on the intimate side.

A first visit to the museum proved startling.  We had seen and admired the fifteen water-colours at the Luxembourg, among them the famous Apparition, but for the enormous number of pictures, oil, water-colour, pastels, drawings, cartons, studies, we were unprepared.  The bulky catalogue registers 1,132 pieces, and remember that while there are some unfinished canvases the amount of work executed it is true during half a century is nevertheless a testimony to Moreau’s muscular and nervous energy, poetic conception, and intensity of concentration.  Even his unfinished pictures are carried to a state of elaboration that would madden many modern improvisers in colour.  Apart from sheer execution, there is a multitude of visions that must have been struggled for as Jacob wrestled with the Angel, for Moreau’s was not a facile mind.  He brooded over his dreams, he saw them before he gave them shape.  He was familiar with all the Asiatic mythologies, and for him the pantheon of Christian saints must have been bone of his bone.  The Oriental fantasy, the Buddhistic ideas, the fluent knowledge of Persian, Indian, and Byzantine histories, customs, and costumes sets us to wondering if this artist wasn’t too cultured ever to be spontaneous.  He recalls Prester John and his composite faiths.

There was besides the profound artistic erudition another stumbling-block to simplicity of style and unity of conception.  Moreau began by imitating both Delacroix and Ingres.  Now, such a precedure is manifestly dangerous.  Huysmans speaks with contempt of promiscuity in the admiration of art.  You can’t admire Manet and Bastien-Lepage “lé Grevin de cabaret, lé Siraudin de banlieue,” he names the gentle Bastien; nor ought you to admire Manet and Moreau, we may add.  And Huysmans did precisely what he preached against.  Moreau was a man of wide intellectual interests.  Devoid of the creative energy that can eject an individual style at one jet, as a volcano casts forth a rock, he attempted to aid nature by the process of an exquisite selection.  His taste was trained, his range wide too wide, one is tempted to add; and thus by a conscious act of the will he originated an art that recalls an antique chryselephantine statue, a being rigid with precious gems, pasted with strange colours, something with mineral eyes without the breath of life contemporary life yet charged with its author’s magnetism, bearing a charmed existence, that might come from a cold, black magic; monstrous, withal possessing a strange feverish beauty, as Flaubert’s Salammbo is beautiful, in a remote, exotic way.

However, it is not fair to deny Moreau human sympathies.  There are many of his paintings and drawings, notably the latter, that show him as possessing heart.  His handling of his medium though heavy is never timid, and at times is masterly.  Delacroix inspired many of his landscape backgrounds, as Ingres gave him the proportions of his female figures.  You continually encounter variations of Ingres, the sweet, serene line, the tapering feet and hands.  Some critics have discerned the toe forms of Perugino; but such mechanical measurements strain our notion of eclecticism.  Certainly Moreau studied Bellini, Mantegna, and Da Vinci without ever attaining the freedom and distinction of any of them.  His colour, too, is often hard and cold, though not in the sumptuous surfaces of his fabrics; there Venetian splendour is apparent.  He can be fiery and insipid, metallic and morbid; his Orientalism is at times transposed from the work of his old friend the painter Chasseriau into the key of a brilliant, if pompous rhetoric.

THE MOREAU MUSEUM

This herculean attempt at reassembling many styles in a unique style that would best express a certain frozen symbolism was the amiable mania his life long of Moreau.  He compelled the spirits to come to his bidding.  The moment you cross the threshold of his house the spell begins to work.  It is dissipated by the daylight of Paris, but while you are under the roof of the museum you can’t escape it.  Nor is it as with Rossetti, a mystic opiate, or with Wiertz, a madman’s delirious fancy.  Moreau was a philosophic poet, and though he disclaimed being a “literary” painter, it is literature that is the mainspring of his elevated and decorative art.  Open at random the catalogue full of quotations from the painter’s pen and you encounter such titles as Leda and the Swan, treated with poetic restraint; Jupiter and Semele, Tyrtaeus Singing During the Combat, St. Elizabeth and the Miracle of the Roses, Lucretia and Tarquin, Pasiphae, the Triumph of Alexander, Salome, Dante and Virgil, Bathsheba, Jason and the Golden Fleece.  All literatures were ransacked for themes.  This painter suffered from the nostalgia of the ideal.  When a subject coincided with his technical expression the result approximates perfection.  Consider the Salome, so marvellously paraphrased in prose by Huysmans.  The aquarelle in the Luxembourg is more plastic, more jewelled than the oil; Moreau often failed in the working-out of his ideas.  Yet, never in art has a hallucination been thus set before us with such uncompromising reality.  The sombre, luxurious decor, the voluptuous silhouette of the dancing girl, the hieratic pose of the Tetrarch, even the aureoled head of John, are forgotten in the contemplation of Salome, who is become cataleptic at sight of the apparition.  Arrested her attitude her flesh crisps with fear.  Her face is contracted into a mask of death.  The lascivious dance seems suspended in midair.  To have painted so impossible a picture bears witness to the extraordinary quality of Moreau’s complex art.  Nor is the Salome his masterpiece.  In the realm of the decorator he must be placed high.  His genius is Byzantine.  Jupiter and Semele, with its colossal and acrian architectures, its gigantic figure of the god, from whose august head emanate spokes of light, is Byzantine of a wild luxuriousness in pattern and fancy.  Moreau excels in representing cataracts of nude women, ivory-toned of flesh, exquisite in proportion, set off by radiant jewels and wonder-breeding brocades.  His skies are in violent ignition, or else as soft as Lydian airs.  What could be more grandiose than the Triumph of Alexander (N in the catalogue)?  Not John Martin or Piranesi excelled the Frenchman in bizarre architectural backgrounds.  And the Chimeras, what a Baudelairian imagination!  Baudelaire of the bitter heart!  All luxury, all sin, all that is the shame and the glory of mankind is here, as in a tapestry dulled by the smoke of dreams; but as in his most sanguinary combats not a sound, not a motion comes from this canvas.  When the slaves, lovely females, are thrown to the fish to fatten them for some Roman patrician’s banquet, we admire the beauty of colour, the clear static style, the solidity of the architecture, but we are unmoved.  If there is such a thing as disinterested art it is the claustral art of Moreau which can be both perverse and majestic.

His versatility amazes.  He did not always paint the same picture.  The Christ Between Two Thieves is academic, yet attracts because the expression of the converted thief is remarkable.  The Three Magi and Moses Within Sight of the Promised Land do not give one the fullest sense of satisfaction, as do The Daughters of Thespus or The Rape of Europa; yet they suggest what might be termed a tragic sort of decoration.  Moreau is a painter who could have illustrated Marlowe’s fatuous line, “Holla, ye pampered jades of Asia,” and superbly; or, “See where Christ’s blood streams in the firmament.”  He is an exotic blossom on the stem of French art.  He saw ivory, apes, and peacocks, purple, gold, and the heavens aflame with a mystic message.  He never translated that message, for his was an art of silence; but the painter of The Maiden with the Head of Orpheus, of Salome, of Jason and Medea, of Jupiter and Semele, will never fail to win the admiration and homage of those art lovers who yearn for dreams of vanished ages, who long to escape the commonplaces of the present.  Gustave Moreau will be their poet-painter by predilection.

Once in the streets of prosaic Paris he is as unreal as Rossetti or the Pre-Raphaelites (though their superior as one who could make palpable his visions).  In the Louvre where the Salon Carre is little changed Manet’s Olympe, with her every-day seductiveness, resolves the phantasies of Moreau into thin air.  Here is reality for you, familiar as it may be.  It is wonderful how long it took French critics to discover that Manet was un peintre de race.  He is very French in the French gallery where he now hangs.  He shows the lineage of David, one of whose declamatory portraits with beady eyes hangs near by.  He is simpler than David in his methods Mr. C.S.  Ricketts critically described David as possessing the mind of a policeman and as a painter more greatly endowed.  But Goya also peeps out from the Olympe.  After seeing the Majá desnuda at the Prado you realise that Manet’s trip to Madrid was not without important results.  Between the noble lady who was the Duchess of Alba and the ignoble girl called Olympe there is only the difference between the respective handlings of Goya and Manet.

PICTURES IN MADRID

I

The noblest castle in Spain is the museum on the Prado.  Now every great capital of Europe boasts its picture or sculpture gallery; no need to enumerate the treasures of art to be found in London, Paris, Vienna the latter too little known by the average globe-trotter Berlin, Dresden, Cassel, Frankfort, Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Florence, Rome, Naples, St. Petersburg, or Venice.  They all boast special excellences, but the Prado collection contains pictures by certain masters, Titian, Rubens, Correggio, and others, that cannot be seen elsewhere.  Setting aside Velasquez and the Spanish school, not in Venice, Florence, or London are there Titians of such quality and in such quantity as in Madrid.  And the Rubenses are of a peculiar lovely order, not to be found in Antwerp, Brussels or Paris.  Even without Velasquez the trying trip to the Spanish capital is a necessary and exciting experience for the painter and amateur of art.

The Prado is largely reinforced by foreign pictures and is sadly lacking in historical continuity whether foreign or domestic schools.  It is about ninety years old, having been opened in part (three rooms) to the public in November, 1819.  At that time there were three hundred and eleven canvases.  Other galleries were respectively added in 1821, 1828, 1830, and 1839.  In 1890 the Queen-mother had the Sala de la Reina Isabel rearranged and better lighted.  It contained then the masterpieces, but in 1899, the tercentenary of Velasquez’s birth, a gallery was built to hold his works, with a special room for that masterpiece among masterpieces Las Meninas.  Many notable pictures that had hung for years in the Academia de Nobles Artes de San Fernando, at the Escorial Palace, and and the collection of the Duke of Osuna are now housed within the walls of the Prado.  At the entrance you encounter a monumental figure of Goya, sitting, in bronze, the work of the sculptor J. Llaneses.

The Prado has been called a gallery for connoisseurs, and it is the happiest title that could be given it, for it is not a great museum in which all schools are represented.  You look in vain for the chain historic that holds together disparate styles; there are omissions, ominous gaps, and the very nation that ought to put its best foot foremost, the Spanish, does not, with the exception of Velasquez.  Of him there are over sixty authentic works; of Titian over thirty.  Bryan only allows him twenty-three; this is an error.  There are fifteen Titians in Florence, divided between the Uffizi and the Pitti; in Paris, thirteen, but one is the Man with the Glove.  Quality counts heaviest, therefore the surprise is not that Madrid boasts numbers but the wonderful quality of so many of them.  To lend additional lustre to the specimens of the Venetian school, the collection starts off with a superb Giorgione; Giorgione, the painter who taught Titian his magic colour secrets; the painter whose works are, with a few exceptions, ascribed to other men more is the pity! (In this we are at one with Herbert Cook, who still clings to the belief that the Concert of the Pitti Palace is Giorgione and not Titian.  At least the Concert Champêtre of the Louvre has not been taken from “Big George.”) The Madrid masterpiece is The Virgin and Child Jesus with St. Anthony and St. Roch.

It is easy to begin with the Titians, one of which is the famous Bacchanal.  Then there are The Madonna with St. Bridget and St. Hulfus, The Garden of the Loves, Emperor Charles V. at Muehlberg, an equestrian portrait; another portrait of the same with figure standing, King Philip, Isabella of Portugal, La Gloria, The Entombment of Christ, Venus and Adonis, Danae and the Golden Shower, a variation of this picture is in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, the other in the National Museum, Naples; Venus Listening to Music, two versions, the stately nude evidently a memory of the Venus reposing in the Uffizi:  Adam and Eve (also a copy of this by Rubens); Prometheus, Sisyphus long supposed to be copies by Coello; Christ Bearing the Cross, St. Margaret, a portrait of the Duke of Este, Salom, Ecce Homo, La Dolorosa, the once admired Allocution; Flight Into Egypt, St. Catalina, a self-portrait, St. Jerome, Diana and Actaeon, The Sermon on the Mount the list is much longer.

There are many Goyas; the museum is the home of this remarkable but uneven painter.  We confess to a disappointment in his colour, though his paint was not new to us; but time has lent no pleasing patina to his canvases, the majority of which are rusty-looking, cracked, discoloured, dingy or dark.  There are several exceptions.  The nude and dressed full-lengths of the Duchess of Alba are in excellent preservation, and brilliant audacious painting it is.  A lovely creature, better-looking when reclining than standing, as a glance at her full-length portrait in the New York Hispanic Museum proves.  One of Goya’s best portraits hangs in the Prado, the seated figure of his brother-in-law, the painter Bayeu.  The Family of Charles IV, his patron and patroness, with the sheep-like head of the favourite De la Paz, is here in all its bitter humour; it might be called a satiric pendant to that other Familia, not many yards away, Las Meninas.  There are the designs for tapestries in the basement; Blind Man’s Buff and other themes illustrating national traits.  The equestrian portraits of Charles IV and his sweet, sinister spouse, Queen Maria Luisa, reveal a Goya not known to the world.  He could assume the grand manner when he so willed.  He could play the dignified master with the same versatility that he played at bull-fighting.  But his colour is often hot and muddy, and perhaps he will go down to that doubtful quantity, posterity, as an etcher and designer of genius.  After leaving the Prado you remember only the Caprices, the Bull-fights, and the Disaster of War plates; perhaps the Duchess of Alba, undressed, and in her dainty toreador costume.  The historic pictures are a tissue of horrors, patriotic as they are meant to be; they suggest the slaughter-house.  Goya has painted a portrait of Villanueva, the architect of the museum; and there is a solidly constructed portrait of Goya by V. Lopez.

The Raphaels have been reduced to two at the Prado:  The Holy Family with the Lamb, painted a year after the Ansedei Madonna, and that wonderful head of young Cardinal Bibbiena, keen-eyed and ascetic of features.  Alas! for the scholarship that attributed to the Divine Youth La Perla; the Madonna of the Fish; Lo Spasimo, Christ Bearing the Cross, and several other masterpieces.  Giulio Romana, Penni, and perhaps another, turned out these once celebrated and overpraised pictures overpraised even if they had come from the brush of Raphael himself.  The Cardinal’s portrait is worth the entire batch of them.

There is a Murillo gallery, full of representative work, the most important being St. Elizabeth of Hungary Tending the Sick, formerly in the Escorial.  The various Conceptions and saints’ heads are not missing, painted in his familiar colour key with his familiar false sentiment and always an eye to the appeal popular.  A mighty magnet for the public is Murillo.  The peasants flock to him on Sundays as to a sanctuary.  There the girls see themselves on a high footing, a heavenly saraband among woolly clouds, their prettiness idealised, their costume of exceeding grace.  After a while you tire of the saccharine Murillo and his studio beggar boys, and turn to his drawings with relief.  His landscapes are more sincere than his religious canvases, which are almost as sensuous and earthly as Correggio without the magisterial brush-work and commanding conception of the Parma painter.  To be quite fair, it may be admitted that Murillo could make a good portrait.  Both in Madrid and Seville you may verify this.

A beautiful Fra Angelico, a beautiful Mantegna open your eyes, for the Italian Primitives are conspicuous by their absence.  Correggio is magnificent.  The well-known Magdalen and Christ Risen, Noli Me Tangere!  His Virgin with Jesus and St. John is in his accustomed melting pate.  One Del Sarto is of prime quality, The Virgin, Jesus and St. John, called Asunto Mistico at the Prado.  Truly a moving picture, by a painter who owes much of his fame to Robert Browning.  His Lucrezia is a pretty portrait of his faithless wife.  There are Lotto, Parmigianino, Baroccio, Tintoretto, Bassano, Veronese, Domenico Tiepolo, and his celebrated father the fantastic Giambattista Tiepolo not startling specimens any of them.

In the Spanish section Ribera comes at you the strongest.  He was a personality as well as a powerful painter.  Consider his Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew.  Zurbaran follows next in interest, though morbid at times; but of Berragueta, Borgoña, Morales, Juanes, Navarette, Coello an excellent portraitist, imitator of Moro La Cruz, Alfonso Cano, Luis de Tristan, Espinosa, Bias del Prado, Orrente, Esteban de March two realistic heads of an old man and an old woman must be set down to his credit Ribalta, influenced by Caravaggio, in turn influencing Ribera Juan de las Roelas (el Clérigo), Del Mazo son-in-law of Velasquez, and responsible for dozens of false attributions Carreno de Miranda, Jose Leonardo, Juan Rizi V. Iriarte, the two Herreras, the elder a truculent charlatan, the younger a nonentity, and others of the Spanish school may be dismissed in a word mediocrities.

II

The secret of Titian’s colour, the “Venetian secret,” was produced, some experts believe, by first painting a solid monochrome in tempera on which the picture was finished in oil.  Unquestionably Titian corrected and amended his work as much as did Velasquez.  It is a pleasing if somewhat theatric belief that Titian and Velasquez, duelled with their canvases, their rapier a brush.  After inspecting many of the Hals portraits the evidences of direct painting, swift though calculated, are not to be denied.  This may account, with the temperamental equation, for the less profound psychological interest of his portraiture when compared with the Raphael, Titian, Velasquez, and Rembrandt heads.  Yet, what superiority in brush-work had Hals over Raphael and Rembrandt.  The Raphael surfaces are as a rule hard, dry, and lustreless, while Rembrandt’s heavy, troubled paint is no mate for the airy touch of the Mercutio of Haarlem.  But Titian’s impasto is lyric.  It sings on the least of his canvases.  No doubt his pictures in the Prado have been “skinned” of their delicate glaze by the iconoclastic restorer; yet they bloom and chant and ever bloom.  The Bacchanal, which bears a faint family resemblance to the Bacchus and Ariadne of the London National Gallery, fairly exults in its joy of life, in its frank paganism.  What rich reverberating tones, what powers of evocation!  The Garden of the Loves is a vision of childhood at its sweetest; the surface of the canvas seems alive with festooned babies.  The more voluptuous Venus or Danae do not so stir your pulse as this immortal choir of cupids.  The two portraits of Charles V one equestrian are charged with the noble, ardent gravity and splendour of phrasing we expect from the greatest Venetian of them all.  We doubt, however, if the Prado Entombment is as finely wrought as the same subject by Titian in Paris; but it sounds a poignant note of sorrow.  Rembrandt is more dramatic when dealing with a similar theme.  The St. Margaret with its subtle green gown is a figure that is touching and almost tragic.  The Madonna and Child, with St. Bridget and St. Hulfus, has been called Giorgionesque.  St. Bridget is of the sumptuous Venetian type; the modelling of her head is lovely, her colouring rich.

Rubens in the Prado is singularly attractive.  There are over fifty, not all of the best quality, but numbering such works as the Three Graces, the Rondo, the Garden of Love, and the masterly unfinished portrait of Marie de Medicis.  The Brazen Serpent is a Van Dyck, though the catalogue of 1907 credits it to Rubens.  Then there are the Andromeda and Perseus, the Holy Family and Diana and Calista.  The portrait of Marie de Medicis, stout, smiling, amiability personified, has been called one of the finest feminine portraits extant which is a slight exaggeration.  It is both mellow and magnificent, and unless history or Rubens lied the lady must have been as mild as mother’s milk.  The Three Graces, executed during the latter years of the Flemish master, is Rubens at his pagan best.  These stalwart and handsome females, without a hint of sleek Italian delicacy, include Rubens’s second wife, Helena Fourment, the ox-eyed beauty.  What blond flesh tones, what solidity of human architecture, what positive beauty of surfaces and nobility of contours!  The Rondo is a mad, whirling dance, the Diana and Calista suggestive of a Turkish bath outdoors, but a picture that might have impelled Walt Whitman to write a sequel to his Children of Adam.  Such women were born not alone to bear children but to rule the destinies of mankind; genuine matriarchs.

Rembrandt fares ill.  His Artemisia about to drink her husband’s ashes from a costly cup reveals a ponderous hand.  It is but indifferent Rembrandt, despite several jewelled passages.  Van Dyck shows at least one great picture, the Betrayal of Christ.  The Brazen Serpent only ranks second to it; both are masterpieces, and Antwerp must envy the Prado.  The Crown of Thorns, and the portraits, particularly that of the Countess of Wexford, are arresting.  His Musician, being the portrait of Lanière the lute-player, and his own portrait on the same canvas with Count Bristol, are cherished treasures.  The lutist is especially fascinating.  That somewhat mysterious Dutch master, Moro, or Mor (Antonis; born in Utrecht, 1512; died at Antwerp, 1576 or 1578), is represented by more than a dozen portraits.  To know what a master of physiognomy he was we need only study his Mary Queen of England, the Buffoon of the Beneventas, the Philip II, and the various heads of royal and noble born dames.  The subdued fire and subtlety of this series, the piercing vision and superior handicraft of the painter have placed him high in the artistic hierarchy; but not high enough.  At his best he is not far behind Holbein.  That great German’s art is shown in a solitary masterpiece, the portrait of an unknown man, with shrewd cold eyes, an enormous nose, the hands full of meaning, the fabrics scrupulous as to detail.  Next to this Holbein, whose glance follows you around the gallery, are the two Duerers, the portrait of Hans Imhof, a world-renowned picture, and his own portrait (1498), a magical rendering of a Christ-like head, the ringlets curly, the beard youthful, the hands folded as if in prayer.  A marvellous composition.  It formerly hung too high, above the Hans Imhof; it now hangs next to it.  A similar head in the Uffizi is a copy, Sir Walter Armstrong to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Flemish schools are to be seen in the basement, not altogether a favourable place, though in the afternoon there is an agreeable light.  Like Rubens, Jan van Eyck visited Spain and left the impress of his style.  But the Van Eycks at the Prado are now all queried, though several are noteworthy.  The Marriage of the Virgin is discredited.  The Virgin, Christ and St. John under the golden canopy, called a Hubert van Eyck, is probably by Gossaert de Mabuse, and a clever transposition of the altar piece in St. Bavon’s at Ghent.  The Fountain of Life, also in the catalogue as a Jan van Eyck, has been pronounced a sixteenth-century copy of a lost picture by his brother Hubert.  We may add that not one of these so-called Van Eycks recalls in all their native delicacy and richness the real Van Eycks of Bruges, Ghent, and Brussels; though the Virgin Reading, given as Jan’s handiwork, is of a charm.  The Depositions, attributed to Rogier van der Weyden (De la Pasture), are acknowledged to be old sixteenth-century copies of the Deposition in the Escorial.  The altar piece is excellent.  But there is a fine Memling, glowing in pigment and of beautiful design, The Adoration of the Kings, a triptych, like the one at Bruges.  In the centre panel we see the kings adoring, one a black man; the two wings, or doors, respectively depict the birth of Christ (right) and the presentation in the temple (left).  There is a retablo (reredos) in four compartments, by Petrus Cristus, and two Jerome Patinirs, one, a Temptation of St. Anthony, being enjoyable.  The painter-persecuted saint sits in the foreground of a freshly painted landscape, harassed by the attentions of witches, several of them comely and clothed.  To be precise, the composition suggests a much-married man listening to the reproaches of his spouses.  Hanging in a doorway we found a Herri Met de Blés that is not marked doubtful.  It is a triptych, an Adoration, in which the three kings, the Queen of Sheba before Solomon, and Herod participate.  A brilliantly tinted work this, which once hung in the Escorial, and, mirabile dictu, attributed to Lucas van Leyden.  No need to speak of the later Dutch and Flemish school, Teniers, Ostade, Dou, Pourbus, and the minor masters.  There are Breughels and Bosches aplenty, and none too good.  But there are several Jordaens of quality, a family group, and three heads of street musicians.  We forgot to mention an attribution to Jan van Eyck, The Triumph of Religion, which is a curious affair no matter whose brain conceived it.  The attendant always points out its religious features with ill-concealed glee.  A group of ecclesiastics have confounded a group of rabbis at a fountain which is the foundation of an altar; the old fervour burns in the eyes of the gallery servitor as he shows you the discomfited Hebrew doctors of the law.  We may dismiss as harmless the Pinturicchio and other Italian attributions in these basement galleries.  There is the usual crew of Anonimos, and a lot of those fantastic painters who are nicknamed by critics without a sense of humour as “The Master of the Fiery Hencoop,” “The Master of the Eccentric Omelet,” or some such idiotic title.

Up-stairs familiar names such as Domenichino, Bassano, Cortona, Crespi, Bellino, Pietra della Vecchia, Allori, Veronese, Maratta, Guido Reni, Romano need not detain us.  The catalogue numbers of the Italian school go as high as 628.  The Titians, however, are the glory of the Prado.  The Spanish school begins at 629, ends at 1,029.  The German, Flemish, and Holland schools begin at 1,146, running to 1,852.  There are supplements to all of the foregoing.  The French school runs from 1,969 to 2,111.  But the examples in this section are not inspiring, the Watteaus excepted.  There is the usual Champagne, Coypel, Claude of Lorraine (10), Largilliere, Lebrun, Van Loo, Mignard (5); one of Le Nain by both brothers.  Nattier (4), Nicolas Poussin (20), Rigaud, and two delicious Watteaus; a rustic betrothal and a view of the garden of St. Cloud, the two exhaling melancholy grace and displaying subdued richness of tone.  Tiepolo has been called the last link in the chain of Venetian colourists, which began with the Bellini, followed by Giorgione, Titian, Tintoretto, Palma Vecchio, Bonifazio, Veronese and to this list might be added the name of the Frenchman Watteau.  Chardin was also a colourist, and how many of the Poussins at this gallery might be spared to make room for one of his cool, charming paintings!

The Prado about exhausts the art treasures of Madrid.  In the Escorial, that most monstrous and gloomiest of the tombs of kings, are pictures that should be seen some Grecos among the rest even if the palace does not win your sympathy.  In Madrid what was once called the Academia de San Fernando is now the Real Academia de Bellas Artes.  It is at 11 Calle de Alcala and contains a Murillo of quality, the Dream of the Roman Knight, Zurbaran’s Carthusians, an Ecce Homo by Ribera, of power; the Death of Dido by Fragonard; a Rubens, St. Francis, the work of his pupils; Alonzo Cano, two Murillos, Domenichino, Tristan, Mengs, Giovanni Bellini; Goya’s bull-fights, mad-house scenes, and several portraits one of the Due de la Paz; a Pereda, a Da Vinci (?), Madrazo, Zurbaran, and Goya’s equestrian portrait of Charles IV.  A minor gathering, the debris of a former superb collection, and not even catalogued.

There are museums devoted to artillery, armour, natural sciences, and archaeology.  In the imposing National Library, full of precious manuscripts, is the museum of modern art also without a catalogue.  It does not make much of an impression after the Prado.  The Fortuny is not characteristic, though a rarity; a sketch for his Battle of Tetuan, the original an unfinished painting, is at Barcelona.  There are special galleries such as the Sala Haes with its seventy pictures, which are depressing.  The modern Spaniards Zuloaga, Sorolla, Angla-Camarosa are either not represented or else are not at their best.  There is a Diaz, who was of Spanish origin; but the Madrazos, Villegas, Montenas, and the others are academic echoes or else feeble and mannered.  There are some adroit water-colours by modern Frenchmen, and there is a seeming attempt to make the collection contemporary in spirit, but it is all as dead as the allegorical dormouse, while over at the Prado there is a vitality manifested by the old fellows that bids fair to outlast the drums, tramplings, and conquests of many generations.  We have not more than alluded to the sculpture at the Prado; it is not particularly distinguished.  The best sculpture we saw in Spain was displayed in wood-carvings.  The pride of the Prado is centred upon its Titians, Raphaels, Rubenses, Murillos, El Grecos, and, above all, upon Don Diego de Silva, better known as Velasquez.

EL GRECO AT TOLEDO

Toledo is less than three hours from Madrid; it might be three years away for all the resemblance it bears to the capital.  Both situated in New Castille, Madrid seems sharply modern, as modern as the early nineteenth century, when compared to the mediaeval cluster of buildings on the horseshoe-shaped granite heights almost entirely hemmed in by the river Tagus.  It is not only one of the most original cities in Spain, but in all Europe.  No other boasts its incomparable profile, few the extraordinary vicissitudes of its history.  Not romantic in the operatic moonlit Grenada fashion, without the sparkle and colour of Seville or the mundane savour of Madrid, Toledo incarnates in its cold, detached, proud, pious way all that we feel as Spain the aristocratic, Spain the theocratic.  To this city on a crag there once came, by way of Venice, a wanderer from Crete.  Toledo was the final frame of the strange genius of El Greco; he made it the consecrate ground of his new art.  It is difficult to imagine him developing in luxuriant Italy as he did in Spain.  His nature needed a sombre and magnificent background; this city gave it to him; for no artist can entirely isolate himself from life, can work in vacuo.  And El Greco’s shivering, spiritual art could have been born on no other soil than Toledo.  He is as original as the city.

The place shows traces of its masters Romans, Goths, Saracens, and Christians.  It is, indeed, as much Moorish as Christian the narrow streets, high, narrow houses often windowless, the inner court replacing the open squares that are to be found in Seville.  Miscalled the “Spanish Rome,” Gautier’s description still holds good:  Toledo has the character of a convent, a prison, a fortress with something of a seraglio.  The enormous cathedral, which dates back to Visigothic Christianity, is, next to Seville’s, the most beautiful in Spain.  Such a façade, such stained glass, such ceilings!  Blanco Ibanez has written pages about this structure.  The synagogues, the Moorish mosque, the Alcazar are picturesque.  And then there are the Puente de Alcantara, the Casa de Cervantes, the Puerta del Sol, the Prison of the Inquisition, the Church of Santo Tome which holds the most precious example of Greco’s art the Sinagogo del Transito, the Church of San Vicente with Grecos Santo Domingo (more Grecos); the Convent, near the Church of San Juan de los Reyes, contains the Museo Provincial in which were formerly a number of Grecos; many of these have been transferred to the new Museo El Greco, founded by the Marquis de la Vega-Inclan, an admirer of the painter.  This museum was once the home of Greco, and has been restored, so that if the artist returned he might find himself in familiar quarters.  Pictures, furniture, carvings of his are there, while the adjoining house is rebuilt in a harmonious style of old material.  Remain various antique patios or court-like interiors, the sword manufactory, and the general view from the top of the town.  El Greco’s romantic portrayment of his adopted city is as true now as the day it was painted one catches a glimpse of the scene when the contrasts of light and shadow are strong.  During a thunderstorm illuminated by blazing shafts of Peninsular lightning Toledo resembles a page torn from the Apocalypse.

The cathedral is the usual objective; instead, we first went to the church of Santo Tome.  It is a small Gothic structure, rebuilt from a mosque by Count Orgaz.  In commemoration of this gift a large canvas, entitled El Entierro, depicting the funeral of Orgaz, by El Greco, has made Santo Tome more celebrated than the cathedral.  It is an amazing, a thrilling work, nevertheless, on a scale that prevents it from giving completely the quintessence of El Greco.  No doubt he was a pupil of Titian; Gautier but repeated current gossip when he said that the Greek went mad in his attempt to emulate his master.  But Tintoretto’s influence counts heavier in this picture than Titian’s, a picture assigned by Cossio midway between Greco’s first and second period.  Decorative as is the general scheme, the emotional intensity aroused by the row of portraits in the second plan, the touching expression of the two saints, Augustine and Stephen, as they gently bear the corpse of the Count, the murky light of the torches in the background, while overhead the saintly hierarchy terminating in a white radiance, Christ the Comforter, His mother at His right hand, quiring hosts at His left all these figures make an ensemble that at first glance benumbs the critical faculty.  You recall the solemn and spasmodic music of Michael Angelo (of whom El Greco is reported to have irreverently declared that he couldn’t paint); then as your perspective slowly shapes itself you note that Tintoretto, plus a certain personal accent of morbid magnificence, is the artistic progenitor of this art, an art which otherwise furiously boils over with Spanish characteristics.

Nothing could be more vivid and various than the twenty-odd heads near the bottom of the picture.  Expression, character, race are not pushed beyond normal limits.  The Spaniard, truly noble here, is seen at a half-dozen periods of life.  El Greco himself is said to be in the group; the portrait certainly tallies with a reputed one of his.  The sumptuousness of the ecclesiastical vestments, court costumes, ruffs, and eloquent hands, the grays, whites, golds, blues, blacks, chord rolling upon chord of subtle tonalities, the supreme illumination of the scene, with its suggestion of a moment swiftly trapped forever in eternity, hook this masterpiece firmly to your memory.  It is not one of the greatest pictures in the pantheon of art, not Rembrandt, Velasquez, Hals, Raphael, Michael Angelo, Titian, or Rubens; yet it stands close to them all because of its massed effect of light, life, and emotional situation.  We confess to liking it better than the Gloria at the Escorial Palace.  This glorification of a dream of Philip II does not pluck electrically at your heart-strings as does the Burial of Count Orgaz, though the two canvases are similar in architectonic.

The Expolio is in the cathedral; it belongs to the first period, before El Greco had shaken off Italian influences.  The colouring is rather cold.  The St. Maurice in the chapter hall of the Escorial is a long step toward a new method of expression. (A replica is in Bucharest.) The Ascension altar piece, formerly in Santo Domingo, now hangs in the Art Institute, Chicago.  At Toledo there are about eighty pieces of the master, not including his sculpture, retablos; like Tintoretto, he was accustomed to make little models in clay or wax for the figures in his pictures.  His last manner is best exemplified in the Divine Love and Profane Love, belonging to Senor Zuloaga, in The Adoration of the Shepherds, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Assumption at the Church of St. Vicente, Toledo.  His chalky whites, poisonous greens, violet shadows, discordant passages of lighting are, as Arthur Symons puts it:  Sharp and dim, gray and green, the colour of Toledo.  Greco composed his palette with white vermilion, lake, yellow ochre, ivory black.  Senor Beruete says that “he generally laid on an impasto for his flesh, put on in little touches, and then added a few definite strokes with the brush which, though accentuated, are very delicate...  The gradations of the values is in itself instructive.”

His human forms became more elongated as he aged; this applies only to his males; his women are of sweetness compounded and graceful in contour.  Some a mere arabesque, or living flames; some sinister and fantastic; from the sublime to the silly is with Greco not a wide stride.  But in all his surging, writhing sea of wraiths, saints, kings, damned souls and blest, a cerebral grip is manifest.  He knew a hawk from a handsaw despite his temperament of a mystic.  “He who carries his own most intimate emotions to their highest point becomes the first in a file of a long series of men”; but, adds Mr. Ellis:  “To be a leader of men one must turn one’s back on men.”  El Greco, like Charles Baudelaire, cultivated his hysteria.  He developed his individuality to the border line across which looms madness.  The transmogrification of his temperament after living in Toledo was profound.  Born Greek, in art a Venetian, the atmosphere of the Castilian plain changed the colour of his soul.  In him there was material enough for both a Savonarola or a Torquemada his piety was at once iconoclastic and fanatical.  And his restlessness, his ceaseless experiments, his absolute discoveries of new tonalities, his sense of mystic grandeur why here you have, if you will, a Berlioz of paint, a man of cold ardours, hot ecstasies, visions apocalyptic, with a brain like a gloomy cathedral in which the Tuba Mirum is sonorously chanted.  But Greco is on the side of the angels; Berlioz, like Goya, too often joined in the infernal antiphonies of Satan Mekatrig.  And Greco is as dramatic as either.

Beruete admits that his idol, Velasquez, was affected by the study of El Greco’s colouring.  Canaille Saint-Saens, when Liszt and Rubinstein were compared, exclaimed:  “Two great artists who have nothing in common except their superiority.”  It is bootless to bracket Velasquez with his elder.  And Gautier was off the track when he spoke of Greco’s resemblance to the bizarre romances of Mrs. Radcliffe; bizarre Greco was, but not trivial nor a charlatan.  As to his decadent tendencies we side with the opinion of Mr. Frank Jewett Mather, Jr.:  “Certain pedants have written as if the world would be better without its disorderly geniuses.  There could, I think, be no sorer error.  We need the unbalanced talents, the poètes damnes of every craft.  They strew the passions that enrich a lordlier art than their own.  They fight valiantly, a little at the expense of their fame, against the only unpardonable sins, stupidity and indifference.  Greco should always be an honoured name in this ill-destined company.”

In the Prado Museum there is a goodly collection.  The Annunciation, The Holy Family, Jesus Christ Dead, The Baptism of Christ, The Resurrection, The Crucifixion a tremendous conception; and The Coming of the Holy Ghost; this latter, with its tongues of fire, its flickering torches, its ecstatic apostles and Mary, her face flooded by a supernal illumination, mightily stirs the aesthetic pulse.  The Prado has two dozen specimens, though two of them at least a poor replica of the Orgaz burial, and another are known to be by El Greco’s son, Jorge Manuel Theotocopuli; of the numerous portraits and other pictures dispersed by time and chance to the four quarters of the globe, we have written earlier in this volume, when dealing with the definitive work on this Greek by Senor Manuel B. Cossio.  El Greco, through sheer intensity of temperament and fierce sincerity, could pluck out from men who had become, because of their apathy and grotesque pride, mere vegetable growths, their very souls afire; or if stained by crimes, these souls, he shot them up to God like green meteors.  To be sure they have eyes drunk with dreams, the pointed skull of the mystic, and betray a plentiful lack of chin and often an atrabilious nature.  When old his saints resemble him, when young he must have looked like his saints, Sebastian and Martin.  With his ardent faith he could have confuted the Gnostic or the Manichean hérésies in colourful allegory, but instead he sang fervid hosannahs on his canvases to the greater glory of Christ and His saints.  Perhaps if he had lived in our times he might have painted heads of fashionable courtesans or equivocal statesmen.  But whether primitive or modern, realist or symbolist, he would always have been a painter of dramatic genius.  He is the unicorn among artists.

VELASQUEZ IN THE PRADO

Fearful that your eye has lost its innocence after hearing so much of the picture, you enter the tiny room at the museum on the Prado in which is hung Las Meninas The Maids of Honour, painted by Velasquez in 1656.  My experience was a typical one.  I went hastily through the larger Velasquez gallery in not only a challenging but an irritable mood.  The holy of holies I was enraged to find, seemingly, crowded.  There was the picture, but a big easel stood in the foreground blotting out the left side; some selfish artist copying, some fellow thrusting himself between us and the floating illusion of art.  In despair I looked into the mirror that reflects the picture.  I suspected trickery.  Surely that little princess with her wilful, distrait expression, surely the kneeling maid, the dwarfs, the sprawling dog, the painter Velasquez with his wig the heads of the king and queen in the oblong mirror, the figure of Senor Nieto in the doorway, the light framing his silhouette surely they are all real.  Here are the eternal simplicities.  You realise that no one is in the room but these painted effigies of the court and family of Philip IV; that the canvas whose bare ribs deceived is in the picture, not on the floor; that Velasquez and the others are eidolons, arrested in space by the white magic of his art.  For the moment all other artists and their works are as forgotten as the secrets in the lost and sacred books of the Magi.  There is but one painter and his name is Velasquez.

This mood of ecstatic absorption is never outlived; the miracle operates whenever a visit is made to the shrine.  But you soon note that the canvas has been deprived of its delicate glaze.  There are patches ominously eloquent of the years that have passed since the birth of this magisterial composition.  The tonal key is said to be higher because of restorations; yet to the worshipper these shortcomings are of minor importance.  Even Giordano’s exclamation:  “Sire, this is the theology of painting,” falls flat.  Essence of painting, would have been a truer statement.  There is no other-worldliness here, but something more normal, a suggestion of solid reality, a vision of life.  The various figures breathe; so potent is their vitality that my prime impression in entering the room was a sense of the presence of others.  Perhaps this is not as consummate art as the voluptuous colour-symphonies of Titian, the golden exuberance of Rubens, the abstract spacing of Raphael, the mystic opium of Rembrandt; but it is an art more akin to nature, an art that is a lens through which you may spy upon life.  You recall Ibsen and his “fourth wall.”  Velasquez has let us into the secret of human existence.  Not, however, in the realistic order of inanimate objects copied so faithfully as to fool the eye.  Presentation, not representation, is the heart of this coloured imagery, and so moving, so redolent of life is it that if the world were shattered and Las Meninas shot to the coast of Mars, its inhabitants would be able to reconstruct an idea of the creatures that once inhabited old Mother Earth; men, women, children, their shapes, attitudes, gestures, and attributes.  The mystery of sentient beings lurks in this canvas, the illusion of atmosphere has never been so contrived.  In the upper part of the picture space is indicated in a manner that recalls both Rembrandt and Raphael.  Velasquez, too, was a space-composer.  Velasquez, too, plucked at the heart of darkness.  But his air is luminous, the logic of his proportion faultless, his synthesis absolute.  Where other painters juxtapose he composes.  Despite the countless nuances of his thin, slippery brush strokes, the picture is always a finely spun whole.

When Fragonard was starting for Rome, Boucher said to him:  “If you take those people over there seriously you are done for.”  Luckily Frago did not, and, despite his two Italian journeys, Velasquez was not seduced into taking “those people” seriously.  His recorded opinion of Raphael is corroborative of his attitude toward Italian art.  Titian was his sole god.  For nearly a year he was in daily intercourse with Rubens, but of Rubens’s influence upon him there is little trace.  Las Meninas is the perfect flowering of the genius of the Spaniard.  It has been called impressionistic; Velasquez has been claimed as the father of impressionism as Stendhal was hailed by Zola as the literary progenitor of naturalism.  But Velasquez is too universal to be labelled in the interests of any school.  His themes are of this earth, his religious paintings are the least credible of his efforts.  They are Italianate as if the artist dared not desert the familiar religious stencil.  His art is not correlated to the other arts.  One does not dream of music or poetry or sculpture or drama in front of his pictures.  One thinks of life and then of the beauty of the paint.  Velasquez is never rhetorical, nor does he paint for the sake of making beautiful surfaces as often does Titian.  His practice is not art for art as much as art for life.  As a portraitist, Titian’s is the only name to be coupled with that of Velasquez.  He neither flattered his sitters, as did Van Dyck, nor mocked them like Goya.  And consider the mediocrities, the dull, ugly, royal persons he was forced to paint!  He has wrung the neck of banal eloquence, and his prose, sober, rich, noble, sonorous, rhythmic, is to my taste preferable to the exalted, versatile volubility and lofty poetic tumblings in the azure of any school of painting.  His palette is ever cool and fastidiously restricted.  It has been said that he lacks imagination, as if creation or evocation of character is not the loftiest attribute of imagination, even though it deals not with the stuff of which mythologies are made.

We admire the enthusiasm of Mr. Ricketts for Velasquez, and his analysis is second to none save R.A.M.  Stevenson’s.  Yet we do protest the painter was not the bundle of negations Mr. Ricketts has made of him in his evident anxiety that some homage may be diverted from Titian.  Titian is incomparable.  Velasquez is unique.  But to describe him as an artist who cautiously studied the work of other men, and then avoided by a series of masterly omissions and evasions their faults as well as their excellences, is a statement that robs Velasquez of his originality.  He is not an eclectic.  He is a man of affirmations, Velasquez.  A student to his death, he worked slowly, revised painfully, above all, made heroic sacrifices.  Each new canvas was a discovery.  The things he left out of his pictures would fill a second Prado Museum.  And the things he painted in are the glories of the world.  Because of his simplicity, absence of fussiness, avoidance of the mock-heroic, of the inflated “grand manner,” critics have pressed too heavily upon this same simplicity.  There is nothing as subtle as his simplicity, for it is a simplicity that conceals subtlety.  No matter the time of day or season of the year you visit Velasquez, you never find him off his guard.  Aristocratic in his ease, he disarms you first.  You may change your love, your politics, your religion, but once a Velasquez worshipper, always one.

Mr. Ricketts, over-anxious at precisely placing him, writes of his “distinction.”  He is the most “distinguished” painter in history.  But we contend that this phrase eludes precise definition.  “Distinguished” in what? we ask.  Style, character, paint quality, vision of the beautiful?  Why not come out plumply with the truth:  Velasquez is the supreme harmonist in art.  No one ever approached him in his handling save Hals, and Hals hardly boasts the artistic inches of Velasquez.  Both possessed a daylight vision of the world.  Reality came to them in the sharpest guise; but the vision of Velasquez came in a more beautiful envelope.  And his psychology is profounder.  He painted the sparkle of the eyes and also the look in them, the challenging glance that asks:  “Are we, too, not humans?” Titian saw colour as a poet, Velasquez as a charmer and a reflective temperament.  Hals doesn’t think at all.  He slashes out a figure for you and then he is done.  The graver, deeper Spaniard is not satisfied until he has kept his pact with nature.  So his vision of her is more rounded, concrete, and truthful than the vision of other painters.  The balance in his work of the most disparate and complex relations of form, space, colour, and rhythm has the unpremeditated quality of life; yet the massive harmonic grandeurs of Las Meninas have been placed by certain critics in the category of glorified genre.

Some prefer Las Hilanderas in the outer gallery.  After the stately equestrian series, the Philip, the Olivares, the Baltasar Carlos; after the bust portraits of Philip in the Prado and in the National Gallery, the hunting series; after the Crucifixion and its sombre background, you return to The Spinners and wonder anew.  Its subtitle might be:  Variations on the Theme of Sunshine.  In it the painter pursues the coloured adventures of a ray of light.  Rhythmically more involved and contrapuntal than The Maids, this canvas, with its brilliant broken lights, its air that circulates, its tender yet potent conducting of the eye from the rounded arm of the seductive girl at the loom to the arched area with its leaning, old-time bass-viol, its human figures melting dream-like into the tapestried background, arouses within the spectator much more complicated états d’ame than does Las Meninas.  The silvery sorceries of that picture soothe the spirit and pose no riddles; The Spinners is a cathedral crammed with implications.  Is it not the last word of the art of Velasquez though it preceded The Maids?  Will the eye ever tire of its glorious gloom, its core of tonal richness, its virile exaltation of everyday existence?  Is it only a trick of the wrist, a deft blending of colours by this artist, who has been called, wrongfully the “Shakespeare of the brush”?  Is all this nothing more than “distinguished”?

Mr. Ricketts justly calls Las Lanzas the unique historic picture.  Painted at the very flush of his genius, painted with sympathy for the conquered and the conqueror Velasquez accompanied the Marquis of Spinola to Italy this Surrender of Breda has received the homage of many generations.  Sir Joshua Reynolds asserted that the greatest picture at Rome was the Velasquez head of Pope Innocent X in the Doria Palace (a variant is in the Hermitage Gallery, St. Petersburg).  What would he have said in the presence of this captivating evocation of a historic event?  The battle pieces of Michael Angelo, Da Vinci, and Titian are destroyed; Las Lanzas remains a testimony to the powers of imaginative reconstruction and architectonic of Velasquez.  It is the most complete, the most natural picture in the world.  The rhythms of the bristling lances are syncopated by a simple device; they are transposed to another plane of perspective, there in company with a lowered battle standard.  The acute rhythms of these spears has given to the picture its title of The Lances, and never was title more appropriate.  The picture is at once a decorative arabesque, an ensemble of tones, and a slice of history.  Spinola receives from the conquered Justin of Nassau the keys of the beleagured Breda.  Velasquez creates two armies out of eight figures, a horse and fourteen heads here is the recipe of Degas for making a multitude carried to the height of the incredible.  His own portrait, that of a grave, handsome man, may be seen to the right of the big horse.

The first period of his art found Velasquez a realist heavy in colour and brush-work, and without much hint of the transcendental realism to be noted in his later style.  The dwarfs, buffoons, the AEsop and the Menippus are the result of an effortless art.  In the last manner the secret of the earth mingles with the mystery of the stars, as Dostoievsky would put it.  The Topers, The Forge of Vulcan, are pictures that enthrall because of their robust simplicity and vast technical sweep though they do not possess the creative invention of the Mercury and Argus or The Anchorites.  This latter is an amazing performance.  Two hermits St. Antony the Abbot visiting St. Paul the Hermit are shown.  A flying raven, bread in beak, nears them.  You could swear that the wafer of flour is pasted on the canvas.  This picture breathes peace and sweetness.  The Christ of the Spaniard is a man, not a god, crucified.  His Madonnas, masterly as they are, do not reach out hands across the frame as do his flower-like royal children and delicate monsters.

The crinolined princess, Margarita, with her spangles and furbelows, is a companion to the Margarita at the Louvre and the one in Vienna.  She is the exquisite and lyric Velasquez.  On his key-board of imbricated tones there are grays that felicitously sing across alien strawberry tints, thence modulate into fretworks of dim golden fire.  As a landscapist Velasquez is at his best in the Prado.  The various backgrounds and those two views painted at Rome in the garden of the Villa Medici a liquid comminglement of Corot and Constable, as has been pointed out prove this man of protean gifts to have anticipated modern discoveries in vibrating atmospheric effects and colour-values.  But, then, Velasquez will always be “modern.”  And when time has obliterated his work he may become the legendary Parrhasius of a vanished epoch.  To see him in the Prado is to stand eye to eye with the most enchanting realities of art.

CODA

When a man begins to chatter of his promenades among the masterpieces it may be assumed that he has crossed the sill of middle-age.  Remy de Gourmont, gentle ironist, calls such a period l’heure insidieuse.  Yet, is it not something a vain virtue, perhaps to possess the courage of one’s windmills!  From the Paris of the days when I haunted the ateliers of Gerome, Bonnat, Meissonier, Couture, and spent my enthusiasms over the colour-schemes of Decamps and Fortuny, to the Paris of the revolutionists, Manet, Degas, Monet, now seems a life long.  But time fugues precipitately through the land of art.  In reality both periods overlap; the dichotomy is spiritual, not temporal.

The foregoing memoranda are frankly in the key of impressionism.  They are a record of some personal preferences, not attempts at critical revaluations.  Appearing first in the New York Sun, the project of their publication in book form met with the approbation of its proprietor, William Mackay Laffan, whose death in 1909 was an international loss to the Fine Arts.  If these opinions read like a medley of hastily crystallised judgments jotted down after the manner of a traveller pressed for time, they are none the less sincere.  My garden is only a straggling weedy plot, but I have traversed it with delight; in it I have promenaded my dearest prejudices, my most absurd illusions.  And central in this garden may be found the image of the supreme illusionist of art, Velasquez.

Since writing the preceding articles on El Greco and Velasquez the museum of the Hispanic Society, New York, has been enabled, through the munificent generosity of Mr. Archer M. Huntington, to exhibit his newly acquired El Grecos and a Velasquez.  The former comprise a brilliantly coloured Holy Family, which exhales an atmosphere of serenity; the St. Joseph is said to be a portrait of El Greco; and there also is a large canvas showing Christ with several of his disciples.  Notable examples both.  The Velasquez comes from the collection of the late Edouard Kann and is a life-size bust portrait of a sweetly grave little girl.  Senor Beruete believes her to represent the daughter of the painter Mazo and his wife, Francisca Velasquez, therefore a granddaughter of Velasquez.  The tonalities of this picture are subtly beautiful, the modelling mysterious, the expression vital and singularly child-like.  It is a fitting companion to a portrait hanging on the same wall, that of the aristocratic young Cardinal Pamphili, a nephew of Pope Innocent X, also by the great Spaniard.