VAN STRY (1753-1826), of Dort, was also a good landscape and genre painter in the Museum at Amsterdam is a charming little picture of a "Drawing Lesson" by this master, admirable in light and shade, and in colour.

Of the later landscape painters, one of the most distinguished is BALTHAZAR PAUL OMMEGANCK (1755-1826), of Antwerp.

JAN KOBELL (1782-1814), of Rotterdam, was a good painter of animals; and NICOLAS BAUER (1767-1820), of Harlingen, and JOHAN CHRISTIAN SCHOTEL (1787-1838), of Dort, were both good marine painters. Schotel has painted some admirable pictures in the style of Bakhuizen, but with more effect and greater freedom of execution he is the best Dutch marine painter, hitherto, of this century. Seven of his works, large and small, were dispersed at the sale of the King of Holland's collection in 1850, at prices ranging between 2711. and 180. A fine example is still in the State Gallery at the Hague.

WYNAND JAN JOSEPH NUYEN, born at the Hague in 1813, was the scholar of A. Schelfhout, a landscape painter; and though he died young in 1839, he lived long enough to paint several excellent sea-pieces, and to earn the reputation of being one of the best marine painters of his time. The King of Holland, William II., possessed six of Nuyen's works, of which "Le Coup de Canon," a view of the Y, off Amsterdam, with a yacht firing a gun, is a celebrated picture: it was bought at the sale of 1850 by the Baron van Brienen, for 3751.

Among the modern Dutch landscape painters, BAREND CORNELIS KOEKKOEK, of Middelburg (1803-58), the son and pupil of J. H. Koekkoek, a marine painter, is the most distinguished. He has painted many large and admirable landscapes in the style of Hobbema, whom, like our own Patrick Nasmyth, he adopted as his prime model, both in his method of handling and treatment.1

1 Besides the works of Van Mander, Houbraken, Van Eynden, and Vander Willigen, Immerzeel, and others more special, already referred to, the following are of more or less good authority for Dutch and Flemish painters, and the most useful for general reference:-De Bie, "Het gulden Cabinet van de edel vry Schilderkonst," 4to, Antwerp, 1661-2; Van Gool, “De Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders," 2 vols. 8vo, The Hague, 1750; Passavant, "Kunstreise durch England und Belgien," Svo, Frankfurt, 1833; Schnaase, "Niederländische, Briefe," 8vo, Stuttgart, 1834; Rathgeber, "Annalen der Niederländische Malerei," folio, Gotha, 1844; Michiels, "Histoire de la Peinture Flamande et Hollandaise," 4 vols. 8vo, Brussels, 1845-8; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, "Notices of the early Flemish Painters," &c., 8vo, London, 1857; Bürger, "Musées de la Hollande," 2 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1858-60; the "Catalogue du Musée d'Anvers, 12mo. 1849" (the second and much improved edition of 1857 is very important for the Flemish painters: it was reprinted in 1861); the "Notice des Tableaux du Musée d'Amsterdam," 12mo, 1858, which has fac-similes of signatures; Waagen, "Handbook of Painting: German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools," London, Svo, 1860, or "Handbuch

der deutschen und niederländischen Malerschulen," 8vo, Stuttgart, 1862; Weale, "Catalogue du Musée de l'Académie de Bruges," 12mo, London, 1861; and his "Le Beffroi," important for the school of Bruges, 4to, 1st vol., 1863; Christiaan Kramm, "De Levens en Werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche Kunstschilders Beeldhouwers, Graveurs en Bouwmeesters, van den vroegsten tot op onzen tijd," 2 vols. 8vo, 1857-63; and the brief Dictionary in course of publication by Adolphe Siret, useful as regards the Dutch and Flemish artists, but I do not recommend it for any other-" Dictionnaire historique des Peintres de toutes les Écoles, depuis l'Origine de la Peinture jusqu'à nos Jours," 8vo, 1862-4. It is somewhat remarkable that Kramm has treated his work as a supplement only to Immerzeel's, yet his is twice the size of Immerzeel's: Kramm does not supersede Immerzeel.

461

PAINTING

IN

CHAPTER XXXII.

FRANCE-DISTINCTIVELY CHARACTERIZED BY A MARKED INFLUENCE OF THE ANTIQUE-ABUSE OF THE IDEAL OF FORM-DAVID -REACTION.

THE French school of painting was, until the latter part of the eighteenth century, in all respects a branch of the schools of Italy. The earliest mature development dates from the reign of Francis I., who appears to have been a sincere lover of Italian art, and, as already indicated elsewhere, employed many distinguished Italian artists in France: what is termed the French school arose out of the examples left by these Italians at Fontainebleau.

The principal masters who engrafted the Italian principles of art among the French, were-Il Rosso, Primaticcio, and Niccolo dell' Abbate.

The earliest French painters of distinction, and the only able masters who cannot be said to belong to this Italianized school of the sixteenth century, were Jean Foucquet, the three Clouets, and Jean Cousin; who belonged rather to what is termed the Gothic school, than the Italian cinquecento, and painted somewhat in the manner of the Van Eycks and the school of Bruges, though with far less knowledge and ability than is displayed by the early Flemish painters.

JEAN FOUCQUET was in 1472 painter to Louis XI.; he was a native of Tours, and appears to have been chiefly a miniature painter and illuminator: the accounts of him extend from 1461 down to 1485. He painted a Book of Hours, for the Duchess of Orleans, in 1472; and he furnished the king, for a design for his tomb, in 1474, a coloured drawing on parchment, for which he was paid seven francs five sous. Michel Colombe, the sculptor, received at the same time thirteen francs fifteen sous, for the model of a tomb for the king. Foucquet illuminated a celebrated Book of Hours, and a Boccaccio, for Etienne Chevalier, the Treasurer of Louis XI.; the first is dispersed, the second is at Munich. The Library of Paris possesses a Josephus, illuminated partly by Foucquet; and the Gallery of Antwerp has a "Virgin and Child," attributed to him. The Virgin is said to be a portrait of Agnes Sorel, the beautiful mistress of Charles VII., who died in 1450, and is assumed to have been painted for Etienne Chevalier, who dedicated the picture, and a portrait of himself, also by Foucquet, in the church of Notre-Dame at Melun. The latter portrait is in the

collection of M. Brentano Laroche, at Frankfort, who possesses also the greater portion of the Book of Hours, formerly belonging to M. Chevalier; one miniature of which, "The Vision of a Knight," was among the Rogers Drawings, sold in 1856. The Virgin at Antwerp is pale and flat, like many of the feebler portraits of the Clouets.'

The three Clouets have been hitherto confounded into one, François Clouet, the youngest, who is commonly called Jeannet; which is simply the Christian name (John) of the two elder painters of the name JEHANNET CLOUET, father and son. They appear to have been originally Flemish: the elder Jean Clouet, who was living at Brussels in 1475, arrived in France shortly after that date, and settled at Tours, about 1480.

JEHAN CLOUET, the son, who came with his father from Brussels, and died at Paris in 1541, was painter to Francis I. in 1518, and the veritable portraits of Jeannet belong to this painter, not to François Clouet, who has hitherto had the credit of painting nearly all the French portraits of the sixteenth century. Jeannet's salary was 240 francs a-year, then worth perhaps as many pounds now: he is the painter of the equestrian portrait of Francis I., in the Gallery at Florence, attributed to Holbein, of which there are several repetitions; and also of the half-length portrait on panel of the same king, at Versailles, in light gray satin, which has been attributed to Mabuse. He has not written his name on any picture. FRANÇOIS CLOUET (about 1510-74), the son of Jehan Clouet and Jehanne Boucault, the daughter of a jeweller of Tours, from the celebrity of his father, was also called Jeannet, which became a species of surname, and the works of the son have been so confounded with those of the father that the very existence of the latter has been overlooked, notwithstanding the father was more able, says M. de Laborde, though much less fortunate, than his son. François had already succeeded his father as painter to the king in 1541, and there is a portrait of Francis by him in Lord Ward's collection: he was also painter to Henry II. In 1547 he painted the portrait of Francis II. as a little boy, inscribed Françoi Dauphin, which is now in the Museum at Antwerp, and ascribed also to Holbein. François painted the portraits of Henry II. and Catherine de' Medici several times; and also the Cardinal de Lorraine, and others, for Catherine's Cabinet doré, at the Luxembourg, which are

De Laborde, "La Renaissance des Arts," &c. Additions to Vol. i., p. 691, Paris, 1855.

2" Maistre Jannet Clouet, Painctre et Varlet de Chambre Ordinaire du Roi." "A Maistre Jehannet, l'un des Painctres du Roy." Jehannot Clouet, Painctre du Roi." Le Comte de Laborde, "La Renaissance des Arts à la Cour de France," 1850; Additions au Tome Premier, 1855. Mariette possessed a medal inscribedJEHANNET CLOVET PICTOR FRANC. REGIS.

now lost. Lord Carlisle's picture of Catherine and her Family, at Castle Howard, is, in the opinion of Count de Laborde, certainly not by this painter. The Louvre possesses Charles IX. and his Queen, by him.

A fourth Clouet, the brother of "Jeannet," was employed by the King and Queen of Navarre, in 1529, with a salary of 200 francs.

Of JEAN COUSIN, living in 1560, when he was engaged at the Château d'Anet, scarcely any facts are known: he is said to have been born at Soucy, near Sens, in 1492; and was thrice married. He was painter, sculptor, architect, and writer; and is celebrated for his picture, in the Louvre, of the "Last Judgment," which has been engraved in twelve plates by P. de Jode: it is minute, hard, and florid. He appears to have been originally a painter on glass, and he executed some works of this class at Sens in 1530; and at other places also at a later period of his life. The beautiful Renaissance monument of Louis de Brézé in Rouen Cathedral, more probably the work of Jean Goujon,' is by some attributed to Cousin and he was the author of a "Livre de Pourtraiture,” folio, Paris, 1603, illustrated with woodcuts of the human figure.

I have stated above, with reference to the salaries of the Clouets, that a franc may have been at that time of nearly equal value with a pound sterling at the present day. This is founded on the calculations of M. Deville, who, in comparing the prices of labour and provisions in Normandy in 1508 with those of 1849, found the proportion to be as 1 to 18. A skilled mason could in the earlier date be hired for 6 and 7 sous the day, and a common labourer for 2 sous. Two hundred and forty francs per annum was, therefore, more than double the wages of a skilled artizan, and must be considered a fair ordinary stipend for a painter, who was doubtless paid for his works besides.

Of the successors of Cousin, the principal was MARTIN FREMINET, born at Paris, 24th September, 1567. In 1592 he visited Italy, where he studied chiefly the works of Michelangelo and Parmigiano. After his return to France, he was in 1603 appointed to succeed Dumonstier as principal painter to Henri IV., and employed at Fontainebleau, where he painted the ceiling in the chapel, for which he was decorated with the order of St. Michael by Maria de' Medici in 1615. Freminet died at Paris, June the 18th, 1619, and was buried in the Abbey des Barbeaux, near Melun. "Mercury admonishing Eneas," in the Louvre, is a good example of his forcible but mannered work.

Both Cousin and Freminet are, among many others, good ex

1 Sce Deville, "Tombeaux de la Cathedrale de Rouen," 8vo, Rouen, 1837. 2 "Comptes de Depenses de la Construction du Château de Gaillon," 4to, Paris, 1850.