its accidents, its colours proper and local, and its clear-obscure. The eye gets round every object, and penetrates into those which ought to be transparent. The pencil, although large and flowing, has represented, with the most surprising truth, the dust on the butterflies, the down on the peaches, the velvet of the cloth, the metal of the fringes, and the bloom on the grapes. In a word, one may say, without exaggeration, that not only is it absolutely the chief work of Van Aelst, but likewise that it would be difficult amongst the most admired productions of Van Huysum to find a picture which could stand a comparison with it, whether for precious finish or for magical truth.

C.; H. 31 inches; B. 25 inches.*

The length and minuteness of a description ought of course to bear some proportion to the excellence and importance of the picture; and when that is of some common and known subject, and does not go beyond the ordinary manner of treating it, it is

* It is not amiss to observe, that the measurements of the pictures described in the text are those given by the author himself, and consequently are French measure, of which about twelve inches and three quarters make twelve English. I think it necessary to note this, because the picture last described was lately in the classical collection of Mr. McClellan of Glasgow, and is now in the possession of Mr. Napier of West Shandon, and the Poelemburg described is in the collection of Dr. Drury of Glasgow. These gentlemen, then, and others who may find themselves in the possession of the originals described, will not expect the measurements to correspond exactly with the pictures.

enough to decribe it generally by the class to which it belongs.

However superfluous it may appear to warn my readers to make sure of not misunderstanding the subject represented, before analysing or describing a picture, I feel myself nevertheless called upon not to neglect this caution; not only because of the absurd errors in this respect often to be found in catalogues of public sales, but also from the almost incredible blunders I have met with in catalogues and descriptions of very many public galleries. The famous picture of Raphael, painted for the church of St. John at Bologna, representing St. Cecilia holding a musical instrument in her hands, with others at her feet, affords an example of the errors alluded to. She listens with rapt attention to a choir of angels borne on the clouds and singing. On her right are St. Paul, and St. John the Evangelist, strongly characterised, the one by his sword, the other by his eagle, and both by the airs of the heads. On her left are St. Magdalene with her cup, and St. Augustine with his cross and pontifical garments. Hitherto all the world had been agreed upon the justness of this description. But the author of the Manual of the French Museum, printed in 1803, judged it proper to make one of his own, of which, behold the title and the substance!

"The Martyrdom of St. Cecilia."

"Raphael would not represent the martyrdom of a young virgin like the execution of a malefactor. Here Cecilia advances towards the place where the

palm of martyrdom awaits her. Her feet only still belong to this earth. Her upraised eyes tell that her thoughts are already in heaven. The man who bears the sword is not an executioner whose stern ferocity augments that of the spectacle. Here the headsman has an air of compassion. Behind the saint walks a priest who assists her. His physiognomy is common but sweet. He applauds the tranquil resignation of the victim, who seems already to hear the celestial concert that is going on above. The angels celebrate her coming beforehand! One of the companions of Cecilia points them out to her with his finger, and seems to do so as an encouragement to her. A young man follows the saint. His action is too expressive to suppose it that of a parent or convert!"

The above will show how necessary it is not only to be certain of the subject represented in a picture, but also to know thoroughly the rules for analysing and describing them properly. By doing so, something of the work may, perhaps, be advantageously preserved to posterity, when the picture itself may be ruined and destroyed. What should we know of the Greek painters, and of their most famous pictures, but for what writers have transmitted to us concerning them in their descriptions?

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE GENERAL SCHOOLS OF PAINTING.

SECT. I. Of that which constitutes a School of Painting.

WHEN a master has been fortunate enough to have formed amongst his pupils some who become distinguished, the designation of his school is given to the whole of his scholars good and bad, without exception, and without reference to where they may have been born; and when a succession of eminent painters have appeared in any particular town or country, they are designated as the school of that town or country, without regard to the place of their birth. Thus Bakkereel, Van den Berg, Delmont, Deriksen, Van Campen, Diepenbeeck, Vandyck, Van Harpe, Hoffman, Jameson, Malo, Panneel, Potter, Quellyn, Teniers, Van Thulden, Victor, Wouters, and all the other artists who, like these, have been scholars of Rubens, form collectively what is called his school. To these may be added, such as, like Jordaens, have learned the principles of their art under other masters, but have subsequently formed their style and colouring upon that of Rubens.

The Flemish School, again, is so called from the country of the Flemings, and especially from the

I

town of Antwerp, in that country, where Rubens, Vandyck, Teniers, and so many other eminent painters have flourished. It includes, therefore, not only the particular school of Rubens, but the schools of other masters, such as De Crayer, Van Balen, Rombouts, Janssens, Seghers, Teniers the younger, Peter Neefs, and Sneyders, who taught either at Antwerp, or at the other towns of Brussels, Ghent, Bruges, Mechlin, and the like, situated in Flanders, although at a distance from Antwerp, the chief seat of the school.

With this general view of what is meant by a School of Painting, I proceed to enquire what are the general schools worthy of the name? who are their founders? what are the characteristics that distinguish them? and what are the causes to which these characteristics may be owing?

The amateur cannot but feel embarrassed on seeing how little authors are agreed amongst themselves about the number and the denominations of the general schools. Some reckon only three of them-the Roman, the Flemish, and the Dutch; others five-the Roman or Florentine, the Venetian, the Lombard, the Flemish or German, and the French; others again, by separating the Florentine from the Roman, and the German, as well as the Dutch, from the Flemish, make eight; to which others still, add the Bolognese, the Genoese, the Neapolitan, and the Spanish, and thus extend the number even to twelve. Nay, if we refer to Lanzi for the division of