PROFESSOR FIORILLO published at Gottingen, some time ago, the third volume of his History of the Art of Painting, which contains that branch of the subject relating to France.

The author says in his preface, that at first he only thought of speaking of the old French school, and that it was too soon to describe the modern one.' I am not of his opinion; I think that the modern school has already produced, and is daily producing, artists of sufficient merit to entitle them to be publickly noticed. I am also of opinion that M. Fiorillo would have done well to have waited until he had procured some more exact information, or visited France in per

son.

I have not written the following observations in the spirit of a critick; it is the love of the arts and of truth, which has alone dictated them; and I only furnish M. Fiorillo with the present additional information, that he may be enabled, in a second edition, to render his work more useful, by making it more exact and more complete. The period, which embraces the artists of the modern school, will include all such, of any repute, as have died since 1750. I shall begin with Francesco Casanova,whom I knew on my first visit to Vienna. Fiorillo says that he was a pupil

of Simonidi, that he took Jacob Courtois for his model, and that he studied Wouvermans all this does him honour; but I cannot coincide in the opinion of this author when he says, that he (Casanova) was nothing else, in the true sense of the word, than a plagiarist, who sometimes took one groupe and sometimes another from the works of Bourguignon, and placed it in his own pictures.' In battle pieces, several things may resemble each other, without our being entitled to say that one painter has stolen from another. People fight and are killed, in general, in the same manner. Casanova was a man of genius, and I think the accusation of our author is ill founded. He has said very little upon the talents and works of this artist; who has, however, acquired a just reputation in France. He has forgot his brother, who was director of the gallery at Dresden; and he has also omitted to mention several of his scholars who are known in France. Francesco Casanova, in his latter years, did some small paintings of animals, of an agreeable composition and of a light touch, for which he was well paid.

In delivering the eulogy which is due to the talents of M. Vernet, he only quotes his design of Hyppolyta, and that of the leader of the car, who returns with his companions. He informs us that Darcis is engraving it. We can tell him, however, that Darcis never lived to finish this engraving.

Charles Vernet laboured ล

great deal in his latter years. One third of his designs belongs to Roland the printseller, who has already got several of them extremely well engraved; particularly fourteen, by Debucours, in the soft manner in which he excels. Five other large designs are not equally well engraved. There is one of them in China ink, another in bistre, and some coloured ones of great beauty; among others, a Departure for the Chase. Vernet is at present occupied with his grand piece, the Battle of Marengo. Robert is merely named: the author, therefore, does not know the extent of his talents: France, however, never had such a painter as Robert for the interiour of pieces of architecture. He was as well acquainted with perspective as Panini, and delineates it in a manner highly agreeable to the eye. At one time, one could not in habit a dwelling-house without having a bed-room or a saloon decorated with Robert's pictures. His works are of different qualities; he sometimes went too fast, by wishing to do too much. We have sometimes wished him to finish a little more; but perhaps, by being more finished, he would not know how to preserve the spirit which always reigns in his rural scenery and in his architecture; his talents would be of great use in theatrical decorations. His figures are not correct, but they never want spirit. The best pictures of this master are a part of his studies in Italy. He en graved at Rome a small architectural work which he called his Soirées, and which has given us cause to regret that he has not done more. Robert treated his own style of painting with so much superiority that he never had any rivals; and France will wait long Vol. IV. No. 8.

3D

ere she finds another Robert; particularly in an age where all the men of genius aim at historical painting. Robert has perhaps made too many designs; but not for those who love taste and an agreeable effect. He has done a great many pieces with red and black crayons.

He

The French themselves pay more justice than M. Fiorillo does to Greuze, although his method of designing has nothing in common with the present school. thinks it extraordinary that he should be called a painter of a particular school; he would rather have him called "the painter of the people or the nation, because his pictures very often represent the most characteristick traits of the entire manner in which the French think and feel." But the good and bad actions which occu py the pencil of the celebrated Greuze do not belong exclusively to the French nation; they are common to all nations. We find in all countries men who have nothing to leave to their families at their death, except their good reputation; there are every where mothers who love their children; sick persons who are consoled by their children; as well as there are children who endeavour to destroy the will of their father when they think that it is not favourable to them; and there are also children who even attempt the lives of those who have given them birth. He grants more nobleness of style to Greuze than was possessed by Cornelius Troust, or Hogarth : I do not know where he has deriv. ed this comparison. M. Fiorillo thinks that Diderot has praised Greuze with too much enthusiasm. He thinks the colouring of Greuze is mannered he has not seen, therefore, any of his heads;

at least, he does not mention them. Few artists have painted with so much sentiment and truth as he has done in France he still passes for a good colourist. The author says that Greuze endeavoured never to lose sight of the simplicity of nature; but Nature herself is mannered at Paris." Noth ing is easier than to vilify a whole nation. Greuze made a quantity of designs, which can only be regarded as mere studies, all full of sentiment. Greuze created his own school, and it perished with

him.

The Germans, Italians, and English, exclaim against the French school, because they envy its superiority. The man who has regarded Europe with an im partial eye for the last ten years, surely cannot think that there is any school in existence at present, except the French school: no Country possesses so great a number of historical painters, or so great masters, as France does. Among other nations there are distinguished talents: a Fuger, a West, an Abildgaard, and a Hetsch, will always do honour to their country; and yet for all this there is not a German school, an English school, or a Danish school.

It is necessary that I should quote some passages of M. Fiorillo's Introduction to the History of the new French school. He asserts "that the modern artists take David for their model, and exaggerate his defects without possessing his talents." He finds, however, that the present is superiour to the old French school, and he continues in this manner "The greatest part of the works of the modern school resemble coloured statues or bas-reliefs; the contours of the figures are sharp and edgy, the expression

speaking; but the composition is empty, cold, and dry in short, the colouring is hard, as if they did not choose any thing in nature except a local colour, and as if they only sought to relieve the effect by forced shades which fall into the dark. The modern French artists think that they have surpassed the simplicity of the Greeks in their works; but they confound simplicity with emptiness, and laboured composition with the great pains they take to become flat and insipid. As they are not possessed of a pure and classical sentiment, they remain at the entrance of the temple of Taste, without finding the fundamental principle of it; and it would seem that the genius of the times removes them from what is called the ideal of the art, &c.” These are the bad French artists of whom M. Fiorillo speaks, be cause he has not succeeded in drawing a picture of the good ones; for he has never seen the works of the latter, and he judges by those of the former. He afterwards says, "that the antique ought to be studied; that Raphael and Michael Angelo studied it; but that they endeavoured, surrounded as they were with noble, grand, and spiritual forms, to idealize, as it were, the forms of nature.' The author is therefore ignorant that the good French painters study Nature much, and that she never was more studied by any school as a painter, he ought to know that people sometimes see with different eyes.

:

M. Fiorillo says that the picture of Saint Roch curing those infected with the plague, laid the foun dation of the celebrity of David: he might have added to this, what has been said of the Horatii, that this picture alone would have been

sufficient to secure immortality to him. I do not like to speak of any thing unless I have seen it, because in that case it is my own judgment, at least, that I pronounce; and therefore I only named this picture when I wrote upon the performances of David, not having been at Marseilles at that time I have been there, however, several times since, and had an opportunity of often admiring one of the chefs-d'œuvres of this great artist. I may even prophesy that in future ages pilgrimages will be made for the sake of admiring it. I request M. I request M. Fiorillo will add to his second edition the few words I am now going to say, if he has any confidence in my judgments.

The picture of Saint Roch was commanded from David for the administration of the department of Marseilles. He did it at Rome in 1780. On receiving it, the purchasers thought it too fine to deprive connoisseurs and amateurs of it: they therefore gave up their first idea, of placing it in their own hail, and sent it to the office of the records, where it has since remained. The subject of the picture is Saint Roch addressing the Virgin, supplicating her to cause the plague to cease. He is upon his right knee, and rests the end of his left foot upon one of the sick persons. He lifts his clasped hands to the Virgin, who is seated with the infant Jesus. Below there is at full length a dying person who rests himself upon his left arm; a little higher up are two young people expiring. The expression in the head of Saint Roch is very fine; the design of the whole figúre is admirable: upon examiningin detail his arms, legs, and hands, we are equally satisfied.

The composition is sim

ple, and well connected in all its parts. We think we see dying persons in looking upon the poor diseased creatures. The Virgin pleased me least of all; her colouring is not so fine as that of the rest of the picture. David appears in this work as great a colourist as a designer; and he destroys the opinion of some of his pupils, who assert that design and colouring never go hand in hand. After having seen Saint Roch, I do not know whether to give the preference to the Horatii or to Saint Roch.

Fiorillo speaks of Belisarius with esteem: he relates the same anecdotes I have already printed : he does not think the head of Belisarius noble. "Every body would take it for a French invalid." I did not experience the same sensation on looking at this picture; and I never heard this reproach made by any French artist. This picure at present belongs to the senator Lucien Bonaparte.

He praises much the design of the Horatii; but according to him the composition is defective; he thinks the posture of the oldest son confined. "The father (he says), who is in the middle of the picture, resembles an old serjeant, who is drilling three recruits according to strict military tacticks." The father of the Horatii never inspired this sentiment. Fiorillo thus continues: In the head of the father no trait of his visage characterizes a man who is exposing his children to the greatest danger, and who sees them perhaps for the last time." This judgment would not be at all surprising if it did not come from a painter, who ought to know the different sentiments of mankind as well as he ought to know the effect produced by the mixture of the

7

1

We read in a note that Morel has engraved the Horatii, Brutus, and the Sabines all this is false; none of the three engravings have yet appeared. It is certain that he is occupied with the Horatii; but he has a full year's labour yet before him. The graving tool of an artist does not move so quickly as the pen of an author.

The portrait of mademoiselle Brognard is mentioned without any distinction among the other portraits of Gerard: this portrait, however, deserves great praise, and it ought to be placed by the side of the Joconde of Leonardo da Vinci.

Every thing which comes from the pencil of Gerard is beautiful; every thing is wisely conceived: he paints without having the air of painting his full length portrait of madame Recamier has done him much honour. He has paint ed several portraits of his friends in a sitting or two. I ought to mention here the celebrated Ducis; no pencil ever produced more in less time.

Gerard has also done some portraits of his friends,designed at one sitting, which may serve as a model for those who wish to design in this manner. I may quote those of madame Redouté and her daugh

Ingre ought to go to Rome; but he has not yet set out, as the author says. We expect great things from him. The design of Stratonice, which he is doing for me, is well composed and well designed, and we may hope to see a fine picture of it. He has finished several portraits, among which we distinguish that of mademoiselle Riviere, fourteen years of age.

M. Fiorillo thinks that Gros has talents; but he forgets to assign to this artist the distinguished place which his country has given him among the pupils of David, and which he so justly merits. He thinks it astonishing that such a terrible subject as the Plague of Egypt, of this painter, should have excited so much enthusiasm... I am very happy,Ton the contrary, that justice has been done to a fine picture, well designed, well painted, and finely coloured. Gros is one of the first colourists of the modern school. Our author does not recollect, therefore, that such subjects have been represented by the first talents. He does not know Mignard's Plague, Poussin's Massacre of the Innocents, his Deluge, and many others.

The name of mademoiselle Gerard is mixed, without mercy, in a crowd of others who are scarcely known. Her name merits some distinction. Her pictures are a greeably composed; the subjects are well chosen, executed with a careful pencil, and finely coloured. A great deal has been engraved after her.

The author is not well pleased with the miniatures of Augustin; he has, perhaps, never seen them; at least, he is surely not acquainted