Part 2
One of the most persistent bidders at the sale of Charles I.’s pictures was Eberhard Jabach, a native of Cologne, who settled in Paris and became a naturalised Frenchman in 1647. He was an enthusiastic buyer of pictures, and his collection soon surpassed that of the French king. It was known to all French connoisseurs, and was visited by all travellers of note. In time, however, Jabach’s energies as a buyer exceeded his financial resources, and when his debts amounted to 278,718 _livres_ he offered his collection to Louis XIV., who was most anxious to distinguish his reign by the formation of a gallery of pictures which should be in all respects worthy of it. To this end he purchased Eberhard Jabach’s collection, paying 220,000 _livres_ for the 5542 drawings and 101 pictures which it contained. The price originally asked by Jabach was 463,425 _livres_. Among the masterpieces thus acquired by the king were Titian’s _Entombment_ (No. 1584, Plate XIII.), which Jabach had had the good fortune to purchase from the English royal collection for the absurdly small sum of £128, and Giorgione’s _Pastoral Symphony_ (No. 1136, Plate X.), which had also been among the treasures of the English Crown.
To Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642), who founded the French Academy in 1635, at one time belonged Andrea Mantegna’s _Parnassus_ (No. 1375, Plate XIV.), the same painter’s _Wisdom victorious over the Vices_ (No. 1376), Lorenzo Costa’s _The Court of Isabella d’Este in the Garden of the Muses_ (No. 1261), and the same painter’s _Mythological Scene_ (No. 1262), together with Perugino’s _Combat of Love and Chastity_ (No. 1567).
Another important buyer at the sale of Charles I.’s collection was Cardinal Mazarin (1602-61), who acquired several valuable pictures, besides statuary, tapestries, and other fabrics. Of Mazarin’s pictures the Louvre now possesses Raphael’s small _St. Michael_ (No. 1502) and a _Holy Family_ (No. 1135), which is catalogued under the name of Giorgione, but it is more probably from the hand of Cariani.
It is said that Louis XIV. preferred the pictures of his own court-painter, Charles Le Brun, to those of the Venetian master, Paolo Veronese, whose large canvas, _The Supper at Emmaus_ (No. 1196), was nevertheless acquired during his reign. Eight pictures by Annibale Carracci, all of which are not now publicly exhibited in the Louvre (Nos. 1218, 1220, 1222, 1226, 1231-34), Albani’s _Diana and Actæon_ (No. 1111), nine compositions by Guido Reni (Nos. 1439-55 and 1457), and ten paintings by Domenichino (Nos. 1609-10 and 1612-19), also enriched the royal collection during Louis XIV.’s reign. Nor were the great French painters neglected. The four pictures (Nos. 736-39) of _The Seasons_, by Nicolas Poussin, which had been commissioned in 1660 by the Duc de Richelieu for the decoration of the Château de Meudon, together with four of the largest Claudes now in the Louvre (Nos. 312, 314, 316, 317), were obtained for the royal galleries by the ever-watchful Colbert (1619-83), who had been appointed Minister of Finance on the death of Mazarin (1602-61). Flemish art, as seen in the stately pictures of Van Dyck, was represented by seven examples (Nos. 1961-63, 1970, 1973-75). On the other hand, Louis XIV. is said to have failed altogether to appreciate the work of Teniers and to have exclaimed, when some of that artist’s pictures were brought to his notice, “_Ôtez-moi ces magots-là!_” Only one of the thirty-nine pictures by Teniers now in the Louvre, the _Interior of a Cottage_ (No. 2162), passed into the Gallery at that date. The almost entire absence of Dutch pictures is also to be noticed.
An event of extreme importance in this pompous reign was the institution of the French Academy of Arts, in 1648, with Charles Le Brun (1619-90) as Director, the despotic power which he exercised in art matters bringing about his further appointment as Director of the Gobelins tapestry works in 1660.
In 1681 the Crown pictures and other royal art treasures were brought to the Louvre from Versailles and were temporarily exhibited there, the king paying a state visit to the capital on December 5 to see his _cabinet de tableaux_. We read that the walls of eleven rooms were covered up to the cornices. The collection, putting on one side all doubts as to strict authenticity, included six paintings by Correggio, ten by Leonardo da Vinci, eight by Giorgione, twenty-three by Titian, nineteen by A. Carracci, twelve by Guido Reno, and eighteen by Paolo Veronese. These treasures, however, did not remain long at the Louvre, but were “packed up, loaded on rough carts, and taken back over the paved roads to Versailles,” which had now taken precedence over Fontainebleau as a royal residence; and at Versailles the Court mainly resided until the Revolution, although Louis XIV. greatly enlarged the Louvre Palace and planted the Tuileries Gardens. At the death of _le Roi Soleil_ the Crown pictures numbered 1500.
The energy of Louis XIV. was followed by the apathy of his degenerate successor, Louis XV. (reigned 1715-74), who, however, added 300 pictures to the royal collection. The _Virgin with the Blue Diadem_ or _Virgin with the Veil_ (No. 1497), which still passes under the name of Raphael, was among the pictures which then passed out of the collection of the Prince de Carignan into the possession of the Crown. It was now a sorry moment for the pictures which, “scattered through the interminable and then ill-kept country palaces of the French Crown, exposed to every injury of time, ignorance, and weather, regarded at best in the light of old furniture and too often in that of old lumber, pleaded in vain for respect and care. No public Catalogue told of their existence; the generation that had talked of them had passed away; it was nobody’s business to ask for them, and few actually knew where they were. Even the new-comers passed into the same void which had swallowed their predecessors.” Some of the pictures previously recorded now disappeared completely, without leaving a clue to their fate. Eventually, in 1746, M. de la Fonte de Saint-Yenne in a pamphlet directed public opinion to the fact that these Crown pictures had for fifty years been hidden and neglected in “_une obscure prison de Versailles_.” As a result of this, in 1750, by the king’s permission, 110 pictures selected from the different schools of painting were brought from Versailles to the Palais de Luxembourg, where the large canvases by Rubens (now in the Salle Rubens at the Louvre) were regarded as forming a _centre d’études_. Here for the first time, and for two days only in the week, they were shown under certain restrictions to a limited public. In 1785 they were again removed to Versailles.
Although Louis XIV.’s well-known grudge against Holland probably accounted for the almost entire absence of Dutch pictures from the Crown possessions, Louis XVI. had the good taste to acquire works by Aelbert Cuyp (No. 2341, _Landscape_); Jan van Goyen (No. 2375, _Banks of a Dutch River_, and No. 2377, _A River in Holland_); B. van der Helst (No. 2394, _The Officers of the Arquebusiers of St. Sebastian_); G. Metsu (No. 2461, _The Alchemist_); Adriaen van Ostade (No. 2495, _The Painter’s Family_[?], and No. 2496, _The Schoolmaster_); Isaac van Ostade (No. 2510, _A Frozen Canal in Holland_); Rembrandt (No. 2539, _The Pilgrims at Emmaus_, No. 2540, and No. 2541, _The Philosopher in Meditation_, No. 2555, _Portrait of Rembrandt aged_); Jacob van Ruisdael (No. 2559, _Landscape_, and No. 2560, _Sunny Landscape_); Terborgh (No. 2587, _The Military Gallant_); and Philips Wouverman (No. 2621, _The Prize Ox_, and No. 2625, _The Stag Hunt_). Five of the less important of Murillo’s pictures now in the Louvre (Nos. 1712-15 and No. 1717) were also acquired at this period, and the series of twenty-two large canvases illustrating _Scenes from the Life of St. Bruno_ by Eustache Le Sueur were also purchased by Louis XVI.
From 1725 onwards the Salon held its Exhibitions in the Salon Carré (Room IV.), but after 1848 this room was used only for Paintings by the Old Masters.
In 1790 a Commission was appointed by the National Assembly “to register and watch over all that was most valuable,” and on May 26, 1791 a decree was made that the Louvre should be thenceforward dedicated to the conservation of objects of science and of art. On August 26 of the same year a further Commission was appointed by the National Convention to inspect and gather together the treasures of art scattered through _les maisons royales_. The Convention decided that the “Museum of the Republic” should be officially opened in the Long Gallery of the Louvre on August 10, 1793, and from November 8 of the same year the Museum was open to the inspection of the public three days in every ten. This, the first public exhibition of art treasures in the Louvre, was the foundation of the present institution. The Catalogue of this date contains reference to only 537 pictures, the greater number of which came from Paris churches and national buildings. The inhabitants of Versailles now petitioned that their town should not be despoiled of its pictures, “and so be deprived of its last attraction in the eyes of the world”!
The Louvre was now destined to become for a few years the temple of the _spolia opima_ which the victorious French army brought home. “This system of levying pictures, statues, and other objects by means of treaties, so called, in which the conqueror dictated terms to those incapable of refusing them, was a dishonourable novelty in the annals of modern warfare. Disdaining the usages of Christian nations and overleaping especially the traditions of French courtesy and chivalry, Buonaparte turned back to the ages of pagan history for a precedent for his measures of spoliation.” By the Treaty of Bologna of June 23, 1796, and the Treaty of Tolentino of February 19, 1797, he became possessed of twenty pictures from Modena, twenty from Parma, forty from Bologna, ten from Ferrara, while Rome, Piacenza, Cento, Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, Ancona, Loreto, and Perugia also had to yield up a portion of their treasures.
The first exhibition of this booty was held in the Louvre in January 1798. Here, during the next few years, were gathered together many of the world’s most famous pictures, including Raphael’s _St. Cecilia_, now in the Bologna Gallery; Correggio’s _St. Jerome_ and his _Madonna della Scodella_, now in the Parma Gallery; Raphael’s _Transfiguration_, now in the Vatican, and his _Madonna della Sedia_, now in the Pitti Palace at Florence; Domenichino’s _Last Communion of St. Jerome_, now in the Vatican; Titian’s _Martyrdom of St. Peter Martyr_, destroyed by fire in 1867, and his _Assumption_, now in the Venice Gallery; Van Eyck’s _Adoration of the Lamb_, now dismembered and distributed between Ghent, Berlin, and Brussels; Paris Bordone’s _Fisherman of St. Mark_, now in the Venice Gallery; and Paul Potter’s _Bull_, now at The Hague. “Here was seen the unexampled sight of twenty-five Raphaels ranked together, the great master complete in every period and walk of his art. Here twenty-three Titians glowed in burning row. Here Rubens revelled in no less than fifty-three pictures and in almost as many classes of subject. Van Dyck followed his illustrious master with thirty-three works, while thirty-one specimens of Rembrandt’s brush shed a golden atmosphere upon the walls. The later Italians especially were magnificently represented—thirty-six pictures by Annibale Carracci, sixteen by Domenichino; twenty-three by Guido; including the largest altarpieces by each; and twenty-six by Guercino, were perhaps the most popular part of the wondrous show.”
However, in September 1815, the pictures and other valuable works of art which France had plundered from her foes had to be given back, and the spoliation of the Louvre began. In all, 5233 objects, of which 2065 were pictures, were taken away from the Royal Museum by the Allied Powers.
An event rare in the history of public galleries took place in 1813, when the Louvre received Carpaccio’s _Preaching of St. Stephen_ (No. 1211), Boltraffio’s _Madonna of the Casio Family_ (No. 1169), Marco d’Oggiono’s _Holy Family_ (No. 1382), Moretto’s _St. Bernardino of Siena and St. Louis of Toulouse_ (No. 1175), and the same artist’s _St. Bonaventura and St. Anthony of Padua_ (No. 1176), in exchange for five pictures by Rubens, Rembrandt, Van Dyck, and Jordaens.
It is curious to notice that at this period very little importance was attached to Italian primitives, which were, indeed, deemed “barbarous.” Many beautiful works of the very early Italian schools were actually not considered worth the trouble and expense of transport, and were therefore left for the lasting glory of the Louvre. Among them may be mentioned Fra Angelico’s _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 1290); the _Madonna and Child and Two Saints_, (No. 1114), now officially ascribed to Albertinelli; Bronzino’s _Christ and the Magdalene_ (No. 1183); the _Madonna and Angels_ (No. 1260), which passes under the name of Cimabue; Gentile da Fabriano’s _Presentation in the Temple_ (No. 1278); the _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 1303), still officially ascribed to Raffaellino del Garbo; _St. Francis of Assisi receiving the Stigmata_ (No. 1312), which still passes under the name of Giotto; Benozzo Gozzoli’s _Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas_ (No. 1319); Fra Filippo Lippi’s _Madonna and Child between Two Saints_ (No. 1344); Pesellino’s two small predella pictures (No. 1414); Piero di Cosimo’s _Coronation of the Virgin_ (No. 1416); _The Madonna in Glory between St. Bernard and St. Mary Magdalene_ (No. 1482), which is still assigned to Cosimo Rosselli; Lorenzo di Credi’s _Madonna and Child with St. Julian and St. Nicholas_ (No. 1263); Cima’s _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1259); Vasari’s _Annunciation_ (No. 1575), which is now in one of the storerooms of the Louvre; the Ferrarese _Madonna and Child with St. Quentin and St. Benedict_ (No. 1167), which is still assigned to Bianchi; Andrea Mantegna’s _Calvary_ (No. 1373) and _Virgin of Victory_ (No. 1374); Domenico Ghirlandaio’s _Visitation_ (No. 1321); and Perugino’s _St. Paul_ (No. 1566). Further proof of the slight regard in which certain pictures that we cherish to-day were then held is afforded by the readiness with which the authorities sent two panels of Mantegna’s altarpiece, the centre-part of which is now in the Church of San Zeno at Verona, to the Museum at Tours, and parted with Perugino’s altarpieces to the public galleries of Lyons and Marseilles.
Under Louis XVIII. (died 1824) 111 pictures were purchased for the national collection at a cost of £26,730, but during the reign of Charles X. (1824-30) only 30 were acquired, £2511 being expended on them. An outlay of £2965 by Louis Philippe (reigned 1830-48) enriched the Louvre with 33 more pictures, but that king concentrated his efforts on the restoration and decoration of the Château of Versailles, on which he spent £440,000.
In the early years of the Second Republic a large number of improvements were effected in the Louvre, and in 1848 £8000 was spent on restoring several of the rooms now hung with pictures, which were first systematically arranged three years later. Although the Museum had at that period an annual grant of £2000 for the purchase of pictures, special grants in aid were made from time to time, notably on the occasion of the sale of Marshal Soult, pictures from whose collection were acquired in 1852 for £24,612. In this way Murillo’s _Immaculate Conception_ (No. 1709, Plate XXVI.) passed to the Louvre from the “Plunder-master-General” of the Spanish campaign.
During the Second Empire the Musée du Louvre acquired about 200 Italian primitives from the Campana collection, while seven years later it was further enriched by the important bequest by Dr. La Caze of 275 paintings of different schools. Since 1870, when the Palace of the Tuileries was destroyed, the permanent collection has been increased by the purchase in 1883 for £8000 of the Morris Moore “Raphael” (No. 1509), which has since come to be universally regarded as a work by Perugino; while about 300 other paintings of varying importance have also been acquired from time to time with Government funds. In recent years the national collection has benefited largely by the generosity of private donors, among whom we may mention MM. Duchâtel, Gatteaux, His de la Salle, Lallemant, Maciet, Rodolphe Kann, Sedelmeyer, Grandidier, Vandeul, and several members of the Rothschild family.
In 1896, by the sale of a large proportion of the Crown jewels, a _Caisse des Musées_ was organised, and the annual income devoted to the purchase of pictures notably increased. A year later the _Société des Amis du Louvre_, which corresponds to the National Art-Collections Fund in England, was founded to assist in securing pictures and other works of art for the nation; by that means the _Madonna and Child_ (No. 1300A or 1300B) which passes under the name of Piero dei Franceschi was acquired by the Louvre.
In May 1900, on the inauguration of the _Exposition Universelle_, the opportunity was taken to rehang a large part of the collection, and the Galerie de Médicis (Room XVIII.) and the eighteen small cabinets built round it were first used for the better exhibition of a large proportion of the Flemish and Dutch pictures. Shortly afterwards, by the death of M. Thomy Thiéry, an Englishman who had become a naturalised Frenchman, over 100 paintings, mostly of the school of Barbizon, became an exceedingly valuable addition to the Louvre, and filled a void in the history of French painting in the nineteenth century. During the last two years the most memorable purchases by the Government have been that of Chardin’s _Child with a Top_ (No. 90A), which was acquired together with the same artist’s _Young Man with a Violin_ (No. 90B) for £14,000, and Hans Memlinc’s _Portrait of an Old Lady_ (Plate XVII.) for £8000.
The national collection of the Musée du Louvre now includes in its Catalogue nearly two thousand eight hundred oil and tempera paintings, about four hundred of which have not been exhibited for many years.
EARLY SIENESE SCHOOL
This school of painting, one of the earliest in the history of art in Italy and probably the earliest with which the ordinary student of art in Italy will concern himself, was affected throughout the whole range of its history by the influence of the miniaturists. It was characterised by naïveté, and in the hands of its earliest painter, Duccio di Buoninsegna (1255-1319), strove to realise an effect of hieratic sumptuousness, its precision and grace being that of “a sanctuary swept and garnished.”
The Louvre possesses no picture by Duccio, who derived his technique from the Byzantine miniaturists, although he modified their methods. Standing between the old world and the new, Duccio occupied an important position at the head of the school of Siena, which in the early years of the fourteenth century set a noble example to the other towns and incipient schools of Tuscany. Passing reference may here be made to the artistic aims and religious aspirations of the cities of Rome, Pisa, and Arezzo, but it is Siena which stands out pre-eminently at this early date as interpreting scenes of quiet rapture and sacred peace, its own social life being bound up in “chivalry, the meat of the eye,” and “piety, the wine of the soul.” Both Duccio, who was first employed by the Government of his native city as early as 1278, and Cimabue, his senior by fifteen years (if we are to accept the much contested records), have alike been hailed as the author of the _Rucellai Madonna_ which still hangs in the Church of S. Maria Novella in Florence. This picture was a generation ago almost unanimously accepted by responsible critics as the work of the Florentine painter, and those who still advocate the claims of “Florentinism” are loath to destroy their cherished illusions. It is not our duty here to bring forward the arguments in favour of its later ascription to Duccio, who, we are led to believe, painted it early in his career, before he had learnt to free himself from the stiff gestures and Byzantine types of a former tradition. Duccio, it must be conceded, never quite succeeded in giving to his compositions that sense of life, character, and design which we find in the works of Giotto, his junior by some twenty years, who was the first artist to accomplish vast schemes of monumental decoration. Duccio, however, was the bearer of that torch which was to kindle the flame of religious art both in Siena and Florence. Nevertheless, Sienese painting was destined, almost from the moment of its birth, to show signs of dwindling into a school of trite copyists and shallow quietists. Early in the fourteenth century the lofty ideals manifested by emotional Siena spread to scientific Florence, and by the beginning of the fifteenth century the city on the Arno gave unmistakable signs of becoming the leading art centre in Tuscany.
DUCCIO’S FOLLOWERS
The greatest of Duccio’s followers was Simone Martini (1285?-1344), who was also slightly influenced by Giotto. Simone, whose _Christ bearing His Cross_ (No. 1383, Plate I.) is the earliest Sienese picture in the Louvre, has been well described as “a reactionary who made a whole beautiful world of his own.” In this small picture the colours stand out most clearly, although the drawing and perspective are, of course, faulty. It belongs to a series of which other panels are at Antwerp and in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin. A _Crucifixion_ (No. 1665) that is catalogued as being by an unknown Sienese artist may be attributed to Ugolino da Siena (fl. 1290-1320); it would seem to be the centre panel of a large and lost altarpiece.
[Illustration: PLATE I.—SIMONE MARTINI
(1285?-1344)
SIENESE SCHOOL
No. 1383.—CHRIST BEARING HIS CROSS
(Jésus-Christ marchant au Calvaire)
Christ, preceded by the executioner, soldiers, and two children, is bearing His Cross to Calvary. He is attended by a large crowd in which may be recognised the Virgin Mary, in blue robes, supported by St. John; St. Mary Magdalene in red, with her long hair falling over her shoulders, raises her hands in grief.
Painted in tempera on panel.
10 in. × 4 in. (0·25 × 0·10.)]
Pietro Lorenzetti (fl. 1305-50) was probably a pupil of Duccio, and was influenced by Simone Martini, but Pietro and his younger brother, Ambrogio Lorenzetti (1285?-1348?), who represented a new movement and endeavoured to set forth the civic ideal, are not represented in this collection.
Simone Martini’s brother-in-law, Lippo Memmi (died 1357?), is possibly the author of the _St. Peter_ (No. 1152), a poor picture which is officially assigned to Taddeo di Bartolo (1362?-1422). The art of the latter is, in the opinion of Mr. Berenson, seen in the small _Crucifixion_ (No. 1622), which the Louvre authorities modestly catalogue as being by an unknown fourteenth-century Italian painter.