ment, but employment was not sufficient without encouragement; for they were not convertible terms. On the subject of

fresco he said :—

'I have not experience enough in the nature of fresco-painting to state precisely what I should conceive would be the effect of that style; but so far as my knowledge goes, and as far as I can collect from what I have seen of the description of painting which approaches in some degree to the nature of fresco, such as scene painting, and the mode in which the cartoons of Raphael have been executed, I should say that fresco would not be a style to be adopted in this country, either as peculiarly suited to our climate or consistent with the taste of this country.'

He recommended painting on canvas, considering that oil was much more durable than fresco, particularly in our 'climate.' He was opposed to a choice of artists by competition, as he despaired of finding a competent tribunal. He thought there was a want of encouragement for high art in England, as Hilton from devoting himself to that style did not get a single commission during the last three years of his life, and Bell, after trying to introduce fresco as an internal decoration, found he had no chance in competition with the upholsterer. Mr. Dyce said that the works in the Hofgarten at Munich seemed perfectly to have resisted the action of the atmosphere, and from the climate of Munich there was every reason to believe that what succeeded there would succeed in England, if not in London, where the smoke was a further objection. There could be no doubt that fresco was more durable than oil, as lime was more durable than canvas. He thought it would only require a certain degree of study and practice for those who had been accustomed to paint historical pictures in oil to transfer them to fresco. High art had greatly improved in Germany since the introduction of fresco, and though no modern frescoes were as harmonious in colour as oilpaintings, that was not attributable to the method itself, but to the faulty taste of the Germans. Frescoes were suited to all situations and all kinds of light; they might be cleaned with bread and water, and it was less hazardous to clean a fresco than an oil-painting.* Mr. Vivian thought the climate of London very bad for frescoes; in Venice the salt of the atmosphere had proved destructive to them†; and oil-paintings were

Mr. Thomas Barker of Bath cleaned a fresco with water and a soft sponge. In Genoa frescoes have been cleaned with vinegar. Carlo Maratti used wine in washing the Vatican frescoes.

† But in Genoa, where the influence of the sea air is more immediate, and the effect of storms more severely felt, frescoes have lasted on the external walls of houses for some centuries.

more easily restored. The third opponent of fresco was Mr. Fradelle, whose evidence was so ludicrously inconsistent as to carry no weight with it. Taking the well-known fact that Leonardo's Last Supper,' which is painted in oil and is in the worst state of ruin, is in the same room with a work of Montorfano's, which is painted in fresco and fully preserved, he argues from this against fresco by assuming that the Last Supper' was first painted in fresco and then revived in oil. That oil has perished when fresco has survived' establishes that you cannot rely on fresco; that it depends on the circumstances of the wall, or the preparation of it to receive the painting.' It would be hard to find a sentence with more logical blunders in it; and the evidence before the Committee shows that the best friends of fresco were those who came out to combat its adoption. They made such strange assertions, contradicted each other and themselves with such pertinacity, that the failure of their assault was certain, and yet their failure seemed to prove that the position of fresco was unassailable.

Unfortunately the advocates of fresco have met with a similar contradiction at the hands of experience. Not only have their anticipations of the durability of fresco proved unfounded, but the paintings themselves have not impressed the public. It was too easily taken for granted that a revival of the old Italian method which had once produced such an effect would always produce it. The Germans who saw that Michael Angelo and Raphael had painted fresco and been the foremost of their time, thought that Cornelius and Overbeck had only to use the same implements to ensure the same recognition. And the advocates of fresco before the Select Committee laid the greatest stress on this presumed success of the Germans, which has turned out after all to be a failure. The revival of art has no doubt been productive of good, as it has stimulated men's minds and broken up a dead tradition. When the Nazarenes,' as they were called, grew up and looked about them, they saw a state of things which urgently needed remedy. We can fully enter into the zeal with which they strove for the recognition of truth in art, for the conquest of deep-seated error, and for a return to the time when art was the universal language of men and nations. What we regret is that while they were so fitted to preach, they were so unfitted to practise. Pedants in grain, they imagined that they were fighting against pedantry. Unskilled to portray beauty, they substituted severe ugliness for the meretricious trick of their opponents. We give them full credit for sincerity. We believe they did not see beyond their own works; that they

always judged their own works as they were in idea, and in the completeness of the idea forgot the defective execution. But if we are to judge their paintings by any artistic standard, we must look at the representation of the thought and not the depth of it, the picture instead of its philosophy. A French art critic who visited Munich and recorded his impressions in an able volume, says that Cornelius may be a great philosopher and a profound thinker, but he is neither a good painter nor a good draughtsman. The meaning and symbolism of his frescoes may be perfect, mais tout cela est fort mal dessiné et encore plus mal peint.'

The origin of the German school of fresco is stated by Mr. Dyce in his evidence before the Select Committee :

The German artists when they began to paint in fresco knew nothing of the process. A Prussian gentleman, Mr. Bartholdy, wanted to have his house done in fresco in the old manner*, and he offered to pay the expenses of a few artists then in Rome if they would undertake to make experiments on the walls of his house, or rather the villa in which he lived at Rome. That was the beginning of the German fresco-painting. The King of Bavaria seeing this gave encouragement to the artists, and the chief of them were employed on great works, and he offered the arcade of the Hofgarten to the inferior artists as a place to try their skill upon.'

We have incidental glimpses of the activity of the young artists at this time in various works. Perhaps the best is the one furnished by the Swedish poet Atterbom, whose letters from Germany and Italy in the years 1817 and 1819 were lately published. He describes an artists' festival of the period, at which the Crown Prince of Bavaria, afterwards King Louis, was present. The room was decorated with emblematic and satirical transparencies by Cornelius, Veit, and Overbeck, the satirical pictures representing the Victory of Samson over the Philistines, the Fall of Jericho, Hercules cleansing the Augean stables. The Philistines of course were pedants, and a label of 'Bonne ville de Jerichow' showed by what nation the modern Jericho was inhabited. The Crown Prince, whose chief pas'sion is for the beautiful, both in art and the living form,' was dressed in the national costume of ancient Germany, a dress which was then forbidden in Munich by royal decree. He danced with all the young German ladies, and with the artists'

In Raczynski's History it is said that Bartholdy wanted to have one of his rooms painted with arabesques, and that Cornelius exerted all his eloquence to induce him to substitute historical pictures in fresco. Cornelius and his companions were to receive nothing for their work but the cost of the colours and of their maintenance.

6

wives, who were all Italian and were generally young and pretty. At the sight of one young lady especially, a most. gracious fire burnt in his eyes.' Festivals such as these were the relaxations in the artists' life of effort. Besides painting scriptural scenes in the Casa Bartholdi, they illustrated the Italian poets in the Villa Massimo. The works of Cornelius in the former house are Joseph making himself known to his 'Brethren,' and 'Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's Dream.' But the most pleasing of these frescoes is Veit's Seven Years of Plenty;' a young mother sitting under a palm tree with her children playing around her. One of the children kicks over a basket of fruit, another sits on high-piled sheaves and dangles a bunch of grapes before an infant.

Strictly speaking, the first of the revivalists was neither Cornelius nor Overbeck, but Asmus Carstens. Yet his merit was not at all recognised at the time, and his fame has now been obscured by those who followed in his track. Count Raczynski admits that the execution of his works is so imperfect as to entitle them to no higher name than that of sketches, though had he lived later he would undoubtedly have been a great frescopainter. Goethe himself was unjust to Carstens, and Schiller's periodical, the Horen,' contains a severe attack upon him by Maler Müller. When once the Nazarenes became a school, and went over to the Church of Rome in a body, the world began to do them more justice. Even then there was much affectation about them. The conversion of one of the number, which was attributed to a miracle by the Roman Catholics, led Protestants to suspect a trick. But it was when the school had made its first great step, and was employed on public works in Munich, that youthful zeal gave place to cliquism and pedantry. Gervinus in his Venetian Letters on new German ' and old Italian Painting,' speaks with much severity of the system pursued by King Louis and his favourite artists. He begins by protesting against the indiscriminate puffery which welcomes every new project of the King and every new work of the painters. Count Raczynski writes a history of modern German art. History is generally written when things are 'completed.' He reminds his countrymen that the reason given by Vasari for the excellence of Florentine training is that nothing mediocre had any chance of pleasing in Florence, because no one had any respect of persons. This is not the case in Munich. No one dares to criticise freely, and the artists cannot bear criticism. Gervinus refuses to join in the general hallelujahs in praise of the royal Mæcenas of Bavaria. He thinks the most magnificent opportunity in the world was

thrown away by overhaste, the desire of filling a certain number of walls, and giving glory to the patron, not to the

artists.

'The results are manufactures instead of masterpieces, mannerisms instead of style, arabesques instead of historical pictures, wall-paintings instead of art. . . . An artist is wanted for a subject, intrigues instead of careful selection guide the choice of the patron. When he has found the man he tells him what he has to do instead of leaving it to his genius. Hess had to give his wall-paintings in the Court Chapel the air of old mosaics whether he would or no. Kaulbach is left unemployed, and perhaps that is the best thing that could happen to him. On the other hand Schwanthaler is worked to death.'

The prophecy was fulfilled; Schwanthaler was worked to death. Yet we find in Mr. Bellenden Ker's evidence before the Select Committee, that Klenze said of King Louis, 'He has one merit which kings in general have not; that is he is not in a hurry, he gives you time, which is essential to the 'execution of great works."

Another thing which Gervinus censures is the mannerism of the German painters:

'When once a German artist has a mannerism he is content, and he makes no further efforts. Veit has gone backwards instead of forwards in his Frankfort frescoes; Cornelius is the same in his last works as he was more than twenty years ago. Nor is there any change of manner with change of subject. Schnorr is just the same in the Nibelungen and in Ariosto, though the subjects are a world apart from each other.'

These strictures are severe, but it is something to find a man who can speak his mind. As a general rule, Germans lose themselves in doubtful objection or more doubtful praise. Herr Springer, the historian of modern German art, says hesitatingly that Steinle's frescoes in the Castle of Rheineck and in the choir of the Cathedral of Cologne do not give 'a just idea of the excellence of the master.' He is bolder in discussing Führich and Götzenberger. The frescoes of the first at Vienna and Prague are simply tedious.' Those of the latter at Bonn are the reverse of an ornament to the 'Hall of the University.' But when we come to Cornelius we find more reserve. His works are intended only for the aristocracy of culture. All who demand that painting should satisfy the eye will not understand the great fame of the master. Much is to be desired in his execution. He cannot paint in oil, and he always leaves the execution of his frescoes to other hands, for good reasons. We may parallel these