were finished with great exactness; but as he owed every thing to his genius, and as works of inferior merit were by the false taste of the times preferred to his, it was impossible for him altogether to avoid the faults of his predecessors. He is blamed for stiffness and aridity in his outlines, for little taste or grandeur in his expression, for ignorance of the costume, of aërial perspective, and of gradation of colours; but he had studied linear perspective, architecture, and fortification.

John Holbein, nearly contemporary with Albert Durer, painted in oil and water-colours. He excelled chiefly in history, and in portrait painting. His colours are fresh and brilliant, and his works highly finished; but in his historical subjects his draperies are not in so good taste as those of Albert Durer.

THE FLEMISH SCHOOL.

THE Flemish school is recommended to the lovers of the art by the discovery, or at least the first practice, of oil in painting. It has been generally attributed to John Van Eyck, who was accustomed to varnish his distemper pictures with a composition of oils, which was pleasing on account of the lustre it gave them. In the course of his practice, he came to mix his colours in oil, instead of water, which he found rendered them brilliant without the trouble of varnishing. From this and subsequent experiments, arose the art of painting in oil, of which wonderful discovery Van Mander gives a particular account; but the truth of it is now very much questioned; and it is even proved that this method of painting was discovered long before the time of John Van Eyck. It is admitted that John and his brother Eubert were the first who brought it into general practice, by showing the excellence of which it was susceptible; their own paintings having acquired, all over Europe, great reputation for the softness and delicacy of their colours. The attention of the Italian painters was soon excited; and Antonio de Massiny performed a journey into Flanders for the express purpose of acquiring the confidence of John Van Eyck, and of discovering the secret.

John of Bruges was the founder of painting as a profession in Flanders. Peter Paul Rubens was the founder of the art. This extraordinary person produced an immense number of works. He excelled equally in historical, portrait, and landscape painting; in fruits, flowers, and in animals. He invented, and executed with the greatest facility. The works of Rubens were destitute of that soft inspiration, productive of sweet and pleasant effects, so conspicuous in the works of Raffaelle; but he possessed that sprightliness of genius and strength of mind which are ever ready to burst forth in wonderful and astonishing effects. His figures appear to be the exact counterpart of his conceptions, and their creation nothing more than a simple act of the will. His chief merit consists in colouring; though in this branch of the art he has not equalled Titian. He is the first among painters eminent for pomp and majesty; the first among those who speak to the eye; and the power of the art is often by him carried almost to enchantment.

Rubens (says Sir Joshua Reynolds) is a remarkable instance of the same mind being seen in all the various parts of the art. The whole is so much of a piece, that one can scarce be brought to believe but that if any one of them had been more correct and perfect, his works would not be so complete as they appear. If we should allow a greater purity and correctness of drawing, his want of simplicity in composition, colouring, and drapery, would appear more gross.

The Flemish school, of which Rubens is the great master, is remarkable for great brilliancy of colours, and the magic of the chiaro-scuro. To these may be joined a profound design, which is not yet founded on the most beautiful forms; a composition possessed of grandeur, a certain air of nobleness in the figures, strong and natural expressions; in short, a kind of national beauty, which is neither copied from the ancients, nor from the Roman or Lombard schools; but which deserves to please, and is capable of pleasing.

THE DUTCH SCHOOL.

To speak in general terms, and without regarding a great number of exceptions, the Dutch school carries none of the above qualities to great perfection, except that of colouring. Far from excelling in the beauty of heads and forms, they seem to delight in the exact imitation of the lowest and most ignoble. Their subjects are derived from the tavern, the smith's shop, and from the vulgar amusement of the rudest peasants. The expressions are sufficiently marked; but it is the expression of passions which debase instead of ennobling human nature.

It must be acknowledged, at the same time, that the Dutch painters have succeeded in several branches of the art. If they have chosen low subjects of imitation, they have represented them with great exactness; and truth must always please. If they have not succeeded in the most difficult parts of the chiaro-scuro, they at least excel in the most striking, such as in light confined in a narrow space, night illuminated by the moon, or by torches, and the light of a smith's forge. The Dutch understand the gradations of colours. They have no rivals in landscape-painting, considered as the faithful representation of a particular scene; but they are far from equalling Titian, Poussin, Claude Lorrain, &c., who have carried to the greatest perfection the ideal landscape; and whose pictures, instead of being the topographical representation of certain places, are the combined result of every thing beautiful in their imagination or in nature. The Dutch distinguish themselves by their perspective, by their clouds, sea scenes, animals, fruits, flowers, and insects; and they excel in miniaturepainting: in short, every thing which requires a faithful imitation, colour, and a nice pencil, is well executed by the Dutch painters.

Holland has also produced historical painters, as Octavius Van Been, and Vander Hilst, the rival of Vandyck; but in the works of these artists we do not find the character of the Dutch school.

Neither is the origin of their style to be derived from the works of Lucas of Leyden; though from the time he flourished, viz. about the end of the fifteenth century, he may be considered as the patriarch of the Dutch school. Lucas painted in oil, in watercolours, and on glass; and the productions of his pencil were history, landscape, and portrait.

If miniature painting be considered as a character of the Dutch school, Cornelius Pollemburg may be regarded as the father of it. He possessed the colour, delicacy of touch, and disposition of the chiaro-scuro, which chiefly distinguish this school; and if any thing is to be added, it is want of correctness in his design.

But if the choice of low figures is its chief characteristic, this is to be found in the greatest perfection in the works of the celebrated Rembrandt Van Ryn; and it is the more offensive in this artist, as his compositions frequently required an opposite choice of figures. As his father was a miller, near Leyden, his education must altogether have depended on the exertion of great talents, and the study of nature. He copied the grotesque figure of a Dutch peasant, or the servant of an inn, with as much application as the greatest masters of Italy would have studied the Apollo of Belvidere, or the Venus de Medicis. This was not the manner of elevating himself to the noble conceptions of Raffaelle; but it was acquiring the imitation of truth in vulgar painting.

Rembrandt (says Mr. Descamps) may be compared to the great artists for colour, delicacy of touch, and chiaro-scuro. He delighted in great oppositions of light and shade; and he seems to be particularly attentive to this branch of the art. His workshop was occasionally made dark, and he received the light by a hole, which fell as he chose to direct to the place which he desired to be enlightened. His painting is a kind of magic; no artist knew better the effects of different colours mingled together, nor could better distinguish those which did not agree from those which did. He placed every tone in its situation with so much exactness and harmony, that he needed not to mix them, and so destroy what may be called the flower and freshness of the colours.

Such is the power of genius, that Rembrandt, with all his faults, (and they are numerous,) is placed among the greatest artists by M. Descamps, who attentively examined his works, and was himself an artist.

John de Laer, a miniature painter, and who made choice of his subjects from common life, deserves a distinguished place in the Dutch school. He painted hunting-scenes, the attacks of robbers, public festivals, landscapes, and sea views. He had a correct design, and employed vigorous and lively colouring.

Van Ostade, although born at Lubeck, Gerard Dow, Metzu, Meris, Wowermans, Berghem, and the celebrated painter of flowers, Van Huysum, belong to the Dutch school.

The greater part of the schools of which we have treated have no longer any existence. Italy alone had four schools, and there only remain at present a very few Italian artists known to foreigners. The school of Rubens is in vain sought for in Flanders. If the Dutch school still exists, it is not known beyond the precincts of Holland. Mengs, a German artist, has rendered himself famous in our days; but it was in Italy that he chiefly improved his talents, and exercised his art. M. Dietrich, another German, has made himself known to strangers; but two solitary artists do not form a school.

THE ENGLISH SCHOOL.

THIS school has been formed in our time. It is connected with the Royal Academy, in London, instituted in 1766; but although as a school it did not exist before that time, yet ever since the revival of the arts, and consequent encouragement given to them by the sovereigns of Europe, England has possessed portraitpainters of ability; and perhaps it has been owing only to the remarkable partiality of the nation for this branch of the art, that the more noble one of historical painting has been neglected.