ART. IV.—1. Annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery to the Treasury, for the year 1885. Presented to Parliament, 1886.

2. The Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery. Foreign Schools. 1885.*

3. Descriptive and Historical Catalogue of the Pictures in the National Gallery, with Biographical Notices of the deceased Painters. British and Modern Schools. 1886.

4. Italian Art in the National Gallery. By. Dr. Richter. 5. L'Arte Italiana nella Galleria Nazionale di Londra. By Dr. G. Frizzoni.

MORE

ORE than a quarter of a century has elapsed since we published an Article on the National Gallery. Many suggestions, which we then ventured to make for its improvement, have been carried out, and some of our predictions with regard to it have been fulfilled. On the other hand, some of the defects and shortcomings we pointed out still exist; opportunities which have occurred to render our national collection of pictures worthy, in every respect, of the nation have been, in some instances, neglected; and the building which contains it is in many respects as open to serious objections as it was five-and-twenty years ago. We propose in the present article to show what has been done and what left undone.

The subject divides itself into three parts-the collection itself, the building containing it, and its administration. First, as to the collection. Upon this point we can write with almost unqualified satisfaction. From one of secondary importance among the great public galleries of Europe, it has risen within the period we have mentioned to the very first rank, both as regards the number of its pictures and its importance as illustrating the history of painting. In 1859 it contained 593 pictures, of which 259 were by the 'Old Masters,' and 334 of the British School. The latter included Mr. Vernan's munificent gift of 157 paintings--all, with the exception of two, by English artists; and those bequeathed by Turner to the nation, consisting of 282 of his own finished and unfinished pictures, and no less than 19,331 water-colour drawings and sketches by his own indefatigable hand-a collection unrivalled for its beauty, variety and instructiveness.

At the present time the National Gallery possesses above

* We regret that we cannot refer to the new edition of the full Catalogue, the publication of which has been long delayed.

† 'Quarterly Review,' April, 1859.

1200 pictures, of which about 720 are by the Old Masters'—the number having thus nearly trebled within the space of one generation. Of the British school there are about 450 examples. In addition, the Trustees, under the authority of a recent Act of Parliament, have lent to various Government and Provincial Institutions 180 pictures in their keeping as part of the national collection. No other European gallery has shown so rapid an increase within so short a period.

If we eliminate from the most famous European collections pictures of very inferior merit, and unworthy of exhibition, or by painters who have no claim to a place in the history of Art, we shall find that, although in actual numbers, and in the best examples of the greatest masters, the National Gallery may be inferior to some of them, it may claim superiority to them all as regards completeness, variety, and value to the art-historian and student. Many of us have felt the oppressive dreariness of the acres of painted canvas which cover the walls of the Louvre, scarcely relieved by the many gems which that vast aggregation of uninteresting works contains. Few persons, if any, we venture to say, will have experienced a similar sensation in the National Gallery, the pre-eminent feature of which is, that it contains scarcely one picture which the most fastidious critic would be disposed to remove, and which does not deserve a place there either from its merits as a work of Art, or as illustrating a period, or forming a link in a school, and consequently essential to the completeness of the collection. The power of sale conferred by an Act of Parliament upon the Trustees and Director has enabled them to weed it of pictures unworthy of a place in it-a power of which they availed themselves to sell a number of works by unknown early German painters, which Mr. Gladstone, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the exercise of his own judgment, had purchased for the nation from a collector of the name of Kruger.*

Among the additions to the collection of the Old Masters made since our previous article was written, are many of the highest interest and importance. We may, perhaps, assign the first place in both these respects, and on account of the extreme rarity and value of the painters' works, to The Virgin and Child with the Infant St. John and an Angel,' by Leonardo da Vinci,

2800l. was paid for these sixty-four worthless pictures, only four of which have been considered as fit to remain in the National Gallery. Ten were sent to Dublin-no compliment to the Irish or their public Gallery, now one of real interest and importance under the able management of Mr. Henry Doyle. Thirtyseven were sold at Christie's for 2497. 8s., averaging about 67. 145. each! See 'Return of all Pictures purchased for the National Gallery,' &c. Presented to the House of Lords, 1860.

purchased in 1880 from Lord Suffolk for 9000l. Before the acquisition of this picture the National Gallery was witho it any example of this great master-from his universal acquirements, from the influence that he exercised upon art, and from his genius, one of the greatest that ever lived. The one long attributed to him, representing Christ disputing with the Doctors,' is now admitted to be by Bernardino Luini, in some respects his follower and imitator, and is ascribed to that gifted and graceful painter in the Catalogue. No great public gallery could be considered complete without an example of Leonardo's work; we may, therefore, consider the Trustees and Director as especially fortunate in having acquired this masterpiece for the nation. As it is well known, there is a repetition of the picture, under the name of the Vierge auz Rochers,' in the Louvre also assigned to Leonardo. Although the two correspond in the general treatment of the subject, they differ in the details. The existance of the Louvre picture has led to doubts being cast upon the authenticity of that in the National Gallery. In these doubts we cannot concur. If there be grounds for any with regard to either picture, we are disposed to believe that they apply to the one in the Louvre, rather than to that in Trafalgar Square.

The history of the latter picture can apparently be traced from the time when it occupied the position for which it was painted. Lomazzo, a writer on the Art of Painting, who lived in the second half the 16th centruy, twice mentions an altarpiece by Leonardo da Vinci as then being in the Chapel of the 'Concezione,' in the Church of S. Francesco at Milan. His description of it applies to that in the National Gallery, and not to that in the Louvre. The picture is again alluded to as being in the same chapel by Carlo Torre, in his description of Milan published in 1674. He adds that it had originally been in the Church of S. Gottardo, whence it was removed to that of S. Francesco by Lodovico il Moro. It is further mentioned in guide-books of Milan, printed in 1737-8 and 1752 as still occupying the same place. But the Abbate Bianconi states in his Nuova Guida di Milano,' published in 1787, that the picture having been removed to a pious institution had been taken from Milan ('passata ad un luogo pio, è partito da noi'). After this time it is no longer spoken of by local writers as among the works of art in that city, which would scarcely have been the case had the picture been still there.

In 1779, the English painter Gavin Hamilton, who had recently returned from Italy, and was then living in Poland Street in London, offered to Lord Lansdowne for sale a picture

by Leonardo da Vinci, which he described, in a letter, as a most capital performance of the master, and never to be got again. On this recommendation it was bought by Lord Lansdowne. After his death it passed into the possession of Lord Suffolk. It corresponds in every respect with the description by Lomazzo and others of the picture once in the Chapel of the 'Concezione,' which, as we have seen, was removed from Milan between 1752 and 1787. There can, therefore, scarcely be any reasonable doubt that the two pictures are identical.

Two ancient, perhaps contemporaneous, copies of his masterpiece-one in the Ambrosiana' at Milan, the other in the Museum at Naples-entirely correspond with the picture in the National Gallery and not with that in the Louvre; the principal difference between the two being that, in the Paris picture, the Angel is indicating with outstretched finger the Infant Christ. to St. John, whilst in the one in the National Gallery the Angel supports, with both hands, the little Baptist. We may consequently assume, with some confidence, that both these copies were made from the altar-piece once in the Chapel of the Concezione,' which must, therefore, at that early period, have been accepted as the genuine work of the master.

As far as our investigations enabled us to judge, there is no such authentic and consecutive history connected with the Vierge aux Rochers' in the Louvre. As to the comparative merits of the two pictures; this must, of course, be a matter of opinion. There exists a written statement by Sir Charles Eastlake that he, M. Passavant, and Dr. Waagen-no mean authorities on such matters-who examined together the National Gallery picture when in the possession of Lord Suffolk, concurred in the opinion, that it was far superior to that in the Louvre.* However this may be-and our opinion coincides with that of these three eminent connoisseurs-it is highly probable that the principal portion of both pictures is by the master's own hand; whilst parts, such as the background, may have been painted by his pupils or assistants. It may be added that the National Gallery picture appears to us to be in better condition-to have suffered less from the fatal brush of the restorer-than its 'replica.'

Although we have given this picture the first place in the

*Sir Charles Eastlake, whose caution and accuracy no one who had the privilege of knowing him would question, wrote to Lord Andover after examining the picture at Charlton:-The foreign connoisseurs (Passavant and Waagen) authorize me to express their opinion, in which I quite concur, that the picture of the Vierge aux Rochers" is far superior to that in the Louvre, and that it is probably the original picture.'

6

additions to the National Gallery on account of the extreme rarity of Leonardo's works, greater public interest was excited by the acquisition for the nation of the altar-piece by Raphael known as the Madonna degli Ansidei,' from the family of Perugia for which it was painted, and the Blenheim Raphael,' from the Palace in which it had hung since it was brought to this country by a member of the Marlborough family towards the end of the last century. For this purchase the House of Commons voted a special grant of 70,000l.-the largest sum ever paid for a single picture. The Government which agreed to give this large price, and the Trustees of the National Gallery who recommended the purchase, have been accused by some of squandering the public money; but not by the public in general, who find profit and enjoyment in such things, and who are justly proud of our great national collections. It was, indeed, public opinion that induced, if it did not compel, the Government to acquire this celebrated picture. Sir Frederick Leighton, when forwarding to Mr. Gladstone a memorial signed by most of the members of the Royal Academy, strongly urging the purchase of this and other pictures in the Blenheim Collection, writes:

It would be impossible to overstate that anxiety (as to the decision of the Government), partly because the occasion is one of an absolutely unique and unprecedented kind, and partly because the competition which has sprung up of late years in such matters is of that urgent and immediate nature as to admit unfortunately of little, or no hope, I believe, of a middle course.'

A memorial similar to that of the Royal Academicians was presented to the Prime Minister by a numerous body of artists, including the Presidents of the Royal Society and Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours, in which it was declared 'that a stigma would be attached to this generation if, having these pictures in our possession, they are now allowed to leave our shores,' and Mr. Gladstone is implored to prevent an event so disastrous as the loss to the country of the Blenheim masterpieces. A resolution signed by sixty-four members of the House of Commons, including men of all parties and all political opinions-even Mr. Burt, Mr. Broadhurst, and Mr. Labouchere-inviting the Government to purchase the two Blenheim pictures by Raphael and Van Dyck, contained this remarkable declaration :.

The occasion is quite unprecedented, and is so unlikely ever to recur, that we urge the Government to step outside of the hard line of a severe economy in order at one stroke to raise to a higher level the collection of pictures of which the whole nation is proud, and which is