practically unknown Gawen Hamilton (not to be con founded with the later Gavin Hamilton) about whon Mrs Finberg writes in the sixth of the volumes before us Vertue left many notes upon this artist, but Walpol barely mentions him.

Let us briefly glance over the whole field, and se what the Walpole Society's publications have done t supplement existing knowledge.

an

The average educated Englishman is persuaded tha there was no English school of painting before Hogarth and, as to sculpture, it is a received opinion that ther never was an English school. Yet all the evidenc proves that England in the Middle Ages had her school of the arts and the crafts, as flourishing and active as i any country of the Continent. Arts like the illumination of manuscripts and the embroidery of vestments and hangings have happily survived in numerous splendid examples, because such work could be hidden from the ransacking rage of iconoclasts. But the de struction of all the sculpture except the effigies on tomb in the interiors of churches, and the whitewashing o the frescoes on their walls, have left a palpable bareness which seems to accuse our Middle Ages of a poverty o imagination which is far from the reality. Some of the remains of the Westminster School of painting, stil existing, and reproduced by the Walpole Society from Mr Tristram's water-colour copies, arouse poignant feelings of regret and loss. Mr Lethaby, than whom no one speaks with more authority, tells us that

'the most brilliant period of English art was the second half of the 13th century, and its chief centre was West minster, where, under the patronage of Henry III, a great concourse of artists gathered from all parts of Europe to assist in the works which that king was always undertaking at Westminster and at his other palaces.'

Walpole says of that monarch—

'Henry's reign is one of the most ignominious in our annals; that of Edward the First of the most triumphant. Yet I would ask by which of the two did the nation suffer most? By sums lavished on favourites and buildings, or by sums and blood wasted in unjust wars? Who will own that

he had not rather employ Master William and Edward of Westminster to paint the gestes of the Kings of Antioch, than imitate the son in his barbarities in Wales, and usurpations in Scotland?'

William of Westminster was a monk and 'the King's beloved painter.' Mr Lethaby suggests that he may be the author of the noble wall-painting in St Faith's Chapel in the Abbey ;' and to Master Walter of Durham he would tentatively ascribe another wonderful work also painted about 1270, namely, the retable now preserved in the Jerusalem Chamber. The Walpole Society has reproduced in colour (Vol. 1), Mr Tristram's fine copy from one of the panels of the retable, and also his copy from the head of Edward the Confessor, painted on the back of one of the sedilia in the choir of the church. The exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum of a series of the water-colour copies on which Mr Tristram has spent so much skill and patience must have opened the eyes of many. With that severe yet ardent figure of St Faith before them they must have felt that English art in the time of Cimabue was no negligible thing.

Mr Lethaby's researches disclose the names of many English medieval painters (though there are few works to which we can attach the names) and yield a number of interesting particulars about the London Guild of Painters. Would that we could discover the painter of the magnificent portrait of Richard II in Westminster Abbey! There are, of course, critics who maintain that this, and the exquisite diptych at Wilton, representing the same king with saints, are foreign work; but there is no evidence that disproves their English origin. These two pictures stand out with a peculiar splendour from the English pictorial traditions of the Middle Ages. For, as Mr Strange says in his article on the Rood Screen at Cawston in Norfolk-again illustrated in colour from copies by Mr Tristram-English medieval art for the most part, abundant and flourishing as it was, exhibits 'a high level of craftsmanship, but little individuality.'

The history of early sculpture in this country is fairly parallel with that of the early painting. In both cases, clues and links in the history are lacking, through

the systematic destruction. But far more survives of mediæval figure-sculpture than is usually assumed Prof. Prior of Cambridge contributed to the Walpol Society's first volume a documented and well-illustrate introduction to the subject. The 13th century wa the finest period of English sculpture, of which WellTM Cathedral supplies the richest series for study. To th same century belongs an extremely interesting relic o English art-the figured tiles made at Chertsey or i the neighbourhood. Mr Lethaby published in the secon volume a number of tiles originally in Chertsey Abbey illustrating the Romance of Tristram and Iseult' remarkable documents which have been curiously neglected.' These tiles are in all probability the earlies extant illustrations to the Romance; but, apart from this historical interest, the designs are of real beauty full of vigour as of grace. Such fragments spea eloquently for much that Time has lost us.

The English style of painting influenced the art o Norway and Sweden in the early Middle Ages. In th 15th century, altar-pieces of alabaster, carved in England were exported to all parts of the Continent, and ar still to be found in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, an Scandinavia. But probably it was in manuscript illumi nation that our mediæval painting most excelled. Fron the fifth century, when Irish monasteries began t produce the marvels of pure design which distinguis the Celtic school, till the early 15th century, there i a scarcely interrupted tradition, varied by the adoption of elements and influences from outside, but fused int a style which passed through different phases yet kep a native character. Through Alcuin of York, and hi long labours for Charlemagne, it helped to create th Carolingian school in France. And for part of the 13th and 14th centuries the mature Anglo-Norma school displays an excellence scarcely rivalled OI the Continent. This field of art, having rich materia for study, has become comparatively familiar ground but Mr J. A. Herbert's article on the illuminations in & Royal Psalter painted in the transitional style of the beginning of the 13th century, will be none the less welcome to students. With the invention of printing manuscript illumination received its death-blow. With

the Reformation, medieval art and its traditions perished. And now, with Holbein, began the dominance of the foreigner in the art of England.

'Every old picture,' says Walpole, 'is not a Holbein.' The phrase sufficiently attests the power of Holbein's name; and we know how many smaller reputations have been absorbed by its splendour. Every portrait of Henry VIII is still popularly attributed to Holbein, though he was dead before the great majority of them were painted. Who were the painters who succeeded him? One of the most notable and prolific masters of the time is a painter whose signature H.E. in monogram form is found on a great number of portraits. Vertue suggested that these portraits were the work of Lucas d'Heere of Ghent, painter and poet, who came to England as a refugee from Spanish persecution in 1568 and remained here till 1576. This old attribution, to which Walpole gave currency, has been accepted ever since. The difficulty is that there are portraits signed with this monogram bearing dates ten or more years earlier than D'Heere's arrival in London. If the painter is not D'Heere, who can he be?

The problem has been solved and many of the painter's works have been described in an essay by Mr Lionel Cust (Walpole Society, Vol. II). The Lumley Inventories which have now been printed in the Society's sixth volume, supply the clue. The artist is now identified beyond all doubt as Haunce (or Hans) Eworth, variously spelt Euwouts, Ewottes, or Heward. He came from Antwerp, of which town he was native, and settled in England about 1543. He was still working here in 1574, at which time he was making designs for Masques for Queen Elizabeth's Office of the Revels. Henceforward Eworth's name must take a conspicuous place in the annals of our early portraiture. He was a master of secondary rank, but of no mean talent. Some of his work seems to have passed hitherto under the name of that masculine delineator, Antonio Moro; and who that has seen it can forget that artist's masterpiece in the Prado, the tragic portrait of Mary Tudor? Eworth also painted that queen. At Woburn is a portrait of her with her husband; she sits in a room with brocaded hangings on the walls and a window opening on the river. Philip stands beside

Titian

her; and, with Titian's portrait in one's mind, it is curious to note the puny appearance of the man. had given him in some subtle way a melancholy dignity; Eworth's vision reflects him more literally.

The extensive catalogue of portraits by or attributed to Eworth, which Mr Cust has compiled, forms a very solid contribution to the history of Tudor portraiture. It has already enabled other students to add to the list of the painter's works; as witness the notes contributed by Miss Mary Hervey and Mr Richard Goulding to the Walpole Society's third volume. A similar substantial addition to our knowledge is Mr Cust's catalogue of portraits by Marcus Gheerardts the younger in the same volume. Mr Cust's concluding note of warning 'that some of the earlier portraits may be the work of Gower, and some of the later that of John de Critz or Robert Peake,' indicates that there is still plenty of research-work to be done. But Mr Cust's labours make his successors' easier; they form a landmark for the study of painting in England. The profuse illustrations to these catalogues are invaluable. Were all the old pictures in English country-houses photographed and published (portentous enterprise!), many problems now troubling students would automatically solve themselves. Meanwhile the numerous reproductions given by the Walpole Society are the best possible foundation.

But the 16th-century painter who claims our warmest interest is a true-born Englishman, and, as seems specially to befit an Elizabethan worthy, a man of Devon. Nicholas Hilliard did not compete with the panel-painters of portraits, since he confined himself to miniature. In this art he is the first great English master. Something of the old tradition of the illuminators, who made the vellum pages of manuscripts so rich and comely, seems to revive in Hilliard; he has a singular delicacy, a fine decorative sense, and a love of his materials such as the old monks had. What a refreshment it is, after the rather wooden presentments of Elizabethan men and women so frequent on the walls of old country-houses, to take into one's hands a miniature by Hilliard! It is not only that his portraits are so intimate and alive, so free from pose and pomposity, and the painter's interest