lines; and he shows himself an apt and accomplished pupil who had thoroughly learned the kind of thing which Gerard David might have taught him. To the same category, only even more elaborate, belong the astounding little triptych at Palermo and the almost equally wonderful copies and imitations of it, one of which turned up a few years ago in Bolivia and is now in New York. Another composition derived from the same original has recently been put forward as a signed work of Cornelis van Coninxloo. It belongs to M. de Richter and there is a replica of it in Germany in the collection of Freiherr von Hövel. If Dr Friedländer is right in ascribing the Doria diptych to Mabuse, we find him ther actually copying a Van Eyck picture (c. 1505) for a Italian patron, who took it to Venice; whilst in many even of his later pictures the influence of Van Eyck car be clearly traced. Mabuse was essentially a dependen artist who was ready to yield to and be influenced by al sorts of styles of work with which he came in contact Italy had a most pernicious influence upon him. It was only in portraiture that he maintained a continuously high level of achievement. To his known works in that kind an important addition has recently been made by the discovery of a notable portrait of his patron, Jean de Carondelet, of about 1531. His earlier portrait of the same personage, dated 1517, is well known in the Louvre A charming portrait of a little girl by him is a recen addition to the National Gallery.

It is impossible to follow further the fortunes of the Antwerp school, or to refer, even in the briefest fashion to the numerous additions made in recent years to ou knowledge of its many good artists of the first half o the sixteenth century. All we can now do is to devote few lines to the neighbouring school of Brussels, th subject which Dr Friedländer has been most recentl illuminating in two learned articles in the Prussia Museum Jahrbuch.' After calling attention to the cor siderable blank that exists in our knowledge of Brussel art between the death of Roger van der Weyden and th beginning of Van Orley's activity, and after reminding us that the busy tapestry weavers of Brussels probably gave a great deal of work to nameless local artists, and incidentally affected their style of design to no smal

en

degree, he proceeds to fill the gap, partially at any rate, with the personage of that little known Colin de Coter, by whom there are signed pictures in the Louvre and at Vieure. He was already known also as the painter of a wing in the Kauffmann collection at Berlin and of its pendant, which is no longer in Paris, but forms part of the Widener collection at Philadelphia. To these Dr Friedländer adds some striking full-length saints and angels and a pair of wings containing royal portraits which attracted a good deal of attention when they were shown at the Golden Fleece' Exhibition, as well as one or two Madonna pictures.

Somewhat later than this painter, he thinks, come e or two others to whom he assigns important works. In the artistic medium thus defined he places the rise of Barend van Orley, whose birth-date he fixes at between 14 and 1495. He puts the beginning of his activity as artist about the year 1512, and finds the first recorded ir mention of him in 1515, when he was ordered to paint importraits of the children of Philip the Fair. In the same on year he undertook an altar-piece for Furnes; and Dr ork Friedländer identifies a fragment of it in the Turin Museum. From this, as starting-point, he carries back to about 1512 a picture whose central panel is at Vienna and the wings at Brussels; and to these early works he ads a few more and brings the whole group into order. It must be admitted that Van Orley is not a very stimuating artist; but he was a good craftsman, who spent his life in one locality, and whose work expresses very well the general tendencies of contemporary art in his days.

tune

Years

first

to d

OD

tra

the

Since these pages have been in type, further instalents of Dr Friedländer's study of Van Orley have Brusepeared. It is to be hoped that he intends to follow it with some account of Van Orley's numerous followers hed their relations with the chaotic group of artists at to present labelled under the heading School of Bles.'

th

of 3

den

r re

sels pr

artis

MARTIN CONWAY.

Art. 8.-TOLSTOY AND TURGENIEV.

1. The Works of Turgenev. Translated by Constance Garnett. Fifteen vols. London: Heinemann, 1906. 2. The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy. Translated and edited by Leo Wiener. Twenty-four vols. London Dent, 1904-5.

3. La Roman Russe. By the Vicomte E. M. de Vogüé Paris: Plon, 1897.

4. Tolstoy as Man and Artist: with an Essay on Dostoi evski. By Dimitri Merejkowski. London: Constable 1902.

5. Ivan Turgeniev: la Vie et l'Euvre. By Émile Haumant Paris: Armand Colin, 1906.

6. The Life of Tolstoy. First Fifty Years. First Fifty Years. By Aylme Maude. London: Constable, 1908.

7. A Literary History of Russia. By Prof. A. Brückner Edited by Ellis H. Minns. Translated by H. Havelock London and Leipsic: Fisher Unwin, 1908.

THE eightieth birthday of Count Tolstoy, which was cele brated in Russia on August 28 (old style), 1908, was closely followed by the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Turgeniev, who died on September 3, 1883, at the age of sixty-five. The date of these two anniversaries follows pretty closely on the publication of a translation int English of the complete works of Count Tolstoy by Prof. Wiener; and it is not long ago that a new edition of the complete works of Turgeniev, translated int English by Mrs Garnett, appeared. Both these transla tions have been made with great care, and are faithfu and accurate. Thirty years ago it is certain that Euro pean critics, and probable that Russian critics, woul have observed, in commenting on the concurrence o these two events, that Tolstoy and Turgeniev were th two giants of modern Russian literature. Is the case th same to-day? Is it still true that, in the opinion o Russia and of Europe, the names of Tolstoy and Turgenie stand pre-eminently above all their contemporaries?

With regard to Tolstoy the question can be answere without the slightest hesitation. Time, which has inflicted such mournful damage on so many great reputations i

ch

Wa

the c

the

the last twenty-five years, has not only left the fame of Tolstoy's masterpieces unimpaired, but has increased our sense of their greatness. The question arises, whose work forms the complement to that of Tolstoy and shares with him the undisputed dominion of modern Russian literature? Is it Turgeniev? In Russia at the present day the answer would be 'No, it is not Turgeniev.' And in Europe students of Russian literature who are acquainted with the Russian language-as we see in M. Emile Haumant's impartial and suggestive study of Turgeniev's life and work, and in Prof. Brückner's brilliant history of Russian literature-would also answer in the negative, although their denial would be less emphatic and less unqualified.

The other giant, the complement of Tolstoy, almost By Russian critic of the present day, without hesitation, uld pronounce to be Dostoievsky; and the foreign itic who is thoroughly acquainted with Dostoievsky's work cannot but agree with him. Since the subject of this paper is not the work of Dostoievsky, but the work of Tolstoy and Turgeniev, I do not propose to go into, the question of the merits and demerits of Dostoievsky; but is impossible not to mention him in this connexion he because the very existence of his work powerfully affects our judgment when we come to look at that of his conries temporaries. We can no more ignore his existence and lat presence and influence than we could ignore the presence Toof a colossal fresco by Leonardo da Vinci in a room in newwhich there were only two other religious pictures, one

Rembrandt and one by Vandyck. For any one who familiar with Dostoievsky, and has felt his tremendous fence, cannot look at the work of his contemporaries ith the same eyes as before. To such a one the rising Dostoievsky's red and troubled planet, while causing the rays of Turgeniev's serene star to pale and to dwindle, eres the light of Tolstoy's orb undiminished and undiumed. Tolstoy and Dostoievsky shine and burn in the firmament of Russian literature like two great planets, one of them as radiant as the planet Jupiter, the other as red and ominous as the planet Mars. Beside either of these the light of Turgeniev twinkles, pure indeed, and full of pearly lustre, like the moon faintly seen in the East at the end of an autumnal day.

Broad generalisations are rash things to make. They involve a certain element of exaggeration which must be discounted. Nevertheless I believe that I am stating a deep and fundamental truth in saying that the Russian character can, roughly speaking, be divided into two types, and these two types dominate the whole of Russian literature. The first is that which I shall call for want of a better name, Lucifer, the fallen angel. Th second type is that of the hero of all Russian folk-tale Ivan Durak, Ivan the Fool, or the Little Fool. There ar innumerable folk-tales in Russian which tell the adver tures of Ivan the Fool, who, by his very simplicity an foolishness, outwits the wisdom of the world. This typ is profoundly characteristic of one Russian ideal. Th simple fool is venerated in Russia as something holy It is acknowledged that his childish innocence is mor precious than the wisdom of the wise. Ivan Durak ma be said to be the hero of all Dostoievsky's novels. Hei the aim and ideal of Dostoievsky's life, an aim and ideal which he fully achieves. He is also the aim and ideal of Tolstoy's teaching, but an aim and ideal which Tolstoy recommends to others and only partly achieves himself.

The first type I have called, for want of a better name since I can find no concrete symbol of it in Russian folk lore, Lucifer, the fallen angel. This type is the embodi ment of stubborn and obdurate pride, the spirit which cannot bend; such is Milton's Satan with his

'Courage never to submit or yield,

And what is else not to be overcome.'

One of the most striking type, which I have com Nazarenko, who was He was a tall, power

This type is also widely prevalent in Russia, although i cannot be said to be a popular type, embodied like Ivar the Fool in a national symbol. instances of this, the Lucifer across was a peasant called member of the first Duma. fully built, rugged looking man, spare and rather thir with clear-cut, prominent features, black, penetrating eyes, and thick black tangled hair. He looked as if h had stepped out of a sacred picture by Velasquez. Thi man had the pride of Lucifer. There was at that time in July 1905, an Inter-parliamentary Congress sitting in London. Five delegates of the Russian Duma wer