room in which they hang to take fire, their destruction would be but the work of a few minutes; and were the palace to take fire, in a distant part, they could not be removed without certain, and probably great, injury, for they are too large to pass through the doors or windows. It is frightful therefore to reflect that their present home is not fire-proof; though, on every other account, it is admirably calculated for their preservation.

I saw them, for the first time, forty-three years ago. Holloway was then engraving them, and the "Sacrifice at Lystra" was standing on the floor. It is the most injured, and my attention was particularly called to its state, and I cannot now detect in it the least change for the worse, nor can I see any alteration in the others. Sir Christopher Wren has shown great judgment in building a room for them as far as he had space at his disposal. No doubt, had it been in his power, he would have made it long enough to admit them in one line opposite the windows, where they would all have received that equal reflected light that the five so placed do receive, and by which they are not only well seen, but less liable to fade than in a stronger light. The room, being to the north, is never invaded by the sun, and scarcely by flies, and those that do find their way to it remain at the windows; and whenever I have examined the Cartoons closely, I have been unable to detect fly-marks on their surface. It is true they would be better seen somewhat lower, but not so well if they stood on the floor, and even then their high horizons would not be level with the spectator's eye. But, indeed, there is a para

mount reason for their high situations, the necessity of their being above the reach of fingers.

It has been suggested, in case of their removal to London, that they should be covered with glass. This might preserve them from smoke, but it would very much hide them from sight. I have spent much time in this, of all the galleries in England the most interesting to an artist, and I can answer for the extreme care taken of the Cartoons by the gentleman who has charge of the state-rooms of the Palace; and all that can be hoped is, that, if ever there should be a change in their locality, they may be placed where they will be as well cared for.

Their removal to London, it is to be hoped, will never again be thought of. But might not a fire-proof room, on the plan of their present one, as far as it is advantageous, be connected with the Palace that now holds them?

66

Although, at Hampton Court, there are a great number of mere furniture pictures, yet, independently of the Cartoons, the collection is interesting as containing a few of the remains of that splendid one formed by Charles I. Of these the Tintorets, the 'Esther," and the "Muses," are the most important, and I know not that there are any other works of Tintoret in England equal to them. There are also some fine Bassans, though few of these are placed where they can be seen, and an excellent Palma, the "Shepherd's Offering." Of the pictures by Jan de Mabuse (James IV. of Scotland and his Queen), that of the king is the finest. The face of the king has been injured and repainted, but the rest of the picture

is in a good condition, and the effect of the whole is surprisingly fresh and bright in colour.* The "Adoration of the Magi," by Carlo Cagliari, is also a fine specimen of colour, and, being in a very good condition, I would strongly recommend it as a study, though it is not possible to see the entire picture from any one point, as it is placed opposite to the windows of the room. Indeed it is much to be regretted that the best pictures in this collection are, in but few instances, placed where they can well be seen, while so much space is occupied by large works of no interest or merit, such as the Sebastian Riccis, and Kneller's equestrian picture of William III. Of the portraits, of which there are many good ones, I shall have occasion to speak in another section. A very interesting portion of the pictures collected by Charles I. is the series, in distemper, by Andrea Mantegna, representing a triumph of Julius Cæsar. Essentially opposed as their early and immature style is to that of Rubens,

* Pilkington, who makes Jan de Mabuse too young to have painted them, is corrected by Bryant, who, no doubt, rightly dates his birth in or near the year in which Albert Durer was born. These pictures were, evidently, the wings or shutters to an altar-piece, probably destroyed during the Reformation in Scotland. On the reverse of the first is painted God supporting the body of Christ, and on the other a portrait of a middle-aged man kneeling, and behind him two angels, one of whom plays on an organ. The four pictures are not unworthy of Albert Durer himself; they require some little reparation, and are richly deserving of every possible care. They, as well as the little, highly-finished, faded picture of three of the children of Henry VII., disprove, I think, the authenticity of the "Adam and Eve," and another picture at Hampton Court, attributed to Jan de Mabuse.

still their gaiety and picturesque magnificence must have been very captivating to the great restorer of the Flemish school, as, on the most beautiful of the series, that where the elephants appear, he founded a rich composition, parts of which are strictly copied from Mantegna, while other parts are entirely his own. It is in the possession of Mr. Rogers.

SECTION XIV.

On the Flemish and Dutch Painters of the
Seventeenth Century.

BARRY nearly placed himself out of the pale of Art when he wrote-"Rubens, Rembrandt, Vandyke, Teniers, and Skalken, are without the pales of my church," because, whatever the deficiencies of the greatest of these painters, the mind that could be insensible to their merit must have a very limited perception of any of the excellences of Painting. The last name on the list forms an anti-climax that clearly proves how well Barry had kept his resolution of holding "no intercourse" with the others. Had he spent the time he wasted in transcribing Burke's "Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful," in rightly studying Rubens and Rembrandt, he would have discovered that all that is sublime and beautiful is not confined to the antique, or monopolised by the Italians, and his large canvases in the Adelphi might perhaps be regarded with more interest than they have ever excited.

Fuseli, a critic of a very different order, speaks of Rubens and Rembrandt as "meteors in Art." But if their light was sudden in its appearance, it has been enduring in its influence. Rubens was the regenerator of the Flemish school, of which the painters imme