BY W. NOEL JOHNSON.

Never before in the history of this country has so much attention been given to the various branches of art as we find at the present time. We have one or more Art Galleries for permanent collections of pictures, and Annual Exhibitions of modern works by various and many societies,. in all our principal cities and towns. We have Art Schools, Academies and Guilds, in all parts of the country; from the Wood-carving School in the woods of Aviemore, to the Art Department of South Kensington— from the small Academy of a provincial town to the Academy "Royal" of Burlington House. The press is constantly giving us works on art, technical, biographical, or historical; we have many magazines specially devoted to art; while hundreds of books and periodicals, even the daily papers, are embellished more or less with illustrations.

This being so, it may not be unprofitable or uninteresting to turn our attention for a short time to some consideration of the condition of art in England during the last century.

Comparisons sometimes are odious; but we may at once say that in this instance it will not be so; and that, however interesting the comparison may be, it will show that

the honour and glory of this branch of polite learning belong to the England of to-day.

Our purpose is to give a picture, necessarily brief, but with as many details as space will permit, of the various kinds of art practised during the Eighteenth Century (chiefly the earlier part), and the nature of the patronage they received.

Whatever may have been the cause, art was a slow and late development in this country compared with the other countries of Europe in which it has flourished. In Italy, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, it had bloomed and yielded rich fruit, long before it was even planted by a native of England. It may be only natural to suppose that in more luxuriant lands under sunnier skies, art should ripen earlier than in a country like ours, with its duller sky and inhabited by a "nation of shopkeepers." But why we should have been preceded by the Netherlands, where the climate and commercial interests are very similar to our own, is not so easy to explain. Such, however, is the fact, explain it how we will.

This backwardness seems stranger still when we consider that we were not wanting in other branches of learning and art. Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and the cluster of men of letters who lived during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.; Bacon, Hobbes, and Newton in philosophy and science; and Purcell in music, had left us a rich and varied inheritance long before we could boast of possessing an English Painter of note.

We must, however, not omit to mention that one branch of art formed an exception, namely, the painting of miniatures. We had possessed miniature painters of eminence from the time of Elizabeth; for Nicholas Hilliard ho lived during her reign produced very beautiful and highly finished works. Hilliard was followed by Isaac and Peter

Oliver, John Hoskyns, and Samuel Cooper, in whose hands the art attained a perfection which has never been exceeded.

Miniature is easily understood; it lends itself to the affections; its beauty and finish are charms which appeal to all, and everybody can appreciate its merits. It was probably for these reasons that it was the earliest form of painting practised in this country. The Tudor Exhibition held in Manchester in 1897, gave us the privilege of seeing some of the best work of this kind in existence; a privilege we may never have again.

The eighteenth century was by no means deficient in patrons of art, and those men who could supply the wants of the time found plenty of employment and were very well remunerated. The following branches of art were in request, namely:-The painting of miniatures-portraits and histories; Topographic work for the antiquary, and landscapes. This list sounds very similar to the various kinds of work in vogue to day, and so it is; but in some of these branches the similarity goes little further than. the name, the purpose for which they were produced being so widely different. The tastes and requirements of the time gave colour and character in a very remarkable manner to the work produced, and as an inevitable consequence it contained little nature and less art, that is, art expressed in a free and spontaneous manner, true to local colour and feeling.

The dearth of native artists was not owing to want of patronage, but to a rooted idea that in the world of art the foreigner was supreme. There was of course a very good and just cause for this idea at first, and in fact for nearly two centuries, but it became so firmly fixed in the minds of English patrons that at last it was like some incubus which held them fast; some brightly coloured

venomous serpent which enthralled native artistic talent, with no friendly Perseus to liberate it. The casting off of these enslaving bonds had to be effected by the artists themselves; it did not arise from the enlightened taste or discernment of those who employed them except in a few notable and isolated instances.

Before speaking of the art and its patronage of the century before us, it will be advisable to give a very brief outline of the previous history of Art in England. This will enable us to form a clearer and more correct conception of the conditions and tendencies which existed at the dawn of the period under consideration.

The first of our sovereigns to patronize art to any extent was Henry VIII. He was fond of magnificence and show, possessed an overflowing treasury, and in rivalry with the sovereigns of France and Spain, he spent liberally in encouraging painters, architects, goldsmiths, and all who could satisfy his love of pompous display. He invited to England Raphael, Primaticcio, and Titian, but they were not tempted by his munificence. Holbein, who had been induced to visit England by Sir Thomas More, he was, however, able to retain in his service. A large number of this artist's works, including many portraits of Henry with great variations, were shewn in the Tudor Exhibition already referred to. At the same time we also had the opportunity of seeing Holbein's portrait of Christina, Duchess-Dowager of Milan, Henry's intended successor to Jane Seymour. This lady's ready wit in reply to Henry's message should not be forgotten :—“ Alas!" said she, "the King of England asks me to be his wife; what answer shall I give to him? I am unfortunate enough to have but one head; had I two, one of them should be at his majesty's service."

Queen Elizabeth appears next as a patron of art. She

employed Lucas de Heere, a Fleming, as court painter; and during her reign we hear of Nicholas Hilliard, already mentioned, of whom Dr. Donne said :—

CC An hand or eye

By Hilliard drawn, is worth a history

By a worse painter made."

James I. took little or no interest in art, although some notable foreigners worked in England during his reign. Under Charles I. we find a far different state of things, and one very auspicious for the art of this country. He not only possessed talent, founded on a due appreciation of art, but became a large purchaser of foreign works, giving it is said as much as £80,000 for one collection alone. His example was also followed by others, whose purchases greatly increased England's treasures of Art. Lilly tells us of Charles that "in painting he had so excellent a fancy, that he would supply the defect of art in the workmen, and suddenly draw those lines, and give those airs and lights which experience had not taught the painter." Whether this was strictly true, or inevitable flattery, matters not, for it is certain that Charles gave great encouragement to art. He induced Rubens to come to England and paint for him, and through his patronage Vandyke settled in this country. The work done by these great artists had a two-fold effect, it not only influenced the work of such native men as were painting, but it was the means of inducing other foreign painters to come to England. Had not the political events of Charles's reign been so unhappy, it is impossible to say to what a high state the Arts might have attained under his care and patronage.

* These were Faul Vansomer, Cornelius Jansen, and Daniel Mytens. Although James was no lover of art, these artists found much employment among the wealthy and distinguished families in painting portraits.

F