my author says from a basrelief of Angelo, I rather suppose it was the famous Leda of Correggio destroyed by the bigotry of the regent's son, all Paris was struck with the performance. The Duc de la Force gave twelve thousand livres for it, but the Duke being a sufferer by the Mississipi [probably before the picture was paid for] restored it to Arlaud, with 4000 livres for the time he had enjoyed it.* In 1721 Arlaud brought this chef d'œuvre to London, but would not sell it-but sold a copy of it, says the same author, for six hundred pounds sterling. This fact is quite increbible. The painter was at least so much admired, that he received many presents of medals, which are still in the library of Geneva. But poor Leda was again condemned to be the victim of devotion-in 1738 Arlaud himself destroyed her in a fit of piety, yet still with so much parental fondness, that he cut her to pieces anatomically. This happened at Geneva. Mons. de Champeau, then resident there from France, obtained the head and one foot of the dissected; a lady got an arm. The Comte de Lautrec, then at Geneva, and not quite so scrupulous, rated Arlaud for demolishing so fine a work. The painter died May 25, 1743. These particularities are extracted from the poems * [He had been recommended by the Princess Palatine to Q. Caroline, then Princess of Wales, whose portrait procured for him the patronage of the nobility, and very ample remuneration. He may be ranked among the rich painters.] of Mons. de Bar, printed at Amsterdam in three volumes, 1750. In the third volume is an ode on the Leda in question. Vertue speaks incidentally of the noise this picture made in London, but says nothing of the extravagant price of the copy. The Duchess of Montagu has a head of her father when young, and another of her grandfather the great Duke of Marlborough, both in water-colours by Arlaud.* The celebrated Count Hamilton wrote a little poem to him on his portrait of the Pretender's sister. See his works, vol. iv. p. 279. MRS. HOADLEY, whose maiden name was Sarah Curtis, was disciple of Mrs. Beal, and a paintress of portraits by profession, when she was so happy as to become the wife of that great and good man, Dr. Hoadley, afterwards Bishop of Winchester. From that * [Now in the Collection of the Duchess of Buccleugh.] † [These verses have been attributed by Descamps, v. iv. p. 118, to another occasion-to the portrait of Caroline Princess of Wales, afterwards Queen of England. They are worthy of the lively author of the Memoires de Grammont, and conclude "Mais si l'art avoit la puissance Aussi loin qu'elle peut aller '; Il faut exprimer ses graces dans la danse, Il faudroit la faire parler." [The portrait of the Bishop of Winton, by Sarah Curtis, his second wife, is in the Archbishop's dining-room at Lambeth.] time she only practised the art for her amusement; though if we may judge of her talents by the print from her portrait of Whiston, the art lost as much as she gained-but ostentation was below the simplicity of character that enobled that excellent family. She died in 1743. In the library at Chatsworth, in a collection of poems is one addressed by a lady to Mrs. Sarah Hoadley on her excellent painting. REMARKS. A single century had effected a decline of the Art of Painting in this country, which can be truly ascertained by comparison only,-in History, from Rubens to Thornhill-in Portrait, from Vandyck to Jervas. The cause cannot be fairly attributed to the want of competent reward, for sums of money were paid for allegories upon ceilings and staircases, and for portraits, in the reigns of Queen Anne and her successor, equivalent to any that were received by the predecessors of these inferior painters. But in fact, the art itself was not so well understood, or so scientifically or perfectly practised; the knowledge of its principles was possessed by very few, who did practise it; and a taste prevailed among the noble and opulent individuals in society, to collect the works of foreign masters, rather than to encourage those of our own nation. Their ambition to excel in the higher branches of art, was chilled and checked by invidious comparison. Taste in painting was not then cultivated nor taught to men of polite literature, by the numerous essays concerning its theory, which the better informed connoisseurs have given to the present age. Some attempt indeed was made (but without success as to its intended purpose) in 1711; to give academic instruction to the profession, by a few artists, with Sir Godfrey Kneller at their head. And, when the application for a national establishment was proposed to Government by Sir James Thornhill, in 1724, and refused, he commenced an academy in his own house, equally limited in number and duration. The Essays of Richardson, founded upon a just feeling and extensive knowledge, contributed much to form the judgment and correct the taste of those who studied them critically; notwithstanding, the almost exclusive employment of portrait painting, rendered higher acquirements in art, of comparatively little value to themselves. The public were at that period unprepared to judge of any thing, saving the likeness, which they naturally considered as the true test of the painter's talent. They were implicitly influenced by the praise which any painter could gain from the popular poets of that day. When the poets and painters became intimate friends, candour must allow that there was an abundance of reciprocal flattery. Kneller owed much of his success, and Jervas all of it, to Pope; who repaid him in turn by a sentimental likeness, from which the actual deformity of the poet could never have been known to posterity. The most severe satirists, it is obvious to remark, are not always the most honest or wise panegyrists. Pope was so ignorant of classical art, and the costume of the ancients, as to have consulted Kneller respecting the figures to be introduced in the representation of the Shield of Achilles, for his translation of the Iliad. Fuseli, in his second lecture, marks the decline of Painting with his enthusiastic and vigorous pencil. "Charles II. with the Cartoons in his possession, and with the magnificence of Whitehall before his eyes, suffered Verrio to contaminate the walls of his palaces; or degraded Lely to paint the Cymons and Iphigenias of his court; whilst the manner of Kneller swept completely away, what might yet be left of taste under his successors. Such was the equally contemptible and deplorable state of English art, till the genius of Reynolds first rescued his own branch from the mannered depravation of foreigners, and soon extended his view to the higher departments of art." p. 98. Richardson triumphantly anticipates a contrast to his own times; and the eminence which Britain was destined to hold in Europe, in the scale of modern art, above most other nations. "I am no prophet (says he) nor the son of a prophet, but in considering the necessary concatenation of causes and effects, and in judging by some few visible links of the chain, I feel assured, that if ever the true taste of the ancients revives in full vigour and purity, it will be in England." Of the value of Richardson's work, a just estimate may be formed by an anecdote related by Dr. Johnson, in his Life of Cowley. "True genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally determined to some particular direction. Sir Joshua Reynolds, the great painter of the present age, had his first fondness for his art, excited by the perusal of Richardson's treatise." Did not this early prepossession in favour of his beloved art, so amply informed and excited, inspire the young artist, with the ambition of becoming one day, the Founder of the British School, both by his practice and his precepts ? |