(_For the Mirror_.)
Whether the French were first indebted to the Roman school for their
knowledge of the art of painting is a matter of some doubt; indeed, several
celebrated French writers affirm, that they first had recourse to the
Florentine and Lombard schools; while others very strenuously declare, on
the other hand, that the Venetian artists were alone resorted to, on
account of the remarkable splendour of their colouring. A late author,
however, observes, that the French do not appear to have imitated any
school whatever, but to have adopted a style peculiar to themselves, which
though perhaps not a noble one, is nevertheless pleasing. Though it is
acknowledged that the French have a particular style, (i.e. a style of
their own,) yet their progress in the arts has been exceedingly fluctuating
and uncertain, so that it is actually impossible to ascertain who was the
first reputable artist amongst them. Cousin was a painter on glass, and
certainly obtained a good reputation amongst his countrymen. But he in fact
possessed very little merit, and his name would not doubtless have been
known to posterity had he not lived in a barbarous age, when the people
knew not how to discriminate his errors and defects. He was supposed to be
the best artist of his day, and consequently gained a reputation as such,
though his works are far beneath mediocrity.
Francis I. was a great encourager of the fine arts, and the artists
themselves were liberally paid for their productions, until that king was
unfortunately taken prisoner at the battle of Pavia, in the year 1525.
After the death of Francis, the kingdom was distracted with civil wars, so
that painting was entirely neglected by his immediate successors. In the
year 1610, however, Louis XIII. recovered the arts from their languid
state. In his reign, Jaques Blanchard was the most flourishing painter;
although Francis Perier, Simon Voüet, C.A. Du Fresnoy, and Peter Mignard,
were equally gifted.
Of Charles Alphonse Du Fresnoy, author of a Latin poem, entitled _De Arte
Graphica_, I shall attempt a little account. This painter was born at Paris
in the year 1611. His father, intending him for the profession of physic,
sent him to the university of Paris, where he made great progress in his
studies, and obtained several prizes in poetry. He had a great inclination
for painting as well as for poetry, and, though much against his father's
desire, resolved to leave off the study of physic, and commence that of
drawing. The force of his inclination subduing every measure adopted to
suppress it, he took every opportunity of cultivating his favourite study.
Leaving college, he placed himself under Francis Perier, from whom he
learned the art of designing. He afterwards thought fit to travel into
Italy, where he arrived in 1633. Being abandoned by his parents, who were
highly incensed at his having rejected the study of physic, he was reduced
to the utmost distress on his arrival at Rome, and was compelled to paint
trifling pieces for his daily subsistence. After two years of extreme toil
and difficulty, he was relieved by the arrival of Mignard, the artist, who
had formerly been the companion of his studies. Mignard evinced the warmest
regard for his friend, and they were afterwards known in Rome by the name
of the _inseparables_, for they lived in the same house, worked together,
and united the produce of their labours. They were employed to copy all the
best pictures in the Farnese Palace, and every evening attended an academy
of drawing. Mignard was superior in practice, while Fresnoy was perfect
master of the rules, history, and theory of his profession. They
communicated their sentiments to each other, Fresnoy furnishing his friend
with noble ideas, and the latter instructing the former to paint with more
ease and dispatch. Fresnoy painted several fine pictures in Rome, and, in
1653, he left that city, in company with his friend, travelled to Venice,
and then to Lombardy. Here the two friends parted,[3] Mignard returning to
Rome, and Fresnoy to his native city. After his arrival in Paris, he
painted some beautiful historical pictures, which established his
reputation. He perfectly understood architecture, and drew designs for many
elegant mansions in Paris. During his travels in Italy, he planned and
composed his _De Arte Graphica_, an excellent poem, full of valuable
information, and containing unerring rules for the painter. This poem was
twenty years in hand, and was not published until three years[4] after the
author's death, which took place in 1665. It has been observed, that
Fresnoy possessed the genius requisite for forming a great master; and had
he applied himself more strictly to painting, and educated pupils, he would
doubtless have proved one of the greatest painters France ever produced.
But, possessing high literary talents, he chose to lay down _precepts_ for
his countrymen, rather than to present them with _examples_ of his art. He
adhered too closely to the theory of painting, neglecting the more
essential part--practice.
[3] When Mignard returned to Paris in 1658, he again went to reside
with his friend.
[4] It appeared at Paris, in 12mo., with a French translation by
Mons. Du Piles, 1668.
In the reign of Louis XIV., Nicholas Poussin distinguished himself as a
painter, by displaying exquisite knowledge and great skill in composition.
He generally painted ancient ruins, landscapes, and historical figures. He
was likewise well acquainted with the manners and customs of the ancients;
and, though he educated no pupils, and never had any imitators, his
pictures are universally admired in every European country. Charles le
Brun[5] established the French school,--an undertaking which Voüet had
previously attempted. Le Brun drew well, had a ready conception, and a
fertile imagination. His compositions are vast, but, in various instances,
they may justly be termed _outre_. He possessed the animation, but not the
inspiration of Raphael; and his design is not so pure as that of
Domenichino, nor so lively as that of Annibale Caracci. Eustache le Seur,
Le Brun's rival, possessed remarkable dignity, and wonderful correctness of
style. Indeed, by some he has been called the Raphael of France. Had he
lived longer, (for he died at the age of thirty-eight,) the French school,
under his direction, would most probably have adopted a manner which might
have been imitated, and which might have established the arts on an
eminence to vie with even imperial Rome. But, by the concurrence of
extraordinary circumstances, Le Brun was the fashionable painter of the
time, and it therefore became necessary to imitate _his_ manner, rather
than the more simple and more refined one of his rival. As Le Brun's
imitators wanted his genius, his faults not only became current, but more
glaring and deformed.
[5] Le Brun was the pupil of Simon Voüet, and afterwards of Poussin.
After Le Brun's death, which took place in 1690, the French artists
degenerated greatly, their productions being decorated in a gaudy and
theatrical way, without due regard to taste or decorum. Their school, some
years ago, altered its principles, under the auspices of the spirited Count
de Caylus, who possessed considerable merit as an artist. The count, by his
high rank and fortune, had the means of encouraging the imitators of the
ancients, and of procuring the best models in Italy for study. He, in
conjunction with Monsieur Vien, first formed the design of restoring a pure
taste in France; and if his countrymen had followed the path thus marked
out for them, they would now have been equal to the greatest of the Greek
painters. But it appears that they are incapable of rising to any very
extraordinary height in the arts, for, with the exception of Le Seur, and
one or two others, they have ever wanted that elevation of mind which so
eminently distinguished the Romans. Though De Caylus greatly purified
painting in his time, yet his precepts and examples had little or no weight
after his death, for the art again retrograded into its original state--a
state from which the French professors, as before observed, seem incapable
of rising.
In our own days some few French artists have distinguished themselves,
particularly Lefevre, who was the chief painter to Napoleon. A full-length
portrait of the emperor in his coronation robes, for which Lefevre received
the sum of five thousand Napoleons, and which I have lately had the
pleasure of seeing, is very correct in drawing, and extremely rich and
harmonious in colour; but it wants freedom and boldness of execution.
To conclude--the French are acknowledged to do pretty well within the
precincts of their own country, though few of their pictures will stand in
competition with those of the Italians, or with those produced in our own
school.