Of all the champions of romanticism Gallait, who studied at the Tournai Academy under the Frenchman Hennequin (himself a pupil of David), most closely resembles Delaroche. In a very similar style, also literary and pseudo-historical in origin, Hen drik Leys (1815-69) presently demonstrated, by the genuine qualities of his work that the old Flemish heritage was not entirely lost. These qualities, when concentrated on more modest subjects, constitute the value of the small genre paintings to which Madou and F. de Braekeleer bring ancestral taste for finished workman ship. Others include Charles de Groux (1825-70), Constantin Meunier (1831-1905), Henri de Braekeleer (184o-88) and Alfred Stevens (1828-1906). The latter was the most Parisian of the Belgians, an intimate of Manet and of French men of letters. Stevens did much to direct his countrymen to the study of modern life and to what was called, after the name of a review upholding it the "Art Libre" movement. Among landscape painting must be noted the works of Hippolyte Boulenger (1837-74) followed by Emile Claus (1879-1924) and Albert Baertsoen (1866-1922). Other artists of this period were Leon Frederic, Evenepoel (1872 1900) ; Felicien Rops (1833-1898), Eugene Laermans and James Ensor.
From the middle of the 18th Century, the Dutch School seemed to linger in the final stages of anaemia. No other name worth mentioning is to be found after the death of Cornelis Troost (1697-1750) who was rather amusing in his comedy scenes, but a poor painter. Nevertheless the genius of painting was still alive in the country of Rembrandt, of Ruysdael, and of Vermeer. In the i9th century Holland was to give the world of art two power ful personalities whose work had great influence on the fate of modern painting: Jongkind (1819-91) and Van Gogh (1853-9o). But, through a strange chance, it happened that both, obeying a kind of premonitory instinct, came to France at a lucky moment, as though they had felt the need of France before they could become themselves. Holland possesses the glory of having given them birth and of having sown in them that rare seed which was to bear fruit under other skies, but it is within the orbit of French painting that their work finds its true place. Jongkind prepared the Impressionist landscape and—in the best possible way—without having wished to do so ; and, though so original in the modest limits he set himself, he is no theorist.
Van Gogh, appearing like a meteor at the time when Impression ism began to triumph, does not dwell upon repetition. He makes use of the conquests, but only as instruments for the lyricism and mysticism through which his sparkling genius looked on Nature. In February, 1886, he arrived in Paris, and at once, under the light of French art, his originality bursts forth like an explosive placed too near the fire. And the least surprising part in his
I adventure was not the brief period of his short life which held all that made of him a great painter. He became impassioned for Delacroix, Monticelli, Monet and Seurat. In Paris, in Arles, in Auvers-sur-Oise, he painted extraordinary things in which draw ing, colour and sentiment is invented ; and he died, leaving enough to amaze and stimulate several generations of painters.
Already in the period of Romanticism another child of Holland, Ary Scheffer (1795-1858), adopted France as his country. How ever, his romanticism bears a particular stamp of mystic senti mentality; Joseph Israels (1824-1911), Jacob Maris and his brothers William and Matthijs, with Anton Mauve, Bos boom, Blommers, and Mesdag did not escape the irradiating influence of French Art but retained that discreet and somewhat enigmatic melancholy characteristic of their national spirit.
In Italy Classicism had no need of David to become known, since it was in Rome that the movement had immediately en countered an illustrious native adept in the person of the great sculptor Canova. No painter of that time, be it Appioni, Ben venuti or even the romantic Hayez, unfortunately, produced any painting comparable to Canova's masterpieces, in spite of the weakness of the latter—one among the great sculptors—for a certain academic grace.
The honour of the 19th century rests, for Italy, chiefly with three men of much stronger personality who pursued their soli tary ways without dreaming of any immediate success; Antonio Mancini, the austere Segantini (1858-99), and Antonio Fontanesi (1818-82).
Of all the countries of Europe, England was perhaps the least subject to French influence at a time when that influence held almost undisputed sway throughout the continent. Not because the English were indifferent to painting in general or to the merits of French painting in particular. From early times they were as great collectors as travellers. English amateurs welcomed French artists, summoned by them or arriving of their own accord, with every sign of favour, and London saw in succession Nicolas de Largilliere, Charles de la Fosse, Watteau, La Tour. So the English were far from lacking interest in art ; only— perhaps as a result of the commercial point of view, which regards it as a matter of business to import in exchange for other com modities, goods of high reputation that cannot be obtained on the spot and, by the rules of prudent economy, decides that it is better to concentrate national industry on articles not to be found elsewhere—they did not for a long time feel that England had need of painters of her own blood.