largely profited by his researches. The catalogue is in itself a history of painting, and the only point on which we differ from the accomplished author is on the substitution of the family names of the artists for the names by which they are traditionally known.

Unable from want of means to be a collector, Morelli yet, as quite a young man, owned a few genuine gems of Italian art which he had bought at a low price of dealers who were ignorant of their true value. Amongst these was a Mantegna which he told Sir Henry he had been compelled to sell to pay a gambling debt, a loss he considered one of the greatest sorrows of his life. The beautiful collection he left to his beloved adopted city Bergamo was bequeathed to him by a friend, who had chosen most of the pictures in it with Morelli's aid.

Compelled in 1861 to represent Bergamo in the Italian Chambers, and re-elected again and again without any canvassing on his own part, Morelli used the political position forced upon him to further the cause of the fine arts, calling the attention of his fellow-legislators to the state of the public galleries and museums in Italy, and the ignorance of their directors, leading to the hopeless jumble of nomenclature which was at one time a disgrace to Italy. A yet greater, because less remediable evil, was the reckless sale of art treasures belonging to the churches and galleries of Italy to dealers, who re-sold them to foreign connoisseurs. In 1862 Morelli persuaded the Minister of Public Instruction to appoint a commission to prepare a law for the conservation of works of art.' This law bears the name of its suggester, and he has been severely censured for it, but, as Sir Henry Layard points out, Morelli was proud of seeing the art to which Italy owed so much of her renown worthily represented in foreign collections, and pictures were not infrequently 'purchased for them on his recommendation. It was only when some work by a very rare and important painter was ' about to leave the country that he interfered,' and it was he who induced his friend, Prince Giovanelli, to buy one of the few genuine examples of the work of Giorgione when it was all but sold to Berlin by the directors of the Manfrin Gallery of Venice.

Before the new regulation became law, however, in April 1861, Morelli had induced the Government to appoint a commission, of which he was himself named president, to ' register all works of art. . . in Umbria and the Marches.' The commission had the rare privilege of visiting even

nunneries in search for hidden art treasures; in this delicate task Signor Cavalcaselle was associated with Morelli, and on some occasions Sir Henry Layard also accompanied them. Many interesting little episodes occurred on these excursions into the unknown recesses of religious establishments; and much rubbish, with now and then a true gem, such as a signed Marco Marziale, was discovered. There can be no 'possible objection to your disposing of these,' Morelli would gravely say to a Lady Superior who proudly pointed out the indifferent pictures representing scenes of classical mythology which had adorned the walls from time immemorial, and, perhaps,' he would add with his arch smile, 'the sooner you get rid of them the better.'

In the latter years of his life our author lived chiefly in Milan, and it was not until after he became a senator in 1873 that he began the publication of the Essays which first aroused the interest of the world. These essays he signed with the somewhat fantastic pseudonym of Ivan Lermolieff,' Lermolieff being an anagram of his own name with a Russian termination. The success of his Essays led him to publish in 1880 a volume of criticism on the pictures in the Dresden, Munich, and Berlin galleries, written in German and bearing the name, 'Ein kritischer Versuch von Ivan Lermolieff, ins Deutsche übersetzt von Johannes Schwarz,' so that the whole title was a mystification, for which as we think, with justice, Morelli has been severely censured, detracting, as it does, from the serious character of what was an important publication.

However that may be, the book produced an immense sensation in Germany and Italy, one half of the art world siding with, the other against the critic. But what Herr Bode in the Fortnightly Review' for October 1891 quaintly calls the Lermolieff mania' spread rapidly from end to end of Europe, and Morelli was without much delay established as an eminent authority. Gradually the storm subsided, and before his death, in 1891, he was accepted throughout Europe as an art critic of sound judgement. To him flocked all the young art students of the day, and never was a man more beloved by friends and pupils, never a more delightful 'companion.' The Emperor and Empress Frederick, the statesman Marco Minghetti, the Marquis Visconti Venosta, the poet Manzoni, the dramatist Niccolini, and many other celebrated men, were amongst his personal friends, and his death was mourned throughout Europe. Though as a senator entitled to a public funeral, the modest nature of

the man was against display, and, in accordance with a request in his will, he was privately buried in the cemetery of Milan at five o'clock in the morning.

In his own preface to the volume before us Morelli still further states his case, and in it the personality of the man comes out in a very vivid and impressive manner; but he adds nothing of any importance to what his biographer has already told us either of his life or of his mode of work. We may add, however, one word on the general style of his interesting volume, which opens with a bright and fascinating freshness, calling up before the mind's eye a vision of a new revelation and new illumination of the past, which is, as we go on, more than realised. As a rule, the intrusion of the personality of an author, especially of the author of a critical volume, weakens the force with which his judgements appeal to us; but it is not so in the present case. Morelli takes the reader by the hand in a fatherly manner, and in a pleasant, imaginary conversation he pays him the delicate compliment of appearing as the inquirer, whilst the reader is represented as the teacher in the person of an Italian gentleman, who may or may not have had any real existence. We are thus beguiled into giving a hearing to a series of statements upsetting many of our most cherished theories, and are ourselves made, so to speak, a party to the sweeping away of the reputations of men our fathers delighted to honour, and to criticisms involving even the honoured names of Vasari, Passavant, and other time-honoured art historians. But in dealing with art history as with actual art productions, Morelli, though drastic enough in his treatment, is seldom unfair, and is ever ready in his most cutting remarks to add the saving qualification, which is, as it were, the leaven of the indigestible lump.

The illustrations in the remarkable volume we have been reviewing, though few, are eminently characteristic, and form an interesting commentary on the text. Their execution is worthy of the reputation of Herr Brockhaus, under whose superintendence they were produced. The two indices added by Dr. J. P. Richter are so complete as themselves to form an epitome of that portion of art-history treated in this volume; and the translator has so well acquitted herself of her arduous task that we are never reminded of the fact that the book, in its present form, is not an original work. She has carefully embodied the changes made in the DoriaPamfili and Borghese collections since the death of Morelli, and marks with a star the pictures mentioned by him which have now disappeared.

ART. III.-Histoire des Princes de Condé.

IN

d'AUMALE. Tome VI.

Par M. le Duc

Paris: 1892.

N our last article on this admirable work* we expressed a confident hope that the next part of the biography of the Princes of the House of Condé would be a noble 'addition to the history of France.' Our expectations have been fully realised after perusing this instructive and delightful volume. It comprises the most dramatic part of the chequered career of the Grand Condé when, flinging loyalty and prudence to the winds, and at the head of the foes of his bleeding country, he stood before Europe the arch-rebel of France, and engaged in a contest with the House of Bourbon, and with one of the greatest captains of any time, which his genius protracted and long made doubtful. It comprises, also, that remarkable passage in French history the Second Fronde, a period of foreign war and of domestic broil, of passion, agitation, and wide-spread anarchy, foreshadowing the Revolution in some respects, and ending, like the Revolution, in a grand despotism, a flood of cataract and disturbed currents, succeeded by the ampler flow of the expanding river. It is hardly necessary to say that the Duc d'Aumale has treated his subject with a master's hand, and though we shall freely criticise parts of his work, and we do not concur in some of his judgements, we wish to record our decided opinion that he has almost surpassed himself in his present performance. He has properly devoted his attention chiefly to a description of the military events of the time, of the long struggle between Condé and Turenne, marked by splendid illustrations of skill in their art; and if he has had the great advantage of Napoleon's comments on these memorable campaigns, he has thrown a flood of fresh light upon them, and the history of war has been seldom written with equal precision, perspicuity, brilliancy of style, and insight. Duc, however, has not neglected what we may call the background of his fine picture-the political changes, the strife of parties, and the sudden vicissitudes of the Second Fronde-and his account of the state of Paris and Bordeaux, of the discord and anarchy which prevailed throughout France, and of her selfish public men and factions, contains much that is new and abounds in interest. As usual, too,

Edinburgh Review,' October, 1889, p. 445.

The

though in this particular this volume is not so copious as the last, his sketches of the leading personages on the scene are vivid and lifelike in the highest degree; we would especially refer to those of Mademoiselle, the Amazonian daughter of the weak Gaston of Orleans, of Anne of Gonzaga, and of other heroines of the Fronde. A very striking and well-informed chapter narrates the incidents of Condé's life in exile, outside his ordinary home, the camp; and we need not add that if the Duc d'Aumale does all that he can to place the conduct of his hero in the most favourable light, he never departs from the lofty standard of patriotism which he upholds in his work. The apologist of Condé does not forget that the Prince had sinned against France, and was deeply guilty.

It may appear ungracious to take exceptions in the case of a work of peculiar excellence. In his description, however, of Condé, and the time, the Duc d'Aumale, we believe, is sometimes mistaken, or has not placed facts in their true proportions. The tendency to idealise the hero of his book, to which we have adverted before, reappears in this volume more clearly than ever; the Duc disregards the wise saying of Cromwell, and dislikes to paint the Grand Condé with his scars. He blames him, indeed, for his treason to France; but he will not bring out in sufficient prominence the distinctive faults of the Prince's character-the greed of pelf and power, in which he matched his father; the arrogance and lawlessness which were his special vices; above all,* his singular want of political insight and his instability in public affairs -conspicuous defects in a man of such powers. The Duc too, in our judgement, assigns Condé too high a place as a master of war; he may stand above Montrose, who had something in common with him; but, compared with the great captains of his day, he was distinctly inferior to Cromwell and Turenne; and as we protested against the attempt to make him resemble Cæsar in Spain, we protest still more strongly against the paradox that a rebel condottiere, though a great soldier, is even to be named as a rival of Hannibal. We differ from the Duc d'Aumale as to two passages in this part of the Prince's career: his conduct, from first to last, in the Second Fronde, admits of hardly any palliation or excuse, and there is ample evidence that he had a share in the guilt of the massacre of the

Condé was happily described as 'le vaillant et l'incertain' by one of the heroines of the Fronde.