1808.) 
nostrums attracted me in spite of my- 
self, 
On a kind of covered stage you see a 
mountebank with a phialin his hand, dis- 
posing of his drugs and surrounded by 
people of the lowar classes. A woman 
has her pocket picked without perceiving 
it, so deeply is she engaged by the extra- 
ordinary things which she hears. Here 
is a little Savoyard, with his box contain- 
ing his treasure, a littke marmot which 
every body is anxious to see; and there a 
match-woman, hunting the vermin on her 
child. This good mother might have per- 
formed this duty without letting us know 
it. The natural manner in which the art- 
ist has represented the scene, renders it 
still more disgusting. One of the princi- 
pal persons in this composition is a jolly 
sportsman with a hare on his shoulder. 
His silly look and the solemn attention 
with which he gazes at the mountebank, 
seem to promise the latter that the coun- 
tryman will not continue his journey till 
he has made him his dupe. You imagine 
you see a gardener, who passes by with his 
wheel-barrow, actually moving along, The 
mass of the spectators are principally en- 
gaged in listening and speaking, At a 
casement we discover the painter, who 
has represented himself with his pallet and 
pencils. 
Great natveté pervades this piece, and 
the headsare fullofexpresssion. ‘Though 
I find in his Dropsical Man at Paris a 
much higher finish, his Mountebank exhi- 
bits a much more sprightly touch. It ap- 
pears to me that a picture resembles a 
book; we are not fond of reading those 
the author of which has explained every 
thing so as to leave nothing for us to 
add; he wishes to make us acquainted 
with every thing, and sometimes we would 
rather be allowed to guess. We throw 
down his book, angry that he has not left 
us some small intervals to fill up, Hage- 
dorn says, on the subject of this celebrated 
picture in his Reflections on Painting: 
*< That in the figures you find such deli- 
cate traits as are rarely met with in the 
most celebrated kind of painting.” 
The Mountebank is one of the largest 
performances of Gerard Douw. Itis three 
feet, five inches on height, and two feet, 
seven inches in breadth. It was paint- 
ed in 1632, and isin wood. It has been 
aquatinted and finished with the graver 
by Professor Hess. ‘This print, which has 
appeared in England, is perfectly in the 
spirit of the onginal, a commendation 
which can rarely be bestowed on an en- 
graving. Without prejudice to the other 
Observations on the Gallery of Dusseldorf. 
13 
productions of this eminent engraver, who 
resides at Dusseldorf, this plate may be 
considered as his master-piece. 
If we consider Vandyke as a historical 
painter, he does not come near his master, 
Rubens, either for the richness of his coms 
positions, or the grand manner of his exe~ 
cution; but with respect to his portraits, 
only look at them and you will give them 
the palm. In the other schools he has 
but one rival, Titian, and even with him 
he may In some instances maintain a suce 
cessful competition. 
There are at Dusseldorf twenty-one 
performances of Vandyke, most of which 
are of his best years. Among his histori- 
cal pictures, I prefer that of Christ car- 
ried to the Tomb, which is pamted with 
delicate colours and yet produces a won- 
derful effect; it is ceustred for incorrect- 
ness in the design. Others prefer his Ju- 
piter as a Satyr surprising Antiope asleep. 
Among his portraits, a whoie length of a 
woman pleases me most. You like- 
wise see his own portrait painted in his 
youth. 
I met with two pictures by Raphael : the 
first isa Holy Family, one of his early per- 
formances, on which [ shall not enlarge; 
and the other a beantiful Academy of his 
best time. It is St. John the Baptist in 
the Wilderness, who, under the figure of 
a handsome young man, is seated on a 
rock, from which gushes a spring. He is 
aimost entirely naked, has a cross in his 
left hand and a cup full of water in the 
other. What an admirable position, what 
truth, what design, what grandeur of style ! 
Who was ever capable of uniting so many 
qualities except Raphael? And Forster 
refuses him the honour of having painted 
this piece because he thinks the colouring 
too fine. He ascribes it to Andrea del 
Sarto, But this isnot a reason; Raphael 
was perhaps not always the greatest co- 
lourist, but he assuredly was sometimes. 
To admit this, it is only necessary to see 
some ef his portraits, as | have, beside 
those of Titian; they even dispute the 
precedence with the latter. I think the 
defect of design in the shortenmg of the 
left foot gives us still more right to ascribe 
it to Raphael; for we know that in this 
particular that master. was not always 
very happy. Weare told that this pic- 
ture was covered by a landscape in water- 
colours that was not hadly executed. In 
cleaning it, the owner discovered that there 
was an oil-painting underneath. Whatasur- 
prize! What rapture must the person haye 
felt who cleaned it, when he discovered, 
by degrees, the exquisite work of the god 
of 
