both; but when Mabuse painted in the first of these manners, he followed the style of Memling's imitators, which we think far preferable to that in which he imitated Michael Angelo.

Another painter, superior to Mabuse-Kalkar-is an instance of similar imitation. His pictures in the Church of Kalkar, his native town, show how skilfully he sought the early Flemish manner. But when he was in Italy, he imitated Titian and Giorgione with such effect, that, Vasari tells us, his pictures passed for the originals of those masters. In truth, the Flemings possessed, more than any others, the art of imitation; and we see them, after Memling, acting on an uniform principle, and merely varying in slight particulars of manner. Who these imitators were it is now impossible to say.

In the Breviary of Cardinal Grimani, now at Venice, several hundred miniatures are preserved, which the Anonimo di Morelli ascribes to Memling, Lievin of Antwerp, and Gerard of Ghent. The miniatures in this manuscript, which approach nearest to the manner of Memling, in the style peculiar to his followers, are numerous; but the most remarkable one, representing the 66 Offerings of the Magi," is a reduced fac-simile of the Munich "Adoration." Passavant describes another copy of this Munich "Adoration," in the Ader's Gallery, now dispersed, and notes its likeness to the miniature. The Ader's panel was signed with the initials "A. W.,” 1 which are not those of Lievin de Witte, as some assert. At Xanten on the Rhine is a picture, in the Flemish manner,

This picture is now in Mr. Greene's Collection at Hadley, near Barnet.

representing the temptation of St. Anthony, and marked on the bonnet of one of the figures with the initials “A. W.;” but the style, though Flemish, is not that of the Munich "Adoration." Thus, the question as to who are these imitators of Memling, remains involved in darkness. It is true that Lievin de Witte or d'Anversa-for, doubtless, they are one person-must have painted at this time. Van Mander describes him as a man of talent in painting, but especially of cleverness in architecture. There is, doubtless, great architectural proficiency in the paintings of these imitators, and Lievin may be the. author of some of the panels which we have mentioned; but the question, it need scarce be repeated, must be considered too obscure to be solved at present.

THE SCHOOL OF LOUVAIN.

CHAPTER XVI.

DIERICK STUERBOUT.

THE fifteenth century had well-nigh closed when the city of Louvain began to possess artistic annals; but the School which formed itself there did not realize the excellence of that of Bruges or Brussels. The rivalry which showed itself so strongly at that time between the cities of the Netherlands was keenly manifested, in its later years, between the towns of Brussels and Louvain. The rapid progress towards completion made in the town-hall of the former city raised a spirit of emulation in the municipality of Louvain, and caused it to put forth its energies in erecting a civic edifice worthy of competing by its beauty with a more imposing and larger building. Matheus de Layens, master-architect of the town, gave in plans and sections, which were approved by Pauwels, the state architect of Philip of Burgundy; and, in 1438, the burgomaster and councillors solemnly laid the first foundation of the new town-hall. It was not completed till 1460, when the corporation determined to rival Brussels further by appointing an official painter. They chose Dierick Stuerbout, a pupil of Van der Weyden.

Very little importance attaches to the cotemporaries or predecessors of Stuerbout at Louvain. The records for

the year 1462 notice one Hubrecht, a painter, and his sons Hubeken and Gielis, whose daily salaries were 10 plecken.1 But the most noted artist family appears to have been that of Stuerbout, which the records of Louvain first notice in 1468.

Dierick Stuerbout was born at Haarlem, where he lived for many years in the Kruis Straat, at no great distance from the Orphan's House. Van Mander knew his habitation, which he says "had an antiquated front with sculptured heads 2 it." upon No notice of his early studies is discoverable. In 1462, he left the town of Haarlem, and fixed his residence at Louvain. In the same year, however, he visited Bruges, where, Pierre Coustain, the painter, one of the varlets de chambre of Philip the Good, being dead, we find Dierick claiming from the Duke a paternoster from the relics of the deceased.3

Was Coustain the master of Stuerbout, or was Dierick his fellow varlet or apprentice? The manner of Stuerbout partakes too much of that of Van der Weyden and Memling to cause a moment's doubt as to his having been the pupil of the one, and the schoolfellow of the other. The first notice of his works is to be found in

1 The plecke was the 90th part of a gulden. Schayes, Comptes de Louvain, ap. De Laborde, Les Ducs de Bourgogne, vol. i. Introd. P. 117.

2 Van Mander, ut sup., p. 207.

3 "Je Thierry de Harlem confesse avoir reçu de Pierre Bladelin, conseiller de M. S. le Duc de Bourgogne, une patenostres, lesquelles patenostres ont par eux été trouvé, entre les biens déclairiez par feu Jehan Coustain, et sont icelles patenostres à moi despiéça le 9* jour d'Octobre, 1462."-De Laborde, Les Ducs de Bourgogne, ut sup., vol. ii. p. 222.

Van Mander, who copies a signature on the only picture which he knew of "Dierick : "—

"In one thousand four hundred and sixty-two, Dirk, who was born at Haarlem, painted me at Loven.” 1

Dierick, it seems, was actively employed at Louvain in 1462. He was not engaged, however, in the capacity of official painter till 1468, when he commenced the pictures of the town-hall, which, like those painted by Van der Weyden, were to hang in the hall of justice, and deter the judges from acts of favouritism or untruth. Stuerbout chose the subject of his pictures from the legend of King Otho. That king, says the legend, was induced, at the instigation of his wife, to cause the execution of a noble whose only crime was a virtuous refusal to comply with the wishes of the queen. The noble's wife, to whom the secret of the crime was known, appealed to all the customary ordeals to clear her husband's honour, and appeared before king Otho with her husband's head in one hand, and a burning bar of iron in the other. Having gone through the ordeal without hurt, King Otho ordered the execution of the queen as a reparation to the lady for her husband's death. This was the subject of Stuerbout's picture. In one panel he represented the ordeal, and in the other the execution. The two pictures cost, in 1468, two hundred crowns of seventy-two philipps each.2

1 This picture, representing the Saviour with St. Peter and St. Paul, was composed of life-size figures. Van Mander, ut sup., p. 207.

2 Annales et Antiquités de Louvain, unedited manuscript of Mr. Hoorebeke at Ghent. "Anno 1468, worden II stucken schildereyen gemaeckt by Mr. Dierick Stuerbout, die in de Ratcamere staen,