-none to the politer sciences: he had learnt drawing in his youth; and there is a view of Jersey, designed by him, yet preserved in the imperial library at Venice. But he was too indolent even to amuse himself: he introduced the fashions of the court of France without its elegance; he had seen Louis XIV. countenance Corneille, Boileau, and Molière, who, forming themselves on the models of the ancients, arrived at lasting excellence. Charles found as much genius at home: but licentiousness was the style he patronised; and the same indelicacy which characterised his poets may be traced in the painters of his time. The presbyterians, amongst whom were many eminent Christians, fell into the contrary extreme; and, witnessing only the prostitution of the arts, regarded taste itself as a branch of immorality. It is little wonder, therefore, that the age produced few works worthy of being transmitted to posterity. Yet, in a history of the arts, as in all other histories, the times of confusion and barbarism must have their place, to preserve the connexion, and ascertain the ebb and flow of genius: nor is it unpleasing to trace through what clouds the age of Augustus broke forth.

The first person who made any figure, and who was properly the remnant of a better age, was Isaac Fuller: there is no account of his family or himself, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. Graham says, that he wanted the regular improvements of travel to consider the antiques; and understood the anatomical part of painting perhaps as well as Michael Angelo, following it so close that he was very apt to make the muscles too strong and prominent. But this writer was not aware that the very fault of Fuller did not proceed from his not having seen the antiques, but from having seen them too partially; and Fuller was only to be compared to Michael Angelo, from a similitude of faults arising from a similitude of studies. Each caught the robust style from ancient statuary,

statuary, without attaining its graces. In his historic compositions, Fuller is a wretched painter; his colouring is raw and unnatural; and not compensated by disposition or invention. In portraits, his pencil is bold, strong, and masterly. Painters who excel in the latter, and miscarry in the former, want imagination. They succeed only in what they see. Graham speaks of Fuller as extravagant and burlesque in his manner: the former is more true than the latter. In a picture of Ogleby, by him (in which he certainly has not debased his subject), he has represented Ogleby as a moon-struck bard, rather than as a contemptible one. The composition has more of Salvator than Brauwer. His own portrait in the gallery of Oxford is capricious; but touched with great force and character. At Wadham-college is an altar-cloth, painted in a singular manner, of considerable merit; it is just brushed over for lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron.

He was much employed to paint the great taverns in London, particularly the Mitre in Fenchurch-street, where he adorned all the sides of a great room in pannels, as was then the fashion: the figures were large as life. Sir Peter Lely, seeing a portrait of the king's framemaker, an old grey-headed man, finely painted by Fuller, lamented that such a genius should drown his talents in wine. Robert Streater (who was appointed serjeant painter at the Restoration), excelled in perspective landscape, architecture, and still life: he was born in Coventgarden; and studied under De Mouler. Sanderson, a good judge, and speaking of landscape, says, "Of our own nation, I know of none superior to Streater, who indeed is a complete master therein, as also in other arts of etching, graving, and perspective: not a line but is true to the rules of art and symmetry." He painted ceilings at Whitehall; Moses and Aaron at St. Michael's, Cornhill; and all the scenes at the old play-house. He also excelled in painting hen-and-chickens, flowers, fruit

pieces; which, without joining exuberant encomiums, at least displays the universality of his talents. He died in 1661, soon after having undergone an operation for the stone. Charles the Second had so much kindness for him as to send for a surgeon from Paris to perform it.

Francis Vanzoon came early into England, and, marrying Streater's niece, succeeded to much of his business. Vertue and Graham commend the freedom of his pencil, but his subjects were ill-chosen: he painted still life, oranges and lemons, plate, damask-curtains, cloths of gold, and that medley of familiar objects which strike the ignorant-vulgar, and which was then the taste of the times.

Sir Peter Lely was the most capital painter of this reign; and his works are admitted amongst the classics of the arts. He was born in Westphalia, where his father, a captain of foot, was in garrison. He received his first instructions from one De Grebbes, and began with landscape and historic figures less than life; but coming to England in 1641, and seeing the works of Vandyck, he quitted his former style, and gave himself wholly to por traits, in emulation of that great man. His success was considerable, though not equal to his ambition: he fell short of his model only in simplicity. If Vandyck's portraits are often tame and spiritless, at least they are natural: his laboured draperies flow with ease, and not a fold but is placed with propriety. Lely supplied the want of his faste with clinquant: his nymphs trail fringes and embroidery through meadows and purling streams. Vandyck's habits are those of the times; Lely's a sort of fantastic night-gown, fastened with a single pin:-in fact, Lely was the ladies' painter; and, whether the age was improved in beauty or in flattery, certain it is that his women are much handsomer than those of Vandyck.--He caught the reigning character,

" and stole

The sleepy eye which spoke the melting soul."

It would be endless to recapitulate the works of this master: he was celebrated by the poets of the age, particularly by Waller, Lovelace, and Charles Cotton. The beauties of Windsor are the court of Paphos. In the portraits of men he seldom succeeded, if we except a fine head of the earl Sandwich; an alderman 'Leneve in his habit; and a portrait of Cowley in his youth, which has an inimitable pastoral simplicity and beauty. He was knighted by Charles the Second. He married a beautiful English woman, always kept a handsome table, and his collection of pictures was magnificent.

Lely was much mortified at the rising merit of Kneller. Both had too little variety in their heads. Kneller was bolder and more careless; Lely more delicate in finishing. The latter showed by application and labour the height of excellence to which labour and application could arrive. Had Godfrey painted less, and applied more, he would have been the greater master. Sir Peter Lely died of an apoplexy, as he was drawing the duchess of Somerset, in the 63d year of his age, 1680.

Antonio Verrio, a Neapolitan, was a first-rate painter on the subjects upon which he was employed. Without much invention, and with less taste, his exuberant pencil was ready at pouring out gods and goddesses, emperors and triumphs, over those public surfaces on which the eye never rests long enough to criticise, and where the works of a capital master should never be placed, viz. ceilings and stair-cases. The New Testament, or the Roman history, cost him nothing but ultra marine.

Charles the Second, wishing to revive the manufacture of tapestry at Mortlake, which had been interrupted by the civil war, sent for Verrio to England; but, changing his purpose, consigned over Windsor to his pencil. The first picture he drew for the king was his majesty in a naval triumph, now in the public dining-room in the

castle. He executed most of the ceilings there, one whole side of St. George's-hall, and the chapel. On the ceiling of the former he has pictured the earl of Shaftesbury, in the character of Faction, dispersing libels; as in another place he revenged a private quarrel with the housekeeper (Mrs. Marriot) by borrowing her ugly face for one of the furies. The king paid him generously; gave him, besides, a place of master-gardener, and a lodging at the end of the park (now Carleton house). He was expensive, and kept a great table, and often pressed his majesty for money, with a freedom which Charles's goodnature always indulged. Once, at Hampton-court, when he had but lately received 1000l, he found the king in such a circle that he could not approach; upon which he called out, "Sire! I desire the favour of speaking with your majesty."-"Verrio," said the king, "what is your request?"-" Money, sire; I am so short of cash, that I am not able to pay my workmen; and your majesty and I have learnt by experience, that pedlars and painters cannot give long credit." The king smiled, observing he had but lately ordered him 1000!." Yes, sire, but that was soon paid away; and I have no gold left."-" At this rate," said Charles, "you would spend more than I do to maintain my family."-"True," answered Verrio, "but does your majesty keep an open table as I do?"

On the accession of James II, Verrio was again employed at Windsor, in Wolsey's tomb-house, then destined for a Romish chapel. He painted the king and several of the courtiers in the hospital of Christ-church. The Revolution was by no means agreeable to his religion, or principles: he quitted his place, and even refused to work for king William. From that time he was employed by lord Exeter at Burleigh, where he painted several chambers, which are esteemed amongst his best works. He has placed his own portrait in the room where he represented the history of Mars and Venus; and, for the Bacchus bestriding a hogshead, he has, according

to