ll the great art-motives were dead. In method
the French painters followed the late Italians, and imitated an
imitation; in matter they bowed to the dictates of the court and
reflected the king's mock-heroic spirit. Echoing the fashion of the
day, painting became pompous, theatrical, grandiloquent--a mass of
vapid vanity utterly lacking in sincerity and truth. Lebrun
(1619-1690), painter in ordinary to the king, directed substantially
all the painting of the reign. He aimed at pleasing royalty with
flattering allusions to Caesarism and extravagant personifications of
the king as a classic conqueror. His art had neither truth, nor
genius, nor great skill, and so sought to startle by subject or size.
Enormous canvases of Alexander's triumphs, in allusion to those of the
great Louis, were turned out to order, and Versailles to this day is
tapestried with battle-pieces in which Louis is always victor.
Considering the amount of work done, Lebrun showed great fecundity and
industry, but none of it has much more than a mechanical ingenuity
about it. It was rather original in composition, but poor in drawing,
lighting, and coloring; and its example upon the painters of the time
was pernicious.

His contemporary, Le Sueur (1616-1655), was a more sympathetic and
sincere painter, if not a much better technician. Both were pupils of
Vouet, but Le Sueur's art was religious in subject, while Lebrun's was
military and monarchical. Le Sueur had a feeling for his theme, but
was a weak painter, inclined to the sentimental, thin in coloring, and
not at all certain in his drawing. French allusions to him as "the
French Raphael" show more national complacency than correctness.
Sebastian Bourdon (1616-1671) was another painter of history, but a
little out of the Lebrun circle. He was not, however, free from the
influence of Italy, where he spent three years studying color more
than drawing. This shows in his works, most of which are lacking in
form.

Contemporary with these men was a group of portrait-painters who
gained celebrity perhaps as much by their subjects as by their own
powers. They were facile flatterers given over to the pomps of the
reign and mirroring all its absurdities of fashion. Their work has a
graceful, smooth appearance, and, for its time, it was undoubtedly
excellent portraiture. Even to this day it has qualities of drawing
and coloring to commend it, and at times one meets with exceptionally
good work. The leaders a