ould not take any master who did not in some way excel. For
instance, I would not take a mere imitator of Cuyp among the Dutch; but
Cuyp himself has done insuperable things in certain expressions of
sunlight and repose. Vander Heyden and others may also be mentioned as
first-rate in inferior lines.

Taking from the rise of art to the time of Raphael, would you in the
National Gallery include examples of all those masters whose names have
come down to the most learned of us?--No.

Where would you draw the line, and where would you begin to leave
out?--I would only draw the line when I was purchasing a picture. I
think that a person might always spend his money better by making an
effort to get one noble picture than five or six second or third-rate
pictures, provided only, that you had examples of the best kind of work
produced at that time. I would not have second-rate pictures. Multitudes
of masters among the disciples of Giotto might be named; you might have
one or two pictures of Giotto, and one or two pictures of the disciples
of Giotto.

Then you would rather depend upon the beauty of the work itself; if the
work were beautiful, you would admit it?--Certainly.

But if it were only historically interesting, would you then reject
it?--Not in the least. I want it historically interesting, but I want as
good an example as I can have of that particular manner.

Would it not be historically interesting if it were the only picture
known of that particular master, who was a follower of Giotto? For
instance, supposing a work of Cennino Cennini were brought to light,
and had no real merit in it as a work of art, would it not be the duty
of the authorities of a National Gallery to seize upon that picture, and
pay perhaps rather a large price for it?--Certainly; all documentary art
I should include.

Then what would you exclude?--Merely that which is inferior, and not
documentary; merely another example of the same kind of thing.

Then you would not multiply examples of the same masters if inferior
men, but you would have one of each. There is no man, I suppose, whose
memory has come down to us after three or four centuries, but has
something worth preserving in his work--something peculiar to himself,
which perhaps no other person has ever done, and you would retain one
example of such, would you not?--I would, if it was in my power, but I
would rather with given funds make an effort to get perfect examples.

Then yo