It will suffice here merely to indicate the names and chief works at the Louvre of the principal artists who carried on, about the middle of the nineteenth century, the academic tradition,—capable painters all, but without clearly-marked individuality. Thomas Couture (1815-1879), a pupil of Gros and of Delaroche, in painting the huge composition, _Romans of the Decadence_ (No. 156), produced a picture which may be taken as typical of the ambitions and failings of the whole school—of their literary tendencies, theatricality, and uninspired dulness. He was, however, an accomplished master of technique, which is more than can be said of Joseph Devéria (1805-1865), the painter of _The Birth of Henri IV._ (No. 250); or of Ingres’s pupil, the dull Hippolyte Flandrin (1809-1864), who is only represented by two _Portraits_ (Nos. 284 and 285). Nor is it possible to-day to grow enthusiastic over the historical paintings of Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury (1797-1890), whose _Conference at Poissy_ (No. 2982), _Galileo before the Inquisition_ (No. 2983), and _Christopher Columbus received by Ferdinand and Isabella on his Return from America_ (No. 2984), can only be regarded as unnecessarily large coloured illustrations. MICHEL AND HUET In the much-neglected branch of landscape painting the classic tradition of Claude ruled supreme until a new conception arose with the victory of the romantics in the third decade of the nineteenth century. Two names only need be mentioned before we pass on to the new movement—the return to nature—which was inaugurated by the group of painters vaguely known as the Barbizon school. Both Georges Michel (1763-1843) and Paul Huet (1804-1868) may be regarded as forerunners of that great movement; and both have only in recent years received the recognition which is their due. Michel developed his style in copying and closely studying the Dutch landscape masters, and must in his maturity have been well acquainted with the art of Constable, who exercised, together with Bonington, a prodigious influence on the whole course of French landscape painting. If Michel’s breadth of style, which may be judged from _Near Montmartre_ (No. 626), had been accompanied by a greater range of subject-matter, he would probably rank more highly in the roll of French artists; but he contented himself with the endless repetition of the same motifs which he found close to Montmartre, where he spent his whole life. The care with which he studied the works of Jacob van Ruisdael earned for him the nickname of “the Ruisdael of Montmartre.”