course of English art than would have been exerted by the importation of their pictures. They founded no schools, they excited little emulation or even imitation. They were merely second- or third-rate workmen who painted along in a manner studiously reminiscent of their earlier masters. Such slight effect as their work had in developing the love of Nature in England came from the fact that Englishmen at last saw depicted some of the wild or romantic scenes of their own country, scenes from Scotland and the Isle of Jersey, from the neighborhood of Derbyshire Peak, from along the banks of the Thames. But such slight influence as this attention to local scenery might have had, was, it must be insisted, nearly neutralized by the fact that these representations of English scenery were always so “touched up” in the style of some Dutch or Italian master as to be practically unrecognizable. Instead of observing Nature the artists “composed” pictures, using elements conventionally accepted as picturesque. They trained themselves to see England through the eyes of Salvator Rosa or Ruysdael or Claude Lorraine or the Poussins. [Illustration: A CALM _By Willem van de Velde_] The second period of landscape art in England comprises the forty-eight years between the death of the younger Van de Velde (1707) and the return of Richard Wilson from Italy in 1755. In studying this period a convenient point of departure is given by M. Rouquet’s “L’état des arts en Angleterre,” published in 1755. His only reference to landscape art is in the following interesting but rather vague paragraph: Rien n’est si riant que les campagnes de ce pays-là, plus d’un Peintre y fait un usage heureux des aspects charmans qui s’y présentent de toutes parts: les tableaux de paysage y sont fort à la mode, ce genre y est cultivé avec autant de succes qu’aucun autre. Il y a peu de maîtres dans ce talent qui ayent été beaucoup supérieurs aux Peintres de paysage qui jouissent aujourd’hui en Angleterre de la première réputation.[594] M. Rouquet’s words seem to imply a much larger amount of successful and popular landscape work than extant pictures or the meager annals of the time would indicate. Possibly in the landscapes that were “fort à la mode” were included important Italian works, or the works of foreigners painting in England. There must have been, also, more landscape production than is in any way recorded, so that M. Rouquet doubtless had knowledge of pictures now practically non-existent. And even the following summary of such names and works as have survived a century and a half will give his words a modified justification.