A COMPLETE ACCOUNT of the history and significance of the painting called the Portal of Valenciennes (Fig. 1), acquired by The Frick Collection last year, cannot yet be given. Yet it seemed important to publish now what is known about this painting, since, until it reappeared in London in December 1990, few persons had seen it over the previous sixty-five years, and its reputation, such as it was, had been based on the dim black-and-white reproductions in the Doucet and Lehmann sale catalogues of 1912 and 1925.

RECENT examination of J.-F. Millet's Wood sawyers, in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Fig. 18), undertaken during conservation work by Lucia Scalisi, has revealed that beneath it lies an earlier painting, which can probably be identified with a lost oil sketch symbolising The Republic submitted by Millet to a French State Competition in 1848 (Fig.25). This article will first discuss the history and provenance of the Wood sawyers, as well as its genesis and dating, and then proceed to the significance of the painting beneath it. In conclusion, some problems concerning the present state of the work will be addressed, in the light of the evi- dence set out in the Technical Report (see p. 18 below).

A LARGE wooden box (measuring 24 by 44 by 17.5 cm.) with a hollowed-out sloping lid, painted with illustrative scenes and decorative motif• on a thin white ground, a miracle of survival, has recently entered a private collection from a French source. A battle scene before the walls of a town fills one long side; soldiers under an arcade the other. The short sides have, respect- ively, a group of four or five tents and geometric floral ornaments. On the lid there is a two headed monster in combat with a man, and on the other side two mounted knights with lance and shield in single combat (Figs.30, 32-34). The last scene provides the clue to the others, for one of the warriors, reeling from a mortal blow, is clearly dark-skinned. This identifies the battle scene on the opposite side below as taking place between Europeans and Saracens, though there is little to distinguish them in dress or appearance. The Europeans wear short tunics and conical helmets with chin straps and nose guards while the Saracens' headgear, though also conical, is more in the nature of a turban. Both sides carry swords and oval shields with geometric patterns rather than heraldic devices; only the dark-skinned warrior in single combat on the lid carries the round shield traditionally associated with Saracen armour. All the men have pencil-thin moustaches but the Saracens are distinguished by their beards. Style and facture, the unsophisticated simplicity and broad treatment of figures and ornament and the poorly prepared ground all imply that it is not to be classed as a luxury object. The goggle eyes could indicate an earlier origin, but a date after 1200 is suggested by the multifold drapery devoid of the abstract, clinging or regular patterns which characterised twelfth century style. Consequently, the casket appears to be somewhat later than the only comparable work known: the casket in the Cathedral treasury at Vannes in Brittany, decorated with simi- lar scenes, which has been dated to the late twelfth century (Fig.31).

IN 1943, writing in this Magazine, Anthony Blunt attempted the first reconstruction of the œuvre of Jean Lemaire (1598-1659), and since then his list has been added to – notably by Blunt himself in a second article of 1959. Lemaire had been a close personal friend of Poussin in Rome for about twenty years and was the master's principal assistant during the brief' period he worked for the French crown in Paris. Given the Poussinesque character of Lemaire's style, it was fairly inevitable that his works should have acquired over the years spurious signatures of Poussin, and one of the problems Blunt drew attention to in 1943 was the apparent absence of any works signed by Lemaire himself.

THE exhibition devoted to Jacques-Louis David at the Musee du Louvre in 1989 included, together with the greater part of the artist's extant œuvre, the only landscape which has been attributed to him (Fig.42). Identified as the view of the Luxembourg gardens David is known to have painted from his prison window in 1794, it has been regarded both as an historic document and as an anomaly in David's otherwise consistent career as a painter. Indeed, not only did David show no inclination towards landscape-painting during his long career, he also adhered to the view that painting was essentially history painting; he would never have subscribed to Caravaggio's famous dictum that as much work is required to produce a good flower-piece as a figure-painting. But, deprived of models while in prison, David was, it appears, forced to turn to landscape; if he was not to renouce his art altogether, that was all he could do.

AS a draughtsman, Alfred Sisley is almost invisible. In exhibitions and studies of impressionist drawing, his presence is slender compared with that of his colleagues such as Pissarro, Monet, Morisot and Renoir. As is to be expected, the majority of his surviving works on paper are of landscape. The most substantial group is a carnet kept between 1883 and 1885 which contains 60 leaves, each one recording an already finished painting, frequently annotated with title and canvas size. They are rapid and succinct distillations which concentrate on the structure of the subject and its main masses of light and shadow; descriptive niceties are avoided.