further public interest in historical subjects. In London, Paris and Rome a series of academy competitions
(e.g. invention, expression and composition) and prizes (often involving money) was developed with a
view to encouraging the production of “high” art when public taste seemed resistant to it (Goldstein,
1996, 56; Conisbee, 1981, 75–7, 80), and there were frequent attempts to enhance opportunities for life
drawing classes. The École des élèves protégées (see Chapter 1) in Paris, whose Directors included
Carle Van Loo, NicolasBernard Lépicié (1735–1784) and DandréBardon, provided a rich liberal arts
education.
Part of the threat to the preeminence of the history genre was the paucity of commissions. Churches and
other religious institutions continued to need religious paintings and sculptures harmonizing with their
specific tastes, beliefs and values (Conisbee, 1981, 45–46). However, the best commissions for secular
history paintings came increasingly from the decorative arts, in particular tapestry designs and spectacular
ceiling paintings, rather than from those specifically seeking morally serious art. Some easel paintings
were commissioned, and regular Salon exhibitions encouraged this, but in many ways the market for
history paintings remained tenuous in France throughout the century. Royal commissions increased in the
second half of the century, thanks in part to the patronage of art lovers such as the Duc d’Orléans (1747–
1793), but even these tended to produce “pleasing” rather than grand subjects.
In London Reynolds installed his two friends, Oliver Goldsmith (1730–1774) and Samuel Johnson, as
professors, respectively, of ancient literature and ancient history at the Royal Academy (Hutchison, 1989,
453). As a devotee of Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (1475–1564), known as
Michelangelo, Reynolds wanted the Academy to prioritize history painting in its teaching, as did most
subsequent presidents and teachers there. Even artists such as Hogarth, who disliked continental trends in
history painting, principally its perceived obsession with the antique, aspired to prove their credentials
on this important testing ground. In 1736, Hogarth produced his Pool of Bethesda, a wellknown biblical
subject. It is noticeable, however, that although he was successful in gaining some of the few public
commissions available to history painters in early eighteenthcentury London, his efforts in this genre
were later derided by Reynolds, who doubted that an artist so used to dealing with “low” subjects could
be of sufficient caliber to tackle the intellectual demands of history (Hallett, 2006e, 197). In spite of its
dwindling popularity with the public, history painting remained a major determinant of artistic status.
In general, the eighteenthcentury critical establishment measured contemporary history painting against
the high standards set in the golden age of the genre, the seventeenth century. There was a tendency to look
backwards to the work of French, Flemish and Italian artists. As well as Poussin and Le Brun, Bon and
Louis de Boullogne (1649–1717 and 1654–1733), Eustache Le Sueur (1616–1655) and Rubens provided
suitable models for emulation. Other models included even older works such as those of the Roman and
Bolognese schools by Raphael and the Carracci brothers: Ludovico (1555–1619), Agostino (1557–1602)
and Annibale (1560–1609). Le Brun’s prototypes of facial expression remained influential in history
painting throughout the century and well into the Romantic period. A great deal of early eighteenth
century French history painting was heavily influenced by the Italian tradition, suitably translated into a
more “correct” and finished style; and in both France and Britain it was rare to see any significant
progression in style or subject matter until later decades. England lacked its own tradition of history
painting prior to the establishment of the Royal Academy, since there had been so much reliance on
visiting foreign artists to produce such works.
In France, artists such as Carle Van Loo established their presence through Salon exhibitions and
enhanced their popularity through their willingness to tackle a wide range of subjects from the historical
to the mythological and religious. Like other French history painters of the early eighteenth century, Van
Loo shared with other artists such as Pierre Subleyras (1699–1749), Boucher and CharlesJoseph