*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 69306 ***

[Frontispiece: JAN ARNOLFINI AND JEANNE DE CHENANY.  BY JAN VAN EYCK.]



  Bell's Miniature Series of Painters


  THE BROTHERS
  VAN EYCK

  BY

  P. G. KONODY



  LONDON
  GEORGE BELL & SONS
  1907




TABLE OF CONTENTS


THE TIMES OF THE BROTHERS VAN EYCK

HUBERT VAN EYCK

JAN VAN EYCK

THE INVENTION OF OIL-PAINTING

THE ART OF THE VAN EYCKS

COLLABORATION OF THE BROTHERS

OUR ILLUSTRATIONS

LIST OF WORKS, CATALOGUED ACCORDING TO LOCALITY




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


JAN ARNOLFINI AND JEANNE DE CHENANY
  (_National Gallery_) - - - _Frontispiece_
  By Jan van Eyck.

THE ADORATION OF THE LAMB (_Cathedral of St. Bavo, Ghent_)
  By Hubert and Jan van Eyck.

THE ENTHRONEMENT OF THOMAS À BECKET (_Chatsworth_)
  By Jan van Eyck.

THE MAN WITH THE PINKS (_Berlin Museum_)
  By Jan van Eyck.

ST. BARBARA (_Antwerp Museum_)
  By Jan van Eyck.

THE JUST JUDGES, AND CHRIST'S WARRIORS (_Berlin Museum_)
  By Hubert and Jan van Eyck.

PORTRAIT OF TIMOTHY (_National Gallery_)
  By Jan van Eyck.

THE VAN DER PAELE ALTAR-PIECE (_Bruges Museum_)
  By Jan van Eyck.




{1}

THE TIMES OF THE BROTHERS VAN EYCK

The unusual activity which during the latter half of the fourteenth
and the first half of the fifteenth centuries throbbed throughout the
whole of the Netherlands forms one of the most interesting and
surprising studies of national progress that history has furnished.

Geographically and politically, in her arts and in her industries,
the country was affected by changes both radical and lasting.  Some
years before the period which embraces the life of the subjects of
this biographical sketch, the German Ocean had invaded the northern
territory of the Netherlands, and had disorganised a Parliament and
divided a people.  At the beginning of the thirteenth century over
the whole of that low-lying and marshy tract between Kampen on the
east and Amsterdam to westward, and southward to within sight of
Nieukerk, the North Sea swept in upon the {2} inland lake of Flevo,
swallowing thousands of hamlets, villages, and towns suddenly and
completely.  Until this time there had been but one Friesland,
including Holland, divided only by the Vlie, a small stream hardly to
be counted a river.  Now East Friesland and West Friesland were
divided by this vast stretch of water, the stormy and dangerous
Zuyderzee, and it became impossible for Holland to send her
representatives to the general assemblies at Aurich.  West Friesland
was absorbed by Holland, and East Friesland became a self-governing
State, and remained such until the power of Charles V. was
established.  Thus politically as well as geographically was the
country disrupted by the forces of Nature.

To trace the rise of the Netherlands as a European Power from a more
remote period than the beginning of the fourteenth century would be
beyond the range of this sketch; but for the purpose of showing the
general advance of the country's interests a brief summary of the
events culminating in the wellnigh despotic power of the House of
Burgundy may refresh the reader's mind, as they affect the
constitution of the nation, and may serve to point cause {3} and
effect in the increasing prosperity of the country and in the
resulting advance of art; for just as the political influence of the
Burgundian Princes spread from their hereditary provinces first over
Flanders and Brabant--over that part of the Netherlands which is now
known as Belgium--and finally over the Dutch provinces, so the
current of art swept from Burgundy to Flanders and thence to Holland.

At the beginning of the fourteenth century Holland was ruled by the
House of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.  Holland having previous to the
accession of the Avennes annexed Zeeland, the three provinces may
almost be regarded as the nucleus of the Dutch power.  William IV.,
last of the Hainault line, died childless in 1355.  His death was the
signal for the outbreak of a long and spasmodic series of civil
disturbances between the nobles and the cities and municipalities.
These parties, known by the titles of the Hooks and the Kabblejaus
(codfish), continued their intermittent strife throughout the
succeeding 150 years.  In the meantime William IV. was succeeded by
William of Bavaria.  Then followed his brother Albert, who was in
turn succeeded by his son William VI.  At the death of the latter {4}
the reins of government were left in the uncertain hands of his young
daughter, Jacqueline, a girl of seventeen.  Jacqueline, it appears,
led anything but a happy life.  Her cousin, Philip the Good, Duke of
Burgundy, for thirteen years plundered and robbed her, and at her
death in 1437 he had already dispossessed her of her lands and
reduced her from the position of Sovereign to that of Lady Forester
in her own provinces, whilst for himself he had laid the foundation
of that Greater Netherlands which by conquest and annexation he
proceeded to extend.

Having acquired the principal Netherlands and inherited the two
Burgundies and the counties of Flanders and Artois, he had purchased
the county of Namur, usurped the duchy of Brabant, and annexed the
barony of Mechlin.  A few years later he acquired also the duchy of
Luxembourg.

Philip was now the ruler of what may be termed a kingdom of several
peoples, who, though in a measure distinct, were of similar
temperament and character, and who may be counted now as one.  Never
has conqueror been in a happier position when faced with the problem
of welding together his conquests.  {5} For Philip ruled those whose
interests were similar, and whose characteristics were almost
identical--a people born of the sea, strong and fearless, who had
lived by strife with their fellows and by strife with Nature; a
people born to toil and to hardship, whose battle for life had been
with Nature herself--a race which for centuries had fought with swamp
and water year in, year out, conquering a mile of morass or patch of
barren furze, striving for the soil to live upon, working not for
gold, but for life.  This nation had now become a power of natural
strength and of dominating physique, virile and live and expansive,
whose sons, with brooms at their mastheads, should later sweep the
seas from whose destructive embrace she had succeeded in wresting
herself.

Under the rule of the Burgundian the prosperity of the Netherlands
rapidly increased.  In Holland and in Flanders, in Brabant and in the
other leading provinces, industry and wealth, agriculture, commerce,
and manufactures, were ever augmenting.  While Philip, in the zenith
of his power, flushed with the passion and success of territorial
acquisition, busied himself with the glorification of his sovereignty
by founding at Bruges, amid a {6} scene of indescribable splendour,
the Order of the Golden Fleece, "to the honour of God, of the Blessed
Virgin, and of the holy Andrew," a principle more potent than even
territorial power was evolving.  For in Haarlem an undistinguished
sexton wrestled with the intricacies of the printing-press.  Lorenz
Coster was printing his book of the Dutch language.  The question as
to the time and place of the invention of printing will probably
never be settled to the satisfaction of Holland and Germany; but the
men of Haarlem still claim upon very sound and substantial evidence
that between 1423 and 1440 their citizen was the first to employ
movable type, which is generally considered the invention of printing
proper, as distinguished from the more ancient block-printing.

Whatever objection may be legitimately raised to the application of
the title "The Good" to a ruler of Philip's character, this
Burgundian had many of the qualities that go to the making of a
successful monarch.  His military talents were considerable; his
political methods, though despotic, were practicable.  Though he
taxed the wealth of his country, he protected and encouraged the
commerce and {7} manufactures of Holland and Flanders, their arts and
crafts, science and literature.  He founded at Bruges the famous
Burgundian Library.  He remodelled, and to some extent endowed, the
University of Louvain.  His munificence and princely generosity
attracted to his Court at Bruges men of letters like Oliver de la
Marche and Philippe de Commines, and famous painters like Jan van
Eyck, and perhaps, though we lack documentary evidence, his elder
brother Hubert, who gave, perhaps, more to the art of painting than
even did Coster to the art of printing, or Philip himself to the
sciences of statesmanship and war.

The most salient points in the life and work of these two brothers,
who close the period of stiff Gothic medievalism and stand on the
threshold of modern art, and whose improvements in the technical
methods of their art opened up to their successors unthought-of
possibilities, are shrouded in deep mystery, and the most recent
research to which a number of thoroughly competent scientific experts
have devoted themselves, whilst producing many ingenious theories and
deductions, has, in a certain sense, added to the confusion by
throwing doubt upon the authenticity of documents {8} and
inscriptions which had formerly passed undisputed, and formed the
basis of the unstable edifice that had been erected around the vague
fame of the brothers Van Eyck.  This uncertainty begins with the
parentage and the place and date of birth of the two masters, and
extends to the two supreme achievements to which they owe their
fame--the reputed invention of oil-painting, which was variously
ascribed to Hubert and Jan, then denied to both of them, and,
finally, given back to Hubert in the form of an improvement on the
methods of oil-painting practised during the period; and the
much-quoted inscription on the famous Ghent altar-piece, _The
Adoration of the Lamb_, which has been, and must remain, the
starting-point for all research in this matter, even though the late
Henri Bouchot, Keeper of the Print Cabinet of the Bibliothèque
Nationale, suggests that this inscription may have been added when
the picture was restored in the middle of the sixteenth century.  At
every turn we are faced by similar doubts and contradictions,
especially in the case of Hubert, about whose life and doings we have
so little documentary evidence that we have to fall back entirely
upon conjecture and deduction.

[Illustration: THE ADORATION OF THE LAMB.  BY HUBERT AND JAN VAN
EYCK.]




{9}

HUBERT VAN EYCK

If Joes van Eyck and Margaret van den Huntfanghe, who are entered in
the register of the Ghent Guild of Painters for 1391, are the parents
of the two masters who have made the name of Van Eyck immortal, we
should have proof of their descent from artistic stock, which may be
taken for granted in view of the fact that not only Hubert and Jan,
but also a third brother, Lambert, and a sister, Margaret, devoted
themselves to the art of painting, though Lambert--if he really be
responsible for the pictures which stand to his credit--was a man of
but mediocre talent; whilst we have no evidence of the activity of
Margaret, who was most probably a miniaturist or illuminator.

It is believed that Hubert (or Huybrecht) van Eyck was born at
Maaseyck, or perhaps at the village of Eyck near that town, between
1366 and 1370, and that he received his artistic training either at
Cologne or at Maastricht; but the first definite mention we have of
him {10} is in Ghent, where he eventually settled, and where, in
1424, the archives record that he was paid certain sums for drawings.
Though Mr. Weale and other authorities hold the view that, before
settling in Ghent, Hubert must have travelled to the South of Europe,
there is absolutely no evidence to this effect.  The paintings of the
two brothers certainly contain details which reveal intimate
acquaintance with Southern vegetation and mountain formation; but, as
will be seen later, Mr. Alfred Marks has fairly well established the
fact that the younger brother, Jan, must be held responsible for such
paintings or portions of paintings as prove the knowledge of Nature
in the South of Europe.

The name of Hubert van Eyck occurs in two other documents, quoted by
Edmond de Busscher in his "Recherches sur les Peintres Gantois," but
the authenticity of both these entries has lately been questioned.
The first of them, which is proved to be a forgery, records the
admission of Hubert and of his sister, Margaret, into the
Confraternity of Our Lady of the Rays at Ghent in 1419; the other the
affiliation of Hubert and Jan, in 1421, to the Corporation of
Painters and Sculptors of Ghent.  {11} According to the wording of
the latter entry, it may be gathered that the election of the two
masters was so enthusiastic and unanimous that the Corporation
dispensed with the conditions and formalities usual on the admission
of free masters to the guild.  This unusual affiliation, of which the
_Livre du Métier Gantois_ does not reveal another example, is there
quoted as a homage rendered to the memory of Michelle de France,
Countess of Flanders, and first wife of Philip the Good, who appears
to have held the two brothers in special favour.  The Corporation, in
thus granting to them the professional franchise of Ghent, at the
same time expressed their esteem for their talent, and the pious
remembrance in which they held the memory of their Queen Consort.

Of Hubert's early work we have absolutely no record, and no picture
is known which bears his signature.  Indeed, the only paintings which
can with absolute certainty be assigned to him are the great Ghent
altar-piece, painted for Jodoc Vydt, on which he was engaged at the
time of his death, and which was finished six years later by his
brother Jan; and the shutter of a triptych at the Royal Gallery at
{12} Copenhagen, which represents Robert Poortier, of Ghent,
protected by St. Anthony, with the Angel Gabriel on the reverse.
Robert Poortier's will, made in 1426, a few months before Hubert's
death, mentions this triptych as being in the master's workshop.  On
the internal evidence of these two authentic works attempts have been
made to trace Hubert's hand in several other pictures, though their
number is so far restricted to only seven.  It has been suggested
that Hubert may in the earlier years of his career have devoted
himself to miniature painting; and the wonderful Turin miniatures
published by M. Paul Durrieu in the _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_ (January
and February, 1903), which date from the same period, show such
marked kinship with Hubert's conception and style that they may well
be the work of his own hand.  The scarcity of his paintings would
thus be accounted for if, anterior to the experiments which led to
the invention of the new method of oil-painting about 1410, Hubert
had exercised his rare gifts in a different field.

From the wording of his epitaph, which has been handed down to us, it
is made clear that Hubert died on September 18, 1426.  As translated
by Sir Charles Eastlake, in his "Materials {13} for a History of
Oil-Painting," this epitaph runs as follows: "Take warning from me,
ye who walk over me.  I was as you are, but am now buried dead
beneath you.  Thus it appears that neither art nor medicine availed
me.  Art, honour, wisdom, power, affluence, are not spared when death
comes.  I was called Hubert van Eyck; I am now food for worms.
Formerly known and highly honoured in painting, this was all shortly
after turned to nothing.  It was in the year of the Lord one thousand
four hundred and twenty-six, on the eighteenth day of September, that
I rendered up my soul to God, in sufferings.  Pray God for me, ye who
love art, that I may attain to His sight.  Flee sin, turn to the
best, for you must follow me at last."  Hubert was buried in the
crypt of the Cathedral of St. Bavo at Ghent.  When, owing to some
structural alterations to the church, this crypt was destroyed, the
tombs, including Hubert's, were removed and the bones dispersed.
Only Hubert's right arm was placed in an iron case and exhibited as a
relic.




{14}

JAN VAN EYCK

The date of Jan van Eyck's birth is as uncertain as that of his
brother's.  Tradition has it that the two brothers are portrayed on
the panel of the great Ghent altar-piece, which represents _The Just
Judges_.  These portraits suggest a difference of about twenty years
between the two, so that the birth of Jan would have to be placed
somewhere between 1386 and 1390.  Hubert being thus about twenty
years his senior, it is natural to suppose that Jan received from him
his early education in matters of art.  Guicciardini, van Mander, and
other early writers, affirm that the two brothers worked in
collaboration, and there is no reason to doubt that Jan in his early
years assisted his brother in many or most of his paintings--perhaps
even in the Ghent altar-piece, which he finished after the elder
brother's death.  It is certainly a curious fact that, with a single
exception--the completely over-painted _Enthronement of St. Thomas of
Canterbury_ at {15} Chatsworth--all the signed pictures by Jan bear
dates posterior to the death of Hubert.  And it is equally
significant that the first of this series of ten signed pictures is
dated 1432, the year of the completion of the Ghent altar-piece,
which was the last work in which both brothers had a share.

[Illustration: THE ENTHRONEMENT OF THOMAS À BECKET, BY JAN VAN EYCK.]

The chief events in the life of Jan van Eyck can be gathered fairly
accurately from contemporary records and documents.  In 1422 Jan
entered the service of John of Bavaria, at that time Duke of
Luxembourg, whose household accounts show the payment of a weekly
wage to the artist, from October 25, 1422, till September, 1424, for
the decoration of the palace at the Hague.  M. Bouchot mentioned an
earlier record of Jan's doings, when he believed he discovered him at
Cambrai decorating a Paschal candle.  But the eminent French critic
probably confused Jan van Eyck with one Jan de Yeke, whose name
occurs in the accounts of the Cathedral of Cambrai as that of a man
employed in 1422 and many following years in painting crosses,
clocks, and candles on the outer wall of the cathedral to deter the
passers-by from committing nuisances!

In the spring of 1425 Jan van Eyck was {16} appointed _varlet de
chambre_ to Philip the Good, and though this princely patron availed
himself of the master's services as a painter, it would appear from a
letter signed by Philip, and bearing the date March 12, 1434, that
the appointment of Jan to the position of Court painter to the
Burgundian Prince only took place in that year (1434).  Still, as
_varlet de chambre_ Jan van Eyck must have enjoyed a position of
considerable trust and emolument at the hands of his august master,
for on more than one occasion we find him entrusted with important
missions, some of which took him to the Portuguese Court.  The first
of these excursions took place when he had resided for three months
at Bruges.  On his return he went at Philip's order to live at Lille,
where he remained until 1428.  His missions were generally of a
secret nature, but on one of these occasions, in the year 1428, we
find Jan again absent in Portugal, returning to the Court of Philip
in the suite of Isabella of Portugal, who was destined to become the
royal consort.  Gachard, in the _Collection de Documents Inédits
concevnant l'Histoire de Belgique_, gives a detailed account of the
artist's movements from his departure from Écluse on October 19,
1428, to his {17} return in January, 1430.  According to these dates,
which are gathered from contemporary documents, the ambassadors with
the Infanta set out from Lisbon on October 8, 1429.  The apparent
discrepancy between these dates and that of January 10, 1429, which,
at the Golden Fleece Exhibition at Bruges in 1907, was given as the
date of the foundation of this Order, and consequently of the
nuptials of Philip and Isabella and of Jan's return to Bruges, is
easily accounted for if we remember that the beginning of the year
was then reckoned from March 1, so that January, 1430, of our own
reckoning would tally with January, 1429, of the contemporary
calendar.

Jan's first duty on arrival at the Portuguese Court was to paint the
portrait of the Princess.  It appears that he was at work upon this
picture for a month.  Several portraits of Isabella are still extant
painted in the manner of the van Eycks, and pointing to the same
origin, but none has so far been discovered to possess qualities or
details which would justify its identification as Jan's original
panel.  Evidently Jan's portrait was pleasing to the eye of the
Lowland monarch, for upon Philip expressing his satisfaction with the
personal appearance {18} of Isabella, the ambassadors and the bride
immediately embarked on the homeward journey.  Soon after his
return--namely, in 1431--Jan bought a house in Bruges, where he
married and continued to work, after the completion of the Ghent
altar-piece in the following year, until his death, which took place
about the end of June, 1441.  He was buried in the churchyard of St.
Donatian at Bruges, but his body was subsequently removed to a vault
near the font of that church.

Mr. Weale, while arranging the archives of St. Donatian at Bruges,
discovered in the account of the fabric of the church for the year
beginning June 25, 1440, and ending June 24, 1441, entries of sums
received for the grave of Jan van Eyck and for the ringing of the
funeral bell, and in the obituary of the church his anniversary set
down as celebrated on July 9.  In an article in the _Burlington
Magazine_ (1904) Mr. Weale makes the following comment: "Hence it
appears certain that he died on July 9, 1440.  This date, now
generally accepted, is, however, incorrect.  Two entries in the
account of Walter Poulain, Receiver-General of Flanders for the year
ending December 31, 1441, prove that John's death {19} took place in
1441, but leave the exact day uncertain."  Three entries show that
Jan died about the end of June, and that on July 22 a grant of 360
livres--the equivalent of her husband's salary for half a year--was
made to Jan's widow by the Duke Philip in recognition of the services
rendered by her deceased husband.  It also shows that Jan's wife was
named Margaret, and that he left at least two children--one, the
Duke's godchild, Philip or Philippina, born in June, 1434; the other,
Lyennie, who became a nun at Maaseyck in 1449, which lends colour to
the theory that Maaseyck was her father's birthplace.

His epitaph, as translated by Sir Charles Eastlake, runs: "Here lies
Joannes, who was celebrated for his surpassing skill, and whose
felicity in painting excited wonder.  He painted breathing forms, and
the earth's surface, covered with flowery vegetation, completing each
work to the life.  Hence Phidias and Apelles must give place to him,
and Polycletus be considered his inferior in art.  Call, therefore,
the Fates most cruel, who have snatched from us such a man.  Yet
cease to weep, for destiny is immutable; pray only now to God that he
may live in heaven."




{20}

THE INVENTION OF OIL-PAINTING

Tradition has for centuries connected the name of Van Eyck with the
invention of oil-painting, and has fixed upon the year 1410 as the
date of this invention.  This, at least, is the year given by such
early writers as Guicciardini, Vasari, Opmeer, and Karel van Mander.
Vasari, indeed, gives a most detailed and circumstantial account of
this epoch-making event, which, according to the Aretine biographer,
was brought about by the single-handed efforts of Jan.  And it is
easy to understand that the fame of the elder brother had in the
sixteenth century become obscured and merged in that of the
brilliantly successful Jan, the _varlet de chambre_ and official
Court painter.  This "Giovanni of Bruggia," Vasari tells us, "after
having given extreme labour to the completion of a certain picture,
and with great diligence brought it to a successful issue, he gave it
the varnish and set it to dry in the sun, as is the custom.  But
whether because {21} the heat was too violent, or that the wood was
badly joined or insufficiently seasoned, the picture gave way at the
joinings, opening in a very deplorable manner.  Thereupon Giovanni,
perceiving the mischief done to his work by the heat of the sun,
determined to proceed in such a manner that the same thing should
never again injure his work in like manner.  And as he was no less
embarrassed by his varnishes than by the process of tempera-painting,
he turned his thoughts to the discovery of some sort of varnish that
would dry in the shadow, to the end that he need not expose his
pictures to the sun.  Accordingly, after having made many experiments
on substances, pure and mixed, he finally discovered that linseed oil
and oil of nuts dried more readily than any others of all that he had
tried.  Having boiled these oils, therefore, with other mixtures, he
thus obtained the varnish which he--or, rather, all the painters of
the world--had so long desired.  He made experiments with many other
substances, but finally decided that mixing the colours with these
oils gave a degree of firmness to the work which not only secured it
against all injury from water when once dried, but also imparted so
{22} much life to the colours that they exhibited a sufficient lustre
in themselves without the aid of varnish; and what appeared to him
more extraordinary than all besides was that the colours thus treated
were much more easily united and blent than when in tempera."

Vasari then proceeds to tell us of Jan's great success, of the
"blameless envy" of all other artists in Flanders and abroad, from
whom he would jealously guard his secret, until, in his old age, he
imparted it to "his disciple Ruggieri da Bruggia," a name which
surely can hide no other personality than Rogier van der Weyden's.
Of Hubert never a mention, save a short reference in the last volume,
in the chapter on "Divers Flemish Artists."  As in most of Vasari's
anecdotes, there is probably a foundation of truth to the elaborate
network of fiction.  The incident explained by him at great length
may have occurred, but its hero can only have been Hubert, and not
Jan, who was then a mere youth working in his brother's _bottega_,
and may have assisted Hubert in his experiments.  Though it has since
been doubted that Hubert or Jan van Eyck actually invented
oil-painting, no evidence has yet been discovered to prove they were
not the first to employ oil {23} as a medium in putting colour on the
prepared panel.  It is true that oil as a protective varnish was
frequently used during the fourteenth century, and it is probable
that some kind of oil-colour was employed in the colouring of
statuary and in the painting of banners at an early period.  For this
reason the statement that Hubert and Jan van Eyck "discovered
painting in oils" has been disputed, and generally accepted as
inaccurate, but the question is one rather of terminology than of the
technical point.

As the term "oil-painting" is generally accepted to-day, it is fairer
to credit these brothers with the invention, than to speak of their
achievement as an improvement in oil-painting, for hitherto the
medium in common use had been a preparation of gum and white of eggs.
And as there is neither definite proof nor any good evidence that oil
had ever been used as a _medium to mix the colours_ for
panel-painting before Hubert and Jan made their experiments, we
surely have an easy distinction to draw.  The brothers Van Eyck were
the first successfully to mix the oil with the colours for painting,
and this process is what we now understand as "painting in oils."
The use of {24} oils as a protective or varnish does not enter into
the painting, since such had only been used on the completion of the
work.

For the rest, the brothers either acted more generously than Vasari
would have it, or they did not altogether succeed in guarding their
precious secret, for their method appears to have been fairly
generally practised at Ghent about 1420.  We find, for instance, that
in 1419 the "free painters," Willem van Appoele and Johannes
Maertens, received a commission to paint some pictures for the town
hall of Ghent in "good oil-colours."  It is also certain that Rogier
van der Weyden--Vasari's Ruggieri da Bruggia--never was a pupil of
either Jan or Hubert van Eyck.




{25}

THE ART OF THE VAN EYCKS

The position occupied by Hubert and Jan van Eyck in the history of
art is one of unparalleled importance.  A deep gulf divides them from
all their immediate precursors, who seem to belong altogether to a
different epoch--nay, a different world.  Just as their improvement
in the technical methods of their craft opened up a vista of till
then unthought of possibilities, so their conception of life and of
pictorial form marks the beginning of a new era, the passing of the
vague mediæval idealism into an art that is based upon the close
study and loving appreciation of Nature.  Perhaps too much stress has
been laid upon the so-called "realism" of the brothers van Eyck, and
more especially of Jan.  Again and again critics have insisted upon
Jan's uncompromising love of literal truth, upon his insistence on
details that are in themselves at times repulsively ugly.  This
realism was tempered with deep sentiment and a sense {26} of style
which kept such details well subordinated to the general scheme, and
it is in this respect that Jan van Eyck stands immeasurably above
Melchior Broederlam, who occupied the position of _varlet de chambre_
and Court painter to Philip the Bold, the grandfather of Jan's
patron.  Broederlam, indeed, as may be seen in his famous altar-piece
at Dijon, seems to be a far more pronounced realist than Jan van
Eyck, simply because he lacks that sense of style and harmony and
subordination--in short, that concentration--which makes us forget
the realistic detail in the beauty of the complete thing.

The real precursors of the van Eycks were the sculptors who carved
the tombs, monuments, and reliefs in the churches of Tournai.  In
these we first find the faithful adherence to the facts of Nature and
the understanding of the subtleties of form which in painting appear
first in the works of the brothers van Eyck, who may have also owed
much of their knowledge to the flourishing school of Flemish
miniature-painters, if, indeed, Hubert in his early days did not
actually practise this art.  Yet, even though the new era in painting
is, as it were, heralded by the new tendencies in plastic art--just
as in {27} Italy Giotto was preceded by the sculptor Niccolo
Pisani--there is something wonderful, something almost difficult to
realise, in the sudden appearance of complete and perfect works of
art, like the paintings of the van Eycks, that with masterly sureness
express the whole essence of the Gothic style, whilst at the same
time they reveal a new understanding of the inexhaustible beauty of
Nature, a keen perception of structural growth and of individual
characteristics, and, above all, an almost modern understanding of
the play of light upon figures and objects in and out of doors.

The picturesque, brilliant, varied life of such cities as Bruges and
Ghent at the beginning of the fifteenth century cannot have failed to
stimulate the artists' power of observation, to sharpen their
perception of the differences of race, gesture, and costume; for the
streets and squares of the rich commercial centres of Flanders were
filled from morning to night with ever-moving crowds of courtiers and
merchants from all parts of the world--Spaniards and Italians,
Germans, and Slavonians, and even Moors and Turks, all in their
different costumes and following their different customs.  At the
same time the painters' eyes were {28} constantly met by the wonders
of the creations of architects, armourers, and other craftsmen who
flourished under the protection of the Burgundian rulers; and one may
well understand the love and enthusiasm with which a receptive artist
like Jan van Eyck applied himself to the faithful delineation of the
splendours and of the seething life by which he was surrounded.

Although the two brothers were in the habit of working together upon
the same pictures, which has given rise to many disputes as to the
authorship of unsigned works, and although Jan, the realist, at times
approached, though never equalled, the spirituality and decorative
sumptuousness of Hubert, whilst Hubert, the stylist and greater mind
of the two, sometimes vied with Jan in the minute and exquisite
elaboration of details, the signed works of Jan and those parts of
the Ghent altar-piece which are unquestionably Hubert's own have made
it possible to characterise the distinguishing qualities of the two
masters.  Hubert far exceeds his brother in monumental
impressiveness, in grandeur of style, in idealistic significance, in
sumptuousness, and even in sense of beauty.  Even the folds of his
draperies have a fulness and a noble swing which form a striking {29}
contrast to the more laboured irregularity of Jan's, as may be seen
in comparing the garments of God the Father, the Virgin Mary, and St.
John, of the Ghent altar-piece, with the curiously broken folds of
Barbara's dress in Jan's picture at Antwerp.

[Illustration: THE MAN WITH THE PINKS.  BY JAN VAN EYCK.]

The conception of such ideas as are embodied in the _Adoration of the
Lamb_, or in the _Triumph of the Church over the Synagogue_, at the
Madrid Museum, would also have been quite beyond the pale of the more
prosaic Jan's imagination.  Jan, on the other hand, excelled in
stating the reality of the visible world.  Generalisations of human
types or of landscape features are unknown to him.  He was the first
to fix upon his panels all the carefully studied and exquisitely
wrought details of the actual world--sky and mountain and river,
forest and fields, flowers and trees, and the churches and castles,
houses and bridges, placed in Nature by human hands.  It is scarcely
too much to say that he was the first landscape-painter, just as he
was the first portrait painter in the modern sense of the word--the
first who could paint a scene so that it could be identified after
the lapse of centuries, the first who could paint a portrait so that
the model {30} stands before us living and breathing, in all his
beauty or ugliness.  To appreciate the keenness of his vision one has
only to examine the marvellous Arnolfini group at the National
Gallery, with its almost scientific treatment of softly diffused
indoor light.  A comparison of this picture, from the point of view
of lighting, with anything that was painted before the days of the
van Eycks will reveal perhaps the greatest step forward that is on
record in the whole history of painting.




{31}

COLLABORATION OF THE BROTHERS

When piecing together the lives of the brothers van Eyck, it is
necessary to delve into a confusing mass of conflicting
statements--evidence which is only in part to be relied upon, and the
theories of those who have devoted a vast amount of time and labour
to the unearthing, sorting, and arranging of such evidence as they
have been able to lay their hands upon.  Incomplete as the records
are, we must, until further evidence has been discovered, accept the
obvious conclusions from the indisputable data left to us.

We have ten unquestionably genuine signed pictures by Jan, and a
small group of others which may, from internal evidence, be safely
ascribed to the same source.  We know that the great _Adoration of
the Lamb_, though designed in its entirety by Hubert, is the combined
work of the two masters.  We know also that the Copenhagen panel of
Robert Poortier {32} was in Hubert's studio at the time of his
death--perhaps unfinished.  The remaining pictures generally accepted
as genuine van Eycks have been variously ascribed to Hubert, or to
Jan, or to their united efforts.  In view of the fact that not a
single really authenticated work by Hubert alone is known, special
significance must be attached to a statement, several times repeated
by early writers, that Hubert and Jan "continually painted on the
same works."

In trying to solve the difficult question which part of the extant
_oeuvre_ is Hubert's and which is Jan's, our knowledge of Jan's
journeys to the South assumes considerable importance.  For Hubert's
travels we lack proof--they are mere conjecture.  But there is
documentary evidence of Jan's journey to Portugal in 1428, in
addition to which Mr. Weale has, I understand, recently unearthed
some further documents which establish another and earlier journey of
Jan to Spain.  On these travels Jan must have become well acquainted
with certain plants peculiar to the South, and especially the dwarf
palm or palmetto, which is confined almost exclusively to Spain and
Portugal.  It is therefore not unreasonable to assign to him those
{33} portions of the disputed pictures in which this palmetto
appears.  Some authorities hold that Jan did not have any independent
artistic career before Hubert's death, and that in the division of
labour Hubert's share was, as a rule, the general design and the
painting of the figures, whilst Jan filled in the landscape and
architectural backgrounds.

The collaboration theory has been advanced by Mr. A. Marks, whose
knowledge of Flemish art is profound, and whose deductions are as
conscientious as they are convincing.  To him we are indebted for an
interesting paper upon the subject, which is at once exhaustive and
reasonable.  To retail all that Mr. Marks advances in support of his
theory would be to reprint his treatise _in toto_; but though it is
impossible here to follow all his arguments, it is equally impossible
to avoid reference to the valuable correspondence between him and Mr.
James Weale in the _Athenæum_, between November, 1902, and April,
1903.  This correspondence arose from an article by Mr. A. Marks in
the _Athenæum_ in May, 1900, in which attention is drawn to the
presence of the palmetto in the picture of _St. Francis receiving the
Stigmata_ (now in possession of {34} Mr. J. G. Johnson, Pennsylvania;
a copy in Turin), which picture had been formerly variously ascribed
to Henri met de Bles, Joachim Patinier, and Mostaert.  Mr. Marks has
since supplemented and explained his views in the essay mentioned;
whilst Miss Frances Weale has published an excellent study on the
"van Eycks," which, in a concise and interesting form, presents her
father's views on the subject.

It is, of course, likely that nothing is proved as to the authorship
of certain paintings by the presence or absence of the exotic plants
or other details ascribed to one or other of the brothers.  Supposing
the assumed visit of Hubert to Southern Europe to be a fact, Jan may
have made use of his brother's studies to embellish his landscapes;
or Hubert may have utilized Jan's studies.  But either supposition is
extremely unlikely.  We have certain proof that Jan did several times
visit the South, while Hubert's sojourn in these parts is pure
surmise; and not only is it likely that, rather than make use of
second-hand material, Hubert left portions of the pictures to be
painted by Jan, but the examination of the various pictures reveals
the same hand in the painting of the {35} recurring details.  We
must, then, take the facts and the most likely deductions in
preference to deductions drawn from data which are merely conjectural.

Documentary evidence proves that Jan, immediately after his reception
by the King of Portugal on January 12, 1429, began the work of
painting the portrait of the Infanta, which, by the way, was executed
in tempera, and not in oil.  This painting is, unfortunately, lost,
and though there are several portraits of Isabella now extant, of
which one at least may be a copy of Jan's picture, there is nothing
in any of them that can be traced to this master.  He took a month
over its completion, and while the Court and Embassy were awaiting
the decision of Philip, to whom the picture had been sent, Jan and
his colleagues had time to visit several places of interest and
people of distinction.  They travelled to the north to see the shrine
of St. Iago of Compostella; then to the south, where they were
received in turn by the Duke of Arjona and the King of Castile; and
then to Granada, in the extreme south, where they visited the King of
that city.  It is stated that they also visited many other places;
and, as from Granada they returned to Lisbon, {36} they must have
passed through the country lying between Cordova and Seville.

Now, through the whole of the south-eastern portion of the peninsula
the palmetto, or dwarf-palm, flourishes abundantly, and Jan could not
fail during his tour to become well acquainted with it.  In a letter
which Mr. Marks quotes in his paper read at the Royal Society of
Literature, June 24, 1903, Mr. Luffmann, Director of the School of
Horticulture in Melbourne, says that the triangle formed by Seville,
Cordova, and Osuna, is "a piece of country which is literally overrun
by the plant," and that the root of the palmetto is commonly used in
those parts as fuel.  In Italy it is but of rare occurrence, though
it grows in some of the islands of the Mediterranean; whilst in the
parts of Spain and Portugal visited by Jan it is almost impossible
for the visitor to avoid seeing it.

Failing, then, even the probability that Hubert ever saw the palmetto
growing, we must credit Jan with the painting of this plant, which,
like all the other exotics, must have been carefully studied from
nature, for they are represented in most minute, careful, and
conscientious manner, and are absolutely true to {37} life.  The
palmetto occurs in the picture of _St. Francis receiving the
Stigmata_ (above referred to); in the _St. Anthony with the Donor_ at
Copenhagen; and in _The Three Marys at the Sepulchre_ in the
collection of Sir Frederick Cook at Richmond.  The portions of these
paintings by Hubert van Eyck, where the palmetto occurs, may
therefore be safely ascribed to the hand of Jan.

Other exotic plants, which are not restricted to Spain and Portugal,
occur in these pictures; but they are painted by the same hand, and
betray the same loving adherence to truth, and a similar familiarity
with the plants as they grow.  It is therefore patent that they, too,
must be ascribed to Jan, for it is impossible to suppose that the
younger brother's work on these pictures was simply that of adding
the by no means necessary dwarf-palm to Hubert's completed
landscapes.  Jan was probably responsible for the design and
execution of these landscapes.  These other exotics also occur in the
Ghent altar-piece, in the _Calvary_ of the Berlin Museum, and in the
copy, at the same museum, of a lost _Virgin and Child_, Mr. Marks
produces further evidence to prove that Jan must have painted not
only the foliage, but the {38} whole of the landscapes where the
little palm appears, including in most cases the architecture.  He
draws attention to the architectural features in the _Chancellor
Rolin with Saints_ in the Louvre, and the signed and dated
altar-piece by Jan in the museum at Bruges: "The architecture in
these pictures is not a real architecture--that is, it has not been
copied from any actual examples....  Agreement is general that it is
an architecture invented, not merely copied."  These pictures furnish
evidence of the painter having visited Italy, for marble is
represented in a most lavish manner.  This marble is not
characteristic of Northern architecture; its use is distinctly
Italian.  The painting of it displays the usual care and
conscientiousness common to all Jan's works.  Further points cited by
Mr. Marks as evidence of Jan's work in various pictures are the
representations of snow-mountains in various works, and the presence
of a flying flock of geese.

The former is of greater importance, as this again points to
acquaintance with the South, where alone the painter could have seen
snow-mountains.  Now, as very similar architecture to that in the
altar-piece at Bruges, which is signed by Jan van Eyck, is found in
the _Chancellor {39} Rolin_ (Louvre), the _Virgin and Child_
(Dresden), and the _Carthusian Monk with Saints_ (Gustave de
Rothschild, Paris), the suggestion is clear that in all these
pictures the architecture is the work of Jan, and several notable
critics hold this view.  In three of these four paintings we find the
snow-mountains--namely, in the Dresden triptych, the _Chancellor
Rolin_, and the _Carthusian Monk_.  And having established Jan as the
author of these snow-mountains, we must credit him with the
landscapes where this feature occurs in other pictures--_i.e._, the
Ghent altar-piece, the _Crucifixion_ of the Hermitage in St.
Petersburg, the _Calvary_ of the Berlin Museum, and the _Three Marys_
of Sir Frederick Cook.  The theory that Jan is responsible for the
snow-mountains is amply supported by the very reasonable deduction
that he must at some time have visited Italy.  This is gathered from
the Italian character of the architecture, together with the snow
seen in the Rothschild picture, the _Chancellor Rolin_, the
_Carthusian Monk_, and the Dresden picture.  The theory is further
supported by the presence of the palmetto together with
snow-mountains in the _Three Marys_ of Sir Frederick Cook.  Here the
palmetto proves the authorship of the {40} landscape, and as the view
contains snow-mountains it very materially strengthens the
supposition that it was Jan, and not Hubert, who painted them, and
who consequently must have been to the South of Europe--probably
Italy--to have seen them.

The flock of geese, which appears in no fewer than six pictures in
addition to Jan's signed _St. Barbara_ at Antwerp, is of very much
less importance than the snow-mountains and the palmetto, for here
the only use that can be made of it as evidence is its frequent
repetition.  It is found in the landscapes of the Ghent altar-piece,
in the _Chancellor Rolin_, the _Carthusian Monk_, another version of
the same subject in the Berlin Museum, _St. Francis receiving the
Stigmata_, and in the _Three Marys_.  But the flock of wild-geese is
not a feature made use of by the van Eyck brothers only.  It seems to
have been of common occurrence in several other Flemish painters both
before and after the days of the van Eycks.  Nevertheless, its
presence in the pictures enumerated has been brought forward as
supplementary evidence to prove the collaboration of Hubert and Jan.

[Illustration: ST. BARBARA.  BY JAN VAN EYCK.]

So far, then, evidence has been shown to prove Jan's share in the
following pictures: the {41} _Chancellor Rolin_, the _Virgin and
Child_ (at Dresden), the _Carthusian Monk_ in the Rothschild
Collection, _St. Francis receiving the Stigmata_, _St. Anthony and
the Donor_ (at Copenhagen), _The Three Marys at the Sepulchre_, the
_Crucifixion_ (at St. Petersburg), the _Calvary_ (at Berlin), and the
great altar-piece at St. Bavo, Ghent.  Still another point which has
been generally urged to prove collaboration of the two brothers is
the appearance of their portraits in certain pictures.  They are seen
in the panel of the Ghent altar-piece representing the _Just Judges_,
in the copy of the lost _Fountain of Life_ or _The Triumph of the
Church over the Synagogue_ in the Madrid Museum, and also, it is
said, in the _Crucifixion_ of St. Petersburg.

Though the theory of collaboration is an old one, doubts have arisen
amongst modern critics, who have shown a growing tendency to ascribe
the majority of the unsigned works solely to the elder brother, which
attribution is refuted not only by the arguments here set forth, but
by many early writers, including Guicciardini and van Mander, both
notable and reliable historians.

Before leaving the question of collaboration, a few words must be
said concerning the {42} controversy that has arisen over the Ghent
altar-piece.  This painting is indisputably the masterpiece of the
van Eycks, and is of stupendous proportions.  The panel of the
_Adoration of the Lamb_, from which the whole alter-piece takes its
name, and the shutters depicting the _Just Judges_, the _Warriors of
Christ_, the _Holy Hermits_, and the _Holy Pilgrims_, have by many
critics been attributed to Hubert's unaided efforts.  It is therefore
interesting to examine the landscape backgrounds of these five
panels, and to consider them in the light of the evidence deduced
from the backgrounds of the other "collaboration" pictures.  Evidence
is needed to prove that Jan's work was not merely confined to
finishing the picture after his brother's death (the inscription
states that it was begun by Hubert and finished by Jan), which in
itself, of course, does not prove collaboration of the brothers.

In the first place, Jan's handiwork must be identified.  In the
pictures already discussed it has been proved fairly conclusively
that Jan is responsible for the painting of the exotic plants, the
snow-mountains, the flock of wild geese, and the architectural
setting.  The landscapes in the Ghent altar-piece contain exotic {43}
plants, wild geese, and snow-mountains.  Of the latter it is
difficult to speak; they are whitish in colour, but their formation
is neither so natural nor so well designed as in the _Three Marys_.
The exotic plants alone prove Jan's work here.  The birds may, or may
not, be very important.  They serve, however, by their repeated
appearance in Jan's other pictures, as auxiliary evidence.  The
question for proof, however, is not the presence of Jan's work on
this picture, but the presence of his work before the death of his
brother.  And from this point of view it is significant that, though
other exotics are present in profusion, the palmetto--a sure result
of Jan's visit to Portugal--does not appear.  The whole work is
stated in the inscription to have been finished on May 6, 1432, two
years after Jan's return from Portugal.  Now, the absence of the
palmetto from this picture points to one of two conclusions--either
the work left for Jan to do in the completion was comparatively
trifling, or that the greater part of the picture, including the
design of the landscapes, was already finished before Jan met with
the palmetto.

That the work of the younger brother was not insignificant is
distinctly stated in the text {44} of the inscription: "The painter,
Hubert van Eyck, greater than whom none is to be found, began [the
work]; the bulk was completed by his brother Jan, second to him in
art, relying on the request of Jodoc Vydt.  This verse invites you to
contemplate that which was completed on May 6, 1432."  This
translation from the Latin is chosen from three versions.  The other
renderings seem to be given by those who would translate the word
_pondus_ as _work_, and thus give the younger brother credit for no
more than finishing an incomplete picture.  The text has, however,
been translated by several learned scholars, who are entirely free
from the taint of partisanship, and it is now generally agreed that
the translation given here is the correct one.

There is yet another possibility which the absence of the palmetto
points to--namely, that the picture was practically finished before
Jan's visit to Portugal, save some very minor details, which were
completed in 1432, The presence of the other exotics points to this
view being correct, for it would obviously be unlikely that Jan
should omit the palmetto from all these five landscapes after his
careful studies of his favourite plant.  The other exotics, not being
{45} a result of the journey, may very well have been painted before
1429.  Collaboration in this work is further proved by the portraits
of the two brothers.




{46}

OUR ILLUSTRATIONS

The supreme masterpiece of the brothers van Eyck, the work which, in
the history of Flemish art, has played the part that was allotted to
Masaccio's frescoes at the Carmine, Florence, in the art of Italy, is
the gigantic polyptych painted for the chapel of the Vydt family in
the Cathedral of St. John (now St. Bavo) in Ghent, and known from the
subject of the chief panel as the _Adoration of the Lamb_.  In its
original form this altar-piece, which is now divided between St. Bavo
Cathedral and the museums of Berlin and Brussels, was composed of
twelve interior panels and a predella (which has unfortunately been
destroyed).  Including the backs of the shutters, which, like the
panels themselves, are covered with the most minute and exquisite
painting, the painted surface extends to over 1,000 square feet.  The
centre panel alone, from which the whole altar-piece takes its name,
measures 7¼ feet in width by 4½ feet in height.

{47}

Horizontally the whole altar-piece is divided into three portions.
The central panel of the middle tier is occupied by the _Adoration of
the Lamb_.  Like the rest of the picture, it is treated in a
decorative spirit, the grouping of the figures, the architecture, and
the foliage being almost geometrically arranged and balanced.  In a
very beautiful and peaceful landscape is set up, on a green mound in
the centre, an altar, upon which stands the Lamb of God.  Its breast
is pierced in the customary manner, the sacred blood flowing into a
chalice at its feet.  Immediately around the altar fourteen angels,
symbolical, probably, of the stations of the Passion of Christ, kneel
in adoration.  The two in front of the altar offer incense, while
emblems of the Passion are held by others.  The cross is held on the
left, and the pillar of the scourging stands on the right.  In the
foreground, also in the centre and below the altar, is the Fountain
of Life, which divides two groups of worshippers: on the left are the
Jewish prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament, whilst the crowd
on the right is composed of Popes, Bishops, priests, monks, and
laymen.  In the background, emerging from the luxuriant forest
immediately behind {48} the altar, two processions slowly wend their
way.  The group on the right is composed of holy women, foremost of
whom come St. Agnes with a lamb, St. Catherine, and others.  The
Procession on the left again includes Popes, Bishops, and monks.
These are said to be the confessors.  Above all hovers the Holy Ghost
in the form of the dove.

The painting of these figures is most exquisite.  The draperies are
soft and pleasing; the colour is deep and rich; while the faces are
remarkable for their character and variety of expression.  The jewels
and ornaments worn by some of the Popes and Bishops are drawn with
loving care, and the enrichments of the vestments betray a patience
and skill that create wonder.  In the distance, above the trees, are
seen cities with many towers and churches, behind which are hills in
the remote distance.  The foreground of the beautiful, soft,
spring-like grass is profusely enriched by the growth of innumerable
flowers and shrubs, all of which are painted with consummate skill
and truth.  The whole picture makes a profound effect by its
sumptuous splendour, and by the masterly disposal of light and shade.

The two panels on the left are the _Just Judges_ {49} and _Christ's
Warriors_.  In the _Judges_ the whole lower half of the picture is
taken up by figures on horses.  Behind a cliff in the middle distance
is seen a forest and some buildings of elaborate architecture, which
may represent tribunals.  The bridles and trappings of the horses are
richly jewelled, and altogether the best is made of the opportunity
of rendering with goldsmith-like precision all manner of gorgeous
materials, costly and beautifully emblazoned banners, and armour and
trappings of beautiful design.  Tradition has it that two of the
_Judges_ are portraits of the painters, the one in a black garment
with a red rosary, who is turning towards the spectator, being the
younger brother Jan.  To strengthen the theory that this figure was
painted by Jan after Hubert's death, Mr. Weale suggests that the
black habit and red rosary denote mourning, probably for his brother
Hubert.

As regards the other panel, Mr. Six has advanced an interesting
theory with respect to the soldier who wears a blue head-dress.  He
calls attention to a _pentimento_ in substituting for a crown on this
figure the blue head-dress.  Mr. Six claims to have identified this
figure as Jean Sans Peur, who probably saw the painting, {50} and
objected to being represented with a crown while Godfrey de Bouillon
wore only a fur cap, and therefore persuaded the painter to alter it
to the blue cap or bonnet which was the badge of the Burgundians
against the Armagnacs.  From this the supposed alteration must have
taken place a little after 1410, whereas, according to early art
historians, the altar-piece was only begun between 1415 and 1420.

[Illustration: THE JUST JUDGES, AND CHRIST'S WARRIORS.  BY HUBERT AND
JAN VAN EYCK.]

Though the limitations of the present little volume make it
impossible to reproduce the other panels which originally formed part
of the colossal altar-piece, it will not be out of place here to
describe them in detail, as they all form part of a wonderfully
complete and harmonious scheme.  As pendants to the _Judges_ and
_Warriors_, to the right of the central panel were the _Holy Hermits_
and the _Holy Pilgrims_.  Rocks, cliff, and foliage are found in the
background of the hermits, but, as suggestive of retirement and
remoteness, no architecture is seen.  The pilgrims are represented
walking up a valley towards the spectator.  On the right, in the
background, is a hill covered with various trees, and in the distance
is seen a river and meadows, with a town and low hills beyond.  The
pilgrims are led by St. Christopher, {51} whose giant proportions
tower above the rest of the procession.

The upper tier of the polyptych consists of seven panels, or rather
three panels, the combined width of which corresponds with that of
the _Adoration_ panel below, and two shutters on each side.  The
grand figure in the centre panel, majestically enthroned, has been
variously held to represent God the Father and Christ, and the Latin
inscription may be equally applied to both.  Perhaps it was the
painter's idea to personify both in one figure.  On His brow is the
Crown of Heaven, and at His feet the Crown of Purity and Innocence,
which the Lamb has won on earth.  The panel to His right shows the
Virgin, gazing in devotion at an open book in her hands--a conception
of such purity and innocence that it recalls the spirit of Fra
Angelico.  To his left is the equally nobly conceived figure of St.
John, an open book in his lap, with his right hand raised, as it
were, in exhortation.  The monumental style of these figures, and
their deep significance, leave no doubt that these panels are from
the brush of the elder brother Hubert.

These panels are flanked by two shutters on each side--a choir of
angels and St. Cecilia {52} with some angels within, and _Adam_ and
_Eve_ at the extreme ends.  The relentless realism of the latter,
which borders close on ugliness, marks them as the work of Jan.  The
figures are undoubtedly painted from life, and were held to be so
wonderful that for some time the whole altar-piece was known as the
"Adam and Eve painting."  Jan may also be held responsible for the
angels and St. Cecilia, both of which have many characteristics that
tally with well-authenticated works by the master.  The predella
which originally adorned the altar-piece has unfortunately been
destroyed.  The reverse of the lower shutters shows the figures of
St. John the Evangelist, St. John the Baptist, and portraits of the
donor, Jodoc Vydt, and his wife; and of the upper shutters, the
Annunciation and figures of prophets and sibyls.  Only the
_Adoration_ and the three important panels above (God the Father, the
Virgin, and St. John) remain at the Cathedral of St. Bavo at Ghent;
the _Adam_ and _Eve_ are now at the Brussels Museum, and the other
shutters at the Berlin Museum.

There are still extant portions of a copy of this great work which
was painted at the command of Philip II. of Spain by Michael {53}
Cocxie.  The wings of this copy are now added to the original centre
portion at Ghent.  There is a second copy of the Ghent altar-piece in
the museum of Antwerp.

Upon the consecration of the great masterpiece at St. Bavo vast
multitudes of people came into the city to see the work, the fame of
which soon became known throughout the whole of Western Europe.  And
for more than four centuries it remained the wonder of Ghent.

Mr. R. Petrucci states that in 1904, during a demolition of a house
in the Rue du Gouvernement at Ghent, the old walls were discovered of
a Steen believed to have been the property of Jodoc Vydt, the patron
of the van Eycks, who commissioned them to execute the Ghent
polyptych.  In a room upon the third floor, 40 feet up, a square
window was discovered exactly answering in orientation and position
to the town which appears in the _Adoration of the Lamb_, and which
has been recognised as a view over the Rue Courte du Jour.  In the
foreground is seen the Steen, on the site of which was afterwards
built the little butcher's shop near the present bird-market.  Above
it rises the tournelle of the weavers' chapel, which was used in turn
as a butcher's shop, a pleasure {54} resort, and a place of auction,
and is now a garage for motor-cars.  Further away, in the background,
is the old fortified gate which defended the passage of the bridge of
the canal of the coppersmiths.  On the left of the scene is a
representation of another front of the Steen, which stood on that
side at the corner of the Rue Courte du Jour and the Rue de Brabant.
The window reveals this scene exactly.  "It seems certain," says Mr.
Petrucci, "that this was the room in which Hubert and Jan, or, at any
rate, Jan, van Eyck painted the famous polyptych of the Mystic Lamb."

* * * * *

The portrait group by Jan van Eyck known as _Jan Arnolfini and Jeanne
dc Chenany, his Wife_, must be counted among the greatest treasures
of the London National Gallery, as it is, perhaps, the most perfect
as well as the most characteristic example of the master's art.
Arnolfini, who was Jan's brother-in-law, a man of solemn and
depressing countenance, with heavy, drooping lids and long,
wide-nostrilled nose, is seen standing in his bed-chamber.  His right
hand is raised as if enjoining silence, his left extended to his
wife, whose open countenance denotes docility and calm.  {55}
Arnolfini wears a tunic of a dark green stuff, over which is a cloak
of dark red, which reaches well below the knees, and is lined and
edged with fur.  It is divided at the sides from the bottom to the
shoulder.  He wears a large and curiously shaped hat, which in a
manner resembles a "beefeater's" head-gear.  His wife is habited in a
long and ample robe of green, rather bright in colour, and lined and
trimmed with white fur.  She has raised the folds of the robe in
front, thus revealing an undergarment of dark blue, trimmed also with
fur.  Round her strikingly high waist is a narrow belt of leather,
decorated with gilding and polished.  On her head is a large kerchief
with a worked border, which is caught up at the sides in the
prevailing fashion.  Round her neck she wears a double row of pearls.
The drawing of the drapery, which falls straight to the floor, is
bold and severe, realistic, and devoid of any attempt at affectation.

In the foreground is a small dog, and to the left, on the floor, a
pair of pattens.  In the centre of the room, slightly behind and
above the heads of the figures, hangs a brass chandelier of pierced
work.  Of its six arms only one holds a candle, and this is burning,
the {56} single flame being probably a symbol of conjugal affection
or unity, as there is no other reason for its presence in a chamber
well lit by two large windows on the left--one behind the figures and
one in advance, which is not shown, but the light from which falls
straight upon the faces.  On the wall behind the two figures a
circular convex mirror reflects a portion of the room, with two
additional figures.  Beside it hangs an amber rosary.  The flesh
painting is admirably soft, delicate, and transparent; the light and
shade powerful, yet so well arranged that only the closest
examination will reveal what an important factor it is in the success
of the picture.  The whole thing is touching in the simple
straightforwardness of statement, and all the details are wrought
with inimitable but unobtrusive minute precision.  In the management
of tone-values and of indoors atmosphere Jan proves himself in this
picture far ahead of his time.

The signature of this Arnolfini picture is written in ornamental
Gothic characters immediately above the mirror, and takes the
extraordinary form "Johannes de Eyck fuit hic" (Jan van Eyck was
here), with the date 1434.  Owing to this ambiguous wording, which
may {57} be, and has been, interpreted as "this was Jan van Eyck,"
the picture was formerly held to represent the artist himself and his
wife, a theory which still has its defenders.  A full pedigree of the
picture is given in the National Gallery catalogue.  It belonged in
1516 to Margaret of Austria, to whom it was given by Don Diego de
Guevara, whose arms were painted on the shutters which were
originally attached to it.  Afterwards it passed into the hands of a
barber-surgeon at Bruges, who presented it to the then Regent of the
Netherlands, Mary, the sister of Charles V., and Queen Dowager of
Hungary.  This Princess valued the picture so highly that she granted
the barber-surgeon in return a pension, or office, worth 100 florins
per annum.  The picture is included in the list of valuables which
she carried with her to Spain in 1556, from which date it disappeared
until 1815, when it was discovered by Major-General Hay in the
apartments to which he was taken, in Brussels, to recover from wounds
received at Waterloo.  He subsequently purchased the picture, and
disposed of it to the British Government in 1842, since which date it
has been at the National Gallery.  Henri Bouchot was of opinion that
the picture is not {58} the one of Arnolfini the traces of which are
lost in 1556, but a portrait of van Eyck and his wife, painted as a
pendant to the lost Arnolfini group.  To support his view he pointed
out the resemblance of the woman in this picture with the portrait of
Jan's wife at the Bruges Museum.

* * * * *


[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF TIMOTHY.  BY JAN VAN EYCK.]

The portrait at the National Gallery which, from the name inscribed
in Greek characters on the stone parapet that extends across the
bottom of the panel, is known as the bust of Timothy, bears the date
October 10, 1432, and is therefore the earliest of Jan's signed and
dated pictures--always excepting the much-overpainted Chatsworth
panel of 1421.  It is not in quite so good a state of preservation as
the other portrait of a man by Jan, in the same Gallery, which is
dated 1433, but the face itself is in fairly good condition.  The
features are broad and massive, and inclined to heaviness; the eyes
are somewhat deep-set, while the cheek-bones are prominent.  His
right hand holds a small roll of parchment with some writing upon it.
On the parapet, beneath the Greek word "Tymotheos," is the
inscription LEAL SOVVENIR, and the signature {59} "Factū
año. D(m-macron). 1432. 10. die Octobris. a Joh. de Eyck." 

* * * * *

The portrait known as _The Man with the Pinks_ at the Berlin Museum,
is one of the most characteristic of Jan's portraits.  It shows an
elderly man in a dark grey coat with fur cuffs and collar and a
broad-brimmed beaver hat.  At the neck the brocade collar of a tunic
shows above the fur collar of the coat.  The ornament of this brocade
seems to consist of the alternating letters Y and C, which occur in
one or two other portraits of the period, and may eventually afford
some clue as to the identity of the sitter.  Round the neck is a
twisted wire chain, from which hangs a headless cross and the bell of
St. Anthony.  Both hands are raised as high as the breast, the
fingers and thumb of the left holding three pinks.  A handsome ring
with two stones is on the third finger.  The face, wrinkled and
lined, is full of expression and life; the lips are parted, as though
about to give utterance to speech.  Though the drawing is almost hard
in its exact delineation, it is far from rigid.  It is altogether an
admirable example of Jan's lifelike realism, that loves to dwell on
every little ugly {60} detail--ill-shapen ears, puffy "tear-bags,"
warts and wrinkles--and yet infuses the whole thing with the beauty
of life and character.

* * * * *

[Illustration: THE VAN DER PAELE ALTAR-PIECE.  BY JAN VAN EYCK.]

The _Virgin and Child, with St. Donatian, St. George, and the Donor,
George van der Paele_, Canon of the ancient Cathedral of St. Donatian
at Bruges, bears the date 1436, and is the most important of Jan van
Eyck's religious compositions.  The scene is in the circular apse of
a Romanesque church, lighted by the soft rays that filter through the
leaded windows.  The Virgin, draped in a red cloak, is seen in the
centre under a green canopy, holding the Christ-Child in her lap.
She has the same heavy, matronly features as the Virgin of _The
Annunciation_ in St. Petersburg and of the Chancellor Rolin picture
in Paris, and is no more idealised than the by no means attractive
infant Saviour, who is playing with a parrot.  It is all very human
and wonderfully true, and for that very reason lacking in spiritual
significance.  On the left stands St. Donatian in a gorgeous and
marvellously painted brocade robe, whilst on the right St. George, in
armour, presents the kneeling Canon van der Paele to the Virgin.  The
patron saint, again, {61} is obviously painted from a model of low
rank in life--perhaps a peasant or a stableman; whilst the rugged
irregular features of the donor are set down with an honest and
painstaking straightforwardness that seems to delight in doing full
justice to all the sitter's ugliness.  As objective portraiture pure
and simple, this head of van der Paele has probably never been
surpassed in the whole history of art.  The supreme mastery of Jan
van Eyck manifests itself in the creation of a work of unforgettable
beauty and sumptuous splendour from such unpromising material.  The
ugliness of the types chosen is forgotten when one's eyes revel in
the rich scheme of colour, the extraordinary beauty of the painting
of all the stuffs and accessories, the perfect modelling of the
features, and, above all, the (for the time) amazing knowledge of the
effect of light.  With all the richness of pigment there is not a
single note in this whole large panel that is not absolutely "in
tone"; nothing is forced, nothing arbitrary, as though the
fifteenth-century master had already adopted the principle of the
nineteenth-century impressionists--"the first subject of a picture is
light."

The van der Paele altar-piece was in the sacristy of the church of
St. Donatian when {62} the old basilica was destroyed by the
revolutionary troops.  It was taken to Paris, together with much
other artistic booty, but was returned to Bruges in 1814, and is now
in the Museum of the Academy of that city.  The drapery round the
loins of the infant Saviour is a later addition which does not appear
in the excellent early copy at the Antwerp Museum, from which our
illustration is a reproduction.  The original at Bruges bears the
inscription in small Gothic letters: _Hoc opus fecit fieri magister
Georgius de Pala, huius ecclesie canonicus, per Johannem de Eyck
pictorem.  Et fundavit hic duas capellanias de gremio chori domini M.
ccc°.  xxxiiij°., completing anno_ 1436°.

* * * * *

At the Museum of Antwerp is the exquisite unfinished little painting
of _St. Barbara_, signed and dated: JOHES DE EYCK ME FECIT 1437.  The
saint, with an open book on her lap and a palm-branch in her hand, is
seated in front of an elaborately designed Gothic tower in course of
construction.  Around the tower are numerous figures of labourers,
masons, horsemen, and others; and the background shows a landscape
with mountains, castles, rivers, fields and trees, and a town on a
hill.  Technically, this picture {63} is supremely interesting, as it
shows that at a comparatively late period of his life--a quarter of a
century after the reputed discovery of oil-painting--Jan has not
altogether discarded the practice of tempera-painting.  For the whole
composition, the pensive-looking saint and the widespread angular
folds of her garment, the tower and the figures, are carefully drawn
and shaded in brown tempera colour on a preparation of gum or white
of egg.  Only the part which required no special design, the sky, is
painted in oil-colour.  It may thus be assumed that it was the
practice of the brothers van Eyck to work with oil-colours on a
tempera foundation.

The _St. Barbara_ also confirms Karel van Mander's statement that
Jan's sketches were more complete and more carefully wrought than the
finished paintings of other artists.  M. Henri Hymaus suggests that
this _St. Barbara_ is the very painting which van Mander mentions as
being in the possession of his master Lucas de Heere at Ghent, and
"representing a woman behind whom was a landscape; it was but a
preparation, and yet extraordinarily beautiful."

* * * * *

{64}

Our last illustration represents, or is supposed to represent, _The
Enthronement of Thomas à Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury_, and is
in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chatsworth.  In a
late Norman church Thomas à Becket is seen in the foreground under a
scarlet canopy, with the Holy Ghost hovering near, and above is a
splendid crown in which the figure of the risen Christ is introduced;
above the crown is a circle with a Virgin and Child.  Three Bishops
are engaged in placing the mitre upon the head of the saint, while a
priest with an open book is kneeling before him.  On the right are
the clergy and on the left the laity, with King Henry II. at their
head.  On the border is the inscription: _Johes de Eyck, fecit, ano,
M°.CCCCZI, 30° Octobris_.  This inscription, if genuine, is the only
evidence of Jan's authorship of the picture which has been entirely
repainted, so that nothing of the original work is to be seen.  The
date, 1421, is eleven years earlier than any other dated picture by
Jan van Eyck.  It is scarcely necessary to point out the importance
of this fact to the art historian in search of evidence of Jan's
early activity; but whilst the picture remains in its present
condition it cannot throw {65} any light upon the debated points.
Only if the surface paint were removed would it be possible to judge
whether below it is a real early work of Jan van Eyck, and what was
the relative position of the two brothers before Hubert's death.

_The Enthronement of Thomas à Becket_ has an interesting pedigree.
It was given by John, Duke of Bedford, to King Henry V., and was
afterwards in the collection of the second Earl of Arundel, who died
at Padua in 1646, bequeathing it to Henry, the sixth Duke of Norfolk,
by whose son, the seventh Duke, it was sold.  It came through the
Duke's steward, Mr. Fox, to a Mr. Sykes, who sold it to the Duke of
Devonshire in 1722.




{66}

  LIST OF WORKS,
  CATALOGUED ACCORDING TO
  LOCALITY


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

VIENNA MUSEUM.--Portrait of _Jan de Leeuw_ (Jan), signed and dated
1436.

Portrait of _Nicolas Albergati_, Cardinal of the Church of the Holy
Cross (Jan), painted, probably, in 1431, when the Cardinal passed
through Flanders on a political mission.  This picture is mentioned
in the inventory of the Archduke Leopold William, Governor of the
Netherlands, 1655.  A silver-point sketch for the portrait is in the
Dresden Print Cabinet.


BELGIUM.

GHENT, CATHEDRAL OF ST. BAVO.--The _Adoration of the Lamb_ triptych
(Hubert and Jan; see p. 46).

{67}

ANTWERP MUSEUM.--_St. Barbara_ (Jan), 1437 (see p. 62).

_The Virgin and Child by the Fountain_ (Jan), 1439.

BRUGES MUSEUM.--_Virgin and Child, with St. Donatian, St. George, and
the Donor, George van der Paele_ (Jan), 1436 (see p. 60).

Portrait of Jan Van Eyck's Wife (Jan), 1439.

BRUSSELS MUSEUM.--_Adam and Eve_: shutters from the _Adoration_
triptych at St. Bavo, Ghent (Jan; see p. 52).

LOUVAIN, M. G. HELLEPUTTE.--Triptych of the _Virgin and Child, with
the Donor, Nicolas de Maelbeke, in Adoration_, unfinished (Jan),
1340.  The shutters contain representations of Gideon standing before
an angel, the burning bush, Aaron with a blossoming rod, and other
subjects from the Old Testament.


BRITISH ISLES.

CHATSWORTH, DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.--_The Enthronement of Thomas à
Becket_ (Jan (?); see p. 64).

{68}

INCE HALL, MR. WELD BLUNDELL.--_Virgin and Child_ (Jan): a panel of
very small dimensions and miniature-like execution, painted in 1432,
and inscribed _Als ikh kan_ (As well as I can).

LONDON, NATIONAL GALLERY.--_Jan Arnolfini and Jeanne de Chenany, his
Wife_ (Jan), 1434 (see p. 54).

Portrait of _Timothy_, "Leal Souvenir" (Jan), 1432 (see p. 58).

Portrait of a _Man with a Chaperon or Turban_ (Jan), 1433.  Inscribed
on the frame: _Johes de Eyck me fecit anno_ MCCCC 33 21 _Octobris_,
and _Als ikh kan_.  Formerly in the Arundel Collection.

RICHMOND, SIR FREDERICK COOK.--_The Three Marys at the Sepulchre_
(variously attributed to Hubert and Jan).


DENMARK.

COPENHAGEN, ROYAL GALLERY.  _Robert Poortier, protected by St.
Antony_ (Hubert).

{69}

FRANCE.

PARIS, LOUVRE.--_Chancellor Rolin kneeling before the Virgin and
Child_, with a river landscape seen through a loggia of three arches
(generally ascribed to Hubert, but more probably by Jan).

BARON G. DE ROTHSCHILD.--_Virgin and Child, with St. Anne, St.
Barbara, and a Carthusian Monk_, who has been identified as Herman
Steenken, of Suutdorp, Vicar of a Carthusian Nunnery near Bruges
(Hubert and Jan).


GERMANY.

BERLIN, NATIONAL GALLERY.--Six shutters from the _Adoration_
altar-piece of St. Bavo, Ghent (Hubert and Jan; see p. 48).

A replica of the _Virgin and Child, with a Carthusian Monk_, in the
collection of Baron G. de Rothschild, Paris.

_Head of Christ_ (Jan), 1439.

Portrait of a _Knight of the Golden Fleece_, probably Baudouin de
Lannoy (Jan).

The Man with the Pinks (Jan; see p. 59).

{70}

DRESDEN GALLERY.--Triptych, _The Virgin and Child Enthroned_.  On the
wings are the figures of St. Catherine and the donor, and on the back
of the shutters the Annunciation (Jan).

FRANKFORT, STAEDEL INSTITUTE.--_The Virgin and Child Enthroned_ (Jan).

LEIPZIG MUSEUM.--_Portrait of a Man_ (Jan?).


ITALY.

TURIN GALLERY.--Copy of _St. Francis receiving the Stigmata_.  The
original is in the collection of Mr. J. G. Johnston, Philadelphia.


RUSSIA.

ST. PETERSBURG, HERMITAGE.--_Calvary and the Last Judgment_.  Wings
of a triptych, the centre portion of which is lost (Hubert?).

_The Annunciation_ (Jan), formerly in the collection of King William
II. of Holland.  Bought for the Hermitage Collection for 13,000
francs.

{71}

SPAIN.

MADRID GALLERY.--Copy of a lost painting by Hubert and Jan van Eyck,
representing _The Triumph of the Church over the Synagogue_, also
known as _The Fountain of Life_.


UNITED STATES.

PHILADELPHIA, J. G. JOHNSTON.--_St. Francis receiving the Stigmata_
(Hubert and Jan).  A copy of this picture is at the Turin Gallery.



BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 69306 ***