Part 2
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.
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.