(In Lord Spencer's Collection, Althorp)
A portrait characteristic of one of the most popular phases of Van
Dyck's art. It exhibits in a remarkable measure his sense of
appropriateness as far as the setting of a portrait is concerned. The
background has been chosen largely with a view to accentuating the
salient points of the picture, and whilst being, in consequence,
strictly subservient to the portrait is yet treated in a bold and
vigorous manner.
[Illustration: Plate III.]
======================================================================
In connection with this a story, the details of which have frequently
been challenged, is told. It is said that Rubens, leaving his studio
one day to take a walk, had left a picture in the process of painting
upon his easel. The students were anxious to inspect it and observe
the method he was employing. Finally, they induced his servant to
admit them. Being a numerous crowd, some amount of struggling took
place to get near the canvas. The result was that one of them, it is
said Van Diepenbeck, fell against the canvas and injured the picture.
Dismay spread throughout the room. When they had recovered their
presence of mind, some one proposed that the damage should be repaired
before Rubens returned. By common consent Van Dyck was chosen, and he
set to work with a will. Upon Rubens entering his studio next morning,
surrounded by his pupils, he selected the repaired part and said that
that was by no means the worst piece he had painted the day before.
Upon a closer examination the damage revealed itself, but so cleverly
had Van Dyck performed his task that Rubens decided to leave it as it
was.
From such tales as this has arisen the tradition that Rubens became so
jealous of his pupil that he endeavoured to persuade him to abandon
historical painting and devote the whole of his time to portraiture.
Such statements are not only in opposition to all that we know of
Rubens' character, but there is the further evidence that when he
finally parted from Van Dyck they were on the very best of terms.
Indeed, Rubens went so far as to make him a present of one of his
finest horses for the purpose of his journey in Italy, whilst Van Dyck
left with his master a portrait of Rubens' wife as a souvenir.
He further retained the services of Van Dyck as his assistant, which he
would not have done had any jealousy existed between them. It was
probably the pressure of commissions, which flowed in upon him in
innumerable quantities, that induced him to take this step. It was
quite impossible for the master himself to accomplish all the work he
undertook. Outside Italy he was the first master to employ his school
as a sort of manufactory on a large scale. So well did he train his
assistants that he had only to make the sketch himself, and to
superintend its painting, for a large work to be turned out in an
incredibly short time. As Van Dyck was his most capable assistant, he
would certainly employ him upon the important parts, and as it has
already been pointed out that it is difficult to differentiate between
the works of the two men at this time, it would be still more difficult
to decide definitely what hand Van Dyck had in the large number of
religious and historical pictures that were being sent out under
Rubens' name at this time.
During this period, however, Van Dyck had acquired a reputation of his
own. He had been elected a master of the Antwerp Corporation of
painters in 1618, that is, whilst still in his twentieth year.